• 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:
People should ask themselves what they think would happen in an engineering meeting to someone making counter claims relative to someone else's calculated results while refusing to provide supporting backup for these alleged counter claims.

It is despicable to make counter claims and have the nerve to publicly chide the person who generated the original results without supporting the counter claims.

I have to say that it appears TFK 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...

Tisk, tisk, Tony, he showed his work, you failed to understand it.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
People like you and TFK need to support their claims.

The last claim TFK made of column 79 being moved 4.5 inches to the east by the girder between it and column 76 was soundly shown to be incorrect by a simple conservative hand calculation showing that girder would buckle after putting enough force on column 79 to deflect it just 1.6 inches.

I did a finite element analysis of the deflection of a 52 foot unsupported section of a w14 x 730 column the other day, without even using the side plates on the column like column 79 would have had, and it showed the girder would buckle before it even deflected the column 1 inch. So that pretty much squelches TFK's unsupported claim of 4.5 inches of eastward movement of column 79 at floor 13.

Engineers need to support their claims mathematically. In industry making claims without mathematical support for the arguments is frowned upon, and public chiding of somebody else's results without support for a counter claim is simply not tolerated.
Click to expand...

How about CD claims?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You and TFK are simply talking in circles and just saying I am wrong without proving it. That doesn't work.

TFK needs to support his counter claims before I need to address them. He has not done that. Let's see some math from you guys.

I first performed a conservative hand calculation using known equations to back up my point showing TFK was incorrect with his claim that column 79 could have been pushed 4.5 inches to the east at floor 13 by the girder framing into it from column 76. I did the additional supporting FEA in work on my own time and will send a slide of it home next week and post it.

Nobody has shown I am wrong concerning the points proving that the NIST theory for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible.
Click to expand...

You didn't use all ten fingers?
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...


So the fire flared up in one place burned for 20/30 minutes, went out then started up again in a different location?
 
Christopher7 said:
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?
Click to expand...

So engineering is like making sausage, stick the ingredients in, crank the handle and voila, there are the results?
 
leftysergeant said:
That really is not very likely, given the amount of paper and wood and plastics inside the building.
Click to expand...
You have not read the NIST report. You really should.
NCSTAR 1A pg 34
Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 – 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 – persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.
 
A computer model to scale will allow the building support structure to be programmed to fail in as many locations as desired. Let's say the support for every floor damaged by fire and above failed simultaneously. The model would retain connected mass and weight of those floors. What would happen to the undamaged/pristine lower floors? The model would certainly provide the answer.

Remember the HOW of the structural failure makes no difference to the undamaged portion of the building.

Remember the model has one major task, to make the undamaged, lower portion of the buildings completely fail only because of the weight of the building above them.
 
It is apparent that those on this forum who are vainly attempting to continue to believe that the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is plausible have no way to refute the results of calculations that prove it is impossible.

I am not going to continue going around and around with those of you who are simply denying reality unless and until you show those calculations to be incorrect somehow with your own calculations.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It is apparent that those on this forum who are vainly attempting to continue to believe that the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is plausible have no way to refute the results of calculations that prove it is impossible.

I am not going to continue going around and around with those of you who are simply denying reality unless and until you show those calculations to be incorrect somehow with your own calculations.
Click to expand...

Tony, having been through similar "debates" in my own area of expertise, I don't ascribe much facial credibility to your assertion or your formatting. If I changed a few words, you could be TruthIsAll describing the supposed proof that Kerry beat Bush.

As things stand at the moment, the debate specifically about the girder rests on your authority vis-a-vis tfk's and NIST's. You haven't done enough work for an appeal to the calculations to be persuasive on its own.

As for the broader debate(?) about why WTC 7 collapsed, there's a huge discontinuity between your narrow technical arguments and your head-scratching appeals to common sense, and you have done hardly any work at all to bridge that gap. In the year 2012, I am not holding my breath.

I have little hope of convincing you that I'm honest, since after all, I fail to agree with you. But this is where we are.
 
Christopher7 said:
You have not read the NIST report. You really should.
NCSTAR 1A pg 34
Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 – 20 kg/m2 (4.0 lb/ft2) on Floors 7 to 9 and 32 kg/m2 (6.4 lb/ft2) on Floors 11 to 13 – persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.
Click to expand...

That's a long way from saying that the fire burned in one location for 20 min, burned completely out, and then moved on. What NIST is describing is what's known as an "average", or a "mean". That means that fires burned in some areas for longer, and in some areas for shorter. It is a logical fallacy to apply the average burn time to the entire floor and then categorically state that "the fires had all burned out by 5:00 PM".
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is apparent that those on this forum who are vainly attempting to continue to believe that the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is plausible have no way to refute the results of calculations that prove it is impossible.

I am not going to continue going around and around with those of you who are simply denying reality unless and until you show those calculations to be incorrect somehow with your own calculations.
Click to expand...


BOLD CAPS and an insult. Is that your final answer?
 
MarkLindeman said:
Tony, having been through similar "debates" in my own area of expertise, I don't ascribe much facial credibility to your assertion or your formatting. If I changed a few words, you could be TruthIsAll describing the supposed proof that Kerry beat Bush.

As things stand at the moment, the debate specifically about the girder rests on your authority vis-a-vis tfk's and NIST's. You haven't done enough work for an appeal to the calculations to be persuasive on its own.

As for the broader debate(?) about why WTC 7 collapsed, there's a huge discontinuity between your narrow technical arguments and your head-scratching appeals to common sense, and you have done hardly any work at all to bridge that gap. In the year 2012, I am not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

You don't know what work he's done on this. He has shown more of his work than anyone else here. You yourself have shown none. You're not in any position to criticize his arguments.

Now you want him to "bridge the gap" between his "narrow technical arguments" (i.e., the technical discussion of what supposedly initiated global failure across a 47-storey steel-framed highrise) and his "appeal to common sense" regarding why 47-storey steel-framed highrises don't sink to the earth in under 9 seconds without having most of their structural resistance removed. Apparently Tony needs to "fill in this gap" for you, while you sit in your armchair, anticipating how you will next critique his results.

No. Get off your butt and do your own work.
 
ergo said:
You don't know what work he's done on this. ... No. Get off your butt and do your own work.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263596&postcount=621
You comprehension of physics make you the best supporter Tony can have to help him with his real CD deal. Tony already has his conclusion without need of work, or evidence.
Who needs reality based engineering when you both blindly support the idiotic claim of CD. No engineering, no physics, and no math are needed to wave you hands and declare it was CD, and your evidence is... Tony could not have a better engineering partner than you to go with his work. Where is his work published?

The total collapse of WTC 7 took over 16 seconds; how do you come up with 9 seconds? You, Tony and Clayton Moore need to read NIST, this topic is related to the probable collapse sequence. NIST never said it was what happened, they are saying it is their probable collapse sequence. Which means you, Tony, and Clayton Moore failed out of the box attacking NIST when you all need to do, is make up your own collapse sequence. Attacking NIST only exposes your lack of knowledge - and you are doing a good job.
 
ergo said:
You don't know what work he's done on this. He has shown more of his work than anyone else here. You yourself have shown none. You're not in any position to criticize his arguments.

Now you want him to "bridge the gap" between his "narrow technical arguments" (i.e., the technical discussion of what supposedly initiated global failure across a 47-storey steel-framed highrise) and his "appeal to common sense" regarding why 47-storey steel-framed highrises don't sink to the earth in under 9 seconds without having most of their structural resistance removed. Apparently Tony needs to "fill in this gap" for you, while you sit in your armchair, anticipating how you will next critique his results.

No. Get off your butt and do your own work.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Tony doesn't have to do a darn thing -- and I don't have to trust the darn things he has done so far. ergo, that's reality. Sorry to harsh your buzz.
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, you're claiming that no fire can burn for more than 20-30 minutes in one location. Really?

How about a library compared to say.....a meeting room?

Do they burn at the same rates? Show me your calculations. Show me your "proof". I will wait. You still have that other homework to back up your previous claim. Remember that? You've ignored it twice now.

Imagine that. Sarns ignores anything that hurts his delusions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom