Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered

Status
Not open for further replies.

qed

Senior Member
@Jazzy and @Representative Press Please can we stay focused on the following summary of the topic established on page one!

So basically, you're claiming in your videos that the way column 79's girder was set up means that thermal expansion could not have happened to a degree necessary for displacing it. You say that this is because of structural components that NIST overlooked including platforms that added to the distance necessary for the girder to "walk" off of its platform as well as other pieces that added rigidity to the girder and that the thermal expansion calculations included an incorrect change in temperature value and failed to account for the aforementioned structural components. Furthermore, you say that the girder would not have been able to walk the distance needed to fall off of its platform under any circumstances since the temperature needed for such expansion would have caused the steel to sag before anything else.
@Jazzy Can you refine your list so that it pertains only to the aforementioned claim.

This thread has gathered a huge number of views in a short time, so let's try not embarrass ourselves in front of the world.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
@Jazzy and @Representative Press Please can we stay focused on the following summary of the topic established on page one!



@Jazzy Can you refine your list so that it pertains only to the aforementioned claim.

This thread has gathered a huge number of views in a short time, so let's try not embarrass ourselves in front of the world.
Page 1 maybe, probably not 7. @Mick West what is the view count for page 6 and 7?
 
@Jazzy and @Representative Press Please can we stay focused on the following summary of the topic established on page one!.
We have already been through this. That summary starts exactly like this word for word:
"We produced four short videos at a technical level that would be understandable by most people. If our findings are accurate, they are strong evidence that a new independent investigation is required to determine why WTC7 fell so rapidly and symmetrically."

And that bunkum has already been debunked. WTC 7 did not fall "so rapidly" and did not fall "symmetrically."
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/significance-of-wtc7.2489/#post-68977

OK? Those are the very first two claims which gerrycan makes, claims he insists requires investigation. gerrycan started this thread declaring "a new independent investigation is required to determine" why those things happened BUT they didn't happen, they have been debunked.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/

This video @ 1m56s shows it did not fall "so symmetrically."
The video continues with Chris Mohr explaining it was not a symmetrical collapse.

I already showed that the collapse was not "so rapid." The only reason you think so is because you omit the start of it so you think it happened faster than it did (About 6.9 s BEFORE the initial downward motion of the north face roofline at the eastern section of the building the START of the descent of east penthouse occurred.):
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cr...-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-6#post-69120

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cr...-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-6#post-69143

I took things in order and started with the very first two claims of supposed facts made in this thread and I debunked them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Page 1 maybe, probably not 7. @Mick West what is the view count for page 6 and 7?
The thread is not especially popular, except with those participating in it. Less than 165 people have looked at it. The current number of views 3,879 includes multiple individual views and posts by participants.

In the last 30 days:
Page 1 has had 165 unique visitors, out of 118,102 unique visitors for the site as a whole, 26,274 of which were for the #1 post on "Fema Coffins"
Page 6 has 119 unique visitors, Page 7 has 36. Mostly these are existing users, and not search traffic or casual browsers.

So unless we manage to convince Gerry of something, then it's not really a very useful thread.
 
"We produced four short videos at a technical level"

The very first video in that playlist, the very start of it , the very second it starts it shows a video of WTC 7 AFTER the collapse has already started! Now compare that to the video of the collapse which is shown in the video linked in my pervious comment:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-7#post-69155
If you look at that video @ 2min 20s (looks like even that video omits a few seconds of the start), you can see part of the time EDITED OUT of your "technical level" video. Do you understand that basic point? The very second the first video starts in that video playlist, it is deceptive because the start of the collapse has been omitted. How much clearer do I have to make it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

qed

Senior Member
@Representative Press Why not stick to this topic?

So basically, you're claiming in your videos that the way column 79's girder was set up means that thermal expansion could not have happened to a degree necessary for displacing it. You say that this is because of structural components that NIST overlooked including platforms that added to the distance necessary for the girder to "walk" off of its platform as well as other pieces that added rigidity to the girder and that the thermal expansion calculations included an incorrect change in temperature value and failed to account for the aforementioned structural components. Furthermore, you say that the girder would not have been able to walk the distance needed to fall off of its platform under any circumstances since the temperature needed for such expansion would have caused the steel to sag before anything else. Just so that everybody who is not able to watch the videos is all on the same page with you, is this a good summary of what you are claiming?
This is new on this forum. I am not sure that Gerry has established it, Mike is giving him a good run for his money.

But what you are discussing has been dealt with repetitively in other threads and is just clogging up the debate. I have to turn you and @Jazzy off just to read it!
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
The title you chose for the thread: "Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered" is false on all counts.
There are no stiffener plates in NISTs analysis, and also none on your diagram, thanks for making my point jazzy. This is exactly the kind of critical error by NIST that i am talking about, and exactly the kind of error that makes your assertion false on all counts.
 
@Representative Press Why not stick to this topic?
How much credibility does gerrycan have when the very first tow points of "fact" which he says "a new independent investigation is required to determine" why they happened are not facts at all?

I don't think we are required to pretend that the assumptions are accurate. And if he can't ven get that right, what exactly do we need this "new investigation" for?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
NIST's justification is in a way far simpler (though far more complex to actually perform, and far more authoritative): they modeled the entire collapse (which really just means, they did the calculations for what would happen to each piece of the building moment by moment throughout the event based on the laws of physics) and that's what the model shows happening.
They did no such thing. They say themselves in their report that they had trouble modelling the detail around the connections at column 78 and 81, and were unable to do so accurately. Please read the report if you are going to try and defend it. Are you talking about LSDYNA or ANSYS ?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
How much credibility does gerrycan have when the very first tow points of "fact" which he says "a new independent investigation is required to determine" why they happened are not facts at all?

I don't think we are required to pretend that the assumptions are accurate. And if he can't ven get that right, what exactly do we need this "new investigation" for?
Nice try rep, now try addressing the info in the videos, even Mick here reckons they have technical points that should be examined. No surprise that you are avoiding addressing them. This isn't the jref forum, you won't get away with the same nonsense here as you do there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Truthers have been omitting the penthouse collapse which occurs 1st but it is part of the collapse! The structure is connected so internal movement can pull the exterior."
The whole point of these videos is to address what happened before the east penthouse collapsed, what is it that you don't understand about that. You really need to look at the videos to take part in this thread.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Let's say the initiating event was a bit different to the beams simply pushing the column directly off it's seat in one dimension. Do you then claim that this lack of precision in the description renders everything else irrelevant and not worth discussing?
I think that if the initiating event is wrong in NISTs analysis then we have the wrong cause for the effect that is observed. We need to get the initiating event correct first. As for the freefall that you mentioned, do you not agree that the building experienced no resistance for 108ft ? Even NIST admit this.
 

qed

Senior Member
@gerrycan (ignoring RP and jazzy)

  1. Are you saying that the NIST report does a calculation of girder expansion at 600 degrees and come up with the number 5.5in and this is just the right number for 5.5+5.5=11, where 11in is the distance needed to walk off the platform?
  2. Are you also saying that that, because of a structural issue they overlooked, they should have used 12in for the distance needed to walk?
  3. Are you also saying NIST re-worked the original calculation of girder expansion to obtain 6in?
 
do you not agree that the building experienced no resistance for 108ft ? Even NIST admit this.
"the building" or a point on the exterior being measured? This has been explained to you over and over again that "the building" is connected to the internal structure and that it started to collapse FIRST. We can see that the penthouse collapses first (tell me, do ANY of the videos within that 4 part video playlist show the start? I just watched some of the 4th and it too is showing clips AFTER the penthouse has already collapsed!)

Please read: "The outer frame of wtc7 was attached to the inner structures which began falling first (as demonstrated by the initial motion of the penthouse). By the time the outer walls began falling, they were being accelerated not only by their own weight, but also by momentum transfer (via torque and tension through linkages) from internal structures that were already falling." How many times does that have to be explained?

So the "no resistance for 108ft " thing you keep harping on is because the collapse already started before you realize and the internal structures were pulling down on the exterior. Do you understand why measuring part of the exterior for part of the collapse would give a result that for some reason you are amazed by?
 

MichaelStox

Member
Rep it's very clear you have no idea what you're talking about and your insecurity leaks in your pathetic ad hominem resorts.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
rep, if I am so wrong then debate me live, there's a forum waiting for that right now. You can even put it up on your youtube channel for your followers to see.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think that if the initiating event is wrong in NISTs analysis then we have the wrong cause for the effect that is observed. We need to get the initiating event correct first. As for the freefall that you mentioned, do you not agree that the building experienced no resistance for 108ft ? Even NIST admit this.
Why do you need to get the initiating event right?

108 feet of very low resistance. Not distinguishable from free-fall in the videos. Because the columns had buckled over several floors.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Why do you need to get the initiating event right?

108 feet of very low resistance. Not distinguishable from free-fall in the videos. Because the columns had buckled over several floors.
NIST and presumably you allege that the columns had buckled over several floors because of the initiating event. That initiating event is false as per NISTs analysis, so we need to learn what caused the columns to buckle in the manner that you claim, and simultaneously.
 
rep, if I am so wrong then debate me live, there's a forum waiting for that right now. You can even put it up on your youtube channel for your followers to see.
what exactly do you think there is to debate? What is gained by doing it "live?" So you can ignore my points in real time? What is the point of that? The exterior was yanked down by the interior structures which had been collapsing first, what in the world is the mystery? You apparently still don't understand when the collapse started. Why are all the video clips in those 4 videos all omitting the start of the collapse?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
NIST and presumably you allege that the columns had buckled over several floors because of the initiating event. That initiating event is false as per NISTs analysis, so we need to learn what caused the columns to buckle in the manner that you claim, and simultaneously.
You are linking two separate things. The initiating event was just what eventually caused C79 to buckle by itself, and the penthouse to fall, and progressive collapse of the interior, and only THEN did the exterior columns buckle in rapid sucession.

You don't need the precise initiating event the explain why the exterior buckled. And number of different initiating events could have led to it. It's a strawman argument.
 

MichaelStox

Member
what exactly do you think there is to debate? What is gained by doing it "live?" So you can ignore my points in real time? What is the point of that? The exterior was yanked down by the interior structures which had been collapsing first, what in the world is the mystery? You apparently still don't understand when the collapse started. Why are all the video clips in those 4 videos all omitting the start of the collapse?
[...] No one is disputing that the penthouse collapsed first. [...]
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Is the walking of this girder off the platform not absolutely central to the NIST argument? I seem to remember this from other threads.
The identified it as a probable initiating event, not the only possible initiating event. The initiating event was likely something similar.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
You are linking two separate things. The initiating event was just what eventually caused C79 to buckle by itself, and the penthouse to fall, and progressive collapse of the interior, and only THEN did the exterior columns buckle in rapid sucession.

You don't need the precise initiating event the explain why the exterior buckled. And number of different initiating events could have led to it. It's a strawman argument.
The column only allegedly became unsupported laterally because of the initiating event. No initiating event no collapse. Every effect needs a cause.
 
Lol are you for real? Did you even WATCH THE VIDEOS? No one is disputing that the penthouse collapsed first. Quit your childish straw mans and ad hominems and address the real issues.
why do the videos omit it? And the very premise of asking why the exterior moved downward "at free fall" is based on ignoring the start of the collapse. If you take into account that the collapse was already underway and that the internal structures yanked down on the exterior, what in the world is the mystery? Why would there even be a mystery to begin with?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
what exactly do you think there is to debate? What is gained by doing it "live?" So you can ignore my points in real time? What is the point of that? The exterior was yanked down by the interior structures which had been collapsing first, what in the world is the mystery? You apparently still don't understand when the collapse started. Why are all the video clips in those 4 videos all omitting the start of the collapse?
ok, let's take this slowly. What do NIST claim initiated the collapse of WTC7 specifically?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The column only allegedly became unsupported laterally because of the initiating event. No initiating event no collapse. Every effect needs a cause.
Sure, but you don't stop everything else just because you can't find exactly what the initiating event was. It could be this, or something similar, or something else.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Sure, but you don't stop everything else just because you can't find exactly what the initiating event was. It could be this, or something similar, or something else.
It is crucial that we find out what exactly initiated the collapse of this building. Apart from anything else, not to do so could jeopardize public safety.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It is crucial that we find out what exactly initiated the collapse of this building. Apart from anything else, not to do so could jeopardize public safety.
It would certainly be helpful, and we've found lot of things that, even if they were not the event, have improved the understanding of safety. Thermal expansion and seated connections for one thing.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I suspect you have over-fixated on the single beam.

The whole floor was heated, presumably from beneath, and all the beams (and column 79) were expanding, and sagging, and at half their original strength.

Considering the whole floor as a plane surface....
Then why didn't their simulation account for the whole floor accurately?

It's a dynamic and three-dimensional problem poorly addressed by both you and NIST, but much more poorly by you, because they managed a realistic simulation.
Apparently by your own standards, it's unrealistic to fail to consider the whole floor.

And I believe it.
There is that.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
It would certainly be helpful, and we've found lot of things that, even if they were not the event, have improved the understanding of safety. Thermal expansion and seated connections for one thing.
It is not possible for the beams to have expanded much more than 4.67 inches though. And NIST said that when they got to 5.5 inches the girder failed. But then they found that was a 'typo' when challenged and changed it to 6.25 inches, which is impossible as they say that steel sags at over 600C. So what we have learnt here is that NIST are not very good at reading structural drawings, doing math, or citing correct initiating events., amongst other things.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
What specific page number of what report is this video referring to? Isn't that bare minimum of a "technical" video about what NIST supposedly says? Why aren't the sources cited?
The sources are the structural drawings for WTC7. Go to the first post in this thread and look at the 4 videos if you need a more in depth analysis of NISTs collapse initiation hypothesis. You need to watch the videos, and also have a clue about NISTs report as a whole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Top