• 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.
No truss failure.


Column 79 is discussed 4 minutes 30 seconds in.
Click to expand...

Something bad happend to the floor system under east penthouse, The floors collapsed - in turn col. 79 collapsed and all 47 floors fell on trusses 2 and 3.

Failure of those trusses was the primary kill mechanism for WTC7. If it weren't for the trusses the building would have continued standing or at least wouldn't have fallen that quickly/neatly.
 
uglypig said:
Something bad happend to the floor system under east penthouse, The floors collapsed - in turn col. 79 collapsed and all 47 floors fell on trusses 2 and 3.

Failure of those trusses was the primary kill mechanism for WTC7. If it weren't for the trusses the building would have continued standing or at least wouldn't have fallen that quickly/neatly.
Click to expand...

Some type of controlled demolition happened. Since there is no direct connection between column 79, the penthouse, the portion of the building above column 79s point of failure, the portion of the building below column 79s point of failure, and a timeline of the alleged collapse by fire.

Try one of those Cartesian coordinate system geometrical axis doohickeys.
Use your PC.
Model it.
Use CADCAM.
Never the twain shall meet.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Some type of controlled demolition happened. Since there is no direct connection between column 79, the penthouse, the portion of the building above column 79s point of failure, the portion of the building below column 79s point of failure, and a timeline of the alleged collapse by fire.

Try one of those Cartesian coordinate system geometrical axis doohickeys.
Use your PC.
Model it.
Use CADCAM.
Never the twain shall meet.
Click to expand...
Wait, so why don't you present the evidence? Have you done the calculations and modelling, or are you just quoting someone else? And why is a direct connection the only thing that can cause the collapse from fire?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Since there is no direct connection between column 79, the penthouse,
Click to expand...
wtc7penthouses6ko.jpg
 
C'mon, we know he won't respond to that. Clay likes to hit it and quit it.
 
Oystein said:
A user nicknamed Enik has used some serious simulation software to model the behaviour of column 79 and the girder and floor, and this is what he found after refining detailed propertied of the assembly:

I haven't followed the details, but perhaps the posters here in this thread are interested.
Click to expand...
Enik initially made the same technical error as Tony Szamboti made here - on which error I and tfk challenged Tony. Enik initially accepted Tony's false context. He has now slightly broadened his parameters and come up with an answer which agrees with NIST.

I am not convinced at this stage- I suspect he may have got the NIST agreeing answer for wrong reasons. I will study his findings in more detail - not for some time I am in Fiii on a holiday.

When Tony S ran away from my challenge in this thread he took refuge among members of 911Forum who are his friends and do not and probably will not see he the errors in his claims. As members here are aware (if not read the thread. ;) ) his errors are both technical and debate procedural. I am a member of 911 forum but I have deliberately chosen to not chase him over there. If he won't respond here tough.

So don't take Enik's work as definitive proof at this stage. ;)

I will return.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Enik initially made the same technical error as Tony Szamboti made here - on which error I and tfk challenged Tony. Enik initially accepted Tony's false context. He has now slightly broadened his parameters and come up with an answer which agrees with NIST.

I am not convinced at this stage- I suspect he may have got the NIST agreeing answer for wrong reasons. I will study his findings in more detail - not for some time I am in Fiii on a holiday.

When Tony S ran away from my challenge in this thread he took refuge among members of 911Forum who are his friends and do not and probably will not see he the errors in his claims. As members here are aware (if not read the thread. ;) ) his errors are both technical and debate procedural. I am a member of 911 forum but I have deliberately chosen to not chase him over there. If he won't respond here tough.

So don't take Enik's work as definitive proof at this stage. ;)

I will return.
Click to expand...

I am not taking Enik's work as anything now - I simply haven't looked closely at it, and, frankly, I don't think I would understand much of it enough to offer any criticism. I really posted this to draw the attention of the few here with some engineering competence to his work. I think it is great and refreshing that someone puts in this sort of effort.

SanderO asks, in effect, if Enik got the same result as NIST because he used the same input; and thus implicitly questions the validity of his assumptions. Which is an obvious question to ask.

I suspect that NIST got the same answer that reality found similarly due, in part, to the wrong reasons. My take on NIST's analysis is not so much that their work "proves" how the historical WTC7 building collapse started, but that a structure like WTC7 is indeed vulnerable to collapse when the heat of fires expands long steel spans. This finding alone, even without an actual collapse of the actual building as motivation, would justify changes to building codes. Does the NIST-scenario describe in all relevant detail how the actual collapse took place? I think we can't know this absent the physical evidence that truther like to cry over. At the same time, many a truther theory could not be validated, for the same reason. But at least NIST, and Enik, demonstrate that girder-walk off is a possibility that requires no assumption of additional, unproven entities such as explosives and incendiaries.


Enjoy your vacation!
 
Oystein said:
Does the NIST-scenario describe in all relevant detail how the actual collapse took place? I think we can't know this absent the physical evidence that truther like to cry over.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see you admit that NIST does not offer proof or a conclusive explanation for how WTC 7 collapsed.

On a second note, I think it's funny that you blame the Twoofies for crying for physical evidence, which you then admit would substantiate NIST's conclusions. It's not Twoofies who should be crying, it's anyone who expects a theory to be based on physical evidence.

This is a good example of how twisted these interminable discussions have become. You have made a call for evidence the domain of the stupid twoofies, when it's a basic requirement of skepticism and science.
 
RedIbis said:
I'm glad to see you admit that NIST does not offer proof or a conclusive explanation for how WTC 7 collapsed.

On a second note, I think it's funny that you blame the Twoofies for crying for physical evidence, which you then admit would substantiate NIST's conclusions. It's not Twoofies who should be crying, it's anyone who expects a theory to be based on physical evidence.
....
Click to expand...
Like theories about Larry making out like a bandit, for example.
 
RedIbis said:
...It's not Twoofies who should be crying, it's anyone who expects a theory to be based on physical evidence.
...
Click to expand...

Correct. The Twoofies shouldn't be crying. They should accept reality as it is: The physical evidence that they expect simply does not exist. Face it. No such physical evidence, for any collapse theory of WTC 7, is ever going to appear. Why? Well Twoofies know it already: It has been shipped and recycled!

So why should anyone expect "a theory to be based on physical evidence" when you already know such physical evidence does not, and will never, exist? This very demand is the crying that Twoofies such as you actually engage in.



Now suppose you get your new investigation. Suppose this new investigation comes up with an explanation that totally satisfies your wishes (Cheney asked Bush to order 1,000 tons of super-duper-nano-hush-a-booms; Larry Silverstein covered the insurance thing; ranking FDNY and NYPD provided cover; Loiseaux, Giuliani and Daniel Nigro personally commanded the army of midgets that planted all the hush-a-booms; Nigro called Silverstein, Silverstein said "pull it" and made out like bandid, WTC 7 fell into its footprint from explosive cutting of the core... lalalalala). Happy now? Yes? But wait - WHERE IS THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE??



So tell me, RedIbis: Will there ever be a theory better than NIST's in the regard that it will be supported by the sort physical evidence you are crying for? Yes, or No, RedIbis?



(dodge coming in 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...)
 
Oystein said:
Correct. The Twoofies shouldn't be crying. They should accept reality as it is: The physical evidence that they expect simply does not exist. Face it. No such physical evidence, for any collapse theory of WTC 7, is ever going to appear. Why? Well Twoofies know it already: It has been shipped and recycled!

So why should anyone expect "a theory to be based on physical evidence" when you already know such physical evidence does not, and will never, exist? This very demand is the crying that Twoofies such as you actually engage in.



Now suppose you get your new investigation. Suppose this new investigation comes up with an explanation that totally satisfies your wishes (Cheney asked Bush to order 1,000 tons of super-duper-nano-hush-a-booms; Larry Silverstein covered the insurance thing; ranking FDNY and NYPD provided cover; Loiseaux, Giuliani and Daniel Nigro personally commanded the army of midgets that planted all the hush-a-booms; Nigro called Silverstein, Silverstein said "pull it" and made out like bandid, WTC 7 fell into its footprint from explosive cutting of the core... lalalalala). Happy now? Yes? But wait - WHERE IS THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE??



So tell me, RedIbis: Will there ever be a theory better than NIST's in the regard that it will be supported by the sort physical evidence you are crying for? Yes, or No, RedIbis?



(dodge coming in 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...)
Click to expand...

You reek of desperation. So that's your argument, "Haha there's no physical evidence" Some argument. Well besides the fact that there probably is some steel and other things in existence, what about the Iron rich spheres? You know full well, besides a call to magic, there is no "natural" explanation for them. Just as you know the official story is impossible. You'll never admit it, but the truth is the truth. If you reply to this post at all you'll huff and puff and you might go on a long rant, but you won't really say anything, because you know there is nothing to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom