• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
twinstead said:
Unless you can prove fire and damage alone couldn't have made that building collapse, I couldn't care less what you claim NIST did. That's the irrelevant detail.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Both C7 and TS are trying to ignore the overall situation. Sadly some of our members are going along with them.

If we only lift the game one level the reality is that the whole building frame surrounding Col79 and Col 44 was affected by fires. There is no way that the original relationship of Col79 and Col44 was still in place. So all the presumptions about the distance between the columns being unchanged are wrong. Therefore all the claims from C7 and TS are based on false assumptions.

Took them a lot of posts to add "sag" to thermal expansion. Don't hold your breath waiting for all factors to be acknowledged. :)
 
ozeco41 said:
Correct.
Both C7 and TS are trying to ignore the overall situation. Sadly some of our members are going along with them.
Click to expand...
We just pointed out some of the fatal flaws in the NIST theory.

If we only lift the game one level the reality is that the whole building frame surrounding Col79 and Col 44 was affected by fires. There is no way that the original relationship of Col79 and Col44 was still in place.
Click to expand...
Your theory is just speculation but even if it were true, it is not the same as the NIST theory so it does not help NIST. They lied to get their theory to work and that is a fact. Their collapse theory fails at the first step and therefore does not explain the collapse.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Correct.
Both C7 and TS are trying to ignore the overall situation. Sadly some of our members are going along with them.

If we only lift the game one level the reality is that the whole building frame surrounding Col79 and Col 44 was affected by fires. There is no way that the original relationship of Col79 and Col44 was still in place. So all the presumptions about the distance between the columns being unchanged are wrong. Therefore all the claims from C7 and TS are based on false assumptions.

Took them a lot of posts to add "sag" to thermal expansion. Don't hold your breath waiting for all factors to be acknowledged. :)
Click to expand...

The columns never got hotter than 300 degrees C in the fire simulation and that makes sense since they were able to transfer heat away from the fire areas. Additionally, their extreme robustness would have resisted and prevented the type of lateral movement you claim.

It isn't surprising that you never show any backup for your contentions. It seems the only thing you can do is hand wave to maintain your belief and resist acknowledging the reality that the present NIST theory for collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible. Ryan Mackey would call this an "Irreducible Delusion".
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
I had no trouble finding it.
1-9 Vol.2 pg 448
Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when ... (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. Gravity shear loads in a beam were transferred to the bearing seat primarily in the proximity of the web on the bottom flange. Therefore, when the web was no longer supported by the bearing seat, the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I didn't spot that.

So there are least 2 failure modes for this kind of connection. Complicated business, eh?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The columns never got hotter than 300 degrees C in the fire simulation
Click to expand...
The same fire simulation from the organization you think is incorrect or lying?

and that makes sense since they were able to transfer heat away from the fire areas.
Click to expand...
Provide evidence, please.

Additionally, their extreme robustness would have resisted and prevented the type of lateral movement you claim.
Click to expand...
Is that the engineering term? Because saying "they would resist damage because they were so tough they'd resist damage" would be a tautology.

It isn't surprising that you never show any backup for your contentions.
Click to expand...
Said Tony, right after two unbacked claims.

It seems the only thing you can do is hand wave to maintain your belief and resist acknowledging the reality that the present NIST theory for collapse initiation of WTC 7 is impossible. Ryan Mackey would call this an "Irreducible Delusion".
Click to expand...
As Ozeco pointed out, the entire area was affected by fires. The beams can't magically wick away heat if there's no cooler area for the heat to go to.

And, of course, no Truther has ever made more than a token effort to explain how They knew They'd have an excuse to drop WTC 7 in the first place.
 
000063 said:
The same fire simulation from the organization you think is incorrect or lying?

Provide evidence, please.

Is that the engineering term? Because saying "they would resist damage because they were so tough they'd resist damage" would be a tautology.

Said Tony, right after two unbacked claims.

As Ozeco pointed out, the entire area was affected by fires. The beams can't magically wick away heat if there's no cooler area for the heat to go to.

And, of course, no Truther has ever made more than a token effort to explain how They knew They'd have an excuse to drop WTC 7 in the first place.
Click to expand...

The Case B NIST fire simulations for WTC 7 were hedged towards causing higher temperatures in structural members, so it is logical to accept the results if they are still lower.

Sorry if some like you don't accept the colloquial term of robustness and need actual terms. How about "the Moment of Inertia of the columns and their resistance to bending was too great to allow hot girders or beams to move them very much"? The girders and beams would have buckled before pushing and bending the columns very much. I showed that on this thread in response to tfk's unsupported assertion that column 79 was pushed eastward by the girder between it and column 76 at the 13th floor.

In case you didn't know, the fires were not on every floor in WTC 7 and columns have a large heat transfer path through themselves to those other floors.

The NIST theory for collapse initiation of WTC 7 has been shown to be impossible, and your comments make you seem like another hand waver with an Irreducible Delusion who simply doesn't want to accept it.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
According to NIST what was the chain of events after this "failure?"
Click to expand...

CY is quoting general criteria of the how NIST worked the models.

This is what the section says.

Criteria to Remove Locally Unstable Members Due to Loss of Vertical Support

Under elevated temperatures, a beam could lose vertical support at one end through connection failure. Loss of vertical support occurred when a fin, knife, or header connection failed or when a beam or girder walked off of a bearing seat in a SWC, STC, or STP connection. Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when (1) the end of the beam or girder moved along the axis of the beam until it was no longer supported by the bearing seat, or (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. Gravity shear loads in a beam were transferred to the bearing seat in the proximity of the web on the bottom flange. Therefore, when the web was no longer supported by the bearing seat, the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for the transferring gravity loads, Under such conditions, the beam would fall to the floor below under it self weight. When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST theory for collapse initiation of WTC 7 has been shown to be impossible, and your comments make you seem like another hand waver with an Irreducible Delusion who simply doesn't want to accept it.
Click to expand...

NIST have the building failing, your calculations have it hanging on by (almost literally) a fingernail. If pushed far enough the girder would be "caught" by the pg plate? Oh really?

But what's truly funny is that your, and C7's and others', CD devices need to be surviving the very fires that brought it to that state. Fires whose effect you'll calculate to many decimal places. "Delusion" ? The delusion lies in tracking down and (supposedly) finding fault with minor detail while ignoring vast, glaring failures in one's own belief. "Mote and beam" mean anything to you?

We eagerly await your public statement of a plausible narrative of why/when/how the CD was performed. Start a new thread, by all means.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
But what's truly funny is that your, and C7's and others', CD devices need to be surviving the very fires that brought it to that state. Fires whose effect you'll calculate to many decimal places. "Delusion" ? The delusion lies in tracking down and (supposedly) finding fault with minor detail while ignoring vast, glaring failures in one's own belief.
Click to expand...

I've never understood this argument (usually used as an escape route) by members of the 9/11 idiot movement. If disconnected office fires can disable steel columns globally and cause buildings to suddenly plummet to the ground, why would the explosives need to survive this?? :confused: ;)
 
ergo said:
I've never understood this argument (usually used as an escape route) by members of the 9/11 idiot movement. If disconnected office fires can disable steel columns globally and cause buildings to suddenly plummet to the ground, why would the explosives need to survive this?? :confused: ;)
Click to expand...

You tell us, you're the ones that are saying that the buildings were demolished using explosives. The buildings were on fire: That is a fact that even you don't deny. Building 7 was hit by falling building debris and the Towers were also hit by something: That is also a fact, no matter how much you try to minimalize it (and in the case of the no-planers, no matter what "it" is that hit the Towers). Any "controlled demolition" theory needs to be able to accommodate these two facts, or it automatically fails. So far, you have refused to demonstrate how your mythical magical hush-a-boom explosives would have been able to survive the hellish conditions inside WTC1, 2, and 7.
 
Questions with "Why" in them generally require answers in the shape of "Because..."

Answering with "You still haven't proven Hush-a-Boom!!" is not an answer. So yeah, go find your "WHOOSH" picture. That will make you feel better.
 
ergo said:
I've never understood this argument (usually used as an escape route) by members of the 9/11 idiot movement.
Click to expand...

We know you don't understand.

ergo said:
If disconnected office fires
Click to expand...

What are "disconnected office fires"?


ergo said:
can disable steel columns globally and cause buildings to suddenly plummet to the ground,
Click to expand...

What does "disable steel columns globally" even mean?

Do you understand why they put fireproofing on structural steel?

Is there another way a building can plummet to the ground that is not "sudden"? Can it happen in slow motion?
 
newton3376 said:
We know you don't understand.



What are "disconnected office fires"?




What does "disable steel columns globally" even mean?

Do you understand why they put fireproofing on structural steel?

Is there another way a building can plummet to the ground that is not "sudden"? Can it happen in slow motion?
Click to expand...

Tuthers think that as the steel weakened the buildings should have slowly slumped to the ground like a deflating balloon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom