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

[DaveThomasNMSR]

There would be some effect due to proximity and it is on the order of milliseconds that each load would have to be applied with respect to each other to have a cumulative effect. However,the WTC rubble would not have been compacted until a significant number of stories were demolished and that would not have been right away, which is the point of the issue with the missing deceleration and the load required to continue the collapse early on.

Let's see what happens with Dave Thomas' new test, which he seems eager to do, with a bag of rice or sugar and poured rice or sugar. I think the proximity needs to be quite close and that is why I said little to no amplification will occur with the poured material.

Well, quality work takes time! All is shaping up nicely, with a VP of research giving the required nod to get me some high-speed camera time, complicated by the absence of the usual camera operator this week, and the travel status of said VP. So it could take a few days, yet.

Meanwhile, I have been loaned a mahvelous 60-pound scale, and can start in on the stiffness calcs tomorrow!

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Started new thread for the question of dynamic vs static forces.

I don't have the time to be all over the map here so you will have to excuse me if I don't join in on the new thread you started. I have a full time job and home to maintain and doing the analysis on WTC 7 girder was on my own time in addition to that. There is only so much time in a day. I think I have explained why loose rubble does not generate a dynamic load relative to its overall mass in a fairly straight forward way here.

Not that it matters much. The Towers were not CD'd.

Of course, that is just what you would like to think. Sorry if reality interrupts your thought process.

I thought you said you didn’t have time for this. You spent all day Sunday, 18 posts. Why don't any of the 911Ttruth’s hundreds of peer engineers pick up the slack for you.
You choose to ignore that you started this off- topic with the hit-and-run claim that rubble can’t destroy a building (WTC1,2) and by implication that CD did it:

.....

One example you did not provide is that brought up by Anders Bjorkman concerning his claim that rubble can't destroy a building. What rubble actually can't do very well is to provide a dynamic load, but if there is enough of it falling onto floors below quasi-static failures will take place. Pulverization of the concrete is another point that I don't necessarily see as proving things one way or another. The dust found away from the buildings was largely gypsum and I don't believe there was more than about 15% of the concrete actually fully pulverized to a fine dust.
I am not going to discuss this at length here, as this thread is about the girder walk-off alleged by NIST in WTC 7.

“Transient loads include: quasi-static loads (slowly varying loads in which the effect of inertial is small enough to neglect) and dynamic loads (faster varying loads).” - Wiki

I first posted my long response in this thread. I reconsidered and copied it to the new thread because we were trying the mods’ patience with this off- topic discussion and was properly relocating this derail.

 

[BasqueArch]

Static loading can’t pulverize concrete, only dynamic loading.
Nearly all of the Towers’ concrete above ground was pulverized.
Therefore nearly all of the Towers’ concrete above ground suffered dynamic loading.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Bolded:
"Took" several years.
Past tense. That means they're complete. Those recommendations are now code. You MUST follow the NIST reccomendations should you choose to build a high-rise.


Linkie

Reading this press release about it I found it interesting that essentially none of the structural recommendations were adopted. http://www.nist.gov/el/code_100108.cfm

The changes that were adopted were predominantly about bonding of fireproofing materials and provisions for allowing rapid and safe egress from buildings.

So in essence the changes that were adopted have no bearing on the discussion here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I thought you said you didn’t have time for this. You spent all day Sunday, 18 posts. Why don't any of the 911Ttruth’s hundreds of peer engineers pick up the slack for you.
You choose to ignore that you started this off- topic with the hit-and-run claim that rubble can’t destroy a building (WTC1,2) and by implication that CD did it:



“Transient loads include: quasi-static loads (slowly varying loads in which the effect of inertial is small enough to neglect) and dynamic loads (faster varying loads).” - Wiki

I first posted my long response in this thread. I reconsidered and copied it to the new thread because we were trying the mods’ patience with this off- topic discussion and was properly relocating this derail.

I did not say that the rubble could not cause a propagation of collapse. I said it couldn't do that until there was a significant amount of it because it doesn't generate the overall dynamic load required, and there would need to be enough of it to cause static or quasi-static overload of the floors. That couldn't happen until the collapse had proceeded about six to nine floors.

I have already explained the difference between individual pieces and an overall structure generating a dynamic load. A natural collapse of a building like the North Tower initially requires a dynamic load by the full structure, and that is proven by the Verinage demolitions. It did not happen in the case where it could be measured for, which was the North Tower.

By the way, I don't know if you saw that I did send information to MHM from my analysis for axial walk-off. The analysis shows the girder between columns 44 and 79 in WTC 7 could not have walked-off its seat either laterally or axially. If you send me your e-mail address via PM I will send you PowerPoint slides.

 

[Justin39640]

Reading this press release about it I found it interesting that essentially none of the structural recommendations were adopted. http://www.nist.gov/el/code_100108.cfm

The changes that were adopted were predominantly about bonding of fireproofing materials and provisions for allowing rapid and safe egress from buildings.

So in essence the changes that were adopted have no bearing on the discussion here.

So in essence, you completely missed the point, which was to save lives by prolonging fire endurance and speeding egress. not to make indestructible buildings.

 

[NoahFence]

Reading this press release about it I found it interesting that essentially none of the structural recommendations were adopted. http://www.nist.gov/el/code_100108.cfm

The changes that were adopted were predominantly about bonding of fireproofing materials and provisions for allowing rapid and safe egress from buildings.

So in essence the changes that were adopted have no bearing on the discussion here.

That's because your discussion focuses on retarded minutae that nobody gives a : about.

 

[pgimeno]

I have already explained the difference between individual pieces and an overall structure generating a dynamic load. A natural collapse of a building like the North Tower initially requires a dynamic load by the full structure, and that is proven by the Verinage demolitions. It did not happen in the case where it could be measured for, which was the North Tower.

You can't be serious.

 

[pgimeno]

So in essence, you completely missed the point, which was to save lives by prolonging fire endurance and speeding egress. not to make indestructible buildings.

That also speaks loads about the underlying purpose of the reports, which Tony [ETA: and Major_Tom] tries so hard to disprove losing sight on its motivation, including that of the law that was passed (NCSTA) allowing the investigation to proceed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So in essence, you completely missed the point, which was to save lives by prolonging fire endurance and speeding egress. not to make indestructible buildings.

In case you didn't notice, this thread is about whether a specific type of structural failure, alleged by the NIST for collapse initiation in WTC 7, was even possible. It wasn't, even at maximum steel temperatures possible in a fire.

Bringing up the adoption of code recommendations concerning other things like fireproofing bonding and egress does not add to the discussion.

 

[NoahFence]

Ok, you're right.

Mods can close the thread now, because the chances of you expanding on the information are nill.

AKA - who cares?

 

[Justin39640]

In case you didn't notice, this thread is about whether a specific type of structural failure, alleged by the NIST for collapse initiation in WTC 7, was even possible. It wasn't, even at maximum steel temperatures possible in a fire.

Bringing up the adoption of code recommendations concerning other things like fireproofing bonding and egress does not add to the discussion.

In case you didn't notice, fire destroyed all the buildings being discussed here. You try to imply that the NIST reports were meant to defend the government when in essence they were to help save lives in extreme situations. When you cry they were fraudulent because of your bizarre beliefs, then their intended purpose is total relevant. We're here to prevent your and other truther's ideas from poisoning more minds.

 

[Animal]

In case you didn't notice, fire destroyed all the buildings being discussed here. You try to imply that the NIST reports were meant to defend the government when in essence they were to help save lives in extreme situations. When you cry they were fraudulent because of your bizarre beliefs, then their intended purpose is total relevant. We're here to prevent your and other truther's ideas from poisoning more minds.

Creating code for "unusual" events is next to impossible. It creates a lot of push back because of the skyrocketing costs it creates and the "where do you draw the line" issues. Information gleaned from the NIST, such as the failure at column 79 does get incorporated into "best practices" methodology however.
There are lots of things I design in that are not required / specified by the code but are common sense or just good practice.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Well, quality work takes time! All is shaping up nicely, with a VP of research giving the required nod to get me some high-speed camera time, complicated by the absence of the usual camera operator this week, and the travel status of said VP. So it could take a few days, yet.

Meanwhile, I have been loaned a mahvelous 60-pound scale, and can start in on the stiffness calcs tomorrow!
[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/joescale.jpg[/qimg]

Got a definite date, but it's still a couple of weeks away - Tuesday, Aug. 14th. (A TV science channel will be in town, and I get to piggyback on the time-consuming HS camera setup.)

Being a derail of the girder walkoff anyway, I'll just start a new thread when results are in.

Hasta luego, Dave

 

[beachnut]

There would be some effect due to proximity and it is on the order of milliseconds that each load would have to be applied with respect to each other to have a cumulative effect. However,the WTC rubble would not have been compacted until a significant number of stories were demolished and that would not have been right away, which is the point of the issue with the missing deceleration and the load required to continue the collapse early on.

Let's see what happens with Dave Thomas' new test, which he seems eager to do, with a bag of rice or sugar and poured rice or sugar. I think the proximity needs to be quite close and that is why I said little to no amplification will occur with the poured material.

A big reason shotguns are not effective ... oops, never-mind.

You are an engineer, and you can't figure out the WTC towers collapsed due to impacts and fire. 10 years, why are you not converging on the truth?

This is funny stuff, your posts, your real-cd-deal. Very truthy.

 

[tfk]

I feel bad for all the honest and dedicated engineers and scientists at NIST who are being made to look bad by political boobs trying to hide something.

Riiiiight...

You "feel bad" for all those engineers, who worked diligently on all aspects of writing the report, and then peer reviewing the report...

... INCLUDING the girder walk off analysis.

In which you now claim those honest & dedicated engineers all committed professional fraud in preparing, committed fraud in reviewing, committed fraud in reporting, committed fraud by not releasing their results, and continue, to this day, in committing fraud by remaining silent about all the prior fraud.

Are THOSE the engineers that you "feel sorry for", Tony?

Well, I've got an interesting asymmetry to report, Tony.

They would probably feel sorry for you too, for your arrogance, woeful engineering abilities & plain ugly unprofessionalism ...

... that is, if they knew you existed.

You keep saying that you've proven the contrary.

Serious engineers will chuckle a bit, go on with their work & show you exactly the same level of concern & attention that they pay to clowns who claim that NASA faked the moon landings.

 

[LSSBB]

Say, when was Tony's paper submitted? I'd a thunk he'd have gotten a reply by now from the peer reviewers…

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Riiiiight...

You "feel bad" for all those engineers, who worked diligently on all aspects of writing the report, and then peer reviewing the report...

... INCLUDING the girder walk off analysis.

In which you now claim those honest & dedicated engineers all committed professional fraud in preparing, committed fraud in reviewing, committed fraud in reporting, committed fraud by not releasing their results, and continue, to this day, in committing fraud by remaining silent about all the prior fraud.

Are THOSE the engineers that you "feel sorry for", Tony?

Well, I've got an interesting asymmetry to report, Tony.

They would probably feel sorry for you too, for your arrogance, woeful engineering abilities & plain ugly unprofessionalism ...

... that is, if they knew you existed.

You keep saying that you've proven the contrary.

Serious engineers will chuckle a bit, go on with their work & show you exactly the same level of concern & attention that they pay to clowns who claim that NASA faked the moon landings.

The sad part here is that you seem upset that your attempts to defend the impossible NIST girder walk-off scenario have also been shown to be impossible, and are now willing to stoop to nonsensical and pretentious ad hominem.

 

[NoahFence]

Still arguing about something nobody cares about....

 

[LSSBB]

Still arguing about something nobody cares about....

You're saying NOBODY CARES about a building that collapsed after a long fire, and no one died? I am SHOCKED. I am sure SOMEBODY cares.


I'm just not sure why they do.

Except for Larry, it was his building. And all the people that worked there, because they lost lots of stuff. But at least they left with their lives, unlike their bretheren down the street.