Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

Those conspirators sure have unlimited ressources. You'd think they'd have better things to do with their time and said ressources than perform shenanigans like this.
 
Brass said:
Maybe so, but I am qualified enough to say that if you believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then you are implicating the FDNY as being involved with some sort of "inside job" so, there's that...
Click to expand...

That, or the bad guys were so good at their jobs that they fooled the FDNY as well. Oddly enough, Truthers seem really reluctant to discuss this. Tony's already ignoring one of my posts making that point.

Oystein said:
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...


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...

:dl:

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...

This is another one of those things Truthers don't like to answer or acknowledge. I've asked Tony at least twice.

Belz... said:
Those conspirators sure have unlimited ressources. You'd think they'd have better things to do with their time and said ressources than perform shenanigans like this.
Click to expand...

And also Schrodinger's competence. Good enough to set fires on multiple floors in a building that the FDNY was working on, but not enough to prevent random lumps of thermite setting cars on fire.
 
Matthew Cline said:
Does burning thermite even generate sparks which can float away?
Click to expand...
My guess is yes. Watch any video of thermite burning. It burns with extreme brilliance for 30-45 seconds and sprays all over the place. A big problem with the thermite spray hypothesis for the cars is that no one reported blindingly bright lights during collapse. As I said before, the exposed core (brought down by thermite???) was fully exposed for a couple seconds as it was collapsing more slowly than the perimeter, and it would have been a massive candle as bright as the sun.
 
JSanderO said:
In the hull and core concept the perimeter is a rather rigid "membrane" (kind of)... with strong spandrel beams. It acts more as a unit because of the strength of the connections and the spandrels.... its elements act as one... Ergo when it lost axial support it dropped like a 4 sided box.... kinda
Click to expand...

"kinda",, sounds right. We are treating the perimeter as a hollowed box. In fact some floor interconnections would still be in place, the box is trapezoidal, not rectangular, and some corner bracing would still be in effect, especially in the NW, all working to keep the perimeter intact until a first perimeter failure. That first perimeter failure occurs with the formation of the 'kink'. With at least a good part of the western core gone by that time, the kink is akin to the tap on the side of a pop can that someone is standing on, its the straw that leads to complete structural failure of the dromedary.

The western section falls to the south away from the building's neighbours, and this is taken as evidence of controlled demolition. Really? That ignores a simple fact. The SW corner was gone at the time of WTC 1 collapse, and that this is documented to have produced a bulge to the south at that corner. That alone would predispose a fall away from the Verizon building.

Then, of course, the collapse is quite obviously led by core failure , the disposition of the building at the formation of the 'kink' (all floors on the north side at least, are tilting down at the kink line) indicate that collapse will be towards the east/west center, away from both P.O. and Verizon.
 
chrismohr said:
My guess is yes. Watch any video of thermite burning. It burns with extreme brilliance for 30-45 seconds and sprays all over the place. A big problem with the thermite spray hypothesis for the cars is that no one reported blindingly bright lights during collapse. As I said before, the exposed core (brought down by thermite???) was fully exposed for a couple seconds as it was collapsing more slowly than the perimeter, and it would have been a massive candle as bright as the sun.
Click to expand...

No the sparks in thermite microspheres of iron and hot aluminum oxide have high cooling
Rates and do not float well in air do to being dense and heavy.
Thermites are poor at starting fires do to spread, thermates are designed with sulfur to produce a flame which helps fire spread.
Carbohydrates paper are really dangerous, that's why forest fires spread so bad,
Leaves and embers oxidizing in air.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Cline said:
So, did these arsonists run around setting fire in the streets without anyone noticing them doing it?
Click to expand...

Oh, no. The street fires were the result of another mechanism entirely. That was thermite in the dust (that's the dust that put out the fires in WTC 1 in the milliseconds before collapse ejected burning office material) that landed around the vehicles and then (somehow) ignited. Its NOT what occurred in WTC 7 since that would require that the fires be noticed immediately and one of T.Sz's points re:arson is that the fires did not exist in WTC 7 until two hours after WTC1 collapse.
So, no , unlike the lamp pole downing agents at the Pentagon, Tony's arson agents are running around in WTC 7, not out in the open.
 
jaydeehess 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...



Um, if some of the columns were not modeled for damage then wouldn't that influence the FEA conservatively favouring non-collapse? You have a beef with that?
Click to expand...

Gerrycan, Ziggi, Tony Sz.?
Anyone?
 
Chainsaw, interestingly, when I prepared to debate Richard Gage in 2011, I told him I was confused about nanothermite and thermate, both of which he was claiming were present. He said he believed nanothermite was used in the Towers and thermate was used in Building 7. So the thermate sparks from Building 7 could have set off the cars near the Towers??
 
chrismohr said:
My guess is yes. Watch any video of thermite burning. It burns with extreme brilliance for 30-45 seconds and sprays all over the place. A big problem with the thermite spray hypothesis for the cars is that no one reported blindingly bright lights during collapse. As I said before, the exposed core (brought down by thermite???) was fully exposed for a couple seconds as it was collapsing more slowly than the perimeter, and it would have been a massive candle as bright as the sun.
Click to expand...

Well, that and there were plenty of cars on fire before the collapse.

(No doubt struck by aircraft debris, parts of the building, building contents, etc..)
 
JSanderO said:
In the hull and core concept the perimeter is a rather rigid "membrane" (kind of)... with strong spandrel beams. It acts more as a unit because of the strength of the connections and the spandrels.... its elements act as one... Ergo when it lost axial support it dropped like a 4 sided box.... kinda
Click to expand...

This from the guy who stated that the main function of the outrigger truss on wtc1 was to take the weight of the antenna???
 
gerrycan said:
This from the guy who stated that the main function of the outrigger truss on wtc1 was to take the weight of the antenna???
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
if some of the columns were not modeled for damage then wouldn't that influence the FEA conservatively favouring non-collapse?
Click to expand...

Would columns modeled as intact influence an FEA towards collapse or not?
 
chrismohr said:
Chainsaw, interestingly, when I prepared to debate Richard Gage in 2011, I told him I was confused about nanothermite and thermate, both of which he was claiming were present. He said he believed nanothermite was used in the Towers and thermate was used in Building 7. So the thermate sparks from Building 7 could have set off the cars near the Towers??
Click to expand...

Absolutely not Thermate produces the same sparks as thermite they are microspheres,
They lack sufficient mass to retain enough heat in a cooling fluid to ignite gasoline 30 feet away.

I tried 450 pounds of a combination of black sand, iron rust, copper oxide Thermate_ Thermate compound in a 2.5:dry grass field, no ignition of grass 8 feet from the reaction in a 30/mile per hour wind.

The same reason I do not burst into flame welding is the same reason thermite will not ignite the cars the particles can not retain the residual heat as they travel in a cooling fluid.
 
Question were the columns in world trade 7 box columns, or H columns?

I forget the column shape.
 
gerrycan said:
Some were built up shapes some weren't.
Click to expand...

Square box columns like in the towers are strongest, as they resist sheer lag, H columns are notorious for shear lag fracture.
Shear lag fracture is evident though even in the strong box columns. In the towers core,
As the welds sheared without tension deformation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom