Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

[Lauren Johnson]

Jeffrey, from 911research.wtc7.net there is this statement:

The hat trusses are central to the "probable collapse sequence" described by NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers. It blames the hat truss for transferring "column instability" between the core structures and the perimeter walls. In other words, it asserts that reinforcing structures caused the Towers to self-destruct. Its section entitled "Results of Global Analysis" describes the "structural deterioration" of the North Tower as follows:[TABLE="class: figure_right, width: 270, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]This schematic from Chapter 2 of the FEMA Report provides some detail on the geometry of the hat truss.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1

After the aircraft impact, gravity loads that were previously carried by severed columns were redistributed to other columns. The north wall lost about 7 percent of its loads after impact. Most of the load was transferred by the hat truss, and the rest was redistributed to the adjacent exterior walls by spandrels. Due to the impact damage and the tilting of the building to the north after impact, the south wall also lost gravity load, and about 7 percent was transferred by the hat truss. As a result, the east and west walls and the core gained the redistributed loads through the hat truss.

Structural steel expands when heated. In the early stages of the fire, structural temperatures in the core rose, and the resulting thermal expansion of the core was greater than the thermal expansion of the (cooler) exterior walls. About 20 min. after the aircraft impact, the difference in the thermal expansion between the core and exterior walls, which was resisted by the hat truss, caused the core column loads to increase. As the fires continued to heat the core areas without insulation, the columns were thermally weakened and shortened and began to transfer their loads to the exterior walls through the hat truss until the south wall started to bow inward. At about 100 min, approximately 20 percent of the core loads were transferred by the hat truss to the exterior walls due to thermal weakening of the core; the north and south walls each gained about 10 percent more loads, and the east and west walls each gained about 25 percent higher loads. Since the hat truss outriggers to the east and west walls were stiffer than the outriggers to the north and south walls, they transferred more loads to the east and west exterior walls.

The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued.
[SUP]1 [/SUP]
[emphasis added]
[TABLE="class: figure_center, width: 600, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]This illustration from Page 11 of NIS[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/hattruss.html

Does this quote sum up your position? It seems different it outlines a different sequence than yours.

[Jeffrey Orling]

.
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.

This is different from NIST who presented the sagging trusses pulling in the facade, not a core led collapse. The quoted section was from a FEMA report which preceded NIST... I believe. The FEMA scenario is different that what the cartoon suggests... but it shares some key elements. The hat truss was not the ONLY means to redistribute loads... the floor plates did this as well. A finite element analysis would be very complex because of the complexity of the structure and the nature of the fire/heat input. My cartoon is only one possible sequence.

I should point out that the towers destruction was a process not discrete steps.. and there was a blending over time where different processes dominated the destruction so to speak. The first was of course the plane striking and destroying many columns... then the fires began and this weakened them. The strike itself likely knocked insulation from the steel and the fuel did not burn immediately but flowed down and ignited several floors (contents). The plane appears to have severred and shorted the high voltage electrical risers leading to flr 108. This appears to very quickly lead to over heating of the equipment on flr 108 which then catches fire.... it may have also caused the insulting oil to explode. You can see the think black smoke from 108 immediately after the plane hits. This may also have caused the some electrical equipment in the basement to explode and even upstream in the Con Ed sub station in wtc 7. Con Ed did report I think 12 hi tension feeders were offline at them time the plane stuck. As the fire grew there was no fire fighting or sperinkler working up there apparently. The strength of the remaining steel was being eroded by getting hot. It didn't melt nor have to... The heat was causing the frame steel in some places to expand and distort and members began to fail and the loads they carruied were shifted to other columns and this process continued for an hr or more as the building began showing grow visible movements... and then finally there was insufficient capacity available and the actual release of the top 12 stories began.

I don't know if this scenario has been formally presented in an engineering journal. There has been some discussion about the so called "initiation" at the 911freeforum and there is some consensus but clearly it's not even universal. The problem is that the details are impossible to see and so people seem content to accept the over all heat weakening as the cause on top of the mech damage.

Some jref posters are OK, most are not for any number of reasons. The discussion options are few. Truth sites don't accept anything but CD and attempting a non CD discussion is a non starter. They act the same as JREFs. The only forum which has intelligent discussion is 911freeforum which appears to not have a political agenda. It has CD and non CD proponents. Lots of forums people select a nick name.... and it's not only 911truth. People may do that because they feel harrassment or something. I know I've been subject to online attacks about information which is not part of any discussion which I assume is a result of people finding my name and so forth. The attacks are childish and mean spirited. So unfortunately you have to deal with the content and be less concerned with the nick name. Obviously some people are out about their name etc. because they are public advocates such as Gage, Chandler or John Gross, or Ed Depaola. People online hiding behind their made up names can be very nasty... and that's not limited to one side of the debate on any topic.

