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

[Tony Szamboti]

Just as soon as you submit your criticisms to any reputable journal on fire science or structural engineering on the planet.

There is a group of engineers and scientists, which includes myself, who are in the process of doing so. I don't just come here and talk about it.

To be fair there are also letters being sent to the NIST about it.

 

[beachnut]

There is a group of engineers and scientists, which includes myself, who are in the process of doing so. I don't just come here and talk about it.

To be fair there are also letters being sent to the NIST about it.

How does this effort prove the idiotic CD claims you have and support? Here you are attacking NIST, not the only study which says it was fire, when you should be working on your smoking gun. 10 years of proved failure topped off with a witch-hunt. Real science in work.

 

[carlitos]

I think society can leave aside any assigning of insidious motives,

There is a group of engineers and scientists, which includes myself

Which are you?

 

[NoahFence]

I think society can leave aside any assigning of insidious motives, admit the reality that they didn't get it right the first time, and acknowledge that they need to do it over.

Can you?

That's a pretty funny question coming from a truther who implies that everybody from the Prez to firefighters to investigators was "in on it".

"It" being the murder of 3,000 people. It is you and your kind who are assigning motives. It is you and your kind who REFUSE to show anything that can even be mistaken for evidence.

What NIST didn't get right has no bearing on their conclusion. You're nitpicking the cop who said he gunned you at 100MPH by telling him you were actually at 99.235.

What possible difference can it make?

 

[tsig]

How does this effort prove the idiotic CD claims you have and support? Here you are attacking NIST, not the only study which says it was fire, when you should be working on your smoking gun. 10 years of proved failure topped off with a witch-hunt. Real science in work.

Exactly. all of the report could be a tissue of lies and that still wouldn't prove CDs. You need positive proof for that, det cord, explosive damage, explosive residue....

All truthers fail to realize that proving something wrong doesn't mean that something else was right.

 

[twinstead]

All truthers fail to realize that proving something wrong doesn't mean that something else was right.

You mean God of the Gaps isn't a viable argument? I'm shocked!

 

[tfk]

Tony,

"… the last [comment] shall be first …"

I really can imagine you as that salesman from the way you talk here.

O'Rly…??

My questions:

1. Please draw the stress-strain curves (one curve for each temperature) implied by your values for E(Temp) from a strain of zero up to the max strain that you think is appropriate for your assumptions. (The assumptions that you haven't provided yet.)

Sales or engineering?

Sounds like "engineering" to me.

2. Do you see any problem with using end constraints of "simple supports" for very low temps?

Sales or engineering?

Sounds like "engineering" to me.

3. Why did you not build your model considering construction loads?

Sales or engineering?

Sounds like "engineering" to me.

4. What are the underlying assumptions associated with the deflection curve for distributed load equation that you used? Paying primary attention to where the equation breaks down & gives wrong answers.

Sales or engineering?

Sounds like "engineering" to me.

5. What is the fundamental theoretical justification used in the generation of the distributed load equation that you used?

Sales or engineering?

Sounds like "engineering" to me.

Are you such a lousy engineer that you can't even tell the difference between the questions anymore?

Or is this just a failed attempt at a facile diversion. Because you don't know the answers to the questions.

I could have answered each of them in about 1 minute.

What's your problem.

Your points here are insignificant to the issue at hand and asking for a level of precision that is orders of magnitude greater than necessary. Nobody uses the degree of precision you are asking for here, to settle the kind of problem we are discussing.

What you are saying is tantamount to you being a boat salesman who advertises a 30 foot boat and when a prospective buyer comes to physically see it and measures it with a tape measure and finds out it is only 20 feet long, you scream that he can't possibly know how long the boat is without using a large vernier caliper.

I'll stay with your analogy.

Two of the first 4 questions will have results that throw your numbers off by the difference between a 30' yacht & a row boat.

The other two throw your numbers off by the difference between a 30' yacht and the USS Nimitz.

One question was just a foundational question to see if you understood the cornerstone theory behind the equations.

Right now, you are 0 for 5.

Sorry, 0 for 6, You provided zero answers, and you got the magnitude of the effects of the issues raised GLORIOUSLY wrong.

Care to try again, or shall I just start disassembling your crap now?


tom

PS. I gotta tell ya, Tony, that, for an engineer, your answer suck. I mean, they REALLY suck.

Your failure to show the slightest interest in, much less address, one single mechanical engineering issue - ALL of them precisely pertinent to the question at hand - make you sound, not like a salesman ... they make you sound like a janitor.

A really, really dumb janitor.

PPS. My apologies to any smart janitors that may be reading this.

 

[DGM]

I think society can leave aside any assigning of insidious motives, admit the reality that they didn't get it right the first time, and acknowledge that they need to do it over.

Can you?

"Right" to what end?

The NIST did in my opinion, accomplished what it had set out to do. They identified the likely cause of the collapse and have made recommendation as to prevent this from happening in the future (I say this encompassing the tower reports also). The detail of which nut, bolt or weld broke first is not really all that important. What's important is identifying inherent weaknesses in a system, then recommendations can be made to make buildings safer.

When you guy's write your paper about this, do you plan to also submit a theory as to what you do believe the cause of the collapse to be? If so, will you include detail equal to or greater than that supplied by NIST?

Someday, you're going to have to explain to me how WTC 7 fit into the "evil plan" (sorry, demolishing it to aid the rescue efforts doesn't work).

 

[Christopher7]

Can we even assume that the critical column was in exactly its right position and not sagging or expanding in any direction, given that it was in the line of fire of a nice hot blow pipe?

NCSTAR 1A pg 21
Due to the effectiveness of the SFRM, the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 °C (570 °F)

They said nothing about lateral displacement. If it were a factor they would have said so.

 

[Christopher7]

Using their own statement, I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse and therefore it did not heat the beams that pushed the girder that fell off its seat that triggered a cascade of floors that left column 79 unbraced so it buckled, initiating a horizontal collapse that led to the total collapse of WTC 7.

Are you always your own judge of what you yourself proved and what is a reasonable doubt in your conjectures?

NIST appendix L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

If that isn't enough for you then you are in denial.

 

[tfk]

deleted, just another lousy explanation by Tony.

 

[Christopher7]

Using their own statement, I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse and therefore it did not heat the beams that pushed the girder that fell off its seat that triggered a cascade of floors that left column 79 unbraced so it buckled, initiating a horizontal collapse that led to the total collapse of WTC 7.

Even if that were the case, which it isn't you haven't proven that the fire on floor 13 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse

It's floor 12 and you too are in denial.

NIST appendix L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

NIST proved a plausible mechanism. Regardless of whether the details on their initiation event are right or wrong, the mechanism (collapse of a floor triggering a cascade of floor failures) remains uncontested and keeps being plausible

The cascade never started.

ETA:

ETA2: But you seem to think that by disproving NIST's initiation event you have ruled out collapse by fire. You can't be more wrong.

You are missing the point. Why am I not surprised?

The point is:
The NIST theory does not explain the collapse because their collapse does not happen as they said.

 

[Christopher7]

Tony,

Might as well get started.

This is exactly why I wanted you to list your assumptions.

You said.



I know that it is kind of a tricky calculation, but you wanna try multiplying 45 x 53 again??

Although it is only an exercise, because one of those numbers is wrong by over a factor of two.

Want to try again?


tom

PS. Is anyone left, anyone, that thinks that we should just take Tony "at his calculation"?

Do your own calculations if you know how. See if you get a different result.

 

[leftysergeant]

They said nothing about lateral displacement. If it were a factor they would have said so.

Where did they rule it out?

 

[tfk]

Do your own calculations if you know how. See if you get a different result.

Shhhhh, Chris.

Engineers talking.

tk

PS. And this is oh-so-delicious irony...

What is it that Twoofers always say?

Oh, yeah.

It goes something like this: "I don't have to show the right answer. I just have to show the NIST was wrong."


Mmmmmmm, I like the look of THAT shoe on THAT foot...!!

 

[Jackanory]

Tony,

We'll start with the simple stuff.

I'm not asking these for information. I know the answers. I want to see if you do.

1. Please draw the stress-strain curves (one curve for each temperature) implied by your values for E(Temp) from a strain of zero up to the max strain that you think is appropriate for your assumptions. (The assumptions that you haven't provided yet.)

2. Do you see any problem with using end constraints of "simple supports" for very low temps?

3. Why did you not build your model considering construction loads?

4. What are the underlying assumptions associated with the deflection curve for distributed load equation that you used? Paying primary attention to where the equation breaks down & gives wrong answers.

5. What is the fundamental theoretical justification used in the generation of the distributed load equation that you used?

That'll do for now.


Tom

Bump!

Come on Tony. Answer the man. Tick tock, tick tock.

 

[jaydeehess]

I explained that to get from the S side to the N side it had to burn what was in between. Don't tell me you don't understand that.

if fire science was that simplistic there would be no such thing as fire engineering now would there?

It does NOT agree with the observed fires!

it agrees sufficiently to illustrate its ability to reasonably predict interior behaviour

Blind faith in a government agency is foolhardy. If you do not know that the government lies a lot, you have not been paying attention.

the question was why I or anyone else should believe your quallifications to do fire spread simulations or for that matter, engineering

 

[beachnut]

NCSTAR 1A pg 21
Due to the effectiveness of the SFRM, the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 °C (570 °F)

They said nothing about lateral displacement. If it were a factor they would have said so.

Wow, you left out the entire report to cherry-pick your argument... the lateral displacement took place, it is why there was a collapse, you don't understand when it happen, or the probable collapse sequence.

Publish your paper, show NIST is wrong, and become famous. Who will you team with to get the Pulitzer for this "truth"?
I hope your work does not rest on this type of cherry-picked, quote-mining claptrap. It is funny, the lateral support for the probable collapse was gone, the start of collapse. You are debating probable cause and you offer no other cause but CD and other crazy claims. This is where you take all your engineering skill, bring out the differential equations and present your "probable" cause for the collapse of WTC 7. The best way to show NIST is wrong on their "probable cause", did I say probable collapse sequence? lol

You got nothing. I can see your avatar now, shaking his head and telling you ... Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed logic and messed up engineering. Prepare to fail.
It is a "probable collapse sequence". To cherry-pick expansion coefficients and fail to use a systems approach; failure.

A "probable collapse sequence". What is your "probable collapse sequence"; where is your paper?

 

[twinstead]

The point is:
The NIST theory does not explain the collapse because their collapse does not happen as they said.

Even if true, and you have not shown that to the satisfaction of any engineer I know, the question posed to you is, "SO WHAT?".

 

[Jackanory]

Do your own calculations if you know how. See if you get a different result.

No matter how many times I try to do the calcs for a CD.......I just can't make it work. Can't even make it 'looky likey'.

You cant either. Nobody can.

You do realise that the damage was consistent with fire and not CD from explosives.........right?

You do realise that the fires where far more effective than any CD using explosives......right?

Show me the calcs for your CD.

Just give me one simple example of your ring main or trunk line on any floor. Obviously starting at base of course. Show me what and how you would use your branch lines at any beam, girder, column. Just one loop. Anything?