Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[Spanx]

I think the Pepper letter does imply that the connections do not break and that beam G3005 does not buckle or fail and simply deflects girder A2001 with the three lateral support beams included in the analysis.

What you think and imply doesn't really count for much in the real world.

We are left with the Tony & Gerry show

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What you think and imply doesn't really count for much in the real world.

We are left with the Tony & Gerry show

No, so far we are left with an unsupportable and fallacious analysis by the NIST since it omitted pertinent structural features which have been shown to make a significant difference in the outcome.

The only thing we have seen here is a simple show of sorts that has failed in its attempt to maintain the unsupportable NIST conclusion by postulating other equally unsupportable girder failure scenarios.

The reality is that girder A2001 could not have been pushed, pulled, or rolled off its seats either laterally or axially due to heating of structural members if all of the pertinent structural members were included in the analysis.

 

[Spanx]

No, so far we are left with an unsupportable and fallacious analysis by the NIST since it omitted pertinent structural features which have been shown to make a significant difference in the outcome.

The only thing we have seen here is a simple show of sorts that has failed in its attempt to maintain the unsupportable NIST conclusion by postulating other equally unsupportable girder failure scenarios.

The reality is that girder A2001 could not have been pushed, pulled, or rolled off its seats either laterally or axially due to heating of structural members if all of the pertinent structural members were included in the analysis.

Don't tell me, so this can only mean that thermite and explosives were used ?

 

[pgimeno]

What forces on the fin connections from beams K3004, C3004, B3004, A3004, and G3005 to girder A2001 would cause them to fail?

Don't forget that NIST claims there were no shear studs on girder A2001 so it is hard to see how the bolts would shear since the girder would move before the six 7/8" diameter ASTM A325 bolts sheared. There were 5/16" fillet x 3.75" long welds on both sides of the top of the 3/8" thick fin plates to the girder and 1/4" fillet x 19.5" long welds on both of the sides of the fin plate to the girder. The likelihood of these connections breaking is extraordinarily low, but maybe you can tell us how it could happen.

Are you just taking the NIST WTC 7 report's word for it here? I would think one would know better since the discovery of the pertinent structural feature omissions. So what does your analysis say?

I'm not going to go through NIST's report for you. It's your burden of proof. I just noted why you have to work harder if you want to refute Newton's Bit argument about roll off. His argument makes your "pertinent structural feature omissions" moot, so you're making a circular argument here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm not going to go through NIST's report for you. It's your burden of proof. I just noted why you have to work harder if you want to refute Newton's Bit argument about roll off. His argument makes your "pertinent structural feature omissions" moot, so you're making a circular argument here.

The roll off argument doesn't make anything moot. It is a complete non-starter, as it has no basis in reality. It requires the Cg to be on the girder's longitudinal axis, which was not the case.

With the beam to girder connections, it is the Cg of the beam and girder assembly which would have been controlling the attitude and it was not on the girder's longitudinal axis. It was in the middle of the floor assembly.

If the girder's web moved past the edge of the seat the girder would not have angled downward since the five beams and their six bolt connections to it would have kept it plumb. The stiffeners would have then prevented the girder flange from failing due to bending stress and the assembly would have remained supported on the seat.

 

[erwinl]

The roll off argument doesn't make anything moot. It is a complete non-starter, as it has no basis in reality. It requires the Cg to be on the girder's longitudinal axis, which was not the case.

With the beam to girder connections, it is the Cg of the beam and girder assembly which would have been controlling the attitude and it was not on the girder's longitudinal axis. It was in the middle of the floor assembly.
If the girder's web moved past the edge of the seat the girder would not have angled downward since the five beams and their six bolt connections to it would have kept it plumb. The stiffeners would have then prevented the girder flange from failing due to bending stress and the assembly would have remained supported on the seat.

Just hypothetically speaking.
Wouldn't this mean that if the entire girder would have shifted from the seat, that it still wouldn't have fallen? Seeing as the CG of the beam and girder assembly would still be in the middle of the floor assembly?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Just hypothetically speaking.
Wouldn't this mean that if the entire girder would have shifted from the seat, that it still wouldn't have fallen? Seeing as the CG of the beam and girder assembly would still be in the middle of the floor assembly?

No, it would fall if the girder flange was completely off the seat, as it would then be unsupported on that corner and unstable.

Imagine a rigid square or rectangular house raised on posts at its four corners, which are sitting on pilings protruding several feet above the ground. Its horizontal Cg is in the middle, but if one corner is unsupported it will fall (unless it was perfectly balanced on the two remaining diagonally opposed posts). However, it won't fall if one corner's post is off center on the piling but still on it, if it can take the local stress.

 

[NoahFence]

Nobody is buying your schtick.

 

[Animal]

What forces on the fin connections from beams K3004, C3004, B3004, A3004, and G3005 to girder A2001 would cause them to fail?

Don't forget that NIST claims there were no shear studs on girder A2001 so it is hard to see how the bolts would shear since the girder would move before the six 7/8" diameter ASTM A325 bolts sheared. There were 5/16" fillet x 3.75" long welds on both sides of the top of the 3/8" thick fin plates to the girder and 1/4" fillet x 19.5" long welds on both of the sides of the fin plate to the girder. The likelihood of these connections breaking is extraordinarily low, but maybe you can tell us how it could happen.

Are you just taking the NIST WTC 7 report's word for it here? I would think one would know better since the discovery of the pertinent structural feature omissions. So what does your analysis say?

I would take the NIST report over the Tony and Gerry show any day. You still can't say why omitting stiffeners is evidence of a coverup but ADDING the seat stiffener is not evidence of no coverup.

Repeating the same silly claim over and over will not make it true. No one is buying it outside of your little troofer bubble.

 

[pgimeno]

The roll off argument doesn't make anything moot. It is a complete non-starter, as it has no basis in reality. It requires the Cg to be on the girder's longitudinal axis, which was not the case.

Given the state of the connections reported by NIST, you're in error here. Again, look at figures 11-35 and 11-43. The girder was essentially detached from the beams.

And add to that Newton's Bit proof that the connections wouldn't resist the moment in the first place.

 

[JayUtah]

The roll off argument doesn't make anything moot. It is a complete non-starter, as it has no basis in reality.

Whereas widespread professional malfeasance and subsequent coverup at a major government agency is so much more realistic.

I should fire my carpenter for wasting time and money with the joist bridging he put in, since once installed the joists and the flooring are forever and always an indivisible assembly that presents absolutely no possible chance for joist rotation and subsequent walk-off.

 

[MileHighMadness]

No, so far we are left with an unsupportable and fallacious analysis by the NIST since it omitted pertinent structural features which have been shown to make a significant difference in the outcome.

The only thing we have seen here is a simple show of sorts that has failed in its attempt to maintain the unsupportable NIST conclusion by postulating other equally unsupportable girder failure scenarios.

The reality is that girder A2001 could not have been pushed, pulled, or rolled off its seats either laterally or axially due to heating of structural members if all of the pertinent structural members were included in the analysis.

Tony, Tony, Tony...(in my best Cary Grant)

The weak point of the connection is the bottom flange of the girder. The two 7/8” diameter high-strength bolts will probably rip thru the bottom flange and part of the associated web. You don’t have to worry about girder walk-off, because the bearing seat is gone at this point, and the girder has lost all vertical support.

Bearing stiffeners, shear studs...meaningless details that have little to no effect of the collapse of Building 7. They are just red herrings put out by the Truther Nation to cloud the issue.

BTW...then this connect fails, it will release anywhere from 40 to 80 tons of force.

MHM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I would take the NIST report over the Tony and Gerry show any day. You still can't say why omitting stiffeners is evidence of a coverup but ADDING the seat stiffener is not evidence of no coverup.

Repeating the same silly claim over and over will not make it true. No one is buying it outside of your little troofer bubble.

It is hard to understand what your complaint actually is here.

The girder stiffeners would have clearly prevented the claimed flange failure and kept the girder from falling, and what I am saying is that the analysis needs to be rerun with them included.

The centered stiffener under the bearing seat at column 79 in the NIST FEA model is not the correct component and it should be replaced with the correct 2" thick x 14" deep x 18" wide support plate as shown in Frankel drawing 9114 in the new analysis.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, Tony, Tony...(in my best Cary Grant)

The weak point of the connection is the bottom flange of the girder. The two 7/8” diameter high-strength bolts will probably rip thru the bottom flange and part of the associated web. You don’t have to worry about girder walk-off, because the bearing seat is gone at this point, and the girder has lost all vertical support.

Bearing stiffeners, shear studs...meaningless details that have little to no effect of the collapse of Building 7. They are just red herrings put out by the Truther Nation to cloud the issue.

BTW...then this connect fails, it will release anywhere from 40 to 80 tons of force.

MHM

The bolts would shear before the seat was destroyed as the girder is sitting on it while it is expanding.

Additionally, there is a 2" thick x 14" deep x 18" wide support plate under the 12" wide x 1" thick bearing seat.

The girder can't fall with the stiffeners included.

 

[Animal]

It is hard to understand what your complaint actually is here.

The girder stiffeners would have clearly prevented the claimed flange failure and kept the girder from falling, and what I am saying is that the analysis needs to be rerun with them included.

The stiffener under the seat at column 79 is not the correct component and it should be replaced with the correct one in the new analysis.

You cannot claim cover-up for missing components when at the same time they added components to make it harder to fail.

The fact that you insist on "rerunning" the computer analysis because of missing and added components show you really have no clue what computer modeling is about.

Your repeated claims may hold water in your troofer bubble.......the rest of the world...not really.

 

[Animal]

The bolts would shear before the seat was destroyed as the girder is sitting on it and expanding.

Additionally, there is a 2" thick x 14" deep x 18" wide support plate under the 12" wide x 1" thick bearing seat.

The bearing seat girder can't fall with the stiffeners included as NIST did.

FTFY

 

[MileHighMadness]

The bolts would shear before the seat was destroyed as the girder is sitting on it while it is expanding.

Additionally, there is a 2" thick x 14" deep x 18" wide support plate under the 12" wide x 1" thick bearing seat.

The girder can't fall with the stiffeners included.

Wrong...

Run a non-linear, finite element analysis of the connection. Then and only then will you understand the connection failure and the building collapse.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_481644f8eab819413d.jpg[/qimg]

You cannot claim cover-up for missing components when at the same time they added components to make it harder to fail.

The fact that you insist on "rerunning" the computer analysis because of missing and added components show you really have no clue what computer modeling is about.

Your repeated claims may hold water in your troofer bubble.......the rest of the world...not really.

From reading your comments I have seen you say that the incorrect centered stiffener the NIST FEA model uses under the girder bearing seat at column 79 would make it harder to fail. That is as incorrect as the component they used.

It would have been much harder for the girder to fail with the actual heavy support plate which is welded to the column 79 side plates and sits under the bearing seat.

However, the under seat support is not the major issue. It is the girder stiffeners and the lateral support beams and correct seat width that will make a very big difference in the outcome.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wrong...

Run a non-linear, finite element analysis of the connection. Then and only then will you understand the connection failure and the building collapse.

It has been run with

- the omitted stiffeners on girder A2001 included
- the omitted lateral support beams on the G3005 beam included
- the correct seat width
- the correct under seat support plate

and the girder does not fall in this situation.

NIST needs to rerun their analysis with the above omitted items included and the correct seat and support plate.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Given the state of the connections reported by NIST, you're in error here. Again, look at figures 11-35 and 11-43. The girder was essentially detached from the beams.

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/FailedConnections.png[/qimg]

And add to that Newton's Bit proof that the connections wouldn't resist the moment in the first place.

If the beam connections to the girder are broken then how do they push it to the point where its web is past its seat, as the NIST report claimed?

I have also asked you what forces would have caused the beam connections to break with no shear studs on the girder. You haven't answered that question. You just keep referring to the NIST WTC 7 report as though it is correct in every way.

Have you forgotten that it is the NIST WTC 7 report that is actually under scrutiny and being questioned for having omitted pertinent structural features and distorted the seat width dimension?

Have you forgotten that when they admitted they had the seat width wrong (alleging it was a typo) that they then said the girder would need to be pushed 6.25" laterally instead of what they originally said was 5.5"? Which is curious because the beam expansion is limited to 5.5" and they did not say where the extra 3/4" of lateral travel would come from. Of course, some here (you included) have tried to say the girder from the west pushed column 79 to the east to gain the extra lateral travel, but NIST needs to show that. They haven't thus far.