Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[ozeco41]

For one, it's of importance to people who care about the science of the collapse. Certainly, there is a lot to learn from the collapse.

And if knowing probable identities of the initiation mechanism is not important to you, then why the hell are you sticking your head in conversations where the initiation is important to other people? (can you read the thread title?) You remind me a non-engineer chiming in during an engineering lecture just to say "this is not important!". Except you would get kicked out of the lecture hall and you basically can't get kicked off the internet for saying something stupid.



This might not be Major Tom's logical basis but what if someone wanted to find out the probability, with a proper degree of error, as to whether plane crash/fire was the damage initiation mechanism (that sets off the rest of the initiation). Maybe then I can understand why some nontechnical debunkers feel the need to chime in random technical conversations just to say the "this is not important" to people who actually care about *all* the technical stuff.

Well said Patriots. Ditto your other two posts.

Last time I checked there was no rule against technical discussions. Those who don't want can simply not join the discussion. Better than continually attempting to change the topic to CD when it has not been raised.

 

[Myriad]

So you will be able to explain to us how WTC3, 5 and 6 were able to resist progressive collapse...?

Oooh, I know this one. Geometry and scale. Shorter buildings, higher strength to dead weight ratios. (But, note, only global progressive collapse was avoided. Local collapses and global irreparable damage to the frameworks occurred in every case, forcing the remains to be demolished.)

Toss a cupcake a few feet up in the air and catch it again. It'll be fine (except you might smear the icing a bit). Toss a birthday cake the same height, and try to catch it -- it'll break into pieces and most of it will end up on the floor. Try it with a wedding cake and it'll break apart before you can even get it in the air. Same material, different scale and geometry.

Scale matters. Implying that scale should not matter will make engineers laugh at you.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[carlitos]

Maybe those darn 110 story buildings fell on them. Think McFly, think!

Physician, heal thyself. Think (for about 20 times longer than you do now) before you post anything. Stop, look at it, go do something else, read it again, get a second opinion, and then MAYBE post whatever your first thought was.

 

[beachnut]

Well said Patriots. Ditto your other two posts.

Last time I checked there was no rule against technical discussions. Those who don't want can simply not join the discussion. Better than continually attempting to change the topic to CD when it has not been raised.

Major Tom is not making a technical discussion. He is posting nonsense due to his demolition conspiracy theories. Is anyone fooled by Major Tom's dissertation on how 911 truth fails to understand models and engineering. There is no technical stuff from 911 truth, only conspiracy theories of demolition disguises as technical discussions. It is simple to understand this since this tripe is not published or received by the engineering community as anything but nonsense and delusions.

Does any known collapse initiation model match this visual record? (No).

A statement exposing a lack of knowledge of models and clearly no engineering used to come up with this nonsensical thread. A thread attacking NIST, something no engineer needs to do to prove their point. The problem here is there is no goal, no point because the underlying conclusion for Major Tom is demolition, the moronic inside job nonsense. You can play fake engineering analysis with 911 truth, there is no up side except the technobabble of 911 truth keeps a lot of people at bay because the thin facade of engineering keeps many at bay.

The thread boils down to 911 truth believer in demolition asking questions, no goal, and a failed attack on reality, NIST


Major Tom has a conspiracy theory of demolition, and instead of getting an engineering degree for the past years, he insists on practicing engineering without the knowledge it takes to be rational on 911.

it may be why you appease those who can't get an engineering degree given 9+ years, and they also can't figure out 911 given the answers.

...
Does any known collapse initiation model match this visual record? (No).

This thread, another demolition conspiracy theory inspired weak attack on NIST. 911 truth only does fantasy, don't confused by the technobabble or miss the fact it was inspired by the demolition conspiracy theory, made up by 911 truth.

 

[ozeco41]

@beachnut. Please desist from using my posts as a launch pad for one of your illogical, untruthful and disjointed rants. I do not deny you the freedom to post rubbish. But when you do so in the pretence of responding to one of my posts I prefer to not leave your nonsense unanswered even though it is a waste of bandwidth. Au contraire if you disagree with something I say then post your reasons and I will probably respond.

Major Tom is not making a technical discussion....

Wrong. Collapse initiation for WTC1 is a legitimate technical topic in the context of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

...He is posting nonsense...

..Your unsupported claim! So put up or shut up - show that it is nonsense, if you can.

...due to his demolition conspiracy theories.

The discussion topic is not "What is Major_Tom's Motivation?" If you want that topic start the thread and leave the technical discussion threads free for discussion.

... Is anyone fooled by Major Tom's dissertation on how 911 truth fails to understand models and engineering...

..gobbledegook - WTF are you trying to say?

There is no technical stuff from 911 truth, only conspiracy theories of demolition disguises as technical discussions....

OT strawman.

It is simple to understand this since this tripe is not published or received by the engineering community as anything but nonsense and delusions....

Meaningless mud slinging mixed up in mendacious ambiguity.

 

[DGM]

Well said Patriots. Ditto your other two posts.

Last time I checked there was no rule against technical discussions. Those who don't want can simply not join the discussion. Better than continually attempting to change the topic to CD when it has not been raised.

Then why is this thread in this sub-forum? If there is no link to a conspiracy then it should be moved.

 

[DGM]

Last time I checked there was no rule against technical discussions. Those who don't want can simply not join the discussion. Better than continually attempting to change the topic to CD when it has not been raised.

How does this quote from MT fit.

U.S. and world history being questioned. Origins of wars being questioned.

Do you really believe this is a "technical discussion" to him? If so, how does the exact progression of collapse fit into this statement?

 

[Major_Tom]

I'm sure everyone knows that the NIST identified long truss sagging in the south OOS region as the mechanism by which the south wall was pulled inward and failed.

The NIST WTC1 collapse initiation mechanism is based on massive sagging of flooring in the OOS south region, leading to inward bowing of the south wall. Inward bowing increases until the south fails, ultimately pulling down the core with the east and west perimeter walls.



'Airplane impact and fires" are not a mechanics of collapse initiation.

Mechanics in this case is just a mechanism, the basic mechanism by which WTC1 initially failed.

Recall, the NIST's first and foremost stated objective repeated in the introduction of each report:

1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the
aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;

The "why and how" involves the discovery of a failure mechanism. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be able to identify the difference between a core failure and a south perimeter failure, for example. It should also match the photographic record.

Did the NIST indeed discover the "why and how" of what led to WTC1 collapse initiation?


If you believe that massive south OOS floor sagging from 10:06 to 10:23, followed by south wall failure at 10:28 is the WTC1 collapse mechanism, then perhaps the NIST has discovered the true initiation mechanism.

If that was not the true mechanism of initial failure, then perhaps the NIST failed in their mission.



Does anyone have any proof that the south wall failed first, dragging the rest of the building down with it? I couldn't find any photographic proof of the NIST's stated mechanism.


Remember, that which is called "proof" of natural failure by the NIST is nothing more than proving the stated mechanism actually occurred.

If the stated mechanism by the NIST didn't actually occur, then the NIST reports prove nothing. They don't "prove" that the "airplane impact and fires" are the cause of the WTC1 collapse.


Just as many of you believed that Dr Bazant "proved" something in BV, BL and BLGB, so many people feel the +20 million dollar NIST report "proves" natural collapse.

The reality is, just as with Bazant's BV, BL and BLGB, the NIST reports contain no "proof" of the inevitability of natural collapse if their OOS south floor sagging idea is not correct. The NIST explanation of WTC1 collapse initiation totally depends on whether their stated initiation mechanism is correct. Their stated mechanism is floor sagging, pulling in the south perimeter to the point of failure.

 

[achimspok]

 

[Major_Tom]

The NIST WTC1 initiation scenario as it is written involves no "snap", but inward pulling of the south perimeter to the point of buckling.

The image above was blamed on a confused graphic artist working for the program. Obviously the image is absurd. The inward pulling should continue to buckling, not "snapping". Or rather, a possible "snapping" of bolted connections, not of the column itself.

That is the officially accepted initiation mechanism. That is your initiation mechanism. Please learn it before trying to defend it.

The person in charge of the investigation, giving an interview on National Geographics, should have said "buckled", not "snapped". He is obviously paying close attention to the details in his own report.

So, for the official initiation mechanism to be true, massive floor sagging has to take place between 10:06 and 10:23 and failure of the south wall needs to be able to pull the core, east and west perimeter walls down with it within one degree of tilt.

 

[Major_Tom]

This is an excellent video exploring the geometry of floor sagging:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwXLIdMzmG8

The editor claims that about 9 feet of floor sagging would be necessary to create the inward bowing witnessed on the south face.

 

[tsig]

@beachnut. Please desist from using my posts as a launch pad for one of your illogical, untruthful and disjointed rants. I do not deny you the freedom to post rubbish. But when you do so in the pretence of responding to one of my posts I prefer to not leave your nonsense unanswered even though it is a waste of bandwidth. Au contraire if you disagree with something I say then post your reasons and I will probably respond.

Wrong. Collapse initiation for WTC1 is a legitimate technical topic in the context of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.
..Your unsupported claim! So put up or shut up - show that it is nonsense, if you can.
The discussion topic is not "What is Major_Tom's Motivation?" If you want that topic start the thread and leave the technical discussion threads free for discussion.
..gobbledegook - WTF are you trying to say? OT strawman. Meaningless mud slinging mixed up in mendacious ambiguity.

Your pretense to neutrality is becoming thin.You are mistaking smoke and mirrors for a technical discussion.

 

[beachnut]

@beachnut. Please desist from using my posts as a launch pad for one of your illogical, untruthful and disjointed rants. I do not deny you the freedom to post rubbish. But when you do so in the pretence of responding to one of my posts I prefer to not leave your nonsense unanswered even though it is a waste of bandwidth. Au contraire if you disagree with something I say then post your reasons and I will probably respond.

Wrong. Collapse initiation for WTC1 is a legitimate technical topic in the context of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.
..Your unsupported claim! So put up or shut up - show that it is nonsense, if you can.
The discussion topic is not "What is Major_Tom's Motivation?" If you want that topic start the thread and leave the technical discussion threads free for discussion.
..gobbledegook - WTF are you trying to say? OT strawman. Meaningless mud slinging mixed up in mendacious ambiguity.

Appease the demolition conspiracy theorist, it is not a new tactic, it was used with great success with Hitler for years. Major Tom's approach is nonsense, and you are teasing him at best, or you have some hidden inside job aspirations of your own. I see no math, no physics, zero engineering. I see a weak attack on NIST, caused by the delusion of demolition. The thread is full of technobabble to keep people who think it is a technical discussion away. What was the goal of the OP? Was it to expose Major Tom's ignorance of models, or his lack of engineering skills?

Meaningless mud slinging, is actually pointing out the motivation of the OP, it is to back in demolition, the old moronic inside job for an event soley done by 19 terrorsts. Major Tom has no goal, the OP is nonsense. I never knew looking at motive was meaningless mud slinging, better tell all those law enforcement angencies motive is meaningless mud slinging.

... Does any known collapse initiation model match this visual record? (No).

Motive is not important? Not a factor?

Nonsense. Please explain why it is not nonsense. There are over 10 examples of nonsense in the OP, and you can't find them? You are an engineer, right? Why are you teasing the conspiracy theorists? The OP exposes the author has no clue when it comes to models and engineering, fire, physics, and other topics. No wonder the author remains clueless and evidence free in the pursuit of the inside job demolition of the WTC complex. There is an ignore button, you and Major Tom should use it so you can go forward in your "technical discussion" of woo. Carry on, and learn to use the tools around you to make your posting more carefree and "technical" looking. Have a great week.

 

[achimspok]

Appease the demolition conspiracy theorist, it is not a new tactic, it was used with great success with Hitler for years. Major Tom's approach is nonsense, and you are teasing him at best, or you have some hidden inside job aspirations of your own. I see no math, no physics, zero engineering. I see a weak attack on NIST, caused by ...

Beachnuts defense of rediculous theories by blaming any critique as "new tactic" "demolition conspiracy" "delusion" "hidden aspirations" "zero engineering" shows that Beachnut obviously lacks of any insight regarding to physics, math or engineering. His way to oppress any critique by linking it to his paranoid view was used with great success by the Inquisition and Hitler for years. It's the old tactic of ruling by fear. It says "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists". It's just another way to say "STFU".
Beachnut says, he knew it was Bin Laden right when the second plane hit because he had listened to the intelligence briefings. Well, the minority of us had the privilege to do so. That's why someone might guess that real world physics might be involved in 9/11. Sorry Beachnut. We try to forget about that delusion and praise Bush instead for letting the flowers grow and so on.
The intelligence briefings told you. ... How do you do that? 15000 posts in 5 years? Are you paid for posting? Is it your job?

 

[Major_Tom]

Wouldn't it be funny if many regular JERF posters had to admit that the true collapse initiation mechanism for WTC1 remains a total mystery to this day?


Well, maybe not so funny, but it certainly doesn't help to quell the claims of a "conspiracy".


In fact, were it to be shown that the NIST WTC1 initiation mechanism does not match the visual record, that would definitely shroud it's collapse in total mystery,

+20 million dollars, hundreds of our top engineering minds and the true initiation mechanism remains a mystery 10 years later.

It's only a rectangular, repetitive structure so how mysterious could it be?

Yet it remains a mystery, like a modern age Sphinx.

 

[carlitos]

femr2 and Major_Tom, I know that you usually ignore my friendly advice on presentation skills (e.g., formatting, overly complicated charts, labels and jumpy gifs).

With that in mind, here's one I mentioned months ago to no avail. Correctly using the word "its" will add gravitas to your collective presentation. Again, feel free to ignore this advice, as I expect you will, given your unstated goal of accomplishing nothing and convincing no one.

 

[DGM]

Wouldn't it be funny if many regular JERF posters had to admit that the true collapse initiation mechanism for WTC1 remains a total mystery to this day?

Actually I don't think anyone here would have a problem with this.

Your problem is your going about it the wrong way. Your trying to show how NIST was wrong. You should be trying to prove that you are right.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[femr2]

femr2

Eh ? Haven't posted on this thread for a while.

With that in mind, here's one I mentioned months ago to no avail. Correctly using the word "its" will add gravitas to your collective presentation.

If you are referring to MT's use of it's above...

It's only a rectangular, repetitive structure so how mysterious could it be?

...then may I suggest you re-read.

Contraction of it is.

Regardless, if that's your boggle, then you're welcome t'clarification.

There's loadsa Americanisms that drive me nuts, but hey-ho, y's canny account for dialect eh.

 

[carlitos]

Eh ? Haven't posted on this thread for a while.

With that in mind, here's one I mentioned months ago to no avail. Correctly using the word "its" will add gravitas to your collective presentation.

My bad, I saw this today in the other "femr2 and Major_Tom explain engineering" thread, and thought it was in this one.

Incorrect. As you well know I've spent lots of time looking for evidence of creep, both in terms of it's previous *evidential form*...progressive tilt, and in terms of extremely fine displacement of building features over time.

That's what I must have been thinking of when MT did it again in this thread.

If you are referring to MT's use of it's above...

It's only a rectangular, repetitive structure so how mysterious could it be?

...then may I suggest you re-read.

Contraction of it is.

Regardless, if that's your boggle, then you're welcome t'clarification.

Sure, I'll clarify. I was referring specifically to this:

In fact, were it to be shown that the NIST WTC1 initiation mechanism does not match the visual record, that would definitely shroud it's collapse in total mystery, ...

...which is indicative of a persistent pattern of the same mistake over and over:

Now we ignore the building and we have only 3 vectors in space. We rotate the whole clock about it's center point 12 degrees clockwise so all hands turn together 12 degrees.

When we allow for deformation, if the NIST did it's job correctly they would have at least looked for signs of one or the other type of deformation in the earliest movement and deformation.
.

We know the trajectory of each point for a rigid body undergoing rotation about an axis with certainty. It's most mathematically precise form (I believe) is in the form of a vector cross product.

...

If you take a meter stick and tilt it a known angle away from you, does it cease to measure anything? Can't you scale using the same meter stick just by multiplying it's true length with the cosine of the angle tilted away from you?

The quotations above are the scenario in it's entirety.

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

For any viewpoint, the "vector rejection" can be derived for any vector D as

D(projection) = D - (D*p)p. we can write p in terms of it's components as

....

If you plug in any D vector in terms of it's components, after the matrix operation you get the 3 components of it's "vector rejection".

It is important to remember that many different vectors D can map onto the exact same "vector rejection", so there is no 1:1 correspondence between Dx, Dy, Dz and the components of it's vector rejection. We would never expect to be able to reconstruct an exact vector D from a single rejection. Common sense tells us that we need at least 2 viewpoints to reconstruct a specific vector D from knowledge of it's vector rejections since whole classes of vectors can look identical from a single viewpoint.

A vector rejection has lost information of it's original vector that it cannot get back. This means the 3x3 vector operator cannot be inverted to yield unique Dx, Dy, Dz values from knowledge of it's vector rejection. There is no inverse operation that allows us to revert the vector back to it's original state.

By choosing the viewer coordinate system carefully, the vector components labelled "projection" and "rejection" can take on a very simple form, as well the viewing vector p

Anyway, this pattern of his (and yours) caused me to previously remark several months ago in this very thread:

NIST, chock full of world-class experts in their fields

vs.

Guys on the internet who can't even correctly use "its"

Who ya gonna believe?

And, much like my friendly advice on formatting and chart-making, that remark was ignored.

There's loadsa Americanisms that drive me nuts, but hey-ho, y's canny account for dialect eh.

I lived in the UK, and as maddening as the Glasgow patter could be at times, not even the neddiest of neds ever told me that it's was a possessive pronoun, or some type of slang or attempted to fob it off as "dialect."

Cue the music while femr2 now, having been wrong in his assumption and post, will accuse me, like tfk, of pedantry.

My advice has been clear and consistent. If you guys are going to tag-team this "argument" at a skeptical forum, or indeed ever publish anything that anyone will take seriously, you should polish it up. Simple, easy-to-read charts. Better formatting. Label things where needed. Explain graphics. And use correct grammar.

Oh, and take beachnut's advice. State a goal. Use SMART guidelines - simple, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely. Then you'll know if you are making progress towards your goal, and not just conspiraspanking on the interwebs.

 

[femr2]

Cue the music while femr2 now, having been wrong in his assumption and post, will accuse me, like tfk, of pedantry.

Quite right. Pedantic. Aptly expressed by the effort you've gone to to locate sum instancies of such. Really sad. It's a common grammatical whoopsie, and completely irrelevant. If that's all you've got to complain about, that's fine. No worries Off topic.