Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[GlennB]

That´s refering to the damage to the south west corner, which has been accepted and carried over from the 2004 report to the 2008 report. This is not the same as the claim to a big gash in the south face made in the 2004 report, which was rejected and not included in the 2008 report.

Different gash, I believe. The one being referred to here is the long one W of centre on the S face, and photos of it have been posted here several times lately. I believe (can't be arsed to double-check) that there was supposedly a much wider gash a little E of centre on the S face, but that this has been discounted for some years.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes, which is nonsense.

No it is absolute nonsense, please use correct chemistry terminology when referring to chemical processes like oxidation, since Tony is a Lay Chemist he is not even qualified to make that assessment, or argument.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Ductile materials fail after a certain amount of deformation takes place which takes time and it is also dependent on how fast the original load was applied. You don't seem to understand the mechanics of elastic deformation, yield, and plastic deformation and are treating it like a brittle material that shatters and immediately transfers its load. Steel does not behave that way.

Also see Ziggi's comment on your post here, as he had some appropriate comments and explains why it is you who is trying to have it both ways.

Your neglecting free ferrite formation at the weld to metal interface, and bolt sheer, and substitute buckling for weld fracture failure mode.

I find it hard to believe your an engineer who never studied weld failure, do to the inherit defects created by the process of electrical arch welding.
That is something I studied in High school Ag shop, a Lincoln welder company engineer, actually came to class and gave a lecture , titled no perfect weld.
I see as I have pointed out rapid weld failure all the time, to is common.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your neglecting free ferrite formation at the weld to metal interface, and bolt sheer, and substitute buckling for weld fracture failure mode.

I find it hard to believe your an engineer who never studied weld failure, do to the inherit defects created by the process of electrical arch welding.
That is something I studied in High school Ag shop, a Lincoln welder company engineer, actually came to class and gave a lecture , titled no perfect weld.
I see as I have pointed out rapid weld failure all the time, to is common.

You are groping here and it is showing badly. Weld failure would not be brittle and it would not explain how an asymmetric failure of the interior could produce a symmetric failure of the exterior as the NIST WTC 7 report claims. Their own model even belies their claim as it deforms radically during the interior collapse before the entire exterior comes down.

It seems the world is crashing in on those here who have been insisting the collapse of WTC 7 occurred due to natural circumstances. The reality is that it was a controlled demolition and all the fancy hand waving and spin artistry, of those who want to believe otherwise, won't change that simple reality.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You are groping here and it is showing badly. Weld failure would not be brittle and it would not explain how an asymmetric failure of the interior could produce a symmetric failure of the exterior as the NIST WTC 7 report claims. Their own model even belies their claim as it deforms radically during the interior collapse before the entire exterior comes down.

It seems the world is crashing in on those here who have been insisting the collapse of WTC 7 occurred due to natural circumstances. The reality is that it was a controlled demolition and all the fancy hand waving and spin artistry, of those who want to believe otherwise, won't change that simple reality.

No Tony, I proved it experimentally, and there is a known equation for it, your aguring known
Science, if you can prove me wrong you have your case for CD, but you have to show engineering work not hand waving proclamations to do it.

From Dr. David Benson, page 17, http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=240

"reasonwhy --- Since this column swings like a inverted pendulum, there is the vertical component and a horizontal component to displacements and velocities. Hence there are horizontal forces, which the engineers like to call lateral loads. Got it now? huh.gif

Everybody --- turns out that 100,000 lbf is not much, once the potent force of gravity is taken into account. Assuming a drop of 12 feet, accelerated at 32 ft/s^2, a mere 2600 lb with a 0.1 foot displacement suffices to produce the required 100,000 lbf, close enough.

Fine! smile.gif Eccentric sudden loads then appear to suffice to destroy column splices. Indeed, I could do the same again each 12 feet for the moment connections in the core floors. Since the length L only appears linearly in the equations, only 3 times as much mass is required.

Now, reasonwhy, just what were you saying about heavy beams? So once started, the collapse progresses easily in the core, smashing through everything by its own mass under the potent force of gravity..."

Show my theory of weld and connection failure is wrong, though actual engineering work and prove the buildings did not fall from natural connection failure.

That is all you have to do Tony Greening and Benson used my theory that I discovered by accident.
Prove me wrong win your case for a new investigation.

 

[Oystein]

Was the building in its as-designed state after the collapse of WTC1, Tony?

And I have asked you more than once, but you dodge again and again, so I have to ask again:
Do you accept NIST's conclusion from the visual record and witness statements that there was a gash in the south face extending from at least the 5th to the 17th floor, with floor damage extending some distance into the building, up to the core even?


And also, I asked you several times, but you dodged it:
Do you dismiss Danny Jowenko's expert opinion on WTC1+2 because he was lacking detailed information?

Was the building in its as-designed state after the collapse of WTC1, Tony?

And I have asked you more than once, but you dodge again and again, so I have to ask again:
Do you accept NIST's conclusion from the visual record and witness statements that there was a gash in the south face extending from at least the 5th to the 17th floor, with floor damage extending some distance into the building, up to the core even?

In your engineering assessment, could such a gash frustrate the design objective "prevent fire spread from floor to floor"?

And also, I asked you several times, but you dodged it:
Do you dismiss Danny Jowenko's expert opinion on WTC1+2 because he was lacking detailed information?


I will keep asking questions that you ignore or evade.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Was the building in its as-designed state after the collapse of WTC1, Tony?

And I have asked you more than once, but you dodge again and again, so I have to ask again:
Do you accept NIST's conclusion from the visual record and witness statements that there was a gash in the south face extending from at least the 5th to the 17th floor, with floor damage extending some distance into the building, up to the core even?

In your engineering assessment, could such a gash frustrate the design objective "prevent fire spread from floor to floor"?

And also, I asked you several times, but you dodged it:
Do you dismiss Danny Jowenko's expert opinion on WTC1+2 because he was lacking detailed information?


I will keep asking questions that you ignore or evade.

Oystein I do not think Tony is up to answering questions or doing engineering, he seems to be only interested in wild unfounded assumptions, hand waving magical pronouncements,
and totally fallacious arguments.

I challenged him to prove that my theories of rapid connection failure were wrong, I am
Not an engineer I would not normally argue engineering with a competent engineer.

I am just the idiot that though a lucky accident figured out the modes connection failures played in the collapse of the buildings for the Greening-Benson paper.

Tony a qualified engineering professional should easily be able to debunk me with his valid vast engineering knowledge.

 

[Belz...]

please use correct chemistry terminology when referring to chemical processes like oxidation

...what ?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

...what ?

Tony was absolutely, positively, wrong, you need to use the proper expressions to describe the woo factor of Tony's fallacious assertions in a field he is not qualified to comment on.
Chemistry.

 

[NoahFence]

There is only one way that the collapse seen on video is possible and that is for the entire core to be taken out simultaneously over a significant number of stories. That way it pulls in the entire exterior simultaneously and causes a symmetric fall of the exterior.

Arson can't do that.

 

[GlennB]

Arson can't do that.

He's suggesting that arson was merely the 'cover' for CD. But that theory falls down, as it always has, when we consider that WTC7 was never certain to be hit by WTC1 debris, leaving no reason for fires there (TS even claims there was no significant debris impact on WTC7, which makes it a hell of a stupid plan if such a thing was predictable). For that matter, WTC1 wasn't guaranteed to be hit and destroyed either (unless you're a no-planer), making the plan even less viable.

It's an insane concept.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Arson can't do that.

Don't worry if Tony accepts my challenge to him, the challenge of a layman, (me) to an engineering
Professional (Tony) he will be engaged in engineering work for years trying to prove known science wrong and that rapid weld and connection failure can not occur.

If he suggcededs we can finally build building like the towers without massive core braces to unify the core structure to prevent motion leading to weld fracture and column failure.

I would apriciate any other engineering opinions on my challenge to Tony, your thoughts please, I have limited engineering knowledge, just a basic grasp of the science, and I could be wrong.

 

[Animal]

You are groping here and it is showing badly.

Wow.......that has to be the greatest example of projection ever seen in this forum.

Hard to believe you could say that with a straight face.

Either your ignorance of the subject matters at hand are far greater than anyone estimated, or your religious beliefs in the fantasy CD have caused you "issues"

 

[Animal]

Tony, you are saying Chris Mohr's collapse progression would not result in a 'symmetrical fall'. Since I haven't seen that term precisely defined, please give an estimate for how off center the building would end up appearing, and a clear description of how distorted the façade would be. Include the connections from the interior and the moment framing in your consideration, and you can refer to how NIST modeled those very same connections to the exterior plus the moment framing.

ETA: You can take your time, I'm willing to wait. Just let me know what further questions you have regarding the request, and how you propose going about solving the problem.

Note how the troofer tag team appointed Chris Mohr as the "leader" of this forum, and now attack him repeatedly. This is so they can go back to their little forums and claim victory. (Since they look foolish responding to those that are professionally qualified to discuss the subject)

 

[Belz...]

Tony was absolutely, positively, wrong, you need to use the proper expressions to describe the woo factor of Tony's fallacious assertions in a field he is not qualified to comment on.
Chemistry.

Yes well I still don't see what this has to do with my post.

 

[Belz...]

He's suggesting that arson was merely the 'cover' for CD.

Which is ironic because the CD was supposedly to cover for the destruction of documents, which would've better been dealt with with arson.

 

[LSSBB]

He's suggesting that arson was merely the 'cover' for CD. But that theory falls down, as it always has, when we consider that WTC7 was never certain to be hit by WTC1 debris, leaving no reason for fires there (TS even claims there was no significant debris impact on WTC7, which makes it a hell of a stupid plan if such a thing was predictable). For that matter, WTC1 wasn't guaranteed to be hit and destroyed either (unless you're a no-planer), making the plan even less viable.

It's an insane concept.

Not only that, arson to cover up the CD of an empty building. The concept is insane wrapped in stupid.

 

[AZCat]

Don't worry if Tony accepts my challenge to him, the challenge of a layman, (me) to an engineering
Professional (Tony) he will be engaged in engineering work for years trying to prove known science wrong and that rapid weld and connection failure can not occur.

Tony might be an engineering professional, but if I remember correctly he's not a Professional Engineer. The two are not the same thing.

 

[Spanx]

Note how the troofer tag team appointed Chris Mohr as the "leader" of this forum, and now attack him repeatedly. This is so they can go back to their little forums and claim victory. (Since they look foolish responding to those that are professionally qualified to discuss the subject)

It just shows what a silly little game it is for these people, they have no intention of finding out the truth, just recruiting for donations.

 

[Animal]

Tony might be an engineering professional, but if I remember correctly he's not a Professional Engineer. The two are not the same thing.

Troofers certainly try to make the world think they are the same.