WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

Miragememories said:
You appear to be confused so I'll re-phrase that question.

Do you believe that demolition engineers could do what the NIST argues was possible with the prevailing heat from migrating office cubicle fires?

Induce a column failure comparable to what the NIST claims to have happened to the undamaged column 79.



MM
Click to expand...

They would be able to defeat two major fire protection systems, right? Just like the tower collapses did on 9/11. Strange you don't take this into consideration when comparing this to other buildings. :rolleyes:
 
Miragememories said:
So are you saying that even with odds against it of a million-to-one, you would accept the credibility of the NIST 'prevailing heat from migrating office cubicle fires' hypothesis?




Well I didn't think you had to be a detective to see that?

You state that no buildings over 30 stories have ever been felled by controlled demolition [commercially].

Since these buildings tend to exist in high density commercial areas, there are obvious reasons for using other demolition methods.

Probably the biggest single reason, other than the debris cloud, is that it is hard to get buildings to drop straight down.

The NIST hypothesis requires very smart fires and a secret fuel stash.

Fires that amazingly performed a complete high speed building demolition.

And did so, accidentally no less, on a building 56% taller than those in the published engineering record.

AND, produced a total collapse with a visual outline previously identifiable only with those steel towers felled by controlled demolition.




You appear to be confused so I'll re-phrase that question.

Do you believe that demolition engineers could do what the NIST argues was possible with the prevailing heat from migrating office cubicle fires?

Induce a column failure comparable to what the NIST claims to have happened to the undamaged column 79.




No.

What I am saying is that building demolition companies would have to be magicians in order to get the necessary abeyance of reality to create high speed total steel building collapses by fire.

MM
Click to expand...

Hereby, I peer-review your post as excellent. This is hard professional science refuting the official fairy tale, and should be presented to the responsible organs. In fact, it would be a good idea to forward this post to the White House and ask for a public response.
 
Only an internet truther, when asked for a document, would produce a youtube of the document. That couldn't be any funnier if he tried. My God.
 
DGM said:
Gerry:

Suppose I'm building this building. You got the 33 floor as structural drawing 8. Can you tell me what was the number sequence for the previous 32 floors? I read these all the time, I'm the builder on the phone to you, the designer. This should be a no brainer for you.
Click to expand...

I answered this about 9 months ago. The drawing I would have liked to have used to refer to floor 13, is drawing S-8-13.
And if we are doing the role play thing, I as the designer would say 'hang on mr builder, i will take a look at the drawing book, is it the shear stud detail on floor 12/13 you would like? Ok that would be drawings S-8-12 and S-8-13, be sure and install the studs, we need them to make the floor system composite, bye.'
 
Last edited:
I realize that you guys are hypothetically on the phone, but a real designer might spell it shear stud.
 
gerrycan said:
I answered this about 9 months ago. The drawing I would have liked to have used to refer to floor 13, is drawing S-8-13.
And if we are doing the role play thing, I as the designer would say 'hang on mr builder, i will take a look at the drawing book, is it the shear stud detail on floor 12/13 you would like? Ok that would be drawings S-8-12 and S-8-13, be sure and install the studs, we need them to make the floor system composite, bye.'
Click to expand...

Lemmie correct some more terminology for you:

It's not a drawing book. It's a construction set.
It's not "mr builder", the entity is a contractor.
The detail for shear studs is not located on a drawing referred to as the plans.
An engineer is not a designer.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Lemmie correct some more terminology for you:

It's not a drawing book. It's a construction set.
It's not "mr builder", the entity is a contractor.
The detail for shear studs is not located on a drawing referred to as the plans.
An engineer is not a designer.
Click to expand...

did you read the statement i was replying to?(in kind)

also, this from NIST "Development of structural databases of the primary components of WTC 1 and WTC 2 ... included the scanning and digitization of the original drawing books"
and again, "review the reference structural analysis models of the WTC towers ... design documents including the large-size drawing sheets and the drawing books."
Another example, re the towers, not wtc7 "Book 6 contains connection details and core bracing"
Although we are talking about STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS here. You can tell that from the S prefix.
Thanks for the input though.
 
I viewed it before; it was a pan and scan videocapture of a document on a computer screen. My comment above illustrates my thoughts about such nonsense.
 
gerrycan said:
did you read the statement i was replying to?(in kind)

also, this from NIST "Development of structural databases of the primary components of WTC 1 and WTC 2 ... included the scanning and digitization of the original drawing books"
and again, "review the reference structural analysis models of the WTC towers ... design documents including the large-size drawing sheets and the drawing books."
Another example, re the towers, not wtc7 "Book 6 contains connection details and core bracing"
Although we are talking about STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS here. You can tell that from the S prefix.
Thanks for the input though.
Click to expand...

WTC 1&2 were organized very differently than WTC7. Try staying on topic.
 
Gerrycan, you seem friendly enough. Could you possibly explain the mentality that would share a document via video? Does something prevent you from sharing the actual document?
 
gerrycan said:
Fire is not a proven mechanism for bringing down high rise steel buildings. so your 'what else could' question is premature,
Click to expand...

Huh? Let me make sure we're perfectly clear on this.

Are you of the belief that fire could in no way cause the collapse of a high rise steel building??

If that be the case, we can stop applying SFRM to steel buildings. Really of any size, since fire can't cause their collapse.

gerrycan said:
the fact remains that this unprecedented supposed cause requires more investigation.
Click to expand...


So, what's stopping you or AE911T from doing a LEGIT investigation?
 
Miragememories said:
Would you agree that a 47-story modern steel tower covering a city block is extremely unlikely to have a final collapse,
Click to expand...

Not one that burns over many floors, for 7ish hours. No.

Miragememories said:
totally and at high speed,
Click to expand...

Was there another kind of collapse you would have expected from fire?
Is there a set speed at which gravity should react?

Miragememories said:
simply because of the prevailing heat created by migrating office cubicle fires?
Click to expand...

Fire damages things. This is not a new concept. Even migrating office cubicle fires.

How about a few dozen sofas and such? Charleston SC. firefighters might disagree with your ridiculous assumption based on your own ignorance.

Miragememories said:
Particularly, with a visual outline previously identifiable only with steel towers felled by controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

How many other steel towers fell down to the ground that you've compared them to?

What other direction should it have gone?

Miragememories said:
Do you honestly believe that in light of the NIST's final 9/11 Report on WTC7, that a demolition company could, using the NIST WTC7 Report specifications, have induced a similar full, high speed building collapse?
Click to expand...

With explosives? Possibly. I don't know, as I am not an ED expert.
With FIRE? No. Not a snowball's chance in hell.

Miragememories said:
And they could make those office cubicle fires dance so well that the core failure would be so well timed and balanced as to prevent significant toppling?

MM
Click to expand...

No. With explosives, maybe. Fire, no.

Fire has too many variables and can be very unpredictable. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who has a 10th grade education.
 
gerrycan said:
I answered this about 9 months ago. The drawing I would have liked to have used to refer to floor 13, is drawing S-8-13.
And if we are doing the role play thing, I as the designer would say 'hang on mr builder, i will take a look at the drawing book, is it the shear stud detail on floor 12/13 you would like? Ok that would be drawings S-8-12 and S-8-13, be sure and install the studs, we need them to make the floor system composite, bye.'
Click to expand...
Why was floor 33 only shown as S-8 in your video and not S-8-33? I'm also curious why you didn't show how the lower floors were labeled . You cut them off at floor 33. It almost appears like you didn't want us to see this. Why not just show us a copy of the whole page? Better yet. show us where we can view these ourselves.
 
DGM said:
Why was floor 33 only shown as S-8 in your video and not S-8-33? I'm also curious why you didn't show how the lower floors were labeled . You cut them off at floor 33. It almost appears like you didn't want us to see this. Why not just show us a copy of the whole page? Better yet. show us where we can view these ourselves.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure an S-8-33 actually exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom