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

[000063]

LSSBB, I don't think you've understood, or you would immediately recognize that there is no identification in any of those posts you've quoted of what these "missing relevant factors" are.

So you're saying those six questions, at least, are irrelevant? Because if Tony wants to prove CD, why is he spending so much time proving NIST may have made a mistake? I agree with Oz; the question of CD and the question of NIST error are two entirely different questions.

Please, continue to dismiss a dozen paragraphs contrary evidence with a hand-wave that doesn't actually address the content of the post.

The purpose of this thread is to analyze the failure mechanism that NIST proposes initiated the global collapse of WTC 7. That's what the thread is about. If ozeco doesn't like that topic, he shouldn't be posting here.

This discussion is not about CD, but rather whether NIST's single failure mechanism for initiating WTC 7's global collapse is credible or even possible.

It wasn't a global collapse. It was progressive. Time to first lie, one sentence.

Indeed, if Fog of War-style analyses are now sufficient in the engineering community to explain catastrophic structural failures, why bother with more?

Yet you have no problem with truthers determining fire progression by looking at outside photos. Tony is, quite simply, demanding an impossible level of precision. I don't mean conceptually difficult, I mean it cannot physically be done.

And if it can't be done today, how were the conspirators able to plan in 2001?

See my first and second points.

The incorrect ones?

I find it amusing how the amount of text you respond with is generally inversely proportional to the length of the post. The more someone refutes you, the shorter the handwave. If someone posts a few terse words, you can strawman and soapbox to your heart's content.

 

[000063]

...

Pretty funny coming from someone who thinks the first storey of a steel-framed highrise would not be able to hold up the rest of the building.

I love how you ran away from proving that "common sense" theory, ran away from the thread entirely, yet are still willing to cite it as a victory.

As long as we're bringing up old alleged failures, let's talk about sundals and moon-sized rubble fields.

 

[NoahFence]

There isn't a single engineer on this planet who would make this assertion. Even Shyam Sunder tried to equivocate.

Ozeco is either shockingly ignorant or lying. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I'll say it's the latter.

the importance of FFA was invented to make the collapse sound more sinister.


Those of us who are not gullible and working under some crazy agenda knows that it is irrelevant.

 

[Clayton Moore]

While it's true that NIST lied about the state of the framing around CC79 (the temperatures reached only about 350°C ......and possibly around 100°C by the time of collapse) it does not mean that those floors didn't fall. The wall could have bowed due to faulty connections etc. thousands of things could have happend.

The freefall is easily explained by a proven series of progressive collapses gutting the interior in minutes and seconds before the "big show".

The stairs had been in the northern half of the building but maybe the wallboard was loose so it collapsed due to the little eartquake. The slfidized steel can be expalined via hot HCl, SO2 attack from burning office material and gympsum in the rubble.

No CD.

A lie is a lie is a lie. Lies are told for a reason.

 

[Animal]

A lie is a lie is a lie. Lies are told for a reason.

And the reason is....Richard Gage and crew can sell more CDs, and get their vacations paid for.

 

[beachnut]

There isn't a single engineer on this planet who would make this assertion. Even Shyam Sunder tried to equivocate.

Ozeco is either shockingly ignorant or lying. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I'll say it's the latter.

Based on?

You can't explain why free-fall is an issue and you never read the NIST report. You can't explain anything about 911, and based on your "moon sized debris field physics" work, you can't explain free-fall.

A few nuts in 911 truth movement (which does not exist, save for the few selling books, DVDs, and begging for dollars) think free fall means CD. You can't explain what was measured at free-fall, or what it means. If you read NIST you would not be supporting the lies from 911 truth, and you might want to look up the meaning of probable before you support proof of anything.

Ergo never read NIST.

 

[tsig]

i still find it funny that a high school physics/math teacher figured out something all those high and mighty engineers at NIST didn't...
"but I suggest you go away and educate yourself before asking people who have dedicated their lives to a discipline more stupid questions."...hmm if only Chandler hadn't asked a stupid question....

Envy is an ugly thing.

 

[tsig]

Yes, I can, newton. If you understood how to make an argument, you would understand that it's not that hard to follow someone's discussion and determine rather quickly whether they are presenting a coherent argument, whether they're faking, or whether they have no clue what they're talking about.

It doesn't surprise me that you think ozeco's empty pronouncements are above my level of understanding, because you also have provided zero engineering analyses here and you don't even seem to understand simple concepts like how highrise structures are built to handle their own gravity loads.

You're in no position to be addressing me in this manner, nor do your appeals to some imagined, anonymous, engineering majority have any grounding in reality.

 

[tsig]

^^^ This.





I enjoy your posts oz.....keep em coming! Between several of the points that you and tfk have raised I would say that TS, C7, and Gerrycans arguments are done.

Stick a fork in em folks..........the shows over.

Seconded

 

[tsig]

I am forced to quote Hanlon's razor here.....

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

There's being both malicious and stupid.

 

[newton3376]

We have shown you that proof but you refuse to wake up.

Incorrect.

Navajo saying:
It's impossible to awaken a man who is pretending to be asleep. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

It really is amazing how similar the comments are from religious cults and the 9/11 truth movement....telling people to "wake up" reveals the nature of your position. It is a religious like cult belief....not science.

Science does not use such language.

Have fun with your religion!

 

[newton3376]

Source?

How many even know about the FFA of WTC 7?

Source? How about real life?

Only people who live in pretendland believe otherwise.....

 

[carlitos]

#7. If you do not understand that the majority is quite real.....then you are living in pretendland. I can not help you if you are in pretendland.

A very astute observation, and indeed the current state of the truthers who still post on the JREF forum. It's just pretend games on the internet.

It really is amazing how similar the comments are from religious cults and the 9/11 truth movement....telling people to "wake up" reveals the nature of your position. It is a religious like cult belief....not science.

Science does not use such language.

Have fun with your religion!

Yup. Secret knowledge as revealed to a high school physics teacher, as opposed to a mystic / guru / prophet. Same same, but without the benefit of an afterlife or group sex with brainwashed cult members.

 

[000063]

A lie is a lie is a lie. Lies are told for a reason.

Argument by irrelevant one-liner.

 

[tfk]

Tony,

After I'd posted about 15 comments to this thread, you came on (surprisingly) and repeated one of your strongest arguments that "you couldn't believe that I was a working engineer, because I spent so much time posting here."

So, now that you've produced ~10 times that many postings in this thread alone, have you got any follow up comments to offer?

You know, an honest person, or even one with a functioning sense of humor, might retract that comment, or make some self-deprecating joke.

And then drop that argument from their repertoire.

Experience has taught me to not expect this from you, Tony.

For calculating MOI of a weld it is treated as a line with no width and so the length or height of the weld is cubed as it is for a prismatic beam with (bh^3)/12 but no b term. The 6 is in the denominator here is due to there being two welds.

Please post the reference from which you got this explanation.

Color me … skeptical.

The units resulting from MY/I here should be lbs./inch not psi.

Not quite.

And by "not quite", I really mean "not even close".

The units resulting from YOUR version of My/I are pounds/inch.

The equation My/I defines a stress level, which is NOT measured in lbs/inch, but rather in lbs/inch².

That means that the units emerging from My/I should be lb/in² also.

I guess that you & I have different interpretations of what the verb "should be" means ...

 

[tfk]

While it's true that NIST lied about the state of the framing around CC79 (the temperatures reached only about 350°C ......and possibly around 100°C by the time of collapse) …

What "lie" are you talking about?

Please elaborate on "what they said that was incorrect".
And "how you know that it was 'a lie', i.e., intentionally misleading."

The freefall is easily explained by a proven series of progressive collapses gutting the interior in minutes and seconds before the "big show".

"Minutes before". Very unlikely.
"Seconds before". Absolutely.

Starting about 6 seconds before the collapse of the EP. Just as explained by NIST.

I say "very unlikely" because a bunch of life-long, professional structural engineers, with experience in building collapse, examined the evidence. Carefully.

Unless you are a structural engineer, with 30+ years of experience, including building collapse, it is highly unlikely (not impossible, just highly unlikely) that you've seen something that they overlooked, that they didn't examine, that they didn't run thru the filters of their experience.

The stairs had been in the northern half of the building but maybe the wallboard was loose so it collapsed due to the little eartquake.

What "little earthquake"?

The slfidized steel can be expalined via hot HCl, SO2 attack from burning office material and gympsum in the rubble.

It's very unlikely that the sulphur came from the gypsum.

The gypsum is chemically very stable.

And there was far too much gypsum, and far too little sulfidization, for this to be the likely source.

No CD.

We agree on this point.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

We can all be pretty sure neither you, Ozeco, LSSBB, or sheeplesnhills, will do anything but mouth off.

Why should we? we are not making ridiculous assertions.....

In my experience you four fellows, who all claim to be engineers, have been nothing but blather and no basis. I really have to wonder if you actually are engineers because there hasn't been any indications of it

.

Wonder what you like......but my Corporation checked it all out and have been paying me well for 30 years on the basis that I an indeed a Mech Eng.

I was glad to see some people here at least try to engage in what seemed like reasonable discourse about it. TFK even had a legitimate question and brought my attention to a unit issue, which I have corrected.

We cannot have a reasonable discourse with an unreasonable person. You lack the basic knowledge required and wave away anyone who corrects you.

 

[tfk]

Tony,

I pointed out several things that your analysis ignored.

For those who thought that Tony answered my questions about his assumptions in his analysis, he did not.

The following are assumptions built into the equation that he used.

1. Linear stress profile through beam thickness

2. Neutral axis of bending stays at midplane of beams.

3. Young's modulus is a function of temp only, not stress level.

4. He ignored composite action of concrete in conjunction with beam.

These are four assumptions built into the equation that he used. All 4 are violated in the case of thermally induced deformation of the beam/concrete composite floor.

In addition, in the setup of his analysis:

5. He ignored construction loading of beams. This has a huge effect when it is combined with 3. above.
[Note that Tony's excuse for this error is "I said that I wasn't figuring construction loads." Saying that one is going to include an assumption that leads to a significant error does not excuse producing results that contain a significant error. If Tony wishes to make this gross assumption, it is his job to show that this assumption will produce a relatively small error. He didn't do this.]

6. He ignored possibility shedding of load from beam/concrete composite to concrete alone. (Not certain that this is going to happen. It depends on whether the concrete can support its own weight in these large areas, or if it fractures at all - or most - of the fracture points where the shear studs have pulled. But it deserves a look by the person doing the analysis.)

The suggestion that "Tony used the same assumptions as NIST did" is nonsense, and would be uttered only by someone who had zero understanding of the difference between an algebraic solution and a FEA solution.

This analysis has multiple sources of non-linear behavior. It can only be solved accurately & reliably by using non-linear FEA methods.


Tom

I must have missed your response.
I'm sure that you addressed every issue.

Could you point me to your reply.


Tom

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Duhbunkers, please enlighten us on what happened, in detail, after the alleged walk-off?

How much detail?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The world kept spinning.

Rate of spin probably increased VERY slightly as the mass moved nearer to the earths Centre of gravity........