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

[tfk]

No, it doesn't.

If you're so darn busy -- I hope you are, honestly -- then take a break. Go do something useful this weekend. Something that has nothing to do with 9/11 or conspiracy theories or anything. That's where I'm going.

San Diego's famous Over The Line tournament is going on this weekend & next.

I am outta here...!!

You guys who are not familiar should really check it out. Be sure to peruse the team names, if you can find them.

Here's a little flavor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwrel&v=meIO0lNnKQ0

And some team names:

Warning NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv3jSZZXit0

What can I say. So Cal "culture"...

Surprisingly, the whole thing is a fund raiser for a bunch of good causes.

 

[tfk]

The reality is that it has been shown in unambiguous ways that the present NIST explanation for WTC 7's collapse has serious problems and is non-explanatory. A new investigation is clearly justified.

Rainman.

It is hard to understand why some, like TFK, argue against that so ardently and it certainly causes one to question their motives.

Oh, I don't know...

Some clown who calls himself a mechanical engineer, but insists that 2+2=Green...

... who augments his (lack of) credibility by claiming that an object that has been sitting motionless for 25 years has reached near light speed because it's been accelerating at 32 ft/sec² for all that time ...
(got that one figured out yet, Tony?)

... and then decides to call a couple hundred other engineers - men & women who have lived up to the highest standards of our profession, and dedicated years of their lives to this country's interests when it needed them the most - a bunch of "liars, frauds & traitors" ...

Gee, what could possibly raise ones hackles about that sort of behavior, Tony??

 

[tfk]

OK, last post & I'm outta here.
There be sun, fun, beer & wild women just down the hill...

That is this thread alone and the JREF forum alone. TFK (under other psuedonyms like the one he used on the BBC forum, Teeefkay or something like that) is all over the Internet trying to apologize for the present and demonstrably false official story about what took down WTC 7 and the Twin Towers. It appears that this is what he does fulltime. Isn't that interesting?

It is apparent that TFK's job is to try to argue for the present official story and against engineers who have spoken out against it and who are demanding a new investigation. If that fails, people like TFK then try to make it appear that people like me haven't and can never consider all of the factors involved. That is simply nonsense and all of TFK's attempts at trying to get more translation for the girder to walk-off its seat have been shown to be non-viable. This recent bit, by the likes of his fellow but apparently lower level ubiquitous apologist Oystein, is nothing more than an attempt at wearing me out. It has been shown, in a more than sufficient way, here and elsewhere, that the girder between columns 44 and 79 under the 13th floor of WTC 7 could not have walked-off its seat laterally and that the NIST collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 is an impossibility. Therefore a new investigation is justified.

There is one additional point I am doing more analysis on, which BasqueArch brought up, and that is an axial walk-off. NIST did not use this and my hand calculations show it is not viable either, but I am doing a finite element analysis of it to be sure.

LMAO.

OK, Tony. I'll cheerfully accept this wall of ad hominem as your admission that you are unable to contradict any of the technical points that I've just made in response to C7's nonsense.

Which you cannot, of course.

Only one thing that matters to real engineers, Tony.
"Is the information correct?"

But all you've got is personal attack.

Muy weak, Tonto.
___

And I've already posted EXACTLY where you are wrong. And why the NIST report is correct.

The beams pushed the c79/c44 girder to the west, and the c79/c76 girder pushed column 79 and seat to the east. Then NIST report says exactly this. I've already shown you the text.

"thermal expansion pushed the girder off it seat."

Nowhere does it say that c79 stayed motionless during this process.

And the only response that you have to the eastward push of c79 is "did not, did not."
___

PS. Tony, since you brought your lame attempt at an insulting portrayal of my career into the picture ...

If you'd like to publicly compare professional career accomplishments, you simply have to say the word. I'll be happy to oblige.

 

[GlennB]

... who augments his (lack of) credibility by claiming that an object that has been sitting motionless for 25 years has reached near light speed because it's been accelerating at 32 ft/sec² for all that time ...
(got that one figured out yet, Tony?)

One of my TS favourites, closely followed by the EMP "flying off sideways" unless it was CD'd first.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And I've already posted EXACTLY where you are wrong. And why the NIST report is correct.

The beams pushed the c79/c44 girder to the west, and the c79/c76 girder pushed column 79 and seat to the east. Then NIST report says exactly this. I've already shown you the text.

