Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Tony Szamboti]

It seems that the NIST report apologists here, and those who accept its overall conclusions even if they don't think it gets every detail right, cannot credibly explain

1. The collapse initiation when the NIST omitted partial height stiffeners are included on girder A2001 because they can't get the girder to walk far enough, since the stiffeners would have prevented flange failure if the web was past the seat.

2. The reason for the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 as being due to the North Tower collapse, since its fires were only occurring on about 2 to 3% of its floor area and these would have been extinguished during the early stages of the collapse.

3. The fact that there is no dust emanating from any windows on the east side of WTC 7 when NIST alleges that the entire east side interior was collapsing to cause the east penthouse to fall.

Finally, these points show that

- WTC 7 did not come down due to a single column failure precipitating the collapse.

- the NIST WTC 7 report has no credibility and it isn't a surprise nobody here can credibly salvage it.

 

[erwinl]

You seem to be missing the point that "no dust emanated out of any windows" before and during the east penthouse collapse, which is when the NIST WTC 7 report says the entire east side interior fell.

But we do.

Even though most angles are seen from the undamaged part of WTC7 and dust would escape from the open windows on the other part of the building.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHqUJbCA5Mw

Right op to 2:40 the smoke at the left of the building is more or less even in colour and intensity.
At about 2.44 there comes a lot more smoke, blacker than before, billowing out the building until the east Penthouse collapses at 2:55.

Something is happening inside the building, in those seconds, that forces this extra smoke out the building.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

But we do.

Even though most angles are seen from the undamaged part of WTC7 and dust would escape from the open windows on the other part of the building.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHqUJbCA5Mw

Right op to 2:40 the smoke at the left of the building is more or less even in colour and intensity.
At about 2.44 there comes a lot more smoke, blacker than before, billowing out the building until the east Penthouse collapses at 2:55.

Something is happening inside the building, in those seconds, that forces this extra smoke out the building.

The dust coming out of the windows in the building in the video does not happen until the exterior comes down which is after the east penthouse came down. The NIST WTC 7 report claims the east side interior fell before the east penthouse came down and that it is what caused it. The video you linked proves the point that the NIST theory of east side interior collapse precluding the east penthouse failure is not credible.

 

[erwinl]

The dust coming out of the windows in the building in the video does not happen until the exterior comes down which is after the east penthouse came down. The NIST WTC 7 report claims the east side interior fell before the east penthouse came down and that it is what caused it. The video you linked proves the point that the NIST theory of east side interior collapse precluding the east penthouse failure is not credible.

Why would dust break an intact window, when it has an easier escape route through an already broken (set of) window?
And why would it not be smoke which is expelled from said holes?

 

[JSanderO]

.....

- WTC 7 did not come down due to a single column failure precipitating the collapse.
.....

This is a but of a "which came first, the chick or the egg?" issue.

If the EPH dropped through the building... and there is very strong evidence it did... the columns under it / supporting it... were not longer able to perform.

NIST seems to propose that a failure on floor 12 col 19 would could everything above it... the column up to the EPH to plunge down and the EPH drop like a lead sinker right through the tower... including all the local floor areas framed into column 79. This is not unreasonable if column 79 at floor 12/13 buckled and failed or was move out of axial alignment. And that's what this entire girder walk off issue is about.

But the column 79 drop/failure up to the EPH could be a consequence of a failure lower in the structure. Again this would be INSIDE the tower and there is no visual record of what was going on there. But we do know the structure down there and this was a rather complex interconnected load transfer system which was required to build the tower over the existing Con Ed. If this system failed it would propagate westward along the column line at the north side of the core and involve most of the floor area of the tower... as the core had shafts and the building was a trapezoid plan.

A failure of the transfer system would definitely produce the visuals observed just prior to and during the collapse of the tower. This would obviously lead to column line 79, 80 and 81... all under the EPH to drop/fail. This appears to be the most logical location of the origin of the collapse - the load transfer region.

The salient point here... is that the load transfer system failed as well as the column lines 79,80 and 81 under the EPH. The curtain wall kink extending many the height of the tower as it fell supports the fact that the girders connected to line 79 pulled caused the kink.

So did the mass of these columns lines and floors connected to the cause the transfer system to fail when the dropped onto it as a dynamic load???? Or did the load transfer system fail first causing those columns lines to drop???

Both seem to lead to the same set of visuals and not support any notion of 81 columns over 8 floors being destroyed at once.

This argument about a trivial error of a detail is a waste of time. NIST used a model with assumed inputs. And their intent appears to be less to model the actual collapse but to model that a single column failure in that location would lead to global collapse. Their simulation doesn't match the visuals of the real event so I tend to think that the failure initiated in the load transfer system. But no one has done a model simulation of that. Perhaps if some did and it was a better fit to the real world visuals then it would lead to some failure mode of the load transfer system.

I point out once again the the building's engineer Cantor believed that the transfer system succumbed to "fire"... that is this was the region of failure which allowed the structure above to collapse to the ground.

No there is no evidence in the public record of fire down there... but absence of observing evidence does not mean there was no evidence. It could mean it was not observed.

I don't apologize for NIST. I think they did drop the ball and not examine a "what if" for a load transfer system failure...

Chickens and eggs... apples and pairs... 9/11 was pulled off by 19 crazy people.

 

[Justin39640]

It seems that the NIST report apologists here, and those who accept its overall conclusions even if they don't think it gets every detail right, cannot credibly explain

1. The collapse initiation when the NIST omitted partial height stiffeners are included on girder A2001 because they can't get the girder to walk far enough, since the stiffeners would have prevented flange failure if the web was past the seat.

2. The reason for the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 as being due to the North Tower collapse, since its fires were only occurring on about 2 to 3% of its floor area and these would have been extinguished during the early stages of the collapse.

3. The fact that there is no dust emanating from any windows on the east side of WTC 7 when NIST alleges that the entire east side interior was collapsing to cause the east penthouse to fall.

Finally, these points show that

- WTC 7 did not come down due to a single column failure precipitating the collapse.

- the NIST WTC 7 report has no credibility and it isn't a surprise nobody here can credibly salvage it.

Who are you preaching to?

 

[thedopefishlives]

I completely missed the part where Tony replied with his affirmative evidence suggesting arson (or, indeed, any other mechanism besides fire+damage). Could somebody point it out to me?

 

[Animal]

It seems that the NIST report apologists here, and those who accept its overall conclusions even if they don't think it gets every detail right, cannot credibly explain

1. The collapse initiation when the NIST omitted partial height stiffeners are included on girder A2001 because they can't get the girder to walk far enough, since the stiffeners would have prevented flange failure if the web was past the seat.

Repeating the same false claim time and again will not make it come true.

2. The reason for the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 as being due to the North Tower collapse, since its fires were only occurring on about 2 to 3% of its floor area and these would have been extinguished during the early stages of the collapse.

Repeating the same false claim time and again will not make it come true.

3. The fact that there is no dust emanating from any windows on the east side of WTC 7 when NIST alleges that the entire east side interior was collapsing to cause the east penthouse to fall.

Ignoring the obvious to advance your religious beliefs will not make your fantasy come true.

Finally, these points show that

- WTC 7 did not come down due to a single column failure precipitating the collapse.

- the NIST WTC 7 report has no credibility and it isn't a surprise nobody here can credibly salvage it.

You have finally proved sometime......if you hand wave most of the evidence and simply ignore the rest......you can connect enough dots to make your fairy tale appear real.

 

[Miragememories]

"...but absence of observing evidence does not mean there was no evidence. It could mean it was not observed."

This is too profound for words.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

To celebrate more years of futile argument (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) I offer you this TS gem which today celebrates its 2nd anniversary:

"The NIST report states that the east penthouse was a shelter for heavy equipment. They don't say how heavy.

What can be said is that it was a heavy eccentric load and would cause a propensity for a topple once the columns below let go. Additionally, it would have to initially cause an out of plumbness when the columns below let go and that would become a sort of p-delta effect causing more moment arm and increasing the propensity for a rotation about the center of gravity of the falling mass or what is colloquially called a topple. "

Dear FSM

I'm pretty sure such gibberish is designed only to fool laypeople who don't know that heavy eccentric loads are supposed to result in toppling, or what a p-delta effect is.

It can't be stressed enough that speaking as one of these laypeople, it fails miserably. I can't even imagine how galactically stupid it would be to those who aren't laypeople.

 

[NoahFence]

You seem to be missing the point that "no dust emanated out of any windows" before and during the east penthouse collapse, which is when the NIST WTC 7 report says the entire east side interior fell.

Oh, you've got images of the south side of the building during collapse?

You know, where the damage was? I've not seen them. Do be a nice little investigator and provide them, mmkay?


goalpost move in

3....2.....1....

 

[NoahFence]

I completely missed the part where Tony replied with his affirmative evidence suggesting arson (or, indeed, any other mechanism besides fire+damage). Could somebody point it out to me?

Hasn't happened.

Won't happen.

Can't happen.

And he knows it.

 

[jaydeehess]

So, according to TSz, dust must emanate from specific windows not just previously broken ones.

No dust emanates from any windows on the north face, yet the NIST WTC 7 report claims the entire east side interior has collapsed to cause the east penthouse fall.

This claim is ridiculous and how you can argue the point is beyond me.

Others probably adressed this but I have only a few minutes right now;

Like I said, you are supposing specific window area must be the escape route of smoke and dust. Why is that? Because thats the video you prefer to look at?

 

[jaydeehess]

It seems that the NIST report apologists here, and those who accept its overall conclusions even if they don't think it gets every detail right, cannot credibly explain

1. The collapse initiation when the NIST omitted partial height stiffeners are included on girder A2001 because they can't get the girder to walk far enough, since the stiffeners would have prevented flange failure if the web was past the seat.

Assumption of guilt with no evidence to support the assumption.

2. The reason for the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 as being due to the North Tower collapse, since its fires were only occurring on about 2 to 3% of its floor area and these would have been extinguished during the early stages of the collapse.

Bald assertion devoid of supporting evidence. Complete conjecture that flies in the face of the fact that many other fires were started by the collapse of the towers.

3. The fact that there is no dust emanating from any windows on the east side of WTC 7 when NIST alleges that the entire east side interior was collapsing to cause the east penthouse to fall.

Nothing to support this assertion that dust MUST emante from windows visible in the few videos of the event.

Finally, these points show that

- WTC 7 did not come down due to a single column failure precipitating the collapse.

- the NIST WTC 7 report has no credibility and it isn't a surprise nobody here can credibly salvage it.

No supporting real research or data to support the first claim. Second claim coming from an organization with no credibility itself and which cannot show it has the support of any credible organization such as the CTBUH, the AIA, or the ASCE.

 

[jaydeehess]

The dust coming out of the windows in the building in the video does not happen until the exterior comes down which is after the east penthouse came down. The NIST WTC 7 report claims the east side interior fell before the east penthouse came down and that it is what caused it. The video you linked proves the point that the NIST theory of east side interior collapse precluding the east penthouse failure is not credible.

No Tony, the smoke on the east side of the structure gets much darker and thicker starting, by my observation, at about 2:33 well before the EPH kinks and falls in. It gets thicker and thicker right up to exterior collapse just as one would expect as per the NISt sequence of collapse.

In addition there are no videos of this time period that show the lower floors or the east or south sides.

Or if there are then I am certain that Tony will link us to them. Doing so would certainly seem in order to provide assertive evidence of his claims. (I think we've seen enough of the handwaving evidence he has so far supplied)

 

[carlitos]

the symmetric free fall of WTC 7, .

...is a lie that you are telling. Why do you do this? Why do you lie on the internet while using your real name? This seems like a dumb thing to do.

 

[jaydeehess]

...is a lie that you are telling. Why do you do this? Why do you lie on the internet while using your real name? This seems like a dumb thing to do.

Well symmetric means a vertical kink 1/3 of the way across the north face and that line starting to drop first, then the rest of the exterior, and resulting in the eastern portion twisting to fall NE while the western portion falls straight back to the south. That's the official AE911T definition of "symmetric".

 

[beachnut]

...
Things like the missing deceleration in the North Tower, the symmetric free fall of WTC 7, ...

With the initial collapse velocity tracking the velocity of a momentum model for WTC floors, the deceleration claim is a failure to connect to the real world.

13th year of symmetry, a mystery to 911 truth.

 

[jaydeehess]

With the initial collapse velocity tracking the velocity of a momentum model for WTC floors, the deceleration claim is a failure to connect to the real world.

13th year of symmetry, a mystery to 911 truth.

Still clinging to the failed "missing jolt" nonsense, years after being repeatedly shown the error of that reasoning.

 

[JSanderO]

This is too profound for words.

MM

This is why the entire WTC 9/11 discussion has gone on for so long. People in the truth movement see what they want to see... make up what they don't and ignore what is inconvenient.

It seems to me that NIST made models and used assumptions about data to input into their models.

Truth guys have no models.. they have their disbelief... it's impossible so it can't be natural and so someone else did it and lied about it.

There is no coherent accounting...

Were planes hijacked and hit the towers or not? Seems they were... and the evidence for them not is.... made up from whole clothe.

Where the planes just a cover story to hide the CD? Why?

No matter what level you examine the truther position it makes no sense. But if they want to get their knickers in a twist about some detail... fine. Who cares?