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

[beachnut]

Care to explain any further?

It is hard to understand guys like you, who are willing to impugn someone else's engineering abilities based on their positions or comments, without ever showing any contradictory calculations or deeper explanations themselves.

It really does seem that you are just barking in the night here and can't refute what I was saying.

Your overall conclusion is CD. Your narrow attack on part of NIST PROBABLE collapse sequence is a waste of time. The proper thing to do is present a fully documented collapse sequence of your own. In your case this collapse sequence is some unknown fantasy CD event done by unknown people to a building on fire with no fire support.

There is no need to refute your attack on NIST, your final realcddeal conclusion is nonsense, case closed. Is your fantasy super-nano-thermite, or silent fire proof explosives? Where is your fully documented work published, a draft, etc?

 

[A W Smith]

a

The Washington Monument is essentially a very large column which has no lateral support. Do you know why it doesn't overturn?

What's the Washington monument holding up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What's the Washington monument holding up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column

It is holding itself up, but that wasn't the point.

If you were following the conversation before commenting you would realize that it was about triforcharity claiming a column with insufficient base support was somehow analagous to column 79, and implying that as soon as lateral support is removed the column would fail.

You should go back and read the last page of the thread.

 

[beachnut]

It is holding itself up, but that wasn't the point.

If you were following the conversation before commenting you would realize that it was about triforcharity claiming a column with insufficient base support was somehow analagous to column 79, and implying that as soon as lateral support is removed the column would fail.

You should go back and read the last page of the thread.

You think column 79 can stand without lateral support. You think the Towers can stand without lateral support too. What is new?

The best part is your reference, since they call the monument a column, it is a structural column or what... http://casehistories.geoengineer.org/volume/volume1/issue3/IJGCH_1_3_3.pdf
Yep, 7 times makes it a steel column. "Column", stone to steel.

What is your probable collapse sequence to replace the now refuted by Tony NIST claim? What type of explosives and where were they placed? By who? Looks like your probable collapse sequence is easy to dismiss before you put numbers to it. Good luck, I am going to get some more beer and mow the lawn - have a great weekend finishing your paper for publishing.

 

[Justin39640]

I don't agree, the Washington Monument is essentially a hollow column made of stone and it is interesting that you don't explain why it doesn't overturn.

What about the Toronto CN tower? Are you just going to say it isn't a column? Why doesn't it overturn?

I think you, Triforcharity, and Beachnut are out of your depth here or are being coy.

The Washington monument is a complete structure. A column is part of a structure. It doesn't overturn cause an engineer who understood the difference designed it.

 

[beachnut]

The Washington monument is a complete structure. A column is part of a structure. It doesn't overturn cause an engineer who understood the difference designed it.

It is a structure of >36,000 columns, short stubby stone columns, in a big pile. Are steel columns short stubby piles of steel?

When does rock lose it's strength in fire?

 

[Justin39640]

It is a structure of >36,000 columns, short stubby stone columns, in a big pile. Are steel columns short stubby piles of steel?

When does rock lose it's strength in fire?

Let's not also forget the Washington Monument is a tapered obelisk. Tony's comparison fails at the most basic levels. No simple hand calculations needed.

 

[NoahFence]

It is holding itself up, but that wasn't the point.

If you were following the conversation before commenting you would realize that it was about triforcharity claiming a column with insufficient base support was somehow analagous to column 79, and implying that as soon as lateral support is removed the column would fail.

You should go back and read the last page of the thread.

Yes or no kiddo -

Do you have evidence of controlled demolition at any of the sites on 9/11?

Put up or shut up.

 

[tsig]

I don't agree, the Washington Monument is essentially a hollow column made of stone and it is interesting that you don't explain why it doesn't overturn.

What about the Toronto CN tower? Are you just going to say it isn't a column? Why doesn't it overturn?

I think you, Triforcharity, and Beachnut are out of your depth here or are being coy.

The Washington Monument is an obelisk


Towers aren't columns.


Why are you comparing such completely different structures to a simple column?

ETA was each of the towers a single column?

 

[tsig]

Care to explain any further?

It is hard to understand guys like you, who are willing to impugn someone else's engineering abilities based on their positions or comments, without ever showing any contradictory calculations or deeper explanations themselves.

It really does seem that you are just barking in the night here and can't refute what I was saying.

In fact, before you embarass yourself further you should read the first paragraph of the Abstract of this discussion of the Washington Monument

http://casehistories.geoengineer.org/volume/volume1/issue3/IJGCH_1_3_3.pdf

Then while in the pdf do a search on the word "column" and see how many times it is used in reference to the monument.

You should read a little deeper:

The Washington Monument is a classical Egyptian-style four-sided obelisk topped by a pyramidion

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You should read a little deeper:

The Washington Monument is a classical Egyptian-style four-sided obelisk topped by a pyramidion

It is amazing that the engineers who wrote that case history discussion called the Washington Monument a column many times and some <snip> here still deny it is a column. One <snip> even thinks that because it was a tapered obelisk it wasn't a column. This kind of inanity can't be made up.

It is clear that one of the reasons you guys stay anonymous is to keep from being embarassed.

 

[DGM]

It is amazing that the engineers who wrote that case history discussion called the Washington Monument a column many times and some here still deny it is a column.

I believe it's a marker used to navigate UFO's.












(yeah this conversation is stupid)

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You think column 79 can stand without lateral support. You think the Towers can stand without lateral support too. What is new?

The best part is your reference, since they call the monument a column, it is a structural column or what... http://casehistories.geoengineer.org/volume/volume1/issue3/IJGCH_1_3_3.pdf
Yep, 7 times makes it a steel column. "Column", stone to steel.

What is your probable collapse sequence to replace the now refuted by Tony NIST claim? What type of explosives and where were they placed? By who? Looks like your probable collapse sequence is easy to dismiss before you put numbers to it. Good luck, I am going to get some more beer and mow the lawn - have a great weekend finishing your paper for publishing.

The Washington Monument is a self-supporting stone column and I used it as an example in regard to triforcharity's claim that without lateral support columns will automatically fall.

He apparently doesn't have a full understanding of the mechanics. You on the other hand claim to be an engineer, and you should understand why column 79 would be self-supporting and not buckle under its own weight for at least a couple hundred feet, and why it would not buckle if left unsupported for five stories with a full load on it.

 

[DGM]

I only used the Washington Monument as an example in regard to triforcharity's claim that without lateral support columns will automatically fall.

And then you continue to argue this. Do you think this might be a reason the "truth" movement has gotten as far as it has today?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And then you continue to argue this. Do you think this might be a reason the "truth" movement has gotten as far as it has today?

I have tried to limit the discussion to things that are pertinent to the original reason for this thread, which concerned the proof that the claim that the girder between columns 44 and 79 could have walked off its seat was impossible.

However, there are some who have a hard time doing that here.

Your question about the truth movement is nebulous and doesn't belong in the discussion either.

 

[DGM]

I have tried to limit the discussion to things that are pertinent to the original reason for this thread, which concerned the proof that the claim that the girder between columns 44 and 79 could have walked off its seat was impossible.

However, there are some who have a hard time doing that here.

Ignore them and prove your point and not just to the laymen (that has been the focus)

Your question about the truth movement is nebulous and doesn't belong in the discussion either.

Not really. This thread is a perfect example. It focuses on one small issue that has little or no hope of leading to a solution.

Until you can present a better theory you will never go anywhere. The whole aim of the "truth" movement has always been to get someone else to do the work they could do if they were actually competent(*) people involved.

Tony, It's **** or get off the pot.




* no offence to you personally.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ignore them and prove your point and not just to the laymen (that has been the focus)



Not really. This thread is a perfect example. It focuses on one small issue that has little or no hope of leading to a solution.

Until you can present a better theory you will never go anywhere. The whole aim of the "truth" movement has always been to get someone else to do the work they could do if there actually competent(*) people involved.

Tony, It's **** or get off the pot.




* no offence to you personally.

Like I told you before there are submissions to NIST for correction on this issue, and although you don't think this initial focus could lead to a solution I wouldn't be so dismissive. There is more to come.

 

[DGM]

Like I told you before there are submissions to NIST for correction on this issue, and although you don't think this initial focus could lead to a solution I wouldn't be so dismissive. There is more to come.

Do you have a link to these submissions? Do they only want clarification? They don't actually suggest an alternative theory do they?

You don't believe NIST's version, we get this. What is yours' and how is it better? This is all I'm asking. Produce a better collapse model. Ask Gage to help, he has 1600+ engineers. Is that not enough?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Do you have a link to these submissions? Do they only want clarification? They don't actually suggest an alternative theory do they?

No, they are formal submissions to NIST and I don't have a link. They are asking for correction in some cases which will lead to a different theory.

What you will see down the road is published Discussions of a NIST team article which was published this past January about WTC 7.

 

[DGM]

What you will see down the road is published Discussions of a NIST team article which was published this past January about WTC 7.

Published where? (I have access to most journals).