Assuming you are correct, that A2001 had to fail in order for Building 7 to collapse, you have limited the possible failure to "walk-off" at column 79, and "extreme sagging", both of which you claim "impossible". Your premise is invalid due to limited choices. There is another end to A2001, the perimeter wall connection, which could have failed.
NIST does, in effect, say that with this quote. And they offer no other possibility.
Without the failure of A2001 on the 13th floor, column 79 would still have support in the east-west direction and it would not have buckled. The walk-off of A2001 is the crux of the NIST hypothesis. If it doesn't happen, the rest of the collapse doesn't happen. It doesn't happen in the video because it is impossible for thermal expansion to push the A2001 girder off of its seat. The video shows that it doesn't which disproves the NIST hypothesis. What it does show is a fraudulent depiction of A2001 sagging far more than it would at 400 °C. (or even 600 °C )
For the NIST hypothesis to be correct, A2001 had to be pushed off of its seat at column 79. If that doesn't happen, the NIST hypothesis is invalid.
And yet the star of the show here is a simulation from NIST in which A2001 is NOT pushed from its seat, and yet the building still collapses.
"The star of the show" refutes the NIST hypothesis. Therefore, the NIST hypothesis is not valid.
I think you miss the point.
No, the point I am making is:
Considering how focused you are on this one detail of a "probable collapse sequence", I can totally believe you believe AE911 is justified focusing on A2001.
I don't believe that any of this happened so there is no justification for any of it. But justified or not, NIST did focus on A2001 to get their hypothesis to work. In the NIST hypothesis, the walk-off of A2001 is the trigger that started the total collapse. Without that triggering event, their collapse never starts. So it is definitely a 'key' factor in the NIST collapse scenario.
so your answer to my question
is no. ?
You keep going round and round in circles. Yes, we can safely say that if A2001 did not walk off, then any hypothesis that relies upon that walk-off is false.
Correct. If A2001 did not walk off, then the NIST hypothesis, which relies upon that walk-off, is false. You cannot claim that the NIST hypothesis is anything other than what they said it is.
NIST did not put the simulation in their final report, they released it at the same time they stated in their final report that the collapse was triggered by the walk-off of A2001.
That is not a puzzle. They stated clearly and unequivocally that the walk-off of A2001 was the trigger that started the collapse. And they went into great detail as to how the floor beams pushed the A2001 girder off of its seat.
Either the NIST narrative invalidates the simulation or the simulation invalidates the NIST walk-off hypothesis.
Hogwash! There was no other simulation. You are making stuff up to justify your denial that the NIST hypothesis is based on the A2001 girder walk-off.
AE911Truth has presented conclusive proof of controlled demolition. i.e. none of this happened.
It is what the NIST final report says. The video is not the NIST report. It accompanies the NIST report, The report is the 1000+ page written document.
Yes, the simulation shows the A2001 girder failing because it is sagging far more than it possibly could, That is fraudulent.
And therein lies the rub. Both cannot be true. Therefore, one is false. Take your pick but you can't have it both ways.
Of course. Everyone, including NIST, has it wrong, but you have it right.
No, it's in there. There are renderings taken from the non-walk-off simulation.
How did they figure it out without doing a new simulation?
You ignored my question about the other end of A2001; the perimeter wall connection. "Walk-off" at column 79 isn't the only possible scenario for A2001 to fail.
Specifically, figure 2-2
You are right. My bad.
watch yourself. this is paraphrasing. Mick said no such thing.
this response proves you are not taking time to thoughtfully READ what you are responding to. Your answer does not answer WHY (they did this).
This again is paraphrasing. Mick has never denied NISTS "probable cause of collapse" includes the walk off.
you said this responding to..
i'm putting this quote in its own comment box, so it is highlighted. because... wow.
This is a false dichotomy. I think the more likely explanation is what we discussed two years ago. They had two different sets of damage results that were both attributed to 4.0 hours of Case B temperatures. One of which is shown in the draft report (no walk-off) and one of which is shown in the final report (walk-off). The images were manually edited to include this data. Of course, they could not manually edit the multiple simulation videos.
my guess is they just didn't want to tweak it and run it again, because didn't it take like 8 months to render the one simulation we see? and does it really matter if the support was lost due to a walk off or just the beam sag?
I think they had a much more comprehensive set of runs from the initial simulation and had already written up the report based largely on that. But then they discovered the walk-off in a more limited investigation, and for some reason decided to use that. Rember their brief was to find why the building collapsed so they could learn from it and make future buildings safer. They discovered the significant effects of thermal expansions, and how it could lead to progressive collapse. So they led with that, even though it meant putting out a somewhat messy mixed report.
I see what you are saying and you are correct. My apologies.
that's what I said
or what I meant anyway.
I was responding to MIck's saying "Why they did this is a puzzle". I did answer 'why' they did this. It is perfectly clear why they 'did this'. It's their scenario.
That is what this thread is all about. Mick is saying that in their final analysis (the video simulation) the NIST hypothesis is one where the girder does not walk-off. He thought it was a puzzle why they "gave a narrative in which A2001 DID walk off" and said that statement was likely based on a different simulation that for some reason they did not have visualizations of.
That's a lot of supposition. But in the end, it's just a sugar coated way of saying that NIST lied about walk-off being the trigger that started the collapse.
Why they did what? "It's their scenario."
How do you figure? I mean what's the actual logic steps that lead to this conclusion?
Which means the NIST triggered-by-walk-off hypothesis would be wrong - but collapse ensues regardless
Right - and collapse ensues
But collapse still ensued, with fire as root cause being the obvious null hypothesis
Hulsey's depictions show things that are physically impossible.
Sometimes? That's the only scenario they talk about. It doesn't show that in the simulation because it's impossible as I just pointed out in a post that you deleted because of speculation. I posted the 3 reasons why walk-off is impossible in post #102 which was not deleted. They are established facts, not speculation.
But they sometimes don't talk about it. For example in the Final Report (1A) right at the start, in the Executive Summary, they say:
I have given the logical steps that prove NIST is lying about the walk-off of A2001.
even if?
if you think you've proven something with #1, why do you need to keep adding 2 and 3? it makes you sound like you aren't sure about #1.
ETA: If the girder to the east of column 79 was expanding, the slab would be expanding with it. And together they would push everything to the east. So there would be no net increase of the displacement of the A2001 girder.
Please show where in Hulsey’s analysis he conclusively proved that the concrete deck and floor elements always move together in every direction uniformly, regardless of differences in local heating, and that differential heating of local systems would not, in fact, distort those systems differently as the NIST report clearly demonstrated in its simulation that actually properly heated localities differently, as was the case in the real life. I think you are making a wild claim that you cannot support. Hulsey doesn’t even try to prove such a ridiculous assertion.
Please cite exactly where Hulsey or anyone else has shown that composite floor systems all move uniformly when subjected to differentiated heating patterns (as in the NIST model and reality) or even when subjected to an unrealistic, oven-like uniform heating pattern (as in Hulsey’s model). (Also, if that were the case, ponder how it could be consistent with Hulsey finding that A2001 could be moved relative to column 79 at all.)