"thermal expansion pushed the girder off it seat."

Nowhere does it say that c79 stayed motionless during this process.

With the stiffeners we now know were on it the girder between columns 44 and 79 needs to be offset from its seat at the 13th floor at column 79 as least 9 inches to the west, and you have not shown how that is possible. Every attempt you have made to show the c79/c76 girder could have pushed column 79 to the east to make up the difference, since the beams can only push it about 4.5", has been shown to be non-viable.

NIST says column 79 was unsupported laterally between floors 5 and 14 from the west and south before the alleged walk-off took place. So your theory has the below problems

1. You need the c79/c76 girder under floor 14 to push column 79 to the east enough so that it moves at least 4.5" to the east at floor 13. The 45 foot long girder will only expand 4" at 600 degrees C, and it is 13 feet away from where your theory needs it to move 4.5". Additionally, Column 79 would be bowing from this push, so the movement at the 13th floor would be much less than that at the 14th floor.

2. The c79/c76 girder under floor 14 had at least nine beams with intact shear studs framing into it from the north and south. This will restrain the girder from doing too much pushing on column 79. If the beams aren't there that girder will buckle long before it could push column 79 even a couple of inches at the 14th floor.

and you haven't shown where NIST states what you are saying.

You need to show precisely how column 79 could have been pushed to the east by the c79/c76 girder under floor 14 to get the movement you need at floor 13. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke and trying to get away with it.

 

[dc1971]

With the stiffeners we now know were on it the girder between columns 44 and 79 needs to be offset from its seat at the 13th floor at column 79 as least 9 inches to the west, and you have not shown how that is possible. Every attempt you have made to show the c79/c76 girder could have pushed column 79 to the east to make up the difference, since the beams can only push it about 4.5", has been shown to be non-viable.

NIST says column 79 was unsupported laterally between floors 5 and 14 from the west and south before the alleged walk-off took place. So your theory has the below problems

1. You need the c79/c76 girder under floor 14 to push column 79 to the east enough so that it moves at least 4.5" to the east at floor 13. The 45 foot long girder will only expand 4" at 600 degrees C, and it is 13 feet away from where your theory needs it to move 4.5". Additionally, Column 79 would be bowing from this push, so the movement at the 13th floor would be much less than that at the 14th floor.

2. The c79/c76 girder under floor 14 had at least nine beams with intact shear studs framing into it from the north and south. This will restrain the girder from doing too much pushing on column 79. If the beams aren't there that girder will buckle long before it could push column 79 even a couple of inches at the 14th floor.

and you haven't shown where NIST states what you are saying.

You need to show precisely how column 79 could have been pushed to the east by the c79/c76 girder under floor 14 to get the movement you need at floor 13. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke and trying to get away with it.

Tony, you forget that there were fires on several floors. Column 79 "being pushed" is irrelevant. WTC 7 was shown to be unstable immediately after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as this video explains.

And NIST states this. Several times!

 

[ozeco41]

Tony, you forget that there were fires on several floors. Column 79 "being pushed" is irrelevant. WTC 7 was shown to be unstable immediately after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as this video explains...

That video clip from a fire-fighter on site concisely and elegantly puts the true situation in perspective. It is just as any reasonable informed person with no agenda would be aware. The building was fatally damaged and collapse was inevitable. And given the overall logistics priorities of the day 'let it go' was the only rational response. It was unwinnable and no lives at risk.

Which naturally raises the question "Why are the last few committed conspiracy supporters still arguing WTC7 CD?"

One answer is obvious. The CT supporters had lost hands down the battle to claim CD at the Twin Towers. There was simply too much evidence out in the open for them to sustain their nonsense claims.

However WTC7 had most of the evidence concealed inside the building. So the standard truthers mendacity and false logic of "Here is something that could be part of CD. Therefore we claim CD. Therefore you prove us wrong." Totally arse about logic: - Put up any anomaly totally bereft of any overall hypothesis or context. Then claim it means CD. Then challenge debunking opponents to prove it is wrong. And debunkers who are generous and prepared to overlook 'reversed burden of proof' at a disadvantage with WTC7 because they cannot access evidence to disprove CD any more that the CT's can advance evidence to prove there was CD. And CT's/Truthers/trolls not burdened by any apparent commitment to honesty.

However the four logical errors are:
1) no hypothesis to start with;
2) reverse burden of proof in the "you prove it couldn't be CD";
3) logical impossibility of prove a negative in the same challenge;
3A) Often a series of shifting goalposts but let that one pass for this thread; THEN
4) The pseudo-killer of the 'false dichotomy' of 'you cannot prove me wrong therefore I am right!'
So that has been tactics for years. Recently, as the remnant truthers get pushed further into irrelevancy, we have seen the following additional tactic - not a logic error but obvious tactics:
5) Since we cannot win keep discussion going round in circles.

That is precisely the five stage path Tony has followed - after he took over from Ta.g Team partner C7. Exactly the same trolling technique. For both of them an additional motivation - they are AE911 activists and AE911's strategy is based on the inevitable loser claim of "CD at WTC." So capitulation has to be deferred whilst Gage is still making money out of the scam.

So we see this sort of "Circle the Wagons" tactics or "Battle of the Alamo" except that there will be no Battle of San Jacinto for the truth movement. And they are certainly not the 'good guys'.

And Tony has been confronted with all of those realities. The one point in his favour is his persistence in illogical unsupportable denial. And even that is questionable because everyone should know when the battle is over and there is no benefit carrying on the nonsense.

 

[dc1971]

However the four logical errors are:
1) no hypothesis to start with;
2) reverse burden of proof in the "you prove it couldn't be CD";
3) logical impossibility of prove a negative in the same challenge;
3A) Often a series of shifting goalposts but let that one pass for this thread; THEN
4) The pseudo-killer of the 'false dichotomy' of 'you cannot prove me wrong therefore I am right!'
So that has been tactics for years. Recently, as the remnant truthers get pushed further into irrelevancy, we have seen the following additional tactic - not a logic error but obvious tactics:
5) Since we cannot win keep discussion going round in circles.

In other words, another "prove the sky is blue, prove it isn't" argument.

Tony has all of his eggs in one basket, however his basket has holes in it.

 

[ozeco41]

In other words, another "prove the sky is blue, prove it isn't" argument.

Tony has all of his eggs in one basket, however his basket has holes in it.

..."had" holes. All the eggs fell out weeks ago, and they were already rotten.

Cheers

 

[dc1971]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]
..."had" holes. All the eggs fell out weeks ago, and they were already rotten.

Cheers

I have as much respect for Tony as I do for Michael Shermer and Chris Mohr. My problem with Tony is that he has misconstrued most of his own research.

 

[ozeco41]

I have as much respect for Tony as I do for Michael Shermer and Chris Mohr. My problem with Tony is that he has misconstrued most of his own research.

I incline to think that his ideas are genuinely held - as an engineer I cannot understand why. Outside my range of experience and I spent decades managing many engineers from a wide range of thinking/reasoning styles.

BUT Respect the person - loathe the nonsense. Sometimes the distinction gets lost.

 

[dc1971]

I incline to think that his ideas are genuinely held - as an engineer I cannot understand why. Outside my range of experience and I spent decades managing many engineers from a wide range of thinking/reasoning styles.

BUT Respect the person - loathe the nonsense. Sometimes the distinction gets lost.

Is there a such thing as a Wanna-Be Truther?

 

[ozeco41]

Is there a such thing as a Wanna-Be Truther?

I cannot relate to the idea for myself.
I am a civil/structural engineer with Military - Army Reserve - experience including lots of exercise planning for demolitions and the basic hands on use of the toys stuff. My introduction to 9/11 conspiracy was when I needed to explain twin towers collapse to a CT nut friend of mine. So I did the military thing "How would I demolish the Towers if the General gave me the task?" Concluded "Could do it. Wouldn't look like 9/11 and no way could I keep it covert hidden behind a plan crash."

The other side of me is senior public service management jobs so aware of all the realities of politics, half truths, inter agency rivalries which set the framework for MIHOP; LIHOP and LIHOOI. Bottom line is I'm quite immune to the truther simplistic claims. Do you realise that nearly all the technical claims are based on a single anomaly issue out of context with no supporting hypothesis and backed by the bold assertion "It was CD" (no plane or shot down) followed up with the debating trick of reversing burden of proof - "You prove it wasn't."

So bottom line there is no way I would fall for the technical nonsense no matter how desperate the insults thrown at me. And the socio-political side says there must have been lots of little bits of failures but no overall plan.

And on the question you asked I cannot put myself into the mind set. I cannot see the motivation of our crop of trolls either. What is the mileage in saying silly, irritating or dishonest things to get people to bite? Other than a couple of posts for misguided fun ... but keep it up for months??? Beyond me.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, you forget that there were fires on several floors. Column 79 "being pushed" is irrelevant. WTC 7 was shown to be unstable immediately after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as this video explains.

And NIST states this. Several times!

That video does not explain anything and it is silly to even say so.

Fires and the complete collapse of an enormous 610 foot tall building with a plan the size of a football field are not synonymous terms in case you don't get that.

Relative to where NIST says the collapse initiated there were fires on floors 7 thru 9 and 11 thru 13. There was no fire on floor 10.

What happened to column 79 and the girders framing into it is very relevant to the NIST explanation, and TFK's attempted rehabilitation of the NIST hypothesis is impossible itself as my earlier post shows.

The bottom line here is that the present NIST explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 has been shown to be impossible and a new investigation is warranted and needs to be undertaken.

 

[BasqueArch]

That video does not explain anything and it is silly to even say so.

Fires and the complete collapse of an enormous 610 foot tall building with a plan the size of a football field are not synonymous terms in case you don't get that.

Relative to where NIST says the collapse initiated there were fires on floors 7 thru 9 and 11 thru 13. There was no fire on floor 10.

What happened to column 79 and the girders framing into it is very relevant to the NIST explanation, and TFK's attempted rehabilitation of the NIST hypothesis is impossible itself as my earlier post shows.

Girder is displaced,buckles,sags, seat fails, girder slides off.
It's been over a week. When will you present your work.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Girder is displaced,buckles,sags, seat fails, girder slides off.
It's been over a week. When will you present your work.

I am working on the FEA of your axial walk-off theory. These analyses take time, as you should know. I am also doing it on a very part-time basis as I have a fulltime job. I should have it in the next couple of weeks. So, unless you can get it done faster, you will have to be patient.

Of course, regardless of the results of the axial walk-off analysis the NIST explanation is still impossible as they did not use that and claimed a lateral walk-off, which has been shown to be impossible with the stiffeners on the girder.

 

[GlennB]

I am working on the FEA of your axial walk-off theory. These analyses take time, as you should know. I am also doing it on a very part-time basis as I have a fulltime job. I should have it in the next couple of weeks.

If you have time .... could you knock together a quick diagram showing how column ends could collide axially once collapse is under way? You were promising that about 2 years ago, iirc.

 

[BasqueArch]

I am working on the FEA of your axial walk-off theory. These analyses take time, as you should know. I am also doing it on a very part-time basis as I have a fulltime job. I should have it in the next couple of weeks. So, unless you can get it done faster, you will have to be patient.

Of course, regardless of the results of the axial walk-off analysis the NIST explanation is still impossible as they did not use that and claimed a lateral walk-off, which has been shown to be impossible with the stiffeners on the girder.

One claim is that NIST’s analysis is wrong. Others, like tfk, can best discuss this.
To your other claim that it is impossible for fire to have caused the collapse of WTC7, I propose a possible hypothesis. In this scenario, the west displaced unbolted buckled girder sagged more than 2”, placed its weight on one corner of the seat tip, the seat failed and the girder slid off. This hypothesis needs analysis.

 

[Animal]

That video does not explain anything and it is silly to even say so.

Fires and the complete collapse of an enormous 610 foot tall building with a plan the size of a football field are not synonymous terms in case you don't get that.

Argument by incredulity. <YAWN>

Relative to where NIST says the collapse initiated there were fires on floors 7 thru 9 and 11 thru 13. There was no fire on floor 10.

What happened to column 79 and the girders framing into it is very relevant to the NIST explanation, and TFK's attempted rehabilitation of the NIST hypothesis is impossible itself as my earlier post shows.

Your earlier post show nothing but your own errors.

The bottom line here is that the present NIST explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 has been shown to be impossible and a new investigation is warranted and needs to be undertaken.

The bottom line is that you are the only one claiming impossibility and repeating the same claim over and over and over will not turn it into a fact.

 

[Animal]

In other words, another "prove the sky is blue, prove it isn't" argument.

Tony has all of his eggs in one basket, however his basket has holes in it.

Also "garbage in garbage out"

C7 ran away when all his claims were proven to be wrong. Tony is comically still hanging onto these proven wrong claims (like the 600d temp.)