• 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.

OOS Collapse Propagation Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
femr2:
I'm getting the impression from your last two post that you agree that the video resolution is not good enough to do any real authoritative analysis.

Am I correct in this assumption?
I think the features tracing methods developed are suitable for very accurate analysis of movement as small as a few inches. Whether you think that is authoritative is subjective, but there has not been analysis of such accurate data in the past.

Video resolution is fine, especially for footage such as sauret. It is the technical tracing method that ensures the resultant data accuracy.

For the purpose of this thread discussion, more than adequate.
 
Last edited:
I think the features tracing methods developed are suitable for very accurate analysis of movement as small as a few inches. Whether you think that is authoritive is subjective, but there has not been analysis of such accurate data in the past.

Video resolution is fine, especially for footage such as sauret. It is the technical tracing method that ensures the resultant data accuracy.

For the purpose of this thread discussion, more than adequate.
Why wouldn't modeling be better (giving the current state of understanding in structural engineering)?
 
Why wouldn't modeling be better (giving the current state of understanding in structural engineering)?

Tracing is direct from the actual event.

If, for example, the NIST WTC 1 study released accurate positional data for the four corners of the upper block of suitable framerate (at least 25fps, preferably 59.94fps) then it would be easy to rotoscope a 3D model over, say, the sauret footage to check it's validity.

Such data is not available.

Other models such as the NIST WTC 7 full building animations bear so little semblance to reality as to make them utterly useless for our purposes.

The tracing method allows accurate determination of relative feature movements, from the actual footage of the actual event.

With such data it is relatively straightforward to determine, for example, the time between *release* of the SW and NW buildng corners.

If the results of tracing and other models tally up, fine, if not...
 
Am just trying to determine whether your t0 starts at impact or not. I have a feeling you'll put t0 there, even though the graph above shows effectively zero movement until ~3.5s into the dataset. If there was a 20 minute long version of the sauret footage, I'd do a 20 minute trace, but sadly...

Without that, the miniscule potential *creep* (which is likely to be *0* at the NW corner in any case) cannot be detected.

I'd put t0 at the point where vertical movement approaches zero, taking noise levels into account.


If the argument you're preparing does not hinge on the precise time at which the corner started moving, then there's nothing wrong with placing t0 at 3.5 or 3.75 seconds as a convenient reference point.

However, if you're planning an argument that does hinge on the corner being proven to have been absolutely motionless up until the designated t0 point at 3.5 seconds or whenever, you're not going to be able to support it with that data. It's not at all implausible that the first inch of movement due to gravitational descent e.g. the beginning of buckling (disregarding any movement caused purely by thermal phenomena) could have spanned an entire second, or ten seconds or more. I can carefully "balance" a broom on its handle on the floor, and it will begin falling over right away but it may take between one and five seconds to move the first inch. More massive things tend to start moving more slowly. Would a minute be out of the question? I can't answer that.

So, time to move on to the next point? We can always re-examine any crucial underlying assumptions or inferences later, if there's any question about whether they're sufficiently justified or supported by the evidence.

Thanks for the information about the velocity line. You've convinced me to ignore it. :)

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
If the argument you're preparing does not hinge on the precise time at which the corner started moving, then there's nothing wrong with placing t0 at 3.5 or 3.75 seconds as a convenient reference point.
More on the relative difference between separate feature traces, so as long as the same criteria (or very similar) is applied to definition of each trace t0, I don't think there should be a problem.

So, time to move on to the next point?
Fine by me. Given queries about the enclosed graph, which was reused from a separate purpose, I'll spend some time regenerating trace graphs in a consistent format. Will take a bit of time which is in short shrift at t'mo.
 
If the results of tracing and other models tally up, fine, if not...

Then what? Wouldn't you then have to show how the structural modeling is actually in error? Wouldn't you then have to model it yourselves to validate your position that is is actually feasible to replicate the results (as viewed in real life) in the virtual world?

Looks to me you guys are going about this ass-back-wards. Why not just do the engineering to prove your right instead of spending so much time trying to prove NIST wrong? I think then someone might pay attention.
 
Wouldn't you then have to model it yourselves to validate your position that is is actually feasible to replicate the results (as viewed in real life) in the virtual world?
Depends on what is being looked at.

For instance, by tracing the position changes of the building corners (and other features) it's possible to calculate various metrics about the building movements through initiation to early descent. Metrics such as the angle at which *tilt* progresses to *vertical drop* can be determined. These metrics are not dependant upon the butterfly effect of thousands of separate element state changes within an FEA system, which can veer almost tangentially from a *correct* solution due to the most miniscule parameter change at a single point in time during the simulation. The metrics are *absolute* (within appropriate measurement tolerances).

It is looking at the event from the *other end*, but is not, in my opinion, the *wrong* end.

If you want to feel more comfortable about it, treat it as a way to validate and confirm the engineering results.
 
If you want to feel more comfortable about it, treat it as a way to validate and confirm the engineering results.

I have never had a problem with examining the results seven different way from Sunday. Just remember before making claims your results must also pass the same scrutiny.

Good Luck.
 
Thanks for the response. Bit short on time, so I'll respond in chunks...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/378476413.png[/qimg]

Axes drop(ft)/time(s) - The smooth(ish) curve is NW corner.

I can of course *zoom in* on the vertical axis if it helps.

(The wobbly graph is velocity, but we can ignore that in this context)

As I understand it, you're determining the tilt of the building at which the final failure occurs by matching timings from footage from different angles ( the Sauret footage being almost directly north and showing the final failure).

Which footage are you using for east or west to determine the angle at that time, what resolution is it and how does that graph demonstrate your derived angle?

Posting in chunks may not help your case.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, you're determining the tilt of the building at which the final failure occurs by matching timings from footage from different angles ( the Sauret footage being almost directly north and showing the final failure).
Almost. Each piece of footage is traced in isolation, the metrics derived, and then correlated with the other views to try and refine the data. For example, sauret features include the antenna. Relative differences between NW corner, Washer and Antenna features can be traced to determine one set of metrics. Rigid body is not assumed. Other angles have other traceable features better suited to determine that angle, but reference to the high resolution data extractable from sauret helps synchronise.

Which footage are you using for east or west to determine the angle at that time, what resolution is it and how does that graph demonstrate your derived angle?
I'll include such specifics as I present each set of traces. Not sue I've put the specific video instances used up anywhere. Posting link to a version of the same footage is a bit pointless at the mo.

There's stuff to do before posting, so bear with me.

Posting in chunks may not help your case.
No matter. Time constraints don't allow too much in one go, and I prefer feedback step at a time anyway.
 
Myriad writes: If the argument you're preparing does not hinge on the precise time at which the corner started moving, then there's nothing wrong with placing t0 at 3.5 or 3.75 seconds as a convenient reference point.

However, if you're planning an argument that does hinge on the corner being proven to have been absolutely motionless up until the designated t0 point at 3.5 seconds or whenever, you're not going to be able to support it with that data. It's not at all implausible that the first inch of movement due to gravitational descent e.g. the beginning of buckling (disregarding any movement caused purely by thermal phenomena) could have spanned an entire second, or ten seconds or more. I can carefully "balance" a broom on its handle on the floor, and it will begin falling over right away but it may take between one and five seconds to move the first inch. More massive things tend to start moving more slowly. Would a minute be out of the question? I can't answer that."

I agree. That is why defining a t=0 point is not so useful.

All drop data will contain a "release point" as I mentioned earlier. A release point can be identified from drop data. It may be hard to identify looking at the position drop data but it is clear where it is if you look at the velocity graph.

Same as your example with the potato bag. t=0 makes no sense with the potato bag but it will have a natural release point.

Movement before the release point may be drifting, leaning, sagging, creeping or whatever. It is not falling at a significant percent of freefall, yet like the potato bag it may be slowly moving in time.

The traced point will begin to fall at a significant percent of gravitational freefall only after the release point.


Defining t=0 is artificial. A release point is natural. A release point is a natural transition between "creeping" and "falling". In the graph femr posted, if you try to locate the release point looking at the position data it will be difficult to find it. But if you look at the velocity curve, the release point becomes obvious.
 
Last edited:
Evidence for bolted connections for all core column H beams in the WTC1 collapse initiation region:


From NIST NCSTAR 1-1C
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf


From pg 48 of a WTC1 inspection

Core corner columns inspected from office area floors—Core corner columns were inspected at all four corners of the 92nd to 93rd floors and at three corners at the 77th to 78th floors. All seven locations were inspected by removing the five or more layers of gypsum wallboard around the splice locations, which were 3 ft 0 in. above the finished floor level.
On the 92nd to 93rd floors, all four splices were bolted connections. No defects were found at any of the bolted splices. Welded splices were found at all three locations on the 77th to 78th floors, and were tested using the dye penetrant method. Results from the tests showed that there were no surface cracks in the welds. Steel plates, bolts, and welds that were visible were found to have only light surface corrosion.



Pg 39
Core columns inspected from office area floors—Quality Assurance personnel inspected core corner columns at eight splice locations (see Table B6 in the survey report for locations). Seven of the splices were welded, and the welds were tested using the ultrasonic and magnetic particle methods. The eighth Chapter 3 Draft for Public Comment 40 NIST NCSTAR 1-1C, WTC Investigation
location was a bolted splice connection. No defects were found in any of the welded splices. Steel
columns exhibited light surface corrosion, as did the bolted splice on the bolts and splice plates.


The pg 48 quote verifies that all four corner columns on floor 92 were bolted, not welded.


We can also look at the NIST steel inventory for bolted splice plates. From NIST NCSTAR 1-3B:

fig_3_12_d.JPG

C-65 (s-8) (904A: 86–89) and C-60. Notice the remains of bolted splice plates at the ends of the H beams. (left click to see the full image)

fig_3_12_e.JPG


fig_3_12_g.JPG

g) C-155 (904A: 83–86), notice the splice plate and bolts at the far end.

fig_3_12__h.JPG

h) HH (605A: 98–101), This splice plate is from the 98th floor of WTC1. It is held to each beam by only 4 bolts in each plate.

fig_3_13_c.JPG

c) C-30 (1008B: 104–106)

1278210559_fig_A_5.JPG


fig_A_8_1.JPG

C-65

fig_A_8_2.JPG

C-80 (WTC1 603A, 92-95), notice the bolt holes.

fig_A_9_1.JPG
Left click to see the full image. The same column below:

fig_A_9_2.JPG

C-42(?)

From the NIST steel inventory and excerpts from an inspection report we know that the following CC connections are bolted splices:

The 4 core corner columns 501, 508, 1001 on the 92nd floor and

1008 on the 92, 104 and 106 floors

904 on the 83, 86 and 89 floors

605 on the 98th floor

603 on the 92 and 95th floors


and we see no evidence of welded H beam connections above the 86th floor. It is reasonable to assume that all H beam connections in the collapse initiation area of WTC1 were bolted splice connections.

From the available literature we discovered that there is a horizontal plane on the 98th floor right through the core where all core columns naturally break in two if the connecting bolts are removed. Every 114+ story core column is already "cut" at the 98th floor. All one need do is remove the top bolt connectors and push the top part over a little, taking advantage of existing "cuts" by manipulating (removable) bolt connections.
 
fig_A_9_2.JPG

.... All one need do is remove the top bolt connectors and push the top part over a little, taking advantage of existing "cuts" by manipulating (removable) bolt connections.
Your moronic CD delusion is proved wrong with your own photos. Failure is presenting evidence which disproves your delusions on 911. Happy 4th, you have failed for 8 years, what will you do for an encore? What a waste! Good thing you have not put any real work into 911 issues.

You have proved your delusional conclusion of CD is wrong, and are getting closer to understanding gravity. Work on fire and steel and you might figure out 911. What is your engineering degree in and which prestigious school is so proud of your delusional work on 911?

Thank goodness for wifi, 3g, iphones, etc; one can see your nonsense anywhere in the world and comment while you fail to make progress on 911; 8 years of failure. Your paper is like Heiwa's work.

Thank goodness for speech recognition and spell check.

No evidence of CD; just a few fringe delusion believers.
 
Regarding his qualifications,I believe that Major Tom once owned a Tinkertoy set.
 
Are you trying to suggest that the specified CC connections were NOT bolted ?
No, I was commenting on your insane claims of CD. Your delusions were proved wrong on 911 but you guys don't know what you are doing. It is not that my finishing engineering school and having a masters in engineering helps; it is the fact you and Major Tom have no engineering degrees and you use delusions, faulty opinions, hearsay, lies, bad science and idiotic fantasy to build the what Tony called the real CD deal. Your delusion is a waste of time since there was no CD no matter how easy Major Tom makes CD possible in his new quest for his next delusional reason why it could be CD. Could be? lol, what a waste of time when you come unprepared in science.

Are you trying to suggest Major Tom will be able to back in CD when it never happened. What degrees do you an Major Tom have that have left you unable and unprepared to understand 911?

Major Tom's work; how is the math coming. Having trouble with the differential equations?

You and Major Tom show no capabilities to comprehend the structure of the WTC. Did you both contact Leslie Robertson to gain some knowledge on the structure? He thinks your notion of CD is nonsense, and he is the number one structural engineer on the WTC. He thinks your conclusions are nonsense; when you publish your work implicating CD, your work will be found to be nonsense. That is your future for your CD delusions, made up out of ignorance and bias.
 
Does anyone disagree that all 47 core columns had connections at the same elevations?

Does anyone disagree that all core columns had connections about 3 feet above the flooring on the 98th floor, and every connection was probably made with bolted splice plates?
 
Does anyone disagree that all 47 core columns had connections at the same elevations?

Does anyone disagree that all core columns had connections about 3 feet above the flooring on the 98th floor, and every connection was probably made with bolted splice plates?
I'd love to know your point. Are you saying the perps unbolted the connections on two different levels (two towers) just for ****'s and giggles?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom