OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Reactor drone]

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

Hmm, lets see. You suddenly remove a large volume of building from near the top of tower 1 and increase the volume of building near the base of tower 1.

I'm thinking that might have some kind of pressure effect

 

[achimspok]

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

I see, the propaganda nut endeavor to fail (or simply to disrupt the discussion) again. But to answer your questions.
Q1: No.
Q2: see Q1.
This image is part of lots of measurements and calculations to determine the real movement of the top. So the image simply helps you to close your gap between reading the NIST bible and the reality.
The purpose: It makes zero sense to discuss the WTC1 collapse initiation while assuming some pre-collapse 8° tilting. ...same for the assumption of space beams.

 

[achimspok]

... consider whether a wind pulse traveling between and outside the buildings would be likely to make flames and smoke puff out of the openings.

Well, that's already considered. So you need some wind that affects the south face but not the smoke between the towers. That wind should be somehow continually not just a pulse. Furthermore we have some similar pulse a few seconds prior to the collapse at 94 (or below). Just watch the linked video.

 

[achimspok]

Hmm, lets see. You suddenly remove a large volume of building from near the top of tower 1 and increase the volume of building near the base of tower 1.

I'm thinking that might have some kind of pressure effect

...as "suddenly" as you can do it.

 

[Reactor drone]

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:

[qimg]http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/666/initialtilt175230b.gif[/qimg]

You may be misinterpreting the NIST description. In that Gif the south wall has failed and load redistribution is progressing rapidly along the east and west faces and through the core. The northern perimeter columns are bending but there isn't yet complete breakage of all the connections. the downward movement of the northern roofline at this point is due to the rotation rather than the descent of a detached north wall.

Since the speed of progression is rapid a small timing difference in locating the point of final failure will yield a large difference in perceived angle.

All of this minutiae is largely irrelevant though since the only argument so far put forward for the significance of any angle runs along the lines of, "see how fast that is, that doesn't look right to me."

 

[femr2]

Since the speed of progression is rapid a small timing difference in locating the point of final failure will yield a large difference in perceived angle.

All of this minutiae

Indeed. It is *all this minutiae* which enables such behaviour to be accurately determined.

Without it you are indeed limited to "see how fast that is, that doesn't look right to me.", or other largely baseless opinion.

These metrics are not plucked from thin air, based on hand waving or anything you may *think* based on simple observation without actually doing the very fine scale movement analyses.

The links to the911forum where the analyses have been performed is not hard to find.

 

[beachnut]

Indeed. It is *all this minutiae* which enables such behaviour to be accurately determined.

Without it you are indeed limited to "see how fast that is, that doesn't look right to me.", or other largely baseless opinion.

These metrics are not plucked from thin air, based on hand waving or anything you may *think* based on simple observation without actually doing the very fine scale movement analyses.

The links to the911forum where the analyses have been performed is not hard to find.

9 years of failure and you defend your wasted failed efforts to back in CD; is your delusion ordinary explosives, or super-nano-thermite? Funny how the OOS model is only laying the framework to back in CD. All of this is indicative of your failed idea there are two Flight 175s running around on 911 due to your lack of knowledge of flight systems, and flight tracking systems. It is funny how much wasted effort 911 truth believers go thought after 9 years of failure.

 

[Major_Tom]

Beachnut, 9 years and you don't even know whether the core or perimeter failed first.

This is some of the first accurate data of early WTC1 movement you have ever seen.


Reactor drone, post 1145: "You may be misinterpreting the NIST description. In that Gif the south wall has failed and load redistribution is progressing rapidly along the east and west faces and through the core."

How do you know? None of the data or images tell us that is what happened. The gif shows the antenna sagging while the NW corner is pulled in and the data confirms that is what is happening. If you look at the west face during this time you will see that the SW corner has not begun to move down yet. (The little image in the middle of the gif shows you the SW corner fire. Is it moving down at this time? No.)


Please look at the gif again and notice that the antenna is sagging before the SW corner fire begins to move downwards.

From the NIST:

1-6D, p 312, Table 5-2: Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.

1-6draft p 290: The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls

1-6draft, p 317: A tilt to the south of at least 8 degrees occurred before dust clouds obscured the view and the building section began to fall downwards.

(Same quotes in the final version but it is easier to copy and paste from the draft)

These descriptions by the NIST are incorrect. There is no "rigid block'. The earliest movements are of pure deformation as we just learned yesterday in the thread on femr's data analysis.

 

[Major_Tom]

These are very accurate drop curve measurements of a point on the antenna and of the NW corner:

If you know how to read this, you can see that there is no "rigid block".

If the 2 points were part of a "rigid block" over the first few degrees of tilt, both the slopes and the curvature of the position data at any moment would remain proportional to one another. They clearly do not.

Instead they move quite independently.

Notice the antenna drops about 2 ft slowly (before it has any significant velocity).

There is no relation between slope or curvature between the two positional data plots.

This is a big freaking clue as to whether there is any sort of rigid rotation of a "block".

 

[Major_Tom]

Myriad, post 1140: "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."

???

Let's hear your idea and then we'll check the available video to see how good it is. My guess is it isn't worth much. (The smoke allows air currents to be visible, you know, so it will be hard to BS your way through this one.

 

[Myriad]

As I said, think inside the box.

It appears NIST has inadvertently created a new "lateral thinking puzzle" with their statement. It probably never occurred to them that people would misread their pressure pulse as an exterior wind.

Hint: the towers shared a common basement.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, 9 years and you don't even know whether the core or perimeter failed first.

This is some of the first accurate data of early WTC1 movement you have ever seen.


Reactor drone, post 1145: "You may be misinterpreting the NIST description. In that Gif the south wall has failed and load redistribution is progressing rapidly along the east and west faces and through the core."

How do you know? None of the data or images tell us that is what happened. The gif shows the antenna sagging while the NW corner is pulled in and the data confirms that is what is happening. If you look at the west face during this time you will see that the SW corner has not begun to move down yet. (The little image in the middle of the gif shows you the SW corner fire. Is it moving down at this time? No.)


Please look at the gif again and notice that the antenna is sagging before the SW corner fire begins to move downwards.

From the NIST:

1-6D, p 312, Table 5-2: Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.

1-6draft p 290: The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls

1-6draft, p 317: A tilt to the south of at least 8 degrees occurred before dust clouds obscured the view and the building section began to fall downwards.

(Same quotes in the final version but it is easier to copy and paste from the draft)

These descriptions by the NIST are incorrect. There is no "rigid block'. The earliest movements are of pure deformation as we just learned yesterday in the thread on femr's data analysis.

What a bunch of nonsense.

Publish it. lol

Major Tom,
It does not matter what you do, you can't go back in time and place evidence in the WTC for explosives or your super thermite lies.

No explosives were used.
No thermite was used.
Both leave evidence and it would be found.

You have wasted 9 years trying to be an engineer and failed as you apologize for terrorists by looking to blame 911 on people you fail to define. You have delusions, this impairs you judgment as you pretend to be an engineer.

Publish your findings; if your amateur work is correct, the WTC still fell due to impacts and fire. Gravity collapse. Publish it now; did you support Heiwa's work also? Or is Heiwa's work nonsense now you have OOS? Your OOS proves gravity collapse possible. Evidence proves no explosives and no thermite. Jones' paper proves no thermite.

Your delusion of CD. Failed. Now what?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Beachnut, 9 years and you don't even know whether the core or perimeter failed first.

Wow you are still flogging this dead horse. Only structural engineers would be remotely interested in which failed first as it their job to design building that don't fail as easily.
Its what initiated the collapse thats important, I say impact and fire........and we have plenty of proof for that at least as a plausible cause. Please say what you think initiated it and show your evidence for that.
This thread is just self abuse otherwise.

 

[carlitos]

Major_Tom, I'll ask you the same thing that I asked Derek Johnson. Why should I believe you over the other engineers here? You can't even figure out the quote function after 2 years, but they are able to concisely explain things when I ask. You appear to have a marketing problem for your ideas. Bad delivery. Try harder.

 

[Major_Tom]

Why "believe"? Look at the freaking data and visuals.

The data and observables contradict the NIST.

"Belief" is the problem. This is data, not Sunday mass. No belief required.

 

[Kent1]

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.
[qimg]http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/6730/nisttilt3.gif[/qimg]

Please see the links. The photos have already been linked in my previous post. It's been posted MANY times. Looks close to 8 degrees to me.
It's amazing, but some people are getting confused and keep repeating the same false claims without reading the thread or the understanding the NIST report.
Please try reading the thread first.
Again see post 1039 and 1086 among MANY others.

 

[Major_Tom]

Myriad, your "hint" is the basements? That is funny.

 

[Major_Tom]

Kent, achimspok is the one who mapped the last graph posted.

Watching you lecture him on WTC1 tilt is really, really funny.

His data is jolt-sensitive. Can you do that?

 

[Kent1]

Kent, achimspok is the one who mapped the last graph posted.

Watching you lecture him on WTC1 tilt is really, really funny.

His data is jolt-sensitive. Can you do that?

What funny is that both of you never simply looked at the photos within the NIST report where they got the measurement from.
Or for that matter, even read the thread or posts you often respond to.
Heck, you often don't even read your own posts.

 

[carlitos]

Why "believe"? Look at the freaking data and visuals.

The data and observables contradict the NIST.

"Belief" is the problem. This is data, not Sunday mass. No belief required.

No, your interpretation of the data is the problem. Hence my disbelief.