5 minutes in the last few pages of this thread, using "control F" to find it's. Really, this was less effort than your 4 significant digit effort at timing the fall of a hypothetical apple. Again, you were wrong. It's ok to admit it. 
Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model
ozeco41
Philosopher
Major_Tom that claim is utter hogwash no matter how many times you repeat it. There is no way that discrediting the NIST details of south wall led initiation would create a "total mystery". All it would do is change a few deatils.
As I have pointed out several times the NIST explanation can be seen legitimately at two levels. The higher level is that aircraft impact damage and accumulating damage from unfought fires led to a cascade failure which initiated collapse followed by a global collapse.
Below that broad picture is the detail of south perimeter led etc. The critical point which you have not acknowledged is that the broad picture of that higher level remains true even if the south perimeter led detail can be rebutted.
So your global claim of "total mystery" is rubbish. You can claim no more than "a bit of detail is wrong". And that only when you have proved your claim.
A more correct statement would be "...were it to be shown that the NIST WTC1 initiation mechanism does not match the visual record, that would definitely prove nothing in the absence of an alternative and more plausible explanation of collapse initiation"
And it would not hurt in the slightest the overall NIST scenario that "...aircraft impact damage and accumulating damage from unfought fires led to a cascade failure which initiated collapse..."
You have a valid technical issue which is of interest to you. Don't ruin your argument by making excessive claims based on false logic.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Major_Tom were to convince us not only that the NIST WTC1 initiation mechanism doesn't look right, but also that he has established "the absence of an alternative and more plausible explanation of collapse initiation." Would that definite proof of nothing be mathematically certain?
Are you suggesting that Major_Tom's claims of "mathematical certainty" might have been excessive?
Do I really need a smiley face here?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Dealing with the last point first. It is not a matter to which the concept of mathematical proof is available. The concept from the 'scientific method' of an hypothesis which has not yet been falsified is more appropriate. Even that not fully so because the scientific method is not fully appropriate - we are dealing with three times once off events and a process of engineering forensic analysis.
Now that much said - and setting aside the several questions it could raise - you have read a different meaning than I intended into my post.
I intended that the situation could be:
- Major_Tom (et al) demonstrates that the NIST detailed explanation of south perimeter led failure is not plausible; AND
- Major_Tom does not put forward an alternate explanation.
I did not mean and cannot see any utility in what you read as the alternate - i.e. and put simply that MT 'prove' that there is no alternate.
Yes I meant that the claims are excessive BUT not in the way that you suggest.
Lets separate "standard of proof" from "scope to which the 'proof' applies"
...and begging all the reasons why 'proof' in the mathematical sense is not appropriate.
Major_Tom's claim, simply put, is that since one bit of detail of the NIST explanation is wrong THEREFORE the whole of the NIST explanation fails.
It is an error of systems level (or any other modelling you may prefer).
The overal NIST finding is that "aircraft impact damage and accumulating damage from unfought fires led to a cascade failure which initiated collapse followed by a global collapse."
The detail of "south perimeter led" is only a sub set of this and not an essential sub set. "South perimeter led" is one possible explanation. It has some plausibility. But the overall finding does not fail if "south perimeter" is wrong. Or if doubt is placed on "south perimeter" OR if several alternate and plausible hypotheses are developed. Rebuttal of "south perimeter" does not change the overall explanation until evidence is led with logic to show that the overall conclusion is wrong.
So I am not suggesting that M_T's claim of implied certainty is excessive - provided we translate into respectable language.
What I am suggesting is that his 'certainty' only extends to the 'south perimeter' detail NOT the overall NIST finding. So his error is not in the standard of proof - whether expressed in 'certainty' terms or more acceptably in the language of science.
Rather I objected to the scope which he wrongly claims for his certainty. It may be certain for a bit of detail BUT it certainly (
) does not follow that the whole NIST explanation is wrong.Ozeco post 904: "Major_Tom's claim, simply put, is that since one bit of detail of the NIST explanation is wrong THEREFORE the whole of the NIST explanation fails."
