OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[ozeco41]

Well, you can't blame someone who sees the titles of these videos for making that assumption about the uploader:..

I understand that members may make assumptions on data from earlier sources which was why I was pedantically specific in my comment:

... Yes. I am very clear as to the boundary you place meticulously in your posts..... I am very aware of the accusations of CD directed at you despite there being no explicit claims of CD in your posts....

...where "your posts" was intended to mean "the referenced posts" - my wording a little open to misinterpretation but the intention should have been clear in context.

A legitimate criticism of femr2 could well be "I note from other posted material that you support (CD or whatever the other posts show support of) BUT this post I am addressing makes no mention of CD."

Accusations which claim a post advocates CD when the subject post does not mention CD are false.

Likewise the attempts to characterise the broad concept of OOS/ROOSD as "trutherism" reflect on those making such claims. Apart from the label the "OOS/ROOSD" concept of pancaking floors and stripping of those floors from the outer columns is part of an accepted explanation for the "global collapse" stage.

femr2 is working on details in the "grey area" and I have several times intimated that his work faces large barriers if it progresses down a track towards demolition OR any other "human assistance".

 

[ozeco41]

I'm sure part of the intention of the ROOSD study is to get rid of the continued suggestions of floor-by-floor explosives, in a way that is matched directly to observable behaviour. Folk reading it don't have to do the math or the physics. They can simply spend time interpreting the visual evidence, with the conclusion that it doesn't match that *theory*.

It doesn't deal with initiation, and so it is valid to state that it doesn't prove how initiation occurred. Some folk seem to have issue with the wording, but personally, I don't think there's a huge problem with making the distinction. Wording, whatever.

It should not be necessary to state that the validity or otherwise of ROOSD rests in the concept and supporting evidence.

It does not rest on the opinions of the person presenting or commenting on it.

Specifically ROOSD is not false because a "truther" advocates it nor is is "true" because an authoritative debunker supports it.

 

[femr2]

It does not rest on the opinions of the person presenting or commenting on it.

Specifically ROOSD is not false because a "truther" advocates it nor is is "true" because an authoritative debunker supports it.

I agree. It is what it is. I think it's a better way to approach the primary descent mechanism than other descriptions such as the pancake theory, or the limiting case Bazant model, or... ? Well, or what ?

The division of the OOS region into zones allows for regional behaviours to be expressed, which is absolutely necessary to describe observable behaviour correctly...such as the WTC 1 split North-South *crush fronts*.

It was perhaps wishful thinking that posting it here could result in development and progression of the finer details of the study, especially in terms of functional mathematical model.

It should be practical to parameterise a mathematical model such that it closely matches the actual *crush front* progression pretty closely. Determining the factors which result in the linear rate/terminal velocity of each crush front would be good. (It's about 28m/s)

 

[ozeco41]

I agree. It is what it is. I think it's a better way to approach the primary descent mechanism than other descriptions such as the pancake theory, or the limiting case Bazant model, or... ? Well, or what ?...

...there were pancaking elements in the mechanism and I still find it a useful explanation for non technical persons.

...The division of the OOS region into zones allows for regional behaviours to be expressed, which is absolutely necessary to describe observable behaviour correctly...such as the WTC 1 split North-South *crush fronts*...

my simpler goal - answer "demolition or not?" - has not required me to go to the detail of "zones".

 

[Patriots4Truth]

From what I have gathered by reading many of your posts ozeco41 is that you admit that the destruction of WTC buildings could be CD related but you do not favor CD theories simply because they would be 'too difficult' to carry out. However, in the case of WTC7 for instance, the collapse matches up more to CD collapse than fire collapse (I won't argue why here because this argument is everywhere on the internet). The possibility of CD isn't so low as hardcore debunkers at jref make it out to be - they compare the possibility of it happening to the possibility that bigfoot exists. That's hardly the case - more like debunker propaganda.

Being able to spot debunker propaganda is especially easy at jref. There's one person here who can't go a single post without mentioning '9 years of failure', 'no evidence' or 'show me a logical theory' (i.e. 'let me disprove you because your logical theory is too complex and therfor couldn't happen').

Having debates with people that don't address the totality of an post and with people that only search for openings to spout debunker propaganda talking points is like having a debate with a dining room table. Of course debunkers like to point out when truthers don't address ______ when they are perfectly guilty of not addressing ______ as well.

 

[DGM]

However, in the case of WTC7 for instance, the collapse matches up more to CD collapse than fire collapse (I won't argue why here because this argument is everywhere on the internet).

And no "truther" can every say why. You don't find that curious?

 

[achimspok]

Since the core of WTC 1 was the first to begin giving way...

This part of the story is obviously true but if it come to "the core collapsed first" then you become a delusional twoofer because THE REPORT has a very different way to interpret what happened. ...or did I missed something?

..., wouldn't a valid explanation be that those ejections were the result of partial floor collapses...

Besides the hundreds of unexplainable coincidences, yes, it would be if you consider that a part of the 96th floor fell on the 95th floor and a part of the 93rd floor fell on the 92nd floor starting a raging fire that needed 10 minutes to burn from the middle of the north face around the NW corner and south to the SW corner. ...while a raging fire at 95 started too.
Both areas have to fall at the very same moment but do not pancake down from 96 to 92. That areas have to be huge at both floors to expand enough pressure through the entire floor area. These huge areas have to fall inside the core, just to explain the smoke pattern e.g. ejected opposite the hallway through the core. Well, the core area is that area with the most columns and the smallest areas without columns. There is a certain probability that more than one column must be involved. On the other hand, the core area had a lot of shafts and just little furniture. That area lacks of fuel to explain a long lasting inferno that e.g. drops a floor without fire below and without damage to the fire proofing below especially inside the core.
Coincidentally these partial collapses have to occur at the floors of core column connections but may not cause some suction (like above the falling WTC7 penthouse) but of course the air that was blown out of the windows at 95 and 92 must somewhere else enter the building.
The falling area could suck down the air trough open shafts. So the suction might be widely distributed and hardly visible but there are the same shafts below the falling area.

...or the beginning of movement within the building interior immediately before the main collapse started? The ejecta simply looks like smoke, which doesn't appear particularly strange to me....

That ejecta (as far as visible from the roof of CNN) is mostly smoke. Without the smoke we wouldn't have noticed that pressure pulse at all. Between the lines you seemingly ask for suspicious characteristics of squibs. As I mentioned above, even if there were blasts of high explosives it wouldn't be very probable that we would see any sign of it. The sound is a different problem but comparable squibs reaching about 10 meters with little of bright smoke. A blast 20-30 meters away from the exterior walls in a smoke filled space and shielded by walls and elevator banks would probably look like what we see.
You can compare it even with the appearance of the dust fountains. These fountains started "invisible" but sometimes they blew out huge chunks of debris. ...and some moments later these spots of overpressure started to blow out massive amounts of fine bright dust. Thats the time we usually see them first.
It could be the beginning of the movement within the building interior if there is any good explanation either for
- core columns breaking at both connections simultaneously at zero degree tilting or
- two core areas collapsed at the very same time for any reason while the ceiling of 92 has to collapse just due to movement and without visible fire ejecting a lot of smoke. ...smoke?

 

[pgimeno]

What do squibs^WP have anything to do at all with the WTC?

How could an explosive break just one window from here and create such a plume of smoke?

How could it break that sole window from that distance?

(Apologies to femr2 for using his bandwidth, I hope he doesn't mind since he posted the same image in this very thread)

 

[femr2]

How could an explosive break just one window from here and create such a plume of smoke?

How could it break that sole window from that distance?

Not sure what you are referring to. Do you mean the recent video release ? (A stabilised copy here)
That's not what Achimspok is referring to I rekn. Pretty sure he means...

If you do mean the video linked (not the image above), it's within the mechanical floor zone I think, so don't think there are any normal windows there. Not sure. The rate of initial smoke release is very slow, so not an explosion, and possibly HVAC related.

Note the rapid increase in smoke a couple of floor higher though. Curious.

(Apologies to femr2 for using his bandwidth, I hope he doesn't mind since he posted the same image in this very thread)

No worries. Unlimited.

 

[pgimeno]

Not sure what you are referring to. Do you mean the recent video release ? (A stabilised copy here)
That's not what Achimspok is referring to I rekn. Pretty sure he means...
[qimg]http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2860/pulsekz.gif[/qimg]

If you do mean the video linked (not the image above), it's within the mechanical floor zone I think, so don't think there are any normal windows there. Not sure. The rate of initial smoke release is very slow, so not an explosion, and possibly HVAC related.

Note the rapid increase in smoke a couple of floor higher though. Curious.

Sorry, I think I need to avoid posting at this time of the day, or at least with this grade of tiredness. The feature in the video looks a bit like a backdraft but without the fire, maybe an internal backdraft? No idea of the cause of the sudden release of smoke in the gif, maybe a partial collapse? Is there anything else special about it, that I have missed?

Going to bed now, to avoid spewing more nonsense

ETA: BTW, what video is that gif from?

 

[Major_Tom]

It is happening on 2 floors at the same time with a 3 floor separation. Fls 92 and 95, both floors contain bolted splice connections for all 47 core columns at the same elevations. Next higher splices are on fl 98, where the building gave at an angle of less than 1 degree.

 

[beachnut]

Sorry, I think I need to avoid posting at this time of the day, or at least with this grade of tiredness. The feature in the video looks a bit like a backdraft but without the fire, maybe an internal backdraft? No idea of the cause of the sudden release of smoke in the gif, maybe a partial collapse? Is there anything else special about it, that I have missed?

Going to bed now, to avoid spewing more nonsense

ETA: BTW, what video is that gif from?

You are right, the physics of the puff prove it is not from the silent super secret nano thermite insane claim from CD delusion believers.

 

[Major_Tom]

From the NIST report:

They highlight an ejection from the SW corner at 10:18 also. At the same moment?

 

[Major_Tom]

"At 10:18:48 a.m. an event took place within the tower that created a pressure pulse of sufficient
magnitude to force smoke out of numerous windows on the north face, as well as from the other faces.
The most obvious effect of this pressure pulse was the release of a dense line of smoke along a length of the 92nd floor on the north face, extending from roughly window 94-110 to window 94-139. This smoke release was evident in numerous videos, including a number shot at great distances."

NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Draft, p 253.

So a 5 second difference between the start of the ejections and the image above.

We have the pulses from the N face, fls 92 and 95 (NIST says fl 94, need to recheck), a small pulse from the middle of the W face and one from the SW corner, fl 92.

NIST seems wrong about the fl 94 claim. Looks like 95 to me.

 

[ozeco41]

From what I have gathered by reading many of your posts ozeco41 is that you admit that the destruction of WTC buildings could be CD related but you do not favor CD theories simply because they would be 'too difficult' to carry out...

That is a comprehensive misreading of my position. You will need to read what I say carefully because I try to post with legal precision on the issues that matter. Specifically I do not favour the polarised style used my many on this 9/11 section of the forum which black and white divides posting members into "us" and "truthers".

My position if firmly in the camp of "no demolition" where the arguments at several levels are each sufficient to convince me:

• At the level of "why do it?" specifically "why combine a very difficult to achieve and keep secret demolition with the straightforward four planes hit four buildings symbolic of US world dominance", there is no reason that persuades me that demolition in any form of euphemism is indicated;
• At the level of how to do it and how to keep it secret I find the available evidence overwhelming for both questions independent of each other.

...so three independent reasons why "no demolition" before we even get to all the "bits of technical nonsense" that the truth movement publishes.

However I remain open to any properly stated contrary claim. Despite that I have never seen* a properly stated and reasoned claim pro demolition from the truth movement. The intellectual level of most statements by high profile members of the truth movement is appalling - and that before we examine the deliberate use of propaganda trickery and other mendacious techniques. Show me a truther video that passes the first minute without resorting to mendacity - there may be some but I cannot recall ever seeing one - and the same goes for written papers.


* Let me qualify the "never" a bit - I was recently given a link to a moderately readable truther site - but not persuasive. Would have to back track to find what it was.

 

[pgimeno]

It is happening on 2 floors at the same time with a 3 floor separation. Fls 92 and 95, both floors contain bolted splice connections for all 47 core columns at the same elevations. Next higher splices are on fl 98, where the building gave at an angle of less than 1 degree.

Consistent with the state of the windows and the development of fire; see figure 8-93 of NCSTAR 1-5A p.252 (p.348 of the PDF) and figure C-51 of the same report (different PDF) p.496 (200 of the PDF) and F-57 (yet another different PDF, p.668, p.164 of the PDF). Color codes for the last two are in p.445 (149 of the 2nd PDF) and p.611 (p.107 of the 3rd PDF). Nothing surprising there. The ejections are also visible in floor 93 in the area where the windows are broken (left side of north face); ditto for floor 97. Floor 94 does not exhibit such evident ejections but does exhibit some. As for the reduced pressure in floor 94, I'm wondering about the state of the elevator doors. This is speculation, but maybe there were some open/blown at floors 92 and 93 and all closed at floor 94. So the question is what caused the ejections, not where were they observed. Your wishful thinking makes its appearance again.

 

[pgimeno]

Oh, and can anyone show an explosion with such a mild ejection pressure? I can show this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ6_WBwgNuM

A very strong and sudden pressure pulse which stops immediately leaving just a mild residual pressure. That's what I expect from an explosion, and not the slowly-growing ejections that MT and achimspok show.

 

[achimspok]

You are right, the physics of the puff prove it is not from the silent super secret nano thermite insane claim from CD delusion believers.

Pooped again?

The "physics" of the puffS indeed prove nothing and excludes nothing but whatever it caused that caused a lot of moving air on two floor simultaneously and accidentally on the floors of core column connections.

How could an explosive break just one window from here...

That's exactly what I said. Thanks.

That's what happened in WTC2 and accidentally at floor 77 and 80 - the floors with core column connections obviously visible due to some already broken windows.

Further similarities are unexplained darting flames e.g. from floor 13 WTC7 about 10 minutes prior to the collapse or darting flames from the center of the south side of WTC1.
Compared to other known pressure events like 3-floor-smoke-ejections we have to deal with some pattern.

Has anyone seen the fast pull in of the WTC2 floor slaps? Thanks for ignoring but obviously we can bury the perimeter driven collapse theory. (Thanks for ignoring in advance!)

 

[achimspok]

We have the pulses from the N face, fls 92 and 95 (NIST says fl 94, need to recheck)...

Usually NIST is precise in the given floor numbers. According to NIST "an intense fire appeared in the western edge of the 95th floor" NCSTAR 1-5 p17
That's where the upper row of smoke was ejected. The 94th floor is perhaps just the impression from the CNN video because the lower row of smoke from 92 enters the bright sunlight at a higher elevation of 94. That looks like a bright "ejection" in the east of 94 but it isn't an ejection at all imo.

 

[pgimeno]

That's what happened in WTC2 and accidentally at floor 77 and 80 - the floors with core column connections obviously visible due to some already broken windows.
[qimg]http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/3453/oressurepuldr.gif[/qimg]

Looks like 77 and 79 to me. More wishful thinking?

Has anyone seen the fast pull in of the WTC2 floor slaps? Thanks for ignoring but obviously we can bury the perimeter driven collapse theory. (Thanks for ignoring in advance!)

Not obvious to me at least. Can you please explain?