'What about building 7'?

[Animal]

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

Not if it is constrained.

 

[Georgio]

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.

I think Spanx is only trying to draw a comparison between this line of reasoning and the reward being put out by AE911Truth to find the episode of 'History's Business' that Tony Szamboti remembers contains Larry Silverstein saying that building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons.

For the comparison to be fair though, the hypothetical situation would have to be that Spanx says he remembered a TV show in which Tony Szamboti had said he was a pedophile, rather than a direct accusation of pedophilia against Tony Szamboti.

Using pedophilia is an obvious tactic designed to get people angry, that's all. He wants people to say, 'You can't accuse Tony Szamboti of something like that based on such flimsy evidence!' so he can then say, 'But that's exactly what Tony Szamboti is doing to Larry Silverstein!'

All Tony Szamboti has claimed is that he remembers a TV show in which someone said something. There's a thread about it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288319

 

[beachnut]

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

Which means you have nothing to support the CD fantasy, and the delusional inside job nonsense.

What kind of logic is this? You claim it can't, and ignore the fact it has nothing to do with the failed fantasy CD claim.

Why post BS? Because 911 truth can't support the CD fantasy?

So? Does this mean you are short on evidence for CD, no evidence for the silent blast-free explosives, nothing. 13 years of nothing. What next?

Next is, repeat, "it can't", and do nothing. Does Gage pay people to say, "it can't", or does he refund donations taking 10 or 15 percent? What is going on? How can anyone support the CD fantasy this long, after it has proved to be a delusion of 911 truth fake experts.

The CD claims border on insanity; what makes more sense in the case of Gage's group, a tax scam? No rational people believe the CD BS, why is Gage pushing it? But a non-profit could be used to cheat on taxes. Is Gage insane, stupid, or a smart tax scam guy? Does Gage agree with the OP?

I think it is disgusting 911 truth lies about 911, spewing the inside job and CD BS. Why does 911 truth lie about 911, why do you lie about CD. Do decent people lies about events when thousands are murdered; why does 911 truth lie about 911. Is this inappropriate, ill advised, to lie about 911?

Wait, is the CD only your opinion based on what? What will you do when you find out Gage is only a scam? Gee, you can't figure out 911 was not CD, how would you find fraud in 911 truth?

Good luck with the CD fantasy. Are you part of Gage's group?

 

[Spanx]

I think Spanx is only trying to draw a comparison between this line of reasoning and the reward being put out by AE911Truth to find the episode of 'History's Business' that Tony Szamboti remembers contains Larry Silverstein saying that building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons.

For the comparison to be fair though, the hypothetical situation would have to be that Spanx says he remembered a TV show in which Tony Szamboti had said he was a pedophile, rather than a direct accusation of pedophilia against Tony Szamboti.

Using pedophilia is an obvious tactic designed to get people angry, that's all. He wants people to say, 'You can't accuse Tony Szamboti of something like that based on such flimsy evidence!' so he can then say, 'But that's exactly what Tony Szamboti is doing to Larry Silverstein!'

All Tony Szamboti has claimed is that he remembers a TV show in which someone said something. There's a thread about it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288319

If only you or Gerry knew what you were talking about you would see the comparison and understand the context of my non accusation.

 

[gerrycan]

If only you or Gerry knew what you were talking about you would see the comparison and understand the context of my non accusation.

I understand the context perfectly. It is not my recognition of the context that I am saying should concern you.
The context that I find disturbing is that you, and apparently others would think it appropriate to use the subject of pedophilia to draw a comparison about anything that is discussed on this forum.
I find it disturbing that of all the subjects you could have used to make your point, you chose that one.
It's just not something that belongs in this or any other thread on this forum.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[DGM]

I understand the context perfectly.

Do you think no one notices when you skip posts that you have to consider damaging to your point?

I can answer your question (and I have). You just don't like the answer. What's that make you?

 

[Spanx]

I understand the context perfectly. It is not my recognition of the context that I am saying should concern you.
The context that I find disturbing is that you, and apparently others would think it appropriate to use the subject of pedophilia to draw a comparison about anything that is discussed on this forum.
I find it disturbing that of all the subjects you could have used to make your point, you chose that one.
It's just not something that belongs in this or any other thread on this forum.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Yep, and ae911truth having a sex offender as a spokes person on their rallye is perfectly exceptable.

Yes this thread is about wtc7 and you have gone completely off topic.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265774 Just so you don't miss it again.

 

[DGM]

I understand the context perfectly.

OK Gerry, I'm going to sandbag you. Can a 3" bearing seat hold the same load as a 6"?

Your argument seems to imply it can.

Educate us on this engineering phenomenon

 

[Redwood]

Wow. Talk about your incredible mental gymnastics. For years, we've been saying that MM's single authority (Jowenko) needed the context of the fall of WCTs 1 and 2 to fully understand the fall of WCT7...and now, because that single authority (Jowenko) doesn't agree with him on the falls of 1 and 2, MM needs a reason to cherry-pick what that authority says, and he's found it- he just stands the argument on its head and says, no, Jowenko needed the context of WCT7 to understand 1 and 2. I've seen some mental contortions in my time, but that's just...wow. We're getting into Christophera territory here.

Indeed. A surreptitious explosive or ****therm*te demolition disguised by fires only makes sense if the Vast Conspiracy knew or hoped that fires would break out in WTC 7, but would be insufficient to cause the building to collapse even if the fires would completely destroy 7's economic value. Also, that FDNY would have insufficient resources to fight WTC 7's fire.

Presumably, total collapse was a mission goal.

Either the Vast Conspiracy is so competent that it could predict that falling flaming debris would set fire to WTC 7 (though it didn't set fire to either the Verizon Building or the Post Office Building), or they must have employed stealth ninjas to sneak into the building to set fires (also to numerous vehicles north of WTC 7). This also presumes that the Conspiracy knew that access to WTC 7 would not be blocked by debris, and again, that FDNY would not be able to fight the fire.

I guess those Ninjas can get anywhere!

Either that, or the Conspiracy pre-planted incendiaries in the building, presumably including the northeast corner underneath the East Penthouse. Is so, how did they conceal these incendiaries?

Which takes us back to the still-unanswered question which I revived this thread with: Given that columns 79, 80, and 81 were in the middle of rentable work space, how did the Conspiracy manage to conceal them from workers who would be all around them? Were the WTC workers part of the plot, too?

Is the Vast Conspiracy the luckiest bunch of S.O.B.s on the face of the earth, or the most competent?

When you step back and put everything into context, you realize how idiotic WTC 7 conspiracism really is.

 

[Georgio]

@Spanx -
I've just re-read my post above and this part

'For the comparison to be fair though, the hypothetical situation would have to be that Spanx says he remembered a TV show in which Tony Szamboti had said he was a pedophile, rather than a direct accusation of pedophilia against Tony Szamboti.'

Makes it sound like I am saying you are accusing Tony Szamboti of being a pedophile - I'm not saying that. I should have said, 'rather than the hypothetical direct accusation...' Sorry.

It's obvious that it was never meant to be a serious accusation - but I think you were trying to make a point by making an unfair comparison. As I pointed out, if you'd have said, 'I'm sure I remember a TV show in which Tony Szamboti said he was a pedophile and I'll give $100 to anyone who finds it.' Then the comparison would have been fair.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

I disagree. I think he was just making a dark joke with the added bonus that he knew it would get people annoyed, no more than that.

 

[Spanx]

@Spanx -
I've just re-read my post above and this part



Makes it sound like I am saying you are accusing Tony Szamboti of being a pedophile - I'm not saying that. I should have said, 'rather than the hypothetical direct accusation...' Sorry.

It's obvious that it was never meant to be a serious accusation - but I think you were trying to make a point by making an unfair comparison. As I pointed out, if you'd have said, 'I'm sure I remember a TV show in which Tony Szamboti said he was a pedophile and I'll give $100 to anyone who finds it.' Then the comparison would have been fair.



I disagree. I think he was just making a dark joke with the added bonus that he knew it would get people annoyed, no more than that.

The whole thing is off topic for this thread. Unfortunately Gerry has jumped to the wrong conclusion as always and is trying to make out a claim has been made and it very clearly hasn't, in fact completely the opposite. At least he has an excuse for not answering questions asked of him.

 

[gerrycan]

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

You need to specify the beam or the girder here.
The expansion of the girder is relevant in that it would expand to the inside of the column 79 side plates which would prevent lateral shift beyond 5.5" from the girder web. What NIST are saying is that the beams to the East of the girder expanded and caused the girder to walk West off the seat. As for the 3D vs 2D thing, I agree, but this does not help NISTs case at all because once the beam connections to the girder are broken, the beams no longer have purchase on the girder to enable them to push it.

 

[gerrycan]

OK Gerry, I'm going to sandbag you. Can a 3" bearing seat hold the same load as a 6"?

Your argument seems to imply it can.

Educate us on this engineering phenomenon

Please expand (NPI). Your question makes no sense whatsoever. Are you talking about the seat plate "pf" or the underseat plate "pg" at column 79?

 

[gerrycan]

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....

I also find it highly unlikely that anyone could possibly have primed the building on the day of 911.

and there was damage and fires raging and no sprinklers and this sounds like a plausible formula for causing a collapse.

For plausible, read unprecedented.

Does Jowenko know the building was on fire with no sprinklers all day?

Give the man some credit, after all, it is accepted that the fire moved on every 15 minutes or so, and buildings have burned much hotter and longer and none ever had the same fate befall them.

Does he think there is no possibility for an unsprinklered building in flames to suffer structural failures? If so... why not?

Because no steel framed building has ever suffered a failure of this kind before or since 911. For Jowenko to have looked at that collapse for the first time, and concluded that its demise was caused by fire would have been to say that a building that exhibited all the visible characteristics of a CD was not a CD, but an unprecedented occurrence. That would in fact raise more eyebrows than the statements that he made in either of the interviews that he gave.

Why bother with sprinklers?

To try and stop the spread of the fire.

 

[gerrycan]

Yep, and ae911truth having a sex offender as a spokes person on their rallye is perfectly exceptable.

Yes this thread is about wtc7 and you have gone completely off topic.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265774 Just so you don't miss it again.

I am not here to defend, or on behalf of ae911truth. I did see the person in question though on video, and thought that his manner and lack of care with regard to his uniform etc would have warranted a week in the pound from any MP had he been on a base. The fact he appeared at the venue he did in that state would probably have got him a good kicking from any passing genuine marine. As for his history, I am not even commenting, it would get me another warning, or more likely banned.

 

[gerrycan]

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.

It is almost like you are saying that once the beams had failed, they would gain purchase on the girder by moving North rather than South on the bottom flange of the girder. That's almost funny.
And you claim that trigonometry is not my friend?

Are you considering the beam stubs in your "analysis" ?

 

[JSanderO]

I also find it highly unlikely that anyone could possibly have primed the building on the day of 911.

For plausible, read unprecedented.


Give the man some credit, after all, it is accepted that the fire moved on every 15 minutes or so, and buildings have burned much hotter and longer and none ever had the same fate befall them.

Because no steel framed building has ever suffered a failure of this kind before or since 911. For Jowenko to have looked at that collapse for the first time, and concluded that its demise was caused by fire would have been to say that a building that exhibited all the visible characteristics of a CD was not a CD, but an unprecedented occurrence. That would in fact raise more eyebrows than the statements that he made in either of the interviews that he gave.
To try and stop the spread of the fire.

No building of that size with that sort of structure/construction was facing massive fire for 8+ hrs without fire sprinklers or fire fighting. Can you name one?

We don't know the ALL fires moved on every 15 minutes. That would be for office contents fires I believe. But there was also something like 50,000 gallons of diesel stored at the property and some inside the building to fuel back up power which kicks in when there is a power down. There was a power down and do you know if the pumps were supplying fuel to the gen sets? Do you know if there wasn't a leak and a long burning diesel fueled fire which might have affected connections of critical structural elements? This is not the NIST theory, but it is a viable one unless one can prove that this was not the case. It's certainly plausible. And a failure of those transfer structure would produce the collapse we saw. No I can't prove it and I can't provide "evidence" that this was what happened. But I am not alone in suspecting the collapse could be led by the failure of the connections of the transfer structures.

I am not a big supporter of the column 79 flr 13 initiation. Buckling of 79 up there could cause a local collapse onto and destroy the load transfer structures on on 5-7. I am not going to get into the details... One needs lots of reliable data.

I'm convinced the load transfer failures would produce the collapse we saw. Collapse onto those structures could fail them and bring the building down. Do you deny this? Or failure of the truss connections and then the load transfer structures would bring the building down... Do you deny this?

AE is NOT willing to acknowledge that there could be a rapid onset of global collapse. To them this is impossible. And they, I believe are dead wrong.

 

[gerrycan]

No building of that size with that sort of structure/construction was facing massive fire for 8+ hrs without fire sprinklers or fire fighting. Can you name one?

No 2 buildings are the same. The towers were not even the same in their structural design. The fact remains however, that buildings have burned longer and hotter than WTC7 and none have ever collapsed. WTC7 was an unprecedented event if NIST are to be believed, and you do not believe their explanation any more than I do.

We don't know the ALL fires moved on every 15 minutes. That would be for office contents fires I believe.

NIST said that the fires moved in WTC7 every 15 minutes or so many times.

But there was also something like 50,000 gallons of diesel stored at the property and some inside the building to fuel back up power which kicks in when there is a power down.

A huge amount of this fuel was recovered, from memory I think 20-30k gallons. The main tanks were set in gravel underneath the building and the header tanks were fed from these. I think your figure is actually the tanks capacity rather than the contents that were there on the day?

There was a power down and do you know if the pumps were supplying fuel to the gen sets? Do you know if there wasn't a leak and a long burning diesel fueled fire which might have affected connections of critical structural elements?

The lines feeding the header tanks had multiple non returns on them. This is standard in any such system. Also, are you referring to the powering down of the alarm zones in the 10 days or so before 911, or the power down on the day of 911?

This is not the NIST theory, but it is a viable one unless one can prove that this was not the case. It's certainly plausible. And a failure of those transfer structure would produce the collapse we saw.
Big leap there. Again from memory, there were only manually switched systems on the fuel lines ie the pumps would not kick in when the headers demanded more fuel unless they were manually switch to. Your theory there relies on someone manually switching the feed to the headers on. Huge leap to imagine that would ever happen.

No I can't prove it and I can't provide "evidence" that this was what happened. But I am not alone in suspecting the collapse could be led by the failure of the connections of the transfer structures.

I don't believe that the TTs failure could produce the kind of symmetry observed. Also, there would be a noticable distortion low in the building as the floor trusses became disassociated from the South exterior. This would occur way before any main transfer truss failure and was not observed.

I am not a big supporter of the column 79 flr 13 initiation. Buckling of 79 up there could cause a local collapse onto and destroy the load transfer structures on on 5-7. I am not going to get into the details... One needs lots of reliable data.

I agree, NIST has got this horribly wrong and have compounded their error again and again. NIST reckon their FEA to be reliable, yet the results that they claim are beyond that which is possible.

I'm convinced the load transfer failures would produce the collapse we saw. Collapse onto those structures could fail them and bring the building down. Do you deny this?

I think that if these trusses were attacked quickly that could happen. But in an organic slower heating instance, there would have been more observable failures in the more vulnerable elements around the main transfer trusses low in the building. So yes, I deny that fire on the day of 911 could possibly have failed these trusses in the way that you suppose.

Or failure of the truss connections and then the load transfer structures would bring the building down... Do you deny this?

Again, there are more vulnerable elements around the main transfer trusses that would fail way before the main trusses would, so in the circumstances of fire in that area of the building, I would deny that 100%.

AE is NOT willing to acknowledge that there could be a rapid onset of global collapse. To them this is impossible. And they, I believe are dead wrong.

So you believe that ae911 are wrong, and you also believe that NIST are wrong. Personally, if someone gives me an explanation that makes sense and points to how fire could possibly have done this to WTC7, I would have to take that on board, and I am certainly open minded enough to listen to any such theory. I am yet to hear one though, from you, NIST or anyone else.
I did however take a close look at the transfer trusses on the drawings some years ago, and your theory caused me to revisit that area. I remain unconvinced by many aspects of your theory, but mainly the heat that it would take to cause such a failure in these huge elements, and the absence of observable disassociation in the smaller elements around these trusses.

 

[Sabretooth]

No 2 buildings are the same. The towers were not even the same in their structural design. The fact remains however, that buildings have burned longer and hotter than WTC7 and none have ever collapsed.

Only a Truther can spout off about the uniqueness of a building in one sentence, and then use the "never before" mantra in the next without the slightest hint of irony.

This nonsense is the same song and dance your ilk has been tubthumping since 2006 and it sounded just as strained and unconvincing then as it does now.

 

[gerrycan]

This nonsense is the same song and dance your ilk has been tubthumping since 2006 and it sounded just as strained and unconvincing then as it does now.

No, this is analysis based on the structural drawings of the building.