• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

gerrycan said:
These structural details for the towers have only just come out though Mike.

I don't "have" to have anything at all. If you want to have a look at past analysis go and look at the videos about WTC7 that were put out some years ago by my research group. So far the towers are a lot easier to follow structurally and the omissions and errors in NIST's analysis are looking similar to those that existed around their WTC7 analysis.
Click to expand...

Provide the link to your groups work, thanks.
 
ozeco41 said:
Wait - let me go search ISF. Done - this is the link to the JREF (now ISF) thread: Challenge: Demonstrate Sagging floor Trusses Pulling in Perimeter Columns - International Skeptics Forum
Click to expand...

Thanks Ozzie... that was a fun and informative read. What struck me is that there were those who simply accepted NIST's explanations as completely satisfactory and anyone who tried to suggest alternatives leading the the same result (not necessarily CD) were ridiculed as truthers ....and all that implied. I learned a lot re reading parts of that thread.

Ultimately for me the issue became what lessons in structural design were learned from the collapse? We know that the fire suppression strategies needed to made more robust (they were after 9/11), and that better egress needed to be employed (and I think they were... at least in the new WTC tower design)... but IRRC little recommendations were made proscribing OOS - column free plans came forth. My take away was that the column free and light weight OOS flooring was what permitted ROOSD to destroy the entire OOS floor system... and I suppose an analogous process destroyed the core's floors and with it the bracing.

++++

The 7wtc discussion seems to suggest that a local ROOSD collapse of sorts somehow managed to become global and lead to the lose of so much of the building's axial support paths low in the structure that the entire thing collapsed. This suggests that a single column failure may in some cases lead to the entire building collapsing. I suspect this may not always be the case and so the survival of a local single column failure/collapse... may depend on the structural design of the building and it's ability to isolate and therefore arrest any process from going run away.
 
ozeco41 said:
Well I've already responded in some detail but let that aspect pass for now. How good is your memory gamolon?
Because gerrycan has posted yet another bit of lie by innuendo nonsense and personal attack which goes back to something you started gamolon on another forum about 6 years back. This is the pair of lies by half truth:


Does it ring little bells Gamolon? My memory was good enough to know that Gerrycan is telling fibs. The reality is that enik issued a challenge apparently arising out of a more complicated challenge YOU posted on JREF - March 2013 so it was still JREF.

Wait - let me go search ISF. Done - this is the link to the JREF (now ISF) thread: Challenge: Demonstrate Sagging floor Trusses Pulling in Perimeter Columns - International Skeptics Forum

You, Gamolon, may find it amusing to reminisce. You will find I raised some simple points but ended up caught in the middle of a multi way mix of misunderstandings and errors plus some outright dishonesties. And about basic processes of analysis. So very much like recent days on this thread EXCEPT that here Gerrycan is the only one deliberately being untruthful and trying to trap me into playing his game. Over there it was the usual heated bigotry of JREF against enik the truthers - who didn't hesitate to give as good as he got..

I won't dig into the details. BUT Gerrycan's claim is FALSE on these points - in order of importance:
1) "Like you did when Enik showed you..." <<Enik did not "show me" nor did his debunker side opponent. BOTH of them went off the rails on one fundamental aspect of engineering analysis subject of the challenge. That was "perimeter inward bowing" - the same topic as recent discussions here. Then subsequently they and others went many times into erroneous arguments. I steadfastly kept bringing them and a number of other members back onto the point.
2) "...You are the one claiming to have done it" << Which is ambiguous. What I did was correct an error of argument process - EXACTLY as I have done in recent days on this thread with Gerrycan's misdirected process. I did NOT "..[do] it" as Gerrycan falsely alleges meaning "do the calculations" - both the protagonists had shifted the goalposts making their engineering analysis invalid. Exactly the same point I've made here several times. The analysis PROCESS is faulty and it is a waste of effort putting numbers to a falsely defined model or an inappropriate process.

The irony of Gerrycan claiming Enik "showed me" is that Enik and I resolved our difference of opinion - in my favour. And as I reported in that referenced thread when I said
..the debunker protagonist never did accept that he was wrong.

That's SOP. "Debunkers" who are practising engineers and at/beyond their "glass ceiling" of limited competence are a lot harder to educate than truthers.

