NIST Releases FINAL WTC 7 Report - Nov. 20

[Heiwa]

However, you know full well that the effects would not be uniformly distributed throughout the structure at any one particular moment in time. Not every structural member is expanding or contracting at the same time or rate at any one given period of time. That is what makes your answer invalid.



WTC 5 would tell you otherwise:

Link 1
Link 2

that your statement is a complete falsehood. However it doesn't require heat to fail a connection, if the connection isn't designed for the type of load it receives, it's at risk of failure.



No it is not... keep your paranoia to yourself please... the level to which you take it is... concerning, to put it lightly...



This is in principal true, however you treat the building as if the structural frame is the same throughout the building, or your model reads too simply. Either revise your model or clarify it, regardless you've demonstrated that your understanding of the construction is limited, too much so for the audience you're writing to.




Connections are the limiting factors in the design allowables. If that's all your contention is based on, I'm afraid you've simply confirmed that failures in these components can, and do occur, and nothing more.




This is very concerning coming from an engineer, and a spectacular display of paranoia. An invention of NIST? You never looked up the Ronin Point plaza or the Murrah Building have you? *Face palm*

Link 1 shows an intact small column with a cut off beam. Connection looks OK. Doesn't look like primary/secondary structure though. Link 2 - two good bolted connections and one apparently ripped apart. Don't prove anything.

My model is not the same everywhere - but the static stresses are uniform. Guess why!

Looking at the WTC7 rubble you find big chunks of structure where the column is chopped off above below a solid connection and where also all four beams/girders attached to the column are chopped off away from the connection. So there are six complete fractures of this junk piece - and the joint is intact. Gravity loads cannot produce such failures!

According NIST its FEA software can not only do structural analysis but it can in addition calculate how all six fractures developed in columns/beams and how this, now loose, piece of junk displaced from where it was initially located in the structure until it was resting on ground. Software keeps track of every piece and plot/image of destruction can be stopped at any time ... and a picture be printed (included in the report). Pictures do not even look real. Hollywood stuff.

Asking for details of this magic software, NIST refuses to reply. Top secret software? No - it does not exist. I know most FEA software and many suppliers. Nobody has ever heard of the NIST software.

Sorry GB, you are fooled by NIST. BTW - me display paranoia? I am just pointing out a serious error in the NIST WTC7 report.

 

[rwguinn]

So, I'm guessing here, in Heiwa's book, a NASCAR driver doesn't need to worry about a tire going flat at 200MPH, since it's only a local failure, and there are 3 other, identical tires on the car?

 

[A W Smith]

Red, Fled, Thread

Redibis. do you accept the fact that the Columbia disaster was caused by the chunk of foam? will you even have the moral courage to admit that?

Redibis? are ya there redibis? Is the above a difficult question?

 

[RedIbis]

Redibis? are ya there redibis? Is the above a difficult question?

If you're going to be obnoxious, check through the thread first. I addressed why the Columbia analogy fails in post #163.

 

[A W Smith]

anders;

You have failed to address the loss of horizontal support for that column across multiple floors. You deny the possibility this occurred simply because you know it will cause a catastrophic failure in even your Tinkertoy model. By oversimplifying the event by just removing a segment of column you fail to address the reserve strength left by catenary action of the remaining girder connections to that column above. You are only fooling yourself.

 

[A W Smith]

If you're going to be obnoxious, check through the thread first. I addressed why the Columbia analogy fails in post #163.

that post is irrelevant and doesn't answer the direct question I am asking you.

Do you accept that the foam caused the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia? yes? or no?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Link 1 shows an intact small column with a cut off beam. Connection looks OK. Doesn't look like primary/secondary structure though. Link 2 - two good bolted connections and one apparently ripped apart. Don't prove anything.

On the contrary, they demonstrate your claim that the connections had so much redundancy that they could never fail due to heat is wrong. Both diagrams are documentation of bolt failures that occurred in an internal area of WTC 5 which suffered structural failure.

Looking at the WTC7 rubble you find big chunks of structure where the column is chopped off above below a solid connection and where also all four beams/girders attached to the column are chopped off away from the connection. So there are six complete fractures of this junk piece - and the joint is intact. Gravity loads cannot produce such failures!

Guess what all 4 buildings; WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7; had in common in each of their own failures? All 4 failed primarily where the bolted connections held structural members in place. In other words, your assertions are incorrect.

 

[Heiwa]

anders;

You have failed to address the loss of horizontal support for that column across multiple floors. You deny the possibility this occurred simply because you know it will cause a catastrophic failure in even your Tinkertoy model. By oversimplifying the event by just removing a segment of column you fail to address the reserve strength left by catenary action of the remaining girder connections to that column above. You are only fooling yourself.

Not at all. Column 79 is simply removed from the model between floors 11/13, i.e. beams/girders at floor 12 are disconnected from it.

What happens? The load in column 79 above floor 13 is carried by the adjacent columns (two inner and two wall) transmitted to them via the the floor beams above.

The adjacent inner colums cannot collapse due to the extra load as they are still supported by floors.

Does the adjacent wall columns suddenly collapse due to support a floor 12 being disconnected? It depends on their cross sections and how loads are transmitted to adjacent wall columns. If they collapse, unlikely, only the structure above them drops down = serious local failure. The corner of WTC7 will drop down. But it cannot affect the remainde of the structure.

 

[dtugg]

Heiwa, I promise that nobody believes a word that you say. Why do you even bother?

 

[Heiwa]

On the contrary, they demonstrate your claim that the connections had so much redundancy that they could never fail due to heat is wrong. Both diagrams are documentation of bolt failures that occurred in an internal area of WTC 5 which suffered structural failure.



Guess what all 4 buildings; WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7; had in common in each of their own failures? All 4 failed primarily where the bolted connections held structural members in place. In other words, your assertions are incorrect.

A connection has no redundacy - it is either intact or not. But a whole structure has redundacy. Parts/connections fail and the whole structure does not collapse.

NIST fails to produce the path of failures from the initial one to the following ones producing "classic total collapse'. NIST suggest that by just removing a part of column 79 the whole structure collapses. There is no evidence for that. I asked NIST to produce a failure path ... and they didn't. They could have at least shown 10 failures produced by removing this part of column 79 ... but they cannot. Why? Because local stress increases are much too low to produce any failures.

Another question is - who would remove an 8 meter part of column 79 in the first place. Fire? Heat? Not possible. So the famous part initiating alleged total classic collapse is still there. It might buckle, kneel, but it is still there ... and as long as it is there, nothing will collapse.

Look at the pictures in the report: 1000's of parts are ripped apart in two locations and fly in all directions (by removing a part of column 79). Cannot happen in reality. It is as simple as that. How can gravity rip apart a solid column in two locations?

 

[A W Smith]

I said multiple floors Anders. multiple floors

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, I promise that nobody believes a word that you say. Why do you even bother?

Thanks! But what's your promise worth? I am just educating you a little about real structural damage analysis. If you want to believe the NIST Hollywood nonsense, be my guest. JREF is a place to discuss science in a friendly and lively way. It is a pity that the moderator does not ban all unfriendly posters.

 

[dtugg]

Thanks! But what's your promise worth? I am just educating you a little about real structural damage analysis. If you want to believe the NIST Hollywood nonsense, be my guest. JREF is a place to discuss science in a friendly and lively way. It is a pity that the moderator does not ban all unfriendly posters.

Let's just say that your analysis are not idiotic. That must mean that we will see it in the news, maybe Al Jazeera (no way you can convince me that they are covering for Bush). When is this going to happen?

 

[T.A.M.]

Thanks! But what's your promise worth? I am just educating you a little about real structural damage analysis. If you want to believe the NIST Hollywood nonsense, be my guest. JREF is a place to discuss science in a friendly and lively way. It is a pity that the moderator does not ban all unfriendly posters.

Well pity no more. If you want that kind of censorship, have I got the country for you.

Tell him Bob:

Well Guy, for Heiwa, who pities that the moderators do not ban unfriendly posters, we have....THE COUNTRY OF NORTH KOREA!

Yes Heiwa, you and a friend can spend AN ETERNITY in NORTH KOREA. There you will not be able to say or write anything without govt permission!

TAM

 

[rwguinn]

Well pity no more. If you want that kind of censorship, have I got the country for you.

Tell him Bob:

Well Guy, for Heiwa, who pities that the moderators do not ban unfriendly posters, we have....THE COUNTRY OF NORTH KOREA!

Yes Heiwa, you and a friend can spend AN ETERNITY in NORTH KOREA. There you will not be able to say or write anything without govt permission!

TAM

Somebody should pass on to Heiwa that we do discuss science in a lively and friendly way. Does he have any to discuss?
It's mythology presented as science where we run into problems

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Thanks! But what's your promise worth? I am just educating you a little about real structural damage analysis. If you want to believe the NIST Hollywood nonsense, be my guest. JREF is a place to discuss science in a friendly and lively way. It is a pity that the moderator does not ban all unfriendly posters.

A guy who has no understanding of engineering what so ever pretending to school real engineers who really know what they are talking about is always worthy of a couple laughing dogs.

 

[Pardalis]

Bump for RedIbis

He's clearly ignoring the fact that he's been caught in some pretty blatant hypocrisy by denying those examples (Titanic, Colmbia, etc.) as valid comparisons. The Columbia slip-up of his is particularly damning.

Just to lay it out for others:

• WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
• Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.

• RedIbis denies that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
• RedIbis accepts that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.

Really, RedIbis... you're cracking.

 

[GStan]

that post is irrelevant and doesn't answer the direct question I am asking you.

Do you accept that the foam caused the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia? yes? or no?

Red, why don't you shock everyone by answering this simple yes or no question with a yes or no. It's a nice easy 2 or 3 keystroke answer that will expend far less energy than typing out a reference back to one or more other posts in which you did not provide an answer to the question.

 

[GStan]

Heiwa, I promise that nobody believes a word that you say. Why do you even bother?

I swear that exact thought, almost word for word, goes through my head every time I see his username.

 

[jaydeehess]

Titanic - still on the ocean floor, and as anyone can see for themselves, the hull is badly buckled.
Hindenburg - I didn't see it mentioned in this thread and what would even be the point of bringing it up?
Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

These analogies all fail. Find me the collapse of a building after thermal expansion caused column failure, and single column failure caused global collapse.

Good luck on that.

If you're going to be obnoxious, check through the thread first. I addressed why the Columbia analogy fails in post #163.

Which I then showed how wrong you were about it not be analogous.

no extreme catastrophic results from foam/ice hits until Columbia
and no extreme catastrophic results strictly from thermal expansion due to fires in long span, large area structures until WTC 7

If your arguement is that "it has never happened before" then Columbia shows you that this is a fallacy to build an arguement upon