Merged Why WTC7 should not have collapsed

[jaydeehess]

Marvellous, all towers in the USA cannot resist a local column failure. AND the result is global collapse when a column fails.

No, he said;

Again, buildings that are not explicity designed to resist column failure are not implicity guarenteed to resist column failure.

You said ;

The whole structure will NEVER collapse due to that.

You do see the difference , right?

Foxx?

 

[Travis]

Would I be correct in assuming that this is the first time in this thread that anyone considered what happened to the debris when column 79 fails? For that matter if column 79 fails and drops what it impacts when it does?

Awww, gee everyone knows falling debris can't hurt anything.
Anyway, I hope my point stands, simply clicking away a column in a computer program is very different from having that column wrenched apart and falling on lower floors along with substantial floor plates.

I'm not an engineer but I feel much better about elevators and carnival rides now that Heiwa has explained that nothing collapses.

What do we need those engineers, and their degrees, for anyways?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Marvellous, all towers in the USA cannot resist a local column failure. AND the result is global collapse when a column fails. So why does NIST complicate things? Thermal expansion?

Stop with the red herrings, this is blatantly false and you know it. Stop with the sarcastic crap.

However, it is all nonsense. Beacuse, when/if a local column failure occurs, there is always enough redundancy to arrest further demolition [collapse]... and of course clobal collapse.

[/quote]
My bolding. I asked for the third time in this post what if any considerations you've made in determining the same defacto outcome for three structures, with one differing in construction from the other two. Why are you dodging this? It's a simple question, are you considering the sizeable floor spans that all three buildings had? Are you applying the same principal regardless of difference in design? I'd appreciate it if you'd cover these grounds rather than evade it.

It is quite difficult to demolish or tear down buildings. CD is used to save money and time.

THis is irrelevant as you have consistently failed to explain the reason for not considering design differences or for that matter any design aspect of the towers.

But now you say, you only have to heat up a column so it fails and the whole thing collapses.

Yet another ridiculous claim, for an engineer you don't seem to pay any attention to the design details of these buildings. You do realize that if column # 79 failed an entire corner section of the floor span on the interior would have been unsupported, not to forget the interior structural layout was asymmetrical. That affects every aspect of how the loads redistribute through the remaining structure, and the initial failing column would not have been the only compromised structural member. It's hilarious you don't bother considering these factors...

 

[Mr. Skinny]

As an engineer, I'm upset that Heiwa can legitimately call himself one.

 

[Heiwa]

And what were you designing?

Steel structures, of course.

 

[Mince]

As an engineer, I'm upset that Heiwa can legitimately call himself one.

Who says it's legitimate? I can anonymously call my self a physician on a message board, but, of course, it doesn't necessarily make it legitimate. The claim is legitimate, in that I made it, but the actual fact of the matter (that I'm actually a physician) is not necessarily legitimate...as is the case with Heiwa, except his is regarding engineering.

 

[GlennB]

As an engineer, I'm upset that Heiwa can legitimately call himself one.

Can he? In a lengthy exchange some while ago the only actual engineering project he could claim for HeiwaCo was welding lifeboat davits on a Mediterranean ferry. He was unable to name any specific marine accident he had investigated professionally, for example. I suspect he's deluded.

 

[JihadJane]

The dodgy appliance of science.

If these assumptions are being made, it does not excuse Truthers from proving them wrong. So far, you have done nothing whatsoever to prove your case.

Both these assumptions are based on political illiteracy. Scientists can be as politically illiterate as anyone else.

Your denial of science as a method of investigation is borne of your movement's inability to conduct any.

Hello johny karate,

My movement? You are making big assumptions!

Please illustrate where I have denied science as a method of investigation. Perhaps you have misunderstod my words. I think the scientific method is a very good thing!

What I often notice on JREF, however, ironically, is often pseudo-science. For example NIST publishes a theory, based a computer simulations, about a possible collapse sequence for WTC 7 and many posters immediately jump to the completely unscientific conclusion that NIST's theory is not a theory at all but factual reality and proof that 911 wasn't an "Inside Job".

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Hello johny karate,
What I often notice on JREF, however, ironically, is often pseudo-science. For example NIST publishes a theory, based a computer simulations, about a possible collapse sequence for WTC 7 and many posters immediately jump to the completely unscientific conclusion that NIST's theory is not a theory at all but factual reality and proof that 911 wasn't an "Inside Job".

I'll make the same recommendation to you that I did for another member:

My personal recommendation would be to read up on publicly available papers on architectural and engineering topics, not saying you should learn it like a religion but I think it'll benefit you just to look into the subjects on your free time when you're board.

I've been taking architecture courses since my high school years (which is not so long ago) so I've kind of learned the subject as I went and I used what I learned to understand the dynamics of the collapses. For me NIST served more as a confirmation of my observations, it gave me the ability to look at what they collected for analyzation, so I could determined if what I saw was consistent with the material I read. If you want and if I have time perhaps I can scan and PDF some excerpts from some of my text books, if you'd like to read in on specific subjects. I'm pretty sure that there's not much on my books that you won't find here but nevertheless...

I did not read the NIST report until earlier this year, before then I relied on the education I had to make my conclusions, the NIST report served me as stated in my excerpt a confirmation of the material I've studied. I found that to understand the NIST report properly it helps to have done at least some studying in basic concepts dealing with architecture and engineering, my textbooks have proven to be valuable reference material

 

[JihadJane]

I'll make the same recommendation to you that I did for another member:

I did not read the NIST report until earlier this year, before then I relied on the education I had to make my conclusions, the NIST report served me as stated in my excerpt a confirmation of the material I've studied. I found that to understand the NIST report properly it helps to have done at least some studying in basic concepts dealing with architecture and engineering, my textbooks have proven to be valuable reference material

Thanks for the recommendation. However it is based on the assumption that it is necessary to prove "Controlled Demolition" theories in order to demonstrate State complicity. It is not. I am open to the possibility that the 3 Towers just fell down, as claimed. Trying to prove any theory about the WTC destruction without the necessary physical evidence is impossible. It is only ever going to be conjecture now. Those with the most resources and the most supportive media coverage will win the argument.

I would expect a multimillion dollar report (probably naively), years in the making, to be internally consistent. Many necks depend on it. How closely this self-contained bubble of mathematical consistency corresponds with real world events is another question.

Give me the same amount of money, access to the same undisclosed data and software that NIST used and a dozen sympathetic, appropriately qualified experts and I would be able to produce a similarly believable story, accompanied by pretty, animated graphics.

Actually, I would try and make my graphics look less playschoolish!

 

[leftysergeant]

When you build your competing model to counter NIST, be sure to model a Hush-a-boom charge that leaves no mark on the steel and does not blow out the windows on at least ten floors.

 

[Disbelief]

Give me the same amount of money, access to the same undisclosed data and software that NIST used and a dozen sympathetic, appropriately qualified experts and I would be able to produce a similarly believable story, accompanied by pretty, animated graphics.

Actually, I would try and make my graphics look less playschoolish!

Please, the TM has not been able to come up with even a simple narrative about what happened that corroborated by the evidence.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Thanks for the recommendation. However it is based on the assumption that it is necessary to prove "Controlled Demolition" theories in order to demonstrate State complicity. It is not. I am open to the possibility that the 3 Towers just fell down, as claimed. Trying to prove any theory about the WTC destruction without the necessary physical evidence is impossible. It is only ever going to be conjecture now. Those with the most resources and the most supportive media coverage will win the argument.

I would expect a multimillion dollar report (probably naively), years in the making, to be internally consistent. Many necks depend on it. How closely this self-contained bubble of mathematical consistency corresponds with real world events is another question.

Give me the same amount of money, access to the same undisclosed data and software that NIST used and a dozen sympathetic, appropriately qualified experts and I would be able to produce a similarly believable story, accompanied by pretty, animated graphics.

Actually, I would try and make my graphics look less playschoolish!

Anyone can take pot shots at someone else's work. That's not much of an accomplishment. Real research means coming up with explanations that address everything. That's what NIST has done. While I am sure you feel you have found places that don't address things the way you want to see them, they cover the whole event. Whereas to ofer alternate expantions generally cover one anomilly and then create 100 more. So it's easy to sit where you are and make unfounded claims such as how you would do if you just had the money, etc. But that's not a real argument. I could sit here and claim that if I had the same money I could send a man to mars by now. But it's all meaningless, as is your argument.

NIST has provided all the data to the public, it's not hidden or secret. If you want to do a better job then it's your obligation. Otherwise while you don't have to prove a controlled demolition, supposing how you would do a better job if you were in charge is not really going to get you very far or taken very seriously.

Finding areas that are questionable (which is unavoidable) and then just filling them in with whatever nonsense one wants to make up is not science.

 

[A W Smith]

plain jane

Thanks for the recommendation. However it is based on the assumption that it is necessary to prove "Controlled Demolition" theories in order to demonstrate State complicity. It is not. I am open to the possibility that the 3 Towers just fell down, as claimed. Trying to prove any theory about the WTC destruction without the necessary physical evidence is impossible. It is only ever going to be conjecture now. Those with the most resources and the most supportive media coverage will win the argument.

I would expect a multimillion dollar report (probably naively), years in the making, to be internally consistent. Many necks depend on it. How closely this self-contained bubble of mathematical consistency corresponds with real world events is another question.

Give me the same amount of money, access to the same undisclosed data and software that NIST used and a dozen sympathetic, appropriately qualified experts and I would be able to produce a similarly believable story, accompanied by pretty, animated graphics.

Actually, I would try and make my graphics look less playschoolish!

whats the title of this thread again? Does it say anything about politics?
Why are you attempting to inject politics into the mechanism of collapse? Is the best critique you can come up with the quality of the graphics? Seriously? No one is saying it is 'proof' of the col,apse scenario to begin with. But given all the evidence. collectively. the videos taken that day, the observations of firefighters and engineers on scene, the thermal imaging, the six month computer modeling, The math, the way the debris ended up on the pile. All of that. collectively, resulted in the most likely collapse scenario

 

[uruk]

AA. Yes, it is note really falling but displacing downwards due local failures meeting resistance.

What!? What!? If the debris is "displacing downward" the debris is moving downward due to gravity. Acceleration due to gravity plus distance is going to equal an amount of force that will impact upon the structure below.

The first thing of the moving upper block mass to be destroyed is its the lowest floor. And then the other upper block floors are destroyed and maybe two walls of the upper block drop down beside the WTC1. Etc, etc.

The force of the upper mass moving against the lower structure will cause damage and weaken the lower structures. Just because the floors are being torn apart does not mean the mass decreases. In fact the moving mass would increase as more and more of the building became converted to falling debris.

The upper and lower masses of the building were not solid. Even the small pellets of a shotgun blast can cause sever damage.

BB. Yes, there are many impacts or contacts between various parts when the upper block contacts the structure below and ALWAYS the weakest part breaks, e.g. the upper block lowest floor.

All the structure are interconnected in a building. Especially so with WTC1 and 2. The interconnected "tube within a tube"" structure of the WTC towers meant that as one part of the structure relied on the other part for it's support. As one section became damaged that would weaked the integrity of the structures around it.

BTW - Of course, according NIST the upper block lowest floor never breaks!! It is crushing down the structure below due to lack of strain energy there. But it is just an invention by NIST to fool the US public if they bother at all to listen. It seems the US public is more interested in soap operas, so NIST gets away with murder.

Of course it breaks but the mass does not decrease nor does the momentum. The moving mass actually increases as more and more of the building gets converted to moving debris. Don't forget about gravity, accelleration, and momentum.

 

[Heiwa]

What!? What!? If the debris is "displacing downward" the debris is moving downward due to gravity. Acceleration due to gravity plus distance is going to equal an amount of force that will impact upon the structure below.
The force of the upper mass moving against the lower structure will cause damage and weaken the lower structures. Just because the floors are being torn apart does not mean the mass decreases. In fact the moving mass would increase as more and more of the building became converted to falling debris.

The upper and lower masses of the building were not solid. Even the small pellets of a shotgun blast can cause sever damage.

All the structure are interconnected in a building. Especially so with WTC1 and 2. The interconnected "tube within a tube"" structure of the WTC towers meant that as one part of the structure relied on the other part for it's support. As one section became damaged that would weaked the integrity of the structures around it.


Of course it breaks but the mass does not decrease nor does the momentum. The moving mass actually increases as more and more of the building gets converted to moving debris. Don't forget about gravity, accelleration, and momentum.

It is interesting to note that NIST could not explain or simulate the collapse modes of WTC1, except that released potential energy exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed.

In WTC7 the collapse is explained using a fantastic FEA software that can keep account of parts/elements that are loose at both ends and flying around in the air applying forces and transmitting energies, when contacting other parts. Hollywood stuff. Of course, that software has never been verified against reality.

Furthermore, if that FEA worked correctly, it should of course simulate exactly the heap of rubble after the 'collapse' and explain every failure then seen on photos of broken parts in the rubble. I always wonder how solid columns are cut straight off due to gravity and the dynamic FEA should explain those failures.

 

[JihadJane]

Please, the TM has not been able to come up with even a simple narrative about what happened that corroborated by the evidence.

Ditto the DM's Osama bin Laden theory.

Evidence? The most important WTC 7 physical evidence was destroyed without any explanation. That's why NIST has to spend most of its money playing computer games.

 

[JihadJane]

whats the title of this thread again? Does it say anything about politics?

Do you really think that NIST is unaffected by politics?

 

[JihadJane]

NIST has provided all the data to the public, it's not hidden or secret

That great news! NIST declared its WTC1 and 2 models were based on thousands of photos and videos. I'd love to see them. Please let me know where I can view them.

A computer geek friend of mine would like to study the software NIST has used to develop its models. Please can we have a link for that too.

Thanks.

 

[JihadJane]

Real research means coming up with explanations that address everything. That's what NIST has done.

NIST's speculative WTC 7 theory is not grounded in tangible, physical reality and calling it simply an "explanation" is misleading. It is a possible explanation requiring confirmation in the real world.

This, of course, can never happen because the real world, in this case, has been shipped abroad and melted down.