• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

OOS Collapse Propagation Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
JSanderO said:
I don't know what you mean by 1wtc destroying compartmentalization.
Click to expand...

Were the windows broken allowing fires to spread from floor to floor and allowing ventilation (and possibly some structure)?

Is fire compartmentalization a foreign term to you? If so, I really don't know what to say here.............:eek:
 
Last edited:
How about this re Guy Nordenson:

"The problem many have with the World Trade Center investigation is that it wasn't as open and not adequately peer reviewed, due in part to the veil of security concerns, so lots of people can disagree with the conclusions," Nordenson says. For instance, Nordenson himself is part of litigation suggesting the collapse of WTC 7 was not inevitable, but was due to design flaws in both the fire protection and some aspects of the structure."
 
DGM said:
Were the windows broken allowing fires to spread from floor to floor and allowing ventilation (and possibly some structure)?

Is fire compartmentalization a foreign term to you? If so, I really don't know what to say here.............:eek:
Click to expand...

Correct... falling debris damaged to 7wtc... and fires could spread from one damaged floor to the next.
 
JSanderO said:
How about this re Guy Nordenson:

"The problem many have with the World Trade Center investigation is that it wasn't as open and not adequately peer reviewed, due in part to the veil of security concerns, so lots of people can disagree with the conclusions," Nordenson says. For instance, Nordenson himself is part of litigation suggesting the collapse of WTC 7 was not inevitable, but was due to design flaws in both the fire protection and some aspects of the structure."
Click to expand...

So the "flaws" in the fire protection should have been foreseen?
 
Fellas... I cited one of the best structural engineers in the entire world, Guy Nordenson... who believes there may have been design flaws in fire protection and structure...

TAKE IT UP WITH HIM...

I happen to agree.
 
Or the designer of the building, Irwin Cantor (what would he know?):

"Massive structural beams that functioned as a sort of bridge to hold up the 47-story skyscraper known as 7 World Trade Center were compromised in a disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel, leading to the building's collapse on Sept. 11, investigators have concluded in a preliminary report.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>

Edited for rule 4.

See original at the link here - http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/n...ited-in-fall-of-3rd-tower.html?pagewanted=all
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JSanderO said:
Fellas... I cited one of the best structural engineers in the entire world, Guy Nordenson... who believes there may have been design flaws in fire protection and structure...

TAKE IT UP WITH HIM...

I happen to agree.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with him. I do disagree with you that this was a structural design flaw (that could have been foreseen). Why did you post his opinion when it has nothing to do with what we're talking about?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I don't disagree with him. I do disagree with you that this was a structural design flaw. Why did you post his opinion when it has nothing to do with what we're talking about?
Click to expand...

Because he believes there were design flaws in the structure...

and the second quote shows that it was the failure of the transfers which led to the collapse.

So there are very qualified people.... WAY WAY more than "you" who don't agree with your understanding of the collapse.

Have a nice evening!
 
DGM... please read the article and see what it says. YOU can disagree. That's fine. But the ideas presented are from very qualified engineers and I happen to think this view makes sense... more sense than office fires and a girder walk off at floor 13.

Now if you want to know why I think NIST came up with what they did.... It's pretty obvious.
 
JSanderO said:
DGM... please read the article and see what it says. YOU can disagree. That's fine. But the ideas presented are from very qualified engineers and I happen to think this view makes sense... more sense than office fires and a girder walk off at floor 13.

Now if you want to know why I think NIST came up with what they did.... It's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...
I have read it.

Have a nice night.............
 
Really? Diesel? The draft report? What year do you think this is JSanderO? And why would you expect us to consider arguments based on a refuted report?
 
Last edited:
JSanderO said:
DGM... please read the article and see what it says. YOU can disagree. That's fine. But the ideas presented are from very qualified engineers and I happen to think this view makes sense... more sense than office fires and a girder walk off at floor 13.

Now if you want to know why I think NIST came up with what they did.... It's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

I think the Idea that the first responders, saw it leaning, and sat a transit on the building,
Hours before collapse, shows predamage, too the structure before the collapses, were initiated.
Most likely that was do to the collapse front.
 
JSanderO said:
Fellas... I cited one of the best structural engineers in the entire world, Guy Nordenson... who believes there may have been design flaws in fire protection and structure...

TAKE IT UP WITH HIM...

I happen to agree.
Click to expand...
Sander he is not posting here. You are.

-- and you persist in fogging the two completely different thresholds for "design flaw" despite me and others having clarified the distinction many times.

DGM and I and couple of others are friendly guys who will try to help you improve understanding. But several others are only interested in ridiculing what you say. I and those of similar mindset will persist in separating the true validly parts of your claims which can be supported by reasoned argument from the vague excursions into irrelevant or ungrounded speculation. But it becomes tedious repeating the separation and clarification when you persist in ignoring the distinction.

If you persist in posting comments which in effect say "Kick Me!" many members will oblige even tho' they themselves rarely add anything to legitimate debate.

The designs of ALL three towers were more than adequate for design envelope parameters.

All three buildings ultimately collapsed when pushed way beyond design envelope.

Any building when pushed to the ultimate will fail;

It will fail at the weakest point revealed by the gross overloading;

That "weakest point" is NOT a "design flaw" despite your persistent claims otherwise;

The design code requirements for the buildings did not specify how ultimate failure should be provided for at the time. And still don't AFAIK under US codes;

Which is another reason why - given no such provision - whatever the mechanism of ultimate failure it is NOT a design flaw.

It is feasible to make such provisions but not feasible to prevent failure under ultimate overloading;

Relevant to the Twin Towers is is a simple principle that multi cell (or multi-"tube") designs probably have - tend to have - greater redundancy to defend against total failure than single tube designs. That is not - cannot be - a global guarantee - it is specific to the design and the specific situation. BUT - contrast the twin towers which are essentially prone to "single point" failure but only under gross overload way beyond reasonable design.

Then your speculations about WTC7 initiation have no effect on any reasoned conclusion that I can identify and you have not provided one; PLUS

Nordenson and (I think without checking) Cantor were hired to provide legal opinions serving one side of litigation. Legal Ethics in such a situation requires that a LAWYER presents his clients point of view with full force independent of balance OR of his own opinion. My own understanding of AU and UK engineering ethics suggests that I would not be ethically free to present such a one sided view without acknowledging the weight of contrary professional opinion. I am not familiar with the situation of engineering professional ethics in the US scene.

BUT neither of them is posting here. You are. So please stop posting one side of any argument when you have been made aware of the balanced overall situation.
 
JSanderO said:
DGM... please read the article and see what it says. YOU can disagree. That's fine. But the ideas presented are from very qualified engineers and I happen to think this view makes sense... more sense than office fires and a girder walk off at floor 13.

Now if you want to know why I think NIST came up with what they did.... It's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
 
The concept of some subject to stress beyond its design envelop and failing is hardly revolutionary or disputed. We also know that structures are designed with reserve capacity and strategies hopefully to limit damage and not go "runaway"... that is putting all one's eggs in one basket.

I am not a forensic investigator, a fire engineer, a structural engineer, a physicists etc. The explanations about the collapse which make sense to me are not the conventional ones. My position is that the form of collapse is determined by several factors among them is the design itself. Design is not the cause of the disaster not the only factor.

If you isolate a theoretical mechanism and don't link it with any specificity to the event you will never discover how the structure and engineering played a role...or you will be able to deny that it did... and come up with simplistic explanations such as "fire" and a fuel loaded plane strike destroyed the twin towers... a statement I will not disagree with, but which does not satisfy my intellectual curiosity. NIST did present some more specificity. But I found their ideas incomplete and in some cases incorrect and based and built on assumptions (naturally).

No one will prove anything. But we also see that there have been many code recommendations as a result and building practices and standards for tall buildings seems to have evolved and not repeated some of the design and erections features of those buildings... such as off site, pre fab light weight long span floor assemblies. If this was such a brilliant effective solution for building office floors one would think a new industry would have sprung up making these assemblies.

++++

As for the thrust of Ozzie's comments about these two engineers being "hired guns" for a lawsuit goes. I find that incorrect with respect to Cantor and a bit of an insult to Nordenson who doesn't need the "fee" and has more ethics than simply representing something for money. The plaintiff's legal team no doubt contacted scores of engineers and asked if they had thoughts about the event and their views would support the goal of their lawsuit and happened to find several who did. Why would one of the world's top engineers risk their professional reputation and standing to support a "frivolous" lawsuit? Nordenson is just not that sort of person... and I happen to have had the privilege to work with him years ago for a brief time.

As I wrote, you don't have to agree with his view on this but it seems to be a valid one and as we know from the Challenger disaster... one person, Richard Feyman was the voice of clear thinking and reason and turned out to be correct.

"Feynman has been called the "Great Explainer".[31] He gained a reputation for taking great care when giving explanations to his students and for making it a moral duty to make the topic accessible. His guiding principle was that, if a topic could not be explained in a freshman lecture, it was not yet fully understood. Feynman gained great pleasure[32] from coming up with such a "freshman-level" explanations......"

++++

All disaster investigations have a quasi legal atmosphere because they attempt to gather facts... the Warren Commission, the Rogers Commission and the commission which reported on 9/11. The underlying principle is not to return an indictment, but to provide understanding about what happened for HISTORY.
 
Last edited:
JSanderO said:
The underlying principle is not to return an indictment, but to provide understanding about what happen for HISTORY.
Click to expand...


Exactly. To provide clarity and closure. That has not and will not be done in the case of the WTC towers.

The result of not doing this is the mental 'circus' which exists all around us.
 
Last edited:
JSanderO said:
As for the thrust of Ozzie's comments about these two engineers being "hired guns" for a lawsuit goes. I find that incorrect with respect to Cantor and a bit of an insult to Nordenson who doesn't need the "fee" and has more ethics than simply representing something for money. The plaintiff's legal team no doubt contacted scores of engineers and asked if they had thoughts about the event and their views would support the goal of their lawsuit and happened to find several who did. Why would one of the world's top engineers risk their professional reputation and standing to support a "frivolous" lawsuit? Nordenson is just not that sort of person... and I happen to have had the privilege to work with him years ago for a brief time.
Click to expand...
Which sidesteps the several points that I stated clearly.

JSanderO said:
As I wrote, you don't have to agree with his view on this but it seems to be a valid one and as we know from the Challenger disaster... one person, Richard Feyman was the voice of clear thinking and reason and turned out to be correct.
Click to expand...
Again missing the point I made. I never said whether I agreed with him or not. That was not one of the several issues of concern which I stated clearly.
JSanderO said:
[Feynman's] guiding principle was that, if a topic could not be explained in a freshman lecture, it was not yet fully understood. Feynman gained great pleasure[32] from coming up with such a "freshman-level" explanations......"
Click to expand...
Oh the irony!!!
 
There is no Richard Feyman for 9/11... It's down the memory hole and "debated" on sites like this... by idiots like me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom