Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[femr2]

The X in that map points to a page about recommendations on improved active fire protection and improved building evacuation. Fail. Try again. Unless you are suggesting that these recommendations would be affected if the assemblies did not buckle.

Oh deary me. Someone is suffering from a severe sense of humour lack

No mention of dragons, nor palm trees. Not even coconuts.

Shocked I am. Shocked

 

[femr2]

could offend some who do not share the same sense of take the mickey humour.

Given pgimeno has actually gone to the bother of determining where the X-marks-the-spot on ye olde treasure map points to, it's pretty clear that humour is rather beyond some. Shame really. I thought it was quite funny

I was born in Yorkshire - lived there till age 11 - the "phonetic spelling" for those who (wrongly) pronounce the English 'shire' names as if they rhyme with "tyre/tire".

york-shh-err for the confused

Nowt wrong with a little humour from time to time folks.

 

[BasqueArch]

Given pgimeno has actually gone to the bother of determining where the X-marks-the-spot on ye olde treasure map points to, it's pretty clear that humour is rather beyond some. Shame really. I thought it was quite funny

york-shh-err for the confused

Nowt wrong with a little humour from time to time folks.

LOL. It looks like it is femr2 that missed pgimeno's one-up joke.
By the way, the perimeter walls buckled.

 

[Oystein]

LOL. It looks like it is femr2 that missed pgimeno's one-up joke.
By the way, the perimeter walls buckled.

It's okay to add a little humour to the arguments sometimes, but providing humour instead of arguments is the cheap way out.

 

[Myriad]

...but providing humour instead of arguments is the cheap way out.

It's surrender.

As is redefining "column" so as to claim, by equivocation, that NIST was wrong to say that "columns" buckled.

It's become pretty clear where these lines of argument are going.



I can only suggest:



Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[NoahFence]

The columns didn't buckle due to pull-in from the floor assemblies, instead the joint between separate perimeter assemblies broke along the bolt seams, leaving the columns unbuckled.

How much simpler can I make this for you ?
You are 100 percent correct.

Does this prove collapse initiation by fire or explosives?

neither

So what was it, if not fire or explosives, femr? You might as well just answer the #$@( question and get it over with so we can move on.

 

[Newtons Bit]

This is an example of core failure mechanism that pulls in the perimeter wall similar to what femr has shown.

[qimg]http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx64/enik_1/tower1/tower_002a.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx64/enik_1/tower1/tower_004a.jpg[/qimg]

It shows that in general there are ways to create IB by partial core failure rather than with long truss sagging as the NIST claims.

There are a number of observable features that are consistent with a core-led initiation mechanism for WTC1 and 2. I had shown them in the threads that were removed.

I created a thread about this very phenomena. Welcome to 2008. Nothing you are doing is unique, Major Tom.

 

[Major_Tom]

I created a thread about this very phenomena. Welcome to 2008. Nothing you are doing is unique, Major Tom.

NB, in 2011 if I were to give you a simple multiple choice test over basic observables during collapse initiation for WTC1 or 2, I am quite sure you would fail it.

You have never even worked with accurate measurements of the collapse initiation processes.

Should I dig out a couple of your posts near the beginning of the OOS propagation model thread to see how accurate they turned out to be?

Do you really need to see that again?

How about 2 simple questions, NB?

Where is the first sign of visible ejections during the WTC1 collapse initiation sequence?

Or another: During the initiation sequence, did the upper part of the south wall fall out and over the lower, or did it fall within the lower wall?

If you cannot answer these simple, rather important questions, especially I have been posting about them for a while now, why do you imagine you have studied the initiation sequences already?

And how can anyone justify the removal of threads that address these important issues directly?

 

[Newtons Bit]

NB, in 2011 if I were to give you a simple multiple choice test over basic observables during collapse initiation for WTC1 or 2, I am quite sure you would fail it.

You have never even worked with accurate measurements of the collapse initiation processes.

Should I dig out a couple of your posts near the beginning of the OOS propagation model thread to see how accurate they turned out to be?

Do you really need to see that again?

How about 2 simple questions, NB?

Where is the first sign of visible ejections during the WTC1 collapse initiation sequence?

Or another: During the initiation sequence, did the upper part of the south wall fall out and over the lower, or did it fall within the lower wall?

If you cannot answer these simple, rather important questions, especially I have been posting about them for a while now, why do you imagine you have studied the initiation sequences already?

And how can anyone justify the removal of threads that address these important issues directly?

Non-sequitur much? Why yes, yes you do. We're WERE talking about the pull-in, and I don't feel like changing the subject. Why do you still pretend that you're doing something new?

 

[Major_Tom]

Non-sequitur much? Why yes, yes you do. We're WERE talking about the pull-in, and I don't feel like changing the subject. Why do you still pretend that you're doing something new?

No, because you are verifiably ignorant of the answers but are too cowardy to just admit it.

Anyone who wishes can verify that you cannot answer.

 

[femr2]

I was respectfully pointing out that femr2 has been attempting to use an unusual definition of "columns" to claim that NIST is wrong in stating that columns buckled.

No, I'm simply attempting to get folk to realise that the columns didn't bend/deform, but instead failed along the bolt seams between perimeter panels.

I think it's quite natural to describe the columns in each individual perimeter panel assembly as columns in their own right.

If you wish to respond to my post, you might consider relating your own position on the question. Do you, for instance, believe most of the literature that states each tower had approximately 244 perimeter columns (depending on exactly how certain corner members are counted), or do you accept femr2's definition of a column as a single contiguous vertical length of steel with no bolted connections, making the total number many times larger?

Again, the point is to highlight that failure occurred along the bolt seams, not by buckling/bending/deformation of the box column sections themselves.

 

[NoahFence]

No, I'm simply attempting to get folk to realise that the columns didn't bend/deform, but instead failed along the bolt seams between perimeter panels.

I think we all realize that by now. You've done an excellent job pointing out these observations, and I'm being quite serious.

What you and MT have failed to do is tell us what it means.

How would these observations change should fire be the culprit, and not explosives?

 

[Newtons Bit]

No, I'm simply attempting to get folk to realise that the columns didn't bend/deform, but instead failed along the bolt seams between perimeter panels.

I think it's quite natural to describe the columns in each individual perimeter panel assembly as columns in their own right.


Again, the point is to highlight that failure occurred along the bolt seams, not by buckling/bending/deformation of the box column sections themselves.

I've seen the videos and I can see the columns bending. Do you want to rephrase your statement?

 

[femr2]

I've seen the videos and I can see the columns bending. Do you want to rephrase your statement?

You know what I mean There was no permanent bending, and once the bolt seams failed the column sections in the IB region sprang back to their straight form. No permanent bending. No buckling of the individual box column sections.

Again, the point is to highlight that failure occurred along the bolted seams between individual box column sections, not by failure of the box column sections themselves.

Not buckling in the form suggested by pgimeno with the inclusion of this diagram...

 

[NoahFence]

We have the best mapping of physical movement during the collapse initiation processes on the planet.

And the shortest and most difficult to find conclusion
(besides "NIST = Bad")

All of your graphs and technobabble hasn't swayed anybody from what they thought before the first tower even hit the ground.

Aircraft impacts and Fire are the culprit. You've yet to state, or imply otherwise. So your "best mapping on the planet" leads you......
where?

 

[Major_Tom]

It was an elastic bend to the point of breaking along a specific set of bolt seams.

It is in the visual record if yo stop dreaming up explanations and look at what is in front of your nose.

 

[NoahFence]

I FOCUS ON COLLAPSE INITIATION

No kidding. Remind me why this is in a conspiracy subforum again?

All of your graphs and technobabble hasn't swayed anybody from what they thought before the first tower even hit the ground.

It was an elastic bend to the point of breaking along a specific set of bolt seams.

Is this elastic bend possible via aircraft impacts and fire, or just by explosives? How does an elastic bend happen?

 

[Newtons Bit]

You know what I mean There was no permanent bending, and once the bolt seams failed the column sections in the IB region sprang back to their straight form. No permanent bending. No buckling of the individual box column sections.

Again, the point is to highlight that failure occurred along the bolted seams between individual box column sections, not by failure of the box column sections themselves.

Not buckling in the form suggested by pgimeno with the inclusion of this diagram...
[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/Bazant-Fig2.png[/qimg]

Failure at the splices is self-evident as the splices could not develop the full capacity of the member. I recall saying such in my many head-beat-on-wall-discussions with Heiwa and Tony Szamboti that this would occur.

The picture is from BZ and it is a limiting case scenario where the connections are infinitely strong. Bazant acknowledges it as such:

For example, it has been speculated that the connections of the floor-supporting trusses to the framed tube columns, or the column-to-column splices, were not strong enough. Granted, they probably were not. But the analysis shows that even if they were infinitely strong it would have made no difference

 

[NoahFence]

Maybe you missed it. Surely you're not simply ignoring questions that make you think.

Is this elastic bend possible via aircraft impacts and fire, or just by explosives? How does an elastic bend happen?

So...?

 

[femr2]

THIS IS NOT NEW MATERIAL.

Of course not. The topic came up simply by me checking DGM's position...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7311399&postcount=2082

I tend to think the building was "done" when the perimeter columns were pulled in.

Did IB result in perimeter column buckling ?

No, Overload did.

...