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

[Gamolon]

The NIST report on WTC7 states that the bearing seat at 79 for the girder was 11 inches wide and that the beam was pushed laterally 5.5" due to thermal expansion of the floor beams. According to NIST, this meant that the girder had walked off the seat.

I am looking at the shop drawing from Frankel Steel (1091) for column 79 at the 13th floor, and the bearing seat is 12" wide, not 11" like NIST has in their report.

I am debating the gentleman who created the video, "Shear Ignorance" and this is going to be one of his (and others) points as to why NIST's explanation is incorrect and why the girder couldn't have walked off.

NIST states 600C, an 11" wide plate, and a lateral push of 5.5" to fit their explanation.

Any thoughts about this?

[fourtoe]

I can't contribute anything important to your question. But what format are you doing your debate in?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Gamolon

The NIST report on WTC7 states that the bearing seat at 79 for the girder was 11 inches wide and that the beam was pushed laterally 5.5" due to thermal expansion of the floor beams. According to NIST, this meant that the girder had walked off the seat.

I am looking at the shop drawing from Frankel Steel (1091) for column 79 at the 13th floor, and the bearing seat is 12" wide, not 11" like NIST has in their report.

I am debating the gentleman who created the video, "Shear Ignorance" and this is going to be one of his (and others) points as to why NIST's explanation is incorrect and why the girder couldn't have walked off.

NIST states 600C, an 11" wide plate, and a lateral push of 5.5" to fit their explanation.

Any thoughts about this?

links?

[cjnewson88]

You are incorrect, NIST does not state the girder (I assume you're talking about W33) walked off its seat.

NIST states:

Quote:

continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange. Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of the other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8-27(a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the gurder off its seat on Column 79 as shown in Figure 8-27(b).

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pp 353-354

The expansion did not push the girder off its seat, after it was shifted on its seat, the buckling of the floor beams and the girder itself "rocked" the girder off its seat, therefore it doesn't really matter whether the seat was 11" or 12", it was still rocked off it.

edit: regardless, I cannot find where it states the seat was 11" or the girder was pushed 5.5".

Can you link where?

[Gamolon]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

You are incorrect, NIST does not state the girder (I assume you're talking about W33) walked off its seat.

NIST states:
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pp 353-354

The expansion did not push the girder off its seat, after it was shifted on its seat, the buckling of the floor beams and the girder itself "rocked" the girder off its seat, therefore it doesn't really matter whether the seat was 11" or 12", it was still rocked off it.

edit: regardless, I cannot find where it states the seat was 11" or the girder was pushed 5.5".

Can you link where?

NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page 527.

Quote:

Walk-off occurred when beams that framed into the girders from one side thermally expanded and the resulting compressive forces in the beams pushed laterally on the girder from one side, sheared the bolts at the seated connection, and then continued to push the girder laterally until it walked off the bearing seat. The bearing seat at column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.

[Gamolon]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

links?

I downloaded ZIP files that contained drawings for WTC7. Here is one link to download the drawing files.

Column 79 details are located on drawing 1091 from Frankel Steel.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...a-request.html

[Gamolon]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

links?

Here is the link to the "Shear Ignorance" videos.

http://www.youtube.com/user/71gerry

[Gamolon]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

links?

Screen shots of the Frankel Steel, 1091.TIF for column 79 details.

Here is the actual callout for finished floor 13, the W33 x 130 girder, and the seat labeled "pf".


Here is a screenshot of the BOMs on the same drawing that show the dimension for the plate "pf". I only see 1 ft. x 8 in. for the plate. Nothing about 11 in.


Drawing title block.

[phunk]

Originally Posted by NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page 527.

The bearing seat at column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.

This is not a measurement or simulation of what happened, it's an estimate of what would need to happen. The 5.5 is directly inferred from the 11 in the previous sentence (note the "thus" and "at least").

If it was actually 12 inches, then the girder needed to be pushed an extra half inch. So what? Did the paper at some point say 5.5 inches was the most it could be pushed?

[Myriad]

Joe was standing at the edge of a cliff, with his toes exactly at the edge. Frank came along and pushed him 5.5 inches. Joe fell off the cliff and died in the fall.

Frank, on trial for murder, pointed out that Joe's shoes were not 11 inches long as the DA had mentioned previously, but 12 inches long. That meant the 5.5 inches he'd shoved Joe were not quite enough to move Joe's center of gravity over the edge of the cliff. So, the prosecution's case against Frank fell apart and Frank was acquitted! The surprised police investigators rushed back to the crime scene, more determined than ever to discover the true culprit.

(This story is from the How Things Work In Truther World anthology. Any resemblance to any actual plausible story is unlikely.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by phunk

This is not a measurement or simulation of what happened, it's an estimate of what would need to happen. The 5.5 is directly inferred from the 11 in the previous sentence (note the "thus" and "at least").

If it was actually 12 inches, then the girder needed to be pushed an extra half inch. So what? Did the paper at some point say 5.5 inches was the most it could be pushed?

That is exactly how it reads to me. If NIST is incorrect about 11 in. its a minor detail and the 5.5 in. movement is only to illustrate that the girder need only move 1/2 the width of the seat to indeed fail.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Gamolon

Screen shots of the Frankel Steel, 1091.TIF for column 79 details.

Here is the actual callout for finished floor 13, the W33 x 130 girder, and the seat labeled "pf".
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...lcolumn79a.png

Here is a screenshot of the BOMs on the same drawing that show the dimension for the plate "pf". I only see 1 ft. x 8 in. for the plate. Nothing about 11 in.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...lcolumn79b.png

Drawing title block.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...lcolumn79c.png

I admit I am not great at reading blueprints.

How does NIST fare with other measurements of parts on that list? Is it possible that the 12 inches was a rough cut size and that they were finished to a half inch less at each side, at the construction site?

Does NIST use dimensions for PA, PB, PC, or PD and if so how do they match up with the BOMS?

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

You are incorrect, NIST does not state the girder (I assume you're talking about W33) walked off its seat.

NIST states:
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pp 353-354

The expansion did not push the girder off its seat, after it was shifted on its seat, the buckling of the floor beams and the girder itself "rocked" the girder off its seat, therefore it doesn't really matter whether the seat was 11" or 12", it was still rocked off it.

edit: regardless, I cannot find where it states the seat was 11" or the girder was pushed 5.5".

Can you link where?

NIST has the girder falling BOTH ways.

August 26, 2008 WTC 7 Technical Briefing
Page 32 is a graphic showing the beams pushing the girder off its seat to the west:

"Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." [to the west]
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1313/walkoff.jpg

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...08-WEBCAST.pdf

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg 189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

pg 488 [pdf pg 150]
Under such conditions, the beam would fall to the floor below under its self weight. When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.

* * * * *

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 352 [pdf pg 396]
Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 8–25, leveling off at temperatures of 600 °C for the beams and 500 °C for the girder at 2.6 s.
pg 353 [pdf pg 197]
Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat [to the east] at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8979/figure827.jpg

[Tezro]

..

[000063]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

NIST has the girder falling BOTH ways.

August 26, 2008 WTC 7 Technical Briefing
Page 32 is a graphic showing the beams pushing the girder off its seat to the west:

"Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." [to the west]
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1313/walkoff.jpg

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...08-WEBCAST.pdf

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg 189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

pg 488 [pdf pg 150]
Under such conditions, the beam would fall to the floor below under its self weight. When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.

* * * * *

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 352 [pdf pg 396]
Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 8–25, leveling off at temperatures of 600 °C for the beams and 500 °C for the girder at 2.6 s.
pg 353 [pdf pg 197]
Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat [to the east] at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8979/figure827.jpg

By gum, I think he's cracked it! NIST's whole theory is bunk! This brings the conspiracy down around the government's ears! Victory! Triumph!

No, wait, they made some vague diagrams which you're desperately reading things into in an effort to find a contradiction.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

NIST has the girder falling BOTH ways.

August 26, 2008 WTC 7 Technical Briefing
Page 32 is a graphic showing the beams pushing the girder off its seat to the west:

"Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." [to the west]
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1313/walkoff.jpg

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...08-WEBCAST.pdf

Is this AUGUST 2008 information still included in the NOVEMBER 2008 final report?
If yes, can you point me to where this plays a role in the final assessment?
If no, can you explain why you think this superceded information is worthwhile reporting in 2012? Are you perhaps having problems with the concept of correcting oneself as newer, better information arises?



Other than that, thanks for providing page numbers and stuff in the final report.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

NIST has the girder falling BOTH ways.

August 26, 2008 WTC 7 Technical Briefing
Page 32 is a graphic showing the beams pushing the girder off its seat to the west:

"Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." [to the west]
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1313/walkoff.jpg

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...08-WEBCAST.pdf

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg 189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

pg 488 [pdf pg 150]
Under such conditions, the beam would fall to the floor below under its self weight. When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.

* * * * *

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 352 [pdf pg 396]
Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 8–25, leveling off at temperatures of 600 °C for the beams and 500 °C for the girder at 2.6 s.
pg 353 [pdf pg 197]
Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat [to the east] at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8979/figure827.jpg

IIRC Chris7 has made this claim over and over again and been shown where he has gone wrong.

IIRC NIST does NOT state [to the east] in any part of the report. If that phrase is not used in the NIST report then one wonders why Chris includes in in a quote of the report.
Instead it is strictly Chris's erroneous interpretation of the last diagram he links to.

[ozeco41]

In polite circles it is a process called "telling porkies".



(Derived from "Pork Pies" for those who are not familiar with the rhyming slang.)

[fourtoe]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Is this AUGUST 2008 information still included in the NOVEMBER 2008 final report?

Dammit I was gonna say something about this too. This is the second time I've seen Mr 7 do this and I called him out on doing the exact same thing basically in the Fe Micro-Spheres(?) thread and this was his response to me:

Originally Posted by Christopher7

You should stop using that thread bear canard. NIST made a statement in a publication and I can quote them. The fires did not change even if they decided to change their characterization of them.

Is this your answer in this thread as well, Chris?

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

IIRC NIST does NOT state [to the east] in any part of the report. If that phrase is not used in the NIST report then one wonders why Chris includes in in a quote of the report.
Instead it is strictly Chris's erroneous interpretation of the last diagram he links to.

The phrase [to the west] is also not used. I figured C7 could get away with it cause he did put it in brackets, though he probably should have made it more clear that he added it in. But he did tell us the page links so meh.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

IIRC Chris7 has made this claim over and over again and been shown where he has gone wrong.

IIRC NIST does NOT state [to the east] in any part of the report. If that phrase is not used in the NIST report then one wonders why Chris includes in in a quote of the report.
Instead it is strictly Chris's erroneous interpretation of the last diagram he links to.

I put the [to the east] in italics to indicate that I had added it. Is using the asterisk better?

NIST has the girder between columns 79 and 44 failing twice, in opposite directions.

Walk off occurred when expanding beams pushed the girder off its seat to the west. as shown in this graphic in the August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing:
Page 32
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1313/walkoff.jpg
"Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at column 79, then pushed the girder off its seat"

And described in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 488 [pdf pg 150]
Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when (1) the end of the beam or girder moved along the axis of the beam until it was no longer supported by the bearing seat, or (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. … Under such conditions, the beam would fall to the floor below under its self weight. When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg 189]
Walk off occurred when beams that framed into the girders from one side thermally expanded and the resulting compressive forces in the beams pushed laterally on the girder from one side,sheared the bolts at the seated connection, and then continued to push the girder laterally until it walked off the bearing seat. A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.



Buckling beams rocked the girder off of its seat to the east.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 353 [pdf pg 197]
Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat* at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)
*to the east
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8979/figure827.jpg

[cjnewson88]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

I put the [to the east] in italics to indicate that I had added it. Is using the asterisk better?


Buckling beams rocked the girder off of its seat to the east.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 353 [pdf pg 197]
rocking of the girder off its seat* at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)
*to the east
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8979/figure827.jpg

It doesn't make a difference how you write it, it's not in the NIST report anywhere, so why are you adding it?

Furthermore, none of the figures show it walked/rock east, they all show it went west, even though they don't state it. So what's the problem? Where did you get this delusion that it walked east?

Sure looks like it was pushed west to me..

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

It doesn't make a difference how you write it, it's not in the NIST report anywhere, so why are you adding it?

A noted "to the west" and "to the east" to make it clear that NIST has the girder failing in opposite directions.

Quote:

Furthermore, none of the figures show it walked/rock east, they all show it went west, even though they don't state it. So what's the problem? Where did you get this delusion that it walked east?

Where did you get this delusion that I said it walked east?
In the "rocked to the east" failure it first walked west, but not off its seat. Then it rocked off its seat to the east.

Quote:

Sure looks like it was pushed west to me..
http://i962.photobucket.com/albums/a...NZSAS/Beam.png

You didn't bother to click on the link in my post. You posted the graphic for the lateral displacement that does not walk off but not the one on the same page that shows it rocking off to the east. How could you not see it? Here is the graphic for the "rocked to the east" failure:

[000063]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

A noted "to the west" and "to the east" to make it clear that NIST has the girder failing in opposite directions.

No, you claim that they have the girder falling in opposite directions, from the preliminary report.

Quote:

Where did you get this delusion that I said it walked east?
In the "rocked to the east" failure it first walked west, but not off its seat. Then it rocked off its seat to the east.

Bwuh?

Quote:

You didn't bother to click on the link in my post. You posted the graphic for the lateral displacement that does not walk off but not the one on the same page that shows it rocking off to the east. How could you not see it? Here is the graphic for the "rocked to the east" failure:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8979/figure827.jpg

In Fight Club, Tyler says he inserts single frames of pornography into family movies to make the audience uneasy. You are doing something similar, except you are claiming that Lilo and Stich was meant to have Ron Jeremy and Danni Ashe as a pair of very, very special guest stars.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by 000063

In Fight Club, Tyler says he inserts single frames of pornography into family movies to make the audience uneasy. You are doing something similar, except you are claiming that Lilo and Stich was meant to have Ron Jeremy and Danni Ashe as a pair of very, very special guest stars.

Yes, exactly. This is what the retards of 9/11 Truth think they're doing. Or are they really doing it? Anyway, yes...yes...this is a great comparison.

[cjnewson88]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

A noted "to the west" and "to the east" to make it clear that NIST has the girder failing in opposite directions.

In the "rocked to the east" failure it first walked west, but not off its seat. Then it rocked off its seat to the east.

You posted the graphic for the lateral displacement that does not walk off but not the one on the same page that shows it rocking off to the east.

Ok, so it the expanding floor beams push the girder towards the west, as shown here:

and here


Then, after it had been pushed laterally, it buckled and was rocked to the east, as shown here:


So what's the problem then?

Quote:

In the "rocked to the east" failure it first walked west, but not off its seat. Then it rocked off its seat to the east.

You even say this, so why are you trying to say NIST says it fell both ways when you yourself have stated it was only pushed to the west, and not fallen..

Unless, you are referring to this part in the first picture;

Quote:

Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat.

However, as has already been shown, this is from the preliminary report, not the final NIST report. Therefore, most people would understand that a final report supersedes preliminary reports.

Your discrepancy seems to simply be over the choice of words used between the two, seeing as the preliminary did not use the words 'rocked' or have a 3d diagram to show it.

Why are you using out of date information to prove a point when it doesn't really even do that?

What is your point of this? That because you accuse NIST of having to reevaluated which way a girder fell that therefore super-duper-nano-hushaboom-thermite-bomb-controled demolition was the cause in stead?

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

Ok, so it the expanding floor beams push the girder towards the west, as shown here:
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1313/walkoff.jpg
and here
http://i962.photobucket.com/albums/a...NZSAS/Beam.png

Then, after it had been pushed laterally, it buckled and was rocked to the east, as shown here:
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8979/figure827.jpg

So what's the problem then?

You even say this, so why are you trying to say NIST says it fell both ways when you yourself have stated it was only pushed to the west, and not fallen.

Emphasis added.
Incorrect. I quoted the NIST final report which states the girder would have fallen to the floor below.

Quote:

Unless, you are referring to this part in the first picture;

However, as has already been shown, this is from the preliminary report, not the final NIST report.

You missed this part:

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

pg 488 [pdf pg 150]
Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when (1) the end of the beam or girder moved along the axis of the beam until it was no longer supported by the bearing seat, or (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. … Under such conditions, the beam would fall to the floor below under its self weight. When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.

[cjnewson88]

I stand corrected.

What significance does this have?

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

I stand corrected.

What significance does this have?

Heh.

For what it's worth, just looking at the references to the final 1-9, the passage in Vol. 1 describes the LS-DYNA finite element analysis, and the passage in Vol. 2 describes the Case B ANSYS analysis.

To me it seems badly mistaken (and might even be construed as disingenuous) to present any difference between these analyses in the terms that "NIST has" two contradictory conclusions. I'm open to actual argument that some important issue is at stake here.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

I stand corrected.

What significance does this have?

NIST has the girder failing twice - in opposite directions. This report is not credible.

Furthermore, they lied about the width of the seat.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

A W33x130 beam has an 11.5 inch flange
http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehou...2f9c9c4280baa6

and the seat is wider than the flange so it's at least 12 inches wide, not 11 inches.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2503/fig821.jpg

That means that the beams would have to expand at least 6 inches.


Using the formula an page 343-344 0f NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1
Substituting the length of the beams - 52 feet x 12 = 624 inches

If a 52 foot (624 in.) long beam is heated so as to uniformly increase its temperature by 600 ^ºC, and the coefficient of thermal expansion is taken to be 1.4x10-5 / ^ºC, the elongation would be,
S_t= (1.4x10^-5 / ºC) × (600 ºC) × (624 in.)

0.000014 x 600 = 0.0084 x 624 = 5.24 inches

0.000014 x 630 = 0.0088 x 624 = 5.50

0.000014 x 688 = 0.0096 x 624 = 6.01

Ambient temperature is 22^oC or 72^oF

So the beams would have to be heated to 700^oC to expand 6 inches.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman

Heh.

For what it's worth, just looking at the references to the final 1-9, the passage in Vol. 1 describes the LS-DYNA finite element analysis, and the passage in Vol. 2 describes the Case B ANSYS analysis.

To me it seems badly mistaken (and might even be construed as disingenuous) to present any difference between these analyses in the terms that "NIST has" two contradictory conclusions. I'm open to actual argument that some important issue is at stake here.

Page numbers please?

Do you think that having the girder fail by being pushed off its seat to the west and also fail by being pulled off its seat to the east is not a problem?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Page numbers please?

Do you think that having the girder fail by being pushed off its seat to the west and also fail by being pulled off its seat to the east is not a problem?

You did not understand Mark's point. Read it again.
I think he refers to YOUR references, so consult YOUR page numbers, and then go look what the respective contexts are: Two different simulations.

Now I don't know the answer to the following question but: Are both simulations (LS-DYNA and ANSYS Case B) used to suppport the eventual comclusion? I understand that where there is a Case B, there may also be cases A and C. Is Case B the relevant one?

[Gamolon]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Emphasis added.
Incorrect. I quoted the NIST final report which states the girder would have fallen to the floor below.

You missed this part:

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

pg 488 [pdf pg 150]
Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when (1) the end of the beam or girder moved along the axis of the beam until it was no longer supported by the bearing seat, or (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. … Under such conditions, the beam would fall to the floor below under its self weight. When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.

How do you get that the picture below shows the beam rocking off to the east? The bottom flange (called out with the red arrow) of the girder is shown to be out past the edge of the seat (the line pointed at and called out with the red arrow). That shows the girder being pushed west. Also, the web of the girder is shown to be WEST (pushed to the right) of the centerline of column 79.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Gamolon

How do you get that the picture below shows the beam rocking off to the east? The bottom flange (called out with the red arrow) of the girder is shown to be out past the edge of the seat (the line pointed at and called out with the red arrow). That shows the girder being pushed west. Also, the web of the girder is shown to be WEST (pushed to the right) of the centerline of column 79.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...olon/seat1.png

The beams are on the east side so it's rocking to the east. The view is from the west side.

[Gamolon]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The beams are on the east side so it's rocking to the east. The view is from the west side.

No.

In that picture, west is to the right and east is to the left.

The web of the girder is pushed to the right of the centerline of the face of column 79 (west) and the bottom flange end of the girder is pushed west of the seat.

How can the girder be moving east when the bottom flange end is pushed PASSED the edge of the seat to the right (west) and the web is to the right (west) of the face centerline of the column?

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Oystein

You did not understand Mark's point. Read it again.
I think he refers to YOUR references, so consult YOUR page numbers, and then go look what the respective contexts are: Two different simulations.

Now I don't know the answer to the following question but: Are both simulations (LS-DYNA and ANSYS Case B) used to suppport the eventual comclusion? I understand that where there is a Case B, there may also be cases A and C. Is Case B the relevant one?

Thank you Oystein. Your comment rang true enough that it caused me to go back and check it out. I don't know how I missed the significance of this but yours and Marks comments got me to see it a different way than I had been interpreting it:
1-9 Vol.1 pg 353
This analysis demonstrated possible failure mechanisms that were used to develop the leading collapse hypothesis further. The failure modes in this model were incorporated into the 16 story ANSYS and 47 story LS-DYNA analyses

That explains the two theories. Thank you Mark for your comment. I have no problem making a 180 degree turn when presented with a convincing point that proves my current thinking wrong and this is such a case.

However, I see a problem with GIGO in the subsequent analyses. There are numerous fraudulent aspects in the "rock to the east" analysis.

1) they applied 4 hours of heat at 1100^oF but the fires only burned for 20 to 30 minutes in any location
2) they heated the entire area all at once but that is not what happened in the actual fire.
3) They applied that 4 hours of heat in 1.5 seconds giving a false result. That did not allow the beams to sag which they would have done because the bottom flange would be hotter that the top flange. It also did not allow for heat dispersal thru the slab and to other structural members.
4) They heated the beam but not the slab to get the shear studs to fail. That gave a false, excessive temperature differential.
5) they lied about the width of the seat.

These were not carried forward but they are worth mentioning because they are fraudulent
6) once the bolts on the seat and top clip had broken there would be no axial restraint on the beams on that end so they would not buckle.
7) they left out the three short cross beams between the exterior wall and the northmost floor beam as well a one more between that beam and the next. It would not have buckled sideways but downward.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Gamolon

No.

In that picture, west is to the right and east is to the left.

The web of the girder is pushed to the right of the centerline of the face of column 79 (west) and the bottom flange end of the girder is pushed west of the seat.

Correct

Quote:

How can the girder be moving east when the bottom flange end is pushed PASSED the edge of the seat

Incorrect. The bottom flange is still on the seat and the top is bending to the east in the middle. The graphic is not clear but the text says that the collapsing floor beams on the east side rocked the girder [needs a pivot point] off its seat.

[phunk]

It's really not a great diagram, but it looks to me like the girder is twisted, with the bottom being pushed west and the top east.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Thank you Oystein. Your comment rang true enough that it caused me to go back and check it out. I don't know how I missed the significance of this but yours and Marks comments got me to see it a different way than I had been interpreting it:
...
That explains the two theories. Thank you Mark for your comment. I have no problem making a 180 degree turn when presented with a convincing point that proves my current thinking wrong and this is such a case.

You're welcome, and thanks for digging deeper. I have never worked my way through NIST's Building 7 report, as this is not one of my main interests, but I do follow debates somewhat, and I am glad some people are reading carefully.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

However, I see a problem with GIGO in the subsequent analyses. There are numerous fraudulent aspects in the "rock to the east" analysis.

Hmm after this latest experience with your missing something, perhaps you ought to be more cautious with words such as "fraudulent"? GIGO is a base problem for all simulations, and can't fully be excluded when sims get as complex as this one. But does that constitute fraud? It's fraud if false statements are made on purpose. I don't think you can prove fraud by just reading the allegedly fraudulent document - any information within that reveals wrong information would almost by definition be evidence against fraud.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

1) they applied 4 hours of heat at 1100[/font]^oF but the fires only burned for 20 to 30 minutes in any location
2) they heated the entire area all at once but that is not what happened in the actual fire.
3) They applied that 4 hours of heat in 1.5 seconds giving a false result. That did not allow the beams to sag which they would have done because the bottom flange would be hotter that the top flange. It also did not allow for heat dispersal thru the slab and to other structural members.
4) They heated the beam but not the slab to get the shear studs to fail. That gave a false, excessive temperature differential.
5) they lied about the width of the seat.

These were not carried forward but they are worth mentioning because they are fraudulent
6) once the bolts on the seat and top clip had broken there would be no axial restraint on the beams on that end so they would not buckle.
7) they left out the three short cross beams between the exterior wall and the northmost floor beam as well a one more between that beam and the next. It would not have buckled sideways but downward.

They lied about the width of the seat? How do you know? You think someone sat there, looked up 12 inches, and then said to himself "nyahhh, I am gonna show them suckers" and deleted the 2 and wrote 1 instead to make it 11 inches? Why do you think so? Does it make a difference? Would a seat width of 12 inches made a fundamental difference? If not, why would anybody lie here, instead of err - or perhaps the 12 inches are erroneous, I am not sure that this has been determined in this thread yet.

The details of how they simulated what - I wouldn't call detailed and open information about what they really did "fraud". If I tell you that I took 4 apples from your kitchen, left no money, but cleaned the sink instead, would I be fraudulent because you expected me to take 2 oranges in exchange for drying the dishes? I think "fraud" is really the wrong word here. You could say that you think what they did is wrong or stupid or incompetent or has this and this problem, but since they inform you exactly on the shortcuts they used, there is no fraud. It would be fraud if they said they simulated 20 minutes of 1100° when in fact they applied 4 hours.



I think you would be a lot smarter if you didn't use such derogatory terms to describe your disagreement with methods. You see, perhaps the problem is not their methods, perhaps the problem is your insufficient understanding for the rationale behind those methods. Perhaps you have never used ANSYS or LS-DYNA before to do such simulation? Perhaps 1.5 seconds are plenty in such sims to account for bending of beams? I don't know. Elsewhere, when they build up the entire structure, they apply gravitational loads over a period of several seconds, to allow for normal stress to build up gradually. This is of course far from reality: They did not build WTC7 to completion in zero gravity and then cranked up gravity linearly over a few seconds. Instead, it took months for the gravity loads to build up. Was that fraud, too?

[Gamolon]

Originally Posted by Oystein

You're welcome, and thanks for digging deeper. I have never worked my way through NIST's Building 7 report, as this is not one of my main interests, but I do follow debates somewhat, and I am glad some people are reading carefully.


Hmm after this latest experience with your missing something, perhaps you ought to be more cautious with words such as "fraudulent"? GIGO is a base problem for all simulations, and can't fully be excluded when sims get as complex as this one. But does that constitute fraud? It's fraud if false statements are made on purpose. I don't think you can prove fraud by just reading the allegedly fraudulent document - any information within that reveals wrong information would almost by definition be evidence against fraud.



They lied about the width of the seat? How do you know? You think someone sat there, looked up 12 inches, and then said to himself "nyahhh, I am gonna show them suckers" and deleted the 2 and wrote 1 instead to make it 11 inches? Why do you think so? Does it make a difference? Would a seat width of 12 inches made a fundamental difference? If not, why would anybody lie here, instead of err - or perhaps the 12 inches are erroneous, I am not sure that this has been determined in this thread yet.

The details of how they simulated what - I wouldn't call detailed and open information about what they really did "fraud". If I tell you that I took 4 apples from your kitchen, left no money, but cleaned the sink instead, would I be fraudulent because you expected me to take 2 oranges in exchange for drying the dishes? I think "fraud" is really the wrong word here. You could say that you think what they did is wrong or stupid or incompetent or has this and this problem, but since they inform you exactly on the shortcuts they used, there is no fraud. It would be fraud if they said they simulated 20 minutes of 1100° when in fact they applied 4 hours.



I think you would be a lot smarter if you didn't use such derogatory terms to describe your disagreement with methods. You see, perhaps the problem is not their methods, perhaps the problem is your insufficient understanding for the rationale behind those methods. Perhaps you have never used ANSYS or LS-DYNA before to do such simulation? Perhaps 1.5 seconds are plenty in such sims to account for bending of beams? I don't know. Elsewhere, when they build up the entire structure, they apply gravitational loads over a period of several seconds, to allow for normal stress to build up gradually. This is of course far from reality: They did not build WTC7 to completion in zero gravity and then cranked up gravity linearly over a few seconds. Instead, it took months for the gravity loads to build up. Was that fraud, too?

The bottom line is, according to the truthers, that NIST made a mistake which discredits their end conclusion. NIST clearly states that the seat was 11 in. wide and that the girder would need to be pushed 5.5 in. due to thermal expansion in order for it to come of it's seat and fail.

What I see is the in addition to thermal expansion, was the sagging of the floor beams AND the girder that also contributed to girder coming off it's seat. Also, the heat would have weakened the seat plate.

I don't see where any of this is explained by NIST, so the truthers are sticking to those two mistakes as gospel and using them to invalidate the end result, being that the girder walked of it's seat.

In their eyes, using the information in NIST's report, the beam should still be on the seat.

My question is, how do you argue with that? Is there more in the report that is being missed?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Gamolon

The bottom line is, according to the truthers, that NIST made a mistake which discredits their end conclusion. NIST clearly states that the seat was 11 in. wide and that the girder would need to be pushed 5.5 in. due to thermal expansion in order for it to come of it's seat and fail.

What I see is the in addition to thermal expansion, was the sagging of the floor beams AND the girder that also contributed to girder coming off it's seat. Also, the heat would have weakened the seat plate.

I don't see where any of this is explained by NIST, so the truthers are sticking to those two mistakes as gospel and using them to invalidate the end result, being that the girder walked of it's seat.

In their eyes, using the information in NIST's report, the beam should still be on the seat.

My question is, how do you argue with that? Is there more in the report that is being missed?

My question is: How sensitive is the model to such changes in values - does it really make a difference if the girder needed to walk 5.5 or 6 inches? There is considerably uncertainty about input values, and about intermediary values (like for how long which temperatures were reached). NIST tried to "tweak" the input values such that the result resembles observations rather well without leaving a comfort zone of reasonable assumptions. That is how you work such models. Many truthers object already to this approach.

Will you find more mistakes if you keep looking? Yes, without a doubt. Some of the mistakes will, if corrected, make the collapse more likely, some less likely. Question is how sensitive the model is to such mistakes.


What NIST modeled a building that is very similar to what WTC7 really was, and also fires that were very similar to the observed fires. If the physics and engineering incorporated into the software works correct, they showed that a building very similar to WTC7 can collapse if subjected to fires very similar to the fires of 9/11, in a fashion that looks very similar to the real collapse.

So does it matter much if they are not exact in every detail? Is it reasonable to expect that they are perfectly correct in every detail?