• 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.
Tony Szamboti said:
Either send your e-mail address in a PM or get it from someone willing to send theirs.

I have Ozeco's, Beachnut's, and Oystein's e-mail addresses. You can ask them to get it and have it sent to you if you don't want to divulge yours.
Click to expand...

How are the conclusions of NIST different inyour scenario? Can you prove it was controlled demo? Is that even your goal, our is your goal simply to show your audience how clever you are?
 
NoahFence said:
How are the conclusions of NIST different inyour scenario? Can you prove it was controlled demo? Is that even your goal, our is your goal simply to show your audience how clever you are?
Click to expand...

The NIST WTC 7 report claimed that the girder between columns 44 and 79 at the ceiling of floor 12 walked-off its bearing seat at column 79 initiating the collapse. Through drawing releases showing the actual configuration this has been determined to be an impossible scenario.

All I want is an explanation consistent with observation and within the range of possibilities. That is not what we have at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Some notes on Mr. Szamboti's spreadsheet.

The math appears to be correct. I think his estimate of the expansion based on the design parameters is actually somewhat high.

His assumptions, however, fail on two critical points.

First, the spreadsheet assumes that the girder has not yielded. This is not the case. The maximum moment on the girder, using the loads provided in the spreadsheet, is 1341 kip*ft. This exceeds the moment capacity of a 45' long unsupported W33x130. I can do the calculation if necessary tomorrow, or those that have it can take a look at the moment capacity charts in an AISC Manual of Steel Construction.

Second, the spreadsheet calculates the deflection of the beam with the equation:

5 * w * l 4 / (384 * E * I)

This equation calculates the deflection of a beam that has a uniformly distributed load. The girder in question does not have a uniformly distributed load. Very little of the concrete deck is supported directly by the girder. The floor beams support the deck. The girder supports floor beams. These floor beams place large point loads on the girder. This changes the equation.

These two points invalidate the spreadsheet as an estimate of the deflection of the girder.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
More pressure means more range. The material blown from the front of the LSC has a significantly greater range than the omnidirectional components.

Sword of Truth did try to say they were equal.
Click to expand...

I said no such thing. Why do you keep lying like this?

I stated that the energy released from any portion of the explosive is the same as any similar portion of the explosive regardless of whether it is on the inside of the indentation facing the target or the backside facing empty space (or the windows of WTC7).

When a molecule of C4, RDX, Tritonal or any other explosive energetically breaks down, it will always release the same energy regardless of where the other molecules are in relation to it.
 
Oystein said:
That all makes sense, but isn't what I was getting at.

All I am saying is:
- The number and total mass of charges used for real controlled demolitions is larger than what you need at least for mere destruction.
- Also, that these numbers don't necessarily scale in a straightforward way with building size. If a building rests on 4 columns, you need only 2 charges to make it collapse completely, no matter if its 10 stories tall or 100.

You go beyond that by pointing out some of the objectives and constraints that the Twoofers' imaginary demolishers must have had, that are not the same as those that real CD companies have, and that also tend to increase the number and total mass of charges.

Just cautioning you to take CD references and claim this is what you need.
Click to expand...

I think that the truthers use "CONTROLLED demolition" as a rhetorical device. The whole point of controlled demolition, as opposed to plain demolition, is to minimize risk of damage to surrounding structures.

Controlled demolitions don't all look the same. There have been controlled demolitions where they toppled the building, since there was nothing to one side. Was the Vast Conspiracy so "GOP" that while they had no qualms about murdering thousands, but had a hard time with the thought of destroying property?
 
DGM said:
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)

;)
Click to expand...

There's a noticeable delay between the video and the audio in the first and the second shots of the demolition, more so in first shot. Different distances.

Oh, did you notice all the dust? Must have been tons of nano-thermite. Or maybe it was from the building hitting the ground.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If you had read through this thread you would see clearly that it has been shown that the NIST girder walk-off scenario is impossible.

...

What a BS artist you are.
Click to expand...

Tony, not only have you violated membership guidelines by attacking me personally, but you also are completely off-base and incorrect. The derail is about the hypothetical use of explosive charges which you claim (without any data) would not have broken windows or been detected on videos, for example.
Obviously none of those things were observed, but as I referenced, NIST did in fact study this line of thought, professionally. That is, they conducted a thorough investigation, something YOU have not even attempted to do. Again, I find that very lazy on your part, even though you may not like to have your 'work' categorized that way.

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Appendix D 'Hypothetical Blast Scenarios', p 693

Please refer in future to p 704 figures D11 and D12, and provide a suitable alternative analysis when you have one.

But please refrain from making further unsubstantiated claims. Some people may consider you to be dishonest if you don't stop. I backed up my comment with a published study, what about you?

Got anything apart from more violations of the membership agreement?
 
Tony's recent claim:
Tony Szamboti said:
If you had read through this thread you would see clearly that it has been shown that the NIST girder walk-off scenario is impossible.
Click to expand...


Earlier in this thread:
tfk said:
This analysis has multiple sources of non-linear behavior. It can only be solved accurately & reliably by using non-linear FEA methods.
Click to expand...


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:

Enik said:
It doesn’t look good. As can be seen, the girder walked off the seat on Column 79.
Click to expand...
I haven't followed the details, but perhaps the posters here in this thread are interested.
Click to expand...
(I asked Oystein for the link that he forgot to include and it's here: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/girder-walk-off-between-column-79-and-44-t650-15.html )

With this caveat by Ozeco:
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.
Click to expand...

​


Tony Szamboti said:
What a BS artist you are.
Click to expand...
:i:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST WTC 7 report claimed that the girder between columns 44 and 79 at the ceiling of floor 12 walked-off its bearing seat at column 79 initiating the collapse. Through drawing releases showing the actual configuration this has been determined to be an impossible scenario.

All I want is an explanation consistent with observation and within the range of possibilities. That is not what we have at the moment.
Click to expand...


Fire made WTC 7 collapse. It doesn't matter precicely WHERE it ultimately failed. Nothing you or anybody else with an agenda has even come close to hinting that you may be even thinking about proving otherwise.

Truthers = FAILURES. In life, in everything they do.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

As Ryan Mackey pointed out, along with video of a live weapons test, the pressure needed to tear through steel is eightteen thousand times what is needed to break a window. You have failed refused to show that the energy would have disapated that much in the time and distance between WTC7s structural columns and its windows.

And here's another inconvenient truth for you:

Throughout the 1930s, structural explosive demolition was overseen by engineers working directly for large dynamite manufacturers. Their goal was not necessarily to implode buildings, but to find new and innovative ways to sell more blasting products. They soon realized that in order to use dynamite near populated areas with consistency, they would have to limit the effects of flying debris. So they began experimenting with various types of "protective measures."

It was during this era that wooden boards were first placed in front of adjacent windows, and demolition contractors began parking company trucks around their projects' perimeters to shield nearby exposures.​

The demolition industry has been taking precautions against something you swear doesn't exist for more than 80 years.

How do you explain that, Tony?

What do you think that they have known for almost a century that you don't?

Tony Szamboti said:
So you will lose that argument every time.
Click to expand...

I haven't lost the first time yet. In fact the information I provided has been confirmed by a military explosives expert and a rocket scientist.

That's far from "losing" by any sane and reasonable definition of the word.
 
ozeco41 said:
Yes. I didn't think of those - Ryan spoke of the Artillery/Armour stuff - HESH, HEAT, APDS and all those other acronyms. I've never played with them but being a sapper I have used shaped charges for dems training. And the Claymore is standard Infantry Grunt stuff - in the Aussie Army through my time we tended to use a lot of US gear due to our involvement in Vietnam. But the basic engineers demolition methods and gear tended to be British origin - little changed from WW2.
Click to expand...

What would really frost Tonys flakes is that I first learned how shaped charges work from the manual for Microproses "M1 Tank Platoon"*. Even the instruction booklet for a quarter century old video game knows more than he does. :D


*Not quite as crazy as it first sounds, the manuals for Microproses military sims of the late 80s'/early 90's were by themselves works of art. The manual for M1 Tank Platoon alone weighed in at 200 pages. 120+ of which was a detailed overview of modern armor/anti-armor tactics and technology, a history of the evolution of armored fighting vehicle design, vehicle identification guide, and the organizational structure and battle doctrines of the US and Soviet armies. Had it not come in a computer game box, it would have easily take a place on the bookshelves of most military enthusiasts.

Sadly... they don't make 'em like that anymore.
 
I noticed that everyone here ignored the indisputable proof that NIST committed [at least] two frauds to make their walk-off work.

1) NIST said the seat was 11" wide but the plans clearly show it was 1' 0"

2) NIST omitted the stiffeners, clearly shown on the plans.

These are not "innocent" mistakes.
 
Christopher7 said:
2) NIST omitted the stiffeners, clearly shown on the plans.
Click to expand...

Ah, the "magic 3/4" stiffeners" that would protect the girder from all harm. Anything like your "magic moment frames" ?

p.s. why doesn't drawing 9114 show the top flange stiffener in the elevation view? Just curious.
 
GlennB said:
Ah, the "magic 3/4" stiffeners" that would protect the girder from all harm. Anything like your "magic moment frames" ?

p.s. why doesn't drawing 9114 show the top flange stiffener in the elevation view? Just curious.
Click to expand...
What part of "omitted" don't you understand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom