Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[LSSBB]

They issued an errata statement about the seat plate issue in which they alluded to a degree of thermal expansion that is impossible from a 53ft beam. Their statement was nonsensical and did not address the stiffener plates, which they omitted to account for in their analysis.

errata, yes. Stiffener plates - so what? Show me a simulation with them in.

So explain to me what the maximum expansion due to heat that can be experienced by a beam such as k3004 is.

I don't have to tell you anything, plus it, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant. It's a system.

Hedging your bets there with the "unknown state" bit. The state that the elements were in is known in terms of NISTs analysis, but perhaps not in reality. That these two things do not equate should hardly come as a surprise.

I said unknown state because it is an unknown state. Do you know the internal state? NIST just guessed, in order to obtain a likely collapse initiation mechanism. You are guessing also.

 

[gerrycan]

errata, yes. Stiffener plates - so what? Show me a simulation with them in.

So you think that an accurate simulation should contain the stiffener plates?

I don't have to tell you anything, plus it, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant. It's a system.

You mean you are unable to. Nothing wrong with that I guess.

I said unknown state because it is an unknown state. Do you know the internal state? NIST just guessed, in order to obtain a likely collapse initiation mechanism. You are guessing also.

But if the same bit of the building is analyzed with the correct elements accounted for using the same conditions that NIST used, and there is no failure of the beam, that invalidates NISTs collapse initiation hypothesis.

 

[ozeco41]

I wouldn't go that far.

He want's to discuss it but, only if you keep to the scope he wishes to use. It's why most people just give up on him after a while.

Neither would I but for those of us with any sense of déjà vu he is accurately following Tony Szamboti's standard tactics - viz:
1) A "Gish Gallop" of ever changing nit picks;
2) Whilst ignoring the full context;
3) Keeping the objective ambiguous (is it "find fault with NIST" OR "Explain what really happened");
4) Forcing a "forest v trees" false focus by trying (and succeeding - successful trolling

) at keeping the debate on issues of detail;
5) All of it building on lies by innuendo which rely on unsupported assertions or a false implied context; AND
6) Reliance on "arse about logic" at several levels from "overall big picture down to detail." (For an example of "arse about" try reading what NCSTAR1-9 actually says on the 11" v 12" inch issue.)

And it "works" for his "go round in circles" objective because nailing down a Gish Galloper takes a lot of effort. From the debunker side it is easier to play "whack a mole".

Meanwhile the status of the technical aspect of the discussion is unchanged from when I rebutted Tony Sz's claim on the same issue - when was it? 2 years back?

1) "They" are making the claim "NIST was wrong" so their burden of proof;
2) They have not shown that the alleged errors of detail are relevant or significant - even if we concede "relevant" "significant" is the one that is fatal to their claim; AND
3) "They" are adopting the same implied context premises that Tony failed on in the previous discussions - as identified by

Ahem. The support it had from elsewhere in its pristine, as-built condition. Or did you already forget that the building was on fire?

That one alone is fatal to the technical core of their claim and it is only one of many.

 

[LSSBB]

So you think that an accurate simulation should contain the stiffener plates?

No, I mean you need to do one to show it makes a difference.

You mean you are unable to. Nothing wrong with that I guess.

No, I am able to. I don't need to, so I won't. You can't bully me into it either, because I don't have anything to prove in this matter. You do, if you are trying to prove anything regarding NIST.

But if the same bit of the building is analyzed with the correct elements accounted for using the same conditions that NIST used, and there is no failure of the beam, that invalidates NISTs collapse initiation hypothesis.

That depends on what is invalidated within the entire spectrum of what they published. What if there is no failure of that beam, yet the building still collapses?

 

[Reactor drone]

Don't you think that the West connection between the girder spanning C76 and C79 at C79 is relevant? I do.
I seriously do not think you have ever even looked at it.
It is entirely necessary to have an awareness of the elements about which the point is being made and their connections. I am not about to enter into some stepping stone game with anyone. Talk about specifics, not wires and trees.

That's the girder that people have been pointing out to you that causes the eastward forces and movement on column 79.

The temperature of the girder between Columns 76 and 79 on Floor 13 was sufficient to displace Column 76 to the west and Column 79to the east
(pg 527 NIST NCSTAR 1-9)

You're the one who's been claim that it's irrelevant.

 

[LudicFallacies]

If you still just want to believe WTC 7's collapse was due to fire, given the proven pertinent structural omissions in the NIST report discussed here and the symmetric free fall acceleration of its exterior for eight stories at the start of its collapse, it could be said that perhaps you suffer from naivety.

You consider the start of the collapse when the north face collapses IE when the "global" collapse begins?

Then what is happening to the east penthouse when it goes down a full seven plus seconds before when you conveniently deem the collapse sequence beginning?

What is happening to the building in those seven plus seconds below the penthouse?

Also, perhaps your eight story free fall is when the three main trusses failed that held up the entire friggin internal structure from the ground to the eighth floor huh?

Interesting how your beloved free fall timing matches nicely with those three trusses and their cantilevered girders in terms of the distance from ground to the eighth.

Did this possibility even register in your brain Tony?

I take it you are aware that those three trusses held up the entire internal structure to the eighth floor right? Yeah there were some floors below the eighth that had offices and wasn't an open vaulted ceiling like the power station area but they were cantilevered to those three trusses and the seven columns that comprise them.

Perhaps when they failed this accounts for your beloved eight stories of free fall that has been observed?

The power station gallery had vaulted ceilings in some areas to the seventh/eight.

Are you even aware of this?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You consider the start of the collapse when the north face collapses IE when the "global" collapse begins?

Then what is happening to the east penthouse when it goes down a full seven plus seconds before when you deem the collapse sequence beginning?

What is happening to the building in those seven plus seconds below the penthouse?

Also, perhaps your eight story free fall is when the three main trusses failed that held up the entire friggin internal structure from the ground to the eighth floor huh?

Interesting how your beloved free fall timing matches nicely with those three trusses and their cantilevered girders in terms of the distance from ground to the eighth.

Did this possibility even register in your brain Tony?

I consider the east penthouse collapse to most likely be a separate and distinct event at the top of the building since there was no exterior deformation or buckling and no concrete or gypsum dust emanating from windows on the east side as there would have been if the entire east side interior had come down the way NIST portends.

You should try to show some level of plausibility for what you think happened with the trusses and maybe we could actually discuss it.

However, this thread is about the lack of plausibility for a single column failure alleged by the NIST WTC 7 report to have morphed into a complete building collapse. The reality is that to even make that remotely plausible the individuals who wrote that report needed to omit pertinent structural features. Doesn't that cause you to stop and think?

 

[Reactor drone]

Nobody here has shown any plausible means of making girder A2001 come off its seat at column 79 via lateral travel due to beams pushing it and column movement.

It appears that many here are doing nothing more than taking it on faith that heat from the fires caused the collapse of WTC 7. Because, after all, it was on fire.

Even if that one doesn't fail there's still plenty of other damage to bring down the building.

And since the failures in the simulation started in the southeast rather than the northeast it doesn't seem to be that critical to the result,

 

[beachnut]

I consider the east penthouse collapse to most likely be a separate and distinct event at the top of the building ...?

What a load of nonsense. Show the structural analysis to support this opinion, and contrast that BS to your claim it was CD. Show your work. BOOM, BOOM BOOM, BOOM. Where do you buy silent explosives? Where can we can product free thermite? Where is your overwhelming evidence?

 

[LudicFallacies]

However, this thread is about the lack of plausibility for a single column failure alleged by the NIST WTC 7 report to have morphed into a complete building collapse.

If you had the granularity to see any 'system' of collapse and had all variables would it not come down to one single element in all cases by sheer virtue IE "the straw that broke the camel's back"?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

hahaha

So the east penthouse only fell down a few stories he indirectly tries to claim!

How the hell did you come up with that one?

What reason do you have to contend such?

Have you ever looked at the video and noticed the sunlight shining through the windows after the eat penthouse goes down?

Offer me a plausible reason why the east penthouse would only collapse partly down the top of the building.

Have you ever seen the top of WTC7? The east penthouse almost covered the entire roof from south to north so all the structure underneath it had to have failed.

Sunlight is only visible through the windows at the top story of a 144 foot wide building. See the photos of it in the NIST report. Thanks for reminding me of another reason the entire east side could not have come down before the west side the way the NIST report claims.

The east penthouse was eccentrically located in the northeast corner. That would be reason to bring it inside the walls of the building before the whole building was brought down.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Take a look at the video again. You can see WTC 7 sway/deform prior to the point you deem the collapse beginning during the seven plus seconds I cite from the penthouse going down.

The building "wobbles" during these eight seconds.

I'm amazed you never noticed that Tony.

Here I'll even cite a YouTube conspiracy theorist nutcase's video.

watch?v=673pvEMvBO4

The particular video you cite is garbage. There are no forces which could be occurring due to a vertical collapse of the east penthouse to cause lateral motion of the entire 300 foot wide building from west to east. If you believe that you believe fairies and pixies fly.

The entire building did not wobble during the collapse of the east penthouse. A shockwave went down the east side from top to bottom as would be expected. One thing the video does show is that sunlight is only visible through the windows in the top story. Think about that and the fact that the building was 144 feet deep from north to south and you are looking at the north face.

 

[LSSBB]

Take a look at the video again. You can see WTC 7 sway/deform prior to the point you deem the collapse beginning during the seven plus seconds I cite from the penthouse going down.

The building "wobbles" during these eight seconds.

I'm amazed you never noticed that Tony.

Here I'll even cite a YouTube conspiracy theorist nutcase's video as my sources as I love using your community's own materials against you idiots in debate.

watch?v=673pvEMvBO4

Those "wobbles" also show up in FEMR2's acceleration profile.

 

[LudicFallacies]

The particular video you cite is garbage. There are no forces which could be occurring due to a vertical collapse of the east penthouse to cause lateral motion of the entire 300 foot wide building from west to east. If you believe that you believe fairies and pixies fly.

The entire building did not wobble during the collapse of the east penthouse. A shockwave went down the east side from top to bottom as would be expected. One thing the video does show is that sunlight is only visible through the windows in the top story. Think about that and the fact that the building was 144 feet deep from north to south and you are looking at the north face.

Are you trying to claim the video has been manipulated?

Here is a copy on my YouTube channel.

watch?v=xrzeN-wvHD4&feature=share&list=PLUZvxcfs21-iIUTJWE3SwTv3ifcd4OIc5

Clearly you can see the building "wobble" and I find it amazing you never noticed this.

Also your claims the sunlight can't been seen through all the building's windows means the penthouse only partially collapsed is total BS and is yet more evidence of your flawed reasoning skills and cognitive bias. The fact sunlight can only be seen shining through some of the upper windows means that sunlight can only be seen shinning through some of the upper windows and nothing more. How to go from that to believing the penthouse only came down partially makes no sense whatsoever logically and is an example of wishful thinking.

Please pray tell explain how all those windows a good 20 stories below it broke as can been seen in the video of the collapse.

PS perhaps the reason you can only see sunlight through the top is due to smoke/dust from the collapsing building? Just a hunch...

 

[LudicFallacies]

The east penthouse was eccentrically located in the northeast corner. That would be reason to bring it inside the walls of the building before the whole building was brought down.

Pardon?

I really don't understand your pathetic attempt at rationalizing your insane beliefs with this pathetic poorly worded prose which is incomprehensible.

"east penthouse was eccentrically located in the northeast corner"

So what Tony!

What is so bizarre about the location of the east penthouse? The building was shaped like a trapazoid and thus it wasn't concentrically located.

So what Tony!

Can you please explain to me how this somehow means the east penthouse had to come down seven seconds before the rest of the building and not only that, it only came down partially into the building during those seven seconds as you have claimed.

HUH?

What red herring are you trying to manufacture here with your pathetically flawed reasoning huh?

 

[LudicFallacies]

The particular video you cite is garbage. There are no forces which could be occurring due to a vertical collapse of the east penthouse to cause lateral motion of the entire 300 foot wide building from west to east. If you believe that you believe fairies and pixies fly.

Do you deny the apparent wobble as can be seen in various videos featuring the collapse of WTC7?

Why do you deny visual evidence even a layman can discern in the collapse videos?

Perhaps it's because it supports the physics and dynamic forces acting on the building during the seven seconds between when the penthouse goes down and the "global" collapse begins?

The wobble makes perfect sense if the building was in the act of collapse during the seven seconds as the collapse progressed from east to west and those structural members were yanking on the building as they collapsed.

You claim the east penthouse collapse and then stopped at like what... the 40th floor and your reason is the lack of sunlight shining through the lower floors? Well what about the windows breaking as far as 20 stories below that huh?

 

[LudicFallacies]

I believe his background is mechanical engineering.

Oh so what... he designed some perogies rollers and conveyer belt for factory food production huh?

LOL

TONY!

Can you give us a synopsis of the various engineering projects you have worked on?

 

[LudicFallacies]

The particular video you cite is garbage. There are no forces which could be occurring due to a vertical collapse of the east penthouse to cause lateral motion of the entire 300 foot wide building from west to east. If you believe that you believe fairies and pixies fly.

The entire building did not wobble during the collapse of the east penthouse. A shockwave went down the east side from top to bottom as would be expected. One thing the video does show is that sunlight is only visible through the windows in the top story. Think about that and the fact that the building was 144 feet deep from north to south and you are looking at the north face.

So you got seven years at BAE systems working on what?

You look like you're easily in your late 50s and yet you only have seven years of experience?

I'm going to contact BAE systems and inquire about your history with them Tony if others haven't done so already.

Also where did you get your accreditation as it's not listed on your Linkedin profile. Do you have an undergraduate degree at least?

 

[LudicFallacies]

You know Tony I just looked at your paper "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" and it's opening "The only complete hypothesis of the global collapse mechanism of the Towers is a successive flattening of stories associated with compressive column failure and referred to as a Progressive Column Failure mode or PCF in brief"

WOW

Have you not ever seen video of the internal columns/structure remaining INTACT for the most part up to at least the 60th floor for a good 30 plus seconds AFTER the towers had collapsed!?!

How the hell does your PCF theory account for this!?!

 

[LudicFallacies]

Tony Szamboti!

This is the most extensive 9/11 debunk playlist on all of YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrzeN-wvHD4&list=PLUZvxcfs21-iIUTJWE3SwTv3ifcd4OIc5&feature=share

Please take the time to watch it with HUMILITY IN YOUR HEART and a respect for science and reason.

"In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story."

"There are two sides to every question, because, when there are no longer two sides it ceases to be a question."