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

[Seymour Butz]

Simply put, the fall of the girder off its seat in an east or west direction is impossible due to fire. The NIST report is incorrect here and needs to be corrected.

I believe that Chris is talking about a N/S shortening of the girder.

Less shortening is needed under this scenario, IIRC. IIRC from the drawing provided. there is 4.25" from the end of the gider to the centerline of the 2 bolt holes. and of course the support plate increases this length somewhat.

But since you chose to answer, let me ask you also: suppose that Chris is right, and thermal expansion/pushing as per NIST is proven to be less likely than shortening due to sag and thermal contraction.

This would give truthers a "win" against NIST, but also show again that no cd is needed.

Would you be comfortable with a "win" against NIST given this?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I believe that Chris is talking about a N/S shortening of the girder.

Less shortening is needed under this scenario, IIRC. IIRC from the drawing provided. there is 4.25" from the end of the gider to the centerline of the 2 bolt holes. and of course the support plate increases this length somewhat.

But since you chose to answer, let me ask you also: suppose that Chris is right, and thermal expansion/pushing as per NIST is proven to be less likely than shortening due to sag and thermal contraction.

This would give truthers a "win" against NIST, but also show again that no cd is needed.

Would you be comfortable with a "win" against NIST given this?

Chris is talking about the shortening due to sagging caused by the lower modulus of elasticity at temperature of the 53' long beams framing into the girder from the east.

I personally have no need for a "win" against NIST. Accuracy is all I want. NIST needs to correct the report and find another explanation for the collapse initiation.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Chris is talking about the shortening due to sagging caused by the lower modulus of elasticity at temperature of the 53' long beams framing into the girder from the east.

I personally have no need for a "win" against NIST. Accuracy is all I want. NIST needs to correct the report and find another explanation for the collapse initiation.

Ok then, I guess he is if you say so.

Then how about shortening of the girder then?

Would you be comfortable with shortening of the girder as a more likely explanation, if it were to pan out? Even if it again shows that cd was not needed?

 

[GlennB]

The shortening of the beam at 700 degrees C is 1.747". This would hardly support the argument that the girder could be pulled off it's seat after the beams cooled down, as the girder would need to pulled at least 6.00".

Not to the north. 2" would take it away from the lower plate and onto the 1"-thick girder seat alone.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Not to the north. 2" would take it away from the lower plate and onto the 1"-thick girder seat alone.

the HOT girder seat......

The HOT girder seat that wasn't being held straight by interaction between the girder web and that seat plate by the tensile strength of the 2 bolts....

The HOT girder seat that wasn't being held straight by interaction between the girder web and that seat plate by the tensile strength of the 2 bolts and would would likely bend down at a small %age of its previous load capacity.........

 

[GlennB]

the HOT girder seat......

The HOT girder seat that wasn't being held straight by interaction between the girder web and that seat plate by the tensile strength of the 2 bolts....

The HOT girder seat that wasn't being held straight by interaction between the girder web and that seat plate by the tensile strength of the 2 bolts and would would likely bend down at a small %age of its previous load capacity.........

Precisely.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

the HOT girder seat......

The HOT girder seat that wasn't being held straight by interaction between the girder web and that seat plate by the tensile strength of the 2 bolts....

The HOT girder seat that wasn't being held straight by interaction between the girder web and that seat plate by the tensile strength of the 2 bolts and would would likely bend down at a small %age of its previous load capacity.........

I'll take a look at girder shortening or girder seat failure. I haven't thus far.

However, you do realize this is not what the NIST report says at the moment and they do need to correct their error and come up with a new explanation that works.

 

[Seymour Butz]

I'll take a look at girder shortening or girder seat failure. I haven't thus far.

However, you do realize this is not what the NIST report says at the moment and they do need to correct their error and come up with a new explanation that works.

Sure i do!!

I think everyone here would welcome an improvement to the fire safety codes in the buildings we all use.

