• 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.

Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

Tony Szamboti said:
They are very closely related in that they were both steel structures alleged to have collapsed due to fire in a natural way.

However, neither decelerates during their measureable falls which is always observed in the natural structural collapses of buildings instigated using the Verinage technique.

A natural collapse requires deceleration to impart a dynamic load whereas an artificially continued collapse does not have to decelerate.
Click to expand...

Funny. Your own data shows deceleration. You only say it's not enough so it must be noise. Hint, why was the collapse speed less than G if there was no deceleration?

You're too funny sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
They are very closely related in that they were both steel structures alleged to have collapsed in a natural way initially due to a fire related instigation.

However, neither decelerates during their measureable falls which is always observed in the natural structural collapses of buildings instigated using the Verinage technique.

A natural collapse requires deceleration to impart a dynamic load whereas an artificially continued collapse does not have to decelerate.
Click to expand...


Another outright lie in desperation of propping up the troofer religious beliefs.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
They are very closely related in that they were both steel structures...
Click to expand...

This is highly deceptive. The two buildings indeed both used steel in their construction, but arranged the steel in completely unrelated ways, relying upon completely different strategies for bearing loads.

The question is whether your criticism of NIST's analysis for WTC 7 has any engineering merit. Did you raise those same questions of method in your published paper? Did you level the same sorts of accusations? No, it was an unrelated paper on an unrelated topic. Your brash criticism regarding WTC 7 purports to have engineering merit, but you are unwilling to place that argument in an appropriate engineering venue for expert discussion.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You have been making broad statements that people like me don't publish our findings...
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I've been making narrowly-aimed statements that the present points you are arguing regarding WTC 7 have not been presented for appropriate debate in the relevant field, which is likely why your demand for a new investigation of WTC 7 falls on deaf ears. You're the one throwing out straw-man papers you've written on other topics.

You are purporting to make an expert argument on this point. Yet on this point you do not behave as other experts. The layman can't be expected to understand engineering arguments at an expert level. The layman must trust that you are fairly interpreting the evidence and fairly and objectively representing the principles of the underlying scientific field. One measure of such fairness and objectivity is whether a substantial number of congruently qualified professionals reach the same conclusion. If you cannot garner that consensus, the layman is open to conclude that you are one shrill voice in opposition to the field.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Did you ever watch the full 22 minute interview of Danny Jowenko about WTC 7? When shown a plan view which identified where all of the columns were situated, he explained how it could be easily brought down and said only the core columns needed to have work done on them, not the exterior columns.

One column failure could not produce a progressive collapse leading to the symmetric free fall of the exterior that we see on video.

In addition, as you see with the fact that the girder between columns 44 and 79 cannot fall off its seat, NIST can't even explain the one column failure with their initiation scenario. Their story is what has fallen and is broken.
Click to expand...

Tony,
I call BS... I started this thread and personally don't think that a single column failure would ALWAYS lead to total collapse. It could depending on the structure's framing plan.

However, I think there are several other mechanisms which begin with a single failure in THAT structure which WOULD produce the visuals/movements we observed. And would be a failure of TT1 or perhaps TT2 (less likely). If TT1 goes because on one panel failure in would progress rapidly to a series of column failures and the top would drop as we saw.

How was TT1 failed? I suspect from failed connection of the parts of the diagonals... But not being there.. I can't be sure.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Care to link us to some articles from your peers that discuss this "paper"? Their reactions, their (unlikely) corrections or criticism?
Click to expand...

Indeed, I'd like to see the splash this paper made after having been published in an Australian journal with only 300 or so subscribers. The engineering library at my university here doesn't have it.
 
JayUtah said:
This is highly deceptive. The two buildings indeed both used steel in their construction, but arranged the steel in completely unrelated ways, relying upon completely different strategies for bearing loads.

The question is whether your criticism of NIST's analysis for WTC 7 has any engineering merit. Did you raise those same questions of method in your published paper? Did you level the same sorts of accusations? No, it was an unrelated paper on an unrelated topic. Your brash criticism regarding WTC 7 purports to have engineering merit, but you are unwilling to place that argument in an appropriate engineering venue for expert discussion.
Click to expand...

Both the twin towers and WTC 7 had core and exterior (tube within a tube) steel construction. They were very similar.

The difference between using beams vs. trusses to support the floors in the areas outside of the core was trivial.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Indirectly...
Click to expand...

So, no.

...[Bazant] is as wrong as wrong can be.
Click to expand...

I read Bazant's initial paper, the one you tore into 11 years later in an inconsequential foreign journal. Relevance?

Further, what was the response from Bazant and/or NIST? In fact, can you point us to any response to this paper from the professional engineering community?
 
NoahFence said:
The twin towers were over 2x the height of WTC 7. I sure HOPE they weren't similar!
WOW.
Click to expand...

The height isn't as much an issue as is the fact that WTC7 had a trapezoidal footprint and was half built over an electrical substation. The resulting accommodations in column location included an asymmetrical girder placement around column 79 and set of beams attached to key girders.

ETA: In addition, the key fires were much lower inside WTC7, and as JSO mentioned, there were also transfer truss(es?) at key locations. I am not familiar enough with WTC1 and 2 regarding transfer trusses.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Were you there at the time the building came down? If not, how can you be certain there was no noise?

I seem to remember a paramedic who was a witness to the collapse of WTC 7 saying "there was a large sound like a clap of thunder and then the bottom of the building caved in and it started coming down". I think that alone refutes your postulated "no noise" scenario.
Click to expand...

A million people (literally) would have heard demo charges going off in lower Manhattan. ****, they woulda heard it in Staten Island. One paramedic refutes nothing.
 
Justin39640 said:
A million people (literally) would have heard demo charges going off in lower Manhattan. ****, they woulda heard it in Staten Island. One paramedic refutes nothing.
Click to expand...

no kidding.
they don't want to acknowledge how many people were really there.

..among the litany of other things they refuse to acknowledge.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Extrapolating heat deforming of members into collapsing is not legitimate. This shows a certain level of knowledge is missing with your assessment. This is unfortunately true of many here who simply think fire would be a cause without even being able to show a precedent.
Click to expand...

Wow, you spread lies as if you had a purpose.
woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg

But your fantasy CD was proved wrong on 911.

Why does steel fail in fire? I knew that since I was kid - why can't 911 truth figure out science? Or define probable? Did you drop the symmetry junk, that makes 911 truth claims nonsense extra silly. Have you shown the symmetry, or did you drop it?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Both the twin towers and WTC 7 had core and exterior (tube within a tube) steel construction. They were very similar.

The difference between using beams vs. trusses to support the floors in the areas outside of the core was trivial.
Click to expand...

7wtc had perimeter columns and spandrel beams with an clip attached curtain wall. Twins has a structural vierendeel truss exterior load bearing wall of staggered 3 story 3 column 10' wide prefabricated panels bolted together like an erector set.
7 has 3 massive field erected load transfer structures and was built over top and existing 3 story power station, plus 8 cantilever girders which supported 80% of the north face and structure on the end of a cantilever 8 stories above grade.
Twins were completely symmetrical square, 7 was a trapezoid plan.

But yea they both were steel frames and had long span column free office space
 
Tony Szamboti said:
WTC 7's symmetric free fall could be replicated by pulling only eight stories of the core low in the building. The exterior columns of those stories would then buckle with essentially no resistance due to the inward pull through the floor beams and being laterally unsupported for eight stories.
Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:
Did you ever watch the full 22 minute interview of Danny Jowenko about WTC 7? When shown a plan view which identified where all of the columns were situated, he explained how it could be easily brought down and said only the core columns needed to have work done on them, not the exterior columns.

.
Click to expand...
essentially the same thing is demonstrated in the NIST FEA.

So, where's the beef?
 
jaydeehess said:
essentially the same thing is demonstrated in the NIST FEA.

So, where's the beef?
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. I said the actual symmetric fall of the exterior (with the east and west sides coming down uniformly and not deforming) could be replicated by pulling eight stories of the core low in the building and the NIST FEA is far from replicating that actual observation.

The NIST FEA has the east side exterior collapsing down and over onto the rest of the building, and it occurs before any exterior movement on the west side. Neither of these features of the NIST FEA are observed on video of the actual event.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom