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

[ergo]

because as we all know, if an engineer hasn't expressly submitted his approval of the NIST report, preferably in triplicate, it means he secretly doesn't support its conclusion.

In fact, this is the exact same argument you folks use to claim the opposite: That those who don't express skepticism about 9/11 official explanations by default support it. Many engineers in the truth movement can tell you this is not the case.

 

[Christopher7]

The technical discussion around this seems to want to take this basic, common-sense understanding of what a natural gravitational collapse looks like away and into the realm of minute engineering details.

Proving the NIST report wrong and fraudulent is not a minute detail.

There simply is no debate that the building was brought down.

IYO - There are a lot of people who know nothing but what they have been told on the idiot box. You're not going to win them over with that argument.

Debating it gives the absurdist NIST explanation legitimacy.

Just the opposite. Proving NIST report on WTC 7 wrong undermines the entire official story of the 9/11 attacks.

 

[NoahFence]

....just as the mention of the Pentagon and Shanksville throws a monkey wrench into retarded thermite claims.

 

[LSSBB]

IYO There are a lot of people who know nothing but what they have been told on the idiot box. You're not going to win them over with that argument.

you won't win them over by being arrogant and dismissive about their ability to think for themselves either. Plus, who gets their news much from TV anymore? Youtube is the new 'idiot box', even more so because anyone and everyone spouts off their opinion on it, no fact checking needed.

Just the opposite. Proving NIST report on WTC 7 wrong undermines the entire official story of the 9/11 attacks.

No, it means they have to figure out some other way the building collapsed due to fire. And what does WTC7 collapsing have to do with the collision with the pentagon, or the crash in Shanksville?

ETA: Noah, beatmetoit props 2u.

 

[ozeco41]

Jay, the reaction you garnered is yet another example of how there appears to be opportunities to learn critical thinking skills in the engineering community.

Much of my career involved managing engineers and engineering rather than being an engineer myself.

I found that there is a large proportion of the body of engineers who simply cannot think outside the "nine dots" of standard text book solutions. Once the problem requires that they go back to basics they simply lose the plot. I can give examples but wont derail the thread at this time.

Yes there are many opportunities to learn critical thinking skills. And not just engineers BUT the engineers should be setting the examples of clear thinking on these structural engineering topics. tfk does it well and saves me having to do it.

And his style is probably better than my pedantic detailing for this thread

 

[ergo]

Just the opposite. Proving NIST report on WTC 7 wrong undermines the entire official story of the 9/11 attacks.

Not to belabour this point any further off topic, but you seem to be suggesting that NIST's WTC 7 report needs to be debunked in detail to show that the building could not have dropped like that without having most of its structural resistance removed. I'm saying go ahead and do that if that will bring more engineers on board but, in fact, common sense already tells us this, with or without girder walk-off hypotheses.

 

[Justin39640]

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.

Hope your underwriters never read that gem lol.

 

[Justin39640]

Not to belabour this point any further off topic, but you seem to be suggesting that NIST's WTC 7 report needs to be debunked in detail to show that the building could not have dropped like that without having most of its structural resistance removed. I'm saying go ahead and do that if that will bring more engineers on board but, in fact, common sense already tells us this, with or without girder walk-off hypotheses.

Common sense didn't build it. Common sense shouldn't be used to determine how it came down. That's a lot of words to say "it didn't look right to me, no math needed".

 

[LSSBB]

Common sense didn't build it. Common sense shouldn't be used to determine how it came down. That's a lot of words to say "it didn't look right to me, no math needed".

Hell, its not even common sense ergo is using, if you start from the penthouse collapse the Truthers always leave out of their videos.

 

[Christopher7]

WTC7 did not fall AT freefall, the acceleration passed through g. Not a step function.

The upper portion of WTC 7 fell AT FFA for about 100 feet. Even if your misinterpretation of the data points were correct, the average was still FFA and that is not possible unless all the supporting structure is removed. Buckling columns provide resistance as Sunder said at the Tech Briefing and Bazant showed in Fig. 5d of his 2002 paper.

 

[ergo]

Common sense didn't build it. Common sense shouldn't be used to determine how it came down. That's a lot of words to say "it didn't look right to me, no math needed".

Gravity didn't build it either. That's how searing your logic is here.

It looks right to me. It looks exactly like a controlled demolition, as it does to millions of others, including those in the building and demolition professions.

 

[Justin39640]

I totally agree. But my dog ate my evidence. Can I see yours?

Hahah!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

He is probably having to much fun sharing around at parties for a laugh to send it back.

If I remember correcly you had said you weren't big on math.

With that said, it is simply incredible that you would then indulge yourself in the above comment, when you admittedly wouldn't have a clue of what you are talking about.

 

[Justin39640]

Gravity didn't build it either. That's how searing your logic is here.

It looks right to me. It looks exactly like a controlled demolition, as it does to millions of others, including those in the building and demolition professions.

I've never seen a demolition where they let the core drop out first and let the facade "do its thing" all willy nilly. Your gravity comment makes no sense. I was saying that they used engineering and math to build it. Not "that looks good Tony, just tack it in place and we'll drill some holes."

Engineering and math should be used to determine how it failed. Not common sense.

 

[Justin39640]

If I remember correcly you had said you weren't big on math.

With that said, it is simply incredible that you would then indulge yourself in the above comment, when you admittedly wouldn't have a clue of what you are talking about.

Being a service guy, reading a lot of the comments you've made, I'd be very nervous climbing under something you designed. Just sayin'

 

[tfk]

Tony,

I know that you won't be able to cite a single engineer outside of NIST who supports the NIST explanation of the WTC 7 collapse.

You actually believe that ergo is saying something that he really believes??? Rather than simply trolling?

You don't believe that someone could come up with James Quintiere, Les Robinson, Tom Eager, several names from AiA, SEoNY, Purdue, LERA Associates, Weidinger Associates, etc. etc. etc

Not ONE name, Tony??

Pretty incompetent response, Tony.

TFK can't even cite himself, because anonymous engineers don't count.

Why would a competent engineer give a rat's ass about what you believe "counts".

How many incompetent, identified engineers is one competent anonymous engineer worth, Tony?

10? 50? 100? ALL of them?

My answer is "MORE than all of them."

I am continually amazed that a working mechanical engineer, as he claims to be, has as much time as he seems to have to post here and elsewhere.

Well, when you can't address the issues…

Got that analysis on beam buckling, beam force & beam sag posted yet?

No?

Color me "unsurprised".

Aside from that anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that a building the size of a footblall field in plan coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories across its full length and width, can only be collapsing due to unnatural means.

"… the size of a footblall field …"???

You think that this citation shows anything but stupidity, Tony?

How fast does something the size & weight of a marble fall if the force holding it up is about 1% of its weight? .99G

How fast does something the size & weight of a person fall if the force holding it up is about 1% of its weight? .99G

How fast does something the size & weight of a building fall if the force holding it up is about 1% of its weight? .99G

How fast does something the size & weight of a mountain fall if the force holding it up is about 1% of its weight? .99G

Tell me again how important the size of the building is, Tony.

"… anyone with eyeballs & half a brain can see that [it is] coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories …"

Unfortunately for your Appeal to Amateur Laziness, it took video analysis and a little calculus to figure out that it was NOT "coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration."

What distinguishes competent engineers from incompetent ones is the tools & analyses that we use.

I'll leave you to depend upon your "eyeball & (yup) half a brain".

Couldn't possibly have phrased that one any better.

 

[Christopher7]

Not to belabour this point any further off topic, but you seem to be suggesting that NIST's WTC 7 report needs to be debunked in detail to show that the building could not have dropped like that without having most* of its structural resistance removed. I'm saying go ahead and do that if that will bring more engineers on board but, in fact, common sense already tells us this, with or without girder walk-off hypotheses.

You are belaboring the point. What can be determined using "common sense" is subjective and not enough for many people. The laws of physics and mathematics are absolute and irrefutable.

*Not most - all.

 

[LSSBB]

The upper portion of WTC 7 fell AT FFA for about 100 feet. Even if your misinterpretation of the data points were correct, the average was still FFA and that is not possible unless all the supporting structure is removed. Buckling columns provide resistance as Sunder said at the Tech Briefing and Bazant showed in Fig. 5d of his 2002 paper.

[qimg]http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7157/bucklinggraphics.jpg[/qimg]

Its not my misinterpretation, its from femr2's accurate analysis. And yes, it is possible if the falling structure inside is yanking down the exterior. You are not looking at the interior acceleration when you measure the outside.

 

[LSSBB]

If I remember correcly you had said you weren't big on math.

With that said, it is simply incredible that you would then indulge yourself in the above comment, when you admittedly wouldn't have a clue of what you are talking about.

From what I've seen of the critical thinking skills displayed in your analysis, I don't think you have any grounds to dismiss what lefty is talking about.

 

[LSSBB]

Gravity didn't build it either. That's how searing your logic is here.

It looks right to me. It looks exactly like a controlled demolition, as it does to millions of others, including those in the building and demolition professions.

Where are the signs of explosives?