'What about building 7'?

[chrismohr]

9 posts from the resident MM stand-in since DGM asked for clarification on the NIST code-change recomedations and no comment on what's wrong with it yet?



Didn't see that coming.

Here it is if you missed it:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10516732&postcount=4303

DGM and Noah Fence, for what it's worth, Richard Gage did give a clear answer to this question in my debate several years ago. Here's a paraphrase of our exchange:
C: If steel frame structures can't collapse in fire, then do you consider NIST's safety recommendations a waste of money?
R: Yes, they are a waste of money.
C: But if steel frame structures can't collapse in fire, why are they required to have fire-resistance around the structural elements?
R: They do that to make them indestructible in fire.
C: That really scares me, because the lives of everyone in this room are worth protecting with these recommendations in my opinion.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's an old post and exchange but worth dredging back up:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9953522&postcount=995

Under the assumption of starting temperature of 21oC and a final temperature of 600oC, and a 16 meter long "beam" you get a low end value 3.65", a mid grade of 4.8", and a high end of 6.37" depending on the specific type of steel since the linear expansion coefficient is different for each alloy. This assumes the temperature gradient is stable and covers only a select few alloys of steel.

It was a simplified calculation I did last year on this very subject to point out that figures are not as unrealistic as ziggi and gerrycan would have people believe. The basic calcs should be treated for what they are; simplifications. The final result depends on other conditions and is such that the result could have been above or below the results I got in my calculations.

Short and sweat to the point... this discussions' quite old. This exchange even got down to a 3/4" discussion point... at this stage kind of a non-issue, since as far as I am concerned. The column still failed, and the collapse spread from the same approximate location. Therefore the nitpicking is mostly about which straw broke the camel's back than it is anythings else

 

[gerrycan]

It's an old post and exchange but worth dredging back up:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9953522&postcount=995



It was a simplified calculation I did last year on this very subject to point out that figures are not as unrealistic as ziggi and gerrycan would have people believe. The basic calcs should be treated for what they are; simplifications. The final result depends on other conditions and is such that the result could have been above or below the results I got in my calculations.

Short and sweat to the point... this discussions' quite old. This exchange even got down to a 3/4" discussion point... at this stage kind of a non-issue, since as far as I am concerned. The column still failed, and the collapse spread from the same approximate location. Therefore the nitpicking is mostly about which straw broke the camel's back than it is anythings else

What co-efficient did you use?

 

[DGM]

DGM and Noah Fence, for what it's worth, Richard Gage did give a clear answer to this question in my debate several years ago. Here's a paraphrase of our exchange:
C: If steel frame structures can't collapse in fire, then do you consider NIST's safety recommendations a waste of money?
R: Yes, they are a waste of money.
C: But if steel frame structures can't collapse in fire, why are they required to have fire-resistance around the structural elements?
R: They do that to make them indestructible in fire.
C: That really scares me, because the lives of everyone in this room are worth protecting with these recommendations in my opinion.

I do remember that. I was hoping for something a little less bat-crap crazy.

 

[newton3376]

It's an old post and exchange but worth dredging back up:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9953522&postcount=995



It was a simplified calculation I did last year on this very subject to point out that figures are not as unrealistic as ziggi and gerrycan would have people believe. The basic calcs should be treated for what they are; simplifications. The final result depends on other conditions and is such that the result could have been above or below the results I got in my calculations.

Short and sweat to the point... this discussions' quite old. This exchange even got down to a 3/4" discussion point... at this stage kind of a non-issue, since as far as I am concerned. The column still failed, and the collapse spread from the same approximate location. Therefore the nitpicking is mostly about which straw broke the camel's back than it is anythings else

So after posting that you get this reply:

What co-efficient did you use?

This is similar to the previous discussion on solution convergence.

The real issue here is that two groups of people are having two very different conversations.

Group 1:
The group supporting an inside job lacks the foundational/fundamental knowledge that comes from education + experience and as a result of that their specific technical understanding lacks depth and their general technical knowledge is not very broad.

Thus in their mind the discussions over the methodologies that NIST used are actually DEBATES where they are making valid points and then the "debunkers" are making counter points.

To them this thread is actually a real debate where they can "win" or score points by finding supposed errors in the NIST analysis.

Group 2:

The debunker side, particularly those who are highly technical, are attempting to EDUCATE the truthers as to why they are wrong and how engineering analysis works in the real world. There is no actual "debate" as to whether or not they are wrong; instead there are efforts by several posters to explain these concepts to them.

After all of this discussion I doubt even LSSBBs explanation on solution convergence is understood, much less the more involved topics.

As long as group 1 believes this is an actual debate the attempts by group 2 to educate, correct, and guide group 1 to a better understanding will only serve to reinforce group 1's delusion about what this discussion really is.

There is a reason why the vast majority of the scientific and engineering world simply ignore them.

 

[JayUtah]

...their specific technical understanding lacks depth...

You mean such as how CTE actually varies with temperature for most materials, including steel, over broad temperature ranges such as 0 C to 600 C?

 

[Porkpie Hat]

The debunker side, particularly those who are highly technical, are attempting to EDUCATE the truthers as to why they are wrong and how engineering analysis works in the real world. There is no actual "debate" as to whether or not they are wrong; instead there are efforts by several posters to explain these concepts to them.

After all of this discussion I doubt even LSSBBs explanation on solution convergence is understood, much less the more involved topics.

As long as group 1 believes this is an actual debate the attempts by group 2 to educate, correct, and guide group 1 to a better understanding will only serve to reinforce group 1's delusion about what this discussion really is.

There is a reason why the vast majority of the scientific and engineering world simply ignore them.

It's not just truthers being educated.

Posters such as pgimeno, LSSBB, Jay Utah and others have clarified to many of us the issues and supplies us with reasonable explanations to these truther talking points making us laypeople less susceptible to believing nonsense.

 

[jaydeehess]

What co-efficient did you use?

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Under the assumption of starting temperature of 21oC and a final temperature of 600oC, and a 16 meter long "beam" you get a low end value 3.65", a mid grade of 4.8", and a high end of 6.37" depending on the specific type of steel since the linear expansion coefficient is different for each alloy. This assumes the temperature gradient is stable and covers only a select few alloys of steel.

Its better when you read the whole post gerry.

 

[gerrycan]

You mean such as how CTE actually varies with temperature for most materials, including steel, over broad temperature ranges such as 0 C to 600 C?

Yeah. The above is almost like somebody has taken 3 such variations and applied them 3 separate times.
Sure it's not as straightforward a calculation as it is commonly thought to be but when expansion is 16.1544 you know you have got something wrong, or I have. The whole instantaneous Vs average coefficient debate was something I found enlightening.

 

[gerrycan]

Its better when you read the whole post gerry.

I did and would presume A36.

 

[jaydeehess]

DGM and Noah Fence, for what it's worth, Richard Gage did give a clear answer to this question in my debate several years ago. Here's a paraphrase of our exchange:
C: If steel frame structures can't collapse in fire, then do you consider NIST's safety recommendations a waste of money?
R: Yes, they are a waste of money.
C: But if steel frame structures can't collapse in fire, why are they required to have fire-resistance around the structural elements?
R: They do that to make them indestructible in fire.
C: That really scares me, because the lives of everyone in this room are worth protecting with these recommendations in my opinion.

I would suspect that there are between few, and no, fire engineering specialists in this world who would opine that they have created standards for steel office structures that make them "indestructible" to the effects of fire. That is Gage really talking out of a much lower orifice than his mouth, imho.

 

[jaydeehess]

I did and would presume A36.

You asked for A CFE, when its clear Grizzly used three, to arrive at three numbers.
He also went on to make sure everyone knows that the gradient matters, that other factors matter and that simple calcs using simple temp gradient and simple CFE formulae are just that "simplifications".

Where would you put the margins of error in that calculation gerrycan?

 

[gerrycan]

So for the 6.37" expansion I get a coefficient of 17.44 x 10-6.
I divided 0.161544 by 9264.
Seems a bit high doesn't it?

 

[pgimeno]

So for the 6.37" expansion I get a coefficient of 17.44 x 10-6.
I divided 0.161544 by 9264.
Seems a bit high doesn't it?

Why 6.37"?

Are you conjecturing the column displaced west 0.12" instead of displacing east as NIST said it did? [Edit: I see why, never mind, but the question below holds:]

Why do you keep failing to consider the column displacement to the east in your analysis as NIST said it happened? It's quite possible that the total expansion was not 6.25", but since the seat was displaced east, your analysis is still incomplete.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The reason i did three numbers at the time is because i couldnt be certain that what the table posted was close to or the same as covering the a36 steel. I didnt want to make any assumption of that if i wasnt sure. So i scoped my efforts as an approximation to show the nists values are not unexpected. Not to prove NIST right or wrong.

I have steel properties habdbooms at home, but they dont, to my recollection have any thermal property data so i was limited accordingly

 

[gerrycan]

You asked for A CFE, when its clear Grizzly used three, to arrive at three numbers.
He also went on to make sure everyone knows that the gradient matters, that other factors matter and that simple calcs using simple temp gradient and simple CFE formulae are just that "simplifications".

Where would you put the margins of error in that calculation gerrycan?

The point is that the coefficient rises as the temp increases at the temps that we are talking about, so actually, the right thing to do would be to apply the 3 values over 3 separate ranges to arrive at one answer, not 3.

 

[gerrycan]

The reason i did three numbers at the time is because i couldnt be certain that what the table posted was close to or the same as covering the a36 steel. I didnt want to make any assumption of that if i wasnt sure. So i scoped my efforts as an approximation to show the nists values are not unexpected. Not to prove NIST right or wrong.

I have steel properties habdbooms at home, but they dont, to my recollection have any thermal property data so i was limited accordingly

But you did this calculation a long time ago.

I think I may have mistakenly thought you had looked at ranges for the coefficient over a temperature range and applied 3 given variables each to the whole event separately.

ETA Hang on a minute. That is EXACTLY what you did.
Either you did that or you plucked 3 figures out of the air that would show the low, medium and high points from the AISC graph by chance, and I don't think that's gonna happen is it?
Busted.

 

[gerrycan]

Why 6.37"?

Are you conjecturing the column displaced west 0.12" instead of displacing east as NIST said it did? [Edit: I see why, never mind, but the question below holds:]

Why do you keep failing to consider the column displacement to the east in your analysis as NIST said it happened? It's quite possible that the total expansion was not 6.25", but since the seat was displaced east, your analysis is still incomplete.

So quantify it then.

 

[beachnut]

So quantify it then.

You first, you quantify your CD theory. It is not logical to bash NIST thinking you can back in your fantasy CD after proving a probable collapse sequence is wrong - and all without any engineering. How do you do it, and logically support a CD claim you can't explain? The big inside job? Did a secret Cabal do your plot you can't explain? The latest nonsense from the DtD non-science approach to spreading lies about 911, says... " it matters little which outlaw in the global gang pulled the trigger" - Did some global gang do your CD inside job, and how is wasting time bashing NIST, when you are not qualified to understand NIST, work in supporting your CD theory which was done by some global gang you can't name? or are you sticking with Bush doing it? What is your theory, how does it work? So qualify your theory, then...

What is your probable cause for the collapse of WTC 7, why are you sidetracked by bashing NIST? Your CD theory lacks evidence, so you are stuck bashing NIST, but can't do more than this.

Why are you unable to quantify your CD theory? No evidence.

Why are you not presenting your theory, your work on your theory? because you are using the "new approach"
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-07/being-smeared-911-truther-msm#comment-260973

How is the no science, baffle them with BS "new approach" working? How many non-engineers have you converted to the faith based church of CD by thermite?

With the east penthouse falling into WTC 7 6 seconds before the roof-line moves; do you think free-fall for a short period is evidence for CD; CD with silent explosives? How does the east penthouse falling into WTC 7 fit with your CD theory?

Why do you need NIST to back in your CD theory? When will you "quantify it", your theory of CD?

 

[gerrycan]

So after posting that you get this reply:



This is similar to the previous discussion on solution convergence.

The real issue here is that two groups of people are having two very different conversations.

Group 1:
The group supporting an inside job lacks the foundational/fundamental knowledge that comes from education + experience and as a result of that their specific technical understanding lacks depth and their general technical knowledge is not very broad.

Thus in their mind the discussions over the methodologies that NIST used are actually DEBATES where they are making valid points and then the "debunkers" are making counter points.

To them this thread is actually a real debate where they can "win" or score points by finding supposed errors in the NIST analysis.

Group 2:

The debunker side, particularly those who are highly technical, are attempting to EDUCATE the truthers as to why they are wrong and how engineering analysis works in the real world. There is no actual "debate" as to whether or not they are wrong; instead there are efforts by several posters to explain these concepts to them.

After all of this discussion I doubt even LSSBBs explanation on solution convergence is understood, much less the more involved topics.

As long as group 1 believes this is an actual debate the attempts by group 2 to educate, correct, and guide group 1 to a better understanding will only serve to reinforce group 1's delusion about what this discussion really is.

There is a reason why the vast majority of the scientific and engineering world simply ignore them.

Yeah, you and Jay can back slap each other while I note that the 3 coefficients that grizzly used have been misapplied from the AISC graph.
Surprised you or Jay didn't spot that.