Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

gerrycan said:
Just to be crystal clear on this - which drawing are you taking your detail from?


You haven't been explaining anything. The shear lag that you are citing would result in a variance of the effective flange width in the beam to girder connection. You are assuming that variance translates to a column. That is inane and serves merely to illustrate clearly your ignorance.

no bolt shear prevents that shear lag will not occur until girder walk off..

And what height are the side plates?
the height you described
Have a look at what you've typed and reword it into something coherent.

That is not my problem it is yours.

you're now talking about differential expansion between the 2 sideplates on the same column????

Yes because data shows that changes in radiant vs conductive heating will effect them that is why you need computer modeling.

Hopeless. Show which welds you mean on the structural drawing. Previously you asked about the 3/8 fillet weld up the side of the column to the sideplate.

I asked how the side plates were attached and used the information you provided to determine the conductive heating rate.

Not unless the column was magically rotated by 90 degrees it wouldn't. What you are talking about would result in an effective flange width decrease in beam to girde arrangements. Nothing to do with columns.
I specifically asked about side plates on the effected column did you intentionally provide me with miss information,
A little learning is a dangerous thing and you cited the wrong effect in the wrong place whilst accusing others who oppose you of being ignorant. The only thing that you are achieving here is to clarify that you have no inkling about the structural make up of this connection or how NISTs perceived conditions would degrade the connection.
Click to expand...

I request you explain how based on a 3D expansion model on a millimeter cubed expansion, taking into account fire placement, radiant heating conductive heating,, fluidic cooling, geometrical deformation? Remember also your model must represent a high soot carbohydrate fire, not just simple heating.
I used the Information you yourself provided, if the information and drawings you provided in this thread are correct then what I have said is correct,
Except for the limitations of the program.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Leave gerrycan out of this, it is my point and he has not gotten involved and nor should he.

It wouldn't have been just sparks. That is an obviously disingenuous ploy on your part and is nonsense.

Polyurethane plastics are used for many car bumpers and they ignite at about 400 degrees C. Wiper blade and window seal rubbers can ignite at even lower temperatures. This is most likely where the car fires started and it was probably due to small amounts of still very hot molten iron from thermite, which was blown upward and outward from the towers, settling vertically on them. WTC 7 did not have flammable materials like this on its exterior and it only had small openings due to debris damage.
Click to expand...


Intentional ignorance of the car fires occurring prior to the collapse.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
NIST did not use the gash down the center of the south face of WTC 7 shown in that composite in their model. That is likely because it was not real. If they had actual evidence of it they certainly would have used it.
Click to expand...

There is photographic evidence of it. There is eyewitness testimony confirming it.

You need help.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
NIST did not use the gash down the center of the south face of WTC 7 shown in that composite in their model. That is likely because it was not real. If they had actual evidence of it they certainly would have used it.
Click to expand...
An alternative explanation is that they didn't find it for doing the report. Again the source is cited. Are you claiming the news agency made up the second video?
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I request you explain how based on a 3D expansion model on a millimeter cubed expansion, taking into account fire placement, radiant heating conductive heating,, fluidic cooling, geometrical deformation? Remember also your model must represent a high soot carbohydrate fire, not just simple heating.
I used the Information you yourself provided, if the information and drawings you provided in this thread are correct then what I have said is correct,
Except for the limitations of the program.
Click to expand...

When you say "program" are you using an online expansion calculator? Seriously?

You are attributing a phenomenon that would only occur in girder to beam connections to a column. It's one thing having a "program" and quite another knowing what to do with it.
What's the name of your "program" ?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
NIST did not use the gash down the center of the south face of WTC 7 shown in that composite in their model. That is likely because it was not real. If they had actual evidence of it they certainly would have used it.
Click to expand...

It's real, and they used it in the sense of reporting it. It appears in a number of videos and photos - from different sources - and the debris that most likely caused the damage, starting at the roof parapet, features in many other photos and videos.
 
Last edited:
You missed this question - "Just to be crystal clear on this - which drawing are you taking your detail from?"
And for clarity you were just asked the name of the "program" you are using.
 
Q/ And what height are the side plates?
A/ the height you described

Priceless. You thought they were almost 26" and they are actually 25 and a half FOOT.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Another example of incoherence and blithering on the part of those trying to defend the defenseless "fire did it" theory.

Yours are not the only examples Ozeco, just the most pronounced which usually go along the lines of "you can't prove anything because anything could be happening inside the building because of the fire".
Click to expand...

That is some nice (or maybe desperate) handwaving.....now trying providing one shred of evidence to your claims. :rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
NIST did not use the gash down the center of the south face of WTC 7 shown in that composite in their model. That is likely because it was not real. If they had actual evidence of it they certainly would have used it.
Click to expand...

More lies from duh troof.
NISt did not moel the gash because they did not know precisely what parts were damaged / missing. Unlike duh troof movement. NIST only used what they had knowledge of, not what they "felt" like typical troofers.

Your lame attempts to twist such facts is more evidence of your 1) ignornace 2) desperation or 3) a combination of the two.
 
ozeco41 said:
They are succeeding their current goal....avoiding discussion of significant issues by focussing on details and derailing by claiming way out stupidities. All under the mandatory to all truther claims umbrella of "reversed burden of DISproof".

They are wrong on their main claims said claims originated by Tony Sz and clone copied numerous times.

1) They haven't proven girder walk off wrong;
2) Even if they did it changes nothing;
3) Specifically it does NOT prove their bigger false claim that an error in detail falsifies all of the NIST explanation;
4) And - over and above that lack of proof for claims - they have not demonstrated that there is anything of significance warranting corrective action by Government.

SO - since they cannot prove the original claims - they are intent on trolling nonsense to prevent discussion progressing.

I suggest they are succeeding in that goal.

Why they would want to is beyond my comprehension.
Click to expand...


In this instance I'd argue that they've overshot the runway (and overshot themselves in the foot).

Tony in particular has shown a streak of paranoia that further undermines his position, whilst providing a rich new seam of material for folk like myself who enjoy riffing on the comedic value of truthers.

Gerry continues to show neither desire nor ability to make the crucial case for CD that he needs to do in order to convince the lay public, and will go "blah blah stiffener blah flange blah width" until he's the only chap left in the room, having convinced nobody of anything other than his determination to focus on the mindbendingly irrelevant.


For my part: since posting this morning I've been on a bike ride with Mrs Ape, planted potatoes, shallots and onions on my allotment, prepared a slow roast Moroccan Lamb in red wine and dates for later, and now we're off to the coast for a couple of hours to do some fossil hunting. When we return, this thread will have accrued a couple more pages of circular pish for me to enjoy after my meal, and that feels strangely fine to me, like everything's alright with the world (The birds are singing, the seeds are sprouting, the truthers are truthing, the Earth continues to revolve around the Sun...)


Long may this daft thread continue, I say :)
 
I am open to truth guys arguments but they don't make much sense to me... and the over arching notion of planted devices... and set fires... especially in 7wtc has not been supported... it's all conjecture and driven by rejection of the notion that terrorist could not possibly done 9/11 and they had no motive.

Despite that I do not support the US response and don't find the technical explanations for the collapse initiations all that compelling.... but not out of the realm of possibility as I find the CD inside job stuff.
 
gerrycan said:
When you say "program" are you using an online expansion calculator? Seriously?

You are attributing a phenomenon that would only occur in girder to beam connections to a column. It's one thing having a "program" and quite another knowing what to do with it.
What's the name of your "program" ?
Click to expand...
No I wrote the program myself simply representing inputs as changes in a set of wire frame models on a drawing program, the caculations are based on preset norms.
You can not find a good 3D expansion model on line so I modified a 3D drawings based code to perform the required 3D render.
quite simple actually I modified the part that allowed for lighting shifts to reflect fire placement and temperature for radiant heating.
It was only a matter of changing the way the code handles a few caculations.
 
gerrycan said:
Q/ And what height are the side plates?
A/ the height you described

Priceless. You thought they were almost 26" and they are actually 25 and a half FOOT.
Click to expand...

No I am not a truther Gerry not stupid enough to make such a simple mistake, I put the height as 26' foot not 26" inches.
I realized you made a typo.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Spanx, your willingness to say things that aren't true shows you have an agenda and on this forum that would be to cover up and obscure the fact that the three building collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 were due to controlled demolition.

I have provided plenty of evidence to show those buildings came down via controlled demolition. The reason you simply deny it is because it goes against your obvious agenda to cover up that fact.
Click to expand...

One piece of det cord? Steel that show signs of explosives? Powder residue? Anything but "It must be because I say it must be".?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The reason I did not reply to either your's or Oysteins weasel points here earlier is that they are silly and nonsensical.

The fires in WTC 1 were put out as soon as the floor they were on was impacted from above. It really is that simple. There was essentially no chance for hot debris from WTC 1 to fly over to WTC 7 and start fires. That is a fantasy promulgated by those like you trying to cover up the reality that controlled demolition was the actual reason for the collapses of the three high rises in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.

.
Click to expand...

The nonsense is being put forth by you
If the fires were out at collapse the items that were on fire DO NOT LOSE ALL HEAT immediately. Any debris expelled will reignite as soon as its out of the building and the time it took to have that happen was under one second!

In addition, you made reference to a did inch covering of dust. You refuse to explain how that can even come about on any floor of WTC1 which saw floors being destroyed in under one second each.

I have asked for this before in less distinct wording. Since you could not see fit to answer before I will re-word it.

Start a collapse initiation minus ten seconds and describe what is happening wrt fire and dust. I am NOT asking about collapse mechanism, just a description of the effect of collapse on the fires and creation of dust in a timeline.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I have already said that I think the regulars on here like you and Spanx are shills with an agenda to cover up and obscure the fact that the building collapses were due to controlled demolition. That is the reason you don't understand what I am saying. It is essentially because you don't want to, not that my logic is incorrect.

The only reason anyone posts on here, other than the shills, is to point out the lies of the shills and diminish their effect.
Click to expand...

It's shills or saints?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom