An Honest Critique. An Honest Discussion.
uwaterloo911.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/davi...Posted Jan 4, 2014, 5:58 AM UTC
10173
uwaterloo911.files.wordpress.com
I am surprised that no mention was made of the stiffener plates which NIST completely overlooked. The fact that they were present on the girder negates NIST's arguments.
3
Here's a great thread where the author of that video is questioned about his findings https://www.metabunk.org/threads/critical-errors-and-omissions-in-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/
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. 4 videos, approx 21 minutes. If anyone wants links to the relevant drawings etc, i will do my best to put them up for you. We are a genuine research group, and are interested in opinions on this information, whether you agree with our conclusions or not. We are happy to discuss the information openly and honestly with anyone who is genuinely interested. I would also be interested in ways we could improve the information on the videos or make it easier to understand.
3
Looking to have an honest, civil discussion about all of the points contained within this critique. I have presented this to several "debunkers: (or whatever it is that they prefer to be called) and cannot get an answer. They will only discuss point #13. While this point still refutes NIST's analysis - "In summary, we do not agree with the conclusions of the analysis." - it also states that "We therefore believe that the steel beams failed due to reaching much higher temperatures than reported." Debunkers use this as a reason to not even address the other 13 points in the critique. However, these "much higher temperatures" do not exist. Not according to NIST anyway.
Edit: The "debunkers" claim that #13 states that the building collapsed due to fires reaching "much higher temperatures" than reported. First of all, they are glad to throw NIST under the bus here for not finding/calculating/reporting any "much higher temperatures" so long as it supports the "fire did it" mentality. Secondly, #13 does not make this statement. In fact, nowhere in the critique does it say that the buildings collapsed due to fire. #13 states that the steel beams could have failed due to "much higher temperatures" (which we still don't have) It does not state that they believe the entire building failed. More deception. Because the "debunkers" blindly flock to #13 without addressing (or possibly even reading) the rest of the critique, they all miss/avoid the comment directly under it, #14. This comment states that there appears to be "no evidence that the composite action between the beams and the slab was detrimental."
2
I can see why the hotter temperatures would not have been included in the official investigation, it would have changed the timing of the sequence of events in the model, thus poking further holes in it.
If the NIST had included the hotter temperatures, it would have changed the model that they were proposing and they could have not gotten a close simulation of the buildings fall.
So, the hotter temperature in the last point is rather damning. It basically says to me that if there was failure by fire, then the building would have fallen in a completely different way than happened.
The last point in the OP is kind of a deadly shot at the official report.
3
Here's what you need to shut them up.
The science about the possible temperature leads to the conclusion that the highest possible temperature the buildings could have reached is 536 degrees F.
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064
It didn't even get near that hot.
You can prove it yourself with the records of the event.
First Edna Cintron was photographed for several minutes holding on to the buildings frame.By doing that, she proved the steel wasn't that hot
If the temperature of the frame was even 200 degrees she could not have done that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPrKNskn7Y
Fire Chief Orio Palmer spoke from the 78th floor of the south tower for approximately 10 minutes and was not cooking as he would have in temperatures of even just 200 F. By doing that he proved that the air wasn't that hot either.
The edited version of Chief Palmer from the 78th floor of the south tower.
Warning brief radio noise
http://thewebfairy.com/911/binaries/Firemen_%20in_%20the%20trade_towers03.mp3
The full recording long radio noise and all. http://thewebfairy.com/911/binaries/wtc-fdny-channel30.mp3
So,in conclusion, the top possible temp. was 536 F. the air was shown to be less than 200 degrees F. and the steel frame was shown to be less than 200 degrees F.
Your kitchen stove likely has a setting for 500 degrees.
Has it ever shown any sign of weakening or melting from that setting?
Debunkers who try to argue the temperature point have no case.
3
For me, the main two problems with the official story are the temperatures required for such a failure were much greater then office furniture can produce and the uniformity of the failure. It's hard to believe all the beams failed at exactly the same time causing all 3 buildings to fall vertically.
2
This critique agrees with you that NIST never listed any temperatures high enough to cause a failure to being with. It also that thermal expansion should not have occurred due to the fact that the slab is always heated in a fire and acts to deflect the thermal expansion. NIST did not heat the slab in the analysis for some reason. Very interesting.
As far as the beams failing and the buildings falling straight down, I agree that we haven't seen anything like this happen before. NIST claims it is possible by fire and provides a model (at least in the WTC 7) case to "prove" this. However, in this critique that I have provided, we see that what NIST actually did in their model, was to completely remove the beams from the analysis once that started to buckle. Why would they do this? The beams still exist in real life. Why would NIST make them disappear in their model? How does this model represent the actual collapse? It no longer does. It would appear as though NIST couldn't get their model to do what we actually saw on 9/11, so they had to "tweak" a few major details.
2
Stop kidding yourself, did you ever email the authors or go analyze my hypotheses/rebuttals?
0†
From the critique:
We therefore believe that the steel beams failed due to reaching much higher temperatures than reported. This resulted from fires which were hotter for longer than calculated and from the small insulation thickness.
So the building collapsed due to fires, I guess we can stop the controlled demolition theory.
-1
Like I said for the I-lost-count-of-how-many-times, why didn't NIST find these temperatures? Do you have them? Show them to me. And while you're at it, show them to NIST.
Let me know if you're ever brave enough to discuss the multiple critiques that show how the NIST WTC7 model and therefore, "Probable Collapse Sequence," are wrong.
But you won't.
2
We therefore believe
Get that? Believe.
1
in this critique that I have provided, we see that what NIST actually did in their model, was to completely remove the beams from the analysis once that started to buckle. Why would they do this?
This has been explained to you several times and the justification for the removal was explained in NIST's final report:
"When lateral support of the top (compression) flange was lost, floor beams and girders could laterally displace and buckle in a lateral-torsional mode. In the ANSYS analysis, buckling of flexural members led to convergence difficulties. To improve analysis progress, buckled members were removed from the analysis. The criterion used for removal of buckled beams or girders was based on the destabilizing effect of gravity loads on laterally displaced beams or girders. If a beam or girder twisted half of its flange width laterally, it would not be able to support its gravity loads and would be removed from the analysis."
It would appear as though NIST couldn't get their model to do what we actually saw on 9/11, so they had to "tweak" a few major details.
This is a fallacious argument (half truth).
The removed beams no longer had any structural support and were not relevant to the outcome. They were removed from the model in order to allow the ANSYS program to complete its calculations.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting that there is some kind of subversive action going on here.
-1†
And I have already addressed with you that just because you come across "convergence difficulties" with the beams in the analysis, doesn't mean you get to simply remove them and pass the model off as reality. The model no longer represents reality when the beams are removed. The beams are not removed in reality. NIST also removed slabs once they received certain strains/tensions. This also doesn't happen in reality. Once these slabs are removed (fallaciously) they cause the beams to buckle (fallaciously.)
None of this is represented in reality. Therefore, the model does not represent reality.
2
I have presented this to several "debunkers: (or whatever it is that they prefer to be called) and cannot get an answer.
You have presented it to debunkers, but you cant get the answer you want. FTFY.
Your submitted paper very clearly surmises that fire was the cause of the collapse of building 7. This does not refute NISTs analysis, it SUPPORTS it.
This also contradicts your claim that explosives were the cause of the collapse.
1†
Actually, read my other comment here
its saying that if there was fire, then it would have been hotter than accounted for and would have messed up the NIST model
I am not saying I support collapse by fire, but the NIST does. If NIST had plugged in the higher temperatures into its model, it would have changed how the building fell in its report, and there would not be as close a match to the real fall, because according to the formulas used by NIST, the higher temperatures would have precipitated collapse of some key supports earlier than modeled. This is a significant contradiction of two data sets, and the OP paper gave enough details that its conclusions can either be replicated or found faulty.The fire point is actually one of the most threatening reports done by the "truthers", much more than the jones report you hate, because the conclusions can be more easily replicated by independent researchers than the Jones report. Now, you have to prove that not only was there a fire, but the fire only got so hot, and not hotter.
EDIT added last three sentences
3
the OP paper gave enough details that its conclusions can either be replicated or found faulty.
Perhaps, but I accept that the CESARE paper makes what appears to be very valid points in regards to the NIST report. However, since I do not have the technical knowledge, I am unable to validate their claims.
Now, you have to prove that not only was there a fire, but the fire only got so hot, and not hotter.
And unfortunately, an accurate analysis of the temperature of the fire cannot be estimated by CESARE. Based on the design of the building and the calculations for chimney effect, they believe that the temps for the fire were much greater.
Regardless of this, Proe/ Thomas' conclusion still concurs with NIST's conclusion in that fire was the cause of the collapse.
-1
Regardless of the paper's conclusions, they have totally undermined the NIST report if their fire research can be replicated.
Why can the results not be replicated ?
3
Recovering from the flu, so I did not read your question accurately.
To answer you, the issue is not how hot the fire actually was (no one knows for sure), but that now, the fire has to be proved to be neither too hot or too cold for the NIST report to remain true. If the results in the OP can be replicated, then it needs to be shown why the fire did not get hotter. There might not be an explainable mechanism why the fire did not get hotter than what NIST says it was, which casts more doubt on the NIST report.
3
Perhaps, but I accept that the CESARE paper makes what appears to be very valid points in regards to the NIST report. However, since I do not have the technical knowledge, I am unable to validate their claims.
"Only able to validate their claims in the conclusion."
Regardless of this, Proe/ Thomas' conclusion still concurs with NIST's conclusion in that fire was the cause of the collapse.
You seem to keep using the world "was" when the correct term is "could have." Also, you continue to lack the necessary temps. As does NIST. Also, and more importantly, the critique obviously does not concur with NIST as it refutes their analysis.
2
They answer I want is a debunking of the critique points. You haven't. You can't. The NIST report is wrong. I'm not sure you're allowed to admit this at this point.
2
And the answer I want from you is for you to concede that you have presented two conflicting arguments, with one of them being in support of the official story.
0
I don't concede to false statements. The towers could not have failed from the fire temperatures/procedures provided by NIST. This is supported by the critique that you continually refuse to debunk.
If you think the critique is "in support" of the "official story" then you don' understand what the "official story" is.
1
A few points:
1. In the tower, we have steel beams and we have slabs. In a fire, both are heated. When the slab is heated, it expands and deflects downward with the beam, relieving the thermal force on the studs to prevent the failure. In NIST's WTC 7 collapse model, they didn't heat the slabs at all. Only the beams. Why?
2. In reality, when a beam "buckles," it does not then vanish into thin air. In NIST's WTC 7 collapse model, once a beam begins to buckle, they remove it from the analysis. Why? It is possible that a buckling beam may fail. It is also possible that a buckling beam may not fail and still provide a certain amount of support. It is impossible for a beam to provide any support at all if it has been completely removed from the analysis.
3. Should the beam have buckled in the first place? In reality, when a concrete slab experiences tension/strain, it does not vanish into thin air. In NIST's WTC 7 collapse model, once the slabs were given a certain tension/strain, the slab is then removed from the analysis. Why? If the slab being removed from the analysis is near a beam, this will also remove the lateral support to the beam and cause it to fail.
But why? Why was the slab removed? This is what causes the beam to fail in the model and it is something that didn't happen in reality. Once the beam "fails" or buckles, it is also removed.
Why?
2
The last point, of hotter temperature, is being read as acceptance of fire by some here, but actually its saying that if there was fire, then it would have been hotter than accounted for and would have messed up the NIST model.
EDIT: more content below.
The point about fire might be of more threatening nature to the NIST report than the papers on thermite dust, because the conclusion of the hotter temperatures can be more easily replicated by independent researchers. There is no need to test on rare uncontaminated dust with expensive equipment, just do the model and crunch the numbers.
Unless the hotter fire point is refuted and disproved. People arguing that fire brought down the building will have to prove BOTH that the fire existed enough in the building AND that the fire did not get TOO HOT.
This narrows down the argument and shifts the burden of proof even more on those who propose fire brought the building down. This is also an argument that has not been used much before. Most of the debate about fire is about if it existed enough only. This will be a game changer in some debate circles.
T;DR The hotter fires point, far from agreeing with the NIST model, actually exposes a fatal weakness of it that can be proved by independent, easily repeatable, tests. The other points in the OP paper are very valid too, but the fire part might be the one to catch the public's imagination most. And is the point that, in my mind, most elegantly exposes the underlying errors of the NIST report
DOUBLE EDIT: I got so excited, I forgot that the author still proposes fall by fire. It does not matter, his research, if replicated, could totally undermine the NIST report.
2
This is the kind of post I would like to see submitted to r/science or r/skeptic though I suspect it would simply be downvoted into oblivion rather than actually discussed.
Of course. It has already been downvoted 4 times with 0 comment as to why. Looks like you were correct.
<sigh> And therein lies the problem. The subject had been deemed taboo and anyone that asks questions is immediately vilified, a very effective means to stifle dissent or investigation. But it won't stop all of us and we should keep posing questions and providing evidence like you have.
I have a question:
18 days ago PhrygianMode was claiming that the cause of the collapse was not fire.
And 8 months ago he said "nine independent researchers have claimed to have found thermitic materials in the WTC dust." and then said, "If nanothermite was found in the dust, then it was explosives. End of story."
So how can you believe it was explosives, then ALSO believe it was fire the caused the collapse?
You will have to ask him. Personally, I don't theorize, I simply think there was not a proper investigation and would like to see one take place.
r/science is allergic to politics, except for global warming; and then it has, as a community, no tolerance for climate skeptics.