'What about building 7'?

[GlennB]

If someone gives me an explanation as to how fire caused this collapse, I am open minded enough to take that on board. That is yet to happen, and in the absence of such an explanation, it is not surprising that alternative theories such as CD thrive.

On the contrary, it's very surprising, as no CD theory makes a single grain of sense.

Purely as an intellectual challenge, why don't you invent one?

Meanwhile, are you the same gerrycan that posted the following on a different forum (I ask because, apart from the name, it certainly resembles your work here) -

I think wtc7 was a controlled demolition because of 3 of the reasons stated below
1) the building hit freefall acceleration for over 2s within its collapse
2) the elements at column 79 combined to prevent the type of initiating event cited by NIST for the destruction
3) this manner of collapse has never been observed to occur due to fire

 

[gerrycan]

On the contrary, it's very surprising, as no CD theory makes a single grain of sense.

Purely as an intellectual challenge, why don't you invent one?

Meanwhile, are you the same gerrycan that posted the following on a different forum (I ask because, apart from the name, it certainly resembles your work here) -

I think wtc7 was a controlled demolition because of 3 of the reasons stated below
1) the building hit freefall acceleration for over 2s within its collapse
2) the elements at column 79 combined to prevent the type of initiating event cited by NIST for the destruction
3) this manner of collapse has never been observed to occur due to fire

Yes, in the context of that exchange I think this was a fair comment that I made. It is interesting that you left out the 4th point that was made. Maybe you could post that for anybody reading this??? And you have the audacity to say I am being disingenuous?????
the context of THIS exchange is that you cannot defend NISTs incompetence, and you cannot attack me for being a part of ae911, or for believing that wtc7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. You are merely looking for a way in, so that you can move the goalposts in this exchange.
I am happy to concede that in the absence of a reasonable explanation as to how fire could have brought down WTC7 then the most likely explanation is indeed CD.
There was certainly enough suspicious activity around the building in the week or so before the attacks to raise a few eyebrows.
Again, do you think that NIST have proved the case for fire doing this, and cited a probable means by which this happened?
The best verdict that I could see NIST achieving in this instance would be "not proven".

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Lest we forget, the gameplan:

To clarify, when I approach a would be debunker and steer clear of claims like "inside job", "US govt complicity", and even "freefall acceleration and thermitic material", but just stick to "they got the report wrong, missed out elements and made errors and should redo their analysis" - there is no defense. The issue is there in black and white and is undeniable. The only response that opposers can resort to is to try and move onto the aforementioned points that I have chosen for now, to steer clear of, and that fact alone indicates where the WTC7 report weak point really is.
Inside job, freefall, thermite etc have woken up all the people that they are going to in terms of mass. I believe it is now time to change the game plan and to use the numbers that these pertinent and relevant issues have helped gain for our cause. And I am convinced that the way to do this is to ask people to take that first step of entertaining the possibility that the WTC7 report is provably false, and allow them to draw their own conclusions rather than ask them to step straight to the finish line of "911 was an inside job"

Employed at length by Gerry in this thread last year

 

[GlennB]

Yes, in the context of that exchange I think this was a fair comment that I made. It is interesting that you left out the 4th point that was made. Maybe you could post that for anybody reading this??? And you have the audacity to say I am being disingenuous?????

Your fourth point was a joke and irrelevant here.

the context of THIS exchange is that you cannot defend NISTs incompetence, and you cannot attack me for being a part of ae911, or for believing that wtc7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. You are merely looking for a way in, so that you can move the goalposts in this exchange.
I am happy to concede that in the absence of a reasonable explanation as to how fire could have brought down WTC7 then the most likely explanation is indeed CD.

I got onto this tack when you protested:

"When did I say the building was rigged? "

So, fine, you do believe the building was rigged. Why make it so hard?

 

[JayUtah]

To Jay, the drawings are relevant when it suits him, but not when it doesn't suit. Pathetic.

If you say so. The argument you habitually make isn't supported by your mantra, "Look at the drawings!" And I explained at length why it isn't, in a post months ago that you still pretend doesn't exist. The argument Miragememories is making centers around his witness' claim to have seen "the drawings" and thus, according to him, to have properly informed himself. Thus it is quite relevant to the argument to determine what drawings he saw.

Nice try, but random attempts to discredit your critics do not suddenly make your arguments make sense.

 

[BasqueArch]

More important is, once the column connection is broken the beam is free to twist or "whip" in all sorts of ways depending on where the heat is applied. The lab test is controlled, the application of heat in the real world is not.

Before:

After:


This is what localized heat can do.

What engineer signed off on this?
Oh, you did this between inspections.

 

[DGM]

You need to specify the beam or the girder here.
The expansion of the girder is relevant in that it would expand to the inside of the column 79 side plates which would prevent lateral shift beyond 5.5" from the girder web. What NIST are saying is that the beams to the East of the girder expanded and caused the girder to walk West off the seat. As for the 3D vs 2D thing, I agree, but this does not help NISTs case at all because once the beam connections to the girder are broken, the beams no longer have purchase on the girder to enable them to push it.

I'm asking about any generic member. You seem to think a beam or girder can only expand in one plane when heated.

 

[Miragememories]

Your disingenuousness fools nobody.

Meanwhile if you believe it wasn't fire that caused the collapse then what do you believe did cause it?

I believe that the investigation into the collapse of WTC7 by NIST has not got to the bottom of what brought down building 7.

If indeed it was fire that caused the building to collapse, then we need to have an open and transparent investigation into this in order to ensure public safety.

NIST knew about the stiffener plates, they knew that the seat plate was wider than they said it was, yet they have chosen not to amend their analysis accordingly.

If someone gives me an explanation as to how fire caused this collapse, I am open minded enough to take that on board. That is yet to happen, and in the absence of such an explanation, it is not surprising that alternative theories such as CD thrive.

Do you think that NIST did a competent job?

Excellent post Gerry.

Regardless of your 'other beliefs', I do not see how Glenn can charge you with of being "disingenuous"?

How can it not be of the greatest importance to understand the true underlying cause behind the sudden collapse of a modern 47-storey steel-structured office tower?

It has been well shown that the NIST, in spite of years of investigation and analysis, have failed in their mission.

It was obvious that debris damage was not the reason.

If such damage had been shown to be the true cause, we could safely live with the knowledge that considering the unique circumstances that existed on 9/11 at the WTC, such vulnerability was unavoidable and not a design flaw that needed correcting in future constructions.

But, this is not the case.

The NIST as you pointed out, determined (falsely) that the true cause of the sudden, complete collapse of 7WTC, was the unfought roaming office cubicle fires.

By failing to prove this determination, and by refusing to make important corrections to their model, the NIST is attempting to protect those people who live and work in steel structured office towers by making seriously flawed safety recommendations that do not address the true problem.

If the destruction of 7WTC was not a controlled demolition, and was not caused by unfought fire activity, than there is an extremely serious engineering hazard in steel-structured office tower construction that remains a present and constant threat to any such buildings facing major fire activity.

 

[Spanx]

In that case, you're posting in the wrong forum; this forum is for the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, not of structural engineering analysis. Can I suggest you start a thread in Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology?

Dave

Perhaps more to the point why bother posting on any forum? Surely issues of public safety will never take effect through forums such as this.

 

[gerrycan]

The argument Miragememories is making centers around his witness' claim to have seen "the drawings" and thus, according to him, to have properly informed himself. Thus it is quite relevant to the argument to determine what drawings he saw.

I think that Danny Jowenko only saw the illustration of the floor framing, and it would be highly unlikely that he had viewed the structural drawings. He spoke in very general terms re how the potential CD of such a building would take place, and I think he was spot on. "attack the heart" he said, and he was right. The core column structure would have to be taken out first in order for the building to drop in the manner observed.
I can understand why he chose to stand by his comments and as I said previously, it would have raised more eyebrows if he had immediately said that he thought it was probably fire that did it.

 

[JayUtah]

Lest we forget, the gameplan:


Employed at length by Gerry in this thread last year

Indeed many conspiracy theorists believe they can escape a burden of proof by never making any overt affirmative claims and using various rhetorical gyrations to place irrelevant or inappropriate burdens upon their opponents. Going no further than, "The official story is wrong!" is disingenuous when there is obviously a major affirmative claim waiting in the wings.

However, in this case the affirmative claims are made -- however thickly concealed -- that the alleged errors made in the computer analysis are significant enough to warrant dismissing its results entirely, and that the alleged infidelity of the computer model is grave enough to dismiss the overall findings that are further alleged to be principally based upon it. These begged questions are buried deep inside a shell of bluster so that they are never subjected to any meaningful degree of scrutiny.

 

[JayUtah]

It has been well shown that the NIST, in spite of years of investigation and analysis, have failed in their mission.

To whom? By whom?

 

[GlennB]

I think that Danny Jowenko only saw the illustration of the floor framing, and it would be highly unlikely that he had viewed the structural drawings. He spoke in very general terms re how the potential CD of such a building would take place, and I think he was spot on. "attack the heart" he said, and he was right. The core column structure would have to be taken out first in order for the building to drop in the manner observed.

And here you disagree with MM, who believes the observed collapse can only be explained by simultaneous removal of all vertical support over some 8 storeys.

Perhaps you two should discuss your disparate theories? In private, ideally.

 

[pgimeno]

No. But I can tell you that the girder spanning C79 and C44 would be required to "walk" about 9" to fail, and that the maximum expansion that could be experienced by the beam to its east is around 5.3" and that NIST claim that the girder "walked" 5.5" 6.25". NIST's claim is impossible

The highlighted part does not follow from the part that precedes it. NIST didn't ever claim any beam had to expand that much. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the expansion of the beam and the relative displacement between the seat and the girder are two different things?

In a post that later went to AAH I asked you:

For NIST to claim that a 53ft beam can expand 6.25" is quite simply nonsense.

I haven't seen NIST claim that. Citation, please?

Your reply was:

"The travel distance for walk off was 6.25 5.5 in. along the axis of the beam and 5.5 6.25 in. lateral to the beam"
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225

That isn't a claim that a beam can expand as much. NIST did not claim such thing. Your accusation is baseless: you're saying that something that NIST never claimed is impossible. That's a strawman, and putting on NIST's mouth words that they never said is disingenuous.

So what was the maximum expansion of a 53ft beam at 600C ?
Simple question.

You keep asking the wrong question again and again. It matters little what the maximum expansion of a beam is; what matters is how much the distance between the seat and the girder could grow. Under the WTC7 conditions, neither was fixed, and there were possibilities for the displacement to be amplified by leveraging, resulting in a displacement bigger than the expansion by some factor.

 

[gerrycan]

I'm asking about any generic member. You seem to think a beam or girder can only expand in one plane when heated.

I assume that you mean in "one" plane.
NIST took the East wall of WTC7 to be "infinitely strong" meaning that in their analysis the beams expanded only to the west ie in one direction.
When you look at the connection of the beams with particular regard to longest beam (which would expand the most) the connection that it had to the West face column C38, this connection would have to also break, meaning that the expansion to the West would be decreased further.
Thank you for highlighting yet another area where NIST were economical with the truth and should have taken into account expansion in more than one direction.
For the record, in our own group's analysis, we presumed that any elongation that was at all possible was in the direction of travel that favoured NISTs hypothesis.

 

[Spanx]

​

there is an extremely serious engineering hazard in steel-structured office tower construction that remains a present and constant threat to any such buildings facing major fire activity.

Strangely enough I tend to agree with you. As far as I am aware there always has been and suspect always will be. I believe the idea is to evacuate the occupants before loss of life.

 

[DGM]

I assume that you mean in "one" plane.
NIST took the East wall of WTC7 to be "infinitely strong" meaning that in their analysis the beams expanded only to the west ie in one direction.
When you look at the connection of the beams with particular regard to longest beam (which would expand the most) the connection that it had to the West face column C38, this connection would have to also break, meaning that the expansion to the West would be decreased further.
Thank you for highlighting yet another area where NIST were economical with the truth and should have taken into account expansion in more than one direction.
For the record, in our own group's analysis, we presumed that any elongation that was at all possible was in the direction of travel that favoured NISTs hypothesis.

This doesn't answer the question.

Why do you think the one beam had to expand as much as you claim?

 

[gerrycan]

The highlighted part does not follow from the part that precedes it. NIST didn't ever claim any beam had to expand that much.

They made exactly that claim.

"The travel distance for walk off was 6.25 5.5 in. along the axis of the beam and 5.5 6.25 in. lateral to the beam"

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225
Even NIST, are not silly enough to claim that the seat moved to the East as the girder was being pushed West.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the expansion of the beam and the relative displacement between the seat and the girder are two different things?

Yes, it has occurred to me that 2 different things may in fact actually be 2 different things.

That isn't a claim that a beam can expand as much. NIST did not claim such thing. Your accusation is baseless: you're saying that something that NIST never claimed is impossible. That's a strawman, and putting on NIST's mouth words that they never said is disingenuous.

I think that you need to read and understand the erratum posted above, and put your comment into some perspective.

You keep asking the wrong question again and again. It matters little what the maximum expansion of a beam is; what matters is how much the distance between the seat and the girder could grow.

Very true. It also matters how much the girder would expand at the given temperature, and as it happens, the girder would actually expand to the inside of the side plates of the built up column C79. That alone leaves your "seat moving to the East" theory in shreds.

Under the WTC7 conditions, neither was fixed, and there were possibilities for the displacement to be amplified by leveraging, resulting in a displacement bigger than the expansion by some factor.

To be clear, Are you saying that the beams would break from the flange connection at the girder and fall onto the bottom flange and continue to push the girder to the West. I don't think you are taking into account that these beams were not at 90 degrees to the girder.

 

[gerrycan]

This doesn't answer the question.

Why do you think the one beam had to expand as much as you claim?

It's NIST that claim the movement was that extensive due to the expansion of the beam. They said this in their erratum, and Shyam Sunder clearly stated it in NISTs tech briefing.

 

[Animal]

It is almost like you are saying that once the beams had failed, they would gain purchase on the girder by moving North rather than South on the bottom flange of the girder. That's almost funny.
And you claim that trigonometry is not my friend?

Are you considering the beam stubs in your "analysis" ?

Not what I am saying..........that fact you cannot grasp that and try put words in my mouth in a lame attempt to save your failed claim displays your ignorance in basic trig.