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

[LSSBB]

Why do you describe the collapse of WTC7 as "symmetrical" when it was leaning prior to its collapse?

Why does he keep saying the NIST collapse mechanism is impossible when he has proven no such thing?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why do you describe the collapse of WTC7 as "symmetrical" when it was leaning prior to its collapse?

There is no proof anywhere that the building was leaning prior to its collapse. If that were true it would have toppled in the direction of the lean when it did come down. That didn't happen.

It is hard to understand why you would assert something this incredible.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why does he keep saying the NIST collapse mechanism is impossible when he has proven no such thing?

You can deny it all you want but the facts still remain and everybody doesn't deny reality the way certain individuals do here.

 

[LSSBB]

You can deny it all you want but the facts still remain and everybody doesn't deny reality the way certain individuals do here.

I do not call your opinions to date "facts" because you have not proven to me that they are true. Your personal opinion that they are true is meaningless to me. You are operating from a marginal position within the academic and practicing engineering community. If you wish to get others to believe you, you're going to have to try a lot harder at really proving things instead of repeatedly making unsupported assertions.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You can deny it all you want but the facts still remain and everybody doesn't deny reality the way certain individuals do here.

Is that why there's so few Truthers: everyone else denies reality?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There is no proof anywhere that the building was leaning prior to its collapse.

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

If that were true it would have toppled in the direction of the lean when it did come down.

It did.

So Tony...

Why do you describe the collapse of WTC7 as "symmetrical" when the evidence shows it was leaning over prior to its collapse?

 

[alienentity]

It was explosions ..blah blah blah

Nein, mein herr, not only is this latest flail wrong, it's OFF TOPIC still.

 

[alienentity]

atavisms, take a look at the title of this thread, then keep your comments relevant to it. Otherwise find another thread for your nonsense.

 

[ozeco41]

Why does he keep saying the NIST collapse mechanism is impossible when he has proven no such thing?

Three main reasons:
1) He has not proven his claim for reasons of burden of proof for his assumptions. That is fatal to his claim whether or not he has the details right. And members other than me seem to have identified errors in his details.

AND

2) Even if he can establish beyond reasonable doubt that the NIST explanation was wrong none of us will fall for the false dichotomy that an error by NIST proves that Tony was right.

THEN

3) If, in the unlikely event that he somehow gets past both those barriers, his real agenda is "Claim CD" and that is where the big gun arguments are waiting to destroy his trivial reasoning.

I'm still waiting for him to stop making false claims as to "impossibility" - and this thread has been taken seriously off-topic for some pages.

 

[Christopher7]

The gentleman in the video is a firefighter, that blows away your claims. That the lean was visible from 8 blocks away means that it was quite severe.

Severe?
Look at all the photos. It was not leaning.

Things you ignored:
No one at the scene said it was leaning. Hayden said there was a bulge. He did NOT say it was leaning.

NIST did not say it was leaning. If it was leaning they would have said so.

 

[Christopher7]

Three main reasons:
1) He has not proven his claim for reasons of burden of proof for his assumptions.

These are NOT assumptions, they are facts:

1) NIST lied about the width of the seat. The beams would have to expand 6.29", not 5.5", to put the web off the seat.

2) NIST omitted the stiffeners that would prevent the bottom flange from folding for several more inches.

3) Even if the girder were pushed off its seat it would have landed on the seat support. The girder would have expanded too, putting more of it over the seat support.

 

[erwinl]

194 dB SPL corresponds to a true pressure difference of just over 100 kPa, or roughly equal to the mean atmospheric pressure at sea level. You therefore cannot create a true sound, i.e. a standing wave, of any greater magnitude -- you are creating vacuum in the nulls between waves, and there just isn't any more air to be found.

A shockwave, however, can in principle exceed this pressure, provided it (a) increases the local static pressure of the environment (either through generation of new gas or radiative heating of the entire atmosphere), or (b) it imparts enough raw kinetic energy to the air to create the effect through dynamic pressure (viz., it blows the air so hard that it behaves more like a solid than a liquid).

Neither of these situations is likely to occur, unless you're dealing with a tremendous overconcentration of explosives in a confined space, or unless you're studying destructive stellar phenomena.

Keep in mind that an explosive has other ways to inflict damage than by transmitting a shockwave through the atmosphere. It can, for instance, transmit through solid materials as well.

Thank you very much for this explanation.
Does this mean that sounds can be louder in liquids or in solids?
Or don't we then speak in dB anymore?

 

[ozeco41]

These are NOT assumptions, they are facts:

1) NIST lied about the width of the seat. The beams would have to expand 6.29", not 5.5", to put the web off the seat....

Which in the context of the collapse of the building is an idiotic claim even if there were not the other big errors in Tony's logic.

...2) NIST omitted the stiffeners that would prevent the bottom flange from folding for several more inches....

Wow. As if that detail is important. C7 you will not fool me with your attempt to avoid the real issues by focussing on detailed minutia. I am familiar with your trolling techniques - hence the small number of times I bother responding to your attempted trickery. No matter how many irrelevant technical bits you post as "trolling bait" I will not fall for the trick. Others may not be able to resist showing you wrong in those details. I will - the significant real errors in Tony's false claim are not in the details.

...3) Even if the girder were pushed off its seat it would have landed on the seat support. The girder would have expanded too, putting more of it over the seat support....

It may be - remote possibility - that you don't understand. I doubt it. There is no such excuse for Tony.

Anyone who shows the modest level of intelligent understanding which you demonstrate in the construction of some of your trolling responses/questions/posts must be able to understand the clearly stated reasoning I have posted. And neither you nor Tony are brave enough to respond to my arguments.

My reasoning has been posted in full detail earlier in this thread. Your avoidance of real discussion does not change the reality.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Severe?
Look at all the photos. It was not leaning.

The photos triforcharity posted show otherwise. the one I re-posted shows WTC7 very early in the collapse (~11 seconds in) and it is leaning heavily.

Things you ignored:
No one at the scene said it was leaning.

Yes they did. hayden saw it, Capt. Boyle did too.

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight.​

You're just lying again.

 

[ozeco41]

...You're just lying again.

Take care - C7 may not understand the English language word "lying" - or any other derivatives of "Lie".

He has his own definitions of terms - "lie" and 'fraud" being two he commonly uses in his quaint non English definitions.

And he has been coached on both - but to no avail.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Take care - C7 may not understand the English language word "lying" - or any other derivatives of "Lie".

He has his own definitions of terms - "lie" and 'fraud" being two he commonly uses in his quaint non English definitions.

And he has been coached on both - but to no avail.

Christopher7 is one of the most blatantly dishonest twoofers who have posted here. He reaches his conclusions by quotemining and selective quote editing. He's admitted to this, he knows it, he knows we know it. Yet he claims this is acceptable for him .

Does the phrase "like a used car salesman" mean anything?

 

[ozeco41]

Christopher7 is one of the most blatantly dishonest twoofers who have posted here. He reaches his conclusions by quotemining and selective quote editing. He's admitted to this, he knows it, he knows we know it. Yet he claims this is acceptable for him .

Does the phrase "like a used car salesman" mean anything?

Understood and agreed.

I am somewhat ambivalent on C7.

His global goal is trolling and he achieves it successfully. So much that I have stated that I regard him as the most successful troll currently posting - which leads to several other questions which I cannot answer including:
1) Why does he bother - what is the ego benefit of getting people to bite on irritating rubbish claims? More importantly what does such activity - baiting - and the success - getting bites - have to do with the legitimate goals of 9/11 truthdom? None so he is prima facie not a "true truther". That conclusion aligns with the idiocy of anyone supporting the Gage subset of truther lore.

2) Why do members persist in feeding obvious trolls. With two sub-answers possibly more:
____(a) They enjoy the fun of troll baiting. I cannot comprehend that reason as if it outranks not giving them the satisfaction. Put simply I would not give them the satisfaction of responding and I rank that more important to me than posting the response for the minor ego boost of proving that I can out reason a truther OR troll. The "beat their argument" barrier is too low to offer me any satisfaction.
____(b) They cannot distinguish trolling from legitimate technical debate. Given that C7's speciality is loading his posts with pseudo technical material so that the posts look sort of legitimate. Surely people are not fooled by the trickery? Maybe they are. and that is sad.

However put in the context of "Yet he claims this is acceptable for him" then any form of dishonesty and poor logic is acceptable since the goal is "get a bite at any cost".

 

[Christopher7]

These are NOT assumptions, they are facts:

1) NIST lied about the width of the seat. The beams would have to expand 6.29", not 5.5", to put the web off the seat.

Which in the context of the collapse of the building is an idiotic claim

Yes, NIST made an idiotic claim based on a a pack of lies.

2) NIST omitted the stiffeners that would prevent the bottom flange from folding for several more inches.

Wow. As if that detail is important. C7 you will not fool me with your attempt to avoid the real issues by focussing on detailed minutia.

Detail? Minutia? Get serous. Omitting the stiffeners to get their hypothesis to work is FRAUD.

3) Even if the girder were pushed off its seat it would have landed on the seat support. The girder would have expanded too, putting more of it over the seat support.

It may be - remote possibility - that you don't understand. I doubt it.

Remote possibility? Have you heard about thermal expansion?

My reasoning has been posted in full detail earlier in this thread.

Reasoning? Ridiculous statements, denial and insults are your idea of reasoning.

Your avoidance of real discussion does not change the reality.

You are avoiding a real discussion with your insults and your absurd, incoherent denials.

 

[pgimeno]

His global goal is trolling and he achieves it successfully.

Yes, NIST made an idiotic claim based on a a pack of lies.


Detail? Minutia? Get serous. Omitting the stiffeners to get their hypothesis to work is FRAUD.

Remote possibility? Have you heard about thermal expansion?

Reasoning? Ridiculous statements, denial and insults are your idea of reasoning.

You are avoiding a real discussion with your insults and your absurd, incoherent denials.

... And he proves it in the very next post.

 

[ozeco41]

... And he proves it in the very next post.

Yes and in spades. It's not hard to get him to confirm his dishonest intent.

If I identify ONLY the most serious the false claims he makes in that post they are, in sequence: Lie; Evasion; Pretended failure of reading comprehension; Lie and Evasion by personal attack.

I won't respond to any of his lies, evasions or personal attacks. The only minor doubt I have is what to do about any members who have not been tracking this thread and want to know the truth. They can either read the thread OR they can ask me either by post or PM.