Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[LudicFallacies]

Too funny.

So how'd the explosives get in there?

What you call "blah blah blah" is in reality your arguments falling faster than free fall speed. It only looks like 'blah blah blah' to you because you don't feel the need to acknowledge the physical impossibility of the asinine theory of controlled demolition.

I really like your overarching methodology towards looking at the conspiracy claims.

This particular piece follows that line of reasoning perfectly to expose the fundamental flaws in the CD theory without refutation of specifics like what Tony sucks us into doing.

"I found it easy to dismiss the demolition theories without requiring analytical refutation. These theories introduce far greater problems to address than anything they purport to solve. It seems the “mastermind” would almost certainly have to be the President of the United States. What would we do to such a President if he were found out? Clearly he would have to believe that absolute secrecy could be maintained forever. We can’t even keep secrets at the CIA!

Many people would have to be involved over and extended time period: demotion experts, hijackers, FBI and Interpol investigators, etc. What if one of the WTC aircraft hijackings had been thwarted by the passengers as in the case of Flight 93? One of the towers would still be standing with demolitions evidence that would have to be removed. Even a flight cancellation or delay would have created havoc, What if WTC 7 hadn’t caught fire? Certainly this could not have been guaranteed. Would they have to proceed with demolition? What if the demolition triggers failed due to damage from the aircraft or WTC 1 hitting WTC 7? The list could go on for pages. All of this so we could go to war in Afghanistan? GIVE ME A BREAK!”

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So Tony...the bolts fail first?

The bolts on the beam connections to the girder never fail as there is little to no reaction force from the girder to cause it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You keep providing calculations for something that actual laboratory experiments referenced by AISC have shown doesn't happen in reality.

I showed you why the fin connection welds would resist the small moment which would occur when the girder web was past the bearing seat edge, and you have no rebuttal.

You are not properly interpreting reality.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I showed you why the fin connection welds would resist the small moment which would occur when the girder web was past the bearing seat edge, and you have no rebuttal.

You are not properly interpreting reality.

So you're calling the research that AISC references a pack of lies?

 

[Animal]

So you're calling the research that AISC references a pack of lies?

TS thinks his napkin calculations one at a time are better that the 3D analysis of computer models with all the moving parts.

TS napkin calculations are the only way he can get the religion alive.

 

[Animal]

I don't think that was the point where most people decided on the honesty of his arguments.

Yes very true..I stand corrected

That conclusion happened years ago. Do you remember the missing jolt nonsense?

How could anyone forget? The belied that the columns would fall perfectly aligned (despite the fact they were bending / failing)

And he talks about others believing in magic????????

 

[Newtons Bit]

TS thinks his napkin calculations one at a time are better that the 3D analysis of computer models with all the moving parts.

TS napkin calculations are the only way he can get the religion alive.

Napkin calculation might be a good way to explain it.

There's a pattern in what Tony Szamboti does. The most recent issue I've had with him is on this simple shear connection. In the AISC manual of steel construction there are multiple references to independent research studies where live, full-scale beams and their connections were tested. The conclusion of these tests was that there is very low rotational stiffness in such connections. I keep saying that, and he keeps ignoring that this is a thing.

Now, there's a few other issues that he is completely missing with his claim.

The girder itself will rotate under torsion. Even if there was an actual intact moment connection at the beam-girder connection, the girder will rotate. When the girder end rotates, the reaction at the end of the girder will no longer be strictly vertical. Think of the typical box on inclined slope physics problem. There is a vertical component, and a horizontal component, and the more the girder rotates the higher the horizontal component becomes.

The connection detail he linked shows the bolts in slotted holes. This guarantees no rotational stiffness for some rotation (see above for why this matters). But it also means that only two bolts (the top and bottom) will engage in providing rotational stiffness. Tony Szamboti doesn't want to run that calc at temperature (he'll find that the bolts fail).

The shear tab isn't full height. Most of the stress induced by torsion in wide-flanges is located in the flanges. This will cause local bottom flange deformation, which decreases the capacity of the girder in a variety of different failure modes.

Now, one could run a full-scale 3D analysis and determine what the exact condition and stress in all of the elements of the girder were as it was pushed off its seat. But that's a level of detail that isn't pertinent to NIST's mission, nor is it at all relevant to the structural engineering community: all of which know that a beam web pushed off its seat will rotate off.

With regards to Tony Szamboti's arguments: the pattern is clear. He ignores physical research when it counters his arguments, provides incomplete calculations of member and connections capacities, and uses simple 2D analysis of simple conditions and then concludes that a 3D FEA model is impossible because his 2D analysis only shows 90% of the 3D FEA results. Like I said above: dishonest.

 

[LSSBB]

TS thinks his napkin calculations one at a time are better that the 3D analysis of computer models with all the moving parts.

TS napkin calculations are the only way he can get the religion alive.

That's why I am now asking him for drawings including the force vectors. right now we are getting calculations, and the context is missing. It's a 3D, dynamic situation. Yes, 3D analysis is even better. The discussion is nowhere even close to that. You are right, it's stuck on napkins.

I'm waiting for the 12" tall Stonehenge blocks to show up next.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't think that was the point where most people official story apologists here decided they didn't like on the honesty of his arguments. That conclusion happened years ago. Do you remember their horror when they saw the missing jolt nonsense paper showing the North Tower did not decelerate and that Bazant's analysis had no basis?

FTFY to reflect the reality of the reputation of the regulars on this site.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Napkin calculation might be a good way to explain it.

There's a pattern in what Tony Szamboti does. The most recent issue I've had with him is on this simple shear connection. In the AISC manual of steel construction there are multiple references to independent research studies where live, full-scale beams and their connections were tested. The conclusion of these tests was that there is very low rotational stiffness in such connections. I keep saying that, and he keeps ignoring that this is a thing.

Now, there's a few other issues that he is completely missing with his claim.

The girder itself will rotate under torsion. Even if there was an actual intact moment connection at the beam-girder connection, the girder will rotate. When the girder end rotates, the reaction at the end of the girder will no longer be strictly vertical. Think of the typical box on inclined slope physics problem. There is a vertical component, and a horizontal component, and the more the girder rotates the higher the horizontal component becomes.

The connection detail he linked shows the bolts in slotted holes. This guarantees no rotational stiffness for some rotation (see above for why this matters). But it also means that only two bolts (the top and bottom) will engage in providing rotational stiffness. Tony Szamboti doesn't want to run that calc at temperature (he'll find that the bolts fail).

The shear tab isn't full height. Most of the stress induced by torsion in wide-flanges is located in the flanges. This will cause local bottom flange deformation, which decreases the capacity of the girder in a variety of different failure modes.

Now, one could run a full-scale 3D analysis and determine what the exact condition and stress in all of the elements of the girder were as it was pushed off its seat. But that's a level of detail that isn't pertinent to NIST's mission, nor is it at all relevant to the structural engineering community: all of which know that a beam web pushed off its seat will rotate off.

With regards to Tony Szamboti's arguments: the pattern is clear. He ignores physical research when it counters his arguments, provides incomplete calculations of member and connections capacities, and uses simple 2D analysis of simple conditions and then concludes that a 3D FEA model is impossible because his 2D analysis only shows 90% of the 3D FEA results. Like I said above: dishonest.

More blah, blah, blah, blah blahbity blah, blah, blah, blah. Like I have been saying about the commenters here. Your comments remind me of the disingenuous "nothing to see here" line. If you are actually an engineer you are violating your ethics.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So you're calling the research that AISC references a pack of lies?

No, I am saying you are misrepresenting the AISC comment which in general says fin connections aren't moment connections as meaning it can't take any moments, when in reality that connection would easily handle a small moment from the girder web being past the edge of the seat with a large margin.

It is kind of like taking the point that solder is generally not used for mechanical strength and then saying it can't be used to support an electronic chip, as it can't take any load whatsoever and that a 5 psi stress would cause it to fail. When the reality is that it can easily take 400 psi in fatigue.

 

[NoahFence]

More blah, blah, blah, blah blahbity blah, blah, blah, blah. Like I have been saying about the commenters here. Your comments remind me of the disingenuous "nothing to see here" line. If you are actually an engineer you are violating your ethics.

so then no comment on how the explosives got in the building in the first place?

first things first kiddo.

 

[LudicFallacies]

FTFY to reflect the reality of the reputation of the regulars on this site.

How do these two videos fit in with your jolt theory Tony?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ycywl1dUZ4

http://youtu.be/Td7bvj9ddJw?t=1m20s

In your Hardfire debate you claim the top fell straight down for two seconds and then rotated/tilted.

You can see in the videos above this isn't true.

I want to hear your opinion regarding those two videos with specific focus on the tilting shown prior to global collapse sequence initiation and also the lateral movement of the top as it collapsed shown in the second video.

How do those two videos fit within the framework of your paper Tony?

 

[LudicFallacies]

Waiting for Godot.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How do these two videos fit in with your jolt theory Tony?

This thread is about WTC 7, not the twin towers. And I think the better question in this route would be whether or not there's relevance in this quibbling about how the beam connections failed to the actual "CD" theory for WTC 7. Tony's problem here isn't really that he wants to discuss NIST having errors (wrongly or otherwise), it's that he views the detail quibbling as having some sort of relevance to a theory which on it's own he can't even prove. It's a nice distraction to avoid the burden of proof on showing that the failure mechanisms for the collapse are exclusively "CD".

Whether they failed left, right or in space, will never serve as proof of "CD" - the theory itself which is the central focal point of all things he's discussing. If he wants that detail to be relevant to what he's arguing, he needs to show that the failure mechanisms were clearly a result of the "CD" items. He's essentially arguing that if NIST is wrong about that, then there's no other option but "CD" and he feels no obligation to go any further except to conclude "it looks like CD, thus it is CD, because no steel building collapses due to fire".

There's certain things that could be legitimately discussed in these details, and that would warrant the detailed talk... controlled demo's ain't among them, and I'm not inclined to invest the time in getting baited into these details if the core theory it's brought up for - as in this case - has absolutely no backing other than a complete dismemberment of design theory.

No amount of peppering peers with "nist apologist/official story apologist" labels is going to fill that hole, but if he wishes to keep digging it then it's his call. I simply reserve my right to call it out.

 

[LSSBB]

Waiting for Godot.

Try resurrecting this thread instead:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261678

It is the perfect place.

ETA: I recommend you thoroughly read the thread before you post. It covers where Tony is at on the subject. Also, the thread needs to center on Tony's paper and not stray off. Tony's paper, though, I beleive covers the scope of your question.

ETA2: Read Tony's paper too, linked to in the thread.

 

[ozeco41]

This thread is about WTC 7, not the twin towers....

And the OP topic is a lot broader than the narrow focus Tony has once again led members to adopt. It is his favourite debating trick as I said in an earlier post.

There are serious and fatal errors in all of Tony's published works and his claims made in these threads.

We are here in this thread because discussion of Tony's narrow focussed nonsense led to a "whack a mole" off topic issue on the William Pepper Letter thread and the thread is still locked for purging. Let's not repeat the tactical error.

Repeating these rebuttals of Tony's claims for the umpteenth time is valuable BUT achieves little more than giving Tony the attention which his nonsense claims do not deserve.

...In your Hardfire debate you claim the top fell straight down for two seconds and then rotated/tilted...

Those two issues are yet another example of Tony's persistent errors which I identified in my earlier post and can explain in an appropriate thread. (False starting premises and looking to the future for something which has already past.) I commend your use of those videos. However the specific issues have been dealt with and rebutted on many previous times by reasoned argument. Take it to OR start an appropriate thread and we can explain again or link you to the extensive previous discussions on the Twin Tower collapses. If we take the discussion into a derail of this thread it will almost certainly be AAHed.

Good work with the videos but be aware that we have explained it in words also - and on many previous occasions.

 

[ozeco41]

Try resurrecting this thread instead:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261678

It is the perfect place.

ETA: I recommend you thoroughly read the thread before you post. It covers where Tony is at on the subject. Also, the thread needs to center on Tony's paper and not stray off. Tony's paper, though, I beleive covers the scope of your question.

ETA2: Read Tony's paper too, linked to in the thread.

Ooops - my previous crossed in posting...

I agree that is a suitable thread if the objective is to comprehend where Tony is coming from. The issue with the thread was that Tony made it "Missing Jolt" revisited by the same trick of focussing details that he has again used in this current thread.

Two of the ironic realities are that the paper:
1) Gets some points right; AND
2) pulls the foundation out from under "Missing Jolt". A point which has so far not been taken up in discussion.

However if the purpose is to understand the technical topic rather than understand Tony the two previous threads on "Girder Walkoff" may have a more appropriate scope.

I'll see if I can locate them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And the OP topic is a lot broader than the narrow focussed Tony has once again forced members to adopt. It is his favourite debating trick as I said in an earlier post.

Yeah I realize the OP topic is much broader... perhaps I should be smacked for leaving that out

And... I noticed... if it wasn't wasn't about this "connection failure" quibble there wouldn't be much to discuss. The summary is he doesn't believe that "single column failure" or fire can lead to a full on collapse and that's final. As with the previous incidents that fatal error kills the debate before you ever reach the distraction over when bolt "A, B or C" failed first.

It's why I was distinguishing the quibble' relevance... it could be relevant if we were talking about practical building code implementations, sure. But with "CD" assumptions that have been repeated over the years it's little more than a distraction because it's nothing short of an ambiguous diversion with no link to said alternate "theory". But then I'm obviously preaching to the Choir by saying all this.

 

[Animal]

More blah, blah, blah, blah blahbity blah, blah, blah, blah. Like I have been saying about the commenters here. Your comments remind me of the disingenuous "nothing to see here" line. If you are actually an engineer you are violating your ethics.

Been doing a lot of hand waving recently as your claims rapidly fall in flames.