Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[beachnut]

Beachnut is the one who brought up One Meridian Plaza in a comparison to WTC 7 not me. All I did was point out where he was not being precise.

Of course, I understand that the design may make a difference in how a structure reacts to loads (including fires). I don't think I was implying that One Meridian Plaza's fire performance was a standard, only that it did not make the point that Beachnut was using it for.

WTC 7 had its own unique design and it should be looked at that way. However, if someone does compare another building to it I reserve the right to point it out if they are being inaccurate.

Unique design and fire caused the collapse of WTC 7? Or your CD fantasy?

One Meridian Plaza three foot sagging floors in a building where fires were fought, and the windows were not broken by towers falling on them. Guess it could burn longer since the air was restricted. If WTC 7 did not collapse due to fires not fought, it would have burned longer, days longer. Darn, you lost this point based on nonsense. Or did it burn faster due to broken windows feeding air to the fires, making them release heat faster, causing greater damage quicker. Oh, fire science, it is what 911 truth does not do - not as cool as thermite fantasy and silent explosives.

Where is One Meridian Plaza? Wow, I was born in Philadelphia, and guess what? One Meridian Plaza is gone, it was totaled by fire, fires fought. Oh man. Darn, what does living or being born in Philly have to do with your fantasy of CD?

We have WTC 7 burned, fires not fought, and it collapsed, totaled by fire. We have One Meridian Plaza, fires fought, totaled by fire. How much did WTC7 floors sag?


One Meridian Plaza water on the fires helped them burn slower, and kept the building from being damage more by fire. Why do all your points fail based on opinion and faulty logic? Where is your engineering stuff?

You have the real CD deal stuck on reruns. You can't prove your thermite fantasy so attack NIST, unable to do engineering to prove CD, make up the missing jolt, fail to understand 911. What happens with 77 and 93 in your fantasy WTC CD theory? That is the key, you can't combine silent explosives and the rest of 911.

One Meridian Plaza, fires fought, building never used again. WTC 7 fires not fought, never used again. No thermite in One Meridian Plaza? 12 years, no evidence; where is it?

How did they get the thermite into WTC 7 in your fantasy? Are you saying One Meridian Plaza was not totaled by fire? Where is it? Right, it was take apart.

My point is simple, there was no thermite or explosives in WTC 7, and like One Meridian Plaza, WTC 7 did not survive fire. Fire did it - twice. WTC 7 was totaled by fire, you can't grasp it; and One Meridian Plaza was totaled by fire. You can quibble about it, but you can't do the original engineering after 12 years to support the failed CD theory.

You have the silly lie of CD to prove, and the best you can do is make up woo about 911 by attacking NIST, unable to do engineering - you can't do the study or get your fellow 911 truth followers to do a study to prove your point. You ignore fire, and push the silent explosives inside job thermite fantasy.

One Meridian Plaza fires were fought, it is precise, to say otherwise is quibbling. When did fires at the WTC complex go out? How many weeks? Oh man... you got hours of fires, WTC complex has weeks - like your CD fantasy, no evidence is too plain to be ignored.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Beachnut is the one who brought up One Meridian Plaza in a comparison to WTC 7 not me. All I did was point out where he was not being precise.

Of course, I understand that the design may make a difference in how a structure reacts to loads (including fires). I don't think I was implying that One Meridian Plaza's fire performance was a standard, only that it did not make the point that Beachnut was using it for.

WTC 7 had its own unique design and it should be looked at that way. However, if someone does compare another building to it I reserve the right to point it out if they are being inaccurate.

Im not contesting that you shouldnt clarify something that was brought up by soneone else (I didnt even respond to that part of your post other than as passing mention). I just see the comparisons taken too far, too often on your end of the debate and it seemed like you were heading that direction while responding to beachnut again by referring to the fact that it did burn longer. I tend to think of the burn time as a contrubitor to the end result but not as a main factor. This isnt to single you out necessarily, youre not the only one or that does it.

 

[gerrycan]

Oh noes, the not so new, thermal expansion, the oldest phenomena in the universe, has stuck other buildings; old 911 truth acts like NIST made it up, and here we have failed 911 truth followers unable to grasp reality, as they push the idiotic CD lies.

"Our study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause the collapse of a structure." ~ Shyam Sunder Aug 21st 2008.

911 truth, can't do engineering, so they rant about NIST.

All you need to do is demonstrate that it is possible for a 53ft beam to expand beyond 5.5" @ 600C. NIST never explained how this was possible, can you?

 

[beachnut]

"Our study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause the collapse of a structure." ~ Shyam Sunder Aug 21st 2008.

Wow, prove my point, 911 truth is the quote-mining movement of woo with CD claims so dumbed down it hurts to know education has failed for so many, who make up the fridge few in 911 truth.

You take out of context quotes to prove you have nothing, zero, no evidence.

Thermal expansion is the oldest phenomenon in the universe, and it has no meaning to quote NIST for your failure to come up with a reality based claim. Should I be surprised you fell in this simple trap?

"
All you need to do is demonstrate that it is possible for a 53ft beam to expand beyond 5.5" @ 600C. NIST never explained how this was possible, can you?

Not sure, how did One Meridian Plaza floors sag three feet? Can you demonstrate reality? No, you have a fantasy of CD, and have failed to make progress.
Guess this means you are not an engineer or scientist. Why does 911 truth quote mine stuff and fail to understand the true meaning?

911 truth unable to understand 911: 13th year of woo. Can't believe you played the NIST thermal expansion card. What does it mean?

Unable to do reality, 911 truth has to recycle NIST quotes to not make a point. What does it mean?

It means thermal expansion is not a new phenomenon. And 911 truth left out the collapse part. Not sure, what is the meaning.

Looks like CD is the woo phenomenon.

 

[gerrycan]

Wow, prove my point, 911 truth is the quote-mining movement of woo with CD claims so dumbed down it hurts to know education has failed for so many, who make up the fridge few in 911 truth.

You take out of context quotes to prove you have nothing, zero, no evidence.

Thermal expansion is the oldest phenomenon in the universe, and it has no meaning to quote NIST for your failure to come up with a reality based claim. Should I be surprised you fell in this simple trap?


Not sure, how did One Meridian Plaza floors sag three feet? Can you demonstrate reality? No, you have a fantasy of CD, and have failed to make progress.
Guess this means you are not an engineer or scientist. Why does 911 truth quote mine stuff and fail to understand the true meaning?

911 truth unable to understand 911: 13th year of woo. Can't believe you played the NIST thermal expansion card. What does it mean?

Unable to do reality, 911 truth has to recycle NIST quotes to not make a point. What does it mean?

It means thermal expansion is not a new phenomenon. And 911 truth left out the collapse part. Not sure, what is the meaning.

Looks like CD is the woo phenomenon.

Did I miss the bit where you explained how a 53ft beam expands >5.5" ?
Like you say, "Thermal expansion is the oldest phenomenon in the universe"... It should then be well enough understood and established for you to substantiate NISTs assertion that a 53ft beam can expand to over 5.5" @ 600C to push a girder off a seat.

 

[beachnut]

Did I miss the bit where you explained how a 53ft beam expands >5.5" ?
Like you say, "Thermal expansion is the oldest phenomenon in the universe"... It should then be well enough understood and established for you to substantiate NISTs assertion that a 53ft beam can expand to over 5.5" @ 600C to push a girder off a seat.

Why can't you do it? You can't do the engineering to explain this; is that why 911 truth has no Pulitzer for this woo? Was it 600C exactly? Can't 911 truth do the engineering?

Why can't 911 truth followers prove CD? exactly, they made it up, or plagiarized CD from other conspiracy theorists who can't figure out 911, as 19 terrorists took Flt 11, Flt 175, Flt 77, and Flt 93 by murder to commit murder; and 911 truth can't do engineering to save their fantasy of CD.

Thermal expansion is understood by everyone but 911 truth, as proved by 911 truth.

Now what will you do? 13 years of solid failure.

Do the engineering, learn why 911 truth is based on opinions, lies and fantasy. My mom made me go to engineering school, did 911 truth moms make 911 truth followers join 911 truth? What a goal, join an anti-intellectual movement based on lies and ignorance. What is the up side?

 

[gerrycan]

Why can't you prove CD? exactly, you made it up, or plagiarized CD from other conspiracy theorists who can't figure out 911, as 19 terrorists took Flt 11, Flt 175, Flt 77, and Flt 93 by murder to commit murder; and 911 truth can't do engineering to save their fantasy of CD.

I never mentioned CD. You did.

Thermal expansion is understood by everyone but 911 truth, as proved by 911 truth.

So explain to me what the maximum unrestrained expansion due to heat is in a 53ft beam.

Now what will you do? 13 years of solid failure.

So you think that the case for exposing omissions and errors in the official reports re 911 has been failing since April 2001?
I am starting to understand why you're not doing the expansion calculation. It's not that you don't want to do it.....

 

[beachnut]

I never mentioned CD. You did. .....

You are a CD fantasy believer, can't you stand up for what you believe? No, you lack evidence, and have to quibble about the engineering 911 truth can't do. Is your fantasy silent explosives, or no product thermite? Which is it?

So explain to me what the maximum unrestrained expansion due to heat is in a 53ft beam. .....

Why can't you explain this and prove your point? Not an engineer, or what?

So you think that the case for exposing omissions and errors in the official reports re 911 has been failing since April 2001?
I am starting to understand why you're not doing the expansion calculation. It's not that you don't want to do it.....

What is stopping you from exposing NIST and doing the work yourself? Right, you are not an engineer, and repeat failed opinions from 911 truth.

911 truth can't support the CD fantasy you have, let alone prove the point you can't define. April 2001? Exactly, this is 911 truth.

 

[gerrycan]

You are a CD fantasy believer,

No

can't you stand up for what you believe?

Yes

you lack evidence, and have to quibble about the engineering 911 truth can't do.

No

Is your fantasy silent explosives, or no product thermite? Which is it?

Neither

Why can't you explain this and prove your point? Not an engineer, or what?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

What is stopping you from exposing NIST and doing the work yourself?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

Ok, so this 53ft beam gets to 600C............

 

[beachnut]

No
Yes
No
Neither

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

Ok, so this 53ft beam gets to 600C............

You are a CD fantasy supporter, and think it is thermite; a fantasy made up by Jones. You support a fake paper saying it was thermite. Sorry, did you retract CD and now support fire did it? You are now debunking 911 truth.

Pepper's paper of woo. Did you read the letter? It is filled with nonsense. It means your support is support for CD, which is based on connecting the dots you left all over the internet.

You believe 911 truth, and can't do the engineering. What is new?

Why don't you understand you support the CD fantasy, which you proved in this post?

 

[gerrycan]

You are a CD fantasy supporter, and think it is thermite; a fantasy made up by Jones. You support a fake paper saying it was thermite. Sorry, did you retract CD and now support fire did it? You are now debunking 911 truth.

Pepper's paper of woo. Did you read the letter? It is filled with nonsense. It means your support is support for CD, which is based on connecting the dots you left all over the internet.

You believe 911 truth, and can't do the engineering. What is new?

Why don't you understand you support the CD fantasy, which you proved in this post?

Let me help you here beach.
A 53ft beam will expand to a length of xxxxx inches when heated to 600C.
I say xxxxx - 5.5" absolute maximum. What do you get?

 

[beachnut]

Let me help you here beach.
A 53ft beam will expand to a length of xxxxx inches when heated to 600C.
I say xxxxx - 5.5" absolute maximum. What do you get?

I get it, 911 truth uses xxxxx to cover for failure to do engineering. You support CD and can't admit it. 13th year of woo from 911 truth.


Where is the paper with xxxxx? Or did you plagiarize the xxxxx from 911 truth?

 

[gerrycan]

I get it, 911 truth uses xxxxx to cover for failure to do engineering. You support CD and can't admit it. 13th year of woo from 911 truth.


Where is the paper with xxxxx? Or did you plagiarize the xxxxx from 911 truth?

Ok, so you don't know.
Anyone else?

 

[beachnut]

Ok, so you don't know.
Anyone else?

Where did you get the xxxxx from? You don't know? lol, you don't have a paper?

The CD fantasy failed on 911. What is 911 truth's next big opinion based claim?

911 truth, asking questions, spreading lies.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Let me help <snip>

Under the assumption of starting temperature of 21oC and a final temperature of 600oC, and a 16 meter long "beam" you get a low end value 3.65", a mid grade of 4.8", and a high end of 6.37" depending on the specific type of steel since the linear expansion coefficient is different for each alloy. This assumes the temperature gradient is stable and covers only a select few alloys of steel.

The above "back of the hand" calcs are a gross simplification which doesn't take into consideration what the design used so if you're going to demand perfection I suggest you research the NIST report or find specific information on the steel alloy used in the original construction. Nor does my "back of the hand calcs" take into account potentially higher temperatures or thermal contraction as the beams cooled. They also do no account for differential expansion of the structural beams. Also, if you intend to play games picking apart the NIST you need to go a lot further than these simplified calculations because they are not suited for more complex set ups as were found for WTC 7. The linear expansion coefficients of select steel alloys are accessible online. It may do you some good to have a look at those for yourself.

 

[gerrycan]

Under the assumption of starting temperature of 21oC and a final temperature of 600oC, and a 16 meter long "beam" you get a low end value 3.65", a mid grade of 4.8", and a high end of 6.37" depending on the specific type of steel since the linear expansion coefficient is different for each alloy. This assumes the temperature gradient is stable and covers only a select few alloys of steel.

I think you are well out there. What coefficient did you use? (I would suggest that for A36 steel). 6.37 is way beyond any realistic estimates that I have encountered from anybody.
You are right though, it is a more complicated calculation than it would first appear. I would be genuinely interested in seeing what figures you used to get to 6.37"

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think you are well out there. What coefficient did you use? (I would suggest that for A36 steel). 6.37 is way beyond any realistic estimates that I have encountered from anybody.
You are right though, it is a more complicated calculation than it would first appear. I would be genuinely interested in seeing what figures you used to get to 6.37"

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html

The high end figure uses the coefficient for "Steel Stainless Austenitic (304)". But my big disclaimer is you have to keep in mind again that I assumed constant constraints and that leaves out a huge chunk of variables for the real life application in WTC 7, so obviously I can't vouch for it being representative of what actually was experienced.

Considering what I got from the simplified calculations the figures NIST got are in all likelihood a close approximation since the values for expansion are dependent on changes in temperature, not time or other factors, but dealing with more complex calculations that factor those conditions is outside of my qualifications

 

[gerrycan]

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html

The high end figure uses the coefficient for "Steel Stainless Austenitic (304)".

8.2 in/in-deg F seems to be the mean figure to use for CTE in steel. For steel, your link actually says it is lower (7.3), but stainless would not be the correct figure to use, which would give 9.6 according to that link. I actually think that 5.5" expansion at 600C is a bit on the high side, but that is what the mean CTE of 8.2 gives. The point is that this is still 0.75" less than NISTs explanation requires for WTC7, and way more short that the figure that would be required once the correct elements are considered at the C79 connection.

But my big disclaimer is you have to keep in mind again that I assumed constant constraints and that leaves out a huge chunk of variables for the real life application in WTC 7, so obviously I can't vouch for it being representative of what actually was experienced.

Fair point, and to be fair, it is a far more complicated thing than I first realised.

Considering what I got from the simplified calculations the figures NIST got are in all likelihood a close approximation since the values for expansion are dependent on changes in temperature, not time or other factors, but dealing with more complex calculations that factor those conditions is outside of my qualifications

Yes, the figure is an average, but 5.5" is still the absolute maximum for this beam, so this means that NIST are 3/4" short of their own revised estimate of 6.25" and way short of what would be required for failure to occur in the manner that they suggested.
It is worth remembering that this assumes that ALL of the expansion occurs in the direction that favours NISTs assertions and at any temp above 600C the beam will begin to sag.
Bottom line - the beam can expand 5.5" at the absolute maximum. In reality, I would say a bit less, but 5.5 is nowhere near what NISTs fantasy explanation would require.

 

[pgimeno]

If the beam connections to the girder are broken then how do they push it to the point where its web is past its seat, as the NIST report claimed?

You can push someone to whom you have no connection. All you need is to stay in contact. Excuse the pun.

I have also asked you what forces would have caused the beam connections to break with no shear studs on the girder. You haven't answered that question. You just keep referring to the NIST WTC 7 report as though it is correct in every way.

It's the report being scrutinized by you, isn't it? At least know what it says if you want to criticize its contents.

The information you're requesting is on the same paragraph I quoted in page 22 of this thread, so the information has already been provided to you.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You can push someone to whom you have no connection. All you need is to stay in contact. Excuse the pun.


It's the report being scrutinized by you, isn't it? At least know what it says if you want to criticize its contents.

The information you're requesting is on the same paragraph I quoted in page 22 of this thread, so the information has already been provided to you.

How do the beams stay in contact with the girder if their connections are broken? These were fin connections where the bolts are from the side. There was no bottom seat, so if the connections are broken the beams would fall.

You also have not answered the question as to how the forces were generated that are alleged to have caused the beam to girder connections to break as the NIST WTC 7 report (that you quote) claims. Unfortunately for you, the report doesn't say, but you need to answer if you support what they say.

It seems we have a case of wanting it both ways here. First, the claim that the beams pushed the girder because it was unrestrained (it is said that it did not have shear studs), and next we are being told that the beam to girder connections were broken due to thermal expansion. However, that would require the girder being able to restrain the beams, which in the first instance we are told it can't.