'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

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.

Two very simple questions then.
Why did NIST mention column displacement?
What makes it so definitive that it occurred after girder walk off since NIST does not specify that?

 

[Ziggi]

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

​

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.

Quit the act pgimeno, it is becoming mighty silly. From post 4052:

...That´s your roadmap: Address NIST´s walk off story and the pertinent numbers, meaning temps and expansion.

And also from 4052:

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."

The possibility of the 6.25 inch lateral push is taken as a given without any calculations in support, which is unscientific. The scientific thing would be to show calculations based on the pertinent data which demonstrate that this 6.25 inch push was possible.

It is very hard to believe that you had not understood this already.

I invite you yet again to show calculations in support of NIST´s assumed 6.25 inch number, using NIST´s data, not made up fantasies by you or others.

 

[LSSBB]

Quit the act pgimeno, it is becoming mighty silly. From post 4052:



And also from 4052:


The possibility of the 6.25 inch lateral push is taken as a given without any calculations in support, which is unscientific. The scientific thing would be to show calculations based on the pertinent data which demonstrate that this 6.25 inch push was possible.

It is very hard to believe that you had not understood this already.

I invite you yet again to show calculations in support of NIST´s assumed 6.25 inch number, using NIST´s data, not made up fantasies by you or others.

Show the calculations in the FEA?

 

[pgimeno]

You're still dodging the question, Ziggi.

How, in your opinion, should NIST have reported the walk-off that ANSYS showed, to meet your standards of scientific quality?

Let's leave apart for a moment that the report passed peer review from engineers. Let's focus only on what you expect from them in order to consider the report scientific when reporting the walk-off. What should it have said?

 

[pgimeno]

Show the calculations in the FEA?

Yeah, it's that ludicrous.

 

[beachnut]

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.

You really have no clue what NIST was doing, and why. You don't understand engineering, and this post proves it.

You have no clue what models are. You really have no clue what you are talking about.

You write for AE911T. Do you think Gage started AE911T as a tax scam? I mean people with that much money, who donate over 100,000 dollars, can't believe Gage's lies of CD, explosives and termite; it is possible they are getting full refunds of their donations minus 15 percent for Gage. Look up tax scams for non-profits, IRS, and see if your efforts are for a scam organization, as you volunteer, and Gage and his friends make money. Are you being scammed.

wow - is pure gobbledygook, was that projection, or what?

 

[JSanderO]

You write for AE911T. Do you think Gage started AE911T as a tax scam? I mean people with that much money, who donate over 100,000 dollars, can't believe Gage's lies of CD, explosives and termite; it is possible they are getting full refunds of their donations minus 15 percent for Gage. Look up tax scams for non-profits, IRS, and see if your efforts are for a scam organization, as you volunteer, and Gage and his friends make money. Are you being scammed.

I am not cure this is a tax scam and what they do is unlawful. It's probably no different than having an advocacy organization which promotes the moon as green cheese. People who go for that can give money.

I would think that if there is something illegal in their "papers" they will be or could be shut down. But then again Scientology manages to scam people for decades and is still in business.

 

[Belz...]

So NIST removed elements that retained vertical support?
Really?

 

[carlitos]

I am not cure this is a tax scam and what they do is unlawful.

That's nice.

 

[gerrycan]

You're still dodging the question, Ziggi.

How, in your opinion, should NIST have reported the walk-off that ANSYS showed, to meet your standards of scientific quality?

Let's leave apart for a moment that the report passed peer review from engineers. Let's focus only on what you expect from them in order to consider the report scientific when reporting the walk-off. What should it have said?

ANSYS didn't show a walk off as such. The girder was displaced to the point that NIST deemed if to have failed. This is an important distinction and illustrates that NIST set the walk off points for such elements outwith ANSYS.

 

[carlitos]

ANSYS didn't show a walk off as such. The girder was displaced to the point that NIST deemed if to have failed. This is an important distinction and illustrates that NIST set the walk off points for such elements outwith ANSYS.

That's great. When you published these findings in the relevant engineering journals, what did your fellow engineers say?

 

[gerrycan]

That's great. When you published these findings in the relevant engineering journals, what did your fellow engineers say?

Why would I publish what is in NISTs report in a journal?

 

[carlitos]

Carry on, then. What you're doing is very consequential. You could list the effects that your work has had on the real world below:

__________________________


__________________________


__________________________

 

[gerrycan]

Carry on, then. What you're doing is very consequential. You could list the effects that your work has had on the real world below:

__________________________


__________________________


__________________________

Yeah, I could so that.
Or you can try to defend NISTs decisions wrt girder walk off.
I can see how the former is a more attractive option for you.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yeah, I could so that.
Or you can try to defend NISTs decisions wrt girder walk off.
I can see how the former is a more attractive option for you.

At least you could give a coherent theory that makes since , something that is logical and evidence based that could be tested however I devout that we will ever see any counter theory.

 

[WilliamSeger]

BasqueArch and others are still falsely presenting chapter 8 as NIST´s walk off theory, even though it has nothing to do with it.

The title of Chapter 8 is "Initiating Event Hypothesis" so I would suggest that Chapter 8 has everything to do with "it." Specifically, section 8.8 says: "A finite element analysis of the northeast corner floor system was conducted to evaluate its response to elevated temperatures and to confirm which failure modes needed to be accounted for in the 16-story ANSYS model." Clearly, that would include girder walk-off, and clearly the description of walk-off at column 79 in this chapter is more detailed than the one in Chapter 11. I would suggest that it was the analysis in this section that provides the justification for the Chapter 11 general walk-off criterion of a beam or girder web being pushed to the edge of its seat plate. That would simply bring us back to the contention that the stiffener plates should have prevented web failure -- a supposition that has yet to be demonstrated.

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.

Page 346 says: "The boundary conditions and the temperatures were selected to create maximum shear forces on the stud connectors and the beam and girder connections." That is consistent with the stated purpose of this particular model: to confirm which failure modes needed to be accounted for in the 16-story model, with respect to beam and girder connections. And in the 16-story model, no such boundary conditions or unheated slab were assumed, but it was found that the studs failed relatively early because of differential heating and relatively low resistance to shear. Therefore, the beam and girder behavior analyzed in Chapter 8 is not irrelevant.

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.

The Chapter 8 analysis is based on thermal effects, which is consistent with its stated purpose, whereas the Chapter 11 is based on thermal effects over time as implied by the fire analysis. That is certainly not a justification for discounting the thermal effects shown in Chapter 8. I can't find anything in Chapter 8 that agrees with your characterization of "floor beams buckling so they pull the girder axally straight back to the westward direction" -- please provide a citation, since that doesn't seem to make sense. The "real walk off theory" in Chapter 11 is based on manually observing when a beam or girder was pushed half-way off its seat. While the text does indeed attribute that walk-off to the floor beams pushing the girder laterally westward, that is just a verbal description of the model behavior, which we know also included pushing column 79 eastward. If you believe that when the model was manually observed for the half-way walk-off criterion, only the westward movement of the girder was considered, then you must believe that they had some way of ignoring all other thermal effects that the model was reflecting. Please cite a reference for that belief.

Trying to conflate these two scenarios is pure gobbledygook.

And I could accuse you of blowing smoke, but that wouldn't advance the discussion, would it.

 

[Spanx]

Why would I publish what is in NISTs report in a journal?

Yes I don't understand why you would want to publish the NIST report, but I do know you like to talk about it a lot.

Perhaps have a word with Ziggi and see if he will put something on DTD for you if he hasn't already. I believe he thinks he has huge audience ? Not so sure about that myself but his audiance will listen to you.

Good luck with your quest, you guys need a lucky break or a wake up call. Say hi to Mrs Gerrycan for me xxxx

 

[Oystein]

That's great. When you published these findings in the relevant engineering journals, what did your fellow engineers say?

I don't know, this is moving goal posts, in my opinion. And setting a standard that you/we don't hold yourself/ourselves to.
And it distracts from the debate, in my opinion, by moving it two or more levels of meta.
And it's rather cheap.

 

[gerrycan]

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

NIST had to admit to a crucial part of their report being the wrong way round. They also had to admit getting 11" mixed up with 1 foot, and all this at what must have been one of the most heavily scrutinized parts of the report inside NIST. You're saying they passed wind when in fact they had a massive dump.

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.

No, making NIST seem infallible is your task at hand, and I don't envy you it at all. Their difficulty in differentiating between numbers isn't a good start in the infallibility stakes.

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.

My gran used to read that. NISTs technical briefing was a bit more technical, but in reality was just more specific about the same errors.

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.

And this is you defending the report?

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 .

You're only talking to me here. I am not speaking on behalf of any group. As for weaving together compelling scenarios, the score would remain 0-0 at the moment.

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

It does, and it hasn't.

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.

The mistake was not "stopped" by NIST, it was called to their attention and they had to issue an erratum on it. And I don't think I am important, the information is, and putting the NIST reported analysis under scrutiny is.

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

NIST called it in depth, you compare it to a magazine. Either way it belongs in the fiction section.

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.

The reason given for not including them was that they were designed to help prevent web crippling. Are you saying that they would not also help prevent the bottom flange from folding?

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

Not as well as I'd like, no.

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

I wish I shared your confidence.

 

[Spanx]

You're only talking to me here. I am not speaking on behalf of any group. As for weaving together compelling scenarios, the score would remain 0-0 at the moment.

We produced four short videos at a technical level that would be understandable by most people. If our findings are accurate, they are strong evidence that a new independent investigation is required to determine why WTC7 fell so rapidly and symmetrically.
4 videos, approx 21 minutes. If anyone wants links to the relevant drawings etc, i will do my best to put them up for you. We are a genuine research group, and are interested in opinions on this information, whether you agree with our conclusions or not. We are happy to discuss the information openly and honestly with anyone who is genuinely interested. I would also be interested in ways we could improve the information on the videos or make it easier to understand.
link to the playlist
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCNHhi-NaAuz2439IKEyMgNrRwm7sq3Wl

What happened to the genuine research group ?