• 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

gerrycan said:
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."
."
Click to expand...

OMG! You really don't understand why the CBTUH said that do you?
OR
You are simply quite willing to take that quote out of context.

Gad, I hope that was just a test to see if I have read it or not.
They stated that it should read that "floor structure" failure was the cause of collapse in order to have it be consistent with the scenario of collapse and, significantly, with the recommendations for future building codes.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
OMG! You really don't understand why the CBTUH said that do you?
OR
You are simply quite willing to take that quote out of context.

Gsd, I hope that was just a test to see if I have read it or not.
They stated that it should read that girder failure was the cause of collapse in order to have it be consistent with the scenario of collapse and, significantly, with the recommendations for future building codes.
Click to expand...

You need to read it again. The CTBUH blamed floor failures for the loss of lateral support in the girder. This is a whole different question though, and one that would go OT in this thread.
 
gerrycan said:
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."
Click to expand...


The next paragraph:

"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."
 
Ape of Good Hope said:
The next paragraph:

"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...
Again, nobody in the "truth movement" was asking about this issue then so how could the CTBUH possibly be passing judgement on this issue?
 
gerrycan said:
You need to read it again. The CTBUH blamed floor failures for the loss of lateral support in the girder. This is a whole different question though, and one that would go OT in this thread.
Click to expand...

Aaaahahahahahah!

Why don't you include the entire paragraph in the "conclusion" section in your next post. I would, but my PDF reader does not allow select&copy..
 
gerrycan said:
That stated the girder was pushed 6.25". Impossible.

Just being possible would be a start for their theory.
Click to expand...

You say it is impossible. You don't say why, which requires showing a full system analysis. You don't say why it is important, for this empty building that collapsed after being on fire for several hours. Why is it more important than any other work done by NIST? How does it compare to any other building analysis fire? Why should anyone care? Why is this question never answered?
 
jaydeehess said:
Aaaahahahahahah!

Why don't you include the entire paragraph in the "conclusion" section in your next post. I would, but my PDF reader does not allow select&copy..
Click to expand...

I think the issue is dealt with above.
You cannot disregard an argument solely on the basis of source.
You also cannot know what the CTBUH meant by the definition "truth movement".
If you read my earlier post you would have noted that i said that i accept that the CTBUH do not agree with the "truth movement" as per their statement.
 
DGM said:
Just curious. How do you think that quote helps you? :confused:
Click to expand...

The question proves that NIST had no excuse for not accounting for the plates in their analysis. This was asked when the report was out for public comment and NIST were in possession of drawing #9114. NIST cannot plead ignorance to the existence of these elements at the time of publishing their report, and they did not have enough time to rerun their analysis in the interim.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
The question proves that NIST had no excuse for not accounting for the plates in their analysis. This was asked when the report was out for public comment and NIST were in possession of drawing #9114. NIST cannot plead ignorance to the existence of these elements at the time of publishing their report, and they did not have enough time to rerun their analysis in the interim.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.
 
Newtons Bit said:
You may want to be more specific, as there are a variety of ways that a 53ft steel beam can expand 6.25".
Click to expand...

The basic fact is that expansion of 6.25 inches is not necessary for the girder to move 6.25 inches off the seat. That FACT has already been shown. Troofers have this "minor problem" with geometry. :rolleyes:

In fact, and expansion of only a couple of inches would be enough to push the girder off its seat.

TS tried to hand wave it away as usual.
 
gerrycan said:
I think the issue is dealt with above.
You cannot disregard an argument solely on the basis of source.
You also cannot know what the CTBUH meant by the definition "truth movement".
If you read my earlier post you would have noted that i said that i accept that the CTBUH do not agree with the "truth movement" as per their statement.
Click to expand...

That's right. In fact the say " no credibility whatsover". So in all matters brought up by the 'truth movement' that they knew of in 2008, they absolutely reject them all.

Now you are trying to say " but, oh, they did not know about the web stiffeners" and imply that this would cause them to reverse both statements and conclude that NIST is incorrect in that floor structure failure led to unbraced length if col 79 which then failed as the first couple of steps in progression if global collapse; and , that there is now ONE aspect brought up by the 911 truth movement that they deem credible.

That, it seems to me, would require that the CBTUH never bothered to check back and see what NIST later wrote. That they are unaware now of the stiffeners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom