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

[Justin39640]

Awe, I'm disappointed this morning. Totally expected to read how Geo-thermal energy will prove an inside job at The Pentagon.

[Animal]

Originally Posted by Edx

lol they werent trying to figure out IF fire and impacts brought it down, they were working out HOW.

That is what I was trying to tell him in a previous post......you put it in a lot more simple terms

[tfk]

Tony,

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

You can sit back and try to make an argument in support of the NIST investigation and analyses like those of Dr. Bazant, but they are clearly bogus

Both Bazant & NIST stand.

Every single time I look into what I think may be "an issue", I come away with the conclusion that "Yup, there are complications & unknowns, but NIST's simplifications, assumptions, etc. were the best ones possible, and completely justifiable."

For example, this happened several months ago, when I started looking into their "column 79 girder walk-off". And it happened again, just recently, when I went into the "6K pull in force". It is completely justifiable. But that's an issue for another thread.

This sort of mature professionalism is what I've found in the past when taking to experienced engineers.

And it is exactly what I expected to find in the NIST reports when I started this. And it is exactly what I ultimately did find.

Same with Bazant.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

and frankly I am tired of discussing them.

If you had any competence, you'd be tired of having your butt handed to you on a regular basis.

But you're not competent. So that little fine point sails right over your head…

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Anyone who has seriously looked at how those buildings came down knows there are problems with the current official story and in fact one would have to be kooky not to see that.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

If they are less than naive and look at the aftermath and what Iraq and Afghanistan are about they also have to come to the realization that it was done to gain the support of the American people for the use of the U.S. military for resource wars.

Ahhh, "resource wars".

Going after all the resources in Afghanistan, were we? What, we don't have enough rocks or sand in the US?

Or going after the oil in Iraq?
Why do we buy it on the open market, then? Did we just forget to steal it, Tony?

Like we somehow forgot to steal Kuwait's?

You're as bad at history & economics as you are at mechanical engineering.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The aircraft impacts and subsequent fires did not take down those buildings and the aircraft were used as a causal ruse to allow blaming outsiders.

Take your meds.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It just isn't hard to see that the destruction of evidence and report anomalies are a product of a cover-up and aftermath which are much more than CYA for the FBI and CIA (and I don't believe people in these agencies had anything to do with it, as they would have been controlled from the top and kept out of it).

"Controlled from the top", eh, Tony.??

If my boss (the CEO) came to me and told me to falsify a report to the FDA, because he thought that the fabrication was not dangerous but would save the company a couple of million dollars (not that it covered up murder & treason), he'd have two things to deal with: 1. my resignation, and my promise to send a note to the FDA, detailing the incident & requesting that they watch the company very carefully for other shenanigans.

Would YOU accept such orders from your bosses, Tony?

Presumably you'll answer "no".

Then where do you get the unmitigated gall to accuse other engineers, whom you don't know, of such unethical behavior.

There is only ONE engineer in sight, Tony, who has behaved unethically. He lives in your mirror.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Lithium-ion is a game changer and energy densities comparable to gasoline were recently achieved.

More incompetence. Lithium-ion changes nothing significant.

I'd expect a mechanical engineer to know the difference between a prime mover & an energy storage device.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by lexicon008

Really..the collapse was obvious..thats why NIST said they had a hard time figuring it out at first..i mean they should have figured it out day one no? I mean they went from pancake collapse to inward bowing..how come..it was obvious wasn't it?
Nothing was obvious here, NIST went through numerous theories and even then they have not shown definitively that they know for sure what happened.

What do you do, Lex?

Because you've got a very immature viewpoint about how these investigations happen.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Justin39640

I'd say hydrogen fuel cells are the way of the future but who wants to drive around in little hindenburgs?

Sorry, fuel cells are just energy storage units too. Takes energy to charge them.

Also, for all batteries, disposal of batteries is biggest problem. I'd fully expect the same issue with Lithium.

We need a prime mover.

For me, fission nuclear is the only WORKABLE short term bridge to a long term solution, fusion nuclear.

Other technologies will supplement, but don't provide sufficient, constant, reliable energy.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Uh, no. All of the lies you've told about the NIST report doesn't make it bogus.

For Tony, the plural of "delusional nonsense" is "evidence".

(He got that from Gage.)

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by tfk

Tony,



Both Bazant & NIST stand.

Every single time I look into what I think may be "an issue", I come away with the conclusion that "Yup, there are complications & unknowns, but NIST's simplifications, assumptions, etc. were the best ones possible, and completely justifiable."

For example, this happened several months ago, when I started looking into their "column 79 girder walk-off". And it happened again, just recently, when I went into the "6K pull in force". It is completely justifiable. But that's an issue for another thread.

This sort of mature professionalism is what I've found in the past when taking to experienced engineers.

And it is exactly what I expected to find in the NIST reports when I started this. And it is exactly what I ultimately did find.

Same with Bazant.



If you had any competence, you'd be tired of having your butt handed to you on a regular basis.

But you're not competent. So that little fine point sails right over your head…








Ahhh, "resource wars".

Going after all the resources in Afghanistan, were we? What, we don't have enough rocks or sand in the US?

Or going after the oil in Iraq?
Why do we buy it on the open market, then? Did we just forget to steal it, Tony?

Like we somehow forgot to steal Kuwait's?

You're as bad at history & economics as you are at mechanical engineering.



Take your meds.



"Controlled from the top", eh, Tony.??

If my boss (the CEO) came to me and told me to falsify a report to the FDA, because he thought that the fabrication was not dangerous but would save the company a couple of million dollars (not that it covered up murder & treason), he'd have two things to deal with: 1. my resignation, and my promise to send a note to the FDA, detailing the incident & requesting that they watch the company very carefully for other shenanigans.

Would YOU accept such orders from your bosses, Tony?

Presumably you'll answer "no".

Then where do you get the unmitigated gall to accuse other engineers, whom you don't know, of such unethical behavior.

There is only ONE engineer in sight, Tony, who has behaved unethically. He lives in your mirror.



More incompetence. Lithium-ion changes nothing significant.

I'd expect a mechanical engineer to know the difference between a prime mover & an energy storage device.

You are talking apples and oranges when you discuss prime movers in your attempt to diminish my point about lithium ion batteries being a game changer. One doesn't need a nuclear power plant in their house to use the energy from it. The lithium ion battery in an electric or hybrid vehicle may not generate the actual energy but it puts it in useable form for the platform. Where the energy originally comes from before being stored in the battery is another point and of course the energy generation by wind, solar, tidal, wave, and OTEC energy can be done cleanly and renewably and transferred to the battery.

I have seen a number of people who just say things without a basis on this forum and you have proven yourself worthy of being counted as one of them. When you do provide a basis for what you say it is usually jaundiced and not the full picture, since you always seem to be trying to make a biased point. The best that comes to mind was when you tried to show the girder would have come off its seat due to it being pushed by the beams, but neglected to account for the expansion by the girder itself by keeping it at room temperature. Another was when you used the removable lifting lugs on the column 79 section in an analysis in an attempt to say the column would not have enough strength in the splice, while neglecting the welded plates. These kinds of things seem to have splilled water on your willingness to use calculations to support your little theories and you haven't been the same since. There were several other similar theories and scenarios you tried to espouse here and they met the same fate.

I have proven you wrong on every single issue we have disagreed on in this thread, so how you can say I am the incompetent one between the two of us is beyond me.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I have seen a number of people who just say things without a basis on this forum and you have proven yourself worthy of being counted as one of them.

A little rich from the man who claimed WTC7's EMP needed to be taken out first in case it flew off sideways, doncha think? Or that a building sitting there for a decade or so had been accelerating at g all that time.

[Sunstealer]

Damn I was a victim of the famous TS edit there. His post has completely changed because he's realised he's made a silly mistake.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by GlennB

A little rich from the man who claimed WTC7's EMP needed to be taken out first in case it flew off sideways, doncha think? Or that a building sitting there for a decade or so had been accelerating at g all that time.

The fact that the east side perimeter columns in WTC 7 did not collapse when NIST alleges the entire east side interior did is interesting and I have speculated that the east penthouse drop was not a result of a full but only partial collapse at the top of the building. So there was good reason for what I was speculating there.

The fact that an upper section of a building is applying a force to the supports below it is not even questionable. Weight is due to F = mg. The fact that the upper section doesn't move is that it is having an equivalent force applied to it in the opposite direction. I believe I used the term attempting to be accelerated in one direction but it is in equilibrium because of the opposing force.

I think your attempt here to even imply that what I was saying and discussing there is in league with what TFK did is disingenuous at best. Not a surprise from you.

[lexicon008]

Originally Posted by tfk

What do you do, Lex?

Because you've got a very immature viewpoint about how these investigations happen.

Oh i'm immature? I'm not the one who claimed the collapses were obvious day one to everyone with a grade school education.
Seems to me there were plenty of well educated people who were not so sure what happened.
Seems to me it took over 3 years to come to a "probable" conclusion.
I guess the NIST, FEMA and whoever reports were not that bright if they didn't have it figured out day one huh.
As for what i do, well you wouldn't understand what i do since you don't hold the relevant education and experience..you're only an engineer...lol

[Animal]

Originally Posted by lexicon008

Oh i'm immature? I'm not the one who claimed the collapses were obvious day one to everyone with a grade school education.
Seems to me there were plenty of well educated people who were not so sure what happened.
Seems to me it took over 3 years to come to a "probable" conclusion.
I guess the NIST, FEMA and whoever reports were not that bright if they didn't have it figured out day one huh.
As for what i do, well you wouldn't understand what i do..you're only an engineer...lol

Still haven't figured out the difference between 'WHAT' and 'HOW'

ome back when you can grasp those simple concepts.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The fact that an upper section of a building is applying a force to the supports below it is not even questionable. Weight is due to F = mg. The fact that the upper section doesn't move is that it is having an equivalent force applied to it in the opposite direction.

And it took W.D.Clinger and Dave Rogers to teach you that after you had embarrassed yourself by claiming that static objects were accelerating at g.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I believe I used the term attempting to be accelerated in one direction but it is in equilibrium because of the opposing force.

Er, no you didn't. Shall I look it up? It's still in the archives here. No problem for me .... (and even your editing capacity doesn't stretch back that far).

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by GlennB

And it took W.D.Clinger and Dave Rogers to teach you that after you had embarrassed yourself by claiming that static objects were accelerating at g.



Er, no you didn't. Shall I look it up? It's still in the archives here. No problem for me .... (and even your editing capacity doesn't stretch back that far).

This and a couple of other threads have shown how thoroughly bogus the NIST WTC reports and Bazant analyses are, and you want to play with semantics. It proves just how disingenuous you are. You really should just go play in a sandbox somewhere for what your input is worth.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I have proven you wrong on every single issue we have disagreed on in this thread, so how you can say I am the incompetent one between the two of us is beyond me.

They are here to obfuscate every fact you present.

[NoahFence]

Quote:

I have proven you wrong on every single issue we have disagreed on in this thread, so how you can say I am the incompetent one between the two of us is beyond me.

You practicing for stand-up or something? 'Cuz THAT'S funny : right there.

Listen Tony. GET A NEW HOBBY. Please.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Damn I was a victim of the famous TS edit there. His post has completely changed because he's realised he's made a silly mistake.

It is pretty funny...

8 of 10 of his posts are edited after he realizes he screwed something up, and even doing so, still can't get anything right.

[Animal]

Originally Posted by clayton moore

they are here to obfuscate correct every fact myth you present.

ftfy

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

This and a couple of other threads have shown how thoroughly bogus the NIST WTC reports and Bazant analyses are, and you want to play with semantics.

Objecting to your claim that a static object is accelerating at g is "semantics" ? How bizarre.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

They are here to obfuscate every fact you present.

Tony has been soundly refuted and is being ignored by every single respected engineering organization on Earth. You're a cheerleader for the wrong team, Clayton

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Tony has been soundly refuted and is being ignored by every single respected engineering organization on Earth. You're a cheerleader for the wrong team, Clayton

You are speaking strictly as a cheerleader yourself I presume.

MM

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

You are speaking strictly as a cheerleader yourself I presume.

MM

I'm speaking of someone who pays attention to what the real experts think, not what spittle spewing cult members on obscure internet forums and web sites present--yea, I'm a cheerleader for the real world.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by tfk

Sorry, fuel cells are just energy storage units too. Takes energy to charge them.

Also, for all batteries, disposal of batteries is biggest problem. I'd fully expect the same issue with Lithium.

We need a prime mover.

For me, fission nuclear is the only WORKABLE short term bridge to a long term solution, fusion nuclear.

Other technologies will supplement, but don't provide sufficient, constant, reliable energy.

Oh I totally agree, but the problem really is the power source (an extremely safe and reliable one). We can make a very efficient electric vehicle (3 phase AC wheel motors with inverter motor controls), but how do you make it go and go without burning gas? Right now, the best answer is hydrogen, no need to charge it. Just fill it up like your old Nova lol. We have a fuel cell option for electric forklifts. Have to install a filling station and store hydrogen though. For safety, I'd stick with lead acid batteries (for machines, not cars).

Baby steps my friend. You don't want Joe Bob, the shade tree mechanic, rebuilding his own fusion unit just yet lol.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

You are talking apples and oranges when you discuss prime movers in your attempt to diminish my point about lithium ion batteries being a game changer. One doesn't need a nuclear power plant in their house to use the energy from it. The lithium ion battery in an electric or hybrid vehicle may not generate the actual energy but it puts it in useable form for the platform. Where the energy originally comes from before being stored in the battery is another point and of course the energy generation by wind, solar, tidal, wave, and OTEC energy can be done cleanly and renewably and transferred to the battery.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The only reason we have Li-ion batteries is because lead acids are too heavy (amongst other problems). Many of the worlds first automobiles were powered by banks of 6 or 8 volt LA batteries. The game changer is actually the tech in the vehicles. Li-ion batteries actually handcuff that potential to time consuming charging and their limited range. And Tony, How do you think most of the world's electricity is generated? Coal, natural gas, and oil. The more people that are charging, the more oil the power stations are gonna need. I laugh at hippies in electric cars cause they haven't looked into it very deeply (esp around here). They'll find their footprint is still decently big. Want to change something? Ride a bike (with pedals).

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by Justin39640

You have no clue what you are talking about. The only reason we have Li-ion batteries is because lead acids are too heavy (amongst other problems). Many of the worlds first automobiles were powered by banks of 6 or 8 volt LA batteries. The game changer is actually the tech in the vehicles. Li-ion batteries actually handcuff that potential to time consuming charging and their limited range. And Tony, How do you think most of the world's electricity is generated? Coal, natural gas, and oil. The more people that are charging, the more oil the power stations are gonna need. I laugh at hippies in electric cars cause they haven't looked into it very deeply (esp around here). They'll find their footprint is still decently big. Want to change something? Ride a bike (with pedals).

Lithium ion is certainly a game changer for electric and hybrid vehicles. The reason for that is energy density, and the fact that enough energy can be put on board the vehicle without incurring an excessive weight penalty. The weight penalty is why lead acid batteries won't work for vehicles in a satisfactory way and that was why the internal combustion engine won out 100 years ago. Lithium ion changes that paradigm.

Currently 67% of the world's electric is generated by coal, natural gas, and oil and about 29% by non-CO2 producing nuclear and hydro. Wind and solar have been gaining ground over just the last few years and will be supplanting coal and oil significantly in the near future. Natural gas has a significantly lower carbon footprint per kWh generated than oil and coal http://www.terrapass.com/science-tec...to-the-rescue/. With natural gas electric generation replacing coal the carbon footprint of the electric or hybrid vehicle goes down significantly. The secondary point I was making concerning wind, solar, tidal, wave, and OTEC generating methods was about going to clean renewables. Using these clean renewable methods the carbon footprint of the electric or hybrid vehicle can be quite small. The reduction of the carbon footprint with vehicles can be done very efficiently with electric, but not significantly with vehicles burning fossil fuels directly.

[Animal]

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Lithium ion is certainly a game changer for electric and hybrid vehicles. The reason for that is energy density, and the fact that enough energy can be put on board the vehicle without incurring an excessive weight penalty. The weight penalty is why lead acid batteries won't work for vehicles in a satisfactory way and that was why the internal combustion engine won out 100 years ago. Lithium ion changes that paradigm.

Currently 67% of the world's electric is generated by coal, natural gas, and oil and about 29% by non-CO2 producing nuclear and hydro. Wind and solar have been gaining ground over just the last few years and will be supplanting coal and oil significantly in the near future. Natural gas has a significantly lower carbon footprint per kWh generated than oil and coal http://www.terrapass.com/science-tec...to-the-rescue/. With natural gas electric generation replacing coal the carbon footprint of the electric or hybrid vehicle goes down significantly. The secondary point I was making concerning wind, solar, tidal, wave, and OTEC generating methods was about going to clean renewables. Using these clean renewable methods the carbon footprint of the electric or hybrid vehicle can be quite small. The reduction of the carbon footprint with vehicles can be done very efficiently with electric, but not significantly with vehicles burning fossil fuels directly.

We can add economics to the long list of topics that TS has displayed his incompetence.

[BasqueArch]

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.

[Locknar]

This thread has long since been off-topic, beaches of rules 0 and 12 aside, discussing the towers (in general), power, etc. As such, thread closed. Please discuss 9/11 topics in the available threads, as appropriate.

Posted By:Locknar

[remo]

Yet Salvarinas has 32 3/4" shear-studs on each of the beams W24x55-53ft&11/16in long, and whereas NIST calculated expansion on unrestrained beams with no shear-studs at 598.89˚C = 5.70in 'walk'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zsp0...ayer_embedded#!
shows NIST worked on seat PF at 11in wide with two bolts attaching girder, allowing for no shear stud or other resistance [welds] in calculating expansion at 600C.
32 shear-studs equally spaced each beam and the girder W33x130, between column 44 and 79 had 30 3/4" studs equally spaced. Salverinas 1986, but More than that, Frankel drawing 1091 has the seat at 12", with PG under it at 14", walk off to fail approx 9.4" required which pretty well does for the 5.70 max achieved by NIST on UNRESTRAINED beams., but, further, drawing 9114 has a PL plate 5.5"x3/4"x1'6" welded each side of center girder flange. not two bolts at all. But a girder with multiple restraint to beam walk off.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by remo

Yet Salvarinas has 32 3/4" shear-studs on each of the beams W24x55-53ft&11/16in long, and whereas NIST calculated expansion on unrestrained beams with no shear-studs at 598.89˚C = 5.70in 'walk'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zsp0...ayer_embedded#!
shows NIST worked on seat PF at 11in wide with two bolts attaching girder, allowing for no shear stud or other resistance [welds] in calculating expansion at 600C.
32 shear-studs equally spaced each beam and the girder W33x130, between column 44 and 79 had 30 3/4" studs equally spaced. Salverinas 1986, but More than that, Frankel drawing 1091 has the seat at 12", with PG under it at 14", walk off to fail approx 9.4" required which pretty well does for the 5.70 max achieved by NIST on UNRESTRAINED beams., but, further, drawing 9114 has a PL plate 5.5"x3/4"x1'6" welded each side of center girder flange. not two bolts at all. But a girder with multiple restraint to beam walk off.

That specific subject is the topic of another thread where it was discussed extensively. Go find it.

This thread, the one you are posting in is dealing with another subject and you are off topic. If you want to discuss something else then go to threads that discuss it.

I might add that your inability to properly express yourself was amusing but was becoming tiresome. Much better this time I must admit. Also, glad to see that you managed to leave the frothing at the mouth rhetoric aside this time.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Also, glad to see that you managed to leave the frothing at the mouth rhetoric aside this time.

Copy and paste tends to have that effect!

[jaydeehess]

Here you go remo go for it.
105 pages for you to review and enjoy.

ETA: it did go off topic wildly and the thread was subsequently closed. A fate that could befall this thread if posters took up your own off topic derail. However the discussion for the first 80 pages seems pretty much directly on this specific bugaboo of yours.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Justin39640

Copy and paste tends to have that effect!

One wonders then if such oddities as 'lost of blood' is a copy of someone else's inability to express themselves in English and remo was unable to recognize the mistake, or if its his own error.