So - several other members seem content to play along with Gerrycan's games. He doesn't want to learn so I'll probably limit my comments unless any members show interest. OR if Gerrycan really does want to pursue his false claim that "enik showed me". We will soon see who "showed who" :doh :lol:;)
Click to expand...

Good post and thanks for the link! It was fun to reminisce.

I know all about gerrycan's games as I've had "debates" with him previously in other forums besides this one. He's been caught and banned using sock puppets to try to get back into discussions he was originally banned from.
 
ozeco41 said:
Agreed your key point as shown Bolded also the other supporting aspects in your post.

However I think Gerrycan's posting history reveals even more. As you are probably aware from experience across this and other forms there is a real tendency for engineers and other applied scientists to get lost in details. It's the "cannot see the forest for trees" syndrome. I expressed it even more forcibly on JREF a few years back as '"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest'. Forcing discussion of "leaves" to avoid questions of "which forest" has been a common problem through the history of 9/11 debate. It has been Tony Szamboti's de-facto strategy since at least 2007 - I "called" it in my first Internet post in Nov 2007. And - whether deliberate or not- it works as a truther debating trick. I wont derail to post examples as proof at this time.

And it is the de-facto tactic used in Gerrycan's posts here. Again whether deliberate or not. Keeping the focus on a specific sector of possible façade "pull in"... when that detail is irrelevant to understanding the collapse mechanism. EXCEPT Gerrycan in his posts refuses to accept advice to employ a valid process. That is to come at the argument from big picture known truths and working down to any NECESSARY details. Why? I suspect he simply does not comprehend any analysis process other than "work up from details". It is a common enough problem with engineers, other applied scientists, accountants....left brainers in general if you know the metaphor.

So let me take it a step further. You clearly see that there must be a conspiracy goal at the end of the path Gerrycan is taking. If Gerrycan genuinely cannot "see" that he is on a dead end path working up from details i.e that there is another path of TECHNICAL analysis - then there is no way he will see the other path related to conspiracy. Because "conspiracy" is in another domain - the domain of politics and behaviour.

If I revert to the "forest v trees" metaphoric aphorism - Gerrycan's process of argument only recognises ONE tree in the forest of engineering analysis techniques. So he is unlikely to "see" the several conspiracy "trees" because they are in a different "forest". The forest of politics and behaviour.

And I'll bet that double depth metaphoric analogy has a few members scratching their heads. ;):lol::doh
Click to expand...

Another good post and a comment on the Bolded portion.

gerrycan's goal is to find "chinks" in the government/NIST explanation/research armor and declare those as deliberate mistakes to get their desired result in order to cover up the truth, hence conspiracy. This is why he creates new thread as or posts in the conspiracy sections of forums. He's been banned and has used sockpuppets. He's tried to insinuate that NIST swapped the long and short span trusses in their analysis among other things. He usually appears when Tony Szamboti shows up somewhere. He was even involved in the Plasco building discussion which insinuated demolition.
 
SanderO said:
As I wrote in a previous post in this thread... I do not understand where Gerry is going with his line of investigation / review of the structure of tower 1.
Click to expand...

That is a simple question to answer. His issue is he says he doesn't understand how fire caused the collapse. This is evident as he has been quoted as saying this AND has asked others to provide their evidence for a fire based collapse. He gets into his minutia debates because he's trying to find fault with NIST in any capacity so he can then claim that the entire report and explanation is invalid therefore conspiracy.
 
gerrycan said:
If you want to have a look at past analysis go and look at the videos about WTC7 that were put out some years ago by my research group.
Click to expand...

Who is in this research group of yours? Has Tony Szamboti been involved in ANY capacity with your "group"?
 
gamolon said:
That is a simple question to answer. His issue is he says he doesn't understand how fire caused the collapse. This is evident as he has been quoted as saying this AND has asked others to provide their evidence for a fire based collapse. He gets into his minutia debates because he's trying to find fault with NIST in any capacity so he can then claim that the entire report and explanation is invalid therefore conspiracy.
Click to expand...

People who believe extensive unfought fires have little to no impact on the integrity of a steel frame are fooling themselves or are in denial. Do they assert that fire protection and fire suppression are therefore not necessary? If these are necessary what are they doing? giving time to evacuate?... preventing failure of the frame and collapse partial or total? Do those who believe that fire could not cause the collapse of a steel frame... are they advocating these not be part of steel frame designs?

Gerry seems to agree with those who believe the collapse was "core driven" which is not the NIST explanation. What does he think this means? Does it means that among other things the structural facade panels/columns saw local failures and other areas saw redistributed loads? Could this be part of the cause for their buckling? Could the trusses play a role in the facade buckling? Did the hat truss play a role in redistributing the failed core columns loads to remaining core and facade columns? Could the local belt girder failure leave the perimeter core columns unaffected? What was the genesis of the freeing of mass which crashed downward becoming the runaway OOS floor collapse?

Gerry... go for it!
 
Last edited:
SanderO said:
What was the genesis of the freeing of mass which crashed downward becoming the runaway OOS floor collapse?
Click to expand...
Tut Tut!!! SanderO - you should know - we should all know how the "Three Mechanisms" of the progression stage started. The process of which the acronym "ROOSD" is so descriptive. This single frame clip from one of "achimspok's" bits of work shows it. I added the yellow arrows and blue lines. It is the worst case but the other three pairs of perimeter and lower tower faces are identical in the key points.

Note that the yellow arrow shows the motion of the perimeter - on the left falling through the space occupied by the OOS floors shown in blue. Linear load concentration carrying the weight of many floors and impacting one floor at a time. Remember all those people trying to puzzle how sufficient weight accumulated to shear the floors. It was already accumulated - the bulk of the Top Block weight concentrated through the still intact perimeter.

Then the other side shows the Lower Tower perimeter "moving (relatively) upwards" to shear off the OOS floors of the Top Block.

And obviously Top Block and top of Lower Tower broke up concurrently in those first few storeys of Top Block falling. So there is your answer - again. ArrowedROOSD.jpg

AND to "bonus points" at no extra charge.
1) That explanation neatly falsifies Bazant & Verdure's "crush down/crush up" model for those who still think that Bazant is King and can make no errors. Go cry in your corner all you Bazantophile Debunkers; AND

2) Yes another example of how coming at the argument the right way round can give answers more quickly and more reliably than Gerrycan's obsession with working up from details he doesn't understand.
 
gamolon said:
It goes deeper than that. One of the things he brought up was that he believed NIST "swapped" the long and short span trusses when they did their ANSYS model for one of the floors.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/cons...ansys-model-floor-trusses.html#post1068177794
Click to expand...

That's totaly misleading. If they swapped the long and short span trusses, none of them would fit. So stop being silly Gamolon.
What they did do though, was standardise the truss end connections at the core end. In reality the core ends of the floor trusses varied to accomodate the increasing spans with height.
 
gamolon said:
Who is in this research group of yours? Has Tony Szamboti been involved in ANY capacity with your "group"?
Click to expand...

Tony did a lot to add to and enhance what we found yes. As I say, that group only researched wtc 7 and that's away beyond the scope of our small group now. Tony has nothihng to do with what I am saying here about the towers, if that's what you're asking.

Now Gamolon. You may have missed it, but I replied to your question about whether you had got the column details wrong and showed you where you did get them wrong. You must have missed it.
 
gamolon said:
Are you saying I gave you engineering numbers for the perimeter columns and you found and showed me numbers that proved that they were stronger that the numbers I gave you previously? Or did I quantify the strength of the perimeter columns in some way that the drawings proved otherwise? Or are you just making a sweeping assumption?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, and no. You've already been told exactly what you got wrong in what you thought about the columns.

The perimeter columns were far more substantial than you ever thought they were and bigger than you went all over the internet telling everyone they were. Hell, you even got that wrong right here on this site.
 
gerrycan said:
Tony did a lot to add to and enhance what we found yes. As I say, that group only researched wtc 7 and that's away beyond the scope of our small group now. Tony has nothihng to do with what I am saying here about the towers, if that's what you're asking.
Click to expand...

So you agree Tony that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapses and not plane impact damage and subsequent fires?
 
gamolon said:
How do you know what I "thought" gerrycan?
Click to expand...

You typed it.

gamolon said:
Are you saying I gave you engineering numbers for the perimeter columns and you found and showed me numbers that proved that they were stronger that the numbers I gave you previously?
Click to expand...

Yes. And I have shown you exactly what you got wrong and where the drawings say you are wrong.

gamolon said:
Or did I quantify the strength of the perimeter columns in some way that the drawings proved otherwise? Or are you just making a sweeping assumption?
Click to expand...

Yes. You've been shown what you got wrong. Three times now on this thread but you ignore it as usual.

gamolon said:
Are you also one of the people who found the perimeter columns were more substantial than you thought and that the slabs had a lot more reinforcement than you thought?
Click to expand...

It was more substantial than I had been led to believe by people like you on the internet who thought the columns were substantially thinner than they were, and misled people for years about dimensions that you were guessing about, and guessing wrong as it turned out. Just like those WTC7 shear studs that you spent 2 years arguing about.

Wrong then and wrong again.
 
gerrycan said:
You typed it.



Yes. And I have shown you exactly what you got wrong and where the drawings say you are wrong.



Yes. You've been shown what you got wrong. Three times now on this thread but you ignore it as usual.



It was more substantial than I had been led to believe by people like you on the internet who thought the columns were substantially thinner than they were, and misled people for years about dimensions that you were guessing about, and guessing wrong as it turned out. Just like those WTC7 shear studs that you spent 2 years arguing about.

Wrong then and wrong again.
Click to expand...

So you agree that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapses and not plane impact damage and subsequent fires?
 
zyzygy said:
So you agree that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapses and not plane impact damage and subsequent fires?
Click to expand...

No. That's the position that's people like you and Gamolon would like me to take so that you can revert to type and start regurgitating the same old worn responses that you have done for years. The position I take is that the buildings have not been modelled properly and that the conclusions reached on that flawed data are suspect to say the least.
 
gerrycan said:
No. That's the position that's people like you and Gamolon would like me to take so that you can revert to type and start regurgitating the same old worn responses that you have done for years. The position I take is that the buildings have not been modelled properly and that the conclusions reached on that flawed data are suspect to say the least.
Click to expand...

I don't want you to take any position. I was interested in your opinion about the controlled demolition theory. If the data are suspect then does it mean that the building was rigged with explosives?
 
zyzygy said:
I don't want you to take any position. I was interested in your opinion about the controlled demolition theory. If the data are suspect then does it mean that the building was rigged with explosives?
Click to expand...

No. It just means that the conclusions based on that data are entirely wrong. To say that fire didn't do it the way that the official story says it could have, isn't proof of CD.
 
gamolon said:
So you disagree with Tony Szamboti that the buildings came down due to controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

What I disagree with is what you have been saying for years about the perimeter columns of the towers. The drawings disagree with you too. You've been all over the place spouting false data on the towers for years, and basing your conclusions on what you thought, rather than the reality of it.
 
gerrycan said:
No. It just means that the conclusions based on that data are entirely wrong. To say that fire didn't do it the way that the official story says it could have, isn't proof of CD.
Click to expand...

So what did it?
 
gerrycan said:
What I disagree with is what you have been saying for years about the perimeter columns of the towers. The drawings disagree with you too. You've been all over the place spouting false data on the towers for years, and basing your conclusions on what you thought, rather than the reality of it.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with Tony Szamboti that the buildings came down due to controlled demotion? Tight spot you're in eh gerrycan?
 
zyzygy said:
So what did it?
Click to expand...

I couldn't possibly say. The towers need to be replicated properly and analysed with all their elements included. If that leads to a conclusion that fire did it, then fair enough. However that may happen, it's certainly not how NIST suppose it did, and so we will have learned something about structural safety and people and buildings will be safer as a result.
 
gamolon said:
So you disagree with Tony Szamboti that the buildings came down due to controlled demotion? Tight spot you're in eh gerrycan?
Click to expand...

No Gamolon. I take the same view as I always did.

Has your view of how big the perimeter columns of the tower were changed ?

Now, THAT, is a tight spot for you, considering the internet is littered with you clearly claiming that these columns are less substantial than they were.
 
gerrycan said:
I couldn't possibly say. The towers need to be replicated properly and analysed with all their elements included. If that leads to a conclusion that fire did it, then fair enough. However that may happen, it's certainly not how NIST suppose it did, and so we will have learned something about structural safety and people and buildings will be safer as a result.
Click to expand...

Why is this in the conspiracy forum? And when are they going to build the Twin Towers again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom