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

The antenna falls vertically. The NW corner and SW fire do not fall.
alternate version:
Screenshot_20230125-161523_Samsung Internet.jpg

The antenna tilts away from the viewer as the "top block" tilts down at the back of the buildung. The leverages involved mean that the antenna goes down more as the roof line near the viewer does, since the roof line is supported by the "hinge".

The advantage of my version is that the hat truss can remain intact, see my post #21.

Your version requires that the hat truss breaks, which you haven't explained.
 
The antenna tilts away from the viewer as the "top block" tilts down at the back of the buildung.
Then the fulcrum must pass northwest of building center, because the CG is moving down. Also, the camera angle means the fulcrum must pass north of the SW corner. So I think we should see a fire drop.

Also, since the fire is above the fulcrum, we should see it tilt away like the antenna.
 
Last edited:
Then the fulcrum must pass northwest of building center, because the CG is moving down. Also, the camera angle means the fulcrum must pass north of the SW corner. So I think we should see a fire drop.

Also, since the fire is above the fulcrum, we should see it tilt away like the antenna.
but the levers are shorter, so the movement is less visible
 
@Mendel was somewhat correct. I very closely observed the Sauret view. It really does seem that the visible antenna movements were tilting.

But there is still the issue of subpixel measurements showing roof concavity.
External Quote:

from the Sauret projection at the whole building above floor 92, flashing between frames 120 and 220 (just over 1.5 sec interval). Remember that the NW corner starts to accelerate downwards around frame 224:


http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_misc/sauret_120-220.gif
sauret_120-220.gif




In order to see the degree and direction of local deformation at any point, just hold your pointer still over that point and notice the degree of wiggle.

Notes:

1) The east corner of the building stays pretty still. The whole portion below floor 98 stays pretty still.
2) The NW corner window washer actually wiggles east-west. Almost no downward displacement, but observable eastward displacement.
3) Notice that the whole west corner above floor 98 is being pulled inwards. The pull-in first becomes noticeable just above floor 98 and grows much stronger in the top few floors.
4) From this projection, the antenna is moving downwards and hooking to the east. It is as if it is falling and slightly pivoting. It seems as if its eastward angle increases slightly over this interval.
https://web.archive.org/web/2020081...op=view_page&PAGE_id=176&MMN_position=586:586
 

Attachments

  • 78vogu.gif
    78vogu.gif
    933.8 KB · Views: 149
Last edited:
... Also, the camera angle means the fulcrum must pass north of the SW corner. So I think we should see a fire drop.
....
What you call "fire" there is really a flame, i.e. the visible, gaseous part of a fire. As the flame is gaseous, it is not firmly attached to the building it is emenating and should not be expected in unison and synchronicity with the steel structure, but rather lag behind somewhat. Showing that the flame doesn't move when the antenna moves does not prove the floor that the flame is coming out of doesn't move, at least not in the short term.
Has this been discussed?
 
@Oystein

I had originally thought so. But we are not looking at the flame so much as the windowsill. Buoyancy and the prevailing wind takes the gas up and right. So the bottom and left should be the edge of a spandrel and column respectively.
 
On the issue of the initial movement of the North Tower antenna, there is a smaller movement straight down, followed by a shift to the East then a stop, prior to the movement that has been discussed in this thread. I made this video a year or so ago to look at it closely. The video is 6 different zooms and one full shot of the tower. Between 5 and 6s you can see the initial independent movement of the antenna.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPtTcLlh1gY
 
On the issue of the initial movement of the North Tower antenna, there is a smaller movement straight down, followed by a shift to the East then a stop, prior to the movement that has been discussed in this thread.
Please repeat your analysis with footage taken from the east or west. Re-read post #1 to understand why this is necessary.
 
Please repeat your analysis with footage taken from the east or west. Re-read post #1 to understand why this is necessary.
I have read the post and the whole thread, and I understand exactly what you are trying to say. You are not looking closely enough at the video i posted and need to look at it closely again. There is a straight down drop of a few feet that precedes the events that you are alluding to. Drops, then stops.
Look at it again. Please.
 
Here you go, this is the frames collated. You can clearly see that the part I am talking about is prior to the events that you are alluding to.
There is a bowing out also of column 155 at floor 96. I don't want to stray off topic, but that's clearly connected, if you want the structural drawings for the antenna module that sat on top of the hat truss I think I have those somewhere.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YqmfZ_t82g
 
Please repeat your analysis with footage taken from the east or west.
With all due respect Mendel, You haven't picked up on the very initial movements of the antenna that I am speaking about - you find me a fixed camera from either of the directions that you are asking for, and I will quite happily do that analysis for you.

There is a drop in the antenna that precedes the one that you guys have been discussing, and I would suggest you look at it more closely before rushing to dismiss and suggest angles from footages that don't exist from a fixed camera.
 
Look closely at 7 - 8 s on the second video I posted, you see it move down prior to the events you are referring to and discussing in this thread.
 
With all due respect Mendel, You haven't picked up on the very initial movements of the antenna that I am speaking about - you find me a fixed camera from either of the directions that you are asking for, and I will quite happily do that analysis for you.

There is a drop in the antenna that precedes the one that you guys have been discussing, and I would suggest you look at it more closely before rushing to dismiss and suggest angles from footages that don't exist from a fixed camera.
simply sync that with your video

as long as it's unclear what the rest of the building is doing at this time, your analysis means nothing

I doubt NIST didn't notice.
 
I would be delighted to do that if there were fixed camera footage from either of those sides. NIST only addressed the structural behaviours leading up to collapse, not the actual collapse, FEMA did pick up on it th
ough as I am sure you are all aware, and this was similarly conflated with the movement a few seconds later which is what you are doing also.
Here are the frames I am talking about...they precede the events that you are alluding to and discussing in this thread and are entirely relevant and need no other angle to confirm them, they are straight down and around 4ft drop.
 
You really do not need 2 angles to ascertain that at all for the context of the frames and structural movement I am showing you. This precedes the movement you are looking at prior to this post. FEMA did indeed see it as mentioned earlier.
You are conflating 2 different things - this moves down then stops with a jolt BEFORE it continues its descent.
That tells you this is a seperate movement of the antenna from the ones you have been discussing in this thread. If you don't want to see it, I can help you no more.
I'd suggest you take a look at the actual drawings for the building above floor 107 which I provided to you also.

Beyond that, this is not going to be productive, because you don't want to accept that this down - stop - then down again movement is entirely distinct and seperate to that which you have been discussing for goodness knows how long.
Structural Drawing Book 9 for Twin Towers, Floor 107 - 109 - https://archive.org/details/WTCI000031L/Drawing Book 9/WTCI-000031-L/page/n13/mode/2up

The antenna module sat atop the hat truss. I would have thought that a would be debunker would have tried to claim that this was simply the hat truss connections to the perimeter giving up. Strange. This is seperate and relevant, however you look at it, and whatever side of this debate you are on.
If you seriously don't see it and the strictural significance of this seperate event to this discussion, then I cannot help you further.
 
Yeah we are not goint to agree, because you are talking about the movement that came after the drop, then stop of the antenna.
I am talking about movement prior to that which you are, which you have not discussed in this thread before today - If i missed it - show me where it was mentioned - and I will apologise.
You don't and cannot see that drop and stop and the only close up of the antenna in this thread is after that, which is why I posted the close up of the antenna dropping then stopping to better inform your discussion.
Personally, if I were a debunker, I'd be questioning anyone who claimed publicly before now that there was a "missing jolt" in the North Towers descent.
The perimeter columns in the NW 2 way zone also do the same thing, but I am not going to get into that with you, for obvious reasons.

EDIT - for clarity - Tony, Richard, whoever.... missed this movement in the antenna before now - didn't see it. And at the risk of arming the other side, but in the prevailing interests of truth and clarity - I am pointing that out to you.

"missing jolt" ? Not any more there isn't.
 
Yeah we are not goint to agree, because you are talking about the movement that came after the drop, then stop of the antenna.
you need to establish that by syncing the roof movement from another angle with what you're trying to show

from the north, there is no way to tell whether the antenna is moving down by itself, or if the whole roof is tilting
 
you need to establish that by syncing the roof movement from another angle with what you're trying to show

from the north, there is no way to tell whether the antenna is moving down by itself, or if the whole roof is tilting
I know what you're getting at, what you're trying to say, triangulation and all that, seeing it from two different angles or more.
The fact remains that the roofline did not drop 3-4ft and then stop before it continued, from any angle - at the same time as the VERY FIRST movement in the antenna, which has not been discussed here or elsewhere thus far. The initial drop that I am showing you demonstrates that the building initiated in the core. When the antenna then moves to the NE slightly, the roofline then and only then follows it, from ANY angle.
From this fixed straight on angle however, the entirely offloaded severed perimeters on the North face do not drop at all and do not distort, other than columns 151, and 148-150 to a lesser extent.
The perimeter lines below the rooflineat 107, to which the hat truss is connected don't distort at the point of the pre descent antenna drop and jolt. FEMA were entirely correct in their report when they drew attention to this indicating that the failure initiated in the core, 100% and the lag time between the antenna then shifting NE and then the washer equipment on the roofline doing the same proves that, without any need for any other angles, or asking someone to sync a non fixed camera angle, which would prove nothing and add nothing to the topic.
The thread title assert this to be false and that claim is wrong, and I don't think would have been made here had the OP been fully aware of what FEMA had put forward.
If I can find the slide that FEMA had showing the actual timing of the movement that they were referring to I will post it, but this thread as per it's title, is false.
The antenna initially dropped before the roofline moved, and before the hat truss connections to the perimeter overstressed to their point of failure. End of.
 
Ill get you a capture of the hat truss connections in the SAP model, where you can see how it connected to the perimeter, which may help to clarify, along with the drawings...

Ignore the distorted structure, and look at the perimeter connections as the model looks at the truss and remember that these perimeters just a few floors below are entirely severed. If I get time, I will change the perimeter or truss connection colouring and redo it for further clarity.
Had to youtube it as the site didnt like the format

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbnEY3_k_i0
 
So what we are actually looking at, you could argue, is the hat truss connections not being severed, but approaching the failure point, the core generally losing its ability to redistribute to the perimeter through the truss, and the weakest core columns, directly beneath the antenna module, atop the hat truss failing first, hence the dropping of the antenna INDEPENDENTLY of the roofline, which is exactly what woyuld happen.
If the roofline moved along with it at that point, there would actually be a much much stronger case to point toward CD.
 
Can you share your analysis of the other angles?
If you can find me fixed cameras of them, I would be more than delighted to analyse that. I have looked and couldnt find anything that showed it suitably to demonstrate that.

If you or anyone on this thread can find any footage that shows ANY movement in ANY of the faces at that point where the antenna drops, then stops and then moves to the NE, then that would be great. But you wont because it doesnt.

FEMA were correct. And if you or anyone else finds footage that shows that the roofline dropped 3-4 feet at the same time the antenna did, that knocks a massive hole in the official account, so be my guest.
 
wtcantenna2.jpg
For perspective, heres a guy on the upper part of the antenna to give some idea of the proportions. The drop straight down, before it stops and then goes to the NE (left) as per our view, is prior to any movement you have been discussing here, and is the movement that FEMA were referring to, prior to any roofline movement.
They were correct.
 
If you look very closely here, you can see that the roofline does move NE (left as per this) after the antenna drop a,d antenna NE movement.
Again, FEMA were referring to this movement, before the roofline even flinches NE, and were correct to indicate that this suggests core initiation, the core being weaker than the perimeter should also tell you that.
It is a relatively small movement compared to the movements you have been discussing here, but is is relevant, and is to what FEMA were referring - they even made the point that they looked at it from different angles - but I don't have any idea of what footage other than this that they looked at.
IF the perimeters had moved at this same time, as the antenna drops 3-4 ft straight down, that would be game over for any notion of the official account.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPtTcLlh1gY
 
If you can find me fixed cameras of them, I would be more than delighted to analyse that. I have looked and couldnt find anything that showed it suitably to demonstrate that.

If you or anyone on this thread can find any footage that shows ANY movement in ANY of the faces at that point where the antenna drops, then stops and then moves to the NE, then that would be great. But you wont because it doesnt.

FEMA were correct. And if you or anyone else finds footage that shows that the roofline dropped 3-4 feet at the same time the antenna did, that knocks a massive hole in the official account, so be my guest.
You already claimed that every angle shows the movement you describe:

When the antenna then moves to the NE slightly, the roofline then and only then follows it, from ANY angle.

Did you not actually verify that before you made the claim?
 
You already claimed that every angle shows the movement you describe:



Did you not actually verify that before you made the claim?
I made this claim and the video illustrating it that I gave you quite a while ago, so yes. If the roofline were to move down 3-4 ft which the antenna did, before it stopped, then continued its descent, that would have been so noticable and structurally significant as to make it unthinkable that it wouldn't have been analysed by researchers and report wroters on every side of this debate. The fact that this very initial antenna drop is not detectable until one zooms in to it at the extent that I did indicates the lack of similar movement in the perimeter columns at the same time surely ?

The offloaded perimeter columns in particular would show distortion if that had been the case.

The point that I am making here is that the antenna movement which the thread IMO correctly identified as being a southwest tilt is not the movement that FEMA picked up on. The movement prior to that is what they noted as indicative of core failure, and correctly so.

There are structural implications for sure that are beyond the topic of this thread, distortion in column 155 for one thing.
So FEMA were correct, but to try and argue that they were not and use antenna movement that occurred after the movement that they were referring to is a genuine error I am sure, but misleading.

What you can see importantly is the antenna STOP after it initially moves and this is what has been crucially missed by many, and in this thread.

Straight question here for you - Do you see the antenna move down and then stop. and then continue to move down ?
(the stop is the crucial bit)
 
I made this claim and the video illustrating it that I gave you quite a while ago, so yes. If the roofline were to move down 3-4 ft which the antenna did, before it stopped, then continued its descent, that would have been so noticable and structurally significant as to make it unthinkable that it wouldn't have been analysed by researchers and report wroters on every side of this debate.
Are you talking about the video you posted in post #47 or is there another video you made? If you're saying that the angle of the building shown in that video is sufficient to determine that no portion of the roof was tilting/collapsing prior to the antenna movement, then that's one thing and we can evaluate that claim on the merits. But I understood that you were then going beyond that by claiming that other angles of the collapse showed the same thing. Now I understand you to be saying that you reached your conclusion re the other angles not by analyzing them as you did in the video you posted in post #47, but because, if it were otherwise, to you it is "unthinkable that it wouldn't have been analysed by researchers and report wroters on every side of this debate."

Maybe so, but maybe not. I'm coming to this debate without knowledge of what others wrote on this debate previously. It seems to me, however, that, for the reasons @Mendel stated, your argument as stated here cannot be proven without analyzing at least one additional angle of the collapse, so that seems like the right place to start unless you think there's something we're missing in the angle you provided that definitively rules out the type of motion of @Mendel described. If someone else has already done that, then it should be sufficient to draw from that analysis.
 
How relevant is any of this?

The Twin Towers fell because of uncontrolled fires caused by, and possibly an element of structural weakening resulting from, the impact of fuel-laden jet airliners. That these impacts happened is incontrovertible.
The organisation responsible, Al Qaeda, claimed responsibility, and never wavered from those claims, even when coming under direct military attack from the most powerful nation on Earth as a result.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that operatives from the "responsible" organisation were in physical control of the airliners at the time of the impacts. Those men left evidence, shortly before their actions on September 11 2001, that they were prepared to die in pursuit of Al Qaeda's goals.

There is no plausible domestic candidate for an attack of this type on the WTC, with the arguable possible exception of a wholly hypothetical, radicalised group believing that striking at big business and core American Federal institutions was warranted, along the lines of Timothy McVeigh's reasoning. There is no evidence that a sufficiently-well organised group of this type existed.
It is ironic (at least to me, not an American) that those inadequates who share McVeigh's pathetic lust to be heroes of their own immature narrative, where decent Americans and their children become "legitimate targets", so often seem to lurk in the 9-11 "truther" movement, blaming the government (or some agency thereof) for the attacks.

Any understanding of the spread of the fires, and the distribution of materials within the towers that might be flammable at any given temperature, are incompletely known and are after the event. Much of the evidence essential to a thorough understanding was lost in the subsequent collapses.
Airflow*- which can radically influence the oxygenation of fires, and the temperature achieved- is poorly understood because (1) we don't know, and probably never will know, the state of damage between floors (i.e. localised failure of floors/ceilings, the rising of hot air/ gases through elevator shafts and stairways) prior to the collapse; (2) while damage to exterior windows might be partially understood (notwithstanding the obscuring effects of smoke) from examination of contemporaneous film footage, we do not possess the necessary mathematical tools or computing power to model a dynamic real-world situation with so many multi-factorial unknowns.
We just don't. Doesn't matter who we pay, or what they promise. They can't overcome the combinatorial explosion that any attempt at modelling would encounter (unless we turn a blind eye to unsupported assumptions that would have to be made).

There is no material evidence that any act of sabotage of any description occurred in the WTC buildings. None at all.

It is undeniable that Al Qaeda terrorists flew fuel-laden airliners, and their passengers, into the Twin Towers (and the Pentagon; and Stonycreek, Pennsylvania, after acts of astonishing heroism from the passengers).
The Twin Towers collapsed as a result of these barbarous pre-meditated acts of cruelty.


** And the flow of any other gases/ volatiles liberated by great heat
 
Are you talking about the video you posted in post #47 or is there another video you made? If you're saying that the angle of the building shown in that video is sufficient to determine that no portion of the roof was tilting/collapsing prior to the antenna movement, then that's one thing and we can evaluate that claim on the merits. But I understood that you were then going beyond that by claiming that other angles of the collapse showed the same thing. Now I understand you to be saying that you reached your conclusion re the other angles not by analyzing them as you did in the video you posted in post #47, but because, if it were otherwise, to you it is "unthinkable that it wouldn't have been analysed by researchers and report wroters on every side of this debate."

Maybe so, but maybe not. I'm coming to this debate without knowledge of what others wrote on this debate previously. It seems to me, however, that, for the reasons @Mendel stated, your argument as stated here cannot be proven without analyzing at least one additional angle of the collapse, so that seems like the right place to start unless you think there's something we're missing in the angle you provided that definitively rules out the type of motion of @Mendel described. If someone else has already done that, then it should be sufficient to draw from that analysis.
The video that I posted is enough to say exactly what is going on between the antenna drop and the North face obviously. This thread was quite clearly started without the realisation that FEMA had made the claim about the antenna moving independently of the roofline, and not those who question the official narrative, which has left some in a quandry. FEMA also stated that they had analysed the tower from various angles in order to make that claim as already stated here.

The point of the video that I posted is to show that when looked at very closely, the antenna moves straight down 3-4ft prior to the movement which is accompanied by a tilt Southward in the structure which includes the South face, which viewed from the North can give the impression that the antenna moved significantly without any movement in the roofline - (this is actually in large part due to the already inward bowing South face IMO)
There was movement in the antenna before that point though, which is the movement that is shown in the video that I posted, and was the antenna movement that FEMA were referring to when they said this indicated core failure, and not the movement that this thread has focussed on.

That the antenna moves down and then jolts to a stop before continuing its descent is key to understanding what FEMA were referring to. The movement AFTER that initial drop is accompanied by the tilt Southward and is not independent of roofline movement - FEMA are not daft enough not to have spotted that and were referring to the initial drop that has went unnoticed by many, and has not until now formed part of the discussion in this thread.
It does have structural signifcance beyond the topic of this thread for sure, but as far as this thread is concerned, should have been considered. It may seem like an insignificant detail to some, but it was important enough for FEMA to cite the core as being the place where the collapse initiated, and I am sure they did not make that claim lightly without checking other angles, which they say they did.
The antenna moved down at initiation which indicates core failure, and the claim in the thread title is wrong.

I did ask if you could see it move down and then stop before it continues its descent. The STOP is what is significant structurally and also draws the line between independent movement down and movement South along with the structure, which is what has caused the confusion for some here.

FEMA were correct in what they said.
 
... in "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations" (FEMA 403), January 2002, page 2-27
Chapter 2: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
Full report: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/fema_403_2002.zip

External Quote:
Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. This is consistent with the observations of debris patterns from the 91st floor, previously discussed. This is also supported by preliminary evaluation of the load carrying capacity of these columns, discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.2.2. The core columns were not designed to resist wind loads and, therefore, had less reserve capacity than perimeter columns. As some exterior and core columns were damaged by the aircraft impact, the outrigger trusses at the top of the building shifted additional loads to the remaining core columns, further eroding the available factor of safety. This would have been particularly significant in the upper portion of the damaged building. In this region, the original design load for the core columns was less than at lower floors, and the column sections were relatively light. The increased stresses caused by the aircraft impact could easily have brought several of these columns close to their ultimate capacity, so that relatively little additional effects due to fire would have been required to initiate the collapse. Once movement began, the entire portion of the building above the area of impact fell in a unit, pushing a cushion of air below it. As this cushion of air pushed through the impact area, the fires were fed by new oxygen and pushed outward, creating the illusion of a secondary explosion.

FEMA were entirely correct in their report when they drew attention to this indicating that the failure initiated in the core,
but they do not state that antenna fell separately; they say the upper portion fell as a unit
 
Ignore the distorted structure
Sorry, but I can't.

I tried to find the right words, so to not incur the risk of gratuitously offending you, and to not risk falling into the trap of lack of constructivism, but I'm no Eric Weinstein vs Terrence Howard. So, please excuse my French, but this has to be one of the crappiest meshes I have seen.

1732082643372.png

1732082620093.png


I'm only commenting because, based on your youtube channel history and the passion you show in some of your videos, you've been obsessed with this for over 11 years; however, your modelling skills are stuck at the first month pressing random buttons in FEA software. It seems to me that you've got a case of Dunning-Kruger effect in civil engineering.

There is no other way of putting this, but the reality is that the collapse of the towers is beyond your knowledge, skillset and technical level by orders of magnitude. This is a multidisciplinary problem between civil engineers, mechanical engineers, and FEA specialists from both backgrounds, actively collaborating with each other, and with access to more physical information about the event than you will ever have from your armchair across the globe. This is a job easily in the tens of thousands of collective professional hours.

No simplified model will ever provide a definitive conclusion. Moreover, no complex model on its own will do it either without proper calibration against known actual data from the buildings, from the collapse, lab tests, physical models, and independent replication.

No unchecked/unverified work will do. But you are on your own without peer review. So, this is a nonstarter. If your objective was to learn about the subject, without any bias, out of passion for the field of engineering, then you would find plenty of people willing to help you acquire the skills. But the only thing you are achieving is using your own bias to press buttons which produce results that convince you more of your own bias, and your non-technical audience will cheer you along the way, passionately pushing you deeper into the +12th year.

I know you are familiar with the NIST report. I mention it to serve as a reality check against the model you have produced so far. I understand you are going for the Reduced Global Model on page 67, but that model was not born first out of thin air, it was part of an intricate process, and unlike yours, that model does not exist on its own, it requires the detailed shell models, all the analyses carried out with them and independent verification:

Source for the images below: https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/04/28/June2004BaselineStructuralAnalysisPrint.pdf

1732086389106.png

1732084542773.png

1732086689353.png
 
Sorry, but I can't.

I tried to find the right words, so to not incur the risk of gratuitously offending you, and to not risk falling into the trap of lack of constructivism, but I'm no Eric Weinstein vs Terrence Howard. So, please excuse my French, but this has to be one of the crappiest meshes I have seen.

View attachment 73390
View attachment 73389

I'm only commenting because, based on your youtube channel history and the passion you show in some of your videos, you've been obsessed with this for over 11 years; however, your modelling skills are stuck at the first month pressing random buttons in FEA software. It seems to me that you've got a case of Dunning-Kruger effect in civil engineering.

There is no other way of putting this, but the reality is that the collapse of the towers is beyond your knowledge, skillset and technical level by orders of magnitude. This is a multidisciplinary problem between civil engineers, mechanical engineers, and FEA specialists from both backgrounds, actively collaborating with each other, and with access to more physical information about the event than you will ever have from your armchair across the globe. This is a job easily in the tens of thousands of collective professional hours.

No simplified model will ever provide a definitive conclusion. Moreover, no complex model on its own will do it either without proper calibration against known actual data from the buildings, from the collapse, lab tests, physical models, and independent replication.

No unchecked/unverified work will do. But you are on your own without peer review. So, this is a nonstarter. If your objective was to learn about the subject, without any bias, out of passion for the field of engineering, then you would find plenty of people willing to help you acquire the skills. But the only thing you are achieving is using your own bias to press buttons which produce results that convince you more of your own bias, and your non-technical audience will cheer you along the way, passionately pushing you deeper into the +12th year.

I know you are familiar with the NIST report. I mention it to serve as a reality check against the model you have produced so far. I understand you are going for the Reduced Global Model on page 67, but that model was not born first out of thin air, it was part of an intricate process, and unlike yours, that model does not exist on its own, it requires the detailed shell models, all the analyses carried out with them and independent verification:

Source for the images below: https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/04/28/June2004BaselineStructuralAnalysisPrint.pdf

View attachment 73397
View attachment 73395
View attachment 73398
First of all, the deformed shape is because of the floor load that simulation has on it - secondly, this model is the SAP2000 model that was used, I believe in the Silverstein case, and quite possibly by NIST - I have checked the elements in it and they are exact to the drawings, also from NIST.
So you seriously are saying that the model there shows a lack of skill - do you realise just how much you just put your foot in your mouth ? Seriously.

EDIT - when extruded this 110 storey model looks great. I am stunned at you slagging off a SAP2000 model that probably took a whole team of guys a long time to create back in 2004. Would you like a copy of it to check ?

You seriously thought that I produced a 110 storey model of the North Tower in SAP2000 back in 2004 - I think that says enough about your knowledge of the topic - You just shot yourself right in the foot.
 
"your modelling skills are stuck at the first month pressing random buttons in FEA software"

You didn't realise whos model it was or who did it, or just how accurate the elements in it are. And to state that on the basis of a mesh output of a FE model is ridiculous, and yes entirely offensive - but not to me. To the team of highly skilled, and obviously very well connected and well informed professional engineers who put it together in 2004 - when NOBODY else had access to the structural drawing books - which only became avaliable in 2019 - and to which this model is entirely accurate.
Just WOW
 
Clearly, it wasn't the antenna that overloaded the core columns, it was the weight of the unsupported parts hanging off the hat truss, which increased steadily as the facade buckled.

Can you please explain how, as the core columns fail, the antenna tower drops, while the rest of the top of the building stays suspended in place in a Wile E. Coyote moment?

 
"but that model was not born first out of thin air, it was part of an intricate process, and unlike yours, that model does not exist on its own"

Would you like a copy of the model, and the floor model too ?

I think you have issues with me clearly, but you do understand that this is a full 110 storey model of the tower from 2004 right ?

And you just slagged off the team who did it, and said they had no clue what they were doing ? I think it's clear who does and doesn't know what they are up to here. I'd suggest one of the senior members deletes your comment for you and saves your blushes.

Have a go at me by all means, but try to bring a shred of intelectual rigour when you do. And maybe think before you post - again - this SAP2000 full model of the tower was produced in 2004, and you can check the log file in it if you like.
That is actually quite hilarious, but I am offended on behalf of the obviousy highly talented team that it must have taken to put this model togetyher, and i feel kind of sorry for you, making that kind of comment.

EDIT - "deformation" refers to the fact that the model is set to "show deformed shape" and display the deformation coloured as per the chart to the right of the model. Actually quite a nasty comment you made there - but you shot yourself right in the foot, and missed me by a mile.
 
Back
Top