OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[femr2]

I'm with you on that.

Couple of observations...

this forum and the present polarised climate is probably not the place for debates about the boundaries of validity of any of the accepted authorities - whether institutional or prominent individuals.

Other possibly more appropriate arenas are available.

"Why?"

Personally, I don't think there's much point speculating on motive. Why crash the aircraft there and not 3 mile island, or the whitehouse, or... ?

"How?"

This is where I think it's fairly impossible to ignore studies such as those by NIST, especially initiation sequencing. "How" could be looked at from the other end...assuming CC creep, does the available evidence confirm or deny such ? If it's found that the available studies do not explain the physical behaviour, then what... ? The purpose surely being to state what did occur, not what may have occurred, or could have.

And keep them secret?

If they occurred, they aren't secret.

Scenario One - demolition devices are pre-installed before the aircraft crash. For all reasonable purposes this is impossible on logistic and security grounds.

Using the word "Devices" limits scope unnecessarily. Logistic and security implications should not be considered without first suggesting *how*.

Scenario Two - post installed.

I'd chuck that in the bin immediately.

"How in Detail?" Which bits of structure do you cut and in what sequencing/timing so the demolition is lost as part of the damage resulting from impact and unfought fires.

Again, limiting mechanism to *devices* causing *cuts* in structure is an overt boxing-in of possibilities. Probably due to over-exposure to implications of using the *D* word. MIHOP is a better term imo.

 

[ozeco41]

Couple of observations...

Understood - and let me preface by a reminder that the post you are commenting on was a very brief overview.

...Other possibly more appropriate arenas are available...

....Yes - I intended it to be implicit in what I said.

...Personally, I don't think there's much point speculating on motive. Why crash the aircraft there and not 3 mile island, or the whitehouse, or... ?

..Sure but that is not the focus of the strategic "why" that I addressed. In fact you have identified a strategic level higher than I did. My focus was on - given the intent to target a crash into whatever as you clarify AND for whatever reasons - WHY try to underpin it with the complications of a difficult demolition scenario.

...This is where I think it's fairly impossible to ignore studies such as those by NIST, especially initiation sequencing. "How" could be looked at from the other end...assuming CC creep, does the available evidence confirm or deny such ? If it's found that the available studies do not explain the physical behaviour, then what... ? The purpose surely being to state what did occur, not what may have occurred, or could have....

I am aware of your apparent focus/foci and Major_Tom's. They are to my mind "micro" issues - technically interesting but not in the line of decision making towards answering the prime technical question of demolition or not unless your logic needs them in that line. Mine doesn't. So I don't load my decision making and explanation processes with constraints that may apply to someone else's way of thinking/explaining.

...If they occurred, they aren't secret...

...fine parsing - recall I was being brief. Use "hidden from all but the most conscientious researcher" or some such if you prefer. If I have understood your point.

...Using the word "Devices" limits scope unnecessarily. Logistic and security implications should not be considered without first suggesting *how*...

...sure - but remember two things 1) I was being brief and 2) all the improbabilities start to rise as the method goes more esoteric.

...I'd chuck that in the bin immediately....

...reductio ad absolutelyridiculous but an option that is raised by some.

...Again, limiting mechanism to *devices* causing *cuts* in structure is an overt boxing-in of possibilities. Probably due to over-exposure to implications of using the *D* word. MIHOP is a better term imo.

...MIHOP is both too overloaded with responsibility aspects to be a good technical description and technically too wide open. The "How" has to be definable at some stage.

 

[ergo]

] Early in my involvement with Internet debate of 9/11 WTC matters I decided to stand aside from use of the authorities NIST, FEMA, Bazant. The reason at that time being that many of those I was debating had a confused objective of "prove NIST wrong" when my objective - and their claimed objective - was "answer the question demolition or not?"

For me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, this is not the first question. Since the official theory posits a gravitational collapse, the first question must be "gravity or not?"

So, whether by intent or lack of clear thinking skills, the validity of NIST et al became a red herring to derail and delay debate.

Not even close. A body of criticism aimed at pointing out the numerous failures of NIST is not a "red herring". It is the first step in seeking an honest and competent public discussion on what really happened to those buildings. This is the debate. There's no other debate in mainstream discourse that is being "delayed" by a focus on the errors of the official collapse theory. This has to get out first before other theories will be accepted.

Given the question "Demolition or not at WTC?" coming from "top" down I would identify the "layers" and status (in my opinion) as something like the following: ....

and I won't interject any further on this point except to point out again that your priority of questioning follows from, imo, an incorrect starting point and because of that, in your mind, "naturally" places the burden of proof on "truthers", who must then outline some kind of airtight CD/complicity theory for your scrutiny. For me, the first step is getting your side to explain the collapse theory (or set of theories) that you are defending, using recognized principles of physics. Getting you to do this brings all the ugly untruths out of the woodwork for you all to argue over, as you are doing here. This is because you either have to argue along the same lines as Bazant and NIST, i.e., defend them, or you have to publicly acknowledge that these models don't work. I see this is as an extremely important first step.

So it's preposterous to suggest that focussing on the implausibility of Bazant/NIST is "beside the point". Until you and your colleagues can get your theories accepted and propagated as the new official collapse theory, it is entirely the point.

 

[pgimeno]

This is where I think it's fairly impossible to ignore studies such as those by NIST, especially initiation sequencing. "How" could be looked at from the other end...assuming CC creep, does the available evidence confirm or deny such ? If it's found that the available studies do not explain the physical behaviour, then what... ? The purpose surely being to state what did occur, not what may have occurred, or could have.

You're attributing to the NIST study a quality that it doesn't have, namely to be a criminal investigation. No, what it is is a building safety investigation. They didn't have to get all the fine details right for criminal purposes.

Scenario Two - post installed.

I'd chuck that in the bin immediately.

[Truther mode] So what do you think Palmer was doing there? [/Truther mode]

For every claim there is an excuse. It's so easy to be a truther.

 

[pgimeno]

Since the official theory posits a gravitational collapse, the first question must be "gravity or not?"

That's your problem: you start with incredulity against the official theory just for the fact that it is official, regardless of its merit, and you build on that incredulity by systematically rejecting every proof.

and I won't interject any further on this point except to point out again that your priority of questioning follows from, imo, an incorrect starting point and because of that, in your mind, "naturally" places the burden of proof on "truthers", who must then outline some kind of airtight CD/complicity theory for your scrutiny. For me, the first step is getting your side to explain the collapse theory (or set of theories) that you are defending, using recognized principles of physics.

First, the burden of proof is since long ago in the truther side to show the first bit of real evidence of the claimed demolition. It has been nothing more than speculation from day zero and continues to be.

Second, presumption of guilt is not how justice is done, and that's what truthers are doing. And that's dangerous to society. That alone is enough to reject the validity of any truther's claims, unless they show any evidence of their claims.

Third, you have shown a willful lack of intention of learning the physics necessary to understand a gravity collapse, using your bogus physics principles to justify your position, therefore that point is moot. Gravity collapses are well understood; your position is similar to claiming that relativity is wrong and Newtonian physics is right when there is wide consensus on the contrary on the circles where that is well understood. You may fail to notice it, but by acting like that you're actually lowering the credibility of the movement you claim to defend, and just delaying any real discussion by wasting time in addressing flawed claims.

But then, that doesn't surprise me. I love that Jay Windley quote that DGM has in his signature: 'Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution'. The original continues: 'As long as conspiracy theories simply "call for more research" or assert that "it remains an open question," their proponents will continue to enjoy attention'. Which seems to be the real goal.

 

[ozeco41]

...So it's preposterous to suggest that focussing on the implausibility of Bazant/NIST is "beside the point". Until you and your colleagues can get your theories accepted and propagated as the new official collapse theory, it is entirely the point.

Thanks for proving my point. "...the validity of NIST et al became a red herring to derail and delay debate." - whether you meant to or not.

... 'Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution'.

It surely "seems to be the real goal."

 

[femr2]

You're attributing to the NIST study a quality that it doesn't have, namely to be a criminal investigation. No, what it is is a building safety investigation. They didn't have to get all the fine details right for criminal purposes.

No. What I'm saying is that if NIST is wrong, who got it right ? What is the correct answer ? Bazant et al showed there was enough energy assuming a certain set of initial conditions post-initiation, NIST produced a report from a black-box computer model the conclusions from which don't match observables.

What fine details are you saying NIST did not get right ?

Which report or study should be referred to instead ?

Or, in ozeco terms, what happened ?

How do you distinguish between (prove) core failure due to office fires, and core failure due to nefarious addition of pyrolants ?

etc...

 

[pgimeno]

No. What I'm saying is that if NIST is wrong, who got it right ? What is the correct answer ?

If (big IF) NIST is wrong, FBI got it right. If NIST made a mistake with respect to the 8 degree tilt (and I believe that in the worst case it's nothing more than a mistake, after watching figure 6-11 at p.166 that represents that tilt) that doesn't mean NIST is wrong.

Figure 6-11:

Bazant et al showed there was enough energy assuming a certain set of initial conditions post-initiation, NIST produced a report from a black-box computer model the conclusions from which don't match observables.

What observables are not matched? The 8 degree tilt? Is that all you have to criticize them? A poor wording that another engineer has interpreted in a way that matches the observables?

I've been asking since long for any complaints about NIST's WTC2 collapse initiation sequence, to no avail. The only try was MT's attempt to convince me that the WTC2 perimeter bowing corresponded to one single core column section, which I rebutted easily in post #976. I haven't seen any explanations yet of how the NIST description deviates from the actual collapse in the WTC2 case. I asked a question to MT which is so far unanswered, for good reasons:

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?

What fine details are you saying NIST did not get right ?

I'm not saying they didn't get right a specific detail. I'm saying that it was not their purpose to get every fine detail right.

How do you distinguish between (prove) core failure due to office fires, and core failure due to nefarious addition of pyrolants ?

By the context. 19 muslims with clear connections to a terrorist network hijacked 4 planes, as proved by the passenger records, the ATC recordings, the recovered black boxes, the airport cameras, the FBI investigations, etc. Two of these planes crashed into the Twin Towers as captured by multiple cameras. The resultant fire was far bigger than sprinklers can extinguish, plus the water system to feed them was damaged too, resulting in large, raging, totally unfought fires. The impact was big enough as to make the fireproofing to be dislodged, not to mention some columns to be totally broken. In that scenario, a natural collapse is fully expectable; the addition of pyrolants lacks any proof and is only sustained in a belief that ignores all the former.

 

[femr2]

If (big IF) NIST is wrong, FBI got it right.

That's a silly thing to say. The FBI did not perform any analysis of building behaviour.

If NIST made a mistake with respect to the 8 degree tilt (and I believe that in the worst case it's nothing more than a mistake, after watching figure 6-11 at p.166 that represents that tilt) that doesn't mean NIST is wrong.

Vertical descent of all four corners began after an initial essentially tilting motion of ~1 degree.

What observables are not matched?

The sequence of initiating events, as repeated many times by MT. There are others, but one step at a time.

The 8 degree tilt? Is that all you have to criticize them?

No, and the point is not to cirticise, it's to determine the correct behaviour.

I've been asking since long for any complaints about NIST's WTC2 collapse initiation sequence, to no avail.

Once WTC1 has been addressed, focus can move to WTC2.

I'm not saying they didn't get right a specific detail. I'm saying that it was not their purpose to get every fine detail right.

The entire point of the entire analysis was surely to get the initiating events correct ? If they get that wrong, the rest becomes somewhat pointless.

By the context. 19 muslims with clear connections to a terrorist network hijacked 4 planes, as proved by the passenger records, the ATC recordings, the recovered black boxes, the airport cameras, the FBI investigations, etc. Two of these planes crashed into the Twin Towers as captured by multiple cameras. The resultant fire was far bigger than sprinklers can extinguish, plus the water system to feed them was damaged too, resulting in large, raging, totally unfought fires.

There is no dispute that aircraft crashed into the Towers.

The impact was big enough as to make the fireproofing to be dislodged

Some. Enough ? How does one prove that ?

not to mention some columns to be totally broken.

How have you determined that as fact ?

In that scenario, a natural collapse is fully expectable

No. Possible.

the addition of pyrolants lacks any proof and is only sustained in a belief that ignores all the former.

Much of what you are stating is based upon belief.

I'm interested in determining what actually ocurred, not what may have or could have or didn't.

 

[Kent1]

What observables are not matched? The 8 degree tilt? Is that all you have to criticize them? A poor wording that another engineer has interpreted in a way that matches the observables?

I've been asking since long for any complaints about NIST's WTC2 collapse initiation sequence, to no avail. The only try was MT's attempt to convince me that the WTC2 perimeter bowing corresponded to one single core column section, which I rebutted easily in post #976. I haven't seen any explanations yet of how the NIST description deviates from the actual collapse in the WTC2 case. I asked a question to MT which is so far unanswered, for good reasons:

I'm waiting as well. So far the only thing I've seen is that Major Tom fails to address or read various sections of the NIST report, then tries to continue to push his claims as if counter information does not exist to answer his previous questions. He also fails to understand that the "building section" isn't the same as the "upper building section" above the impact and fire zone. Even if he continues to believe the 8 degrees is an error on NIST's part, it is resolved within other sections of the text and photos.

 

[Major_Tom]

Ozeco, thanks for the "why and how" post. I do not have time to address it today but I will within a few days (thoughtful post deserves a thoughtful reply).

On mistakes in the NIST report concerning WTC1 and 2:

1) The WTC1 tilt description shows they never really looked at what I call stage 3, the initial column failure sequence. The initial column failure sequence and the events leading up to it are the most important places to look for CD.

and a point we haven't looked at in detail yet..

2) The true cause of the inward bowing on the south face of WTC1 and the east face of WTC2. This is obviously a very important part of the events leading up to collapse initiation. It is essential to the official explanation, as the gradual increase in inward bowing (IB) is what the official theory claims is the ultimate cause of instability leading to collapse. The official theory hinges on the true cause of IB, and their IB theory really sucks.)

(and in the back of our minds let's remember that WTC7 is the mother of all F-ups in the official theory and probably the single biggest reason why so many people cannot believe the official story.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let's review what has already been mentioned about IB 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.

 

[pgimeno]

That's a silly thing to say. The FBI did not perform any analysis of building behaviour.

Right. However, they provided an ample amount of evidence to prove actors and motivation beyond doubt. The addition of a second hand putting pyrolants is a violation of parsimony to the point that it can't be taken seriously without evidence.

Vertical descent of all four corners began after an initial essentially tilting motion of ~1 degree.

I can agree with that for this discussion's purposes, but I'll quarantine my final word on it until I find expert corroboration. In my opinion, NIST got the 8 degrees from the point where the view was obscured by dust, as evidenced by Figure 6-11 (from NCSTAR 1-6, I forgot to specify in the last post, sorry). At some point, "before smoke and dust obscured the view" somehow was converted to "before the top start to fall" and they copied it that way everywhere. That hasn't prevented Bazant from making a more rational interpretation of NIST's words based on observations. Nothing more than a mistake, at worst, and not a big one anyway if so.

The sequence of initiating events, as repeated many times by MT. There are others, but one step at a time.

Do you mean the fact that the core failed first? That agrees with NIST's observations. According to them, the weakening of the core caused the loads to be transferred to the perimeter walls through the hat truss, which then failed. Did I miss something?

No, and the point is not to cirticise, it's to determine the correct behaviour.

Speak for yourself, as that's not so clear in MT's case.

The entire point of the entire analysis was surely to get the initiating events correct ? If they get that wrong, the rest becomes somewhat pointless.

The entire point of the entire analysis was to find if there was something that could be done to prevent such a disaster from happening again. That's the whole point of Chapter 8 of NCSTAR 1, of which you just focus on a few sentences.

Two of these planes crashed into the Twin Towers as captured by multiple cameras. The resultant fire was far bigger than sprinklers can extinguish, plus the water system to feed them was damaged too, resulting in large, raging, totally unfought fires.

There is no dispute that aircraft crashed into the Towers.

Are you implying there's dispute on the rest? Do you dispute something else from that paragraph?

The impact was big enough as to make the fireproofing to be dislodged

Some. Enough ? How does one prove that ?

In the current state of things, one doesn't have to prove that. Those who deny that to be the case have to prove the contrary. There are many unknowns, but the background context is very well established and the implicit accusation of intentional demolition needs evidence support. Some fireproofing was dislodged and the building fell after a raging fire, so it's a reasonable assumption that enough was dislodged, and that's also supported by a simulation. The burden of proof is ALL yours; even disproving the validity of the simulation wouldn't change that.

How have you determined that as fact ?

That some core columns were broken? How can I determine that the sun has raised today if I'm in a closed room? By looking at the clock. The plane went into the building in a trajectory which intersected the core; it had more than enough energy to break some core columns, therefore some core columns were broken.

Note: when I said "totally broken" I meant "totally disconnected".

In that scenario, a natural collapse is fully expectable

No. Possible.

Read "fully expectable" as "highly probable", as in, say, 90% chance (that's for illustration purposes only). The peculiar construction of the towers made them vulnerable, as did the peculiar construction of WTC7 (but that's a different subject).

Much of what you are stating is based upon belief.

Please identify what exactly, as I don't remember anything of what I've stated which is based on belief.

 

[Myriad]

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.

The pressure pulse NIST hypothesizes being transmitted from the collapsing tower to WTC1 was obviously not a wind pulse across the building exteriors where the smoke was.

Perhaps you should see if you can think of some other pathway via which a pressure pulse from the collapsing tower to WTC1 might have traveled. Might require some outside the box thinking... or the inverse.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Major_Tom]

And just a little reminder as to why claims of 8 degrees and south perimeter failure as opposed to collective core failure are probably wrong:

 

[beachnut]

And just a little reminder as to why claims of 8 degrees and south perimeter failure as opposed to collective core failure are probably wrong:

This is your evidence for your CD delusion? How does this support it?

 

[Myriad]

Are those red lines the space beams?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Kent1]

This is your evidence for your CD delusion? How does this support it?

It supports the claim he doesn't read the thread. That video has nothing to do with where NIST got 8 degrees from. NIST shows a different video where they got the measurement from. It was clearly at a later point at which the upper section was already moving downward.
See post 1039 and 1086 among many others.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6262427&postcount=1039
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6314465&postcount=1086

 

[achimspok]

That video has nothing to do with where NIST got 8 degrees from. NIST shows a different video where they got the measurement from.

There is no video or anything where they probably could have measured anything like 8° prior to the collapse of ALL vertical columns and a descent of the top of at least 3 floors. On the other hand NIST presented horizontally stretched images to provide some "evidence" to their claim.

 

[achimspok]

The pressure pulse NIST hypothesizes being transmitted from the collapsing tower to WTC1 was obviously not a wind pulse across the building exteriors where the smoke was.

Perhaps you should see if you can think of some other pathway via which a pressure pulse from the collapsing tower to WTC1 might have traveled. Might require some outside the box thinking... or the inverse.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I cannot think of any other pathway via which a pressure pulse from the collapsing tower to WTC1 might have traveled within about 3 seconds in the WTC2 collapse. Can you?

Respectfully,
achimspok

Btw, the ground shaking started when falling debris impacted the ground. So the remaining pathway is of some psychological nature. I guess, WTC1 simply had a feeling for the right moment. Might require some outside the box thinking... or the inverse.

 

[Myriad]

I cannot think of any other pathway via which a pressure pulse from the collapsing tower to WTC1 might have traveled within about 3 seconds in the WTC2 collapse. Can you?

Yes, of course I can. So can you, and probably (now that I've pointed out his bad assumption) so can Major_Tom.

If I'm wrong (that is, you actually can't figure it out), consider whether a wind pulse traveling between and outside the buildings would be likely to make flames and smoke puff out of the openings.

Respectfully,
Myriad