• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Failure mode in WTC towers

twinstead said:
Yea. 'cause we all know that if it's not on video, it's not real, right?
Click to expand...

You are not seriously going to claim these light flashes I have circled on still photograph are compression artifacts are you?

wtcsmall1060uo8oo1.jpg
 
Do you think there are any alternate explanations for them, or are you married to...what exactly are you married to, anyway?

What do you think was going on internally during the collapse?
 
twinstead said:
Do you think there are any alternate explanations for them...
Click to expand...

You mean explanations other than that they are compression artifacts?

Of course, I think it is pretty obvious that these flashes of light are not compression artifacts.
 
bofors said:
You mean explanations other than that they are compression artifacts?

Of course, I think it is pretty obvious that these flashes of light are not compression artifacts.
Click to expand...

Okay. What are they and why do you imply they are nefarious?
 
bofors said:
Is that your explanation for the flashes in this video too?:

Click to expand...
Why don't you find a non-YouTube version of the same video and compare? Do you not have any idea of the lousy resolution and quality of YouTube videos as compared to broadcast-quality video?
 
bofors said:
Is that your explanation for the flashes in this video too?:

Click to expand...

I do see a lot of video/compression artifacts throughout the video that looks very similar to what we can see in the other video I posted. In addition all bright areas in the video are overexposed to the point of washing out all details.

But I assume you are referring to the bright white overexposed smoke that appears at about 20 seconds into the video down on the face of WTC 1. That is smoke from streamers falling from the burning area higher up, the smoke shines up brightly and becomes visible in the video when the streamers falls in to the sunlight between the lower part of the towers. The streamers were were most likely formed by burning polyurethane used for thermal isolation.

Se NIST NCSTAR 1-5A paragraph 5.2 and figure 5.7 for more details, and if you search for "streamer" in the document you will se that streamers are mentioned numerous times.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Actually, the failure mode was generally compression. However for people to understand that they would need a more general knowledge of what buckling really is. The elementary assumptions that each columns is perfectly straight just prior to a compressive failure is a good thing for simplifying the math involved, but it is fundamentally flawed for trying to determine the bending stresses in the column. Yes, the column has failed - in the traditional engineering terminology in which the column has reached a maximum axial stress and starts to decline - but the splices will fail in bending.
Click to expand...
OK, please bear with me, been some years since my last Mat Sci and Str Mat courses.

The buckling I am thinking of has as its origin not solely compression load, but a change in material character due to thermal stress. (One of the guys made a big energy strain based argument a few months back that I simply am not up to scratch enough to address.)

While I do not have any argument that splices are the most useful failure zone to discuss, I am comfortable with the reality that the chain of events leading to buckling is anything but simple.

Perhaps my problem in following you here is that I frame "buckling" in terms Euler's column theory, the basics, and have in my mind mostly a vertical load driven with homogeneous material, and I then look at the evidence (buckling) that the column failing is most certainly not a homogenous material any more, due to profound thermal stress. (Or was it strain? Brain rusty, creep strain, thermal creep, all mixing in the head at the moment.)

So, with that in mind, I look at a deformed column as no longer being in a compression mode, but, thanks to the buckle and the load still being vertical, in a local cantilever type deformation/failure scenario.

Hmmmm.

Maybe what you are trying to tell me is that buckling is, outside of the lab, a combination and devolves to shear before failure?
I have said generally compression, it was probably also alot of pure bending. Columns, stripped of their diaphragm supports, being pushed outwards by impacting debris.
Click to expand...
I was trying to address the main members that had kneed (per photographs clearly showing that) due to heat and load combined stress/material change.

Anyway, thanks to you and Greg U for making me think.

DR
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Okay. What are they and why do you imply they are nefarious?
Click to expand...

Well, I am not 100% convinced that all of these flashes of light represent the same phenomena, put it certainly appears that way. Furthermore, I still am somewhat dumbfounded by the spatial-temporal coincidence of 175 impact and these flashes because I had never seen this particular anomaly before:

lightsouthyy5.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJig1wj7oLI

It really stretches my imagination to think that whoever was orchestrating 9/11 was setting off some kind of explosive devices immediately prior to the impact of 175 in almost the exact region of impact in the South tower, but that is what it appears to be.

Compression artifacts really are not that bad of an explanation for this particular video, but they do not believe they are and I think I can prove they are not.
 
bofors said:
Well, I am not 100% convinced that all of these flashes of light represent the same phenomena, put it certainly appears that way. Furthermore, I still am somewhat dumbfounded by the spatial-temporal coincidence of 175 impact and these flashes because I had never seen this particular anomaly before:

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4778/lightsouthyy5.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJig1wj7oLI

It really stretches my imagination to think that whoever was orchestrating 9/11 was setting off some kind of explosive devices immediately prior to the impact of 175 in almost the exact region of impact in the South tower, but that is what it appears to be.
Click to expand...


When you were young and had great dreams, could you have possibly imagined that you would someday be reduced to this?


bofors said:
Compression artifacts really are not that bad of an explanation for this particular video, but they do not believe they are and I think I can prove they are not.
Click to expand...


To present yourself as a blithering idiot on behalf of a truly evil cause--what can the appeal be? Seriously.
 
bofors said:
You are not seriously going to claim these light flashes I have circled on still photograph are compression artifacts are you?

[qimg]http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2299/wtcsmall1060uo8oo1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Have you thought of the possibility that does "flashes" are burning/glowing debris ejected from the burning floors when the tower collapsed. Because that is what they most likely are.

More to see here:
http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/
 
A request for MT-MIHOP, summarized

Major Tom,

Discussions of demolition beyond collapse initiation - that is, demolition during collapse progression - now spans at least four recent threads, some of which are pretty long.

Would you kindly present your model - MT-MIHOP - in it's most compressed form. Bulleted propositions - statements, not questions - would be nice. Two or three sentences would be really nice.

For example...

MAX-MIHOP:
  1. Heat-weakening - amplified by thermite planted at splices - initiated the collapse of the WTC towers; gravity did the rest;
  2. Jets laden with fuel generated ambiguity-reducing deception that bewildered the experts into being certain, decisive and wrong that the fires were solely jet-induced;
  3. This certainty precluded an arson investigation, which in effect cloaked the arson.
Or, even sexier...

MAX-MIHOP => JETS - SFRM + FIRES2 = COLLAPSE INITIATION


Can you provide a similarly simplified version of MT-MIHOP?

Thanks.


Max
 
Last edited:
Max Photon said:
Major Tom,

Discussions of demolition beyond collapse initiation - that is, demolition during collapse progression - now spans at least four recent threads, some of which are pretty long.

Would you kindly present your model - MT-MIHOP - in it's most compressed form. Bulleted propositions - statements, not questions - would be nice. Two or three sentences would be really nice.

For example...

MAX-MIHOP:
  1. Heat-weakening - amplified by thermite planted at splices - initiated the collapse of the WTC towers; gravity did the rest;
  2. Jets laden with fuel generated ambiguity-reducing deception that bewildered the experts into being certain, decisive and wrong that the fires were solely jet-induced;
  3. This certainty precluded an arson investigation, which in effect cloaked the arson.
Can you provide a similarly simplified version of MT-MIHOP?

Thanks.


Max
Click to expand...


Stop lying. There is no evidence for the use of thermite at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. How did your imaginary conspiracy know what floors the plane would hit?

Oh, Max, by the way...

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

Run, sucka, run!
 
Last edited:
TheRedWorm said:
Ok, go ahead.
Click to expand...

This contain a compilation of other videos from similar perspectives but I see no evidence of the same flashs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJXfIOEQB8M

Unless some other evidence turns to support the existence of those particular flashes, I guess I am going leave be unexplained video anomalies.

The reason I do not think they are simple compression artifacts are:

(1) They are not "interference pattern" type effects, where the length scale of the image features is near that of the size of a pixel or the compression algorithm sampling length.

(2) The output of the compression algorithm should be the same up and down the length of the tower, so artifacts should not be vertically localized.

(3) Compression artifacts should not be in sharp contrast to surrounding pixels, in this case brighter, rather they should be near average contrast of the surrounding pixels.

But again, at this point I writing these particular flashes off to some kind of unknown video anomaly because I do not see them reproduced in the video compilation I linked above.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom