10 story hole in WTC 7

[Newtons Bit]

NB is a self proclaimed expert using an assumed name yet you believe him without question.
His assertion that cantilever effect would create a negative load in the columns furthest away from the damage shows that he is talking thru his hat.
His model shows that a cantilever effect would result in a substantial negative load to column 4 and a small positive load to column 5.
The negative load to column 6 would be negligible and the effect to columns furthest away would be zero.
The effect of severed columns would be the greatest to columns around the severed columns and less to columns further away.
You don't have to be an expert to figure that one out.

I'm not using an assumed name, I'm using an alias. Mostly because I don't want prank phone calls from your brother truthers while I'm work. My real name is uncommon and it's VERY easy to find me on google. I'm not going to give up my privacy just to show that I have a pedigree. The terms and methods I use here should be more than enough to prove to just about anyone that I know quite a good bit about structural engineering.

Now then, I've said over and over again that it depends on the stiffness of the beam and the stiffness of the column. This is what happens when I use a very stiff beam with a much less stiff column with the exact same model used previously. Here's the picture again if you've forgotten (or if someone is new).

              X	Y	Z	MX	MY	MZ
N1	.161	436.969	0	0	0	-.634
N2	0	0	0	0	0	0
N3	-.112	466.638	0	0	0	.455
N4	-.033	318.851	0	0	0	.141
N5	-.015	277.542	0	0	0	.069

Well whattya know, the highest uplift is the furthest out. My hat demands an apology for saying it has a hole that can be talked out of.

When you get an engineering degree, or even have a CLUE about statics, you'll get these concepts. But right now, you've proven that all your capable of doing is qoute mining and making assumptions you don't have the education or intelligence to back up. This is why we don't let carpenters design buildings. You've been wrong on EVERYTHING.

 

[Christopher7]

Honestly I could go either way. We have a few different accounts. But I can't say for sure Chris

We have these accounts.

NIST1-8 pg 109 [163 on pg counter]
A large amount of debris crashed through the front center of the building from approximately the 10th floor down to ground level.
[this would have taken out most of the atrium glass and left heavy debris in the lobby]

Michael Hess:
"the lobby was gone"

Firefighters reporting "... no heavy debris in lobby areas ... white dust coating...wires hanging from ceiling areas ..."

Reported damage above the atrium, noted that the atrium glass [ground to 5th floor] was still intact.

A firefighter stating:
"only damage to 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Chief Fellini [in charge of operations at west and Vesey] said:
"it [debris] ripped steelout from between floors 3 and 6 across the facade on Vesey St.

Do you think he didn't notice a 10 story gouge, 30 to 40 feet deep and 60 to 80 feet wide?

NIST 1-8 pg 110 [164 on pg counter]
"The Chief Officer [Fellini] was able to negotiate the debris fields, get to the building, and see the WTC 7 Logo on the side."
[5th floor, above atrium]

No logo on east side

When I e-mailed Steve Spak he also mentioned damage. But he was not detailed. There was also a lot of damage and debris in front of the south side as shown from the photos.

The Steve Spak photo shows floor 12 [some say 10] and above.

There are photos of WTC 7 from every angle except the south east face in the NIST report.

NIST has 25 photos [and 2 videos] of the south side of WTC 7 but they didn't include any photos of the south east part of WTC 7 in the report.

NIST having access to more detailed information of these accounts stated that there was damage to the middle. However they could very well be mistaken.

Mistaken about the extent of the damage to the center of WTC 7.

A lot more information has come in since the report. We know there are new photos, and a damage update from 10/6.

The Aproach Summary of 12/06 says they obtained new images 8/06 [pg 8] and updated south face damage 10/06 [pg 16].
They did not say what changed.

Some photos we haven't seen yet will be coming.
Likely we will see more photos soon. But I can't say strongly one way or the other right now.

There are 4 statements that directly contradict with the 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide and 30 to 40 feet deep [at ground level].

The firefighters who said "no heavy debris in lobby areas" are not incompetent.

Atrium glass intact and the 10 story gouge in the center of WTC 7 cannot co-exist.

Chief Fellini is not incompetent. He would have noticed a 10 story gouge.

The firefighter who reported "only damage to 9th floor at SW corner" is not incompetent.


Either the firefighters and their Chief were wrong or whoever reported the 10 story gouge was wrong.

 

[Christopher7]

I'm not using an assumed name, I'm using an alias. Mostly because I don't want prank phone calls from your brother truthers while I'm work. My real name is uncommon and it's VERY easy to find me on google. I'm not going to give up my privacy just to show that I have a pedigree.

I understand.

The terms and methods I use here should be more than enough to prove to just about anyone that I know quite a good bit about structural engineering.

No

Now then, I've said over and over again that it depends on the stiffness of the beam and the stiffness of the column. This is what happens when I use a very stiff beam with a much less stiff column with the exact same model used previously. Here's the picture again if you've forgotten (or if someone is new).
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/16329463f74b202f77.jpg

              X    Y    Z    MX    MY    MZ
N1    .161    436.969    0    0    0    -.634
N2    0    0    0    0    0    0
N3    -.112    466.638    0    0    0    .455
N4    -.033    318.851    0    0    0    .141
N5    -.015    277.542    0    0    0    .069

Well whattya know, the highest uplift is the furthest out.

WTC 7 had 14 columns along the south side, your model has 5.

You can plug in any values you want until you get the desired result.

On pg 5 - 7 of NIST Apx. L, the column, girder and beam sizes are described.
The connections are also described.
Rather than plugging in values, use the data in the NIST report to determine the actual strength of the columns, girders and beams.

BTW: pg 5 "Between the columns there were moment connected girders..."

 

[Newtons Bit]

Let's try this again.

His assertion that cantilever effect would create a negative load in the columns furthest away from the damage shows that he is talking thru his hat.
His model shows that a cantilever effect would result in a substantial negative load to column 4 and a small positive load to column 5.

I think my model speaks for itself. The largest uplift is on the outside column. It's an EXAMPLE describing a CONCEPT which you fail to get. I'm not going to model WTC7.

Meanwhile, you speak as someone who can never admit he's wrong, even when it only happened a few posts ago. Can you say "troll"?

 

[rwguinn]

I understand.

No

WTC 7 had 14 columns along the south side, your model has 5.

You can plug in any values you want until you get the desired result.

On pg 5 - 7 of NIST Apx. L, the column, girder and beam sizes are described.
The connections are also described.
Rather than plugging in values, use the data in the NIST report to determine the actual strength of the columns, girders and beams.

BTW: pg 5 "Between the columns there were moment connected girders..."

Here we go again...

Give up, nb--you couldn't get a concept through that wall he's built if you used a diamond bit and dynamite...
I, however, am convinced that you know a bit about structural analysis--even if you are a young whelp!

(I've always wanted to reach curmudgeonhood and use that word!)

 

[Newtons Bit]

Still using allowable stress methods old man?

 

[Kent1]

Clearly some of these are wrong. I can't say for certain what the damage is.
Michael Hess didn't say the lobby was gone it was Barry.

We also have some south face glass broken at lower floors after the collapse of WTC2 on the report.
Large debris hole near center around 14th floor
The reported damage above the atrium was 1/4 width of south face

8th 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to the west 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby
Boyle: a hole 20 stories tall in the building. He also talked about "a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. " But we know that it wasn't 20 stories.
Steve Spak mentioned damage below what was shown in the photo.
The 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide and 30 to 40 feet deep is very likely incorrect. Only damage to 9th floor at SW corner is clearly incorrect as we can see from videos and photos. But I think you mean the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.

Again there are a lot of conflicting and incorrect accounts. I believe much of this will be resolved soon in the upcoming report.

 

[Christopher7]

Let's try this again.

I think my model speaks for itself. The largest uplift is on the outside column.

In your model, that 'outside' column is only 3 away from the severed column.

In WTC 7 the 'outside' column was 7 columns away.

I take it you are not going to look up the actual values of the columns, girders and beams in WTC 7.

So what did you use as the size and strength of the columns, beams and moment frames in your model?

I will compare that with the actual steel used in WTC 7 and see if you were close.

It's an EXAMPLE describing a CONCEPT which you fail to get. I'm not going to model WTC7.

As you say, this is only a concept and does not qualify as evidence that the debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Kent1]

Double post

 

[Christopher7]

Clearly some of these are wrong. I can't say for certain what the damage is.

There was a lot of damage to the west half of the south face.

The 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide and 30 to 40 feet deep is very likely incorrect.

Thank you for that much.

It is definitely incorrect.
[unless you think the firefighters and the Chief are incompetent]

 

[twinstead]

There was a lot of damage to the west half of the south face.


Thank you for that much.

It is definitely incorrect.
[unless you think the firefighters and the Chief are incompetent]

But don't you imply that the firefighters and other experts on the scene who claimed the building was leaning and in imminent danger of collapse are incompetent?

 

[Christopher7]

But don't you imply that the firefighters and other experts on the scene who claimed the building was leaning and in imminent danger of collapse are incompetent?

One fireman, two blocks away, and a guy who works nearby thought WTC 7 was leaning.

No one at the scene thought it was leaning.

FEMA did not say it was leaning.

NIST did not say it was leaning.

WTC 7 was not leaning.


we've been over this

 

[Belz...]

As you say, this is only a concept and does not qualify as evidence that the debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

As I said, the only obstacle left is for you to admit that fire destroys buildings; but that shouldn't be too difficult, should it ?

 

[twinstead]

One fireman, two blocks away, and a guy who works nearby thought WTC 7 was leaning.

No one at the scene thought it was leaning.

FEMA did not say it was leaning.

NIST did not say it was leaning.

WTC 7 was not leaning.


we've been over this

No, we've been over the fact that you ignore the dozens of eye witness accounts that have been posted for you dozens of times by Gravy and others.

So, exactly on who's recommendation was the WT7 and surrounding area evacuated and secured? Some guy 2 blocks away?

 

[chipmunk stew]

As you say, this is only a concept and does not qualify as evidence that the debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

It wasn't presented as evidence. It was presented as a proof of concept that supports the plausibility of the hypothesis that the debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

Additionally, there IS evidence supporting the hypothesis, in the form of bulging and creaking (I'll leave out leaning if you prefer).

This hypothesis may be a red herring. We'll see how it all shakes out in the actual report.

Why are you having such difficulty grasping this?

 

[Christopher7]

As I said, the only obstacle left is for you to admit that fire destroys buildings; but that shouldn't be too difficult, should it ?

Fires destroys wood framed buildings, and toilet paper factories.

[no more obstacles]

 

[Architect]

Fire destroys a wide range of buildings, including traditional masonry structures and structural steelwork. This is beyond dispute.

It can also destroy timber framed buildings. I am unaware of any construction professionals or tradesmen in the UK who would use the word "wood" in this context, but am willing to assume that this is a difference in nomenclature between our countries rather than a reflection on your actual skills.

In passing, I note that timber members can (depending on size) actually have a fire performance significantly in excess of steelwork.

Do let me know if you want to argue about the fire resistance of buildings. Its an area I know quite a bit about.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Architect:

Timber is big structural members made out of wood
Lumber is smaller pieces.

That's really the only difference.

 

[rwguinn]

Architect:

Timber is big structural members made out of wood
Lumber is smaller pieces.

That's really the only difference.

up to 4" X 4" is lumber
6" x 6" and up is timber.
Over 12" x 12" is telephone poles.
Just my opinion.

 

[Christopher7]

up to 4" X 4" is lumber
6" x 6" and up is timber.
Over 12" x 12" is telephone poles.
Just my opinion.

We seem to have drifted off point, which is:

There is NO evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.


Fire has not caused a modern high rise steel frame building to collapse.

The Madrid Tower did have a partial collapse of the lightweight perimeter columns on the upper 10 floors.
The reinforced concrete frame below, and in the center, was carrying the weight of the building.

The meridian Plaza had some sagging beams, but it did not collapse.

The Caracus Tower was gutted. Nothing but the steel frame was left in much of the upper floors.
It did not collapse.


I cannot rule out the possibility that office fires could have caused the initiating event in WTC 7 but i think it is very unlikely.