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

[Christopher7]

I'd love nothing more than never having to ask that question again, but you people keep saying it was ” obvious” without providing your evidence. I will continue to hold your feet to the fire until you accidentally have a moment of honesty and answer the damn question.

Please read Rule 11

 

[tfk]

Please tell me how you would calculate beam deflection of a simply supported beam at elevated temperature with a distributed load, and then tell me what you want to know. Be specific and try to be brief and to the point, if that is possible with you.

Just so you know, some of us actually have to work for a living. I only post when I check at night and occassionally in the morning before getting read for work, if I am up early.

From all the posting I see you do it is hard to believe you have another job.

"Tell [you] what want to know"...???

After all of this, you still don't know exactly what I want to know from you...??!!!

Are you kidding..??!!

I have been exquisitely precise.

Let's see if anyone else is confused about what I have asked of Tony.

Can anyone, anyone possibly state for me what I "want to know from him"?

Anyone?

___

PS. Still working the "post too much". When can I expect "don't know who you are"?

Such compelling engineering arguments, Tony.

Never heard of "a day off", Tony?

Well, now I've got to run. Places to go, things to do, pretty girls to entertain.

 

[NoahFence]

Please read Rule 11

Hey, at least you're consistent. Maybe you could link to you're evidence?

Then I won't soil your minutiae loving thread. As a matter if fact, I'll leave JREF.

Sound good?

 

[LSSBB]

Be hush, child.

Grownups talking now.

Tony, your assumptions, methods & equations, please.

"Tell [you] what want to know"...???

After all of this, you still don't know exactly what I want to know from you...??!!!

Are you kidding..??!!

I have been exquisitely precise.

Let's see if anyone else is confused about what I have asked of Tony.

Can anyone, anyone possibly state for me what I "want to know from him"?

Anyone?

Assumptions, methods and equations.

 

[tsig]

What I would like to know is why there are so many incoherent ramblers on this forum, who don't seem to pay attention, and keep asking the same questions over and over?
I think if you answer that queston you would answer your own.

They never get answers.

You're arguing over inches while the elephant of CD is pooping on the floor.

 

[Christopher7]

"Tell [you] what want to know"...???
After all of this, you still don't know exactly what I want to know from you...??!!!
Are you kidding..??!!
I have been exquisitely precise.
Let's see if anyone else is confused about what I have asked of Tony.
Can anyone, anyone possibly state for me what I "want to know from him"?
Anyone?

Arrogant cop-out and exit.
In the time it took you to write that drivel you could have said specifically what you wanted.

The truth is what you just want to insult, argue and use lots of column space to bury the fact that walk-off is impossible.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

"Tell [you] what want to know"...???

After all of this, you still don't know exactly what I want to know from you...??!!!

Are you kidding..??!!

I have been exquisitely precise.

Let's see if anyone else is confused about what I have asked of Tony.

Can anyone, anyone possibly state for me what I "want to know from him"?

Anyone?

___

PS. Still working the "post too much". When can I expect "don't know who you are"?

Such compelling engineering arguments, Tony.

Never heard of "a day off", Tony?

Well, now I've got to run. Places to go, things to do, pretty girls to entertain.

You must have had a freudian slip when you said you had to run. It is obvious you can't do anything else here if you don't want to face the reality that the NIST WTC 7 report is incorrect as to how the collapse of the building was initiated.

The calculations I did used the classical beam deflection formula for a simply supported beam with a distributed load, which is in any mechanics of materials book. The moment of inertia is that for the strong axis of a W24 x 55 structural steel beam. The modulus of elasticity used is based on that for steel and the AISC modulus retention factor for the steel at a particular elevated temperature. The dead load is based on the NIST report table, which gives it as 75 psf for floor 13, and the area was that supported by one of the five beams in the northwest corner, where I used a total estimated area of 45 feet x 53 feet. The loading area for the one beam would then be 477 sq. feet. I used a reduced live load of 25 psf, from the full live load given by NIST of 50 psf. The lengths of the beams are given in the NIST report. The calculations I did were for K3004, which was the longest of the five beams, would have had the most expansion, and was the closest to column 79.

Once the deflection is known the angle of the sag can be found using trigonometry. The shortening due to the sag can be found with the equation

u = L(1- COS of the angle of sag)

where L is the length of the beam and "u" is the shortening due to sagging/deflection due to heating and lowering of the modulus. This is the same equation used to find the displacement at a particular stage during buckling to develop the load-displacement curve and where the angle is that made by the bent column with the vertical.

You really must take a lot of days off to do all the posting you do. Have fun on your run and try to make sure you don't fall.

 

[leftysergeant]

The breeze from the NW was blowing thru the building, mixing with and cooling the hot gasses from the fire. If you want to know exactly how much, do the math yourself.

Dude, you might stop just a moment to think about that. You were aware, were you not, that the hot gases are, themselves, fuel vapors, and that mixing them with oxyen can cause them to re-ignite, sometimes, chataSTRIKE]strophicly.

(Google "back- draft.")

Yes, retarded is thinking a breeze blowing thru the building would not cool the air temperature down.

fify

 

[Christopher7]

Dude, you might stop just a moment to think about that. You were aware, were you not, that the hot gases are, themselves, fuel vapors, and that mixing them with oxyen can cause them to re-ignite, sometimes, chataSTRIKE]strophicly.

(Google "back- draft.")

A back draft occurs when fresh air hits built up unignited vapors in a closed space. There was a steady breeze blowing thru the 12th floor so there was no build up of unignited vapors.
I know more about fires than you do Mr. hose dragger.

 

[LSSBB]

You must have had a freudian slip when you said you had to run. It is obvious you can't do anything else here if you don't want to face the reality that the NIST WTC 7 report is incorrect as to how the collapse of the building was initiated.

The calculations I did used the classical beam deflection formula for a simply supported beam with a distributed load, which is in any mechanics of materials book. The moment of inertia is that for the strong axis of a W24 x 55 structural steel beam. The modulus of elasticity used is based on that for steel and the AISC modulus retention factor for the steel at a particular elevated temperature. The dead load is based on the NIST report table, which gives it as 75 psf for floor 13, and the area was that supported by one of the five beams in the northwest corner, where I used a total estimated area of 45 feet x 53 feet. The loading area for the one beam would then be 477 sq. feet. I used a reduced live load of 25 psf, from the full live load given by NIST of 50 psf. The lengths of the beams are given in the NIST report. The calculations I did were for K3004, which was the longest of the five beams, would have had the most expansion, and was the closest to column 79.

Once the deflection is known the angle of the sag can be found using trigonometry. The shortening due to the sag can be found with the equation

u = L(1- COS of the angle of sag)

where L is the length of the beam and "u" is the shortening due to sagging/deflection due to heating and lowering of the modulus. This is the same equation used to find the displacement at a particular stage during buckling to develop the load-displacement curve and where the angle is that made by the bent column with the vertical.

You really must take a lot of days off to do all the posting you do. Have fun on your run and try to make sure you don't fall.

Assumptions?

 

[LSSBB]

A back draft occurs when fresh air hits built up unignited vapors in a closed space. There was a steady breeze blowing thru the 12th floor so there was no build up of unignited vapors.
I know more about fires than you do Mr. hose dragger.

No, not just a closed space, an oxygen-starved environment. A closed space is a subset of oxygen-starved environments.

 

[tfk]

Tri,

This is friggin' hilarious.

You couldn't possibly write comedy like this.

A back draft occurs when fresh air hits built up unignited vapors in a closed space. There was a steady breeze blowing thru the 12th floor so there was no build up of unignited vapors.

You can't argue with logic like that, Tri. The only course left to you is to cede the battlefield to Chris & his juggernaut logic, and slink away in defeat.

After all, he has DIAGRAMS. With ARROWS, for God's sake!!

If I may, can I give an example the irresistable force of Chris & his diagrams?

Over at (I giggle whenever I see this) TruthPhalanx.com, Chris has, in his own modest words, "disproved NIST's claims in four centrally important areas … [including] … in the extent and timing of fire on the 12th floor which NIST claimed caused the initial failure leading to collapse."

And how did one man pull of this fire-science tour de force?
WITH DIAGRAMS, of course.

Here is the unchallengable proof that NIST was incompetent or just plain fraudulent in their investigation of the fires.

NIST's diagrams, based on that silly old Fire Simulation Software that they've been developing since the 1980s. With all of its silly millions of lines of code, and requiring supercomputers and all that stuff that is clearly just meant to impress the sheeple & silence serious investigators.

NIST's diagram:

Now compare this blatant fraud (everyone can see that, right?) to Chris' typical work.

Below is a diagram representing precisely the area in which Chris had suggestions about about fire in the building: the areas immediately adjacent to the windows. The blacked out zone is the area in the building for which he hadn't the SLIGHTEST clue about the fire situation.

Would Chris be able to shine the light of knowledge into those dark areas of ignorance?
Does the Pope crap in the woods?
Is the bear Catholic?
Did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor?

Bringing his penetrating intellect to bear on the problem, he was able to reach down to the genius residing within and to fill in the blanks as no mere supercomputer could.

Producing this masterpiece:

(are you ready? Can you handle the truth?

See, Tri. Told ya.
Diagrams!
Not even any arrows on this one, but I bet NIST is quaking in their neocon boots, fearful that this will ever get out.

You can't argue with diagrams, Tri.

Oops, excuse me. I should have said "… with DIAGRAMS".

Because Chris' diagrams ain't just plain old small letter diagrams.

No, they are CAPITAL LETTER DIAGRAMS!!

Sometimes they wear colorful spandex suits. With masks. And capes.

I know more about fires than you do Mr. hose dragger.

Chris thinks that he knows more about fire in buildings than you do.
He thinks he knows more about mechanical engineering than I do.
He thinks he knows more about structural engineering than Zdenek Bazant, Shayam Sunder, John Gross, Terese McAllister et al.
He thinks he knows more about forensic chemical identification than James Millette, Sunstealer, or Oystein.

I could go on & on.
& on & on.
& on & on.
& on & on.

[No, really. I could.]

But I wouldn't want to embarrass him with praise. He is, after all, such a resolutely modest individual.

And what, you may ask, is the unshakable foundation for his self-image as the Renaissance Man of Engineering Knowledge of our Century?

Well, I am glad you asked.

Allow me to fill in the blanks for you and anyone else who doubts his authority in all matters related to science and engineering.

It is based upon his ability to state such momentous, paradigm-shifting sentences as:

"You know, we're running a 2 for 1 special on screwdrivers over on aisle 6. Would you like me to show you where they are?"

And the most remarkable thing is that he is able to say these things ON A DAILY BASIS ..!!! And WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY…!!

Such crushing responsibility & authority executed with calm, steely-eyed self-confidence. Especially under life-&-death emergency situations, when that call to action sounds ("Clean up on Aisle 4") & Chris and his Band of Brothers spring into action. Not an instant of concern for their own safety or the families they may never see again!!

Well, I don't mind telling you, Tri. Watching these quiet heroes go about their daily lives, sometime it just brings a tear to my eye in silent admiration.

[Takes bow. Exits stage right.]

 

[jaydeehess]

is it? what makes it so?

I'm waiting for the explanation of its derivation, then perhaps a technical rebuttal before I make my own, non-engineer's judgement

It was derived using the formulas given.

* * * * *

tfk, A professional engineer would know the formulas needed or know where to look for them.

Do your own analysis if you really are an engineer.

How much would a 53' 4'' beam sag at 600^oC, and 700^oC ?

At what point would loss to sag exceed elongation?

I am as much an engineer as you are Chris.

Has the gist of what tfk has been asking you completely escaped you?

 

[tfk]

Furthermore, the cool breeze would be flowing thru the area of the beams in question without mixing very much with the hot gasses from the fire.

Of course they would, Chris.

The cool air would be flowing thru the area of all those beams in the ceiling, without mixing with the hot gasses, because everyone knows that COOL air rises above HOT gasses.

Oh, wait...

Does the responsibility of carrying around the Burden Of Perpetual Wrong ever get to you?

 

[jaydeehess]

Not only that, but an engineer doesn't need to appeal to authority, even going so far as to bold the title "Dr." Yikes.

As Tony has pointed out a few times, the opinions of anonymous internet posters claiming to be "engineers" are worth zero. It's a non-debate.

You are anonymous AND claim no relevent expertise at all, nor do you demonstrate any. How much stock should we then put in your opinion, ergo.

 

[jaydeehess]

..........we see that TS also invokes 'common sense' as the starting point for his arguement, and does little else to support his claim of CD. It is all well and good to try to poke holes in the NIST engineers studies and reports. It is yet another thing to make the leap of intuition required to then peg it as a controlled demolition.Where is the evidence of explosive use? Certainly its not thermite since for the sudden failure of CD which they say is seen in the collapses thermite would be wildy unweildy as it is impossible to time the cutting of structural members.

(and)How does FFA, and in fact the measured exceeding of 'g', factor into CD, EXACTLY?

What I'd liked to know is what's your evidence of controlled demolition. Should be easy to rattle it off, seeing as though it was ”clearly” a controlled demo.

I'd love nothing more than never having to ask that question again, but you people keep saying it was ” obvious” without providing your evidence. I will continue to hold your feet to the fire until you accidentally have a moment of honesty and answer the damn question.

Hilited a few of the relevent points made about this..
As I said, its all well and good to try to poke holes in NIST's scenario. If that is a problem then by ALL MEANS produce a paper and submit it to JEM or similar and see what the response is. AFTER ALL that is the purpose of this exercise , right? To prove NIST incorrect?

Then just do it furgawdssake!!

What is the problem, what is the hold up?

This is after all 2012, the final NIST report on WTC 7 was out a few years ago and the events at the center of this occured in 2001. Chris expounded greatly a few years back on how it was obvious that NIST was dragging its feet in getting a report completed. His claim was that NIST just wanted the time so that 'the people' would be tired of 9/11 and not deal too critically with the report, becuase it would be old news and all that. Obviously Mr.C.S. then believes that reports are much easier to produce, they should come out much much quicker, so I ask again, what's the hold up?

Is it troublesome trying to write a paper for submission without calling the NIST authors liars and frauds, is that the problem?

Once (IF) you get confirmation from the engineering community (the readers of JEM) then will you demonstrate how this then requires the collapse mechanism to be CD? Or is that ever going to happen? I suspect not, because Chris, Tony and others who are pushing this "NIST is wrong/lieing" meme all start from the assumption that WTC 7 was a CD and that it is 'obvious' that it was a CD. In this line of 'logic' therefore no actual evidence is required to promote it as CD. All that need be done is poke holes in NIST's report and the rest just somehow, magically follows.

 

[leftysergeant]

A back draft occurs when fresh air hits built up unignited vapors in a closed space. There was a steady breeze blowing thru the 12th floor so there was no build up of unignited vapors.
I know more about fires than you do Mr. hose dragger.

No.

I mentioned back draft to point out that that breeze was taking fuel to the fires at the front of the building.

 

[jaydeehess]

"Tell [you] what want to know"...???

............Let's see if anyone else is confused about what I have asked of Tony.

Can anyone, anyone possibly state for me what I "want to know from him"?

Anyone?.

Ok I'll have a go.
I am not an engineer. I am an electronics tech who switched from B.Sc. program in second year to electronics because a B.Sc. in physics qualifies one to : be a high school teacher (after having completed a few years for the B.Ed.), to go on to Masters degree, or to drive a taxi or stock shelves, whereas I got a good job immediately after graduating with the electronics diploma. My hobby for the past 30 years has been reading Sci-Am, Discover, and authors such as Bill Bryson. In university I hung around with both journalism and engineering students (and one M.Sc. physics room mate).

Now that its clear from whence I come......

Obviously any situation such as is the subject of this discussion is extremely complex and thus some assumptions must be made to simplify the situation. Similar things occur in electronics where in many cases one can ignore such things as FET input capacitance or the the inductance between parallel traces on a circuit board(such as with HVAC controls), in other cases these parameters would be extremely important (such as GHz frequecies).


You are asking TS what assumptions he is making and what formulae he is using to derive the values he is using.
Chris pops in to say that there is only one formula, the one he posts and seems oblivious to the fact that you are asking how some of the variables that are being input to that formula were arrived at.

Am I close?

 

[jaydeehess]

NIST's diagrams, based on that silly old Fire Simulation Software that they've been developing since the 1980s. With all of its silly millions of lines of code, and requiring supercomputers and all that stuff that is clearly just meant to impress the sheeple & silence serious investigators.

NIST's diagram:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=638&pictureid=5862[/qimg]

Way-taminnit!
IIRC Chris has said before that NIST showed that the fires had burned out in the vicinity of col 70 by the time of the collapse. These diagrams show fire AT col 79 as late as 5 pm.

So I guess the fires must have burned out in the next 30 minutes or so putting a screeching halt to expansion or deformation of structural members in that vicinity?

I have no training in fire behaviour other than what I have read from such sources as the University of Edinburgh and similar. So I am not qualified to do such an analysis myself. Therefore I have to choose who's analysis to believe is the closest to what actually occured, NIST, or Chris. Thus it behooves me to inquire on expertise.

I see you also posted Chris' own interpretation of where and when the fires were burning. I hate to appeal to authority here but I believe its warranted. I haven't looked over Chris' arguement on this point on his site but what pray tell is the comparison between the expertise and technical experience of the NIST authors of the fire behaviour part of the WTC 7 report, and Chris, and why is it compelling to then support Chris' fire scenario over that of NIST?

Now it is my understanding that NIST employed persons with relevent fire engineering and behaviour expertise whereas Chris' training and expertise is as a jouneyman carpenter. Whereas a professional building trades ticket is something to be proud of, my own brother is a licensed electrician and my son a heavy duty mechanic, both with the tickets to prove it, I fail to see how Chris profession is relevent to this task nor how it could aid in making his fire analysis compelling.

 

[leftysergeant]

Now it is my understanding that NIST employed persons with relevent fire engineering and behaviour expertise whereas Chris' training and expertise is as a jouneyman carpenter. Whereas a professional building trades ticket is something to be proud of, my own brother is a licensed electrician and my son a heavy duty mechanic, both with the tickets to prove it, I fail to see how Chris profession is relevent to this task nor how it could aid in making his fire analysis compelling.

Based on my experience in fire fighting and some limited work in construction, I find any claculations based up the design of WTC7 as built to be at least somewhat unreliable. The building was randomly damaged during the barrage of debris from the collapse of the north tower. The fires broke out randomly and broke windows randomly.

The heat would be spread randomly, and the steel elements of the structure would sink it randomly.

Still, Tony and Chris expect everything to move in tight formation, dress-right-dress to the end.

Sometimes number-crunchers get a bit too obsessive.