• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Christopher7 said:
It was emailed to me so I don't have a URL. Here's a cropped screenshot:

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/9711/thermalexpansionspreads.jpg
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I have tabulated those values in excel.

Expand = beam length * Delta T * Average Coefficient

I have plotted.

Temperature, T (°F) verses Degrees F Coefficient.

Delta T verses Average Coefficient

Delta T verses Expand (in)

All of those graphs show a linear relationship as expected. Infact you don't need to plot the data you can see it's linear. A linear coefficient of thermal expansion is a material property and by definition is linear.

You have stated

Christopher7 said:
Expansion of steel is not lineal.
Click to expand...
Will you accept that you are wrong on this simple mattter? The very spreadsheet you quote disagrees with you.
 
gerrycan said:
impossible? The initiating event claimed by NIST is impossible.
That someone could get access to crucial parts of the building is not impossible.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you're defining as "crucial". You are aware that regular CDs take months to setup, and that's working openly? The longer the devices are in WTC 7, the higher the chance of discovery.

I bet you can't answer why the explosives were there in the first place.

That the alarm could be set to test for 8 hours a day in the week or so before 911 is not impossible. (this would cause it to register any trigger as happening in one big single zone). These are not opinions to be debated, these are facts, to be dealt with.
Click to expand...
Entirely unsupported facts.
 
Sunstealer said:
Thank you.

I have tabulated those values in excel.

Expand = beam length * Delta T * Average Coefficient

I have plotted.

Temperature, T (°F) verses Degrees F Coefficient.

Delta T verses Average Coefficient

Delta T verses Expand (in)

All of those graphs show a linear relationship as expected. Infact you don't need to plot the data you can see it's linear. A linear coefficient of thermal expansion is a material property and by definition is linear.

You have stated

Will you accept that you are wrong on this simple mattter? The very spreadsheet you quote disagrees with you.
Click to expand...
Yes, if you say so. It's all Greek to me.;) The numbers are what I am interested in.

BTW: I made one with 599oC=4.67" - 688oC=5.51" & 738oC=6" highlighted:
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/3941/expansionspreadsheet.jpg
 
gerrycan said:
impossible? The initiating event claimed by NIST is impossible.
That someone could get access to crucial parts of the building is not impossible. That the alarm could be set to test for 8 hours a day in the week or so before 911 is not impossible. (this would cause it to register any trigger as happening in one big single zone). These are not opinions to be debated, these are facts, to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

3 Things are impossible.

1) NIST's Initiating event. Personally, I don't feel that way but you guys do so I'll mention it.

2 & 3) Explosives and Therm*te - it would have been imposssible to load the required amount to do the job with nobody noticing. Rigging a building 1/2 the size of WTC 7 (Look up JL Hudson, which is the world record) took MONTHS and dozens of people inside an empty building.


So what's left? That's what I want to know. You tell me.
 
gerrycan said:
so, is it impossible that charges were placed in wtc7?
Click to expand...

Yes.

It is entirely possible that a person could drop a pallet of explosives in the lobby, and just have it sit there.

It is NOT possible to plant tons of explosives in WTC 7, creating a controlled demolition 2x larger than the WORLD RECORD, with the entire building occupied 24/7.

That's a fantasy.
 
I don't even know why they have set the spreadsheet up that way, it seems convoluted. Only 3 columns are required (T, delta T and L) imho.

Linear coefficient of thermal expansion for steel α = 0.0000073 in/in °F
Original Length of beam L0 = 640.69 in
Expanded length of beam L at Temperature T = ???? (what we want to find)
Original (Room) Temperature T0 = 70 °F
Temperature T = Temperature of beam °F
Change in Temperature ⌂T = T-T0

L = α*L0*⌂T

So expansion for a beam at a temperature of 1250°F

=0.0000073 * 640.69 * (1250-70)
=5.5189 inches

The spreadsheet seems to be out a bit. I'm not sure what they are averaging in regard to Average Coefficient and why that's required for the calculation. Does anyone know why?

You can check the calculation here. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermal-expansion-d_1379.html
 
000063 said:
Depends on what you're defining as "crucial". You are aware that regular CDs take months to setup, and that's working openly? The longer the devices are in WTC 7, the higher the chance of discovery.
Click to expand...
Floors 5 and 6 were mechanical floors so only a few people had access.
Floors 7 and 8 were cubicles - i.e. 9 to 5'ers.
Floors 14, 15, 16 and 17 were vacant.

People wearing "Acme Cable" uniforms could rig the building and no one would be the wiser.

Now back to the subject of this thread:

The NIST theory that thermal expansion cause the girder between columns 79 and 44 under floor 13 is impossible due to the facts:

1) The seat was 12'' wide, not 11" as NIST stated in their final report.

2) NIST fraudulently omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange from folding for a couple inches beyond 6"

3) Even if the beam were pushed to a point where the bottom flange folded, the girder would only move down 1" to the 2" thick support plate.

4) The beams would start to sag between 600oC and 700oC and that would take up any thermal expansion so it is very unlikely that the beams could push the girder 6" and that's probably why NIST fraudulently said the seat was only 11".
 
Christopher7 said:
Floors 5 and 6 were mechanical floors so only a few people had access.
Floors 7 and 8 were cubicles - i.e. 9 to 5'ers.
Floors 14, 15, 16 and 17 were vacant.

People wearing "Acme Cable" uniforms could rig the building and no one would be the wiser.

Now back to the subject of this thread:

The NIST theory that thermal expansion cause the girder between columns 79 and 44 under floor 13 is impossible due to the facts:

1) The seat was 12'' wide, not 11" as NIST stated in their final report.

2) NIST fraudulently omitted the stiffeners that would have prevented the bottom flange from folding for a couple inches beyond 6"

3) Even if the beam were pushed to a point where the bottom flange folded, the girder would only move down 1" to the 2" thick support plate.

4) The beams would start to sag between 600oC and 700oC and that would take up any thermal expansion so it is very unlikely that the beams could push the girder 6" and that's probably why NIST fraudulently said the seat was only 11".
Click to expand...
What you need to do, instead of writing all this on JREF, is to actually put all this into a coherent letter/email/document and send it to NIST.

You will then get a reply. You never know, they may just accept what you are saying and have to look at a new scenario.

It would be good if you could post that exchange here for the benefit of us all. I'm sure NIST folk don't read JREF.
 
Christopher7 said:
People wearing "Acme Cable" uniforms could rig the building and no one would be the wiser.
Click to expand...

You're making this comment without even having a clue as to which structural components would have to have been rigged and prepared to create the exact collapse progression we see in the videos and photographs???

How is that possible?

That's like you asking me to build a house without giving me any ideas of what you want or showing me any drawings and me saying it will take me a month to build.

I've asked you before. Why haven't you or anyone else ever presented a conclusive, scientific paper complete with calculations and a step by step analysis showing that thermite/explosives could create the collapse of WTC7 as it is shown.
 
Sunstealer said:
I don't even know why they have set the spreadsheet up that way, it seems convoluted. Only 3 columns are required (T, delta T and L) imho.

Linear coefficient of thermal expansion for steel α = 0.0000073 in/in °F
Original Length of beam L0 = 640.69 in
Expanded length of beam L at Temperature T = ???? (what we want to find)
Original (Room) Temperature T0 = 70 °F
Temperature T = Temperature of beam °F
Change in Temperature ⌂T = T-T0

L = α*L0*⌂T

So expansion for a beam at a temperature of 1250°F

=0.0000073 * 640.69 * (1250-70)
=5.5189 inches

The spreadsheet seems to be out a bit. I'm not sure what they are averaging in regard to Average Coefficient and why that's required for the calculation. Does anyone know why?

You can check the calculation here. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermal-expansion-d_1379.html
Click to expand...
You calculated . . . . . . . . . 1250oF = 5.52" (rounded)
The spread sheet calculated 1270oF = 5.51"
Your calculation . . . . . . . . . ??? oF = 6"
The spread sheet calculated 1360oF = 6"

An engineer I know calculated that the beam would sag about 7 1/2" at
1300oF and that would shorten the beam a little less than 1/2".
 
Christopher7 said:
You calculated . . . . . . . . . 1250oF = 5.52" (rounded)
The spread sheet calculated 1270oF = 5.51"
Your calculation . . . . . . . . . ??? oF = 6"
The spread sheet calculated 1360oF = 6"

An engineer I know calculated that the beam would sag about 7 1/2" at
1300oF and that would shorten the beam a little less than 1/2".
Click to expand...

Why don't you contact NIST?
 
Sunstealer said:
I don't even know why they have set the spreadsheet up that way, it seems convoluted. Only 3 columns are required (T, delta T and L) imho.

Linear coefficient of thermal expansion for steel α = 0.0000073 in/in °F
Click to expand...

I can't say substantively what's going on, but the spreadsheet treats α as a function of temperature. It appears to be a linear function. I surmise that the averaging yields the "average" α over the range from ambient temperature to final temperature, much as one might average initial and final velocity in certain constant-acceleration problems.

So in the world of this spreadsheet, as C7 says, thermal expansion isn't quite linear, although it is darn close. (ETA: It's darn close in the sense that delta L between 1250 and 1350 is almost indistinguishable from delta L between 1350 and 1450. Either one in this model is substantially larger than delta L between, say, 70 and 170.)
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
You calculated . . . . . . . . . 1250oF = 5.52" (rounded)
The spread sheet calculated 1270oF = 5.51"
Your calculation . . . . . . . . . ??? oF = 6"
The spread sheet calculated 1360oF = 6"

An engineer I know calculated that the beam would sag about 7 1/2" at
1300oF and that would shorten the beam a little less than 1/2".
Click to expand...
1353°F will produce 6".

As I said - you need to write all this down in detail and contact NIST.
 
Last edited:
Rest assured that Christopher7 and gerrycan won't actually do anything with this important information. Mock trials and youtubes seem to the desired end result, not a process towards any end. They won't even say who should conduct their "new investigation," nor on what authority.
 
Sunstealer said:
I don't even know why they have set the spreadsheet up that way, it seems convoluted. Only 3 columns are required (T, delta T and L) imho.

Linear coefficient of thermal expansion for steel α = 0.0000073 in/in °F
Original Length of beam L0 = 640.69 in
Expanded length of beam L at Temperature T = ???? (what we want to find)
Original (Room) Temperature T0 = 70 °F
Temperature T = Temperature of beam °F
Change in Temperature ⌂T = T-T0

L = α*L0*⌂T

So expansion for a beam at a temperature of 1250°F

=0.0000073 * 640.69 * (1250-70)
=5.5189 inches

The spreadsheet seems to be out a bit. I'm not sure what they are averaging in regard to Average Coefficient and why that's required for the calculation. Does anyone know why?

You can check the calculation here. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-thermal-expansion-d_1379.html
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the temp that gets averaged. The equation is for unrestrained expansion. You might notice that our first sheet gives the figure over 5.5, but the 2nd gives less. Its worth remembering that steel expands in all directions too, although the side of the building would be stronger that the interior column structure that the beam is connected to at its other end. A figure just over 4.5 is much closer to the mark for the expansion, but it could never all be in the direction that favours NISTs story, so even saying it is somewhere less than 4.5 is being kind to them. Also the girder wouldnt have far to expand before it is hard up to the column, which potentially brings the sideplates into play.(not that it could ever reach them)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom