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

[tfk]

I've been around a while, had not posted for about 6 months until last week.

I need to learn your patience.

Architect, licensed for 22 years, been in the business for 33.

Ahhh, you're just a baby.

(Mechanical Engineer. Got ya by 4 years…)

True, but much of the structure is there to prevent bending. (Can't have that building moving too much in the wind so you will get occupants motion sick) so stresses are will be distributed oddly across the structure........then there is the whole topic of sway dampers.....with oiled plates and large masses attached to springs etc.

Yup, active dampening complicates things a bit.

Any examples of, or references to, non-intuitive passive stress distribution?

True.......a tall building is essentially a vertical cantilever.

Yup, the cantilever part is obvious.

I was asking about this part:

So this appears to suggest that due to this reserve capacity, on a calm day, the stresses in the lower columns of a tall building are actually considerably less than they are in the upper portions of the building.

Thanks.

Nice to talk to you.


Tom

 

[tfk]

I was speaking casually, not scientifically, but thanks for the info. I would've gone with a Ford Pinto joke/analogy myself instead of the Mercedes.

LoL.

But how do you produce any "rattletrap contrast" if your starting point is a Pinto?

tom

 

[Christopher7]

I need to learn your patience.



Ahhh, you're just a baby.

(Mechanical Engineer. Got ya by 4 years…)



Yup, active dampening complicates things a bit.

Any examples of, or references to, non-intuitive passive stress distribution?



Yup, the cantilever part is obvious.

I was asking about this part:



Thanks.

Nice to talk to you.


Tom

May I interrupt this conversation and bring this thread back to the topic?

The 5 1/2 inch girder WALK-OFF in the NIST theory is impossible.

Thermal expansion elongation of the floor beams cannot exceed 4 3/4 inches because shortening due to sagging will exceed the expansion at higher temperatures.

It doesn't matter that you can think of another scenario. The NIST scenario is impossible so they have not explained why the building collapsed and please don't claim that it's close enough for government work.

 

[NoahFence]

I hear if you say it one more time it'll magically come true!

 

[leftysergeant]

Rather than just glibly calling someone a liar, perhaps you could back up your accusation with some facts. I have posted this many times:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

Wait a minute. Why are you showing me pictures of the north facade? Wasn't the fatal damage on the SOUTH side of the building?

Some firefighter you are. Fires don't go back to burned out areas and reheat steel because the fuel has been exhausted.

If there was fire anywhere on the floor, the steel was being heated. That simple.

 

[Christopher7]

Wait a minute. Why are you showing me pictures of the north facade? Wasn't the fatal damage on the SOUTH side of the building?

There was no fatal damage.

NIST appendix L pg 36
I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

NCSTAR 1A pg xxxvii
Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.

If there was fire anywhere on the floor, the steel was being heated. That simple.

Not when the steel is already hotter than the gases. All the windows on the north side of floor 12 were broken right up to where the fire was [between columns 52 and 53]. Cool air was mixing with the hot gasses that were blown thru the building and out the south side. This was an hour and a half before the collapse.

 

[ergo]

Hate to ruin the fun but debate about WTC 7 girder walk-offs is irrelevant, as steel-framed highrises don't sink to the ground as if into quicksand from localized fires, from localized damage and fires, or even from localized damage and massive infernos. Never have, never will.

To sink a building like that requires controlled demolition. Simple as that.

 

[NoahFence]

Hate to ruin the fun but debate about WTC 7 girder walk-offs is irrelevant, as steel-framed highrises don't sink to the ground as if into quicksand from localized fires, from localized damage and fires, or even from localized damage and massive infernos. Never have, never will.

To sink a building like that requires controlled demolition. Simple as that.

I totally agree. But my dog ate my evidence. Can I see yours?

 

[ergo]

I guess you could say these more detailed technical discussions are of interest in demonstrating perhaps to the odd engineer who has questioned the event enough to be aware of the NIST explanation, and who believes that NIST have explained it, where that is wrong. But outside of that it is irrelevant because we all know that even non-steel framed buildings do not behave that way from localized damage and fires, or even global fires. We know the building was brought down. Everybody knows this. There is no debate.

 

[Christopher7]

Hate to ruin the fun but debate about WTC 7 girder walk-offs is irrelevant, as steel-framed highrises don't sink to the ground as if into quicksand from localized fires, from localized damage and fires, or even from localized damage and massive infernos. Never have, never will.

To sink a building like that requires controlled demolition. Simple as that.

Irrelevant? No. Pointing out that the NIST theory is impossible is very important.

The NIST theory has been shown to be impossible using science, mathematics and their own statements. This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that is what is required by reasonable people.

A general statement like yours is good but not scientific proof. It's just an opinion without specifics to back it up.

 

[NoahFence]

I guess you could say these more detailed technical discussions are of interest in demonstrating perhaps to the odd engineer who has questioned the event enough to be aware of the NIST explanation, and who believes that NIST have explained it, where that is wrong. But outside of that it is irrelevant because we all know that even non-steel framed buildings do not behave that way from localized damage and fires, or even global fires. We know the building was brought down. Everybody knows this. There is no debate.

Evidence?

In the real world kiddo, you need evidence to back up a claim. You have NONE.

Blasting caps? Detcord? ANYTHING?!?!

Nothing.

Not even an explosion. There was no CD. The ONLY people who think there was are IDIOTS.

 

[ergo]

Irrelevant? No. Pointing out that the NIST theory is impossible is very important.

Respectfully, Chris, only to people who regard it as a credible explanation. Very few do, or would, if they actually investigated it. Do you know any outside of NIST who do?

The NIST theory has been shown to be impossible using science, mathematics and their own statements. This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that is what is required by reasonable people.

Sure, but pointing this out is irrelevant because only idiots and those involved in covering up actually put any credibility in the NIST explanation for WTC 7.

A general statement like yours is good but not scientific proof. It's just an opinion without specifics to back it up.

Yes, it's an opinion based on common sense and understanding of how gravity works on matter on the earth's surface. A five-year-old can understand why a steel-framed building with limited structural damage and minor fires cannot sink as a whole into the ground like a building that has been CDed.

The technical discussion around this seems to want to take this basic, common-sense understanding of what a natural gravitational collapse looks like away and into the realm of minute engineering details. I reject that notion. There simply is no debate that the building was brought down. Debating it gives the absurdist NIST explanation legitimacy. I just wanted to make that comment.

 

[tfk]

May I interrupt this conversation and bring this thread back to the topic?

Nope.

The 5 1/2 inch girder WALK-OFF in the NIST theory is impossible.

Would somebody hit the record player. It's skipping.
(for those who still know what that means…)

Thermal expansion elongation of the floor beams cannot exceed 4 3/4 inches because shortening due to sagging will exceed the expansion at higher temperatures.

You must not be paying attention.

Even doing the calculation wrong, Tony S just gave us an additional 1.6 inches.

The girder between columns 76 and 79 would buckle by the time it pushed column 79 just 1.6 inches to the east if it were unrestrained by the 12 beams framing into it with shear studs. I

And the beam would go further if it were supported by the beams furthest from Col 79, as it truly would be.

Are you calling Tony a liar?

It doesn't matter that you can think of another scenario. The NIST scenario is impossible so they have not explained why the building collapsed and please don't claim that it's close enough for government work.

It's close enough for structural engineers, mechanical engineers, architects, academic engineers & scientists, industry, civilians & government work.

Somehow, we'll struggle thru without the:

Religious theologians
Free energy, cold fusion, Jesus in Americas, nuke generated tsunami, particle physicist
Islamic studies professors
Radio shock jocks
video school dropouts / pizza slingers
angry young boys

and handyman store clerks.

Somehow...

 

[ergo]

It's close enough for structural engineers, mechanical engineers, architects, academic engineers & scientists, industry, civilians & government work.

No, it isn't. Because I've asked a similar question before, I know that you won't be able to cite a single engineer outside of NIST who supports the NIST explanation of the WTC 7 collapse.

 

[triforcharity]

No, it isn't. Because I've asked a similar question before, I know that you won't be able to cite a single engineer outside of NIST who supports the NIST explanation of the WTC 7 collapse.

Dr. Bazant.

Your turn.......

 

[LSSBB]

No, it isn't. Because I've asked a similar question before, I know that you won't be able to cite a single engineer outside of NIST who supports the NIST explanation of the WTC 7 collapse.

Me.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, it isn't. Because I've asked a similar question before, I know that you won't be able to cite a single engineer outside of NIST who supports the NIST explanation of the WTC 7 collapse.

TFK can't even cite himself, because anonymous engineers don't count. I am continually amazed that a working mechanical engineer, as he claims to be, has as much time as he seems to have to post here and elsewhere.

Aside from that anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that a building the size of a footblall field in plan coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories across its full length and width, can only be collapsing due to unnatural means.

It is clear that many of the individuals that post on this forum would argue that man could fly through the sun and survive if it served their interests.

 

[twinstead]

because as we all know, if an engineer hasn't expressly submitted his approval of the NIST report, preferably in triplicate, it means he secretly doesn't support its conclusion.

 

[twinstead]

TFK can't even cite himself, because anonymous engineers don't count. I am continually amazed that a working mechanical engineer, as he claims to be, has as much time as he seems to have to post here and elsewhere.

Aside from that anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that a building the size of a footblall field in plan coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories across its full length and width, can only be collapsing due to unnatural means.

It is clear that many of the individuals that post on this forum would argue that man could fly through the sun and survive if it served their interests.

Publish something.

 

[A W Smith]

TFK can't even cite himself, because anonymous engineers don't count. I am continually amazed that a working mechanical engineer, as he claims to be, has as much time as he seems to have to post here and elsewhere.

Aside from that anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that a building the size of a footblall field in plan coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories across its full length and width, can only be collapsing due to unnatural means.
It is clear that many of the individuals that post on this forum would argue that man could fly through the sun and survive if it served their interests.

Ive highlighted and hyperlinked your argument from personal astonishment. Is that how you work in practice?