Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[jaydeehess]

Bolts and welds break. [/reality]

Column 79 failure precipitated progression to global collapse of WTC7[/reality]

 

[beachnut]

WTC 7's symmetric free fall . ...

Symmetric? It was not symmetric. This silly talk of symmetry makes the fantasy CD claims more silly. Does 911 truth know what symmetry is? No. Show some symmetry in the collapse, explain it carefully. Why does 911 truth make up silly meaningless stuff like "symmetrical collapse"? Does this fool anyone?

Overwhelming evidence eludes 911 truth for the 13th year of complete asymmetrical failure.

 

[jaydeehess]

Come on beachnut, just because it kinked in two and had one third of it fall to the NE and the other two thirds fall to the south is no reason to disabuse Tony of the notion that it was symmetric.

 

[JSanderO]

WTC 7's symmetric free fall could be replicated by pulling only eight stories of the core low in the building. The exterior columns of those stories would then buckle with essentially no resistance due to the inward pull through the floor beams and being laterally unsupported for eight stories.

You are changing the subject here (it was about the NIST alleged girder walk-off) and I am not surprised. There has not been a technical argument against my post #1048 in the nearly 30 posts since then. It is obvious that the NIST apologists here have been shown to be in error with the structural feature omissions showing that girder A2001 could not have walked or fallen off its seats.

No you don't have to pull 8 stories of the core columns to initiate the collapse seen. But for sure if someone managed that the building would collapse down. DUH.

Do you seriously think... a thought experiment here... if you were able to *magically* take away the 24 - 2 story core columns low down in the building... that the structure/mass above would drop the two stories and stop there...leaving a building stable but missing 2 stories????

Really?

Did you measure the top comping perfectly straight down / plumb or was there some lateral movement / shimmying??? It DID not come straight down... and so why was that?

And how DO you manage to make those columns disappear magically? And without introducing lateral motion and do it silently? Those are massive columns weighting 1000# per foot with huge loads on them and with bracing at 2 vertical positions.

This truly makes no sense at all. Can you present a demo plan?

No you can't.

 

[GlennB]

And this is precisely (one of) the point(s) ... if the 8-storey freefall is only explained by removal of all core columns over 8 storeys then we have to wonder why the perps went for this ridiculous level of overkill. It's self-debunking.

 

[Animal]

There has not been a technical argument against my post #1048 in the nearly 30 posts since then. It is obvious that the NIST apologists here have been shown to be in error with the structural feature omissions showing that girder A2001 could not have walked or fallen off its seats.

Repeating a lie a thousand times will not make it come true.
Desperately clinging to your religious beliefs of trooferism will not make it come true either.

What is obvious, is that the "troof" is a massive fail......except if you are dicky gage and get paid vacations around the world.

 

[NoahFence]

All of these moronic theories are self debunking...

 

[DGM]

WTC 7's symmetric free fall could be replicated by pulling only eight stories of the core low in the building. The exterior columns of those stories would then buckle with essentially no resistance due to the inward pull through the floor beams and being laterally unsupported for eight stories.

Repeating this word as a demolition term to make it stick? Nice touch (ask Gage for some more promo points).

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No you don't have to pull 8 stories of the core columns to initiate the collapse seen. But for sure if someone managed that the building would collapse down. DUH.

Do you seriously think... a thought experiment here... if you were able to *magically* take away the 24 - 2 story core columns low down in the building... that the structure/mass above would drop the two stories and stop there...leaving a building stable but missing 2 stories????

Really?

Did you measure the top comping perfectly straight down / plumb or was there some lateral movement / shimmying??? It DID not come straight down... and so why was that?

And how DO you manage to make those columns disappear magically? And without introducing lateral motion and do it silently? Those are massive columns weighting 1000# per foot with huge loads on them and with bracing at 2 vertical positions.

This truly makes no sense at all. Can you present a demo plan?

No you can't.

Did you ever watch the full 22 minute interview of Danny Jowenko about WTC 7? When shown a plan view which identified where all of the columns were situated, he explained how it could be easily brought down and said only the core columns needed to have work done on them, not the exterior columns.

One column failure could not produce a progressive collapse leading to the symmetric free fall of the exterior that we see on video.

In addition, as you see with the fact that the girder between columns 44 and 79 cannot fall off its seat, NIST can't even explain the one column failure with their initiation scenario. Their story is what has fallen and is broken.

 

[DGM]

Did you ever watch the full 22 minute interview of Danny Jowenko about WTC 7? When shown a plan view which identified where all of the columns were situated, he explained how it could be easily brought down and said only the core columns needed to have work done on them, not the exterior columns.

One column failure will not produce the symmetric free fall of the exterior that we see on video.

I don't remember the part in the interview where he said it could be done with no noise. Could you point out that part?

 

[GlennB]

Did you ever watch the full 22 minute interview of Danny Jowenko about WTC 7?

Yes, a number of times.

When shown a plan view which identified where all of the columns were situated, he explained how it could be easily brought down and said only the core columns needed to have work done on them, not the exterior columns.

No, those core columns were identified as "these twelve". Somebody was mistaken or lying.

One column failure will not produce the symmetric free fall of the exterior that we see on video.

Therefore it requires all 24 columns to be cut over 8 storeys? Do explain why anybody would do that.

Your theory has driven you to an absurd conclusion. Time to realise it's a crappy theory, no?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't remember the part in the interview where he said it could be done with no noise. Could you point out that part?

Were you there at the time the building came down? If not, how can you be certain there was no noise?

I seem to remember a paramedic who was a witness to the collapse of WTC 7 saying "there was a large sound like a clap of thunder and then the bottom of the building caved in and it started coming down". I think that alone refutes your postulated "no noise" scenario.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Yes, a number of times.



No, those core columns were identified as "these twelve". Somebody was mistaken or lying.



Therefore it requires all 24 columns to be cut over 8 storeys? Do explain why anybody would do that.

Your theory has driven you to an absurd conclusion. Time to realise it's a crappy theory, no?

Danny pointed to the core columns saying "the heart" is all that would need to be worked on.

The fact that he mistakenly said "these 12", instead of "these 24", does not affect his point and the connotation was clear. The reality here is that your need to nitpick about it and ask "why would anybody do that?" shows how weak and unsubstantial your argument is.

Don't you have any further thoughts on the failure of the NIST apologists here to defend their collapse initiation hypothesis? Or do you feel it is necessary to change the subject?

 

[DGM]

Were you there at the time the building came down? If not, how can you be certain there was no noise?

I seem to remember a paramedic who was a witness to the collapse of WTC 7 saying "there was a large sound like a clap of thunder and then the bottom of the building caved in and it started coming down". I think that alone refutes your postulated "no noise" scenario.

Whatever keeps your belief alive.

A little "clap of thunder" not caught on any recording device, could certainly be enough to "pull" all the columns you need.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A little "clap of thunder" not caught on any recording device, could certainly be enough to "pull" all the columns you need.

I don't know but that statement about the start of the collapse by the paramedic sure refutes your claim that there was "no noise".

Do you have any further thoughts on the failure of the NIST apologists here to defend their collapse initiation hypothesis for WTC 7? Or do you also feel the need to change the subject?

 

[DGM]

I don't know but it sure refutes your claim that there was "no noise".

Do you have any further thoughts on the failure of the NIST apologists here to defend their collapse initiation hypothesis for WTC 7? Or do you also feel the need to change the subject?

No need for anyone to defend it. No one has presented a challenge.

You know this too. It's why you refuse to present your work to relevant groups.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No need for anyone to defend it. No one has presented a challenge.

You know this too. It's why you refuse to present your work to relevant groups.

There is a challenge right here in front of you.

Are you saying that even after the revelations of the structural feature omissions you still somehow think the girder between columns 44 and 79 under the 13th floor could have come off its seat due to thermal expansion as claimed by NIST?

 

[thedopefishlives]

There is a challenge right here in front of you.

Are you saying that even after the revelations of the structural feature omissions you still somehow think the girder between columns 44 and 79 under the 13th floor could have come off its seat due to thermal expansion as claimed by NIST?

Define "as claimed by NIST". You seem to be clinging to this strawman that says that the building had to fail exactly as the NIST model demonstrated. What the NIST model did was demonstrate that the mechanism was plausible by constraining certain variables. I keep repeating this in every thread where we discuss computer simulations: Simplifying assumptions have to be made on some level. It is impossible to exactly simulate reality.

 

[carlitos]

Did you measure the top comping perfectly straight down / plumb or was there some lateral movement / shimmying??? It DID not come straight down... and so why was that?

If you read his missing jolt paper and the threads here, he does think that columns would come straight down, land on more columns and arrest collapse (at least temporarily), like magic. Even though the reason the columns were falling means they were no longer plumb. It's just crazy.

symmetric free fall

A lie. Why would anyone pay attention to you when you need to lie to make your point?

Were you there at the time the building came down? If not, how can you be certain there was no noise?

Kudos. A creationist argument??? On Good Friday even? I know that you guys are a religion, but really, co-opting the dishonest rhetorical tools of religious apologists? Shame on you.

I don't know but that statement about the start of the collapse by the paramedic sure refutes your claim that there was "no noise".

I can't find the video now, but the BBC reporter standing in front of the WTC7 collapse didn't even flinch until the building was several seconds into collapse. That's why your team made up thermite, remember? Keep your story straight. Maybe you should just stick with 'esoteric' materials and have it both ways.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Define "as claimed by NIST". You seem to be clinging to this strawman that says that the building had to fail exactly as the NIST model demonstrated. What the NIST model did was demonstrate that the mechanism was plausible by constraining certain variables. I keep repeating this in every thread where we discuss computer simulations: Simplifying assumptions have to be made on some level. It is impossible to exactly simulate reality.

The point here is that the NIST model did not demonstrate a plausible mechanism for collapse initiation, as it needed to omit pertinent structural features to do that. These omissions were much more than simplifying assumptions as they would materially affect the outcome. The rules for simplification are to only leave out those details which would not have any significant effect on the analysis. They do not allow for omissions of items that would change the outcome if not included.