NIST's Response to AE911Truth's WTC7 Girder Objection

[deirdre]

That is not the point of this thread, which is NIST's airy dismissal, and whether the rigorous debunkers here find that worthy of an investigation into events of such magnitude.

i think you've got your answer. the 4 3 rigorous debunkers i see responding in this thread (assuming you mean debunkers who have looked deeply into that specific 9/11 issue on MB ie the side plate), don't seem to find that worthy of a new investigation.

 

[deirdre]

into events of such magnitude.

and just for the record. a crappy old [very uniquely designed] building (WTC7) collapsing with no life loss is not an event of any magnitude.

 

[Sauron]

That's pretty flawed reasoning. If tower 7 was exploded, it would cast doubt on all events that day.

 

[Oystein]

...NIST have made a, possibly minor, blunder which could be revised. They don't want to...

How?
What course of action to "revise" this alleged "blunder" would satisfy you, or would satisfy AE?
I am fairly sure that the NIST report, 12 years later and excellent hindsight, contains dozens more minor blunders. Perhaps they got the fuel load wrong on some part of some floor, and that would carry over to the heat maps, and that would carry over to the ANSYS result, and... I see two possible courses of action - one realistic, one unrealistic:

• Re-run all the models and see what happens
• Apply engineering judgement to "guess" how correcting the "blunder" might change the outcome.

Which is realistic, and which would satisfy a would-be critic?

 

[Oystein]

I have a question to those who have succeeded at understanding the details of the connection in question here and its performance (which, frankly, I have not):

That side plate, which AE alleges to have been omitted by NIST and which would have prevented the walk-off - would that have been in place with the specific purpose of preventing such a walk-off, or would it rather have been in the way by coincidence or luck?

 

[Mick West]

That side plate, which AE alleges to have been omitted by NIST and which would have prevented the walk-off - would that have been in place with the specific purpose of preventing such a walk-off, or would it rather have been in the way by coincidence or luck?

There's a lot of discussion of the side plate issue here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/co...ve-got-past-the-side-plate-on-column-79.9069/

But the short answer, as I understand it, is no. The side plate is just part of the column. Walk-off from thermal expansion isn't something that seems to have been thought about before. So the side plate possibly stopping it was just a coincidence.

The side plates are the tall rectangles to the left and right in this cross-section view.

 

[Oystein]

...the short answer, as I understand it, is no. The side plate is just part of the column. Walk-off from thermal expansion isn't something that seems to have been thought about before. So the side plate possibly stopping it was just a coincidence.
...

Thanks. That's what I thought, but I wanted to be surer before saying this:

The objective of the NIST report was not to figure out whether or not fires were the cause of collapse - this much was actually rather obvious and generally undisputed. They did a short (though sophisticated) analysis as to whether explosive charges could have played a role, and ruled that out on the basis of lack of explosion sounds consistent with even the minimum charge size necessary to cut a core column - so that took care of any "explosives" scenario.

Instead, the objective was to learn how fires make such a building collapse.

As Shyam Sunder explained in that press conference that Truthers infamously love to quote and misconstrue, they identified beam expansion as a factor that was hitherto not known to have been the cause of any such collapse. So there, NIST found a mechanism by which fire can cause collapse initiation in a structure like that: Girder-walk-off due to expanding contributory side beams.
If, by some circumstance of good luck, some element of the structure happens to be in the way and prevents such a walk-off, that does not invalidate the finding that this is a possibility in buildings like that. We have learned something: Designers must learn consider the performance of structures like that. The next building like that might not be so "lucky".
(And the same lesson actually applies to the case of cooling, previously sagged beams pulling the girder off during the cool-down: Designers must consider the system performance in dynamic fires, and not merely conform to fire codes element by element).

Getting the simulation of the side plate correct to arbitrary precision does not add anything of value to that lesson.

 

[Mendel]

That's pretty flawed reasoning. If tower 7 was exploded, it would cast doubt on all events that day.

NIST getting a detail of their report wrong (if they did) is not evidence for WTC7 being exploded.
The evidence for WTC7 being demolished is much worse than that for it being damaged by fire and getting evacuated to destroy itself. The complaint wouldn't change that even if it is justified.

 

[deirdre]

That's pretty flawed reasoning. If tower 7 was exploded, it would cast doubt on all events that day.

sorry i didnt see your response earlier.

I disagree. terrorists set bombs in NYC all the time. it's what they typically do. The general public would find nothing odd about terrorists having planted bombs prior in wtc7 AND then flew planes into the twins. The general public would also find it "normal" if terrorists had planted bombs in the basement levels of the twins (as they have on other occasions) AND flew planes into the buildings. There really would be no reason for the government to try to cover that up. No matter who planted them. We would all blame the terrorists. That's always been my opinion on this whole cd theory.

But i appreciate your honesty regarding motivation.

 

[Sauron]

sorry i didnt see your response earlier.

I disagree. terrorists set bombs in NYC all the time. it's what they typically do. The general public would find nothing odd about terrorists having planted bombs prior in wtc7 AND then flew planes into the twins. The general public would also find it "normal" if terrorists had planted bombs in the basement levels of the twins (as they have on other occasions) AND flew planes into the buildings. There really would be no reason for the government to try to cover that up. No matter who planted them. We would all blame the terrorists. That's always been my opinion on this whole cd theory.

But i appreciate your honesty regarding motivation.

That's an interesting point of view that I haven't heard before. I don't agree though, because it would be too much of a coincidence that the one other building destroyed would also have been the one ablaze. Terriorists would have no reason to cover up their CD with an earlier fire.

To be clear, it is not my motivation. I think it extremely unlikely 911 involved CD.

Thanks. That's what I thought, but I wanted to be surer before saying this:

The objective of the NIST report was not to figure out whether or not fires were the cause of collapse - this much was actually rather obvious and generally undisputed. They did a short (though sophisticated) analysis as to whether explosive charges could have played a role, and ruled that out on the basis of lack of explosion sounds consistent with even the minimum charge size necessary to cut a core column - so that took care of any "explosives" scenario.

Instead, the objective was to learn how fires make such a building collapse.

As Shyam Sunder explained in that press conference that Truthers infamously love to quote and misconstrue, they identified beam expansion as a factor that was hitherto not known to have been the cause of any such collapse. So there, NIST found a mechanism by which fire can cause collapse initiation in a structure like that: Girder-walk-off due to expanding contributory side beams.
If, by some circumstance of good luck, some element of the structure happens to be in the way and prevents such a walk-off, that does not invalidate the finding that this is a possibility in buildings like that. We have learned something: Designers must learn consider the performance of structures like that. The next building like that might not be so "lucky".
(And the same lesson actually applies to the case of cooling, previously sagged beams pulling the girder off during the cool-down: Designers must consider the system performance in dynamic fires, and not merely conform to fire codes element by element).

Getting the simulation of the side plate correct to arbitrary precision does not add anything of value to that lesson.

That does explain a fair bit; if NIST assumed fire was the cause from the start, then it is true it doesn't really matter how it happened. There is no point trying to prove what they regard as an axiom. I think you can see though that wouldn't satisfy a lot of people. They would want a probable collaspe sequence which is at least possible, which is what is in dispute here.

 

[deirdre]

I don't agree though, because it would be too much of a coincidence that the one other building destroyed would also have been the one ablaze.

it wasn't the only building ablaze. but yea i forgot to mention, as far as the building not collapsing for 5-6 hours... i also dont think anyone would be suspicious if the government said, we took down the building with a controlled demolition because we were worried about the safety of it's structure ie. it seemed to be teetering.

 

[deirdre]

I think you can see though that wouldn't satisfy a lot of people.

It did satisfy a lot of people.

what percentage of people in America or worldwide do you think are questioning WTC7?

 

[Sauron]

It did satisfy a lot of people.

what percentage of people in America or worldwide do you think are questioning WTC7?

I am sure the vast majority haven't even thought about it. Public apathy is a great weapon for any would-be conspirator.

 

[Oystein]

...
That does explain a fair bit; if NIST assumed fire was the cause from the start, then it is true it doesn't really matter how it happened. There is no point trying to prove what they regard as an axiom. I think you can see though that wouldn't satisfy a lot of people. They would want a probable collaspe sequence which is at least possible, which is what is in dispute here.

See, that's why I asked you earlier:

"How [could NIST revise their alleged blunder]?
What course of action to "revise" this alleged "blunder" would satisfy you, or would satisfy AE?
I am fairly sure that the NIST report, 12 years later and excellent hindsight, contains dozens more minor blunders. Perhaps they got the fuel load wrong on some part of some floor, and that would carry over to the heat maps, and that would carry over to the ANSYS result, and... I see two possible courses of action - one realistic, one unrealistic:

• Re-run all the models and see what happens
• Apply engineering judgement to "guess" how correcting the "blunder" might change the outcome.

Which is realistic, and which would satisfy a would-be critic?

 

[AmberRobot]

it wasn't the only building ablaze. but yea i forgot to mention, as far as the building not collapsing for 5-6 hours... i also dont think anyone would be suspicious if the government said, we took down the building with a controlled demolition because we were worried about the safety of it's structure ie. it seemed to be teetering.

Actually I'd be very suspicious if the government said that they were able to set up controlled demolition explosives inside a building while it was actively on fire in the middle of a national emergency.

 

[deirdre]

Actually I'd be very suspicious if the government said that they were able to set up controlled demolition explosives inside a building while it was actively on fire in the middle of a national emergency.

it's not like the whole building was on fire. and there were fuel tanks all over the place. there was no indication from seismic readings or witnesses of an explosion, i'm just saying if there was... i think the general public would believe them because it was a building of absolutely no importance. ie. there is zero reason the gov would need to also take down wtc7 as part of their "terrorist" conspiracy plot.

 

[AmberRobot]

it's not like the whole building was on fire. and there were fuel tanks all over the place. there was no indication from seismic readings or witnesses of an explosion, i'm just saying if there was... i think the general public would believe them because it was a building of absolutely no importance. ie. there is zero reason the gov would need to also take down wtc7 as part of their "terrorist" conspiracy plot.

But your scenario still expects me to believe that a group of demolitionists would be allowed to go into a burning building and establish a controlled demolition spread of explosives. And this happens within hours of the two twin towers collapsing and many people dying. How long does it even take to properly wire up a building? This scenario seems extremely far fetched too me.

 

[econ41]

Actually I'd be very suspicious if the government said that they were able to set up controlled demolition explosives inside a building while it was actively on fire in the middle of a national emergency.

Fully agreed. And I didn't miss the irony -- that is exactly what many truthers claim...

 

[deirdre]

and establish a controlled demolition spread of explosives.

oh im just picturing one or two sticks of dynamite thrown in.

 

[AmberRobot]

oh im just picturing one or two sticks of dynamite thrown in.

That wasn't the scenario you postulated. You said: "...took down the building with a controlled demolition..."

 

[Sauron]

See, that's why I asked you earlier:

"How [could NIST revise their alleged blunder]?
What course of action to "revise" this alleged "blunder" would satisfy you, or would satisfy AE?
I am fairly sure that the NIST report, 12 years later and excellent hindsight, contains dozens more minor blunders. Perhaps they got the fuel load wrong on some part of some floor, and that would carry over to the heat maps, and that would carry over to the ANSYS result, and... I see two possible courses of action - one realistic, one unrealistic:

• Re-run all the models and see what happens
• Apply engineering judgement to "guess" how correcting the "blunder" might change the outcome.

Which is realistic, and which would satisfy a would-be critic?

I don't think anything would satisy AE. Just that their recent request deserved a more indepth and pertinent answer. I think it would be best for NIST to come clean with the limitations and let others decide what is required.

 

[deirdre]

That wasn't the scenario you postulated. You said: "...took down the building with a controlled demolition..."

oh i see. sorry, i didnt know how else to describe it. i meant they would control when the building would fall by putting some dynamite in the building to help it along.

 

[Gamolon]

I'll try again. Why does it matter how AE911 think the buildings collapsed? A motive has no bearing on the validity of an argument.

I guess you've realised it doesn't and that's why you're switching.

I'm not sure what you're getting at on this point. If I hypothesized CD and you asked me to explain a specific, I do not think you would be satisfied if I said 'don't worry, I've modelled all of that'.

Mick has implied Tony has a fair point, and NIST could have done a better job; just that he doesn't think it's crucial in the overall hypothesis. NIST have made a, possibly minor, blunder which could be revised. They don't want to, and AE are an easy group to dismiss.

Motive does NOT have bearing on the validity of an argument itself, but it does have some bearing on someone determining whether or not resources are going to be spent on figuring out if said argument is actually right or wrong. That being said, why would anyone waste resources addressing one argument/point in an entire analysis when it won't change the outcome one bit? The buildings still collapsed due to fire and/or plane impacts and there still is not one shred of physical evidence of controlled demolition.

You've helped make my point with your last sentence.

AE911 IS easy to dismiss because of what they represent and what their motive is. As I've said before, AE911 is not interested in correcting NIST's work for the benefit of engineering, they want to prove one aspect of NIST's work wrong so they can continue sucking money out of gullible supporters and pushing their controlled demolition envelope.

 

[Gamolon]

If I hypothesized CD and you asked me to explain a specific, I do not think you would be satisfied if I said 'don't worry, I've modelled all of that'.

Is NIST hypothesizing that fire WAS THE CAUSE of WTC7 collapsing or are they hypothesizing HOW fire caused the collapse. There's a big difference.

Also, your statement above does not compare with what brought up in the OP. First, AE911 did not ask NIST to explain a specific. They made a very clear claim that NIST ignored the side plates based on their own analysis. Second, NIST did not simply say they modeled it. They cited specific diagrams that show the detail of the connection used to create their model. The side plates are shown in those diagrams.

Again, what additional information do you need to show that they did NOT ignore the side plates as claimed by AE911?

 

[Oystein]

I don't think anything would satisy AE. Just that their recent request deserved a more indepth and pertinent answer. I think it would be best for NIST to come clean with the limitations and let others decide what is required.

What would satisfy you? How much "more in-depth" is sufficiently in-depth for you?
Which others should decide, on what criteria, what is required?

 

[Sauron]

What would satisfy you? How much "more in-depth" is sufficiently in-depth for you?
Which others should decide, on what criteria, what is required?

Oystein, I'm a layman. I don't think about this too often, and I'm satisfied 911 wasn't an inside job. 20 years of Islamic terror has convinced me of that. The point of this thread (as I attempted) was to get the folks here to imagine if they had been given NIST's generic type answer to a question they had of e.g. Hulsey's model. I don't think they would be. I can sympathise with those not satisfied with the NIST's report because of things like this. They did not publish their inputs for example. Whether I am satisfied is irrelevant.

 

[Gamolon]

Whether I am satisfied is irrelevant.

You say the above, yet you posted these statements previously.

Whatever you think of the relative merits of the girder issue raised, this smacks of arrogance & intellectual laziness. Essentially saying that they don't think they made any errors & therefore don't see a reason to debunk them. That's a pretty shameful attitude to an obviously reasoned argument made in good faith.

Again the central point is not the validity of the argument, it is the rude and pointless response of NIST. Rude because someone could have spent a lot of time on that. Pointless because it explains precisely nothing. What does it tell me about what NIST thinks happened to the Girder, or why they think it unimportant?

Your opinion was that you thought their response was rude, pointless, and had a shameless attitude. In the second quote above you even said that it tells YOU nothing about what NIST thinks. Now you want to say that you explaining what would satisfy YOU is irrelevant?

 

[Gamolon]

I don't think anything would satisy AE. Just that their recent request deserved a more indepth and pertinent answer.

Why does AE911 deserve a more in depth and pertinent answer when we all know it won't satisfy them one bit?

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, I'm a layman. ...

Fair enough.

Surely your standards should match your level of expertise.
But no matter what level of expertise you bring, at least standards should be applied consistently: Apply the same standard to AE that you would apply to NIST; and demand that AE apply the same standards that they themselves apply to their own work (e.g. the Hulsey report).

As much as I'd luv for NIST to deliver the full smack-down upon AE by analyzing their complaint to utter destruction (little doubt that the assembled professional aptitude at NIST easily suffices to majorly own any set of AE representatives on anything any day), I find it wise that they limit themselves to the answer they provided.

 

[econ41]

I find it wise that they limit themselves to the answer they provided.

I agree. As you know I have been in positions where I needed to make decisions at a similar level in face of aggressive confrontation from action groups.

The scope of discussions has included whether or not NIST should explain the limitations. I think NIST had three alternates - the choice they made or TWO options of explaining the "limitations".

Those limitations fall into two arenas:
The first - Technical Limitations where one key aspect is that NIST was chartered and undertook to present a plausible explanation. Not THE guaranteed sole possibility of explanation. I don't want to comment further or re-open debate of these technical limitains - those aspects have been discussed already.

I don't think the second limitation has been discussed so far. It is the procedural limitations inherent in the process path NIST adopted. NIST put the report "out in draft form for public comment". The process carries with it implications of timeliness and of closure of debate. Contrast with peer review which is a preliminary step that (should) ensure that the paper meets minimal standrs as "good enough for formal discussion". "Out for public comment" is often used for official statutory reports because it gives anyone interested an opportunity to "have their say". THEN debate is closed and the final report endorsed by Governemnt.

On this topic it can be argued that AE911 already had their concerns addressed. D Chandler raised questions about Free Fall and NIST responded by incorporating changes into the final report.

I dont think explaining EITHER of those areas of limitation would have been prodiuctive - both would have given AE911 opportunity for further nit picking.

I would have taken a similar path to the one NIST chose.

 

[Mendel]

The point of this thread (as I attempted) was to get the folks here to imagine if they had been given NIST's generic type answer to a question they had of e.g. Hulsey's model. I don't think they would be. I can sympathise with those not satisfied with the NIST's report because of things like this. They did not publish their inputs for example. Whether I am satisfied is irrelevant.

The point isn't to be satisfied. You can question Hulsey all you want, he's not suddenly going to be able to do a signifantly better job than he did -- and neither is NIST (and the 15 intervening years didn't help). What you can do is make each other aware what you criticise, and then act accordingly.
Hulsey knows that people don't like how he modeled the extent of the fires (which invalidates the whole result), NIST knows AE9/11 thinks teh side plate was badly modeled.

As a thoughtful observer, how do these criticisms change your opinion of the respective studies and of their overall quality?

 

[Money4Nothing]

I've worked with a lot of high profile Engineers over the years and they don't love to spend their time attempting to mollify their detractors. Unless AE911 have legit concerns made in good faith, they are not compelled to entertain them. They are not a client, consultant, or end-user. I have faith the modeling was done properly.

To concur, I'm an experienced electrical engineer and I promise you that I also don't entertain people who attempt to start a dialog with me about how 5G causes physical damage or gauss meters can detect ghosts.

 

[millman84]

To concur, I'm an experienced electrical engineer and I promise you that I also don't entertain people who attempt to start a dialog with me about how 5G causes physical damage or gauss meters can detect ghosts.

Seconded. I'm an experienced fire protection engineer. It's not uncommon at all for my work to be QA/QC'd by other parties that work for different engineering firms. Sometimes those parties are less experienced or knowledgeable than I am. When they raise a question or concern, it is not at all unusual for me to dismiss that completely out of hand with a simple "Yes" or "No" (when appropriate). Time = money, and any time spent debating points that don't deserve debate is the same as money lost.

When the question is worded more strongly and/or accompanied by references to building codes or standards, or performance analysis, I'm not going to simply say "yes" or "No". Instead, I'm going to respond with an equally well written response accompanied by my own references to back it up. This is exactly what you're seeing in the NIST response. They didn't just say "No", they said "No, and this is why..." using their own references to their (much more well thought out and demonstrated) analysis to justify that "No".

... it would be too much of a coincidence that the one other building destroyed would also have been the one ablaze ...

You are showing your lack of knowledge about the event as a whole, in addition to your lack of engineering knowledge. 3WTC, 4WTC, 5WTC, and 6WTC were all also destroyed (in part, or in whole) on that day. The entire complex was basically a total loss, with only small portions of 4, 5, and 6 left standing.

Sorry for the late reply to this thread. I have recently been made aware of the Hulsey report and have been spending the last few days reading through the various threads on this board related to it.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Hulsey tried to show that fire does not / cannot destroy steel framed buildings in the absence of working sprinklers and fire fighting... This is exactly what has protected steel frames building for decades and is "settled engineering".

All the collapses were runaway progressive structural failures caused by fires.