Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[tfk]

Sorry for being a bit slow here, but how do do the trusses provide lateral support to the core from the peripheral columns with a joint like that?

Or is it the actual floor frame we were talking of earlier that provide that? Or am I way off base on what's being dicussed?

.
Nope. Not off base at all. It's a good question.

By itself, any one of these joints would have been pretty damn useless. But you add up 120 of them around the periphery (1 every other peripheral column), THEN you start getting some holding power.

Remember also that the cross trusses were locked into the concrete when it was poured, so these were pretty rigid.

Finally, the core columns were also laterally braced on the other 3 sides of each column (in addition to the 4th side that had the floor truss on it). All of this cross bracing (and the weight of the floor & contents) meant that the floor & bracket were going to stay pretty much where they were, absent some catastrophic event.

BTW, The slots were for assembly tolerances. Not to allow sliding, of course.

Tom

 

[BigAl]

No, it happened one hour earlier and just produced a hole, some local failures, fire and no further destruction. The screws managed to prevent further destruction. No big deal, really. The NYFD could easily have handled that.

What can FDNY do without water? There was effectively no water.

And you forget the added 150 tons of unplanned floor load in concentrated places in each tower.

And we have this;

Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

Report From Ground Zero
http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)​

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No, it happened one hour earlier and just produced a hole, some local failures, fire and no further destruction.

Here it a correction in terminology even a kindergartner can understand:

+

=

For the love of Zeus, if AE911 is supposed to be a credible group I've no idea why they allowed you to weed your way into it.

 

[dtugg]

For the love of Zeus, if AE911 is supposed to be a credible group I've no idea why they allowed you to weed your way into it.

I think that AE911 and Heiwa are a perfect match. They have exactly the same level of credibility.

 

[BadBoy]

No, it happened one hour earlier and just produced a hole, some local failures, fire and no further destruction. The screws managed to prevent further destruction. No big deal, really. The NYFD could easily have handled that.

Wow, i think that must be the understatement of the millenium. You don't mess around do you, just cut the dogs bollocks right off, tie yourself to the cannon and light the fuse yourself!!

 

[FineWine]

No, it happened one hour earlier and just produced a hole, some local failures, fire and no further destruction. The screws managed to prevent further destruction. No big deal, really. The NYFD could easily have handled that.

Then why didn't the FDNY "handle" it, fraud?

 

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Why is it that every time I read one of your posts, I come to believe that you are intentionally insulting everyone's intelligence with the abject stupidity of your "arguments"??

Please note the two bolts that attach the floor assembly to the column/angle bar!
So what happens, when you remove the 'support', incl. the two bolts? This?

.
Well, you are allegedly an engineer. Engineers don't sit around asking stupid question. They provide ANSWERS, Heiwa.

Watch. It ain't that hard...

Start small.

You remove a bolt. Nothing happens.

You remove both bolts. Nothing happens.

You remove one bolt from every bracket around a full floor. Nothing happens.

You remove the remaining bolt from every other bracket around that floor. Nothing happens acutely. But you've now introduced a distinct "degree of freedom" of motion. You're likely to start hearing creaking in high winds. Getting the maintenance people to start inspecting the structure.

You chop a bracket weld: nothing happens. The load gets transferred laterally thru the cross braces.
You chop 4 adjacent bracket welds, and the floor sags & cracks. Someone calls maintenance.
You chop 20 adjacent bracket welds, and a whole section of the floor collapses down about 5 feet, and hangs there. The building does not come down.

We know this because it DID happen in the towers. They can see two (IIRC) of the floors sagging down, clearly off of the support brackets.
.

Well, this is what was recorded and then explained by NIST and others as follows:

1. Supports were removed ...

[Untrustworthy Heiwa paraphrase skipped]

... According Bazant!

.
Well, here is the problem with this. These explanations are coming thru you. So I have precisely zero expectation that they will bear ANY resemblance to the explanation as they came out of the mouth of the original source.
.

Moral lesson: If you believe that a tower is destroyed by removing two bolts in a floor truss high up, please check if all bolts are fastened inside your own head! Loose screws screw up!

.
And here is a perfect example of exactly why your interpretations have zero credibility.

Nobody, anywhere, has ever suggested that "if you remove two bolts from a truss, the whole building comes down".

And yet, you walk thru these surreal chains of illogic to ultimately make such a patently absurd claim.

It's called "reason". It's called "judgment". And ultimately, it's called "credibility".

You appear to have little of any of these.

Tom

 

[Newtons Bit]

Would anyone here call these pin joints?

http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg

Do you have any more pictures of similar conditions? I've been looking for some but haven't found anything good.

And I wouldn't call those fixed. At least not yet.

 

[funk de fino]

Would anyone here call these pin joints?

http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg

You're a liar Tony.

 

[tfk]

This is where a good old "Captain Picard face palm" would be really handy...

No, it happened one hour earlier and just produced a hole, some local failures, fire and no further destruction.
...
No big deal, really.

.
The top of the building progressively leaning to the side says loudly & clearly, "You don't know what you are talking about".
The external wall progressively bowing inward says loudly & clearly, "You don't know what you are talking about".
The fires moving from floor to floor says loudly & clearly, "You don't know what you are talking about".
The buildings collapsing say loudly & clearly, "You don't know what you are talking about".
.

The NYFD could easily have handled that.

.
This comment is "bill smith" stupid.

It takes an incredibly arrogant, uninformed, buffoon to make a statement like this.

It leaves me stunned, Anders, that YOU are learning from Bill...??!!!

Fireman, after fireman, after fireman are on record as saying, on the way to the building, that this was going to be the biggest challenge of their professional lives.

Eight to ten one-acre office fires, stacked on top of each other, massive levels of unknown structural damage, 1000 feet in the air, no working elevators, no water, ...

Sure. Piece 'o cake...??!!

Why don't you stick to the topics in your own field about which you have zero understanding.
Rather than drifting into topics in OTHER fields about which you have zero understanding.


Tom

 

[R.Mackey]

Do you have any more pictures of similar conditions? I've been looking for some but haven't found anything good.

And I wouldn't call those fixed. At least not yet.

That picture appears to be from one of the beam-framed floors. There were a grand total of six of these, plus similar bracing below Floor 8.

Not nearly enough to make the entire core self-supporting. The overwhelming majority of connections, as has already been explained and shown here with pictures from NIST, were merely pinned, not fully welded.

 

[Newtons Bit]

That picture appears to be from one of the beam-framed floors. There were a grand total of six of these, plus similar bracing below Floor 8.

Not nearly enough to make the entire core self-supporting. The overwhelming majority of connections, as has already been explained and shown here with pictures from NIST, were merely pinned, not fully welded.

That would seem to make sense, the number of connectors on those are indeed staggering as well as the depth of that beam. However that main girder doesn't attach directly to the column face, rather it appears to have one side of the flanges welded to the column face (or perhaps it's on a seat, it's hard to see from this angle). This doesn't create a rigid connection.

You don't see connections like this anymore, they're absurdly labor intensive. But back in the 60's materials were a bigger cost of construction than labor and a connection like this creates a situation where the beam behaves continuous over its supports. This saves material, but the labor cost is immense.

 

[aggle-rithm]

No, it happened one hour earlier and just produced a hole, some local failures, fire and no further destruction. The screws managed to prevent further destruction. No big deal, really. The NYFD could easily have handled that.

It's too bad you weren't there.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

.
The top of the building progressively leaning to the side says loudly & clearly, "You don't know what you are talking about".
The external wall progressively bowing inward says loudly & clearly, "You don't know what you are talking about".
The fires moving from floor to floor says loudly & clearly, "You don't know what you are talking about".
The buildings collapsing say loudly & clearly, "You don't know what you are talking about".
.

.
This comment is "bill smith" stupid.

It takes an incredibly arrogant, uninformed, buffoon to make a statement like this.

It leaves me stunned, Anders, that YOU are learning from Bill...??!!!

Fireman, after fireman, after fireman are on record as saying, on the way to the building, that this was going to be the biggest challenge of their professional lives.

Eight to ten one-acre office fires, stacked on top of each other, massive levels of unknown structural damage, 1000 feet in the air, no working elevators, no water, ...

Sure. Piece 'o cake...??!!

Why don't you stick to the topics in your own field about which you have zero understanding.
Rather than drifting into topics in OTHER fields about which you have zero understanding.


Tom

Fixed

 

[alienentity]

Tony,


.
This statement is so all-encompassing & generally true as to be useless, Tony. It applies to every person in the world, regarding every topic in the world.

What works as evidence is proof (i.e., video or verified audio) of what he DID say. Not what he COULD HAVE said.
.

.
THIS is a strong claim. A strong piece of evidence, if you can prove it, of course. So focus on this.
.

.
Which show, what date. The History Channel has virtually all of its "high public interest" documentaries available for sale. $19.95 breaks open the "story of the century", Tony.

The reason that I am highly skeptical is all those YouTube videos of Rumsfeld saying "Flight 93 shot down ...", and GWB saying "... I saw the first plane fly into the building before going into the classroom in Florida...".

Both of these were clear misstatements on their parts. They were on TV news. And people had made recordings of those videos & have posted them. Do you think that it is even remotely possible that, with all the highly motivated truthers out there, NOT ONE of them bothered to tape the History Channel's presentation??

Do you think that it is remotely possible that, if Silverstein had said this, that truther would NOT have pulled it off of his TiVo & posted it to YouTube?
.

.
You're an ME, right Tony? You've listened to Jones talk about ME type issues, right?

Give me, please, your HONEST impression of his grasp of general ME concepts.
How about his statement that "the 2nd law of thermo PROHIBITS the tower from falling straight down".
.

.
I'll try to contribute to the engineering discussion, Tony. I promise.

Tom

History's Business, Season 1, Episode 9.

Strange fact: Not one truther has obtained a copy with the alleged quote claimed by Tony Szamboti.

Here are the main possibilities:

A) Tony Szamboti is correct, and Silverstein admitted to CD for safety purposes. In this case, FDNY was involved directly, since they were in control of the building at the time. Also it means the NWO/Gubmint/Men in Black has destroyed all copies of the episode, or silenced all those who possessed it.

Tony has the secret to the crime of the century in that case.

B) Tony is wrong, and Silverstein never said this. End of conspiracy theory.

Take your pick.

 

[Heiwa]

This is where a good old "Captain Picard face palm" would be really handy...


.
Tom

Not really, the local NYFD must have done numerous fire exercises at WTC and trained all sorts of situations at top and bottom floors and everywhere, etc, and they were of course aware of the simple fact that, yes, ... A one-way crush down was not possible of any WTC building.
It seems that NYFD concentrated on getting people out of the bldgs and then, it seems, the fires up top were slowing down so they decided; ... let them burn out by themselves! I like that decision.

You see, tfk, that it is impossible that a structure like WTC 1, 2 one-way crushes down due to local failures due to fire or whatever. I know that you have not understood it so far, but you'll learn.

I hope any NYFD members follow this thread and inform their colleagues! Or invite me to explain that simple fact. My business is of course safety at sea but I also offer my know-how for shore based people.

 

[tfk]

Not really, the local NYFD must have done numerous fire exercises at WTC and trained all sorts of situations at top and bottom floors and everywhere, etc, and they were of course aware of the simple fact that, yes, ... A one-way crush down was not possible of any WTC building.
It seems that NYFD concentrated on getting people out of the bldgs and then, it seems, the fires up top were slowing down so they decided; ... let them burn out by themselves! I like that decision.

You see, tfk, that it is impossible that a structure like WTC 1, 2 one-way crushes down due to local failures due to fire or whatever. I know that you have not understood it so far, but you'll learn.

I hope any NYFD members follow this thread and inform their colleagues! Or invite me to explain that simple fact. My business is of course safety at sea but I also offer my know-how for shore based people.

.
Anders,

So, how are you coming on fixing that coffee pot?

Tom

 

[Heiwa]

.
Anders,

So, how are you coming on fixing that coffee pot?

Tom

??

 

[Grizzly Bear]

History's Business, Season 1, Episode 9.
Strange fact: Not one truther has obtained a copy with the alleged quote claimed by Tony Szamboti.

I don't expect it to be found either, after all non-existent evidence is non-existent.

There is always this though...
LINK

As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not obvious. It is well established however that the yield strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse, as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input. A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the significant increase in yield strength and the slight increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress. It is clear therefore that the upper section should only have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower.

Call me crazy but once something begins to buckle from creep behavior, it doesn't take as much load to buckle it even more. I'm a little curious if this same stance is something he still upholds (the article itself is a bit old).

 

[Heiwa]

Call me crazy but once something begins to buckle from creep behavior, it doesn't take as much load to buckle it even more. I'm a little curious if this same stance is something he still upholds (the article itself is a bit old).

Well, sometimes an element buckles a little and the force causing it slips off (due to the buckle) or decides to buckle something else and the result is just a partly buckled element. Look at any car crash! Plenty of partly buckled elements.

BTW Have you ever seen a one-way car crush down? One car A being crushed by another car C (of similar brand) and A is completely one-way crushed while C just goes off unscated?