• 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.

Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

Tony Szamboti said:
The northmost beam would not have buckled if the three lateral support beams framing into it the exterior were not omitted from the NIST analysis. So again, the NIST hypothesis is shown to be impossible when the omitted structural features are included in the analysis.
Click to expand...

The northernmost beam expanded 5-7" depending on the temperature stressing the connections and possibly failing them. This needs numbers to prove whether it buckled or not.

It makes no difference. This beam about 4feet away from one end would have had no effect on the remaining 40 feet of buckled, twisted, failed girder.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST structural feature omissions are serious...
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. Keep in mind that many here are not laymen that you can snowball or bully, and are able to reach their own informed conclusions about the suitability of the analysis for the purpose to which it was aimed.

...and show that the report's claims do not withstand scrutiny.
Click to expand...

According to the vast, overwhelming majority of the relevant engineering community, they do.
 
BasqueArch said:
The northernmost beam expanded 5-7" depending on the temperature stressing the connections and possibly failing them. This needs numbers to prove whether it buckled or not.

It makes no difference. This beam about 4feet away from one end would have had no effect on the remaining 40 feet of buckled, twisted, failed girder.
Click to expand...

Girder A2001 would not fail and fall due to lateral torsional buckling as the five beams framing into it would have prevented rotation.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
As long as they were pristine also.

When are you going to release the smoking gun evidence you're holding back?
Click to expand...

Please explain what specific non-pristineness you expect to make a difference.

The NIST WTC 7 report omitted pertinent structural features which would make its initiation hypothesis impossible. The analysis needs to be redone with them included. Let's see what happens.
 
Last edited:
In other words, you might be correct if the structural integrity were in it's as-built condition and not 7 hours into an ongoing event where the integrity of the building as a whole was already compromised to an extent. Any assumptions you make about the impossibility of any kind of failure mechanism must be justified with those factors in mind.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
In other words, you might be correct if the structural integrity were in it's as-built condition and not 7 hours into an ongoing event where the integrity of the building as a whole was already compromised to an extent. Any assumptions you make about the impossibility of any kind of failure mechanism must be justified with those factors in mind.
Click to expand...

It is hard to imagine what specific conditions you think would have caused the failure with the omitted structural features included, since they would have prevented a collapse even with damage.
 
DGM said:
Why? Because it will allow you to continue to argue a moot point?

Give us the evidence you are holding back.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is not a moot point at all. The structural feature omissions are very pertinent as their inclusion would have made the NIST collapse initiation hypothesis impossible.

It sounds like you have no argument.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Girder A2001 would not fail and fall due to lateral torsional buckling as the five beams framing into it would have prevented rotation.
Click to expand...

So we can assume that your proposed new FEA containing the effects of the 'left out' structural elements will also include every other nearby element and the effect on each by the , changing, fire environment. It will be a fully faithful model of the two or three floors involved, correct?

One wonders on the supercomputer time required for this run and if more than one run would be done in order to bracket certain variables such as fire gas temps, air supply, and fire duration in specific areas.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There were six bolts on each fin connection of the beams to the girder. The fin connections were welded to the underside of the girder flange and to its web. The six bolts on each connection were 7/8" dia. ASTM A325 which would not shear at less than 35,000 lbs. The fin welds and bolts would easily resist the small moment applied by the girder's center moving past the edge of the seat.
Click to expand...

A simple shear connection cannot carry any moment without rotation. Your claim is directly contradicted by AISC. From AISC 13th Edition pg. 12-2:



Fixity require flange the beam to be connected to the girder flange. The beam connection lacked this important detail.
 
Newtons Bit said:
A simple shear connection cannot carry any moment without rotation. Your claim is directly contradicted by AISC. From AISC 13th Edition pg. 12-2:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1632953499d77e21ec.png[/qimg]

Fixity require flange the beam to be connected to the girder flange. The beam connection lacked this important detail.
Click to expand...

The welds and bolts of the fin connections will resist moments about the longitudinal axis of the girder.
 
It might be rude to mention this once again, but TS is the dude who once claimed that the 'as built' WTC1+2 were always accelerating at 1g.

My calculations show that, were they still standing, they'd be approaching c by now.

I suppose we argue these cases as some kind of hobby or entertainment, but sometimes it might be wise to consider the record of those we're arguing against.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
What I am saying is not a moot point at all. The structural feature omissions are very pertinent as their inclusion would have made the NIST collapse initiation hypothesis impossible.

It sounds like you have no argument.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you like to type your opinion.

Why are you posting here instead of speaking at engineering universities?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Sounds like you like to type your opinion.

Why are you posting here instead of speaking at engineering collages?
Click to expand...

Man, if only there was a truthy organization that had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past several years then Tony Szamboti could get the funding he needs to run a full-scale analysis of WTC7...
 
Tony Szamboti said:
What I am saying is not a moot point at all. The structural feature omissions are very pertinent as their inclusion would have made the NIST collapse initiation hypothesis impossible.

It sounds like you have no argument.
Click to expand...

Collapse occurred as a result of progression from the failure of col 79, and that having occurred low down in the structure. Evidence exists to back this. Furthermore the only phenomena in evidence that could drive this column failure is fire in the vicinity of column 79.

On the other hand neither you or your organization has supplied any evidence to support another driving effect for the failure of column 79, nor any evidence to support the contention that global collapse could not progress from the loss of column 79.

In fact all you have done is complain about NIST without offering a counter analysis that outlines an alternative.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The welds and bolts of the fin connections will resist moments about the longitudinal axis of the girder.
Click to expand...

You say that, but I just posted a graph from AISC's Design Manual that says the fin connection will not resist moments like you describe. Are you saying that AISC is wrong? Perhaps they're in on the conspiracy too, and they're trying to hide the one thing that would prove the WTC7 wouldn't collapse! :rolleyes:
 
Newtons Bit said:
Man, if only there was a truthy organization that had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past several years then Tony Szamboti could get the funding he needs to run a full-scale analysis of WTC7...
Click to expand...
I'd love to see the response Tony got from Gage when he asked for the funding.

Tony is not making the money here. I think he would get a rude awakining if he asked Gage for actual help in his work.

Personally, I think Tony should ask. I would love for him to CC my email (Tony knows it, as does Gage) on the conversation. I think Tony would not be happy about the response.

Tony: If you want, I'll work with you on this. :)
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
You say that, but I just posted a graph from AISC's Design Manual that says the fin connection will not resist moments like you describe. Are you saying that AISC is wrong? Perhaps they're in on the conspiracy too, and they're trying to hide the one thing that would prove the WTC7 wouldn't collapse! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The bolt pattern is moment resisting about the longitudinal axis of the girder and so are the welds on top and at the side of the fin plate.

Please show otherwise with some calculations if you think that is not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom