• 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.
tfk said:
.....
Click to expand...
Tom . I don't know what you write because I have you on - " You can't see tfk's posts because he's on your - Notify me when tfk stops bitch-slapping the kittens list".
 
Last edited:
slowsmile said:
Engage brain for a minute. So the breeze is increasing the supply of oxygen to the flames.

What happens in the real world when you increase the oxygen supply to a fire?
Click to expand...
Retarded is asking that question as if we didn't all know the answer.

Y'all are avoiding the point with your childish questions.

As the simple graphic above shows, the breeze blowing thru the NW corner of floor 12 was not mixing very much with the hot gasses from the fire and was much cooler than the 600oC [or whatever temp the beams in question reached] reducing the temperature of the beams in question by 4 p.m.

The area above the office partition walls and dropped ceiling was open throughout the floor. The breeze was flowing thru that 3 to 4 foot space under the beams in question.
 
ergo said:
Not only that, but an engineer doesn't need to appeal to authority, even going so far as to bold the title "Dr." Yikes. :D
Click to expand...

You know that I understand that you make your statements with the same level of sincerity that I attribute to SHC. (that would be "zero".)

I know that you don't care how brain dead your assertion are. It's just who you are.

BTW, you really should look up "appeal to authority". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Every hamburger flipper denigrates authority, expertise, those who have achieved more in their life than they have.

It's natural.

It's common.

It's cliché.

Just like your comments.

You know, ergo, really ought to do copy for the Truthers. You'd fit right in. They'd be very happy with your work.

And we'd be ecstatic with your work.

It's a win-win...

ergo said:
As Tony has pointed out a few times, the opinions of anonymous internet posters claiming to be "engineers" are worth zero. It's a non-debate.
Click to expand...

Do try to keep up, ergo.

Tony's laughing dogs weren't directed at me. They were directed at DOCTOR Bazant.

Tony was mocking the opinions of Dr. Bazant. Not mine.

Dr. Bazant is not an "internet poster".
He is not anonymous.
He doesn't "claim to be an engineer". He doesn't have to.

His opinions are not worthless.

You, on the other hand...
 
Christopher7 said:
the incoming air is cooling the hot gasses from the fire
Click to expand...

d5616_HomerFacePalm.jpg
 
slowsmile said:
Engage brain for a minute. So the breeze is increasing the supply of oxygen to the flames.

What happens in the real world when you increase the oxygen supply to a fire?

I'm basing this on my observations from when I was about 10 years old.
Click to expand...

Yes, in trooferland, using compress oxygen would cause a cooler flame in a welding torch :rolleyes:
 
Christopher7 said:
Retarded is asking that question as if we didn't all know the answer.

Y'all are avoiding the point with your childish questions.

As the simple graphic above shows, the breeze blowing thru the NW corner of floor 12 was not mixing very much with the hot gasses from the fire and was much cooler than the 600oC [or whatever temp the beams in question reached] reducing the temperature of the beams in question by 4 p.m.
Click to expand...

You got that out of the wrong end of your torso.

(Yeah, i know your head is there, too, but stand up when you address us.)

You have no way of knowing what was burning between the broken windows and the column that ultimately failed to start the cascade.

There are to many old fire fighters on this page to sell that crap without challenge.
 
tfk said:
Tony's laughing dogs weren't directed at me. They were directed at DOCTOR Bazant.
Click to expand...

As they should be.


Dr. Bazant is not an "internet poster".
He is not anonymous.
He doesn't "claim to be an engineer". He doesn't have to.
Click to expand...

He's also been debunked several times over. Sorry you didn't get the memo.
 
Christopher7 said:
Retarded is asking that question as if we didn't all know the answer.

Y'all are avoiding the point with your childish questions.

As the simple graphic above shows, the breeze blowing thru the NW corner of floor 12 was not mixing very much with the hot gasses from the fire and was much cooler than the 600oC [or whatever temp the beams in question reached] reducing the temperature of the beams in question by 4 p.m.

The area above the office partition walls and dropped ceiling was open throughout the floor. The breeze was flowing thru that 3 to 4 foot space under the beams in question.
Click to expand...

And additional oxygen was being fed to the fire.

Please give us another laugh and explain how you prevent breeze (gas) mixing with other gasses. And you do presumably know that one of the best ways to make a fire really hot is to feed the base of it from underneath - like I learned at 10 years old lighting a coal fire.

You claim to calculate (or you quote) complex engineering scenarios to three decimal places yet you can't understand how additional oxygen will increase the heat. :jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
You have no way of knowing what was burning between the broken windows and the column that ultimately failed to start the cascade.
Click to expand...
You may not be able to figure it out but i can. It's very simple lefty, fire ignites what is next to it. But don't take my word for it, see NCSTAR 1A pg 19 for how that applies to the case at hand.

