• 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.
tfk said:
gerry,



"…discuss…"
From Latin "dis quatere": to shake apart.

You can't simultaneously "discuss" & "sit back & say nothing".



"… some engineering qualifications …"

And the guy that picks up the trash calls himself a "sanitation engineer", and the guy that replaces the rolls of toilet paper at work calls himself a "facilities engineer".

Stop blowing smoke up my skirt. You know exactly what your field is (big hint, it's exactly what someone gives you a paycheck to do), and exactly how long you've been doing it.

"Honesty. It's good for what ails ya!"



"Me, having a discussion while you sit silent" is called a monologue.

I don't do monologues on this subject anymore. It ain't my job to spoon feed kids who don't want to put in any effort.

If you want to have a discussion, you are OBLIGED to participate.



I don't have any problems with NIST's assessment of this failure.

You, on the other hand, do have a problem which prompted you to produce multiple videos on Youtube about this issue in which you asserted that NIST's massively experienced engineers were either incompetent or fraudulent.

And now you want to sit back & just listen…?!

I don't think so.

And I'd definitely say that "you're up first".



Nowhere in those videos did I see a disclaimer that "we're just a bunch of kids who don't have a clue what we're talking about,"

You collaborated on a presentation, producing conclusions, which clearly asserts (incorrectly) that you do know what you were talking about.

So you damn well better know what your collaborators' backgrounds are.

Or else that is another massive blunder on your part.
___

And, now you're AGAIN making baseless assertions, undaunted by ignorance.

You said:


You have zero qualifications to make this assertion.

And it is simply wrong.

This is from the BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files" from around 2008, before NIST's final report was released.
(BTW, BBC reporters & graphic animators are amateurs at structural engineering. I am taking my information only from experts, such as Sunder & Barnett.)

Please listen until the 3:20 point.

Pay close attention at the 2:50 mark.
"And there is HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE from another building at the WTC which helps explain how fire could have caused Building 7 to collapse."

Pay close attention to Jonathan Barnett starting at 2:59.

"... we were stunned. We saw a major collapse (in WTC5). We saw an interior section of the building that had collapsed simply due to fire."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxj8qaLUDPU&t=1m57s

Now listen to this guy (Richard Rotanz). He was in WTC7 after WTC1 collapsed, trying to assess the state of the building:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-j792vehaU&t=8m55s

Please listen for 1 minute until the 9:44 mark.

"Building creaking … thing falling … gaping holes in floors … Columns hanging … and elevator car thrown out of the shaft & down a corridor."

According to building drawings & shop drawings, that elevator would never have fit thru the elevator door opening. The elevators were in the core of the building, NOT where the falling WTC1 debris hit WTC7.

Do you realize now that things AFTER the impact from WTC1 debris may not have been exactly like the drawings showed in the "as built" condition? Even far away from the debris impact sites?

Your assertion that the girder could not have fallen "simply due to fire" is proven false. You may, or may not be able to figure out the ultimate cause, but it is demonstrably possible.
___

A small diversion...

For contrast, here is Richard Gage LYING THRU HIS TEETH about the smoke coming from WTC7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnjKAciMvaI

Listen to Gage's slimy, lying comments at the 1:00 mark, & contrast them to the videos of the motion of the smoke that show his comments to be lies.

Tell me again, please, why you put stock into the opinions of this proven liar.


tomk
Click to expand...

im really not interested in getting into some pissing contest with you, if you want to have a debate about wtc7 then feel free, i would enjoy it i am sure, if not then thats fine. i have never mentioned ae911truth yet. what i am qualified in and what i do for a living is none of your business, and not relevant here, if thats a prerequisite to a discussion re wtc7 then go talk to someone else.
 
Sorry gerry,

gerrycan said:
im really not interested in getting into some pissing contest with you, if you want to have a debate about wtc7 then feel free, i would enjoy it i am sure, if not then thats fine. i have never mentioned ae911truth yet. what i am qualified in and what i do for a living is none of your business, and not relevant here, if thats a prerequisite to a discussion re wtc7 then go talk to someone else.
Click to expand...

It wasn't supposed to be a pissing contest. It was supposed to be a discussion.

This is so f'ken typical of conversations with truthers.

You claim to have "some engineering qualifications".

Those qualifications are DIRECTLY relevant to your ability to make assertions about the structure & failure modes of WTC7. I ask you to elaborate, and you prevaricate.

I KNOW that you have no pertinent experience. I'm trying to get YOU to see that fact too.

I put out about 3 hours of digging up videos & writing posts to you.

Now, in a 6 year old snit, you're going to take your ball & go home.

Rather than be willing to put out the slightest effort & learn something.

Did you even watch the 5 minutes of video that I cued up for you? It proves your nonsense videos to be nonsense.

So I suspect that you'll generate some excuse to not watch them.

"Lazy & determinedly ignorant" was not my impression of the Scotsmen that I've met previously, gerry.


tom

PS. Yes you did mention ae911t, when you cited that your videos were referenced on their website.
 
tfk said:
Sorry gerry,



It wasn't supposed to be a pissing contest. It was supposed to be a discussion.

This is so f'ken typical of conversations with truthers.

You claim to have "some engineering qualifications".

Those qualifications are DIRECTLY relevant to your ability to make assertions about the structure & failure modes of WTC7. I ask you to elaborate, and you prevaricate.

I KNOW that you have no pertinent experience. I'm trying to get YOU to see that fact too.

I put out about 3 hours of digging up videos & writing posts to you.

Now, in a 6 year old snit, you're going to take your ball & go home.

Rather than be willing to put out the slightest effort & learn something.

Did you even watch the 5 minutes of video that I cued up for you? It proves your nonsense videos to be nonsense.

So I suspect that you'll generate some excuse to not watch them.

"Lazy & determinedly ignorant" was not my impression of the Scotsmen that I've met previously, gerry.


tom

PS. Yes you did mention ae911t, when you cited that your videos were referenced on their website.
Click to expand...

ok then, we have an open live, recorded debate on wtc7. we will find out who is ignorant. ok?
 
tfk said:
PS. Yes you did mention ae911t, when you cited that your videos were referenced on their website.
Click to expand...

where did i say that? and again, debate me live, we have an extreme room on a chat server that can be recorded video and audio, you will get an unedited copy of the debate before it is uploaded to youtube, and you WILL regret calling me ignorant by the time we have had that debate.
 
gerrycan said:
So you think that NIST got the initiating event right in their report? That the beams expanded enough to cause the girder to fail? How far did the girder have to walk in order to fail in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking only far enough to shear the bolts, if the beams subsequently sagged and dragged the girder off eastwards. To walk it off westwards then > half the width of the plate.

Incidentally I responded to your point about the stiffener plate also acting as support to the girder and effectively widening the plate. You seem to have missed that.

And it is not possible to install cutter charges, unnoticed, in a very busy occupied building. What's more, with no guarantee of WTC1 debris strike and, therefore, no guarantee of fires being set then there is no guarantee that some notional perps would have a plausible excuse for the building's ultimate demise. Such a plan is so fraught and bizarre it wouldn't get past the "bright idea" stage.

And that's even before asking the question "Why?"
 
GlennB said:
Strictly speaking only far enough to shear the bolts, if the beams subsequently sagged and dragged the girder off eastwards. To walk it off westwards then > half the width of the plate.

Incidentally I responded to your point about the stiffener plate also acting as support to the girder and effectively widening the plate. You seem to have missed that.
QUOTE]

the stiffner plateS are on the girder at either side of the web. The plate that extends the walk off would be plate 'pg'. not a stiffner plate.
Click to expand...
 
gerrycan said:
the stiffner plateS are on the girder at either side of the web. The plate that extends the walk off would be plate 'pg'. not a stiffner plate.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But the point remains that "pg" is below "pf" and is only 2" thick. Meanwhile the plate "pf" is not square to the column, so any walk takes the girder somewhat away from the column and away from "pg". Are you seriously suggesting that "pg" would catch the girder if it walked off westwards?

All totally academic, of course, if indeed the girder was rocked off by collapsing floors as NIST say in 1-9.
 
GlennB said:
Fair enough. But the point remains that "pg" is below "pf" and is only 2" thick. Meanwhile the plate "pf" is not square to the column, so any walk takes the girder somewhat away from the column and away from "pg". Are you seriously suggesting that "pg" would catch the girder if it walked off westwards?

All totally academic, of course, if indeed the girder was rocked off by collapsing floors as NIST say in 1-9.
Click to expand...

what drawing are you looking at to conclude this?
 
C7 said:
*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...
Sunstealer said:
Could you expand on the highlighted part please.
Click to expand...
The relationship of heat increase per degree to expansion is not 1:1. As the temperature rises the amount of increase in expansion per degree is greater as the spreadsheet shows.
 
gerrycan said:
what drawing are you looking at to conclude this?
Click to expand...

The one C7 posted here , where the 2"x14"x187/8" plate exactly matches the "pg" dimensions.

and, more schematically, the one I presume is a slide from the technical briefing, here
 
GlennB said:
Depends on 40°C either way, apparently
Click to expand...
Incorrect

Even then C7 admits the beams might have sagged and dragged the girder off the seat before it could walk off westwards
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The beams may have sagged but they could not have rocked the girder off its seat to the east because:
At column 44
The top clip was welded to the column and would restrict rotation.
The top flange of the girder would stop rotating when it met the flange of the column.

girdertocolumn44connect.jpg



At column 79
The top clip was welded to the column and would restrict rotation
The top flange of the girder at the column 79 stop rotating when it met the side plate.

NIST said the girder expanded until it was pushing against column 79.
1-9 pg 352
Continued axial expansion of the girder caused it to bear against the face
of Column 79, generating large axial forces that led to failure of the bolts connecting the girder to Column 44.

The graphic of the girder and seat in Figure 8-21 is inaccurate.

fig821e.jpg


The drawings show the actual sizes, angle and amount of the girder on the seat.

col79stiffenerse.jpg
 
Christopher7 said:
Incorrect...
Click to expand...
I note C7 that you are still managing to keep discusion:
1) limited to the 1.5 factor limit you are prepared to concede
2) confused as to whether the objective is "describe what happened" OR "prove NIST was wrong".
AND members other than me (and probably tfk) are prepared to go along with your limitations. (anyone I've missed accept my apology.)

So be it. I won't waste time playing your game BUT:
Christopher7 said:
...Incorrect. The beams may have sagged but they could not have rocked the girder off its seat to the east because:
At column 44
The top clip was welded to the column and would restrict rotation...
Click to expand...
so what would happen when these bits of limits were reached? Where would the next point of weakness be revealed as it yielded to the forces in play?
Christopher7 said:
...The top flange of the girder would stop rotating when it met the flange of the column....
Click to expand...
Ditto.
Christopher7 said:
...At column 79
The top clip was welded to the column and would restrict rotation...
Click to expand...
By how much and for how long?
Christopher7 said:
...The top flange of the girder at the column 79 stop rotating [IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY] when it met the side plate.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.
Christopher7 said:
...NIST said the girder expanded until it was pushing against column 79.
1-9 pg 352
Continued axial expansion of the girder caused it to bear against the face
of Column 79, generating large axial forces that led to failure of the bolts connecting the girder to Column 44....
Click to expand...
There goes the "switch objectives" again. What do you say happened in reality. We can discuss "NIST wuz wrong" in a separate thread so you don't get confused as to what you are trying to prove.

Then some "so whats"
Christopher7 said:
...The graphic of the girder and seat in Figure 8-21 is inaccurate.

[qimg]http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/3822/fig821e.jpg[/qimg]

The drawings show the actual sizes, angle and amount of the girder on the seat.

[qimg]http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9758/col79stiffenerse.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
...which don't need comment.

...and, so far, I am still honouring your artificial limitation to 1.5 factors. :rolleyes:
 
Christopher7 said:
The relationship of heat increase per degree to expansion is not 1:1. As the temperature rises the amount of increase in expansion per degree is greater as the spreadsheet shows.
Click to expand...
I've searched the thread but can't see the spreadsheet. Would you mind linking me to a download of it please. Thanks.
 
ozeco41 said:
I note C7 that you are still managing to keep discusion:
1) limited to the 1.5 factor limit you are prepared to concede
Click to expand...
1.5 factor limit ??? Sounds like a diversion to a discussion of what that is.

