Merged: Why WTC7 should not have collapsed

[Heiwa]

Now I have had a quick look at the WTC7-reports, e.g; volume 2 - pp 609. It seem NIST assume that when one primary part (column 79) fails, then other secondary parts, attached to the failed primary part fail and then, strangely, more primary parts (columns) fail and the whole structure collapses like a house of cards.

It has nothing to do with reality. The following is what should happen!

1. One primary structural part fails due heat, e.g. column 79.

2. Other, secondary structural parts connected to the failing primary part thus lose their end connections to the failing primary part = further local failures (interface between failed primary part and attached secondary parts is modified). Let's call the further local failures A. What happens then?

3. The (2.) secondary structural parts evidently try to find a new equilibrium; e.g. the lose ends drop down (energy is released) to rest on intact, secondary structural parts (we now have a partially damaged structure and a new situation). It is very unlikely that the secondary structure (2.) will detach from other primary structural parts/columns, which NIST suggests.

4. Thus we have to study the structure in (3.). If the intact parts can carry the load of the lose parts hinging down (good redundancy due to excess strain energy in the intact parts) further destruction is arrested.

5. If not, these intact parts may also fail (further local failures) and drop down (more energy is released) and drop down on other intact structural members. Let's call the further local failures B.

6. Now we have to study a structure with one failed primary part (column 79) and local failures A and B and a fair amount of partially loose structural members/parts and a lot of intact structure.

7. It is now friction comes into play. Many of the partially lose members are in contact with each other and intact members and rub against each other and intact parts and more energy is absorbed or wasted. Also loads are redistributed.

8. Normally you would expect a single local failure (1.) of a primary structural part (a column) to cause some further local failures A and B (or C and D) of secondary structural parts, i.e. the connections between the primary part and the secondary parts and that, after that, the energy released is absorbed by local failures, straining of intact parts and friction, loads are redistributed and that the destruction stops.

It seems NIST is not following this method to explain the collapse of WTC7. NIST suggests that further primary structure (columns) fail, when secondary parts connected to them are ripped off but there are no loads that can do that.

The WTC7 destruction can be explained by Controlled Demolition of internal columns at the ground, i.e. multiple, intentional local failures.

I have seen some figures in the report (p. 592) where loose primary and secondary parts disconnected at both ends are flying around. It cannot happen in reality.

A local failure of a primary part (a vertical column) can only cause further local failures of one of the end connections of secondary parts (horizontal beams). The latter remains attached to undamaged primary parts and the structure should remain standing with only one failed primary part detached from its secondary structure. Only a serious local structural failure should have developed if, e.g. column 79 failed.

[Dave Rogers]

For those who don't want to fry their brains by taking Heiwa off ignore like I did, a simple summary of the OP is:

There is no such thing as progressive collapse, because friction, strain and energy absorption always arrests collapse progression.

We now return you to the physical universe.

Dave

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

For those who don't want to fry their brains by taking Heiwa off ignore like I did, a simple summary of the OP is:

There is no such thing as progressive collapse, because friction, strain and energy absorption always arrests collapse progression.

We now return you to the physical universe.

Dave

Thanks but no thanks, I prefer to keep him on ignore.

Please, please, please everybody,don't ......... just don't. Whatever reply you have put together, just take a deep breath, delete it and hit the ignore button.

(You will thank me in the end )

[boloboffin]

NIST doesn't say that 79 failed due to heat. Read it again.

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

NIST doesn't say that 79 failed due to heat. Read it again.

What, are you out of your mind? You didn't honestly think a troofer would read any of the report, yet alone the fact sheet page, did you?

[leftysergeant]

Looking for an extra-wide roll of duck tape for the rift in the cosmic fabric that these twoofers enter through.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

Thanks but no thanks, I prefer to keep him on ignore.

That was the idea. I decided it was my turn to take one for the team.

No calculations included, of course. I forgot to mention that.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Now I have had a quick look at the WTC7-reports, e.g; volume 2 - pp 609. It seem NIST assume that when one primary part (column 79) fails, then other secondary parts, attached to the failed primary part fail and then, strangely, more primary parts (columns) fail and the whole structure collapses like a house of cards.

It has nothing to do with reality. The following is what should happen!

1. One primary structural part fails due heat, e.g. column 79.

2. Other, secondary structural parts connected to the failing primary part thus lose their end connections to the failing primary part = further local failures (interface between failed primary part and attached secondary parts is modified). Let's call the further local failures A. What happens then?

3. The (2.) secondary structural parts evidently try to find a new equilibrium; e.g. the lose ends drop down (energy is released) to rest on intact, secondary structural parts (we now have a partially damaged structure and a new situation). It is very unlikely that the secondary structure (2.) will detach from other primary structural parts/columns, which NIST suggests.

4. Thus we have to study the structure in (3.). If the intact parts can carry the load of the lose parts hinging down (good redundancy due to excess strain energy in the intact parts) further destruction is arrested.

5. If not, these intact parts may also fail (further local failures) and drop down (more energy is released) and drop down on other intact structural members. Let's call the further local failures B.

6. Now we have to study a structure with one failed primary part (column 79) and local failures A and B and a fair amount of partially loose structural members/parts and a lot of intact structure.

7. It is now friction comes into play. Many of the partially lose members are in contact with each other and intact members and rub against each other and intact parts and more energy is absorbed or wasted. Also loads are redistributed.

8. Normally you would expect a single local failure (1.) of a primary structural part (a column) to cause some further local failures A and B (or C and D) of secondary structural parts, i.e. the connections between the primary part and the secondary parts and that, after that, the energy released is absorbed by local failures, straining of intact parts and friction, loads are redistributed and that the destruction stops.

It seems NIST is not following this method to explain the collapse of WTC7. NIST suggests that further primary structure (columns) fail, when secondary parts connected to them are ripped off but there are no loads that can do that.

The WTC7 destruction can be explained by Controlled Demolition of internal columns at the ground, i.e. multiple, intentional local failures.

I have seen some figures in the report (p. 592) where loose primary and secondary parts disconnected at both ends are flying around. It cannot happen in reality.

A local failure of a primary part (a vertical column) can only cause further local failures of one of the end connections of secondary parts (horizontal beams). The latter remains attached to undamaged primary parts and the structure should remain standing with only one failed primary part detached from its secondary structure. Only a serious local structural failure should have developed if, e.g. column 79 failed.

You're not REALLY an engineer are you?
Stick to boat design.

TAM

[bje]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

You're not REALLY an engineer are you?
Stick to boat design.

DON'T go there. Heiwa will start on why the Titanic should not have sunk.

[Lennart Hyland]

Heiwa; send that to NIST and post their answer please.

[Quad4_72]

I am not seeing any calculations or figures backing up Heiwa's assertions. Did he leave them out on purpose? Or does he simply not have any?

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

For those who don't want to fry their brains by taking Heiwa off ignore like I did, a simple summary of the OP is:

There is no such thing as progressive collapse, because friction, strain and energy absorption always arrests collapse progression.

We now return you to the physical universe.

Dave

Still on ignore.

Thank you for saving me from that!

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No calculations included, of course. I forgot to mention that.

We are discussing principles first. Calculations come second. And I haven't found any calculations by NIST in its report.

I wonder how NIST made the pictures on p. 592. Pieces of primary columns and secondary beams disconnected at both ends flying in all directions. Assistance by Hollywood?

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

We are discussing principles first.

NIST did not say that heat took out column 79. This is a simple, principle-based statement. Are you going to acknowledge your mistake here?

[Jonnyclueless]

I think I have seen Heiwa's principles in a bugs bunny cartoon once.

[phunk]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Now I have had a quick look at the WTC7-reports, e.g; volume 2 - pp 609. It seem NIST assume that when one primary part (column 79) fails, then other secondary parts, attached to the failed primary part fail and then, strangely, more primary parts (columns) fail and the whole structure collapses like a house of cards.

It has nothing to do with reality. The following is what should happen!

1. One primary structural part fails due heat, e.g. column 79.

2. Other, secondary structural parts connected to the failing primary part thus lose their end connections to the failing primary part = further local failures (interface between failed primary part and attached secondary parts is modified). Let's call the further local failures A. What happens then?

Well let's stop right there. Are you suggesting that when column 79 failed, those end connections magically disapeared without transmitting any forces to the attached structures?


Also, as bolobofin said, heat did not take out column 79. Heat took out the support for column 79, leaving it unbraced.

[Toke]

Would wtc7 have collapsed if dropped from 2 miles?

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

I think I have seen Heiwa's principles in a bugs bunny cartoon once.

Hey now, don't be knocking evidence which comes from cartoons. See this one entitled "Building falls into footprint":

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

We are discussing principles first. Calculations come second. And I haven't found any calculations by NIST in its report.

I wonder how NIST made the pictures on p. 592. Pieces of primary columns and secondary beams disconnected at both ends flying in all directions. Assistance by Hollywood?

Still sticking with the floating towers theory?

Imagine if you will Heiwa's world, the Twin Towers floating down the river, houses in Holland bobbing in the stream and the tops of the towers bouncing around

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

I think I have seen Heiwa's principles in a bugs bunny cartoon once.

Well he said he was writing for kids.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

Hey now, don't be knocking evidence which comes from cartoons. See this one entitled "Building falls into footprint":

I like the way the collapse stops dead after each storey collapses. Perfect Judy Wood physics.

Dave

[Toke]

This is danish, but they have them in holland too.

www.ellentoft.dk/husbaad

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland

Heiwa; send that to NIST and post their answer please.

Why waste time on clowns like Sunder & Co?

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by phunk

Well let's stop right there. Are you suggesting that when column 79 failed, those end connections magically disapeared without transmitting any forces to the attached structures?

As I understand it, primary structural part; vertical column 79 is assumed to fail and displaces downwards and connections of secondary structural parts to this column = horizontal beams are assumed to shear off. Not proven of course - it is just an assumption.

Thus the secondary strutcural parts hinges down around their other ends because they are attached at their other ends to other structure, e.g. other primary structure columns. Any loose loads on these secondary parts slide towards the loose ends. It is not a serious situation, because any further destructions should end there.

3D-beam structures with say 60 vertical columns as primary parts carrying the loads to the base and with horizontal beams as secondary parts with loads on them connected to the columns at regular intervals do not collapse, if you remove one column.

Try it yourself with a table with say 10 legs. Remove one leg and the table does not collapse. Try it with a table with only three legs and remove one leg. Nothing happens if you have secured the legs to the ground!

Or try my famous model test at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm (and scroll down a little). It is just 4 legs and all are supposed to fail, due to heat. But nothing happens.

[dtugg]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Why waste time on clowns like Sunder & Co?

Yeah I am sure that people have doctorates in relevant fields, lots of experience, and studied the evidence for three years, know less than the fool who says you can drop 1/3 of one of the WTC towers from a height of two miles onto the rest without the whole thing being completely destroyed.

We all know that you have no idea what you are talking about. You have fooled nobody.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

As I understand it, primary structural part; vertical column 79 is assumed to fail and displaces downwards and connections of secondary structural parts to this column = horizontal beams are assumed to shear off. Not proven of course - it is just an assumption.

Thus the secondary strutcural parts hinges down around their other ends because they are attached at their other ends to other structure, e.g. other primary structure columns. Any loose loads on these secondary parts slide towards the loose ends. It is not a serious situation, because any further destructions should end there.

3D-beam structures with say 60 vertical columns as primary parts carrying the loads to the base and with horizontal beams as secondary parts with loads on them connected to the columns at regular intervals do not collapse, if you remove one column.

Try it yourself with a table with say 10 legs. Remove one leg and the table does not collapse. Try it with a table with only three legs and remove one leg. Nothing happens if you have secured the legs to the ground!

Or try my famous model test at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm (and scroll down a little). It is just 4 legs and all are supposed to fail, due to heat. But nothing happens.

It will just scrunch down a little and the friction will arrest it according to Heiwa.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

As I understand it, primary structural part; vertical column 79 is assumed to fail and displaces downwards and connections of secondary structural parts to this column = horizontal beams are assumed to shear off. Not proven of course - it is just an assumption.

Thus the secondary strutcural parts hinges down around their other ends because they are attached at their other ends to other structure, e.g. other primary structure columns. Any loose loads on these secondary parts slide towards the loose ends. It is not a serious situation, because any further destructions should end there.

3D-beam structures with say 60 vertical columns as primary parts carrying the loads to the base and with horizontal beams as secondary parts with loads on them connected to the columns at regular intervals do not collapse, if you remove one column.

Try it yourself with a table with say 10 legs. Remove one leg and the table does not collapse. Try it with a table with only three legs and remove one leg. Nothing happens if you have secured the legs to the ground!

Or try my famous model test at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm (and scroll down a little). It is just 4 legs and all are supposed to fail, due to heat. But nothing happens.

It will just drop a little then spring back up.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

As I understand it, primary structural part; vertical column 79 is assumed to fail and displaces downwards and connections of secondary structural parts to this column = horizontal beams are assumed to shear off. Not proven of course - it is just an assumption.

Thus the secondary strutcural parts hinges down around their other ends because they are attached at their other ends to other structure, e.g. other primary structure columns. Any loose loads on these secondary parts slide towards the loose ends. It is not a serious situation, because any further destructions should end there.

3D-beam structures with say 60 vertical columns as primary parts carrying the loads to the base and with horizontal beams as secondary parts with loads on them connected to the columns at regular intervals do not collapse, if you remove one column.

Try it yourself with a table with say 10 legs. Remove one leg and the table does not collapse. Try it with a table with only three legs and remove one leg. Nothing happens if you have secured the legs to the ground!

Or try my famous model test at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm (and scroll down a little). It is just 4 legs and all are supposed to fail, due to heat. But nothing happens.

What would happen if you dropped a cinder block from two miles up on it?

[Jonnyclueless]

Wait, so this guy is comparing a building to a table with legs bolted into the ground and I am supposed to believe he is an engineer? yeah right.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Wait, so this guy is comparing a building to a table with legs bolted into the ground and I am supposed to believe he is an engineer? yeah right.

He thinks buildings float, the top of the towers should have bounced, stuck or slid off take yer pick.

The world according to Heiwa looks a lot like a cartoon.

[nicepants]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Wait, so this guy is comparing a building to a table with legs bolted into the ground and I am supposed to believe he is an engineer? yeah right.

Would you expect anything less from the movement which brought you Gage & his infamous cardboard experiment? (I'm too lazy to find the picture)

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Wait, so this guy is comparing a building to a table with legs bolted into the ground and I am supposed to believe he is an engineer? yeah right.

Legs bolted to the Ground? Wow, last time I paid even the slightest bit of attention to Heiwa, he was demonstrating that the WTC collapse could be debunked by his plastic table in his backyard that collapsed because someone put too much beer on it or something.

Legs bolted to the ground sounds much more robust!

[Jonnyclueless]

basically with that comparison model the WTC 7 building was made of 4 or 5 solid pieces. I'm not an engineer, but I know that's absurd logic in engineering. How does one become an engineer and create those kinds of principles. I mean how would you even pass the courses in school?

When My father was designing buildings for Donald Trump, I can assure you that had he pulled out some cardboard boxes and demonstrated how buildings can't collapse, he would have been fired right on the spot. If he had done it on a video which was later seen by anyone in the industry, I can guarantee you he would have been fired on the spot. If he was found comparing a building to a table with 2 legs and bolted to the ground he would have been fired on the spot.

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Toke

Would wtc7 have collapsed if dropped from 2 miles?

Heiwa, what is the answer?

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Try it yourself with a table with say 10 legs. Remove one leg and the table does not collapse. Try it with a table with only three legs and remove one leg. Nothing happens if you have secured the legs to the ground!

So you are telling me a 47 story skyscraper is similar to that of a table with ten legs...

For Godsake's will someone PLEASE put a rush on the FEMA death camps! The NWO has been taking way too long on that project.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Legs bolted to the Ground? Wow, last time I paid even the slightest bit of attention to Heiwa, he was demonstrating that the WTC collapse could be debunked by his plastic table in his backyard that collapsed because someone put too much beer on it or something.

Legs bolted to the ground sounds much more robust!

The legs bolted to the ground is the only part of his analogy that I DO get. I woul assume this represents the columns being rooted in the foundation. But the columns are not singular solid objects that span the entire building which itself in the analogy is a single solid object.

How can one make these kinds of comparisons and get a degree?

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

How can one make these kinds of comparisons and get a degree?

Who say he has one.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

So you are telling me a 47 story skyscraper is similar to that of a table with ten legs...

For Godsake's will someone PLEASE put a rush on the FEMA death camps! The NWO has been taking way too long on that project.

With Heiwa engineering you have floating buildings, bouncing buildings, sticking buildings and sliding buildings.

[chillzero]

Let me once again remind you all: Rule 12 “Attack the argument, not the arguer."

Posted By:chillzero

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

It seems NIST is not following this method to explain the collapse of WTC7. NIST suggests that further primary structure (columns) fail, when secondary parts connected to them are ripped off but there are no loads that can do that.

Normal building loads were not the only factors involved in the collapse of WTC 7. It's naive to arbitrarily single out one factor and justify the entirety of the end result off of an individual contributor. First time or not the causes of the failures that led to collapse are well studied phenomena and are all taken into consideration in the design process regardless of how they manifest. If the designs do not consider factors that contribute to wear and tear as well as overall deterioration over time they become even more pronounce and eventually to the point at which occupant safety is placed in jeopardy. Measures must be taken because if the structure is not adequately maintained, even normal climactic changes and weathering can deteriorate the structure given enough time.


And remember, the floor spans in between columns inside the building were longer than average. Such existing factors should never be ignored when considering design factors also affect how any sort of failure spreads throughout the building.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

The WTC7 destruction can be explained by Controlled Demolition of internal columns at the ground, i.e. multiple, intentional local failures.

I crossed out the word "intentional" for you. Multiple local failures is like a slang definition of progressive collapse. I know I'm pulling at strings to pound this in your logic, but that statement doesn't seem well thought out. You seem to agree that some kind of progressive collapse is possible but only via human intervention?

Originally Posted by Heiwa

A local failure of a primary part (a vertical column) can only cause further local failures of one of the end connections of secondary parts (horizontal beams).

Based on what standard design method? It's apparent that since you're making the same case for this building as you did for WTC 1 & 2, is there some standard that I should be aware of where the buildings structural frame has no effect on the performance or redundancy of the overall building? What references do you derive this generalization from?

The WTC 7 floor plan shows that column #79 held a significant section of floor span. A failure of one column and the weakening of others by fire exasperates the problem. Your argument comes across as if the fires had no effect on other columns?

Originally Posted by Heiwa

The latter remains attached to undamaged primary parts and the structure should remain standing with only one failed primary part detached from its secondary structure. Only a serious local structural failure should have developed if, e.g. column 79 failed.

[/quote]
Again on what grounds? Does this take into account secondary effects from structural damage on one side? Does this take into consideration plastic creep of some portions of the structure and/or connections? Does it consider shear forces applied by thermal expansion and contraction cause by structural members being heated by the fires? Does this consider WTC 7's own design for the structural frame?

I'm not sure I follow what you base this conclusion on, or if it considers any underlying factors for that matter.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

1. One primary structural part fails due heat, e.g. column 79.

2. Other, secondary structural parts connected to the failing primary part thus lose their end connections to the failing primary part = further local failures (interface between failed primary part and attached secondary parts is modified). Let's call the further local failures A. What happens then?

3. The (2.) secondary structural parts evidently try to find a new equilibrium; e.g. the lose ends drop down (energy is released) to rest on intact, secondary structural parts (we now have a partially damaged structure and a new situation). It is very unlikely that the secondary structure (2.) will detach from other primary structural parts/columns, which NIST suggests.

According to the draft report Column #79 by the time of collapse initiation spanned 9 floors without any lateral bracing whatsoever because of partially floor failures that took place throughout the day. Such a long unbraced section, in addition to thermal strain from fires would have made it especially vulnerable to buckling. Once the column failed, all remaining loads would have been transferred to the the nearest intact structural members. Look at the typical floor diagram of WTC 7, and look at how much of the interior would have had the loads redistributed. The interior had very significant sections that were supported by individual structural members. If those intact members are unable to sustain added loads then they too fail, and the loss of any single member had significantly more impact than a similar failure might have in say, a steel frame structure with a traditional skeleton design.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

4. Thus we have to study the structure in (3.). If the intact parts can carry the load of the lose parts hinging down (good redundancy due to excess strain energy in the intact parts) further destruction is arrested.

5. If not, these intact parts may also fail (further local failures) and drop down (more energy is released) and drop down on other intact structural members. Let's call the further local failures B.

6. Now we have to study a structure with one failed primary part (column 79) and local failures A and B and a fair amount of partially loose structural members/parts and a lot of intact structure.

7. It is now friction comes into play. Many of the partially lose members are in contact with each other and intact members and rub against each other and intact parts and more energy is absorbed or wasted. Also loads are redistributed.

You say we should study the structure but your proposed scenario does not do any of it. It's a generic interpretation that simply doesn't consider any of WTC 7's unique design features. You simply cannot apply a generic assumption to it. Not to mention this essentially attempts to rule progressive collapse as an impossibility. I honestly don't know what you intend to convey with your friction argument however the structure of WTC 7 is a lot more complex than you seem to give credit for. The floors are not going to simply "hinge downward". If such rotation is applied to connection points they will completely fail just from the moment forces, there are so many flaws with that friction argument you want to convince us with it's not even funny.

I think I finally understand the sort of principal you are applying to both WTC 7 and WTC 1 + 2, however applying a standard assertion to these structures simply flat out ignores design differences which greatly affect how the structural failures occur. Seeing as you cannot seem to consider such difference while summing up your model I can't see this discussion moving any further, nor can I ever consider your position all that credible.