14-08-2013, 11:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 14-08-2013, 03:56 PM by Jeffrey Orling.)
[quote=Lauren Johnson][quote]
Based on Jeffrey's words and my burning through the bottles of Visene squinting at the Top Down cartoon, he seems to be saying that the load was transferred to the perimeter columns via the hat trusses. The initiation of the collapse was the failure of the perimeter columns as they exceeded their designed load capacity taking the core columns down. The floor joists loaded with cement disconnected and formed the ROOSD mass.
Jeffrey, it's your call.[/quote]
Lauren,
This was a 4D process. LxWxHxT so it's hard to communicate in a sketch or even a narrative how this was taking place. Not a linear process by any means.
I tried to explain that there was what I call phase transition but not actually phase boundaries like discreet steps. There was a blending... a progression of weakening and forces (loads) were being redistributed as axial support was compromised and being eroded (or removed).
Bombs would be discrete events.. like the plane hitting and destroying the columns. Heat weakening is not a discrete event... it represents a process of erosion and weakening. This is not unlike rusting which will over time destroy the integrity and strength of the steel and it will fail (Miamus river bridge collapse - I95). So as in the lifting the leg from the floor is a discrete change in load transferring half your weight to the remaining leg. But if there was a weakening of the strength of your leg it would support less than half your weight and the other more than half.
In the tower cores there were many legs and so the load sharing was more complex and the loads on each column was not equal to begin with. Not all columns were equal.
The columns required bracing to maintain their design capacity. All floor loads were attached (hung) from/off the SIDES of the columns... the axial loads on the column were from the columns above. Loss of bracing also weakened the columns.
Could the core weakening have been done with devices? Of course. But the evidence is not there. We would also have to consider the nature of the two twin tower collapses. They were different and we can infer things about building performance from the studying the differences and the similarities. Each collapse adds to our understanding.
Tower 2 fell first, was hit off axis at an angle damaging the SE core significantly removing one of the 4 strongest columns (corner of the core). The damage occurred to the EAST of the massive elevator machine rooms which protected the NW side from more extensive damage. Tower 1 had few elevators at the strike elevation and the core was used for tenant space aside from 2 elevator shafts and mechanical shafts (risers). The fuel was able to spread throughout the floor and engage the entire floor in fire. WTC 2 came down when the NW side lost capacity to hold the top up. When release came... there was severe buckling of several of the NW columns... a motion which we see moved the bottom of the top to the NW and the entire top dropped onto the 78th floor with the ROOSD mass quickly built and ROOSD began.
In both towers the cores survived the ROOSD flow standing 50 stories before buckling from Euler forces. WTC2 makes it very clear that at release there is lateral translation because of the asymmetry of the load redistribution. Same with WTC1, but less obvious because of the nature of the initial damage. The movement of the antenna is one tell tale sign that the core AND the hat truss were compromised.
We don't actually SEE what we want to call the moment of initiation. It is lost in the PROCESS of load capacity destruction. We DO see some signs of this process in pre relaese movement... something that Tony ignores. As in the rust example we notice the bridge collapse but not the slow rusting of the pinned connection which failed.
I think the concept of the facade above 98 supporting the entire top is missing the point about the formation of the ROOSD mass. The facade movement, even some buckling or pulling in at some locations was an artifact of the collapse within... it is like a systemic infection which presents as rash on the skin. This is a tell tale sign that something WITHIN the body is under attack.
ROOSD mass destroyed the tower below the strikes zones. The strike zones caused core loss of capacity from mech damage and heat weakening and this led to the top collapse and then ROOSD.
However it is difficult to see the phases because it seems to go from static to collapse almost smoothly.
I think the debate is really whether the weakening could be caused by heat. The truth movement thinks this impossible. The temps and the core capacity are shrouded in mystery. It seems to me that some amount of heat could produce the observations. It's a big stretch to say this is impossible... and then declare it was placed devices... with no proof of their presence.
Based on Jeffrey's words and my burning through the bottles of Visene squinting at the Top Down cartoon, he seems to be saying that the load was transferred to the perimeter columns via the hat trusses. The initiation of the collapse was the failure of the perimeter columns as they exceeded their designed load capacity taking the core columns down. The floor joists loaded with cement disconnected and formed the ROOSD mass.
Jeffrey, it's your call.[/quote]
Lauren,
This was a 4D process. LxWxHxT so it's hard to communicate in a sketch or even a narrative how this was taking place. Not a linear process by any means.
I tried to explain that there was what I call phase transition but not actually phase boundaries like discreet steps. There was a blending... a progression of weakening and forces (loads) were being redistributed as axial support was compromised and being eroded (or removed).
Bombs would be discrete events.. like the plane hitting and destroying the columns. Heat weakening is not a discrete event... it represents a process of erosion and weakening. This is not unlike rusting which will over time destroy the integrity and strength of the steel and it will fail (Miamus river bridge collapse - I95). So as in the lifting the leg from the floor is a discrete change in load transferring half your weight to the remaining leg. But if there was a weakening of the strength of your leg it would support less than half your weight and the other more than half.
In the tower cores there were many legs and so the load sharing was more complex and the loads on each column was not equal to begin with. Not all columns were equal.
The columns required bracing to maintain their design capacity. All floor loads were attached (hung) from/off the SIDES of the columns... the axial loads on the column were from the columns above. Loss of bracing also weakened the columns.
Could the core weakening have been done with devices? Of course. But the evidence is not there. We would also have to consider the nature of the two twin tower collapses. They were different and we can infer things about building performance from the studying the differences and the similarities. Each collapse adds to our understanding.
Tower 2 fell first, was hit off axis at an angle damaging the SE core significantly removing one of the 4 strongest columns (corner of the core). The damage occurred to the EAST of the massive elevator machine rooms which protected the NW side from more extensive damage. Tower 1 had few elevators at the strike elevation and the core was used for tenant space aside from 2 elevator shafts and mechanical shafts (risers). The fuel was able to spread throughout the floor and engage the entire floor in fire. WTC 2 came down when the NW side lost capacity to hold the top up. When release came... there was severe buckling of several of the NW columns... a motion which we see moved the bottom of the top to the NW and the entire top dropped onto the 78th floor with the ROOSD mass quickly built and ROOSD began.
In both towers the cores survived the ROOSD flow standing 50 stories before buckling from Euler forces. WTC2 makes it very clear that at release there is lateral translation because of the asymmetry of the load redistribution. Same with WTC1, but less obvious because of the nature of the initial damage. The movement of the antenna is one tell tale sign that the core AND the hat truss were compromised.
We don't actually SEE what we want to call the moment of initiation. It is lost in the PROCESS of load capacity destruction. We DO see some signs of this process in pre relaese movement... something that Tony ignores. As in the rust example we notice the bridge collapse but not the slow rusting of the pinned connection which failed.
I think the concept of the facade above 98 supporting the entire top is missing the point about the formation of the ROOSD mass. The facade movement, even some buckling or pulling in at some locations was an artifact of the collapse within... it is like a systemic infection which presents as rash on the skin. This is a tell tale sign that something WITHIN the body is under attack.
ROOSD mass destroyed the tower below the strikes zones. The strike zones caused core loss of capacity from mech damage and heat weakening and this led to the top collapse and then ROOSD.
However it is difficult to see the phases because it seems to go from static to collapse almost smoothly.
I think the debate is really whether the weakening could be caused by heat. The truth movement thinks this impossible. The temps and the core capacity are shrouded in mystery. It seems to me that some amount of heat could produce the observations. It's a big stretch to say this is impossible... and then declare it was placed devices... with no proof of their presence.