Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Porkpie Hat]

HEY!!


WOW!!!

Thanks for posting that - way back when we were discussing the OP I raised that issue in a post directed at Sanders OP and his later clarifications.

I never knew that CTBUH agreed with mere little old me. I thought it was another of those bleeding obvious things that everyone chose to not see. My faith in humankind partially restored

My pleasure!

The "single column failure of Col 79 could not "lead to the collapse - i.e.
"initiate" or "start" or "go first" in a fire induced collapse scenario". (It could in a CD scenario as NIST demonstrated with one of its four analyses.)

That, I will leave in the hands of the relevant professionals.

 

[ozeco41]

My pleasure!

...That, I will leave in the hands of the relevant professionals.

It's not very complicated if you come at the logic the "right way round" - not "arse about" (Aussie speak for "back to front" OR "starting at the wrong end").

1) We know that EPH fell.
2) THEREFORE Column 79 and all related structures under EPH had failed.
3) For purposes of this discussion there are only three ways Col 79 could fail viz:
a) Because of a massive applied overload;
b) As a result of buckling due to removal of bracing over multiple floors; OR
c) MHI (Malicious Human Intervention) AKA CD.

We are discussing "b)" and the sequence should be evident to lay persons now that I have stated it so explicitly. The bracing and supports have to be removed BEFORE Col 79 fails.

So Column 79 failure cannot be leading - as in coming before the bracing removal. And overlooking that point has caused confusion throughout this thread from the earliest posts directed at the OP.

Tony (and Gerrycan's) circling evasive nonsense is simply a sub set of the OP and builds on the same faulty foundation. And keeping discussion down in details is a very common truther ploy when the starting assumptions are wrong.

All of Tony's papers except the latest effort suffer from those failures - or those deliberate tactics of deception. Faulty assumptions or context setting - usually pre-set to suit the pre-determine outcome. Then keep it down in details so that everyone forgets that the starting point is wrong.

"Missing Jolt" was a classic example of that trick. It started from an assumed but not admitted CD scenario then waffled around in circular logic to "prove" the starting point assumption.

Form your own conclusion as to motive.

What is certain is that the "back to front" and build on false assumptions tricks have been explained to Tony by me and many others over some years.

 

[DGM]

Most of the world is generally unaware and not saying anything. However, as far as those who are involved in the debate, it is a much larger group saying and proving that there are serious problems with the NIST WTC 7 report than the small band of individuals (including those like you here) simply saying there isn't, but not being able to back what they say with real data and analysis.

Sort of like with the supporters of Big-foot. The believers are in the majority of those that are talking about it. Everyone else ignores it.

There is no "debate". You are posting on the internet. Do you consider this to be the appropriate venue to "debate" to be considered legitimate?

"Debunking" you is a hobby, the same as all the other woo that get's "debunked" on this site.

Who is actually taking you seriously?

 

[jaydeehess]

Sort of like with the supporters of Big-foot. The believers are in the majority of those that are talking about it. Everyone else ignores it.

There is no "debate". You are posting on the internet. Do you consider this to be the appropriate venue to "debate" to be considered legitimate?

"Debunking" you is a hobby, the same as all the other woo that get's "debunked" on this site.

Who is actually taking you seriously?

Not, apparently, NIST.
Nor the CTBUH.
Oh, and not the ASCE.
Not even the AIA.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

THIS...

And honestly I'd be fine with suggesting it's one of several potential scenarios, the NIST just used this one based on the analysis they did of the collapse video showing the collapse initiating in one general area. And as the example posted earlier demonstrates, even though there is some dispute when it concerns the more minute details, none of those disagreements changes the eventual conclusion. They MAY affect the recommendations to building codes depending on the details, but the general consensus is that the building suffered damage from everything that was observed and had several critical vulnerabilities that acted as contributing factors.

This discussion about the studs and bolts literally turns "splitting hairs" into an Olympic sport.

It wasn't studs and bolts that were omitted.

It was lateral support beams (also termed beam stubs) that would have prevented beam G3005 from buckling the way the report claims, and stiffeners from the girder that would have prevented the girder's flange from failing the way the report claims.

Since the inclusion or exclusion of these features changes the outcome and conclusion of the analysis, in a diametrically opposed way, it is far from a "splitting hairs" issue.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sort of like with the supporters of Big-foot. The believers are in the majority of those that are talking about it. Everyone else ignores it.

There is no "debate". You are posting on the internet. Do you consider this to be the appropriate venue to "debate" to be considered legitimate?

"Debunking" you is a hobby, the same as all the other woo that get's "debunked" on this site.

Who is actually taking you seriously?

Who do you think you are kidding? You haven't debunked anybody. The only thing I see in your comments is wise cracks and attempts at subterfuge. Your comments are about as technical as a turnip.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg]
It's not very complicated if you come at the logic the "right way round" - not "arse about" (Aussie speak for "back to front" OR "starting at the wrong end").

1) We know that EPH fell.
2) THEREFORE Column 79 and all related structures under EPH had failed.
3) For purposes of this discussion there are only three ways Col 79 could fail viz:
a) Because of a massive applied overload;
b) As a result of buckling due to removal of bracing over multiple floors; OR
c) MHI (Malicious Human Intervention) AKA CD.

We are discussing "b)" and the sequence should be evident to lay persons now that I have stated it so explicitly. The bracing and supports have to be removed BEFORE Col 79 fails.

So Column 79 failure cannot be leading - as in coming before the bracing removal. And overlooking that point has caused confusion throughout this thread from the earliest posts directed at the OP.

Tony (and Gerrycan's) circling evasive nonsense is simply a sub set of the OP and builds on the same faulty foundation. And keeping discussion down in details is a very common truther ploy when the starting assumptions are wrong.

All of Tony's papers except the latest effort suffer from those failures - or those deliberate tactics of deception. Faulty assumptions or context setting - usually pre-set to suit the pre-determine outcome. Then keep it down in details so that everyone forgets that the starting point is wrong.

"Missing Jolt" was a classic example of that trick. It started from an assumed but not admitted CD scenario then waffled around in circular logic to "prove" the starting point assumption.

Form your own conclusion as to motive.

What is certain is that the "back to front" and build on false assumptions tricks have been explained to Tony by me and many others over some years.

Gerry and I have shown that there is clear straightforward evidence of problems with the NIST WTC 7 report with the omission of the stiffeners and beam stubs, since their inclusion would have prevented the failures claimed in the report.

How you can term that circular reasoning is beyond me and it certainly sounds like you are the one doing circles.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

NIST arrived at a most probable cause of collapse. It is nigh on impossible to know absolutely the exact details of the initiating event. However, THE ONLY OBSERVABLE mechanism by which the collapse could be instigated is the fires. THE first observable event is the infalling of the EPH. THE most probable failure causing that first observable event is the failure of col 79.
THUS is stands to reason (a concept lacking in many people) that heating of elements of the structure caused or led to the failure of col 79.

NIST showed that a large movement of the girder at the 12th floor would occur.
It is therefore very probable that this girder was the first to fail and initiated the sequence of global collapse.

NIST was tasked with finding recommendations to help prevent similar collapses and they did so. Their recommendations, among others, are to design to limit such movements to guard against floor structure failures due to heating.

You keep trying to say it, but the failure of the east penthouse is not an indication of where column 79 failed or that the entire east side interior collapsed to the ground before the east side exterior came down.

All that can be shown relative to column 79 and the east penthouse is that column 79 failed somewhere under the east penthouse. That could just as well have been high in the building, and there is no basis for assuming that it was at the 13th floor or anywhere near that.

The evidence is actually against a failure of column 79 low in the building and an east side interior collapse before the exterior came down the way the NIST report claims, since there is no east side exterior deformation and no dust emanating out of windows on the east side until the exterior comes down.

When this is coupled with the omissions of the pertinent structural features, which would have prevented the girder failure at the 13th floor that the report claims, it shows the report has no basis and is invalid.

 

[JSanderO]

You keep trying to say it, but the failure of the east penthouse is not an indication of where column 79 failed or that the entire east side interior collapsed to the ground before the east side exterior came down.

All that can be shown relative to column 79 and the east penthouse is that column 79 failed somewhere under the east penthouse. That could just as well have been high in the building, and there is no basis for assuming that it was at the 13th floor or anywhere near that.

The evidence is actually against a failure of column 79 low in the building and an east side interior collapse before the exterior came down the way the NIST report claims, since there is no east side exterior deformation and no dust emanating out of windows on the east side until the exterior comes down.

When this is coupled with the omissions of the pertinent structural features, which would have prevented the girder failure at the 13th floor that the report claims, it shows the report has no basis and is invalid.

There IS evidence that when the EPH went down it went ALL the way down. This is derived from the distortion of the reflections on the the curtail wall of the north side on columns. Further when the global "collapse" occurred (really the perimeter moment frame and curtain wall)... there was a pronounced inward bowing or kink at columns 47-48-49... which were in plan north of columns 73-81 (including 79) and TT1 and TT2. The inward bowing suggests the failure extending the entire height of visible building. How else could the facade (curtain wall and moment frame) bow inward if there were floor plates intact behind it? IMPOSSIBLE. The kink (IB) is evidence that everything behind it (to column 73 and TT1) was gone by the time of the descent.

I won't argue for floor 12 or 13 but for some sort of massive multi column failure in this region and below the visual field of the cameras. The most LOGICAL is the who transfer region had collapsed. This WOULD produce the visual evidence we see.

This theory of collapse I call TTF can only be supported with more evidence of what may have caused the failures down there. NIST et all seem to infer that the collapse at 13 caused massive dynamic loads which cause the load transfer structure to collapse and involve the rest of the insides including over to the west. I think they got it backwards. But there seemed to be a PROGRESSION of failures from the east side to the west side INSIDE (core region) and that seemed to require the load transfer structure involvement.

That is not in doubt.

This thread was started to discuss if a single column failure could lead to a global collapse. That MAY be possible depending on the structure... so a massive dynamic load COULD fail the load transfer structure below AND lead to global collapse. BUT without the load transfer structures I don't think a single column failure would lead to global collapse in MOST structures... possible but unlikely. That is to say the load transfer region played a key role in the collapse of 7WTC

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Not, apparently, NIST.
Nor the CTBUH.
Oh, and not the ASCE.
Not even the AIA.

The volunteers from ASCE who participated in both the Oklahoma City bombing and WTC building failure assessments were either very trusting and were fooled by the perpetrators into lending their names to the cover up or they were actually part of it. I have watched Gene Corley try to say the energetic jets seen coming out of the towers, below the demolition wave, are due to air being compressed by the collapse. I find it hard to believe he is that stupid.

https://web.archive.org/web/2006112...bombing-and-wtc-collapse-same-engineers-team/

Dunno about comments on the others but I'm pretty sure the idea is the same.

It wasn't studs and bolts that were omitted.

It was lateral support beams (also termed beam stubs) that would have prevented beam G3005 from buckling the way the report claims, and stiffeners from the girder that would have prevented the girder's flange from failing the way the report claims.

Since the inclusion or exclusion of these features changes the outcome and conclusion of the analysis, in a diametrically opposed way, it is far from a "splitting hairs" issue.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9974493#post9974493
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9971862&postcount=1357
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9973155&postcount=1422

I only point this out to show how easy it is to look at the thread's history to see where the discussions' gone before. I could also point out the tangent about how the WTC 7 building was ignited. Just to show that it's not just one "topic" this has been done at.

Who do you think you are kidding? You haven't debunked anybody. The only thing I see in your comments is wise cracks and attempts at subterfuge. Your comments are about as technical as a turnip.

I doubt I need to remind you that everything people write online is for all practical purposes immortalized and yours are no exception. Of course I don't have to go back to 2007 to point this out, so when you comment on the technical merits of other people's remarks, you should keep in mind you own history. You have done a lot of the same in this thread during the derails, even if you "think" what you've said in those is..... "correct".

I only point this out again to note that when individuals like Ozeco, myself, and others point out that you make fatal starting assumptions or that what you say tends to hold irony, those claims are based on a documented history that isn't exactly made out of thin air

 

[Animal]

Gerry and I have shown that there is clear straightforward evidence of problems with the NIST WTC 7 report with the omission of the stiffeners and beam stubs, since their inclusion would have prevented the failures claimed in the report.

How you can term that circular reasoning is beyond me and it certainly sounds like you are the one doing circles.

LMAO....the circle reasoning resides in your troofer bubble. You have at best .01% of the engineering community (not just the structural engineering community) supporting your fantasy claims. You have failed to persuade any credibly engineering group....you have failed to persuade those that come here for the entertainment value. The reality is that outside of the kook troofer and conspiracy forums.......this is the only forum that will allow you to spout your nonsense.

Hope you enjoy dicky gage's vacation photos.....................

 

[DGM]

Who do you think you are kidding? You haven't debunked anybody. The only thing I see in your comments is wise cracks and attempts at subterfuge. Your comments are about as technical as a turnip.

That's what happens when you're stuck having to "debate" on the internet.

If only relevant professionals would pay you any attention.

 

[tsig]

It doesn't matter if you are a Truther or not. Your comments show you don't seem to comprehend what is being discussed or you are being intentionally obtuse and disingenuous and trying to disrupt the discussion.

The chances of sparks igniting fires without a volatile fuel mixture present are slim to none.

The fact is that it can be shown that the chances of large hot debris being launched from a few fire affected floors, in a building which was collapsing vertically, with enough lateral force to make the 350 foot trip to WTC 7, penetrate it, and start fires, are virtually nill for one instance let alone ten floors.

I think it is embarrassing for the apologists trying to maintain the original fairy tale, that the fires in WTC 7 were ignited by hot debris from WTC 1, to now be reduced to claiming sparks from steel on steel impact could have started the fires on ten floors. Especially, when the reality is brought up that the immediately adjacent Verizon and Post Office buildings, which were hit by some debris, did not have fires ignited in them.

Did you forget that there was 350 feet between the buildings and that the fires in WTC 1 were only on the floors near the aircraft impact zone? Or are these things inconsequential in your mind?

So now a pocket of flaming debris in the dust from WTC 1 singled out and penetrated the exterior of WTC 7 and started fires on ten floors, but it didn't do it to the Verizon or Post Office buildings.

This is as bad as the notion that sparks from steel impacting steel started the fires on ten floors that we have been treated to here.

I think what some of you here seem to be suffering from has been termed "an irreducible delusion". It seems pretty clear, once scrutinized, that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by arson and blamed on the collapse of WTC 1.

There were not that many fire floors compared with the rest of the tower. A maximum of about 2 to 3% of WTC 1's floor area was involved in fire at the time of the collapse and the chances of that causing fires on ten floors in WTC 7 are extremely remote.

Let's also not forget that after the collapse started, and the fires were extinguished by gypsum and concrete, that anything hot would have been brought into intimate contact with cooler material. That puts a big damper on the chances of any material hot enough to ignite fires making the trip to WTC 7.

If you keep trying you might just convince yourself that something natural had to be responsible for the fires in WTC 7. I wouldn't count on it though, as scrutiny with science says arson had to be the cause.
Personally, I think some form of incendiary was involved in the tower collapses and that it is what caused the vehicle fires. However, that isn't the natural cause some here want to claim for the fires in WTC 7 and the vehicles. Thermite from the twin towers could settle onto the vehicles and caused them to ignite, but it couldn't just settle into WTC 7, and it did not do so in the Verizon and Post Office buildings. Hence, it appears arson would have been necessary for WTC 7.

Maybe it isn't convincing to you, but you aren't giving counter arguments so your simple comment does not show the argument has no merit. Scientifically it can be shown that it is extremely improbable for the fires on ten floors in WTC 7 to have been ignited due to the collapse of WTC 1.

Who do you think you are kidding? You haven't debunked anybody. The only thing I see in your comments is wise cracks and attempts at subterfuge. Your comments are about as technical as a turnip.

Hilited Tonys' Tech which consists of insults and speculation.

Tony "I think" is not a technical argument.

 

[NoahFence]

It wasn't studs and bolts that were omitted.

It was lateral support beams (also termed beam stubs) that would have prevented beam G3005 from buckling the way the report claims, and stiffeners from the girder that would have prevented the girder's flange from failing the way the report claims.

Since the inclusion or exclusion of these features changes the outcome and conclusion of the analysis, in a diametrically opposed way, it is far from a "splitting hairs" issue.

Those features are of the same material as the girder, thus they would suffer the same fate as the girder.

Including them MIGHT cause the building to stand for a slightly longer period of time, most likely on the order of minutes.

As is customary with your silly little tirades, the conclusion remains the same.

 

[NoahFence]

Gerry and I have shown that there is clear straightforward evidence of problems with the NIST WTC 7 report with the omission of the stiffeners and beam stubs, since their inclusion would have prevented the failures claimed in the report.

How you can term that circular reasoning is beyond me and it certainly sounds like you are the one doing circles.

But Gerry doesn't believe anyone went in the building after the collapses of the towers and set it on fire, as you laughingly do. You both contradict each other but feel no worry about backing each other up.

It's bizarre.

 

[NoahFence]

You keep trying to say it, but the failure of the east penthouse is not an indication of where column 79 failed or that the entire east side interior collapsed to the ground before the east side exterior came down.

Nobody ever said that as far as I can see. Why are you lying?

 

[ozeco41]

Gerry and I have shown that there is clear straightforward evidence of problems with the NIST WTC 7 report with the omission of the stiffeners and beam stubs, since their inclusion would have prevented the failures claimed in the report...

Tony no matter how many times you or Gerry repeat that false claim - or the whole suite of similar false claims - will not change the facts:

1) You have not proved your claim; AND
2) I and several others have shown you your errors many times.

I don't waste time with your repeated nonsense as you Gish Gallop details taken out of context. I was explaining some simple demonstrable truths of your debating tactics.

How you can term that circular reasoning is beyond me....

That much is obvious since I did not describe anything as "circular reasoning". I explicitly said "circling evasive nonsense" referring to your standard suite of debating tricks AND I explained some of those tricks in detail.

 

[Animal]

But Gerry doesn't believe anyone went in the building after the collapses of the towers and set it on fire, as you laughingly do. You both contradict each other but feel no worry about backing each other up.

It's bizarre.

yeah.....gerry apparently believes that his laser like focus on the "stiffeners" and one beam "not being able to expand 6.25" inches shows evidence that will lead the world to believe the "inside jobby jobby" claim.

The ninja arsonist belief is as crazy as the Koch brothers being responsible for all the climate change in the world.

Unfortunately for those living in the troofer bubble.....the seat stiffener really shoots the knee caps out of their "stiffener" claim. And simple geometry shoots the knee caps out of his expansion claim......and that is not even going near the "pristine building" fallacy.

 

[jaydeehess]

You keep trying to say it, but the failure of the east penthouse is not an indication of where column 79 failed or that the entire east side interior collapsed to the ground before the east side exterior came down.

All that can be shown relative to column 79 and the east penthouse is that column 79 failed somewhere under the east penthouse. That could just as well have been high in the building, and there is no basis for assuming that it was at the 13th floor or anywhere near that.

The evidence is actually against a failure of column 79 low in the building and an east side interior collapse before the exterior came down the way the NIST report claims, since there is no east side exterior deformation and no dust emanating out of windows on the east side until the exterior comes down.

When this is coupled with the omissions of the pertinent structural features, which would have prevented the girder failure at the 13th floor that the report claims, it shows the report has no basis and is invalid.

No evidence of failure low down!!!???

As the EPH tilts there is a line of window breakage along the line that will soon after this become the "kink" , then the "kink" forms.

No deformation? Seems to me that the 47 storey building orginally had floors that were horizontal, not ones that tilted towards the "kink".

No dust expulsion? You make me laugh. Had there been dust expulsion you'd be crying "Squib! Squib! Squib!".

Your supposition of a high floor failure of col 79 is patently unsupported by any evidence at all aside from your personal incredulity and deep wishes, both of which will buy you a cup of coffe if your throw in a buck or two.

 

[jaydeehess]

Nobody ever said that as far as I can see. Why are you lying?

Similar to his saying that someone said that steel on steel sparking caused all of the fires in WTC 7.

Not unlike the truther complaint that jet fuel could not have melted the steel in the towers because it burned off in ten minutes. (no official report ever said the steel melted, no official report said the jet fuel caused the collapse)

There's a word for this type of misappropriation of facts, "lieing".