67,000 people believe something's wrong with what we were told about 9/11

Appealing to authority?

the towers were not typically'steel framed'

 

I dare you to go ask ANY structural engineer if they will personally guarantee that any building they designed will NOT globally collapse under ANY type of structural failure not from controlled demolition.

See what they tell you.

If you think that engineers design structures to resist any and all permutations of structural failure in order to resist global collapse, you're sadly mistaken.

If that were truly the case, we wouldn't need fireproofing applied to steel would we?

 

Fireproofing is applied to steel to minimize the risk of occupant deaths, costly deformations, to prevent local failures in order to ease any repairs and maybe reduce the possible cost of repairs. WTC1 did not have proper fireproofing, nor did it have sprinklers back in '75 when it caught fire.

 

Deaths due to what Vlad?

 

But your cohorts are arguing that redundancy is designed in all structures so that buildings to prevent global collapse in ANY structural damage scenario. ANY permutation of structural damage. And to your point above, WTC1 was not impacted by a 767 that severed perimeter and some core columns, in addition to damaging others.

Taken from http://www.pfpa.com.au/docs/Steel F...ls.pdf?phpMyAdmin=ZlesLyIQHdlTOtrt-8XBatCVvU6

 

Deaths due to falling ceilings and staircases and to prevent deformations rather than collapses.

 

Did you miss this part of the quote in my post above?

If all they were worried about was ceilings and staircases, explain how ceilings and staircases are considered to be the only load carrying components as mentioned above?

 

No, not any. It's simply because deformations are almost unreparable. If the trusses of some floors sag in a fire, they will need to be replaced, or reheated and straightened. A whole lot of trouble. More trouble than to demolish the building and build it again. Fireproofing is to prevent the loss of usability of that building rather than the structure of the building, which is designed by all means to not reach global collapse and with a lot of structural redundancy, enough to take the loads from local failures.

 

And what do you think deformations can lead to Vlad?

 

It's not just that. Heat can not spread into the entire steel of a building. The word 'collapse' in your quote does not refer to global collapses but local ones.

- - - Updated - - -

A useless building that needs to be demolished?

 

What do you mean "no, not any"? Are you saying that there can possibly be a structural damage scenarios that could lead to global collapse that an engineer did not design for?

 

Can redistributed loads spread through a building Vlad?

Do you actually know what redundancy in a structure is? It includes the ability to have more than one load distribution path in a structure in case something fails.

Is that correct?

 

Read your own post to which I gave that answer and u will understand.

 

I did.

Here is my quote:

To which you replied:

That being said, you think there are damage scenarios that could occur that could cause a global collapse.

Glad we got that straight.

 

Well actually not. I got the wording wrong. Your question was not perfect either.

I DO BELIEVE that redundancy guarantees that global collapse does not happen regardless of what local failures you get unless those local failures are uniformly, and deliberately caused throughout the entire structure. You can lose a part of the building but not the entire building and even if you do, it most certainly won't be at the speed that you see in the 9/11 videos. The undamaged parts of a building continue to resist and if not stop, slow down any collapse.

 

In order to do what you ask, the design engineer would have to run every single possible damage scenario permutation through the "structural load wringer" in order to make sure that not one single scenario would cause global collapse.

Maybe you should get genericBob to give you an idea of how many possible damage scenarios there could POSSIBLY be that would need to be tested.

A few examples...

1. What happens if core column 1 (of 47 on the first floor achieves 100% failure and columns 2 and 3 achieve 40% failure? Will that load distribution cause global collapse?
2. What if core column 17 and 18 on the 23rd floor (of 47) achieve 100% failure and 16 perimeter columns in succession on the same floor achieve 50% failure? will that load redistribution cause a global failure?

And so on, and so on.

What do you mean "and even if you do"?! I thought you just said that you DO BELIEVE that redundancy GUARANTEES the global collapse does not happen?! Now you're changing your mind?

 

I mean that even if it were to happen for the first time in history, there would still be resistance that would not allow for the speed we saw in the videos.

 

Why not?

 

While we are on the subject of resistance,
how about this, while the rubble was beating
down the as yet undamaged part of the tower,
the free air to the outside of the tower, offered
up very little resistance to stuff traveling out that
direction, and the center of the mass would offer
up max resistance to stuff traveling toward the center.
so with that said, the bias, would be for stuff to make
the trip to the outer edge of the mass and fall over the
side of the tower and be gone, that is lost to the action
of beating down the as yet undamaged part of the tower.
in the end, one may well see 70 or 80 stories of the north
tower with an aprox cone shaped mass of rubble on top
and all of the surplus stuff having slid down the side of
the cone and out. the system would reach equilibrium
before completely destroying the building.

 

You're wrong,despite the material ejected off the sides,the remaining would still exceed the designed load limits on each floor.

 

You actually think that sentence makes sense?

psik

 

You think it doesn't?

 

What would probably happen, if I were the customer
of said architect, there would probably be some sort
of liability covering statement such that they could not
absolutely exclude the possibility of global collapse,
However,
the event of global collapse would be the very least
likely scenario out of all possible actions.

 

Not a bit. There are far less likely things that could happen.

 

what does the "not a bit" statement refer to?
and exactly what "less likely things" ?