The fire burned from office to office, starting on the south side and working its way around the core area, burning 20 to 30 minutes in any location [pg 47].
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Be hush, child.

Grownups talking now.

Tony, your assumptions, methods & equations, please.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how you would calculate beam deflection of a simply supported beam at elevated temperature with a distributed load, and then tell me what you want to know. Be specific and try to be brief and to the point, if that is possible with you.

Just so you know, some of us actually have to work for a living. I only post when I check at night and occassionally in the morning before getting read for work, if I am up early.

From all the posting I see you do it is hard to believe you have another job.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
What do you want to know? Be specific.

Just so you know some of us actually have to work for a living and I only post when I check at night and occassionally in the morning before getting read for work if I am up early.

From all the posting I see you do I don't believe you have another job.
Click to expand...

What I'd liked to know is what's your evidence of controlled demolition.

Should be easy to rattle it off, seeing as though it was ”clearly” a controlled demo.
 
NoahFence said:
What I'd liked to know is what's your evidence of controlled demolition.

Should be easy to rattle it off, seeing as though it was ”clearly” a controlled demo.
Click to expand...

What I would like to know is why there are so many incoherent ramblers on this forum, who don't seem to pay attention, and keep asking the same questions over and over?

I think if you answer that queston you would answer your own.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
What I would like to know is why there so many incoherent ramblers on this forum, who don't seem to pay attention, and keep asking the same questions over and over?

I think
if you answer that queston you would answer your own.
Click to expand...

I'd love nothing more than never having to ask that question again, but you people keep saying it was ” obvious” without providing your evidence. I will continue to hold your feet to the fire until you accidentally have a moment of honesty and answer the damn question.
 
ergo said:
[Bazant's] also been debunked several times over. Sorry you didn't get the memo.
Click to expand...

Yep.

We all know the story. We all watch with unabashed amusement & enjoyment. Especially at the 3rd of these "debunkers".

Debunked by

1. G. Szudaldzinski: homeland security bureaucrat, experience in structural engineering: 0

2. J. Gourley: lawyer

3. A. Bjorkman: naval insurance adjuster, engineering buffoon

All three of these people stepped into the ring with Dr. Bazant, and were carried out as if they had gone (well, frankly) one round with "Mike Tyson on a Roid Rage".

No ears, no eyes, no fingers, pieces & parts missing.

The three posted their debunking in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, and the reception to their comments was, well, we could go with "underwhelming". But let's be honest. "Laughed out of the building" would really be more accurate.

That must explain the tidal wave of repercussions from the engineering community once Bazant's fraud, treachery &/or incompetence was exposed.

Oh, wait…

Dr. Bazant seems to have weathered the allegations of these ankle-biters just fine. They did not, to my knowledge, revoke any of his medals, or honorary doctorates. Nobody seems to have called for a recall or supplemental peer review of 20 edited books, his 51 research articles, his 484 research articles in refereed Journals, or his 208 conference Proceedings presentations.

He was probably just lucky, right?!

But, as Maximus said, "WE WERE ALL AMUSED!!!"
___

Major_Tom: occupation unknown, because he won't admit to it. Knowledge of structural engineering: half that of Mr. Szudaldzinski.

Let's talk for a minute about Major_Tom & his "debunking" of Bazant. I'm sure that he'll appreciate that you brought this up. (I notice that Chris7 hasn't yet expressed his outrage at your taking this thread off-topic. Funny that.)

Major_Tom started his "Bazant must be wrong because of my 'observables' rant" about 2+ years ago. When he first started, amongst the warm comforting embrace of his like minded friends at the911forum (or where ever it was), he approached two guys who were straddling the truther/skeptic line who did know what they were talking about.

He asked Frank Greening if his observables debunked Bazant.

Greening replied shorter & shorter & more annoyed text (ultimately reduced to "read the f***ing paper"), "No, MT, you are wrong. Bazant is right."

Then MT went to David Benson with the same plea. He got precisely the same response. "You are wrong. Bazant is right."

Then he came here, presented his nonsense, and got the exact same response from me and several people here who know what they are talking about. "No, MT, you are wrong, Bazant is right."

It seems that EVERYONE who knows what they are talking about concludes that Bazant is right & Major_Tom doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

Which leaves UTTERLY UNSURPRISED that you and Chris7 are convinced that convinced that "Major_Tom has debunked Bazant."
___

Thanks for this, ergo.

Yes, I am VERY amused.

If Bazant paid the slightest attention to insignificant internet poseurs, I bet he would be too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom