• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WTC Core Details[W:183]

gerrycan

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
1,822
Reaction score
84
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The WTC North tower was hit between the 93rd and 99th floors. The stud and seat details for the "x01" core column vertical set are on structural drawing 6-AB8-38 below....

image from WTCI-000023-L-217.jpg

The stud and seat details for the "500" core column horizontal set are on structural drawing 6-AB8-35 below

image from WTCI-000023-L-214.jpg

The seat and stud detail for the horizontal "100x" row are on drawing 6-AB8-24

WTCI-000023-L203-00.jpg

The seat and stud detail for the East "x08" +(807) is on drawing 6-AB8-42

image from WTCI-000023-L-221.jpg

The North row of the core column structure was entirely of stud detail 7A, the South row consisted of 4 x 7A and 2x 8D, and the East and West horizontal core column groups consisted entirely of 7C stud detail. These are shown below.
WTCI-000023-L229-00.jpg

The above, combined with the bracing detail illustrates just how robust the tower was. In essence, it would have encapsulated the damaged area in a tight composite grip. The corners did not suffer impact damage and would have continued to support the North face floor system from these transverse corners.
Can anyone find where NIST considered this in their analysis ?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

NIST was neither scientific nor honest in its analysis. It started with a conclusion and then fudged facts to justify the conclusion.

Politics all the way. The head of NIST, Arden Bement Jr. was appointed by Bush just a month earlier. He was previously head of Purdue University's School of Nuclear Engineering, and prior to that worked for TRW and DARPA, 2 players in the Military Industrial Complex.

Bement reported to Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and his deputy Philip Bond. Evans was described as "almost like a brother" to Dubya.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Is this paper correct?

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105

"The WTC towers were innovative in many ways, and their construction resulted in a tremendous increase of open-plan commercial office space in downtown Manhattan. This paper focused on aspects of structural design of the WTC towers and building 7 which played a critical role in the outcome of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The structural features of the World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 buildings and the role of the structural systems as the buildings respond to gravity and lateral wind loads were described. Key structural systems of the WTC towers include the exterior framed-tube system, the core structure which (with the exterior framing) supported gravity loads, the composite floor truss systems supported by the exterior and core columns, and the hat truss that distributed loads between the core and exterior columns at the top of the buildings. Key structural features of WTC 7 included exterior moment frame for resisting lateral wind loads, the core structure which supported gravity load in conjunction with the exterior framing, the long-span composite floor system between the core and exterior columns, the floor framing connections, and the column transfer trusses and girders. Full reports of the NIST investigation into the collapse of the WTC buildings can be found at [19].

Is this paper incorrect? An early paper written and published. If yes, please explain with supporting information.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
 
Re: WTC Core Details

No.But your post or these papers have nothing to do with the structural detail in my post. Happy to address any issues you have with the OP,

Is it your belief that NIST did not look into your comment of, "The above, combined with the bracing detail illustrates just how robust the tower was. In essence, it would have encapsulated the damaged area in a tight composite grip. The corners did not suffer impact damage and would have continued to support the North face floor system from these transverse corners. Can anyone find where NIST considered this in their analysis ? "

Where the corners damaged in any other way after impact?

Has AE911T analysis consider what you are stating?

What sources do you have that supports your comment of "
In essence, it would have encapsulated the damaged area in a tight composite grip
"
 
Re: WTC Core Details

What sources do you have that supports your comment of "
In essence, it would have encapsulated the damaged area in a tight composite grip"


The attached structural drawings.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

No.But your post or these papers have nothing to do with the structural detail in my post. Happy to address any issues you have with the OP,

Interesting how you stated No so quickly unless you are familiar with the document. The document did describe the , ""There were four major structural subsystems in the towers: the exterior wall, the core, the floor system, and the hat truss......."

I disagree, the paper I linked adds to understanding of the images you posted.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

The attached structural drawings.

So the OP is your opinion that " In essence, it would have encapsulated the damaged area in a tight composite grip. The corners did not suffer impact damage and would have continued to support the North face floor system from these transverse corners. " and not backed up by other sources.

I am not sure where you are going with this.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

So the OP is your opinion that " In essence, it would have encapsulated the damaged area in a tight composite grip. The corners did not suffer impact damage and would have continued to support the North face floor system from these transverse corners. " and not backed up by other sources.

I am not sure where you are going with this.

What source would you prefer to the original drawings for the building ?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

What source would you prefer to the original drawings for the building ?

Funny.
It is your conclusion that is in question , not the drawing.

Let's say the "corners did not suffer impact damage." as you state. We all know the building stood right after impact. So one could agree that right after impact the corners still functioned and the building did not collapse. Now, what happened after impact? How or what affected the core?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Funny.
It is your conclusion that is in question , not the drawing

The conclusion that the towers were more robust in terms of the floor/core connections is based on what is on the drawings in black and white. This was new information to me quite recently. I would be surprised if you had even seen these drawings.

Did you realise the extent to which shear studs were used in the core previous to seeing these drawings ?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

The conclusion that the towers were more robust in terms of the floor/core connections is based on what is on the drawings in black and white. This was new information to me quite recently. I would be surprised if you had even seen these drawings.

Did you realise the extent to which shear studs were used in the core previous to seeing these drawings ?

No surprises for me. There are other sites that have discussed the structure in more detail than what goes on here. Heck, even AE911T has files and files of blueprints of the towers.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

No surprises for me. There are other sites that have discussed the structure in more detail than what goes on here. Heck, even AE911T has files and files of blueprints of the towers.

Bo they don't. They have architectural drawings. Different thing entirely.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

The above, combined with the bracing detail illustrates just how robust the tower was. In essence, it would have encapsulated the damaged area in a tight composite grip.
Meaning what gerrycan? Your words "just how robust" and "encapsulated the damage area in a tight grip" mean absolutely nothing. Only your opinion. How about you provide your calculations that SHOW just how "robust" the tower was AFTER the north side was damaged and after fires burned.

The corners did not suffer impact damage and would have continued to support the North face floor system from these transverse corners.
Based on what? Just because you say so? Again, where are your calculations that show this to be the case? Let's see your analysis and calculations that include the damaged area after impact the further effects of fire upon those already damaged components.

Your saying so doesn't add up to squat.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

The conclusion that the towers were more robust in terms of the floor/core connections is based on what is on the drawings in black and white.
More robust than what gerrycan?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Meaning what gerrycan? Your words "just how robust" and "encapsulated the damage area in a tight grip" mean absolutely nothing. Only your opinion. How about you provide your calculations that SHOW just how "robust" the tower was AFTER the north side was damaged and after fires burned.


Based on what? Just because you say so? Again, where are your calculations that show this to be the case? Let's see your analysis and calculations that include the damaged area after impact the further effects of fire upon those already damaged components.

Your saying so doesn't add up to squat.

So you were aware of these studs before today ?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

More robust than what gerrycan?

More robust than the structure would have been without the additional elements shown in the drawings. Obviously.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

So you were aware of these studs before today ?
Why are you answering my questions with another question gerrycan?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Why are you answering my questions with another question gerrycan?

To find out of you have had time prior to today to reach a conclusion on these elements. Obviously.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

More robust than the structure would have been without the additional elements shown in the drawings. Obviously.
Are you saying these additional elements were left out somewhere? In calculations done to determine how the structure would have reacted regarding the damage and fires? During construction?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

To find out of you have had time prior to today to reach a conclusion on these elements. Obviously.
I asked you questions about your comments in the OP gerrycan. Where are your calculations to support your comments? Or are you that good that you can just look at drawings and make these claims?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I asked you questions about your comments in the OP gerrycan. Where are your calculations to support your comments? Or are you that good that you can just look at drawings and make these claims?

The OP is asking if anyone is aware of NIST's inclusion of these elements in their analysis and calculations.

What calculations is it that you are looking for ?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

The OP is asking if anyone is aware of NIST's inclusion of these elements in their analysis and calculations.

What calculations is it that you are looking for ?
Gerrycan.

You made the following comments in your original post:
The above, combined with the bracing detail illustrates just how robust the tower was. In essence, it would have encapsulated the damaged area in a tight composite grip. The corners did not suffer impact damage and would have continued to support the North face floor system from these transverse corners.
Can anyone find where NIST considered this in their analysis ?
Where are your calculations that support your claim that the corners would have continued to support the North face after the impact and subsequent fires? Or are you that good of a structural engineer that you can determine such things just by LOOKING at drawings?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Gerrycan.

You made the following comments in your original post:

Where are your calculations that support your claim that the corners would have continued to support the North face after the impact and subsequent fires? Or are you that good of a structural engineer that you can determine such things just by LOOKING at drawings?

Well, a lot of what I am saying IS based on what is on the drawings. The transverse nature of the floor corners being more heavily tied into the adjacent floors for example. I am not sure what specific calculations it is that you are after. The ultimate conclusion here would be that the floor trusses would not have been able to pull the perimeter columns in the way that was observed, meaning that they could only be pulled in by a core drop, but that is not what I asked in the OP. We could start a thread on that if you prefer, save messing this one up.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I am not sure what specific calculations it is that you are after.
*sigh*

I want your calculations that support your claim made here:
The corners did not suffer impact damage and would have continued to support the North face floor system from these transverse corners.
Issuing a claim that corners would have continued to support the north face system from these traverse corners can only be determined from CALCULATIONS. Are you guessing at this or do you have calculations that support your claim. It's simple really.
 
Back
Top Bottom