• 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.
GlennB said:
It appears to refer to an individual beam and its load. The load on the girder would be multiples of that, but absent C7's friend's methodology and working we have no idea.
Click to expand...

Is the calc for 'sagging' that he refers too based on it being unsupported in a test situation, unsupported by the floor below or whilst in situ with supports below intact?
 
Christopher7 said:
You are ignoring the expansion of the girder which would put more of the girder over the support plate.

We are discussing the NIST hypotheses, the fact that it is impossible and they falsified the data trying to get it to work.

Yes, as it turns out my instincts were correct.
Above 600oC the sagging would shorten the beam more than it was expanding.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/6996/shortvtempscreenshot.jpg

At 600oC the beam would expand 4.68"
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4001/beamexpansionspreadshee.jpg
but sagging would shorten it 0.416" for a net length increase of 4.264".
At ~640oC the beam would expand 5" but loose 2" to sagging.

In other words, Thermal expansion of the beam could not push the girder 5".
Click to expand...

Nice Dodge!! That thing got a Hemi?!?!?!?

It is a loaded beam, or free of load?

A simple question. Don't dodge it.
 
Jackanory said:
Is the calc for 'sagging' that he refers too based on it being unsupported in a test situation, unsupported by the floor below or whilst in situ with supports below intact?
Click to expand...

Apologies, I'm talking at cross-purposes to your question. My original question to Chris regarded the sagging of the girder. He has answered tfk's point about the girder walking off northwards through sagging followed by contraction by switching back to discussing westward pushing by the beams. But only after re-defining "seat plate" :rolleyes:

It's the Gish Gallop. Or The Chris Canter. Or something :)

edit: actually he's doing really well, having managed to avoid any thought about presenting his counter-theory by tying up the discussion with technical detail. Mea (among others) culpa
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
2) The stiffeners would prevent the bottom flange from folding for a little further but even when they failed the girder would land on the support plate.
Click to expand...
What would happen when a girder resting on that vertical plate cools down?
 
tfk said:
Doesn't matter one iota how much the stiffener plates do their job.

The seat plate is the weak link.

Christopher7 said:
No, the plate is 2" thick and 14" high. It is welded to the column side plates. That is what has been holding up the girder. You have not a clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No, you'd be wrong about that.

One might think that telling you that it's "the weakest link" might lead you to the right component. But nooooooo...

The seat, also called by NIST the "seat plate" (see below) is the horizontal plate underneath the girder. NIST also talks about a "supporting plate", which is the one you are citing.

NIST said:
Girders that framed into interior Columns 79 and 81 also had seated connections with a top clip (STC). The seat was either a rolled angle or a seat plate welded to the column. The seat plate at Column 81 was stiffened while the seat plate at Column 79 was supported by a plate welded to the side cover plates on the lower stories. Figure 2–20 is a schematic of the seat arrangement for Column 79 where side plates were used.
Click to expand...

NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 1, pg 23, pdf pg 67

Moreover you are being deliberately obtuse (aka, deceptive) with YOUR OWN terminology. Somewhere, in this very post of yours, you refer to the other plate as the "support plate".

Why are you being deliberately obtuse, Chris?
___

Christopher7 said:
Walk off would have been prevented by: … blah, blah, blah
Click to expand...

You keep saying this with zippo to back it up except bare, unsupported assertion.

And that is one of the two main differences between you & the Structural Engineers at NIST.

1) They know what they are talking about.
2) They actually did a detailed analysis to support their findings.

You fail at both.

BTW, it's not at all clear from this drawing, much less from the actual bending, flexing & movement of the part, whether the girder would have hung up on the flange plate or would have slid by it, due to the angle with which the end of the girder approaches the column.

You know, Chris, I bet that the engineers at NIST, being competent & experienced, looked at this issue carefully. Why don't you drop a note to Therese McAllister (or better yet, John Gross. He's always so warm & fuzzy when hearing from Truthers with Attitudes!) and ask her/him?

Christopher7 said:
2) The stiffeners would prevent the bottom flange from folding for a little further but even when they failed the girder would land on the support plate.
Click to expand...

Gee, "support plate".

I guess your confusion about what was the "seat plate" was … what? Just for show?
 
GlennB said:
...It's the Gish Gallop. Or The Chris Canter. Or something :)

edit: actually he's doing really well, having managed to avoid any thought about presenting his counter-theory by tying up the discussion with technical detail. Mea (among others) culpa
Click to expand...
He is the best example of the genre we have posting at present with Ergo a long way behind in second place.
 
tfk said:
The seat, also called by NIST the "seat plate" (see below) is the horizontal plate underneath the girder. NIST also talks about a "supporting plate", which is the one you are citing.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the drawing. The seat plate is irrelevant. The support plate was supporting the girder.

BTW, it's not at all clear from this drawing, much less from the actual bending, flexing & movement of the part, whether the girder would have hung up on the flange plate or would have slid by it, due to the angle with which the end of the girder approaches the column.
Click to expand...
Your ability to ignore critical information is virtually unlimited.

The girder EXPANDED. Have you heard about thermal expansion?

It was pushing up against column 79 so it was beyond the support plate.
4 degrees is not much of an angle and with a 45' radius the girder would hit the column side plate. If it got by that it would have landed on the support plate.

col79stiffenerse.jpg
 
Jackanory said:
Is the calc for 'sagging' that he refers too based on it being unsupported in a test situation, unsupported by the floor below or whilst in situ with supports below intact?
Click to expand...
I am waiting for a reply.
 
Last edited:
Here is what is happening in this thread....

Chris, who is not an Engineer and is not technical at all, is reading the NIST report and only partially understanding it...

Then he runs off to his "Engineer friend" who understands it better than Chris, but still not good enough to make correct conclusions...

This, combined with a healthy does of youtube and the non expert opinions of fellow truthers, gives Chris enough "techno-babble" that he can potentially confuse non technical folk into believing he might actually understand some stuff.

But he doesn't.

The end result of this game is the same....the knowledgable technical folks end up laughing at Chris......the only difference is that it might take 3-4 sentences to explain the laughter instead of the standard 1-2. Once the explanation is given all of the non technical folks say "Oooooo I get it now" and then proceed with the laughter.

Chris....you are not an Engineer...you are not technical....we understand this. The fact that you don't understand the points that TFK is raising is okay....it really isn't your fault. Not everyone can be technical or be an Engineer....so you should just listen and try to learn something.

Attacking NIST is not working out for you very well because eventually we get into topics that you are not equipped to discuss.....no matter how many "engineer friends" you consult.

Unless you have an ACTUAL ANALYSIS you have performed...complete with all of that "math" stuff and "physics" stuff that real life Engineers have to worry about.....that shows NIST to be deceptive or completely wrong you are just wasting your time and everyone elses time.

Do you have any analysis Chris?

We are waiting for a reply Chris....

The world has been waiting for a reply for 10 years ;) so do try to get a move on Chris.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
I am waiting for a reply.
Click to expand...

I thought you would have already known that?

Whilst we wait:-

Can you give an answer if unsupported in a test situation?

Can you give an answer if unsupported by floors below?

Can you give an answer if in situ with support below intact?
 
newton3376 said:
Do you have any analysis Chris?

We are waiting for a reply Chris....
Click to expand...
Here is what is happening in this thread. Anonymous posters and preachers, who are not engineers and not technical at all, are engaging in "techno-babble" in hopes that they can potentially confuse non technical folk into believing they might actually understand some stuff.
 
Christopher7 said:
Here is what is happening in this thread. Anonymous posters and preachers, who are not engineers and not technical at all, are engaging in "techno-babble" in hopes that they can potentially confuse non technical folk into believing they might actually understand some stuff.
Click to expand...

1. I, like many others here, am an actual degreed working Engineer....but nice try Chris ;)

2. I am plenty technical so I dont need to use techno-babble.....thats for people like you Chris

3. I do not know anyone in this thread that is a "preacher"....so you bringing up the term is rather bizarre.


Of course....you could have just said "No...I don't have an analysis" instead of all the other nonsense.

We are still waiting Chris.

Where is your analysis Chris?

The entire WORLD is awaiting your earth shattering-NIST destroying-eye opening-world changing-FEMA death camp stopping-Bush Cheney convicting-sheeple waking analysis....

When do you expect it to be done Chris? Even NIST didn't take over 10 years...;)
 
Last edited:
This, combined with a healthy does of youtube and the non expert opinions of fellow truthers, gives Chris enough "techno-babble" that he can potentially confuse non technical folk into believing he might actually understand some stuff.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm about as non-technical as it gets, and I can see he's talking out of his rear virtually with every keystroke. All of them are the same.

Nobody is fooled. Not a single soul.
 
Christopher7 said:
Here is what is happening in this thread. Anonymous posters and preachers, who are not engineers and not technical at all, are engaging in "techno-babble" in hopes that they can potentially confuse non technical folk into believing they might actually understand some stuff.
Click to expand...

Maybe its babble to YOU, because maybe you are not bright enough to understand what is being said. It is not up to us to dumb it down to your level. You don’t need to be an engineer to understand some basic physics concepts.

It could be a Catch 22 thing, your inability to understand technical issues may have made you more prone to buying the conspiracy theorist hype in the first place. And that same ignorance may prevent you from realizing your were suckered in the first time.
 
NoahFence said:
Actually, I'm about as non-technical as it gets, and I can see he's talking out of his rear virtually with every keystroke. All of them are the same.

Nobody is fooled. Not a single soul.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone here is fooled.....but most here have done far more research into these issues than the average "non-technical" person....

I'm glad that you are among those who see through his BS....that is encouraging.
 
Wouldn't be so bad if C7 didn't contradict himself in b+w from post to post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom