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

[ergo]

Please tell us what issues you are referring to.

It's your assumptions, Tony. It's those guddamn assumptions. And if you can't intuit what specifically is wrong with them, or even what on earth they're alluding to, then you're simply not an engineer, like they are. Or at the very least, you're not psychic. And that's WRONG.

Oh, and:

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.

Did you hear that, Tony? Your analysis is incorrect. It's incorrect in the methodology, and incorrect in the conclusions. Did you know that before newton3376 told you? Wow.

At certain points, which I guess will remain unnamed, you "oversimplify". OK? You just do, okay? And at other points, you are simply WRONG. You know, in an engineery sense. Because that's what newton3376 is referring to. He's talking engineery here. He's talking Conclusions. He's talking Wrongness.

Folks can read more at the quoted link for newton3376's searing analysis of Tony's analysis. Wow.

 

[beachnut]

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.

How can a probable collapse sequence be wrong? What is your collapse sequence? Right, CD did it. You made up the CD conclusion without engineering, why has it failed?
Publish your work; I can't wait.

It is easier to attack NIST than prove the CD claims. You are not doing engineering, and it will be evident when you publish this great work. Keep up the good work. When will we hear back from the journals, or NIST?

 

[newton3376]

Did you hear that, Tony? Your analysis is incorrect. It's incorrect in the methodology, and incorrect in the conclusions. Did you know that before newton3376 told you? Wow.

When things are not correct it is valid to call them incorrect.

If this is causing confusion try www.dictionary.com

At certain points, which I guess will remain unnamed, you "oversimplify". OK? You just do, okay?

They have already been named. You simply did not understand it.

And at other points, you are simply WRONG.

They have already been named. You simply did not understand it.

You know, in an engineery sense. Because that's what newton3376 is referring to. He's talking engineery here. He's talking Conclusions. He's talking Wrongness.

If you don't understand what has been written in the thread don't come crying to me.....it is not my fault you aren't an Engineer.

Many of his errors have already been pointed out.....and since we all know you won't go read a book that is all "engineery" and has all that scary and confusing "mathy" stuff in it then we can only hope you will read this very thread and try your "truther best" to understand the points raised even though they aren't in youtube format.

Folks can read more at the quoted link for newton3376's searing analysis of Tony's analysis. Wow.

There is not much to analyze.........it's like debating someone who claims that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny actually exist.

Santa = Pretend Land
Easter Bunny = Pretend Land
Truth Movement = Pretend Land

 

[Clayton Moore]

Santa = Pretend Land
Easter Bunny = Pretend Land
Truth Movement = Pretend Land

Duhbunkers = Liar Liar Land

 

[Clayton Moore]

Duhbunkers, please enlighten us on what happened, in detail, after the alleged walk-off?

 

[TSR]

Duhbunkers, please enlighten us on what happened, in detail, after the alleged walk-off?

To the same level of detail you have documented the "inside job"?

 

[GlennB]

Duhbunkers, please enlighten us on what happened, in detail, after the alleged walk-off?

A large part of the final report is devoted to this. I suggest you read it.

 

[Animal]

Duhbunkers, please enlighten us on what happened, in detail, after the alleged walk-off?

A large part of the final report is devoted to this. I suggest you read it.

The Reader's Digest version.

The building fell down.

 

[pgimeno]

Duhbunkers, please enlighten us on what happened, in detail, after the alleged walk-off?

It's nice that you ask that.

The "alleged walk-off" triggered the collapse of a floor.

That floor collapse caused the rest of effects that NIST explains well (more floors fell, leaving column 79 unsupported laterally, causing it to buckle, causing the penthouse to fall, and causing a cascade collapse that progressed horizontally until the core gave way, pulling the façade down).

But, the most important point here is that it's irrelevant if NIST got the initiation event wrong. All it took for that chain of events to develop was the collapse of a floor at or around floor 13 by whatever means.

Read that? By whatever means. Floor collapses happen during fires; there is abundant proof in the WTC5 photos from FEMA. NIST elaborated a theory for the mechanism that triggered floor collapse: the girder walk-off. No matter if it's right or wrong, the rest of NIST's theory isn't refuted by disproving their initiation mechanism (the subject of this thread), but by showing that a floor collapse was impossible during the fires.

Good luck with that to those who try.

 

[000063]

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

I don't think there's any conscious presumption here at all. I just think he's unable to accept that truthers could be wrong and debunkers right, so if he can't understand something the fault is clearly on their end. Which is why he defends even WTC Dust's ludicrous foaming space laser theory.

Honestly, someone who almost never admits to simply not knowing something is less credible than someone who admits they don't know stuff. Much of the stuff in this thread goes right over my head, yet I was still able to find a hole or two in the Truther theories.

Duhbunkers, please enlighten us on what happened, in detail, after the alleged walk-off?

The building collapsed.

The world kept spinning.

 

[000063]

It's your assumptions, Tony. It's those guddamn assumptions. And if you can't intuit what specifically is wrong with them, or even what on earth they're alluding to, then you're simply not an engineer, like they are. Or at the very least, you're not psychic. And that's WRONG.

Oh, and:


Did you hear that, Tony? Your analysis is incorrect. It's incorrect in the methodology, and incorrect in the conclusions. Did you know that before newton3376 told you? Wow.

At certain points, which I guess will remain unnamed, you "oversimplify". OK? You just do, okay? And at other points, you are simply WRONG. You know, in an engineery sense. Because that's what newton3376 is referring to. He's talking engineery here. He's talking Conclusions. He's talking Wrongness.

Folks can read more at the quoted link for newton3376's searing analysis of Tony's analysis. Wow.

Incredulity, straw men, avoidance of debate with the people you so willingly sneer at, even after a direct challenge.

It's nice that you ask that.

The "alleged walk-off" triggered the collapse of a floor.

That floor collapse caused the rest of effects that NIST explains well (more floors fell, leaving column 79 unsupported laterally, causing it to buckle, causing the penthouse to fall, and causing a cascade collapse that progressed horizontally until the core gave way, pulling the façade down).

But, the most important point here is that it's irrelevant if NIST got the initiation event wrong. All it took for that chain of events to develop was the collapse of a floor at or around floor 13 by whatever means.

Read that? By whatever means. Floor collapses happen during fires; there is abundant proof in the WTC5 photos from FEMA. NIST elaborated a theory for the mechanism that triggered floor collapse: the girder walk-off. No matter if it's right or wrong, the rest of NIST's theory isn't refuted by disproving their initiation mechanism (the subject of this thread), but by showing that a floor collapse was impossible during the fires.

Good luck with that to those who try.

Pithy irrelevant one-liner from Clay in 3...2...1...

 

[ergo]

It's nice that you ask that.

The "alleged walk-off" triggered the collapse of a floor.

That floor collapse caused the rest of effects that NIST explains well (more floors fell, leaving column 79 unsupported laterally, causing it to buckle, causing the penthouse to fall, and causing a cascade collapse that progressed horizontally until the core gave way, pulling the façade down).

But, the most important point here is that it's irrelevant if NIST got the initiation event wrong. All it took for that chain of events to develop was the collapse of a floor at or around floor 13 by whatever means.

Read that? By whatever means. Floor collapses happen during fires; there is abundant proof in the WTC5 photos from FEMA.

WTC 5 had many collapsed floors. It also plummeted to the ground eventually, didn't it? That's what happens to buildings on fire. They plummet to the ground.

NIST elaborated a theory for the mechanism that triggered floor collapse: the girder walk-off. No matter if it's right or wrong, the rest of NIST's theory isn't refuted by disproving their initiation mechanism (the subject of this thread), but by showing that a floor collapse was impossible during the fires.

Yes, because any time a floor collapses in any building, the building plummets to the ground. Structural steel is useless in fire. Buildings crash to the ground. In fact, this is so true now that the demolition industry has been in steady decline since 2001. That's because the secret's out: just collapse a floor and the entire structural framework will fail. That's what buildings are designed to do now. It makes them easier to collapse when they're no longer needed.

 

[Justin39640]

What are you talking about? Where do you get "10s of thousands" of people? A small crew and a few inside coordinators could do the job. How silly to think it would require hundreds, let alone thousands, or "tens of thousands" of people.

I shudder to think how things get done wherever you work.

The small band of contractors designed and fabricated all of the required (custom made) housings, ignitions, etc (that could survive fire) and install it all???? Lets not forget the buildings were open 24/7 and its security force was REAL cops, not square badges. You have no clue how tight that complex was security wise. Especially for contractors their equipment and material.

 

[ergo]

The small band of contractors designed and fabricated all of the required (custom made) housings, ignitions, etc (that could survive fire) and install it all???? Lets not forget the buildings were open 24/7 and its security force was REAL cops, not square badges. You have no clue how tight that complex was security wise. Especially for contractors their equipment and material.

Again, why would the explosives have to survive the fires? Can someone please just answer this? Thanks.

I believe also the building had two different security teams. One was Silverstein's and the other was the city's or whatever public authority dominated in there. But in your mind I guess, covert ops people would be dressed all in black, and would be identifiable by the words "Black Ops" on their backs?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Again, why would the explosives have to survive the fires? Can someone please just answer this? Thanks.

Okay, let's see if I can dumb this down to your level: You believe controlled demolition took down the buildings. In order to do this, those buildings would have had to have been rigged with explosives. Those buildings were ON FIRE for hours before collapse initiation. Therefore, in order for controlled demolition to happen, the explosives would have had to withstand the fire until they were set off at the time of collapse.

Logic, it's a wonderful thing.

 

[000063]

WTC 5 had many collapsed floors. It also plummeted to the ground eventually, didn't it? That's what happens to buildings on fire. They plummet to the ground.

What point are you trying to-

Yes, because any time a floor collapses in any building, the building plummets to the ground. Structural steel is useless in fire. Buildings crash to the ground. In fact, this is so true now that the demolition industry has been in steady decline since 2001. That's because the secret's out: just collapse a floor and the entire structural framework will fail. That's what buildings are designed to do now. It makes them easier to collapse when they're no longer needed.

Oh, incredulity, sarcasm, and straw men again. I see.

Again, why would the explosives have to survive the fires? Can someone please just answer this? Thanks.

Because the buildings were on fire, and the collapses started from areas which were on fire. Not to mention beams which were knocked clean out of the building by the plane impacts, none of which had explosives on them. Sure is lucky for the bad guys, huh?

I believe also the building had two different security teams. One was Silverstein's and the other was the city's or whatever public authority dominated in there.

Prove it.

But in your mind I guess, covert ops people would be dressed all in black, and would be identifiable by the words "Black Ops" on their backs?

Can you let a single post go by without insulting someone or strawmanning?

 

[NoahFence]

Again, why would the explosives have to survive the fires? Can someone please just answer this? Thanks.

I believe also the building had two different security teams. One was Silverstein's and the other was the city's or whatever public authority dominated in there. But in your mind I guess, covert ops people would be dressed all in black, and would be identifiable by the words "Black Ops" on their backs?

Why would the explosives need to survive the fires?!?

Um... So they could, you know, work?

Is there no end to how wrong you can get?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Because the buildings were on fire, and the collapses started from areas which were on fire. Not to mention beams which were knocked clean out of the building by the plane impacts, none of which had explosives on them. Sure is lucky for the bad guys, huh?

Yeah like it was possible the huge core columns in all three buildings were going to be individually snapped by a floor's collapse(s).

Let's imagine, contrary to the evidence, that debris from the tower collapses damaged Building 7's structure, that diesel fuel tanks exploded, and that incredibly intense fires raged through large parts of the building. Could such events have caused the building to collapse? Not in the manner observed. The reason is that simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Any debris from the towers impacting Building 7 would have hit its south side, and any columns damaged by it would almost certainly be perimeter columns on its south side. Any fuel tank explosion would only be able to damage nearby structure. The rapid fall-off of blast pressures with distance from the source would preclude any such event from breaking all of the columns in the building.

http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html

 

[pgimeno]

WTC 5 had many collapsed floors. It also plummeted to the ground eventually, didn't it? That's what happens to buildings on fire. They plummet to the ground.

That's what happens when the building is not able to resist the weight over it. The size of the building counts. Remember WTC2 was first to fall, for that reason among others.

Yes, because any time a floor collapses in any building where the floors below it are weakened by fire making the floors collapse in cascade, leaving a column unsupported laterally, where that column holds most of the rest of the building, the building plummets to the ground. Structural steel is useless in unfought long-duration fire. Buildings where that has happened crash have historically crashed to the ground. In fact, this is so true now that the demolition industry has been in steady decline since 2001. That's because the secret's out: just collapse a floor and the entire structural framework will fail. That's what buildings are designed to do now. It makes them easier to collapse when they're no longer needed. if there was a way to control the effect of fires it would be a good demolition method for steel buildings, but unfortunately fires are quite unpredictable, and they're hard to fight afterwards, making debris removal much more complicated than with explosives.

FTFY.

 

[TSR]

Yeah like it was possible the huge core columns in all three buildings were going to be individually snapped by a floor's collapse(s).

No, they were "snapped" by the lack of support they were designed to have from the floors, after those floors collapsed.

Your ignorance is showing again.

In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

Irrelevant, since WTC7 did not "sink into its footprint".

Or is it your contention that the Verizon Building was within WTC7's footprint that day?