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

[BasqueArch]

The 8 degree angle of the deflection you show would require 37" of defelection on a 45 foot long beam. If you want to say it was 20" that is fine, just explain how you did the calculation to arrive at that figure like I did for my claim.
My calculation was not done with fixed/bolted ends. It was done for a simply supported beam.
Since you say you can't do the calculations you have no basis for the deflection and angle of sag you show. The CAD program told you what it did based on your inputs and if the inputs aren't right then the output won't be. It sounds like you made a guess of some sort on your input. The actual calculations show that guess to be incorrect by a very large degree.
I will do a FEA of the girder with point loads at the beam interfaces to prove my point again.
You keep bringing up this SE you approached who doesn't want to be bothered because he thinks it is stupid. Since he doesn't say why, all this proves is the guy hasn't looked into it and has accepted the present official story uncritically. So your point here is meaningless in this discussion.

How I Got 20 Inches

Per NCSTAR 1–9A Figure 4-7 p.71 shows the beams and girder vertical displacement > 20”
Also 1-9A Figure 4-9 p.72 >20"
(The beams and girders had a camber of ~1-2 inches or so)

To clarify - The calculations I asked the engineer to do were the ones where the sagged girder placed its load at the tip of the heated cantilevered eccentrically loaded seat plate as shown on my previous drawings. I wanted to know whether the seat would bend or shear.

 

[BasqueArch]

Your calculations show that the girder has buckled, which results in your deflection calculations being completely wrong. Now I haven't been following this sub-forum that closely. Maybe you've run some numbers that take this into consideration. Perhaps you'd like to show this revised calculation?

Yes, it failed in lateral-torsional buckling. This occurred when the beams that normally braced the girder failed. This is all detailed in the NIST report. See Section 8.8.

Per NB - It looks like the buckling of the girder is the predominant reason the deflection > couple of inches and/or that it failed. NIST describes torsional buckling where if the tilting angle displaces the web > ½ of the flange width from vertical then it would fail.

Once the girder buckled the web was no longer plumb and the flanges no longer parallel to each other or the ground. Once the optimum geometry was lost this would reduce its strength and cause excessive sagging (for web relative displacement < than ½ of flange width) or failure (for web relative displacement > ½ of flange width).

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Per NB - It looks like the buckling of the girder is the predominant reason the deflection > couple of inches and/or that it failed. NIST describes torsional buckling where if the tilting angle displaces the flange > ½ of the flange width from vertical then it would fail.

Once the girder buckled the web was no longer plumb and the flanges no longer parallel to each other or the ground. Once the optimum geometry was lost this would reduce its strength and cause excessive sagging (for flange relative displacement < than ½ of flange width) or failure (for flange relative displacement > ½ of flange width).

The girder did not buckle in the LS-DYNA simulation and it did not deflect vertically more than about 1.5". It was the beams that were claimed to be buckled via the lateral-torsional mode and that they then rotated more than 1/2 the flange width, losing their vertical load capacity, and pulling/rocking the girder off its seat while collapsing.

However, the model did not contain the three beam stubs framing into the northmost beam from the north exterior. There is also no evidence provided for buckling of the three beams closest to column 79. As I said, I did a FEA on this without the three beam stubs and the northmost beam buckled. With the three beam stubs none of the beams buckled.

 

[BasqueArch]

The girder did not buckle in the LS-DYNA simulation and it did not deflect vertically more than about 1.5". It was the beams that were claimed to be buckled via the lateral-torsional mode and that they then rotated and lost their vertical load capacity and collapsed pulling/rocking the girder off its seat.

However, they did not use the three beam stubs on the northmost beam and provide no evidence of the three beams closest to column 79 buckling. As I said, I did a FEA on this without the three beam stubs and the northmost beam buckled. With the three beam stubs none of the beams buckled.

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit
Yes, it failed in lateral-torsional buckling. This occurred when the beams that normally braced the girder failed. This is all detailed in the NIST report. See Section 8.8.

WTC7 collapsed due to fire not explosives.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
Yes, it failed in lateral-torsional buckling. This occurred when the beams that normally braced the girder failed. This is all detailed in the NIST report. See Section 8.8.

WTC7 collapsed due to fire not explosives.

Show me where they say the girder buckled in Section 8.8. I only see it mentioned that the beams buckled due to lateral-torsional buckling.

 

[BasqueArch]

Show me where they say the girder buckled in Section 8.8. I only see it mentioned that the beams buckled due to lateral-torsional buckling.

NCSTAR 1-9 p.527
"The girder between columns 44 and 79 buckled and walked off the bearing seat between 3.7h and 4.0h. Girder buckling was due to the combined effects of (1) gravity loads from the floor beams, (2) lateral westward displacement due to the thermal expansion in the east floor beams and (3) increased axial loads due to thermal expansion in the girder. "
See also figure 8-27 p.354

So now that you have been shown "they say the girder buckled" in another section, you will of course revise your opinion and agree that the girder would have deflected more than 2", that it would have failed and that fire caused the collapse of WTC7.

 

[Newtons Bit]

NCSTAR 1-9 p.527
"The girder between columns 44 and 79 buckled and walked off the bearing seat between 3.7h and 4.0h. Girder buckling was due to the combined effects of (1) gravity loads from the floor beams, (2) lateral westward displacement due to the thermal expansion in the east floor beams and (3) increased axial loads due to thermal expansion in the girder. "
See also figure 8-27 p.354

So now that you have been shown "they say the girder buckled" in another section, you will revise your opinion that the girder would have deflected more than 2", that it would have failed and that fire caused the collapse of WTC7.

And I posted that exact same quote on the 5th of June. How long do you think it will take to sink in?

 

[BasqueArch]

And I posted that exact same quote on the 5th of June. How long do you think it will take to sink in?

It must be repeated every time they take Milk of Amnesia.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And I posted that exact same quote on the 5th of June. How long do you think it will take to sink in?

All I saw you cite was section 8.8 and Figure 8-27, which talk about the girder being "rocked" off its seat.

 

[GlennB]

All I saw you cite was section 8.8 and Figure 8-27, which talk about the girder being "rocked" off its seat.

So it only buckled if it buckled in section 8 of the report? Got it. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Animal]

So it only buckled if it buckled in section 8 of the report? Got it. Glad we cleared that up.

Troofer logic 101

 

[Tony Szamboti]

NCSTAR 1-9 p.527
"The girder between columns 44 and 79 buckled and walked off the bearing seat between 3.7h and 4.0h. Girder buckling was due to the combined effects of (1) gravity loads from the floor beams, (2) lateral westward displacement due to the thermal expansion in the east floor beams and (3) increased axial loads due to thermal expansion in the girder. "
See also figure 8-27 p.354

So now that you have been shown "they say the girder buckled" in another section, you will of course revise your opinion and agree that the girder would have deflected more than 2", that it would have failed and that fire caused the collapse of WTC7.

Thanks for the citation.

Until now I thought the NIST WTC 7 report had just two different possible failure modes in it; Walk-off and Rock-off.

But now I see it has three.

1. Section 8.8 where they want to say axial expansion of the beams caused them to buckle in a lateral-torsional mode since they had no lateral support after the shear studs were broken and to rotate enough to lose their vertical load capacity and collapse pulling the girder to the east and off its seats.

2. Section 11.4.1 where they want to say the girder buckled due to gravity loads from the beams, westward expansion by the beams, and increased axial loads due to thermal expansion of the girder itself.

3. Section 11.4.1 and 13.2 where they want to say thermal expansion of the beams pushed the girder between columns 44 and 79 to the west and off its seat at column 79.

Note that they chose #3 for their "Detailed Probable Collapse Sequence". It should also be remembered that none of these claims have been substantiated by calculations and analysis results. In fact, when substantiating calculations and analyses results were asked for via a FOIA request, the request was denied and the requester told that divulging them "might jeopardize public safety". Additionally, no actual testing was ever done.

But it doesn't seem to matter to some here, that these failure modes are somewhat mutually exclusive and one can't happen if the other does, as they seem to be saying it could have been any one of them.

All I have to say to this is

 

[Newtons Bit]

Thanks for the citation.

Until now I thought the NIST WTC 7 report had just two different possible failure modes in it; Walk-off and Rock-off.

But now I see it has three.

1. Section 8.8 where they want to say axial expansion of the beams caused them to buckle in a lateral-torsional mode since they had no lateral support after the shear studs were broken and to rotate enough to lose their vertical load capacity and collapse pulling the girder to the east and off its seats.

2. Section 11.4.1 where they want to say the girder buckled due to gravity loads from the beams, westward expansion by the beams, and increased axial loads due to thermal expansion of the girder itself.

3. Section 11.4.1 and 13.2 where they want to say thermal expansion of the beams pushed the girder between columns 44 and 79 to the west and off its seat at column 79.

Note that they chose #3 for their "Detailed Probable Collapse Sequence". It should also be remembered that none of these claims have been substantiated by calculations and analysis results. In fact, when substantiating calculations and analyses results were asked for via a FOIA request, the request was denied and the requester told that divulging them "might jeopardize public safety". Additionally, no actual testing was ever done.

But it doesn't seem to matter to some here, that these failure modes are somewhat mutually exclusive and one can't happen if the other does, as they seem to be saying it could have been any one of them.

All I have to say to this is

And now Mr. Szamboti is just mixing and matching words he doesn't know the meaning of.

 

[Animal]

And now Mr. Szamboti is just mixing and matching words he doesn't know the meaning of.

What is comical is that troofers expect 3 decimal point precision by NIST on a building that burned for multiple hours, with very little video and photographic record of the collapse and expect everyone to accept the CD theory without one shred of evidence.

 

[Justin39640]

And now Mr. Szamboti is just mixing and matching words he doesn't know the meaning of.

Wouldn't it be kinda silly to assume just one type of failure mechanism was responsible? Tony seems to be lost on the fact that the NIST and everyone else are trying to explain pure chaos, on a gigantic scale, with numbers. It's a very difficult thing to do, hence the need for a 20 million dollar workstation to help out. His pompous "hand (wave) calculations" and disrespect in general (CC cookies) kinda makes me sick.

 

[twinstead]

What is comical is that troofers expect 3 decimal point precision by NIST on a building that burned for multiple hours, with very little video and photographic record of the collapse and expect everyone to accept the CD theory without one shred of evidence.

IMO this is exactly what is happening here

 

[Newtons Bit]

Wouldn't it be kinda silly to assume just one type of failure mechanism was responsible? Tony seems to be lost on the fact that the NIST and everyone else are trying to explain pure chaos, on a gigantic scale, with numbers. It's a very difficult thing to do, hence the need for a 20 million dollar workstation to help out. His pompous "hand (wave) calculations" and disrespect in general (CC cookies) kinda makes me sick.

Indeed. NIST varied the load cases and discovered different mechanics for how the girder between 44 and 79 fell off its bearing seat. Ultimately, the failure for the entire building was due to column 79 losing lateral support over floors 4 to 14.

 

[alienentity]

You know... If you were just arguing that they were wrong about their collapse mechanism theory, that would be one thing. But, you're not. You're (wrongly) accusing them of covering up an intentional demolition of a building and ultimately being complicit in the murders of almost 3000 people.

This is an excellent point. TS and C7 are way overstepping the scope of inquiry and logic by extrapolating in leaps and bounds - that any perceived discrepancies in the NIST calculations constitute some kind of fraud or conspiracy.
The very notion is extremely far-fetched: that a large group of professional engineers would collude, knowingly and under direction from above, to alter certain boundary conditions of materials such that they would fit some particularly pre-arranged hypothesis. And this in the midst of such a large-scale project which depended on very in-depth analysis (some probably fairly independent of others) of every element of the structure of the towers and their breakdown.
All to be coordinated and directed by some unknown master puppeteer, themselves directed by yet more masters, all completely unseen and unknown as far as we know.
And all this simultaneously transparent to a garden-variety mechanical engineer or 9/11 researcher who examines the work.

This is yet another nested conspiracy claim within yet another giant conspiracy claim, based entirely on suspicion and doubt: after all, the central conspiracy claim, that of explosive or incendiary controlled demolition, remains unproven and speculative. Despite all this sound and fury from the likes of TS and C7, not a single legal action is proposed against the purported conspiracy. Nobody has even been named as a known participant, nor would these people dare do so in a legal system, as they might very well be subject to charges of libel.

 

[alienentity]

Thanks for the citation.

Until now I thought the NIST WTC 7 report had just two different possible failure modes in it; Walk-off and Rock-off.

But now I see it has three.

..

Please Tony, take your concerns to a major engineering licensing body, make your case and knock NIST off its pedestal.

Nobody is stopping you..... except possibly a nagging feeling you are having that, once you step outside the 9/11 Conspiracy forum bubble, you're going to receive an adult smack-down.

Talk is cheap, Tony. You guys have flapped your gums for a long time, yet seem very afraid to challenge NIST thru the professional or legal organizations which you have access to.

I'm not talking about the vague 'new investigation' slogan which your buddies at AE911Bullpoo are whimpering about. No, that crowd pleaser is nothing more than the old 'burn the witch' cries of yore, cleaned up so it looks respectable. Scratch just beneath the surface of AE911Bullpoo's claims and you uncover nothing but wide-eyed conspiracy theories, with no substance. There simply is no legal case to make because there is no evidence - you know it, we know it, and that's why your're stuck where you are.

btw AE911Bullpoo is no more dishonest and vacuous than any number of organizations out there; it's not any worse than the legions of politicians who will promise you the moon if only you will elect them - only to backtrack, flip-flop and betray you.
What you guys are shilling is suspicion and paranoia, which you've attached to the uber-emotional issue of the tragedy of 9/11, in hopes of sucking in people out of anger. But your product is mainly suspicion and paranoia, augmented with some DVDs and lectures.
Not as harmful as selling cigarettes, I guess, except that cigarettes don't rot your brain like 9/11 conspiracy theories do; cigarettes don't feed anger and bitterness, increase the feeling of impotence and hopelessness.
But the AE911Bullpoo product of suspicion and paranoia do. They warp your personalities and distance you from normal people in society, whom are commonly referred to by the cult as 'sheeple'.

I'll have some respect for AE911Bullpoo when y'all can mount some legitimate engineering and legal challenges to back up all your fantastic claims. Until then, it's a con-job in my books. Don't bother replying to this post, just go prove me wrong, get egg all over my face, by growing some stones and putting your gripes in front of an engineering body, or make a court challenge.
Do it, Tony. It's been 10 years, life is short and you're running out of time (and self-respect).

 

[DGM]

Please Tony, take your concerns to a major engineering licensing body, make your case and knock NIST off its pedestal.

Nobody is stopping you.....

He has submitted a discussion paper to the Journal of Structural Engineering recently*. We'll have to wait to see how that turns out.


*I have confirmed this.