• 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.
Christopher7 said:
Certainly no one here.

The beam would have to be heated to roughly* 660oC to expand 5.5 inches. It would have lost well over half of its strength and probably be sagging at that point. The beam would have to be heated to 738oC to expand 6 inches butt would lose up to 80% of its strength and sag for sure while being heated to 738oC in the real world. Therefore, it could not push the girder laterally 6 inches.

Even if it could, the stiffeners would prevent the bottom flange from folding for another few inches. Even if the bottom flange folded, the girder would land on the 2" support plate.

The girder that supposedly started the cascade of collapsing floors that left column 79 unbraced for 9 stories and allowed it to buckle, could not and did not happen.

This is not an opinion, its the laws of thermodynamics as they apply to steel beams.


*The simplistic method NIST used is inaccurate. Expansion of steel is not lineal. The spreadsheet shows a temperature 40oC greater than the NIST method to get 6 inches of expansion.
Click to expand...
Could you expand on the highlighted part please.
 
tsig said:
So 12" impossible, 11" possible?
Click to expand...

Depends on 40°C either way, apparently :rolleyes: Even then C7 admits the beams might have sagged and dragged the girder off the seat before it could walk off westwards (bolts already sheared, mind). What a train-wreck of logic he presents.
 
GlennB said:
Depends on 40°C either way, apparently :rolleyes: Even then C7 admits the beams might have sagged and dragged the girder off the seat before it could walk off westwards (bolts already sheared, mind). What a train-wreck of logic he presents.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hope we get a handle on this newly discovered phenomenon called "thermal expansion".:p
 
Christopher7 said:
Originally Posted by gerrycan [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
NIST say that these beams were heated uniformly in their analysis,


So why didn't the beams buckle when heated to 610oC* in the final analysis? They can't have it both ways.

*The temperature required to make them expand 5.5" and pushed the girder off its seat - if it were 11" wide.
Click to expand...

Really?

'At Least 5.5" '..........at least........at least...........means minimum in my book. Then they took on the ACME principal......and levitated until it felt like more than 5.5". Isnt 5.5" the average length of a erm........erm...oh never mind. Perhaps it was viagra and not thermite. Yeah.......those beams expanded through viagra.

Hey Jonesy, test that viagra for a thermitic reaction would ya.
 
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'm going to ask a silly question. Are you from Scotland?
 
Christopher7 said:
No, the 11" was what NIST said in the final report. The 1' 0" was what was on the drawing that NIST got its information from.

That is not an innocent mistake IMnsHO.
Click to expand...
It would be simple enough to email them...you could spare yourself and us all this agita.
 
OCaptain said:
Prove it was 1 foot wide, please.
Click to expand...

1pgsyd.jpg

it is plate 'pf', 1 foot.
 
one more try!

carlitos said:
If you have addressed this elsewhere, I apologize. Why?

Why is a Scottish guy making youtubes about NIST? To what end?

What does success look like to you?
Click to expand...

As others, notably ozeco41, have asked - why? What is the desired end state?
 
carlitos said:
If you have addressed this elsewhere, I apologize. Why?

Why is a Scottish guy making youtubes about NIST? To what end?

What does success look like to you?
Click to expand...

Hi Carlitos, i guess success looks like people debating the destruction of this building, whilst taking into account the drawings that have been released. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that nist did not take into account all the elements that they should have, and appear to have 'misfudged' the dimensions of some and the existance of others, in a way that suits their conclusions. Are you asking, 'why are you bothered, you're not american'?
 
Christopher7 said:
The seat WAS 1' wide and the NIST hypothesis is impossible.
Click to expand...

tsig said:
So 12" impossible, 11" possible?
Click to expand...
The 12" versus 11" argument is the one C7 is ostensibly pushing BUT watch for the trap he is setting by getting debate to focus on that single issue.

As I stated clearly in several earlier posts his real error is that he is treating the "girder falls off the seat" issue as if it was caused by a single factor - that single factor being linear expansion/contraction caused by temperature. There are multiple factors contributing to the girder falling off the seat - not just that single factor.***

He then claims falsely that:
Christopher7 said:
That is the NIST hypothesis - thermal expansion initiated the collapse.
Click to expand...
That is an "untruth by partial truth" and Chris7 is aware that I have already "called" him on that untruth - to no avail he continues to repeat it. It is untrue because the NIST hypothesis is set in the context of all the factors impinging on the critical bits of structure - not only the temperature.

So by continuing to engage in debate of the single factor - temperature expansion - C7 is managing to avoid discussing the real situation.

Can everyone be aware of the trap which he is setting. ;)




(*** I am aware that he has made some token references to twisting as if that was a an unrelated separate factor. It doesn't invalidate the thrust of my criticism.)
 
Hey gerry,

Just checking back in.

Did you want to have that discussion?

Would you answer the questions that I asked you?

And then I'll attempt to answer any questions that you might have for me.


tom
 
gerrycan said:
Hi Carlitos, i guess success looks like people debating the destruction of this building, whilst taking into account the drawings that have been released. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that nist did not take into account all the elements that they should have, and appear to have 'misfudged' the dimensions of some and the existance of others, in a way that suits their conclusions....
Click to expand...
...and the point I have made repeatedly and which you keep evading is that whether or not NIST was wrong and whether or not NIST was deliberately dishonest does not in the least way change the topic of "debating the destruction of this building".

To put it so simply that you cannot claim to misunderstanding I will risk an analogy:
If the Twin Towers were brought down by the use of explosive devices in a demolition arrangement it matters not the slightest:
1) Who planned the use of explosives;
2) Who bought the explosives;
3) Who placed the explosives;
4) Who pushed the big red button;
5) Who arranged for all the evidence to disappear post collapse.

So:
Addressing your apparent technical objective -
A) What does it matter whether the support was 11" or 12"?
B) Do you comprehend that linear temperature expansion and contractions were not the only factor involved?

And addressing your socio-political objective:
C) Why do you wish to draw attention to errors or misrepresentation by NIST?
D) What do you want done about those alleged errors or misrepresentations?

And, finally,:
E) Do you acknowledge that what happened technically would not be different no matter how NIST reported the event in hindsight after it had happened?
 
tfk said:
Hey gerry,

Just checking back in.

Did you want to have that discussion?

Would you answer the questions that I asked you?

And then I'll attempt to answer any questions that you might have for me.


tom
Click to expand...

Sure, i would welcome the discussion. I am not a structural engineer, but i do have some engineering qualifications. What I suggest you do is just have the discussion, and if i cannot talk to you on your level you can end it, there's no problem. It would be interesting to discuss your take on these drawings and wtc7 in general sometime. As for the other guys, i cannot speak for them. You can ask them for yourself if you like.
 
ozeco41 said:
...and the point I have made repeatedly and which you keep evading is that whether or not NIST was wrong and whether or not NIST was deliberately dishonest does not in the least way change the topic of "debating the destruction of this building".
It does validate the call for a new investigation though.
To put it so simply that you cannot claim to misunderstanding I will risk an analogy:
If the Twin Towers were brought down by the use of explosive devices in a demolition arrangement it matters not the slightest:
1) Who planned the use of explosives;
2) Who bought the explosives;
3) Who placed the explosives;
4) Who pushed the big red button;
5) Who arranged for all the evidence to disappear post collapse.
So, who is responsible for this isn't important?
So:
Addressing your apparent technical objective -
A) What does it matter whether the support was 11" or 12"?
In terms of the walk off theory it doesn't, because the beams would not expand enough to push the girder to fail in either case.
B) Do you comprehend that linear temperature expansion and contractions were not the only factor involved?
NIST do cite this as the initiating factor.
And addressing your socio-political objective:
C) Why do you wish to draw attention to errors or misrepresentation by NIST?
Because i believe that high rise steel buildings are not prone to collapse in the manner that NIST say they are
D) What do you want done about those alleged errors or misrepresentations?
It would be nice to have them corrected, and the demise of the building investigated competently
And, finally,:
E) Do you acknowledge that what happened technically would not be different no matter how NIST reported the event in hindsight after it had happened?
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that what NIST say after the event does not cange reality. Did I misunderstand that question?

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom