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

[DGM]

This is mostly for Tony and Chris7.

Here's some light reading as to how an old iron worker (like myself) could walk that beam off that seat no problem.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/01.cfm#a


Just imagine what would happen if the real fires didn't heat everything exactly evenly.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

With the flange stiffeners the flange never comes off the original seat so why do you mention it needs to drop to the pg plate?

Being able to push the girder by 4.75" maximum when it would need to be pushed about 10" isn't what most would call hanging on by a fingernail.

There are a number of ways to design demolition devices to survive office fire temperatures.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is mostly for Tony and Chris7.

Here's some light reading as to how an old iron worker (like myself) could walk that beam off that seat no problem.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/steel/01.cfm#a


Just imagine what would happen if the real fires didn't heat everything exactly evenly.

The calculations which prove the NIST collapse initiation theory to be impossible consider sagging, shortening, buckling, etc.

Simply throwing stuff at the wall, with little to no basis or linkage, to help enable a continuation of a belief even when faced with superior data which contradicts it, is what Ryan Mackey says those with an Irreducible Delusion do. I think he was right on that, as I am starting to see real evidence of the phenomena.

 

[scissorhands]

There are a number of ways to design demolition devices to survive office fire temperatures.

What are those ways?
Because I want to demolish an office building, which will already be on fire, using explosives that arent affected by the heat of the fire.
Any ideas?
Thanks.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What are those ways?
Because I want to demolish an office building, which will already be on fire, using explosives that arent affected by the heat of the fire.
Any ideas?
Thanks.

Your question is clearly not credible.

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.

 

[scissorhands]

Your question is clearly not credible.

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.

Thats not very helpful Tony.
I was relying on you.
You did say you knew of a number of ways of doing this.

Do you mean some kind of ceramic container built around the columns of the building?
Containing the thermite?

 

[triforcharity]

Your question is clearly not credible.

However, I will say to others, who might have a hard time imagining how it could be done, to think about how incendiaries and ceramics could be used.

Nobody would notice that at all.....nor would it leave any type of telltale signs either.......

(Hint: Your box for this to be able to happen would need to be about 4'x4' and about 14 feet tall.....)

 

[DGM]

The calculations which prove the NIST collapse initiation theory to be impossible consider sagging, shortening, buckling, etc.

Simply throwing stuff at the wall, with little to no basis or linkage, to help enable a continuation of a belief even when faced with superior data which contradicts it, is what Ryan Mackey says those with an Irreducible Delusion do. I think he was right on that, as I am starting to see real evidence of the phenomena.

So you believe the heating throughout the whole system was even or this does not matter?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So you believe the heating throughout the whole system was even or this does not matter?

I don't think the fires had anything to do with the collapse, as the effects from them would not have been anywhere near significant enough. That is what has been found in the scrutiny of the NIST claims in their 2008 report.

 

[DGM]

I don't think the fires had anything to do with the collapse, as the effects from them would not have been significant enough. That is what has been found in the scrutiny of the NIST claims in their 2008 report.

I know this. It still doesn't answer my question.

Let's say I heat a beam in the center on one side. does your expansion (along it's length) calculations still apply? Will the beam still be straight? This is info that is in the text I quoted.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I know this? It still doesn't answer my question.

Let's say I heat a beam in the center on one side. does your expansion (along it's length) calculations still apply? Will the beam still be straight? This is info that is in the text I quoted.

I read the information at the link you provided and the point you are making about heating a beam on its side here and questioning the calculations because you think it makes a difference is getting to the point of silliness.

My point is that there are no circumstances under which fire could have caused the collapse of WTC 7. NIST took the best shot at trying to explain it being due to natural circumstances by fires and their explanation does not work.

You really should read Ryan Mackey's discussion of what an Irreducible Delusion is and give it some thought as to whether you are trapped in that mindset.

 

[DGM]

I read the information at the link you provided and the point you are making about heating a beam on its side here and questioning the calculations because you think it makes a difference is getting to the point of silliness.

My point is that there are no circumstances under which fire could have caused the collapse of WTC 7. NIST took the best shot at trying to explain it being due to natural circumstances by fires and their explanation does not work.

What? The bolts/connections could not fail? You're venturing into debating the need for fire-proofing steel buildings. What are you talking about?

 

[LSSBB]

My point is that there are no circumstances under which fire could have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

And you make this point with hand calculations, without answering tfk's questions about your assumptions, then hand-wave away his points in this post?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What? The bolts/connections could not fail? You're venturing into debating the need for fire-proofing steel buildings. What are you talking about?

My point is that at no time was there ever a condition in WTC 7 where column 79 and other columns could fail, and that is what would have been necessary. I did not say scattered bolts and connections couldn't fail due to fire.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And you make this point with hand calculations, without answering tfk's questions about your assumptions, then hand-wave away his points in this post?

It seems you are the hand waver and possibly even disingenuous.

I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue.

 

[DGM]

My point is that at no time was there ever a condition in WTC 7 where column 79 and other columns could fail, and that is what would have been necessary. I did not say scattered bolts and connections couldn't fail due to fire.

You'll have to forgive my skepticism but, Do you ever plan to be able to back up this statement with some real engineering? So far, you only seem to be hoping picking at items in isolation is enough.

There comes a time where just raising a doubt is not going to cut it. I hope you took this into consideration in your letter to NIST.

 

[LSSBB]

It seems you are the hand waver and possibly even disingenuous.

I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue.

Where in your post do you directly address his questions with proof that your assumptions are correct?

Is it here?

This is nothing more than If You Can't Dazzle Them With Brilliance Baffle Them With BS and something seems to be missing in all this. It is called an answer. I think the problem is that your answer won't be much different than mine and you are full of it by saying the only way you can get an answer is with FEA.

How about here?

I believe I did say the deflections were only those due to heating and not the original load at room temperature.

Here maybe?

The simply supported beam deflection equation is commonly used for long beams with fixed ends, as the end conditions don't change the answer in any significant way, and that is why you don't show us.

How about here?

The rest of what you say has even less of an effect. If you maintain any of these points are applicable in any significant way then show it in a result.

Is it this response?

We are all waiting to see how your points prove your claim that they would make a difference comparable to the USS Nimitz vs. a row boat. C'mon Tom show us results.

Or is it this one?

People should also remember this is from a guy (tfk) who claimed the girder between columns 76 and 79 could push column 79 to the east by 4.5 inches but when challenged with an analysis showing the girder would buckle long before that couldn't back up his statement and is probably hoping everybody here will forget about that.

 

[newton3376]

It seems you are the hand waver and possibly even disingenuous.

I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue.

Tony...

If you can't answer tfk's questions then you should find another Engineer who is competent/experienced enough to answer them...

Since you have not yet answered them please go talk so someone else who can explain them to you.

So far you are making yourself look like a rather incompetent Engineer by not being able to answer EVEN ONE of the questions/issues that Tom raised.

If you think Tom's questions/comments were difficult then you are in for a surprise if NIST bothers to answer you....if you can't even engage with ONE experienced, competent Engineer then how do you hope to have a discussion with several from NIST?
Or hundreds from academia?
Or thousands from industry?

You are out of your element....drop the 9/11 stuff and stop making yourself look foolish to those of us who are working Engineers....go back to doing whatever it is you do at work day to day.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony...

If you can't answer tfk's questions then you should find another Engineer who is competent/experienced enough to answer them...

Since you have not yet answered them please go talk so someone else who can explain them to you.

So far you are making yourself look like a rather incompetent Engineer by not being able to answer EVEN ONE of the questions/issues that Tom raised.

If you think Tom's questions/comments were difficult then you are in for a surprise if NIST bothers to answer you....if you can't even engage with ONE experienced, competent Engineer then how do you hope to have a discussion with several from NIST?
Or hundreds from academia?
Or thousands from industry?

You are out of your element....drop the 9/11 stuff and stop making yourself look foolish to those of us who are working Engineers....go back to doing whatever it is you do at work day to day.

Are you even saying anything here? It sounds like blah, blah, blah..... blah and you then have the nerve to try and impugn my abilities. Wow.

You are either too incompetent yourself to realize I did answer tfk's questions by showing them to be irrelevant or are intent on being an annoyance by repeating nonsense here saying I didn't answer them.

It is clear that those of you who refuse to believe that the NIST explanation of fire being the cause for WTC 7's destruction is impossible will look for any way to put off being forced to acknowledge it.

I am done here as I really don't have time for those of you trying to maintain your Irreducible Delusion. I knew Ryan Mackey had something right there, he just wasn't pointing it in the right direction.

 

[ergo]

I think the folks badgering you here understand about as much as I do in terms of tfk's "analysis". They wouldn't know if he had answered you or not, or vice versa.

I answered everything necessary and tfk then went off into a void and did calculations which weren't even pertinent to the issue.