• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

Ziggi said:
There is no inconsistency because there was no two hour time lag noticed when it came to the burned cars. That they were burned right away but WTC7 started burning 2 hours later indicates debris from the Towers set the cars on fire, but not B7.
Click to expand...
What is your source there were no fire in wtc7 immediately after the collapse? The NIST?

Your desperation is obvious.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Ziggi, yes Chris' scenario for the failure of WTC 7 is not coherent and I think when he learned the instantaneous types of failures he was thinking of can only happen to brittle materials it should have caused him to rethink what he has been supporting if he is being honest with himself.There is only one way the entire exterior of WTC 7 came down in a symmetric way and that is with all 24 columns of the central core collapsing at the same time and pulling the exterior inward. The problem is that couldn't have been due to natural circumstances.
Click to expand...

Well yes, now lets see if Chris addresses the problems with his over-g theory or if he disappears again, or changes the subject. The topic of honesty is very sensitive with him and maybe he is all offended already!
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
Well yes, now lets see if Chris addresses the problems with his over-g theory or if he disappears again, or changes the subject. The topic of honesty is very sensitive with him and maybe he is all offended already!
Click to expand...
What problems "researcher"? He's never disappeared or avoided questions.

Are you winning? :rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Ziggi, yes Chris' scenario for the failure of WTC 7 is not coherent and I think when he learned the instantaneous types of failures he was thinking of can only happen to brittle materials it should have caused him to rethink what he has been supporting if he is being honest with himself.

There is only one way the entire exterior of WTC 7 came down in a symmetric way and that is with all 24 columns of the central core collapsing at the same time and pulling the exterior inward. The problem is that couldn't have been due to natural circumstances.
Click to expand...

Yes it could systematic weld failure, do to sudden dynamic load shifting, similar to the failure of the towers.
The reason the towers fell so fast was because of the failure of the welds.
Weld and bolt failure are more likely than hush bomb, worthless Areojel thermites.
 
DGM said:
DGM said:
They did not say the fires did not spread, they only reported fires and times they could confirm they did not speculate on origin. This comment is your literal application of conditions used in the model to real world.
Why lie?
Click to expand...
I made an edit for clarity.
....
This is another case of Tony attempting to blend model and reality to suit his purpose.
Click to expand...
Which is precisely the error he made with "Missing Jolt".

Which led him to look for a "jolt" which could NEVER have happened. The false starting scenario NEVER existed.

That absolute "NEVER" is intentional. Not "near enough". Not "good enough as an approximation". it simply never happened.

On second thoughts I'll leave out the "simply" - the situation and false assumptions fooled a lot of us for some time.
 
Ziggi said:
Well yes, now lets see if Chris addresses the problems with his over-g theory or if he disappears again, or changes the subject. The topic of honesty is very sensitive with him and maybe he is all offended already!
Click to expand...
Chris doesn't need to address any alleged problems with "his" over-G theory. The first and necessary step is that YOU specify what the problem is AND provide a prima facie support for your claim that it has problems.

However your posts indicate that you are not familiar with the relevant issues of free body physics.

So try the 9 questions test I posted in this thread. If you get correct answers to at least 7 out of 9 questions we can then move on to your allegations of problems with Chris's explanation. Less than 7 out of 9 and we can revise some of the basics for you based on the ones you got wrong.
 
DGM said:
I'd argue that this was an error on his part. ;)
Click to expand...
:confused:

err.....Yes?
scratch.gif
 
Something I should point out there is no perfect weld or connection.

From Wj_1975_o7_5216.PDF.
"These drastic differences be-
tween the measured fracture tough-
ness values of the base metal and the
EB weldments are a result of struc-
tural differences. The process of EB
welding results in an acicular struc-
ture (see Fig. 6) which is much more
brittle than the structure of the base
metal.
The base metal often exhibits a
strong tendenc y to internal de -
lamination, especially at room tem-
perature (see Fig. 13). With de-
creasing temperature, the tendency
to internal delamination decreases. At
- 6 0 C the delaminatio n effec t
appears to have ceased almost com-
pletely (see Fig. 14). Similarly, but to a
lesser extent, delamination is in-
fluenced by the strain rate. The higher
the strain rate at constant tem-
perature, the smaller the probability
of delamination. The appearance of
internal delamination is a result of the
presence of free ferrite. The cracks
caused by delamination propagate
along the stringers of free ferrite (Ref.
28).
Assuming empirical mathematical
relationship in the form of a power-
law between fracture toughness and
yield strength (Ref. 39), all sets of data
obtained on large specimens were ex-
amined in accordance with that law,
which may be written in the general
form:
o-y = _[K| £ J_-
K (12)
Where a and ft = constants, different
for different materials.
Since a,a 1 is independent of strain
rate and temperature, the power-law
relationship in"
 
DGM said:
You mentioned the "missing jolt". His first paper wasn't any different..........

Old habits die hard. :)
Click to expand...
So true. My opening broadsides of my first ever post on an Internet Forum:
econ41 Nov 13 said:
The supporters of 9/11 conspiracies build on the same foundation as the creationists - poor logic, worse science together with distortions, lies and deliberate deceptions.

The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.
Click to expand...
Astonishing that anyone could continue playing the "I'm an engineer - you're not" card after ALL of his engineering based claims have been soundly rebutted. AND so many non-engineers get a lot of the answers right.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
There is only one way the entire exterior of WTC 7 came down in a symmetric way and that is with all 24 columns of the central core collapsing at the same time and pulling the exterior inward. The problem is that couldn't have been due to natural circumstances.
Click to expand...
Bare assertion, please show your engineering analysis to support this. Include the moment framing and collapse progreession as you do. Also properly model the connections to the exterior from the interior structure, and per Chainsaw's notes also include variations in weld quality.
 
Ziggi said:
But in this case the ember would have to survive 300plus ft journey in a smothering concrete/gypsum dust cloud, and land in a room that that also gets smothered with that same dust. Try throwing a cigarette butt in a sandbox and see if it starts a big fire.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, not enough oxygen smothering dust to seriously injure the PEOPLE on the third floor.

Now explain again why no burning bits can travel 300 feet and start fires.
Take the example of perhaps a person sized chunk of a burning wooden conference table.
HOW LONG IS IT COVERED IN ENOUGH DUST TO CUT OFF COMBUSTION?
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
But in this case the ember would have to survive 300plus ft journey in a smothering concrete/gypsum dust cloud, and land in a room that that also gets smothered with that same dust. Try throwing a cigarette butt in a sandbox and see if it starts a big fire.
Click to expand...
Add fire science - stuff you don't understand. Do you understand an office building does not have a lot of sand, but does have paper, plastic, and other things that burn. You can't do the engineering, so you do woo, BS, and poor analogies.

Seriously? You have no idea what can start a fire. I have to repeat, your cigarette butt in a sandbox is not close to being a rational analogy - almost as bad as your CD fantasy, or the inside job junk.
 
Tony, for now I'd like to post a second picture of the debris hitting Building 7 from another angle. I think it's realistic to believe that the debris hit Building 7 in many places. I also think that a small ember could have started the unfought fire in Building 7.
I hope you understand that I wasn't saying that a cigarette butt flew 350 feet and started the fire. A big hunk of wood could do the same, as long as any ember (even one the size of a cigarette butt) was still hot. I also believe that fires can spread vertically as well as horizontally. I think four or five new floors per Tower caught fire in the time the Towers were burning. Why couldn't the fires in Building 7 have spread vertically?
 

Attachments

  • wtc7gettinghitcropped-1.jpg
    wtc7gettinghitcropped-1.jpg
    33 KB · Views: 7
Ziggi said:
But in this case the ember would have to survive 300plus ft journey in a smothering concrete/gypsum dust cloud, and land in a room that that also gets smothered with that same dust. Try throwing a cigarette butt in a sandbox and see if it starts a big fire.
Click to expand...

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/knowing_about_fire_behavior_can_protect_your_home_from_wildfire

Once airborne, these burning embers or firebrands can travel from one-quarter to one mile in the wind. If these embers land on a combustible source of fuel, new fires will be started.
Click to expand...

I can find nowhere a reference showing gypsum dust suppresses fires. I call this whole conjecture by Tony and you a made up load of horse manure, unless you and he show unequivecal fully scientific experimental results supporting it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom