Claim: extensive North Tower east wall damage

Abdullah

Active Member
As some of you are aware, this animation was used in Silverstein's 2004 litigation.

Source: https://youtu.be/n8pOuler95c


These animated reconstructions of the impacts and collapses of the World Trade Center towers were originally created for a 2004 litigation. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) data generated by the investigating engineers was used by Z-Axis to create the only technically accurate visualization of the sequence of events.

From 00:02:38 to 00:02:58 we are shown the damage at collapse initiation.

At 00:02:45 we see the West and south walls.
Screenshot_2022-08-30-08-25-01-623_com.google.android.youtube-01.jpeg
Notice the lack of damage in the south wall. This makes one wonder how the tower fell. Perhaps the clues are the stressed columns (white spots) at the top at the top, indicating core failure.

At 00:02:52 we see the north and east walls.
Screenshot_2022-08-30-08-26-20-990_com.google.android.youtube-01.jpeg
What? How did this huge hole form?

I have never seen any reference to this damage in the east wall anywhere else, whether it is in the FEMA or NIST reports.

How did they come to this conclusion?
 
As some of you are aware, this animation was used in Silverstein's 2004 litigation.

Source: https://youtu.be/n8pOuler95c


These animated reconstructions of the impacts and collapses of the World Trade Center towers were originally created for a 2004 litigation. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) data generated by the investigating engineers was used by Z-Axis to create the only technically accurate visualization of the sequence of events.

From 00:02:38 to 00:02:58 we are shown the damage at collapse initiation.

At 00:02:45 we see the West and south walls.
Screenshot_2022-08-30-08-25-01-623_com.google.android.youtube-01.jpeg
Notice the lack of damage in the south wall. This makes one wonder how the tower fell. Perhaps the clues are the stressed columns (white spots) at the top at the top, indicating core failure.

At 00:02:52 we see the north and east walls.
Screenshot_2022-08-30-08-26-20-990_com.google.android.youtube-01.jpeg
What? How did this huge hole form?
From footage of the plane impact into the north tower Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St7ny38gLp4
, it appears that the hole was first generated from the dust and jet fuel explosion (you can see it starting at 0:12 in the video) that shattered windows and knocked out exterior columns on the east face.

I think this occurred more on the east face compared to the west face because American Airlines Flight 11 was banked to the east before it impacted the north face of the north tower.
I have never seen any reference to this damage in the east wall anywhere else, whether it is in the FEMA or NIST reports.

How did they come to this conclusion?
You can see damage to the east face of the north tower starting at around 5:22 in this video Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuZn3BbBwo


From visuals of damaged columns and fires on the east face, people were probably able to simulate expected damage to exterior columns on the east face.
 

Abdullah

Active Member
https://www.quora.com/What-would-it...re-Can-it-be-done-now-or-will-it-have-to-wait


In the North Towers case it is plainly visible that several floors at the impact zone, at the very least on the eastern face shown here, ceased to exist when Flight 11 crashed. There is nothing behind those columns and into the blackness, an inferno and the clouds of death it creates. But what about below it, where the windows have been spared almost intact but the ceiling has crashed down and looks like a team of demolition crew spent the whole day wrecking it?
So I comnented
Wait…how is it plainly visible that there is nothing behind the east face of WTC1?
His reply
I see it like this. The flames couldn't be roaring that high if the floors were still present. Flight 11 in the frame entered right to left, and it shoved the floors in the direct line of impact to the south.[/ICODE]
My reply
[Are you sure thrybarentbtwo independent fires? The top of the bottom fire is darker than the bottom of the top fire

 

Oystein

Senior Member
A suggestion - and I made no attempt to check whether this could be true:

Perhaps the 2004 simulation shows not a "hole" in the colloquial sense (a void, a lack of solid material on the surface extending some distance into the body said to have that "hole"), but an area where structural members have lost load bearing capacity? Perhaps they have been removed from the model after modeled failure? This is often done to reduce computational complexity when no further contribution towards survival can be expected from the failed members.
 

econ41

Senior Member
And, whatever it is, is an artifact of the simulation. Thus not a guaranteed feature of the actual collapse. So don't fall for the T Szamboti Trap** of trying to directly apply features from an arbitrary analysis to the actual physical structure. Or vice-versa.

** An old story
HINT the 'Jolt Which Could not be "Missing" because it could never have been.'
 

Abdullah

Active Member
Well, the prevailing winds were wrapping flames around the east face columns. I wonder if NIST accounted for external flames in their fire simulations?
 
Top