Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[JSanderO]

Spanx, I think there are shills on this forum and I believe (based on your posts) that you are one.

I have provided a wealth of evidence that the buildings came down via controlled demolition, that shills cannot accept because it goes against their agenda.

I think 90% of the regulars on here are shills.

What the eff is a shill? I have been accused of being a plant, a cognitive infiltrator, a CIA spy and operative and perhaps a shill...

But all I am is one person who tried to understand how some huge buildings collapsed so fast and so totally. It took some time but I think I understand it reasonably well and am convinced there was no CD or an inside job.

 

[Spanx]

Unbelievable, Ae911 truth at it's best.

As far as I am aware, they are the only ones pulling a wage out of 911

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If anyone honest were to compare the posts of Mirage Memories, gerrycan, Ziggi, and, myself to yours I am confident it wouldn't be yours they said were the superior of the two.

It is clear as to why you don't accept the evidence presented by those above and that is because it doesn't work with your agenda to cover up and obscure the fact that those three buildings were brought down with controlled demolition. You should go get a morally acceptable job.

How can arguments from ignorance be superior to as arguments from evidence,
and reason logic?
You have shown that your argument is one from ignorance Tony your lack of
Knowledgeable claim is astounding. I see no valid proof of claim or attempts to provide
Proof in your arguments. You need to seek qualified professional help Tony,
I would suggest you see a qualified mental health professional as soon as possible.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Unbelievable, Ae911 truth at it's best.

As far as I am aware, they are the only ones pulling a wage out of 911

My pay is priceless, I get all the laughs I can handle without my sides splitting.

 

[gerrycan]

My pay is priceless, I get all the laughs I can handle without my sides splitting.

Would you think it was funny if somebody didn't know the difference between side plates and stiffener plates?
Or maybe if somebody was citing plate weld shear as a contributory factor to an initiating event, and didn't make the connection between that and effective flange width ?
Let's be clear, and not confuse pathetic ignorance with that which would be humorous.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Would you think it was funny if somebody didn't know the difference between side plates and stiffener plates?
Or maybe if somebody was citing plate weld shear as a contributory factor to an initiating event, and didn't make the connection between that and effective flange width ?
Let's be clear, and not confuse pathetic ignorance with that which would be humorous.

If that were true yes, the difference is stiffeners will not deform the column when uneven heating occurs.

Your projecting your Ideas onto me without actually understanding what I have been explaining.

One side plate can have radiant heating directly affecting the center mass of the side plate increasing it's expansion.
The other plate heated by conduction at the welds would have a cooling center mass resisting expansion.
The resulting deformation would twist the column slightly, and the induced malleability of the stiffener combined with the column twist would induce walk off when the girder and beams expanding caused it to.

Also I was citing column weld shear not side plate weld shear, big difference, it needs also to be noted that shear lag, Shearing of a steel member before it reaches full tension strength can occur in steel members, and is not limited to bolts and welds but anywhere sufficent changes in structure and geometry of the member would induce it.
My point on the side plates is they change the heat deformation, and the column geometry
Making shear lag tearing more likely to occur.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

gerrycan

Do you agree with Tony S. that thermite sparks will ignite 600C flame resistant neoprene rubber on cars,
Basicly the same neoprene rubber that covers these arc welder leads, and are exposed to similar sparks all the time?

 

[NoahFence]

Backtracking within minutes, on the same page. Surreal.

Surreal, yet common.
These people constantly self contradict.

Reading this latest exchange, man. That's the deep end.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think 90% of the regulars on here are shills.

Tony, instead of the ad hominems I'll just reierate an example of why you're criticized:

Your Missing Jolt paper:

The NIST Final Report does not tell us what happened to RB-12+ after its impact with the two structures beneath it. Did it fall through them all the way to the ground (that is, to the rubble heap on the ground), maintaining considerable mass and rigidity the whole time--as Bazant argued in 2001 and has continued to argue? [12]

As Bazant has said, when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be a powerful jolt. While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. Even a hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be abrupt and dramatic.

Bazant preface:

This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001.....

For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest.

That was the first two pages of his paper from 2001. Now, while you're busy libeling members for criticizing your arguments... you continue 13 years later running with a misapplication that can be demonstrated by taking two sentences from the very writing you were basing your prima fascia on.

Your issue with WTC 7 are almost a replica of the simplicity of errors from your missing jolt... The criticism appears well-found in lieu of your protest.

 

[gerrycan]

If that were true yes, the difference is stiffeners will not deform the column when uneven heating occurs.

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

Your projecting your Ideas onto me without actually understanding what I have been explaining.

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.

One side plate can have radiant heating directly affecting the center mass of the side plate increasing it's expansion.

And what height are the side plates?

The other plate heated by conduction at the welds would have a cooling center mass resisting expansion.

Have a look at what you've typed and reword it into something coherent.

The resulting deformation would twist the column slightly, and the induced malleability of the stiffener combined with the column twist would induce walk off when the girder and beams expanding caused it to.

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

Also I was citing column weld shear not side plate weld shear, big difference, it needs also to be noted that shear lag, Shearing of a steel member before it reaches full tension strength can occur in steel members, and is not limited to bolts and welds but anywhere sufficent changes in structure and geometry of the member would induce it.

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.

My point on the side plates is they change the heat deformation, and the column geometry
Making shear lag tearing more likely to occur.

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 girder arrangements. Nothing to do with columns.
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.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

And what height are the side plates?

Have a look at what you've typed and reword it into something coherent.

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


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.


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 girder arrangements. Nothing to do with columns.
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.

You'll have to do better.That's just word salad.

 

[ozeco41]

Surreal, yet common.
These people constantly self contradict.

Reading this latest exchange, man. That's the deep end.

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.

 

[ozeco41]

You'll have to do better.That's just word salad.

And the lettuce is stale.

 

[DGM]

They did not use it in their model, so they did not see it as something they could count on as a scientific fact.

Could you tell us what percentage of the exterior structure (curtain wall) they did use? It cute how you like to mold model and reality to suit your belief.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

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".

 

[NoahFence]

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.

5) And they ignore 2 of the 3 crime scenes on 9/11.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

gerrycan

Do you agree with Tony S. that thermite sparks will ignite 600C flame resistant neoprene rubber on cars,
Basicly the same neoprene rubber that covers these arc welder leads, and are exposed to similar sparks all the time?

[qimg]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj132/chainsawprof/20150404_093613_zpskzjsbi4u.jpg[/qimg]

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.

 

[gerrycan]

My pay is priceless, I get all the laughs I can handle without my sides splitting.

No. Watching you doing the technical equivalent of holding a chainsaw from the wrong end is amusing on some level though.

 

[pgimeno]

The image you show here was even rejected by NIST as some sort of phony composite. If it had any legitimacy whatsoever they surely would have used it.

That image was not rejected by NIST. It was probably not even created when NIST made the report. The two source images used for compositing it are cited.

The video where one of them was extracted from was used by NIST (pictures 5-78, 5-80, and 5-82).

NIST came up with this damage estimation based on it:

It clearly shows them acknowledging the damage due to the gash (in red and grey).

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That image was not rejected by NIST. It was probably not even created when NIST made the report. The two source images used for compositing it are cited.

The video where one of them was extracted from was used by NIST (pictures 5-78, 5-80, and 5-82).

NIST came up with this damage estimation based on it:

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/NCSTAR1-9_fig_5-83.png[/qimg]

It clearly shows them acknowledging the damage due to the gash (in red and grey).

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.

I am reminded here of Larry Silverstein trying to claim the North Tower antenna hit WTC 7 when the reality is that it went in the complete opposite direction.