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

[Animal]

With the way you talk here it sounds like you might have sure signs to look for to tell if someone is a boogieman also.

Nope just troofer religious fanatics.

Sorry if you don't like my choice of words used to decribe the physical nature of the structural members in question, but I think it is safe to say that most people would consider a 1,100 lbs./ft. column to be "enormous" and 55 lbs./ft. beams and 130 lbs./ft. girders to be "relatively light" when compared to it.

Sorry chump, but real engineers would not describe that way.

My only agenda is reality fantasy, and due to the controversy which has arisen around it, giving a fair hearing to the NIST report on WTC 7, to determine its possibility, is a reality based objective.

There is no controversy, except in the minds of the troofer fanatics who view things through the "government is boogieman" glasses.

 

[newton3376]

Sorry chump, but real engineers would not describe that way.

Yep.....that is EXACTLY what I thought when I read Tony's statements.

Real Engineers use the language of science and engineering----mathematics.

Of course getting the math correct requires that you know what you are talking about so you can make reasonable approximations/assumptions giving you an accurate model.

 

[NoahFence]

Somewhat off topic, but just imagine what would have happened if this column was column 79.

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/lordkiri/ch4-021.jpg[/qimg]

That's from WTC5 which wasn't struck by a plane, nor had its fireproofing removed, nor was bombed or therm*ted.

ETA: That's just to show how FAR you are from proving that collapse by fire was impossible.

If you're ergo, Tony, MM or any of the other twoofers on here what I'd imagine is that it would straighten itself out after the fire moved on, and retain 100% of its strength.

If you're a rational and honest person though, you'd scratch your head wondering how the building stood for 7 hours.

 

[GlennB]

Me too. 'Massive' and 'light' are meaningless unless related to their loads, scale and so on.

The usual analogies apply here ... why would a 'massive' elephant be utterly wrecked by a 3' fall while a 'light' cat can manage much more with ease.

 

[newton3376]

Not to mention the fact that the building is not going to curl up and die because one column fails in one area, if it was to at all. Right, Tony?

"Curl up and die"?

This is what happens ladies and gentlemen.....when a non Engineer attempts to talk about technical details he doesn't have the slightest clue about.....you get terms like "curl up and die" describing a complex structural failure in a complex structure.

If he could have written it in crayon....he would have.

Let's please not forget the bigger picture here. The whole concept is ridiculous, and arguing about what happened to column 79 - although I understand why it needs to be soundly refuted - imo, nevertheless legitimizes the silliness.

It's only ridiculous to about 99.99% of the worlds Engineers and Scientists......

 

[NoahFence]

Column 79 was a quite large built-up column and unlikely to have the above happen to it. It needed at least two of its three girders stripped away for at least five contiguous stories before it would become unstable.

LOL

I love how you type that as if you actually know it to be fact.

Cute.

 

[pgimeno]

It is incredible that some here think they can just wave a magic wand and believe that demolition charges or magic thermite collapsed the building with the only basis given being their belief the government is out to get them.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

LOL

I love how you type that as if you actually know it to be fact.

Cute.

It is a reality that column 79 could go five stories without lateral support with the load on it and it can be shown with conservative AISC calculations.

Do you care to show some calculations that it couldn't?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Me too. 'Massive' and 'light' are meaningless unless related to their loads, scale and so on.

The usual analogies apply here ... why would a 'massive' elephant be utterly wrecked by a 3' fall while a 'light' cat can manage much more with ease.

The mass and strength of the beams and girders with respect to column 79 are relative and do not fit the analogy you give here.

A better analogy, using your metaphors, would be that the beams and girders hitting column 79 are like a cat falling out of a tree onto an elephant. Nothing happens to the elephant.

 

[beachnut]

It is a reality that column 79 could go five stories without lateral support with the load on it and it can be shown with conservative AISC calculations.

Do you care to show some calculations that it couldn't?

You failed to show calculations for your claim, and you ask for calculations? Just like you claim of CD, no substance, no calculations. How long before you drop the delusion of CD? 10 more years? Goals, milestones, timetable? Publication date?

Can't wait to see your journal article and the Pulitzer for proving CD; which newspaper will you team with for the Pulitzer? Wow, this is exciting! A fellow JREF engineer, famous! Just wow.

Those calculations to support your claim, any timetable on that one?

 

[NoahFence]

It is a reality that column 79 could go five stories without lateral support with the load on it and it can be shown with conservative AISC calculations.

Do you care to show some calculations that it couldn't?

I don't have to. I'm not the one making retarded accusations backed up by magical explosives.

The REALITY, kiddo, is that Column 79 and every other frickin piece of steel, tin, paper and glass in that building was subjected to a massive fire fought by a grand total of zero firefighters for SEVEN hours.

 

[lexicon008]

I don't have to. I'm not the one making retarded accusations backed up by magical explosives.

The REALITY, kiddo, is that Column 79 and every other frickin piece of steel, tin, paper and glass in that building was subjected to a massive fire fought by a grand total of zero firefighters for SEVEN hours.

Well..no..the reality is that...
the entire structure was never on fire..several floors were not even touched by significant amounts of fire..
the entire structure was never subjected to a "massive" fire..btw..what is your definition of "massive" in relation to fire?..therefore every other piece of steel, tin, paper and glass was not subjected to fire..
And the entire structure was not on fire for 7 hours..portions were on fire at any given time over 7 hours..there is no evidence of any area of the building being exposed toa 7 hour long constant fire..if there was..what was it's fuel source?

You ask for people to not engage in hyperbole and meaningless verbage, i would hope you would do the same.

 

[ergo]

Evidence that the building would not curl up?

Heh.

 

[ergo]

Given that there are other ways posited that some of the lateral support for column 79 could be removed, however improbable, it needs to be discussed to see how likely or unlikely it was and whether it would be sufficient to cause it to buckle and fall.

Of course, one could skip the column 79 issue if one of the later parts of the theory is shown to be impossible regardless of the condition of column 79.

But my point being, so what if column 79 fails? It still will not lead to the rapid global collapse that we see, with the building sinking as if demo'ed or as if into quicksand.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

But my point being, so what if column 79 fails? It still will not lead to the rapid global collapse that we see, with the building sinking as if demo'ed or as if into quicksand.

The premise of this thread was that the walk-off of the girder between columns 44 and 79 couldn't possibly happen and that then leads to how column 79 could have come down if the girder couldn't fail.

A number of individuals here are hand waving that other floors could have fallen, but they don't explain other than their claim that fire could do it.

Column 79 needs to lose lateral support in two orthogonal directions for at least five stories bfore it would become unstable. I would like to know how they think that could have happened.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Loss of lateral support is fatal to a huge column.

Simple test for you Tony.

Take 5 2x4x8's and nail them together. Any way is fine really. Now, stand it up, and hold it tight. It stands up relatively easily, right? Right.

Now, make sure you've got your hard hat on, so that you don't get hurt.

Let go of the wooden column. What happens?

Tell me what you think will happen.

If I need to, I can make a video of what will happen. I know you and the other duped truthers love their YouTube videos, so if that's what I need to do, I will.

You just let me know.

The 5 fastened together 2 x 4's certainly won't buckle. If they fall it is because they don't have a sufficient or flat base.

You are just joking here right? How you think this applies to column 79 is beyond me.

 

[NoahFence]

The 5 fastened together 2 x 4's certainly won't buckle.

You are just joking here right? How you think this applies to column 79 is beyond me.

Was column 79, at any point during the massive fire that engulfed pretty much^* the entire building, weakened at all? Even a little?


* This is not hyperbole.

 

[lexicon008]

Was column 79, at any point during the massive fire that engulfed pretty much^* the entire building, weakened at all? Even a little?


* This is not hyperbole.

"ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. " NIST FAQ

So approx 10 floors out of 47 (roughly 25 %) is "pretty much the entire building"?
6 floors (roughly 13%) with out of control fires is "Massive" and "pretty much the entire building"?
Interesting...

And for clarification..was the whole building on fire for 7 hours or was that just an..exaggeration..just curious.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Was column 79, at any point during the massive fire that engulfed pretty much^* the entire building, weakened at all? Even a little?


* This is not hyperbole.

The NIST fire simulation shows no columns in WTC 7, including column 79, ever got hotter than 300 degrees C. That is believable as the columns had large thermal capacities and would take a significant amount of energy to heat to high temperatures and they could also transfer heat to cooler areas.

At 300 degrees C the AISC chart shows structural steel has not lost any measureable strength. The chart doesn't show it losing strength until just below 400 degrees C.

You can find the AISC chart for yield strength of structural steel at elevated temperatures on page 9 of the AISC guide on fire in steel buildings at

http://www.aisc.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=7046

 

[NoahFence]

"ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. " NIST FAQ

So approx 10 floors out of 47 (roughly 25 %) is "pretty much the entire building"?
6 floors (roughly 13%) with out of control fires is "Massive" and "pretty much the entire building"?
Interesting...

And for clarification..was the whole building on fire for 7 hours or was that just an..exaggeration..just curious.

Again with the quoting of the NIST report that you yourself don't trust.

funny that.

As for the 7 hours figure - it was an exaggeration. But the "entire building" on fire was not. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts and photos to support my assertion. Your assertion for controlled demo?
Not so much.

Or are you people exaggerating about controlled demo?