WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[DGM]

You changed that exchange to an image?

LOL

You're going to upload that and use it as proof of "winning" - aren't you?

The funniest part is it's all cherry picked.

The dishonesty in the "truth" group is astounding.

What do you say MM, are you going to share the whole quotes? Is it your turn now to show how it really happened?

 

[jtl]

All I've ever seen you do is try to prove NIST wrong on some detail.

That´s quite the "detail".

Even allowing for the questionable assumption that the beam could move of its seat and that this single location could then neatly bring down the whole building, I would like to see NIST´s experiments showing us that those fire-proofed beams could attain the required 600(C) plus temps.

What an extraordinary concession for the circus to finally make.

This forum really is a circus. I don´t know about the plausibility of the truther CD hypothesis, but is sad and funny to see self-proclaimed "skeptics" accepting the conclusions by NIST, given the buffoonery. A real investigation is clearly needed.

 

[enik]

How so? All I've ever seen you do is try to prove NIST wrong on some detail.

Could you link to your study that actually shows a means other than what has been accepted (by most everyone)?

Your turn.

Jref post

Actual Link

 

[DGM]

This forum really is a circus. I don´t know about the plausibility of the truther CD hypothesis, but is sad and funny to see self-proclaimed "skeptics" accepting the conclusions by NIST, given the buffoonery. A real investigation is clearly needed.

What would you suggest they investigate that has not already been done (and not only by NIST)? Do you have a plausible explanation that fits better, or do you need some investigation to come up with one ?

 

[jtl]

What would you suggest they investigate that has not already been done (and not only by NIST)?

Already spelled it out for you, without proof for the following, NIST´s hypothesis for 7 is baseless hogwash:

I would like to see NIST´s experiments showing us that those fire-proofed beams could attain the required 600(C) plus temps.

Do you have a plausible explanation that fits better, or do you need some investigation to come up with one ?

Even given that NIST is right about one beam being able to bring down the whole building like that, without their premise of a fire capable of heating the beam to the required temp, then there must be another better explanation for some agent bringing down that beam, and we all know what the truthers suggest for an agent..

 

[DGM]

Jref post

Actual Link

What part of "just disproving some NIST detail" don't you get? Where is your theory as to what did happen?

 

[Spanx]

Perhaps jtl could tell us all about fire proofing ?

 

[jaydeehess]

This is a really simple question.

In a bolted beam to column connection (Like in WTC7), if the bolts are sheared, is the lateral support for the column lost?

The answer is of course obvious, yes, once the bolts go there is nothing to oppose lateral movement.
The detail point that TS & MM are hanging their hat on is whether or not the girder then moved lateraly the full width of the seat.
Design called for the girder to transfer its load to the column via a 12 inch contact on the bottom flange of the girder. Quite obviously a certain width of girder to seat contact is required, or either the seat or bottom flange would fail in having the entire load on a short width contact at the edge of the seat and flange.

MM complains that NIST said it moved only to a point where there was still an inch of contact between girder and seat. Since no one has done an analysis on whether or not the bottom flange would fold due to loss of strength from elevated temp while also supporting the entire design load, off center, on 1 inch of the edge of the bottom flange, MM presupposes that it could not fail, basically assuming the first approximation on this detail, that the girder must fully and completely clear the seat in order to no longer transfer its load to the column.

The analysis of the collapse videos is sufficient to determine that the initiating event was this girder failing. The antiNIST groups however assume that the level of detail employed by NIST is fully sufficient while then stating that NIST did not satisfy the conditions for failure at this level of detail
,,, and then make the fallacious logic leap that this indicates controlled demolition by explosive or perhaps incindiary.

The truly ironic bit about this is that at no point have the CD proponents managed to supply any scenario for CD that even comes close to the level of detail that NIST employed (whether or not NIST's was detailed enough). Instead they rely on a false assumption that if NIST is in error on any detail that this equates to bolstering their case for CD.

What is that, false dichotomy, and arguement from ignorance?

 

[Animal]

Already spelled it out for you, without proof for the following, NIST´s hypothesis for 7 is baseless hogwash:





Even given that NIST is right about one beam being able to bring down the whole building like that, without their premise of a fire capable of heating the beam to the required temp, then there must be another better explanation for some agent bringing down that beam, and we all know what the truthers suggest for an agent..

So much wrong in so little space.

It was the column failure that caused the entire building to fail. (even without fire damage, failure of column 79 results in global failure NCSTAR V 12.4.7 pg 594)
Failure of that column by explosive device would have created a pressure wave that would have blown out windows (Sec 8.9.2) not to mention a seismic signature would have been recorded.
Fire was quite capable of heating the beams and causing structural damage resulting in the failures that led to column79 failing.

Troofers FAIL once again.

 

[jaydeehess]

Even given that NIST is right about one beam being able to bring down the whole building like that, without their premise of a fire capable of heating the beam to the required temp, then there must be another better explanation for some agent bringing down that beam, and we all know what the truthers suggest for an agent..

Yes the ambiguous and completely undetailed contention of a magical agent capable of severing large columns very quickly and all but silently.

 

[Animal]

MM complains that NIST said it moved only to a point where there was still an inch of contact between girder and seat. Since no one has done an analysis on whether or not the bottom flange would fold due to loss of strength from elevated temp while also supporting the entire design load, off center, on 1 inch of the edge of the bottom flange, MM presupposes that it could not fail, basically assuming the first approximation on this detail, that the girder must fully and completely clear the seat in order to no longer transfer its load to the column.

NIST specifically added a stiffener to the seat so it would not fail in their analysis, yet all troofers do is whine about no stiffeners in the girder

 

[enik]

...The analysis of the collapse videos is sufficient to determine that the initiating event was this girder failing. The antiNIST groups however assume that the level of detail employed by NIST is fully sufficient while then stating that NIST did not satisfy the conditions for failure at this level of detail
,,, and then make the fallacious logic leap that this indicates controlled demolition by explosive or perhaps incindiary.

So, it only required one floor to lose lateral support at Column 79 for the building to come down? Or did it need a minimum of nine floors to lose lateral support?

 

[NoahFence]

It's not about "winning".

It is about the truth!

MM

The truth is the NIST report IS irrelevant. I knew, literally, what caused the collapses before they were even done. My background is printing and graphic design.

And I've yet to be proven wrong.

 

[enik]

NIST specifically added a stiffener to the seat so it would not fail in their analysis, yet all troofers do is whine about no stiffeners in the girder

So it is acceptable to add components to an FEA that do not exist in real life, and leave off components in an FEA that actually existed?

 

[jaydeehess]

NIST specifically added a stiffener to the seat so it would not fail in their analysis, yet all troofers do is whine about no stiffeners in the girder

well my point was more along the line that they are expecting an infinately stiff bottom girder flange and assume it would not fail (fold) until it fully cleared a stiff seat

 

[Animal]

So it is acceptable to add components to an FEA that do not exist in real life, and leave off components in an FEA that actually existed?

It is a matter of computer modeling time. So what?

 

[Animal]

So, it only required one floor to lose lateral support at Column 79 for the building to come down? Or did it need a minimum of nine floors to lose lateral support?

washer, rinse, repeat......it is the troofer way.

 

[jaydeehess]

So, it only required one floor to lose lateral support at Column 79 for the building to come down? Or did it need a minimum of nine floors to lose lateral support?

Are we now moving past the idea that the girder could fail and onto the idea that the column could fail?
If we are then if you are contending explosives severed col 79 show us the evidence that such heavy explosives were employed?

 

[jaydeehess]

So it is acceptable to add components to an FEA that do not exist in real life, and leave off components in an FEA that actually existed?

,,,, and back to girder failure by enik
it is done to reduce computing time

If you or Tony or MM or ae911t feel the detail level of the NIST FEA is insufficient then give your full arguement or better yet reproduce the FEA and include greater detail

 

[Animal]

well my point was more along the line that they are expecting an infinately stiff bottom girder flange to assume it would not fail (fold) until it fully cleared a stiff seat

I know.

Troofers keep whining that NIST gamed the analysis by deleting the web stiffeners to make the collapse work. If that were true, why would they bother to ADD a stiffener?