A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132:1312]

SanderO · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

gerrycan said:
You're clearly NOT capable of reading drawings. You have looked at drawing "9114" many times before in other threads and you were still in the dark until it was laid out for you on a plate. You only just realised where the sideplates actually were, and nobody ever claimed they were added in the field.
As for the trapping of the girder not holding water - How can you possibly maintain that position having just learned where the sideplates actually are, having previously though that they could somehow prevent the girder from being located properly?
Where did you actually think the plates were previously, that they would impede the girder installation? Did you think I was talking about the stiffener plates on the end of the girder that NIST omitted from their model, but ARUP included ?

Gerry,
Get real.... I am perfectly capable of reading the drawings or even creating them. I didn't confuse web stiffeners with the shop added plates.... to the built up col 79.

The geometry appears to be such that the girder was put in place and the connections made with no trouble from the side plates. Why would the side plates prevent the girder from lateral movement at least in the drawing of the column and the girder end??? I explained the off orthogonal seems to make this possible AND you also need to consider the col 44 end connection conditions.

It is inconceivable and impossible to "tight fit" the girder between the columns. The structural connection is achieved with seats and knife joints.

gerrycan · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

The girder expands axially to the inside of the column sideplate overhang.

mike2810 · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Gerrycan

what caused column 79 to buckle?

gerrycan · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

mike2810 said:
Gerrycan

what caused column 79 to buckle?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...132-1312-a-post1065676225.html#post1065676225

stundie · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

mike2810 said:
Agree. it does not prove CD. Much like the vid you posted as evidence then say it does not prove CD.

I have stated, let us say NIST got it worng on 79. Does that rule out fire as the cause?

No, it doesn't rule it out.

What it does rule out is the entire NIST report if the collapse theory hinges on column 79, if it is as you say....."Wrong"...or should that be "worng".....

Just jesting!! lol

So if the NIST go it wrong as you believe, then how does the report prove that fire was the cause of it?? lol

I take it you support a new investigation then? Or shall I take it you don't give a fudge except when debating on interweb forums such as this one?

SanderO · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

gerrycan said:
The girder expands axially to the inside of the column sideplate overhang.
View attachment 67199042

The girder is being pushed as well by expanding beams framed into it. I really don't think that you have much of an argument about the girder being captured by the end plates.

mike2810 · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

gerrycan said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...132-1312-a-post1065676225.html#post1065676225

Your quote, "What YOU are dodging is the fact that the ARUP analysis not only confirms the absurdity of NIST's west walk off hypothesis for the girder, it also confirms that there should be no observed collapse whatsoever until the girder reaches 717C and the beam even higher.
Where do you see the girder near that temp in any of NIST case analysis ?"

and that is your answer to my question. So you can't explain the buckling.

SanderO · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

stundie said:
No, it doesn't rule it out.

What it does rule out is the entire NIST report if the collapse theory hinges on column 79, if it is as you say....."Wrong"...or should that be "worng"..... Just jesting!! lol

So if the NIST go it wrong as you believe, then how does the report prove that fire was the cause of it?? lol

I take it you support a new investigation then? Or shall I take it you don't give a fudge except when debating on interweb forums such as this one?

The NIST report is not intended of PROOF of anything.

NIST demonstrated that based on certain what they believed were reasonable expectations about the conditions of the building.. fire and so forth... that it is possible for the girder to collapse leaving the column partially unbraced. This could have happened on multiple sequential floors leading the the column buckling. MAYBE

What is clear is that column 79 line was ONE of the first things to fail catastrophically. It COULD have been a consequence of a failure lower down... or related to a failure of the transfer structures. There is very little visual evidence or any reports of what was happening in the lower floors and in the Con Ed. It is absurd to think everything down there was a cool as a room temperature and in perfect structural condition. My personal FEELING is that the failure was below floor 13 and column 79 was a early victim of the collapse. But there is NO PROOF and there never will be no matter how many or who does a new investigation.

The fact is that steel frames don't do well in excessive heat and have fire protection and sprinklers for that reason. Sprinklers were no working all day... fires were burning all day... and there were accelerants as well in the building.

Fire / heat is the best hypothesis... There is no other which is reasonable.

mike2810 · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

stundie said:
No, it doesn't rule it out.

What it does rule out is the entire NIST report if the collapse theory hinges on column 79, if it is as you say....."Wrong"...or should that be "worng"..... Just jesting!! lol

So if the NIST go it wrong as you believe, then how does the report prove that fire was the cause of it?? lol

I take it you support a new investigation then? Or shall I take it you don't give a fudge except when debating on interweb forums such as this one?

Then by all means provide the one clear concise CD explanation with sources.

other posters like to play the what if game. Just returned the same type tactic of what if.

No need for a new investigation. As your type has stated, all the evidence was sent to China and recycled. So nothing left to analyze.:lamo

stundie · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Quag said:
So absolutely no evidence just argument from incredulity?

That is evidence of an explosion......lol

Was it a demolition charge? Was it a bomb? I don't know.

But when you (Or should I say Mike...) says there is no evidence of explosions, this just proves you are lying and wrong. lol

mike2810 · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

stundie said:
That is evidence of an explosion......lol

Was it a demolition charge? Was it a bomb? I don't know.

But when you (Or should I say Mike...) says there is no evidence of explosions, this just proves you are lying and wrong. lol

Where did I say there was no explosion? You have not been around fire much then.

stundie · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

SanderO said:
The NIST report is not intended of PROOF of anything.

BS, it was intended to explain how the buildings collapsed. That is what there remit was......lol

SanderO said:
NIST demonstrated that based on certain what they believed were reasonable expectations about the conditions of the building.. fire and so forth... that it is possible for the girder to collapse leaving the column partially unbraced. This could have happened on multiple sequential floors leading the the column buckling. MAYBE

Sorry but they did this without examining any of the steel within the WTC7. This is nothing but speculation.

Wouldn't it have been better for them to actually examine the steel within the WTC 7 to see if there was any evidence to support their speculation?

As a pantomime debunker, I expect you to say no and give some absurd illogical reason. Don't let me down! lol

SanderO said:
What is clear is that column 79 line was ONE of the first things to fail catastrophically.

How is it clear? lol

SanderO said:
It COULD have been a consequence of a failure lower down... or related to a failure of the transfer structures.

If we are working with COULD's....It could have been explosives.

SanderO said:
There is very little visual evidence or any reports of what was happening in the lower floors and in the Con Ed. It is absurd to think everything down there was a cool as a room temperature and in perfect structural condition.

Well it's a good job I don't think that..."everything down there was a cool as a room temperature and in perfect structural condition."

Again, nice job of equating a strawman that I never made or argue.

However, what I will say is that if there is no evidence that everything down there was NOT as cool as room temperature or NOT in perfect structural condition, then you can't argue that this was the case and proof/evidence that it was fires. That's ABSURD!! lol

Its nothing more than speculation.

SanderO said:
My personal FEELING is that the failure was below floor 13 and column 79 was a early victim of the collapse. But there is NO PROOF and there never will be no matter how many or who does a new investigation.

My feeling it was a demolition.

SanderO said:
The fact is that steel frames don't do well in excessive heat and have fire protection and sprinklers for that reason.

Well I can show a few examples of building doing very well in excessive heat. Yes they suffer from fire damage but they don't collapse.

SanderO said:
Sprinklers were no working all day... fires were burning all day... and there were accelerants as well in the building.

No different to WTC 5 & 6, yet they didn't collapse.

And the accelerants weren't a contributing factor according to the NIST.

So how can you trust a report which disagrees with your own thinking/logic?

SanderO said:
Fire / heat is the best hypothesis... There is no other which is reasonable.

Sorry but how can it be the best hypothesis when...

You can't point to a single building ever collapsing from fires.
You can't point to a single building being hit by planes and collapsing from the subsequent fires.
You can't point to a single piece of steel that was heat weakened within the buildings.
You can't point to a single piece of steel which shows failure from fires.

I can show you buildings which do not collapse from planes hitting it or fires.

stundie · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

mike2810 said:
Then by all means provide the one clear concise CD explanation with sources.

You know I can never do this don't you? lol

So why bother asking for it? :shock:

Was I in charge of the investigation? Did I have access to the steel from GZ? Of course not, you know this.....Yet for me to prove it, even if it's just as a possibility, you require a clear concise explanation with sources.

Even though you yourself clearly don't have a clear concise explanation with sources for your fire induced collapse theory?? lol

Excuse me but........hahahahahahahaha!!!

Do you know what a hypocrite is??

SanderO said:
other posters like to play the what if game. Just returned the same type tactic of what if.

You are not playing the "What If?" game, you are playing the "I want to know exactly how a demolition occurred otherwise it's impossible!" game.

mike2810 said:
No need for a new investigation.

So you are happy with a report which you agree it's wrong? lol

mike2810 said:
As your type has stated, all the evidence was sent to China and recycled. So nothing left to analyze.:lamo

Well that's because you have a limited scope as to what an investigation involves.

Hence the reason you defend a report which you agree is wrong......lol

stundie · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

mike2810 said:
Where did I say there was no explosion? You have not been around fire much then.

You said there was no evidence of explosions and I showed there was.

Was it a demolition charge?? I dunno but until we have a source, it could be.

mike2810 · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

stundie said:
You know I can never do this don't you? lol

So why bother asking for it? :shock:

Was I in charge of the investigation? Did I have access to the steel from GZ? Of course not, you know this.....Yet for me to prove it, even if it's just as a possibility, you require a clear concise explanation with sources.

Even though you yourself clearly don't have a clear concise explanation with sources for your fire induced collapse theory?? lol

Excuse me but........hahahahahahahaha!!!

Do you know what a hypocrite is??
You are not playing the "What If?" game, you are playing the "I want to know exactly how a demolition occurred otherwise it's impossible!" game.
So you are happy with a report which you agree it's wrong? lol
Well that's because you have a limited scope as to what an investigation involves.

Hence the reason you defend a report which you agree is wrong......lol

So you believe in an explanation that no one has proven to your satisfaction.

Sorry, but after all these years, the evidence indicates the most PROBABLE cause of wtc7 collapse was fire induced.

gerrycan · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

SanderO said:
The girder is being pushed as well by expanding beams framed into it. I really don't think that you have much of an argument about the girder being captured by the end plates.

Well seeing as you now have 2 out of 2 FEA analysis demonstrating the fact that the girder is prevented failing west by the sideplate, you need to go and substantiate your claim instead of passing judgement on a situation that you have admitted you have not yet researched to any kind of meaningful level. You didn't even realise what the sideplate actually was until earlier.
Go research the drawings and stop guessing.

mike2810 · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

stundie said:
You said there was no evidence of explosions and I showed there was.

Was it a demolition charge?? I dunno but until we have a source, it could be.

Where did I say there was no explosions? I asked you proof of CD explosions. Guess you were not capable of understanding that.

Let me clarify since you want to play the wordsmith game. There was no explosions caused by a planned demolition charge. Was there "explosions' caused by trapped gasses from the burning process, yes.

Explosions happen some time in building fires. If you do not understand why, then I can't help you.

So if it was not a fire induced collapse, it was ...?

Best you have is you don't know after all these years. :lamo

stundie · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

mike2810 said:
So you believe in an explanation that no one has proven to your satisfaction.

You see, this is the problem which I have explain to you pantomime debunkers time and time again.

I don't believe in my explanation because as I have said time and time before, I'm not an expert, I wasn't there, I have no idea.

What I have said is that I believe it is...............POSSIBLE! lol

mike2810 said:
Sorry, but after all these years, the evidence indicates the most PROBABLE cause of wtc7 collapse was fire induced.

What evidence? lol

You have no evidence of heat weakened steel which would show that fires was the most probable cause........Yet you religiously spout it as the ultimate truth.......lol

mike2810 · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

stundie said:
You see, this is the problem which I have explain to you pantomime debunkers time and time again.

I don't believe in my explanation because as I have said time and time before, I'm not an expert, I wasn't there, I have no idea.

What I have said is that I believe it is...............POSSIBLE! lol
What evidence? lol

You have no evidence of heat weakened steel which would show that fires was the most probable cause........Yet you religiously spout it as the ultimate truth.......lol

Funny.
It seems the evidence supports a fire induced collapse as the most probable than your it couldn't be fire and you have no idea what caused the collapse explanation.:lamo

Heck even those who are looking into CD can't agree. One side it was thermite and conventional explosives, another side states it was mini neutron bombs, another states it was just nukes, and let us not forget the energy beam supporters.

Do you agree an explanation should stand on its own merits? One reason the CD crowd is reluctant to give any specifics.

Believe what you want. If you ever discover it was something other than a fire induced collapse, you could make some money.:lamo oh wait, some already are making money by stating it was CD and they cannot even provide specifics.

stundie · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

mike2810 said:
Funny. It seems the evidence supports a fire induced collapse as the most probable than your it couldn't be fire and you have no idea what caused the collapse explanation.:lamo

What evidence are you talking about?

Is this the imaginary heat weakened steel that the NIST didn't find, yet you've concluded it existed?? lol

mike2810 said:
Heck even those who are looking into CD can't agree.

Now imagine how bad it is for your side.

The FEMA reports, NIST reports, Banzant and his multiple cronies reports, Popular Mechanics and all the other official stuff......etc etc.....

And yet you guys who are looking into fire can't agree on how it collapsed..........lol

Trust me, you are in a much worse position! lol

mike2810 said:
One side it was thermite and conventional explosives, another side states it was mini neutron bombs, another states it was just nukes, and let us not forget the energy beam supporters.

Me finks it's lazor neutron sharks! lol

mike2810 said:
Do you agree an explanation should stand on its own merits?

Yes, so why do you support the fire induced collapse theory when it fails?

Even when you admit that the NIST report is wrong. lol

mike2810 said:
One reason the CD crowd is reluctant to give any specifics.

People who were not charged with investigating the collapse can't give you specifics seeing as they don't have access to the evidence. The people who investigated it should be able to give specifics, yet they can't, even though they had the evidence.

Yet you think you are in a better position??? hahahahahahaha!!! lol

mike2810 said:
Believe what you want.

Thanks. lol

mike2810 said:
If you ever discover it was something other than a fire induced collapse, you could make some money.:lamo

No thanks, I'll make money the way I currently make money thanks. lol

mike2810 said:
oh wait, some already are making money by stating it was CD and they cannot even provide specifics.

And there are plenty who are making even more money by stating it was fires and have profited from the loss of lives in the aftermath and wars that have been perpetrated since.

They make much more money than your loose change kids if that's who you are referring to. lol

gerrycan · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

You're right. It's totally bogus the way these people make out they understand how fire obviously brought down the building, yet when pressed on the detail can't say how it failed.

MIKE - Do you agree with NIST that the girder failed to the west ? << It's that easy lol

ETA cue Mike's "you don't have to agree 100% with NIST" tripe.

Quag · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

stundie said:
That is evidence of an explosion......lol

Was it a demolition charge? Was it a bomb? I don't know.

But when you (Or should I say Mike...) says there is no evidence of explosions, this just proves you are lying and wrong. lol

So no evidence of explosives just argument from incredulity.
Same old same old.

stundie · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Quag said:
So no evidence of explosives just argument from incredulity.
Same old same old.

Don't worry, when you start posting evidence for the existence of heat weakened steel, you might have a post which as a valid point.

Until that day, another pointless post, sponsored by Quag. lol

Quag · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

stundie said:
Don't worry, when you start posting evidence for the existence of heat weakened steel, you might have a post which as a valid point.

Until that day, another pointless post, sponsored by Quag. lol

So heat cannot weaken steel?
Got any evidence to support your crazy CT?
ANY?
ANY AT ALL?
Didnt think so.
What we do know as FACTS is that on 911 4 planes were hijacked and by terrorists.

stundie · Mar 21, 2016

Re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Quag said:
So heat cannot weaken steel?

Who said heat cannot weaken steel?? :blink: Oh that's right, nobody said it. lol

You made it up in that crazy fantasy world your brain as created, to help you cope with the disappointment called your life! lol

Its funny watching you project arguments that I haven't made. lol

So where is the evidence for this heat weakened steel? Surely it must exist right? lol

Of course it doesn't exist, you made it up, just like you did the above quote, you've also made up the existence of heat weakened steel.....along with Fairies, Santa Claus and Jesus! lo

Quag said:
Got any evidence to support your crazy CT?

More evidence than your crazy none existent heat weaken steel theory......lol

Quag said:
ANY?
ANY AT ALL?
Didnt think so.

I'm still waiting for this evidence you supposedly have......lol

Quag said:
What we do know as FACTS is that on 911 4 planes were hijacked and by terrorists.

What we also know as well is that fire is the best method for demolition. lol