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

[pgimeno]

THEREFORE
B) The principle method of interaction - where 'top portion of core' lands on 'bottom portion of core' will be horizontal beam on horizontal beam. And they will be overwhelmed and fail by shearing off the core columns similar to how the OOS floor joists failed by shearing off the columns.

Thanks, that gives a reasonable explanation that I can understand.

 

[Oystein]

Dave Thomas' example is misleading as the rice is in a bag and that causes it to act much more in unison than if the rice was poured freely onto the scale. Pour a known weight of rice freely onto a scale yourself and you will see. I was speaking about loose rubble, not rubble in a bag.

See, this is what you get if you were to trust a mere physicist like Dave Thomas (and his practice of thinking in idealized, simplified terms) over an experienced engineer (and his practice of thinking in practical, complex terms).

But witness also how here, on the "debunker" side, there is absolutely no hesitation to spot and point out the errors that fellow debunkers make. In fact, types like pgimeno, ozeco, Mackey and sometimes even myself frequently feel obliged to criticize and correct the weak arguments made on our own side.

That's why I asked you: What have you done in the past 5 years to try to get Gage correct and purge the weak arguments still found on his front page? Have you advised him not to listen to mere physicists, or theologians even, and instead trust those who rush in to point his mistakes, rather than echo his mistakes?

And if you tried at all to make Gage correct or purge the weak arguments from his home page - what was his reaction?

And finally: How did it affect your trust in Gage and his fellow ae911truthers, seeing that, in 5 years, they have not corrected or purged the weak arguments fromn the front page?

How does this contrast with NIST? Did NIST publish errata when they were shown to have erred? Did Gage publish errata when he was shown to have erred? If the latter, can you link to one such erratum?

 

[pgimeno]

You might be surprised to hear that I don't have a problem with the explanation for the core remnants falling afterward being a simple buckling scenario. The remaining assemblies were clearly in a slender condition and would have been damaged at their bases with possible eccentric loading at places as you say.

But you still have the problem that the fall should be staged to reach WTC7 in order to start the fires that were used as justification for its collapse.

Do you think the perps staged the collapse of WTC1 that way?

 

[Newtons Bit]

The core remnants of WTC 1 and 2 are probably not even self-stable once the perimeter (and some of the outer core columns) are gone. Certainly not stable with the huge and eccentric load from the rubble heap at their bases. Plus they likely sustained actual damage in the first phase of collapse.

I'm sure others can add a lot more detail, but frankly, their collapse is not even slightly surprising to me.

Recall the "spire" which stood for only a short time after the collapses were finished.

 

[GlennB]

But you still have the problem that the fall should be staged to reach WTC7 in order to start the fires that were used as justification for its collapse.

Do you think the perps staged the collapse of WTC1 that way?

I've never seen a Truther even attempt a reasonable answer to that question. TS has simply ignored it when put to him, afaics.

 

[ozeco41]

Aren't the spires (your "Q") a case of B(i)?

Agreed, unless I'm misunderstanding ozeco41.

'No' and 'yes' respectively - but it is my fault - the risk I took going for brevity of expression.

Recall that I drew two scenarios as 'plausible':

...two plausible core collapse mechanisms [which] are either:
A) It was taken to pieces by the falling mass of top portion and debris...; OR
B) It survived after the falling mass passed and long enough for an unstable tower to remain ...... possibly in (i) portions of multiple storeys height but not (ii) full tower height.

The spires are proof of "A)" - remnants of columns left after the falling mass had stripped away the horizontal beams allowing 'most' of the core columns to fall at nearly the same time as the main falling mass. So the spires the exception which prove the general claim 'taken to pieces by the falling mass of top portion and debris... And....at near enough the same time' i.e. whilst the falling mass of top and debris was passing. The spires standing there isolated actually prove that the core has been taken apart already.

CONTRAST with my "B)" scenarios which were that the falling mass left behind the almost intact core structure of gridded columns and beams so that the gridded core structure could fall due to it's inherent instability. Said instability resulting from removal of the perimeter columns and the linking OOS floor joists. If 'scenario B' had applied you would have seen a multi column tower - most of core still intact with joining beams - emerge from the dust before it fell. My reason for 'B(i)' and 'B(ii)' scenarios being that 'B(i)' allowed for the collapse to happen whilst hidden in the dust cloud. BUT the spires falsify that possibility.

Recall that I was responding to R Mackey's

The core remnants of WTC 1 and 2 are probably not even self-stable once the perimeter (and some of the outer core columns) are gone....

...and I was more tightly defining how that core instability could arise. Viz either as a more or less still integral core - my scenario "B)" or as core already demolished (oops - 'broken up' ) my scenario "A)". So the spires are merely a surviving remnant of an already broken up core - scenario "A)".

 

[ozeco41]

Thanks, that gives a reasonable explanation that I can understand.

Thanks. I've posted it quite a few times over the years but this probably the first time I've had any response.

The 'three components' explanation of the collapse progression is generally understood. The first two components of OOS floor collapse racing down the outer 'tube' and the consequent perimeter peel off easily envisioned.

BUT the question of how the core came apart and when tends to be glossed over.

 

[ozeco41]

...But witness also how here, on the "debunker" side, there is absolutely no hesitation to spot and point out the errors that fellow debunkers make. In fact, types like pgimeno, ozeco, Mackey and sometimes even myself frequently feel obliged to criticize and correct the weak arguments made on our own side...

This whole thread is an example of that issue. C7's claim as taken over by Tony had a focus on details within a setting of false (actually 'unproven') assumptions, a wrong 'system boundary' and multiple attempts at wrong allocation of 'burden of proof'.

Whether intended tactics or not the focus on details suited both C7 and Tony's support of their claim. I together with several others drew attention to the bigger picture failings which were - still are - fatal to the claim that the 'NIST explanation is impossible' but a lot of debunkers have been prepared to play it Tony's way by concentrating on details. Sure they have shown errors in the claim even tho' arguing within Tony's false assumptions. After all most of us enjoy the technical challenge and are prepared to ignore the concern that it ain't our burden of proof to disprove someone's partially supported claims. I even fall for it myself on occasion.

 

[tfk]

Christopher7,

On 16 July, I posted a detailed response to your 7 claimed errors or distortions by NIST, and explained why each of your claims is dead wrong or irrelevant.

Since that date, you've posted twice (here & here) in this thread, for a grand total of 2 sentences.

Neither of your posts addressed mine.

Do you have any intention of replying to my arguments?

Or will you simply drop the matter for now, only to revive it again later?

I'm just curious how meaningful, or just plain annoying, the concept of "the truth" is to you.


tk

 

[Clayton Moore]

Is there some point here?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
So are you saying you think the girder between columns 44 and 79, with the flange to web stiffeners shown on drawing 9114, could have walked off its 12" wide seat at column 79 due to beam expansion from the east?

NoahFence

Sounds like the result of a massive, unfought fire to me. Did that column show signs of high explosive?

There was no massive fire or fires.
The column was likely whisked away to China, wasn't it?

 

[Clayton Moore]

So you stated the last time I asked you. So a bunch of engineers, architects, physicists, and others are wasting their own free time doing work for the guy that is getting paid.

They're not wasting their time, they're doing it to rescue their country.

As for Gage making the big bucks, big bucks is a million a year. I doubt if he makes that.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I've never seen a Truther even attempt a reasonable answer to that question. TS has simply ignored it when put to him, afaics.

How do you think people fell trees in a specific direction?

How do you think controlled demolitions collapse in a desired manner?

 

[Spanx]

How do you think people fell trees in a specific direction?

How do you think controlled demolitions collapse in a desired manner?

Have a look on YouTube for Fred Dibnah, you will find a combination of tree felling and controlled demolition.

He is now dead. He must be the mastermind.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Have a look on YouTube for Fred Dibnah, you will find a combination of tree felling and controlled demolition.

He is now dead. He must be the mastermind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Dibnah

Nice read. Thanks.

 

[twinstead]

so not only was WTC1--one of the largest office buildings on Earth--a CD, but it was actually rigged to fall a certain way. Amazing. I'd be curious if any demolition expert in the world believes that was possible--even Jowenko, and he thinks WTC7 was CD.

 

[Spanx]

Nice read. Thanks.

If you get the chance watch a YouTube clip called Fred Dibnah how to bring down a chimney stack. It's only 8 minutes long and proper old school.

When watching it, imagine what would happen if Fred had put his stilts around the whole of the base.

Which way do you think it will fall?

 

[NoahFence]

NoahFence


There was no massive fire or fires.

That's a lie.

The column was likely whisked away to China, wasn't it?

What does it matter? If it showed signs of high explosives, it would have been reported, then shipped to China or kept as evidence. Most likely kept as evidence.

 

[Edx]

There was no massive fire or fires.

So the firefighters are lying or stupid then, right Clayton?

The column was likely whisked away to China, wasn't it?

If all the evidence was destroyed why do truthers claim the "meteorite" is melted steel proving thermite and yet have it in plain sight and feature it in documentaries?
If all the evidence was destroyed then why do truthers claim the pieces of steel showing "intergranular melting" proves thermite, when FEMA commented on it in their report and then asked WPI to conduct further tests on it?

 

[tfk]

How do you think people fell trees in a specific direction?

How do you think controlled demolitions collapse in a desired manner?

Well, that look like just another baseless assertion.
Pulled out of CM's nether regions, and waved around for his own personal aromatic enjoyment.

Or, perhaps he's right. They were targeting the collapse to damage another building.

[imgw=400]http://www.cjwalsh.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/WTC-Complex-Damage-Plan.jpg[/imgw]

Looks like someone had it in for the Winter Gardens.

Gee, I wonder what federal agency was hiding super-sekrit documents in that building... ?

 

[tfk]

The successive impacts have to occur faster than the elastic wave of the recovery.

There is no meaningful elastic recovery time for parts that are simply overloaded to failure. Which is exactly what happened to concrete floors and connection bolts.

Parts go sliding right thru "elastic", then thru "plastic", right into "good bye".

There are two problems with Dave Thomas' test with the first being what I mentioned about the rice being in a bag and the second being what you say about the simple scale being slow to recover.

The "rice in the bag" model was perfectly satisfactory to make the point that Dave was trying to make: the difference between static load & dynamic load.

In the collapse, about 70% of the debris stayed within the footprint of the building & about 30% was ejected.

In the absence of the bag, about 90% of the rice would have been ejected or flowed over the sides of the scale. This would have been a much worse model than the one used.

The presence of the bag improved the demonstration over the absence of the bag.

tk

PS. If Dave were to bother to improve his model, and he didn't care about damaging his scale, he could replace the rice with nuts, bolt & nails, throw in some small stones for concrete, maybe even some small pieces of plaster, put it all in a potato sack with holes big enough to let about 30% of the contents slide thru on impact.

But that was not his purpose. His purpose was to demonstrate the difference between static & dynamic loads.

He did that just fine.