Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[LSSBB]

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.

They aren't aiming to recruit engineers or fire professionals, because they're not doing a bit of either field.

You'd think Tony would try to exhibit some of his qualifications if he wanted those to appear relevant to his case. Instead, he keeps making assertions and expecting everyone to believe him.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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"

It is clear to me Tony does not weld or understand weld failure,

Tony as you can read in his posts says welds do not
Fail until the steel is radically distorted.

Oh my god how will I ever put this radically bent piece of farm machinery back together?

 

[jaydeehess]

It is clear to me Tony does not weld or understand weld failure,
[qimg]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj132/chainsawprof/20150327_095414_zpsrgsmzips.jpg[/qimg]

Tony as you can read in his posts says welds do not
Fail until the steel is radically distorted.

Oh my god how will I ever put this radically bent piece of farm machinery back together?

When that broke , let me guess, it sounded like a gunshot? (ie. therefore it was a gunshot)

 

[jaydeehess]

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

OMG the arson spooks were doing double duty, destroying documents and covering for CD, which in turn was also used to destroy documents.

First carry documents from the offices they were in, to the offices to be lit up, of course.

 

[Belz...]

OMG the arson spooks were doing double duty, destroying documents and covering for CD, which in turn was also used to destroy documents.

First carry documents from the offices they were in, to the offices to be lit up, of course.

Hell, the documents may have been _moved_ to WTC7 seven for that very purpose, and the planes rammed in the WTC towers were just the first stage of the operation, designed to bring down WTC7 via falling debris + arson, and get rid of the inconvenient documents. In fact, the towers were probably designed originally to be destroyed this way, 40 years in advance. I'll even bet that the documents they had to destroy were the very WTC blueprints so we wouldn't find out about them !!!

<<< Brain explode >>>

 

[NoahFence]

Hell, the documents may have been _moved_ to WTC7 seven for that very purpose, and the planes rammed in the WTC towers were just the first stage of the operation, designed to bring down WTC7 via falling debris + arson, and get rid of the inconvenient documents. In fact, the towers were probably designed originally to be destroyed this way, 40 years in advance. I'll even bet that the documents they had to destroy were the very WTC blueprints so we wouldn't find out about them !!!

<<< Brain explode >>>

And just by sheer coincidence the likes of which we'll never see again, 2 unrelated aircraft were hijacked on that very same day!

HOLY :!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

When that broke , let me guess, it sounded like a gunshot? (ie. therefore it was a gunshot)

That covered up the sound of the shot from the grassy knoll.

 

[ozeco41]

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)

That is why they don't respond to incisively clear reasoning by me - a qualified engineer. I have challenged Ziggi - twice or thrice IIRC - in recent posts in this thread. Take my word for it or check for yourself - he has ignored my challenges.

And it is a long time since Tony would even acknowledge any post I make.

Why? Cannot be sure but the fact is that I have presented sound engineering reasons rebutting the central points of every one of Tony's false nonsense claims in engineering. AND I persist in identifying his - their - debating tricks whilst refusing to chase red herring derails.

Their obvious primary objective in current discussion is to prevent progress by focusing on irrelevant details. How long is it since Tony's originating false claims were even commented on? Remember them?
1) NIST's explanation for WTC7 collapse initiation was wrong; (Still not proven)
2) Because NIST was wrong on a detail the whole NIST explanation is wrong; (Begging the question of the detail - BUT still not proven that one detail error - if it was an error - falsifies the remainder of the claims. It doesn't BTW.)

So we are madly running round in circles chasing a Gish Gallop of relocated nonsense goalposts. Every one of them BOTH a relocated goalpost AND an irrelevancy of arse about false argument.

The question for every debunker must be "Why waste time playing their evasive games?"

Some history:
In the early days of my interactions with Tony he did respond to my rebuttals of his claims. BUT his responses always at the same level of bare assertion personal incredulity which he still uses as his main counter to other members.

Then after a couple of losses against me he turned to personal insult BUT made ZERO attempt to respond with reasoned argument. Check his posting - do you ever see reasoned argument? Anything with more support than bare assertion?

At a more subtle level - which needs reasonably astute engineering to comprehend - look at the Gish Gallop of partial truths in his response to ChrisMohr at Post #561. The irony being that Chris - under attack from Tony and Ziggi because he is not an engineer - had got every one of those key points he made CORRECT. Congratulations ChrisMohr. So much for clear thinking non-engineer confronted by far less thinking, far less clarity from the truther side.

 

[jaydeehess]

That is why they don't respond to incisively clear reasoning by me - a qualified engineer. I have challenged Ziggi - twice or thrice IIRC - in recent posts in this thread. Take my word for it or check for yourself - he has ignored my challenges.

And it is a long time since Tony would even acknowledge any post I make.

I have, on several occasions in this very thread, asked Tony how long the gypsum dust, created by collapse, had, as collapse ensued, to settle out onto burning materials within WTC 1, and disrupt combustion, and cool materials below ignition temp of common office materials in WTC 7.

No response at all. In fact the last couple of TSz responses to my posts, he has addressed an 8-10 word portion of my post and ignores the rest.

 

[ozeco41]

I would [appreciate] 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.

You are almost certainly correct that weld strength is a central technical point. But one of them not the only one.

HOWEVER

There are two main reasons why I would caution challenging Tony. One technical the other debating pragmatics.

Main reason #1
For the technical issue I went and read some of the 2007 debate with D Benson which focussed on weld strength as one issue. That debate was set in the climate of understanding which prevailed in 2007. It was not specific to WTC7 but more relevant to this current situation is that it does not reflect the simplicity and clarity of understanding of the Twin Towers collapse mechanisms which we would have today.

Clarity in separation of "initiation" stage from "progression" stage. Column axial overload in compression was the key factor in "initiation" - not weld strength and not something that any of us would have stated simply and explicitly in 2007.

Weld strength was an issue which was possibly central to "progression". Put simply the progression stage was a combination of three mechanisms. The leading one best IMO described as ROOSD. That failure was dominated by joist to column connection failures. Just as you identified - with weld failure a possibility. But simple gusset plate shearing also on the cards. And it doesn't matter what the detail was. So if you argue one aspect with Tony the stage is set for him to shift goalposts to other aspects if he will even engage in reasoned discussion.

The Benson 2007 comments on "core strip down" were also heading in the right direction. Despite the 2007 lack of clarity of the overall mechanism.

Main reason #2
Debating pragmatics. Do you want to face pseudo engineering gobbledegook? And do you anticipate even getting reasoned discussion? Would you even get a response to a challenge? History says the BETTER the challenge the less likely you would get a response.

 

[jaydeehess]

No Chris, Pgimeno is not exactly the most reliable source. You have for example taken Ps out of context quotation as proof for 1) that debris from the Tower set fire in 7 and that 2) fire was observed on floor 10..

when NISTs report actually says the exact opposite:

1)

Quote:
Since fires were observed on the ground surrounding WTC 7, it is possible that potential ignition sources entered WTC 7 through openings created in the south and west faces of the building during the collapses of the towers. NIST found no evidence to confirm this possibility, but the available data suggests that this was highly likely.

- NCSTAR page 194

As ozeco41 points out, even when specifics are challenged Ziggi does not respond. Here we have Ziggi claiming that NIST has eliminated ignition sources from WTC 1 as the cause of fires in WTC 7. When in fact NIST calls that very action "highly likely", in the very quote he uses from the report.

 

[ozeco41]

I have, on several occasions in this very thread, asked Tony how long the gypsum dust, created by collapse, had, as collapse ensued, to settle out onto burning materials within WTC 1, and disrupt combustion, and cool materials below ignition temp of common office materials in WTC 7.

No response at all. In fact the last couple of TSz responses to my posts, he has addressed an 8-10 word portion of my post and ignores the rest.

Understood. That is one of the obvious weaknesses of the nonsense claims about smothering dust.

Don't get me wrong. YOU engaged in reasoned rebuttal of a simple technical point - and got no reasoned response to your comments.

BUT - my main point - the whole issue was/is a red herring as the truthers tag team seeks to evade serious discussion:

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley << thanks again to DGM's sig

 

[jaydeehess]

Understood.

Don't get me wrong. YOU engaged in reasoned rebuttal of a simple technical point - and got no reasoned response to your comments.

BUT - my main point - the whole issue was/is a red herring as the truthers tag team seeks to evade serious discussion:

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley << thanks again to DGM's sig

Oh quite right. I was thinking about TSz's claim that touching cool objects would drain away heat from hot objects. The limiting case would be fairly easy to calculate. Assume a 5 Kg cube of steel heated to 300 degrees C, is laid onto a 500 Kg block of steel at 20 degrees C. The cooler block is 10 times as thick and ten times as long as the hot cube, so it will work as well as a heat sink. Now calculate how long it will take for all surfaces of the hot block to be below 200 degrees C. My thermodynamics education tells me this is doable though since it was 4 decades ago I cannot recall how.


Tony asked if I was aware that heat conduction (rate) increases with temperature delta. Yes, of course I am, seems he is ignoring that heat conduction rate includes the factor of time. There is little time for heat to be conducted away from a hot piece of non-combustible debris, AND little time for dust to "settle" onto a combustible, much less stay on it while traveling through the air. ETA: It also strikes me that gypsum dust created from the destruction of already hot drywall, would insulate hot material, combustible and non-combustible alike, thus reducing heat escape. Moot point though since the dust is off anything that is ejected towards WTC 7, within seconds of the dust touching it.

But we are told that ignition via debris from WTC 1 is improbable while arson spooks (unseen, un-evidenced) is highly likely.

("arson spooks" a term I co-opt from the CiT who opined on "spooks" who ran around downing lamp poles near the Pentagon. We have "CD spooks", "arson spooks", "lamp pole spooks", and in the case of both flight 77 and flight 93 some have opined on what one could label as "airplane debris spooks", NONE of which were seen at their nefarious work, by anyone)

As you often say "is it true?" is the big point and TSz's claims just ain't so.

 

[Oystein]

...
And it is a long time since Tony would even acknowledge any post I make.
...

...
No response at all. In fact the last couple of TSz responses to my posts, he has addressed an 8-10 word portion of my post and ignores the rest.

I propose (with some admitted vanity) a measure for quality of posts in this subforum: It is inversely proportional to the percentage of questions and challenges that T.Sz. quotes and replies to. (Lately, I have been ignored with about 4 questions; I like to think this means they are good and pertinent questions )


ETA: Oh darned!

...History says the BETTER the challenge the less likely you would get a response.

I should have read the remaining posts before replying - you ninja'd me!

 

[Spanx]

As long as the discussions are not about facts and evidence truthers are happy

 

[Oystein]

As long as the discussions are not about facts and evidence truthers are happy

Well, there is a class of discussions "not about facts and evidence" that truthers hate even more, as Myriad likes to point out occasionally: Those about proposed courses of action.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris, there is no chance that the exterior could stay together as a unit while the interior is collapsing progressively as NIST would have it, first the east and then east to west, and wait until it is complete and then fail as a unit. The exterior was 610 foot tall and would be a thin and slender sheet without lateral support from the interior. It would have buckled under its own weight. In addition, the interior would have been pulling on the exterior causing eccentricity and buckling even earlier, starting where the interior first collapsed (such as in the east for the NIST hypothesis). Video shows the building does not behave the way it would if the NIST hypothesis were correct and that is why their model and hypothesis are wrong.

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.

Your point about over g vs. free fall is moot.



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. The material actually gets stronger due to strain hardening during plastic deformation and more load is required to cause failure after it first yields. Brittle materials don't exhibit yield, plastic deformation, and strain hardening and they simple fail catastrophically at an ultimate strength. You are treating the columns 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.

OK Tony let's take step 2. For now we're agreed that >g is not the major question.
1.) Let's look at your claim that only brittle materials snap and fail quickly, and that the flexibility of steel columns would make a very fast series of column failures (almost speed of sound) impossible. If you are right, what would happen in a natural collapse scenario to the perimeter wall? Are you saying it would be a clumsy, twisted mess starting on the east side of that wall and progressing along to the west side, following the asymmetrical collapse of the interior? My guess is that the perimeter wall was a very strong structural element, to help support those large interior spaces (more square footage to rent out). It held together for only, what, six seconds after the interior collapses? So for a few seconds the opnly visible deformation was the kink, I'm guessing somewhere between where the two penthouses were.
2.) You said that "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." But the video shows the east penthouse collapsing, then the west penthouse collapsing, then the perimeter wall. So there waas NOT a symmetrical collapse of the interior, at least not the penthouses. Are you saying the core was symmetrically destroyed and somehow caused asymmetrical interior collapses but exterior symmetry?
3.) You said, "You don't seem to understand the mechanics of elastic deformation, yield, and plastic deformation." This is a true statement. Crazy Chainsaw's response to you is that the welded connections are in fact brittle, and that is where rapid column failure took place. So first we see flexible perimeter columns bending under the strain of the penthouse collapses and creating the kink, so there is the time factor you talk about. The strained columns then fail at the welded connections, according to NIST if I remember correctly. Which is what Crazy Chainsaw said. Is this incorrect?
4.) I don't understand how CD could explain the asymmetrical interior collapse of the two penthouses followed by the symmetrical collapse of the perimeter wall any better than my natural collapse theory?
5.) There are several people active on this thread who seem to have a pretty good grasp of this subject. As I ask these questions, they will no doubt provide some of theior own answers, as well as retorts to you. I will do my best not tyo "grasp at straws" but try to consider your points as well as theirs. We know I can't be totally objective because of my own confirmation bias any more than you can be, but I will try to keep my eyes open as wide as I can.

 

[Oystein]

Chris, you are forgetting, or have missed, that Tony also speculates / claims that the drop of the EPH was not caused by column failure low down in the core, but high up, only a couple or so floors below the roofline, and then (I think that's what he implies) stops. A local event unrelated to the global collapse. Why would the perps do that? I am not sure Tony has provided an explanation for that.

 

[JayUtah]

...it is also dependent on how fast the original load was applied.

You snuck in the part you forgot earlier. Go on.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris, the damage due to missing structural members and fires was dramatically greater in the Towers than Building7, which did not have strained core columns at all - none were missing and none faced temps above 300C according to NIST.

Then why do you think the complete core and the entire building should have failed at lighting speeds when column 79 in the north east corner failed?

Why would the failure of column 79 or the east penthouse area not simply stay as localized collapse, as happened at Delph Uni?

And even if the entire core was strained, why would the building not collapse asymmetrically from east to west as the strain was progressively transfered from the east to the west columns?

Ziggi, if you are asking about TU Delft, that building was something like 8 separate modules separated structurally with stairwells etc. The unit that collapsed was relatively separate from the other modules. Building Seven was connected by long-span trusses and had a completely different, much more unified design. One of the structurally unified sections of TU Delft, with steel-reinforced concrete and through fire alone, fell mostly straight down at a fast rate of speed.
Good point about the >g, if caused by yanks from the interior collapse, doesn't fit the timeline of the sudden perimeter wall collapse. It leaves me wondering how the CD explanation can explain it then. The collapse of the penthouses into the interior of Building 7 is a recorded fact. We don't know how far they fell, so I wonder if they fell halfway down or so if they could still be yanking away? But if not, then in your CD scenario, what WOULD create >g collapse? And what was symmetrical about the interior CD riggings? The core columns? If so, which columns (such as Column 79) supported the Penthouses, and what in the CD scenario caused them to fail in such a way that the two penthouses went down first, asymmetrically? So do you have any hypothesis as to why the CDs were rigged to bring the penthouse down only halfway? And if they were rigged in such a complex way, with this asymmetrical 50%-of-t6he-way-down interior collapse, why not rig the perimeter wall to follow along and look more realistic?
BTW, Tony and Ziggi, I post this picture to remind us all that Building 7's collapse was NOT really symmetrical. The building collapsed into its weakest point, the side with the big gashes and the extensive fire damage. There was also left-right shifting and of course the kink. Which is why I try to say "more or less symmetrical." I agree that the whole perimeter wall came down pretty much as a unit.
Ziggi, Since you wrote two good technical posts explaining and challenging me at a technical level, I am responding in kind. One concern I have is that you told Oystein he misquoted NIST re the gash. His response tells me that the 2008 Report still had big gashes in the description of the damages, as well as descriptions of deep penetration of Building 7 on several floors. I'm hoping you will either agree with what he says or somehow prove him wrong.