'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

Just looking at it out of curiosity, it takes such small impacts to damage the structure, was just Wondering if an off center strike could have had the same effect on building 7 as they did in the twin towers collapses.
By disconnection of components bolts and welds.

The worst damage was broken windows and loss of water. This took out the primary fire protection systems.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The worst damage was broken windows and loss of water. This took out the primary fire protection systems.

I already understand those, this is just an exercise out of curiosity and boredom, 2 feet of snow outside and truthers are not very entertaining today.
What I am looking for is a way to induce slight connection failure that would have induced the reported lean in the structure, prior to collapse.
The section I am interested in is obscured by smoke in the photos so damage may not be ascertainable.

 

[DGM]

I already understand those, this is just an exercise out of curiosity and boredom, 2 feet of snow outside and truthers are not very entertaining today.
What I am looking for is a way to induce slight connection failure that would have induced the reported lean in the structure, prior to collapse.
The section I am interested in is obscured by smoke in the photos so damage may not be ascertainable.

Two feet?

That's flurries..................

 

[LSSBB]

NIST should undertake analysis to see what their travel distance required for walk off estimate should have been was close enough with the elements that they had not yet accounted for included. Theres already an inch to be deducted from the expansion figure to allow for the beams east connection failing.
Dont you think that the opinion of the CTBUH on the initiating event is importrant ?

They already reached their conclusion on that.

Dear Dr. Pepper,

NIST has thoroughly reviewed the assertions in your letter to the Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General dated Dec. 12, 2013 (received by NIST on Jan. 14, 2014), regarding our investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001. Based on our review, NIST finds no reason to modify or change our findings and conclusions.

As previously indicated when presented with similar questions, NIST remains confident of the technical work contained in the final report of the WTC 7 report issued on Nov. 20, 2008.


Sincerely,
Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs

 

[DGM]

I already understand those, this is just an exercise out of curiosity and boredom, 2 feet of snow outside and truthers are not very entertaining today.
What I am looking for is a way to induce slight connection failure that would have induced the reported lean in the structure, prior to collapse.
The section I am interested in is obscured by smoke in the photos so damage may not be ascertainable.

I don't think you would even need a connection failure. A slight buckle to an exterior column would do the same thing. The "lean would result from the redistribution of load. A little down low transmits to much more the higher you go. Any lean is bad.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I don't think you would even need a connection failure. A slight buckle to an exterior column would do the same thing. The "lean would result from the redistribution of load. A little down low transmits to much more the higher you go. Any lean is bad.

Absolutely, but a strike off center and up high has more potential to damage the structure.

A large fire below a small strike above could have been a killer one two blow to the structure,
as I said it would not change the NIST theory only add to helping it.

 

[DGM]

Absolutely, but a strike off center and up high has more potential to damage the structure.

I'd tend to doubt it only because above the 8th floor the building was mostly conventionally framed. There's a fair amount of redundancy and the higher you go the less the load. The towers were night and day in this respect.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I'd tend to doubt it only because above the 8th floor the building was mostly conventionally framed. There's a fair amount of redundancy and the higher you go the less the load. The towers were night and day in this respect.

The conventional framing is what I was counting on redistribute the loading, allowing connection failures to occur without dooming the structure until the fire causes enough thermal expansion for walk off.

Just attempting to see how more movement can be induced into the structure, out of curiosity.

 

[DGM]

The conventional framing is what I was counting on redistribute the loading, allowing connection failures to occur without dooming the structure until the fire causes enough thermal expansion for walk off.

Just attempting to see how more movement can be induced into the structure, out of curiosity.

Prior to a minute or so before the global collapse, I've seen no solid evidence there was any movement. I know there were reports but no data has ever surfaced. The NIST also found no evidence and didn't report any as a damage condition.

 

[pgimeno]

AE911T aims for the uncertainty and makes the argument from ignorance then that since NIST cannot account for moving this girder absolutely fully past its seat that >>>>> deliberate demolition must be in play.

Their problem is that, as things stand in this thread, the report CAN account for the movement of the girder past the seat.

They are only contending whether the report DOES account for it.

But it is at this point pretty clear that they are not disputing that the column moved in NIST's simulation, providing additional displacement that added to the displacement caused by expansion of the beams. Had that happened before the walk-off, it would explain the collapse. That shreds into pieces the claim that it's impossible that high rises and WTC7 in particular, can collapse due to fire alone. They CAN. The report proves it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Prior to a minute or so before the global collapse, I've seen no solid evidence there was any movement. I know there were reports but no data has ever surfaced. The NIST also found no evidence and didn't report any as a damage condition.

Yes but the firemen's accounts say it was slightly leaning 30 minutes or more prior to the collapses, that would be more likely a lean in the structure above the 8th floor.
Just want to see what they might have observed.

 

[beachnut]

NIST should undertake analysis to see what their travel distance required for walk off estimate should have been was close enough with the elements that they had not yet accounted for included. Theres already an inch to be deducted from the expansion figure to allow for the beams east connection failing.
Dont you think that the opinion of the CTBUH on the initiating event is importrant ?

What did your study find? ..., you have no engineering analysis to go with the NIST quibbling BS?

CTBUH does not support 911 truth failed fantasy CD claims, and what is wrong with CTBUH have comments? Another probable cause; where is your detailed probable cause? In the bit bucket.

Bringing up CTBUH, means the silly CD theory, a theory you can't explain, is more of a fantasy. The "new approach" is BS.

Does 911 truth need help to understand what probable means? CTBUH, and NIST - fire did it. 911 truth has silent explosives, or thermite; fantasy based on nothing.

With the "east penthouse" falling through WTC 7 prior to the exterior failing, the free-fall BS is lost.

How many people have fallen for the BS "NIST is wrong" due to the "new approach"; and how can a probable cause be wrong? Why can't 911 truth show engineering work to show why NIST is wrong?

 

[Ziggi]

It's called FEA used by engineers with computers..

Yes, but it is not the same one as shown is chapters 10 and 11. Don´t confuse the two. The walk off theory is shown in chapter 11 and it is based on the several hour long fire simulation shown in chapter 10, not the articial experiment in chapter 8.

You have managed to do it. The sagging beams were attached above the girder's centroid pulling the top to the east and pushing the bottom to the west, like this. ..

No, the experiment in chapter 8 shows the floor beams expanding and pushing the girder westward until it bottoms out against the western flange of column 79, see figure 8-26. It is now firmly pinned against the western flange and this is why the girder cannot be pushed or rotated off the seat in the westward direction, and this is why the floor beams become stressed and buckle in this experiment. The want to expand more but the pinned girder prevents that from happening, so stress builds up in the floor beams until they buckle and jerk back the girder in the opposite eastern direction off the seat.

Whenever those floor beams sag or buckle their effective length is shortening which means are dragging the girder backwards to the east. Sagging/buckling beams cannot push the girder forward and off the seat to the west. Only expanding beams can push the girder to the west.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Well, certainly their opinion that the overall conclusions would not change is important, in the context of this forum and thread. Very important. Because unlike what "truthers" are pushing for, they agree that chapters 4 and 5 of NCSTAR 1A (which are the conclusions of the report) remain valid, no matter any differences in the details of the initiating event.

And it's also important that no matter whether the column displacement happened before or after the girder walk off in NIST's scenario, the fact that it could have happened before puts to rest the question of whether the building could have collapsed due to fire.

Let me say it again: WTC7 could have collapsed due to fire, and the NIST report proves that.

And that goes also for Ziggi, as I also said I would explain the various problems with the timeline. That is one.

Exactly, According to Dr David B Benson it took 100,000lbf to fracture one weld in a core column in a quasi periodic off center strike in the core of the twin towers.
I believe from what I have read, that it would take 35,000lbf in world trade 7 to fracture the connection on a column.
I could be wrong.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, but it is not the same one as shown is chapters 10 and 11. Don´t confuse the two. The walk off theory is shown in chapter 11 and it is based on the several hour long fire simulation shown in chapter 10, not the articial experiment in chapter 8.



No, the experiment in chapter 8 shows the floor beams expanding and pushing the girder westward until it bottoms out against the western flange of column 79, see figure 8-26. It is now firmly pinned against the western flange and this is why the girder cannot be pushed or rotated off the seat in the westward direction, and this is why the floor beams become stressed and buckle in this experiment. The want to expand more but the pinned girder prevents that from happening, so stress builds up in the floor beams until they buckle and jerk back the girder in the opposite eastern direction off the seat.

Whenever those floor beams sag or buckle their effective length is shortening which means are dragging the girder backwards to the east. Sagging/buckling beams cannot push the girder forward and off the seat to the west. Only expanding beams can push the girder to the west.

Did you learn this in engineering school? Or copy and paste from 911 truth? Can you source your knowledge, your claims?
"jerk back the girder" - did NIST say this? How do you mix in the BS and quote-mined stuff so easily?

jerk back the girder - is that engineering for ...

Does this mean you side with CTBUH on the probable cause?

What is your probable cause? Why can't you explain in detail? If you spent as much time on your probable cause, fantasy CD, as you do BSing about NIST, you would not be supporting the dumbed down lies of CD from 911 truth. How is attacking NIST supporting your failed CD theory?

As usual, you and 911 truth can't answer questions. 13 years of BS.
What is your theory? Can't say? Is it a secret?


It appears the OP was answer a long time ago; it was the interior was collapsing, is why the roof-line fell for a short period at g - who knew gravity works that way.

 

[Ziggi]

Ok, so I'll take Ziggi's answer as the only thing he can do to answer the question (it doesn't really give an example, as requested, but at least he addresses it partially).....

Common pgimeno, this is one of the most embarrassing attempts to change the subject I have ever seen. Don´t try to change the subject with some rant about gerrycan. Post 4106 gives a very clear example of what I mean, especially since it is not a general example, but an example going through the calculations for the very subject being discussed, that is the displacement of the girder. It is not possible to get more specific. If you find this somehow not clear enough as instructions then you better explain yourself.

 

[Animal]

. Sagging/buckling beams cannot push the girder forward and off the seat to the west. Only expanding beams can push the girder to the west.

Wrong and wrong.

Maybe some year troofers with grasp the 3D movement and stop thinking linearly. But then that would damage their religious beliefs.

 

[Ziggi]

QUOTE=pgimeno;10514572]Their problem is that, as things stand in this thread, the report CAN account for the movement of the girder past the seat.

They are only contending whether the report DOES account for it.

WOW, how quick you are to forget. You have been refusing to get into the calculations to show how the girder could have been displaced 6.25 inches, but now you are declaring like Moses on the Mountain that the report CAN account for it. Would you mind showing some numbers to support your claim, or are you speaking as the figure head for a religious cult?

And just for the sake of argument, include that alleged displacement of the column and add it to the expansion of the floor beams. Stick to NIST´s data, not stuff made up by you and your buddies.

 

[LSSBB]

WOW, how quick you are to forget. You have been refusing to get into the calculations to show how the girder could have been displaced 6.25 inches, but now you are declaring like Moses on the Mountain that the report CAN account for it. Would you mind showing some numbers to support your claim, or are you speaking as the figure head for a religious cult?

And just for the sake of argument, include that alleged displacement of the column and add it to the expansion of the floor beams. Stick to NIST´s data, not stuff made up by you and your buddies.

The calculations are performed INSIDE the computer analysis. To recreate it, you need to perform the same computer analysis. To refute is, you need to perform the same computer analysis, and change the inputs, or demonstrate something is wrong with the software.

 

[beachnut]

WOW, how quick you are to forget. You have been refusing to get into the calculations to show how the girder could have been displaced 6.25 inches, but now you are declaring like Moses on the Mountain that the report CAN account for it. Would you mind showing some numbers to support your claim, or are you speaking as the figure head for a religious cult?

And just for the sake of argument, include that alleged displacement of the column and add it to the expansion of the floor beams. Stick to NIST´s data, not stuff made up by you and your buddies.

Where is your analysis?