Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

JSanderO, do you have a hypothesis as to how the entire perimeter wall could have held together and then fell symmetrically after the interior collapsed asymmetrically?
 
As for appeals to authority, let's all remember that we take seriously the research of Crazy Chainsaw and Oystein who are not engineers at all. It's safe to say that none of us is Leslie Robertson (designer of the WTC) or a structural engineer with high-rise experience. Some of us, like Ozeco41 and others, have extensive engineering background. It's the quality of what is said, not the degrees, that really count in my opinion.
 
chrismohr said:
As for appeals to authority, let's all remember that we take seriously the research of Crazy Chainsaw and Oystein who are not engineers at all. It's safe to say that none of us is Leslie Robertson (designer of the WTC) or a structural engineer with high-rise experience. Some of us, like Ozeco41 and others, have extensive engineering background. It's the quality of what is said, not the degrees, that really count in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that doesn't mean it isn't important to call out the hypocrisy of false appeals to authority when they appear. I don't care that Tony's not a licensed structural engineer, but I do care if he claims that his engineering degree somehow invalidates the arguments of non-engineers.
 
Let me put it this way:

In the absence of any other evidence, I'll take the claim of someone with a relevent degree over others. We can't all be experts in everything, and accepting the word of an actual, relevent authority (or more accurately, the concensus of experts int he relevent field) is not a fallacy in informal logic.

However, if it's a comparison where one group provides reasoned explanations that fit with the known laws of physics, and in which the conclusions make sense; while the other simply asserts that they're right, claiming "I have a degree" as the reason, while simultaneously disagreeing with the vast majority of other degreed people on the matter...


Well, that's a different story.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I agree, they seem to be propagating a lot of nonsense, maybe they could hire a qualified engineering professional to explain it to them..
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Tony could have explained to Chandler what's wrong with this nonsense:
David Chandler said:
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building.
Click to expand...

... but for "some reason" Tony doesn't do that.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
As for appeals to authority, let's all remember that we take seriously the research of Crazy Chainsaw and Oystein who are not engineers at all. It's safe to say that none of us is Leslie Robertson (designer of the WTC) or a structural engineer with high-rise experience. Some of us, like Ozeco41 and others, have extensive engineering background. It's the quality of what is said, not the degrees, that really count in my opinion.
Click to expand...

John Skilling did the structural design of the towers. Robertson did have some input particularly around the viscoelastic dampers, but Skilling was responsible for structural design.
 
Ah great - gerrycan is back!
In this post, gerrycan quoted two questions I had asked him several times already, and then answered zero of them. Again.


So I have to ask again:

1.) gerrycan, are you involved in the FEA project announced by AE911Truth as part of their "ambitious agenda for 2015"? If so, in what capacity? If not, do you know who is leading this effort, who is participating?


2.) gerrycan, is it TRUE or FALSE that, in NIST's 16-story model, the the columns were fixed laterally only at the bottom and the top, and that all columns were thus able to move laterally (in x- and y-axis) everywhere between top and bottom, if subject to corresponding forces that may arise from the heating regime?
Note that the best answer to this question is only one word: Either "TRUE" or "FALSE", and no good explanation of your answer would mention any particular connection. Please answer only the question I ask you, not some unstated question you want to ask yourself to conveniently evade my question. Thank you.
 
Oystein said:
Ah great - gerrycan is back!
In this post, gerrycan quoted two questions I had asked him several times already, and then answered zero of them. Again.


So I have to ask again:

1.) gerrycan, are you involved in the FEA project announced by AE911Truth as part of their "ambitious agenda for 2015"? If so, in what capacity? If not, do you know who is leading this effort, who is participating?


2.) gerrycan, is it TRUE or FALSE that, in NIST's 16-story model, the the columns were fixed laterally only at the bottom and the top, and that all columns were thus able to move laterally (in x- and y-axis) everywhere between top and bottom, if subject to corresponding forces that may arise from the heating regime?
Note that the best answer to this question is only one word: Either "TRUE" or "FALSE", and no good explanation of your answer would mention any particular connection. Please answer only the question I ask you, not some unstated question you want to ask yourself to conveniently evade my question. Thank you.
Click to expand...
1. None of your business

2. Some of the columns weren't even modelled for damage. They were fixed at the top and bottom yes, but to suppose that this was the only boundary condition imposed is silly. I think you need to be referencing 3 axis also.
 
gerrycan said:
1. None of your business
Click to expand...
That's an answer I have to accept.
I wonder if this is the paying AE911Truth members' business...

gerrycan said:
2. Some of the columns weren't even modelled for damage. They were fixed at the top and bottom yes, but to suppose that this was the only boundary condition imposed is silly. I think you need to be referencing 3 axis also.
Click to expand...

So you say it is WRONG that "all columns were thus able to move laterally (in x- and y-axis) everywhere between top and bottom, if subject to corresponding forces that may arise from the heating regime?"
I mean you must realize precisely what I am driving at: That, among others, column 79 MAY have been pushed towards east at floor 13 due to an expanding 76-79 girder on that floor and helped by failure of the corresponding girder on the floor(s) below - such that the seat of the 44-79 girder at c79 was half an inch, one inch, or whatever closer to the east wall by the time that infamous beam framing into the 44-79 girder had expamded by, oh, let's say, 5.5 inches.

So, do you deny the possibility that, in NIST's 16-story model. col 79 was pushed east by some unknown distance, perhaps 3/4 of an inch, at 4 hours in fire Case B?
 
gerrycan said:
John Skilling did the structural design of the towers. Robertson did have some input particularly around the viscoelastic dampers, but Skilling was responsible for structural design.
Click to expand...
Do you get everything wrong. Robertson did the design as built - and dampers were not trivial, as was the change he did in the design; which you don't know about since you are only here to bash NIST and not talk about your inside job fantasy. Actually the design was not by Skilling or Robertson; Robertson worked the structural engineering problem, he design the structure which saved the design, and changed the design.

What is your theory? How did the bad guys you can't name do it?

http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973
I approach a would be debunker and steer clear of claims like "inside job", "US govt complicity", and even "freefall acceleration and thermitic material", but just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" -
Click to expand...
It does not work with skeptics...

Right, you can't mention your theory, due to your propaganda tactic of BD, the "new approach", and due to no evidence. You have no rational CD theory, you have a fantasy inside job and no evidence.

Who did it?
How did they sneak into the WTC and WTC 7?
Where do you get silent explosives?
Has the "new approach" worked on any gullible people? How many?
 
Oystein said:
That's an answer I have to accept.
I wonder if this is the paying AE911Truth members' business...



So you say it is WRONG that "all columns were thus able to move laterally (in x- and y-axis) everywhere between top and bottom, if subject to corresponding forces that may arise from the heating regime?"
I mean you must realize precisely what I am driving at: That, among others, column 79 MAY have been pushed towards east at floor 13 due to an expanding 76-79 girder on that floor and helped by failure of the corresponding girder on the floor(s) below - such that the seat of the 44-79 girder at c79 was half an inch, one inch, or whatever closer to the east wall by the time that infamous beam framing into the 44-79 girder had expamded by, oh, let's say, 5.5 inches.

So, do you deny the possibility that, in NIST's 16-story model. col 79 was pushed east by some unknown distance, perhaps 3/4 of an inch, at 4 hours in fire Case B?
Click to expand...
You need to ask ae911 about their plans, not me.
As for your 3/4" theory, you need to explain how that happens without the connection failing on the west of c79.
Let's for arguments sake suppose that you are right. You would also need to account for the south most beam framing into the c79-44 girder failing at its east end. When that happens, and it would, you lose the 3/4" eastward movement that your theory gained you, leaving you right back where you started.
 
Like we told a local engineer Mr.Hot pants from the local.Aluminum plant who was a member of the local deer hunting
Camp back in the 1980s, The structural engineering degree is only valid, until the out house you build, falls in on you while your using it because you built it under a huge dead willow tree.

The work some one does is all I care about that is the only issue I have with Tony.

Oh the hot pants thing, had something to do with a pair of polyester pants and an acetylene torch,
During a temporary muffler repair on his ford 4x4.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The charges in WTC 7 would have to have been set before 911 as there would not have been time to do that on the same day. It would only have been the arsonists creating the cover that would have had something to do on the day of the event.
Click to expand...

So did the Conspiracy just hope that a big flaming chunk of debris would hit WTC7, so as to provide an excuse for why the fires started? Or did they have such a fine and detailed control over the demolition of WTC1 that they could cause it to send big flaming chunks of debris wherever they wanted?
 
Matthew Cline said:
So did the Conspiracy just hope that a big flaming chunk of debris would hit WTC7, so as to provide an excuse for why the fires started? Or did they have such a fine and detailed control over the demolition of WTC1 that they could cause it to send big flaming chunks of debris wherever they wanted?
Click to expand...

They couldn't have hoped for that - because remember truther canard #133:

WTC7 Was too far away to be hit by debris from the twin towers.

Christ. These people have more self-contradictions than the bible for crying out loud...
 
gerrycan said:
You need to ask ae911 about their plans, not me.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

gerrycan said:
Let's for arguments sake suppose that you are right.
Click to expand...
Am I right, or am I not right that in the 16-story model, column 79 could and would have moved laterally (say, east: say, by 3/4 inches, or whatever) if a sufficient force arose from the reaction of its girders to the heat regime? I am asking this as a matter of principle; after your Yes or No, we can look at the objections and ask ourselves if such a force could arise.

gerrycan said:
As for your 3/4" theory, you need to explain how that happens without the connection failing on the west of c79.
... You would also need to account for the south most beam framing into the c79-44 girder failing at its east end. When that happens, and it would, you lose the 3/4" eastward movement that your theory gained you, leaving you right back where you started.
Click to expand...
I think I understand this objection. And I can't explain this at this time, since I haven't looked into those details yet.

gerrycan said:
As for your 3/4" theory, you need to explain how that happens without the connection failing on the west of c79.
Click to expand...
NIST did model all these connections based on constrution data they had gathered - some simplifications apply. In their 16 story model, a number of connections did fail, that tells me the modelling did account for the strength of all (?) connections involved. So I assume that the force that pushed column 79 east was not sufficient to fail the connecttion on the west of c79. I have no way to test the plausibility of this, so I have to assume and hope they modelled right.

gerrycan said:
You would also need to account for the south most beam framing into the c79-44 girder failing at its east end. When that happens, and it would, you lose the 3/4" eastward movement that your theory gained you, leaving you right back where you started.
Click to expand...
You determined that it would fail - how? Browsing the NIST report, I see that the beam framing into the c79-44 girder was connected to the exterior via a "seated connection with a top plate (STP)", as opposed to a "seated connections with a top clip (STC)". I have not yet located the connection type beam-girder. Are you saying they didn't model the connection to the exterior, or had it too strong in the model? I would think that one of the three connections would be the first to fail, and once it fails, the beam relaxes and the other two connections won't fail (unless collapse ensues). I have no way to predict, or confirm anyone's prediction about which connection fails first.
So you think the exterior connection would fail before the c79-connection?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom