'What about building 7'?

[Spanx]

I'll try to answer it later. Still think what I said was pertinent though

If your wife is putting kisses on your posts then perhaps she is telling you something. Perhaps give her some time instead of perusing this nonsense.

She can always join the forum and participate in other areas unless of course she is also an expert like yourself and would like to be involved?

 

[jaydeehess]

When NIST were confronted with the fact that they needed to somehow move the expansion from 5.5 to 6.25", they had to release an erratum statement to that effect. If they explicitly believed that an additional factor was expansion of the C76-79 pushing the column east wasn't that statement the place to specify that?

They corrected a number. The discussion of col79 displacement was already in the report.
Its only in your mind that NIST would feel the need to specify an additional factor.

One does note though, that even in the model in which WTC7 begins as a whole and pristine structure and column 79 is simply removed, the building collapses.

So, are we now expecting to see an explosive CD theory in which there is only one charge, on col79, that brings down this structure?

Hmmm, Ziggi probably can't get behind that as a writer for AE911T. That would destroy the "free fall indicates all columns simultaneously destroyed over eight floors" meme. Then again MM has been squeezing up next to such a theory for a while now so perhaps some proponents of AE911T are moving to throw Chandler under an oncoming multi passenger vehicle.

Anyway, as pointed out many times, NIST examined the videos, determined that the best fit for first visible events, the in falling of the EPH for instance, was a loss of structural support supplied by col 79.
What does an investigator do next? Look for a known event occurring proximate to col 79 which could cause its failure. Obvious from the start is the fires raging in the structure some of which fit the bill as occurring in the region of col 79.
Well could fire attack col ,79 enough to fail it directly? The answer was determined to be no. However it has other elements attached to it and they have elements attched to them which can be more strongly affected by fire in a few ways.

The computer modelings are done and it is notable that it shows the girder between col79-44 is moved to within a pencil thickness of being off its seat on col 79.
The model then has the girder fail, and in conjunction with other prior damage to connections, girders and beams, several floors collapse leaving col 79 unbraced and it too buckles. ( in reality col 79 while not hot enough to fail directly from heat , would have been at an elevated temp, aiding in its buckling after loss of lateral support).

This satisfies the observed collapse of the EPH.


GIVEN that there is no other event in the model that would cause column 79 to fail, NIST puts this forth as its most probable initiating failure in the global collapse sequence.
There is no evidence based competing scenario so far, only those nit picking at the most probable initiating failure.

 

[beachnut]

I'll try to answer it later. Still think what I said was pertinent though

How does trying to answer fit into the "new approach" method? How is proving the WTC 7 report wrong, helping the idiotic CD theory you can't explain in the first place; a theory with no evidence.

The truth is, the CD theory is easier to prove wrong than faking engineering knowledge to make a failed attack on NIST.

 

[jaydeehess]

Duplicate post

 

[jaydeehess]

I suppose NIST is faulted for having faith in their computer simulation results, and the results of the other research conducted.

However, its been a decade now and despite continual dispute with that research, the 9/11 truth movement has be unable to produce research of same or better quality and depth as the NIST reports. Instead, they have directed all effort on nit picking at the reports.

 

[gerrycan]

Neither do they say it did not contribute to walk off. However, given that movement of girder between col79-44 is a few hundred percent more than cvol displacement, the obvious explanation for this is that NIST concentrated on the most prominent factor in walk off.

NIST quantified to the nearest 1/4" how far the girder would be displaced, 5.5" later up to 6.25", and for an agency such as them the need to release errata admitting these, 2 other typographical errors and an underestimated seat plate width dented their credibility as well as their pride. NIST have told us that they let these glaring errors, right at the heart of their explanation pass them by in both the draft, and the final report.
Accuracy and accountability are hardly their strong points.
You have quantified the movement east of C79 as around 2". Where are you getting that from?

One other reality and experience based observation is that gross failure in complex systems is rarely due to a solitary event.

And another is that gross failure rarely doesn't have a solitary initiating event in a structural collapse due to fire.

They also do not specifically state that column displacement was a factor in col buckling. In fact they don't mention it again. Why even bother mentioning it if its not,supposedly, a factor in either girder walk off(in which discussion the description happens to be) , nor in col 79 buckling?

Seeing as 3/4" was important enough to compel NIST to release an erratum statement, it's reasonable to expect them to quantify any movement other than the walk distance of the girder, due to thermal expansion in the beams to the east of it.

So, no, the most obvious explanation, given location of that discussion and mentioning it at all, something called context, indicates that it was a secondary factor in girder walk off.

If NIST wanted to include anything other than the girder walk as a contributory factor in their walk off hypothesis they would have quantified it. However, their silence doesn't alter the reality that as well as those admitted errors above, they did not account for the stiffener plates.
Regardless of the particular failure mechanism that warranted their inclusion in the structure, these plates would increase load bearing capacity.
Although the beam to perimeter column connections were taken to be infinitely strong NIST have also made another error in not taking into account the real world effects that the beam K3004 expansion would have on the end connections and the consequences that has for their walk off theory.

You must KNOW that by reading between the lines, lines you conveniently separate from context. Neither you or Gerrycan has an explanation as to why its mentioned in the first place. Are there not a lot of structural movements not specifically described in the text? Yet here's one that is and you two automatically , and without regard to context, dismiss it.

I think that the failure sequence is the context within which the mention of this should be taken.

 

[DGM]

NIST have told us that they let these glaring errors, right at the heart of their explanation pass them by in both the draft, and the final report.

Who's "us" and do you have a statement from them? You know, them saying they knew about this and let it pass.

Accuracy and accountability are hardly their strong points.

They corrected and explained the errors. Why is this not enough? Do you have evidence they did this in order to deceive?

 

[Animal]

NIST quantified to the nearest 1/4" how far the girder would be displaced, 5.5" later up to 6.25",

They made a minor correction.....it is only a big deal to troofers looking for any straw to grasp.

and for an agency such as them the need to release errata admitting these, 2 other typographical errors and an underestimated seat plate width dented their credibility as well as their pride.

This is pure comedy. You try to build the straw man of an infallible agency so you can knock it down with your nit picks. In reality, the report was a marginally edited reader's digest version of vast amount of simulations and studies done directed at other building and construction professionals. Chapters written by different author groups without much coordination nor refined editing between them. Only troofers believe that "pride" would be hurt or that their credibility is damaged. Troofers like to bang that drum to impress their low information donors.

NIST have told us that they let these glaring errors, right at the heart of their explanation pass them by in both the draft, and the final report. Accuracy and accountability are hardly their strong points.
You have quantified the movement east of C79 as around 2". Where are you getting that from?

More bluster and blather from a group that could not weave together a compelling scenario if their very lives depended on it. All you have accomplished in over a decade is to sent dicky gage on many all expense paid vacations. I hope he brought you a magnet or T-shirt .

And another is that gross failure rarely doesn't have a solitary initiating event in a structural collapse due to fire.

It all depends on the design.......troofers never give up on "it never happened before"

Seeing as 3/4" was important enough to compel NIST to release an erratum statement, it's reasonable to expect them to quantify any movement other than the walk distance of the girder, due to thermal expansion in the beams to the east of it.

You have a much greater sense of self importance than is warranted. A mistake was stopped, and a correction issued. Nothing changed in the modeling nor the outcome of the studies.

If NIST wanted to include anything other than the girder walk as a contributory factor in their walk off hypothesis they would have quantified it.

You still have not grasped the fact the report was a reader's digest version.

However, their silence doesn't alter the reality that as well as those admitted errors above, they did not account for the stiffener plates.

The non inclusion of the plates has been explained.....troofers just refuse to accept it because of their religious beliefs....and they still cannot square that with the material added to the model that did not exist in the actual construction.

Regardless of the particular failure mechanism that warranted their inclusion in the structure, these plates would increase load bearing capacity.
Although the beam to perimeter column connections were taken to be infinitely strong NIST have also made another error in not taking into account the real world effects that the beam K3004 expansion would have on the end connections and the consequences that has for their walk off theory.

Still don't understand computer modeling and simulations do you?

I think that the failure sequence is the context within which the mention of this should be taken.

I am sure the NIST will consider your highly uneducated opinion.

 

[Animal]

Who's "us" and do you have a statement from them? You know, them saying they knew about this and let it pass.


They corrected and explained the errors. Why is this not enough? Do you have evidence they did this in order to deceive?

Must be a mouse in his pocket because he keeps denying that there is anyone but him

 

[DGM]

Must be a mouse in his pocket because he keeps denying that there is anyone but him

I have no opinion on if he's getting help (or care). He made an accusation with that statement and I want him to back it up. Personally, I think he made it up.

 

[jaydeehess]

6

NIST quantified to the nearest 1/4" how far the girder would be displaced, 5.5" later up to 6.25", and for an agency such as them the need to release errata admitting these, 2 other typographical errors and an underestimated seat plate width dented their credibility as well as their pride. NIST have told us that they let these glaring errors, right at the heart of their explanation pass them by in both the draft, and the final report.
Accuracy and accountability are hardly their strong points.
You have quantified the movement east of C79 as around 2". Where are you getting that from?

Oops, should I have said "several hundred" instead of "few hundred". Oh my, i'll flog myself for transgression later if its all the same to you. I fail to believe that you did not understand the point that THE major contributor to girder walk off was the girder's movement due to beam expansion.

And another is that gross failure rarely doesn't have a solitary initiating event in a structural collapse due to fire.

Really? Its not usually a combination of things that collectively result in gross failure. You are telling me that its usually a single point of failure? In structures that have had major damage done to one perimeter side, has a highly assymettric beam layout, and has major fires on several floors? Its your contention that if girder walk off was primarily due to girder movement, that it MUST be solely due to girder movement. If the report mentions another displacement that could contribute to girder walk off it cannot be so and therefore MUST have occurred later even though the report discusses it within the context of girder movement, and not in any other context?
Do I have that right?

Seeing as 3/4" was important enough to compel NIST to release an erratum statement, it's reasonable to expect them to quantify any movement other than the walk distance of the girder, due to thermal expansion in the beams to the east of it.

Still looking to convince everyone that in a structure that is suffering widespread fire induced weakening and failures, that a model that shows a girder came to within about an inch of moving off its seat completely by a single mode of movement MUST be interpreted as indicating that the girder remained on that seat.
Would that be your position?

I think that the failure sequence is the context within which the mention of this should be taken.

Sure, and since its in the context of girder walk off it stands to reason that NIST intended it to be part of that failure sequence.

You and Ziggi contend that its post girder walk off. In that context it would be contributory to col ,79 buckling. Yet just as NIST does not specifically describe this col displacement as being contributory to girder walk off, it does not specifically describe it as contributory to col buckling either. In fact it does not specifically say it contributed it to anything. IT DOES include the description in a proximate paragraph to those describing girder walk off. It DOES describe the computer result of having that col displacement occur in a time period beginning before girder movement.

Only someone striving to support a position they hold despite contradicting evidence would arrive at the conclusion that this column displacement must have occurred after girder walk off.

 

[Ziggi]

Originally Posted by pgimeno
...On the other hand, I'd be interested in watching how you address JayUtah's questions. I'll give you time to address them.

I already addressed JU´s method of making up non-sense in post 3771, and that is all that is needed. No-one is going to ever cite his claims, not even Chris Mohr. As for the "big question" from JU you cite in that same post, which you seem to share with him:

Originally Posted by JayUtah
...And I asked you to be more specific about "data and numbers." Give us a roadmap

All the sudden you people pretend to not understand how to proceed evaluating NIST´s walk off story, as simply as it is. This is ridiculous and you know it. Especially since you cite my answer to this question in that very same post:

You and others that tried to pass off the false column displacement and the false leverage story in a matter of fact manner as NIST´s conclusions. Some people here fabricated these strawmen and passed them off as NIST´s work, and then you ridiculed gerrycan for not including them in his assessment of the 6.25 inch displacement.

Without these made up fantasies, you are again stuck with what NIST actually says caused the walk off: the expansion of those floor beams.

That´s your roadmap: Address NIST´s walk off story and the pertinent numbers, meaning temps and expansion. Refer to post 3771 again if you need.

NIST page 488:

"Therefore, when the web was no longer supported by the bearing seat, the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads."

NIST page 525:

"...The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. (revised to 12) wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in (revised to 6.25), it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

 

[DGM]

All the sudden you people pretend to not understand how to proceed evaluating NIST´s walk off story, as simply as it is.

I appreciative your contribution here. You have shown conclusively why AE 9/11 has not been able to attract qualified Engineers.

Keep up the work.

By the way, where can we see the scoreboard?

 

[Ziggi]

6


Oops, should I have said "several hundred" instead of "few hundred". Oh my, i'll flog myself for transgression later if its all the same to you. I fail to believe that you did not understand the point that THE major contributor to girder walk off was the girder's movement due to beam expansion.


Really? Its not usually a combination of things that collectively result in gross failure. You are telling me that its usually a single point of failure? In structures that have had major damage done to one perimeter side, has a highly assymettric beam layout, and has major fires on several floors? Its your contention that if girder walk off was primarily due to girder movement, that it MUST be solely due to girder movement. If the report mentions another displacement that could contribute to girder walk off it cannot be so and therefore MUST have occurred later even though the report discusses it within the context of girder movement, and not in any other context?
Do I have that right?


Still looking to convince everyone that in a structure that is suffering widespread fire induced weakening and failures, that a model that shows a girder came to within about an inch of moving off its seat completely by a single mode of movement MUST be interpreted as indicating that the girder remained on that seat.
Would that be your position?


Sure, and since its in the context of girder walk off it stands to reason that NIST intended it to be part of that failure sequence.

You and Ziggi contend that its post girder walk off. In that context it would be contributory to col ,79 buckling. Yet just as NIST does not specifically describe this col displacement as being contributory to girder walk off, it does not specifically describe it as contributory to col buckling either. In fact it does not specifically say it contributed it to anything. IT DOES include the description in a proximate paragraph to those describing girder walk off. It DOES describe the computer result of having that col displacement occur in a time period beginning before girder movement.

Only someone striving to support a position they hold despite contradicting evidence would arrive at the conclusion that this column displacement must have occurred after girder walk off.

You are the one striving to support your position that this column displacement was a factor in the girder walk off, despite the fact that NIST does not say so. You are clinging on to a sentence which indicates the two events happened in a similar time period, and then you jump to the conclusion that the column displacement must have happened before the walk off, even though NIST DOES NOT SAY SO. Go to NIST´s summary 11-6, and observe that the only contribution to the displacement of the girder is the expansion of the floor beams.

 

[LSSBB]

NIST page 525:

"...The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. (revised to 12) wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in (revised to 6.25), it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

How far off it's original position and how distorted was each structural member connected to column 79?

 

[Animal]

You are the one striving to support your position that this column displacement was a factor in the girder walk off, despite the fact that NIST does not say so. You are clinging on to a sentence which indicates the two events happened in a similar time period, and then you jump to the conclusion that the column displacement must have happened before the walk off, even though NIST DOES NOT SAY SO. Go to NIST´s summary 11-6, and observe that the only contribution to the displacement of the girder is the expansion of the floor beams.

Meanwhile you a clinging to a story of CD.....with no evidence or residue, no evidence of deformed steel, no evidence of shockwave sound, no seismic evidence, no evidence from any source of materials. labor etc being supplied for a CD,....in other words....nothing but the "gut feeling" or delusional and paranoid uneducated nobodies. So has dicky gage bought you a Tshirt from all expense paid vacations your ilk have sent him on?

