20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later, page 29

reply to post by Joey Canoli

---

Thank you joey for the badge of honor with the term "truther." However I'm not so sure of the, I assume derogatory, term "conspiracy theory believer," as I actually agree with exponent that another complete theory should be offered. If a complete argument, with modeling, for a different theory were to emerge, I believe that argument should be torn up, too, to see if it's valid. That's what arguments are for... to be torn up... if they survive then I'll believe it.

But anyway back to the point. I may fail to understand what I read, but I believe you may be spending too much time on Wikipedia and not enough on the parts of the NIST report you missed. Your description of the theory of the "unbraced" columns is not completely correct. If I stay away from Wikipedia and peruse the NIST report I find this:

"As the interior columns failed, the exterior columns on the west face buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of FLOOR PULL-IN FORCES due to the downward movement of the building core. THE FLOOR CONNECTIONS TO THE COLUMNS HAD NOT FAILED IN THIS REGION because there were no fires observed on the west side on Floors 10 through 14 at anytime during the day, and the INTACT FLOORS WERE ABLE TO PULL THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS inward." - pg 586, NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2

Another thing I find interesting is they later claim these "braced" columns were the first to buckle, as opposed to the "unbraced" ones. That's odd seeing, as your saying it's a given that if a column is "unbraced" there's automatically no resistance. If that were true I believe they would have determined the buckling to have begun someplace else at one of these "unbraced" columns. So, if your theory is correct, you would then have to show how a "braced" and an "unbraced" column would both offer NO resistance.

But anyway that's all theory anyway. I actually agree with exponent that their model is not precise. I also agree with NIST on the same point when they say:

"once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a GREAT INCREASE IN THE UNCERTAINTY in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration and falling of the debris. The uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process, and the details of the progression of the horizontal failure and final global collapse were increasingly less precise." - pg 599 - 600, NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.

So, as I'm reviewing all this stuff, I think I'm coming to the conclusion that the answer cannot lie within NIST's "less precise" theories, but must be found elsewhere. Will a "less precise" theory be able to actually explain a well documented, highly precise, real world observed number of 32.2 ft/2^2 which shows there was NO resistance on at least 14 theoretical "braced" columns and 43 theoretical "unbraced" columns?

Barry Jennings was trapped in WTC7 for several hours by an explosion BEFORE the towers came down. BBC and NIST twisted his timeline to make it seem like the explosion was the north tower coming down. which doesn't make sense - did he wait on the 23rd floor for an hour?

Barry died on August 19th 2008 at age 53 - there's been no official cause of death. Michael Hess, who was with him at the time, was interviewed by the BBC in september of 2008 and agreed with the official timeline
Hess is still alive

www.historycommons.org...

www.historycommons.org...

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by exponent

---

I can sum up the heart of our disagreement/misunderstanding without having to go through all of the point-by-point stuff.

What I want NIST, or whatever investigative body to do, is take the building's structural documents, fire data, etc., and construct a theory that is totally self-supported, and verified not by referring back to the acceleration seen in videos (which is essentially circular reasoning), but by referring to their calculations and realistic models that reflect that this is could be expected.

So then you will accept David Chandler's measurements of 2.25 seconds of free fall from a video as meaningless, correct?

If they could take the building's structure in a model, apply the damage, apply realistic heat fires, and then just see what occurs, instead of trying to force it to conform to what we see in videos, then we would have an independent verification that this is a legitimate thing for fire and debris damage alone to do. As it stands, they constantly refer back to the very same building being investigated to justify changing certain things in their report or adjusting data a certain way to make it better fit. That's not how these kinds of reports are supposed to be done.

If you had actually read the NIST report you wouldn't be making such a statement.

Let me educate you once again. The only observations were the videos of the collapse of exterior of WTC 7, as well as the observations of those people, particularly firemen who had been inside the building and all around the outside from the time of the collapse of WTC 1 till the collapse of WTC 7, around a seven-hour time span. They also had the architectural designs and a wealth of material science data on the performance of structural steel under many different heating scenarios over time.

With all this data, NIST modeled the probable collapse sequence of the structure's interior to match as closely as possible the observable collapse sequence from the videos. They did so by modelling four different scenarios:

Deriving the Probable Collapse Sequence
NIST NCSTAR 1A, p.38-39

Four simulations were performed with the global LS-DYNA model.

• The first was based on NIST's best estimate of both the debris impact damage from WTC 1 and the fire-induced damage as developed using the ANSYS modeling. This occurred at 4 h in the ANSYS computation.

• The second simulation differed only in the input of a lesser degree of fire-induced damage, which occurred at 3.5 h in the ANSYS computation. The purpose of this LS-DYNA simulation was to determine whether a lesser degree of fire-induced damage could lead to the collapse of WTC 7.

• The third simulation was the same as the first, except that no debris impact damage was included. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the contribution of debris impact to the WTC 7 global collapse sequence and whether WTC 7 would have collapsed solely due to the effects of the fires.

• In the fourth simulation, the building experienced no debris or fire-induced damage. A section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the potential for a classic progressive collapse, i.e., disproportionate structural damage from a single failure, regardless of the cause of that failure.

Again, you need to read the NIST report and demonstrate why you insist against all reason that there is no validity to the evidence, methodologies, computer simulations, and conclusions of the NIST report. You can't just keep going around post after post like a spoiled kid demanding this and that to get your way and claiming "controlled demolition" is the only way that WTC 7 came down if you cannot understand the NIST report nor refute it nor back up your claims.

You really need to join us in the real world, bsbray11. Your ranting and inability to demonstrate anything or refute NIST is just getting more convoluted by the moment.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

---

Joey, I saw what you were saying and I did not totally disagree. I however thought your description was way too simplistic to be applied. When NIST says "As the interior columns buckled across the building, the exterior columns were left laterally unsupported normal to east, south, and north faces." That point I say you got correct. But notice it does not say "West face." So NIST is saying the the west face was still "braced" with their adjacent interior columns. So technically you can not say "that the exterior columns were unbraced over that same distance" as applied to the West face exterior columns. You perhaps could say the West interior columns were unbraced with the other interior columns. The exterior column and interior column would still be influencing each other through this lateral "brace" between them, thus the pull-in. Now if the exterior and interior column with this "brace" between them acted in complete unison all through the collapse then there would be no problem. But I find that highly unlikely and at some point the exterior column will decide it wants to go one way and the interior would decide to go another and the "brace" between them will have to had been broken. Which just complicates the model.... and the pondering.

Originally posted by exponent
The post yesterday linked to a measurement using the moire effect, and if I remember correctly it was measuring lateral motion. I do not believe this is applicable to their analysis of the descent of WTC7.

Here's the wikipedia article on it, but if I did look at the wrong portion of your post or something like that please let me know: en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry exponent I missed your post earlier today. I wasn't saying it was an exact correlation. I was just demonstrating how precise they could be. Two points stood out for me in this test however:

First is the section on Conversion of Magnitude from Vertical Pixels to Distance. I was very interested in how they determined the width of the entire building (329 ft.) equaled 301 +-4 pixels. And since we know that the pixel width was 0.9 times the pixel height we have a pretty good start knowing the approximate height represented by a pixel. Granted they still would need to account for the "vertical" perspective of the image but I would assume they had done this, maybe not with as much certainty as the horizontal, but I assume something very close.

Second would be the amount of data points they took for their measurements. In figure C-8 I counted about 68 points within a 2.5 second period. To be totally precise with the free fall measurement I would assume they would have done the same.

So from these two things I assume their measurements from video can be very precise and if they had a problem with believing 32.2 ft/s^2 they could have found something like 32.19 ft/s^2 and reported it.

reply to post by jthomas

---

There isn't anything in your post to refute. It's just you saying I'm wrong over and over again with no basis.

If you're going to respond at all at least come back with some kind of reason or evidence that what I'm saying isn't true.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

---

There isn't anything in your post to refute. It's just you saying I'm wrong over and over again with no basis.

I've shown clearly that you have not supported your claims

If you're going to respond at all at least come back with some kind of reason or evidence that what I'm saying isn't true.

Your dodges still don't work, brsbay11. You're the one making the claims, you can't support them, and you constantly try to shift the burden of proof to others.

PM me if and when you decide to back up your claims. It's crystal clear that that you're incapable of giving us any reason whatsoever to reject the NIST report on WTC 7. It's crystal clear what I've said from the beginning, that you couldn't even demonstrate the validity of your "question." You've killed your own thread.

Here's a good book to show you where you went wrong and why. It's changed many a "Truther" from an illogical "believer" into a real skeptic of 9/11 "Truth":

www.amazon.com...

reply to post by Joey Canoli

---

No I'm not sure if I understand exactly what your saying. What I'm reading from NIST and seeing in their diagrams is the following:

East face exterior columns: unbraced from interior columns to the west, braced to the north and south to adjacent exterior columns, not braced to east as this is outside the building perimeter.

North face exterior columns: unbraced from interior columns to the south, braced to the east and west to adjacent exterior columns, not braced to north as this is outside the building perimeter.

South face exterior columns: unbraced from interior columns to the north, braced to the east and west to adjacent exterior columns, not braced to south as this is outside the building perimeter.

West face exterior columns: braced to the east to adjacent interior columns, braced to the north and south to adjacent exterior columns, not braced to west as this is outside the building perimeter.

This is what I'm getting when I read the text and look at Figure 4-46, 4-47 and 4-48 in NCSTAR 1-9A. Or when I watch the video of the North east corner after the east penthouse collapsed in the building; the interior bracing theoretically was removed but the bracing (running east to west) between the exterior columns was still there. (This is shown in Figures 4-50 thru 4-55 in NCSTAR 1-9A)

So what I'm getting from it is each exterior column had bracing in three directions before the collapse; when the interior collapsed all the exterior columns then had bracing on only two, except for the West enders. But the interior columns on the West were buckling at the time but they had to deal with the exterior columns as they didn't break free totally, which caused the pull in, which slowed that buckling down and "held up" the west penthouse until 9.3s.

But I think you're right and we're arguing minutiae of a theoretical model, when:

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I was on another, non-conspiracy board around the time of the report on 7 was released, where this was discussed, by real structural engineers. I believe it was physorg or some such. They all agreed that once the initial phase of the collapse was over - 7 feet? - that the buckling columns would give something like .5% of their former "resistance", due to the estimated 8 story unbraced length. Combine that with the absence of the int columns, and overall resistance was thought to be around .2% of the expected weight.

Then they went off on a discussion of how much a .2% resistance would slow the descent,and extreme physics/hilarity ensued. It was agreed that it wouldn't be discernable though.

This is exactly the type of argument I believe NIST should have included in their report.

Originally posted by jthomas
Here's a good book to show you where you went wrong and why. It's changed many a "Truther" from an illogical "believer" into a real skeptic of 9/11 "Truth":

www.amazon.com...

Check out the part of the book that discusses Negative proof.

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

The NIST report has anomalies and contradictions.

You keep trying to get other people who recognize these problems to explain some kind of alternative theory.

You are the one who accepts the official story so why would anyone else be obligated to explain the inconsistencies?

Originally posted by bsbray11
6) What allowed WTC7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?

The relevant information in the video above starts at 2:00, and again at 5:45.

YouTube Link

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.

Thus, he acknowledges that their model is at variance with the observable fact that freefall actually occurred. Their response is to hold to their model, deny that freefall occurred, and put up a smokescreen of irrelevant measurements that obscure the reality.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Jezus]

reply to post by jthomas

---

Once again, nothing of substance, just saying I am wrong.

You've been dodging questions and burdens of proof since you first started posting on this thread. I have 20 unanswered questions and you've been unable to answer any of them. You just keep trying to shift the burden of proof even though the whole point of this thread is for you to try to answer any of the 20 questions.


I've already accepted that you are just trolling and will continue this behavior indefinitely, and I only respond to you now so people will not be confused by your distortions and misconstruing what this thread is about. So just keep it coming, we will make the thread infinitely long with the same repetitions over and over. It's already happening.



And STILL none of the 20 questions are resolved by anyone posting here. I must have picked some really good ones, eh?


And no, jthomas, it isn't my responsibility to answer my own questions, they are for government investigations/reports to answer. And they never did. Thus your sorry dilemma.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

---

So just keep it coming, we will make the thread infinitely long with the same repetitions over and over. It's already happening.

And STILL none of the 20 questions are resolved by anyone posting here. I must have picked some really good ones, eh?

We showed you cannot support any of your claims, bsbray11. You were pegged long ago:

The Woolly-Thinker's Guide to Rhetoric

Claiming is Succeeding

Blur the distinction between claiming to make your case, and actually making it. If anyone notices this, act surprised and wounded. Notice someone you need to talk to across the room.

www.butterfliesandwheels.com...

And no, jthomas, it isn't my responsibility to answer my own questions, they are for government investigations/reports to answer. And they never did.

And they pegged you on that, too:

The Woolly-Thinker's Guide to Rhetoric

Develop sudden hearing loss

When your opponent makes a good point, a crushing argument, an incontrovertible case, simply fail to hear, and keep talking as if no one had spoken at all. Talk a bit louder. Lean toward your opponent with an intent, listening expression on your face, then continue to ignore what anyone else says.

www.butterfliesandwheels.com...

Thus your sorry dilemma.

Just WHEN did you say you would get a new investigation, bsbray11?



Another 9/11 "Truther's" claims go down in flames.

reply to post by jthomas

---

Do you post here just so you can look at these laughing faces?




Since you were unable to resolve any of the 20 questions, I guess you're just another testament to the fact that we still don't have the full story about 9/11 and won't until another investigation is kicked off. Going by history, it'll probably be so long before we actually get one, all the people really involved will already be old or dead anyway.

9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags

9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
  Posted 17 days ago with 12 member flags

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 19 days ago with 11 member flags

Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags

new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags

Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags

you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: