29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

[Newtons Bit]

The silence speaks loudly. When there is no rebuttal, you-all refuse to respond and acknowledge the obvious reality.

The claim by NIST that the north-south girder to column connections on columns in Group 7 were damaged without damage to the beam to column/girder connections that had to transmit the lateral fores is absurd.

The claim that this happened on the 13th floor and not the 8th and 9th floors where the damage was much greater is also absurd.

I thought it was pretty obvious that one of your quotes was talking about fire damage, and the other about debris damage...

 

[triforcharity]

No Chris, I just don't have the patience to deal with your absolute stupidity. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. I can't imagine what your life must be like liveing in fear of everything.

The reason I have not responded to you, is because its futile. I'm done with you. I proved (Many others did too) that your conclusion is flawed. Its like trying to explain cardio-vascular surgery to a molehill. It is unable to learn.

I'm done with you for now. Untill you can learn what is being said, I am not replying anymore.

 

[Christopher7]

I thought it was pretty obvious that one of your quotes was talking about fire damage, and the other about debris damage...

As usual you hand waved the facts without addressing them directly.
You did not respond to the fact that the lateral force to column 63 had to be transmitted thru the beam to girder connection on the south side of column 63. This connection would be more damaged than the stronger connection on the north side of column 63.
and:
There was no fire on floors 10-14 in that region so the NIST claim that "fires gave rise to further displacements" is fraudulent.

 

[tfk]

The silence speaks loudly. When there is no rebuttal, you-all refuse to respond and acknowledge the obvious reality.

.

Perhaps the comforting silence is because you've out-foxed, out-thunk and out-debated everyone with whom you've crossed swords.

Yeah, Chris. I guess that's one possibility...

Tom

 

[Christopher7]

No Chris, I just don't have the patience to deal with your absolute stupidity. And I mean that in the nicest way possible. I can't imagine what your life must be like liveing in fear of everything.

The reason I have not responded to you, is because its futile. I'm done with you. I proved (Many others did too) that your conclusion is flawed. Its like trying to explain cardio-vascular surgery to a molehill. It is unable to learn.

I'm done with you for now. Untill you can learn what is being said, I am not replying anymore.

You presented valuable info in the form of 9-1A but now you have ignored the rebuttal arguments and attacked the arguer. Rule 12 is selectively enforced allowing you to do this.

Address the facts directly and keep your opinions about me to yourself.

The connection on the south side of column 63 could not transmit enough energy thru the column to damage the stronger connection on the north side without being itself more damaged.

 

[Christopher7]

.

Perhaps the comforting silence is because you've out-foxed, out-thunk and out-debated everyone with whom you've crossed swords.

Yeah, Chris. I guess that's one possibility...

Tom

But not the correct one.

 

[triforcharity]

You presented valuable info in the form of 9-1A but now you have ignored the rebuttal arguments and attacked the arguer. Rule 12 is selectively enforced allowing you to do this.

Address the facts directly and keep your opinions about me to yourself.

The connection on the south side of column 63 could not transmit enough energy thru the column to damage the stronger connection on the north side without being itself more damaged.

And whats your logic in that?? Can you prove which type of connection each were?? Can you prove that the column WASN'T more damaged??

 

[jhunter1163]

Your argument is rejected.

 

[triforcharity]

Nice looking dog.....

BACK ON TOPIC!!!

 

[alienentity]

Your argument is rejected.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=81&pictureid=1293[/qimg]

I don't have a problem with Woofers. It's the Twoofers that drive me around the bend.

 

[tfk]

.

Perhaps the comforting silence is because you've out-foxed, out-thunk and out-debated everyone with whom you've crossed swords.

Yeah, Chris. I guess that's one possibility...

Tom

But not the correct one.

Chris, I could not possibly agree with you more.

Tom

PS. Do you bother to read? Or is "disagree" just a knee-jerk reflex?

 

[triforcharity]

.

Perhaps the comforting silence is because you've out-foxed, out-thunk and out-debated everyone with whom you've crossed swords.

Yeah, chris. I guess that's one possibility...

Tom

but not the correct one.

stundied!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Newtons Bit]

As usual you hand waved the facts without addressing them directly.
You did not respond to the fact that the lateral force to column 63 had to be transmitted thru the beam to girder connection on the south side of column 63. This connection would be more damaged than the stronger connection on the north side of column 63.
and:
There was no fire on floors 10-14 in that region so the NIST claim that "fires gave rise to further displacements" is fraudulent.

Actually, the deck itself can transmit a very large force. A composite floor deck attached to floor beams with headed anchor studs can resist upwards of 5000 pounds per foot.

A fairly loose connection from the column to the diaphragm might be able to brace the column, and the horizontal pull-in forces from the collapsed floor section to the east may very well be able to destroy this connection. As I said in my very first response to this question, what is the drift at this column?

 

[Christopher7]

And whats your logic in that?? Can you prove which type of connection each were?? Can you prove that the column WASN'T more damaged??

You did not read my posts carefully. I provided the relevant quotes about the beam and girder sizes. NIST said the girder to column connections were damaged. They did not say the column was damaged.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually, the deck itself can transmit a very large force. A composite floor deck attached to floor beams with headed anchor studs can resist upwards of 5000 pounds per foot.

Most of the force was downward. Any lateral force was distributed to everything thru the slab and the floor beams. The south row of core columns would absorb the force first and the damage would be greater on the south side.

A fairly loose connection from the column to the diaphragm

The 5th and 7th floors had a diaphragms, floor 13 did not.

might be able to brace the column, and the horizontal pull-in forces from the collapsed floor section to the east may very well be able to destroy this connection. As I said in my very first response to this question, what is the drift at this column?

The column could not drift independently. It was surrounded by the floor slab and framing. Any drift would involve the entire region to the north wall.

You ignored the fact that the damage was much more extensive on the 8th and 9th floors yet the "damaged" girder to column connections supposedly occurred only on the 13th floor.

 

[triforcharity]

EXACTLY, THE GIRDER CONNECTIONS!!! WHAT TYPE WERE THEY???? There are a few different, some stronger than others.

Prove your statement "The connection on the south side of column 63 could not transmit enough energy thru the column to damage the stronger connection on the north side without being itself more damaged. "

Can you prove this??

 

[dropzone]

tri, I've been here about as long as you. Though I am a noted idiot and you are not, how do you keep up the fight? Battlefield Britain, IIRC, demonstrated that a guy in good shape but wearing full armor was only good for a few minutes before needing to be spelled out.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Most of the force was downward. Any lateral force was distributed to everything thru the slab and the floor beams. The south row of core columns would absorb the force first and the damage would be greater on the south side.

The 5th and 7th floors had a diaphragms, floor 13 did not.

The column could not drift independently. It was surrounded by the floor slab and framing. Any drift would involve the entire region to the north wall.

You ignored the fact that the damage was much more extensive on the 8th and 9th floors yet the "damaged" girder to column connections supposedly occurred only on the 13th floor.

Oi. This is the problem with talking with someone who is rather uneducated in the matter.

I'd have to draw a picture to explain this, but I frankly don't care enough. Look at the pictures of the collapse progression. Notice how far in the western exterior columns get pulled in. The interior columns are moving too.

This horizontal movement is called drift. It will damage floor connections. To what end, I don't know. NIST didn't explain it in detail. Not that it really matters.

 

[Christopher7]

EXACTLY, THE GIRDER CONNECTIONS!!! WHAT TYPE WERE THEY???? There are a few different, some stronger than others.

Good question. I'll do some research on that.

 

[Christopher7]

Look at the pictures of the collapse progression. Notice how far in the western exterior columns get pulled in. The interior columns are moving too.

This horizontal movement is called drift. It will damage floor connections. To what end, I don't know. NIST didn't explain it in detail. Not that it really matters.

The drift you are referring to happened after the columns buckled, not when the debris impacted. Slabs don't compress and columns 59, 60, 62 or 63 could not move independently of the rest of the floor and damage the girder-to-column connections around columns 59 and 62.

You still haven't addressed the problem of these girder to column failures occurring on floor 13 but not floors 8 and 9 where the damage was much greater.