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

[Justin39640]

This is what irritates the the most about truthers. If you're going to hold sources that you disagree with up to a microscope, you need to do it with sources you agree with.

Seriously

 

[Tony Szamboti]

LOL

Says the man who absolutely refuses to hold his tag team partner C7 to that same standard

Tony, I have said plenty of times: I am not an engineer. But I can read, and I got logic.
What good are your facts if your logic is screwed? One doesn't even need facts to show your logic sucks

This is what irritates the the most about truthers. If you're going to hold sources that you disagree with up to a microscope, you need to do it with sources you agree with.

Seriously

It is clear that the fact free zone group is out in force here now. You guys can have fun in your little sandbox. In the meantime, I hope you will forgive me for not answering until something with a little grist to it is actually stated.

 

[NoahFence]

It is clear that the fact free zone group is out in force here now. You guys can have fun in your little sandbox. In the meantime, I hope you will forgive me for not answering until something with a little grist to it is actually stated.

 

[twinstead]

It is clear that the fact free zone group is out in force here now. You guys can have fun in your little sandbox. In the meantime, I hope you will forgive me for not answering until something with a little grist to it is actually stated.

the truth hurts, does it not?

 

[NoahFence]

the truth hurts, does it not?

I sure do like the "fact free" comment.

All we have is fact. And when we comment on these facts, such as "there were no : explosions immediately prior to, or during collapse, Tony and his ilk run away.

 

[Animal]

I sure do like the "fact free" comment.

All we have is fact. And when we comment on these facts, such as "there were no : explosions immediately prior to, or during collapse, Tony and his ilk run away.

Someone only has to look at the thread titles of 911forum to see a truly fact free zone. No TS takes comfort there.

 

[LSSBB]

Supporting information providing a basis for and showing the comments have merit.

Supporting information, such as valid derivations of the constraints you have placed on the impacts to the girder and columns in question before proclaiming, apropos of nothing, that "you have disproved NIST" and uncorking your champaign in celebration?

 

[tfk]

i.e. you and "a large number of technical people's arguments" were rejected.

Somebody must have left a gate open here for you guys to get out. I wouldn't even try to explain to anyone that some people actually make these types of comments, if they can even be called that. I guess this kind of absolute inanity is what one risks getting hit with when they go on a site that doesn't require any backup for comments.

Let's see if Tony's Shock & Awe at Animal's statement is justified. Or simply more mendacity.


AE911Truth trumpeted, with great anticipation, their submittal to NIST's requests for public comments. These architects & engineers, which included Szamboti, were going to force NIST to fix their errors.

Somehow, it didn't turn out as Gage & Tony anticipated, to put it mildly ...
___

Below are ALL of the errors that AE911T submitted to NIST during the "public comment" period.

And NIST's reply to each.
[ETA: excuse the typos. This was OCR'd from a NIST image file.]
___

AE911T's claim:
you assert that NIST violated the Information Quality Standard by rejecting the less severe damage estimates for both WTC 1 and WTC 2.

NIST's response:
NIST ... is therefore denying your request to include a detailed computer simulation using the less severe damage estimate.
__

AE911T's claim:
You further assert in your letter that the exclusion of the less severe and base cases from the full structural analysis is an example of circular logic.

NIST's response:
NIST … is denying your request for inclusion of all computer simulations depicted in Figure 9-2 of NCSTAR 1-6 for the reasons given in the report.
__

AE911T's claim:
Your letter asserts that because the isolated core models did not converge on a solution when
subjected to Case B (WTC 1) and Case D (WTC 2) impact damage and fire conditions, the "pruned" analysis tree depicted in Figure 9-3 ofNCSTAR 1-6 is incorrect.

NIST's response:
Thus,there is no inconsistency between the text of NCSTAR 1-6 and the information depicted in Figure 9-3.
__

AE911T's claim:
Your letter further requests that NIST revise the report to state that the computer simulations did not predict that WTC 2 would collapse from the aircraft impact damage and the resulting fires or revise the statement that "significant weakening of the core due to aircraft damage and thermal effects" was "necessary" for structural collapse;

NIST's response:
We believe this statement is correct and useful, and do not plan to make revisions as requested.
__

AE911T's claim:
Your letter asserts that the amount of floor sagging calculated by computer models and the amount of floor sagging measured during tests conducted in accordance with the ASTM E1 19 standard are clearly inconsistent with each other.

NIST's response:
There is no inconsistency present in these results, and therefore your request for correction is being denied.
__

AE911T's claim:
Your letter asserts that temperatures reached by steel recovered byNIST for the investigation, directly contradicts the temperatures calculated by the analytical models.

NIST's response:
On this basis, your request that NIST revise NCSTAR 1- 6 to make its computer simulation conditions consistent with the conditions used for fire resistance rating tests of the floor assembly is being denied.
__

The next 5 claims are presented together & answered together

AE911T's claim:
The final section of your request asserts that the WTC Report's stated goal and overall analysis violates the Data Quality Act and OMB/NIST Information Quality Standards.

AE911T's claim:
Your letter contends that NIST's report violates the Information Quality Standard of "utility." NIST believes that the report has utility.

AE911T's claim:
Your letter also contends that the NIST report is biased because it considered only the scenario of fuel laden commercial jetliners impacting the towers …

AE911T's claim:
Your letter further asserts that NIST failed to take into account interviews of emergency personnel that suggested the presence of bombs in the towers.

AE911T's claim:
The first five of these requested corrections address removing bias toward finding that the impact of jet airliners plus the resulting fires were the only cause of collapse of the WTC Towers.

NIST's response:
Therefore, your requests for corrections (Items a-e in your letter) are denied.
__

AE911T's claim:
Your letter also makes three requests for changes to Section 6.14.4 under the objectivity standard to include: (1) supporting data with transparent documentation and identification of error sources, with regards to the potential energy released during the downward movement of the upper stories, the absorptive capacity of the intact structure below the collapse zone, and the increase in the falling mass below the collapse zone; (2) to revise the section if NIST finds the absorptive capacity of the intact structure below the collapse zone was greater than the energy released by the falling stories; and (3) to include the results of tests for explosive residue.

NIST's response:
Therefore, your requests for corrections (items f-h) are denied.
__

AE911T's claim:
The final request for change in your letter is for NIST to revise the WTC Report to make the information useful in accordance with the information quality standards.

NIST's response:
On this basis, this request for change is denied.
__

NIST's closing paragraph:

Thank you for your interest. If you have questions or concerns,you may contact me at
info.TakeAHike.gov. Please refer to hgp://www.nist.gov/WhatMoronsPreparedThis.htm for additional information.

Translation for the clueless:
"Thanks for the laugh. Don't let the door smack you in the butt on the way out."
___

This is the best that AE911T can do, picking their "low hanging fruit".

Pretty pathetic offering on the part of AE911T's engineers.

Wouldn't you say, Tony?
___

Now, with this in mind, don't you think that you owe Animal an apology & a public correction?

tk

PS. Tony, I noted that AE911T's submittal was available on their website. But, somehow, NIST's response was conspicuously absent.

Can you explain?
Doesn't AE911T want to provide their readers the "truth"?

Or do they prefer "da twoof, da whole twoof, and nothing but da twoof"?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Let's see if Tony's Shock & Awe at Animal's statement is justified. Or simply more mendacity.


AE911Truth trumpeted, with great anticipation, their submittal to NIST's requests for public comments. These architects & engineers, which included Szamboti, were going to force NIST to fix their errors.

Somehow, it didn't turn out as Gage & Tony anticipated, to put it mildly ...
___

Below are ALL of the errors that AE911T submitted to NIST during the "public comment" period.

And NIST's reply to each.
[ETA: excuse the typos. This was OCR'd from a NIST image file.]
___

AE911T's claim:
you assert that NIST violated the Information Quality Standard by rejecting the less severe damage estimates for both WTC 1 and WTC 2.

NIST's response:
NIST ... is therefore denying your request to include a detailed computer simulation using the less severe damage estimate.
__

AE911T's claim:
You further assert in your letter that the exclusion of the less severe and base cases from the full structural analysis is an example of circular logic.

NIST's response:
NIST … is denying your request for inclusion of all computer simulations depicted in Figure 9-2 of NCSTAR 1-6 for the reasons given in the report.
__

AE911T's claim:
Your letter asserts that because the isolated core models did not converge on a solution when
subjected to Case B (WTC 1) and Case D (WTC 2) impact damage and fire conditions, the "pruned" analysis tree depicted in Figure 9-3 ofNCSTAR 1-6 is incorrect.

NIST's response:
Thus,there is no inconsistency between the text of NCSTAR 1-6 and the information depicted in Figure 9-3.
__

AE911T's claim:
Your letter further requests that NIST revise the report to state that the computer simulations did not predict that WTC 2 would collapse from the aircraft impact damage and the resulting fires or revise the statement that "significant weakening of the core due to aircraft damage and thermal effects" was "necessary" for structural collapse;

NIST's response:
We believe this statement is correct and useful, and do not plan to make revisions as requested.
__

AE911T's claim:
Your letter asserts that the amount of floor sagging calculated by computer models and the amount of floor sagging measured during tests conducted in accordance with the ASTM E1 19 standard are clearly inconsistent with each other.

NIST's response:
There is no inconsistency present in these results, and therefore your request for correction is being denied.
__

AE911T's claim:
Your letter asserts that temperatures reached by steel recovered byNIST for the investigation, directly contradicts the temperatures calculated by the analytical models.

NIST's response:
On this basis, your request that NIST revise NCSTAR 1- 6 to make its computer simulation conditions consistent with the conditions used for fire resistance rating tests of the floor assembly is being denied.
__

The next 5 claims are presented together & answered together

AE911T's claim:
The final section of your request asserts that the WTC Report's stated goal and overall analysis violates the Data Quality Act and OMB/NIST Information Quality Standards.

AE911T's claim:
Your letter contends that NIST's report violates the Information Quality Standard of "utility." NIST believes that the report has utility.

AE911T's claim:
Your letter also contends that the NIST report is biased because it considered only the scenario of fuel laden commercial jetliners impacting the towers …

AE911T's claim:
Your letter further asserts that NIST failed to take into account interviews of emergency personnel that suggested the presence of bombs in the towers.

AE911T's claim:
The first five of these requested corrections address removing bias toward finding that the impact of jet airliners plus the resulting fires were the only cause of collapse of the WTC Towers.

NIST's response:
Therefore, your requests for corrections (Items a-e in your letter) are denied.
__

AE911T's claim:
Your letter also makes three requests for changes to Section 6.14.4 under the objectivity standard to include: (1) supporting data with transparent documentation and identification of error sources, with regards to the potential energy released during the downward movement of the upper stories, the absorptive capacity of the intact structure below the collapse zone, and the increase in the falling mass below the collapse zone; (2) to revise the section if NIST finds the absorptive capacity of the intact structure below the collapse zone was greater than the energy released by the falling stories; and (3) to include the results of tests for explosive residue.

NIST's response:
Therefore, your requests for corrections (items f-h) are denied.
__

AE911T's claim:
The final request for change in your letter is for NIST to revise the WTC Report to make the information useful in accordance with the information quality standards.

NIST's response:
On this basis, this request for change is denied.
__

NIST's closing paragraph:

Thank you for your interest. If you have questions or concerns,you may contact me at
info.TakeAHike.gov. Please refer to hgp://www.nist.gov/WhatMoronsPreparedThis.htm for additional information.

Translation for the clueless:
"Thanks for the laugh. Don't let the door smack you in the butt on the way out."
___

This is the best that AE911T can do, picking their "low hanging fruit".

Pretty pathetic offering on the part of AE911T's engineers.

Wouldn't you say, Tony?
___

Now, with this in mind, don't you think that you owe Animal an apology & a public correction?

tk

PS. Tony, I noted that AE911T's submittal was available on their website. But, somehow, NIST's response was conspicuously absent.

Can you explain?
Doesn't AE911T want to provide their readers the "truth"?

Or do they prefer "da twoof, da whole twoof, and nothing but da twoof"?

I thought you were done with me.

Oh, I see you are, as now you are changing the topic and asking me to answer for other people.

Sorry Tom, but I can only answer for myself, and in the case of the discussion between you and I here, about the NIST alleged girder walk-off, you don't have a leg to stand on. You simply can't get that girder to come off of its seat no matter what you do.

 

[beachnut]

I thought you were done with me.

...
Sorry Tom, but I can only answer for myself, and in the case of the discussion between you and I here, about the NIST alleged girder walk-off, you don't have a leg to stand on. You simply can't get that girder to come off of its seat no matter what you do.

Have you published your stuff in a Real Engineering Journal? No. You said you were going to; update? Have you contacted CBS and told them you have proof of the Real CD Deal? No, yes, or what?

You are using the Internet to push nonsense. Reality, done with with you, when the "readcddeal" showed up. Sad, 10 years wasted on nonsense, but it has was not a waste! You are entertaining; never seen so much woo since you and Balsamo showed up. Sad to see Gage plagiarize the 911 woo to earn 300k a year. Poor Balsamo, too specialized. What have you to show for 10 years of nonsense? Gage made nearly a million dollars, if not more. Balsamo, able to sell a few dumbed down DVDs to a fringe few. What is your achievement beside failing to prove the realcddeal?

Why waste time bashing NIST on probable cause? Publish your probable cause; have you done so?

 

[Justin39640]

I thought you were done with me.

Oh, I see you are, as now you are changing the topic and asking me to answer for other people.

Sorry Tom, but I can only answer for myself, and in the case of the discussion between you and I here, about the NIST alleged girder walk-off, you don't have a leg to stand on. You simply can't get that girder to come off of its seat no matter what you do.

NIST's conclusions are a theory. It may, in fact, be wrong. But no matter what, uncontrolled fires brought that building down. You nitpicking over a few pieces of a giant puzzle doesn't and will not ever change that fact.

 

[tfk]

Cripes, Tony,

Do try to keep up.

With both this conversation ... AND with work to which you've signed your name.

I thought you were done with me.

I'm done with your nonsense regarding your claim to have proven anything about the walk-off of the girder.

You've "proven" precisely squat.

But I can't stop you from typing that.

The only thing that I can do is chuckle each time I see you write it.

Oh, I see you are, as now you are changing the topic and asking me to answer for other people.

1. "… changing the topic"??

Nope. I addressed exactly the topic that Animal brought up. And the topic that you answered. And I even showed exactly where you answered it.

Pretty lame, Tony.

Furthermore, the question of "what happened to your previous 'proofs' on 9/11 issues" is COMPLETELY relevant to this discussion. As we can see, this group of your previous proofs fell flat on its @ss.

2. "… answer for other people"??

Excuse me.

Allow me to cut & paste the list (in order) of the people who are the "authors of record" for the submittal from ae911t to NIST for the questions that I just provided:

These public comments on the NIST WTC 7 Report are being submitted by the following individuals:

James R. Gourley, Esq.
Chemical Engineer
International Center for 9/11 Studies [email protected]

Tony Szamboti
Mechanical Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage
AIA Architect
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D. Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Dr. Steven Jones Ph.D. Physicist S&J Scientific Co.

Kevin Ryan
Chemist
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Chris Sarns
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Kamal Obeid, SE PE
Structural Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Scott Grainger, PE
Forensic Engineer
Civil Engineer
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[from "Public Comments Received by NIST on WTC7 Draft Report", pg 341]

Recognize anyone in that list, Tony?

But let's fix a couple of those, shall we? They ain't quite right.

James R. Gourley, Esq., Patent Attorney (don't know squat about structural engineering.)
Tony Szamboti, Alleged Mechanical Engineer
Richard Gage, Cult Leader & Con Artist (don't know squat about structural engineering.)
Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof. of Religious Studies (don't know squat about structural engineering.)
Dr. Steven Jones Ph.D., Particle Physicist (don't know squat about structural engineering.)
Kevin Ryan, Unemployed water inspector (don't know squat about structural engineering.)
Chris Sarns, Hardware store clerk, Microsoft Paint dilletante (don't know squat about structural engineering.)

Now we get down to the "hey, do you mind if I stick your name on this paper. I need to make it look like someone knows what they are talking about" section.
Kamal Obeid, SE PE, Structural Engineer (should know squat about structural engineering, but apparently don't.)
Scott Grainger, PE, Forensic Engineer (don't know squat about structural engineering.)

By publishing tradition, you were the principle engineer who contributed to that submittal. (Any engineer who lets a lawyer precede him in a technical paper needs a lesson in self-respect.)

So, Tony, what's the truth. Did you provide the principle technical "expertise" to a paper that went down in flames?

Or did Gage fraudulently attach your name to his pile o' crappola?

Sorry Tom, but I can only answer for myself,

I truly hope that you do "answer for yourself" the question that I asked about your authorship of that NIST submittal.

I fully expect that all of your future submittals will meet with EXACTLY the same level of respect & impact.

… and in the case of the discussion between you and I here, about the NIST alleged girder walk-off, you don't have a leg to stand on. You simply can't get that girder to come off of its seat no matter what you do.

You don't get it.

I am not the one making laughable, baseless assertions. I don't have to do anything.

I've got a bunch of the best structural engineers, FEA modelers in the world who have done all of that work for me.

And I am competent enough to use my engineering judgment to conclude that, just like the other 1000 decisions that the NIST & academia & industry engineers made in the course of writing this report, this analysis will prove out to be true, too.

All I HAVE to do, Tony, is kick back, order another margarita, watch the sun go down over the Pacific, and maybe talk to that really, really cute brunette sitting at the next table.

YOU, on the other hand, have got a boatload of work to do to "prove" your silly contention. Better get crackin'.

C'ya.


Tom

PS, I think I may have a typo above.

I think that list should have read:
Tony Szamboti, Alleged Mechanical Engineer (don't know squat about structural engineering.)

 

[NoahFence]

I thought you were done with me.

Oh, I see you are, as now you are changing the topic and asking me to answer for other people.

Sorry Tom, but I can only answer for myself, and in the case of the discussion between you and I here, about the NIST alleged girder walk-off, you don't have a leg to stand on. You simply can't get that girder to come off of its seat no matter what you do.

I can get the girder off its seat. just set it on fire for 7 hours and let gravity do the rest.

Easy Peezy.

 

[Animal]

Cripes, Tony,

Do try to keep up.

With both this conversation ... AND with work to which you've signed your name.



I'm done with your nonsense regarding your claim to

Tom

PS, I think I may have a typo above.

I think that list should have read:
Tony Szamboti, Alleged Mechanical Engineer (don't know squat about structural engineering.)

May I have your attention please. In tonights performance, the part of the slapped around red headed step child, normally played by Chris Sarns will be played by Tony Szamboti

 

[ozeco41]

May I have your attention please. In tonights performance, the part of the slapped around red headed step child, normally played by Chris Sarns will be played by Tony Szamboti

We are at the stage where the "tag" occurs and the other player enters the ring.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Cripes, Tony,

Do try to keep up.

With both this conversation ... AND with work to which you've signed your name.



I'm done with your nonsense regarding your claim to have proven anything about the walk-off of the girder.

You've "proven" precisely squat.

But I can't stop you from typing that.

The only thing that I can do is chuckle each time I see you write it.



1. "… changing the topic"??

Nope. I addressed exactly the topic that Animal brought up. And the topic that you answered. And I even showed exactly where you answered it.

Pretty lame, Tony.

Furthermore, the question of "what happened to your previous 'proofs' on 9/11 issues" is COMPLETELY relevant to this discussion. As we can see, this group of your previous proofs fell flat on its @ss.

2. "… answer for other people"??

Excuse me.

Allow me to cut & paste the list (in order) of the people who are the "authors of record" for the submittal from ae911t to NIST for the questions that I just provided:




[from "Public Comments Received by NIST on WTC7 Draft Report", pg 341]

Recognize anyone in that list, Tony?

But let's fix a couple of those, shall we? They ain't quite right.

James R. Gourley, Esq., Patent Attorney (don't know squat about structural engineering.)
Tony Szamboti, Alleged Mechanical Engineer
Richard Gage, Cult Leader & Con Artist (don't know squat about structural engineering.)
Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof. of Religious Studies (don't know squat about structural engineering.)
Dr. Steven Jones Ph.D., Particle Physicist (don't know squat about structural engineering.)
Kevin Ryan, Unemployed water inspector (don't know squat about structural engineering.)
Chris Sarns, Hardware store clerk, Microsoft Paint dilletante (don't know squat about structural engineering.)

Now we get down to the "hey, do you mind if I stick your name on this paper. I need to make it look like someone knows what they are talking about" section.
Kamal Obeid, SE PE, Structural Engineer (should know squat about structural engineering, but apparently don't.)
Scott Grainger, PE, Forensic Engineer (don't know squat about structural engineering.)

By publishing tradition, you were the principle engineer who contributed to that submittal. (Any engineer who lets a lawyer precede him in a technical paper needs a lesson in self-respect.)

So, Tony, what's the truth. Did you provide the principle technical "expertise" to a paper that went down in flames?

Or did Gage fraudulently attach your name to his pile o' crappola?



I truly hope that you do "answer for yourself" the question that I asked about your authorship of that NIST submittal.

I fully expect that all of your future submittals will meet with EXACTLY the same level of respect & impact.



You don't get it.

I am not the one making laughable, baseless assertions. I don't have to do anything.

I've got a bunch of the best structural engineers, FEA modelers in the world who have done all of that work for me.

And I am competent enough to use my engineering judgment to conclude that, just like the other 1000 decisions that the NIST & academia & industry engineers made in the course of writing this report, this analysis will prove out to be true, too.

All I HAVE to do, Tony, is kick back, order another margarita, watch the sun go down over the Pacific, and maybe talk to that really, really cute brunette sitting at the next table.

YOU, on the other hand, have got a boatload of work to do to "prove" your silly contention. Better get crackin'.

C'ya.


Tom

PS, I think I may have a typo above.

I think that list should have read:
Tony Szamboti, Alleged Mechanical Engineer (don't know squat about structural engineering.)

In September of 2008 I did participate in a collected series of public comments on the WTC 7 report by individual engineers, one of whom was Ron Brookman who is a structural engineer. I didn't see where you listed him, but maybe it was just an innocent oversight on your part. James Gourley put the separate comments from all of us together. He is a chemical engineer as well as a patent attorney. In case you aren't aware it wasn't sanctioned by any specific group. The comments included a number of things like besides structural issues such as the freefall acceleration, fires, steel evidence of sulfidation etc., so it wasn't just structural and mechanical engineers involved. I also didn't see where you listed David Chandler, but maybe that was just another oversight on your part. He wrote the part about freefall acceleration which NIST did acknowledge in the final report.

