They never considered the properties of the floor slab correctly, therefor the studs did not perform in their model as they would in reality. ie there was an exaggerated differential in their model. Also, i will say it AGAIN, with no studs and NO resistance the beam cannot walk far enough to cause the girder to fail. Do you think the girder has to walk further than 3/4" to fail? If so, how much further?
WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44
- Thread starter Gamolon
- Start date
- Status
They never considered the properties of the floor slab correctly, therefor the studs did not perform in their model as they would in reality. ie there was an exaggerated differential in their model. Also, i will say it AGAIN, with no studs and NO resistance the beam cannot walk far enough to cause the girder to fail. Do you think the girder has to walk further than 3/4" to fail? If so, how much further?
<snip>
Un-friggin-believable…
You just don't get it, do you…?
You answer 4 of the questions that I've asked you, and THEN I'll tell you EXACTLY how the girder only has to walk only 3/4" in order to fall off of its seat.
In other words, I will tell YOU exactly where YOU have made YOUR mistake.
Un-friggin-believable…
You just don't get it, do you…?
You answer 4 of the questions that I've asked you, and THEN I'll tell you EXACTLY how the girder only has to walk only 3/4" in order to fall off of its seat.
In other words, I will tell YOU exactly where YOU have made YOUR mistake.
Edited by Loss Leader:
Edited for Rules 0/12
Last edited by a moderator:
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
They did calculations, computer modeling, and analysis that led NIST to believe that the girder left it's seat. Are you telling me that the ONLY thing NIST shows or discusses in their report for this to happen is lateral expansion of a floor beams that pushed the girder west off it's seat?
That's it?
Is that what you have an issue with?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
So we yet again have a call out for a live verbal debate about technical details?
We had this arguement with pft concerning the Pentagon and flt77.
Then, as now, it is obvious that such forum is going to garmer absolutely nothing.
There is a reason why technical papers are written. Technical details in dispute require a forum in which qualified third parties can soberly and intelligently consider the facts and figures put forth.
A live "debate" simply cannot do that. All it can do is serve as a platform for a "is so", "is not" Jerry Springeresque broohaha.
It seems that just as Balsamo is unwilling to produce a purely technical paper outlining exactly why he concludes that the FDR does not match the accepted flight of flt 77; so to are C7 and our newest contributer completely unwilling to produce a purely technical paper outling how NIST's report on WTC7 is fatally flawed.
I suggest doing so and submitting it to various reputable publications for review such as engineering journals or even popular magazines such as "Discover".
Chris 7 would of course have to drop his "NIST lied, NIST lied" meme and it remains to be seen if he would be capable of such an objective stance.
We had this arguement with pft concerning the Pentagon and flt77.
Then, as now, it is obvious that such forum is going to garmer absolutely nothing.
There is a reason why technical papers are written. Technical details in dispute require a forum in which qualified third parties can soberly and intelligently consider the facts and figures put forth.
A live "debate" simply cannot do that. All it can do is serve as a platform for a "is so", "is not" Jerry Springeresque broohaha.
It seems that just as Balsamo is unwilling to produce a purely technical paper outlining exactly why he concludes that the FDR does not match the accepted flight of flt 77; so to are C7 and our newest contributer completely unwilling to produce a purely technical paper outling how NIST's report on WTC7 is fatally flawed.
I suggest doing so and submitting it to various reputable publications for review such as engineering journals or even popular magazines such as "Discover".
Chris 7 would of course have to drop his "NIST lied, NIST lied" meme and it remains to be seen if he would be capable of such an objective stance.
Last edited:
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
What was the correct way to consider the floor slab?
NoahFence
Banned
Gerry still can't tell the class any viable alternatives.
Fire collapsed WTC 7.
That's what did it. Not explosives, not thermite. No investigation is needed.
I am 100% confident that my background (Printing, PC repair, First Person Shooters, Bird Watching and Candlepin Bowling) is more than enough to debate you and prove you wrong.
You're too busy worrying about 3/4" walking of girders, meanwhile, I have the rock solid fact that it couldn't have been explosives or thermite.
Fire collapsed WTC 7.
That's what did it. Not explosives, not thermite. No investigation is needed.
I am 100% confident that my background (Printing, PC repair, First Person Shooters, Bird Watching and Candlepin Bowling) is more than enough to debate you and prove you wrong.
You're too busy worrying about 3/4" walking of girders, meanwhile, I have the rock solid fact that it couldn't have been explosives or thermite.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You seem really sure of yourself. What exactly is stopping you from writing this up and taking NIST to the "woodshed"?
I truly don't understand this YouTube stop along the way. You have structural engineers in your group, right?
I'm not trying to be snide here. Your inaction is baffling.
What makes you think i work with ae911? 1600 great minds, and brave true patriots too i would add, however, i represent myself only. You say that 'it does not matter if NIST got it right' I can understand your lack of faith in their conclusions, I concur. However, it does matter, because if they didnt get it right then they should look at it again. As for what caused the collapse - not thermal expansion as cited by NIST. Don't you agree that this requires reinvestigation?
I would be happy to debate this. You seem like a reasonable chap.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
gerrycan,
In your video you say that WTC7 was a total, symmetrical collapse.
Ii that true?
If you believe that, please explain how the east penthouse collapsing first into the building, progressing west, then followed by the facade collapsing constitutes a "symmetrical" collapse.
In your video you say that WTC7 was a total, symmetrical collapse.
Ii that true?
If you believe that, please explain how the east penthouse collapsing first into the building, progressing west, then followed by the facade collapsing constitutes a "symmetrical" collapse.
NoahFence
Banned
Led by one of the great liars of recent memory.
Great company!
What they "didn't get right" makes no difference to the outcome. It's like a cop pulling you over for going 100MPH and you're complaining you were actually going 98.7 MPH.
What difference does it make? None.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
How far to the nearest liquor store?
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
If I thought for a second you were honest, I'd do it. You've probably got about 100 completely irrelevant and obscure 'facts' that I wouldn't even consider to be worthy of discussion, you'd present them, wait for your "gotcha" moment, then celebrate in your Guiness.
Not like this -
"Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab...the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete."NCSTAR1-5F,pg52
Which would have conducted heat, however, "The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used." NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20
Is that real world?
I sincerely hope he didn't say that.
It was looking like gerrycan was discussing facts (wrongly, imo) but ... can you link to his video? I haven't the energy to plough through this thread yet again looking for it
NoahFence
Banned
Not at all. I am interested in this topic and would be as respectful as you were. Please dont judge me. Also, guinness is irish, i am scottish.
The right way is to include all the elements and allow steel to conduct.
I sincerely hope he didn't say that.
It was looking like gerrycan was discussing facts (wrongly, imo) but ... can you link to his video? I haven't the energy to plough through this thread yet again looking for it
The collapse was very even. Is that better?
- Status