• 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:
Water towers and the like are built on solid foundations.

What you are talking about would have to be an earthquake and if that occurred I would consider it.
Click to expand...

Or a water leak.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/12/...-collapse-forces-evacuations-in-rochester-nh/

No earthquakes or other structural defects. :rolleyes:

(let's stop this pissing contest now)
Tony Szamboti said:
Please don't distract from the fact that TFK didn't consider the actual problem.
Click to expand...
Was this the only factor in the collapse. I think he is "considering it", only to an extend you wish not to.
Tony Szamboti said:
I am getting the sense here that those who are reluctant to acknowledge the fact that the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 has been proven impossible,
Click to expand...

It's too bad NIST spent all that money on FEA and such. You could have told them what went wrong just looking at the drawings.

So, what exactly was the progression? How have you gotten around the lack of explosive sounds?
 
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...
I am looking at this as a layman, for the most part, vis-a-vis the engineering aspects, but it does seem to me that that particular column, being sort of out there by itself, as part of a cantilevered design, might be a little more important to holding up the interior on the building. Will you please stop long enough to look at the roof during collapse and tell me what condition do you think that column was in, compared to the others?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...
can I interest you in a piece of real estate next to the leaning tower of Pisa?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...
Tough.

I have fed you the one thing that is significant and which you persist in missing or avoiding. Just because you either cannot understand the full setting OR choose to pretend that you don't understand. I have no intention of spoon feeding you.

Look at all the factors not just the few you limit yourself to. It is your claim.

Another hint:
Try ignoring your "prove NIST wrong" objective for a few moments whilst you visualise the complete situation.
 
DGM said:
Or a water leak.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/12/...-collapse-forces-evacuations-in-rochester-nh/

No earthquakes or other structural defects. :rolleyes:

(let's stop this pissing contest now)

Was this the only factor in the collapse. I think he is "considering it", only to an extend you wish not to.


It's too bad NIST spent all that money on FEA and such. You could have told them what went wrong just looking at the drawings.

So, what exactly was the progression? How have you gotten around the lack of explosive sounds?
Click to expand...

The NIST analysis for the walk-off, that we have proven to be impossible, isn't even FEA based. Maybe you didn't know that.

There are lots of ways to demolish a building and get the same external results, so I am not pretending to know exactly how it was done. I would like to see certain people investigated and deposed and those on the short list for WTC 7 would be Rudy Giuliani and his immediate lieutenants who supervised the clean up, as well as the lead people of the firm he hired to install the Emergency Command Center.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Tough.

I have fed you the one thing that is significant and which you persist in missing or avoiding. Just because you either cannot understand the full setting OR choose to pretend that you don't understand. I have no intention of spoon feeding you.

Look at all the factors not just the few you limit yourself to. It is your claim.

Another hint:
Try ignoring your "prove NIST wrong" objective for a few moments whilst you visualise the complete situation.
Click to expand...

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal comment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
triforcharity said:
It's actually one of the first telltale signs of am imminent collapse.

But, you know more than all the FDNY. Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It is interesting that it took NIST years to understand how the building could possibly collapse due to natural circumstances, and even then they can't get enough of a natural mechanism to cause it. Yet you would have us believe all of these people knew because there were obvious signs that the building was coming down.


The more logical explanation is that they were told it was coming down by those who did know it was coming down, because it was going to be done intentionally.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that anythigcould happen, but, of any twenty things that could have gone wrong, the fires probably increased the likelihood of four or five of them.

I would refer you to the results of the Cardington fire tests. It was found that a steel beam, when heated to the point that it had expanded, perhaps even sagged or buckled slightly, will start to return to its pre-fire condition and configuration as it cools, but not always 100% of its original configuration. Now we may be putting some stress on the connections here.

The heat was not constant inside the building. We do not know how many times a given element expanded or contracted, or whether and forces that the elements may have applied to each other followed the same pathways throughout the event. My first though would be to the contrary.

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...

Again, this is not a safe assumption, because we do not have all the right values to plug into any equation. That the fire department noticed a bulge in the building early in the event should tell anyone with normal reasoning abilities that some of the values had changed from the values as built.

As for any other mode of destruction, there is no evidence for such.

Thus, thermal creep is still the most likely cause of collapse.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is interesting that it took NIST years to understand how the building could possibly collapse due to natural circumstances and even then they weren't correct. Yet you would have us believe all of these people knew because tre were obvious signs that the building was coming down.


I think they were told it was coming down by those who did know it was coming down because it was going to be done intentionally.
Click to expand...
there's a difference between IF and HOW tony,
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The more logical explanation is that they were told it was coming down by those who did know it was coming down, because it was going to be done intentionally.
Click to expand...

Cow cookies. No evidence suggests that. What you are doing is like looking at a corpse at the dinner table with no signs of stab wounds or gunshot wounds and concluding that the victim was strangled, even though there is half a jar of home-canned beans in the kitchen and beans on the table.
 
thedopefishlives said:
So you would walk into a building that was creaking, groaning, and starting to lean? You would find absolutely nothing wrong with that?

Yeah. That's why they're safety experts and you're not.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't walk in a building that was creaking with fires in it, but I seriously doubt I would have predicted that a 610 foot tall building with a floor area the size of a football field like WTC 7 was going to collapse to the ground because of some creaking while it had fires in it.

Where was the lean? I never heard that one. Are you really talking about the alleged bulging wall?
 
leftysergeant said:
I wouldn't say that anythigcould happen, but, of any twenty things that could have gone wrong, the fires probably increased the likelihood of four or five of them.

I would refer you to the results of the Cardington fire tests. It was found that a steel beam, when heated to the point that it had expanded, perhaps even sagged or buckled slightly, will start to return to its pre-fire condition and configuration as it cools, but not always 100% of its original configuration. Now we may be putting some stress on the connections here.

The heat was not constant inside the building. We do not know how many times a given element expanded or contracted, or whether and forces that the elements may have applied to each other followed the same pathways throughout the event. My first though would be to the contrary.



Again, this is not a safe assumption, because we do not have all the right values to plug into any equation. That the fire department noticed a bulge in the building early in the event should tell anyone with normal reasoning abilities that some of the values had changed from the values as built.

As for any other mode of destruction, there is no evidence for such.

Thus, thermal creep is still the most likely cause of collapse.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, creep did it, Yeah, that's the ticket. It is nothing but a hand wave to blame it all on thermal creep.

This falls under the "we will neveeer knoooow" syndrome many of you are afflicted with here.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
This falls under the "we will neveeer knoooow" syndrome many of you are afflicted with here.
Click to expand...
It is the only thing that comes close to explaining it. We will never know the exact truth about a lot of events.

You can offer no other explanation, so I would suggest you learn to live with the fact that you cannot reduce everything to a spread sheet and make the ignorant peasants bow in awe of your intellect.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is anecdotal evidence that NIST's Shyam Sunder even mentioned about an engineer on the ground saying it was a lost cause and was going to collapse. Now who was this guy and what basis did he have for saying that?

The conditions for what NIST says happened didn't come together until the last minute so how would this mystery guy know?
Click to expand...

Maybe it was that FOX news freelancer they had interviewed earlier in the day who witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostlyduetostructuralfailurebecausethefirewasjusttoointense. Perhaps he hung around later in the day to offer his opinion on WTC 7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom