Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[Tony Szamboti]

The game you are playing is, one connection "which couldn't possibly fail" was holding the whole building together.

No wonder you are finding it hard to find people to "play"

Although the connection at column 79 is a major problem for the NIST hypothesis, especially since they omitted the girder stiffeners, it isn't just the one connection that is in contention. There are a significant number of problems with the NIST hypothesis.

What do you think about what I asked Chris Mohr in Post #79? If as NIST alleges, the exterior comes down due to a loss of lateral support from the interior, then why doesn't the east side exterior come down first if, as the NIST WTC 7 report claims, it loses its interior first? Instead it comes down later with west side exterior.

I am hoping someone here will answer this as I am trying to understand why so many here continue to support the NIST WTC 7 report in spite of these problems with it.

 

[LSSBB]

Although the connection at column 79 is a major problem for the NIST hypothesis, especially since they omitted the girder stiffeners, it isn't just the one connection that is in contention. There are a significant number of problems with the NIST hypothesis.

What do you think about what I asked Chris Mohr in Post #79? If as NIST alleges, the exterior comes down due to a loss of lateral support from the interior, then why doesn't the east side exterior come down first if, as the NIST WTC 7 report claims, it loses its interior first? Instead it comes down later with west side exterior.

I am hoping someone here will answer this as I am trying to understand why so many here continue to support the NIST WTC 7 report in spite of these problems with it.

Tony, how did NIST model the connections to the moment framed exterior in recreating an external appearance to the collapse progression, and how are you modeling the same connections in your critique?

 

[Animal]

It is rather comical that troofers continue to carry on and on and on about the web stiffeners being omitted (which was explained by the NIST) and continue to ignore the stiffeners ADDED.

They cannot answer the simple question of "If the NIST was so intent on showing a failure that it required removing elements, WHY would they add elements that make the failure more difficult?

 

[Oystein]

...
What do you think about what I asked Chris Mohr in Post #79? If as NIST alleges, the exterior comes down due to a loss of lateral support from the interior, then why doesn't the east side exterior come down first if, as the NIST WTC 7 report claims, it loses its interior first? Instead it comes down later with west side exterior.

I am hoping someone here will answer this as I am trying to understand why so many here continue to support the NIST WTC 7 report in spite of these problems with it.

Hmmm. FEMA 403 Chapter 5, page 5-4:

The lateral load resisting system consisted of four perimeter moment frames, one at each exterior wall, augmented by two-story belt trusses between the 5th and 7th floors and between the 22nd and 24th floors.

Perhaps these belt trusses performed well? Of course I am only guessing...

 

[LSSBB]

By the way, Tony, no plausible alternative to unfought fires as the initiating factor for the collapse have been presented. This is not a battle to defend NIST - it is a debate over what caused a building to collapse.

 

[Hellbound]

If Tony's scenario were correct the towers would have looked like giant sparklers, you'd think someone would notice two mammoth sparklers emitting explosive booms.

Well, the booms wouldn't be caused by thermite, it's an incendiary, not an explosive. Can't speak to nanothermite materials, but considering they're still classed in the incendiaries group, I don't see them having much of a boom either (I may be wrong on that point).

But I agree about the other half of that point. I don't think many realize how bright a thermite reaction gets. I didn't notice any searchlights in the windows of the buildings, so besides rigging a CD in record time, completely immune to damage, it ALSO had to be completely sealed in to block the light, and that sealing had to ALSO be immune to damage.

It's like a train to absurdity...the further you follow their "logic", the sillier it gets.

 

[WilliamSeger]

If I'm understanding it correctly, Tony's "floating thermite" hypothesis seems to propose another amazing property of thermite: that unreacted thermite floated down on the cars and then ignited like it had proximity fuses.

 

[NoahFence]

I am hoping someone here will answer this as I am trying to understand why so many here continue to support the NIST WTC 7 report in spite of these problems with it.

Not just here, kiddo.

Pretty much the entire global engineering community supports it, by applying its findings into new construction.

 

[BasqueArch]

<snip>

However, the NIST scenario has the east side interior collapsing first and then a progression from east to west. The question I have for NIST and you is how do you explain the symmetry of the exterior collapse within that paradigm.

In your scenario the east side exterior would have to remain standing after its interior support was removed and wait for the west side interior to collapse and then come down simultaneously with the west side exterior. This symmetric collapse of the east and west side exteriors seems to cause problems for your hypothesis.

On the other hand, if all 24 core columns are removed simultaneously over a significant number of stories then symmetry for the exterior collapse, and free fall or even slightly over free fall acceleration for the exterior, is explainable.

<snip>

What do you think about what I asked Chris Mohr in Post #79? If as NIST alleges, the exterior comes down due to a loss of lateral support from the interior, then why doesn't the east side exterior come down first if, as the NIST WTC 7 report claims, it loses its interior first? Instead it comes down later with west side exterior.

I am hoping someone here will answer this as I am trying to understand why so many here continue to support the NIST WTC 7 report in spite of these problems with it.

Dear Trying to Understand:
You believe that all the 24 core columns were silently exploded simultaneously, so one would expect then to see the penthouses to also fall simultaneously. However, the penthouses fell at first on the east side and continued to collapse sequentially for ~6 seconds later to the west side, proving that the core columns supporting the penthouses were not exploded simultaneously but instead the penthouses followed the east-west sequential collapse of the core columns supporting them. It would be a benefit to your cause to instead believe that the core explosives were silently detonated in a manner that would mimic a collapse due to the effects of fire on the structure as NIST has explained. Additionally, you could also claim that this manner of demolition is further evidence that NIST used it as a cover to feign a collapse by fire.

You should seek professional structural and fire engineering advice to help you understand this discrepancy in your conflicting beliefs and to help you craft a scenario that would be more persuasive to the engineering incompetent.

Hope that helps.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Tony, since most "truthers" prefer to ignore everything that happened before the 2.25-second free-fall, I've been interested in your attempts to explain the actual visible evidence in terms of a specific sequence of controlled demolition events. It seems possible to do that (a.k.a. special pleading), but it does raise the question of why we need a controlled demolition hypothesis to explain anything. I understand that you do not accept NIST's explanation for collapse initiation at column 79, but for clarity, could you summarize the details of the collapse that you believe can only be explained by a controlled demolition? As I understand your last few posts, one of them is that you believe a progressive collapse starting at column 79 should have brought the east wall down before the west wall. Anything else?

 

[Oystein]

...However, the penthouses fell at first on the east side and continued to collapse sequentially for ~6 seconds later to the west side, proving that the core columns supporting the penthouses were not exploded simultaneously but instead the penthouses followed the east-west sequential collapse of the core columns supporting them. ...

Ha! You fell for "their" nifty trick: "They" took down the EPH by cutting high up, not far below the roofline, to make you think the entire east core went before the west! In reality^*, the east core was still pristine when all the 24 core columns were exploded silently at the fire-ravaged floors.








^* Or should I capitalize "The Reality", similar to "The Truth", to indicate I am of course not talking about the actual reality that's real?

 

[BasqueArch]

Ha! You fell for "their" nifty trick: "They" took down the EPH by cutting high up, not far below the roofline, to make you think the entire east core went before the west! In reality^*, the east core was still pristine when all the 24 core columns were exploded silently at the fire-ravaged floors.

So, two series of "removals", one higher up that broke the 15 windows after the EPH collapsed to hide the lower down set of the necessary symmetrical fall of the wall that had the cameras trained on it. How clever and fiendish.

^*

Or should I capitalize "The Reality", similar to "The Truth", to indicate I am of course not talking about the actual reality that's real?

Epistemology is $1 extra.

 

[Spanx]

I am hoping someone here will answer this as I am trying to understand why so many here continue to support the NIST WTC 7 report in spite of these problems with it.

One of the first things you need to ask yourself is, why have you come to this forum to find answers ? Is this the type of place you have been using in your engineering career ?

As a suggestion why not contact the NIST and try and book an appointment. You may have to travel to see them at your own expense but it is you who is looking for answers.

Don't go to every conspiracy site you can find and tell them what you are doing. Treat it as if you would your work as an engineer.

Bare in mind your name is on every 911 conspiracy site and you may not be taken seriously.

Oh and if you do get an appointment ? Don't go in there talking of arsonists/thermite/explosives/inside job as they are not relevant to the work the NIST have carried out.

 

[Belz...]

Not just here, kiddo.

Pretty much the entire global engineering community supports it, by applying its findings into new construction.

Truthers continue to show their total misunderstanding of the world around them.

 

[carlitos]

I don't think many realize how bright a thermite reaction gets.

.....
It's like a train to absurdity...the further you follow their "logic", the sillier it gets.

Yup.

If I'm understanding it correctly, Tony's "floating thermite" hypothesis seems to propose another amazing property of thermite: that unreacted thermite floated down on the cars and then ignited like it had proximity fuses.

He didn't even say "unreacted thermite." He said "burning thermite" floating as if thermite would "burn" while floating through the air (invisibly). As I said in the previous thread, I'd love to see a demonstration of this phenomenon at work.

As the dust drifted away from the collapse itself it thinned out tremendously and would not have had the density to smother fires in the cars. Additionally, it had probably already settled when the cars ignited, because it was the dust that likely had still burning thermite in it and ignited plastic parts on the cars to start the vehicle fires.

 

[JayUtah]

Although the connection at column 79 is a major problem for the NIST hypothesis, especially since they omitted the girder stiffeners...

Asked and answered multiple times.

There are a significant number of problems with the NIST hypothesis.

So why is the correct procedure then to troll web forums with the accusations, looking for lay combatants to stand in for NIST in popular-circles debates? Why is the correct procedure not instead to bring these allegedly serious and valid concerns to the ASCE, the AIA, the ASME, and other organizations of professional engineers, write your peer-reviewed paper in their widely-read and highly-respected journals, and become the toast of Tau Beta Pi?

When you make claims that require expertise to understand and answer, the audience considers the opinions of other experts when deciding whether your claims likely have merit. Since after several years you have been unable to convince any but a tiny, inconsequential fraction of the relevant experts that your claims matter, you have to accept that your audience thenceforth will simply be the uncritical fringe. In other words, don't keep telling us you have a strong case -- show us.

What do you think about what I asked Chris Mohr in Post #79?

I think it begs the question of a uniform or even predictable rate of reaction to load transfer.

I am hoping someone here will answer this as I am trying to understand why so many here continue to support the NIST WTC 7 report in spite of these problems with it.

Because it's what 99.5% of the relevant qualified experts believe and support. I'm trying to understand why the 0.5% dissent is (a) so disagreeably vocal, and (b) won't express that dissent in the customary way, through the customary scientific channels.

Can you explain that?

 

[pgimeno]

What do you think about what I asked Chris Mohr in Post #79? If as NIST alleges, the exterior comes down due to a loss of lateral support from the interior, then why doesn't the east side exterior come down first if, as the NIST WTC 7 report claims, it loses its interior first? Instead it comes down later with west side exterior.

I am hoping someone here will answer this as I am trying to understand why so many here continue to support the NIST WTC 7 report in spite of these problems with it.

That's a non-issue.

When an overloaded structure fails, it happens basically all at the same time.



In the WTC7 case the overloaded structure is the moment frame. What overloaded it was the core pulling down.

 

[chrismohr]

Although the connection at column 79 is a major problem for the NIST hypothesis, especially since they omitted the girder stiffeners, it isn't just the one connection that is in contention. There are a significant number of problems with the NIST hypothesis.

What do you think about what I asked Chris Mohr in Post #79? If as NIST alleges, the exterior comes down due to a loss of lateral support from the interior, then why doesn't the east side exterior come down first if, as the NIST WTC 7 report claims, it loses its interior first? Instead it comes down later with west side exterior.

I am hoping someone here will answer this as I am trying to understand why so many here continue to support the NIST WTC 7 report in spite of these problems with it.

Hi Tony, I'm no engineer and don't come close to your skill set, so I am not really qualified to answer your question. At best I can share what I see, and summarize what I read (and not only from the people here; as you know I have talked to 14 physicists and NIST and countless other scientists and experts from every field about several aspects of the 9/11 collapses).
But what I see is the two penthouses collapsing into the inside of the building one at a time, then the whole facade coming down more or less as a unit. I know that the perimeter wall was a major structural element in the building design, to make more room for large open areas inside. I have also been told that when one column fails, it shifts its load at almost the speed of sound to other columns. I think that's what they mean by cascading failure? So the perimeter wall columns are all somehow holding together and supporting one another until they lose all support from the inside. The fact that the East Penthouse went down first should not mean that the east part of the perimeter wall should go down first if all the columns are supporting one another. But once the perimeter columns being to fail and shift their loads almost instantaneously, they can collapse globally in a very short amount of time.
Oystein's belt trusses explanation above, while tentative, does give further credence to the idea that the perimeter wall was tightly held together and would be resistant to one part collapsing until the whole perimeter lost the structural strength needed to hold it up. Others here can do a much better job of explaining this and understanding the mechanisms.
I request that ANYONE on either side who reads this and sees error in this correct me. This is a very nontechnical view of the collapse, one that I have not really vetted yet.
BTW I am relieved to hear you acknowledge a mechanism of >g collapse. And just a week or so, Niels Harrit's star witness in his libel suit acknowledged it as well. After years of being mocked by people in 9/11 Truth for denying >g ever happened (and would be impossible). I know you see that possibility in the context of a CD PLUS interior collapse, but you are the first person I know of from the other side who has done anything but mock me for this claim.
As for your claim that burning thermite flew out of the buildings, the brilliant light they would emanate (and which I don;t see in ANY video) makes that scenario extremely unlikely, in my opinion.

 

[JayUtah]

...as if thermite would "burn" while floating through the air (invisibly).

A couple weeks ago my clients tested the latest evolution of their best-known product, which will be used in the SLS system in a few years. Its fuel is quite similar to thermite, and it burns while... well, not so much "floating" through the air as hurtling through it at hypersonic velocity. And it burns very brightly. To insinuate that significant amounts of burning thermite could fall through the air unnoticed and unphotographed is colossally wishful thinking. In fact, here's what it looks like when burning thermite rains down to the ground.

 

[Oystein]

...
He said[/URL] "burning thermite" floating as if thermite would "burn" while floating through the air (invisibly). As I said in the previous thread, I'd love to see a demonstration of this phenomenon at work.

To be fair, "we" have the same "problem" with the fiery, burning and hot debris that actually travelled from WTC1 to WTC7: It's there (all that was burning, smoldering and glowing red-hot or more wasn't magically switched off) during the collapse, but hidden from sight by the much more plentiful dust and smoke that's not aflame.

It suffices if, among 1 ton of dust that was dumped into #7, there were a few handful of hot embers. Or a few handful of burning thermite