• 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.
ergo said:
Yes, I can, newton. If you understood how to make an argument, you would understand that it's not that hard to follow someone's discussion and determine rather quickly whether they are presenting a coherent argument, whether they're faking, or whether they have no clue what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

#1. Your claimed experience does not give you the necessary knowledge to make such judgements.

#2. Your posting history clearly shows me your level of technical knowledge and understanding and it is very low. This should not be a surprise though, since you are not a degreed, experienced Engineer. I do not hold that lack of knowledge or ability against you in the least.

ergo said:
It doesn't surprise me that you think ozeco's empty pronouncements are above my level of understanding,
Click to expand...

#3 I "think" they are because I KNOW they are. Again....it's okay....no one expects you to be at ozeco's level of understanding or knowledge.

ergo said:
because you also have provided zero engineering analyses here and you don't even seem to understand simple concepts like how highrise structures are built to handle their own gravity loads.
Click to expand...

#4. The analysis has already been provided.........years and years ago.

#5. I understand highrise structures just fine.....it is not my job to educate you or teach you engineering. Get off of youtube and go read a book.

ergo said:
You're in no position to be addressing me in this manner,
Click to expand...

#6. Incorrect. I am in the EXACT position to be addressing you in this manner and I am giving you more respect than you deserve. You should be glad that some real life Engineers are even taking the time to type replies to what you write. Most Engineers just ignore you.

ergo said:
nor do your appeals to some imagined, anonymous, engineering majority have any grounding in reality.
Click to expand...

#7. If you do not understand that the majority is quite real.....then you are living in pretendland. I can not help you if you are in pretendland.

#8. Again I repeat....You should feel quite privileged that several Engineers on here are even willing to engage with you. None of the men and women I work with would even bother with truthers.....so count your blessings that we are even willing to talk to you. Eventually many of us will likely start ignoring or mocking you like the vast majority do. For now we are being overly nice.
 
ozeco41 said:
Just for the record I don't think my material is above your level of understanding...

...but that leads to a less polite alternate explanation. [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/nono.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I am forced to quote Hanlon's razor here.....

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
 
ozeco41 said:
The one point of engineering analysis needed to support my current claim on this thread is made explicitly in the post #1892 at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8258431#post8258431 I even helped Tony to answer by outlining the two options available to him to respond.
Click to expand...

Tony already responded to this, politely, imo, since this non-sequitur post really required no response. It's not an engineering analysis. It's an "I'm imagining conditions inside WTC7 and, in my imagination-informed opinion, Tony's conclusions against my imagined backdrop are either ridiculous or impossible." And then you insist that Tony refute your imaginings.

It's the most asinine, ridiculous attempt to avoid providing an actual, fact-based critique, an informed analysis, while also fabricating some bizarre new "burden of proof" that has nothing to do with NIST's original analysis. What's gobsmacking is that you think people are falling for it.
 
newton3376 said:
#1. Your claimed experience does not give you the necessary knowledge to make such judgements.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. No engineering knowledge is necessary to see rather quickly that ozeco41 is talking out of his ass. The fact that you can't see this for yourself indicates pretty clearly where your level of understanding is at.

#2. Your posting history clearly shows me your level of technical knowledge and understanding and it is very low. This should not be a surprise though, since you are not a degreed, experienced Engineer. I do not hold that lack of knowledge or ability against you in the least.
Click to expand...

Nor do I pretend to be an engineer. Somehow though, unlike you, my lack of engineering training is not a barrier to understanding that steel-framed highrises are built to carry their own gravity loads.


#4. The analysis has already been provided.........years and years ago.
Click to expand...

Those analyses have been shown to be impossible and possibly fraudulent. Clearly, you have no clue what you're talking about.
 
ozeco41 said:
Free fall is a non-event.
Click to expand...

There isn't a single engineer on this planet who would make this assertion. Even Shyam Sunder tried to equivocate.

Ozeco is either shockingly ignorant or lying. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I'll say it's the latter.
 
newton3376 said:
Freefall elicits a collective ***YAWN*** from 99.99% of the worlds Engineers.
Click to expand...

Plus, ergo can't even show it was AT freefall for 2+ sec and not passing THROUGH g, accelerating FASTER than g, then falling back BELOW g, which is what a more precise analysis of the acceleration curve shows. In any case, that is the acceleration of the exterior shell of the building, the inside was already going down with the penthouse.

Just because the exterior is falling at a g acceleration at some point does not mean forces are not acting on it to bring it down at that point. Those forces can be acting from within the shell of the building. Hence an acceleration of g means Squat with regards to CD.
 
ergo said:
Tony already responded to this, politely, imo, since this non-sequitur post really required no response. It's not an engineering analysis. It's an "I'm imagining conditions inside WTC7 and, in my imagination-informed opinion, Tony's conclusions against my imagined backdrop are either ridiculous or impossible." And then you insist that Tony refute your imaginings.

It's the most asinine, ridiculous attempt to avoid providing an actual, fact-based critique, an informed analysis, while also fabricating some bizarre new "burden of proof" that has nothing to do with NIST's original analysis. What's gobsmacking is that you think people are falling for it.
Click to expand...
Why don't you let Tony answer the challenge he is evading? It doesn't help his lack of understanding is you troll the thread with dishonesties.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
...Just because the exterior is falling at a g acceleration at some point does not mean forces are not acting on it to bring it down at that point. Those forces can be acting from within the shell of the building. Hence an acceleration of g means Squat with regards to CD.
Click to expand...
Yes.

"Free body" physics which quite a few engineers and physicists have difficulty comprehending....even the honest ones. :rolleyes:
 
newton3376 said:
Freefall elicits a collective ***YAWN*** from 99.99% of the worlds Engineers.
Click to expand...

...or, as I said, it is a "non event". ;)

My rules of engagement now determine that I don't waste time responding further to ergo's dishonest statements. :(

Ergo: If you ever decide to engage in real debate let me know.
 
Last edited:
newton3376 said:
...:) I enjoy your posts oz.....keep em coming!...
Click to expand...
Thank you.
newton3376 said:
...Between several of the points that you and tfk have raised I would say that TS, C7, and Gerrycans arguments are done....
Click to expand...
They never had an argument BUT I have left the the discussion of what falls within "within TS, C7 Gerrycan et al's false context" to tfk and a couple of others. They don't need my help.

I have concentrated on the setting of the false context - it is the sort of error that I enjoy given my career in managing engineers - including the group of engineers who routinely lose sight of the forest whilst they focus on a tree (or a branch of a tree; or a leaf on the branch :rolleyes: - you will appreciate the point )
newton3376 said:
...Stick a fork in em folks..........the shows over.
Click to expand...
Actually my focus of my interest has always been explaining WTC 9/11 collapses to those who do not understand and are honestly seeking the truth. So that does not include several posters active in this sub-forum....but remember the lurkers and other members. ;)

I don't see myself as a "debunker" or as one involved in "beating them". Naturally when confronted by pretended stupidity intended as trolling OR support of the unsupportable I sometimes slip from my purity of purpose. I am occasionally a bit human despite the dual handicaps of engineering expertise and legal training. :o
 
ozeco41 said:
I have concentrated on the setting of the false context - it is the sort of error that I enjoy given my career in managing engineers - including the group of engineers who routinely lose sight of the forest whilst they focus on a tree
Click to expand...
"Free body" physics which quite a few engineers and physicists have difficulty comprehending....even the honest ones.
Click to expand...
Now I see your problem.
 
newton3376 said:
Wake me and the rest of the engineering world up when you find that proof....
Click to expand...
We have shown you that proof but you refuse to wake up.

Navajo saying:
It's impossible to awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
ozeco41 said:
I don't see myself as a "debunker" or as one involved in "beating them". Naturally when confronted by pretended stupidity intended as trolling OR support of the unsupportable I sometimes slip from my purity of purpose.
Click to expand...
You purity?
Learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all, but you can carry it to a fault.

Interesting how bedunkers accuse others of what they are doing as they are doing it. :rolleyes:
 
While it's true that NIST lied about the state of the framing around CC79 (the temperatures reached only about 350°C ......and possibly around 100°C by the time of collapse) it does not mean that those floors didn't fall. The wall could have bowed due to faulty connections etc. thousands of things could have happend.

The freefall is easily explained by a proven series of progressive collapses gutting the interior in minutes and seconds before the "big show".

The stairs had been in the northern half of the building but maybe the wallboard was loose so it collapsed due to the little eartquake. The slfidized steel can be expalined via hot HCl, SO2 attack from burning office material and gympsum in the rubble.

No CD.
 
ergo said:
What claim?
Click to expand...
The same claim you claimed was wrong, remember?

What are these relevant factors? Why, after 49 pages, are you still unable to articulate them? If you have a problem with the factors NIST counted in, why are you complaining to Tony about it? How can you hope to provide a credible critique without identifying what it is that you claim is missing in Tony's analysis?

The reason you can't name these missing "relevant factors" is because you don't know what they are, and you're making **** up, in the simplistic hope that no one will actually question you about it.

End of discussion.
Click to expand...
I thought you didn't know what claim he was talking about.

The relevant factors have been named. All you have is ad hominem, straw men, incredulity, and an inability to admit that you don't understand things. As usual.
 
ergo said:
No, even just pointing to the post where ozeco41 - or anyone else - identifies the other relevant factors that both NIST and Tony missed in their analyses. Considering all the posts ozeco has contributed to this thread, and the number of times he's stated that the WTC7 failure initiation is not due to a single factor, surely he could have taken three minutes to outline what these other factors are? I mean, even just off the top of his head, since he obviously has a few in mind?

And then provide some credible analysis as to why they're relevant.

That would be a very baseline expectation required of him for what he is claiming here.
Click to expand...

By the way, when are you going to explain why the US Naval observatory is a poor source for scientific information?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom