'What about building 7'?

[BasqueArch]

Fair enough. If you particularly want to prolong the agony I'll respond to that later. Though given that you clearly have scant knowledge if the drawings I don't see why you would want to.

Thanks for not hurting my feelings. I'll struggle through your response somehow.

 

[beachnut]

The drawing you need to look at is called e12/13. When I get home I can find it for you and you can look for yourself. If you get a hold of it the measurements on it are centre to centre spans rather than element lengths.
I hope I didn't offend you by highlighting the issue. I genuinely just thought it was funny. Let me know if you can't find the drawing and I'll get it for you later. It's a typical floor framing plan. For the precise girder lengths you would need to specify which girder you were after as they are on more element specific drawings. The differences will only be a couple of inches though from the spans quoted in the E12/13 typical floor framing plan.

How will this support the inside job CD silent explosives thermite junk? Don't need NIST to know it was fire, as you already proved with CTBUH. I doubt you understand NIST's goals. For NIST to fail, you need to attack their failure to meet the goals, and you have failed to do more than argue about a probable collapse cause, which you are not qualified to do, other than cut and paste BS presented by 911 truth.

It does not matter, you are attacking not the cause of WTC 7 collapse, but a probable collapse sequence. Do you understand what probable means to your BS end run don't say "inside job" philosophy.
Did Hitler and the NAZIs publish their tactics?
Why do you broadcast your secret tactic of BS in the failed web community of 911 truth BS and crackpot ideas?
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973
Why come to a skeptic forum with no evidence for your WTC 7 silent explosives CD fantasy?
Do you think your bait and switch tactic will work on anyone at JREF?
You come with no evidence for your inside job CD claims, so you avoid saying what happened on 911 because you can't support it, and think by bashing NIST you can get agreement for the fantasy of CD. That is the same logic which makes you believe in the BS of CD?

Getting everyone to agree the sky usually looks blue in the daytime, so Bigfoot is real logic will not work with people who require evidence for the claim being made. You are stuck attacking NIST, and fail to realize the many other reports, studies, even critiques of NIST which all conclude the collapse was due to the things fire do to buildings - and then all of 911 truth forgets WTC 7 was totaled by fire before it collapsed, and would never be used again.

Claims WTC 7 was CD are a red flag for ignorance failed thinking. I can't believe you show up with nothing other than a BS attack on NIST on one item, and that item is a probable cause - look up probable and get some courses in cause and effect, smart first graders can explain cause and effect to us, why can't you show up with evidence?
Because all you have is your BS tactic to fool the kids who can't think for themselves. And you wrote it down.
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973
Did Hitler explain his plot, how to fool people into thinking it was going to be a resort camp... Did he write it down - actually if you read his book, what he did follows his hate. Why do you support the lie of CD?
Next time before making up silly tactics to fool people, just say no.

 

[gerrycan]

Ok. You can just post a plan here and name the girders such as xx-xx,yy-yy ... are longer than 79-44. Can you answer the highlighted portions. Where's "A3016".

It's to the west of the girder https://www.metabunk.org/sk/E16_17-East-Detail.jpg-20131013-120039.jpg
I am on my phone and I wanted to give you an image that was clear enough to see the figures. I'll post the original file when I get home.
The above is a partial view of e12/13 that you can see the girder you were asking about on.

 

[DGM]

It's to the west of the girder https://www.metabunk.org/sk/E16_17-East-Detail.jpg-20131013-120039.jpg
I am on my phone and I wanted to give you an image that was clear enough to see the figures. I'll post the original file when I get home.
The above is a partial view of e12/13 that you can see the girder you were asking about on.

Who cares?

Can you present a probable scenario that fits better? Poking holes is pointless. JSanderO has managed to do this, why can't you? There is zero evidence for a controlled demolition. Claiming it was for "safety" is stupid. You don't rush explosives (and the drop of thousands of tons) if you want to be safe.

You don't see what you're doing as spinning your wheels?

 

[gerrycan]

Who cares?

Apparently basque arch does.

 

[Miragememories]

Apparently basque arch does.

Thank you for staying on topic and ignoring the obvious game-playing trolls Gerry.

Some of us sincerely care about this subject

 

[DGM]

Thank you for staying on topic and ignoring the obvious game-playing trolls Gerry.

Some of us sincerely care about this subject

The topic of this thread is points NIST might have got wrong?

Let's look:

I should have said "pyroclastic-like flow."

At the time I made the statement, 3 years ago, it was an important distinguishing feature in my mind.

Since that time, other things have become more compelling to me. Thus, it has fallen off my list of things I stress.

I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

Nope.

ETA: I loved your model. You weren't serious, that's up there with Dick Gages "boxes".

 

[DGM]

Apparently basque arch does.

I doubt it. I think it was only part of a point where you skipped over the rest. I know, you'll get to it later.

Why did you only fixate on that point?

 

[LSSBB]

So what would cause this wooden block high-rise to completely drop to the ground.

Your wooden building isn't collapsing from the inside out, with the inside applying a load to the outside when it goes first.

The only thing I can imagine, is an explosive force acting on the core support at the lower floors which totally removes the structure's ability to resist the force of gravity

The limits of your imagination are not admissible as evidence.

 

[jaydeehess]

Is this a joke ?

I laughed. That would be testimonial evidence to bolster the premise.

 

[Animal]

Why did you only fixate on that point?

It is called grasping at straws......when he cannot do that he makes up claims about what "you think", moves the goalposts or changes the subject. Troofer tactics 101

 

[Spanx]

Fair enough. If you particularly want to prolong the agony I'll respond to that later. Though given that you clearly have scant knowledge if the drawings I don't see why you would want to.

Nice one Gerry, have you ever wondered why no one is taking you seriously ?

 

[Miragememories]

Ok. You can just post a plan here and name the girders such as xx-xx,yy-yy ... are longer than 79-44. Can you answer the highlighted portions. Where's "A3016".

Who cares?

Apparently basque arch does.

Apparently he no longer does?

The last several pages have been mostly a flood of disingenuous responses successfully burying the genuine sincere posts that actually address the topic of this thread.

From the OP of this thread;

"I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?"

Mr. Jowenko's implosion opinion about 7WTC was clearly on topic and obviously unpopular because his views cannot be dislodged by the usual character assassination.

I attempted to show how even a simple construction could not be coaxed into collapsing in the manner of 7WTC without a lower floor implosion, but apparently that was just too challenging a concept for the deniers, who in typical fashion, resorted to mockery as a form of rebuttal.

Gerry, you and I have done our level best to stay on topic and address the serious legitimate questions that have been voiced about building 7.

 

[JayUtah]

I attempted to show how even a simple construction could not be coaxed into collapsing in the manner of 7WTC without a lower floor implosion, but apparently that was just too challenging a concept for the deniers, who in typical fashion, resorted to mockery as a form of rebuttal.

That particular proposal deserved only mockery. Under what possible pretense of reason was that straw man intended to represented reality? You begged every single question in that line of "reasoning."

 

[Gamolon]

It's a typical floor framing plan. For the precise girder lengths you would need to specify which girder you were after as they are on more element specific drawings. The differences will only be a couple of inches though from the spans quoted in the E12/13 typical floor framing plan.

No, E12/13 is not the "typical floor framing plan". If it was a "typical floor framing plan" it would state as such in the title block and there would not be a need for all the other "E" drawings for individual floors. There are differences for each floor which is why they made different "E" drawings.

 

[JayUtah]

Mr. Jowenko's implosion opinion about 7WTC was clearly on topic and obviously unpopular because his views cannot be dislodged by the usual character assassination.

Rather, his minority and clearly elicited response cannot be credibly hyped up to be the expert witness you need him to be. You cannot reconcile his opinion with those of others who are similarly situated and better informed. You cannot reconcile what he thinks happened with your own beliefs. And you cannot establish that he informed himself by any means other than a cartoon of a floor plan. You have invented stories about Jowenko and tried to paste them onto him. It is neither our fault nor his that they don't stick.

 

[Miragememories]

"Mr. Jowenko's implosion opinion about 7WTC was clearly on topic and obviously unpopular because his views cannot be dislodged by the usual character assassination."

Rather, his minority and clearly elicited response cannot be credibly hyped up to be the expert witness you need him to be.

You cannot reconcile his opinion with those of others who are similarly situated and better informed.

You cannot reconcile what he thinks happened with your own beliefs.

And you cannot establish that he informed himself by any means other than a cartoon of a floor plan.

You have invented stories about Jowenko and tried to paste them onto him.

It is neither our fault nor his that they don't stick.

Typical.

You provide all summation.

But no substance.

 

[JayUtah]

Typical.

You provide all summation.

But no substance.

I'm summarizing the substance provided earlier, in response to your attempt to summarize the thread.

 

[Brass]

Why is WTC7 focused on exclusively? Other buildings collapsed that day, yet Truthers only stick to WTC7. So other buildings can collapse from fire and falling debris, but not WTC7?

 

[Sabretooth]

I attempted to show how even a simple construction could not be coaxed into collapsing in the manner of 7WTC without a lower floor implosion, but apparently that was just too challenging a concept for the deniers, who in typical fashion, resorted to mockery as a form of rebuttal.

Whoa, slow down there, hoss.

In case you missed it, your "model" doesn't prove/disprove anything other than your lack of education in physics.

Don't go claiming victory because the rest of understand just how silly your argument was.