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

[carlitos]

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

+1

Its been over ten years. Take your time.

+Eleventy

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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....

Where did you get 2" shorter per side? 0.8" + 0.376" = 1.176". Can't you add?

There is 1.2" of clearance each side at room temp and the 3.985 expansion causes about 0.8" interference each side that would cause deformation. Couple that with 0.376" contraction due to sagging and the total combined contraction from buckling due to interference and sagging would be 0.8" + 0.376" or about 1.18" shorter per side.

The protrusions of the girder web beyond the faces of the vertical supports below the seats at room temperature are conservatively about 2.4" at column 79 and 3.4" at column 44". These are the distances the girder would have to contract before the seat could bend downward. It is the web of the girder itself that always stays well over the vertical supports below. And this is at 700 degrees C, a severe temperature the girder would have little chance to reach. NIST wasn't comfortable with claiming the girder got hotter than 500 degrees C, and there the contraction would only be about 3/8" per side.

This contraction of the girder notion is literally a long way from having any merit.

What you did by trying to extend the contraction to 2" per side, when I clearly showed it was just 1.18" per side, even at 700 degrees C, is why I ty not to post on forums like this anymore. Dealing with a bunch of anonymous people who mostly hand wave, dismiss without a basis, and use ridicule, is kind of like talking to the wall. In fact, most of you anonymous guys here should be called just that. You could all just use "Wall" as your usernames and have different numbers. You know like Wall1, Wall2, Wall3....etc. What number do you want Seymour?

I have to laugh at your thinking NIST could just whip out a Finite Element Analysis to dismiss what has been shown here. They won't because the expansion and contraction issues are straightforward and would produce the very same results in a Finite Element Analysis.

What they will have to do with their FEA is to include the web to flange stiffeners on the girder and the three beam stubs on the northmost beam framing into the girder that were left out the first time. Now that looks like it could certainly be a howler when it finally happens.

Sayonara!

 

[Animal]

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

It seems troofers have stumbled on "sag" as the new holy grail to disprove the NIST. What they fail to realize is the vast array of things that could have prevented sag in the girders and beams. Once again their assumptions fail.

 

[LSSBB]

Where did you get 2" shorter per side? 0.8" + 0.376" = 1.176". Can't you add?

There is 1.2" of clearance each side at room temp and the 3.985 expansion causes about 0.8" interference each side that would cause deformation. Couple that with 0.376" contraction due to sagging and the total combined contraction from buckling due to interference and sagging would be 0.8" + 0.376" or about 1.18" shorter per side.

The protrusions of the girder web beyond the faces of the vertical supports below the seats at room temperature are conservatively about 2.4" at column 79 and 3.4" at column 44". These are the distances the girder would have to contract before the seat could bend downward. It is the web of the girder itself that always stays well over the vertical supports below. And this is at 700 degrees C, a severe temperature the girder would have little chance to reach. NIST wasn't comfortable with claiming the girder got hotter than 500 degrees C, and there the contraction would only be about 3/8" per side.

This contraction of the girder notion is literally a long way from having any merit.

What you did by trying to extend the contraction to 2" per side, when I clearly showed it was just 1.18" per side, even at 700 degrees C, is why I ty not to post on forums like this anymore. Dealing with a bunch of anonymous people who mostly hand wave, dismiss without a basis, and use ridicule, is kind of like talking to the wall. In fact, most of you anonymous guys here should be called just that. You could all just use "Wall" as your usernames and have different numbers. You know like Wall1, Wall2, Wall3....etc. What number do you want Seymour?

I have to laugh at your thinking NIST could just whip out a Finite Element Analysis to dismiss what has been shown here. They won't because the expansion and contraction issues are straightforward and would produce the very same results in a Finite Element Analysis.

What they will have to do with their FEA is to include the web to flange stiffeners on the girder and the three beam stubs on the northmost beam framing into the girder that were left out the first time. Now that looks like it could certainly be a howler when it finally happens.

Sayonara!

Dynamic, not static.

I can tell when a CTer is losing an argument. They call everyone against them a shill.

 

[DGM]

There is 1.2" of clearance each side at room temp and the 3.985 expansion causes about 0.8" interference each side that would cause deformation. Couple that with 0.376" contraction due to sagging and the total combined contraction from buckling due to interference and sagging would be 0.8" + 0.376" or about 1.18" shorter per side.

Have you calculated the amount of buckling and or column displacement that would occur before the attaching bolts sheared? This would surely have an impact on the .8" interference figure.

I have to laugh at your thinking NIST could just whip out a Finite Element Analysis to dismiss what has been shown here. They won't because the expansion and contraction issues are straightforward and would produce the very same results in a Finite Element Analysis.

