WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[ozeco41]

I think you are missing an even broader issue....

Not "missing" - deliberate choice to leave the "real" issue till later. I identified the "broader issue" back in post #91 of the thread.

I have repeated the claim many times in my ~40 posts in the thread that whether NIST was right or wrong is irrelevant to the question of "demolition or not"?

I even goaded Chris7 into biting on a bit of a fun comment :

...I suggest stick with "explain..." What happened does not depend on what NIST said years later. Whether or not NIST was wrong by the time they said it it was far too late for WTC7 to pay any attention to NIST. even if it had been listening at the time of the collapse...

WTC 7 was a building. How could it listen to NIST?

And, without digging up all the back links, I have made it abundantly clear to Tony on several occasions that I am only allowing his falsely limited objective as an interim step. He still has to deal with the fact that his claim that "NIST explanation is impossible" has failed for a wide range of reasons. And if he ever goes near "There was CD involved" he will face real arguments.

...If someone claims that the building was demolished, in order to meet the burden of proof it has to be shown that it was demolished, not proof that a collapse explanation is wrong...

True but that is not his primary claim in this thread. However he has referred to CD and I have on several occasions pointed out the relationship between the two aspects. Simply put "NIST was wrong" is irrelevant to "Was there CD?" Expected comment from both sides on that one but got none other than the bite from C7.

...Or, in other words, Tony needs to show proof of demolition. Showing counterproof of natural collapse goes nowhere, however right or wrong it is....

True but strictly "off topic"

...at this stage.

...AND I didn't miss it

 

[ozeco41]

That's it exactly. Tony is attempting to disprove one specific collapse initiation scenario; it does not, and cannot possibly, follow logically from this that there are no possible collapse initiation scenarios not involving explosives. He is, in fact, attempting to construct a textbook example of the logical error of denying the antecedent:...

...and the fallacy of "false dichotomy" - "If you cannot prove me wrong I must be right".

...Most likely, Tony will now make some angry and semi-coherent post explaining why this specific case merits an exemption from the laws of logic, I'll be too helpless with laughter to reply, and Tony will once again unilaterally declare victory over reality. Watch this space.

Dave

My personal ranking of my success with my posts directed at Tony goes like this:
1) (Highest) He ignores the post. Interpretation - the argument is far too good to acknowledge.
2) (Second rank) Insults and snide comments ad hom. Interpretation - the argument is more than he can handle but he is not loathe to acknowledge that it has been posted.
3) (Third rank) He responds with partial attention to the posted counter claim. Interpretation he thinks he has my measure but the response shows that he hasn't.
4) (Fourth and lower) I don't remember getting one of these

 

[ozeco41]

I'm still waiting for him to explain how they targeted col 79 with no prior knowledge of where the fires would be (or, perhaps more importantly, whether there would be any fires at all).

That would still be irrelevant. Did they target column 79? No proof whatsoever. End of the debate, back to angels per micron and pinhead surface area.

ETA: square micron that is...

That requirement for prescience was one of the key points when discussion of WTC1 and WTC2 was the vogue. Typically in the form "How did 'they' know where the planes would crash so 'they' could put the (unnecessary, no debris producing, no-flash and silent etc etc) explosives in the right place and not everywhere else"?

The fact that most evidence was hidden for WTC7 has allowed truthers to focus on other factors for their "reversed burden of proof" requirement of "here is an anomaly we cannot explain - therefore CD - you prove us wrong". Pre-placement prescience being one aspect that the trolls and truthers have set aside - it was too easy to counter with argument or ridicule. I preferred ridicule in the heyday of WTC1/2 discussion. It was more fun.

 

[tfk]

This is long post.

I've addressed Tony's replies to my previous post one by one. If anyone is interested in the detail, feel free to read.

If not, skip to the conclusions at the end.

You have not allowed for creep in the girder. Which it did.

Everything creeps all the time even at room temperature. It would have been insignificant in this case and that is why you aren't quantifying it.

You agree with me. You ignored creep.

NIST did not ignore creep in their analysis.

Your choice to ignore creep renders your analysis meaningless.

Your choice to ignore creep renders your previous statements that you "made the same assumptions as NIST" intentionally false.

Your statement that creep in steel structure fires is insignificant to an attempt at a numeric analysis of the failure modes renders your claim to any sort of expertise on the matter laughable.

You have not allowed for movement to the south of column 79. Which it did. Pushed southward by the expansion of the beams west of the girder, which pushed the girder between col 76 & col 79 southward, taking col 79 with it.

The west side girder could only have possibly pushed column 79 to the east and even then it would have buckled before pushing it too far. The connection was not strong enough to allow the west side girder to push column 79 to the south.

You agree with me. You ignore any possible southward movement of col 79 due to heating of columns to west of c44 - c79 girder.

This renders your analysis wrong.

Your statement that this is not possible is not only wrong. It is laughably wrong.

A person leaning on the girder would have "pushed it". By tens of pounds.

Several substantial beams heated by fire can easily generate tons of force.

The question of "how much of that force & deflection could the girder connections generate?" is one that must be answered by analysis based on REASONABLE assumptions. Not assertion.

The problem with your assertion is that all of the structure that would have resisted a push of c79 to the south had been eliminated (according to NIST's models) at 3.5 hours with the collapse of girder between c81 & c26, and the beams to the west of this girder, on both floors 13 & 14. (See fig 11-27 & 11-28, NCSTAR1-9 vol 2). This effectively destabilized the row of columns 81, 80 & 79 with respect to movement to the south.

Unlike our leaning person, your assertions carry no weight.

You have not allowed for col 79 to have been pulled southward by the collapse of beams & girders to its south.

NIST says these girders had their connections broken. I am critiquing NIST.

You didn't consider this. This renders your analysis irrelevant.

There were collapses of girders, beam & floor segments all over floors 12, 13 & 14. The restraint against motion to the south of c79 (and c80 & c81) has been removed.

But you ASSURE us that this unbraced (to the south) column could not possibly have budged due to those collapses.

You're simply wrong.

You have not allowed for fracturing of the concrete, and its ability to destabilize the girder.

Another throw everything at the wall tactic with no quantification or even a reasonable attempt at some level of probability and estimate of the effects. Not surprising.

You agree that you did not consider this. This renders your analysis wrong.

Concrete floors collapse. Concrete full of rebar.

Only a fool would assert that the collapse of these concrete floors would not, could not, impart massive twisting moments on adjacent floor beams, possibly destabilizing them.

You have not done any dynamic thermal analysis. Only static ones.

A dynamic thermal analysis is not equivalent to dynamic loading which is what you seem to be implying.

No, Tony. You are the one that is imprecise, sloppy, in your terminology. I meant EXACTLY what I said.

I said "dynamic thermal analysis". I meant "dynamic thermal analysis."

The very next sentence made that meaning crystal clear.

You have not allowed for different components heating to different amounts at different times.

I find your choice to chop that sentence out & attach it to the next paragraph to be an example of willful deception.

So, you agree with me. You did not account for any dynamic thermal effects.

The fact that you didn't account for different components heating up to different temperatures at different times (aka "dynamic thermal analysis") makes your analysis wrong.

The loads are static during a thermal heating event.

I didn't bring this point up, but I'm glad that you did.

Heating is not the only event that happened prior to c79-c44 girder walk-off.

There were multiple girders, beams & floor segments that collapsed prior to that event as well.

You account for none of those.

It makes your analysis irrelevant.

I do account for the effects on stiffness.

Yeah, but heat temperature also affects yield strength, ultimate strength & creep, not just modulus.

You imply that you didn't account for those three factors.

This makes your analysis wrong.

Most important (& for the 50th time), you analyze just a single, or a few components, ignoring the fact that they are tied to a larger complex structure. You ignore the fact, the undeniable fact, that the other components will have significant effects on the locations & conditions of your few parts.

I have looked at the various aspects here and found all of them to be less than sufficient to bring that girder down.

And that is a bald-faced lie, Tony.

You JUST ADMITTED, in this very reply, that you did NOT look at several of these factors. You merely claim that they are insignificant. Or cannot possibly happen.

And we all know that you have ignored the significant portion of that statement: You agree that you didn't examine the several structures (beams, girders, columns, connections, flooring, etc.) above & below, and adjacent to c79 & the c79-c44 girder, and the beams pushing that girder.

This also renders your analysis wrong.

You act like all of them together would do it without a basis.

Transparent attempt to shift burden of proof noted.

You assert that you have "proven" that NIST is wrong. It is YOUR burden to prove that your analysis is correct.

You have failed to do so, by virtue of producing an analysis full of holes.
___

My conclusions:

I assert that anyone, when discussing a structure the size of WTC7, who says "it would have taken X.XXX" of motion to drop off the seat and my crude, BOTE calculation shows only (X.XXX" - 0.5") of travel, which proves it would not have dropped off" is a mechanical idiot.

I assert that very slight movements of col 79 itself, movement for which you have not accounted - about 2-3" of eastward movement, or about 1" southward movement - would cause the end of the girder to drop off of its seat.

I assert that there are numerous events that could have produce either or both of those motions.

I assert that multiple of those events had an extremely high probability of having occurred.

I assert that anyone who feels that they can legitimately ignore creep when discussing deformations in steel structure fires is ignorant.

I assert that Tony's simplifying assumptions are invalid.

I assert that Tony's analysis is massively flawed.

I assert that Tony's claim to have "proven that a walk-off is impossible" to be completely, utterly unsubstantiated.

I predict that, if Tony is ever so foolish as to present this "analysis" to any experienced structural engineering review board, you will be quickly handed your hat & shown the door.

Finally, I assert that I'm getting off this hamster-wheel of idiotic hair splitting, and getting out into the beautiful San Diego sunshine.


tomk

 

[ozeco41]

My conclusions:

I assert that anyone, when discussing a structure the size of WTC7, who says "it would have taken X.XXX" of motion to drop off the seat and my crude, BOTE calculation shows only (X.XXX" - 0.5") of travel, which proves it would not have dropped off" is a mechanical idiot.

I assert that very slight movements of col 79 itself, movement for which you have not accounted - about 2-3" of eastward movement, or about 1" southward movement - would cause the end of the girder to drop off of its seat.

I assert that there are numerous events that could have produce either or both of those motions.

I assert that multiple of those events had an extremely high probability of having occurred.

I assert that anyone who feels that they can legitimately ignore creep when discussing deformations in steel structure fires is ignorant.

I assert that Tony's simplifying assumptions are invalid.

I assert that Tony's analysis is massively flawed.

I assert that Tony's claim to have "proven that a walk-off is impossible" to be completely, utterly unsubstantiated.

I predict that, if Tony is ever so foolish as to present this "analysis" to any experienced structural engineering review board, you will be quickly handed your hat & shown the door.

Finally, I assert that I'm getting off this hamster-wheel of idiotic hair splitting, and getting out into the beautiful San Diego sunshine.


tomk

Well said Sir!!

 

[cjnewson88]

I concur. Bravo.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is long post.

I've addressed Tony's replies to my previous post one by one. If anyone is interested in the detail, feel free to read.

If not, skip to the conclusions at the end.




You agree with me. You ignored creep.

NIST did not ignore creep in their analysis.

Your choice to ignore creep renders your analysis meaningless.

Your choice to ignore creep renders your previous statements that you "made the same assumptions as NIST" intentionally false.

Your statement that creep in steel structure fires is insignificant to an attempt at a numeric analysis of the failure modes renders your claim to any sort of expertise on the matter laughable.



You agree with me. You ignore any possible southward movement of col 79 due to heating of columns to west of c44 - c79 girder.

This renders your analysis wrong.

Your statement that this is not possible is not only wrong. It is laughably wrong.

A person leaning on the girder would have "pushed it". By tens of pounds.

Several substantial beams heated by fire can easily generate tons of force.

The question of "how much of that force & deflection could the girder connections generate?" is one that must be answered by analysis based on REASONABLE assumptions. Not assertion.

The problem with your assertion is that all of the structure that would have resisted a push of c79 to the south had been eliminated (according to NIST's models) at 3.5 hours with the collapse of girder between c81 & c26, and the beams to the west of this girder, on both floors 13 & 14. (See fig 11-27 & 11-28, NCSTAR1-9 vol 2). This effectively destabilized the row of columns 81, 80 & 79 with respect to movement to the south.

Unlike our leaning person, your assertions carry no weight.



You didn't consider this. This renders your analysis irrelevant.

There were collapses of girders, beam & floor segments all over floors 12, 13 & 14. The restraint against motion to the south of c79 (and c80 & c81) has been removed.

But you ASSURE us that this unbraced (to the south) column could not possibly have budged due to those collapses.

You're simply wrong.



You agree that you did not consider this. This renders your analysis wrong.

Concrete floors collapse. Concrete full of rebar.

Only a fool would assert that the collapse of these concrete floors would not, could not, impart massive twisting moments on adjacent floor beams, possibly destabilizing them.



No, Tony. You are the one that is imprecise, sloppy, in your terminology. I meant EXACTLY what I said.

I said "dynamic thermal analysis". I meant "dynamic thermal analysis."

The very next sentence made that meaning crystal clear.



I find your choice to chop that sentence out & attach it to the next paragraph to be an example of willful deception.

So, you agree with me. You did not account for any dynamic thermal effects.

The fact that you didn't account for different components heating up to different temperatures at different times (aka "dynamic thermal analysis") makes your analysis wrong.



I didn't bring this point up, but I'm glad that you did.

Heating is not the only event that happened prior to c79-c44 girder walk-off.

There were multiple girders, beams & floor segments that collapsed prior to that event as well.

You account for none of those.

It makes your analysis irrelevant.



Yeah, but heat temperature also affects yield strength, ultimate strength & creep, not just modulus.

You imply that you didn't account for those three factors.

This makes your analysis wrong.



And that is a bald-faced lie, Tony.

You JUST ADMITTED, in this very reply, that you did NOT look at several of these factors. You merely claim that they are insignificant. Or cannot possibly happen.

And we all know that you have ignored the significant portion of that statement: You agree that you didn't examine the several structures (beams, girders, columns, connections, flooring, etc.) above & below, and adjacent to c79 & the c79-c44 girder, and the beams pushing that girder.

This also renders your analysis wrong.



Transparent attempt to shift burden of proof noted.

You assert that you have "proven" that NIST is wrong. It is YOUR burden to prove that your analysis is correct.

You have failed to do so, by virtue of producing an analysis full of holes.
___

My conclusions:

I assert that anyone, when discussing a structure the size of WTC7, who says "it would have taken X.XXX" of motion to drop off the seat and my crude, BOTE calculation shows only (X.XXX" - 0.5") of travel, which proves it would not have dropped off" is a mechanical idiot.

I assert that very slight movements of col 79 itself, movement for which you have not accounted - about 2-3" of eastward movement, or about 1" southward movement - would cause the end of the girder to drop off of its seat.

I assert that there are numerous events that could have produce either or both of those motions.

I assert that multiple of those events had an extremely high probability of having occurred.

I assert that anyone who feels that they can legitimately ignore creep when discussing deformations in steel structure fires is ignorant.

I assert that Tony's simplifying assumptions are invalid.

I assert that Tony's analysis is massively flawed.

I assert that Tony's claim to have "proven that a walk-off is impossible" to be completely, utterly unsubstantiated.

I predict that, if Tony is ever so foolish as to present this "analysis" to any experienced structural engineering review board, you will be quickly handed your hat & shown the door.

Finally, I assert that I'm getting off this hamster-wheel of idiotic hair splitting, and getting out into the beautiful San Diego sunshine.


tomk

All you and people like Ozeco41 seem to do is assert things. I haven't seen you put together a single legitimate analysis that held up to criticism and bore out what you were trying to say.

The reality is the numbers show the NIST analysis is seriously flawed, and all you want to do is say "so what there are many other things that could have taken down WTC 7". That is not the point. The point is the official analysis is not correct and needs to be redone.

You could try to help NIST if you think you really have a way it could have come down naturally that could be proven with analysis and testing that they didn't consider. I haven't seen you show any way that could happen yet, but you sure are trying hard. You could also write a paper on what you think the theory should be. You know how you are always quick to tell others to do that, which I have. But we know you haven't even though your recent theories are not those of NIST.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

All you and people like Ozeco41 seem to do is assert things. I haven't seen you put together a single legitimate analysis that held up to criticism and bore out what you were trying to say.

Who that matters has commented on them one way or the other? Can't you grasp that no one in the real world cares what you think on the subject? You simply lack the qualifications to have an opinion that matters.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Who that matters has commented on them one way or the other? Can't you grasp that no one in the real world cares what you think on the subject? You simply lack the qualifications to have an opinion that matters.

You obviously cared enough to attempt an answer in some way, while simultaneously showing your equally obvious inability to back up your assertion. It isn't hard to tell here who has the qualifications to discuss the issue, and it certainly isn't anonymous posters who make silly assertions like you have here.

In fact, I think TFK may have helped generate a new name for himself and others like you. You really should be known as "the Asserters".

 

[NoahFence]

Well said tfk, but it falls on deaf, ignorant ears.

 

[LSSBB]

All you and people like Ozeco41 seem to do is assert things.

All you have done, Tony, is assert just enough things to get a calculation that goes your way. It's like building a wood frame house, putting faux brick siding, and calling it a house made of brick. You have to prove your "foundation and frame" before you can accuse anyone else of just asserting things.

 

[Animal]

You obviously cared enough to attempt an answer in some way, while simultaneously showing your equally obvious inability to back up your assertion. It isn't hard to tell here who has the qualifications to discuss the issue, and it certainly isn't anonymous posters who make silly assertions like you have here.

In fact, I think TFK may have helped generate a new name for himself and others like you. You really should be known as "the Asserters".

Where is that picture of the exploding irony meter?

 

[ozeco41]

Where is that picture of the exploding irony meter?

try "colonicolon" : i : without the spaces

OR "colonidcolon" : id : without the spaces.

 

[Oystein]

...
The reality is the numbers show the NIST analysis is seriously flawed, and all you want to do is say "so what there are many other things that could have taken down WTC 7". That is not the point. The point is the official analysis is not correct and needs to be redone.
...

How sleazy.

Tony you claim to have proven that it is "impossible" for the girder to have walked off column 79, is that correct, or have you not made that claim? Please give us a clear, non-weasly answer to that one: Have you, or have you not, claimed to have proven that it is "impossible" for the girder to have walked off column 79? I need a "Yes, I have" or a "No, I have not" at this point, no other answer is acceptable.

If yes, do you still hold on to that claim, Tony? Yes or no? No weasly answer, Tony, I need a "yes" or a "no" at this point, no other answer is acceptable.




Now on to your "The point is the official analysis is not correct and needs to be redone."

That's two distinct assertions.
1. The NIST-report on WTC7 is not error-free
2. The NIST-report's conclusions are so significantly at odds with reality that they are not good enough for the stated purpose, and the investigation must start from scratch

You conflate the two into one assertion, but in reality, one is most likely correct and the other most likely incorrect, and you have not proven it.

1. - I bet there is no one in the house who would assert that a 1000-page forensic engineering report on a complex event with lots of unobservable detail is error-free. In fact I would assert that every qualified engineer, upon learning of the scope of the report and its dimension, would state with utmost confidence that it as surely contains errors as the sun will set in the evening, without even looking at it. Finding such errors is almost trivial. And it, alone, doesn't matter in the slightest.
2. - No truther has made a convincing case here, least of all you. Your claim that the investigation needs to be redone rests on the false claim that you have proven that it is "impossible" for the girder to have walked off column 79. Since that claim is false, your assertion is moot. Engineers obviously much more qualified than you have told you in great detail and unequivocal verbiage why your argument is flawed in many many many details.



(Prediction: If Tony replies at all, which is only a limited possibility given his track record of evading tough questions and requests for clarity, he will NOT give clear yes/no answers to the questions in the first part of this post, but he WILL misrepresent the argument made in the second part, or his reply will miss the pertinent points)

 

[twinstead]

All you and people like Ozeco41 seem to do is assert things. I haven't seen you put together a single legitimate analysis that held up to criticism and bore out what you were trying to say.

Those assertions were made after carefully explaining why he makes them. Did you not read them and their numerous other posts? I also find your implication that only YOUR analysis is "legitimate" and holds up to criticism. Seriously? This is a relatively obscure internet forum.

I would pay to see you present your "criticisms" to a legitimate engineering organization.

 

[NutCracker]

Tony,

1. NIST is wrongy the wrongy
2. ???
3. 9/11 is inside jobety-jobby

Now, fill in 2 for me, please.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony you claim to have proven that it is "impossible" for the girder to have walked off column 79, is that correct, or have you not made that claim? Please give us a clear, non-weasly answer to that one: Have you, or have you not, claimed to have proven that it is "impossible" for the girder to have walked off column 79? I need a "Yes, I have" or a "No, I have not" at this point, no other answer is acceptable.

Oystein, it has clearly been shown that the collapse initiation mechanism proposed in the NIST report for WTC 7, of a lateral walk-off of the girder between columns 44 and 79 at floor 13, is an impossible situation and could not have occurred. It is also clear that those who don't want to recognize this here have no basis for what they are saying.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Those assertions were made after carefully explaining why he makes them. Did you not read them and their numerous other posts? I also find your implication that only YOUR analysis is "legitimate" and holds up to criticism. Seriously? This is a relatively obscure internet forum.

I would pay to see you present your "criticisms" to a legitimate engineering organization.

The comments by TFK and Ozeco41 are diversionary and inconsequential. They have no real basis to refute the fact that the proposed collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 given in the NIST report is impossible.

There are a couple of Discussion papers under review at a mainstream ASCE journal on this issue. NIST recently made some corrections to the report based on the criticisms which are discussed in those papers.

 

[Oystein]

Prediction...

(Prediction: If Tony replies at all, which is only a limited possibility given his track record of evading tough questions and requests for clarity, he will NOT give clear yes/no answers to the questions in the first part of this post, but he WILL misrepresent the argument made in the second part, or his reply will miss the pertinent points)

... fulfilled:

How sleazy.

Tony you claim to have proven that it is "impossible" for the girder to have walked off column 79, is that correct, or have you not made that claim? Please give us a clear, non-weasly answer to that one: Have you, or have you not, claimed to have proven that it is "impossible" for the girder to have walked off column 79? I need a "Yes, I have" or a "No, I have not" at this point, no other answer is acceptable.

If yes, do you still hold on to that claim, Tony? Yes or no? No weasly answer, Tony, I need a "yes" or a "no" at this point, no other answer is acceptable.

Oystein, it has clearly been shown that the collapse initiation mechanism proposed in the NIST report for WTC 7, of a lateral walk-off of the girder between columns 44 and 79 at floor 13, is an impossible situation and could not have occurred. It is also clear that those who don't want to recognize this here have no basis for what they are saying.

Where in your training to become an engineer have you learned to be so weasly, so imprecise?


Anyway, it has been shown, with utter clarity, that your analysis is lacking a great many relevant considerations and is based on asserted, not proven, assumptions. It has thus beenmm shown, with utter clarity, to be insufficient, invalid, wrong. You are wrong on the base premises, you are wrong on many detailed premises. You get the details wrong, you get the global picture wrong.

You getr everything as wrong as you could possibly get it, Tony.


Your stomping feet and insulted, stubborn insistence that you are right despite having had your arse handed to you incessantly for days, weeks, months, years on end.

 

[Animal]

oystein, in my mind it has clearly been shown that the collapse initiation mechanism proposed in the nist report for wtc 7, of a lateral walk-off of the girder between columns 44 and 79 at floor 13, is an impossible situation and could not have occurred. in my mind it is also clear that those who don't want to recognize this here have no basis for what they are saying.

ftfy