LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Ahh, I love clear-headed reviews from unbiased critics. So refreshing.
/sarcasm
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79
- Thread starter BasqueArch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse wtc7
Ahh, I love clear-headed reviews from unbiased critics. So refreshing.
/sarcasm
Miragememories
Banned
In case you need to be reminded, the topic of this thread is WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79.
Oystein apparently realized those videos directly related to the topic of this thread or he would not have posted the link.
I watched those referenced videos and found that they do an excellent job undermining the NIST hypothesis.
For example, I was unaware of the critical revisions to the NIST WTC7 Report that were made in 2012.
But if your sole interest is in racking up your post count and adding to your one-liner collection, there is little I have to say to you.
If on the other hand, you have a genuine interest in the thread topic, I suggest you at least watch the videos with an open mind and then speak your mind.
I'm here for the discussion, not the game playing.
MM
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Yeah, right. That would be why you made this post in responce to this,
Should we conclude you're "not playing games" led to not wanting to answer this question?
You're so predictable.
Last edited:
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
It's apparent on even casual observation that the initiations of the collapses of WTCs 1,2, and 7 were not symmetric. That Richard Gage, Steven Jones, et al make statements that they were, and state that symmetry is a hallmark of CDs, proves that they are charlatans. This means that their presentations are only valuable as examples of charlatanry.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Correct but you don't go far enough.
The topic is defined by the OP - not just the title.
This is the OP with some relevant bits emphasised:
Note that concluding statement "The girder failed due to fire not CD.".
That statement is a true dichotomy - it states two mutually exclusive alternates. It could be more pedantically correct to say "The girder failed due to fire not fire plus CD" but it remains a true dichotomy. It is a statement about the real possibilities in the actual physical event of 9/11 and there are no other alternates in the discussion.
Now the OP dealt with whether or not "TS's" (Tony Szamboti's) explanation was correct. For the record Tony's claim has been rebutted in detail and my position on record is that his claim is "unproven". IIRC others including tfk regard his claim as "disproven". Same result - he has not made his case. But it is irrelevant. The reality being that WTC 7 collapsed and it collapsed as either the result of fires OR the result of some combination of fires plus CD.
So there are two legitimate on-topic aspects of the OP viz:
1) WTC7 fell as a result of fire or CD; AND
2) Tony Szamboti's explantions were wrong.
And whether or not NIST got it right is not within the scope of the topic as defined by the OP - it is "off topic" - a factor that those members who are not playing games could take into account. And "shear studs" is only "on topic" if TS's explanation relied on it. BUT TS's explanation failed for higher level reasons so, sorry, but "shear studs" is off topic.
Common to both the status of the TS explanations and the NIST explanations is that no matter what those explanations state they cannot change reality. Reality occurred 9/11/2001 and no report written years later can change that whether the report is right or wrong.
So, if we are to stick to posting "on topic", we have a choice between:
A) Showing yet again why TS's explanation is either wrong or not right; OR
B) Waiting till some truther posts a prima facie argument for CD because the established hypothesis is "No CD" so that one doesn't need support at this stage.
Otherwise we can continue down the troll inspired track of discussing shear studs or other irrelevant minutiae as a means of going round in circles and discussion not progressing.
Great news. Do you accept that Tony Szamboti's explanation was wrong or merely that it is not proven?
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Neither.
The girder between columns 44 and 79 could not have come off its seat at column 79 due to lateral motion as there could not have been enough expansion of the beams to the east.
The girder could also have not walked off axially as there is no mechanism to cause that movement and the beams framing into it would keep it from rotating and buckling.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Last edited:
MileHighMadness
Muse
Tony...I have seen your FE model; it's incomplete and badly flawed.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
It would seem "incomplete and badly flawed" is much more descriptive of your comment here.
Last edited:
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
No, what's extremely important is the fact that neither you nor gerrycan understand how to read construction drawings. As has been explained to him over and over, the drawings (which show shear studs) that he is trying to use to encompass the entire set of structural building as a whole were created from drawing S-8 as additional drawings for three floors. These three floors had changes to them that did NOT affect the other floors which S-8 was typical for. These three (S-8-10, 19, 20) drawings had beams which had plates welded to the bottom of them. Here is one of those revisions. Notice the "bottom plate" reference inside the cloud.
What's extremely important is that gerrycan refers to a missing revision "I" on drawing S-8 and claims that he couldn't find it. Well I did and he ignored that.
What's extremely important is that gerrycan claimed the document written by John J. Salvarinas was written AFTER the completion of WTC7 and that is why whatever is in the document was supposedly gospel. Wrong. It was written for the Canadian Structural Engineering Conference that was held on February 24 and 25, 1986, a full year before WTC7 opened in March of 1987.
What's extremely important is that gerrycan said John J. Salvarinas was the lead designer for WTC7. The fact is, he was the project manager.
What's extremely important is that the some of the drawings in Salvarinas' paper don't match what's on the construction drawings.
All these things were pointed out to gerrycan without one reply or correction. There was even more he got wrong, but just wanted to name a few.
You need to reconsider what is "extremely important"...
Where is your analysis? Back in July, you promised us one.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,947
Not that it would be important, just for the record:
I have followed this thread only intermittently and with low priority
I have not watched the videos I linked to.
So I don't have well-tested grounds to think one way or another on whether or not the videos are "directly related to the topic of this thread". I merely remembered that gerrycan last participated here, and the videos at least seem to relate, so I figured this is the best place to dump the links, in case anyone here is interested.
I have hardly an opinion on the details, but remember that Gamolon's explanations on how to read drawings made a lot more sense than the replies in opposition to them.
That's all.
Miragememories
Banned
Well if you have any integrity you should.
Note to Gamolon: There are more problems with the NIST WTC7 final report than whether or not you agree about the "shear studs".
It is clearly revealed how desperate the NIST organization was in its attempts to provide an explanation for the collapse initiation of WTC7.
In NCSTAR 1-1 published on Sept.1, 2005, the NIST having had 4 years to accumulate and study the WTC7 plans stated; "Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft. on centre."
Available WTC7 shop drawings clearly show the requirement of field applied shear studs. As many as 3,896 shear studs per floor.
But, as the NIST discovered, shear studs would have totally undermined their steel expansion hypothesis which they used for their final report.
In NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1 published on Aug.1, 2008, the NIST reversed themselves and stated that; "In WTC7, no studs were installed on the girders…"
Additionally, despite shop drawings (Franco-1091) clearly showing 12 inch seats, the NIST based their final hypothesis on a belief that at 600C (highest temperature before the steel weakens and push turns to sag) the girder would be pushed off its 11 inch seat.
In June, 2012, the NIST released an erratum document where the NIST now acknowledges that the girder seats were in fact 12 inches and that this serious error was just a typo. Quite an amazing typo given the importance of that dimension. Interestingly, to compensate for that error, the NIST, later in the erratum document increased the beam expansion from 5.5 inches to 6.25 inches, claiming a transposition error had been made (how convenient).
Unfortunately for the NIST, the temperature required to allow for this greater expansion is 736C. But, at that temperature, the NIST had already claimed the girders would be sagging and no longer pushing.
The NIST have not explained that contradiction, nor have they explained why they ignored stiffeners which are clearly marked in shop drawings and would have required the girder to have been pushed even further before failure.
Yes, there are lots of reasons why you should 'respectfully' watch these short videos.
MM
MileHighMadness
Muse
Sure, no problem...I need some help from the group.
Link to the following information:
--> Cross section of column 79, so I can calculate section properties
--> Height between floors, so I can calculate the unbraced length
Assumptions:
--> AISC Manual of Steel Construction - Ninth Edition - ASD
--> Grade 50 ksi steel
--> Column 79 unbraced for 9 floors as per the NIST report
--> Column completely fixed top and bottom, we can add stiffeness springs later
I'm going to keep my first analysis very basic, and we can improve from there, as the forum demands (vbg)
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
Ahh, I love clear-headed reviews from unbiased critics. So refreshing.
/sarcasm
What to believe, actual engineers who spend their professional lives designing and erecting buildings or some-one with links to videos who's education allows them to access the Net?
MileHighMadness
Muse
Note to MM...the shear studs and the length of the bearing seat are minor details, and had very little to do with collapse of the structure...IMHO
There is no reason to watch videos made by 911 truth nuts. The Internet has become a wasteland of fraud and lies. 911 truth has only lies. Did 911 truth fool you.
WTC 7 failed after fires burned all day. 911 truth attacks on a NIST probable collapse sequence is equal to insanity. Ignoring the meaning of probable and like a bunch of idiots ranting about thermite.
Where is the proof fires did not lead to the collapse of WTC 7. Fires not fought.
You offer opinion; you can't produce any of the "more problems", you have talk, no list of the "more problems". A big nothing. 11 years of nothing. As if 911 truth was dead before it started, empty claims.
Youtube videos? This is your evidence, BS on video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvRKZO5o_dA
BS - But gee whiz, go to a school of engineering - ask professors if they support your claims based on nonsense, or what? Why waste time at a skeptic forum, in a sub-forum where dirt dumb claims by 911 truth are discussed and studied. You seem to be at the wrong place to test what would be Pulitzer Prize winning stuff if it was not dumbed down fantasy made up by Internet want-to-be structural engineers who know for sure, for sure, 911 was an inside job. What is stopping you? Fantasy disguised as structural engineering, on youtube. Wow, 11 years down the drain, if you do the hard work, asking real experts. Don't do it. Fantasy is more fun.
Don't worry, I am only a pilot who graduated as an engineer to make myself more likely to be a pilot candidate for the USAF so I could fly jets, much easier than engineering work. But I expect to see some engineering stuff, and the videos you push, are BS, no engineering, just nonsense put together which fooled you into thinking they have something. They have BS, dumbed down nonsense. Who did the failed videos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zsp0UcgMzs
Oh, WTC 5 had steel failures too, so now the video lies. WTC 5 fires were fought, which is why the some of the building is still standing.
WTC 7 fires were not isolated; another lie.
This is not engineering, it is lies spread to fool those who can't think for themselves. Videos which lie, full of BS, no engineering.
Last edited:
Wouldn’t you need:
-Length of girder (W33x130) between column 79 and 44
-Length of beams (W24x55) connecting girder to the perimeter columns 41-38
-Length and cross-section of spandrel beams connecting perimeter columns 44-38
-Size of seat on column 79
-x-y coordinates of column 79, 44, 43, 42 41, 40, 39, and 38 (for exact location of beams)(Figure 8-16 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 page 343)
Column 79 was a W14x730 with welded steel plates on the sides (section 4.7.2 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 page 81)
Assume other columns to be W14x500 (section 4.7.2 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 page 81)
Last edited:
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Let's see if you can put your money where your mouth is MM.
Show me one drawing that shows any shear studs, field applied or not, on the girder between column 44 and 79, for floors 8 to 20 or floors 24 to 45, aside from the three drawings created for floors 10, 19, and 20.