I found the missing Jolt.

Tony Szamboti said:
I do not have a link other than Metabunk. I was going to send the pdf from my hard drive.
Click to expand...

Which buildings with big fires had damage to core and floors equal in enery to a 2,000 pound bomb? Which buildings had big holes and broken windows from a kinetic energy impact which fed the fires air? Which buildings had lost fire protection from steel because it was knocked off by the energy and shock of 490 and 590 mph heavy jets hitting?

Which plot of 9/11 requires so much BS and nonsense it is poor fiction? CD

How will you explain this nonsense?

Tony Szamboti said:
The aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses to blame outsiders. The act of planting charges would at the very least necessitate insider complicity of some sort. Blaming it on the airplanes headed off any investigation into who planted charges to satisfy the public.
Click to expand...

This is part of your missing jolt junk; explain in great detail how it was done. How was the ruse, killing Flight 11, 175, 77 and 93 passengers, just a ruse; how does that work in your CD fantasy born in massive paranoia and delusional claptrap?
Murder was just a ruse to cover up?

lol, the biggest office fires in history started with 66,000 pounds of jet fuel... ignore the fires Tony, they ruin your BS.
Ignore the lost fire proofing, it ruins your fantasy CD.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
This only ever happened on Sept. 11, 2001 and it happened to three buildings on the same day, that were located in the same area, in the same city, and owned by the same person. Wow, what a coincidence! Although these would have purportedly been the first buildings to completely collapse due to fire, none of the steel was salvaged for an investigation from WTC 7 and only 0.25 to 0.50% from the twin towers, because the mayor's office felt it was prudent to recycle the steel instead of saving it for an investigation. Why would anyone be suspicious?
Click to expand...

TWO 767s, TONY, TWO...7...6...7...aircraft loaded with fuel, impacting at flank speeds. This is what was different between the WTC and all of those other fires (unless you also wish to discuss the fact that none of this buildings shared the same construction characteristics, which you won't).

WTC2 collapsed first, why? Because it was struck lower than WTC1.

Oh, and then there's this gem:

owned by the same person
Click to expand...

Why don't you come clean and say what you really want to say about this person?

You are applying calculations to justify your preconception, which is why they fail. There was no CD of any kind at the WTC.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST WTC 7 report has fires going on for four hours even though the photographic evidence clearly shows they were burned out in specific areas long before that and you want to give their fire simulations credibility. This also goes against experience where an office fire burns out in 30 to 40 minutes in specific areas and moves on.

Your thinking is not sensible.
Click to expand...

And you think that this willfully deceptive statement carries any weight??

Let's emphasize a couple of phrases, shall we?

Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST WTC 7 report has fires going on for four hours even though the photographic evidence clearly shows they were burned out in specific areas long before that and you want to give their fire simulations credibility. This also goes against experience where an office fire burns out in 30 to 40 minutes in specific areas and moves on.

Your thinking is not sensible.
Click to expand...

Tell me, Tony, is there any contradiction, any at all, with a fire burning out, in 30 - 40 minutes in specific areas, and yet lasting for 4 hours within the entire building?

Your honesty is non-existent.
 
Let’s get this cherry out of the way, first.

Tony Szamboti said:
Nobody even cares what you say in the nonsensical tomes you write here.
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious in the extreme that, being fully aware of the abysmal regard in which 95% of the posters here hold you & your technical disabilities, you nonetheless feel entitled to speak for the group regarding their estimation of the technical merits of my (or anyone else’s) postings.

Care to try to address this, Tony?
Or are you just going to call me a “meanie” again, and stomp off?
LMAO.

You seem to be operating under the delusion that I am attempting to make arguments that are “sensical to you”??
I assure you, I am NOT that incompetent.
__

Tony Szamboti said:
tfk said:
Tony Szamboti said:
I also wouldn't call the 64% of g descent acceleration of the North Tower, significantly less than g.
Click to expand...

LMFAO.
And THIS, Tony, is exactly why you are technically incompetent.

In engineering terms, your moronic assertion translates PRECISELY into "you wouldn't call 25,000 tons of force significantly greater than Zero."
Click to expand...

tfk, I consider you one of the most bombastic, and unreasonable persons I have ever come across. A real curmudgeon.
Click to expand...

LMAO.

You appear to believe that I give a rat’s ass what you think of me.
That’s pretty funny, Tony.

You appear to believe that I’d prefer that you like/approve of me.
That’s pretty funny, Tony.
You're an incompetent embarrassment to my profession, Tony.

You're a cliché, Tony.
Every company has a couple of clueless engineers ... for awhile. They survive by keeping their heads down.

Being incompetent (your entire career), you've suffered the disdain of the other engineers with whom you've worked.
And the precise reason that you've immersed yourself into this stupidity is that, for the first time in your life, you've got people, more clueless than you, looking up to you. Your EGO drives your despicable behavior.


You accuse other competent, honorable engineers of lying, deceit, treachery, etc. solely due to your own incompetence & in order to massage your own shattered ego.

I have nothing but disdain for you, Tony.
Both technically, and as a human being.
I have precisely zero desire for you to like me.

I DO care that real, competent engineers respect my technical abilities.
That "competent" part excludes you.

You appear to believe that whining that “You're an old meanie & nobody likes you” will sufficiently distract me to allow you to dodge the technically incompetent statement that you made.
That’s pretty funny too, Tony.

Here are the facts, Tony.
Why don’t you sit your incompetent self down and address the facts, Tony.

Acceleration of upper block | Force exerted by upper block on lower
0 g | ~60,000 tons
0.25 g | ~45,000 tons
0.50 g | ~30,000 tons
0.64 g | ~25,000 tons
0.75 g | ~15,000 tons
1.00 g | ~0 tons

Your statement that “I also wouldn't call the 64% of g descent acceleration of the North Tower, significantly less than g” is precisely equivalent to stating that you “wouldn't call 25,000 tons of force applied by the upper block on the lower, significantly greater than zero tons.”

Please explain how you managed to get a mechanical engineering degree, while being so totally clueless of trivial concepts as force & acceleration that it would result in your making such blatantly stupid assertions.

If it'll make you feel better, why don’t you call me “a big old meanie” again…

… and then address the *********** issue, you incompetent boob.
 
Axxman300 said:
You and other Troofers throw around the phrase "office fire" as if it is like a camp fire, or a fireplace fire. It is one of the many reasons you've failed.

First, it wasn't "an office fire" but hundreds of office fires which spread throughout the entire building, and burned out of control, unfought for almost eight hours. The acreage alone would technically classify it as a wildfire, and it took place in a confined area. Plus, you've ignored the damage caused by WTC1, which means you're basing calculations based on an intact structure and not a fatally damaged one.

The Bay Bridge on-ramp was outside, plenty of ventilation, and gasoline - not JP fueled:


[qimg]http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h188/axxman300/image2740790_zpsa9oowgiw.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h188/axxman300/image2740632_zpsohmzwn8g.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h188/axxman300/collapse1_zpszasi5vfl.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h188/axxman300/920x920_zpsivuoflfi.jpg[/qimg]

The fire weakened the steel, and the concrete. The impact in this case occurred at 3:41 AM, and the collapse at 4:02 AM.

*source:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Tanker-fire-destroys-part-of-MacArthur-Maze-2-2575285.php

It wasn't jet fuel, it wasn't a plane crash, and yet an earthquake-hardened structure was felled by fire weakening steel.
Click to expand...

This overpass was also loaded, statically, only by the burning tanker, the level above completely devoid of live load. T.Szamboti wonders at the fact that the lower level did not collapse. It's supports were in near pristine condition, exposed to open air, and had only the static tanker as a live load.
Very little in WTC7 was in pristine condition anywhere near areas affected by fire, and the office furnishings were still there and only weighed slightly less (combustibles would be lighter) than on Sept 10th.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I didn't say fire could not weaken steel. I have said there usually isn't enough fuel and energy in office fires to heat large pieces of steel to the point where they weaken enough to fail and that is why steel framed high-rise buildings never collapsed from fire.

...

I would argue that you are using an extreme case which has rarely happened and it was an enormous amount of concentrated fuel. Only one section fell and did no more damage. To then somehow try to use this one off very limited collapse to provide support for the complete propagation of collapses in three enormous buildings on the same day has no basis and is somewhat inane.
Click to expand...

Why don't you stop with these incompetent arguments, and address the ones that matter.


  • Other tall building fires did not have the physical damage & massive stress increases that resulted from jet impacts, and
  • the effect of stress levels on creep, even at very modest temperatures (<350°C)


Let's see you attempt to construct an argument to ignore those factors.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Most high-rises did not even have sprinkler systems prior to the 1990s. There was a major high-rise fire in the Philadelphia area where I live in 1991 (the 38 story Meridian Plaza building) that burned for 19 hours. The building was having sprinklers installed but the system was not yet installed or not activated on the 8 upper stories where the fire burned. No collapse.
Click to expand...
,,,,,and was a very different construction style. Surely you aren'the implying that all steel structure designs are equal in response to fire damage.

The North Tower of the WTC had a serious fire on the 11th floor and parts of six other floors in 1975 which burned for over three hours. The building did not have sprinklers at the time. No collapse.
Click to expand...
No sprinkler but was fought by fire fighters, was easier to reach than fires 60-70 floors higher up, and had all its steel structural members fully intact at all times (no large aircraft impact).
A little while ago( might have been in another thread) I mentioned the truther habit of treating each structural damage effect in isolation, and here we have a prime example of it.

In fact, none of the fires in steel framed high-rises prior to the installation of sprinkler systems ever caused a total collapse. This only ever happened on Sept. 11, 2001 and it happened to three buildings on the same day, that were located in the same area, in the same city, and owned by the same person.
Click to expand...
PANYNJ owned the buildings. Silverstein leased them.
Two of those buildings had something happen to them that rarely, if ever (if one considers the size and velocity of the aircraft) happens to high rise steel buildings. The third was another long span, open office space high rise built over an existing building. ( it's been characterized as having a 40 storey building sitting on a foundation that is 8 storeys high. ) which had serious structural damage and then fires that went unfought for half a day before it collapsed.

Wow, what a coincidence! Although these would have purportedly been the first buildings to completely collapse due to fire, none of the steel was salvaged for an investigation from WTC 7 and only 0.25 to 0.50% from the twin towers, because the mayor's office felt it was prudent to recycle the steel instead of saving it for an investigation. Why would anyone be suspicious?
Click to expand...

So the Mayor of NYC was in-on-it, along with FDNY, a property developer, and various other agencies. Not to mention the guys who developed the fire sim, the FEAs and performed various tests that NIST did.
Holy carp!!:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
TWO 767s, TONY, TWO...7...6...7...aircraft loaded with fuel, impacting at flank speeds. This is what was different between the WTC and all of those other fires (unless you also wish to discuss the fact that none of this buildings shared the same construction characteristics, which you won't).

WTC2 collapsed first, why? Because it was struck lower than WTC1.

Oh, and then there's this gem:



Why don't you come clean and say what you really want to say about this person?

You are applying calculations to justify your preconception, which is why they fail. There was no CD of any kind at the WTC.
Click to expand...

Without details you have no argument. My calculations are simply based on the situation at hand, there is no preconception.

Just saying aircraft hit the buildings doesn't provide enough detail to show that is why they came down.

Your understanding of why WTC 2 fell first is flawed. The tower columns were heavier the further down you were and the factor of safety would have been the same. If there was twice the load the column would have had twice the cross sectional area.
 
jaydeehess said:
,,,,,and was a very different construction style. Surely you aren'the implying that all steel structure designs are equal in response to fire damage.


No sprinkler but was fought by fire fighters, was easier to reach than fires 60-70 floors higher up, and had all its steel structural members fully intact at all times (no large aircraft impact).
A little while ago( might have been in another thread) I mentioned the truther habit of treating each structural damage effect in isolation, and here we have a prime example of it.


PANYNJ owned the buildings. Silverstein leased them.
Two of those buildings had something happen to them that rarely, if ever (if one considers the size and velocity of the aircraft) happens to high rise steel buildings. The third was another long span, open office space high rise built over an existing building. ( it's been characterized as having a 40 storey building sitting on a foundation that is 8 storeys high. ) which had serious structural damage and then fires that went unfought for half a day before it collapsed.



So the Mayor of NYC was in-on-it, along with FDNY, a property developer, and various other agencies. Not to mention the guys who developed the fire sim, the FEAs and performed various tests that NIST did.
Holy carp!!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There is no question that Rudy Giuliani was involved in a conspiracy to get rid of the steel. His office said they thought it was prudent when asked about it forcefully by victim's family members in the weeks after 911.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is no question that Rudy Giuliani was involved in a conspiracy to get rid of the steel. His office said they thought it was prudent when asked about it forcefully by victim's family members in the weeks after 911.
Click to expand...
What were the victims families forcefully asking in the weeks after 9/11? Naturally you have a reference.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
This gash could not have caused the simultaneous free fall by all four corners of the roof of the building, so your point is moot and essentially non-explanatory with respect to the collapse.
Click to expand...

What point do you think I was making Tony?

I never mentioned free-fall or even building collapse or any of the rest of it. I was responding to MicahJava's claim in post #360 and 372 that there was no vertical gash in the south face of Building 7.

That's it!

Do you always jump so quickly to such fundamentally wrong conclusions based on false starting assumptions?

Oh wait,...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom