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

[Spanx]

Thanks for answering,

So what percentage of the width of the building would need to be taken out to make the building unstable.

 

[Animal]

NIST claims, in the case of the towers, that the fires were an issue only when coupled with the removal of fireproofing. They even said if the fireproofing wasn't removed the buildings would still be standing.

Well the fireproofing could not have been removed where they said it was, due to the debris field velocity and position, so here we have another impossibility.

And once again, all other factors are ignored except for the ones that fit the troofer religion.

And troofers wonder why they are laughed at by 99.9999999% of the professional world?

 

[DGM]

What makes it look like a giant hole is from the wings, but they couldn't get very far from the exterior they impacted.

That would be true if you ignored the mass of the fuel. If I remember correctly, even the Purdue team was surprised by it's effect.

 

[twinstead]

Yea, but those hacks at purdue are incompetent. Only Tony knows what really happened.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That would be true if you ignored the mass of the fuel. If I remember correctly, even the Purdue team was surprised by it's effect.

First, the fuel has to hit structural members as a mass with high velocity to take them out. The fuel that did make it past the exterior would have been highly dispersed.

In addition, there were 10,000 gallons on each plane, which is equivalent to a volume of 1,333 ft^3. If 50% or 667 ft^3 made it past the exterior then that would be like a 9 foot cubed item. If you add it to the fuselage, engines, and landing gear you have a total of 15% of the cross section of just one floor. The fuel was also mostly in the wings which impacted over about six separate floors.

I don't believe the fuel could have done any damage to structural items past the exterior and even when combining it with the other items they make up a very small percentage of the cross sectional area impacted.

The impacts actually did very little to the overall structure. It was the effect of the wings on the exterior of the impacted face that made it look like it was much greater than it was in reality.

 

[NoahFence]

NIST claims, in the case of the towers, that the fires were an issue only when coupled with the removal of fireproofing. They even said if the fireproofing wasn't removed the buildings would still be standing.

Well the fireproofing could not have been removed where they said it was, due to the debris field velocity and position, so here we have another impossibility.

FireBALL, tony. That explosion-like thingie that happened at impact.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Thanks for answering,

So what percentage of the width of the building would need to be taken out to make the building unstable.

Well John Skilling said you could remove one face and the corners and still be able to take a 100 mph wind.

I believe you would need to take out about 50% of the columns along with fires to actually effect a collapse.

 

[Spanx]

Assuming there was no impact damage and no fire proofing. How long would you expect the steel to hold the weight of the above floors in the event of a fire.

 

[tsig]

NIST claims, in the case of the towers, that the fires were an issue only when coupled with the removal of fireproofing. They even said if the fireproofing wasn't removed the buildings would still be standing.

Well the fireproofing could not have been removed where they said it was, due to the debris field velocity and position, so here we have another impossibility.

Have you ever actually worked with spray on insulation?

 

[deeper]

First, the fuel has to hit structural members as a mass with high velocity to take them out. The fuel that did make it past the exterior would have been highly dispersed.

In addition, there were 10,000 gallons on each plane, which is equivalent to a volume of 1,333 ft^3. If 50% or 667 ft^3 made it past the exterior then that would be like a 9 foot cubed item. If you add it to the fuselage, engines, and landing gear you have a total of 15% of the cross section of just one floor. The fuel was also mostly in the wings which impacted over about six separate floors.

I don't believe the fuel could have done any damage to structural items past the exterior and even when combining it with the other items they make up a very small percentage of the cross sectional area impacted.

The impacts actually did very little to the overall structure. It was the effect of the wings on the exterior of the impacted face that made it look like it was much greater than it was in reality.

As someone who has put a much of your time into the 9/11 CT debate, how on earth can you believe the impact was pretty insignificant considering you must have seen many impact videos such as the one below.

(Approx. 20 secs in)


Even Cleverbot has figured out 9/11, I asked it last night. I sensed some reticence in it's initial reply , so I pointed my desk lamp at my monitor and pressed the question, eventually it buckled and told the truth.

Cleverbot > 9/11 Truth.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Thanks for answering,

So what percentage of the width of the building would need to be taken out to make the building unstable.

You don't get it. If complete failure, in the manner of the the tower collapses, was possible, it could been duplicated in a computer simulation. Individual components of the support structure could be programmed to fail to determine how the building would react. Fire did not have to be factored in, only the weakening and failures of the support structure which could have been the result of fire and the crashes need to be programmed.

 

[Spanx]

You don't get it. If complete failure, in the manner of the the tower collapses, was possible, it could been duplicated in a computer simulation. Individual components of the support structure could be programmed to fail to determine how the building would react. Fire did not have to be factored in, only the weakening and failures of the support structure which could have been the result of fire and the crashes need to be programmed.

Correct

I don't get it. Explain what you are trying to say without putting the word could in it.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Correct

I don't get it. Explain what you are trying to say without putting the word could in it.

Stress test.

 

[LSSBB]

You don't get it. If complete failure, in the manner of the the tower collapses, was possible, it could been duplicated in a computer simulation. Individual components of the support structure could be programmed to fail to determine how the building would react. Fire did not have to be factored in, only the weakening and failures of the support structure which could have been the result of fire and the crashes need to be programmed.

How many lines of code would it take, with what basis of estimation, to do what you propose?

 

[Animal]

You don't get it. If complete failure, in the manner of the the tower collapses, was possible, it could been duplicated in a computer simulation. Individual components of the support structure could be programmed to fail to determine how the building would react. Fire did not have to be factored in, only the weakening and failures of the support structure which could have been the result of fire and the crashes need to be programmed.

So Einstein, how do you program the batch of bolts that exceeded the specifications by 3%, or the connection that didn't meet the torque specification by 2%, Or how about the added steel angle installed in 1998 across 15 of the trusses to support a folding partition, or how about the truss that got whacked during a tenant fit up and the bottom flange was bent etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, Now multiply that by 110 floors.

troofers just want to remain willfully ignorant

 

[Spanx]

You don't get it. If complete failure, in the manner of the the tower collapses, was possible, it could been duplicated in a computer simulation. Individual components of the support structure could be programmed to fail to determine how the building would react. Fire did not have to be factored in, only the weakening and failures of the support structure which could have been the result of fire and the crashes need to be programmed.

LOL My bad

Sorry clayton, I read this post as you describing how the inside job was carried out.

 

[pgimeno]

Well the fireproofing could not have been removed where they said it was, due to the debris field velocity and position, so here we have another impossibility.

Can you explain what the impossibility is, exactly?

You are not implying by innuendo that the collapses were impossible, right?

Well John Skilling said you could remove one face and the corners and still be able to take a 100 mph wind.

I believe you would need to take out about 50% of the columns along with fires to actually effect a collapse.

Yet NIST's analysis, independently of how accurately represented the impact angle, shows otherwise: in their analysis the buildings collapse with far less than 50% columns. Care to explain that discrepancy?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Can you explain what the impossibility is, exactly?

You are not implying by innuendo that the collapses were impossible, right?


Yet NIST's analysis, independently of how accurately represented the impact angle, shows otherwise: in their analysis the buildings collapse with far less than 50% columns. Care to explain that discrepancy?

The impossibility is that the debris was moving far too slowly and was at a much lower level than the 98th floor trusses, so it could not have removed the fireproofing there.

The NIST analysis just implies collapse after the south wall was allegedly pulled inward by the trusses. Do you care to explain how the failure of the south wall would effect a complete collapse, because NIST did not explain it?

 

[Spanx]

The impossibility is that the debris was moving far too slowly and was at a much lower level than the 98th floor trusses, so it could not have removed the fireproofing there.

The NIST analysis just implies collapse after the south wall was allegedly pulled inward by the trusses. Do you care to explain how the failure of the south wall would effect a complete collapse, because NIST did not explain it?

http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...e-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html

It would appear that the fire proofing was not in very good condition

 

[waypastvne]

so it could not have removed the fireproofing there.

But the evidence shows us that the impact did remove the fire proofing. You can see it falling to the ground in the videos. The white dust below the red arrows is mostly fire proofing.

You can watch it drift off down wind and land it the streets.

Can you offer an alternative explanation for the dust covering the streets (after the impact but before the collapse) that we see in these photos ?

http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/...y+Street+8-51+9111011+from+zenaa_com.jpg.html

http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/...h+Street+8-50+9111007+from+zenaa_com.jpg.html

http://wtcdata.nist.gov/gallery2/v/...h+Street+8-50+9111008+from+zenaa_com.jpg.html