Discussion of reasons why folks believe what they do and supported by factual evidence...

[stundie]

The image below is what I am saying happens when you remove the lateral stability of the girders/floors around column 79. It buckles due to the load put on it from the floors above. Do you agree that this buckling failure of column 79 is possible if those girders/floors are gone?
View attachment 67223794

No, I think this what I don't believe and I can't fathom out.

I believe if you remove lateral stability of the floors and girders around column 79, the load is transferred through it's load path to other floors which are still conntected to the entire structure. I believe you could do this on many floors but the building wouldn't drop straight down. If you removed enough, you might get some sort of tilt or lean. I believe with an entire structure, which is interconnected, undamaged floors above floor 12/13, like the penthouse won't suddenly over come from a small and insignificant loss from those are girders and floors of that floor.

Column 79 is only 1 of 24 columns on each floor. (If I remember correctly!)

Anyway, I thought that Hulsey had put this Column 79 stuff to bed? I'll have to listen to his video and comment as I've only glanced over it.

 

[gamolon]

No, I think this what I don't believe and I can't fathom out.

I believe if you remove lateral stability of the floors and girders around column 79, the load is transferred through it's load path to other floors which are still conntected to the entire structure. I believe you could do this on many floors but the building wouldn't drop straight down. If you removed enough, you might get some sort of tilt or lean. I believe with an entire structure, which is interconnected, undamaged floors above floor 12/13, like the penthouse won't suddenly over come from a small and insignificant loss from those are girders and floors of that floor.

I'm trying to understand your thinking Stundie. You think that if a column 79 failed/buckled between floors 8-13, the load that it supported would be 100% redirected to through girders and floors to the other columns? That the engineers designed it this way?

Column 79 is only 1 of 24 columns on each floor. (If I remember correctly!)

Yes.

Anyway, I thought that Hulsey had put this Column 79 stuff to bed? I'll have to listen to his video and comment as I've only glanced over it.

No. Hulsey has not come out with his final report yet. He is supposed to come out with a version for everyone to look at and make comments. He will then supposedly come out with the finished report. Make sure you read the blog posts of students during the first phase of the study. They talk about having problems with creating the models, data loss from hard drive crashes, etc. It was supposed to be a totally transparent process and every facet of the study would be communicated to the public. That stopped for some reason. There are also some issues with his fire model used. You would have to read this stuff for yourself though.

 

[gamolon]

No, I think this what I don't believe and I can't fathom out.

I think I see what you are saying now.

You think column 79 would not have reached the buckling stage at all if the floors/girders around it were removed between floors 8-13 because of the surrounding components.

Am I correct?

 

[gamolon]

I believe if you remove lateral stability of the floors and girders around column 79, the load is transferred through it's load path to other floors which are still conntected to the entire structure.

But what causes the load being supported by column 79 in it's pristine condition to get transferred to other connecting components INCREASING the load of those surrounding components? There has to be SOME percentage of failure in column 79 for it's load to be transferred right? That means column 79 had to "deflect" downward in some form right?

 

[gamolon]

No, I think this what I don't believe and I can't fathom out.

I believe if you remove lateral stability of the floors and girders around column 79, the load is transferred through it's load path to other floors which are still conntected to the entire structure. I believe you could do this on many floors but the building wouldn't drop straight down. If you removed enough, you might get some sort of tilt or lean. I believe with an entire structure, which is interconnected, undamaged floors above floor 12/13, like the penthouse won't suddenly over come from a small and insignificant loss from those are girders and floors of that floor.

See diagram below.


So we have "Load X" being applied to the floor. "Load X" is shared between column 79 and 80 while the structure is in it's pristine condition. You are saying that if the floors and girders surrounding column 79 between floors 8 through 13 fail and leave column 79 laterally unstable in that area, the "Some of load X" traveling down column 79 will be transferred to col 80 and the other column instead correct? That now there is an increased load upon column 80 and the other column due to the lateral instability?

 

[gamolon]

I believe with an entire structure, which is interconnected, undamaged floors above floor 12/13, like the penthouse won't suddenly over come from a small and insignificant loss from those are girders and floors of that floor.

You also have to remember that the rest of the structure was weakened to some degree by fire also. Or do you believe that the fires didn't affect the structure one bit?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Believing - - - - Suspecting - - - - Knowing

Are three different things! But the word 'suspect' has not been used so far in this thread.

I know skyscrapers must hold themselves up. I know the bottom portion of a 1360 foot skyscraper must be stronger than the upper portion of equal height assuming the floor area is the same.

So what is the problem with having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the building?

I strongly SUSPECT that competently designed experiments would prove that the top 13% of a 1360 foot skyscraper could not fall straight down and destroy the intact lower 80+%. Good experiments cannot be designed without that data.

BELIEF is unscientific!

psik

 

[camlok]

I know skyscrapers must hold themselves up. I know the bottom portion of a 1360 foot skyscraper must be stronger than the upper portion of equal height assuming the floor area is the same.

So what is the problem with having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the building?

I strongly SUSPECT that competently designed experiments would prove that the top 13% of a 1360 foot skyscraper could not fall straight down and destroy the intact lower 80+%. Good experiments cannot be designed without that data.

BELIEF is unscientific!

psik

There have been studies done already, psik, and you are right, the USGOCT is pure nonsense, bunko, crap, lies. Are you aware that the "study" that NIST based its findings on as regards the twin towers was first put out on September 13, 2001?

It is a total fraud. It describes a scenario that goes against Newton's Laws of Motion. It is the Crush Down/Crush Up theory, which cannot happen, as you have pointed out because a lighter, weaker 13% cannot crush a much much stronger 80+% down and then crush itself back up.

As anyone honest can plainly see, the top 13% never impacted anything. It was blown up into micron sized particles before it ever contacted the lower portion. The tower on the top started to move before anything else moved, which illustrates that the core columns were taken out causing the hat truss to fail, which allowed the tower to drop.

 

[camlok]

You also have to remember that the rest of the structure was weakened to some degree by fire also. Or do you believe that the fires didn't affect the structure one bit?

Your scenario puts the lie to the USGOCT. Any weakening of the structure by fire was both minimal and asymmetrical. Which means that WTC1 could not have fallen as it did without explosives taking out the supporting structure below in a uniform manner.

WTC2, in a greater fashion, points to CD because the tilt of the top portion of the building could not have come back to center unless it was blown up, which it was, as any honest person can see.

OFFICIAL COLLAPSE THEORY DEFIES ALL LAWS OF PHYSICS

...

John Watt, a chartered structural engineer in Edinburgh, UK, voices similar concerns. “With respect to the Twin Towers," he says, “the main puzzle was how two buildings with highly asymmetric damage could fail vertically downwards into the strongest part of the buildings — their steel-columned cores. And not only fail vertically, but at a speed that indicated structural resistance being removed sequentially from under the collapse wave. Few engineers would imagine buildings a quarter-of-a-mile high failing vertically, into their main structures, rather than failing laterally — given the eccentric damage.”


The towers should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed,” observes Howard Pasternack, P.Eng., of Toronto, Canada. Moreover, these systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously, but also in sequential order,” according to Frank Cullinan, P.E., who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and . . . small, short-duration fires.”

AE911Truth ? Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11 - 60 Structural Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition of Three WTC High-Rises

 

[camlok]

See diagram below.


So we have "Load X" being applied to the floor. "Load X" is shared between column 79 and 80 while the structure is in it's pristine condition. You are saying that if the floors and girders surrounding column 79 between floors 8 through 13 fail and leave column 79 laterally unstable in that area, the "Some of load X" traveling down column 79 will be transferred to col 80 and the other column instead correct? That now there is an increased load upon column 80 and the other column due to the lateral instability?

You are making a case based on totally false assumptions, outright lies, gamolon, and you are doing this with no sense of shame whatsoever.

NIST's fable about the walk off of the girders is a lie, supported by myriad other NIST lies.

It couldn't happen. You see the result of NIST's great study, NIST's totally crazy computer simulation that doesn't come anywhere close to approaching reality. You already know this and still you advance these huge NIST lies.

Why??

 

[stundie]

I'm trying to understand your thinking Stundie. You think that if a column 79 failed/buckled between floors 8-13, the load that it supported would be 100% redirected to through girders and floors to the other columns? That the engineers designed it this way?

Through its load paths of course.

I think that the engineers designed it to stay up, all buildings are susceptible to failures. I don't believe that those floors were enough to bring the entire structure when there are so many undamaged floors. Clearly in the video, we are witnessing the failure of a structure before the penthouse collapses in on itself, it was intact and undamaged, so what mechanism caused it?

Fires from many floors below where this structural damage takes place is doubtful in my eyes, I doubt that if you planted explosives in those areas that it would collapse as it did. Its not just the failures in column 79 where it initiated and ons of the floor above it on that end of the building, it's the other 23 columns across each of those floors and the girders which literally ceased to provide any structual support as well. If there were failures due to fires, I would expect local failures and a slow destruction, the building collapsing more slowly as the fires gradually heat up the columns, girders etc etc. As was the case with the only sample I can cite, the Windsor Tower building.

No. Hulsey has not come out with his final report yet. He is supposed to come out with a version for everyone to look at and make comments. He will then supposedly come out with the finished report. Make sure you read the blog posts of students during the first phase of the study. They talk about having problems with creating the models, data loss from hard drive crashes, etc. It was supposed to be a totally transparent process and every facet of the study would be communicated to the public. That stopped for some reason. There are also some issues with his fire model used. You would have to read this stuff for yourself though.

Well with the NIST not passing out the data so it can be tested, so there are always going to be problems with creating models and simulations with the computers. Of course, a open resource and consensus based approach would probably be best but it's not really my area of expertise, not that I have any of course.

I've not really read anything other than summaries, so I can't pass judgement on it, are there are any critiques of any value of his work? Preferably without character assinations, like he's a twoofer and he's making mad toofer dollar$! I like to read both sides of an argument so anything you can link to, I'll get read it after I get around to Husely, which will happen soon enough.

 

[stundie]

I think I see what you are saying now.

You think column 79 would not have reached the buckling stage at all if the floors/girders around it were removed between floors 8-13 because of the surrounding components.

Am I correct?

Yes, that's pretty much it. Even if we assumed all the columns and girders/floors were heated and lost a percentage of their strength from 100% to say 30%, I can't see how this would effect a interconnect structure, which at a guess, would be affect by the heat some 17 floors down, can cause the unaffect structure to instantly give up any resistance.

 

[stundie]

See diagram below.
View attachment 67223833

So we have "Load X" being applied to the floor. "Load X" is shared between column 79 and 80 while the structure is in it's pristine condition. You are saying that if the floors and girders surrounding column 79 between floors 8 through 13 fail and leave column 79 laterally unstable in that area, the "Some of load X" traveling down column 79 will be transferred to col 80 and the other column instead correct? That now there is an increased load upon column 80 and the other column due to the lateral instability?

That's about right, but the load paths go further than column 80 because it's an interconnected structure, it will variably effect every other part of the entire structure. Even the other columns at the furtherest point would also bear some of the brunt of this unstability, not as much as the structure closer towards column 79 of course.

I wouldn't expect that much lateral instability due to the fact there are still many more floors where these columns were still attached and would providing plenty of lateral stability.

 

[stundie]

You also have to remember that the rest of the structure was weakened to some degree by fire also. Or do you believe that the fires didn't affect the structure one bit?

No, I believe the fires affect the structure, just not to the degree you do. I know there were other fires too, I think the highest ones where on floor 28, so there's 19 floors (I said 17 earlier! lol). I mean if we assumed a more extreme temperature of 1500c on floor 28 for example, what would the temperature of the column be on floor 47?

 

[stundie]

Believing - - - - Suspecting - - - - Knowing

Are three different things! But the word 'suspect' has not been used so far in this thread.

Of course, they are all different things and the word suspect hasn't been used.

We all have beliefs but why is it that I believe one thing, and others believe another thing in regards to 9/11 CT? The argument they are all mad isn't really valid or even true.

I know skyscrapers must hold themselves up. I know the bottom portion of a 1360 foot skyscraper must be stronger than the upper portion of equal height assuming the floor area is the same.

So what is the problem with having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the building?

This is what I don't understand about some people who believe in the OCT, the ones who don't support the releasing of the NIST's data. If it was me, I would be begging them to release it in the hope of proving or showing the CT groups how they are wrong.

Of course, having accurate data would be nice, but it doesn't appear to be coming anytime soon, so it keeps us is in this feedback loop of what is valid data.

I strongly SUSPECT that competently designed experiments would prove that the top 13% of a 1360 foot skyscraper could not fall straight down and destroy the intact lower 80+%. Good experiments cannot be designed without that data.

BELIEF is unscientific!

psik

I suspect you are right.

 

[gamolon]

No, I believe the fires affect the structure, just not to the degree you do. I know there were other fires too, I think the highest ones where on floor 28, so there's 19 floors (I said 17 earlier! lol). I mean if we assumed a more extreme temperature of 1500c on floor 28 for example, what would the temperature of the column be on floor 47?

Why does the temperature of column 79 on the 47th floor matter? Column 79 goes from 47 to the ground. Column 79 takes it's portion of the load at each floor and transfers it to the ground. For an example, if I take away a section of column 79 at floor 28, the load on column 79 ABOVE floor 28 does not just dissipate. The load will still push down the section of column 79 above floor 28 where that portion of the column was removed. Now you have surrounding girders and their connection trying to compensate for the section of column 79 that is missing. Do you think the connections between girders and column was designed for that? What about those same girders in a weakened state? Again, the fire did not just affect column 79.

 

[gamolon]

It is a total fraud. It describes a scenario that goes against Newton's Laws of Motion. It is the Crush Down/Crush Up theory, which cannot happen, as you have pointed out because a lighter, weaker 13% cannot crush a much much stronger 80+% down and then crush itself back up.

I'll ask yet again. Explain, using Newton's Laws how this happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA

You say a lighter, weaker smaller section cannot destroy a much stronger, bigger section.

My guess is you'll keep running.

 

[gamolon]

You are making a case based on totally false assumptions, outright lies, gamolon, and you are doing this with no sense of shame whatsoever.

Seems like Stundie and a few others are the only ones interested in a real debate.

See ya.

:2wave:

 

[stundie]

Why does the temperature of column 79 on the 47th floor matter?

The only reason I asked is that if the fires were as high as floor 28, would column 79 be suffering from heat weakening in floors of lets say 30 or 40, from the fires down below.

If the fires were responsible for heat weakening on floor 13 and steel being a poor conductor of heat as far as metals go, how high the temperatures would be in the floors above it?

It doesn't matter that much though. Am I right in thinking that you think the heat weakened areas lower down were the reason it collapsed?

And if so, is it that the fires/heat only manage to weaken a few floors above and below floor 13?

Column 79 goes from 47 to the ground. Column 79 takes it's portion of the load at each floor and transfers it to the ground. For an example, if I take away a section of column 79 at floor 28, the load on column 79 ABOVE floor 28 does not just dissipate. The load will still push down the section of column 79 above floor 28 where that portion of the column was removed. Now you have surrounding girders and their connection trying to compensate for the section of column 79 that is missing.

I have a basic understanding of the construction and the load paths.

We agree that column 79 on floor 13 or 29 had 3 girders, 2 to the other internal columns and 1 to the exterior perimeter columns with beams that span the floors.

If the portion of the column 79 was removed on floor 28, depending on the portion we removed, it would be effected differently. So if we cut out a section between the floors and not at the joints, the load would simply transfer through the other columns and the girders and beams wouldn't be affected in that scenario.

If we removed column 79 at the joint of where the girders are attached to the column, the column above it with it's attached griders and beams are going to have to bear most of the load through it's attached load paths because it's suddenly as no support below it anymore but all of the other columns provide assistance. I would expect the girders to be weakened considering they are no longer attached to the column 79, but I don't think it would nessecarily collapse because all 3 columns are attached at the other ends. Could the girders stay up being attached to one end of a column? I don't know for sure, something tells me it can.

But lets assume for a moment the girders couldn't, then I would expect the girders to bend at the joints of the other columns and eventually give way and snap, I think that the floor below it is strong enough to withstand those girders and beams falling on it. Seeing as its only hitting floors made up of girders and beams. I doubt that column 79 wouldn't be weakened to any major degree in the floors above or below because it's still interconnected with the rest of the structure.

Do you think the connections between girders and column was designed for that?

They weren't designed to stand up on there own, that is just the nature of a structure.

I believe if you attached griders on one end to a column and the other end to nothing, providing the attachment is secure, the column could be stood up and the girders wouldn't fall down.

What about those same girders in a weakened state? Again, the fire did not just affect column 79.

I know, this is why I was asking you about how the temperatures were distrubuted to other/higher portions of the buildings above the floor 28, the highest floor on fire.

I'm sure the fires weakened some of the steel but to what degree? If floor 13 was at 1500c, what would floor 14 be at, 15 etc etc so we can determine a rough levels of weakeness of the steel in the surrouding areas.

 

[gamolon]

The only reason I asked is that if the fires were as high as floor 28, would column 79 be suffering from heat weakening in floors of lets say 30 or 40, from the fires down below.

I think it may affect one, possibly two floors, but I cannot say for sure.

If the fires were responsible for heat weakening on floor 13 and steel being a poor conductor of heat as far as metals go, how high the temperatures would be in the floors above it?

Not sure, but fire on the actual floor affecting steel on above/below floors doesn't figure into my reasoning for the collapse.

It doesn't matter that much though. Am I right in thinking that you think the heat weakened areas lower down were the reason it collapsed?

You would be correct.

And if so, is it that the fires/heat only manage to weaken a few floors above and below floor 13?

No. I believe that fires weakened structural components on the floors/areas that they were burning. Heat may have affected one, possibly two floors above/below, but I cannot say for sure.

I have a basic understanding of the construction and the load paths.

Ok.

We agree that column 79 on floor 13 or 29 had 3 girders, 2 to the other internal columns and 1 to the exterior perimeter columns with beams that span the floors.

Yes.

If the portion of the column 79 was removed on floor 28, depending on the portion we removed, it would be effected differently. So if we cut out a section between the floors and not at the joints, the load would simply transfer through the other columns and the girders and beams wouldn't be affected in that scenario.

Here's a simple drawing I made of a three column structure with floors and made up loads.


If I remove part of COL 2 between the foundation and 1st floor, isn't the following picture a representation of what the result would be? Wouldn't COL 2 above the removed portion come down and sag all the floors connected to it as shown?

If we removed column 79 at the joint of where the girders are attached to the column, the column above it with it's attached griders and beams are going to have to bear most of the load through it's attached load paths because it's suddenly as no support below it anymore but all of the other columns provide assistance. I would expect the girders to be weakened considering they are no longer attached to the column 79, but I don't think it would nessecarily collapse because all 3 columns are attached at the other ends. Could the girders stay up being attached to one end of a column? I don't know for sure, something tells me it can.

See second drawing above of the sagging column. In order for the loads to be redirected to the other two outer columns, COL 2 HAS to try and move down. It's can't just be suspended in the air and still carry its portion of load. so know you have basically doubled the load of each of the floor girder connections to COLs 1 and 3.

 

[gamolon]

But lets assume for a moment the girders couldn't, then I would expect the girders to bend at the joints of the other columns and eventually give way and snap,

So you agree in a sense with the drawings above.

I think that the floor below it is strong enough to withstand those girders and beams falling on it. Seeing as its only hitting floors made up of girders and beams. I doubt that column 79 wouldn't be weakened to any major degree in the floors above or below because it's still interconnected with the rest of the structure.

So we have two engineering groups (ARUP and NIST) that say they would break the floors below and another (Hulsey, but we don;t have his completed report) that says they couldn't have.

They weren't designed to stand up on there own, that is just the nature of a structure.

Ok.

I believe if you attached griders on one end to a column and the other end to nothing, providing the attachment is secure, the column could be stood up and the girders wouldn't fall down.

Question. What design criteria is used for a girder floor connection to make sure they don't snap at the connection to the column? I have NEVER seen a single column with floor girders attached raised and connected.

I know, this is why I was asking you about how the temperatures were distrubuted to other/higher portions of the buildings above the floor 28, the highest floor on fire.

Ok.

I'm sure the fires weakened some of the steel but to what degree? If floor 13 was at 1500c, what would floor 14 be at, 15 etc etc so we can determine a rough levels of weakeness of the steel in the surrouding areas.

View attachment 67224080
Not Sure.

 

[camlok]

I'll ask yet again. Explain, using Newton's Laws how this happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA

You say a lighter, weaker smaller section cannot destroy a much stronger, bigger section.

That is a CONCRETE structure that has been calculated/engineered to collapse. But these concrete/Verinage demolitions are controlled demolitions. They experience a jolt, they slow down whereas the twin towers accelerated. That cannot happen according to the laws of physics.

You, gamolon, explain how a much, much smaller portion of a building can crush down a much much much stronger portion of a building and then crush itself back up. Explain how that can happen, using Newton's Laws.

Explain how the massive section of WTC2 was brought back from its large tilt to fall straight down. That is impossible in a gravity collapse but it is possible, you saw it done, when high tech US government/military explosives are used.

Also explain how the US government/military nanothermite got into WTC dust.

Also explain how the entire USGOCT can be based on a "paper" presented on September 13, 2001?

 

[camlok]

Explain the missile nose sticking out of WTC2.

 

[camlok]

This explanation describes a situation of controlled demolition, which is of course what happened to WTC1.


North Tower Acceleration by David Chandler

 

[gamolon]

That is a CONCRETE structure that has been calculated/engineered to collapse. But these concrete/Verinage demolitions are controlled demolitions. They experience a jolt, they slow down whereas the twin towers accelerated. That cannot happen according to the laws of physics.

You, gamolon, explain how a much, much smaller portion of a building can crush down a much much much stronger portion of a building and then crush itself back up. Explain how that can happen, using Newton's Laws.

Explain how the massive section of WTC2 was brought back from its large tilt to fall straight down. That is impossible in a gravity collapse but it is possible, you saw it done, when high tech US government/military explosives are used.

Also explain how the US government/military nanothermite got into WTC dust.

Also explain how the entire USGOCT can be based on a "paper" presented on September 13, 2001?

You're not getting it camlok.

Here is your quote:

There have been studies done already, psik, and you are right, the USGOCT is pure nonsense, bunko, crap, lies. Are you aware that the "study" that NIST based its findings on as regards the twin towers was first put out on September 13, 2001?

It is a total fraud. It describes a scenario that goes against Newton's Laws of Motion. It is the Crush Down/Crush Up theory, which cannot happen, as you have pointed out because a lighter, weaker 13% cannot crush a much much stronger 80+% down and then crush itself back up.

You are basically turning complex objects into simplistic representations in order to try and use Newton's Laws. Below is a diagram of what you are doing:

Then you take the above representation and say that C cannot crush/destroy B

Then when I try to use the same simplistic logic (the video of the verinage), you want to discredit it by adding additional variables like "it was concrete" or "it was designed to collapse". I want you to cite which of Newton's Laws you are using to come up with the 13% of an object cannot crush 80+% of the same object. I want you to cite the part of Newton's Laws which helped you derive those two percentages and then helped you derive that the smaller portion cannot crush the larger portion. How did you use Newton's Laws to come up with the simplistic representation I made a diagram of.