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

[LSSBB]

I am also pretty much done here, as the point concerning the impossibility of the NIST girder walk-off hypothesis has been amply made, and I have gotten my fill of laughing at the inanities being used by those who will apparently do and say anything to prop up the present official story concerning the collapse of this building, no matter what evidence they are confronted with showing it to be impossible.

The point is "amply made" in your mind only and those untrained in engineering. That you continue to insist that without proving your assumptions can probably be summed up by one small word: ego.

 

[ozeco41]

For the record:

....as the point concerning the impossibility of the NIST girder walk-off hypothesis has been amply made,...

This claim is false. Evidence is in the thread.

...and I have gotten my fill of laughing at the inanities being used by those who will apparently do and say anything to prop up the present official story concerning the collapse of this building,...

Pointless personal attack by innuendo.

... no matter what evidence they are confronted with showing it to be impossible.

Claim "showing it to be impossible" has not been made out. Errors of both logic and technical fact have been identified and not rebutted by Mr Szamboti. Evidence of this is also in the thread.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I am also pretty much done here, as the point concerning the impossibility of the NIST girder walk-off hypothesis has been amply made, and I have gotten my fill of laughing at the inanities being used by those who will apparently do and say anything to prop up the present official story concerning the collapse of this building, no matter what evidence they are confronted with showing it to be impossible.

You've thrown a lot of mud at a wall. Much of what you have claimed has been shown to be false. Two bits have stuck though. The width of the seat being 1" wider than stated in the NIST report and lack of web stiffeners at the end of the beams not being in the NIST FEA model.

The results of these two bits is that the girders in the NIST FEA model need to move 10% more before they will rotate off the seats. That's not an impossibility. It's not even an improbability. It's an "almost certainly".

 

[ergo]

I understand Newtons Bit and Ozeco are both members of the 9/11 Forum as well. Easy enough to go and point out Tony's "errors" there, right? Strange that they don't.

 

[carlitos]

Fair thee well

I am also pretty much done here,

A couple more and we can close up shop and focus on interesting topics.

 

[DGM]

I understand Newtons Bit and Ozeco are both members of the 9/11 Forum as well. Easy enough to go and point out Tony's "errors" there, right? Strange that they don't.

What's wrong with the way they pointed them out here? Would you understand it better there? I doubt it.

 

[alienentity]

Hmm, so according to C7 and TS, a couple of minor adjustments could be made to the NIST FEA to make it even more accurate.

Would it change the outcome of the FEA? I see no evidence to believe so. It's not that profound a difference.

Is it evidence in any way, shape or form that explosives brought down the towers? Of course not! Never was, never will be. This main tenet of every 9/11 Truther and their arguments again fails to be supported by any hard data.

 

[carlitos]

Hmm, so according to C7 and TS, a couple of minor adjustments could be made to the NIST FEA to make it even more accurate.

Would it change the outcome of the FEA? I see no evidence to believe so. It's not that profound a difference.

Is it evidence in any way, shape or form that explosives brought down the towers? Of course not! Never was, never will be. This main tenet of every 9/11 Truther and their arguments again fails to be supported by any hard data.

Someone should post pgimeno's diagram of the NIST report where he highlights the tiny portion of things that would change IF these claims were correct.

 

[Clayton Moore]

So trenches aren't effective against shockwaves in your world. Right, we understand.




I never said the FDNY didn't put a transit on the southwest corner of WTC 7 to measure a bulge between the 10th and 13th floors. There was debris damage at that corner and a bulge may have occurred in a small area, but that is hardly an indication of a leaning building. I think you are confused.

This conversation about the building leaning before collapse is complete nonsense. It simply was not, no matter who simply said it was. There is no evidence whatsoever for it and the building comes down straight for at least the first 100 feet.

I am also pretty much done here, as the point concerning the impossibility of the NIST girder walk-off hypothesis has been amply made, and I have gotten my fill of laughing at the inanities being used by those who will apparently do and say anything to prop up the present official story concerning the collapse of this building, no matter what evidence they are confronted with showing it to be impossible.

Well done. Laughing is good for the soul yanno.

 

[RedIbis]

So trenches aren't effective against shockwaves in your world. Right, we understand.




I never said the FDNY didn't put a transit on the southwest corner of WTC 7 to measure a bulge between the 10th and 13th floors. There was debris damage at that corner and a bulge may have occurred in a small area, but that is hardly an indication of a leaning building. I think you are confused.

This conversation about the building leaning before collapse is complete nonsense. It simply was not, no matter who simply said it was. There is no evidence whatsoever for it and the building comes down straight for at least the first 100 feet.

I am also pretty much done here, as the point concerning the impossibility of the NIST girder walk-off hypothesis has been amply made, and I have gotten my fill of laughing at the inanities being used by those who will apparently do and say anything to prop up the present official story concerning the collapse of this building, no matter what evidence they are confronted with showing it to be impossible.

That's pretty much the bottom line. They will defend nearly any preposterous hypothesis, as long as it supports the official story, regardless if there's even a speck of physical evidence.

Just know that your measured responses and thorough analyses are appreciated.

 

[alienentity]

That's pretty much the bottom line. They will defend nearly any preposterous hypothesis, .., regardless if there's even a speck of physical evidence.

Oh dear, that's a good one! Where is 9/11 Truth's FEA model to match the demise of the towers? Still M.I.A. after 10 years. Where's the physical evidence???

 

[Newtons Bit]

What's wrong with the way they pointed them out here? Would you understand it better there? I doubt it.

Wow, I had completely forgotten about that forum.

 

[pgimeno]

Someone should post pgimeno's diagram of the NIST report where he highlights the tiny portion of things that would change IF these claims were correct.

Here it goes.

Indeed, NIST conclusions (chapter 4 of the report, "Principal Findings", and chapter 5, "Recommendations") don't even mention any detail on whether the girder walked off, or rocked off, or what. It's not considered principal. They just say that thermal expansion was a factor.

From 4.3.4 (Structural Response and Collapse, p.53, 95 in PDF):

[...]

• Thermal expansion was particularly significant in causing the connection, beam, and girder failures, since the floor beams had long spans on the north and east sides (approximately 15 m, 50 ft).
  
  
  • Heating of the long beams resulted in proportionately large thermal elongation relative to the other components of the floor system, in effect, compressing the beams along their length. This led to distortion of the beams and breaking of the connections of the beams to the floor slabs. Furthermore, the simple shear connections used in the typical floor framing were not able to resist these axial compressive forces that developed as the floor framing was heated.
    
    
  • At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.
    
    
  • The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell onto the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors. The long unsupported length of Column 79 led to its buckling failure.

They simply don't consider that detail relevant as to put it in their conclusions. It isn't.

Which is why this image has no red sections marking the part of NIST's conclusions affected by the topic in this thread:

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/ncstar-1a-chapters-4-5-collage-highlighted.jpg[/qimg]

 

[ozeco41]

I understand Newtons Bit and Ozeco are both members of the 9/11 Forum as well. Easy enough to go and point out Tony's "errors" there, right? Strange that they don't.

Ridiculous nonsense ergo - as you know.

Tony made his false claims here - my comments were made here.

However there is a good point in your suggestion - why don't you follow that suggestion yourself?

Every time you disagree with a comment made on JREF why don't YOU post your responses on some other forum. I'm sure members here would appreciate it if you did that.

I'll make it easier. Make your responses on ANY other forum other than JREF - don't limit yourself to the 911forum.

 

[DGM]

Every time you disagree with a comment made on JREF why don't YOU post your responses on some other forum. I'm sure members here would appreciate it if you did that.

I'll make it easier. Make your responses on ANY other forum other than JREF - don't limit yourself to the 911forum.

Now you're just being evil.

 

[ozeco41]

Now you're just being evil....

Who? ME?

[/INNOCENCE]

Actually there could be a workable deal there...
...if ergo responds only on other forums I will desist from identifying the errors in Tony Szamboti and Christopher 7's claims.

 

[BasqueArch]

Agreed.....my main "complaint" about the NIST documents is that they are poorly edited. With different author groups for different chapters, there should have been a little more effort in editing to keep things consistent......like "rock off" vs "walk off" C7 uses the summary version (1A) because it solely says walk off, rather than the detailed version (Vol 1 & 2) that hints several possible failure methods.....walk off, rock off, girder buckle, seat failure etc.
It could have been a combination of multiple failures, but the results end the same, column 79 ends up with no lateral support for several floors, fails, and the rest of the building fails in sympathy for column 79 and by gravity, but mostly by gravity.

Right . I noticed that too in the report. They repeat themselves in words, data and illustrations in 1A, 1-9 and 1-9A. In my plans , any time you say the same thing in different words in different drawings, you are certain to create change order ambiguities, so I limit myself to not repeating the same thing. On my drawings, on the floor plans, one of my general notes reads” Where the scope of work differs in two or more places, the contractor shall price the more expensive option.” In the Battle of the Change Orders contractors hate it, right DGM?
NIST should have said in their "Intro" (for repeating the same thing in different words in different places) "Where the description of the analysis differs in two or more places, the more critical description governs."
NIST also labeled the northeastern 13th floor beam W24x55, where it should have been W21x44 (assuming the shop drawings are right) This reminds me. We don’t have the as-builts for WTC7. Do we know if all the drawings NIST used have been released?

 

[ozeco41]

....” Where the scope of work differs in two or more places, the contractor shall price the more expensive option.” In the Battle of the Change Orders contractors hate it, right DGM?....

Cruel that. Slamming the door on one of the most profitable areas of contracting...

....amendments, scope changes and disputes over intentions.

 

[BasqueArch]

Cruel that. Slamming the door on one of the most profitable areas of contracting...

....amendments, scope changes and disputes over intentions.

Sorry, I added and the NIST intro line, I believe after your post.
Heh, I had to. The owners were slamming the door on my wallet.

 

[Animal]

Right . I noticed that too in the report. They repeat themselves in words, data and illustrations in 1A, 1-9 and 1-9A. In my plans , any time you say the same thing in different words in different drawings, you are certain to create change order ambiguities, so I limit myself to not repeating the same thing. On my drawings, on the floor plans, one of my general notes reads” Where the scope of work differs in two or more places, the contractor shall price the more expensive option.” In the Battle of the Change Orders contractors hate it, right DGM?
NIST should have said in their "Intro" (for repeating the same thing in different words in different places) "Where the description of the analysis differs in two or more places, the more critical description governs."
NIST also labeled the northeastern 13th floor beam W24x55, where it should have been W21x44 (assuming the shop drawings are right) This reminds me. We don’t have the as-builts for WTC7. Do we know if all the drawings NIST used have been released?

I have several "cover my azz" notes that I include on my drawings, developed over the years from the lessons learned by contractor games.

On one particular project (we were a 2 man firm at the time), the bid was won by a very large construction firm with a reputation for low ball bidding and then making it up on change orders and screwing sub contractors. The estimator even told me he was going to "bury me with change orders" My response was to remind him who did the punch list. I was a 5 million dollar contract. They walked away from the final 500k payment because it would have cost them over a million to complete the PL

The owner left most of the PL items as because they were not important and kept the 500k.