I did not recognize any of that material you quoted in your earlier post and it had things about the twin towers, that were certainly not in the comment paper I was a part of concerning WTC 7. I think you are mixing quotes, papers, and authors.

Not that I think you would intentionally do that, or that you would possibly skim things a little here and there to support your point, but I did a solid model layout tonight of the C79/C76 girder. It turns out that even at 9 inches of translation to the west at ambient temperature the stiffener area is well over the support plate below the seat. This makes me realize your ambient temperature analysis is wrong from the gitgo, as well as the fact that it is invalid due to not using the thermal expansion.

There is no question as to whether or not I am a mechanical engineer. I am one and have been working in the field doing structural design and analysis in the aerospace and communications industries for over 20 years. You can write to Villanova University if you feel the need to verify my degree. You know my full name but we don't know yours, so you have to be taken as an anonymous Internet jockey since there is no way to verify otherwise.

You have clearly lost the debate about the alleged girder walk-off, which is what this thread is about, and it is apparent that you are looking for other ways to get at me. That really isn't very professional. You are way out on a limb and your garbage is becoming obvious. Maybe there is a place in the sandbox here for you with the fact free zone crew.

 

[Animal]

I did participate in a collected series of comments on the WTC 7 report by individual engineers one of whom was Ron Brookman who is a structural engineer. James Gourley put the separate comments from all of us together. He is a chemical engineer as well as a patent attorney. In case you aren't aware it wasn't sanctioned by any specific group.

I did not recognize any of that material you quoted in your earlier post and it had things about the twin towers, that were certainly not in the comment paper I was a part of concerning WTC 7. I think you are mixing quotes, papers, and authors.

Not that I think you would intentionally do that, or that you would possibly skim things a little here and there, but I did a solid model layout tonight of the C79/C76 girder. It turns out that even at 9 inches of translation to the west at ambient temperature the stiffener area is well over the support plate below the seat. This makes me realize your ambient temperature analysis is wrong from the gitgo as well as the fact that I pointed out that it is invalid due to not using the thermal expansion.

You are way out on a limb and your garbage is becoming obvious.

And after all your blather, you and "several technical people's" arguments still were soundly rejected.Nothing will change that fact.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It turns out that even at 9 inches of translation to the west...

Your knowledge of statics is abhorrent.

 

[000063]

Pretty much. To be conversant on the OCT you can't be stupid.

However, it is quite possible to think one is conversant and be stupid. Many Truthers are often only debunking straw man versions of the official story, meaning that they are not actually conversant with the real story.

To believe that the OCT was the truth you'd be way stupid or uninformed.

Well-poisoning. I am neither. A number of Truthers believe things that are physically impossible, such as Them having some sort of supercomputer that can simulate perfectly each nut and bolt of a 110 story skyscraper during a chaotic collapse. And that was the one guy who ever bothered to answer the question. He didn't respond to follow-up questions, though.

I wonder what happened to him?

 

[R.Mackey]

I think that list should have read:
Tony Szamboti, Alleged Mechanical Engineer (don't know squat about structural engineering.)

Weeeell, now, let's be fair. Tony is a mechanical engineer. That doesn't mean he's a go-to guy for structural engineering, however.

To avoid personalizing this, I likewise would not automatically be assumed to know structural engineering like an expert. I'm an Aero. While I've taken statics, strength of materials, solid mechanics, FEA, and even a couple of civil engineering courses, I just don't have the depth of experience with buildings that many others do -- the problems I encounter on a regular basis are different.

So I might take a stab at a structures problem, and I might even get it right. But if celebrated structural engineering professors and entire CE societies contradict me, I jolly well will sit down and pay attention, hoping to learn something.

Heck, I may even discover something they've all missed. But the likelihood of this will be slim, and the burden of proof upon me to explain and verify my finding will be very high indeed.

There's a professional way to raise such concerns, and then there's the Internet tough-guy approach. I recommend the former.