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

[tsig]

the truth hurts, does it not?

Like a bad rash around the ass.

 

[tsig]

His current hypothesis is that the entire flange of the girder must be pushed off the bearing seat for the connection to fail. He is unaware that once the center-line of the web is pushed off the seat the entire shape will just roll off under it's own self-weight.

No, no even an inch of the seat will support the whole weight./Tony's position.

 

[tsig]

Is there some point here?

 

[Justin39640]

Yes, I was wondering about that one. If there's enough weight on it, even if it doesn't roll off it could simply twist and slide off. Then there's deformation of the bearing seat under eccentric load, which I'd have thought would at least have to be considered. The simple statement that deflection by less than some arbitrary amount will not lead to failure seems slipshod and vastly over-simplified.

Dave

I thought that was a given. I don't think Tony can visualize how things actually break and fall apart.

I always tell my (cheaper) customers that once something starts to break, it's not going to heal itself. It'll only get worse. Add heat and 30 or so stories of pressure, and it gets worse... real quick.

 

[Justin39640]

Gourley is a patent attorney.
I acknowledge that, a long time ago, he got a degree in Chem Engr.
He IS a patent attorney.

Just to be fair

I have a friend who got his PHD in Chemical Engineering and then decided to become a patent lawyer. 99% of the cases he works on are related to chemistry and/or the processing of chemicals (a lot of pharmaceutical). Gourley could be using his CE background in his cases like my friend does. There is a **** ton of research involved with these kind of patent cases from what he told me.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Yes, these effects were considered in the analysis work that shows the NIST girder walk-off scenario for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible.

So Tony...I would love to see your computer model...I can set up and ftp site so you can upload the input file, so I can take a look at it. MHM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Here ya go, Tony.

Download it yourself from NIST's webpage:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm

Just below the last paragraph of text on the page that begins:

"On August 21, 2008, NIST released for public comments DRAFT REPORTS documenting the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster – WTC 7…"

And right above:
"DRAFT Reports released for public comment in August 2008:"

you will find
Public comments received by NIST August 21 - September 15, 2008 (PDF, 32.6 MB)

Or you can click directly on this link.

I'll expect an apology & a retraction of your comments below about my "leaving people out", my "skimming for quotes", my "oversights", etc.

As I told you, I cut & pasted every cited part of that post. Including the author list, AE911T's stated comments, & NIST's replies.

Unlike truthers, I don't HAVE to quote-mine in order to make my points.




Read for yourself.
No oversight.

Gourley listed first.
You second.



"You are what you do."

Gourley is a patent attorney.
I acknowledge that, a long time ago, he got a degree in Chem Engr.
He IS a patent attorney.



Read for yourself.

That is precisely NOT what it says in the comments.
It was submitted under the banner of AE911T.

With your name attached.

Did Gage commit fraud?



Read for yourself.
He's not listed under the AE911T submittal.



I think you are tossing around insults without knowing WTF you are talking about.
Read it for yourself.



Nope.
I wouldn't.
I didn't.
Read for youself.



I have specifically and repeatedly stated that I accept that you got a degree in Mech Engr. a bunch of years ago.

That does NOT, in my book, make you a mechanical engineer.

The work that you produce makes you a mechanical engineer.
I've seen your work.
In spite of the fact that someone handed you a diploma a bunch of years ago, I've come to the conclusion that you don't even rise to the level of "a bad mechanical engineer".

But rather, "you're not a mechanical engineer".

This is analogous to Wolfgang Pauli's comment that it (in this case, you) are so bad, that "you're not even wrong."



You've told us.

What you do is utterly removed from designing or analyzing skyscrapers.

I know what I do is just as far removed.

I, unlike you, have the common sense to listen to experts who DO design & analyze skyscrapers.



It's always easy to tell "who lost the debate", Tony.

It's always the one that feels the need to say, "I won the debate."

Don't you just LOVE irony...



Yup.

I have found that "quoting you exactly" is the best way that I've found to "get at you."

Perhaps you should consider taking that particular bludgeon away from those that beat you up in debates, Tony. Take it away, by stop saying things that are so "bludgeon-worthy".



Professional?

YOU are commenting about "professional"????

Would that be "professional, as in accusing a bunch of the finest structural engineers this country has produced, from government, industry & academia, of fraud, incompetence & treason"???

That kind of "professional"?

If you had a PE license, the things that you've written would have gotten you sanctioned & your license stripped.

That's the kind of "professional" that you exemplify, Tony.

Go lecture someone who doesn't know at what level of buffoonery you've behaved.


tk

PS. After you've read what you are alleged by ae911t to have written, I WILL expect that acknowledgement & apology.

James Gourley clearly states in the beginning of the letter found here http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794 that he was writing on behalf of a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals. I signed the public comments letter as a member of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.

It is very obvious that you have nothing to say about the girder walk-off and are stumped, and are now desperately trying to somehow make something up out of nothing by tying me to other things you think you can prove wrong. You are a genuine kook if you think I violated any ethical or professional standard by signing that public comments letter. Your problem is clearly that you have no way to get that girder off its seat.

 

[Animal]

Just to be fair

I have a friend who got his PHD in Chemical Engineering and then decided to become a patent lawyer. 99% of the cases he works on are related to chemistry and/or the processing of chemicals (a lot of pharmaceutical). Gourley could be using his CE background in his cases like my friend does. There is a **** ton of research involved with these kind of patent cases from what he told me.

I have worked with lawyers that had their first degrees in architecture or engineering and yes they use that background in their practice but I would not want them to design a building

 

[twinstead]

James Gourley clearly states in the beginning of the letter found here http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794 that he was writing on behalf of a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals. I signed the public comments letter as a member of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.

It is very obvious that you have nothing to say about the girder walk-off and are stumped, and are now desperately trying to somehow make something up out of nothing by tying me to other things you think you can prove wrong. You are a genuine kook if you think I violated any ethical or professional standard by signing that public comments letter. Your problem is clearly that you have no way to get that girder off its seat.

How come you address rebuttals to your arguments by simply repeating your position?

 

[tsig]

James Gourley clearly states in the beginning of the letter found here http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794 that he was writing on behalf of a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals. I signed the public comments letter as a member of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.

It is very obvious that you have nothing to say about the girder walk-off and are stumped, and are now desperately trying to somehow make something up out of nothing by tying me to other things you think you can prove wrong. You are a genuine kook if you think I violated any ethical or professional standard by signing that public comments letter. Your problem is clearly that you have no way to get that girder off its seat.

Tony, why did the building fall?

 

[Justin39640]

I have worked with lawyers that had their first degrees in architecture or engineering and yes they use that background in their practice but I would not want them to design a building

Design, I agree. But would you trust their analysis of a design? I would trust my friend's analysis of a drug or chemical compound but not his analysis of a building design. Which, I think, is the real issue of a CE being in on a structural engineering paper.

Crap. Twice i had to go change his tire for him lol.

 

[MileHighMadness]

So Tony...I would love to see your computer model...I can set up and ftp site so you can upload the input file, so I can take a look at it. MHM

So Tony...are you going to give me your input file? MHM

 

[Animal]

How come you address rebuttals to your arguments by simply repeating your position?

He thinks repeating the same claims over and over will magically make them come true

 

[Justin39640]

He thinks repeating the same claims over and over will magically make them come true

In truthers' minds that actually works.

 

[dc1971]

So Tony...are you going to give me your input file? MHM

Tony doesn't take such requests seriously. I know first hand. I offered to support a new 9/11 investigation by offering a monetary donation and what advice I could so they (he) could begin their (his) own investigation.

Tony told me I wasn't serious and that my request in the form of a YouTube video was a joke. No matter how much I told him how dead serious I was, he wasn't having it.

Just goes to show, Truthers don't want an investigation. In fact, they want nothing except to think they know something - which they don't.

 

[ozeco41]

...Just goes to show, Truthers don't want an investigation. In fact, they want nothing except to think they know something - which they don't.

The last thing they want is an investigation for the obvious reasons that any competent investigation would dismiss their claims very easily.

It's not so easy to see why they come here making silly claims BUT ensuring that discussion goes round in circles and doesn't progress. The only 'valid' goal I can see for Tony's initiative shown in this thread is to get mud thrown at NIST in the hope that NIST will make a PR gesture as they did with Chandlers free fall nonsense. The outcome of that being that whatever NIST 'conceded' can be misrepresented as a significant victory on the same lines as Chandler's free fall non issue was made a discussion point. Bottom line for that tactic however is that they only keep interest going with the 'members of the choir' and the few remaining gullibles out there in the general public.

I've made that claim as to their tactics several times. So far no-one - either side - has suggested any other 'viable' strategy.

'Valid', 'viable' and a few other words in quotes for the obvious reasons.

9/11 truth is dying and we are down into the last remaining dregs of stupidity.

 

[Oystein]

The last thing they want is an investigation
...
9/11 truth is dying and we are down into the last remaining dregs of stupidity.

All they want is a new incestigation, hoping to pass the old, inviable memes down another generation of fail by intellectually mating only with their memetic next of kin.

 

[ozeco41]

All they want is a new incestigation, hoping to pass the old, inviable memes down another generation of fail by intellectually mating only with their memetic next of kin.

True.

And my apology - I have noted but failed to commend you on your brilliant bit of word coining.

'Incestigation'

BTW Can you think of any reason for their 'mud throwing at NIST' tactics other than attempting to get NIST to make a concession they can lie about?

 

[Oystein]

True.

And my apology - I have noted but failed to commend you on your brilliant bit of word coining.

'Incestigation' [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif[/qimg]

I've been fishing for that compliment, eh?

I didn't coin it, I just found it as a typo in some comment on 911Blogger. The letters v and c are next to each other on the keyboard, so it's an easy mistake, but it made me laugh out loud.

BTW Can you think of any reason for their 'mud throwing at NIST' tactics other than attempting to get NIST to make a concession they can lie about?

Well, this kind of appeal to imagination is fallacious. Why don't we ask the truthers who throw that mud?

Perhaps not "lie" about. But definitely misrepresent, blow out of proportion, isolate from context, and draw false conclusions from. Anything that scores points.

But notice: These points they score are not positive points on the Twoof side of the scoreboard; they still don't have a theory, let alone a better one, and still have no investigation of their own with useful, publishable results that any relevant professionals or academics would take note off. They mereley want to deduct points from NIST's score. to go from 0:467 to 0:466 or 465.

 

[ozeco41]

I've been fishing for that compliment, eh?

I didn't coin it, I just found it as a typo in some comment on 911Blogger. The letters v and c are next to each other on the keyboard, so it's an easy mistake, but it made me laugh out loud.

...it is still brilliant - even if unintended.

...Well, this kind of appeal to imagination is fallacious. Why don't we ask the truthers who throw that mud? ...

I was just shortening the inevitable ignore of the challenge.

...Perhaps not "lie" about. But definitely misrepresent, blow out of proportion, isolate from context, and draw false conclusions from. Anything that scores points. ...

As you know I am usually legally pedantic about the difference between 'lie' and 'utter untruths'. I think I can legitimately stay with 'lie' until someone invokes 'stupidity' as a defence.

....But notice: These points they score are not positive points on the Twoof side of the scoreboard; they still don't have a theory, let alone a better one, and still have no investigation of their own with useful, publishable results that any relevant professionals or academics would take note off. They mereley want to deduct points from NIST's score. to go from 0:467 to 0:466 or 465.

Given the ridiculous faith in multiple decimal places of an inch in this thread dealing with a fire ravaged building.....as if 11.0/5.5 is not the same as 12.0/6.0 in the setting of this thread....