Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
SanderO wrote:When a structure tilts as a result of the loss of a significant number of columns and it remains supported at a line of columns which represent the "virtual hinge" those columns will see all the axial loads formerly carried by the full set of columns.
The moment connections from the beams will see increases in loads and rotation. Depending on the safety factor of those connections, they will fail or support the unsupported "side" now performing as a cantilever.
For the structure to tilt a whole bunch of facade columns need to be pushed away, or buckled, not to mention a fair amount of core columns... while to begin the rotation a whole bunch of columns need to remain a bit to act as the hinge location.
Major_Tom wrote:Your approach is of a 2-D perimeter face? It's a 2-D grid, like a grid body comprised of small connections between adjacent points?
What is the plan for tweaking this into a simplified WTC model?
It's my opinion that most all discussion about hinges and tilting to this point have been too clumsy. Too many global assumptions. Your system has no global assumptions, and that is good. It may be the beginning of the first really good study on the subject we have seen.
Even in it's current form it is similar to the east or west perimeter of WTC1. It's just a grid, or a sheet.
It would be interesting to apply the same 2-D grid to a cross-section through the center of a tower. The OOS regions would have a modified grid to match their characteristics.
One of the strange things about early WTC1 movement is how a south perimeter failure could rip down the core with very little tilt. There is about 65 ft of OOS that has no vertical supports, so how south wall failure could translate so quickly into total core failure is one of the great mysteries of our times.
Major_Tom wrote:The truth being, my friends, there are no rigid blocks, only rigid minds.
It's a bit of an insane idea, that the "upper block" would "tilt rigidly".
It is more natural to talk in terms of deformity, and specifically convex or concave roofline deformity or the deformation of a perimeter sheet, than of rigid tilt.
It's interesting to think about how that ridiculous idea entered the debate. From where?
The physics and geometry used in WTC research is so bad, really. So 18th century, with blocks and magic "zone B" and rigid tilts and a bunch of absurd over-simplifications.
I think the trick for us is to rise above the 18th century mindset and try to solve real problems like this one, maybe for the first time.
SanderO wrote:DId the roof and hat truss tilt sufficiently to move the CG of the antenna enough for it to rip itself from its "moorings" and continue to fall over the side (south) or did it remain secured to the hat truss and the whole bit tilted right over?
Is there any theory proposed about the mechanism associated with the tilting over the side antenna... or is this not been worked out you?
OneWhiteEye wrote:It's more a matter of certain types of deformation, like core slump, being verboten.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests