• 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.

OOS Collapse Propagation Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reactor drone said:
That's a bold claim, maybe you should present your engineering models to back it up.
Click to expand...

I like how Truthers have gone from "there was no plane" to "there were pods on the planes" to "the building can't possibly collapse" and now finally to "the building can't possibly collapse that fast".
 
Last edited:
Multiple animated gifs in one gif totally rock! This is going to blow the conspiracy wide open!
 
beachnut said:
Crappy is all you can say when you can't validate or list the errors in your data. Very scientific of you.
Click to expand...

Which pretty much summarizes your modus-operandi. When you can't disprove a theory you base your discrediting tactic on loud talk.
 
Major_Tom said:
Best to forget about the NIST's claim that buckling moved from south to north over a tilt of 8 degrees. Almost no tilt angle is possible if all 4 release points are within a 0.25 second interval.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know if I would jump to the conclusion of "no tilt" just now. Any tilt measured would quickly disprove your argument. Maybe you can create a model that takes into consideration rotational momentum of such a big bloc, gravity and try to estimate the possible tilt scenarios.

It would also be interesting to see how much momentum the 8 degree tilt proposed by NIST would have imposed on the structure and from there try to explain why it fell directly downward and didn't keep tilting and fall over the side.
 
Java Man said:
Maybe you can create a model ....
Click to expand...
LOL. I doubt that he can even create a cheesy youtube video. He seems to have peaked at animated gifs and he won't even publish his ground-breaking "paper" anywhere. An engineering model? Hah.

Java Man said:
It would also be interesting to see how much momentum the 8 degree tilt proposed by NIST would have imposed on the structure and from there try to explain why it fell directly downward and didn't keep tilting and fall over the side.
Click to expand...
Because the World Trade Center buildings were not solid like trees.
 
beachnut said:
You are still pushing the CD, thermite, or someone helped the WTC collapse because fire can't destroy the strength of steel?
....
? oops, fire does destroy the strength of steel; now what? Don't need NIST to figure out impacts and fires caused the WTC collapse. Why do you had delusions to your conclusions?
Click to expand...

I don't think he's so much saying that fire can't destroy the strength of steel. I think he's pointing to the conclusion that fire alone couldn't have brought that building down just like it did. Weakened beams would have failed at odd times causing a random set of failures which would cause an uncontrolled fall. CD being used to "accelerate" the fall before it went out of control.

After the airplane hit there was no easy way to control the fire. Would wind take it one way or the other. Would parts heat up more than others. Weakening beams at one end more and/or faster than at another. Not dropping the WTC practically on its footprint, but rather dropping large blocks (multistory sized) of the building onto other buildings.
 
Java Man said:
Beats the heck out of what I've seen you come up with.
Click to expand...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am not claiming that there were nefarious causes to the WTC collapses other than plane crashes and fire. There is abundant evidence for what I claim. Read the NIST report, and the 9/11 Commission findings, and better yet "Looming Tower."


Java Man said:
So? Do bamboos have their own personal way of falling over?
Click to expand...
The center of gravity of the rotating top section of the WTC, at no time, was far enough off-center to fall "off to the side." Things fall down due to gravity. This is explained in the NIST findings. Have a look.
 
carlitos said:
The center of gravity of the rotating top section of the WTC, at no time, was far enough off-center to fall "off to the side." Things fall down due to gravity. This is explained in the NIST findings. Have a look.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can point to us the page where that is explained. More so I'd be interested at what stopped the rotation. As something that is rotating has a tendency to keep rotating. How was the tilt neutralized?
 
You really ought to try using the search function. (The google-powered one is easiest in my opinion)

I typed "NIST tilt" and found this rather quickly. I'm not going to do any more work on this. Good luck.

R.Mackey said:
1) "Tilt of approximately 3 to 4 degrees to the south and 7 to 8 degrees to the east occurred before bulding section fell." NIST NCSTAR1-6D, Table E-1.

2) A graphical representation of the stress at the moment of collapse initiation (predicted) is given in NCSTAR1-6D, figures 4-120.
Click to expand...
 
Major_Tom said:
This is the most accurate set of data most of you have ever seen on the early movement of WTC1. ...

If these ejections have a natural cause, it must be due to floor slab movement which displaces, or "fans", air out the west face 98th floor windows. If the ejections appear in Sauret frame 208 before the release point of either the SW or NW corners, what type of floor slab movement could have caused the ejections?


Solution: Since the ejections line up with the core, we look for possible movement of the 99th floor OOS west slab or the core slab. The OOS west slab is attached to the west perimeter on one side and the 501 to 1001 core columns on the other side. We know the perimeter did not move before that time.

What about the core? The release point of the antenna is currently located between Sauret frames 208 and 215. According to current data the antenna slowly sagged about 2 ft in Sauret frame 208 but had not moved down with any significant velocity before this time.

According to current data, no floor slab that remained attached to the core or perimeter could have moved to create the forceful, even ejections witnessed in frame 208. Rapid downward movement of either floor slab could not have begun by this time.

The only other natural possibility: The 99th floor slab magically detached from the structure and fell between 0.5 and 0.9 seconds before Sauret frame 208. (A slab in free-fall will take just over 0.8 seconds to strike the one below).

One last possibility: The 98th floor experiences a high pressure event through the core around Sauret frame 200, just before the release event of the antenna. Core pressurization precedes core release by about 1/10th of a second!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Click to expand...

I see no compelling reason to accept your assumptions about how the floor slabs might have behaved.

You are, at least so far as I can tell, simply hypothesizing about events which cannot be detected from these videos and acceleration analysis.
I have zero confidence in your engineering analysis since you haven't backed this speculation up with a comprehensive engineering model that can be peer-reviewed.

I don't even see a list of structural engineers who have been working on your paper. Can you produce a list of the engineers, what problems they have been working on, and how these problems have been conceived within the various collapse models you are considering?

Even as a layman I can quickly think of some possible events which you seem to have eliminated (without any detailed explanation). So my main criticism is again that your process of elimination seems very suspect at this point, and as a skeptic I do not buy it.

I'm inclined to believe that you are simply using this video analysis as a kind of bafflegab to steer the paper into a foregone conclusion - and that you are now making a 'CD in the gaps' argument. ie 'what we don't know = CD'

btw, in order to overcome real skeptic's reservations, you will have to eventually tackle the issue as to why and how some kind of nefarious controlled demolition could take place in the midst of gigantic fires and airplane damage.
Remember, you have not even begun to tackle this very serious issue. I actually don't think you can present an engineering argument for this which is reality-based.
Call me a skeptic, but I still see plane impacts and subsequent large fires as the obvious causal relationship.

You've really got your hard work still ahead of you. I hope you realize this. I'm not even an engineer - just imagine how difficult it's going to be to convince someone who knows this subject as a seasoned professional!
 
Note: further to my last post concerning just the issue of how floor slabs might behave - nobody knows exactly what was going on inside that building at every given interval - there's no way to obtain that information.

All one can do, whether a scientist or layman, is try to infer some of it. The idea that an ejection can be positively attributed to any particular floor slab, for example, is a bit of a pipe-dream. You can only speculate about it - you will never know exactly what caused that event.
The one thing is that with an engineering-based model, you could at least show that certain things ARE possible.

I have no doubt that it is entirely possible for this building to have collapsed thru plane impacts and fires. 100 competent engineering models would only confirm this, IMHO.

What will never be proven is the use of explosives to create these fx. There isn't enough evidence to bring this method to the top of any competent engineer's list, and there never will be, IMHO.

As with the Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories, there will always be someone trying to 'prove' it; just as with WTC 'no planers'. Of that we can be sure.:)
 
From 'AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIPPING OF THE UPPER SECTION OF WTC 2' by Frank Greening

'Thus we could say that WTC 2 actually started to tip over
as soon as it was hit by an aircraft, but the tipping was not noticeable because the
average angular velocity was only about 1 per hour or 0.0003 s1'

'Because this failure occurred when the floors in the southeast corner of the 80th floor of WTC 2 were already lowered by up to 1 meter from the initial 3.7 m floor spacing, the upper block would have pivoted a maximum distance of 2.7 m before impacting the floor below'

Hmm. Interesting. Thx for the link
 
I'll need your special expertise to explain how 3 of the 4 upper corners of WTC1 could have release points within 0.5 seconds or less.
Click to expand...

Well the first obvious questions is how do you think the time should have been longer and why........
If I was to guess it would be that the upper floors were a rigid enough assembly to stay together for 0.5 seconds and so transmit any forces and movement as a block for that time. If the collapse was initiated by the collapse of a floor the section above would stay together until the interior and exterior columns buckled and/or came apart as they were no longer being retrained by the floors. This would allow the top to drop essentially into "open space" as the floors were already gone.
 
Carlitos, we are measuring WTC1.

I present no information that anyone else cannot verify for themselves.

Drop curves for 4 anchor points were traced, plotted and compared. All video files are available for downloading.


A suggestion: Get off your lazy arses and measure the drop curves for 4 anchor points yourselves, one near the NE. NW and SE corners of the perimeter and one on the antenna. Study the drop curves and compare them. If the intervals between the release moments of each point is different than what I posted, please let me know.

Java Man, these drop curve measurements and others were taken over a period of months. Angle measurements of the antenna and north wall were also taken. The link to the original discussion in The 9/11 Forum can help understand how and why such curves were traced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom