Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[Spanx]

Given all that the logic shows it was highly improbable and much more likely the fires in WTC 7 were started intentionally using the WTC 1 collapse for cover. The ruse seems to have worked as long as one doesn't think too hard about

Tony, perhaps you could answer the question why Wtc7 needed to be destroyed ?

 

[tsig]

Tony, perhaps you could answer the question why Wtc7 needed to be destroyed ?

Clearly the fact that it was destroyed shows that it needed destroying so the act is it's own justification. It's just pure logic.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, perhaps you could answer the question why Wtc7 needed to be destroyed ?

I would think you are aware that there was a large Securities and Exchange Commission office on the 12th and 13th floors of WTC 7 with a significant number of paper intensive case files against some big players. These cases were never resurrected.

Of course, a number of individuals here have speculated that they could have just used paper shredders. That notion isn't even worth commenting on.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I would think you are aware that there was a large Securities and Exchange Commission office on the 12th and 13th floors of WTC 7 with a significant number of paper intensive case files against some big players. These cases were never resurrected.

Of course, a number of individuals here have speculated that they could have just used paper shredders. That notion isn't even worth commenting on.

Why not just let the paper burn in the fire and demolished the buildings later making sure the papers are totally destroyed. Then taking the building down in a less suspicious manor
Than being broadcast on television to the American public?

 

[Animal]

Chris, your commentary here is astonishing.

It is clear and obvious as to why the stiffeners were left off of girder A2001 and you simply wave it away as though it was a typo. You are not being honest with yourself or anyone else if you actually believe that. Either that, or you don't appreciate the gravity of what was done.

Your hand waving on how the fires actually started in WTC 7 isn't far behind.

The reason the stiffeners were omitted is clear, and the same reason that other stiffeners were added. Troofers are the ones not being honest as they continue to point at the omitted stiffeners as some sort of nefarious act while ignoring the added stiffeners that void the claim.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The reason the stiffeners were omitted is clear, and the same reason that other stiffeners were added. Troofers are the ones not being honest as they continue to point at the omitted stiffeners as some sort of nefarious act while ignoring the added stiffeners that void the claim.

The omitted stiffeners on girder A2001 were pertinent to the alleged failure mode as they would have prevented it. I am not sure what you are talking about with added stiffeners, but would think you are referring to the wrong type in the NIST model under the girder seat at column 79, which would have made no difference in the alleged failure mode vs. the actual support plate which should have been there.

Maybe its me, but the arguments presented by those of you who insist on supporting/defending the clearly bogus story that WTC 7 came down due to fire are starting to resemble blithering. They are incoherent and just a denial of actual logic and evidence that the collapse was due to controlled demolition.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The reason the stiffeners were omitted is clear, and the same reason that other stiffeners were added. Troofers are the ones not being honest as they continue to point at the omitted stiffeners as some sort of nefarious act while ignoring the added stiffeners that void the claim.

They simply lack the materials science knowledge, so they attempt to bury us in irrelevant minute details of nonsense to make points so to show on Cter sites.
Like Tony's total misunderstanding of my argument regarding shear lag, full tension strength takes time to build, shear can be instantaneous.
That is the method of rapid failure shown in all three structures.

 

[chrismohr]

You probably mean this?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
​

Thanks Pgimeno this is it.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris, your commentary here is astonishing.

It is clear and obvious as to why the stiffeners were left off of girder A2001 and you simply wave it away as though it was a typo. You are not being honest with yourself or anyone else if you actually believe that. Either that, or you don't appreciate the gravity of what was done.

Your hand waving on how the fires actually started in WTC 7 isn't far behind.

Yo Tony,
In another Skeptic forum, Oystein was raking Dr. Griscom through the coals for saying, "The energy, its vector, is directed downward." Oystein claimed that energy is always scalar so Griscom made an error of major proportions. My response was to say that I don't know enough about science to know if Oystein was merely nitpicking over the kind of minor mistake anyone could make on a live broadcast, or if it indeed revealed massive ignorance.
I am in the same position here. The omitted stiffeners argument you make and the rebuttals others here make is outside the limits of my ability to judge the merits of the arguments. You are asking me to make a judgment: did the absence of the stiffeners in the NIST model mean they eliminated them so the collapse could proceed in their false model (a major if not fatal flaw), or did the presence in the model of other stiffeners etc. mean they were just doing a model that had enough detail in it to accomplish their legitimate goal of determining the cause of the collapse? Or was it a flaw, but a minor one? You and people on the other side here all know more than I do and you will have to duke it out with them. I am not hand-waving, I am just not willing to make a pronouncement one way or another about something I can't understand all the complexities of.
This is a complaint you should take up with NIST, with other technical experts who can judge the scientific merits of your accusation and can understand the full context of what you are saying. Why not hire a structural engineering firm to do a truly independent analysis of your claims? I bet some people here would happily help you find such a firm and work out terms in advance so both sides could accept the results of the study.

 

[jaydeehess]

Gotta love the characterization of 5-10 acres of office fires as "limited'.

There there is the temporal disconnect of expecting dust created by a collapse that destroyed floors in under a second each managing to "pile" onto burning material and smother combustion.

 

[NoahFence]

Given all that the logic shows it was highly improbable and much more likely the fires in WTC 7 were started intentionally using the WTC 1 collapse for cover. The ruse seems to have worked as long as one doesn't think too hard about it.

So they took advantage of the situation. Nice.
You realize that never before in the history of one of the busiest cities on the planet has there been such a large convergence of emergency responders of all types? No?

Cameras didn't see the arsonists? The thousands of people at the site didn't see the arsonists?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chris basic argument stifiners have to remain stiff to function, there are several good points expressed,
That make the stifiners argument void.

Tony also has an impossible argument now, Tony has said that shear lag is impossible, he needs to prove that claim, before CD, can even be considered in all three buildings shear lag is evident in photos.
So how does a CD create an impossible even that can not occur?

 

[carlitos]

Tony - will you be doing the flying invisible burning thermite / gypsum dust demonstration anytime soon? ae911truth has hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend; why not do some flying thermite? It would make cool youtubes.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Gotta love the characterization of 5-10 acres of office fires as "limited'.

There there is the temporal disconnect of expecting dust created by a collapse that destroyed floors in under a second each managing to "pile" onto burning material and smother combustion.

Tonys got claims all over the map but his arguments are a one trick pony. Different claims, same idea of each being wildly insane and so indiscretely contradicted by established facts that it emulates parody.

They are errors stacked on top of one another, and compounding, and consistently recycled... and brought up to do everything except address the proif of CD

 

[Oystein]

One more try. 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.

 

[ozeco41]

There there is the temporal disconnect of expecting dust created by a collapse that destroyed floors in under a second each managing to "pile" onto burning material and smother combustion.

Temporal disconnects AKA anachronisms AKA things happening before the event that causes them are a T Sz speciality.

Among it's other fatal problems "Missing Jolt" was looking for the arrival of a jolt AFTER the the time for a jolt was already past.

sort of consequences happen BEFORE causes - effect precedes cause.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Temporal disconnects AKA anachronisms AKA things happening before the event that causes them are a T Sz speciality.

Among it's other fatal problems "Missing Jolt" was looking for the arrival of a jolt AFTER the the time for a jolt was already past.

sort of consequences happen BEFORE causes - effect precedes cause.

This is a classic case of the blithering and incoherence that I was talking about being spouted by those who insist on defending/supporting the natural collapse theory here.

 

[beachnut]

This is a classic case of the blithering and incoherence that I was talking about being spouted by those who insist on defending/supporting the natural collapse theory here.

Calling reality BS; what some one with the fantasy of CD, high explosives and thermite does.

911 truth this is called engineering by an "expert".

 

[NoahFence]

This is a classic case of the blithering and incoherence that I was talking about being spouted by those who insist on defending/supporting the natural collapse theory here.

So there's absolutely no chance in hell that you're going to respond to Oystein's question, a mere 2 posts above yours?

We all know you've seen it and read it. Why can't you answer these simple questions?

 

[ozeco41]

This is a classic case of the blithering and incoherence that I was talking about being spouted by those who insist on defending/supporting the natural collapse theory here.

Tony most of us are aware that you don't engage in "reasoned argument". No need to prove it.

The statement is not "incoherent" - it is a simple and straightforward assertion of facts - including these two which I have explained to you many times:
A) Your "Missing Jolt" was looking for a Jolt which could never happen because the scenario you assumed as starting premise NEVER existed. AND

B) ONE aspect of that was that you were looking for something to happen after the point in time when it would have happened.

Now if that pair of comments is "incoherent" ask nicely - tell me which words phrases you do not comprehend - and I will attempt to translate to even simpler language.

Otherwise stop the nonsense and insults and explain where I am wrong.

AND I asserted that temporal disconnects were "a T Sz speciality." If you want further examples just ask - I'll try to dig them up. Probably the most fruitful source around your nonsense claims about tilt and axial contact of "falling" column ends. Same fundamental error as Missing Jolt but a more generic application. By the time you had tilt it was too late for axial contact.

THEN - If posting simple assertions of provable fact qualifies as "blithering" in your world - you had better post us a glossary of Tony speak.

PLUS I don't have to "defend the natural collapse theory" YOU are asserting that it is wrong. Your problem to prove your claim. Not me to disprove.