Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure
- Thread starter JSanderO
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse wtc7
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
ozeco41
Philosopher
I haven't seen any link to the NIST reply - the latest info I've seen was to the original form letter acknowledgement from the OIG see here
Take care this does not go "Off Topic" - the thread discussing the Pepper letter is "William Pepper's Letter to DoC re: NIST on WTC7" and it is currently locked by Moderators to clean up (potentially) over 100 "off topic" posts
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
That is the specific point where truthers - esp T Sz and Gerrycan - have been reading the NIST logic on the 11" - 12" nonsense "arse about" - and "we" - some of "us" - have been letting them get away with it.
Try this:
1) Assumption: "If I push something half way off a support it will fall off";
2) The support is 18 wide;
3) THEREFORE if I push the thing 9 it will fall off.
From that point everyone argues about whether the pusher could push more than 9.
Whether or not the assumption at "1)" is appropriate that is the logic that most folks are getting back to front - despite:
a) multiple hints that they - everyone - both sides - should read what NIST actually said;
b) multiple hints from debunkers as to the true situation; AND
c) numerous counter claims from folks claiming to be reading NIST - but obviously either reading the wrong bits, not understanding or simply being untruthful.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
That is the specific point where truthers - esp T Sz and Gerrycan - have been reading the NIST logic on the 11" - 12" nonsense "arse about" - and "we" - some of "us" - have been letting them get away with it.
Try this:
1) Assumption: "If I push something half way off a support it will fall off";
2) The support is 18 wide;
3) THEREFORE if I push the thing 9 it will fall off.
From that point everyone argues about whether the pusher could push more than 9.
Whether or not the assumption at "1)" is appropriate that is the logic that most folks are getting back to front - despite:
a) multiple hints that they - everyone - both sides - should read what NIST actually said;
b) multiple hints from debunkers as to the true situation; AND
c) numerous counter claims from folks claiming to be reading NIST - but obviously either reading the wrong bits, not understanding or simply being untruthful.
^^^That is the crux of the point that Jay Utah made earlier, IMHO.
The calculations showed that the girder moved well to the west. The quibble from the authority haters is that this is an inch short of having the girder web move completely off the seat.
Let me say that again ONE INCH!
I am not an engineer but I would suspect that there is a reason why the seat was 12 inches wide. Some nonsense about spreading the load on the girder flange so that its fully supported. That of course assumes a pristine structure.
Here we have calculations showing a 5.5 inch movement of the girder in one direction,,,,,,,, over here we have calculations indicating that the column itself moved 0.5 inch in the opposite direction. That puts the girder web directly above the edge of the seat, in a very much non-standard enviroment. The seat would be hot, the girder flange would be hot, the structure had suffered initial impact damage on the south side that saw the SW corner bulging, so there is the possibility of other effects being in play that we just cannot know for certain. Included in that , and not taken into account because its not possible to do so, is the report of an elevator car being ejected from its shaft at the fifth floor. Did this indicate some core damage?
It seems utter folly to complain about small differences in a structure with so many unknowns and then postulate nonsense in saying ,,,, "well explosives must have been used".
That said, the topic is the Pepper letter.
Perhaps the AE911T members posting here can tell us how the AE911T response to the deafening silence from DoC and NIST is coming along.
Lawsuit? European brothers brining heat?
,,,,,,,, or nothing but internet yakkity yak, and more Gage globe trotting, at least not until AE911T can raise more funds?
ozeco41
Philosopher
err...no...it's not. The "Pepper Letter" thread is locked for purging all the off topic technical stuff. So better not start discussing Pepper here or you risk punishment - possibly flogging by the... err.. lash....l
ozeco41
Philosopher
I think I pointed that out a few years back - and got mostly ignored because members were enjoying playing "whack a mole" with Tony's serial provision of many "moles" of nonsense.
Do we?? I doubt it. See points 1), 2) and 3) of my previous post.
I fully comprehend the wide range of variables that Tony, Gerry et all choose to ignore. I won't try to enumerate them because of my refusal to accept "reversed burden of proof". They are making the claim. They have never supported the claim and I am convinced that they cannot support it. It requires reasoned thinking plus adequately scoped engineering analysis. Both missing from the claims. And the pragmatic - why should I risk missing something when trying to flesh out their claim?
Their objective has long been "keep discussion circling" as per J Windley
Last edited:
Animal
Master Poster
So I was bored tonight - layout out the framing near Col 79 in Autocad.
1) Assuming the girder is "fixed" at exterior wall.
2) There are 5 beams to the North of Col 79 and East.
3) I ignored the furthest north beam.
4) Moved the centerline of the girder 6.5 inches to the west at Col 79 so as to fall off the seat (assuming "pristine building conditions")
5.) The delta distance of the 4 beams is 6-3/8", 4-7/8" 3-7/8" 1-7/8"
The beam closest o the column could buckle completely, the 3 remaining beams could easily push the girder to the west far enough for it to "walk off" and that is not considering and movement of Col 79 to the east.
(Note: These dimensions were all based on centerlines of beams and girders...I did not bother to account for material widths of the steel)
Is it any wonder that NIST laughed at the troofer demands?
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
So I was bored tonight - layout out the framing near Col 79 in Autocad.
1) Assuming the girder is "fixed" at exterior wall.
2) There are 5 beams to the North of Col 79 and East.
3) I ignored the furthest north beam.
4) Moved the centerline of the girder 6.5 inches to the west at Col 79 so as to fall off the seat (assuming "pristine building conditions")
5.) The delta distance of the 4 beams is 6-3/8", 4-7/8" 3-7/8" 1-7/8"
The beam closest o the column could buckle completely, the 3 remaining beams could easily push the girder to the west far enough for it to "walk off" and that is not considering and movement of Col 79 to the east.
(Note: These dimensions were all based on centerlines of beams and girders...I did not bother to account for material widths of the steel)
Is it any wonder that NIST laughed at the troofer demands?
Your game plan here does not work with the stiffeners on the girder, and your claim that the K3004 beam buckles is unsupported. What you are saying is actually impossible as K3004 would be in tension with the other beams trying to leverage the girder. It can't buckle if it is in tension.
Last edited:
Animal
Master Poster
wrong again...as usual...your stiffeners have no consequence.....and as for the beam in tension....nope....all the connections failed.......just like troofer claims...
All your hand waving. all your foot stomping will not make CD a reality.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
The connections of the beams to the girder would not have failed and I have shown why they could not here. You are the one hand waving as you have nothing to support what you are saying.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Animal
Master Poster
Wrong again.....posted it previously. Your "NIST is wrong because I say so" argument is yet another fail. Sell in your troofer bubble.......it doesn't sell here.
Animal
Master Poster
Where did you do that?
I don't recall any maths by you on the subject.
The "Pharaoh Rebuttal" TS decrees it, therefore it is.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
You aren't even making sense. How do beams buckle if their connections also failed? These failure modes are mutually exclusive. One would have to occur before the other and it would make the second impossible. In reality, neither could occur as the girder did not have shear studs and could not have applied a reaction to the expanding beams.
It is interesting that while you can't prove your points you like to insult those you disagree by applying a broad generic insult such as "troofer". I have to wonder why the moderators tolerate it.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Where did you do that?
I don't recall any maths by you on the subject.
The 53 foot long beams to the east of girder A2001 would buckle at approximately 8,000 lbs of axial force when they were at 600 degrees C. The six 7/8" diameter ASTM A325 bolts in their connection to the girder would require about 18,000 lbs. each to shear at 600 degrees C. That is 108,000 lbs. to break the bolts at 600 degrees C and 8,000 lbs. to buckle the beam.
However, since there were no shear studs on girder A2001 neither failure mode would have occurred since their was no reaction force applied to the expanding beam.
I have explained this several times on this forum.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I think I pointed that out a few years back - and got mostly ignored because members were enjoying playing "whack a mole" with Tony's serial provision of many "moles" of nonsense.
Do we?? I doubt it. See points 1), 2) and 3) of my previous post.
I fully comprehend the wide range of variables that Tony, Gerry et all choose to ignore. I won't try to enumerate them because of my refusal to accept "reversed burden of proof". They are making the claim. They have never supported the claim and I am convinced that they cannot support it. It requires reasoned thinking plus adequately scoped engineering analysis. Both missing from the claims. And the pragmatic - why should I risk missing something when trying to flesh out their claim?
Their objective has long been "keep discussion circling" as per J Windley
Everybody knows that it's a game of whack a mole.
Everybody knows that the game is fixed.
But it's the only game in town.
Animal
Master Poster
And once again you are wrong....
"Connection damage was typically gradual, with bolts and/or welds failing sequentially over time."
(pg 490 NIST NCSTAR 1-9)
ozeco41
Philosopher
1) Yes - including me.
2) Yes - even though it doesn't need fixing when one side has only very weak moles.
3) Yes - it's the sad reality of 9/11 discussion - all the serious stuff dealt with years back.