24-08-2013, 02:28 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2013, 12:33 AM by Tony Szamboti.)
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote:The spandrels were on every story of the perimeter columns and there was a lot more steel there and the load is acting over a much shorter distance from perimeter column to perimeter column so the moment isn't nearly as high as it would be in trying to transfer core loads to the perimeter. Jeffrey is out to lunch on that one and shows his lack of understanding mechanics and stress analysis there. There is simply no chance the core gravity load could have been transferred to the perimeter through the hat truss.
We know what you want to believe Tony.... but the movement of the building tells a different story.
Moments? What moments? Stops trying to confuse people with terms they don't understand and don't apply.
Jeffrey, when the core load is applied to one side of the hat truss over the arm of the A-frames that generates a bending moment in the A-frames which they could not take. They would fail as soon as that load was applied. The connection at the perimeter side could not take the shear load either.
bending moment = force x distance
and
bending stress in the A-frame = (bending moment x distance to neutral axis) / moment of inertia of A-frame
The 12 story upper section of the North Tower weighed about 73 million lbs. and the core load would have been about half of that at 36.5 million lbs.. So if we have 16 outrigger A-frames you are proposing that they could take 2,281,250 lbs each and the longer distance 60 foot span outriggers would have a moment of 2,281,250 lbs. x 60 feet = 136,875,000 ft-lbs. or 1,642,500,000 in-lbs. of torque applied to them trying to bend them. That is 1.6425 billion in-lbs. of torque in case you don't quite follow.
The maximum yield stress of the medium grade steel which would have been used is about 50,000 psi. Since bending stress = MC/I, lets see how deep a 2 foot wide solid rectangular beam would need to be to take the load you are saying the outriggers could take
50,000 psi = (1,642,500,000 in-lbs. x depth/2) / (1/12 x 24 x depth ^3) and we can get depth by itself as
50,000 psi = (1,642.500,00 in-lbs. x depth/2) /(2 x depth^3) = (821,250,000 x depth) / (2 x depth^3) = 410,625,000/depth^2 so
That is a 7.5 foot deep x 2 foot wide solid beam and you would need 16 of these to transfer the core load to the perimeter. The beams themselves would weigh nearly half a million lbs., and I didn't consider the self weight in the calculation. The A-frame outriggers were 3 stories tall (36 feet) but they were far from solid and were never meant for the kind of bending stress dumping the core on them would apply. Those outriggers could not take the bending you want to impose on them and in reality they failed before they ever transferred the core load to the perimeter, as we can see with the antenna coming down before the roofline. The roofline then came down because the core pulled the perimeter inward where it was falling at the 98th floor. Your theory doesn't explain why the perimeters would fail at the 98th floor either.
With a 4 inch thick web I-beam (which would be an enormously thick web) the depth would need to be 222 inches or 18.5 feet deep. A 3 inch thick web I-beam would need to be 256 inches or 21.3 feet deep to take the bending stress you want to put on them and that is just barely taking it with no margin. If you had a 1.5 margin the 4 inch web would need to be 272 inches or 22.67 feet deep and a 3 inch web with a 1.5 margin would need to be 314 inches or 26.17 feet deep. These are solid I-beams which the outriggers certainly were not. The outriggers could not have been able to take even half the stress imposed by the core load on them with their fulcrum at the perimeter. Additionally, these beams I am talking about would be full height or depth across the full span. The maximum stress would have been at the perimeter side and the A-frames tapered to about 2 foot deep beams at that point. The bending resistance is a function of the depth cubed so a 2 foot deep beam is about 64 times weaker in bending than an 8 foot deep beam. The outriggers were designed to transmit antenna wind loads out to the perimeter and would have worked fine in that capacity.
Just so others know, I explained this in detail to Jeffrey in an e-mail exchange a couple of years ago when he sent me his cartoons. He apparently doesn't understand or doesn't want to change what he has and is still trying to sell.
24-08-2013, 02:44 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2013, 03:00 AM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Tony Szamboti Wrote:\
Just so others know, I explained this in detail to Jeffrey in an e-mail exchange a couple of years ago when he sent me his cartoons. He apparently doesn't understand or doesn't want to change what he has and is still trying to sell.
No Tony you simply said I was wrong and it was a several months ago less than a year. Do I have to post the email. Stop lying and who cares what the "others" think... I know what you said and I don't want to stop to that level. Go find another engineer aside from your partner to say that the hat trusses couldn't transfer loads to the facade from the core.
There is no way an entire 36 foot length could fail at one time with beams framing into the columns at every story. There was very little damage to the 97th floor core columns also and little to the core overall in WTC 1.
The failure was not over three stories it was at the 98th floor and went across the building on that floor in a 250 millisecond time frame. In my opinion, it would be nothing short of magic if this was a natural event.
The hat truss was not capable of transferring the core loads to the perimeter as it was not three stories deep over to the perimeter, as I thought you were saying earlier, which it would have to be to transfer those kinds of loads. The outriggers were simply A-frames beyond the core.
I can certainly prove that the A-frame outriggers could not have transferred a 12 story core gravity load to the perimeter columns.
Just so others know, I explained this in detail to Jeffrey in an e-mail exchange a couple of years ago when he sent me his cartoons. He apparently doesn't understand or doesn't want to change what he has and is still trying to sell.
No Tony you simply said I was wrong and it was a several months ago less than a year. Do I have to post the email. Stop lying and who cares what the "others" think... I know what you said and I don't want to stop to that level. Go find another engineer aside from your partner to say that the hat trusses couldn't transfer loads to the facade from the core.
There is no way an entire 36 foot length could fail at one time with beams framing into the columns at every story. There was very little damage to the 97th floor core columns also and little to the core overall in WTC 1.
The failure was not over three stories it was at the 98th floor and went across the building on that floor in a 250 millisecond time frame. In my opinion, it would be nothing short of magic if this was a natural event.
The hat truss was not capable of transferring the core loads to the perimeter as it was not three stories deep over to the perimeter, as I thought you were saying earlier, which it would have to be to transfer those kinds of loads. The outriggers were simply A-frames beyond the core.
I can certainly prove that the A-frame outriggers could not have transferred a 12 story core gravity load to the perimeter columns.
Tony
I showed you quite a while ago, in a numerical way, just why the outriggers could not have transferred the core load to the perimeter. I do mention that I had done just that in this e-mail from Feb. 3, 2013 to you.
Jeffrey,
I had gotten what you were saying and understood it to be exactly what you depict in the cartoon.
Unfortunately, it could not have happened that way as the hat truss was incapable of transmitting the core's gravity load to the perimeter. I showed you why this was true with real numbers. The moment on the outriggers would have been enormous and broken their connections to the perimeter immediately.
Without even having seen any calculations you should think about what you are saying here. You are trying to say the four outrigger connections per wall could have successfully transmitted a load that then buckled 59 perimeter columns. It is a non-starter.
Tony
I can't find the actual numerical proof I gave you then, as it may have been on a forum and not in an e-mail. However, regardless of that, I showed you again right on this Forum here tonight. You need to stop saying the core load was transferred to the perimeter, as it could not have been. The only thing the core did to the perimeter was pull it inward lower down at the 98th floor, where the collapse initiated.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:\
I can't find the actual numerical proof I gave you then, but regardless I showed you again right on the Forum here tonight. You need to stop saying the core load was transferred to the perimeter, as it could not have been. The only thing the core did to the perimeter was pull it inward lower down at the 98th floor, where the collapse initiated.
You can't find it because you never sent it.... you just lied that you sent it to me.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:\
I can't find the actual numerical proof I gave you then, but regardless I showed you again right on the Forum here tonight. You need to stop saying the core load was transferred to the perimeter, as it could not have been. The only thing the core did to the perimeter was pull it inward lower down at the 98th floor, where the collapse initiated.
You can't find it because you never sent it.... you just lied that you sent it to me.
People make mistakes. They are forgiven.
Don't lie.
So why did I say in the Feb. 3, 2013 e-mail that I had already shown you numerically that the outriggers could not transfer the core load to the perimeter? Was I lying then too? Give me a break. I have shown you why what you are postulating could not be true at the very least once in the past and you argued in an incoherent way then just like now. I wouldn't doubt I showed you multiple times.
A sign of a shill is that they seem to have all the information that ever transpired on this subject at their fingertips. I also found it strange that every time you replied to my e-mails it was with a different e-mail, instead of keeping the same chain. Was that for future referencing?
I did find another e-mail from a week earlier on Jan. 26, 2013 to your alter ego e-mail address JSanderO, so you should look there before calling anyone a liar. In it I do use some numbers and I had even sent you a sketch about it showing why the outriggers could not have transferred the core load to the perimeter. I also talk about the prying loads, which are even worse at the connection to the perimeter and would fail before the beam itself which is all I mentioned in my earlier post here.
Jeffrey,
If you noticed I also included a little sketch showing what the outrigger orientation would need to be to take the moments on them generated at the perimeter if they were to take the core gravity load.
I also did a calculation which shows the outriggers would have needed to use 17 foot deep 24 inch wide flange I-beams with heavy flanges and webs to just take these bending loads with no factor of safety.
However, it is the prying loads on the perimeter connections, which would ultimately govern the design. They would be very severe and would require each outrigger being fastened to an item which could take a lateral load of about 8 million lbs. for a 17 foot deep connection fastened at top and bottom. This would be 32 million lbs. per perimeter wall since there were four outriggers per wall. Of course, the lateral load requirement could be lowered if the depth was increased. For example, a 34 foot deep connection would need to be able to withstand a 4 million lb. lateral load, a 68 foot connection a 2 million lb. lateral load etc.. This tells you why 12 stories of core vertical loads could not be transmitted to the perimeter by the hat truss.
I used the moment involved of 1.8 billion in-lbs./outrigger and a yield stress of 36 ksi.
Tony
Of course, I didn't just start sending you information at two different e-mail addresses. You contacted me that way.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:I did find another e-mail from a week earlier on Jan. 26, 2013 to your alter ego e-mail address JSanderO, so you should look there before calling anyone a liar. In it I do use some numbers and I had even sent you a sketch about it showing why the outriggers could not have transferred the core load to the perimeter. I also talk about the prying loads, which are even worse at the connection to the perimeter and would fail before the beam itself which is all I mentioned in my earlier post here.
Jeffrey,
If you noticed I also included a little sketch showing what the outrigger orientation would need to be to take the moments on them generated at the perimeter if they were to take the core gravity load.
I also did a calculation which shows the outriggers would have needed to use 17 foot deep 24 inch wide flange I-beams with heavy flanges and webs to just take these bending loads with no factor of safety.
However, it is the prying loads on the perimeter connections, which would ultimately govern the design. They would be very severe and would require each outrigger being fastened to an item which could take a lateral load of about 8 million lbs. for a 17 foot deep connection fastened at top and bottom. This would be 32 million lbs. per perimeter wall since there were four outriggers per wall. Of course, the lateral load requirement could be lowered if the depth was increased. For example, a 34 foot deep connection would need to be able to withstand a 4 million lb. lateral load, a 68 foot connection a 2 million lb. lateral load etc.. This tells you why 12 stories of core vertical loads could not be transmitted to the perimeter by the hat truss.
I used the moment involved of 1.8 billion in-lbs./outrigger and a yield stress of 36 ksi.
Tony
Of course, I didn't just start sending you information at two different e-mail addresses. You contacted me that way.
24-08-2013, 10:15 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2013, 02:34 PM by Tony Szamboti.)
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote:I did find another e-mail from a week earlier on Jan. 26, 2013 to your alter ego e-mail address JSanderO, so you should look there before calling anyone a liar. In it I do use some numbers and I had even sent you a sketch about it showing why the outriggers could not have transferred the core load to the perimeter. I also talk about the prying loads, which are even worse at the connection to the perimeter and would fail before the beam itself which is all I mentioned in my earlier post here.
Jeffrey,
If you noticed I also included a little sketch showing what the outrigger orientation would need to be to take the moments on them generated at the perimeter if they were to take the core gravity load.
I also did a calculation which shows the outriggers would have needed to use 17 foot deep 24 inch wide flange I-beams with heavy flanges and webs to just take these bending loads with no factor of safety.
However, it is the prying loads on the perimeter connections, which would ultimately govern the design. They would be very severe and would require each outrigger being fastened to an item which could take a lateral load of about 8 million lbs. for a 17 foot deep connection fastened at top and bottom. This would be 32 million lbs. per perimeter wall since there were four outriggers per wall. Of course, the lateral load requirement could be lowered if the depth was increased. For example, a 34 foot deep connection would need to be able to withstand a 4 million lb. lateral load, a 68 foot connection a 2 million lb. lateral load etc.. This tells you why 12 stories of core vertical loads could not be transmitted to the perimeter by the hat truss.
I used the moment involved of 1.8 billion in-lbs./outrigger and a yield stress of 36 ksi.
Tony
Of course, I didn't just start sending you information at two different e-mail addresses. You contacted me that way.
All made up out of whole cloth...
I would agree with others here that Jeffrey should be on moderation, as his answers and the information he provides show him to be either extraordinarily incompetent or dishonest. Just the simple fact that he insists that four outriggers per wall could transmit a load that then buckled 59 exterior columns per wall should tell one that his theory is nonsensical, yet he insists on it, but is unable to back it up with analysis. Of course, when an actual analysis is done it shows his theory to be nonsense.
When the core columns at floors 93-5 lost their ability to carry load the columns above would be hangin (in tension) from the hatt truss. This meant that instead of the loads bearning DOWN.. they were being HUNG from the hat truss.
Tony Szamboti at 523:
Jeffrey, when the core load is applied to one side of the hat truss over the arm of the A-frames that generates a bending moment in the A-frames which they could not take. They would fail as soon as that load was applied. The connection at the perimeter side could not take the shear load either.
Regarding the location and extent of damage, Tony Szamboti:
The failure was not over three stories it was at the 98th floor and went across the building on that floor in a 250 millisecond time frame. In my opinion, it would be nothing short of magic if this was a natural event.
Regarding the strength of the hat truss in relation to the role ascribed to it by Jeffrey Orling, Tony Szamboti submits calculations above:
The 12 story upper section of the North Tower weighed about 73 million lbs. and the core load would have been about half of that at 36.5 million lbs.. So if we have 16 outrigger A-frames you are proposing that they could take 2,281,250 lbs each and the longer distance 60 foot span outriggers would have a moment of 2,281,250 lbs. x 60 feet = 136,875,000 ft-lbs. or 1,642,500,000 in-lbs. of torque applied to them trying to bend them. That is 1.6425 billion in-lbs. of torque in case you don't quite follow.
The maximum yield stress of the medium grade steel which would have been used is about 50,000 psi. Since bending stress = MC/I, lets see how deep a 2 foot wide solid rectangular beam we would need to be to take the load you are saying the outriggers could take
50,000 psi = (1,642,500,000 in-lbs. x depth/2) / (1/12 x 24 x depth ^3) and we can get depth by itself as
50,000 psi = (1,642.500,00 in-lbs. x depth/2) /(2 x depth^3) = (821,250,000 x depth) / (2 x depth^3) = 410,625,000/depth^2 so
That is a 7.5 foot deep x 2 foot wide solid beam and you would need 16 of these to transfer the core load to the perimeter. The beams themselves would weigh nearly half a million lbs., and I didn't consider the self weight in the calculation. The A-frame outriggers were 3 stories tall (36 feet) but they were far from solid and were never meant for the kind of bending stress dumping the core on them would apply. Those outriggers could not take the bending you want to impose on them and in reality they failed before they ever transferred the core load to the perimeter, as we can see with the antenna coming down before the roofline. The roofline then came down because the core pulled the perimeter inward where it was falling at the 98th floor. Your theory doesn't explain why the perimeters would fail at the 98th floor either.
With a 4 inch thick web I-beam (which would be an enormously thick web) the depth would need to be 222 inches or 18.5 feet deep. A 3 inch thick web I-beam would need to be 256 inches or 21.3 feet deep to take the bending stress you want to put on them and that is just barely taking it with no margin. If you had a 1.5 margin the 4 inch web would need to be 272 inches or 22.67 feet deep and a 3 inch web with a 1.5 margin would need to be 314 inches or 26.17 feet deep. These are solid I-beams which the outriggers certainly were not. The outriggers could not have been able to take even half the stress imposed by the core load on them with their fulcrum at the perimeter. Additionally, these beams I am talking about would be full height or depth across the full span. The maximum stress would have been at the perimeter side and the A-frames tapered to about 2 foot deep beams at that point. The bending resistance is a function of the depth cubed so a 2 foot deep beam is about 64 times weaker in bending than an 8 foot deep beam. The outriggers were designed to transmit antenna wind loads out to the perimeter and would have worked fine in that capacity.
The video supports this 98th floor failure in rapid order, while the calculations eliminate the participation of the hat truss in a 93-95 floor core failure--itself not explained: as the required heat was not present to weaken the steel, and the few elements of the aircraft are not of adequate size or number to suffice.
Hence, the continuing probability of demolition charges supplants the theory of a mythically strong hat truss reacting to mythic damage at lower cores.
That Jeffrey responds with repeated accusations of Tony lying or making up emails to the contrary notwithstanding.
Controlled demolition persists as the likely cause of collapse in view of absence of heat and demonstration by calculation.
The official explanation is served by Jeffrey arguing over the years against controlled demolition while failing to provide an alternative.
The official explanation is served by Jeffrey arguing over the years against controlled demolition while failing to provide an alternative.
To the contrary I have provided an explanation. And this only occured after I stopped acting like a mindless bot repeating what others said.
The alternate is likely that mechanical damage and then heat weakening led to loss of axial strength in the core and the mass above dropped and started the ROOSD process.
Tony say there could not have been enough mechanical damage or heat. This is his ASSERTION not an established fact.
With no hard evidence for or of devices the default explantion is mechanical damage and then heat weakening.
The mech damage was different for each tower and the collapse began differently.
If you don't open your eyes, you don't see.
If you choose to blind yourself to observations and science... you can see/conclude whatever you want.
![[Image: cleardot.gif]](https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif)
