'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

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.

Movement of the beam or bearing seats?

Personal, I think the **** hit the fan when things started to cool.

 

[gerrycan]

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.

Ok, point out the beam stubs for me on the drawing.

 

[Animal]

These are matters of fact. The drawings that NIST claim to have based their analysis on betray these errors. NIST have failed to address these errors and their implications in any meaningful way.

Another myth continually promoted by troofers.

No troofer has ever been able to explain the conflict of their claim against the NIST and the fact that the NIST actually added elements to the model that were not physically there.

Base ignorance of computer modelling that has been demostrated tiem and again.

 

[Animal]

Ok, point out the beam stubs for me on the drawing.

They are of no consequence to your claim that one particular beam had to expand a given amount to make the NIST report valid.

Your "squirrel" call in nothing but a troofer attempt at distraction.

 

[gerrycan]

Movement of the beam or bearing seats?

Personal, I think the **** hit the fan when things started to cool.

Surely this would mean that the elements, such as the beams that expanded would have to have sagged, which would only occur above 600C. Given that 600C is at the high end of any estimates of the steel temps in WTC7 I find this unlikely. Given that steel will regain it's strength once cooled I don't see how the cooling phase in WTC7 could possibly have resulted in the kind of failure that the building experienced.

 

[gerrycan]

Another myth continually promoted by troofers.

No troofer has ever been able to explain the conflict of their claim against the NIST and the fact that the NIST actually added elements to the model that were not physically there.

Base ignorance of computer modelling that has been demostrated tiem and again.

I think you are talking about springs here.
Also when you say that NIST "added" elements, what you are misdescribing is the make up of connections in ANSYS, where NIST would for example, take column 78 connections and just assume that column 79 had similar. It's shoddy, and does not account for stiffener plates for example.

 

[Wolrab]

I can't recall exactly how Danny Jowenko is an expert on high rise demolitions. Quick google searches only show truther garbage sites. I know he was proclaimed a 'Danish demolition expert" by trutherdom.

Was he even qualified to to make his claims? I know he is pretty much the ONLY demolition "authority" used by the truthers as every single demolition expert in the world has been compromised by the US.

 

[DGM]

Surely this would mean that the elements, such as the beams that expanded would have to have sagged, which would only occur above 600C. Given that 600C is at the high end of any estimates of the steel temps in WTC7 I find this unlikely. Given that steel will regain it's strength once cooled I don't see how the cooling phase in WTC7 could possibly have resulted in the kind of failure that the building experienced.

You don't believe any of the connections could fail?

Why is sag the only other option?

 

[Animal]

I think you are talking about springs here.
Also when you say that NIST "added" elements, what you are misdescribing is the make up of connections in ANSYS, where NIST would for example, take column 78 connections and just assume that column 79 had similar. It's shoddy, and does not account for stiffener plates for example.

Wrong again.....but not surprising for someone just spouting troofer claims with no understanding of the subject matter.

 

[Animal]

Surely this would mean that the elements, such as the beams that expanded would have to have sagged, which would only occur above 600C. Given that 600C is at the high end of any estimates of the steel temps in WTC7 I find this unlikely. Given that steel will regain it's strength once cooled I don't see how the cooling phase in WTC7 could possibly have resulted in the kind of failure that the building experienced.

Your lack of knowledge regarding building structures and construction makes your claims more than "unlikely"

 

[gerrycan]

You don't believe any of the connection could fail?

Why is sag the only other option?

No, I didn't mean that at all. Connections would fail in all sorts of circumstances. In the right circumstances steel would creep, expand sag and do all sorts of things in an elevated temperature scenario, after all, even in everyday conditions buildings move and necessarily so. The question is how much expansion/creep/sag and so on would the steel experience.
So do you think that NIST got it right with their statement that WTC7 collapsed due to thermal expansion of beams in the NE of the building?

 

[gerrycan]

Your lack of knowledge regarding building structures and construction makes your claims more than "unlikely"

And your lack of knowledge as to the extent of my knowledge makes that meaningless.

 

[gerrycan]

Wrong again.....but not surprising for someone just spouting troofer claims with no understanding of the subject matter.

So if not springs, what were you talking about? Be specific, and if I don't know or understand, I will say so. I have never been afraid to say " I don't know".
Tell me about the modelling connections that you are referring to. ( the non-spring ones).

 

[MileHighMadness]

So gerrycan...I have to ask, what is your background and education?

 

[DGM]

No, I didn't mean that at all. Connections would fail in all sorts of circumstances. In the right circumstances steel would creep, expand sag and do all sorts of things in an elevated temperature scenario, after all, even in everyday conditions buildings move and necessarily so. The question is how much expansion/creep/sag and so on would the steel experience.
So do you think that NIST got it right with their statement that WTC7 collapsed due to thermal expansion of beams in the NE of the building?

Yes I do. The thing is, if the connection to column fails during expansion it's no longer there to pull the column back when it cools. The original distance between seats has now changed.

 

[gerrycan]

They are of no consequence to your claim that one particular beam had to expand a given amount to make the NIST report valid.

Your "squirrel" call in nothing but a troofer attempt at distraction.

I just noticed that you don't think that the beam stubs have any relation to the claims re expansion related failure. What exactly do you think trhe purpose of the beam stubs were??
Maybe you think they had some off cuts left over and couldn't be bothered hoisting them back down to ground so just connected them randomly for the hell of it?

 

[gerrycan]

Yes I do. The thing is, if the connection to column fails during expansion it's no longer there to pull the column back when it cools. The original distance between seats has now changed.

The "distance between the seats" ??? What exactly is that?
Do you mean the distance between the bottom flange of the girder and the seat plate?
Also you are not accounting for the expansion of the girder itself which would leave it trapped inside the column and still on the seat PF. This is because of the side plates that were welded onto C79.
ETA - for clarity, the side plates do not square exactly with the North face of C79 but rather protrude slightly.

 

[gerrycan]

Yes I do. The thing is, if the connection to column fails during expansion it's no longer there to pull the column back when it cools. The original distance between seats has now changed.

WOAH. I just read this again.
Just goes to show that a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. Maybe you mis-typed.

 

[Animal]

I just noticed that you don't think that the beam stubs have any relation to the claims re expansion related failure. What exactly do you think trhe purpose of the beam stubs were??
Maybe you think they had some off cuts left over and couldn't be bothered hoisting them back down to ground so just connected them randomly for the hell of it?

<Sigh> more of the same from trooferland....
I can start making claims for "maybe what you think" as well........you just keep spinning the hamster wheel of troofer claims with no understanding of building structures or construction.

Typical

 

[DGM]

The "distance between the seats" ??? What exactly is that?
Do you mean the distance between the bottom flange of the girder and the seat plate?
Also you are not accounting for the expansion of the girder itself which would leave it trapped inside the column and still on the seat PF. This is because of the side plates that were welded onto C79.

No, the actual distance between columns. If the beam jacks them apart (expansion) and there's no connection to drag them back the beam can walk of the seat.

I've seen it happen on a few fire jobs.