Make up your mind however it feels right.

[Phil Dragoo]

The video at 144 presents the squibs

The video at 148 presents the audible explosions, likely from nanothermite rather than RDX

The video at 159 presents firefighters addressing sporadic rather than massive fire, the jet fuel was gone in less than ten minutes, the extreme temperature to weaken steel was absent

At 174 the core failure is indicated by the antenna collapse

At 176 the horizontal propagation was extraordinarily rapid across 98

At 203 focused jets apparent at corners of building

At 211 Jan/CD confirm right/left a false choice--and this was also the message of Sibel Edmonds, eschew the partisan, investigate more deeply

At 231 entire core did come down inside and pulled perimeter inward

At 233 initiation at 98

At 240 98 chosen as closest to impact where charges were not displaced; 98, then 99, 100, 101

At 241 squibs destroy structural integrity before wave of collapse; focused jet, not widespread unfocused collapse

At 244 fireman says flashes going around building like a belt, building coming down like there is no tomorrow

At 253 plumes come out 98 evenly

At 260 core collapse at 98

At 262 instability could only have been caused by devices at 98 and above

At 264 98 selected to make it look good--as close to impact as possible--but ABOVE

At 288 initiation nearly simultaneously across 98, then 99, 100, 101--only because of charges

This has been very useful in forming a cohesive operation

As in Dealey Plaza where a false murderer was framed while the actual execution was by teams of professionals

In the three towers the false cause was the hijack and impact of aircraft taken control by evil commandos from Berserkistan

When the charges were placed during the building access attained by a shadowy elevator company

utilizing no doubt nanothermite of such sophistication it indicates one of the defense-related tenants in the Ryan analysis

activated by wireless detonators

orchestrated from a sophisticated electronic command post either in 7 or a loitering E4

The crime scene was quickly sanitized and no investigation was done regarding explosives

The official explanation rests on extreme temperatures not attained while ignoring the sounds of explosions

The benefit achieved was the national mobilization for war in Iraq to destabilize the region and war in Afghanistan to control the heroin

and in the larger sense to eviscerate the common consciousness creating a psychic void into which fear and pain of loss rushed

much like that day in Dealey Plaza

And Sibel Edmonds said Gladio originated in the mind of Allen Dulles

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5050[/ATTACH]

[Tony Szamboti]

And Sibel Edmonds said Gladio originated in the mind of Allen Dulles

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5050[/ATTACH]

Yes, we should not forget the remarkable Allen Dulles, that paragon of selfish and uncaring intent who is truly owed the everlasting loathing of the entire human race. Dick Cheney seems to fit the same mold.

[Jeffrey Orling]

This thread was supposed to be about misunderstanding about 9/11 related to collapse analysis.

Dulles, JFK and Sibel Edmonds had nothing to add to this discussion but represent forces and interesting pieces of the puzzle to how things work... sort of the meta understanding.

A quote from Tom from this morning:

"Note how in the case of the WTC towers different observers see different things. The NIST produces one set of observations and measurements. FEMA uses a different set. The visual record shows something different than both sets.

Each analysis separates the whole into a highly selective, highly fragmented list of parts. Each group of analysts seems to use their own highly subjective selections of observations and measurements and tend to ignore all phenomena outside of their own limited fields of perception."

and

"The collapse of the WTC towers and the various reactions to the collapses on a global level offers an excellent opportunity to study human gullibility. There is no doubt that Richard Gage is a living demonstration of how gullible and vulnerable people can be in a highly complex and politically charged technical issue.

But many comments by the other extreme pole, the debunkers, as represented in various forums demonstrate a similar gullibility. There are many instances of documented gullibility on both sides of the spectrum, and, unfortunately, the proverbial "average Joe" is stuck in the middle.

Each "side" sees the the other "side" as being dumb. They see the problem being the fact that the other "side" exists. Neither fixed "side" seems capable of understanding why the other "side" thinks the way they do."

I realize that this web site is based on a deep political analysis and this seems to be unable to see (perhaps) some of the technical aspects of 9/11 separate from a political analysis. As such there appears to be a tendency to see political causality when perhaps it's not there. Simply stated... stuff can happen without a political force behind it. And further the 9/11 event was both a political one AND a technical one... there is cross pollination between the two and more so in the analysis... but some things had no political component... these things simply obey natural laws.

The strange thing is that there is no consensus about the technical issues. Why? I would assert that it has multiple causes: an absence of data, sloppy and inaccurate observations, lack of technical expertise in the fields required to explain physical events, and filtering of the analysis through personal agendas.

[Tony Szamboti]

This thread was supposed to be about misunderstanding about 9/11 related to collapse analysis.

Dulles, JFK and Sibel Edmonds had nothing to add to this discussion but represent forces and interesting pieces of the puzzle to how things work... sort of the meta understanding.

A quote from Tom from this morning:

"Note how in the case of the WTC towers different observers see different things. The NIST produces one set of observations and measurements. FEMA uses a different set. The visual record shows something different than both sets.

Each analysis separates the whole into a highly selective, highly fragmented list of parts. Each group of analysts seems to use their own highly subjective selections of observations and measurements and tend to ignore all phenomena outside of their own limited fields of perception."

and

"The collapse of the WTC towers and the various reactions to the collapses on a global level offers an excellent opportunity to study human gullibility. There is no doubt that Richard Gage is a living demonstration of how gullible and vulnerable people can be in a highly complex and politically charged technical issue.

But many comments by the other extreme pole, the debunkers, as represented in various forums demonstrate a similar gullibility. There are many instances of documented gullibility on both sides of the spectrum, and, unfortunately, the proverbial "average Joe" is stuck in the middle.

Each "side" sees the the other "side" as being dumb. They see the problem being the fact that the other "side" exists. Neither fixed "side" seems capable of understanding why the other "side" thinks the way they do."

I realize that this web site is based on a deep political analysis and this seems to be unable to see (perhaps) some of the technical aspects of 9/11 separate from a political analysis. As such there appears to be a tendency to see political causality when perhaps it's not there. Simply stated... stuff can happen without a political force behind it. And further the 9/11 event was both a political one AND a technical one... there is cross pollination between the two and more so in the analysis... but some things had no political component... these things simply obey natural laws.

The strange thing is that there is no consensus about the technical issues. Why? I would assert that it has multiple causes: an absence of data, sloppy and inaccurate observations, lack of technical expertise in the fields required to explain physical events, and filtering of the analysis through personal agendas.

The reason there is no consensus is that there was/is a cover-up. That is why the steel wasn't examined.

The points about people like Dulles and Cheney is that they were/are part of a deep political apparatus which will commit atrocities to get their way. To know they lied us into Iraq and yet not be suspicious that they were involved in the destruction of the buildings and that the collapses could have somehow been natural with all of the talk of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, no deceleration in WTC 1, free fall in WTC 7, and iron microspheres and active thermitic material found in the dust, is the height of stupidity. Yes, Jeffrey if you actually believe those buildings came down naturally then you are........in a word........dumb.

[Keith Millea]

This thread was supposed to be about misunderstanding about 9/11 related to collapse analysis.

Dulles, JFK and Sibel Edmonds had nothing to add to this discussion but represent forces and interesting pieces of the puzzle to how things work... sort of the meta understanding.

A quote from Tom from this morning:

"Note how in the case of the WTC towers different observers see different things. The NIST produces one set of observations and measurements. FEMA uses a different set. The visual record shows something different than both sets.

Each analysis separates the whole into a highly selective, highly fragmented list of parts. Each group of analysts seems to use their own highly subjective selections of observations and measurements and tend to ignore all phenomena outside of their own limited fields of perception."

and

"The collapse of the WTC towers and the various reactions to the collapses on a global level offers an excellent opportunity to study human gullibility. There is no doubt that Richard Gage is a living demonstration of how gullible and vulnerable people can be in a highly complex and politically charged technical issue.

But many comments by the other extreme pole, the debunkers, as represented in various forums demonstrate a similar gullibility. There are many instances of documented gullibility on both sides of the spectrum, and, unfortunately, the proverbial "average Joe" is stuck in the middle.

Each "side" sees the the other "side" as being dumb. They see the problem being the fact that the other "side" exists. Neither fixed "side" seems capable of understanding why the other "side" thinks the way they do."

I realize that this web site is based on a deep political analysis and this seems to be unable to see (perhaps) some of the technical aspects of 9/11 separate from a political analysis. As such there appears to be a tendency to see political causality when perhaps it's not there. Simply stated... stuff can happen without a political force behind it. And further the 9/11 event was both a political one AND a technical one... there is cross pollination between the two and more so in the analysis... but some things had no political component... these things simply obey natural laws.

The strange thing is that there is no consensus about the technical issues. Why? I would assert that it has multiple causes: an absence of data, sloppy and inaccurate observations, lack of technical expertise in the fields required to explain physical events, and filtering of the analysis through personal agendas.

This reads to me like everyone is gullible and full of shit,except for me,Jeffery.

But,talk is cheap as they say......

[Jeffrey Orling]

I have to laugh..hahhaha

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.

Cherry pickin' not allowed!

[Jeffrey Orling]

This reads to me like everyone is gullible and full of shit,except for me,Jeffery.

But,talk is cheap as they say......

Hardly... it reads as if people including Jeffrey see the world though a chosen filter. Sure I can post on a forum... but I have spend hundreds if not thousands of hours in looking at the wtc and producing slides and so forth...

So Keith... what did YOU do to inform your understanding of the destruction of the WTC?