Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Tony Szamboti]

Ultimately, fire is the correct answer. It's your burden of proof to show otherwise.

It sounds like even though you don't have a viable collapse initiation mechanism, with the NIST WTC 7 report structural feature omissions nullifying their explanation, you just want to say "fire did it" and be done with it. Is that an accurate portrayal of your point of view?

 

[erwinl]

So you think the entire east side interior could collapse and not cause anything visible on the exterior, such as deformation and broken windows with concrete and gypsum dust emanating out of them?

Then why are there suddenly so many extra clouds billowing from the left back of WTC 7 (seen from the CBS camera) in the ca 10 seconds before the disappearing of the East Penthouse?
Could that possibly be something happening in the building, like floors collapsing and the resulting dust escaping?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Then why are there suddenly so many extra clouds billowing from the left back of WTC 7 (seen from the CBS camera) in the ca 10 seconds before the disappearing of the East Penthouse?
Could that possibly be something happening in the building, like floors collapsing and the resulting dust escaping?

None of the video from the north shows any dust emanating from the east side windows of the north face before or during the collapse of the east penthouse, which was on the north side of the roof. There does not appear to be any collapsing floors lower in the building the way the NIST WTC 7 report claims.

 

[pgimeno]

It sounds like even though you don't have a viable collapse initiation mechanism, with the NIST WTC 7 report structural feature omissions nullifying their explanation, you just want to say "fire did it" and be done with it. Is that an accurate portrayal of your point of view?

It sounds like even though you don't have a viable collapse initiation mechanism due to explosives, with an absolute lack of proof of any collapse inducing agent other than fire, you just want to say "explosives did it" and be done with it. Is that an accurate portrayal of your point of view?

 

[NoahFence]

So what specific failures do you think caused the collapse initiation in WTC 7 other than the general statement that you think fire did it?

No other specifics are required.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It sounds like even though you don't have a viable collapse initiation mechanism due to explosives, with an absolute lack of proof of any collapse inducing agent other than fire, you just want to say "explosives did it" and be done with it. Is that an accurate portrayal of your point of view?

I am saying the NIST explanation is not valid and that we don't have a viable explanation.

 

[NoahFence]

I am saying the NIST explanation is not valid and that we don't have a viable explanation.

Yes, 'we' do.
'We' just need to accept reality instead of some asinine theory.

How come you won't try to explain how your arson theory works? I'll tell you.
Too many moving parts, too much reliance on things that even you know stretch the bounds of reason. So the simplest thing for you to do is ignore the how's, the why's, the who's, and just cry foul play, evidence free.

Too bad the world, and this site full of skeptics, doesn't work like that.

Produce a working theory taking into account the ENTIRE days events, and maybe you'll make the leap from unmitigated joke into plausible theory. That's all you need to do. After this amount of time, surely you've got this all-encompassing theory?

 

[DGM]

I am saying the NIST explanation is not valid and that we don't have a viable explanation.

We know. You keep on saying it.

Keep those wheels spinning.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes, 'we' do.
'We' just need to accept reality instead of some asinine theory.

How come you won't try to explain how your arson theory works? I'll tell you.
Too many moving parts, too much reliance on things that even you know stretch the bounds of reason. So the simplest thing for you to do is ignore the how's, the why's, the who's, and just cry foul play, evidence free.

Too bad the world, and this site full of skeptics, doesn't work like that.

Produce a working theory taking into account the ENTIRE days events, and maybe you'll make the leap from unmitigated joke into plausible theory. That's all you need to do. After this amount of time, surely you've got this all-encompassing theory?

It is curious that your alleged site full of skeptics does not appear to be very skeptical at all.

When shown that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted pertinent structural features, that made its claimed failure modes impossible, the reaction was not what one would expect from skeptics. After receiving that kind of information a true skeptic would then be asking what actually could have occurred. Instead, we get an "it doesn't matter" answer, which is hardly that of a skeptic and more like someone who only intends to prop up a story regardless of the loss of credibility.

 

[LSSBB]

So what specific failures do you think caused the collapse initiation in WTC 7 other than the general statement that you think fire did it?

Well, seeing as I don't have X-Ray Vision coupled with a time machine, I cannot say for certain. The NIST ones are plausible, other ones may be. Column 79 sure looked to be vulnerable to eccentric loading, to my layman's eyes. All I know, is I saw fire in the visual evidence, and I know steel expands and weakens when heating. Therefore steel expansion and weakening from heat due to fire, coupled with resulting damages from stresses on connections, is a plausible reason for a collapse.

It was not a pristine building, Tony. An inch means nothing.

 

[LSSBB]

It is curious that your alleged site full of skeptics does not appear to be very skeptical at all.

When shown that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted pertinent structural features, that made its claimed failure modes impossible, the reaction was not what one would expect from skeptics. After receiving that kind of information a true skeptic would then be asking what actually could have occurred. Instead, we get an "it doesn't matter" answer, which is hardly that of a skeptic and more like someone who only intends to prop up a story regardless of the loss of credibility.

We (most of the folks here at least) ARE skeptical, we are skeptical of claims made without evidence. The government provided it's evidence that Zacarias Moussaoui was part of a plot where 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and successfully flew 3 of them into buildings. Where's your evidence for whatever it is you believe, as far as how this empty building collapsed several hours after the plane impacts?

 

[NoahFence]

It is curious that your alleged site full of skeptics does not appear to be very skeptical at all.

When shown that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted pertinent structural features, that made its claimed failure modes impossible, the reaction was not what one would expect from skeptics. After receiving that kind of information a true skeptic would then be asking what actually could have occurred. Instead, we get an "it doesn't matter" answer, which is hardly that of a skeptic and more like someone who only intends to prop up a story regardless of the loss of credibility.

So you have zero interest in fully explaining how your theory is supposed to work.

Color me surprised.

It's because you make it up as you go along, whereas reality has only one story, and nothing that needs to be embellished. It is what it is.

 

[tsig]

It is curious that your alleged site full of skeptics does not appear to be very skeptical at all.

When shown that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted pertinent structural features, that made its claimed failure modes impossible, the reaction was not what one would expect from skeptics. After receiving that kind of information a true skeptic would then be asking what actually could have occurred. Instead, we get an "it doesn't matter" answer, which is hardly that of a skeptic and more like someone who only intends to prop up a story regardless of the loss of credibility.

You want us to be skeptical about NIST but not skeptical about your theory of invisible arsonists, sorry it doesn't work that way, skepticism is an equal opportunity destroyer of fantasies.

 

[pgimeno]

I am saying the NIST explanation is not valid and that we don't have a viable explanation.

No, you're claiming arson (without evidence) and explosive demolition (without evidence). You just change your discourse when it's convenient to you.

The only thing we have evidence of as a potential cause of the destruction of the building was fire. That's a fact, independent of the viability of any explanation.

It is curious that your alleged site full of skeptics does not appear to be very skeptical at all.

Wrong. Skepticism is based on where the evidence leads. This "alleged" site full of skeptics shows its skepticism towards arson and explosive demolition, because there's no evidence to support them, and instead favors collapse by fire, because there's plenty of evidence that supports fire.

No surprise there.

 

[tsig]

There were no explosives though. Tony taught us that. It was arson.

Apparently the fire was set to cover the CD. (the CD was used to cover the Death Ray and the Death Ray was used to cover the nuclear explosion).

In any case "NIST was rong".

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I think all the dust was intentional, it was to hide arsonists and the explosives demolition teams. Why else would they make the buildings turn to dust. The dust from building 7 gave them just enough time to remove all the explosives evidence without being seen.

Did they use Russian military smoke machines as has been proven at the pentagon?

 

[Animal]

It is curious that your alleged site full of skeptics does not appear to be very skeptical at all.

When shown that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted pertinent structural features, that made its claimed failure modes impossible, the reaction was not what one would expect from skeptics. After receiving that kind of information a true skeptic would then be asking what actually could have occurred. Instead, we get an "it doesn't matter" answer, which is hardly that of a skeptic and more like someone who only intends to prop up a story regardless of the loss of credibility.

No need to even be skeptical about the bolded statement......it is blatantly false.

It is not a matter of receiving "information" that is needed to be skeptical.....it needs to be VALID information.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No need to even be skeptical about the bolded statement......it is blatantly false.

It is not a matter of receiving "information" that is needed to be skeptical.....it needs to be VALID information.

The statement you bolded, concerning the omitted structural features making the NIST WTC 7 report alleged collapse initiation failure modes impossible, is not false. You are proving my point, that you are not a skeptic, by saying it is.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, you're claiming arson (without evidence) and explosive demolition (without evidence). You just change your discourse when it's convenient to you.

The only thing we have evidence of as a potential cause of the destruction of the building was fire. That's a fact, independent of the viability of any explanation.



Wrong. Skepticism is based on where the evidence leads. This "alleged" site full of skeptics shows its skepticism towards arson and explosive demolition, because there's no evidence to support them, and instead favors collapse by fire, because there's plenty of evidence that supports fire.

No surprise there.

You have no collapse initiation mechanism, so now you are just supporting a general notion with no specifics.

 

[BasqueArch]

The shock wave from the collapse of the east penthouse, from a failure high in the building, was not moving through one solid piece of steel, but a composite structure with a lot of joints. So I would not consider the velocity of the reflection observed to be abnormal.

There is no chance the east side interior had collapsed low in the building to cause the east penthouse fall without white dust emanating out of windows. That is not happening prior to the east penthouse fall or immediately after. It is only broken windows about 15 stories down with no white dust. This was due to a shock wave originating from above.

You might not realize it but a shock pulse also causes a ring in what it strikes, which can be observed much more than the actual shock wave.

1) The claim that Col 79 failed high above and not low below because there was no dust high above and that this was CD is false. The concrete and gypsum dust clouds occur when a falling slab hits the stationary slab below. This was seen in WTC1,2 when the slabs high above hit those below in sequence. In WTC7 C79 column failed low where the fires were. The floor slabs attached to the columns above fell in unison and impacted at the bottom where they generated large clouds of concrete, gypsum, contents. This can be seen in the video and reconfirms the failure of Col 79 at the lower stories.

2) We went through this almost two years ago. The TS claim that the broken windows high above were caused by explosives fails to notice that the EPhouse failed first and then, later the windows broke. For CD it would have been the reverse; besides not hearing explosives sounds.

3) Also the TS claim that all the perimeter columns were CDd for the walls to fall down in near unison is grossly false. No unmistakable multiple explosives sounds, and NIST explained how this happened during the collapse, in three phases.

4) The TS claim that NIST had no explanation for the “free fall” period is false. They explained it and measured it, in three phases.

So what specific failures do you think caused the collapse initiation in WTC 7 other than the general statement that you think fire did it?

5) We’ve also been through this whack-a-mole almost two years ago. The claim that fires could not have collapsed girder 79-44 on the 13th and other floors is false. The girder was unrestrained, free to rotate.
NIST describes a number of failure modes; laterally pushing the girders off the seat due to heated beam expansion; lateral torsional buckling of the girder by the beams; falling off of the girder axially along its length from the seat. There are other modes of failure such as failure of the small heated seat, where the girder had deflected or buckled, sagged and its weight concentrated on one corner of the heated seat; failure of the unrestrained girder in bending; failure of the floor beams and floors.

The five beams framing into the girder from the east, with each having a 20 inch long six bolt connection to it, prevent the girder from rotating. Lateral torsional buckling of the girder is not a plausible failure mode with the beams connected to it every 8 to 9 feet along its 45 foot length.

This is wrong, just the opposite. The sagging beams produced rotation of the girder. The beams were attached above the girder centroid and rotated the unrestrained heated buckled asymmetrically framed girder.

The 45 foot long girder would expand by 4.125 inches at 500 degrees C. …<snip>

The girder standoff at both ends was about 1” therefore the girder was jammed onto the columns first and then buckled. TS still claims the girder did not buckle and only deflected 2-3” instead of much greater+-20” or more for a buckled girder. The Fire Dynamics model for the 16 story and 47 story global models used higher temperatures.

The beams, restrained when the girder first jammed against both columns, buckled (this is where the girder reaction comes from). Both the girder and beams continued to expand until they buckled. The 20” catenary sagged beams rocked/pushed the girder off the seat.
We’be been through this before, August 2012, ref: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242773

This was for the fixed 500, 600 C one typical northeast floor model, not necessarily floor 13, the 16 and 47 story models used the higher Fire Dynamics model temperatures and included the three braces at the northern beam. Ref: Figure 12-8 (p.547). The coefficient of expansion increases as the temperatures get higher.

Here’s NIST’s detailed explanation in Section 8 of how girder 79-44 on the northeast framing system failed in lateral torsional mode, with pictures.
From http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611 (NCSTAR 1-9 p.349 -354)

“8.8 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE NORTHEAST FLOOR FRAMING SYSTEM (p.349)
“A finite element analysis of the northeast corner floor system was conducted to evaluate its response to elevated temperatures and to confirm which failure modes needed to be accounted for in the 16-story ANSYS model. … The predicted response of the system is summarized inTable 8–2. The first failures observed were of the shear studs, which were produced by axial expansion of the floor beams, and which began to occur at fairly low beam temperature of 103 °C.

Axial expansion ofthe girder then led to shear failure of the bolts at the connection to Column 79; and, at a girder temperature of 164 °C, all four erection bolts had failed, leaving that end of the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation.

Continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally at Column 79, as shown in Figure 8–26, in which failed shear studs and bolts were evident. When the beam temperatures had reached 300 °C, all but three shear studs in the model had failed due to axial expansion of the beams, leaving the top flanges of the beams essentially unrestrained laterally.

Continued axial expansion of the girder caused it to bear against the face of Column 79, generating large axial forces that led to failure of the bolts connecting the girder to Column 44. When the girder temperature had reached 398 °C, all four erection bolts at Column 44 hadfailed, leaving the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation at both ends.

After failure of the erection bolts in the seat at Column 44, continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange.

Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b). ...This analysis demonstrated possible failure mechanisms that were used to develop the leading collapse hypothesis further. The failure modes in this model were incorporated into the 16 story ANSYS and 47 story LS-DYNA analyses”.

Here’s NCSTAR 1-9 Figure 8-27 (b) annotated by Gamolon:

6) The claim that NIST completely left out the bracing at the north beam in their analysis is false.In the subsequent 16 and 47 story models NIST modeled the north beam bracing. NCSTAR 1-9 Figure 12-8 (p.547). I don’t know if NIST left out the web stiffeners at floor 13 in their 16,47 story models. I remember floor 12,13 with stiffeners. IIRC other Col 79 girder floors did not have web stiffeners, but I can’t download the drawings to recheck this.

7) The TS claim that the collapsing WTC1 dust would have extinguished all fires is false. The fires under the piles at WTC1,2,7 continued for months.

8) The Chandler and TS claim that the WTC1 perimeter columns were propelled out by explosives is false; they toppled like a ladder off a roof when they lost the floors bracing.

9) The claim that the collapse of WTC7 was symmetrical is false. Building CDs are sometimes symmetrical and sometimes asymmetrical, so this is no evidence of CD. Re the claim that WTC7 collapse was symmetrical is false. For the axis of vertical left-right symmetry, the EPH on the east side fell first and the rest of the PH fell sequentially instead of falling in unison. Not symmetrical.

10) Re: the libelous claim that the NIST engineers, at the top of their profession are “criminals” and “frauds”. In the one story model they added a stiffener under the seat, kept the columns from displacing and increased the size of the northern beam adding strength to their models.
[2:55]

For the first time, one’s claim can be wrong; subsequently repeated falsified claims are lies. For famous media conspiracy proponents it is their obligation to correct their false claims so as not to deceive others.

No CD, fire caused the collapse of WTC7.
Will this evidence convince the True Believers that their CD claims are wrong? No, it’s their emotional amygdala that swamps their reasoning cortex.
Will the truther pseudoscientific claims, errors and lies continue to fool the gullible and uneducated? Yes, just like the JFK, Moon Hoax, Bigfoot, Princess Di and the other unsubstantiated conspiracy delusions.