dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
And not doing too well.
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
And not doing too well.
Bill, yes, we see at least one guy wire sag. Achimspok shows this in a gif posted today in the "care to comment" thread.
We have about 15 posts on this page which have nothing to do with the thread.
Pgimeno, there are serious problems with the NISTs conclusion that it was sagging OOS flooring that pulled in the perimeter and initiated collapse.
By looking at WTC1 we must have serious doubts whether sagging OOS flooring is the true cause of inward bowing.
Geometrically, there seem to be at least two possible causes of IB appearing on the east face of WTC2 and the south face of WTC1.
1) We could have massively sagging flooring which is strong enough to pull in the perimeter.
2) The adjacent portion of the core (the 1000 row core columns could be disconnected at splice joints and hanging within the core.
The NIST considered the sagging floors only because how could they possibly explain columns sections suspended within the core, broken at their splice joints naturally?
In the case of WTC1, if indeed the collective core failed first, there is good reason to believe it was collapsing long before collapse initiation, so it would be quite reasonable to allow for the second possibility.
In fact, when we carefully look at the conditions that caused IB in WTC1 and the actual shape of the IB, we notice that the IB begins exactly along the floor slab of the 95th floor. It reaches a maximum value 3 floors higher. We know that all 47 core coilumns had splice joints at floors 92, 95, 98, 101, 104.
For WTC2 we will see that the observed inward bowing had the same 3 floor pattern and once again begins and reaches a maximum value on floors with known splice connections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Needless to say if the NISTs claimed cause of inward bowing is incorrect, their WTC2 collapse initiation scenario is as wrong as the one for WTC1.
\>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I've shown that the posters here really know nothing about the correct order of events during the WTC1 collapse initiation. That does not mean we need to remain ignorant. There is some excellent research being done on the earliest movement of WTC1. There is much to learn about the WTC1 and WTC7 collapse initiation events once a researcher stops believing everything the NIST writes.
The IB theory of the NIST has serious problems for WTC1 and WTC2. It is easier to study WTC1 first because of the large antenna, but we will see the lessons learned from WTC1 will apply to WTC2 as well.
We have about 15 posts on this page which have nothing to do with the thread.
Pgimeno, there are serious problems with the NISTs conclusion that it was sagging OOS flooring that pulled in the perimeter and initiated collapse.
By looking at WTC1 we must have serious doubts whether sagging OOS flooring is the true cause of inward bowing.
Geometrically, there seem to be at least two possible causes of IB appearing on the east face of WTC2 and the south face of WTC1.
1) We could have massively sagging flooring which is strong enough to pull in the perimeter.
2) The adjacent portion of the core (the 1000 row core columns could be disconnected at splice joints and hanging within the core.
The NIST considered the sagging floors only because how could they possibly explain columns sections suspended within the core, broken at their splice joints naturally?
In the case of WTC1, if indeed the collective core failed first, there is good reason to believe it was collapsing long before collapse initiation, so it would be quite reasonable to allow for the second possibility.
In fact, when we carefully look at the conditions that caused IB in WTC1 and the actual shape of the IB, we notice that the IB begins exactly along the floor slab of the 95th floor. It reaches a maximum value 3 floors higher. We know that all 47 core coilumns had splice joints at floors 92, 95, 98, 101, 104.
For WTC2 we will see that the observed inward bowing had the same 3 floor pattern and once again begins and reaches a maximum value on floors with known splice connections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Needless to say if the NISTs claimed cause of inward bowing is incorrect, their WTC2 collapse initiation scenario is as wrong as the one for WTC1.
\>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I've shown that the posters here really know nothing about the correct order of events during the WTC1 collapse initiation. That does not mean we need to remain ignorant. There is some excellent research being done on the earliest movement of WTC1. There is much to learn about the WTC1 and WTC7 collapse initiation events once a researcher stops believing everything the NIST writes.
The IB theory of the NIST has serious problems for WTC1 and WTC2. It is easier to study WTC1 first because of the large antenna, but we will see the lessons learned from WTC1 will apply to WTC2 as well.
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
Just out of interest, once you go into a raging office fire, remove all the drywall and insulation and unbolt all the core columns how do you get them to move out of alignment with the weight of the building bearing down on them? Also in WTC 2 how do you deal with the welded splices on the built up box columns? How much does this kind of work pay? I'd imagine the danger money must be pretty good.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
That sag would tend to illustrate that the antenna is dropping and the tension on the wire has been relaxed just as a guy rope on your tent would sag if you depressed the tent.
Last edited:
We have been looking through the elusive "proof" at the WTC1 collapse initiation sequence happened naturally in the NIST reports. We find nothing but a crappy, vague, incorrect description of the initial column failure sequence.
In this thread it only took me 2 gif animations to show you that you have no clue whether the collective core or south perimeter failed first.
Bibles of NIST reports and 9 years later, it only takes me 2 animated gifs to show you that you cannot even distinguish between a core-led or south perimeter-led collapse initiation for WTC1.
...........................
Inward bowing (IB) of the perimeter was observed on WTC1 and WTC2. NIST has a theory of what caused the IB, and their collapse initiation scenarios for both buildings wholly depends upon it being correct.
If massive OOS floor slab sagging over a short period of time is not what caused the IB in either building, it is safe to say the NIST reports are a total failure.
Your "proof" that the NIST is correct entirely depends on massively sagging floor slabs to cause the IB and ultimately lead to south wall instability, the trigger of collapse initiation.
The best images I could find of the WTC1 south wall IB are linked here:
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-200-3 (1200x1600px/179.7Kb)
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-201-3 (1200x1600px/176.4Kb)
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-202-3 (1200x1600px/187.0Kb)
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-203-3 (1200x1600px/252.8Kb)
The IB begins sharply across the 95th floor slab and maxes out through the red line as shown below:
In this thread it only took me 2 gif animations to show you that you have no clue whether the collective core or south perimeter failed first.
Bibles of NIST reports and 9 years later, it only takes me 2 animated gifs to show you that you cannot even distinguish between a core-led or south perimeter-led collapse initiation for WTC1.
...........................
Inward bowing (IB) of the perimeter was observed on WTC1 and WTC2. NIST has a theory of what caused the IB, and their collapse initiation scenarios for both buildings wholly depends upon it being correct.
If massive OOS floor slab sagging over a short period of time is not what caused the IB in either building, it is safe to say the NIST reports are a total failure.
Your "proof" that the NIST is correct entirely depends on massively sagging floor slabs to cause the IB and ultimately lead to south wall instability, the trigger of collapse initiation.
The best images I could find of the WTC1 south wall IB are linked here:
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-200-3 (1200x1600px/179.7Kb)
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-201-3 (1200x1600px/176.4Kb)
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-202-3 (1200x1600px/187.0Kb)
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-203-3 (1200x1600px/252.8Kb)
The IB begins sharply across the 95th floor slab and maxes out through the red line as shown below:
Time-line of the formation of WTC1 inward bowing along the south wall:
9:58 No fires are visible on the east side of the south perimeter. Only one window has smoke coming out of it.
9:59 3 large fireballs emerge from the middle and east side of the south perimeter as WTC2 starts to collapse. These locations mark the center of where IB will be visible after a few more minutes. Two clips which highlight the ejections:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htVnlp_qg9g&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWqdMXV6qY
10:06 Southward leaning and IB are first reported
IB increases to a maximum measured 55 inches over 22 minutes (this would require about 9 feet of floor sagging to attain)
The NIST's own fire simulations do not provide excessive heat for the slabs to create such bowing:
10:28 Building collapses. The NIST claims that floor sagging pulled in the south perimeter to the point of failure. The south wall failure overloads the core, causing progressive column failures from south to north over a tilt of 8 degrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But if the core went first at a tilt angle of less than 1 degree, all this seems like bunk.
Perhaps the cause of the IB has more to do with the large fireballs that emerge from the center of the IB region only a few minutes before IB was first reported?
NIST mentions the fire ejections briefly:
NCSTAR1-5, Page 15: "Very shortly after the collapse began, fire and smoke were pushed out of the south face of WTC 1, probably due to a pressure pulse transmitted to WTC 1 from the collapsing tower. The most prominent effect was on the 98th floor where flames were pushed out of windows along the west side of the face."
Probably? It is not hard to verify this so why guess? There is smoke coming from the south face around this region and we can see no movement due to the collapsing tower within the smoke. Any wind pulse transmitted from WTC2 to WTC1 would be visible within movement of the veil of smoke covering the south wall of WTC2.
Also, the ejections come from the center and east side as anyone can see, not the west side.
9:58 No fires are visible on the east side of the south perimeter. Only one window has smoke coming out of it.
9:59 3 large fireballs emerge from the middle and east side of the south perimeter as WTC2 starts to collapse. These locations mark the center of where IB will be visible after a few more minutes. Two clips which highlight the ejections:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htVnlp_qg9g&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWqdMXV6qY
10:06 Southward leaning and IB are first reported
IB increases to a maximum measured 55 inches over 22 minutes (this would require about 9 feet of floor sagging to attain)
The NIST's own fire simulations do not provide excessive heat for the slabs to create such bowing:
10:28 Building collapses. The NIST claims that floor sagging pulled in the south perimeter to the point of failure. The south wall failure overloads the core, causing progressive column failures from south to north over a tilt of 8 degrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But if the core went first at a tilt angle of less than 1 degree, all this seems like bunk.
Perhaps the cause of the IB has more to do with the large fireballs that emerge from the center of the IB region only a few minutes before IB was first reported?
NIST mentions the fire ejections briefly:
NCSTAR1-5, Page 15: "Very shortly after the collapse began, fire and smoke were pushed out of the south face of WTC 1, probably due to a pressure pulse transmitted to WTC 1 from the collapsing tower. The most prominent effect was on the 98th floor where flames were pushed out of windows along the west side of the face."
Probably? It is not hard to verify this so why guess? There is smoke coming from the south face around this region and we can see no movement due to the collapsing tower within the smoke. Any wind pulse transmitted from WTC2 to WTC1 would be visible within movement of the veil of smoke covering the south wall of WTC2.
Also, the ejections come from the center and east side as anyone can see, not the west side.
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Good God, what is the point of all this endless analysis?
It doesn't appear to change the generally accepted and rational observation that the buildings collapsed due to massive damage from fires and plane impacts.
And in its current form it is not backed up by a comprehensive engineering model to emulate the alleged events.
Why don't you at least build an accurate LS-DYNA model which can demonstrate your ideas? Sounds more like you're just trying to puff up your ego by one-upping NIST.
It doesn't appear to change the generally accepted and rational observation that the buildings collapsed due to massive damage from fires and plane impacts.
And in its current form it is not backed up by a comprehensive engineering model to emulate the alleged events.
Why don't you at least build an accurate LS-DYNA model which can demonstrate your ideas? Sounds more like you're just trying to puff up your ego by one-upping NIST.
Though the videos posted are better, the stills show the largest fireball emerge from the same spot where inward bowing is first spotted about 7 minutes later.
David Benson considers this evidence that the outer flooring detached from the [perimeter at this precise moment and "fanned" the flames. NIST thinks this "probably" was due to air flow from WTC2.
How could these researchers be so lazy as to not investigate further?
Local flow of smoke can be used to determine whether the pressure source was internal or external.
>>>>>>>>>>
The NIST claims that the IB witnessed was from sagging floors. These floors would have to sag up to 9 feet in 22 minutes for this to happen, while there were no fires witnessed on the east side of the south wall until the giant fireballs.
The NIST claims the upper "block" tilted over 8 degrees while column failure progressed from south to north.
The NIST claimed that the sagging flooring pulled in the south wall while we see what appears to be the collective core fail first at less than 1 degree of tilt.
We see an even row of ejections emerge from the west face before the west perimeter moves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not one of you can address these issues and instead focus my use of quotes.
The purpose of the last few pages is to show you have no clue what occurred to WTC1 during the collapse initiation sequence and the minutes leading up to it and clinging to the perfection of the NIST or Bazant cannot help you.
Do you have a theory on how the collective core can fail, leading to collapse initiation? You'll need one soon. You will need to admit that the NIST is very wrong, not on minor details but in their central model and conclusions for WTC1.
David Benson considers this evidence that the outer flooring detached from the [perimeter at this precise moment and "fanned" the flames. NIST thinks this "probably" was due to air flow from WTC2.
How could these researchers be so lazy as to not investigate further?
Local flow of smoke can be used to determine whether the pressure source was internal or external.
>>>>>>>>>>
The NIST claims that the IB witnessed was from sagging floors. These floors would have to sag up to 9 feet in 22 minutes for this to happen, while there were no fires witnessed on the east side of the south wall until the giant fireballs.
The NIST claims the upper "block" tilted over 8 degrees while column failure progressed from south to north.
The NIST claimed that the sagging flooring pulled in the south wall while we see what appears to be the collective core fail first at less than 1 degree of tilt.
We see an even row of ejections emerge from the west face before the west perimeter moves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not one of you can address these issues and instead focus my use of quotes.
The purpose of the last few pages is to show you have no clue what occurred to WTC1 during the collapse initiation sequence and the minutes leading up to it and clinging to the perfection of the NIST or Bazant cannot help you.
Do you have a theory on how the collective core can fail, leading to collapse initiation? You'll need one soon. You will need to admit that the NIST is very wrong, not on minor details but in their central model and conclusions for WTC1.
Last edited:
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Not just from sagging floors.
Therefore, you are lying and constructing a strawman.
Since this is fact, why would anyone but a twoof care what you ask?
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
What exactly do you mean by the 'collective core' ? Do you mean all the 47 core columns at one time ?
Last edited:
What is your degree in? It seems NIST failed and you are the only person on earth to save us from NIST! What do you do next? What was your degree in again, I missed your credentials?
You are still pushing the CD, thermite, or someone helped the WTC collapse because fire can't destroy the strength of steel?
? oops, fire does destroy the strength of steel; now what? Don't need NIST to figure out impacts and fires caused the WTC collapse. Why do you had delusions to your conclusions?
What has NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. said about your work? Questions?
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
NIST and Bazant and a whole lot of other intelligent and informed analysts concluded correctly that the building failure was due to weakening of the structure due to the large fires.
The salient issue is whether buildings can be designed more safely to avoid this kind of catastrophic failure in future, not to pore over every single detail of the collapse as if there is a hidden message from God encased within.
Nobody, not you and not anybody else, has perfect and complete knowledge of complex events such as these. Your bloated ego prevents you from realizing that you also have limitations - sorry to tell you but you're not a genius in these matters.
A genius would have already constructed a mathematical proof, would have (being a genius) probably been at the helm of an important research facility with lots of students or engineering software at their disposal, and would have already created a complete model of the collapse using the most exquisite engineering data available. *
Your effort, as blustery and obnoxious as it is, is no great work of thought. It continues to be a crude ego trip designed to malign everyone and everything which goes against your infantile belief in controlled demolition.
And if it wasn't controlled demolition, then you're just another neurotic poseur with OCD - it doesn't matter what great thing you believe you've stumbled upon - it is not relevant to the future design of buildings.
And it will never, ever convict a single person of any crime of any kind, in your lifetime or your children's.
Apart from those minor criticisms, I think you've got some good points...keep working at it and in about 150 years you might discover something useful for society.
Until then,
Bon Nuit.
*And would be smart enough and wise enough to give credit to the efforts of NIST, for example, to show some respect for the efforts of many smart, hardworking people and to realize that they were in fact searching for the same thing: a way to better design the buildings of the future.
But you do none of that. You try to destroy the works of others and erect your own on top of the ruins. You are in fact consumed with destroying and harming the reputations of others, for purely selfish reasons.
Last edited:
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
200 years hence, in a living room of a member of the age-old 9/11 Truther cult, a man points to this picture and says 'you see!!! It was because of this fireball that we deduced the true meaning of the designs of the NWO!! This is linked to the manipulation of weather, the global warming hoax which turned the planet into a desert - it turned out it wasn't a hoax, but a diabolical plot to destroy the planet and everything on it - all for profit! They were so diabolically clever, they even destroyed themselves to make it appear as though it were not deliberate - such evil genius!'
He draws from a cup of tea and mutters 'if only, if only they hadn't voted for Obama, it would all be so different'.
Hopefully people in future will be a bit more enlightened, but I'm not holding my breath. Most people are not too bright, it seems. Many people deliberately hold onto stupid ideas because they just can't f'ing let go. 9/11 Truth is a set of very, very stupid and destructive ideas - talk about 'dumbing down' things.... oh well..
He draws from a cup of tea and mutters 'if only, if only they hadn't voted for Obama, it would all be so different'.
Hopefully people in future will be a bit more enlightened, but I'm not holding my breath. Most people are not too bright, it seems. Many people deliberately hold onto stupid ideas because they just can't f'ing let go. 9/11 Truth is a set of very, very stupid and destructive ideas - talk about 'dumbing down' things.... oh well..
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Suppose you took just a few core columns completely out of the equation ? A few carefully selected ones by filling them with nanothermite incendiary and then melting them completely away at the right moment ? Could that contribute to the sagging floors and the pulling in of the wall ? It might well contrbibute to the fireballs.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I doubt it.
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Possibly the phoniest video I have seen so far, even from you.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I'm surprised you actually spend the time watching them. These are hours you will never get back.
Unless the link comes with a full synopsis and explanation of it's relevance I don't even bother opening the link.
I'm getting too old for this ****!
- Status