• 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

jaydeehess said:
Still clinging to the failed "missing jolt" nonsense, years after being repeatedly shown the error of that reasoning.
Click to expand...
His persistent error of logic from 2007 on. "Missing Jolt" which is only a specific example of the same mistake he makes with his nonsense about axial impact of falling column ends. He assumes "top bit falling" which means for each and every column which has already failed - it must have failed because the top bit is falling - the ends have already missed. The opportunity for impacting ends to cause that bit of the "Missing Jolt" has already passed into history.

He is looking for a future event when the opportunity is already past.

Put in broader perspective he shows no comprehension of the 3D mechanism, of those two cascading failures. A lack of comprehension seen in many related claims.

And more generally the original basis of his claims about WTC7 suffer the same fatal error of base assumptions. Before he even starts the misrepresentation of the 11" v 12" issue he makes what several have referred to as the "pristine building" error. i.e.assumes that the building setting the context for the details has not shifted from pristine. A ludicrous assumption in a building ravaged by fire.

And, unless he both gets his starting point assumptions correct AND validates them his claims are at least not proven. And we don't have to prove him wrong - merely "not proven" if we keep "burden of proof' the right way round. Sure many members have also proven his claims wrong at detail level without addressing the issues of false context.

The sad aspect from my perspective is the amount of debunker effort spent proving Tony wrong by playing within Tony's false context. Falling for the traps he sets.

The worst examples being the lengthy discussions about column impact in the Twin Towers. Both debunkers and Tony producing arguments and maths to prove each other wrong.

All wasted by BOTH sides - because the foundation assumption was wrong. Said columns had already missed at the starting point for the arguments. Tony was wrong in both logic and answers. Debunkers usually right in the answer but for wrong reasons and wasted effort.

This WTC7 not as bleedingly obvious but same disease.

And Tony's recent excursions into mutually conflicting wild claims are merely attention seeking bits of nonsense to keep discussion away from the real issue - his central themes are simply wrong and he has been shown why many times. That means "Missing Jolt" and related issues with the Twins and "girder walk-off" at WTC7.

Those are the false foundations for his unstable house of cards claims. The rest is just attention seeking distractions
 
If you told a layman that a 47-story building collapsed after being on fire for several hours, and that folks were arguing about the 3/4" placement of something-or-other, I don't think it would pass the smell test.
 
carlitos said:
If you told a layman that a 47-story building collapsed after being on fire for several hours, and that folks were arguing about the 3/4" placement of something-or-other, I don't think it would pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

Sure - the whole range of truth nonsense is exposed in WTC7

..Steel buildings are vulnerable to fire.
..Their design is based on "hold out under fire long enough for occupants to escape and fire fighting efforts to be started"
..WTC 7 on fire. No fire fighting efforts due to resource shortages - human and water the main ones.
..left to its fate.
..it fell with the sign of coming trauma clear for hours before the end.


So normal lay person humans understand the scenario - common sense lay persons who don't need technical expertise. And wont fall for the Tony trap of bogging down in irrelevant details.

AND the main reason truthers focus on 7 are:
..They politically need CD as basis for their claims.
...They tried it on the Twins and had essentially lost the argument.
..They rely on reversed burden of proof - they do not and most of them cannot present reasoned argument - "truthers cannot think - that is why many of them became truthers"
..They lost the argument with the twins because even playing reversed burden of proof the debunkers could show them wrong. More than enough evidence visible.

..Most evidence hidden with 7 so reversed burden "disproof" not as easy - cannot get the evidence because most of it hidden.

Bottom line remains - there was no CD and no truther has ever published a plausible hypothesis.

Then - specific here - Tony's pathetic attempts - at least every second post "you prove it wasn't" reversed burden in some form or other AND shifting the focus to "NIST was wrong" because he/they know that they cannot win with CD.

A waste of time feeding his desperate ego needs for attention.
 
ozeco41 said:
..Steel buildings are vulnerable to fire.
..Their design is based on "hold out under fire long enough for occupants to escape and fire fighting efforts to be started"
..WTC 7 on fire. No fire fighting efforts due to resource shortages - human and water the main ones.
..left to its fate.
..it fell with the sign of coming trauma clear for hours before the end.
Click to expand...

All of this occurring long after code would require. The real truth is the building actually out performed code.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The dust coming out of the windows in the building in the video does not happen until the exterior comes down which is after the east penthouse came down.
Click to expand...
Which windows are the ones you refer to? Some of the windows in the top 15 floors of the north side of this 47 storey building?

true enough, for the small subset of windows you choose to to deem pertinent. Why you would do so and not actually adress the points made concerning what else this video shows , is beyond comprehension.

The visible smoke in this video is above and to the east of the structure. The smoke to the east of the structure gets noticibly darker at 2:33 and stays that way right up to EPH collapse and through exterior collapse. this is consistent with an increased expulsion through exiting broken windows on the south and east of the structure. There is no gross deformation of the north face before the EPH collapses, nor is their a compelling reason why there should be, and thus there is no mechanism by which the windows on the north side should break. As the EPH does collapse and before the exterior follows suit, there is a line of window breakage under where the EPH was. there is no compelling reason why dust should emante from these windows in great quantity at this time either as air and dust move downwards through the now existing hole(not the case in the towers where the collapse zone was above intact floors)


So, Tony, you have several unsubstantiated claims here. you claim arson, yet provide no evidence other than your own conjecture.
You say no smoke/dust emanating from the north side windows yet provide no sunstantive argument as to why there should be or more specifically, why there should be in the portions of the north face that are visible in the videos of the collapse.

These are your claims, therefore your burden of proof to provide something other than your own conjecture. However, in typical AE911T accolyte fashion you try to throw the burden of proof on others to show you are incorrect and when it is demonstrated that indications are you are wrong , you completely ignore them and continue as if nothing has changed.
(best case in point, the non-sequitor of "missing jolt")
 
jaydeehess said:
Originally Posted by gerrycan
NIST need to have the truth demanded from them rather than offering it up themselves is the problem, not some perceived lack of demand for accountability externally
Click to expand...
Wait a tic...

You say that NIST needs to have this demand made of them but its not relevant that the most significant trade organizations do not apparently see any requirement to make these demands!
Click to expand...

I have not received a substantive answer as to why NIST needs to have demands made of them when its obvious that no credible organization has deemed it necessary to make such demands.
Not the ASCE, not the AIA, and although the CTBUH had questions it made no demands and specifically stated that no 911 truth movement organization claims had any credibility "whatsoever".
 
jaydeehess said:
...(best case in point, the non-sequitor of "missing jolt")
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif

Which couldn't be "missing" since it could never occur.
 
carlitos said:
If you told a layman that a 47-story building collapsed after being on fire for several hours, and that folks were arguing about the 3/4" placement of something-or-other, I don't think it would pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

The 3/4" came in because NIST said the girder would have to travel 6.25" instead of 5.5" but never said where the extra 3/4" expansion or relative movement would come from in their June 2012 erratum where they admitted the seat was 12" wide and not the 11" they had originally stated in their WTC 7 report.

But in reality it is not about 3/4" as you say here. Apparently you don't appreciate the fact that the stiffeners make the problem much worse since they nearly double the distance the girder would have to be pushed beyond the maximum possible 5.5".

NIST hadn't acknowledged the girder stiffeners in the June 2012 erratum even though they had been asked about their omission in the same March 2012 letter that discussed the seat error. It would take them another 16 months to admit they omitted the stiffeners.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Try showing it from the start, instead of after it came down about ten stories.

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg shows just how symmetric the collapse of WTC 7 was. It is ridiculous to even say it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Starting with the penthouse falling and the roof line sagging, you really don't know symmetry, and cling to a silly tag line of symmetry. You showed up already with the conclusion of the realcddeal, and have offered no evidence.

Love it, video exposes 911 truth followers don't do symmetry. Take a piece of paper and hold it next to the building, and see the building lean left. Do you have a real monitor, did you watch the video you posted which shows no symmetry? Even the other penthouse starts to follow where the internal collapse started, not symmetrically. Not close.

LOL, at least you can quote mine Dan Rather, and his looks like CD. Dan is the man.

I watched the video, you don't know symmetry. Better luck with JFK, OKC, at least you can recycle your evidence for Bigfoot.

A single column failure looks better than the claim of symmetry. Are you making fun of 911 truth symmetry claims?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is ridiculous to say the fall of WTC 7 was not a symmetric collapse. Try showing it from the start, instead of after it came down about ten stories.

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg shows just how symmetric it was. The entire exterior falls in unison.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by symmetry?

I studied "symmetry" in architecture at college. There are many types of symmetry:

Mirror, radial, reflective, rotational, translational, glide, helical and so on...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry

The use of the term that the collapse of each tower was symmetrical is stupid, hollow and of course wrong. The towers came down ... according to the main force in play - gravity.

Using this term to mean something only reveals how idiotic this claim connecting the collapses to CD is. Those who make it reveal how uninformed they are and are reaching for some sort of phrase which sounds for lack of a better word... cool.

When someone clings to and repeats this... you know that you can't take them seriously and have a deficit in their thinking... not that uncommon but a hallmark of truthers - they can't think.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is ridiculous to say the fall of WTC 7 was not a symmetric collapse. Try showing it from the start, instead of after it came down about ten stories.

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg shows just how symmetric it was. The entire exterior falls in unison.
Click to expand...

The building had a symmetrical appearance, why wouldn't it look symmetrical when it fell? :confused:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is ridiculous to say the fall of WTC 7 was not a symmetric collapse. Try showing it from the start, instead of after it came down about ten stories.

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg shows just how symmetric it was. The entire exterior falls in unison.
Click to expand...

,,, and a second or two after all floors tilted towards the kink,,,,at about 1/3 of the distance across the north face,,, which means that this line began falling BEFORE the east and west walls did.
That type of symmetry?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is ridiculous to say the fall of WTC 7 was not a symmetric collapse. Try showing it from the start, instead of after it came down about ten stories.
Click to expand...
Yes Tony, "from the start," The Salomon Brothers was indeed symmetrical. It was built that way. :rolleyes:

After it fell about ten stories, it was kinked and twisting. Yet you're calling a 47 story collapse "symmetrical" when it's not even close to symmetrical, with a penthouse falling into the building first, and it's obviously kinked and twisted after a ten story drop. So what the hell are you talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom