Can anybody explain this drawing of column 79?

[petgoat]

They say it's buckling to the east. So we're looking at it from the south?

Are those three columns to the left supposed to be perimeter columns?

It's a pretty picture, but it sure doesn't explain itself very well.

[LARED]

1. If you bother to look at the report. It actually tells you

right next the to image that the view is from the Southeast. Geez.

After you look you might try reading it

[SDuderstadt]

2. Why would PG bother to read the accompanying text when...

it's so much easier to ask silly questions in here?

[LARED]

3. Even more exciting is the text surrounding the image

that explains what the image is attempting to show. But you're right, why read the report when you can post your questions here, disagree with answers you don't like, without even reading the report. It makes for a far more convincing argument when you are just winging it.

[petgoat]

4. Unlike some people around here, I try to figure things out for myself.

So... when I found that image I looked at the image, not at the label
that was telling me what I was looking at.

After looking at it 'til I was cross-eyed, I still couldn't figure it
out, and I missed the text on the label.

Nobody's answered my question. Are those perimeter columns to the left?
So do we have sections of floors hanging on the exterior of the
perimeter columns?

I give you a pretty picture to look at and you girls just want to gossip
about me. Sheesh!

[SDuderstadt]

5. "Unlike some people around here, I try to figure things out for myself"

Yeah, why actually consult the information when you can get it backwards in your head instead?


Now I realize why you ask so many dumb questions.

[AZCat]

6. I'm glad you're actually reading this report.

It appears that the NIST removed some of the exterior columns in order to make column 79 more visible (like they did later on in Section 3.4.6). I think the three columns to the left are core columns, although I've been struggling to figure out for certain which ones.

[LARED]

7. If you look at the drawings on page 6 of the report

it would indicate the three columns on the left are interior columns 72, 75, and 78. Although it is not possible to be certain.

[AZCat]

8. That's what I think they are, too.

It doesn't look like they are 76, 77 and 78, which was my first guess.

[petgoat]

9. Well that's why I was staring cross-eyed. If they're core columns

then it's a view from the SW not the SE, and then column 79 should be
to the left of 80 and not to the right of it.

I even tried flipping the diagram to see if it was backward, and it didn't make
any sense then either.

So thanks a lot NIST for providing diagrams that confuse rather than illuminate.

[AZCat]

10. I've edited the typical floor plan from Section 1...

to show where I think the view is from, and I have circled the three columns that LARED and I think are the three to the left of column 81. According to the map, this is more from the south than southeast.

I'm new to the whole image hosting thing, so let me know if this doesn't work for you:

[petgoat]

11. They're too close together to be core columns,

If those are 12' floors, the columns are maybe 8' apart.

Also, what's that light blue girder at the top? It's torn off of 79,
it's attached to 80 and 81, and it attaches to one of these mystery
columns.

[LARED]

13. Once again PG you have established your inabilty to

understand perspective and projected views. A lot of people have that problem. It no big deal. Most people just admit it and move on.

In short the columns are not too close, them seem just about right if viewed from the southeast.

[petgoat]

18. So in your world those are core columns, and there's a blue girder

linking 79, 80, 81, and 78.

Thanks for your help.

[LARED]

27. No in my world the light blue column is behind

column 78, 81, and 80. It's a 3D drawing. That's all can can say for sure. You simply cannot say with certainty if the light blue column is connected how you think it is.

[LARED]

33. Correction Title should be light blue beam not column

[petgoat]

37. It's behind 78, 81, and 80, I see..

And you know it's a girder, not a beam or a column.

So are you saying it's the girder that connected 79 to 76?
Or is it a girder connecting 79 to 75 or even 72?

Would that fact that it's colored in a unique sky blue suggest
to you that there's something special about this particular
girder, or is that just the artist's whim?

[Bassman66]

14. Someone tell me how column 79...

...fits with what the FDNY Chief is telling us.

Does the report mention them?

[LARED]

15. It might be useful if you link to, or tell what the FDNY chief

said about column 79.

[Bassman66]

16. You're being perverse.

You know the point I'm making.

But any cheap shot will do for some people (mostly the same people actually).

[AZCat]

17. Asking you to reference something is being perverse?

That's a strange definition.

[Bassman66]

19. You know full well what 's about.

Cheap shot.

[petgoat]

21. The Chiefs had mutually contradictory descriptions of structural

damage to the south face or the SW corner. None of them
said anything about internal column 79.

Illegitimi non carborundum

[AZCat]

23. Hmmm. No.

Perhaps you need to remove the fucking chip from your shoulder. It's interfering with your perspective.

[petgoat]

167. Maybe bassman doesn't like your fucking chip on his shoulder. nt

[wildbilln864]

26. cheap shots are all you'll get from these guys....

Ignore is my friend.

[LARED]

28. Dang, I'm giving people cheap shots, and I don't even know it. nt

[Bassman66]

35. When you do it for so long that happens. nt

[LARED]

47. This is pretty cool

Your haranguing me about stuff I didn't do, and you won't even tell me what it's about.

You must be an experienced wife!

[petgoat]

38. Some guys get to be too ignorant to be ashamed of themselves. nt

[LARED]

48. I am completely ignorant as to what you are babbling about

Plus I think you meant to write arrogant. But hey, what's one more mistake.

[petgoat]

169. Ignorance of what you're ignorant of, and ignorace of your ingnorance, is the nature of ignorance.

Arrogance is something different, though it's often linked to ignorance.
In your case, arrogance is shown by assuming that I meant something different
than what I said simply because your self-admitted ignorance precluded your
understanding of it.

[LARED]

24. I have no clue what you're talking about.

What are you babbling on about a cheap shot?

[SDuderstadt]

25. It's what Bassman deems to be "debate"....

it's really a hoot.

[LARED]

50. Hey Bassman!! Are you going to aplogize or continue

acussing me of cheap shots without having the decency to explain yourself?

[Bassman66]

51. Nah, you figure it out. nt

[LARED]

52. Gutless, not surprising. nt

[LARED]

12. Have you consider the diagrams do indeed illuminate

most people, but it is you that fails to understand them. Seriously the diagrams are fine.

[petgoat]

20. The diagram is completely fucked

If those columns on the left are core columns, why are they not labeled as such,
and why didn't they include the other ones, and why is their spacing from column
81 inconsistent with their spacing from each other? Why don't they go all the
way to the ground? What are those girders from 5 to 9 across the the front?

This drawing makes no sense, it's nothing but a pretty picture of devastation,
and you want to make smug assertions that it's my fault.

[AZCat]

22. LARED and I seem to be able to make sense of it.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we look at (and occasionally create) technical drawings. We may just have better mechanical visualization skills.

[petgoat]

39. You can't tell me if those are core columns or perimeter columns

and you claim to make sense of this total bullshit drawing!

Thanks for describing the emperor's clothes.

[AZCat]

62. We already told you what we thought they were.

Please go read mine and LARED's previous posts. I even went to the trouble of posting a diagram.

[LARED]

66. And it was a darned nice diagram - nt

[petgoat]

75. Completely fucked diagram. See post 74 nt

[AZCat]

92. Once you got ahold of it - yes.

I guess that shows test results don't always correlate very well with actual skill levels.

[petgoat]

94. I didn't screw up the drawing. NIST did.

They exaggerate the isolation of the columns,
and they splay out the tops dishonestly.

[AZCat]

96. I can't do it at work today (I'm a little busy)...

but when I get home I'll post on why your transformation of the floor plan is incorrect.

[petgoat]

99. I didn't transform it. Bill transformed it. I rotated it and projected it. Very simple stuff.

It ain't rocket science.

[AZCat]

100. Jesus, petgoat.

A rotation is a transformation. Very simple stuff. :eyes:

[petgoat]

103. Conversion to radical perspective was transformation. nt

[AZCat]

105. Still refusing to admit a mistake, huh?

No surprise.

[petgoat]

168. What mistake did I make? More wet farts from Elmer FUD.

NIST's diagram is goofy on several grounds, so ambiguous you guys
misinterpreted it yourself, and dishonest on that it shows all
the floors collapsed on the entire E end of the building with
the 14th floor still intact.

But you guys say it's a good drawing, because NIST can do no wrong.
And Seger even comes in with her silly putty blueprints to try to
prove it.

What a bunch of Nimrods!

[LARED]

29. There is this thing peope that write techical paper are in the habit

of doing. When one combines an image, etc with text, the image is used to better express your thoughts to make it understandable. So if there is nothing in the image or text about the concerns you raise it is because the writer was not trying to provide every bit of information you think is important, the writer include information they think is important to explain whatever point they are trying to make.

[petgoat]

40. This image does not better express thoughts. You're as confused by it as I am.

Stop pretending that it makes sense. It doesn't.


I love the smell of burning bullshit artists.

[LARED]

49. Stop projecting your ignorance onto other people

Just because you have an shown an established inability to interpret objects spatially does not mean the rest of us lack that ability. BTW, your difficulty in interpreting images in 3D is hardly unique. In fact it's quite common.

[petgoat]

55. Stop your posing. My spatial reasoning quotient has been tested at the 99th percentile.

The tester said he'd never seen a score so high.

You, in defending that incomprehensible mash, are demonstrating your slavish
admiration of the emperor's clothes.

Please identify the three columns to the left. Please explain why they don't
go to the bottom of the picture.

[AZCat]

61. I don't believe you (again).

Either that or the test wasn't for anything relevant. See, LARED and I could post about our technical "chops", but we don't have to because our ability to interpret a drawing speaks for itself. You, on the other hand, seem to feel the need to post some alleged test score (that doesn't jibe with your posts) in order to rationalize your inability to understand the drawing. We call that an appeal to authority (something you're fond of claiming we do).

You can't make sense of the drawing because your mechanical reasoning sucks - that's it. There's no conspiracy to confuse you and others, no team of NIST engineers yukking it up at the thought of the confusion they've sown, just you and (as LARED pointed out) a very common weakness.

[LARED]

67. It's hard to imagine that someone with a

spatial reasoning quotient that tested at the 99th percentile, can only muster 2 dimensional crude figures when trying to explain the WTC collapse.

to quote PG http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=222155&mesg_id=222155

I have reason to believe that one of these days you're going to see some diagrams from more authoritative sources that look
something like these.





When you look at an image from an authoritative source like this and compare it to the one posted by the spatial genius PG



It's easy to see why PG feels one day they will heap praise on his handiwork.

On second thought if one wanted to, they could make the case that PG's handiwork is pretty close to the work done by the NIST guys.
Dang that's kinda scary.

[AZCat]

68. Exactly.

The extent of petgoat's technical abilities has long been obvious. Clearly his skill with MS Paint is superior to the NIST's use of ANSYS/FDS. :eyes:

[petgoat]

73. I made those drawings in two minutes because I saw no reason to pretty them up.

IMHO they illustrate the relevant concepts perfectly well,
and are obvious to anyone who can think visually and has
an understanding of practical physics.

[petgoat]

76. Your inability to interpret a drawing certainly speaks for itself.

Your low regard for my crayon drawings and your high regard for
NIST's paint-by-numbers wonder speak for themselves, too.

I find it very difficult to believe that your incomprehension of
my drawings is not feigned.

[LARED]

65. You're losing it

Regarding you spatial reasoning quotient. At the 99th percentile you must be in the super genius classification. Congratulations. I don't for a moment believe you, but hey congratulations anyway.

You, in defending that incomprehensible mash, are demonstrating your slavish admiration of the emperor's clothes.

For someone that's a genius like you, you sure do practice some very fuzzy thinking. I'm not defending the picture. I am only telling you what it shows and doesn't. You seem to think it's inadequate, which is of course not surprising. You also seem to think the image is supposed to answer every little question that pops into your genius mind.

Let me refer you back to this post ->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=222155&mesg_id=222251

There is this thing people that write technical papers are in the habit of doing. When one combines an image, etc with text, the image is used to better express their thoughts to make it understandable. So if there is nothing in the image or text about the concerns you raise it is because the writer was not trying to provide every bit of information you think is important, the writer includes information they think is important to explain whatever point they are trying to make.

This is a rather important bit of information needed to properly assess if the questions you have will be answered by looking in the place you are .

[William Seger]

69. Spatial reasoning?

> "Please identify the three columns to the left."

As AZcat and LARED have said, they are columns 72, 75, and 78, which you can easily see by aligning with this rotated, perspective-faked floor plan:



(I didn't spend enough time on it to get it perfect, but it should be close enough for someone in the 99% percentile.:eyes:)

> "Please explain why they don't go to the bottom of the picture."

Because the columns didn't, duh. The floor plans show that those columns began at the 7th floor, carried by a transfer girder.

> "The tester said he'd never seen a score so high."

I assume you are talking about your last drug test?

[petgoat]

74. Nice bit of sophistry, Bill. And quite the tribute, that you had to go to the trouble.

Of course it's incredibly dishonest to introduce the distortion of
perspective on the plan in order to get the results you want. Since
there is little or no perspective in the drawing, there is no justification
for introducing it in the reference points. And even when you did, your
lines didn't add up. Can I assume that you work for NIST?

Here is the straight-on honest plan view, rotated. It in no way matches
the drawing, and illustrates my claim that in the drawing, 78 and 81 are
way way way too far apart. The notion that they might have been core
columns was obvious, but I was right not to make it work.

And besides, what's that girder that seems to connect 79, 80, 81, and 78?

So thanks Bill, for proving that I am indeed gifted in structural reasoning,
and for vindicating the assumption I made about your pulverization calcs
that you're a bullshitter not worth spending time on.

Simple geometry tripped up bolo too, and his claim that he'd found
tower wheatchex in the WTC 7 wreckage. He never got over it.

I love the smell of burning bullshit artists.

[William Seger]

78. LMFAO! So, what did you score on the IQ test, PG?

> "Of course it's incredibly dishonest to introduce the distortion of perspective on the plan in order to get the results you want. Since there is little or no perspective in the drawing, there is no justification for introducing it in the reference points."

I think I've figured out what your problem is. :rofl:

[petgoat]

79. There is almost no perspective in the drawing Bill,

The floors are parallel.

Where are the vanishing points?

That being the case, use of the severely distorted set of reference
points was extremely dishonest. That's what makes me wonder if you
work for NIST. Do you?

IQ test? Since you wouldn't believe me, there's no reason to say.

[William Seger]

107. Actually, petgoat...

... I'm pretty sure that you really are a lot smarter than many of your arguments here make you appear. More the pity...

[petgoat]

111. You know better than anyone here that by changing the rotation and the perspective

you could greatly alter the relationships of the reference points.

And then you presented that silly-putty map as if it had some
kind of objective validity. You should be ashamed of yourself.

And why? Simply to cover up the fact that NIST made a mistake,
and to try to play "gotcha" with petgoat.

[William Seger]

113. Do you like this one better?

There are several possible ways that the model could have been rendered in 2D, petgoat. Even a simple 3D program like Google Sketch-up provides either parallel projection (which is what you are suggesting), two-point perspective (i.e. perspective for horizontal planes but parallel projection on the vertical axis), or full perspective. If it's really a two-point perspective, then there is nothing whatsoever "extremely dishonest" in my attempt to align with a floor plan that's had a perspective effect applied -- that would be the only way to get a matching alignment!

However, after playing with it a bit more, I now believe that the above image is more probably correct: Those are columns 78, 77, and 76 (which also were carried by transfer girders at the 7th floor). That interpretation would also explain the light blue girder at the top: It's just the girder from 76 to 79, breaking free when 79 buckled.

So, there ya go; I can find two possible alignments -- neither of which is dishonest! -- while you of the 99th percentile can't find any.

[LARED]

116. You're right, that's a much better alignment for two reasons

1. It fits much better and does help sort out the model.

2. It will likely cause PG to faint.

[William Seger]

119. It did get kinda quite, but I assume that now he is busy...

... doing some diagrams proving that WTC7 was also exactly like a rake.

[eomer]

117. OK, you've convinced me.

My earlier impression that the light blue girder at the top was connected to columns 81 and 80 must have been wrong. I think you are right that it is the girder from 76 to 79. That would mean there is a space between that girder and those two columns in the drawing, which is just open air at this stage due to those floors having fallen away.

Your current explanation seems to have all the elements in the right place and running in the right direction (for example, the floor beams in the lower left area of the drawing).

I think you've got it right.

[petgoat]

120. "that would be the only way to get a matching alignment!"

That's my point. You jiggered with the perspective until you got the
alignment you needed to "prove" that the drawing was correct and I
was nuts. You claimed alignment with columns 72, 75, and 78, and claimed
my spatial intelligence was deficient. LARED and AZ also believed that
the drawing depicted 72, 75, and 78 and there was nothing wrong with it.

Now by showing a more honest perspective (and I note that you DON'T claim that's
an unaltered straight-down plan view, so that might be jiggered as well) you
claim to show that it's columns 76, 77, and 78. If this is so, the girders from
76 to 78 must have been ripped out, because there no girders attached to the
broad faces if 76, 77, and 78.

But note this: Your "perfect alignment" aligns with the tops of columns
79, 80, and 81, and they don't align with the bottoms of those columns.

The drawing is completely fucked. I was right to be confused by it, and you and
LARED and AZ, said there was nothing wrong with it, and you stooped to digital
@$%# to try to justify it.

You never answered my question. Do you work for NIST?

[William Seger]

123. What bullshit, petgoat

Let me try to explain this just once (and only once) more: If the rendering were done with perspective, then the only way to get the floor plan to line up would be by applying a similar perspective to the floor plan. If you don't understand why that is, or if you think a simple convergence of vertical lines can get you any arbitrary alignment you want for those six columns, then I'd have to say your spatial reasoning skills are somewhere below the 50th percentile.

Just by eyeballing it, AZCat, LARED, and I thought that 72, 75, and 78 were a pretty good guess. However, just rotating the floor plan didn't line them up, so I tried the perspective effect. Regardless of what you say, there isn't enough of the floors shown in that rendering to rule out a two-point perspective (which would just affect the floor plans). After a couple of tries, I did get a fairly good alignment (although as I said when I posted it, I didn't take time to try to fine-tune it to see if I could get a better alignment). When I looked at the floor plans and saw that those columns began at the 7th floor, that seemed to corroborate that guess.

However, I forgot a step: ruling out any alternatives. LARED and AZCat had already mentioned 76, 77, and 78 as possible alternatives, but thought the others were more likely, and so did I. However, as we can now see, a simple rotation of the floor plan can be aligned with those columns, and the mysterious girder at the top now becomes easily explained.

So, here's where your trolley jumps the tracks, petgoat: There were two possible alignments, absent any other information, and anyone in the 99th percentile should be able to immediately see that. Instead, you were totally lost, and even now continue to say that the rendering is "completely fucked." But I can go back and read in this thread that every single reason you gave for thinking it was "completely fucked" was dead wrong.

And you're still at it:

> "But note this: Your "perfect alignment" aligns with the tops of columns 79, 80, and 81, and they don't align with the bottoms of those columns."

Now that you mention it, it does appear the top of 79 and possible 80 are displaced a bit by the buckling. I rotated and sized the floor plan to align with the lines at the top of the columns, but if you want to align with the bottom of those columns, my spatial reasoning guesses that a degree or so less rotation should do it. Wanna bet on it?

> "The drawing is completely fucked."

No, it isn't.

> "I was right to be confused by it, and you and LARED and AZ, said there was nothing wrong with it..."

Sorry, but it certainly seems to me that you were confused because you have poor spatial reasoning skills: There was nothing whatsoever "right" about the reasons you gave. (They're still in this thread, if anyone wants to revisit them.) Just eyeballing the floor plans, there were two possible alignments, and additional information was needed to decide which is more likely, while you were claiming the rendering was "fucked" because it was impossible. You were obviously wrong.

> "... and you stooped to digital @$%# to try to justify it."

Wow, what a surprise: You weren't really looking for an answer to the question in the title of your OP. Well, too bad for you, I was.

> "You never answered my question. Do you work for NIST?"

No, I'm a software engineer for a telecomm company. Do you work for Al Qaeda?

[petgoat]

124. Now that's the truest title you've ever written. Thanks for truth-in-labeling.

You start with a straw man argument, intended in obscuring your dishonest
use of the powerful variables conferred by perspective to generate the
answer you desired--and which was wrong.

You say 72, 75, and 78 were a good guess. That was a dumb guess.
If that was right, then the girders were fastened BEHIND the columns,
and there was that light blue beam impossibly connecting 78, 81,
and 80; and column 81 was way too far away from 78. That guess was
IMPOSSIBLE, obviously so to anyone with any sense.

I agree that 76, 77, and 78 make a good match. What disguised this
was the fact that the top floor provides no clue of two corners
(at 78 and 78) and the misleading sky blue beam that the eye interprets
as perspective instead of as a fallen girder.

Apparently the drawing is alleging that the part of the 14th floor s of
column 79 has collapsed.

The drawing is highly misleading. I find it interesting that after being
fooled by it yourselves, and stooping to graphical trickery to try to defend
it, you still maintain your high dudgeon about someone having questioned it.

[William Seger]

126. LOL, and I find it interesting that you continue...

... to try to cover up your stupidity by calling me dishonest.

Just kidding -- you use that disingenuous dodge a lot, and I don't find it at all interesting anymore. And ever since I realized that you are not to be taken seriously, you no longer have the power to piss me off. As I said, if you really don't understand the perspective thing, after three explanations, then your spatial reasoning is simply not up to the task of interpreting a 3D rendering, period. My advice is to just give it up.

At least you've backed off the "completely fucked" characterization and now say it's "highly misleading." But I don't see any evidence whatsoever of an intention to mislead. The description says what they were trying to show -- column 79 buckling after losing lateral support -- and it does that. Yes, other details are hard to interpret from that one rendering (mainly because of not being able to tell what had already fallen and what had been removed for clarity, and not having labels on those three columns). But you tried to make something suspicious out of your own inability to understand it, after making a completely inept attempt -- and whadaya know, that's just like about 95% of the other "truth movement" bullshit.

Anyway, you forgot to thank me for answering your OP question. That's rather rude, but you're welcome anyway.

[petgoat]

127. Highly Misleading may not be Completely Fucked where you come from

But where I come from, highly misleading diagrams in a technical
report are completely fucked.

I understand the perspective thing just fine, and you are merely
blustering to try to cover up your dishonesty. The drawing was
totally fucked, and you tried to justify it with computer graphic
sophistry.

You cheated to try to defend the drawing by distorting the data points:



I'm not going to thank somebody for impugning my intelligence when the
facts vindicate me, and telling me lies and trying to cover it over
with bluster and bluff.

Do you work for a company that had or has a contract with NIST?

[William Seger]

128. Seriously, petgoat...

... maybe it's time to take a break from all this "truthing."

[petgoat]

129. Seriously Bill, you're completely busted, dude. Pants on fire.

No problem. You've only got 2600 posts invested in the William Seger name,
and the brand isn't worth much. So retire it, create a new name, and life
begins again.

You didn't answer my question. Do you work for a company that has had or has
contracts with NIST?

[William Seger]

133. Seriously, petgoat...

... it seems you've totally lost it. Seek professional help.

[petgoat]

138. Said the purveyor of distorted graphics in the service of untruths.

It's a metaphor for the NIST reports, is why it rankles me.

William Seger is just an anonymous two-bit bullshit artist
with flaming britches.

You still didn't answer my question. Do your employers or
did your employers have a contract with NIST?

[LARED]

131. Geez, give up the misleading nonsense already

There is nothing misleading about the NIST diagram. Remember this, it's important

There is this thing people that write technical papers are in the habit of doing. When one combines an image, etc with text, the image is used to better express their thoughts to make it understandable. So if there is nothing in the image or text about the concerns you raise it is because the writer was not trying to provide every bit of information you think is important, the writer includes information they think is important to explain whatever point they are trying to make.

Did you ever even read how the diagram was being used. Probably not, otherwise you would give up the idea the diagram was misleading.

[petgoat]

139. I could draw a picture of column 79 buckling in Paint crayons.

It would be perfectly clear. And you would say it made no sense.

the writer includes information they think is important

So shoot me for thinking the other stuff in the drawing might be important.

Shoot me for thinking the drawing ought to make sense.

Shoot me for pointing out that when I criticized the drawing as incomprehensible,
your defenses of it were based on your own misinterpretations, and William Seger
went as far as to introduce distorted graphics in support of that.

[LARED]

141. There is a vast difference between the image being misleading

and your inability to understand it.

[petgoat]

145. My inability to understand it was right, and your claim you understood it was dishonest.

How do you like measuring your naked emperor's inseam, Mr. Taylor?

[LARED]

149. So are you now claiming you misunderstood it and it was not misleading?

If that's the case you are making progress.

You should also look closely at what I said regarding the image before you accuse me.

[petgoat]

151. It is misleading, it misled me, it misled you, you ridiculed me for being confused,

you said there was nothing wrong with the drawing, and Seger
resorted to distorting graphics to try to support your
misinterpretation of it.

[LARED]

152. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the drawing. - for the umpteenth time. nt

[petgoat]

155. Except that it confused the hell out of three people who claim engineering expertise. nt

[William Seger]

156. This is getting pathetic

Now, you've lost track of the reality that people can still read what's been posted in this thread.

[petgoat]

157. More truth in labelling! It confused the hell out of you, AZ, and LARED. nt

[LARED]

158. You're projecting again

I was not confused. Please point out what I said to give you that impression.

[petgoat]

159. YOu said the three columns were 72, 75, 78 but you weren't sure. That's confused as hell. nt

[LARED]

161. What I said was this

it would indicate the three columns on the left are interior columns 72, 75, and 78. Although it is not possible to be certain.

That is not an indication of being confused as hell. It indicates I understand completely that with that 3D image it is not possible to be certain of the orientation of the columns. That shows a lack of confusion on my part as I understood the limits of the image. If I was confused I would have made statements like the drawing is all F'd up.

[William Seger]

162. No, THIS is "confused as hell":

> "After looking at it 'til I was cross-eyed, I still couldn't figure it
> out, and I missed the text on the label.

> Nobody's answered my question. Are those perimeter columns to the left?
> So do we have sections of floors hanging on the exterior of the
> perimeter columns?"

Then, after LARED and AZCat specifically told you what two sets of columns they might be, you said:

> "If they're core columns,
> then it's a view from the SW not the SE, and then column 79 should be
> to the left of 80 and not to the right of it.

> I even tried flipping the diagram to see if it was backward, and it didn't make
> any sense then either."

THAT'S what "confused as hell" looks like: That makes so little sense, I seriously thought you must have been talking about some completely different drawing.

[petgoat]

165. I was right to be confused as hell, because the drawing was confusing as hell.

You guys said there was nothing wrong with the drawing,
that you weren't confused, and that I was wrong to be confused.

In the meantime you mis-identified the columns, and presented a
dishonestly manipulated graphic to justify your mis-identification.

It's pretty obvious that none of you are interested in truth, but only
in protecting the authority of the fraudulent government reports.

[William Seger]

115. Another diagram from NCSTAR 1-9 vol2

This rendering appears to be from approximately the same angle, but it's an elevated view. The three left columns appear to agree pretty well with the rendering we're discussing, and it has two of the columns labeled 77 and 78. So, I do believe the mystery is solved.

[LARED]

81. Me too

[AZCat]

91. Wow.

This has to be some sort of a joke. 99th percentile, my ass.

Please continue to bloviate on this topic, petgoat. This is priceless.

[petgoat]

98. I'm not bloviating. Please stop spamming the thread.

The drawing does not have perspective.

Therefore imposing reference points from a highly distorted, radical-perspective
drawing THAT WAS CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALIDATING THE DISTORTED DRAWING
is not only mistaken, it is highly dishonest.

[AZCat]

101. No.

I'll show you later why you are wrong.

[eomer]

82. The beams and girder don't line up properly.

If your theory were correct then there would be a girder running straight from column 72, through 75 an 78, and ending at 81. At 81 there would be a corner formed by that girder and an almost perpendicular one that starts at 81 and runs past 80 and 79.

Clearly in the diagram being questioned, the places where girders run straight through vs. the places where they form corners are not in the right places in order to agree with your explanation. Rather than a corner at 81 as it should be, the girder goes straight through at your alleged 81. Rather than straight through at 78 as it should be, there is a corner formed by two girders at your alleged 78,

[LARED]

87. Are you related to PG?

Have you considered all those "missing" girders are either not shown for clarity or they are in the pile of stuff at the bottom of the image.

[eomer]

88. Yes, I did consider that. Look again at my point -- it has to do with elements that are shown, not

elements that are missing.

The theory would interpret the light blue girder as running straight through columns 78, 81, 80, and 79.

But there is no girder in real life that runs straight through those four columns.

[petgoat]

95. Look at the rhetorical techniques these guys use about something that's right in front of their eyes

Their only argument is ridicule.

And the drawing is not a substantive point! It would cost them
nothing to admit "yeah, the artist made a mistake."

But no, NIST infallibility must be promoted even when the mistake
is obvious.

Such dishonesty appears to be so reflexive that no thought is
given to its tactical stupidity

[AZCat]

97. Rhetorical techniques?

Says the same person unable to understand a simple drawing and too ashamed to admit it.

[petgoat]

102. It's a simple drawing that because it was so distorted was unrecognizable.

Yes, rhetorical techniques. A delicate euphemism applicable to the
Toasty Britches Brigade.

[AZCat]

104. I'd love to trade barbs all day...

but I have to get these drawings out. Somebody fucked up and left a full-height wall off the second story plans and it screwed with my work.

[William Seger]

106. My "theory" was simply to answer PG's two questions

... which were: what are those three columns; and why don't they extend to the bottom of the drawing? I don't know where the "virtual camera" was placed to make that 2D rendering from the 3D model, nor do I know which of several possible methods might have been used for the 2D projection (e.g. it looks to me like it might be two-point perspective rather than true perspective). But using PaintShopPro's "vertical perspective effect" on the floor plan (which just converges vertical lines, which is why I called it "perspective-faked"), then I can get columns 72, 75, and 78 to align reasonably well with the rendering. Since those columns began at the 7th floor, then assuming that those are the columns in the rendering would explain PG's second question. So, I think it's a pretty good theory.

As to other questions about the girders and beams, there clearly isn't enough information available to answer them. As LARED said, we can't tell from that one picture what's already fallen and what might have been removed from the rendering in order to clarify what the picture is intended to show: column 79 buckling after the floors collapsed. It appears to me that the lighter blue beam at the top might be an element that was unique to the 14th floor, but I can't find a plan for that floor. But if the intent of PG's "analysis" is to show that the model itself must be "totally fucked" and therefore totally unreliable, then he's got a lot more work to do.

[eomer]

112. Whether the light blue girder at the top is unique to the 14th or not, your theory is still wrong.

The four columns that you interpret to be 78, 81, 80, and 79 are in a straight line in the OP diagram. Since columns 78, 81, 80, and 79 are not in a straight line in real life then those four columns in the OP diagram cannot be 78, 81, 80, and 79.

[William Seger]

114. See post #113

I now think that 78, 77, and 76 are a better fit (and also explain the light blue girder at the top); so no, I still don't accept the assertion that the four columns on the left are in a straight line.

[eomer]

118. Agreed.

See post #117.

[whatchamacallit]

30. I can explain it

That's a picture of your ass after the OCT politely responds to your query.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Yeah, you guys are such victims....

aren't you....

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

34. That's a bit confusing.

Here I thought I was doing a good job being polite and responding to petgoat's questions, and you call me a "dick". Would you prefer the profane, cynical AZCat?

[whatchamacallit]

70. That was kinda for SDude ;-)

[SDuderstadt]

71. From the context of Azcat's post....

sounds like you must've called me a "dick" before your post got deleted. Serves you right. Do you "truthers" really expect to recruit people to your cause by calling them names?

[whatchamacallit]

72. I can't speak for others, but I'm not trying to "recruit" anyone

I just wanna know what really happened.

[SDuderstadt]

109. Good, because you're doing a really lousy job....

if you are.

[Bassman66]

36. Can someone help me with this please?

Can someone tell me - using the column numbers in the diagram as a guide - where the bulge was that was monitored by the FDNY?

Please ignore the big red arrow and any other markings.



Thanks in advance.

[petgoat]

41. Chief Hayden's bulge was allegedly on column 15

He claimed they put a transit on the corner and found a bulge at the 13th floor.

Which is very peculiar, because according to the picture below, there is no SW
corner at the 13th floor.

[Bassman66]

42. Column 15?

So if the SW corner was bulging, then am I right in thinking that the interior framework was distorted in some way? Buckling perhaps?

Where can I find this in the latest NIST report?

I presume NIST made use of the Engineer's transit readings on the SW corner?

[petgoat]

54. The AE guys were speculating on their press conference that just the curtain wall was bulging

But if the picture I put up is for real, there was no SW corner to bulge,
leading me to wonder if Chief Hayden was making a deliberately obvious lie.

I wonder if Ron Hamburger did the same thing when he told Stanford that the
planes could not have hit any lower than they did, because the towers
were surrounded by tall buildings.

"I believe that the hijackers flew the aircraft into the lowest part of the
buildings they had access to," Hamburger commented. "If there had been no
nearby structures, they would have hit the towers lower."

TOTAL Bullshit! I wonder if the guy was saying "Don't believe anything I say."


http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html

[Bassman66]

57. Petgoat. keep up the good work.

I agree with you.

Why was Hayden lying?

[petgoat]

125. I don't know that Hayden was lying,.

The chiefs would have had reason to exaggerate the structural
damage or invent structural damage to explain why they allowed a
$861 million dollar building to burn until it fell down, and made
no effort to stop it from burning.

The story that they had no water was bullshit. The fireboat John J.
Harvey was at the marina. The Hudson river was a couple of blockes
away.

Maybe the chiefs were afraid to send their men into WTC7, thinking
that the towers had been blown up and that WTC7 would blow up too.
Maybe after 9/11, you weren't allowed to talk about the explosions
at the towers. So they had to exaggerate the structural damage, but
they were at least honest enough to do so in a way that showed they
were lying.

[William Seger]

135. "... at least honest enough to do so in a way that showed they were lying."

The explicative power of paranoid conspiracism is truly awesome.

[petgoat]

137. I take it you've never had a real job, Bill, and don't know how the CYA world works. nt

[William Seger]

140. You're talking about a fucking mass murder, petgoat

... including 343 FDNY firefighters! You're saying Hayden figured out that the buildings were actually a demolition job and then lied to help the perps cover it up?! If you really think that's how the "real world" works -- that you have that little respect for the ordinary decency of ordinary people -- then your "real world" must be a place of continual fear. I really don't know how you can live in such fear.

I feel very, very sorry for you, but honestly, I cannot figure out why paranoid conspiracists think they can make outrageous, slanderous accusations like that without a shred of evidence, against anyone and everyone who stands in the way of their conspiracy delusions, and then feel affronted if their "opinions" aren't treated with respect.

[SDuderstadt]

142. I couldn't agree more, WS....

which is why I have such little respect for many in the so-called "truth movement". I guess they think our friends and neighbors become murderous consirators when they go to work for the federal government, It's truly astounding.

[SDuderstadt]

143. Unintentional dupe

[petgoat]

144. Nobody died at Building 7, idiot.

IF Hayden was lying, and I was only speculating that he might be, it was
to cover up why they let a $861 million building burn until collapse--not
to cover up murder.

That there was a kibosh on the discussion of explosions is obvious. 118
first responders testified about them in the oral histories, and then shut
up entirely about them after that. So any guilt Hayden has in complicity
with the murders of the 343 FDNY personnel is shared throughout the entire
department.

without a shred of evidence

Oh spare me the passionate hyperbole. I love the smell of burning bullshit artists.

[William Seger]

148. Here's what you said, asshole

> Maybe the chiefs were afraid to send their men into WTC7, thinking
> that the towers had been blown up and that WTC7 would blow up too.
> Maybe after 9/11, you weren't allowed to talk about the explosions
> at the towers. So they had to exaggerate the structural damage, but
> they were at least honest enough to do so in a way that showed they
> were lying.

Without a shred of evidence, you're claiming that Hayden figured out that the towers were "blown up", killing nearly 3000 people, including 343 firefighters, and then decided to lie about structural damage to WTC7 to help the murderers get away.

[petgoat]

150. There's plenty of evidence that FDNY throught the towers were blown up.

118 first responders testified to explosions. Chief Turi said there were secondary devices.
Chief Downey believed there were bombs in the building.

Quit mistaking your ignorance for a lack of evidence.

Your ascribing of motivation to Hayden is speculation, and to attribute
your own speculations to me is just more of your dishonesty.

You guys are really getting desperate aren't you? You can see the NIST report doesn't
add up.

Their own computer model shows the building twisting like a wet paper bag, but it came
down almost undistorted.

[William Seger]

153. Oh, I am well aware...

... of the intentional distortions and outright lies that the "truth movement" uses to prop up the idiotic assertion that "FDNY thought the towers were blown up." But you think that since that bullshit hasn't been debunked here this week you can toss it out again, and then call other people dishonest.

http://www.jod911.com/sounds.pdf

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=zNC&q=9%2F11+firefighters+%22heard+explosions%22+debunk&btnG=Search

> "You guys are really getting desperate aren't you?

I was quite serious when I suggested that you are in need of professional help, petgoat. When you lose track of the difference between you own unsubstantiated speculations and reality, and when you start lying to yourself to rationalize treating your delusions as reality, and when you convince yourself that everyone else knows that your delusions are reality and they're lying to you because they're all "in on it".... you're headed down a road that is not mentally healthy.

[petgoat]

154. What a crock you ladle out, Mr. Ashenpantses nt

[Bassman66]

43. Column 76. What happened to that theory?

The interim report was garbage it seems.

[Bassman66]

44. The beams that ties columns 79, 80 and 81 together...

In the diagram they are missing.

How did that happen and what is the physical evidence that this really happened?

[Bassman66]

45. A girder on Floor 13 ...

From the MIST report This is very specific:

"Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories."

The evidence for this event is?

Am I right in thinking this is all subjective?

[Bassman66]

46. NIST Animation of collapse - That's not what happened!

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

Bottom right of the page.

Anyone else think that's actually not what is seen on the real time videos?

[Bassman66]

60. Well? Is this an honest animation or not? nt

[Bassman66]

53. A crock of sh*t?

From the lack of response to my posts would it be resonable to assume that NIST has no evidence whatsoever to base their theory that a girder on column 79 at floor 13 broke its connection and started a serial floor collapse?

Would it be fair to assume this is in fact a total invention?

[Bassman66]

56. Seems so. Wake up America! nt

[petgoat]

58. An interesting point too is that the 14th floor was vacant.

So can they really be sure that the collapse started with the girder on 13 or the girder on 14?

According to the FEMA report, floors 15, 16, and 17 were vacant too.

NIST says they were occupied by Solomon, but were they truly occupied or only reserved?

[Bassman66]

59. Good points. They have NO evidence for their certitude.

It's ALL invented.

[hack89]

63. Because we can't answer your question here at DU

NIST has no evidence at all? Don't you feel the need to at least try to ask NIST themselves before you come to such a conclusion? I thought the truth movement was all about "asking questions" - don't you think that asking the questions to the right people might me a useful practice?

[AZCat]

64. No, it would not be reasonable to assume that.

Perhaps you have heard of this thing called "work" that some of us do during the day?

[Bassman66]

85. Too busy with work to answer. I see.

How come it never stops you on other threads?

[AZCat]

93. Maybe you should check the times of my posts during the week.

Then you might realize that, like a lot of other people, I'm busy with something else between about 7AM and 5PM Monday thru Friday.

[Bassman66]

77. Bump.

For a fabrication by NIST.

[LARED]

80. Interesting

"Bump" is typically in the lexicon of freeperville, whereas "Kick" or "Kick it" is typically in the lexicon of DU?

Did you forget where you were posting?

[Bassman66]

83. I didn't know there was a rule about this.

Do you have anything to contribute other than a cheap attack on me?

[LARED]

86. Bassman - "cheap attack " - Irony- LOL

[Bassman66]

89. Instead of attacking me, why don't contribute something...

..to the debate.

It's a much better use of your time.

Or maybe you should get back to work?

[LARED]

90. Again the question comes to mind

Is the irony intentional or unintentional?

[Bassman66]

108. OK, you have nothing to say. Next. nt

[Bassman66]

84. Use the search function for 'bump' - enjoy.

Do you feel silly?

[SDuderstadt]

110. Good question....

judging from his lack of understanding of how representative democracy works, I've always wondered about this poster.

[End Of The Road]

121. Damn I'm sick of rudeness on this forum.

I'm trying to plow my way through the NIST report so that I can better understand the discussion (here, but more importantly elsewhere) and if I've got a question this will be the last place I come for help.

[petgoat]

122. Any questions you may have, let 'em rip!

Most of the posters in this forum are long on attitude, short on substance,
and seem desperate to defend the official accounts.

[Bassman66]

130. EOTR, in your reading you might look for any real evidence...

..that what supposedly happened on floor 13 really happened outside a computer model.

I think you'll look in vain.

[End Of The Road]

132. Thanks for the hint.

Gives me something to stay awake for while I'm reading it!

[SDuderstadt]

136. I just had an idea, Bassman

Do we know what the ethnic make-up of the officials of NIST are? That might explain a lot. Are there any "brothers" at NIST?

[petgoat]

146. self delete

[Thorandmjolnir]

170. WTF? nt

[William Seger]

134. It just depends

If you have a serious question, and are seriously looking for an answer, I've never seen anyone get beat up for that around here. On the other hand, if you're "just asking questions" for no purpose other than to accuse NIST and FDNY of being accessories after the fact of a mass murder, based on nothing but your own ignorance, then you can expect to be treated like petgoat.

[petgoat]

147. Accusations of being accessories to cover up mass murder

are based on obvious dishonesty in the reports of NIST and FEMA.

[petgoat]

160. The drawing seems to indicate that almost all the floors back to the 76-78 axis

fell down from floors 13 to 8, leaving the three core columns 79, 80, 81 completely
without lateral bracing, before column 79 buckled and the floors all the way up
to 47 fell down.

Is that what the report says happened?

[petgoat]

163. Nobody knows? You just believe the report without understanding it? nt

[LARED]

164. Is that what the report says happened?

Why don't you read it to see what it says!

It's free, here's the links

http://wtc.nist.gov/

[petgoat]

166. I had thought it said the NE corner fell first and pulled down columns 80 and 81.

The picture seems to indicate that almost all off the east end floors fell down
from 13 to 5, leaving the 14th floor standing, before column 79 buckled.

That is not consistent with my understanding of what the report said.
How about yours?

[petgoat]

171. Note Post 74, where Bill Seger resorts to Silly Putty Graphic Effects

to try to prove NIST's drawing makes sense, <i> and winds up lining the drawing
up with the wrong set of columns! </i>

Yup, that's a great drawing all right!

[LARED]

172. How long do you plan on kicking a OP that points out

your failure to understand a drawing?

[petgoat]

173. Why don't you answer the substantive question in 166?

Does the drawing match NIST's report, or is it cut out of whole cloth in showing
the floors from the entire east end of the building collapsed?

Incidentally, are you aware that the CTBUH seems to think it happened like it's
depicted in the drawing?

There was nothing wrong whatsoever with my confusion about the drawing. There were
a number of optical illusions in it, especially at the top. There was, however,
a great deal wrong with your confusion, and AZ's, and Seger's--because you denied
being confused and said there was nothing wrong with the draewing.

[William Seger]

175. Here's what's wrong with your confusion

Post #147:

> "Accusations of being accessories to cover up mass murder are based on obvious dishonesty in the reports of NIST and FEMA."

No, your slanderous accusations are based on nothing but your own obvious confusion about a great many things, and this thread is just one example. You posted the OP because you wanted to imply that NIST was being dishonest, when the reality is that you simply lack the spatial reasoning skills necessary to relate the 3D rendering to the floor plan. You now try to claim that others were just as confused as you were, when in fact LARED and AZCat said in their first set of posts that the columns might be either 72-75-78 or 76-77-78. Even with that hint, you came back with an interpretation of the rendering that was just bizarre. When called on that, you claimed superior spatial reasoning skills. When I demonstrated that they could be 72-75-78 if the rendering had been done with perspective, you went apoplectic about "silly putty graphics," apparently unable to understand why that was possible and once again demonstrating the weakness of your spatial reasoning skills. When I showed that they were indeed 76-77-78, you seem to have forgotten why you wanted someone to explain the rendering in the first place, and instead try to spin it so that even when you're wrong, you're right: there's something suspicious about NIST not doing the rendering so that you could understand it. But, in fact, there is nothing wrong with the rendering, and your attempt to slander NIST failed -- miserably.

So now, you want someone to go through the same kind of thing with you again; you want to claim that NIST is dishonest because your misunderstanding of the collapse sequence doesn't fit your misunderstanding of the rendering? Well, maybe that'll turn out as funny as this one, but this poor horse has long since expired and the thread is getting too long, so start a new one.

[petgoat]

176. More long-winded twaddle from Seger

So you're going to tell me my motivations for the OP?

My motivations were obvious! I was confused by a confusing drawing.
So were LARED and AZ, and you were confused enough to Silly-Putty a
graphic to try to explain it!

When will you learn to write something someone can read? (Hint--there's
this thing called the delete key. Cut out the 2/3 of your stuff that
adds nothing and gets in the way.)


Do tell, how do I misunderstand the collapse sequence?

[William Seger]

177. Here's a hint

Your reading comprehension is not my problem.

[petgoat]

180. I comprehend the lack of substance in your posts just fine,

What annoys me is that I have to wade through so much pretentious obfuscatory blather to extract it.

[William Seger]

182. Oh? Looks like you could use another hint

The substance is in the "pretentious obfuscatory blather" that you don't comprehend. Bummer, huh. It must be like hearing people talk a language you don't understand but being pretty sure they're making fun of you.

[petgoat]

185. I comprehend your substanceless posts just fine. Once I dig through the crap you hide it under. nt

[AZCat]

178. This is getting ridiculous.

It's pretty fucking clear you're the one with the problem(s) around here, petgoat - not us. Maybe it's time for you to take a little time off and focus on something else for a while (like the election, maybe?) because you've certainly lost "perspective" on this issue.

[petgoat]

179. More truth in labeling from AZ. Please stop with the empty disruptive negativity. nt

[SDuderstadt]

181. Seems everyone understands the drawing...

except you, PG. Maybe you should look inward, rather than lash out at the rest of us.

[petgoat]

184. Yeah, Seger understood it so well she had to Silly Putty a drawing to try to make sense of it.

Your posts so often remind me of a line from a play: What's that smell in this room? Didn't you notice it, Brick? Didn't you notice the powerful and obnoxious odor....

[SDuderstadt]

190. Is the play about you?

Just wondering. It would make sense.

[Thorandmjolnir]

187. I don't understand it. nt!

[petgoat]

189. Yeah, the top part is real disorienting. The key is, that blue beam

that looks like it's connecting columns 78, 80, 81, and the blue column is actually
the one connecting column 76 to 79, and it's torn loose from 79 and kind of dangling,
so what looks like perspective is actually droopiness.

[AZCat]

183. It must suck really bad to be so incompetent.

Why else would you be so adamant about refusing to admit your ignorance?

Go phone bank, petgoat - it will do you (and hopefully our candidate) good.

[petgoat]

186. You should know. nt

[AZCat]

188. That's pathetic.

Please go phone bank - Obama could use your help.

[AZCat]

174. I was wondering that myself.

petgoat seems to be missing the obvious here.

[Realityhack]

191. I sense a long term pattern n/t

[petgoat]

192. The pattern of deceptive negative one-liners designed to make this forum repulsive to newbies.

What was obvious was that the drawing was extremely confusing, and I didn't miss that.
Nobody wants to discuss anything substantive, such as whether its depiction of a total
collapse of all the eastern floors from 13 to 5 before column 79 buckles is something
claimed in the report.