'What about building 7'?

[LSSBB]

That’s because he also does not know the difference between bending and buckling. Being incompetent at structural engineering does not prevent conspiracists from being loudly wrong.

Looks like you were able to understand what I meant, BA. Must have been coherent enough. Hmmm...

 

[gerrycan]

But you know it's wrong. By what methods?

Would the breaking of the connection at C38 not have happened in your opinion? I say that it would have had it been modeled. If you are saying different you need to back that up. I am using NISTs own expansion estimates for the beam to concluded that it would have.

 

[DGM]

Would the breaking of the connection at C38 not have happened in your opinion? I say that it would have had it been modeled. If you are saying different you need to back that up. I am using NISTs own expansion estimates for the beam to concluded that it would have.

So you are using "back of a napkin"?

 

[gerrycan]

Looks like you were able to understand what I meant, BA. Must have been coherent enough. Hmmm...

How many columns did K3004 have connection to?
I have to thank you for at least making me laugh today. Hope the foot heals fast.

 

[gerrycan]

So you are using "back of a napkin"?

No. I am using the lower estimate of 5.5" given by NIST. You're right though they do not show any working for this claim. And neither for their later 6.25" claim.
And this is a defense of the official story you are attempting???

 

[LSSBB]

How many columns did K3004 have connection to?
I have to thank you for at least making me laugh today. Hope the foot heals fast.

Still cannot answer how far off in x, y, and z the other end of the beam was?

 

[gerrycan]

Still cannot answer how far off in x, y, and z the other end of the beam was?

Woah. You were asking about the girder and column relative displacement.
What element exactly are you talking about now??

 

[DGM]

No. I am using the lower estimate of 5.5" given by NIST. You're right though they do not show any working for this claim. And neither for their later 6.25" claim.
And this is a defense of the official story you are attempting???

I'm not attempting anything. I'm am wondering if you expect to progress past internet conspiracy forums? If so, is this your plan?

 

[beachnut]

...
And this is a defense of the official story you are attempting???

And this is your defense for your CD fantasy?

Did you misplace the evidence for CD? Did Deets mess up, not understanding the interior of WTC 7 collapsed before the roof line single point tracked at g for a few seconds?

The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable...

Yet you fail to make a point, as you quibble on points, and fail to present engineering. Is there a paper yet by all the thousands of engineers, the less than 0.01 percent of all engineers on your side? No paper?

No CD theory evidence yet?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Hope the foot heals fast.

He only gave you a little kick up the bum, I doubt he even stubbed his toe.

 

[LSSBB]

Woah. You were asking about the girder and column relative displacement.
What element exactly are you talking about now??

What I am looking for is this: a precise statement from you that firmly addresses all the variables in position and distortion that were included within the model, in order to properly establish the validity of your claim. I am not looking for witty retorts, evasions, hand calculations taken out of a holistic context. It appears that I won't be getting that clear statement, so what I see currently is a plausible mechanism from NIST for the collapse of WTC7.

 

[gerrycan]

I'm not attempting anything. I'm am wondering if you expect to progress past internet conspiracy forums? If so, is this your plan?

Not at all. This discussion is enlightening in so far as it demonstrates just how little knowledge you and yours have about the building (LSSBB's earlier post was a golden example of this).
As for progress elsewhere, that's something that isn't relevant to this discussion and I am here talking for myself only. The issue is certainly being discussed elsewhere and I find that people take it very seriously.
Having said that. There does appear to be a huge amount of interest in this discussion. Maybe you should read up a bit and make a fight of it.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

The issue is certainly being discussed elsewhere and I find that people take it very seriously.

Where? Which people? Links?

(I'm genuinely interested )

 

[gerrycan]

What I am looking for is this: a precise statement from you that firmly addresses all the variables in position and distortion that were included within the model, in order to properly establish the validity of your claim. I am not looking for witty retorts, evasions, hand calculations taken out of a holistic context. It appears that I won't be getting that clear statement, so what I see currently is a plausible mechanism from NIST for the collapse of WTC7.

You're asking me to defend NISTs model???
If you want a clear statement from me it would be this. The C79 remained laterally supported in NISTs analysis until after the floors failed. That makes the movement of the column irrelevant to the initiating event.
You are attributing at least in part the effect as being the cause. Even by NISTs standards that is inept.

 

[gerrycan]

Where? Which people? Links?

(I'm genuinely interested )

You want links to stuff that happens in my day to day life in the real world?

 

[gerrycan]

He only gave you a little kick up the bum, I doubt he even stubbed his toe.

I would be surprised if he had any feet left. He is so adept at shooting himself in them.
As for kicking my ass. I don't think so.

 

[Spanx]

You want links to stuff that happens in my day to day life in the real world?

It sounds like we both agree this forum is not real world. Which makes me wonder why you bother when you are being taken seriously in the real world ?

 

[DGM]

The issue is certainly being discussed elsewhere and I find that people take it very seriously.

Where and by whom? Are any in the relevant industries/sciences?

Having said that. There does appear to be a huge amount of interest in this discussion. Maybe you should read up a bit and make a fight of it.

The huge amount of discussion is all about trying to get you to back up your statements. There is no fight. You keep asking questions. Do you plan to move on to your next phase soon?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

You're asking me to defend NISTs model???

I'd be happy if you could at least show how your WTC7 CD speculation ties in with events at the Pentagon and Shanksville, in a way that builds a coherent alternative narrative to the commonly accepted one.

But I'm funny like that...

You want links to stuff that happens in my day to day life in the real world?

Ah, my mistake. I was hoping for links to charged debate in an academic environment, or some kind of coalition of experts crunching the data, or maybe a think tank pushing relentlessly for meaningful action, or something.

I would be surprised if he had any feet left.

To be honest, it's refreshing to be talking about feet, it makes a change from inches

As for kicking my ass. I don't think so.

Nobody needs to. You're doing it to yourself.

I think you may have made a tactical error at the outset when you publicly set out your gameplan

 

[carlitos]

The "next 1.5 seconds"? Are you surmising that it attained over 'g' instantaneously? In fact it rampoed up from zero , to and through 'g' and then ramped down again.

No, it was the "next 1.50" seconds. Tony has a thing for precision.

The simple reality is that the fires in WTC 7 could not possibly have been started by the North Tower collapse and the symmetric free fall collapse of the building could not possibly have been a result of the fires in it.

Look - a lie! Quelle surprise.

Both are fairy tales used in the NIST WTC 7 report. That report was weak when it was first published and was heavily criticized. It has since lost all credibility due to its need to omit pertinent structural features to even get to a hypothesis that had some superficial plausibility.

Look - another lie!

Unfortunately, for those who would promote the myth that fires brought this building down, the report fell completely apart when scrutinized after the drawings were released, and the omitted features were discovered.

I hope you make it to confession tomorrow; you're not doing well with these porkies.

The only real answers are arson to start the fires and controlled demolition

Arson? How in the world would that work? Ninja arsonists sneaking into the Solomon Brothers building while the fire department and emergency teams were all over the place and while events were being broadcast live on global television? That's ridiculous.

PS - the thing about "controlled demolition" is that it's controlled. Not "falling all over other buildings." Try a dictionary maybe.

to cause the symmetric free fall collapse by removing eight stories of core columns low in the building.

God doesn't like liars or bearing false witness, Tony.

No poster on this forum who still wants to believe that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the North Tower collapse and that WTC 7 collapsed due to those fires has called anyone on anything in that regard and they have never provided any proof or evidence to back their beliefs.

The above words made sense to you when you posted this?

I have looked at the big picture and tend to think it was settling thermite that caused the vehicle fires. The vehicles had a significant amount of plastic on their exterior which would have readily ignited and spread. The buildings weren't nearly as vulnerable as their exteriors don't contain flammable material.

Settling thermite? Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Come on, man.

If the above is the best those, who would continue to insist that the fires in WTC 7 were started by the North Tower collapse and that the building collapsed due to those fires, can do, then it seems the argument/discussion is over, with the reality being that they can't refute the fact that the observations and logic show that the fires had to be a result of arson and the building was intentionally demolished with its core being removed over eight stories.

Evidence for the above?

Tony...I'm both a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) and Structural Engineer (SE), with BSCE/MSCE from Purdue. I believe you are an unlicensed mechanical engineer with little knowledge of steel framed buildings. So you are right, we are not on the same intellectual level.

Ouch.

The natural fires in the North Tower would have been doused by gypsum, photos of major debris show it fairly close to the building, and WTC 7 was 350 feet away from the North Tower (that is a long way to go for anything major). There is little chance debris from the natural fires in it caused the fires in WTC 7. It is a serious stretch with no basis to say otherwise.

There is nothing "natural" about fully-fueled jets flying into the World Trade Center towers. This should be obvious.

Thermite from the Towers is very likely to have been the cause for the vehicle fires. Do you have a different answer for that issue?

Do you even know what thermite is? Holy crap. Invisible thermite floating through the air, causing fires? What in the world are you on about?

No, there is logic in what I am saying on why the fires in WTC 7 could not have been caused by the natural fires in the North Tower.

There were no natural fires in the North Tower. Just FYI.

With the small number of floors on fire in the North Tower,

"Small number" of floors on fire? A freaking 100 story tall building fell down. Hello?

the distance between it and WTC 7 being 350 feet, and the only openings in WTC 7 being some gashes and windows, the odds are very low. There just wouldn't be a lot of hot chucks capable of flying 350 feet and sneaking into a gash and windows.

"Hot chucks" don't "sneak" into anything. You are now anthropomorphizing pieces of debris. That's not healthy behavior.

It is clear that the only choices for the cause of the fires in WTC 7 are thermite from the North Tower or arson. Take your pick because one of these two is reality.

Your false-dilemma fantasy is not reality. This is why you and your co-conspiracists are irrelevant nobodies on a tiny internet forum, and everyone else lives in the real world. The only one not directly laughing at you is the guy whose travel budget you are helping to fund with this nonsense.

There is no chance natural embers (which were being doused with gypsum dust) or hot steel from the small number of fire floors in the North Tower flew all the way over to WTC 7 and got in the small number of openings and started fires on ten floors. Thermite in the dust from the North Tower could have done it.

Please, pretty please with sugar on it, please please please demonstrate settling flying thermite starting fires in something. I would love to see that. You could do it at the next "burning man" festival. Please post the youtube here when you do.

No, he is confused and probably intentionally.

It doesn't take much thought to realize the gypsum dust falling in the collapse onto natural fires would have been very dense and would have smothered natural fires by taking the oxygen away.

As the dust drifted away from the collapse itself it thinned out tremendously and would not have had the density to smother fires in the cars.

Tony. The cars were next to the building in question. You're making special pleading into an art form here. Do you even believe yourself, or is this some kind of bizarre role-playing game for you?

Additionally, it had probably already settled when the cars ignited, because it was the dust that likely had still burning thermite in it and ignited plastic parts on the cars to start the vehicle fires.

Dust with burning thermite in it would look like what, Tony? The collapse of the World Trade Center towers was on live TV; how did we miss "dust with burning thermite in it?" How many people got welder's burn and how many camera lenses were fried by this thermite reaction?

Do you have a better answer for the vehicle fires?

Of course we do. Fire has been pretty well understood for thousands of years.

You would really need to ask them, but I believe it would be to give an impression that the entire building was affected and that it wasn't limited to just a few floors which some might take as more likely to be arson.

Reality called. You did not answer.

Your words don't really have any import as you can't be living in reality if you believe the collapse of WTC 7 was anything but a controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming for it and the NIST report needed to omit pertinent structural features to even make a plausible case that it wasn't.

My bringing up the additional reality that it is also a fairy tale that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the collapse of the North Tower is just to show the entire story is nonsense.

The present official stories for the origin of the fires in WTC 7 and that it collapsed due to the fires are false constructs because somebody doesn't want the general public knowing controlled demolition was used on Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC.

I'm leaning towards the role-playing hypothesis at this point. You can't really believe this nonsense about ninja arsonists sneaking into a building no one had ever heard of, or "settling thermite" floating invisibly through the air in New York City. You certainly can't tie this nonsense into a broader hypothesis about the events of 9/11. Please prove me wrong by posting said hypothesis.