So would you be comfortable to learn that this is the most likely collapse initiator, thereby showing once again that cd wasn't necessary?

You have avoided that so far. It's a fairly easy question....

 

[NoahFence]

Chris is talking about the shortening due to sagging caused by the lower modulus of elasticity at temperature of the 53' long beams framing into the girder from the east.

I personally have no need for a "win" against NIST. Accuracy is all I want. NIST needs to correct the report and find another explanation for the collapse initiation.

Bolding mine -

Why? Is it so they can present an updated version to engineers with the purpose of safety when building new buildings? Or is it so truthers will finally get their new investigation?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sure i do!!

I think everyone here would welcome an improvement to the fire safety codes in the buildings we all use.

So would you be comfortable to learn that this is the most likely collapse initiator, thereby showing once again that cd wasn't necessary?

You have avoided that so far. It's a fairly easy question....

No, I did not avoid it, I told you I would look into it, as I hadn't thus far. I can't say I am comfortable until I am satisfied that that mechanism could actually occur. And if it turns out to be possible, then it would be one of the things NIST should look at for the initiation. Right now they don't have an explanation.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Bolding mine -

Why? Is it so they can present an updated version to engineers with the purpose of safety when building new buildings? Or is it so truthers will finally get their new investigation?

They need to correct the WTC 7 report because it turns out the alleged initiation mechanism is impossible and thus can't possibly explain the collapse.

 

[GlennB]

They need to correct the WTC 7 report because it turns out the alleged initiation mechanism is impossible and thus can't possibly explain the collapse.

IIRC 1-9 says that, ultimately, it was buckling of the beams and collapse of the floor system that rocked the girder off its seat at column 79. This strongly suggests it came off eastwards. The technical briefing appears to contradict this, though it seems to me some sloppy language crept into the discussion at that point.

However, your claim of "impossible", based on the final report, is not justified in the slightest.

I mentioned northwards as a possibility, if only because it would only require a 2" walk caused by sagging and contraction of the girder itself.

 

[NoahFence]

They need to correct the WTC 7 report because it turns out the alleged initiation mechanism is impossible and thus can't possibly explain the collapse.

Thousands of engineers say you're wrong.

What you people are referring to is minutae. It's irrelevant.

Maybe it's just too difficult for you to grasp. I'll try to make it easier on you:


Fire causes steel to weaken.

Severe fire causes steel to weaken severely.

The fires in WTC 7 (an irrelevant building by the way) burned unfought for 7 hours. That's a long time.

WTC 7 was built with steel.


Therefore, it's pretty easy to surmise that fire weakened the steel in the building, causing it to collapse.

Got it?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

IIRC 1-9 says that, ultimately, it was buckling of the beams and collapse of the floor system that rocked the girder off its seat at column 79. This strongly suggests it came off eastwards. The technical briefing appears to contradict this, though it seems to me some sloppy language crept into the discussion at that point.

However, your claim of "impossible", based on the final report, is not justified in the slightest.

I mentioned northwards as a possibility, if only because it would only require a 2" walk caused by sagging and contraction of the girder itself.

The eastward pull off due to contraction of the beams after cooling and the westward push off due to expansion of the beams during heating are both impossible. That is now proven.

I am looking at your suggestion of the girder walking off axially due to contraction. Sorry I can't answer without finding out what the dimensional situation actually was, and performing calculations for expansion, sagging, the length after cooling and possible buckling, etc.

The beam buckling and rock-off to the east is also something which needs much more srutiny as it requires the beams to rotate about their longitudinal axis to lose their vertical carrying capacity. That doesn't happen easily. Additionally, the northmost beam which NIST shows as buckled in the report is missing the three short and stocky beam stubs connecting to it from the north exterior. The beam would be much less likely to buckle with those stubs in place as the effective length is shortened exponentially and the buckling load would be much higher.

 

[beachnut]

They need to correct the WTC 7 report because it turns out the alleged initiation mechanism is impossible and thus can't possibly explain the collapse.

Fire did it, your realcddeal is not valid.
What is impossible? What is your initiation mechanism? Who did it? Have you dropped your realcddeal delusion?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Fire did it, your realcddeal is not valid.
What is impossible? What is your initiation mechanism? Who did it? Have you dropped your realcddeal delusion?

What isn't valid is the NIST explanation of the girder between columns 79 and 44 being pushed off its seat at column 79, or the claims that it could have been pulled off by contraction after the beams cooled.

I do believe the building was taken down via controlled demolition and have stated that publicly. I don't know who did it and there are areas which should be investigated which haven't been thus far.

I thought you were an engineer. Where are your calculations or at least mathemetical explanations for the position you are taking?

 

[GlennB]

I am looking at your suggestion of the girder walking off axially due to contraction. Sorry I can't answer without finding out what the dimensional situation actually was, and performing calculations for expansion, sagging, the length after cooling and possible buckling, etc.

Waffle. Contraction and sagging and floor collapse. Impossible?

The beam buckling and rock-off to the east is also something which needs much more srutiny as it requires the beams to rotate about their longitudinal axis to lose their vertical carrying capacity.

Utter waffle. The beams don't "rock off", the girder does, following sagging/contraction/floor collapse or any combination thereof of the various elements. Pay attention.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Waffle. Contraction and sagging and floor collapse. Impossible?



Utter waffle. The beams don't "rock off", the girder does, following sagging/contraction/floor collapse or any combination thereof of the various elements. Pay attention.

I was obviously talking about the NIST claim of the girder being rocked off it's seat by the beams buckling. You have no business telling me to pay attention here.

Frankly, your claims without backup are getting tiresome. It really is high time in the discussion for you and some others here, like Noah Fence and Beachnut, to show some calculations to back up what you are saying.

 

[NoahFence]

What isn't valid is the NIST explanation of the girder between columns 79 and 44 being pushed off its seat at column 79, or the claims that it could have been pulled off by contraction after the beams cooled.

I do believe the building was taken down via controlled demolition and have stated that publicly. I don't know who did it and there are areas which should be investigated which haven't been thus far.

I thought you were an engineer. Where are your calculations or at least mathemetical explanations for the position you are taking?

We'll give you calculations the post AFTER you give us one shred of evidence of controlled demo.

”looks like” is NOT evidence.
Heresay is not evidence.

 

[beachnut]

What isn't valid is the NIST explanation of the girder between columns 79 and 44 being pushed off its seat at column 79, or the claims that it could have been pulled off by contraction after the beams cooled.

I do believe the building was taken down via controlled demolition and have stated that publicly. I don't know who did it and there are areas which should be investigated which haven't been thus far.

I thought you were an engineer. Where are your calculations or at least mathemetical explanations for the position you are taking?

You offer no proof for your CD claims, no math is needed to refute your fantasy. The burden of proof is up to you. Go ahead, do something in a real journal.

I know of no building with fuel loads similar to WTC 7 which survived fire when not fought. Looks like you have to come up with the math to prove your fantasy. You are not using engineering skills to come up with your CD claims. Where is your NIST rebuttal, when will it be published in a real engineering journal? What conference will you be presenting at?

Your fantasy of controlled demolition is not based on engineering, it is based on nonsense. I am an engineer, I don't need an engineering degree to know you have nothing but talk on this issue. Proof is your failure to publish a rebuttal to NIST in an engineering journal.

Your CD claim is an idiotic fantasy based on nothing - proof is the lack of anything to back up your claim except nonsense. You are the one obsessed with NIST, I don't need the NIST report to figure out what caused the collapse. You are the paranoid conspiracy theorists with no evidence; your status has not changed. CD is your fantasy, it remains delusional claptrap.

If you had something of value, you would publish it in an engineering journal. Where is it?