NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. ... WTC 7 used a structural system design in
widespread use.
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse
So what? It's still a different design dumbass.
I asked you a question above and you ignored it because you know what the answer is and what it means to your argument.
According to you, WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2 were the same "tube" design. So are they exactly the same or not? You have no clue about structural design and try cherry-pick quotes to support your garbage. They may have used a general structural design principal, but the buildings were VERY different in design. That's what you're afraid to admit because it kills your beliefs. Just to show how ignorant you really are, below are just some of the differences in what you consider to be exactly the same design...
1. Did WTC1 and WTC1 use I beams like in WTC7 beneath their concrete flooring?
No, they used the type of trusses shown below.
2. Did WTC7 have viscoelastic damper connections like WTC1 and WTC2 on each floor?
No.
This viscoelastic damper connected a floor truss to an exterior steel column of the World Trade Center. Building movement caused by wind was a major concern to the architects and engineers designing the 110-story towers. They cleverly mitigated apparent building movement by using these dampers to allow the exterior of the building to sway slightly under wind load, while the floor remained largely stationary.
The damper and other floor attachment brackets were also a point of failure leading to the towers' collapse. When the intense fire heated the 60 foot-long floor trusses, they eventually distorted and pulled free of their attachments to the exterior columns. As the upper floors of the towers fell, the weight then “pancaked” the lower floors, breaking floor truss attachments unaffected by heat. Each of these huge towers collapsed in about ten seconds.
3. Was WTC1 and WTC2 trapezoid in shape like WTC7?
No. The towers were 208' x 208'
4. Did WTC1 and WTC2 have a pre-existing foundation structure from another building incorporated into it's design?
Nope.
5. Did WTC1 and WTC2 use a lower floor to function as a structural diaphragm in order to provide lateral stability and distribute loads between the new and old caissons?
No.
6. Did WTC1 and WTC2 use a "typical tube design" above a certain floor level while using column transfer trusses below it like WTC7?
No.
The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.
7. Did WTC7 use the same design for the perimeter columns?
No.
8. Did WTC7 have a hat truss on the roof to help transfer loads between the core structure and perimeter columns?
No.
9. Was WTC7 designed the same way as WTC1 and WTC2 to resist wind loads?
No.
10. Was WTC7 1300 feet in height?
No.
Two things for you eots. I bet you pass these right up.
Since you and wihosa want historical proof, I counter and ask you to provide me proof that a similarly designed building to WTC7 that had unfought fires in it, remained standing in any point in history.
Do you still stand behind your claim that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, employing the same supposed "tube" design principals, despite all the differences listed above, can be considered the same exact design?
Trying to generalize a building design and claiming that all buildings using this "widespread" design principal is pathetic. This just shows just how little you know of structural engineering. You and wihosa are employing the same level of knowledge here.
