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

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

Notices


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.
Tags 7wtc , wtc7 , wtc7 collapse

Reply
Old 9th November 2013, 09:55 PM   #921
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,124
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Couple of simple facts to keep in mind…

• Column 79 was the largest and most heavily loaded column in the building. If you are looking for a suspect for one building member failing, and starting a total progressive collapse of the structure, column 79 has to be number one on your list.
Correct. My point was the far simpler one that Col 79 must have failed because EPH fell. But next step easy - all the rest of the support under EPH fell also. And the point you make - very strong reasons why the biggest column would be the leading suspect as villain in the piece.
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
• Girder 44-79 didn’t walk off its support, the connection exploded apart. The bottom 7/8” high strength bolts probably ripped a large piece of the bottom flange out of the girder. Releasing 40-60 tons of built up force, produced by the heat...
Highly likely and probably supported by detailed analysis. I've never needed to go there. However simple "slide off" OR more complicated "walk off" scenarios are plausible but not top of the probability list.
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
• WTC 7 (IMHO) was a poorly framed building. Shear connections between the girder and columns, not full moment connections, which would be required in a seismic zone. The overall structural frame lack redundantly and ductility.
Yes to all.
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 12th November 2013, 08:59 AM   #922
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,489
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
WTC 7 (IMHO) was a poorly framed building. Shear connections between the girder and columns, not full moment connections, which would be required in a seismic zone. The overall structural frame lack redundantly and ductility.
This is not true. A "seismic zone", which is a misnomer to begin with, does not trigger any code rule in the IBC or CBC that would require all connections, or even any connection, to be a full moment connection.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

My website.
Newtons Bit 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 » 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 02:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.