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

[Christopher7]

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.

You seem to have forgotten that you said:

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

WTC 7 was NOT leaning prior to the collapse.

Here is a screen capture after the penthouses have fallen inside the building from the same video that tfc referenced.

Yes they did. hayden saw it

Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner that ran up several stories. It was so slight he had to put a transit on it to be sure. He did not say it was leaning.

Capt. Boyle did too.

No, he did NOT say the building was leaning. An officer standing next to him said it didn't look straight.

Do you think Chief Fellini would ask his firefighters to go inside if WTC 7 were leaning?

None of the firefighters or other chiefs in charge said it was leaning.

NIST did not say it was leaning.

Do you really think they all missed something as significant as the building was leaning? Get serious please.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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



It did.
[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/WTC7lean.jpg[/qimg]

The lean shown in the photo you supply is about halfway into the collapse. It was not prior to the collapse. Here is a link to the video that frame comes from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10&feature=related

It is incredible that you would make the statement that it was leaning prior to the collapse, implying it was due to damage from fire and had something to do with the collapse.

 

[twinstead]

Do you really think they all missed something as significant as the building was leaning? Get serious please.

Well, you seem to think they all missed something as significant as the building was demolished with explosives, so I guess anything is possible.

 

[Christopher7]

The lean shown in the photo you supply is about halfway into the collapse. It was not prior to the collapse. Here is a link to the video that frame comes from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10&feature=related

It is incredible that you would make the statement that it was leaning prior to the collapse, implying it was due to damage from fire and had something to do with the collapse.

This is a derail to bury the fact that NIST lied about the width of the seat and the stiffeners to make their walk-off work.

 

[erwinl]

You seem to have forgotten that you said:

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

WTC 7 was NOT leaning prior to the collapse.

Here is a screen capture after the penthouses have fallen inside the building from the same video that tfc referenced.

[qimg]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/5934/newfootage32s.jpg[/qimg]


Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner that ran up several stories. It was so slight he had to put a transit on it to be sure. He did not say it was leaning.

No, he did NOT say the building was leaning. An officer standing next to him said it didn't look straight.

Do you think Chief Fellini would ask his firefighters to go inside if WTC 7 were leaning?

None of the firefighters or other chiefs in charge said it was leaning.

NIST did not say it was leaning.

Do you really think they all missed something as significant as the building was leaning? Get serious please.

If you extend the leftmost vertical red line you will notice the lower part will end up to the left of the dark/light divide of the corner of WTC7 (whereas for the rest where it is now it is on the right side of the divide).
In fact the place where it would cross over the divide is just below where the line now ends (why wasn't this line extended over the full visible height of the building?).

So something is not totally straight there.

 

[thedopefishlives]

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?

Decibels are a relative unit. They describe the increase (or decrease) in signal power compared to a given reference. It's fair to still speak in dB when you're talking about sound propagation through liquid or solid; I presume that the maximum possible power magnification is relative to the material through which the sound is propagating. Whether that means sounds can be louder or not as loud in liquids and solids is beyond my current level of knowledge.

 

[Christopher7]

Decibels are a relative unit. They describe the increase (or decrease) in signal power compared to a given reference. It's fair to still speak in dB when you're talking about sound propagation through liquid or solid; I presume that the maximum possible power magnification is relative to the material through which the sound is propagating. Whether that means sounds can be louder or not as loud in liquids and solids is beyond my current level of knowledge.

This thread is about walk-off. Do you understand that NIST lied about the width of the seat and the stiffeners?

If not, please go back and find where we talked about that and post something on topic please.

 

[Animal]

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.

Is other big tactic is to refer to preliminary and summary reports while ignoring the more detailed full reports. The "walk off"" being the prime example.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Beyond astonishing that anyone could look at wtc7 (here you can hear a boom just before it starts to come down): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbUkThGlCo&lr=1 and not see this could only have been achieved with the use of explosives. For that exterior wall to come down in the rapid symmetrical manner, on all four sides, that it did, every perimeter column had to have been severed within an instant of one another. This is an undeniable commonsense fact yet on this post there is endless jabber about column 79 along with 67 pages of needless minutia on one side and denials on the other. wow.

Wow, I wasted all those years at College studying engineering when all I needed was "commonsense"!
There really needs to be a law to keep such clueless people off the internet. It would be doing them and us a great kindness.

 

[thedopefishlives]

This thread is about walk-off. Do you understand that NIST lied about the width of the seat and the stiffeners?

If not, please go back and find where we talked about that and post something on topic please.

I was answering a question made in good faith. I find it highly ironic that you, of all people, are lecturing me on staying on-topic. Also, no, I do not understand that they lied. You have not proven intent to deceive. Until you do that, they made an innocent mistake that, furthermore, changes nothing with respect to the final conclusion: WTC7 failed due to unmitigated fire damage. All the NIST-picking in the world cannot prove CD.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Tony Szamboti;8352827]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.

Wrong, we have testimony from the Fire Dept that it was. I don't see any problems in that being admissible evidence, do you?
And for something to topple in the direction its leaning then it has to have sufficient rigidity to do so. buildings generally do not have that as can be seen in WTC1 when the top section leans over but then falls apart.

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

That's why I'm an highly paid professional engineer and you are not.......

 

[Christopher7]

If you extend the leftmost vertical red line you will notice the lower part will end up to the left of the dark/light divide of the corner of WTC7 (whereas for the rest where it is now it is on the right side of the divide).
In fact the place where it would cross over the divide is just below where the line now ends (why wasn't this line extended over the full visible height of the building?).

So something is not totally straight there.

The dark area distorts the image. WTC 7 is NOT leaning. Can we get back on topic please?

 

[Christopher7]

Wrong, we have testimony from the Fire Dept that it was.

No we don't. We have a couple guys who were mistaken. Find where it says WTC 7 was leaning in the final report.

And for something to topple in the direction its leaning then it has to have sufficient rigidity to do so. buildings generally do not have that

Right

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8179857.stm

as can be seen in WTC1 when the top section leans over but then falls apart it is blown up.

Fixed that for ya.

That's why I'm an highly paid professional engineer and you are not.......

Of course you are dear. That's why you can't see how the straight red line shows that WTC 7 is not leaning.

Can we get back on topic please?

NIST lied about the width of the seat and the stiffeners to get their walk-off hypothesis to work.

 

[Christopher7]

I do not understand that they lied. You have not proven intent to deceive. Until you do that, they made an innocent mistake

Innocent mistake? Right

You think that the professionals at NIST don't know how to read drawings. They had three years to study them and innocently missed two things that made their hypothesis impossible.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are in denial.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Innocent mistake? Right

You think that the professionals at NIST don't know how to read drawings. They had three years to study them and innocently missed two things that made their hypothesis impossible.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are in denial.

It didn't make their hypothesis impossible. Neither you nor Tony S. (but especially you, because you don't even have math to back you up, just MSPaintFire) has proven to anyone's satisfaction that this mistake, which can and does happen even to the best professionals at times, matters one whit to the end result. Let alone come anywhere close to proving CD, which is a whole other ball of wax even if you can somehow prove that NIST was "fraudulent" and "lying".

 

[Christopher7]

Wow, I wasted all those years at College studying engineering when all I needed was "commonsense"!

Thank you for that moment of honesty.

A child can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

 

[NoahFence]

This is a derail to bury the fact that NIST lied about the width of the seat and the stiffeners to make their walk-off work.

And YOU are the only one who caught them in this "lie"?
Not the thousands of people directly affected by the conclusions of the report?


BULLS:

You're not nearly as clever as you hope you are.

 

[twinstead]

No we don't. We have a couple guys who were mistaken. Find where it says WTC 7 was leaning in the final report.

Why is it that people are smiply mistaken when they appear to support your position, but liars when they don't?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Thank you for that moment of honesty.

A child can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

You're right, only children can see that WTC 7 was a CD. For the grownups, those who understand real structural engineering or are at least familiar with high-school physics, we know better.

 

[Christopher7]

It didn't make their hypothesis impossible. Neither you nor Tony S. (but especially you, because you don't even have math to back you up, just MSPaintFire) has proven to anyone's satisfaction that this mistake, which can and does happen even to the best professionals at times, matters one whit to the end result. Let alone come anywhere close to proving CD, which is a whole other ball of wax even if you can somehow prove that NIST was "fraudulent" and "lying".

I admire your dedication to your government, if not your honesty.