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

[thedopefishlives]

They would not list E,SE for floor 13 if E covered the whole east end.

This is one of the most retarded things I have ever heard you say, and that's saying something. Listing both E and SE could cover "the whole east end plus the eastern end of the southern face". Of course, you wouldn't think of it this way, because you deliberately distort the plain meaning of text all the time to suit your fantasies.

 

[Gamolon]

They would not list E,SE for floor 13 if E covered the whole east end.

What part of "That is in conflict with Table 10-1." don't you understand?

What part of "you can't stretch a steel beam" don't you understand?

Tell you what. Post the diagram of the time frame for floor 8 in which any of the beams in the following section with the red outline are above 600 degrees.

 

[Animal]

This is one of the most retarded things I have ever heard you say, and that's saying something. Listing both E and SE could cover "the whole east end plus the eastern end of the southern face". Of course, you wouldn't think of it this way, because you deliberately distort the plain meaning of text all the time to suit your fantasies.

He sees what he wants to see to fit his religion.
He seizes on the generalizations and ignores the detailed.

And to top it off, he thinks a steel beam cannot be stretched.

 

[Gamolon]

What part of "you can't stretch a steel beam" don't you understand?

You mean to tell me you don't think the "cooler" beams could have "held" that end of the girder while the beam closest to column 79 would have expanded more pivoting the entire beam?

Maybe someone can explain what I am missing. What would happen to the girder if the beams to the north didn't expand as much as the beam closest to column 79? Would the connections shear or would the whole beam "pivot"?

 

[Christopher7]

NIST ran a complex 3d analysis. Doing a simple 1D back-of-the-envelope calculation doesn't disprove their analysis.

Please. Math is absolute. Using NIST's formula the expansion at 578^oC is 5.18".

 

[Gamolon]

Seems to me the NE section, according to the beam temperature diagrams for floor 8...

...encompass the area in red shown here:

I see hints of green in all the other beams.

Looks like NE means the section above Chris.

 

[Gamolon]

Please. Math is absolute. Using NIST's formula the expansion at 578^oC is 5.18".

You need the correct numbers though. 578 is not correct.

 

[Animal]

Please. Math is absolute. Using NIST's formula the expansion at 578^oC is 5.18".

Garbage in, garbage out. LMAO

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is a new low, even for Chris. Arguing over whether a general statement about the E or NE part of the structure includes a specific beam when the results for that specific beam are already available in the report? Why is anyone taking him so seriously?

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

What part of "you can't stretch a steel beam" don't you understand?

You mean to tell me you don't think the "cooler" beams could have "held" that end of the girder while the beam closest to column 79 would have expanded more pivoting the entire beam?

Contractors joke about having a 2x4 stretcher in their other truck. Dude, you cannot stretch a steel beam. The girder could only be pushed as far as the floor beam closest to column 79 expanded.

Maybe someone can explain what I am missing.

A clue.

NIST said nothing about pivoting. They said:
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.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Contractors joke about having a 2x4 stretcher in their other truck. Dude, you cannot stretch a steel beam. The girder could only be pushed as far as the floor beam closest to column 79 expanded.

So you're equivocating steel beams and wooden 2x4's, do I have that right? Or do you have the slightest clue about how very different a material steel is than wood? You can, in fact, stretch a steel beam if it is heated and has lost its tensile strength. How do you think sagging even works? It is STRETCHING the material as it yields.

 

[Christopher7]

Arguing over whether a general statement about the E or NE part of the structure includes a specific beam when the results for that specific beam are already available in the report?

The results are in Table 10-1. The designations NE, E and SE are clear as to their meaning to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size.

 

[Gamolon]

Contractors joke about having a 2x4 stretcher in their other truck. Dude, you cannot stretch a steel beam. The girder could only be pushed as far as the floor beam closest to column 79 expanded.

A clue.

NIST said nothing about pivoting. They said:
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.

Why don't you explain your way out of the beam temperature color debacle you've created for yourself and leave the technical explanations to those who are more educated/informed.

The fact that you are arguing E, SE, S, designations when anyone with half a brain can see what exactly is meant, speaks volumes.

We can all clearly see you're grasping at straws to support your view.

Furthermore, your 5.18" expansion garbage is just that. Garbage. You are taking a temperature based on your (incorrect) interpretation of a directional description within diagram. One that has been clearly shown to be incorrect.

Back to the drawing board for you.

 

[Gamolon]

The results are in Table 10-1. The designations NE, E and SE are clear as to their meaning to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size.

You have been proven to be quite wrong.

 

[Animal]

Contractors joke about having a 2x4 stretcher in their other truck. Dude, you cannot stretch a steel beam. The girder could only be pushed as far as the floor beam closest to column 79 expanded.

If you seriously believe that steel cannot be stretched......i.e put in tension, then you have no business posting anything about anything.

A clue.

You need to find or buy yourself one as quickly as possible.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The results are in Table 10-1. The designations NE, E and SE are clear as to their meaning to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size.

Chris, look at the *********** picture.

Jeez.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

So you're equivocating steel beams and wooden 2x4's, do I have that right?

No. That was a joke.

You can, in fact, stretch a steel beam if it is heated and has lost its tensile strength. How do you think sagging even works? It is STRETCHING the material as it yields.

You are forgetting that the NIST hypothesis is thermal expansion pushed the girder off its seat. They did not say anything about a beam being stretched.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dude, you cannot stretch a steel beam.

The Young's modulus of steel is approximately 200GPa. As this is a finite number, you are wrong.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, look at the *********** picture.

Do you believe Table 10-1 or the color correctness of the graphic?

 

[Animal]

Do you believe Table 10-1 or the color correctness of the graphic?

Let's see........choose between a detailed graphic or a generalized tabled?

Engineers go for details........troofers go for the generalized table and try to argue "color correctness"

Watching a troofer dig himself a deeper hole........priceless entertainment