OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[bill smith]

If we show that WTC1 was pulled down from the core, not the south perimeter, it shows the NIST was clearly wrong. That is not just a tiny mistake.

It shows everything you worship as infallible expertise can be very wrong.

Welcome to planet Earth.

Tom at what time did the 'creep' happen do you estimate ?

 

[beachnut]

...

Pgimeno, I could prove it now, but it requires an audience that is not in denial of the trace data.

This is the core of the NIST's conclusions, not just a tiny part.
...

OOS? Impacts and fires caused the WTC to fail and collapse. If NIST is wrong, impacts and fire still caused the WTC to collapse. With the time you waste trying to attack NIST you could move on and realize you have no evidence in your quest to back in the delusion of CD.

When will you publish your paper? Which Journal?

 

[dafydd]

OOS? Impacts and fires caused the WTC to fail and collapse. If NIST is wrong, impacts and fire still caused the WTC to collapse. With the time you waste trying to attack NIST you could move on and realize you have no evidence in your quest to back in the delusion of CD.

When will you publish your paper? Which Journal?

Tiger Tim's Weekly?

 

[Major_Tom]

Bill Smith, there is evidence of detectable creep beginning about 9 seconds before visible collapse. It is measurable in the high resolution Sauret video and begins just after the camera shakes.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Guys, have you been reading the "discussion of femr's video data analysis" thread? The part about sub-pixel accuracy when tracking features is very important.

We will use this tool to track key anchor points on the NE, NW, SW corners and on the antenna to determine early motion and tilt angles so please try to understand what they are talking about.


Pgimeno, why don't we just measure points on the building and synchronize the events ourselves? Why not get real data on WTC1 before drawing conclusions about WTC2?

Getting you folks to look at real data is like taking a child to the dentist.

 

[ozeco41]

.... If NIST is wrong, impacts and fire still caused the WTC to collapse......

Correct and the situation in a nutshell.

So much time is wasted when people confuse their objective. On another forum I refused to debate "NIST is wrong" when the question was "Demolition or not?" Discussing NIST, whether for or agin 'em, is a red herring derail if the question is "demolition or not".

NIST is broadly right on the main points. The details where NIST may we wrong don't matter- we have sufficient evidence to support "no demolition" without relying on NIST in any way.

 

[dafydd]

Bill Smith, there is evidence of detectable creep beginning about 9 seconds before visible collapse. It is measurable in the high resolution Sauret video and begins just after the camera shakes.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Guys, have you been reading the "discussion of femr's video data analysis" thread? The part about sub-pixel accuracy when tracking features is very important.

We will use this tool to track key anchor points on the NE, NW, SW corners and on the antenna to determine early motion and tilt angles so please try to understand what they are talking about.


Pgimeno, why don't we just measure points on the building and synchronize the events ourselves? Why not get real data on WTC1 before drawing conclusions about WTC2?

Getting you folks to look at real data is like taking a child to the dentist.

It's getting bad when you have to rely on Bill Smith to support your delusions. Are you an engineer?

 

[bill smith]

Bill Smith, there is evidence of detectable creep beginning about 9 seconds before visible collapse. It is measurable in the high resolution Sauret video and begins just after the camera shakes.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Guys, have you been reading the "discussion of femr's video data analysis" thread? The part about sub-pixel accuracy when tracking features is very important.

We will use this tool to track key anchor points on the NE, NW, SW corners and on the antenna to determine early motion and tilt angles so please try to understand what they are talking about.


Pgimeno, why don't we just measure points on the building and synchronize the events ourselves? Why not get real data on WTC1 before drawing conclusions about WTC2?

Getting you folks to look at real data is like taking a child to the dentist.

Thanks Tom. Just as a matter of interest how does that 9 seconds match up with the time difference between the molten steel outpouring from WTC2 and it's collapse ?

 

[pgimeno]

Pgimeno, why don't we just measure points on the building and synchronize the events ourselves? Why not get real data on WTC1 before drawing conclusions about WTC2?

Do I take it right that you're taking back your conclusions about the location of core column splice joints in WTC2 based on the photograph you posted?

That helps in proving my point: you already got one interpretation of the WTC2 data wrong. That gives me even more reasons to doubt your interpretation of the WTC1 data is right, which I was unsure about to start with given that you haven't informed us about your qualification for understanding what you're looking at. Remember you already got wrong what a sudden collapse means. Sudden collapse is a common possibility of failure: it's the crossing of the line between "it still can resist it, but barely" and "it can't resist it any longer" (*). You chose to interpret it the Gage way, though, thus diminishing your credibility.

Again, let me underline that I'm not questioning the data.

(*) Some examples:

 

[Major_Tom]

If you are not questioning the data and images offered thus far, why not use them to learn how the building actually moved?

Pgimeno, with WTC2 you do not know whether the core or perimeter failed first. If a partially failed core is what is causing the south face inward bowing in WTC1 and not the 9 ft of sagging OOS flooring over 25 minutes as the NIST claims, why would you believe the same OOS flooring is responsible for the IB seen in WTC2?

You have barely seen the tip of the iceberg with WTC1 (real) data. You know nothing WTC1 early movement and the circumstances surrounding the formation of inward bowing on the south wall.

You know nothing about the features of the initial failure of the west wall, the north wall or the antenna. All measurable and observable, yet you know nothing about them.

If you studied only the west and north walls carefully you would see that the building did not fall due to pull in of the south wall until failure as the NIST claims.

(How can 60+ columns in each of two adjacent walls of WTC1 building fail with a 0.5 second interval as the result of a failure a third wall? Wake up!!)

Knowing absolutely nothing about the north and west walls of WTC1 though they are visible in video, you want to speculate about the cause IB of WTC2??

When you understand IB in WTC1, you will be prepared to look for evidence of the same cause in WTC2. Why in that order? Because one building has a huge antenna which acts as a measuring gage of sagging and movement. This is a huge advantage towards studying the relation between core and perimeter.

 

[pgimeno]

If you are not questioning the data and images offered thus far, why not use them to learn how the building actually moved?

I don't consider myself trained in the disciplines needed to understand and interpret such data, so it would be a pointless exercise. I don't consider yourself either.

And anyway, I'm not that interested in analyzing the chaotic process of a building collapse for which the causes are well known. It can raise my interest when someone claims it's proof of CD, though.

Pgimeno, with WTC2 you do not know whether the core or perimeter failed first. If a partially failed core is what is causing the south face inward bowing in WTC1 and not the 9 ft of sagging OOS flooring over 25 minutes as the NIST claims, why would you believe the same OOS flooring is responsible for the IB seen in WTC2?

Fixed that for you, because that's a big IF. Remember these questions I asked you before?

Could it be the case that NIST is right about WTC2 and wrong about WTC1?

If so, would that prove that WTC2 collapse was due to fire and WTC1 collapse was a controlled demolition?

Your only reply to this was:

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.

which merely tries to address the first of the two questions by claiming that NIST was not right about WTC2. You failed to present solid proof about that 3-floor pattern, as I already showed you, so now you try an appeal to incredulity as an alternative strategy: "If they are wrong on WTC1, why would you believe them on WTC2?"

The second question I asked will become more interesting if you manage to prove your claims regarding WTC1, because so far you haven't presented any valid proof that the WTC2 collapse initiation sequence stated by NIST is wrong. If it is right, that would mean that the collapse initiation mechanisms for both buildings are different, which in turn would seriously hurt the credibility of the CD claims. That's what the second question was about.

(How can 60+ columns in each of two adjacent walls of WTC1 building fail with a 0.5 second interval as the result of a failure a third wall? Wake up!!)

There we go again. Sentences like this one are the ones that undermine your credibility the most.

Imagine an intact building asymmetrically loaded almost to the limit of its capacity, to which you keep adding weight. Since the load is asymmetric, some columns are already over their capacity and the building stands thanks to the others. In the moment the overall capacity is exceeded, each attempt at load redistribution results in the failure of the column or columns and the building makes another attempt. That's a *very* quick process (because each load redistribution attempt implies a very tiny movement) that culminates with all columns failing basically at the same time.

In the WTC it was the same case, but instead of adding weight, the columns' capacity was reduced due to fire.

Maybe an engineer can back me or correct me here? I love to learn, so don't be afraid of correcting me. I'd also like to know if my assessment is right, since it's based on my understanding of how load redistribution and column failure work.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the north and west walls of WTC1 though they are visible in video, you want to speculate about the cause IB of WTC2??

I don't want to speculate. The burden of proof does not correspond to me. I am waiting for you to show why NIST was wrong with respect to WTC2. So far you've made a failed attempt.

When you understand IB in WTC1, you will be prepared to look for evidence of the same cause in WTC2. Why in that order? Because one building has a huge antenna which acts as a measuring gage of sagging and movement. This is a huge advantage towards studying the relation between core and perimeter.

I know, but you have made your case not only with the antenna, but with other features too. One of these features has been proved wrong upon examination. What are the others?

 

[dafydd]

If you are not questioning the data and images offered thus far, why not use them to learn how the building actually moved?

Pgimeno, with WTC2 you do not know whether the core or perimeter failed first. If a partially failed core is what is causing the south face inward bowing in WTC1 and not the 9 ft of sagging OOS flooring over 25 minutes as the NIST claims, why would you believe the same OOS flooring is responsible for the IB seen in WTC2?

You have barely seen the tip of the iceberg with WTC1 (real) data. You know nothing WTC1 early movement and the circumstances surrounding the formation of inward bowing on the south wall.

You know nothing about the features of the initial failure of the west wall, the north wall or the antenna. All measurable and observable, yet you know nothing about them.

If you studied only the west and north walls carefully you would see that the building did not fall due to pull in of the south wall until failure as the NIST claims.

(How can 60+ columns in each of two adjacent walls of WTC1 building fail with a 0.5 second interval as the result of a failure a third wall? Wake up!!)

Knowing absolutely nothing about the north and west walls of WTC1 though they are visible in video, you want to speculate about the cause IB of WTC2??

When you understand IB in WTC1, you will be prepared to look for evidence of the same cause in WTC2. Why in that order? Because one building has a huge antenna which acts as a measuring gage of sagging and movement. This is a huge advantage towards studying the relation between core and perimeter.

Are you an engineer?

 

[Major_Tom]

If you were as interested in WYC1 as you seem to be in WTC2 you could have already verified that my claims of the sequence of events is true (or pretty damn close).

It is easy to read a drop curve. You will see.

I'll continue to show you how they were wrong about WTC1. Isn't one demo enough?

Geometrically, there are at least 2 ways to create inward bowing:

1) Sagging OOS flooring (about 9 ft over a 25 minute period according to the NIST for WTC1. Pretty ridiculous, really.)

2) A suspended group of 1000 and 900 row core columns which sags under it's own weight and pulls in the perimeter.


If we study WTC1 in detail, we can see that the second choice isn't too bad.

An excellent post showing the process through sagging groups of core columns here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/w...llapse-initiation-models-t274-285.html#p11795

The same can be applied to WTC2. If we look carefully there may be ways to distinguish between a core-led or perimeter-led collapse initiation in WTC2.

Please do not hide behind the experts and look carefully at the drop curves yourself. It isn't too hard.

 

[pgimeno]

I'll continue to show you how they were wrong about WTC1. Isn't one demo enough?

Nor ten. Playing engineering does not make you an engineer. Nothing guarantees me that you properly understand what you see, and you have already failed in that field.

Want to prove NIST wrong? See the caption of Figure 2-24 in NCSTAR 1-3C. It reads: "Image of inward bowing of south face (at right, with dark lines overdrawn) of WTC 1. This image was taken at 10:23 a.m. from a NYPD helicopter." However, the photograph indicates copyright 2001 Lyle Owerko/Wonderlust and there's no sign of dark lines overdrawn, instead there are some arrows. There, NIST is wrong, their study is crap, see how easy it is?

I told you, knowing how to use the quote function gave me advantage.

Geometrically, there are at least 2 ways to create inward bowing:

1) Sagging OOS flooring (about 9 ft over a 25 minute period according to the NIST for WTC1. Pretty ridiculous, really.)

2) A suspended group of 1000 and 900 row core columns which sags under it's own weight and pulls in the perimeter.


If we study WTC1 in detail, we can see that the second choice isn't too bad.

If we study WTC2 in detail, we can see that IB was gradual, which doesn't fit (2) (see either Figure 2-36 vs Figure 2-37 in NCSTAR 1-3C, or Figure 3-98 in NCSTAR 1-6D).

Plus, (2) doesn't explain what happened to the girders which kept the columns in place, or to the core flooring. So that poses problems to that hypothesis.

You forgot (3) The Incredible Hulk was in the building at the impact floors and was pulling the trusses. That gives another geometric explanation for the IB too, about as plausible as (2). Even better, because it doesn't need to explain the girders.

The same can be applied to WTC2. If we look carefully there may be ways to distinguish between a core-led or perimeter-led collapse initiation in WTC2.

Says who? Do you think your eyes are trained in the necessary disciplines to correctly interpret the data?

 

[pgimeno]

An excellent post showing the process through sagging groups of core columns here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/w...llapse-initiation-models-t274-285.html#p11795

This fragment from that page is telling:

Tony, I cannot argue publicly that these images are fake or all taken within the moments just before collapse initiation.

You can weaken the core in stages to give the illusion of gradual natural collapse. It is fake IB claimed to have been made by fake bowing of the floors.

In reality it seems it was controlled from the core.

It shows how your prejudices drive your expectations and thus your findings.

 

[Major_Tom]

When discussing the Bazant papers earlier in the thread, proposed we take the time to answer 6 questions:


1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BV, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate for WTC1 considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Does Dr Bazant believe crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1? (or as just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse")

4) Are the findings in the OOS study consistent with the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

5) Where in the BLGB arguments is the possibility of a CD based on ROOSD, exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives, addressed?

If it is not, is it not true that the the arguments in BLGB are largely irrelevant when considering this type of controlled demolition?

6) When Bazant makes the following statement in BL, what does he mean?:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Since it is being discussed in another thread I'll post answers over the next day.

It would be nice if others try to answer correctly.

I think it is a bit foolish to have a strong opinion of the correctness of Dr Bazant if you cannot answer these questions.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"I think it is a bit foolish to have a strong opinion of the correctness of Dr Bazant if you cannot answer these questions."

Are you EVER going to get around to the important bit? i.e. what INITIATED the collapse. All you are doing now is mental self abuse.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

[

3) Does Dr Bazant believe crush down,


6) When Bazant makes the following statement in BL, what does he mean?:


Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?

Why are you asking us? Go ask him.

It would be nice if others try to answer correctly.

Correctly?.....and you get to define a "correct answer"????

I think it is a bit foolish to have a strong opinion of the correctness of Dr Bazant if you cannot answer these questions.

All of us can only have opinions on what he meant.....I think you and some others place way too much emphasis on a "simplified model". As such it can neither prove or disprove what caused collapse of the towers, at most it shows that such a collapse is at least theoretically possible (thats no a surprise).

 

[beachnut]

When discussing the Bazant papers earlier in the thread, proposed we take the time to answer 6 questions:


1) In BL, can you explain why Dr Bazant insists that crush down must be complete before crush up occurs. Does he mean this literally

2) Do you consider the equations of motion in BV, equations 12 and 17, to be accurate for WTC1 considering the information in the ROOSD study?

3) Does Dr Bazant believe crush down, then crush up applies literally to WTC1? (or as just a "limiting hypothetical case in which the structure is best able to resist collapse")

4) Are the findings in the OOS study consistent with the claims of crush down preceding crush up in BV and BL?

5) Where in the BLGB arguments is the possibility of a CD based on ROOSD, exploiting the natural weaknesses of the building with minimal explosives, addressed?

If it is not, is it not true that the the arguments in BLGB are largely irrelevant when considering this type of controlled demolition?

6) When Bazant makes the following statement in BL, what does he mean?:

"So it must be concluded that the simplifying hypothesis of
one-way crushing (i.e., of absence of simultaneous crush-up),
made in the original paper, was perfectly justified and caused
only an imperceptible difference in the results. The crush-up
simultaneous with the crush down is found to have advanced
into the overlying story by only 37 mm for the North Tower
and 26 mm for the South Tower. This means that the initial
crush-up phase terminates when the axial displacement of
columns is only about 10 times larger than their maximum
elastic deformation. Hence, simplifying the analysis by neglecting
the initial two-way crushing phase was correct and
accurate."

Is he applying this to WTC1, or to just a hypothetical extreme case?
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Since it is being discussed in another thread I'll post answers over the next day.

It would be nice if others try to answer correctly.

I think it is a bit foolish to have a strong opinion of the correctness of Dr Bazant if you cannot answer these questions.

Bazant's paper stands. The weak non-engineering attacks are nonsensical and fail. What does Bazant have to with your paper? All 911 truth papers are nonsense, and your is no exception as you bring up delusions of CD in the conclusion. But why attack NIST and Bazant? Why can't you do your own work and stop attacking other work which you don't understand and are not remotely qualified to critique. Or did I miss your engineering credentials?

It would be simple entertainment if you did a Heiwa, and published your work as a paper or letter like Heiwa did. That way we could see what fellow engineers say about your work. Let me bet the descriptors of nonsense and delusional will be in the critique. Please publish soon.

What reality based journal will your paper be published in? What is your goal? Gage's goal is to make money and travel. What is your goal besides wasting 8 years attempting to back in CD with weak attacks on Bazant and NIST?

What does your model do? What time of collapse does your model give? When will you publish? Bazant published very quickly; seems he can do engineering on a napkin; when did you graduate from engineering school?

Like 911 truth, you guys use simple observation and find that the Sun rotates around the earth; and ask other to prove otherwise. Or are you guys still flat earth Bigfoot hunters? Do you have a degree? Do you plan on getting a degree? When will the peer review be in?

 

[Kent1]

The NIST figure of 8 degree tilt before collective downward movement is so bad there is no way to justify the mistake. Myriad, why don't you show how the NIST calculates the 8 degree tilt by using the NIST reports? Why ask me?

Raises hand. That's easy, the number is reference to the tilt of the tower before smoke and debris obscured view. They DO show how they came up with the number if you read the report. I don't see any mistakes but I can see how you got confused. See page 166. They also show the photos as reference in Fig 6-11 or 6-10. That was easy to clear up.

Also see table 6-1 pg 156 which clearly explains the sequence and should further clear up your misconceptions.
Figure 6-8 shows the "UPPER building section moving downward" at 10:28:18
Figures 6-10 and 6-11 are at 10:28:20

 

[pgimeno]

That's from NCSTAR 1-6, right?

Oh wow! So does that mean that the "mistake" in NIST's 8 degree assertion lies merely in a certain interpretation of their words, possibly caused by a bit reckless wording when summarizing, and that there are other interpretations that make more sense?!

We can test that hypothesis.

Let's compare it to what other engineers have interpreted.

For the North Tower, it was assumed in the calculations that the tilt in the south direction varied during the first 5 s from 2.8° to 8° [which is the angle reported by NIST (2005)], and that it was zero in the east direction.
​

Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson - What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York, p.901

Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster, you're right, Kent1! So it was Major Tom's interpretation of NIST's words what led him to assert that it was a big mistake, and not actually what NIST's meant.

So what I said previously holds:

Every so often in the paranormal world, someone shows something which looks abnormal and is interpreted in a certain way, but which has a different, not-so-obvious explanation which escapes an untrained eye. It's hard to be sure we're not in front of such a case, so there isn't a powerful reason to believe your interpretation of what you are showing. Given the qualification of the people who participated in the NIST report, it will require similarly qualified peers to review their work on that matter to determine if there was a mistake or not.
​

now validated by two big mistakes in Major Tom's side.