Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[NoahFence]

Were you there at the time the building came down? If not, how can you be certain there was no noise?

I seem to remember a paramedic who was a witness to the collapse of WTC 7 saying "there was a large sound like a clap of thunder and then the bottom of the building caved in and it started coming down". I think that alone refutes your postulated "no noise" scenario.

Seriously?

Man. Cognitive Dissonance is a funny thing.

It would have to be so loud as to be completely unmistakable even to laypeople. But you know this. You also know that a terrorist plot is the only thing that took down WTC 7, and that WTC 7 was ancillary damage, just like WTC's 3, 5 and 6 and a church, and hundreds of vehicles strewn all over the area.

You know fires did it.
You know explosives did NOT do it.

What's with this retarded game of yours?

 

[NoahFence]

The fact that he mistakenly said "these 12", instead of "these 24", does not affect his point and the connotation was clear.

I especially love how some dumbass making a clear mistake doesn't affect his point, but if anyone from NIST makes an equal mistake, or omission, it's a plot.

Could you at least read what you write before hitting "post"?

 

[DGM]

There is a challenge right here in front of you.

Are you saying that even after the revelations of the structural feature omissions you still somehow think the girder between columns 44 and 79 under the 13th floor could have come off its seat due to thermal expansion as claimed by NIST?

Why challenge laymen?

Your presenting this to the wrong crowd. Why do you (AE) not speak at engineering conventions and schools? Are churches and local clubs a better place to present an engineering argument?

Maybe it's time to tell the Europeans, maybe they can take it to the right groups.

 

[LSSBB]

Did you ever watch the full 22 minute interview of Danny Jowenko about WTC 7? When shown a plan view which identified where all of the columns were situated, he explained how it could be easily brought down and said only the core columns needed to have work done on them, not the exterior columns.

One column failure could not produce a progressive collapse leading to the symmetric free fall of the exterior that we see on video.

In addition, as you see with the fact that the girder between columns 44 and 79 cannot fall off its seat, NIST can't even explain the one column failure with their initiation scenario. Their story is what has fallen and is broken.

Where was there sustained free fall? A period of definitive sustained free fall has not been shown. Stop making up "facts" that aren't facts.

 

[Animal]

The point here is that the NIST model did not demonstrate a plausible mechanism for collapse initiation, as it needed to omit pertinent structural features to do that. These omissions were much more than simplifying assumptions as they would materially affect the outcome. The rules for simplification are to only leave out those details which would not have any significant effect on the analysis. They do not allow for omissions of items that would change the outcome if not included.

A flat out lie, as has been pointed out numerous times.
The "simplification" is by troofers and their "pristine building" beliefs.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Were you there at the time the building came down? If not, how can you be certain there was no noise?

What was lacking was the wholloping great racket that comes from the initiating explosives just prior to collapse, the missing explosives that gave rise for the magical nano-therm*te to do what the missing explosives would have otherwise. And the video exists of the building coming down, the noise being analogous to a line of train cars having the slack pulled out. Just to clarify, this is not a suggestion that WTC7 was constructed with an in-built line of train cars; just that that's the simile I chose to use.

I seem to remember a paramedic who was a witness to the collapse of WTC 7 saying "there was a large sound like a clap of thunder and then the bottom of the building caved in and it started coming down". I think that alone refutes your postulated "no noise" scenario.

The desperate truther tap dance, picking and choosing what/whom to quote in 'support' of their pet theory and rabid avoidance of all else that clearly disproves the same would be funny if it weren't so sad. Near 13 years and this self-professed group of truth seekers haven't managed to put together and challenge a cohesive theory of their own, relying on a constant, in-built 'somthin' just ain't right' refrain ad nauseum.

Either walk the talk and use the vast array of professionals who're claimed to be in your corner to approach their peers with professional-quality support to the truther 'theory' or STFU

Fitz

 

[LSSBB]

Define "as claimed by NIST". You seem to be clinging to this strawman that says that the building had to fail exactly as the NIST model demonstrated. What the NIST model did was demonstrate that the mechanism was plausible by constraining certain variables. I keep repeating this in every thread where we discuss computer simulations: Simplifying assumptions have to be made on some level. It is impossible to exactly simulate reality.

This point has been made several times, and they still keep coming back to the "missing inch" or stiffeners - as if they want to say "look, the building wouldn't collapse, because this girder would be hanging on by it's fingernails". Besides just failing to understand a model is an abstraction, illustrating vulnerabilities that show how the building could collapse, they neglect the reality: That the internal state is unknown and the final positions and lengths of all members are not known to a T, and all we have are probability curves. They are desperately trying to collapse a probability waveform that cannot be collapsed, because it will never be observed.

 

[jaydeehess]

I see that Jowenko basically agrees with NIST.
In the NIST scenario the core columns suffer a progressive east-west failure . this results in the kids of the major column support for the cantilever trusses over the old ConEd building on their south end. That results in those trusses and all other columns under them, to move/tilt to the north. As Tony says above, a tilted column offers very minimal support, in fact if it breaks its connection to the foundation and is allowed freedom to kick out then it offers basically no load carrying ability.

AE911T getting closer to NIST every year....

 

[tsig]

Were you there at the time the building came down? If not, how can you be certain there was no noise?

I seem to remember a paramedic who was a witness to the collapse of WTC 7 saying "there was a large sound like a clap of thunder and then the bottom of the building caved in and it started coming down". I think that alone refutes your postulated "no noise" scenario.

Stealing lines from Ken Ham?

 

[DGM]

AE911T getting closer to NIST every year....

They only believe Jowenko was right 33% of the time. What's a couple more percentage points.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I especially love how some dumbass making a clear mistake doesn't affect his point, but if anyone from NIST makes an equal mistake, or omission, it's a plot.

Could you at least read what you write before hitting "post"?

It is beyond comprehension how you can possibly equate Danny Jowenko's mistake saying "these 12", when he obviously meant the entire core of 24 columns referring to it as "the heart", with the critical structural feature omissions which changed the outcome in the NIST WTC 7 analysis and also wasn't mentioned in the report.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Where was there sustained free fall? A period of definitive sustained free fall has not been shown. Stop making up "facts" that aren't facts.

There was at least 2.25 seconds of full free fall that has not yet been explained.

However, these other subjects are a distraction and the discussion is about the problem NIST apologists have in defending the NIST collapse initiation hypothesis.

I don't recall you saying anything about that. Do you have any thoughts about it?

 

[carlitos]

Tony, please. Enjoy the day off. Don't waste your time here, or on other 9/11 truth pursuits. Take a walk or something.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A flat out lie, as has been pointed out numerous times.
The "simplification" is by troofers and their "pristine building" beliefs.

You and your fellow NIST apologists can't show how the girder could fall off its seats no matter how much heating occurred, so it isn't a pristine condition we are discussing here in any way.

 

[JayUtah]

You and your fellow NIST apologists can't show how the girder could fall off its seats no matter how much heating occurred, so it isn't a pristine condition we are discussing here in any way.

"NIST apologist" is an overly political characterization. Disputing your claims is not necessarily the same as defending someone else.

Again you're focusing on one small detail within a much larger context that everyone except for you acknowledges is plagued by factors we simply can't know. That uncertainty is endemic to forensic engineering.

The inescapable fact is that you cannot and will not present your findings formally to other forensic engineers for comment or correction. You cannot garner even a slight fraction of support for your claims among the relevant community. This is how other professionals, rational laymen -- basically everyone but the most politically motivated audience -- come to realize that the pseudo-engineering discussion you're presenting is probably not at the core of your beliefs.

 

[NoahFence]

It is beyond comprehension how you can possibly equate Danny Jowenko's mistake saying "these 12", when he obviously meant the entire core of 24 columns referring to it as "the heart", with the critical structural feature omissions which changed the outcome in the NIST WTC 7 analysis and also wasn't mentioned in the report.

The highlighted didn't actually happen.

It's. In. Your. Head.

And only there.

 

[NoahFence]

There was at least 2.25 seconds of full free fall that has not yet been explained.

However, these other subjects are a distraction and the discussion is about the problem NIST apologists have in defending the NIST collapse initiation hypothesis.

I don't recall you saying anything about that. Do you have any thoughts about it?

The only distraction I see is your constant badgering of the most laughable minutiae you can find, distracting you from the big picture of 9/11.

And you know it. You refuse to budge from that one specific area. Of all the things you can investigate about 9/11 you pick your marching orders are to only talk about girders and walk-offs.

Why?

 

[LSSBB]

There was at least 2.25 seconds of full free fall that has not yet been explained.

However, these other subjects are a distraction and the discussion is about the problem NIST apologists have in defending the NIST collapse initiation hypothesis.

I don't recall you saying anything about that. Do you have any thoughts about it?

No, there is no support that it was sustained. All measurements show the acceleration of the exterior passing through g and moving higher, with finer resolutions showing it bouncing all around g. That is NOT free fall. That is acceleration in the vicinity thereof - and collapse dynamics fully accounts for it.

You cannot prove the building was freely falling, and your "symmetrical" claim is also meaningless - the building was moment framed, of course it keeps it's shape in a collapse. If it were CD, it might not even be symmetrical - many of the ones I have seen show one end collapsing before the other! Face it: you don't know what the building's state is inside, all the external aspects are in line with collapse around column 79 and then a cascade out to the exterior, which looks like it was yanked down from within. No explosive characteristic noises, no flash and bang. You have NOTHING, Tony. NOTHING. Go back to square one. Create a simulation and a case. If you can't, GIVE IT UP.

 

[DGM]

You and your fellow NIST apologists can't show how the girder could fall off its seats no matter how much heating occurred, so it isn't a pristine condition we are discussing here in any way.

Funny how you harp on inches when it's be known for years what heat will do to steel:
http://www.nationalbridge.com/index.htm

[/url]

Do you think the same effects could come into play in a building left to burn?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Funny how you harp on inches when it's be known for years what heat will do to steel:
http://www.nationalbridge.com/index.htm

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/17074512e6089deda7.jpg[/qimg][/url][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/17074512e60ac059a6.jpg[/qimg]

Do you think the same effects could come into play in a building left to burn?

Extrapolating heat deforming of members into collapsing is not legitimate. This shows a certain level of knowledge is missing with your assessment. This is unfortunately true of many here who simply think fire would be a cause without even being able to show a precedent.