WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[Animal]

Are we now moving past the idea that the girder could fail and onto the idea that the column could fail?
If we are then if you are contending explosives severed col 79 show us the evidence that such heavy explosives were employed?

Do you ever wonder if the goal post get heavy after all that moving?

 

[jaydeehess]

I know.

Troofers keep whining that NIST gamed the analysis by deleting the web stiffeners to make the collapse work. If that were true, why would they bother to ADD a stiffener?

those tricky nistians....

I have seen it argued that the girder would have to fully clear the seat to then fall under an inch to the stiffener (which iirc extended slightly wider than the seat) and then to have to fully clear the stiffener all because the bottom flange would be infinately stiff and able to continue to support its full load with a fraction of its original contact area

 

[jaydeehess]

Do you ever wonder if the goal post get heavy after all that moving?

extending the analogy in this case its more like enik has erected several goalposts around the field and just wants to dictate which one is the real one anytime he feels we are getting close to the one he previously said was the one we should aim for

 

[beachnut]

That´s quite the "detail".

Even allowing for the questionable assumption that the beam could move of its seat and that this single location could then neatly bring down the whole building, I would like to see NIST´s experiments showing us that those fire-proofed beams could attain the required 600(C) plus temps.

This forum really is a circus. I don´t know about the plausibility of the truther CD hypothesis, but is sad and funny to see self-proclaimed "skeptics" accepting the conclusions by NIST, given the buffoonery. A real investigation is clearly needed.

Real investigations were done, you lost. The biggest investigations and studies in history, and 911 truth ignores them to back in delusional fantasy of thermite, CD, and the inside job.

Why not become a structural engineer, and learn you are wrong. Also, please learn what probable means. Please.

You offer no theory of your own - fire did it, you are unable to prove otherwise. No CD, proved by no BOOM, and no thermite damage to any steel at the WTC. End of CD, due to evidence.

Some people don't agree with NIST's probable collapse sequence, but they refute CD claims. Darn, a probable collapse sequence of NIST is not supported by all engineers, but CD and the idiotic claims of thermite are refuted by all engineers (except a few nuts).

Already spelled it out for you, without proof for the following, NIST´s hypothesis for 7 is baseless hogwash:

Calling a probable collapse sequence hogwash, and offer talk, hearsay, nonsense from a failed movement of paranoid conspiracy theorists; their best effort, an idiotic lie of thermite. logical?

You have claims, afraid to present your conclusion?
Don't need NIST to know WTC 7 was totaled by fire. Fire totaled many buildings made of steel. 911 truth followers should invest in education instead of pushing failed internet claims of woo. The old E in JREF.

Even given that NIST is right about one beam being able to bring down the whole building like that, without their premise of a fire capable of heating the beam to the required temp, then there must be another better explanation for some agent bringing down that beam, and we all know what the truthers suggest for an agent..

There were no explosive, no termite on 911. 911 truth claims are nonsense.

Some engineers disagree with NIST's probable collapse sequence. Fire did it. What is your claim? You don't have one? Do you know steel fails in fire?

 

[jtl]

evidence that such heavy explosives were employed?

The replies I get leave the impression that NIST never did any experiments to prove their point. That is an incredible display of incompetence and pseudoscience that makes the fire-beam hypothesis invalid.

What´s "heavy explosives"? The impression I get from Jones is that they believe thermitic stuff was used, possibly thermate along with their proposed superthermite material. This could be a relatively quiet operation given no loud high-explosives. With only one beam to be cut inside the building far away from windows and spectators...who would notice?

 

[DGM]

The replies I get leave the impression that NIST never did any experiments to prove their point. That is an incredible display of incompetence and pseudoscience that makes the fire-beam hypothesis invalid.

What´s "heavy explosives"? The impression I get from Jones is that they believe thermitic stuff was used, possibly thermate along with their proposed superthermite material. This could be a relatively quiet operation given no loud high-explosives. With only one beam to be cut inside the building far away from windows and spectators...who would notice?

Naturally Jones has done experiments to show his proposed material would actually work? Or would that qualify as "incompetence and pseudoscience" also.

 

[Spanx]

The replies I get leave the impression that NIST never did any experiments to prove their point. That is an incredible display of incompetence and pseudoscience that makes the fire-beam hypothesis invalid.

What´s "heavy explosives"? The impression I get from Jones is that they believe thermitic stuff was used, possibly thermate along with their proposed superthermite material. This could be a relatively quiet operation given no loud high-explosives. With only one beam to be cut inside the building far away from windows and spectators...who would notice?

So you also believe that Jesus christ visited America ?

 

[beachnut]

... What´s "heavy explosives"? The impression I get from Jones is that they believe thermitic stuff was used, possibly thermate along with their proposed superthermite material. This could be a relatively quiet operation given no loud high-explosives. With only one beam to be cut inside the building far away from windows and spectators...who would notice?

Thermite? No thermite damage to steel was found. A fantasy only a few fringe followers believe, and they never took chemistry.

 

[NoahFence]

Do you ever wonder if the goal post get heavy after all that moving?

Hope they all remember their safety gloves!!

They were burned following the Dec. 22, 1985, game with the Cincinnati Bengals in which the Patriots earned a playoff berth. A 30-foot section of goal post was carried onto Route 1, where a group of fans stuck it in a metal barrel and the top touched a high-tension wire.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19911214&slug=1323003

 

[jtl]

Naturally Jones has done experiments to show his proposed material would actually work?

It is a proven fact that both thermate and superthermite actually work, with existing materials and reviewed papers that include experiments. NIST´s hypothesis for 7 however, is a proposed "first time in history" event of fire collapsing a steel high-rise building. Without repeatable experiments to prove it, the fire-beam hypothesis is invalid pseudoscience.

 

[jaydeehess]

The replies I get leave the impression that NIST never did any experiments to prove their point. That is an incredible display of incompetence and pseudoscience that makes the fire-beam hypothesis invalid.

What´s "heavy explosives"? The impression I get from Jones is that they believe thermitic stuff was used, possibly thermate along with their proposed superthermite material. This could be a relatively quiet operation given no loud high-explosives. With only one beam to be cut inside the building far away from windows and spectators...who would notice?

Do I understand that your working hypothesis is that all NIST got wrong is the mode by which the girder failed now?

You need to decide whether heat ( delivered by office fire or therm?te) failed the girder , thus initiating collapse,
or
a sudden failure of the col 79 was the initiating event at which point its not therm?te and is an explosive capable of severing a heavy colunm

 

[Spanx]

It is a proven fact that both thermate and superthermite actually work, with existing materials and reviewed papers that include experiments. NIST´s hypothesis for 7 however, is a proposed "first time in history" event of fire collapsing a steel high-rise building. Without repeatable experiments to prove it, the fire-beam hypothesis is invalid pseudoscience.

Can you provide a link to a steel framed building collapsing due to Thermate ?

 

[beachnut]

It is a proven fact that both thermate and superthermite actually work, with existing materials and reviewed papers that include experiments. NIST´s hypothesis for 7 however, is a proposed "first time in history" event of fire collapsing a steel high-rise building. Without repeatable experiments to prove it, the fire-beam hypothesis is invalid pseudoscience.

Full blown 911 truth follower, up can drop the act now.

The good old truther logic...
Nukes exist, they actually work, Nukes did it.
Beam weapons actually work, have shot down missiles, DEW did it.
Thermite works, it welds railroad ties and cuts through engine blocks, Thermite did it.
Kids with big hammers actually work, Kids with big hammers did it, eating chocolate chip cookies, Because cookie have 8 times the energy of thermite. OMG


It is not the first time fire destroyed buildings. To say so is nonsense, as dumb as thermite.

It is a proved fact there was no steel damaged by thermite on 911.

Fire did it. The fire-beam NIST probable collapse sequence is science, you calling it pseudoscience and presenting thermite as your claim is nonsense. Where is your paper? Superthermite? lol, the office fires prior to collapse had the heat energy of 2,500 TONS of thermite. You bring nonsense, to the biggest office fires in history.

 

[DGM]

It is a proven fact that both thermate and superthermite actually work, with existing materials and reviewed papers that include experiments..

Could you link to the papers that show this used in building demolitions as you claim?

BTW: Fire works too (in the same frame you are suggesting), and I think it has been experimented with.

 

[enik]

Are we now moving past the idea that the girder could fail and onto the idea that the column could fail?

Interesting, at what point did I ever say the girder did not fail?

,,,, and back to girder failure by enik

See above.

…If you or Tony or MM or ae911t feel the detail level of the NIST FEA is insufficient then give your full arguement or better yet reproduce the FEA and include greater detail

It was done.

What part of "just disproving some NIST detail" don't you get? Where is your theory as to what did happen?

Short memory.

 

[jaydeehess]

It is a proven fact that both thermate and superthermite actually work, with existing materials and reviewed papers that include experiments. NIST´s hypothesis for 7 however, is a proposed "first time in history" event of fire collapsing a steel high-rise building. Without repeatable experiments to prove it, the fire-beam hypothesis is invalid pseudoscience.

are you refering to the addtion of thermitic material to high explosives to increase heat and power?
that just means less quantity of explosive compound, still get the same BOOM

 

[CORed]

That´s quite the "detail".

Even allowing for the questionable assumption that the beam could move of its seat and that this single location could then neatly bring down the whole building, I would like to see NIST´s experiments showing us that those fire-proofed beams could attain the required 600(C) plus temps.




This forum really is a circus. I don´t know about the plausibility of the truther CD hypothesis, but is sad and funny to see self-proclaimed "skeptics" accepting the conclusions by NIST, given the buffoonery. A real investigation is clearly needed.

Only a truther would think an experiment is necessary to prove that if you light a fire under something it will get hot.

 

[jaydeehess]

Interesting, at what point did I ever say the girder did not fail?

sorry , the general discussion from others attacking NIST was focusing on the girder failure. By this post I assume you do consider girder failure as contributory to collapse initiation

See above.

oh wait no you called into question the failure of the column due to multiple floor failures. Gee , that is specifically what NIST said caused the column to fail, loss of multiple floors providing lateral support
It was done.

and that one included a greater level of breadth and detail
seems to me others here disagreed
unfortunately my ereader won't allow viewing that site
oh wait , I cn see the title and assume it calls into question the failure of the girder

 

[jaydeehess]

Only a truther would think an experiment is necessary to prove that if you light a fire under something it will get hot.

it would appear that jtl does not dispute that heated steel caused collapse, only the source of that heat

 

[jaydeehess]

I'll go out on a limb here and predict that failure of one column cannot lead to global collapse is the next goalpost we will be told to aim at.

When do we get around to aiming at the goalpost the demonstrates pixie dust, oops sorry, explosives/therm?te was present and used to collapse wtc7 in the fashion it was observed to?