'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

They also need to be told that the steel for the beams and girder was ASTM A572, in case they actually want to find the average CTE from room temp to 600 degrees C for it, to see if we are right.

I was somewhat amazed that some individuals here, who can't seem to see the problems with what NIST did regarding their initiation hypothesis, admitted to not knowing this.

Knew it, just didn't consider it a factor when looking at the event as a whole.

Still can't figure out why the engineering world ignores you?

 

[Ziggi]

Still can't say where all the moving pieces are, yet you insist on a precise number they had to be in relation to each other?

You. Have. No. Case.

Oh what non-sense. NIST, I and gerrycan say that one element (floor beams) expanded and pushed the girder to the west. Pgimeno and some others have been claiming that that a second element, the column itself, also moved to the west at a time when the girder walk off occurred. I´ll leave it up to you to add up possible the number of moving pieces.

Every answer to you is pointing out that you fabricate non-sense

Enough already buddy, you got nothing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh what non-sense. NIST, I and gerrycan say that one element (floor beams) expanded and pushed the girder to the west.

If it's a point you contest let's throw a bone and treat your argument as correct. What's the next lie in the report that you want to address? Let's progress the discussion a bit, what's the next link in the chain? Does this change the probable collapse initiation location? For example? Have you looked into the potential other failure mechanisms suggested by the CBTUH and ruled them out? What about commentary from other groups?

 

[LSSBB]

Oh what non-sense. NIST, I and gerrycan say that one element (floor beams) expanded and pushed the girder to the west. Pgimeno and some others have been claiming that that a second element, the column itself, also moved to the west at a time when the girder walk off occurred. I´ll leave it up to you to add up possible the number of moving pieces.
.

NIST didn't state a starting point for the girders, beams or columns. You are cherry picking yours.

ETA: By starting point, I mean locations at the point of failure, so the proper term should properly be ending point.

 

[Ziggi]

...But you fail to address 90% or more of my post. I must be the 20th person at least who tries to explain to you that the entire assembly experienced deformations and displacements in all directions, the magnitudes of which we generally do not know because NIST did not publish all that data, and that these unknown displacements make it impossible for us to know exactly which element must have expanded/moved/bent by how much to reach some threshold. It follows that the analysis can't hinge on 1 inch here or there..

Oystein, it does not matter how many people make up stuff like that, it remains untrue. The model is based on a limited set of assumptions to simplify it, from the details of connections and behavior of individual elements, all the way to the big picture model. The girder walk off story is one example, and all the model assumptions for that event are listen in the report, because that is after all the purpose of the report. In this case read chapter 8 to learn about the assumptions behind the sheer stud failure, and chapter 11 for the walk off event itself.

People can make up all sorts of stories about some alleged real world events not included in the model which might explain the alleged real world walk off that day, but that has got nothing to do with NIST´s model, or debate about whether or not NIST´s model could have shown girder walk off. That discussion is limited to NIST´s data and alleged events in NIST´s computer simulation.

As soon as you evoke elements not included in the model to try to explain the event, you are implicitly admitting that NIST´s data does not do the job!

 

[Ziggi]

NIST didn't state a starting point for the girders, beams or columns. You are cherry picking yours.

ETA: By starting point, I mean locations at the point of failure, so the proper term should properly be ending point.

Non-sense, as is every single time with you.

The starting points are the natural non displaced postitions unless otherwise stated. For information about displaced girders, beams and columns as pertinent to the walk off story, refer to chapter 11.

I have had enough of answering your made up nonsense.

 

[Ziggi]

If it's a point you contest let's throw a bone and treat your argument as correct. What's the next lie in the report that you want to address? Let's progress the discussion a bit, what's the next link in the chain? Does this change the probable collapse initiation location? For example? Have you looked into the potential other failure mechanisms suggested by the CBTUH and ruled them out? What about commentary from other groups?

No, as I already told you, you either show data to back up the girder walk off story, or admit it is wrong. Then the discussion can proceed.

To help you keep up with the walk off story, you can try to answer the question I posed to Oystein a few days ago. The failure of the sheer studs is shown in chapter 8, but that experiment is not based on the actual fire simulation in chapter 10, which is completely different and closer to reality. Can you show me where NIST shows that the sheer studs could fail given the fire simulation upon which the girder walk story and the whole global collapse story is based on? The thermal expansion story is stranded without this little detail..

 

[LSSBB]

Non-sense, as is every single time with you.

The starting points are the natural non displaced postitions unless otherwise stated. For information about displaced girders, beams and columns as pertinent to the walk off story, refer to chapter 11.

I have had enough of answering your made up nonsense.

You haven't even really answered anything I asked you. How far off was every connected column, beam and girder to the point of failure? If you can't answer that, you can't claim a specific number NIST should have met. You are cherry picking a position.

You. Have. No. Case. Bluster away, it doesn't matter. Nor does your fervent wish it were so.

Face it. Until you can say exactly where the column was, you can't say how far off NIST was. You have to do your own simulation to provide a target displacement NIST should have met.

The building is a system. It's not a girder and a column hovering in the air, like an angel.

 

[AZCat]

They also need to be told that the steel for the beams and girder was ASTM A572, in case they actually want to find the average CTE from room temp to 600 degrees C for it, so they can see for themselves that the 5.5 inch maximum beam expansion you have told them is right.

It was interesting to see that some who seem to doubt what you are saying didn't know the steel specification.

It might be ASTM A572, but what grade?

 

[beachnut]

Oystein, it does not matter how many people make up stuff like that, it remains untrue. The model is based on a limited set of assumptions to simplify it, from the details of connections and behavior of individual elements, all the way to the big picture model. The girder walk off story is one example, and all the model assumptions for that event are listen in the report, because that is after all the purpose of the report. In this case read chapter 8 to learn about the assumptions behind the sheer stud failure, and chapter 11 for the walk off event itself.

People can make up all sorts of stories about some alleged real world events not included in the model which might explain the alleged real world walk off that day, but that has got nothing to do with NIST´s model, or debate about whether or not NIST´s model could have shown girder walk off. That discussion is limited to NIST´s data and alleged events in NIST´s computer simulation.

As soon as you evoke elements not included in the model to try to explain the event, you are implicitly admitting that NIST´s data does not do the job!

Wow, hung up on NIST, unable to present engineering models to support CD; no evidence. Why are you attacking NIST? Because you can't present your theory, you haven no evidence.

Expected to see your theory, and all it was is talk, BS, and obsession with NIST - why do you guys keep talking about NIST. You have to prove fire can't do it - and wasting time proving you are not an engineer, and have no idea what models are, or why NIST did what they did.

How do you ignore a fire not fought? Why can't you explain, discuss, or support the delusional inside job of CD?

You make a feeble attack on NIST, trying to prove you don't do engineering? So far that is the result;

You might try to explain the CD fantasy, and who did it. Any evidence yet? Is this like OJ, you are out there looking for who did it, and ignore the 19 murderers. Who did it, it seem DtD, your blog hangout of woo, seems to endorse the delusional work of grass roots 911 BS, thus how do the "outlaw global gang" fit in your theory? And who is the "outlaw global gang"?

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2015/02/new-911grassrootsorg-article.html

In your CD theory, how do the 19 terrorists work in the fantasy?

What did it in your theory? How was it done? You have explained your CD nonsense to others...

Ziggi ... offers a perspective on the 9/11 issue as a resident of Iceland and talks about the reaction of people there when they're encountered with the WTC controlled demolition evidence. At DtD, the web site of woo on 911; DtD claims you explained CD and had evidence; did some steel your evidence? Or is this claim a lie like most of DtD's BS. Do you make any money from the ads on DtD?

Why can't you, ziggi, present your evidence for CD here, when you have spread the BS in Iceland. Why do you fail at attacking NIST, when you have "controlled demolition evidence"?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Can you show me where NIST shows that the sheer studs could fail given the fire simulation upon which the girder walk story and the whole global collapse story is based on?

I am open minded to a different failure mechanism... It's odd that you would be so focused on the girder walk of when a participant is willing to entertain the possibility that another factor contributed more to initiating the collapses than the specific one that NIST concluded. I thought that's what you wanted. You appear to think the CTBUH and other professional groups have not paid any attention to the NIST findings, and you appear to disagree with their alternative suggestions for the initiating mechanisms too. Is there something wrong with asking your opinion of the alternatives that other professional organizations have posited in their critique of the NIST?

My position is that NIST's conclusions on the macro scale do not measurably change, that is; column 79 was the probable starting location of the collapse, the collapse progressed and spread through the building. and that the fires are the null culprit that started it. Whether the beam move 6" right or left, or a bunch of floors failed leaving it unbracedto cause the column to buckle seems to be the only thing you can muster in opposition to that conclusion.

 

[Reactor drone]

To help you keep up with the walk off story, you can try to answer the question I posed to Oystein a few days ago. The failure of the sheer studs is shown in chapter 8, but that experiment is not based on the actual fire simulation in chapter 10, which is completely different and closer to reality. Can you show me where NIST shows that the sheer studs could fail given the fire simulation upon which the girder walk story and the whole global collapse story is based on? The thermal expansion story is stranded without this little detail..

In chapter 8,

" Note that, in the detailed finite element analyses of the 16-story ANSYS model (see chapter 11) no boundary conditions were applied to the floor slabs, and the temperatures of both the steel and concrete were derived from a thermal analysis based on fire dynamics calculations."

 

[Oystein]

...But you fail to address 90% or more of my post. I must be the 20th person at least who tries to explain to you that the entire assembly experienced deformations and displacements in all directions, the magnitudes of which we generally do not know because NIST did not publish all that data, and that these unknown displacements make it impossible for us to know exactly which element must have expanded/moved/bent by how much to reach some threshold. It follows that the analysis can't hinge on 1 inch here or there..

Oystein, it does not matter how many people make up stuff like that, it remains untrue. The model is based on a limited set of assumptions to simplify it, from the details of connections and behavior of individual elements, all the way to the big picture model. ...

Thanks for displaying with great clarity your complete and willful ignorance of reality.

Right. Keep on believing that a steel-frame building fully involved in fires on several floors does not deform and displace in all directions. All was pristine, gotcha.

What folly


(IF the 16-story FEA model would not reflect the deformations and displacements in all directions that reality necessarily must have seen, then the model is bunk from the get-go and we need not talk about any of its details at all.)

 

[Ziggi]

I am open minded to a different failure mechanism... It's odd that you would be so focused on the girder walk of when a participant is willing to entertain the possibility that another factor contributed more to initiating the collapses than the specific one that NIST concluded. I thought that's what you wanted. You appear to think the CTBUH and other professional groups have not paid any attention to the NIST findings, and you appear to disagree with their alternative suggestions for the initiating mechanisms too. Is there something wrong with asking your opinion of the alternatives that other professional organizations have posited in their critique of the NIST?

My position is that NIST's conclusions on the macro scale do not measurably change, that is; column 79 was the probable starting location of the collapse, the collapse progressed and spread through the building. and that the fires are the null culprit that started it. Whether the beam move 6" right or left, or a bunch of floors failed leaving it unbracedto cause the column to buckle seems to be the only thing you can muster in opposition to that conclusion.

You don´t seem to understand what is being said. The problem with NIST´s girder walk off story is not only that the numbers don´t add up, not even close, but also and perhaps more importantly that NIST tried to hide the problem.

#4288
...And when this sort of thing has been exposed agencies like the CTBUH take on a whole another attitude when looking into the report.
...And perhaps it may occur to you that this sort of thing was not limited to the girder walk off story, but the whole official collapse story?
...BTW: No one can make any judgement calls about "valid alternatives" based on the same faulty data.

#4307
...But NIST tried to hide the problem.

...Once researchers, be it the Council or others, realize that the report is based on this sort of mentality, NIST is no longer given the special status treatment, and the report is truly scrutinized and torn apart.

You have not made this realization so you keep giving NIST and the rest of its report the same old special treatment on good faith, and this allows you to make up fantasies about other possible collapse initation events based on NIST´s flawed data.

And you keep droning on about the CTBUH but if you know their comments and have really been following the discussion here, you should have realized by now that the CTBUH comments were not based on a very thorough read of NIST´s report at all. For one they assume that chapter 8 shows the girder failure event even though it is not and then just remark that the report is confusing when they see completely different analysis in chapters 10 to 12.

Then you declare that no matter how faulty NIST´s work is, that its conclusion about column 79 failure as the initating event must be true, and despite your reference to the CTBUH you don´t seem to realize that they did NOT agree:

The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns

Notice that? Hmm? Columns = plural. Specifically "internal" columns.

The council would benefit from a very careful study of NIST´s report with people like Tony Szamboti, and tof the he missing structural features they have discovered, and of course all the evidence NIST did not mention.

 

[Ziggi]

Thanks for displaying with great clarity your complete and willful ignorance of reality.
Right. Keep on believing that a steel-frame building fully involved in fires on several floors does not deform and displace in all directions. All was pristine, gotcha.

What folly


(IF the 16-story FEA model would not reflect the deformations and displacements in all directions that reality necessarily must have seen, then the model is bunk from the get-go and we need not talk about any of its details at all.)

No I was trying to remind you that "the reality" and NIST´s computer model are two different things. The assumptions made to simplify the model are all clearly stated in the report, and they can all be challanged.

 

[Oystein]

No I was trying to remind you that "the reality" and NIST´s computer model are two different things. The assumptions made to simplify the model are all clearly stated in the report, and they can all be challanged.

Sure they can - but the way you and your friends are doing it is utter folly. If the assumptions render the model invalid, then nitpicking details of the outcome (an inch here, and inch there; this beam or that stud) is a fool's errand.
I don't see however where you present engineering arguments to challenge the assumptions.

And anyway, I have a hunch you are either ignorant of the distinctions between the different models described in Ch. 8 or 11, or willfully misrepresenting them.

 

[Ziggi]

Sure they can - but the way you and your friends are doing it is utter folly. If the assumptions render the model invalid, then nitpicking details of the outcome (an inch here, and inch there; this beam or that stud) is a fool's errand.
I don't see however where you present engineering arguments to challenge the assumptions..

Oystein, of course you can see.From #4052:

NIST page 488:
Quote:
"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."
NIST page 525:
Quote:
"...The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. (revised to 12) wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in (revised to 6.25), it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

That´s NIST´s collapse initation story: "once the girder had been pushed...6.25 inches"

- "nitpicking" the possible expansion is how one assumption is challenged, by pointing out that the 6.25 inch expansion is not possible. NIST´s story rests on this one assumption and it stands or falls by it alone.

Another challenge is pointing out that the missing stiffener plates which would render the 6.25 inch expansion useless.

Both challenges refute NIST´s story.

Yet another challenge is noting that NIST never proved with any analysis that the flange would fold given the displacement of the girder, it is just an assumption programmed into the computer simulation.

...And anyway, I have a hunch you are either ignorant of the distinctions between the different models described in Ch. 8 or 11, or willfully misrepresenting them.

I made the effort to point out to beachnut and others the difference between the modeling in chapter 8, 10 and 11. Several people on this forum had been conflating them.

I also left a question for you about this difference:

Thanks Oystein. As for NIST´s "smart and valid approach" have you seen the analysis where the sheer studs are shown to fail given the official fire simulation in chapter 10 that the walk off story is based on?

 

[Reactor drone]

That´s NIST´s collapse initation story: "once the girder had been pushed...6.25 inches"

- "nitpicking" the possible expansion is how one assumption is challenged, by pointing out that the 6.25 inch expansion is not possible. NIST´s story rests on this one assumption and it stands or falls by it alone.

Another challenge is pointing out that the missing stiffener plates which would render the 6.25 inch expansion useless.

Both challenges refute NIST´s story.

So are you saying that NIST falsified their data and dropped the girder and its associated floor structure before it had reached the assumed walk off threshold or are you saying that the beam reached the claimed threshold but that it wouldn't have failed because of the plates?

If they falsified their data then the plates are irrelevant, if the girder reached the claimed walk off distance then you have to show that it wouldn't have failed.

It sounds like you're having an each way bet here.

I made the effort to point out to beachnut and others the difference between the modeling in chapter 8, 10 and 11. Several people on this forum had been conflating them.

You certainly seem to be doing so.

 

[gerrycan]

(IF the 16-story FEA model would not reflect the deformations and displacements in all directions that reality necessarily must have seen, then the model is bunk from the get-go and we need not talk about any of its details at all.)

p484 NCSTAR 1-9
Only failure modes in the East side of the building were modeled and the columns in the model were fixed in the x-y axis to prevent any lateral displacement.

 

[Reactor drone]

p484 NCSTAR 1-9
Only failure modes in the East side of the building were modeled and the columns in the model were fixed in the x-y axis to prevent any lateral displacement.

"The top of the columns at floor 16 were fixed in the global x- and y- directions, to prevent lateral displacements..."

Note, only the top and bottoms were fixed in the x- and y- directions, the rest of the columns could move in all directions.