• 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:
her ya go champ, Point out your "structural redundancy" around column 79, Do you see a column 79-B? or a column 79-C?

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/WTC_7_Plan.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

What can probably be said looking at the structural layout you show is that no mechanical or civil engineer would have ever guessed beforehand that taking out column 79 would cause the complete collapse of the entire structure.
 
DGM said:
Is this the same kind of response you plan to give NIST is they present questions?


Really Tony. Put him in his place with engineering, not stupid smiles and youtube videos.


BTW, You really need to read your "theory" (the Enron one) to some non CT friends. I think then you will see how bad it really is.
Click to expand...

The WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44 theory of emanating collapse is garbage.
 
DGM said:
Is this the same kind of response you plan to give NIST is they present questions?


Really Tony. Put him in his place with engineering, not stupid smiles and youtube videos.


BTW, You really need to read your "theory" (the Enron one) to some non CT friends. I think then you will see how bad it really is.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to put tfk in his place on. He is talking about low temps, with bolts not broken, etc. and that isn't the problem. We know the girder can't be pushed off at low temps and with bolts still intact. So tfk isn't even addressing the actual problem. If you think he is then his baffle them with BS tactic is apparently working on some.

My analysis was clearly at high temp with bolts broken, which was what NIST assumed to get the horizontal movement. The point is that even then the girder couldn't be pushed far enough and nothing tfk showed changes any of that.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
What can probably be said looking at the structural layout you show is that no mechanical or civil engineer would have ever guessed beforehand that taking out column 79 would cause the complete collapse of the entire structure.
Click to expand...
Or they could think of a way this could happen in the normal course of the buildings life. Do you believe there are no other cases of this type of single point failure modes?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is nothing to put tfk in his place on. He is talking about low temps, with bolts not broken, etc. and that isn't the problem. We know the girder can't be pushed off at low temps and with bolts still intact. So tfk isn't even addressing the actual problem. If you think he is then his baffle them with BS tactic is apparently working on some.

My analysis was clearly at high temp with bolts broken, which was what NIST assumed to get the horizontal movement. The point is that even then the girder couldn't be pushed far enough and nothing tfk showed changes any of that.
Click to expand...
You're dealing with a single element at a single point in time then? How would you relate this to the whole effected system. This seams to be what TFK is doing.
 
DGM said:
You're dealing with a single element at a single point in time then? How would you relate this to the whole effected system. This seams to be what TFK is doing.
Click to expand...
Which is the issue I raised back at post 151 and have restated several times since.

Both C7 and TS are artificially limiting the number of factors involved. I had thought it was deliberate trolling trickery to keep the discussion going in circles.

I am revising my opinion - it could be simply that neither of them comprehends the full system. Despite having had their error identified.
 
DGM said:
You're dealing with a single element at a single point in time then? How would you relate this to the whole effected system. This seams to be what TFK is doing.
Click to expand...

My analysis is for a point in time which is germane to the issue of whether the girder could be pushed off its seat. I also looked at all of the elements which would have had an effect.

TFK did some analysis at points which aren't germane to the issue and then he didn't even calculate results.

To give you an example, suppose there was a collapse of a water tower and since the water tower was very robustly built and somewhat new, sabotage was suspected.

I did an analysis of the tower with it full of water and high winds to see if it could happen under maximum natural loads and it turned out it couldn't. So all other loading conditions below that are enveloped and it shows sabotage had to occur.

TFK's analysis would be comparable to that with the load on the tower before any water was even put in it and generally proves nothing.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Which is the issue I raised back at post 151 and have restated several times since.

Both C7 and TS are artificially limiting the number of factors involved. I had thought it was deliberate trolling trickery to keep the discussion going in circles.

I am revising my opinion - it could be simply that neither of them comprehends the full system. Despite having had their error identified.
Click to expand...

You seem to be one of those guys who likes to say we can never know anything because it was all in a state of flux and anything could happen. Columns could even take coffee breaks and get back before anyone noticed under your thinking.

In reality, there is cause and effect and if the postulated cause doesn't provide the effect then it wasn't the cause. That is where we are with NIST's theory on the collapse initiation for WTC 7. It is impossible at all times since it can't happen under the worst conditions.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I did an analysis of the tower with it full to see if it could happen naturally and it turned out it couldn't. So all other loading conditions below that are enveloped and it shows sabotage had to occur.
Click to expand...

But, doing this will never lead you closer to the actual cause. You are not considering other possibilities. What about a natural ground shift that changes the original load distribution?

You're limiting yourself to justify a belief.
 
DGM said:
But, doing this will never lead you closer to the actual cause. You are not considering other possibilities. What about a natural ground shift that changes the original load distribution?

You're limiting yourself to justify a belief.
Click to expand...
Correct. Or to be more precise correct that he is limiting his options and that act of limiting is consistent with the intention to justify a belief.

Which is the same process as he is using with the WTC7 topic - and is not affected by the lousy analogy. :rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You seem to be one of those guys who likes to say we can never know anything because it was all in a state of flux and anything could happen. Columns could even take coffee breaks and get back before anyone noticed under your thinking.

In reality, there is cause and effect and if the postulated cause doesn't provide the effect then it wasn't the cause. That is where we are with NIST's theory on the collapse initiation for WTC 7. It is impossible at all times since it can't happen under the worst conditions.
Click to expand...
Tony;
I can do nothing to cure the holes in your logic which appear to be blind spots nor your unwillingness to explore said holes or blind spots when they are identified for you;
NOR
Can I stop you resorting to unsupported ad homs whenever you are pressed into areas you do not seem to comprehend because thy fall into those apparent blind spot holes in your logic.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
What can probably be said looking at the structural layout you show is that no mechanical or civil engineer would have ever guessed beforehand that taking out column 79 would cause the complete collapse of the entire structure.
Click to expand...

The interesting thing is people on the ground knew it was going to collapse while it was still standing! They didn't care what column was to blame. And hey! They were right. How about that. No graphs, no computer models. Ten+ years later and you people are still flailing over stupid crap.

Bravo!
 
DGM said:
Or they could think of a way this could happen in the normal course of the buildings life. Do you believe there are no other cases of this type of single point failure modes?
Click to expand...

To my knowledge it has never happened in a high rise steel framed building or similarly constructed structure and would not be expected to. That type of construction isn't known for kingpin behavior.

However, I'll be open minded so please let me know if you know of one.
 
ozeco41 said:
Tony;
I can do nothing to cure your blind spots nor your unwillingness to explore said blind spots when they are identified for you;
NOR
Can I stop you resorting to unsupported ad homs whenever you are pressed into areas you do not seem to comprehend because of your blind spots.
Click to expand...

Ozeco, I hate to be blunt but I have to say that when it comes to this issue you talk a lot but don't offer much of any significant value.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
...
In reality, there is cause and effect and if the postulated cause doesn't provide the effect then it wasn't the cause. That is where we are with NIST's theory on the collapse initiation for WTC 7. It is impossible at all times since it can't happen under the worst conditions.
Click to expand...
Pure BS. Where is your proof? What is driving your delusion, the CD theory?

WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. Are you trying to say that is impossible?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
To my knowledge it has never happened in a high rise steel framed building or similarly constructed structure and would not be expected to. That type of construction isn't known for kingpin behavior.

However, I'll be open minded so please let me know if you know of one.
Click to expand...
What type of construction would that be? Was WTC 7 "typical" of that type?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom