Merged Why WTC7 should not have collapsed

[johnny karate]

In my experience the two main obstacles to considering the possibility that the 911 Shock and Awe event was not as officially described are:

1) A assumption no-one in government would sanction the death of those they are charged to protect, even for reasons of political expediency.

2) An assumption that a false flag operation would take hundreds or thousands of people to pull off and that some of these many participants would surely blow the whistle.

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.

 

[Heiwa]

Finite Element, an energy method, relies on knowing the energies in the system. The basic fiite element equation is

[k]{u} = {f}

where [k] is the stiffness matrix, {u} is a vector of (nodal) displacements, anf {f} is the vector of forces at each node. Finding the displacement infolves inverting the [k] matrix, but if their is some kind of instability or runaway failure, this matrix becomes singular and the the equation wont work. SO other methods, many of which explicitly use energy as a criteria for convergence of the solution, are used for failures like buckling and post buckling.

NIST did do this.

Yes, it is only beams tied together. You can do the same calculations longhand, if you like, but a PC assists.

The WTC7 structure is very simple so you do not really need FEA - just use beams and chose the type of end connections you like. And then put the loads on! First finding is that all stresses in all parts are <1/3 yield.

Then remove column 79 completely or partly, analyse and see the result. Hm, stresses are still <1/3 yield in most parts and connections - no sign of any global collapse.

OK, it was only shear in the beams connected to column 79 before but now there is also tension. No big deal. If something fails, it is only a connection beam/column and there are plenty of those. The whole structure will NEVER collapse due to that.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Hello? Hello?

Anybody in this thread still want to volunteer their car for a three foot drop, while being confident that it won't damage the car?

How about a three storey drop that a matchbox car can survive?

If watching Top Gear has taught me anything, it's that you should make damn sure that nobody offers up their Toyota Hilux.

 

[boloboffin]

I'm sorry, but is Heiwa arguing that 79 could have been removed completely and the building stay standing?

 

[Travis]

Yes, it is only beams tied together. You can do the same calculations longhand, if you like, but a PC assists.

The WTC7 structure is very simple so you do not really need FEA - just use beams and chose the type of end connections you like. And then put the loads on! First finding is that all stresses in all parts are <1/3 yield.

Then remove column 79 completely or partly, analyse and see the result. Hm, stresses are still <1/3 yield in most parts and connections - no sign of any global collapse.

Even if true it ignores the violent nature of the removal of column 79 and the dynamic forces that unleashes.

OK, it was only shear in the beams connected to column 79 before but now there is also tension. No big deal. If something fails, it is only a connection beam/column and there are plenty of those. The whole structure will NEVER collapse due to that.

Well, it's good to know that structures will never, excuse me NEVER, collapse if anything inside them fails. I'm sure structural engineers the world over will be relieved to hear that.

 

[Heiwa]

AA. So you are saying that all that falling mass would not damage and weaken the structure below?

BB. Does impact mean anything to you?

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

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.

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.

 

[X]

If watching Top Gear has taught me anything, it's that you should make damn sure that nobody offers up their Toyota Hilux.

I'll offer up my Lincoln.
3 foot onto it's nose shouldn't hurt it much.

Of course, some people really don't understand physics and insist on cutting me off and slamming on their brakes in their little sub-compacts.

40-year-old 5,000 lb steel behemoth vs 2,000 lb modern car.
Which one drives away?

If you follow Heiwa's reasoning, both are equally and minimally damaged.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

And yet you assume that the exterior structural members are somehow immune to forces greater than they are typically designed for, as well as from directions that are a-typical of what they normally carry? Not only that, you state it as if different design parameters have no effect on how the loads are redistributed or the the structure compensates for such loads.

I've asked you this several times now. If you're implicating (even if the base assertion is wrong to begin with), that the same collapse arrest mechanism should have occurred in two different designs then you're hardly qualified to comment on this subject.

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.

Your assertions are without any qualifying calculations, you assign a defacto collapse arrest mechanism that you assert should be true from WTC 1+2, as well as 7 regardless apparently of differences in design parameters or the design of the structures themselves.

Get your standards of engineering straight before you call out murder on NIST, listening to the arguments you've presented thus far have demonstrates no formal knowledge of engineering or structures in building construction, nor the considerations that must be made for even the most rudimentary of comparisons. I've asked you three times already what considerations your collapse mechanisms take into account with regard to design parameters specific to the structures, and you've thus far made no attempt to define them. What am I supposed to understand from your analysis if I do not know what considerations you're taking into account that verifies your hypothesis?

 

[Heiwa]

Actually, this is one of the methods to verify that a structure has sufficient strength to resist a column failure. The WTC7 designers did not do such an analysis, nor did they consider column failure in their design (as the building codes at the time did not require it).

Buildings that are not explicity designed to resist column failure are not implicity guarenteed to resist column failure.

So you suggest that WTC7 was incorrectly built and certified? Any evidence for that? And how could NIST have missed it?

 

[Heiwa]

Calculations please. Or a model.

Anybody with a PC and 3-D beam analysis software can make a model and verify it in a day. Easy. Also taught at universities.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Anybody with a PC and 3-D beam analysis software can make a model and verify it in a day. Easy. Also taught at universities.

I asked you for calculations or a model, and you tell me that it can be done.

Why don't you do it then? Do the calculations or make a model (the model would be perferable). Or can you not do it? Do you not have access to a PC and 3-D software? Do you not have a university education?

Why don't you try backing up your groundless bs assertions with something real for a change, hmm?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So you suggest that WTC7 was incorrectly built and certified? Any evidence for that? And how could NIST have missed it?

Are you incapable of reading? Or do you think displaying an intelligence level on par with Paris Hilton will somehow advance your cause? Building codes do not require an analysis to determine if the building was safe after a column failure. This is true even in normal building codes TODAY. After the bombing of the Murrah building the federal government requires this analysis on new buildings inhabited by federal employees.

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

 

[tanabear]

Gregory Urich has noted that Frank Greening has offered his opinion on NIST's WTC7 report. Read all about it.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Someone should start a thread here with his findings. Would be nice to have a reasonable discussion for once.

 

[Heiwa]

I asked you for calculations or a model, and you tell me that it can be done.

Why don't you do it then? Do the calculations or make a model (the model would be perferable). Or can you not do it? Do you not have access to a PC and 3-D software? Do you not have a university education?

Why don't you try backing up your groundless bs assertions with something real for a change, hmm?

I have done it many times. It is easy. It is part of the design, approval and certification of structures. I have worked both ends - someone designs, I check. Or I design, an authority checks, etc, etc.

When the design has been built and during construction, we check and test. It is done every day. I am amazed that NIST didn't look into that.

 

[Heiwa]

Are you incapable of reading? Or do you think displaying an intelligence level on par with Paris Hilton will somehow advance your cause? Building codes do not require an analysis to determine if the building was safe after a column failure. This is true even in normal building codes TODAY. After the bombing of the Murrah building the federal government requires this analysis on new buildings inhabited by federal employees.

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

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?

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

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

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

Come on NB. Can't you do better than that?

 

[Lennart Hyland]

I have done it many times. It is easy. It is part of the design, approval and certification of structures. I have worked both ends - someone designs, I check. Or I design, an authority checks, etc, etc.

When the design has been built and during construction, we check and test. It is done every day. I am amazed that NIST didn't look into that.

And what were you designing? Ships or tables?

We want to see your calculations and model of your claims about the WTC7!

 

[Newtons Bit]

I have done it many times. It is easy. It is part of the design, approval and certification of structures. I have worked both ends - someone designs, I check. Or I design, an authority checks, etc, etc.

When the design has been built and during construction, we check and test. It is done every day. I am amazed that NIST didn't look into that.

Okay then Mr. Expert. Why don't you do the calculation, or make the model, and show us the result?

 

[Newtons Bit]

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

Why don't you tell that to the people who died in the Murrah building you ****ing ****.

 

[jaydeehess]

Even if true it ignores the violent nature of the removal of column 79 and the dynamic forces that unleashes.

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?

Well, it's good to know that structures will never, excuse me NEVER, collapse if anything inside them fails. I'm sure structural engineers the world over will be relieved to hear that.

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