Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

Spanx said:
Really Tony,

If I think like a detective.................................
Click to expand...

Or you could be a detective and talk to the first responders that were there. Tony use internet images because it better suits his belief. There were plenty of reports of fire in WTC 7 earlier than 12:30.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Your comments here are inane and if you aren't a shill you certainly act like one. If you are one you should be telling your bosses what I said in post #894 instead of arguing nonsensically.
Click to expand...

Tony the old Dr. Jones shill stupidity shows me exactly were your entire argument of ignorance come from, you have zip, zero evidence, materials science data proves your not qualified as an expert in the subject Just like Steven Jones was no expert.
Your only embarrassing yourself, in this flawed argument, I respect you right of free speech though, and your replies are quite comical in the exstream.
Please continue with the hand waving insane assumptions based on pesudo science,
and pesudo Engineering, they are hilariously amusing.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I don't think Chris Mohr is your boss. I would think he is a colleague of yours, because he is spouting nonsense about the collapses also, and he should be telling his bosses what I said in post #894 also.
Click to expand...


Who do you think Chris Mohr's bosses are?




(yes, I understand this is all a big old derail, but nevertheless, I have to ask...)
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The cars had plastic parts on their exterior, which was flammable and would ignite easily, WTC 7 did not. Did you forget that part of my point?
Click to expand...

Flame retardant rubbers, thermite sparks are cooler than welding sparks,
that's why I burst into flames and die every time I arc weld steel and come back as a zombie
to haunt the truth movement.:eye-poppi
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Thermite sparks will not do it Tony, and no proof of arson or evidence of said arson.

I am looking into the plates on the column interesting the thermal expansion of the plates attached to the column when I run them though a simple thermal expansion program seem to distort the column if unevenly heated.

Wonder if uneven expansion of the side plates could result in aiding girder walk off by causing buckling and twisting it isn't much but it is there.
Click to expand...

Are you getting the side plates mixed up with the stiffener plates.
Run the c79-44 girder through your expansion program and tell us whether or not the girder expands to become trapped on the inside of the side plate.
 
gerrycan said:
Are you getting the side plates mixed up with the stiffener plates.
Run the c79-44 girder through your expansion program and tell us whether or not the girder expands to become trapped on the inside of the side plate.
Click to expand...

Typical troofer thinking.:rolleyes:

Structural elements do not act and react individually......rather they act as part of a system. Anyone with the slightest education in structures knows that...... the fact that you, TZ, MM, and Z continue to try and push that notion confirms your ignorance WRT building structures.
 
Animal said:
Typical troofer thinking.:rolleyes:

Structural elements do not act and react individually......rather they act as part of a system. Anyone with the slightest education in structures knows that...... the fact that you, TZ, MM, and Z continue to try and push that notion confirms your ignorance WRT building structures.
Click to expand...

Ok then. Educate us by explaining crazy chainsaws theory about how the effective flange width will influence the walk off theory.
This should be good.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The logic shows it had to be arson.

if one thinks like a detective that is the only possible conclusion for how the fires in WTC 7 were started.
Click to expand...

The logic shows that IF it was CD, THEN it also must have beem arson.
Because if the fires had been random, and on so many of the lower, all-important floors, then CD devices would have been disabled by them.

Very logical. YOU, Tony, need arson very badly.

You just have the premise wrong.
 
New page, new luck. Maybe Tony will now grace us with answering some questions that he has dodged since page 10:

Tony, do you accept my claim as true that the WTC7 south face had a HUGE GASH down many floors, as reported by fire fighters on the scene, and as descibed in the NIST report?

According to your engineering assessment, would you agree that ripping a HUGE GASH down the face of a building and damaging floors doing so might frustrate designs to prevent vertical spread of fire?

Are you saying that Jowenko's lack of detailed knowledge of circumstances is reason to reject his expert opinion?
(Hint: This is a Yes/No question. No need to write another full paragraph that avoids answering the actual question.)

What if the wall broke 8 floors above ground, and then the upper part fell on inside of the lower part wall? The 8 stories worth of standing columns would then not support anything.


Thank you.
 
To summarize, the evidence for WTC 7 CD is:
  1. The building came down in a symmetric free fall
  2. Simultaneous removal of all 24 core columns over a number of stories low in the building.
  3. NIST model does not replicate the free fall or actual building condition during the failure
  4. "...The report needed to omit pertinent structural features to even make it superficially plausible, negat[ing] the NIST WTC 7 report as a viable explanation."
  5. The Building was set on fire intentionally by arsonists
    - Said arsonists used thermite as the ignition agent
    - No graphic evidence of fire for at least 2 hours after the collapse of the towers?
  6. Explosions inside the building long before the collapse
  7. The fires in WTC 1 were "limited"
  8. The horizontal propagation of the failure in WTC 1 (the North Tower) occurs in less than a second across the entire 98th floor
  9. The fall of the upper section shows no sign of deceleration during its fall... meaning some form of demolition devices were removing the structural integrity below the falling mass above.
  10. The motivation for setting up the attacks was for the] U.S. military to remove governments involved in oil and gas production and pipelines that were not friendly to certain U.S. fossil fuel corporations.
  11. Everyone disagreeing with the CD hypothesis is either a shill or an idiot
  12. Using a forum nickname automatically renders a counterargument wrong.

Do I have this list correct?
 
gerrycan said:
Ok then. Educate us by explaining crazy chainsaws theory about how the effective flange width will influence the walk off theory.
This should be good.
Click to expand...

You want an education, then cough up the tuition money. Typical troofers....wanting everything for free. :rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by gerrycan
Are you getting the side plates mixed up with the stiffener plates.
Run the c79-44 girder through your expansion program and tell us whether or not the girder expands to become trapped on the inside of the side plate
Click to expand...
Animal said:
Typical troofer thinking.:rolleyes:

Structural elements do not act and react individually......rather they act as part of a system. Anyone with the slightest education in structures knows that...... the fact that you, TZ, MM, and Z continue to try and push that notion confirms your ignorance WRT building structures.
Click to expand...

NIST structural engineers know what happens when the expanding girder is restrained at both ends, but gerrycan, TS,MM don't.
Bats in the belfry, the lot of them.
 
Last edited:
Animal said:
You want an education, then cough up the tuition money. Typical troofers....wanting everything for free. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

IOW you have no clue what is even being asked, never mind how to answer.
Why not come onto a recorded Skype conversation about this topic and we can post the recording to the net and show people who gets schooled. You pointed the finger calling people ignorant, and you do not have the capacity to back it up.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Tony the old Dr. Jones shill stupidity shows me exactly were your entire argument of ignorance come from, you have zip, zero evidence, materials science data proves your not qualified as an expert in the subject Just like Steven Jones was no expert.
Your only embarrassing yourself, in this flawed argument, I respect you right of free speech though, and your replies are quite comical in the exstream.
Please continue with the hand waving insane assumptions based on pesudo science,
and pesudo Engineering, they are hilariously amusing.
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to be an expert to understand or think. But it is creepy to pose as an expert or imply it or allow others to labor under the belief that you are an expert and have thoroughly researched the topic and the beliefs you advance so affirmatively.

Jones impresses me as a shoot from the hip narcissist. Gage as someone who is also narcissistic and exploiting all manner of things for his comfort and ego. Chandler is just self deluded... and another narcissist.

Common element... narcissism.
 
Animal said:
You want an education, then cough up the tuition money. Typical troofers....wanting everything for free. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

We dont charge our students tuition fees here and unlike yourself I have no case to make that would justify a refund.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom