• 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.
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not enough to imagine how it could be done, you have to show how it could be done.
 
000063 said:
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The Case B NIST fire simulations for WTC 7 were hedged towards causing higher temperatures in structural members,
Prove it.
Click to expand...
Once again.....troofers reading more into the NIST report than is there.

11.3 ANALYSIS RESULTS
THe three different thermal response cases (Cases A, B, and C) were used as input to the ANSYS analysis. It became apparent as the ANSYS analyses progressed that the connection, beam and girder failures occurred essentially at the same locations and with similar mechanisms, but shifted in time between the three cases. Case B failures occurred at the earliest time, followed by Case A, and then Case C. The results of the Case B and Case C analyses are resented to show the similarity in the failures and the locations and the time lag between Case B and Case C, since Case A results fall between these two Cases.






Originally Posted by Tony Szambot
so it is logical to accept the results if they are still lower.
I'm not sure that follows.
Click to expand...

Continuing from 11.3
The analysis of the structural response of WTC 7 to the effects of the elevated temperatures produced a large volume of output data. Results from Floors 2 to 7 and Floors 15 and 16 are not presented as they were subject only to gravity loads and were not subjected to thermal loads. The analysis of Floors 8 to 14 were first examined graphically for a selected response, such as vertical displacement or strains. Areas of interest were then examined in more detail by listing the results of interest.
 
Clayton Moore said:
No. There is no such thing. It's a weapon/term used by Holocaustic liars to make it seem that revisionists are unsympathetic with the plight of European Jewish families of that era.
Click to expand...

And anyone who supports the commonly held narrative is a liar, according to your own definition.

Which means that you deny the official story of the Holocaust.

Which makes you, literally, a Holocaust denier.
 
What I really want to know is;

1. How do they recruit these people?

2. How do they get these people to agree to wire three sky scrapers and potentially kill 50,000 of their fellow men and women?

3. How do they ensure that they do not back out/blow the operation during the months of prep needed?

4. How do they keep them quiet?

5. What do these people do afterwards? Keep on living their lives as normal like nothing happened?
 
Animal said:
Once again.....troofers reading more into the NIST report than is there.
Click to expand...

Nobody is reading more into the NIST WTC 7 report than what it says.

Take a look at NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 page 415 para. 10.3.3. It will tell you the Case B temperatures were 10 percent higher than those from the simulation (which were Case A) and that Case B resulted in mildly higher temperatures in the steel and concrete, wider hot zones, and greater overlap of hot zones between adjacent floors.

The point I made earlier was that even with Case B the columns never got hotter than 300 degrees C.

Don't you understand that Case B was the hottest of the three cases?
 
Last edited:
Hi Tony,

You could use this space to vehemently repudiate the holocaust denier that agrees with you. Good luck!
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Nobody is reading more into the NIST WTC 7 report than what it says.

Take a look at NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 page 415 para. 10.3.3. It will tell you the Case B temperatures were 10 percent higher than those from the simulation (which were Case A) and that Case B resulted in mildly higher temperatures in the steel and concrete, wider hot zones, and greater overlap of hot zones between adjacent floors.

The point I made earlier was that even with Case B the columns never got hotter than 300 degrees C.

Don't you understand that Case B was the hottest of the three cases?
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly what the purposes of the three case studies were. They were not "hedging" anything. They were simply to see if failure mechanisms changed with different fire intensities, You can rant on and on just like C7, but you have proven nothing except a determination to make the outcome of whatever you do fit your pre-drawn conclusion.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I enjoy the liars demanding how impossible it would be to demolish the three skyscrapers with explosives yet the explanation of the "natural" first ever total collapses of steel supported structures is water off a ducks back.

People who defend lies can never be convinced of the truth.
Click to expand...

People who defend lies fear the truth.

MM
 
000063 said:
And anyone who supports the commonly held narrative is a liar, according to your own definition.

Which means that you deny the official story of the Holocaust.

Which makes you, literally, a Holocaust denier.
Click to expand...

Worry not for me. When your 9/11 bubble bursts and the neocon organizations become persona non grata the Team Holocaust lies will explode like the WTC towers.:k::dl::k:
 
cjnewson88 said:
What I really want to know is;

1. How do they recruit these people?

2. How do they get these people to agree to wire three sky scrapers and potentially kill 50,000 of their fellow men and women?

3. How do they ensure that they do not back out/blow the operation during the months of prep needed?

4. How do they keep them quiet?

5. What do these people do afterwards? Keep on living their lives as normal like nothing happened?
Click to expand...

They bring them in from Israel. Arrest them then send them home.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You really need to calculate it for yourself since you don't seem to believe me.

If you have any idea of how to analyze the stress on a weld you should be able to do it with the information on this site

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Form/Weld_strength.html

Bear in mind that there were 5/16" fillet welds on both sides of the 18" height of the 3/4" thick stiffener at the web and 3/8" fillet welds on both sides of the 5.485" width of the stiffener at the flange, as shown on Frankel Steel drawing 9114.

The floor loads on the girder would have been about 50% of the 45 x 53 foot area east of it and about 25% of the similar sized area west of it. One end of the girder handled half of that load. So you can use 37.5% of the 45 x 53 foot area and a floor load of 125 psf maximum for the load on that end of the girder.

I am sure you will find that the stiffener design was more than sufficient to keep the flange from failing if the web was not over the seat.

I'll give you a hint: The resultant stress on the welds at the web from the combined vertical shear and bending would have been less than 8,000 psi. E70 weld metal can take 70,000 psi, and the parent material had a tensile yield strength of about 42,000 psi. Shear yield strength of a ductile material is about 57.7% of tensile yield strength, so the parent material wouldn't have sheared at less than about 24,000 psi and the stress there would have been a little less than 8,000 psi as the shear area is a little larger on the leg of the fillet vs. the throat (which is used for the weld).
Click to expand...



I need no hints as I'm am not making the assertion. Do the math or retract. list all assumptions and show working. That is the MINIMUM required to even start a discussion on whether or not you are correct.

Hint: You are grossly over simplifying the problem.:rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really? Lets see your math to support that claim and how much is "very much"???? That's not a unit we used in Engineering school.:D

And how do you know which floors had fires and which did not. NIST only claimed those floors that they could show did have fires.....that does not mean that other floors did not.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Really? Lets see your math to support that claim and how much is "very much"???? That's not a unit we used in Engineering school.:D

And how do you know which floors had fires and which did not. NIST only claimed those floors that they could show did have fires.....that does not mean that other floors did not.
Click to expand...

So far all I've seen from Tony is a data sheet showing expansion under heat compared to sag, a graph derived form that sheet and some equations with oddly precise numbers as if they came from the same data sheet.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

Irony-796569.jpg
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...


If love the religious. They state things with such utter confidence they are right without even the remotest ability to show that they are correct.
You simply are unqualified to have even an opinion on this subject.....you are a plumber commenting on the work of a heart transplant surgeon.

Do the math or go away and stop embarrassing yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom