False Narrative: "North Tower Antenna Dropped Before Roof Line"

[Mendel]

The antenna would need to move way way more than 4ft to the South

for the transmission tower to move 4 feet down, the southern edge would need to move 8 feet down, if everything was rigid.

if the hat truss flexed when something gave way in the core, then the transmission tower might have moved a little, independent of the building; I have no idea if that is possible.

we would not need to speculate on this if you would sync your north view footage with a side view, as I requested from the start

 

[Mendel]

A clear answer to this will clear it up.....

Are the movements annotated in the video I showed you different or the same as the movements you tried to debunk before I joined this thread ?

I feel it's your job to demonstrate that they're not, because it's your claim

 

[gerrycan]

Let's just start by saying I'm no fan of measuring tilt in feet - that shows a lack of clarity of thought. Can you knock up a quick sketch with all the relevant dimensions and angles (hint, hint), such that we can at least see if your argument is internally consistent.

antenna is about 110M - portion zoomed on is about 35M from base - Tower is just under 64M wide
Hint all you like. The question was if Mendel had any idea how FAR it would need to move laterally to be seen to drop 4ft from head on. If you want to go do the angles, be my guest.

 

[gerrycan]

for the transmission tower to move 4 feet down, the southern edge would need to move 8 feet down, if everything was rigid.

if the hat truss flexed when something gave way in the core, then the transmission tower might have moved a little, independent of the building; I have no idea if that is possible.

we would not need to speculate on this if you would sync your north view footage with a side view, as I requested from the start

I'm not speculating though.
I have no doubt that the cores would shorten axially if the hat truss->perimeter connections were overstressed to failure, but not significantly.
You're probably close enough with the 8ft drop in the South wall, which was already being pulled in/down at that point obviously. The point is that the TIP of the antenna would have to move SO far South with it to produce that drop, it would have already been so noticable as to form a HUGE part of the narrative around initiation. probably around 10ft.

You can pick over the bones of it as much as you wish, but that's what happened - the antenna moved down and then latteraly and THEN the roofline moved, and laterally in the North face. The gap between downward movement in the antenna and the North face descent is when the tip to the South began.

I get a feeling this is a much more structurally significant point than you guys realised when you started debating this thread, at which time you were totally unaware of the initial vertical drop in the antenna.

 

[gerrycan]

I feel it's your job to demonstrate that they're not, because it's your claim

The title of the thread is - False Narrative: "North Tower Antenna Dropped Before Roof Line"

Not demonstrated to be false, and quite the opposite considering your new awareness of the fact that the antenna dropped straight down then jolted to a stop - and also your realisation that FEMA made the claim. You guys only jumped on the debunk because it was presented as a ae911 claim.

Not my job to debunk your thread. But I did anyway. You need to accept that now.

 

[FatPhil]

antenna is about 110M - portion zoomed on is about 35M from base - Tower is just under 64M wide
Hint all you like. The question was if Mendel had any idea how FAR it would need to move laterally to be seen to drop 4ft from head on. If you want to go do the angles, be my guest.

My objection to a measurement of tilt being in feet was not because they're freedom units rather than metric. TIlt is an angle - hence the location of my hint?

WIth your new figures I can deduce you're attempting to describe a tilt of just over 2 degrees:

? atan(4/3.28/32)*180/Pi
%133 = 2.182472018

Which corresponds to a something like this (scale is 20:1 in metres, so there's 8' of drop at the south, 4' of drop at the base of the antenna, and a fraction over 4' drop at the top of the antenna):

Feel free to mark up on that image what you consider the important distances are that support your argument, or simply design your own from scratch at https://www.geogebra.org/calculator (no registration required).

 

[gerrycan]

My objection to a measurement of tilt being in feet was not because they're freedom units rather than metric. TIlt is an angle - hence the location of my hint?

WIth your new figures I can deduce you're attempting to describe a tilt of just over 2 degrees:

? atan(4/3.28/32)*180/Pi
%133 = 2.182472018

Which corresponds to a something like this (scale is 20:1 in metres, so there's 8' of drop at the south, 4' of drop at the base of the antenna, and a fraction over 4' drop at the top of the antenna):

Feel free to mark up on that image what you consider the important distances are that support your argument, or simply design your own from scratch at https://www.geogebra.org/calculator (no registration required).

Thank you for the illustration. Hopefully it helps some here understand that a 4ft percieved drop 1/3 of the way up the antenna due to rotation on that arc would result in >10ft Southward movement at the antenna tip, over a period of about 0.1s, and still require a straight drop at the module base.

The reality of course, is that the antenna moved straight down then jolted to a stop indicating core initiation. The roofline did not move until after that drop. This thread seeks to prove that the roofline did move initially, which is a claim made by ae911.

However, when they claimed this, they were not aware of the movement prior, so could have been reasonably disputed on the ground of a tilt being percieved as a drop from a dead on angle. But not this initial movement which this thread did not spot or account for up until now. FEMA were 100% correct when they said that the antenna moved independently of the roofline.

The contrary claim made by this thread won't be proven, and that burden of proof remains on those supporting that claim, and not me, or ae911, or FEMA for that matter.

 

[Mendel]

The question was if Mendel had any idea how FAR it would need to move laterally to be seen to drop 4ft from head on. If you want to go do the angles, be my guest.

yeah, but that makes no sense to me, hence a sketch would be helpful. The tower doesn't just go wandering around the roof, it's fixed.
Again, from post #1, the main mechanic is a downward tilt:

Gage and Szamboti use only a view from the north, the optics of which are illustrated here:

 

[Mendel]

FEMA were 100% correct when they said that the antenna moved independently of the roofline.

that is not what they said

 

[gerrycan]

that is not what they said

^^is what they said^^ And it is what this thread asserts is a false narrative. It isn't a false narrative. That burden of proof is on you here to prove the thread title, not me, so you go find me footage of the south wall moving 8ft along with the antenna right at initiation - you can't, because it didn't.

I am still not sure you realise the shift in antenna and North wall that I and FEMA are referring to is prior to the self constructed strawman you guys thought you'd debunked when you thought the claim was made by ae911 alone.
Again - look at the movements.... and look at FEMAs words carefully please. Down - Lateral - Roofline THEN follows and collapse ensues starting with the tilt you thought FEMA were referring to.

 

[gerrycan]

yeah, but that makes no sense to me, hence a sketch would be helpful. The tower doesn't just go wandering around the roof, it's fixed.
Again, from post #1, the main mechanic is a downward tilt:

"Gage and Szamboti use only a view from the north, the optics of which are illustrated here:"

Gage and Szamboti didn't notice the movement in the antenna that I am referring to which is PRIOR to the movement they referred to.
Read that last bit there carefully please Mendel and please finally understand that FEMA and I are referring to a different set of structural events to those you addressed in this thread, and that Gage and Szamboti missed also.

 

[Mendel]

^^is what they said^^

"before movement is evident" is deliberately not the same as "before there was movement", which is what you think they wrote (but they did not)

The transmission tower moves before the northern roofline moves significantly. In post #99, you agreed with me and FEMA that the transmission tower was firmly attached to the hat truss and could not move independently of it. That indicates that the hat truss (and with it the upper block) moved in a way that affected the northern roofline very little. This is achieved by a southward tilting motion, as evidenced by east or west views of the collapse. To enable this tilting motion, 1. the southern facade must fail; 2. core columns must fail: "This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building", as FEMA notes in the sentence after the portion you highlighted.

The fact that the roofline cannot be seen to move in the video does not imply that the roofline did not move at all, as the video is not precise enough to make that determination.

 

[gerrycan]

"before movement is evident" is deliberately not the same as "before there was movement", which is what you think they wrote (but they did not)

Seriously ?? That's what you are reducing this debate to ? [snip impolite bit].

I don't think you understand the structure at all Mendel. The hat truss can't descend without a severance of the lines connecting it to the perimeter. You are avoiding answering EVERY straight question you are being asked, and that is because you guys went all in on debunking a claim that was presented as one made only by ae911 - had you known FEMA had made the claim, based on MULTIPLE angles of video you wouldn't have went all in. You showed your agenda. And now you can't back up the claim made in this thread, so you try to shift the burden of proof.

Now you are reduced to picking through the bones of semantics when the fact is that you cannot show that there was movement in the perimeter at all to back up the claim made in this thread. Totally fallacious to try and move that burden of proof.

