MIT Prof Kausel-Structures Like WTC don't Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd2[W:242]

[KokomoJojo]

MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC does not Collapse into its own Footprint

They simply tip over as we can see here:





Prof Kausel demonstrates buckling columns when spoorted along their length and unsupported along their length, and I am sure without realizing also proves that buckling columns tip over and do not fail straight down into the path of most resistance.

The debunkers claim that the columns were overloaded and buckled which as we can see causes the block to tip and it does not fall into the greatest path of resistance but instead, as expected, it tips and falls over as that is the path of least resistance.

Neither have debunkers shown how asymmetrical damage can cause symmetrical failure.

Other debunkers claim that the columns all somehow (by some unaccounted unknown force) became misaligned claiming that the joints are not strong enough to keep them aligned despite there was no known force to misalign so many columns but in all cases have not supported any of it with evidence.

So debunkers have contradictory theories both of which appear to be patently imagined on its face, however they deserve the benefit of a doubt and the opportunity to prove either or both theories.

That said Truthers would like to examine the 'evidence' debunkers have to support either or both of these claims and that would reasonably result in a tower falling into its own footprint.

Thats part 1.

Part 2 is if the floors collapsed they would simply break the connections all the way down that attached them to the columns both core and perimeter. The breaking connections if by overloading since they are cantilever mounted would tend to pull the perimeter inward, yet we see the perimeter columns being ejected several hundred feet when both the core and the columns are connected tubes and should have stayed connected and standing.


To the debunkers who would do anything and everything in their power to derail the points to be discussed in the OP, as they did in the previous thread with their red herring trash arguments even after being told its intended meaning, the following definitions apply to this thread, the terms:

"In its own footprint" is defined as "did not tip over" and are not subject of or to this debate

"Straight down" is defined as "did not tip over" and are not subject of or to this debate

Any attempts to derail this thread with frivolous red herrings as was done in the previous thread will be reported.

rebuttals

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Its going to be very interesting to see if debunkers actually show up where they have to argue the issues stated in the OP rather than their red herrings.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Prof. Eduardo Kausel

Inferno at the World Trade Center towers

by Prof. Eduardo Kausel

As I anxiously watched the TV coverage of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers, my training in Structural Engineering instantly elicited in me visions of doom, and a feeling that the towers were in imminent danger of collapse. Still, knowing that in 1993 the towers had resisted massive damage in a terrorist attack, and being unaware of similar cases of skyscraper collapse, I hoped against reason that they might survive yet again. To my horror, I then witnessed the unthinkable unfolding in front of my eyes. In retrospect, I should have been 100% sure that they would fail, but the idea was so disgusting that I allowed my wishful thinking to prevail instead. Soon after the tragedy occurred, cooler thoughts and the engineer in me returned, and I began to ponder about the mechanics that led to the catastrophe.
Why did they collapse?

There were three causes for the massive structural damage that led to ultimate failure: the impact of the aircraft, the subsequent explosion, and most importantly, the raging fire caused by the vast amounts of jet fuel. Burning fuel must have also cascaded down floor openings to the levels below.

The towers were reportedly designed for the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft, the largest of its day. The takeoff weight of a fully loaded Boeing 707 320 is 336,000 lbs., including 23,000 gallons of jet fuel, while the maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 767-200 is some 395,000 lbs., with 24,000 gallons of fuel. (The fuel accounts for roughly half the weight of a fully loaded aircraft). Thus the 767 is not vastly larger than the 707, and it carries approximately the same fuel load. In addition, both ill-fated planes were only lightly loaded with passengers, so they did not carry their full takeoff weight. The implication is that the buildings may indeed have been designed for the impact load caused by a commercial airliner, but the designers never considered the ensuing inferno from the fuel. Suggesting that the buildings were designed for the crash of an aircraft is ultimately self-delusion-and perhaps public relations-on the part of the design team, because other aspects of a crash, i.e. the explosion and fire, were not taken into account. Perhaps the probability of such an occurrence was deemed insignificant.

From information available on the web, it appears that the weight of each building was mainly carried by an inner core of columns surrounding elevator shafts and stairways, while a dense lattice of external columns spaced 39 inches on center formed an outer tube intended principally to prevent the building from overturning when subjected to strong lateral forces, such as those elicited by hurricane winds. The floors were supported by a grid of truss beams that carried the weight of the floors to the inner core, while the floors in turn provided lateral support that prevented buckling of the columns.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

The North Tower was hit at 8:46 AM above the 96th floor, and remained erect until 10:28 AM, nearly two hours after initial impact. By contrast, the South Tower was hit at 9:03 AM above the 80th floor and collapsed less than an hour later at 9:59. The damage to the latter was more severe, perhaps because the second plane traversed the building at an angle and blew off external columns on two adjacent faces. This asymmetry, combined with the greater weight of the 31 stories above the crash elevation led to some tilting of the upper portion down the damaged corner, causing large overturning forces in the remaining members of the floor.


The initial impact of the aircraft caused massive structural damage to the external columns, to the floors in the proximity of the impact, and perhaps also to parts of the inner core. The ensuing explosion must have significantly exacerbated this damage, possibly collapsing several floors, and setting the buildings ablaze in a virtually uncontrollable, fierce fire. Still, both buildings did not give way for a remarkably long period of time after the crash. This extraordinary capability allowed many lives to be saved, and is a major credit to the designers. Ultimately, however, the intense fire heated the structural steel elements well beyond the thermal limit of some 800° F, which caused the steel to lose resistance or even melt. Supporting members gave way, initiating the final failure of the building.

Various mechanisms may have been at play in this failure. Witnesses who escaped the buildings reported seeing large cracks develop on the walls of the staircases. This would suggest a steady redistribution of vertical forces and propagation of structural failure down the building. However, the immediate failure mechanism was almost certainly initiated locally at the elevation of the crash. Truss beams heated by the fire were probably more vulnerable than columns, and may have been the first to go. As parts of the floors then collapsed and rained down onto the floors below, the weight of the accumulating debris steadily increased beyond the support capacity of those floors, and they collapsed in turn.

At the same time, local collapse of the floors caused the heat-weakened columns to lose their lateral support, and to buckle and collapse under the intense weight of the floors above the level of the fire. At that point, the upper floors began to fall wholesale onto the structure below, and as they gained momentum, their crushing descent became unstoppable. Indeed, with two fairly simple dynamic models, I determined that the fall of the upper building portion down the height of a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the design loads by at least an order of magnitude. There was no way in the world that the columns below could have taken this large overload, and these failed in turn and collapsed, creating a domino-effect down the building. The towers then collapsed in practically a free fall.
Why did they not fall like a tree?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Some observers have wondered why the buildings telescoped down, instead of overturning and rolling to their side like a tree. Unlike trees which are solid, rigid structures, buildings such as the WTC towers are mostly open space (offices, staircases, elevator shafts, etc.). Indeed, a typical building is 90% air, and only 10% solid material. Thus, it is not surprising that a 110- story structure should collapse into 11 stories of rubble (actually less, because the rubble spreads out laterally, and parts are compressed into the foundation).


In addition, the towers did not fail from the bottom up, but from the top down. For a portion of the tower to roll to either side, it must first acquire angular momentum, which can only occur if the structure can pivot long enough about a stable plane (e.g. the stump in a tree). However, the forces concentrated near the pivoting area would have been so large that the columns and beams in the vicinity of that area would simply have crushed and offered no serious support permitting rolling. Also, both building sections above the crash site were not tall enough to significantly activate an inverted pendulum effect. Thus, the upper part could do nothing but simply fall down onto the lower part, crushing it. While photographic evidence shows the upper part of the South Tower to be inclined just as it began to collapse, it may not necessarily have rolled to the side, but instead fallen down onto the lower floors in a tilted position. (A careful review of collapse videos and additional photos should help clarify this contention.) Indirect evidence points to minimal vertical resistance to telescoping or pancaking of either tower: the duration of the collapses was nearly the same as that of an object in free fall, while any serious resistance would have slowed down the collapse. In essence then, the towers did not collapse like trees because the structures, despite their strength, were too fragile to sustain such motions.

During the dedication of the Memorial Wall on Sept. 14, members of the community set lighted candles afloat in the moat surrounding the MIT chapel. Photo: Donna Coveney/MIT

Corollary to the WTC collapse

An important lesson from the WTC collapse is that buildings are like chains in that they are only as strong as their weakest link. If the structural integrity of any floor in a building should be seriously endangered by a blast or a massive fire (perhaps excepting the very top floor or those immediately below it), that building is highly likely to collapse and pancake to the ground. However, inasmuch as catastrophic damage to all load bearing members is very rare and the vast majority of modern high rise buildings are well-engineered and designed to resist office fires (but not jet fuel fires), these buildings are and will continue to be very safe indeed.
Can we design buildings to resist collapse?

The answer to this question depends on what is meant by design. If we make buildings as solid as the containment structures in nuclear power plants, it might be possible to design not only for impact and blast forces, but also for the massive fires caused by the jet fuel. But nobody would wish to live or work in such fortresses. In addition, they would be unbearably ugly. From a practical viewpoint, the chance that any individual building out of hundreds of thousands (millions?) in the nation might suffer an attack is so small that it would not make economic sense to make them jet-crash proof. (But do not confuse this chance with the probability that some building in the US may be hit this way.) As for retrofitting existing buildings, my view is that making them jet-crash proof would make no sense whatsoever. However, it would make eminent sense to retrofit at least some buildings, perhaps as part of an overall escape system overhaul, to ensure that load bearing elements have sufficient thermal protection and the buildings can survive a fierce fire for several hours. By providing adequate redundancies in the form of both alternative escape routes and sufficient escape time, we can prevent deadly consequences to people even when we should not able to avoid ultimate structural collapse. These improvements may be needed if for no other reason other than to allay the concerns of people whose fear of a similar tragedy will persist for years to come. I, for one, would not wish to live or work in a mouse trap with insufficient escape routes.


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse: Prof. Eduardo Kausel

 

[mike2810]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Noted.

The OP does not provide a source to the quotes.
The OP does not provide a source to the unedited vid. Instead uses photobuckets.

Not worth the time to respond further.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Prof. Eduardo Kausel

Inferno at the World Trade Center towers

by Prof. Eduardo Kausel

As I anxiously watched the TV coverage of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers, my training in Structural Engineering instantly elicited in me visions of doom, and a feeling that the towers were in imminent danger of collapse. Still, knowing that in 1993 the towers had resisted massive damage in a terrorist attack, and being unaware of similar cases of skyscraper collapse, I hoped against reason that they might survive yet again. To my horror, I then witnessed the unthinkable unfolding in front of my eyes. In retrospect, I should have been 100% sure that they would fail, but the idea was so disgusting that I allowed my wishful thinking to prevail instead. Soon after the tragedy occurred, cooler thoughts and the engineer in me returned, and I began to ponder about the mechanics that led to the catastrophe.
Why did they collapse?

There were three causes for the massive structural damage that led to ultimate failure: the impact of the aircraft, the subsequent explosion, and most importantly, the raging fire caused by the vast amounts of jet fuel. Burning fuel must have also cascaded down floor openings to the levels below.

The towers were reportedly designed for the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft, the largest of its day. The takeoff weight of a fully loaded Boeing 707 320 is 336,000 lbs., including 23,000 gallons of jet fuel, while the maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 767-200 is some 395,000 lbs., with 24,000 gallons of fuel. (The fuel accounts for roughly half the weight of a fully loaded aircraft). Thus the 767 is not vastly larger than the 707, and it carries approximately the same fuel load. In addition, both ill-fated planes were only lightly loaded with passengers, so they did not carry their full takeoff weight. The implication is that the buildings may indeed have been designed for the impact load caused by a commercial airliner, but the designers never considered the ensuing inferno from the fuel. Suggesting that the buildings were designed for the crash of an aircraft is ultimately self-delusion-and perhaps public relations-on the part of the design team, because other aspects of a crash, i.e. the explosion and fire, were not taken into account. Perhaps the probability of such an occurrence was deemed insignificant.

From information available on the web, it appears that the weight of each building was mainly carried by an inner core of columns surrounding elevator shafts and stairways, while a dense lattice of external columns spaced 39 inches on center formed an outer tube intended principally to prevent the building from overturning when subjected to strong lateral forces, such as those elicited by hurricane winds. The floors were supported by a grid of truss beams that carried the weight of the floors to the inner core, while the floors in turn provided lateral support that prevented buckling of the columns.

Is that supposed to have anything to do with the FACT his model tipped over instead of falling in its own footprint?

 

[Sadling]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Some observers have wondered why the buildings telescoped down, instead of overturning and rolling to their side like a tree. Unlike trees which are solid, rigid structures, buildings such as the WTC towers are mostly open space (offices, staircases, elevator shafts, etc.). Indeed, a typical building is 90% air, and only 10% solid material. Thus, it is not surprising that a 110- story structure should collapse into 11 stories of rubble (actually less, because the rubble spreads out laterally, and parts are compressed into the foundation)

Sounds like this guy is trying to make a case that the fact that the Towers didn't topple, and instead collapsed straight down at record speed through the path of most resistance, is because they were mostly air. Air is not a factor concerning the collapse. In fact, how in hell can anyone believe that air is any part of the collapse equation?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

some observers have wondered why the buildings telescoped down, instead of overturning and rolling to their side like a tree. Unlike trees which are solid, rigid structures, buildings such as the wtc towers are mostly open space (offices, staircases, elevator shafts, etc.). Indeed, a typical building is 90% air, and only 10% solid material. Thus, it is not surprising that a 110- story structure should collapse into 11 stories of rubble (actually less, because the rubble spreads out laterally, and parts are compressed into the foundation).

civil & structural engineers on wtc collapse: Prof. Eduardo kausel

.
BUT HIS DEMONSTRATION PROVES IT MUST TIP OVER AND HIS MODEL WAS 99.99% AIR!

can you see that ok or should I make a jpg so its a little bigger maybe?

unless of course you have some sort of evidence that buckling columns fail straight down.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

while he may allude to agreement with the official story the results of his demonstration does not.

which is the topic among other issues stated.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Keep reading....

Some observers have wondered why the buildings telescoped down, instead of overturning and rolling to their side like a tree. Unlike trees which are solid, rigid structures, buildings such as the WTC towers are mostly open space (offices, staircases, elevator shafts, etc.). Indeed, a typical building is 90% air, and only 10% solid material. Thus, it is not surprising that a 110- story structure should collapse into 11 stories of rubble (actually less, because the rubble spreads out laterally, and parts are compressed into the foundation).

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Sounds like this guy is trying to make a case that the fact that the Towers didn't topple, and instead collapsed straight down at record speed through the path of most resistance, is because they were mostly air. Air is not a factor concerning the collapse. In fact, how in hell can anyone believe that air is any part of the collapse equation?

Ask Koko, he is the one Poeing him

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

.
BUT HIS DEMONSTRATION PROVES IT MUST TIP OVER AND HIS MODEL WAS 99.99% AIR!

can you see that ok or should I make a jpg so its a little bigger maybe?

unless of course you have some sort of evidence that buckling columns fail straight down.

What did he say happened?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

What did he say happened?

what did show in his demonstration?

his demonstration is hard empirical evidence, I dont care what he said, do you care about hard empirical evidence of the demonstration?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

what did show in his demonstration?

his demonstration is hard empirical evidence, I dont care what he said, do you care about hard empirical evidence of the demonstration?

What did he say happened at the towers?

What was that?

He is specifically saying the towers WOULD NOT tip over. Clearly and concisely.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Keep reading....
snipped

consider investing in a pair of glasses.

Do I really need to post that big red rebuttal that you are not responding to again?

7 not a big enough font for you to read maybe?

 

[mike2810]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Didn't this prof support the pancake theory? Makes the OP pointless.:mrgreen:

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

consider investing in a pair of glasses.

Do I really need to post that big red rebuttal that you are not responding to again?

7 not a big enough font for you to read maybe?

What did he say happened at the towers?

What was that?

He is specifically saying the towers WOULD NOT tip over. Clearly and concisely.

 

[Sadling]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Ask Koko, he is the one Poeing him

No, you posted something to prove the point that it was quite natural that the Towers collapsed in on themselves in record time like they did.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

What did he say happened at the towers?

What was that?

He is specifically saying the towers WOULD NOT tip over. Clearly and concisely.

He said watch this demonstration LOL

you obviously have no rebuttal to the demonstration proving that columns tip when the lose structural strength.

do you need that in 7 font bold too?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

No, you posted something to prove the point that it was quite natural that the Towers collapsed in on themselves in record time like they did.

You mean the information by Prof. Eduardo Kausel? The same Prof. Eduardo Kausel Koko is poeing? The same Prof. Eduardo Kausel that states emphatically that the towers WOULD NOT tip over?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

He said watch this demonstration LOL

you obviously have no rebuttal to the demonstration proving that columns tip when the lose structural strength.

do you need that in 7 font bold too?

What did he say happened at the towers?

It is a simple question.

I quoted him more than once.

He is specifically saying the towers WOULD NOT tip over. Clearly and concisely.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

He is specifically saying the towers WOULD NOT tip over. Clearly and concisely.

quote where he said: "the towers WOULD NOT tip over"

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

quote where he said: "the towers WOULD NOT tip over"

Watch the goalposts.... TOO LATE

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: MIT Prof Kausel - Structures Like WTC do not Collapse into its own Footprint Rnd

Watch the goalposts.... TOO LATE

its your claim all I want is the proof