DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[uk_dave]

and why exactly do you belive it is easier to create a non symetrical CD ?

ETA : Nevermind


Just out of idle curiousity DC, what does "oc" mean in your posts (iI know it's not in the above one, but it does appear often)

 

[DC]

oc = of course

 

[DavidJames]

oc = of course

Sorry DC, a belated congratulations on your achieving 2000 posts. Quite an achievement. Over 2000 posts in less then two months. Do you know that as I write this you are:

Number 1 in number of posts in the last 24 hours
Number 1 in number of posts in the last 7 days.
Number 1 in number of posts this month, but...
Number 2 in number of posts in the past 28 days - it's always good to have a goal to strive for.

You've managed to average almost 38 posts a day, each day since you joined JREF. you must be so proud.

Maybe you can point me to one of the over 2000 posts which provides genuine evidence for your belief in any of the 9/11 building collapses being a CD?

Thanks

 

[DC]

and about Evidence, i very early posted that i have no evidence, just a few indications.
nor do i expect to find any.
even if i could proof Collapse arrest with LS Dyna, im sure it would not be seen as evidence for anything.

 

[Corsair 115]

you know pretty well what is ment.

No, I don't, because I can't read your mind. What you consider an evenly spread fire I might consider to be more of an unevenly spread fire. There is no way we can reconcile our subjective interpretations of what constitutes evenly versus unevenly unless we turn them into objective interpretations which are clearly defined.

So, again, what criteria are you using to judge whether a fire is evenly or unevenly spread?

 

[lapman]

but you do like for CD experts it does not mather which column they demolish, also the time when the do it is not important.
it will result in a straight down collapse.

Somewhat correct:

If this structure had fully collapsed, it would come as straight down as WTC 7 did and would have been due to an asymmetrical failure (this time due to explosives) of columns. They had obviously planned for the structure to topple. However, the undamaged columns could not support the added load, so they all failed at once and the building came straight down. So your "symmetrical indication" is baseless.

 

[DC]

No, I don't, because I can't read your mind. What you consider an evenly spread fire I might consider to be more of an unevenly spread fire. There is no way we can reconcile our subjective interpretations of what constitutes evenly versus unevenly unless we turn them into objective interpretations which are clearly defined.

So, again, what criteria are you using to judge whether a fire is evenly or unevenly spread?

i would say a uncontrolled fire, will never spread symmetrically.
what my point here is about the time, when will the columns reach theyr pont of failure.
i think it is very very unlikely that a onesided damaged building on fire will collapse that way WTC7 did. sure it can collapse when the fires can burn long enough. but the chance it will be in that way like we saw, is very very low i think.

 

[DC]

Somewhat correct:

If this structure had fully collapsed, it would come as straight down as WTC 7 did and would have been due to an asymmetrical failure (this time due to explosives) of columns. They had obviously planned for the structure to topple. However, the undamaged columns could not support the added load, so they all failed at once and the building came straight down. So your "symmetrical indication" is baseless.

well i would say it was do to the presice timed failure of columns it came straight down.

and about collapse arest. i would have to agree that it is not good comparable. because it almost has no windos an it looks like very massive concrete walls.

but notice the destruction of all the columns almost all on the same time.
that is what i think is very unlikely in a fire initiated collapse.

 

[scissorhands]

but the chance it will be in that way like we saw, is very very low i think.

And on what experience of watching 47 storey buildings collapsing after being structurally damaged and burning for hours do you base this "thought"?
What inside information do you have about the extent of the damage or the extent of the fires?

 

[DC]

And on what experience of watching 47 storey buildings collapsing after being structurally damaged and burning for hours do you base this "thought"?
What inside information do you have about the extent of the damage or the extent of the fires?

i dont say it is a fact, but that how i understood Newtons laws.
but afterall as a twoofer you cant understand Newtons laws anyway, isnt it?

and i dont know more about the fires than NIST publishes.

 

[lapman]

well i would say it was do to the presice timed failure of columns it came straight down.

Then I would say that you are indeed a troll since the video clearly shows only the column on one side of the structure being demolished. If you were here for honest reasons, you would not said that. The berm on the right side of the video is to contain the debris after it fell. This video:
is from the other side. Are you going to continue with your blatantly dishonest "interpretation" of the obvious?

and about collapse arest. i would have to agree that it is not good comparable. because it almost has no windos an it looks like very massive concrete walls.

The dishonesty continues. Those don't even look like "massive concrete walls." The idea of a collapse like this is to used the momentum of the building falling on it's side to create loads that the structure can't handle causing it to break up.

but notice the destruction of all the columns almost all on the same time.

Wrong, wrong and did I mention WRONG. Stop lying.

that is what i think is very unlikely in a fire initiated collapse.

Which is something that you have yet to back up at all.

 

[Pardalis]

no, look at the picture closely, the parts are NOT on top of 6.

The clean up is pretty well under way in that picture.

 

[DC]

Then I would say that you are indeed a troll since the video clearly shows only the column on one side of the structure being demolished. If you were here for honest reasons, you would not said that. The berm on the right side of the video is to contain the debris after it fell. This video:
is from the other side. Are you going to continue with your blatantly dishonest "interpretation" of the obvious?
The dishonesty continues. Those don't even look like "massive concrete walls." The idea of a collapse like this is to used the momentum of the building falling on it's side to create loads that the structure can't handle causing it to break up.
Wrong, wrong and did I mention WRONG. Stop lying.
Which is something that you have yet to back up at all.

<our right, they indeed wanted it to tip over, thats why they destroyed all those columns on one side (like you pointed out) to let it topple over. but it didnt.

and it was not massive concrete walls? not the columns (was also concrete) but the walls above the columns, you know those that survived the CD.

so the CD experts prolly thaught they can topple over a building by damaging one side.

 

[DC]

The clean up is pretty well under way in that picture.

no also on the other picture, it does indeed look like those "facade parts" are on top of the other building, but it only looks like it, cause the other building is damaged so heavy.

 

[Pardalis]

cause the other building is damaged so heavy.

Damaged by what?

 

[DC]

Damaged by what?

by the EWP oc

 

[nicepants]

i think it is very very unlikely that a onesided damaged building on fire will collapse that way WTC7 did.

What expertise or experience is this based on? What other similar building fires did you compare WTC7 to in order to reach this conclusion?

Did you consider the effect of the trusses which transferred vertical loads around the con-edison sub-station beneath the building? How did such considerations affect your conclusions?

 

[lapman]

<our right, they indeed wanted it to tip over, thats why they destroyed all those columns on one side (like you pointed out) to let it topple over. but it didnt.

Care to state why you think it didn't topple?

and it was not massive concrete walls? not the columns (was also concrete) but the walls above the columns, you know those that survived the CD.

I doubt that they were "massive." Either way, the building was most likely designed to transfer the weight evenly throughout the entire building.

so the CD experts prolly thaught they can topple over a building by damaging one side.

Exactly. However they didn't accurately account for the load capacity of the remaining columns, so they failed. The same could be said about WTC 7. Once the columns below the east penthouse failed, the remaining columns could not handle the weight that was transfered to them. They were able to handle it for ~8 seconds and then failed. The remaining roof structures collapsing into the building faster than the facade would indicate that the failure was from the inside columns first.

 

[Pardalis]

no

You keep saying no, do you know when the picture was taken?

 

[DC]

What expertise or experience is this based on? What other similar building fires did you compare WTC7 to in order to reach this conclusion?

Did you consider the effect of the trusses which transferred vertical loads around the con-edison sub-station beneath the building? How did such considerations affect your conclusions?

yes i know about the special design of the building. and it is hard to say how those trusses would have behaved in the collapse.
i hope NIST's final report will tell us.