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

[pgimeno]

- the NIST model is incorrect about the width of the girder bearing seat at column 79.

The drawings don't suggest that the model is incorrect; they suggest that the part of the text that mentions the width used in the model is incorrect. See post #2711.

That may be true for the seat width,

I take that as a retraction of your statement then. Please let Christopher7 know. He keeps spreading the lie that NIST deliberately lied about the width of the seat.

 

[Animal]

Even if the walk-off was possible, and had not been proven impossible, one point of failure does not a building wide collapse make. NWIH.

Only in troofer fantasyland.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I take that as a retraction of your statement then. Please let Christopher7 know. He keeps spreading the lie that NIST deliberately lied about the width of the seat.

How could they not know a basic measurement that they use to "build" an explanation?

 

[thedopefishlives]

How could they not know a basic measurement that they use to "build" an explanation?

Who, besides you, is saying they didn't?

 

[tfk]

Instead of addressing the question, y'all just made a bunch of stupid insulting remarks. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong when presented with a fact that shows I'm wrong but you guys have a problem accepting that graciously.

The sweet, dripping, intoxicating irony...

I checked with a couple qualified sources and gerrycan's new spreadsheet is correct. A structural engineer told me several years ago that you can't use a simple formula to determine expansion the way NIST did. The amount of expansion has several factors and must be calculated one degree at a time as gerrycan did.

Whether your structural engineer said this (unlikely, as engineers have been doing exactly this calculation, in exactly this way for about 200 years) or you have interpreted what he said with your usual level of comprehension (read "abysmal"), your statement is wrong.

If it were of the slightest concern, one could replace a constant coefficient of expansion with an empirical function.

But it ain't of the slightest concern.

Except to clueless idiots who publish expansion amounts to 3, 4 or more significant figures.

Don't ask me to explain it, I don't know

One for the "no ****, Sherlock" file.

And - AGAIN - this concept is about as subtle, as difficult, as "3x + 5x = 8x".
And you STILL can't understand it.

Any clue yet why your baseless assertions on matters far more subtle carry zero weight?

- and evidently, neither does anyone here

guess again.

or someone would have confirmed gerrycan's spreadsheet or produced one of their own to show he is wrong.

Proving that you haven't a clue where the actual flaws in (not, apparently, gerrycan's, but) Szamboti's spreadsheet.

All you guys know how to do is insult people.

100% wrong.

"Insulting people" is just one of my skills. I've several others.

Well, at least 3, anyway...

NIST never does articulate how hot the beams and girder got. That is a curious omission. The test to get the shear studs to break "assumed" the beams and girder were heated to 600^oC and 500^oC respectfully.

Wrong.

The predicted response of the system is summarized in Table 8–2. The first failures observed were of the shear studs, which were produced by axial expansion of the floor beams, and which began to occur at fairly low beam temperature of 103 °C. Axial expansion of the girder then led to shear failure of the bolts at the connection to Column 79; and, at a girder temperature of 164 °C, all four erection bolts had failed, leaving that end of the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation. Continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally at Column 79, as shown in Figure 8–26, in which failed shear studs and bolts were evident. When the beam temperatures had reached 300 °C, all but three shear studs in the model had failed due to axial expansion of the beams

NCSTAR 1-9 v2, pg 352 (pdf pg. 396)

Time for some more "admitting you were wrong", Chris.

I promise that we'll take it "gracefully". **

They double talk around the actual temperature because they know their walk-off hypothesis does not work.

Pompous, arrogant, uninformed ankle-biter comment noted.

They admit that the beams would lose stiffness at 600^oC. In other words, they would start to sag. We know, and NIST knows, the beams would sag at 600^oC, the question is; how much?

The answer is: "Don't matter, because the shear studs failed 300 degrees ago…!"

Tony did the math.

I see your problem here...

If you can do better then do it.

You don't get it. The math has been done by experts. Guys who actually know what they are talking about & do this for a living.

Unlike you.
Or gerrycan.
Or Tony.

If Tony is way off, show your own math rather than making a lot of stupid worthless comments. Otherwise, accept the data provided.

LMAO.

I already pointed out EXACTLY where Tony made his mistakes. (Note please: plural. "... mistakeS."

His only response was "Did not, did not. LA-LA-LA, can't hear you. Anyway NIST is a bunch of poo-poo heads."

His response was not one iota more competent, or more mature, than that.


tk

** Nah, I'm just ******* you. Not a chance in hell of being "gracious" about it...

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The sweet, dripping, intoxicating irony...



Whether your structural engineer said this (unlikely, as engineers have been doing exactly this calculation, in exactly this way for about 200 years) or you have interpreted what he said with your usual level of comprehension (read "abysmal"), your statement is wrong.

If it were of the slightest concern, one could replace a constant coefficient of expansion with an empirical function.

But it ain't of the slightest concern.

Except to clueless idiots who publish expansion amounts to 3, 4 or more significant figures.



One for the "no ****, Sherlock" file.

And - AGAIN - this concept is about as subtle, as difficult, as "3x + 5x = 8x".
And you STILL can't understand it.

Any clue yet why your baseless assertions on matters far more subtle carry zero weight?



guess again.



Proving that you haven't a clue where the actual flaws in (not, apparently, gerrycan's, but) Szamboti's spreadsheet.



100% wrong.

"Insulting people" is just one of my skills. I've several others.

Well, at least 3, anyway...



Wrong.



NCSTAR 1-9 v2, pg 352 (pdf pg. 396)

Time for some more "admitting you were wrong", Chris.

I promise that we'll take it "gracefully". **



Pompous, arrogant, uninformed ankle-biter comment noted.



The answer is: "Don't matter, because the shear studs failed 300 degrees ago…!"



I see your problem here...



You don't get it. The math has been done by experts. Guys who actually know what they are talking about & do this for a living.

Unlike you.
Or gerrycan.
Or Tony.



LMAO.

I already pointed out EXACTLY where Tony made his mistakes. (Note please: plural. "... mistakeS."

His only response was "Did not, did not. LA-LA-LA, can't hear you. Anyway NIST is a bunch of poo-poo heads."

His response was not one iota more competent, or more mature, than that.


tk

** Nah, I'm just ******* you. Not a chance in hell of being "gracious" about it...

How are you doing on that column 79 splice calculation you were so confident of?

That is until you were shown you were missing a couple of significant details of the splice.

 

[tfk]

How are you doing on that column 79 splice calculation you were so confident of?

That is until you were shown you were missing a couple of significant details of the splice.

Correction: until we were BOTH shown that I had misinterpreted a couple of significant details of the splice.

It was NOT you who pointed out that the supports I included were erection hardware.

Your only comment was that the bolts were too small.

I went into the drawing package, and the specific callout for the splices at floor 13, col 79 does not seem to be included on the set of drawings E-117, E-117A, E-118.

After an hour of searching around, I decided that it wasn't worth any more of my time. You see, I already have the analysis that I believe.

But you say that you've analyzed the splices. So you must have the details of them for the 13th floor of col 79.

Why don't you post the sketch that you used for your analysis. Please be certain to include the drawing numbers from which you got your dimensions.

tk

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Correction: until we were BOTH shown that I had misinterpreted a couple of significant details of the splice.

It was NOT you who pointed out that the supports I included were erection hardware.

Your only comment was that the bolts were too small.

I went into the drawing package, and the specific callout for the splices at floor 13, col 79 does not seem to be included on the set of drawings E-117, E-117A, E-118.

After an hour of searching around, I decided that it wasn't worth any more of my time. You see, I already have the analysis that I believe.

But you say that you've analyzed the splices. So you must have the details of them for the 13th floor of col 79.

Why don't you post the sketch that you used for your analysis. Please be certain to include the drawing numbers from which you got your dimensions.

tk

BasqueArch is the one who told you that you did not have the right drawing and were using erection hardware that was removed after lifting the column section into place and was not actually part of the splice. So your analysis using that hardware is worthless. What you did was analagous to analyzing the wooden crate an item is shipped in for loads it was never intended to take.

After seeing your analysis, and not knowing the exact details of the splice myself, I just said I thought your moment of inertia value was way too low as splices are generally designed to provide continuity of the bending resistance of the column and cannot be a weak point for buckling. Take a look at section 5.6 here http://people.fsv.cvut.cz/~wald/CESTRUCO/Texts_of_lessons/05-GB_Simple-Connections.pdf.

I also said your claim that the column could be deflected 4.5 inches at floor 13 by the girder at floor 14 was nonsense, as the girder at floor 14 would buckle before being able to generate enough force to deflect the column the amount you claim.

The splice in question would be the one at floor 11, since the one above the floor slab at floor 13 would be above the girder you are trying to affect and if it deflect ed first, in the way you are trying to say the splices would, then nothing happens to the girder below under floor 13.

 

[tfk]

BasqueArch is the one who told you

...

then nothing happens to the girder below under floor 13.

Tony,

Thank you very much for this posting.

I'm going out tonite. Don't have time to answer right now.

But the answer WILL be forthcoming shortly.
___

Meanwhile, it's been days since I first asked you to answer this one.

And then asked again.

Care to provide the courtesy of a reply?

tom

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Just thought I would let people here know that due to a FOIA request to NIST in March, based on a review of the recently released WTC 7 drawings, NIST now admits that 5.5 inches of lateral translation due to beam expansion would not cause the girder between columns 44 and 79 to walk-off its bearing seats, because NIST now acknowledges that the bearing seat was 12 inches long. See the NIST errata just put out on this here http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Just thought I would let people here know that due to a FOIA request to NIST in March, based on a review of the recently released WTC 7 drawings, NIST now admits that 5.5 inches of lateral translation due to beam expansion would not cause the girder between columns 44 and 79 to walk-off its bearing seats, because NIST now acknowledges that the bearing seat was 12 inches long. See the NIST errata just put out on this here http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225.

Wow, you totally misread that. NIST's errata explicitly states that this was a typographical error. What that means is, someone made a mistake typing up the summary, NOT in the actual calculations. You are flat-out lying about what NIST has admitted, and you should retract your statement.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow, you totally misread that. NIST's errata explicitly states that this was a typographical error. What that means is, someone made a mistake typing up the summary, NOT in the actual calculations. You are flat-out lying about what NIST has admitted, and you should retract your statement.

Actually, NIST will probably be issuing another errata as the axial distance the girder was on the bearing seat was 6.25 inches not 5.5 inches. This can be verified on drawings 9114 and 1091. Drawing 9114 shows a distance from the end of the girder to the bolt holes of 4.25 inches and the edge distance of the holes on the bearing seat can be seen on drawing 1091 to be 2 inches for a total of 6.25 inches.

So it is hard to know where the fictitious 5.5 inches ever came from. My instinct is it was half of the original typographical error of 11 inches for the bearing seat.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Actually, NIST will probably be issuing another errata as the axial distance the girder was on the bearing seat was 6.25 inches not 5.5 inches. This can be verified on drawings 9114 and 1091. 9114 shows a distance from the end of the girder to the bolt holes of 4.25 inches and the edge distance of the holes on the bearing seat can be seen on drawing 1091 to be 2 inches.

So it is hard to know where the fictitious 5.5 inches ever came from. My instinct is it was half of the original typographical error of 11 inches for the bearing seat. Oh wait, that 11 vs. 12 inch issue wasn't mentioned to be a typographical error was it?

As a matter of fact, it was. Do you even read your own links?

ETA: I see you ninja-edited your post to remove the incorrect statement. I'm glad you have at least that much honesty.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As a matter of fact, it was. Do you even read your own links?

ETA: I see you ninja-edited your post to remove the incorrect statement. I'm glad you have at least that much honesty.

What do you think of the new NIST error with the 5.5 inch dimension? Is that a typographical error also?

 

[thedopefishlives]

It is interesting to see how quickly you respond. If I didn't know better I would think you were sitting there waiting for things like this to reply to.

Does damage control mean anything to you?

It's Sunday night, I have nothing better to do. I work a 40-hour week.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It's Sunday night, I have nothing better to do. I work a 40-hour week.

So how about the new NIST error with the 5.5 inch dimension? I know I edited it in while you were responding so I am not accusing you of avoiding it.

 

[thedopefishlives]

So how about the new NIST error with the 5.5 inch dimension? I know I edited it in while you were responding so I am not accusing you of avoiding it.

Honestly, I'm not qualified to speak to whether that is or is not an error. I'll leave that to experts who have more education than just first-semester university physics.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Honestly, I'm not qualified to speak to whether that is or is not an error. I'll leave that to experts who have more education than just first-semester university physics.

Oh, it is an error alright. 6.25 inches of axial length of the girder was on the bearing seat. There is no 5.5 inch dimension involved in either the axial or lateral walk-off distances. Look at the two drawings I mentioned. You don't need to be an expert to understand it.

 

[Animal]

Wow, you totally misread that. NIST's errata explicitly states that this was a typographical error. What that means is, someone made a mistake typing up the summary, NOT in the actual calculations. You are flat-out lying about what NIST has admitted, and you should retract your statement.

As I posted weeks ago.....the biggest problem with the NIST reports is the weak editing. With many authors, it is not a surprise that things slipped through like that.

And it still doesn't change the outcome.

 

[pgimeno]

See the NIST errata just put out on this here http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225.

Great confirmation of my explanation. From the errata cited above:

The travel distance for walk off was 6.25 5.5 in. along the axis of the beam and 5.5 6.25 in. lateral to the beam.
​

And:

The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 12 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally
at least 5.5 6.25 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.
​

So the explanation I conjectured in post #2711 was correct: NIST just made a typo in the text but used the right values in the simulation.

I'm not even clear that it's a mistake in the simulation at all. Figures 11-15 (d) and 12-24 (Section B-B) both show a seat wider than the girder's 11.5" flange, while 11" would appear shorter in the figures. Therefore, it may be something as simple as an innocent mistake in the text, where someone wrote 11 instead of 12 and halved it, while the simulation was correct.

But Christopher7 is so full of "NIST lied" that he can't really see the forest.

Christopher7 still hasn't publicly retracted in this thread his claim that NIST deliberately lied about the width of the seat, when they actually just made a typo.

Furthermore, they lied about the width of the seat.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. 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."

5) they lied about the width of the seat.

NIST lied about the width of the seat. And because of that lie they removed the girder and the beams supported by it when it had expanded 5.5 inches - but it would not have fallen then.

[referring to his quote above] When faced with a fact that proves NIST lied and their theory doesn't explain the collapse, you refuse to acknowledge it.

NIST lied about the girder being 11 inches wide. This was not an innocent mistake. They had the correct measurement.

The drawings said 1 feet 0 inches and NIST said 11 inches. It's not a matter of mind reading, it's obvious that NIST lied.
[...]
That was the failure that started the collapse. Without it, there was no collapse. It could not have collapsed if the seat was 12 inches wide. That's why NIST lied about it. They did lie about it and there is no other reason for them to lie about it. You just can't accept that so you keep trying to find reasons not to believe it.

In reality, some of us accept the possibility that there are other explanations for a false statement before accusing anyone of deliberate misrepresentation. Like, say, making a typo.

It is obvious to an objective person that NIST could not have innocently mistaken the notation on the drawings - under Feet/in./16th is 1/0/0 [see post #8]
How anyone feels about whether it was a lie or not does not change the result so that's just a diversion.

Actually, what is now obvious to an objective person that Christopher7 is not objective.

No, the 11" was what NIST said in the final report. The 1' 0" was what was on the drawing that NIST got its information from.

That is not an innocent mistake IMnsHO.

Which he phrases as an accusation. At least he acknowledges it's his not so Honest Opinion.

4) The beams would start to sag between 600^oC and 700^oC and that would take up any thermal expansion so it is very unlikely that the beams could push the girder 6" and that's probably why NIST fraudulently said the seat was only 11".

Thermal expansion cannot push the girder more than ~5" before sagging starts pulling it back the other way, which is why NIST lied about the width of the seat and omitted the stiffeners. How can we be sure they are lying about the width of the seat? They also lied about the stiffeners. There is no way that could be an innocent mistake.

NIST said the seat was 11" when the drawings said it was 1' 0".
That is also fraud.

Rather than just glibly calling someone a liar, perhaps you could back up your accusation with some facts.

Proving the NIST report wrong and fraudulent is not a minute detail.

Which he hasn't.

NIST said the seat was 11" wide but the plans say it is 1' 0" wide.

They did this to get their walk-off theory to work. That is fraud.

NIST lied about the stiffeners and the width of the seat to make their theory work.

We have shown where NIST lied about the stiffeners and seat width.

I noticed that everyone here ignored the indisputable proof that NIST committed [at least] two frauds to make their walk-off work.

1) NIST said the seat was 11" wide but the plans clearly show it was 1' 0"

[...]

These are not "innocent" mistakes.

This is just another verbose diversion to ignore and bury the fact that no one here can do the calculations for expansion or sagging and the documented proof that NIST lied about the width of the seat and the stiffeners.

These are NOT assumptions, they are facts:

1) NIST lied about the width of the seat. The beams would have to expand 6.29", not 5.5", to put the web off the seat.

This is a derail to bury the fact that NIST lied about the width of the seat and the stiffeners to make their walk-off work.

This thread is about walk-off. Do you understand that NIST lied about the width of the seat and the stiffeners?

NIST lied about the width of the seat and the stiffeners to get their walk-off hypothesis to work.

Innocent mistake? Right

You think that the professionals at NIST don't know how to read drawings. They had three years to study them and innocently missed two things that made their hypothesis impossible.

They can make typos.

The next ones are after having noted to him my most plausible explanation, which makes it qualify as a lie.

NIST lied about the width of the girder seat.
That is fraud.

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

You forgetting that NIST lied about the width of the seat

When are you going to retract all of the above quoted statements regarding the width of the seat, C7?