Failure mode in WTC towers

[R.Mackey]

The support is not the column above and below. That is ridiculous. If that were true we wouldn't need guys on guyed towers. The column there only takes the axial compression and the guys remove the moments. The same thing occurs in a building with horizontal beams. They act like solid guys attached to the mass of the building.

It is the adjacent beams which will apply a counteracting moment and alleviate any moment on the column.

You have to be kidding here or you weren't thinking when you said this. I would be really careful in calling someone ignorant if I were you.

Ummm... "guys remove the moments?" Guy wires only exert tension, they do not exert moment at their connection.

There are other body forces than merely tension and compression, and there are other moments than mere force couples.

Newton's Bit is correct, as usual. It may help you to see this by thinking about how the perimeter columns, which according to you "only bear axial loads," respond to wind forces. The entire structure acted as a moment frame, as has been explained to you patiently. I also suggest you review Vierendeel construction, as it is relevant to this case.

Although I have to say, after that "dual citizenship" outburst, I'm not sure there's much point continuing with you...

 

[rwguinn]

Ummm... "guys remove the moments?" Guy wires only exert tension, they do not exert moment at their connection.

There are other body forces than merely tension and compression, and there are other moments than mere force couples.

Newton's Bit is correct, as usual. It may help you to see this by thinking about how the perimeter columns, which according to you "only bear axial loads," respond to wind forces. The entire structure acted as a moment frame, as has been explained to you patiently. I also suggest you review Viernedeel construction, as it is relevant to this case.

Although I have to say, after that "dual citizenship" outburst, I'm not sure there's much point continuing with you...

I am not sure what to think about an "engineer" who doesn't know the difference between Applied Moment and imposed moment...

 

[Newtons Bit]

What the h*** are you talking about?
The moment just... disappears?
I don't know what school you went to, but is is a very bad one if they taught you that...

He doesn't understand the difference between:


And



Both have moment connections, but both behave vastly different.

 

[rwguinn]

He doesn't understand the difference between:
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1632947ae4ce4b8022.gif[/URL]

And

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1632947acab3124d5f.jpg[/URL]

Both have moment connections, but both behave vastly different.

Not so differently (in an individual beam, say, N1-N2), if you also apply a little circular arrow along with the straight one on the textbook diagram

 

[Gravy]

's ok--
If he's an engineer, it is in nothing pertaining to Civil or Mechanical.

My four-legged chair can hold four times my weight. Therefore, if I cut off one leg, it will hold three times my weight. Factors of safety are easy!

He's supposedly an antenna engineer. As a dual citizen, though, he may have gotten his degree here or on Mars.

 

[pomeroo]

Not so differently (in an individual beam, say, N1-N2), if you also apply a little circular arrow along with the straight one on the textbook diagram

Could you answer a serious question from a non-engineer? Is it possible for someone to be graduated from an engineering school and know as little as Tony does? In your opinion, does he understand that he can't sell this nonsense to real engineers, and if he does understand, what could his purpose be?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

yep. All kinds of INTERNAL moments.

There are very very low internal moments on a guyed tower. The reason is the counteracting moments of the guys. There are no moments which could come anywhere near compromising the structure and there are no detectable deflections due to them. That is what happens with a building column with horizontal beams. They are in effect solid guys.

NB's diagram did not include the reactions of the beams which would have negated the bending moments on the columns and not allowed the column to deflect the way he shows them so it doesn't explain what happened to the columns in the towers. If you think his diagram was correct for the tower columns then you are wrong also.

 

[beachnut]

Could you answer a serious question from a non-engineer? Is it possible for someone to be graduated from an engineering school and know as little as Tony does? In your opinion, does he understand that he can't sell this nonsense to real engineers, and if he does understand, what could his purpose be?

What kind of engineer is he really? What are his classes and core in? What school? Any person who has a high school education could rip his paper to pieces, with simple logic and checking the NIST report he cherry picks. His paper leaves out the office fire. He ignores the biggest office fires I have seen. (un-fought office fires!)

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf

It is instructive that the first visible signs of failure on the North Tower are when the antenna mast moves downward by ten to twelve feet before the perimeter roof line moves. This is indicative of the central core suddenly and completely failing first. If you haven’t seen this watch it frame by frame at the link below.

His paper, well an updated version. I do not understand why political claptrap is in a scientific Scholar paper. Or do I?

I share your dismay.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Could you answer a serious question from a non-engineer? Is it possible for someone to be graduated from an engineering school and know as little as Tony does? In your opinion, does he understand that he can't sell this nonsense to real engineers, and if he does understand, what could his purpose be?

Buildings are different animals than other structures, but they're not that different. He's wrong, and I suspect intentionally, on a number of issues. The fact that he holds his position on ludicrous statements is probably indicative of how he knows he is wrong, but doesn't want to admit fault so that he doesn't lose his "truther rep" as it were. The little people that support JONES and AE911 want to support experts, not people who don't know wtf they're talking about and just invent crap whenever it suits them, as Mr. Szamboti is doing here.

 

[rwguinn]

There are very very low internal moments on a guyed tower. The reason is the counteracting moments of the guys. There are no moments which could come anywhere near compromising the structure. That is what happens with a building column with horizontal beams. They are in effect solid guys.

NB's diagram did not include the reactions of the beams which would not have allowed the column to bend so it doesn't explain what happened to the columns in the towers. If you think his diagram was correct for the tower columns then you are wrong also.

There are very HIGH internal moments IN a guyed antenna. There are no imposed moments.
The bottom is a ball joint, and guys cannot impose anything but lateral and vertical loads.
Please, draw us a shear and moment diagram of a tower with (we'll keep it simple) only one (1) level of guys...
So, are you going to demonstrate "Rope Pushing" on Utube, or elsewhere...

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not so differently (in an individual beam, say, N1-N2), if you also apply a little circular arrow along with the straight one on the textbook diagram

Don't confuse the laypeople now

 

[Newtons Bit]

There are very HIGH internal moments IN a guyed antenna. There are no imposed moments.
The bottom is a ball joint, and guys cannot impose anything but lateral and vertical loads.
Please, draw us a shear and moment diagram of a tower with (we'll keep it simple) only one (1) level of guys...
So, are you going to demonstrate "Rope Pushing" on Utube, or elsewhere...

His ropes are in bending, dude!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

My four-legged chair can hold four times my weight. Therefore, if I cut off one leg, it will hold three times my weight. Factors of safety are easy!

He's supposedly an antenna engineer. As a dual citizen, though, he may have gotten his degree here or on Mars.

I am not a dual citizen Roberts. It is you who didn't deny that you were.

There is no supposed about my qualifications. There is significant doubt as to whether or not you or your alter ego Ron Wieck have even the slightest inkling as to what is right or wrong engineering wise and most people would keep their mouths shut in that situation so as to just let people think they are not intelligent in that area rather than open their mouths and remove all doubt.

You are derailing this thread with your nonsense.

 

[pomeroo]

Buildings are different animals than other structures, but they're not that different. He's wrong, and I suspect intentionally, on a number of issues. The fact that he holds his position on ludicrous statements is probably indicative of how he knows he is wrong, but doesn't want to admit fault so that he doesn't lose his "truther rep" as it were. The little people that support JONES and AE911 want to support experts, not people who don't know wtf they're talking about and just invent crap whenever it suits them, as Mr. Szamboti is doing here.

I'm sure you're completely correct, but I remain puzzled. He can pontificate to his heart's content on twoofer sites. He will be addressing the dumbest, most uncritical fools on the planet. Such dunces will swallow anything and he can bask in their adulation, a la David Griffin. Why come here and be slapped down by people who understand that he is a know-nothing? What's in it for him? Can he tell the imbeciles on 911blogger that he invaded the JREF and got crushed again? He can do what they all do and proclaim victory, but what if someone takes the trouble to check?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There are very HIGH internal moments IN a guyed antenna. There are no imposed moments.
The bottom is a ball joint, and guys cannot impose anything but lateral and vertical loads.
Please, draw us a shear and moment diagram of a tower with (we'll keep it simple) only one (1) level of guys...
So, are you going to demonstrate "Rope Pushing" on Utube, or elsewhere...

The moments are extremely low in the tower sections. There are also essentially no deflections due to them, otherwise these slim structures would quickly buckle and fail. The small internal moments which exist are below the noise and can be ignored. The same thing goes for the building column. You are out in space somewhere if you think otherwise.

You aren't providing anything but your opinion. Even though he is wrong at least NB tries to show backup for his thoughts.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm sure you're completely correct, but I remain puzzled. He can pontificate to his heart's content on twoofer sites. He will be addressing the dumbest, most uncritical fools on the planet. Such dunces will swallow anything and he can bask in their adulation, a la David Griffin. Why come here and be slapped down by people who understand that he is a know-nothing? What's in it for him? Can he tell the imbeciles on 911blogger that he invaded the JREF and got crushed again? He can do what they all do and proclaim victory, but what if someone takes the trouble to check?

That's most of it I think. LCF has threads every now and then about "omg, JREF'ers schooled by <insert name of person who made terrible arguments and was beat down at every occasion>!!!21".

 

[beachnut]

I am not a dual citizen Roberts. It is you who didn't deny that you were.

There is no supposed about my qualifications. There is significant doubt as to whether or not you or your alter ego Ron Wieck have even the slightest inkling as to what is right or wrong engineering wise and most people would keep their mouths shut in that situation so as to just let people think they are not intelligent in that area rather than open their mouths and remove all doubt.

You are derailing this thread with your nonsense.

They know more than you do. I doubt they have trouble seeing the errors in your posts and paper if they care to inspect and invest minimal time. You need to sneak away, else some laypeople will, with your paper, expose your fraud (which you seem to be doing post by post). Your own posts derail your ideas, and your paper shows your expertise in this thread to be less than a layperson.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypothesisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf
Proof is in your paper. (why did you ignore the office fires?)

 

[R.Mackey]

There are very HIGH internal moments IN a guyed antenna. There are no imposed moments.
The bottom is a ball joint, and guys cannot impose anything but lateral and vertical loads.
Please, draw us a shear and moment diagram of a tower with (we'll keep it simple) only one (1) level of guys...
So, are you going to demonstrate "Rope Pushing" on Utube, or elsewhere...

Yup, you got him. His comment was exactly 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

Tony, let me try to help again, in the sincere hope that you start learning and thereby help illuminate others in your circle. The diagram that Newton's Bit put forth describes the problem perfectly -- contrasting the ideal "pinned" versus real eccentric-loaded cases. Consistently you've followed the ideal model.

This doesn't work. In the ideal model, you have those ideal pinning blocks above and below. These blocks can oppose any lateral force and any moment by definition. They're ideal, that's what it means.

In the real system, it doesn't work that way. The moments and side forces are distributed to other real members, i.e. the column above through the splice, to the floor truss, and also to the floor truss connection. The floor trusses, you will recall, were bolted, not tied off like a guy wire. There is going to be limited but real opposing moment there. The rest of the moment can only be transmitted to the column above. The connection between them does resist this moment. And in general, there are two floors connected in the middle of each single column.

Because we're dealing with a real situation, not an ideal situation, you cannot treat the WTC model as an ideal truss system, where only axial forces matter, or as an ideal double-pinned series of columns, where end moments can be dissipated up to infinity. It just isn't so. The real system is a moment frame, and that means moments -- not just axial forces -- are transmitted to different members.

This is very basic, and I trust you've seen it before. Denial of such obvious facts enhances neither your credibility nor your reputation.

 

[pomeroo]

I am not a dual citizen Roberts. It is you who didn't deny that you were.

Well, you have been proved wrong on just about everything you've posted on this forum, but my sources have unearthed some stunning information. It seems that Roberts is a dual-citizen of the U.S. and Brooklyn! Just like the proverbial broken clock, you managed to get one right.

Is it true that you are really an Israeli? That's what "they" say, you know.

There is no supposed about my qualifications.

There may be no "supposed," but there's a helluva lot of "doubt."

There is significant doubt as to whether or not you or your alter ego Ron Wieck have even the slightest inkling as to what is right or wrong engineering wise and most people would keep their mouths shut in that situation so as to just let people think they are not intelligent in that area rather than open their mouths and remove all doubt.

Not much mystery here. I state over and over that I have zero credentials and no background whatever in engineering. I am capable of observing what happens when a charlatan such as yourself tackles people who are the genuine article. You receive very specific corrections that you simply ignore. Max Photon and Ace Baker are completely ineducable too, but you seem to expect people to take you seriously.

You are derailing this thread with your nonsense.

The results of the thread are in: You got smashed flat again. You have no idea of what you're talking about. And you never did get around to telling us--

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

 

[Tony Szamboti]

He doesn't understand the difference between:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1632947ae4ce4b8022.gif[/qimg]

And

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1632947acab3124d5f.jpg[/qimg]

Both have moment connections, but both behave vastly different.

Why don't you do your little model with adjacent and anchored horizontal beams coming off the top of the frame? That would be representative of the tower columns and guess what? Your columns won't be deflecting due to bending moments in them.

I have had enough of you guys for one night. You are so wrong here it is pathetic and having people like Roberts and Wieck stick there noses in where they aren't knowledgeable is pathetic also.