'What about building 7'?

[gerrycan]

Gerry, my comment is not from this thread. It's from the thread where Tony Szamboti is getting confused and accusing Larry Silverstein of confessing wtc7 was a controlled demolition. I am getting confused as to whether Tony is from Philadelphia or a paedophile. Im thinking of offering £100 to find out.

Would you describe your comment as "civil" ?

I think it is inappropriate, ill advised and would be considered disgusting by decent people. It says a lot more about your state of mind than anybody elses.
That you clearly do not see this as being the case is disturbing. Perhaps you should go speak to somebody suitably qualified to address your issues.

 

[gerrycan]

Please explain how you have come to this conclusion

Please explain how a 53ft beam could possibly expand more than 5.5"....
You can't, because it can't.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Why are my posts constantly being edited in a way that the pertinent questions are no longer clear?

One of your posts was edited to remove incivility. The edit didn't change the nature of your post.

A bunch of your posts were sent to AAH, if that's what you mean by 'edited', but so were a lot of other posts.

The above from Spanx is an absolute disgrace, yet is presumably considered to be civil by your moderators. Get real.

Spanx's post would have been an absolute disgrace if it was serious, but if we examine the context, and consider the inclusion of a , we see that it wasn't serious, and was therefore not an absolute disgrace.

 

[Spanx]

Would you describe your comment as "civil" ?

I think it is inappropriate, ill advised and would be considered disgusting by decent people. It says a lot more about your state of mind than anybody elses.
That you clearly do not see this as being the case is disturbing. Perhaps you should go speak to somebody suitably qualified to address your issues.

Bad luck Gerry, you are off topic, perhaps move to the appropriate thread and these posts can end up in AAH

 

[Spanx]

Please explain how a 53ft beam could possibly expand more than 5.5"....
You can't, because it can't.

Please try to be civil and polite and answer my question. (You don't have to)

 

[gerrycan]

Bad luck Gerry, you are off topic, perhaps move to the appropriate thread and these posts can end up in AAH

So what was the maximum expansion of a 53ft beam at 600C ?
Simple question.

 

[gerrycan]

One of your posts was edited to remove incivility. The edit didn't change the nature of your post.

A bunch of your posts were sent to AAH, if that's what you mean by 'edited', but so were a lot of other posts.





Spanx's post would have been an absolute disgrace if it was serious, but if we examine the context, and consider the inclusion of a , we see that it wasn't serious, and was therefore not an absolute disgrace.

BS. How do you know that the context will be seen by anbody who happens upon that thread. To say the comment was not civil is a huge understatement, and for you to allow that to stand is as ill advised as Spanx's compulsion to broach such topics in any thread.
Disturbing.

 

[Spanx]

So what was the maximum expansion of a 53ft beam at 600C ?
Simple question.

Is this some how appropriate as to whether I think Tony is from Philadelphia or fond of minors ?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

BS.

I call BS on your BS and raise you a council of concern trolls:

 

[BasqueArch]

Please explain how a 53ft beam could possibly expand more than 5.5"....
You can't, because it can't.

It can when the temperature is greater than 600C (temperature boundary for the 1 story NIST model), which NIST used based on their FDS results in the 16 story model.

 

[turingtest]

Unfortunately, Mr. Jowenko, after he became certain of 7WTC's destruction by controlled demolition on 9/11, was never asked in a followup interview if he had re-considered his understanding of the WTC Twin Towers collapses.
The most important point is, that in a followup interview months later, Mr. Jowenko unhesitatingly and unequivocally, stated he was still absolutely convinced that the destruction of 7WTC was a controlled demolition.

I think Bill Smith said it well;

Well, I'll tell you what I'd do if I were pinning all my hopes for this earth-shaking revelation of mine on a single authority who only said in part what I wanted to hear, and contradicted it in another- I'd ask him myself. But that's just me; I do understand that good CT methodology is to put the burden for dispelling an uncertainty that's needed to support the CT on others.

 

[BasqueArch]

Well, I'll tell you what I'd do if I were pinning all my hopes for this earth-shaking revelation of mine on a single authority who only said in part what I wanted to hear, and contradicted it in another- I'd ask him myself. But that's just me; I do understand that good CT methodology is to put the burden for dispelling an uncertainty that's needed to support the CT on others.

Unlike the natural sciences, another epistemological fault of conspiracists is that their claims are not integrated. Paraphrasing Aristotle -There are many ways to be wrong but only one way to be right.

 

[DGM]

Please explain how a 53ft beam could possibly expand more than 5.5"....
You can't, because it can't.

Can't it expand and also be deflected in other planes? Why do you only consider the problem in one dimension?

 

[Animal]

So what was the maximum expansion of a 53ft beam at 600C ?
Simple question.

It doesn't matter how much the 53 ft beam can expand. This "issue" has been debunked long ago. Trigonometry is not your friend.

more hamster wheeling by troofers.

 

[Animal]

Can't it expand and also be deflected in other planes? Why do you only consider the problem in one dimension?

The problem is troofers think that is the only beam that matters.

 

[jaydeehess]

So what was it that the producers cut into the film supposedly unbeknownst to Mr. Jowenko?

Well at ~47:48 the cover page for the FEMA WTC 7 Report is shown.

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/Coverpage_zps19f83120.png[/qimg]

At ~49:05 when Mr. Jowenko's portion of the program is finished, the cover page for the FEMA WTC 7 Report is again shown along with a 7 WTC tenant listing.

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/TitleTenantList_zps89e767f2.png[/qimg]

There is no evidence that the producers were disingenuously dropping graphics in (during editing) with the intention of Mr. Jowenko not seeing them.

They did show him documents which directly related to his area of expertise, building demolitions.

Here are some screen captures from Mr. Jowenko's first interview showing the camera repositioning and the document *Figure L-31 sitting on the keyboard in front of him.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/Screenshot2015-02-12at82144AM_zps0e33ca32.png[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/Screenshot2015-02-12at82209AM_zpsf81e46c7.png[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/Screenshot2015-02-12at82235AM_zps38561ea3.png[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/NIST7WTCFigureL-31_zps7dd072fd.jpg[/qimg]

If you watch the complete interviews with Mr. Jowenko it is obvious that the producers were presenting him with all their available materials.

With English subtitles;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&gl=CA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

And regarding the title page, Mr. Jowenko was made aware that it was a FEMA report.

I believe that the reason Oystein made the reference in that way was to denote that we simply don't see Jowenko looking at the drawings. That it is assumed that he saw the FEMA drawings shown as graphics in the video. Frankly that is how I would do it were I doing the post production editing, I assume you would too. THE point, that has been made several times, is that this is hardly enough information on which to make the pronouncement that Jowenko does.

That's besides the main issue though, other demolitions experts, with more time to have researched structural drawings, disagree with Jowenko. At best this disagreement makes the expert demolition opinion a wash. In addition, the only response to this disagreement with Jowenko has been to suggest that those who disagree are simply toeing the line with officials in order to protect a revenue stream. That is absolute, unadulterated speculation with no evidence whatsoever and is nothing more than 9/11truth fan-fiction.

 

[George 152]

Can't it expand and also be deflected in other planes? Why do you only consider the problem in one dimension?

Any load on that beam at that temperature is going to bend it..

 

[LSSBB]

The problem is troofers think that is the only beam that matters.

It's about time for gerrycan to caught up some diagrams of the different beams and their loadings and potential deflections under different temperature profiles and show how his quibble makes any difference, or whether it even is a difference.

 

[JSanderO]

I suppose few would deny 7WTC could be CDed and it might come down very much like what we saw. But setting it up on 9/11 seems rather impossible and there was damage and fires raging and no sprinklers and this sounds like a plausible formula for causing a collapse.

Does Jowenko know the building was on fire with no sprinklers all day? Does he think there is no possibility for an unsprinklered building in flames to suffer structural failures? If so... why not? Why bother with sprinklers?

 

[DGM]

Any load on that beam at that temperature is going to bend it..

More important is, once the column connection is broken the beam is free to twist or "whip" in all sorts of ways depending on where the heat is applied. The lab test is controlled, the application of heat in the real world is not.

Before:

After:


This is what localized heat can do.