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

[alienentity]

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.

Hats off to Tony for giving it a shot, I say. I don't think it'll make a fuddle-duddle bit of difference to the fact that fires caused the collapses, but whatever...

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.

 

[ozeco41]

Hats off to Tony for giving it a shot, I say. I don't think it'll make a fuddle-duddle bit of difference to the fact that fires caused the collapses, but whatever...

I wouldn't discount the possibility of it getting published.

There are both advantages and disadvantages in that. One advantage I see is that it could stop debunkers putting forward "get it peer reviewed" as if peer review was anything more than a basic "it is good enough to put into professional discussion" standard.

We tend to be dominated by some mystique view about "peer review". It is not the ultimate test of "are the claims true?" The ultimate test is "are the claims true?"

So I would welcome it being published for two reasons:
1) We could then see if the claims are true and attack those that are untrue or not validly supported; AND
2) We would need to review how high a pedestal we put the "peer review" process on.

So it would certainly force us to get a bit more rigour into our arguments.

Let's see what happens.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I wouldn't discount the possibility of it getting published.

There are both advantages and disadvantages in that. One advantage I see is that it could stop debunkers putting forward "get it peer reviewed" as if peer review was anything more than a basic "it is good enough to put into professional discussion" standard.

We tend to be dominated by some mystique view about "peer review". It is not the ultimate test of "are the claims true?" The ultimate test is "are the claims true?"

So I would welcome it being published for two reasons:
1) We could then see if the claims are true and attack those that are untrue or not validly supported; AND
2) We would need to review how high a pedestal we put the "peer review" process on.

So it would certainly force us to get a bit more rigour into our arguments.

Let's see what happens.

I see plenty of rigor, rigor mortis.

 

[Oystein]

... One advantage I see is that it could stop debunkers putting forward "get it peer reviewed" as if peer review was anything more than a basic "it is good enough to put into professional discussion" standard. ...

Well, peer review is not the Holy Grail that magically turns questionable claims into truths.

Still, it is a non-zero threshold, and the fact practically no truther has managed to clear that hurdle in earnest IS quite telling, in my opinion. That's why they have to resort to

• Aiming for the non-peer-reviewed "letters" section of respectable journals
• Go to ill-reputed and obscure journals and publishers with dubious peer-review process
• Create their own "scientific" online "journals" that interprete "peer"-review quite literally: Peers being defined as "partners and friends" who are actually not more than morons who share some ideological bias and are assured to sign off any twoofy conclusion as long as it vaguely appears to reinforce that bias.

BEING able to pass serious, anonymous peer-review does NOT mean your science is good and relevant. NOT being able to pass serious, anonymous peer-review however IS a bad sign.

 

[Christopher7]

Thermal expansion math

The floor beams in the NE region of floor 13 did not exceed 600^oC.
See: NCSTAR 1-9 Table 10-1
Ambient temperature is 22^oC (72^oF).
So the maximum possible increase in temperature would be 578^oC.

The floor beam closest to column 79 was 53 feet 4 inches (640 inches).
Using the formula on pg 343-344 of NCSTAR 1-9
0.000014 x 578 x 640 = 5.18 in.

The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.
NCSTAR 1-9 pg 527

Using NIST's own data, the girder did not walk-off the seat.

 

[Animal]

Still waiting for that one shred of evidence from a troofer.......and waiting...........and waiting..........and waiting..............

 

[Newtons Bit]

Thermal expansion math

The floor beams in the NE region of floor 13 did not exceed 600^oC.
See: NCSTAR 1-9 Table 10-1
Ambient temperature is 22^oC (72^oF).
So the maximum possible increase in temperature would be 578^oC.

The floor beam closest to column 79 was 53 feet 4 inches (640 inches).
Using the formula on pg 343-344 of NCSTAR 1-9
0.000014 x 578 x 640 = 5.18 in.

The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.
NCSTAR 1-9 pg 527

Using NIST's own data, the girder did not walk-off the seat.

The beams attached to the girder didn't expand the same amount. This causes the girder to rotate.

 

[Animal]

The beams attached to the girder didn't expand the same amount. This causes the girder to rotate.

Add to that,

1) the floor beams buckling adding a torsional load to the girder.
2) the girder buckling
3) the column be pushed to the east due to thermal expansion of other girders.
4) the girder sagging

Only in trooferland does one girder move without the rest of the 47 story building also deforming.

 

[tsig]

Add to that,

1) the floor beams buckling adding a torsional load to the girder.
2) the girder buckling
3) the column be pushed to the east due to thermal expansion of other girders.
4) the girder sagging

Only in trooferland does one girder move without the rest of the 47 story building also deforming.

You mean that building that was bulging, leaning, cracking and groaning?

Nah, must've been just like the as-built drawing says it was.

 

[Christopher7]

The beams attached to the girder didn't expand the same amount. This causes the girder to rotate.

You know that the final theory is that the beams expanded and pushed the girder off its seat.

NIST lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners. That is fraud.

As I just pointed out, their own data shows that the beams did not expand the 5.5 inches they say was necessary to push the girder off its seat.

Why do you continue to ignore these facts?

 

[Christopher7]

Add to that,

1) the floor beams buckling adding a torsional load to the girder.
2) the girder buckling
3) the column be pushed to the east due to thermal expansion of other girders.
4) the girder sagging

Only in trooferland does one girder move without the rest of the 47 story building also deforming.

None of that is part of the final NIST hypothesis. It was just the beams expanding.


NCSTAR 1A pg 22 [pdf pg 64]
Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.

 

[beachnut]

You know that the final theory is that the beams expanded and pushed the girder off its seat.

NIST lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners. That is fraud.

As I just pointed out, their own data shows that the beams did not expand the 5.5 inches they say was necessary to push the girder off its seat.

Why do you continue to ignore these facts?

Publish your paper, in an engineering journal.

The best part of any probable collapse sequence... Remember, the probable part. Fire did it. What was your probable collapse sequence? Better work on your claims. When will your work be complete and published?

Simple conclusion based on facts. Fire destroyed WTC 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. There is no conspiracy, except the fires resulted from the actions of 10 terrorists. You have failed for over 10 years to prove fire did not destroy WTC 7, as you fail big time by having the wrong conclusion, if other than fire did it.

Publish your claims; see what engineers have to say. What is your conclusion if not fire? Wasting time on NIST probable collapse sequence will not help you support your claims on 911.

 

[alienentity]

I wouldn't discount the possibility of it getting published.

There are both advantages and disadvantages in that. One advantage I see is that it could stop debunkers putting forward "get it peer reviewed" as if peer review was anything more than a basic "it is good enough to put into professional discussion" standard.

We tend to be dominated by some mystique view about "peer review". It is not the ultimate test of "are the claims true?" The ultimate test is "are the claims true?"

So I would welcome it being published for two reasons:
1) We could then see if the claims are true and attack those that are untrue or not validly supported; AND
2) We would need to review how high a pedestal we put the "peer review" process on.

So it would certainly force us to get a bit more rigour into our arguments.

Let's see what happens.

Yup. The peer review process is just one albeit important step towards getting a challenge to NIST's basic conclusions out there in the engineering community. Much further discussion would need to follow the publication of such a paper, but we haven't even reached that point in 2012!

 

[Animal]

I'm not going around in circles with you. This engineer clearly made his determination on something. It couldn't have been historic prescience, as it never happened before and there was no reason to think it would happen this time. What led him to make that determination? You'd think at the very least the public could know who he is, so he can be recognized for saving lives?

Publish your paper, in an engineering journal.
U
The best part of any probable collapse sequence... Remember, the probable part. Fire did it. What was your probable collapse sequence? Better work on your claims. When will your work be complete and published?

Simple conclusion based on facts. Fire destroyed WTC 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. There is no conspiracy, except the fires resulted from the actions of 10 terrorists. You have failed for over 10 years to prove fire did not destroy WTC 7, as you fail big time by having the wrong conclusion, if other than fire did it.

Publish your claims; see what engineers have to say. What is your conclusion if not fire? Wasting time on NIST probable collapse sequence will not help you support your claims on 911.

C7 love s to refer to a summary report instead of the detailed report because it is easier for him to fit it with his religious beliefs

 

[ozeco41]

Yup. The peer review process is just one albeit important step towards getting a challenge to NIST's basic conclusions out there in the engineering community. Much further discussion would need to follow the publication of such a paper, but we haven't even reached that point in 2012!

Exactly! I know just where "peer review" fits in the picture. I'm not decrying it in any way.

But I am cautioning that debunkers who may not be confident in rebutting the flawed arguments put "peer review" forward as if it is the ultimate rebuttal. It isn't, it is only the entry to the academic and professional processes of published debate. Sort of a watered down equivalent to the legal process of establishing "prima facie" OR that there is a "case to answer".

And I have no doubt that if Tony's paper gets published after passing peer review it will be lauded by trutherdom as proof that he is right. Truthers are never loathe to making mendacious claims.

So three possible sort of advantages if it is published:
1) the main one. The profession, if it can be bothered, will slice up the level of claim supporting argument which Tony displays. Unless he has reasoning skills his posts here don't reveal.
2) We get the chance to rebut claims where the goal posts have been fixed and will be hard to shift; AND
3) A minor benefit - we get to play games with truthers who make unwarranted claims bout what "peer review" really means.

 

[Newtons Bit]

None of that is part of the final NIST hypothesis. It was just the beams expanding.


NCSTAR 1A pg 22 [pdf pg 64]
Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.

If only sophistry negated science...

 

[erwinl]

Thermal expansion math

The floor beams in the NE region of floor 13 did not exceed 600^oC.
See: NCSTAR 1-9 Table 10-1
Ambient temperature is 22^oC (72^oF).
So the maximum possible increase in temperature would be 578^oC.

The floor beam closest to column 79 was 53 feet 4 inches (640 inches).
Using the formula on pg 343-344 of NCSTAR 1-9
0.000014 x 578 x 640 = 5.18 in.

The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.
NCSTAR 1-9 pg 527

Using NIST's own data, the girder did not walk-off the seat.

A question.
Would this girder stay fixed in place on it's other side? This could be the outside wall or the next floorbeam which didn't heat enough to expand.
Either way, this would be the 'fulcrum' where that part of the girder 'pivots' around. Fulcrum and pivot not being totally correct because the other part of the girder wouldn't pivot the other way.

 

[Christopher7]

A question.
Would this girder stay fixed in place on it's other side? This could be the outside wall or the next floorbeam which didn't heat enough to expand.
Either way, this would be the 'fulcrum' where that part of the girder 'pivots' around. Fulcrum and pivot not being totally correct because the other part of the girder wouldn't pivot the other way.

Asking me to speculate is a diversion from the fact that NIST's own data proves that the beams did not push the girder off its seat to trigger the collapse and therefore their hypothesis does not explain the collapse of WTC 7.

The other non-responses prove conclusively that when faced with a fact they cannot refute, the denoir choir tries to change the subject or just insults the messenger.

 

[Christopher7]

If only sophistry negated science...

But it can't so your attempt to double talk around the fact that the NIST report is a fraud and a farce has failed.

Using NIST's own data, the girder did not walk-off the seat.