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

[tsig]

I have done the calculation for someone else and it isn't enough. I had sent it in an e-mail and don't have time to find it. I will do the calculation again today and post it here tonight.

Bear in mind that the five beams will keep the girder from buckling in any significant way when it is up against the column faces due to thermal expansion. There will be some shortening but not much and the same thing goes for that due to sag.

The e-mail ate your homework?

 

[erwinl]

Yes it would. the weight is at the edge of the seat and at one end of it. I suspect TS has already calculated this as he wouldn't have passed up the opportunity to prove this wrong.

And if that girder then was only on one half (or thereabouts) of the seat, wouldn't the seat only bend on the point where the girder was? In effect creating something like a slide to one side?

In my layman eyes I could imagine the girder could then slide/topple off even if it still would be more than half on the seat.

 

[triforcharity]

You have no basis for saying this.

Yeah, I'll just laugh at you...

 

[funk de fino]

Dave lost by forfeit as he was either unable or unwilling to defend his position.

Here is a crybaby icon which is appropriate for many of you guys.

This from a poster who has been show to be a liar on this very forum?

Hows it coming with finding that video where Larry admitted demolishing WTC7?

Remember claimed you had read all the NIST report on the steel samples and then made a false claim about that too?

 

[Justin39640]

No, I did not make it up. You are making unwarranted assumptions.

You are appealing to unnamed, faceless "coworkers". Why should we listen to anonymous coworkers of an internet poster? Without their names, degrees, current and past employment... they don't count.

hehe

 

[Justin39640]

Yeah, I'll just laugh at you...

lol
We had this discussion with C7. The siamese were not an option. He wanted to charge the sprinklers using the fire hose valves on the 4th floor. He then forgot about the fact that FHVs are pressure reducing and have check-valves built in. Based on the schematic, if you damaged any of the 8 inch lines behind the siamese connectors' check valves, you would lose pressure and there was no way to isolate one from the other two.

 

[DGM]

You are appealing to unnamed, faceless "coworkers". Why should we listen to anonymous coworkers of an internet poster? Without their names, degrees, current and past employment... they don't count.

hehe

Isn't Tony's word enough?

Besides that. Why are the 99.9+% of the worlds SE's so clueless or afraid to assert their opinion upon the world? Is the NWO that powerful?

Seems kind of silly when you look at it this way.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You shouldn't knock the lack of precision here, as all one can honestly do is eliminate the impossible.

Like explosives that don't blow out windows, have seismic signatures or audibles sounds?

We already have eliminated the impossible. You're just being either ignorant or dishonest.

And after 11 years, it's more than just a little childish.

 

[tfk]

My calculations …

First problem right there.

… show that any buckling and axial shortening do not produce enough axial movement to cause the girder to move past the 2" wide x 14" deep plate under the bearing seat at column 79.

"move past" in what direction?
You appear to be implying "axial to the girder".

You have not allowed for creep in the girder. Which it did.

You have not allowed for movement to the south of column 79. Which it did. Pushed southward by the expansion of the beams west of the girder, which pushed the girder between col 76 & col 79 southward, taking col 79 with it.

You have not allowed for col 79 to have been pulled southward by the collapse of beams & girders to its south.

You have not allowed for fracturing of the concrete, and its ability to destabilize the girder.

You have not done any dynamic thermal analysis. Only static ones. You have not allowed for different components heating to different amounts at different times.

For example, you have not, as far as I have seen, calculated for any possible shrinkage of the girder after the fire peaks.

You have not, as far as I have seen, recognized that the end of the girder does not have to drop off of the 2" x 14" support plate. Only the girder stiffeners do. At that point, the 7/8" girder web will fold up just like the 1" thick support plate will.

You have not accounted for the fact that, as soon as the girder web starts to clear the support plate, there is a rotational moment put onto the girder that inclines it to tilt to the west.

Most important (& for the 50th time), you analyze just a single, or a few components, ignoring the fact that they are tied to a larger complex structure. You ignore the fact, the undeniable fact, that the other components will have significant effects on the locations & conditions of your few parts.
___

As for the column buckling, please provide me a good laugh & show me the margin of error on your calculation for exactly how, and how much, the column buckled.

All of these flaws render your "proof" laughable.
___

As far as

Dave lost by forfeit as he was either unable or unwilling to defend his position.

Take a long look in the mirror, bud.

This sentence applies to you in spades with your inability & unwillingness to defend your position in the only place it matters: in a peer-reviewed engineering journal and then in front of a panel of experienced structural engineers.

Instead you dick around on internet websites.

How pathetically useless for an alleged mechanical engineer.

 

[LSSBB]

You appear to be implying "axial to the girder".

You have not allowed for creep in the girder. Which it did.

You have not allowed for movement to the south of column 79. Which it did. Pushed southward by the expansion of the beams west of the girder, which pushed the girder between col 76 & col 79 southward, taking col 79 with it.

You have not allowed for col 79 to have been pulled southward by the collapse of beams & girders to its south.

You have not allowed for fracturing of the concrete, and its ability to destabilize the girder.

You have not done any dynamic thermal analysis. Only static ones. You have not allowed for different components heating to different amounts at different times.

For example, you have not, as far as I have seen, calculated for any possible shrinkage of the girder after the fire peaks.

You have not, as far as I have seen, recognized that the end of the girder does not have to drop off of the 2" x 14" support plate. Only the girder stiffeners do. At that point, the 7/8" girder web will fold up just like the 1" thick support plate will.

You have not accounted for the fact that, as soon as the girder web starts to clear the support plate, there is a rotational moment put onto the girder that inclines it to tilt to the west.

Most important (& for the 50th time), you analyze just a single, or a few components, ignoring the fact that they are tied to a larger complex structure. You ignore the fact, the undeniable fact, that the other components will have significant effects on the locations & conditions of your few parts.

Those are the game rules, see. If you take them away, how can he be "Winning"? Give the poor guy a chance.

 

[ozeco41]

And if that girder then was only on one half (or thereabouts) of the seat, wouldn't the seat only bend on the point where the girder was? In effect creating something like a slide to one side?

In my layman eyes I could imagine the girder could then slide/topple off even if it still would be more than half on the seat.

You are probably correct on that suggestion. You are without doubt correct on the more general part of your statement - viz that "the girder could then slide/topple off" - whether or not it was from the seat bending. The actual detail matters very little and will probably never be known with any certainty.

The broader issue is that Tony Sz plus C7 and the chorus of trolls are trying to keep discussion down in the details and going round in circles.

Initially C7 led the nonsense, Tony joined the fray at post #859

tfk has probably posted most of the contrary evidence both at the detail level and also identifying the bigger issue of false assumptions. See his recent example:

...Most important (& for the 50th time), you analyze just a single, or a few components, ignoring the fact that they are tied to a larger complex structure. You ignore the fact, the undeniable fact, that the other components will have significant effects on the locations & conditions of your few parts....

So there are lots of technical reasons why Tony is wrong. And tfk is correct in commenting that Tony "ignore...the undeniable fact, that the other components will have significant effects..." So Tony's claim is falsified and "for the 50th time" if tfk's count/estimate/guess is correct.

For my part I have been content to leave the technical details rebuttals to tfk and several other members.

However the overall status of discussion relevant to Tony Szamboti's claim is this:
1) Tony has claimed that the "NIST explanation is impossible";
2) Since it is his claim it is his "burden of proof" to establish "proof" of the claim;
3) His claim rests on some related assumptions. viz:
a) That the end conditions for attachment of the subject girder to Col79 and Col44 are unchanged; AND
b) That within that first assumption he has addressed all relevant factors.
4) Tony has not adequately addressed those assumptions about 'end conditions" OR identified and considered 'all factors'; THEREFORE
5) Tony has not "made out" his claim (or "proved" to use the lay language) "; THEREFORE
6) His claim fails.

Now add a number of tactical ploys which Tony (And C7) persistently employ:
7) Attempting to reverse "burden of proof" in multiple ways including demanding that "we" either prove an alternate explanation or prove him wrong; AND
8) Assuming the false dichotomy of "If you cannot prove me wrong THEN I must be right". AND
9) Several more but what I've said is more than enough to support my contention that Tony's claim has failed.

All those points have been made repeatedly. The most extensive explanation by me is at this post #1892 and a couple of consequent ones by Tony and I. Plus a bit of noise from ergo.

BTW - in case the point is too subtle. The status IMNSHO is "claim fails". That counter claim by me does not mean Tony is wrong in claiming "impossible". It simply means that he hasn't proved it. And he needs to prove it "beyond reasonable doubt" whilst he has not even shown "prima-facie" or a "case to be answered". (If you need to know why I say that follow my previous link for the reason)

 

[ozeco41]

Those are the game rules, see. If you take them away, how can he be "Winning"? Give the poor guy a chance.

We really need a "Don't hit them when they are down" rule.

...even if they keep coming back for more.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You have not allowed for creep in the girder. Which it did.

Everything creeps all the time even at room temperature. It would have been insignificant in this case and that is why you aren't quantifying it.

You have not allowed for movement to the south of column 79. Which it did. Pushed southward by the expansion of the beams west of the girder, which pushed the girder between col 76 & col 79 southward, taking col 79 with it.

The west side girder could only have possibly pushed column 79 to the east and even then it would have buckled before pushing it too far. The connection was not strong enough to allow the west side girder to push column 79 to the south.

You have not allowed for col 79 to have been pulled southward by the collapse of beams & girders to its south.

NIST says these girders had their connections broken. I am critiquing NIST.

You have not allowed for fracturing of the concrete, and its ability to destabilize the girder.

Another throw everything at the wall tactic with no quantification or even a reasonable attempt at some level of probability and estimate of the effects. Not surprising.

I do allow for the lack of shear studs on the girder and there is a high probability that the girder actually had them according to what we see in the Salvarinas paper.

You have not done any dynamic thermal analysis. Only static ones.

A dynamic thermal analysis is not equivalent to dynamic loading which is what you seem to be implying. The loads are static during a thermal heating event. I do account for the effects on stiffness.

You have not allowed for different components heating to different amounts at different times. For example, you have not, as far as I have seen, calculated for any possible shrinkage of the girder after the fire peaks.

Sure I have. The girder doesn't have enough interference with the columns to cause enough shortening.

You have not, as far as I have seen, recognized that the end of the girder does not have to drop off of the 2" x 14" support plate. Only the girder stiffeners do. At that point, the 7/8" girder web will fold up just like the 1" thick support plate will.

Sure I do. I believe that if the web or stiffeners are not over that 2" x 14" support plate the girder will fall.

You have not accounted for the fact that, as soon as the girder web starts to clear the support plate, there is a rotational moment put onto the girder that inclines it to tilt to the west.

Yes, I have. The beams will counteract this slight torque as it isn't the girder Cg in question.

Most important (& for the 50th time), you analyze just a single, or a few components, ignoring the fact that they are tied to a larger complex structure. You ignore the fact, the undeniable fact, that the other components will have significant effects on the locations & conditions of your few parts.

I have looked at the various aspects here and found all of them to be less than sufficient to bring that girder down. You act like all of them together would do it without a basis.

As for the column buckling, please provide me a good laugh & show me the margin of error on your calculation for exactly how, and how much, the column buckled.

Who is talking about column buckling here? I think you have the wrong thread. This one is about the impossibility of girder walk-off.

All of these flaws render your "proof" laughable.

My comments have shown the word flaw would be more appropriately used in reference to your words here.

This sentence applies to you in spades with your inability & unwillingness to defend your position in the only place it matters: in a peer-reviewed engineering journal and then in front of a panel of experienced structural engineers.

Instead you dick around on internet websites.

How pathetically useless for an alleged mechanical engineer.

I am presently involved in three papers under review at both the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and Journal of Structural Engineering and only come on here for some discussion.

What papers have you written? If the answer is none then it is you who only dicks around on Internet sites and your attempted projection of your own behavior onto others is less than impressive for an alleged mechanical engineer. Sorry I can't say I know you are a mechanical engineer as nobody really knows who you are.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Everything creeps all the time even at room temperature. It would have been insignificant in this case and that is why you aren't quantifying it.

Long term dead loads inside a building are insignificant because they are expected and accounted for by most engineers that do their jobs properly.
What I have to ask of you, is are you suggesting this statement to be true as well in conditions where dead loads, dangerously elevated temperatures, and the resulting thermal expansion on constrained structural conditions on top of that? Does your statement envelope all of that? If so, I'd like you to explain this, because your claim here does two things; It way oversimplifies the conditions you're directly arguing in your subsequent points, and whether or not you take these conditions into account dramatically changes the credibility of your claims. This gamble of yours to try and simplify the situation doesn't work.

 

[BasqueArch]

erwinl
Referring to the last drawing.
Wouldn't the seat be bent down as the entire weight of the girder was concentrated on the edge of the seat. As opposed to distributing the load of the girder over its entire surface?

Originally Posted by BasqueArch
Yes it would. the weight is at the edge of the seat and at one end of it. I suspect TS has already calculated this as he wouldn't have passed up the opportunity to prove this wrong.

I have done the calculation for someone else and it isn't enough. I had sent it in an e-mail and don't have time to find it. I will do the calculation again today and post it here tonight.Bear in mind that the five beams will keep the girder from buckling in any significant way when it is up against the column faces due to thermal expansion. There will be some shortening but not much and the same thing goes for that due to sag.

Good. I was right, you had already done the calculations and didn't post them here, because your e-dog ate them. You hope the calculations you will do tonight will prove you right.

Tony No-Show
Plate Fails
Girder Falls​

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony No-Show
Plate Fails
Girder Falls​

I did start the calculations again yesterday and would like to do it in a very accurate way. I layed out the girder, column 79, the 2" x 14" support plate, and bearing seat to get the exact distance from the corner of the girder flange to the flange on column 79. It is 1.08 inches. I have to do the same with the column 44 side today. The 547.625 inch long girder will expand 3.22 inches at the 500 degree C temperature NIST says it is at, so that is 1.61 inches per side. If column 44 has about the same amount of minimum clearance then there is about 0.53 inches of interference per side at the elevated temperature and the girder will bow some.

I will give your theory a fair hearing. I am going to do a finite element analysis over the next several days. Be patient.

 

[pgimeno]

However the overall status of discussion relevant to Tony Szamboti's claim is this:
1) Tony has claimed that the "NIST explanation is impossible";
2) Since it is his claim it is his "burden of proof" to establish "proof" of the claim;

I think you are missing an even broader issue.

If someone claims that the building was demolished, in order to meet the burden of proof it has to be shown that it was demolished, not proof that a collapse explanation is wrong.

Or, in other words, Tony needs to show proof of demolition. Showing counterproof of natural collapse goes nowhere, however right or wrong it is.

Well, maybe except to convince the most gullible audience by appealing to that Sherlock Holmes adage which says "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

No, positive proof is necessary to establish it as a fact. The problem they have with that is that it is not a fact. And the problem we have is that they don't care because their only objective is to win adepts, not to find the truth.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think you are missing an even broader issue.

If someone claims that the building was demolished, in order to meet the burden of proof it has to be shown that it was demolished, not proof that a collapse explanation is wrong.

That's it exactly. Tony is attempting to disprove one specific collapse initiation scenario; it does not, and cannot possibly, follow logically from this that there are no possible collapse initiation scenarios not involving explosives. He is, in fact, attempting to construct a textbook example of the logical error of denying the antecedent: If P, then Q; not P; therefore, not Q. In this case, P is the specific collapse initiation scenario modelled by NIST, Q is collapse due solely to fire damage, and Tony is attempting to prove "Not P".

Most likely, Tony will now make some angry and semi-coherent post explaining why this specific case merits an exemption from the laws of logic, I'll be too helpless with laughter to reply, and Tony will once again unilaterally declare victory over reality. Watch this space.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

I'm still waiting for him to explain how they targeted col 79 with no prior knowledge of where the fires would be (or, perhaps more importantly, whether there would be any fires at all).

 

[LSSBB]

I'm still waiting for him to explain how they targeted col 79 with no prior knowledge of where the fires would be (or, perhaps more importantly, whether there would be any fires at all).

That would still be irrelevant. Did they target column 79? No proof whatsoever. End of the debate, back to angels per micron and pinhead surface area.

ETA: square micron that is...