Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

thedopefishlives said:
You have yet to demonstrate this supposed "significant" effect. Nor can you demonstrate that the absence is due to anything other than a simplifying assumption, as was stated in the report. If you think NIST is lying, show your proof.
Click to expand...

It has been shown that the stress is well below the yield stress at elevated temperature with the stiffeners and that the flange would not fail.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It has been shown that the stress is well below the yield stress at elevated temperature with the stiffeners and that the flange would not fail.
Click to expand...

No, it has not. Your math is full of faulty assumptions. It has been commented on by several qualified engineers and your response is to dismiss it as "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." Yes, I've been following this thread, and I saw your complete lack of response to the reasoned arguments of your opponents. You have nothing.
 
thedopefishlives said:
No, it has not. Your math is full of faulty assumptions. It has been commented on by several qualified engineers and your response is to dismiss it as "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." Yes, I've been following this thread, and I saw your complete lack of response to the reasoned arguments of your opponents. You have nothing.
Click to expand...

Oh, but the calculations do indeed show those stiffeners would have prevented the girder flange from failing when the web was past the seat, and by a large margin at elevated temperature also. There is a reason they were omitted and not mentioned in the report and it wasn't to simplify the analysis.

Can I see your calculations which show otherwise? Or even a little logic if you can't do the calculations?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Oh, but the calculations do indeed show those stiffeners would have prevented the girder flange from failing when the web was past the seat, and by a large margin at elevated temperature also. There is a reason they were omitted and not mentioned in the report and it wasn't to simplify the analysis.

Can I see your calculations which show otherwise? Or even a little logic if you can't do the calculations?
Click to expand...

There's this post, which you handwaved away with the aforementioned "blah blah blah" that I've come to expect from you. If you gave an actual reasoned response to it instead of just treating it like technobabble you are unable to understand, that would be a great start.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Oh, but the calculations do indeed show those stiffeners would have prevented the girder flange from failing when the web was past the seat, and by a large margin at elevated temperature also. There is a reason they were omitted and not mentioned in the report and it wasn't to simplify the analysis.

Can I see your calculations which show otherwise? Or even a little logic if you can't do the calculations?
Click to expand...


Can we see your calculations for CD? No.
Got any logic for silent explosives and fantasy no product thermite? No.

911 truth can't present a rational case for CD so 911 truth is stuck asking questions. Why can't 911 truth do the calculation to support failed claims they make?

Can a single column failure do it, in a building totaled by fires not fought? Fire destroyed WTC 7, 911 truth can't figure it out.

Why not start a CD thread to present all the CD evidence. I love short threads. How is CD going?

Can I see your calculations which show no can show otherwise? Let me answer that one. No.
Where is your nano-little logic since you can't do the calculations?

Looks like your questions can be used against you. What is next for the biggest anti-intellectual movement of all time?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Oh, but the calculations do indeed show those stiffeners would have prevented the girder flange from failing when the web was past the seat, and by a large margin at elevated temperature also. There is a reason they were omitted and not mentioned in the report and it wasn't to simplify the analysis.

Can I see your calculations which show otherwise? Or even a little logic if you can't do the calculations?
Click to expand...

According to your calculations, the girder buckled, not deflected 2-3" like you claim. It's all over then.
Also the beams would have buckled when hot and having lost their stiffening shear bolts. Girder expanded, jammed at colums, resisted beam expansion, added axial resistance, more buckling, loss of load carrying geometry. Horizontal catenary forces on girder. Also over.
Girder or beams failed first.
Buiding collapsed due to the fires not controlled demolition.
 
beachnut said:
Can we see your calculations for CD? No.
Got any logic for silent explosives and fantasy no product thermite? No.

911 truth can't present a rational case for CD so 911 truth is stuck asking questions. Why can't 911 truth do the calculation to support failed claims they make?

Can a single column failure do it, in a building totaled by fires not fought? Fire destroyed WTC 7, 911 truth can't figure it out.

Why not start a CD thread to present all the CD evidence. I love short threads. How is CD going?

Can I see your calculations which show no can show otherwise? Let me answer that one. No.
Where is your nano-little logic since you can't do the calculations?

Looks like your questions can be used against you. What is next for the biggest anti-intellectual movement of all time?
Click to expand...

typical bn eye on the ball post.
Giuliani asked me when are you going to send him those speakers.
 
BasqueArch said:
According to your calculations, the girder buckled, not deflected 2-3" like you claim. It's all over then.
Also the beams would have buckled when hot and having lost their stiffening shear bolts. Girder expanded, jammed at colums, resisted beam expansion, added axial resistance, more buckling, loss of load carrying geometry. Horizontal catenary forces on girder. Also over.
Girder or beams failed first.
Buiding collapsed due to the fires not controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

The five beams won't let the girder rotate, and it would need to rotate to lose load carrying capacity. So this failure mode is unlikely.

What is interesting is that you at least acknowledge that the NIST hypothesis is impossible.
 
Last edited:
It is clear now that those here who insist that fire caused WTC 7 to collapse have no idea what initiated the collapse with the NIST hypothesis being shown to be impossible, and it is telling that the theories they have proposed to replace the now debunked NIST theory range from barely plausible to ridiculous.

One would think this shows why the NIST should be required to revisit the issue and perform physical testing with sections of floor structure as well as FEA to determine a viable failure mode. Of course, this would also mean they would have to include pertinent structural features they previously omitted, like the girder stiffeners.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It is clear now that those here who insist that fire caused WTC 7 to collapse have no idea what initiated the collapse with the NIST hypothesis being shown to be impossible, and it is telling that the theories they have proposed to replace the now debunked NIST theory range from barely plausible to ridiculous.

One would think this shows why the NIST should be required to revisit the issue and perform physical testing with sections of floor structure as well as FEA to determine a viable failure mode. Of course, this would also mean they would have to include pertinent structural features they previously omitted, like the girder stiffeners.
Click to expand...

Apart from you Tony, why are you keeping it a secret ?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is clear now that those here who insist that fire caused WTC 7 to collapse have no idea what initiated the collapse with the NIST hypothesis being shown to be impossible, and it is telling that the theories they have proposed to replace the now debunked NIST theory range from barely plausible to ridiculous.

One would think this shows why the NIST should be required to revisit the issue and perform physical testing with sections of floor structure as well as FEA to determine a viable failure mode. Of course, this would also mean they would have to include pertinent structural features they previously omitted, like the girder stiffeners.
Click to expand...

As I have stated several times Col79 did come down preceding the downward movement of the curtain wall and the space frame which it was clipped to. This is undeniable. The collapse was not a one or two story process but appears to be the entire column line. And that would pull with it all the beams and girders framed into it on each floor and the EPH would of course drop.

NIST created at floor 13 scenario for some reason. But it's perhaps more likely that the column collapsed from some cause below 13 and it makes most sense that the transfer structures between flrs 5 and 7 - TT1, TT2 and TT3 along with 8 cantilever girders supporting the 80% of the north columns of the perimeter failed first. This pushed the columns out of alignment at floor 8 with those above: 47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,61,64,67, & 73.
These trusses were inter connected of course and were connected to the columns to the east of the core 74,75,77,78, E3,E4,79,80,81,82 which also were pushed and or pulled out of alignment with the columns above.

The south side of the core had a 5 story tall lobby with no N-S bracing. So when the transfer structures failed there was little left below floor 7 inside the building.

The collapse below 7 described above pulled both the East and West 8 story braced frames at the perimeter inward. These frames were connected to columns 79,80,81 on the East and TT3 on the West. Now there was no structure below 8 coupled with the structure above 8 and the perimeter frame came down for 108' (distance from ground to floor 8) with no resistance.

The collapse of the columns supporting the 8- MG 27girders north of the core likely also destroyed the remaining to columns of the core so it to had the columns above it collapse down (just before the perimeter movement). This is supported by the collapse of the WPH which was above the core area and came down before the observed curtain wall collapse.

Sequence:

TT1 and or TT2 fail
Columns and braces connecting them 61,64,67, 70, 73 fail
Columns 74,75,78,79,80,81,E3,#4 collapse
EPH falls 8-MG 27's collapse taking 47-54
core columns 61,64,67,70, collapse taking core with them
TT3 pulled eastward taking columns 61a and 62 down
WPH collapses down and eastward
braced framed are pulled inward
Perimeter comes down

You can see that the failure of 79 below 8 comes early in the sequence.

The likely failure mode of the massive TT1 or TT2 was from bolt shearing connecting the steel of a diagonal of a truss member. Once the diagonal is "gone" the truss completely fails and takes all the members framed into it down with it.

And this is the likely rapidly progressive series of failures which would match the visuals.

The floor 13 discussion is a diversion from the likely real location of the initiation which was inside the building where there were almost no windows and no office space... all Con Ed and Mech floors.

The take away (mine) is that a failure in a key LATERAL transfer structure rapidly spread through the lower part of the tower leaving no support the the office floors above. Interior was rapidly gutted / hollowed out and the last *man standing* was the perimeter.

This analysis is what the visuals show and what is consistent with the structure and so the collapse was not FROM a single column failure. Those who support this believe that the mass from 34 floors dropped onto the TT1 and TT2 initiating the above sequence. Maybe.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg.
Core columns
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is clear now that those here who insist that fire caused WTC 7 to collapse have no idea what initiated the collapse with the NIST hypothesis being shown to be impossible, and it is telling that the theories they have proposed to replace the now debunked NIST theory range from barely plausible to ridiculous.

One would think this shows why the NIST should be required to revisit the issue and perform physical testing with sections of floor structure as well as FEA to determine a viable failure mode. Of course, this would also mean they would have to include pertinent structural features they previously omitted, like the girder stiffeners.
Click to expand...

No.
 
JSanderO said:
This analysis is what the visuals show and what is consistent with the structure and so the collapse was not FROM a single column failure. Those who support this believe that the mass from 34 floors dropped onto the TT1 and TT2 initiating the above sequence. Maybe.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg.
Core columns
Click to expand...

I assume by "not a single column failure" you mean that the initiator of the collapse was from the failure of A PORTION of the system (IE a group of components failing)? It doesn't really change the final outcome though this and the rest of the post is a hell of a lot more realistic than leaping from "bolts didn't fail" to "fire didn't cause collapse". It may not change the final collapse result, though you could potentially make an argument that if the NIST report detailed the wrong failure point as the collapse initiator there's another concern for life safety that needs to be addressed in newer constructions. I believe with WTC 7 the long-span beams were among chief concerns already and would be a factor in this option as well, but this direction of debate in some cases would shed light on additional code related deficiencies if the ramifications were sufficient.

I'm not sure it affects the conclusions enough but I say this to give you an idea of a legitimate direction of discussion since what you've considered would naturally lead there.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The five beams won't let the girder rotate, and it would need to rotate to lose load carrying capacity. So this failure mode is unlikely.

What is interesting is that you at least acknowledge that the NIST hypothesis is impossible.
Click to expand...

Only when you hand wave away the connection failures. :rolleyes:

The hypothesis that is impossible is your CD fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom