• 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]

Re: WTC Core Details

Well, a lot of what I am saying IS based on what is on the drawings.
Really?

The corners did not suffer impact damage and would have continued to support the North face floor system from these transverse corners.
Then tell us gerrycan. How did you come to the conclusion you made above from just those drawings. Show us how you made the determination that the traverse corners would continue to support the north face floor system.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

*sigh*

I want your calculations that support your claim made here:

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.

I have looked at a lot of calculations to do with the towers. Wind tunnel test outputs, perimeter module test outputs etc. And unlike you, I didn't just see these drawings for the first time today and wade into a debate as if I knew something about it.

What is being said clearly is that there were a lot more elements in this building that would have made it a lot more robust than I personally was previously aware. Especially in terms of how the core column structure and the floor system were made composite. Admittedly these are my initial thoughts on the new structural data, but whining about calculations isn't actually addressing the issue that I am raising.

You weren't aware that there were studs around the core to this extent until today. I would say you should take some time to consider the data, then get back to me.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Really?


Then tell us gerrycan. How did you come to the conclusion you made above from just those drawings. Show us how you made the determination that the traverse corners would continue to support the north face floor system.

Yes, Really.

Just like my thoughts on the shear stud issue in WTC7 were based on observation of the drawings. Remember that issue? The one where you denied the girder had shear studs on it for YEARS, even denying them when faced with court evidence from an engineer that they were there.

That debate didn't end very well for you, and you seem to be trying to save some face now. Advice would be to take a breath and actually look at the data.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I have looked at a lot of calculations to do with the towers. Wind tunnel test outputs, perimeter module test outputs etc. And unlike you, I didn't just see these drawings for the first time today and wade into a debate as if I knew something about it.

What is being said clearly is that there were a lot more elements in this building that would have made it a lot more robust than I personally was previously aware. Especially in terms of how the core column structure and the floor system were made composite. Admittedly these are my initial thoughts on the new structural data, but whining about calculations isn't actually addressing the issue that I am raising.

You weren't aware that there were studs around the core to this extent until today. I would say you should take some time to consider the data, then get back to me.
Whew!

That was a sure a lot of words to just say you were guessing and that you can't support your claims.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Yes, Really.

Just like my thoughts on the shear stud issue in WTC7 were based on observation of the drawings. Remember that issue? The one where you denied the girder had shear studs on it for YEARS, even denying them when faced with court evidence from an engineer that they were there.

That debate didn't end very well for you, and you seem to be trying to save some face now. Advice would be to take a breath and actually look at the data.
Hey gerrycan.

Tell us again. What was the conclusion of that court evidence?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Whew!

That was a sure a lot of words to just say you were guessing and that you can't support your claims.

The OP is asking whether anyone is aware of NIST including these elements in THEIR analysis and calculations. Do you have any calculations at all from NIST on this ? NO.

So why are you applying a higher burden of proof to a blog post than you do to the NIST report ?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Hey gerrycan.

Tell us again. What was the conclusion of that court evidence?

That the studs were on the girder because they had been observed on a drawing. Making you 100% wrong. For years.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

The OP is asking whether anyone is aware of NIST including these elements in THEIR analysis and calculations. Do you have any calculations at all from NIST on this ? NO.

So why are you applying a higher burden of proof to a blog post than you do to the NIST report ?
You made a claim in your OP. That very claim is based on you GUESSING and not based on any engineering at all. If it was based on engineering, you would have provided it already instead of tiptoeing all around it.

So once again, You're just guessing. Get back to us when you have something worth presenting.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

That the studs were on the girder because they had been observed on a drawing. Making you 100% wrong. For years.
Have you actually seen the papers referenced that prove what the engineer said?

Funny how you sidestepped the question about what the court evidence said about what happened. Why is that gerrycan? Are the engineers only good for reference when you think they support your claims?

Again, what was the conclusion of the court evidence?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

You made a claim in your OP. That very claim is based on you GUESSING and not based on any engineering at all. If it was based on engineering, you would have provided it already instead of tiptoeing all around it.

So once again, You're just guessing. Get back to us when you have something worth presenting.

Do you dispute the claim that the tower could withstand a 150mph wind ?

And do you disput the claim that the tower could have a face and corners cut and still stand a 100mph wind from any direction ?

I think that both these claims were backed up with a lot of calculations and were not just pulled out of the air. These claims support what I am saying, and were based on the wind tunnel test outputs.

So do you agree with the 2 claims above or not ?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Have you actually seen the papers referenced that prove what the engineer said?

Funny how you sidestepped the question about what the court evidence said about what happened. Why is that gerrycan? Are the engineers only good for reference when you think they support your claims?

Again, what was the conclusion of the court evidence?

STILL you are in denial re WTC7. Classic - but let's stick to the towers. WTC7 is a done issue for me now.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Do you dispute the claim that the tower could withstand a 150mph wind ?
What the hell do wind calculations have to do with the side of the tower being hit by a jet, severing perimeter and core columns, damaging others, and THEN being subjected to fires?

And do you disput the claim that the tower could have a face and corners cut and still stand a 100mph wind from any direction ?
Again, show me what the wind calculations have to do with damage to structural components due to fires and impact damage from a jet? The fact that you think wind calculations of a structure can be used to determine how the same structure will react to impact damage and subsequent fires is hysterical.

So do you agree with the 2 claims above or not ?
See above...

You really need to run your posts past a structural engineer before coming here and spewing such nonsense.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

STILL you are in denial re WTC7. Classic - but let's stick to the towers. WTC7 is a done issue for me now.
Boy did you run from that gerrycan!

What was the conclusion of ALL the court evidence? Are you afraid to say?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

What the hell do calculations have to do with the side of the tower being hit by a jet, severing perimeter and core columns, damaging others, and THEN being subjected to fires?


Again, show me what the wind calculations have to do with damage to structural components due to fires and impact damage from a jet? The fact that you think wind calculations of a structure can be used to determine how the same structure will react to impact damage and subsequent fires is hysterical.


See above...

You really need to run your posts past a structural engineer before coming here and spewing such nonsense.

I don't believe that NIST accounted for these elements in their analysis. If you can say that they did, then that's something that you will need to back up.

THAT is what the OP is asking. So do you have enything at all from NIST that would suggest that they did indeed account for these elements in their analysis ?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I don't believe that NIST accounted for these elements in their analysis.
So you're guessing again? You're saying the above because you think that wind calculations and drawings showing "robust" components are enough for you to make the determination that the corners would have continued to support the damaged floor system????

You're kidding right?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

So you're guessing again? You're saying the above because you think that wind calculations and drawings showing "robust" components are enough for you to make the determination that the corners would have continued to support the damaged floor system????

You're kidding right?

No. YOU are guessing about what NIST did and didn't do AGAIN.

Did NIST omit studs in the WTC7 analysis ? Yes - proven.

Why would you then presume that they couldn't make the same mistake with the towers ?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

Boy did you run from that gerrycan!

What was the conclusion of ALL the court evidence? Are you afraid to say?

Now you know why we all ignore him. He's a member of Camlock's zero evidence club.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

To clarify....
wtc nf comp.webp

The green lines would represent how the transverse corners would have supported the floor system at, above and below the impact. Nothing new there. We all knew that the floor system corners had to do this. What is new though, is the additional support and reinforcement that was in the area with red lines and throughout the core.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

No. YOU are guessing about what NIST did and didn't do AGAIN.

Did NIST omit studs in the WTC7 analysis ? Yes - proven.

Why would you then presume that they couldn't make the same mistake with the towers ?

I knew you would play that card about WTC7. You do realize the Husley model made assumptions and left out known facts regarding WTC7.

I will cut to the chase. What do you believe caused the Towers to collapse? That is really what you want from this thread, is it not?
 
Re: WTC Core Details

I knew you would play that card about WTC7. You do realize the Husley model made assumptions and left out known facts regarding WTC7.

I will cut to the chase. What do you believe caused the Towers to collapse? That is really what you want from this thread, is it not?

The problem here is that you want to leapfrog over a load of relevant data and "cut to the chase". That's not happening.

The thread is about the details of how the floor truss system was connected to the perimeter core column structure by massive shear plates and loads of shear studs. These are not insignificant details that you can hand wave away with generalities.
Here's a typical shear plate showing how the slab extended right into the core structure.
image from WTCI-000023-L-156.webp
 
Re: WTC Core Details

The problem here is that you want to leapfrog over a load of relevant data and "cut to the chase". That's not happening.

The thread is about the details of how the floor truss system was connected to the perimeter core column structure by massive shear plates and loads of shear studs. These are not insignificant details that you can hand wave away with generalities.
Here's a typical shear plate showing how the slab extended right into the core structure.
View attachment 67228411

Then according to you, all simulations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers are invalid. That includes NIST, AE911T and others.

After the impact, were there events that could have damaged or weakened the floors and the connections? Yes or No.

Take a gander at the paper on structural steel and connections for the twin towers. You have seen it before, right?:mrgreen:

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8107/403_apb.pdf

The thread has some interesting photos.

https://www.metabunk.org/wtc-towers-core-columns-what-held-them-together.t9256/
 
Last edited:
Re: WTC Core Details

Then according to you, all simulations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers are invalid. That includes NIST, AE911T and others.

No. But it would be fascinating to learn how you managed to reach that conclusion.

After the impact, were there events that could have damaged or weakened the floors and the connections? Yes or No.

Of course, yes, but which events and which connections ? Certainly not the ones illustrated on the above drawing. As for ths trusses sagging, I can't see them detatching themselves from the slab and pulling the perimeter columns in, having already failed. Can you see how that could possibly happen given the details in the drawings ?

Would be fascinating to hear how you would reach that conclusion too.
 
Re: WTC Core Details

No. But it would be fascinating to learn how you managed to reach that conclusion.



Of course, yes, but which events and which connections ? Certainly not the ones illustrated on the above drawing. As for ths trusses sagging, I can't see them detatching themselves from the slab and pulling the perimeter columns in, having already failed. Can you see how that could possibly happen given the details in the drawings ?

Would be fascinating to hear how you would reach that conclusion too.
You seem to be concerned that NIST omitted "studs" in the simulations they ran. Husley left out fire and damage on other floors. His simulation does not represent "real world" fire behavior.

Here is my take. No one can say for 100% certainty which bolt, plate, beam, etc. failed first. No one was inside to observe. No cameras were inside to record the event.
If you are one that believes the crash+damage+fire could not have collapsed the towers and that it had to be controlled demolition, then please state in detail how it was done. What was used, where were the charges placed, who did the work, etc.

You statement of "Certainly not the ones illustrated on the above drawing.........." is an opinion.

See post 40 in https://www.metabunk.org/wtc-towers-core-columns-what-held-them-together.t9256/
D. Friedman (Contract Engineer during clean up).
"I had misgivings about the core columns I was seeing. I was sure the dunnage design would work—Kyle and Chris know their stuff—but I was unhappy that the columns I saw lying on West Street seemed to be in too-good condition. These huge columns—the largest weighed more than one ton per running foot—were almost all straight, with clean edges at both ends. There were some dents here and there, but I expected a piece of steel that had been wrenched out of a building to be bent. I examined the ends of the columns every chance I got. Every welded splice at the column ends I saw had failed the same way: by ripping out of the steel. The plates that had been assembled into boxes for the core columns varied from a couple of inches at the top to five inches at the bottom. The top and bottom ends of each column were flat and had been spliced with a partial-penetration groove weld: the upper column’s four sides were beveled about an inch and a half. When the upper column was erected over the already in-place column below, the bevel and the flat top surface of the lower column formed a lopsided “V” shaped groove, which was then filled with weld. Partial penetration welds are not as strong as full-penetration welds, where the groove is the same depth as the steel is thick, but they are far stronger than is needed for most purposes. Under the extraordinary loads imposed during the collapse, the columns were free to buckle after the the welds ripped off of the flat surface of the groove. Like a lot of the structural damage I saw, this was not a normal phenomenon and it was hard to accept. I spent a lot of time noting such issues and trying not to learn too much from them. It would be easy to stop trusting my knowledge of building design, and weld performance, and steel strength, and so on. I felt that by understanding what had physically happened on September 11, I could contrast it with the ordinary engineering problems I dealt with on my projects.]
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=7EYjl-f3DhAC

So, how did the tower fail?
 
Last edited:
Re: WTC Core Details

You seem to be hung up that NIST omitted "studs" in the simulations they ran. Husley left out fire and damage on other floors. He also did not simulate "real world" fire behavior.

You statement of "Certainly not the ones illustrated on the above drawing.........." is an opinion.

See post 40 in https://www.metabunk.org/wtc-towers-core-columns-what-held-them-together.t9256/
D. Friedman (Contract Engineer during clean up).
"I had misgivings about the core columns I was seeing. I was sure the dunnage design would work—Kyle and Chris know their stuff—but I was unhappy that the columns I saw lying on West Street seemed to be in too-good condition. These huge columns—the largest weighed more than one ton per running foot—were almost all straight, with clean edges at both ends. There were some dents here and there, but I expected a piece of steel that had been wrenched out of a building to be bent. I examined the ends of the columns every chance I got. Every welded splice at the column ends I saw had failed the same way: by ripping out of the steel. The plates that had been assembled into boxes for the core columns varied from a couple of inches at the top to five inches at the bottom. The top and bottom ends of each column were flat and had been spliced with a partial-penetration groove weld: the upper column’s four sides were beveled about an inch and a half. When the upper column was erected over the already in-place column below, the bevel and the flat top surface of the lower column formed a lopsided “V” shaped groove, which was then filled with weld. Partial penetration welds are not as strong as full-penetration welds, where the groove is the same depth as the steel is thick, but they are far stronger than is needed for most purposes. Under the extraordinary loads imposed during the collapse, the columns were free to buckle after the the welds ripped off of the flat surface of the groove. Like a lot of the structural damage I saw, this was not a normal phenomenon and it was hard to accept. I spent a lot of time noting such issues and trying not to learn too much from them. It would be easy to stop trusting my knowledge of building design, and weld performance, and steel strength, and so on. I felt that by understanding what had physically happened on September 11, I could contrast it with the ordinary engineering problems I dealt with on my projects.]
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=7EYjl-f3DhAC

Hang on. The quote above is about the splice connections in the cores every third floor. I am talking about the horizontal bracing.

ADD Interesting looking weld at 39s here http://www.ina.fr/video/I09037624
 
Last edited:
Re: WTC Core Details

Hang on. The quote above is about the splice connections in the cores every third floor. I am talking about the horizontal bracing.

ADD Interesting looking weld at 39s here http://www.ina.fr/video/I09037624

I still have not a clue of what point you are trying to make.

Looking at one drawing is not going to show that failure was possible or not possible. Was there not many events happening at the same time within the building?

A pretty good photo archive and some analysis is here.
A World Trade Center Collapse Investigative Resource - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research
 
Back
Top Bottom