• 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.

Failure mode in WTC towers

Apres David show up

I've seen DBB-gun create avalanches.

By the way, I'm surprised Senor Benson is not dumping 3' - 4' of fresh intelligence on this discussion.

Max Grade
 
Newtons Bit said:
No Mr. Szamboti, you still have no clue what you're talking about. Eccentric shear connections (which all shear connections except beams framing over the tops of columns are) will apply moments into the columns, regardless of whether or not they are moment frames or pinned gravity columns. The reason why this is important is due to moment magnification as the axial DCR approaches zero. That's this equation:

[qimg]http://bp1.blogger.com/_-e0bzNzFdXc/Ro1Ocyyj9CI/AAAAAAAAAJU/Sg4QokQ32FM/s400/image002.gif[/qimg]
Can you point out to the class what that means? I seriously doubt it.

But in any event, you still don't know the difference between a FRAME and idealized connections.



I call shenanigans. Do not put words into my mouth. Do not even pretend you have any idea what structural engineering is. Yours words have proven this. You started off by saying the connection supports (seriously wtf?) would absorb all of the moment by referencing Timoshenko and Gere. They are talking about this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1632947ae4ce4b8022.gif[/qimg]

Not about a moment frame! There's a huge difference.

You then went on to describe the moment connected beams would act like guys (again wtf) and absorb the moment. Again, you show us that you have no freaking clue what you're talking about.

And now you move on and try to claim victory in that I admit that the moments are small? Of course they're small, and idiot knows that, but they're not insignificant. A designer could, if he chose to, ignore the bending moments in the columns due to eccentric shear connections and have no problems with his structure. This is because these bending moments are only about 0.05 of the DCR. However when analyzing the FAILURE MODE of that column, which is the topic of this thread, these bending moments become extremely important due to moment magnification. Again, something you fail to understand. It's probably not even within your capacity to understand, you've thrown away any sort of critical thinking ability in search of your religion of 911 truth.

As far as credibility goes, you've shown that you never had any to begin with. Go back to school, take some intro to structures classes in the architecture school. Maybe they can dumb things far enough down for you to understand. But it's obvious that even our discussions here, that we reduce such that most laypeople can understand, is beyond you. All you are capable of doing is quote mining.
Click to expand...

You are obviously misinterpreting what Timoshenko and Gere said and what I am saying. They are not talking about the situation you show with a column only under compressive loading. They are saying that there would be no eccentric loads in a situation where the columns have fixed end conditions due to the supports, to which they are fixed, providing an equal and opposite force and taking out the moment. They say this because the column is fixed against rotation. They are talking about floor loading type situations and they mean the horizontal supports such as beams, girders, or whatever you want to call them, would provide an opposing force to that developed by catenary action due to the floor deflection in your moment frame and eliminate the moment. Any unbiased and experienced mechanical or civil engineer, who has done structural design which wasn't canned in a manual, would see what I was saying as correct. You obviously have a hard time thinking through concepts and sound like you learned and do your job by rote. However, you do not have a problem being aggressive and have a huge amount of nerve, along with some of your little buddies here, talking about my abilities. It is you and rwguinn who decided to allow themselves to be less than civil and initiate name calling and castigation of another's abilities. You need to bear that in mind when reading my reply here.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
Any unbiased and experienced mechanical or civil engineer, who has done structural design which wasn't canned in a manual, would see what I was saying as correct.
Click to expand...
Ah, the "No true structural engineer" fallacy. All aboard the Fetzerville Express! Ever wonder why no true structural engineers have published anything in a reputable journal that agrees with your crackpot claims, Tony?

It is you and rwguinn who decided to allow themselves to be less than civil and initiate name calling and castigation of another's abilities. You need to bear that in mind when reading my reply here.
Click to expand...
Says the deeply troubled person who accuses me of being a "dual citizen."

Please, please talk to someone who can help you get a grasp on reality, Mr. Szamboti. You embarrass yourself further with every single post.
 
Last edited:
Max:

Some core columns had cross-sectional areas of about 40 in^2 or less, with section factors ~ 80 m^-1, and would be quite susceptible to heat weakening.

However, this would NOT be true of the more massive "corner" core columns, say at the 80th floor of WTC 2, with section factors ~ 30^m-1. These were massive load carrying box columns, contributing more than 2 tonnes of steel per floor, and needing about 35 minutes exposure to combustion gases at 900 deg C to reach Tc (~ 650 deg C). This condition was not realized in the WTC fires even for totally unprotected core columns.

Remember, even NIST said, once the jet fuel burned off (after about 15 minutes), there were no combustibles in the WTC 1 & 2 cores!
 
Apollo20 said:
Remember, even NIST said, once the jet fuel burned off (after about 15 minutes), there were no combustibles in the WTC 1 & 2 cores!
Click to expand...
You seem to be forgetting that the cores were next to the office spaces, and open to them due to damage to the wallboard partitions.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
You are obviously misinterpreting what Timoshenko and Gere said and what I am saying. They are not talking about the situation you show with a column only under compressive loading. They are saying that there would be no eccentric loads in a situation where the columns have fixed end conditions due to the supports, to which they are fixed, providing an equal and opposite force and taking out the moment. They say this because the column is fixed against rotation. They are talking about floor loading type situations and they mean the horizontal supports such as beams, girders, or whatever you want to call them, would provide an opposing force to that developed by catenary action due to the floor deflection in your moment frame and eliminate the moment. Any unbiased and experienced mechanical or civil engineer, who has done structural design which wasn't canned in a manual, would see what I was saying as correct. You obviously have a hard time thinking through concepts and sound like you learned and do your job by rote. However, you do not have a problem being aggressive and have a huge amount of nerve, along with some of your little buddies here, talking about my abilities. It is you and rwguinn who decided to allow themselves to be less than civil and initiate name calling and castigation of another's abilities. You need to bear that in mind when reading my reply here.
Click to expand...


How do you account for your inability to learn anything from people who clearly know much more than you do?
 
Gravy said:
Ah, the "No true structural engineer" fallacy. All aboard the Fetzerville Express! Ever wonder why no true structural engineers have published anything in a reputable journal that agrees with your crackpot claims, Tony?

Says the deeply troubled person who accuses me of being a "dual citizen."

Please, please talk to someone who can help you get a grasp on reality, Mr. Szamboti. You embarrass yourself further with every single post.
Click to expand...

What would you know Mark? You don't even have any business commenting here. I have to say that you really seem intent on proving yourself to be quite a dork.
 
Gravy:

No you mean NIST seem to be forgetting that the cores were next to the office spaces, and open to them due to damage to the wallboard partitions.

Is that what you are saying?

By the way, I thought you had me on ignore..........
 
Gravy said:
You seem to be forgetting that the cores were next to the office spaces, and open to them due to damage to the wallboard partitions.
Click to expand...

Right. NIST did not say there were no combustibles in the cores, rather they estimated the load in the cores at about 25% of the load outside, due to things like carpeting and wiring.

And, again, Dr. Quintiere has suggested that NIST's combustible load estimate was very, very conservative.

Nonetheless, it's quite possible the corner columns in the core did not reach a "critical temperature," but remained cooler. That would not prevent them from buckling, once enough load was redistributed. Also in WTC 2 it's likely the most important corner column was destroyed at impact.
 
Apollo20 said:
Gravy:

No you mean NIST seem to be forgetting that the cores were next to the office spaces, and open to them due to damage to the wallboard partitions.

Is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...
No, I was remarking on your obvious agreement (if in fact NIST did make that claim...I don't recall). Additionally, I'm not aware of NIST attempting to account for combustibles that would have been plowed into the core, or for the enormous amount of cabling and other "secondary" combustibles that may have remained intact near the columns.

By the way, I thought you had me on ignore..........
Click to expand...
Everyone's off ignore now. I have appreciated many of your posts that I've read as quoted, and have cited them on my website.
 
realcddeal said:
Well I just told dork #1 what I thought and the same applies to you as dork #2.
Click to expand...


Yes, of course you continued to repeat your errors. You wouldn't be a crackpot if you were capable of backing off a mistake. Now, you have been convincingly refuted by people who know far than you do. How do you account for your inability to learn? What about your refusal to contact real engineers and scientists outside the JREF? Oh, right--they're all in on it!
 
realcddeal said:
What would you know Mark? You don't even have any business commenting here. I have to say that you really seem intent on proving yourself to be quite a dork.
Click to expand...
That is what I love, an engineer who knows his engineering. This post is indicative of your paper. The same mental keenness is rampant, alive and well with your engineer skills on display as they are in this post. Read it again, it is a classic and has all the failure mode covered as in this very fact filled post.

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

I mean, you covered all the modes over and over in this paper proving you engineering skill; www.journalof911studies.com is lucky to have a person of your caliber. Exposing truth with engineering www.journalof911studies.com . Wowzer
 
pomeroo said:
Let us note that you wouldn't dream of debating the "dork."
Click to expand...
He verified this when I asked him again by PM last night. He's afraid that our "agenda" is to make him look foolish. No, that would simply be the unavoidable result of his appearance on camera, and would happen even if he were given 30 minutes to make his case without interruption. I support this claim by reference to all of his posts here.
 
Mackey:

Even if there were some combustibles in the core, the section factors of the core columns tell us the exposure times in a specified building fire to reach the critical temperature of A-36 steel. I am saying these times are too long for the WTC "office fires" to have heat weakened the WTC corner core columns significantly. Have you looked at the section factors for the core columns on say floor 80 and estimated these times?

If you have calculated the section factors, as I have, (its no big deal to do it, just a lot of number crunching!)), you would know what I am talking about.........
 
realcddeal said:
You are obviously misinterpreting what Timoshenko and Gere said and what I am saying. They are not talking about the situation you show with a column only under compressive loading. They are saying that there would be no eccentric loads in a situation where the columns have fixed end conditions due to the supports, to which they are fixed, providing an equal and opposite force and taking out the moment. They say this because the column is fixed against rotation. They are talking about floor loading type situations and they mean the horizontal supports such as beams, girders, or whatever you want to call them, would provide an opposing force to that developed by catenary action due to the floor deflection in your moment frame and eliminate the moment. Any unbiased and experienced mechanical or civil engineer, who has done structural design which wasn't canned in a manual, would see what I was saying as correct. You obviously have a hard time thinking through concepts and sound like you learned and do your job by rote. However, you do not have a problem being aggressive and have a huge amount of nerve, along with some of your little buddies here, talking about my abilities. It is you and rwguinn who decided to allow themselves to be less than civil and initiate name calling and castigation of another's abilities. You need to bear that in mind when reading my reply here.
Click to expand...



I'm curious about something. As a non-engineer, I have difficulty following what you're saying here. I'm tempted to suggest that you're writing gibberish, but I can't be sure. I do notice that Newton's Bit, who clearly is vastly more knowledgeable than you, is much easier to follow. I'm guessing, then, that the murkiness of your prose reflects your own confusion about the concepts you're attempting to debate. Here's my question: Inevitably, Newton's Bit, or Mackey, or RWGuinn will take you to school on your latest effort. You will, of course, respond with more drivel. How does it end? If you were right, they would concede your point because--and this is important--they are interested in the truth. Obviously, you are not right; you are talking through your hat. As a conspiracy liar, you simply cannot display any intellectual integrity. Acknowledging that your position is untenable is not an option for a charlatan. You must retreat. There is no other choice. But, when you've finally fled this forum to proclaim your "victory" on the loon sites, don't YOU know that you were exposed? You feel that have so much invested in the nonsensical views you promote that you can't abandon them. What precisely have you invested?
 
Gravy said:
Everyone's off ignore now.
Click to expand...

Even me? If that's true, I will replace my signature and pledge to maintain a spirit of respect and civilty during all discussions. I will not even berate you over the fact that one of your esteemed starters is nothing but a uncivilized brute, unusually cruel to animals, beautiful birds, no less.
 
Gravy said:
He verified this when I asked him again by PM last night. He's afraid that our "agenda" is to make him look foolish. No, that would simply be the unavoidable result of his appearance on camera, and would happen even if he were given 30 minutes to make his case without interruption. I support this claim by reference to all of his posts here.
Click to expand...


This is the new approach of the liars who know that they will be exposed. They pretend that I'm so terrible that they dare not expose the hothouse flowers of their "truth" to my icy glare. As I wrote yesterday, I'd cheerfully appear opposite ten fantasists on a show hosted by Alex Jones. Frauds and fools can't make me look bad by comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom