The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Discuss any issues related to 9/11 that don't fall into the other categories.

Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby T_Szamboti » Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:08 pm

NIST ignores the fact that if girder A2001 was heated to the 500 degrees C they say it was that it would be in contact or nearly in contact with the flange of column 79 which was only 1.8 inches away and that after just 3 inches of westward travel it would be trapped behind the west side plate of column 79. This trapping would prevent the girder from being pushed any further and having its web pushed beyond its seat.

Attached is an analysis showing that is just what would happen. Colin Bailey of ARUP showed the same thing in his finite analysis.
Attachments

girder A2001 trapped behind column 79 west side plate after 3 inches of lateral travel.pdf
(160.6 KiB) Downloaded 7 times
T_Szamboti
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:43 pm

 

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby DGM » Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:48 pm

T_Szamboti wrote:NIST ignores the fact that if girder A2001 was heated to the 500 degrees C they say it was that it would be in contact or nearly in contact with the flange of column 79 which was only 1.8 inches away and that after just 3 inches of westward travel it would be trapped behind the west side plate of column 79. This trapping would prevent the girder from being pushed any further and having its web pushed beyond its seat.

Attached is an analysis showing that is just what would happen. Colin Bailey of ARUP showed the same thing in his finite analysis.


This is an analysis of this member in isolation, correct?
DGM
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby T_Szamboti » Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:14 am

DGM wrote:
T_Szamboti wrote:NIST ignores the fact that if girder A2001 was heated to the 500 degrees C they say it was that it would be in contact or nearly in contact with the flange of column 79 which was only 1.8 inches away and that after just 3 inches of westward travel it would be trapped behind the west side plate of column 79. This trapping would prevent the girder from being pushed any further and having its web pushed beyond its seat.

Attached is an analysis showing that is just what would happen. Colin Bailey of ARUP showed the same thing in his finite analysis.


This is an analysis of this member in isolation, correct?


I think everything needed is there. What additional items do you think would change the outcome and why? Remember, Colin Bailey's analysis showed the same thing.
T_Szamboti
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:43 pm

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby DGM » Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:54 am

T_Szamboti wrote:
I think everything needed is there. What additional items do you think would change the outcome and why? Remember, Colin Bailey's analysis showed the same thing.


Was this the only area affected by the fires in WTC7 that would affect theses columns?

Looking at your data I see an incomplete picture. Do you feel this accurately depicts the totality of the event? Remember, you are the one that claims it does.
DGM
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby DGM » Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:58 am

duplicate
DGM
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby ozeco41 » Thu Dec 29, 2016 1:13 am

DGM wrote:This is an analysis of this member in isolation, correct?

Yes. Or it is "in isolation" till Tony proves otherwise.

Remember Tony has three goals - two of them explicitly stated many times which are:
1) Make a case for further investigation; AND/OR
2) Prove CD.

Reasons for his lack of progress in either of those have been published ad nauseam. Bottom line is that he cannot present - or so far has not presented - a valid supporting reasoned hypothesis for either goal.

The third goal is the one that he has been pursuing since 2007 to my personal knowledge and which has been his de facto primary goal for some years:

3) Keep trolling for attention by discussing details in isolation.

The evident purpose to be seen holding discussions which he can then spin to his gullible sycophants.

The process identified by a colleague on another forum whose "sig" states:
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

Tony currently has a number of members on ISF who are supporting his goal of "keep going round in circles".
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby ozeco41 » Thu Dec 29, 2016 1:16 am

DGM wrote:Was this the only area affected by the fires in WTC7 that would affect theses columns?

Looking at your data I see an incomplete picture. Do you feel this accurately depicts the totality of the event? Remember, you are the one that claims it does.

Image Image

Exactly. And if he ever resolves that missing hole in his logic - there are several higher order issues awaiting him. As they have been for several years.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby DGM » Thu Dec 29, 2016 1:17 am

ozeco41 wrote:Yes. Or it is "in isolation" till Tony proves otherwise.



I think you know where I am going. :)
DGM
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby ozeco41 » Thu Dec 29, 2016 1:30 am

DGM wrote:
ozeco41 wrote:Yes. Or it is "in isolation" till Tony proves otherwise.



I think you know where I am going. :)

Two way application of "Mind Reading 401". :twisted:
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby T_Szamboti » Thu Dec 29, 2016 2:14 am

DGM wrote:
T_Szamboti wrote:
I think everything needed is there. What additional items do you think would change the outcome and why? Remember, Colin Bailey's analysis showed the same thing.


Was this the only area affected by the fires in WTC7 that would affect theses columns?

Looking at your data I see an incomplete picture. Do you feel this accurately depicts the totality of the event? Remember, you are the one that claims it does.


Colin Bailey's FEA of half of the 13th floor of WTC 7 produced the same result with the girder being trapped behind the column 79 western side plate when it was pushed to the west by expanding beams to the east of it, so my results have been duplicated by another analysis.

You really need to say what you think might make a difference that wasn't included and how it would. I don't think there is anything that would make a difference. However, if you can at least try to explain what you think would and why you think it would, then I would like to hear it.
T_Szamboti
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:43 pm

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby Chainsaw » Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:51 am

T_Szamboti wrote:
DGM wrote:
T_Szamboti wrote:
I think everything needed is there. What additional items do you think would change the outcome and why? Remember, Colin Bailey's analysis showed the same thing.


Was this the only area affected by the fires in WTC7 that would affect theses columns?

Looking at your data I see an incomplete picture. Do you feel this accurately depicts the totality of the event? Remember, you are the one that claims it does.


Colin Bailey's FEA of half of the 13th floor of WTC 7 produced the same result with the girder being trapped behind the column 79 western side plate when it was pushed to the west by expanding beams to the east of it, so my results have been duplicated by another analysis.

You really need to say what you think might make a difference that wasn't included and how it would. I don't think there is anything that would make a difference. However, if you can at least try to explain what you think would and why you think it would, then I would like to hear it.


Thermal distort of the column would, as well as damage to the set and girder from bolt tear out not sheer.

Both your's and Bailey's FEA, use undamaged girders and seats in the FEA, do you think that is a real world sinario?
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby T_Szamboti » Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:23 am

Crazy Chainsaw, I think you are grasping at straws, as usual.

How much would you expect the column and seat to distort? and what difference would the shearing of the bolts make? You should realize the bolts would have failed by shearing because the girder was pushing on them due to thermal expansion. To get shear tear out of the girder material it would have had to pull on the bolts to shear through the edge distance from the bolt hole to the edge of the girder.

Please tell us specifically how what you are saying would actually affect whether or not the girder got trapped behind the column 79 western side plate.
T_Szamboti
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:43 pm

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby Chainsaw » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:03 am

T_Szamboti wrote:Crazy Chainsaw, I think you are grasping at straws, as usual.

How much would you expect the column and seat to distort? and what difference would the shearing of the bolts make? You should realize the bolts would have failed by shearing because the girder was pushing on them due to thermal expansion. To get shear tear out of the girder material it would have had to pull on the bolts to shear through the edge distance from the bolt hole to the edge of the girder.

Please tell us specifically how what you are saying would actually affect whether or not the girder got trapped behind the column 79 western side plate.


You have made an assumption in your FEA, that is not constant with real world evidence,

Most of the failures in the towers and in building 7 were structural steel tear out not bolt sheer.
The heated steel pulls away from the bolts.
Such that the seat, and stiffeners are compromised.
Even if the bolts are sheered sufficient deformation of the seat, girder edge will occur your FEA must take that into account to be accurate.
I do not see that in your FEA, I see you are using pristine seats, and girder without heating and tearing effects is that correct or not?
The FEA looks over simplified, even slight thermal expansion of the column would call your FEA into question.
You are trying to prove an event impossible, Your FEA is way to simplistic and not up to the task of doing that, as several thousand data points are missing.
This FEA appears to be opinion not science, please redo it appropriately, you accuse people of high Crimes and Treason with such childish attempts, it appears the processing power of the computer is not up to the task as well.
It looks like you are using a standard desk top computer, is it a Mac the graphics seem to indicate that. Though it could be another Microsoft or similar based system.
I suggest you try super computer modeling with about ten times the data points this time accurately portraying the effect of thermal distortions inducing both girder and seat damage.
After all NIST was a super computer best fit model, to prove them wrong you would need to use similar methods, and include exactly the same variables.
Such is the burden Tony of trying to prove a negative.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby T_Szamboti » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:37 am

Chainsaw wrote:
T_Szamboti wrote:Crazy Chainsaw, I think you are grasping at straws, as usual.

How much would you expect the column and seat to distort? and what difference would the shearing of the bolts make? You should realize the bolts would have failed by shearing because the girder was pushing on them due to thermal expansion. To get shear tear out of the girder material it would have had to pull on the bolts to shear through the edge distance from the bolt hole to the edge of the girder.

Please tell us specifically how what you are saying would actually affect whether or not the girder got trapped behind the column 79 western side plate.


You have made an assumption in your FEA, that is not constant with real world evidence,

Most of the failures in the towers and in building 7 were structural steel tear out not bolt sheer.
The heated steel pulls away from the bolts.
Such that the seat, and stiffeners are compromised.
Even if the bolts are sheered sufficient deformation of the seat, girder edge will occur your FEA must take that into account to be accurate.
I do not see that in your FEA, I see you are using pristine seats, and girder without heating and tearing effects is that correct or not?
The FEA looks over simplified, even slight thermal expansion of the column would call your FEA into question.
You are trying to prove an event impossible, Your FEA is way to simplistic and not up to the task of doing that, as several thousand data points are missing.
This FEA appears to be opinion not science, please redo it appropriately, you accuse people of high Crimes and Treason with such childish attempts, it appears the processing power of the computer is not up to the task as well.
It looks like you are using a standard desk top computer, is it a Mac the graphics seem to indicate that. Though it could be another Microsoft or similar based system.
I suggest you try super computer modeling with about ten times the data points this time accurately portraying the effect of thermal distortions inducing both girder and seat damage.
After all NIST was a super computer best fit model, to prove them wrong you would need to use similar methods, and include exactly the same variables.
Such is the burden Tony of trying to prove a negative.

I am continually amazed at your ability to use an enormous number of words and literally say nothing substantive. You have no peers at this.
T_Szamboti
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:43 pm

Re: Trapping of girder A2001 behind column 79 side plate

Postby Chainsaw » Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:51 am

Your FEA lacks critical details, it does in no academic way meet the burden of proof nessisary to prove NIST wrong, it may lend support to the theory NIST is wrong but it does not indicate proof!
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Next



Return to Other Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred