OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[fess]

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.

Suppose we just fill up the entire 86th floor with super secret nanothermite incendiary disguised as high expansion foam and save a few aircraft?

 

[dafydd]

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.

Lol,talking to Bill if it she actually was serious.Very funny.

 

[beachnut]

Possibly interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qv1WV4tQLw&feature=player_embedded

Video from a 911 truth liar. Nonsense made up as sparks fly. The idiot tagged it thermite. That is failure. Standard post, lies from bill smith.

These were in the WTC...

How did they get there?

 

[bill smith]

Suppose we just fill up the entire 86th floor with super secret nanothermite incendiary disguised as high expansion foam and save a few aircraft?

So no further action an this thread then ?

 

[dafydd]

Only if you want to entertain us further,but Telltale Tom does a far better job nowadays.

 

[Toke]

I am still wondering about the fuel-air bomb disguised as a pallet of copier paper.
As far as I understand the construction of the WCT it would have ripped off a few floors and collapsed the building.

Then again, my ideas of terrorism appear to differ quite a lot from actual terrorist's.

 

[BigAl]

I am still wondering about the fuel-air bomb disguised as a pallet of copier paper.
As far as I understand the construction of the WCT it would have ripped off a few floors and collapsed the building.

Then again, my ideas of terrorism appear to differ quite a lot from actual terrorist's.

Very possibly but Hush-A-Boom it ain't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk

(FWIW, YouTube videos have been known to have been "enhanced")

 

[tsig]

Only if you want to entertain us further,but Telltale Tom does a far better job nowadays.

Being Top Troll is like being the fastest gunfighter, there's always somebody trying to beat you.

 

[Toke]

Very possibly but Hush-A-Boom it ain't.

Yes, I know.
I was referring to what I would have used. The idea of suicidal hijackers does not really appeal to me. (I am a product of a fully unionised country, with corresponding ideas of employee relations)
We did have a tread of JREF posters v.s. terrorists, and what tactics would be employed. There were major differences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk

(FWIW, YouTube videos have been known to have been "enhanced")

Well, it is close enough to show that it could have worked.

 

[dafydd]

Being Top Troll is like being the fastest gunfighter, there's always somebody trying to beat you.

It's tough at the top.

 

[Major_Tom]

Measuring the release points of 3 points along the WTC1 perimeter: the SW corner, NW corner and NE corner:

In the following graphs the viewer can ignore the antenna tracking data for now. We are interested in only the relative drops of the SW, NW and NE corners.

The Sauret video has the NE and NW corners tracked and plotted. 59.97 frames per second. Courtesy of Achimspok:

The velocities of the corners are included in the graph. As I mentioned earlier, probably the best way to locate a release point is to look at the positional and velocity data together. The release point is when there is a drastic change in the velocity slope. We can see that the release point for the NE corner is about frame 208 and for the NW corner it is about frame 222.

There is only about 14 frames between the NE and NW corner release points. That is less than 0.3 seconds.

(source video:

achimspok Sauret version: starts some seconds prior to the shaking camera.

File specs:
97.730.578 bytes
Audio: Dolby AC3 48000Hz 6ch 224Kbps [AC-3]
Video: MPEG2 Video 720x480 (16:9) 29.97fps 9608Kbps [Video]
duration: 02:04,124

Video fields unfolded into frames to get 7440 frames at 59.94fps. Only a segment is used. Frame 2005 of the unfolded version is the first frame "000".

Here is a link to the original file:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=E6WOP2QS)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Next, the SW corner 104th floor fire and the NW corners are tracked and plotted using the NBC NW viewpoint, courtesy of femr:

Measurement of the large antenna, SW corner fire and NW corner washer drops from the NW NBC viewpoint

(notes: Black - Antenna
Red - Washer
Purple - SW Fire

59.94 fps - Resolution Doubled. 1 pixel on the graph is 0.5 pixels on the original video.)

NW NBC viewpoint original file:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VABQMPWG
.................................

Using this drop data fro the first time in 911 research we can see that the SW corner of the west perimeter wall was released within 0.5 seconds of the NW corner.


So roughly from the data we can determine that when the 3 corners are compared........

The SW corner was released first
The NE corner was released about 0.2 seconds later
The NW corner was released about 0.3 seconds after that.


If 3 of the 4 corners of the building are released within a 0.5 second interval, it is absolutely absurd to talk about a "hinge".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There is no tilting mechanism I could imagine that can allow 3 of the 4 corners to be released within a 0.5 second interval. Achimspok would disagree with my 0.5 second interval and place the time interval over which 3 of the 4 corners of the building were released at a tiny 0.25 seconds as the data shows.

 

[beachnut]

Measuring the release points of 3 points along the WTC1 perimeter: the SW corner, NW corner and NE corner:
...
There is no tilting mechanism I could imagine that can allow 3 of the 4 corners to be released within a 0.5 second interval. Achimspok would disagree with my 0.5 second interval and place the time interval over which 3 of the 4 corners of the building were released at a tiny 0.25 seconds as the data shows.

Wow, you do all this nonsensical work. If only you had some evidence to go with your idiotic CD conclusion. Evidence?

When will your paper be published in a real journal? What does this nonsense have to do with your paper? How does this work dovetail with your paper? Was this in your paper? Is your paper in a single place, in pdf format, or .doc, or something? Have you learned to use the quote button yet? Is that indicative of your failure in engineering to understand why CD is a delusion?

 

[Major_Tom]

Beachnut, I'm glad you are here, friend.

I'll need your special expertise to explain how 3 of the 4 upper corners of WTC1 could have release points within 0.5 seconds or less.

I need a highly intellectual fellow like yourself to help sequence events correctly during the WTC1 collapse initiation since the NIST report fails to match most every observable during this crucial time.

I need someone who can think "outside the box" like you. You managed to comment on the data within a few minutes of my last post, whereas the people I work with require weeks to gather and interpret such information (because they actually think instead of just farting out opinions).

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, I'm glad you are here, friend.

I'll need your special expertise to explain how 3 of the 4 upper corners of WTC1 could have release points within 0.5 seconds or less.

I need a highly intellectual fellow like yourself to help sequence events correctly during the WTC1 collapse initiation since the NIST report fails to match most every observable during this crucial time.

I need someone who can think "outside the box" like you. You managed to comment on the data within a few minutes of my last post, whereas the people I work with require weeks to gather and interpret such information (because they actually think instead of just farting out opinions).

Here is what you can do. Take your piles and massive quantities of incriminating evidence down to the FBI, CIA, NTSB, NIST, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, FOX, Police, Mayor, Congress, President, SS, DDI, NSA, and all other available people who can act on your claims, DO IT AS MANY TIMES as your POST delusional junk here, and find out what a restraining order looks like. This is "outside the box"! Good luck. If you don't get a restraining order, you may get famous for spewing junk and bothering people who are busy trying to prevent the next terrorist attack as you can't figure out the last one.

You work with on one who supports your failed CD delusions. If you share this gibberish with the people you work, they take weeks so you might forget and stop spewing delusions. Very polite people if they don't call you on your insane 911 claims of CD while wasting your time making up flawed analysis.

Proof all your work is garbage is the fact I have not seen it in the real world of engineering. Zero papers, zero mention of your massive work, due in fact it is not science, it is paranoid conspiracy theories run rampant after 8 years of failure.

There is no way to comment on your failed delusions, they all lead to your failed CD theory. If you want answers to your nonsense that will not judge your years of failure, go to a kindergarten class they will give you positive feedback and out of the box ideas; which will be equal to your work, or better.

When will you publish your paper, what does this nonsense mean for your paper? Which journal? Publish your paper my friend! No one can get further outside the box than my friend, Major Tom! Wowzer, he is the one who will break 911 truth on the world.

Your work is shoddy, not scientific, it is failed opinions based on shoddy observations. Nonsense. You can't make the claims, or the observation you made with the tools you used. If you had gone to engineering school you would know this, if you did, you forgot; or never learned. You failed! 911 truth lied about CD, and lied about having evidence. What is your excuse? I am only one engineer who flew heavy jet in the USAF, I only have 36 years of experience being an engineer in very broad areas; go ask 1,000 other engineers who are not in 911 truth; you will find your work is poppycock. I am sure, the kindergarten class is your best bet for positive feed back, cookies, and out of the box help for your delusions.

 

[Major_Tom]

If we want to know how WTC1 moves during collapse initiation we need to measure it. It is not possible to measure it without tracing points on the building and studying drop data.

We will be looking at many drop curves so we need to know what features to look for. This is one method I use. Maybe it will help you, too?

ONE APPROACH TO READING DROP CURVES


First, locate the release event. In some frame the velocity will begin to take off, meaning the slope of the velocity plot changes quickly. This is because there is an abrupt change in acceleration. This frame can be called the "release event" or "release moment".

Second, separate the curve into 3 regions: A pre-release region, a post-release region and the region of the release event.

Pre-release motion could be drift, creep. deformation, tilting, vibration or any slower movement which lacks a downward acceleration at a significant percent of g. A careful researcher should trace points in the pre-release region as far back as necessary to discover the earliest motion possible.

Post-release motion has an average downward acceleration of 0.5g to 1.0g. It may have moments of velocity reductions or may not. If so, the momentary downward acceleration between reductions may differ from the average acceleration and should be considered separately. Locations and magnitudes of the velocity reductions may provide valuable information about what is really happening inside the building over the first 12 feet of falling.

The release event Using the velocity graph, curvature at the release point may help determine how quickly the initial failure occurred.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Two examples

The Sauret drop curve of NW corner is shown in blue. It's corresponding velocity curve is shown in purple. We see there is an abrupt change in the slope of the velocity curve that can be traced back to frame 222. This is the release event for the NW corner.

The acceleration (slope of the velocity curve) quickly changes through frame 222. The traced point is now falling at 0.5g to 1.0g. There is one measured velocity reduction around frame 250. In frame 250 the positional data shows the NW corner has fallen about 3 ft.

In the pre-release region we can carefully study changes in the positional data as far ahead of frame 222 as we wish, looking for the earliest detectable deformations.

The Sauret drop curve of the black-white transition point on the antenna is in yellow. It's corresponding velocity curve is in light green. We see movement from frame 140, yet the velocity curve does not take off with a 0.5g to 1.0g acceleration until frame 215. The release event is around frame 215.

In the pre-release region we see considerable movement before frame 215. Over 2 feet of downward displacement is measure in the antenna between frames 130 and 215.

In the post-release region we detect one velocity reduction. How far has the traced point dropped when the reduction occurs? It happens around frame 228, when the positional data shows a 3 ft drop.

 

[beachnut]

I would like to see the errors that exist in the measurements made in studies by 911 truth. Would a Kalman filter to improve 911 truth data; who will did/will do the measurement of error for 911 truth?
Did 911 truth model the lens error.
Did 911 truth model the frame rate error.
Did 911 truth model the error due to distance/pixel.
Did 911 truth model the atmosphere error.
Did 911 truth model the building movement error (from the wind).
Did 911 truth model any errors at all?


... real engineering! Why can't 911 truth use reality based engineering and lab techniques, instead of starting with the CD conclusion and trying to back in junk with junk science?

I wonder if a few years of training in stochastic estimation and control, ordinary and non-linear differential equations, work on prospective, and a few more subject areas could cure 911 fantasies.

 

[Major_Tom]

I follow the work a few independent researchers that have confirmed features of the data independently.

There is no "truther data" and "debunker data", there is just good data and bad data. I have found this to be the best data available on WTC1 early motion whereas the NIST Bible offers no data and a crappy, incorrect description.

Much of the data has been discussed over 40 or 50 different forum pages for the last 4 months on The 9/11 Forum. Excellent discussion beginning a few pages before the following post link:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/missing-jolts-found-film-at-11-t222-285.html#p8703

Please start reading, Beachnut, because you have a lot to learn.

The original video files are linked above so feel free to verify or disprove the results.

I find "yes men apologists" tend to be lazy, producing little or no original research. They tend to be hypocritical when reviewing the research of others.

Beachnut, perhaps it is time for those who call themselves "debunkers" to take their first accurate measurements of WTC1 collapse initiation in 9 years.

Guys, how did you apply your famous "scientific method" to the WTC1 collapse initiation with such crappy data and incorrect descriptions of the event?

 

[carlitos]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

[beachnut]

I follow the work a few independent researchers that have confirmed features of the data independently.

There is no "truther data" and "debunker data", there is just good data and bad data. I have found this to be the best data available on WTC1 early motion whereas the NIST Bible offers no data and a crappy, incorrect description.

Much of the data has been discussed over 40 or 50 different forum pages for the last 4 months on The 9/11 Forum. Excellent discussion beginning a few pages before the following post link:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/missing-jolts-found-film-at-11-t222-285.html#p8703

Please start reading, Beachnut, because you have a lot to learn.

The original video files are linked above so feel free to verify or disprove the results.

I find "yes men apologists" tend to be lazy, producing little or no original research. They tend to be hypocritical when reviewing the research of others.

Beachnut, perhaps it is time for those who call themselves "debunkers" to take their first accurate measurements of WTC1 collapse initiation in 9 years.

Guys, how did you apply your famous "scientific method" to the WTC1 collapse initiation with such crappy data and incorrect descriptions of the event?

Crappy is all you can say when you can't validate or list the errors in your data. Very scientific of you.

Independent researchers? Would have been better if you used structural engineers, people who are qualified.

NIST has real documentation. You can't validate your data because you have no clue the errors involved and can't model them. Therefore all your work is called, what was the technical word you used?, crappy!

Wow, you have a 9/11 Forum which has data. Wow! A forum started so you could spew delusions unfettered by reality.

Read a forum where CD delusions are discussed as a possible reality? Why do you post at a skeptic forum; your work is based on a delusional conclusion already made. You like to BS and spew nonsense and you always come up with the same delusional CD conclusion.
I have a lot to learn from a forum supporting a discussion of fantasy? LOL, You are not an Engineer are you? Are you? I can read your junk and see you have clue why you are not getting past the BS stage of acting like an expert on CD.

9/11 Forum where the people can't figure out engineering given the answers? That was funny. I am in awe of the greatness in engineering where you find

you can't crush sand with sand.

as a reason a gravity collapse can't happen. The implication is mass is not mass when it is crushed. Good one Major Tom, a forum where lies are equal to evidence.

I don't apologize for NIST, you apologize for terrorists. I don't need NIST to understand WTC 1 feel due to impacts and fire; the chief structural engineer of the WTC, Leslie Robertson, agrees with me (NIST not needed) and calls claims of CD nonsense. Two engineer, Robertson and I agree your conclusion is nonsense and the WTC towers fell due to impacts and fires. Go ask the only real expert on the Towers and get an education in engineering before posting more BS.

Just tell us you will not be doing an analysis of errors in the data, and continue for the next 8 years trying to back in the CD fantasy.

You have produce zero research that is valid on 911 to help your fantasy about CD. Why can't you get an engineering degree. Why can't you get any engineers to agree with your work? Your research?

Your measurement of WTC1 are flawed. Where is the paper published on your measurements of WTC1, what real journal has them. Real work, real research is published. I can tell you based on being an engineer since 1974, your paper is not much more than BS with a idiotic conclusion of CD. Publish your stuff and prove me wrong!

Good luck, I look forward to you being published. 8 years, what are you waiting for? Evidence?

 

[Major_Tom]

This is the most accurate set of data most of you have ever seen on the early movement of WTC1. If you look at the link I posted to The 9/11 Forum you will see many, many, many pages of interesting research, while on this forum an almost anti-intellectual, anti-research atmosphere if fostered and encouraged.


Drop curves can be used to map the correct early motion of WTC1. First we synchronize video clips of collapse initiation from multiple angles.

Then we try to locate the release moments of at least 4 key anchor points. I recommend:

1) SW corner fire
2) NW corner
3) NE corner
4) Antenna

Current data shows the placement of 4 key release events as:

SW corner release event at Sauret frame 208
NW corner release event at Sauret frame 222
NE corner release event at Sauret frame 208
Antenna black/white transition release event at between Sauret frame 208 and Sauret frame 215

I encourage all capable readers to locate these events as accurately as possible and share the results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

An application of the data:

We can show that the first even row of ejections on the west face emerged before the release events of the core or west perimeter. It emerges before slab movement can explain it.

Argument: Visual inspection of the following gif of the initial west face ejections and the movement of the 104th floor fire shows that the ejections appear practically simultaneously with the release moment of the SW corner. The release moment of the SW corner is Sauret frame 208.

If these ejections have a natural cause, it must be due to floor slab movement which displaces, or "fans", air out the west face 98th floor windows. If the ejections appear in Sauret frame 208 before the release point of either the SW or NW corners, what type of floor slab movement could have caused the ejections?


Solution: Since the ejections line up with the core, we look for possible movement of the 99th floor OOS west slab or the core slab. The OOS west slab is attached to the west perimeter on one side and the 501 to 1001 core columns on the other side. We know the perimeter did not move before that time.

What about the core? The release point of the antenna is currently located between Sauret frames 208 and 215. According to current data the antenna slowly sagged about 2 ft in Sauret frame 208 but had not moved down with any significant velocity before this time.

According to current data, no floor slab that remained attached to the core or perimeter could have moved to create the forceful, even ejections witnessed in frame 208. Rapid downward movement of either floor slab could not have begun by this time.

The only other natural possibility: The 99th floor slab magically detached from the structure and fell between 0.5 and 0.9 seconds before Sauret frame 208. (A slab in free-fall will take just over 0.8 seconds to strike the one below).

One last possibility: The 98th floor experiences a high pressure event through the core around Sauret frame 200, just before the release event of the antenna. Core pressurization precedes core release by about 1/10th of a second!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A second application of the data:

Problem: The release events of the NW and SW corners differ by only 14 frames. This means that all 60+ columns along the west wall failed within a 0.25 second interval.

Also, all 4 release events listed above occur within a 14 frame, or 0.25 second interval.

Solution: It is impossible for a successive chain of events to occur within a 0.25 second interval. The west perimeter wall failure must be re-envisioned and remodeled as a single destructive mechanism of movement that propagates across the 207 ft facade basically instantaneously.

Best to forget about the NIST's claim that buckling moved from south to north over a tilt of 8 degrees. Almost no tilt angle is possible if all 4 release points are within a 0.25 second interval.