Why Should the WTC Towers Suffer Complete Collapse?

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
this is something you can do yourself, and not rely on my evidence.

No thanks. It isn't a fact that the bracing in the core was compromised by falling debris.

Get a youtube video of the end of the collapses. Notice the core columns? For the most part, MOST of the support beams are gone

Actually if you're talking about the videos I think you are, you're looking at a total of maybe 5 or 6 columns out of a total of 47, and even the ones you see still have bracing on them. And don't jump the gun. Looking at what happened is not the same as explaining it. You don't know what compromised the core structure yet.

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
But he's not THE inspector that signs off on the job. It would be a conflict of interest to have THE engineer sign off on a job, dontcha think?

Actually, it depends. We do the design and we do the inspections.

And besides, the more he confirms that he believes that engineers were there making sure the job is done correctly, the stronger MY case is that the welds were done to spec.

The welds could have been to spec. I'm not saying they definitely were or were not. We have no reports.

A usual spec for welding is to have the weld stronger than the steel. If the columns broke at the welds each time, then they were not stonger than the steel. Now it is on you to show me where the code states that the welds could be weaker than the steel (as observed). Until then, this discussion with you is over.

Just so people don't think I'm pulling it out of my you know what.

"Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam", Tenth Edition, Michael R. Lindeburg, PE. Copyright 2006 by Professional Publications, Inc.

Chapter 66. Page 66-1.




[edit on 1/23/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 1/23/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Actually, it depends. We do the design and we do the inspections.


A usual spec for welding is to have the weld stronger than the steel. If the columns broke at the welds each time, then they were not stonger than the steel. Now it is on you to show me where the code states that the welds could be weaker than the steel (as observed). Until then, this discussion with you is over.

I'm calling bs right here. there's no way that the engineering firm will be doing their own inspections in order to satisfy state/city regulations, etc. This is done by either a QA firm or city/state inspectors. This is a blatant lie.

Ok, now I see your article. It's usual for it to be stronger, etc. But since we don't have the specs/inspection reports at hand, your claims of shoddy construction is another blatant lie. You have NO basis for this. It goes against YOUR statements and work experience of engineers being on site to check work progress/ up to spec and also your past work experience of QA personnel on site having the specs/making sure things are done "right".

reply to post by Richard Gizinu


No. I'm saying the welds MAY have not have been up to spec because we saw that the steel columns all failed at the weld joints.

Now, if the weld joints are suppossed to be stronger than the material and the weld joints are the areas of failure, one can only assume that the weld joints were NOT stronger than the material. Why is that hard to understand?



[edit on 1/23/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
I'm calling bs right here. there's no way that the engineering firm will be doing their own inspections in order to satisfy state/city regulations, etc.

That is quality control. Which you are right in that it would be a 3rd party.

Now, quality assurance is different in that we "assure" the owner that things are going right.

Again, why is this so hard to understand?

This is a blatant lie.

I take offense to being called a liar.

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
reply to post by gottago

 

Do you have anything to back up what YOU are saying? Or is it all just assertions and come from the angle of incredulity? Like saying the cores were braced, etc while ignoring the fact that they would have been torn off the columns by other, falling columns, thereby rendering the core columns UNBRACED. And then the weak point becomes the WELDS, just like I've been saying.

Actually, what I've been saying throughout this thread, from the OP, has been that there is not enough falling mass to drive the collapses to the ground, because it was ejected.

Here's another picture:




I am indeed incredulous of the claims that the towers' collapse was driven by the upper masses falling upon them, but I also see this is not the meaning of "incredulous" you intend, though I also note you misuse the word. Anyway, let's push on and examine the photo:

First observation: that's one heck of a messy gravity-driven collapse, even by 'incredulous' standards.

Looks strangely like other forces are at play than breaking welds, IMHO.

One reason I say this is that breaking welds don't normally send vertical streamers of ejecta, which can be seen silhouetted in the dark cloud below the grey fountain of arcing ejecta.

Why breaking welds have so much destructive power is beyond me, but I stand ready to be enlightened.

So yes, you betcha I'm incredulous.

reply to post by Richard Gizinu


If you designed something would you not inspect the work that's being done? Sure there would be official inspections from a 3rd party, but wouldn't you want to look yourself? Afterall, it's your name on the finished product.

Originally posted by Griff
I take offense to being called a liar.

You shouldn't. Who is he? Who cares? I thank him for bringing up the notion that the welds may not have been up to standard, but besides that he's been pretty counter-productive.

*Edited to add final thought:

So his final stance is that the welds and concrete were not up to standard.

If he could find a good source for both I will take it with more than a grain of salt.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Griff

No. I'm saying the welds MAY have not have been up to spec because we saw that the steel columns all failed at the weld joints.

Now, if the weld joints are suppossed to be stronger than the material and the weld joints are the areas of failure, one can only assume that the weld joints were NOT stronger than the material. Why is that hard to understand?

So we've established that there are MULTIPLE layers of quality checks going on during construction of a building this size. Engineers. QA firms. City/state/Port Authority inspectors. And yet you feel as if there MAY have been shoddy work/not up to spec. I'd like to see some documented examples where a project of this size, under the rigorous inspection criteria present in the US, has failed due to documented shoddy worksmanship and poor inspections. THEN I would be willing to say that it MIGHT be a possibility. And then you need to come up with just a single shred of evidence that there was allegations of this going on in the towers. Otherwise, I just don't see how you can come to these conclusions.

I'll agree with you and say that IF the weld joints are supposed to be stronger..... etc. But nobody with any real knowledge has stepped up to even remotely suggest that this is the case. Lack of inspection reports is not proof that there was poor work. What are the regs on keeping such docs?

Your extraordinary claims put the burden of proof on you. Specs for a similar building that backs your ideas about the welds would be a good place to start. Then you might have something.

Originally posted by Griff

That is quality control. Which you are right in that it would be a 3rd party.

Now, quality assurance is different in that we "assure" the owner that things are going right.

Again, why is this so hard to understand?

I take offense to being called a liar.

Sorry about the liar remark then. I assumed that of all people YOU would know that when I say something is "signed off" that I would be referring to something being signed off to be able to get your occupancy permit.

QA, etc is agreed upon.

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
I'd like to see some documented examples where a project of this size, under the rigorous inspection criteria present in the US, has failed due to documented shoddy worksmanship and poor inspections. THEN I would be willing to say that it MIGHT be a possibility.

Kansas City Skywalk Collapse

So are we willing to say it might be a possibility?

*Edited to add this:

I believe you owe Mr. Griff and apology (but I see you already did after I posted):

John Ashcroft, the Missouri Attorney General, filed a complaint today accusing two engineers and their company of being grossly negligent in the design and inspection of two suspended skywalks at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, where 114 people were killed in 1981 when the skywalks collapsed.

Emphasis added by me



[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sublime620

If you designed something would you not inspect the work that's being done? Sure there would be official inspections from a 3rd party, but wouldn't you want to look yourself? Afterall, it's your name on the finished product.

Absolutely.

But it just enforces my stance that all these layers of inspection would result in the job being done "right".

So again, it just hurts, IMHO, Griff's statement that there MAY have been poor welding. The more layers of inspection, etc that are added, the less likely that is the case. Again, IMHO, the possibility is ZERO that so many of the core columns would have gotten by any inspectors. Especially on something as easily seen as the columns being welded on 2 sides only. That's a binary question.

Quality of the welds - penetration, crystalization of the steel around the weld area, etc, would be harder to see visually, virtually impossible. But these factors are known and would be engineered out of the equation. And then with the multiple layer of inspections going on, again the possibility of poor work is ZERO.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Kansas City Skywalk Collapse[/url]

So are we willing to say it might be a possibility?

John Ashcroft, the Missouri Attorney General, filed a complaint today accusing two engineers and their company of being grossly negligent in the design and inspection of two suspended skywalks at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, where 114 people were killed in 1981 when the skywalks collapsed.

Not the same thing.

This is a case where the ENGINEERS were accused of a poor design/not to code/unlicensed. Not that there was poor construction/negligent inspection. Although it DOES raise questions about how they could ever get a permit in the first place if it wasn't up to code.

Also, the end of the article reads like they were acquitted of charges?

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
I'd like to see some documented examples where a project of this size, under the rigorous inspection criteria present in the US, has failed due to documented shoddy worksmanship and poor inspections. THEN I would be willing to say that it MIGHT be a possibility.

Since 1993, the bridge was inspected annually by Mn/DOT, although no inspection report was completed in 2007, due to the construction work.

en.wikipedia.org...

ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey (CNN) -- Five stories of a parking garage under construction at an Atlantic City casino collapsed Thursday morning, killing four people.

www.cnn.com...

18 Hospitalized, 1 Missing After Parking Garage Collapse

www.news4jax.com...

Shall I continue?

And then you need to come up with just a single shred of evidence that there was allegations of this going on in the towers. Otherwise, I just don't see how you can come to these conclusions.

I come to this conclusion because of the FACT that the weld joints failed before the steel.

I'll agree with you and say that IF the weld joints are supposed to be stronger..... etc. But nobody with any real knowledge has stepped up to even remotely suggest that this is the case. Lack of inspection reports is not proof that there was poor work. What are the regs on keeping such docs?

OK. I'm about done talking with you if you aren't going to accept my "Civil Engineering Reference Manual".

Here it is if you want to buy it. Sorry that there is no link I can link to. But, I did scan the pertanant page and posted it.

www.amazon.com...

Your extraordinary claims put the burden of proof on you. Specs for a similar building that backs your ideas about the welds would be a good place to start. Then you might have something.

Show me any spec that states the welds can be weaker than the steel.

Since I don't have a welding spec in front of me and the AWS welding specification is $360, I'm not buying it just to show you.

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
Not the same thing.

This is a case where the ENGINEERS were accused of a poor design/not to code/unlicensed. Not that there was poor construction/negligent inspection. Although it DOES raise questions about how they could ever get a permit in the first place if it wasn't up to code.

Also, the end of the article reads like they were acquitted of charges?

I disagree. It wouldn't matter whether it was the engineering or the contruction that was at fault. As long as the finished product managed to slip past the inspectors then it validates what was being discussed.

Also, if you read the story on what caused the collapse, it wasn't necissarily the engineering but the installation. As I recall, they installed something backwards? The design called for it to be installed that way, but it's irrelevant.

The point is, somewhere along the line the engineers, construction crew, or inspectors (which in this case was apparently the same engineering firm) should have caught it. The fact remains, however, that they didn't.

And that's what you guys were discussing.

Originally posted by Griff
Since I don't have a welding spec in front of me and the AWS welding specification is $360, I'm not buying it just to show you.

I doubt he's even seen or heard of the "AWS welding specification". Neither have I, but I'm also not arguing with a structural engineer.

Do you think the avatar makes it hard to take me serously?



[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sublime620
Do you think the avatar makes it hard to take me serously?

I like your avatar. One of the truelly funny films by the man.

"Punch you in the ovaries.....straight shot." I almost fell off the sofa when I first heard that. No offense any women here. I don't mean to offend.

I can only speak on behalf of the towers since Larry Silverstein designed and kept total control of WTC 7.

The towers were both welded and bolted at connections. In order to give them far more strength and resilience. Bolts or welding alone can become easily compromised, when taking the type of wind beating those towers took on a constant basis - some days far worse than others. Then there was the blow-torch type 6 story fire (1975) and sub-level bomb (1993) beating, not expected to happen as part of normal daily wear and tear on commercial buildings.

That does not mean the welding was not per standard or above. What it means is more redundant work to ensure those over 1300' buildings would still be successfully standing, when those born in 1969 or before lived to be 100 years of age or older.

Originally posted by Griff

Shall I continue?

And then you need to come up with just a single shred of evidence that there was allegations of this going on in the towers. Otherwise, I just don't see how you can come to these conclusions.

I come to this conclusion because of the FACT that the weld joints failed before the steel.

I'll agree with you and say that IF the weld joints are supposed to be stronger..... etc. But nobody with any real knowledge has stepped up to even remotely suggest that this is the case. Lack of inspection reports is not proof that there was poor work. What are the regs on keeping such docs?

OK. I'm about done talking with you if you aren't going to accept my "Civil Engineering Reference Manual".

All three of your examples fail. So yeah, you should continue.

1-en.wikipedia.org...

As of early 2008, the NTSB has not reached a determination of probable cause for the collapse, but has identified a possible design error from when the bridge was originally built, which may have caused or contributed to the failure.In 2005, the bridge was again rated as "structurally deficient" and in possible need of replacement, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Bridge Inventory database.

So it had an engineering problem and the bridge was known to in questionable shape through the inspection process.

2-www.cnn.com...

Just a news story of a structure under construction, which would eliminate the possibility that it would have been "signed off". No documentation of fault.

3-www.news4jax.com...

Another news story with the same flaws that don't fulfill my quest for evidence.

The fact that the columns failed at the welds is not allegations that there was shoddy work and/or inspections. That is what I was asking for. Couple that with the lack of documented cases.....

I agree totally with your manual. It states that the "weld material" should be stronger than the base material. This means that when welding steel with a rating of 40 ksi like the core columns, you'd use 6011 or 7018 welding rod or similar. FYI, the first 2 numbers in a rod's id is it's KSI strength. So 6011 is rated at 60ksi, 7018 at 70ksi. The 3rd number denotes its suitability for out of the flat position work. A 1 here denotes that it's good for all positions - flat, horizontal, and overhead welding. 7018 was the rod used for welding the cores, and is specifically named in many documents. I've constructed trailers from it and can attest that it's great for construction on fairly clean steel. 6011 is a great rod for repair work when welding through rust, dirt, or paint. 7024, if memory serves, is a hard facing rod, used on wear points on machines excavator teeth and on a dozer blades cutting blade. 2 means it's suitable for flat welding only.

So that document in no way supports the idea that the weld zone would be more resistant to lateral loads than the columns themselves. They COULD HAVE BEEN stronger IF they were full depth/length welds. But they weren't. The photos prove that.

So again, I'll ask you, with this new information about what that article that you scanned means, and taking into your personal accounts of the multiple layers of inspection and QA that is present at building sites, you still believe that there's something wrong?

I doubt that we'll ever get the spec sheet, I'll grant you that. So we need to resort to other techniques here to ascertain what the truth is. Looks like we'll forever disagree on what the evidence means.

Nice talking with you.

Originally posted by Sublime620

I disagree. It wouldn't matter whether it was the engineering or the contruction that was at fault. As long as the finished product managed to slip past the inspectors then it validates what was being discussed.

Also, if you read the story on what caused the collapse, it wasn't necissarily the engineering but the installation. As I recall, they installed something backwards? The design called for it to be installed that way, but it's irrelevant.

The point is, somewhere along the line the engineers, construction crew, or inspectors (which in this case was apparently the same engineering firm) should have caught it. The fact remains, however, that they didn't.

And that's what you guys were discussing.

Do you think the avatar makes it hard to take me serously?

Yep, we disagree. Especially since I was specifically asking for instances where the construction/inspections were documented to be at fault. An engineering problem isn't THAT. And like we agree, it calls into question HOW it could have gotten a permit. I guess that the county permit process takes the engineers calcs/load specs as correct?

I read the article for a 2nd time, where does it find fault in the construction? I don't see it. But if an ironworker follows the plans he's given, how can he be wrong it he installs something backwards when the plan specifies it that way? If anything, it validates the QA process since he did what was called for.

Right, nobody caught it. Which is it seems to me that the county process depends on the engineers getting their calcs/specifications right. They just make sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. And the in field county inspector wouldn't necessarily know the specs either. He couldn't be expected to know engineering specs except in the case of something being grossly wrong.

Love the avatar also.