Page 108 of 108 FirstFirst ... 85898106107108
Results 1,071 to 1,078 of 1078

Thread: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

  1. #1071
    Guru
    SanderO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,620

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    You didn't state anything about which columns it was - that's the point.

    Very imprecise statements leading to very precise conclusions stated as if they are fact.

    45=35 in your quote there which is a typo, but I get what you're saying.

    Re the bracing. What bracing and where, and have you accounted for the huge amount of steel around the stairwells in particular ?
    I am not taking your bait. You have a different approach. I am "into" the collapses to understand what makes sense to me. I am not advocating anyone else hold the same beliefs or understanding. I am not going to offer calculations or proofs or how many inches X moved. I presented MY thoughts and I leave it to others, if they want to drill into the details.

    In the end there is not enough data available. Something made the antenna drop... something caused to entire top to come down right after the antenna moved. Things like this drop because what is supporting them fail. And what was supporting "them" were columns. As there were no loads applied there are only a few ways a beam or a column can fail.

    Redistributed loads exceed the capacity
    heat weakens the member's capacity to below service load
    bearing area of column on column is reduced to an area too small to "deal with the load"
    Connections holding members together fail.... bolts shear, welds fail.

    The explanation has to be HEAT driven as there was no other energy input for an hr and a half except wind.

    The drop and tilting in 2wtc was from the same "causes" - initial mechanical destruction followed by the impact of heat on the remaining beams and columns and the form of the collapse was related to where the axial support was lost... on the SE quadrant. That works for me. Last columns working in 2wtc were the NE corner columns of the core.
    Nothing is as it appears.

  2. #1072
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,566

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    I am not taking your bait.
    It's not bait. The fact is you don't know what bracing or additional reinforcement was there, and if you took the trouble to find out it would destroy your hypothesis. Doesn't mean that your hyothesis is no use, so don't take that as an insult please.

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    You have a different approach.
    I do yes, and although I am armed with over 6GB of these drawings, the truth is I don't quite know yet what actually happened to the North tower. I am beginning to see some serious issues though.

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    I presented MY thoughts and I leave it to others, if they want to drill into the details.
    I respect that. It's your personal opinion and you're entitled to it. But it's based on a guess of how the buildings were constructed, and one you took many years ago and refuse to update in light of new details that have emerged.

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    In the end there is not enough data available.
    Maybe about the fire and the temps, but there is now enough data there to know exactly how these towers were put together.

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    Something made the antenna drop
    Gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    Redistributed loads exceed the capacity
    heat weakens the member's capacity to below service load
    bearing area of column on column is reduced to an area too small to "deal with the load"
    Connections holding members together fail.... bolts shear, welds fail.
    I'd like to see that expressed as a ratio. I have looked at NIST's demand/capacity ratios for the cores. Difficult to quantify in such a dynamic situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    The explanation has to be HEAT driven as there was no other energy input for an hr and a half except wind.
    You don't know that and neither do I. The difference is, I am not pretending to know.

    Certainly the Core 508 non movement at the 96th storey is a puzzler. There's a definate break somewhere in it and I believe the tell to be the antenna drop Vs the non movement of the exterior at the NE 2 way floor area.
    It looks like at least 2 seperate and distinct events so far.

    We can at least agree that NIST dropped the ball blaming this on floor truss sagging pulling in the exterior columns. I think we both know that's impossible as the trusses couldn't exert that kind of pull. The only other option then is that the core dropped and as it did it pulled the exterior columns inward by way of the truss exterior connections which eventually gave up, causing the "pinging" back out of the exterior columns.

    We're not gonna agree on your hypothesis, for obvious reasons, so we would be better to focus in on what we do agree on. Which is actually quite a lot. Interesting to have exchanged ideas though.

  3. #1073
    Guru
    SanderO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,620

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
    It's not bait. The fact is you don't know what bracing or additional reinforcement was there, and if you took the trouble to find out it would destroy your hypothesis. Doesn't mean that your hyothesis is no use, so don't take that as an insult please.



    I do yes, and although I am armed with over 6GB of these drawings, the truth is I don't quite know yet what actually happened to the North tower. I am beginning to see some serious issues though.



    I respect that. It's your personal opinion and you're entitled to it. But it's based on a guess of how the buildings were constructed, and one you took many years ago and refuse to update in light of new details that have emerged.



    Maybe about the fire and the temps, but there is now enough data there to know exactly how these towers were put together.



    Gravity.



    I'd like to see that expressed as a ratio. I have looked at NIST's demand/capacity ratios for the cores. Difficult to quantify in such a dynamic situation.



    You don't know that and neither do I. The difference is, I am not pretending to know.

    Certainly the Core 508 non movement at the 96th storey is a puzzler. There's a definate break somewhere in it and I believe the tell to be the antenna drop Vs the non movement of the exterior at the NE 2 way floor area.
    It looks like at least 2 seperate and distinct events so far.

    We can at least agree that NIST dropped the ball blaming this on floor truss sagging pulling in the exterior columns. I think we both know that's impossible as the trusses couldn't exert that kind of pull. The only other option then is that the core dropped and as it did it pulled the exterior columns inward by way of the truss exterior connections which eventually gave up, causing the "pinging" back out of the exterior columns.

    We're not gonna agree on your hypothesis, for obvious reasons, so we would be better to focus in on what we do agree on. Which is actually quite a lot. Interesting to have exchanged ideas though.
    I accept the gist of your post. As I am not an engineer my approach being an architect is intuitive somewhat about the structure and how the main components worked. I think it has to be established how the hat truss was supported. I maintain it structurally sat atop the core columns with the outriggers diagonals serving to create a rigid 3 D solid probably holding the facade square and true more so than using it for axial support. Of course the facade up there did provide some axial support for the floor slab loads outside the core.

    My conception of the hat truss was that it was not a spanning truss, but more like a cantilever on 4 sides one... like a mushroom with the stalk the core and the cap the hat truss..

    For me the key observation which guides my thinking is the movement of the antenna in advance of the top drop. This is a tell tale that the center... of the stalk (core) had failed. I think it then was unable to effectively transfer the concentrated antenna loads which sort of punched the the cap of the mushroom. My guess is, and assuming the collapse was heat driven inside the core... that the structure would have survived a bit longer and only gone into top drop move when the core was incapable to support all the floor mass of the very top mech floors. I further believe that the OOS floor plates did keep the top block as a block, but that block could not be support by the facade columns alone. Antenna drop is the tell that there was a HT failure. And to me the only logical explanation for that is that the HT relied on axial support in its center and that was lost. How few columns could support the HT and the loads up there? It obviously did not require ALL core columns because the plane strike showed us that.

    I am not sure that the core area sunk into the top of the building pulling the OOS floors with them.... or if the OOS floors were destroyed in a crush up crush down as the entire top dropped. Regardless I do believe that that mass is what kicked off ROOSD and led to the destruction of all the OOS and IC flooring, then the instability of the core and facade columns and their demise as well. The columns were unable to prevent the OOS collapse because the end connections and slabs themselves were insufficiently strong to properly transfer the increased dynamic loads from the falling material from above.

    I also think that all the collapses could be laid at the doorstep of connections. Loads from floors move to the axial elements via connections. Moment connections are stronger by at some point under outlier conditions... not strong enough. The frames became undone because of connection failures which led to unsupported mass and gravity did its thing. There were few axial failures until there were too few axial members carrying all the loads and then they buckled.
    Nothing is as it appears.

  4. #1074
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,566

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    As I said, there's lots we agree on and lots more we will just have to agree to disagree on.
    I actually have a hi-res pic somewhere of the hat truss connection to the perimeter taken from inside the building, but not to hand.
    This one here is also interesting though.
    6068702018_434988bb1f.jpg

  5. #1075
    Guru
    SanderO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    NYC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,620

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    That looks like it''s from the rood deck and you can see that the frame is not supported on the perimeter wall but some distance in board. Top right is cantilevered too.
    Nothing is as it appears.

  6. #1076
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,566

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    Quote Originally Posted by SanderO View Post
    That looks like it''s from the rood deck and you can see that the frame is not supported on the perimeter wall but some distance in board. Top right is cantilevered too.
    The "roof deck" is above the main bridging and connections that top the building. We agree on that right ?

  7. #1077
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,566

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    I am sure that gap toward the perimeter is to accomodate the louvers and the connection at 90deg from the deck support beams frames into the top of their frame. I dug out a pic from the area there which shows the setback.
    107louvers.jpg

    I think those might be the transducers that fed back into the elevator system to lower the speed in high winds.

  8. #1078
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,566

    Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

    And a drawing for the North face louver supports, in case you develop an interest for drawings at some point.

    louv supps WTCI-000030-L-76.jpg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •