• 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.
NoahFence said:
Oh I know he thinks he's got NIST beat, its the controlled demolition he doesn't actually believe.
Click to expand...
whether either of them "believe" CD or not is no longer relevant IMO.

They know they cannot win the CD argument so "Prove NIST wrong" becomes the consolation prize. The problem they face down that track, even if they can prove NIST wrong on a detail, is "significance" and or "relevance". Does it matter if bolt 956 failed before weld 208? The more generic issue being "When does an error in a detail matter?"

For this thread topic we know that:
1) East Penthouse fell before outer walls;
2) Therefore the structure under East Penthouse fell;
3) Therefore Column 79 had failed;
4) Failure could result from removal of horizontal bracing OR CD;
5) Evidence says no CD - conversely and slightly more rigorously no evidence for CD.

6) NIST postulated "walk off"
7) No one has proposed an alternative hypothesis.
8) Arguments against walk off have failed to address all factors;
9) So walk off remains the default AND
10) Why does it matter - other than as an excuse for keeping discussion circling and not progressing?
 
ozeco41 said:
whether either of them "believe" CD or not is no longer relevant IMO.

They know they cannot win the CD argument so "Prove NIST wrong" becomes the consolation prize. The problem they face down that track, even if they can prove NIST wrong on a detail, is "significance" and or "relevance". Does it matter if bolt 956 failed before weld 208? The more generic issue being "When does an error in a detail matter?"

For this thread topic we know that:
1) East Penthouse fell before outer walls;
2) Therefore the structure under East Penthouse fell;
3) Therefore Column 79 had failed;
4) Failure could result from removal of horizontal bracing OR CD;
5) Evidence says no CD - conversely and slightly more rigorously no evidence for CD.

6) NIST postulated "walk off"
7) No one has proposed an alternative hypothesis.
8) Arguments against walk off have failed to address all factors;
9) So walk off remains the default AND
10) Why does it matter - other than as an excuse for keeping discussion circling and not progressing?
Click to expand...

picture.php
 
Christopher7 said:
I should have said oxygen starved to be more inclusive but what I said was correct. There was no oxygen shortage or buildup of unignited vapors with a steady breeze blowing thru the building.

Yes.

NIST admits that they did not use the photo evidence of where the fires were, just the broken windows. They did it that way so they could claim there was fire in areas where it had burned out. Their simulation does not match the photos and it has fires burning in the same area for much longer than 20 to 30 minutes. Simulation software output is only as good as the input data. GIGO.

I have built offices with dropped ceilings like the ones in WTC 7 from plans so I have a visual picture of every aspect of the construction including what is above the dropped ceilings. The photos of where the fire was on the exterior, common sense knowledge of how fires spread, confirmed by the statement in the final report of how the fire spread in this case, and the floor plan, are all that is needed to determine how the fire moved thru the interior.

To get from the south side to the north side, the fire had to burn the area in between. That includes the interior offices under the beams and girder in question.

This graphic is a rough estimate of where the fire front was in the interior at the specified times.

[qimg]http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7508/floor12fireprogressiong.jpg[/qimg]


The NE section had burned out by about 3:45 and the fire was burning about 100 feet away from the NE section by about 4 p.m.
Click to expand...


Lots of baseless assumptions, and no knowledge to back it up. None. You have no idea how a fire progresses. Hell, you're having a hard time with the fire triangle.....
 
Christopher7 said:
Very impressive. The back draft no doubt occurred when they opened a door and allowed air to flow thru the upper floor.

You guys are grasping at straws. There was no mention of back draft in WTC 7 because there was none. This is something the firefighters would have noted if it had happened. The conditions for back draft did not exist because there was always plenty of ventilation.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. But hey, nice strawman. We never claimed that. Posting that video proves you know **** all about fire science.
 
jaydeehess said:
However you are assuming that you can tell what was burning well away from the windows and I cannot see how you can support that assumption.
Click to expand...
I explained that to get from the S side to the N side it had to burn what was in between. Don't tell me you don't understand that.

OTOH NIST uses a state of the art fire FEA which is seen to agree well with the observables and therefore one CAN assume that the FEA also is relatively accurate in predicting what is going on where observation is not possible.
Click to expand...
It does NOT agree with the observed fires!

NIST has the experienced and trained fire specialists while you have your unexperienced and untrained assumptions.
Click to expand...
Blind faith in a government agency is foolhardy. If you do not know that the government lies a lot, you have not been paying attention. :)

Knowing that a fire ignites what is next to it and had to burn what was between the S side and the N side to get from the S side to the N side, does not require any special expertise. Your appeal to authority is inappropriate in this case.

....... then there is the sticky point of even IF you did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that NIST is incorrect,,,,,,, how this makes CD more compelling.
Click to expand...
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
They are the same as NIST's in the respect that I assume the beams have sheared the shear studs in the northeast corner of floor 13 of WTC 7 and that the fires reached upwards of 600 degrees C.

The amount of expansion and shortening due to sagging is then calculated from there.

I noticed you seemed sort of impatient. I have to wonder why it isn't realized that many of us have to work for a living and don't hang around the Internet all day.
Click to expand...

Impatient? You've been at it for years.

Anyway, I'm plenty patient.

I'm a Cubs fan.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
They are the same as NIST's up until the girder between columns 44 and 79 begins to be pushed. The results of calculations cause me to diverge from their hypothesis at that point.
Click to expand...

How about the beams and shear studs restraining girder G2? Any assumptions there?

ETA: Not to mention material variation, and "as built" variances.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Have you eliminated directed energy weapons yet? You still haven't even eliminated NIST.
Click to expand...
Denial without specifics or reasons.

Using their own statement, I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse and therefore it did not heat the beams that pushed the girder that fell off its seat that triggered a cascade of floors that left column 79 unbraced so it buckled, initiating a horizontal collapse that led to the total collapse of WTC 7.
 
Christopher7 said:
Denial without specifics or reasons.

Using their own statement, I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse and therefore it did not heat the beams that pushed the girder that fell off its seat that triggered a cascade of floors that left column 79 unbraced so it buckled, initiating a horizontal collapse that led to the total collapse of WTC 7.
Click to expand...

Are you always your own judge of what you yourself proved and what is a reasonable doubt in your conjectures?
 
LSSBB said:
I worked two jobs. One of them full time, the other part time. I started at 8 and finished at 8. Right now I'm busy not getting depressed with the Blackhawks and Bulls, while typing this.
Click to expand...
Amen Brother.

I'm listening to one and TiVo-ing the other, and still working, just about to finish a big project due when Europe wakes up. In a minute, I'm going to grill a chicken breast, using the process whereby the diesel fuel burns off really quickly, and the charcoal (due to nanutermites) continues to increase in heat afterwards.
 
LSSBB said:
How about the beams and shear studs restraining girder G2? Any assumptions there?

ETA: Not to mention material variation, and "as built" variances.
Click to expand...

I don't consider shear studs on girder G2 in my analysis.

The calculations show that, even if the girder were free to move independently of the slab on top of it, there is no fire induced systemic movement such as expansion, contraction, or any combination thereof that could cause that girder to be in a position where it could fall off its seats at columns 79 and 44, and that the NIST theory for the initiation of the collapse of WTC 7 is impossible.

As for material variation and "as built" variances, the liklihood of there being anything significant enough to influence things to the point of collapse is virtually non-existent. Variances are recorded and NIST would have had access to them.

Have you done any calculations? If so, can you share them and show your equations and assumptions?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom