WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[Tony Szamboti]

I have the codes and I can read and spot the changes. The structural changes are in Sections 403.2.3 and 1614. The collapses were caused by fires which the other changes address as a direct result of the NIST NCSTAR recommendations.

No NIST recommendations having to do with progressive collapse were adopted by the ICC. You are somehow either confused or trying to make it look otherwise for some reason, but it is clear and unambiguous.

 

[DGM]

Can you remind us what NIST alleges to have brought down the buildings?

You are really reaching. Unfortunately, that is what is necessary when one insists on supporting a false story.

Why would I bother doing that? We all know. We also know that the spread of the fires was allowed due to the "changes" the planes and collapses caused (in the case of WTC7).

This is almost like you're claiming ALL of the fire resistance systems were still intact.

Were they, Tony?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why would I bother doing that? We all know. We also know that the spread of the fires was allowed due to the "changes" the planes and collapses caused (in the case of WTC7).

This is almost like you're claiming ALL of the fire resistance systems were still intact.

Were they, Tony?

The problem for your argument is how to get fires to cause the collapse. It has been shown here and on the earlier WTC 7 girder thread that fire heating could not have caused the girder between columns 44 and 79 to fall off its seat.

 

[DGM]

The problem for your argument is how to get fires to cause the collapse. It has been shown here and on the earlier WTC 7 girder thread that fire heating could not have caused the girder between columns 44 and 79 to fall off its seat.

That's not my argument at all. I argue that without the damage caused by the attacks the fires would not have had the same effect on the buildings. This is why code changes to the structure itself to prevent the runaway collapses are not necessary.

Nice little attempt at a shift in argument though.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's not my argument at all. I argue that without the damage caused by the attacks the fires would not have had the same effect on the buildings. This is why code changes to the structure itself to prevent the runaway collapses are not necessary.

Nice little attempt at a shift in argument though.

There was no structural damage on the northeast corner of WTC 7, where NIST claims the collapse initiated.

So how does your present argument even fit with your support of the NIST theory?

It seems you are all over the map trying to salvage your belief in a false story.

 

[Animal]

The problem for your argument is how to get fires to cause the collapse. It has been shown here and on the earlier WTC 7 girder thread that fire heating could not have caused the girder between columns 44 and 79 to fall off its seat.

Repeating the same lie over and over and over and over and over and over will not make it come true, except in you own little fantasy.

 

[Animal]

In case that's too hard for you to figure out, I can tell you that I've been asked on a couple of occasions during my career to sign my name to a report whose conclusions I felt were incorrect or unsubstantiated. My solution was easy: "Nope, I'm not signing." Pretty much every engineer I know would do the same thing in the same circumstances.

I have been asked by building officials to submits sealed documents to which I either did not create, or were out of the area of my expertise......my answer was the same as yours. My license is far more important than a single client.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Repeating the same lie over and over and over and over and over and over will not make it come true, except in you own little fantasy.

The problem for people who desperately want to cling to the NIST WTC reports as an explanation is that what I am saying is not a lie. The real fantasy lies in the conclusions of those reports.

 

[DGM]

There was no structural damage on the northeast corner of WTC 7, where NIST claims the collapse initiated.

So how does your present argument even fit with your support of the NIST theory?

It seems you are all over the map trying to salvage your belief in a false story.

Where did I claim there was structural damage? What I said was, "We also know that the spread of the fires was allowed due to the "changes" the planes and collapses caused (in the case of WTC7)" and " I argue that without the damage caused by the attacks the fires would not have had the same effect on the buildings".

Let me narrow it down. How important are the windows in the fire protection system of a large commercial building? How about the integrity of the sprinkler system (something codes have changed in response).

 

[Animal]

The problem for people who desperately want to cling to the NIST WTC reports as an explanation is that what I am saying is not a lie. The real fantasy lies in the conclusions of those reports.

The problem is troofers who project their own issues on others.
The only desperation is that of the troofer "movement" to maintain an sort of relevancy. Something that have failed to do now going on 11 years. But kept living in your fantasy land......it make for good entertainment here.

For the rest of the world.......the choice is

A) Accepting and acknowedging the hundreds of studies by licensed professionals and experts in their fields, professional organizations, universities, etc.

B) Believing in someone with a "real-cd-deal" fantasy and agenda.

The choice is so hard - NOT

 

[NoahFence]

The problem for people who desperately want to cling to the NIST WTC reports as an explanation is that what I am saying is not a lie. The real fantasy lies in the conclusions of those reports.

And what about the people who don't care about the report, and still get the collapse right?

 

[000063]

...
About a hundred things, but one obvious one is that WTC7 doesn't get hit by significant WTC1 debris, there is no reason for fires to start, and the cover-story immediately fails. Another is that the fires are spotted and extinguished. Yet another would be prior or subsequent discovery of the CD gear. And so on and so on ...

I have never found a CTer willing to advance an evidence-backed explanation as to how They were able to predict exactly how 1 would hit 7 in order to plant their charges or whatever in locations away from those spots. The only time I've even seen any try any explanation was Clay's handwave about "supercomputers", which he never discussed again.

Can you remind us what NIST alleges to have brought down the buildings?

You are really reaching. Unfortunately, that is what is necessary when one insists on supporting a false story.

Still carefully avoiding saying NIST actively lied, I note. In fact, you don't even specifically say that it's their story that is "false", or even that it's DGM who is supporting it.

The problem for your argument is how to get fires to cause the collapse. It has been shown here and on the earlier WTC 7 girder thread that fire heating could not have caused the girder between columns 44 and 79 to fall off its seat.

You dodged the question. Of course, we all know the fire protection systems were disrupted. What we don't know is why you didn't say so.

Though I am willing to guess.

 

[BasqueArch]

[TS misdirection]

You can read what the International Code Council (ICC) actually adopted here http://standards.gov/upload/35_ICC.pdf on page 3. If one reads it they will see that the only adopted changes were about stairways, sprinklers, and SFRM inspection. None of the structural recommendations were adopted.

The ICC adopted no structural changes and the collapse mechanisms alleged by NIST were structural issues.
Even in what you posted earlier it was stated
Nine additional code change proposals based on the NIST WTC recommendations were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes.
These proposals address areas such as designing structures to mitigate disproportionate progressive collapse,

TS left this out:

NIST. The following are the nine model building and fire code change proposals consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations that were not approved for the 2009 edition of the I-Codes but will be considered for resubmission at a later date after being amended:

TS I think the not knowing what they are talking about would be more appropriately applied to your complaints.

IBC 2009 has added a new Section 1614 – Structural Integrity, that wasn’t in IBC 2006.
This Section applies to type III, IV, Occupancy Categories [Not necessarily only High Rise.] Table 1604.5. A sampling of the 3 pages of these new NIST 9/11 recommended structural requirements adopted:

Section 1614.3 Frame Structures commentary– “These provisions enhance the overall structural integrity and resistance of frame structures by establishing minimum requirements for tying together the primary structural elements.”

Section 1614.3.2.1 . Columns commentary –“The additional requirement for the tensile strength of column splices enhances the column’s performance in unforeseen events.”

Section 1614.3.2.2 Beams – (actual code) “End connections of all beams and girders shall have a minimum nominal axial tensile strength equal to the required vertical shear strength for allowable stress design (ASD) or two-thirds of the required shear strength for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) but not less than 10 kips (45kN). For the purpose of this section, the shear force and the axial tensile force need not be considered to act simultaneously.”

Beams commentary- “Providing the required tensile strength for all beam and girder connections provides some ability to carry transfer and/or redistribute load in the event there is loss of support. …”

No NIST recommendations having to do with progressive collapse were adopted by the ICC. You are somehow either confused or trying to make it look otherwise for some reason, but it is clear and unambiguous.

TS Moved The Goalposts from "none of the structural recommendations were adopted" to "No NIST recommendations having to do with progressive collapse were adopted by the ICC."
These errors and the others (girder wasn't pushed off) are supposed to persuade real world professionals that the Towers were blowed up.

 

[tfk]

The problem for people who desperately want to cling to the NIST WTC reports as an explanation is that what I am saying is not a lie. The real fantasy lies in the conclusions of those reports.

I for one believe you on this, Tony.

I believe that it is not a lie.

I believe that you really believe that you have proved the walk-off to be impossible.

Which may well be your single worst piece of "genuine imitation engineering" I've seen you produce since, uh, since, uh ... well, since your last piece of "genuine imitation engineering".

It's kinda tough to choose between the top candidates:
Curtain A: "a stationary object is accelerting upwards at 'g'."
Curtain B: "FoS for components of a building are the same after a large flies into it as they were before."
Curtain C: "the stub ends of 3 story columns, whose supports have been wrenched free, will be loaded in perfect compression (no side load) in the chaos of a collapse."
Curtain D: "stub end of columns will contact perfectly face to face during collapse."
Curtains E thru Z: everybody fill in their favorites...

I mean, Tony, really. Given the choices:
2+2 = 39
3+3 = -54
4+4 = green

... which statement is "wrongest"?
___

Seriously, are you aware of what an unbelievably arduous task it is to say in any complex situation that "X is impossible"??

Every single person here, who has gone thru FEA training, knows how constantly, repeatedly, strenuously the instructors emphasize over & over & over again that the results of every calculation are fraught with uncertainties. That it is the job of the engineer to take the results as a guide and to verify each analysis, each component of each analysis, with experiment.

The ONLY explanations for your brash - and frankly ludicrous - statement that you've "proven the walk-off impossible" are:

a) you've chosen to ignore those admonitions, because it suits your political purposes, or

b) you never went thru real FEA training, have grabbed the program and are mindlessly plugging in numbers, choosing default options for material properties, element behavior etc. & depending on the program to cover up for your thoughtlessness.

Regardless of whether the reason is one of the above, or some other reason, we're right back to exactly the same conclusion that we always end up with you:

You may impress the living hell out of absolute amateurs with your bombastic proclamations, but you leave professionals just shaking their heads in wonder at your incompetence.

And a little annoyed that you make the rest of the profession look a little rash, untrustworthy and amateurish with your buffoonery.

As opposed to deliberate, cautious & professional, which the NIST engineers have proven themselves to be over & over again.

tk

 

[DGM]

Are these errors supposed to persuade real world professionals that the Towers were blowed up?

No, They're an attempt to sell a product, "9/11 truth". (I can't think of any other way to say this).

 

[beachnut]

The problem for your argument is how to get fires to cause the collapse. It has been shown here and on the earlier WTC 7 girder thread that fire heating could not have caused the girder between columns 44 and 79 to fall off its seat.

This is a delusion you have. You never showed anything.
You refuse to post your work because you are unable to use the ignore button.

 

[carlitos]

The problem for people who desperately want to cling to the NIST WTC reports as an explanation is that what I am saying is not a lie. The real fantasy lies in the conclusions of those reports.

That's nice. So, what are you going to do about it?

 

[BasqueArch]

.....

It's kinda tough to choose between the top candidates:
Curtain A: "a stationary object is accelerting upwards at 'g'."
Curtain B: "FoS for components of a building are the same after a large flies into it as they were before."
Curtain C: "the stub ends of 3 story columns, whose supports have been wrenched free, will be loaded in perfect compression (no side load) in the chaos of a collapse."
Curtain D: "stub end of columns will contact perfectly face to face during collapse."
Curtains E thru Z: everybody fill in their favorites...

Curtain E: Girder 44-79 did not buckle
Curtain F: WTC1,2 collapsed vertically down with all column ends squarely and simultaneously impacting, down for a few stories before titling.
Curtain G: WTC1,2 columns bowed a split second before collapse, not before, due to core being blown up.
Curtain H: WTC 7 col 79 was blown up near the top, then penthouse collapses, then window glass breaks later because of the explosion.
Curtain I: WTC1 south wall collapses 0.7 seconds, 7'-11", before north wall, but WTC1 did not tilt before falling vertically.
Curtain J: WTC1,2 . Falling top block static load, not dynamic, impact caused pulverization of the concrete.
Curtain K: Bazant, NIST, Giuliani, Nigro and TFK are in-on-it. Beachnut left out, feelings hurt.

 

[tfk]

...
Curtain K: Bazant, NIST, Giuliani, Nigro and TFK are in-on-it. Beachnut left out, feelings hurt.

We didn't trust him.

Flyboys always trying to impress the ladies. Can't keep their mouths shut.

It was almost certainly some pilot trying to get into Jane Standley's panties who let the WTC7 cat out of the bag...

 

[GlennB]

Curtain L: WTC7 EMP demolished first in case it flew off sideways, leaving Manhattan rather untidy.