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

[beachnut]

We really just want an open discussion of this topic and to explore further the views of people who believe the official story so that the end product here can fairly address both sides.

What do you have based on science to offer on 911? Saying you want to discuss the official story? Fire destroyed WTC 7 because the fire systems were out and no body spray water on the structure to save it from collapse.

You have to ignore building destroyed by fire, totaled by fire in the past to have a fantasy of CD for WTC7. One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, totaled by fire! Windsor Building in Spain, totaled by fire. WTC 7, NYC, totaled by fire. Three high-rise office buildings totaled by fire.

You make up videos based on paranoid conspiracy theories, no science. You claim you can tell by seeing WTC 7 is a CD! lol, what science is that? Major Tom observable science?

Every Structural Engineer in the world will know that it's a CD job as soon as they see it. They will tear NIST apart using physics and Newtons Laws.

SEE IT? You can SEE it? When will you use physics? Go ahead make my day use some Newton Laws and tear apart NIST. This is comedy to engineers. You wave you hands and make up silly statements, and want to discuss it? What will you discuss? What about hear it? Why are there no explosives used? Why no sounds of explosives? Are you one of the "pull it", can't figure out what it was followers?

For you, "see it" is science. You can see CD. Not sure if you can publish your see it science approach in an engineering journal.

Publish your great stuff and become famous. Take some action.

You have promised Structural Engineers will tear apart NIST with physics and Newtons laws - Do it! Of the structural engineers who have disagreed with NIST, they agree fire caused the failure. Means your CD claims remain a fantasy based on "see it science", a new branch of "woo science" pioneered by Major Tom, and the realcddeal.

 

[gerrycan]

What do you have based on science to offer on 911? Saying you want to discuss the official story? Fire destroyed WTC 7 because the fire systems were out and no body spray water on the structure to save it from collapse.

You have to ignore building destroyed by fire, totaled by fire in the past to have a fantasy of CD for WTC7. One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, totaled by fire! Windsor Building in Spain, totaled by fire. WTC 7, NYC, totaled by fire. Three high-rise office buildings totaled by fire.

You make up videos based on paranoid conspiracy theories, no science. You claim you can tell by seeing WTC 7 is a CD! lol, what science is that? Major Tom observable science?
SEE IT? You can SEE it? When will you use physics? Go ahead make my day use some Newton Laws and tear apart NIST. This is comedy to engineers. You wave you hands and make up silly statements, and want to discuss it? What will you discuss? What about hear it? Why are there no explosives used? Why no sounds of explosives? Are you one of the "pull it", can't figure out what it was followers?

For you, "see it" is science. You can see CD. Not sure if you can publish your see it science approach in an engineering journal.

Publish your great stuff and become famous. Take some action.

You have promised Structural Engineers will tear apart NIST with physics and Newtons laws - Do it! Of the structural engineers who have disagreed with NIST, they agree fire caused the failure. Means your CD claims remain a fantasy based on "see it science", a new branch of "woo science" pioneered by Major Tom, and the realcddeal.

You are watching the wrong video lol

 

[000063]

Sarcasm and dismissal, since you can't actually answer. Got it.

 

[pgimeno]

WTC7 requires a new investigation in my opinion. To achieve this end, proving the inadequacy of NISTs conclusions is the first step.

Their conclusions are in chapter 4 ("Principal findings", pp.47-61) and chapter 5 ("Recommendations", pp.63-73) of NCSTAR 1A. They use 26 pages of the report. Here's a map of these pages:

In the next image, I have highlighted in red the part of their conclusions that you have addressed in this thread:

See any red?

You're far from proving NIST's conclusions wrong or inadequate.

As for working out how much of a building would need to be removed in order to have the top section attain enough energy to do the work of crushing the bottom (which i presume you are trying to get at with your equation) i think you should go look at some verinage examples.

Do you mean zero?

In the vérinage (jacking) demolition technique, they don't remove any part of the structure.

Buildings demolished by vérinage are made to fail by acting on the load-bearing walls with jacks and cables so that they buckle laterally. Have you read Dominique Ferrari's patent (EP 1082505) on the technique?

After pushing them enough, they buckle (as WTC7 did) and the bucking causes the walls to lose their ability to support the upper weight, causing in turn the top part of the building to fall quickly (virtually unimpeded, because of the buckling) on the bottom part.

 

[beachnut]

You are watching the wrong video lol

You don't stand behind your Hitler Rant video? You were spreading lies for nothing? You spread lies so your can sell advertisements?
I watch all your videos, and they are all nonsense. Feel free to pick a specific point and present your evidence and engineering stuff to prove your point.

You are not an engineer, you will not produce a paper to publish in an engineering journal, and like Bigfoot believers, you will be pushing these lies for decades, no evidence, only wild speculation based on "see it" science.

 

[tfk]

Hang on a bit. NIST gave us an animation from ansys yet will not reveal the inputs. They gave us their answer without showing how they got it. One can only reach the conclusion that they don't want the information disclosed. Since we have a lot of the drawings now, what justification do they have for not releasing their inputs?

Since it appears that you are the source of the data that Chris7 listed, please answer the questions that I listed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8170382&postcount=719

You've steadfastly refused to tell us what you do for a living. From some of the things that you've written, my guess is electronics technician.

You say you work with engineers. Are any of them structural engineers with experience building very large structures?

You have a question about the difference between NIST's statement of 11" wide plate, and the shop drawing's call out of 12".

Have you written NIST with your question?

If not, why not?

Chris Mohr writes NIST often & gets replies. Perhaps you should ask him how to do that.

RE: 11" vs. 12"

Perhaps here's a clue from the same drawing:

and

see the little triangles with the number "1" in them?

 

[tfk]

We really just want an open discussion of this topic and to explore further the views of people who believe the official story so that the end product here can fairly address both sides.

LMAO.

Words. No substance.

 

[twinstead]

The "views of the people who believe the official story" makes no sense--there IS no one "official story". There is only the commonly-held narrative, in the public domain for all to scrutinize, that comes from a myriad of different sources and accepted by the vast majority of engineering experts, law enforcement agencies, scientific organizations, judicial organizations, and media from around the world.

 

[DGM]

Beat you to it in my first post.

You have a question about the difference between NIST's statement of 11" wide plate, and the shop drawing's call out of 12".

Have you written NIST with your question?

If not, why not?

Chris Mohr writes NIST often & gets replies. Perhaps you should ask him how to do that.

RE: 11" vs. 12"

Perhaps here's a clue from the same drawing:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5800[/qimg]

and

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5801[/qimg]

see the little triangles with the number "1" in them?

I would tend to doubt it.

Not that it really matters but, is anyone sure these drawings are "as built"?

You did point out the revision detail though.

 

[newton3376]

Add me to the list of engineers who are willing to discuss with those who seem to be or admit to being truthers.

I'm currently on that list too....although my patience is wearing thin when it comes to truthers....

BUT I will not discuss until they put their claim up for discussion. That is their claim not criticism of somebody else claim.

AND I will not accept reversal of burden of truth OR the demand to prove a negative.

And those constraints take 90% of the ground from under normal truther trickery.

Yep....this is EXACTLY what Engineers should do to truther claims because they are not worthy of serious discussion.

 

[Christopher7]

Perhaps here's a clue from the same drawing:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5800

and

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5801

see the little triangles with the number "1" in them?

I see them. So what? Do you know that a W33x130 has an 11 1/2" flange and the seat is wider?

Do you see the note under Remarks on the PG [support] line? It says GRD TO BEAR

You are ignoring/denying the critical facts:

NIST omitted the stiffeners in their graphics in the final report.
That is fraud.

NIST said the seat was 11" when the drawings said it was 1' 0".
That is also fraud.

They know that the flange of a W33x130 beam is 11 1/2" and the seat was wider so this was not an "innocent mistake".

 

[OCaptain]

I see them. So what? Do you know that a W33x130 has an 11 1/2" flange and the seat is wider?

Do you see the note under Remarks on the PG [support] line? It says GRD TO BEAR

You are ignoring/denying the critical facts:

NIST omitted the stiffeners in their graphics in the final report.
That is fraud.

NIST said the seat was 11" when the drawings said it was 1' 0".
That is also fraud.

They know that the flange of a W33x130 beam is 11 1/2" and the seat was wider so this was not an "innocent mistake".

C7, how have you elminated other options other than fraud?

 

[NoahFence]

C7...
What exactly did NIST gain with all this ”fraudulent” reporting?

 

[newton3376]

I see them. So what? Do you know that a W33x130 has an 11 1/2" flange and the seat is wider?

Do you see the note under Remarks on the PG [support] line? It says GRD TO BEAR

You are ignoring/denying the critical facts:

NIST omitted the stiffeners in their graphics in the final report.
That is fraud.

NIST said the seat was 11" when the drawings said it was 1' 0".
That is also fraud.

They know that the flange of a W33x130 beam is 11 1/2" and the seat was wider so this was not an "innocent mistake".

Incorrect Chirs...incorrect.

You might want to ask your "engineer friend" to try again......

 

[Seymour Butz]

At 350^oC the girder would expanded about 2" and be pushing against the column.
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9758/col79stiffenerse.jpg

I see at best 1 1/4" until the lower (east) flange is pushing against the column 79.

Walk off would have been prevented by:
1) The girder flanges would be stopped by the column side plate after about 4" of travel.

The girder is at an angle to the column, and as such, the full contact area to the west wouldn't have been able to restrain it at all, especially when one factors in the heated girder will be exerting a lot of force against the column flange through the action of the heated floor beams. A more likely scenario is that the girder flanges would have smeared over...

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.

The stiffeners were set back 3/4" in the drawing. They were NOT flush to the outer edge of the girder. So at least 3/4" would have folded easily = less support than you are claiming.

3) Steel looses about half its strength at 600^oC and the beam would have to be heated to 738^oC to expand 6". By then it would have lost ~70-80% of its strength and sag, reducing the length.

So if the girder is only being supported by say, 60% of its planned area, at what temp does the steel fail and the girder drop?

I see a lot of your arguments depend on ambient temps of the seat plates, and totally ignore the heating effects - creep, increase in malleability, ductility, etc.....

 

[Seymour Butz]

Then there is the scenario in which the fire begins burning down and the steel cools and contracts

This used to be one of Chris' main talking points, IIRC.

He claimed that the fires were burnt out at col 79, and thus the steel couldnt have gotten as hot as NIST claims.

 

[Seymour Butz]

ETA: All this is just to prove this part of the NIST theory doesn't work. The fire had burned out so there was no thermal expansion at 5:20 p.m. anyway.

Let's say that you're right:
1- thermal expansion broke the bolts.
2- thermal expansion pushed the girder around 1/2 way off its seat - 5" or so.
3- continued heating made the girder sag some and return it to near its original length
4- then the fires died down and thermal contraction pulled the girder 2" off the horizontal seat plate ( or alternately, far enough so that the 1" plate folded)

You have proven that NIST was wrong, but also have proven that no cd is necessary, making previous comments about how that only way 7 could have fallen is through cd also wrong.

Would you be comfortable with that?

 

[Sunstealer]

I see a lot of your arguments depend on ambient temps of the seat plates, and totally ignore the heating effects - creep, increase in malleability, ductility, etc.....

I'll expand your "etc" making it clear to C7 that fundamental properties such as Young's Modulus (Stiffness) as well as Yield Point Strength are affected too (downwards)

because he won't understand what an increase in malleability and ductility will entail for the other material properties

 

[ozeco41]

And it is about time that I again reminded everyone that it is not a single factor problem. The presumption that an inch or two in the length or width of the girder and its supports is all that matters.

And the implied presumption that the two columns will remain in precisely their original positions whilst the building undergoes all the heating and cooling stresses.

So why go along with C7's false setting as a single factor problem?
Why not talk about the real situation?

 

[Christopher7]

This used to be one of Chris' main talking points, IIRC.

He claimed that the fires were burnt out at col 79, and thus the steel couldnt have gotten as hot as NIST claims.

It's not a claim, it's a fact:
NIST appendix L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.