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

[DGM]

No, punching them in the face would be stupid. Get them to look at NISTs work, and also at how ANSYS works. Ask them if conductivity should be set to zero in a FEA model and if steel pans should be considered as concrete instead for any reason. Let me know what they respond with.

They have all read the reports.

Are you asking me to have them explain them to you?

You are an expert in this, correct?

 

[jaydeehess]

DGM
All gc needs to do is illustrate that the steel pan would have significantly altered the heat input to the beams between two points (say by greater than 5%) in order to have at least some miniscule backing to his bald contention that it makes a difference

 

[NoahFence]

gerrycan -

Simplify this for me. I read that post and my brain gets all mush. It's all greek to me.

"ANSYS Inputs don't add up"
"6 different stages of temperature"
"concrete thermally conduct, steel pan...blah blah blah"

I see a 110 story building collapsing on a 47 story building, causing gashes in the building here and there, and a fire that pretty much engulfs the entire buildling. I see firefighters saying hours beforehand that it is going to collapse, based on their real-time observations of seeing it bulging, and hearing it creaking and moaning. Then I seen the building collapse, and what I don't see is a single surprised face.

I also see other things happening that day, and i put them all together to paint the picture.

In your world, how is Shanksville connected to WTC 7?

I can draw that line very easily. Can you?

gerrycan -

Can you please clear this up for me?

 

[jaydeehess]

the fire was on the12th floor and the girder that failed was at its ceilong correct?
how does the steel pan then affect heat i\p to the beams?

been a while since I checked the exact layout of the floor system in 7

 

[gerrycan]

They have all read the reports.

Are you asking me to have them explain them to you?

You are an expert in this, correct?

Ask them if turning the conductivity to zero would help make the analysis software work in a more or a less realistic way. And yes, it would be interesting to have them explain the report to me. Get them to explain it to you first maybe. Could take a while.

 

[gerrycan]

DGM
All gc needs to do is illustrate that the steel pan would have significantly altered the heat input to the beams between two points (say by greater than 5%) in order to have at least some miniscule backing to his bald contention that it makes a difference

Making it conduct heat would make a huge difference. You do agree that steel conducts heat in the real world i presume?

 

[gerrycan]

the fire was on the12th floor and the girder that failed was at its ceilong correct?
how does the steel pan then affect heat i\p to the beams?

been a while since I checked the exact layout of the floor system in 7

In the real world, would the heat from the beams be conducted through the floorpan and the concrete?

 

[gerrycan]

gerrycan -

Can you please clear this up for me?

You're talking about shankesville, the thread is about NIST and wtc7, i cannot clear that up for you. Take focus lessons maybe?

 

[DGM]

Ask them if turning the conductivity to zero would help make the analysis software work in a more or a less realistic way. And yes, it would be interesting to have them explain the report to me. Get them to explain it to you first maybe. Could take a while.

Why would I have to do that?

You've been tell us that these are fatal flaws but you keep asking us to explain how they are not. You keep telling us that it makes a huge difference but offer zero data. Sounds like you're going on intuition.

Are you or are you not an expert in this field?

 

[tfk]

Are you saying that in ansys the thermal conductivity of steel should be ignored?

Here's an interesting concept for you, gerry.

If I had meant to say "in ansys the thermal conductivity of steel should be ignored", then I would have said "in ansys the thermal conductivity of steel should be ignored."

I didn't say anything of the sort.

I meant exactly, precisely what I DID say.

You set the coefficient of expansion of the concrete to zero because its thermal conductivity is so low compared to steel that the DYNAMIC situation is that the steel expands fully before you get any response from the concrete. A very close approximation to the worst case differential expansion is then given by the steel expanding & the concrete staying at room temp.

And here's the reason to do this: because then the FEA model becomes much, much simpler, quicker without sacrificing accuracy.

You don't consider the thermal expansion of the floor pans because they are corrugated and tied to the concrete with shear pins. The pins keep the floor pans tracking the concrete (which, as we showed above, should be with no expansion) and the thermal expansion simply turns into slight changes in corrugation angles. (It'll simply loosen up the floor pans from the concrete slightly, but will NOT result in any gross linear expansion.)


tk

PS. Figured out why the girder has to walk 3/4" in order for it to fall off the seat yet?

 

[tfk]

This is what I don't understand about truthers. They seem to want to reduce a complex system down to one isolated phenomenon. In this case the thermal expansion of a single beam. However, having read the NIST NCSTAR 1A, it's readily apparent that it is the system, as a whole, that is analysed.

BINGO!!

In order to see what is really going to happen on this lattice-work of horizontal & vertical members, along with variable & changing temperatures, one MUST do an FEA. Individual calculations on individual members are absolutely meaningless.

And let's see if anyone in the room has done a complete, elaborate, multi-floor professional FEA on all the members, components & attachments in the WTC7 ...?

Why, yes.

NIST has.

Amazing.

 

[gerrycan]

Here's an interesting concept for you, gerry.

If I had meant to say "in ansys the thermal conductivity of steel should be ignored", then I would have said "in ansys the thermal conductivity of steel should be ignored."

I didn't say anything of the sort.

I meant exactly, precisely what I DID say.

You set the coefficient of expansion of the concrete to zero because its thermal conductivity is so low compared to steel that the DYNAMIC situation is that the steel expands fully before you get any response from the concrete. A very close approximation to the worst case differential expansion is then given by the steel expanding & the concrete staying at room temp.

And here's the reason to do this: because then the FEA model becomes much, much simpler, quicker without sacrificing accuracy.

You don't consider the thermal expansion of the floor pans because they are corrugated and tied to the concrete with shear pins. The pins keep the floor pans tracking the concrete (which, as we showed above, should be with no expansion) and the thermal expansion simply turns into slight changes in corrugation angles. (It'll simply loosen up the floor pans from the concrete slightly, but will NOT result in any gross linear expansion.)


tk

PS. Figured out why the girder has to walk 3/4" in order for the it to fall off the seat yet?

concrete expands at a similar rate to steel. it also conducts heat and would have absorbed heat from the steel. the floorpan would have expanded also and would have conducted its heat to the slab as its top surface area is in total contact with the slab. Why turn the conductivity right down and ignore the concrete so that the analysis can be done quicker? Shouldnt NIST have done a more thorough job? Taken a little more time.
The floorpan is obviously thinner than the beams and girder and as a proportion to its mass has a huge amount of its surface area in contact with the concrete.
As for your 3/4" fantasy. youre talking about the girder expanding and going into compression once it is hard up to the face maybe. Dumb. Please tell me that isnt what you mean...

 

[gerrycan]

BINGO!!

In order to see what is really going to happen on this lattice-work of horizontal & vertical members, along with variable & changing temperatures, one MUST do an FEA. Individual calculations on individual members are absolutely meaningless.

And let's see if anyone in the room has done a complete, elaborate, multi-floor professional FEA on all the members, components & attachments in the WTC7 ...?

Why, yes.

NIST has.

Amazing.

No they havent. If they had and it had proved their point they would give out the inputs and we could all transfer those inputs to ansys and see what happens. Then we could put realistic inputs in and see what doesnt happen.

 

[jaydeehess]

prove
that including the steel pan would SIGNIFICANTLY
change the heat getting to the beams!!!

 

[gerrycan]

prove
that including the steel pan would SIGNIFICANTLY
change the heat getting to the beams!!!

It would change the heat getting to the CONCRETE. It has just less than half of its surface area in contact with it. BIG heatsink.

 

[NoahFence]

You're talking about shankesville, the thread is about NIST and wtc7, i cannot clear that up for you. Take focus lessons maybe?

Tell you what.

I'll take focus lessons if you take "reading for comprehension"

It's right next door.

I would like you to connect the dots. Please do so in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196440


I'm politely requesting that you give us your hypothesis on how the entire day went down. This is key. It simply does not matter how right or wrong NIST is if you can't even conjure up an alternate scenario.

 

[NoahFence]

FEA = ?

(sorry...)

 

[gerrycan]

FEA = ?

(sorry...)

you want me to tell you what FEA is?

 

[beachnut]

What makes you think i work with ae911?

You have the same zero evidence approach, post lots of words and say nothing. Exactly like Gage's delusional talks designed to appear to paranoid conspiracy theorists, so Gage can make a living. It is Gage's travel club, follow the money kind of scam, you don't see, hidden in plan sight. It is hilarious how many nuts send money to Gage, and don't care if he continues doing nothing.

1600 great minds, and brave true patriots too i would add, however, i represent myself only.

1600 failed professional on 911 issues, who have done zero about their failed claims. True patriots who believe lies out of ignorance. Good one. That is classic 911 truth humor. You must be doing a parody.
Too bad 1600 are unable to do anything on 911. Your work, when will it be published?

You say that 'it does not matter if NIST got it right' I can understand your lack of faith in their conclusions,

What? You make up your own conclusions based on your failure to understand.

You made up this part!

I can understand your lack of faith in their conclusions,

If all your work reflects this kind of nonsense, you will not move past the paranoid conspiracy stage in your work. You are not very good at comprehension, or twisting stuff around to suit your failed claims on 911.

I concur. However, it does matter, because if they didn't get it right then they should look at it again.

NIST already looked at it, done! You have failed for 10 years to do anything to support your claims. You can't clearly state you claims, NIST stated their claims, you make up nonsense.

If you want to look at it again, do it. Gage make over 400,000 dollars a year, why can't you get a grant? Because Gage is a fraud, and you have nothing, a double failure.

Nothing stops anyone from the study of WTC 7. Are you unable to do your own study and get help from 1600 nuts in A&E? They are not patriots, they are paranoid conspiracy theorists who signed up for crazy claims by a failed architect spreading lies about 911.

As for what caused the collapse - not thermal expansion as cited by NIST.

Prove it. Go ahead and publish your paper. Be famous. Where did you go to become a structural engineer?

Fire did it, what did it in your fantasy?

Don't you agree that this requires reinvestigation?

Not by me, or my tax dollars. I could study WTC 7 myself. Fire did it; bet you can't do better. Gage is a nut who makes money from people who can't think for themselves. With less than 0.01 engineers agreeing with Gage, zero evidence, there is no chance Gage will move past the nut case conspiracy stage.

When will you publish your findings? Where is your paper? If you think Gage and his 1600 failed 911 truth believers are true patriots... this is funny stuff. They failed on 911 issues.

 

[ozeco41]

This is what I don't understand about truthers. They seem to want to reduce a complex system down to one isolated phenomenon. In this case the thermal expansion of a single beam. However, having read the NIST NCSTAR 1A, it's readily apparent that it is the system, as a whole, that is analysed.

BINGO!!

In order to see what is really going to happen on this lattice-work of horizontal & vertical members, along with variable & changing temperatures, one MUST do an FEA. Individual calculations on individual members are absolutely meaningless.

DOUBLE BINGO!!!

That makes three of us who have identified several times that it is not a single factor situation involving a single member. Correct me if I've missed anyone.

So far C7 has denied and gerrycan has ignored the advice.