• 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.

Wtc 7

jaydeehess said:
As Sunstealer said, the $million that Heiwa is putting up is fictitious putting him in the same company as the 'guy' you knew.
Click to expand...

I hear Heiwa has 67 Monopoly games in his basement, so there might be something to it after all...
 
GlennB said:
Funnily enough, truther/engineer Gordon Ross thought he'd proved it impossible. Even using a view of collapse mechanism most favourable to collapse arrest (like Bazant and others), he thought he'd proved a Heiwa-esque "bounce" *. Turned out he got his maths wrong and had to recant.
Click to expand...

While I was absolutely certain that the plane passed North of Citgo .. er, I mean ... that I had read of Ross's correction to his erroneous calculations, I cannot find any such reference. In all fairness this claim of Ross correcting/withdrawing his calculations would appear to be wrong and is hereby withdrawn.
 
Wow.

I just read through this entire thread in one sitting.

Smoke machines.

Wow.
 
My questions about WTC7

Hi, JREF:o)
First of all, sorry for my funny English, I am posting this from the distant Czech Republic. I am a polymer chemist, working in Czech Academy of Sciences, and for the last two years, I have been trying to become something like a „little old Czech 9/11 debunker“. This year, I wrote two articles in Czech on these matters on my blog. (As a newcomer, I can not link it here, but one article is rather general and second one is my attempt to summarize a current status quo of the “nanothermite case”). Now, I would like to write some (quite simple) text on WTC7 issue, which seems to be the most controversial one. Well, plain common sense tells me that no evil conspirators in the world could use the impacts of just two planes for cover-up of “top secret” demolishing of three WTC skyscrapers, but the collapse of WTC7 was indeed a strange event anyway.
Quite naturally, I am using JREF forums as one of the most important source of information. In some cases, however, it is not easy to find relevant information even here, not only because there are too many threads here with so many contributions:o) This is why I am so bold to put some questions for you.
1) Façade question. Since the upper parts of façade (curtain wall) of WTC7 were in fact the only visible objects in any video or picture before/during collapse (not counting penthouses), it is important for me to know: what was the exact construction/structure of the curtain wall? How was it connected to the perimeter columns (?) and/or floors/ceilings and were these joints so weak that they could be ripped off/disconnected during buckling/deformations of the inner structures? I can see large parts of the façade in many pictures of debris, which indicates that this curtain wall itself possessed a quite high “integrity”/coherence. Even so, was it “coherent” enough to slip down as one almost intact “plate” during the collapse (again, I am talking about its upper visible parts)? And could this slipping of the façade be to some extent independent on the progressive collapse of the inner constructions? I do understand why NIST report did not include WTC7 façade to its calculations/simulations. But this fine institution still had to add some info on curtain wall in some addendum or so.
2) Displacement scaling question. Many truthers (including Czech ones) are still in the position that NIST pictures like Fig. 4-43 are… well, at least highly unrealistic. I personally thought that they had to be highly magnified in the x- and y-axis scale just to be illustrative enough. I was therefore surprised when I found in one of the threads here that Steven Cauffman from NIST denied any scaling/normalization of such pictures. If I understood well, Ryan Mackey (and others) still insists that there is some scaling/exaggeration in drawings/graphs themselves, but the real deformations must be derived from the colors and color plots included in the pictures. Is this right? And – if yes – why these color plots are not included in pictures like 12-69, which show similar patterns of “crazily dancing houses”? (In this matter, I have just probably overlooked something, sorry in advance…)
3) Column 79 issue. To be honest, I have not read the whole NIST report, this is simply too much for me. My questions in this matter will be therefore rather trivial. When I saw the horizontal projection of WTC7 for the first time, it surprised me that column 79 (and perhaps column 80 as well) supported considerably larger part of the building than other inner columns. Was there really something as a crucial design error in this respect? If yes, how could be this error overlooked? Why this apparently critical column was not fortified somehow? Anyway, concerning NIST report, are there some evaluations of the forces/overloads to which was this column exposed after adjacent floor deformations and connection failures, and were these forces able to buckle this column so quickly? (Perhaps this question is rather stupid and can not be answered easily - or at all, sorry in advance).
So far for now:o) I will appreciate your answers or links, since I would like to write my article about WTC7 well before the 10th anniversary of September attacks.
Regards from summer Prague, Ivan Kmínek:o)
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the jref Ivan. I am sure that the engineers and architects on this forum will be more than happy to give you all these details. Column 79 was only 300 tons or so. Probably not enough to resist the fires.
 
Hi Ivan,

welcome to the JREF forum! No worries, your English is fine enough. We come from many countries in the world, and many here are not native speakers.

You can't post proper URLs yet, but you can still post the link if you just leave away the http and www in front and maybe exchange the dot for top level domain for something else (for example write "(dot)com" instead of ".com"). That would not be considered a violation of the Membership agreement. The rule is there to prevent spam bots from spamming links. Since you are a real human, you can go ahead and write links to on-topic sites.


Sorry I can't really answer the engineering questions, but would be very interested to look at your blog! I hope google-translate will be my friend...

Concerning the nano-thermite issue, I have written some "notes to myself" in a blog:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/
Probably nothing new there for you.
Maybe I could link your blog?
Thanks!
 
Thanks, Bill Smith:o) You meant that whole column 79 weighed 300 tons? This figure itself does not give me any idea about its behavior/resistance during fires...
 
Thanks, Oystein:o) You can find my blog here kminek(dot)bigbloger.lidovky(dot)cz, but do not expect so much, I am just a beginner and inside job 9/11 is just my "little hobby". Of course I know your blog, and I even made one contribution there (but, strangely, it did not appear there). I also mentioned your article on "nanothermite" and "chip (e)" (based on Sunstealer's findings) in my own article on nanothermite:o) Although it is rather off-topic here, I would like to ask you here again: Mostly thanks to Sunstealer, it is quite clear now that the chip (e) was a particle of WTC primer paint. But what about chips (a) to (d), are there some new ideas about their origin? Are there some hints that layered (perhaps even originally red?) materials consisted mostly of iron, aluminium, silicon, oxygen and carbon were used in a great amounts in WTC? (But we should perhaps move this OT to other, more on-topic forum)
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
Thanks, Oystein:o) You can find my blog here kminek(dot)bigbloger.lidovky(dot)cz,
Click to expand...

Thank you!

Ivan Kminek said:
but do not expect so much, I am just a beginner and inside job 9/11 is just my "little hobby".
Click to expand...

Same here ;)

Ivan Kminek said:
Of course I know your blog, and I even made one contribution there (but, strangely, it did not appear there).
Click to expand...

Oh! You did? Yes, you did! I never noticed! :o
It does appear there, doesn't it?
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html#comments

Ivan Kminek said:
I also mentioned your article on "nanothermite" and "chip (e)" (based on Sunstealer's findings) in my own article on nanothermite:o) Although it is rather off-topic here, I would like to ask you here again: Mostly thanks to Sunstealer, it is quite clear now that the chip (e) was a particle of WTC primer paint. But what about chips (a) to (d), are there some new ideas about their origin? Are there some hints that layered (perhaps even originally red?) materials consisted mostly of iron, aluminium, silicon, oxygen and carbon were used in a great amounts in WTC? (But we should perhaps move this OT to other, more on-topic forum)
Click to expand...

I agree, this should be discussed elsewhere. I'll open a new thread!


ETA (Edited To Add):
Ivan Kminek said:
Thanks, Bill Smith:o) You meant that whole column 79 weighed 300 tons? This figure itself does not give me any idea about its behavior/resistance during fires...
Click to expand...
Beware of Bill. He spoke sarcastically. Note his strawman when he suggests that column 79 failed because it was itself heated by fire and thus damaged. Of course we all know that NIST's theory is quite different and does not depend on the temperature that column 79 reached.
Bill is one of the most extreme truthers here. Beware!
 
Last edited:
To Oystein (it seems that I should read some basic advices how to contribute and reply here:o) So open a new thread. I am not sure that these four poor old red chips (moreover completely burned) of not really well established origin still deserve such attention... but they still serve as "final scientific proof of CD" for millions of truthers:o)
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28 were under the penthouse.

Did you fail "Sesame Street" when you were a kid, Clayton?
Click to expand...

Never watched it.

Wasn't the penthouse at the top near the 47th floor?

How could part of the penthouse collapse if the highest fire was on the 28th floor?
 
I know you probably don't believe a word you post, but:

What happens to the top of a house of cards when you remove the middle section?
 
bill smith said:
Welcome to the jref Ivan. I am sure that the engineers and architects on this forum will be more than happy to give you all these details. Column 79 was only 300 tons or so. Probably not enough to resist the fires.
Click to expand...

Those that are not willfully ignorant nor terminally stupid know that weight alone has little to do with the load carrying capacity of structural member
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom