Originally posted by BigTrain

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

a floor which was much more strengthened than average.

Thats a complete lie, care to show us any structural drawings to prove this.

Train

it's called a 'hat truss', and could vector vertical load(20%?) from the core to the perimeter, or vice versa.
it's not called a 'lie'. that was a little harsh, no?

it's called a 'hat truss', and could vector vertical load(20%?) from the core to the perimeter, or vice versa.

So the hat trusses located between the 107th floor and roof, would have had what effect on the collapse?

Or do you have info showing them elsewhere in the building?

FYI hat trusses are for lateral loads imparted by wind etc.

Originally posted by Skibum

it's called a 'hat truss', and could vector vertical load(20%?) from the core to the perimeter, or vice versa.

So the hat trusses located between the 107th floor and roof, would have had what effect on the collapse?

Or do you have info showing them elsewhere in the building?

FYI hat trusses are for lateral loads imparted by wind etc.

the hat truss is for transferring load, period. k?
my 'point' was, that denythestatusquo stated that the upper floors were stronger, and big train called him a 'liar', so i pointed out that he was right, and not a 'liar' at all.

k?

what effect the hat truss has on the collapse was not addressed by me.

Billybob, now your just adding to his lie. The hat truss was on the roof, and deny stated that the sky lobby was much more heavily reinforced than the other floors and that was a complete lie. Dont try to spin it to where the 78th floor is all of a sudden the roof.

Train

Which building was this thread about again?

the hat truss is for transferring load, period. k?

All trusses transfer load. Period. k?
Thats the purpose of a truss, to transfer the load to the columns, otherwise you would have a solid structure beneath.

Hat trusses are for the upper portions of buildings to help resist lateral forces such as wind to keep the building from swaying as much.

As BT stated, deny was claiming the floors below the impact site were much more reinforced (at first he said they were observation decks, which anyone who does ANY sort of research can clearly see is not true.)

Strange how ANOK claims that BT and I are working together, when it's quite obvious it is you and the other CD believers who are trying to support each others ignorance which even more ignorance.

"oh look let me thow out this hat truss statement, it sounds neat, maybe they don't have a clue and I can slide one past them"

While I will admit I don't know EVERYTHING about engineering and building construction, I do know a lot more than most do considering it is my profession.
So try to stick to pulling the wool over the eyes of those who don't have a clue.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Which building was this thread about again?

My apologies, its hard to keep track sometimes.

Will get back on track now.

While I don't think it would have been enough to make a measurable difference in the collapse speed -(I think the collapse should have eventually halted, but not necessarily suddenly so at the mechanical floors), the mechanical floors were in fact stronger in certain design aspects.

* At the mechanical floors, the exterior columns were spliced at the same level rather than being staggered like the other floors. Supplementary welds were added to increase rigidity.

* There was additional diagonal bracing in the core area of the mechanical floors and as part of the hat truss. There are pics taken at the time of construction showing this if you do a search.

* The composite floors of the mechanical floors were framed with wide-flange structural steel beams rather than the thin, fluted metal deck and lightweight trusses of the other floors.

* Some floors adjacent to the mechanical floors used a hybrid of steel beam and truss framing acting compositely with the concrete slab.

The lower live load design ratings for the mechanical floors (75psf compared to 100psf) was simply because those floors experienced less load. The odd machinery and equipment isn't going to create as much load as hundreds of people, paper, office equipment and furniture.

This is all in the NIST reports and fairly common knowledge to those who have spent any time really looking at this aspect of 9-11.

But as I said, isn't this thread about WTC7? Besides, WTC1 & 2 have been done to death.

EDIT: Just saw your post after I posted mine, Skibum:

My apologies, its hard to keep track sometimes.

Will get back on track now.

No worries, it happens to all 9-11 threads. Wait until the Pentagon gets brought into this one. lol...



[edit on 2006-5-1 by wecomeinpeace]

I just dont see how people are claiming the entire building failed at the same instant when its clearly been documented that from the first sign of failure to global collapse was 8 seconds. You can clearly see the penthouse go before the rest of the building.

Train

Originally posted by BigTrain
This was applied to all 5 columns of the frame.
This is a very basic analysis but I think you get the point.

Sry I'm late in replying to this but I had to go out and purchase longer waders, and extra air freshener for this thread.

No I don't get the point because...

1. You still haven't proved the fires in WTC 7 were hot enough to raise the temp of the columns to anything close to failure.

2. Try applying heat to 2 columns instead of all 5, because I think we can all agree if the fires did cause failure of columns it would not have been all of them at the same time, or all of them at all.

3. You say there was lateral displacement to the right? So you're saying your building would be tipping to the right? Am I understanding this 'right'?
Or did your model collapse straight down into dust and neat 12' lengths of steel? Just curious.

4. Your model doesn't seem to include the transfer trusses.

5. Did you model in ownership by Larry Silverstein? 'Cause I hear that helps

ANOK, im just surprised that I go out of my way to provide you with a simple example of how heat as small as 300 degrees F, no where near failure point can have a dramatic effect on the structure.

You pass it off as saying i didnt even model the wtc 7 building. How rediculous. All i did was try to show you somthing, but you dont even seem to care about it.

I reanalyzed with 2 interior columns only and the deflection increased 20 times from no temperature. Still a massive 20 times increase from normal loads.

That building burned for 7 hours ANOK, thats a long time to warp and weaken a bunch of the remaining columns.

The lateral displacement is for the specific loading I chose. It was a wind loading.

Train

[edit on 2-5-2006 by BigTrain]

For some reason was I the noyl person able to view my previous post?