Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

[beachnut]

Ok, watch the North wall just prior to collapse and observe approx 8 simultaneous charges going off at the west end.
...

Silent explosives. Cool, is there a silent explosives store in the fantasy world of 911 truth?

Why is there no supersonic explosion stuff? All we have is smoke and flame ejected due to collapsing building.

Who planted the fantasy charges?

 

[ozeco41]

ozeco41, some quick questions.

No problem. Some of the answers will be just as quick. BUT there are two (Edit: Ooops - THREE ) areas where - to avoid confusion - we will need to define what scenario or stage of collapse we are actually discussing. I'll give the short and easy answers by << coloured comments interspersed with your post. I'll break the quote where I need to address those more fundamental issues.

Here Goes:

1. We can easily see, can we not, that "all" the perimeter columns did not suddenly have a large section removed by explosives <<Yes - but that is the first scenario issue which needs clarifying - see the comments which follow headed "which scenario?" - all the way down the building << And that is the second issue for clarification - "what stage?" of the collapse.

"which scenario?" The scenario for "Missing jolt' was explicitly the Bazant Limit Case scenario involving ALL columns. So if some of the columns did not have sections removed the "Missing Jolt" conclusion is falsified. And your suggestion of "only core removed" changes from the scenario that T Sz used for "Missing Jolt". Nice effort to help him solve the weaknesses of his hypothesis. BUT that change makes it NOT T Sz's Missing Jolt hypothesis. (BTW Be warned - Szamboti apologists tend to avoid that simple truism by conflating/confusing.)

"what stage?" The Twin Towers collapses both involved two distinct stages with vastly different mechanisms. The "initiation stage" which ran from Aircraft Impact to "Top Block starts to drop". The progression stage was the global collapse which you describe as "... all the way down the building." Missing Jolt does confuse - it somewhat conflates the two. We need to keep them clear and it is "initiation stage" which we are currently discussing. "Initiation Stage" was a cascade sequence of columns failing in axial compression >> buckling. "Progression Stage" (or "all the way down the building ") was by shearing of floors off the columns. One main problem underpinning the nonsense of Missing Jolt is Tony's lack of understanding of the "cascade failure" process of the "initiation" stage. I can link you to more comprehensive descriptions of both (plus the stage where they "transition" from one to the other) BUT let's set aside those details for now.

We are talking about the cascading failure of "initiation" stage. Tony's "Missing Jolt" paper shows zero understanding of that process. And we can falsify Missing Jolt without going to the details.

So let me take a rain check on your references to "all the way down the building" AKA "progression" at this stage. We can come back to it if necessary.

Back to the "quick answers" to "quick questions"

So it follows that the explosives would have to be on core columns only (presumably), << Yes if you are trying to patch up the holes in Tony's nonsense. But our (my) objective is to falsify Tony's hypothesis - not patch it up. Remember that explosives on core columns only has already falsified Tony's hypothesis. or on the things fastening the floors to the core and perimeter << Also Yes - except those "things fastening" were not significant in the "initiation" stage - they are more relevant to "progression stage" subject to the rain check for now. . And any major and massive column on column impact, or floor on floor impact would have had to have happened inside the building << Yes - But - not the Tony hypothesis we are falsifying. - all the way down. << Rain check So, is it therefore correct that we wouldn't see a massive jolt anyway, even if there was one or could have been one? <<Pause to clarify a third scenario

In recent posts - and similar ones going back to when "Missing Jolt was first published - I have sought to distinguish TWO scenarios - the bastardised Bazant scenario that T Sz misapplied in "Missing Jolt" from the "real event". You have now postulated a third scenario. It is NEITHER the T Sz fantasy NOR the real event. I'm willing to work through it with you but IMO it wouldn't work - I think you are heading to that conclusion. But the big issue here and now is that it is not T Sz's Missing Jolt and I'm trying to distinguish Missing Jolt from "real event" AND falsify "Missing Jolt".

The perimeter columns peeled away as the inside core failed (initially), or if the floors were falling around the core columns, you still wouldn't see a jolt even if it was possible to have one at all. << All true for your scenario. Or did I miss something here. << Not for your scenario - but we are drifting off the focus of my comments

2. Why does TZ suppose that explosives would not be more likely to cause column on column impacts anyway? I don't understand why he thinks applying explosives wouldn't cause any jolt, unless they were applied all the way down the building and even then I would think major column on column impact would still be more likely. << TOP POINT - you are one of very few to recognise it. I stopped commenting on that aspect about 2011 - believe it or not it was too subtle for many. Missing Jolt as postulated by Tony fails the instant that the Top Block has traversed the "gap" allegedly cut by his fantasy CD charges. In fact his CD hypothesis self falsifies. If there had been CD it would have resulted in the massive jolt the instant the CD cut gaps closed. Clinically removing parts of columns with explosives, on all columns, at the same time...? Also applying explosives all the way down, to presumably avoid the "big jolt" would mean timing is essential, you would need the explosives to follow the collapse progression exactly, plus it would be much more likely we would have heard and seen something in that case. << EXACTLY - and I'll let pass the "all the way down" on this occasion - because you are accurately identifying holes in Tony's nonsense. And you are right. It did not apply to the real event - which actually did have those two distinct mechanisms for "initiation" and "progression" stages - not one continuum of explosives "all the way down"..

OK - that got a bit more serious than either of us expected. No apology - we need to get those foundation scenarios clear or we will follow the mob - T Sz and his entourage of followers - around in circles.

If that lot of overkill hasn't confused you even further - any questions?

 

[JSanderO]

Not sure which video you refer to... but I've heard AE state at various times... ALL thew columns of the building over an 8 story ht were removed/CDed/destroyed/ taken out in an instant... and the evidence is THE ENTIRE building dropped 8 floors at FF. Gage told me last week that the core DID not come down before the curtain wall moment frame. Tony now claims it was only the 24 core core columns which collapsed in a instant not all 81. But there weren't 24 "core" columns.

The elevator "core" had:

15 elevator core had 4 rows of 3 columns (64, 65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75)

then there were:

6 columns between elevator core and east facade (76,77,78,79,80,81)
6 columns between the elevator core and the west facade (58,59,60,61,62 63)

The perimeter above flr 8 had 57 columns:
1-15 west
16-27 south
28-42 east
43-57 north - (8 cols: 47-54 were supported on the end of 8 cantilever girders)

Tony stated at the NJIT presentation that he had calculated what would happen if the "24" core columns were taken out... that they would pull the facade moment frame inward and cause the 8 story drop.

Tony: which 24 columns?

Where is this calculation?

Below 8:

61, 61a & 62 were carried by cantilever TT3
74, 77, 80 were carried by TT2
E3, E4 supported MG3 which supported 78, 71, 73 supported TT1 (79 was framed into TT1 at E3

But we won't look below floor 8 at all the transfers.

 

[JSanderO]

........

"Initiation Stage" was a cascade sequence of columns failing in axial compression >> buckling. "Progression Stage" (or "all the way down the building ") was by shearing of floors off the columns.......

We are talking about the cascading failure of "initiation" stage. ....
......".

If that lot of overkill hasn't confused you even further - any questions?

Ozzie:

I take exception to your declarative statement was a cascading failure of failure in axial compression... buckling in all the core columns. This is only ONE mechanism of core column failure.

Mechanisms:

A - misalignment... NB that the NIST asserted for 7wtc that the girder was able to expand in the order of 5". If this same mechanism were in play in the core of the twin towers this expansion could EASILY push the columns end out of axial alignment... the lower sections columns presumably in the stone cold positions... the upper one translated (off) the column below with NO BEARING. A column which has no bearing had "FAILED" it cannot convey axial loads to the foundations.

NB buckling can only occur when:

B - The axial load on a column exceeds its yield strength. This is possible if there are load transfers / redistributions exceeding capacity.

Axial load capacity loss due to unbraced length being increased. To acheive this... floors and bracing over multiple floors would have to have been removed.

I do not dispute that there was loss of capacity in the core... meaning loss of effective axial coupling to the performing columns below HEAT was not the likely factor driving COLUMN axial load capacity down below the service load on the column. Heat may have weakened some of the columns but the failure seems to have been from one of the two mechanisms or a combination of them above.

++++

I think your characterization of the floors "shearing" off from the columns in not accurate:

"Progression Stage" (or "all the way down the building ") was by shearing of floors off the columns.")

The floors plates had their double trusses framed into a belt girder surrounding the core which in turn was cantilevered from the 24 perimeter core columns.

Collapsing floor sections (it wasn't entire floors slabs for sure)... fractured and destroyed the integrity of the floor plates. In so doing some of the bearing plates for the floor trussed sheared from the impulse... others bent over... bolts pulled out or were sheared. BUT THIS IS FOR THE BITS ADJACENT TO THE CORE. The rest of the floor plate... between the facade and the belt girders would likely but up, fracture and break free... and with that severe the trusses.

The floor plate destruction in a "general" sense was shear failure of the plates. In that sense any progressive floor failure is a shear failure. But the long span column free floor plate design would quickly involve the entire floor area propagating laterally... I suspect.

 

[ozeco41]

Ozzie:

I take exception to your declarative statement was a cascading failure of failure in axial compression... buckling in all the core columns....

Be my guest - but drop the speculative stuff and give reasoned objections to my post which was EXPLICITLY clear as to MY OBJECTIVE - I was responding to a request by BadBoy within the context of the problems of "Missing Jolt":

ozeco41, some quick questions.

No problem. Some of the answers will be just as quick.
....
In recent posts - and similar ones going back to when "Missing Jolt was first published - I have sought to distinguish TWO scenarios - the bastardised Bazant scenario that T Sz misapplied in "Missing Jolt" from the "real event".

If you are convinced that my simplification will somehow mislead BadBoy on the thrust of my post - demonstrating how Szamboti was wrong with Missing Jolt - feel free to post another explanation for BadBoy. Remember he asked ME the questions.

This is only ONE mechanism of core column failure.

Sure - but don't be too sure. Naughty me also failed to mention the columns cut by the aircraft impact. Because the initiation cascade process started some time after the aircraft impact. Something time sensitive triggered that cascade. MY money is on heat. Be my guest if you want to argue that the cascade was NOT triggered by heat.

Now you imply that there are multiple other mechanisms other than axial failures. But you suggest only one speculative mechanism - this one:

A - misalignment... NB that the NIST asserted for 7wtc that the girder was able to expand in the order of 5". If this same mechanism were in play in the core of the twin towers this expansion could EASILY push the columns end out of axial alignment... the lower sections columns presumably in the stone cold positions... the upper one translated (off) the column below with NO BEARING.

5" horizontal push from a hot beam does not cause total misalignment - it does not result in "the upper one translated (off)" and the net result is still that the column fails in axial overload subject to whatever the resultant eccentricities. Exactly as I have explained on several previous occasions.

Now I'm sorry that you see the need to instruct me on some elementary "Structures 101":

A column which has no bearing had "FAILED" it cannot convey axial loads to the foundations.

NB buckling can only occur when:

B - The axial load on a column exceeds its yield strength. This is possible if there are load transfers / redistributions exceeding capacity.

Axial load capacity loss due to unbraced length being increased. To acheive this... floors and bracing over multiple floors would have to have been removed.

I do not dispute that there was loss of capacity in the core... meaning loss of effective axial coupling to the performing columns below...

Be assured that I am aware of the engineering.

Then this point:

HEAT was not the likely factor driving COLUMN axial load capacity down below the service load on the column.

Wanna bet? What other factor could "cut in" after a delay approaching ~1 hour?

Heat may have weakened some of the columns but the failure seems to have been from one of the two mechanisms or a combination of them above.

What two mechanisms?

OK - I'll pause there.

What are you claiming which will invalidate my explanation for BadBoy of the errors in Missing Jolt?

The second part of your post seeks to repudiate the accepted mechanism of global collapse by substituting one of your own favoured speculations. Whether you are right or not what difference does it make to the explanation I gave BadBoy where - at this stage - I have explicilty refrained from discusing that stage of collpase?

 

[Dave Rogers]

2. Why does TZ suppose that explosives would not be more likely to cause column on column impacts anyway? I don't understand why he thinks applying explosives wouldn't cause any jolt, unless they were applied all the way down the building and even then I would think major column on column impact would still be more likely. Clinically removing parts of columns with explosives, on all columns, at the same time...? Also applying explosives all the way down, to presumably avoid the "big jolt" would mean timing is essential, you would need the explosives to follow the collapse progression exactly, plus it would be much more likely we would have heard and seen something in that case.

Aye, there's the rub. The best way to make certain that a jolt was observed would be to remove a section of columns with explosives. The result would be that the columns would fail (1) in such a way as to leave two vertically separated ends which had not already bypassed each other, (2) with the same separation for each column, and (3) simultaneously so as not to induce any tilt in the upper section. This would quite conceivably produce the sort of jolt Tony is looking for, and indeed in verinage demolitions exactly such a jolt is seen due to the highly controlled conditions of collapse initiation and initial descent. Tony steadfastly believes that all these conditions must have been present in any impact/fire induced collapse; while the first is debatable by denial and the third is arguable from the observed dynamics at least of WTC1, the second is simply absurd. And to explain why his jolt didn't happen, he invokes precisely timed explosives destroying the lower structure just as the falling block reaches it, which doesn't really cast any light on what the nanothermite chips he so praises Criteria for obsessing on were actually for; if, by violating conservation of energy, they were actually able to melt the steel, they wouldn't have done so to a precision within three or four orders of magnitude of what was required, and if used as fuses they would have guaranteed its absence. Really, none of it makes the faintest shred of sense.

Dave

 

[JSanderO]

Be my guest - but drop the speculative stuff and give reasoned objections to my post which was EXPLICITLY clear as to MY OBJECTIVE - I was responding to a request by BadBoy within the context of the problems of "Missing Jolt":

If you are convinced that my simplification will somehow mislead BadBoy on the thrust of my post - demonstrating how Szamboti was wrong with Missing Jolt - feel free to post another explanation for BadBoy. Remember he asked ME the questions.

Sure - but don't be too sure. Naughty me also failed to mention the columns cut by the aircraft impact. Because the initiation cascade process started some time after the aircraft impact. Something time sensitive triggered that cascade. MY money is on heat. Be my guest if you want to argue that the cascade was NOT triggered by heat.

Now you imply that there are multiple other mechanisms other than axial failures. But you suggest only one speculative mechanism - this one:


5" horizontal push from a hot beam does not cause total misalignment - it does not result in "the upper one translated (off)" and the net result is still that the column fails in axial overload subject to whatever the resultant eccentricities. Exactly as I have explained on several previous occasions.

Now I'm sorry that you see the need to instruct me on some elementary "Structures 101":
Be assured that I am aware of the engineering.

Then this point:
Wanna bet? What other factor could "cut in" after a delay approaching ~1 hour?
What two mechanisms?

OK - I'll pause there.

What are you claiming which will invalidate my explanation for BadBoy of the errors in Missing Jolt?

The second part of your post seeks to repudiate the accepted mechanism of global collapse by substituting one of your own favoured speculations. Whether you are right or not what difference does it make to the explanation I gave BadBoy where - at this stage - I have explicilty refrained from discusing that stage of collpase?

Ozzie,
I would like to see the columns strength was driven below the service load argument flushed out with some "numbers" and so on. Sure I can conceive that a very hot column is arguable weaker than a stone cold one. I'd like to see how this mechanism did in the non severed columns.... AND what did this look like... graphically... that I am having a hard to conceptualizing.. especially because I would have expected to see to 40 something softened buckled up "heat softened/weakened" columns in the debris and columns recovered after the collapse.

If this WAS the case.... wouldn't NIST have had them all numbered and used the core collapse as "the" mechanism?

Just askin'

 

[JSanderO]

Aye, there's the rub. The best way to make certain that a jolt was observed would be to remove a section of columns with explosives. The result would be that the columns would fail (1) in such a way as to leave two vertically separated ends which had not already bypassed each other, (2) with the same separation for each column, and (3) simultaneously so as not to induce any tilt in the upper section. This would quite conceivably produce the sort of jolt Tony is looking for, and indeed in verinage demolitions exactly such a jolt is seen due to the highly controlled conditions of collapse initiation and initial descent. Tony steadfastly believes that all these conditions must have been present in any impact/fire induced collapse; while the first is debatable by denial and the third is arguable from the observed dynamics at least of WTC1, the second is simply absurd. And to explain why his jolt didn't happen, he invokes precisely timed explosives destroying the lower structure just as the falling block reaches it, which doesn't really cast any light on what the nanothermite chips he so praises Criteria for obsessing on were actually for; if, by violating conservation of energy, they were actually able to melt the steel, they wouldn't have done so to a precision within three or four orders of magnitude of what was required, and if used as fuses they would have guaranteed its absence. Really, none of it makes the faintest shred of sense.

Dave

Excellent presentation Dave!

 

[tsig]

The situation CANNOT arise for reasons given many times over recent years. THEREFORE there are no valid engineering questions which can arise in a legitimate scenario.

Sure there can be a wide range of engineering speculations but they must all fail if followed through with full logical reasoning - because the scenario under discussion could not arise.

Put simply - IF "Missing Jolt" was valid we would need to rebuild from scratch most of our understanding of the applied physics of structural engineering. The errors/confusions are not in the physics - they are in the minds of those trying to apply the principles.

That is the key area where Tony's claim is wrong and it is an area where many - both "truthers" and "debunkers" - are confused.

The confusion is over sequence or timing. It is NOT "alignment at the time of collapse initiation"

The scenario for missing jolt has ALL of the "top block" falling to make axial contact impact of ALL columns. So it is AFTER collapse initiation. Hence one cause of the confusion - no one clear about what stage of mechanism they are discussing. And it is not the real scene - it is the Bazant fantasy scene used to set up the "limit case" neither of which happened - the "limit case" did not occur - "ROOSD plus" did. And the fantasy initiation did not occur - initiation was a heat triggered sequential cascading failure of columns.

Your next comment is theoretically correct: Theoretically correct IF it was possible to remove all columns in that manner. I doubt that such use of explosives would be possible under any circumstances and it certainly wasn't done at WTC on 9/11.

And we don't have to prove my assertion because it is only speculating about the possibility of setting up the Bazant Limit Case scenario. We are discussing the real event and need to make sure we don't keep switching scenarios - real to Bazant fantasy. (Or "mixing and matching".)

However that was the silly conclusion T Sz draws from "Missing Jolt" - since he cannot explain it without explosives == therefore explosives must have been used. Tony's limited comprehension of a complex engineering mechanism is NOT proof of CD - it merely proves his limited comprehension AND his dishonest refusal to address reasoned explanations posted by me and others.





That is a more complicated issue. Remember that it is a scenario for a single column which only occurs AFTER that specific column has taken its step in the cascade sequence. Which is specifically a "real event" scenario and therefore cannot be a contribution to the "Missing Jolt" scenario which was Bazant limit case fantasy.

Put simply IF such a scenario did arise - in the real event - it is only one column and the total available energy will simply re-buckle the already failed column. One of those "mini-jolts" which the supporters of Szamboti try to put into discussion. "Missing Jolt" was about one massive big jolt which Bazant legitimately identified as the premise for the limit case.

We need to keep avoiding the temptation to switch back from the real event into the Bazant fantasy - or Tony's bastardised version of Bazant to be more pedantic.

It looks like Tonys' problem is not the Missing Jolt but the Ignored Tilt.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It looks like Tonys' problem is not the Missing Jolt but the Ignored Tilt.

Are you sure his problem doesn't lay between his ears?

 

[Oystein]

... indeed in verinage demolitions exactly such a jolt is seen due to the highly controlled conditions of collapse initiation and initial descent. ...

It is my understanding that the very idea behind the Vérinage technique is to maximize the jolt (or the deceleration?), as a maximum jolt has the highest shattering effect on the vertical load-bearing elements (walls), and that thus the method is to be applied on buildings where the structural layout is such that a straight-down descent is most easily achieved (load bearing walls parallel, floor slabs continuous...).

In that sense, the methods does indeed aim at the "path of greatest resistance". AND it works because the weight of the building is sufficient to crush that "path of greatest resistance" - with a sly smile towards oz, I declare that Vérinage is the real-world experiment to verify B&Z (2002)

 

[ozeco41]

Aye, there's the rub. The best way to make certain that a jolt was observed would be to remove a section of columns with explosives. The result would be that the columns would fail (1) in such a way as to leave two vertically separated ends which had not already bypassed each other, (2) with the same separation for each column, and (3) simultaneously so as not to induce any tilt in the upper section. This would quite conceivably produce the sort of jolt Tony is looking for, and indeed in verinage demolitions exactly such a jolt is seen due to the highly controlled conditions of collapse initiation and initial descent.

Tony steadfastly believes that all these conditions must have been present in any impact/fire induced collapse; while the first is debatable by denial and the third is arguable from the observed dynamics at least of WTC1, the second is simply absurd.

Agreed the status of all three points.

And to explain why his jolt didn't happen, he invokes precisely timed explosives destroying the lower structure just as the falling block reaches it, which doesn't really cast any light on what the nanothermite chips he so praises Criteria for obsessing on were actually for; if, by violating conservation of energy, they were actually able to melt the steel, they wouldn't have done so to a precision within three or four orders of magnitude of what was required, and if used as fuses they would have guaranteed its absence.

And in doing so changes horses - moves the goalposts - from "initiation stage" where the jolt is allegedly missing to "progression stage" which is long after the tme there could have been the Bazant Jolt

Really, none of it makes the faintest shred of sense.

So true.

 

[ozeco41]

It is my understanding that the very idea behind the Vérinage technique is to maximize the jolt (or the deceleration?), as a maximum jolt has the highest shattering effect on the vertical load-bearing elements (walls), and that thus the method is to be applied on buildings where the structural layout is such that a straight-down descent is most easily achieved (load bearing walls parallel, floor slabs continuous...).

In that sense, the methods does indeed aim at the "path of greatest resistance". AND it works because the weight of the building is sufficient to crush that "path of greatest resistance" - with a sly smile towards oz, I declare that Vérinage is the real-world experiment to verify B&Z (2002)

 

[ozeco41]

It looks like Tonys' problem is not the Missing Jolt but the Ignored Tilt.

 

[ozeco41]

Ozzie,
I would like to see the columns strength was driven below the service load argument flushed out with some "numbers" and so on.

You - any of us - need to understand that it did happen and WHY it happened before you/I/we can put the numbers on it. You have to know what you are applying maths to before you can apply the maths.

And - for this situation - there is no need for maths if you trust your own reasoning processes. We know that something triggered the collapse about an hour after the initial impact. The only time dependent input was heat. (Or CD applied in the midst of the fires but let's not go there.) So heat reduced the strength of the first column to fail.

How much? The only thing that matters is that it was "enough" to cause failure. Of that specific column. We will never know which column it was OR what the actual temperature was. And the same applies to every other column which failed in axial overload. Every one of them was "hot enough to fail" including any that failed at ambient temperature due to where they were located in the load re-distribution dynamic.

I'm comfortable with that situation. Many engineers of the "left brain" persuasion would not be comfortable with that explanation. They do not - probably for many cannot - think without the numbers.

You are not satisfied to rely on reasoning which does not need numbers. I am. If something happened it adds nothing to the fact of "happening" if it happened 123.5 or 124.7 or any other relevant number. The numbers don't change "it happened".

We will never have those numbers so I cannot help you further.

 

[JSanderO]

You are not satisfied to rely on reasoning which does not need numbers. I am. If something happened it adds nothing to the fact of "happening" if it happened 123.5 or 124.7 or any other relevant number. The numbers don't change "it happened".

We will never have those numbers so I cannot help you further.

Ozzie,
I know what happened and that heat made it collapse. My problem has been my inability to understand / visualize the column failure(s). I've seen no examples of those failed columns save that one bent into a horseshoe. I read the NIST assertion of beam expansion... but I thought the col 79 was supposedly a buckling from loss of bracing... But a single floor collapse leading that that column buckling seems counter intuitive to me.

I don't see anything to support CD... but I am having a hard time understanding how it goes from lots of heat to the whole thing collapsing. What I an saying is... even if it is not precisely what happened... I want to be able to "see" / conceptualize in slo mo in my mind... how these towers started to become undone. I don't expect anyone to do a gif or vid of it. and "column" buckling is not doing it for me. Sorry

 

[BasqueArch]

Ozzie,
I know what happened and that heat made it collapse. My problem has been my inability to understand / visualize the column failure(s). I've seen no examples of those failed columns save that one bent into a horseshoe. I read the NIST assertion of beam expansion... but I thought the col 79 was supposedly a buckling from loss of bracing... But a single floor collapse leading that that column buckling seems counter intuitive to me.

I don't see anything to support CD... but I am having a hard time understanding how it goes from lots of heat to the whole thing collapsing. What I an saying is... even if it is not precisely what happened... I want to be able to "see" / conceptualize in slo mo in my mind... how these towers started to become undone. I don't expect anyone to do a gif or vid of it. and "column" buckling is not doing it for me. Sorry

Perhaps it’s because NIST considered that option about the trusses, but after examining the evidence, rejected it. The collapse at WTC 7 began at column 79, and the girder on the 13th floor was not the only one that caused the failure of that column like you suggest, but the last one. Also there were no trusses supporting col. 79.

Top of the line experienced engineers and scientists put a lot of work into the NIST study, you should read it.

 

[GlennB]

^

Plus, the building was "somewhat shagged, in the general sense" by lengthy fires. It's not like it was totally pristine apart from the col 79 business.

 

[DGM]

Top of the line experienced engineers and scientists put a lot of work into the NIST study, you should read it.

By "read it", do you mean from beginning to end? Not just sections at a time?

 

[BasqueArch]

By "read it", do you mean from beginning to end? Not just sections at a time?

One needs to read the parts that saves one from cluelessly blathering.