WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[Spanx]

This is it in a nutshell.

You would think on a skeptics forum there would be some skepticism in situations such as this. Instead, blind faith causes supporters to simply make a statement, claim it as twoof, and berate any dissent.

Your concise descriptions and exhaustive analysis are appreciated, but it is disconcerting how easily hypotheticals without any evidence are so easily accepted amongst these so-called debunkers and skeptics.

Perhaps you could High light in Tony Szamboti's post above where he has produced any evidence.

 

[twinstead]

You might have a point if that's what we're discussing, but we're not.

Yea, but isn't this thread just a subtle way of suggesting that?

 

[LSSBB]

This is it in a nutshell.

You would think on a skeptics forum there would be some skepticism in situations such as this. Instead, blind faith causes supporters to simply make a statement, claim it as twoof, and berate any dissent.

Your concise descriptions and exhaustive analysis are appreciated, but it is disconcerting how easily hypotheticals without any evidence are so easily accepted amongst these so-called debunkers and skeptics.

I see you are taking Tony's statements with blind faith here. What assumptions is Tony making in order to make his statements, and has he validated those assumptions?

 

[RedIbis]

I see you are taking Tony's statements with blind faith here. What assumptions is Tony making in order to make his statements, and has he validated those assumptions?

It is a known fact that NIST did not support their unprecedented WTC 7 collapse hypotheses with any physical evidence. I didn't need Tony to tell me that. I simply concurred.

 

[RedIbis]

Yea, but isn't this thread just a subtle way of suggesting that?

The two ideas are not inextricable. You can simply state that NIST did not back up their collapse hypotheses with any physical evidence without supporting or making any claims about CD.

You do get that right?

 

[Animal]

it is disconcerting how easily hypotheticals without any evidence are so easily accepted

Like control demolition, mini nukes, no planes, nanothermite / thermate, substitute planes, shoot downs, remote controlled planes, "pull it", the stand down, the power down, the terrorists are still alive, melted steel, the wtc obsolete, small limited fires, no steel building ever collapsed, profits from insurance claims, freefall speed, angle cut beams, pulverized concrete, speedy intercepts, war games, Israeli no shows for work, explosives installed at time of construction, Marvin Bush head of security, within their own footprints, pentagon missile batteries, blue tarp, faked Bin Laden tapes, military precision turn, cell phone calls, voice morphing, holograms, put options, war for oil, squibs, jet fuel not hot enough to weaken steel, under plane pods, terrorists not on victims list, explosive ceiling tiles, Saudi special flight, designed for multiple aircraft strikes, bombs in basement.

Oh.......I am sorry, you were not talking about troofers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0&feature=player_embedded

 

[000063]

This is it in a nutshell.

You would think on a skeptics forum there would be some skepticism in situations such as this. Instead, blind faith causes supporters to simply make a statement, claim it as twoof, and berate any dissent.
Your concise descriptions and exhaustive analysis are appreciated, but it is disconcerting how easily hypotheticals without any evidence are so easily accepted amongst these so-called debunkers and skeptics.

As opposed to someone, hypothetically, making a statement, having it torn to shreds with conclusive evidence, and refusing to admit it was wrong or even discuss it ever again?

It's interesting that your post is really nothing more than ad hominem.

 

[DGM]

The two ideas are not inextricable. You can simply state that NIST did not back up their collapse hypotheses with any physical evidence without supporting or making any claims about CD.

You do get that right?

This is true. You would also not even consider anything other than the obvious fires without some sort of reason. So, what reason should we suspect that fires were not the root cause (a claim Tony has made)?

I'm still waiting for a plausible answer to this. There is no reason to suspect anything other than what was obvious (and observable).

 

[tfk]

So let's take a tally...

Tom's claims / wagers:

Of course, NIST states that column 79 deflected several inches to the EAST. And, with it, the girder seat, of course.

Tony's response: "Did not, did not!"

Tony's new response: "Did not."

Tony, have you contacted NIST to ask them to clarify this absolutely crucial point in which your analysis differs from theirs?

If so, what did they say?
If not, why not?

And I'll bet a bag of doughnuts that Tony doesn't use material properties that include creep in his analysis either.

Tony's response: nothing.

I'll accept this as "confirmed".

I'll take apple fritters, please.

Further, I'll wager that Tony doesn't consider the time-temperature relationship of all the various components.

Tony's response to this point: Nothing.

I'll accept this as confirmed.

Perhaps a cheese danish...

It is UNDENIABLE that, when NIST was performing their preliminary analyses to see what had to be tracked, they had a model that was 1000x more detailed than any that Tony can produce.

And yet, when NIST did the same thing that Tony had claimed, that is: they merely set a couple of components to fixed temperatures (600°C for girders & beams, 500°C for columns, IIRC), they got the WRONG failure modes. NIST got buckling of girders & beams, and no walk-off.

When NIST ran the CORRECT FEA, using the time-temperature dependence that their fire sim program produced & including creep, ONLY then they got girder walk-off.

I MAY have gone out on a limb here...

And here we come to the heart of the post. It involves a couple of questions:

1. How much more elaborate was NIST's simplified (NE Floor Framing) model than Tony's?

I stated 1000x. Let's see if I exaggerated.

NIST's framing model included:

[5 W24x55] floor beams, [the W33x130] girder, bolted single shear plate connections of floor beams to girder, and seat connections at both ends of the girder and at the exterior ends of the floor beams. Short sections of Columns 79 and 44 and the exterior columns on the east side were modeled ..., as well as lateral and torsional restraint by the girder and beam flanges where applicable. … Bolts were modeled explicitly, both in the shear connections and erection bolts in the seated connections. The metal deck and concrete slab were modeled, as were the headed shear studs on the floor beams.

… Fully integrated shell elements were used, with five integration points through the thickness. Typical element sizes for the beams, girders, and plates were 1.8 in., while the concrete slab and metal deck were meshed more coarsely with typical element sizes of 7.5 in. … The contribution of the welded wire fabric to the tensile capacity of the concrete slab was accounted for in this model ... The bolts and shear studs were modeled using nonlinear discrete spring elements. Separate spring elements were used to model the shear and axial behavior of the bolts.

... The seat at Column 44 was supported from below by a vertical stiffener, which was explicitly modeled. Top plates and clip angles, where present, were also modeled, and contact with the beams and girders was defined.

… Contact was also defined between the concrete slab and the girders to allow for transfer of the gravity loads.

Element Type:
Beams, girders, concrete slab: Shell, 5 integration points through the thickness
Bolts & Studs: nonlinear spring elements. Separate elements for shear & axial behavior.
Contact: shell

Element Density:
Beams & columns: 1.8" square
Composite floor: 7.5" square
Bolts & Studs: unknown. Presumably fine resolution.

Number of nodes: Unknown, but easy to figure out. Lots.
Number of elements: Unknown, but easy to figure out. Lots.

Material properties:

[values for materials listed]
temperature dependence in the stress-strain behavior.
accounted for thermal expansion
asymmetric (tension vs. compression) behavior
[Note: no temp dependencies for slab]

Restraints:

[described in detail in NCSTAR1-9 vol1. sec 8.8]

Temp & Load application:
Gravity load: Ramped smoothly, 0 - 1 sec.
Temperature: Ramped smoothly, 1.1 sec - 2.6 sec.
time step: unknown.
Test duration: 0 - 4 sec.

Information gained from NIST model:
What are failure modes of various components?
At what temperatures do the various failures occur?

NIST identifies 8 specific failure modes & the temps at which they occur. (See Table 8-2, NCSTAR1-9 vol 1).
___

Tony's model:
5 girders? Presumably. In fact, he may have modeled as many as 9. (4 short stub beams in the NE corner. Although it seems completely pointless to waste processing cycles on these.)
Columns? Presumably.
Seat connections? Presumably.
Seat stiffeners? Unknown.
Shear plate connections? Unknown.
Bolts? Unknown. (Doubt it.)
Shear pins? Unknown. (Doubt it.)
Concrete floor? Unknown. (Doubt it.)
Floor pan? Unknown. (Doubt it.)
Welded wire fabric? Unknown. (Doubt it.)
Contact elements? Unknown. (Doubt it.)

Element type:
Beam, Girder & columns: Unknown
Concrete slab: none
Bolt: Unknown
Contact: unknown

Element Density:
Beams & columns: Unknown
Composite floor: Unknown

Number of elements: Unknown. My guess is on the order of 1/50th the number that NIST used.
Number of nodes: Unknown. My guess is on the order of 1/50th the number that NIST used.

Material properties:
Unknown
Temperature dependence: unknown

Restraints:
Unknown

Temp & Load application:
Load: Unknown.
Load ramp: none
Temp ramp: none. Fixed temperature.
Test duration: none, just fixed point.

Information gained from Tony's model:
In reality: None. He's clearly got some fundamental errors, as he apparently claims westward motion of c79.
In Tony's imagination: He claims to be able to determine the relative motion of the south end of the c44-c79 girder.
___

Note one critical point: We can examine NIST's model, because they have disclosed explicitly all of its details.

We can NOT examine Tony's model, because he won't disclose its detail.
___

So, is NIST's simplest model 1000x more detailed than Tony's?

It's impossible to tell, because Tony won't disclose his model's details.

But from the little that he has disclosed, I'd back down my guesstimate to somewhere between 100x & 1000x more detailed.

The meaningful test of it would be "how long does it take an equivalent computer to run each model?" and "what is the memory requirements for each model's dataset?"
___

But the model that Tony is really competing with is NIST full up ANSYS model:
16 stories, complete floors, dynamic temperature loading, creep, nonlinear material properties, thousands of additional components, time steps down to 10^-6 seconds, etc.

This is the model that showed the correct failure modes. This is the model that showed the eastward movement of c79. This is the model that showed the walk-off of the girder.

This is the model for which:

… 30 min temperature time history sometimes took several weeks to complete and a complete ANSYS analysis for a given thermal case took approximately six months to complete on a 64 bit workstation with a quad-core, 3.0 GHz processor, and 64 GB of Random Access Memory (RAM)

This model is far, far greater than 1000x more detailed than Tony's.
___

Now, Tony's claims about the superiority of his model, because he has included 4 extra short beams that NIST ignored: Tony, here's your chance to prove your assertion. Rerun your analysis with those beams deleted. Come back & tell me the DIFFERENCE in (your only derived parameter) the linear motion of the end of the girder with & without those 4 beams.

If the answer (as I expect) is "< ~5%", then you've simply demonstrated that you're a poor modeler, and don't know how to simplify appropriately.

___

Regarding Tony's claim about the stiffener plates on the south end of the girder…

The inclusion of the stiffener is irrelevant to the Floor Framing model. Because that component is absolutely irrelevant to any of the 8 failure events that derived from the simple analysis.

1. First shear stud failure
2. Both seat bolts of girder to Column 79 had failed
3. Both top clip bolts of girder to Column 79 had failed
4. All but three shear studs had failed
5. Both seat bolts of girder to Column 44 had failed
6. Northmost floor beam began to buckle laterally
7. Both top plate bolts of girder to Column 44 had failed
8. All floor beams began to buckle

So the exclusion of that component didn't change the outcome one iota.

Now, I readily concede that the stiffeners will play a role in girder walk-off. (NOTE WELL, this is different from saying "their inclusion will change the outcome.")

Tony, have you asked NIST whether or not they were included in the ANSYS model?

If so, what did they say?
If not, why not?

Why does Tony think that his grossly simplified, static temp FEA is going to prove or disprove walk-off?

Tony's response to this point: silence.

I'll take that as his concession that he's wrong & I'm right.

Hey, this self-annointing schtick is fun…!!

Let me try again:

I have PROVED that Tony Szamboti's analysis is worthless.

There, I said it. Now, if I just say it again, perhaps 100 - 1000x, that will make it true & undeniable...!!!

I LIKE this game...

 

[tfk]

The NIST report just makes the claim that the girder fell off its seat. They do not provide any calculations or analysis to substantiate it. When asked for calculations and analysis to substantiate the claim, the NIST director (who is a political appointee) refused the request with the excuse that releasing that information might jeopardize public safety. Isn't that interesting?

Now, I think that you might be telling a fib here.

Have you specifically asked NIST for substantiation of the walk off calculations?

Or are you taking their refusal to release the whole FEA model, and mendaciously applying their answer to that question to this different question?

___

BTW, "... who is a political appointee ..."

Pretty cowardly & despicable to toss around innuendo that someone is a liar, without having the guts to come right out & say it.

 

[carlitos]

BTW, "... who is a political appointee ..."

Pretty cowardly & despicable to toss around innuendo that someone is a liar, without having the guts to come right out & say it.

Conspinnuendo - To imply that a person or group are part of a conspiracy without explicitly saying so.
“Now that I am much more familiar with his WTC work I would have to say it appears that Bazant pushed things in the direction of collapse propagation by using incorrect values, and in less polite circles what he did might be called something other than making errors. - Tony Szamboti.

See also "dual citizen" and "jewstification."

 

[RedIbis]

This is true. You would also not even consider anything other than the obvious fires without some sort of reason. So, what reason should we suspect that fires were not the root cause (a claim Tony has made)?

I'm still waiting for a plausible answer to this. There is no reason to suspect anything other than what was obvious (and observable).

Well then I guess the debate centers on what was "obvious" and "observable."

The displaced girder was neither.

 

[carlitos]

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution"
--Jay Windley

 

[tfk]

It is a known fact that NIST did not support their unprecedented WTC 7 collapse hypotheses with any physical evidence. I didn't need Tony to tell me that. I simply concurred.

No, you're wrong about this.

You don't understand that engineering computer modeling is directly tied to "physical evidence".

The YF-17 & YF-18 (later F/A-18), F-22 & F-35 were completely designed in software. In simulation. By your claim, they also "never had any physical evidence" that they would fly.

And yet, they did fly. Beautifully.

Because the computer modeling is directly tied to "physical evidence": samples of materials that have the same properties as the ones used.

Just like NIST & WTC7.

Further, NIST had the physical evidence of videos of fire & collapse behavior. These pieces of physical evidence were used to inform & improve the models.

You're simply looking for a back door by which you can claim "the NIST reports are just guesses."

That's pretty ignorant of the engineering reality.

 

[000063]

See also "dual citizen" and "jewstification."

And "disingenuous".

Well then I guess the debate centers on what was "obvious" and "observable."

The displaced girder was neither.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't actually answer the question.

 

[RedIbis]

No, you're wrong about this.

You don't understand that engineering computer modeling is directly tied to "physical evidence".

The YF-17 & YF-18 (later F/A-18), F-22 & F-35 were completely designed in software. In simulation. By your claim, they also "never had any physical evidence" that they would fly.

And yet, they did fly. Beautifully.

Because the computer modeling is directly tied to "physical evidence": samples of materials that have the same properties as the ones used.

Just like NIST & WTC7.

Further, NIST had the physical evidence of videos of fire & collapse behavior. These pieces of physical evidence were used to inform & improve the models.

You're simply looking for a back door by which you can claim "the NIST reports are just guesses."

That's pretty ignorant of the engineering reality.

You seem to be mistaken about the definition of physical evidence.

 

[beachnut]

You seem to be mistaken about the definition of physical evidence.

You are confused. This is classic. On 911 we have a full up model of the WTC complex destroyed by fire. That is physical evidence, fire caused the destruction. Your post exposes you don't do physics, fire science, engineering, models, or computer simulation. No big deal, but you are confused why simulations and models were/are used.

 

[Sunstealer]

If you want to know the strength of a steel girder in WTC 7 for calculation purposes then you don't actually need the physical specimen in order to perform a tensile test to find the actual strength.

What you need is the "spec minima". What that is is the minimum strength as specified in the material specification (for whatever section).

From that you can then extrapolate for temperature because you'll have huge amounts of data on that specification across a range of temperatures and you'll also have data on comparable specifications.

It's even possible that data from the original manufacturers quality control tests were used but it's not required.

 

[tfk]

You seem to be mistaken about the definition of physical evidence.

Are you advocating a "legal" definition?

I advocate a "pragmatic" definition. I find these more useful, and I couldn't care less about legal definitions.

You're welcome to use whatever definition you want.
I'll use the definition I want.

My definition is better. It's kept me out of this pit of ignorance called "9/11 Truth".

 

[Justin39640]

You seem to be mistaken about the definition of physical evidence.

Why do you people seem to confuse the NIST reports with some sort of legal inquiry? I think even in that case the models would hold up in court.