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

[Tony Szamboti]

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 to 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?

Somehow I am not surprised that you either won't or can't provide any math to back up your claims.

The reason I believe what I do is that it does make sense mathematically, whereas the natural collapse explanations offered thus far do not.

NIST and law enforcement have a responsibility to the country to settle this matter in a way that is sound. They have not done that thus far, and non-sensical rants from some, like you, calling those demanding a sound investigation "conspiracy theorists" don't change that.

You are also talking to the wrong guy when you claim I haven't sent anything to an engineering journal. I was involved last year in a Discussion of the Le and Bazant 2011 paper. The Discussion has been with an editor at the Journal of Engineering Mechanics since last June 2nd. The Discussion paper shows Le and Bazant had serious errors in their paper concerning the strength of the columns, mass involved in conservation of momentum, and the mass of the upper section of the North Tower, and proves that if Le and Bazant had used the proper input data they would have discovered that a jolt should have been observed if the collapse was due to natural circumstances. Ask Ryan Mackey for a copy of the Discussion paper. I sent him a copy.

However, this thread is about the walk-off failure claimed by the NIST in WTC 7 and how it has been proven to be impossible and thus non-explanatory. End of discussion here.

NIST and engineering journals will be contacted about it. Stay tuned.

 

[NoahFence]

the controlled demolition theory when referring to 9/11 is god damn stupid.

 

[beachnut]

...
You are also talking to the wrong guy when you claim I haven't sent anything to an engineering journal. I was involved last year in a Discussion of the Le and Bazant 2011 paper. The Discussion has been with an editor at the Journal of Engineering Mechanics since last June 2nd. The Discussion paper shows Le and Bazant had serious errors in their paper concerning the strength of the columns, mass involved in conservation of momentum, and the mass of the upper section of the North Tower, and proves that a jolt should have certainly been observed.

However, this thread is about the walk-off failure claimed by the NIST in WTC 7 and how it has been proven to be impossible and thus non-explanatory. End of discussion here.

NIST and engineering journals will be contacted about it. Stay tuned.

I am not suprised you can't prove your fantasy of CD; that is why it is CD. Someone would prove their claim instead of wasting time making failed claims against NIST as a smoke screen to cover your failure to support your CD claim. You have a problem, fantasies about 911.

You have proved nothing. You have not proved your jolt should be observed, and you have not published an article in a real journal.

You have not proved anything associated with the OP. You have the CD delusion, your efforts are not rational, or associate with engineering. You have your conclusion, and now fail to back in the math and evidence.

You say impossible, and show no work. Where is your engineering to prove your point? Your paper to prove your point about topic at hand? lol, you have paranoid conspiracy claims about 911, and you can't make progress. Why not get all of Gage's 1600 experts to help out? lol

...
... Stay tuned.

lol, another smoking gun? Or is it a Jones' loaded Gun kind of thing?

 

[Seymour Butz]

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.

Sigh... I guess it's hard to get my point across in a written venue.

the question is NOT if you believe that shortening is the most likely explanation.

The question is : would you be comfortable learning that your labors showed that no cd is necessary to initiate collapse.

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.

Sure they do. And it is accepted by the vast majority of qualified structural engineers that have experience with tall buildings and the fire science involved.

My going along with the premise that they are wrong in no way means that I support your position that NIST is wrong.

 

[Seymour Butz]

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.

Sez you.

Where's your FEA, etc that shows the complex interaction of different heating rates that would result from different steel thicknesses/mass?

This would be a positive step to show what you're saying.

 

[Seymour Butz]

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

Where are yours?

The truth of the matter is, you don't know the state of the girder's contact with its seat plate at the point that NIST says that the girder rocked offits seat to the east. you are assuming that it needs to contract either the entire 6" to the east and/or the full 4"(awaiting your evaluation) in order for it to fail.

This is obviously not correct to even a layman when the hot seat plate is factored in as I pointed out in a prior post. It is too complex to make such a simple statement.

 

[pgimeno]

An engineer I know calculated that the beam would sag about 7 1/2" at
1300^oF and that would shorten the beam a little less than 1/2".

And now we get to know who was the mystery friend.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Where are yours?

The truth of the matter is, you don't know the state of the girder's contact with its seat plate at the point that NIST says that the girder rocked offits seat to the east. you are assuming that it needs to contract either the entire 6" to the east and/or the full 4"(awaiting your evaluation) in order for it to fail.

This is obviously not correct to even a layman when the hot seat plate is factored in as I pointed out in a prior post. It is too complex to make such a simple statement.

In the last couple of hours I looked at whether the girder could fall due to axial shortening. It doesn't look like it.

There is about 1.2" of clearance on both sides before the girder contacts anything.

I looked at it for girder temperatures of 500, 600, and 700 degrees C.

Even at 700 degrees C the net expansion of the 45 foot long girder is 3.985", and that would cause a permanent buckle of about 1.600" or about .800" per side.

The shortening due to sagging of the girder at 700 degrees C was 0.752 inches total and that would be split about each side for .376" per side.

This gives a total contraction after cooling of about .800 + .376 = 1.18" per side.

The web of the girder was 2.4" past the face of the 2 inch thick under seat plate at column 79 and about 3.4" over the vertical stiffener on the column 44 side. So it doesn't look like the girder contraction theory has any merit.

As for your question of whether I would be comfortable with a natural mechanism which can be shown to be sound, I would say yes. Unfortunately, as you can see here, we don't have that. You will have to excuse me if I don't go for Beachnut's and Noahfence's "it was fire" rants with no basis.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Oe more thing I need to say here before I go is that TFK's claim that the concrete would fail before the shear studs would isn't sound.

The concrete in the slabs of WTC 7 had a compressive strength of 3,500 psi and the shear studs were 3/4" diameter x 5.00" long. That means they each had a bearing area of 0.75" x 5.00" = 3.75 sq. inches on the concrete and there were 30 of them on the girder according to John Salvarinas' paper so they had a total bearing area of 112.5 sq. inches.

The total buckling load of all five beams was 26,738 lbs. at room temperature and it would have been less at higher temperature. Applying this maximum buckling load on the bearing area of the shear studs on the girder and the concrete gives a stress of about 238 psi. Hardly enough to fail the concrete.

It is the lack of basis for claims like TFK's that causes me to refrain from posting and arguing ad nauseum on forums like this. However, it was important here to jump in and help explain the actual basis which shows the NIST girder walk-off mechanism for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible and non-explanatory.

 

[LSSBB]

Oe more thing I need to say here before I go is that TFK's claim that the concrete would fail before the shear studs would isn't sound.

The concrete in the slabs of WTC 7 had a compressive strength of 3,500 psi and the shear studs were 3/4" diameter x 5.00" long. That means they each had a bearing area of 0.75" x 5.00" = 3.75 sq. inches on the concrete and there were 30 of them on the girder according to John Salvarinas' paper so they had a total bearing area of 112.5 sq. inches.

The total buckling load of all five beams was 26,738 lbs. at room temperature and it would have been less at higher temperature. Applying this maximum buckling load on the bearing area of the shear studs on the girder and the concrete gives a stress of about 238 psi. Hardly enough to fail the concrete.

It is the lack of basis for claims like TFK's that causes me to refrain from posting and arguing ad nauseum on forums like this. However, it was important here to jump in and help explain the actual basis which shows the NIST mechanism for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible and non-explanatory.

Ahhh, all very nice. Two questions:

Where is your FEA?

What is NISTs response to you?

 

[beachnut]

... You will have to excuse me if I don't go for Beachnut's and Noahfence's "it was fire" rants with no basis.

Ironic, fire caused your expansion and sag.

I don't go for your "it was CD" rant with no basis. CD did not cause WTC 7 to fail, fire did. You don't have enough engineering skills to prove your case or disprove NIST.

How much sagging are you using? How many feet did the floor deck sag? Your baseless calculations look wrong. How does this help your CD fantasy?

 

[Seymour Butz]

The web of the girder was 2.4" past the face of the 2 inch thick under seat plate at column 79 and about 3.4" over the vertical stiffener on the column 44 side. So it doesn't look like the girder contraction theory has any merit.

You're ignoring the strength of the hot seat plate.

Even a layman can see that your analysis is biased.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You're ignoring the strength of the hot seat plate.

Even a layman can see that your analysis is biased.

No, I am saying that even at 700 degrees C the girder web would still be well over the 2" thick x 18.875" wide x 14" high vertical plate, that is welded to the side plates of column 79 and supports the 1" thick seat, so it doesn't matter how hot or weak the seat gets as there is no moment on it.

In the case of column 44 even at 700 degrees C the girder web would still be well over 1" thick x 7" wide x 21" high vertical stiffener, which is welded to the column web and supports the seat, so it doesn't matter how hot the seat gets there either.

It turns out that, when it is scrutinized, the claim that girder contraction could have caused the girder to fall is unsupportable. What I don't see here is any basis to show the collapse of WTC 7 was due to fire. Unfortunately, the only basis seems to point in the direction of unnatural causes. Sorry, but I have to call it the way it is. It isn't personal towards anyone.

A number of technical people, including myself, will be notifying NIST with the types of findings discussed on this thread and requesting that the report be corrected.

 

[DGM]

No, I am saying that even at 700 degrees C the girder web would still be well over the 2" thick x 18.875" wide x 14" high vertical plate, that is welded to the side plates of column 79 and supports the 1" thick seat, so it doesn't matter how hot or weak the seat gets.

In the case of column 44 even at 700 degrees C the girder web would still be well over 1" thick x 7" wide x 21" high vertical stiffener, which is welded to the column web and supports the seat, so it doesn't matter how hot the seat gets there either.

It turns out that, when it is scrutinized, the claim that girder contraction could have caused the girder to fall is unsupportable. What I don't see here is any basis to show the collapse was due to fire. Unfortunately, the only basis seems to point in the direction of unnatural causes. Sorry, but I have to call it the way it is. It isn't personal towards anyone.

We will be notifying NIST with these findings and asking that they correct the report.

Hey Tony, long time. Do you guys plan to write a paper to challenge NIST on this matter?

PS. Any word from the boys on the "dust" report?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey Tony, long time. Do you guys plan to write a paper to challenge NIST on this matter?

PS. Any word from the boys on the "dust" report?

Yes, the NIST WTC 7 report will be challenged formally on these issues and I have to believe the good guys at NIST will do the right thing and make the corrections.

 

[DGM]

Yes, the NIST WTC 7 report will be challenged formally on these issues and I have to believe the good guys at NIST will do the right thing and make the corrections.

Excellent. Let me know when it's published, I'd like to read it.

 

[NoahFence]

Yes, the NIST WTC 7 report will be challenged formally on these issues and I have to believe the good guys at NIST will do the right thing and make the corrections.

Its been over ten years. Take your time.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Even at 700 degrees C the net expansion of the 45 foot long girder is 3.985", and that would cause a permanent buckle of about 1.600" or about .800" per side.

The shortening due to sagging of the girder at 700 degrees C was 0.752 inches total and that would be split about each side for .376" per side.

This gives a total contraction after cooling of about .800 + .376 = 1.18" per side.

The web of the girder was 2.4" past the face of the 2 inch thick under seat plate at column 79 and about 3.4" over the vertical stiffener on the column 44 side. So it doesn't look like the girder contraction theory has any merit.

So buckling results in .8" shortening. That is permanent?

Sagging shortens it .376". That is permanent?

Thermal lengthens it by 3.985" If it cools half way to say 350C, I believe it shortens again? By say.... an inch per side?

So the girder is now roughly 2" shorter per side, and the centerline of the girder (I'm assuming this is your measurement) is now just .4" over the 2" plate. But the .75" stiffener on the girder is set back .75" from the end of the girder in the drawing 9114 provided by Chris..

And the girder is bent/buckled due to sagginng... so the majority of the weight is on the end of the seat plate. And so it'll bend down some....

And of courseit isn't sitting centered on the seat any more either.....

Sorry Tony, but there's flat out too many errors and assumptions in your proclamation that it is impossible for thermal contraction to be impossible. In a similar fashion, your objections to NIST's thermal expansion can be dismissed.

Your analysis is simply too... simple. Your proclamations are geared towards silly troofers and getting their praise for your supposed work. It will noy fly in the professional world. I await your paper to NIST.

I could use the laughs when they whip out the FEA/ANSYS/etc and show it to be right....

 

[Seymour Butz]

And now we get to know who was the mystery friend.

Yup.

 

[LSSBB]

So buckling results in .8" shortening. That is permanent?

Sagging shortens it .376". That is permanent?

Thermal lengthens it by 3.985" If it cools half way to say 350C, I believe it shortens again? By say.... an inch per side?

So the girder is now roughly 2" shorter per side, and the centerline of the girder (I'm assuming this is your measurement) is now just .4" over the 2" plate. But the .75" stiffener on the girder is set back .75" from the end of the girder in the drawing 9114 provided by Chris..

And the girder is bent/buckled due to sagginng... so the majority of the weight is on the end of the seat plate. And so it'll bend down some....

And of courseit isn't sitting centered on the seat any more either.....

Sorry Tony, but there's flat out too many errors and assumptions in your proclamation that it is impossible for thermal contraction to be impossible. In a similar fashion, your objections to NIST's thermal expansion can be dismissed.

Your analysis is simply too... simple. Your proclamations are geared towards silly troofers and getting their praise for your supposed work. It will noy fly in the professional world. I await your paper to NIST.

I could use the laughs when they whip out the FEA/ANSYS/etc and show it to be right....

Exactly, its a dynamic and not a static situation. That concept seems foreign to the NIST questioners thinking.