I am going to make a clear and concise statement, and all I want you to do is say whether you agree with it or not.....

"The antenna cannot move down then laterally independently of the roofline without a severance of the connections it has to the perimeter columns of the structure"

Straight question Mendel - do you agree with the above statement. Yes or no.

 

[NoParty]

...You guys only jumped on the debunk because it was presented as a ae911 claim.

I admit, I'm no fan of folks attributing a made-up motive to others, in hopes of using that
"evidence" to degrade their position. It reminds me of Trump saying that someone was
a Never-Trumper (when they absolutely were not) to convince his followers that somehow
that person's credibility is now damaged, when it's not.

...strawman you guys thought you'd debunked when you thought the claim was made by ae911 alone.

Okay, another whack at it...

...you guys went all in on debunking a claim that was presented as one made only by ae911 - had you known FEMA had made the claim, based on MULTIPLE angles of video you wouldn't have went all in.

You keep going back to this well...it's a bit tedious, especially since you evidently feel that the
repeated accusation is okay to make, with no substantiation whatsoever. Honestly, whenever
I see someone just manufacturing negative motives for people that they are disagreeing with,
it seems to me that they are conceding that they know that their argument is too weak to
prevail on it's own merits, alone. I have no way of knowing what's really motivating your odd
rant, here, but I think it's better if I don't made up a sketchy motive or two for you...

 

[gerrycan]

I admit, I'm no fan of folks attributing a made-up motive to others, in hopes of using that
"evidence" to degrade their position. It reminds me of Trump saying that someone was
a Never-Trumper (when they absolutely were not) to convince his followers that somehow
that person's credibility is now damaged, when it's not.

Okay, another whack at it...

You keep going back to this well...it's a bit tedious, especially since you evidently feel that the
repeated accusation is okay to make, with no substantiation whatsoever. Honestly, whenever
I see someone just manufacturing negative motives for people that they are disagreeing with,
it seems to me that they are conceding that they know that their argument is too weak to
prevail on it's own merits, alone. I have no way of knowing what's really motivating your odd
rant, here, but I think it's better if I don't made up a sketchy motive or two for you...

I would welcome a substantive exchange, which would require some degree of honest answering to straight questions.
The question was, "do you agree that the connections between the hat truss and perimeter would have to be severed in order for the antenna to move straight down as observed by FEMA and others ?"

You got any view on that ?

 

[NoParty]

I would welcome a substantive exchange, which would require some degree of honest answering to straight questions.
The question was, "do you agree that the connections between the hat truss and perimeter would have to be severed in order for the antenna to move straight down as observed by FEMA and others ?"

You got any view on that ?

Mendel and some others seem to be willing to engage you on that.

I was just hoping to get you to stop manufacturing motives, for a better thread.

 

[gerrycan]

Mendel and some others seem to be willing to engage you on that.

I was just hoping to get you to stop manufacturing motives, for a better thread.

So you don't have any view on that question, which gets to the heart of what this thread claims. FYI the answer is a very obvious yes, and the structural implications of that are the reason for the avoidance of straight answers.

 

[Mendel]

"The antenna cannot move down then laterally independently of the roofline without a severance of the connections it has to the perimeter columns of the structure"

Straight question Mendel - do you agree with the above statement. Yes or no.

Do you want me to post the graphic a third time? If the top block tilts and then twists, it'll look (from the North!) like the transmission tower moved independently, when it actually did not. We know the top block can do that because it did, and the question you are raising is if there was a small movement before the big movement.

The question was, "do you agree that the connections between the hat truss and perimeter would have to be severed in order for the antenna to move straight down as observed by FEMA and others ?"

Yet another wording that misquotes FEMA, who did not write "straight down". To support the "straight down" claim from the evidence, you need to provide two views (ideally perpendicular to each other), which I've asked for at the beginning. Since we do not have that evidence, your question cannot be answered from knowledge.

I would welcome a substantive exchange, which would require some degree of honest answering to straight questions

no, it requires substantive evidence.

FYI the answer is a very obvious yes, and the structural implications of that are the reason for the avoidance of straight answers.

I was trying to get you to go into what you think these implications are, but you did not:

How does your model explain that the failure of the core moves only the transmission tower, and not the whole truss?

You have a finite element model that you display images of liberally, so this is a "straight question" you ought to be able to answer, but you haven't done so. (Apologies if I missed it.)

 

[gerrycan]

Do you want me to post the graphic a third time? If the top block tilts and then twists, it'll look (from the North!) like the transmission tower moved independently, when it actually did not. We know the top block can do that because it did, and the question you are raising is if there was a small movement before the big movement.


Yet another wording that misquotes FEMA, who did not write "straight down". To support the "straight down" claim from the evidence, you need to provide two views (ideally perpendicular to each other), which I've asked for at the beginning. Since we do not have that evidence, your question cannot be answered from knowledge.


no, it requires substantive evidence.


I was trying to get you to go into what you think these implications are, but you did not:
You have a finite element model that you display images of liberally, so this is a "straight question" you ought to be able to answer, but you haven't done so. (Apologies if I missed it.)

Misquoting FEMA ??

The question is from me. And it remains without a straight answer from you, it's a yes or no thing mendel. I suspect you don't understand the structure enough to answer the question, and there's nothing wrong or no shame in that, so yes,no, don't know are all options.

Would the connections between the hat truss and the perimeter have to be severed in order for the antenna to move straight down ?

try answering it, instead of diverting or talking about FEMA quotes - it is me who is asking you the question.

 

[Mendel]

The question is from me. And it remains without a straight answer from you, it's a yes or no thing mendel.

I wrote, "To support the "straight down" claim from the evidence, you need to provide two views (ideally perpendicular to each other), which I've asked for at the beginning. Since we do not have that evidence, your question cannot be answered from knowledge."
I also wrote, "[substantive exchange] requires substantive evidence".

This is a straight answer. It can only change if you bring more evidence.

 

[Mendel]

It can only change if you bring more evidence.

Also, you @gerrycan have clearly introduced your FEM model to provide some kind of evidence, but I have not understood for what, and you refuse to explain it.

 

[gerrycan]

I wrote, "To support the "straight down" claim from the evidence, you need to provide two views (ideally perpendicular to each other), which I've asked for at the beginning. Since we do not have that evidence, your question cannot be answered from knowledge."
I also wrote, "[substantive exchange] requires substantive evidence".

This is a straight answer. It can only change if you bring more evidence.

No, it isn't a straight answer at all, it is more avoidance and diversion. The question is not dependent on the validity of FEMAs or my assertion that the antenna moved straight down or not.

It is rather a question about the structural reality that would facilitate such a straight down drop in 1/10s and it remains unanswered because you are pinning a contingent onto it.

So I'll ask again, to anyone who has been watching or adding to this thread,

Do you agree that the connections between the hat truss and the perimeter columns have to be severed in order for the antenna to move straight down independently of the roofline ?

 

[FatPhil]

Do you agree that the connections between the hat truss and the perimeter columns have to be severed in order for the antenna to move straight down independently of the roofline ?

I categorically don't. If you're assuming the antenna moved straight down intependently of the roofline, then the connections of the truss and the perimiter columns are utterly irrelevant.

 

[Mendel]

The question is not dependent on the validity of FEMAs or my assertion that the antenna moved straight down or not.

FEMA did not write "straight down", please stop misquoting them.

The question is irrelevant if the assertion is false.
You should provide your answer and support it.
Which I've repeatedly asked you to do.

 

[Mendel]

I categorically don't. If you're assuming the antenna moved straight down intependently of the roofline, then the connections of the truss and the perimiter columns are utterly irrelevant.

For example, vaporize 4 feet of tower at its base, and it'll drop 4 feet. Too bad nobody saw the aliens and their death ray.

 

[Mendel]

We can also say, if the engineering does not provide us with forces that would enable the transmission tower to drop straight down, then we must assume that it did not, and that it only appeared to do so from a particular angle that hid the movement of the upper block from view.

I would describe the movement of the tower in this sketch as "downward and tilting", or "downward and laterally" like FEMA did.

 

[gerrycan]

I categorically don't. If you're assuming the antenna moved straight down intependently of the roofline, then the connections of the truss and the perimiter columns are utterly irrelevant.

Okay, and thank you Phil, for answering a straight question with your honest opinion. I did give the structural drawings earlier in this thread, and I will assume that you didn't look them over. I note also that Mendel agrees with you.

However, here is why the connections between the hat truss and the perimeter columns are entirely relevant and would have to be entirely failed and severed for the antenna to behave as described ie moving straight down. Here is a diagram of the hat truss, and you can see that the outrigger beams extend from the centre of the truss, out to the perimeter columns.

The module that was fixed to this truss, onto which the antenna was anchored, sat at the centre of the truss and importantly extended out mainly onto the connections you see above that go to the centre perimeter face. Here's a picture of the antenna module on top of the hat truss being installed for context.

As you can see, the main supports do go out to the perimeter and in particular to the centre of the faces. This is where the overstress passed to the perimeters would show first, on the main truss to perimeter connections in the middle of the face. The antenna cannot move straight down without breaking these connections first, because this is where the hat truss would naturally offload to. You can see here in NIST's draft report https://www.nist.gov/publications/r...erformance-analysis-world-trade-center-towers
on page 91 the demand capacity ratios, under original design load case outputs for the North and East faces where that overstress is felt.

I am hoping this is enough to demonstrate to you that any overstress would go to the perimeter columns from the antenna module via the hat truss, meaning that these connections would indeed have to be severed in order for the antenna to move straight down. It's kind of common sense really, but it is hard to continue this without that acceptance, however hypothetical you or Mendel want to suppose the circumstances are.

So, this should demonstrate to you that the connections between the hat truss and the perimeter columns would indeed have to be overcome and sever in order for the antenna to drop independently of the roofline.

Hopefully we concur on this issue now, and can continue.

 

[Mendel]

I am hoping this is enough to demonstrate to you that any overstress would go to the perimeter columns from the antenna module via the hat truss

We've talked about this before, and it still makes no sense to me.

Within the official story, I believe the observed downward movement of the antenna indicates that the core structure was already overloaded but was able to pass that overstress to the perimeters via the hat truss, until that load path was compromised, at which point the weakest cores deformed almost at once.

EDIT sorry I meant to add, that the floors and the offloaded perimeter columns on the North face do not move initially, so I dont believe the whole truss failed at once for that reason - I believe the core failed initially, as did FEMA

That makes no sense to me. What caused the cores to be overstressed, if not the hat truss transferring load from the perimeter to the core (and not the other way around)?

all you had was a non-answer:

Well this is the question. Something made the antenna move down, and something IMO (and FEMAs) caused the core to fail first, indicated by the antenna moving independently of the roofline, as they pointed out.

 

[gerrycan]

We've talked about this before, and it still makes no sense to me.

I totally accept that it makes no sense to you Mendel. On that we agree.

I will await you finding some footage of any of the perimeter faces dropping with the very initial movement of the antenna. You said it would take an 8ft drop in the South face to achieve a percieved 4ft drop in the antenna due to tilt.

Shouldn't be hard for you to find that then, and validate the premise of this thread.

 

[Mendel]

Well this is the question. Something made the antenna move down, and something IMO (and FEMAs) caused the core to fail first, indicated by the antenna moving independently of the roofline, as they pointed out.

Are you saying that an aircraft crashed into a face of the building, massive fires raged on several floors, but somehow the antenna tower (on a not particularly windy day) caused it to collapse?

How much did the transmission tower weigh, compared to a loaded floor? What loads did you put for them into your model?

 

[Mendel]

I totally accept that it makes no sense to you Mendel

I'm reading this as "I totally accept that my claim makes no sense".

 

[FatPhil]

these connections would indeed have to be severed in order for the antenna to move straight down.

<fx:audio>needle scratching across vinyl</fx:audio>

Where's the evidence that the antenna moved straight down?

It seems your spin is taking us round in circles, as we've been here before.

 

[gerrycan]

Are you saying that an aircraft crashed into a face of the building, massive fires raged on several floors, but somehow the antenna tower (on a not particularly windy day) caused it to collapse?

How much did the transmission tower weigh, compared to a loaded floor? What loads did you put for them into your model?

Do you see me typing that anywhere Mendel ?

Let's just leave it there, unless you have a video to support your claim that FEMA are wrong and the roofline elsewhere other than North face did move with the antenna at initiation. Which you don't, or you clearly would have posted it.

 

[gerrycan]

<fx:audio>needle scratching across vinyl</fx:audio>

Where's the evidence that the antenna moved straight down?

It seems your spin is taking us round in circles, as we've been here before.

FEMA reckoned they checked it from enough angles to make their statement. If you can debbunk them, then go ahead. Validate the claim made in the thread.

And I'm not spinning. Also, I don't think you get what a hat truss is,

 

[gerrycan]

I'm reading this as "I totally accept that my claim makes no sense".

ha ha, I guess some see what they want to see Mendel.

Not me though, and not FEMA.

Let me see a video to support the thread claim and we can talk. Until then I think I'll continue this elsewhere or start a new thread. Thanks though.

ADD - I meant to say too, that all I would do if I needed to get to the bottom of this (which I don't) would be to measure the distance between the antenna tip and 2 diagonal corners. It aint rocket science guys, and whilst I may have my doubts about FEMAs report, they're not actually that dumb.

 

[NoParty]

So you don't have any view on that question, which gets to the heart of what this thread claims. FYI the answer is a very obvious yes, and the structural implications of that are the reason for the avoidance of straight answers.

It's not that I have no view, but these events are not in my fields of expertise.
Also, I'm not motivated to spend/waste? much time on something that happened over 23 years ago
for which there seems to be little significant new info.

I've already mentioned your repeated efforts to make up motives, in order to try to undermine
other posters' views, that you dislike. Again, it suggests that you know your argument won't
prevail on facts alone.

Also, you keep knowingly misrepresenting the "before movement is evident" comment.
You must know that it doesn't mean what you keep implying it does.
I'm a rabid NFL fan. There's a replay rule that basically says that for a call on the field to be overturned, there must be clear, irrefutable video evidence. Sometimes the 10 camera angles they review make it really appear that a call was wrong...but there is no totally definitive video evidence,
and so, by rule, the call "stands."
The "before movement is evident" refers to imperfect/inadequate video evidence
(this is why the very next two words--that you clipped--are "This suggests..."

So, no, you are wrong in stating that I "don't have any view": My view is that you probably
(and again, others here know the details & physics better than I do) are in error about the
antenna, but the way you are arguing it (making false motives, repeatedly twisting the "before movement is evident" passage, repeatedly misrepresenting FEMA as saying "straight down", etc.)
looks to me like truth is not a high priority for you, in winning this argument.

 

[Mendel]

Let's just leave it there, unless you have a video to support your claim that FEMA are wrong

I did not claim that FEMA is wrong. But I've shown that you keep misquoting them.

Do you see me typing that anywhere Mendel ?

No, you did not say what would make the hat truss break. You did not mention anything besides the transmission tower, either.

How much did the transmission tower weigh, compared to a loaded floor? What loads did you put for them into your model?

 

[Mendel]

FEMA reckoned they checked it from enough angles to make their statement.

Source this claim, please. I don't think they did.

 

[Landru]

FEMA reckoned they checked it from enough angles to make their statement. If you can debbunk them, then go ahead. Validate the claim made in the thread.

And I'm not spinning. Also, I don't think you get what a hat truss is,

I am really going to insist that you support this statement with evidence. Paraphrasing is not allowed on Metabunk.

 

[gerrycan]

I am really going to insist that you support this statement with evidence. Paraphrasing is not allowed on Metabunk.

The clearest analysis at the time FEMA produced the statement in their official report to base this on would be from Appendix G of Hart-Weidlinger report into the North Tower of August 2002 where 2 clips were examined. From their report....

"Video evidence has revealed that the roof antenna atop WTC 1 began to collapse ahead of the exterior wall of the tower. Appendix G details a photogrammetric collapse timing analysis for WTC 1 showing that, based on a frame-by-frame analysis of two video clips, the antenna does fall first, approximately 0.4 to 0.7 seconds before the exterior wall. This result would suggest that the collapse initiated in the core of the building rather than in the exterior columns"

Source : https://www.thorntontomasetti.com/project/world-trade-center-forensic-investigation
PDF link : https://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_LevyAbboud_full-public.pdf

I would imagine FEMA sould have examined more than 2 themselves to confirm this.