Quote: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.
There are two kinds of weakness: the kind caused by excessive heat and other caused by excessive explosives.
Quote: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. In my opinion their scenarios are worse than your analogy of a stable human losing one leg instantly and would be more like a four legged animal suddenly losing one leg. There isn't enough overload to fail the other three legs.
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
But Jeffrey did answer my interpretation of his Top Down cartoon below:
Quote: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?
And responded:
Quote: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.
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.
"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: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.
You can't get away with that. I made a very specific point that answer falls well short of. I'll say it again. You posited that CD happened at the 98th floor. Since we see the antenna drop first the only possibility is the entire core from 98 to the antenna failed. It can't be any other way. You didn't answer that and you can't get away with ignoring it. Not only that your statement is ignoring the fact that at some point the entire weight of the 12 storey section hit the rest of the building below. Once again, by common sense and science, it can't be any other way. You can't get around the fact that, intact core columns or not, at some point the falling top section hit the bottom and when it did it delivered the 5 storeys plus of required threshold weight you cited. I can understand why you would need to avoid answering that. It was pretty clear in my last post that the alleged demolition of the columns at the 98th floor, as you suggest, as well as the antenna dropping first, pretty much indicates a drop of the entire core. So, since the entire core dropped, how then could the columns interfere with the dropping floors? Please, if I'm so ignorant, teach me.
As I predicted, you'll protest with indignation and then proceed to avoid answering the point. You are using disingenuous, evasive voodoo engineering to avoid answering how 12 storeys of upper section could drop and not apply 12 storeys of force to the building below. Nice switching of the subject to spurious, contrived particulars, but you still haven't answered the point. I know what you are doing. You're trying to suggest that CD charges took the static resistance out from under the impact of the falling top section just in time to prevent that contact, however any competent observer would see the timing between the alleged thermite cutter packs at floor 98 and the explosives charges below would have to be perfect. Any look at the video would show it didn't happen that way. The timing is definitely for natural contact and collapse according to ROOSD.
The dust jets you claim were explosives blasts were so prominent and visible that science would require such a highly visible jet to be accompanied by a sonic signature. Again, it can't be any other way. Since Ashley Banfield's audio caught alleged demolition charges that were not seen blasting out of the building, that allegedly originated from inside the building, and were further away, how then did the numerous media under the tower manage to not catch any of the incredible booms that would have necessarily accompanied such prominent blast jets seen so openly on the collapse video? There's absolutely nothing wrong with this question so why do you keep running from it every time I ask? Tony, could it be that no such audio features were captured because there were no explosive charges associated with those pneumatic blasts? Could it be that there is no audio track showing those explosions because a floor collapse pneumatic jet doesn't produce such a signature? The corners prove nothing since the floor pad extends to the corner and would also blast out there as well. That was a bogus point.
You have think that David Chandler must have thought at some point to look for those demolition rumbles in the tower collapses. That would really prove his point, wouldn't it? I'll bet you anything Chandler tried to find such audio evidence but couldn't. What does that tell you about David Chandler? And if he didn't look for them then what does that tell you?
I'm sorry Tony but this is a very sound question. If you can't answer it you basically concede.
In my ignorance I must have missed how those cutter packs' activating mechanisms survived 102 minutes of furnace heat? Or did you just not bother to explain that too?
Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.
Once again Tony tries to bamboozle us with a textbook theory response, but in reality it doesn't happen that way. The fuel would continue under inertia as the Purdue animators showed us. In some places it would pool and others it would wick in to materials like carpets, furniture etc. The fires are telling you that this was a fuel-associated fire because of the classic black plane crash smoke. Tony, once again, avoids answering the 23mph wind-stoked furnace effect because it is scientific fact he wants to go away. The back wall of the tower would arrest the sloshing fuel and pool it there. Also, gruesome as it is, bodies would also catch some fuel, wick it, and burn. In any case there's no doubt that intense fires burned there as the smoke showed. While Tony waves his textbook with one hand he tries to distract us from this.
Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.
Once again Tony tries to bamboozle us with a textbook theory response, but in reality it doesn't happen that way. The fuel would continue under inertia as the Purdue animators showed us. In some places it would pool and others it would wick in to materials like carpets, furniture etc. The fires are telling you that this was a fuel-associated fire because of the classic black plane crash smoke. Tony, once again, avoids answering the 23mph wind-stoked furnace effect because it is scientific fact he wants to go away. The back wall of the tower would arrest the sloshing fuel and pool it there. Also, gruesome as it is, bodies would also catch some fuel, wick it, and burn. In any case there's no doubt that intense fires burned there as the smoke showed. While Tony waves his textbook with one hand he tries to distract us from this.
There is a reason NIST admitted the fuel would have burned up within minutes and that it only served to ignite the fires. It did not contribute any more than that.
The North Tower, WTC 1, fell, but not due to the NIST explanation of "fire-weakened steel," or the NIST-Bazant pile driver, or solid block of the top twelve stories.
At 340 above, Tony says:
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.
We have seen the official explanation of fire weakening steel causing the top twelve stories to fall as a solid block. The heat was never attained to cause the required weakening of the steel, and in the studies of David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen, and Tony Szamboti linked below, the top twelve stories did not present as the pile driver of the NIST-Bazant model.
In this David Chandler video Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center, suspicious evidence of coordinated sequential charges strategically placed is presented, particularly in the case of the corner composed of two fourteen-inch box columns connected by steel plate, clad in aluminum, containing no window:
Also by David Chandler
Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
(see attachment)
Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight. It is difficult to imagine how an upper block exerting a force of only 36% of its static weight could crush the larger, stronger, undamaged lower section of the building to the ground, when the building, at any level, was designed to support several times the weight above it. Assuming a safety factor of between 3 and 5 [12], the observed acceleration implies that close to 90% of the strength of the lower section of the building must have been eliminated by forces other than the supposed "pile driver," suggesting that some sort of controlled demolition was at work.
Also of note Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST--Bazănt Collapse Hypothesis
(see attachment)
NIST's Hypothesis of Total Collapse:
Three essential elements of NIST's hypothesis of total collapse are made explicit in the Final Report and the companion volumes of the study:
1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire, the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit. [2]
2. This "rigid block" of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptly fell onto the stories beneath it. [3]
3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that "global collapse began."[4]
There follows a meticulous study of the fall of the floors leading to
Conclusions
We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.
~~~
In examining the claim of the NIST theory of collapse, that fire weakened the steel and the top twelve floors fell as a solid block it is shown by the analyses by David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti to fail at every level.
The steel was not weakened by jet fuel fires which had lives too short to attain the critical temperatures for the necessary time.
The observed collapse was not one floor resulting in the top twelve acting as a solid block with 31g or thirty-one times its static or dead weight or load.
The hat trusses said to have weakened and sagged forty inches, in tests sagged two to six, and could not have initiated collapse absent significant weakening of core columns--likely by charges, as no other cause presents.
Claims by "investigators" who did not investigate fail: explosions were heard, evidence of charges was reported. The smooth collapse of the structure shows none of the "jolt" necessitated by the official explanation.
The Pile Driver takes its place with the Magic Bullet, the Flat Earth, the Phlogiston theory of combustion in the gallery of hoaxes.
And at 411 Elm Street, every time the elevator door opens, P.T. Barnum gets his wings.
Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.
You can't get away with that. I made a very specific point that answer falls well short of. I'll say it again. You posited that CD happened at the 98th floor. Since we see the antenna drop first the only possibility is the entire core from 98 to the antenna failed. It can't be any other way. You didn't answer that and you can't get away with ignoring it. Not only that your statement is ignoring the fact that at some point the entire weight of the 12 storey section hit the rest of the building below. Once again, by common sense and science, it can't be any other way. You can't get around the fact that, intact core columns or not, at some point the falling top section hit the bottom and when it did it delivered the 5 storeys plus of required threshold weight you cited. I can understand why you would need to avoid answering that. It was pretty clear in my last post that the alleged demolition of the columns at the 98th floor, as you suggest, as well as the antenna dropping first, pretty much indicates a drop of the entire core. So, since the entire core dropped, how then could the columns interfere with the dropping floors? Please, if I'm so ignorant, teach me.
As I predicted, you'll protest with indignation and then proceed to avoid answering the point. You are using disingenuous, evasive voodoo engineering to avoid answering how 12 storeys of upper section could drop and not apply 12 storeys of force to the building below. Nice switching of the subject to spurious, contrived particulars, but you still haven't answered the point. I know what you are doing. You're trying to suggest that CD charges took the static resistance out from under the impact of the falling top section just in time to prevent that contact, however any competent observer would see the timing between the alleged thermite cutter packs at floor 98 and the explosives charges below would have to be perfect. Any look at the video would show it didn't happen that way. The timing is definitely for natural contact and collapse according to ROOSD.
The dust jets you claim were explosives blasts were so prominent and visible that science would require such a highly visible jet to be accompanied by a sonic signature. Again, it can't be any other way. Since Ashley Banfield's audio caught alleged demolition charges that were not seen blasting out of the building, that allegedly originated from inside the building, and were further away, how then did the numerous media under the tower manage to not catch any of the incredible booms that would have necessarily accompanied such prominent blast jets seen so openly on the collapse video? There's absolutely nothing wrong with this question so why do you keep running from it every time I ask? Tony, could it be that no such audio features were captured because there were no explosive charges associated with those pneumatic blasts? Could it be that there is no audio track showing those explosions because a floor collapse pneumatic jet doesn't produce such a signature? The corners prove nothing since the floor pad extends to the corner and would also blast out there as well. That was a bogus point.
You have think that David Chandler must have thought at some point to look for those demolition rumbles in the tower collapses. That would really prove his point, wouldn't it? I'll bet you anything Chandler tried to find such audio evidence but couldn't. What does that tell you about David Chandler? And if he didn't look for them then what does that tell you?
I'm sorry Tony but this is a very sound question. If you can't answer it you basically concede.
In my ignorance I must have missed how those cutter packs' activating mechanisms survived 102 minutes of furnace heat? Or did you just not bother to explain that too?
Nobody is saying the core did not drop over the full 12 stories, but it did not disintegrate over 12 stories generating 12 stories of rubble at once. It failed at the 98th floor and dropped, as evidenced by the antenna dropping before the exterior roofline.
What you aren't understanding is that the core failure doesn't allow 12 floor slabs to immediately contact each other. They can't do that, as they are connected to the columns, and 5 stories of columns would need to collapse before 5 floor slabs would be free to generate ROOSD. In other words, when the failure occurs at the 98th floor the 99th floor slab comes down onto the 98th floor slab, but not the other 11 floor slabs. They need to wait until their respective columns collapse. So 5 stories of columns would need to collapse before ROOSD would have the minimum number of floor slabs to generate it.
The real problem in the natural collapse theory concerns why the columns aren't resisting.
14-08-2013, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2013, 09:53 AM by Tony Szamboti.)
Phil Dragoo Wrote:The hat trusses said to have weakened and sagged forty inches, in tests sagged two to six, and could not have initiated collapse absent significant weakening of core columns--likely by charges, as no other cause presents.
Phil, I think you meant to say it was the floor trusses under the floor slabs between the core and perimeter which NIST claimed sagged 40+ inches and pulled in the south exterior wall of WTC 1 (North Tower) over several stories around the 98th floor. Of course, there are serious problems with this theory as they couldn't get the sagging trusses to pull the exterior columns inward in their FEA model and the trusses did not sag anywhere near what they claimed in their actual floor slab fire testing, as you state. The only legitimate mechanism to pull in the perimeter columns was a falling core and there was not enough heat to weaken the core and cause the acceleration observed over the first story of the fall.
In case you aren't aware, the hat truss was a large truss at the top three floors of the building, with A-frame outriggers connecting the core to the perimeter, intended to spread the antenna wind load induced moments out to the perimeter which cut down the vertical force required to counteract them due to the increased lever arm. Lauren put pictorials of it in post #292 of this thread.
Yes there appears to be what you refer to as a cover up... an official report about what was supposed to explain the collapse but we agree in this... that the report does not. It's hard to attribute this to honestly made mistakes or insufficient resources. One then might think that they intended to deceive or to use your word - cover up.
So let's accept that the official reports were a cover up.
Your position along with the CD people is that NIST found that the destruction did not have a so called natural cause... jets and destruction and heat weakening... but that the three towers were taken down with explosives and this *fact* could only mean that it was "insiders" behind the conspiracy and the entire official story and the technical reports were part of the conspiracy... commit the crime and cover the tracks. This is perfectly logical.
But there are other possible explanations to produce a cover up and they don't include CD or the inside job... but they do support a conspiracy after the fact. A conspiracy to hide wrong doing.
We've seen such behavior in the past... usually when there is some sort of industrial disaster.. Bhopal, BP Oil spill, Exxon Valdez, PCBs in the Hudson, Fukishima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island... even Katrina. But the list is very long. What is the common element? A need to cover up malfeasance, criminal liability, protection of those who made bad decisions or who failed to act as they should have and failed to protect the people, workers, the environment and so forth. The big guys are protecting the powerful corporations and those who run them and drive their policies.
So there ARE other sorts of cover ups possible and I have proposed that we consider that the engineering design, the development process, the constuction oversight and approvals process may have been flawed to put it mildly. Millions if not billions were made in developing the WTC... These were state authorities which likely engaged in the usual waste fraud abuse... and add to that professional misconduct, incompetence, willful neglect of the publics' safetly and so forth. Lot's of inviduals should have had to answer for many decisions involved with the WTC development.
And of course the system... the old boys network... the so called blue line of silence is always in self protect mode when crisis presents. We see no individual accountability for any of the above and other disasters and at most a pathetically small and inadequate and poorly administered victims' compensation fund to slap a band aid on it and move forward with the same agenda... no lessons learned.
And of course, regardless of who was behind what was perceived and marketed as an attack... an act of war... with a patsy identified the people would get behind the primitive concept of vengeance and retribution and how convenient that it would be Arab terrorists and usher in a new never ending war and excuse for the militarism of the empire... to gobble up more of the world.
This sort of cover up does not fit so well with the deep state paradigm. But it is nevertheless a possible analysis and without indisputable hard evidence... confessions and so forth the insider job analysis is speculation. The technical discussion pivots on whether there were planted devices or not with the presumption that this would be the evidence for the inside job and deep state frame. That case has not been proven and jurors have not been convinced. There are some who claim CD did not happen with complete confidence. My position it could explain but the evidence of the devices and a detailed mechanism has not been demonstrated... it's an idea, a speculation and it conveniently leaves out evidence which does not support a CD conclusion. So ALL evidence must be accounted for in the correct technical explanation.
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.
Your FoS study is not correct.
According to you but without explanation... The high yield steel was used because, I assert, using A36 steel would have required thicker plates, add more dead load all the way down making the wall thickness of the lowest columns too thick even to join them because there would be no void inside for the bolts. The facade columns were limited in OAL dimension unlike the core columns. The higher yield steel was stiffer apparently and this was part of the wind shear strategy for the top most floors.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:According to you but without explanation... The high yield steel was used because, I assert, using A36 steel would have required thicker plates, add more dead load all the way down making the wall thickness of the lowest columns too thick even to join them because there would be no void inside for the bolts. The facade columns were limited in OAL dimension unlike the core columns. The higher yield steel was stiffer apparently and this was part of the wind shear strategy for the top most floors.
Oh, but I did explain it in detail and you repeated most of my explanation. Your complaint has no legs and the only thing your post here shows is that your comprehension is poor, although that doesn't necessarily have to be unintended.
