Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
If the debate is over then why are you still having a debate?

You just discovered a serious error in your calculations. Doesn't that make you at least want to go back and check your other work? What other assumptions might you have made that might be incorrect?
Mick, the error made in taking the values from the CTE chart as instantaneous vs. mean was not serious in the sense of knocking down the overall argument against the NIST WTC 7 report and you have to know that. I have checked my other work and assumptions and I am sure you have also.

The debate is really over, as the problems the omission of the girder stiffeners and beam stubs to G3005 present to the report are quite robust and their discovery has delivered a death knell to its overall claims. It is interesting that there are no other errors you can find and that you have gone silent about the omissions in the report. How come?

It sounds like you think you can have the guy's speeding ticket for doing 150 mph in a 55 mph zone thrown out when he shows the cop's radar could be off by up to 10%. Your ploy is obvious. It won't work to find any little nit and then try to throw out the entire case against the NIST WTC 7 report. Why don't you ask that NIST also recheck their work based on the fact that they had to admit to a "typo", which did amount to a significant error concerning the width of the girder seat and made the 5.5" expansion you keep going on about irrelevant?
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
What else apart from the beams could have been pushing it?
The rest of the beams on that floor. They were hot too.

Or, alternatively, they were cooling, and pulled.

Then the column itself was expanding from beneath, and rising.

Then the whole exterior framing, broken in parts, was also transmitting expansion or contraction loads. You know, steel is great for transmitting loads. Other bits of steel....
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
The rest of the beams on that floor. They were hot too.

Or, alternatively, they were cooling, and pulled.

Then the column itself was expanding from beneath, and rising.

Then the whole exterior framing, broken in parts, was also transmitting expansion or contraction loads. You know, steel is great for transmitting loads. Other bits of steel....
You need to speak to the NIST report's omission of the girder stiffeners and beam stubs from the exterior frame to G3005. That is what this thread is about.

Trying to say it was on fire and "oh, anything, just anything, could happen" is gibberish and would not fly in a court and won't fly here. You are wasting other's time with that kind of thing.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You just discovered a serious error in your calculations. Doesn't that make you at least want to go back and check your other work? What other assumptions might you have made that might be incorrect?
Pleased you didn't use the term 'Critical error'...;)
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
You need to speak to the NIST report's omission of the girder stiffeners and beam stubs from the exterior frame to G3005. That is what this thread is about.
So they omitted it. It wasn't a "critical error", as it was just part of a general tendency to collapse, which they clearly indicated.

Trying to say it was on fire and "oh, anything, just anything, could happen" is gibberish and would not fly in a court and won't fly here.
It wouldn't be "gibberish" because a long-seated fire was in progress in that area, creating a variety of interactions, each with another.

Your "interaction" was just one of them.

You are wasting other's time with that kind of thing.
You would know about that "kind of thing". Politeness policy intervenes...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The debate is really over, as the problems the omission of the girder stiffeners and beam stubs to G3005 present to the report are quite robust and their discovery has delivered a death knell to its overall claims. It is interesting that there are no other errors you can find and that you have gone silent about the omissions in the report. How come?
Silent? What more is there to say? Did you have a question?

And if your discovery is a "death knell", then what's the problem? Why are you even here discussing them?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
The rest of the beams on that floor. They were hot too.
Given that the other beams to the east of the girder are shorter, and were said to be at the same temperature, would they push more or less than the beam in question?

Or, alternatively, they were cooling, and pulled.
You need to support claims like this. So far you are saying, 'it might have been pushed, or pulled, or both.' Hardly definitive.

Then the column itself was expanding from beneath, and rising.
As was the rest of the building elements that were supposed by NIST to be at that temperature.

Then the whole exterior framing, broken in parts, was also transmitting expansion or contraction loads. You know, steel is great for transmitting loads. Other bits of steel....
Yes steel expands when it heats up so that makes sense. I agree.
 

kawika

New Member
The stiffeners are rock solid evidence that rises above all of NIST's fantastic bare assertions. In order of absurdity we have:

1. 4 Hour heating
2. Shear stud failure on beams beginning at 103C--No shear studs on the girder
4. Beams reach 600C in a 30 minute fire
5. Girder reaches 500C in a 30 minute fire
6. Beams push girder 5.5"--but girder doesn't expand enough to interact with C79 side plates.
7. Beams push girder 6.25"
8. Narrative doesn't follow their simulations that are supposed to be the basis for all of the conclusions.

NIST ignores what is in front of them in black and white.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Based on that, it look like you'd have about half an inch before it comes to bear against the girder.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Given that the other beams to the east of the girder are shorter, and were said to be at the same temperature, would they push more or less than the beam in question?
Why would I accept that as "given"? Is that what actually happened? What if the fire had reached them for long enough for them to sag and pull the back of the column your girder was pressing on?

You need to support claims like this. So far you are saying, 'it might have been pushed, or pulled, or both.' Hardly definitive.
No. YOU need to support YOUR claim that the column was unaffected by other aspects of the fire. If it wasn't where you have supposed it to be, then your efforts are futile.

As was the rest of the building elements that were supposed by NIST to be at that temperature.
I don't care what NIST supposes, any more than I care what YOU suppose. Was it REALLY at the same temperature at the time of collapse, and how do you know?

Yes steel expands when it heats up so that makes sense. I agree.
But it also transmits mechanical loading from elsewhere - from places you don't even consider.

If the fire was rising from several floors beneath, then extra loadings were transferred every time CREEP occurred. That's loadings additional to the transferred loadings due to the structural damage wrought by WTC 1.

4 Hour heating
You have a verifiable fire timeline which differs from NIST's?

Shear stud failure on beams beginning at 103C--No shear studs on the girder
So shearing studs on beams couldn't have an effect on the girder? Can you prove that?

Beams reach 600C in a 30 minute fire - Girder reaches 500C in a 30 minute fire
Hadn't the fire been traveling UPWARD through the structure? Doesn't that mean that it was getting UP to temperature BEFORE ignition took place?

Beams push girder 5.5"--but girder doesn't expand enough to interact with C79 side plates - Beams push girder 6.25"
Assumes column 79 to have remained where it was after been subjected to four hours of rising fire.

For that matter, it also assumes that the exterior was fixed. Neither of these assumptions is a match for what actually happened. It's at least one assumption too far.

Most probably both, because the exterior would have opened outwards when its external lateral restraints on its south face were removed by impact for - how many floors was it?

Narrative doesn't follow their simulations that are supposed to be the basis for all of the conclusions.
The narrative and the simulation follows what was recorded on video as close as practicable, in engineering terms.

NIST ignores what is in front of them in black and white.
That's a self-devaluing statement.
 
Last edited:

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Why would I accept that as "given"? Is that what actually happened? What if the fire had reached them for long enough for them to sag and pull the back of the column your girder was pressing on?
Beam stubs to the north. And the reason that this is a 'given' is because it is what the drawings say, and you need to keep in mind that we are talking about NISTs analysis here, not real world.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Beam stubs to the north. And the reason that this is a 'given' is because it is what the drawings say, and you need to keep in mind that we are talking about NISTs analysis here, not real world.
This post is useless without pictures.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
E12/13 has been posted many times on this thread already, as have NISTs assumptions re temperatures and evenness of heat application.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Beam stubs to the north. And the reason that this is a 'given' is because it is what the drawings say, and you need to keep in mind that we are talking about NISTs analysis here, not real world.
That's no reply at all.

If you are criticizing NIST's analysis, as not being "real world", then you can hardly claim your analysis to be any different.

We all KNOW that fire had been affecting Column 79 on rising floors for several hours, we all KNOW that extra loadings had been transferred, first by impact damage, then by CREEP occurring in any loaded steel in the vicinity wherever it had been heated over a baseline temperature of 475 deg C for a period of time.

NIST made those claims (including the effects of the fire) because they were in the real world.

You, on the other hand, will never mention any likelihood of either the center line of Column 79 being off center, nor of the exterior of the building being displaced in any way. You cannot because your case is gone.

And you don't. This is only because it's YOU that isn't in the real world.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
That's no reply at all.
You obviously need to go and look at the drawings if you don't get it.

If you are criticizing NIST's analysis, as not being "real world", then you can hardly claim your analysis to be any different.
This thread is about my analysis of NISTs analysis. Why are not clear on that by now?

We all KNOW that fire had been affecting Column 79 on rising floors for several hours, we all KNOW that extra loadings had been transferred, first by impact damage, then by CREEP occurring in any loaded steel in the vicinity wherever it had been heated over a baseline temperature of 475 deg C for a period of time.
Says who?? You need to back this kind of stuff up with some evidence. Bare assertions on your part.

NIST made those claims (including the effects of the fire) because they were in the real world.
IF NIST were real world, they would have represented connections and elements in the building as per the structural drawings.

You, on the other hand, will never mention any likelihood of either the center line of Column 79 being off center, nor of the exterior of the building being displaced in any way. You cannot because your case is gone.
Again, you need to quantify this and show your work. What do you suggest displaced the column, and where is that in NISTs analysis?

And you don't. This is only because it's YOU that isn't in the real world.
More bare assertions and insults. It's all you have Jazzy. Remember you didn't even know what a shear stud was at the beginning of this thread. You had to be corrected by Mick several times. Then you made the mistake of looking for an underseat plate ABOVE the connection - the clue is in the name Jazzy. Weak and uninformed. Go take a basic class in reasoning maybe.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
You obviously need to go and look at the drawings if you don't get it.
The "drawings" you have supplied don't represent the events. Your little scenario was one of many contributory failures NIST's report describes.

This thread is about my analysis of NISTs analysis. Why are not clear on that by now?
Clear. You are clearly ignoring all you can as to NIST's analysis of the contributory nature of the events taking place. You never mention any at all.

Says who?? You need to back this kind of stuff up with some evidence. Bare assertions on your part
I merely have to point out the progression of fire, with its accompanying effects, from BENEATH.

IF NIST were real world, they would have represented connections and elements in the building as per the structural drawings.
Connections and elements were deemed to have good reason to fail. No ordinary civil engineering fixing details will survive sagging geometries. They are designed for vertical and horizontal axes.

Again, you need to quantify this and show your work. What do you suggest displaced the column, and where is that in NISTs analysis?
Actually you have to claim that such displacements were NOT in the report to make your point. As soon as you make that claim I will show you where it is.

More bare assertions and insults. It's all you have Jazzy. Remember you didn't even know what a shear stud was at the beginning of this thread. You had to be corrected by Mick several times. Then you made the mistake of looking for an underseat plate ABOVE the connection - the clue is in the name Jazzy. Weak and uninformed. Go take a basic class in reasoning maybe.
Think what you like.

I notice you didn't answer my previous post. For your convenience I'll restate it. Let's see if you respond this time:

Given that the other beams to the east of the girder are shorter, and were said to be at the same temperature, would they push more or less than the beam in question?
Why would I accept that as "given"? Is that what actually happened? What if the fire had reached them for long enough for them to sag and pull the back of the column your girder was pressing on?

4 Hour heating
You have a verifiable fire timeline which differs from NIST's?

Shear stud failure on beams beginning at 103C - No shear studs on the girder
So shearing studs on beams couldn't have an effect on the girder? Can you prove that?

Beams reach 600C in a 30 minute fire - Girder reaches 500C in a 30 minute fire
Hadn't the fire been traveling UPWARD through the structure? Doesn't that mean that it was getting UP to temperature BEFORE ignition took place?

Beams push girder 5.5" - but girder doesn't expand enough to interact with C79 side plates - Beams push girder 6.25"
Assumes column 79 to have remained where it was after been subjected to four hours of rising fire. For that matter, it also assumes that the exterior was fixed. Neither of these assumptions is a match for what actually happened. It's at least one assumption too far. Most probably both, because the exterior would have opened outwards when its external lateral restraints on its south face were removed by impact for - how many floors was it?

Narrative doesn't follow their simulations that are supposed to be the basis for all of the conclusions.
The narrative and the simulation follows what was recorded on video as close as practicable, in engineering terms.

NIST ignores what is in front of them in black and white.
That's a self-devaluing statement in view of your present behavior...
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I merely have to point out the progression of fire, with its accompanying effects, from BENEATH.

Connections and elements were deemed to have good reason to fail. No ordinary civil engineering fixing details will survive sagging geometries. They are designed for vertical and horizontal axes.
Naturally, thats why all the other buildings which have blazed away for many hours have all fallen down, (NOT). 'Because the steel melts and sags and connections fail due to fire' Simples :rolleyes:
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Why would I accept that as "given"? Is that what actually happened? What if the fire had reached them for long enough for them to sag and pull the back of the column your girder was pressing on?
Pull back the column?? Are you serious, or is that a typo?

You have a verifiable fire timeline which differs from NIST's?
Do you mean NISTs model timeline, or their report timeline? Their report timeline contradicts itself many times.
So shearing studs on beams couldn't have an effect on the girder?
Do you mean 'shear studs' or 'shear studs that are shearing' ?
Can you prove that?
Obviously, yes.

Hadn't the fire been traveling UPWARD through the structure?
Where, and at what times?

Assumes column 79 to have remained where it was after been subjected to four hours of rising fire.
For that matter, it also assumes that the exterior was fixed. Neither of these assumptions is a match for what actually happened. It's at least one assumption too far. Most probably both, because the exterior would have opened outwards when its external lateral restraints on its south face were removed by impact for - how many floors was it?
You need to back up your assertions with some data here.


The narrative and the simulation follows what was recorded on video as close as practicable, in engineering terms.
No it doesn't. They get elements wrong and even omit some. That is not accurate
That's a self-devaluing statement in view of your present behavior...
NIST ignored the drawings. They were in black and white. They were in front of them. There is therefor nothing devaluing whatsoever in that statement. Kawika was 100% accurate.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Based on that, it look like you'd have about half an inch before it comes to bear against the girder.
I don't think you thought this through. To be clear, are you saying that you think that there could only be a half inch shift to the east due to thermal expansion of the floor beam?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't think you thought this through. To be clear, are you saying that you think that there could only be a half inch shift to the east due to thermal expansion of the floor beam?
I'm saying that if the beam expanded axially in that direction it would come into contact with the girder after half an inch.

Please explain your point.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
The PSI would surely be massive at the east end of the beam due to the initially tiny area of contact it would have compared to the west end of the beam that connects to the girder. Also, I don't think that the plan is to scale. I am thinking at least 3/4" gap initially.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The PSI would surely be massive at the east end of the beam due to the initially tiny area of contact it would have compared to the west end of the beam that connects to the girder. Also, I don't think that the plan is to scale. I am thinking at least 3/4" gap initially.
And so?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
This would take another inch or so off NISTs walk distance for the girder. You claim to have managed to get to 5.5" to the west. I think that is highly questionable, but even if we assume that for this debate, you still need to find an additional 1.75" just to get to 6.25". Then we can talk about the addition of the stiffener plates that NIST omitted from their analysis, which clearly has some critical errors and omissions.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As is his right. You still haven't addressed what I am saying relevant to THIS thread though. Why are you avoiding that?
Because I want to know why you are denying your mistake with the coefficient. Address that, then we can move on.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Because I want to know why you are denying your mistake with the coefficient. Address that, then we can move on.
I have already said that for the purposes of THIS debate on THIS thread, I am happy to move on with the assumption that it moved 5.5 despite my reservations. In fact, let's make it 6" for easy counting. Now where do you get the rest from? I have allowed the assumption twice now, so yes, let's move on. Please.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Okay. So now let's move onto Gerry's point. he is even willing to give you 6". Where do you get the rest of the westward displacement needed?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not claiming any longer expansion than 5.5". I realize this make simple failure of that connection seem unlikely if there are stiffener plates. I also agree that it does seem like some eastwards expansion would result, at least 1/2", and possibly more.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
The outer column 38 issue is interesting. Beam expansion there would in fact be much easier than at the girder end. The connection at 38 has two bolts in 'slotted' bolt holes that would offer negligible resistance to move Westwards. Seems to me that beam expansion would shear the other two 'fixed' bolts that connection and then continue Westwards until it came up to the column 38 face. The beam then impacts there at an angle where its corner takes the full force. As the beam continues to raise in heat, and soften, then that corner would have to yeald before the bolts at column 79 fail as it is still the weakest point.

It looks like the drawing of the beam to 38 column isn't to scale but I would agree that around 1/2" is reasonable before the beam corner comes to the column face. If I'm correct about the corner folding at 600 C then another 1/2" at least would be used up, by such corner folding, from the 5.5" conceded.

Of course its then likely that the heat weaked steel with the folded corner might s l i d e Northwards because by this time NIST has asserted that the floor structure has long since failed and the beam would have nothing to resist such a slide north. That might allow the beam to slide north until trapped by the northern flange of the 38 column. Such a slide would allow expansion at the 38 end of the beam to continue for at least another inch. We now have used 2" of possible beam expansion solely at the 38 end - and only now can bolts be broken at the column 79 end of the event. Using the conceded 5.5" max expansion - less this 2" at the 38 end we will only have 3.5" move across the 79 seat.

A long way from walk off of either an 11" seat or a 12" seat or with stiffeners a requirement for a 9" min move.

I know that you will leap to defend beam corner fold and / or slide issues but I like to examine all possibilities if only to be able to put them aside in my mind.

Gerrys ( and Tony's ) question remain to be addressed though. Where do you find the extra inches to cause walk off ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Gerrys ( and Tony's ) question remain to be addressed though. Where do you find the extra inches to cause walk off ?
Like I just said, I don't.

Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not claiming any longer expansion than 5.5". I realize this make simple failure of that connection seem unlikely if there are stiffener plates. I also agree that it does seem like some eastwards expansion would result, at least 1/2", and possibly more.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The Col38 issue would also depend on if the bolts actually broke before the sheer studs and the C79 bolts. Given that the C38 bolts were slotted, then it's possible that they never break, just move in their slots about 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Some math would be needed to verify that though.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So you disagree with NIST that the initiating event was the connection on floor 13 column 79 where a girder spanning 44 to 79 dropped from its seat ?
It certainly seems like there are several valid objections to that (westward walk-off) being the very first failure. But I think their general hypothesis seems plausible.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
It certainly seems like there are several valid objections to that (westward walk-off) being the very first failure. But I think their general hypothesis seems plausible.
Thank you for the first sentence. As gerry's video was based entirely on that then his point is proved.

Your second sentence is therefore disappointing. How can their hypothesis seem plausible when you have just agreed that it is in fact implausible ?

Don't forget that they hinged the entire hypothesis on that girder dropping, causing a cascade of floors, then buckling of 79 - followed by global collapse. If the girder can't drop then their hypothesis drops instead.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thank you for the first sentence. As gerry's video was based entirely on that then his point is proved.

Your second sentence is therefore disappointing. How can their hypothesis seem plausible when you have just agreed that it is in fact implausible ?

Don't forget that they hinged the entire hypothesis on that girder dropping, causing a cascade of floors, then buckling of 79 - followed by global collapse. If the girder can't drop then their hypothesis drops instead.
Gerry claims that they are critical errors and omissions. Like I've said several times, the NIST hypothesis is that floors fail, then columns buckle. Those broad stroke seem reasonable.

And these are just valid sounding objections that gerry brings up. They need inspection to see if they hold water. They need rigor. They also need fitting it a big picture, and not looked at in artificial isolation.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Gerry claims that they are critical errors and omissions. Like I've said several times, the NIST hypothesis is that floors fail, then columns buckle.
I welcome your open mind.

But you have again misquoted NIST. You missed out a critical few words. Note that word again.

You said :- "NIST hypothesis is that floors fail, then columns buckle."

Wrong.

" NIST's hypothesis is that a floor fails due to thermal expansion, then a girder falls from its seat at column 79, floor 13, causing a cascade of floors, then column 79 buckles."
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I welcome your open mind.

But you have again misquoted NIST. You missed out a critical few words. Note that word again.

You said :- "NIST hypothesis is that floors fail, then columns buckle."

Wrong.

" NIST's hypothesis is that a floor fails due to thermal expansion, then a girder falls from its seat at column 79, floor 13, causing a cascade of floors, then column 79 buckles."
Who are you quoting there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Top