• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
He would be right if everything was simply supported rwquin, which isn't the case. Them moment connections sure do make the maths hard!
 
Belz... said:
Which is basically 2). I guess you're in agreement with it, then.
Click to expand...
No

Oh ? I wasn't aware that load transfer had to stop somewhere specific. Or do you think "around" means "right next" ?
Click to expand...
Yes
Since the columns "right next to" the severed columns supported the additional weight, as they were designed to do, there was no weight to be bourn by columns further away.

Do you think NIST ment "the other end of the building" when they said
"the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas"
 
Christopher7, continous beam action is developed across columns that have fixed-moment connections such as the WTC. The load will be transfered not only to the nearest column, but also to a lesser degree the ones further away. If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upwards load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage. Because of how the beams and columns connection (moment-frame), the load is literally transfered to a larger portion of the building than just the immediate columns next to the damaged one.

Had you taken just the basic classes in engineering, you would understand how and why this happens. Your failure to understand it is just another example of how someone who knows how to frame "column and girder" wood structures together knows absoluetly nothing about real engineering.
 
Christopher7 said:
No
Click to expand...

So you don't agree that:

Belz... said:
2) Debris damage caused further damage by shifting loads to other parts of the building, including the area of the initiating event.
Click to expand...

doesn't follow from your NIST quote ? That's amazing.

Since the columns "right next to" the severed columns supported the additional weight, as they were designed to do, there was no weight to be bourn by columns further away.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. You're just speculating, like I'm doing.

Do you think NIST ment "the other end of the building" when they said
"the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas"
Click to expand...

I think they were not as specific about it as you'd like to think.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Christopher7, continous beam action is developed across columns that have fixed-moment connections such as the WTC. The load will be transfered not only to the nearest column, but also to a lesser degree the ones further away. If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upwards load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage. Because of how the beams and columns connection (moment-frame), the load is literally transfered to a larger portion of the building than just the immediate columns next to the damaged one.

Had you taken just the basic classes in engineering, you would understand how and why this happens. Your failure to understand it is just another example of how someone who knows how to frame "column and girder" wood structures together knows absoluetly nothing about real engineering.
Click to expand...

Very nice explanation. Also, sadly, knowing Chris, a total waste of time.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Christopher7, continous beam action is developed across columns that have fixed-moment connections such as the WTC. If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upwards load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage.
Click to expand...
Wrong
The upward load will be the greatest on the adjoining column, and to a lesser degree, on the columns further away.
The load would 'taken up' by each column in turn.

Because of how the beams and columns connection (moment-frame), the load is literally transferred to a larger portion of the building than just the immediate columns next to the damaged one.
Click to expand...
The load is bourn entirely by the adjoining columns.
If the adjoining column bends, weight will be transfered to the next coulmn, otherwise, it will not.
As you just stated; if anything, a cantilever action is created by the moment frame connections.

Had you taken just the basic classes in engineering, you would understand how and why this happens. Your failure to understand it is just another example of how someone who knows how to frame "column and girder" wood structures together knows absoluetly nothing about real engineering.
Click to expand...
Your arrogance and condescending attitude are not justified.

This is not rocket science.

I have real world experience with removing support studs and the cantilever effect.

The simple principles [underlying law] of physics apply when building with wood or steel.
 
Chris. You are wrong. Don't accuse people of being arrogant when they explain to you why. It is you who is being arrogant by telling the world's structural engineers they are wrong.
 
twinstead said:
Chris. You are wrong. Don't accuse people of being arrogant when they explain to you why. It is you who is being arrogant by telling the world's structural engineers they are wrong.
Click to expand...

After all-we only do Structural analysis for a living. Chris is an expert, since he uses "common sense"
 
twinstead said:
Chris. You are wrong. Don't accuse people of being arrogant when they explain to you why. It is you who is being arrogant by telling the world's structural engineers they are wrong.
Click to expand...
Excuse me.

I am in agreement with the engineers at NIST.

You are the ones who are saying that the debris damage to the south west perimeter frame had an effect on the east end of WTC 7, when they said that the loads were redistributed to the columns around the severed and damaged areas.

Around does not mean 'far away from'. Look it up.
 
Christopher7 said:
Excuse me.

I am in agreement with the engineers at NIST.

You are the ones who are saying that the debris damage to the south west perimeter frame had an effect on the east end of WTC 7, when they said that the loads were redistributed to the columns around the severed and damaged areas.
Click to expand...

But the engineers at NIST don't think the building was brought down by explosives. You do. How can you say you agree with them?
 
Of course they did Christopher7, the columns furthest away from the damage actually experienced a net loss in total load delivered to them.

Take a continuous beam that bears on three columns equal 10ft apart with a uniform load of 100lb/ft. Your common sense tells you that the center column should take a load of 1000lb and the outside columns should receive 500lb. How does the load change when one removes one outside column?

Your common sense probably doesn't tell you that the center column now takes the total 2000lb and the outside column that is remaining supports 0 load. It is, however, what happens in reality, if one knew anything about statics. This is similar to what I'm trying to explain above.

If the backspan is shorter than the front span that cantilevers over, than a net tension load is developed on the rear column. Now that I think about it, this is common sense. You don't need a college education to figure this out. rqguinn's see-saw analogy is dead-on.

I have real world experience with telling your bosses boss what to do.
 
twinstead said:
But the engineers at NIST don't think the building was brought down by explosives. You do. How can you say you agree with them?
Click to expand...
You don't know what the people at NIST think.

Only the "official position" of the management.

Even if we do disagree on that point, it has nothing to do with the redistribution of loads in WTC 7.

I agree with the NIST engineers that the loads were redistributed around the severed and damaged areas.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
the columns furthest away from the damage actually experienced a net loss in total load delivered to them.

I have real world experience with telling your bosses boss what to do.
Click to expand...
Of course you do.

Why don't you tell the engineers at NIST about "the cantilever effect", they seem to have missed this important point?

Tell them how the columns furthest away from the damage were affected.
 
Christopher7 said:
I agree with the NIST engineers that the loads were redistributed around the severed and damaged areas.
Click to expand...
Huh. Now I see why you keep bringing that quote up. See, I read it as equivalent to: "...the loads around the severed and damaged areas were redistributed..." not "...the loads were redistributed to nearby columns..."

Maybe my interpretation is wrong though. I honestly don't know.
 
Christopher7 said:
You don't know what the people at NIST think.

Only the "official position" of the management.

Even if we do disagree on that point, it has nothing to do with the redistribution of loads in WTC 7.

I agree with the NIST engineers that the loads were redistributed around the severed and damaged areas.
Click to expand...

You can be as pedantic as you want, no problem. You are arguing minutiae and quote mining in the extreme. You are also implying that individual NIST engineers perhaps may suspect foul play even if the official explanation does not.

I'll wager that these NIST engineers understand the dynamics of the collapse MUCH better than you. Perhaps if it is SO obvious that the official explanation is impossible one of them might come forward and mention that fact, huh?

What is your explanation for the fact that none have?
 
Belz... said:
Of course, specifically because you can quote-mine to support your already-reached conclusion.

Otherwise, would you mind adressing my last post to you ?
Click to expand...
When making a point, it is necessary to quote the facts that support that point.

You can call this quote mining or cherry picking if you like.

Actually, i did not know until recently that NIST had said:

"the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

This is a clear and unambiguous statement.

Around means "something surrounds a place or object or is situated on all sides of it".

It does NOT mean "The other end of the building"


Why can't you just accept that instead of clinging to
"they didn't specifically rule it out"
and trying to infer the debris damage contributed to the initiating event. It did not.
 
Christopher7 said:
When making a point, it is necessary to quote the facts that support that point.
Click to expand...

Word to the wise. Perhaps you could practice what you preach. Spending 4 pages defining what 'around' means doesn't help much.

what you need to do is support your theory that the building was brought down by CD. What you need to do is provide facts for why CD is the ONLY way the building could have collapsed.

While you are at it, perhaps you could explain why if what you think is SO evident, are there not any qualified people coming out against the official story.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
When making a point, it is necessary to quote the facts that support that point.

You can call this quote mining or cherry picking if you like.

Actually, i did not know until recently that NIST had said:

"the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

This is a clear and unambiguous statement.

Around means "something surrounds a place or object or is situated on all sides of it".

It does NOT mean "The other end of the building"


Why can't you just accept that instead of clinging to
"they didn't specifically rule it out"
and trying to infer the debris damage contributed to the initiating event. It did not.
Click to expand...
Nice try.
When we say the loads were "redistributed around the severed and damaged areas", we mean just that. The load paths were destroyed, and new ones formed. The damage was bypassed, and loads redistributed based on damage location, available load paths and loading conditions. It is not inconcievable that some potential load paths physically near the damage were then damaged by the load transfer, being unable to take the load themselves, yielding until the rest of the structure was able to support it.
When we plan a trip, and say "We need to go around Colorado", that means we may go as far South as Las Cruces,NM, or as far North as Havre, MT. It doesn't necessarily mean Cheyenne or Colorado Springs. It all depends on our final destination and starting point. ETA--and available, usable, highways and weather conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom