Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Grizzly Bear]

The engineers that designed the building also designed in the fire protection to stop this problem.

The buffoon is the one that ignores that fact.

What was the state of the fire protection all day for building 7?

The fire protection is aimed at staving off temperature increases that would result in weakening of the steel. The thermal expansion issue is typically designed into the overall construction since not getting it right can cause big problems in even ordinary situations anyway. Maybe I haven't been in my field long enough but I haven't heard of any situation where it's specifically taken into account with fire protection a well. I would consider any extreme length changes due to temperature to be bad for the building... even in Meridian tower it was still severe enough to generate large cracks in some of the concrete masonry

 

[Animal]

A search of JREF finds BasqueArch making the same point in Jun 2012. TS ignores it and argues about something else BA said ....

May 2012 tfk had made the same point. TS demands figures showing how the girder could manage that without buckling before the column did. (I think he ignored elastic buckling of the column, but no engineer me)

etc etc etc etc etc

very late edit :

TS will hammer the same points until he gets a 'new investigation'
He will never get a new investigation.
He will, therefore, continue to hammer the same points until the cows come home.
The cows will never come home. They're just fine where they are. They need no 'home'.

I know it has been brought up before.....as has every other "issue" raised by troofers. The typical pattern now will be for the troofers to slink away / move to another topic, only to return months later making the same claim as if it is new.

 

[LSSBB]

I know it has been brought up before.....as has every other "issue" raised by troofers. The typical pattern now will be for the troofers to slink away / move to another topic, only to return months later making the same claim as if it is new.

Finge reset.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What do you expect from someone that can only think linearly.

Can you explain what non-linear behavior you think would cause the bolts of the beam connections to girder A2001 to break?

I am interested in hearing what you seem to believe I am missing when I make the statement that "there was no reaction force capable of breaking those bolts on those connections if there were no shear studs on the girder".

 

[jaydeehess]

Well.....

Nothing for it but for AE911T to call upon the thousands of professionals in their number to research all the parameters and variables required and to carry out a fully inclusive finite element analysis.

 

[gerrycan]

Well.....

Nothing for it but for AE911T to call upon the thousands of professionals in their number to research all the parameters and variables required and to carry out a fully inclusive finite element analysis.

And would you accept that analysis if it were released without disclosure of the data inputs, the same way that you accept this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkylMIuH-g

 

[Spanx]

Gerry and Tony

You are so boring.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Gerry and Tony

You are so boring.

Only because those of you who still want to believe what the NIST WTC 7 report claims initiated the collapse of the building can no longer defend it.

Here is what the defense of the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation by its apologists here has been reduced to.

1. The girder rolled off the seat once the web was past the seat. This would negate the effect of the stiffeners, since it does not require flange failure. However, it does require that the beam connections to the girder be broken, but there is no reaction force capable of breaking the six bolts of each beam connection at the girder side with no shear studs on the girder.

2. The reaction force to break the bolts is somehow made to occur due to one beam being heated while its adjacent beams are not. This has no plausibility as the heating of the beams would generally be occurring due to convection in the area and the expanding beam (without shear studs on it) would buckle long before it could push hard enough to shear the connection bolts of an adjacent beam which would then be in tension.

3. To overcome the reality that if all of the bolts on the beam connections broke, and the beam fell onto the upper side of the girder's bottom flange, requiring a longer than possible push to get the web past the seat so gravity could cause it to fall (7.00" now when only 5.5" is possible), it is surmised that one of the bolts would remain intact.

Of course, the above scenarios are preposterous, but are what have been put forward by those here who still want to believe the NIST WTC 7 report's collapse initiation hypothesis has plausibility.

It is a shame you are bored Spanx, but maybe if you supported something that comported with reality you would have a little more reason to be engaged.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Gerry and Tony

You are so boring.

They're on a mission from God.

 

[GlennB]

It is a shame you are bored Spanx, but maybe if you supported something that comported with reality you would have a little more reason to be engaged.

Spanx, are you listening?

Start comporting with reality, dude. Accept that every column over 8 entire floors was simultaneously demolished by esoteric materials to create the free-fall period. For no good reason.

Comport!

 

[Animal]

Only because those of you who still want to believe what the NIST WTC 7 report claims initiated the collapse of the building can no longer defend it.

Here is what the defense of the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation by its apologists here has been reduced to.

1. The girder rolled off the seat once the web was past the seat. This would negate the effect of the stiffeners, since it does not require flange failure. However, it does require that the beam connections to the girder be broken, but there is no reaction force capable of breaking the six bolts of each beam connection at the girder side with no shear studs on the girder.

2. The reaction force to break the bolts is somehow made to occur due to one beam being heated while its adjacent beams are not. This has no plausibility as the heating of the beams would generally be occurring due to convection in the area and the expanding beam (without shear studs on it) would buckle long before it could push hard enough to shear the connection bolts of an adjacent beam which would then be in tension.

3. To overcome the reality that if all of the bolts on the beam connections broke, and the beam fell onto the upper side of the girder's bottom flange, requiring a longer than possible push to get the web past the seat so gravity could cause it to fall (7.00" now when only 5.5" is possible), it is surmised that one of the bolts would remain intact.

Of course, the above scenarios are preposterous, but are what have been put forward by those here who still want to believe the NIST WTC 7 report's collapse initiation hypothesis has plausibility.

It is a shame you are bored Spanx, but maybe if you supported something that comported with reality you would have a little more reason to be engaged.

Straw man claims noted. Nonsense claims like that may fly with the "below the bell curve crowd" known as troofers, but not here.

Also noted is your failure to address the previously posted parts of the NCSTAR report that shows your linear thinking to be fatally flawed.

 

[Animal]

They're on a mission from God Dick Gage's vacation fund.

FTFY

 

[NoahFence]

snip irrelevant baloney

Here is what the defense of the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation by its apologists here has been reduced to.


It is a shame you are bored Spanx, but maybe if you supported something that comported with reality you would have a little more reason to be engaged.

Reality? You have the gall to invoke "reality" in your post?

How does WTC 7 fit into the rest of the day's events? What is your purpose? Fill in the blanks and MAYBE someone besides people on medication will take you truthers seriously.

If WTC 7 was a controlled demo, then it would HAVE to be part of a bigger event. Tell us that event.

Unless....

Are you seriously implying that the Pentagon and Shanksville were simple coincidences?

 

[tsig]

Without shear studs beams K3004, C3004, B3004, and A3004 would buckle well before any bolts break on their connections to girder A2001. So if one of them was expanding while the others weren't it would just buckle with no bolts breaking on any of the other beams.

The reality is that there is no reaction force capable of breaking the bolts or welds of the beam connections on the east side of girder A2001.

Nothing could break the unbreakable bolts?



To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go

Well truthers quest is rather quixotic.

 

[jaydeehess]

And would you accept that analysis if it were released without disclosure of the data inputs, the same way that you accept this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkylMIuH-g

I only have a second right now so did not watch,, but, if its what I think it is, then at least you'd then have a valid reason for asking for that data from NIST and for an independant review of both FEAs.

That said, would YOU accept it if this sooper-FEA then illustrated a girder walk off?

 

[jaydeehess]

Only because those of you who still want to believe what the NIST WTC 7 report claims initiated the collapse of the building can no longer defend it.

Here is what the defense of the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation by its apologists here has been reduced to.

1. The girder rolled off the seat once the web was past the seat. This would negate the effect of the stiffeners, since it does not require flange failure. However, it does require that the beam connections to the girder be broken, but there is no reaction force capable of breaking the six bolts of each beam connection at the girder side with no shear studs on the girder.

2. The reaction force to break the bolts is somehow made to occur due to one beam being heated while its adjacent beams are not. This has no plausibility as the heating of the beams would generally be occurring due to convection in the area and the expanding beam (without shear studs on it) would buckle long before it could push hard enough to shear the connection bolts of an adjacent beam which would then be in tension.

3. To overcome the reality that if all of the bolts on the beam connections broke, and the beam fell onto the upper side of the girder's bottom flange, requiring a longer than possible push to get the web past the seat so gravity could cause it to fall (7.00" now when only 5.5" is possible), it is surmised that one of the bolts would remain intact.

Of course, the above scenarios are preposterous, but are what have been put forward by those here who still want to believe the NIST WTC 7 report's collapse initiation hypothesis has plausibility.

It is a shame you are bored Spanx, but maybe if you supported something that comported with reality you would have a little more reason to be engaged.

I reiterate...

Well.....

Nothing for it but for AE911T to call upon the thousands of professionals in their number to research all the parameters and variables required and to carry out a fully inclusive finite element analysis.

Its that or continue to spin wheels on the internet.

 

[Animal]

I reiterate...


Its that or continue to spin wheels get laughed at on the internet.

FTFY

 

[JayUtah]

Only because those of you who still want to believe what the NIST WTC 7 report claims initiated the collapse of the building can no longer defend it.

Nonsense. You two have been reduced to repeating the same debunked mantras over and over again. That basic metastable state is what characterizes defeat among proponents who nevertheless refuse to give up.

May I remind you that those of us who "still want to believe" the findings regarding WTC 7 have on our side the overwhelmingly vast majority of the relevant licensed professionals. After a certain number of years of trying, conscientious professionals abandon their minority claims that don't get traction and recognize that the prevailing judgment of the field has gone in a different direction. Die-hard crusaders get written off as ideologues who lack sufficient grounding.

The claim that your critics can "no longer defend" their objections to your claims is diluted substantially by your practice of presenting your claims only to what you assume must be laymen. You are attempting to argue a claim in a highly specialized, licensed field. Yet for some reason you have eschewed the organs of that field in which ideas are routinely tested for rigor -- even controversial ones. You have avoided presenting your ideas to your peers in the customary way. The impression this leaves is that you avoid doing so because you fear getting soundly spanked.

 

[DGM]

The impression this leaves is that you avoid doing so because you fear getting soundly spanked.

That and the thunderous laughter when these professional engineers find out they can't say what did happen, only they need a "new investigation" to find out.

 

[gerrycan]

Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
They're on a mission from God Dick Gage's vacation fund.

FTFY

Now that is not just a trivial allegation to make in a public forum. It is one that I am taking very seriously. I can only speak for myself here, but I won't just be letting that one go. Disgraceful.