Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by lobuk

This post shows that not only do you not understand Gerrycans Videos, but you in fact havent even watched them. You are simply trolling and thread derailing same as you do every night.

So why does the first video ignore the East Penthouse collapse? Right at the start.

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by lobuk

Stop making a tit out of yourself and watch Gerrycans 3 short videos.

I've watched them - you seem to want to hand wave away the basic fault - ie - the series starts with a video without the East Penthouse collapse and ends with a claim the collapse took 6.6 seconds.

What's up with answering these points?

[lobuk]

Originally Posted by labouysse

So why does the first video ignore the East Penthouse collapse? Right at the start.

You still dont even know what the video series is about.

Here are the videos. If you dont agree with the information of what the videos are actually highlighting i.e Shear Studs, Expansion, Sizes of the Beams etc etc...Then post what and why you dont agree and in your own words.

Video 1 - Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7

Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7 - YouTube

Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7 - YouTube

Video 2 - NIST and WTC7 - The Expanding Lie

NIST and WTC7 - The Expanding Lie - YouTube

NIST and WTC7 - The Expanding Lie - YouTube

Video 3 - Tangled Webs - NIST and WTC7

Tangled Webs - NIST and WTC7 - YouTube

Tangled Webs - NIST and WTC7 - YouTube

[lobuk]

Originally Posted by labouysse

I've watched them - you seem to want to hand wave away the basic fault - ie - the series starts with a video without the East Penthouse collapse and ends with a claim the collapse took 6.6 seconds.

What's up with answering these points?

You still have no clue about what the videos are even about.

Go away and stop derailing and trolling.

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by lobuk

You still dont even know what the video series is about.

Here are the videos. If you dont agree with the information of what the videos are actually highlighting i.e Shear Studs, Expansion, Sizes of the Beams etc etc...Then post what and why you dont agree and in your own words.

Video 1 - Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7

Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7 - YouTube

Video 2 - NIST and WTC7 - The Expanding Lie

NIST and WTC7 - The Expanding Lie - YouTube

Video 3 - Tangled Webs - NIST and WTC7

Tangled Webs - NIST and WTC7 - YouTube

Yes I've seen them a few times - thankyou.

There were no shear studs on the call out drawings for the connection between column 79 and the girder W33 x 130.

Gerrycan's calcs address a single girder expansion (which he seems to assume is at 90 degrees to the column - not offset) - there were three girders connected to column 79.

And like I say - he starts the series with a collapse omitting the East Penthouse and ends with a claim that WTC7 collapses in 6.6 seconds.

Have you watched the videos?

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by lobuk

You still have no clue about what the videos are even about.

Go away and stop derailing and trolling.

Hand wave - how long did it take WTC7 to collapse - gerrycan claims 6.6 seconds in his video. Did you watch it?

[lobuk]

Originally Posted by labouysse

Hand wave - how long did it take WTC7 to collapse - gerrycan claims 6.6 seconds in his video. Did you watch it?

The time it took to collapse is totally irrelevant and not the point of the videos.

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by lobuk

The time it took to collapse is totally irrelevant and not the point of the videos.

Of course it is.

Why start a series of videos with the collapse (without the East Penthouse) and end with a claim WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds? If not relevant why was it even included?

Like I said -

There were no shear studs on the call out drawings for the connection between column 79 and the girder W33 x 130.

Gerrycan's calcs address a single girder expansion (which he seems to assume is at 90 degrees to the column - not offset) - there were three girders connected to column 79.

Any answers?

[lobuk]

Originally Posted by labouysse

Of course it is.

Why start a series of videos with the collapse (without the East Penthouse) and end with a claim WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds? If not relevant why was it even included?

Like I said -

There were no shear studs on the call out drawings for the connection between column 79 and the girder W33 x 130.

Gerrycan's calcs address a single girder expansion (which he seems to assume is at 90 degrees to the column - not offset) - there were three girders connected to column 79.

Any answers?

You are just copying and pasting and talking bollox and clearly have no actual understanding of what the videos are about and what the information means.

Go a way and stop derailing the thread.

[gerrycan]

Originally Posted by labouysse

I've watched them - you seem to want to hand wave away the basic fault - ie - the series starts with a video without the East Penthouse collapse and ends with a claim the collapse took 6.6 seconds.

What's up with answering these points?

NO ! you are very wrong here. You are just regurgitating BS from the jref forum. What i say in the video is that wtc7 was reduced to a smoking debris pile in 6.6s, and i stand by that 100%. 6.6s before it hit the ground it was not a smoking pile of debris. The NW corner of the building takes 6.6s to go from rest to the ground. If you are saying that we should start the stopwatch at the initiation of failure then that would be the failure of column 79 which would preceed the penthouse drop. You are are merely compounding errors made by others elsewhere.
How long does the NW corner take to go from rest to the groung in your opinion?

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by lobuk

You are just copying and pasting and talking bollox and clearly have no actual understanding of what the videos are about and what the information means.

Go a way and stop derailing the thread.

What derailing? I'm addressing points made by gerrycans videos.

Why do you have a problem with that?

[gerrycan]

Originally Posted by labouysse

Of course it is.

Why start a series of videos with the collapse (without the East Penthouse) and end with a claim WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds? If not relevant why was it even included?

Like I said -

There were no shear studs on the call out drawings for the connection between column 79 and the girder W33 x 130.

Gerrycan's calcs address a single girder expansion (which he seems to assume is at 90 degrees to the column - not offset) - there were three girders connected to column 79.

Any answers?

Totally wrong again, and a gross misunderstanding of the video and what is being said. We have already spoken to the original contractor on this and he disagrees with you. My calculations address BEAM expansion, not GIRDER expansion. You have either not looked at the drawings, not looked at the videos, or you just don't understand the problem at hand, or maybe all of the above.
Do you understand what is a beam and what is a girder on these drawings, i would be happy to run through it for you...

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by gerrycan

NO ! you are very wrong here. You are just regurgitating BS from the jref forum. What i say in the video is that wtc7 was reduced to a smoking debris pile in 6.6s, and i stand by that 100%. 6.6s before it hit the ground it was not a smoking pile of debris. The NW corner of the building takes 6.6s to go from rest to the ground. If you are saying that we should start the stopwatch at the initiation of failure then that would be the failure of column 79 which would preceed the penthouse drop. You are are merely compounding errors made by others elsewhere.
How long does the NW corner take to go from rest to the groung in your opinion?

It wasn't a pile of smoking debris 4 seconds before it hit the ground - or 3 seconds before - or 9 seconds before - or when the collapse started at the East Penthouse more than twice 6.6 seconds.

Why the hang up on 6.6 unless you are trying to claim this was the total collapse time? Explain please.

[gerrycan]

Originally Posted by labouysse

Gerrycan's calcs address a single girder expansion (which he seems to assume is at 90 degrees to the column - not offset)

Any answers?

One was just over 4 degrees offset and the other offset was just over 73 degrees. Where did you get the idea that we presumed 90 degrees?? You just totally made that up !

[gerrycan]

Originally Posted by labouysse

It wasn't a pile of smoking debris 4 seconds before it hit the ground - or 3 seconds before - or 9 seconds before - or when the collapse started at the East Penthouse more than twice 6.6 seconds.

Why the hang up on 6.6 unless you are trying to claim this was the total collapse time? Explain please.

The NW corner. It takes 6.6s to get to the ground, do you agree with this? Its not a difficult question.

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by gerrycan

Totally wrong again, and a gross misunderstanding of the video and what is being said. We have already spoken to the original contractor on this and he disagrees with you. My calculations address BEAM expansion, not GIRDER expansion. You have either not looked at the drawings, not looked at the videos, or you just don't understand the problem at hand, or maybe all of the above.
Do you understand what is a beam and what is a girder on these drawings, i would be happy to run through it for you...

What - you haven't addressed the expansion of the girders - totally unbelievable.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."

I thought this was the basis of your "theory".

Like I really believe you've spoken to the original contractor

[labouysse]

Originally Posted by gerrycan

The NW corner. It takes 6.6s to get to the ground, do you agree with this? Its not a difficult question.

The total collapse of WTC7 takes more than twice as long. As I can't see a vid with the NW corner hitting the ground then 6.6 seconds is a guesstimate at best.

WTC 7 Demolition with East Penthouse - YouTube

WTC 7 Demolition with East Penthouse - YouTube

[gerrycan]

Originally Posted by labouysse

The total collapse of WTC7 takes more than twice as long. As I can't see a vid with the NW corner hitting the ground then 6.6 seconds is a guesstimate at best.

WTC 7 Demolition with East Penthouse - YouTube

How long before the building hits the ground does the roofline move at both corners? Not the penthouse collapse, but the roofline.
If you want to say that the building began collapsing half an hour or half a minute earlier that's fine with me. It still does not change the issues that are raised in these videos. And you focussing in on 6.6s does not address these points either.
If you seriously want to measure the collapse from the initiation, you would have to go further back than the penthouse collapse. You are just trying to avoid the issue here, nothing more.

[gerrycan]

Originally Posted by labouysse

What - you haven't addressed the expansion of the girders - totally unbelievable.You clearly do not understand my explanation, or NISTs.

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 527 [pdf pg189]
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."
What exactly do you think pushed the girder, if not the floor beams?
I thought this was the basis of your "theory".I think you need to take a step back and gather your thoughts, and maybe do some reading

Like I really believe you've spoken to the original contractor

http://express.paltalk.com/index.html?gid=996480180
I will hang around here for 2 minutes or so, you can speak to the guy who interviewed him and listen to what the contractor actually said. I'm calling you out on this one, for calling me a liar basically. My screen name is the same there as here, introduce yourself to the guys when you arrive.

[wake_up_bomb]

Originally Posted by gerrycan

http://express.paltalk.com/index.html?gid=996480180
I will hang around here for 2 minutes or so, you can speak to the guy who interviewed him and listen to what the contractor actually said. I'm calling you out on this one, for calling me a liar basically. My screen name is the same there as here, introduce yourself to the guys when you arrive.

I think you're being highly optimistic if you think he (and it will be a 'he', obviously) will even consider doing what you've suggested, acknowledge that he was completely in the wrong, or show any form of contrition for calling you a liar.

However, I thank you for making a valuable contribution to this subject.