• There is a problem with the forum sending notifications via emails. icerat has been informed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Split Thread Rotation of the upper section before collapse

Tony Szamboti said:
The energy dissipation for deforming and buckling a certain number of columns is the same whether it is done all at once or over a short time interval in a staggered way. That energy dissipation reduces the kinetic energy and causes velocity loss period. It isn't about trying to see the jolt. It is about the measurement of velocity loss which would be required.

There simply is no velocity loss observed in the drop of the upper section of WTC 1 commensurate with the energy dissipation which would be required to deform and buckle the columns. Something else was removing 90% of the strength of those columns.

Even if all of the columns magically missed you still can't make a case for a natural 65 to 70% acceleration of the upper section as the floors alone would have required significantly more energy dissipation to go through, tilt or no tilt.
Click to expand...

Szamboti-O-Matic
Automated Reply System

*chirp*

*!* Hello. You've selected [ Wrong #2 ] [Wrong #4 ] *!*

*!* We're Sorry - Still Wrong.
Please select correct post below and try again. *!*​

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong #1 Szamboti repeatedly missrepresents NIST floor loading.[P#204]

Wrong #2 Szamboti claims collapsing columns fell axially atop each other. [P#204]

Wrong #3 Szamboti claims central core fully braced within itself, no floor bracing.[P#204]

Wrong #4 Szamboti claims "missing jolt" = CD.[P#204] [P#182]

Wrong #5 Szamboti claims WTC1 fell several stories and then tilted.[P#204] [P#148]

[P#205] [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHCeRYreMp8 ]


*!* Thank you for choosing DarkSided J-REF *!* ​

--------------------------------------------------------------------
You can lead a Falser to facts but you can't make him think.
 
Last edited:
Here is another video showing the tilt prior to any collapse on the North Face. It is the only video showing the South Face at collapse initiation:

asas.gif


Despite the poor quality, the upper block (look especially at the antenna mast) can be seen tilting to the right, and notice that this is prior to the collapse of floors on the West Face that occurred at the same time as floor failure on the North Face. But here we can see what is going on at the area where bowing columns and intense fire were photographed six minutes earlier:

12451161.jpg


The fires on Floors 97 to 101 are seen in the video as intensifying, possibly exiting the building (similar to the fires on the North Face exiting the building during the collapse on the North Face). This, along with the tilt in the direction towards this area, suggests that the floors below the fires (the ones with inward bowing columns, Floors 95-98) collapsed first. And this is indicated as well by the appearance of a dust cloud on the southeast edge of the building directly below the fires in the above video.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to have missed this display of nonsense during my brief absence over the weekend. The very columns you [anyone supporting the official story] say that melted due to heat, were strong enough to prevent the upper section from 'crushing' the core, and caused tilting instead.

The core columns, and perimeter columns were connected and could not have caused a rotation as there was no force exerted in that direction. Your theories based on Bazant's model do not make any scientific sense. The video evidence shows the upper block smashing apart before the tower beneath the impact hole begins to descend. I feel sorry for Mr. Szamboti having to hold hands through this lecture.
 
Scott_Milner said:
I'm glad to have missed this display of nonsense during my brief absence over the weekend. The very columns you [anyone supporting the official story] say that melted due to heat, were strong enough to prevent the upper section from 'crushing' the core, and caused tilting instead.

The core columns, and perimeter columns were connected and could not have caused a rotation as there was no force exerted in that direction. Your theories based on Bazant's model do not make any scientific sense. The video evidence shows the upper block smashing apart before the tower beneath the impact hole begins to descend. I feel sorry for Mr. Szamboti having to hold hands through this lecture.
Click to expand...

melted?

umm who claimed any of the columns melted?

damn.... reading for comprehension is your friend... you should try it.
 
Scott_Milner said:
I'm glad to have missed this display of nonsense during my brief absence over the weekend. The very columns you [anyone supporting the official story] say that melted due to heat,
Click to expand...

You know, if you start your argument with a blatant lie, it's unlikely to get you any positive attention from the other side of the debate.

Scott_Milner said:
were strong enough to prevent the upper section from 'crushing' the core, and caused tilting instead.
Click to expand...

And if you continue by such a blatant misrepresentation of the other side's argument - to the extent that, nobody having said anything remotely similar to this, you're simply making things up and pretending somebody else said them - then it won't make things any better.

Scott_Milner said:
The core columns, and perimeter columns were connected and could not have caused a rotation as there was no force exerted in that direction.
Click to expand...

Now this is simple scientific illiteracy. What direction do you imagine a force has to be exerted in, to cause a rotation?

I suggest, as a starting point, that you read the Wikipedia article on torque. It may help you a little. Now, we know that the forces on the upper block were gravity (down) and compressive forces in the support columns (up). When one side of the structure became overloaded, the support columns on that side failed and were no longer able to exert an upward force. However, the columns on the other side were still able to exert an upward force, so the resultant upward force was applied off-centre to the upper block. Since the downward force due to gravity was still applied through the centre of mass of the block, a torque was applied to the upper block about a horizontal axis. When this torque became sufficiently great, the upper block began to rotate. This could not occur without the remaining supports failing, so they too failed, at which point the upper block began to fall.

Since the only forces involved here were gravity and the structural resistance of the lower columns, would you like to explain which of those you believe didn't exist?

Scott_Milner said:
Your theories based on Bazant's model do not make any scientific sense.
Click to expand...

:i:


Scott_Milner said:
The video evidence shows the upper block smashing apart before the tower beneath the impact hole begins to descend.
Click to expand...

The video evidence shows the upper block rotating before it starts to fall. This has been demonstrated so many times in this thread that it's beyond a joke. It's clear that there is some damage to the upper block simultaneously with that to the lower, but the clouds of debris obscure the fine details so thoroughly that anybody making as definite a proclamation as yours is either delusional or lying.

Scott_Milner said:
I feel sorry for Mr. Szamboti having to hold hands through this lecture.
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for Tony, but not for the same reason.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Now this is simple scientific illiteracy. What direction do you imagine a force has to be exerted in, to cause a rotation?

I suggest, as a starting point, that you read the Wikipedia article on torque. It may help you a little. Now, we know that the forces on the upper block were gravity (down) and compressive forces in the support columns (up). When one side of the structure became overloaded, the support columns on that side failed and were no longer able to exert an upward force. However, the columns on the other side were still able to exert an upward force, so the resultant upward force was applied off-centre to the upper block. Since the downward force due to gravity was still applied through the centre of mass of the block, a torque was applied to the upper block about a horizontal axis. When this torque became sufficiently great, the upper block began to rotate. This could not occur without the remaining supports failing, so they too failed, at which point the upper block began to fall.

Since the only forces involved here were gravity and the structural resistance of the lower columns, would you like to explain which of those you believe didn't exist?

The video evidence shows the upper block rotating before it starts to fall. This has been demonstrated so many times in this thread that it's beyond a joke. It's clear that there is some damage to the upper block simultaneously with that to the lower, but the clouds of debris obscure the fine details so thoroughly that anybody making as definite a proclamation as yours is either delusional or lying.
Click to expand...

Removing one wall from a four sided structure will not cause rotation. It is actually the walls which are normal to the overloaded or failed wall which would resist the torque in the direction of that wall. In the case of the North Tower it would have been the east and west walls resisting torque towards the buckled south wall.

The NIST calculations for load increases on the east and west walls, due to hat truss redistribution from both the impact on the north wall and buckling of the south wall, show it was no more than 50% while they were capable of handling 500% of the original load on them. It is just one big hand wave that the instability of the south wall then spread to the east and west walls. It is not supported by any analysis. In fact the analysis shows they should not have failed and allowed any rotation.
 
Last edited:
Give it up Tony, you have been shown to be a charlatan many times over in this thread.

It really is quite sad. Although not as sad as your lies about Silverstein and the documentary.
 
Scott_Milner said:
I'm glad to have missed this display of nonsense during my brief absence over the weekend. The very columns you [anyone supporting the official story] say that melted due to heat, were strong enough to prevent the upper section from 'crushing' the core, and caused tilting instead.
Click to expand...

Who says that any columns melted?

So you do believe there was "tilting"?

Scott_Milner said:
The core columns, and perimeter columns were connected and could not have caused a rotation as there was no force exerted in that direction. Your theories based on Bazant's model do not make any scientific sense. The video evidence shows the upper block smashing apart before the tower beneath the impact hole begins to descend. I feel sorry for Mr. Szamboti having to hold hands through this lecture.
Click to expand...

I'm confused.....

#1. What does "core columns and perimeter columns were connected and could not have caused a rotation" mean exactly? How do the columns "cause" a rotation?

#2. So you are saying there is no "rotation" but there is "tilting".....what exactly is "tilting" and how is it different from "rotation"?

I will likely regret saying this but......could you please clarify the terms you are using? It makes it so much easier to piece together the puzzle of idiocy you are building....
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is just one big hand wave that the instability of the south wall then spread to the east and west walls. It is not supported by any analysis. In fact the analysis shows they should not have failed and allowed any rotation.
Click to expand...

The visual documentation is incontrovertible and I've used the south tower to model it because it's collapse mechanism is similar:
studyg.jpg


The "pretty picture" as you so referred to it as shows this. The graphics on the left side show the deflection of three of the columns on that face and they're labeled as references to the picture. See this TS? This is what happens when an off axis load causes a series of columns to fail. Both towers exhibited the same behavior pre-collapse, and with the collapse mechanisms being nearly identical in nature the south tower provides for us a rather nice model for the north tower. You know... about the buckling you say didn't happen...

And I don't believe in using card board boxes to model a macroscopic structure, Gage tried it and demonstrated spectacularly why the model you're suggesting fails.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
...
It is just one big hand wave that the instability of the south wall then spread to the east and west walls. It is not supported by any analysis. In fact the analysis shows they should not have failed and allowed any rotation.
Click to expand...

While your theory is that the core was CD'd bringing down the exterior with it, right?

Which would have ripped the exterior columns inwards pdq. So, what caused them to bow, for several minutes in both cases? A really really slow CD?
 
Glenn.

Of course... and with those squibs going off that increase in pressure, power and ejecta over several seconds....
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is just one big hand wave that the instability of the south wall then spread to the east and west walls. It is not supported by any analysis. In fact the analysis shows they should not have failed and allowed any rotation.
Click to expand...

It's not a handwave, it's an observation. Your choice not to see it doesn't make it invisible to everyone else.

Dave
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Removing one wall from a four sided structure will not cause rotation. It is actually the walls which are normal to the overloaded or failed wall which would resist the torque in the direction of that wall. In the case of the North Tower it would have been the east and west walls resisting torque towards the buckled south wall.
Click to expand...

This is a lie.

The east and west walls do not resist this torque, any more than they would have resisted a wind load on the north wall. This is for several reasons. One is because the load would vary across the columns, with much less total response -- those on one side being in tension, on the other in compression, those in the middle not stressed at all -- whereas the north and south walls would all resist in tension and compression, respectively. Another is because they couple to the core via those flexible truss structures, and those cannot resist being twisted.

You've been already told this, in this very thread.

Tony Szamboti said:
The NIST calculations for load increases on the east and west walls, due to hat truss redistribution from both the impact on the north wall and buckling of the south wall, show it was no more than 50% while they were capable of handling 500% of the original load on them. It is just one big hand wave that the instability of the south wall then spread to the east and west walls. It is not supported by any analysis. In fact the analysis shows they should not have failed and allowed any rotation.
Click to expand...

Their "not supported by any analysis" and "one big hand-wave" is actually several hundred pages of report, backed by one of the most complex modeling efforts in history.

You lie with practically every post now, Tony. This is usually a sign that you should rethink your conclusions.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Removing one wall from a four sided structure will not cause rotation. It is actually the walls which are normal to the overloaded or failed wall which would resist the torque in the direction of that wall. In the case of the North Tower it would have been the east and west walls resisting torque towards the buckled south wall.
Click to expand...

Yes it will. The centroid of the vertical forces from the remaining 3 walls is no longer concentric with the center of mass of the upper block. And considering the upper block is falling, there is thus rotation. Draw a free-body diagram ffs.

The NIST calculations for load increases on the east and west walls, due to hat truss redistribution from both the impact on the north wall and buckling of the south wall, show it was no more than 50% while they were capable of handling 500% of the original load on them. It is just one big hand wave that the instability of the south wall then spread to the east and west walls. It is not supported by any analysis. In fact the analysis shows they should not have failed and allowed any rotation.
Click to expand...

Source?
 
R.Mackey said:
The east and west walls do not resist this torque, any more than they would have resisted a wind load on the north wall. This is for several reasons. One is because the load would vary across the columns, with much less total response -- those on one side being in tension, on the other in compression, those in the middle not stressed at all -- whereas the north and south walls would all resist in tension and compression, respectively.
Click to expand...

A good analogy would be an I-beam. The flanges present maximum resistance to bending in the plane of the webbing, but much less to bending out of plane. Once the south wall is gone, a very large part of the rigidity of the structure is gone with it; in effect, it's half way to the I-beam with an out-of-plane bending moment. This is pretty basic engineering, surely?

Dave
 
Good analogy, although it's even more so because of the limited ways the floors can respond. But yes, very basic engineering. Which makes it either gross incompetence or a particularly flagrant lie.
 
R.Mackey said:
This is a lie.

The east and west walls do not resist this torque, any more than they would have resisted a wind load on the north wall. This is for several reasons. One is because the load would vary across the columns, with much less total response -- those on one side being in tension, on the other in compression, those in the middle not stressed at all -- whereas the north and south walls would all resist in tension and compression, respectively. Another is because they couple to the core via those flexible truss structures, and those cannot resist being twisted.

You've been already told this, in this very thread.



Their "not supported by any analysis" and "one big hand-wave" is actually several hundred pages of report, backed by one of the most complex modeling efforts in history.

You lie with practically every post now, Tony. This is usually a sign that you should rethink your conclusions.
Click to expand...

Newtons Bit
Yes it will. The centroid of the vertical forces from the remaining 3 walls is no longer concentric with the center of mass of the upper block. And considering the upper block is falling, there is thus rotation. Draw a free-body diagram ffs.
Click to expand...


Most of the north wall was also gone as were a sizable portion of stiffening floors, with the rest of the floors fire-weakened.

The moment at top and bottom of the east and west walls columns were opposite and horizontal, in addition to the vertical gravity loads.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Removing one wall from a four sided structure will not cause rotation. It is actually the walls which are normal to the overloaded or failed wall which would resist the torque in the direction of that wall. In the case of the North Tower it would have been the east and west walls resisting torque towards the buckled south wall.
Click to expand...


And yet reality shows that the walls adjacent to the failed wall did NOT resist the torque as you claim they should have. In the case of WTC2, it would have been the North and South faces "resisting torque" (as you say) towards the buckled East Face, and video documentation shows perimeter columns along the North Face twisted eastward and failed along a line of fracture that progressed westward until it reached the West Face. The columns seen here at the northwest corner were the last to fail, and only at that point was the upper block free to descend vertically.

collapse9.jpg


Notice that there are no bombs exploding or thermite igniting or anything else happening on the North Face other than columns getting overstressed, twisting, and failing.
 
Last edited:
Mangoose said:
And yet reality shows that the walls adjacent to the failed wall did NOT resist the torque as you claim they should have. In the case of WTC2, it would have been the North and South faces "resisting torque" (as you say) towards the buckled East Face, and video documentation shows perimeter columns along the North Face twisted eastward and failed along a line of fracture that progressed westward until it reached the West Face. The columns seen here at the northwest corner were the last to fail, and only at that point was the upper block free to descend vertically.

Notice that there are no bombs exploding or thermite igniting or anything else happening on the North Face other than columns getting overstressed, twisting, and failing.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mangoose. Another time consuming conclusive irrefutable factual post.
Notice the angle of the top block in relation to the bottom and ask yourself if the 14" x 14" columns landed atop one another or onto the slab below.

ETA:The east wall had slowly buckled in over 3 feet before collapse.
The failed east wall tilt angle and corresponding north wall top block columns angle are parallel throughout the collapse. The columns below the collapse are vertical in this same period. Did the north wall columns buckle or sheared or both. GrizzlyB Post#250 suggests buckled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into - Swift
 
Last edited:
Nice sequence of pictures. It makes it easy to see that the building began to fail exactly at the point of impact of the plane, pretty much in the manner explained in the generally accepted narrative of events.
 
I need to disagree with both Dave Rogers and RMackey here. An I-Beam is an incorrect analogy of how the lateral resisting structure in the WTC behaves.

Here's a quick plan view of the WTC:


The red-arrow is a force applied to the face of a wall. This force is transfered by the diaphragm stiffness to the walls perpendicular to this force. These walls (moment frames, really) are the only elements that significantly resist this lateral force.

For the structure to behave as a wide-flange, as analogized, there would need to be a mechanism in place that could resist the incredibly large shear flow from one side to another. This force is in the weak-axis of the deck (in and out of the plane of my picture). There's absolutely no way a 4" deck handle that. Not even close. Nor are there connections stiff enough to load in that direction if the deck was strong enough.

Mr. Szamboti is correct (mostly) in saying, "It is actually the walls which are normal to the overloaded or failed wall which would resist the torque in the direction of that wall." These walls are built to take forces in this direction. However, again, it is moment, not torque.

The wall will load very similarly to a beam on elastic foundation (elevation view):



The red force is the very eccentric resultant compressive force that is redistributed from the failed wall. The green graph is the distribution of stress due to the moment from the eccentric force. From the pictures Mangoose provided, you can see how this stress overloaded these walls.
 
Dave Rogers said:
A good analogy would be an I-beam. The flanges present maximum resistance to bending in the plane of the webbing, but much less to bending out of plane. Once the south wall is gone, a very large part of the rigidity of the structure is gone with it; in effect, it's half way to the I-beam with an out-of-plane bending moment. This is pretty basic engineering, surely?

Dave
Click to expand...

A channel is probably a better analogy after one wall from a box beam is gone. The channel is still vertically stable. That is why John Skilling could say that one exterior wall and it's corners could be completely removed and the building could still take a 100 mph wind.

Just thought you might like to comment on why your earlier thoughts would not apply to the Oklahoma City federal building and the Khobar barracks, both of which had a wall of the building and a good bit of their interiors blasted off, yet no rotation as it seems you would predict. This is because the remaining channel form is vertically stable.

oklahomacity_350.jpg



khobar.jpg


The only thing that can cause a torque is an unsupported overhang. In the case of the North Tower the east and west walls along with the north wall corners still supported most of the building and all that should have happened if the south wall failed was local south side floor slab failures, not a rotation of the entire 207 foot per side building.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Mr. Szamboti is correct (mostly) in saying, "It is actually the walls which are normal to the overloaded or failed wall which would resist the torque in the direction of that wall." These walls are built to take forces in this direction. However, again, it is moment, not torque.

The wall will load very similarly to a beam on elastic foundation (elevation view):

From the pictures Mangoose provided, you can see how this stress overloaded these walls.
Click to expand...

I usually use the term moment in these types of discussions and only referred to a torque in reply to Dave Rogers, since that is the term he used. The correct term here would be moment.

The source you asked for concerning the load redistribution to the east and west walls would be the NIST report. The analysis for WTC 1 does not show enough extra load on these walls to cause their failure.
 
Last edited:
Mangoose said:
And yet reality shows that the walls adjacent to the failed wall did NOT resist the torque as you claim they should have. In the case of WTC2, it would have been the North and South faces "resisting torque" (as you say) towards the buckled East Face, and video documentation shows perimeter columns along the North Face twisted eastward and failed along a line of fracture that progressed westward until it reached the West Face. The columns seen here at the northwest corner were the last to fail, and only at that point was the upper block free to descend vertically.

[qimg]http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7572/collapse9.jpg[/qimg]

Notice that there are no bombs exploding or thermite igniting or anything else happening on the North Face other than columns getting overstressed, twisting, and failing.
Click to expand...

I am discussing WTC 1 here. What would be interesting is if you could find a photo of the WTC 1 east or west perimeter walls leaning towards the south while still attached.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I usually use the term moment in these types of discussions and only referred to a torque in reply to Dave Rogers, since that is the term he used. The correct term here would be moment.

The source you asked for concerning the load redistribution to the east and west walls would be the NIST report. The analysis for WTC 1 does not show enough extra load on these walls to cause their failure.
Click to expand...

I was actually looking for a page number as I don't have the report memorized ;)
 
Seems like apples and oranges to me Tony. Two entirely seperate types of buildings, with drastically different load paths. At least they're buildings :rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
A channel is probably a better analogy after one wall from a box beam is gone. The channel is still vertically stable. That is why John Skilling could say that one exterior wall and it's corners could be completely removed and the building could still take a 100 mph wind.

Just thought you might like to comment on why your earlier thoughts would not apply to the Oklahoma City federal building and the Khobar barracks, both of which had a wall of the building and a good bit of their interiors blasted off, yet no rotation as it seems you would predict. This is because the remaining channel form is vertically stable.

[qimg]http://www.truthdig.com/images/reportuploads/oklahomacity_350.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/images/khobar.jpg[/qimg]

The only thing that can cause a torque is an unsupported overhang. In the case of the North Tower the east and west walls along with the north wall corners still supported most of the building and all that should have happened if the south wall failed was local south side floor slab failures, not a rotation of the entire 207 foot per side building.
Click to expand...

A) It was a reinforced concrete building
B) It had a more traditional column grid layout -- the trade centers had all of their load bearing structural elements in the core and along the perimeter.

The concrete frame immediately removes all likelihood for the same structural response, if not the column grid & the height of the building.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
I need to disagree with both Dave Rogers and RMackey here. An I-Beam is an incorrect analogy of how the lateral resisting structure in the WTC behaves.
Click to expand...

It is a bit more complicated, sure... shear lag rears its ugly head...

Here's a better picture, courtesy NCSTAR1-2A:



This is Figure 5-5 of that report, showing the effect of wind on a Tower perpendicular to one face. All four walls participate, true.

The situation Tony is confusing, however, strikes me as rather different than a uniform wind loading case. A better question is this -- Suppose we sever the core and rotate it in one direction. Which exterior walls respond? This is close to what happened in WTC 1, except before this occurred, one exterior wall buckled, and the opposite wall had a huge hole poked in it. In this case there will be some minor resistance from the east and west walls, and some minor diaphragm stiffness against those walls opposing the gross core motion up top, but this is much less than the response had the north and south walls remained intact.

Regarding his claim about those walls, since he won't give direct cites it's anyone's guess, but I'd start with Figures 4-64 through 4-67 and 4-72 through 4-81 of NCSTAR1-6D. In these, sure, the east and west walls aren't overloaded until after the south wall gives, followed by the core failure, but so what? Total non sequitur.

As is comparison to the Murrah building. Seriously, I'm not bothering with him anymore until he at least tries to make sense.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The only thing that can cause a torque is an unsupported overhang. In the case of the North Tower the east and west walls along with the north wall corners still supported most of the building and all that should have happened if the south wall failed was local south side floor slab failures, not a rotation of the entire 207 foot per side building.
Click to expand...

So you show two pictures of buildings with utterly no overhang whatsoever?

I think you're trying to say the WTC should have failed in a similar manner, with the damaged side falling down independent of the upper section.

No. No, no no. Nooooo.

That's the first thing you learn when you look at the WTC design. The open areas from the core to the exterior meant no vertical transfer of loads on the damaged side. It would have been shifted to the core in compression and some of the exterior in tension.

I think there's little doubt the damage alone would have resulted in a collapse. It's the fire that sealed the deal.

I find it annoying you keep saying the same things over and over again like repeating them will change the facts. What's up with that? It's such a weird thing to see someone with the capacity not get it after all this time.
 
BasqueArch said:
Notice the angle of the top block in relation to the bottom and ask yourself if the 14" x 14" columns landed atop one another or onto the slab below.
Click to expand...


Clearly the slab. And a few North Face perimeter columns adjacent to the northeast corner at Floors 77-79 were STILL standing after the top of the upper block had passed below:

b23b.gif


This section of the outer wall stood for a few seconds after it became visible through the dust as it leaned to the west and then fell. So the descending upper block missed this portion of the outer walls.

Tony Szamboti said:
I am discussing WTC 1 here. What would be interesting is if you could find a photo of the WTC 1 east or west perimeter walls leaning towards the south while still attached.
Click to expand...


Since you are arguing that such a scenario is physically impossible, it is absolutely relevant to point out that the same thing played out in the twin building of WTC1, where better quality images exist. And of course the tilting scenario that NIST described pertained to both WTC1 and WTC2.

And you should know that there are no quality images of the East Face of WTC1 during the collapse on account of the evacuation of lower Manhattan (eliminating potential photographers) and the lingering dust in the air from the collapse of WTC2 and smoke trails from fires on the North Face. There are no available images I've seen of the West Face at the quality we have with the North Face of WTC2. There is a reason why almost every collapse video or photo we have of WTC1 is from the north.

Regardless of this, I have already shown you video from the northeast that shows the tilting of the upper block of WTC1 prior to any collapse on the North Face.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
I was actually looking for a page number as I don't have the report memorized ;)
Click to expand...

The additional load increases on the east and west walls in WTC 1 due to core unloading and south wall buckling are given as a percentage of original load, in different places in NCSTAR 1-6. They mention all of the additional loads in a summary on pages 313 and 314 of NCSTAR 1-6D.

They amount to a 62% increase due to the core and south wall and there was also a load increase of 7% due to the damage to the north wall for a total load increase on the east and west walls of 69%.

If the load on the east and west walls was then 1.69 times their original gravity load and they were capable of taking 5.00 times their original gravity load, I don't see why they would fail. I think the only answer is a complete core failure and that they were pulled inward and buckled.
 
Last edited:
You assume that the overload was evenly distributed across all the columns of the east and west walls. With a softened and buckled core, that was not the case.

That second pic of Newtons Bit is revealing.

The columns of the east and west walls failed progressively*, starting from the failed south wall. Of course this "progression", once started, was extremely fast.

*and therefore the tilt of the upper block.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If the load on the east and west walls was then 1.69 times their original gravity load and they were capable of taking 5.00 times their original gravity load, I don't see why they would fail. I think the only answer is a complete core failure and that they were pulled inward and buckled.
Click to expand...

So, back to the question you have ignored three times already. If - according to you - the bowing was caused by CD of the core, why did the bowing last so damn long?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
A channel is probably a better analogy after one wall from a box beam is gone. The channel is still vertically stable. That is why John Skilling could say that one exterior wall and it's corners could be completely removed and the building could still take a 100 mph wind.

Just thought you might like to comment on why your earlier thoughts would not apply to the Oklahoma City federal building and the Khobar barracks, both of which had a wall of the building and a good bit of their interiors blasted off, yet no rotation as it seems you would predict. This is because the remaining channel form is vertically stable.

[qimg]http://www.truthdig.com/images/reportuploads/oklahomacity_350.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/images/khobar.jpg[/qimg]

The only thing that can cause a torque is an unsupported overhang. In the case of the North Tower the east and west walls along with the north wall corners still supported most of the building and all that should have happened if the south wall failed was local south side floor slab failures, not a rotation of the entire 207 foot per side building.
Click to expand...

I'm not an engineer... I have taken engineering courses... but are you really trying to compare the Murrah building and the other buidling to the towers? Really?

You are supposed to be an engineer, yet you are comparing apples to carbon nanotubes... they are not applicable, nor can you compare them...

wowsers.. please remind me of what you have engineered, I really never want to be near them, or use anything you may have ever designed if you can't possibly notice the differences....
 
Okay, I just examined the four best WTC1 collapse videos that show activity on all four faces, and I was able to synchronize them in Premiere on the basis of common events, which allowed me to put together this tentative chronology of the first three seconds of the collapse (with even more tentative interpretations):

0;00: visibility of external fires on the East Face on Floors 98-100 rapidly spread southward to the South Face (Interpretation: possibly the moment the bowed columns on the South Face on Floors 96-97 initially buckle)

0;25: large quantity of fire on the South Face in the area of the bowed columns on Floors 98-100 is expelled outside the building (Interpretation: possibly a result of the localized floor collapse on the South Face)

1;05: antenna mast begins to descend and tilt in the direction towards the area of bowed columns on the South Face (Interpretation: the localized collapse now includes the core columns on Floors 96-97)

1;18: a dust cloud exits the East Face at the southeast corner on the 95th and 96th Floors (Interpretation: this is an expansion of the local collapse on the East Face)

1;22: fires on the East Face on Floors 98-100 (near the center of the Face) begin to descend (Interpretation: The 96th and 97th Floors begin to collapse on the East Face; the North Face does not yet show any signs of structural failure)

1;24: first movement of columns 145-150 on the 95th and 96th Floors on the North Face (Interpretation: The failure progression has now finally reached the North Face)

1;29: smoke or dust cloud exits the West Face near the northwest corner on the 100th Floor

2;00: a dust cloud emerges from the 95th and 96th Floors on the North Face at columns 145-150; fires at the southwest corner on the 96th Floor intensify; the large fiery debris cloud on the South Face at the area of the bowing columns descends two floors (Interpretation: The North Face is now involved in the collapse; all perimeter columns on the impact floors are buckling or shifting, other than a small section of perimeter columns on the west end of the North Face which remains stationary)

2;01: the North Face roofline starts to descend (Interpretation: The new collapse on the North Face precipitates the descent of the roof.)

2;05: North Face columns below the impact hole (110-135) on Floors 92-97 begin to lean; floor collapse occurs at Floor 97-98 between columns 101-110 (Interpretation: The upper block begins to compress a little).

2;09: dust clouds exit the 98th Floor simultaneously on the North and West Faces, a dust jet exits the West Face at the 104th Floor, and a fiery debris cloud exits the East Face near the southeast corner (Interpretation: The northern portion of the upper block compresses a little while the southern portion precipitates collapse to lower floors at the southeast corner)

2;24: 92nd Floor fires on the West Face flame outside the building (Interpretation: The 92nd Floor on the South Face is possibly now involved in the collapse)

3;02; 92nd Floor fires on the North Face flame outside the building; on the South Face a dust cloud exits the building on the 92nd Floor; the fiery debris cloud on the South Face at the southeast corner descends to the 96th Floor, the fires originally at Floors 98-100 on the East Face now descend to the 96th Floor (Interpretation: the descending fires on the East and South Faces is indicative of a falling and crushing upper block which has now reached the 92nd Floor)
 
Last edited:
newton3376 said:
Who says that any columns melted?
Click to expand...

Melted..."softened'...whatever. Insert technical term >here<.

So you do believe there was "tilting"?
Click to expand...

It's not what i believe, it is what is apparent in the video evidence. It happened.

#1. What does "core columns and perimeter columns were connected and could not have caused a rotation" mean exactly? How do the columns "cause" a rotation?
Click to expand...

The massive core columns, and perimeter columns connected the sections above and below the impact area. Only a small percentage of columns were damaged. The upper section cannot begin to "rotate" while these columns remain intact.

#2. So you are saying there is no "rotation" but there is "tilting".....what exactly is "tilting" and how is it different from "rotation"?
Click to expand...

Tilting = leaning to one side. Pivoting.

Rotation - the upper block became disconnected from all of the core and perimeter columns and then began to 'spin' end to end while balancing itself over the remainder of the tower.

The very columns which prevented crushing, and forced the upper floors to begin tipping suddenly "gave way"? How does this happen when the loading becomes asymmetrical, yet all columns on every side of the tower begin ejecting in all directions? The theories of some on here at fantasy at best and cannot explain the problems I've addressed in this post, nor do these 'rotation' theories follow any video evidence.
 
TruthersLie said:
I'm not an engineer... I have taken engineering courses... but are you really trying to compare the Murrah building and the other buidling to the towers? Really?

You are supposed to be an engineer, yet you are comparing apples to carbon nanotubes... they are not applicable, nor can you compare them...

wowsers.. please remind me of what you have engineered, I really never want to be near them, or use anything you may have ever designed if you can't possibly notice the differences....
Click to expand...

Instead of just making a lot of noise why don't you actually explain why the Murrah building and the Khobar barracks building did not begin to rotate after completely losing a wall and a significant portion of their interior. Then you should explain why you don't think it would apply to WTC 1.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom