Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered

Status
Not open for further replies.

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
It's an artists impression, not a physical rendering. I roughly based it on:


I thinking there would be a range of heating order/amount scenarios, so a variety of girder distortion scenarios.
You didn't base it on that at all. You based it on captures from an animation that I made. There are no stiffener plates in the NIST figures that you have there. Just out of interest, which analysis is that (the NIST one, not mine) is it ansys or lsdyna? And do you think that either of these modelled the connection ay column 79 accurately?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grieves

Senior Member
It's odd how forgiving engineers and self-declared scientific thinkers are of NIST apparently gerrymandering data. Is it of no significance whatsoever that an active choice seems to have been made to omit or alter specific details of which they were aware when those details conflict with the scenario they present? The general reaction seems to be "Yeah... well... maybe.... but so what..?" That's it, gents. NIST ignored and/or mainpulated data to better fit their scenario. I don't know what to say to the idea that that's ok, based on the presumption they got everything else generally correct..... other than bollocks.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It invalidates the initiating event and makes it impossible for the collapse to have initiated in the manner that NIST claim that it did. Explain the 'fragile mathematical proof' to me, what is it? Let's see some numbers please, so we can check.

My point is that while it possibly invalidates this particular initiating event hypothesis, it does not therefore invalidate the collapse of the building - unless you claim that this is the only possible initiating event.

There's a vast amount of valid work on either side of this event. But any number of events could have resulted from the preceding conditions, and generated the subsequent events.

You are just pointing out a possible inaccuracy in this one hypothetical event.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I will accept
MICK SAID - It simply casts slightly more doubt on the (already hypothetical) initiating event.
I do not accept this. It looks reasonable enough at first glance, but NIST have made a clear claim here and that claim is impossible when the correct elements and dimensions are applied to the connection. Mick is not respecting the sequence of events. In essence he is saying "ok, the initiating event isn't right, but everything that happened after it still happened so that is ok". That just isn't science, it isn't forensic engineering, and it actually body swerves the whole thrust of the issue. Disingenuous.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
My point is that while it possibly invalidates this particular initiating event hypothesis, it does not therefore invalidate the collapse of the building - unless you claim that this is the only possible initiating event.

There's a vast amount of valid work on either side of this event. But any number of events could have resulted from the preceding conditions, and generated the subsequent events.

You are just pointing out a possible inaccuracy in this one hypothetical event.
NO, I am giving you physics, structural drawings, equations and figures to demonstrate why the NIST hypothesis is invalid. YOU need to explain why it is valid in the same manner, instead of just making the claim. Blind assertions are not a coherent response to scientific analysis Mick.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I do have grave doubts about the claimed girder drop event that NIST then use to go on to claim caused all the lower lateral support to column 79 and led to it buckling. My reason for these doubts is a combination of gerry's input, but also a close look at the various simulations released by NIST which, when analysed frame by frame to follow individual girders and beams, do not support their claimed progression scenario. Such analysis can be looked at in another thread though.

Even assuming their 79 buckling is accurate I then find it hard to follow their claim that it then led to such a very symmetrical collapse. But again that leads off topic of this thread.

I would be interested in seeing this analysis (in another thread).
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
It's odd how forgiving engineers and self-declared scientific thinkers are of NIST apparently gerrymandering data. Is it of no significance whatsoever that an active choice seems to have been made to omit or alter specific details of which they were aware when those details conflict with the scenario they present? The general reaction seems to be "Yeah... well... maybe.... but so what..?" That's it, gents. NIST ignored and/or mainpulated data to better fit their scenario. I don't know what to say to the idea that that's ok, based on the presumption they got everything else generally correct..... other than bollocks.

Well said ! The difference between the 2 sides in this debate is clear to see. One side is all about the truth and science, whilst the other is all about blindly defending an official story regardless. Well spotted.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I do not accept this. It looks reasonable enough at first glance, but NIST have made a clear claim here and that claim is impossible when the correct elements and dimensions are applied to the connection. Mick is not respecting the sequence of events. In essence he is saying "ok, the initiating event isn't right, but everything that happened after it still happened so that is ok". That just isn't science, it isn't forensic engineering, and it actually body swerves the whole thrust of the issue. Disingenuous.

What happened though was the result of several floors collapsing around cols 79-80.


I'm not at all convinced that the Col79 unseating is not the initiating event, but even if it were not, that hardly means that something like this chaotic mess would not result. Some connection failed. Some beam, girder, and concrete slab fell. Already badly weakened connections failed, and floors failed progressively.
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
It's odd how forgiving engineers and self-declared scientific thinkers are of NIST apparently gerrymandering data. Is it of no significance whatsoever that an active choice seems to have been made to omit or alter specific details of which they were aware when those details conflict with the scenario they present? The general reaction seems to be "Yeah... well... maybe.... but so what..?" That's it, gents. NIST ignored and/or mainpulated data to better fit their scenario. I don't know what to say to the idea that that's ok, based on the presumption they got everything else generally correct..... other than bollocks.

Thank you for articulating so clearly my own thoughts on the way people refuse to break free from their cognitive dissonance when faced with facts and information that conflict with their own fixed ideas. When clear evidence is provided showing such manipulation of data and drawings, I would expect honest people to satisfy themselves that the information is accurate, and then get angry, rather than rush to support the ones misleading them.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well said ! The difference between the 2 sides in this debate is clear to see. One side is all about the truth and science, whilst the other is all about blindly defending an official story regardless. Well spotted.

I take offense to that. I think I am all about truth and science.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I take offense to that. I think I am all about truth and science.
ok, you insulted a highly qualified and respected engineer on this thread. Tony. Would you like to talk to him directly? Would you say what you said here right to him? I would like to see that, because he could demonstrate just how scientific you are in 5 minutes. I am sure that if I contacted Tony, who I happen to know, he would give you enough of his time to facilitate this.
 

qed

Senior Member
I take offense to that. I think I am all about truth and science.

Given the unfalsifiability and non-repeatability of the NIST report (not to mention the internal inconsistency), can you look the scientists and philosophers on this forum in the eye, and say the NIST report has any scientific value whatsoever?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
What happened though was the result of several floors collapsing around cols 79-80.


I'm not at all convinced that the Col79 unseating is not the initiating event, but even if it were not, that hardly means that something like this chaotic mess would not result. Some connection failed. Some beam, girder, and concrete slab fell. Already badly weakened connections failed, and floors failed progressively.

Here's something that one of our team did Mick, look at the highlighted beam and tell me if it is realistic as per NISts story.All credit to the guy in the US that did this, more work than it looks.
Tracking WTC7 Girder C44-79 at Floor 13 :-
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
ok, you insulted a highly qualified and respected engineer on this thread. Tony. Would you like to talk to him directly? Would you say what you said here right to him? I would like to see that, because he could demonstrate just how scientific you are in 5 minutes. I am sure that if I contacted Tony, who I happen to know, he would give you enough of his time to facilitate this.

I said:

More and more people like Tony Szamboti, who were already convinced the NIST analysis was rigged.

My point is that it's an argument from false authority to quote Szamboti and attribute his comments to "more and more building professionals ".

I'm sorry if you feel that insults him, but I feel it's reasonably accurate - simply pointing out that Tony has a known opinion about the NIST report, and that's likely to predispose him. I would say exactly the same thing to him in person. It's a great mistake to hinge your belief on the opinions of lone individuals - no matter how expert they may be.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
I said:





I'm sorry if you feel that insults him, but I feel it's reasonably accurate - simply pointing out that Tony has a known opinion about the NIST report, and that's likely to predispose him. I would say exactly the same thing to him in person. It's a great mistake to hinge your belief on the opinions of lone individuals - no matter how expert they may be.

But Mick - your own reply to my input was the first mention of Tony Szamboti. I referred to 'many' engineers - not just one - and certainly not him in particular. His own reaction was clear but as is norma,l many confirmatory opinions are sought ( the scientific method ) and when they concur it is reasonable to assume a level of accuracy in the information.

You inferred that he had a biased view on scientific data rather than an objective one. If you knew him better you would realise what a straight talking guy he is. Trust me, if the presence of stiffeners had been of minor significance he would have said so. He would have told gerry firmly to move on and look elsewhere. But his reaction was immediate and firm. Game changers.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A clear attack on the mans integrity, when he is not here to defend himself.......yet.
Yes, this debate is all about science and truth.

It's not an attack on his integrity. I think he's being quite truthful. I just think he's wrong, and that he has a subconscious bias towards interpretations of events that would match his already strongly held beliefs.

But the broader point is that he is not representative of "more and more building professionals". He's just one guy.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But Mick - your own reply to my input was the first mention of Tony Szamboti. I referred to 'many' engineers - not just one - and certainly not him in particular. His own reaction was clear but as is norma,l many confirmatory opinions are sought ( the scientific method ) and when they concur it is reasonable to assume a level of accuracy in the information.

You inferred that he had a biased view on scientific data rather than an objective one. If you knew him better you would realise what a straight talking guy he is. Trust me, if the presence of stiffeners had been of minor significance he would have said so. He would have told gerry firmly to move on and look elsewhere. But his reaction was immediate and firm. Game changers.

Perhaps you were referring to many engineers. But you quoted Szamboti.

What did the other engineers say? Who are they?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
It's not an attack on his integrity. I think he's being quite truthful. I just think he's wrong, and that he has a subconscious bias towards interpretations of events that would match his already strongly held beliefs.

But the broader point is that he is not representative of "more and more building professionals". He's just one guy.

The man is a professional engineer, you are accusing him of being incapable of making sound judgements about engineering issues, and allowing predisposition to 'beliefs' to cloud his engineering based analysis. I will ask him for a response to this accusation in due course. Who mentioned the mans name first in this thread?
 

kawika

New Member
What happened though was the result of several floors collapsing around cols 79-80.


I'm not at all convinced that the Col79 unseating is not the initiating event, but even if it were not, that hardly means that something like this chaotic mess would not result. Some connection failed. Some beam, girder, and concrete slab fell. Already badly weakened connections failed, and floors failed progressively.

Thank you for providing this visual aid.

Look closely. Do you see the N/E region floors 12, 11, 10, 9 and 8 (right of C79) that were still connected to C79, now falling? NIST said that C79 buckled because it had no lateral support. Something clearly does not add up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The man is a professional engineer, you are accusing him of being incapable of making sound judgements about engineering issues, and allowing predisposition to 'beliefs' to cloud his engineering based analysis. I will ask him for a response to this accusation in due course. Who mentioned the mans name first in this thread?

I did, because he was quoted.

If you want to use someone's "professional engineer" status as part of your argument from authority, then you have to expect that argument to be examined. Don't get in a huff about it. He's quite clearly put himself out there and is open to criticism.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
lol@ who are they. We are now reduced to strawman tactics.

No, I'm critiquing the argument from authority. It was claimed that lots of professional engineers think that the stiffener plates are a game changer. So, who are these lots of professional engineers?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thank you for providing this visual aid.

Look closely. Do you see the N/E region floors 12, 11, 10, 9 and 8 (right of C79) that were still connected to C79, now falling? NIST said that C79 buckled because it had no lateral support. Something clearly does not add up.

What did they say exactly?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
No, I'm critiquing the argument from authority. It was claimed that lots of professional engineers think that the stiffener plates are a game changer. So, who are these lots of professional engineers?

OK, Fair point. But that isnt an authority argument. Tony was the first to be exposed to the stiffener information. But as I said, many confirmatory opinions were sought. That isnt an appeal to authority. Its the scientific method. But to demand to know who those others are - and what they said - is to ignore the scientific method by doing your own peer review using your own trusted sources. Your request was designed to impress onlookers by scoring a strawman point. I get the impression that you cannot get away with such tactics in this erudite forum though.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
So unless we manage to convince Gerry of something, then it's not really a very useful thread.
Mick. It's almost as if you are saying that you are unwilling to be convinced regardless and that the thread is only useful if your opinion wins through. I have ignored logical fallacies up until this point and let them slide. But enough is enough. If you want to talk about being all about science and truth, you need to start walking the walk.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
This thread is about -
"Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered"
I think the point is made, Mick has put up a fair argument and up to a point has done well, but has offered nothing to directly refute the claim that these errors have been uncovered and are critical. It's reducing itself to strawman arguments and logical fallacies. Mick, why not just admit the truth here, and I am sure we can have some great debates on other topics. Is there a section for upheld threads? I see there is one titled 'debunked', where is the section for threads that are proven and unable to be debunked?
 

kawika

New Member
What did they say exactly?

See NCSTAR 1-9 (NOV 2008), Page 623, PDF page 689, where it says:

The buckling failure of Column 79 between floor 5 and 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems.

On PDF page 690 it says:

The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell to the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors.

"...without lateral support for nine floors." This is false. The graphic shows C79 just after the lateral support was disconnected. C79 had PLENTY of lateral support from both North and East directions. The N/E region floor systems (F12, F11, F10, F9 and F8) were not compromised.

C79 did not buckle because of no lateral support. The computer that created the cartoon failed the Column and the floor systems then followed. One must ask why the graphic is contradicting the narrative.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
See NCSTAR 1-9 (NOV 2008), Page 623, PDF page 689, where it says:

The buckling failure of Column 79 between floor 5 and 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems.

On PDF page 690 it says:

The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell to the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors.

"...without lateral support for nine floors." This is false. The graphic shows C79 just after the lateral support was disconnected. C79 had PLENTY of lateral support from both North and East directions. The N/E region floor systems (F12, F11, F10, F9 and F8) were not compromised.

C79 did not buckle because of no lateral support. The computer that created the cartoon failed the Column and the floor systems then followed. One must ask why the graphic is contradicting the narrative.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick. It's almost as if you are saying that you are unwilling to be convinced regardless and that the thread is only useful if your opinion wins through. I have ignored logical fallacies up until this point and let them slide. But enough is enough. If you want to talk about being all about science and truth, you need to start walking the walk.
This thread is about -
"Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered"
I think the point is made, Mick has put up a fair argument and up to a point has done well, but has offered nothing to directly refute the claim that these errors have been uncovered and are critical. It's reducing itself to strawman arguments and logical fallacies. Mick, why not just admit the truth here, and I am sure we can have some great debates on other topics. Is there a section for upheld threads? I see there is one titled 'debunked', where is the section for threads that are proven and unable to be debunked?

What? You want to just declare yourself to have proven your case? We've not even discussed the video with the green girder.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member

Thank you kawika. That information is exactly what I hinted to Mick earlier about. Your comments mirror my own analysis of the simulations released by NIST.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
What? You want to just declare yourself to have proven your case? We've not even discussed the video with the green girder.
Please indulge me here Mick, I want to be very clear and think that this approach will help clarify.

Do you agree that the stiffener plates existed on the girder?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
See NCSTAR 1-9 (NOV 2008), Page 623, PDF page 689, where it says:

The buckling failure of Column 79 between floor 5 and 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems.

On PDF page 690 it says:

The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell to the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors.

"...without lateral support for nine floors." This is false. The graphic shows C79 just after the lateral support was disconnected. C79 had PLENTY of lateral support from both North and East directions. The N/E region floor systems (F12, F11, F10, F9 and F8) were not compromised.

C79 did not buckle because of no lateral support. The computer that created the cartoon failed the Column and the floor systems then followed. One must ask why the graphic is contradicting the narrative.

See Page 575, pdf 641. The support is accounted for.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please indulge me here Mick, I want to be very clear and think that this approach will help clarify.

Do you agree that the stiffener plates existed on the girder?

They are on the construction diagram, as well as I understand it. So it seems likely they were on the girder.

Would you agree that NIST don't actually refer to the unseating of the girder as the initiating event?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
They are on the construction diagram, as well as I understand it. So it seems likely they were on the girder.

Would you agree that NIST don't actually refer to the unseating of the girder as the initiating event?
NO.
From NIST Technical Briefing on its Final Draft Report on WTC 7
"And the main reason the girder can be pushed off to the west is there is no opposing beam on this side trying to push it back to the east, because of the
arrangement of the floor framing system. And, as you see in the sketch on your slides, you will see that once the bolts break, then you have essentially the girder moves off the seat and eventually falls." ~ Shyam Sunder, NIST lead investigator.


So do we now agree on this Mick?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
They are on the construction diagram, as well as I understand it. So it seems likely they were on the girder.

Would you agree that NIST don't actually refer to the unseating of the girder as the initiating event?
And again...............
slide-32-728.jpg
Says a lot, that we are this far into the debate, and you still fail to admit this point Mick.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
They are on the construction diagram, as well as I understand it. So it seems likely they were on the girder.

Would you agree that NIST don't actually refer to the unseating of the girder as the initiating event?

All the NIST briefings and reports state that the girder supporting the floor to the west on floor 13 dropped from its seat at column 79, to allow that girder and the associated beams and remaining concrete floor to hit floor 12.

Their entire initiation theory is based on that, which is why their misrepresentation of the connection that failed is of such importance.

I say again, if floor 13 did not hit floor 12 then a cascade couldnt occur and 79 could not lose its lateral support to allow it to buckle.

NIST prefer to ignore the real initiating event of that girder dropping by writing that the initiating event was column 79 buckling. That isnt science. To ignore the simple cause/effect process and jump straight to the effect as the cause is junk science.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
I find it hard to believe that you have still not understood the import of that girder dropping as NIST claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top