ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ARUP , Colin Bailey , wtc7

Reply
Old 18th December 2015, 06:22 PM   #1
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,365
Discussion of ARUP and Colin Bailey's analyses used in court case

So I finally was able to download and examine the FEA that gerrycan wanted to discuss but didn't want to provide.

At the time of writing, the document is available here:
https://kkkb6g.dm2303.livefilestore....ley.pdf?psid=1

Should that link cease to work, I may be able to provide it if requested.

I'm still examining it, but a number of things came to my immediate attention:

1. The FEA covers only 1 floor and does not consider movement of column 79 as pushed by the girder on in the floor below it, which is something that NIST noted in their own FEA.

2. The simulation only covers about half a floor of WTC7, not the whole extent that NIST tested. It does include column 79 and the girders bracing to it, though.

3. The heat distribution differs substantially from that NIST used. It seems to be uniformly applied to all members, which is unrealistic for a real fire. Order matters when determining failure.

My preliminary conclusion before looking at it in more thorough detail is, therefore, that it does nothing to support or refute NIST's hypothesis.

Additional link: https://www.sendspace.com/file/uu4053


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited to add a working link at the request of the OP

Last edited by Loss Leader; 24th December 2015 at 01:29 PM. Reason: grammar (per strike/underline)
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 06:27 PM   #2
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,887
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
So I finally was able to download and examine the FEA that gerrycan wanted to discuss but didn't want to provide.

At the time of writing, the document is available here:
https://kkkb6g.dm2303.livefilestore....ley.pdf?psid=1

Should that link cease to work, I may be able to provide it if requested.

I'm still examining it, but a number of things came to my immediate attention:

1. The FEA covers only 1 floor and does not consider movement of column 79 as pushed by the girder on the floor below it, which is something that NIST noted in their own FEA.

2. The simulation only covers about half a floor of WTC7, not the whole extent that NIST tested. It does include column 79 and the girders bracing to it, though.

3. The heat distribution differs substantially from that NIST used. It seems to be uniformly applied to all members, which is unrealistic for a real fire. Order matters when determining failure.

My preliminary conclusion before looking at it in more thorough detail is, therefore, that it does nothing to support or refute NIST's hypothesis.
Agreed... they make a case that the girder could fail. They base this on design flaws such as failure to install fire stopping in the flutes.

They do not detail how the building would collapse. That seems to be a leap no one wants to take.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 06:51 PM   #3
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,169
After a quick skim the main difference in conclusion seems to be that the girder between columns 79 and 44 walks off during the cooling phase rather than the heating phase. End result seems to be the same, lack of restraint on column 79 leading to a buckling failure of that column and building collapse.
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 06:51 PM   #4
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
So I finally was able to download and examine the FEA that gerrycan wanted to discuss but didn't want to provide.
Except you did get it from me. Yes that's the document from the link that I emailed when requested. I had the document and not the link. When I got the link I sent it as requested right away. I wasn't sure when I only had the file.
You're welcome.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:03 PM   #5
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Except you did get it from me. Yes that's the document from the link that I emailed when requested. I had the document and not the link. When I got the link I sent it as requested right away. I wasn't sure when I only had the file.
You're welcome.
I provided the link. I stated that you and Tony both provided it.

I wonder why you didn't just post it here. The document is public.

Now that that's done. Where do you want to start discussing?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:09 PM   #6
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I provided the link. I stated that you and Tony both provided it.

I wonder why you didn't just post it here. The document is public.

Now that that's done. Where do you want to start discussing?
I had the pdf not the link. Did you not read my comment ?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:09 PM   #7
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I provided the link. I stated that you and Tony both provided it.

I wonder why you didn't just post it here. The document is public.

Now that that's done. Where do you want to start discussing?
What do you think about the 30 shear studs being on girder A2001?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:11 PM   #8
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I had the pdf not the link. Did you not read my comment ?
I acknowledge the fact you provided it. What's the problem?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:13 PM   #9
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
What do you think about the 30 shear studs being on girder A2001?
I think I wouldn't argue with the quoted expert that states they would be ineffective.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:14 PM   #10
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I acknowledge the fact you provided it. What's the problem?
While I only had the pdf I couldn't email it and I had no link. That's what I said above. I got the link - you got the link.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:15 PM   #11
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
While I only had the pdf I couldn't email it and I had no link. That's what I said above. I got the link - you got the link.
And I forward it for you. What's the problem?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:16 PM   #12
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
And I forward it for you. What's the problem?
I thought you were asking why you didn't get it sooner.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:17 PM   #13
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I thought you were asking why you didn't get it sooner.
No.

Are you ready to discuss now?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:18 PM   #14
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I think I wouldn't argue with the quoted expert that states they would be ineffective.
Are you saying they were there to make up the weight ?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:19 PM   #15
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Are you saying they were there to make up the weight ?
No. They were to add capacity to the floor. Did you not read what the link states?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:24 PM   #16
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,365
While gerrycan calls for backup, I'll comment on Bailey's assessment, because it's priceless. For link see the OP.

The first five points are mostly irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Colin Gareth Bailey
6. Based on my work to date, including computer modeling at the University of Edinburgh in which many columns were removed in the model to see the effect on the structure of the building, it is my opinion that any structural damage caused by debris from the collapse ofWTC I or WTC2 played no part in the collapse of 7WTC.
So he agrees with NIST on this one.

Quote:
7. Based on my work to date, inclnding computer models by the University of Edinburgh, it is my opinion that if there had been a diesel fuel fire on September 11 involving between 7,350 and 9,300 gallons of diesel fuel on the fifth floor of 7WTC in the area of the transfer trusses, such a fire would have compromised the strength of the transfer trusses, and could have caused them to fail, resulting in the collapse of columns 79 and/or 80.
NIST ruled out this case. I think JSanderO disagrees with NIST's assessment and thinks that it's likely that that diesel fuel played a part.

Quote:
8. The computer modeling completed to date supports the conclusion that 7WTC would have collapsed as a result of typical office contents fires because of several design/construction failures, including the failure to adequately fireproof the flutes of the metal floor decking for 7WTC and the failure to ensure that a restrained floor system was constructed.
This bears repeating. The computer modeling supports the conclusion that 7WTC would have collapsed as a result of typical office contents fires because of several design/construction failures. NIST happened to say the same thing.

Quote:
9. When a steel beam supports a composite deck, comprising a fluted (trapezoidal shaped) steel deck, concrete and mesh reinforcement, a cavity (or void) is formed between the top flange of the beam and the fluted deck. For fluted decks, such as those used on 7WTC, this cavity (or void) is large. Leaving the cavities between the fluted deck and top flange of the beam unfilled or inadequately filled with fire protection material results in:

a. an increase in temperature of the top flange and web;
b. an increase in temperature of the shear studs;
c. reduction in load capacity of beams during a fire; and
d. reduction in overall fire resistance.
In the UL Fire Resistance Directory for 1983 and 1985 the need to fill the voids is covered by the following statement: “€śCavities, if any, between the upper beam flange and floor or roof units shall be filled with the fire protection material applied to the beam, unless stated otherwise on an individual design.”

10. The photographic evidence shows that the cavities were either not filled with fire protection at all, or were so inadequately filled as to have been unfilled for all practical purposes. See Exhibit A. An example of flutes in the process of being filled with fire protection on a different building is shown in Exhibit B. Exhibit C, which appears in the American Institute of Steel Construction Design Guide, shows another example where the flutes have been filled with fire protection.1 Failure to construct the building with adequate fire protection by filling the voids reduced the fire resistance below building code requirements.
_______________
1 Steel Design Guide 19: Fire Resistance of Structural Steel Framing. American Institute of Steel Construction, December 2003
That's something that NIST failed to take into account in their analysis. Only for this reason I have to agree now that their probable collapse sequence is less probable: the building was likely to have failed before they said due to that problem.

More discussion later.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:24 PM   #17
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
No. They were to add capacity to the floor. Did you not read what the link states?
Did you mean to say that they make things composite?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:29 PM   #18
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Did you mean to say that they make things composite?
No. I agree that the amount was ineffective in preventing collapse but would help with floor load capacity. I think that's what Mr Bailey states.

Do you disagree?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:37 PM   #19
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
No. I agree that the amount was ineffective in preventing collapse but would help with floor load capacity. I think that's what Mr Bailey states.

Do you disagree?
Quote him so that everybody has the context of the specific simulation that he was speaking about.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:38 PM   #20
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Did you mean to say that they make things composite?
I wasn't going to comment on this but, what the hell do you mean by this? A composite floor is a floor containing multiple elements. The studs don't make it "composite".
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:41 PM   #21
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Quote him so that everybody has the context of the specific simulation that he was speaking about.
Quote:
Evidence discovered after June 15, 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information I had
reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed on each floor on the girder
running between columns 79 and 44. This was done to increase the ability of this part of the
structure to support an additional 10 psf load above the original design load. As a result, only 30
shear studs were installed, which, in my opinion, was not sufficient to transfer thermal thrusts.
For a fully composite girder a total of 96 shear studs would be required, which would have
transferred the thermal thrusts.
I think you've seen this before.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 18th December 2015 at 07:43 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:42 PM   #22
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I wasn't going to comment on this but, what the hell do you mean by this? A composite floor is a floor containing multiple elements. The studs don't make it "composite".
Well let's see your quote from Mr Bailey and we can talk about composite in context of your assertion and his statement.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:43 PM   #23
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Well let's see your quote from Mr Bailey and we can talk about composite in context of your assertion and his statement.
Done.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:44 PM   #24
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,365
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Talk about the FEAs that are presented in the case then. I cannot find one person on this site who wants to discuss them yet.
I can't be the only one who sees the irony here.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:46 PM   #25
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Done.
Right so he is not referring to the studs in terms of any of the simulations.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:48 PM   #26
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I can't be the only one who sees the irony here.
He's arguing about statements made by experts in the document he provided.

Nothing will surprise me.........
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:49 PM   #27
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Right so he is not referring to the studs in terms of any of the simulations.
Are we talking real world or simulation?

I thought we were in the real world, like the court case.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:50 PM   #28
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
He's arguing about statements made by experts in the document he provided.

Nothing will surprise me.........
So now you have the full document can you find me one sentence that endorses NISTs walk off theory ?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:53 PM   #29
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,365
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So now you have the full document can you find me one sentence that endorses NISTs walk off theory ?
It doesn't have to. It's not set up to endorse it. It doesn't refute it either. As noted in the OP.

It's just not complete enough.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:54 PM   #30
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So now you have the full document can you find me one sentence that endorses NISTs walk off theory ?
Why? Nothing changed. Nothing in this document supports you outside of the NIST's probable initiation. It does not refute it, it only adds another layer of complexity.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:55 PM   #31
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So now you have the full document can you find me one sentence that endorses NISTs walk off theory ?

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
It doesn't have to. It's not set up to endorse it. It doesn't refute it either. As noted in the OP.

It's just not complete enough.
That was a long way to get to "NO"
It runs an lots of FEA analysis that go beyond NISTs temperatures and there is no walk off.
That's why you can't find a sentence to endorse it. Cos it's horse****.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:57 PM   #32
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
It doesn't have to. It's not set up to endorse it. It doesn't refute it either. As noted in the OP.

It's just not complete enough.
EVERY single analysis contradicts NISTs walk off theory. Every one refutes it by seeing the girder trapped in the side plates.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:58 PM   #33
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I wasn't going to comment on this but, what the hell do you mean by this? A composite floor is a floor containing multiple elements. The studs don't make it "composite".
Shear studs welded to a beam or girder and embedded in the concrete slab on top of that beam or girder are precisely what creates the composite floor behavior. They cause the steel and slab beams to act in unison and this increases their stiffness and bending resistance.

It is the same thing if you nail two planks together and apply a force in the center. The total bending deflection of the two joined beams will be less than it would be if they weren't nailed together but were only stacked together.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 07:58 PM   #34
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,365
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
That was a long way to get to "NO"
It runs an lots of FEA analysis that go beyond NISTs temperatures and there is no walk off.
That's why you can't find a sentence to endorse it. Cos it's horse****.
I explain why it's not comparable in the OP. Go read it again.

One thing that I don't mention is that column 79 was fixed during the analysis. In NIST's analysis it was allowed to move. And it did.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 08:00 PM   #35
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I explain why it's not comparable in the OP. Go read it again.

One thing that I don't mention is that column 79 was fixed during the analysis. In NIST's analysis it was allowed to move. And it did.
It is a series of FEA analysis on the exact same part of the exact same building and you describe it as "not comparable". Pathetic.
you're struggling.
Careful what you wish for DGM eh.
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 08:01 PM   #36
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,365
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
EVERY single analysis contradicts NISTs walk off theory. Every one refutes it by seeing the girder trapped in the side plates.
As I already said, that's because there hasn't been a complete enough analysis yet. You said you have; I challenged you to present it. You haven't, and you know it was false.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 08:01 PM   #37
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I explain why it's not comparable in the OP. Go read it again.

One thing that I don't mention is that column 79 was fixed during the analysis. In NIST's analysis it was allowed to move. And it did.
How far did column 79 move in NIST's analysis?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 08:02 PM   #38
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,694
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Shear studs welded to a beam or girder and embedded in the concrete slab on top of that beam or girder are precisely what creates the composite floor behavior. They cause the steel and slab beams to act in unison and this increases their stiffness and bending resistance.

It is the same thing if you nail two planks together and apply a force in the center. The total bending deflection of the two joined beams will be less than it would be if they weren't nailed together but were only stacked together.
No kidding.......Is there a number needed for a given length to be effective in thermal shear?

The expert in the document linked seams to think so, Do you disagree?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 08:03 PM   #39
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
As I already said, that's because there hasn't been a complete enough analysis yet. You said you have; I challenged you to present it. You haven't, and you know it was false.
Where is it inaccurate?
gerrycan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2015, 08:05 PM   #40
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
No kidding.......Is there a number needed for a given length to be effective in thermal shear?

The expert in the document linked seams to think so, Do you disagree?
My calculation shows the 30 shear studs on girder A2001 would stop any walk-off by causing the thermally expanding beams to the east to buckle before the girder would move.

This does not involve composite bending resistance. The failure modes needed for the girder to move is shearing of the studs or compressive bearing failure of the concrete. The forces needed for either of those situations to occur for thirty (30) 3/4" diameter x 5" high shear studs in 3,500 psi concrete are a lot higher than the force needed to buckle the five beams.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th December 2015 at 08:11 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.