• 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:
My point is that at no time was there ever a condition in WTC 7 where column 79 and other columns could fail, and that is what would have been necessary. I did not say scattered bolts and connections couldn't fail due to fire.
Click to expand...

Apparently they did fail. You may notice the building is no longer there.
 
NoahFence said:
Apparently they did fail. You may notice the building is no longer there.
Click to expand...

Did I have to say the columns could not have failed by reason of fires for you to understand?

If you are representative of the level of technical understanding here it isn't surprising that you and a number of others like Ozeco, Triforcharity, and DGM, don't see why the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Did I have to say the columns could not have failed by reason of fires for you to understand?

If you are representative of the level of technical understadning here it isn't surprising that you and a number of others like Ozeco, Triforcharity, and DGM, don't see why the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is I don't need to be techhical to prove you people wrong. All I use is common sense.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Are you even saying anything here? It sounds like blah, blah, blah..... blah and you then have the nerve to try and impugn my abilities. Wow.
Click to expand...

Try answering Tom's questions Tony....

Tony Szamboti said:
You are either too incompetent yourself to realize I did answer tfk's questions by showing them to be irrelevant or are intent on being an annoyance by repeating nonsense here saying I didn't answer them.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Answer the questions.....if you can't simply admit it and move on.

Tony Szamboti said:
It is clear that those of you who refuse to believe that the NIST explanation of fire being the cause for WTC 7's destruction is impossible will look for any way to put off being forced to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...

Tony....the vast majority of the worlds experts agree with the general conclusions of NIST.

So "those of us who refuse to believe" is actually around 99.99% of the worlds Engineers...

Again....answer the questions Tony.

Tony Szamboti said:
I am done here as I really don't have time for those of you trying to maintain your Irreducible Delusion. I knew Ryan Mackey had something right there, he just wasn't pointing it in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Answer the questions Tony.

Or is this another case where one of US has to answer the questions for you (Tom already did that)?

Answer the questions Tony.
 
ergo said:
I think the folks badgering you here understand about as much as I do in terms of tfk's "analysis". They wouldn't know if he had answered you or not, or vice versa.
Click to expand...
You assume so, ergo? Let's take Tom's first point:

tfk said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5901[/qimg]

Note well that the equation that you used assumes that the correct stress strain curve is the dashed lines on the left of the graph.

The fact that, when materials creep yield due to temperature, they are no longer operating in the linear mode. You'd need to calculate the stress conditions at each point in the beam to figure out if the material could actually support that stress level at that particular temperature.

To the extent that any particular element was shown to not be able to support the stress assumed by the linear analysis, your results will be wrong.
Click to expand...
Notice the term I highlighted. That means that we are dealing with a non-linear equation. You may not know what that means, and I do. I have had advanced math classes and have had to work with non-linear equations. That also means that you can't take a linear approach, as Tony does with his equations. Tony does not directly respond to this assertion with a derivation that shows that there would be no difference, either by deriving the appropriate equations or doing a computational analysis that shows a negligible difference.
 
ergo said:
I think the folks badgering you here understand about as much as I do in terms of tfk's "analysis". They wouldn't know if he had answered you or not, or vice versa.
Click to expand...

I understand much much more than you do ergo.....but that is because I am a degreed, competent, experienced Engineer and you are not.

Now....can Tony address the issues and answer the questions or not?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Did I have to say the columns could not have failed by reason of fires for you to understand?

If you are representative of the level of technical understanding here it isn't surprising that you and a number of others like Ozeco, Triforcharity, and DGM, don't see why the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible.
Click to expand...

Actually I resent that remark.

I do know you will never actually do anything to challenge NIST because you will never be able to competently address the subject on their level. I do know people like ergo do care, That is in fact your intended audience.

If you do actually ever produce a coherent/relevant reply. By all means, let me know, I'd love to read it.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
* cough *
Click to expand...

The truth can sting sometimes........

ergo said:
Tony says he used the same assumptions as NIST did. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is that his analysis is incorrect.........incorrect in the methodology and incorrect in the conclusions.

At certain points he oversimplifies the analysis and at other points he is just simply wrong.

If he was correct........you can be 100% certain that many other (more competent) engineers would already have discovered these "obvious facts" and there would be a debate within the community.

There is no debate.

There is no debate because his errors.....some obvious and some more subtle.... cause most other Engineers to dismiss his analysis and ignore his babbling.

So that leaves us with the internet.....and to be more specific internet chat rooms, debate forums, and blogs.....and those chat rooms and debate forums are ones like this.....like the JREF where people debate conspiracy theories and other insane nonsense.

That is where you see these discussions....the forums that are more science minded like physicsforums.com do not entertain 9/11 discussions because the topic is considered pseudo science.

If you do not grasp this reality almost 11 years after the event.....and continue to have the delusion that there is a real debate over this issue...then no one can save you from yourself. Just go on believing it for the rest of your life....it won't be any different in 50 years then it is today.
 
newton3376 said:
...The problem is that his analysis is incorrect.........incorrect in the methodology and incorrect in the conclusions.

At certain points he oversimplifies the analysis and at other points he is just simply wrong...
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif
 
newton3376 said:
The truth can sting sometimes........



The problem is that his analysis is incorrect.........incorrect in the methodology and incorrect in the conclusions.

At certain points he oversimplifies the analysis and at other points he is just simply wrong.
Click to expand...

I think a lot more is being read into the NIST report by troofers than what is really there
 
Animal said:
I think a lot more is being read into the NIST report by troofers than what is really there
Click to expand...

They think that they can "Disprove NIST and blow this thing wide open" by a few quick calculations, drawings in MS Paint, and some Excel spreadsheets, without even trying to prove their own "Controlled Demolition" beyond some "looks like" speculation and half-thought out guesswork.

It's basically the laziest campaign against an "evil empire" anyone could conceive of.
 
LSSBB said:
They think that they can "Disprove NIST and blow this thing wide open" by a few quick calculations, drawings in MS Paint, and some Excel spreadsheets, without even trying to prove their own "Controlled Demolition" beyond some "looks like" speculation and half-thought out guesswork.

It's basically the laziest campaign against an "evil empire" anyone could conceive of.
Click to expand...
The underlying problem in logic is that they take one apparent anomaly out of context and think it proves something. This topic of "walk off" and the "thermXte" threads suffer from the same error.

If NIST was wrong on walk off (and that is a big "if" not yet argued effectively) that error is only one link in a case for CD. There are another dozen links to establish and until all links are proven the alleged error over "walk off" remains nothing more than an anomaly.

The situation with thermXte is analogous. Proving that there was thermXte on ground zero is no more than (say) 5 or 10% of a CD case. Unless the other 90-95% can be proved thermXte remains an anomaly.

Tony S's shifting the objective from "Prove CD" to "Prove NIST was wrong" only confuses the gullible. And it opens the door to another standard truther bit of false logic. The idea that an error in detail by NIST somehow (a) invalidates all of NIST's work AND/OR (b) proves CD. Whether stated explicitly or left implicit both those concepts are of course ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Your question is clearly not credible.

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.
Click to expand...

And why would the perps think to use ceramic devices? And what incendiary - and its ignition system - would survive the temperatures experienced? And what incendiary can perform fast enough to be useful in a CD?

Simple questions, Tony, but ones that your endless research into NIST failings are well, and deliberately, designed to obscure. You have no plausible theory of your own. If you did you'd publish it. Or, deep down, are you embarrassed by the sheer absurdity of those CD thoughts that bubble through your mind?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
With the flange stiffeners the flange never comes off the original seat so why do you mention it needs to drop to the pg plate?
Click to expand...

My apolgies, it was C7 who claimed the 2" plate could "catch" the girder if it fell to the W.

Tony Szamboti said:
Being able to push the girder by 4.75" maximum when it would need to be pushed about 10" isn't what most would call hanging on by a fingernail.
Click to expand...

In which you claim that the 3/4" inch stiffeners on the top flange would stop the bottom flange folding with only ~2" of that flange remaining on the plate? That would be a truly remarkable claim, so I must have misunderstood you.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
And why would the perps think to use ceramic devices? And what incendiary - and its ignition system - would survive the temperatures experienced? And what incendiary can perform fast enough to be useful in a CD?

Simple questions, Tony, but ones that your endless research into NIST failings are well, and deliberately, designed to obscure. You have no plausible theory of your own. If you did you'd publish it. Or, deep down, are you embarrassed by the sheer absurdity of those CD thoughts that bubble through your mind?
Click to expand...

Anyone that believes any sort of explosives and or other demolition type devices could have been installed in a building occupied 24/7 in lower Manhattan, without having a least one person come forward out of the 10's of thousands that would have had to be involved, is either 1) willfully ignorant, 2)terminally stupid, or 3)both :)
 
Animal said:
Anyone that believes any sort of explosives and or other demolition type devices could have been installed in a building occupied 24/7 in lower Manhattan, without having a least one person come forward out of the 10's of thousands that would have had to be involved, is either 1) willfully ignorant, 2)terminally stupid, or 3)both :)
Click to expand...

Incredulity is not an argument.

MM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom