Lauren Johnson Wrote:This disagrees with the NIST analysis I take it--although the details escape me? And has this thesis been discussed in the requisite journals? I gotta say that anon posters over at randi don't cut it when it gets down to it. OK, now I will stare at the diagram some more.
Tony,
I think the content is important not the name of the poster. I think you could not find fault with the work of femr2 and achimspok... and perhaps a few others. But I agree some of the jref guys are pretty irrational and prehaps not a few but many. I know some of the anonymous posters by name so... heck these are real people. I read a ballet forum and there are mostly nicks used there and the comments are rather briliant and made by people who clearly know what they are talking about. Anon is not reason to dismiss the content.
But the diagram is a 2d dipiction of a 4D event so it clearly misses many things.
I said the quoted statement, not Tony.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey, As I understand your sketch entitled Top Drop Cartoon, the load supported by the compromised core columns was slowly transferred to the perimeter columns via the hat trusses. As the perimeter column exceeded their designed load capacity, they began to buckle and slip pulling the core columns down. The core detaches from the hat trusses. After that I am a little vague. But somehow this leads to a cascading collapse which Major Tom calls ROOSD, which stands for Runaway Open Office Space Destruction. Am I correct in interpreting your cartoon?
Basically you are getting the gist of the diagram. It's meant to show what happens as the core columns are weakened. When the lose capacity the 12 floors of the core ... and there were only 2 elevator chafts in the core at that height... were hanging from the hat truss. And this include part of the weight of the floors outside the core as the 24 perimeter core columns support about 45% of the outside the core floor loads. When the core lost capacity all of the loads were moved over to the facade columns which buckled and in so doing there was lateral translation and the facades slipped past each other 2 side passed outside and 2 inside. But surely the facade wasn't able to carry the floor loads alone including those inside the core up there. This mass.. became the ROOSD mass driving through the inside of the tower down to the ground.
This disagrees with the NIST analysis I take it--although the details escape me? And has this thesis been discussed in the requisite journals? I gotta say that anon posters over at randi don't cut it when it gets down to it. OK, now I will stare at the diagram some more.
Jeffrey's scenario in his cartoon has never been proposed by anyone who has published anything because it is fully impossible and a certain fiction, as the hat truss outriggers were not capable of transferring 12 stories of core load to the perimeter (the exterior columns that Jeffrey calls the façade).
The outriggers were A-frames meant to transfer antenna wind loads to the perimeter to gain a larger lever arm than just that provided by the core. They were about 10% of what would have been needed to transfer 12 stories of core load to the perimeter and would have failed in bending immediately when the core load was applied to them.
The truth is the outriggers did fail when the core load was applied to them and that is why the interior did go down first, as evidenced by the antenna drop before the exterior roofline, which had to wait for the core to pull the perimeter columns in at the 98th floor causing them to buckle and fail. It wasn't because they were overloaded from the top the way Jeffrey wants to say. That was impossible and it can be guaranteed that Jeffrey has no analysis showing the outriggers could take and transfer the core load he claims.
Additionally, the core load was not capable of overloading the perimeter even if it could be transferred by the outriggers. The perimeter columns only had 20% of their capacity used and they supported at least 50% of the building load. So if the core load was placed on them they would only be loaded to 40% of their capacity. Jeffrey's cartoon has no basis in reality and was certainly not the cause of failure for the perimeter. They did buckle but it was not due to overloading from the top as he claims. It was due to pull in creating extreme eccentricity (which columns cannot tolerate) by the failed and falling core.
According to Tony... FEMA proposed a similar explanation in their initial report. But of course this contradicts his conception and the absence of his recognizing the pre release building movements.
The service use of capacity was not 20% and that's purer fiction.
We know each aircraft that hit the towers had 10,000 gallons on them when they left Boston for their trips to the West Coast. The 767-200ER aircraft had a 7,700 mile range and would have only been fueled to their full 24,000 gallon capacity for that range.
It is likely that about half of the fuel or about 5,000 gallons made it into the towers with the other half going up in the exterior fireballs. Now if one takes 5,000 gallons and spreads it over one of the acre size floors of a twin tower they will have a 3/16" thickness. Over two floors 3/32" thickness and over three floors 3/64" thickness. NIST believes the fuel burned up quickly due to being aerosolized and a thin film. I agree with that contention.
Quod erat demonstratum the official explanation fails.
Fire did not produce the necessary temperature to weaken the steel.
Charges taking out 98, then 99, 100, 101 is a scenario consistent with observed events.
Integral to the deep political understaning of 9/11 is the predetermined rush to war in two theaters aligned with the ends of the powers
as well as the rip tide of unravelling of constitutional protections for rights secured against monarchic abuse of power.
The official explanation of 9/11, just as that of the JFK Assassination, is unable to account for either observations or ends.
The role of Allen Dulles/Dick Cheney as the lightning rod for the concept of a Gladio operation is central to the event.
Now comes the filibuster to quibble, retreat behind a rodeo barrier of amateurness, emerge with pronunciamentos and Sancho Panza
The towers didn't "fall"--they were blown down. Why, how, unfolding now.
Charges set by a small set
Who refuse to see the larger picture
That little Dulles shouting down Lifton: Nothing! You can't say it moves back!
Dick and Jane, See Fire Burn! See Building Fall!
In each and both, contempt for conspiracy, echoed in these pages: over and over and over
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Basically you are getting the gist of the diagram. It's meant to show what happens as the core columns are weakened. When the lose capacity the 12 floors of the core ... and there were only 2 elevator chafts in the core at that height... were hanging from the hat truss. And this include part of the weight of the floors outside the core as the 24 perimeter core columns support about 45% of the outside the core floor loads. When the core lost capacity all of the loads were moved over to the facade columns which buckled and in so doing there was lateral translation and the facades slipped past each other 2 side passed outside and 2 inside. But surely the facade wasn't able to carry the floor loads alone including those inside the core up there. This mass.. became the ROOSD mass driving through the inside of the tower down to the ground.
This disagrees with the NIST analysis I take it--although the details escape me? And has this thesis been discussed in the requisite journals? I gotta say that anon posters over at randi don't cut it when it gets down to it. OK, now I will stare at the diagram some more.
Jeffrey's scenario in his cartoon has never been proposed by anyone who has published anything because it is fully impossible and a certain fiction, as the hat truss outriggers were not capable of transferring 12 stories of core load to the perimeter (the exterior columns that Jeffrey calls the façade).
The outriggers were A-frames meant to transfer antenna wind loads to the perimeter to gain a larger lever arm than just that provided by the core. They were about 10% of what would have been needed to transfer 12 stories of core load to the perimeter and would have failed in bending immediately when the core load was applied to them.
The truth is the outriggers did fail when the core load was applied to them and that is why the interior did go down first, as evidenced by the antenna drop before the exterior roofline, which had to wait for the core to pull the perimeter columns in at the 98th floor causing them to buckle and fail. It wasn't because they were overloaded from the top the way Jeffrey wants to say. That was impossible and it can be guaranteed that Jeffrey has no analysis showing the outriggers could take and transfer the core load he claims.
Additionally, the core load was not capable of overloading the perimeter even if it could be transferred by the outriggers. The perimeter columns only had 20% of their capacity used and they supported at least 50% of the building load. So if the core load was placed on them they would only be loaded to 40% of their capacity. Jeffrey's cartoon has no basis in reality and was certainly not the cause of failure for the perimeter. They did buckle but it was not due to overloading from the top as he claims. It was due to pull in creating extreme eccentricity (which columns cannot tolerate) by the failed and falling core.
According to Tony... FEMA proposed a similar explanation in their initial report. But of course this contradicts his conception and the absence of his recognizing the pre release building movements.
The service use of capacity was not 20% and that's purer fiction.
The service load on the perimeter columns constituted 20% of their capacity. I have done the calculations and it is also in the NIST report. See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxviii and Finding 51 and again on pages 240, 254, 321, and 337.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Why would you challenge something like that?
Not all the facade columns had the same FOS... the higher FOS would have been where they used the thinnest steel to reduce OAL weight so that the columns at the lower part were not solid and could be bolted together. They used higher grade steel because A36 was not stiff enough... There is no load reason to use the higher grade steel.
I don't trust everything that NIST writes either and therefore everything they say is taken with a grain of salt. The FOS at the base was nothing like 5:1. I find the pull in makes little sense. But I wasn't there.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:I said to cause a self-propagating collapse of the floors (meaning the floor slabs outside of the core as implied by ROOSD) would require at least five floors to fall on one floor before it could be self-sustaining. That can't happen in the beginning of the collapse and you can't dump the entire 12 story upper section on the floor slab as there are columns in the way in a natural collapse. Getting those five floor slabs would require the collapse of at least five stories of columns. Now there is a problem as the columns should have provided significant resistance. They did not and it appears they weren't even involved in resisting the collapse. Why not?
Of course, some like to say the columns would have missed each other. However, the upper section would not just shift over without an enormous lateral load on it. There is no lateral load on it as gravity is a vertical load, and the small tilt provides very little lateral load component.
I think you are playing word games. There's no doubt from the video that at some point the 12 storey top section releases and drops. You even said the fall initiated at the 98th floor. Therefore when the top section dropped at some point 12 storeys of top section hit the bottom section and transferred the weight and mass of that top section to the one below. Since it is likely the failure of the inner core in the top section released the floors in that section, when the top section hit the bottom section it almost certainly released its floor sections onto the floor sections below. Plus the inner core failure in the top section probably pulled-in the outer frame and drove the outside walls with force into the floor section seats below as well. By all definitions we are well within your 5 floors of weight threshold you calculate to initiate ROOSD.
What columns were in the way of a natural collapse? If the giving way of the top section showed a crumbling of the inner core what columns would be there to restrain the dumping of the top 12 floor sections on to those below them? The drop of the antenna first should indicate that the inner core from 98 to the roof had failed therefore releasing the contents of the section downward. You yourself said the event was initiated at the 98th floor with controlled demolition charges. Since the antenna dropped first the only possibility would be the core dropping from 98 to the roof. The core columns did not resist the collapse because they were fatally compromised through airliner impact and fire. The columns didn't need to shift over because many of them were severed as the Perdue simulation shows. You are juggling hypothetical resistance of columns while not really directly answering the questions. You're equivocating. The basis of your equivocation being the assumption of CD which in turn is being used to avoid answering what the video shows right in front of you.
Jeffrey, I call your attention to post #319. Lot's of stuff happened in between and you probably missed it.
I continue to ponder the Top Down cartoon in the light of your explanations.
Question: Tony and Jeffrey: common sense would dictate, to me at any rate, that the weakness in the core if great enough would pull the building down dragging down the floor joists and ultimately the roof. Why isn't this possibility, which seems to me to be the most compelling, put forth by NIST and Orling?
Think of another strange event. A person is standing comfortably on a level surface. Suddenly, his leg just below the knee disappears adding no momentum to his otherwise stable body. Why would he fall? According to NIST and Jeffrey, it would not be because he no longer is supported by his now missing leg. It would be because the load would be transferred via the pelvis to the other lag causing instability leading to collapse.
I say he falls because his leg is missing.
And I say the top portions of WTC 1 and 2 collapsed due to core weakness. What caused the weakness is what is at issue.
But once again, why did NIST and you, Jeffrey, or more correctly Major Tom, chose not to go this route?
Jeffrey, that's how I read your cartoon and understand both your words and those of NIST.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I
"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Why would you challenge something like that?
Not all the facade columns had the same FOS... the higher FOS would have been where they used the thinnest steel to reduce OAL weight so that the columns at the lower part were not solid and could be bolted together. They used higher grade steel because A36 was not stiff enough... There is no load reason to use the higher grade steel.
I don't trust everything that NIST writes either and therefore everything they say is taken with a grain of salt. The FOS at the base was nothing like 5:1. I find the pull in makes little sense. But I wasn't there.
Neither were you.
There was a load reason to use higher grade steel (higher yield strength) at different locations on the exterior. That was because the engineers wanted to keep the unit stress between the core and perimeter the same at each story to eliminate differential deflection between them and the floor warpage it would cause and for wind load resistance. Heavier wall columns would increase the load and the unit stress at different locations.
HOW COLUMNS WILL BE DESIGNED FOR 110-STORY BUILDINGS
For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.
A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.
The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.
The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).
Record-height towers. The. Port of New York Authority's World Trade Center will provide offices and exhibit areas for government agencies, trade services and private business concerned with exports and imports. The project will occupy a 16-acre site along the Hudson River in downtown Manhattan. Its twin towers, 110 stories high, will be 100 ft taller than the Empire State Building (excluding its TV antennas on --top), currently the world's tallest building (ENR Jan. 23, p. 33). Rising the full 1,3 50-ft height without a setback, each tower will be 208 ft square. It will be designed to resist a 45-psf wind, with both low sway and low acceleration.
Exterior columns will be spaced 39 inches c-c. Made of various high-strength steels, they will be 14-inch square hollow-box sections, for high torsional and bending resistance, and windows will be set between them. Spandrels welded to the columns at each floor will convert the exterior walls into giant Vierendeel trusses.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:I said to cause a self-propagating collapse of the floors (meaning the floor slabs outside of the core as implied by ROOSD) would require at least five floors to fall on one floor before it could be self-sustaining. That can't happen in the beginning of the collapse and you can't dump the entire 12 story upper section on the floor slab as there are columns in the way in a natural collapse. Getting those five floor slabs would require the collapse of at least five stories of columns. Now there is a problem as the columns should have provided significant resistance. They did not and it appears they weren't even involved in resisting the collapse. Why not?
Of course, some like to say the columns would have missed each other. However, the upper section would not just shift over without an enormous lateral load on it. There is no lateral load on it as gravity is a vertical load, and the small tilt provides very little lateral load component.
I think you are playing word games. There's no doubt from the video that at some point the 12 storey top section releases and drops. You even said the fall initiated at the 98th floor. Therefore when the top section dropped at some point 12 storeys of top section hit the bottom section and transferred the weight and mass of that top section to the one below. Since it is likely the failure of the inner core in the top section released the floors in that section, when the top section hit the bottom section it almost certainly released its floor sections onto the floor sections below. Plus the inner core failure in the top section probably pulled-in the outer frame and drove the outside walls with force into the floor section seats below as well. By all definitions we are well within your 5 floors of weight threshold you calculate to initiate ROOSD.
What columns were in the way of a natural collapse? If the giving way of the top section showed a crumbling of the inner core what columns would be there to restrain the dumping of the top 12 floor sections on to those below them? The drop of the antenna first should indicate that the inner core from 98 to the roof had failed therefore releasing the contents of the section downward. You yourself said the event was initiated at the 98th floor with controlled demolition charges. Since the antenna dropped first the only possibility would be the core dropping from 98 to the roof. The core columns did not resist the collapse because they were fatally compromised through airliner impact and fire. The columns didn't need to shift over because many of them were severed as the Perdue simulation shows. You are juggling hypothetical resistance of columns while not really directly answering the questions. You're equivocating. The basis of your equivocation being the assumption of CD which in turn is being used to avoid answering what the video shows right in front of you.
Please go find somebody else to play with. When you say the columns wouldn't disallow all 12 floors to hit the first floor below it is clear you are ignorant of the basics required to discuss the matter.
The floors are mounted to the columns and cannot independently of the columns hit the floors beneath them. The columns of a particular story would have to collapse first before the floor it was supporting could contact the next floor down.
14-08-2013, 03:27 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2013, 03:44 AM by Tony Szamboti.)
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey, I call your attention to post #319. Lot's of stuff happened in between and you probably missed it.
I continue to ponder the Top Down cartoon in the light of your explanations.
Question: Tony and Jeffrey: common sense would dictate, to me at any rate, that the weakness in the core if great enough would pull the building down dragging down the floor joists and ultimately the roof. Why isn't this possibility, which seems to me to be the most compelling, put forth by NIST and Orling?
Think of another strange event. A person is standing comfortably on a level surface. Suddenly, his leg just below the knee disappears adding no momentum to his otherwise stable body. Why would he fall? According to NIST and Jeffrey, it would not be because he no longer is supported by his now missing leg. It would be because the load would be transferred via the pelvis to the other lag causing instability leading to collapse.
I say he falls because his leg is missing.
And I say the top portions of WTC 1 and 2 collapsed due to core weakness. What caused the weakness is what is at issue.
But once again, why did NIST and you, Jeffrey, or more correctly Major Tom, chose not to go this route?
Jeffrey, that's how I read your cartoon and understand both your words and those of NIST.
The core did pull down the building, but it wasn't because of weakness. There is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures on core columns and the rapid acceleration through the first story of the fall is too high for heat weakening induced buckling.
Of course, Jeffrey does admit the core went down first. His problem comes in when he attempts to say its load was transferred to the perimeter through the hat truss, which could not possibly do it, and the perimeter columns would not buckle under the addition of the core load as a purely vertical load.
NIST doesn't admit the core went down first, but say it had some level of failure due to heating causing it to expand and then buckle under the compression due to the heat caused expansion being constrained and causing partial load redistribution through the hat truss to the perimeter, which are nowhere near enough to cause perimeter failure. However, it isn't their primary failure mode. Theirs is truss sagging causing perimeter inward bowing leading to perimeter failure of the south wall, in the case of WTC 1. However, in that case the load redistribution wasn't enough to fail either the core or the adjacent perimeter walls. NIST seems to be trying to use a shotgun approach where everything fails a little bit, but they never do make a case where they have high enough combined redistributed loads to cause additional failures.
The reason both Jeffrey's and NIST's explanations are confusing is that they aren't real and there was nowhere near enough load redistribution to cause additional failure in their scenarios.
The real failure was due to something causing the core to fall other than heat and the falling core pulling the perimeter walls in through the floors causing them to buckle. The late Danny Jowenko showed how to do it at a little after three minutes into the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
