WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44 - Page 43

DGM · 28th April 2012, 02:20 PM

This is mostly for Tony and Chris7.

Here's some light reading as to how an old iron worker (like myself) could walk that beam off that seat no problem.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/01.cfm#a

Just imagine what would happen if the real fires didn't heat everything exactly evenly.

Tony Szamboti · 28th April 2012, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

NIST have the building failing, your calculations have it hanging on by (almost literally) a fingernail. If pushed far enough the girder would be "caught" by the pg plate? Oh really?

But what's truly funny is that your, and C7's and others', CD devices need to be surviving the very fires that brought it to that state. Fires whose effect you'll calculate to many decimal places. "Delusion" ? The delusion lies in tracking down and (supposedly) finding fault with minor detail while ignoring vast, glaring failures in one's own belief. "Mote and beam" mean anything to you?

We eagerly await your public statement of a plausible narrative of why/when/how the CD was performed. Start a new thread, by all means.

With the flange stiffeners the flange never comes off the original seat so why do you mention it needs to drop to the pg plate?

Being able to push the girder by 4.75" maximum when it would need to be pushed about 10" isn't what most would call hanging on by a fingernail.

There are a number of ways to design demolition devices to survive office fire temperatures.

Tony Szamboti · 28th April 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

This is mostly for Tony and Chris7.

Here's some light reading as to how an old iron worker (like myself) could walk that beam off that seat no problem.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/01.cfm#a

Just imagine what would happen if the real fires didn't heat everything exactly evenly.

The calculations which prove the NIST collapse initiation theory to be impossible consider sagging, shortening, buckling, etc.

Simply throwing stuff at the wall, with little to no basis or linkage, to help enable a continuation of a belief even when faced with superior data which contradicts it, is what Ryan Mackey says those with an Irreducible Delusion do. I think he was right on that, as I am starting to see real evidence of the phenomena.

scissorhands · 28th April 2012, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

There are a number of ways to design demolition devices to survive office fire temperatures.

What are those ways?
Because I want to demolish an office building, which will already be on fire, using explosives that arent affected by the heat of the fire.
Any ideas?
Thanks.

Tony Szamboti · 28th April 2012, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by scissorhands

What are those ways?
Because I want to demolish an office building, which will already be on fire, using explosives that arent affected by the heat of the fire.
Any ideas?
Thanks.

Your question is clearly not credible.

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.

scissorhands · 28th April 2012, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Your question is clearly not credible.

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.

Thats not very helpful Tony.
I was relying on you.
You did say you knew of a number of ways of doing this.

Do you mean some kind of ceramic container built around the columns of the building?
Containing the thermite?

triforcharity · 28th April 2012, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Your question is clearly not credible.

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.

Nobody would notice that at all.....nor would it leave any type of telltale signs either.......

(Hint: Your box for this to be able to happen would need to be about 4'x4' and about 14 feet tall.....)

DGM · 28th April 2012, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The calculations which prove the NIST collapse initiation theory to be impossible consider sagging, shortening, buckling, etc.

Simply throwing stuff at the wall, with little to no basis or linkage, to help enable a continuation of a belief even when faced with superior data which contradicts it, is what Ryan Mackey says those with an Irreducible Delusion do. I think he was right on that, as I am starting to see real evidence of the phenomena.

So you believe the heating throughout the whole system was even or this does not matter?

Tony Szamboti · 28th April 2012, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

So you believe the heating throughout the whole system was even or this does not matter?

I don't think the fires had anything to do with the collapse, as the effects from them would not have been anywhere near significant enough. That is what has been found in the scrutiny of the NIST claims in their 2008 report.

DGM · 28th April 2012, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I don't think the fires had anything to do with the collapse, as the effects from them would not have been significant enough. That is what has been found in the scrutiny of the NIST claims in their 2008 report.

I know this. It still doesn't answer my question.

Let's say I heat a beam in the center on one side. does your expansion (along it's length) calculations still apply? Will the beam still be straight? This is info that is in the text I quoted.

Tony Szamboti · 28th April 2012, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

I know this? It still doesn't answer my question.

Let's say I heat a beam in the center on one side. does your expansion (along it's length) calculations still apply? Will the beam still be straight? This is info that is in the text I quoted.

I read the information at the link you provided and the point you are making about heating a beam on its side here and questioning the calculations because you think it makes a difference is getting to the point of silliness.

My point is that there are no circumstances under which fire could have caused the collapse of WTC 7. NIST took the best shot at trying to explain it being due to natural circumstances by fires and their explanation does not work.

You really should read Ryan Mackey's discussion of what an Irreducible Delusion is and give it some thought as to whether you are trapped in that mindset.

DGM · 28th April 2012, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I read the information at the link you provided and the point you are making about heating a beam on its side here and questioning the calculations because you think it makes a difference is getting to the point of silliness.

My point is that there are no circumstances under which fire could have caused the collapse of WTC 7. NIST took the best shot at trying to explain it being due to natural circumstances by fires and their explanation does not work.

What? The bolts/connections could not fail? You're venturing into debating the need for fire-proofing steel buildings. What are you talking about?

LSSBB · 28th April 2012, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

My point is that there are no circumstances under which fire could have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

And you make this point with hand calculations, without answering tfk's questions about your assumptions, then hand-wave away his points in this post?

Tony Szamboti · 28th April 2012, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

What? The bolts/connections could not fail? You're venturing into debating the need for fire-proofing steel buildings. What are you talking about?

My point is that at no time was there ever a condition in WTC 7 where column 79 and other columns could fail, and that is what would have been necessary. I did not say scattered bolts and connections couldn't fail due to fire.

Tony Szamboti · 28th April 2012, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

And you make this point with hand calculations, without answering tfk's questions about your assumptions, then hand-wave away his points in this post?

It seems you are the hand waver and possibly even disingenuous.

I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue.

DGM · 28th April 2012, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

My point is that at no time was there ever a condition in WTC 7 where column 79 and other columns could fail, and that is what would have been necessary. I did not say scattered bolts and connections couldn't fail due to fire.

You'll have to forgive my skepticism but, Do you ever plan to be able to back up this statement with some real engineering? So far, you only seem to be hoping picking at items in isolation is enough.

There comes a time where just raising a doubt is not going to cut it. I hope you took this into consideration in your letter to NIST.

LSSBB · 28th April 2012, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It seems you are the hand waver and possibly even disingenuous.

I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue.

Where in your post do you directly address his questions with proof that your assumptions are correct?

Is it here?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

This is nothing more than If You Can't Dazzle Them With Brilliance Baffle Them With BS and something seems to be missing in all this. It is called an answer. I think the problem is that your answer won't be much different than mine and you are full of it by saying the only way you can get an answer is with FEA.

How about here?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I believe I did say the deflections were only those due to heating and not the original load at room temperature.

Here maybe?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The simply supported beam deflection equation is commonly used for long beams with fixed ends, as the end conditions don't change the answer in any significant way, and that is why you don't show us.

How about here?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

The rest of what you say has even less of an effect. If you maintain any of these points are applicable in any significant way then show it in a result.

Is it this response?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

We are all waiting to see how your points prove your claim that they would make a difference comparable to the USS Nimitz vs. a row boat. C'mon Tom show us results.

Or is it this one?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

People should also remember this is from a guy (tfk) who claimed the girder between columns 76 and 79 could push column 79 to the east by 4.5 inches but when challenged with an analysis showing the girder would buckle long before that couldn't back up his statement and is probably hoping everybody here will forget about that.

newton3376 · 28th April 2012, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It seems you are the hand waver and possibly even disingenuous.

I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue.

Tony...

If you can't answer tfk's questions then you should find another Engineer who is competent/experienced enough to answer them...

Since you have not yet answered them please go talk so someone else who can explain them to you.

So far you are making yourself look like a rather incompetent Engineer by not being able to answer EVEN ONE of the questions/issues that Tom raised.

If you think Tom's questions/comments were difficult then you are in for a surprise if NIST bothers to answer you....if you can't even engage with ONE experienced, competent Engineer then how do you hope to have a discussion with several from NIST?
Or hundreds from academia?
Or thousands from industry?

You are out of your element....drop the 9/11 stuff and stop making yourself look foolish to those of us who are working Engineers....go back to doing whatever it is you do at work day to day.

Tony Szamboti · 28th April 2012, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by newton3376

Tony...

If you can't answer tfk's questions then you should find another Engineer who is competent/experienced enough to answer them...

Since you have not yet answered them please go talk so someone else who can explain them to you.

So far you are making yourself look like a rather incompetent Engineer by not being able to answer EVEN ONE of the questions/issues that Tom raised.

If you think Tom's questions/comments were difficult then you are in for a surprise if NIST bothers to answer you....if you can't even engage with ONE experienced, competent Engineer then how do you hope to have a discussion with several from NIST?
Or hundreds from academia?
Or thousands from industry?

You are out of your element....drop the 9/11 stuff and stop making yourself look foolish to those of us who are working Engineers....go back to doing whatever it is you do at work day to day.

Are you even saying anything here? It sounds like blah, blah, blah..... blah and you then have the nerve to try and impugn my abilities. Wow.

You are either too incompetent yourself to realize I did answer tfk's questions by showing them to be irrelevant or are intent on being an annoyance by repeating nonsense here saying I didn't answer them.

It is clear that those of you who refuse to believe that the NIST explanation of fire being the cause for WTC 7's destruction is impossible will look for any way to put off being forced to acknowledge it.

I am done here as I really don't have time for those of you trying to maintain your Irreducible Delusion. I knew Ryan Mackey had something right there, he just wasn't pointing it in the right direction.

ergo · 28th April 2012, 05:36 PM

I think the folks badgering you here understand about as much as I do in terms of tfk's "analysis". They wouldn't know if he had answered you or not, or vice versa.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue.

NoahFence · 28th April 2012, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

My point is that at no time was there ever a condition in WTC 7 where column 79 and other columns could fail, and that is what would have been necessary. I did not say scattered bolts and connections couldn't fail due to fire.

Apparently they did fail. You may notice the building is no longer there.

Tony Szamboti · 28th April 2012, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Apparently they did fail. You may notice the building is no longer there.

Did I have to say the columns could not have failed by reason of fires for you to understand?

If you are representative of the level of technical understanding here it isn't surprising that you and a number of others like Ozeco, Triforcharity, and DGM, don't see why the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible.

NoahFence · 28th April 2012, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Did I have to say the columns could not have failed by reason of fires for you to understand?

If you are representative of the level of technical understadning here it isn't surprising that you and a number of others like Ozeco, Triforcharity, and DGM, don't see why the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible.

Funny thing is I don't need to be techhical to prove you people wrong. All I use is common sense.

newton3376 · 28th April 2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Are you even saying anything here? It sounds like blah, blah, blah..... blah and you then have the nerve to try and impugn my abilities. Wow.

Try answering Tom's questions Tony....

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

You are either too incompetent yourself to realize I did answer tfk's questions by showing them to be irrelevant or are intent on being an annoyance by repeating nonsense here saying I didn't answer them.

Incorrect.

Answer the questions.....if you can't simply admit it and move on.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

It is clear that those of you who refuse to believe that the NIST explanation of fire being the cause for WTC 7's destruction is impossible will look for any way to put off being forced to acknowledge it.

Tony....the vast majority of the worlds experts agree with the general conclusions of NIST.

So "those of us who refuse to believe" is actually around 99.99% of the worlds Engineers...

Again....answer the questions Tony.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

I am done here as I really don't have time for those of you trying to maintain your Irreducible Delusion. I knew Ryan Mackey had something right there, he just wasn't pointing it in the right direction.

Answer the questions Tony.

Or is this another case where one of US has to answer the questions for you (Tom already did that)?

Answer the questions Tony.

LSSBB · 28th April 2012, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

I think the folks badgering you here understand about as much as I do in terms of tfk's "analysis". They wouldn't know if he had answered you or not, or vice versa.

You assume so, ergo? Let's take Tom's first point:

Originally Posted by tfk

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=5901

Note well that the equation that you used assumes that the correct stress strain curve is the dashed lines on the left of the graph.

The fact that, when materials ~~creep~~ yield due to temperature, they are no longer operating in the linear mode. You'd need to calculate the stress conditions at each point in the beam to figure out if the material could actually support that stress level at that particular temperature.

To the extent that any particular element was shown to not be able to support the stress assumed by the linear analysis, your results will be wrong.

Notice the term I highlighted. That means that we are dealing with a non-linear equation. You may not know what that means, and I do. I have had advanced math classes and have had to work with non-linear equations. That also means that you can't take a linear approach, as Tony does with his equations. Tony does not directly respond to this assertion with a derivation that shows that there would be no difference, either by deriving the appropriate equations or doing a computational analysis that shows a negligible difference.

newton3376 · 28th April 2012, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

I think the folks badgering you here understand about as much as I do in terms of tfk's "analysis". They wouldn't know if he had answered you or not, or vice versa.

I understand much much more than you do ergo.....but that is because I am a degreed, competent, experienced Engineer and you are not.

Now....can Tony address the issues and answer the questions or not?

DGM · 28th April 2012, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Did I have to say the columns could not have failed by reason of fires for you to understand?

If you are representative of the level of technical understanding here it isn't surprising that you and a number of others like Ozeco, Triforcharity, and DGM, don't see why the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible.

Actually I resent that remark.

I do know you will never actually do anything to challenge NIST because you will never be able to competently address the subject on their level. I do know people like ergo do care, That is in fact your intended audience.

If you do actually ever produce a coherent/relevant reply. By all means, let me know, I'd love to read it.

ergo · 28th April 2012, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by newton3376

I understand much much more than you do ergo.....but that is because I am a degreed, competent, experienced Engineer and you are not.

* cough *

Quote:

Now....can Tony address the issues and answer the questions or not?

Tony says he used the same assumptions as NIST did. What's the problem?

Animal · 28th April 2012, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Simply throwing stuff at the wall, with little to no basis or linkage, to help enable a continuation of a belief even when faced with superior data which contradicts it,

Trooferism in a nutshell

newton3376 · 28th April 2012, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

* cough *

The truth can sting sometimes........

Originally Posted by ergo

Tony says he used the same assumptions as NIST did. What's the problem?

The problem is that his analysis is incorrect.........incorrect in the methodology and incorrect in the conclusions.

At certain points he oversimplifies the analysis and at other points he is just simply wrong.

If he was correct........you can be 100% certain that many other (more competent) engineers would already have discovered these "obvious facts" and there would be a debate within the community.

There is no debate.

There is no debate because his errors.....some obvious and some more subtle.... cause most other Engineers to dismiss his analysis and ignore his babbling.

So that leaves us with the internet.....and to be more specific internet chat rooms, debate forums, and blogs.....and those chat rooms and debate forums are ones like this.....like the JREF where people debate conspiracy theories and other insane nonsense.

That is where you see these discussions....the forums that are more science minded like physicsforums.com do not entertain 9/11 discussions because the topic is considered pseudo science.

If you do not grasp this reality almost 11 years after the event.....and continue to have the delusion that there is a real debate over this issue...then no one can save you from yourself. Just go on believing it for the rest of your life....it won't be any different in 50 years then it is today.

ozeco41 · 28th April 2012, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by newton3376

...The problem is that his analysis is incorrect.........incorrect in the methodology and incorrect in the conclusions.

At certain points he oversimplifies the analysis and at other points he is just simply wrong...

Animal · 28th April 2012, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by newton3376

The truth can sting sometimes........

The problem is that his analysis is incorrect.........incorrect in the methodology and incorrect in the conclusions.

At certain points he oversimplifies the analysis and at other points he is just simply wrong.

I think a lot more is being read into the NIST report by troofers than what is really there

ozeco41 · 28th April 2012, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Animal

I think a lot more is being read into the NIST report by troofers than what is really there

That is a big part of the problem.

LSSBB · 28th April 2012, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Animal

I think a lot more is being read into the NIST report by troofers than what is really there

They think that they can "Disprove NIST and blow this thing wide open" by a few quick calculations, drawings in MS Paint, and some Excel spreadsheets, without even trying to prove their own "Controlled Demolition" beyond some "looks like" speculation and half-thought out guesswork.

It's basically the laziest campaign against an "evil empire" anyone could conceive of.

ozeco41 · 28th April 2012, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

They think that they can "Disprove NIST and blow this thing wide open" by a few quick calculations, drawings in MS Paint, and some Excel spreadsheets, without even trying to prove their own "Controlled Demolition" beyond some "looks like" speculation and half-thought out guesswork.

It's basically the laziest campaign against an "evil empire" anyone could conceive of.

The underlying problem in logic is that they take one apparent anomaly out of context and think it proves something. This topic of "walk off" and the "thermXte" threads suffer from the same error.

If NIST was wrong on walk off (and that is a big "if" not yet argued effectively) that error is only one link in a case for CD. There are another dozen links to establish and until all links are proven the alleged error over "walk off" remains nothing more than an anomaly.

The situation with thermXte is analogous. Proving that there was thermXte on ground zero is no more than (say) 5 or 10% of a CD case. Unless the other 90-95% can be proved thermXte remains an anomaly.

Tony S's shifting the objective from "Prove CD" to "Prove NIST was wrong" only confuses the gullible. And it opens the door to another standard truther bit of false logic. The idea that an error in detail by NIST somehow (a) invalidates all of NIST's work AND/OR (b) proves CD. Whether stated explicitly or left implicit both those concepts are of course ridiculous.

GlennB · 29th April 2012, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Your question is clearly not credible.

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.

And why would the perps think to use ceramic devices? And what incendiary - and its ignition system - would survive the temperatures experienced? And what incendiary can perform fast enough to be useful in a CD?

Simple questions, Tony, but ones that your endless research into NIST failings are well, and deliberately, designed to obscure. You have no plausible theory of your own. If you did you'd publish it. Or, deep down, are you embarrassed by the sheer absurdity of those CD thoughts that bubble through your mind?

GlennB · 29th April 2012, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

With the flange stiffeners the flange never comes off the original seat so why do you mention it needs to drop to the pg plate?

My apolgies, it was C7 who claimed the 2" plate could "catch" the girder if it fell to the W.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti

Being able to push the girder by 4.75" maximum when it would need to be pushed about 10" isn't what most would call hanging on by a fingernail.

In which you claim that the 3/4" inch stiffeners on the top flange would stop the bottom flange folding with only ~2" of that flange remaining on the plate? That would be a truly remarkable claim, so I must have misunderstood you.

Animal · 29th April 2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

And why would the perps think to use ceramic devices? And what incendiary - and its ignition system - would survive the temperatures experienced? And what incendiary can perform fast enough to be useful in a CD?

Simple questions, Tony, but ones that your endless research into NIST failings are well, and deliberately, designed to obscure. You have no plausible theory of your own. If you did you'd publish it. Or, deep down, are you embarrassed by the sheer absurdity of those CD thoughts that bubble through your mind?

Anyone that believes any sort of explosives and or other demolition type devices could have been installed in a building occupied 24/7 in lower Manhattan, without having a least one person come forward out of the 10's of thousands that would have had to be involved, is either 1) willfully ignorant, 2)terminally stupid, or 3)both

Miragememories · 29th April 2012, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Animal

Anyone that believes any sort of explosives and or other demolition type devices could have been installed in a building occupied 24/7 in lower Manhattan, without having a least one person come forward out of the 10's of thousands that would have had to be involved, is either 1) willfully ignorant, 2)terminally stupid, or 3)both

Incredulity is not an argument.

MM

Animal · 29th April 2012, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Incredulity is not an argument.

MM

Reality is......and my statement reamins that.

28th April 2012, 02:20 PM	#1681
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	This is mostly for Tony and Chris7. Here's some light reading as to how an old iron worker (like myself) could walk that beam off that seat no problem. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/01.cfm#a Just imagine what would happen if the real fires didn't heat everything exactly evenly.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 28th April 2012 at 02:22 PM.

28th April 2012, 02:30 PM	#1682
Tony Szamboti Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by GlennB NIST have the building failing, your calculations have it hanging on by (almost literally) a fingernail. If pushed far enough the girder would be "caught" by the pg plate? Oh really? But what's truly funny is that your, and C7's and others', CD devices need to be surviving the very fires that brought it to that state. Fires whose effect you'll calculate to many decimal places. "Delusion" ? The delusion lies in tracking down and (supposedly) finding fault with minor detail while ignoring vast, glaring failures in one's own belief. "Mote and beam" mean anything to you? We eagerly await your public statement of a plausible narrative of why/when/how the CD was performed. Start a new thread, by all means. With the flange stiffeners the flange never comes off the original seat so why do you mention it needs to drop to the pg plate? Being able to push the girder by 4.75" maximum when it would need to be pushed about 10" isn't what most would call hanging on by a fingernail. There are a number of ways to design demolition devices to survive office fire temperatures.
	Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 28th April 2012 at 02:43 PM.

28th April 2012, 02:40 PM	#1683
Tony Szamboti Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by DGM This is mostly for Tony and Chris7. Here's some light reading as to how an old iron worker (like myself) could walk that beam off that seat no problem. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/01.cfm#a Just imagine what would happen if the real fires didn't heat everything exactly evenly. The calculations which prove the NIST collapse initiation theory to be impossible consider sagging, shortening, buckling, etc. Simply throwing stuff at the wall, with little to no basis or linkage, to help enable a continuation of a belief even when faced with superior data which contradicts it, is what Ryan Mackey says those with an Irreducible Delusion do. I think he was right on that, as I am starting to see real evidence of the phenomena.
	Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 28th April 2012 at 02:47 PM.

28th April 2012, 03:16 PM	#1685
Tony Szamboti Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by scissorhands What are those ways? Because I want to demolish an office building, which will already be on fire, using explosives that arent affected by the heat of the fire. Any ideas? Thanks. Your question is clearly not credible. However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.
	Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 28th April 2012 at 03:19 PM.

28th April 2012, 03:40 PM	#1687
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,158	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Your question is clearly not credible. However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used. Nobody would notice that at all.....nor would it leave any type of telltale signs either....... (Hint: Your box for this to be able to happen would need to be about 4'x4' and about 14 feet tall.....)
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

28th April 2012, 02:58 PM	#1684
scissorhands Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,537	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti There are a number of ways to design demolition devices to survive office fire temperatures. What are those ways? Because I want to demolish an office building, which will already be on fire, using explosives that arent affected by the heat of the fire. Any ideas? Thanks.

28th April 2012, 03:32 PM	#1686
scissorhands Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,537	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Your question is clearly not credible. However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used. Thats not very helpful Tony. I was relying on you. You did say you knew of a number of ways of doing this. Do you mean some kind of ceramic container built around the columns of the building? Containing the thermite?

28th April 2012, 04:05 PM	#1688
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti The calculations which prove the NIST collapse initiation theory to be impossible consider sagging, shortening, buckling, etc. Simply throwing stuff at the wall, with little to no basis or linkage, to help enable a continuation of a belief even when faced with superior data which contradicts it, is what Ryan Mackey says those with an Irreducible Delusion do. I think he was right on that, as I am starting to see real evidence of the phenomena. So you believe the heating throughout the whole system was even or this does not matter?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

28th April 2012, 04:10 PM	#1689
Tony Szamboti Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by DGM So you believe the heating throughout the whole system was even or this does not matter? I don't think the fires had anything to do with the collapse, as the effects from them would not have been anywhere near significant enough. That is what has been found in the scrutiny of the NIST claims in their 2008 report.
	Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 28th April 2012 at 04:14 PM.

28th April 2012, 04:14 PM	#1690
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti I don't think the fires had anything to do with the collapse, as the effects from them would not have been significant enough. That is what has been found in the scrutiny of the NIST claims in their 2008 report. I know this. It still doesn't answer my question. Let's say I heat a beam in the center on one side. does your expansion (along it's length) calculations still apply? Will the beam still be straight? This is info that is in the text I quoted.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 28th April 2012 at 04:17 PM. Reason: bold in response to Tony's edit

28th April 2012, 04:19 PM	#1691
Tony Szamboti Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by DGM I know this? It still doesn't answer my question. Let's say I heat a beam in the center on one side. does your expansion (along it's length) calculations still apply? Will the beam still be straight? This is info that is in the text I quoted. I read the information at the link you provided and the point you are making about heating a beam on its side here and questioning the calculations because you think it makes a difference is getting to the point of silliness. My point is that there are no circumstances under which fire could have caused the collapse of WTC 7. NIST took the best shot at trying to explain it being due to natural circumstances by fires and their explanation does not work. You really should read Ryan Mackey's discussion of what an Irreducible Delusion is and give it some thought as to whether you are trapped in that mindset.
	Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 28th April 2012 at 04:23 PM.

28th April 2012, 04:22 PM	#1692
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti I read the information at the link you provided and the point you are making about heating a beam on its side here and questioning the calculations because you think it makes a difference is getting to the point of silliness. My point is that there are no circumstances under which fire could have caused the collapse of WTC 7. NIST took the best shot at trying to explain it being due to natural circumstances by fires and their explanation does not work. What? The bolts/connections could not fail? You're venturing into debating the need for fire-proofing steel buildings. What are you talking about?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

28th April 2012, 04:23 PM	#1693
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,492	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti My point is that there are no circumstances under which fire could have caused the collapse of WTC 7. And you make this point with hand calculations, without answering tfk's questions about your assumptions, then hand-wave away his points in this post?
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

28th April 2012, 04:39 PM	#1694
Tony Szamboti Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by DGM What? The bolts/connections could not fail? You're venturing into debating the need for fire-proofing steel buildings. What are you talking about? My point is that at no time was there ever a condition in WTC 7 where column 79 and other columns could fail, and that is what would have been necessary. I did not say scattered bolts and connections couldn't fail due to fire.

28th April 2012, 04:41 PM	#1695
Tony Szamboti Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by LSSBB And you make this point with hand calculations, without answering tfk's questions about your assumptions, then hand-wave away his points in this post? It seems you are the hand waver and possibly even disingenuous. I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue.

28th April 2012, 04:48 PM	#1696
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti My point is that at no time was there ever a condition in WTC 7 where column 79 and other columns could fail, and that is what would have been necessary. I did not say scattered bolts and connections couldn't fail due to fire. You'll have to forgive my skepticism but, Do you ever plan to be able to back up this statement with some real engineering? So far, you only seem to be hoping picking at items in isolation is enough. There comes a time where just raising a doubt is not going to cut it. I hope you took this into consideration in your letter to NIST.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 28th April 2012 at 04:49 PM.

28th April 2012, 04:56 PM	#1697
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,492	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti It seems you are the hand waver and possibly even disingenuous. I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue. Where in your post do you directly address his questions with proof that your assumptions are correct? Is it here? Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti This is nothing more than If You Can't Dazzle Them With Brilliance Baffle Them With BS and something seems to be missing in all this. It is called an answer. I think the problem is that your answer won't be much different than mine and you are full of it by saying the only way you can get an answer is with FEA. How about here? Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti I believe I did say the deflections were only those due to heating and not the original load at room temperature. Here maybe? Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti The simply supported beam deflection equation is commonly used for long beams with fixed ends, as the end conditions don't change the answer in any significant way, and that is why you don't show us. How about here? Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti The rest of what you say has even less of an effect. If you maintain any of these points are applicable in any significant way then show it in a result. Is it this response? Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti We are all waiting to see how your points prove your claim that they would make a difference comparable to the USS Nimitz vs. a row boat. C'mon Tom show us results. Or is it this one? Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti People should also remember this is from a guy (tfk) who claimed the girder between columns 76 and 79 could push column 79 to the east by 4.5 inches but when challenged with an analysis showing the girder would buckle long before that couldn't back up his statement and is probably hoping everybody here will forget about that.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

28th April 2012, 05:12 PM	#1698
newton3376 The Truth Movement.....still not at 1% Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,315	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti It seems you are the hand waver and possibly even disingenuous. I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue. Tony... If you can't answer tfk's questions then you should find another Engineer who is competent/experienced enough to answer them... Since you have not yet answered them please go talk so someone else who can explain them to you. So far you are making yourself look like a rather incompetent Engineer by not being able to answer EVEN ONE of the questions/issues that Tom raised. If you think Tom's questions/comments were difficult then you are in for a surprise if NIST bothers to answer you....if you can't even engage with ONE experienced, competent Engineer then how do you hope to have a discussion with several from NIST? Or hundreds from academia? Or thousands from industry? You are out of your element....drop the 9/11 stuff and stop making yourself look foolish to those of us who are working Engineers....go back to doing whatever it is you do at work day to day.
	__________________ AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%

28th April 2012, 05:34 PM	#1699
Tony Szamboti Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by newton3376 Tony... If you can't answer tfk's questions then you should find another Engineer who is competent/experienced enough to answer them... Since you have not yet answered them please go talk so someone else who can explain them to you. So far you are making yourself look like a rather incompetent Engineer by not being able to answer EVEN ONE of the questions/issues that Tom raised. If you think Tom's questions/comments were difficult then you are in for a surprise if NIST bothers to answer you....if you can't even engage with ONE experienced, competent Engineer then how do you hope to have a discussion with several from NIST? Or hundreds from academia? Or thousands from industry? You are out of your element....drop the 9/11 stuff and stop making yourself look foolish to those of us who are working Engineers....go back to doing whatever it is you do at work day to day. Are you even saying anything here? It sounds like blah, blah, blah..... blah and you then have the nerve to try and impugn my abilities. Wow. You are either too incompetent yourself to realize I did answer tfk's questions by showing them to be irrelevant or are intent on being an annoyance by repeating nonsense here saying I didn't answer them. It is clear that those of you who refuse to believe that the NIST explanation of fire being the cause for WTC 7's destruction is impossible will look for any way to put off being forced to acknowledge it. I am done here as I really don't have time for those of you trying to maintain your Irreducible Delusion. I knew Ryan Mackey had something right there, he just wasn't pointing it in the right direction.
	Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 28th April 2012 at 05:56 PM.

28th April 2012, 05:36 PM	#1700
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	I think the folks badgering you here understand about as much as I do in terms of tfk's "analysis". They wouldn't know if he had answered you or not, or vice versa. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	__________________ “Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

28th April 2012, 05:40 PM	#1701
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,314	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti My point is that at no time was there ever a condition in WTC 7 where column 79 and other columns could fail, and that is what would have been necessary. I did not say scattered bolts and connections couldn't fail due to fire. Apparently they did fail. You may notice the building is no longer there.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

28th April 2012, 05:46 PM	#1702
Tony Szamboti Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,661	Originally Posted by NoahFence Apparently they did fail. You may notice the building is no longer there. Did I have to say the columns could not have failed by reason of fires for you to understand? If you are representative of the level of technical understanding here it isn't surprising that you and a number of others like Ozeco, Triforcharity, and DGM, don't see why the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible.
	Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 28th April 2012 at 05:58 PM.

28th April 2012, 05:57 PM	#1703
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,314	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Did I have to say the columns could not have failed by reason of fires for you to understand? If you are representative of the level of technical understadning here it isn't surprising that you and a number of others like Ozeco, Triforcharity, and DGM, don't see why the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible. Funny thing is I don't need to be techhical to prove you people wrong. All I use is common sense.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

28th April 2012, 06:00 PM	#1704
newton3376 The Truth Movement.....still not at 1% Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,315	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Are you even saying anything here? It sounds like blah, blah, blah..... blah and you then have the nerve to try and impugn my abilities. Wow. Try answering Tom's questions Tony.... Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti You are either too incompetent yourself to realize I did answer tfk's questions by showing them to be irrelevant or are intent on being an annoyance by repeating nonsense here saying I didn't answer them. Incorrect. Answer the questions.....if you can't simply admit it and move on. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti It is clear that those of you who refuse to believe that the NIST explanation of fire being the cause for WTC 7's destruction is impossible will look for any way to put off being forced to acknowledge it. Tony....the vast majority of the worlds experts agree with the general conclusions of NIST. So "those of us who refuse to believe" is actually around 99.99% of the worlds Engineers... Again....answer the questions Tony. Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti I am done here as I really don't have time for those of you trying to maintain your Irreducible Delusion. I knew Ryan Mackey had something right there, he just wasn't pointing it in the right direction. Answer the questions Tony. Or is this another case where one of US has to answer the questions for you (Tom already did that)? Answer the questions Tony.
	__________________ AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%

28th April 2012, 06:01 PM	#1705
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,492	Originally Posted by ergo I think the folks badgering you here understand about as much as I do in terms of tfk's "analysis". They wouldn't know if he had answered you or not, or vice versa. You assume so, ergo? Let's take Tom's first point: Originally Posted by tfk http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=5901 Note well that the equation that you used assumes that the correct stress strain curve is the dashed lines on the left of the graph. The fact that, when materials ~~creep~~ yield due to temperature, they are no longer operating in the linear mode. You'd need to calculate the stress conditions at each point in the beam to figure out if the material could actually support that stress level at that particular temperature. To the extent that any particular element was shown to not be able to support the stress assumed by the linear analysis, your results will be wrong. Notice the term I highlighted. That means that we are dealing with a non-linear equation. You may not know what that means, and I do. I have had advanced math classes and have had to work with non-linear equations. That also means that you can't take a linear approach, as Tony does with his equations. Tony does not directly respond to this assertion with a derivation that shows that there would be no difference, either by deriving the appropriate equations or doing a computational analysis that shows a negligible difference.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

28th April 2012, 06:02 PM	#1706
newton3376 The Truth Movement.....still not at 1% Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,315	Originally Posted by ergo I think the folks badgering you here understand about as much as I do in terms of tfk's "analysis". They wouldn't know if he had answered you or not, or vice versa. I understand much much more than you do ergo.....but that is because I am a degreed, competent, experienced Engineer and you are not. Now....can Tony address the issues and answer the questions or not?
	__________________ AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%

28th April 2012, 06:09 PM	#1707
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Did I have to say the columns could not have failed by reason of fires for you to understand? If you are representative of the level of technical understanding here it isn't surprising that you and a number of others like Ozeco, Triforcharity, and DGM, don't see why the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible. Actually I resent that remark. I do know you will never actually do anything to challenge NIST because you will never be able to competently address the subject on their level. I do know people like ergo do care, That is in fact your intended audience. If you do actually ever produce a coherent/relevant reply. By all means, let me know, I'd love to read it.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 28th April 2012 at 06:10 PM.

28th April 2012, 06:41 PM	#1708
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	Originally Posted by newton3376 I understand much much more than you do ergo.....but that is because I am a degreed, competent, experienced Engineer and you are not. * cough * Quote: Now....can Tony address the issues and answer the questions or not? Tony says he used the same assumptions as NIST did. What's the problem?
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,854	__________________ “Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

28th April 2012, 07:19 PM	#1709
Animal Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,368	Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti Simply throwing stuff at the wall, with little to no basis or linkage, to help enable a continuation of a belief even when faced with superior data which contradicts it, Trooferism in a nutshell

28th April 2012, 07:54 PM	#1710
newton3376 The Truth Movement.....still not at 1% Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,315	Originally Posted by ergo * cough * The truth can sting sometimes........ Originally Posted by ergo Tony says he used the same assumptions as NIST did. What's the problem? The problem is that his analysis is incorrect.........incorrect in the methodology and incorrect in the conclusions. At certain points he oversimplifies the analysis and at other points he is just simply wrong. If he was correct........you can be 100% certain that many other (more competent) engineers would already have discovered these "obvious facts" and there would be a debate within the community. There is no debate. There is no debate because his errors.....some obvious and some more subtle.... cause most other Engineers to dismiss his analysis and ignore his babbling. So that leaves us with the internet.....and to be more specific internet chat rooms, debate forums, and blogs.....and those chat rooms and debate forums are ones like this.....like the JREF where people debate conspiracy theories and other insane nonsense. That is where you see these discussions....the forums that are more science minded like physicsforums.com do not entertain 9/11 discussions because the topic is considered pseudo science. If you do not grasp this reality almost 11 years after the event.....and continue to have the delusion that there is a real debate over this issue...then no one can save you from yourself. Just go on believing it for the rest of your life....it won't be any different in 50 years then it is today.
	__________________ AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%

28th April 2012, 09:02 PM	#1711
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by newton3376 ...The problem is that his analysis is incorrect.........incorrect in the methodology and incorrect in the conclusions. At certain points he oversimplifies the analysis and at other points he is just simply wrong...

28th April 2012, 09:13 PM	#1712
Animal Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,368	Originally Posted by newton3376 The truth can sting sometimes........ The problem is that his analysis is incorrect.........incorrect in the methodology and incorrect in the conclusions. At certain points he oversimplifies the analysis and at other points he is just simply wrong. I think a lot more is being read into the NIST report by troofers than what is really there

28th April 2012, 09:29 PM	#1713
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by Animal I think a lot more is being read into the NIST report by troofers than what is really there That is a big part of the problem.

28th April 2012, 09:31 PM	#1714
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,492	Originally Posted by Animal I think a lot more is being read into the NIST report by troofers than what is really there They think that they can "Disprove NIST and blow this thing wide open" by a few quick calculations, drawings in MS Paint, and some Excel spreadsheets, without even trying to prove their own "Controlled Demolition" beyond some "looks like" speculation and half-thought out guesswork. It's basically the laziest campaign against an "evil empire" anyone could conceive of.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

28th April 2012, 11:42 PM	#1715
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by LSSBB They think that they can "Disprove NIST and blow this thing wide open" by a few quick calculations, drawings in MS Paint, and some Excel spreadsheets, without even trying to prove their own "Controlled Demolition" beyond some "looks like" speculation and half-thought out guesswork. It's basically the laziest campaign against an "evil empire" anyone could conceive of. The underlying problem in logic is that they take one apparent anomaly out of context and think it proves something. This topic of "walk off" and the "thermXte" threads suffer from the same error. If NIST was wrong on walk off (and that is a big "if" not yet argued effectively) that error is only one link in a case for CD. There are another dozen links to establish and until all links are proven the alleged error over "walk off" remains nothing more than an anomaly. The situation with thermXte is analogous. Proving that there was thermXte on ground zero is no more than (say) 5 or 10% of a CD case. Unless the other 90-95% can be proved thermXte remains an anomaly. Tony S's shifting the objective from "Prove CD" to "Prove NIST was wrong" only confuses the gullible. And it opens the door to another standard truther bit of false logic. The idea that an error in detail by NIST somehow (a) invalidates all of NIST's work AND/OR (b) proves CD. Whether stated explicitly or left implicit both those concepts are of course ridiculous.
	Last edited by ozeco41; 29th April 2012 at 01:04 AM.