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

[Newtons Bit]

There also is no way to cause 20 inches of deflection on the girder between column 79 and 44 the way you show it. The deflection at 500 degrees C for this girder with the load on it would have been more like 2 inches.

Try again.

Citation needed.

 

[ozeco41]

If I had a dollar for every @#$%ing time he repeats "2.25 seconds of freefall" ad nauseam, I'd be driving a Ferrari, married to Jessica Simpson and cheating with Scarlett Johansen.

I would stay with:
A) My Subaru; AND
B) Mrs Ozeco who I have been trying to train for 52 years. (Unsuccessfully )

 

[Clayton Moore]

Even if there could have been a shaped charge, it still would take thousands of charges to bring down WTC 7, according to our woodshed friend. Just cutting col. 79 wouldn't do it.

Oh, wait a minute...

But fall down would. You gotta love their duhbunking nonsense.

You couldn't possibly use some sort of advanced technology to completely demolish three huge skyscrapers in less than about 20 seconds each but they could collapse and completely demolish themselves in less than 20 seconds each.

 

[BasqueArch]

You left something out. The girder between column 76 and 79 would have buckled before it could even push column 79 a half inch to the east.

1. "a half inch" - You made this up didn't you.
“The temperature of the girder between Columns 76 and 79 on Floor 13 was sufficient to displace Column 76 to the west and Column 79 to the east.” (NCSTAR 1-9 p527). They didn't say how much , but you accepted 1" in in your previous post so I showed it thus.

2. Col 79 had lost bracing and therefore stiffness over a number of adjacent floors.

3. Column 79 was not braced to the east. Girder 76 to 79 was braced to resist lateral buckling during expansion by the floor beams near perpendicular to it.

There also is no way to cause 20 inches of deflection on the girder between column 79 and 44 the way you show it. The deflection at 500 degrees C for this girder with the load on it would have been more like 2 inches.
Try again.

1.

BA: Any girder deflection would place the girder load at the tip of the cantilevered seat.

2. I bet for deflection you forgot to consider that the girder was unrestrained.
The rest of my post remains unrefuted.
Try again.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

1. "a half inch" - You made this up didn't you.
“The temperature of the girder between Columns 76 and 79 on Floor 13 was sufficient to displace Column 76 to the west and Column 79 to the east.” (NCSTAR 1-9 p527). They didn't say how much , but you accepted 1" in in your previous post so I showed it thus.

2. Col 79 had lost bracing and therefore stiffness over a number of adjacent floors.

3. Column 79 was not braced to the east. Girder 76 to 79 was braced to resist lateral buckling during expansion by the floor beams near perpendicular to it.

1. 2. I bet for deflection you forgot to consider that the girder was unrestrained.
The rest of my post remains unrefuted.
Try again.

NIST tries to say the west side girders framing into column 79 at floors 10, 11, and 12 had their knife connections broken by the girder on floor 13 expanding and deflecting column 79 to the east. That would be the girder you need to push the column, because they say there wasn't enough temperature at floor 12 on the west side girder. The deflection at the point of the force at floor 13 would be significantly greater than the deflection 13 feet away. My deflection calculation was with several stories unrestrained. I think I was saying to TFK that it wouldn't be more than an inch based on rough numbers, when he tried to use the west side girders for an additional movement. When I did the actual calculation it turned out to be even less.

My calculation for the deflection of the W33 x 130 girder between columns 44 and 79 was with its bolts broken and just simply supported.

I haven't seen any calculations for the figures you came up with. Did you perform calculations or are you merely taking a guess here?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sloppy wording from a website whose author likely wasn't expecting crazy people to use his work to justify chasing phantoms through Dick Cheneys sock drawer. The focus point of a shaped charge receives the most energy of any point in its vicinity, it does not receive most of the energy from the explosive. It's a subtle change that makes a world of difference.

Your claim that there is virtually no backscatter from a shaped charge is still basically career suicide (potential employers know how to use google, you should be more careful).

Your hallucinatory shaped charge on column 79 would have blown out every gawdamn window on the floor it was on. No ifs, ands or butts. The hundreds of other charges (as per Oysteins suggestion) would have blown out all the rest.

No broken windows = No bombs.

Period.

The bottom line is really that the pressure and velocity of the ejection from the liner side of the shaped charge is much greater than the omnidirectional pressure and velocity. That is the whole basis for doing a shaped charge. So you will lose that argument every time.

The four broken windows on the north face about eight to ten floors down were right in a path normal to the north and south faces of column 79 and could have feasibly been broken by the liner side forces and particulate matter of a shaped charge, while the much lower omnidirectional pressures could have feasibly decayed to well below the pressure needed to break windows before getting to them.

To be emphatic about it you would need to show what the omnidirectional pressures were, what their decay rate is, and that there would still be enough pressure by the time it got to the windows. You haven't done that and are simply making a bold assertion.

I am using the directional and pressure differences between the front (liner side) and the back and sides of the charge to make my case and in my opinion there is more to that than what you have said thus far.

 

[DGM]

The bottom line is really that the pressure and velocity of the ejection from the liner side of the shaped charge is much greater than the omnidirectional pressure and velocity. That is the whole basis for doing a shaped charge. So you will lose that argument every time.

The four broken windows on the north face about eight to ten floors down were right in a path normal to the north and south faces of column 79 and could have feasibly been broken by the liner side forces and particulate matter of a shaped charge, while the much lower omnidirectional pressures could have feasibly decayed to well below the pressure needed to break windows before getting to them.

Too bad there was no one video taping in the area to record this.

 

[DGM]

Interesting thing in this video, You can hear the charges but, can't here the building itself collapse.



(I was there, the camera was likely 1/2 mile away)

 

[000063]

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.

You missed one.

...
The only people I have ever seen reject this question are those doing something illegal or embarassing and anonymous individuals who defend the present highly questionable official explanation of what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
...

At which point it becomes clear what Tony is trying to imply. Of course, if he's never asked the question of Truthers, it obviously can never be rejected by them.

 

[000063]

The three WTC buildings had been built and therefore prepared for and protected from your gravity for decades.

Were WTC 1 and 2 prepared to have a jet plane that didn't exist until after they were built fly into them at full speed? Was 7 prepared to have bits of WTC 1 fall on it after impact and fire damage from the aforementioned airplanes? I'd be very surprised if they did!

It's not his gravity. It's everyone's gravity.

 

[DGM]

The three WTC buildings had been built and therefore prepared for and protected from your gravity for decades.

Are you under a different kind of gravity? That could explain a few things.

 

[000063]

A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, even lighter after fires, crushes a much stronger 1/3 and then crushes the bottom 1/3 which is even stronger. At what point does the gravity driven 1/3 destroy itself? Each contact would have to deplete hit and hitter equally.

False. The top sections hit with several times their own weight, well outside of any dynamic load the entire building could take even if it were perfectly intact.

The hitter would lose force upon each contact.

How much does the ball slow the bat?

The gravity nonsense of the lightest 1/3 of a building pushing through the rest of the building and pulverizing much of the entire building in less than 20 seconds is pure insanity.

Yes, we know, blind incredulity. Get a new shtick.

You could probably drop the the upper 1/3 from 50 feet and you wouldn't get a like result.

I'd like to see some, y'know, evidence backing this up. Or any evidence backing it up. Whatsoever.

 

[000063]

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.

The assertion is that the shockwave would be more or less the same in the other directions as it would be without the shaped charge, and thus shaping the charge would have only a negligible effect on whether they blow out the windows. Specifically, no effect. I even specifically posted a video of a shaped charge and pointed out that the explosion was not unidirectional, and the container was also obliterated.

And, of course, the "linear" charge would be parallel to the windows, yet it didn't even blow them out consistently, or at a consistent interval. Almost as if it were random damage from the building buckling.

I'm not convinced about who was taken to the woodshed.

Of course not, or you would've stopped posting out of embarrassment long ago.

http://historywarsweapons.com/shaped-charge/
http://www.csafe.utah.edu/gallery.php?year=2008&title=Shaped Charge


MM

Yes, we know. Several people with manifestly more knowledge of the subject than you or Tony have been correcting him for some time now. Or at least, trying to. I even posted multiple videos, which were ignored.

Hi Ryan.

You are being speculative in much the same way Sword of Truth is. The pressure at a distance follows the inverse square law and is nowhere near the values you gave even a short distance away as it decays rapidly.

Prove it.

This is why cluster bombs are used with each having its own charge. The comparison of the omnidirectional blast of the RPG in a tiny trailer is hardly comparable to some form of linear shaped charge on column 79 in WTC 7.

No, it is comparable, in that both are shaped, directional, charges, no matter whether you sneak "linear" into the definition or not.

The omnidirectional components of the linear shaped charge would be significantly less than the directional component and could have easily decayed to a less than capable of breaking windows value well before reaching any windows from column 79.

Prove it. With actual math. Literally every piece of evidence produced on the matter has proved you wrong, including videos of actual shaped charges.

Sword of Truth is making an unsupported statement by insisting any charge on column 79 would break all of the windows in the vicinity.

He said without a trace of irony.

I honestly don't know how he/she can be congratulating him/herself here after erroneously claiming that the force in a linear shaped charge is the same in all directions, in an attempt to justify his/her unsupported claim that there couldn't have been a shaped charge on column 79 as it would have blown out all of the windows in the vicinity.

He's not. He's claiming the shaped portion only concentrates the force in the direction its aimed at, while the rest is unaffected. The fact that there are even two non-adjacent windows not broken from what's supposedly the same shockwave itself disproves your claim.

I note you've been reduced to talking to people about your opponents instead of actually refuting them. You and Ergo will get along like a skyscraper on fire.

 

[000063]

But fall down would. You gotta love their duhbunking nonsense.

Part of the NIST story is that the rest of the building was also weakened by the fire, which is why it collapsed after 79 failed. Cutting 79 under normal conditions? Nah. With the fire damage? Goodbye.

You couldn't possibly use some sort of advanced technology to completely demolish three huge skyscrapers in less than about 20 seconds each but they could collapse and completely demolish themselves in less than 20 seconds each.

Appeal to magic, straw man.

Note how Ergo ignored the question of whether he thinks 79 failing alone would've been sufficient.

The bottom line is really that the pressure and velocity of the ejection from the liner side of the shaped charge is much greater than the omnidirectional pressure and velocity. That is the whole basis for doing a shaped charge. So you will lose that argument every time.

You mean that argument you have provided absolutely no evidence for?

The four broken windows on the north face about eight to ten floors down were right in a path normal to the north and south faces of column 79 and could have feasibly been broken by the liner side forces and particulate matter of a shaped charge, while the much lower omnidirectional pressures could have feasibly decayed to well below the pressure needed to break windows before getting to them.

I'm noticing a lot of "if". Prove your claims. You are aware that explosions are not linear, right? If you hide around the corner from an explosion, you can still be killed by it.

To be emphatic about it you would need to show what the omnidirectional pressures were, what their decay rate is, and that there would still be enough pressure by the time it got to the windows. You haven't done that and are simply making a bold assertion.

Said the hypocrite.

I am using the directional and pressure differences between the front (liner side) and the back and sides of the charge to make my case and in my opinion there is more to that than what you have said thus far.

Your opinion is worthless without facts, which you refuse to provide. For all your whining about SOT's claims--which he has backed up--you keep making counterclaims without providing any evidence whatsoever, most notably your nonsense about how the explosion wouldn't have had enough power to blow the windows.

 

[twinstead]

I'm appreciating the mental gymnastics requited to attempt to prove explosives when there is absolutely no evidence of them, but after a while it just gets old. I guess once somebody gets it in his mind that the collapses as described in the commonly-held narrative were impossible, no matter if it is a rational belief or not, he's kind of stuck having to prove something else happened without leaving any evidence.

It must be a mind blower.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So what exactly is the problem with the girder walking off the connection?

 

[DGM]

So what exactly is the problem with the girder walking off the connection?

It requires 35 pixies and none were seen.

 

[BasqueArch]

.....
My calculation for the deflection of the W33 x 130 girder between columns 44 and 79 was with its bolts broken and just simply supported.

I haven't seen any calculations for the figures you came up with. Did you perform calculations or are you merely taking a guess here?

Deflection of heated girders without fixed ends >> deflection of heated girders with fixed ends.

 

[BasqueArch]

So what exactly is the problem with the girder walking off the connection?

It's a political problem.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It's a political problem.

I meant the engineering problem.