'What about building 7'?

[pgimeno]

BS, the column is tied and nobody claims any different, apart from you.

NIST does, as I quoted.

 

[gerrycan]

Why only the girder?

Because the column is heavily restrained. Granted that between beam k3004 to the NE of the column, and beam D3004 to the SE of the column there is no beam tying C79 to C38, there is however H3016, P3016, and B2002, all heavily restraining the column.

 

[gerrycan]

Was it not involved in the fire?

Get real. It's tied on every floor.
see my reply above for the details of the main elements restraining it.

 

[DGM]

Because the column is heavily restrained. Granted that between beam k3004 to the NE of the column, and beam D3004 to the SE of the column there is no beam tying C79 to C38, there is however H3016, P3016, and B2002, all heavily restraining the column.

Are all these elements not in the fire?

You need to broaden your scope past a NIST quote.

 

[gerrycan]

NIST does, as I quoted.

Sorry, I can't see where you quoted NIST.

 

[Spanx]

What you don't seem to understand is that a beam can expand say 5" and cause the total accumulated displacement between seat and girder to exceed 6.25", counting east displacement of the column (which is a very plausible possibility as NIST pointed out, and as I quoted in the part of my message that you ignored), leveraging and other factors.

You keep ignoring that possibility and putting words on NIST's mouth that they never said.

ETA:

Same mistake again.

Unfortunately for some people plausible possibility is not except-able, its just a shame they are unable to expand on what they think they know. In fact all they know is what didn't happen or at least they like to think so.

 

[MileHighMadness]

None of your business.

Ok...I'm have a MS/BS in Civil Engineering, licensed Professional Engineer (PE) and Structural Engineer (SE) with over 35+ years of experience in the business designing and constructing bridges and buildings. I'm presenting working on the design of a new bracing system that provides increased lateral ductility for seismic forces in steel framed buildings.

There you have my education and background....what's yours?

And don't tell me it is none of my business, because it is. If you are going to come on this forum and act like you are an expert on Building 7 and structural engineering, you need to put up or shut up.

 

[gerrycan]

Are all these elements not in the fire?

You need to broaden your scope past a NIST quote.

Of course they are in the fire, yes. What's your point?

 

[gerrycan]

Ok...I'm have a MS/BS in Civil Engineering, licensed Professional Engineer (PE) and Structural Engineer (SE) with over 35+ years of experience in the business designing and constructing bridges and buildings. I'm presenting working on the design of a new bracing system that provides increased lateral ductility for seismic forces in steel framed buildings.

There you have my education and background....what's yours?

And don't tell me it is none of my business, because it is. If you are going to come on this forum and act like you are an expert on Building 7 and structural engineering, you need to put up or shut up.

Well done, I am impressed.
I play piano.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Well done, I am impressed.
I play piano.

Thank you. Understood...that answers all my questions.

 

[pgimeno]

Sorry, I can't see where you quoted NIST.

Reread this post, the quote is there. I even added quotation marks for your benefit.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10479920&postcount=3186

If you read only the first paragraph of my posts, you'll miss the meat of it.

ETA: Quoting the full post for your benefit:

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

I don't see the word "expanded" there. I only see the term "travel distance for walk off", which alludes to the relative displacement between the beam and the seat.

Are you aware of the difference between "travel distance for walk off" and "expansion"?

Even NIST, are not silly enough to claim that the seat moved to the East as the girder was being pushed West.

That's not being silly. Being silly is imagining that in such a jeopardized building the conditions remained as designed.

"The temperature of the girder between Columns 76 and 79 on Floor 13 was sufficient to displace Column 76 to the west and Column 79 to the east."
​

Using your style of referencing:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225

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

Yet you don't seem to distinguish them.

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

I did. NIST are saying that the distance for walk off was 6.25", but they are NOT saying that the beam had to expand as much. That's entirely your claim, not NIST's.

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.

You can't be serious. Are you now claiming that the girder was restrained by the column plates? Why was walk-off, axial or lateral, into consideration in any way then?

And it's not "my theory". See above.

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.

That analysis lacks any rigour. You need to show that the beam(s) (which?) fell, in the first place, and even if so, that it was impossible for them to be restrained by the connection from displacing North South while lying on the flange.

 

[gerrycan]

Thank you. Understood...that answers all my questions.

No it doesn't, it just tells you that I play piano.
The publication of my CV is not a prerequisite to participation in this forum, this thread or any discussion re engineering.
If you don't want to respond to me, as you say, go and do something else. If on the other hand you want to discuss where you believe I am wrong feel free to do that on whatever terms you like, at any technical level you wish.

 

[DGM]

Of course they are in the fire, yes. What's your point?

The fact you seem to focus on one element where the NIST considered the effect of fire on many.

Could this be why you can't get the engineering world to listen to you?

 

[Spanx]

Well done, I am impressed.
I play piano.

We can all play piano, just some are better than others.

 

[JayUtah]

No it doesn't, it just tells you that I play piano.
The publication of my CV is not a prerequisite to participation in this forum, this thread or any discussion re engineering.

It is if your argument is based primarily on how much more you allegedly know than your critics about engineering practice and the forensic analysis of structures.

You're the one telling the world that a cadre of professional engineers got something very egregiously wrong. Thus you present the world with a dilemma. They have to somehow reconcile in their minds two propositions: first, that what you say is perfectly defensible from any reasonable and well-qualified approach to this highly specialized, licensed profession; and second, that you are in a very distinct and very small minority. When you are less than forthcoming about the basis for your judgment, guess which way the public votes.

 

[Oystein]

What a stupid game everybody is playing here.

gerrycan asks you what the color of the sky is.
People dance around it.
Why can't yoou just simply all state what the color of the sky is? I don't know and can't and won't assess whether gerrycan says "blue" or "green" - it seemns though very much like he says "blue" and wants everyone to repeat after him: "The sky is blue".

What's stopping you guys to say it?

The real issue is of course: In what larger perspective does "sky is blue" mean or prove anything? I am waiting for that discussion to commence, I think it can be interesting, but no one is interested.

I don't care what experience you have. If you think the sky is blue, AND that is irrelevant, say so. Both the "sky is blue" bit AND the "is irrelevant" bit.

Thanks.

 

[DGM]

What a stupid game everybody is playing here.

Personally, I'm trying to sway him from looking at the problem in isolation.

 

[JayUtah]

What's stopping you guys to say it?

Because sometimes the sky is blue and sometimes the sky is reddish orange.

The real issue is of course: In what larger perspective does "sky is blue" mean or prove anything? I am waiting for that discussion to commence, I think it can be interesting, but no one is interested.

I already wrote my essay on that subject, many months ago. Szamboti didn't care to deal with it, and gerrycan didn't care to deal with it. So yes, I agree a different discussion than this one would be more productive. But productivity is rarely the goal or outcome of a conspiracy debate.

 

[gerrycan]

It is if your argument is based primarily on how much more you allegedly know than your critics about engineering practice and the forensic analysis of structures.

You're the one telling the world that a cadre of professional engineers got something very egregiously wrong. Thus you present the world with a dilemma. They have to somehow reconcile in their minds two propositions: first, that what you say is perfectly defensible from any reasonable and well-qualified approach to this highly specialized, licensed profession; and second, that you are in a very distinct and very small minority. When you are less than forthcoming about the basis for your judgment, guess which way the public votes.

Take as an example the stiffener plates. You have tried to dismiss that issue in similar form before, yet the CTBUH asked NIST whether their inclusion IN THE DESIGN of the building would have prevented the collapse and NIST did not answer. This was even within the time frame for public response.
Do you consider the CTBUH to be reputable in the engineering world?

 

[MileHighMadness]

No it doesn't, it just tells you that I play piano.
The publication of my CV is not a prerequisite to participation in this forum, this thread or any discussion re engineering.
If you don't want to respond to me, as you say, go and do something else. If on the other hand you want to discuss where you believe I am wrong feel free to do that on whatever terms you like, at any technical level you wish.

Oh yes...that simple statement "I play piano" tells me everything I need to know. Later...