'What about building 7'?

[gerrycan]

None of this points to they got it wrong to the point of CD. There is no such thing as indestructible, building codes are made to make the buildings survivable. Do you understand the difference? In this aspect building 7 exceeded code. Do you agree?

Yes I am comfortable with that statement. Sure.

There is no mystery why this structure failed. Take away the protections the system will fail. Unless you can argue the systems to prevent failure were not compromised, you have no argument.

That's not quite true. If the fires in a building are so intense that they distort the steel, do you think that the fire suppression systems will not have suffered such damage as to render them useless?
An example would be the chechnya luxury hotel fire in 2009. The suppression systems were rendered useless and the building burned for 29 hours, but did not collapse.

 

[Animal]

Look at my post again. I am not ruling anything out.
As for the rest of your bluster, the most respected people in the field of high rise steel structures who saw fit to publicly ask NIST whether elements that turned out to be present would in fact have prevented a failure as described in NISTs report were the CTBUH. They asked this publicly. They received no reply.
Out of interest, what is that little thing at the top of the girder at column 79 called ?
What do you base your belief in NISTs report on. Is it a thorough analysis of the drawings? I don't think so, and the experts opinions (absent those from within NIST) that you cite, were made in the absence of the drawings.
You can appeal to whatever numbers you like, but you will not change the reality that the CTBUH put their finger on an important omission that NIST made in their analysis, and neither you, NIST or anybody else can point out which elements NIST added to their analysis to compensate for the presence of the plates that the CTBUH clearly thought may have prevented the failure progression that NIST supposed.
As for the lack of knowledge you suppose I have, why don't you debate me live on video a week from today and illustrate that lack for all to see?
I am sure we won't be long in finding out who knows what about the issue.
Let me know roughly what weight you are, so I can obtain a basket big enough to hand your ass back to you in.

<SNICKER> You should look in the mirror when you talk about bluster. You constant focusing on the minutia of the stiffener plates and their absence in the structural model, while ignoring the presence of other stiffeners that were not in the actual building verifies your ignorance of building structures, structural modeling and their intent. Nothing you yammer about will change that fact.

 

[gerrycan]

Gerrycan likes his thermite.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1060626885&postcount=141

Yes and that post indicates that thermitic material is a possibility that should be considered.

 

[JSanderO]

Gerry,
I started a thread here some time ago to discuss then notion that a single column failure could lead to a total collapse... obviously it depends on the building and the column and it's location in the tower. My sense is that a typical 30'x30' or so might not collapse totally from a single column failure. After all when they DO a CD they do a number of columns at do it at the bottom. Understanding the collapses of the twin towers required a decent amount of understanding of the structure and the connections. I think we have a good explanation of how it came down and why it came down in the time it did. I digress...

7WTC as far as I am concerned had to lose a fair amount of the structure at the center of the building for it to essentially drop as it did... East side interior moving westward and them the exterior moment frame w/ curtain wall attached. What we see coming down is not THE building but the curtain wall and moment frame of the perimeter. The insides came down 10's of seconds before that.

The logical explanation for me is a failure of the massive load transfer system which supported everything above flr 7. But those girders and trusses were so massive HEAT would not do much... heat from fires in an office building. But the trusses were field erected with plates welded and bolted. If those connections failed the trusses would come apart and the 40 stories above would collapse down. This is the most logical explanation. NIST seems to posit a collapse of mass coming down on these member and destroying them... Maybe.

Do you doubt that that if one of those massive transfer structures collapsed... that the rest of the building would come down in short order?

It was a progressive collapse.. and once it got going it proceeded very rapidly and was unstoppable. Trying to focus on a connection or how many inches it moves is a fool's errand. Steel buildings do not do well in fire... and without fire suppression they likely won't survive at all.

I don't defend NIST... but the truth movement has nothing... absolutely nothing... but ignorance and disbelief and no understanding of the structures or of what happened. They see what they want to see and they cling to their fantasies for some weird reason.

Do you think heat can destroy connections in steel frames? That is what happened.

 

[DGM]

Yes I am comfortable with that statement. Sure.


That's not quite true. If the fires in a building are so intense that they distort the steel, do you think that the fire suppression systems will not have suffered such damage as to render them useless?
An example would be the chechnya luxury hotel fire in 2009. The suppression systems were rendered useless and the building burned for 29 hours, but did not collapse.

In this case the active fire suppression systems were not the only thing compromised. The damage also compromised the design compartmentalization. Agree?

 

[Fonebone]

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.

Are you a member of the SEA ?

 

[gerrycan]

In this case the active fire suppression systems were not the only thing compromised. The damage also compromised the design compartmentalization. Agree?

Yeah, the damage allowed the fire to spread more rapidly than it otherwise would have. However, the fire was larger, over more floors, hotter and more than three times as long burning in the hotel fire I cited to those in wtc7.
Show me a comparison of your own using a building that displayed similar characteristics to WTC7 due to fire if you can.
You can't because this was an unprecedented event thought previously to be impossible, wasn't it?

 

[DGM]

Yeah, the damage allowed the fire to spread more rapidly than it otherwise would have. However, the fire was larger, over more floors, hotter and more than three times as long burning in the hotel fire I cited to those in wtc7.
Show me a comparison of your own using a building that displayed similar characteristics to WTC7 due to fire if you can.
You can't because this was an unprecedented event thought previously to be impossible, wasn't it?

Why does this matter? The the Titantic sank although no ship of its size had before.

Are you a believer of if it hasn't happened before it can't?

I've never died, does this make me immortal?

 

[gerrycan]

Why does this matter? The the Titantic sank although no ship of its size had before.

Are you a believer of if it hasn't happened before it can't?

I've never died, does this make me immortal?

Ahhh the Titanic. A craft which no doubt had slightly larger stiffener plates than WTC7. I wonder if anybody would notice if they were left out of an analysis of the ship. I rather think so.
Did anyone notice that they were left out of the WTC7 analysis? YES

Let's suppose for a minute that no high rise steel building has ever been brought down in a controlled demolition and it's demise blamed on fire before.
Is that therefore not also possible?
The crucial factor is that the titanic exhibited all the signs of sinking due to hitting an iceberg, as have many crafts before it. The problem with WTC7 is that there is no frame of reference for a high rise steel building collapsing due to fire outside of new york in september 2001.
As you say, that something has not happened before does not discount the event occurring in the future. Apply that valid premise evenly to all possibilities re WTC7 and see which best fits the observation.
There was a frame of reference for the Titanic, but none for the collapse of WTC7 due to fire.

 

[DGM]

Ahhh the Titanic.

Why did you type all this? Did you miss the obvious point?

 

[BasqueArch]

If there was something nefarious going on at the NIST.....they would not have added non existent elements making the collapse scenario more difficult. Something troofers have never been able to come to grips with.

Yes. Not only did NISTadd elements that strengthened the system in the one story model but they also neglected to consider other means of failure of the girder. The 44-79 girder was the most heavily loaded beam/girder in the typical floor above the 5th; it had the longest span; it was slender instead of compact; it had holes cut into the web for ac ducts; it did not have shear studs connecting it to the slab; beams were framed to it on one side only; the ends were loose - failure of this moribund girder by bending wasn't even considered by NIST. Also the girder seat would have failled in time had the girder survived the multiple wounds by fire. You don' hear about this from not-truthers.

 

[gerrycan]

Why did you type all this? Did you miss the obvious point?

The obvious point is that we can examine the remains of the titanic and by examining them ascertain exactly what sank it.
Compare that to WTC7, an unprecedented event, the forensic engineering investigation into which could have potentially improved building safety worldwide.
How much WTC7 steel did NIST SAY they kept, and how much was ACTUALLY kept. Why the difference?

 

[DGM]

The obvious point is that we can examine the remains of the titanic and by examining them ascertain exactly what sank it.
Compare that to WTC7, an unprecedented event, the forensic engineering investigation into which could have potentially improved building safety worldwide.
How much WTC7 steel did NIST SAY they kept, and how much was ACTUALLY kept. Why the difference?

Wouldn't you consider building 7 a special case? Would you think the exact conditions would occur in the average case? What recommendations would you suggest?

 

[LSSBB]

When the CTBUH asked NIST if stiffener plates on the girder would have prevented the failure publicly, do you think that it was right for NIST not to reply, when they were in possession of drawings that clearly showed the plates to be present?
I don't.

Great. Big whoop. Let CTBUH and NIST duke it out. If CTBUH does not care to carry the torch, why should anyone else? The only evidence is fire caused the collapse, as far as either is concerned. No conspiracy there.

 

[gerrycan]

The 44-79 girder was the most heavily loaded beam/girder in the typical floor above the 5th; it had the longest span.

You must be looking at the wrong building there, or you just don't comprehend the typical framing plan. The girder from 79 = 44 isn't even in the top ten in a typical floor of the building as far as span goes.
What about A3016 for example? And that is without even looking closely.
Doesn't bode well for your other claims does it.
What drawing are you looking at and what span do you think that the girder you cite as the longest has?

ETA - Do you by any chance work for NIST ?

 

[gerrycan]

Wouldn't you consider building 7 a special case? Would you think the exact conditions would occur in the average case? What recommendations would you suggest?

Every building is a special case to some extent.
I would suggest retaining the evidence and checking it for signs of localised heat in any future steel high rise collapse that is attributed to fire.
Hang on, isn't that a wtc7 girder and Mr John Gross?.........
http://www.consensus911.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Figure-C2.jpg

Now back to the previous question.... How much steel did NIST say they retained from WTC7 ?

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Animal
If there was something nefarious going on at the NIST.....they would not have added non existent elements making the collapse scenario more difficult. Something troofers have never been able to come to grips with.

Yes. Not only did NISTadd elements that strengthened the system in the one story model but they also neglected to consider other means of failure of the girder. The 44-79 girder was the most heavily loaded beam/girder in the typical floor above the 5th; it had the one of the longest spans; it was slender instead of compact; it had holes cut into the web for ac ducts; it did not have shear studs connecting it to the slab; beams were framed to it on one side only; the ends were loose - failure of this moribund girder by bending wasn't even considered by NIST. Also the girder seat would have failled in time had the girder survived the multiple wounds by fire. You don' hear about this from not-truthers.

 

[JayUtah]

I really can't see the point of arguing that the "NIST got is horribly wrong" based on the CBTUH report when the report says this on the first page.

CTBUH in no way supports gerrycan's argument. They go on to say that while they have some questions for NIST, they aren't supporting the Truth movement. Why would someone think he can quote a group as allegedly supporting him when they specifically say they don't? On this point the Truth movement is clearly grasping at straws, and the answer to why they are still in the very extreme minority is that the rest of the profession clearly sees they're grasping at straws.

 

[gerrycan]

The 44-79 girder was the most heavily loaded beam/girder in the typical floor above the 5th; it had the longest span.

The 44-79 girder was the most heavily loaded beam/girder in the typical floor above the 5th; it had the one of the longest spans

You'd have been better just putting your hands up to that one. Maybe you could claim it was a typo and release an erratum statement. NIST did this over an alleged typo pertaining to a difference of 3/4", but you are stretching it a bit, well actually rather more than just a bit.
It was just under 46ft. Of the girders that connected the core columns to the North face it was one of the shortest spans.

 

[gerrycan]

Here’s a partial list of what you are wrong about:
1. The beams can expand more than 6.25” due to temperatures greater than 600C. NIST’s 16 floor Fire Dynamics Simulator showed much greater temperatures than 600C.


2. The belief that after the fire flames have moved on the steel temperatures don’t remain high. NIST’s FDS modeling shows elevated atmospheric temperatures in the fire floor areas for much longer periods than 15 minutes, continuing to damage the steel.


3. Insulting NIST engineers and scientists for leaving out in the simplified one floor model the two stiffeners at the 13th floor column 79 girder and the stiffeners at the northern beam, but neglecting to mention that in the simplified one story model they made that northern beam larger than the one in the plans; neglecting to mention that they had those northern beam stiffeners in the 16 floor ANSYS collapse model; neglecting to mention that in the simplified one floor model they intentionally left out seat failure by adding stiffeners not in the plans, under the girder seat; neglecting to mention that in the one floor model NIST intentionally left out eastward lateral displacement of column 79 that was observed in the 16 floor FEA model. Repeatedly neglecting to mention this evidence that disproves your claims is known as confirmation bias.


4. The belief that the girder can only “walk off” by having the beams only push laterally and ignoring twisting of the girder by the beams. NIST shows the “walking off” failure of the column 79-44 13 th floor girder due to displacement by lateral torsional buckling. This buckling mechanism is described in detail and with figures in their report.


5. The belief that the fire could not have collapsed WTC7. There is no evidence that fire could not have collapsed WTC7, nor is there any evidence that anything other than fire explains how WTC7 collapsed.

Name-calling NIST engineers and scientists by incompetents is insolent libel.

As for this one, I am going to leave that until tomorrow, as it will take a while to list your errors. I actually considered posting that which you had got correct so as to be brief, but failed to find anything.