No. This is not about details only. It has to do with the fundamental collapse initiation mechanism.
The fundamental mechanism claimed by the NIST seems quite contradictory to the visual record.
Just like collapse progression, I would suggest forming an initiation model based on as many observables as possible.
ROOSD is based on a list of observables. I would suggest the same for the WTC1 collapse initiation.
I start with the best list of observables possible, then I evaluate ideas based on the observables.
First observables, then evaluations.
If you do it in reverse, you get a big mess.
Any claim of mathematical certainty would depend upon the context in which it was claimed.
Ozeco: "The detail of "south perimeter led" is only a sub set of this and not an essential sub set."
It is fundamental to the whole NIST explanation. It is an indispensible part of the NIST explanation of the WTC1 collapse.
Ozeco, the NIST reports revolve around a specific mechanism. You cannot swap out mechanisms as you suggest.
No. This is not about details only. It has to do with the fundamental collapse initiation mechanism.
The fundamental mechanism claimed by the NIST seems quite contradictory to the visual record.
Just like collapse progression, I would suggest forming an initiation model based on as many observables as possible.
ROOSD is based on a list of observables. I would suggest the same for the WTC1 collapse initiation.
I start with the best list of observables possible, then I evaluate ideas based on the observables.
First observables, then evaluations.
If you do it in reverse, you get a big mess.
Any claim of mathematical certainty would depend upon the context in which it was claimed.
Ozeco: "The detail of "south perimeter led" is only a sub set of this and not an essential sub set."
It is fundamental to the whole NIST explanation. It is an indispensible part of the NIST explanation of the WTC1 collapse.
Ozeco, the NIST reports revolve around a specific mechanism. You cannot swap out mechanisms as you suggest.
Last edited:
The stated purpose of the NIST reports:
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;
Ozeco, simply put, how does the NIST address the why and how of the WTC1 collapse?
I would say they claimed to show a failure mechanism, which is floor sagging and inward bowing of the south perimeter.
Besides this, there is no "how and why" presented.
Can you show me, in general terms, how the NIST goes about providing the "how and why" for the WTC1 collapse?
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;
Ozeco, simply put, how does the NIST address the why and how of the WTC1 collapse?
I would say they claimed to show a failure mechanism, which is floor sagging and inward bowing of the south perimeter.
Besides this, there is no "how and why" presented.
Can you show me, in general terms, how the NIST goes about providing the "how and why" for the WTC1 collapse?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
ozeco41
Philosopher
It is to do with the basic mechanism which is a subset of the NIST explanation. The overall NIST explanation says (stated briefly and in my words) "aircraft impact damage and accumulating damage from unfought fires led to a cascade failure which initiated collapse followed by a global collapse."
As a subset of that explanation NIST offers the "south perimeter led" explanation. However the overall logical structure of the NIST explanation does not rely on the validity or otherwise of the "south perimeter led" explanation.
I have made that point explicitly several times yet you fail to either acknowledge it or address it. Given your de facto avoidance of that key premise the remainder of your post is actually irrelevant.
The use of "fundamental" implies a global coverage for the claim which is not supported by either logic or evidence.
You could legitimately claim "The detailed mechanism claimed by the NIST seems quite contradictory to the visual record" to which you should then add "...but this does not contradict the overall finding by NIST that 'aircraft impact damage and accumulating damage from unfought fires led to a cascade failure which initiated collapse followed by a global collapse'."
I have not the slightest problem understanding and accepting that this is your preferred process.
However:
Maybe. The reservation because I recall this apparent truism being twisted to invalid conclusions - but that is a distraction from the current important issue.
Again you fail to address the central issue - the question as to whether mathematical certainty is the appropriate 'standard of proof' for a matter of engineering forensic analysis.
...actually the issue I raise is independent of NIST. It is a matter of the structure of the claims and the logic relating the parts of claims.
The overall NIST finding stands independent of whether or not the detail is correct. To finesse the burden of proof issue the need to allocate 'burden of proof' will arise at the stage where you claim that an alternate detailed mechanism is correct and that 'south perimeter led' is wrong. At that stage the 'burden of proof' will lie with you to demonstrate that the detailed mechanism is a necessary part of the proof of the claim that "aircraft impact damage and accumulating damage from unfought fires led to a cascade failure which initiated collapse followed by a global collapse."
Should you reach that stage there will be a queue of members, not just me, pointing to the shortcoming in logic.
And, in interest of 'full disclosure', the 'burden of proof' currently could lie with me to show that the overall claim is not causally tied to 'south perimeter let' details. But I don't see the need to satisfy that burden here because the logic is trivial.
Finally please remember that, in essence, all I am saying is "Don't overbid your hand." or "Don't claim more than your case can support."
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
" Major_Tom;6857465 ..... Does anyone have any proof that the south wall failed first, dragging the rest of the building down with it? ..... "
Yes.
Parallax correction over under sideways down graph
[latex]
\varphi\left(\widehat{"creep"}\right) \equiv
- nanopixel_b *creep*\log
\right\left[
\frac{\strain ba{Z}ant}{{\left(2\pi south wall k_b T\right)}^{courtney/2}}
\frac{\int \widetilde{love}\, e^{-\beta\phi}}{\int mardi gras x \, e^{-\bet\phi}}
\right]
[/latex]
[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uJ9AdKzfe4w/TLScQL6nQpI/AAAAAAAAAYQ/s2-E3fyAfTQ/s1600/Pollock-Convergence.jpg[/qimg]
Yes.
Parallax correction over under sideways down graph
[latex]
\varphi\left(\widehat{"creep"}\right) \equiv
- nanopixel_b *creep*\log
\right\left[\frac{\strain ba{Z}ant}{{\left(2\pi south wall k_b T\right)}^{courtney/2}}
\frac{\int \widetilde{love}\, e^{-\beta\phi}}{\int mardi gras x \, e^{-\bet\phi
}}\right]
[/latex]
[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uJ9AdKzfe4w/TLScQL6nQpI/AAAAAAAAAYQ/s2-E3fyAfTQ/s1600/Pollock-Convergence.jpg[/qimg]
Last edited:
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
" Major_Tom;6857465 ..... Does anyone have any proof that the south wall failed first, dragging the rest of the building down with it? ..... "
Yes.
Parallax correction over under sideways down graph
[latex]
\varphi\left(\widehat{"creep"}\right) \equiv
- nanopixel_b *creep*\log
\frac{\strain ba{Z}ant}{{\left(2\pi south wall k_b T\right)}^{courtney/2}}
\frac{\int \widetilde{love}\, e^{-\beta\phi}}{\int mardi gras x \, e^{-\bet\phi
\right]
[/latex]
[qimg]http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2007/10/large_pollock8.jpg[/qimg]
Thank's for doing the math and linking that graph BA.
I believe it fully explains the prior creep movement pre-collapse before the momentum causes the crush-up cessation and the subsequent BOOSG runaway collapse feature, the squiggly brown line should be a little further to the right though.
MT,
The problem is that, between observables & evaluation, lies "interpretation of observables".
And, in many technical or objective matters, you can not correctly interpret your observables without some level of relevant expertise.
A classic example is the typical conspiracy theory nonsense about the need for a second gunman in the shooting of JFK, because his head is observed to jet backward towards the direction of the shot.
Just making the observation is useless unless you know how to interpret what you are observing.
As shown here...
[I love the "pillbox hat" comment.]
Observation is absolutely necessary. But it is not sufficient to arrive at correct evaluation.
The only places that I've ever seen valid proclamations of "mathematical certainty" is in mathematics & a couple fundamental laws of physics.
Claims of mathematical certainty on engineering events as complex & poorly visible (i.e., the interior of the buildings) are absurd.
Claims of mathematical certainty on complex engineering events by amateurs (& incompetent professionals) are equally absurd.
Nope. No competent engineer believes this.
The only thing one may say is that "the X component" is the first EXTERNALLY VISIBLE manifestation of the collapse.
1. You can't see into the core to track other parts that might fail first.
2. "Failing first" is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being the initiating event for the global collapse. Lots of components failed, randomly & often, before the global collapse began. You don't know, merely by timing, if some particular failure that occurs immediately before the global collapse began was a trigger for the collapse or just a coincidental one of those random failures.
Whether it failed by this mechanism or that mechanism is of interest only to structural engineers who want to figure out ways to interrupt the chain of events that led to global collapse. (I have yet to hear the first truther proclaim that s/he wants a new investigation to make sure that building codes get changed appropriately. From start to finish, truthers have expressed political, not architectural, agendas. Including, perhaps especially, Gage.)
For every thinking person, whether the south perimeter wall buckled 100 milliseconds before or 100 milliseconds after the south line of core columns, is totally irrelevant to the ultimate cause of the disaster: hijacked planes flying into the sides of those buildings.
The problem is that, between observables & evaluation, lies "interpretation of observables".
And, in many technical or objective matters, you can not correctly interpret your observables without some level of relevant expertise.
A classic example is the typical conspiracy theory nonsense about the need for a second gunman in the shooting of JFK, because his head is observed to jet backward towards the direction of the shot.
Just making the observation is useless unless you know how to interpret what you are observing.
As shown here...
[I love the "pillbox hat" comment.]
Observation is absolutely necessary. But it is not sufficient to arrive at correct evaluation.
The only places that I've ever seen valid proclamations of "mathematical certainty" is in mathematics & a couple fundamental laws of physics.
Claims of mathematical certainty on engineering events as complex & poorly visible (i.e., the interior of the buildings) are absurd.
Claims of mathematical certainty on complex engineering events by amateurs (& incompetent professionals) are equally absurd.
Nope. No competent engineer believes this.
The only thing one may say is that "the X component" is the first EXTERNALLY VISIBLE manifestation of the collapse.
1. You can't see into the core to track other parts that might fail first.
2. "Failing first" is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being the initiating event for the global collapse. Lots of components failed, randomly & often, before the global collapse began. You don't know, merely by timing, if some particular failure that occurs immediately before the global collapse began was a trigger for the collapse or just a coincidental one of those random failures.
Whether it failed by this mechanism or that mechanism is of interest only to structural engineers who want to figure out ways to interrupt the chain of events that led to global collapse. (I have yet to hear the first truther proclaim that s/he wants a new investigation to make sure that building codes get changed appropriately. From start to finish, truthers have expressed political, not architectural, agendas. Including, perhaps especially, Gage.)
For every thinking person, whether the south perimeter wall buckled 100 milliseconds before or 100 milliseconds after the south line of core columns, is totally irrelevant to the ultimate cause of the disaster: hijacked planes flying into the sides of those buildings.
Last edited:
Ozeco post 908: "It is to do with the basic mechanism which is a subset of the NIST explanation. The overall NIST explanation says (stated briefly and in my words) "aircraft impact damage and accumulating damage from unfought fires led to a cascade failure which initiated collapse followed by a global collapse."
As a subset of that explanation NIST offers the "south perimeter led" explanation. However the overall logical structure of the NIST explanation does not rely on the validity or otherwise of the "south perimeter led" explanation."
Thanks for the reply. Together we will examine the quote for accuracy. You believe the NIST reports do not rely on south wall faulure for WTC1. I believe I can show that the NIST explanation for WTC1 collapse initiation is totally dependent upon the mechanism of floor sagging leading to inward bowing on the south perimeter. In fact, inward bowing (IB) on the south perimeter is the only clearly visible large scale deformation witnessed before collapse initiation.
From the NIST:
Their measurements of inward bowing at 10:23(?).
More images of IB:
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)
As mentioned earlier, the NIST describes the initial failure sequence as:
1-6D, p 312:
Table 5–1. Summary of main events that led to the collapse of WTC 1.
Event Number........ Event
1 .......................Aircraft impact
2 .......................Unloading of core
3 .......................Sagging of floors and floor/wall disconnections
4........................Bowing of the south wall
5 .......................Buckling of south wall and collapse initiation
Yet, Ozeco, you view this as only an unnecessary subset of a wider proof contained within the reports. As you mentioned:
"It is to do with the basic mechanism which is a subset of the NIST explanation. The overall NIST explanation says (stated briefly and in my words) "aircraft impact damage and accumulating damage from unfought fires led to a cascade failure which initiated collapse followed by a global collapse.""
For that statement to be more than just a belief, it requires proof of some kind. You are suggesting that such overall proof exists to support your summary within the NIST reports?
The nature of our disagreement:
You claim that sufficient information exists within the NIST reports to support the claim that aircraft damage and fires led to collapse initiation independent of floor sagging and south wall failure. I claim that any explanation provided by the NIST relies on floor sagging and south wall failure.
Is this correct in your view? Is that the nature of our current disagreement?
As a subset of that explanation NIST offers the "south perimeter led" explanation. However the overall logical structure of the NIST explanation does not rely on the validity or otherwise of the "south perimeter led" explanation."
Thanks for the reply. Together we will examine the quote for accuracy. You believe the NIST reports do not rely on south wall faulure for WTC1. I believe I can show that the NIST explanation for WTC1 collapse initiation is totally dependent upon the mechanism of floor sagging leading to inward bowing on the south perimeter. In fact, inward bowing (IB) on the south perimeter is the only clearly visible large scale deformation witnessed before collapse initiation.
From the NIST:
Their measurements of inward bowing at 10:23(?).
More images of IB:
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)
As mentioned earlier, the NIST describes the initial failure sequence as:
1-6D, p 312:
Table 5–1. Summary of main events that led to the collapse of WTC 1.
Event Number........ Event
1 .......................Aircraft impact
2 .......................Unloading of core
3 .......................Sagging of floors and floor/wall disconnections
4........................Bowing of the south wall
5 .......................Buckling of south wall and collapse initiation
Yet, Ozeco, you view this as only an unnecessary subset of a wider proof contained within the reports. As you mentioned:
"It is to do with the basic mechanism which is a subset of the NIST explanation. The overall NIST explanation says (stated briefly and in my words) "aircraft impact damage and accumulating damage from unfought fires led to a cascade failure which initiated collapse followed by a global collapse.""
For that statement to be more than just a belief, it requires proof of some kind. You are suggesting that such overall proof exists to support your summary within the NIST reports?
The nature of our disagreement:
You claim that sufficient information exists within the NIST reports to support the claim that aircraft damage and fires led to collapse initiation independent of floor sagging and south wall failure. I claim that any explanation provided by the NIST relies on floor sagging and south wall failure.
Is this correct in your view? Is that the nature of our current disagreement?
All NIST final reports on the WTC collapses at
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/
All NIST draft reports at:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
You can copy from the draft reports.
A summary of the reports:
NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations
The "how and why" of collapse initiation would be in 1-2, 1-3, 1-5 and 1-6. If you agree, we can focus on those 4 reports.
We can also see that 1-6 is where we can expect to find any "proof" that aircraft impact and fires were sufficient to cause the WTC1 collapse initiation.
1-6 is subdivided as a main report and 4 supporting technical reports:
* NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6A: Passive Fire Protection
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6B: Fire Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6C: Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6D: Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire
If the NIST offers "proof" that aircraft and impacts plus fires were sufficient to cause WTC1 collapse initiation, it is within NCSTAR 1-6.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/
All NIST draft reports at:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
You can copy from the draft reports.
A summary of the reports:
NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication
*
NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations
The "how and why" of collapse initiation would be in 1-2, 1-3, 1-5 and 1-6. If you agree, we can focus on those 4 reports.
We can also see that 1-6 is where we can expect to find any "proof" that aircraft impact and fires were sufficient to cause the WTC1 collapse initiation.
1-6 is subdivided as a main report and 4 supporting technical reports:
* NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6A: Passive Fire Protection
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6B: Fire Resistance Tests of the Floor Truss Systems
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6C: Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis
o NIST NCSTAR 1-6D: Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire
If the NIST offers "proof" that aircraft and impacts plus fires were sufficient to cause WTC1 collapse initiation, it is within NCSTAR 1-6.
Last edited:
For those who want a short, general overview of 1-6, I recommend reading the executive summary here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf
It is about 45 pages. It explains the NIST methodology clearly.
Ozeco, if your claim is true, then you should be able to find supporting evidence in the executive summary, which is not a difficult read.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf
It is about 45 pages. It explains the NIST methodology clearly.
Ozeco, if your claim is true, then you should be able to find supporting evidence in the executive summary, which is not a difficult read.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
My SE has read most of your posts and he had this comment.(he doesn't post because he has no use for this nonsense)
Your a 1000 page expert on a 10,000 page report.
Anything you would like me to pass on?
The NIST describes how they conclude a collapse initiation sequence by using computer simulation models.
The diagram from the executive summary provides a great overview of their approach:
They build a model, subject it to airplane damage and try to show how the initiation sequence results from the subsequent fires.
This is the heart of their "proof" that the impact damage and fires can be expected to result in collapse initiation.
To me, from the executive summary it seems obvious that this "proof" depends on a particular failure mode, namely sagging floors resulting in IB to the point of south wall failure.
In fact, their own model of the core does not predict core-led failure at all. It is not the core that fails in their simulations. It is the south perimeter.
The diagram from the executive summary provides a great overview of their approach:
They build a model, subject it to airplane damage and try to show how the initiation sequence results from the subsequent fires.
This is the heart of their "proof" that the impact damage and fires can be expected to result in collapse initiation.
To me, from the executive summary it seems obvious that this "proof" depends on a particular failure mode, namely sagging floors resulting in IB to the point of south wall failure.
In fact, their own model of the core does not predict core-led failure at all. It is not the core that fails in their simulations. It is the south perimeter.
Last edited:
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
MT -Thank you for providing the reason of your failure to date.
NIST has already done much of the legwork for you here. You will notice that "Collapse Sequence" is the conclusion, not the beginning, of their analysis.
The day you correctly complete the remainder of their analysis and come to a different conclusion, is the day you will first be taken seriously.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
It's funny you point this out. The plane impacts (including damage) and fires were part of the first "observations".
(they also did a little engineering)
Last edited:
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
OUSD theory matches all observables
You should read the mathematical paradoxes of Vlaminck / Braque (VB) and view the graphic artistry of Gaussian string theorists (GST) to fully appreciate the *true observables*.
Also the Over Under Sideways Down (OUSD) lyric theory has been confirmed and is proportional to loud, viz.
Thank's for doing the math and linking that graph BA.
I believe it fully explains the prior creep movement pre-collapse before the momentum causes the crush-up cessation and the subsequent BOOSG runaway collapse feature, the squiggly brown line should be a little further to the right though.
You should read the mathematical paradoxes of Vlaminck / Braque (VB) and view the graphic artistry of Gaussian string theorists (GST) to fully appreciate the *true observables*.
Also the Over Under Sideways Down (OUSD) lyric theory has been confirmed and is proportional to loud, viz.
Last edited:
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
That's just pollocks!" Major_Tom;6857465 ..... Does anyone have any proof that the south wall failed first, dragging the rest of the building down with it? ..... "
Yes.
Parallax correction over under sideways down graph
[latex]
\varphi\left(\widehat{"creep"}\right) \equiv
- nanopixel_b *creep*\log
\frac{\strain ba{Z}ant}{{\left(2\pi south wall k_b T\right)}^{courtney/2}}
\frac{\int \widetilde{love}\, e^{-\beta\phi}}{\int mardi gras x \, e^{-\bet\phi
\right]
[/latex]
[qimg]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uJ9AdKzfe4w/TLScQL6nQpI/AAAAAAAAAYQ/s2-E3fyAfTQ/s1600/Pollock-Convergence.jpg[/qimg]