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

[NoahFence]

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.

I asked you once already.

WHO did they lie to, WHY did they lie, and HOW did they get away with it? Do you even have the slightest idea how many people's lives and businesses were affected by the report? How much changed because of it and how much money was required to implement the findings?

NOT ONE - nobody has come forward except idiots on the interwebs to address this.

You don't see that as a problem?

 

[NoahFence]

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

because

 

[carlitos]

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.

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.

By Tony's own logic, it must have been leaning prior to the collapse, because it toppled in the direction of the lean.

If it had been leaning, it would have toppled that direction.

It did topple to one side.

Therefore, it had been leaning.

QED

 

[Christopher7]

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.

There are dozens of professionals with decades of experience in this video who know what they are talking about and you are talking ****.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

 

[thedopefishlives]

There are dozens of professionals with decades of experience in this video who know what they are talking about and you are talking ****.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

Decades of experience in what?

 

[Christopher7]

By Tony's own logic, it must have been leaning prior to the collapse, because it toppled in the direction of the lean.

Hello? Look at the pretty pictures with the straight red lines.

If it had been leaning, it would have toppled that direction.

It did topple to one side. Therefore, it had been leaning.

No, it fell straight down for about 100 feet and fell a little to one side when it hit uneven resistance. It did not "topple".

 

[Christopher7]

Decades of experience in what?

Watch the video and maybe you'll learn something.

Mañana

 

[erwinl]

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

[qimg]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/4296/newfootage32a.jpg[/qimg]

Why not extend the line I was talking about? A line a bit away won't show the kink I was talking about.

And the leaning of the building is on topic, because in a leaning building the various elements that make up the buidling aren't in their proper place anymore in relation to each other.
And that directly says something about the possibility of girders and column detaching from eachother. Especially if there is a fire that further distorts the shape and size of various girders and columns.

 

[NoahFence]

There are dozens of professionals with decades of experience in this video who know what they are talking about and you are talking ****.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

No massive explosions, no controlled demo.


Period. END OF DISCUSSION (well, for the rational amongst us)

No reason for total destruction of WTC 7. What - two of the tallest buildings in the world aren't good enough for the NWO?? The Pentagon (remember that?) isn't good enough? Flight 93's target wasn't good enough?

No evidence of any thermite. No evidence of explosives. No trace of anything that is used in controlled demolition. These are FACTS, kiddo.


FACTS.


You people have nothing but ignorance, stupidity, ego, and an unhealthy paranoia of the government.

Let me fill you in on what I know about the government. They don't give a : about you.

WTC 7 was ancillary damage, just like a 1/2 dozen or so other buildings that were completely destroyed. Buildings that you ignore like you do the Pentagon because you're not intelligent enough to conjure up a link between them and your irrelevant "smoking gun" WTC 7.

Get a new hobby.

 

[000063]

No, you can't



No, it couldn't.

[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/WTC7-001a.jpg[/qimg]
WTC7, just prior to the start of the 16 second collapse sequence. NIST is one of the few youtube vids that show the early part of the collapse sequence. East Mechanical Penhouse is marked.

[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/WTC7-002a.jpg[/qimg]
Roofline of the EMP has buckled, the collapse is now underway, and probably has been for a few seconds prior to this. Some damage (circled in blue) has appeared on a window pane several floors directly underneath the collapsing penthouse.
[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/WTC7-003a.jpg[/qimg]
Failure of the EMP continues, the majority of the structure remains on top of the building at this point, however the damage several floors below has gotten worse. three windows appear to be broken. Separated from eachother by intact windows. We know that this is not due to a blast event, because an explosive shockwave powerful enough to rend structural steel would have taken out every window on that floor, possibly others above and below. Explosive shockwaves don't pick and choose what they destroy in this manner.

[qimg]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/WTC7-004a.jpg[/qimg]
The EMP is almost completely gone by this point. The damage several floors down is worse again. Having eliminated blast events as the cause, and since it started simultaneously with the beginning of the EMPs collapse, a more likely explanation is weakening and failure of nearby structural supports, twisting and distortion of the buildings frame has affected the windows closest to the initial failure. It is obviously this failure deep inside the main body of WTC7 which caused the collapse of the East Mechanical Penthouse and is directly related to the collapse of the building as whole.​

No, it didn't.

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

You went 0 for 3 on your first three points in a row.

I already pointed out to Tony S. that shockwaves aren't linear, and can go around corners; even with a pillar or several in the way, the shockwave would simply "flow" around it.

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.

So, you're asserting that
1. The FDNY is lying about putting a transit on the building, and therefore complicit in thousands of counts of murder, including 300+ of their own, and
2. if a building is leaning before collapse, it necessarily has to fall in that direction?

 

[pgimeno]

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 [...]

I'm not even clear that it's a mistake in the simulation at all. Figures 11-15 (d) and 12-24 (Section B-B) both show a seat wider than the girder's 11.5" flange, while 11" would appear shorter in the figures. Therefore, it may be something as simple as an innocent mistake in the text, where someone wrote 11 instead of 12 and halved it, while the simulation was correct.

But Christopher7 is so full of "NIST lied" that he can't really see the forest.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It is incredible that you would make the statement that it was leaning prior to the collapse,

I didn't say it, the firefighters did. They were there that day. You were not. They lost 343 of their sons, brothers, fathers and uncles. You didn't lose anyone.

There are exactly three people in the entire universe whose word I would take over that of the firefighters who were there, The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.

So yes, your stubborn repetition of your claim, for which you have provided zero evidence, neither photos, video nor eyewitness testimony, is utterly meaningless.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I already pointed out to Tony S. that shockwaves aren't linear, and can go around corners; even with a pillar or several in the way, the shockwave would simply "flow" around it.

Indeed, Tony also said earlier that that it is unsafe to stand within 50 feet of a detonating demolition charge.

So, you're asserting that
1. The FDNY is lying about putting a transit on the building, and therefore complicit in thousands of counts of murder, including 300+ of their own

Yes, that is exactly what he is asserting. Tony believes, as does every other twoofer, that the FDNY were integral to the plot.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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]

The building is visibly leaning in that photograph.

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

The firefighters weren't sent in, remember?

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

Except for the ones who did.

You seem to forget in all your quote mining that the testimonies of the other firefighters remain part of the record of history, even after you have cherry-picked the ones you want.

 

[R.Mackey]

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?

The SPL definition (Sound Pressure Level) is calibrated to human hearing. We don't usually have our heads embedded in water or solids -- however, if you extend the analogy, sounds can be quite a bit louder in media other than air. Whales screaming at each other over miles and miles, for instance, or S-waves in earthquakes are rather similar to sounds. In general, however, we describe these phenomena in terms of their actual power intensity W / m².

Decibels are the preferred unit in some other fields. For example, radio telecommunications use them, although here it is done because it allows certain shorthands, such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or antenna efficiency expressed as a decibel loss or gain. The logarithmic nature of dB allows one to simply add all the losses together to see how much gain one needs to recover a signal from background noise.

Off-topic, I know, but at least it's educational. I hardly think this is going to derail yet another 70-page farrago of uninformed denialism.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I'm not even clear that it's a mistake in the simulation at all. Figures 11-15 (d) and 12-24 (Section B-B) both show a seat wider than the girder's 11.5" flange, while 11" would appear shorter in the figures. Therefore, it may be something as simple as an innocent mistake in the text, where someone wrote 11 instead of 12 and halved it, while the simulation was correct.

But Christopher7 is so full of "NIST lied" that he can't really see the forest.

That's a great point. I guess I should've phrased it as "a mistake at worst", because the likelihood is that it is simply a transcription error. These are a lot more common than even a misunderstanding, and certainly far more probable than outright "fraud and lying".

 

[erwinl]

The SPL definition (Sound Pressure Level) is calibrated to human hearing. We don't usually have our heads embedded in water or solids -- however, if you extend the analogy, sounds can be quite a bit louder in media other than air. Whales screaming at each other over miles and miles, for instance, or S-waves in earthquakes are rather similar to sounds. In general, however, we describe these phenomena in terms of their actual power intensity W / m².

Decibels are the preferred unit in some other fields. For example, radio telecommunications use them, although here it is done because it allows certain shorthands, such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or antenna efficiency expressed as a decibel loss or gain. The logarithmic nature of dB allows one to simply add all the losses together to see how much gain one needs to recover a signal from background noise.

Off-topic, I know, but at least it's educational. I hardly think this is going to derail yet another 70-page farrago of uninformed denialism.

Thank you very much.
This is one thing which I didn't know much about. I've learned something new.

 

[ozeco41]

That's a great point. I guess I should've phrased it as "a mistake at worst", because the likelihood is that it is simply a transcription error. These are a lot more common than even a misunderstanding, and certainly far more probable than outright "fraud and lying".

There are two immediate issues involved in this 11" v 12" micro detail side track:
The minor one about C7's misuse of English words such as "lie" and "fraud" which are of no significance other than measures of the (dis)honesty of his claims.

The slightly more important one is the idiocy of the claim that, given all the heat induced stresses the building frame was subjected to, the precisely calculated half inch extra movement would prevent walk off and make NIST wrong.

Since both those are ridiculous bits of dishonesty why do we keep entertaining C7 (or Tony Sz) by wasting time responding?

The real issues are that:
1) In the OP Gamolon asked for help and has been given that help;
2) Tony Sz has claimed that the NIST explanation is "impossible" BUT has failed to demonstrate that claim at the level of technical detail AND has failed to meet his burden of proof related to his unproven assumptions;
3) Tony Sz has shown that he wants to utilise the "NIST is wrong" claim to support CD which is another quantum leap of false logic; BECAUSE
4) Whether NIST is wrong or not is irrelevant to any claim of CD.

 

[carlitos]

Since both those are ridiculous bits of dishonesty why do we keep entertaining C7 (or Tony Sz) by wasting time responding?

Fair question.

 

[LSSBB]

Fair question.

Definitely we are at the point of diminishing returns on this thread, and it has already descended into frequent off - thread chaos. Unless anyone is willing to definitively AND scientifically show how the 1" makes a difference, I consider this discussion to be at a standstill and useless.