Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Yeah it is, but I think we need to distinguish where we are talking about reality, and where we are talking about NISTs FEA model. NIST says that their model was heated to 600 excluding concrete and floorpans. Their new push distance requires a temp greater than that, so how can their model be accurate. They said that beyond 600 that the beams would sag, not push.The burden of proof is on NIST and anyone who believes their story, and that should be backed up with something surely?
  2. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    just less than 4.7 inches at 600C. This is using the average coefficient.
  3. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    And that happened at WTC 7, did it?

    Is that what you think actually happened at WTC7?

    Is that really what happens in a fire-filled confined room which has been burning for hours?

    How was the expansion not constrained when attachment to the rest of the structure has been mentioned, (if not thoroughly covered)? Wasn't it attached?

    Why do you avoid mentioning the effects of fire? Of differential expansion in a structure due to fire migration?

    Why do you make no mention of creep?

    Isn't 600 deg C hot enough for civil steel to creep when carrying a load?

    Why do you believe that your story is NIST's "story"?

    Your count of unanswered questions is at 37. Abuse doesn't count as an answer.
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And just to be totally clear, which coefficient, and what is the base temperature (the temperature you assume the beams are at their finished length)
  5. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Final temp = 1110F
    Ambient temp = 70F
    Delta T = 1040F (change in temp)
    Coefficient = 0.00000802
    Ambient Coefficient = 0.000006
    Average Coefficient = 0.00000701
    K3004 Beam = 640.69 inches
    Expansion = 4.67 inches

    Very interested to see what result you get. For NISTs story to make sense you are looking for a minimum of 6.25 inches.
    Thanks for taking the time and interest in this. It is a topic that 'debunkers' have avoided like the plague. I am thinking that you are probably about to find out why.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 10, 2013
  6. thedude953

    thedude953 Member

    Classic jazzy lol I've only been comin to this site for a week or so but u could have put this up with no name and I would have bet money this was jazzy
  7. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Can you answer the questions?
  8. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    NIST's story begins hours before this supposed non-event. Your story pretends it doesn't.

    Oh, yes. One's bound to come up against a certain sort of person who thinks he is weathering a thread where all he has to do is to not answer questions.

    I thought the answer was rather obvious from post 1. Didn't you? Wasn't it a mystery we were all to solve together?

    "Was it long, enough? Er, no, actually. By how much? Er, that much... Say that again? Er, that much... So it was too short by? Er, that much.... So NIST were wrong? Yes? And that means not right? Er, yes. Not right by how much? Er, that much... So what was it? Er, that much... Instead of what it would have been if they had been right? Can you repeat the question, please? What question? Was NIST right or wrong? No? Oh, then. That much... How accurate is your that much? According to our extensive calculations, NIST's that much was wrong by 93.719283746 % so our that much was 14.92175094 times better than their that much was. Drinks all round, eh? That went really well..."

    "That much" of it.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2013
  9. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Just for reference, I thought I would select the relevant portions of the NIST Report on the collapse of WTC 7 so that we may all see them

    Points which Gerrycan and Boston are ignoring I have highlighted in red. Why the title of the thread is completely wrong (the expansion length of that particular girder isn't NIST's sole criterion at all) I have highlighted in purple:


    Gerrycan, would you care to point out the not-quite-relevant girder (is it beam K3004?) in this diagram?

    Would you also to explain where the "other local fire-induced damage" is shown or mentioned in your presentation?

    Would you like to argue why this data (which you don't present) has no effect on what you actually do present? That makes 40 unanswered questions.

    Yes, Mick. I do wish I had put this on the first page of this thread.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 3
  10. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Just in case anyone else would like to do the calculation, or the flow of this thread has been interrupted for them, this is where we are at, and this is a screenshot of the spreadsheet that has been used to illustrate the thermal expansion calculation for beam K3004 ~
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    We see. That much. Again.
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Is there somewhere in the NIST report that actually claims a longer expansion?

    While the summary of the damages in case C, listed of NCSTAR 1-9 do say that
    (Page 514, pdf 580)
    They give a lot more detailed description of this later in chapter 8, and the unseating the the 79->44 girder is attributed to the buckling failure of the beams after the initial failure of the shear studs. NOT the expansion of the beams, which only is required to break the shear studs.

    NCSTAR 1-9 Page 352 (pdf 396)


    So where is the long expansion needed?
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  13. xenon

    xenon Active Member

    Thanks to Gerrycan for this thread and the research. Very well done, and you have the patience of Job.
    People like you are making a huge difference. I'm forwarding links to this thread with every opportunity that allows.

    Maybe Ben Swann heard you!

    The video on this link was just released today. Despite the forum posting software saying Vimeo is supported, the link will not embed.

    Here is the just released Ben Swann video on "Rethinking 911"
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You might want to wait until you've read my previous post.
  15. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    This is not a difficult sum. What distance go you get for the expansion? It will help me to answer your latest post in a far clearer way. Do you need more detail on the figures?
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    640.69*.00000701*1040 = 4.67, but like I said, NIST never claims a longer expansion.
  17. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Mick, I would be willing to debate you live on this issue, I don't know if this site has the facility to do that, but if not there is actually a live room elsewhere that would be available for this. Live audio and text where you can have administrator rights also. You use the following table:-
    Do you seriously think that it is possible for the beam to increase in temperature by 497C in less than 1.5s and the girder to increase in temperature by 411c over the same time period? Pure fiction from NIST here. Even given such an increase, these elements would still not fail in the manner described by NIST. If they had confidence in this model they would release the input data for it and allow it to be checked, they steadfastly refuse to do so on the grounds that it may jeopardize public safety. Nonsense. If buildings could fail this way, such a release would enhance public safety. The truth of it is that NIST started their investigation with a conclusion, and that just is not how science and engineering analysis is done at all. The above table illustrates their unwillingness to submit to the scientific method. A finite element analysis has been done independently of NIST and has shown their nonsense to be just that, nonsense. The above has substantial elements failing on the girder at UNDER 90C, and on the beam at 103C - can't happen.
    You do realise that this table is referring to an ANSYS model don't you? Which DID NOT include the proper elements and was released years before their erratum statement, which you quoted yourself in this thread? i will reply to your most recent post shortly.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There's no real live facility other than the "chat" on the front page. But I can't do engineering in real time anyway. I like to take time to check things, and read the material. Live debates are largely pointless as they don't produce things that can be reference.

    The point of the above is that NIST did not claim the beams expanded by the amount you say they claim. Why don't you just explain otherwise?

    I'm not sure what the Time column refers to. I shall investigate.
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The time was just simulation time not real world heating time. The gravity loading and then heating was simulated over compressed times to allow for higher resolution.

    Remember this was just a limited simulation, not the full scale simulation, there's a fairly long FAQ on it:
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Let me roll back there - being a bit overenthusiastic: The discussion of the ANSYS model says

    Which seems inconsistent with the LSDYNA simulation results. I suspect that the difference is accounted for by column movement.
  21. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Good on you for spotting that and having the integrity and honesty to post it before I did. Many would not do that. However, as per your analysis at the end "I suspect that the difference is accounted for by column movement". What we are talking about here is the event that allegedly left the column unsupported (which is nonsense in itself) so how can it possibly move in the model before it was unsupported? Bottom line, NIST will not release their input data because they had to fudge the inputs to induce the failure that they wanted to happen because it suited their mistaken hypothesis.
    So I am now presuming that we agree that the 'walk off' that NIST suppose is impossible, and that the original point of this thread is now proven.

    NIST say :
    "Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in"
    YOU said :
    "640.69*.00000701*1040 = 4.67, but like I said, NIST never claims a longer expansion" <Emphasis added, you have now corrected this. Respect.
    I say:
    "NIST got the initiating event totally wrong for WTC7 and need to have this re investigated"

    I think we agree now that NIST have not given a realistic account for what happened to WTC7 to cause it to collapse. Their analysis is woeful, it does not stand up to scrutiny, and the erratum statements that they have released since, only dig them into a deeper hole, because they make thermal expansion around column 79 an impossibility to the extent that they say that it happened in order to initiate the collapse of the building.
    Do we need to go further with this particular thread?
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, I think we do. NIST have some conflicting sounding statements, but they still have the one model (the partial floor model) in which the beams did NOT push the girder off its seat, and it still failed. This demonstrates that it could have failed. Certainly all the beam shear studs and the clip and seat bolts would have failed. This model was the the more detailed modelling of the connections than the larger 16-floor model.

    And the limited expansion of the beams (which I accept for the sake of argument, but I'm not 100% convinced as to the precise limits) might not be as limiting as you think

    The failures in the partial floor model is a complex three dimensional buckling distortion, not a simple linear push.

    Consider this thought experiment


    Now in the simple case, if K3004 were to push 4.6" then that's not far enough (6" needed) however there's at least a couple of scenarios where it might be, depending on the order of heating of the five beams (K, C, B, A, G) And the Girder (R, for convenience)

    Take a purely imaginary outside case. K expands first (roughly), breaking the C79-R connections. C, B, A, do likewise. Now if we (for now) ignore K,C, B, A, and imagine for the sake of argument that the R pivots around C44.

    Under this very simplistic model an expansion one inch of G would result in motion of the end of the girder at C78 by of approximately eight inches.

    Now that's not realistic. However nor do I think a simplistic model of KCBAG all expanding at the same rate is realistic. They would have expanded at different rates, and the combination of those expansions, with perhaps some pivoting, and distortion of the girder itself, would be what caused the girder to be unseated on C79.

    NIST describes that the C79 connection was unseated by the girder walking off. They ascribe this to the five beams expanding. They might not be wrong, and they do not (I believe) claim that it was simply due to the expansion of K3004.

    Ideally we'd like to see the graph of the positions of the endpoints of all the beams and girders involved. Unfortunately that's unlikely. However the end result still seems plausible.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  23. John Smith

    John Smith New Member Banned

    Mick and Gerrycan should debate this live on Joe Rogan Experience. He would definitely be up for it.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And to expand upon my thought experiment a little. If we assume pivoting around C44, then an expansion of an inch in C is (by blueprint measurements), about 1.4 inches at C17. With larger values for B, A and G. So a 4.67 motion for CBAG would result in the C79 end wanting to move at least 1.4x4.67 = 6.5"

    The objections here are that the C44 connection would break, not pivot (it would, but then wedge, and pivot). And that the lower beams (K, C) would retard the rotation caused by the upper beams (but how much, if they have been heated to sagging point).

    But the overall point I'm making is that it's not as simple as you make out. The Girder is going to twist in some way, the beams will alternately expand and sag, the expansion of some beams might effective pivot against other beams, and/or C44.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I doubt that. The JRE is not very math oriented :) Plus it's very visual, and JRE is mostly a podcast format.
  26. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    I agree totally with this. I think that such a debate would be a rare event, as I feel sure that it would be an honest search for truth rather than the usual point scoring exercise that such debates usually descend into. This is a testament to Micks tenacity and providing he brought the kind of integrity that he has shown in this thread, such a debate would perhaps be a first, and would present an example of what the way forward for this whole issue should be. This is also a hot topic at the moment, as shown by Tony on the TV clip in xenons post above. When we sat down with Tony and showed him the stifffener plates he referred to them as a 'gamechanger'. He was 100% correct.
  27. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Er, cough. :)

    Gerrycan, I told you so, so many, many times.

    Xenon "People like you are making a huge difference. I'm forwarding links to this thread with every opportunity that allows."

    Please go ahead. Make my day.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2013
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Just for reference, here's the C44 connection (DWG 9102). As you can see the end of the girder would pivot after very little motion after the connection fails. But would likely still be supported by the seat.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Respectfully, Tony seems like he would be a little predisposed to make such an assessment.
  30. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    The fact remains that NIST claimed to have heated up these elements in the manner shown in your earlier post ie, to 500 and 600C within a couple of seconds. Their claimed output is impossible. This is totally unrealistic.
    We considered the hypothetical you are talking about re column 44. I imagine you are scrutinizing that just now. Perhaps I can save you some time there - here's the dimensions of the column :-
    Here's how it connects to the girder, with dimensions added :-

    And here's the connection with the kip ratings :-

    Getting back to the beams, as you can see in the drawing E12/13 and also on the spreadsheet, they would expand less and actually tend to hold the girder spanning column 79 and 44 in place, as I think you can see. Col44_detailA.
    We went through every 'what if' scenario we could think of in researching this information, and column 44 played a major part in that analysis.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  31. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    I disagree, Tony has always struck me as being a man of integrity, who like myself, would rather not be correct about his analysis of what happened on 911. The recent paper that he, and other released on buckling moments in wide columns is elegant in its presentation and rich in content. Very thought provoking, but more applicable to the towers obviously. Tonys willingness to engage and openness in the way he does so mean that he is often unfairly maligned by debunkers. His steadfast determination to continue to explore the 911 issue in this open and engaging way is a credit to him and those for whom he speaks.
    Anyway, back to this girder.....................
  32. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Materials expand according to their temperature. Speeding up a simulation shortens the time taken to get to the result of the simulation.

    Of course.

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 10, 2013
  33. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Nice coverage there, and yes he heard us, as did ae911, who also heard us
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No they don't, that's just the time they used for the simulation. The expansion and deformation are essentially instantaneous (i.e. when the beam gets to that temperature, then it's at that length), so it makes no difference. And that was just for the the partial floor model.
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Off topic posts removed. Please stick to the topic, which is the claim of errors in NIST's wtc7 report.
    • Like Like x 2
  36. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Of coure it makes a difference, steel conducts and there is 40,000 tons of it to do so in WTC7. ANSYS is capable of a far more realistic simulation than this, and NIST claim that each run on their model took 8 weeks to process, so they clearly had the time to do a more in depth analysis. Maybe we should start a new thread. The assertion that I made at the start of this has been proven.
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It makes no difference once it has arrived at a particular temperature - then it will be in a particular state. The six second simulation just speeds things up.

    You didn't make an assertion at the start of the thread.
  38. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Sorry, i meant to say, the assertion that i made via the content of the video presentation that i alluded to in the initial post of this thread has been proven. The steel would conduct the heat away over time, and i also think that 100 degree of difference between the beams and the girder is unrealistic. As is the failure to heat up the concrete, which sets up a differential thermal expansion, putting an unrealistic force on the studs. Also, the failure to include the floor pan is just preposterous. The difference that heating the steel up gradually, as would happen in the real world is that the steel, being highly conductive would wick the heat away, as it conducts.
  39. gerrycan

    gerrycan Banned Banned

    Just an observation, I bet you know a hell of a lot more about column 79 than you did a week ago lol. I really do respect the way you have been willing to take this info on board Mick.
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What was that exactly? Just the "beams would not expand enough", or a more general "NIST were wrong" of "collapse is impossible" point?

    Not trying to be snarky, but it would be best to simply state what assertion you think has been proven.

    I believe they heated the concrete in the full sized simulations. This was just a mode-of-failure simulation to see what would happen in detail with the steel heating.
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.