Ozzie's drawing is 1D and does not properly represent...
Wanna bet?
The main conceptual and reasoning problems you face JSander are:
1) I have put before you a principle and as a principle it is correct;
2) The next step is to apply that principle to WTC Twins;
3) You ignore the point I made and dive into detailed presumptions which support your personal pre-conception;
4) You then attempt to use your preconception to rebut my explanation of a principle;
5) You fail because my principle is correct. The real conclusion therefore should be that your presumption is wrong. (or your reasoning);
5) Your argument structure is attempting to work up from pre-decided details and that approach doesn't work. And, BTW, that is is the standard process of faulty logic routinely employed by truthers. I accept that you are not one;
Let me take one or two points and explain. (Unfortunately doing this requires moving into engineering reasoning - but a step short of needing numerical analysis)
(At this stage
) :
the load redistribution because the 3D Hat Truss moment frame1. It's more likely2 that the hat truss evenly redistributed3 the loads to all remaining columns it was bearing on4... including the weakest5 ones in the center under the antenna6...which were the first to let go7... probably because they were directly axially aligned with the 360 ton antenna load8.
1) My explanation clearly referred to the whole top structure - initially treating it as rigid then, stage two recognising flexibility. The hat truss is part of that top section structure. So what part it plays does not change what I said. Drop it out of your thinking until we or you reach the stage where you can legitimately bring it into consideration. We are not at that point. Yet.
2) Personal prejudgement which you use to support the following bit of reasoning. Both are wrong.
3) Nothing evenly redistributed AND nothing was evenly redistributed. That is the central point of my explanatory model. Which you have seen before. So step one is to accept/reason/understand why that explanatory simplified model is correct. Because it is a building block of reasoned understanding. And WTC 9/11 Real collapse needs a lot of those building blocks assembled into one explanation.
4) We are not discussing what the hat truss was bearing on. We are discussing the interface between the Top Block and the impact zone>>lower tower. Your presumption about the Hat Truss is leading you off the line of reasoning.
5) "Weakest" is an undefined concept. Irrelevant to my explanatory model. But, worse, it is not defined for WTC real 9/11. Whether or not you are right about "weakest" what are you saying is weakest? Are you talking about "weakest" applying to a single column? Several columns? The whole of the core?"
6) Yes there were columns "in the centre" which positioned them "under the antenna" BUT any inference beyond that fact is not supported at this stage of either my explanation or your implied claim.
7) I am aware of strong evidence from reliable measures that core collapsed first. That aspect is not relevant to my explanation at this stage. If you need it to build a robust claim I would accept it as a legitimate element of a reasoned claim - subject to verification if the claim relied on it AND was faced by a counter claim.
8) A very dubious assumption. BUT the key flaw is that your own claim rebuts it. You cannot have the hat truss "evenly redistributing" AND "antenna loads directly on core" in the same argument. Those two are mutually incompatible.
...The tower did not tip toward the plane would putting the south façade in tension....
Somewhat unclear to put it mildly. BUT you started your post by disagreeing with my explanation of a principle. Yuo seem to have swapped horses. At this stage my explanation has not progressed to full consideration of the real 9/11 event. And we don't have a coherent overall explanation from you. So whatever your point is it is moot.
...Looks like nonsense and a reductionist (mis)understanding of what was happening to the loads.
I take that to mean "It
looks to me, JSanderO, like nonsense..etc.."
Great. We need to build your understanding. The only disappointment being that so far you have not taken my first stage explanation on board.
Meanwhile, for any other members who may be thinking 'Ozeco has posted "nonsense and a reductionist (mis)understanding"' don't get too excited. It is a long time since I made a fundamental error at this basic level of engineering. HOWEVER that only applies to what I actually post. Not what people misrepresent me as posting.
And thanks to JSanderO - opportunities to work through real engineering issues are rare these days.
