Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[DGM]

Similar to his saying that someone said that steel on steel sparking caused all of the fires in WTC 7.

Did he ever respond to my suggestion of the possibility of electrical fires? I know I only post "turnip like arguments" and all but, I do think it's plausible.

 

[ozeco41]

...and that is not even going near the "pristine building" fallacy.

Tony is not game to go there. I called him on that specific error applied to WTC7 a couple of years back. And it is merely one example of the generic error of starting from false assumptions/false premises. I have been reminding him about the more generic issue - false starting premises - for several more years.

When pushed hard on the issue his response in the past has been to resort to personal insults. He hasn't done so this time - not real full on PA's. I must be losing my touch.

 

[jaydeehess]

Did he ever respond to my suggestion of the possibility of electrical fires? I know I only post "turnip like arguments" and all but, I do think it's plausible.

Sort of. He said that a short would be improbable. He claims that severing wires (apparently he believes they would do so quickly, cleanly and neatly) will almost exclusively result in an open circuit.

He seems to exclude crushing of electronic equipment, the pulling on power wiring until it breaks, the abrasion of insulation, and several other modes that would result from a violent ripping through an office by a steel chunk of WTC 1.

 

[DGM]

Sort of. He said that a short would be improbable. He claims that severing wires (apparently he believes they would do so quickly, cleanly and neatly) will almost exclusively result in an open circuit.

He seems to exclude crushing of electronic equipment, the pulling on power wiring until it breaks, the abrasion of insulation, and several other modes that would result from a violent ripping through an office by a steel chunk of WTC 1.

Ah yes, the old ignore the obvious and pretend the "official story" relies on the obscure.

 

[Miragememories]

THE AMAZINGLY STRAIGHT FACE

”You keep trying to say it, but the failure of the east penthouse is not an indication of where column 79 failed or that the entire east side interior collapsed to the ground before the east side exterior came down.

All that can be shown relative to column 79 and the east penthouse is that column 79 failed somewhere under the east penthouse. That could just as well have been high in the building, and there is no basis for assuming that it was at the 13th floor or anywhere near that.

The evidence is actually against a failure of column 79 low in the building and an east side interior collapse before the exterior came down the way the NIST report claims, since there is no east side exterior deformation and no dust emanating out of windows on the east side until the exterior comes down.

When this is coupled with the omissions of the pertinent structural features, which would have prevented the girder failure at the 13th floor that the report claims, it shows the report has no basis and is invalid.”

This is a very important point.

When WTC1 and WTC2 came down, videos showed dramatic squibs below the wave front of collapsing floors.

It has been argued that those window-bursting squibs were caused by air pressure from the ‘squeezing’ collapse of the internal floors, and not explosives.

The rapid reduction to huge clouds of pulverized dust showed the power in each towers collapse.

My point in support of what Tony is saying, focuses on those few seconds before WTC7’s global collapse is observable.

The seconds during which column 79 failed, the east penthouse sank through the roof, and some window breakage below this point could be observed.

Inside WTC7 during this time, one hypothesis believes that the internal steel structural support was all dropping.

Yet, despite all this internal downward activity occurring the WTC7 ’shell’ reveals only a few additional broken windows.

No one reported the agonizing sound failing steel makes when it is overloaded. And supposedly a lot of steel was being rapidly overloaded.

Massive air pressure squibs would be expected.

Why is there no dramatic alteration to the smoke rising at least from the already broken windows on the east side of WTC7?

It is hard to keep a straight face when so much is happening inside.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

My point in support of what Tony is saying, focuses on those few seconds before WTC7’s global collapse is observable.

Do you support Tony's contention that the fires in WTC 7 were started by arsonists after the collapses of the trade towers?

The seconds during which column 79 failed, the east penthouse sank through the roof, and some window breakage below this point could be observed.

Inside WTC7 during this time, one hypothesis believes that the internal steel structural support was all dropping.

Yet, despite all this internal downward activity occurring the WTC7 ’shell’ reveals only a few additional broken windows.

A different style of collapse will produce different observables. Critical thinking 101, MM.

 

[GlennB]

Yet, despite all this internal downward activity occurring the WTC7 ’shell’ reveals only a few additional broken windows.

Massive air pressure squibs would be expected.

The windows on the S side, and some others, were shot to pieces and a substantial part of the roof had caved in.

p.s. "squib" is sooo 2007

 

[thedopefishlives]

The windows on the S side, and some others, were shot to pieces and a substantial part of the roof had caved in.

p.s. "squib" is sooo 2007

So, MM, let me get this straight: The presence of "explosive squibs" in WTC1 and WTC2 means controlled demolition; the absence of "explosive squibs" in WTC7 means ... controlled demolition? And you wonder why nobody takes any of these arguments seriously?

 

[pgimeno]

Since the inclusion or exclusion of these features changes the outcome and conclusion of the analysis, in a diametrically opposed way, it is far from a "splitting hairs" issue.

It is splitting hairs.

The conclusion of the analysis plays a very minor role in the conclusions of the report. Let me dumb it down for you.

-------------------------------------------------

Chapter 4 (Principal findings) is the gist of the conclusions.

4.1 is the introduction. It introduces the points that follow. Nothing would change there

4.2 is a summary. It consists of many points, none of which mentions the initiating event. It is divided into three of the four objectives (as the introduction mentions, the fourth objective is treated in section 4.5).

The first objective is "Determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed."

• This point wouldn't change: "WTC 7 withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours."
• This point wouldn't change: "The collapse of WTC 7 represents the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. The collapse could not have been prevented without controlling the fires before most of the combustible building contents were consumed."
• The next point talks about the importance of the sprinklers and concludes that "[h]ad a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." That point wouldn't change either no matter how the girder failed.
• The next point refers to column 79 and is a point that CTBUH contends, because it talks about failure of column 79 as the initiating event instead of the floor systems that NIST said that failed. It is the one starting with "The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 was initiated by the buckling of Column 79, which was unsupported over nine stories, after local fire-induced damage led to a cascade of floor failures." That isn't affected by how the girder failed either.
• Next point is about how local damage led to the collapse of an entire building. Not affected by how the girder failed.
• Next explains how "WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse in the absence of debris impact and fire" and isn't affected.
• Next one just says: "Neither the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) nor the "strong" floors (Floors 5 and 7) played a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7. Neither did the Con Edison substation play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7" so it would obviously not be affected either.
• Next point is about how SFRM was not damaged. You bet it wouldn't be affected by how the girder failed.
• Next says that the damage from WTC 1 was not a factor in the structural failure, and that if fires with the same characteristics happened in the building in pristine condition, it would still fail. As you can imagine, it would be unaffected by the failure mode of the girder.
• Next is about how fires in the southwest corner did not play a role in the collapse. Unaffected too.
• Next is about descent time. Unaffected.
• Next is about how diesel fuel played no role in the fires. Unaffected.
• Next is about ruling out blast events. Unaffected.

Second objective is "Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response."

While it's important, in that it shows how evacuation was successful and therefore adequate, which is crucial for building safety, none of its four points is affected by how the girder failed, and thus also proves how you're splitting hairs:

• First point says that there were no serious injuries or fatalities because the building was evacuated.
• Second says that "The occupants were able to use both the elevators and the stairs, which were as yet not damaged, obstructed, or smoke-filled."
• Third is about identifying an exit path safe from WTC1 debris to go out of the building.
• And fourth and last point is about how no emergency responders suffered any injuries due to the building being empty.

Third objective is to "Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 7." It has five points, all relevant to building safety, and none affected by the girder failure mode:

• First just says that "The design of WTC 7 was generally consistent1 with the NYCBC."
• Next is about how lack of redundancy in the source of water supplies was consistent with building codes.
• Next is about the passive fire resistance design of WTC7 and concludes that while it conformed to the codes, it is deficient because thermal interactions can affect the elements even with it. It's very important to building safety. NIST has a point here. But you don't.
• Next is about how fire performance of the structural system of building was not required to be taken into account, and continued to do so up to the date of the report. It notes that "[c]urrent practice also does not require design professionals to possess the qualifications necessary to ensure adequate passive fire resistance of the structural system." Important for building safety, and unaffected by how the girder failed.
• And last elaborates on how "[t]he design of WTC 7 did not include any specific analysis of how the structural system might perform in a real fire."

4.3 is titled "THE MECHANISMS OF BUILDING COLLAPSE". Is there any part in this section affected here by how the girder failed? Let's see.

4.3.1 is titled "Debris Impact Damage from the Collapse of WTC 1". None of its two points is affected.

• First point says how the building collapsed nearly seven hours after the damage.
• Second point details where the structural damage was located.

4.3.2 is titled "Reconstruction of the Fires". It contains numerous points and sub-points, filling about two pages, none of which is affected by how the girder failed.

4.3.3 is titled "Fire Induced Thermal Effects". Is the girder failure mode part of the thermal effects considered there? Let's see.

• First point says that the calculated temperatures of the columns were below 200°C everywhere. Nope, not affected.
• Second point says that the floor slab tops in some floors were heated to over 900°C and that some beams exceeded 600°C. Interesting, but that's a premise for the failure mode. Now matter how it failed, this point would still be unaffected.
• Third and last point is about how variability in the conditions affected the outcome. The failure mode would not affect this either.

4.3.4 is titled "Structural Response and Collapse". Sounds like this is a good candidate to find something. It has four parts. The first one, "Initiating event", has 4 points, one of which has 3 subpoints.

• "The buckling failure of Column 79 between Floor 5 and Floor 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems." Would this change if the girder failed in some other way? I don't think so.
• Second point mentions that temperatures primarily implied were under 400°C, "well below the temperatures at which structural steel loses significant strength and stiffness." Not affected by the exact failure mode of the girder either.
• Third point reads: "Thermal expansion was particularly significant in causing the connection, beam, and girder failures, since the floor beams had long spans on the north and east sides (approximately 15 m, 50 ft)." Not affected. It has three sub-points:
  • First subpoint is about how the beams were distorted and their connections broke as a result of thermal elongation. Not affected.
  • Second subpoint is worth quoting in its entirety: "At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams." Now the red part might be affected if the failure mode was different. The rest wouldn't. Bingo, we have a sentence affected.
  • Third subpoint mentions how the weakening of floors 8 to 14 helped the progressive collapse. It isn't affected by how the girder failed.
• Last point mentions blast events. Maybe you can show proof of a big boom that caused the girder to fail, but until then, I'll assume it has nothing to do with how the girder failed.

The second part is titled "Vertical Progression of Collapse". It has three points, the first of which contains two subpoints. None of them would be affected by how the girder failed.

The third part is titled "Horizontal Progression of Collapse". It has three points too, of which none would be affected by how the girder failed either.

The last part is titled "Global Collapse", and it has five points, filling almost a page. Nothing that the exact failure mode of the girder would affect.

4.4 is titled "LIFE SAFETY FACTORS". Very important for NIST's task. And not affected either by the girder's failure mode

4.4.1 is about "Evacuation of WTC 7". It has seven points, one of which has three subpoints. It fills about one page. None of it is affected by how the girder exactly failed. It goes into details such as how fire drills were performed (important for safety, so within NIST's responsibility to investigate.)

4.4.2 is titled "Emergency Response". It has four points, and mentions how there were no casualties due to the collapse of the building. No relationship to the failure mode of the girder whatsoever.

4.5 is a section titled "CODE STANDARDS AND PRACTICES". Maybe there's something in it that would be affected if the girder failed in any other way? Unlikely, but let's see.

4.5.1 is a general subsection with three points. A salient point is the last one: "The type of building classification used to design and construct the building was not clear from the available documents." It goes on to mention that "some documentation [...], indicate a type 1-B (3 h protected) classification". As you can see, no relationship with the girder either. In neither that or the other points.

4.5.2, "Building Design and Structural Safety", sounds like it might be a candidate. But when we look into its contents, which are three points, one of which in turn contains four subpoints, we find out that NIST is talking about general adequacy of the design and adherence to the codes.

The last point is particularly interesting. It was treated in the summary already. It says that "[t]he structural design did not explicitly evaluate fire effects, which was typical for engineering practice at that time and continues to remain so today." Could a change in that practice have prevented the girder from failing? Maybe. Perhaps you want to lobby for such a change. But I think it's clear that that is not your intention. Also, I have the feeling that NIST is implicitly insinuating that it would be overkill to do so.

4.5.3 is about application of SFRM. The second of the four points it contains is quite interesting in itself, as it mentions the maximum temperature of steel. But none of them would really be affected if the girder failed in some other way.

4.5.4, Fire Safety and Fire Protections Systems, has five points, one of which contains two subpoints. It goes into detail to say that they were "designed, constructed, and apparently maintained consistent with applicable building codes and standards." Very important for building safety. But none of them would change a bit if the girder failure mode was different.

4.6 is of special interest. It's titled "FUTURE FACTORS THAT COULD HAVE MITIGATED STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE". The opening paragraph states: "In the course of the Investigation, NIST and its contractors were aware that there were existing, emerging, or even anticipated capabilities that could have prevented the collapse of WTC 7, had they been in place on September 11, 2001. NIST did not conduct studies to evaluate the degree to which building performance could have been improved on September 11, 2001, had the capabilities been available." Now it can be argued that the lack of such studies is a pitfall in the report. But you're not contending that, are you?

Would any of the six points it contains be affected, had NIST found out a different failure mode of the girder? Let's see.

• The first point reads: "More robust connections and framing systems to better resist the effects of thermal expansion on the structural system, which is not currently considered in design practice." If the girder failed in some other way, would NIST have changed their mind on this point? I don't think so, but who knows. It's conjecture at best.
• And the second point? "Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse." Well, duh. But progressive collapse has nothing to do with the girder's failing mode anyway.
• "Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and to minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects." Since NIST showed that thermal expansion was indeed a factor that at the very least put the building in risk and has the potential of causing collapses of other buildings, that's a sound factor in any case, independently of how the girder failed.
• "Automatic fire sprinkler systems with independent and reliable sources for the primary and secondary water supply." Duh too. If the fires in the lower floors were extinguished by a working sprinkler system, they would not have been a factor in the collapse, so no matter how the girder failed, this is a sound factor too.
• "Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires." Ditto.
• "Thermally resistant window assemblies which limit breakage, reduce air supply, and retard fire growth." Of course. And not changed by how the girder failed.

4.7, "HUMAN PERFORMANCE FACTORS", is the last section in that chapter, with seven important points that prevented loss of life. Let me reproduce it here, as it is short enough:

4.7 HUMAN PERFORMANCE FACTORS

Human performance factors contributed to the outcome of no loss of life at WTC 7:

• Reduced number of people in WTC 7 at the times of airplane impact on the towers.
• Shortness of delay in starting to evacuate.
• Evacuation assistance provided by emergency responders to evacuees.
• Participation of the building occupants in recent fire drills.
• Decision not to continue reconnaissance of the building and not to fight the fires within.

Other human performance factors did not play a life safety role in WTC 7 on September 11, 2001, but could have been important had the fires been more widespread, the building damage more severe, or the building occupancy at full capacity:

• Accuracy and reliability of communications among emergency responders and building occupants.
• Efficiency of management of large-scale emergency incidents.

------------------------------------------------------

That's chapter 4, which is the first part of the conclusions of the report. Only one sentence out of a very detailed summary of the NIST findings would be affected. Is chapter 5 (Recommendations) any different? No. No part of the recommendations would be affected if the girder failed in some other way.

Let me put it into perspective with this graph:

It shows, in red, the part of chapters 4 and 5 that would be affected if the girder failed differently. That's what you're fighting for. One ******* sentence of the conclusions. And you're saying that sentence invalidates the whole conclusions above? Oh, come on!

So stop claiming it's not splitting hairs. It is.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is a very important point.

When WTC1 and WTC2 came down, videos showed dramatic squibs below the wave front of collapsing floors.

It has been argued that those window-bursting squibs were caused by air pressure from the ‘squeezing’ collapse of the internal floors, and not explosives.

The rapid reduction to huge clouds of pulverized dust showed the power in each towers collapse.

My point in support of what Tony is saying, focuses on those few seconds before WTC7’s global collapse is observable.

The seconds during which column 79 failed, the east penthouse sank through the roof, and some window breakage below this point could be observed.

Inside WTC7 during this time, one hypothesis believes that the internal steel structural support was all dropping. Yet, despite all this internal downward activity occurring the WTC7 ’shell’ reveals only a few additional broken windows. No one reported the agonizing sound failing steel makes when it is overloaded. And supposedly a lot of steel was being rapidly overloaded Massive air pressure squibs would be expected.Why is there no dramatic alteration to the smoke rising at least from the already broken windows on the east side of WTC7?

It is hard to keep a straight face when so much is happening inside.

MM

1) This collapse occured as a portion of the floor failed as opposed to a level wide failure in each of the towers.
2) This began at the 13th floor, out of view of cameras.
3) This progressed vertically up through a portion of the floors attached to column 79. This means that air movement was limited in amount of air moving and in the ability of that moving air to equalize quickly over a large number of floors.
4) Sounds?? Gee MM, seems to me that I have seen posts proclaiming loud booming noises emanating from WTC 7 at this point in the collapse. First you heard of it?


The collapses of the towers was also a booming sound and not the agonizing sound of overloaded steel (which is supposed to be what? Screeching?)

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Gerry and I have shown that there is clear straightforward evidence of problems with the NIST WTC 7 report with the omission of the stiffeners and beam stubs, since their inclusion would have prevented the failures claimed in the report.

How you can term that circular reasoning is beyond me and it certainly sounds like you are the one doing circles.

You appear to have great faith in this unsupported assertion bolded above. I remain unconvinced.

 

[LSSBB]

Gerry and I have shown that there is clear straightforward evidence of problems with the NIST WTC 7 report with the omission of the stiffeners and beam stubs, since their inclusion would have prevented the failures claimed in the report.

What other failures would NIST have reported, then? They wouldn't say the building did not fail.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Who do you think you are kidding? You haven't debunked anybody. The only thing I see in your comments is wise cracks and attempts at subterfuge. Your comments are about as technical as a turnip.

Turnip can be quite technical TZ.

​

Turnip yellow mosaic virus variants produced from DNA clones encoding their genomes

Full-length dsDNA clones that encode the genomes of two Australian turnip yellow mosaic isolates, TYMV-BL and TYMV-CL have been constructed. These clones were transcribed to give 6.3 kb capped ssRNA which infects Chinese cabbages to give symptoms indistinguishable from those produced by the parental viruses. Extensions of up to 26 nucleotides at the 3′ end of the TYMV-BL clone delay infections, but virus particles isolated from these plants 4 weeks after inoculation contain RNA with the original TYMV-BL 3′ terminus. A 90 nucleotide-long portion of the virion protein gene of TYMV-BL was replaced by a synthetic 90-mer primer with 16 nucleotide changes to decrease the large cytosine content (34–42%) characteristic of tymovirus genomic RNA. No reversion of any of the mutated nucleotides to cytosine occurred during 7 passages in Chinese cabbage. Hybrids between the TYMV-BL and TYMV-CL clones were also constructed, by exchanging various portions of the genome. However, it was not possible to determine definitively which part of the viral genome is responsible for the more severe symptoms caused by TYMV-BL as the hybrids gave intermediate symptoms.

 

[Animal]

1) This collapse occured as a portion of the floor failed as opposed to a level wide failure in each of the towers.
2) This began at the 13th floor, out of view of cameras.
3) This progressed vertically up through a portion of the floors attached to column 79. This means that air movement was limited in amount of air moving and in the ability of that moving air to equalize quickly over a large number of floors.
4) Sounds?? Gee MM, seems to me that I have seen posts proclaiming loud booming noises emanating from WTC 7 at this point in the collapse. First you heard of it?


The collapses of the towers was also a booming sound and not the agonizing sound of overloaded steel (which is supposed to be what? Screeching?)

Maybe he expects Hollywood style groaning.
Just like all explosions in the real world look like propane igniting

 

[thedopefishlives]

Maybe he expects Hollywood style groaning.
Just like all explosions in the real world look like propane igniting

Actually, I thought most SFX crews used cans of gasoline for their fiery explosions? That was my impression from watching Mythbusters, anyway.

 

[jaydeehess]

Maybe he expects Hollywood style groaning.
Just like all explosions in the real world look like propane igniting

I'll have to catch the new Godzilla movie and take note of what it sounds like when large buildings get stepped on.

 

[Justin39640]

Actually, I thought most SFX crews used cans of gasoline for their fiery explosions? That was my impression from watching Mythbusters, anyway.

IIRC, you're correct. They use gasoline for big fireballs and propane for making things look like they're on fire.

ETA: Set a propane tank (30 pound or bigger) in a fire and you'll get one hell of an explosion after a bit.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There IS evidence that when the EPH went down it went ALL the way down. This is derived from the distortion of the reflections on the the curtail wall of the north side on columns.

The reflections on the east side of the north face (when the east penthouse went down) are shock waves from the east penthouse and other material high in the building falling onto previously undisturbed structure.

If you will notice there are broken windows about 15 stories down and it is black with no white dust coming out of the windows.

In reality, the evidence actually shows the east penthouse only came down at the top of the building and the shock wave from it broke windows down lower until it was damped out.

Had the entire east side interior failed low in the building as the cause for the east penthouse to go down (as the NIST WTC 7 report tries to claim) there would have been a serious amount of white dust coming out of windows broken by both shock waves and compressed air. There wasn't. The east penthouse went down at the top of the building and was unrelated to the entire exterior of the building coming down with white dust coming out of the windows seconds later, which indicates the full interior was coming down at that point.

 

[GlennB]

The reflections on the east side of the north face (when the east penthouse went down) are shock waves from the east penthouse and other material high in the building falling onto previously undisturbed structure.
Had the entire east side interior went down to cause the east penthouse to go down (as the NIST WTC 7 report tries to claim) there would have been a serious amount of white dust coming out of windows broken by shock waves and compressed air. There wasn't. The east penthouse went down at the top of the building and seconds later the entire exterior of the building comes down with white dust coming out of the windows.

A shock wave in steel moving that slowly? Uh huh

And as I previously mentioned the S side windows were shot to pieces and the roof was now open. No doubt the compressed air preferred those easier routes.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A shock wave in steel moving that slowly? Uh huh

And as I previously mentioned the S side windows were shot to pieces and the roof was now open. No doubt the compressed air preferred those easier routes.

The shock wave from the collapse of the east penthouse, from a failure high in the building, was not moving through one solid piece of steel, but a composite structure with a lot of joints. So I would not consider the velocity of the reflection observed to be abnormal.

There is no chance the east side interior had collapsed low in the building to cause the east penthouse fall without white dust emanating out of windows. That is not happening prior to the east penthouse fall or immediately after. It is only broken windows about 15 stories down with no white dust. This was due to a shock wave originating from above.

You might not realize it but a shock pulse also causes a ring in what it strikes, which can be observed much more than the actual shock wave.