WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[Animal]

He forgot to use the qualifiers "high rise" and "completely" to satisfy the JREF semantics nitpickers.

I see.....only troofers are allowed to "nitpick"

The NIST theory does not work for a number of reasons and their model doesn't look anything like the actual collapse.

The NIST theory works quite well, the model doesn't exactly match the collapse for the previously stated reasons......only nitpickers demand otherwise.

The evidence has been given but y'all just go into denial mode and claim that there is no evidence.

There has been NO evidence, ordinary or extraordinary as troofers demand, of a CD of WTC7 or any other WTC building......just poor assumptions, failed logic, and outright lies, but that hasn't stopped troofers from repeating them.

 

[Animal]

So that it can last long enough for fire-fighting efforts to save the building. Wait .... I'm missing the point here, aren't I ?

Even saying that advances the myth. The FP us not about saving the building, it is making the building survive long enough to get all the occupants out.

 

[GlennB]

Even saying that advances the myth. The FP us not about saving the building, it is making the building survive long enough to get all the occupants out.

After all this time I didn't know that. I see what you mean. Cheers

 

[NoahFence]

Claiming that WTC 7 came down due to fire is an extraordinary claim and that requires extraordinary proof.

And claiming it was controlled demolition doesn't???


What planet are you from?!?!?!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

=Tony Szamboti;8205461]No, I was right. The bearing area of a bolt is the projected area. See what the Seel Construction manual says about it here http://www.bgstructuralengineering.com/BGSCM13/BGSCM003/BGSCM00306.htm

wrong, thats for steel in steel. Concrete is brittle and a round bolt would tend to split it rather than fail under purely compressive load

The 238 psi compressive bearing stress experienced by the concrete from the beam expansion loads before they buckle is extremely low and there is simply no chance of concrete failure. TFK was talking out of his hat when he said the concrete would fail before the shear studs on the girder between columns 44 and 79.

you are also assuming the bolt wont simply deform (which of course it will), Your link above is for a thin plate not a thick concrete slab. loading would be much higher at the bottom of the concrete than at the top, that combined with the shape of the bolt would cause high local stresses in the concrete.

You still have also failed to account for the concrete failing as the beam sags or damage to the concrete due to heat.

Sorry but you have still failed to prove your assertion that the floor would prevent the girder from expanding/contracting.

 

[NoahFence]

Tony, for the 12,334th time -

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

And again,

"Looks like " is not evidence.
Heresay is not evidence.

 

[Christopher7]

I see.....only troofers are allowed to "nitpick"

Only little children use words like "troofers".

The NIST theory works quite well

Abject denial. The NIST theory fails several different ways.

1) The fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour before the collapse.
2) The walk-off theory is impossible as has been demonstrated on this thread.
3) The NIST model does NOT fall at free fall acceleration

the model doesn't exactly match the collapse for the previously stated reasons.

The NIST model does not look anything like the actual collapse.

There has been NO evidence, ordinary or extraordinary [childish insult deleted] of a CD of WTC7 or any other WTC building

Denial.

 

[NoahFence]

Abject denial. The NIST theory fails several different ways.


Wrong. Their conclusions have yet to be proven wrong:

Fire = Collapse.

You can nitpick all you want at a specific girder, but the fact remains:

Fire = Collapse.

You can shout from the rooftops how right you are about some stupid minutae, but the fact is they said:

Fire = Collapse.

That's their conculsion, that's the conclusion that rational people made years before NIST even started their report. I knew what did it before it even hit the ground. What's taking you so long?

Quote:
There has been NO evidence, ordinary or extraordinary [childish insult deleted] of a CD of WTC7 or any other WTC building

Denial.

Oh really? Then SHOW IT. SHOW the evidence in your very next post. You won't.

 

[Christopher7]

Abject denial. The NIST theory fails several different ways.

Wrong. Their conclusions have yet to be proven wrong:

Fire = Collapse.

You can nitpick all you want at a specific girder, but the fact remains:

Fire = Collapse.

You can shout from the rooftops how right you are about some stupid minutae, but the fact is they said:

Fire = Collapse.

That's their conculsion, that's the conclusion that rational people made years before NIST even started their report. I knew what did it before it even hit the ground. What's taking you so long?

I admire your spirit if not your grip on reality.

Oh really? Then SHOW IT. SHOW the evidence in your very next post. You won't.

You are willfully blind to it and always will be.

Have a lovely day.

 

[Gamolon]

The reason there has never been a steel framed building that collapsed due to fire is because random interactions cannot defeat the heavy redunandcy in these buildings and things cannot get to the point of complete collapse.

Tony, please explain this to me.

How does a structural engineer design for redundancy to ensure that a building will remain standing no matter what combination of structural components are weakened or failed due to fire?

 

[Gamolon]

Why does Salvarinas' paper show studs on the girder between column 79 and 44, yet on the Cantor drawing S-8 AND the Frankel Steel drawing E12/13, none are shown for the girder?

Why does Salvarinas' paper show studs on the W30x116 north on column, yet on the Cantor drawing S-8 and the Frankel Steel drawing E-12/13, none are shown for that girder?

Why does Salvarinas' paper call out 32 studs for the 24x55 floors beams on the east side of WTC7 yet Cantor drawing S-8 and Frankel Steel drawing E12/13 call out 28 studs per floor beam, not 32?

Why does Slavarinas' paper call out 32 studs typical for ALL the floor beams along the south wall yet the Cantor drawing S-8 and the Frankel Steel drawing E-12/13 show between 20 and 26 studs on certain floor beams?

You are taking the drawings of a man who wrote a paper before WTC7 was even completed over two different drawings that show he is wrong?

May I ask why?

Tony?

 

[triforcharity]

The reason there has never been a steel framed building that collapsed due to fire is because random interactions cannot defeat the heavy redunandcy in these buildings and things cannot get to the point of complete collapse.

So, you're saying that fire has never caused the collapse of a steel building before, even though steel has been failing in fires for decades?

How......stupid.

 

[NoahFence]

I admire your spirit if not your grip on reality.

You are willfully blind to it and always will be.

Have a lovely day.

Don't be a coward.

You say (essentially) that the evidence is overwhelming. If it is so overwhelming, why the reluctance to acutally show it?

Because it's not there, kiddo. It's not there. There IS no evidence for controlled demolition beyond "looks like it".

Funny thing is, it DIDN'T look like it. Not at all.

 

[NoahFence]

Sick of truthers being cowards.

Show the evidence.

Show me ONE bit of concrete evidence, and my next post is a PM to a moderator asking that my username and priviledges to post here are revoked.


You will never hear from me again.

Put up or shut up time.

 

[triforcharity]

We also know that the fire on floor 12 had burned out over an hour before the collapse.

That is a subject for another thread.

No,

This thread is about walk-off and we have shown that that is impossible.

WE???? LOL!! You're fooling nobody. Your uneducated banter is just parroted from Tony and other failed nobodies. You repeat the same dung over and over and over until we all must wear boots just to get in the door.

You and Tony have proven NOTHING.

Wanna impress someone? Publish it.

Wanna get people on your "side"? Publish it.

What have you done?

YouTube.........

 

[Gamolon]

The reason there has never been a steel framed building that collapsed due to fire is because random interactions cannot defeat the heavy redunandcy in these buildings and things cannot get to the point of complete collapse.

Just to reiterate.

How can you design redundancy into a building to be 100% positive that every single possible permutation of RANDOM interactions between weakened and/or failed structural components will NOT result in a total collapse?

 

[Animal]

Just to reiterate.

How can you design redundancy into a building to be 100% positive that every single possible permutation of RANDOM interactions between weakened and/or failed structural components will NOT result in a total collapse?

Redundancy in building structural design is rarely ever done. There is a safety margin required in the design, but not redundancy. There is no "back up" structural system. This claim alone show how little troofers know about structural design.

 

[Animal]

Only little children use words like "troofers".

Abject denial. The NIST theory fails several different ways.

1) The fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour before the collapse.
2) The walk-off theory is impossible as has been demonstrated on this thread.
3) The NIST model does NOT fall at free fall acceleration

The NIST model does not look anything like the actual collapse.

Denial.

Sorry......but you unqualified "because I say so" argument is meaningless

 

[Gamolon]

Redundancy in building structural design is rarely ever done. There is a safety margin required in the design, but not redundancy. There is no "back up" structural system. This claim alone show how little troofers know about structural design.

Redundancy aside...

How can someone be 100% sure about the outcome of a situation/action which is comprised of random events?

 

[000063]

The reason there has never been a steel framed building that collapsed due to fire is because random interactions cannot defeat the heavy redunandcy in these buildings and things cannot get to the point of complete collapse.

Claiming that WTC 7 came down due to fire is an extraordinary claim and that requires extraordinary proof. NIST and those who support their explanation have failed to provide that proof, and in fact have been shown to claim completely impossible individual situations in their explanations.

The hand waving of complete chaos is not valid here and the thoroughly impossible situations claimed by the NIST, some of which have been discussed in this thread, need to be corrected.

It didn't come down solely due to fire. It came down due to bits of another building falling on it, which set it on fire.

This leads to the question of if and how the bad guys knew that they'd have an excuse to collapse WTC 7. Either They aimed WTC 1 at it very precisely, which is so crazy no Truther I've seen has ever acknowledged the possibility, or They just happened to put charges in a building which just happened to sustain random damage which did not disrupt the charges. Both are impossible.

Since there's no plausible logical explanation for the charges being in 7, there were no charges.