'What about building 7'?

[gerrycan]

What happened to the genuine research group ?

Yeah the group researched and continues to. I'm just making the point we can all speak for ourselves too. Like I am doing here.

 

[NoahFence]

The mistake was not "stopped" by NIST, it was called to their attention and they had to issue an erratum on it. And I don't think I am important, the information is, and putting the NIST reported analysis under scrutiny is.

In your fantasy world, where that matters - how would the conclusion (Fire+Damage = Collapse) change if they reported those numbers correctly?

 

[Spanx]

Yeah the group researched and continues to. I'm just making the point we can all speak for ourselves too. Like I am doing here.

So you are hoping for a new investigation with a different result ?

Would you agree fire, connection failiure and beam/girder faliure is a good probable cause ? If not what would you be looking for in your outcome.

 

[JSanderO]

So you are hoping for a new investigation with a different result ?

Would you agree fire, connection failiure and beam/girder faliure is a good probable cause ? If not what would you be looking for in your outcome.

One doesn't need to be looking for any outcome actually. Presumably one would look for a plausible explanation which explains the observed motion.

 

[Animal]

In your fantasy world, where that matters - how would the conclusion (Fire+Damage = Collapse) change if they reported those numbers correctly?

It has been pretty obvious for a long time that there is no interest by either he or his "group" to do anything except continue the hamster wheel "discussion"
Dicky gage can continue his expense paid vacations for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, our two current troofer posters can run back to the safe haven forums and just bump each other.......all the while not having a clue about building structures or computer modelling

 

[NoahFence]

It has been pretty obvious for a long time that there is no interest by either he or his "group" to do anything except continue the hamster wheel "discussion"
Dicky gage can continue his expense paid vacations for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, our two current troofer posters can run back to the safe haven forums and just bump each other.......all the while not having a clue about building structures or computer modelling

I'm a printer and I knew what took the buildings down even before they finished collapsing. It was obvious.

 

[jaydeehess]

Two very simple questions then.
Why did NIST mention column displacement?
What makes it so definitive that it occurred after girder walk off since NIST does not specify that?

???? Ziggi

I outlined reasoning to support the idea that it was prior to walk off.
Your contention is that it occurred after walk off because NIST doesn't specify exactly when it occurred.


It would seem then that for you it must have occurred after walk off because that's when you want it to.

 

[jaydeehess]

What happened to the genuine research group ?

Yeah the group researched and continues to. I'm just making the point we can all speak for ourselves too. Like I am doing here.

The latest I saw was produced by a carpenter. Now for sure there have been some very insightful carpenters in written history but.......

Fact is that not a single piece of research at the level and completeness of the NIST reports, or Purdue, or FEMA, has been produced by AE911T.

 

[Ziggi]

???? Ziggi

I outlined reasoning to support the idea that it was prior to walk off.
Your contention is that it occurred after walk off because NIST doesn't specify exactly when it occurred.


It would seem then that for you it must have occurred after walk off because that's when you want it to.

NIST mentions the column displacement because it is listing events that happened within the 4 hour mark, that´s all.

The problem for you is not that NIST does not specify exactly when the column displacement occurred, the problem for you is that NIST does not claim anywhere that this event aided the girder walk off, as you ASSUME. The 11.6 summary is there for a reason.

 

[Animal]

In your fantasy world, where that matters - how would the conclusion (Fire+Damage = Collapse) change if they reported those numbers correctly?

Troofers will never grasp the concept of "probable"

To paraphrase what I have said in the past......a box of 10,000 matches falls off a shelf and spills on the floor. Rational people want to know why it fell off the shelf to prevent it from happening again. Troofers on the other hand, demand to know why each match landed in its exact position....and if their demand is not met.....then it must have been explosives.

 

[beachnut]

NIST mentions the column displacement because it is listing events that happened within the 4 hour mark, that´s all.

The problem for you is not that NIST does not specify exactly when the column displacement occurred, the problem for you is that NIST does not claim anywhere that this event aided the girder walk off, as you ASSUME. The 11.6 summary is there for a reason.

What is your theory on WTC 7? Right you can't explain your probable cause because it is based on a the idiotic lies of CD, explosives and thermite. Three big lies, you can't explain.

Good job.

The problem for you, the lack of engineering knowledge you have, unable to do more than BS your way to more BS.

If you have nothing to support the claims you can't make, the failed attack on NIST, is silly, but funny watching you run out of BS methods to attack NIST.

You have nothing to debate. When will you present your inside job nonsense? Never? What happened, did the dog eat your evidence? When will you get to the engineering part? So far all you offered is talk.

 

[BasqueArch]

NIST had to admit to a crucial part of their report being the wrong way round. They also had to admit getting 11" mixed up with 1 foot, and all this at what must have been one of the most heavily scrutinized parts of the report inside NIST. You're saying they passed wind when in fact they had a massive dump.


No, making NIST seem infallible is your task at hand, and I don't envy you it at all. Their difficulty in differentiating between numbers isn't a good start in the infallibility stakes.


My gran used to read that. NISTs technical briefing was a bit more technical, but in reality was just more specific about the same errors.


And this is you defending the report?



You're only talking to me here. I am not speaking on behalf of any group. As for weaving together compelling scenarios, the score would remain 0-0 at the moment.


It does, and it hasn't.


The mistake was not "stopped" by NIST, it was called to their attention and they had to issue an erratum on it. And I don't think I am important, the information is, and putting the NIST reported analysis under scrutiny is.


NIST called it in depth, you compare it to a magazine. Either way it belongs in the fiction section.


The reason given for not including them was that they were designed to help prevent web crippling. Are you saying that they would not also help prevent the bottom flange from folding?


Not as well as I'd like, no.


I wish I shared your confidence.

The 13th floor C79-44 girder failed due to lateral-torsional buckling. The top flange and web rotated past their load carrying geometry, past the seat edge. You have nothing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

NIST mentions the column displacement because it is listing events that happened within the 4 hour mark, that´s all.

The problem for you is not that NIST does not specify exactly when the column displacement occurred, the problem for you is that NIST does not claim anywhere that this event aided the girder walk off, as you ASSUME. The 11.6 summary is there for a reason.

I'd frankly like to know the essence of what this meta detail is supposed to conclude. If the NIST got the girder walk off wrong, then what? Are you contending based on this that the code recommendations they make based on their conclusions are wrong? Does said ruling dismiss the end conclusion that the building would have fallen or not? I get that you want to say that the NIST is wrong but for non-engineers like me, dealing with the deep specifics, hammering down details down to this hair splitting detail isn't getting to the crux of the issue - does it change the end result? Or does it change non- critical aspects?

You're spending so much time doing this that it seems to me like you're not getting your point across. Disagreeing with NIST on whether the girder walk off was sufficient or not isn't unrealistic per se, but I can't figure out from your over-focus on this level of detail where your criticism leads. Other members are guilty for entertaining you on this, but all the same I can't really blame them when you're not justifying your critique with a particular reason. Gerrycan's in that same boat as far as I'm concerned... Whether NIST got that level of detail right or wrong isn't to the level of radically changing the end outcome of collapse for me, on the otherhand such finding COULD influence building codes which get into my line of work

 

[BasqueArch]

Ziggi
BasqueArch and others are still falsely presenting chapter 8 as NIST´s walk off theory, even though it has nothing to do with it. Chapter 8 shows an entirely fictional scenario designed to get the sheer studs to fail, see page 346. This fictional scenario included heating the beams to 600C in 1.5 seconds while the floor slab is cold, to maximize the stress on the sheer studs. This is of course impossible in the real world, and NIST´s fire simulation, but is irrevelant here because this experiment relies on neither.

Chapter 10 introduces the fire simulation, where the heating occurs over several hours not seconds, and chapter 11 introduces the walk off theory based on results from chapter 10, which is completely different from the fictional "girder rock event" shown in chapter 8.

The rock off shown in chapter 8 is not even based on the fire simulation, and it shows the floor beams buckling so they pull the girder axally straight back to the westward direction. The real walk off theory is based on the fire simulation and it shows lateral not axial displacement, because the floor beams are expanding and pushing, instead of buckling and falling back, and the result is displacement to the east not the west.

Trying to conflate these two scenarios is pure gobbledygook.

If you want to learn about NIST´s walk off theory, go to chapter 11.

You didn't read my post or if you did you didn't understand it. Your post has too many engineering incompetent errors to correct. NIST proved fire and not explosives collapsed WTC7.

 

[LSSBB]

NIST mentions the column displacement because it is listing events that happened within the 4 hour mark, that´s all.

The problem for you is not that NIST does not specify exactly when the column displacement occurred, the problem for you is that NIST does not claim anywhere that this event aided the girder walk off, as you ASSUME. The 11.6 summary is there for a reason.

What were the exact placements and distortions of all associated structural members at the point of girder walk-off, per the simulation of the case where it occurred? If you don't know this, you can't claim what NIST witnessed in the simulation and so don't have enough facts to say it was wrong.

 

[Ziggi]

You're still dodging the question, Ziggi.

How, in your opinion, should NIST have reported the walk-off that ANSYS showed, to meet your standards of scientific quality?

Let's leave apart for a moment that the report passed peer review from engineers. Let's focus only on what you expect from them in order to consider the report scientific when reporting the walk-off. What should it have said?

Pgimeno, you keep accepting NIST´s word and jumping great leaps of faith. Gerrycan has already summed up what I have been trying to tell you:

ANSYS didn't show a walk off as such. The girder was displaced to the point that NIST deemed if to have failed. This is an important distinction and illustrates that NIST set the walk off points for such elements outwith ANSYS.

NIST´s model/results are based on a series of assumptions. There is no analysis or simulation to show the expansion, or the girder walk off, or to prove that the flange would fold once the web was past the seat plate. As I mentioned in post 4052, NIST says that:

"Therefore, when the web was no longer supported by the bearing seat, the beam was assumed to have lost support, as the flexural stiffness of the bottom flange was assumed to be insufficient for transferring the gravity loads."

The biggest problem to start by is that NIST´s expansion distance is unaccounted for. It is just another assumption that was accounted for very early on when NIST was forming its theory, while it was working on that fire simulation shown in chapter 10.

The simulation showed that the floor beams could be heated to 600C, and if you plug that into NIST´s expansion equation, you end up with 5.5 inches of expansion plus change. At this point NIST had a valid input point for the computer model to report walk off, given the wrong 11 inch seat width and forgotten stiffener plates, and NIST could have clearly explained this in the report as I am asking for.

But NIST does not do this because it ran into problems later, and this is revealed in chapter 11 if you read it very carefully. The floor beams fail before they get to 400C and this should have put an end to the expansion theory as it limits the expansion to about 3 inches. But this not noticed because NIST ignored it and did not mention it. This is why there are no calculations shown.

The problems that gerrycan´s team found of course add to the problem because it becomes evident that NIST´s could never have entertained the idea of the expansion - walk off theory had it not modeled the column 79 seat wrongly as the 11 inch wide column 81 seat without stiffeners.

Whether or not this was an honest mistake or by design is not really the main issue here, but it is about time people stop pretending to not see the nudity of the emperor.

 

[Animal]

NIST´s model/results are based on a series of assumptions. There is no analysis or simulation to show the expansion, or the girder walk off, or to prove that the flange would fold once the web was past the seat plate. As I mentioned in post 4052, NIST says that:

Far better to rely on educated assumption of the NIST than to look to the uneducated fantasies for the troofer groups.

 

[BasqueArch]

delete

 

[BasqueArch]

Ziggi
............The simulation showed that the floor beams could be heated to 600C, and if you plug that into NIST´s expansion equation, you end up with 5.5 inches of expansion plus change. At this point NIST had a valid input point for the computer model to report walk off, given the wrong 11 inch seat width and forgotten stiffener plates , and NIST could have clearly explained this in the report as I am asking for. ......

NIST never said the beams expanded more than 6.25". They said the beams pushed the girder off the seat.

 

[Ziggi]

I'd frankly like to know the essence of what this meta detail is supposed to conclude. If the NIST got the girder walk off wrong, then what? Are you contending based on this that the code recommendations they make based on their conclusions are wrong?

...You're spending so much time doing this that it seems to me like you're not getting your point across. Disagreeing with NIST on whether the girder walk off was sufficient or not isn't unrealistic per se, but I can't figure out from your over-focus on this level of detail where your criticism leads...

This alleged girder walk off is what starts the total collapse of whole building according to NIST, like tipping the first domino. If it does not walk off there is no collapse and NIST is back at the drawing board.