The Progressive Collapse Challenge

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'd still like to see ONE quote where an architect says it can withstand multiple hits. EVERY quote I've seen said it can withstand A 707 impact, which was then construed to mean that he meant to say multiple, because he DIDN'T say it couldn't withstand more than one.

Well you learn something new everyday don't you:

freepressinternational.com...

Of course, now you'll have a problem with the person making this claim but whatever, he's only the WTC construction manager, not an NIST or FEMA engineer.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
So is the 'fireproofing' your final answer? That's the crux of the issue? If that didn't crumble off, the buildings would of stood??

Yes.


The widespread use of sprayed on fireproofing in high-rise construction started in the 1960's prior to that, buildings were fireproofed with more robust, but heavier materials such as clay tiles, pyrobar blocks, and concrete. Concrete is still used today, but more as a separate structural system than as a fireproofing.

Early versions of the sprayed on fireproofing made heavy use of asbestos. After asbestos was phased out of this application in the early 70's, other materials were used. However, whatever the material used, sprayed on fireproofing has several inherent faults. it is friable, it crumbles easily, if can have adhesion problems if the underling steel is primed with the wrong paint or if it is rusty. The primary advantage to it is that it is light and easily applied. Thus buildings can be built lighter, higher, faster, cheaper.

Did the structural engineers consider the effect of the aircraft impact on the fireproofing?

I doubt it. Fire protection of the building is not generally part of the structural engineers scope of responsibility. Just like they are not responsible for the plumbing or the electrical systems.

Was it a crap fireproofing?

No. it just wasn't meant to withstand that type of abuse.

There is not a single type of sprayed on fireproofing out there that will.

Well how in the @#&& did the spray on fireprooffing get stripped off of every column so that it failed 360 degrees simultaneously? That is the only way it could have collapsed like it did. Have you ever tried heating that much steel? I am telling you the fires were not that hot, I have been onscene when a gasoline tanker (the tractor trailer type) was burning, now that was a hot flame, whitehot . The fire at WTC just was not burning all that hot long enough to cause an even 360 degree heating of the structure. You make the spray on fireproofing sound like something that comes out of a can, It has cement mixed with it also and is very durable. I think also it supports the argument that it would keep the steel from heating evenly enough to cause a 360 degree collapse being that the fire proofing on the opisite side of the impact for the most part would be intact.

Howard I dont know why you would post this stuff when you seem knowlegable enough to know better. That is very suspicious.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
ANY structure fire will get hot enough. That is a fact. Without the fireproofing to insulate the steel, it will quickly reach temperatures that will cause the steel to creep and yeild.

A severe fire that lasted 18 hours (One Meridian Plaza), wiping out 8 floors entirely, cracking granite, destroying spandrel panel connections, shattering windows:



No part of it suffered any collapse. Not even localized collapses.


A severe fire (First Interstate Bank Fire) lasting 3 and a half hours, that gutted five entire floors and suffered extensive window shattering:



Yet,

In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

www.iklimnet.com...


A severe fire (Caracas Tower) lasting 17 hours and destroying 26 floors:

"There is a problem because the building is made of steel. Because of the high temperatures, the structure could collapse," Interior minister Jesse Chacon told President Hugo Chavez during his weekly radio and television show.

www.cbsnews.com...

And yet what did they come to find out after it was over?

"Engineers have gone up there and inspected" the building, Briceno said, adding that "it is very solid."

What a surprise!!

And it burned for 17 hours! On over 26 floors!

So why didn't the steel "yield and creep"? Were the fires not hot enough? Didn't last long enough?

By comparison, the WTC 2 fire lasted 56 minutes, and WTC burned for an hour and 42 minutes. So the longest WTC fire was 102 minutes, and by comparison, the Caracas fire lasted around 1020 minutes. And yet engineers would find afterwards, that it was in fact still "very solid." Maybe that's because it wasn't demolished like three other towers that once existed in NYC were.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'd still like to see ONE quote where an architect says it can withstand multiple hits. EVERY quote I've seen said it can withstand A 707 impact, which was then construed to mean that he meant to say multiple, because he DIDN'T say it couldn't withstand more than one.

Well you learn something new everyday don't you:

freepressinternational.com...

Of course, now you'll have a problem with the person making this claim but whatever, he's only the WTC construction manager, not an NIST or FEMA engineer.

My problem with his claim is that the ARCHITECTS, who I think would have a pretty good idea what the building can withstand stated in every interview it would withstand AN impact of a 707, whereas he states he BELIEVES it could withstand more than one. I would think the architects would know what they designed the building to withstand a little more.

Demartini also said the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 initially, which is of course singular, indicating one.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time.

Yeah, ok. Nothing unusual here. Others have confirmed this.

But then(!), unlike others, he goes even further with this statement:

I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

This is the more unusual part of the statement. Who would suspect multiple impacts? I'm not surprised no one else mentioned commented on what would happen if multiple planes were flown into a WTC Tower. It would've been unthinkable before 9/11. One would have been odd enough. But here, Demartini clearly states that if there were multiple impacts, it's in his professional and very relevant opinion that they would've held fine because of the way the buildings were constructed. And then he explains why, dumbing it down for us by using a simple comparison.

If the architects were asked about multiple impacts, I don't know why their responses should differ that much from Demartini's; both the on-site construction manager and the architects would undoubtedly be very knowledgeable about the towers. And here's Demartini commenting on multiples, saying he thinks the towers would've been fine in such a situation.

It's too bad he hasn't been seen since 9/11.

[edit on 1-9-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'd still like to see ONE quote where an architect says it can withstand multiple hits. EVERY quote I've seen said it can withstand A 707 impact, which was then construed to mean that he meant to say multiple, because he DIDN'T say it couldn't withstand more than one.

Well you learn something new everyday don't you:

freepressinternational.com...

Of course, now you'll have a problem with the person making this claim but whatever, he's only the WTC construction manager, not an NIST or FEMA engineer.

My problem with his claim is that the ARCHITECTS, who I think would have a pretty good idea what the building can withstand stated in every interview it would withstand AN impact of a 707, whereas he states he BELIEVES it could withstand more than one. I would think the architects would know what they designed the building to withstand a little more.

Well your free to believe that also but i'll take the WTC construction managers word over yours, please understand that, no disrespect intended.

As construction manager, he would be in the position to know. He is responsable for the construction working and that the plans the architects give him actually can be constucted in real life, he would have a lot of knowledge of the buildings design and build because if he didn't do his job and there was a structual failure, he would be ultimatly responsable (amongst others i'm sure).

So we have the architects and engineers saying it designed to take a plane impact and we have the construction manager saying he BELIEVES it could not only take 1 impact as it's designed, but theoretically could widthstand multiple impacts.

Yet we're to believe it was because some of the fire proofing was knocked off and in less than an hour, an office fire was intense enough to spoil the integrity of the structure when fire has never produced this affect before and when fire fighters were calling for only 2 more lines before expecting the fire to be controlled.





[edit on 1-9-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Well how in the @#&& did the spray on fireprooffing get stripped off of every column so that it failed 360 degrees simultaneously?

No one is claiming that it was knocked off all the beams columns and floor trusses.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
That is the only way it could have collapsed like it did.

What are you talking about?

Do you understand the concepts of structural stability, redistribution of loads, or structural buckling failures? You don't need to be a structural engineer to grasp the basics here.

WTC was built using a rigid tube type structure. In this structure, all of the structural elements are tied together in the building, they tend to help and support each other. The exterior columns are tied to each other through the spandrel plates. The core columns are tied to each other through the core beams. The exterior columns are tied to the core columns through the hat truss and the floor slabs. this is how the structure can be built light weight and tall.

Once some of the structural elements started to buckle and fail, the loads formerly carried by those elements were transferred to other columns. As this keeps happening, however, eventually all of the structural elements on that floor will reach a point where they are unable to handle any additional load. At this point the structure becomes unstable and the entire floor collapses.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Have you ever tried heating that much steel? I am telling you the fires were not that hot, I have been onscene when a gasoline tanker (the tractor trailer type) was burning, now that was a hot flame, whitehot . The fire at WTC just was not burning all that hot long enough to cause an even 360 degree heating of the structure.

Again, you are confused. First of all, all structure fires release a ton of heat. You have the jet fuel, the office furniture, paper and building materials, and also the combustible components of the aircraft cabin. That is a pretty high fuel load. Don’t forget that those floors were almost an acre in size each. That is a lot of cubicles.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
You make the spray on fireproofing sound like something that comes out of a can, It has cement mixed with it also and is very durable.

From the NIST report:

Three SFRM products that were used in the towers include:
• CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD DC/F for floor trusses, core columns, and the exterior surfaces of
the exterior columns and spandrels
• CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD II for upgrades to floor trusses, which started in the 1990’s
• W.R. Grace and Co., Monokote (sprayed cementitious vermiculite) for the interior surfaces of
the exterior columns and spandrels
The gypsum panels were used to form fire-resistant enclosures around steel core columns, stairwells,
mechanical shafts, and the core area in the towers. The core column fireproofing varied according to the
column location and exposure to occupied spaces. Column surfaces in public access areas were protected
with gypsum enclosures while the remaining surfaces were protected with SFRM.

I’m familiar with all of these materials and believe me, they aren’t all that resistant to damage. Note that some of the core columns were not sprayed bu in drywall enclosures. Since we know that the drywall of the core was pretty much smashed out by the impact of the debris, these column faces would have been directly expose to the heat.

Also, the cafco material on the floor trusses is particularly light and friable. Add to that the fact that this material was applied to truss elements with rather small cross sections compared to the size of the truss element itself, and you can see that it wouldn’t take much force to knock that down.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
I think also it supports the argument that it would keep the steel from heating evenly enough to cause a 360 degree collapse being that the fire proofing on the opisite side of the impact for the most part would be intact.

Howard I dont know why you would post this stuff when you seem knowlegable enough to know better. That is very suspicious.

Do you want me to repost the picture of the exterior columns on the south face of WTC 1 starting to buckle in the minutes before the collapse?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Again, you are confused. First of all, all structure fires release a ton of heat. You have the jet fuel, the office furniture, paper and building materials, and also the combustible components of the aircraft cabin. That is a pretty high fuel load. Don’t forget that those floors were almost an acre in size each. That is a lot of cubicles.

Again with the heat .. I think it's obvious now there was no heat.
- The Kevin Ryan letter telling about the fema metallurgic report.
- Heat analysis showing moderate temperatures in most places.
- The video evidence of the smoke
- The lack of video evidence of flames in or outside the building
- People close to, or in, the impact hole.
- Firefighters on tape saying they're able to put the fires out with 2/3 lines and reporting small pockets of fire.
- Windows that should break at 600°C are intact .

What is your proof of a blazing fire ?
It's only because you BELIEF a fire brought them down that you are somehow convinced there were indeed heavy fires, denying all of the obvious evidence.

Bsbray, I don't recall what kind of airplanes hit the Meridian plaza, Caracas towere, or the Windsor towers.


Also, just becase two buildngs use the same materials in the construction, doesn't meant that they will perform the same in the same situation, especialy when they are constructed using totaly different structural designs.

Doesn't matter if planes hit or not, even the NIST report says that the impact of the plane didn't cause severe damage to most of the columns.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Once some of the structural elements started to buckle and fail, the loads formerly carried by those elements were transferred to other columns. As this keeps happening, however, eventually all of the structural elements on that floor will reach a point where they are unable to handle any additional load. At this point the structure becomes unstable and the entire floor collapses.

The DCR's for the core columns, when recallibrated after some of them were severed, don't even exceed 1.0. And based on the plane's angle of entry, it is likely that only a couple of columns at most were severed in WTC2. Besides, even though NIST conveniently recalculated many of the PRE-collapse DCR's to be over 1.0, the towers still stood since DCR of structural elements over 1.0 does not automatically mean a structure will fall to pieces.

[edit on 2005-9-2 by wecomeinpeace]

As our supercomputers now can barely calculate the effects of an incident like this on the building, I wondered what sort of computer they used, or more importantly, what method they used when they built the towers to be able to say that they could withstand an impact from an airliner.

It all reminds me of the 'Towering Inferno' - (which was fiction) and the 'Titanic' - (which obviously wasn't).

[edit on 2-9-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Well how in the @#&& did the spray on fireprooffing get stripped off of every column so that it failed 360 degrees simultaneously?

No one is claiming that it was knocked off all the beams columns and floor trusses.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
That is the only way it could have collapsed like it did.

What are you talking about?

Do you understand the concepts of structural stability, redistribution of loads, or structural buckling failures? You don't need to be a structural engineer to grasp the basics here.

WTC was built using a rigid tube type structure. In this structure, all of the structural elements are tied together in the building, they tend to help and support each other. The exterior columns are tied to each other through the spandrel plates. The core columns are tied to each other through the core beams. The exterior columns are tied to the core columns through the hat truss and the floor slabs. this is how the structure can be built light weight and tall.

Once some of the structural elements started to buckle and fail, the loads formerly carried by those elements were transferred to other columns. As this keeps happening, however, eventually all of the structural elements on that floor will reach a point where they are unable to handle any additional load. At this point the structure becomes unstable and the entire floor collapses.

Here Howard shows you four fingers and tries to convince you that he's holding up five. Or maybe three. Or however many is necessary.

As you originally pointed out, LoneGunMan, before Howard pulled a disinfo tactic on you (see below), is, of course, dead-on. The failure of some columns should not have resulted in the blowing-out of all critical columns simultaneously so as to cause a symmetrical vertical collapse unless the critical number of columns had been taken out/severely weakened.

Even then, the collapse would have resulted in a lopsided fall, as the undamaged columns would still provide much resistance to the falling mass. That they would've provided more resistance to the falling floors than they disabled columns is obvious.

The building above the collapsing region (should it have still been acting as a single object) would've gravitated towards the destroyed/weakened columns because of the lack of resistance to gravity. Gravity has more influence when it's met with less resistance, obviously, which is why this would've been the case. The building began falling somewhat lopsided, but soon stopped its leaning outward (indicating the top of the building was no longer acting as a single solid object as per physics regarding angular momentum), and then proceeded to fall perfectly vertically and symmetrically in a way that would require all columns on each floor to be destroyed simultaneously, within the same 0.3-seconds-per-floor time span. I find it ridiculous to believe that this could have ocurred with no retardation of the collapse speed resulting from any columns on any part of any floor, which would have immediately resulted in a lopsiding of the collapse.

The actual collapses of the WTC Towers and Building 7 imply the consistency of column failure from demolition, as well as the speed in which they were to fail consistently and evenly all the way down with no off-setting issues with the columns being destroyed, even as the force that would've been bearing down was rapidly disappearing and falling off the sides in the form of ejected steel beams and concrete dust.

The disinfo tactic mentioned is known as 'invoking authority'.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

Example: 'You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71...

...

Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. You simply cite 'Jane's-like' information to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)?'

home.datawest.net...

Another example:

What are you talking about?

Do you understand the concepts of structural stability, redistribution of loads, or structural buckling failures?

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Have you ever tried heating that much steel? I am telling you the fires were not that hot, I have been onscene when a gasoline tanker (the tractor trailer type) was burning, now that was a hot flame, whitehot . The fire at WTC just was not burning all that hot long enough to cause an even 360 degree heating of the structure.

Again, you are confused. First of all, all structure fires release a ton of heat. You have the jet fuel, the office furniture, paper and building materials, and also the combustible components of the aircraft cabin. That is a pretty high fuel load. Don’t forget that those floors were almost an acre in size each. That is a lot of cubicles.

I fail to see how this is proof of the temperature of the fires in the least.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
I think also it supports the argument that it would keep the steel from heating evenly enough to cause a 360 degree collapse being that the fire proofing on the opisite side of the impact for the most part would be intact.

Howard I dont know why you would post this stuff when you seem knowlegable enough to know better. That is very suspicious.

Do you want me to repost the picture of the exterior columns on the south face of WTC 1 starting to buckle in the minutes before the collapse?

Aluminum facades.

You've criticized others for showing aluminum facades instead of actual beams, and then turn around and do the exact same thing (and threaten to do the exact same thing) when it suits you.

Not only hypocritical, but misleading. The aluminum facades were jarred out of place by the impacts in many different directions. Your buckling pics show only the facades, and further, only show a very limited amount of buckling if it is indeed buckling in the first place. Of course, the claim that "the rest of them buckled at collapse initiation" is convenient for your argument but also completely unsupported.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Bsbray, I don't recall what kind of airplanes hit the Meridian plaza, Caracas towere, or the Windsor towers.

And I don't recall what this has anything to do with damage caused by fire.

Also, just becase two buildngs use the same materials in the construction, doesn't meant that they will perform the same in the same situation, especialy when they are constructed using totaly different structural designs.

I think the fact that the steel in the Caracas Tower was still completely stable after those 17-hour fires transcends whatever issues a difference of arrangement would present.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
As our supercomputers now can barely calculate the effects of an incident like this on the building, I wondered what sort of computer they used, or more importantly, what method they used when they built the towers to be able to say that they could withstand an impact from an airliner.

Does this mean you think the architects and construction manager were lying about designing the buildings this way?

I would suspect that if you could estimate the number of columns a 707 could potentially disable from its size and penetration distance, etc., you could do such things without a computer.

some fine dancing on this thread.
no one has met the challenge. not even remotely.
we would need to see it on video.
the correct aspect ratio, dispersion pattern, etc, as per the challenge conditions.
a lot of dancing.
no meat.
where's the beef?

Just a couple of points on the futility of comparing the performance of different buildings under similar conditions. The fire in the Caracas tower did cause some of the floor beams to sag but they did not collapse.

Unfortunately, since these were the more traditional I-beams and not the floor trusses used in the WTC construction, it is not really possible to compare the two situations.

Also, you have to take into account the fact that the buildings were built in different seismic zones, and thus to different seismic codes.

Caracas has been destroyed by earthquakes three times in the past 400 years. New York has never been destroyed by an earthquake.

Furthermore, the main structural system for the building is nothing like the WTC structure, is it?

The main reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete "macroslabs," a two-way ribbed structure 3 m deep. Macroslabs are located at the seventh, 21st, 33rd, 45th and 55th levels. The frame is designed to handle seismic and vertical loads.

construction.com...

Originally posted by billybob
some fine dancing on this thread.
no one has met the challenge. not even remotely.
we would need to see it on video.
the correct aspect ratio, dispersion pattern, etc, as per the challenge conditions.
a lot of dancing.
no meat.
where's the beef?

I must have missed it when you posted the comments that you submitted to NIST as per my original thread in this series.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I must have missed it when you posted the comments that you submitted to NIST as per my original thread in this series.

this thread is inexorably linked with your 'original' thread?
this is not your thread, nor your challenge.

*bilybob spins on his head, breakdance-style*


[edit on 6-9-2005 by billybob]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I must have missed it when you posted the comments that you submitted to NIST as per my original thread in this series.

Oooooh, personal advertising, gotta love that. I think they call this particular condition "thread envy".

Don't worry Howard, it's not the popularity of your thread, it's how you use it.