OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[DGM]

Which are the same three points I have made for Sander on previous occasions.

And "considering design considerations to the extreme" is more a matter of policy than engineering.

Exactly. I don't recall "indestructible" ever falling in line with economics.

That being economics = policy. This also does not equal the design being unsafe.

 

[ozeco41]

Exactly. I don't recall "indestructible" ever falling in line with economics.

That being economics = policy. This also does not equal the design being unsafe.

Put very crudely to make the point;

The simplest way to stop motor vehicle accidents is to close all roads and ground all motor vehicles.

At some point a community has to make a risk balanced assessment - in this case between:

adequate utility of function versus risk (i.e. probability) of something going wrong TIMES cost of the [damage/harm/recovery] if it does go wrong.

 

[Major_Tom]

Perhaps a statement that the design played a role in the complete collapse of the twin towers?

Maybe?

SanderO, nobody in any official position will ever, ever go there. Not because it isn't true. It is because they have been in 'cover your arse' mode since the collapses occurred.

Nobody in academia or in management will ever make a statement like that if they aren't willing to be mercilessly attacked.


A highly perceptive statement by Sally Regenhard at the 2005 Congressional hearing...






Ms. REGENHARD:

First of all, I just want to preface my comments with saying I often introduce myself in the way that I am basically just a little mother from the Bronx, and really, that is what I am, and I am not a technical person. However, I do have, over the last four years, you know, the input from my wonderful technical advisory panel, which represents some excellent, excellent people in the academic fields, and certainly, you know, in structural engineering, fire protection, architecture, and evacuation specialists.

”but to get back to your question, you know, political correctness. I have seen, and the other families of the victims have seen the aftermath of 9/11 to be somewhat definitely flavored by political correctness in many, many ways, in so many ways. But certainly, with the NIST investigation, I mean, I understand that it is a wonderful organization of scientists, and scientists are not trained to be like NYPD detectives. There is a professional and academic way that these kinds of organizations deal with one and with other entities. And you have other professional people in that investigation that should have been really interrogated, such as the Port Authority, such as their building plans. You know, the Port Authority never turned over their building plans until there was an article about it in the front page of the New York Times condemning them, or not condemning them, but accusing them of really not coming forward. That is one of the examples. People like the chief structural engineer for the first World Trade Center, you know, his work should have been investigated, because after all, he was responsible for the design of that building, and the subsequent, and yet, instead of that, he was sort of dealt with in a friendly basis, and he was actually put on the payroll to explain his plans and all that.

So, there were these very, you know, maybe because I am a layperson, I can't understand why these entities that should have been scrutinized and investigated were sort of taken in and became part of the investigation. You know, that is just one of the examples of where the families were really, really deeply concerned about that. And also, the avoidance of certain things that were not politically correct, like the avoidance of blaming anyone for anything. I mean, we all teach our children to obey the law, and to respect authority, and not to break any laws, but yet, when we have this investigation of the, I would say the needless deaths of nearly 3,000 people, no one is to be blamed. It is handled so gingerly. I mean, there is a reason why nearly 3,000 people are dead, and I feel the majority of them needlessly, but yet, the approach of these investigations is very, very tentative, and no one wants to put anyone on the line, and no one wants to look into what was the effect of the Port Authority immunities from building and fire codes?

If someone said to me what are the two major grievous examples of what went wrong on 9/11 in those buildings? I would say the two things are the Port Authority exemptions and immunities from New York City building and fire codes, and the wholesale failure of the FDNY radio communications, and the wholesale failure of the Emergency Management System of the City of New York and the Port Authority. And these are the crux of the matter. This is the bottom line. Yet, these are the issues that were, you know, skirted around and, you know, tiptoeing through the tulips, instead of—and still, today, I have to fault both the 9/11 Commission and the NIST investigation for not taking a stand, for not saying that in our country, no building should be above the law, especially the Port Authority buildings that were the tallest and largest buildings in the world, that at that time, was built to contain the largest number of people in the world, and yet, those buildings were allowed to be exempt and immune from building and fire codes, essentially above the law, and now, we are allowing the Port Authority to do the same thing all over again.

The new World Trade Center and the memorial, and every single building down there on that property will be just as exempt and immune from every single New York City building and fire code as the first one. That is an abomination. That is a sin. That is an outrage against humanity. And you know, I am sorry to get emotional. I expected the NIST investigation and the 9/11 Commission to take a stand on that, but you know what, it is only the average Joe Q. Citizen. When we break the law, we have to pay the consequences, but when we have these huge organizations breaking the law, I feel they are not held to the same standard as an average citizen, and that hurts.

From these comments certain key words and phrases can be extracted:

politically correct
avoidance of blame
handled gingerly
no one wants to put anyone on the line
no one wants to look into...
skirted around
tiptoeing through the tulips
not taking a stand
abomination
a sin
an outrage against humanity
should have been investigated
sort of dealt with in a friendly basis





So SanderO, these people will never. ever allow a statement or even a suggestion that the design played any role in the complete collapses of the WTC towers. And they will attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

 

[Major_Tom]

Exactly. I don't recall "indestructible" ever falling in line with economics.

That being economics = policy. This also does not equal the design being unsafe.

You sound like a corporate lawyer representing the Government of Japan on the subject of Fukushima.

 

[ozeco41]

From these comments certain key words and phrases can be extracted:

politically correct
avoidance of blame
handled gingerly
no one wants to put anyone on the line
no one wants to look into...
skirted around
tiptoeing through the tulips
not taking a stand
abomination
a sin
an outrage against humanity
should have been investigated
sort of dealt with in a friendly basis





So SanderO, these people will never. ever allow a statement or even a suggestion that the design played any role in the complete collapses of the WTC towers. And they will attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

That must rank as your most blatant set of quote-mined lies by innuendo for months Major_Tom. And pure truther cant.

So I'll be first to call you on the nonsense seeing as I have regularly supported you on those aspects of technical claims where you have been right.

I will not support you with this nonsense. Nor will I waste effort rebutting your parroting of Ms. Regenhard's emotive bigoted part truths and lies by omission.

Sander deserves better than to be the victim of your mendacious agenda of pseudo "support".

 

[WilliamSeger]

No they wouldn't... that's incorrect.

The one thing you really need to understand about BZ before making statements like that is, before making statements like that you need to be able to explain where all the kinetic energy goes. I appreciate your imagination in speculating about what happened, but imaginary physics are out of bounds.

 

[beachnut]

SanderO, nobody in any official position will ever, ever go there. Not because it isn't true. It is because they have been in 'cover your arse' mode since the collapses occurred.

Nobody in academia or in management will ever make a statement like that if they aren't willing to be mercilessly attacked.


A highly perceptive statement by Sally Regenhard at the 2005 Congressional hearing...


Ms. REGENHARD:

From these comments certain key words and phrases can be extracted:

politically correct
avoidance of blame
handled gingerly
no one wants to put anyone on the line
no one wants to look into...
skirted around
tiptoeing through the tulips
not taking a stand
abomination
a sin
an outrage against humanity
should have been investigated
sort of dealt with in a friendly basis

So SanderO, these people will never. ever allow a statement or even a suggestion that the design played any role in the complete collapses of the WTC towers. And they will attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

Another "gravity collapse is an illusion" card.
Don't blame the terrorists, blame others; meme.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Fires burned on 4 floors starting on flr 12 in the 62 story tower First Interstate Bank in LA which did not collapse... even sections of it. What was different about that building and the twin towers?

1- planes

2- severed columns

3- removed fire insulation

4- unfought fires

Didn't you know?

 

[beachnut]

Fires burned on 4 floors starting on flr 12 in the 62 story tower First Interstate Bank in LA which did not collapse... even sections of it. What was different about that building and the twin towers? Why did FIB survive standing and the twins collapse?

Let's hear it guys... use your imaginations! Think in the abstract!

How about using facts. Did an aircraft hit FIB in LA? Did 10,000 gallons of jet fuel start fires on multiple floor...

Fought fires? lol, are you serious?

That fire looked bad because it was at night, the same fire at day would only get attention due to smoke, as the flames are masked by sunlight. Just a note.

Guess it could be evidence of... wait for it...
"Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire"

How is that for super duper simple research which took... wait for it...
0.35 seconds....

Do you have more questions on why fire fought, and great insulation can save a building?

Repeat for any research challenged....
" It was noted that quality control in the application of the sprayed-on fire protection was unusually good."
Plus no plane put a giant hole in the building and ripped off the sprayed on insulation... but that is a known fact.

MT, can't comprehend the Windsor Building fire was fought, they poured water on the building. Golly gee, FIB in LA fires were fought.

What is the point?

 

[JSanderO]

Oh My! I had the honor of meeting Ms Regenhard when I attended a symposium to about responses to disaster and investigation of major disasters. James Quintierre spoke and others. I don't know if it was recorded or transcribed but it was very interesting the "difference" of and nature of the investigations of disasters in the nation's history. The NTSB was sort of presented as the "gold standard" for this and I believe it was Quintierre who said (IIRC) that NTSB contacted NIST and offered to assist them in protocol and so forth and they were dismissed. I believe this may have been one of the reasons Quintierre left NIST.

It's is a bit crazy to NOT closely examine the design of a building, or a plane, or a rocket booster which experiences a disaster... and "pretend" that the design had no role in the disaster.

I am have to say that Ozzis is sailing this one on the wrong tack... and the thrust of Ms Regenhard's remarks quoted are the right one. The root cause of the disaster was hijacked planes flying into the towers. This is clearly an out of design spec circumstance. But surely there is nothing wrong in... but something right... in looking at the design and engineering and determining the role the engineers' and planners'.. and government agencies' decisions played.

No one was sent to jail or sued for the Challenger disaster, or Fukishima, or 3 Mile Island or original non performing Hubble Telescope, or the levy design in New Orleans after Katrina. And it took years for BP or Exxon to settle claims against them for "liability".

It is rather shocking to me that everyone concerned in the design, construction, code issues, and investigation gets a pass. It's treated like a sink hole... sh8t happens... get over it and move on. This has nothing to do with CD or conspiracies.

Perhaps the scrutiny I am looking for and apparently Ms Regnehard is would reveal that despite the engineering innovations and alterations to code requirements the towers were no better or worse than a building like the ESB with respect to disaster survival and life safety issues.

While no one took "heat" for it... I don't think you'll be seeing and gyb board shaft wall type egress stair enclosures any more. So if this "engineering" idea has been tossed out the window... for high rises... how can any allege it was a sound engineering one in the first place? Does this mean those who made it and allowed it are "legally" libel for death etc.? I have no idea. I know no one went to jail for homicide in the Ford Pinto gas matter and many people died because of a faulty gas tank design. At least in THAT case and several others the designs were identified after the disasters as faulty.

++++

Essentially all this BS about limit cases is a distraction from the actual disaster investigation and really =navel gazing. Who cares. We had buildings collapse. We don't need made to believe our eyes. We need analysis to explain how it happened. THAT is what NIST etc. I thought was supposed to do. Not debunk CD... Not debunk conspiracy theories. They may have presented an attempt to explain the collapses. Many have pointed out their work has flaws and should not have. They have enormous resources and had years to do this.

++++

I don't want or need anyone's support. People who look at a mechanical event and ignore an analysis of the structure are in denial that the structure HAD to determine the FORM and NATURE of its destruction. Doesn't matter whether it's Mr. B or any other engineer, physicist or armchair researcher/ debunker and so on.

++++

I don't know anything about MT couching a CD theory behind his "work". What I observe is he and a few others such as Femr2, OWE have done yeoman's work in "forensic" analysis from the public record... mostly the vids and still images... And their work looks a lot more rigorous than what NIST produced. That to me is a pitiful mark against NIST's competence. Nothing that I read or see from these guys looks to me like they are asserting that the collapses were CDs. But it seems as if since they don't tow the NIST, or Mr B line... hook line and sinker.., they are conspiracy theorist. If you are not with us you are against us and the truthers are against us. Voila... painted with a broad brush!

Ironically NIST tries to explain initiation... and dodges completely with two words... -Global collapse- what the mechanisms of collapses were... The aforementioned do not even get into -initiation- but member such as Beachy accuse them hiding their belief that the initiation was a CD but ... boo hoo... the collapse was a trivial gravity driven unstoppable progression. That is just wrong.

The others have piled on saying everyone explain with perfect clarity what has been identified as ROOSD. And way too much ridicule has gone on because the collapse process was given a sensible description, a name and an acronym. What childishness from grown men and engineers and professionals on this forum. WAY WAY too mean spirited.

++++

Humans make mistakes. We are taught to acknowledge them when pointed out and move on and hopefully learn from them. We are having trouble with the -acknowledge them- part. And turning this into an slam fest accusing people of questionable motive.

++++

There are many intelligent professional members here who could, if they wanted to, analyze the collapses and best NIST. It would be, in my opinion a honorable and important service to the people, the engineering community and the victims (I suppose). But more important it seems is to waste time in "debunkery" and defending theoretical physics.

Understanding how these towers came apart does not absolve the terrorists of one iota of guilt or responsibility for this heinous crime. Only truthers cling to this stupid idea.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Oh My! I had the honor of meeting Ms Regenhard when I attended a symposium to about responses to disaster and investigation of major disasters. James Quintierre spoke and others. I don't know if it was recorded or transcribed but it was very interesting the "difference" of and nature of the investigations of disasters in the nation's history. The NTSB was sort of presented as the "gold standard" for this and I believe it was Quintierre who said (IIRC) that NTSB contacted NIST and offered to assist them in protocol and so forth and they were dismissed. I believe this may have been one of the reasons Quintierre left NIST.

It's is a bit crazy to NOT closely examine the design of a building, or a plane, or a rocket booster which experiences a disaster... and "pretend" that the design had no role in the disaster.

I am have to say that Ozzis is sailing this one on the wrong tack... and the thrust of Ms Regenhard's remarks quoted are the right one. The root cause of the disaster was hijacked planes flying into the towers. This is clearly an out of design spec circumstance. But surely there is nothing wrong in... but something right... in looking at the design and engineering and determining the role the engineers' and planners'.. and government agencies' decisions played.

No one was sent to jail or sued for the Challenger disaster, or Fukishima, or 3 Mile Island or original non performing Hubble Telescope, or the levy design in New Orleans after Katrina. And it took years for BP or Exxon to settle claims against them for "liability".

It is rather shocking to me that everyone concerned in the design, construction, code issues, and investigation gets a pass. It's treated like a sink hole... sh8t happens... get over it and move on. This has nothing to do with CD or conspiracies.

Perhaps the scrutiny I am looking for and apparently Ms Regnehard is would reveal that despite the engineering innovations and alterations to code requirements the towers were no better or worse than a building like the ESB with respect to disaster survival and life safety issues.

While no one took "heat" for it... I don't think you'll be seeing and gyb board shaft wall type egress stair enclosures any more. So if this "engineering" idea has been tossed out the window... for high rises... how can any allege it was a sound engineering one in the first place? Does this mean those who made it and allowed it are "legally" libel for death etc.? I have no idea. I know no one went to jail for homicide in the Ford Pinto gas matter and many people died because of a faulty gas tank design. At least in THAT case and several others the designs were identified after the disasters as faulty.

++++

Essentially all this BS about limit cases is a distraction from the actual disaster investigation and really =navel gazing. Who cares. We had buildings collapse. We don't need made to believe our eyes. We need analysis to explain how it happened. THAT is what NIST etc. I thought was supposed to do. Not debunk CD... Not debunk conspiracy theories. They may have presented an attempt to explain the collapses. Many have pointed out their work has flaws and should not have. They have enormous resources and had years to do this.

++++

I don't want or need anyone's support. People who look at a mechanical event and ignore an analysis of the structure are in denial that the structure HAD to determine the FORM and NATURE of its destruction. Doesn't matter whether it's Mr. B or any other engineer, physicist or armchair researcher/ debunker and so on.

++++

I don't know anything about MT couching a CD theory behind his "work". What I observe is he and a few others such as Femr2, OWE have done yeoman's work in "forensic" analysis from the public record... mostly the vids and still images... And their work looks a lot more rigorous than what NIST produced. That to me is a pitiful mark against NIST's competence. Nothing that I read or see from these guys looks to me like they are asserting that the collapses were CDs. But it seems as if since they don't tow the NIST, or Mr B line... hook line and sinker.., they are conspiracy theorist. If you are not with us you are against us and the truthers are against us. Voila... painted with a broad brush!

Ironically NIST tries to explain initiation... and dodges completely with two words... -Global collapse- what the mechanisms of collapses were... The aforementioned do not even get into -initiation- but member such as Beachy accuse them hiding their belief that the initiation was a CD but ... boo hoo... the collapse was a trivial gravity driven unstoppable progression. That is just wrong.

The others have piled on saying everyone explain with perfect clarity what has been identified as ROOSD. And way too much ridicule has gone on because the collapse process was given a sensible description, a name and an acronym. What childishness from grown men and engineers and professionals on this forum. WAY WAY too mean spirited.

++++

Humans make mistakes. We are taught to acknowledge them when pointed out and move on and hopefully learn from them. We are having trouble with the -acknowledge them- part. And turning this into an slam fest accusing people of questionable motive.

++++

There are many intelligent professional members here who could, if they wanted to, analyze the collapses and best NIST. It would be, in my opinion a honorable and important service to the people, the engineering community and the victims (I suppose). But more important it seems is to waste time in "debunkery" and defending theoretical physics.

Understanding how these towers came apart does not absolve the terrorists of one iota of guilt or responsibility for this heinous crime. Only truthers cling to this stupid idea.

The towers came apart because of how energy flow paths acted on the structure.

At the time the towers were built, an attack like 9/11/2001 was unpredictable, and the buildings
Were not designed against terrorism,
any more than the battleships at Pearl harbor were designed to prevent kate torpedo bomb
Attacks.
We live we learn MT. Has brought a straw man CTER argument to the discussion, and his
Own work proves that, not the fault of the posters here if MT wants to play in being
Twoofer Dumb, probably to impress his small following in the truth movement.
The leapord has revealed his spots.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Oh My! I had the honor of meeting Ms Regenhard when I attended a symposium to about responses to disaster and investigation of major disasters. James Quintierre spoke and others. I don't know if it was recorded or transcribed but it was very interesting the "difference" of and nature of the investigations of disasters in the nation's history. The NTSB was sort of presented as the "gold standard" for this and I believe it was Quintierre who said (IIRC) that NTSB contacted NIST and offered to assist them in protocol and so forth and they were dismissed. I believe this may have been one of the reasons Quintierre left NIST.

It's is a bit crazy to NOT closely examine the design of a building, or a plane, or a rocket booster which experiences a disaster... and "pretend" that the design had no role in the disaster.

I am have to say that Ozzis is sailing this one on the wrong tack... and the thrust of Ms Regenhard's remarks quoted are the right one. The root cause of the disaster was hijacked planes flying into the towers. This is clearly an out of design spec circumstance. But surely there is nothing wrong in... but something right... in looking at the design and engineering and determining the role the engineers' and planners'.. and government agencies' decisions played.

No one was sent to jail or sued for the Challenger disaster, or Fukishima, or 3 Mile Island or original non performing Hubble Telescope, or the levy design in New Orleans after Katrina. And it took years for BP or Exxon to settle claims against them for "liability".

It is rather shocking to me that everyone concerned in the design, construction, code issues, and investigation gets a pass. It's treated like a sink hole... sh8t happens... get over it and move on. This has nothing to do with CD or conspiracies.

Perhaps the scrutiny I am looking for and apparently Ms Regnehard is would reveal that despite the engineering innovations and alterations to code requirements the towers were no better or worse than a building like the ESB with respect to disaster survival and life safety issues.

While no one took "heat" for it... I don't think you'll be seeing and gyb board shaft wall type egress stair enclosures any more. So if this "engineering" idea has been tossed out the window... for high rises... how can any allege it was a sound engineering one in the first place? Does this mean those who made it and allowed it are "legally" libel for death etc.? I have no idea. I know no one went to jail for homicide in the Ford Pinto gas matter and many people died because of a faulty gas tank design. At least in THAT case and several others the designs were identified after the disasters as faulty.

++++

Essentially all this BS about limit cases is a distraction from the actual disaster investigation and really =navel gazing. Who cares. We had buildings collapse. We don't need made to believe our eyes. We need analysis to explain how it happened. THAT is what NIST etc. I thought was supposed to do. Not debunk CD... Not debunk conspiracy theories. They may have presented an attempt to explain the collapses. Many have pointed out their work has flaws and should not have. They have enormous resources and had years to do this.

++++

I don't want or need anyone's support. People who look at a mechanical event and ignore an analysis of the structure are in denial that the structure HAD to determine the FORM and NATURE of its destruction. Doesn't matter whether it's Mr. B or any other engineer, physicist or armchair researcher/ debunker and so on.

++++

I don't know anything about MT couching a CD theory behind his "work". What I observe is he and a few others such as Femr2, OWE have done yeoman's work in "forensic" analysis from the public record... mostly the vids and still images... And their work looks a lot more rigorous than what NIST produced. That to me is a pitiful mark against NIST's competence. Nothing that I read or see from these guys looks to me like they are asserting that the collapses were CDs. But it seems as if since they don't tow the NIST, or Mr B line... hook line and sinker.., they are conspiracy theorist. If you are not with us you are against us and the truthers are against us. Voila... painted with a broad brush!

Ironically NIST tries to explain initiation... and dodges completely with two words... -Global collapse- what the mechanisms of collapses were... The aforementioned do not even get into -initiation- but member such as Beachy accuse them hiding their belief that the initiation was a CD but ... boo hoo... the collapse was a trivial gravity driven unstoppable progression. That is just wrong.

The others have piled on saying everyone explain with perfect clarity what has been identified as ROOSD. And way too much ridicule has gone on because the collapse process was given a sensible description, a name and an acronym. What childishness from grown men and engineers and professionals on this forum. WAY WAY too mean spirited.

++++

Humans make mistakes. We are taught to acknowledge them when pointed out and move on and hopefully learn from them. We are having trouble with the -acknowledge them- part. And turning this into an slam fest accusing people of questionable motive.

++++

There are many intelligent professional members here who could, if they wanted to, analyze the collapses and best NIST. It would be, in my opinion a honorable and important service to the people, the engineering community and the victims (I suppose). But more important it seems is to waste time in "debunkery" and defending theoretical physics.

Understanding how these towers came apart does not absolve the terrorists of one iota of guilt or responsibility for this heinous crime. Only truthers cling to this stupid idea.

The towers came apart because of how energy flow paths acted on the structure.

At the time the towers were built, an attack like 9/11/2001 was unpredictable, and the buildings
Were not designed against terrorism,
any more than the battleships at Pearl harbor were designed to prevent kate torpedo bomb
Attacks.
We live we learn MT. Has brought a straw man CTER argument to the discussion, and his
Own work proves that, not the fault of the posters here if MT wants to play in being
Twoofer Dumb, probably to impress his small following in the truth movement.
The leapord has revealed his spots, they can not be white washed away.

 

[JSanderO]

The towers came apart because of how energy flow paths acted on the structure.

At the time the towers were built, an attack like 9/11/2001 was unpredictable, and the buildings
Were not designed against terrorism,
any more than the battleships at Pearl harbor were designed to prevent kate torpedo bomb
Attacks.
We live we learn MT. Has brought a straw man CTER argument to the discussion, and his
Own work proves that, not the fault of the posters here if MT wants to play in being
Twoofer Dumb, probably to impress his small following in the truth movement.
The leapord has revealed his spots.

Pure unadulterated unfounded assertions and rubbish.

This is not about "designing against terrorism". It is about a building performance study to look at how the engineering design etc did and what engineering solutions might have performed better.

"Forensic engineering is the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate or function as intended, causing personal injury or damage to property. The consequences of failure are dealt with by the law of product liability. The field also deals with retracing processes and procedures leading to accidents in operation of vehicles or machinery. The subject is applied most commonly in civil law cases, although it may be of use in criminal law cases. Generally, the purpose of a forensic engineering investigation is to locate cause or causes of failure with a view to improve performance or life of a component, or to assist a court in determining the facts of an accident. It can also involve investigation of intellectual property claims, especially patents."

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Pure unadulterated unfounded assertions and rubbish.

This is not about "designing against terrorism". It is about a building performance study to look at how the engineering design etc did and what engineering solutions might have performed better.

"Forensic engineering is the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate or function as intended, causing personal injury or damage to property. The consequences of failure are dealt with by the law of product liability. The field also deals with retracing processes and procedures leading to accidents in operation of vehicles or machinery. The subject is applied most commonly in civil law cases, although it may be of use in criminal law cases. Generally, the purpose of a forensic engineering investigation is to locate cause or causes of failure with a view to improve performance or life of a component, or to assist a court in determining the facts of an accident. It can also involve investigation of intellectual property claims, especially patents."

And you think I don't understand that, Banzant showed that fires in an undamaged no impact
From an airliner building, if unfought, and no fire proofing would induce Euler buckling, that would lead to Global Collapse.

BLGB showed that the specific damage and engineering of the towers in core beam and girder fracturing, with damage to column welds would bring the buildings down with the
Correct collapse times, a homogeneous mass can flow like water over a water fall, until
It splashes on the rocks that provides resistance to the flow.

In BLGB you people are discussing a computer model, how many here have actually
Seen it or understand it?

 

[JSanderO]

And you think I don't understand that, Banzant showed that fires in an undamaged no impact
From an airliner building, if unfought, and no fire proofing would induce Euler buckling, that would lead to Global Collapse.

BLGB showed that the specific damage and engineering of the towers in core beam and girder fracturing, with damage to column welds would bring the buildings down with the
Correct collapse times, a homogeneous mass can flow like water over a water fall, until
It splashes on the rocks that provides resistance to the flow.

In BLGB you people are discussing a computer model, how many here have actually
Seen it or understand it?

Fires don't cause Euler buckling if I understand what this is. Computer models if not simulating real work are not helpful.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Fires don't cause Euler buckling if I understand what this is. Computer models if not simulating real work are not helpful.

Fires are shown to cause softening of steel allowing gravitational loading to cause Eular Buckling.

I can duplicate that in any easy experiment. Why do you present a straw man argument?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Pure unadulterated unfounded assertions and rubbish.

This is not about "designing against terrorism". It is about a building performance study to look at how the engineering design etc did and what engineering solutions might have performed better.

"Forensic engineering is the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate or function as intended, causing personal injury or damage to property. The consequences of failure are dealt with by the law of product liability. The field also deals with retracing processes and procedures leading to accidents in operation of vehicles or machinery. The subject is applied most commonly in civil law cases, although it may be of use in criminal law cases. Generally, the purpose of a forensic engineering investigation is to locate cause or causes of failure with a view to improve performance or life of a component, or to assist a court in determining the facts of an accident. It can also involve investigation of intellectual property claims, especially patents."

Basically, what you're saying is that you believe that engineers should be designing buildings to prevent progressive collapse, should the circumstances arise that would induce collapse initiation. Correct?

Well, I believe that some govt buildings are indeed designed this way.

But why should a privately owned building be designed this way?

 

[Major_Tom]

I will not support you with this nonsense. Nor will I waste effort rebutting your parroting of Ms. Regenhard's emotive bigoted part truths and lies by omission.

Then why not try the written statement by James Quintiere from the same transcript of the same congressional hearing?

STATEMENT BY JAMES G. QUINTIERE

PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. I have followed the investigation from onset of the incident, as I was about to teach fire investigators at the ATF Academy (FLETC) in Georgia on the morning of 9/11. I joined the SSC team of Sally and Monica after we mutually discovered each other by speaking our concerns on the WTC collapse. I have published in the area of the WTC incident, our students built a scale-model of the fire on a floor of the North Tower, and I have followed the NIST activities from before their special funding. I assisted NIST early in 2002 in viewing photographs and video held by the NY Times. I had wished for clear and complete analyses and evidence to determine the full cause of the factors behind and the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings, as they bear on the fire safety design of current and future buildings. I am also concerned about the lack of sufficient government support for fire research and its implementation in fire safety design, codes and standards.

Concerns about the NIST Investigation

Scientists at NIST should be commended for their individual efforts in rising to the occasion of the WTC investigation. NIST should be commended for organizing an activity of this scale for the first time. However, there are some issues of concern that I will summarize. All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? The insulation thickness of the truss members varied from 0.5 inches at its construction, changed to a specification of 1.5 inches in 1995, and was taken on its face as 2.5 inches for the North tower fire floors based on a PA report. This extraordinary range of thicknesses bears an in depth investigation. Why were no hearings held or witness testimonies heard on this critical design process?

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? Their current explanation for the collapse of the towers is critically based on an assumption that the insulation was removed from the steel in the path of the aircraft, particularly the core columns. NIST does not show calculations or experiments to satisfactorily confirm that the insulation was removed in the core. As some large aircraft components went directly through the buildings, and NIST indicates the others were splintered on impact, can they explain why these small splinters could still denude the steel?

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? Especially, as we have pointed out to NIST that they may have underestimated the weight of the furnishings in the North Tower by a factor of 3. As fire effects on structure depend on temperature and time, this likely longer burning time is significant in the NIST analyses. Other tests of the trusses in the UL furnaces show that the steel attains critical temperatures in short times, and these temperatures correspond to NIST's own computation of truss failure for a single truss. Why have these findings seemingly been ignored in the NIST analyses?

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?

On the Recommendations

The eight group-headings of the NIST recommendations are not specific, as they cannot connect directly to their findings. Instead they speak to developing, improving or advancing technology for safety from fire. Hence, they really cry out for more research, technology adaptation, and education with respect to fire. This is understandable as the NIST role has been to be a leader in research, and a source of new knowledge for codes and standards. The Science Committee and the Congress should take note of the needs underlying the nature of these recommendations. They are more a need for research to assist standards.

NFPA testified at the Hearing that the implementation of new performance-based codes requires tools that have not yet been developed and nor are there sufficient people to understand how to use them. Congressman Boehlert pointed out to Sally Regenhard many are ''do-gooders'' that serve on the standard committees, but few come to the table with technical information that is needed for a full discussion. This transfer of technical information for standards in fire safety is only a role that government can effectively support. The Science Committee should thoughtfully consider how that support could be implemented.

I point out some alarming facts. The fire program at NIST received a boost in the 1970's under the confluence of several forces: NSF advancing $2 million per year for fire research, consumer product safety legislation (CPSC), and the funding advanced by industry and government agencies for fire research (about $ 2–3 million per year). This funding has considerably dropped in real dollars. The NIST fire program continues to survive by taking contracts from government and the private sector that could otherwise support academic or private industry. The extramural research program of NIST, inherited from NSF, has shrunk from effectively $2 million to about $500k in 1970 dollars. The NSF has defaulted a fire program to NIST so investigators in academia have no program to turn to at NSF. The NASA microgravity program had taken up the slack in fire research beginning about 1985, but its current fire research budget has been decimated in a shift from space station needed research to a Mars human flight program. The Science Committee has oversight over NSF, NASA, and NIST. It should investigate how it can best support the needed fire research.

NIST speaks to the need for education. I left NIST to contribute to that goal. The U.S. produces about 50 fire protection engineers per year when about 500 are really needed. If the fire service would incorporate fire engineers this number would double. There is a big lack of knowledge here, and it contributes to an infrastructure of fire safety that is currently fraught with good intentions, special interests, and ignorance. The Science Committee should recognize this deficiency.

James G. Quintiere
The John L. Bryan Professor
Fire Protection Engineering
University of Maryland

The posters here may want to read the written history of the WTC collapses a little better before producing the typical and predictable knee-jerk reactions expected within an environment like this.


James Quintiere also didn't seem aware that the collapse progression mechanism some of us call 'ROOSD' existed. Neither did David Benson, co-author of BLGB. Neither did Bazant. This is a very hard pill for many people to swallow as is clearly being documented in this revealing and intriguing thread.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Friends and JREF/ISF regulars, the the written technical history of the WTC collapses is rich and fascinating..and troubling, containing many internal contradictions. Please don't trivialize it by turning it into a simplified set of memes like the refrain of a pop song.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

James Quintiere also didn't seem aware that the collapse progression mechanism some of us call 'ROOSD' existed. Neither did David Benson, co-author of BLGB. Neither did Bazant. This is a very hard pill for many people to swallow as is clearly being documented in this revealing and intriguing thread.
.

Wrong, Benson, knew the floors would overload and collapse, as well as the columns would bypass, the only point Benson agrees with Banzant, is in Eular Buckling Initiation, which did occur.

Benson used Girder, Beam failure and off center strikes in the computer model to over come the structural resistance of the core.

The model assumes that un braced columns with damaged welds would collapse,
The paper you are reading is just the abstract, that is given to students to help them understand the complicated physics of the computer model.

Although Benson did get some points wrong it agrees well with ROOSD, in fact
D'Alembert's principal, along with an added upward force of convection and fluid dynamics
Seems to lead directly to the funnel effect, by reducing the resistance to early crush up.

 

[pgimeno]

Fires burned on 4 floors starting on flr 12 in the 62 story tower First Interstate Bank in LA which did not collapse... even sections of it. What was different about that building and the twin towers? Why did FIB survive standing and the twins collapse?

Let's hear it guys... use your imaginations! Think in the abstract!

First Interstate Bank burned for 3 and a half hours; firefighters were called after 15 minutes and then the fires were fought. Further investigation showed the "unusually good" quality of the fire protection application:

Although there was concern for structural integrity during the incident, post fire analysis indicates that there was no danger of major or minor structural collapse. It was noted that quality control in the application of the sprayed-on fire protection was unusually good.
​

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank_12.html