• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

Status
Not open for further replies.
gerrycan said:
Not at all, I'm just interested as to your opinion, thats all. Im not looking for a pat on the back, im looking for the truth about wtc7.
Click to expand...

Somehow I dont think you want our truth. It kinda messes with the whole 'inside jobby' thing. But you will know that already, right. lol.
 
gerrycan said:
Not at all, I'm just interested as to your opinion, thats all. Im not looking for a pat on the back, im looking for the truth about wtc7.
Click to expand...
So contact NIST and get their feedback on your concern.

I don't see where this single issue really makes any difference to the final outcome. This was not the "straw that broke the camels back". I don't believe an extra inch would make any difference.

Besides that, What would be NIST's motivation to fake the cause of an insignificant buildings collapse?
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
Yes, foreknowledge is an issue, i agree. Fire doesnt bring buildings like this down, and certainly not predictably, or to a countdown.
Click to expand...

High probability of collapse from observed the damage and bulging walls - no foreknowledge of anything like demolition by those silent explosives.

Going to incorporate the collapse including the east penthouse next time and a soundtrack?
 
DGM said:
So contact NIST and get their feedback on your concern.

I don't see where this single issue really makes any difference to the final outcome. This was not the "straw that broke the camels back". I don't believe an extra inch would make any difference.
Click to expand...

Ok, you need to look at the drawings. Its not just an extra inch. The plate 'pg' under the 12" 'pf' seat extends the 'walk off' point by quite a bit.
 
slowsmile said:
High probability of collapse from observed the damage and bulging walls - no foreknowledge of anything like demolition by those silent explosives.

Going to incorporate the collapse including the east penthouse next time and a soundtrack?
Click to expand...

Sure, i think that given the impossibility of NISTs explanation of the column 79 failure, that the inclusion of the penthouse falling would be good to include as it begs the question just what could make this very robust connection fail, because it sure wasn't thermal expansion. Thanks for the input.
 
gerrycan said:
Ok, you need to look at the drawings. Its not just an extra inch. The plate 'pg' under the 12" 'pf' seat extends the 'walk off' point by quite a bit.
Click to expand...
I have looked at them.

You missed my edit. What would be NIST's motivation to fudge (and hope not to get caught) the cause of collapse of an insignificant building? You're not one of those "Silverstein made out like a bandit" believers are you?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
So contact NIST and get their feedback on your concern.

I don't see where this single issue really makes any difference to the final outcome. This was not the "straw that broke the camels back". I don't believe an extra inch would make any difference.

Besides that, What would be NIST's motivation to fake the cause of an insignificant buildings collapse?
Click to expand...

Ok, youve made the 'contact NIST' point.(again) I take that on board, thanks.
 
DGM said:
I have looked at them.

You missed my edit. What would be NIST's motivation to fudge (and hope not to get caught) the cause of an insignificant building? You're not one of those "Silverstein made out like a bandit" believers are you?
Click to expand...

Not at all, I am very much in the 'thermal expansion could not do this' camp. And if you have looked at the drawings, do you not think that plate 'pg' would extend the distance that the girder needs to 'walk'?
 
gerrycan said:
Not at all, I am very much in the 'thermal expansion could not do this' camp. And if you have looked at the drawings, do you not think that plate 'pg' would extend the distance that the girder needs to 'walk'?
Click to expand...
So why would they want to cover-up the real (as you claim) reason of the collapse. This is a crap load of people that are now dragged "into it". You do know the worst way to keep a secret is to not keep it to yourself. If you think they're all just incompetent...........well you know where I'm going.

;)
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
So why would they want to cover-up the real (as you claim) reason of the collapse. This is a crap load of people that are now dragged "into it". You do know the worst way to keep a secret is to not keep it to yourself. If you think they're all just incompetent...........well you know where I'm going.

;)
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that the reason for the collapse is not the one that NIST claim because it is physically impossible, it follows then that this should be reinvestigated, in order to establish what could have caused this. Would it be reasonable for example, to expect NIST to test for explosives/residue, even if it were only to rule this out as a possible cause? After all, explosives have brought down way more steel buildings than fire ever has.
 
gerrycan said:
I'm just saying that the reason for the collapse is not the one that NIST claim because it is physically impossible, it follows then that this should be reinvestigated, in order to establish what could have caused this. .
Click to expand...

You say it's "physically impossible". You'll have to forgive me if I don;t take your word for this. Where can I see your data showing this to be true? Why do we need a new investigation? You can conclude NIST got it wrong but you can't give an alternative theory?
 
DGM said:
You say it's "physically impossible". You'll have to forgive me if I don;t take your word for this. Where can I see your data showing this to be true? Why do we need a new investigation? You can conclude NIST got it wrong but you can't give an alternative theory?
Click to expand...

The beams to the east of the girder cannot expand enough to push it off its seat. How far do you believe the girder has to 'walk' in order to fail?
 
gerrycan said:
I'm just saying that the reason for the collapse is not the one that NIST claim because it is physically impossible, it follows then that this should be reinvestigated, in order to establish what could have caused this. Would it be reasonable for example, to expect NIST to test for explosives/residue, even if it were only to rule this out as a possible cause? After all, explosives have brought down way more steel buildings than fire ever has.
Click to expand...

Of course its physically possible.

Does metal expand?

What happens to a column pushed from one direction without a compensating normal force?

Would you change your mind if you knew steel buildings have collapsed due to fire?

Do things sometimes happen that have never happened before?

If that doesn't convince you, do you have a convincing alternative model for how they could have not collapsed due to fire? Has that model ever been used before successfully? If it hasn't, do you truly believe someone with power and influence would sign up to rolling the dice and taking their chances on it?
 
LSSBB said:
How far could they have expanded and pushed it? What is your model? Please included tolerance stack-ups.
Click to expand...

unrestrained thermal expansion (no resistance) would be around 5.7" for the longest of the floor beams to the east of the girder at NISTs temperature estimate. Not enough to cause the girder to walk off.
 
gerrycan said:
unrestrained thermal expansion (no resistance) would be around 5.7" for the longest of the floor beams to the east of the girder at NISTs temperature estimate. Not enough to cause the girder to walk off.
Click to expand...
Do you believe these all would have expanded evenly and not caused any twisting or distortion of any other members? What happens when a restrained member is heated then cools?
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
unrestrained thermal expansion (no resistance) would be around 5.7" for the longest of the floor beams to the east of the girder at NISTs temperature estimate. Not enough to cause the girder to walk off.
Click to expand...

Why not? Would it hold with .3" remaining to the COG (at the contact point)? What if the column was deformed?

What is your tolerance stackup?
 
LSSBB said:
Why not? Would it hold with .3" remaining to the COG (at the contact point)? What if the column was deformed?

What is your tolerance stackup?
Click to expand...

This is absolute worse case scenario in terms of tolerances. In reality 2.5" would be closer, if not less. There is also another plate under the 12" seat which is wider onto which the girder would fall even if it could walk this far, which it can't.
 
DGM said:
Do you believe these all would have expanded evenly and not caused any twisting or distortion of any other members? What happens when a restrained member is heated then cools?
Click to expand...

Depends, how hot did it get? And NIST say that these beams were heated uniformly in their analysis, so their expansion would be proportional to their length. I know it's a crazy idea to think that these beams could all go to 600 deg in a few seconds and uniformly at that, but hey, that's NIST for ya.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom