Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Tony Szamboti]

Just to show the impossibility of the claim that girder A2001 could roll-off when its web was past the bearing seat at column 79, I did a sketch showing the reactions, moments, and the factors of safety (FoS) of the various failure modes such as shear tearout of the beam web, shear of the 7/8" diameter bolts, and shear of the fin plate welds.

The minimum FoS of any failure mode for just one out of the five beams to the east resisting the roll-off was 3.6 at 600 degrees C, so it is clear that this claim has essentially no chance of occurrence.

See the attached.

 

[Justin39640]

Just to show the impossibility of the claim that girder A2001 could roll-off when its web was past the bearing seat at column 79, I did a sketch showing the reactions, moments, and the factors of safety (FoS) of the various failure modes such as shear tearout of the beam web, shear of the 7/8" diameter bolts, and shear of the fin plate welds.

The minimum FoS of any failure mode for just one out of the five beams to the east resisting the roll-off was 3.6 at 600 degrees C, so it is clear that this claim has essentially no chance of occurrence.

See the attached.

The whole building counts, which was compromised. A large structure groaning, creaking, and cracking for hours (not to mention measurably leaning) is in serious trouble.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Tony the rest of the world doesn't care. And why should they...the Truther movement has produced a single piece of evidence to prove CD or governmental red flag job. Only here on the JREF forum are we dumb enough to waste our time and debate you.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Just to show the impossibility of the claim that girder A2001 could roll-off when its web was past the bearing seat at column 79, I did a sketch showing the reactions, moments, and the factors of safety (FoS) of the various failure modes such as shear tearout of the beam web, shear of the 7/8" diameter bolts, and shear of the fin plate welds.

The minimum FoS of any failure mode for just one out of the five beams to the east resisting the roll-off was 3.6 at 600 degrees C, so it is clear that this claim has essentially no chance of occurrence.

See the attached.

Where's the 130kip*in load?

 

[NoahFence]

Just to show the impossibility of the claim that girder A2001 could roll-off when its web was past the bearing seat at column 79, I did a sketch showing the reactions, moments, and the factors of safety (FoS) of the various failure modes such as shear tearout of the beam web, shear of the 7/8" diameter bolts, and shear of the fin plate welds.

The minimum FoS of any failure mode for just one out of the five beams to the east resisting the roll-off was 3.6 at 600 degrees C, so it is clear that this claim has essentially no chance of occurrence.

See the attached.

You're flailing.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You're flailing.

Yea, he halved the loads, and didn't include the shear from the beam to the girder (and the induced moment).

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Just to show the impossibility of the claim that girder A2001 could roll-off when its web was past the bearing seat at column 79, I did a sketch showing the reactions, moments, and the factors of safety (FoS) of the various failure modes such as shear tearout of the beam web, shear of the 7/8" diameter bolts, and shear of the fin plate welds.

The minimum FoS of any failure mode for just one out of the five beams to the east resisting the roll-off was 3.6 at 600 degrees C, so it is clear that this claim has essentially no chance of occurrence.

See the attached.

Do you have another drawing that shows what happened to the beams/girders/columns/connections surrounding the connection in question due to uneven heating and cooling as well as catastrophic events like the collapses of the east and west penthouses?

And yet another that proves the stresses transferred by those events had no effect on the girder and connection you're speaking of?

If not, why are you here claiming fraud?

LSSBB's comment on the fact that the system did catastrophically fail and that had to be the result of NIST's model is pretty relevant, no?

 

[ozeco41]

...LSSBB's comment on the fact that the system did catastrophically fail and that had to be the result of NIST's model is pretty relevant, no?

True.

The "big picture" is simple:

1) WTC7 did in fact collapse;
2) There was no CD.
3) NIST has suggested a plausible mechanism. Truthers disagree but cannot put forward plausible reasons.

 

[GlennB]

.... as well as catastrophic events like the collapses of the east and west penthouses?

And yet another that proves the stresses transferred by those events had no effect on the girder and connection you're speaking of?

That's a very interesting point, and one I hadn't twigged before.

TS claims the EP collapse was a separate issue, yet hasn't considered the falling debris and/or load transfers as having anything to do with the Col 79 issue here.

But then, we have to consider the fact that he once claimed the EP was *deliberately* dropped early, by CD, so that "It wouldn't fall off the side". It would be a breach of the MA to suggest we're debating a loon. You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[DGM]

Truthers disagree but cannot put forward plausible reasons.

You've read what Tony thinks is "plausible". You might want to revise this part of the statement.

 

[Animal]

Just to show the impossibility of the claim that girder A2001 could roll-off when its web was past the bearing seat at column 79, I did a sketch showing the reactions, moments, and the factors of safety (FoS) of the various failure modes such as shear tearout of the beam web, shear of the 7/8" diameter bolts, and shear of the fin plate welds.

The minimum FoS of any failure mode for just one out of the five beams to the east resisting the roll-off was 3.6 at 600 degrees C, so it is clear that this claim has essentially no chance of occurrence.

See the attached.

Choosing between your napkin calculations or a 3d computer analysis - anyone with an IQ over room temperature will take the 3d computer analysis.
You linear thinking will continue to cause you to fail.

 

[LudicFallacies]

He employs two basic falsehoods - it is hard to say whether it is deliberate mendacity or simply a lack of understanding of the engineering. They are:
1) He starts his arguments from false premises selected to support his pre-determined conclusion THEN pads it out with detailed engineering which, whether valid or not, does not prove his case due to the false starting assumptions; AND
2) He approaches the "collapse initiation" stage of WTC1 & 2 collapse from a wrongly applied Bazantian (B & Z) one dimensional perspective when the event is essentially 3D and cannot be explained in 1D.

So the big errors in "Missing Jolt" were (1) 1D not 3D reasoning - he misused the B&Z limit case as if it was what really happened AND (2) his assumed starting point was already AFTER the time when any jolt would appear. So he went looking for a future event when it was already past history.

AND you have to correct BOTH those errors to get to the proper understanding. Then all his claims about "tilt not preventing axial alignment of columns" fail for the same reasons. By the time you have tilt the column ends have already missed. He is not alone on misunderstanding that version of "Missing Jolt revisited".

I identified his "wrong starting assumptions" error in my very first post on the internet with this comment:

I shared two videos with Tony that totally refute the paper's claims and the claims he made on Hardfire a number of years ago but Tony is simply sticking his fingers in his ears and LA LA LA'ing and/or ignoring my points.

I'm not surprised he ignored your points so many moons ago. For Tony this is a religion and as such there is no room for rational logical reasoned thought.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yea, he halved the loads, and didn't include the shear from the beam to the girder (and the induced moment).

The full 130 kip load on the girder is not on the column 79 side, only half of it (65 kips). The girder has to fall before the column 44 side can be pulled from between the flanges of the column and that side is supported at that point.

Even if it were the full 130 kips it wouldn't matter as the factors of safety are well above 2 in all cases at 600 degrees C.

Additionally, I would hope you realize it is only one beam which shows a roll-off is a non-starter even at elevated temperature. At least several beams would have been involved, so the margin of safety against it, even at elevated temperature, is quite large.

It is the gravity load of the girder which would be involved in generating the moments and the failure modes. Any pushing by the beam is not involved in shear tearout of the upper bolt hole, or shear of that bolt, or the top welds on the fin plate, once the girder's Cg is past the edge of the bearing seat as the loads are in the opposite direction.

Now that the notion of a roll-off has been shown to be so far removed as to be ridiculous, it is the omitted stiffeners which give the NIST report its problems. Why don't you try to address that instead of bringing things up which aren't even feasible?

It is hard to understand why some here simply can't accept that the NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be in serious error.

 

[DGM]

Now that the notion of a roll-off has been shown to be so far removed as to be ridiculous..........................

So what's stopping you from writing the paper that would blow this case wide open? Is it customary when writing an engineering paper that you need to convince the laymen first?

What are you waiting for?

 

[Animal]

It is hard to understand why some here simply can't accept that the NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be in serious error.

What is hard to understand is you thinking you can hand wave away so much that refutes your napkin calculations and expect anybody to take your claims seriously (outside of your troofer bubble)

 

[ozeco41]

You've read what Tony thinks is "plausible". You might want to revise this part of the statement.

One proper response if we are using "para-legal" rules of argument is that it must be "plausible" to the "reasonable person" - I won't diverge into Rules of Evidence 201 to explain "reasonable person".

Translate it yourself if you want it in the language of the "scientific method".

I'll pass on the obvious oxymoronic comments about "truther reasoning" - there would be a comeback because I occasionally rely on my own "military intelligence".

 

[ozeco41]

I shared two videos with Tony that totally refute the paper's claims and the claims he made on Hardfire a number of years ago but Tony is simply sticking his fingers in his ears and LA LA LA'ing and/or ignoring my points.

Saw the videos. Agree with your claim that they rebut Tony. I have partially - lots of scattered bits of post - explained the cascade failure mechanics which Tony's claims ignore. That is the explanation - the "why" and "how" aspects behind what the videos show happening. It is quite complicated - not easy to explain in this forum setting - it requires 3D visualising and not many engineers are good at that in my experience as a manager of many engineers.

...I'm not surprised he ignored your points so many moons ago. For Tony this is a religion and as such there is no room for rational logical reasoned thought.

Reasoning is not included in the calculus he shows in his papers and posts. He has many times responded to identification of errors in his logic with demands for math/calculations/FEA. As if maths can correct logic errors.

It looks like a big blind spot. Look at the responses which say "blah blah blah blah" or similar - then check what he is responding to. Odds on it was a reasoned bit of argument NOT calcs/maths/FEA.

I've met other truthers who counter reasoned argument with "that's nothing but a lot of words - where are the maths" - displaying the same probable 'blind spot".

I'll leave it there before we get too far off the central issue of this thread which is the series of questions around "Can you get Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure?" to which the answer has not progressed since way back at my post #159.

In brief:
1) The leading OP question paraphrases as "NIST makes the case that the failure of column 79...led pretty quickly to the collapse of the entire building... I wonder... how universal this actually is?"

Well it isn't universal if we find at least one exception AND NIST provided one - see later comment.) So the answer to the leading OP question must be "Not universal because there will be some exceptions"; BUT

2) It would be a rare, situation specific exception and neither certain nor a generic rule.

And the often missed side track - NIST actually modelled failure of the single element Col 79 - AND it caused collapse. Fortunately no truther seems to have identified that gem

 

[jaydeehess]

So what's stopping you from writing the paper that would blow this case wide open? Is it customary when writing an engineering paper that you need to convince the laymen first?

What are you waiting for?

oh I have been asking such things for months/years now.

When I do get a response its either "NIST needs to do it", or "NIST won't release their data ( wahhhh)"

 

[MileHighMadness]

oh I have been asking such things for months/years now.

When I do get a response its either "NIST needs to do it", or "NIST won't release their data ( wahhhh)"

The best place to publish a paper would be the Structural Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers. However, I very much doubt that they would publish a paper on 9/11 from Tony. I believe Tony already knows that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It is hard to understand why some here simply can't accept that the NIST WTC 7 report has been shown to be in serious error.

"If" we "accepted" that the NIST report was "shown to be in serious error" over a hyper-nitpick of one single detail in the whole system what then? All you've argued is "NIST is wrong". But if the "NIST is wrong" what is your argument then? You want to argue it's a "controlled demolition" still?

Are you going to us again that "no building has ever collapse due to fire in history and it wouldn't have happened here"?

Are you going to arbitrarily inform us that single column failure can never lead to a progressive global collapse?

Are you going to roll out the supposed "evidence" you have for a controlled demolition having taken place?

In case you haven't noticed, as I and others have remarked the building already collapsed, so we can argue this little detail to death whether NIST got it right or not. The question remains as to whether your obvious "alternative" has any bearing on it. I've concluded that "CD" is not a viable alternative or relevance because you have not even proven it, it has no relevance as a derail, and that you appear very reluctant to go into that discussion of why you would consider it relevant to your "CD" angle.

Should I bring up your resume of claims over the years so that members can make a determination of why you've continued dragging this thread into a multi-page derail on a connection detail that you never ever linked to your core conclusion of "CD" or why "single column failure" can never happen? I'm pretty sure they haven't changed much at all since 2007.