2) confused as to whether the objective is "describe what happened" OR "prove NIST was wrong".
Click to expand...
You may be confused but I am not. I have shown that NIST was wrong, using the data in the drawings and the laws of thermodynamics.

AND members other than me (and probably tfk) are prepared to go along with your limitations. (anyone I've missed accept my apology.)

So be it. I won't waste time playing your game
Click to expand...
The game is "ignore the facts presented an ask a question to divert the debate away from the fact that the NIST 'walk off' did not happen". And just about everyone but GlennB is playing it.

so what would happen when these bits of limits were reached? Where would the next point of weakness be revealed as it yielded to the forces in play?
Ditto.
By how much and for how long?
Fixed that for you.
There goes the "switch objectives" again. What do you say happened in reality. We can discuss "NIST wuz wrong" in a separate thread so you don't get confused as to what you are trying to prove.

Then some "so whats"...which don't need comment.
Click to expand...
I have stated my opinion that the girder could not rock off the seat to the east. You disagree and that's OK. Arguing about 'rock off' is a waste of time and a diversion. I won't argue the point further.

"Rock off" was a preliminary test and NOT the final hypothesis.
Shyam Sunder said the cause of the failure of the girder was "walk off" due to thermal expansion in the Technical Briefing on 8-26-08.

But as I have shown, that is not possible.

This thread is about "walk off" - not thermite or me or anything else, so please keep your comments restricted to "walk off".
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
...This thread is about "walk off" - not thermite or me or anything else, so please keep your comments restricted to "walk off".
Click to expand...
Correct. And your game of limiting it to a narrower topic does not fool me. Probably not any engineer giving the topic a bit of thought.

The hierarchy of objectives is:
Top Level - Explain the disconnection of the girder between C79 and C44 OR Prove NIST wrong about said subject. I suggest stick with "explain..." What happened does not depend on what NIST said years later. Whether or not NIST was wrong by the time they said it it was far too late for WTC7 to pay any attention to NIST. even if it had been listening at the time of the collapse.

Second level down - a subset of "Explain...C44" - is "limit discussion to walk off" whether or not that describes what happened. I'll accept that "walk off" is a suitable label without any proof at this stage.

Third level down - a further limited sub-set - "limit discussion to C7's nominated factors" - (two identified despite my facetious reference to 1.5) AND do not allow consideration of any of the several other factors involved or C7 will get annoyed.

I keep putting the discussion in "Level 2" which happens to be the topic. You insist on putting it in "Level 3" So could you please drop the snide comments about staying on topic until you get on topic yourself. :)
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Correct. And your game of limiting it to a narrower topic does not fool me. Probably not any engineer giving the topic a bit of thought.
Click to expand...
The "game" is making it a personal argument rather than accepting or rebutting the specific points made.

The hierarchy of objectives is:
Top Level - Explain the disconnection of the girder between C79 and C44
Click to expand...
According to NIST, thermal expansion of the beams and girder sheared the bolts.

OR Prove NIST wrong about said subject.
Click to expand...
I did.

I suggest stick with "explain..." What happened does not depend on what NIST said years later.

Whether or not NIST was wrong by the time they said it it was far too late for WTC7 to pay any attention to NIST. even if it had been listening at the time of the collapse.
Click to expand...
WTC 7 was a building. How could it listen to NIST? :boggled:

Second level down - a subset of "Explain...C44" - is "limit discussion to walk off" whether or not that describes what happened. I'll accept that "walk off" is a suitable label without any proof at this stage.
Click to expand...
A suitable label? Right. Can you accept that it could not happen?

Third level down - a further limited sub-set - "limit discussion to C7's nominated factors" - (two identified despite my facetious reference to 1.5) AND do not allow consideration of any of the several other factors involved or C7 will get annoyed.
Click to expand...
We are discussing walk off. NIST said walk off was due to thermal expansion. They did not mention any other factors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom