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

[triforcharity]

125 lbs//sq. foot based on a dead load of 75 lbs./sq. ft. and live load of 50 lbs./sq. ft. from the NIST report.

No, the one that your engineering friend calculated.

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

Really?

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.

Yes, if you say so. It's all Greek to me. The numbers are what I am interested in.

BTW: I made one with 599^oC=4.67" - 688^oC=5.51" & 738^oC=6" highlighted:
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/3941/expansionspreadsheet.jpg

Yep, it's all Greek to you, but it's us that are engaging in "techno-babble"?



You can't even work out the simplest of formulae. You couldn't even be bothered to look it up and do the maths that an 11 year old can do. It's babble to you because you are a layman who refuses to learn. Of course you are not going to understand anything. Calling technical posts "techno-babble" is an excuse - it doesn't fool us engineers (I have a BEng in Metallurgy and Materials Engineering), we can see you have no understanding!

 

[jaydeehess]

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...

Its been said many times before.

.........I read your first sentence there I had my hopes up that you or AE911T would actually be performing an FEA to refute NIST's.

You know, do research and determine parameters to input, equations to work on those parameters, justify it all, run the FEA and then examine the results..

But no, unfortunately all you, Chris, and AE911T want to do is snipe at NIST and put forth hand waving arguements about why NIST has to be wrong, call them liars and accessories to mass murder/in collusion to cover up mass murder, and never actually DO anything.

Geebus Kristoes, we have a debunker arranging for an analysis of the dust to refute Harrit et al. No government input at all in that one.

I would think that AE911T would have as a greater part of their membership, persons in the higher middle class earnings bracket who would be quite capable of contributing large enough sums to do at least a one FEA, say on the beams and girders in question here. Or if preferable one involving the building's response to the loss of that girder, you know, like what NIST did that showed collapse progressing to global collapse. Let me know when its going to be done and I'll send as much as I did for the dust analysis. (I am not in that higher earnings range though)

Just do it! (with apologies to Nike)

 

[ozeco41]

...And yes, I am waiting on a full System Level analysis, as opposed to random technical sniping at NIST.

Me too. I don't use "sig" points - but if I did that would be a candidate.

I even know what it means so it must be true.

 

[Christopher7]

125 lbs//sq. foot based on a dead load of 75 lbs./sq. ft. and live load of 50 lbs./sq. ft. from the NIST report.

Do you agree with that?

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 485 [pdf pg 147]

 

[LSSBB]

Me too. I don't use "sig" points - but if I did that would be a candidate.

I even know what it means so it must be true.

Well, it is apparently falling on deaf ears anyway.

 

[GlennB]

Well, it is apparently falling on deaf ears anyway.

Literal, Biblical Christian fundamentalists, when challenged about the whole "Noah's flood" business, might point out that there are signs of a freakishly high-water mark down by the Black Sea somewhere.

And it seems to be true. That this is about 3 miles below covering the habitable Earth with water and wiping out all terrestrial life matters not a jot to them.

It's a straw to clutch at. One that might conceivably support a belief born of faith in the message; no more, no less.

 

[Jackanory]

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 485 [pdf pg 147]

Second attempt.........Do you, CHRIS7 agree with that?

 

[tfk]

125 lbs//sq. foot based on a dead load of 75 lbs./sq. ft. and live load of 50 lbs./sq. ft. from the NIST report.

This is inadequate to define the loading condition.

Please provide:

1. The individual loads (not pressure, loads) at each beam to girder junction.

2. The distributed load applied to the girder from the portion of the floor supported by the girder.

4. Whether he put into his calculations a heat input, or a girder temperature, or temp profile.

6. Whether or not your analyst accounted for creep.

7. Whether or not his creep calculation contains corrections for BOTH a) temperature AND b) stress level.

8. Whether or not he checked for beam buckling as a result of thermal expansion.

9. What distance he calculated the beam would have retracted from buckling, rather than sagging.

Funny thing, NIST did all of this (with the possible exception of 7b. Which would greatly underestimate the actual amount of creep.)

Oh, Christ on a bicycle...

What am I thinking.

Nevermind, Chris.

Asking this just perpetuates this idiotic charade.

 

[Christopher7]

Second attempt.........Do you, CHRIS7 agree with that?

That is the data NIST published and it is in the proper range. I don't have access to the data so I cannot agree or disagree but I accept their data as reasonable.

I'm working on a response based on test results and a reduced load to allow for the absence of occupants, but your demands for what does not exist will not be met. The analysis will be for a single beam using 20% of the load for the 5 beams. The point is: Beams will sag significantly above 600^oC.

 

[GlennB]

The point is: Beams will sag significantly above 600^oC.

So will girders

Meanwhile - any plans to correct your errors about the 1" girder seat, moment frames, etc?

 

[Christopher7]

So will girders

Correct. The point here is: The NIST report does not adequately consider the sagging and this is yet another reason why their walk-off theory fails to explain the collapse of WTC 7.

Meanwhile - any plans to correct your errors about the 1" girder seat, moment frames, etc?

The error is in your misstating what I said. The seat is irrelevant because the girder was over the support plate which held up the seat and the girder.

What I said about moment frames is true. Again it's your deliberate misinterpretation of what I have said that is your problem.

Argumentum ad nauseam - attack the person and ignore the point.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Ditto, however in the interests of full disclosure my current job title is "Lean Six Sigma Black Belt"

And yes, I am waiting on a full System Level analysis, as opposed to random technical sniping at NIST.

Ah Black Belt... I was a S.S. Green Belt for 6+ years. Not a big fan of those monthly dashboards!

 

[jaydeehess]

Wait,,,, so the NIST theory has it that the girder was pushed/walked across the seat to the point where it failed/fell off the seat. Chris now wishes to argue that the girder sagged which would pull axially along the girder and shorten the depth of girder residing on the seat. It would also reduce the stiffness of the steel of course, including that portion which sat on the seat.

In either case we have less girder steel on the seat and as Chris wishes to include the effect of the heat on that steel, we have more malleable steel on that seat , the combination of which would serve to have the seat-girder connection fail.

Then there is the scenario in which the fire begins burning down and the steel cools and contracts in which if Chris is correct the sagged girder now shortens axially even more, or as the CTBUH brought up, the sagged beams cool and shorten and pull the girder off its seat.

IN ANY CASE the girder comes off the seat!

 

[Jackanory]

I'm working on a response based on test results and a reduced load to allow for the absence of occupants, but your demands for what does not exist will not be met. The analysis will be for a single beam using 20% of the load for the 5 beams. The point is: Beams will sag significantly above 600^oC.

Yep. Ya baffled me with unnecessary ********........again.

 

[RedIbis]

Wait,,,, so the NIST theory has it that the girder was pushed/walked across the seat to the point where it failed/fell off the seat. [...]

IN ANY CASE the girder comes off the seat!

At best it's a wishful hypothetical. For it to be a theory, it would have to have some sort of physical evidence in support.

 

[Oystein]

At best it's a wishful hypothetical. For it to be a theory, it would have to have some sort of physical evidence in support.

1. Is there now any alternative theory in existence for which such supporting physical evidence exists? Yes or no?

2. Suppose the TM is being granted its new, independent investigation, with unlimited funds, subpoena power, unlimited access to everything in the world, and, if needed, the right to search any person or property, and the right to torture whomever you need to talk. Project runs as long as needed, you can put every expert to it that you want, from all over the world. Will this new investigation ever be able to produce the kind of physical evidence that you are thinking of now supporting whatever theory emerges? Yes or no?

 

[ozeco41]

Ooops - duplicate post

 

[ozeco41]

1. Is there now any alternative theory in existence for which such supporting physical evidence exists? Yes or no?...

Not a fully developed theory...

...but the clue to why the girder fell lies in several factors.

One important one being that Bolt "A" failed before Bolt "B":

That important factor seems to have been overlooked.




.....time zone differences are also relevant.

 

[DGM]

Not a fully developed theory...

...but the clue to why the girder fell lies in several factors.

One important one being that Bolt "A" failed before Bolt "B":
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/webjref/col79bolts.jpg[/qimg]
That important factor seems to have been overlooked.

I'd like to see this theory once it is developed more fully. I don't know if it's the bizarre hours I've been working but, I can't grasp the consequence of this.