Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
OK... but how does that prevent or influence walk off? Perhaps web crippling...
AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False
- Thread starter gerrycan
- Start date
OK... but how does that prevent or influence walk off? Perhaps web crippling...
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
As I have stated I find the column 79 explanation a real stretch of the imagination. I don't buy it and they don't explain as far as I know how the girder walk off or "disappearance" from the bearing plate... would fail column 79?
The fuel oil thing was abandoned after a while. There were only small holding tanks for the fuel above the basement, and these would have non return valves fitted. I have the drawings for these somewhere.
As for the stiffeners, I put this video together to explain their relevance a while back, it may help. I don't want to get way off topic, but this can be a bit of a confusing subject when initially encountered. Good on you for at least looking into it thus far.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
small? they were several hundred gallons and were replenished automatically from the big ones. Is that where the missing 12,000 gallons may have gone?
NIST say it initiated a general collapse of the floor system, leading to loss of lateral support to C79. It's all in the report.
The claim here in this letter is that the presence of these omitted elements makes the initiating event impossible, hence the entire report needs to be redone.
It's interesting, because NIST's simulations don't actually rely on this as the initiating event (there were lots of girder failures, and this was not a significant one), so it's unclear when they chose to use it in parts of the report, and their presentations. My feeling is that they just picked it as an example, and it somehow became the focus. I think that if this letter prompts anything, it might just be NIST saying: "yeah, maybe that was a bad example, but the overall hypothesis of connection failures from thermal expansion leading to progressive collapse of floor system is still reasonable, even if we don't know exactly what connections failed".
Let's keep on topic please. The AE911 letter.
The non return valves though. Maybe we could deal with that in another thread, but fuel lines just wouldn't work like that. Even NIST abandoned the idea that fuel oil played a part in the collapse.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
That's more likely... because I don't think it was 79's girder that started the ball rolling. But way odd that they chose this location..
Maybe they chose it because the initial outward sign of the east penthouse collapsing? This is directly above the column 79 area.
Yes, if you read through the report they go into great depth in analysing both the observed collapse, and the observed fires, and then used that to formulate a collapse hypothesis - focusing on the areas indicated by observations.
Given the amount of unknowns though, it's always going to be a hypothesis. You can demonstrate it's plausible, but you can never prove that's what happened.
NISTs animations? Here's an example of their animations. The girder in question has been highlighted. Are you seriously saying that this is realistic? Whatever it is, it is not a finite element analysis.
No I can't, neither can you, and neither have NIST.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
There were I recall 14 columns below the east penthouse... whatever the number it was more than 1. Clearly column 79 was like the 4 big corner core columns of the twins. However it should be noted that one of those was severed in 2WTC and it did not lead to the IMMEDIATE collapse of the what has above it and spread to the rest of the core.
The more interesting scenarios to explain the EPH and the the WPH drop would be something to do with TT#1 or columns E3 and or E4.
I believe we have discussed this before. But that video does illustrate that the walk-off of the girder in question (the green one) is not an initiating event in this particular simulation. You might criticise the fidelity and resolution of the simulation, but that's rather another topic.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Funny that their simulation of their model looks nothing like the actual collapse. How so?
All these are interesting topics, but are getting away from the issue of AE911's letter. Can we discuss that please?
It is unrealistic in any and every sense that it could be. Look at the girder flapping around like a ribbon in the wind. Also, there is a beam to the west of it that i like to call the 'seagull'. It actually flaps its wings and flies. This is a cartoon, nothing more, and NIST claimed it was a finite element analysis. Pure fantasy
Because it is indeed nothing like the actual collapse. Well spotted. That a federal agency who are meant to be the cream of the crop when it comes to engineering can put this out shows the weakness of the case they had to try and make.
And did you note this in your letter? Sounds like a pretty major criticism.
No, I don't see a need to. We chose to concentrate on some very pertinent and particular issues. If we included every problem that there is with NISTs report, it would detract from the most salient points that NIST should be made to focus on, in an environment where they can be compelled to answer, rather than stonewalling.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Gerry,
The irony of your letter and this analysis of NIST girder walk off... is that the the missing girder, walking or not could not lead the the buckling of column 79 at floor 13. THAT is the funny part or the outrageous part. Column 19 will not buckle from one missing girder.
Some of the JREF NISTians like to toss about Euler buckling (which most probably don't understand). In order for column 79 to experience Euler buckling it would have to be stripped of ALL braces over a height of 271' or 21 floors. Clearly this was not the case unless something crashed the floors and severed the braces leaving the too slender column 79 to experience Euler buckling
Conclusions:
Girder walk off is a nonsensical usual diversion and does not merit serious consideration (not because of some missing web stiffener or seat dimension error. It doesn't merit consideration because it would not fail the column. PERIOD No ifs and or buts.
NIST got 7wtc completely wrong as they did the twin towers. Both fails easy to spot without deep analysis.
Why? And why the waste of time and energy on silly goose chases of NIST which apparently avoided the real mechanisms in play of the collapse of all three towers... and it wasn't placed CD devices.
NIST produced models... bad ones. They can produce perhaps new bad ones.. or maybe a decent one which I doubt because it leads to the conclusions that the engineering design play SOME role in the total collapse of all three towers. the value SOME could anything from minor to significantly large. Minor is notable but perhaps not significant. Major is significant and opens up the proverbial can of worms. That can of worms would not only render their recommendations as insufficient because it did not offer and engineering proscriptions for high rise design and engineering in its recommendations, but essentially prevented any investigation of errors and omissions or professional misconduct claims.
Of course the towers all stood and were fine for years. And in the case of the twins they did like no other building before suffer a jumbo jet slamming into them... a distinctly very outlier condition. 7wtc is a bit different. No plane and just supposedly office fires... and hence why they came up with their girder walk off tale. But since as I have noted girder walk off would not collapse the tower... it was something else?
No it was not CD of 81 columns over 8 floors. That's completely unsupported by even a shred of evidence.
The evidence is:
The bottom fell out (in the center) and the building folded into and the perimeter was pulled down into that hole. THAT IS WHAT the visual evidence says. No ifs and or butts
What does "the bottom fell out" mean? I know and I've said it and I've been the only one who has.
You and your guys need to stop barking up the wrong tree because this will not get us where we need to go.
The irony of your letter and this analysis of NIST girder walk off... is that the the missing girder, walking or not could not lead the the buckling of column 79 at floor 13. THAT is the funny part or the outrageous part. Column 19 will not buckle from one missing girder.
Some of the JREF NISTians like to toss about Euler buckling (which most probably don't understand). In order for column 79 to experience Euler buckling it would have to be stripped of ALL braces over a height of 271' or 21 floors. Clearly this was not the case unless something crashed the floors and severed the braces leaving the too slender column 79 to experience Euler buckling
Conclusions:
Girder walk off is a nonsensical usual diversion and does not merit serious consideration (not because of some missing web stiffener or seat dimension error. It doesn't merit consideration because it would not fail the column. PERIOD No ifs and or buts.
NIST got 7wtc completely wrong as they did the twin towers. Both fails easy to spot without deep analysis.
Why? And why the waste of time and energy on silly goose chases of NIST which apparently avoided the real mechanisms in play of the collapse of all three towers... and it wasn't placed CD devices.
NIST produced models... bad ones. They can produce perhaps new bad ones.. or maybe a decent one which I doubt because it leads to the conclusions that the engineering design play SOME role in the total collapse of all three towers. the value SOME could anything from minor to significantly large. Minor is notable but perhaps not significant. Major is significant and opens up the proverbial can of worms. That can of worms would not only render their recommendations as insufficient because it did not offer and engineering proscriptions for high rise design and engineering in its recommendations, but essentially prevented any investigation of errors and omissions or professional misconduct claims.
Of course the towers all stood and were fine for years. And in the case of the twins they did like no other building before suffer a jumbo jet slamming into them... a distinctly very outlier condition. 7wtc is a bit different. No plane and just supposedly office fires... and hence why they came up with their girder walk off tale. But since as I have noted girder walk off would not collapse the tower... it was something else?
No it was not CD of 81 columns over 8 floors. That's completely unsupported by even a shred of evidence.
The evidence is:
The bottom fell out (in the center) and the building folded into and the perimeter was pulled down into that hole. THAT IS WHAT the visual evidence says. No ifs and or butts
What does "the bottom fell out" mean? I know and I've said it and I've been the only one who has.
You and your guys need to stop barking up the wrong tree because this will not get us where we need to go.
Alienentity
Active Member
Do you think that the flaws in the NIST report and the potential flaws in the design of the building are urgent public concerns?
Is public safety in jeopardy in other steel buildings?
That would be your best approach, IMO. By inserting a CD narrative into the discussion you've virtually guaranteed that most people in the system won't listen to you - basically it's the equivalent of putting on a tinfoil hat before attending the meeting.
I think Jeffrey's nailed it: whatever legitimate points you have are far overshadowed by the generally unreasonable positions your group is taking. The main talking points of AE911Truth are so hysterical and paranoid that they should be an embarrassment to you.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
After many years personally pursuing what happened I am pretty disappointed by the VAST majority of people who have weighed in on the technical discussion including this misguided effort of Gerry's group.
AE911T has been demonstrated to be blowing nothing but smoke and mirrors using CD (BS) shock and awe to line up financial support for their CEO who has a cushy new career after his going nowhere one as a corporate lacky architect.
NIST is an embarrassment as are those who support their work which like Gerry's group focuses no nonsense, made up data, produced not an explanation but a model and some recommendations that anyone could have made in a week's study of the buildings' plans and specs. DUH Pathetic.
The only technical analysis worthy of note has been published on and produced by a few contributors to the 911 Free Forums. JREFers are NISTians and can't bring themselves to recognize the work done by a handful of independent agenda-free engineers and physicists.
It's abundantly clear that without more real time date about the conditions inside the towers we are left with only the visuals which have been well analyzed by the 911 FF (not by NIST) and theoretical "models" with made up inputs (NIST). NIST's models do not match real world visuals and that is shameful and pathetic and a waste of our money.
I suspect engineers around the world including Leslie Robertson and Irwin Cantor know that designs were at least part of the reason for total building collapse. But you wouldn't except a mea culpa when the more nasty ones were the jerks who flew planes in the building. Cantor is in more of a fix because design didn't suffer the deliverance or mech damage and 10,000 gallons jet fuel.
It's become increasing crystal clear that NIST was a colossal fail and provided cover the the buildings' designers, engineers and developers... Why go after them for honest efforts to design and innovate? But the dirty secret is that those buildings COULD have survived and not collapsed like cheap card tables... had they had "better" designs... or in the case of 7wtc not tried to build a 40 story tower spanning over a power station on 3 load transfer structures. Engineers are wiser now and don't need NIST's scolding. They are not using Roberston's innovations in their towers. He knows it... no more big box roof structures for office floors in high rises.
So what's with this 5 year period of debate since I've been in the game... where are the brilliant people to figure out what is before your eyes? Does it take it take a dumb old architect to bring this to light? Are we so dumbed down or blinded by our politics that we can't be objective and intellectually honest?
I've produced many slides and post them on numerous internet 911 sites and get no response... I find that odd to say the least. And that includes this one. Yet all I hear... is show me the formulas! The math. Are these guys serious? They need formulas to know what they are seeing with their eyes if they open them... and do a modicum of thinking?
Gerry... wake up... you are effectively a distraction with that study and aligned with a cult! You must have David Cole on board... He's sounding the same notes for quite some time.
AE911T has been demonstrated to be blowing nothing but smoke and mirrors using CD (BS) shock and awe to line up financial support for their CEO who has a cushy new career after his going nowhere one as a corporate lacky architect.
NIST is an embarrassment as are those who support their work which like Gerry's group focuses no nonsense, made up data, produced not an explanation but a model and some recommendations that anyone could have made in a week's study of the buildings' plans and specs. DUH Pathetic.
The only technical analysis worthy of note has been published on and produced by a few contributors to the 911 Free Forums. JREFers are NISTians and can't bring themselves to recognize the work done by a handful of independent agenda-free engineers and physicists.
It's abundantly clear that without more real time date about the conditions inside the towers we are left with only the visuals which have been well analyzed by the 911 FF (not by NIST) and theoretical "models" with made up inputs (NIST). NIST's models do not match real world visuals and that is shameful and pathetic and a waste of our money.
I suspect engineers around the world including Leslie Robertson and Irwin Cantor know that designs were at least part of the reason for total building collapse. But you wouldn't except a mea culpa when the more nasty ones were the jerks who flew planes in the building. Cantor is in more of a fix because design didn't suffer the deliverance or mech damage and 10,000 gallons jet fuel.
It's become increasing crystal clear that NIST was a colossal fail and provided cover the the buildings' designers, engineers and developers... Why go after them for honest efforts to design and innovate? But the dirty secret is that those buildings COULD have survived and not collapsed like cheap card tables... had they had "better" designs... or in the case of 7wtc not tried to build a 40 story tower spanning over a power station on 3 load transfer structures. Engineers are wiser now and don't need NIST's scolding. They are not using Roberston's innovations in their towers. He knows it... no more big box roof structures for office floors in high rises.
So what's with this 5 year period of debate since I've been in the game... where are the brilliant people to figure out what is before your eyes? Does it take it take a dumb old architect to bring this to light? Are we so dumbed down or blinded by our politics that we can't be objective and intellectually honest?
I've produced many slides and post them on numerous internet 911 sites and get no response... I find that odd to say the least. And that includes this one. Yet all I hear... is show me the formulas! The math. Are these guys serious? They need formulas to know what they are seeing with their eyes if they open them... and do a modicum of thinking?
Gerry... wake up... you are effectively a distraction with that study and aligned with a cult! You must have David Cole on board... He's sounding the same notes for quite some time.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
YES they are, but they are rarely made and the ones on the WTC crew have not been repeated. Engineers quietly figured that out and most keep their mouths shut or remark how wonderful that the twins lasted as long as they did... a token amount of praise for Roberston (pathetic). A plane of that size cannot know a building of that size over. Those calculations of Roberston's were silly and proved nothing.
Steel buildings without good fire suppression system and the presence of fuel loads are a hazard to the general pubic. Egress issues need to be upgraded. I wouldn't work again on a high floor in any current office tower I know of.
We try to deal with debunking specific claims of evidence here Jeffrey. Those generally need facts and figure, and occasionally formulas.
You personal theory about design inadequacies seems rather general. If you want to debunk something that NIST said, or something AE911 or anyone else said, then that's fine. But just postulating a broad alternative theory is not appropriate for this forum.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Mick,
We have a logical problem because we are asked to debunk what is made up "junk". NIST has not advanced anything but made up data and a silly model which does not match real world. AE's stuff is pure junk science... the epitome of it. What's to debunk? Seriously? This is a HUGE distraction. What is really needed is for interested persons to figure out what actually happened not argue about what did not happen.
If you want to have a site which effectively is limited to junk debunking fine. Gerry's group is doing it. But it's kind of a waste of time.
My "personal theory" about design inadequacies is not "rather general" it is to the contrary very well laid out over several years of posts, my own and the research of others and the production of scores of graphics, drawings and spread sheets.
No I don't want or need to debunk the junk of AE911T or NIST... both have been more than adequately debunked by others much smarter than me for years. Debunkery is not solving the problem.
We have a logical problem because we are asked to debunk what is made up "junk". NIST has not advanced anything but made up data and a silly model which does not match real world. AE's stuff is pure junk science... the epitome of it. What's to debunk? Seriously? This is a HUGE distraction. What is really needed is for interested persons to figure out what actually happened not argue about what did not happen.
If you want to have a site which effectively is limited to junk debunking fine. Gerry's group is doing it. But it's kind of a waste of time.
My "personal theory" about design inadequacies is not "rather general" it is to the contrary very well laid out over several years of posts, my own and the research of others and the production of scores of graphics, drawings and spread sheets.
No I don't want or need to debunk the junk of AE911T or NIST... both have been more than adequately debunked by others much smarter than me for years. Debunkery is not solving the problem.
Then I suggest you find another forum. This is a debunking forum.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
If I am prevented from presenting my thinking about the technical issues of 9/11 perhaps yes. I am interesting in PROactive positive thinking not negative (debunkery). This is the sort of nonsense David Griffin thinks he's good at - gotcha stuff. Why can't you allow new ideas?
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
Debunk my specific claims....
Hitstirrer
Active Member
In this forum site any idea that differs from an officially released document must automatically be debunked. No exceptions. But only one tiny detail at once. Under no circumstances must a wider view be allowed to be discussed. Your refreshing dismantling of the official version of the towers initiation, of truss sag, to be replaced by the glaringly obvious core drop is a step too far in here. As is your observation that a single column in WTC7 cannot buckle and cause a symmetrical collapse.
The difference in approach is that the letter to the Inspector General possibly represents the first real chance to get the NIST reports to be seen for what they are. There is a strong element of 'Emperor's clothes' at play. Too many building professionals are capable of praising the Emperor on his style because others do that. They refuse to see the obvious. People like gerry and yourself are able to see clearer and say so. As in the fable, others are later capable of seeing clearer when the peer pressure is eased by more exposure. The letter to the Inspector General may just do that.
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
I agree to a limited extent. I say this because I have little faith in any mass media mainstream or alternative in having open discussion.. Calling BS for what it is and not being afraid to step on toes. Mick is trying to whittle away at details which are incorrect. Nothing wrong with that per say.. same as the Gerry approach.
I am independent and have no affiliations and tow no party lines. My interest in 9/11 is simply that I was curious to understand something in the physical world that I thought I should have not had the slightest hesitation in explaining. Did the see the chain thing posted on HuffPo... that was another? I digress.
I've been trying to find a site which is neither NIST bots or CD bots which is open to discussion and exchange and collaboration and brain storming to advance understanding. I am not interested in debating or debunking the false dichotomy of OCT or CD or Judy Wood or whomever has their eyes up the butt and can't see what's there. Best place has been 9/11 FF but they don't like to do theories and models... more a site which is analyzing the observables and the science behind it. The Smart Idiots thread which was not technical in nature was one of the most interesting reads I've had in a long time. It identifies that 9/11 is more than a technical mystery, but a social phenomena, a political one, a psychological one. It's full of lessons... most of which are missed by the virtually everyone who get so obsessed in their pet POV.
PLEASE stop using the phrase... symmetrical collapse... this is utter bunk and means nothing at all... AE911T propaganda for lack of a better word. There is nothing symmetrical about the collapse of these buildings. They essentially fell straight down with expected but not predictable anomalies or motion... and that how big complex things fall down...
My point to Mick is he is limiting the site to debunkery which is self defeating in the end. We need to EXPLAIN not debunk.
It's not a limit, it's a focus.
This isn't a site about 9/11. It's a site about debunking.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Most people describe 'straight down' as symmetrical. If you question people most will admit that they expected the tops of the towers to fall over to one side. And if WTC7 was to fall it would do that in a random manner. They expected 'not symmetrically' and got 'symmetrical. Sorry if my word jars with you but that is what is used mostly to describe what people see.
This is semantics, and off-topic. There's an existing thread for it:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-wtc-towers-fell-in-their-own-footprints.1226/
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
It's limiting even it is your deal...
Jeffrey Orling
Senior Member
[...]
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Not really - if bunk is exposed for bunk then there are less places those seeking an alternative 9-11 explanation can go to if they any respect for rationality, leaving them more likely to go to the real non-bunk issues such as what you're trying to highlight.
The bunk is shiny and sensationalist and very distracting, the real issues are often dry and un-rewarding.
Un-exposed bunk takes away your potential audience, whereas exposing it potentially adds to your audience, indirectly.
Alienentity
Active Member
Jeffrey, I think there is room for your analysis here; I would suggest a thread debunking some of the NIST theories, for example. Not to put too fine a point on it but your commentary is not always positive, so I don't see how it would affect you all that much. Just sayin'
Redwood
Active Member
Back to the letter: The threat to "seek legal recourse" is empty, as no sane court will ever order any government officer to order a review of an engineering report just because some people don't like it. Not liking a report doesn't give a person standing in court to sue about it.
The threat to "raise the question with colleagues in Europe" if they don't get satisfaction is likewise hollow. Why don't they just do it anyway?
End of story.
The threat to "raise the question with colleagues in Europe" if they don't get satisfaction is likewise hollow. Why don't they just do it anyway?
End of story.
Similar threads
