• 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

DGM said:
Getting?

"Truthers" and the "inside job" have been out of the picture for years.

I see aspects of your theory that make perfect sense and could also be a plausible sequence considered on par with NISTs'.

I wouldn't mind hashing out the (what I consider) the lack of initiating factors needed for your theory with you (I think we started once or twice).

This is not going to happen until the "truthers" get over their controlled demolition fantasy and their need for people knowing they are going to be heard.

They're a distraction that keeps this from being productive and interesting. Unfortunately, they will never progress from conspiracy to science. That's why this remains locked forever here.
Click to expand...

The NIST theory for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 has been shown to be impossible. Jeffrey's transfer truss failure theory requires fires below the 7th floor which is not supported by evidence and is also unlikely as it can't explain the symmetric nature of the collapse.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
There was nothing about a response from NIST a few pages back. It sounds like you have some level of knowledge you aren't being forthright with. Do you?
Click to expand...
It was a post made be muc (it might have ended up in hell). It quoted anouther "truther" site (not confirmed).

Doesn't matter really. Do you think anyone that got it would even get to the point of reading the "evidence" after that intro? As a business person, I'd post it on my wall and pee a little laughing every time I read those pathetic threats.

You have to admit, Gage had that written to pull in some more dough from his rubes. He has to show he's doing something for his pay check.
 
DGM said:
It was a post made be muc (it might have ended up in hell). It quoted anouther "truther" site (not confirmed).

Doesn't matter really. Do you think anyone that got it would even get to the point of reading the "evidence" after that intro? As a business person, I'd post it on my wall and pee a little laughing every time I read those pathetic threats.

You have to admit, Gage had that written to pull in some more dough from his rubes. He has to show he's doing something for his pay check.
Click to expand...

It still sounds like you know something you aren't saying.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST theory for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 has been shown to be impossible. Jeffrey's transfer truss failure theory requires fires below the 7th floor which is not supported by evidence and is also unlikely as it can't explain the symmetric nature of the collapse.
Click to expand...
Repeating this does not make it true.

You really should ask Gage for compensation for the work you do for him.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I am simply showing how people were fooled initially by the superficial plausibility of the present official storyline, but that it is actually found to be bogus and impossible when scrutinized. That is the crux of the issue and the subject of this thread in the sense that it has been shown that the official storytellers have not been honest. This point was driven home heavily when it was discovered that pertinent structural features were omitted from the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis which would have made it impossible.

The present official story for how the fires started in WTC 7 and how it came down is bogus. The fires could not have been started by WTC 1 debris and the building could not have been caused to completely collapse due to a single column failure, as any analysis with the real structure around it included shows that column 79 could not have failed due to fire.
Click to expand...

What is the official story?

I saw fire in WTC 7, the fire was not fought, it would be totaled. There were no single column failures possible because the fire damages many elements - thus a single column failure in a compromised building is possible, as it would lead to further failures. Like a small leak, failure.

As for fires could not be started by WTC collapse. You are wrong. Using the Fetzer method of proof, "what you say is true", is not proof, but a sign of woo.

Fire caused WTC 7 to collapse, and evidence proves the CD claim is fantasy. What is your official story? Exactly, you can't state your story, only make up stuff.

I love your photo showing tons of debris on a path to impact the WTC, as you cherry pick a freeze frame to make up more nonsense.

Where is your CD story? Where is your evidence for CD? E=mgh was responsible for the ejections, but ignore it, 911 truth does.
 
Muc said:
Has this been adressed already?




http://wtfrly.com/2014/04/17/nist-waits-3-months-decline-fix-flawed-wtc7-report/

That was eleven days ago - yet I can't seem to find the content of NIST's reply anywhere. I don't even see it mentioned anywhere except in that quote. Was it a simple "thanks for the letter, but ... nah" or did they actually bother to state why they thought the objections were not relevant? I also wonder if that information was already sent to the people represented by Pepper, some of whom I understand are posting in this very thread, or just given to the authors of the above-linked article after direct inquiry.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It still sounds like you know something you aren't saying.
Click to expand...
Like what?

I read the letter. If I got it, I wouldn't get past the first two paragraphs. It's a pathetic attempt at showing you mean business.

He sent a DVD to engineers as evidence. I pee'd a bit laughing when I read that.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The chance of fire being started by friction from impact of relatively slow moving objects is extremely low and once inside the building the impacted items would most likely be furniture, carpet, and drywall.

Let's see a calculation if you actually believe what you say here.
Click to expand...

No, let's see a calculation from you to determine the probability. I already realize there is no other evidence for a source of fire than impacts from the other tower. It's you that want to rule out everything except CD as a possibility, since you have no actual evidence for CD.
 
What is the OP authors position on the OP...

After the realcddeal effort, and thinking about 911 truth fantasy claims, hard to remember.

I think it is possible in a fire damaged building to have a column failure help start a collapse.


Poor 911 truth, woo masters.
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed http://www.ae911truth.org/ from a search (path of least architects and engineers for 9/11 truth site:ae911truth.org)
Click to expand...

It would be hard to find more nuts than Gage has assembled. ... my grandson could only find 100 pounds of nuts... Gage attracts tons
 
LSSBB said:
No, let's see a calculation from you to determine the probability. I already realize there is no other evidence for a source of fire than impacts from the other tower. It's you that want to rule out everything except CD as a possibility, since you have no actual evidence for CD.
Click to expand...

You are quick to ask for calculations from others, and I have done a number of calculations at your request, but have yet to see you do any to back what you claim or assert.

Claiming friction during impact could have started the fires in WTC 7 is a bold assertion that you have made. I have shown some logic saying it is not plausible. You need to provide something giving it plausibility, otherwise it is a shout in the dark.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The present official story for how the fires started in WTC 7 and how it came down is bogus. The fires could not have been started by WTC 1 debris....
Click to expand...
Again, I don't care how you think the fires "started". It's not worth my time.
"How it came down..." all you did was conclude based on whatever logic you have that "column 79" couldn't have initiated the collapse. If I hold that conclusion at face value I conclude then the collapse initiated elsewhere in the building due to the same factors, and that the building's long spanning beam design made it susceptible to progressive collapse after it got started.

I would then make an argument that the code changes that resulted from the NIST report be reevaluated. That's about as far as I go.


Why? Because as far as I'm concerned even if I accept your conclusion, there was no "CD" and the building still collapsed already. Nothing we dabble on about changes it. And on the subject of "CD", I don't care about methods of installation, you haven't even established that explosives were even present. There's no discussion to be had about NIST covering up a demolition when you can't prove that one even happened. It goes back to fire as a primary contributory factor
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Like what?

I read the letter. If I got it, I wouldn't get past the first two paragraphs. It's a pathetic attempt at showing you mean business.

He sent a DVD to engineers as evidence. I pee'd a bit laughing when I read that.
Click to expand...

Did you read the Technical Discussion that involved the last 11 pages of the letter?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You made the claim that friction from impact could start a fire. You are quick to ask for calculations from others, and I have done a number of calculations at your request, but have yet to see you do any to back what you claim or assert.

Claiming friction during impact could have started the fires in WTC 7 is a bold assertion. I have shown some logic saying it is not plausible. You need to provide something giving it plausibility, otherwise it is a shout in the dark.
Click to expand...

Lol, and of course you don't need to provide anything :jaw-dropp
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Again, I don't care how you think the fires "started". It's not worth my time.
"How it came down..." all you did was conclude based on whatever logic you have that "column 79" couldn't have initiated the collapse. If I hold that conclusion at face value I conclude then the collapse initiated elsewhere in the building due to the same factors, and that the building's long spanning beam design made it susceptible to progressive collapse after it got started.

I would then make an argument that the code changes that resulted from the NIST report be reevaluated. That's about as far as I go.


Why? Because as far as I'm concerned even if I accept your conclusion, there was no "CD" and the building still collapsed already. Nothing we dabble on about changes it. And on the subject of "CD", I don't care about methods of installation, you haven't even established that explosives were even present. There's no discussion to be had about NIST covering up a demolition when you can't prove that one even happened.
Click to expand...

NIST was tasked with determining how WTC 7 collapsed and were given tens of millions of dollars to do so. They have not done that thus far. You can't just handwave it away.
 
Last edited:
Spanx said:
Lol, and of course you don't need to provide anything :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

I have provided a significant number of calculations to back what I say in this thread alone. What universe do you live in that you don't recognize that?

I am seriously considering putting you on ignore, as you seem to be intent on just making wisecracks, and rarely make any value added comments.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I have provided a significant number of calculations to back what I say in this thread alone. What universe do you live in that you don't recognize that?

I am seriously considering putting you on ignore, as you seem to be intent on just making wisecracks, and rarely make any value added comments.
Click to expand...

You proved it was not CD. And you proved there was more than enough energy in a gravity collapse to eject stuff to hit WTC 7.

Better take your CD fantasy to a fantasy forum.


Can a fire compromised building suffer the slow failure WTC 7 did when a single column fails? You have not shown a significant number of calculations to support CD.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
NIST was tasked with determining how WTC 7 collapsed and were given tens of millions of dollars to do so. They have not done that thus far.
Click to expand...
Oh but they have; they determined that fires played a central role in contributing to the collapses. They also determined that certain design approaches utilized in the buildings contributed to their being vulnerable to a particular collapse mechanism. Both are supported by well documented evidence. Some specifics are in dispute as emphasized by the OP creator and engineers that have criticized the reports on the report being too conservative on their models. But those criticisms affect BUILDING CODE recommendations, they don't place dispute on the fact that the fires were a main cause. But you clearly appear reluctant to be dragged into any discussion that forces you to live up to your burden of proof in showing how a "CD" is worth discussing as it relates to this thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom