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

[Tony Szamboti]

Here's my non engineering side coming through again, but Tony - are you suggesting B, for all intents and purposes, should behave similar to A?

Yes, it will with the east side beams attached. They will counteract the small torsional load experienced due to the cg of the girder being past the seat.

 

[GlennB]

Here's my non engineering side coming through again, but Tony - are you suggesting B, for all intents and purposes, should behave similar to A?

With the provisos that:

The stiffeners would stop the flange folding
The beams were still attached to stop rotation
There was insufficient northwards movement to take the girder purely onto the flimsy, hot 1" pf plate
Col 79 had not itself been pushed to the E
His calculations are reliable
<and other things>

Well, I'm all fired up by this. It suddenly seems much more reasonable that nefarious perps would plant ceramic therm?te delivery systems, and heat-proof radio detonation systems, throughout the building in order to destroy a bunch of incriminating Enron documents that could have just been set on fire anyway under cover of the general chaos of the day. Especially as the perps were certain that there'd be fires, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with the ceramic stuff.

And that they'd be sure to take out several floors simultaneously just to prove that they could achieve extended freefall (the showoffs) rather than just have the building come down any-old-how. What a giveaway!

I must get a new hobby Advice on origami or water-colours most welcome.

 

[BasqueArch]

I read fine. Shortening is caused by sagging and is what you need to pull the girder back from the seat. But the girder will not sag enough according to my calculations shown earlier in this thread. I even coupled that with some deformation from interference and it still was nowhere near enough.

You are blowing smoke or smoking something that impairs judgement.

Show some calculations otherwise you are nothing more than a hand waver.

I can't do the calculations, but I know that once the girder deflects into a curve out of level, the bottom unbolted flange transfers the load from the 2" support plate to the tip of the 1" cantilevered hot seat.
I know this calculation:
Political Delusion + Subjective Epistemology = 9/11 Wrong

 

[LSSBB]

Another hand waver who makes bold assertions but shows no calculations to back them up.

Please, oh please, show us your nonlinear approach. Otherwise, I have to say listening to your bold assertions about it is getting old.

Handwaiving is asserting an argument is not relevant to your case without explaining why.

The burden of proof is on you that NIST is wrong. You are not proving your case by making a simple calculation and not showing WHY that works in this situation.

I am not making a bold assertion. You are by saying a few hand calculations prove that an FEA performed by a team of engineers and scientists is wrong in its conclusions. If you are to prove this BOLD Assertion by you, you have to show that you are proceeding from valid assumptions. So far, you have not.

Apparently the concept of actually taking scientific rigor to your work offends you. If so, I suggest you find another hobby, and not go using it to accuse folks of commiting mass murder with no evidence.

 

[Animal]

i read fine. Shortening is caused by sagging and is what you need to pull the girder back from the seat. But the girder will not sag enough according to my calculations assumptions shown earlier in this thread. I even coupled that with some deformation from interference and it still was nowhere near enough.

You are blowing smoke or smoking something that impairs judgement.

Show some calculations otherwise you are nothing more than a hand waver.

ftfy

 

[Animal]

I can't do the calculations, but I know that once the girder deflects into a curve out of level, the bottom unbolted flange transfers the load from the 2" support plate to the tip of the hot seat.
I know this calculation:
Political delusion + subjective epistemology = 9/11 Wrong

He assumed that shortening would occur equally at both ends. That is the only way he can end up with his predetermined conclusion.

 

[BasqueArch]

He assumed that shortening would occur equally at both ends. That is the only way he can end up with his predetermined conclusion.

And also that an unbolted curved girder bottom flange is still fully seated over the 2" support plate.

 

[jaydeehess]

I've lost track of this thread. Just wish to know one thing: has Chris submitted his purely technical paper illustrating exactly how NIST is incorrect, in its most probable initiating failure leading to the collapse of WTC 7, to a serious engineering journal yet?

 

[plague311]

I've lost track of this thread. Just wish to know one thing: has Chris submitted his purely technical paper illustrating exactly how NIST is incorrect, in its most probable initiating failure leading to the collapse of WTC 7, to a serious engineering journal yet?

I find it comical that Chris stated NIST followed his suggestions on..whatever it was he was talking about, when they were doing the report, before it's final release. However, now that he's still here making other bold assurtions without anything more than his calculations and theories, they don't even know he exists.

So apparently they only followed the awesomeness otherwise known as Chris up until the report was released. Now NIST has other things to do. I hate when they forget the people that got them there. *tear*

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You have a lot of nerve trying to impugn me when we haven't seen you do a single calculation.

Why would I? I'm not making any claims. the burden of proof is on you not I.
When you produce a list of assumptions and a set of detailed calculations that show that you are correct than we can talk. Your efforts to date fall far short of what would be acceptable even in an engineering 101 class.

 

[ozeco41]

You didn't read good. We're not talking shortening, but girder sagging, twisting and other displacements that would fail the cantilevered seat.

Yes - those and all the other factors Tony is ignoring to maintain his false context for walk off.

One for the GLOSSARY:

...Or are you all just hand wavers?...

...translated into English means "you are coming up with arguments I cannot or do not wish to respond to."

And he then dives back once more into the false setting he keeps trying to support...

...My calculations, shown earlier in this thread, say the girder can't shorten up nearly enough to do what you people are saying.

...and several members have shown that he is not even right when he applies that false assumption.

 

[000063]

Naturally...

He implied a few days ago that no search engines existed before Google, and was promptly slapped down on that too, which would've taken thirty seconds to check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_Engine

so are you saying all scientists must be athiests to be taken seriously?
Religion only has an affect on your scientific practice if you let it do so.

MM and C7 already tried that straw man. Didn't take. Are all three of you incapable of understanding the Simile?

Also, your statement is false. One of the biggest problems with bias is that it's often unconscious. Look up The Placebo Effect, for example. I even saw it in practice on Mythbusters, when Grant reacted to a sugar pill the same way he did to actual medicine.

With the provisos that:

The stiffeners would stop the flange folding
The beams were still attached to stop rotation
There was insufficient northwards movement to take the girder purely onto the flimsy, hot 1" pf plate
Col 79 had not itself been pushed to the E
His calculations are reliable
<and other things>

Well, I'm all fired up by this. It suddenly seems much more reasonable that nefarious perps would plant ceramic therm?te delivery systems, and heat-proof radio detonation systems, throughout the building in order to destroy a bunch of incriminating Enron documents that could have just been set on fire anyway under cover of the general chaos of the day. Especially as the perps were certain that there'd be fires, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with the ceramic stuff.

And that they'd be sure to take out several floors simultaneously just to prove that they could achieve extended freefall (the showoffs) rather than just have the building come down any-old-how. What a giveaway!

I must get a new hobby Advice on origami or water-colours most welcome.

Weird how Enron went down anyway. You'd think the masterminds would've seen it coming.

 

[ergo]

And he then dives back once more into the false setting he keeps trying to support......and several members have shown that he is not even right when he applies that false assumption.

This is nonsensical.

Ignoring the rest of your post for now, are you aware that the results of calculations are not called "assumptions"? Assumptions are what go into calculations. If you are aware of that, and you just made a mistake above, would you mind pointing out what assumptions Tony has used that you believe are incorrect?

Thanks. It would be the first substantive post of yours in a long time.

 

[beachnut]

This is nonsensical.

Ignoring the rest of your post for now, are you aware that the results of calculations are not called "assumptions"? Assumptions are what go into calculations. If you are aware of that, and you just made a mistake above, would you mind pointing out what assumptions Tony has used that you believe are incorrect?

Thanks. It would be the first substantive post of yours in a long time.

Better yet, you should point out what assumptions Tony has used that are correct. It would be your first. Can't wait for the moon sized debris field take on structural engineering. What do you have from all your years as an engineer?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Better yet, you should point out what assumptions Tony has used that are correct. It would be your first. Can't wait for the moon sized debris field take on structural engineering. What do you have from all your years as an engineer?

We can all be pretty sure neither you, Ozeco, LSSBB, or sheeplesnhills, will do anything but mouth off.

In my experience you four fellows, who all claim to be engineers, have been nothing but blather and no basis. I really have to wonder if you actually are engineers because there hasn't been any indications of it.

I was glad to see some people here at least try to engage in what seemed like reasonable discourse about it. TFK even had a legitimate question and brought my attention to a unit issue, which I have corrected.

 

[ozeco41]

This is nonsensical.

Ignoring the rest of your post for now, are you aware that the results of calculations are not called "assumptions"? Assumptions are what go into calculations....

Wow!!! Just because you don't understand don't presume others are limited in comprehension.

... If you are aware of that, and you just made a mistake above, would you mind pointing out what assumptions Tony has used that you believe are incorrect?...

follow the thread ergo. Start with my post 151 and all my subsequent posts which were about, or contained reminders about, the wrong assumptions. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8120769#post8120769

...Thanks. It would be the first substantive post of yours in a long time.

All of my posts are "substantive". Just because:
(A) You and others cannot or will not reason at the level of complexity required by the topic; AND
(B) I refuse to descend to discussing irrelevant trolling detail.
...does not make my comments less substantive.

 

[ozeco41]

We can all be pretty sure neither you, Ozeco, LSSBB, or sheeplesnhills, will do anything but mouth off...

Still not prepared to lift your game Tony? Cannot or will not address the real issues so you resort to insult?

...I was glad to see some people here at least try to engage in what seemed like reasonable discourse about it. TFK even had a legitimate question and brought my attention to a unit issue, which I have corrected.

tfk has been considerate enough to engage you at the level of detail you want to hold this discussion down to. No point in me joining in at that level when tfk is handling it well and the real issues you are avoiding are at one, two and three levels higher.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Still not prepared to lift your game Tony? Cannot or will not address the real issues so you resort to insult?

tfk has been considerate enough to engage you at the level of detail you want to hold this discussion down to. No point in me joining in at that level when tfk is handling it well and the real issues you are avoiding are at one, two and three levels higher.

Please tell us what issues you are referring to.

 

[beachnut]

We can all be pretty sure neither you, Ozeco, LSSBB, or sheeplesnhills, will do anything but mouth off.

In my experience you four fellows, who all claim to be engineers, have been nothing but blather and no basis. I really have to wonder if you actually are engineers because there hasn't been any indications of it.

I was glad to see some people here at least try to engage in what seemed like reasonable discourse about it. TFK even had a legitimate question and brought my attention to a unit issue, which I have corrected.

Corrected, but the CD claim continues to be fantasy.

Engineers don't go attacking NIST with out evidence. Your motive is based on your real-cd-deal, you have delusions about 911, you can't do real engineering work on 911, and it shows. You will never publish your claptrap, it is based on nonsense, is shallow, and narrow. But go ahead prove this engineer wrong, publish your stuff. Any engineer can see you failed, there is no need to use engineering, your conclusion of CD makes all your work useless. But again, you publishing your work will show me what is.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Corrected, but the CD claim continues to be fantasy.

Engineers don't go attacking NIST with out evidence. Your motive is based on your real-cd-deal, you have delusions about 911, you can't do real engineering work on 911, and it shows. You will never publish your claptrap, it is based on nonsense, is shallow, and narrow. But go ahead prove this engineer wrong, publish your stuff. Any engineer can see you failed, there is no need to use engineering, your conclusion of CD makes all your work useless. But again, you publishing your work will show me what is.

You are right in the sense that you haven't been using engineering. Just a lot of mouthing off that others who think there are problems with the present official explanations have nothing to complain about.

There is evidence that NIST was wrong about the collapse initiation of WTC 7 and that they need to correct their report. They certainly need to incorporate those stiffeners and the 12 inch wide seat into their analysis.