ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th March 2018, 05:04 PM   #161
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,110
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Why would it be more prone to buckling than the facade column which the failed girder was framed into? Why didn't that column buckle?
Try working that out yourself.
Hint: Count the number of columns in the vicinity, and how they were framed.
Hint: Moment frames.

Hint: You are grasping at straws. You somehow seem to think that your incredulity and your inability to understand something should be compelling arguments. They are very certainly not.

Hint: An imaginary failure of a TT does not magically solve your problem with the relative stability of the facade. It has the exact same problem.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2018, 05:06 PM   #162
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,596
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Why would it be more prone to buckling than the facade column which the failed girder was framed into? Why didn't that column buckle?
Being a central column I would say because the load factor was higher.

Does that seam reasonable to you?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2018, 09:06 PM   #163
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,405
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Perhaps dynamic loads of 8 or more floors crashing on it?
Sander - isn't that a bit of "chicken and egg"?
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 03:38 AM   #164
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
So let's see here...

Chicken and the egg? I don't know... which is what I am trying to determine. Everything collapsed... the last man down was the moment frame and curtain wall. But we can only SPECULATE what came first.

Col 79 was a very stout column based on is cross section alone.. that is it is much larger than the column in the perimeter that the girder was framed into. It was supported on a caisson. Several other columns including 80 supporting the EPH were supported on transfers. It makes more sense that the floor slabs below the EPH surrounding these 3 columns had collapsed along with the columns... so are we to believe that all three columns bucked... and then the floors collapsed?

No one has explained why if the girder framing into col 79 caused 79 to buckled when it failed... the column 44 on the north face didn't also buckle.

What caused the vertical fold for the entire height of the north face? It can't fold with the floors collapsed... so floors came down first... what pulled the crease? Presumably a line of girders framed into col 76... NE corner of the core and 79 sat on transfer truss 1..; Looks like the kick was the result of col 76 dropping pulling all the girders with it which pulled the face in. Did it buckle or drop? Or was the "bottom pulled out" from under it (TT1)?

Col 79 down low is connected by a larger MG53 girder to col E3 and E4, and MG53 also supported one end of transfer truss 1.

The photos show the entire north face bowed or folded in between column line 46 & 47. So clearly the face was not connected structurally to the floor system when in folded.

The collapse sequence looks more as if it is explained by a collapse of the transfers not buckling of 79.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg E3 E 4.jpg (28.4 KB, 1 views)
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 17th March 2018 at 03:41 AM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 10:28 AM   #165
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 521
And by

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post

No one has explained why [X], [Y], [Z]...
You actually mean to say "I haven't bothered reading the explanations for [X], [Y], [Z] but I want attention because, in my complete and utter ignorance of the subject matter at hand and the relevant reports dealing therewith, I think I'm the first person who has thought about such issues and, in any case, I am so predisposed to believing my initial intuition re the transfer trusses playing some key role in the collapse that I won't accept anything less than others agreeing with me as such, again, despite my complete and utter ignorance of the subject matter at hand and the relevant reports dealing therewith."

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 17th March 2018 at 10:32 AM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 11:01 AM   #166
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
And by



You actually mean to say "I haven't bothered reading the explanations for [X], [Y], [Z] but I want attention because, in my complete and utter ignorance of the subject matter at hand and the relevant reports dealing therewith, I think I'm the first person who has thought about such issues and, in any case, I am so predisposed to believing my initial intuition re the transfer trusses playing some key role in the collapse that I won't accept anything less than others agreeing with me as such, again, despite my complete and utter ignorance of the subject matter at hand and the relevant reports dealing therewith."
This is a stupid remark.

I am not predisposed to anything... The explanation needs to match the movements of the parts of the building during the collapse and this undoubtedly is related to the nature and design of the structure.

Why do you make these ridiculous assertions and demand I read (which I have 7 or 8 years ago) the NIST explanation??? The building's engineer believed when asked about the collapse of 7wtc back in 2001.... over 17 years ago that the transfers likely failed and he thought diesel may have played a role. Whether he was wrong or right it was not what NIST decided and I believe they never declared their work definitive. Since their simulation/animation based on their assumptions and "theory of collapse" is one possibility... there is no reason to dismiss other possibilities.

Surely you don't claim that the NIST explanation/hypothesis... is the ONLY possible way that 7wtc could collapse from fire? If you do, you are thinking critically.

YES there are other possible fire caused collapse scenarios... whether you want to believe it or not.

And... your manners and attitude stinks... and who appointed you the expert on structural collapses, particularly the WTC buildings?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 17th March 2018 at 11:03 AM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 11:22 AM   #167
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Being a central column I would say because the load factor was higher.

Does that seam reasonable to you?
A column should be sized according the (axial) loads it must carry. It is strengthened by lateral bracing or weakened by the absence of bracing.

The columns of the perimeter supported both axial and lateral loads (wind). The wind shear design for 7wtc likely involved using a rigid core and the floor plates.

So it looks like col 79 carried more axial loads than the columns which has small cross section area... such as col 44

So if col 44 carried less axial loads presumably... why would a "weaker" column be MORE stable when bracing was removed than a much stronger column. This is counter intuitive isn't it?

+++

What's the philosophical reason for not considering other fire caused collapses? Alternative fire caused theories are not conspiracy territory. Why the resistance and hostility to simply discussing and exploring other possibilities?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 11:23 AM   #168
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 521
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
This is a stupid remark.

I am not predisposed to anything... The explanation needs to match the movements of the parts of the building during the collapse and this undoubtedly is related to the nature and design of the structure.

Why do you make these ridiculous assertions and demand I read (which I have 7 or 8 years ago) the NIST explanation??? The building's engineer believed when asked about the collapse of 7wtc back in 2001.... over 17 years ago that the transfers likely failed and he thought diesel may have played a role. Whether he was wrong or right it was not what NIST decided and I believe they never declared their work definitive. Since their simulation/animation based on their assumptions and "theory of collapse" is one possibility... there is no reason to dismiss other possibilities.

Surely you don't claim that the NIST explanation/hypothesis... is the ONLY possible way that 7wtc could collapse from fire? If you do, you are thinking critically.

YES there are other possible fire caused collapse scenarios... whether you want to believe it or not.

And... your manners and attitude stinks... and who appointed you the expert on structural collapses, particularly the WTC buildings?
If you actually read the NIST report in full, you either forgot it or failed to understand it. Every single time you have attempted to characterize it and use it as a basis for your arguments in this thread, you have butchered it and gotten it wrong. It's really not a minor point that all of the points you are blathering about are actually already explained in a report that was published 10 years ago.

If you want to say you disagree with what NIST did and concluded, that's one thing and I think people here would take you seriously and actually engage in a constructive conversation. But, in your current ignorance of the NIST report, you have failed to make such claims because it is painfully obvious that you do not know what NIST did or concluded. It's just ridiculous to watch you throw out strawman after strawman. In the time you have wasted on this thread over the past week, you could have read exactly how NIST addressed your various concerns with its models.

Do you seriously not see how stupid it is to wonder out loud about issues that have been addressed in a report you could just read in a few hours? And what you're doing is even worse than that because, not only are you musing about easily verifiable facts, you also are repeatedly making affirmative claims about what NIST did and concluded that are just completely false.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 17th March 2018 at 11:27 AM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 12:02 PM   #169
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
If you actually read the NIST report in full, you either forgot it or failed to understand it. Every single time you have attempted to characterize it and use it as a basis for your arguments in this thread, you have butchered it and gotten it wrong. It's really not a minor point that all of the points you are blathering about are actually already explained in a report that was published 10 years ago.

If you want to say you disagree with what NIST did and concluded, that's one thing and I think people here would take you seriously and actually engage in a constructive conversation. But, in your current ignorance of the NIST report, you have failed to make such claims because it is painfully obvious that you do not know what NIST did or concluded. It's just ridiculous to watch you throw out strawman after strawman. In the time you have wasted on this thread over the past week, you could have read exactly how NIST addressed your various concerns with its models.

Do you seriously not see how stupid it is to wonder out loud about issues that have been addressed in a report you could just read in a few hours? And what you're doing is even worse than that because, not only are you musing about easily verifiable facts, you also are repeatedly making affirmative claims about what NIST did and concluded that are just completely false.
Let's cut to the chase... what did NIST conclude... what was your take away?

I don't actually care what they concluded... since I believe their inputs are assumptions.

My assumption is simply that heat cause beams to weaken and fail... collapse and this led to the collapse of transfer structures... that is... the collapse was not driven by column buckling.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 12:02 PM   #170
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,596
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
So it looks like col 79 carried more axial loads than the columns which has small cross section area... such as col 44

So if col 44 carried less axial loads presumably... why would a "weaker" column be MORE stable when bracing was removed than a much stronger column. This is counter intuitive isn't it?
None of the columns had more excess capacity so neither is stronger when viewed in the system.

What makes you think they are?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 12:05 PM   #171
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,596
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
My assumption is simply that heat cause beams to weaken and fail... collapse and this led to the collapse of transfer structures... that is... the collapse was not driven by column buckling.
Are columns not susceptible to buckling when they are not braced? Does a failing beam not put a column under a lateral load (lessening it's capacity)?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 12:29 PM   #172
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Columns 79, 80 and 81 were not slender columns. It's unlikely that removing a single beam cause buckling. Self buckling for col 79...

SLENDER COLUMN SHORT AXIS > 150 x 21.890 = 274' = 21 stories

SLENDER COLUMN LONG AXIS > 150 x 26.125 = 326' = 25 stories
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 01:21 PM   #173
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,080
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Columns 79, 80 and 81 were not slender columns. It's unlikely that removing a single beam cause buckling. Self buckling for col 79...

SLENDER COLUMN SHORT AXIS > 150 x 21.890 = 274' = 21 stories

SLENDER COLUMN LONG AXIS > 150 x 26.125 = 326' = 25 stories
Removing a beam (lateral support) = double height(length) of column
Pcrit-->f(1/L^2)
La=2Ld ; Pcrita=1/4 pcritd (assuming end conditions haven't go any wimpier.)
column buckles at 25% of design load.
Yes, it becomes slender.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 01:23 PM   #174
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 521
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Let's cut to the chase... what did NIST conclude... what was your take away?

I don't actually care what they concluded... since I believe their inputs are assumptions.

My assumption is simply that heat cause beams to weaken and fail... collapse and this led to the collapse of transfer structures... that is... the collapse was not driven by column buckling.
NIST concluded that enough lateral support around column 79 was lost to floor failures for it to buckle under the then-current loads. They concluded this by actually calculating the then-current loads based on known principles and a detailed model of the building acting under such known principles, not by merely intuiting or otherwise assuming them. The NIST model also shows that a wave of floor collapses triggered around column 79 (both before and as a result of column 79's buckling) would damage the truss transfer structure, which in turn helped horizontally propagate the collapse across the interior of the building.

You don't have an actual reason to disagree with any of this because, unlike NIST, you did not do any of the applicable calculations as to what the loads and other forces in question were for any likely scenario within the building. There is actually no way to carry out such calculations with reasonable accuracy without an FE model given the complexity of the system. That's not to say NIST got it perfect or that NIST's scenario is exactly what happened (to knock down more stupid strawmen from you), but I don't see any reason to think that your uninformed assumptions, which don't even factor in what NIST did observed in its highly informed models, are somehow adding anything to the subject, especially when you are not only ignorant of what NIST did and concluded, but you are actively and continually assuming they did and concluded things that they did not.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 17th March 2018 at 01:27 PM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 04:32 PM   #175
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,764
It's the load that buckles the column.

Is that all this dispute is about? "Sagging floor trusses couldn't buckle a column!" Well, of course not, not by themselves. And poking an empty aluminum can gently with a stick can't crumple the can. But if someone is standing on it at the time...
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 04:50 PM   #176
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Let's cut to the chase... what did NIST conclude... what was your take away?

I don't actually care what they concluded... since I believe their inputs are assumptions.
Oh? Why should we care what you conclude, then? How are your inputs not assumptions?

I, for one, would take the word of a team of engineers on an engineering subject before yours any time.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 05:37 PM   #177
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,110
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Columns 79, 80 and 81 were not slender columns. It's unlikely that removing a single beam cause buckling. Self buckling for col 79...

SLENDER COLUMN SHORT AXIS > 150 x 21.890 = 274' = 21 stories

SLENDER COLUMN LONG AXIS > 150 x 26.125 = 326' = 25 stories
I believe this is complete and utter nonsense and gives away your utter lack of comprehension of structural engineering.
Because it looks as if you are not factoring in actual loads at all. As if any column with a length/width proportion of under 150 cannot possibly buckle, ever.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 03:07 AM   #178
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I believe this is complete and utter nonsense and gives away your utter lack of comprehension of structural engineering.
Because it looks as if you are not factoring in actual loads at all. As if any column with a length/width proportion of under 150 cannot possibly buckle, ever.

Of course not... but the buckling could not have been a case of Euler self bucking of a slender column such as the case was the one or two of the Spire columns.

ANY column or beam can buckle if the load exceeds its yield strength. I do see the loads increasing on these columns... and if floors were disengaged and collapsing I see them decreasing if anything.

I do not know how much weaker these particular columns would be in the case where you removed the load from one side in the case of 70 at one floor.,. and if that alone would lead to buckling. Would it? You tell me.

I am an architect not a structural engineer and do not claim to be one. Perhaps you can explain Oy.,.. thanks!
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 18th March 2018 at 05:05 AM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 03:12 AM   #179
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Removing a beam (lateral support) = double height(length) of column
Pcrit-->f(1/L^2)
La=2Ld ; Pcrita=1/4 pcritd (assuming end conditions haven't go any wimpier.)
column buckles at 25% of design load.
Yes, it becomes slender.
The column has support on 3 other quadrants... and supposedly on two floors as they were 2 story columns the beams above remained connected and and so it was completely braced there.

What's the formula in that case? Would it buckle from one removed beam on one side at one floor 4 feet from it's lower end (floor connection)?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 18th March 2018 at 05:08 AM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 03:14 AM   #180
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Oh? Why should we care what you conclude, then? How are your inputs not assumptions?

I, for one, would take the word of a team of engineers on an engineering subject before yours any time.
You can do whatever you want... I am not offering any engineering calculations or posing as an engineer. Are you?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 03:18 AM   #181
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
It's the load that buckles the column.

Is that all this dispute is about? "Sagging floor trusses couldn't buckle a column!" Well, of course not, not by themselves. And poking an empty aluminum can gently with a stick can't crumple the can. But if someone is standing on it at the time...
So the question is without adding to the column's load... but removed a small fraction of it - local floor load on one side... axial loads remain... would it buckle if one beam framed at 4' from its lower end collapsed... leaving 3 more at that level and 4 at the level 13' above that?

If so it sounds like a single beam collapse or removal would cause the column it framed into to collapse/buckle.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 03:30 AM   #182
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Back to the OP.

Is there physical evidence...of col 79 buckling... was the column located and examined? It does not need to have a tag as one can measure it... to identify it. I would think this would be a piece of evidence NIST would seek, examine and document.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 05:20 AM   #183
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,110
Sander, you are kicking and screaming and getting entangled more and more while making it clearee with every new post that yours is entirely an argument from personal imagination/lack thereof. The occasional strawman, begging the question, reversing burden of evidence sprinkled in for good measure.
No, I do not need to explain anything to you in ways you don't feel necessary to tread yourself. NIST has explained a whole lot more than you know.

My recommendation: Take a break from posting verbous just-so stories for, say, three months, and instead read the NIST report from cover to cover. Twice, so the second time around you understand how the early chapters build up to the later.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 05:38 AM   #184
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Sander, you are kicking and screaming and getting entangled more and more while making it clearee with every new post that yours is entirely an argument from personal imagination/lack thereof. The occasional strawman, begging the question, reversing burden of evidence sprinkled in for good measure.
No, I do not need to explain anything to you in ways you don't feel necessary to tread yourself. NIST has explained a whole lot more than you know.

My recommendation: Take a break from posting verbous just-so stories for, say, three months, and instead read the NIST report from cover to cover. Twice, so the second time around you understand how the early chapters build up to the later.
Thanks... I have read it 8 years ago...

My original question was if there was physical evidence of a buckled col 79.

Why not answer it if you know the answer?

And which column was the horseshoe column from the twins? do you know?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 06:02 AM   #185
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,764
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
So the question is without adding to the column's load... but removed a small fraction of it - local floor load on one side... axial loads remain... would it buckle if one beam framed at 4' from its lower end collapsed... leaving 3 more at that level and 4 at the level 13' above that?

I have no idea, but it doesn't matter, because the removal of one single girder four feet from the column's lower end isn't what NIST says happened.

Originally Posted by NIST WTC7 FAQ
This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

Quote:
If so it sounds like a single beam collapse or removal would cause the column it framed into to collapse/buckle.

"It" sounds like that? What sounds like that? Not NIST's analysis, clearly.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 06:17 AM   #186
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_i...ature=youtu.be

I read the report.... it calls its finding PROBABLE and notes that the simulation did not account for the tall vertical kink.

They state that falling floor debris destroyed one transfer but the other was protected by the slab at floor 5. That seems inconsistent.

The show the fire more less centered on the east side but then the NE quadrant was where there were multiple floor collapses but only floor 12 is noted.

Didn't see any photos of identified columns or beams.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 03:43 PM   #187
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,110
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Thanks... I have read it 8 years ago...
Read it again. You either never understood it, or you have forgotten what you once understood it.

8 years later, it should be easier to read. But still, please read it twice. From cover to cover. You will discover a lot. And will answer many of your questions.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
My original question was if there was physical evidence of a buckled col 79.

Why not answer it if you know the answer?
Yes. Any photo of WTC7's debris pile in the hours and days after shows that column 47 is neither standing upright and straight ca. 160 meters high, nor was it laying around straight and horizontally some 160 m in any direction. It follows that col 79 had indeed buckled.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
And which column was the horseshoe column from the twins? do you know?
Way to derail the thread.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 04:40 PM   #188
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
The thread is about physical evidence of buckled columns.

Yes there was no spire in 7wtc which toppled over... My reading of the report leaves many questions.

How many floors had fire caused floor collapse NE of col 79?

Or is the claim that floor 12 collapsed down taking out flrs 11-6 all landing in floor 5 and then 79 bucked. When it buckled all the floors from 13 to the roof collapsed down... taking the EPH.

Then????
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2018, 06:55 PM   #189
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,479
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Yes there was no spire in 7wtc which toppled over...
There were, however columns still toppling after the North Facade had almost entirely collapses. Few have ever noticed this. It's especially ironic when you see a video posted by a Truther and they don't notice it.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 07:27 AM   #190
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,764
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Or is the claim that floor 12 collapsed down taking out flrs 11-6 all landing in floor 5 and then 79 bucked. When it buckled all the floors from 13 to the roof collapsed down... taking the EPH.

Then????

Then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 07:33 AM   #191
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 521
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The thread is about physical evidence of buckled columns.

Yes there was no spire in 7wtc which toppled over... My reading of the report leaves many questions.

How many floors had fire caused floor collapse NE of col 79?

Or is the claim that floor 12 collapsed down taking out flrs 11-6 all landing in floor 5 and then 79 bucked. When it buckled all the floors from 13 to the roof collapsed down... taking the EPH.

Then????
You read the report, right? Why don't you tell us exactly what the claim is and exactly what your issue (if any) with it is?

If you want to continue following your pattern in this thread, you can respond by making something up and throwing out yet another strawman. You'll get bonus Sander Style PointsTM if you follow-up your false characterization of the NIST report by claiming discussion of it and the insipid ignorance that gave rise to it are out of the scope of this thread because, after all, you are Just Asking QuestionsTM and really all of this nonsense is because you want someone to find you a photo of column 79 in the rubble pile.

Alternatively, if you want to actually learn something and have a constructive conversation, you can actually read the report so you have at least some idea what you are talking about.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 08:25 AM   #192
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
You read the report, right? Why don't you tell us exactly what the claim is and exactly what your issue (if any) with it is?

If you want to continue following your pattern in this thread, you can respond by making something up and throwing out yet another strawman. You'll get bonus Sander Style PointsTM if you follow-up your false characterization of the NIST report by claiming discussion of it and the insipid ignorance that gave rise to it are out of the scope of this thread because, after all, you are Just Asking QuestionsTM and really all of this nonsense is because you want someone to find you a photo of column 79 in the rubble pile.

Alternatively, if you want to actually learn something and have a constructive conversation, you can actually read the report so you have at least some idea what you are talking about.
Your attitude stinks... I actually read the report.

No I don't expect anyone to point to an interior column on top of the rubble pile. I am curious if / why NIST didn't locate those critical columns which they say buckled and documented the damage to them. To me this would go a long way in supporting their thesis. Instead they use a model.

They did show multiple columns... mostly the facade from the twin towers.

Seems odd to me.

If you do not want to contribute to the discussion... don't. Ridicule and insults are not called for.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 08:27 AM   #193
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it.
Another juvenile comment... and completely off the topic of physical evidence of buckled columns.

If you nothing constructive to add... please don't spam the thread. Thanks!
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 08:29 AM   #194
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
There were, however columns still toppling after the North Facade had almost entirely collapses. Few have ever noticed this. It's especially ironic when you see a video posted by a Truther and they don't notice it.
In have seen this... can you link to the video where I can see this.
The debris pile seen from the East shows facade covering / on top of the that side of the pile... signifying that facade was the last bit to fall.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 08:51 AM   #195
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Ozeco wrote related to col 79;

"The failure of a column such as Col 79 can result from a number of factors - either singly or in combination.

"Short compression members will fail once the stress exceeds the compressive yield strength of the material. However, long compression members will fail due to buckling before the yield strength of the member is reached. Buckling occurs suddenly, and is characterized by large deflections perpendicular to the axis of the column."

The known "starting point fact" for Col 79 is clear from visual record. The EPH dropped which means that Col 79 and associated structures under EPH had failed.

"For Col 79 there were four possible causes viz:
1) Failed in gross overload due to addition of more load at roof/penthouse level;
2) Failed in Euler Buckling due to loss of lateral restraint causing an increase in effective length;
3) Loss of support at the base level; OR
4) CD cutting.

Since it wasn't 1 and we have no hypothesis for 4 that leaves 2 and 3 as plausible possibilities.

NIST said "2 and 3" in combination. T Szamboti has been claiming 3 alone and all those who have followed Tony's lead including Hulsey."

I am not convinced the cause was Euler buckling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw0u2-Qiky0

Col 79 was made up of 29' long columns stacked one atop the other... with floors and bracing framed into each section at 3-4' from the lower end and then ~17.5' from the lower end. Column cross section would naturally be reduced at each level. Ends were connected with plates welded. to both column ends.

Is col 79 buckling meant as the 29' sections breaking apart at their end connections?

What is the unbraced length and the end condition? Is it fixed or pinned? What was the cross section below flr 12 noted in the report? Did one collapsed floor section destroy the beams from 12 to floor 5? Where are the girder below 12? Wouldn't they be important to study
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 19th March 2018 at 09:03 AM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 10:00 AM   #196
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 521
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Your attitude stinks... I actually read the report.

No I don't expect anyone to point to an interior column on top of the rubble pile. I am curious if / why NIST didn't locate those critical columns which they say buckled and documented the damage to them. To me this would go a long way in supporting their thesis. Instead they use a model.

They did show multiple columns... mostly the facade from the twin towers.

Seems odd to me.

If you do not want to contribute to the discussion... don't. Ridicule and insults are not called for.
If you didn't insist on repeatedly misstating a report that you do not even remember, then you wouldn't be receiving nearly so much criticism. But, after 5 pages of refusing to simply read a report that has been out for many years while continually making false claims about such report, you deserve all of the criticism that is coming your way. There is no excuse for what you are doing in this thread, which amounts to spreading misinformation in the course of lazily speculating about things you could easily find out for yourself.

And can you really not figure out why NIST did not analyze the steel from column 79 specifically? It's already been pointed out to you in this thread by several people, including me. The steel in WTC7 was not marked. There was no easy way to identify column 79 to analyze it. The focus on column 79 also came well after the clean-up had been completed and all steel was removed from the site. WTC7's debris was cleaned up more quickly than the rest of the site for two reasons: (1) the search for human remains in WTC7 was far less cumbersome, and (2) NYC needed to restore the con ed station to guarantee Wall Street firms had a continuous, robust, and redundant power supply. In the face of that, NIST, lacking perfect foresight, obviously dropped the ball by not retaining all of the steel from the building so they could go back and fully satisfy the curiosity of truthers and you, two categories of people who ultimately wouldn't even bother reading and attempting to fully understand their report, in any case. What poor planning on NIST's part! (Maybe we can forgive NIST a little if we realize the NIST reports weren't even authorized by Congress until well after the WTC7 site had been completely cleared... how LAME, to use your word, of NIST to not even have any authority over the disposition of WTC7 steel whatsoever during the critical period in question!)

You had no response to my above response to you re what NIST actually concluded, which is fairly telling. You apparently have no interest in getting off your train of speculation and misinformation and actually addressing what NIST actually did and concluded. If you're going to keep butchering the NIST report out of your own ignorance and intellectual negligence, however, I will keep pointing that out.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 19th March 2018 at 10:05 AM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 10:12 AM   #197
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,110
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
... I am curious if / why NIST didn't locate those critical columns which they say buckled and documented the damage to them. ...
This question reveals that you do not know nor understand the first thing about NIST's investigation. Your ignorance boggles the mind!

Stop making a fool of yourself! Read the *********** report! Twice! Ans shut up till you're done!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 01:41 PM   #198
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,840
Gentlemen,

I don't understand how column 79 buckled. NIST doesn't explain it nor bother to find the UNIQUE easy peasy to find by measuring. There were not very many built up columns... which of course they SHOW in their report. One would think they could have wanted to examine it as they did many other pieces of steel which were saved and stored. Much of the steel was taken to a NIST facility... presumably to study. Why else would they save the steel?

I don't think I am making a fool of myself and telling ME to re read the NCSTAR 1a report... which I read over the weekend only seems to show those who hurl snark and insults are too lazy or can't answer the question.

Not having marks is the most lame excuse I ever hear.

How many of these built up columns were there in the building????

Go to your Canter Engineering drawings and look it up! How about that!

Don't you see the contradiction in their last paragraph on page 23???? Column 79 buckled and the floors collapsed yet they state the loads were redistributed to other columns... You can't have it both ways...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg col 79.jpg (50.5 KB, 2 views)
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.

Last edited by JSanderO; 19th March 2018 at 01:53 PM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 02:11 PM   #199
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 521
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Gentlemen,

I don't understand how column 79 buckled. NIST doesn't explain it nor bother to find the UNIQUE easy peasy to find by measuring. There were not very many built up columns... which of course they SHOW in their report. One would think they could have wanted to examine it as they did many other pieces of steel which were saved and stored. Much of the steel was taken to a NIST facility... presumably to study. Why else would they save the steel?

I don't think I am making a fool of myself and telling ME to re read the NCSTAR 1a report... which I read over the weekend only seems to show those who hurl snark and insults are too lazy or can't answer the question.

Not having marks is the most lame excuse I ever hear.

How many of these built up columns were there in the building????

Go to your Canter Engineering drawings and look it up! How about that!

Don't you see the contradiction in their last paragraph on page 23???? Column 79 buckled and the floors collapsed yet they state the loads were redistributed to other columns... You can't have it both ways...
I guess you're reading our posts just as well as you read the NIST report then (i.e., not at all). NIST clearly explains how column 79 could have buckled in its reasonable fire failure scenario. You are either unable to read their explanation or immune to understanding it or both. What don't you understand about how their FE model showed it buckled given the floor failures around it that were predicted by their fire damage model? Load + no lateral bracing -> failure. There is no contradiction in their narrative. You need to read past the summaries and look at what was actually done in the ANSYS and LS-DYNA models. It's very clear what happened: lateral bracing was lost and then the column buckled. When the column buckled, the floors above 14 fell too.

And the lack of marks on the WTC7 steel were the least of NIST's issues in analyzing WTC7's steel, though it was certainly a reasonable reason for not doing so in and of itself. Congress authorized the NIST reports in August 2002. Do you know when the WTC7 clean up was completed? It was months before that. Do you know when column 79 was identified as a potential key part of the mechanism? Months or years after that. Do you know when it was determined that physically analyzing column 79 was necessary in connection with NIST's computation's re the ability of such column to buckle? Never. There doubtlessly multiple buckled columns in WTC7 given how the collapse propagated and going on a wild goose chase for one of them (even if it was available, which isn't clear) would have been a complete waste of time and resources. If you have some reason that NIST's FE was wrong re column 79 buckling in its modeled scenario, you have yet to share it.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2018, 02:37 PM   #200
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,596
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Gentlemen,

I don't understand how column 79 buckled. NIST doesn't explain it nor bother to find the UNIQUE easy peasy to find by measuring.
At the time the NIST started it's study of WTC7, can you tell us where all the steel had been stored and methods used to preserve it for future study?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 19th March 2018 at 02:39 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.