Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[Christopher7]

As soon as you can prove anything you just said, there is a discussion. By prove, I mean provide some calculations.

That's a cop-out.
This doesn't require any calculations.

1) The columns are much larger on the lower floors so any horizontal collapse would occur on the upper floors first.

The slabs are the same weight on floors 8 to 45 which is where NIST says* the horizontal collapse began.

A chain will break at it's weakest link and in a steel framed building, the columns get smaller as you go up because they are carrying less weight.


*"[FONT=&quot]Column buckling and floor failures continued to propagate from east to west across the core in the lower floors, until all the interior columns buckled between Floors 9 and 14.[/FONT]"

 

[dtugg]

Dude, the biggest fires were in the lower floors so it makes perfect sense collapse would start there. You have proven your extreme incompetence yet again.

 

[Heiwa]

As soon as you can prove anything you just said, there is a discussion. By prove, I mean provide some calculations.

Good idea. NIST has been asked to provide the calculations ... and cannot find them so they cannot provide them.

I imagine NIST should have done 6 000+ structural analysises at 1/1000th second intervals to prove any collpse - big job - but there is nothing.

 

[dtugg]

Nobody cares what the guy who says vacuum pressure created from burning thermite played a part in destroying WTC7 says.

 

[Macgyver1968]

That's a cop-out.
This doesn't require any calculations.

1) The columns are much larger on the lower floors so any horizontal collapse would occur on the upper floors first.

The slabs are the same weight on all the floors above floor 8 which is where NIST says* the horizontal collapse began.

A chain will break at it's weakest link and in a steel framed building, the columns get smaller as you go up because they are carrying less weight.


*"[FONT=&quot]Column buckling and floor failures continued to propagate from east to west across the core in the lower floors, until all the interior columns buckled between Floors 9 and 14.[/FONT]"

That's a really poor assumption on your part. It would only be true if all other factors are the same (amount of heating, damage to structure, proportional loading, etc) A larger member can fail before a smaller one it if heated up more, or is damaged more, or is holding more mass by proportion (because of damage) than the smaller one.

 

[Christopher7]

That's a really poor assumption on your part. It would only be true if all other factors are the same (amount of heating, damage to structure, proportional loading, etc) A larger member can fail before a smaller one it if heated up more, or is damaged more, or is holding more mass by proportion (because of damage) than the smaller one.

The horizontal collapse was the result of the vertical collapse, not the fires. The fires did not damage or weaken the columns.

 

[dtugg]

The horizontal collapse was the result of the vertical collapse, not the fires. The fires did not damage or weaken the columns.

And where did the vertical collapse start? And can you clarify what you mean by "vertical collapse" and "horizontal collapse."

"Vertical collapse" appears in the NIST report exactly one time. "Horizontal collapse" appears zero. Did you mean to use "progression" instead of "collapse?"

 

[Macgyver1968]

I could use a clarification of what you mean by "horizontal collapse" too.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But no high rise buildings have.

That is irrelevant -- again. The design, materiality, structural framing, and the conditions resulting from damage incurred are all vital to determining performance. Neither yourself nor redibis seem inclined to pay any attention to that, and without doing so you both are arguing from ignorance. The first time in history argument is nothing more than a red herring.

No

Then what should the first time in history argument suggest? You argue that no steel framed structure has ever collapsed due to fire is grounds for believing that 1, 2, & 7 should not have. What significance is the first time in history supposed to indicate in your argument? That steel has a previously undetermined vulnerability in certain designs which needs to be evaluated? Or something else? I'm curious how this red herring is supposed to work...

Watch the WTC 7 Collapse with Debris Impact Damage

So you switched to WTC 7 now? I thought we were still on WTC 1 & 2.

 

[dtugg]

So you switched to WTC 7 now? I thought we were still on WTC 1 & 2.

Yeah, I noticed that too. I can only conclude that he realized he was getting his ass kicked and in a desperate attempt to save face switched the subject. He is not doing any better here, making up terms like "horizontal collapse" and trying to say columns in the upper stories should have failed first because they were smaller even though the collapse started in the lower stories where the fires were.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yeah, I noticed that too. I can only conclude that he realized he was getting his ass kicked and in a desperate attempt to save face switched the subject. He is not doing any better here, making up terms like "horizontal collapse" and trying to say columns in the upper stories should have failed first because they were smaller even though the collapse started in the lower stories.

I personally don't care if he switches... I'd just wish he made it clear when he made it... He doesn't understand basic design concepts and he continues to demonstrate so..

That's a cop-out.
This doesn't require any calculations.

1) The columns are much larger on the lower floors so any horizontal collapse would occur on the upper floors first.

Column strength is determined by the ratio of its cross-sectional area, and it's unsupported length, and the location of failure in any column is determined by where the column has the most unbraced length. I would suggest like I did earlier for the WTC structural discussion to read the appropriate documentation before making ignorant assumptions:

Column buckling

in a steel framed building, the columns get smaller as you go up because they are carrying less weight.

The only valid statement you have made is quoted above. The failure mechanisms for structural members however, I've commented on above.

 

[BigAl]

That's a cop-out.
This doesn't require any calculations.

1) The columns are much larger on the lower floors so any horizontal collapse would occur on the upper floors first.

The cantilever beam that was the weak spot in WTC7 was around the 5th floor. It was known as a point of theoretical failure even before 9/11/2001.

 

[Ratas]

I imagine NIST should have done 6 000+ structural analysises at 1/1000th second intervals to prove any collpse - big job - but there is nothing.

Could you please explain whats up with the 1/1000th second intervall? its pretty exact statement from you so on what is it based? Also how familiar you are with FDS?

 

[Heiwa]

Could you please explain whats up with the 1/1000th second intervall? its pretty exact statement from you so on what is it based? Also how familiar you are with FDS?

When you do structural damage analysis of a steel structure of many primary and secondary members and their connections, you have to break down the analysis in steps.

You start with the first failure and analyse that. If it causes a second failure you look what can happen then. Every new failure developing in the structure changes the structure and load distribution, i.e. you have to start the analysis again, so to say, with new input.

A fracture in a structural member takes time to grow but the situation before/after fracture can be determined. 1/1000th second interval is a good start.

For such analysises you need a good software to keep track of what's happening. I asked NIST what software they used! No reply, of course. They just made up the whole WTC7 report.

Actually, NIST doesn't have the capability to do a correct structural damage analysis of any kind.

NIST was just given the task without any outside competition. The result was then as expected.

 

[beachnut]

...
This boat don't float!

With Heiwa floating boats can help A&E for more delusion filled discussions; like your post, a delusion.

Here is reality, your post is garbage and even with your help A&E spewing false information and lies will not be earning a Pulitzer Prize for exposing their failure in structural engineering and lack of understanding fire and gravity.

I went through their Slide Show, http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php , and found junk ideas and lies about 911. I can’t find evidence in their slideshow save the fact they are spreading lies about 911. Good luck with your common sense approach, but you can’t even grasp how the WTC fell and parts were ejected by the energy of the fall.
You say parts can’t be ejected and ignore 130 TONS of TNT energy released in the gravity collapse. I don’t know how you can ignore that much energy but you, Gage, and Jones fail because you guys can’t grasp one number or use E=mgh. Physics prove your ideas wrong. E=mgh.


http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php?i=1&hires=1
Everyone should go and download the Presentation or have everyone watch it a few times to see failed professionals push lies about 911.

Failure on the internet is http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

[dtugg]

When you do structural damage analysis of a steel structure of many primary and secondary members and their connections, you have to break down the analysis in steps.

You start with the first failure and analyse that. If it causes a second failure you look what can happen then. Every new failure developing in the structure changes the structure and load distribution, i.e. you have to start the analysis again, so to say, with new input.

A fracture in a structural member takes time to grow but the situation before/after fracture can be determined. 1/1000th second interval is a good start.

For such analysises you need a good software to keep track of what's happening. I asked NIST what software they used! No reply, of course. They just made up the whole WTC7 report.

Actually, NIST doesn't have the capability to do a correct structural damage analysis of any kind.

NIST was just given the task without any outside competition. The result was then as expected.

Heiwa, you have been caught lying red handed. NIST used ANSYS and LS-DYNA. They say this in their report. I know for a fact that you are aware that they used this software because I read your comments to their draft report. Why do you have to lie, liar? Is it OK to lie for The Truth^TM?

 

[beachnut]

The slide show for A&E zero evidence rant starts with

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

—Albert Einstein

They summarize their own plight.
They start with a self-critiquing conclusion, the only slide related to physics due to Einstein.

A much more fitting physics related epitaph for the failed ideas of A&E (the not so truthful group) based on their common sense instead of science, physics and engineering is -

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. Albert Einstein

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php?i=1&hires=1

 

[T.A.M.]

Good idea. NIST has been asked to provide the calculations ... and cannot find them so they cannot provide them.

I imagine NIST should have done 6 000+ structural analysises at 1/1000th second intervals to prove any collpse - big job - but there is nothing.

source where NIST states they cannot "find" their calculations.

such ****ing lies.

TAM

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, you have been caught lying red handed. NIST used ANSYS and LS-DYNA. They say this in their report. I know for a fact that you are aware that they used this software because I read your comments to their draft report. Why do you have to lie, liar? Is it OK to lie for The Truth^TM?

ANSYS and LS-DYNA are just software to do static analysis or simple dynamic analysis of one ... one ... structural model. They cannot do structural damage analysis, i.e. repeated analysises of changing models with modified input due to modifications (failures) in the analysis.

Sorry, dtugg. I never lie. NIST is lying.

Advice: Any evidence that NIST is telling the truth?

 

[Heiwa]

source where NIST states they cannot "find" their calculations.

such ****ing lies.

TAM

Try NIST! They just inform anybody asking that their calculations are not available any longer. Maybe NIST is preparing for Obama asking? Sorry, maybe GWB didn't return them?