Legge/Szamboti: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

[A W Smith]

It would get a lot hotter. Office fires do not get nearly hot enough, even without the steel having fireproofing to overcome the factor of safety and cause the steel to yield. With the 3:00 to 1 core column factor of safety all of the core columns would have had to reach 650 degrees C or higher to even have a chance at a collapse initiation. Testing has showed these types of steel temperatures do not occur in office fires, without fireproofing on the steel.

On top of that the physical evidence we do have shows the core columns never got hotter than 250 degrees C. There were only three pieces out of 170 tested by NIST that even got to 600 degrees C and they were perimeter column pieces.

Additionally slow heating by fire would have had a problem causing a catastrophic collapse due to strain hardening.

So the point of having fireproofing with a four hour rating on the steel would be what:???

 

[beachnut]

Pathetic paper waves some hands and tries to make people believe steel can be stronger when heated but IGNOREs the FACT the yield and ultimate strength of steel decreases with temperature. I doubt realcddeal is an engineer when I look at his poor research skills and false information in his papers.

 

[Max Photon]

Comparing notes on the dynamics of the sagging floors

I have asked to see video of the perimeter columns being bowed inward minutes before the collapses and no one here has been able to come up with any. The only video we see of the columns bowing inward are just seconds before the collapse of the south tower.

If the core columns were cut or caused to completely fail in any way that would have caused the perimeter columns to bow inward also, by the trusses pulling on them, and in a much more believable way than that it was caused by the floor trusses merely sagging.

So I have an answer for the inwardly bowed perimeter columns which testing would validate. NIST fire testing of the floor trusses seems to say that the trusses would not have caused them to bow the perimeter columns inward.

Realcddeal,

I would argue that to preserve plausible deniability, the NIST Reports tell the ambiguated truth (which is the truth).

If they say sagging floors pulled in columns, trust them my son - go with the force.


In this spirit, can we compare notes on the dynamics of the sagging floors, just to be sure we are on the same page?

I have it that if floor trusses were heated, they would:

1. First lengthen (thereby pushing perimeter columns outward);
2. At some point, sag (exerting a catenary inward pull on the perimeter columns);
3. Cool (in the sagging position) and shorten (increasing the catenary inward pull on the perimeter columns, thus causing the columns to bow inward and fail).

Do you agree?

 

[JamesB]

The collapse would not have continued as there would not have been enough of a dynamic load. NIST's recent FAQ talks of a sudden load amplification factor of 2.00 and the central core had a 3:00 to 1 factor of safety and the perimeter columns a 5:00 to 1 factor of safety.

The NIST investigators disagree with you. What did they miss in all of their structural engineering classes at MIT, Princeton and UC Berkeley?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

 

[A W Smith]

Pathetic paper waves some hands and tries to make people believe steel can be stronger when heated but IGNOREs the FACT the yield and ultimate strength of steel decreases with temperature. I doubt realcddeal is an engineer when I look at his poor research skills and false information in his papers.

oh hes probably an engineer but probably designs things like the paper core of toilet paper rolls or the cap dispenser of a shampoo bottle, Or spends days calculating the bursting strength of a cardboard tampon box.

 

[pomeroo]

...exactly, AND that there was more than enough planted thermite to get the job done.

You've been caught lying again. There is no evidence that any thermite was used at the TWC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks.

Why do you continue to lie? You have been exposed as an ignorant poseur.

 

[beachnut]

9/11 truth is a fraud

What our shoddy engineer is saying, that on 9/11 as the steel was heated, its ability to absorb energy and deform could be increased under heat! But he wants you to ignore the fact the yield and ultimate strength go down and that is why you see bending in the shell and floors sagging and then failure! The steel resists fracturing better as it is heated, but fails! The steel deforms more easily as it is heated but FAILS in fire! Our engineer is making up lies to fool an audience which wants to believe the lies of 9/11 truth! What a fraud! Peer reviewed by fellow 9/11 truthers and not worth the journal it was published in. Fraud! And those who agree with realcddeal have no ability to use rational thought to discover anything on 9/11 presented in this paper.

I hate having to look up this crap to explain it! If an EE can look up structures and pass on some basic ideas why realcddeal is lying, anyone can! So any fence sitters, anyone who likes what 9/11 truth says, just take the darn time to look up this stuff and find real knowledge! Now is time to think for yourself and stop believing in a group that makes up lies. Use your mind and be an individual and prove something to yourself. This paper and realcddeal have chosen to mislead others with no facts or evidence. If you can not see he is wrong, then you need to try harder!

All of 9/11 truth is full of junk, if you take the time to be knowledgeable you can see it too. Look it up! Learn.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What our shoddy engineer is saying, that on 9/11 as the steel was heated, its ability to absorb energy and deform could be increased under heat! But he wants you to ignore the fact the yield and ultimate strength go down and that is why you see bending in the shell and floors sagging and then failure! The steel resists fracturing better as it is heated, but fails! The steel deforms more easily as it is heated but FAILS in fire! Our engineer is making up lies to fool an audience which wants to believe the lies of 9/11 truth! What a fraud! Peer reviewed by fellow 9/11 truthers and not worth the journal it was published in. Fraud! And those who agree with realcddeal have no ability to use rational thought to discover anything on 9/11 presented in this paper.

I hate having to look up this crap to explain it! If an EE can look up structures and pass on some basic ideas why realcddeal is lying, anyone can! So any fence sitters, anyone who likes what 9/11 truth says, just take the darn time to look up this stuff and find real knowledge! Now is time to think for yourself and stop believing in a group that makes up lies. Use your mind and be an individual and prove something to yourself. This paper and realcddeal have chosen to mislead others with no facts or evidence. If you can not see he is wrong, then you need to try harder!

I calling all of 9/11 truth full of junk, but if you would take the time to be knowledgeable you too can see it too. Look it up! Learn.

Actually, it's not really inaccurate. As steel heats up, it can flex further than it can when it's cold. The energy required to bend it is less, but since it can bend further, it can actually absorb more energy.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The NIST investigators disagree with you. What did they miss in all of their structural engineering classes at MIT, Princeton and UC Berkeley?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Why don't you find out and tell us? Another approach you might want to take is to find out why Dr. Quintierre would say something about Lawyers blocking things. I wouldn't be so sure that all of the NIST investigators disagree with me. How many have you actually talked to?

I also find it interesting that you don't answer the problem with not having enough of a dynamic load. Additionally, what does NIST say happened to the core columns? I find it interesting that they don't say anything.

It appears that there has not been a complete explanation for the complete collapses of these buildings, without something like explosives or incendiaries being involved, aside from the attempts of Dr. Bazant.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So the point of having fireproofing with a four hour rating on the steel would be what:???

One would be to keep the temperature down and keep it from distorting at all. Another would be to keep the fire from spreading.

 

[Arus808]

One would be to keep the temperature down and keep it from distorting at all. Another would be to keep the fire from spreading.

oh boy, you have no freaking clue, do you.

 

[A W Smith]

One would be to keep the temperature down and keep it from distorting at all. Another would be to keep the fire from spreading.

Oh yes of course. Keep the steel from spreading the fire. How silly of me. And steel supports combustion how?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Realcddeal,

I would argue that to preserve plausible deniability, the NIST Reports tell the ambiguated truth (which is the truth).

If they say sagging floors pulled in columns, trust them my son - go with the force.


In this spirit, can we compare notes on the dynamics of the sagging floors, just to be sure we are on the same page?

I have it that if floor trusses were heated, they would:

1. First lengthen (thereby pushing perimeter columns outward);
2. At some point, sag (exerting a catenary inward pull on the perimeter columns);
3. Cool (in the sagging position) and shorten (increasing the catenary inward pull on the perimeter columns, thus causing the columns to bow inward and fail).

Do you agree?

Yes, what you say above could occur under a certain set of circumstances, which I am not sure occurred in those towers. The 35 foot floor trusses only sagged 3 inches at midspan after an hour in the fire testing UL did for NIST. To be fair that would probably be equivalent to 15 to 20 inches on a 60 foot truss. This would still not be sufficient to inwardly bow the columns and cause an instability as NIST needed a 40 plus inch sag to cause it to happen in their computer model.

Additionally, we have nothing, besides photos, to show us the perimeter columns were inwardly bowed for long periods of time. There apparently are no videos which show inwardly bowed perimeter columns minutes before the collapses. However, it can be validated by testing that cut core columns would pull the perimeter columns inward in a violent way through the floor trusses.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh yes of course. Keep the steel from spreading the fire. How silly of me. And steel supports combustion how?

Heating of items in contact with it. The main purpose is to protect the steel itself. You know what I meant.

Have you looked at the University of Manchester Fire Engineering site where they tell you that the minimum factor of safety of the steel at 1.67 to 1 allows it to be resistant to fire up to 500 degrees C without concern? Do you know that the factor of safety in the central core was 3:00 to 1 and 5:00 to 1 on the perimeter columns considering gravity only?

 

[JamesB]

Additionally, we have nothing, besides photos, to show us the perimeter columns were inwardly bowed for long periods of time. There apparently are no videos which show inwardly bowed perimeter columns minutes before the collapses. However, it can be validated by testing that cut core columns would pull the perimeter columns inward in a violent way through the floor trusses.

Well considering you don't even have a single photo of a controlled demolition device, why do you just discount that? You can't just ignore evidence you don't like until something you do like shows up.

 

[CHF]

Why don't you find out and tell us? Another approach you might want to take is to find out why Dr. Quintierre would say something about Lawyers blocking things.

You are aware that Quintierre argues against demolition even more so than NIST does, right?

 

[JamesB]

Why don't you find out and tell us? Another approach you might want to take is to find out why Dr. Quintierre would say something about Lawyers blocking things. I wouldn't be so sure that all of the NIST investigators disagree with me. How many have you actually talked to?

Why should I have to research to support your claims? Isn't that what you supposedly are supposed to be doing? You do realize that Quintierre's complaint was regarding the role of the fire proofing, right? He does not in any way support controlled demolition nuttery, in fact his view is even more contrary to yours than NIST in general.

 

[beachnut]

Actually, it's not really inaccurate. As steel heats up, it can flex further than it can when it's cold. The energy required to bend it is less, but since it can bend further, it can actually absorb more energy.

I said that too. You said it better.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I said that too.

Yes you did! I'm a bit tired, sorry.

 

[pomeroo]

Why don't you find out and tell us? Another approach you might want to take is to find out why Dr. Quintierre would say something about Lawyers blocking things. I wouldn't be so sure that all of the NIST investigators disagree with me. How many have you actually talked to?

I also find it interesting that you don't answer the problem with not having enough of a dynamic load. Additionally, what does NIST say happened to the core columns? I find it interesting that they don't say anything.

It appears that there has not been a complete explanation for the complete collapses of these buildings, without something like explosives or incendiaries being involved, aside from the attempts of Dr. Bazant.

Conspiracy liars are not permitted to invoke Dr. Quintiere. He is a serious researcher who totally rejects your nonsense.