How was WTC foundation failure achieved?

Originally posted by bsbray11
The photos you are posting now show WTC2 AFTER it had started its collapse sequence.

So are you agreeing with me that the buckling was a part of the collapse sequence?

If so, then what does that do to the “free fall” theory. You just added five minutes to the total collapse time.

AGAIN -- you have not shown the CAUSE, but merely an EFFECT of the collapse initiation. Where was all of that buckling BEFORE the collapse began?

Wait, you just said: “The photos you are posting now show WTC2 AFTER it had started its collapse sequence.”

Those pictures of the buckling were taken a few minutes or so before the runaway collapse began.

Your suddenly-lightning-fast-failures does NOT match the previous buckling in the building. This must be the fourth or fifth time I've said this in the past 30 minutes, Howard! What is up with you today?

What is with you? The buckling began and slowly propagated, It reached a point where the any further propagation would result in the sudden, catastrophic collapse of the building, which is what happened.

There is nothing strange about the concept of a sudden runaway failure. It is a characteristic of buckling failures.

How hard is this to understand?

If you don’t want to accept this, fine, that is your issue. The point is that it is not a unique situation; it is a characteristic of buckling failures.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Just because it does not have diagonal pracing, does not mean the "matrix" connected columns that created the core could withstand "no lateral load". That notion is ridiculous.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Find me a structural engineer that will agree with you.

So if I farted on it, it would fall over? After all, that would be a latteral load Howardroark. I know I am being ridiculous, but that is how you are making it out to be.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So are you agreeing with me that the buckling was a part of the collapse sequence?

If so, then what does that do to the “free fall” theory. You just added five minutes to the total collapse time.

I'm mostly just being hypothetical with the buckling stuff, but no. The buckling after the collapse had began -- for the freaking 6th or 7th time -- DOES NOT INDICATE THE CAUSE COLLAPSE, BUT MERELY AN EFFECT.

Prove that there was enough buckling to cause a collapse and you'll have achieved something for theory.

Those pictures of the buckling were taken a few minutes or so before the runaway collapse began.

I was referring with that comment to a specific photo and not all of them collectively.

Feel free to actually think at some point, man. It's what your head is there for.

What is with you? The buckling began and slowly propagated,

Until the very end, apparently, when the small amount of buckling turn global so fast that it was invisible to the naked eye, right?


I'm done with your nonsense for now, Howard.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Just because it does not have diagonal pracing, does not mean the "matrix" connected columns that created the core could withstand "no lateral load". That notion is ridiculous.

Find me a structural engineer that will agree with you.

So if I farted on it, it would fall over? After all, that would be a latteral load Howardroark. I know I am being ridiculous, but that is how you are making it out to be.


WTF are you talking about?

Did you miss the part where I stated that the WTC towers received their lateral load resistance from the Vierendeel truss? (i.e. the exterior walls).

Please try to read the posts and look up any terms you are not familiar with.





[edit on 31-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by bsbray11 The buckling after the collapse had began -- for the freaking 6th or 7th time -- DOES NOT INDICATE THE CAUSE COLLAPSE, BUT MERELY AN EFFECT.

So is this buckling a cause or an effect?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Did you miss the part where I stated that the WTC towers received their lateral load resistance from the Vierendeel truss? (i.e. the exterior walls).

No, I did not miss that howardroark. I know where the TOWERS, the system as a whole, got most of their latteral support.

We were speaking CLEARLY of the CORES. The cores, standing alone had PLENTLY of lateral load bearing capacity. You were responding to a post in which I stated:

Originally posted by slap nuts
The core provided it's own stablity.

Basically stating that if the exterior walls and floor trusses were gone, the core, hat truss and all would be able to stand on it's own.

You turned this statement into somethig diferent... the system as a whole.


Read the posts next time howardroark.

Also, what does "go pound sand" mean? I am arabic and if you are being racist I think you should be banned immediately.

Basically stating that if the exterior walls and floor trusses were gone, the core, hat truss and all would be able to stand on it's own.

Source?

I don't see how a 1330+ foot tall could have stood by itself on that sized footprint when they were only partially weled together at the segment joints. Maybe I'm wrong but it just seems odd to think it would.

You two are just talking in circles about the buckling. What you're saying really doesn't make sense. I mean you can SEE the buckling spreading before the collapse. That means the structure is progressivly less able to support the structure until it just finally gives in. All this barking about "Show me ENOUGH buckling"..blah blah, is just intuitive guessing without stating how much is 'enough'. Stating the load limits of an intact structure is a hooey line of reasoning and I think you know it.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by Vushta
I don't see how a 1330+ foot tall could have stood by itself on that sized footprint when they were only partially weled together at the segment joints. Maybe I'm wrong

You are.

Look at the construction pictures and corret your statement.... "partially welded together"...

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by slap nuts
The core provided it's own stablity.

Basically stating that if the exterior walls and floor trusses were gone, the core, hat truss and all would be able to stand on it's own.

And that is where you are wrong. The core in and of itself had no lateral stability. It would have buckled and fell.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And that is where you are wrong. The core in and of itself had no lateral stability. It would have buckled and fell.

And for the last time... I am asking you for a source for this information HowardRoark.

We are talking about a huge interconnected matrix of steel all neatly connected together at the top with a "hat truss" that you insist has "NO lateral support".

Have you seen the blueprints Howardroark?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
I don't see how a 1330+ foot tall could have stood by itself on that sized footprint when they were only partially weled together at the segment joints. Maybe I'm wrong

You are.

Look at the construction pictures and corret your statement.... "partially welded together"...

This is a very perceptive question. One of my faculty colleagues pointed this out to me a few days after Sept. 11. It turns out that the connection between the column sections was only tack welded; well, maybe a bit bigger than a tack weld, but they were not continuously welded. These joints are in compression, so the weld is not load-bearing—unless the floor joist connections give way, which is what happened during the fire. The welds were only needed to hold the pieces together during steel erection. In service these welds were not really needed.

I posted this before..in a reply to one of your posts I think. Its from the NOVA series on PBS.

Selective memory? Appearently..I just asked you for a source for your statement that the core and hat trusses would have stood on their own. Do you have a source?

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/index.html

[edit on 31-7-2006 by Vushta]

Actually the original post was in response to posting from billybob and bsb. Sorry..you guys jsut all blend into one after a while.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And that is where you are wrong. The core in and of itself had no lateral stability. It would have buckled and fell.

And for the last time... I am asking you for a source for this information HowardRoark.

We are talking about a huge interconnected matrix of steel all neatly connected together at the top with a "hat truss" that you insist has "NO lateral support".

Have you seen the blueprints Howardroark?

One more time.




if you were standing on the ground and watching a conventional building going up, you would see that a conventional building core looks like this. There are diagonal braces in between the beams to stabilize the columns from moving.

If you were standing on a floor as the WTC buildings were being built and you looked at the core, it would have basically looked like this:



Yes, that is simplified, I only show two of the columns. However, You don’t need to see more, since the concept is the same, two columns or 100.

With a few immaterial exceptions, there were no diagonal braces between the core columns.

Thus the columns were susceptible to failure like so:



This is a very basic concept. You don’t need an engineering degree to “get” this.






[edit on 31-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

Your two dimensional drawings to not represent the core construction in ANY way.

Good try though Howardroark.

That's why there was an inner core, made of huge box columns, to prevent that from happening. You know that.

Wasn't it the bracing system of the floor trusses that provided the stability and not just the mere existence of the core?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by slap nuts
The core provided it's own stablity.

Basically stating that if the exterior walls and floor trusses were gone, the core, hat truss and all would be able to stand on it's own.

And that is where you are wrong. The core in and of itself had no lateral stability. It would have buckled and fell.

And that is where you are wrong. The core did have lateral stability. I'm not saying the whole core would have stood but some of it...oh, wait...it did...for a few seconds. Don't post your buckling picture either Howard because that picture doesn't show what would have happened. The core had horizontal bracing going in both the x and z axis. Your picture only shows bracing in the x axis. Bracing in the z axis helps to stabilize. How many times do we need to go over this?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11 The buckling after the collapse had began -- for the freaking 6th or 7th time -- DOES NOT INDICATE THE CAUSE COLLAPSE, BUT MERELY AN EFFECT.

[...]
So is this buckling a cause or an effect?

That was pre-collapse, but also insufficient to cause a collapse. We never saw an increase in buckling such that it would have explained the initiation of either collapse.

That is the problem. We did not see enough buckling.

HowardRoark, did you have any more pictures of the buckling going on with both buildings? I wanna see more of what you have to provide from your angle. Thanks