The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Discuss any issues related to 9/11 that don't fall into the other categories.

Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby T_Szamboti » Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:22 pm

The final expert analysis for the ARUP expert report for the Con Edison vs. WTC 7 Properties court case was done by Guy Nordenson. He used an infinite stiffness for the falling beam and girder assembly at the 13th of WTC 7's northeast corner. An infinite stiffness would cause a very high impact load because it does not deflect and absorb energy reducing the peak deceleration when impacting the girder below at just 10 inches from its seat.

Attached is an analysis which shows the actual stiffness of the beam and girder assembly was about 6,600 /inch and that it would deflect significantly causing an impact load which is far too low to shear the seat of the girder below showing that a falling beam and girder assembly could not break through the next floor.
Attachments

Natural frequency of WTC 7 northeast corner beam & girder assembly.pdf
(201.12 KiB) Downloaded 19 times
T_Szamboti
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:43 pm

 

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby ozeco41 » Thu Dec 29, 2016 2:04 am

Thanks for posting that Tony.

As you know in the original discussions I made comments in two main areas viz:
1) I initially made an error of explanation of the series v parallel "springs" aspect. Both you and Oystein disagreed and I later recognised the error; AND
2) I asked what I still regard as the more important questions - "So what?" What is the impact on understanding of WTC collapses if one or several professionals make mistakes?

I referred specifically to the risk of "false dichotomy" - if Nordenson or any other persons explains it wrong it does not make a counter argued claim right or 'proven'. Similarly finding 2 - 3 ---10 papers which get it wrong does not make a counter claim right. The counter claim will only be "proven" when it is supported by an affirmative and valid argument.



And we can put 'proven' into valid scientific method language if anyone wants to get pedantic. :roll:
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby Oystein » Fri Dec 30, 2016 7:13 pm

ozeco41 wrote:The counter claim will only be "proven" when it is supported by an affirmative and valid argument.

A necessary condition for any (counter) claim to be "supported by an affirmative and valid argument" is that it actually be made explicitly.

There exists no proper counter claim (sufficiently specific to meet the criterion of falsifiability). Tony Szamboti must be keenly aware that he has no counter claim, nor has anyone else at all within the "9/11 Truth Movement" after 15. After all, why would he evade my question, posted to him three times now in bold and colored dark red: Tony, you are aware that there exists no CD hypothesis for the WTC7, right? If you disagree, please link to the falsifiable CD hypothesis for WTC7!
Oystein
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby ozeco41 » Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:42 pm

Oystein wrote:A necessary condition for any (counter) claim to be "supported by an affirmative and valid argument" is that it actually be made explicitly.

Maybe I'm becoming a bit cynical BUT...

..."we" are probably NOT Tony's "target market".

The core of believers probably accept the "false dichotomy by implication"...

..."I've proved Nordenson wrong so let me imply that it proves I am right."
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby T_Szamboti » Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:28 pm

Oystein wrote:
ozeco41 wrote:The counter claim will only be "proven" when it is supported by an affirmative and valid argument.

A necessary condition for any (counter) claim to be "supported by an affirmative and valid argument" is that it actually be made explicitly.

There exists no proper counter claim (sufficiently specific to meet the criterion of falsifiability). Tony Szamboti must be keenly aware that he has no counter claim, nor has anyone else at all within the "9/11 Truth Movement" after 15. After all, why would he evade my question, posted to him three times now in bold and colored dark red: Tony, you are aware that there exists no CD hypothesis for the WTC7, right? If you disagree, please link to the falsifiable CD hypothesis for WTC7!


Oystein, your red bolded question doesn't even make sense in the context of the thread here. I am saying that the NIST and ARUP studies are proven to not explain the collapse as they can't even break through the next floor down and cause a progressive collapse to initiate, and that a new investigation is needed. For you to think asking me for a testable hypothesis for controlled demolition is somehow germane is beyond me.
T_Szamboti
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:43 pm

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby DGM » Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:31 pm

T_Szamboti wrote:For you to think asking me for a testable hypothesis for controlled demolition is somehow germane is beyond me.



Can we assume you no longer support a controlled demolition hypothesis considering the fact there is none?
DGM
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby T_Szamboti » Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:06 am

DGM wrote:
T_Szamboti wrote:For you to think asking me for a testable hypothesis for controlled demolition is somehow germane is beyond me.



Can we assume you no longer support a controlled demolition hypothesis considering the fact there is none?


First, we need a new investigation because we didn't get answers that actually explain the collapses in the first investigation.

Beyond that I want an explanation that actually explains the observations.
T_Szamboti
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:43 pm

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby DGM » Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:33 am

T_Szamboti wrote:
DGM wrote:
T_Szamboti wrote:For you to think asking me for a testable hypothesis for controlled demolition is somehow germane is beyond me.



Can we assume you no longer support a controlled demolition hypothesis considering the fact there is none?


First, we need a new investigation because we didn't get answers that actually explain the collapses in the first investigation.

Beyond that I want an explanation that actually explains the observations.


So that's a yes.
DGM
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby T_Szamboti » Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:58 am

DGM wrote:
T_Szamboti wrote:
DGM wrote:
T_Szamboti wrote:For you to think asking me for a testable hypothesis for controlled demolition is somehow germane is beyond me.



Can we assume you no longer support a controlled demolition hypothesis considering the fact there is none?


First, we need a new investigation because we didn't get answers that actually explain the collapses in the first investigation.

Beyond that I want an explanation that actually explains the observations.


So that's a yes.

I don't rule it out. The explanation needs to explain the observations such as the simultaneous fall of the four corners of WTC 7 at free fall.
T_Szamboti
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:43 pm

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby SanderO » Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:37 am

What do you make of this?
Attachments

columns.pdf
(167.12 KiB) Downloaded 7 times
SanderO
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Dec 31, 2016 4:42 am

T_Szamboti wrote:
DGM wrote:
T_Szamboti wrote:
DGM wrote:
T_Szamboti wrote:For you to think asking me for a testable hypothesis for controlled demolition is somehow germane is beyond me.



Can we assume you no longer support a controlled demolition hypothesis considering the fact there is none?


First, we need a new investigation because we didn't get answers that actually explain the collapses in the first investigation.

Beyond that I want an explanation that actually explains the observations.


So that's a yes.

I don't rule it out. The explanation needs to explain the observations such as the simultaneous fall of the four corners of WTC 7 at free fall.


Then you have too drop the design oriented investigation and start a forensic investigation.
You don't, seem to know the difference Tony you really don't.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby ozeco41 » Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:07 am

[quote="DGM"][quote="T_Szamboti"][quote="DGM"][quote="T_Szamboti"]For you to think asking me for a testable hypothesis for controlled demolition is somehow germane is beyond me.



Can we assume you no longer support a controlled demolition hypothesis considering the fact there is none?


First, we need a new investigation because we didn't get answers that actually explain the collapses in the first investigation.

Beyond that I want an explanation that actually explains the observations.


So that's a yes.

Believe it or not it is an issue of US Governance and due process under the provisions of Constitutional law.

The investigations were enabled under statute - and followed due process. So the biggest barrier to the demands for "New Investigation" are in the arena of administrative law and how it devolves under the US Constitution.

Whilst those demanding a "New Investigation" cannot even make a clear valid statement of the TECHNICAL issue subject of the legal demand.

Funny thing is I would enjoy a discussion at the proper level of the issues Tony seems unaware of. I'm not trained in US Law but I've enjoyed learning - primarily thru involvement as a moderator and poster on a forum where Gender Equality issues AKA same *** marriage in USA were a "hot issue". Me - as usual - in the grey area between two polarised camps. But - different to 9/11 CT Both sides on that issue have genuine concerns.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am
Top

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:27 am

Tony the first place you have to start is with the fires.

"Soot. - National Institute of Standards and Technology
fire.nist.gov › bfrlpubs › fire93 › PDF
At flame temperatures, soot behaves not unlike a black body. emitting visible and infrared radiation following Planck's Law. A large portion (@5090 of the carbon atoms present in a hydrocarbon fire exist in the form of ..."

That's a good PDF on the subject then we can discuss about the catalyzer action of heated metal surfaces and hot iron oxide reacting with hydrogen.
Other reactions that have to occur because the type of fire makes it likely.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:02 am

Tony the first place you have to start is with the fires.

"Soot. - National Institute of Standards and Technology
fire.nist.gov › bfrlpubs › fire93 › PDF
At flame temperatures, soot behaves not unlike a black body. emitting visible and infrared radiation following Planck's Law. A large portion (@5090 of the carbon atoms present in a hydrocarbon fire exist in the form of ..."

That's a good PDF on the subject then we can discuss about the catalyzer action of heated metal surfaces and hot iron oxide reacting with hydrogen.
Other reactions that have to occur because the type of fire makes it likely.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Analysis showing Nordenson stiffness error

Postby Oystein » Sun Jan 01, 2017 6:21 pm

T_Szamboti wrote:
Oystein wrote:... After all, why would he evade my question, posted to him three times now in bold and colored dark red: Tony, you are aware that there exists no CD hypothesis for the WTC7, right? If you disagree, please link to the falsifiable CD hypothesis for WTC7!


Oystein, your red bolded question doesn't even make sense in the context of the thread here. ... For you to think asking me for a testable hypothesis for controlled demolition is somehow germane is beyond me.

A) You evade and ignore my questions in proper contexts, too, so what's the difference. The base rule remains true:
A 9/11 truther will never ever, under no circumstances, give a straight, honest answer to a straight honest questioon.

B) You misrepresent my question - no surprise there. I did NOT simply ask "for a testable hypothesis for controlled demolition". Read it again, try to understand what I actually ask, and please answer then, straight and honestly:
Tony, you are aware that there exists no CD hypothesis for the WTC7, right? If you disagree, please link to the falsifiable CD hypothesis for WTC7!

(To aid your comprehension: Locate the question mark "?" in the dark red, bolded bit! The sentenence right before the question mark is the actual question! Since the straight and honest answer to that straight question is a simple, straight "Yes" (there exists no CD theory), the second sentence, requesting a citation, is moot.)
Oystein
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Next



Return to Other Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred