Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure

[DGM]

Anyone should be able to realize that at least half of WTC 1 fell on WTC 7. WTC 1 wreckage had long legs (as WTC 7 was 350 feet away) and it was all hot and capable of starting fires. It is a wonder only ten floors in WTC 7 had fires started in them.

Yeah, we know. There were no fires or damage and Larry Silverstein admitted to doing the deed on PBS.

 

[JSanderO]

The other factor Truthers ignore is that WTC7's fires began after parts of WTC1 crashed into it. The initial damage has never been completely revealed, most due to the lack of objective thinking after the second collapse as FDNY, and everyone else launched into full rescue mode.

So we don't know what kind of wreckage struck WTC7, nor the penetration of this wreckage. However, it is a safe assumption that heavy steel beams ended up inside. Even one changes the structural load on the floor it landed on, and if this beam were hot (and started the fire) it would be a significant factor in the collapse.

The key is that WTC7 went down as a result of damage from WTC1, and that's where this discussion starts. Truthers ignore this, and none of their homework addresses the initial damage.

That's not what likely did the deed in 7WTC. The cause was likely the effect of fire... warping steel, shearing off connecting splices in trusses for example. But the fact remains is that there is really very little data about what was going on inside the building and especially down where the load transfer trusses were. Trusses were field assembled with splice plates bolting two members together. The connections on the trusses may be what did in the entire building.

Does anyone doubt that if a diagonal member of TT1 or TT2 failed from a connection where the bolts sheared off.... would not lead to the entire tower coming down? The deal with Load transfer structures as opposed to say a column is that they involve a larger area of the structure.... and can effect a lot more than a single column failure. The entire structure below 8 was very interconnected and it is easy to understand how the failure would rapidly progress laterally down there once on the those truss collapsed. I think it would account for the movements observed in the structure above. And I don't think a steel member from 1WTC would get to those structures where were well inside and low down in the tower. The damage from falling debris was on the south west corner and did not penetrate too deeply into the structure.

Just sayin'

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's not what likely did the deed in 7WTC. The cause was likely the effect of fire... warping steel, shearing off connecting splices in trusses for example. But the fact remains is that there is really very little data about what was going on inside the building and especially down where the load transfer trusses were. Trusses were field assembled with splice plates bolting two members together. The connections on the trusses may be what did in the entire building.

Does anyone doubt that if a diagonal member of TT1 or TT2 failed from a connection where the bolts sheared off.... would not lead to the entire tower coming down? The deal with Load transfer structures as opposed to say a column is that they involve a larger area of the structure.... and can effect a lot more than a single column failure. The entire structure below 8 was very interconnected and it is easy to understand how the failure would rapidly progress laterally down there once on the those truss collapsed. I think it would account for the movements observed in the structure above. And I don't think a steel member from 1WTC would get to those structures where were well inside and low down in the tower. The damage from falling debris was on the south west corner and did not penetrate too deeply into the structure.

Just sayin'

Jeffrey, there were fires noticed on ten floors of WTC 7 and they were floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30, which are all above the transfer trusses. The NIST report goes over the evidence for the fires on these floors and discusses why there would not likely have been fires on any other floors.

Interestingly, while the second twin tower to go down (WTC 1) did so at 10:28 AM, there is no photographic evidence of any of these fires until 12:15 PM. I do realize that during that 10:28 AM collapse any and all individuals (firefighters, police, reporters, etc.) in the vicinity had to be running for their lives, just like they did 31 minutes before at 9:57 AM when WTC 2 went down. However, I think one would have to admit that it is interesting that 1 hour and 47 minutes passed after the collapse of the second tower before any fires were photographed in WTC 7. Just sayin'.

 

[LSSBB]

Jeffrey, there were fires noticed on ten floors of WTC 7 and they were floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30, which are all above the transfer trusses. The NIST report goes over the evidence for the fires on these floors and discusses why there would not likely have been fires on any other floors.

Interestingly, while the second twin tower to go down (WTC 1) did so at 10:28 AM, there is no photographic evidence of any of these fires until 12:15 PM. I do realize that during that 10:28 AM collapse any and all individuals (firefighters, police, reporters, etc.) in the vicinity had to be running for their lives, just like they did 31 minutes before at 9:57 AM when WTC 2 went down. However, I think one would have to admit that it is interesting that 1 hour and 47 minutes passed after the collapse of the second tower before any fires were photographed in WTC 7. Just sayin'.

There weren't any traces of explosive devices, explosive detonation noises, or flashes from explosives or thermite either. Just sayin'. Nor any confessions, paper trail, supply chain of material either.

Or any recording of Larry just sayin' he did it.

 

[beachnut]

Jeffrey, there were fires noticed on ten floors of WTC 7 and they were floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30, which are all above the transfer trusses. The NIST report goes over the evidence for the fires on these floors and discusses why there would not likely have been fires on any other floors.

Interestingly, while the second twin tower to go down (WTC 1) did so at 10:28 AM, there is no photographic evidence of any of these fires until 12:15 PM. I do realize that during that 10:28 AM collapse any and all individuals (firefighters, police, reporters, etc.) in the vicinity had to be running for their lives, just like they did 31 minutes before at 9:57 AM when WTC 2 went down. However, I think one would have to admit that it is interesting that 1 hour and 47 minutes passed after the collapse of the second tower before any fires were photographed in WTC 7. Just sayin'.

Wow, everybody ran away during the collapse. Could it be the dust, or fear of being crushed by stuff? No photos, another Gish Gallop of woo for 911 lies and fantasy CD.

When will you tell CNN you have broken the big story, and know about CD, and the evil inside job? When? Never.

Just sayin, your CD fantasy failed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow, everybody ran away during the collapse. Could it be the dust, or fear of being crushed by stuff? No photos, another Gish Gallop of woo for 911 lies and fantasy CD.

When will you tell CNN you have broken the big story, and know about CD, and the evil inside job? When? Never.

Just sayin, your CD fantasy failed.

I think a little suspicion here is warranted.

The reality is that there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 1 hour and 47 minutes after the second twin tower (WTC 1) went down.

It is a reality that WTC 7 was located 350 feet away from WTC 1.

It is also a reality that the WTC 1 fires would have almost certainly been extinguished at the beginning of its collapse due to the enormous amounts of gypsum and concrete dust generated relatively quickly.

It is also interesting and a reality that there were no fires in the buildings next to WTC 7 (The Verizon Building and U.S. Post Office) yet we are expected to believe that ten floors were set aflame in WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1.

I think it is strange that you aren't in the least suspicious that the WTC 7 fires could actually have been due to arson using the tower collapse as a cover after hearing the type of information stated above.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

deleted due to redundancy.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

deleted due to redundancy.

 

[Spanx]

I think a little suspicion here is warranted.

The reality is that there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 1 hour and 47 minutes after the second twin tower (WTC 1) went down.

It is a reality that WTC 7 was located 350 feet away from WTC 1.

It is also a reality that the WTC 1 fires would have almost certainly been extinguished at the beginning of its collapse due to the enormous amounts of gypsum and concrete dust generated relatively quickly.

It is also interesting and a reality that there were no fires in the buildings next to WTC 7 (The Verizon Building and U.S. Post Office) yet we are expected to believe that ten floors were set aflame in WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1.

I think it is strange that you aren't in the least suspicious that the WTC 7 fires could actually have been due to arson using the tower collapse as a cover after hearing the type of information stated above.

And you wonder why no one is listening to you

Make sure you send this information to NIST.

 

[JSanderO]

I think a little suspicion here is warranted.

The reality is that there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 1 hour and 47 minutes after the second twin tower (WTC 1) went down.

It is a reality that WTC 7 was located 350 feet away from WTC 1.

It is also a reality that the WTC 1 fires would have almost certainly been extinguished at the beginning of its collapse due to the enormous amounts of gypsum and concrete dust generated relatively quickly.

It is also interesting and a reality that there were no fires in the buildings next to WTC 7 (The Verizon Building and U.S. Post Office) yet we are expected to believe that ten floors were set aflame in WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1.

I think it is strange that you aren't in the least suspicious that the WTC 7 fires could actually have been due to arson using the tower collapse as a cover after hearing the type of information stated above.

But of course when Jennings and Hess arrived at 7WTC around 9am the building has been evacuated and when the arrived at the OEM is was on back up power and there was no mains in the building at that point and when they were told to leave on their cell phone, the experienced an "explosion" below them. They were in the East stair case on floor 8 which happens to continue right down between TT1 and TT2.

If their account is to be believed and the stair was blocked... by 10am... something pretty drastic had occurred below floor 8 by 10am... or else why didn't they just walk down the stairs and out of the building?

Con Ed reported loss of 13 feeders before 9am and this could occur from equipment explosions... perhaps... and if so who knows where they were (in Con Ed?)

Fact remains we don't have good information about what a happened in 7WTC where and when.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

But of course when Jennings and Hess arrived at 7WTC around 9am the building has been evacuated and when the arrived at the OEM is was on back up power and there was no mains in the building at that point and when they were told to leave on their cell phone, the experienced an "explosion" below them. They were in the East stair case on floor 8 which happens to continue right down between TT1 and TT2.

If their account is to be believed and the stair was blocked... by 10am... something pretty drastic had occurred below floor 8 by 10am... or else why didn't they just walk down the stairs and out of the building?

Con Ed reported loss of 13 feeders before 9am and this could occur from equipment explosions... perhaps... and if so who knows where they were (in Con Ed?)

Fact remains we don't have good information about what a happened in 7WTC where and when.

The story of Jennings and Hess is intriguing. Why would equipment explode in WTC 7 before either twin tower came down?

 

[NoahFence]

Jeffrey, there were fires noticed on ten floors of WTC 7 and they were floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30, which are all above the transfer trusses. The NIST report goes over the evidence for the fires on these floors and discusses why there would not likely have been fires on any other floors.

Interestingly, while the second twin tower to go down (WTC 1) did so at 10:28 AM, there is no photographic evidence of any of these fires until 12:15 PM. I do realize that during that 10:28 AM collapse any and all individuals (firefighters, police, reporters, etc.) in the vicinity had to be running for their lives, just like they did 31 minutes before at 9:57 AM when WTC 2 went down. However, I think one would have to admit that it is interesting that 1 hour and 47 minutes passed after the collapse of the second tower before any fires were photographed in WTC 7. Just sayin'.

Why would there be? How long do you suppose it takes the average person to regain mental functionality after watching the two most iconic towers in the country crash down, killing thousands?

I might not be able to focus on my job for at least 2 hours!

(That, and WTC 7 matters to nobody except you scam artists)

 

[NoahFence]

I think a little suspicion here is warranted.

The reality is that there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 1 hour and 47 minutes after the second twin tower (WTC 1) went down.

It is a reality that WTC 7 was located 350 feet away from WTC 1.

It is also a reality that the WTC 1 fires would have almost certainly been extinguished at the beginning of its collapse due to the enormous amounts of gypsum and concrete dust generated relatively quickly.

It is also interesting and a reality that there were no fires in the buildings next to WTC 7 (The Verizon Building and U.S. Post Office) yet we are expected to believe that ten floors were set aflame in WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1.

I think it is strange that you aren't in the least suspicious that the WTC 7 fires could actually have been due to arson using the tower collapse as a cover after hearing the type of information stated above.

That timeline sounds an awful lot like the plan was set in motion after the collapse of the towers.

Is that an accurate assessment of your theory?

 

[carlitos]

I think a little suspicion here is warranted.

The reality is that there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 1 hour and 47 minutes after the second twin tower (WTC 1) went down.

It is a reality that WTC 7 was located 350 feet away from WTC 1.

Yeah, I can't believe that no photographer had the balls to stand 350 feet away from a 100 story building for an hour or two, when it's identical twin had just collapsed, killing thousands. What a bunch of wussies. Oh, and to take pictures of the Salomon Brothers Building, which no one outside of New York's financial district had ever heard of. In the midst of a chaotic rescue effort with firefighters yelling at anyone around to get away from there, it's dangerous.

Your logic, as ever, sucks.

 

[Animal]

The story of Jennings and Hess is intriguing. Why would equipment explode in WTC 7 before either twin tower came down?

Why would an electrical substation have issues.....it is not like planes crashed into two buildings across the street making havoc of the electrical systems of said buildings..................oh wait.

It is no wonder nobody outside of your troofer bubble thinks twice about your claims.

 

[pgimeno]

Apologies for the late reply. I'm catching up now with the thread.

To Tony:

False. Plain false.

NIST claim that the girder moved to the west an unspecified distance due to thermal expansion, and that their FEA shows the girder walking off.

They don't claim that the 6.25 in. the girder moved off the seat matched the thermal expansion of the beams. That's a mistake you're making all the time.

And in that regard, your analysis has a number of unexplained assumptions that are fatal to your claims. It's time for you to address them.

1. You assume that the exterior end of the beams is fixed. You have provided no justification.
2. You assume that the beam that pushed the girder is the closest to the connection. Your justification is that it's the longest one; however, that justification is not valid, since leveraging is able to amplify the displacement of the girder further than the elongation of the beam, and the farther from the connection, the bigger the amplification factor will be.
3. You assume that the seat is in the same position all the time. You've provided no justification.
4. Your analysis lacks any consideration of creep. NIST's FEA includes it.

And while on it:

5. You assume that the girder's web being completely off the seat is a perfectly stable condition. You give no justification.

Put simply, you assume that maximum expansion of the beams = maximum displacement of the girder from the center of the seat, but you fail to justify that assumption. That failure is fatal to your claims.

If you actually read what NIST says, as to how they determined that the girder had failed, you wouldn't say it was based on the FEA showing the girder walked off.

On the contrary, I said it because I read what they said. Their criterion for walk-off was a girder displacement of 6.25 inches (after the errata fix), as you correctly quote below:

In the fourth paragraph on page 527 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9, you can see them say for yourself

Walk-off occurred when beams that framed into the girders from one side thermally expanded and the resulting compressive forces in the beams pushed laterally on the girder from one side, sheared the bolts at the seated connection, and then continued to push the girder laterally until it walked off the bearing seat. A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat. Additional factors that contributed to this failure were the absence of shear studs on the girders that would have provided lateral restraint and the one-sided framing of the northeast corner floor beams that allowed the floor beams to push laterally on the girder due to thermal expansion.

The bolded line shows they made a determination, not that the FEA showed it happening.

My reading is that the FEA showed a walk-off distance of 6.25 inches from the seat, and that was enough for the forensic structural engineers at NIST to consider the girder as failed.

That's where my point 5 above comes into play:

5. You assume that the girder's web being completely off the seat is a perfectly stable condition. You give no justification.
​

With the stiffeners included there would never be enough stress to cause the girder flange to fail so saying it did because the web was no longer directly over the bearing seat would not be an accurate measure for failure.

Newton's Bit has made a valid point regarding the girder rolling off. You have not made any study that includes creep and shows how the girder is stable with its web off the seat. Your only argument about the state of the connections is that you don't know how they could have failed.

Based on what was in the original final report as shown above, along with the erratum of June 2012 where they correct the seat length to 12 inches from 11 inches and then say the lateral travel was 6.25 inches, they are still implying it is from the beams expanding as they provide no other mechanism for the movement of the girder web off the bearing seat. Of course, the beams can't expand 6.25 inches so they have a problem.

You have a problem. Their FEA shows the girder walking off a 6.25 inch distance. Your argument from ignorance^WP is a logical fallacy, the same you're using when you claim that the bolts in the fin connections could not fail because you can't figure out how they could fail.

And that fallacy is all you offer as proof for both things, which you spice with reversed burden of proof: "It can't fail because I don't see how it can fail," (argumentum ad ignorantiam) "so you prove it can" (reversed burden of proof).

You will also have to excuse me if I don't see where NIST mentions creep in relation to their alleged girder failure.

It is part of their ANSYS FEA (see NCSTAR 1-9 Appx. E). The FEA as a whole shows the girder walking off. The beam expansion is certainly a major factor, but also certainly not the only one into play. We're dealing with a system full of variables; you're reducing your analysis to a single variable (beam expansion) without taking all others into account, when the whole model showed the walk-off (see COMBIN37 in figure 11-15 of NCSTAR 1-9 as well as the last sentence of page 482).

The girder would be stable with its web past the seat with the stiffeners involved and the K3004 beam connection to the girder intact.

The connection was not intact. And a bare assertion won't cut it.

Just to show the impossibility of the claim that girder A2001 could roll-off when its web was past the bearing seat at column 79, I did a sketch showing the reactions, moments, and the factors of safety (FoS) of the various failure modes such as shear tearout of the beam web, shear of the 7/8" diameter bolts, and shear of the fin plate welds.

The minimum FoS of any failure mode for just one out of the five beams to the east resisting the roll-off was 3.6 at 600 degrees C, so it is clear that this claim has essentially no chance of occurrence.

See the attached.

You're assuming all the bolts in their pristine condition. NIST's FEA shows that not to be the case.

 

[pgimeno]

http://wtfrly.com/2014/04/17/nist-waits-3-months-decline-fix-flawed-wtc7-report/

I think I know who the first commenter is

 

[pgimeno]

5.) The delta distance of the 4 beams is 6-3/8", 4-7/8" 3-7/8" 1-7/8"

Yes, that's part of the reasons why the 5.5" gerrycan keeps crying about is not of any significance.

Another is the troofer claim of how far the beams could have expanded. They have locked on to the beam closest to Col 79 with the claim that it could not have pushed the girder the 6 inches. They fail to acknowledge that the beams further away could have pushed the girder more and that the closest beam could have expanded more due to external bracing and also uneven heating of the beam.

Indeed. I identified that flaw in his claims weeks ago. Too bad he didn't address it at all. Wonder why

 

[pgimeno]

And the OP topic is a lot broader than the narrow focus Tony has once again led members to adopt. It is his favourite debating trick as I said in an earlier post.

There are serious and fatal errors in all of Tony's published works and his claims made in these threads.

We are here in this thread because discussion of Tony's narrow focussed nonsense led to a "whack a mole" off topic issue on the William Pepper Letter thread and the thread is still locked for purging. Let's not repeat the tactical error.

Actually I think we're here because the moderators failed to identify a more proper thread to move the technical stuff to from the Pepper's thread, like this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242773

I don't blame them. There's just too much nonsense to keep track of, and Tony and gerrycan have hijacked several threads already at the least opportunity, to discuss that topic.

 

[pgimeno]

Anyone should be able to realize that at least half of WTC 1 fell on WTC 7. WTC 1 wreckage had long legs (as WTC 7 was 350 feet away) and it was all hot and capable of starting fires. It is a wonder only ten floors in WTC 7 had fires started in them.

We don't know if there were fires up in the building. We know that the sprinklers in the upper floors were functional, as they were fed by a tank in the penthouse area, while the ones in the lower floors were fed by the water main:

There were two sources of water (gravity fed overhead tanks and the city water main) for the standpipe and automatic sprinkler systems serving Floor 21 and above, and some of the early fires on those upper floors might have actually been controlled in this manner. However, consistent with the NYCBC, both the primary and back-up source of water for the sprinkler system in the lower 20 floors of WTC 7 was the city water main. Since the collapses of the WTC towers had damaged the water main, there was no secondary supply of water available (such as from the gravity-fed overhead tanks that supplied water to Floor 21 and above) to control those fires that eventually led to the building collapse.
​

(NCSTAR 1A p. xxxvii, Executive Summary)

I think a little suspicion here is warranted.

The reality is that there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 1 hour and 47 minutes after the second twin tower (WTC 1) went down.

You mean until all dust settled?