• 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

jaydeehess said:
I read the CBTUH response. They certainly did not make the demands you seem to think they did.
What they did do is accept that fire effects on floor girders led to the progressive collapse and unequivocally denounce the 9/11 truth movement as having "no credibility whatsoever".
Click to expand...

Stop the strawmanning BS please.
The CTBUH asked the question. It remains unanswered.
The essence of what you are putting forth here is that the same question asked by a group that you perceive as being in the truth movement has no value with the very organisation that asked trhe same question.

You are in a mess.
 
gerrycan said:
You don't know???

The CTBUH. You need to read the reports that you aim to defend.
Click to expand...

You mean this report:

The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on WTC 7 or any of the other WTC buildings. The Council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.
Click to expand...

Yep. Read it.
 
gerrycan said:
Stop the strawmanning BS please.
The CTBUH asked the question. It remains unanswered.
The essence of what you are putting forth here is that the same question asked by a group that you perceive as being in the truth movement has no value with the very organisation that asked trhe same question.

You are in a mess.
Click to expand...

That organization asked question. All good questions. However it saw no need to demand answers as it definitely accepts that the effects of fire on floor girders was the initiating event.

The questions asked by CBTUH are all directed towards coming up with recommendations for future building codes.

The CBTUH puts "no credibility whatsoever" in the assertions of any 9/11 truth movement adherent. ( that would include you) You stated earlier that you were concerned that the CBTUH did not state which truth movement assertions they reject.
The blanket statement they did make unequivocally indicates they reject them all. ( I assume they'd agree that most truth movement adherents get the date of the event right)
 
jaydeehess said:
The CBTUH puts "no credibility whatsoever" in the assertions of any 9/11 truth movement adherent. ( that would include you) You stated earlier that you were concerned that the CBTUH did not state which truth movement assertions they reject.
The blanket statement they did make unequivocally indicates they reject them all. ( I assume they'd agree that most truth movement adherents get the date of the event right)
Click to expand...
Nobody in the truth movement was asking about the plates then because the drawings had not been released. You are saying that a question has credibility if it comes from the CTBUH, but the same question can be disregarded as irrelevant so long as you can brush the source as being the "truth movement"

You need to bring a shred of rigor to this debate.
 
I see gerrycan has got people chasing another red herring.

Good job gerrycan, you're fighting the good fight. When do you plan to step up and present this to structural engineers?
 
DGM said:
I see gerrycan has got people chasing another red herring.

Good job gerrycan, you're fighting the good fight. When do you plan to step up and present this to structural engineers?
Click to expand...
This information has been shown to many people elsewhere.
We're talking about it here.
Find me an SE that says a 53ft steel beam can expand 6.25".
 
gerrycan said:
Let's deal with the implications once NIST have corrected their report rather than just saying "so what" to everything.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the real problem. All this NIST-picking doesn't actually go anywhere. All you want is to be able to make NIST eat crow and admit that the Truthers were right about something. You haven't thought through to the logical conclusion of your hypotheses. Your focus is so narrow that you're missing the forest for the trees. Take a step back and look; why is it so important that NIST be wrong? What does it change if their initiating event is incorrect? Once you can answer that and make a prima facie case with evidence and a conclusion, then you might be on to something.
 
gerrycan said:
This information has been shown to many people elsewhere.
We're talking about it here.
Find me an SE that says a 53ft steel beam can expand 6.25".
Click to expand...
Find me one that could explain how it relates(in context) to the FEA as a whole. That is what we're talking about, right?
 
gerrycan said:
Nobody in the truth movement was asking about the plates then because the drawings had not been released. You are saying that a question has credibility if it comes from the CTBUH, but the same question can be disregarded as irrelevant so long as you can brush the source as being the "truth movement"

You need to bring a shred of rigor to this debate.
Click to expand...

No! I am saying that while the CBTUH asked a question it by no means demanded an answer from NIST, AND, that it positively accepts that fire effects on girders began the collapse progression.
 
gerrycan said:
This information has been shown to many people elsewhere.
We're talking about it here.
Find me an SE that says a 53ft steel beam can expand 6.25".
Click to expand...

You may want to be more specific, as there are a variety of ways that a 53ft steel beam can expand 6.25".
 
Last edited:
Fact is that the failure of col 79 is not in question as the cause of the first grossly observed event, the in falling of the EPH.
So, what one does is look for a cause of col 79 failure. The sole observed possible factor for that is the fires in the vicinity of col 79. Thus one investigates how those fires could cause such a failure. It was determined that there was not enough heat to directly fail col 79, but that movement of girders was extremely possible. Failure of a girder was determined to be able to lead to col 79 buckling due to unbraced length( especially keeping in mind that a portion of the column is at elevated temp)

Furthermore a col 79 failure was found to lead to a progressive collapse of the structure even without the south side damage and that it would be even faster if that south side damage is included.

So, Gerry, do you know what the significance the exact nature of girder failure is?
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Fact is that the failure of col 79 is not in question as the cause of the first grossly observed event, the in falling of the EPH.
So, what one does is look for a cause of col 79 failure. The sole observed possible factor for that is the fires in the vicinity of col 79. Thus one investigates how those fires could cause such a failure. It was determined that there was not enough heat to directly fail col 79, but that movement of girders was extremely possible. Failure of a girder was determined to be able to lead to col 79 buckling due to unbraced length( especially keeping in mind that a portion of the column is at elevated temp)

Furthermore a col 79 failure was found to lead to a progressive collapse of the structure even without the south side damage and that it would be even faster if that south side damage is included.
Click to expand...
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_ DraftReport.pdf
"The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79."

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225
"The travel distance for walk off was 6.25 5.5in. along the axis of the beam and 5.5 6.25in. lateral to the beam."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom