Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

The upper section of the North Tower fell straight down, or nearly straight down, for at least two stories and then it tilted. There was no jolt when there should have been after the first floor to floor impact should have taken place and that is a significant problem for those supporting the natural collapse scenario.

You are trying to say it tilted first and went out of alignment before the columns could contact and that just is not true.

Additionally, the inertia of the upper section would have kept the columns in alignment during the first two story drop.

 

[ozeco41]

The upper section of the North Tower fell straight down, or nearly straight down, for at least two stories and then it tilted. There was no jolt when there should have been after the first floor to floor impact should have taken place and that is a significant problem for those supporting the natural collapse scenario.

You are trying to say it tilted first and went out of alignment before the columns could contact and that just is not true.

Additionally, the inertia of the upper section would have kept the columns in alignment during the first two story drop.

Tony you realy do not understand the progress of those cascade failures.

CLUE: Drop the arse about "logic" - explain how a single column fails in that scenario. Leave CD in as a possibility if you wish. It is probably easier if you initially leave CD out and try to add it in AFTER you understand the cascade process. Whichever remember that CD is merely another way of failing columns AND if there was CD it has to disappear into the observed visual features of the event - it was assistance NOT sole cause of collapse.

Once you comprehend how ONE column fails THEN extend to nearby columns and get your head around the elastic plastic realities PLUS load redistribution. THEN extend to full floor plan all columns.

Before you start better to get rid of remnant Bazantian ideas of "X" stories drops. That is where the main arse about error comes into play. Think from single column reality. How does ONE failing column contribute to "dropping"? (And the explanation doesn't change if it was CDed)

If you get it right you will be among the first few.

 

[Animal]

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.

The blithering is from the troofer camp.
Your ignorant claim that one set of omitted stiffeners would affect the failure mode and another set would not is evidence of your complete lack of understanding of computer modeling / simulation and a complete ignorance of building structural design.
You have the gall to claim incoherence when in fact, your claims are go far beyond incoherence and are in the realm of fantasy.

You have no evidence of CD, you never will, nor is there any corroborating evidence of CD, you wild troofer claims and ignoring the factual evidence. ......you just keep spinning on the hamster wheel.

 

[LSSBB]

The blithering is from the troofer camp.
Your ignorant claim that one set of omitted stiffeners would affect the failure mode and another set would not is evidence of your complete lack of understanding of computer modeling / simulation and a complete ignorance of building structural design.
You have the gall to claim incoherence when in fact, your claims are go far beyond incoherence and are in the realm of fantasy.

You have no evidence of CD, you never will, nor is there any corroborating evidence of CD, you wild troofer claims and ignoring the factual evidence. ......you just keep spinning on the hamster wheel.

Yes, funny how Tony is willing to engage Oz in old off topic debates about WTC top block collapse initiation, and still won't address simulation reasons to add or drop stiffeners. Keep that wheel spinning. No search for Truth, just avoidance of the end game.

 

[Animal]

Yes, funny how Tony is willing to engage Oz in old off topic debates about WTC top block collapse initiation, and still won't address simulation reasons to add or drop stiffeners. Keep that wheel spinning. No search for Truth, just avoidance of the end game.

What is also comical is TZ's claim that the added stiffeners were simply a mistake (a wrong type).....which could not be further from the truth.
He has to spin it this way to maintain the NIST doing things nefariously.

TZ once again mistakenly thinks he is talking to gullible fellow cultists.

 

[Matthew Cline]

...and no fires are started in the Verizon and Post Office buildings next to WTC 7.

So if flaming debris hit WTC 7, parts of it would have bounced or scattered back onto those other buildings? Or parts of it would have dropped off onto those buildings before it hit WTC 7?

I'm asking why those buildings not catching fire precludes WTC 7 being set on fire by flaming debris from WTC 1.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What is also comical is TZ's claim that the added stiffeners were simply a mistake (a wrong type).....which could not be further from the truth.
He has to spin it this way to maintain the NIST doing things nefariously.

TZ once again mistakenly thinks he is talking to gullible fellow cultists.

Tony is doing so much hand waving recently that he should have circled the globe at least 8 times under his own power from hand flapping.
His arguments are ridiculous.

 

[JSanderO]

Tony you realy do not understand the progress of those cascade failures.

CLUE: Drop the arse about "logic" - explain how a single column fails in that scenario. Leave CD in as a possibility if you wish. It is probably easier if you initially leave CD out and try to add it in AFTER you understand the cascade process. Whichever remember that CD is merely another way of failing columns AND if there was CD it has to disappear into the observed visual features of the event - it was assistance NOT sole cause of collapse.

Once you comprehend how ONE column fails THEN extend to nearby columns and get your head around the elastic plastic realities PLUS load redistribution. THEN extend to full floor plan all columns.

Before you start better to get rid of remnant Bazantian ideas of "X" stories drops. That is where the main arse about error comes into play. Think from single column reality. How does ONE failing column contribute to "dropping"? (And the explanation doesn't change if it was CDed)

If you get it right you will be among the first few.

Most truthers deny that the towers are collapsing regardless of what made them do that. To most truthers... steel frame buildings cannot collapse... and most certainly not from a fire of any size or duration. They believe the ONLY way to destroy it completely is to blow it up...

Now with 7WTC they set up the scenario with the CD destroyed the entire structure over 8 floors... leaving the building above it essentially suspended in mid air so it can then drop at free fall and when it hits the ground it does seem to crush itself and come apart... the floors about the CDed 8 floors.

So... 32 falling floors cannot destroy what they fell on.... supposed to sit in a pile on the 78th floor and similar for 1wtc.

The thinking is so .... lame..

 

[NoahFence]

Are there any photos of buildings on fire before either twin tower collapsed? That'd be a hoot...

It's gotta be possible, what with the debris from the impact raining down.

 

[ozeco41]

Yes, funny how Tony is willing to engage Oz in old off topic debates about WTC top block collapse initiation, and still won't address simulation reasons to add or drop stiffeners. Keep that wheel spinning. No search for Truth, just avoidance of the end game.

Mea culpa for following the OT drift...but with a plea in mitigation.

The link to my comments arises because they show the same type of error that Tony keeps making with his WTC7 claims. The error of relying on false or unproven premises.

Simply stated Tony's WTC claim has three parts which are:

1) The NIST girder walk-off explanation is wrong. He has failed to prove that because in various ways it relies on an unproven premise that the surrounding structural elements remained in pristine - as constructed locations and were not affected by heat distortions; So Claim #1 - still unproven.

2) Because NIST was (allegedly) wrong on the detail of WYC7 collapse initiation the whole NIST WTC explanation is wrong. That one is utter hogwash - so Claim #2 UNPROVEN but easily shown to be FALSE.

3) Next higher level - because the NIST report is totally wrong there is grounds for further investigations/sanctions etc. Tony et al have not shown that the effects of "1" and "2" would justify any review even if they were true claims. Claim #3 still unproven.

AND those are the original claims. Since he cannot prove those "real" claims Tony has been encouraging a wide range of derail discussions to avoid the reality that his original claims are not proven and almost certainly false. In fact all the discussion about 'stiffeners' - though close to the original claim - is also evasive focus on details to avoid the real problems with his claims AND he has not proved that the stiffeners are either relevant OR significant

Arguably my "OT excursion" is closer to the OP than those following the derails.

 

[DGM]

.............and the fires in WTC 7 don't show up for nearly two hours after WTC 1 collapsed................

You keep saying this but, there are reports of fires even before the collapse of the South Tower.

There's even reports of damage to WTC 7 caused by the impact of UA 175. A building engineer reported hearing "broken glass" at the same time as the South Tower impact. That report would really suck for you. That would mean the building was actually hit by an airplane.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You keep saying this but, there are reports of fires even before the collapse of the South Tower.

There's even reports of damage to WTC 7 caused by the impact of UA 175. A building engineer reported hearing "broken glass" at the same time as the South Tower impact. That report would really suck for you. That would mean the building was actually hit by an airplane.

There is no photographic evidence of any fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM while the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony you realy do not understand the progress of those cascade failures.

CLUE: Drop the arse about "logic" - explain how a single column fails in that scenario. Leave CD in as a possibility if you wish. It is probably easier if you initially leave CD out and try to add it in AFTER you understand the cascade process. Whichever remember that CD is merely another way of failing columns AND if there was CD it has to disappear into the observed visual features of the event - it was assistance NOT sole cause of collapse.

Once you comprehend how ONE column fails THEN extend to nearby columns and get your head around the elastic plastic realities PLUS load redistribution. THEN extend to full floor plan all columns.

Before you start better to get rid of remnant Bazantian ideas of "X" stories drops. That is where the main arse about error comes into play. Think from single column reality. How does ONE failing column contribute to "dropping"? (And the explanation doesn't change if it was CDed)

If you get it right you will be among the first few.

The horizontal propagation across the North Tower at the 98th floor occurred in less than a second, so the initiation and initial vertical fall weren't progressive or cascade failures in any sense of the term.

The core was removed and it pulled in the exterior the same way the collapse of WTC 7 was initiated.

The way you are describing what initially occurred is inaccurate at best.

 

[NoahFence]

There is no photographic evidence of any fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM while the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

No photographic evidence of arsonists, either.

 

[ozeco41]

The horizontal propagation across the North Tower at the 98th floor occurred in less than a second, so the initiation and initial vertical fall weren't progressive or cascade failures in any sense of the term.

Wow! ...and?

Your entire understanding of the event is inaccurate at best.

It is highly unlikely that I am wrong on any significant aspect..

BUT you are evading yet again It is YOUR lack of understanding which is in question not any alleged lack of understanding on my part.

Explain in your scenario how any single column can fail due to heat, overload and possible bracing removal WITHOUT the structure above that column becoming lower.

OR as close to words of one syllable as I can get it. HOW does the structure above any single column cause overloading and buckling of that column WITHOUT that upper structure getting lower - pushing the top of the column down?

Once you get that building block of engineering logic right we can attempt to walk you through the rest of the scenario.

 

[DGM]

There is no photographic evidence of any fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM while the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

There's also no photographic (or audio) evidence of CD. Want to discount all eyewitness accounts?

I'm willing. How about you?

 

[Animal]

Once you get that building block of engineering logic right we can attempt to walk you through the rest of the scenario.

Don't ho;d your breath on that one...

 

[beachnut]

The horizontal propagation across the North Tower at the 98th floor occurred in less than a second, so the initiation and initial vertical fall weren't progressive or cascade failures in any sense of the term.

The core was removed and it pulled in the exterior the same way the collapse of WTC 7 was initiated.

The way you are describing what initially occurred is inaccurate at best.

What a big pile of BS. How does your claim pull in the shell?

Where do you get silent explosives?

 

[Miragememories]

There is no photographic evidence of any fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM while the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

That is true Tony but I am willing to concede that Barry Jennings, after retreating from the 6th floor stairwell explosion, did experience significant smoke and heat, as well as frequent additional internal building explosions.

He did not mention seeing any visible fire activity though.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Oh, actually it IS worth commenting on since shredding or torching paper has historically the more efficient and least suspicious ways to destroy documents. Why did they need to destroy the whole building, especially given the chaos that was going on ?