• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

ozeco41 said:
Why do all parties - truther or debunker - discuss perimeter column "pull-in" as if it resulted from a single cause?

We see it in these recent posts doing the geometry for core collapse. Same thing for the alternate and NIST preferred view of floor joist sagging.

In either case those pushing that explanation consider only the single factor. Why the simplistic approach?

The perimeter bits which bow inwards are columns intended to be axially loaded AND carrying quite large loads.

If an axially loaded column is pulled out of line its load carrying capacity is drastically reduced.

So why not recognise two factors - floor sag OR core movement which causes the initial bend of the column THEN axial overload takes over and causes that inwards bend to continue to the full (whatever) 55"?

...so add "(non)axial force overload" into the considerations and I will leave the "core led" v"floor catenary sag led" sides of the discussion to decide which was the initiating factor.
Click to expand...
Wait. I think this (me) lowly builder suggested this a while back.

:rolleyes:
 
ozeco41 said:
Why do all parties - truther or debunker - discuss perimeter column "pull-in" as if it resulted from a single cause?

We see it in these recent posts doing the geometry for core collapse. Same thing for the alternate and NIST preferred view of floor joist sagging.

In either case those pushing that explanation consider only the single factor. Why the simplistic approach?

The perimeter bits which bow inwards are columns intended to be axially loaded AND carrying quite large loads.

If an axially loaded column is pulled out of line its load carrying capacity is drastically reduced.

So why not recognise two factors - floor sag OR core movement which causes the initial bend of the column THEN axial overload takes over and causes that inwards bend to continue to the full (whatever) 55"?

...so add "(non)axial force overload" into the considerations and I will leave the "core led" v"floor catenary sag led" sides of the discussion to decide which was the initiating factor.
Click to expand...

Hey, be careful with your over generalizations! I certainly don't consider it to be one or the other! :p
 
ozeco41 said:
Why do all parties - truther or debunker - discuss perimeter column "pull-in" as if it resulted from a single cause?

We see it in these recent posts doing the geometry for core collapse. Same thing for the alternate and NIST preferred view of floor joist sagging.

In either case those pushing that explanation consider only the single factor. Why the simplistic approach?

The perimeter bits which bow inwards are columns intended to be axially loaded AND carrying quite large loads.

If an axially loaded column is pulled out of line its load carrying capacity is drastically reduced.

So why not recognise two factors - floor sag OR core movement which causes the initial bend of the column THEN axial overload takes over and causes that inwards bend to continue to the full (whatever) 55"?

...so add "(non)axial force overload" into the considerations and I will leave the "core led" v"floor catenary sag led" sides of the discussion to decide which was the initiating factor.
Click to expand...

A simplistic approach would be to not be familiar with the NIST collapse iniation scenarios or be aware of what is visible in the visual record...and then guess your own while claiming the NIST descriptions are "good enough".

That has been the JREF approach up to now but there is no need to guess before you look at the available visual evidence.

And Ozeco, what does the available visual evidence indicate? Isn't that the way to proceed before you guess?

Now that people have seen how the upper wall of the WTC2 east face tucks behind the lower wall, maybe the reader can understand that this did not happen in the case of WTC1 and what that indicates?

Ozeco, perhaps you can come up wioth a mechanism in which the upper wall of the failing perimeter falls out and over the lower wall...and does so within a tilt of less than 1 degree?

It is pretty obvious WTC1 failed differently than WTC2 if the upper wall kicks out over the lower wall.


All this is ignored by both yourselves and the NIST while you use a "copy and paste" long span truss mechanism for both towers and think this is "good enough".

If you look before guessing, you can see with your own eyes that the NIST descriptions are not "good enough". They contradict observables for both WTC1 and 2.

No need to guess about things that are observable. Best to look and map instead.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Why do all parties - truther or debunker - discuss perimeter column "pull-in" as if it resulted from a single cause?

We see it in these recent posts doing the geometry for core collapse. Same thing for the alternate and NIST preferred view of floor joist sagging.

In either case those pushing that explanation consider only the single factor. Why the simplistic approach?

The perimeter bits which bow inwards are columns intended to be axially loaded AND carrying quite large loads.

If an axially loaded column is pulled out of line its load carrying capacity is drastically reduced.

So why not recognise two factors - floor sag OR core movement which causes the initial bend of the column THEN axial overload takes over and causes that inwards bend to continue to the full (whatever) 55"?

...so add "(non)axial force overload" into the considerations and I will leave the "core led" v"floor catenary sag led" sides of the discussion to decide which was the initiating factor.
Click to expand...
In buckling analysis, when a side load is applied to the axially-loaded beam, cause and effect get mangled in a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" scenario.
In extremely technical terms, it becomes a self-eating watermelon
 
Major_Tom

I have exercised significant patience in responding to your posts with my responses ranging from restrained detailed explanation to forthright opposition to some of your untrue claims and false logic. In addition I have supported you and on occasions commended you for those parts of tour posting which were true and I agreed with.

However this latest post goes too far so I will respond. The three main faults I find are:
1) Your regular deployment of innuendo to put forward an untruth. When deliberately done it amounts to what I call a "lie by inference".
2) Faulty logic in many forms.
3) Your persistence in putting forward bits of alleged evidence (which you call "features"), failing to or refusing to put those bits of evidence into an overall setting/explanation/hypothesis then having the gall to insult others of us who won't and cannot do your work for you. If you have a claim then make the claim. Stop evading/dodging.

So lets look at the post in a bit of detail:
Major_Tom said:
A simplistic approach would be to not be familiar with the NIST collapse initiation scenarios or be aware of what is visible in the visual record...and then guess your own while claiming the NIST descriptions are "good enough"....
Click to expand...
I comment only on two words in this bit of emotive nonsense.
You use "guess" whenever you are confronted by engineering reasoning applied to facts not directly supported by visual evidence which you will accept. The fact that something is out of sight does not by magic change the rules of applied physics/engineering to make the outcome suit your predetermined wish.

Your reference to 'NIST descriptions are "good enough"' in a post directed to me is a clear implied reference to my often stated viewpoint that NIST explanations may be good enough for me or some other parties. If you want to misquote and use false innuendo to carry your message expect to be called on it. The statement expressed as a blanket '..the NIST descriptions are "good enough"' implying global application is an implied untruth.

Major_Tom said:
That has been the JREF approach up to now but there is no need to guess before you look at the available visual evidence.

And Ozeco, what does the available visual evidence indicate? Isn't that the way to proceed before you guess?...
Click to expand...
So again your emotive innuendo of untruth "guess". But let me first deal with your own false position. You seek to limit evidence to the visual record denying other forms of evidence. Later in your post you then attempt to twist logic based on your limited scope of evidence. And you use "guess" to denigrate engineering reasoning about things which happen out of sight. Some of us engineers are quite good at reasoning matters of structural mechanics. Whether they are directly observable or not.
Major_Tom said:
...Now that people have seen how the upper wall of the WTC2 east face tucks behind the lower wall, maybe the reader can understand that this did not happen in the case of WTC1 and what that indicates?

Ozeco, perhaps you can come up with a mechanism in which the upper wall of the failing perimeter falls out and over the lower wall...
Click to expand...
I did so in late 2007 within weeks of entering into WTC 9/11 discussion. I have repeated the explanation many times. I think at least a couple of times on this forum.
Major_Tom said:
....and does so within a tilt of less than 1 degree?
Click to expand...
...the tilt is scarcely relevant - not relevant at all to my explanation.
Major_Tom said:
...It is pretty obvious WTC1 failed differently than WTC2 if the upper wall kicks out over the lower wall...
Click to expand...
Wow! BUT "so?"
Major_Tom said:
All this is ignored by both yourselves and the NIST while you use a "copy and paste" long span truss mechanism for both towers and think this is "good enough"...
Click to expand...
By "yourselves" do you mean me or include me? If so that is an untrue statement and in my case you know it to be untrue. Plus repetition of the lie by inference of "good enough" without the qualifying "good enough for me" (or whoever makes the claim - several members here will admit to "good enough for them")
Major_Tom said:
you look before guessing, you can see with your own eyes that the NIST descriptions are not "good enough". They contradict observables for both WTC1 and 2.

No need to guess about things that are observable. Best to look and map instead.
Click to expand...
No comment. Until you specify "good enough for who" I will accept "not good enough for Major_Tom" as you are well aware.

So probably the worst aspect of this mendacious posting is your persistence in misquoting "good enough". You have been corrected many times by me and others. Why not say "NIST is not good enough for me, Major_Tom" to remove the element of dishonesty in your use of the "good enough" claims?

The error in your attempts to limit evidence to those bits of the visual record that you support has been addressed at least several times. Please desist.
 
rwguinn said:
In buckling analysis, when a side load is applied to the axially-loaded beam, cause and effect get mangled in a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" scenario.
In extremely technical terms, it becomes a self-eating watermelon
Click to expand...

Don't I know it. ;)

My main reason for making the comment was that those in the discussion seemed to be gettin' too close to a couple of trees and couldn't see the forest. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
SWEET!

You found one post. The whole thread should be moved alongside the other science and mathematics posts, in the appropriate forum. Since you're not here to debate 9/11 conspiracy topics, I don't see what the big deal is to be honest.
 
femr2 said:
Hang on...

What kit-and-kaboodle are you referring to ?
Click to expand...
The sideline deviation into discussion of perimeter pull in as if it was caused by a single factor - viz core lowering or floor joist sag without consideration of column axial loads.

My comment was made in that context.
ozeco41 said:
Why do all parties - truther or debunker - discuss perimeter column "pull-in" as if it resulted from a single cause?... etc
Click to expand...
Whether Noahfence meant a broader context I don't know - I read it as in line comment on current discussion.
 
Major_Tom said:
...
Click to expand...

Are you unable to reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7319009#post7319009 ?
Then, with your choice of assumptions being just a result of personal taste, and not of sound reason, all your debate here is dead on arrival.

Also, I think we are all off-topic here. I shall ask moderators to merge all debate of Major_Tom's theory into Major_Tom's own thread.


ETA: femr2 already said it:
femr2 said:
Recent discussion in this thread really should be occurring in the WTC 1 & 2 feature list thread(s).

Given that NB's thread... here ...has not been removed from this sub-forum (and I am SURE I could find countless other examples), I again suggest MT's threads are moved back.
Click to expand...
I second that motion, but it needs to be raised in the appropriate forum section, Forum Management Feedback.
 
Last edited:
There is not a Conpsiracy being discussed here folks, let alone one centering on 9/11.

Move this to AAH, or Science and Math.

After all, we are discussing SCIENCE AND MATH, not a 9/11 CONSPIRACY!
 
Carll68 said:
There is not a Conpsiracy being discussed here folks, let alone one centering on 9/11.

Move this to AAH, or Science and Math.

After all, we are discussing SCIENCE AND MATH, not a 9/11 CONSPIRACY!
Click to expand...

Allow me to disagree - I think it belongs here, because it is threads like this that the 9/11 sub-forum was initially created for.
Even if the OP does not wish to argue for any specific CT, the aim is to lay technical groundwork upon which later, better informed debates of 9/11 CTs may take place.
 
There IS no discussion. It's Major_Tom and FEMR showing us shiny graphs, and then belittling anybody who dares make a comment on them, or flat out ignoring them.

The time for this being a discussion has long passed. They have no intention of discussing anything.

AAH
 
This whole thread is making sedated snail bureaucrats look good in comparison. I mean they like to milk something for as long as they can. I would just like to thank NIST for not wasting tax payer dollars for not dragging this out this long.

When this "analysis" is ever gets to a conclusion, let me know.
 
TexasJack said:
This whole thread is making sedated snail bureaucrats look good in comparison. I mean they like to milk something for as long as they can. I would just like to thank NIST for not wasting tax payer dollars for not dragging this out this long.

When this "analysis" is ever gets to a conclusion, let me know.
Click to expand...

My nephew's grandchildren will die of old age by then.
 
By what logic do you, Noahfence, after admitting you have no interest in measurements at all, feel the compulsive need to direct traffic on this thread?
Click to expand...

MT graph creation = WIN!
MT Reading comprehension = LOSE!

I've shown plenty of interest in these measurements, to the point where I actively request insight from you and femr. ALL THESE REQUESTS GO IGNORED.

Those weren't cockroaches. They were crickets. As in, that's all I'm hearing from you. Nothing. Ziltch. Crickets.

Again:

MT graph creation = WIN
MT Reading comprehension = LOSE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom