Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[JayUtah]

So, no other elements then, just the two stiffener plates?

What do you think "for one" means? Do you think it means I'm limiting my observation to just those?

There are other physical elements of the connection as drawn on the shop drawings that are missing from the report diagram. I'll let you flounder around for a bit, and then I'll tell you what they are.

The reason I mentioned dimensions and tolerances is that you went way off the deep end trying to bait me into confirming your absurd premise that an illustration prepared for a report must have the same rigor as the fabrication drawings from which they were prepared. Without the dimensions etc. the illustration has no engineering rigor whatsoever. Hence the standard to which you are desperately trying to hold that drawing is inappropriate.

 

[JayUtah]

And people trust their lives to your engineering ability? Heaven help them.

And again I covered this in my essay, now pages behind us, which you still cannot bear yourself to read and respond to.

What I think has no bearing on what NIST said in their report.

If anything it should be the other way round. Why is it so important, in your mind, to correct NIST? Why this sudden interest in an otherwise very boring government agency? Why does it matter whether the building fell over to the left or to the right? Let's say the worst of your fears is true and NIST completely and knowingly botched the investigation of WTC 7 from stem to stern.

Toward what end?

See, you can't just divorce accusations of malfeasance and cover-up from some notion of why it's allegedly being done. Granted the existence of a motive doesn't prove the action. The absence of a motive doesn't disprove the action, but it makes it a whole lot harder to infer that it happened. And that's what you're doing -- you see discrepancies in a report and you infer there has to be something bigger going on that mere clerical or procedural errors.

I want to know what you think that bigger thing is. Because it matters in your insinuation of what NIST is alleged to have done.

 

[gerrycan]

What do you think "for one" means? Do you think it means I'm limiting my observation to just those?

No, but the fact that you apparently do not think that the plates would make a difference in an FEA makes me wonder just how competent an engineer you are.

There are other physical elements of the connection as drawn on the shop drawings that are missing from the report diagram. I'll let you flounder around for a bit, and then I'll tell you what they are.

Meaningless bluster. You cannot answer the simple question of whether you would have included the elements in an illustration. It's not me that is floundering here, it's you.

The reason I mentioned dimensions and tolerances is that you went way off the deep end trying to bait me into confirming your absurd premise that an illustration prepared for a report must have the same rigor as the fabrication drawings from which they were prepared.

No. The question is should ALL of the elements have been included in the illustration. Try answering it.

Without the dimensions etc. the illustration has no engineering rigor whatsoever. Hence the standard to which you are desperately trying to hold that drawing is inappropriate.

My first bolding of your text is the strawman that you introduced. My second is your "shot at goal" with it. You're clearly floundering, putting words in my mouth and avoiding questions. You need to bring a shred of intellectual rigor to this debate.

Would you include all the ELEMENTS in an illustration of a column connection such as that at column 79 in WTC7? Not dimensions, not tolerances, but ELEMENTS.

 

[JayUtah]

No, but the fact that you apparently do not think that the plates would make a difference in an FEA makes me wonder just how competent an engineer you are.

First, I never claimed it wouldn't make a difference. Go back and read what I actually wrote.

Second, you can't say "fact" and "apparently" in the same sentence. You're trying to shove words in my mouth; using stronger language to do it won't make it any less dishonest.

Third, agreement with your belief is not the standard by which competence in engineering is judged.

Meaningless bluster.

You can't find the other missing components, can you. Need a hint?

You cannot answer the simple question of whether you would have included the elements in an illustration.

Why is my answer important when you're so eager to answer it for me and shove that answer in my mouth?

The only drawings that have any expectation of comprehensiveness and rigor are those prepared according to legal graphics and notation standards, stamped, and signed by the engineer of record. Any simpler kind of illustrates necessarily omits something of engineering significance. Whether the omissions are acceptable depends on the reasons for which the informal illustration was prepared.

Thus what I would do is immaterial. What the graphic artist did who prepared the drawing for the NIST report, and why, is a matter presumably best explained by him. So go do that.

It's not me that is floundering here, it's you.

Shall we take a vote on that?

No. The question is should ALL of the elements have been included in the illustration. Try answering it.

You're cherry-picking your elements and playing stupid word games trying to get out of this. Your standard for the rigor of the drawing is in error. Deal with it.

 

[gerrycan]

I want to know what you think that bigger thing is. Because it matters in your insinuation of what NIST is alleged to have done.

Allow me to fix the above for you.
I want to know what you think that bigger thing is. Because it will allow me to move the focus of this discussion away from the harsh reality that I am having some trouble defending. I have already stated that I am a highly qualified engineer who does FEAs all the time, and if you don't allow me to move the topic away from this highly focused issue, you might just ask me to put a 53ft beam into my software and heat it to 600C and see what the maximum expansion is, and when I have to come back and type that in I will look rather silly.
There ya go. Should take you a fraction of the time you spend on this thread alone to go and do that. Let me know your result, and if you decide to do the whole connection, remember the stiffener plates.

 

[JayUtah]

Allow me to fix the above for you.

No, don't change my argument into the one you want instead. Deal with the argument I actually made.

 

[gerrycan]

Would you like me to point you to the correct drawings to get the dimensions etc from? I know you don't like looking through drawings, and it would save some of your valuable time.

 

[Animal]

Unless, of course, seat failed in the simulation.

So what do you think happened to make WTC 7 fall down?

<SIGH> Game playing by a troofer. It is no different than the ones that say "they aren't making claims, they are just asking questions"

 

[JayUtah]

Would you like me to point you to the correct drawings to get the dimensions etc from? I know you don't like looking through drawings, and it would save some of your valuable time.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[gerrycan]

<SIGH> Game playing by a troofer. It is no different than the ones that say "they aren't making claims, they are just asking questions"

Yeah, questions like, what is a column side plate called in the wonderful world of animal?

 

[gerrycan]

What does this have to do with anything?

You're the one who says he is an expert in FEA. Take a 53ft beam and heat it to 600C and come back and tell us how much it expands by.
How much would it cost to hire you to do that? Seriously.

 

[JayUtah]

You're the one who says he is an expert in FEA. Take a 53ft beam and heat it to 600C and come back and tell us how much it expands by.
How much would it cost to hire you to do that? Seriously.

I never agreed to conduct any sort of FEA to test your theory or anyone else's. You proposed that as an out-of-the-blue distraction to the question of why you think NIST has done what you accuse them of doing.

I don't think you have any intention of hiring me professionally, nor do I believe you would accept the results of any analysis I would do. You're just distracting from the questions on the table: side plate non-interference with a rotating girder, inappropriate standards of rigor in informal illustrations, motive for NIST's alleged malfeasance.

 

[Animal]

Yeah, questions like, what is a column side plate called in the wonderful world of animal?

Already was covered in post 935......tap dance all you want won't make your claim true.

 

[gerrycan]

First, I never claimed it wouldn't make a difference. Go back and read what I actually wrote.

Why not just say what you think here?

Second, you can't say "fact" and "apparently" in the same sentence.

Apparently, you can.

You're trying to shove words in my mouth; using stronger language to do it won't make it any less dishonest.

See earlier answer re your flow of strawman arguments. You continually put words in my mouth. Not saying you are dishonest or anything, just economical with the truth quite a lot.

Third, agreement with your belief is not the standard by which competence in engineering is judged.

Your inability to answer the straight question of whether you would have included the stiffeners in an illustration speaks volumes. It is incompetent not to have these elements shown, and omitted from an analysis. You apparently cannot even make your mind up - that makes you look kind of incompetently indecisive.

You can't find the other missing components, can you. Need a hint?

Stop being stupid.

Why is my answer important when you're so eager to answer it for me and shove that answer in my mouth?

It's important because it actually gets to the heart of the matter. This is also the reason why you will not or cannot answer it.

The only drawings that have any expectation of comprehensiveness and rigor are those prepared according to legal graphics and notation standards, stamped, and signed by the engineer of record. Any simpler kind of illustrates necessarily omits something of engineering significance. Whether the omissions are acceptable depends on the reasons for which the informal illustration was prepared.

I think I know what you're trying to say there. That these elements were omitted from the illustration, and also from the analysis is something that NIST should have justified. They have not done so.

Thus what I would do is immaterial. What the graphic artist did who prepared the drawing for the NIST report, and why, is a matter presumably best explained by him. So go do that.

Seriously, you want me to go and ask NISTs graphic artist if the stiffener plates should have been left out??? This is an engineering issue and an engineering decision, not an artistic one.

Shall we take a vote on that?

Yawn.

You're cherry-picking your elements and playing stupid word games trying to get out of this. Your standard for the rigor of the drawing is in error. Deal with it.

Where did I say that the illustration had to be exactly the same? Stop being dishonest and making stuff up.
The illustration should have included the stiffener plates, as should the analysis have, because they were there, they existed and were present in the connection. If they were left out, then NIST should have clearly stated their rationale for same.

 

[beachnut]

NIST makes the case that the failure of column 79 on floor 13 apparently caused by a girder walking off its beam seat at column 79 led pretty quickly to the collapse of the entire building leaving nothing standing at all.
,,, ?

Sort of. WTC7 burned all afternoon, it had extensive fire damage. Imagine a building on fire and what happens to the entire structure.

Does a single failure in a compromised building cause the collapse because the rest of the building was damaged.

One Meridian Plaza. (a fire fought, oh man)

Oh noes, the not so new, thermal expansion, the oldest phenomena in the universe, has stuck other buildings; old 911 truth acts like NIST made it up, and here we have failed 911 truth followers unable to grasp reality, as they push the idiotic CD lies.

Sagging of three feet? Would this help a single point failure to cause a global collapse? Is One Meridian Plaza still standing? No. Was One Meridian Plaza's fires fought? Yes
Was WTC7 fires fought No.
911 truth says WTC 7 is a smoking gun for CD and some inside job they can't define. WTC 7 is the smoking gun 911 truth is failure, lies, and nonsense. A movement who fall for the lies of few failed engineers and assorted conspiracy nuts.

While I am stuck here in my mom's basement on the NWO payroll...

... stuck all over the place with a crazy hobby of making my own computers, speakers, and a general mess of things.

... 911 truth followers make a mess of 911, spreading failed lies of CD, silent explosives, and insane/idiotic thermite claims. Where do they hide the overwhelming evidence?

16 plus seconds is not fast for a collapse, and I doubt the initiation was fast; it took hours to start. Wonder how much WTC 7 floors were sagging, from FIRES NOT FOUGHT. Any clues from 911 truth followers? No. Did 911 truth followers do the math? No. 911 truth, no clue, 12 years - my typing practice when not building speakers or baby sitting my children's children.

911 truth, can't do engineering, so they rant about NIST.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sort of. WTC7 burned all afternoon, it had extensive fire damage. Imagine a building on fire and what happens to the entire structure.

Does a single failure in a compromised building cause the collapse because the rest of the building was damaged.

One Meridian Plaza. (a fire fought, oh man)
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1thermalexpansion.jpg[/qimg]
Oh noes, the not so new, thermal expansion, the oldest phenomena in the universe, has stuck other buildings; old 911 truth acts like NIST made it up, and here we have failed 911 truth followers unable to grasp reality, as they push the idiotic CD lies.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg[/qimg]
Sagging of three feet? Would this help a single point failure to cause a global collapse? Is One Meridian Plaza still standing? No. Was One Meridian Plaza's fires fought? Yes
Was WTC7 fires fought No.
911 truth says WTC 7 is a smoking gun for CD and some inside job they can't define. WTC 7 is the smoking gun 911 truth is failure, lies, and nonsense. A movement who fall for the lies of few failed engineers and assorted conspiracy nuts.

While I am stuck here in my mom's basement on the NWO payroll...

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/DSC_4805.jpg[/qimg]

... stuck all over the place with a crazy hobby of making my own computers, speakers, and a general mess of things.

... 911 truth followers make a mess of 911, spreading failed lies of CD, silent explosives, and insane/idiotic thermite claims. Where do they hide the overwhelming evidence?

16 plus seconds is not fast for a collapse, and I doubt the initiation was fast; it took hours to start. Wonder how much WTC 7 floors were sagging, from FIRES NOT FOUGHT. Any clues from 911 truth followers? No. Did 911 truth followers do the math? No. 911 truth, no clue, 12 years - my typing practice when not building speakers or baby sitting my children's children.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/keynansubwoofer2.jpg[/qimg]

911 truth, can't do engineering, so they rant about NIST.

Beachnut, One Meridian Plaza burned for 19 hours. I live in the Philadelphia area and was here in 1991 when it happened. They couldn't get to the fire for quite some time, so saying the fire was fought is not precise. What actually happened is that the fire finally reached an area where the sprinkler system which was being installed was active.

Essentially One Meridian Plaza burned with its fires unfought for a much longer time than WTC 7. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza

Did One Meridian Plaza collapse to the ground? No, it did not and continued standing for eight more years after, unrepaired and unused, until it was finally taken down in 1999.

 

[NoahFence]

It sounds like you aren't following. I would say you would be able to if you were familiar with the drawings of the structural members and their connections. If you want to participate in the discussion here you should be.

I'm trying to participate, but like good truther you're ignoring the obvious.

I'm not suggesting - I'm flat out telling you how it is.

NOBODY with any ability to do what you're asking is going to do a damn thing until you people force their hand. It's patently obvious that this retarded focus on a specific part of WTC 7 isn't going to do the job.

I'm telling you what WILL do the job. Ignore that, and suffer irrelevance. Make the connection, and the world will take note.

I guarantee it.

..PS - I'm not trying to be a jerk here guy. I'm really not. You people NEED to understand what it takes to get what you want. Otherwise what's the point?

Make the connection. What could you possibly be afraid of?

 

[JayUtah]

Your inability to answer the straight question of whether you would have included the stiffeners in an illustration speaks volumes.

And that volume is entitled How Not To Be Derailed Into Meaningless Quibbles.

Stop being stupid.

No need for name-calling. Just ask for a hint if you need one.

I think I know what you're trying to say there.

Let's see if you can write a single post without trying to put other words in my mouth.

Seriously, you want me to go and ask NISTs graphic artist if the stiffener plates should have been left out?

Yes.

I'm 100 percent serious. If you what to know why the drawing in the report is not as you expect it to be, go ask the person who drew it. Trying to bait others into second-guessing that motive and rationale is foolish.

This is an engineering issue and an engineering decision, not an artistic one.

Asked and answered. I described what is required for a drawing to have engineering significance. You cannot simply invent new standards ad hoc to suit your argument. Anything that does not meet those standards is not an engineering drawing. As such it will have other standards for completeness and correctness. I do not know what those standards may have been for this illustration. If you want to know what process was used to determine how that illustration should appear, why would you not contact the people who produced it?

Yawn.

I'm entirely serious. You seem to have an inflated opinion for how credible your arguments are. I say we collect some empirical data on that. Are you game?

The illustration should have included the stiffener plates...

You've supplied no proof for this statement other than your belief.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Did One Meridian Plaza collapse to the ground? No, it did not and continued standing for eight more years after, unrepaired and unused, until it was finally taken down in 1999.

Which is relevant to WTC 7 how? Only in that it didn't collapse and WTC 7 should have exhibited the same behavior based only on that criteria?

First off, thanks for clarifying what was left out on that (what I did not quote) but...
Making these kinds of comparisons as someone in the architecture and engineering field requires you to understand differences in building construction designs and understand to what extent your comparisons are limited. And "did or did not collapse" doesn't cut it. I should not be having to remind someone who's been in this field several times longer than myself of something this basic. Not only have you been reminded of this in the past, but you still make these kinds of broad comparisons. You may have studied how the fires in that precedent were handled, how the building didn't collapse, but you certainly don't appear to care whether any design differences might have influenced the end results. Especially when you put the impression of being so detail oriented when it concerns the NIST's handling of the report for WTC 7 and what elements of the initiating collapse failure they incorporated.

It's off topic sort of... but it's apparently necessary to state the obvious in lieu of the fact that such a basic thinking process of this field isn't being used properly. And it apparently extends to the arguments you've made about the failure mechanisms discussed in this thread, not just the broad comparisons between the precedents that get invoked so often

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Which is relevant to WTC 7 how? Only in that it didn't collapse and WTC 7 should have exhibited the same behavior based only on that criteria?

First off, thanks for clarifying what was left out on that (what I did not quote) but...
Making these kinds of comparisons as someone in the architecture and engineering field requires you to understand differences in building construction designs and understand to what extent your comparisons are limited. And "did or did not collapse" doesn't cut it. I should not be having to remind someone who's been in this field several times longer than myself of something this basic. Not only have you been reminded of this in the past, but you still make these kinds of broad comparisons. You may have studied how the fires in that precedent were handled, how the building didn't collapse, but you certainly don't appear to care whether any design differences might have influenced the end results. Especially when you put the impression of being so detail oriented when it concerns the NIST's handling of the report for WTC 7 and what elements of the initiating collapse failure they incorporated.

It's off topic sort of... but it's apparently necessary to state the obvious in lieu of the fact that such a basic thinking process of this field isn't being used properly. And it apparently extends to the arguments you've made about the failure mechanisms discussed in this thread, not just the broad comparisons between the precedents that get invoked so often

Beachnut is the one who brought up One Meridian Plaza in a comparison to WTC 7 not me. All I did was point out where he was not being precise.

Of course, I understand that the design may make a difference in how a structure reacts to loads (including fires). I don't think I was implying that One Meridian Plaza's fire performance was a standard, only that it did not make the point that Beachnut was using it for.

WTC 7 had its own unique design and it should be looked at that way. However, if someone does compare another building to it I reserve the right to point it out if they are being inaccurate.