Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
qed quoted earlier :- " That this forum agrees that there are errors and omissions is indeed a big move forward."

Of course there are errors and omissions. How could there not be?

The questions here is

A) What are they, and B) Are are critical.

gerry has identified some potential grey areas, that's all.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
That this forum agrees that there are errors and omissions is indeed a big move forward.
There you go. Quote where someone disagreed with that idea.

Unfortunately, it is precisely because of the unscientific nature of the NIST report, that the "critical" nature of these errors can never be established nor disproved. NIST have fought in court for the right not to release the input data used in the model. So no one can rerun the model without these errors and see what the result is.
The science in this case requires a developed understanding of situations, including that of the interactivity of components in a structure, and the understanding that conclusions about a specific instance within that structure cannot be extrapolated to the whole. Also required is a developed understanding of what follows after collapse, where the structure becomes a mechanism, with dynamic forces coming into play.

NIST does indeed deal with those understandings, and this thread doesn't.

It's not science. It's a fraudulent claim, with a hidden agenda. The errors and omissions "discovered" are insignificant. There never was a discoverable critical point to be found in the interior of a long-lasting wandering fire in a steel skyscraper. The failure ensued from a myriad of events occurring not just at the girder, but on the floor above and below, due to unprecedently high temperatures, due to a long-standing FIRE.

Consequently, this thread can only proceed on a non scientific basis, with members making up their own versions of the NIST report. Like all other NIST based threads, I predict that this thread will now go around and around until we are bored of the topic.
It fascinates me. Or, rather, all pseudoscience does.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So your criteria for "scientifically sound" is zero errors and omissions? Or zero critical errors and omissions.

Because that really is the argument here. There are errors and omissions in Newton's theory of universal gravitation, but they were not critical for explaining why apples fall.

RP said the report seemed scientifically sound. He did not say it contained zero errors and omissions. Nobody does.
 

qed

Senior Member
So your criteria for "scientifically sound" is zero errors and omissions? Or zero critical errors and omissions.

Zero critical errors and omissions (amongst the other criterion for being scientific, in particular, repeatability)
 

qed

Senior Member
@Jazzy

NIST does indeed deal with those understandings, and this thread doesn't.
It fascinates me. Or, rather, all pseudoscience does.

Would you classify the NIST report as scientific or pseudoscience?
 
Last edited:

mynym

Banned
Banned
But really what they said happened is the floor system collapsed because of multiple failures of many elements due to fire.

I think it's important for people to realize that even if the technical details of the NIST report were successfully debunked/falsified that the epistemic inertia of many would remain.

You'll avoid frustration if you realize this from the beginning and stop focusing on changing minds. The integrity and truth in your mind matters, the rest... well. (After all, it's not as if one can pick apart a detail to the Left or the Right, falsify/demolish it... and necessarily expect the Center or the Solomonic seat of wisdom hidden in the brains between our two temples to collapse on time. Meta, meta... meta. I think I can out meta Pete, symbolically speaking.)

But we're still left with the question after people are done with verifications/falsifications based on "specifications" in the NIST report, what would supposedly falsify a much vaguer hypothesis like "multiple failures... due to fire"? I'm not sure that there are enough metaphoric explosives or "top secret" falsifications to bring down the "central point" at the top of Mick's symbolic pyramid at this point. Would it even matter if the NIST report was falsified? I guess that's a topic for a different thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
NIST does indeed deal with those understandings, and this thread doesn't.
It's been said numerous times that this is because NIST will not release their data. Hard to have a fair go at something when someone is withholding their information, right?

It fascinates me. Or, rather, all pseudoscience does.
Isn't the NIST report basically pseudoscience? I mean, you can say all you want they used data and scientific method and blah blah blah but the fact is their result was only a guess at what most likely happened. And with errors in their work.

Why did people pay tax dollars for them to withhold their data? I'm glad I don't pay taxes in America. Seems like a lot of time and effort was wasted on coming to this guess of what happened. They could have skipped the entire reports and computer models and just said 'fire took all 3 of these buildings down, move along.'
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No it is not pseudoscience. It is based on solid science not nonsense .
Seems like your fellow Meta Members disagree and most everyone else disagrees as well. Appears the issue is whether it is pseudoscience or a flawed report.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
No it is not pseudoscience. It is based on solid science not nonsense .

Perhaps science is a little more mysterious than many might imagine but a good benchmark for trying to recognize "pseudoscience" is that it's usually unfalsifiable and usually isn't rigorously specified. Specification = verification/falsification.

So would you say that the NIST report is verifiable? Or on the specific issue of shear studs, was the "final report" rigorously specified in the first place?

Because to be honest, I can't even verify what they said about the shear studs. JREF didn't have much of an answer other than inventing new imaginary scenarios to begin yet more simulations of an actual investigation. (Government shut down due to lack of the banker's paper ponzi, are you serious? People need to figure out how to create some money out of nothing for themselves, already.)

I'm not sure that it was specified either way in the first place. I thought scientific reports were supposed to involve verifying and settling the facts (to the extent that's possible) and not generating what would seem to be contradictory implications.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seems like your fellow Meta Members disagree and most everyone else disagrees as well. Appears the issue is whether it is pseudoscience or a flawed report.

I disagree. And that's not the issue at all. That's just silly semantics, and a false choice.

The issue is if it contains critical errors and/or omissions.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I disagree. And that's not the issue at all. That's just silly semantics, and a false choice.

The issue is if it contains critical errors and/or omissions.

If there was an error or an issue with omitting the shear studs, would it be semantically critical? And even if it was critical... then wouldn't it only be critical to semantic debates about the nature of the report but not critical to general theories based on imaginary events in WTC 7 like "multiple failures... due to fire"?

I understand the general perspective of collapse by fire, one way or another. Sometimes I can almost imagine it as being reasonable again. But I think people will keep getting frustrated when they think that they can falsify a theory of WTC 7 that actually isn't falsifiable in the first place. They can keep hitting these small falsifications or "innumerable falsifications" (As a biologist put it with respect to what he perceived as pseudoscience in a different context.) but it's likely that nothing can bring down the main theory or "central argument" in the case of WTC 7 either.

Perhaps that should be clear from the beginning. That way people would be less likely to get upset about things.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
One obvious, and crucial error was the omission of the stiffener plates and the way that NIST seemed to try and avoid the detection of their error. In order to accommodate it, NIST had to claim to partially use column 81s detail to model column 79, this is where the very convenient 11" seat plate error came from. The big problem came when they released the drawings. NIST stated in their erratum that they had used dimensions consistent with drawing Frankel 1091, which doesn't directly refer to the stiffeners, but just above the bill of materials it references Frankel 9114 which does.
You have to ask the question, is it reasonable for NIST to decide that the column 79 connection was crucial to their analysis and then look at a totally different element to support their hypothesis. It doesn't look like just incompetence. At best, negligence.
Time and time again, errors and omissions that were whispered in the report began to scream out in the light of the release of the structural drawings. Every error added a slight bias towards NISTs conclusion. Not one error or omission impeded their hypothesis.
There are mistakes, people are human, even highly qualified engineers in federal agencies such as NIST. There are coincidences, and mistakes rarely tend to happen in isolation. But when such a clear and unmistakable pattern emerges, and shines a damning new light on a previously released report, the obvious conclusion becomes inescapable. The NIST report into the collapse of WTC7 is a fabrication. It does not stand the scrutiny of the scientific method.
Whether one believes this to be incompetence or scientific fraud doesn't really matter. The veracity of the report is unchanged regardless of the circumstances and motivation behind the errors that it contains.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
It's been said numerous times that this is because NIST will not release their data. Hard to have a fair go at something when someone is withholding their information, right?
Correct. And if there had been a conspiracy to destroy WTC7 it would then be very unfair of them. But we know what instigated WTC7's collapse, namely being struck by WTC1. We know that no explosives are capable of surviving the heat conditions which put paid to WTC7, so the only palpable examination that can be made is that of the material that is to hand which shows hours of peripatetic fires preceding heat-induced failures around Floor 13 at Column 79, leading to total collapse.

Isn't the NIST report basically pseudoscience? I mean, you can say all you want they used data and scientific method and blah blah blah but the fact is their result was only a guess at what most likely happened. And with errors in their work.
If one starts with a scientific basis to one's understanding, then there are definitely circumstances where the best good guess is going to be all the science that is to be had, if evidential circumstances are very difficult. And I would call the center of a blazing floor a hundred and fifty feet up a 47-floor skyscraper a difficult place to obtain evidence. Small errors are part of the human condition, but have little effect on scientific progress in general.

Why did people pay tax dollars for them to withhold their data? I'm glad I don't pay taxes in America. Seems like a lot of time and effort was wasted on coming to this guess of what happened. They could have skipped the entire reports and computer models and just said 'fire took all 3 of these buildings down, move along.'
The fact is that there is enough data already released to produce a duplicate simulation as accurate as the NIST simulation probably was. There is NO real shortfall of data. My argument as to the relative non-criticality of minor fixings applies just as much to that as NIST's simulation. There is no truther with the wits to undertake it, and that's really not surprising at all, is it?

Ironically, for a truther to produce such a simulation would destroy NIST's case for withholding the apparently essential data.

qed said:
Would you classify the NIST report as scientific or pseudoscience?
Scientific, because of its coverage of all the obtainable evidence of the event.

And, of course, the claim of this thread is thoroughly pseudoscientific, with its lack of coverage of all the obtainable evidence of the event.

If there was an error or an issue with omitting the shear studs, would it be semantically critical? And even if it was critical... then wouldn't it only be critical to semantic debates about the nature of the report but not critical to general theories based on imaginary events in WTC 7 like "multiple failures... due to fire"? I understand the general perspective of collapse by fire, one way or another. Sometimes I can almost imagine it as being reasonable again. But I think people will keep getting frustrated when they think that they can falsify a theory of WTC 7 that actually isn't falsifiable in the first place. They can keep hitting these small falsifications or "innumerable falsifications" (As a biologist put it with respect to what he perceived as pseudoscience in a different context.) but it's likely that nothing can bring down the main theory or "central argument" in the case of WTC 7 either. Perhaps that should be clear from the beginning. That way people would be less likely to get upset about things.
I tend to agree with that. There's such a thing as the "body of evidence" which holds sway against single apparent "falsifications" for time enough for the evidence required to debunk them to arrive. In the case of Evolution this body of evidence is now very formidable. But such evidential bodies aren't generally understood, which gives conspiracy theories some leeway.

In the case of Building 7 the "body of evidence" (unfalsifiable) is the onset and progress of the fires themselves, which were still finding new combustible areas as the building collapsed. Over the years, even I have been worn down a little by the truther notion of "sporadic and insubstantial fires" but today I saw a new view of the WTC7 collapse which showed billowing smoke prior to collapse, which was obviously the product of a fire that was nowhere near "sporadic and insubstantial".

You have to ask the question, is it reasonable for NIST to decide that the column 79 connection was crucial to their analysis and then look at a totally different element to support their hypothesis.
In view of the penthouse's descent, yes. Column 79 held it up. In view of the buckling of column 79, then, yes, it was sensible to examine the likelihood of it losing its floor connections. In light of the fires burning (or having burnt) on the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth floors, yes, it was correct to converge on those floor connections to Column 79.

In fact, to ask the question you've just asked isn't, er, reasonable.
 
Last edited:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I am reposting this summary of the thread because it has not been responded to by Mick and it is getting buried by posts made since. If this is not acceptable, please delete the previous post of it and not his one. People who are reading this thread who have not been following it can read it to be brought up to speed on the contents.
I am gong to try and sum up where we are in this debate, and I am going to use Micks input to do so, because he has stuck to the thread topic quite well.
#1 topic introduced as "Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered"
#10 mick asked - Is there any evidence of shear studs in the debris photos?
That was established. The relevant beams did have, but the girder is in question. I accept that.
The shear stud issue however is not relevant to the analysis because it is totally unrestrained expansion that we used. ie no shear studs anywhere.

#83 Mick accepts that the underseat plate 'pf' is in fact 12". Something that NIST got wrong then released an erratum statement to confirm this error. They did not address the consequences of their new 'walk off' distance though which is impossible ny their own standards. Later in the debate, the whole walk off issue is downplayed though as irrelevant, this is because it does not suit the debunking side to admit that the walkoff distance is impossible. If it was irrelevant NIST would not have made it a central issue in their collapse initiation hypothesis.
There follows much talk about how the shear studs would possibly inhibit the walk off. It is clearly established that the walk off distance proposed by NIST is impossible when Mick is given the figures in#165 and concurs that the MAXIMUM expansion that the beams could experience is in fact 4.67". Less than any figure that NIST proposes.
This is the reason that the 'walk off' is later alleged to be irrelevant to the initiation of collapse - because the figures are a slam dunk that cannot be disputed and are admitted early in the thread.
This attitude that 'if it doesn't suit the debunking side, it is not relevant' will become a common theme.

#111 Mick is presented with the correct dimensions and elements for the connection as per the drawings but still does not understand the relevance of the stiffener plates on the girder, and continues to focus in on shear studs, which are not relevant as the expansion used is unrestrained. He calles my case 'very weak'


#135 Mick attempts to tell me what I think about the towers. A topic that I have not even mentioned once in the thread. He wrongly asserts that verinage can bring down a steel building, which rings alarm bells with me right away on an engineering level.In the next post he asks for a copy of our spreadsheet, but he should really do his own math rather than trusting our sheet, so he is given the figures to use in order to do his
own calculation.
In post #160 Mick asks for my answer to the equation of expansion, which I give him, aswell as providing him with more figures than he needs to do the math himself in #165.

#172 Mick has obviously checked tha math for expansion, and instead of referring to where NIST clearly state that the walk off distance is 6.25" rather than 5.5" in HIS OWN EARLIER POST of the erratum statement, he instead asks "Is there somewhere in the NIST report that actually claims a longer expansion?" Ridiculous, and nothing
to do with getting to the truth of this matter via science. This is an avoidance tactic clearly. He then reverts to computer simulation figures by NIST which by his own admission are invalid due to the element dimensions used being wrong, and the absence of the all important stiffener plates. Despite posting the erratum statement from NIST himself he asks "So where is the long expansion needed?" ridiculous really.

#176 Despite the said erratum post from Mick he says in #176 "640.69*.00000701*1040 = 4.67, but like I said, NIST never claims a longer expansion." They clearly do an Mick knows this by way of his own post. He continues to try and avoid the issue by posting tables that refer to NISTs model, which did not have the correct elements
in it.(4.67" is the maximum expansion in the longest beam as stated in the video - Mick is unable to dispute it)

He continues his avoidance by continually referring to MODEL outputs from NIST but doesn't realise for example that table 8-2 refers to the model and not the building itself as per NIST until #179, after he is shown the absurdities of relating hypothetical simulation data to the final report analysis. Important to note though that
he will later try to use this hypothetical data to argue against NISTs own words because it is all he has left as an option. He states re the simulation data Remember this was just a limited simulation, not the full scale simulation". An inconvenient fact that will be forgotten later on in the thread. He quickly realises that he has shot himself in the foot though and has to retract the walk off distance claim that he made when he notices
that the model explanation clearly states "Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat" This is crucial, and another inconvenient fact that he will later ignore in the thread as you will see.

He does realise that the models are not consistent with each other though, this is because he does not yet realise them to be hypothetical, he states in #180 "Which seems inconsistent with the LSDYNA simulation results. I suspect that the difference is accounted for by column movement." Of course, he fails to realise that the column cannot possibly move without the girder having been unseated as it is the alleged first girder failure. He puts the cause after the effect, which is backward science, and a very basic error.

#182 Mick then tries to avoid the hard engineering realities that scientifically should have, and maybe by this time have led him to the truth, by introducing a 'thought experiment'. No thank you Mick, this is about reality, not hypothetical nonsense.
#183 Mick tries to get to the 6.5" walk off distance via his 'thought experiment' by increasing the walk off distance by a factor of 40%. He has abandoned column 79 to do this and it is nothing more than dry labbing on his part.
An affront to true scientific research in the search of truth.

At this point the debate is basically over. Mick has abandoned science and has in fact debunked himself. He will continue throughout to try and use hypothetical model simulations to justify his mistaken position whilst conveniently forgetting that he himself stated that these descriptions state clearly a walk off distance of 5.5", even though
when he later uses these hypotheticals to justify his position, he is arguing that the walk off distance is not relevant any more, when the models he is using to argue this were meant by NIST to justify said walk off distance.

I am happy to go into further detail of how this thread has transpired, and if Mick would like to, we can now get down to the hard engineering and maths involved. I would love to do this, but it has to be done in a truthful and scientific way. And to do so would mean that there has to be an acceptance of where we are at in this debate up
until now. If Mick and this site is truly about science and truth, the way forward to facilitate a more detailed debate on this issue is obvious. Accept the truth and let's move on to the real detail of the issue.
Up to this point, I would consider that we have skimmed the surface of the issue in terms of the engineering and maths involved.

This may seem a bit harsh of me toward Mick, but I trult admire him for having put up a half decent attempt at defending that which is indefensible. I could not have debated on the opposite side of this either, and I comment him for even being willing to do so. However, he has been so thoroughly debunked at this point that to continue without some kind of admission of this would be pointless.

I expect a load of long posts after this one from various participants in this thread in an attempt to bury this one. I am very openly and clearly calling on Mick now to address ALL of the above in detail and not selectively.
As he has said, it has been a steep learning curve for him to have come up against a thread that actually deals with engineering and science without clouding the issue with meaningless rhetoric.

Let's see who really is 'all about truth and science' here, and who is not.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Sorry gerry, I consider your last post impolite and a personal attack on the folks here. I have read all of your many pages of information and noticed how you ignored anything that didn't fit your conspiracy belief, even though you danced around every saying that was your belief.

I feel that you came here to try to bully us into accepting your flawed belief. That said, it is time that I put you on ignore.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Sorry gerry, I consider your last post impolite and a personal attack on the folks here. I have read all of your many pages of information and noticed how you ignored anything that didn't fit your conspiracy belief, even though you danced around every saying that was your belief. I feel that you came here to try to bully us into accepting your flawed belief. That said, it is time that I put you on ignore.

No problem. Just stating the facts. No attack. This thread is my first conversation with Mick, he has earned my respect even though we disagree over 911. He has taken on board the content and anyone reading the thread can see that. You should be proud that this forum is capable of an open debate, even if the outcome doesn't suit your world view. I am not a bully, I am only restating facts in order that Mick can respond specifically to them, and people can see where the thread is and how it got there.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No problem. Just stating the facts. No attack. This thread is my first conversation with Mick, he has earned my respect even though we disagree over 911. He has taken on board the content and anyone reading the thread can see that. You should be proud that this forum is capable of an open debate, even if the outcome doesn't suit your world view. I am not a bully, I am only restating facts in order that Mick can respond specifically to them, and people can see where the thread is and how it got there.

The thread not about "debunking Mick", it's about debunking NIST. I'm really not sure what the point is of giving your perspective on the first 183 posts of a 500+ post thread. All seems a little skewed. Example (correcting 183->184)

#182 Mick then tries to avoid the hard engineering realities that scientifically should have, and maybe by this time have led him to the truth, by introducing a 'thought experiment'. No thank you Mick, this is about reality, not hypothetical nonsense.
#184 Mick tries to get to the 6.5" walk off distance via his 'thought experiment' by increasing the walk off distance by a factor of 40%. He has abandoned column 79 to do this and it is nothing more than dry labbing on his part.

Here's what I said in full:

Yes, I think we do. NIST have some conflicting sounding statements, but they still have the one model (the partial floor model) in which the beams did NOT push the girder off its seat, and it still failed. This demonstrates that it could have failed. Certainly all the beam shear studs and the clip and seat bolts would have failed. This model was the the more detailed modelling of the connections than the larger 16-floor model.

And the limited expansion of the beams (which I accept for the sake of argument, but I'm not 100% convinced as to the precise limits) might not be as limiting as you think

The failures in the partial floor model is a complex three dimensional buckling distortion, not a simple linear push.

Consider this thought experiment



Now in the simple case, if K3004 were to push 4.6" then that's not far enough (6" needed) however there's at least a couple of scenarios where it might be, depending on the order of heating of the five beams (K, C, B, A, G) And the Girder (R, for convenience)

Take a purely imaginary outside case. K expands first (roughly), breaking the C79-R connections. C, B, A, do likewise. Now if we (for now) ignore K,C, B, A, and imagine for the sake of argument that the R pivots around C44.

Under this very simplistic model an expansion one inch of G would result in motion of the end of the girder at C78 by of approximately eight inches.

Now that's not realistic. However nor do I think a simplistic model of KCBAG all expanding at the same rate is realistic. They would have expanded at different rates, and the combination of those expansions, with perhaps some pivoting, and distortion of the girder itself, would be what caused the girder to be unseated on C79.

NIST describes that the C79 connection was unseated by the girder walking off. They ascribe this to the five beams expanding. They might not be wrong, and they do not (I believe) claim that it was simply due to the expansion of K3004.

Ideally we'd like to see the graph of the positions of the endpoints of all the beams and girders involved. Unfortunately that's unlikely. However the end result still seems plausible.

And to expand upon my thought experiment a little. If we assume pivoting around C44, then an expansion of an inch in C is (by blueprint measurements), about 1.4 inches at C17. With larger values for B, A and G. So a 4.67 motion for CBAG would result in the C79 end wanting to move at least 1.4x4.67 = 6.5"

The objections here are that the C44 connection would break, not pivot (it would, but then wedge, and pivot). And that the lower beams (K, C) would retard the rotation caused by the upper beams (but how much, if they have been heated to sagging point).

But the overall point I'm making is that it's not as simple as you make out. The Girder is going to twist in some way, the beams will alternately expand and sag, the expansion of some beams might effective pivot against other beams, and/or C44.

About which you now say (quoting again for clarity):
#182 Mick then tries to avoid the hard engineering realities that scientifically should have, and maybe by this time have led him to the truth, by introducing a 'thought experiment'. No thank you Mick, this is about reality, not hypothetical nonsense.
#185 Mick tries to get to the 6.5" walk off distance via his 'thought experiment' by increasing the walk off distance by a factor of 40%. He has abandoned column 79 to do this and it is nothing more than dry labbing on his part.

Now I thought I'd brought up quite a reasonable point (pivoting around C44 might increase the distance the other end moves). Yet it is dismissed as avoiding reality, "hypothetical nonsense" and "dry labbing". Now THAT does not sound like science to me, it sounds like an appeal to emotion, and argument from authority, and ad hominem, all rolled together. A more appropriate response would be something like:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/girder-walk-off-between-column-79-and-44-t650-30.html#p20333
Are you going to castigate Tony for entertaining "hypothetical nonsense"? Do you think Tony is trying to "avoid the hard engineering realities"? No, Tony is quite reasonably considering the implications of the very same thought experiment that independently occurred to Enik and me.

Please. Let's stick to science here, and refrain from simplistic personal characterizations that avoid the actual issues.
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Quoted, to keep certain people who are offering ZERO substance from burying yet again...
Gerry is not singling out Mick...he's only trying to get a fair debate with what I see as the only person offering any substance to these 911 threads on NISTs behalf.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No need for massive quotes from previous posts unless you are going to comment on all of it in depth. A link will do (click on the number next to the post)
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Are you going to castigate Tony for entertaining "hypothetical nonsense"? Do you think Tony is trying to "avoid the hard engineering realities"? No, Tony is quite reasonably considering the implications of the very same thought experiment that independently occurred to Enik and me..
Tony is an engineer Mick, and with no disrespect you are not, he has an intimate understanding of these elements and how they work, and you don't. He actually points out why in reality this is important. The beam stubs at the north end, and that is such a crucial and clever conclusion because it invalidates NISTs alternative 'rock off' hypothesis. Maybe it would be a better thing if Tony explained that to you himself. He's a busy guy, but I think he would find the time to do that. As I stated earlier in this thread, I know him to be a man of integrity, and very open and engaging about 911 generally, a rather better assessment than the one you gave of him. I will therefor allow Tony to speak for himself if and when he finds the time to do that. I am pretty sure he will be aware of this debate and may well be watching with interest.

The thread not about "debunking Mick", it's about debunking NIST. I'm really not sure what the point is of giving your perspective on the first 183 posts of a 500+ post thread. All seems a little skewed. Example (correcting 183->184)
I am sorry if I appear to be singling you out here. The reason I was using your input is because you have actually engaged in this debate by sticking to the thread topic, mostly, and by your own admission, have had to hit a steep learning curve to get to grips with what is some quite challenging information. In comparison to how some other forums react to being challenged with just the brass tacks of this issue, I think you have done a superb job of trying to stay on topic and address much of which has been asked of you. I commend that. However, you are taking NISTs side here, and I am debunking it. The bit i took exception to was when you added 40% to the walk off figure to get to 6.5". That is just wishful thinking on your part.


You asked....
Is there somewhere in the NIST report that actually claims a longer expansion?
even though you had already posted an erratum statement from NIST themselves that claimed 5.5" 6.25" was the walk off distance required, and were aware of the other previous statements they made about the girder being pushed 5.5". Did you forget that when you asked? I could understand if you did, this is a difficult learning curve, as you said. I maybe jumped too quickly to the conclusion that you were being disingenuous, if that's the case, I apologise.

dry labbing
is EXACTLY what you did to get to 6.5". I stand by that characterisation of your statement 100%. Just off the bat, I do not think you took into account the expansion of the girder properly. But as I said, perhaps Tony will give you the low down on that one himself. I suggest that you withdraw your earlier characterisation of him, and if we are lucky enough to get his attention, you will find him to be engaging and very good at explaining this stuff.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Gerry, I asked if NIST actually stated the beams expanded more than you calculated because I don't see where they did. Of course I see that they said "Further thermal expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder off its seat"

So my point then, which I feel perhaps you missed, is that maybe there was a way for the end of the girder to move the distance without requiring the longer beam expansions. Hence my thought experiments with pivoting. A suggestion you rather impolitely dismissed as "hypothetical nonsense" and "dry labbing". So I showed you that Tony had entertained and addressed that exact same suggestion.

So my question stands. Did NIST actually say the beams expanded more than physically possible? Or did they say the beams expanded, and the girder walked off its seat? How did they determine it walked off its seat? Surely if the math was as simple as you suggest, then they would have included the math in the report. So perhaps there determination was a bit more complicated - like the result of a simulation involving buckling and breaking of connections.

Where do you think they got the idea that the girder was pushed off it's seat? Not the ANSYS model, because otherwise they would list all the other girders that failed. Not the first LSDYNA model, because that had it "rocked" off. Not the full LSDYNA model, as it was already unseated in that. So what are we talking about here?

I think what we are talking about is possibly a bad summary on the part of NIST. Yes, an error in the report. Quite a misleading one. But not one that affects the outcome.

Where do you think they got the information that the girder walked off its seat?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You see this computer model:


This does not have the 79-44 girder falling as the event which led to the floor system collapse. It has multiple girders and beams failing simultaneously.
 
Last edited:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Gerry, I asked if NIST actually stated the beams expanded more than you calculated because I don't see where they did. Of course I see that they said "Further thermal expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder off its seat"

So my point then, which I feel perhaps you missed, is that maybe there was a way for the end of the girder to move the distance without requiring the longer beam expansions. Hence my thought experiments with pivoting. A suggestion you rather impolitely dismissed as "hypothetical nonsense" and "dry labbing". So I showed you that Tony had entertained and addressed that exact same suggestion.
Sorry if i seemed impolite. Scroll back through the thread though, I am sure i showed you the connection detail at column 44 very early on. Do you seriously think that we have sat on this information for this length of time and never bothered to consider what happened at BOTH sides of the girder? The thought is fine, the conclusion is what i objected to, and i stand by that. It is important to keep an open mind though, and it's good that you are. Is your mind more open now to NIST being wrong about WTC7 than it was a month ago? I bet it is, and I bet that is because you are now being informed about what actually happened in reality, and in their investigation. And all of this, free of charge !

So my question stands. Did NIST actually say the beams expanded more than physically possible?
Even NIST would not suppose that the girder jumped off itself, and as I have stated, the stiffener plates make a massive difference. One that you have not acknowledged or addressed yet.

Where do you think they got the idea that the girder was pushed off it's seat? Not the ANSYS model, because otherwise they would list all the other girders that failed. Not the first LSDYNA model, because that had it "rocked" off. Not the full LSDYNA model, as it was already unseated in that. So what are we talking about here?
There were MANY scenarios in LSDYNA. And neither you or I have seen the full simulation of any of them. Also, you do not have the inputs for them, so why rely on something that you cannot quantify as evidence?? Not scientific. Remember also that NIST stated that they could not accyrately model the connections at the girder because of the target element size of 0.15 - 0.3M. Another fact that you have not acknowledged yet.

I think what we are talking about is possibly a bad summary on the part of NIST. Yes, an error in the report. Quite a misleading one. But not one that affects the outcome
No way. If you take a bad report and summarise it, you are going to have a bad summary. By 'bad' I mean woeful, which is what the report and the summary are. The details in the 2 previous answers are crucial and something that you need to address. Also you need to stop confusing what NIST say about simulations compared to what conclusions they assert about the building. 2 different things.

Where do you think they got the information that the girder walked off its seat?
I think they looked at the first observable drop in the building at the east penthouse and had no choice but to suppose an initiating event at column 79. They worked backwards, and they thought backwards. Where do you think they got the idea from?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
You see this computer model:


This does not have the 79-44 girder falling as the event which led to the floor system collapse. It has multiple girders and beams failing simultaneously.

Mick, that model is the most inaccurate dogs dinner of a mess that I have ever clapped eyes on. One of the guys i know has studied these deeply and probably more intensely than anyone i know. I suggest you slow it down and do a frame by frame analysis and tell me what you see happening then we can compare that to NISTs analysis. Personally, I would rather watch bugs bunny, it is more educational, and believable. Honestly, if I were a debunker (can't believe i just said that) I would pretend that these models never existed and never refer to them. As i said, even NIST admitted that the column connections did not get accurately modeled so why would you consider them to be relevant to this debate?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, that model is the most inaccurate dogs dinner of a mess that I have ever clapped eyes on. One of the guys i know has studied these deeply and probably more intensely than anyone i know. I suggest you slow it down and do a frame by frame analysis and tell me what you see happening then we can compare that to NISTs analysis. Personally, I would rather watch bugs bunny, it is more educational, and believable. Honestly, if I were a debunker (can't believe i just said that) I would pretend that these models never existed and never refer to them. As i said, even NIST admitted that the column connections did not get accurately modeled so why would you consider them to be relevant to this debate?

Because when people discuss the NIST investigation, this model is generally taken to be the end result of the NIST investigation. It's used as the source of the diagrams of the initial local collapse in the NIST report.




So we've got this inconsistency in the report (by which I retract my previous claim that the NIST report is internally consistent). Their summaries suggest that the unseating of G79-44 on Floor 13 led to the collapse of the floor system. But none of their actual analysis shows that.
 
Last edited:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Because when people discuss the NIST investigation, this model is generally taken to be the end result of the NIST investigation. It's used as the source of the diagrams of the initial local collapse in the NIST report.

So we've got this inconsistency in the report (by which I retract my previous claim that the NIST report is internally consistent). Their summaries suggest that the unseating of G79-44 on Floor 13 led to the collapse of the floor system. But none of their actual analysis shows that.

This gets to the heart of the problem really. NIST claim everything and admit nothing. Their simulations do not fit the drawings, the drawings do not fit their illustrations, none of the hypothesis that they suppose happened are supported by any of it. This is why it is a fact that there are "critical errors and omissions in the WTC7 report" Examples of them would be omissions of stiffener plates and errors in walk off distances and beam expansion. These 2 examples are critical because if they were accounted for in the report, the conclusion that floor beams to the east expanded, causing the girder at C79-44 to be pushed off it's seat would be impossible. The title of this thread is a valid and correct statement.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
So we've got this inconsistency in the report (by which I retract my previous claim that the NIST report is internally consistent). Their summaries suggest that the unseating of G79-44 on Floor 13 led to the collapse of the floor system. But none of their actual analysis shows that.
I never thought it consistent either, but still true in general.

NIST claim everything and admit nothing.
Untrue. They frequently complain of the impossibility of their report being entirely accurate.

none of the hypothesis that they suppose happened are supported by any of it.
Untrue. They said the building got hot and expanded in various ways. That's one of several reasonable hypotheses that they make.

This is why it is a fact that there are "critical errors and omissions in the WTC7 report"
Untrue.

As Mick and others have already indicated, there is no-one on Earth that can provide an EXACT reconstruction of the event, in the same way that a billiards break cannot be fully analyzed. Anyone, (in this case you) can always point out inconsistencies in their analysis in their report, as could also be done in the analysis of the break. But that doesn't make those errors critical.

But, at the end of the day, NIST were still correct when they stated that actions of the fire very close to that spot caused column 79 to collapse. (The player still made the break by using his cue.)

You are inferring entirely different things when you wrongly claim their error to be "critical", as you well know. (We know the player made the break. He was the only person in the room.)

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Jazzy, you need to counter the evidence and data that you have been given with evidence and data, not rhetoric.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
But the claim that it is a critical error *is* rhetoric, so it's appropriate to address that part in kind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Top