• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Szamboti said:
Sure it was.

It is interesting that you and NIST have the interior completely collapsing on the east side first and then moving westward, but the east side exterior columns don't collapse until the entire interior is going with the reason given that they were slender and unsupported.

Why would t east exterior have to wait for the west if they were already unsupported and slender seconds before?

Let's see if you can do something besides making incoherent comments like concrete failing at high temperature with no values or analysis given.
Click to expand...

The idiots have the damage of WTC 7 moving sideways in two directions. In about 10 seconds the sideways damaging juggernaut pulverized the entire building after girder walkoff.
Holy Jenga Batman
.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is no chance that ASTM A36 or ASTM A572 steel columns fractured at rather small rotations. This is nonsense propagated by Bazant.
Click to expand...

Why again should I believe you when you make declarations like this? Do you mind if I get a second opinion? What if I get that second opinion from a real engineer every bit as qualified as you, yet he disagrees. Now what? What does a layman do?
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
The idiots have the damage of WTC 7 moving sideways in two directions. In about 10 seconds the sideways damaging juggernaut pulverized the entire building after girder walkoff.
Holy Jenga Batman
.
Click to expand...

By "idiots" you of course mean just about every respected engineering organization on Earth, right?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is interesting that you and NIST have the interior completely collapsing on the east side first and then moving westward, but the east side exterior columns don't collapse until the entire interior is going, with the reason given that all of the the exterior columns were then unsupported and slender.
Click to expand...
The north wall was still pretty much intact and gave some support to the two other sides.

Let's see if you can do something besides making incoherent comments like your one about concrete failing at high temperature where you provide no values or analysis to make it germane to the argument with the temperatures that were actually involved.
Click to expand...

We can't really know what temperatures the fires reached because the smoke obscured the side to which most of the heat was evacuated.

Those of us who have fought fires or have inspected the ruins of burned-out buildings know that concrete will spall and crack in a major fire.

Why do you expect it not to?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Anyone with any real understanding of them knows rocket and jet engines don't push against anything external to propel themselves. They push against the internal pressure wall while the exhaust is just to let the forward component of the pressure dominate without being countered.

If rockets didn't work like that they wouldn't work in space. The only difference with the jet engine is it uses atmospheric oxygen for combustion.
Click to expand...

 
ergo said:
It looks exactly like a controlled demolition, as it does to millions of others, including those in the building and demolition professions.
Click to expand...

Ahem.....no it doesn't!

I have prepared, rigged and initiated many. I have seen the dems prior, during and after they go bang. I have collected the forensics from many type of dems., some not of our own doing. I have tested many dems. I have methodically overseen literally 100's of dems scenario's to grasp a better understanding of what it is I was playing with. A very significant role that all involved do as it helps put the dems industry where it is today, both civil & military. Par for the job. Reality.

I have walked the walk and then talked the talk to 100's of snotty 17 year old + recruits and dems/mine warefare instructors.

Looks nothing like any controlled demolition I or we have ever seen! We know why. Do you? lol.

We then have the experts who recognise fire damage to build materials. That not being my game but just another nail in the stupid coffin.

Did it go bang or did it burn? Both industry experts disagree with you. What ya gonna do about it? lol.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
"The stripping of the core column insulation is critical to the NIST conclusion, and without it they cannot get the buildings to collapse. No scientific justification was give for the stripping except that it was in the path of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
travelling at 500mph. Oh that's a great stundie right there.
 
Sunstealer said:
travelling at 500mph. Oh that's a great stundie right there.
Click to expand...
The aircraft acted on the perimeter walls of the towers and the Pentagon as a bullet, shearing the metal or breaking joints between elements or crushing masonry.

The twoofers then expect it to continue acting like a bullet, cutting a distinct path through the target.

Trouble is that, in breaching the walls, the aircraft broke into hundreds or thousands of pieces and set hundreds of objects inside the buildings into motion with the result that it now acted more like a load of shotgun pellets released from a sabot, sand-blasting the insulation fromm the steel.

I guess it really only makes sense to someone who understands weapons systems.
 
Jackanory said:
Ahem.....no it doesn't!

I have prepared, rigged and initiated many. I have seen the dems prior, during and after they go bang. I have collected the forensics from many type of dems., some not of our own doing. I have tested many dems. I have methodically overseen literally 100's of dems scenario's to grasp a better understanding of what it is I was playing with. A very significant role that all involved do as it helps put the dems industry where it is today, both civil & military. Par for the job. Reality.

I have walked the walk and then talked the talk to 100's of snotty 17 year old + recruits and dems/mine warefare instructors.

Looks nothing like any controlled demolition I or we have ever seen! We know why. Do you? lol.

We then have the experts who recognise fire damage to build materials. That not being my game but just another nail in the stupid coffin.

Did it go bang or did it burn? Both industry experts disagree with you. What ya gonna do about it? lol.
Click to expand...

It certainly does look like some sort of controlled demolition. The speed, the congruence of the total destruction of the THREE steel framed skyscrapers, the completeness and high level of destruction leaving relatively little rubble from such huge buildings. The mechanics of how it was done and whether it wasn't by conventional methodology you have experience with is means crapola.

As far as I can tell the level of destruction of the towers and WTC 7 was greater than of any controlled demolition videos I've seen.

Buildings collapsing without explosives more destructive than controlled demolitions? That's just nonsense.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It certainly does look like some sort of controlled demolition. The speed, the congruence of the total destruction of the THREE steel framed skyscrapers, the completeness and high level of destruction leaving relatively little rubble from such huge buildings. The mechanics of how it was done and whether it wasn't by conventional methodology you have experience with is means crapola.

As far as I can tell the level of destruction of the towers and WTC 7 was greater than of any controlled demolition videos I've seen.

Buildings collapsing without explosives more destructive than controlled demolitions? That's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

Argument from ignorance noted.
Ignoring the actual evidence also noted.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Buildings collapsing without explosives more destructive than controlled demolitions? That's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

What you consider nonsense is irrelevant Clayton, no more or less than what I consider nonsense. So, quite the impasse. How exactly do we clear this up?
 
Clayton Moore said:
It certainly does look like some sort of controlled demolition. The speed, the congruence of the total destruction of the THREE steel framed skyscrapers, the completeness and high level of destruction leaving relatively little rubble from such huge buildings. The mechanics of how it was done and whether it wasn't by conventional methodology you have experience with is means crapola.

As far as I can tell the level of destruction of the towers and WTC 7 was greater than of any controlled demolition videos I've seen.

Buildings collapsing without explosives more destructive than controlled demolitions? That's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

What can I say?

My years of real life experience using the stuff vs internet tuition and video.

Cool. Crack on lad. lol.
 
Sunstealer said:
travelling at 500mph. Oh that's a great stundie right there.
Click to expand...

I don't think Quintiere himself is a stundie contender. Quintiere wasn't arguing that NIST's conclusions are impossible and the towers must have been demoed. He was arguing that the destruction of the insulation hadn't been demonstrated, and might not be a necessary condition for the collapse of the towers.

The fact that Quintiere sharply challenges the NIST report, yet expresses no sympathy for CD arguments, ought to bother the CD advocates. It never seems to.
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why was there .8 seconds worth of no free fall right before the actual free fall period of 2.25 seconds?

If all the columns were removed at the same time like you claim, free fall should have ensued IMMEDIATELY, not .8 seconds later.
 
Gamolon said:
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?
Click to expand...

No response Tony?
 
Gamolon said:
Why was there .8 seconds worth of no free fall right before the actual free fall period of 2.25 seconds?

If all the columns were removed at the same time like you claim, free fall should have ensued IMMEDIATELY, not .8 seconds later.
Click to expand...

Dont forget the missing jolt:rolleyes:

Explosives would create many jolts........in all directions. Did I miss one?:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom