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

tfk · May 8, 2012

Tony,

I asked you several questions about your analysis.

tfk said:
1. BTW, Tony, you do realize that the beams are not pushing the end of the girder parallel to the seat, don't you. The end of the girder is being pushed perpendicular to the girder's axis (line to col 44 or most proximal surviving girder-to-beam anchor.)

2. Did you allow for this in your calculations?

3. What point did you use for the center of [horizontal] rotation of the end of the girder?

4. How much initial overlap did your analysis give the girder on the seat?

5. How much lateral motion before the central web of the girder at the flange stiffener plate drop off of the support plate because of the angle between the girder & the support plate?)

6. What allowances did you make for any deformation of the column in this calculation?

7. Do you think that the column is going to remain immobile (i.e., no flexing) when it loses its horizontal supports?

8. When those lateral supports for the column collapse, do you assert that there will be no lateral motion at all from the column?

I agree that the flange stiffener plate will prevent the lower flange from buckling under the load. 9. However, did you check the point on the central web co-linear with the top of the stiffener plate to make sure that it also wouldn't buckle?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?...pictureid=5934
___

Now you appear to be saying that Mr. Brookman did some or all of the calculations.

10. Please clarify: Who did what calculations? [Note: you answered this.]

11. Please post his letter & his calculations, so that we can compare your results with his.

Finally, tho, you guys did something right. You sent off an analysis to NIST.

12. What took so long? [you answered this]

13. Is this the very first time that you guys have done this? 14. If not, could you list some previous analyses that you sent to NIST & their reply?
[I know of 1 other that ae911t sent in 2007. They got shot down on every point. Underwhelming. -tk]

tk

tfk said:

I asked 13 questions & made 1 request (#11 above).

You answered 1.
Kinda sorta.

Care to answer any of those others? It should be easy.

...

Care to give it a shot?

Yet you haven't addressed any of the issues regarding your linear analysis of portions of just two components versus NIST's nonlinear FEA analysis of all the components of the entire floor.

Yet you haven't heard anything back from NIST regarding the questions that you (or is it Mr. Brookman) are submitting to NIST.

Don't you think you should hear what they say first?

Care to offer a justification as to why you think that a building that has had most of its lateral supports removed in a contiguous 1/6th of the total floor space, over multiple floors, and is still burning, will maintain its components immobile, unflexing in their original, supported positions?

Click to expand...

I'm certain that you wouldn't just ignore all of these questions, Tony. I must have just missed your replies. Could you point me to them?

Care to answer these questions, Tony?

Or will you just go on ignoring them?
And claiming victory…

sheeplesnshills · May 8, 2012

Clayton Moore said:
Yeah like it was possible the huge core columns in all three buildings were going to be individually snapped by a floor's collapse(s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

Note that L (length) is squared so that if all things are equal a column twice as long is 1/4 as strong. If you lose one floor the effective length of the column is doubled. that alone would exceed the factor of safety and the column would start to buckle.

jaydeehess · May 8, 2012

jaydeehess said:
I've lost track of this thread. Just wish to know one thing: has Chris submitted his purely technical paper illustrating exactly how NIST is incorrect, in its most probable initiating failure leading to the collapse of WTC 7, to a serious engineering journal yet?

plague311 said:
I find it comical that Chris stated NIST followed his suggestions on..whatever it was he was talking about, when they were doing the report, before it's final release. However, now that he's still here making other bold assurtions without anything more than his calculations and theories, they don't even know he exists.

So apparently they only followed the awesomeness otherwise known as Chris up until the report was released. Now NIST has other things to do. I hate when they forget the people that got them there. *tear*

I had not thought of that.

OTOH I see from another thread that C7 has submitted his paper for publication

I guess the NIST internet watchdogs were called off after the final report was published.

That must be why it was necessary to submit for peer review.

triforcharity · May 9, 2012

jaydeehess said:
I had not thought of that.

OTOH I see from another thread that C7 has submitted his paper for publication

I guess the NIST internet watchdogs were called off after the final report was published.

That must be why it was necessary to submit for peer review.

I see what you did there.....

Tony Szamboti · May 9, 2012

tfk said:
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.

Please post the reference from which you got this explanation.

Color me … skeptical.

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 ...

You have obviously never done a stress analysis on a weld yourself.

I did post a reference on this thread for others here to see how a weld is analyzed and I explained that the I is for the weld, which is treated as a line.

The reference is here. Go find it or get a book from Lincoln Electric and learn how to analyze a weld.

The Iw is in units of in.^3 and the bending and shear loads are found in lbs./inch. That is then divided by the weld throat length.

For instance, lbs./inch divided by inches = lbs./inch x 1/inches = psi.

You apparently need to read the posts I made on this thread as I answered the legitimate questions you had and told you why any I didn't bother to was because they were not germane to the issue and were a waste of time.

Clayton Moore · May 9, 2012

sheeplesnshills said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

Note that L (length) is squared so that if all things are equal a column twice as long is 1/4 as strong. If you lose one floor the effective length of the column is doubled. that alone would exceed the factor of safety and the column would start to buckle.

All the nearby columns would be subjected to an appropriate amount of force at a location that would buckle/fail and allow the alleged collapse to continue from above and then below? Or below and then above? In about 15 seconds?

beachnut · May 9, 2012

Clayton Moore said:
All the nearby columns would be subjected to an appropriate amount of force at a location that would buckle/fail and allow the alleged collapse to continue from above and then below? Or below and then above? In about 15 seconds?

Which ones?

Which columns, they are numbered, please specify which column and please include the distance each one is from the column in question. Be more specific, or be gone. What engineering school did you go to? Did they approve this kind of vague nonsense?

Clayton Moore · May 9, 2012

beachnut said:
Which ones?

Which columns, they are numbered, please specify which column and please include the distance each one is from the column in question. Be more specific, or be gone. What engineering school did you go to? Did they approve this kind of vague nonsense?

The HUGE vertical ones.

You gotta admit that the onset of a collapse has to start somewhere and then proceed downward

beachnut · May 9, 2012

Clayton Moore said:
The HUGE vertical ones.

You gotta admit that the onset of a collapse has to start somewhere and then proceed downward

You never read NIST, and verified it. Thank you.

tfk · May 9, 2012

Tony,

Tony Szamboti said:
You have obviously never done a stress analysis on a weld yourself.

I've never had any reason to calculate the MOI of a weld joint.

But I understand the principle of standard beam deflection calculations in detail. And what you are asserting makes zero sense.

You don't need MOI to calculate tensile, compression or shear strength of weld joints, you only need cross sectional areas.

You only need MOI to calculate stresses in bending. As you directly imply, by using the equation for stress in bending: stress = My/I.

And in bending, the stresses are established, not by any dimension in the weld itself, but by the dimensions of the parts being welded. Specifically, by the distance of the weld from the neutral axis of the bending assembly, and the MOI of the whole assembly. (Of which, the weld is typically a trivially small component.)

But I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt. That is why I asked you to post a reference.

I realize now what a futile expectation that was...

Tony Szamboti said:
I did post a reference on this thread for others here to see how a weld is analyzed and I explained that the I is for the weld, which is treated as a line.

LMFAO.

Now you don't understand what a reference is.

Apparently "posting a reference" is beyond your ability.

"You saying something" is NOT a reference. I don't trust your engineering assertions as far as I could throw them. You are, without doubt, the least competent mechanical engineer that I have ever encountered.

The fact that you don't even understand the concept of a reference merely reinforces that assessment.

Here, let me walk you by the hand thru the process of providing references:

Here is an INDEPENDENT engineering reference for weld design.

http://www.engineersedge.com/weld_design_menu.shtml

And here is an independent reference for calculating MOIs of fillet welds:

http://www.engineersedge.com/weld/fillet_weld_moment_inertia.htm

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? There are probably 50 other sites on the web that show this information as well.

You'll note that every single one of these MOIs for fillet welds has units of inches⁴.

Not one of them has units of inches³.
Not one of them includes an added multiplier (to the 1st power) for the length of the weld.
In cases 1 & 2, (which I assume you will cite eventually), the height of the weld is to the 1st power & the length of the weld is cubed.

Why don't you pick out, from this list, the MOI that you mean, show that it is the appropriate choice, & provide it in the correct dimensions.

THEN we can move on to step 2 in this clusterfork.

Oh, and do try to get the length & height of your weld terms correct. In other words, please note which terms get cubed, and which ones are to the 1st power.
___

Tony Szamboti said:
The reference is here.

Your reference is nowhere to be found.

You are not a reference.

Tony Szamboti said:
Go find it or get a book from Lincoln Electric and learn how to analyze a weld.

Is Lincoln Electric the only ones who know how to calculate MOIs, Tony?

Tony Szamboti said:
The Iw is in units of in.^3

The "Iw", Tony?

Presuming that your (currently undefined) "Iw" means MOI, then you're wrong. MOI is given in units of in^4.

Presuming that your "Iw" means something other than MOI, then you're still wrong. Because in your previous post, you weren't talking about Iw, you were talking about MOI.

Which flavor of wrong is it, Tony?

Tony Szamboti said:
and the bending and shear loads are found in lbs./inch.

Bending and shear loads CAN be defined in terms of lb/inch (i.e., a distributed load).

This is entirely irrelevant to the calculation of the stresses that result from those loads.

Tony Szamboti said:
That is then divided by the weld throat length.

Ahhh, and now you are throwing out bending stress calculation (stress = My/I), and swapping in shear stress calculation (t = P/A = P/(h*L) = P/h * 1/L).

Was I not supposed to notice this, Tony?

Where is the requirement for calculating MOI in the SHEAR stress equation, Tony?

Tony Szamboti said:
For instance, lbs./inch divided by inches = lbs./inch x 1/inches = psi.

Big fat "Duh" on this one, Tony.

Tony Szamboti said:
You apparently need to read the posts I made on this thread as I answered the legitimate questions you had and told you why any I didn't bother to was because they were not germane to the issue and were a waste of time.

Somebody want to interpret this word salad for me???

000063 · May 9, 2012

tfk said:
...

Somebody want to interpret this word salad for me???

He's saying he only answers the questions he wants to and the others are dumb, you big poopyhead.

I'm paraphrasing.

tfk · May 9, 2012

Thanks 63.
PS. That is "MISTER Poopyhead" to you!

Tony,

Assuming your last paragraph was supposed to read as below:

Tony Szamboti said:
You apparently need to read the posts I made on this thread as I answered the legitimate questions you had and told you why any I didn't bother to [respond to] was because they were not germane to the issue and were a waste of time.

All right.

Please show me where you either answered the following questions, or explained why they weren't germane.

tfk said:
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.)

Note well: every single one of these factors makes your results incorrect, Tony, to some degree or other. Many of them make your results wildly incorrect.

NIST's analysis included all of these factors in their nonlinear FEA. That technique is the ONLY possible way to calculate accurate results in the presence of these multiple nonlinearities in material properties and large deflections.

As others (especially Oz) have mentioned repeatedly, your consideration of only two of dozens of interacting components makes your results indistinguishable from worthless.

NIST's results are, in every way imaginable, light years superior to yours. And seeing that they come to the opposite conclusion that you do, deciding which analysis to believe is correct is a simple process for me.

Your one, and only, argument is "you don't trust them".

I don't suffer from either your paranoia or your disdain for other proven, competent engineers.
___

Please show me where you either answered the following questions, or explained why they weren't germane.

tfk said:
1. BTW, Tony, you do realize that the beams are not pushing the end of the girder parallel to the seat, don't you. The end of the girder is being pushed perpendicular to the girder's axis (line to col 44 or most proximal surviving girder-to-beam anchor.)

2. Did you allow for this in your calculations?

3. What point did you use for the center of [horizontal] rotation of the end of the girder?

4. How much initial overlap did your analysis give the girder on the seat?

5. How much lateral motion before the central web of the girder at the flange stiffener plate drop off of the support plate because of the angle between the girder & the support plate?)

6. What allowances did you make for any deformation of the column in this calculation?

7. Do you think that the column is going to remain immobile (i.e., no flexing) when it loses its horizontal supports?

8. When those lateral supports for the column collapse, do you assert that there will be no lateral motion at all from the column?

I agree that the flange stiffener plate will prevent the lower flange from buckling under the load. 9. However, did you check the point on the central web co-linear with the top of the stiffener plate to make sure that it also wouldn't buckle [at this point -tk]?

Tony Szamboti said:
I am continually amazed that a working mechanical engineer, as he claims to be, has as much time as he seems to have to post here and elsewhere.

Now, where is that dang "irony-meter" when you need it?
___

Tom

PS. I predict that you will come back with some snarky reply that avoids answering my questions. Again.

ozeco41 · May 10, 2012

tfk said:
...As others (especially Oz) have mentioned repeatedly, your consideration of only two of dozens of interacting components makes your results indistinguishable from worthless....

I did repeat the point a couple of times. :i:

And:

tfk said:
...Now, where is that dang "irony-meter" when you need it?

It is in the "Specials" section of smilies. The code is colon small "i" colon.

:i:

Clayton Moore · May 10, 2012

tfk said:
Thanks 63.
PS. That is "MISTER Poopyhead" to you!

Tony,

Assuming your last paragraph was supposed to read as below:

All right.

Please show me where you either answered the following questions, or explained why they weren't germane.

Note well: every single one of these factors makes your results incorrect, Tony, to some degree or other. Many of them make your results wildly incorrect.

NIST's analysis included all of these factors in their nonlinear FEA. That technique is the ONLY possible way to calculate accurate results in the presence of these multiple nonlinearities in material properties and large deflections.

As others (especially Oz) have mentioned repeatedly, your consideration of only two of dozens of interacting components makes your results indistinguishable from worthless.

NIST's results are, in every way imaginable, light years superior to yours. And seeing that they come to the opposite conclusion that you do, deciding which analysis to believe is correct is a simple process for me.

Your one, and only, argument is "you don't trust them".

I don't suffer from either your paranoia or your disdain for other proven, competent engineers.
___

Please show me where you either answered the following questions, or explained why they weren't germane.

___

Let me do all the groundwork for you, Tony, since you seem too lazy to do it yourself.

Here are all the posts that you've made in this thread since I asked you (on Apr 17 in this post to "show your assumptions") to answer these questions. Please just copy & past the link to your reply that goes with each question. That should be easy, right?

Please show me, or merely copy & paste the post numbers, in which you answered each of my question, or explained why they were "not germane".

[Tony's posts in this thread since Apr 17]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8268626#post8268626
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8260037#post8260037
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8260027#post8260027
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8259973#post8259973
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8259948#post8259948
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8259932#post8259932
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8259710#post8259710
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8259637#post8259637
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8259626#post8259626
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8259610#post8259610
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8259439#post8259439
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8258692#post8258692
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8258614#post8258614
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8258587#post8258587
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8258259#post8258259
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8258208#post8258208
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8258081#post8258081
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8258064#post8258064
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8257585#post8257585
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8257569#post8257569
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8256598#post8256598
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8256195#post8256195
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8256153#post8256153
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8255623#post8255623
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8253125#post8253125
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8252935#post8252935
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8248898#post8248898
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8248885#post8248885
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8248807#post8248807
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8247193#post8247193
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8247189#post8247189
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8247188#post8247188
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8247016#post8247016
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8247010#post8247010
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8247010#post8247010
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8246801#post8246801
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8246761#post8246761
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8246449#post8246449
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8245804#post8245804
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8243713#post8243713
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8240583#post8240583
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8240549#post8240549
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8240419#post8240419
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8240413#post8240413
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8240357#post8240357
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8240340#post8240340
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8240203#post8240203
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8240094#post8240094
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8240064#post8240064
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8239155#post8239155
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8238952#post8238952
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8238389#post8238389
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8238247#post8238247
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8236598#post8236598
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223670#post8223670
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223665#post8223665
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223663#post8223663
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223224#post8223224
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223199#post8223199
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223195#post8223195
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223183#post8223183
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223178#post8223178
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223161#post8223161
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223158#post8223158
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223141#post8223141
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223132#post8223132
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223100#post8223100
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223090#post8223090
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223068#post8223068
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223068#post8223068
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223051#post8223051
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8223045#post8223045
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222822#post8222822
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222814#post8222814
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222771#post8222771
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222768#post8222768
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222748#post8222748
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222747#post8222747
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222699#post8222699
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222688#post8222688
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222638#post8222638
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222618#post8222618
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222562#post8222562
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8222559#post8222559
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8221713#post8221713
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8221656#post8221656
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8221489#post8221489
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8221427#post8221427
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8221384#post8221384
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8221258#post8221258
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8220582#post8220582
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8219294#post8219294
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218907#post8218907
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218879#post8218879
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218848#post8218848
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218760#post8218760
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218666#post8218666
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218591#post8218591
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218566#post8218566
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218464#post8218464
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218455#post8218455
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218390#post8218390
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218276#post8218276
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8218255#post8218255
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8217154#post8217154
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8217123#post8217123
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8216798#post8216798
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8216249#post8216249
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8216184#post8216184
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8215597#post8215597
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8215430#post8215430
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8215395#post8215395
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8212541#post8212541
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8212310#post8212310
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8212287#post8212287
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8212287#post8212287
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8209668#post8209668
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8209662#post8209662
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8209092#post8209092
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8208887#post8208887
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8208880#post8208880
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8208872#post8208872
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8208856#post8208856
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8208849#post8208849
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8208837#post8208837
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8208810#post8208810
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8206412#post8206412
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8206355#post8206355
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8206329#post8206329
___

As an aside, I think that this would be the appropriate point to quote this comment of yours, Tony.

Now, where is that dang "irony-meter" when you need it?
___

Tom

PS. I predict that you will come back with some snarky reply that avoids answering my questions. Again.

Your questions are pointless as they direct to the absurd premise that the energy necessary for the total collapse/destruction of WTC7 originated from this one point of failure.

Justin39640 · May 10, 2012

Clayton Moore said:
Your questions are pointless as they direct to the absurd premise that the energy necessary for the total collapse/destruction of WTC9 originated from this one point of failure.

9???

Animal · May 10, 2012

Just some observations

First, the NIST report was written by several different people (as noted on page V of the report) Hence the writing style, the terms used, and the descriptions of the results are not always consistent chapter to chapter. That does not equate to a deliberate attempt to lie or mislead.

Second, the report is a series of microcosms. Testing of individual components and their reactions to heat and stress to determine failure points, reaction of assemblies based on results of individual tests. Fire analysis for spread, heat etc.

Third, NIST never represented that their tests were exact duplications of the what occurred on 9/11 nor that the results of individual tests and simulations were exact results of what happened.

Fourth, The conclusions reached by the NIST as to the probable collapse initiation and progression have been accepted by the vast majority of architect, engineers, fire fighting and build code officials.

Despite all this we have a few determined cultist who find sinister faults at every turn by uneducated claims and sophomoric interpretations of the report.

Animal · May 10, 2012

Clayton Moore said:
Your questions are pointless as they direct to the absurd premise that the energy necessary for the total collapse/destruction of WTC9 originated from this one point of failure.

I would suggest you read the NIST report......or maybe just start on page 594

LSSBB · May 10, 2012

Clayton Moore said:
Your questions are pointless as they direct to the absurd premise that the energy necessary for the total collapse/destruction of WTC9 originated from this one point of failure.

Nothing ever collapses from a single point of failure due to gravity?

tfk · May 10, 2012

Tony Szamboti said:
On top of that, he obviously doesn't know how to analyze welds, but has the audacity to bluff and try to make people think he does and that I am wrong.

ya got me, Tony. Caught "bluffing" again.

Pretty clever form of bluffing, tho, you have to admit. Getting those guys at Engineers Edge to put up that phony page on their website a long time ago. Because somehow I knew that, at some indeterminate date in the future, Tony Szamboti would say "say something correct", and I'd want to undermine his credibility amongst the clueless by posting a faked web page from an unbiased engineering web site that showed that he was full of crap.

mmmmmmmmmmm, good argument there ...!

Yes, we at the NWO Engineering Department are such clever, clever guys. We've got thousands of these false engineering & scientific web pages up all over the internet, just waiting for competent engineers to say something we don't like. And we immediately reference one of these phony pages in order to discredit the crusading maverick!!

Sure thing, Tony. I guess that this fantasy appeals to your self image.

In the meantime, you are the one who thinks that MOI is measured in inches^3, and who thinks that "Tony Szamboti asserting something" constitutes a valid reference...

Unlike you, I provided an independent reference. What have you got? More snark?
Here it is again for anyone who wants to go look for themselves.
engineering web page showing fillet weld MOIs measured in inches⁴.

Would you care to address this reference that I provided from the folks at "Engineers Edge"? Please explain to all your admirers here why they should believe you & disbelieve an engineers website.

Or is this little snafu simply going to go onto the long, long, long, looooonnnnng list of "facts" that you've gotten completely wrong, have had pointed out to you (along with the correct answers), only to have you ignore the corrections, change the subject, insist that you are right all along (in spite of all evidence to the contrary), and then claim to be the only engineer who knows what he is talking about.

I'm sure that all the impressionable, clueless kiddies who think that you are the greatest engineer to walk the planet are wildly impressed.

The rest of us know better.

Clearly, for you, the 15 minutes in the spotlight have been intoxicating.
Unfortunately for you, from this side of the boob tube, they have also been humiliating to you.

You should really reconsider whether being the shining star of a bunch of ignorant dolts is worth the derisive scorn of ALL the competent members of our profession.

Aside 1.
Explain to me again why none of the engineers at ae911t will wander over here & debate.

Explain to me why you've gotten nothing published in 10 years. That'd be "nothing published in any journal that requires that you know what you are talking about" (aka, "peer reviewed"), of course.

Explain to me why hundreds of papers in peer reviewed engineering journals have been published by real, competent engineers who cite the NIST report.

Aside 2.
I noticed one other thing that caught my eye, Tony. David Chandler now cites YOU as the engineer who opened his eyes to the fact that the columns will NOT contact each other end to end during the crush down of the towers.

I LMFAO'd at that comment.

After all, I (& a dozen others) spent the better part of a year arguing that exact point with you. With you adamantly insisting that they could ONLY contact each other perfectly square, end to end. And that anyone who said differently must not be a real engineer.

When did you see the light, Tony? What was the source of your inspiration? Did you REALLY tell Chandler that this was YOUR idea?

Laughing dog worthy, that one, Tony.

Tom

PS. Psssst, Tony. Regarding "nobody did a counter analysis ..."

Those guys at NIST (you know, the ones with all those letters after their names... Letters like "PhD", and "P.E.", and all that silly, silly stuff), THEY did a "counter analysis". And published it a long, long time ago.

Where did you say that you will be publishing this little analysis of yours? When can we expect to read it?

And when is your disproof of Bazant et. al. coming out in the JEM? Excuse me? Was that "never"?

Color me "unsurprised".

ozeco41 · May 10, 2012

tfk said:
Aside 2.
I noticed one other thing that caught my eye, Tony. David Chandler now cites YOU as the engineer who opened his eyes to the fact that the columns will NOT contact each other end to end during the crush down of the towers....

I wasn't aware of that - how did I miss it?

"That's one small step for man; one giant leap for..." this little corner of 9/11 discussion.

A nice little gem of significant info -- thanks tfk.

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

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Banned

Illuminator

Master Poster

Master Poster

Devilish Dictionarian

Illuminator

Philosopher