• 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.
A W Smith said:
yeah that's why blacksmiths use a bellows! To cool down the fire!

Continue basking in your ignorance Sarns. You are very entertaining!
Click to expand...
Ignorance is failing to realize that air passing thru a burned out area will decrease, not increase the temperature.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It sounds like you are one of those "we can't possibly know anything because everything is in a state of flux, and anything can happen" handwringers who doesn't know enough to critique an engineering analysis.

3 decimal places are important to show where the limit of expansion occurred.

The temperature given is for the maximum possible expansion, no matter what the temperature reached. What are you even talking about with a margin of error?

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...

I edited my post to include one of the links ("symmetrical") where you had these beams expanding at exactly the same rate, to three decimal points of an inch, on each side.

I will defer to the engineers here as to whether my criticism is valid. If you were referring to the maximum possible expansion, you could have noted that in your post. As noted, I'm not an engineer, so wasn't aware that a30 steel reached its maximum possible expansion at 649ºC.

If the NIST explanation is "impossible," what is your explanation? The "argument" that the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible is NOT an argument. No one needs a disproof.

Why can't / won't you answer tfk's questions?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
carlitos said:
He continues to avoid those simple questions. Strange.
Click to expand...
Tony has provided the math, formulas, methods and assumptions as requested. That is all that is necessary. tfk's never ending questions are just a way of avoiding doing his own calculations. I doubt very much that he knows how.

Here is a portion of the spreadsheet and graph again. The results are easy to understand. It's time for tfk to stop asking endless questions like a 3 year old and do his own calculations.

expansionvsag2.jpg
 
Christopher7 said:
Tony has provided the math, formulas, methods and assumptions as requested. That is all that is necessary. tfk's never ending questions are just a way of avoiding doing his own calculations. I doubt very much that he knows how.

Here is a portion of the spreadsheet and graph again. The results are easy to understand. It's time for tfk to stop asking endless questions like a 3 year old and do his own calculations.

[qimg]http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/739/expansionvsag2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

A spreadsheet is not a formula.

Why not answer the questions?

Are you .... afraid?
 
leftysergeant said:
Ignorance is assuming without proof that it was burned out.
Click to expand...
That is true, but not the case here.
Ignorance is not knowing that the fires only burned for 20 to 30 minutes in any location.

Denial is refusing to accept that the NE area was burning between 2:30 and 3:50 when the photos show it had burned out. The photos are the proof lefty.
 
Christopher7 said:
If a breeze blows thru a burned out forest it will not heat the steel beams holding up the forest on the next floor.
Click to expand...
Stop that. You have already been told that you may NOT assume that the fires had burned out. Buildings have been lost because some idiot make the mistake of assuming that.

Now, would you care to end this all by giving us a logical theorie as to what, if not thermal creep, did bring down WTC7?
 
Christopher7 said:
Tony has provided the math, formulas, methods and assumptions as requested. That is all that is necessary. tfk's never ending questions are just a way of avoiding doing his own calculations. I doubt very much that he knows how.

Here is a portion of the spreadsheet and graph again. The results are easy to understand. It's time for tfk to stop asking endless questions like a 3 year old and do his own calculations.

[qimg]http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/739/expansionvsag2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That is a picture. If the spreadsheet containing the formulas was posted, I certainly missed it.
 
LSSBB said:
A spreadsheet is not a formula.

Why not answer the questions?

Are you .... afraid?
Click to expand...
How jr. high is that? :rolleyes:
Grow up. It has been explained to you that it is not necessary to answer those questions. They are just a ruse to avoid doing calculations. Tony has supplied all the information necessary. If tfk thinks there should be more then he can do calculations and include that information.
 
carlitos said:
That is a picture. If the spreadsheet containing the formulas was posted, I certainly missed it.
Click to expand...
That is correct, you missed them. Just go thru Tony's posts if you want them.

ETA: They are not in the spread sheet. They are in the text.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
How jr. high is that? :rolleyes:
Grow up. It has been explained to you that it is not necessary to answer those questions. They are just a ruse to avoid doing calculations. Tony has supplied all the information necessary. If tfk thinks there should be more then he can do calculations and include that information.
Click to expand...

It is necessary to answer those questions to prove his comprehension of the engineering principles involved in deriving his work.

More like grad school.

Jr. High is where young 'uns don't have to answer the big hard questions.
 
leftysergeant said:
Stop that. You have already been told that you may NOT assume that the fires had burned out. Buildings have been lost because some idiot make the mistake of assuming that.
Click to expand...
Burned out is a relative term in this usage. Your literal interpretation does not apply. The fuel had been exhausted and the fires died down. Small spot fires no doubt remained but they would not be hot enough to effect the floor beams above and you know it.

ETA:
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
It is necessary to answer those questions to prove his comprehension of the engineering principles involved in deriving his work.

More like grad school.

Jr. High is where young 'uns don't have to answer the big hard questions.
Click to expand...
You are blowing smoke in a lame attempt to hand wave Tony's calculations and spreadsheet. Provide your own that shows he is wrong or STFU.

Neither you or tfk knows what you are talking about anyway. If you do, then you answer those questions and explain why they are necessary to do a spreadsheet.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I have to say that it appears TFK Szamboti is nothing more than a blowhard if he doesn't show his work and blowhards are generally frowned upon and not tolerated in engineering circles because they cause problems for no reason which inhibits productivity.
Click to expand...

ftfy.

And I couldn't agree more.

Show your work.
 
Christopher7 said:
You are blowing smoke in a lame attempt to hand wave Tony's calculations and spreadsheet. Provide your own that shows he is wrong or STFU.

Neither you or tfk knows what you are talking about anyway. If you do, then you answer those questions and explain why they are necessary to do a spreadsheet.
Click to expand...

Chris....you really should just stop.

You are not an Engineer and are not capable of answering even basic engineering or physics questions....you are only repeating what some other, only slightly more knowledgeable, troofer tells you.

You can not answer any of the engineering questions raised in this thread. But that is okay....we do not expect you to be able to answer them. We know you can't.

Tony...on the other hand SHOULD be able to answer them, but he does not. It has been 10 years after 9/11 and each report has now been out for several years.....the fact that troofers can not answer such questions should raise a red flag in your mind that perhaps they are simply clueless.

Do you actually believe that NIST, several universities, professional engineering organizations, etc etc etc are so inept that a spreadsheet calculation disproves NIST and after several years no one caught this but a handful of conspiracy theorists?

Do you honestly believe this?
 
Christopher7 said:
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Click to expand...
Photogrraphs from the up-wind side prove approximately squat.

Add fire science to the things that go utterly over your head.
 
tfk said:
ftfy.

And I couldn't agree more.

Show your work.
Click to expand...
What work? Numbers are fed into a program, the program does the computations and puts the results in a spreadsheet that produces the graph. Knowing what numbers to put into the program and how to get the results into a spreadsheet is what Tony knows and you don't.

You are a lot of talk and no data. Or as they say in Texas, all hat, no cattle.

Who do you think you're kidding?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom