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

[Animal]

Dude, your commentary continues to be less than impressive,

Can anyone say "projection"?

 

[Justin39640]

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.

Really?. We're lucky more didn't collapse.

Interesting??? Um, maybe because that was the side that was hit and damaged by the North Tower? You know, the event that initiated the fires in 7WTC.

ETA: I wonder if south side's narrower face (than the north's) played a part in that too?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I will say that I believe the asymmetrically located east penthouse was pulled down inside the building so it wouldn't fly off or topple, with column 79 taken out up high only. The window damage you point out is only high in the building and supports this.

The claim that an explosive couldn't have been used because it would have taken out all of the other windows on the floor is not a very good argument, as by their very nature the shaped charges used to remove columns produce a very focused and directional shockwave. Column 79 was about 45 feet away from the north face of the building and those windows were about 10 to 12 feet apart. So the initially directional and focused shockwave would have expanded conically to about 30 to 40 feet wide after traveling 45 feet and produced four blown out windows.

You made us all wait two years for that?

Seriously?

I will say that I believe the asymmetrically located east penthouse was pulled down inside the building so it wouldn't fly off or topple,​

Wrong... the sooper sekrit nin-jews in your 9/11 theory didn't give a flying @#$% about collateral damage.

The rest of WTC7 damn near destroyed the Verizon building :

Tishman Realty & Construction, which had been planning work on the building prior to 9/11, did a quick assessment of the building in the days after 9/11. William F. Collins AIA Architects was the lead architectural firm working on the restoration, while Tishman Interiors managed the project. Restoration of the building took three years, at a cost of $1.4 billion.​

Your claim that the sooper sekrit nin-jews cared about what happened to the EMP is absurd in the face the collateral damage on 9/11.

The claim that an explosive couldn't have been used because it would have taken out all of the other windows on the floor is not a very good argument,​

It's a devastating argument. Your emotional response is hardly accurate or relevant.

as by their very nature the shaped charges used to remove columns produce a very focused and directional shockwave.​

You don't understand how shaped charges work. Let me make this simple for you.

"Normal" explosive charge:

Shockwaves emanate at similar strengths over the entire surface of the charge.

Shaped charge:

Shockwaves along one side of the charge are aimed at a central point, causing them to merge. Shockwave strength over the rest of the surface of the charge is largely unchanged.

So the initially directional and focused shockwave would have expanded conically to about 30 to 40 feet wide after traveling 45 feet and produced four blown out windows.​

So embarrassingly wrong, Tony. No wonder your fared so poorly against Ryan Mackey. The blasts would have blown out every gawddamn window in the building. Sending shards of glass screaming outwards like rifle bullets for hundreds of yards in every direction.

The blast wave would have expanded in an 360 degree ovoid pattern, not conically. Unless you wrapped the charges in enough tamping material to make each one the size of a washing machine, there is nothing you could have done to confine the blast from expanding in all directions.

This is why glass and other fittings are always removed from buildings to be demolished.

Here's a real world example for you, in 1996, the Royal Canberra Hospital in Canberra Australia was demolished in a botched implosion. The building was improperly prepared and the exclusion zone was not made large enough so that when the shaped charges sent debris flying hundreds of metres, nine people were injured and a 12 year old girl on the other side of the river from the hospital was killed.

The lack of broken windows conclusively proves that there were no blast events occuring prior to or during WTC7s collapse.

Back to you, Tony (try to respond before the next mid-term elections).

 

[lexicon008]

Wrong... the sooper sekrit nin-jews in your 9/11 theory didn't give a flying @#$% about collateral damage.

wow so much for this being any form of civilized debate.

 

[twinstead]

wow so much for this being any form of civilized debate.

It is impossible to have a civilized debate with jamm. What you see is the result of that fact, after repeated attempts at a civilized debate. The civilized ship sailed a long time ago.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

wow so much for this being any form of civilized debate.

You're stuck on just three words, having nothing to say about the rest of my post?

Let me ask you a serious question, do you feel that Szamboti was sloppy in failing to research the basic workings of explosives and controlled demolitions before incorporating them into his theories?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It is impossible to have a civilized debate with jamm. What you see is the result of that fact, after repeated attempts at a civilized debate. The civilized ship sailed a long time ago.

I was responding to Tony Szamboti (who has his own checkered past), not Jammonius. But yeah, he's out there too.

 

[BasqueArch]

I will say that I believe the asymmetrically located east penthouse was pulled down inside the building so it wouldn't fly off or topple, with column 79 taken out up high only. The window damage you point out is only high in the building and supports this....So the initially directional and focused shockwave would have expanded conically to about 30 to 40 feet wide after traveling 45 feet and produced four blown out windows.

....

A shaped charge blast at column 79 could have caused precisely the damage we observe of four adjacent broken windows on the north face. .....

You left something out.

1. Your silent blast.
2. Then penthouse begins collapse.
3. Then penthouse continues collapse.
4. Then no broken windows
5. Then one window breaks.
6. Then another window breaks
7. Then two more windows break.

Q: What did you leave out?

 

[GlennB]

wow so much for this being any form of civilized debate.

You'd need to check the recent history of the thread. S_O_T was only slightly less polite than I
managed to be.

His (? ) post #2013 is well worth reading and viewing, beginning to end, for information.

Seriously ... Tony_S is actually suggesting that WTC7 was demolished with due regard to the integrity of nearby buildings?

Frankly, that idea deserves a response that would invoke either the autocensor or a yellow card

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

His (? )

I'm a red blooded Canadian male.


(full disclosure: I've never eaten buttered scones)

post #2013 is well worth reading and viewing, beginning to end, for information.

Thank you, Glenn. That's high praise.

Seriously ... Tony_S is actually suggesting that WTC7 was demolished with due regard to the integrity of nearby buildings?

Clearly, we are dealing with a much more polite breed of flase flag terrorist.

Faked attack: Check

Killed thousands: check

Caused tens of billions of dollars in damages: check

Started two wars: check

Blamed innocent third parties: check

Saved Mrs. Wilsons prized petunias from being crushed by a muti-ton elevator winch: priceless(?)

 

[Redwood]

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.

If we assume that "falling symmetrically into its own footprint" is a dead giveaway of a "controlled demolition", wouldn't the Vast Conspiracy WANT the building to topple over, to fool the Sheeple? Were they trying to give themselves away? Or was it that, as good Republicans, they didn't care about murdering thousands, but wanted to minimize property damage?

 

[tsig]

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.

If the bad guys thought that a toppling building would look more natural then why would they use CD to make it look like CD? Wouldn't they have used CD to topple the building?

 

[000063]

A shaped charge blast at column 79 could have caused precisely the damage we observe of four adjacent broken windows on the north face.

Yes, it could've, under certain conditions. Except, as we can clearly see, those windows are not adjacent. They are not contiguous, sequential, or next to each other. The gaps between them aren't even regular.

The windows are supported by the perimeter frame and the perimeter columns on the north face weren't buckled or damaged, so that is not even a plausible explanation.

Unless, of course, the buckling itself was not easily visible at the resolution of the video, only it's effects. Like the windows breaking.

A scattered window or two being broken out up a little higher could have been caused by the debris falling inside after the column was severed on the floor with the four adjacent broken windows. The flash would not be likely to be seen as it is well inside the building and up at a high level.

Well, it's not like there'd be a chance of news helicopters flying around at that height in a perfect position to see the flash.



Note the air and dust being ejected from the buildings as the charges go off?

Also, remember the videos from earlier? Notice how the flash goes in both directions? Hiding the explosive behind the column wouldn't help. The reason I pointed out the size of the device is to show that it would be large and conspicuous. Also, it focuses the energy on a single point, not a breaching line. Whatever allegedly cut through the column, it wasn't anything like what's conventionally described used a shaped charge.

With the blast pressure emanating towards the north face it is likely that the charge was placed on the south side of column 79 and the column itself would hide the flash also.

Not with anything resembling a conventional military shaped charge with its massive and necessary gap between the charge and the target, it's not.

An incendiary loaded shaped charge would have produced much less noise. The explosive only needs to be enough to drive the molten iron through the cut. This is a reason tailorable nano-thermite could have been used.

Appeal to magic. I like how you've backpedaled away from a mere "shaped charge" to an "incendiary custom nanothermite shaped charge".

Any any such charge which does not produce enough of a blast to propel the cutting mechanism through the beam has to burn through it instead, at an unreliable and unpredictable manner. Meaning it can't be timed exactly, and these explosives need to have split second precision. Also, an incendiary would produce more light over a longer period than an explosive, increasing risk of detection.

Note the massive amount of sparks and fire in this video. Also note that the beam is horizontal. On a vertical beam, it would be even more difficult.




It takes one and a half pounds and a cumbersome device to cut through a single thin I-Beam, not a full square column with fireproofing. And thermite or any derivative does not burn in an easily predictable manner.

 

[carlitos]

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.

This is not math. If you want to speak engineering, please use math.

 

[000063]

You left something out.

1. Your silent blast.
2. Then penthouse begins collapse.
3. Then penthouse continues collapse.
4. Then no broken windows
5. Then one window breaks.
6. Then another window breaks
7. Then two more windows break.

Q: What did you leave out?

I can't believe I missed that.

 

[GlennB]

I can't believe I missed that.

Yeah. It's the beauty of the "Gish Gallop".

 

[000063]

Also part of the beauty of it is that it's easy to kick holes in their argument once they stop for breath, metaphorically speaking. It's not even a real argument, it just looks like one. It's a house of cards. Heck, my post alone would've been enough to do it, even without Basque's.

 

[pgimeno]

The Verinage demolitions are essentially what the current official story claims occurred to the towers in the sense that they were destroyed without explosives. The only difference being the Verinage demolitions are admitted to have had their initiating stories removed intentionally by non-explosive means.

Not removed at all. Merely cleaned up. The structural members in vérinage demolitions are the walls, and these are not removed. The vérinage patent explicitly mentions it applies to buildings with parallel load-bearing walls.

I recommended you to read it long ago, to avoid embarrassing moments such as this one.

If you look you will notice that the building actually moves to the side some when the hydraulic rams push the vertical supports down, so there isn't full column on column contact, yet there is still a jolt.

The "columns" are walls. The contact surface is enormous in comparison, and the contact is basically simultaneous.

 

[pgimeno]

"Fly off or topple" ? This is getting surreal.

Absolutely.

Nothing surreal about that. It would have been the smart thing to do.

I want a bit of that thing you smoke.

 

[tfk]

OK, this needs to be fixed. i was so ticked off at Tony's intentional and trivially obvious misdirection, that I used enough colorful language to get the post sent to AAH.

That was MY mistake, and I apologize to the mods for it. But the substance of this post is significant and germane to this discussion. So I've stripped out the snark & kept the substance. I hope that this is acceptable.

I am reposting this because it is meaningful to remind the non-technical fence sitters (as well as those like Chandler & gerrycan, who depend on Szamboti) that Tony is either:

1. really, really bad at fundamental engineering concepts, or
2. when shown to be wrong, willfully decides to bluff & bluster his way thru disagreements.

Inept is one class of problem. Best descriptor: clueless.
Dishonest is a different class. Best descriptor: shyster.
Both inept & dishonest is a whole new animal. Best descriptor: I'm open to suggestions.

Here is the post, minus the colorful metaphors…

Tony,

Here are your comments on calculating Moment Of Inertia (MOI).

For calculating MOI of a weld it is treated as a line with no width and so the length or height of the weld is cubed as it is for a prismatic beam with (bh^3)/12 but no b term. The 6 is in the denominator here is due to there being two welds.

The units resulting from MY/I here should be lbs./inch not psi.

So a correction to the above would be the bending load is 3,578 lbs./inch. The shear load can also be calculated in lbs./inch by considering only the length of the weld, and it would be 81,984 lbs. / (2 x 18 in.) = 2,277 lbs./inch.

Showing you dividing by the (2 x 18") LENGTH of the weld.

Here, you say exactly the same thing again.

I did post a reference on this thread for others here to see how a weld is analyzed and I explained that the I is for the weld, which is treated as a line.

The reference is here. Go find it or get a book from Lincoln Electric and learn how to analyze a weld.

The Iw is in units of in.^3 and the bending and shear loads are found in lbs./inch. That is then divided by the weld throat length.

BTW, you need to learn the difference between "I asserted without substantiation" and "I posted a reference". You posted no reference. You have STILL posted no reference to the method that you assert is valid.

Then, I DID posted a reference to an independent engineering website (Engineers Edge) showing the right way to calculate MOI for a weld.

After being shown to be completely wrong, you amusingly assert that EE's calculation is the same as your own.

The moment of inertia of two parallel welds is d^3/6 when the weld is treated as a line with no area. The engineers edge site added in "a" (throat height) get a x d^3/6 and in^4. I worked in in^3 with a line weld and with lbs./inch and brought the throat height in later in the calculation. That is how much of industry does the calculation. It really is six of one half a dozen of another (like finding the area of a circle with either Pi x R^2 or Pi/4 x D^2), but that probably went over your head as you don't seem to know how to analyze a weld.

[Aside]
Tony, they didn't "add in 'a'", Tony. They multiplied by "a".

For some inscrutable reason, you choose to not even use the right fundamental terminology. "brought in" this term, "added in" that term, "considered" another term.

This sloppiness in your verbiage is so frequent that I am left with the conclusion that it is intentional.

Now, why would anyone want to make simple concepts confusing?
[/Aside]

The first two times, you claimed that it is correct to DIVIDE BY THE WELD LENGTH (~36" long).

Now you are saying that Engineers Edge calculation is the same when they MULTIPLY BY THE WELD HEIGHT "a". (~0.4").

Only in Szamboti World does dividing by the length of a weld become "six of one" with multiplying by a height of the weld.

All of this is after I specifically wrote to you:

Oh, and do try to get the length & height of your weld terms correct. In other words, please note which terms get cubed, and which ones are to the 1st power.

Bad, bad engineering, Tony.

You really are acting like a blowhard and I generally don't waste my time on that type.

You've been confused since the day I first ran into you, you're confused today. The way that you resist correction, and rationalize erroneous methods, I don't see any probability that you won't remain confused forever.

Show how my weld analysis is incorrect or shut up.

I just did.

You can't calculate a simple MOI accurately. To you, a length is as good as a height, a multiply is as good as a divide.

Bad, bad engineering, Tony.

tk

[A certain amount of softening of the verbiage was employed in the translation of this post in order to obtain a PG rating.]