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

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

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.

It's been more than two weeks, Tony, and you still haven't responded to this.

You still have no way of explaining how 90% of the windows on the north side of WTC7 were able to survive the simultaneous detonation of several thousand explosive charges.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It's been more than two weeks, Tony, and you still haven't responded to this.

You still have no way of explaining how 90% of the windows on the north side of WTC7 were able to survive the simultaneous detonation of several thousand explosive charges.

The shock wave from the charge would have been expanding from the point of detonation and the column face was pointed in the direction of the four blown out windows. Your claim that I am somehow wrong because it isn't perfectly conical due to the linear shape of the charge is laughable.

 

[beachnut]

The shock wave from the charge would have been expanding from the point of detonation and the column face was pointed in the direction of the four blown out windows. Your claim that I am somehow wrong because it isn't perfectly conical due to the linear shape of the charge is laughable.

There were no charges. That ends your claims. No noise. No blast damage. No joy. Your delusions on 911 are simple nonsense.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have received numerous accusations of being a traitor, a Zionist shill, and more.

One of the instances of harrassment that I recall involved a truther demanding information about my background and associations and motivations.

It happened right here on JREF.

Sources:

• Tony Szamboti
• Carlitos
• Tony Szamboti
• Tony Szamboti
• Carlitos
• W. D. Clinger

The most humorous was one loon shouting in full caps in an e-mail that "WEIGHT IS NOT A FORCE!!!!"

Oh well.

All I can say is that if you consider it some form of harassment to be asked what you actually do for a living, since you are only a part-time professor, it is a wonder you ever left home. You are clearly not on the level with your bogus analysis of the towers and to act like you have been offended by people asking about your background is a joke. Right in this post you show why that can't be true, when you use ad hominem comments.

 

[beachnut]

All I can say is that if you consider it some form of harassment to be asked what you actually do for a living, since you are only a part-time professor, it is a wonder you ever left home. You are clearly not on the level with your bogus analysis of the towers and to act like you have been offended by people asking about your background is a joke. Right in this post you show why that can't be true, when you use ad hominem comments.

It is a sign you can't do rational research; you provided the evidence. You are attacking yourself. Is that against the rules?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It is a sign you can't do rational research; you provided the evidence. You are attacking yourself. Is that against the rules?

How is the peanut gallery doing these days there Beachbut? You seem busy.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

All I can say is that if you consider it some form of harassment to be asked what you actually do for a living, since you are only a part-time professor, it is a wonder you ever left home.

You weren't asking Mark Roberts what he did for a living when you accused him of being a jew.

 

[ergo]

Sword of Truth's second favourite hobby is accusing Tony of being a Nazi. It's funny, really. My guess is, if you did a count, you'd find 10 - 1 more references to "joos" by these so-called debunkers than by truthers. They're kind of obsessed with it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The shock wave from the charge would have been expanding from the point of detonation and the column face was pointed in the direction of the four blown out windows.

You don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about Tony, this after I even drew you a picture. I expect to have to dumb things down for people like SpringHallConvert and Clayton Moore (like describing the mass of a building in numbers of battleships), but as an actual engineer, someone who should be able to understand these things, your ignorance is inexcusable.

Here it is again, try to keep up this time:

If I have one chunk of explosives shaped like this:

Glass on all sides will be shattered when it detonates.

If I have another chunk shaped like this:

Again, window glass on all sides will be shattered by the explosion.

Now if I put the two together:

Viola! I have a shaped charge. Blast waves on the indented side will merge and form a much stronger wave, blast waves from the other side will remain at their original strength.

Now... Mr. Szamboti... what will happen to plain old window glass on the side of the charge with the blast energy marked in blue?

Your claim that I am somehow wrong because it isn't perfectly conical due to the linear shape of the charge is laughable.

You are wrong because you don't know how shaped charges work. Even after it's been explained to you.

Here is a real-world example:

This is Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc, holding a shaped charge used to sever steel columns and bring down major structures (taken from the BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files:The Third Tower"). Like in my diagrams above, the path of the blast energy is marked on both sides.

As Loizeaux explains in his interview, the lack of damage to windows both in WTC7 and the nearby buildings is a dead giveaway that there were no explosives inside WTC7.

No broken windows = no bombs.

Get it?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sword of Truth's second favourite hobby is accusing Tony of being a Nazi. It's funny, really.

I enjoy being a layperson and taking an allegedly qualified engineer to the woodshed even more. It's quite gratifying. His antisemtism is merely peripheral.

 

[alienentity]

I always wondered why they removed the glass from buildings before setting off the explosives.....

Besides, it would have been kinda difficult to severe all the exterior columns of WTC 7 simultaneously, as truthers claim, without some clear artifacts such as normally seen at controlled demolitions.
Nevermind the windows were still intact even as the building started to fall.
Nevermind there were no explosions as it fell.

How do truthers continue to fail so badly at this?

 

[Christopher7]

Besides, it would have been kinda difficult to severe all the exterior columns of WTC 7 simultaneously, as truthers claim, without some clear artifacts such as normally seen at controlled demolitions.

Really? In fact, you have no idea what kind of devices could be invented to do a clandestine demo without leaving tell tail signs. Furthermore, the debris was haulled away as fast as possible and cameras were not allowed. FEMA was only given a walk thru inspection. Even if there were devices found, the workers could have been told do shut up or else. If you think that doesn't happen you are very naive. The government has a history of doing just that. Google USS Liberty.

Nevermind the windows were still intact even as the building started to fall.

You forget that the demo took place on the lower floors behind a smoke screen.

Nevermind there were no explosions as it fell.

Yes there were but everyone was kept back 8 or 9 blocks. Reporters mics don't pick up explosions very well. Your whole "no boom-boom" is a farce.

This reporter heard an explosion but his microphone didn't pick it up. Do you hear an explosion?
[FONT=&quot]http://nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com/9-11_11am_Jeff_Rossen.wmv[/FONT]

 

[ozeco41]

You don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about Tony, this after I even drew you a picture. I expect to have to dumb things down for people like SpringHallConvert and Clayton Moore (like describing the mass of a building in numbers of battleships), but as an actual engineer, someone who should be able to understand these things, your ignorance is inexcusable....

I know the feeling.

Congratulations on one of the most effective and simple explanations I have seen posted.

Yes, it is sad that denialism drives even the few qualified engineers who are besotted with 9/11 crap to the detriment of any rational thinking.

...As Loizeaux explains in his interview, the lack of damage to windows both in WTC7 and the nearby buildings is a dead giveaway that there were no explosives inside WTC7.

No broken windows = no bombs.

Get it?

Most of us - engineers or not - got it a long time ago. It is sad that you still need to point out the obvious.

 

[ozeco41]

Any chance of this thread getting back on topic????

There are two levels of debate:
1) At the level of detail where several members led by tfk have shown where Tony is wrong in detail; AND
2) At the level of overall logic where I (with some acknowledged support) have shown that Tony has not proved his false claim that the NIST explanation is impossible.

It would need a cynic to suggest that C7 is playing tag team for Tony who has run away from the level "2)" debate. And to keep the pressure off Tony C7 is following his standard tactic of keeping discussion focussed on details and going round in circles.

Since I'm not a cynic I won't make that comment....

 

[Christopher7]

Any chance of this thread getting back on topic????

There are two levels of debate:
1) At the level of detail where several members led by tfk have shown where Tony is wrong in detail;

No, some people claiming to be experts talked a lot of techno-babble but no one produced a spreadsheet to show how much the beams would sag. Prove he is wrong with data or stop claiming he is.

2) At the level of overall logic where I (with some acknowledged support) have shown that Tony has not proved his false claim that the NIST explanation is impossible.

Logic? No Just talk, no data.

It would need a cynic to suggest that C7 is playing tag team for Tony who has run away from the level "2)" debate. And to keep the pressure off Tony C7 is following his standard tactic of keeping discussion focussed on details and going round in circles.

You guys are the merry-go-round experts. None of you knows how to calculate how much the beams would sag so you try to bury that fact with a lot of bombastic verbiage.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You don't have a bloody clue what you're talking about Tony, this after I even drew you a picture. I expect to have to dumb things down for people like SpringHallConvert and Clayton Moore (like describing the mass of a building in numbers of battleships), but as an actual engineer, someone who should be able to understand these things, your ignorance is inexcusable.

Here it is again, try to keep up this time:

If I have one chunk of explosives shaped like this:
[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/Shapedchargetop.jpg[/qimg]
Glass on all sides will be shattered when it detonates.

If I have another chunk shaped like this:
[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/Shapedchargebottom.jpg[/qimg]
Again, window glass on all sides will be shattered by the explosion.

Now if I put the two together:
[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/Shapedchargecomplete.jpg[/qimg]
Viola! I have a shaped charge. Blast waves on the indented side will merge and form a much stronger wave, blast waves from the other side will remain at their original strength.

Now... Mr. Szamboti... what will happen to plain old window glass on the side of the charge with the blast energy marked in blue?



You are wrong because you don't know how shaped charges work. Even after it's been explained to you.

Here is a real-world example:
[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/MarkLoizeauxholdingshapedcharge-B.jpg[/qimg]
This is Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc, holding a shaped charge used to sever steel columns and bring down major structures (taken from the BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files:The Third Tower"). Like in my diagrams above, the path of the blast energy is marked on both sides.

As Loizeaux explains in his interview, the lack of damage to windows both in WTC7 and the nearby buildings is a dead giveaway that there were no explosives inside WTC7.

No broken windows = no bombs.

Get it?

The shock wave from a directional device is orders of magnitude greater in the direction designed for. Windows were broken on a face that was parallel to two faces of column 79 and I have shown that. You are trying to refute that with the simplistic and enormous leap that windows on all sides would have to be broken. That would require quantification, which you have not done. It is incredible that you would have the nerve to declare victory without doing so, as you essentially have no argument without quantification.

On the other hand, my argument has merit on the directionality issue alone.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The shock wave from a directional device is orders of magnitude greater in the direction designed for. Windows were broken on a face that was parallel to two faces of column 79 and I have shown that. You are trying to refute that with the simplistic and enormous leap that windows on all sides would have to be broken. That would require quantification, which you have not done. It is incredible that you would have the nerve to declare victory without doing so, as you essentially have no argument without quantification.

On the other hand, my argument has merit on the directionality issue alone.

As opposed to your even bigger leap that they would not have? Why does he have to quantify something which you have not?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

All I can say is that if you consider it some form of harassment to be asked what you actually do for a living, since you are only a part-time professor, it is a wonder you ever left home. You are clearly not on the level with your bogus analysis of the towers and to act like you have been offended by people asking about your background is a joke. Right in this post you show why that can't be true, when you use ad hominem comments.

If you consider "harassment" an ad hominem term, perhaps you could suggest another word for describing your behavior? What word would be acceptable to you? Badgering? Pestering? Annoying? Hectoring? Provocation? Heckling? Baiting?

A question for you - the highlighted portion of your statement is false, as you should have learned on 28th August 2010, 11:56 AM , when I answered your questions about my employment.

Are you just forgetful? Did you even bother to read my answer to your demands for information? Or, are you lying about me on purpose?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Tony was able to find all the necessary info and do a spreadsheet on sagging vs expansion. Don't demand that I spoon feed you.

It is axiomatic that the floor beams will sag at temperatures over 600^oC. Do a spreadsheet showing how much if you know how. Gerrycan did one without my help.

Find all the necessary information to what? You've given a vague problem and refused to answer my request for more information. If you'd like a solution, you're going to have to provide that information.

I've already shown I can do the math. And here's a thread showing that Mr. Szamboti doesn't understand the basic concepts of structural engineering.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If you consider "harassment" an ad hominem term, perhaps you could suggest another word for describing your behavior? What word would be acceptable to you? Badgering? Pestering? Annoying? Hectoring? Provocation? Heckling? Baiting?

A question for you - the highlighted portion of your statement is false, as you should have learned on 28th August 2010, 11:56 AM , when I answered your questions about my employment.

Are you just forgetful? Did you even bother to read my answer to your demands for information? Or, are you lying about me on purpose?

I will accept that your full-time position is that of a university researcher, which I did not know when I originally asked the question.

However, you really are acting like an overly sensitive cry baby, who doesn't like it when they are called to task, which is incredible considering the things you call others and in light of the clear bogusness of your analysis.

It is incredible that you are sticking to it when it is clear that you simply back substituted decelerations and durations to make up for the difference between David Chandler's actual measurements and freefall of the North Tower's upper section. Your analysis is shown to be bogus because it doesn't consider column energy dissipation which is required in addition to inertial resistance and is in fact a much larger energy drain.