WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[lexicon008]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Again with the quoting of the NIST report that you yourself don't trust.

funny that.

Well since this is supposed to be the the official report, what else would you like me to quote?

Can you show examples of someone that said the entire building, all 47 stories, was ablaze?
Can you link a single photo showing the entire building, all 47 stories, ablaze? Not smoke..fire.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The mass and strength of the beams and girders with respect to column 79 are relative and do not fit the analogy you give here.

A better analogy, using your metaphors, would be that the beams and girders hitting column 79 are like a cat falling out of a tree onto an elephant. Nothing happens to the elephant.

Depends on the size of the cat and the size of the elephant.

If full grown lion pounces on a baby elephant something would happen.

This is why engineers use figures.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Again with the quoting of the NIST report that you yourself don't trust.

funny that.

As for the 7 hours figure - it was an exaggeration. But the "entire building" on fire was not. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts and photos to support my assertion. Your assertion for controlled demo?
Not so much.

Or are you people exaggerating about controlled demo?

I never said I don't trust anything in the NIST report. I do think the mechanisms for collapse of WTC 7 that they espouse and the conclusions are incorrect.

There are times in life when one has to be able to sift through shades of gray and separate the wheat from the chaff using a sound basis. The fire simulation for the columns makes sense. Do you think the columns got hotter? if so, on what basis?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by lexicon008

Well since this is supposed to be the the official report, what else would you like me to quote?

Can you show examples of someone that said the entire building, all 47 stories, was ablaze?
Can you link a single photo showing the entire building, all 47 stories, ablaze? Not smoke..fire.

You can't see the fire BECAUSE of the smoke. But when you see it pouring out of virtually every floor, well its not rocket science.

As for people on the ground, yes there were firefighters who said it was fully involved. Just because you people ignore it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I never said I don't trust anything in the NIST report. I do think the mechanisms for collapse of WTC 7 that they espouse and the conclusions are incorrect.

There are times in life when one has to be able to sift through shades of gray and separate the wheat from the chaff using a sound basis. The fire simulation for the columns makes sense. Do you think the columns got hotter? if so, on what basis?

Tony. You people insist that it was controlled demo, but have yet to produce even ONE shred of evidence. Its time to put up or shut up.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

[lexicon008]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

You can't see the fire BECAUSE of the smoke. But when you see it pouring out of virtually every floor, well its not rocket science. As for people on the ground, yes there were firefighters who said it was fully involved. Just because you people ignore it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

so your saying because smoke is pouring out of every floor that every floor is on fire? You do realize this is a false assertion since smoke can travel through a structure even when the fire is localized. Hence the reason buildings have smoke damage without fire damage.

Who were the fire fighters that claim full involvement and where are the photos/ videos your alluding to? I have looked at numerous photos and videos and can't find any showing full involvement of the structure with fire. Yes there are some floors that appear to be near full involvement but not the "entire building".
And this assertion would contradict the NIST report as well.

[carlitos]

Here's the thread topic in case anyone is interested. There are only about 2000 topics on WTC7 being on fire that one could search for, were one interested in reliving 2006 on JREF for some reason.

Originally Posted by Gamolon

The NIST report on WTC7 states that the bearing seat at 79 for the girder was 11 inches wide and that the beam was pushed laterally 5.5" due to thermal expansion of the floor beams. According to NIST, this meant that the girder had walked off the seat.

I am looking at the shop drawing from Frankel Steel (1091) for column 79 at the 13th floor, and the bearing seat is 12" wide, not 11" like NIST has in their report.

I am debating the gentleman who created the video, "Shear Ignorance" and this is going to be one of his (and others) points as to why NIST's explanation is incorrect and why the girder couldn't have walked off.

NIST states 600C, an 11" wide plate, and a lateral push of 5.5" to fit their explanation.

Any thoughts about this?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by lexicon008

so your saying because smoke is pouring out of every floor that every floor is on fire? You do realize this is a false assertion since smoke can travel through a structure even when the fire is localized. Hence the reason buildings have smoke damage without fire damage.

Who were the fire fighters that claim full involvement and where are the photos/ videos your alluding to? I have looked at numerous photos and videos and can't find any showing full involvement of the structure with fire. Yes there are some floors that appear to be near full involvement but not the "entire building".
And this assertion would contradict the NIST report as well.

I'm on my phone and can't post links. Suffice to say they DO exist. I'm not a truther, so you can trust me. Google wtc7 south face.

[lexicon008]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

I'm on my phone and can't post links. Suffice to say they DO exist. I'm not a truther, so you can trust me. Google wtc7 south face.

been there done that..lots of damage, lots of smoke..evidence of fully engulfed building..not so much

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by lexicon008

been there done that..lots of damage, lots of smoke..evidence of fully engulfed building..not so much

tell you what.. I'll show you my evidence when you show me yours. would you be happy to be the first truther ever to produce evidence?

[lexicon008]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

tell you what.. I'll show you my evidence when you show me yours. would you be happy to be the first truther ever to produce evidence?

Noah, i'm just pointing something out to you..you and the others here love to jump all over people for making unsubstantiated claims or errors.
Yet when your getting questioned about the very same thing, you change the subject or can't back up your statement.

I'll be honest..i don't have and have not seen any concrete evidence for a CD. I am not 100% convinced either way and your obvious errors in trying to claim that the "entire building" was on fire which contradicts the NIST report only goes to show why there is such a divide here.

I will freely admit that the CD hypothesis lacks alot of evidence. Hell i will even say that it's highly improbable given the lack of evidence. But the Fire induced progressive collapse hypothesis also lacks alot of evidence since much of it is completely subjective, guesstimations and not available for examination. It also is based on information that seems to be now in question due to new evidence.
In the end this will not be solved here on this forum..a new investigation free of politics and conflicts of interest needs to be undertaken taking ALL information into account.

[ozeco41]

Lets see if we can lift this discussion out of squabbling over details.

The overall claim by Tony is that the NIST explanation of "Walk-off" is "wrong" or "impossible". Because it is Tony's claim which is currently under discussion it is his burden of proof to establish the validity of the claim. I will demonstrate in this post why Tony has so far not met his burden of proof.

Tony is challenging the formal findings of NIST delivered in response to imposed statutory obligations. Therefore the standard of proof which Tony must meet to satisfy his burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". Both my claims as to "burden" and "standard" readily demonstrated if needed but let's get to the substance of the claim.

In essence the claim is that a technical finding by NIST is wrong. So Tony has two stages he must satisfy beyond reasonable doubt.

The first is identification and analysis of the technical issue subject of the claim viz "Walk-off of the girder spanning from Col79 to Col44". The second is what does he mean by "wrong" but defer that till we get the technical stuff out of the way.

Simply put the main flaw in Tony's claim is that he and most others responding to him have accepted a boundary around this technical question. Tony has assumed that the walk off was dominated by two factors viz thermal elongation/contraction of the subject girder and attached floor beams and sag of the same girder. And that the columns had neither moved nor suffered stress changes to cause them to move or "want" to move.

In effect both Tony and most responders have assumed that the distance between the columns has not altered due to fire OR that the columns have not experienced stress changes which could be loading the girder whilst the girder remains fastened in place. Obviously the two are related.

So I won't re-traverse those discussions which have taken place as to whether or not Tony is correct within the context of no change to the column connections. I intend to challenge the main implicit assumption which is that the end conditions of the girder attachment to the columns was not affected by heating due to fire. Put simply that the columns were still the same distance apart and would remain so once the girder attachments failed. IMO that is a fundamental false assumption.

AND Tony has not addressed the probability that the columns either had moved or had been subject to stresses towards movement but restrained by the girder whilst attached. So his claim is subject to "reasonable doubt" and not sustained.

There are two possible situations where Tony's implicit assumption would be correct. viz:

A) None of the other structural members of WTC7 surrounding col79, Col44, the girder and attached floor beams had been affected by temperature therefore only the subject beams had been affected therefore Tony's assumed setting is valid; OR

B) All or most of the relevant adjoining structural elements had been affected by temperature changes but all the resulting stress reallocations added up to zero impact on the end conditions of the girder.

Of those two "A)" is ridiculous and "B)" is ridiculously improbable.

So the challenge Tony:
Your burden of proof; the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt";

Can you demonstrate that either:
No members of the WTC7 frame adjacent to the col79, col44, girder and floor beams were affected by elevated temperatures which could cause stress re-distributions; (All the rest of the building around those columns stayed cool whilst the fires raged.) OR


That the temperature fluctuations imposed on that surrounding members caused stress re-distributions which cancelled out to zero?

Otherwise, Tony, I have established "reasonable doubt" and your claim fails.

Disclaimers:
1) I have limited my counter claim to the false context which Tony has assumed. I have not at this stage gone to the broader issues such as CD or not or Tony's limited objective of "Prove NIST wrong and get them to change."
2) I have not entered the discussion of technical issues within Tony's false context. Such matters being well handled by tfk and others.
3) I have not at this stage addressed nor needed to address what is Tony's standard for determining what constitutes "wrong". It is a more complex issue we can address if he meets the technical challenge.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by lexicon008

Well since this is supposed to be the the official report, what else would you like me to quote?

Can you show examples of someone that said the entire building, all 47 stories, was ablaze?
Can you link a single photo showing the entire building, all 47 stories, ablaze? Not smoke..fire.

Are you trying to say WTC 7 did not fail in fire? Was it an explosive? What is your theory, and why are you off topic, you have no clue what happen in WTC 7 or on 911. You think bodies hitting the ground could be proof of explosives, but you never researched further than 911 truth lies and fantasy delusions. Do you know this topic? What did Tony get right, and what did NIST get wrong? Does it make a difference if NIST's PROBABLE cause is not the cause? Does that change the truth that fire caused the failure of WTC 7, fire totaled WTC 7?

[lexicon008]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Are you trying to say WTC 7 did not fail in fire? Was it an explosive? What is your theory, and why are you off topic, you have no clue what happen in WTC 7 or on 911. You think bodies hitting the ground could be proof of explosives, but you never researched further than 911 truth lies and fantasy delusions. Do you know this topic? What did Tony get right, and what did NIST get wrong? Does it make a difference if NIST's PROBABLE cause is not the cause? Does that change the truth that fire caused the failure of WTC 7, fire totaled WTC 7?

No
Don't know
Dont have a theory..still trying to sort out everyone elses theory
Off topic because noah can't get his facts straight and as you seem to love doing i was trying to figure out what he was talking about and if he actually knew the facts
No bodies hitting the ground are not proof of explosives..this does not change the fact that all the testimonies related to sounds of "explosions" were not all bodies hitting the ground
Do i know the topic? does anyone truly know the topic anymore?
clearly errors have been made on both sides.
Does it make a difference? I would have to say yes it does. If it can't be shown that fire caused the collapse as it occurred then we must look for another cause or refine the hypothesis.
Does this change the truth? We haven't really established if it is the truth yet..it is a theory/hypothesis which is still being disputed.

You have obviously made up your mind..others haven't..live with it.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The 5 fastened together 2 x 4's certainly won't buckle. If they fall it is because they don't have a sufficient or flat base.

You are just joking here right? How you think this applies to column 79 is beyond me.

Lateral support kiddo. Lateral support.

It's an analogy. I never claimed it to represent Col. 79 perfectly. I was trying to dumb down lateral support for you.

So, you want a wider base? Take a 4'x4' piece of plywood and nail it to the bottom. Then get a fat guy to sit on that top.

Tell us what happens......

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by lexicon008

... If it can't be shown that fire caused the collapse ...

You can't be shown anything. Fire did it, and you ignore is in favor of fantasy anomalies like Tony makes up without evidence, the realcddeal of CD.

Fire or CD. This is an easy one. BTW, there were no explosions when WTC 7 collapsed. No thermite was found. That is a lie made up by Jones. You are left with fire, and woo. Which do you pick? Woo, the woo of anomalies made up by 911 truth.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Lets see if we can lift this discussion out of squabbling over details.

The overall claim by Tony is that the NIST explanation of "Walk-off" is "wrong" or "impossible". Because it is Tony's claim which is currently under discussion it is his burden of proof to establish the validity of the claim. I will demonstrate in this post why Tony has so far not met his burden of proof.

Tony is challenging the formal findings of NIST delivered in response to imposed statutory obligations. Therefore the standard of proof which Tony must meet to satisfy his burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". Both my claims as to "burden" and "standard" readily demonstrated if needed but let's get to the substance of the claim.

In essence the claim is that a technical finding by NIST is wrong. So Tony has two stages he must satisfy beyond reasonable doubt.

The first is identification and analysis of the technical issue subject of the claim viz "Walk-off of the girder spanning from Col79 to Col44". The second is what does he mean by "wrong" but defer that till we get the technical stuff out of the way.

Simply put the main flaw in Tony's claim is that he and most others responding to him have accepted a boundary around this technical question. Tony has assumed that the walk off was dominated by two factors viz thermal elongation/contraction of the subject girder and attached floor beams and sag of the same girder. And that the columns had neither moved nor suffered stress changes to cause them to move or "want" to move.

In effect both Tony and most responders have assumed that the distance between the columns has not altered due to fire OR that the columns have not experienced stress changes which could be loading the girder whilst the girder remains fastened in place. Obviously the two are related.

So I won't re-traverse those discussions which have taken place as to whether or not Tony is correct within the context of no change to the column connections. I intend to challenge the main implicit assumption which is that the end conditions of the girder attachment to the columns was not affected by heating due to fire. Put simply that the columns were still the same distance apart and would remain so once the girder attachments failed. IMO that is a fundamental false assumption.

AND Tony has not addressed the probability that the columns either had moved or had been subject to stresses towards movement but restrained by the girder whilst attached. So his claim is subject to "reasonable doubt" and not sustained.

There are two possible situations where Tony's implicit assumption would be correct. viz:

A) None of the other structural members of WTC7 surrounding col79, Col44, the girder and attached floor beams had been affected by temperature therefore only the subject beams had been affected therefore Tony's assumed setting is valid; OR

B) All or most of the relevant adjoining structural elements had been affected by temperature changes but all the resulting stress reallocations added up to zero impact on the end conditions of the girder.

Of those two "A)" is ridiculous and "B)" is ridiculously improbable.

So the challenge Tony:
Your burden of proof; the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt";

Can you demonstrate that either:
No members of the WTC7 frame adjacent to the col79, col44, girder and floor beams were affected by elevated temperatures which could cause stress re-distributions; (All the rest of the building around those columns stayed cool whilst the fires raged.) OR


That the temperature fluctuations imposed on that surrounding members caused stress re-distributions which cancelled out to zero?

Otherwise, Tony, I have established "reasonable doubt" and your claim fails.

Disclaimers:
1) I have limited my counter claim to the false context which Tony has assumed. I have not at this stage gone to the broader issues such as CD or not or Tony's limited objective of "Prove NIST wrong and get them to change."
2) I have not entered the discussion of technical issues within Tony's false context. Such matters being well handled by tfk and others.
3) I have not at this stage addressed nor needed to address what is Tony's standard for determining what constitutes "wrong". It is a more complex issue we can address if he meets the technical challenge.

Ozeco, you are assuming a priori that the columns will move due to some until now unseen stress redistribution from heated surrounding members in a way that will affect the outcome of whether or not that girder could walk off its seat.

Now you are trying to rehabilitate a failed hypothesis with hand waving that anything can happen. This is fair to say because you provide no basis for your claim whatsoever. You really should be calling NIST to see if they like your idea. I have a feeling it won't be received with welcome arms because they won't be able to back it up either. What you have written here is nothing but one big non sequitur.

A number of people (not just me) have shown in a responsible way that what NIST said about that girder walking off its seat, based on the information they gave and what has been learned from recent drawing releases, simply could not occur.

[lexicon008]

Originally Posted by beachnut

You can't be shown anything. Fire did it, and you ignore is in favor of fantasy anomalies like Tony makes up without evidence, the realcddeal of CD.

Fire or CD. This is an easy one. BTW, there were no explosions when WTC 7 collapsed. No thermite was found. That is a lie made up by Jones. You are left with fire, and woo. Which do you pick? Woo, the woo of anomalies made up by 911 truth.

The question here is did NIST prove that for the first time in history fire caused the collapse of a steel framed skyscraper. Remember they indicated that the damage played no part in the collapse..this was fire alone. Since they are arguing that this is a first time event..then the burden of proof must be set high since its probability is low.
Given that they have made numerous assumptions, guesstimates and have apparently ignored evidence, it would be negligent not to question their findings regardless if you beleive in a CD or not.
Their findings and recommendations are being used to build new structures today..if their recommendations are based on a false premise then they could actually be causing harm and this is the problem.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Lateral support kiddo. Lateral support.

It's an analogy. I never claimed it to represent Col. 79 perfectly. I was trying to dumb down lateral support for you.

So, you want a wider base? Take a 4'x4' piece of plywood and nail it to the bottom. Then get a fat guy to sit on that top.

Tell us what happens......

You shouldn't be rolling your eyes at anything as it really isn't me that is displaying kiddo type knowledge here and your analogy doesn't work. The plywood isn't much of a base as it won't resist the moments.

I can tell you right now that if I you took just one ten foot long 6 x 6 (which would be like four and a half 2 x 4's) and set it in a 30 inch deep x 18 inch diameter concrete foundation you could have the fattest guy you know sit on it without a problem.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by lexicon008

The question here is did NIST prove that for the first time in history fire caused the collapse of a steel framed skyscraper. ...

Remember, you never read the NIST report. lol, you blindly repeat 911 truth statements you googled.

WTC 7 fire was not fought, the building was totaled. Totaled.

There are hundreds of buildings totaled by fire, the first time in history is a stupid claim made up by 911 truth to fool people who don't do their own research or thinking.

CD is a delusional claim made up by people who can't do engineering. They have failed to publish any paper in real journals. 911 truth has failed for 10 years to present evidence. The only thing 911 truth has done is make up thermite and lie that they found thermite. You present nonsense and lies. The first time in history is a 911 truth stupid claim.

Name a building which survived with massive fires that would not fought by automatic sprinklers and firemen. I can name large building that were totaled by fire and the fires were fought. First time in history fires fought did not save a building! This is the best evidence 911 truth has, making the stupid claim of first time in history. You are 911 truth.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Ozeco, you are claiming, without a basis, that different temperatures in different beams and girders will cause a difference in how the columns behave and then say that if I can't prove they don't then I don't have a case....

Not so Mr Evader - stop trying to reverse your burden of proof. BTW I doubt that your claim can be sustained because the factors you are deliberately ignoring are near certainly unknowable. You chose to put an unsupportable argument - just because it is unsupportable it does not become my burden of proof. And the flaw in your reasoning is not simply engineering - it is legal given that you have chosen to make a technically and legally unsupportable claim against a statutory based responsible finding.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

...A number of people (not just me) showed that what NIST said about that girder walking off its seat, based on the information they gave and what has been learned from recent drawing releases, simply could not occur....

More evasions Tony? You have not shown nor have any others shown OTHER than within your false context which it is your problem to address. I don't accept "reverse burden of proof". And I am not even discussing the factors within your false scope of claim so you won't fool my by trying to drag discussion with me inside your false assumed boundary.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

... Now you are trying to rehabilitate a failed hypothesis with hand waving that anything can happen and telling people like me that if one can't prove a negative they have no case....

Lift your game Tony and stop the trivia. You always give yourself away when you say "hand waving" when you mean "I cannot explain it." And, once again, I am not going inside your false limit of scope.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

...What you have written here is nothing but one big non sequitur.

Hogwash of course but it will be interesting to see how many other members can see through your evasions and lack of understanding. I recognise that you are relying on being able to fool people. Ultimately you will not fool me as you know from previous attempts on other topics.

BTW try to get your false allegations about "prove a negative" into the proper setting. Shame

Bottom line:

Address the challenge I put to you and stop evading.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Not so Mr Evader - stop trying to reverse your burden of proof. BTW I doubt that your claim can be sustained because the factors you are deliberately ignoring are near certainly unknowable. You chose to put an unsupportable argument - just because it is unsupportable it does not become my burden of proof. And the flaw in your reasoning is not simply engineering - it is legal given that you have chosen to make a technically and legally unsupportable claim against a statutory based responsible finding.
More evasions Tony? You have not shown nor have any others shown OTHER than within your false context which it is your problem to address. I don't accept "reverse burden of proof". And I am not even discussing the factors within your false scope of claim so you won't fool my by trying to drag discussion with me inside your false assumed boundary.
Lift your game Tony and stop the trivia. You always give yourself away when you say "hand waving" when you mean "I cannot explain it." And, once again, I am not going inside your false limit of scope.
Hogwash of course but it will be interesting to see how many other members can see through your evasions and lack of understanding. I recognise that you are relying on being able to fool people. Ultimately you will not fool me as you know from previous attempts on other topics.

BTW try to get your false allegations about "prove a negative" into the proper setting. Shame

Bottom line:

Address the challenge I put to you and stop evading.

There is no challenge. Nobody, including NIST, has ever mentioned the things you are trying to make into something here without even providing some form of basis that there could be an effect.

You are stopped before you started because you have presented no case to begin with. Your whole notion here has to be summed up as nothing more than unrealistic mental meanderings. If you were able to show just a scintilla of proof that the columns could have moved in a way that could have affected the outcome of whether that girder could have walked off its seat maybe you would have an argument. But you haven't and you have no legitimate argument.

What you are asking is as inane as wanting me to prove that by firing a rocket I am not putting a hole in space.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

There is no challenge. Nobody, including NIST, has ever mentioned the things you are trying to make into something here without even providing some form of basis that there could be an effect...

OK so you either misunderstand or choose to misrepresent my statements. I will go just one mini step in "spoon feeding" on the key error in this first paragraph.

WTC7 had been subjected to fires which would have caused thermal induced stress changes in the members within the area you want to consider AND ALSO the adjoining members. I say those thermal stresses would have had some effect, that the extent of the effect would be near impossible to predict or model and that you have neglected to address it. THEREFORE your claim fails BECAUSE YOU WON'T ADDRESS THAT FACTOR. (And not whether I am right or wrong ) You claim implicitly that there was no such effect. I say you are wrong.* AND since your claim is your burden of proof I say you cannot meet your burden of proof. That is the key point - failure to meet burden of proof. To meet that burden of proof you would need to demonstrate either of the two conditions I identified in my earlier post AND which you misrepresented as "prove a negative".

So the issue of difference here is that I have identified an engineering technical issue with which you cannot or will not address with reasoning to the appropriate standard of proof and which I have demonstrated is necessary to satisfy your burden of proof. The dominant issue is your inability to meet your burden of proof independent of anything I say. You problem not mine. Hence all your attempts to shift the onus to me are bound to fail.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

...You are stopped before you started because you have presented no case to begin with....

For the umpteenth time it is your claim. I have identified an engineering technical issue which you have failed to address. Stop trying to reverse burden of proof.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

...Your whole notion here has to be summed up as nothing more than unrealistic mental meanderings. If you were able to show just a scintilla of proof that the columns could have moved in a way that could have affected the outcome of whether that girder could have walked off its seat maybe you would have an argument....

Watch my lips!! It is your claim and your claim relies on the columns being unaffected by heat. I have demonstrated "reasonable doubt". It is not my burden to instruct or assist you in resolving that doubt. I don't think it is possible to resolve that doubt THEREFORE you have failed in your claim unless you can make it via some other avenue of argument.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

... But you haven't and you have no legitimate argument....

The only thing I have done in the technical sense is identify a factor you have not addressed and are not willing to address. It puts a fatal flaw in your argument. I am not the one putting the claim you are.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

... You are asking me to prove that by firing a rocket I am not putting a hole in space.

Not so (again..sheesh) Your claim requires that the column and to girder relationship be unaffected by heat. That is YOUR claim which requires that. You have not established that your premise is valid. Therefore your claim fails.

All your evasions and snide comments will not change that situation. So I will take it that you are not interested in taking part in reasoned legitimate discussion other than technical discussion which ignores key factors. So be it. I won't waste any more time.

Other members will no doubt notice that the harder I press you for reasoning the more desperate your evasions and name calling become.

I won't retaliate in that style.

Cheers.

* PS For the benefit of other members

Here is the simple version of Tony's base assumption. He is assuming that the two columns 79 and 44 remain in their original condition of end relation to the girder. I say he has to support that assumption by reasoning which he hasn't done and denies the need to do it. So it is a burden of proof issue but dealing with a technical assumption which he is making. That assumption is implicitly one of either:

A) All the structural elements - girder and floor beams between Col79 and Col44 were affected by temperature so that Tony can predict length changes and sagging to within decimals of an inch WHILST Col79 and Col44 and all the other elements were not affected by heat expansion or stress re-distribution. i.e. The lot between col79 and col44 got hot and bothered whilst the columns and adjoining other members remained cool.

OR

B) All the effects referred to in "A)" by some massive coincidence managed to cancel out so they did not affect the space between the two columns.

I suggest that both those alternates are ridiculous but the beauty of the argument is that whether I am right or not is irrelevant. I don't have to be right on the technical bit. A good position to be in if it's not too subtle a point to make. Tony has to address those two to meet his burden of proof or his claim fails. If he proves me wrong his claim can them go to the next stage where I have a few more strings to my bow....but save that for later.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

WTC7 had been subjected to fires which would have caused thermal induced stress changes in the members within the area you want to consider AND ALSO the adjoining members. I say those thermal stresses would have had some effect, that the extent of the effect would be near impossible to predict or model and that you have neglected to address it. THEREFORE your claim fails BECAUSE YOU WON'T ADDRESS THAT FACTOR. (And not whether I am right or wrong ) You claim implicitly that there was no such effect. I say you are wrong.* AND since your claim is your burden of proof I say you cannot meet your burden of proof. That is the key point - failure to meet burden of proof. To meet that burden of proof you would need to demonstrate either of the two conditions I identified in my earlier post AND which you misrepresented as "prove a negative".

So the issue of difference here is that I have identified an engineering technical issue with which you cannot or will not address

What "engineering technical issue"? As Tony has already pointed out, you are merely trying to muddy the waters with a bogus, "Fog of War"-style analysis on a catastrophic structural failure. You're basically just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "la la la la la... it was so CHAOTIC that day! It's IMPOSSIBLE to know what could and could not have`been happening!"

That is your entire argument. Apart from your constant efforts to invent some new "burden of proof" while ignoring your own.

Quote:

For the umpteenth time it is your claim. I have identified an engineering technical issue which you have failed to address.

No, you're just making **** up. Tony has stated he uses the same assumptions as NIST does. If you have problems with them, why aren't you complaining to NIST?

[NoahFence]

[quote=lexicon008;8258588]The question here is did NIST prove that for the first time in history fire caused the collapse of a steel framed skyscraper. [/qoute]

Did NIST prove that? No. reality proved that. NIST was simply one of many organizations to confirm it.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by lexicon008

so your saying because smoke is pouring out of every floor that every floor is on fire? You do realize this is a false assertion since smoke can travel through a structure even when the fire is localized. Hence the reason buildings have smoke damage without fire damage.

Who were the fire fighters that claim full involvement and where are the photos/ videos your alluding to? I have looked at numerous photos and videos and can't find any showing full involvement of the structure with fire. Yes there are some floors that appear to be near full involvement but not the "entire building".
And this assertion would contradict the NIST report as well.

FYI: Fully involved doesn't mean 100% of the structure is on fire, just that it's pretty **********.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by ergo

What "engineering technical issue"? As Tony has already pointed out, you are merely trying to muddy the waters with a bogus, "Fog of War"-style analysis on a catastrophic structural failure. You're basically just closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "la la la la la... it was so CHAOTIC that day! It's IMPOSSIBLE to know what could and could not have`been happening!"

That is your entire argument. Apart from your constant efforts to invent some new "burden of proof" while ignoring your own.




No, you're just making **** up. Tony has stated he uses the same assumptions as NIST does. If you have problems with them, why aren't you complaining to NIST?

Is this a new technique ergo -- "Scattergun Evasions".

I realise that the topic is not as simple as Tony tries to make out. Tough.

If you address the points I made explicitly and clearly I may decide to respond. But your evasive garbage does not warrant a response. BTW it is Tony's claim NOT MINE. I have merely identified that it has a big hole in it. Said hole being one of the issues I identified back a post 151 in this thread.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

There is no challenge. Nobody, including NIST, has ever mentioned the things you are trying to make into something here without even providing some form of basis that there could be an effect.

You are stopped before you started because you have presented no case to begin with. Your whole notion here has to be summed up as nothing more than unrealistic mental meanderings. If you were able to show just a scintilla of proof that the columns could have moved in a way that could have affected the outcome of whether that girder could have walked off its seat maybe you would have an argument. But you haven't and you have no legitimate argument.

What you are asking is as inane as wanting me to prove that by firing a rocket I am not putting a hole in space.

Rocket holes in space?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Is this a new technique ergo -- "Scattergun Evasions". http://conleys.com.au/smilies/nono.gif

I realise that the topic is not as simple as Tony tries to make out. Tough.

If you address the points I made explicitly and clearly I may decide to respond. But your evasive garbage does not warrant a response. BTW it is Tony's claim NOT MINE. I have merely identified that it has a big hole in it. Said hole being one of the issues I identified back a post 151 in this thread.

As I suspected, there's nothing in your post 151 because there's nothing in any of your posts in this thread, and indeed for quite some time. Maybe the entire time. Maybe you've never actually said anything useful, and I've just been giving you the benefit of the doubt all this time because you claim to have engineering training.

Ozeco, several pages of text have occurred between your post 151 and now. Are you capable of explaining what it is that you're waiting for that hasn't already been addressed several times over? The "things were too chaotic! We can never know everything that happened!" theory is not an engineering analysis. It also has to be the most pathetic, last-ditch escape argument I've yet seen from your side. And that's saying a lot. It's not so much that your "arguments" are not even arguments, but that you assume so little intelligence in others that you actually think people are going to believe you are saying something. Seriously: who do you think you're kidding?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

You shouldn't be rolling your eyes at anything as it really isn't me that is displaying kiddo type knowledge here and your analogy doesn't work. The plywood isn't much of a base as it won't resist the moments.

I can tell you right now that if I you took just one ten foot long 6 x 6 (which would be like four and a half 2 x 4's) and set it in a 30 inch deep x 18 inch diameter concrete foundation you could have the fattest guy you know sit on it without a problem.

You wouldn't need lateral support there Tony, would you?

What the parable is trying to get you to understand, (apparently unsuccessfully) is if something requires lateral support to stand, and you remove that lateral support, it will fail.

Can you understand that Tony? I mean, I cannot possibly dumb it down any further without drawing cartoon pictures.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

You wouldn't need lateral support there Tony, would you?

What the parable is trying to get you to understand, (apparently unsuccessfully) is if something requires lateral support to stand, and you remove that lateral support, it will fail.

Can you understand that Tony? I mean, I cannot possibly dumb it down any further without drawing cartoon pictures.

You don't seem to understand that your analogy is not describing the need for lateral support to prevent buckling, which is the issue being discussed. You are mixing apples and oranges and either don't understand that or you are being coy about it.

Your example of the five nailed together 8 foot tall 2 x 4's would not buckle at that length with its moment of inertia and modulus elasticity and would not need lateral support to prevent it. Its problem is you don't have a sufficient base to start with and any minor perturbance would cause it to shift at the base with the Cg then falling outside of the base and it would fall.

Column 79 had sufficient base support low in the building and could have gone without lateral support for about 200 feet above that support if it had only its own weight as its load like your analogy. With the building load it had it could go without lateral support for at least five stories.

The Washington Monument is essentially a very large column which has no lateral support. Do you know why it doesn't overturn?

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The Washington Monument is essentially a very large column which has no lateral support. Do you know why it doesn't overturn?

Cause it isn't a column?

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

What you are asking is as inane as wanting me to prove that by firing a rocket I am not putting a hole in space.

No, it is as valid as asking you to consider the factors that come necessarily into play, which you're neglecting to do, in order to make a valid proof.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

... The Washington Monument is essentially a very large column which has no lateral support. Do you know why it doesn't overturn?

Why, because the Washington monument is not a very large column, it is a building with lateral support, 36,491 blocks. How many blocks of stone and marble are used to form columns of WTC 7? Classic 911 truth perpetual members.

This is it. Are you going to publish this with your NIST rebuttal in a journal? This will be great.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by ergo

... No, you're just making **** up. Tony has stated he uses the same assumptions as NIST does. If you have problems with them, why aren't you complaining to NIST?

Where is Tony's work? Where is it published? Your support of Tony is not going to make CD a reality. Show the hundreds of pages of Tony's work where he uses the same assumptions as NIST. Are you taking his word for this, or have you seen the work?

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by Justin39640

Cause it isn't a column?

I don't agree, the Washington Monument is essentially a hollow column made of stone and it is interesting that you don't explain why it doesn't overturn.

What about the Toronto CN tower? Are you just going to say it isn't a column? Why doesn't it overturn?

I think you, Triforcharity, and Beachnut are out of your depth here or are being coy.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I don't agree, the Washington Monument is essentially a hollow column made of stone and it is interesting that you don't explain why it doesn't overturn.

What about the Toronto CN tower? Are you just going to say it isn't a column? Why doesn't it overturn?

I think you, Triforcharity, and Beachnut are out of your depth here or are being coy.

Yes, I think fire destroyed WTC 7, a correct assumption, and you think fantasy explosives destroyed WTC 7. I can see why you think I am out of my depth, but then you need me to just comment, because the engineering you are not capable of, I am. You believe in nonsense about 911, your realcddeal proved it day one, and your position has not improved. You can't publish anything, because you have nothing. You don't do engineering, you do talk and prove it by not Publishing. Proof is your lack of work, and it shows by lack of Publishing. Where is your work?

How is the realcddeal going to benefit from you show NIST probable collapse sequence is wrong? Probable collapse sequence? This gets better the more I think about it and how shallow your analysis is, which is exposed in this thread.

[thedopefishlives]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I don't agree, the Washington Monument is essentially a hollow column made of stone and it is interesting that you don't explain why it doesn't overturn.

What about the Toronto CN tower? Are you just going to say it isn't a column? Why doesn't it overturn?

I think you, Triforcharity, and Beachnut are out of your depth here or are being coy.

I think you're the one that's out of your depth here. If you truly think the Washington Monument is "essentially a hollow column made of stone", you have some serious issues with respect to your engineering abilities.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

No, it is as valid as asking you to consider the factors that come necessarily into play, which you're neglecting to do, in order to make a valid proof.

All of the factors that the NIST used were also used in showing their claim, that the girder between columns 44 and 79 walked-off its seat at column 79, to be an impossibility.

Guys like you and Ozeco really should contact NIST if you think you have realized there is something they should have, but didn't consider. Be sure to tell them that, even though you don't have any calculations to verify what you are saying could have any effect, you have a strong feeling it could be something important.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

I think you're the one that's out of your depth here. If you truly think the Washington Monument is "essentially a hollow column made of stone", you have some serious issues with respect to your engineering abilities.

Care to explain any further?

It is hard to understand guys like you, who are willing to impugn someone else's engineering abilities based on their positions or comments, without ever showing any contradictory calculations or deeper explanations themselves.

It really does seem that you are just barking in the night here and can't refute what I was saying.

In fact, before you embarass yourself further you should read the first paragraph of the Abstract of this discussion of the Washington Monument

http://casehistories.geoengineer.org...JGCH_1_3_3.pdf

Then while in the pdf do a search on the word "column" and see how many times it is used in reference to the monument.