Applying natural collapse engineering theory to demolitions [W:1022,1161]

[Kat Dorman]

The title of this thread is excerpted from someone's sig line. They should recognize it and be drawn here.

What's wrong with applying natural collapse engineering theory to demolitions? Thought I'd stake out a place to discuss this. Perhaps it will serve as a useful distraction to declutter the ASCE thread.

 

[Fledermaus]

The title of this thread is excerpted from someone's sig line. They should recognize it and be drawn here.



What's wrong with applying natural collapse engineering theory to demolitions? Thought I'd stake out a place to discuss this. Perhaps it will serve as a useful distraction to declutter the ASCE thread.

My understanding is that once initiation occurs gravity does all the work in both cases..... Reader's Digest version.

 

[Kat Dorman]

My understanding is that once initiation occurs gravity does all the work in both cases..... Reader's Digest version.

Damn, that is cutting to the chase.

 

[Kat Dorman]

It could be that gravity fails to accomplish the deed, but that doesn't diminish the truth of your pre-digested version one iota.

 

[Kat Dorman]

My way of looking at it is equivalent but expressed slightly differently.

What is natural collapse, anyway?

We're talking about self-supporting structures (i.e., ignoring designs inadequate to complete construction like the bent pyramid). Something has to change to make them collapse. We're also ignoring structures over design load and "off-label" use (like some of the spectacular crane failures in the last few years).

They can decay in capacity over time until they fail - usually that's a very long time and they're destroyed intentionally first - or one or more defects can be introduced which either immediately or eventually cause catastrophic failure. Defects are caused by explosives, plane impacts, fire, wrecking balls, pile-drivers and so on. They ALL come under the same general classification. They act in different ways to one degree or another and produce different effects but, by the time those effects are accounted for, they become featureless numbers to plug into analytical or numerical treatments.

So, of course it makes sense to apply natural collapse theory to demolitions because there is only collapse theory which subsumes both contexts.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Tony Szamboti applies collapse theory. I don't see subscripts in his variables that indicate "damage due to explosives/incendiaries".

 

[KokomoJojo]

My understanding is that once initiation occurs gravity does all the work in both cases..... Reader's Digest version.

by george I believe you are right, they roll right on over!

of course we dont get all the molten **** being blased all over and the huge 'puffs' of dust (squibs) that ya would with things that go boom.

so its really boring imo. No shock n awe.

 

[KokomoJojo]

So, of course it makes sense to apply natural collapse theory to demolitions because there is only collapse theory which subsumes both contexts.

well nist spent 7 years trying to prove wtc7 using natural collapse theory to prove it could happen and failed miserably, how are you doing?

Oh now that I have toys you know a good source for the floor plans of #2 and materials? I have a quite a bit but some of those old drawing really suck.

Trying to avoid doing a foia and waiting for months

 

[Kat Dorman]

Nice images.

 

[Mark F]

Damn, that is cutting to the chase.

Worse, he beat me to it!

 

[ozeco41]

Worse, he beat me to it!

Its even worse - he beat me to it also.

(I'm in Portsmouth - England using my iPad)

 

[Mark F]

Its even worse - he beat me to it also.

(I'm in Portsmouth - England using my iPad)

No one to blame but yourself for having the audacity to go on holidays :mrgreen:

 

[KokomoJojo]

Its even worse - he beat me to it also.

(I'm in Portsmouth - England using my iPad)

yeh its always nice to go home.

so lets see which one of these self proclaimed engineers that incessantly insist ad nauseum that there was NO CD can 'beat me to it' by coming up with and posting the materials, specs, BOM's, and connection drawings that are REQUIRED for ANY PROPER ANALYSIS that they MUST have in their possession..

By all means show us that you really did what you all said by posting or linking to them, unless of course you dont have the material and merely fudged data till you got a collapse and are now promoting faked analysis results off as a fact.

 

[BmanMcfly]

yeh its always nice to go home.

so lets see which one of these self proclaimed engineers that incessantly insist ad nauseum that there was NO CD can 'beat me to it' by coming up with and posting the materials, specs, BOM's, and connection drawings that are REQUIRED for ANY PROPER ANALYSIS that they MUST have in their possession to make their claim true.

By all means show us what a great job you all did by posting or linking to them, unless of course you dont have them and merely fudged your data till you got a collapse and are now passing a fudged collapse off as a fact.

From what I can tell, they seem to be treating it as concrete slab without mentioning The steel deck that the concrete was poured on, and you expect them to care about the specs and thresholds...

Even though, the progression that can be determined of the actual collapse proves That this model does not work to explain the collapse that was witnessed.

They stick to the failure of Column 79, as a singular point of failure causing the building to collapse at free-fall for 8 floors. Then when it was modeled, the building did not collapse even close to reality. In terms of building 7.

Point being, there has not been any conclusive technical analysis done that can explain in a way consistent with observation, not without getting into some form of "assistance" that would refute the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory.

 

[Fledermaus]

From what I can tell, they seem to be treating it as concrete slab without mentioning The steel deck that the concrete was poured on, and you expect them to care about the specs and thresholds...

Even though, the progression that can be determined of the actual collapse proves That this model does not work to explain the collapse that was witnessed.

They stick to the failure of Column 79, as a singular point of failure causing the building to collapse at free-fall for 8 floors. Then when it was modeled, the building did not collapse even close to reality. In terms of building 7.

Point being, there has not been any conclusive technical analysis done that can explain in a way consistent with observation, not without getting into some form of "assistance" that would refute the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory.

The failure of Column 79 is a logical theory for the probable collapse given that is the column that help support the Penthouse seen to fall prior to the global collapse....

And this "officially sanctioned conspiracy theory"? Isn't that what non-CT hacks call reality?

 

[KokomoJojo]

From what I can tell, they seem to be treating it as concrete slab without mentioning The steel deck that the concrete was poured on, and you expect them to care about the specs and thresholds...

Even though, the progression that can be determined of the actual collapse proves That this model does not work to explain the collapse that was witnessed.

They stick to the failure of Column 79, as a singular point of failure causing the building to collapse at free-fall for 8 floors. Then when it was modeled, the building did not collapse even close to reality. In terms of building 7.

Point being, there has not been any conclusive technical analysis done that can explain in a way consistent with observation, not without getting into some form of "assistance" that would refute the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory.

Wanna take bets they do not have the REQUIRED information to even enable them to make ANY conclusions much less the ones they have?

Wanna bet they have not even calculated how much damage the engines and MLG has the capacity to cause in the first place?

Bet me!

My bet is they have NOTHING! Just a lot of beer farts and belches they are trying to pass off as fact to bunk up threads with bull**** and agenda driven propaganda.

 

[mike2810]

Koko set the standard that no sources are links are required to support statements posted.

Want to bet that Koko cannot provide the analysis , evidence , etc. to support whatever his position is.

 

[Mark F]

From what I can tell, they seem to be treating it as concrete slab without mentioning The steel deck that the concrete was poured on, and you expect them to care about the specs and thresholds...

Even though, the progression that can be determined of the actual collapse proves That this model does not work to explain the collapse that was witnessed.

They stick to the failure of Column 79, as a singular point of failure causing the building to collapse at free-fall for 8 floors. Then when it was modeled, the building did not collapse even close to reality. In terms of building 7.

Point being, there has not been any conclusive technical analysis done that can explain in a way consistent with observation, not without getting into some form of "assistance" that would refute the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory.

Who is "they" that are sticking to the "ailure of Column 79, as a singular point of failure causing the building to collapse at free-fall for 8 floors"?

Only Truthers think 7 World Trade Center fell at GA for 8 floors because they refuse to try and understand the collapse sequence and tend to believe utter stupidity.

I believe this has been mentioned a few hundred times but the models for 7 WTC (there were just 4) were never intended to exactly mimic the collapse. Such accuracy would not be possible - at least not if you want the results before the 22nd century.

What you should do is actually study how 7 WTC was built (this is absolutely key to understanding how it failed), then study the collapse sequence, then actually read the NIST report so you can understand what they really modeled and why. At the moment you are nowhere near the mark.

 

[Bob0627]

Only Truthers think 7 World Trade Center fell at GA for 8 floors because they refuse to try and understand the collapse sequence and tend to believe utter stupidity.

So the people at NIST (Sunder, Gross, et al) are truthers now who tend to believe utter stupidity? How about all those who endorse NIST's report that includes their claim that WTC7 dropped at free fall for 8 stories? They're all truthers and tend to believe utter stupidity too?

What you should do is ... read the NIST report so you can understand

Why would you want to suggest people read the NIST report in order to understand? It was written by truthers who claim WTC7 dropped at free fall for 8 stories and tend to believe utter stupidity, right? You sound utterly confused or tripping over your own trash.

 

[Mark F]

So the people at NIST (Sunder, Gross, et al) are truthers now who tend to believe utter stupidity? How about all those who endorse NIST's report that includes their claim that WTC7 dropped at free fall for 8 stories? They're all truthers and tend to believe utter stupidity too?

Nobody at NIST thinks the "building dropped at free-fall for 8 stories." To even suggest that demonstrates a monumental level of ignorance. Remember, Chandler's measurement does not represent the building, which fundamentally had already collapsed before he took his measurement - and the folks at NIST at least know this. It has been explained to you many times, you still don't get it.

That can't be helped apparently.

 

[Bob0627]

Nobody at NIST thinks the "building dropped at free-fall for 8 stories." To even suggest that demonstrates a monumental level of ignorance.

They don't, so why did they publish it if they don't believe it? You want to deny what the NIST report says? What does that say for YOUR monumental level of ignorance?

"This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories" - NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 45

Chandler's measurement does not represent the building, which fundamentally had already collapsed before he took his measurement - and the folks at NIST at least know this. It has been explained to you many times, you still don't get it.

Yeah I know WTC7 collapsed before Chandler measured the rate of collapse so he had to use a video of the collapse, DUH. A really brilliant observation. What does Chandler have to do with NIST's beliefs anyway? He was never a NIST employee.

 

[Mark F]

They don't, so why did they publish it if they don't believe it? You want to deny what the NIST report says? What does that say for YOUR monumental level of ignorance?

"This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories" - NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 45

Yeah I know WTC7 collapsed before Chandler measured the rate of collapse so he had to use a video of the collapse, DUH. A really brilliant observation. What does Chandler have to do with NIST's beliefs anyway? He was never a NIST employee.

Now your just being deliberately stupid.

 

[Bob0627]

Now your just being deliberately stupid.

Who's being stupid again? Did you yet figure out that the NIST Report says "This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories" on page 45 of NIST NCSTAR 1A? Do you need a pair of new glasses or are you trying to prove your monumental level of ignorance?

 

[BmanMcfly]

They don't, so why did they publish it if they don't believe it? You want to deny what the NIST report says? What does that say for YOUR monumental level of ignorance?

"This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories" - NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 45



Yeah I know WTC7 collapsed before Chandler measured the rate of collapse so he had to use a video of the collapse, DUH. A really brilliant observation. What does Chandler have to do with NIST's beliefs anyway? He was never a NIST employee.

Well, NIST tasked with selling the lie of the official version did not want to discuss the implication of free fall, just like our friend here aims to frame that fact in a way that defies physical reality.

 

[Mark F]

Well, NIST tasked with selling the lie of the official version did not want to discuss the implication of free fall, just like our friend here aims to frame that fact in a way that defies physical reality.

Please tell us then what is significant about one single point on the exterior curtain wall - the last component of 7 WTC to collapse - briefly achieving and even exceeding freefall when averaged over 2.25 seconds when the bulk of the building including its core and all main structural components had already previously collapsed?