MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses

[BasqueArch]

QFT. Excellent post.

Thanks

 

[Major_Tom]

NIST noted the progressive buckling of the perimeter columns which you didn't do, a serious oversight for someone who claims "the most complete record of early movement" or somesuch.

Discussed and recorded. You have no memory of the information on inward bowing?

Not so, the antenna was attached to the roof trusses tied by their outriggers to the center of the south wall perimeter columns for WTC1. The collapse of the antenna was simultaneous with the collapse of the center trusses simultaneous with the collapse of the center perimeter columns, as NIST offhandedly described, progressing to the sides etc. Antenna was firmly attached to the roof trusses firmly attached to the center perimeter columns, all collapse simultaneously.

Had the core collapsed first the predominant subsequent global collapse would have continued towards the core center pulling in the perimeter columns instead of rotating to about 8 degrees before falling vertically.

But this is verifiably untrue. This is what the NIST claims but it is measurably and verifiably untrue.

Your claim is very incorrect and deceiving. This has been discussed quite a lot in the threads that were deemed unworthy of being the conspiracy section. The actual measurements and work was removed, and now you show no capacity to recall what was already discussed.

Basically you are regurgitating this common refrain, this time sung by R Mackey:

Hardfire program: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDvDND9zNUk


R Mackey at 11:35 and 14:50, "We are talking 8 degrees of tilt. That is what the NIST reports. They report 7 or 8 degrees rotation about 1 axis and 2 to 3 degrees about another."

R Mackey: "At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video".

The same observations and measurables you claim are useless shows this is a deceiving and verifiably untrue claim.

...............................

NIST did not depend on only measurements of "early motion" if you mean the last few seconds, to conclude fire and plane damage was the sole cause of the Towers' collapse. Their analysis was more comprehensive than only the last few seconds or minutes.

They presented a verifiably incorrect collapse initiation mechanism.

.............................

Without using the visual record you have no way to independently verify the actual motion or claims by the NIST or anyone else.

WIth the false information like the tilt angle you cited, how can you verify claims first-hand?

(you have no means, and from your comments it is clear that you never have.)

 

[ProBonoShill]

See my prior response.

No thanks, Dodge noted.

There are two "175" flights on the FlightExplorer data. See prior response.

No thanks, another dodge.

Explained many times. Search.

Incorrect

Uncivil.

Nope, personal observation.

You appear to be of the slightly bizarre opinion that there is some "figuing out" to be done. How very strange.

No Femr there was some "figuring out" to be done and guess what? It was all investigated and explained. Sorry you're a little late to the party.

To give you a clue...


What was the column-number by column-number buckling sequence of the core columns within the initiation zone ?

If you cannot answer, then when are you going to figure it out ?

Couldn't care less.

Here's a tip for you femr:

When jumbo jets full of fuel are flown at 500 mph into buildings which are constructed the way the Twin Towers were and the resulting fires are left unfought, there is a very good chance the buildings will collapse.

We don't need grainy pictures and pixel measurements to lead us to the above conclusion, why do you?

 

[ProBonoShill]

The most important measurements and observables were done by NIST engineers and analyzed by them with tools you and femr2 are unaware of. Their 10s of thousands of reviewed records and analysis from construction documents to final collapse swamp yours.

By the time your late simplistic pointless observables and femr2’s “noisy” pixilated inconsequential obsession begins, the party had been over, the Towers ran out of sufficient strength to resist accumulating unsupportable shifting loads.

NIST knew , especially towards the end that the buildings continually deformed as the loads shifted. Your obsession with, for experienced engineers, pointless measurements do not reverse their conclusion that fire and damage collapsed the buildings. The building codes I and structural engineers work with have been revised with stronger fireproofing and stronger structural connections requirements directly due to the NIST 9/11 investigation and their recommendations.

Because you are not a structural engineer you don’t understand how pointless your obsession with your measurements and observables are. Nor do you understand why ROOSD and the Seven Sisters would cause peels of structural engineering laughter and derision. You will not understand why the engineers will never reverse their conclusion that fire and damage brought down the Towers.

As Beachnut noted, you and femr2 could have received by now an engineering degree, instead of squandering these thousands of hours in obscure inconsequential web sites pursuing ephemeral unearned respect.

In the real world where things get done, all your (and femr2’s) vainglorious claims are unconvincing, pointless and inconsequential. Sorry.

I think I'm ready to just put the pair of them on ignore (free comedy not withstanding). This post is a great summary of their presence here. Tap dancing around what they really believe and posting irrevelant, useless details which the deem important, but in reality mean very little.

So many posts, so much useless information. I'm beginning to wonder if they will ever escape the rabbit hole.

 

[ozeco41]

....Nor do you understand why ROOSD.... would cause peels of structural engineering laughter and derision.....

Are you sure you want that statement in the record?

...and both those who commended your post either missed it or thought that those of us watching would miss it.

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch
....Nor do you understand why ROOSD.... would cause peels of structural engineering laughter and derision.....

Are you sure you want that statement in the record?

...and both those who commended your post either missed it or thought that those of us watching would miss it.

Can you or Major Tom point to me where I can find a concise description of the ROOSD attributes?

 

[femr2]

Nor do you understand why ROOSD and the Seven Sisters would cause peels of structural engineering laughter and derision.

ROFL. Why do you reject ROOSD ?

In the real world where things get done, all your (and femr2’s) vainglorious claims are unconvincing, pointless and inconsequential.

What claims ?

 

[femr2]

The collapse of the antenna was simultaneous with the collapse of the center trusses simultaneous with the collapse of the center perimeter columns, as NIST offhandedly described, progressing to the sides etc.

Seems you are unaware of the timing differences actual observation reveals.

Antenna was firmly attached to the roof trusses firmly attached to the center perimeter columns, all collapse simultaneously.

Seems you don't see that "simultaneously" and "progressing to the sides" require inclusion of time.

Had the core collapsed first the predominant subsequent global collapse would have continued towards the core center pulling in the perimeter columns instead of rotating to about 8 degrees before falling vertically.

A statement from a true NISTian. Never bothered to check, did you ? Never bothered to read any of the data presented by MT and myself, before wading in, did you ?

When you demonstrate that "what you know" is gleaned solely fron the NIST report, and you start using that information to argue with MT or myself, you would be wise to spend some time reading through the information previously presented.

Just because "everyone else" posts negatively towards a poster does not mean you have to join the group think herd mentality, interesting though it may be to watch.

 

[beachnut]

...
Just because "everyone else" posts negatively towards a poster does not mean you have to join the group think herd mentality, interesting though it may be to watch.

Is it the extra credit, failed, weak insult, playing the old "group think herd mentality" card, an indicator your work has failed, a conclusion free waste of time? What is the study of two Flight 175s? Is that "single think", "stray mentality"? Tangential nonsense? Or what?


Will your work help MT find the satan like evildoers? Do you like labeling all who think you are a closet inside job "demolition" conspracy theortist, "group think", and "herd mentality"? Are leading the goup think herd mentality, vast right wing conspracy against you? Is this why paranoid is added to CT?

 

[000063]

In case it's not obvious, femr2, Beachnut's questions are all rhetorical.

But most others notice, don't they. Blind fervor cannot overcome substantial argument.
For Rationals.

I'm pretty sure MT didn't notice himself.

 

[Sabretooth]

...
What claims ?

Yeah...that's the problem. Why hold a torch when someone else does it for you...?

 

[Sabretooth]

Who is "playing stupid" here ?

Is that a claim, or another lame insinuation?

You're trace data is waste of time. You're trying to find some meaning in a chaotic series of events...I get it.

The point is, once the point of critical failure was reached, it doesn't freakin' matter what happened after the fact.

But you go right ahead and make it all OK in your head. You're still a truther.

 

[ozeco41]

Can you or Major Tom point to me where I can find a concise description of the ROOSD attributes?

"ROOSD" or runaway open office space destruction is Major_Tom's label for the key feature of the "Global collapse" or "collapse progression" stage of the collapse of each of the twin towers - WTC1 and WTC2.

That collapse progression involved three principle mechanisms:
1) Debris and already disconnected floors falling down the outer tube of the open office space. That was a runaway process for the simple reason that the falling weight, hitting each next floor below in sequence, overwhelmed by orders of magnitude the strength of the floor joist to column connector causing the floors to be sheared off from both outer tube and inner core columns. I take it as a regular poster here you are familiar with these basics. This is the mechanism which Major_Tom calls "ROOSD";
2) With no sideways bracing the outer perimeter columns fell away after a short delay in time; AND
3) Top Block core and other material falling on the core stripped the horizontal beams and brought down the core.

So the mechanism under "1)" is what Major_Tom calls ROOSD. The label is his and he seems to have worked out the mechanism. However that mechanism is probably the most commonly accepted explanation among engineering professionals. Major_Tom is not the only one to have described the mechanism although he has probably analysed it in more detail than most. Set aside the question of why he conducted the analysis.

I derived essentially the same explanation and used it in posting on another forum from late 2007. But without the benefit of the catchy name "ROOSD".

Major_Tom has analysed it further than I did and can tell you which bits of floors fell in what sequence, I think for both towers. He has also done some great work in working out which bits of outer perimeter fell, in what sequence and where some of them landed. Commendable research in itself despite the need by many on this forum to disagree with everything a labelled truther might claim. And also independent of the fact that many here profess to have no interest in details - esp. if the details come from a person the mob has designated to be a "truther".

My own explanations of Twin Towers collapses were posted on another forum - now defunct. My personal focus has been on explaining Twin Towers collapses to people who are usually lay persons in the fields of structural engineering and physics.

It is rough in writing style, has one or two minor errors, but my most recent repost of my explanation is at: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...-obligatory-9-11-thread-t515-680.html#p135852 - error and omissions excepted please.

Note that I do not use the term "ROOSD" - I'm not sure if MT had coined the term when I wrote and certainly I was at that time not aware of MT's parallel research.

I will leave it to MT to decide whether he will give links to his work.

 

[DGM]

derived essentially the same explanation and used it in posting on another forum from late 2007. But without the benefit of the catchy name "ROOSD".

The part that's baffling to me is he seems to use this as an argument towards Bazant (pick your paper). it's like he doesn't understand what they were trying to do.

I have no real problem with the basic concept of "ROOSD". Why would I?

 

[ozeco41]

The part that's baffling to me is he seems to use this as an argument towards Bazant (pick your paper). it's like he doesn't understand what they were trying to do....

Two comments may be relevant:

1) Major_Tom's posting style is not designed to "Win friends and influence people" especially the implicit "I am the only one who has thought of this" as if inventing the term "ROOSD" somehow gives exclusive rights to the underlying concept. Also his constant theme of "anything less than 100% agreement with my view makes you totally wrong" - plus the addition of denigratory comments about the person. His whole approach to logic seems to be framed as a form of false dichotomy - e.g. "My observables are the only bits of evidence that matter - there are no others AND if you don't agree with that context AND my conclusions on that limited set of evidence you don't know what you are talking about". So the dichotomy "Mine which is 100% right" v "All the rest which are 100% wrong". Really black and white stuff and you need no great insight to see how that can turn people off. Especially when they have some valid arguments which MT dismisses into the camp of "100% wrong". Dialogue is not possible on that foundation.

Despite all that the work he has done on researching some aspects of what bit broke where and fell where is commendable - the outer perimeter failure details come to mind. And I can still pick the good bits from the rubbish and give credit where credit is due.

2) The noise created by the herd mentality attitude "anything a truther says must be wrong" certainly reaches epic proportions. Which I why I picked this single element to comment on. (The claim that "Nor do you understand why ROOSD ....would cause peels of structural engineering laughter and derision". Well that is a transparently obvious untruth yet two members commend the post including that untruth and without even noting the untruth.) It would take for ever to identify and correct all the untruths and false logic directed towards femr2 and MT in this recent coordinated attack sequence. It could be a fun exercise but not likely to go over well on this forum methinks.

...I have no real problem with the basic concept of "ROOSD". Why would I?

It is as close to mainstream as you will get. Reality probably is that few of the leading light debunkers have bothered to explain the actual mechanisms of the real world collapses. They tend to rely on Bazant style abstractions which naturally are abstractions - they don't describe what really happened. (Waits for counter claims from Bazant-philes.... ) I may be wrong - and I don't spend much time trawling the 9/11 forums other than this plus two others - but I have posted on numerous occasions my version of the "Three parallel Mechanisms of Global Collapse" and got little comment. Maybe because it is obvious but I cannot help the feeling that many members don't really think it through. and, of course, under all the noise that is where femr2 and MT are going. Looking into details of actual mechanisms and raising the fear of those who are comfortable in their acceptance of NIST et al and don't want the boat rocked. I am comfortable that no amount of boat rocking will shift the "No CD" conclusion and that more details can only confirm it at best (or prove nothing naturally). A lot of folks want to jump to that end point as we see here every day.

 

[000063]

2) The noise created by the herd mentality attitude "anything a truther says must be wrong" certainly reaches epic proportions.

I don't have that attitude, and I've noticed that several debunkers willingly admit femr2 has valid points. They then immediately went on to point out that none of his valid points actually change the conclusion of the NIST report he was criticizing at the time(EG). Usually, even when a Truther gets a detail right, they get the big picture wrong.

Which I why I picked this single element to comment on. (The claim that "Nor do you understand why ROOSD ....would cause peels of structural engineering laughter and derision". Well that is a transparently obvious untruth yet two members commend the post including that untruth and without even noting the untruth.) It would take for ever to identify and correct all the untruths and false logic directed towards femr2 and MT in this recent coordinated attack sequence. It could be a fun exercise but not likely to go over well on this forum methinks.

Or perhaps it was simply hyperbole. Hanlon's Razor, Ozeco.

 

[ozeco41]

I don't have that attitude, and I've noticed that several debunkers willingly admit femr2 has valid points....

Yes - "several" but not the majority of recent posters in these attack threads.

...They then immediately went on to point out that none of his valid points actually change the conclusion of the NIST report he was criticizing at the time....

Two points follow from that:

First When discussing the wheel nuts on a 1932 Dodge whether or not the detail changes the overall style of the car is irrelevant. I comprehend why folk want to force femr2 into a truther corner. He chooses not to be forced. Good for him.

Second (Probably a different slant of the same point) I am well aware of the many posters who take a "global" position - "if it doesn't change impact damage plus unfought fires caused the collapse it is not worth discussing". They are entitled to their personal viewpoint for themselves. It does not carry the right to deny all other people access to different viewpoints e.g. an interest in the details. If you think about it what they claim amounts to an appeal to authority "some expert has worked out an answer I am happy with - I have no interest in thinking it through for myself".

...Usually, even when a Truther gets a detail right, they get the big picture wrong....

"Usually"???? When they are not discussing the big picture they can hardly be accused of getting it wrong - Beachnut style "broadside" accusations notwithstanding.

 

[ozeco41]

...Or perhaps it was simply hyperbole. Hanlon's Razor, Ozeco.

Sure - limited comprehension is probably a bigger factor than deliberate untruthfulness.

 

[BasqueArch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BasqueArch
....Nor do you understand why ROOSD.... would cause peels of structural engineering laughter and derision.....

Originally Posted by ozeco41
Are you sure you want that statement in the record?
...and both those who commended your post either missed it or thought that those of us watching would miss it.

7488277]"ROOSD" or runaway open office space destruction is Major_Tom's label for the key feature of the "Global collapse" or "collapse progression" stage of the collapse of each of the twin towers - WTC1 and WTC2.

If one were to present ROOSD to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ “Journal of Engineering Mechanics” for publication the first thing they would notice is that
Runaway Destruction is a hayseed way of saying what engineers call and already well know as Progressive or Disproportionate Collapse, of The Towers. (engineer laugh 1)

Open Office Space. This is not a defined engineering term. How is this a useful engineering concept in understanding the progressive collapse of The Towers? Is it different than Open Stores Space? Open Restaurant Space and so on? All with different live loads? Open differs from what, Closed Office Space? How is Open quantified? A framed structure with framed areas greater than 1,000 sf? 5,000, or what? How does ROOSD add to what structural engineers already know about the collapse of The Towers. Nothing.
(engineer laugh 2)

That collapse progression involved three principle mechanisms:
1) Debris and already disconnected floors falling down the outer tube of the open office space. That was a runaway process for the simple reason that the falling weight, hitting each next floor below in sequence, overwhelmed by orders of magnitude the strength of the floor joist to column connector causing the floors to be sheared off from both outer tube and inner core columns. I take it as a regular poster here you are familiar with these basics. This is the mechanism which Major_Tom calls "ROOSD";

And what engineers call Progressive Collapse.
And unlike MT, quantified by NIST
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/faqs12007.cfm

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WorldTradeCenterTowers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

Where’s the ROOSD data, the math description? Not the motion trace of the collapsing elements, the vital engineering calculations of the forces acting on the floors, toppling walls? Nowhere.
(engineer laugh 3)

2) With no sideways bracing the outer perimeter columns fell away after a short delay in time; AND

This is already the concensus among engineers. Euler buckling.

3) Top Block core and other material falling on the core stripped the horizontal beams and brought down the core.

This is already the progressive collapse concensus among engineers.

So the mechanism under "1)" is what Major_Tom calls ROOSD. The label is his and he seems to have worked out the mechanism. However that mechanism is probably the most commonly accepted explanation among engineering professionals. Major_Tom is not the only one to have described the mechanism

although he has probably analysed it in more detail than most.

Incorrect. Scores of other engineers have described the collapse mechanism more thoroughly, and with math.

Set aside the question of why he conducted the analysis.

We all know why.

I derived essentially the same explanation and used it in posting on another forum from late 2007. But without the benefit of the catchy name "ROOSD".

Smart and correct.

Major_Tom has analysed it further than I did and can tell you which bits of floors fell in what sequence, I think for both towers. He has also done some great work in working out which bits of outer perimeter fell, in what sequence and where some of them landed. Commendable research in itself despite the need by many on this forum to disagree with everything a labelled truther might claim. And also independent of the fact that many here profess to have no interest in details - esp. if the details come from a person the mob has designated to be a "truther".

Pointless, inconsequential.
How does “ working out which bits of outer perimeter fell, in what sequence and where some of them landed” add to the goals of learning from this collapse? Nothing.
From NIST:

The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were:

• To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster after terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers.
• To serve as the basis for:
• Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
• Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
• Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and
• Improved public safety

The specific objectives were:

• Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
• Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response;
• Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and
• Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

 

[ozeco41]

If one were to present ROOSD to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ “Journal of Engineering Mechanics” for publication the first thing they would notice is that
Runaway Destruction is a hayseed way of saying what engineers call and already well know as Progressive or Disproportionate Collapse, of The Towers. (engineer laugh 1)

You asked a question BasqueArch. I answered it. The appropriate response from you would be some form of "Thank you" and/or discussion of what I actually said.

Instead you choose to respond with this mess of distortions, evasions, topic shifts, half truths and personal insults in the form of innuendo.

I don't play those games.