Some simple Tower 7 questions

[apathoid]

Could I see the credentials and work of all the engineers you say dont support the CT?

Certainly..

(The following list is far from exhaustive)

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

John E. Fernandez - Assistant Professor of Architecture - MIT
http://architecture.mit.edu/people/p.../prfernan.html
Eduardo Kausel - Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
http://linc.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2330
Tomasz Wierzbicki - Professor Applied Mechanics - MIT
http://ctl.mit.edu/metadot/index.pl?...tegory&op=show
Liang Xue - Graduate student Mechanical Engineering - MIT
Meg Hendry-Brogan - Graduate student Ocean Engineering - MIT
Ahmed F. Ghoniem - Professor of Mechanical Engineering - MIT
http://me.mit.edu/people/personal/ghoniem.htm
Oral Buyukozturk - Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2288&...tegory&op=show
Franz-Josef Ulm - Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2381
Yossi Sheffi - Professor of Logistics and Engineering - MIT
http://web.mit.edu/sheffi/www/



http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty...le.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_...n.asp?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar...demicAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/facult...culty_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/...adjis_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty.../people.cgi?xi

Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&...tegory&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact Journal of Engineering Mechanics



Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

 

[uk_dave]

I wonder if an 'open minded' CTer (if such an animal exists) would consider sending emails to say half a dozen randomly chosen Structural Engineering firms, something along the lines of:

Sirs,

I am interested in the opinions of professional people such as yourself with regard to the collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11.

I appreciate that you are no doubt very busy and cannot engage in a lengthy correspondence on this issue, but I would be most grateful if you could respond with a simple yes or no to the following question:

Do you believe the NIST report has adequately explained the mechanism for the collapse of the WTC towers?

I give you my word that I will not pursue any clarification from you regardless of the answer you give and that this will be the one and only email you will recieve from me.

I also confirm that your answer will not be used in any published article where your name or the name of your firm will be made public (unless you specifically state that you want your details to be published along with your response)

Thanking you in advance

An open minded woowoo

 

[Christopher7]

Ahem. The spot where the steel hinge broke was not a part that bends, but stays entirely rigid. Perhaps I used the wrong word when I said "metal fatigue", but the point is that steel does indeed break.

OK, So you had some cheap assed hinges. I hope you didnt replace it with anything made in China.

The bottom floors of a skyscraper are designed to handle earthquakes and hurricanes. The bottom floors went first. What caused all the exterior supports to fail at the same time ?
A CD is one possibility, can you name another ?

 

[maccy]

I didn't ask you to trust them. I was just proving Apathoid wrong.

Could I see the credentials and work of all the engineers you say dont support the CT?

For starters, from another thread:

NIST scientists represent a wide variety of physicists, chemists, engineers, technicians and computer scientists. In recent years, the physics department at NIST has had 2 Nobel laureates, most recently Jan Olek for the 2005 prize. The NIST NCSTAR1 report also consulted with hundreds of different people including professional engineers, contractors, independent research and the Research Board of Canada. The NIST NCSTAR 1 report and all of the subsequent reports are the result of an enormous, unprecedented collaboration within the scientific community that rivals NASA's moon landing in both complexity and breadth of scientific expertise. This was not just a bunch of NIST scientists getting together and deciding on a theory. They've used evidence, reported that evidence and subjected it to scientific and lay-person scrutiny at every step along the way.

NIST investigation team:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

Details of NIST contracts and experience of contractors:

http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/

NIST Advisory Committee:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/bios_ncstadvcom.htm

 

[maccy]

NIST Technical Approach and Status Summary for WTC7

NIST published this on December 12:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

 

[apathoid]

I wonder if an 'open minded' CTer (if such an animal exists) would consider sending emails to say half a dozen randomly chosen Structural Engineering firms, something along the lines of:

CB_Brooklyn, from 9/11 blogger, emailed every single structural engineering professor in the US. As you might have guessed, it was a colossal waste of time on his part. Its also worth noting that he garnered absolutely nothing from the experience....

 

[maccy]

OK, So you had some cheap assed hinges. I hope you didnt replace it with anything made in China.

The bottom floors of a skyscraper are designed to handle earthquakes and hurricanes. The bottom floors went first. What caused all the exterior supports to fail at the same time ?
A CD is one possibility, can you name another ?

Exterior supports? Can you specify why these are particularly important?

You do understand the principle that load bearing columns distribute the load evenly so that if one column fails the load is redistributed across the remaining columns?

And you also understand that the columns can only support a certain amount of extra load before they fail?

So that if enough of the columns fail, all the remain columns will fail simultaneously?

And that the building will remain more or less intact up until the point of general failure?

It's a bit more involved than that (and NIST are still working out the exact details) but that's the general principle.

Have you even read the NIST interim report?

 

[Christopher7]

Maccy: They all failed at the same time, Yes, Yes, No, Yes, Right, Yes

Instead of answering one question, you asked six.

Please answer one question, A CD can cause all the exterior supports to fail at once, what else can ?

 

[Wizard]

Sorry about moving the goalposts. I've been watching 28th Kingdom do it all week.

I already knew about Phelps, I have serious doubts about the others you mentioned. Notice how their areas of expertise is always "engineering". For all I know Doyle Winterton couldve been a receptionist at Brown Associates, he doesnt say what his degree is in. Keller and Elden dont even list degrees! Phelps actually is the only entry that appears legit.

So, even if i give you all 4 of these as relevant experts, what about everyone else. Remember:



Again, if the Towers were so obviously brought down in a controlled demo, and its glaringly obvious that a fire and damage driven collapse was impossible - where are the hundreds of thousands of relevant experts? Why arent they coming forward?

I think a more appropriate question is: if the towers collapse is not suspicious and all the engineers in the world see no problem with it, where are the thousands of papers on it? Why arent all these engineers producing stuff on such an important engineering failure?

Soon after the towers collapsed I saw headlines reading "Engineers baffled by twin towers collapse". They have now become unbaffled I assume? So wheres all their work on this interesting disaster?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I think a more appropriate question is: if the towers collapse is not suspicious and all the engineers in the world see no problem with it, where are the thousands of papers on it? Why arent all these engineers producing stuff on such an important engineering failure?

Soon after the towers collapsed I saw headlines reading "Engineers baffled by twin towers collapse". They have now become unbaffled I assume? So wheres all their work on this interesting disaster?

maybe youve heard of the NIST report?

if engineers found anything with NISTs conclusions they would be publishing critiques of it by the dozens

 

[Wizard]

maybe youve heard of the NIST report?

if engineers found anything with NISTs conclusions they would be publishing critiques of it by the dozens

I thought NIST only studied up to the point of collapse initiation

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Maccy: They all failed at the same time, Yes, Yes, No, Yes, Right, Yes

Instead of answering one question, you asked six.

Please answer one question, A CD can cause all the exterior supports to fail at once, what else can ?

did they all fail at the same time? redistribution of load can rapidly overload columns after one fails, resulting in a very fast sucession of failures

we know the roofline was kinked, wouldnt this indicate a local failure had already occured? could a second failure quickly overload more columns?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I thought NIST only studied up to the point of collapse initiation

so what shoudl have hapened after the building failed? should it have fallen up?

again, if engineers thought this was a problem where are the published criticisms?

 

[maccy]

Maccy: They all failed at the same time, Yes, Yes, No, Yes, Right, Yes

Instead of answering one question, you asked six.

Please answer one question, A CD can cause all the exterior supports to fail at once, what else can ?

How do you account for the gash in the side of the building? Surely that was an earlier damage to the external load bearing structure.

Also the kink and the descending east penthouse, as well as the damage to the windows below it indicated structural damage to the exterior 5-6s before the global collapse.

The load of the building was supported by interior and exterior supports.

Once sufficient interior supports fail, all other supports with fail, including the exterior ones.

Edited to Add: Your answer of "No" to the questions "So that if enough of the columns fail, all the remaining columns will fail simultaneously?" shows that you don't understand the principle of a global collapse. Feel free to bring up your concerns with as many structural engineers as you feel like contacting.

 

[Wizard]

so what shoudl have hapened after the building failed? should it have fallen up?

again, if engineers thought this was a problem where are the published criticisms?

So the entire engineering community of the world haven't bothered to produce papers on the mechanism of total collapse. I would expect to see thousands of such papers.

Is that your analysis? It couldn't fall upwards so it had to collapse totally?

 

[Pardalis]

So the entire engineering community of the world haven't bothered to produce papers on the mechanism of total collapse. I would expect to see thousands of such papers.

So by your logic, the entire scientific community is in on it?

 

[Wizard]

So by your logic, the entire scientific community is in on it?

No I am saying they don't know why it collapsed and are therefore saying nothing.

Answer the question...why aren't there at least dozens of papers detail the total collapse of 2 110 storey buildings? I doubt there has been a more baffling engineering failure. Engineers should be all over this like a rash

 

[uk_dave]

So the entire engineering community of the world haven't bothered to produce papers on the mechanism of total collapse. I would expect to see thousands of such papers.

Is that your analysis? It couldn't fall upwards so it had to collapse totally?

Good grief.

NIST was charged with finding out what initiated the collapse of the buildings.

The collapse initiation is the point at which they failed. From that moment onwards they were no longer useable structures. There is no need to spend time and resources speculating on the entire sequence of collapse from floor to floor all the way down to the ground because the initiation of that collapse is the only event which can be studied with a view to obtaining data to make buildings safer.

A building is in a constant fight against gravity. If someone smashes your leg with a baseball bat, do you need to be told why you ended up on the ground?

 

[Pardalis]

No I am saying they don't know why it collapsed and are therefore saying nothing.

Why?

Answer the question...why aren't there at least dozens of papers detail the total collapse of 2 110 storey buildings? I doubt there has been a more baffling engineering failure. Engineers should be all over this like a rash

I believe this event is still being studied, and it will be studied for centuries to come. The NIST report is the most compelling study so far, and the scientific community has pretty much adopted it as the most probable explanation.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No I am saying they don't know why it collapsed and are therefore saying nothing.

Answer the question...why aren't there at least dozens of papers detail the total collapse of 2 110 storey buildings? I doubt there has been a more baffling engineering failure. Engineers should be all over this like a rash

why cant you answer the question? if the collapse of the towers is such a mystery that hasnt been properly solved why arent engineers studying it? writing papers? demanding a new investigation?