I don't see why they would need to dismiss anything. A FEA takes into consideration far more than this individual element. One thing that strikes me about your analysis is you have not considered the effects of the bolted connection. You stated the amount of clearance the beam would have as .8" but this would only be after the connection has failed. Do you believe the strength of these connections should not be considered in your analysis?

What they will have to do with their FEA is to include the web to flange stiffeners on the girder and the three beam stubs on the northmost beam framing into the girder that were left out the first time. Now that looks like it could certainly be a howler when it finally happens.

This sounds like a great project for the engineers at AE 9/11.


(You know my real name so, I think I'll keep my screen name)

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Have you calculated the amount of buckling and or column displacement that would occur before the attaching bolts sheared? This would surely have an impact on the .8" interference figure.



I don't see why they would need to dismiss anything. A FEA takes into consideration far more than this individual element. One thing that strikes me about your analysis is you have not considered the effects of the bolted connection. You stated the amount of clearance the beam would have as .8" but this would only be after the connection has failed. Do you believe the strength of these connections should not be considered in your analysis?



This sounds like a great project for the engineers at AE 9/11.


(You know my real name so, I think I'll keep my screen name)

The expansion of the girder and the beams would shear the bolts without buckling the girder and that would occur before the interference with the column flange and web. So the bolts would have no effect on the analysis.

I wasn't talking about people like yourself as far as the way you interact (which has always been respectful in my experience) or the fact that you use an anonymous name here. You are not completely anonymous as I do know your name and have corresponded with you by e-mail.

FEA is not a panacea and the expansion and contraction issues being discussed in this thread are really straightforward. The one guy that keeps saying it is a dynamic situation vs. a static situation acts like nothing can be figured out except by FEA. That is hardly reality.

 

[DGM]

The expansion of the girder and the beams would shear the bolts without buckling the girder and that would occur before the interference with the column flange and web. So the bolts would have no effect on the analysis.

I think I would need to see the math for this, especially in the displacement of the column(s).

I wasn't talking about people like yourself as far as the way you interact (which has always been respectful in my experience) or the fact that you use an anonymous name here.

Thanks, I do try.

FEA is not a panacea and the expansion and contraction issues being discussed in this thread are really straightforward.

I'm aware of this but, I question analyzing this one element in what appears to be isolation. This is where FEA comes into play. I have no problem with running an FEA with the changes you described above, I do believe however the results will not be as shocking as you suspect.

Are you really working on an in-depth request to NIST for these new considerations? If so, who else is involved (If you don't mind me asking)?

 

[LSSBB]

The expansion of the girder and the beams would shear the bolts without buckling the girder and that would occur before the interference with the column flange and web. So the bolts would have no effect on the analysis.

I wasn't talking about people like yourself as far as the way you interact (which has always been respectful in my experience) or the fact that you use an anonymous name here. You are not completely anonymous as I do know your name and have corresponded with you by e-mail.

FEA is not a panacea and the expansion and contraction issues being discussed in this thread are really straightforward. The one guy that keeps saying it is a dynamic situation vs. a static situation acts like nothing can be figured out except by FEA. That is hardly reality.

The "one guy" says that you aren't including t to make your figuring an f(t).

 

[tfk]

I have looked at this and the temperature at which the shortening overtakes the expansion of a 53'-4 11/16" long steel beam with a 100 psf load on it in the northeast corner of WTC 7 is 649 degrees C, with the maximum expansion being 4.753". Far short of the 6.00" needed.

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".

The equation used to determine shortening is the same as that used by Zdenek Bazant in his 2002 paper where he uses u = L x (1 - COS of theta).

Here it would be Shortening = full length of beam x (1 - COS of the angle of sag).

Both of the above don't even consider the 3/4" thick flange to web stiffeners shown on drawing 9114 that we have recently learned about, which would require even more than 6.00" of horizontal movement in an east or west direction by the girder.

Simply put, the fall of the girder between columns 79 and 44 off its seat in an east or west direction at the 12th floor of WTC 7 is impossible due to fire. The NIST report is incorrect here and needs to be corrected.

You're wrong.

The girder can easily fall off with a thermal expansion generated westward push of the girder of "4.753 inches". In fact, it can easily fall off of both the seat plate & the support plate below with that amount of westward push of the girder.

What would you like to wager on this, Tony?

Give me some assurance that you'll pay up after you lose the wager, please.


Tom

 

[tfk]

TFK's response to the buckling calculations is less than impressive when he complains that the modulus of elasticity of steel used is that of room temperature.

We can see that the buckling calculations were indeed done using the room temperature modulus of elasticity of steel. However, what TFK either fails to realize or doesn't want to admit, is that the lower values of the modulus at higher temperatures will cause the buckling load to be lower. So the room temperature calculations are in essence an upper bound for the buckling load. If the beam buckles before breaking the shear studs at room temp it will certainly do so at higher temperatures.

And your reading comprehension is "less than impressive" as well.

They asked me "what did he do wrong?"
Not "what did he do wrong that pushes the answer in the direction that we want it to go?"

Are you such a clueless engineer that you are asserting that it is correct to use a room temp value for E for buckling that occurred at 400 - 700°C?

Did the columns buckle at room temp, Tony?
Yes or no?

Which of the other factors that I listed are "wrong", Tony? In the LITERAL definition of "wrong". Not this contrived "wrong, but in some truther-stupid world 'right', too".

Which of the factors that I presented have you PREVIOUSLY written to gerrycan about?

If not, Tony, WHY NOT?

 

[tfk]

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.

You don't need to look at shortening to get "girder walk-off". There is PLENTY of motion in the thermal expansion of the beams & girders at NIST's reported temperatures to get walk-off.

The NIST report needs no correction. It is correct as it is.

You clowns are making 1 unwarranted (& incorrect) assumption.

 

[tfk]

What isn't valid is the NIST explanation of the girder between columns 79 and 44 being pushed off its seat at column 79 …

Oops. Wrong again, Tony.

You have a real consistency about your engineering opinions.

I do believe the building was taken down via controlled demolition and have stated that publicly.

Silly, silly man.

On all 3 counts. (Thinking it, saying it & saying it publicly.)

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

Turns out that you don't even need mathemetical, METHimatical (perhaps the best explanation for some of your "calculations") or even mathematical explanations to figure this out.

You simply need to open your eyes.

The math will follow to verify, of course.



tom

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You're wrong.

The girder can easily fall off with a thermal expansion generated westward push of the girder of "4.753 inches". In fact, it can easily fall off of both the seat plate & the support plate below with that amount of westward push of the girder.

What would you like to wager on this, Tony?

Give me some assurance that you'll pay up after you lose the wager, please.


Tom

So after all is said and done here we are left with Tom, in an apparently annoyed state, saying an 11.5 inch wide girder flange, initially centered on a 12 inch wide seat, can fall off of that seat by being pushed 4.753 inches across it. And he is so sure he is right he is even willing to bet on it. I just don't know what else to say but.



I would love to make this wager with you Tom, but it would require I learn your identity and you have refused to divulge it so far.

 

[tfk]

So Tom says an 11.5 inch wide girder flange initially centered on a 12 inch wide seat can fall off of the seat by being pushed 4.753 inches across it. And he is so sure he is right he is even willing to bet on it. Very convincing argument you make here Tom.

If you are so convinced, take the bet, Tony.

Do you consider a laughing dog to be a competent engineering argument, Tony?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If you are so convinced, take the bet, Tony.

Do you consider a laughing dog to be a competent engineering argument, Tony?

You will have to forgive me if I missed the engineering argument part of your post here Tom. It seems to me you just made a declarative statement without any basis.

As for the laughing dog, I very rarely use it, but there are times when someone makes such an obviously erroneous argument that it is called a "howler", and it is appropriate to say so.

As for the bet, you haven't mentioned what it is or how it would be set up.

 

[triforcharity]

I would love to make this wager with you Tom, but it would require I learn your identity and you have refused to divulge it so far.

What is it with you and the others within the "Truth" movement and knowing people's true identities? Does it matter? Nope. Not one bit.

Erik Lawyer tried the same **** with me.

 

[tsig]

What is it with you and the others within the "Truth" movement and knowing people's true identities? Does it matter? Nope. Not one bit.

Erik Lawyer tried the same **** with me.

It's just a debating tactic designed to divert the discussion.

 

[leftysergeant]

So after all is said and done here we are left with Tom, in an apparently annoyed state, saying an 11.5 inch wide girder flange, initially centered on a 12 inch wide seat, can fall off of that seat by being pushed 4.753 inches across it. And he is so sure he is right he is even willing to bet on it. I just don't know what else to say but.

Both of you, of course, seem to be assuming that the seat was still in the same place. That the whole front of the buillding had undergone some distortion would neccessarily mean that nothing was any longer aligned exactly as built even before thermal creep began to work its wonders on the structure.

There is evidence of these two facts, zippidy-doo-doo for bombs, cutter charges or supernanobanano termites.

 

[carlitos]

I wouldn't give these creepy paranoid stalker anti-semitic jagoffs my real name in a million years.

 

[NoahFence]

So after all is said and done here we are left with Tom, in an apparently annoyed state, saying an 11.5 inch wide girder flange, initially centered on a 12 inch wide seat, can fall off of that seat by being pushed 4.753 inches across it. And he is so sure he is right he is even willing to bet on it. I just don't know what else to say but.



I would love to make this wager with you Tom, but it would require I learn your identity and you have refused to divulge it so far.

Where is your evidence, kiddo?