• 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.
The ROOSD study describes a gravity driven process of descent.
By the way, in what sense are the roosd unpublished thing conclusions different to FEMA's?

2.2.1.5 Progression of Collapse

Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x1011 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x109 joules of potential energy were stored in the upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact. Once collapse initiated, much of this potential energy was rapidly converted into kinetic energy. As the large mass of the collapsing floors above accelerated and impacted on the floors below, it caused an immediate progressive series of floor failures, punching each in turn onto the floor below, accelerating as the sequence progressed. As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed. Perimeter walls of the building seem to have peeled off and fallen directly away from the building face, while portions of the core fell in a somewhat random manner. The perimeter walls broke apart at the bolted connections, allowing individual prefabricated units that formed the wall or, in some cases, large assemblies of these units to fall to the street and onto neighboring buildings below.

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 403, chapter 2, p. 2-27)

Except for the lack of "it could be demolition" babble in FEMA's, that is.
 
Offtopic: Quotation marks

Carlitos, does the quote function in this forum allow a person to quote individual sentences within a post? If so, let me know how. Quotation marks " " have been a standard in literature for a long, long time. Let me know why quotation marks, found in pretty much any book, don't work for you and I'll try to adjust.
I am not Carlitos, but I have the same complaint as he did, hope you don't care. The quote *button* adds a quote start mark at the beginning of the post and a quote end mark at the end.

The quote *function* allows you to quote any part of any text, by surrounding it with quote start and quote end marks, pretty much like you do with " ", except the markers are [QUOTE=name;messageid] [/QUOTE] instead.

The quotation marks " " don't work for me because they lack the link to the place where you're quoting the sentence from, so I can't check if the quotation is taken out of context, or when it was said, or if there's something you left unanswered. Especially so when the post is old. For example, you can check the message where you said the sentence I quoted above by clicking the small arrow near your name, which is quite some pages behind.

Alternatively, you could of course use something like "[url=link to the message]quotation[/url]" but [quote=name;messageid]quotation[/quote] is shorter and easier, since the forum adds it for you already by using the quote button and then you only have to copy/paste.

I'll appreciate if you adjust just as you say in that quotation. Thanks in advance.

ETA: By the way, this is a forum conversation, not literature. Making it difficult for others to find the original texts you quoted is impolite.
 
Last edited:
By the way, in what sense are the roosd unpublished thing conclusions different to FEMA's?
There are many similarities. One purpose of the study is to stop the spurious claims of elements such as AE911T continuing to suggest things like *floor by floor explosives*. Where it differs is in scope. ROOSD does not speculate about core destruction, does not speculate about initiation process, and relates directly to observable behaviours (such as the split South-North *crush fronts*).

One reason the ol' *pancake theory* was rejected was due to it's over-reaching scope which included the core.

FEMA said:
As the large mass of the collapsing floors above accelerated and impacted on the floors below
ROOSD does not assume the entire upper block acting as one. It suggests a number of floors becoming separated from core and perimeter to result in observed behaviour. It is not possible for observed behaviours to be caused by action of the entire upper block.

FEMA said:
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.
Do you think this conflicts with the NIST suggested initiation sequence ?

Once movement began, the entire portion of the building above the area of impact fell in a unit
Again, ROOSD suggests early separation of *the entire upper block* and OOS flooring around the initiation zone.
 
Do you think this conflicts with the NIST suggested initiation sequence ?
I don't really know, and frankly, I don't care. NIST's wording is confusing and their reasonings and data leading to these statements are not given. ISTM that that part didn't receive enough attention from them; not surprising since their main focus was the investigation of the airplane damage and fires and their effects to the structure, and they did really well in these fields. To me, they proved within a very reasonable confidence margin that the building was doomed to fall, something that several architects and engineers (civil and structural engineers, not electrical or mechanical or chemical or aerospace or geotechnical or... you get the point) I've seen in different places estimated that very day before it happened.
 
Seymour, always good to have numbers before you defend them.

And likewise, it's always good to have not just numbers, but an engineering study that shows your questioning has any validity to begin with, rather than just your own personal incredulity.

You will, of course, not get the point, nor be able to supply one iota of engineering support for anyone to be as incredulous as yourself.
 
Last edited:
Another perspective of the NIST initiation sequence in their own words...
NIST said:
NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
(bolding mine)
 
What panic? :confused:

Propaganda even to the desperate stage of denying what is writtten in black and white by the officially competent authority not two inches from where you are denying it. Mind you I would expect no less of you DGM.
 
Last edited:
Have a look at the panic reaction in the last few posts on this thread..lol

One reason for the bolding is that pancaking floors is most probably the primary mechanism of the tower destruction.

This entire thread is focussed upon the referenced ROOSD study, which clarifies the process through matching to observable behaviours during descent.

A revealing sequence or two...

454796303.gif


625661731.gif


The ejecta from the South side of the West face is far ahead of the descending *upper block* remnants. A *debris avalance* resulting in pancaking is the most probable explanation.

For reference in conjunction with the study, the sequences show the South side *crush front*.
 
Propaganda even to the desperate stage if denying what is writtten in black and white by the officially competent authority not two inches from where you are denying it. Mind you I would expect no less of you DGM.
And when the readers actually read what you posted they will stare confused at your later posts.


BTW NIST still does not say there was no "pancaking of floors".
 
Last edited:
One reason for the bolding is that pancaking floors is most probably the primary mechanism of the tower destruction.

This entire thread is focussed upon the referenced ROOSD study, which clarifies the process through matching to observable behaviours during descent.

A revealing sequence or two...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/454796303.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/625661731.gif[/qimg]

The ejecta from the South side of the West face is far ahead of the descending *upper block* remnants. A *debris avalance* resulting in pancaking is the most probable explanation.

For reference in conjunction with the study, the sequences show the South side *crush front*.

Femr2 do you agree that the video in the hyperlink shows that the antanna is falling into WTC1 BEFORE there is any other movement in the building ? If you do then is is it not obvious that the massive hat-truss to which the 360-foot antenna is attached is also falling through the upper assembly of 13 floors?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6121796&postcount=703 hyperlink antenna
 
Last edited:
BTW NIST still does not say there was no "pancaking of floors".

More positively, here's what NIST *do* say:

NIST did not describe the specific sequence of events after global collapse initiated. The progression of global collapse was induced by the failure of the supporting structure (columns carry vertical loads; floors hold columns together, they do not carry vertical loads). NIST's investigation focused on the factors that led to the initiation of collapse, rather than the sequence of events after the collapse initiated.

Sincerely,

WTC Investigation Team
Copied from here: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm (there's an explanation there that will hopefully show bill the source of his confusion).
 
Femr2 do you agree that the video in the hyperlink shows that the antanna is falling into WTC1 BEFORE there is any other movement in the building ?
Eyeballing of the video alone ? No. Examination of movement at a much lower level is required to make conclusions.

Visit the following thread for in-depth trace analysis of the movements...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/missing-jolts-found-film-at-11-t222-330.html#p8789
It's a long read and needs summarising, so be prepared.

You should also read...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/onset-of-wtc1-movement-and-sauret-shake-t386.html
 
Eyeballing of the video alone ? No. Examination of movement at a much lower level is required to make conclusions.

Visit the following thread for in-depth trace analysis of the movements...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/missing-jolts-found-film-at-11-t222-330.html#p8789
It's a long read and needs summarising, so be prepared.

You should also read...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/onset-of-wtc1-movement-and-sauret-shake-t386.html

With me the eye buys what with observation being the starting point of all science. Can you come up with any valid reason that suggests that we are not actually seeing what we are seeing ?
 
With me the eye buys what with observation being the starting point of all science. Can you come up with any valid reason that suggests that we are not actually seeing what we are seeing ?
I provided you with extensive reference material. Start with the second link if you want a shorter start point.

Please read the information provided. Some of it will be included within this thread at some point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom