Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[LSSBB]

Tony, you are saying Chris Mohr's collapse progression would not result in a 'symmetrical fall'. Since I haven't seen that term precisely defined, please give an estimate for how off center the building would end up appearing, and a clear description of how distorted the façade would be. Include the connections from the interior and the moment framing in your consideration, and you can refer to how NIST modeled those very same connections to the exterior plus the moment framing.

ETA: You can take your time, I'm willing to wait. Just let me know what further questions you have regarding the request, and how you propose going about solving the problem.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Tony, Let's just see where this goes... Two things to talk about.
The first may be relatively easy. I don't believe that >g proves or disproves CD. I do think it rebuts the Gage position that there are only two forces, gravity and resistance, so freeefall = zero resistance = CD. There must be at least a third force to have >g. In and of itself that does not prove or disprove CD. I know that. OK?
My understanding of the engineering facts around the internal then external collapse is limited. So I want to ask, WHY do you say that asymmetrical collapse of the interior of the building would require an asymmetrical collapse of the perimeter wall? If the entire exterior is held together as a unit, then can't the east part of that wall kind of hold together while the interior of the west part collapses for a few seconds before the whole thing falls apart?
The next question: if one column fails, WHY does the brittleness or flexibility of the surviving columns change the time frame of the transfer of load? If it gets transferred to a flexible steel column, would it BREAK slower because of its flexibility? What if, for example, the columns under the kink were already bent (which I think is likely)? When load is transferred there, seems like it would break pretty quick.
You are challenging my understanding, that loads shift very quickly when columns start failing. A column failure does not cause a full collapse if the other columns can handle the load (like right after the jet crashes), but if the load transfer happens on an already-strained column, it will fail very fast. What is mistaken abhout this understanding in your opinion?

 

[000063]

The charges in WTC 7 would have to have been set before 911 as there would not have been time to do that on the same day. It would only have been the arsonists creating the cover that would have had something to do on the day of the event.

Oh, okay.

Tony, do you know how a building is prepared for demolition? How it's carefully surveyed, how the walls are removed, how wires are run through the place, how people are told to stay a safe distance away in order to prevent hearing damage?

Now imagine that had to be done, over a period of several months, in a heavily trafficked building in the middle of the busiest parts of one of the busiest cities in the world that's larger than the biggest building known as a CD, using (apparently) experimental silent explosives.

And then they snuck into the building after it was damaged by debris which, luckily, didn't disrupt the alleged demo charges in any way, set it on fire on ten floors - again, without disrupting the explosives - and then snuck back out again, in under two hours, under the noses of the FDNY, without a single person noticing. Absolutely none of the agencies investigating the collapse, including insurance companies, notice anything amiss.

I don't know why you don't find that scenario implausible.

Though I do know why you're spending more effort questioning NIST and others than presenting your own theory.

I am surprised you even asked this question in one way as it is somewhat basic. But then given the irrational attitude of some on here to try to undermine any attempt at a rational explanation of what happened I guess I am not too surprised.

Considering how much effort it takes to get you to answer it...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Rationality does not compute to a person operating in faith based mode.

Sadly yes...

 

[Ziggi]

...So I want to ask, WHY do you say that asymmetrical collapse of the interior of the building would require an asymmetrical collapse of the perimeter wall? If the entire exterior is held together as a unit, then can't the east part of that wall kind of hold together while the interior of the west part collapses for a few seconds before the whole thing falls apart?

Chris, it might help you to view this question in context with your over-g story, because you could very quickly see how the two conflict:

In your over-g story, the collapsing inside parts put force on the exterior via leverage or torque as they collapse, providing the force for the over-g of the exterior. But now you are also thinking that the inside parts would not provide any force on the exterior and leave it intact and upright. You can´t have it both ways.

You ask Tony why asymmetric interior collapse means asymmetric exterior collapse, and I suggest you look at NIST´s computer model and ask yourself why it shows just that.

 

[Spanx]

Chris, it might help you to view this question in context with your over-g story, because you could very quickly see how the two conflict:

In your over-g story, the collapsing inside parts put force on the exterior via leverage or torque as they collapse, providing the force for the over-g of the exterior. But now you are also thinking that the inside parts would not provide any force on the exterior and leave it intact and upright. You can´t have it both ways.

You ask Tony why asymmetric interior collapse means asymmetric exterior collapse, and I suggest you look at NIST´s computer model and ask yourself why it shows just that.

Is this the only evidence you can supply for the inside job ?

 

[Ziggi]

...You are challenging my understanding, that loads shift very quickly when columns start failing. A column failure does not cause a full collapse if the other columns can handle the load (like right after the jet crashes), but if the load transfer happens on an already-strained column, it will fail very fast. What is mistaken abhout this understanding in your opinion?

Chris, the damage due to missing structural members and fires was dramatically greater in the Towers than Building7, which did not have strained core columns at all - none were missing and none faced temps above 300C according to NIST.

Then why do you think the complete core and the entire building should have failed at lighting speeds when column 79 in the north east corner failed?

Why would the failure of column 79 or the east penthouse area not simply stay as localized collapse, as happened at Delph Uni?

And even if the entire core was strained, why would the building not collapse asymmetrically from east to west as the strain was progressively transfered from the east to the west columns?

 

[Spanx]

Chris, the damage due to missing structural members and fires was dramatically greater in the Towers than Building7, which did not have strained core columns at all - none were missing and none faced temps above 300C according to NIST.

Then why do you think the complete core and the entire building should have failed at lighting speeds when column 79 in the north east corner failed?

Why would the failure of column 79 or the east penthouse area not simply stay as localized collapse, as happened at Delph Uni?

And even if the entire core was strained, why would the building not collapse asymmetrically from east to west as the strain was progressively transfered from the east to the west columns?

More evidence of nothing

 

[pgimeno]

The investigation said ten floors had fires in WTC 7. They were 7,8,9,11,12,13,19,22,29, and 30.

No. The investigation said NIST gathered direct evidence for fires in these floors. Very different.

It doesn't mean in any way that there were no fires in other floors.

In particular, there were reports of fires around floor 10 and around floor 14 just half an hour after the collapse. That specificity in the floor trumps the possibility of being a car.

 

[Oystein]

That´s refering to the damage to the south west corner, which has been accepted and carried over from the 2004 report to the 2008 report. This is not the same as the claim to a big gash in the south face made in the 2004 report, which was rejected and not included in the 2008 report.

No it isn't. Ok, we are down to two possibilities:

You either can't read for comprehension
Or you are a conscious, deliberate liar.

I'll give you a second chance., Please read again, this time for comprehension:


NCSTAR 1-9 (2008) page 363:

"As noted in Section 5.5, the debris from the collapse of WTC 1 created a gash in the west side of the south face of the building that stretched from the 17th floor down to the 5th floor."​

A graphic summary of the Section 5.5 findings is in Fig. 5-83 on page 173.

More such damage to the facade is documented for the south side of the west face in Fig. 5-89 on page 179.

Page 182:

"Along the south face, the interior damage was estimated to extend from the south exterior wall toward the core, with increasing interior damage of the south tenant floor between the south face and the core, from Floor 17 down to Floor 7. The core columns and girders were assumed to be structurally undamaged.
The following floor damage was estimated at the locations where the exterior columns were damaged:
• For Floors 15 through 17, a small portion of the floor span between the south face and the core.
• For Floors 12 through 14, half of the floor span between the south face and the core.
• For Floors 7 through 11, the full floor span between the south face and the core.
• For Floors 5 and 6, the full floor span between the south face and the core between exterior Columns 19 and 20.

For Columns 14A, 15, and 16 at the southwest corner, the following floor damage was estimated:
• For Floor 6 and Floors 10 through 17, a small portion of the floor span between the exterior and the core.
• For Floors 8 and 9, the full floor span between the south and west faces and the core."​

Note that this describes two distinct areas of damage. The second ("For Columns 14A, 15, and 16 at the southwest corner...") is "refering to the damage to the south west corner". Please concentrate on the first!


Ziggi, please acknowledge in full sentences that you now have been schooled on NIST's 2008 claim about the HUGE GASH down the south face between floors 5 and 17, and how far they estimated the gash to extend into the interior!

 

[Oystein]

NIST apparently couldn't accept what you want to from people who allegedly said WTC 7 had fires in it before 12:15 PM. How come?

It was the assessment of the fire engineering experts on their team: Visible fires at time t usually mean there were not-yet-visible fires at time t-x.

 

[Oystein]

Ziggi, Chris Mohr's attempt to use the claim for >g acceleration to somehow support a natural collapse position...

Strawman.
Chris, in my experience, is careful to differentiate between "support for X" and "not support exclusively for not-X".
It's basic propositional logic, really.

Chris, along with every rational poster here, claims
a) The truther claim "freefall disproves natural collapse" is FALSE
b) Freefall is possible for both natural collapse and CD
c) The same holds for >g

You are strawmanning him by wording at as if ">g proves natural collapse, therefore disproves CD". This is not, and has never been, Chris' position, or mine, or anyone's who can think logically.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That´s refering to the damage to the south west corner, which has been accepted and carried over from the 2004 report to the 2008 report. This is not the same as the claim to a big gash in the south face made in the 2004 report, which was rejected and not included in the 2008 report.

Make sure you keep your eyes tightly shut when you look at the picture of the gash, then. You wouldn't want reality to interfere with your beliefs.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Most rational people believe the interior collapse of WTC 7 brought down the exterior with it and the problem the NIST report has is its east to west progressive interior collapse doesn't make sense with a symmetric exterior collapse.

You need to explain how you think the interior of WTC 7 could collapse without affecting the exterior. Otherwise what you are saying here has no basis.

Speak after me:

When 1 of 24 core columns fails, the exterior will not fail
When 2 of 24 core columns fail, the exterior will not fail
When 3 of 24 core columns fail, the exterior will not fail
When 4 of 24 core columns fail, the exterior will not fail
...
When of 23 core columns fail, the exterior will fail
When of 24 core columns fail, the exterior will fail

At some point, core failure will lead to exterior failure, right?
What point would that be, and how did you determine it?
How long, after that point, will it take until the rest of the core fails?
How long, after that point, will it take until the perimeter fails?
How did you determine that?

 

[Oystein]

...
The building was designed to prevent vertical spread ...

Was the building in its as-designed state after the collapse of WTC1, Tony?

And I have asked you more than once, but you dodge again and again, so I have to ask again:
Do you accept NIST's conclusion from the visual record and witness statements that there was a gash in the south face extending from at least the 5th to the 17th floor, with floor damage extending some distance into the building, up to the core even?


And also, I asked you several times, but you dodged it:
Do you dismiss Danny Jowenko's expert opinion on WTC1+2 because he was lacking detailed information?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Chris, it might help you to view this question in context with your over-g story, because you could very quickly see how the two conflict:

In your over-g story, the collapsing inside parts put force on the exterior via leverage or torque as they collapse, providing the force for the over-g of the exterior. But now you are also thinking that the inside parts would not provide any force on the exterior and leave it intact and upright. You can´t have it both ways.

You ask Tony why asymmetric interior collapse means asymmetric exterior collapse, and I suggest you look at NIST´s computer model and ask yourself why it shows just that.

I haven't seen Chris or anyone else claim that "inside parts would not provide any force on the exterior." The claim is that the external shell was sufficiently strong and rigid enough (due to being a moment frame), that it resisted collapsing while the interior columns failed progressively, up to the point that the exterior columns failed in rapid succession -- but asymmetrically -- as evidenced by the "kink." You don't refute that argument by just ignoring it.

How's that recruitment drive going?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chris, the damage due to missing structural members and fires was dramatically greater in the Towers than Building7, which did not have strained core columns at all - none were missing and none faced temps above 300C according to NIST.

Then why do you think the complete core and the entire building should have failed at lighting speeds when column 79 in the north east corner failed?

Why would the failure of column 79 or the east penthouse area not simply stay as localized collapse, as happened at Delph Uni?

And even if the entire core was strained, why would the building not collapse asymmetrically from east to west as the strain was progressively transfered from the east to the west columns?

Because, the strain on the structure do to the cantilever design is to great, causing free ferrite
Cracking in the welds on the remaining columns in a cascade effect, the same phenomenon
That occurred in the towers do to rapid off center strikes in the core.

The regions of decarbonization of steel do to the welding process are brittle more so than the steel or the weld itself, it is a known flaw in stick welding technology.

Those imperfections that can not be avoided under the correct conditions sheer very rapidly at the metal to weld interface.

That is why movement in a building has to be restricted to prevent weld and bolt failure.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hi Tony, Let's just see where this goes... Two things to talk about.
The first may be relatively easy. I don't believe that >g proves or disproves CD. I do think it rebuts the Gage position that there are only two forces, gravity and resistance, so freeefall = zero resistance = CD. There must be at least a third force to have >g. In and of itself that does not prove or disprove CD. I know that. OK?
My understanding of the engineering facts around the internal then external collapse is limited. So I want to ask, WHY do you say that asymmetrical collapse of the interior of the building would require an asymmetrical collapse of the perimeter wall? If the entire exterior is held together as a unit, then can't the east part of that wall kind of hold together while the interior of the west part collapses for a few seconds before the whole thing falls apart?

Chris, there is no chance that the exterior could stay together as a unit while the interior is collapsing progressively as NIST would have it, first the east and then east to west, and wait until it is complete and then fail as a unit. The exterior was 610 foot tall and would be a thin and slender sheet without lateral support from the interior. It would have buckled under its own weight. In addition, the interior would have been pulling on the exterior causing eccentricity and buckling even earlier, starting where the interior first collapsed (such as in the east for the NIST hypothesis). Video shows the building does not behave the way it would if the NIST hypothesis were correct and that is why their model and hypothesis are wrong.

There is only one way that the collapse seen on video is possible and that is for the entire core to be taken out simultaneously over a significant number of stories. That way it pulls in the entire exterior simultaneously and causes a symmetric fall of the exterior.

Your point about over g vs. free fall is moot.

The next question: if one column fails, WHY does the brittleness or flexibility of the surviving columns change the time frame of the transfer of load? If it gets transferred to a flexible steel column, would it BREAK slower because of its flexibility? What if, for example, the columns under the kink were already bent (which I think is likely)? When load is transferred there, seems like it would break pretty quick.
You are challenging my understanding, that loads shift very quickly when columns start failing. A column failure does not cause a full collapse if the other columns can handle the load (like right after the jet crashes), but if the load transfer happens on an already-strained column, it will fail very fast. What is mistaken abhout this understanding in your opinion?

Ductile materials fail after a certain amount of deformation takes place which takes time and it is also dependent on how fast the original load was applied. You don't seem to understand the mechanics of elastic deformation, yield, and plastic deformation. The material actually gets stronger due to strain hardening during plastic deformation and more load is required to cause failure after it first yields. Brittle materials don't exhibit yield, plastic deformation, and strain hardening and they simple fail catastrophically at an ultimate strength. You are treating the columns like a brittle material that shatters and immediately transfers its load. Steel does not behave that way.

Also see Ziggi's comment on your post here.

 

[Belz...]

I never said the gypsum dust would put the fires out in WTC 7. I said fire needs oxygen and the copious amounts of gypsum dust generated in the North Tower during its collapse would have certainly smothered its naturally occurring fires.

Yes, which is nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

Given the facts and reality of the situation, the notion that the North Tower collapse caused the fires in WTC 7 would strain credulity for anyone who thinks about it. You and some of your brethren here of an opposing view don't seem to want to think about it and you clearly can't muster legitimate points to support your claim.

In other words anyone who disagrees with you has not thought about this.

This isn't an argument, Tony. The facts must speak for themselves, but you are simply not knowledgeable enough in these fields, even as a layman, to make this kind of determination.

ETA: In fact, the very fact that you think you know better than the experts on this, to the point where you accuse them of dishonesty, should be enough for anyone "who thinks about it" to dismiss your claims.