• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

NoahFence said:
That's a "big picture" question. They're not interested in answering it.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion is that they don't know what to say to the NIST if or when they get a reply. They are unable to come up with an alternative and they can't come out with their inside job BS.
 
NoahFence said:
LOL

The gall.

Asking someone else for logic when the "logic" you provide is totally absent. You could prove me wrong though, simply by formulating an opinion (a lucid one preferrbaly) as to WHY someone would take down WTC 7 to begin with.
Click to expand...
The veracity of NISTs report is what I am questioning, that's all. Your apparent inability to focus on that is contrived. I do not believe that fire could have brought the building down in the way that NIST said it did.
NoahFence said:
Your logic, and that of your peers, requires thousands of people to stick together to formulate a plan that is so fraught with error, so massivly complicated as to render it physically impossible.

Yet here you are. Trying to prove controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
NO I am not. I am outlining the impossibility of NISTs report. Their analysis is an impossibility. If NIST come back and admit that, and present a revised analysis that shows that fire can do this, then I would have to consider that seriously. They have not done that.
 
NoahFence said:
LOL

The gall.

Asking someone else for logic when the "logic" you provide is totally absent. You could prove me wrong though, simply by formulating an opinion (a lucid one preferrbaly) as to WHY someone would take down WTC 7 to begin with. Your logic, and that of your peers, requires thousands of people to stick together to formulate a plan that is so fraught with error, so massivly complicated as to render it physically impossible.

Yet here you are. Trying to prove controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Remember.....claiming CD is not part of the gameplan


But he thinks he is scaring people here. :rolleyes:
 
Animal said:
Remember.....claiming CD is not part of the gameplan


But he thinks he is scaring people here. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your reluctance to focus on the errors and omissions that are being highlighted to you is very telling.
Watch, I'll show you what I mean. Try answering this simple question.
Do you believe that any of the beams to the NE of column 79 can expand more than 5,5in. ?
 
Gerry,
Are you honestly saying that WTC7 should still be standing now due to the stiffeners ?
 
gerrycan said:
Your reluctance to focus on the errors and omissions that are being highlighted to you is very telling.
Watch, I'll show you what I mean. Try answering this simple question.
Do you believe that any of the beams to the NE of column 79 can expand more than 5,5in. ?
Click to expand...

Snicker - your focus on meaningless minutia is telling.
The exact expansion doesn't matter.....a fact you will never comprehend. :rolleyes:
 
Animal said:
Snicker - your focus on meaningless minutia is telling.
The exact expansion doesn't matter.....a fact you will never comprehend. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Let's first deal with the question that you cannot answer first. We can discuss what difference it makes after.
Surely this can't be too difficult for a fully qualified architect such as yourself.

Do you believe that any of the beams to the NE of column 79 can expand more than 5.5in. ?

It's a yes/no thing animal.
Very telling, as i said it would be
 
gerrycan said:
Let's first deal with the question that you cannot answer first. We can discuss what difference it makes after.
Surely this can't be too difficult for a fully qualified architect such as yourself.

Do you believe that any of the beams to the NE of column 79 can expand more than 5.5in. ?

It's a yes/no thing animal.
Very telling, as i said it would be
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
OK, I'll bite. No, I don't think any did.
Click to expand...
So the furthest to the West that the girder can be pushed by means of thermally expanding beams to the East of it is equal to or less than 5.5in.
NIST claim 6.25in.
Your only option now in defense of NISTs theory is to claim that the column itself moved. This cannot happen due to restraint and the girder expanding to the column face inside the side plates.
You, and NIST need a new theory, and a new analysis.
 
gerrycan said:
So the furthest to the West that the girder can be pushed by means of thermally expanding beams to the East of it is equal to or less than 5.5in.
NIST claim 6.25in.
Your only option now in defense of NISTs theory is to claim that the column itself moved. This cannot happen due to restraint and the girder expanding to the column face inside the side plates.
You, and NIST need a new theory, and a new analysis.
Click to expand...

Restraint?

Is this the restraint provided by siffeners and side plates made of the same steel that is equally suseptible to weakening by say, a massive fire raging for about 7 hours unchecked?

:crazy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom