Debunk This

[imstellar28]

Again, from the NIST bible:

"The towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires, if the fireproofing had not been dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

So your entire theory now rests on the speculation that fireproofing was removed.

Yet,

"The existing condition of the fireproofing prior to aircraft impact and the fireproofing thickness on the WTC floor system did not play a significant role in initiating collapse of the towers."

Like the real bible, its full of contradictions.

 

[pomeroo]

Another from the NIST bible:

"After aircraft impact, the core carried 6 percent less loads. The north wall
loads reduced by 6 percent and the east face loads increased by 24 percent. The south and west wallscarried 2 percent to 3 percent more load.It was found that both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact and that they had considerable reserve capacity from the global analyses with structural impact damage"

So right here the impact of the planes can be thrown out the window as the cause of the collapse. Now we are dealing with a collapse due 100% to the fires.

You're really posting such mindless drivel in a forum where almost EVERYONE present is prepared to remind you that NIST observed that if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged, the towers wouldn't have collapsed? Yeah, the planes had nothing to do with the collapses. Have you people no shame at all?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Another from the NIST bible:

"After aircraft impact, the core carried 6 percent less loads. The north wall
loads reduced by 6 percent and the east face loads increased by 24 percent. The south and west wallscarried 2 percent to 3 percent more load.It was found that both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact and that they had considerable reserve capacity from the global analyses with structural impact damage"

So right here the impact of the planes can be thrown out the window as the cause of the collapse. Now we are dealing with a collapse due 100% to the fires.

stable doesnt mean at full strength, to say the plane impacts didnt contribute anything to the collapse would force me to resort to ad homs

 

[Gravy]

So right here the impact of the planes can be thrown out the window as the cause of the collapse. Now we are dealing with a collapse due 100% to the fires.

In this thread I posted a summary of NIST's conclusions about what caused the collapses, in their words. You should read it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Again, from the NIST bible:

"The towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires, if the fireproofing had not been dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

So your entire theory now rests on the speculation that fireproofing was removed.

Yet,

"The existing condition of the fireproofing prior to aircraft impact and the fireproofing thickness on the WTC floor system did not play a significant role in initiating collapse of the towers."

Like the real bible, its full of contradictions.

Where is the contradiction?
1) The fireproofing condition prior to impact did not play a role in collapse
2) The fireproofing condition after impact did play a role in collapse

 

[WildCat]

Again, from the NIST bible:

"The towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires, if the fireproofing had not been dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

So your entire theory now rests on the speculation that fireproofing was removed.

Yet,

"The existing condition of the fireproofing prior to aircraft impact and the fireproofing thickness on the WTC floor system did not play a significant role in initiating collapse of the towers."

Like the real bible, its full of contradictions.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

 

[Gravy]

"The existing condition of the fireproofing prior to aircraft impact and the fireproofing thickness on the WTC floor system did not play a significant role in initiating collapse of the towers."

Like the real bible, its full of contradictions.

If you think it's a contradiction, you don't understand it. Read it again, slowly and for comprehension.

ETA: wolves and cats are quick.

 

[Pardalis]

Maybe for Imstellar28's sake, we should ask the president of Uganda what he thinks of the NIST report.

 

[money]

Where is the contradiction?
1) The fireproofing condition prior to impact did not play a role in collapse
2) The fireproofing condition after impact did play a role in collapse

Haaahhh! Good catch, I read right over that in the initial post.

 

[WildCat]

Maybe for Imstellar28's sake, we should ask the president of Uganda what he thinks of the NIST report.

There's an Idi Amin joke there somewhere...

 

[imstellar28]

Reading the NIST bible its clear that the conclusion "Therefore, the buildings collapsed due to fire" was known beforehand and the evidence was used to work backwards back to the hypothesis

Heres what we know:
1. The core was able to withstand the load after impact
2. The floors above and below the impact area were undamaged
3. The floors are attached to the core and to the shell


My question is this: If they built the structure such that one of the middle floors was completely missing so now the top half and bottom half are only connected by the core, would the building still stand?

It seems to me that when a floor buckles and fails, it is not as if you had a tree and sliced it in the middle with a chainsaw such that the top falls completely on the bottom half. Each floor is not only supported from the floors under it, its also being held up by the floors above it, so when the trusses of a floor fail, only that one floor drops onto the floor below it, not the entire structure. This is because the core is still standing and all the floors above it are connected to the core. Is this an incorrect way of looking at it? If not, when you believe in a truss theory you must also believe the core failed simultaneously as well.

 

[AZCat]

Another from the NIST bible:

"After aircraft impact, the core carried 6 percent less loads. The north wall
loads reduced by 6 percent and the east face loads increased by 24 percent. The south and west wallscarried 2 percent to 3 percent more load.It was found that both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact and that they had considerable reserve capacity from the global analyses with structural impact damage"

So right here the impact of the planes can be thrown out the window as the cause of the collapse. Now we are dealing with a collapse due 100% to the fires.

1. Nowhere has anyone claimed that the NIST report is gospel - this is a strawman argument.

2. Just because the impacts didn't immediately cause global failure of the building structures does not mean that the damage done did not play a role in the collapses. This isn't a binary thing (either impacts or fire). Both events reduced the load-bearing capacity of the structures, so your claim that the collapses were 100% due to the fires is incorrect.

3. The load-shifting that occurred after impact in both towers may not have immediately overloaded the structural members, but a 24% greater load is significant, especially if a member so loaded has a DCR close to or less than unity (as a number of them did). Plastic deformation and buckling are two of the possible results of overloading. Both can lead to changing geometry of the structure which generally has difficult to predict consequences.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Reading the NIST bible its clear that the conclusion "Therefore, the buildings collapsed due to fire" was known beforehand and the evidence was used to work backwards back to the hypothesis

Heres what we know:
1. The core was able to withstand the load after impact
2. The floors above and below the impact area were undamaged
3. The floors are attached to the core and to the shell


My question is this: If they built the structure such that one of the middle floors was completely missing so now the top half and bottom half are only connected by the core, would the building still stand?

It seems to me that when a floor buckles and fails, it is not as if you had a tree and sliced it in the middle with a chainsaw such that the top falls completely on the bottom half. Each floor is not only supported from the floors under it, its also being held up by the floors above it, so when the trusses of a floor fail, only that one floor drops onto the floor below it, not the entire structure. This is because the core is still standing and all the floors above it are connected to the core. Is this an incorrect way of looking at it? If not, when you believe in a truss theory you must also believe the core failed simultaneously as well.

2 problems

1: you neglect the perimeter columns, they supported gravity load as well

2: you appear to assume the core was capable of standing on it own, this is not the case, without the perimeter columns (and the floor trusses to attach them to the core) the core would collapse due to lateral forces

 

[AZCat]

Maybe for Imstellar28's sake, we should ask the president of Uganda what he thinks of the NIST report.

According to this fax I just got, the President of Uganda is offering me the chance of a lifetime. Apparently some funds were misappropriated ($5.000.000 MILLION, he says) and he needs a foreign bank account to "store" them temporarily. I can have 15% if I just send him my bank account number...

 

[qarnos]

Another from the NIST bible:

Yet again a troofer demonstrates how they will dismiss the NIST report as "guberment disinformation" when it contradicts their claims, yet will often cite it when they think it supports them.

"After aircraft impact, the core carried 6 percent less loads. The north wall
loads reduced by 6 percent and the east face loads increased by 24 percent. The south and west wallscarried 2 percent to 3 percent more load.It was found that both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact and that they had considerable reserve capacity from the global analyses with structural impact damage"

Right... so the east face is now supporting 124% of its nominal load. Got it.

So right here the impact of the planes can be thrown out the window as the cause of the collapse. Now we are dealing with a collapse due 100% to the fires.

Funny, I must have missed that part of the report. You don't think the increased load played any part at all?

The world must work in strange ways in the trooferverse.

 

[yodaluver28]

Again, from the NIST bible:

"The towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires, if the fireproofing had not been dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

So your entire theory now rests on the speculation that fireproofing was removed.

Yet,

"The existing condition of the fireproofing prior to aircraft impact and the fireproofing thickness on the WTC floor system did not play a significant role in initiating collapse of the towers."

Like the real bible, its full of contradictions.

It's not a contradiction at all. The first statement says that the loss of fireproofing material on several core columns allowed the fires in the towers to weaken unprotected steel members to the point of failure and that had the fireproofing not been dislodged, those intact columns may not have failed.

The second statement refers to the fireproofing's condition prior to the aircraft impact. The second statement simply says that the fireproofing was dislodged by the aircraft's impact into the building and not because it was too thin or defective.

 

[Gravy]

My question is this: If they built the structure such that one of the middle floors was completely missing so now the top half and bottom half are only connected by the core, would the building still stand?

In your scenario are the top and bottom connected by the core alone, or by the core and exterior columns?

It seems to me that when a floor buckles and fails, it is not as if you had a tree and sliced it in the middle with a chainsaw such that the top falls completely on the bottom half. Each floor is not only supported from the floors under it, its also being held up by the floors above it, so when the trusses of a floor fail, only that one floor drops onto the floor below it, not the entire structure. This is because the core is still standing and all the floors above it are connected to the core. Is this an incorrect way of looking at it? If not, when you believe in a truss theory you must also believe the core failed simultaneously as well.

You're describing the pancake theory of collapse initiation, which isn't NIST's. You also don't understand what holds the floors up.

 

[T.A.M.]

"Who is Wayne Trumpman?"

The president of Uganda, a engineer with 25 years experience, a person who was running out of the world trade center, a member of the demo crew who planted the bombs. Who cares who he is, what does that have to do with his arguments? Just because your a structural engineer or governmental researcher doesn't make what you say true.

No, but if you are not one, and are spueing uneducated speculation, it definitely makes what you are saying rediculous and likely wrong.

I don't see what my education, or the education of the author of the article has to do with forming a reasonable hypotheses and providing iterative evidence/calculation to arrive at a conclusion. If these theories are so wrong, why does the discussion always lead to insults of those proposing them or diverting the argument away from its central focus so as to lose track of what is even being discussed?

Education in areas of complexity is critical. Next time you go to your doctor, tell him his years of education are not important in diagnosing your problem. Actually, don't bother going ot the doctor anymore, simply diagnose what is wrong with you when you are sick...you don't need someone with edumacation to tell you what is wrong.

The premise is that even if the steel was weakened 60-80% of its strength due to the fire it would have still been strong enough to support the weight of the structure given that it was designed to support the weight of a structure 2 times its actual weight. I'm not sure how else to interpret such figures. Now as to whether the safety factor was actually 2 is another matter.

ok, here is how I will tell you to think about what you have said.

If you lay a 5 pound stone on your head, it will not hurt, and you will be able to hold it there no problem...correct....yes.

If you then take another 5 pound stone (2x the weight now) and lay it on the first, atop your head, it will still not likely hurt, and will be held up, no issue.

Now, take one of the stones, crack it in half (2.5 pounds), then rise it above your head by 8-12 feet, then drop it on your head...

Get the picture?

TAM

 

[gumboot]

The premise is that even if the steel was weakened 60-80% of its strength due to the fire it would have still been strong enough to support the weight of the structure given that it was designed to support the weight of a structure 2 times its actual weight. I'm not sure how else to interpret such figures. Now as to whether the safety factor was actually 2 is another matter.

This is a classic misconception from those that haven't studied NIST's report.

According to the NIST report, collapse was not caused by weakening of load bearing elements.

The trigger for collapse was the sagging of the floor trusses. The floor trusses were made of fairly light thin steel, and photographic evidence from building inspections indicates fireproofing was substandard if not fallen off altogether.

The floor trusses do not bear any of the structural weight of the tower - only the normal office contents of their own floor.

The fire did not weaken the exterior columns nor the core columns to cause collapse. It weaked the floor trusses. Severly damaged, loaded with the extra weight of airliner wreckage, exposed to the most extreme temperatures in the fire, these trusses began to sag. It is clearly visible in photographs.

Their connections to the core and exterior columns REMAINED INTACT. This is a key fact.

Had these connections failed, the sagging floors would have pancaked, and the building may have remained standing.

But they did not fail. So as the floors sagged, they pulled the exterior columns in.

At this point, WEAKENING OF THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS IS IRRELEVANT. It doesn't matter how strong the columns are. They are designed to carry load along their entire length - straight down. If you pull them inwards and causing bowing, they will eventually fail. This is inevitable, and has nothing to do with fire.

As soon as those exterior columns failed, 50,000 tonnes of mass became a live load, falling at 9ms². From that point it was all over.

-Gumboot

-Gumboot

 

[imstellar28]

In your scenario are the top and bottom connected by the core alone, or by the core and exterior columns?


Imagine the tower. Now take out a floor completely except leave the core. So theres a top portion and a bottom portion that are only connected by the core.