Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

Tony Szamboti said:
Given that you admit you aren't an engineer it is curious that you feel qualified to say what constitutes a qualified engineering professional.
Click to expand...

I know a good Engineer should have not only a knowledge of his field but also the materials sciences, and material engineering of the metals he works with.

Because I have worked with good engineers, no offense meant but your obvious mistakes
Scare me, because I understand how important the profession is and respect it.
 
Ape of Good Hope said:
Tony,

[qimg]http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394/jrefpicciesinnit/tumblr_lea81qqFlp1qfydnko1_500_zpsmvyrm4z8.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The notion of how WTC 7 came down, by those supporting a natural collapse scenario here, is akin to believing it could happen like the game mousetrap, where there are a large series of unlikely causes and effects purposely intended to bring about a result.

So yes, it can happen with a kid's toy when intended but that is not the real world and those who believe WTC 7 came down on its own here either don't live in the real world or have a vested interest in keeping others from finding out it didn't.

I would say it is the natural collapse of WTC 7 story that can be likened to having water run uphill naturally.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I know a good Engineer should have not only a knowledge of his field but also the materials sciences, and material engineering of the metals he works with.

Because I have worked with good engineers, no offense meant but your obvious mistakes
Scare me, because I understand how important the profession is and respect it.
Click to expand...

The problem you and many others here have is that you aren't even qualified to judge. You really should stop this. It is making you look bad. But then those who use pseudonyms (like you) don't seem to worry about that.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Chris, all one needs to do to see that what you are saying here is impossible is to look at the NIST model. The east side exterior starts to deform radically well before the west side interior has collapsed.

The 144 foot width and average 300 foot length of WTC 7 would have been too great a distance for the exterior walls to support each other without lateral support for a large number of stories.

Additionally, your notion doesn't explain no deformation while there would have been pull-in forces high in the building.

What I am saying is the complete core was dropped somewhat low in the building (probably within the non-fire floors 14 to 18, 20, 21, and 23) and it pulled the entire exterior inward at those floors, resulting in a symmetric free fall collapse of it. Unfortunately, this area of the building is not observable on video during the collapse.
Click to expand...

Shear Lag explains that it takes time for metal to bend, the load is applied swift enough,
Tearing instead of bending occurs.
Deformation is a time dependent process, as is stated by qualified materials scientists and materials engineers.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The problem you and many others here have is that you aren't even qualified to judge. You really should stop this. It is making you look bad. But then those who use pseudonyms (like you) don't seem to worry about that.
Click to expand...

My qualifications are irrelevant here, the materials Sciences speak for themselves,
Your argument fly's in the face of over a century on materials science, and Materials engineering.

The fact that a Layman is pointing this out to you should make you question, your argument even more.

With all do respect Tony I now ask you to explain the lack of tension deformation in the torn welds,
on building 7 steel as well as the steel in the core of both towers, please explain how your CD theory
Accounts for the lack of tension deformation in the steel without imparting shrapnel or other deformations into said steel though explosive forces?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Given that you admit you aren't an engineer it is curious that you feel qualified to say what constitutes a qualified engineering professional.
Click to expand...

Says the "qualified engineer" claiming to also be a fire investigator.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I agree, they seem to be propagating a lot of nonsense, maybe they could hire a qualified engineering professional to explain it to them.

Hopefully Tony and Ziggi will continue promoting 9/11 truth and never actually build anything, them building a high rise backyard shed would scare the gadzoodles out of me.
Click to expand...

FTFY :D
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The notion of how WTC 7 came down, by those supporting a natural collapse scenario here, is akin to believing it could happen like the game mousetrap, where there are a large series of unlikely causes and effects purposely intended to bring about a result.

So yes, it can happen with a kid's toy when intended but that is not the real world and those who believe WTC 7 came down on its own here either don't live in the real world or have a vested interest in keeping others from finding out it didn't.

I would say it is the natural collapse of WTC 7 story that can be likened to having water run uphill naturally.
Click to expand...

http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech_7.htm
 
Tony, you dodged some of my questions since page 10:

Do you accept my claim as true that the WTC7 south face had a HUGE GASH down many floors, as reported by fire fighters on the scene, and as descibed in the NIST report?

According to your engineering assessment, would you agree that ripping a HUGE GASH down the face of a building and damaging floors doing so might frustrate designs to prevent vertical spread of fire?

Are you saying that Jowenko's lack of detailed knowledge of circumstances is reason to reject his expert opinion?
(Hint: This is a Yes/No question. No need to write another full paragraph that avoids answering the actual question.)

What if the wall broke 8 floors above ground, and then the upper part fell on inside of the lower part wall? The 8 stories worth of standing columns would then not support anything.


Thank you.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The problem you and many others here have is that you aren't even qualified to judge. You really should stop this. It is making you look bad. But then those who use pseudonyms (like you) don't seem to worry about that.
Click to expand...

are you sure you want to make that comment? I seem to recall that you took a limiting case model literally, and you haven't figured it out yet why people criticize your arguments. This is also in spite of the fact that the said limiting case model, stated explicitly that it was a limiting case.

Should an engineer really overlook qualifiers in a written paper that cause him to take an inappropriately literal interpretation?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The problem you and many others here have is that you aren't even qualified to judge. You really should stop this. It is making you look bad. But then those who use pseudonyms (like you) don't seem to worry about that.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I am qualified enough to say that if you believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then you are implicating the FDNY as being involved with some sort of "inside job" so, there's that...
 
Spanx said:
Says the "qualified engineer" claiming to also be a fire investigator.
Click to expand...

Not only that he is making metilurgical statements, and material science statements that his degrees show he is not qualified to make.

I sincerely hope he can go back to school and get the relivent degrees, so he can correct my layman's knowledge in the materials sciences, as well as my layman's lack of engineering knowledge.

I need to figure out why all the welds in the pictures I have shown are not breaking. :D

I could be wrong and if Tony will provide evidence that he has said degrees in the relevant
Materials sciences then I shall apologize.

My claim was never that steel was cast Iron, but that energy is transmitted though steel at
5100 meters per second, that such a fast rate of energy transfer could shatter connections,
Before the slower reaction of tension bending can occur.

The photos I have shown, and the materials science data, seem to point to me being correct.
Instead of correcting my layman's flawed knowledge, all Tony does is question my credentials of which I have none, he presented nothing but magical hand waving, and
appeals to an authority that his own credentials say he lacks.

I can no longer take Tony or Ziggi's theories as anything more than uninformed raving of those who have no knowledge into steel framing failure.
Tony and Ziggi only argue from uninformed personal opinions not scientificly or evidentually based.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I can no longer take Tony or Ziggi's theories as anything more than uninformed raving of those who have no knowledge into steel framing failure.
Tony and Ziggi only argue from uninformed personal opinions not scientificly or evidentually based.
Click to expand...

What took you so long to come to that conclusion? :D
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Given that you admit you aren't an engineer it is curious that you feel qualified to say what constitutes a qualified engineering professional.
Click to expand...

Tony...you are an unlicensed mechanical engineer, with very little knowledge of steel framed buildings. You are not a qualified engineering professional, on this particular subject.

So Tony...what is your end game here? It cannot be wasting your life and everyone's time debating an impossible theory, with zero evidence to support it.
 
Not a relevant question. Why can't he simply be someone who believes what he believes for whatever reasons he believes it... and is passionate about it and wants to share his belief with others?

Many have pointed out flaws in his thinking... He doesn't seem to acknowledge or agree. It's a stalemate no?
 
JSanderO said:
Not a relevant question. Why can't he simply be someone who believes what he believes for whatever reasons he believes it... and is passionate about it and wants to share his belief with others?

Many have pointed out flaws in his thinking... He doesn't seem to acknowledge or agree. It's a stalemate no?
Click to expand...
It's relevant because he's made appeals to authority (his own) before. Except, as MHM points out, he's not really a qualified authority in this subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom