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

[NoahFence]

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.

What if they were mistaken about that?

Why is NIST the worst investigative organization mankind has ever known in one post, and in the other you answer a question with a reference to the report?

AND WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

 

[Jackanory]

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

So you keep saying. Structural damage and fires could not have caused the building to fail.......right? That is what you are saying?

Then how do you say the collapse happened?

And how does your collapse scenario, that differs from NIST, fit with explosives or any other scenario for that matter?

Tick tock, tick tock. You need something other than, NIST GOT IT WRONG.

 

[triforcharity]

I never claimed to know everything about fire science but thanks for the video. That was awesome!

You sure act like you know more about veteran firefighters like myself and Lefty over there.......

WHich, as we've seen in this very thread, you know about as much about fire, as I do about cardiovascular surgery.

 

[triforcharity]

Denial without specifics or reasons.

Really? You haven't even responded to THIS post, let alone anything else.

So, please explain to me what I got wrong. Explain please.




Nope, it's your claim, back it up with the math.

I'll give you a few pointers.

1- You need to figure out the sq. ft of the broken windows, and calculate how much air will move through that per minute in cu. ft. To do this, you need to know how much of a breeze there was that day.

2-You'll then need to figure out the approximate fuel load and any variables in the area. For instance, walls and partitions.

3-You'll then need to calculate the amount of heat energy per kg. expressed in joules per hour.

Once you've figured out that, you need to account for any negative pressure you may have. Burning fires consume A LOT of oxygen, which will then have an effect on the amount of free oxygen left to do any kind of heat reduction.

Good luck. It should take you about half a year. Maybe we can compare notes?


Yeah right, who am I kidding. WE all know that you'll never do such a thing.

Oh, and don't forget that once the oxygen is consumed, the amount of heat energy increases. That is a key calculation.

Good luck

Wanna give it a shot?

You're claiming that because some windows were broken, it would prevent the heating of the steel beams. Is that correct?

If so, then show me the math. Show me your fuel load calculations and heat output calculations. Then show me your calculations of cooling effects of the air coming into the building.

Oh, and one thing I forgot. Don't forget to calculate for the added oxygen from the lower floors. It has something to do with the smokestack effect.

Good luck champ. Gooooooodddddd luck.

 

[ergo]

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

Here's a thought: why don't you "correct" him? Why don't you explain to all of us exactly how Tony's assumptions throw his calculations off such that he mistakes the USS Nimitz for a rowboat?

I anticipate being very impressed by these very technical, engineer-like explanations, tfk. Let's see you demonstrate how your calculations are so much more accurate than Tony's.

 

[ergo]

The questions are not significant to the problem. I don't need a scale graduated in grams to know a chicken egg doesn't weigh 10 lbs., a lb. and ounce graduation will do fine, and the NIST explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC 7 is similar to saying the egg weighed 10 lbs.

Tony, please, don't get them started. NoahFence is now going to spend the next three days frantically searching internet pics for a 10 lb chicken egg. That's "debunking", doncha know.

 

[NoahFence]

Tony, please, don't get them started. NoahFence is now going to spend the next three days frantically searching internet pics for a 10 lb chicken egg. That's "debunking", doncha know.

I forgot more about this subject than you'll ever know, son.

 

[ergo]

* cough *

 

[Justin39640]

Installing dropped ceilings does not make you a structural engineer.

I pulled the head off an engine this morning and looked inside the block. WooHoo! I'm a mechanical engineer!!!!

 

[NoahFence]

* cough *

You can't even be an idiot right.

 

[pgimeno]

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

It's floor 12 if it's floor 12. It may well have been floor 13, which is my point. NIST says in the conclusions of the report that fire weakened floors 8 to 14. What if they got the floor wrong? They would still have explained the collapse, just in the wrong floor. See why I say that you're still a long way off from disproving collapse by fire?

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

That's YOUR point, not THE point.

THE point is that in this thread, NIST's theory is not disproved. Some people including you have (unconvincingly so far) argued that NIST made a mistake, which might well be in the floor number.

 

[Justin39640]

"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.

While this is a logical and well thought out statement, it means nothing to Tony. He thinks it's impossible for a large building to collapse due to its inherit redundancy. Why would you ever need to make them safer???

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Bump!

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

I already did by saying the things he has brought up are insignificant to the problem.

If they would have the bearing on the results of the calculations, that he claims, he should show they do. They won't, and that is why he won't show it.

TFK is the one you should be asking to back up his claims. Why aren't you asking him to support what he claims?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Here's a thought: why don't you "correct" him? Why don't you explain to all of us exactly how Tony's assumptions throw his calculations off such that he mistakes the USS Nimitz for a rowboat?

I anticipate being very impressed by these very technical, engineer-like explanations, tfk. Let's see you demonstrate how your calculations are so much more accurate than Tony's.

People should ask themselves what they think would happen in an engineering meeting to someone making counter claims relative to someone else's calculated results while refusing to provide supporting backup for these alleged counter claims.

It is despicable to make counter claims and have the nerve to publicly chide the person who generated the original results without supporting the counter claims.

I have to say that it appears TFK is nothing more than a blowhard if he doesn't show his work and blowhards are generally frowned upon and not tolerated in engineering circles because they cause problems for no reason which inhibits productivity.

 

[NoahFence]

People should ask themselves what they think would happen in an engineering meeting to someone making counter claims relative to someone else's calculated results while refusing to provide supporting backup for these alleged counter claims.

I have to say that it appears TFK is nothing more than a blowhard if he doesn't show his work.

YOU'RE complaining about someone not supporting their claim?!?
Hypocritical, ignorant, and absolutely expected.

 

[triforcharity]

People should ask themselves what they think would happen in an engineering meeting to someone making counter claims relative to someone else's calculated results while refusing to provide supporting backup for these alleged counter claims.

It is despicable to make counter claims and have the nerve to publicly chide the person who generated the original results without supporting the counter claims.

I have to say that it appears TFK is nothing more than a blowhard if he doesn't show his work and blowhards are generally frowned upon and not tolerated in engineering circles because they cause problems for no reason which inhibits productivity.

So, because he hasn't provided the answers, that makes you, by default, correct?

Oh, and I have been in discussions with other people, whom have shown calculations that are wrong. I've brought that up, pointing out what went wrong. Does that mean they're still right because I didn't show them the exact math?

Nope. They're still wrong. Just as you are here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So, because he hasn't provided the answers, that makes you, by default, correct?

Oh, and I have been in discussions with other people, whom have shown calculations that are wrong. I've brought that up, pointing out what went wrong. Does that mean they're still right because I didn't show them the exact math?

Nope. They're still wrong. Just as you are here.

People like you and TFK need to support their claims.

The last claim TFK made of column 79 being moved 4.5 inches to the east by the girder between it and column 76 was soundly shown to be incorrect by a simple conservative hand calculation showing that girder would buckle after putting enough force on column 79 to deflect it just 1.6 inches.

I did a finite element analysis of the deflection of a 52 foot unsupported section of a w14 x 730 column the other day, without even using the side plates on the column like column 79 would have had, and it showed the girder would buckle before it even deflected the column 1 inch. So that pretty much squelches TFK's unsupported claim of 4.5 inches of eastward movement of column 79 at floor 13.

Engineers need to support their claims mathematically. In industry making claims without mathematical support for the arguments is frowned upon, and public chiding of somebody else's results without support for a counter claim is simply not tolerated.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The definition of a blowhard is below. Others can decide if TFK's present behavior fits this definition.


blowhard

someone who talks a big game for the sole pleasure of instigating an argument without rational back-up to his/her point(s).

 

[triforcharity]

People like you and TFK need to support their claims.

The last claim TFK made of column 79 being moved 4.5 inches to the east by the girder between it and column 76 was soundly shown to be incorrect by a simple conservative hand calculation showing that girder would buckle after putting enough force on column 79 to deflect it just 1.6 inches.

I did a finite element analysis of the deflection of a 52 foot unsupported section of a w14 x 730 column the other day, without even using the side plates on the column like column 79 would have had, and it showed the girder would buckle before it even deflected the column 1 inch. So that pretty much squelches TFK's unsupported claim of 4.5 inches of eastward movement of column 79 at floor 13.

Engineers need to support their claims mathematically. In industry making claims without mathematical support for the arguments is frowned upon, and public chiding of somebody else's results without support for a counter claim is simply not tolerated.

Lots of words, and not one word relates to what I just said.

Go back and read again.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Lots of words, and not one word relates to what I just said.

Sure it does. You haven't supported your claim that TFK's claim had any merit showing I was wrong.

Basically, you were making the unsupported claim that I am saying I am right simply because I say so, and that you don't need to show any math to show otherwise. That isn't true. The math supports what I am saying and to counter it you have to show I am wrong, and yes you need to show the math.