WTC: A Question about joints in the verticle beams

[BigAl]

Someone just asked me "where are the 1300 ft long beams on the pile if something didn't cut them during the collapse?"

I know that man-made explosives weren't used on 9/11 but I don't have a clear idea how those beams came apart, either. I recall that during construction, the beams were bolted together as they were lifted into place. Were they welded afterwards? In either case, were these joints where beams came apart, due to off-axis loads during the collapse or did they just torque off at random lengths?

I've been in a materials lab when steel was tested to destruction. I have no problem believing that cascading bolt failures explains the "pop pop pop " that twoofers cite as evidence of man-made explosives.

[Gravy]

The columns were shipped from the foundries and fabricators in lengths that would fit on trucks, mostly 30-40 feet. The exterior columns were bolted together and the core columns were welded. They mostly separated at those connections - their weakest points – as can be seen in a few thousand photographs.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904787e8b1930ad.jpg

[defaultdotxbe]

additionally the core was not designed to withstand any (or withstand very little) horizontal load, so it couldnt stand on its own (as many truthers claim it shoudl have) plus it sustained an unknown amount of damage as half a million tons of skyscraper collapsed around it

[Architect]

From a professional perspective, Gravy's description is exactly what we'd expect.

[The Almond]

Someone just asked me "where are the 1300 ft long beams on the pile if something didn't cut them during the collapse?"


I was once asked this exact question on another forum. My response was, "How does a truck carrying a 1300 foot column make a left turn?" Everything that goes to a site is carried there in standard flat bed trucks and assembled on site. The truther in question suggested that they simply carried the raw materials to the site and pressed a 1300 foot beam, then erected it. Were the stundies invented at the time, that little jewel would have taken the cake.

[BenBurch]

defaultdotxbe, You can actually see in some video the core columns standing momentarily after the walls and floors have fallen away, and then succumbing to that very lack of ability to handle lateral loads.

The Almond, You know I can just barely imagine a way to do continuous casting on site in which you have your casting equipment start at the bottom and rise to the top while being fed raw materials hoisted from below. NuCor has been very successful at continuous casting operations. I just can't imagine why you would WANT to. And in any case we have many photos of the construction. :-)

[gumboot]

I was once asked this exact question on another forum. My response was, "How does a truck carrying a 1300 foot column make a left turn?" Everything that goes to a site is carried there in standard flat bed trucks and assembled on site. The truther in question suggested that they simply carried the raw materials to the site and pressed a 1300 foot beam, then erected it. Were the stundies invented at the time, that little jewel would have taken the cake.


I feel sorry for the poor construction worker who had to hold it steady while the concrete set.

-Gumboot

[GregoryUrich]

additionally the core was not designed to withstand any (or withstand very little) horizontal load, so it couldnt stand on its own (as many truthers claim it shoudl have) plus it sustained an unknown amount of damage as half a million tons of skyscraper collapsed around it

This is a completely unbased claim. All of the horizontal beams in the core acted to some extent as Vierendeel trusses. Withstand high winds, maybe not. Stand on it's own most probably.

[e^n]

This is a completely unbased claim. All of the horizontal beams in the core acted to some extent as Vierendeel trusses. Withstand high winds, maybe not. Stand on it's own most probably.

I was under the impression that the core columns to beam connections were very simple and not designed to work as any sort of moment frame. I am no engineer but it seems unlikely such a huge and slender structure could survive without any sort of diagonal or moment bracing. Perhaps in a perfect world but you seem to be implying they would stand 'in real life' as it were?

[BenBurch]

This is a completely unbased claim. All of the horizontal beams in the core acted to some extent as Vierendeel trusses. Withstand high winds, maybe not. Stand on it's own most probably.

My understanding is that it was extensively braced during construction precisely because it could not take lateral loads well without the walls and floor.

[Newtons Bit]

This is a completely unbased claim. All of the horizontal beams in the core acted to some extent as Vierendeel trusses. Withstand high winds, maybe not. Stand on it's own most probably.

They won't, Greg. The trusses that connect to the columns are just pinned connections. They won't act as a frame. Anything more than the slightest breeze or eccentric loading would cause it to topple.

[defaultdotxbe]

This is a completely unbased claim.

The dense array of columns along the building perimeter was to resist the lateral load due to hurricane force-force winds, while also sharing the gravity loads about equally with the core columns.The floors supported their own weight, along with live loads, provided lateral stability to the exterior wals and distributed wind loads equally among exterior walls.In the framed-tube concept, the exterior frame system resists the force of the wind.

The building core, generally designed to be part of the vertical gravity load-carrying system of the structure, need not be part of the lateral load-carrying system of the structure. In this case, the structural engineer may have preferred the use of partition walls rather than structural walls in the core area to reduce building weight. In the case of the WTC towers, the core had 2 hour fire-rated, gypsum partition walls with little structural integrity, and the core framing was required to carry only gravity loads.
pay attention to that one ^

The WTC floor system was essential to the stability of the building as a whole since it provided lateral stability to the columns and diaphragm action to distribute wind loads to the columns of the frame-tube system.http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

[Tony Szamboti]

This is a completely unbased claim. All of the horizontal beams in the core acted to some extent as Vierendeel trusses. Withstand high winds, maybe not. Stand on it's own most probably.

The welds would have maintained most of the moment of inertia of the columns since they were on the outside. The weld planes would thus have had nearly the same bending strength as the column itself. This would have allowed the central core to be self supporting.

However, if their welds did not have the complete cross section of the columns in the core then they would not have maintained the same resistance to shear at the weld planes.

Where would shear forces have come from to break the columns at their weld planes?

[beachnut]

The welds would have maintained most of the moment of inertia of the columns since they were on the outside. The weld planes would thus have had nearly the same bending strength as the column itself. This would have allowed the central core to be self supporting.

However, if their welds did not have the complete cross section of the columns in the core then they would not have maintained the same resistance to shear at the weld planes.

Where would shear forces have come from to break the columns at their weld planes?
The core could not stand on it's own. No lateral strength. This is your failure, to understand the WTC. The shell was the lateral load, the core the gravity load, the floors connect them.

The central core would fall in a slight breeze.

I will define the slight breeze, and I have lived in OKC.

Next you 9/11 truth "experts" will be saying the floors could stand on their own. The key to the whole thing, and you have no clue. Just a real bad paper with false information. 600 mph, real stupid!

This post will be my last here on the subject.And I was hoping 9/11!

[Tony Szamboti]

The core could not stand on it's own. No lateral strength. This is your failure, to understand the WTC. The shell was the lateral load, the core the gravity load, the floors connect them.

The central core would fall in a slight breeze.

I will define the slight breeze, and I have lived in OKC.

Next you 9/11 truth "experts" will be saying the floors could stand on their own. The key to the whole thing, and you have no clue. Just a real bad paper with false information. 600 mph, real stupid!

And I was hoping 9/11!

It is you who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. Do you know anything about antenna tower design, both self supporting and guyed? You probably don't even know what the term moment of inertia means.

You are a joke Beachnut and a real nuisance.

[Gravy]

The welds would have maintained most of the moment of inertia of the columns since they were on the outside. The weld planes would thus have had nearly the same bending strength as the column itself. This would have allowed the central core to be self supporting.

However, if their welds did not have the complete cross section of the columns in the core then they would not have maintained the same resistance to shear at the weld planes.
How could relatively superficial welds have the nearly same bending strength as the columns? Am I missing something?

[Architect]

DO Truthers know nothing about structural design?!?!?!

[GregoryUrich]

How could relatively superficial welds have the nearly same bending strength as the columns? Am I missing something?

Check out Major Tom's site for pictures of the steel at GZ. If I remember correctly, most horizontal members are broken not at the joints, but somewhere in the element. Look at the columns, I think most have portions of horizontal members still connected.

[Gravy]

Check out Major Tom's site for pictures of the steel at GZ. If I remember correctly, most horizontal members are broken not at the joints, but somewhere in the element. Look at the columns, I think most have portions of horizontal members still connected.We're just talking about the column joints, I believe.

[Newtons Bit]

The welds would have maintained most of the moment of inertia of the columns since they were on the outside. The weld planes would thus have had nearly the same bending strength as the column itself. This would have allowed the central core to be self supporting.

However, if their welds did not have the complete cross section of the columns in the core then they would not have maintained the same resistance to shear at the weld planes.

Where would shear forces have come from to break the columns at their weld planes?

If I had the laughing dog picture, I'd be using it, you clearly have no clue.

1) No one measures a weld by a moment of inertia, we use the elastic section modulus (typically referred to as s, measured by in^3). This is because it's pointless to calculate the moment of inertia, since you never calculate the stiffness of a weld.

For the welds to "maintain most of the moment of inertia of the columns", they would need to be the same length and width as the column, as well as the same THICKNESS. Are you trying to tell me that they put in full-penetration welds that are over 2" thick?

2) No one would ever make a column splice in a gravity column that would develop the full strength of the column. In the 60's and 70's, there wasn't even any imperative to develop the strength of the column in the weld, just be strong enough to resist the forces applied to it.

The splices only need to be strong enough to resist the minor bending moments in the columns due to eccentric loads and minor p-delta affects and to stand up during construction. This isn't much.

In modern construction, the only time when an engineer would use a weld that would develop the full strength of a column is in the lateral system that is specifically designed to resist seismic forces (R>3). Other than that, the engineer would only design the weld to resist the forces that it would reasonably see (rarely the strength of the column).

[Tweeter]

I always thought a good weld was stronger than the steel itself.
Why would anyone think that engineers would require strong welds for two of the tallest buildings in the world, right?

[Gravy]

I always thought a good weld was stronger than the steel itself.The WTC column welds were not full-thickness, and the weld metal was more brittle than the column steel.

[beachnut]

It is you who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. Do you know anything about antenna tower design, both self supporting and guyed? You probably don't even know what the term moment of inertia means.

You are a joke Beachnut and a real nuisance.
I have read your paper! There is little evidence you are an engineer displayed in it. There is political ranting, false statements and much evidence of your superficial shallow research.

Your paper and I have something in common.

[Tony Szamboti]

If I had the laughing dog picture, I'd be using it, you clearly have no clue.

1) No one measures a weld by a moment of inertia, we use the elastic section modulus (typically referred to as s, measured by in^3). This is because it's pointless to calculate the moment of inertia, since you never calculate the stiffness of a weld.

For the welds to "maintain most of the moment of inertia of the columns", they would need to be the same length and width as the column, as well as the same THICKNESS. Are you trying to tell me that they put in full-penetration welds that are over 2" thick?

2) No one would ever make a column splice in a gravity column that would develop the full strength of the column. In the 60's and 70's, there wasn't even any imperative to develop the strength of the column in the weld, just be strong enough to resist the forces applied to it.

The splices only need to be strong enough to resist the minor bending moments in the columns due to eccentric loads and minor p-delta affects and to stand up during construction. This isn't much.

In modern construction, the only time when an engineer would use a weld that would develop the full strength of a column is in the lateral system that is specifically designed to resist seismic forces (R>3). Other than that, the engineer would only design the weld to resist the forces that it would reasonably see (rarely the strength of the column).

I guess all of my books on welding are wrong if you are right. You really shouldn't be laughing.

We calculate the strength of welds by treating them as a line using the moment of inertia of the weld. We then determine fillet size needed based upon the area stress imparted to it. They would not need to be the same thickness as the cross section to retain most of the moment of inertia of the column. Haven't you ever heard the saying that "pound for pound tubes or pipes are stronger than solids"? The reason is that the tube retains the moment of inertia, which is an exponential function of distance from the center.

Enough resistance to bending from buckling under their own weight is all the central core welds would need for it to be self supporting, as it is obvious it had the cross section to withstand compressive loads. I have a surprise for you also, it could have taken some level of wind load also. Maybe not 100 mph but I would not doubt it could take 50 mph while also being self supporting. A simple analysis will show these things to be true. Do you care to show something different?

At one point in my career I designed broadcast antennas at RCA Broadcast when they were in New Jersey. This was where the North Tower antenna stack was designed and built.

[Newtons Bit]

I always thought a good weld was stronger than the steel itself.
Why would anyone think that engineers would require strong welds for two of the tallest buildings in the world, right?

What is this, argumentum ad ignoratium? I'm not good with them latin words, ahuck.

Typical weld metals range from 60ksi to 110ksi. The steel core column in the WTC were A36 steel, 36ksi. The weld metal was stronger than the steel.

There's an old quote that I'm fond of regarding engineering, "An engineer is a person that can do with one dollar what any common bungler can do with two." The person who designs a weld for forces it will never see is a common bungler who has no business in engineering.

[Gravy]

A simple analysis will show these things to be true.I'm on the edge of my seat. When can I expect your simple analysis?

[Newtons Bit]

I guess all of my books on welding are wrong if you are right. You really shouldn't be laughing.

We calculate the strength of welds by treating them as a line using the moment of inertia of the weld. They would not need to be the same thickness to retain most of the moment of inertia of the column. Haven't you ever heard the saying that "pound for pound tubes are stronger than solids"? The reason is that the tube retains the moment of inertia, which is an exponential function of distance from the center.

Enough resistance to bending from buckling under their own weight is all the central core welds would need for it to be self supporting, as it is obvious it had the cross section to withstand compressive loads. I have a surprise for you also, it could have taken some level of wind load also. Maybe not 100 mph but I would not doubt it could take 50 mph while also being self supporting. A simple analysis will show these things to be true. Do you care to show something different?

At one point in my career I designed broadcast antennas at RCA Broadcast when they were in New Jersey. This was where the North Tower antenna stack was designed and built.

You should do more reading. In engineering we like to do M/S for welds rather than MC/I. It's a lot quicker. But that's just quibbling. You're still referring to a weld developing the full moment of inertia of the steel column which is just silly. No one would EVER do that. In seismic systems we like to develop the full STRENGTH of the column, but there are few situations elsewhere where this is necessary.

Suppose you're trying to actually develop the full moment of inertia of a column. A tube column. The weld will have to have the exact same cross-sectional area as the column. This is a RIDICULOUS.

[Gravy]

Typical weld metals range from 60ksi to 110ksi. The steel core column in the WTC were A36 steel, 36ksi. The weld metal was stronger than the steel.Yup. IIRC the core column welds were 80ksi or so, for 36-50ksi steel, and where the perimeter columns were welded (mechanical floors and perhaps a few others), welds were 110-120ksi, for the higher-strength steel.

[Tony Szamboti]

The WTC column welds were not full-thickness, and the weld metal was more brittle than the column steel.

The brittleness of the column steel and the weld metal is a relative thing. E70 welding rod, which is rated at 70,000 psi, would normally be used for welding A36 steel. While it is less ductile than A36 steel E70 weld metal is still quite ductile.

[Tony Szamboti]

You should do more reading. In engineering we like to do M/S for welds rather than MC/I. It's a lot quicker. But that's just quibbling. You're still referring to a weld developing the full moment of inertia of the steel column which is just silly. No one would EVER do that. In seismic systems we like to develop the full STRENGTH of the column, but there are few situations elsewhere where this is necessary.

Suppose you're trying to actually develop the full moment of inertia of a column. A tube column. The weld will have to have the exact same cross-sectional area as the column. This is a RIDICULOUS.

You are taking things out of context. Where did I say the weld would retain the full moment of inertia of the column? I said it would retain a significant portion of it and would not need to have the same cross section to do that.

You seem to take things out of context quite often. Why?

[defaultdotxbe]

The brittleness of the column steel and the weld metal is a relative thing. E70 welding rod would be used for welding A36 steel. While it is less ductile than A36 steel E70 weld metal is still quite ductile.
but being less ductile than the column itself would likely result in the weld being the point of failure, correct?

[Newtons Bit]

You are taking things out of context. Where did I say the weld would retain the full moment of inertia of the column? I said it would retain a significant portion of it and would not need to have the same cross section to do that.

You seem to take things out of context quite often. Why?

Excuse me, you said, MOST.

The welds would have maintained most of the moment of inertia of the columns since they were on the outside.

It's not out of context. It's ludicrous to develop even a tiny fraction of the strength of a gravity column in a splice, trying to develop the moment of inertia is even sillier.

[FactCheck]

I'm on the edge of my seat. When can I expect your simple analysis?

...Published in a respected scientific journal. (Not a conspiracy rag)

[Newtons Bit]

...Published in a respected scientific journal. (Not a conspiracy rag)

It doesn't need that, I'd settle just for seeing the calculations.

Remember, we're looking for the size of a weld necessary to develop "maintained most of the moment of inertia" of the columns.

Let's define "most" as 75% and the column as made up of A36 plates, 22"x55"x2" thick. The weld also needs to meet AWS specifications.

[Tony Szamboti]

but being less ductile than the column itself would likely result in the weld being the point of failure, correct?

Not necessarily. It depends on the geometry of the weld and steel, strength of the weld and steel, type of loading, and how high the stresses are in both the weld and steel.

The welds on the core columns would have had almost the same bending strength as the column itself but significantly less shear strength.

[Gravy]

The welds on the core columns would have had almost the same bending strength as the column itself but significantly less shear strength.Is that your final answer?

[Newtons Bit]

Is that your final answer?

Give him a chance to write up an analysis. I for one would like to see exactly what size of welds he's talking about.

[Tony Szamboti]

It doesn't need that, I'd settle just for seeing the calculations.

Remember, we're looking for the size of a weld necessary to develop "maintained most of the moment of inertia" of the columns.

Let's define "most" as 75% and the column as made up of A36 plates, 22"x55"x2" thick. The weld also needs to meet AWS specifications.

Lets take a 503 box column at the 60th floor. It is 52" x 20" x 1.875" wall thickness. Taking it as a complete box and ignoring the insets of the end plates, for simplicity, the moment of inertia for that box column about the axis parallel to the 20" width is 17,413 in.e4. If the weld has a one inch penetration it's moment of inertia is 9,213 in.e4 which is 53% of the moment of inertia of the full column cross section. About the axis crossing the width it retains 57% of the moment of inertia. This is significant like I said. You are the one placing the 75% factor on it. I didn't.

Considering the fact that the weld is made of material which has a significantly higher yield strength than that of the parent material, in the case of A36 yield is 36,000 psi and E70 weld metal is 58,000 psi, it would have nearly the same resistance to bending stresses.

[beachnut]

You guys are talking to a CD deal 9/11 truth guy! He does not understand the WTC design; it is best to talk to Robertson. But then Tony says Robertson is a liar in his paper! Who is the real liar? Does he get his welding stuff from the internet?

[leftysergeant]

Okay, I'm not an engineer, but have done quite a bit of construction labor. I have been looking at the ends of the steel box columns in the image in this thread, and remembering others I have seen.

Look at the ends of those box columns. There are no deep penetrating welds. Fact is, the is no sign that some of them were ever attached to anything. Isn't there supposed to be some kind of connection on the end of those columns? I recall seeing a lot of columns with plates welded to the ends of them with bolts sticking through them. Where were these located?

It appears to me that welding was not even the main means of connecting the parts, but jusrt served to sort of lock the connections in place. The core, if the pieces in the image here are typical, do not appear to have been designed to handle a lot of lateral force.

Something i read about in relation to armored fighting vehicles keeps tapping at the back of my mind.

During WWII the Russians has a problem obtaining rubber, so they tried building T-34s with all-steel wheels. For some reason, they had a tendancy to fail quickly due to something called "harmonic resonnance." We're talking about a solid casting here.

Would a whole bunch of sheet rock and small steel elements and floor slabs and such cause some sort of "harmonic resonnance" in the core columns? Would this make welds fail?

[Tony Szamboti]

Okay, I'm not an engineer, but have done quite a bit of construction labor. I have been looking at the ends of the steel box columns in the image in this thread, and remembering others I have seen.

Look at the ends of those box columns. There are no deep penetrating welds. Fact is, the is no sign that some of them were ever attached to anything. Isn't there supposed to be some kind of connection on the end of those columns? I recall seeing a lot of columns with plates welded to the ends of them with bolts sticking through them. Where were these located?

It appears to me that welding was not even the main means of connecting the parts, but jusrt served to sort of lock the connections in place. The core, if the pieces in the image here are typical, do not appear to have been designed to handle a lot of lateral force.

Something i read about in relation to armored fighting vehicles keeps tapping at the back of my mind.

During WWII the Russians has a problem obtaining rubber, so they tried building T-34s with all-steel wheels. For some reason, they had a tendancy to fail quickly due to something called "harmonic resonnance." We're talking about a solid casting here.

Would a whole bunch of sheet rock and small steel elements and floor slabs and such cause some sort of "harmonic resonnance" in the core columns? Would this make welds fail?


The twin tower core box columns were spliced together with welds. As far as I can tell from photographs at

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=3&MMN_position=105:105



they were partial joint penetration welds. In the case of box column to wide flange columns they were spliced with fillet welds. The wide flange to wide flange would have been PJP groove welds like the box columns. You won't see weld material on the outside as they were probably ground smooth.

I doubt that a resonance could have caused the welds to fail. It would seem that some type of lateral load would have had to do it.

[beachnut]

The twin tower core box columns were spliced together with welds. As far as I can tell from photographs at

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=3&MMN_position=105:105



they were partial joint penetration welds. In the case of box column to wide flange columns they were spliced with fillet welds. The wide flange to wide flange would have been PJP groove welds like the box columns. You won't see weld material on the outside as they were probably ground smooth.

I doubt that a resonance could have caused the welds to fail. It would seem that some type of lateral load would have had to do it.
That is one dumb web site! The idiot there has charges placed on columns. Wowzer; another idiot site of woo. Good fine.
Comical to see a 9/11 truth expert use 9/11 truth expert sites. You guys are super.

I bet those radio charges worked really good in the building! Wowzer

That web site is very stupid. I think I am repeating myself. How can you post such a pathetic site? It actually proves there were no explosives! How dumb can a web site get? Post proof opposite of what you are saying? What is wrong with 9/11 truth?

[defaultdotxbe]

That is one dumb web site! The idiot there has charges placed on columns. Wowzer; another idiot site of woo. Good fine.
Comical to see a 9/11 truth expert use 9/11 truth expert sites. You guys are super.

I bet those radio charges worked really good in the building! Wowzer

That web site is very stupid. I think I am repeating myself. How can you post such a pathetic site? It actually proves there were no explosives! How dumb can a web site get? Post proof opposite of what you are saying? What is wrong with 9/11 truth?
i clicked on 3 pictures, each showing columns with different types of damage, and each caption said "the kind of damage predicted by our model"

[Gravy]

Here are some close-ups of box column weld breaks, four medium columns and one large.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldmedx2.jpg

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldmed2.jpg

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldmed3.jpg

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldlarge.jpg

[Tony Szamboti]

That is one dumb web site! The idiot there has charges placed on columns. Wowzer; another idiot site of woo. Good fine.
Comical to see a 9/11 truth expert use 9/11 truth expert sites. You guys are super.

I bet those radio charges worked really good in the building! Wowzer

That web site is very stupid. I think I am repeating myself. How can you post such a pathetic site? It actually proves there were no explosives! How dumb can a web site get? Post proof opposite of what you are saying? What is wrong with 9/11 truth?

I believe the photos have a pedigree and are from FEMA and other sources. What difference does it make whose site they are at? Look at the photos.

Of course, that wouldn't be your MO there Beachnut. You just seem to have a negative reaction to anything connected to something you deem opposed to your preferred point of view.

So much for your objectivity.

[Newtons Bit]

Lets take a 503 box column at the 60th floor. It is 52" x 20" x 1.875" wall thickness. Taking it as a complete box and ignoring the insets of the end plates, for simplicity, the moment of inertia for that box column about the axis parallel to the 20" width is 17,413 in.e4. If the weld has a one inch penetration it's moment of inertia is 9,213 in.e4 which is 53% of the moment of inertia of the full column cross section. About the axis crossing the width it retains 57% of the moment of inertia. This is significant like I said. You are the one placing the 75% factor on it. I didn't.

Considering the fact that the weld is made of material which has a significantly higher yield strength than that of the parent material, in the case of A36 yield is 36,000 psi and E70 weld metal is 58,000 psi, it would have nearly the same resistance to bending stresses.

You said most. 57% is a lot, maybe even "most". But where is your information showing a 1" partial-pen weld on a 1.875" thick plate? And what about when the columns are 4" thick? Do you think they're going to do a 2" deep groove weld there to develop the strength there? That would be absurd.

A 1" partial-pen weld is not a one-pass weld, it's more like 8 (anyone want to look the exact number up?) I would not assume that the designers would use something that labor intensive on a column splice with almost no load on it.

I would assume that it would be something like a 5/16" weld, which a good welder can do in a single pass. What you're saying is just a waste of money.

[Newtons Bit]

Here are some close-ups of box column weld breaks, four medium columns and one large.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldmedx2.jpg

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldmed2.jpg

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldmed3.jpg

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldlarge.jpg

Those don't look like no 1" partial penetration welds to me.

Edit: they also look like they're only welded on the long side. They'd be particularly weak in the weak-axis of the column.

[beachnut]

I believe the photos have a pedigree and are from FEMA and other sources. What difference does it make whose site they are at? Look at the photos.

Of course, that wouldn't be your MO there Beachnut. You just have a negative obsession with anything you deem opposed to your preferred point of view.

You sir sure act like the second word of your psuedonym.
You missed the point, the web site is full of junk ideas on how it happen. It has radio explosives in the WTC as the cause. Like you, the web site lack facts and makes up pathetic fantasy of explosives! Like your paper with errors, the CD stuff is in ERROR. Simple stuff you miss in your 9/11 quest for stupid ideas on 9/11. Failure is a proven fact in your quest of real cd deal~!

The photos prove you are wrong, the web site is making up lies using photos that prove the conclusions of the radio controlled explosives false. Also shows a lot of failures where they should be, no cutter charges. The web site is a 9/11 truth web site with photos debunking the very claims you and the web site make~!

[Tony Szamboti]

Here are some close-ups of box column weld breaks, four medium columns and one large.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldmedx2.jpg

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldmed2.jpg

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldmed3.jpg

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCboxweldlarge.jpg

It looks like there are PJP welds on the two long sides only in some of the photos and that they are about halfway across the thickness. If that is true on all of the columns then I would revise my estimate of the bending strength of the weld splices down by about 25 to 30%. The bending strength of the welds and thus the lateral load resistance of the core columns would still be much more significant than what it has been given credit for by some.

What I am saying is that just because it wasn't intended for high lateral loads doesn't mean it had almost no resistance to them.

[Tony Szamboti]

Those don't look like no 1" partial penetration welds to me.

Edit: they also look like they're only welded on the long side. They'd be particularly weak in the weak-axis of the column.

Why don't you do a calculation. The fact that they aren't welded on the short side does not play a major part. It is the distance between the welds that determines the moment of inertia of the welded joint.

Do you have a handbook that shows you how to calculate the MOI of welded joints?

[Tony Szamboti]

You said most. 57% is a lot, maybe even "most". But where is your information showing a 1" partial-pen weld on a 1.875" thick plate? And what about when the columns are 4" thick? Do you think they're going to do a 2" deep groove weld there to develop the strength there? That would be absurd.

A 1" partial-pen weld is not a one-pass weld, it's more like 8 (anyone want to look the exact number up?) I would not assume that the designers would use something that labor intensive on a column splice with almost no load on it.

I would assume that it would be something like a 5/16" weld, which a good welder can do in a single pass. What you're saying is just a waste of money.

From what I have read John Skilling and Co. were quite concerned about the welding. I seriously doubt that they would have used 5/16" welds on those box columns. I looked at a transition plate for a box to wide flange and they looked like 1/2 to 5/8" welds at that level.

[Newtons Bit]

Why don't you do a calculation. The fact that they aren't welded on the short side does not play a major part. It is the distance between the welds that determines the moment of inertia of the welded joint.

Do you have a handbook that shows you how to calculate the MOI of welded joints?

You mean 1/12 * b * h^3 + a*d^2? I don't need a handbook for that.

The shorter side isn't as significant as the long side, but it does play its part.

Edit: I do have some handy references for calculating the Sw of welds for odd shapes. Much better than deriving things.

[Newtons Bit]

From what I have read John Skilling and Co. were quite concerned about the welding. I seriously doubt that they would have used 5/16" welds on those box columns. I looked at a transition plate for a box to wide flange and they looked like 1/2 to 5/8" welds at that level.

Was he concerned about the quantity or the quality of the welds? I did a renovation and seismic upgrade of a middle school built in the 60's. I wouldn't even call what they did "welding". It didn't even meet modern code for gravity loads much less lateral. I'm quite literally amazed that the building never fell down.

I imagine the welders on a huge project like the WTC would be much, much better, however I am a skeptic about the quality of construction from the 60's.

[Tony Szamboti]

Was he concerned about the quantity or the quality of the welds? I did a renovation and seismic upgrade of a middle school built in the 60's. I wouldn't even call what they did "welding". It didn't even meet modern code for gravity loads much less lateral. I'm quite literally amazed that the building never fell down.

I imagine the welders on a huge project like the WTC would be much, much better, however I am a skeptic about the quality of construction from the 60's.

The towers were designed to take seismic loads, which many buildings built in the 60's were not. So although the core was not intended to take the lateral loads for the building it would need to handle loads due to its own lateral acceleration.

[Newtons Bit]

The towers were designed to take seismic loads, which many buildings built in the 60's were not. So although the core was not intended to take the lateral loads for the building it would need to handle loads due to its own lateral acceleration.

It's own acceleration would be pretty minimal. We're talking about a 12'-4" long piece of column that has a equivalent lateral force of maybe V=0.2W (New York isn't exactly a region of seismic activity, though I can't speak to how they designed for seismic back then). A column that weighed 2000lb/ft would only place 2500lb of shear on its splice before it connected tt the floor deck.

Do you have any references on their comments on seismic forces from the time? Earthquake engineering back then was in it's infancy and I'm always interested in history of that subject.

[beachnut]

The towers were designed to take seismic loads, which many buildings built in the 60's were not. So although the core was not intended to take the lateral loads for the building it would need to handle loads due to its own lateral acceleration.
Source? Is this like your 600 mph error?

[Gravy]

I imagine the welders on a huge project like the WTC would be much, much better, however I am a skeptic about the quality of construction from the 60's.The welders were highly-qualified, and the inspection process was rigorous. The only thing I'm not sure about is that I know I've read in the NIST report that the column butt welds were "100%," which I took to mean welded around the whole circumference. Obviously that wasn't the case, at least in the three photos above that are clear.

[Gravy]

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCseismicdesignprovisions.jpg
NCSTAR 1, p. 41

[Newtons Bit]

http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTCseismicdesignprovisions.jpg
NCSTAR 1, p. 41

I hate the UBC. But that pretty much confirms what I was thinking.

[BenBurch]

The WTC column welds were not full-thickness, and the weld metal was more brittle than the column steel.

And they were that way because they existed only to keep the bits aligned. The strength was in COMPRESSION, and welds of full thickness would actually have reduced the strength.

[BenBurch]

I guess all of my books on welding are wrong if you are right.

They are right, but not in this case. WTC was a real departure from how such structures had been built in the past, and really no other building on the planet used its theory of design since. A good thing I think you will agree!

[Apollo20]

One of the more interesting photos I have seen of the core columns in the WTC rubble pile is on page 239 of Joel Meyerowitz's book AFTERMATH. The photo shows a true fracture surface for a large box column with a wall thickness ~ 4 inches. Unlike the appearance of the surface at the splice ends of the core columns posted so far on this thread, which are relatively smooth and rusty brown in colour, the AFTERMATH photo shows the end of a column with a rough silvery-grey surface having the characteristic appearance of a fracture surface caused by intergranular embrittlement. It is well-known that incorrect welding procedures can give rise to high stress concentrations and the formation of weld-zone cracks which may initiate brittle fracture under conditions of stress.

[Max Photon]

(Boy, I turn away for one second and look what happens...)


Ahem...

I already started a thread on this topic:

How Were WTC Core Columns Separated at Weld Planes? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96473)

Perhaps moderators will consider merging this thread into the original.

Max

[Tony Szamboti]

They are right, but not in this case. WTC was a real departure from how such structures had been built in the past, and really no other building on the planet used its theory of design since. A good thing I think you will agree!

From what I understand the Sears building in Chicago and others use the same principle as the WTC twin towers. I know the 975 foot tall Comcast building, just being finished in Philadelphia right now, uses the central core and perimeter column tube within a tube concept that the twin towers used. I am only speaking of the general construction method and not details of the welds etc.

[BenBurch]

From what I understand the Sears building in Chicago and others use the same principle as the WTC twin towers. I know the 975 foot tall Comcast building, just being finished in Philadelphia right now, uses the central core and perimeter column tube within a tube concept that the twin towers used. I am only speaking of the general construction method and not details of the welds etc.

Nope. Sears tower is a much more different design. John Hancock is a shell-supported building but of an entirely different principle of design. The Comcast building *is* similar but as I understood it differs in important details.

[BenBurch]

To clarify; Sears is tubes, but like "teh internets" is a "Series of tubes" A bundled tube assemblage.

[BenBurch]

I think we can see that the Comcast Tower is not much like WTC;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Comcast_center_feb07.JPG/450px-Comcast_center_feb07.JPG

[BenBurch]

Here is the John Hancock center, you can see the external tapered box truss design clearly;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5d/Hancock_tower_2006.jpg/401px-Hancock_tower_2006.jpg

[GT/CS]

To clarify; Sears is tubes, but like "teh internets" is a "Series of tubes" A bundled tube assemblage.

Yep. A 3 x 3 matrix of square tubes. Brilliant in its simplicity.

[Major_Tom]

BenBurch notes of the column-to-column welds:

The strength was in COMPRESSION, and welds of full thickness would actually have reduced the strength.

True and interesting. The compression strength of the connection is in the direct forged section-to-forged section contact.

The strength is transmitted THROUGH the direct column end-to-column end contact.

So how can you "squeeze" a weld all the way through the surfaces already in direct contact?

Why would you have a connecting weld carry the full load of the building above the weld?

The welds couldn't have been fully penetrating.


Max is right. The other thread is the same topic.

[Major_Tom]

Could it be that many of these connections were welded only along the taper on their outside edges?

[GregoryUrich]

You said most. 57% is a lot, maybe even "most". But where is your information showing a 1" partial-pen weld on a 1.875" thick plate? And what about when the columns are 4" thick? Do you think they're going to do a 2" deep groove weld there to develop the strength there? That would be absurd.

A 1" partial-pen weld is not a one-pass weld, it's more like 8 (anyone want to look the exact number up?) I would not assume that the designers would use something that labor intensive on a column splice with almost no load on it.

I would assume that it would be something like a 5/16" weld, which a good welder can do in a single pass. What you're saying is just a waste of money.

NIST NCSTAR1-3 (p.23) states that some welds required as many as 200 passes so an 8 pass weld would not be unthinkable.

[Tony Szamboti]

Could it be that many of these connections were welded only along the taper on their outside edges?

They would have been partial penetration groove welds. Usually the top column is beveled at a 45 degree angle to a depth of the desired weld penetration, and the rest of the thickness is flat and sits on top of the column below. When the top column is placed on the lower column what appears as a tapered groove is the result. The tapered groove is filled with weld metal joining the two columns.

The angles can change and both columns can be beveled. It depends on the type of welding and joint design.

The weld penetration is controlled by design by the size of the bevels on the columns.

[Major_Tom]

NB says:

We're talking about a 12'-4" long piece of column

What do you mean by this? The forged core column sections were about 38 feet long.

There were no 12 foot columns.

The typical office floor is 12' 6", so a core column spans 3 typical office floors.

[Major_Tom]

realcddeal writes:

I doubt that a resonance could have caused the welds to fail. It would seem that some type of lateral load would have had to do it.

So the big question from a CD perspective is: What is the minimum lateral impulse required to assure weld breakage and sufficient column displacement?

The question from a "progressive collapse" perspective would be: How can you explain the rapid "collapses" seen in terms of "progressive, relatively uniform downward core column weld failure"?

[Gravy]

The question from a "progressive collapse" perspective would be: How can you explain the rapid "collapses" seen in terms of "progressive, relatively uniform downward core column weld failure"?The collapses have been explained. If you have an equal or superior explanation – which must account for all observations – then stop JAQing off and put it on paper.

Clear enough?

ETA: and if "downward core column weld failure" means something, let us know.

[Major_Tom]

Please look closely at the end of the core box column in the following photo.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo%20archives/bomb%20marks/FF_debris2_z1.jpg

Notice that the column, like the large, large majority of core box coluimns, is very straight.

Most all the core box columns have perfectly squared off ends along their original weld surfaces.

That is why damage like that seen at the end of the column in the picture stands out all the more.

How would the "progessive collapse" folks explain such damage?

[Gravy]

Deleted. See below.

[Gravy]

That is why damage like that seen at the end of the column in the picture stands out all the more.

How would the "progessive collapse" folks explain such damage?When did that damage occur, Major_Tom?

[Major_Tom]

You are implying that is from the clean-up?

Here is the larger picture.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo%20archives/bomb%20marks/FF_debris2_g1%20copy.jpg


You can find this stuff in the rubble from time to time at the very ends of a core box column.


Gravy, you posted a photo on page 1. I found it kind of funny because you don't even know that there is a very suspicious distortion at the very end of a core box column in that photo.

Below is a cropped version of the very photo you showed on page 1 with added graphics.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo%20archives/bomb%20marks/FF_pile_flag2_g1%20copy.jpg


Gravy, the damage pattern in box 1 is interesting, no?

Can anyone explain this in terms of weld failure?

Because is is very easy to explain in terms of an intentional attack against the weld location.

[DGM]

You are implying that is from the clean-up?

Here is the larger picture.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo%20archives/bomb%20marks/FF_debris2_g1%20copy.jpg


You can find this stuff in the rubble from time to time at the very ends of a core box column.


Gravy, you posted a photo on page 1. I found it kind of funny because you don't even know that there is a very suspicious distortion at the very end of a core box column in that photo.

Below is a cropped version of the very photo you showed on page 1 with added graphics.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo%20archives/bomb%20marks/FF_pile_flag2_g1%20copy.jpg


Gravy, the damage pattern in box 1 is interesting, no?

Can anyone explain this in terms of weld failure?

Because is is very easy to explain in terms of an intentional attack against the weld location.
Why didn't any of the ironworkers on the scene notice anything funny? I have friends that worked on the piles and they know what looks "funny". Is your opinion from looking at pictures better than their hands on experiences. Or are my friends paid off shills?

[Gravy]

You are implying that is from the clean-up?
What? Why are you avoiding my question? When did the damage to the column end occur? After it fell 900 feet?

And what other forces was the column subjected to during collapse? Do you understand why you need to know the answers to these questions in order to figure out what happened to the column end?

[BenBurch]

NIST NCSTAR1-3 (p.23) states that some welds required as many as 200 passes so an 8 pass weld would not be unthinkable.

Has to stay in alignment or, well, we see the results.

And thermal forces would disturb the alignment fairly easily without a fairly robust weld, but said weld was in my opinion not there to give strength to the column or to resist loads other than the differential expansion of the elements themselves.

[BenBurch]

... The question from a "progressive collapse" perspective would be: How can you explain the rapid "collapses" seen in terms of "progressive, relatively uniform downward core column weld failure"?

Any significant twisting or bending moment would shatter those superficial welds and without nearly perfect alignment, down it all comes.

By significant, I mean well outside of the design parameters.

And we have already established to a degree of great certainty that there was nothing about this event that was WITHIN the design parameters.

[beachnut]

You are implying that is from the clean-up?

Below is a cropped version of the very photo you showed on page 1 with added graphics.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo%20archives/bomb%20marks/FF_pile_flag2_g1%20copy.jpg

Can anyone explain this in terms of weld failure?

Because is is very easy to explain in terms of an intentional attack against the weld location.
NO, it is not, there are no blast effects from RDX, TNT, or C4, you are very much a liar about explosives. This photo is proof, were is the blast? No thermite! No explosives, silent explosives either!

#1 is the anti-explosives smoking gun, and #2 is the no evidence of explosives smoking gun pile of failures for your CD deal, like realcddeal you need to have facts and evidence, not made up ideas based on paranoid ideas.

[BenBurch]

NO, it is not, there are no blast effects from RDX, TNT, or C4, you are very much a liar about explosives. This photo is proof, were is the blast? No thermite! No explosives, silent explosives either!

I blown up a lot of things over the years with all sorts of explosives, (and have the hearing deficit to prove it) and never once had a nice neat cut like those.

And I've also made various compositions of thermite, and if there is a trick to making a ruler-straight cut with it, I never learned it.

EDIT: you can't do that nice a cut with a torch, either.

[PhantomWolf]

To bend the steel outwards the explosives would have to be inside the box column. The bending is more likely a result of impact damage.

[Tony Szamboti]

To bend the steel outwards the explosives would have to be inside the box column. The bending is more likely a result of impact damage.

Not necessarily. This type of tear and bending could occur if the bent out portion was on the side where the force was applied and bent back as it dragged across the interface.

The columns were themselves built up from fillet welded plates, so if the fillet weld between the short end plate and the long side plate failed before the groove welds at the column interfaces you could have this type of damage.

[Gravy]

Not necessarily. This type of tear and bending could occur if the bent out portion was on the side where the force was applied and bent back as it dragged across the interface.

The columns were themselves built up from fillet welded plates, so if the fillet weld between the short end plate and the long side plate failed before the groove welds at the column interfaces you could have this type of damage.Of course. And if you put a high explosive (on intact columns) between where the guy and his helmet is, you could make the cleanly-broken column look like the one with the bent end.

Oh, wait....

[PhantomWolf]

Not necessarily. This type of tear and bending could occur if the bent out portion was on the side where the force was applied and bent back as it dragged across the interface.

The columns were themselves built up from fillet welded plates, so if the fillet weld between the short end plate and the long side plate failed before the groove welds at the column interfaces you could have this type of damage.

So you're suggesting that the damage could be caused by the column bending and the weld on the column giving out before the weld between the columns, causing the steel to distort before the weld gave out? Is that correct? if so it sounds feasible, but still isn't evidence of explosives.

[beachnut]

Not necessarily. This type of tear and bending could occur if the bent out portion was on the side where the force was applied and bent back as it dragged across the interface.
Busted ideas speak out with no facts. No, you be wrong again. No explosives were discovered on 9/11, no termite, no inside realcddeal.

Next time bring some facts like your other ct buddy with the radio controlled damaged columns that were not touched by explosives. He brings pictures to debunk himself, you bring hearsay and talk. Your post do not require debunking, you bring no facts. You just say it. For kids looking on, he is making this up out of the blue do not believe people who can not present facts.

He used terms like force, he means to say explosives! There were no explosive sounds on 9/11 due to explosives in the WTC. And thermite would be so easy to spot as damage, it would not even be hard for a kid to see it in the pile.

Remember! There were real scientist and engineers wondering around inspecting steel and failure modes of the WTC! It is what scientist and engineers do; study stuff! There were no secret clean up! This is why new buildings will have new ideas and standards, because real engineers are doing real work. Not all engineers are like 9/11 truth engineer making up lies! 99.999 percent actually can be rational and explain, or point you to the tools you can use to understand 9/11 with out the lies of 9/11 truth.

For those just thinking about 9/11 truth having some cool ideas, see http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

[Tony Szamboti]

So you're suggesting that the damage could be caused by the column bending and the weld on the column giving out before the weld between the columns, causing the steel to distort before the weld gave out? Is that correct? if so it sounds feasible, but still isn't evidence of explosives.

You understood what I was saying.

I don't think the damage alone shows it was explosives either, there are other ways a force could be delivered to produce the same damage, although a force delivered to the side of the tear out by an explosive charge could also be a possibility.

[Tony Szamboti]

Busted ideas speak out with no facts. No, you be wrong again. No explosives were discovered on 9/11, no termite, no inside realcddeal.

Next time bring some facts like your other ct buddy with the radio controlled damaged columns that were not touched by explosives. He brings pictures to debunk himself, you bring hearsay and talk. Your post do not require debunking, you bring no facts. You just say it. For kids looking on, he is making this up out of the blue do not believe people who can not present facts.

He used terms like force, he means to say explosives! There were no explosive sounds on 9/11 due to explosives in the WTC. And thermite would be so easy to spot as damage, it would not even be hard for a kid to see it in the pile.

Remember! There were real scientist and engineers wondering around inspecting steel and failure modes of the WTC! It is what scientist and engineers do; study stuff! There were no secret clean up! This is why new buildings will have new ideas and standards, because real engineers are doing real work. Not all engineers are like 9/11 truth engineer making up lies! 99.999 percent actually can be rational and explain, or point you to the tools you can use to understand 9/11 with out the lies of 9/11 truth.

For those just thinking about 9/11 truth having some cool ideas, see http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)


Excuse me there nut case but did the FBI or NIST test for explosives? From what I understand they didn't. So how do you rule out explosives or incendiaries? There were plenty of people who said they heard explosive sounds. Read the Oral Histories of the firefighters.

I am not a 911 truth engineer. I am an American citizen who happens to be an engineer who is quite skeptical of the story we have been given about 911 and those collapses. I wish the FBI and NIST did test for explosives and incendiaries and rule them out. Why didn't they? As Max Photon says, if a doghouse burns down or collapses there would have been an arson investigation, so why weren't the unprecedented WTC collapses looked at from that angle?

You simply do not want to believe that it is possible that some people in this country could have pulled off an event like 911, while blaming others, to fool us into supporting pre-planned wars for oil.

[Major_Tom]

Beachnut, I've been reading your forum for some time,

The posters seemed to have had no idea that the core box columns were on the whole cleanly split along original weld surfaces until I began mentioning it to yourselves in this forum.

Now people talk about it as if it is an accepted fact.

People were talking about core box column sections experiencing buckling and plastic deformations and "hinging". They didn't seem to realize that the large majority of them were perfectly straight.

Beachnut writes:

Remember! There were real scientist and engineers wondering around inspecting steel and failure modes of the WTC! It is what scientist and engineers do; study stuff!

Then why haven't yourselves or they understood at what points the columns separated from one another until I pointed it out to you?

Why were they or yourselves unable to see the lack of permanent distortions on the large majority of core box column sections until I pointed it out repetitively?

Can you please point out where these scientistis and engineers mentioned weld failure as the failure mechanism of core box columns?

Yet note that you folks can see this. These on-site investigators couldn't see this yet you could.

Or rather, you couldn't until I pointed it out to you.

Now you act as if you had known all along.



If you have overlooked something as large as the core column failure mechanism, what else have you overlooked?

(Well, the perimeter column failure mechanism, for one. We'll talk about that soon.)

[Gravy]

Beachnut, I've been reading your forum for some time,

The posters seemed to have had no idea that the core box columns were on the whole cleanly split along original weld surfaces until I began mentioning it to yourselves in this forum.

Now people talk about it as if it is an accepted fact.Absolutely false. We had to repeatedly explain to you that of course most columns would break at their weakest points, and we had to repeatedly ask you why the collapses should have produced any different result. You could not answer.

People were talking about core box column sections experiencing buckling and plastic deformations and "hinging". They didn't seem to realize that the large majority of them were perfectly straight.False again. Why do you make things up? fourth time:

Most of the core columns recovered were significantly deformed, which made it difficult to select undeformed regions to harvest test specimens from. Even the relatively straight sections were often slightly bent. NIST NCSTAR 1-3D "Mechanical properties of structural steel," page 48 (82 in the PDF).
Then why haven't yourselves or they understood at what points the columns separated from one another until I pointed it out to you?You're lying.

Why were they or yourselves unable to see the lack of permanent distortions on the large majority of core box column sections until I pointed it out repetitively?You're making that up, based on some two-dimensional photos you've seen.


Now, Major Tom, please explain to me why the bent column ends in your photos did not bend after they fell. I'm waiting. When you answer, please don't make things up.

[Gravy]

Excuse me there nut case but did the FBI or NIST test for explosives? From what I understand they didn't. So how do you rule out explosives or incendiaries? There were plenty of people who said they heard explosive sounds. Read the Oral Histories of the firefighters.You really should do the same. Those people DO NOT claim that explosives or incendiaries were used to destroy the WTC skyscrapers.

Did eyewitnesses report hearing or seeing bombs and demolitions explosives in and around the towers? (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard)

I am not a 911 truth engineer. I am an American citizen who happens to be an engineer who is quite skeptical of the story we have been given about 911 and those collapses. And yet you've been able to show absolutely nothing wrong with what the investigators concluded or with what we've written here, while we point out error after error of yours. Do you plan to continue this utterly incompetent behavior, Tony Szamboti?

You simply do not want to believe that it is possible that some people in this country could have pulled off an event like 911, while blaming others, to fool us into supporting pre-planned wars for oil.How pathetic can you get? We ask for evidence. You have none. That's reality. Stop whining and live with it.

[beachnut]

Excuse me there nut case but did the FBI or NIST test for explosives? From what I understand they didn't. So how do you rule out explosives or incendiaries? There were plenty of people who said they heard explosive sounds. Read the Oral Histories of the firefighters.

I am not a 911 truth engineer. I am an American citizen who happens to be an engineer who is quite skeptical of the story we have been given about 911 and those collapses. I wish the FBI and NIST did test for explosives and incendiaries and rule them out. Why didn't they? As Max Photon says, if a doghouse burns down or collapses there would have been an arson investigation, so why weren't the WTC collapses looked at from that angle.

You simply do not want to believe that it is possible that some people in this country could have pulled off an event like 911 to fool us into supporting pre-planned wars for oil.
Yes you are, a 9/11 truth engineer who thinks, without evidence, that the WTC was blown up by who? You can't even tell us. Is it a secret you and Jones have?

You are a 9/11 truth engineer because you have ideas without facts on what happen on 9/11 – your name is a real 9/11 truth engineer name, realcddeal – funny

Fact less truth engineer of CD stuff. Your politics are showing, the facts don't count you just do not like oil or Bush or some other pathetic reason to blame others for UBL's killing Americans. Now that is fact less, and pure 9/11 truth.

No explosives, ask them, they will tell you. 6 years and no clue, just biased political based engineering of lies. You just said so! Good job debunking your paper. You should take out the political stuff.

[beachnut]

The posters seemed to have had no idea that the core box columns were on the whole cleanly split along original weld surfaces until I began mentioning it to yourselves in this forum.

Then why haven't yourselves or they understood at what points the columns separated from one another until I pointed it out to you?

Why were they or yourselves unable to see the lack of permanent distortions on the large majority of core box column sections until I pointed it out repetitively?

Can you please point out where these scientistis and engineers mentioned weld failure as the failure mechanism of core box columns?

Yet note that you folks can see this. These on-site investigators couldn't see this yet you could.

Or rather, you couldn't until I pointed it out to you.

Now you act as if you had known all along.

If you have overlooked something as large as the core column failure mechanism, what else have you overlooked?

(Well, the perimeter column failure mechanism, for one. We'll talk about that soon.)
You preach radio controlled bombs blew up the WTC. There were none found. Darn. The photos you show debunk your bombs!

It is that simple! Take your tripe to the nearest engineering expert in building, and CD expert and see what they say! You are BUSTED, you present the exact photos of the gravity collapse of the WTC; Thank you for hosting photos that show your ideas are wrong. Good job, I am using your photos to debunk the bombs! thanks again

[Tweeter]

Three cheers for Beach for not saying 9/11 in one of his posts.
Most of his posts are littered with it. I was beginning to think he was getting a nickel everytime he mentioned it.

[BenBurch]

...
You simply do not want to believe that it is possible that some people in this country could have pulled off an event like 911, while blaming others, to fool us into supporting pre-planned wars for oil.

No, son, I hate Bush more than you do, and have been in the fight against him since he announced his run for the White House back in 98 (I think) and nothing would make me happier than to think I could pin the Crime Of The Millenium on the boozed-up, coke-addled, FAS victim who stole the Presidency. Twice.

But I have looked at all of the evidence that exists, and all of the research work, and every single scrap of sub-literate prose the "truth" movement has come up with until my spleen hurts and I have found not one shred of evidence that anything happened on that day except what we all saw happen that day.

If you have something, PLEASE let me know, but it better be new because I have examined all the other claims and they are all damned LIES;



Fire Does Not "Melt" Steel
WTC-7 Countdown
Kevin McPadden (who reported the countdown) was a special-forces elite para-rescue.
Thermate Residue
Hole in Pentagon too small
No aircraft parts at Pentagon
No body parts at Pentagon
Aircraft parts at Pentagon not a Boeing
Planes that hit the towers were holograms
Towers brought down by space laser beams
NORAD stand down
Payne Stewart's plane intercepted quickly
Michael Chertoff related to the fellow from Popular Mechanics
Towers fell at or faster than free fall speed
No body of fire in the towers
No body of fire in WTC-7
WTC-7 undamaged by tower's collapse
4000 Jews not showing up to work in WTC
Dancing Jews in NJ Celebrating the tragedy
Silverstein making money on the insurance
WTC-2 Power-down. (MAYBE, but still not material)


All of the above are {RULE10} lies. Damned, stinking, filthy, dastardly LIES.

And I will not bring down a LIAR with a LIE.

That would make me just like he is.

And consider what that makes you, son.

[Major_Tom]

Gravy stresses:

Absolutely false. We had to repeatedly explain to you that of course most columns would break at their weakest points, and we had to repeatedly ask you why the collapses should have produced any different result. You could not answer.


You never mentioned it until I pointed out where they were separated.

Neither you, nor NIST, nor Mr. Bazant mentioned weld failure as the core "collapse" machanism. Notice that NIST and Mr. Bazant STILL DON'T recognize weld failure as the core calumn collapse mechanism.


Gravy, you continue to quote NIST and demonstrate the inability to look at photos with your own eyes. You quote:

Most of the core columns recovered were significantly deformed, which made it difficult to select undeformed regions to harvest test specimens from. Even the relatively straight sections were often slightly bent. NIST NCSTAR 1-3D "Mechanical properties of structural steel," page 48 (82 in the PDF).

This statement does not and cannot apply to core box columns.

This quote, applied to core box columns, shows just how much knowledge you actually have on the subject.

This is easily contradicted by a photographic forensic mapping of the crime scene, particularly photo collections of the North and South Tower debris piles.

It is a good thing that some people arguing for "progressive collapse" in this forum are not still trapped at that level of analysis.

Many people here are clearly realizing that your NIST quote above does not apply to core box columns.

[leftysergeant]

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo%20archives/bomb%20marks/FF_debris2_g1%20copy.jpg


I get this as a piece of perimeter column, rather than core column. I may be a bit heterodox in believing it, but I would say that most of the damage to the perimeter columns, once collapse had been initiated, was from the outward pressure of trhe falling debris, which would have separated the segments as units, just as they were installed. In the background are three columns of the same size, lying exactly parallel, which would make them, being connected in a way as to maintain this alignment, perimeter columns. I should expect there to be some distortion of such light metal elements, given that they would probably be much more flexible than core columns and would have been shoved farther out of allignment before yielding.


http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo%20archives/bomb%20marks/FF_pile_flag2_g1%20copy.jpg

Gravy, the damage pattern in box 1 is interesting, no?

Can anyone explain this in terms of weld failure?

Because is is very easy to explain in terms of an intentional attack against the weld location.

Are you sure that is a core column? It looks far smaller than the one the welder is sitting on. Its color sort of suggests fire damage, but I am not sure of that, or sure that that would be relevant. I am, further, not sure what sort of explosives could have caused that sort of damage. Shaped cutting charges are definitely out.

The big column that the welder is sitting on would look frshly-milled, but for the remnants of a welding bead, which, to me, looks like a pathetic way to splice two such huge pieces.

I have to wonder what kept those towers standing all those years in the first place.

I see in this large piece no slightest sing of thermite or explosive damage. I see only failed welds.

[BenBurch]

I may be a bit heterodox in believing it, but I would say that most of the damage to the perimeter columns, once collapse had been initiated, was from the outward pressure of trhe falling debris, which would have separated the segments as units, just as they were installed.

I, at least, agree. For at least some of the fall, the falling bolus of junk split off the walls like a rind... As if a banana were to expand inside starting at one end and moving to the other.

Likely there is a more apt analogy than this but I'm too tired and frustrated by making the PHP curl module do my bidding to think of it.

[Major_Tom]

Ben, you write: You preach radio controlled bombs blew up the WTC.

Ben, I collect photos.

Controlled demolition of a building, in it's most basic sense, means separating and displacing the vertical supports.

"Progressive collapse" means some kind of prorgessive failure in the VERTICAL SUPPORTS.

So, both parties interests are in understanding the failure of the VERTICAL SUPPORTS.



Now NIST has some theories, and Mr Bazant has a model, and people talk for years about this question.


How can all these people not have noticed that the large, large majority of core box columns lying in plain view in the rubble of both towers appears very straight and have cleanly squared -off ends?

Aren't the main vertical supports the chief focus of any collapse or demolition investigation?

How can all these people have missed that fact while many of us (except Gravy) can see that the core box columns are mostly straight with cleanly squared-off ends, showing very little plastic deformation of any kind?

So Ben, I collect photos of these vertical supports as they lay in the rubble, untouched at the scene of the crime.

I notice these patterns and some odd metal deformations at the very ends of some of these columns.

Devices used to split the welds is clearly a theory that can be put forth.


I'd like to hear what you have to say about the lateral forces needed to split a weld.

Or how do you see these welds split?

You folks were arguing that thes welds are pretty weak so they wouldn't be hard to split and in many cases may be done without leaving scars on the metal.

[BenBurch]

I never said *anything* about radio-controlled bombs!

Where on earth or beneath it did you come up with that bit of malarky?

[Major_Tom]

Small devices placed directly at weld connections for the purpose of severing and displacing the weld is a very viable theory for explaining all the actual observed phenomena of the "collapses".


Note that you yourself, if you are in agreement with the Bazant approach, have no viable mechanistic theory whatsoever for explaining the observed phenomema.

The only general mechanistic theory I have heard for "collapse" is...what?

1) Progressive perimeter column buckling or "creasing"? Real hard to explain with no observable quantities of perimeter buckling or creasing seen in the debris.

The perimeter buckling idea comes from the observation of ONE perimeter bending crease along only ONE line on only ONE face of only ONE of the towers ( inward bending, South Tower, east face, fl 81?)


Therefore, for both towers (8 individual faces), you have one observation of inward bending.

Forensic mapping of all major groups of perimeter columns seen in the rubble shows no observable significant "buckling" of creasing for most all of thes perimeter column pre-fabricated sections.

Look for yourself. The following link is to the largest collection of photos available to the public which focuses only on perimeter sections as they were photographed in the rubble. This truly is a comprehensive mapping of the perimeter columns at the scene of the crime.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=12&MMN_position=102:102



2) What is your next choice, collapsing floors? These collapsing floors leave core and perimeter columns standing, and these columns collapse under their own weight?



Nope.



How about a core "weld failure" triggered collapse?


Can anyone give me at least a pencil sketch of a rapidly descending collapse mechanism which explains the observed phenomena?


6 years later and you can't even give me a pencil sketch of the possible collapse mechanisms which you claim happened inside "all that dust"?


Let's try do show a mechanism based on core weld failure. Each column spans 38 feet (3 typical floors) and all 47 core columns have their welds at the exact same elevations.

I'll provide an accurate model of the WTC core structure and then you can show us how this progressive and rapidly descending weld failure happens.

We'll combine that with a basic perimeter model which accounts for the clearly observed and verifiable "outward peeling" phenomenon observed to occur on all 8 faces of the perimeter.

Should I provide the model to simulate the "progressive collapse"?

[BenBurch]

I'm sorry. Get some sleep and re-word that because I couldn't even begin to make a coherent statement or set thereof from what you wrote.

[Corsair 115]

...to fool us into supporting pre-planned wars for oil.That "war for oil" is a curious thing, since in 2006 the U.S. imported 30% less oil from Iraq than it did in 2001. This in spite of overall demand being 8% higher. It's curious too since over one-sixth of all U.S. crude oil imports came from Canda in 2006, the #1 ranked supplier. If it's only about oil, then the U.S. would have gotten far better use of its money by, instead of spending the hundreds of billions of dollars on a war in Iraq, investing it in the oil production of Alberta.

The province and Canada generally would have welcomed the investment, and the U.S. would have done far more to have a reliable and secure source of petroleum on its national doorstep.

[Major_Tom]

Sorry. I'll keep it simple:


North Tower Collapse:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_math/collapse_cloud.jpg


Folks that believe in "progressive collapse":

Nobody has ever been able to explain whats actually going on, how the building is really falling.

That collapse front isn't that big, folks.




6 years and nobody can explain what is going on in all that dust?


We just have perimeter columns, a core and floors.


If you folks can't explain what's going on in that rather compact dust cloud, then charges placed at core weld connections is looking like a pretty good possibility.


And remember, you have to explain it in terms of core weld failures. Each column section is about 38 feet long and all 47 have their welds on the exact same floors.

Good luck.


After you finish I'll explain it in terms of weld attacks and attacks along the 4 perimeter corners.

[beachnut]

Small devices placed directly at weld connections for the purpose of severing and displacing the weld is a very viable theory for explaining all the actual observed phenomena of the "collapses". No it is not. It is a stupid idea. Fantasy!

When you find some evidence you need to come back; so far you photos debunk your explosives big time.

[uk_dave]

We just have perimeter columns, a core and floors.




And aluminium cladding and glass and plasterboard and ceiling tiles and office furniture and elevators and bathrooms and aircon ducts........

[BenBurch]

And note that the building was MUCH taller originally than when this photo was taken.

Major Tom, sorry, you don't have even the first clue of what you are talking about!

[leftysergeant]

Radio-controlled bombs are a really stupid idea in a building that has such an enormous radio transmitting array on the top, dontcha think? None of us JREF regulars would want to do it that way, for sure. A few of the trolls might, but what have they got for intelligence?

THe idea that explosives on the bases of those columns could produce such a clean break with no melting or distortion of the steel shows that you have no knowledge of explosives. I suggest you stop and get a clue beofree you make us go on a real tirade that gets us in trouble with the mods.

Shaped charges cause visible MELTING. Got that? Good.

[BenBurch]

Honestly, if I wanted to make buildings identical to those fall down, I would just crash an airliner into them.

In fact in June of 2001 I was on The Mike Malloy Show and, while discussing what a dumb idea the Ballistic Missile Defense was and is (they never made it work even once without a cooperative target) I said the most likely way a terrorist would hurt us is to steal an airliner and crash it into a target of high value. I missed slightly in that I suggested that the spent fuel pool of a reactor or the Union Carbide plant in Institute, WV- not realizing that a symbolic target would be better to a terrorist than one that would cause the most death.

[Gravy]

In the most recent quoted posts below, I've highlighted Major Tom's knowingly dishonest statements in red.
The posters seemed to have had no idea that the core box columns were on the whole cleanly split along original weld surfaces until I began mentioning it to yourselves in this forum.

Now people talk about it as if it is an accepted fact.

People were talking about core box column sections experiencing buckling and plastic deformations and "hinging". They didn't seem to realize that the large majority of them were perfectly straight.

Then why haven't yourselves or they understood at what points the columns separated from one another until I pointed it out to you?

Why were they or yourselves unable to see the lack of permanent distortions on the large majority of core box column sections until I pointed it out repetitively?

Can you please point out where these scientistis and engineers mentioned weld failure as the failure mechanism of core box columns?

Yet note that you folks can see this. These on-site investigators couldn't see this yet you could.

Or rather, you couldn't until I pointed it out to you.

Now you act as if you had known all along.


Absolutely false. We had to repeatedly explain to you that of course most columns would break at their weakest points, and we had to repeatedly ask you why the collapses should have produced any different result. You could not answer.

Now, Major Tom, please explain to me why the bent column ends in your photos did not bend after they fell. I'm waiting. When you answer, please don't make things up.

Gravy stresses:
Absolutely false. We had to repeatedly explain to you that of course most columns would break at their weakest points, and we had to repeatedly ask you why the collapses should have produced any different result. You could not answer. You never mentioned it until I pointed out where they were separated.

Neither you, nor NIST, nor Mr. Bazant mentioned weld failure as the core "collapse" machanism. Notice that NIST and Mr. Bazant STILL DON'T recognize weld failure as the core calumn collapse mechanism.


Major Tom, not only are these statements false, but you know they're false, as you stated in another thread (see quoted post 259 below).

Allow me to remind you that you arrived on this forum on page four, post 153 of this thread:

How were WTC core columns separated at the weld planes? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96473)


If one examines the high-resolution photos at the FEMA Photo Library of Disaster #1391 - New York Terror Attacks - one sees that the vast majority of core columns are separated into 3-story lengths, and that the separations are at the weld planes.None of the respondents in that thread disagreed with that premise, and several qualified people explained why the column segments would be expected to fail at their welds. Those respondents included:

A welding inspector
A metallurgist
Several structural engineers
Several mechanical engineers, including specialists in failure analysis and structural dynamics
An airframe engineer
A physicist
A boiler and pressure vessel inspector
A rocket scientist

These are people with relevant real-world experience. While it bothers me greatly that you don't care about wasting the time of these accomplished people, I'm not making a fallacious appeal to authority. I pay attention to what these people say. A sample (including some comments by myself and other laymen):

Post 2: Myriad
Dynamic loads experienced during collapse, caused the welds to fail.
There you go.

Post 6: Gregory Urich
When I consider the probability of co-axial collisions of columns once the collapse starts (which is extremely low), I am forced to look at the other possibility which is floors and horizontal members impacting each other due to horizontal displacement. The result would be unshored columns which are much easier to break and which would break at the weakest points (i.e. the welds). My opinion is that the only columns failing in compression mode would be at the onset of collapse. Still there is alot of energy that gets spent in the process.


Post 17: Newton's Bit
There are very few instances where connections are designed to be stronger than the elements the connections are connecting. The main reason is that it is prohibitively expensive to do this, and it is much simpler and cost-effective to design the connections to resist the applied loads. It is fairly safe to assume that the column-splices at the WTC did not develop the entire strength of the column at the connection in all axes.

The interior columns would be subject to minimal (really zero) lateral forces or tension. As the load on the columns is almost a pure compression element, the only welding required would really be for stability and strength during construction. It makes perfect sense that interior columns would fail at connections.Skipping ahead to where Major Tom comes in,

Post 153 Major_Tom
...1) Amazingly, even after all the abuse to which these core box column sections were subject, the large, large majority are perfectly straight.

2) The large, large majority of these core box column sections have cleanly squared-off ends. They came apart from one another by cleanly breaking along their original weld surfaces.

These 2 facts are very important to anyone who is postulating how and where each of the 47 core box columns broke into much smaller sections.

Of particular importance is how and wherethe strongest core columns, particularly columns rows 500 and 1000, were separated from one another and what "buckling", if any, is observable on these column sections as they were seen in the rubble.

It is very easy to identify core box column sections in the rubble. They truly do stick out like "sore thumbs".

It is also very easy to look at their ends and see how and where, and with what possible bending or force, they were separated from one another.


Post 154 Gravy
Welcome to the forums, Major Tom. At your website I see many photos and graphics, but I see no information that justifies the speculation of "apparent bomb damage."

1) You do not explain why the same damage could not have been caused by the collapse of hundreds of millions of pounds of building materials, in addition to the possible compression and heating of steel post-collapse.

2) You do not present known examples of similar heavy steel that suffered bomb damage for comparison.

3) You do not explain the mechanism by which explosives could produce the effects you illustrate with the photos. For example, you suggest that this steel was bent by explosives:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790471d70ae429ce.jpg

Why? What type and amount of explosive would be needed to produce all of the observed effects, and at what stand-off distance? (I'm quite sure the answer is "none," but I'd like to hear what you say. In fact, I insist on it, if you're going to promote the information on that site.) In addition, what secondary effects would we expect to see and hear from such massive blasts?

Also, I note that you have much of Max Photon's material on your site. Do you support his claims or think they may have merit? Thanks for your reply.


Post 156: Gumboot
There's a single question which you haven't mentioned in your analysis.

When did the core columns give way?

The easily provided answer to this question quite simply refutes any and all demolition theories.


Post 157: Major Tom
1) The large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble are totally straight.

2) The large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble have squared-off ends with clean breaks that are right along the original weld surfaces.

...Since this is possible to verify using the resources mentioned before, can we agree that the large, large majority of core box column sections as seen in the rubble are in a remarkably well-preserved condition, without bends or dents?


Post 159: R. Mackey
Actually NIST considered this in depth. See NCSTAR1-3. The purpose of their steel recovery effort was to identify the different failure modes of individual elements, to the extent that they could be localized in the structure.

I take it you aren't familiar with fracture, or the fact that the welds are generally much weaker than the columns and beams themselves?

Or the fact that, during collapse, forces to the lower structure would induce stress at the connections rather than hitting the pieces in the middle?

In other words, you've just comprehensively refuted the explosives hypothesis. Your own observation proves it quite nicely.

Explosives may leave sheared off edges, but the appearance is remarkably different from that caused by impact, overload, or any combination thereof. There are no pieces of steel that exhibit this appearance. None.Major Tom responds with the same old threadbare mantra:

Post 160: Major Tom
...The correct theory must involve massive weld failure with very little column bending at all, simply because almost no column bending was witnessed in the rubble and these core column box sections were seen to be split at the welds in most all cases seen in the rubble.

Post 207: Major Tom
Let's review what these 2 assertions are.

1) The large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble are totally straight.

2) The large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble have squared-off ends with clean breaks that are right along the original weld surfaces.


Post 208: R. Mackey
Look, Tom, I already explained to you how this was in fact proof that there were no explosives -- it is precisely what we expect in a building collapse of this nature.

You didn't seem to like my answer, however. So, let's try something different. How about you tell us what this means?

* Why does this phenomenon suggest something other than a gravity-driven collapse to you?
* Why do you think the columns should have been bent?
* Describe, as completely as you can, the forces that would go into bending a given column, and how this is consistent with explosives.

Looking forward to your response.And look how Major Tom responds to that.


Post 210: Major Tom
1) The large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble are totally straight.

2) The large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble have squared-off ends with clean breaks that are right along the original weld surfaces.

You implicitly seem to agree that these are verifiable facts. Is this true?


R.Mackey tries again:Post 211: R. Mackey
Again, I want to know why you think straight girders, broken apart at the welds, is suspicious. I don't find it so. You think it's a big deal. Enlighten me.


Post 213: cmcaulif
Major T, this might help a bit:

Figure 11(e) shows interior columns of the towers stacked on top of each other at recycling plant. Almost all interior column pieces that were inspected were intact and did not show failure of welds. [the longitudinal welds to fabricate the columns, not the welds between completed column segments) As indicated earlier, these columns were gravity columns and their splices did not need to be designed for any amount of tension or bending. However, a minimal splice was provided for these columns presumably for secondary forces and the forces during construction. Obviously, such minimal splices did not have a chance during the collapse stage to keep the columns together and had fractured. Observing the fact that the interior column splices were not needed and were so minimal, it is not clear if when the attacking Boeing 767 airplanes entered the towers any of the interior column were actually dislodged and eliminated or bent due to failure of their splices.

World Trade Center Post-Disaster Reconnaisance and Perishable Structural Engineering Data Collection by Abolhassan Asteneh-Asl http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf
Post 218: Gravy
I'd be very interested what experts in explosives and failure analysis have to say about your claims, would you? If so, will you be contacting them? The results of such communications would make for an informative thread for all.

How about it, Major Tom? You do want to know what people who actually study these things have to say, rather than relying on your (very) amateur speculation, don't you?

Will you be contacting experts?

...And can you think of a reason that, in a collapse, most columns wouldn't break at their weakest point? I can't.


Post 225 rwguinn
So, Tom has discovered a way to induce a bending moment into a beam with no shear or moment carrying end conditions?

This will turn the engineering world upside down!


Post 234: cmcaulif
who knows if that is what he is actually claiming, though given the description of the splices from Dr, Abohassan-Asl, it certainly sounds reasonable that a member in bending would fail at the splices while the member itself is still in the elastic region.And after all that, look at the complete nonsense Major Tom posts, as if nothing had happened:

Post 241: Major Tom
Judging by some of the comments, many people seem to be unaware that these columns were indeed separated along their original welds as can be seen in collections of photos of the rubble.

...I fear since no expert seemed to explicitly address the core box column-to-column connections, with nobody to quote, many of the posters will find themselves at a total loss as to how we can study them.


Post 242: R.Mackey
No!

We asked you -- and I asked you very clearly -- why you think this indicates anything unusual.

You said in your first post that it was indicative of explosives (but edited it out after Gravy called you on it; tsk, tsk). This is wrong. Since then, you've very coyly avoided any answer whatsoever.

Of course, your site includes all kinds of nutty speculation about explosives... so why the evasion? Why edit out the phrase "apparent bomb damage" from your initial post? Why avoid the question?

You and Max should get along just fine, if this aversion to articulating your ideas is your typical behavior.


Post 245: cmcaulif
LOL, did I not agree with your simple observable and verifiable facts that you are alluding to here, and link to more photos of unbuckled columns failed at the splice?

Its pretty clear you think the obvious is true, and contrary to what you think, no one disagrees with the observed failure modes, what is unclear is why you think the observed failures should be considered unusual. You have been asked to explain your position several times and have not done so, so I honestly still don't know what you are claiming.


Post 246: Gravy
You have been repeatedly asked to justify the claims you make on your website. You have not attempted to do so.

You have repeatedly been asked why, in a collapse, the core columns should not have separated at their weakest points.

Please answer the question.

...My eyes are fine. I ask you again, so that you can't say you didn't see the question:

In a collapse, would the core columns likely separate at their weakest points? Yes or no?

...You have not distinguished yourself from the dime-a-dozen conspiracists we see all the time, who argue from ignorance. If you think you can step up and defend your position with relevant facts, then get to it. If not, then you must reconsider your position.

Clear enough, Major Tom?


Post 252: Sunstealer, Metallurgist
It's strange isn't it, that a failure mode would incorporate the weakest points of a structure. :rolleyes:

...Failure along welds caused by shear stress often looks very smooth. It's nothing out of the ordinary if you understand what you are looking at and why.


Post 259: Major Tom
...A note to cmcaulif: Your right. I stand corrected.


Post 260: Major Tom
Also recall that not all welds are created equal. The mechanical floors had full welds and bolts, too. This also holds true low in the structure (the biggest columns) where the core structure was required to have lateral stability -- making up for the 2/3 fewer perimeter columns on the lowest seven floors -- and was heavily cross-braced. Away from these places, not so much.


Post 261: R.mackey
What's important is that the majority of welds were substantially weaker, particularly with respect to moment, than the columns themselves. It isn't significant that a few lucky welds survived. What's significant, albeit totally contrary to Major Tom's still-semi-secret-for-some-reason explosives hypothesis, is that weld failure without significant column bending is exactly what one expects in a gravity-driven collapse... and not what we expect if explosives were used.

It'll be interesting to see if Major Tom ever completes his thought.


Post 284: Gravy
Originally Posted by Major_Tom
Max asks: How strong were the welds?As we're discussing the core columns, the answer is, "Generally weaker than the columns." Of all the core column samples that FEMA/ASCE collected, only one section had an intact butt weld.

Had you read the NIST report, you'd also know that most of the core columns collected were badly deformed, and that even the sections that appeared straight were usually bent. That made it difficult for NIST to test "virgin" core column steel to use as a basis for comparison.

Perhaps you're thinking, "Oh, but that's because those samples were from the impact zones." No, only two core column samples could be identified as coming from those zones.

See, that's why I quizzed you on this stuff above. I wanted to see what you'd read of the studies that were done by the people who actually collected and tested the steel. The answer is obviously "very little."

Some perimeter columns told a different story. On mechanical floors, perimeter columns were both bolted and welded. Those joints tended to be "overwelded" and stronger than the relatively thin cross-section of the columns.

Of course, reading the NIST report and learning these things would have interfered with your Really Big Adventure O' Ignorant Speculation and Disdain for Expertise, wouldn't it?

Are you learning, Major Tom? Or are we wasting our time here?


Post 290: Gravy
Major Tom, you've made zero progress. Please pay attention.

...Had you read the NIST report as I have, you'd know that I know exactly which types, and how many, core columns were collected by FEMA/ASCE. I would tell you where to find that information, but you really need to start with chapter 1, NIST NCSTAR 1.

Will you do that today? It's not long and it's written for the layman. Nothing to be intimidated by.

As NIST notes, columns that can at first glance appear to be straight can actually have considerable distortion to them. Do you understand that the few photos you've seen are only an approximation of reality? That a low-resolution, two-dimensional reproduction of an object is no substitute for seeing, feeling, measuring, and studying the same object?

Understanding this point is a big step towards correcting your flawed thinking. I'd appreciate your answer.

...That's been our contention all along, Major Tom, because the majority of the columns break at their weakest point. You'd know this if you had been paying attention.

You have repeatedly been asked if you understand this point. Do you? Yes or no? If you do not, we can spend more time on it until it's clear.

...You think we're here to have our time wasted? I've already told you that we've all seen the photos and agree that nothing appears amiss with the way the columns separated.

It is you who has a problem with the photos, not us. And since you are unable to articulate why you think the columns should have separated differently, despite being asked repeatedly to do so, it is you who must pay attention, read, and learn.We arrive at the question of whether your dishonesty is deliberate or spontaneous and uncontrollable. If it is deliberate, then you should stop that childish behavior immediately. And if you cannot control your lying, then you should seek competent mental health care until you have that problem sorted out.

Whatever its cause, your behavior is immature, rude, and insulting to the people who have patiently explained reality to you. Please do not push your childish religion here.

[Gravy]

This statement does not and cannot apply to core box columns.And yet it does! Ain't reality a stone-cold bitch, Major Tom?

Remember your "guarantee," which you fled from like a typical truther scared bunny, and remember how you then refused to apologize for lying about me? The same terms still apply (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3095867&postcount=290), Major Tom. Show your friend Max Photon what kind of man you.

[Major_Tom]

Gravy, you are right. I should have stated the following: Max Photon first mentioned it but he got the idea from me elsewhere.

It first appeared here THROUGH Max.

Max knows that I first introduced the idea through the stj911 forum about 9 months back and have been talking about it ever since.
Terms like "weld plane", as Max uses it, were first introduced by me and Max is aware of it.

So you are correct. The statement:

The posters seemed to have had no idea that the core box columns were on the whole cleanly split along original weld surfaces until I began mentioning it to yourselves in this forum.


I misspoke and I'd prefer to phase the notion differently.

Perhaps you would agree that it was not mentioned until MAX brought it up, but but the idea came through me and one other fellow.


And note that NIST is STILL not aware of this fact.


That was one hell of a post.

Thanks for collecting those quotes into this thread.



Lefty Sergent writes:

THe idea that explosives on the bases of those columns could produce such a clean break with no melting or distortion of the steel shows that you have no knowledge of explosives.

That is a great point.

Many oif the earlier posts on this thread claim that the welds were rather shallow amd the columns are just sitting on top of each with minimum lateral strength.

I happen to disagree, but isn't it just a question of the minimal "kick" needed to break the weld and displace the column?

So to address this we need to know more about the strength of the welds against a short, quick "kick" to the long side of the column end.

It would be nice for someone with knowledge in explosives to join the exchange.



Ben notes:

Honestly, if I wanted to make buildings identical to those fall down, I would just crash an airliner into them.



Airliners are no longer necessary. According to the Bazant analysis, renting floorspace on a very short term lease in the targeted building is much easier.

Just a one month lease for an office in a skyscraper which is on one of the same floor with the welded column connections.


According to Bazant, if the terrorists can pop out just half the welds, the building is assured of being totally destroyed.

If terrorists apply the simple equations of Bazant, then they will know that the highest floors of the building are actually the easiest floors to attack, since the welds will be much easier to break.

According to Bazant, the terrorists are guaranteed as much success attacking the highest floors (97th floor in the North Tower) as they are the lowest.

Either way, "complete destruction is assured".

[funk de fino]

Amazingly, even after all the abuse to which these core box column sections were subject, the large, large majority are perfectly straight.

See this is where I have a problem with your claim. You have to back this up with evidence. I hope it is not just photos of columns. To claim this you would have to have seen measurements of said columns? They may look straight in a photo but that means nothing. I have taken off cylinder heads on cars before that have overheated. They look straight to the naked eye and in photos, should one take them. They are not straight when you measure them.

Going by what Gravy has posted from the NIST report even ones which look straight were slightly deformed. How much deflection and deformation would be needed to break the weld?

[BenBurch]

Major Tom,

You are not thinking clearly if you don't realize that what you propose would be accompanied with SO much noise that you'd never get more than or two welds compromised before William Rodriguez and his buddies came to see what was happening to their building.

And that is without assuming you would be making noise cutting into the very solid fireproofing sheetrock that keeps those joints hidden from the view of people in offices.

And you should also know that there isn't a tenant lease in the land that doesn't allow free access to your space by building engineers.

Simply, what you propose cannot be done by a tenant.

And you should have been smart enough to realize this.

-Ben

[Major_Tom]

Mr. funk,

I'll gladly change the claim from perfectly straight to "really straight".

"Straight to the naked eye".


I am emphasizing the lack of "buckling" or even noticable belding. I also want to emphasize the lack of something as simple as denting on most all of them.

All my claims refer to core BOX columns.





Ben, all they need is one night. Magnetic placement of very small devices just along the weld seams.

Elevator access.



But I don't believe in the Bazant equations like many of you do.

I was just mentioning that for those that believe in Bazant's conclusions, both building demolition and urban large scale terrorism just became much easier, at least on paper.

[funk de fino]

Mr. funk,

I'll gladly change the claim from perfectly straight to "really straight".

"Straight to the naked eye".


I am emphasizing the lack of "buckling" or even noticable belding. I also want to emphasize the lack of something as simple as denting on most all of them.

All my claims refer to core BOX columns.


No forensic evidence just what you think you can see from photos?

Brilliant skills, remind me again why anybody should take you seriously?

[Newtons Bit]

Mr. funk,

I'll gladly change the claim from perfectly straight to "really straight".

"Straight to the naked eye".


I am emphasizing the lack of "buckling" or even noticable belding. I also want to emphasize the lack of something as simple as denting on most all of them.

All my claims refer to core BOX columns.



Ben, all they need is one night. Magnetic placement of very small devices just along the weld seems.

Elevator access.



But I don't believe in the Bazant equations like many of you do.

I was just mentioning that for those that believe in Bazant's conclusions, both building demolition and urban large scale terrorism just became much easier, at least on paper.


All my claims refer to core BOX columns.

:mad:

The buckling and formation of plastic hinges is the mechanism in which columns fail axially. To appease the truth movement, some people like myself have ignored the fact that the columns are even spliced in our calculations, preferring to instead use the columns as full sections as this requires more energy to dissipate.

That said, even spliced together columns will buckle and develop plastic hinges under high enough pure axial loading. However, one of the plastic hinges of this column will be at a splice point. And since splices are brittle and of lower strength than the column section itself, we can expect minimal rotation of the column when the splice fails.

But again, we assume that the splices are strong to appease the assumptions and lunacies of people like Gordon Ross and the rest of the truthers who say that there's no way the building could have collapsed, that it would have bounced.

[Major_Tom]

NB, this was not appeasement.

You folks simply did not know that the welds were the "plastic hinges".


Note that it is Bazant that requires an extreme rigidity for his "upper block". It is he that needs to pretend that the weakest weld connections did not exist or there is no composite object to "crush" the lower block.


This was not appeasement. It was simply working with the wrong model.


You mention:

That said, even spliced together columns will buckle and develop plastic hinges under high enough pure axial loading.

The much more probable model would be weld breaks based on lateral "jolts".

The only way Bazant was able to consider extreme axial loads is because his model is based on direct column-to-column collisions.

Direct column-to-column collisions head on? Another fantasy.

The column to-column collision assumption favors Bazant, not the opposing argument.

Once again, not appeasement. Just some fictional model.

[Gravy]

Gravy, you are right. I should have stated the following: Max Photon first mentioned it but he got the idea from me elsewhere.

It first appeared here THROUGH Max.No, Major Tom, we've had to explain to many truthers, in words and with photos, that most of the columns broke at their welds into truck-length segments, as they were fabricated. You and Max bring an amazing amount of solipsistic egotism, and a talent for ignoring the bloody obvious, to this forum. You may as well have told us that you introduced the news that the buildings were on fire.

Now, Major Tom, explain to us why you continued to insist that we didn't understand this concept, even after you acknowledged that we did?

And explain why you would not answer our repeated calls for you to explain what was unusual about the columns separating at their welds.

And explain why, after months, you still are unable to make any sort of coherent argument or present evidence that calls into question the gravity-driven collapses.

Still waiting for your explanation and your apology for wasting our time. Are you mature enough to do that and start on the road to rationality?

[Major_Tom]

We? Are all you guys a big team?

Gravy, I hope you handle these interchanges more calmly than you appear to.


Some of the posters have a lot of useful information to offer. Many people picked up on the new info about the core box columns rather quickly. And they offer useful information in turn.


You, on the other hand, seem to be lagging behind a bit.


You seem to be so obsessed with criticizing those who don't see the world as you do that you don't seem to have any useful research information to offer on the subject.


Mr funk, photographic evidence is forensic evidence.

[Gravy]

One last time, Major Tom. Are you mature enough?


Now, Major Tom, explain to us why you continued to insist that we didn't understand this concept, even after you acknowledged that we did?

And explain why you would not answer our repeated calls for you to explain what was unusual about the columns separating at their welds.

And explain why, after months, you still are unable to make any sort of coherent argument or present evidence that calls into question the gravity-driven collapses.

Still waiting for your explanation and your apology for wasting our time. Are you mature enough to do that and start on the road to rationality?

[Newtons Bit]

Nevermind the fact that I posted this:
Your Eplastic figure is very important in this calculation and reasonably should be dropped. To assume the columns undergo 90 degree plastic hinges is a little absurd. Especially considering 1/3 of the columns on that floor will have a splice point at a plastic hinge. That splice will not rotate, it will fracture immediately absorbing almost no energy.

Before this thread was even started. I've talked about this concept before here and elsewhere (probably LCF). It's not rocket science.

[BenBurch]

Ben, all they need is one night. Magnetic placement of very small devices just along the weld seams.

Elevator access.



I estimated the man hours to get to a single weld seam at 6 man hours. And that is with power VERY loud tools. You appear to be completely ignorant of how work is done. I suspect because you've never done a day's hard physical labor in your whole life.

So, what you suggest is not possible.

And the devices you suggest are not small. And the reason for that is unless you have cored the steel and embedded the explosive with carefully-placed taping, most of the energy is wasted. The air is the path of least resistance here; The force of the explosive shrugged off by the steel until the bomb is quite large.

Which means you have never dealt with explosives in your life.

I have.

You're acting a fool here, son.

[Gravy]

Major Tom doesn't even know that most of the columns in the collapse initiation zones weren't accessible from the elevator shafts, and those that were, were subjected to airliner impacts and raging fires. He can't be bothered to do the most basic research to determine if anything he believes is true.

Like his friend Max Photon, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, he doesn't care to learn, and he's having a good time wasting the time of intelligent, patient people.

[BenBurch]

Major Tom doesn't even know that most of the columns in the collapse initiation zones weren't accessible from the elevator shafts, and those that were, were subjected to airliner impacts and raging fires. He can't be bothered to do the most basic research to determine if anything he believes is true.

Like his friend Max Photon, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, he doesn't care to learn, and he's having a good time wasting the time of intelligent, patient people.

Exactly.

You know, big iron buildings like that ring like bells when you work on the skeletons... So in addition to hush-a-boom bombs, you need silent vibrationless power tools...

And if we have those, can somebody get my neighbor a set, please? He has taken to working out in his garage every weekend night to 2 or 3 in the morning.

[funk de fino]

Mr funk, photographic evidence is forensic evidence.

Those were forensic photographs taken at the scene by the investigators? Are all photographs forensic evidence?

And this is supposed to show you that the columns were straight? This is what your whole theory rests on? That you think the columns look straight in a photo?

Where are the measurements? What do NIST say about columns?

[leftysergeant]

Placing cutting charges on the welds would leave a distinctive signiture invollving a bit of melting as well as distortion of surrounding metal. I dont see that. I see broken weld beads. Show me melted ends.

[Major_Tom]

Newt, you are ahead of the curve on a lot of this stuff.

There are so many threads in this forum.

So that I can catch up on what was said previously, could you please direct me to the conversations you folks have had in the past on the topic of the straightness of the core box columns in the rubble and their ends being just along the original weld surfaces?


The topic began by discussing welds among other things.

Some people mentioned that the welds have very little resistance to a lateral kick.

So, Leftysergent, we would have to know how strong a jolt is necessary from the side of the weld before we can address how strong the device would need to be or how much damage a device would leave.

No cutter charges. Nothing is being cut.

[Gravy]

Third time, Major Tom:

Now, Major Tom, explain to us why you continued to insist that we didn't understand this concept, even after you acknowledged that we did?

And explain why you would not answer our repeated calls for you to explain what was unusual about the columns separating at their welds.

And explain why, after months, you still are unable to make any sort of coherent argument or present evidence that calls into question the gravity-driven collapses.

Still waiting for your explanation and your apology for wasting our time. Are you mature enough to do that and start on the road to rationality?

[BenBurch]

Gravy,

Looking for maturity from a truther is, well, expecting them to become a non-truther. No actually mature person could maintain something like this so long in the face of reality. It is like believing in The Great Pumpkin.

-Ben

http://www.thegreenhead.com.nyud.net/imgs/great-pumpkin-3.jpg

[PhantomWolf]

Okay, so I'm a little confused. Is Tom trying to claim that the core columns that NIST were interested, ie those from the collpase zones that were first pummeled by a 767 slamming into them and then having the top section fall onto them, should be in as good a condition as the core columns that NIST wasn't interested in and split apart when the "spires" fell?

[leftysergeant]

Some people mentioned that the welds have very little resistance to a lateral kick.

So, Leftysergent, we would have to know how strong a jolt is necessary from the side of the weld before we can address how strong the device would need to be or how much damage a device would leave.

No cutter charges. Nothing is being cut.

You would still need a lot of explosives to kick the columns. That's part of why shaped charges are used as cutting charges. More of the energy is directerd at the spot where you want to break something.

To kick the columns, the charges would have to be somewhat out in the open, and they would created a noticeable overpressurization of the floors on which they are located.

They would also make a God-awful racket.

We have no sign of this anywhere.