WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

gerrycan said:
Seems to me that NIST already admitted that they made some errors around this column connection. I am sure you have seen that for yourself here -
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225

They still do not aknowledge that they missed out whole elements, the stiffner plates for example.
Finally, when you are talking about 's-8', are you referring to the 33rd floor framing plan? Just checking to see if we are on the same page here.
Click to expand...
Big deal. What is your competing theory? Why are you so reluctant to present this? You have one, right? I said (and I will) listen.

Somehow I think you are fooling yourself into thinking if you make doubt, somehow this will make what you want true. Did I get this right?
 
Oystein said:
Perhaps I am missing something here, but are you saying both that
1. We don't have the relevant detailed drawing of the floor in question
AND
2. You know that what NIST assumed is not what would be on that drawing (which we don't have)?

How would you know that?
Click to expand...

1. You clearly don't.

2. NIST couldn't even get the elements that ARE clearly shown in the drawings right. I am prepared to believe that NIST took s-8 to be a generic drawing, covering many floors. It wouldnt surprise me.

There are a lot more drawings for WTC7 than you or i have seen. NIST should release the complete set.
 
DGM said:
Big deal. What is your competing theory? Why are you so reluctant to present this? You have one, right? I said (and I will) listen.

Somehow I think you are fooling yourself into thinking if you make doubt, somehow this will make what you want true. Did I get this right?
Click to expand...

My theory is that NIST got it wrong. So far they have taken a few tentative steps toward admitting this, but they need to move nearer to an explanation that sits with the plans we know they had when they came up with their story. In short, if NISTs story was any good, there would be no room to create doubt.
 
gerrycan said:
My theory is that NIST got it wrong. ... In short, if NISTs story was any good, there would be no room to create doubt.
Click to expand...
Fire did it, what else could? Add some gravity, and it is all over.
The OP is about Tony, his work says fire did it, and that agrees with NIST. Tony says his work does not show that, but did it?


BasqueArch said:
I received TS' 5 FEA color slides re the walk-off of the WTC7 girder from its seat. He claims the girder did not buckle. His slides show the girder buckled.

Not shown due to his incomplete FEA, is that the girder bottom flange was pushed off >6.5 inches, past its supporting seat, by the beams.
The girder failed due to fire not CD.
Click to expand...


Did Tony mess up? Fire did it, NIST said fire did it; what did it in your theory? Your theory is wrong, fire did it. So much for theories based on nothing.
 
beachnut said:
Fire did it, what else could? Add some gravity, and it is all over.
The OP is about Tony, his work says fire did it, and that agrees with NIST. Tony says his work does not show that, but did it?





Did Tony mess up? Fire did it, NIST said fire did it; what did it in your theory? Your theory is wrong, fire did it. So much for theories based on nothing.
Click to expand...

I don't speak for Tony, I came on here to ask Gamelon about his analysis. I will wait for that answer. Sorry if i invaded your thread.
Fire is not a proven mechanism for bringing down high rise steel buildings. so your 'what else could' question is premature, the fact remains that this unprecedented supposed cause requires more investigation.
 
gerrycan said:
Fire is not a proven mechanism for bringing down high rise steel buildings. so your 'what else could' question is premature, the fact remains that this unprecedented supposed cause requires more investigation.
Click to expand...

Wrong...

This is very simple and straight forward…if you cook a steel frame building long enough, it’s going to collapse. Architects and Structural Engineers who design and construct multi-story steel building for a living understand this. That’s why they place fireproofing on structural steel beams and columns, and install a sprinkler system throughout the building.

Again, for the record, the theory that WTC buildings where bought down by controlled demolition is probably one the dumbest ideas in the history of mankind. The chance that any of the controlled demolition theories are true is Absolute Zero...IMHO
 
MileHighMadness said:
Wrong...

This is very simple and straight forward…if you cook a steel frame building long enough, it’s going to collapse. Architects and Structural Engineers who design and construct multi-story steel building for a living understand this. That’s why they place fireproofing on structural steel beams and columns, and install a sprinkler system throughout the building.

Again, for the record, the theory that WTC buildings where bought down by controlled demolition is probably one the dumbest ideas in the history of mankind. The chance that any of the controlled demolition theories are true is Absolute Zero...IMHO
Click to expand...

AGAIN, for the record, I am saying that NIST have made some serious mistakes in their analysis. Why would you object to someone exposing this?
Where did I say CD brought down the building?
I understand that you dont wish to discuss the serious omitions and mistakes in NISTs analysis, but try to be a little more creative in your avoidance tactics, and dont put words in my mouth, please.
 
gerrycan said:
AGAIN, for the record, I am saying that NIST have made some serious mistakes in their analysis. Why would you object to someone exposing this?
Where did I say CD brought down the building?
I understand that you dont wish to discuss the serious omitions and mistakes in NISTs analysis, but try to be a little more creative in your avoidance tactics, and dont put words in my mouth, please.
Click to expand...

The NIST report is not perfect, but it's the gold standard for structural analysis and investigation. Building 7 was bought down by the damage and fires. A critical beam/column connection failed, and an interior column became unstable and failed. End of Story... :D
 
gerrycan said:
I don't speak for Tony, I came on here to ask Gamelon about his analysis. I will wait for that answer. Sorry if i invaded your thread.
Fire is not a proven mechanism for bringing down high rise steel buildings. so your 'what else could' question is premature, the fact remains that this unprecedented supposed cause requires more investigation.
Click to expand...
Baloney. What else is premature? That is code for woo.

You have over 1600 Gage cult members, have them do the new investigation. lol

That's rich, 3 buildings on 911 destroyed by fire, and gravity. Ironically gravity is the key for CD too, the reason CD looks like a gravity collapse; Gravity. Physics and fire science, things never used by 911 truth. Instead 911 truth has failed claims based on ignorance.

Fire has destroyed high rise buildings besides many on 911 - One Meridian Plaza, fire fought building totaled. Windsor building in Spain, destroyed by fire, totaled. Looks like fire is a proved mechanism for destroying high-rise buildings. Fire destroyed WTC 5 and 6 too, and more. I don't have to be an engineer (which I am since my graduation in 74, and 81 for my masters) to understand fire did it. If you are an engineer you know fire did it, but like I said, any rational person knows fire destroyed the WTC complex, the proof is solid, because it happened. Did you fall for Jones' made up thermite claims - I have his first letter where he waves his hands, and claims thermite, 4 years after 911.

BasqueArch said:
I received TS' 5 FEA color slides re the walk-off of the WTC7 girder from its seat. He claims the girder did not buckle. His slides show the girder buckled.

Not shown due to his incomplete FEA, is that the girder bottom flange was pushed off >6.5 inches, past its supporting seat, by the beams.
The girder failed due to fire not CD.
Click to expand...
Did Tony's point to fire? There was only only evidence of fire, to deny that is nonsense. 11 years, tick, tock, when will 60 Minutes run with 911 failed claims? never


Why do they put in sprinkler systems? Why do they have to insulate steel so people can escape in-case of collapse? lol, fire never? Steel is not used because it is strong in fire, it is used because it is cheap, efficient, and one of the top elements on earth, along with Al. Fe, and Al. Steel fails quickly in fire, this is why is has to be protected, and why fires have to be fought quickly.

My theory why 911 followers are so easy to dismiss NIST; the fires on 911 were in bright full sun daylight. Had 911 happened at night, there would be no doubt the largest office fires in history took down 1, 2, 7, 5, 6 and more. Add perception to the things 911 truth has no grasp of.
 
Animal said:
It is simply amazing to see troofers ignore common knowledge that has been around for at least 150 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg
Click to expand...

I was going to post a photo of steel bent in fire, in an office building, but they have destroyed photobucket... they... Who are they?

The real conspiracy, they changed photobucket. Who is in charge of that department, who messed up photobucket? Who is the idiot who changed photobucket? Confess early.

mmm, something didn't click... do you want to try again?

WHAT?

Finally, after as long as the edits took... Photobucket photo was found, url copied, and posted... When will photobucket end?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
onemeridiansag.jpg


12 minutes to post from photobucket... what use to be seconds. Wow, someone improved photobucket. Good job.

One Meridian Plaza, destroyed by fire; fires were fought. WTC 7, fires not fought; WTC 7 destroyed by fire.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
...
2. NIST couldn't even get the elements that ARE clearly shown in the drawings right. I am prepared to believe that NIST took s-8 to be a generic drawing, covering many floors. It wouldnt surprise me.

There are a lot more drawings for WTC7 than you or i have seen. NIST should release the complete set.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my second question, and instead answered one I didn't ask. So again:


2. [Are you saying that] You know that what NIST assumed is not what would be on that drawing (which we don't have)?

How would you know that?
 
gerrycan said:
My theory is that NIST got it wrong. ...
Click to expand...

Now we need to figure out what's right instead, and how problematic that is which NIST got wrong.

Do you know what's right instead? Do you know how much of a difference it makes (wrt the overall objective, which is "did fires alone start that collapse, or was 7 CDed?")?
 
gerrycan said:
To think that there would not be an 's' drawing for each floor is more than a little naive.
Click to expand...

No, it's more to the fact that you don't understand construction drawings and how they function.

There are no other "S" drawing for individual floors aside from those for floor 10, 19, and 20. Drawing S-8 says in the title block that the drawing is the TYPICAL floor farming plan for floors 8 to 20 and for floors 24 to 45.

What don't you get?
 
gerrycan said:
2. NIST couldn't even get the elements that ARE clearly shown in the drawings right. I am prepared to believe that NIST took s-8 to be a generic drawing, covering many floors. It wouldnt surprise me.
Click to expand...

Bottom line. Both the Frankel drawings AND the Cantor drawings show no studs on the beams in question.

And as for your trying to correct me on the use of the word "girder" or "beam", a girder is STILL a type of beam.
 
Oystein said:
Would you agree that fire is a proven mechanism to bring down non-highrise steel buildings?
Click to expand...

Would you agree that a 47-story modern steel tower covering a city block is extremely unlikely to have a final collapse, totally and at high speed, simply because of the prevailing heat created by migrating office cubicle fires?

Particularly, with a visual outline previously identifiable only with steel towers felled by controlled demolition?

Do you honestly believe that in light of the NIST's final 9/11 Report on WTC7, that a demolition company could, using the NIST WTC7 Report specifications, have induced a similar full, high speed building collapse?

And they could make those office cubicle fires dance so well that the core failure would be so well timed and balanced as to prevent significant toppling?

MM
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom