Moderated Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone

has anyone ever uncovered a FMEA--failure mode effect analysis..both pre and post 9/11 from the NIST.... no report could not be done without one being performed

FMEA can provide an analytical approach, when dealing with potential failure modes and their associated causes. When considering possible failures in a design – like safety, cost, performance, quality and reliability – an engineer can get a lot of information about how to alter the development/manufacturing process, in order to avoid these failures. FMEA provides an easy tool to determine which risk has the greatest concern, and therefore an action is needed to prevent a problem before it arises.The development of these specifications will ensure the product will meet the defined requirements.

post failure FMEA's would also have to be performed.... it is a requirment for analysis....you see the NIST has never done this and it becomes heresy to the world enginnering community at large
 
bob the analyst said:
nonsense...you have never looked at the application of fire proofing of steel--you don't know what is acceptable, what is required, what is suggested...where it is used and when within the building structure itself......stop with the fire proofing crap already, you are fast becomming non-essential to this group and it's discussion...
like I said..it's like the extra coating of rustproofing on a new car...it's all crap..everyone knows that
Click to expand...

Christopher, please tell me your not aligning yourself with this kind of stupidity.
 
suit yourself, you can get educated in a very short time from me, Bill and others or you can stay growing like a mushroom does, kept in the dark and fed manure...
 
ok shills, go find me the FMEA report from the NISt, popular mechanics, or any other group that backs up the government's theory...this is the laying or foundation block of all failure theories

this is your mission...this is ground zero for you, make no mistake about it..this is like the dna or genetic code of analyzation of failure


knock yourselves out
 
Keep it civil, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
bob the analyst said:
so you found a picture of thin gauged steel that was bent by force...give the guy a happy meal somebody,,
Click to expand...
The steel members in the website I supplied you deformed under their own weight because the heat alone was able to sufficiently reduce their capacity. THis is further repeated in the more recent universal studios fire. Again your assertion is patently incorrect.

bob the analyst said:
you npicture means nothing...the grade of steel used in rise is speficically designed and manfucature and rolled so that in no way, shape or form, can a hydro-carbon fire ever harm that steel
Click to expand...
If steel of any grade were absolutely impregnable to the effects of heat induced failure then clearly there should be no requirement to protect it at all. The picture demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect, fire has a significant effect on structural steel.


bob the analyst said:
just look at the Beijing hotel fire from 2 weeks ago or any high or medium rise fire in the last 850 years
Click to expand...
What about them? Unfortunately you're not prepared to argue from this standpoint unless you've done detailed studies of their construction, which at this point I am fully aware you're not interested in.

BTW, I congratulate you... your youtube style hostility and blatant ignorance of design standards has earned you this:

I'm not much interested in lecturing an individual as far down the rabbit hole as yourself. May I suggest others do the same before his thread hijack progresses further. Farewell :)
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
That is an opinion!

He has not proven that statement to be true.

He only has a theory.
Click to expand...

Had the whole of the structure been a single entity as opposed to a large system I might agree with your response, however we're not treating the structure as a monolithic entity. During the collapse it was clear that as a system the structure worked extremely well, should you notice that, the intact structure did not yield until the collapse front reached them. Looking at the structure as a set of individual components however, that's a different matter, and were your assertion that it is little more than an opinion holds little merit.
 
any luck finding the FMEA, both pre falling and post falling of all three wtc's?


Every shred of credibility of those that supprt the NIST theory is riding on this facet of information..it is critical to your argument and your defense of the NISDT probe and their findings
 
Oh Bob;
Still waiting for the source of that statement you made. I wouldn't be your posterior would it?
 
Last edited:
bob the analyst said:
quite true, anyone that ever took a science class past the 4th grade level knows that a hydro-carbon fire can and will never harm steel
Click to expand...

Never watched any of Gage's presentations then?

He likes to show a test of fire on steel frames, the guy doing the test explains how the steel is weakened and sags but there's no collapse. The problem with using that as an example is that the structure in question has heavy steel beams with short spans between vertical supports spaced throughout the structure.

My point here is that even Gage uses an example that shows weakening and sagging of steel due to an office fire.
 
I guess it all my fault that I put you on the spot the way that I did, you got called out on 3 quick pitches, you never got even a chance to swing, as soon as i made a valid compariosn of rust proofing and undercotaing with fire protection, that prety much sent you into a tizzy.

then the fact about hydro-carbon..nongasseous or electric arc furnaces..then to top it all off I asked for your input and for you to pull out the much need, the valued, the omno-potent, ultra critical FMEA report and analysis and you went wandering around a broken glass filled room like a blind man would with out shoes on your feet
 
bob the analyst said:
nonsense...you have never looked at the application of fire proofing of steel--you don't know what is acceptable, what is required, what is suggested...where it is used and when within the building structure itself......stop with the fire proofing crap already, you are fast becomming non-essential to this group and it's discussion...
like I said..it's like the extra coating of rustproofing on a new car...it's all crap..everyone knows that
Click to expand...

"It's all crap...". I'm not really sure you've made a supportable assertion, bob. The Lamont, Lane, Jowsey, Flint, Usmani, and Torero paper done for the JCSS and IABSE Workshop on Robustness of Structures is one example of how seriously structural safety researchers take the concept. And again, fire resistance is specified by a given city's or area's building code, and unprotected steel doesn't meet that in most localities.

Yes, it's true that I and most others here haven't seen it applied or can't say what level is acceptible without looking it up. Of course we can't; again, many of us here are not structural engineers. But again, it doesn't matter. Such fireproofing is necessary for structures to meet code, structural safety researchers take such elements very seriously, and one of the major points of the NIST study as well as the Arup/University of Edinburgh critiques of that specific point was centered around the loss or question of adequacy of the fireproofing. So the evidence is against your assertions, bob.

On top of that, the poster named Architect here is a tall structures architect. And he's often spoken up on the importance of fireproofing; use the search tool and look up his posts ont he topic. Furthermore, while many of us aren't engineers, some here are, and I've yet to see a single one of them post anything that even comes close to agreeing with what you've said.

Where's your evidence that fireproofing is "crap", and a value-added item like car rustproofing? Mind providing something to back that up? Something besides your opinion, that is?
 
bnot familiar with Gage, does he have a fmea report, if so, invite him into this discussion, while you are at it. invite anyone and everyone from popular mechanics, the nist ot any other body that supports the nist point of view...you shills will need to be heavily armed to take on me, if you think that you are in my league, go get yourself some more troops...as yopu can see, I have only toyed with you people, sure i have thrown great fastballs, hard and heavy and no swings as of yet...you have not come close to being able to show me that you can hit what I can reach back and throw
 
bob the analyst said:
any luck finding the FMEA, both pre falling and post falling of all three wtc's?


Every shred of credibility of those that supprt the NIST theory is riding on this facet of information..it is critical to your argument and your defense of the NISDT probe and their findings
Click to expand...

Frankly, having no credibility in the eyes of folks like you isn't exactly something to cry about. Here you are, all bluster on some relatively obscure internet forum--spouting your cute little stuff-yet after almost 8 years the real world continues, with real experts studying the collapses and doing real world important stuff like changing building codes.

So, keep up this comedy gold. You just keep pluggin' away at us shills and various nitwitting trolls, spew spittle and gesticulate wildly, and claim victory all you want, be KING in your mind of this little internet forum all you want. The real world doesn't give a crap.

OH, and I'll bet even the poultry experts at Perdue, much like the REAL engineering experts at Purdue, know more than you do. ;)
 
bob the analyst said:
Well, I see that I straightened out a number of mindless shills in short order, destroyed the very fabric of their thought process. I didn't even need to warm up either, I come out of the bullpen on short notice and start throwing 105 mph fastballs that the shills just can't even swing the bat at
Click to expand...

Actually, no one can swing at them because you're currently throwing to your center fielder.

But that's neither here nor there.
 
just say that you have no idea where you can find the FMEA ior what a fmea is and what purpose it serves and get over it...so you aren't able to match up against me...I have never seen a mindless drone, a shill that agrees with the NIST reports that has ever been able to beat me at this,

I knew from the first minute that the wtc2 went down that the proven and tested methodology of all building designs and theories was going to be shooting at this duck pond if the government dares insults the engineering and scientific community by claiming that fire and impact brought these buildings down

This was so predictable that the government would report it the way that they did, instead of just saying that they don't know why the buildings fell, or hide and cover things up as most reasonable thinking people suspect

The 9/11 commission report as well as the NIST reports in a insult to anyone with an iq over 65
 
Hellbound said:
Actually, no one can swing at them because you're currently throwing to your center fielder.

But that's neither here nor there.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that he's one of Bill's buddies from Utube. Same lack of knowledge on the subject. (I hope there's more this is funny)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom