PDA

View Full Version : WTC structural integrity.


stateofgrace
2nd April 2007, 05:06 AM
I am arguing with a couple of truthers on another forum about the structural integrity of the towers prior to the collapse.

My argument, to me anyway seems pretty simple; as each plane slammed into the buildings the external columns were seriously compromised. This damage, along with fires led to the start of the collapse, i.e. through the floors sagging, buckling the external columns and eventually failing.

Of course the truthers refuse to accept my explanation and are arguing that the damage to each building was only slight. They are arguing that only between 15 and 20 percent of the supporting structure was taken out and thus what remained should have easily supported the weight above. The argument then goes that the fires had too much work to do in such a short time to start the collapse.

Basically this is the argument being put forward by the truthers

Check out FEMA chapter 2, it has detailed info on the damages to the perimeter columns by the impacts in both towers. You'll find less than 15% in either building was knocked out, just on the impacted floors.

Then check out NIST simulations of the damage sustained to the core. They even changed a plane's trajectory to get the most damage they possibly could, and only got something like 7 columns severed out of ~50, and a slightly larger number that sustained anywhere from major damage, to a scratch. The rest were perfectly fine.

Let's assume the total equivalent redundancy of a given floor is at least 200% (more than reasonable -- overshooting your target loads by a factor of 2, or 200%, is common for CONVENTIONAL construction; skyscrapers and experimental structures tend to have much greater safety factors, at least ~5).

Even in that bare minimum of column redundancy for safety reasons, the structures were in no danger of collapse from the plane impacts alone. A lot was left for the fire to do, and so much catastrophic failure from fire is completely unprecedented


Can anybody help me out here and point towards a study or the part in NIST's report that addresses this.

Also I know there are photographs of the bowing prior to collapse and the core after the collapse, could somebody post them please.

Thanks in advance..

ref
2nd April 2007, 05:17 AM
http://www.debunking911.com/pullin2.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht2.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht3.jpg

The Great Hairy One
2nd April 2007, 05:28 AM
I count more than 20%.

Cheers,
TGHO

ref
2nd April 2007, 05:31 AM
Here is core.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

Gravy
2nd April 2007, 05:38 AM
Ask them to read NIST NCSTAR 1-6D. It explains, with lots of graphics and some photos, how they arrived at their estimates of column loading under different scenarios (don't forget about the damaged core columns!).

ETA: Oh, and ask them for a reference on their "safety factor" claim. They won't have one. NIST NCSTAR 1-2 covers the demand-to-capacity ratios for the tower columns.

The Great Hairy One
2nd April 2007, 05:54 AM
By the nostrils, those photos are just as powerful now as they were 6 years ago. Still chill me to the bone.

Cheers,
TGHO

stateofgrace
2nd April 2007, 06:42 AM
Thanks guys this is why I like coming to this forum, there is always somebody willing to help, exchange knowledge and point people in the right way to gather information.

stateofgrace

aggle-rithm
2nd April 2007, 07:02 AM
Even if you assume that this part:
Check out FEMA chapter 2, it has detailed info on the damages to the perimeter columns by the impacts in both towers. You'll find less than 15% in either building was knocked out, just on the impacted floors.

Then check out NIST simulations of the damage sustained to the core. They even changed a plane's trajectory to get the most damage they possibly could, and only got something like 7 columns severed out of ~50, and a slightly larger number that sustained anywhere from major damage, to a scratch. The rest were perfectly fine.


is correct (it is at least verifiable), it is only part of the argument. The tactic they are using here is to create an illusion of a supported argument. Unfortunately, this is the last time they provide any basis for their claims:


Let's assume the total equivalent redundancy of a given floor is at least 200% (more than reasonable -- overshooting your target loads by a factor of 2, or 200%, is common for CONVENTIONAL construction; skyscrapers and experimental structures tend to have much greater safety factors, at least ~5).

Here we just have to take their word for it that 200% is common for conventional construction, and 500% for skyscrapers. I would want to see some verification for this claim, since I have heard from more qualified individuals that these numbers aren't even close. And, are they talking about static load or live load? They don't know, because they're just making it up.


Even in that bare minimum of column redundancy for safety reasons, the structures were in no danger of collapse from the plane impacts alone.


Again, we have to take their word for it.


A lot was left for the fire to do,


"A lot"? Is that the technical engineering term?

and so much catastrophic failure from fire is completely unprecedented

*Sigh*. This argument again. Why do they think that something is impossible just because it has never happened before?

Even with no engineering knowledge, it is easy to show that they have not proven their case. THEY are positing unknown entities, it is THEY that have to provide a basis for their claims.

Architect
2nd April 2007, 01:23 PM
Aha.

This is actually quite a complex issue. I even read the NIST report sections on it. Dull.

The damage on its own was insufficient to cause collapse; most of the structure had sufficient safety factor to accommodate the damaged sections. What killed it was pretty much just the effect of the fire. Indeed Arup did a nice paper which suggested fire on its own would have done it.

But of course this is all lost on the Troofers. As usual.

Alt+F4
2nd April 2007, 01:37 PM
Now you might want to call me crazy, but has anyone considered the thought that the structural integrity of the WTC was permanently damaged after the 1993 bombing?

aggle-rithm
2nd April 2007, 01:46 PM
Now you might want to call me crazy, but has anyone considered the thought that the structural integrity of the WTC was permanently damaged after the 1993 bombing?

Crazy!

Mancman
2nd April 2007, 02:05 PM
They even changed a plane's trajectory to get the most damage they possibly could, and only got something like 7 columns severed out of ~50, and a slightly larger number that sustained anywhere from major damage, to a scratch. The rest were perfectly fine.

This is misleading. NIST did 3 simulations for each plane impact, less severe, more severe, and a base case which was the midway point between the two, which best matched the observed damage, thus the most realistic..

In the more severe case, the trajectory was changed to inflict more damage the core, and in the less severe case it was it was changed to inflict less.

tacodaemon
2nd April 2007, 02:13 PM
I'm not even an architect or structural engineer and I felt like NCSTAR 1 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf), the 298-page summary version, did a good job of explaining in lay terms the different loads on the towers and how the structure transferred loads until ultimately there was no place left to transfer them to. Not even 300 pages, much of it taken up with photos and diagrams, and these folks -- who have the free time to watch no end of dull 90-minute YouTube videos from every truther with an axe to grind -- can't find the time to read a measly 298-page heavily illustrated paper.

CHF
2nd April 2007, 03:23 PM
Now you might want to call me crazy, but has anyone considered the thought that the structural integrity of the WTC was permanently damaged after the 1993 bombing?

Pretty sure they would have fixed that.

Architect
2nd April 2007, 04:53 PM
Pretty sure they would have fixed that.

Damned sure it would have been checked. However a couple of points to ponder:

1. Initial collapse mechanism is the facade following failure of the floor, clearly visible in photos, hence no question about issues arising from previous bombs.

2. Core stands for about 15 seconds following the main collapse, hence coore foundation stability not a collapse initiator.