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

[LSSBB]

Has Tony done the math to calculate what would be needed to cause the tower to "topple," and thus the reason that "they" had to "bring it down inside the building first?"

Hell, I'd like to see him do the math that shows that high up a charge would just take down the one penthouse and break a few windows one at a time with no visible signs of an explosion through them. I feel like we are entering Judy Wood territory now.

 

[carlitos]

The NIST report states that the east penthouse was a shelter for heavy equipment. They don't say how heavy.

Well, how heavy would they have to be and with what force would they have to be propelled to cause all or part of the freaking World Trade Center tower to "topple," somehow shifting its center of gravity without collapsing straight down due to gravity once the structure was compromised? You're the engineer, tell me. You theorize this is part of the motive for blowing the penthouse "down into the building." Go. Do the math.

ETA - your tendency to edit posts is annoying - "eccentric loads" and "propensity for a topple" are not math when you are discussing a certain 47 story building.

 

[phunk]

You really need to explain, in some level of detail, what you think the mechanism would be that could cause the columns of the upper and lower sections to be out of alignment in the plan view before the first impact.

Buckling of the columns in the initiating story and a symmetric initial collapse as observed in the North Tower won't do that.

All it takes is a tiny bit of tilt (which was seen) and the columns won't line up, and even if they did, the tilt would add a horizontal component to the load that the columns weren't designed to handle.

 

[Animal]

The NIST report states that the east penthouse was a shelter for heavy equipment. They don't say how heavy.

What can be said is that it was a heavy eccentric load and would cause a propensity for a topple once the columns below let go. Additionally, it would have to initially cause an out of plumbness when the columns below let go and that would become a sort of p-delta effect causing more moment arm and increasing the propensity for a rotation about the center of gravity of the falling mass or what is colloquially called a topple.

What a load of meaningless gibberish........that may impress the ignorant troofers, but no one else.

 

[Justin39640]

No, it would be asymmetric structure above we are talking about.

The east penthouse had heavy equipment in it and it was asymmetrically located in the northeast corner of the building on the roof. It could have caused a topple. Bringing it down inside the building first, before bringing down the rest of the building, would prevent that possibility. Nothing surreal about that. It would have been the smart thing to do.

Or it's just the result of progressive failure due to the chaos of the day.

Are you saying that the building would have ended up outside of the collapse zone the FDNY set up????

 

[GlennB]

What has become clear in the last few hours is that Tony_S was well advised to stick to nitpicking NIST.

The moment he entered into explanations of his theories they were exposed as totally delusional pseudo-science. He did well to refrain for so long, but cracked eventually.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What has become clear in the last few hours is that Tony_S was well advised to stick to nitpicking NIST.

The moment he entered into explanations of his theories they were exposed as totally delusional pseudo-science. He did well to refrain for so long, but cracked eventually.

So as soon as I provide, when asked my opinion, an identified as such speculative but very plausible explanation for the windows being broken out and the removal of the east penthouse you feel this is grounds for saying I am not credible?

Wow, what a leap you are taking. It is as if you just wanted something you could use to take the pressure off of you after I asked you for explanations and backup for what you were saying. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought this was a forum for discussion.

There is no basis for the nonsense you and LSSB are saying here. I have provided legitimate support for any speculation I have made.

I think it is the unsupported comments you guys make, like the columns in the towers would have to be misaligned, are much more in line with Judy Wood type thinking.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Or it's just the result of progressive failure due to the chaos of the day.

Are you saying that the building would have ended up outside of the collapse zone the FDNY set up????

No, only to limit collateral damage to nearby buildings which were not heavily damaged.

One would have to admit that it is at least interesting that the building rolled to the south, near the end of it's fall, towards the already decimated twin tower side.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

All it takes is a tiny bit of tilt (which was seen) and the columns won't line up, and even if they did, the tilt would add a horizontal component to the load that the columns weren't designed to handle.

How much tilt over one story would cause complete misalignment? How much horizontal load would the tilt add and what horizontal load could the columns take? Back up what you say.

 

[GlennB]

So as soon as I provide an identified as such speculative but very plausible explanation for the windows being broken out and the removal of the east penthouse you feel there are grounds for saying I am not credible?

Yes. Because nobody would give a flying fanny about the fate of the EMP even if the ludicrous idea that is might "fly off" or "topple" proved to have a grain of truth in it. Which it doesn't.

Tony - it might shock you to learn that the WTC complex was a scene from hell in terms of death and destruction. If it was planned, this was to be expected. Trivial details re the fate of WTC7 strictly not an issue.

And, yes, you totally made up that utter, laughable guff about 'shaped charges'.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, how heavy would they have to be and with what force would they have to be propelled to cause all or part of the freaking World Trade Center tower to "topple," somehow shifting its center of gravity without collapsing straight down due to gravity once the structure was compromised? You're the engineer, tell me. You theorize this is part of the motive for blowing the penthouse "down into the building." Go. Do the math.

ETA - your tendency to edit posts is annoying - "eccentric loads" and "propensity for a topple" are not math when you are discussing a certain 47 story building.

50 tons of equipment in that penthouse would have easily caused the building to roll to the north after the lower columns let go between the 7th and 14th floors. Bringing it down well inside the building significantly cuts down the moment arm between the penthouse equipment and the center of mass of the upper section.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes. Because nobody would give a flying fanny about the fate of the EMP even if the ludicrous idea that is might "fly off" or "topple" proved to have a grain of truth in it. Which it doesn't.

Tony - it might shock you to learn that the WTC complex was a scene from hell in terms of death and destruction. If it was planned, this was to be expected. Trivial details re the fate of WTC7 strictly not an issue.

And, yes, you totally made up that utter, laughable guff about 'shaped charges'.

Again, you have provided no basis for your comments. Just your incredulity. That does not suffice in a diussion.

If you want to be taken seriously you are going to have to at least start providing logic to support what you say.

 

[phunk]

50 tons of equipment in that penthouse would have easily caused the building to roll to the north after the lower columns let go between the 7th and 14th floors.

50 tons? Really? That's less than 0.1% of the weight of the building. You think that will alter the direction of the collapse significantly?

 

[LSSBB]

Yes. Because nobody would give a flying fanny about the fate of the EMP even if the ludicrous idea that is might "fly off" or "topple" proved to have a grain of truth in it. Which it doesn't.

Tony - it might shock you to learn that the WTC complex was a scene from hell in terms of death and destruction. If it was planned, this was to be expected. Trivial details re the fate of WTC7 strictly not an issue.

And, yes, you totally made up that utter, laughable guff about 'shaped charges'.

Not to mention no one ever found any castings or detonation equipment, nor were there any light flashes charateristic of thermite, or any sign that windows were "blown out" by any even tiny blast wave.

It's another instance of "Intelligent Design" applied to destruction. Ad hoc arguments pulled out of nowhere to patch discrepancies, and then clung to with religious fervor.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, how heavy would they have to be and with what force would they have to be propelled to cause all or part of the freaking World Trade Center tower to "topple," somehow shifting its center of gravity without collapsing straight down due to gravity once the structure was compromised? You're the engineer, tell me. You theorize this is part of the motive for blowing the penthouse "down into the building." Go. Do the math.

ETA - your tendency to edit posts is annoying - "eccentric loads" and "propensity for a topple" are not math when you are discussing a certain 47 story building.

The lack of logic by some posters in supporting their claims is much more annoying to me. Additionally, editing posts is allowed on this forum for a finite period of time (about 1 hour it seems). So if you don't like it, wait for the editing time to elapse before replying.

 

[GlennB]

50 tons? Really? That's less than 0.1% of the weight of the building. You think that will alter the direction of the collapse significantly?

Bingo. Even then its ultimate fate depends on random factors.

And little old Fiterman Hall was trashed anyway, despite these determined efforts by the perpetrators to save it

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You think "they" really gave two rats' nuts about more buildings being damaged? Really?

Ring ring ring.....

Hello? Yes, hold on please

Occam's Razor is on the phone, and wants a word with you.

The above is a perfect example of what I am saying in reference to some posters not feeling obliged to provide a reasonable level of logic to support their claims.

I think the anomaly of the east penthouse collapse being explained by the series of implausible events, and in some cases impossible (as has been shown in this thread), claimed in the NIST report on WTC 7 violates Occam's razor much more than what I have mentioned here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

50 tons? Really? That's less than 0.1% of the weight of the building. You think that will alter the direction of the collapse significantly?

Yes. You aren't counting the moment arm due to the eccentricity and the height of the upper section. It was about 400 foot tall if the collapse started between the 7th and 14th floors.

 

[LSSBB]

The above is a perfect example of what I am saying in reference to some posters not feeling obliged to provide a reasonable level of logic to support their claims.

I think the anomaly of the east penthouse collapse being explained by the series of events claimed in the NIST report on WTC 7 violates Occam's razor much more than what I have mentioned here.

Dude, you left the logic far, far behind when you came up with that reason for the penthouse collapsing early and the windows breaking out. It doesn't fit the visible evidence, and you don't even respond when it was pointed out that the weight of the penthouse has a negligible effect on the building COG.

Occam's razor is good to bring up at this point, because there is any easy way out. Admit the building was collapsing inside at the time due to the effects of the fire.

ETA: you posted at the same time as me, so I see you adressed the COG issue, and I don't see how that would significantly change the moment arm. Show your work

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Dude, you left the logic far, far behind when you came up with that reason for the penthouse collapsing early and the windows breaking out. It doesn't fit the visible evidence, and you don't even respond when it was pointed out that the weight of the penthouse has a negligible effect on the building COG.

Occam's razor is good to bring up at this point, because there is any easy way out. Admit the building was collapsing inside at the time due to the effects of the fire.

ETA: you posted at the same time as me, so I see you adressed the COG issue, and I don't see how that would significantly change the moment arm. Show your work

Dude, your commentary continues to be less than impressive, as you are one of those I am thinking of when I bring up the point that many here do not feel obligated to provide supporting data to back up what they are saying.

When the penthouse is brought down lower in the building the moment arm of its mass relative to the CG of the entire upper section is changed significantly, and this will affect how the upper section behaves during the fall.

I have some work to do and am getting weary of the unsupported and even ninny type of comments here, which are hardly representative of the type one would expect in a genuine exploratory discussion, so you will have to excuse me for a while.