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

[Justin39640]

This comment is ridiculous and pathetic.

It is amazing that you are actually proposing that what has been described as a bulge between floors 10 and 13 at the southwest corner of a 300 foot long by 144 wide building was somehow a sign that the building would completely collapse. This alleged bulge was where there was some debris damage from WTC 1.

I can only say one thing to this kind of ninny nonsense.

Um... I said look at the whole picture. The bulge wasn't the only problem. There were major issues. The sum total of all of those issues led to shifting of loads.

You don't think a 30 foot bulge in a skyscraper isn't a huge sign (one of many, mind you) there's tons of problems INSIDE that no one can see? Thank god the FDNY doesn't subscribe to your brand of ninny nonsense, or we'd have lost a bunch more than 343.

To me, I would think a bulge means that area has lost support and is being compressed. At that point, I would expect distortion (however so slight) that may translate into some sort of a lean. And, maybe not the sort that you can see by drawing lines on ******, grainy Youtube stills

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There you go again, claiming victory.

It sounds like reality is a bitch for many of you here .

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Um... I said look at the whole picture. The bulge wasn't the only problem. There were major issues. The sum total of all of those issues led to shifting of loads.

You don't think a 30 foot bulge in a skyscraper isn't a huge sign (one of many, mind you) there's tons of problems INSIDE that no one can see? Thank god the FDNY doesn't subscribe to your brand of ninny nonsense, or we'd have lost a bunch more than 343.

To me, I would think a bulge means that area has lost support and is being compressed. At that point, I would expect distortion (however so slight) that may translate into some sort of a lean. And, maybe not the sort that you can see by drawing lines on ******, grainy Youtube stills

Blah, blah, blah. We have heard all this nonsense before. The "it was complete chaos and a lot of smaller failures too numerous to count so we can never know" meme is manure. You simply don't want to think too hard.

A "bulge" of a 30 foot high section on one corner of the 610 foot tall x 300 foot long x 144 foot wide building does not even come close to jeopardizing the integrity of a building that size. There were several columns severed where this alleged bulge was occurring and that didn't compromise the building. In fact the bulge is probably a result of the columns being sprung after being severed. It was meaningless in the full picture context.

 

[NoahFence]

Nobody defined any separate or new rules. This game is over and the NIST collapse initiation for WTC 7 shown to be impossible due to the laws of physics and reality that have always existed.

Well the controlled demolition theory has also shown to be impossible for the same reasons. Physics and reality.

Still, the building is gone. So we have 2 choices, one has at least been shown to be possible - fire. The other, impossible - rigging the building and blowing it with nobody noticing, and no explosions.

ergo, your side loses.

Sorry.

 

[Oystein]

Most aren't aware since this topic has not been covered much in the press.

LOL
Do you get your updates on engineering knowledge from "the press"?

All of my engineering colleagues, that I showed the collapse of WTC 7 to and then explained what the present official story for it was, thought the present official story to be ridiculous.

You are a mechanical engineer.
I suppose most of all those engineering colleagues are MEs too.
a. Do they, too, get their updates on engineering knowledge from "the press"?
b. What would they know? They are MEs, not SEs
c. Little wonder they think it's ridiculous wheny YOU tell the story

 

[DGM]

You shouldn't be trying to hide behind anyone, so tell us why you think a bulge at floors 10 to 13 on the southwest corner of the 300 foot long x 144 foot wide WTC 7 was in any way indicative of a full or even partial collapse of the building.

So we can assume you would go on record as saying the FDNY made a bad call pulling rescue efforts away from the collapsed towers (in fear of WTC7 collapse)?

 

[Oystein]

Dave lost by forfeit as he was either unable or unwilling to defend his position.

Here is a crybaby icon which is appropriate for many of you guys.

LOL
That describes how you lost to me, a non-engineer: You ignored my questions very very long

 

[Justin39640]

LOL
c. Little wonder they think it's ridiculous wheny YOU tell the story

No fear of biased opinions there.

 

[Oystein]

Most thought it was too big for them to do anything about and were reluctant to put their name on a petition for fear of something which could damage their ability to make a living.

99.98% of all your colleagues are cowards? Is that the message?

Do they know that is what you think about them?


Tell me, Tony, you have displayed utter engineering inability publicly on the webz for several years now, even went on TV with your bunk. How have you suffered? Are you able to make a living now?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

LOL
Do you get your updates on engineering knowledge from "the press"?



You are a mechanical engineer.
I suppose most of all those engineering colleagues are MEs too.
a. Do they, too, get their updates on engineering knowledge from "the press"?
b. What would they know? They are MEs, not SEs
c. Little wonder they think it's ridiculous wheny YOU tell the story

MEs take the same structural related courses as SEs. Who do you think designs the structures of aircraft, spacecraft, automobiles, heavy equipment, and various other machines and equipment which take heavy loads?

From what you are saying I think the real question here seems to be "what does Oystein really know?".

 

[Justin39640]

Blah, blah, blah. We have heard all this nonsense before. The "it was complete chaos and a lot of smaller failures too numerous to count so we can never know" meme is manure. You simply don't want to think too hard.

A "bulge" of a 30 foot high section on one corner of the 610 foot tall x 300 foot long x 144 foot wide building does not even come close to jeopardizing the integrity of a building that size. There were several columns severed where this alleged bulge was occurring and that didn't compromise the building. In fact the bulge is probably a result of the columns being sprung after being severed. It was meaningless in the full picture context.

Except that it wasn't just there one second when it wasn't before. It developed over time. Meaning the cancer of destruction INSIDE was spreading, Probably due to compression from lack of support. The building was a trooper, but it was ********** in the end.

 

[NoahFence]

You think a guy who can engineer a Toyota is qualified to speak to the structural integrity of a building that's been burning for 7+ hours, unfought and damaged to boot?

 

[Oystein]

MEs take the same structural related courses as SEs. Who do you think designs the structures of aircraft, spacecraft, automobiles, and various pieces of machinery and equipment which take heavy loads?

Tony Tony...

you are losing by default, can't you see?

Do you get your updates on engineering knowledge from "the press"?

You are a mechanical engineer.
I suppose most of all those engineering colleagues are MEs too.
a. Do they, too, get their updates on engineering knowledge from "the press"?
b. What would they know? They are MEs, not SEs
c. Little wonder they think it's ridiculous wheny YOU tell the story


They are all specialized by experience in something other than buildings.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So we can assume you would go on record as saying the FDNY made a bad call pulling rescue efforts away from the collapsed towers (in fear of WTC7 collapse)?

I think they should have hooked up to the three large siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 and charged the sprinkler system with water from the fireboats in the Hudson river about 400 to 500 yards away. There are photos showing water being used on WTC 6 at 1:30 PM in the afternoon.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony Tony...

you are losing by default, can't you see?

Do you get your updates on engineering knowledge from "the press"?

You are a mechanical engineer.
I suppose most of all those engineering colleagues are MEs too.
a. Do they, too, get their updates on engineering knowledge from "the press"?
b. What would they know? They are MEs, not SEs
c. Little wonder they think it's ridiculous wheny YOU tell the story


They are all specialized by experience in something other than buildings.

Again you show your ignorance. The science behind building stable structures is not specific to one area.

 

[Justin39640]

MEs take the same structural related courses as SEs. Who do you think designs the structures of aircraft, spacecraft, automobiles, heavy equipment, and various other machines and equipment which take heavy loads?

I actually agree. I work on machines that weigh up to 100 tons. If they have an engineering defect, you're gonna find out real quick. Sometimes it's not pretty.

 

[NoahFence]

I think they should have hooked up to the three large siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 and charged the sprinkler system with water from the fireboats in the Hudson river about 400 to 500 yards away. There are photos showing water being used on WTC 6 at 1:30 PM in the afternoon.

Sounds like a daunting, but not impossible task.

Should they have had say, 343 (or so) firefighters available, that plan may have just worked.

Great idea!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sounds like a daunting, but not impossible task.

Should they have had say, 343 (or so) firefighters available, that plan may have just worked.

Great idea!

There were still a few hundred firefighters who survived and were on the scene after the devastation when the towers collapsed. It wouldn't take that many firefighters to hook up to the siamese fittings and man the pumpers to keep the pressure on the water from the fireboats.

From what I understand, throughout the afternoon many firefighters were wondering why they weren't doing it.

 

[BasqueArch]

I will say that I believe the asymmetrically located east penthouse was pulled down inside the building so it wouldn't fly off or topple, with column 79 taken out up high only. The window damage you point out is only high in the building and supports this.

The claim that an explosive couldn't have been used because it would have taken out all of the other windows on the floor is not a very good argument, as by their very nature the shaped charges used to remove columns produce a very focused and directional shockwave. Column 79 was about 45 feet away from the north face of the building and those windows were about 10 to 12 feet apart. So the initially directional and focused shockwave would have expanded conically to about 30 to 40 feet wide after traveling 45 feet and produced four blown out windows.

Since you believe that it was impossible for fire to collapse column 79, then do you still believe explosives at this column is the more reasonable explanatiion for this failure.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Since you believe that it was impossible for fire to collapse column 79, then do you still believe explosives at this column is the more reasonable explanatiion for this failure.

All I can say is that column 79 definitely came down and it couldn't have been due to fire, so some form of artificial demolition device was used to remove it. It doesn't have to be explosives.