WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

Football field size 47 story buildings don't suddenly collapse because of thermal creep and I can offer another explanation. There is only one explanation and it hasn't been investigated yet.

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

Dude, he had probably witnessed a lot of fires as a local reporter and had some idea, based on that experience, what to expect in a major fire.

From my first look at the towers, it was exactly what I expected that morning.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

My instinct is that it was someone in city government, as the fire chiefs listened to him.

One of the first things a real investigation would have done would be to identify and ask this guy some questions. It is incredible that wasn't done.

 

[dc1971]

Football field size 47 story buildings don't suddenly collapse because of thermal creep and I can offer another explanation. There is only one explanation and it hasn't been investigated yet.

Tony, stop capitalizing on this whole idea that you might be somewhat quasi-famous!

 

[ergo]

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.

It's a "Fog of War"-style cop-out applied to analysis of catastrophic structural failures. It's the 9/11 bedunker movement's main rhetorical strategy.

 

[NoahFence]

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?

That's why THEY are the experts, not you. Their expertise SAVED LIVES. Yours would be responsible for more loss of life.

 

[leftysergeant]

My instinct is that it was someone in city government, as the fire chiefs listened to him.

One of the first things a real investigation would have done is to identify and depose this guy.

Cow cookies. It was the fire department that determined that the building was in danger of collapse. When you start talking about command structure within FDNY, you dispaly a tendancy to talk through your trousers.

 

[dc1971]

My instinct is that it was someone in city government, as the fire chiefs listened to him.

One of the first things a real investigation would have done is to identify and ask this guy some questions. It is incredible that that hasn't been done.

Really now?

Again... for the 1000+ time... what is stopping any of you Truthers from starting your own personal investigation?

Take a look at my own personal video that I posted to YouTube...


Will you bite?? Please??

 

[leftysergeant]

There is only one explanation and it hasn't been investigated yet.

Then stop diddling around and explain it and offer some evidence to back it up.

 

[dc1971]

It's a "Fog of War"-style cop-out applied to analysis of catastrophic structural failures. It's the 9/11 bedunker movement's main rhetorical strategy.

You always make yourself sound like the victim, don't you Ergo?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Cow cookies. It was the fire department that determined that the building was in danger of collapse. When you start talking about command structure within FDNY, you dispaly a tendancy to talk through your trousers.

Not true. The fire department did not determine on their own that the building was going to collapse.

NIST even mentions this mystery engineer.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Then stop diddling around and explain it and offer some evidence to back it up.

That is NIST's job.

Unfortunately, some of us have had to take the time to show they didn't get it right the first time. However, anyone can make a mistake the first time around. They need to do it over.

 

[dc1971]

Not true. The fire department did not determine on their own that the building was going to collapse.

NIST even mentions this mystery engineer.

Tony.

Do you have anything... AT ALL... to say in response to my video?

 

[leftysergeant]

Not true. The fire department did not determine on their own that the building was going to collapse.

NIST even mentions this mystery engineer.

They have an engineering section in FDNY. You say that NIST identifies a "mystery engineer?" Got proof he wasn't one of FDNY's engineers?

 

[dc1971]

That is NIST's job.

Unfortunately, some of us have had to take the time to show they didn't get it right the first time. However, anyone can make a mistake the first time around. They need to do it over.

So stop worrying about "They" and take on the investigation yourself.

I will be more than willing to contribute to your cause!

Seriously!

 

[leftysergeant]

That is NIST's job.

Unfortunately, some of us have had to take the time to show they didn't get it right the first time. However, anyone can make a mistake the first time around. They need to do it over.

Cow cookies. You have not offered any reasonable alternative explanation, thus have not really proven anything.

 

[Animal]

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.

Nope......could have bee an underground water issue that eroded the subsoils, Once again, as an "engineer" you fail

Please don't distract from the fact that TFK didn't consider the actual problem.

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, are now into hand waving that anything could happen and we can never know. This applies to those other than good ole TFK, who went about solving a problem which wasn't germane to the issue. He is in a special category of denial all by himself.

keep trying to fit you square peg demolition theory into the round hole of the fire induced collapse......it is quite entertaining

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Really now?

Again... for the 1000+ time... what is stopping any of you Truthers from starting your own personal investigation?

Take a look at my own personal video that I posted to YouTube...


Will you bite?? Please??

Okay, I bit and watched your video.

However, it isn't the responsibility of individual citizens to perform an investigation which affects the public. The government is responsible to perform a fully resourced investigation and provide a sound explanation. The first investigation has been shown to be incorrect due to its explanations having impossibilities contained within them. The government needs to do it over. There is no need for yours or my donations there as we already contribute via taxes.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Cow cookies. You have not offered any reasonable alternative explanation, thus have not really proven anything.

In and of itself, freefall for eight stories over the full length and width of the building proves what it was. It is a joke to try and rationalize that one away.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nope......could have bee an underground water issue that eroded the subsoils,

Not very likely, but of course that should be looked at.

However, that isn't what the example was about. The point was that TFK was not looking at the worst case problem in his analysis and that was the only way the expansion needed, for his claim that NIST was right, could take place.

Let's say with the collapsed water tower we looked at corrosion, and a ground water erosion possibility, and found no issues.

I then analyzed the structure for the maximum water load and wind speeds that day, and found it should not have failed naturally under the circumstances.

Now tfk on the other hand analyzes the structure with no water in it, and comes to no conclusion.

Which do you think is the appropriate analysis?