 

[Ziggi]

Well, no, that was certainly not "more than was warranted"; it was thoroughly inadequate unless you're conceding the point. If BasqueArch's paraphrasing of NCSTAR 1-9, section 8.8 is accurate, then the "walk-off" description used in the 16-floor model is just a Readers Digest version of how they arrived at that failure mode. So for starters, do you agree, disagree, or have no comment on what section 8.8 actually says? If you disagree, then please provide your own interpretation. If you agree, then that is the NIST explanation that should deserve focus rather than the simplified walk-off version.

(That would also seem to satisfy Ziggi's request for details about what the report says, so hopefully he will now proceed to making a point.)

BasqueArch and others are still falsely presenting chapter 8 as NIST´s walk off theory, even though it has nothing to do with it. Chapter 8 shows an entirely fictional scenario designed to get the sheer studs to fail, see page 346. This fictional scenario included heating the beams to 600C in 1.5 seconds while the floor slab is cold, to maximize the stress on the sheer studs. This is of course impossible in the real world, and NIST´s fire simulation, but is irrevelant here because this experiment relies on neither.

Chapter 10 introduces the fire simulation, where the heating occurs over several hours not seconds, and chapter 11 introduces the walk off theory based on results from chapter 10, which is completely different from the fictional "girder rock event" shown in chapter 8.

The rock off shown in chapter 8 is not even based on the fire simulation, and it shows the floor beams buckling so they pull the girder axally straight back to the westward direction. The real walk off theory is based on the fire simulation and it shows lateral not axial displacement, because the floor beams are expanding and pushing, instead of buckling and falling back, and the result is displacement to the east not the west.

Trying to conflate these two scenarios is pure gobbledygook.

If you want to learn about NIST´s walk off theory, go to chapter 11.

 

[DGM]

Trying to conflate these two scenarios is pure gobbledygook.

Is that an engineering term?

You're not fooling anyone here.........(or the real world)

 

[Animal]

BasqueArch and others are still falsely presenting chapter 8 as NIST´s walk off theory, even though it has nothing to do with it. Chapter 8 shows an entirely fictional scenario designed to get the sheer studs to fail, see page 346. This fictional scenario included heating the beams to 600C in 1.5 seconds while the floor slab is cold, to maximize the stress on the sheer studs. This is of course impossible in the real world, and NIST´s fire simulation, but is irrevelant here because this experiment relies on neither.

Chapter 10 introduces the fire simulation, where the heating occurs over several hours not seconds, and chapter 11 introduces the walk off theory based on results from chapter 10, which is completely different from the fictional "girder rock event" shown in chapter 8.

The rock off shown in chapter 8 is not even based on the fire simulation, and it shows the floor beams buckling so they pull the girder axally straight back to the westward direction. The real walk off theory is based on the fire simulation and it shows lateral not axial displacement, because the floor beams are expanding and pushing, instead of buckling and falling back, and the result is displacement to the east not the west.

Trying to conflate these two scenarios is pure gobbledygook.

If you want to learn about NIST´s walk off theory, go to chapter 11.

LMAO....this troofer gobbledygook was trashed long ago....it show that you have zero understanding of the purpose of the computer simulations.....not surprising for someone that one wants to continue the hamster wheel spinning of the troofer 911 fairy tale.

 

[pgimeno]

That´s your roadmap: Address NIST´s walk off story and the pertinent numbers, meaning temps and expansion. Refer to post 3771 again if you need.

Nothing at all, anywhere in your post, or in post 3771, or in any other of your posts, addresses this question:

Give us a roadmap for how real engineers would have solved this problem in a different (and presumably more scientific) way. And maybe some examples of how real engineers have solved it differently (and presumably more scientifically) elsewhere, so we know your insistence has actual merit.

You seem to be claiming that NIST was not scientific enough, yet you refuse to set a standard for what is scientific enough. If "scientific enough" is an arbitrary measure such that you can put the line arbitrarily right at a point where NIST doesn't pass, then you're cheating.

There are far more problems than you think with your "walk-off preceded column displacement" story, by the way, but we'll get there after you answer.

I'll reply to your other post in full after that, and then introduce you to the problems with the timeline that you propose.