August 21st: NIST report states WTC-7 "Did not collapse from explosives"

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Yes, you're comparing the reactions of a truss, made of thin material, to a huge beam.

No, read it again. I was comparing the reaction of connections to other connections.

Of course, I would be willing to listen if you have some info that says a beam will sag like the trusses did, rather than expand due to heating.

Depends on the beam. But, no, they wouldn't act in the same manner and I never said they would.

Originally posted by Saidar
Uhm, don't know about you guys but I have known that for about 2 years now. We spent a whole week on that in one of my structural engineer classes at varsity, doing the math and all the fun things can come with it

Can I ask how you verified the construction of the building? As NIST who was hands on says that they couldn't do it, maybe they need the help of your class?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
32 Kilograms per cubic meter were converted from the International Systems of Units (Metric System) to Customary Units. (what we use here in the States) and yes that does equal 6.4 pounds per square feet.

In fact these measurements represent density:

Density

Density is a measure of the mass of an object per unit volume; thus, it has units of mass divided by length cubed such as kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3) or pounds per cubic foot (lbs/ft).

I don't understand your problem with this.

The bolded parts are the problem. Volume and area are two totally different things.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Yes, you're comparing the reactions of a truss, made of thin material, to a huge beam.

No, read it again. I was comparing the reaction of connections to other connections.

Ahh, ok I see your point.

here's the way I see it- the beams won't sag, so the only outcome of thermal expansion is that the connections will be pushed off, IF the force is great enough.

Whereas the trusses CAN sag in response to heating, which would result in a pulling force.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Thermal expansion coefficient of steel:

12 x 10^-6/K

Thermal expansion equation:

delta Length = Li (initial Length) x alpha (thermal expansion coefficient) x delta T

Delta means "change in".

hypertextbook.com...

Going from a temperature of 293.15 K (room temperature) to 1173.15 K (900 C) is a difference of 880 K = delta T

I'm not sure of the span of the beams so I will assume 30 feet

delta L = 30 ft x 12 x 10^-6/k x 880 K = .3168 ft

.3168 ft equals 3.8 inches.

If the beam is 60 feet, then delta L would be 7.6 inches.

Are we really to believe that this is enough to fell a building? Really?

From now on, I'm going to start spec'ing my buildings as to NIST's findings. Let's see how well building owners like to spend a couple extra million on this obviously needed fireproofing.

Maybe then they can let NIST know they aren't buying it either?

Thermal dynamics in this regard is well understood and exaclty like resistive patterns in electronics to the very equation. Stefan problems and differential equations all state the same thing in this regard, no were enough joule heating in this closed system to end up with the results specified.

If you do the math of the required heating responsible to act upon the steel in the manner suggested, you end up wih a figure so astronomically beyond the stated heating that was actually going on, the only other plausible summation in the end is that another source supplied the resultant engery and heat to end up with the solution visualisze and data
collected.

Building 7 of the WTC complex by all means didn't defy the laws of physics and just pull energy out of no were and become the first building entropy device, its amazing that people actual accept this as an answer!!! High rise building just don't spontaneously produce trillions of joules of energy for no reason!!! How absurd for anyone with intellect to believe this!

No amount of argument, alight of hand, disception can ignore the point stated here, the lack of sufficient fuel, and heating required in the equations is staggering and comes to only one conclusion, it wasn't convection, radiation, or conduction that fell WTC 7, it completely impossible, and those that continue to argue this, continue to lie to themselves.

Deny ingnorance right? Well bebunkers you sure like bliss.....

[edit cause I bad spallar..]

[edit on 23-8-2008 by theability]

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

Thermal expansion coefficient of steel:

12 x 10^-6/K

Thermal expansion equation:

delta Length = Li (initial Length) x alpha (thermal expansion coefficient) x delta T

Delta means "change in".

hypertextbook.com...

Going from a temperature of 293.15 K (room temperature) to 1173.15 K (900 C) is a difference of 880 K = delta T

I'm not sure of the span of the beams so I will assume 30 feet

delta L = 30 ft x 12 x 10^-6/k x 880 K = .3168 ft

.3168 ft equals 3.8 inches.

If the beam is 60 feet, then delta L would be 7.6 inches.

Are we really to believe that this is enough to fell a building? Really?

Sweet!!

NIST gives 600C and 50ft length. So what does that give?

And I noticed another thing wrong with the comparison. The tower connections were either in compression or tension for the floor trusses.

For 7, it was a lateral displacement. They call it "walk-off" I believe. It's figure 12-24, on page 219/382.

So would 5-6" (guessing until I see your figures) be enough to cause walk-off?

And I see the NIST saying that the floor walk off caused others below it to fail also when they hit. Then Col 79 was unsupported over a 9 floor length. Euler's buckling then ensued around the middle of that length, around the 9th floor. Is this right?

Originally posted by Griff
From now on, I'm going to start spec'ing my buildings as to NIST's findings. Let's see how well building owners like to spend a couple extra million on this obviously needed fireproofing.

Maybe then they can let NIST know they aren't buying it either?

Here's something for ya to ponder:

Like they say, fire standards aren't there to prevent building failure, but only to allow escape of occupants. Do like you wish though.

Here's a glaring error I found though:

Can't quote the pdf again.......

Page 35/115 says that applied thickness of the SFRM was below that required for sprinklered or unsprinklered buildings.

But then on page 45/115 it says that it met the required thickness to meet codes.

Can't be both, unless I'm reading it wrong.....

If the beam is 60 feet, then delta L would be 7.6 inches.

Are we really to believe that this is enough to fell a building? Really?

Yes Griff it is - ever seen a wall pushed out and collapse at a fire scene?

The thermal expansion of structural steel can push a wall over and cause
it to fail. Its one of the things teach you be aware of.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
NIST gives 600C and 50ft length. So what does that give?

That gives us 50 x 12 x10^-6 x (873.15-293.15=580) = .348 ft = 4.176 inches

That's 2.088 inches on either side of the beam

And I noticed another thing wrong with the comparison. The tower connections were either in compression or tension for the floor trusses.

For 7, it was a lateral displacement. They call it "walk-off" I believe. It's figure 12-24, on page 219/382.

Moment frames are designed with lateral dispacement in mind I believe. I.E. Earthquake forces.

So would 5-6" (guessing until I see your figures) be enough to cause walk-off?

Actually, it's 2 inches on either side of the beam.

And I see the NIST saying that the floor walk off caused others below it to fail also when they hit. Then Col 79 was unsupported over a 9 floor length. Euler's buckling then ensued around the middle of that length, around the 9th floor. Is this right?

I believe that's what they are saying.

[edit on 8/23/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by thedman

If the beam is 60 feet, then delta L would be 7.6 inches.

Are we really to believe that this is enough to fell a building? Really?

Yes Griff it is - ever seen a wall pushed out and collapse at a fire scene?

The thermal expansion of structural steel can push a wall over and cause
it to fail. Its one of the things teach you be aware of.

Did I say "fell a wall" or did I say "fell a building"?

Two different things here.

Originally posted by MasterRegal
I DEMAND that everyone in this thread post their credentials and qualifications regarding architecture and building collapse. Everyone here seems to act like they are experts, refuting the actual experts. Why? You don't trust the government, so you don't trust their findings. You already "know" what happened, so any other explanation must be false. The only evidence you have is the same evidence millions of people saw live on television. That's it. So, tell me why I should believe you over the official report.

The official report says that the towers fell in 10 seconds. The law of physics must have vanished that day.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by danielsil18]

It's always good to remember the "Hand of God" theory with respect to the World Trade Center collapses.

You know.. where they magically obtained enough energy to literally smash out everything under it - straight to the bottom.

Even without calculations, the very concept of the upper portion of either building having enough energy to pulverize everything below is ridiculous. Especially with WTC 2 - how does angular momentum disappear and the whole building magically comes down straight and dandy.

Factor in calculations and you still need "the Hand of God" to push it down to cause that much destruction to the building.

It all comes down to the NIST lacking a huge amount of steel from the buildings to give a more accurate presentation of what occured.

Fan Boys can argue all they want about how righteous the cause is for the Official 9/11 story but it's half-assed and done without a lot of information with relation to the stress on the steel.

To flaunt it around like it's the Bible of Truth is a bit pre-mature.

Not sure why people get so defensive in light of the official story either, it's obviously not the best thing to support. Is asking questions - questioning the official story

REALLY

a bad thing? Come on, find something better to cling to.

reply to post by dariousg


Exactly. But let them keep yapping: They just keep trying to get out of that hole by digging faster. They even state "progressive", when a blind man can see symmetrical collapse.

They refused to consider thermite, because "we didn't hear explosions on video".

Uh huh, like thermite makes a sound....

Paid liars with university degrees? Still just liars.

To Tezzajw...


I stand corrected. Bonehead mistake on my part. No excuses. Sorry for the late response, my better 1/2 had me out all weekend.

Oh, I will be submitting this to NIST. I have to admit it was a good find on your part.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


While you're at it, I found another mistake. Grammatically that is.

On page 34:

(e.g., due to disconnected or impaired water supply, or are overwhelmed.

They didn't close the parentheses. Just grammatical for now but I haven't finished reading the report yet. But, I do have to say I wish they'd get on with it. So far, at page 36, it's just rambling.

Seymour: I read that first part so far in the report and will be looking for the contradiction you pointed out when I get that far. Nice catch.

Please people (Griff etc.)

Please take a look at what I wrote (list) of info required.

This FIRE PROTECTION info reported is lacking tech. info. (prob. just like the structural).

This is not right if this is the only info we have on Fire protection information in reports etc. ...even the place I live in small 15 level apartment building has a fire panel and the first thing the fire fighters do is....look at the panel to see what is going on.

Maybe people on here know someone in the fire protection field, to confirm/help with this etc.

Your Canadian friend,
Sven

reply to post by Griff


Yeah, I found a couple typos myself. I'm sure Alex Jones will find a NWO message embedded inside.

reply to post by Griff

But, I do have to say I wish they'd get on with it. So far, at page 36, it's just rambling.

That's because they've got nothing substantial to write about.

It's obvious that their models don't fit the facts - you only have to watch their animations to see that. The whole building starts twisting and leaning, yet we know this didn't occur because we can see this clearly in numerous videos (and before people start criticizing said videos, they are perfectly legitimate scientifically, as it is a recorded observation - something that is very important, especially when dealing with stuff like this).