WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

NoahFence said:
Tony, why don't you think a multi-ton, multi-story tall section of steel slamming into the side of a much smaller building isn't enough to start a fire in that building, when we've all seen fire started with less?
Click to expand...

The only evidence of damage from multi-ton sections of steel on WTC 7 is that done to the southwest corner. It isn't even clear that the damage on the southwest corner started any fires and it certainly does not provide an explanation for ten non-contiguous stories being set ablaze and no fires being observed until 107 minutes after this exterior damage was done.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The only evidence of damage from multi-ton sections of steel on WTC 7 is that done to the southwest corner. It isn't even clear that the damage on the southwest corner started any fires and it certainly does not provide an explanation for ten non-contiguous stories being set ablaze and no fires being observed until 107 minutes after this exterior damage was done.
Click to expand...
wtc7damagecomposite.jpg
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The only evidence of damage from multi-ton sections of steel on WTC 7 is that done to the southwest corner. It isn't even clear that the damage on the southwest corner started any fires and it certainly does not provide an explanation for ten non-contiguous stories being set ablaze and no fires being observed until 107 minutes after this exterior damage was done.
Click to expand...

Fires aren't always directly observable. :rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Every engineer I have shown video of WTC 7's collapse to and explained the freefall and that the NIST model does not replicate this freefall has taken the position that it needs to be re-investigated.
Click to expand...

Three points...

1. We've all see the rigor & honesty with which you're presented myriad issues related to 9/11, Tony. :rolleyes:

2. When you get done with your, uh, uh, uh, let's go with "story", and other engineers reply, "Yeah. Sure thing, Tony. Whatever you say", and then they do this: :rolleyes:, that does not indicate agreement with your conclusions.

3. I believe you EXACTLY as much as I believe Gage, when he makes the same patently false statement. As PROVEN by his presentation at the San Francisco AIA meeting a couple years ago, presentation to hundreds of passing architects, awareness of the "9/11 Truth nutjob's" booth in the back of the hall by everyone at the conference ... and the tsunami of sign-ups that resulted: his Twoofer enrollment exploded with a grand total of about 5 non-architects, non-engineers over the course of the next 2 months.

Neither one of you guys would know how to tell the truth about this issue if your lives depended upon it. If what Gage said were true, you would have precisely ZERO trouble presenting to architectural organizations, architectural firms, professional engineering associations, etc.

Instead, you can't get in the door.

And Gage has given up trying.

Tony Szamboti said:
The fact that certain organizations haven't taken the initiative to request a re-investigation means nothing.
Click to expand...

"... haven't taken up the initiative to request a re-investigation ..."

LMAO.

How about "... we support the conclusions of the NIST report." SEoNY, ASCE

How about "... we will have no association with the Truther idiot, Gage" AIA

How about "... stop using my name with your stupidity." Astenah-Asl

Sure thing, Tony. You convince EVERY engineer... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Because rational thinking, common sense thinking, which you SEVERELY lack, clearly dictates they're the only ones capable of pulling that off.

UNLESS

You're saying that the NYFD and NYPD and every other authority figure there turned their heads, allowing this scary ninja group inside a building to set fires? Is that what you're saying?

You need to think logically about the implications of your silly theories.

Who were they set by then? Lemme guess... that's why we need a new investigation.

Uh huh.

Still waiting on your answer about the Capital Building (what we assume was the Flight 93 target)
Click to expand...
Right

NoahFence said:
Baloney.

Now connect it to the rest of the day's events. Unless you think it was a massive coincidence that other locations were attacked that day?
Click to expand...
Right

NoahFence said:
Tony, why don't you think a multi-ton, multi-story tall section of steel slamming into the side of a much smaller building isn't enough to start a fire in that building, when we've all seen fire started with less?
Click to expand...
Right
 
Tony
I, MHM, TFK already have your FEA . Why do you not post them here. Also inputs.
 
BasqueArch said:
Tony
I, MHM, TFK already have your FEA . Why do you not post them here. Also inputs.
Click to expand...

If you already have them, why do you need them posted here? Are you not capable of having a conversation with Tony without the peanut gallery watching? What's the matter?
 
tfk said:
How about "... we will have no association with the Truther idiot, Gage" AIA

How about "... stop using my name with your stupidity." Astenah-Asl
Click to expand...

Lol.

Publication sources, please.
 
ergo said:
Lol.

Publication sources, please.
Click to expand...

From this post

tfk said:
CuriousAsCouldBe said:
But isn't Astaneh one of the skeptic's "oracles"?
Click to expand...
There are no oracles in my business.

He's a first rate structural engineer.

And what does he think about the truthers?

Here is his written response, found here, to Chris Bollyn, noted truther & anti-semite.

Bollyn said:
Astaneh wanted to know what I thought had caused the collapse of the Twin Towers. When I told him that I thought the towers had been demolished with explosives including Thermite and a nano-composite of thermite, he began to attack me saying that I was wasting my time and hurting the feelings of the victims' relatives. When I asked him about Dr. Steven E. Jones' discovery of chips of nano-thermite in the dust of the towers, Astaneh dismissed it, saying that Jones is not an engineer.

Astaneh then responded to my email request:

Astaneh-Asl said:
Dear Mr. Bollyn: As I clearly stated in our phone conversation a few minutes ago, I am very disturbed by the people such as yourself , who are part of this "Conspiracy theorist" regarding World Trade Center collapse. These people have used my name and research results in totally incorrect way , and in completely opposite way of what the research results had indicated. By doing so, you and all others have implied that our research somehow support your totally incorrect theories. 

I hereby officially notify you in writing that if you use my name or the results of our research in any publication implying that the data that we have collected on the WTC somehow supports or provides you with evidence in support of your totally base less conspiracy theories, I reserve the right to take any legal action necessary to protect my reputation as well as integrity of my research. 

Let me state again that after 6 years of studying the collapse of World Trade Center, I have not found any evidence to support any of the claims of "conspiracy theorists".
In my opinion, and based on scientific facts, the only cause of collapse was the structural and fire damage to the towers that had many unusual features and were not designed according to the buildings codes, standards and the practice.

A. Astaneh, Professor
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Tried to make it easier for you to find the url ... :rolleyes:

I'll get the other one ... whenever I feel like it.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
If you already have them, why do you need them posted here? Are you not capable of having a conversation with Tony without the peanut gallery watching? What's the matter?
Click to expand...

In this thread, BasqueArch and Tony Szamboti have made conflicting claims about the FEA slides. Without access to the slides, or some other presentation of the results, the rest of us cannot discern whether there is misrepresentation going on. If Tony had only made his original claims about the FEA in private conversation, then keeping the results private would make sense. But he made his claims in a public forum. It would be nice if he backed them up in that same forum.
 
ergo said:
If you already have them, why do you need them posted here? Are you not capable of having a conversation with Tony without the peanut gallery watching? What's the matter?
Click to expand...
I'd like to know why you're not pressuring Tony to present these slides? Do you not believe him when he says they are conclusive proof that NIST is wrong and CD had to be the cause?

What's the matter? Are you afraid your hero might not stand up to scrutiny and might be wrong?

This is like you not pressuring Harret et al to release all their data. What are YOU afraid of?
 
DGM said:
I'd like to know why you're not pressuring Tony to present these slides? Do you not believe him when he says they are conclusive proof that NIST is wrong and CD had to be the cause?

What's the matter? Are you afraid your hero might not stand up to scrutiny and might be wrong?

This is like you not pressuring Harret et al to release all their data. What are YOU afraid of?
Click to expand...

The main reason the slides aren't on a public site is that I don't have one to put them on and haven't done that in the past. In addition, I really don't want a slew of comments from anonymous posters who might not have the knowledge required to discuss it, and then crying that I am not responding to their inanities.

I prefer to e-mail them to people who I feel I could discuss the matter with intelligently, who were also at least providing their e-mail addresses, if not full identity. Do you want a copy via e-mail?

I will probably write a paper discussing the results and when published they would be fully public.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The main reason the slides aren't on a public site is that I don't have one to put them on and haven't done much of that in the past. In addition, I really don't want a slew of anonymous posters here making comments they would not have any clue about, and then crying that I am not responding to their inanities.

I prefer to e-mail them to people who I feel I could discuss the matter with intelligently, who were also at least providing their e-mail addresses, if not full identity. Do you want a copy via e-mail?
Click to expand...


You could easily put them up in a dropbox account or similar, I would think.

ETA: Or perhaps you could just ask someone else to post them via their own dropbox account or similar?
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
You could easily put them up in a dropbox account or similar, I would think.
Click to expand...

E-mail works just the same. I want to know who I am sending them to.

I know you are a moderator here and while I have your attention would like to know why the below reply of mine to Ryan Mackey's refusal to look at the slides was moved.

Edited by LashL: 
Removed content previously moderated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom