WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

You still believe a steel frame structure should significantly topple?

It is amazing how some troofers remain willfully ignorant of reality.
 
Gamolon said:
No, I don't agree. Every floor is accounted for in the "S" series of drawings.

You are wrong.
Click to expand...

Gamelon, I almost feel sorry for ya, stop digging that hole. Would be interesting to see you try and prove that I am wrong. Who told you that there are no more 's' drawings? What makes you think that?
You are so wrong it is painful to watch. Just stop.
 
gerrycan said:
Gamelon, I almost feel sorry for ya, stop digging that hole. Would be interesting to see you try and prove that I am wrong. Who told you that there are no more 's' drawings? What makes you think that?
You are so wrong it is painful to watch. Just stop.
Click to expand...
Who told you there was? The drawing title box backs what he says. What do you have for proof?
 
Miragememories said:
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
Click to expand...

High speed? Exactly what speed is high speed. When you get all scientific on this, with the very science like "high speed". How does a building topple? You like fantasy. Next time do the math and learn why the WTC towers and WTC 7 did not topple like a tree. good luck


The collapse speed of WTC 7 is the correct speed for collapse, you failed to prove it was high speed, it was normal. Much slower than a free fall from the same height.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
So what is the title of the drawing S-8? I think i have already asked you this.
Click to expand...

What does the top say gerrycan?
s8titleblock.png


TYP. FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 8th to 20th & 24th TO 45th

Do you know what "TYP." means in that title? Or maybe the words "8th TO 24th" are confusing you? Or is it "24th TO 45th" you're having a hard time with?

:confused:
 
gerrycan said:
Whats this thread called? :p
Click to expand...
Fire did it. You could start a thread and present your can't say what did it. You could call it, "Can't Say What 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...
Opening post, says it is Tony proves fire did it. What is your theory? Fire can't destroy the strength of steel. oops
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg
The impossible, when you know, you know for sure,
There is no chance that girder came off its seat under any fire heating scenario... Tony
Click to expand...
Right.

Did Tony support fire, or his realcddeal?
 
Last edited:
With all these anti-NIST want to be engineers around; why do they fail to go to college and get a degree in structural engineering, show NIST is wrong and then present their theory in detail, thousand of pages, and submit that as their thesis for a Masters. Wait, you would flunk your Masters by attacking other work. Darn, there goes that down the drain. They could present their theory in detail, forget the NIST bashing, and claims fire can't do it.

NIST has a theory, so what? Fire can bring down buildings, this is why we have a fire department, to put out fires so the buildings don't fall down and create more damage.

In gerrycan's world, there is no need for fire departments, steel never fails in fire, and 911 was an inside job done by people no one can name. All they need is another investigation; all they need is another investigation, all they need...
 
Gamolon said:
What does the top say gerrycan?
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/s8titleblock.png[/qimg]

TYP. FLOOR FRAMING PLAN 8th to 20th & 24th TO 45th

Do you know what "TYP." means in that title? Or maybe the words "8th TO 24th" are confusing you? Or is it "24th TO 45th" you're having a hard time with?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so youre not lookin at the skidmore. owings and merril title sheet then, where it says that s-8 is the 33rd floor framing plan. No wonder you're confused.
 
gerrycan said:
Ahhh, so youre not lookin at the skidmore. owings and merril title sheet then, where it says that s-8 is the 33rd floor framing plan. No wonder you're confused.
Click to expand...

Got a link to those drawings somewhere so I can look at them?
 
Gamolon said:
Got a link to those drawings somewhere so I can look at them?
Click to expand...

I thought you already had a set of 'S' drawings that covered every floor. Truth is, you don't. It just suited your argument to claim that you did.
No link, sorry.
 
gerrycan said:
Ahhh, so youre not lookin at the skidmore. owings and merril title sheet then, where it says that s-8 is the 33rd floor framing plan. No wonder you're confused.
Click to expand...

So there are two sets of S-drawings - one by Cantor, another by Skidmore. Owings and Merril? And each set has its own revision history? Are these sets independent of each other?

What does the "S" in S-drawing stand for, anyway?

I'd appreciate if you two don't get into a pissing match. It would be great if in the end there was a good summary of which sets of drawings there are, by whom, and what they show or don't show.


gerrycan, it's unfortunate that you can't show the Skidmore. Owings and Merril set - how did you obtain it?
 
gerrycan said:
I thought you already had a set of 'S' drawings that covered every floor. Truth is, you don't. It just suited your argument to claim that you did.
No link, sorry.
Click to expand...

gerrycan,

The Skidmore drawings are their own set. The Emery/Roth drawings are their own set. The Frankel drawings are their own set.

The Skidmore drawings may have "S" drawings also. Within the confines of the Emery/Roth set, all floors are accounted for. Your claim about the S-8 drawing being for the 33rd floor may very well be. But THAT is within the confines of the Skidmore set.

You clearly don't understand how drawings in a construction setting are interpreted/read. If you did, you wouldn't be making such idiotic statements.
 
gerrycan said:
I thought you already had a set of 'S' drawings that covered every floor. Truth is, you don't. It just suited your argument to claim that you did.
No link, sorry.
Click to expand...

So what are you looking at then? How did you get the Skidmore drawings?
 
Oystein said:
So there are two sets of S-drawings - one by Cantor, another by Skidmore. Owings and Merril? And each set has its own revision history? Are these sets independent of each other?

What does the "S" in S-drawing stand for, anyway?

I'd appreciate if you two don't get into a pissing match. It would be great if in the end there was a good summary of which sets of drawings there are, by whom, and what they show or don't show.


gerrycan, it's unfortunate that you can't show the Skidmore. Owings and Merril set - how did you obtain it?
Click to expand...

Now that would be totally confusing wouldnt it. 2 sets of drawings with the same titles referring to different areas of the building.
The 'S' stands for structural, and I didn't 'obtain' anything. I am merely clarifying that Gamelon is 100% wrong when he says things like
"No, I don't agree. Every floor is accounted for in the "S" series of drawings.

You are wrong."WRONG
and......
"In the "S" series of drawings (Emery Roth/Cantor), there are no floor specific drawings except those of S-10, S-19, and S-20. S-8 was typical for all aside from those 3 floors."WRONG
Now that he seems to have stopped digging that huge hole for himself, he can maybe practise a wee bit of backpeddling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom