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

[carlitos]

The entire exterior came down even with the horizon and you want to say it wasn't symmetric?

The entire exterior did not fall symmetrically. You know this.

Posted in this very thread:

gerrycan,

In your video you say that WTC7 was a total, symmetrical collapse.

Ii that true?

If you believe that, please explain how the east penthouse collapsing first into the building, progressing west, then followed by the facade collapsing constitutes a "symmetrical" collapse.

---

I was responding to Tony's now-edited post which said "how do you define symmetric" and wrote the words below. His habit of editing his posts is annoying as hell.

I use English terms as they are commonly defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry

 

[carlitos]

Unfortunately, I think it is sour grapes starting to show with certain individuals. This argument is over, in the sense that it has been clearly shown that the NIST collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 is not viable.

So why lie about it then? If it's been clearly shown, let the facts speak. Don't lie about obviously visible things like "symmetrical" collapses.

And, for ****'s sake, please stop editing your posts. The last one changed twice while I responded. Do you have some weird OCD thing going on?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The entire exterior came down even with the horizon.

No, it didn't.

Fiterman Hall would still be there and Verizon's insurers would have an extra 1.4 billion in the bank if it did.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So why lie about it then? If it's been clearly shown, let the facts speak. Don't lie about obviously visible things like "symmetrical" collapses.

And, for ****'s sake, please stop editing your posts. The last one changed twice while I responded. Do you have some weird OCD thing going on?

I am certainly not lying about anything. It has been shown and it is telling that all you want to do is carp that it hasn't, and claim that those you don't agree with are lying about things, all the while providing no reasonable evidence or argument to the contrary.

If you don't like edits while you are replying wait a while before doing so. I would have no idea that you are replying so quickly. However, that does give me an idea of why your posts don't have much import.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, it didn't.

Fiterman Hall would still be there and Verizon's insurers would have an extra 1.4 billion in the bank if it did.

In general I am talking about the visible first 18 stories of the collapse. Does that meet your symmetric and even with the horizon criteria?

Some are now nitpicking semantically on insignificant issues. I don't have time for that.

 

[carlitos]

LOL. "It fell symmetrically for the first 10 or 18 stories, but as it rotated and fell across 2 different streets and crushed buildings, which wasn't symmetrical, we'll call it fully symmetric collapse of the exterior.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#goalposts


Sure, Tony - you can have that. I concede. Your personal, unique definition of symmetrical has been met. Congrats. Please resume fleecing the gullible.

Speaking of which, you never answered - of the $400k that Gage pulls in, what is your take?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

LOL. "It fell symmetrically for the first 10 or 18 stories, but as it rotated and fell across 2 different streets and crushed buildings, which wasn't symmetrical, we'll call it fully symmetric collapse of the exterior.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#goalposts


Sure, Tony - you can have that. I concede. Your personal, unique definition of symmetrical has been met. Congrats. Please resume fleecing the gullible.

Speaking of which, you never answered - of the $400k that Gage pulls in, what is your take?

The building did not rotate southward until it had come down for about half of its fall. So your argument is not germane to my point.

I have never made one dollar from my study of the issues surrounding the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 and to imply that I have done what I have for money and would lie about things for that purpose is tending down a path of slander.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm just reserving this spot in the thread so I can respond here later, after Tony Szamboti is done editing his post immediately above.

ETA: I waited because Tony Szamboti suggested I do so:

If you don't like edits while you are replying wait a while before doing so.

Now that his two-hour edit window has expired, compare post #2544:

I am certainly not lying about anything.

with post #2547:

I have never made one dollar from my study of the issues surrounding the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 and to imply that I have done what I have for money and would lie about things for that purpose is tending down a path of slander.

If I recall correctly, the phrase I highlighted was not part of post #2547 until he edited that post.

I'm not suggesting the highlighted phrase is significant in any way. I'm just saying the highlighted phrase gave me a chuckle.

 

[carlitos]

I have never made one dollar from my study of the issues surrounding the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 and to imply that I have done what I have for money and would lie about things for that purpose is tending down a path of slander.

Just askin' questions, bro. Just askin' questions.

On edit - You misspelled "nine buildings" above. Your "nine" looks like a "three."

 

[Newtons Bit]

Calculating the expansion or sag is not exact and three decimal places are not necessary [but normal for engineers]. But that in no way invalidates gerrycan's and Tony's calculations.

Tony's calc is invalid because he uses an elastic equation for deflection even though the beam has buckled.

The calculations by jerrycan and Tony give a reasonably accurate estimate of the expansion and sag.

No they don't. They're completely wrong.

 

[Christopher7]

Tony's calc is invalid because he uses an elastic equation for deflection even though the beam has buckled.

The NIST hypothesis says the beams expanded but did not buckle. You are referring to the preliminary test to establish the shear studs breaking.

Table 10-1 in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 says that the floor beams in the NE part of floor 13 did not exceed 600^oC.

The calculations by jerrycan and Tony give a reasonably accurate estimate of the expansion and sag.

No they don't. They're completely wrong.

You glibly say they are wrong but offer nothing to prove that. Calculate the expansion and sag or stop making that baseless accusation.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

In general I am talking about the visible first 18 stories of the collapse.

So you're claiming the building came down symmetrically... except for the part didn't?

Some are now nitpicking semantically on insignificant issues.

More than half the building isn't significant? WTF?

 

[Oystein]

The building did not rotate southward until it had come down for about half of its fall. So your argument is not germane to my point.

I have never made one dollar from my study of the issues surrounding the collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 and to imply that I have done what I have for money and would lie about things for that purpose is tending down a path of slander.

The early visible collapse action, the penthouses, weren't symmetrical.
The north wall developed a kink off-center horizontally early on. That wasn's symmetric.
NE and NW corner fell at different times and rates initially. That wasn't symmetric.
The debris wasn't distributed symmetrically, damage done to neighboring buildings wasn't distributed symmetrically.
Etc.

The entire claim of "symmetry" is nonsense, bogus, useless, and simply FALSE.

It is a lie perpetuated by AE911T for 5 years now. Will the lies ever stop, Tony? Why do you associate with liars, and why do you repeat their stupid lies so happily? Why, Tony?


And while we are at it: There are some more lies:
- The implied claim that CD and natural collapse differ substantially in the degree of "symmetry"
- The FALSE claim that WTC7 exhibited "rapid onset of collapse"
- The FALSE claim that rapid onset of collapse is typical only for CD
- The FALSE claim that sounds consistent in timing, loudness, brisance and numbers with explosive demolition were heard at WTC7
- The FALSE claim that WTC7 landed in its own footprint
- The FALSE implication that CDs result in buildings dropping into their footprint - this is usually NOT the case
- The FALSE implication that "massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds" is indicative of CD, and not of natural collapse. If anything, it's the other way round.
- The FALSE claim that Danny Jowenko did an expertly assessment when he thought WTC7 was a CD - you know damned well that Jowenko had not the first clue about WTC7, was shown a video without sound, and based his opinion on practically no data at all
- The FALSE implication that "foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY" is an indication that a CD was planned. You know damned well that it was the assessment of experts on the scene that a building that's uncontrolledly on fire fpr hours, and that is cracking and leaning and moving, is in danger of collapse.



Tony, every single claim that AE911T makes on their front page about WTC7 is a LIE, most of them are lies on more than one level. That is a very high density of lies.

Why do you associate with these liars, Tony? It really doesn't do your reputation any good!

 

[alienentity]

So you're claiming the building came down symmetrically... except for the part didn't?




More than half the building isn't significant? WTF?

Speaking of nitpicking, the degree of symmetry of collapse is not any kind of 'proof' of anything. It is an artifact that is unique to the buildings design and demise, regardless why it collapsed.
However unlikely it may seem to the casual observer, we nonetheless must accept it and not attempt to read special meaning into it, because we do not have sufficient grounds to do so.

9/11 Truthers throw any such objectivity out the window, and ascribe all kinds of nefarious reasons for unusual features of the collapses.

The symmetry, or lack thereof is just another irrelevant red herring to go along with the 'Freefall' or lack thereof. There still is no real evidence of CD.

For the record, I quite agree that some aspects of building 7's collapse were not symmetrical, while others were. Take your pick. But neither tower 1 or 2 collapsed symmetrically, or at freefall, so whatever point truthers try to make is lost because of this.
They try to warp all arguments towards CD, which is illogical at best.

 

[alienentity]

Also Tony is forced to evade the simple reality that there is simply no evidence of explosive CD in WTC 7.

Lack of evidence just isn't evidence, no matter how you frame it rhetorically. Where are the explosions at collapse? Where are the blown out windows? Where is the mathematical refutation of the models and analysis of NCSTAR 1-9 D.3.2 SHAMRC Blast Model, starting p 696?
It's been several years already since this report, and somehow not a paper has been published by the 9/11 Truth community in a peer-reviewed engineering journal to make their case!!
This is an astounding failure on the part of 9/11 Truth to make a scientific, legitimate argument and raise the credibility of their many (often conflicting) claims. They simply have failed to bring forward any credible evidence of explosive CD. And, begging your pardon, the Bentham paper, with its attempt to ascribe thermitic properties to chips which chemically cannot be thermitic, is just not going to cut it. Not even close.

Truthers are failing and failing very badly in the realm of science. In the realm of propaganda they're doing much better, I'll give them that. They've got the polished patter of the bespectacled Richard Gage, for example; and the slick and misleading nonsense of the 'Loose Change' films on the internet. Most of it's garbage, but it's fairly well-produced garbage, and it works the same way infomercials and commercials work: truth is not the point, persuasion is....

 

[Christopher7]

The early visible collapse action, the penthouses, weren't symmetrical.

yada-yada dekleted

Calling someone a liar because you define a word differently is a pathetic excuse to discredit and a diversion from the facts you cannot refute.

"The FALSE claim that WTC7 landed in its own footprint"
They forgot to include the word "mostly" so you call them liars. Get serious.
That's desperation for an excuse to discredit.

 

[Christopher7]

Also Tony is forced to evade the simple reality that there is simply no evidence of explosive CD in WTC 7.

Please, you deny the evidence and say there is none. I've heard that tripe a hundred times. Give it up.

"It can't be because there's no boom boom" is a thread bear canard that assumes you know all ther is to know about nano-thermite. You don't.

This is just another verbose diversion to ignore and bury the fact that no one here can do the calculations for expansion or sagging and the documented proof that NIST lied about the width of the seat and the stiffeners.

 

[Oystein]

Calling someone a liar because you define a word differently is a pathetic excuse to discredit and a diversion from the facts you cannot refute.

"The FALSE claim that WTC7 landed in its own footprint"
They forgot to include the word "mostly" so you call them liars. Get serious.
That's desperation for an excuse to discredit.

Forgetting important words for 5 years - that passes as honesty in Twooferland

The fact of the matter is: The "footprint" claims are utter and obvious bogus hogwash. They are false in spirit and substance, they don't mean what these liars itend for them to mean. They are consciously misleading.


C7, please, is the following statement TRUE or NOT TRUE?

"WTC Building #7, ... exhibited [as one of] all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

• Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

"​

In other words:

1. Did WTC7 land in its footprint, yes or no? (You are NOT allowed to imagine qualifiers such as "mostly"))
2. Do classical controlles demolitions generally land in their footprints? Yes or no, or don't know
3. Do 47-story highrises, when they collapse, generally NOT land (mostly) in their footprint? Yes, No, or Don't know

I know you won't answer these. You know of course damned well that buildings, especially tall and mostly hollow ones like office highrises, mostly fall straight down cuz that's where gravity pulls them. Having an object fall straight down is NOT indicative of the reason why it started collapsing in the first place, and that much is obvious.
You know damned well that WTC7 not only didn't land fully on its footprint, but that the claim it landed mostly on its footprint is highly misleading, as it covers up the fact that it crashed onto and into neighboring buildings - the one behaviour that true CDs seek to avoid when "landing in footprint" is indeed the objective. So very CLEARLY, "falling into footprint like CD" is NOT at all what happened there!
You know damned well that many CDs don't even have the objective of staying within the footprint, not would the mythical demolishers of Building 7 havce had such an objective (which wasn't fulfilled anyway), so the implication that the imagined footprint feature means anything wrt CD or no CD is obvious nonsense.

You know all of that, C7. So tell me: Why are you defending lies, C7?

 

[Oystein]

...
"It can't be because there's no boom boom" is a thread bear canard that assumes you know all ther is to know about nano-thermite. You don't.
...

Got a few more questions for you:

1. Richard Gage claims publicly that WTC7 was brought down by explosive demolition. Is that true or not true (that Gage makes that claim)?
2. Do you agree with Richard Gage that WTC7 was brought down by explosive demolition?
3. Do explosions exist that don't go BOOM, yes or no?
4. What property of explosions is it, by the way, that severs structural steel? The heat, the volume increase, or the shockwave?
5. Do quiet explosions have the ability to cut or break structural steel? Yes or No?

I know you won't answer these questions. You never do. So let me give the answers for you:

1. Yes, Richard Gage makes that claim. Most recently about 2 weeks ago at the press conference that kicked of his current tour.
2. You have no idea what you are supposed to believe
3. No, such explosions do not exist
4. It's the shockwave that cuts the steel.
5. No, quiet explosions can't do that. The shockwave comes from the application of high velocity explosives (much higher than the reaction speed in nano-thermite), and of course it must have a sufficiently high amplitudel The very same shockwave is what creates the audible boom. A quiet explosion either has a much too low amplitude, or develops at a much too low brisance (reaction speed, velocity of wavefront). Either way, since the sound of the explosion is identical to the shockwave that does the destructive work, only explosions as awsomely, impressively loud as those heard in all CD videos you can find are capable of cutting structural steel

Of course you know all of this, because we have told you it all over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I call your behaviour pure denial, if not outright dishonesty.

 

[Sunstealer]

Calculating the expansion or sag is not exact and three decimal places are not necessary [but normal for engineers]. But that in no way invalidates gerrycan's and Tony's calculations.

The point is valid. At 600^oC, a steel beam loses half of its strength and starts to sag. You don't have to be an engineer to understand that. The question is how much. The calculations by jerrycan and Tony give a reasonably accurate estimate of the expansion and sag.

Firstly a beam does not need to reach 600°C in order to start to sag.

What about the beam's elastic modulus? What about the effect of creep at 600°C? What are the relationship between E and Temperature?

Do you even know what these terms are?

What is the critical (temperature) limit (not to be confused with AC_M and A3 temperatures in the phase diagram) for construction steels?

If you knew this then you'd see an error in using 600°C in your calculation.