I'm aware of that, but I don't think the sections I'm referring to are from such regions. I'll dig out the imagery.
Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
... and bashing NIST in the process, you fail to mention.
Now, support or take back this sentence:
And you said I had no basis to say you were not qualified to make such an assertion? It is quite obvious. Several qualified people here have been trying to explain to you some background that you lack. It seems there are differing opinions about my reasoning of why it may be wrong (despite how you tried to belittle me, as NF notes you do repeatedly, with your "Please stop this keep-the-faith NISTian-supporter nonsense"), but all seem to agree in that you are wrong and NIST is right. And therefore prove my point that you lack the qualifications to make such a statement.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
We're all Isralies so we can't help it.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
We know that the towers fell, so it's a trivial conclusion that some elements must have exceeded their elastic limit. We know that there was inward bowing of structural elements prior to collapse, and the Trinity Church video indicates that initiation involved perimeter columns collapsing inwards, so it's a trivial conclusion that something in the nature of inelastic buckling occurred, with the proviso that the hinge points were constrained by the component strengths to occur at the connections. I'm using the term "inelastic buckling", possibly rather loosely, to describe that observed phenomenon.
As for elastic buckling preceding inelastic buckling, how can inelastic buckling not be preceded by elastic buckling? It's a physical impossibility.
Because this is a discussion forum on 9/11 conspiracy theories, femr2 is well aware of this, and yet he insists on carrying on this discussion while carefully avoiding the subject of conspiracy theories. I don't know exactly what game he's playing, but if he isn't looking for evidence of means other than airliner impacts in the collapse of the WTC towers, why on earth is he talking about it here?
My personal belief is that both femr2 and Major Tom are trying to obscure the gross features of the collapses that make it immediately obvious that the collapses were a direct result of the impact and fire damage caused by the airliner impacts, and focus on fine details which they can choose to interpret as evidence of other causes. This way, they give the impression of having a rational line of argument without having to address the majority of the evidence against them. Their aim is therefore to confine the discussion to highly contentious interpretations of data so close to the noise level as to be unreliable, or observations backed up by inadequate data. That's just my opinion; however, it's difficult to deny that both are participating in a forum for discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories, yet steadfastly refusing to do so.
My patience with Major Tom was exhausted a long time ago, and my patience with femr2 is just about gone now too.
Dave
Last edited:
I have already accepted that fracture of the bolt seams between two separate columns can be termed as a form of buckling, twice.
However, consider...
My bold.NIST said:
Here is a simple animation capturing the basic behaviour of the columns as the bolt seam fails...
Would you say that "the east wall buckled inward" ?
I wouldn't.
In your animation, probably not. But this is my interpretation of what is seen...
(Hand-made, in a hurry - excuse the inaccuracies)
NoahFence
Banned
Not sure if I'm allowed to post here, but in the gif FEMR provided, (786877858.gif) I see both.
(I await my impending belittling commentary)
(I await my impending belittling commentary)
In your animation, probably not. But this is my interpretation of what is seen...
(Hand-made, in a hurry - excuse the inaccuracies)
Thank-you for illustrating the reason I have been highlighting the actual behaviour, to make sure folk understand what actually happened...
No. That is NOT what happened.
This is...
The bolt seams fractured cleanly, the bowed columns sprang-back into shape, and the staggered outline (highlighted here in purple) is there for all to see. (This section ends up speared in the ground later, in two halves iirc)
This behaviour has been discussed many times. Why is it that you are still seemingly oblivious ?
Pages of it within the MT threads. Pages here.
It is that you post images such as...
...which highlights your misinterpretation of what you think ocurred, and a good chunk of recent discussion has been about showing that such a 3-point buckling mode is not what happened.
As I've said, many times now (though seemingly without touching the sides for some)...
As long as everyone is fully aware of the fact that the break along the East face of WTC2 occurred along the bolt seams, resulting in the break following the pattern highlighted here in purple it's all good.
NIST regularly state..."the east wall buckled inward"...which is a poor description imo.
There is one reference (in two summary tables) within the NIST report...
Column splices failed at every third panel and columns sprung back from inward bowing
...but it is not discussed in any detail, and is not repeated further. Needless to say, it's not accurate either, as the splices failed at every panel in the staggered outline continnually being referenced, not every third, though the columns did indeed spring back from inward bowing.
As ozeco41 said recently, regarding this behaviour...
Why do you and MT insist on exposing you have no clue what models are, or how the WTC collapsed. You never fail to make it clear you have no idea what happen as you show video and claim models are wrong, waving your hands and making it clear you don't understand science and engineering. Take some engineering courses and stop exposing your lack of knowledge. How is you analysis coming to support your Fictional Official Theory stand?
Really ?
The inward bowing bows inward (towards the interior).
(Otherwise it would be showing outward bowing, yes ?)
Does that help you ?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
pgimeno, I think you are off track now.
That popular animation of a column developing 3 hinges shouldn't be taken so far as to imply that any column actually broke in 3 places. They most likely didn't: As soon as the first hinge breaks, strain is released, and the other 2 spring back to normal. Unless you get strong waves in the column that cause another breakage elsewhere (this happens when you break spaghetti; those usually break in 2 or 3 places, but I am not sure the same would happen to bolted-together lengths of steel)
NoahFence
Banned
I dunno. I saw snapping. I look closer at the animated .gif of the collapse, and I see snapping.
What am I missing?!?
What am I missing?!?
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Yes. In femr2's animation, the bowing is to the right. Combined with what femr2 wrote above, I conclude that the right hand side of femr2's animation is supposed to represent the building's interior.
Strange that femr2 wouldn't, because I would say his animation shows buckling to the right, which is inward.
Before anyone draws the seemingly obvious but misleading conclusion that femr2's animation refutes femr2's claims, take note: femr2's animation is nothing more than his drawing of his interpretation based on his data analysis, so it has no evidentiary value.
On the other hand, the fact that femr2 tried to support his claims by posting an animation that appears to contradict his claims might lead us to conclude something about femr2's argument. I'm just pointing out that the failures of femr2's arguments do not tell us anything about what really happened.
I preferred not to make that assumption when it is easy to ask.
Why should I assume the direction of the bowing makes sense, when the same animation also shows a very rapidly developing (in a small fraction of a second, based on the time scale of the rest of the animation) tilt of over twelve degrees of the entire structure above the break -- or, possibly, instead omits rapid lateral motion and another bend of comparable magnitude forming after the break (of which the bend could hardly avoid also breaking and all of which has no apparent cause) out of the frame of the picture above the break?
Just trying to assess which aspects of "reality" the animation is reproducing and which it's ignoring, and why. Because, it's not very real overall.
Respectfully,
Myriad
scissorhands
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,545
femr2
What is your point?
I can kind of understand why you are quite happy to waste many valuable days of your life posting about this.
Seeking attention is a powerful urge in some.
Whats amazing is that you have managed to persuade a number of other people to do likewise.
And to what end?
What is your point?
I can kind of understand why you are quite happy to waste many valuable days of your life posting about this.
Seeking attention is a powerful urge in some.
Whats amazing is that you have managed to persuade a number of other people to do likewise.
And to what end?
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
Its always remarkably easy to ask a question here. Get a straight answer? Not so much.
Perhaps, but this time I did (wrapped in only a modicum of condescending snark), so as the saying goes, "it's all good."
Respectfully,
Myriad
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
....................
Would you say that "the east wall buckled inward" ?
I wouldn't.
But structural engineers do. That's because you don't know what you're talking about.
Bearing in mind we're talking about actual real-world observable behaviour, pgimeno is not off track, he's wrong.
The actual behaviour is not a mystery. It is contained within the video record. You simply have to look.