Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure
- Thread starter JSanderO
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse wtc7
Miragememories
Banned
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
I'm fairly certain that I'm not interested in how technology might have improved as far as this topic is concerned. If you can show me beyond reasonable doubt that it was implemented, the how-to's of implementation could come later. Until that happens, musing and wishfully thinking about it wastes time.
And to OP... I've made my point already. If it's in his interest to delve into that level of detail it's his prerogative... it's not like he's trying to claim that a comet smashed into the building by any means, and maybe somebody will eventually try to examine at that level of detail just for giggles. But given the primary objectives of the reports - means of egress, engineering vulnerabilities - I don't find it relevant to the eventual conclusion. He hasn't explained the significance of knowing those things in better detail than they're understood already. The NIST would also be subject to liability if it tried to focus on details that are irrelevant to critical applications in future construction....
And to OP... I've made my point already. If it's in his interest to delve into that level of detail it's his prerogative... it's not like he's trying to claim that a comet smashed into the building by any means, and maybe somebody will eventually try to examine at that level of detail just for giggles. But given the primary objectives of the reports - means of egress, engineering vulnerabilities - I don't find it relevant to the eventual conclusion. He hasn't explained the significance of knowing those things in better detail than they're understood already. The NIST would also be subject to liability if it tried to focus on details that are irrelevant to critical applications in future construction....
Last edited:
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Will you be bringing this around to the thread topic anytime soon?
Are you, for instance, stating that a Lewes style formulation would allow the initiation of a progressive global collapse by using it to take out a single column?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Let a military engineer help him out:
Here are the facts which we know:
Col 79 was a very large composite column. A large cross section column section as base boxed out by (IIRC) two 26" x 2" plates.
PLUS
We know in hindsight from NIST's synthesis that taking out Col 79 would cause global collapse.
So let's pretend for moot purposes that we knew the single column failure vulnerability before hand...and plan to collapse WTC7 by removing Col 79.
HOW do you cut it and remove it from situ?
The size of the column is so huge that I doubt that it could be cut by practical sized high explosives.
Could it be cut by thermXte. Maybe but it is a far bigger cut than has ever been achieved using thermXte. And the likelihood is that it would not work because the column would immediately re-weld itself as the cutting progressed.
THEN - which ever method of cutting we chose - we still need a "kicker" mechanism to remove the cut bit. AND with such a large cross section columns we would need two cuts before we could take out the section of cut column. THEN how do you get sufficient "kicker blast" to remove the cut bit which by this stage is firmly wedged in situ despite two cuts and will need some significant "persuasion".
I am in no doubt that any military engineer tasked to collapse the building would:
A) Not even try to cut Col 79;
B) Would look to cutting multiple other members with a view to destabilising Column 79 and its nearby cohort of columns.
Could a hand grenade sized device such as the WW11 SAS device the "Lewes Bomb" achieve it? No! It is tinker toy sized
Assist in some way? Why?
Be upscaled to large enough to do the job? No it is a mix of technologies well focussed to destroying aeroplanes. It mixes HE and thermite. Using such a mix against steel is less effective than using either as sole agent. A compromise which for this job is worse than either of the two component parts.
Maybe a truther could claim, on an internet forum, to have achieved it. Truthers would find that the real world is more exacting than their online fantasy land. This Military Engineer couldn't actually do it in the real world using Lewes Bombs. Nor could I collapse WTC7 by taking out Col 79 and that is what I would tell the General "Cannot be done that way, Sir!" "I can collapse the building for you Sir but it would have to be my way."
Generals by nature are arrogant autocratic B's - but focused on the end point. "Go do it your way Son ... make sure it goes down".
"Yes Sir."
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
In response to such continued idiocy, I can only repeat the wise words of Abraham Lincoln:
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubts."
MM
ozeco41
Philosopher
gmanontario
Muse
Instead of flinging insults why not point out what was wrong in ozeco's post? You know, the way civilised debate is supposed to proceed?
ozeco41
Philosopher
It is "off topic" otherwise it could be interesting but nothing more needs saying. I already covered the key factors - it is core professional stuff for any experienced structural and military engineer.
An appropriate response would have been "Thank you - I didn't realise that... Now I am better informed."
And then there's this:
New York Post article http://nypost.com/2011/06/21/con-ed...-destruction-of-wtc-substation-appeals-court/
Con Ed can sue the Port Authority over the replacement of a $38.6 million electrical substation destroyed during the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a Manhattan appeals court ruled this morning.
The ruling reinstates a negligence claim over installation of diesel tanks and generators in the former 7 World Trade Center to provide back-up power to the city's emergency command center and the Salomon Brothers investment bank.
Fuel from the tanks allegedly fed the flames that engulfed 7WTC, which was built atop the substation, after al Qaeda terrorists flew hijacked planes into the Twin Towers, raining fire on Ground Zero.
Today's unanimous decision by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier ruling in which Judge Alvin Hellerstein said Con Ed's contract with the Port Authority -- which owns the World Trade Center site -- allowed a negligence suit "only 'in certain, very limited, circumstances."
"We do not think such a limited reading of the negligence exception is warranted," Judges Roger Miner, Pierre Leval and Richard Wesley wrote in the unsigned order.
A Port Authority spokesman declined to comment.
New York Post article http://nypost.com/2011/06/21/con-ed...-destruction-of-wtc-substation-appeals-court/
Con Ed can sue the Port Authority over the replacement of a $38.6 million electrical substation destroyed during the Sept. 11 terror attacks, a Manhattan appeals court ruled this morning.
The ruling reinstates a negligence claim over installation of diesel tanks and generators in the former 7 World Trade Center to provide back-up power to the city's emergency command center and the Salomon Brothers investment bank.
Fuel from the tanks allegedly fed the flames that engulfed 7WTC, which was built atop the substation, after al Qaeda terrorists flew hijacked planes into the Twin Towers, raining fire on Ground Zero.
Today's unanimous decision by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier ruling in which Judge Alvin Hellerstein said Con Ed's contract with the Port Authority -- which owns the World Trade Center site -- allowed a negligence suit "only 'in certain, very limited, circumstances."
"We do not think such a limited reading of the negligence exception is warranted," Judges Roger Miner, Pierre Leval and Richard Wesley wrote in the unsigned order.
A Port Authority spokesman declined to comment.
Why are people even debating this stuff?
It's like dying of cancer and complaining that you have a pimple on your ass
The main issues as far as I'm concerned is as thus:
Freefall speed
Molten steel/metal/aluminium
Identify the answers to these questions before we move on to anything else, i'd say
Then again, what do i know, I'm just a crackpot crazy conspiracy theorist who having looked at the evidence from both sides declares that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition
It's like dying of cancer and complaining that you have a pimple on your ass
The main issues as far as I'm concerned is as thus:
Freefall speed
Molten steel/metal/aluminium
Identify the answers to these questions before we move on to anything else, i'd say
Then again, what do i know, I'm just a crackpot crazy conspiracy theorist who having looked at the evidence from both sides declares that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition
ozeco41
Philosopher
Actually there is very little "debate". All the necessary explanations were worked through a long time back. What we now see is about the third round of truthers recycling long dead issues - still framed as unsupported bare assertions with no "proof" from the truthers and the "reversed burden of proof" demand that debunkers disprove the unproven assertions. If nothing else those tactics are demeaning of truthers and dishonest.
Which you demonstrate in the next comment.
The main issues as far as I am concerned are five. Three claims of CD or OMHI at the WTC, one claim "it wasn't the Plane" at the Pentagon and claims related to shoot-down at Shanksville. All those rank as serious claims equivalent to the "cancer" you spoke of. All are false alarms since there has NEVER been a supported plausible hypothesis presented by the truth movement for any one of them. Not one. Ever. So the whole "debate" should stop right there. There is not and never has been any claim worthy of discussion for those five "cancers".
However you identify two pimples on the bum:
1) Free-fall - which is an irrelevant red herring. You show your lack of physics understanding by referring to "free-fall speed". More importantly the issue of free fall acceleration is a truth movement created red herring. The implicit lie is that somehow "free fall == CD" - that free fall occurs with and only with collapses resulting from CD. Those two claims are "nearly always false" and "always false" respectively. The truth is that CD is only one way of initiating a collapse AND free fall cannot distinguish CD from "natural". So that isn't even a pimple on a bum.
2) Molten metal is only indirectly relevant to claims of CD at WTC. Alleged molten metal in the heap after the collapse (a) has been lied about by truthers; AND (b) couldn't have been part of a CD scenario. Similarly claims about a concentrated pool of metal high up in the fire zone (c) could not be steel from incendiary cutting; AND (d) could not have been collected from scattered locations due to CD. So that issue is also an imaginary pimple on no one's bum.
By the way - the fact that you ignore the unproven main "cancers" and concentrate on two irrelevant pimples on bums it typical of current truth movement status. An implied recognition that the main claims have failed. If there is no cancer and no pimples on bums what are you concerned about?
Answers provided in brief. Both topics are irrelevant to serious discussion.
Don't be too hard on yourself. So far you are simply demonstrating limited understanding in two fields - (e) apparently no knowledge of basic physics; and (f) poor thinking and logic skills in the area of the "converging reasoning" which is needed to comprehend complex multi-factor events.
There is your base problem. There aren't two sides. There is only one reasoned hypothesis for each of those five. At WTC is is "No CD" There is no other side - no one has ever assembled and proposed a plausible counter hypothesis which can stand up to even initial scrutiny.
"declare" all you want. Until you show how CD was possible - put forward an hypothesis that falsifies "No CD" and preferably shows how CD was needed and achieved there is no "side" and no "debate". And in fact what will continue to happen is that you will get little more response than ridicule from many and brief summaries of your errors from people like me.
If you want to understand what really happened some of us including me can help. I've done so many times for "genuine truthers" - the rare honest ones we don't often see these days.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
IIRC this was later decided against Con-Ed. Part of the problem was that it could not be shown that the diesel had burned but the main difficulty was that Con-Ed had approved the design in the first place. If their engineers signed off on it then they have no case to later sue.
It seems that the case was sent back for trial. But I am a bit confused. It's not clear what sort of control con ed would have had about the diesel and the generators which were not part of the original design. In fact, Con Ed sold the air rights to the developer and one would have to look at the terms and conditions of that deal. No?
ozeco41
Philosopher
If either of you can dig up the court decision(s) I'll cast a semi-legal look over it/them and see if I can translate legalese into English.
I've been busy lately but if I run across something I will link to it.
The CTBUH does not, and has never agreed with the initiating event that NIST proposed for the collapse of WTC7. In fact, they picked up on the fact that NIST omitted structural elements from their analysis while the report was still out for public comment. NIST did not reply to their concerns.
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
NIST-pick all you want; fire still did it.