• 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.
ozeco41 said:
Congratulations.

I recall on the Richard Dawkins Forum back in 2006-7 we used to make a big thing of 1000 posts - you got "veteran status" and access to some sub forums limited to veterans. Not appropriate here or in 2012 but it was a novelty in those relatively early days of forumming.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
000063 said:
He's not. He's claiming the shaped portion only concentrates the force in the direction its aimed at, while the rest is unaffected. The fact that there are even two non-adjacent windows not broken from what's supposedly the same shockwave itself disproves your claim.
Click to expand...

More pressure means more range. The material blown from the front of the LSC has a significantly greater range than the omnidirectional components.

Sword of Truth did try to say they were equal.

My point is that the directional charge pressure reaching the windows about 50 feet away with enough pressure remaining to break them does not imply the omnidirectional components would, as they are at a much lower pressure to start with.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
More pressure means more range. The range of the material blown from the front of the LSC has a significantly greater range than the omnidirectional components.

Sword of Truth did at first try to say they were equal.

My point is that the directional charge pressure reaching the windows about 50 feet away with enough pressure remaining to break them does not imply the omnidirectional components would, as they are at a much lower pressure to start with.
Click to expand...

Does this "pressure" make any noise?

:rolleyes:
 
Newtons Bit said:
So what exactly is the problem with the girder walking off the connection?
Click to expand...

Newtons Bit said:
I meant the engineering problem. ;)
Click to expand...
In summary:
1) The OP by Gamolon asked for help to explain the NIST "girder walk-off" explanation for Col79 failure initiating the WTC7 collapse;

2) later in the thread Tony Szamboti made the claim that (words to the effect of) "The NIST explanation is impossible";

3) discussion/argument resulted with a number of parties contributing BUT based only on two factors viz: Linear expansion of the girder and associated beams and sag of same;

4) several members notably tfk made counter claims that Tony's analysis was faulty at that level of detail;

5) several members including me commented that Tony's consideration of only two factors was in error;

6) Subsequently I identified and supported in detail that Tony's claim also failed at a higher level of context and on two points:
______a) He had assumed no movement or change of end conditions for the relevant girder between Col79 and Col44; AND
______b) It being his burden of proof to support his assumptions, he had not supported his assumption therefore his claim was not "proven" and failed. That failure independent of whether or not:
__________i) He was right on the mathematics of his two factors OR
__________ii) wrong to only consider two factors at the level of detail.

Later posts have seen Tony denying all significant counter claims and derails into irrelevancies used as evasion tactics.

Through the discussions Tony has repeated his claims that some form of CD must have been involved.

Without discussing CD at this stage I have pointed out that Tony's limited objective of "Prove NIST wrong on walk-off" is irrelevant to any claim of CD. Specifically whether NIST was right or not does nothing to advance the claim of CD. Any claim of CD must rest on the actual facts of what happened. Those facts will not change as a result of NIST being right or wrong with any explanation of mechanism.

Multiple further derails have followed with the usual trolls trying to assist Tony out of the corner he doesn't admit he is in.

We are currently in an extended detour/derail in which Tony is claiming that glass windows are safe "behind" a linear shaped charge of the type used for cutting steel.

I was tempted to hint that he could prove his contention by standing behind such a shaped charge when it was fired. Naturally I would decline to occupy that position myself. ;)

I think those are the key points vis-a-vis the topic. E&OE naturally. :)
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
In summary:
1) The OP by Gamolon asked for help to explain the NIST "girder walk-off" explanation for Col79 failure initiating the WTC7 collapse;

2) later in the thread Tony Szamboti made the claim that (words to the effect of) "The NIST explanation is impossible";

3) discussion/argument resulted with a number of parties contributing BUT based only on two factors viz: Linear expansion of the girder and associated beams and sag of same;

4) several members notably tfk made counter claims that Tony's analysis was faulty at that level of detail;

5) several members including me commented that Tony's consideration of only two factors was in error;

6) Subsequently I identified and supported in detail that Tony's claim also failed at a higher level of context and on two points:
______a) He had assumed no movement or change of end conditions for the relevant girder between Col79 and Col44; AND
______b) It being his burden of proof to support his assumptions, he had not supported his assumption therefore his claim was not "proven" and failed. That failure independent of whether or not:
__________i) He was right on the mathematics of his two factors OR
__________ii) wrong to only consider two factors at the level of detail.

Later posts have seen Tony denying all significant counter claims and derails into irrelevancies used as evasion tactics.

Through the discussions Tony has repeated his claims that some form of CD must have been involved.

Without discussing CD at this stage I have pointed out that Tony's limited objective of "Prove NIST wrong on walk-off" is irrelevant to any claim of CD. Specifically whether NIST was right or not does nothing to advance the claim of CD. Any claim of CD must rest on the actual facts of what happened. Those facts will not change as a result of NIST being right or wrong with any explanation of mechanism.

Multiple further derails have followed with the usual trolls trying to assist Tony out of the corner he doesn't admit he is in.

We are currently in an extended detour/derail in which Tony is claiming that glass windows are safe "behind" a linear shaped charge of the type used for cutting steel.

I was tempted to hint that he could prove his contention by standing behind such a shaped charge when it was fired. Naturally I would decline to occupy that position myself. ;)

I think those are the key points vis-a-vis the topic. E&OE naturally. :)
Click to expand...

Wow, my ears hurt just listening to all this wind.

By the way, not being willing to stand within 50 feet of any side of a shaped charge isn't an implicit proof that the omnidirectional pressure of the charge could break windows that far away.
 
ozeco41 said:
In summary:
1) The OP by Gamolon asked for help to explain the NIST "girder walk-off" explanation for Col79 failure initiating the WTC7 collapse;

2) later in the thread Tony Szamboti made the claim that (words to the effect of) "The NIST explanation is impossible";

3) discussion/argument resulted with a number of parties contributing BUT based only on two factors viz: Linear expansion of the girder and associated beams and sag of same;

4) several members notably tfk made counter claims that Tony's analysis was faulty at that level of detail;

5) several members including me commented that Tony's consideration of only two factors was in error;

6) Subsequently I identified and supported in detail that Tony's claim also failed at a higher level of context and on two points:
______a) He had assumed no movement or change of end conditions for the relevant girder between Col79 and Col44; AND
______b) It being his burden of proof to support his assumptions, he had not supported his assumption therefore his claim was not "proven" and failed. That failure independent of whether or not:
__________i) He was right on the mathematics of his two factors OR
__________ii) wrong to only consider two factors at the level of detail.

Later posts have seen Tony denying all significant counter claims and derails into irrelevancies used as evasion tactics.

Through the discussions Tony has repeated his claims that some form of CD must have been involved.

Without discussing CD at this stage I have pointed out that Tony's limited objective of "Prove NIST wrong on walk-off" is irrelevant to any claim of CD. Specifically whether NIST was right or not does nothing to advance the claim of CD. Any claim of CD must rest on the actual facts of what happened. Those facts will not change as a result of NIST being right or wrong with any explanation of mechanism.

Multiple further derails have followed with the usual trolls trying to assist Tony out of the corner he doesn't admit he is in.

We are currently in an extended detour/derail in which Tony is claiming that glass windows are safe "behind" a linear shaped charge of the type used for cutting steel.

I was tempted to hint that he could prove his contention by standing behind such a shaped charge when it was fired. Naturally I would decline to occupy that position myself. ;)

I think those are the key points vis-a-vis the topic. E&OE naturally. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I've looked through some of the earlier parts of the thread for Mr. Szamboti's calculations, but have been unable to find any. Has he posted anything?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Wow, my ears hurt just listening to all this wind.

By the way, not being willing to stand within 50 feet of any side of a shaped charge isn't an implicit proof that the omnidirectional pressure of the charge could break windows that far away.
Click to expand...

I know this is a giant derail, (perhaps not one of Titanic proportions..) but I believe NIST hired an engineering firm to do a study which answered this question already.

I don't think Tony Szamboti has done anything at all to counter this study rather than make a series of rather speculative denials.

There doesn't seem to be any substance to Tony's claim, IMO. It seems to be nothing more than a rather lazy attempt to handwave away the glaring lack of evidence in support of his CD claims. (Sorry to call it lazy, but I see absolutely no serious study, no model, no expert consultation done by Tony. That's lazy in my book.)

I hope the thread can return to the topic of the OP
 
Newtons Bit said:
Thanks.

I've looked through some of the earlier parts of the thread for Mr. Szamboti's calculations, but have been unable to find any. Has he posted anything?
Click to expand...
IIRC there are spread sheet calculations of thermal expansion and contraction also some sag calcs. I think some of them by Tony and some by others. Believe it or not I have no difficulty with Tony's work at that level of detail - only with the boundary assumptions. tfk and others have looked at the details more closely and I see no reason to doubt their work any more than Tony's at this level. There was no point me joining in those discussions so I focussed on the big context issue which put Tony's claim "out of court" independent of the details.

As for where the calcs are in the thread I don't have links.

OK I did a bit of a search and memory returns.

Try searching backwards from post 1129 which has a spreadsheet posted by C7

I went back to around post 920 which put me into the Tony Sz v tfk discussion - the spread sheets probably a bit further back from there..
 
alienentity said:
...I know this is a giant derail, (perhaps not one of Titanic proportions..)..
Click to expand...
nice one.
clap.gif

alienentity said:
...I hope the thread can return to the topic of the OP
Click to expand...

Which was Gamolon's request for help. Has Gamolon got all the help he needs?

Otherwise the discussion of "Was NIST wrong on girder walkoff?" is a transparent excuse for Tony to push CD without actually facing the need to prove his case for CD.

And whether NIST was right or wrong on girder walk-off is irrelevant to "Was there CD?"

And the default position is "No CD." So Tony has a lot of work to do. Based on the record the approach is likely to be a demand that "we" prove "No CD" - except for that pesky "burden of proof" thingie. :)
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
I know this is a giant derail, (perhaps not one of Titanic proportions..) but I believe NIST hired an engineering firm to do a study which answered this question already.

I don't think Tony Szamboti has done anything at all to counter this study rather than make a series of rather speculative denials.

There doesn't seem to be any substance to Tony's claim, IMO. It seems to be nothing more than a rather lazy attempt to handwave away the glaring lack of evidence in support of his CD claims. (Sorry to call it lazy, but I see absolutely no serious study, no model, no expert consultation done by Tony. That's lazy in my book.)

I hope the thread can return to the topic of the OP
Click to expand...

The only technical thing I've seen is a spreadsheet showing deflection vs expansion of a heated steel beam and a graph derived from that spreadsheet.
 
alienentity said:
I know this is a giant derail, (perhaps not one of Titanic proportions..) but I believe NIST hired an engineering firm to do a study which answered this question already.

I don't think Tony Szamboti has done anything at all to counter this study rather than make a series of rather speculative denials.

There doesn't seem to be any substance to Tony's claim, IMO. It seems to be nothing more than a rather lazy attempt to handwave away the glaring lack of evidence in support of his CD claims. (Sorry to call it lazy, but I see absolutely no serious study, no model, no expert consultation done by Tony. That's lazy in my book.)

I hope the thread can return to the topic of the OP
Click to expand...
If you had read through this thread you would see clearly that it has been shown that the NIST girder walk-off scenario is impossible.

The NIST expansion calculation uses T instead of delta T and the maximum CTE of structural steel, which is not correct because it is not constant.

The actual expansion of the beams east of the girder between columns 44 and 79 would have been 4.68 inches at 600 degrees C, not the 5.70 inches claimed by NIST. In addition, NIST said the seat was 11 inches wide and we have found it was 12 inches wide since gaining access to the drawings in the last several months. The NIST model and report also don't include the flange stiffeners on the girder, which would have made the westward translation required for girder walk-off well over 9 inches.

It is obvious from your comments that you aren't here to learn something and figure things out. So here is just what your silly comments deserve

:dl:

What a BS artist you are.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
This one? It is at post 1129.
[qimg]http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/739/expansionvsag2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That's it. That seems to be the base that this whole "girder walk-off is impossible" edifice is built on.

The idea that the building wouldn't have fell if the girder hadn't been pushed one half inch more is :dl:
 
Newtons Bit said:
Were there any calcs, or the spreadsheet itself, that came with it?
Click to expand...

C7 posted an image of certain items on the spreadsheet on the forum here.

I will send you the full spreadsheet personally. If you want it send me a PM with your e-mail address.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
That's it. That seems to be the base that this whole "girder walk-off is impossible" edifice is built on.

The idea that the building wouldn't have fell if the girder hadn't been pushed one half inch more is
Click to expand...

It was nearly two inches that NIST was short by to push the girder web beyond the seat, and that is before we talk about those flange stiffeners that NIST forgot to include in their model and report. You apparently forgot about them also.

Finally, when considering the flange stiffeners, the amount of expansion needed to push that girder off its seat would have been about five inches more than the beams could have expanded at 600 degrees C.

The NIST walk-off theory is a sham and anyone who doesn't see it apparently doesn't want to.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
How about just listing the formulae in your post so folks don't have to give out their email address? You can even just copy and post the excel formulae as is, folks can figure it out.
Click to expand...

Either send your e-mail address in a PM or get it from someone willing to send theirs.

I have Ozeco's, Beachnut's, and Oystein's e-mail addresses. You can ask them to get it and have it sent to you if you don't want to divulge yours.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Were there any calcs, or the spreadsheet itself, that came with it?
Click to expand...
C7 referenced a table -standard text book or reference manual stuff:
Christopher7 said:
No mention of what this thread is about for 3 pages. When faced with the logic and math that show the NIST theory is impossible the faithful change the subject.

The walk-off that is critical to the NIST collapse scenario is impossible because the sagging would shorten the floor beams more that they would expand lengthwise at 650oC. The thermal elongation would never exceed 4 3/4" [rounded off]. Prove this wrong or admit that it is true....
Click to expand...
Which incidentally proves my concern about only considering two factors - insofar as C7 is concerned and Tony has not criticised C7 IIRC.

This is the reference to the standard table:
Christopher7 said:
...The formula for expansion is in the expansion spreadsheet:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4001/beamexpansionspreadshee.jpg <<This one - ozeco

The formula for sagging is in Tony's first post:
"The equation used to determine shortening is the same as that used by Zdenek Bazant in his 2002 paper where he uses u = L x (1 - COS of theta).

Here it would be Shortening = full length of beam x (1 - COS of the angle of sag)."

[qimg]http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/739/expansionvsag2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Still only two factors being considered. So they were assuming the columns don't move or try to move AND ignoring any other detailed factors needed to support Tony's claim. (BTW a lot of "our side' also accepted the limited assumptions but that is still "their" burden of proof problem. Not up to us to get their claim right.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It was nearly two inches that NIST was short by to push the girder web beyond the seat, and that is before we talk about those flange stiffeners that NIST forgot to include in their model and report. You apparently forgot about them also.

Finally, when considering the flange stiffeners, the amount of expansion needed to push that girder off its seat would have been about five inches more than the beams could have expanded at 600 degrees C.

The NIST walk-off theory is a sham and anyone who doesn't see it apparently doesn't want to.
Click to expand...

Can you post a detail of the connection that shows the flange stiffeners?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom