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

[Sword_Of_Truth]

[*]Do quiet explosions have the ability to cut or break structural steel? Yes or No?

A "quiet" explosion (and this is something that twoofers from engineers like Tony to uneducated rank and file like Chris7 just can't seem to wrap their heads around) is an oxymoron, an impossibility.

The sound of an explosion and the blast wave are the exact same thing. They are both the energy of the explosive being transmitted through a medium.

At the point of detonation, the blast wave is "loud" enough to tear through steel. Hundreds of yards away the blast wave hits your eardrums and is registered in your brains hearing center as a loud "BOOM".

Explosives are always loud because it's the loudness that does the work that is needed from them. They are loud because that is exactly what the chemical engineers that create explosives are trying to get them to be.

If it doesn't create a big-ass "BANG", then it's not useful as an explosive. It's not useful as an explosive.

 

[alienentity]

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.

What evidence is there of explosives at the WTC? None has been presented, unless you know of something none of us has seen before.
All you are doing is trying to infer that explosives might possibly have been used, not by direct evidence, but by speculation and wishful thinking (ie special 'hushaboom' explosive devices not ever seen or documented).

As others continue to point out, all you're doing is speculating. That's it. There is no 'evidence' of any proposed devices at the WTC, and there never have been.

There is literally as much evidence for midgets with saws cutting the steel as there is for suicidal torchcutting ninjas cutting the steel. Exactly ZERO.

What's even more shocking (shocking that you'd even bother trying to put forward this nonsense) is your gross misrepresentation of a thermitic cutting device as some kind of quiet explosive!!!
Maybe the people you hang around with are dumb enough to entertain such deceptive garbage, but none of us are, so knock it off, please.

A cutting torch is a cutting torch. It's not an explosive cutter charge. Don't even attempt to conflate these things, it's pathetically dishonest and sad that you'd even try.

No wonder I have you on ignore.

 

[alienentity]

Real suspects of 911
Paul Bremer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpw7fUj11bA&feature=youtu.be
On Board of directors of Komatsu:
At 1:53 "Komatsu - In July 1996 patented a nano-thermite demolition device"
Patent 5532449 Issued on July 2, 1996

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html

It could be engineered to destroy steel framed buildings as well.

Just quoting your pathetic attempt at bait-and-switch on the issue of COMPLETE LACK OF SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIONS in the moments of collapse of WTC 7.

You were trying to argue that somehow an explosive nanothermite cutter charge could be engineered to explode less loudly than conventional explosives, basing your case mainly on the premise that nobody knows enough about it to say that couldn't.

It can't be because there's no boom boom

Instead of addressing the problem of the nature of explosives - that they are loud by necessity - you offered a DIFFERENT device, a non-explosive device, which could minimize noise in demolition, according to the summary of the patent.

Well, it is not a secret that a non-explosive device will be quieter, but it is no longer an explosive, is it? Therefore it cannot be used for a cutter charge, can it?
In fact the patent is clearly aimed at the noise and cost issues of breaking up concrete, which is a different engineering problem from the one we are discussing.

So you're off-topic from the off-topic, so to speak. You're not even on the same page.
The device proposed in the patent is meant to compete with devices like 'The concrete cutter 102 is low in running cost of cutting, but produces a large amount of noise.' It is to do so by melting the concrete 'a concrete demolishing method which melts a surface of a concrete structure' using plasma.

Now, before you exclaim 'you didn't even give me a chance to explain how it would work!' I invite you, C7, to explain to everyone here HOW this plasma cutting device would be used to cause the failure of WTC 7 in the way which Richard Gage and AE911Truth claim - that it was in the exact manner of a classic explosive controlled demolition.

This means that, per Richard Gage's claims, the columns MUST BE SIMULTANEOUSLY destroyed by the device to bring the building down in a controlled demolition.

The floor is yours. And, please, while you're at it, explain why none of the steel had evidence of being cut with plasma cutters.

Good luck!

 

[triforcharity]

The entire exterior came down even with the horizon. And you want to say it is lying to call that symmetric?

I'd call it a plain lie for one of two reasons.

Here's one.

Here's the other.

That's Fitterman Hall, and it was damaged from......7WTC's collapse.

So yes, we'd call that a lie. I'm sure we've been over this before Tony.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

So, let's think about this using something simple. I'll even use simple words.

Someone breaks into your house, and takes money.

Now, YOU claim the robber stole ALL of you money.

But, in REALITY, the robber stole MOST of your money, but left you some.

Are these two statements the same? Or are they different?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'd call it a plain lie for one of two reasons.

Here's one.
[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/WTC7lean.jpg[/qimg]

Here's the other.

[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/fiterman-hall-02.jpg[/qimg]

That's Fitterman Hall, and it was damaged from......7WTC's collapse.

So yes, we'd call that a lie. I'm sure we've been over this before Tony.

You are showing the building when it is more than halfway into its fall. I obviously was talking about the initial portion of the collapse, where it certainly does come down even with the Horizon.

Anyone lurking here can verify the symmetry at the beginning of the collapse

here from the north http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bllvfjHYsoE

and here from the west http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related

and then ask yourself why this guy Triforcharity is trying to say it wasn't symmetric and only showing it when it does lean about halfway into the collapse.

 

[ergo]

Even a leaning descent is still symmetrical along two planes. Bedunkers deliberately misunderstand symmetrical. There are dictionaries online.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The beam in Mr. Szamboti's spreadsheet has buckled yet he continues to use an elastic deflection equation for a beam with a uniformly distributed load on it. Both of these assumption are wrong. His engineering is wrong. Possibly by several orders of magnitude.



According to NIST, the beams start buckling at 436 degrees.



I already proved it by saying what was wrong with Mr. Szamboti's equations. It's basic engineering.

And I don't have to calculate the deflections. Others have already done so.

Sure! Several orders of magnitude you say, but from out of the other side of your mouth you admit you didn't do the calculations and don't cite the others you claim have done so.

You seem to be vascillating on how you think the failure occurred. First, you said the girder would still roll off once the web was pushed beyond the bearing seat, in spite of the fact that by your own admission the stiffeners would keep the flange from folding up. This would require the girder to fail by being pushed enough to the west, which has been shown to be impossible.


Now you seem to be moving to "the beams buckled" as a reason for failure. This would require the girder to move back toward the east and obviate your first mode of failure and hence be the reason for your new disposition towards beam buckling.

So which failure mode do you now support? It can't be both.

It is interesting that newly released show the beam NIST says buckled first (the one closest to the north wall) had three beam stubs supporting it from the wall at equal intervals. NIST did not include these in their model. Buckling load is related exponentially to unsupported length. The real beam (not the one shown by NIST) would have had an unsupported length that was one third that of the full length unsupported beam they show. C7 could add this to the girder bearing seat width fib and the girder stiffener ommission on his list of things NIST ommitted or changed to suit their explanation.

I did a finite element analysis leaving the beam stubs off of that northmost beam and it does buckle since it is closest to the trapped girder side at column 44. However, the key to the problem is to see and tell what happens to the other four beams. They did not buckle.

 

[LSSBB]

You are showing the building when it is more than halfway into its fall. I obviously was talking about the initial portion of the collapse, where it certainly does come down even with the Horizon.

Anyone lurking here can verify the symmetry at the beginning of the collapse

here from the north http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bllvfjHYsoE

and here from the west http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related

and then ask yourself why this guy Triforcharity is trying to say it wasn't symmetric and only showing it when it does lean about halfway into the collapse.

Yeah, that top exterior frame holds together pretty well at the start of the collapse. Kudos to the builders. So what the heck does that have to do with controlled demolition?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You are showing the building when it is more than halfway into its fall. I obviously was talking about the initial portion of the collapse, where it certainly does come down even with the Horizon.

Anyone lurking here can verify the symmetry at the beginning of the collapse

here from the north http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bllvfjHYsoE

and here from the west http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related

and then ask yourself why this guy Triforcharity is trying to say it wasn't symmetric and only showing it when it does lean about halfway into the collapse.

Actually it was leaning well before the collapse:



"You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down... there's no way to stop it."

You have to ask yourself who is this Tony guy who is lying like this about the worst foreign attack on US soil since 1812?

 

[triforcharity]

You are showing the building when it is more than halfway into its fall. I obviously was talking about the initial portion of the collapse, where it certainly does come down even with the Horizon.

Anyone lurking here can verify the symmetry at the beginning of the collapse

here from the north http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bllvfjHYsoE

and here from the west http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related

and then ask yourself why this guy Triforcharity is trying to say it wasn't symmetric and only showing it when it does lean about halfway into the collapse.

I've seen others address this also, so no point in beating a dead horse, but nice shifting of the goalposts.

I'll still stand by my original statement.

 

[alienentity]

and then ask yourself why this guy Triforcharity is trying to say it wasn't symmetric and only showing it when it does lean about halfway into the collapse.

Dude, get a grip. Anybody can look at the start of collapse and see the East mechanical penthouse descend into the building. How in God's name is that symmetrical???

Besides, as I've already pointed out, it's an entirely moot point as neither WTC 1 or 2 was remotely symmetrical in collapse. So symmetry, even according to 9/11 Truthers, is not a salient feature in determining whether controlled demolition is happening or not.

Please just give up this failed argument before it damages your brain. Maybe it's already too late....

 

[Clayton Moore]

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....

So tell us how the 90 some cement floors got pulverized into dust, one at a time, in 20 seconds?

Tell us how the crushed bodies became chopped into tiny pieces bodies?

 

[cjnewson88]

So tell us how the 90 some cement floors got pulverized into dust, one at a time, in 20 seconds?

Tell us how the crushed bodies became chopped into tiny pieces bodies?

Using your brain would be a good start.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually it was leaning well before the collapse:



"You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down... there's no way to stop it."

I have refuted this BS many times but JREFers keep bringing it up.
One guy 8 blocks away thought WTC 7 was leaning.
None of the firefighters at the scene said it was leaning.
NIST never mentioned WTC 7was leaning.
WTC 7 was not leaning.

 

[Oystein]

Hey Christopher,

I think you forgot these:

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?

 

[Christopher7]

Dude, get a grip. Anybody can look at the start of collapse and see the East mechanical penthouse descend into the building. How in God's name is that symmetrical?

Take your own advice and give it up. Symmetrical is subjective. Harping on semantics and even calling someone a liar over a definition just shows how vacant and trite JREFers are.

 

[Oystein]

Symmetrical is subjective.

In the real world of engineering, science and reason, symmetry is a precise and well defined term. Presence or absence of symmetry can be described using formal means, which are mathematical in nature.


The other meaning of "symmetry" is "an imprecise sense of harmonious or aesthetically pleasing proportionality and balance" - that is the subjective, non-engineering, non-science, non-rational semantics.

It has no place in forensic evidence.



After all, "AE911Twoof" stands for "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Twoof", not "Aesthets and Empaths for 9/11 Twoof"

 

[Christopher7]

Hey Christopher,

I think you forgot these:

1. Richard Gage claims publicly that WTC7 was brought down by explosive demolition. Is that true or not true (that Gage makes that claim)?

1. He believes that to be true.

2. Do you agree with Richard Gage that WTC7 was brought down by explosive demolition?

   Yes. I think it was a combination of nano-thermite and nano-thermite mixed other types of explosives.

3. Do explosions exist that don't go BOOM, yes or no?

   No

4. What property of explosions is it, by the way, that severs structural steel? The heat, the volume increase, or the shockwave?

   A nano-thermite device would do most of the cutting with 4500 degree molten iron as in Jon Cole's backyard experiment.

5. Do quiet explosions have the ability to cut or break structural steel? Yes or No?

   A nano-thermite demo device would make a lot less noise.

There were over 100 first responder reports of explosions and dozens of videos of survivors and reporters telling of explosions. Don't repeat the denial canard about "could have been something else" unless you are willing to admit that the explosions could have been explosives.

The explosions that brought down the lobby on these firemen could only be explosives as building codes would not allow something that could cause such and explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

 

[Christopher7]

In the real world of engineering, science and reason, symmetry is a precise and well defined term. Presence or absence of symmetry can be described using formal means, which are mathematical in nature.
After all, "AE911Twoof" stands for "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Twoof", not "Aesthets and Empaths for 9/11 Twoof"

You persist in showing how vacant and trite you are by making a big deal out of semantics. You even use baby talk in your childish insults. Grow up.