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

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

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.








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.

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

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






Which he hasn't.










They can make typos.

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





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

The corrected typos make their problem worse. They couldn't generate enough expansion of the beams to push the girder off the seat with the mistaken 5.5", and now have a harder time needing 6.25" of translation. (it is actually 6.29" with a 12" wide seat and 0.580" thick girder web").

Bottom line is the NIST girder walk-off scenario is impossible.

They are also now mistaken about the 5.5" being for the axial distance and will need another errata for that.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The corrected typos make their problem worse. They couldn't generate enough expansion of the beams to push the girder off the seat with the mistaken 5.5", and now have a harder time needing 6.25" of translation. (it is actually 6.29" with a 12" wide seat and 0.580" thick girder web").

A question for non-Tony Szambotis on the forum: I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that the above statement is very obviously wrong. As far as I can tell, NIST mixed up their X and Y co-ordinates, and having set them straight they now have a lateral walk-off that is more than half the seat width, whereas before correcting the error the lateral walk-off appeared to be no more than half the width. The corrected figures therefore are more consistent, rather than less, with the beam having walked off its seat. Can a structural engineer confirm that I understand that correctly?

Dave

 

[pgimeno]

Bottom line is the NIST girder walk-off scenario is impossible.

No. Bottom line is that the analysis is being done by people with an agenda and that it can't be relied.

Bottom line is that instead of providing a complete alternative explanation better than the exising one that fits all of the observables, such people just attack the organization who elaborated a complete probable collapse sequence claiming it to be impossible, trying to discredit it to push their agendas.

 

[Animal]

No. Bottom line is that the analysis is being done by people with an agenda and that it can't be relied.

No ****. Every claim made has been shown to be a ill informed interpretation of the data, from fire spread (actually upper air gas temperature) location in building (NE, E etc.) overall temperature of beams, purpose of individual tests, referencing the summary instead of the full report,fuel loads, etc, etc, etc.

Edited by LashL: 

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

Bottom line is that instead of providing a complete alternative explanation better than the exising one that fits all of the observables, such people just attack the organization who elaborated a complete probable collapse sequence claiming it to be impossible, trying to discredit it to push their agendas.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A question for non-Tony Szambotis on the forum: I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that the above statement is very obviously wrong. As far as I can tell, NIST mixed up their X and Y co-ordinates, and having set them straight they now have a lateral walk-off that is more than half the seat width, whereas before correcting the error the lateral walk-off appeared to be no more than half the width. The corrected figures therefore are more consistent, rather than less, with the beam having walked off its seat. Can a structural engineer confirm that I understand that correctly?

Dave

Since it doesn't look like anyone is rushing to your aid here I feel it is fair to say something.

It isn't hard to understand that if you don't have a way to push it 5.5" you sure aren't going to be able to push it 6.25".

The release of the actual drawings has proven the NIST girder walk-off scenario to clearly be impossible.

It is time to man-up and accept the reality that there are serious problems with the present official story on the collapse of WTC 7. I have no axe to grind and would not say this if it weren't true. I actually want the NIST I used to have a lot of respect for to get the politicians off their backs and regain their good reputation.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I have no axe to grind and would not say this if it weren't true.

 

[Myriad]

No, it's true. After six solid years of continuous grinding, how much axe would you expect to be left?

 

[LSSBB]

Since it doesn't look like anyone is rushing to your aid here I feel it is fair to say something.

It isn't hard to understand that if you don't have a way to push it 5.5" you sure aren't going to be able to push it 6.25".

The release of the actual drawings has proven the NIST girder walk-off scenario to clearly be impossible.

It is time to man-up and accept the reality that there are serious problems with the present official story on the collapse of WTC 7. I have no axe to grind and would not say this if it weren't true. I actually want the NIST I used to have a lot of respect for to get the politicians off their backs and regain their good reputation.

You

Still

Haven't

Proven

Your

Assumptions.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You

Still

Haven't

Proven

Your

Assumptions.

You really sound like a broken record with your mantra of

You still haven't proven your assumptions. You still haven't proven your assumptions. You still haven't proven your assumptions.

and when this is all you continue to say, in spite of what has been shown, it is clear that you cannot be considered an objective person.

 

[ozeco41]

A question for non-Tony Szambotis on the forum: I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that the above statement is very obviously wrong. As far as I can tell, NIST mixed up their X and Y co-ordinates, and having set them straight they now have a lateral walk-off that is more than half the seat width, whereas before correcting the error the lateral walk-off appeared to be no more than half the width. The corrected figures therefore are more consistent, rather than less, with the beam having walked off its seat. Can a structural engineer confirm that I understand that correctly?

Dave

Put simply - more explanation and/or links if you need them:

Yes the "corrected figures...are more consistent, rather than less, with...[walk off]" BUT the whole discussion is faulty. It is taking pace within a false context which suits Tony Sz and the usual trolling tactics of C7 both demonstrating by their post content their intention to keep discussion going round in circles.

So there are fatal errors in Tony's claim which go to technical aspects and discussion process/logic.

1) most of the discussion in this thread is focussed in the technical details and making two errors viz
a) Not considering all the technical factors that impact on the subject girder; AND
b) Assuming that the girder end conditions of attachment to Col 79 and Col44 are unchanged. That could be true - it is a remote probability. BUT the aspect which is fatal to his claim is that Tony has not demonstrated that his assumption is valid. And it ain't valid until he shows why.
2) Tony is the one making the claim that the "NIST explanation is impossible". He has not made out that claim for two main reasons viz:
a) Technical reasons including that he has not "proven" (supported by evidence and reasoned argument) the assumption about unchanged girder end conditions; AND he has not addressed all the factors. PLUS
b) Debate procedural failures including:
i) Multiple attempts to "reverse burden of proof"; AND
ii) The related issue of attempting to set up a "false dichotomy" in the form of "If you cannot prove me wrong I must be right."

Most of the discussion has focussed on the technical detail which probably suits Tony's tactics of keeping discussion circling. However several members have shown errors at the technical detail level and pointing out some factors which Tony has missed - so his claim probably fails at the "details level".

In addition Tony has evaded discussing the procedural and logic issues either by ignoring them or by snide commentary or insults. Either of those "non-responses" probably good indications that he has no answer to them.

So the status of Tony's claim is that it is not "made out" and it is his burden of proof to support his claim - not our responsibility to prove him wrong.

And he has arguably been shown to be wrong at both the detail level and at the level of overall logic because he has not rebutted the reasoned demonstration of failings at either level. And failures at either level are fatal to his claim. So "wrong at least twice"

 

[ozeco41]

You

Still

Haven't

Proven

Your

Assumptions.

Correct.

Nor has he addressed his attempted "reversals of burden of proof";

Nor the attempted construction of the false dichotomy "If you cannot prove me wrong I am right";

And he is not doing too well at identifying all the factors;

And he is getting a rough time with the detailed discussions which is where he wants to keep the debate.

So the claim fails and the tactics seem to be "ill chosen" to be diplomatic.

PLUS if he ever gets back to the "Prove CD" agenda he will face the problem that whether NIST was right or wrong on it's explanation it is totally irrelevant to the "Prove CD argument".

(And for those members interested in the more subtle aspects of the logic - the fact that at this stage Tony's claim fails has very little if anything to do with whether NIST was right or wrong on the walk-off explanation. )

 

[Dave Rogers]

It isn't hard to understand that if you don't have a way to push it 5.5" you sure aren't going to be able to push it 6.25".

That reply misses the point by about 1.75".

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That reply misses the point by about 1.75".

Dave

Okay Dave, explain how the girder could even be pushed 5.5" to the west by the beams framing into it from the east.

 

[twinstead]

I'm still wondering why a thread that is irrelevant to whether fire and damage brought the buildings down or it was caused by CD is still in the 9-11 conspiracy subforum

 

[Dave Rogers]

Okay Dave, explain how the girder could even be pushed 5.5" to the west by the beams framing into it from the east.

Not being a structural engineer, I can only refer you to the NIST report, which finds that the girder was pushed 6.25" to the west.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not being a structural engineer, I can only refer you to the NIST report, which finds that the girder was pushed 6.25" to the west.

Dave

Mr. Szamboti's is performing back-of-the-envelope calculations, finding out where most of the push comes from, then claims that since his simple linear 1D analysis doesn't show ALL of the push that NIST therefor tricked the non-linear 3D analysis into producing more push than what really happened.

Of course, the reason why is he wrong is obvious to anyone who isn't suffering from hideous confirmation bias. And it's not even the first time that he's done this.

 

[LSSBB]

You really sound like a broken record with your mantra of

You still haven't proven your assumptions. You still haven't proven your assumptions. You still haven't proven your assumptions.

and when this is all you continue to say, in spite of what has been shown, it is clear that you cannot be considered an objective person.

Clear I can't be objective? Dude, you don't know me.

Why don't you get busy proving that anything BUT fire induced collapse brought down an uninhabited building that was probably going to be torn down anyway.

 

[tsig]

No, it's true. After six solid years of continuous grinding, how much axe would you expect to be left?

Used up three heads and six handles, still grinding.

 

[ozeco41]

...Of course, the reason why is he wrong is obvious to anyone who isn't suffering from hideous confirmation bias. And it's not even the first time that he's done this.

So very true - it seems that it has become a habit. He made the same error back in 2007 as reported Nov 13 on the Richard Dawkins forum:

...The paper referenced as "Engineering Reality" by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions [are wrong]

He repeated the same error with "Missing Jolt" and at least one other paper whose title eludes me at present.

And it is the same error appearing yet again in this thread.

 

[tfk]

A question for non-Tony Szambotis on the forum: I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems to me that the above statement is very obviously wrong. As far as I can tell, NIST mixed up their X and Y co-ordinates, and having set them straight they now have a lateral walk-off that is more than half the seat width, whereas before correcting the error the lateral walk-off appeared to be no more than half the width. The corrected figures therefore are more consistent, rather than less, with the beam having walked off its seat. Can a structural engineer confirm that I understand that correctly?

Dave

I think it's ambiguous from this statement, since one could substitute in either of the following clarifications & have it make sense:

The 5.5 in. dimension was the length of the girder bearing on the seat connection that had to slide off the seat axially to the girder. The 6.25 in. dimension accounted for the length from the flange tip to the far side of the web, so that the web was no longer supported on the bearing plate. This change corrects a typographical error which showed a lateral displacement of 5.5 in. instead of the correct value of 6.25 in. REQUIRED FOR WALK-OFF, which was used in the analyses.

or:

The 5.5 in. dimension was the length of the girder bearing on the seat connection that had to slide off the seat axially to the girder. The 6.25 in. dimension accounted for the length from the flange tip to the far side of the web, so that the web was no longer supported on the bearing plate. This change corrects a typographical error which showed a lateral displacement of 5.5 in. instead of the correct value of 6.25 in. CALCULATED BY FEA THERMAL ANALYSIS, which was used in the analyses.