So you think that the OIG will try to attack the messenger rather than address the content of the letter? Personally I think that will not be an option for them although it is a tactic that I would expect people to get away with in blogs and other online forums. In a way it reassures me when people are unable to pick holes in the evidence and have to resort to such logical fallacies. It shows the strength of the evidence.
You still haven't provided the bullet points asked for by Mick in keeping with the posting guidelines.
No, I think it will simply cause them to take the content less seriously.
The link ( http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf ) details the most pertinent omissions in the NIST WTC7 report. Specifically, beam stubs, stiffener plates and other errors in the report. The common thread here is that the errors/omissions all would prevent the kind of failure mechanism that NIST supposed in their collapse initiating event for the building.
In what way do you think they are overstated specifically?
The letter says "NIST Report’s conclusion of collapse due to fire could not have been justified if the stiffeners and the lateral support beams were not omitted. ", however I feel that at most it only invalidates a very particular narrative, and the general facts remain the same. This has been discussed before. So I only bring it up because it's likely how the recipients of the letter will feel. Your focus is too narrow for so broad a conclusion.
It's not a logical fallacy unless someone says 'because of this person's character and history, the information is false by default'.
Yeah, I was referring to the OIG possibly trying to attack Dr Pepper rather than addressing the contents of the letter. In that sense 'shooting the messenger' would be an extension of an ad homenim type logical fallacy.
That particular narrative being NIST's collapse hypothesis.
Of course they don't. If NIST got this wrong, and they did, they need to change that and give us an explanation that satisfies the scientific method.
Therefor so would NISTs be.
If NIST is not prepared to amend their report, they should be held accountable for that in a court IMO. It is crucial that we find out what exactly caused the unprecedented collapse of this building. Not to do so jeopardizes public safety.
Try and address the content then. Bring that on.
Not at all my bag of onions. They are threatening the lawsuit. Let them bring it on. Pass the popcorn!
This is not a show for your entertainment AE. It is a potential court case re the filing of a false report pertaining to an attack that killed many of your fellow citizens and facilitated wars that killed many more. Your attitude says much.
I beg to differ. AE911Truth have been overselling their conspiracy claptrap for too many years already. I'd like to see them get their day in court, and be exposed for what they are. I would be entertained by it, as I do not respect the organization. After all, they're accusing innocent Americans of heinous crimes, based on a stubborn refusal to accept basic facts, and paranoid speculation. They denigrate any person or organization who doesn't sing from the conspiracy songsheet so deserve the same in return.
This also says much, in that we all seem to use this topic as a launching pad to 'say much' about our fellow citizens.
I fully expect both
So, you read the pdf?I fully expect both
NIST are in possession of information which they should take into account re the WTC7 report. They have failed to do so. Hopefully the OIG will compel them to do that. If not, I would like to see them in court for filing a false report
of course
False? or with error(s)? Are you suggesting they were willfully attempting to deceive?
I honestly don't know whether this would be a willful deception, or an honest mistake. What I can say is that all of the errors and omissions made the initiating event that NIST supposed look more credible. The beam stubs, the stiffener plates and all the other errors and omissions that they made allowed their conclusions to look more plausible. As soon as the structural drawings were made public, these were picked up on, and the fact that NIST had these drawings that contradicted the connection and elements around column 79 as per their report is something that needs to be remedied.
There certainly are, yes.
NISTs analysis is based on an inaccurate representation of the structural drawings, for example drawing '9114' which clearly show stiffener plates on the girder. The analysis that we have done and the conclusions we have reached are based on the structural drawings for the building that NIST say they used.
Yes, we have demonstrated that clearly. The plates allow for greater transfer of load across the bottom flange of the girder. Given that the maximum expansion of the beams to the east of it is 5.5", and the seat plate is actually 12" and not 11" as stated by NIST, the improbable becomes the impossible, in terms of the ability of thermal expansion of the long span floor beams to puh the girder off it's seat.
Yes. If NISTs supposed initiating event is not valid, then the cause of the buildings failure is not as they described it in the report.
We are dealing with the initiating event here, and that has been invalidated. As puzzling as the admitted 108ft of freefall acceleration exhibited in the collapse is, we must deal with what caused the building to begin to collapse in order to understand the cause and learn more about how to prevent this type of failure recurring.
The contents have been studied by many types of highly qualified engineers, including structural engineers. If and when it is appropriate there would be a need to call people qualified to do so, to give evidence as expert witnesses. However, I am not about to start naming names here. I have had personal contact with more than half a dozen such people who have independently validated the content of this letter, and I am not aware of any SEs who have disputed the findings and conclusions that we have reached. If you can find any, I would be more than happy to listen to what they have to say.
I have offered a theory.. a model of what could have happened. I call it TTF transfer truss failure and it is supported by the attached graphic. Of course TTF accounts for all known movements and witness testimony. But like the NIST models using assumptions. I don't think ANYONE has reported what was going in inside this region at any point during the day... ie the mech floors and the con ed substation I don't think there are photos of the area either.
Geez.. I don't want to defend NIST's column 79 scenario, but there were complex and multiple forces which could have pushed caused the girder to fail. Uneven heating and expansion causing twisting. I don't understand why a stiffened web wouldn't walk off...or a thicker web for that matter. Wasn't the idea that it was pushed by expanding beams framed into it?
The idea is that in NIST's models, the connection was deemed or have failed if the girder just walked half way off (6"), as the flange would fail. Gerry's contention is that the stiffener would make the flange not fail, so the walk off fail distance would be much more (9"+). I think it's described in the letter linked in the OP.
web stiffeners prevent the flange from failing. Please explain...
Wise move, neither would I lol.
Well, NIST also omitted beam stubs to the North of column 79 and East of column 44. These would prevent the type of twisting you are alluding to.
Ok, i see what you are getting at. The maximum expansion would be 5.5". The seat plate is 12", so the girder web would still be over the seat plate. The finite element analysis shows that even at up to 8.75 inches movement, the girder would remain supported by the seat plate. NIST stated that above 600C the beams would stop expanding and begin to sag, having lost the tensile strength required to push the girder.
They are welded to the web and the flange, so they stiffen both.
Maybe and maybe not. I can't do the match but I would not be confident that a girder which lost half it bearing area would not do some weird things... walking might not be one of them. I don't know the engineering here and I find the entire column 79 thing bizarre and so TTF makes more sense. I am confounded why NIST didn't propose TTF or something similar? The only reason I can think is that the accelerant would not be files and furniture but diesel. And that would lead to a discussion of why the diesel was there and who designed the system and chose to place this next to the transfer trusses... And this is opening up a can of worms.
Actually 5.5" as per NISTs original estimate, where they failed to read correctly from the bill of materials that the seat plate was actually 1ft. Still, i suppose they did kind of address this, even though this dug a bigger hole for their story.
