ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc collapse , wtc7

Reply
Old 12th April 2014, 07:04 PM   #881
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I think the Pepper letter does imply that the connections do not break and that beam G3005 does not buckle or fail and simply deflects girder A2001 with the three lateral support beams included in the analysis.
What you think and imply doesn't really count for much in the real world.

We are left with the Tony & Gerry show
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2014, 07:13 PM   #882
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
What you think and imply doesn't really count for much in the real world.

We are left with the Tony & Gerry show
No, so far we are left with an unsupportable and fallacious analysis by the NIST since it omitted pertinent structural features which have been shown to make a significant difference in the outcome.

The only thing we have seen here is a simple show of sorts that has failed in its attempt to maintain the unsupportable NIST conclusion by postulating other equally unsupportable girder failure scenarios.

The reality is that girder A2001 could not have been pushed, pulled, or rolled off its seats either laterally or axially due to heating of structural members if all of the pertinent structural members were included in the analysis.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th April 2014 at 07:20 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2014, 07:23 PM   #883
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, so far we are left with an unsupportable and fallacious analysis by the NIST since it omitted pertinent structural features which have been shown to make a significant difference in the outcome.

The only thing we have seen here is a simple show of sorts that has failed in its attempt to maintain the unsupportable NIST conclusion by postulating other equally unsupportable girder failure scenarios.

The reality is that girder A2001 could not have been pushed, pulled, or rolled off its seats either laterally or axially due to heating of structural members if all of the pertinent structural members were included in the analysis.
Don't tell me, so this can only mean that thermite and explosives were used ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2014, 08:52 PM   #884
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,467
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
What forces on the fin connections from beams K3004, C3004, B3004, A3004, and G3005 to girder A2001 would cause them to fail?

Don't forget that NIST claims there were no shear studs on girder A2001 so it is hard to see how the bolts would shear since the girder would move before the six 7/8" diameter ASTM A325 bolts sheared. There were 5/16" fillet x 3.75" long welds on both sides of the top of the 3/8" thick fin plates to the girder and 1/4" fillet x 19.5" long welds on both of the sides of the fin plate to the girder. The likelihood of these connections breaking is extraordinarily low, but maybe you can tell us how it could happen.

Are you just taking the NIST WTC 7 report's word for it here? I would think one would know better since the discovery of the pertinent structural feature omissions. So what does your analysis say?
I'm not going to go through NIST's report for you. It's your burden of proof. I just noted why you have to work harder if you want to refute Newton's Bit argument about roll off. His argument makes your "pertinent structural feature omissions" moot, so you're making a circular argument here.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 02:38 AM   #885
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I'm not going to go through NIST's report for you. It's your burden of proof. I just noted why you have to work harder if you want to refute Newton's Bit argument about roll off. His argument makes your "pertinent structural feature omissions" moot, so you're making a circular argument here.
The roll off argument doesn't make anything moot. It is a complete non-starter, as it has no basis in reality. It requires the Cg to be on the girder's longitudinal axis, which was not the case.

With the beam to girder connections, it is the Cg of the beam and girder assembly which would have been controlling the attitude and it was not on the girder's longitudinal axis. It was in the middle of the floor assembly.

If the girder's web moved past the edge of the seat the girder would not have angled downward since the five beams and their six bolt connections to it would have kept it plumb. The stiffeners would have then prevented the girder flange from failing due to bending stress and the assembly would have remained supported on the seat.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 13th April 2014 at 02:52 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:16 AM   #886
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,361
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The roll off argument doesn't make anything moot. It is a complete non-starter, as it has no basis in reality. It requires the Cg to be on the girder's longitudinal axis, which was not the case.

With the beam to girder connections, it is the Cg of the beam and girder assembly which would have been controlling the attitude and it was not on the girder's longitudinal axis. It was in the middle of the floor assembly.

If the girder's web moved past the edge of the seat the girder would not have angled downward since the five beams and their six bolt connections to it would have kept it plumb. The stiffeners would have then prevented the girder flange from failing due to bending stress and the assembly would have remained supported on the seat.
Just hypothetically speaking.
Wouldn't this mean that if the entire girder would have shifted from the seat, that it still wouldn't have fallen? Seeing as the CG of the beam and girder assembly would still be in the middle of the floor assembly?
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:22 AM   #887
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Just hypothetically speaking.
Wouldn't this mean that if the entire girder would have shifted from the seat, that it still wouldn't have fallen? Seeing as the CG of the beam and girder assembly would still be in the middle of the floor assembly?
No, it would fall if the girder flange was completely off the seat, as it would then be unsupported on that corner and unstable.

Imagine a rigid square or rectangular house raised on posts at its four corners, which are sitting on pilings protruding several feet above the ground. Its horizontal Cg is in the middle, but if one corner is unsupported it will fall (unless it was perfectly balanced on the two remaining diagonally opposed posts). However, it won't fall if one corner's post is off center on the piling but still on it, if it can take the local stress.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 13th April 2014 at 04:31 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 06:23 AM   #888
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Nobody is buying your schtick.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 06:42 AM   #889
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
What forces on the fin connections from beams K3004, C3004, B3004, A3004, and G3005 to girder A2001 would cause them to fail?

Don't forget that NIST claims there were no shear studs on girder A2001 so it is hard to see how the bolts would shear since the girder would move before the six 7/8" diameter ASTM A325 bolts sheared. There were 5/16" fillet x 3.75" long welds on both sides of the top of the 3/8" thick fin plates to the girder and 1/4" fillet x 19.5" long welds on both of the sides of the fin plate to the girder. The likelihood of these connections breaking is extraordinarily low, but maybe you can tell us how it could happen.

Are you just taking the NIST WTC 7 report's word for it here? I would think one would know better since the discovery of the pertinent structural feature omissions. So what does your analysis say?

I would take the NIST report over the Tony and Gerry show any day. You still can't say why omitting stiffeners is evidence of a coverup but ADDING the seat stiffener is not evidence of no coverup.

Repeating the same silly claim over and over will not make it true. No one is buying it outside of your little troofer bubble.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 08:03 AM   #890
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,467
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The roll off argument doesn't make anything moot. It is a complete non-starter, as it has no basis in reality. It requires the Cg to be on the girder's longitudinal axis, which was not the case.
Given the state of the connections reported by NIST, you're in error here. Again, look at figures 11-35 and 11-43. The girder was essentially detached from the beams.



And add to that Newton's Bit proof that the connections wouldn't resist the moment in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 08:05 AM   #891
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,709
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The roll off argument doesn't make anything moot. It is a complete non-starter, as it has no basis in reality.
Whereas widespread professional malfeasance and subsequent coverup at a major government agency is so much more realistic.

I should fire my carpenter for wasting time and money with the joist bridging he put in, since once installed the joists and the flooring are forever and always an indivisible assembly that presents absolutely no possible chance for joist rotation and subsequent walk-off.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 11:08 AM   #892
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 677
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, so far we are left with an unsupportable and fallacious analysis by the NIST since it omitted pertinent structural features which have been shown to make a significant difference in the outcome.

The only thing we have seen here is a simple show of sorts that has failed in its attempt to maintain the unsupportable NIST conclusion by postulating other equally unsupportable girder failure scenarios.

The reality is that girder A2001 could not have been pushed, pulled, or rolled off its seats either laterally or axially due to heating of structural members if all of the pertinent structural members were included in the analysis.
Tony, Tony, Tony...(in my best Cary Grant)

The weak point of the connection is the bottom flange of the girder. The two 7/8 diameter high-strength bolts will probably rip thru the bottom flange and part of the associated web. You dont have to worry about girder walk-off, because the bearing seat is gone at this point, and the girder has lost all vertical support.

Bearing stiffeners, shear studs...meaningless details that have little to no effect of the collapse of Building 7. They are just red herrings put out by the Truther Nation to cloud the issue.

BTW...then this connect fails, it will release anywhere from 40 to 80 tons of force.

MHM
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 11:12 AM   #893
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
I would take the NIST report over the Tony and Gerry show any day. You still can't say why omitting stiffeners is evidence of a coverup but ADDING the seat stiffener is not evidence of no coverup.

Repeating the same silly claim over and over will not make it true. No one is buying it outside of your little troofer bubble.
It is hard to understand what your complaint actually is here.

The girder stiffeners would have clearly prevented the claimed flange failure and kept the girder from falling, and what I am saying is that the analysis needs to be rerun with them included.

The centered stiffener under the bearing seat at column 79 in the NIST FEA model is not the correct component and it should be replaced with the correct 2" thick x 14" deep x 18" wide support plate as shown in Frankel drawing 9114 in the new analysis.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 13th April 2014 at 11:18 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 11:16 AM   #894
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Tony, Tony, Tony...(in my best Cary Grant)

The weak point of the connection is the bottom flange of the girder. The two 7/8” diameter high-strength bolts will probably rip thru the bottom flange and part of the associated web. You don’t have to worry about girder walk-off, because the bearing seat is gone at this point, and the girder has lost all vertical support.

Bearing stiffeners, shear studs...meaningless details that have little to no effect of the collapse of Building 7. They are just red herrings put out by the Truther Nation to cloud the issue.

BTW...then this connect fails, it will release anywhere from 40 to 80 tons of force.

MHM
The bolts would shear before the seat was destroyed as the girder is sitting on it while it is expanding.

Additionally, there is a 2" thick x 14" deep x 18" wide support plate under the 12" wide x 1" thick bearing seat.

The girder can't fall with the stiffeners included.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 13th April 2014 at 11:19 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 11:17 AM   #895
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is hard to understand what your complaint actually is here.

The girder stiffeners would have clearly prevented the claimed flange failure and kept the girder from falling, and what I am saying is that the analysis needs to be rerun with them included.

The stiffener under the seat at column 79 is not the correct component and it should be replaced with the correct one in the new analysis.


You cannot claim cover-up for missing components when at the same time they added components to make it harder to fail.

The fact that you insist on "rerunning" the computer analysis because of missing and added components show you really have no clue what computer modeling is about.

Your repeated claims may hold water in your troofer bubble.......the rest of the world...not really.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 11:19 AM   #896
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The bolts would shear before the seat was destroyed as the girder is sitting on it and expanding.

Additionally, there is a 2" thick x 14" deep x 18" wide support plate under the 12" wide x 1" thick bearing seat.

The bearing seat girder can't fall with the stiffeners included as NIST did.
FTFY
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 11:25 AM   #897
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 677
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The bolts would shear before the seat was destroyed as the girder is sitting on it while it is expanding.

Additionally, there is a 2" thick x 14" deep x 18" wide support plate under the 12" wide x 1" thick bearing seat.

The girder can't fall with the stiffeners included.
Wrong...

Run a non-linear, finite element analysis of the connection. Then and only then will you understand the connection failure and the building collapse.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle

Last edited by MileHighMadness; 13th April 2014 at 11:30 AM.
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 03:49 PM   #898
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...eab819413d.jpg

You cannot claim cover-up for missing components when at the same time they added components to make it harder to fail.

The fact that you insist on "rerunning" the computer analysis because of missing and added components show you really have no clue what computer modeling is about.

Your repeated claims may hold water in your troofer bubble.......the rest of the world...not really.
From reading your comments I have seen you say that the incorrect centered stiffener the NIST FEA model uses under the girder bearing seat at column 79 would make it harder to fail. That is as incorrect as the component they used.

It would have been much harder for the girder to fail with the actual heavy support plate which is welded to the column 79 side plates and sits under the bearing seat.

However, the under seat support is not the major issue. It is the girder stiffeners and the lateral support beams and correct seat width that will make a very big difference in the outcome.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 13th April 2014 at 03:50 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 03:52 PM   #899
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Wrong...

Run a non-linear, finite element analysis of the connection. Then and only then will you understand the connection failure and the building collapse.
It has been run with

- the omitted stiffeners on girder A2001 included
- the omitted lateral support beams on the G3005 beam included
- the correct seat width
- the correct under seat support plate

and the girder does not fall in this situation.

NIST needs to rerun their analysis with the above omitted items included and the correct seat and support plate.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 13th April 2014 at 04:10 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:01 PM   #900
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Given the state of the connections reported by NIST, you're in error here. Again, look at figures 11-35 and 11-43. The girder was essentially detached from the beams.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...onnections.png

And add to that Newton's Bit proof that the connections wouldn't resist the moment in the first place.
If the beam connections to the girder are broken then how do they push it to the point where its web is past its seat, as the NIST report claimed?

I have also asked you what forces would have caused the beam connections to break with no shear studs on the girder. You haven't answered that question. You just keep referring to the NIST WTC 7 report as though it is correct in every way.

Have you forgotten that it is the NIST WTC 7 report that is actually under scrutiny and being questioned for having omitted pertinent structural features and distorted the seat width dimension?

Have you forgotten that when they admitted they had the seat width wrong (alleging it was a typo) that they then said the girder would need to be pushed 6.25" laterally instead of what they originally said was 5.5"? Which is curious because the beam expansion is limited to 5.5" and they did not say where the extra 3/4" of lateral travel would come from. Of course, some here (you included) have tried to say the girder from the west pushed column 79 to the east to gain the extra lateral travel, but NIST needs to show that. They haven't thus far.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 13th April 2014 at 04:18 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:07 PM   #901
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
It is they who have to rerun their analysis.
You keep repeating this silly, silly meme.

In order for them to "have to" do anything, there should be some sort of sound evidence that WTC 7 was indeed felled by explosives. There is no sound evidence.

There would have to be some obvious alternative connection to the events of the rest of the day for anybody (other than you people) to even entertain the thought of re-investigating any aspect of WTC 7's demise. There is no other connection aside from what the rest of the world knows and acknowledges.

It is incumbent upon YOU, Mr. Szamboti - you and your cohorts - to come up with a working theory that connects WTC 7's demise to the rest of the day's events, in their entirety, that explains those events better than 19 terrorists + 4 planes = 9/11.

Or in the case of WTC 7, the fact that if you drop a 110 story building on top of a 47 story building, : happens.

Make the connection - and you convert everybody. It's that simple. Nobody who matters is going to care to look any further into flanges and seats and stiffeners and girders until they have to. And they DON'T have to - not unless another sound theory arises. That's on you guys. Do your job.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:20 PM   #902
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
You keep repeating this silly, silly meme.

In order for them to "have to" do anything, there should be some sort of sound evidence that WTC 7 was indeed felled by explosives. There is no sound evidence.

There would have to be some obvious alternative connection to the events of the rest of the day for anybody (other than you people) to even entertain the thought of re-investigating any aspect of WTC 7's demise. There is no other connection aside from what the rest of the world knows and acknowledges.

It is incumbent upon YOU, Mr. Szamboti - you and your cohorts - to come up with a working theory that connects WTC 7's demise to the rest of the day's events, in their entirety, that explains those events better than 19 terrorists + 4 planes = 9/11.

Or in the case of WTC 7, the fact that if you drop a 110 story building on top of a 47 story building, : happens.

Make the connection - and you convert everybody. It's that simple. Nobody who matters is going to care to look any further into flanges and seats and stiffeners and girders until they have to. And they DON'T have to - not unless another sound theory arises. That's on you guys. Do your job.
I think everyone knows that the NIST was funded to explain the collapse of WTC 7. They have not yet done that since the omitted structural features make their initiation hypothesis impossible when included.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:27 PM   #903
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I think everyone knows that the NIST was funded to explain the collapse of WTC 7. They have not yet done that since the omitted structural features make their initiation hypothesis impossible when included.
Maybe you guys could actually fund something other than Gages retirement fund. You do know he's using you?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:28 PM   #904
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
From reading your comments I have seen you say that the incorrect centered stiffener the NIST FEA model uses under the girder bearing seat at column 79 would make it harder to fail. That is as incorrect as the component they used.

It would have been much harder for the girder to fail with the actual heavy support plate which is welded to the column 79 side plates and sits under the bearing seat.

However, the under seat support is not the major issue. It is the girder stiffeners and the lateral support beams and correct seat width that will make a very big difference in the outcome.
Column side plates? LMAO.....you don't even know the correct terminology an you what to lecture NIST? No wonder the troofer movement consists of a gnats ass worth of architects and engineers. The under set stiffener is no more a major issue than the web stiffener. You can stomp your feet and repeat your claim time and again.......it doesn't change the fact that your claims are meaningless.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:30 PM   #905
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I think everyone knows that the NIST was funded to explain the collapse of WTC 7. They have not yet done that since the omitted structural features make their initiation hypothesis impossible when included.
They have....they just didn't arrive at the preconceived outcome you and youe extremely tiny little group wanted.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:32 PM   #906
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
If the beam connections to the girder are broken then how do they push it to the point where its web is past its seat, as the NIST report claimed?
If you have to ask that question....you have no business making any claims about the NIST. (But then that was already obvious)
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:42 PM   #907
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Column side plates? LMAO.....you don't even know the correct terminology an you what to lecture NIST?
From http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...apse-Final.pdf Page 11

Remind me. What is it that you do for a living Animal?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg sideplates.jpg (68.7 KB, 3 views)
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 04:54 PM   #908
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
From http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...apse-Final.pdf Page 11

Remind me. What is it that you do for a living Animal?
What do you do?

Funny, why do you ask this question? Does it matter?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:06 PM   #909
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What do you do?

Funny, why do you ask this question? Does it matter?
Yeah it is funny, I agree. Animal told me he was an architect.
He then says that someone who uses the term "side-plate" is in error and would have no business "lecturing NIST". However, like most other people in the construction industry, NIST tend to call plates that are added to the side of a column "column side plates". LMAO. Priceless.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:09 PM   #910
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Yeah it is funny, I agree. Animal told me he was an architect.
He then says that someone who uses the term "side-plate" is in error and would have no business "lecturing NIST". However, like most other people in the construction industry, NIST tend to call plates that are added to the side of a column "column side plates". LMAO. Priceless.
His argument does not depend on his profession.

Does yours? Why did you ask what he did?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:16 PM   #911
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
His argument does not depend on his profession.

Does yours? Why did you ask what he did?
He already said what he does for a living. I think it is relevant that someone who claims to be an architect not only doesn't know what a side plate is called, but obviously has not read NISTs literature on the subject he is discussing.

Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Column side plates? LMAO.....you don't even know the correct terminology an you what to lecture NIST?
What do you call them Animal. Maybe you should inform NIST of their error - they could maybe release an erratum statement to correct it. LMAO

Last edited by gerrycan; 13th April 2014 at 05:17 PM.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:19 PM   #912
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
He already said what he does for a living. I think it is relevant that someone who claims to be an architect not only doesn't know what a side plate is called.
Obviously this is important to you.

What do you do?

I'm a General Contractor with 35 years experience.

You?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:23 PM   #913
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I think everyone knows that the NIST was funded to explain the collapse of WTC 7. They have not yet done that since the omitted structural features make their initiation hypothesis impossible when included.
Despite your laughable pleas to the contrary, 9-11 was larger than just WTC 7.

Until you people come to grips with that, and accept it, you'll remain irrelevant.

If that's what you're shooting for, good. Just admit it.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:23 PM   #914
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Obviously this is important to you.

What do you do?

I'm a General Contractor with 35 years experience.

You?
None of your business.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:26 PM   #915
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
None of your business.
Don't ask of others that you are not prepared to divulge of yourself.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:40 PM   #916
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Don't ask of others that you are not prepared to divulge of yourself.
I did not ask anyone to divulge anything. I asked Animal to remind me what he did. He stated that he was an architect, I didn't ask what he did and he chose to put that information out all by himself.
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Well...actually a licensed architect.
My request for him to remind me what he did for a living was rhetorical. It would be a foolish thing for a layman to make this statement......
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Column side plates? LMAO.....you don't even know the correct terminology an you what to lecture NIST?
....without actually checking what term NIST used for the plates on the side of a column. But for an alleged architect not to know this, and then post that without checking is just silly. Animal obviously thought that there was a different name for the side plates. Funny that he isn't enlightening us.

Maybe Animal could let us know what the correct term for a side plate is?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:46 PM   #917
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I did not ask anyone to divulge anything. I asked Animal to remind me what he did. He stated that he was an architect, I didn't ask what he did and he chose to put that information out all by himself.


My request for him to remind me what he did for a living was rhetorical. It would be a foolish thing for a layman to make this statement......

....without actually checking what term NIST used for the plates on the side of a column. But for an alleged architect not to know this, and then post that without checking is just silly. Animal obviously thought that there was a different name for the side plates. Funny that he isn't enlightening us.

Maybe Animal could let us know what the correct term for a side plate is?
I'm guessing you're a dancer by trade. You do this often. Personally, I don't care. It has nothing to do with your argument being wrong. Funny, nothing about my job makes me know this.

Strange how education works.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:48 PM   #918
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
His argument does not depend on his profession.

Does yours? Why did you ask what he did?
Animal put his foot in his mouth by saying the term column side plates wasn't the proper nomenclature for plates used to build up H columns. This is indicative of much of the discourse seen here, especially by those who see no need for NIST to correct the WTC 7 report.

The NIST WTC 7 report has been proven to have fatal flaws in their collapse initiation hypothesis due to the omission of pertinent structural features which make that hypothesis impossible.

It is time to stop pulling tantrums and making incorrect claims like Animal did here, and demand that the agency charged with and funded to perform the task of investigating the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST) rerun the analysis and re-investigate the collapse until a realistic cause can be shown which matches the evidence (including the 8 story symmetric free fall of the exterior observed on video).

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 13th April 2014 at 05:49 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:48 PM   #919
mike3
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,466
(deleted)
__________________
Ego is subversive and devolutionary, truly destructive and terrible; ego is the generator of privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Ego is the fire that burns within the pit of hell, devouring and consuming everything that enters and leaving utterly nothing behind. Ego is horrible, cruel, and restraining, the darkness of the world, and the doom and bane of man. my reaction to that famous Bertrand Russell quote.
mike3 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2014, 05:55 PM   #920
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'm guessing you're a dancer by trade. You do this often.
You askin' ?
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Personally, I don't care.
Your words hurt

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
It has nothing to do with your argument being wrong. Funny, nothing about my job makes me know this.
Do you think that the fact that Animal claims to be an architect and that he didn't know what a side plate was called is indicative of someone who is a capable researcher, given that NIST use the term also. I want to know what Animal calls side plates. He was laughing his ass off about the term just a while ago. Now he's all quiet.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Strange how education works.
How do you know?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.