Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

[Tony Szamboti]

you are correct in stating i don't know about the weight restrictions.
that is why i said "i believe".
the fact still remains the building was almost twice the size, and by inferrence twice the weight, the site was built for.

But the site was built for a larger than originally planned building when the larger building was actually erected. What do you think the additional caissons were all about?

This is getting silly now Leopold!

[leopold]

But the site was built for a larger than originally planned building when the larger building was actually erected. What do you think the additional caissons were all about?

This is getting silly now Leopold!

all i know is what i've read.
the site was intended for a 25 story building.
this was "circumvented" by installing outriggers to transfer loads away from the foundation.
once these outriggers were compromised it doesn't take much intelligence to see how the building could have failed catastrophically.

apparently the upper half of WTC 7 was a cantilever type of design which would have aided in the collapse when the outriggers failed.

[Tony Szamboti]

all i know is what i've read.
the site was intended for a 25 story building.
this was "circumvented" by installing outriggers to transfer loads away from the foundation.
once these outriggers were compromised it doesn't take much intelligence to see how the building could have failed catastrophically.

apparently the upper half of WTC 7 was a cantilever type of design which would have aided in the collapse when the outriggers failed.

I think you mean the back half of WTC 7 which was over the substation was a cantilever type design (it was actually a simply supported beam type design as there were caissons at both ends of the outrigger beams). The extremely deep, stiff, and strong outrigger beams were only on one side of the building but it fell symmetrically straight down at freefall speed for the first 100 feet.

Please explain how assymmetric outrigger failure could have produced a symmetric freefall.

Additionally, even the NIST doesn't make the claim that the so-called outriggers (which were actually just deep trusses and beams to allow for a long expanse) failed to cause the collapse. Where, besides in your head, is your evidence that these trusses and beams failed to cause the collapse of WTC 7?

[leopold]

I think you mean the back half of WTC 7 which was over the substation was a cantilever type design (it was actually a simply supported beam type design as there were caissons at both ends of the outrigger beams). The extremely deep, stiff, and strong outrigger beams were only on one side of the building but it fell symmetrically straight down at freefall speed for the first 100 feet.

Please explain how assymmetric outrigger failure could have produced a symmetric freefall.

Additionally, even the NIST doesn't make the claim that the so-called outriggers (which were actually just deep trusses and beams to allow for a long expanse) failed to cause the collapse. Where, besides in your head, is your evidence that these trusses and beams failed to cause the collapse of WTC 7?

haven't a clue, i'm a complete and utter dumbfuck in regards to this stuff.
it still doesn't disprove the facts i listed though does it tony?

[scott3x]

I think you mean the back half of WTC 7 which was over the substation was a cantilever type design (it was actually a simply supported beam type design as there were caissons at both ends of the outrigger beams). The extremely deep, stiff, and strong outrigger beams were only on one side of the building but it fell symmetrically straight down at freefall speed for the first 100 feet.

Please explain how assymmetric outrigger failure could have produced a symmetric freefall.

Additionally, even the NIST doesn't make the claim that the so-called outriggers (which were actually just deep trusses and beams to allow for a long expanse) failed to cause the collapse. Where, besides in your head, is your evidence that these trusses and beams failed to cause the collapse of WTC 7?

haven't a clue, i'm a complete and utter dumbfuck in regards to this stuff.

I'm also not an engineer with a knowledge of structural engineering. Tony, on the other hand, does. I also freely admit that I didn't know about the asymmetrical outriggers in WTC 7. Until we get an engineer with some knowledge of structural engineering that supports the official story in this forum, I think it would be wise to concede that he may well be right. Either that or atleast find a quote from someone (preferably with some knowledge of structural engineering) who has come up with answers to Tony's questions.

[Fraggle Rocker]

* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *

You guys are doing a tiny bit better with the insults, although I still had to delete some posts. But as far as the "debate" is concerned, it is still stalled out with nothing new being added. Next time I log in I will close it unless some substantive progress is made by then.

--F.R.

[scott3x]

[color=bold]* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *

You guys are doing a tiny bit better with the insults, although I still had to delete some posts.

I agree that it's doing better, but that atleast one person made a fairly recognized personal attack, which I see you have deleted.

But as far as the "debate" is concerned, it is still stalled out with nothing new being added.

I disagree with that assertion. I, for one, didn't know about the asymmetrical outriggers in the WTC 7 building.

[scott3x]

Additionally, even the NIST doesn't make the claim that the so-called outriggers (which were actually just deep trusses and beams to allow for a long expanse) failed to cause the collapse. Where, besides in your head, is your evidence that these trusses and beams failed to cause the collapse of WTC 7?

Just for the record, what cause(s) does NIST give for the building collapsing? Does it specify any particular structural component(s) of WTC 7?

[leopold]

I'm also not an engineer with a knowledge of structural engineering.

i take this to mean that you have no formal training in structural engineering.
just because you do not have a "piece of paper" doesn't mean you don't know what you are talking about.
for example:
tony,
are there aspects of structural engineering that go against common sense?
and,
why haven't you answered my question of whether you could tell the difference between metal that failed by fatigue or cut by explosives?

Tony, on the other hand, does.
Until we get an engineer with some knowledge of structural engineering that supports the official story in this forum, I think it would be wise to concede that he may well be right.

appeal to authority.

[Trippy]

Trippy, neither the substation nor WTC 7 had a basement. The area between the subsurface concrete walls containing building steel columns down to grillages on caissons was filled.

The foundation of both the substation and WTC 7 was as follows:

L.1.4 Foundations
WTC 7 and the electrical substation were supported on caisson foundations. When the substation was constructed in 1967, provision was made for a future office tower by including capacity to carry both the substation and the weight of a future building. Caissons were also installed in the property adjacent to the substation, for the proposed future building. When WTC 7 was constructed approximately 20 years later, it was significantly larger than the originally proposed building, and required additional caissons to be installed, as shown in Fig. L–3.

The typical caisson consisted of several components: a 30-in., 36-in., or 42-in. diameter steel casing, a heavy rolled or built-up steel core shape, vertical reinforcing bars, spiral rebar, and concrete fill. At the base of the caisson core, a pattern of shear studs was placed to help transfer the load from the steel caisson core into the encompassing concrete, from which it passed into the rock. The caissons extended through the soil, and were socketed (seated) in the bedrock, approximately 60 ft below the surface. There were vertical caissons as well as battered (or sloped) caissons to carry the lateral load. Above the caissons were heavy grillages composed of built up steel girders. Grillages transferred loads between the building columns and the caissons.

The distance between the caisson grillages and the first floor varied between 8 ft and 30 ft. This region was braced by reinforced concrete walls with thicknesses varying from 1 ft to 2.5 ft. Many of the WTC 7 steel columns were embedded in these walls, and supporting steel braces were made composite by the addition of shear studs along the height of embedment. Areas between the concrete walls were backfilled with compacted gravel fill and then covered with a concrete slab on grade or framed slab to form closed cells and bring the structure up to the required elevation. In some cases, the area was left unfilled and used to house fuel tanks.

WTC 7 was not built over a hole in the ground as Leopold has suggested. He is apparently confusing the fact that the back half of it was built over the three story substation. When the substation was built a large number of caissons were put in place in anticipation of the erection of WTC 7 on the site. There were additional caissons which were put in when it was actually built. The unfilled fuel tank areas would have been a small percentage of the overall footprint which was filled to ground level.

But this wasn't what I claimed was it?

My only claim was that according to Figure L20

the structure of the Con Ed substation appeared to extend below the first floor.

Even if part or all of the strcture that was below groundlevel was back filled, the simple fact remains that it did indeed extend below ground level.

[Tony Szamboti]

But this wasn't what I claimed was it?

My only claim was that according to Figure L20

the structure of the Con Ed substation appeared to extend below the first floor.

Even if part or all of the strcture that was below groundlevel was back filled, the simple fact remains that it did indeed extend below ground level.

Understood.

I was only trying to make sure it wasn't misunderstood, as Leopold thought WTC 7 was built over a hole that was spanned by cantilever beams and that that design was a failure point. That isn't true and that is all I was trying to ensure was understood.

Of course, the foundation walls were below grade and since the space between them was backfilled, there was no basement or hole under either structure. Essentially the first useable space in each building was on a slab at grade with footing walls with the steel columns running through them down to grillages and caissons to bedrock.

[scott3x]

I'm also not an engineer with a knowledge of structural engineering.

i take this to mean that you have no formal training in structural engineering.

Correct, something that I believe you have admitted to as well.

just because you do not have a "piece of paper" doesn't mean you don't know what you are talking about.

Agreed, but if you have that piece of paper, I think the likelihood increases, don't you?

for example:
tony,
are there aspects of structural engineering that go against common sense?
and, why haven't you answered my question of whether you could tell the difference between metal that failed by fatigue or cut by explosives?

Not sure if Tony has addressed those issues or not, only looked at some of his response material to you.

Tony, on the other hand, does.
Until we get an engineer with some knowledge of structural engineering that supports the official story in this forum, I think it would be wise to concede that he may well be right.

appeal to authority.

I'm appealing that you consider the words of an expert; if you can get an expert to counter Tony's specific claims, that would certainly be noteworthy, ofcourse. The official version of events is the version you yourself appeal to.

[Tony Szamboti]

Just so nobody gets confused about what I said earlier, below are the simply supported girders going from the core of WTC 7 to the columns in the substation. On the North side, after the sub-station column, the same girder is cantilevered out 6' 9" to the facade of the building. In other words a small distance was cantilevered, not from the core to the edge of the building. You should also note that these short cantilevers were 9 feet deep and were a part of the full girder which was supported by two columns, one in the core of WTC 7 which went to bedrock and the other through the substation down to bedrock.







These short cantilevers had nothing to do with the collapse of the 145 foot wide building.

[Tony Szamboti]

i take this to mean that you have no formal training in structural engineering.
just because you do not have a "piece of paper" doesn't mean you don't know what you are talking about.
for example:
tony,
are there aspects of structural engineering that go against common sense?
and,
why haven't you answered my question of whether you could tell the difference between metal that failed by fatigue or cut by explosives?

No, you don't necessarily have to have a piece of paper to know what you are talking about. But you do need to know what you are talking about and you didn't earlier. There are aspects of engineering in general, including structural, which are not necessarily intuitive.

As far as whether or not something was cut by explosives or failed due to fatigue yes that is easily discernable. By the way columns broken in a progressive collapse or controlled demolition (other than those which are cut)would not be considered fatigue failure. Fatigue requires a number of cycles and you can tell it was fatigue from the striations caused by many small cracks over a period of cycles.

[RonWieck]

For the record, we have established that none of the fantasists here are willing to confront Mackey or point to any errors in his presentation.

I go through this drill because there are people naive enough to imagine that I don't invite representatives of the other side to attempt to make their case on 'Hardfire." Of course, the performances by Jim Fetzer, Richard Gage, Les Jamieson, and the Loose Change kids explain pretty convincingly why Da Twoof is not going to revealed on my little show or anywhere else.

[leopold]

As far as whether or not something was cut by explosives or failed due to fatigue yes that is easily discernable. By the way columns broken in a progressive collapse or controlled demolition (other than those which are cut)would not be considered fatigue failure. Fatigue requires a number of cycles and you can tell it was fatigue from the striations caused by many small cracks over a period of cycles.

so, do you confirm no forensic science is needed to determine if the girders failed or cut by explosives?

[Tony Szamboti]

For the record, we have established that none of the fantasists here are willing to confront Mackey or point to any errors in his presentation.

I go through this drill because there are people naive enough to imagine that I don't invite representatives of the other side to attempt to make their case on 'Hardfire." Of course, the performances by Jim Fetzer, Richard Gage, Les Jamieson, and the Loose Change kids explain pretty convincingly why Da Twoof is not going to revealed on my little show or anywhere else.

Mackey does not address the fact that there was no dynamic load in the collapses. He has no natural mechanism for the collapse to propogate.

You need deceleration as I told you and there is none. Mackey avoids discussing this and thus his presentation is flawed.

I told you I would certainly debate him on that issue. Have you told him?

[Tony Szamboti]

so, do you confirm no forensic science is needed to determine if the girders failed or cut by explosives?

No, forensic science would be needed to determine precisely how they failed.

You asked me about a fatigue failure vs. a cut column. For that a visual examination would do for the forensics.

However, I told you none of the columns in a sudden collapse would be fatigue failures. They would be sudden gross yield and fracture failures.

I also told you the columns weren't cut but were caused to fail at their welds by concussion on the sides of the columns near the welds. This would cause a gross yield and fracture of the welded joint.

What you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell concerning a gross yield and fracture failure is whether a blast caused it or a load from another object. For that you would need forensics residue testing. Unfortunately, that wasn't done on any of the steel from the three collapsed buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.

[leopold]

No, forensic science would be needed to determine precisely how they failed.

so, a structural engineer cannot tell by inspection if a girder failed in this manner as opposed to a girder that was cut with explosives?
is that what you are saying?

[Tony Szamboti]

so, a structural engineer cannot tell by inspection if a girder failed in this manner as opposed to a girder that was cut with explosives?
is that what you are saying?

I guess you will have to read what I said again. I told you that at least the columns that we see in photos from the towers have been broken at their welds and while it appears there is evidence of a concussion on the side of the columns, you can't be sure from simple visual inspection what caused the break. Residue testing would have to be done to confirm whether or not explosives were used and other techniques like metallographic analysis to determine whether the failure stresses were pure shear or had bending involved and what the mechanism was that actually caused the break.

There are reasons for having failure analysis labs.

Unfortunately, none of this was done on the tower or WTC 7 steel.

By the way, there are almost no photos of the steel from WTC 7 and we know none of it was saved for analysis. Interesting, isn't it?

Why do you keep going back to "cut"?