OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Kent1]

That's from NCSTAR 1-6, right?

Oh wow! So does that mean that the "mistake" in NIST's 8 degree assertion lies merely in a certain interpretation of their words, possibly caused by a bit reckless wording when summarizing, and that there are other interpretations that make more sense?!

We can test that hypothesis.

Let's compare it to what other engineers have interpreted.

For the North Tower, it was assumed in the calculations that the tilt in the south direction varied during the first 5 s from 2.8° to 8° [which is the angle reported by NIST (2005)], and that it was zero in the east direction.
​

Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson - What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York, p.901

Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster, you're right, Kent1! So it was Major Tom's interpretation of NIST's words what led him to assert that it was a big mistake, and not actually what NIST's meant.

So what I said previously holds:

Every so often in the paranormal world, someone shows something which looks abnormal and is interpreted in a certain way, but which has a different, not-so-obvious explanation which escapes an untrained eye. It's hard to be sure we're not in front of such a case, so there isn't a powerful reason to believe your interpretation of what you are showing. Given the qualification of the people who participated in the NIST report, it will require similarly qualified peers to review their work on that matter to determine if there was a mistake or not.
​

now validated by two big mistakes in Major Tom's side.

Yes NCSTAR 1-6. I had been rereading some of this thread over the last week and this false claim stood out the most for some reason. So I simply opened up the report to the correct section.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Ho hum another day, another truther fail.

So I guess we can throw the 1 degree of tilt nonsense on the trash bin with the rest of the truther garbage?

Please read the thread on Femr's data before you deny the validity of the data I am posting.

This thread cannot move forward if you are in total denial of the data I am presenting but are too lazy or unskilled to produce any data yourselves.

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

Pgimeno, I could prove it now, but it requires an audience that is not in denial of the trace data.

This is the core of the NIST's conclusions, not just a tiny part.

3 corners of the building and the antenna have their release moment with a 0.5 second interval while the columns were tilted at less than 1 degree.

All 60+ columns in the west wall failing together within a 0.5 second interval (the data actually shows 0.25 seconds!!)

The first row of forceful ejections come out before the perimeter starts to move. The timing suggests the core became pressurized just 0.1 to 0.25 seconds before the release moment of the antenna.

And the NIST did not even recognize that any of this occurred. Instead, you get some description about how the columns failed from south to north over an 8 degree tilt.


These are not tiny mistakes.

 

[pgimeno]

Ho hum another day, another truther fail.

So I guess we can throw the 1 degree of tilt nonsense on the trash bin with the rest of the truther garbage?

To be fair, I don't think it's an unreasonable figure for the tilt prior to the start of the downward movement, and maybe someone who cares enough can check it.

But, since it's proved that NIST's 8 degrees referred to the point where the dust started to obscure the view and not to the start of the downward movement, what we can definitely throw on the trash bin is all the stuff like this:

Using the NIST report you would assume the failure progressed from south to north between a tilt angle of 0 to 8 degrees. If you understand how bady the NIST screwed that up, you may realize that they have no freaking idea how fast. Why not measure it before you defend it?

 

[femr2]

To be fair, I don't think it's an unreasonable figure for the tilt prior to the start of the downward movement, and maybe someone who cares enough can check it.

It's pretty accurate.

But, since it's proved that NIST's 8 degrees referred to the point where the dust started to obscure the view and not to the start of the downward movement...

Interpretation is always of note, but if all it takes is another interpretation that you prefer to result in something being *proved*, I would not be impressed at all.

How else is one supposed to interpret this...

Time - 10:28:20, Time from impact - 102 min - WTC 1 began to collapse. First exterior sign of collapse was at Floor 98. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south ocurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.

Very different to your re-interpretation that they are talking about dust obscuration.

In order to determine the correct initiation sequence, these details really should be very clear, and very accurate.

 

[Kent1]

It's pretty accurate.


Interpretation is always of note, but if all it takes is another interpretation that you prefer to result in something being *proved*, I would not be impressed at all.

How else is one supposed to interpret this...


Very different to your re-interpretation that they are talking about dust obscuration.

In order to determine the correct initiation sequence, these details really should be very clear, and very accurate.

Why didn't you simply look at the relevant section, photographs they used to come up with the 8 degree measurement, and collapse sequence described in table 6-1? The confusion would be greatly reduced.
They clearly note the downward movement before the 8 degrees and the images and captions from the video clearly support the case that the 8 degrees was after movement of the UPPER building section

You asked how they got the number. But it wasn't the error and photo you were hoping for.

 

[beachnut]

It's pretty accurate.


Interpretation is always of note, but if all it takes is another interpretation that you prefer to result in something being *proved*, I would not be impressed at all.

How else is one supposed to interpret this...


Very different to your re-interpretation that they are talking about dust obscuration.

In order to determine the correct initiation sequence, these details really should be very clear, and very accurate.

The correct initiation sequence started when UBL in the 90s said, promised, he would kill Americans, including women and children, when the opportunity came. 911 truth and talk of CD based on zero evidence is only apologizing for terrorists. 911 truth failed to get the cause of 911 correct and now the delusion pushers try to back in the lies.

911 truth is built on very stupid lies and fantasy. It is sad to see the sneaky try to make pseudoscience models and BS to try and back in the same stupid lies based on fantasy of some conspiracy theory.

What does NIST have to do with a model by 911 conspiracy theorist with the final CD delusion conclusion?

UBL and his terrorist buddies initiated the 911 tragedy; proved by Evidence, the thing 911 truth never will have, or will they look at evidence on hand. The top expert on the WTC wraps up in simple terminology that anyone can understand, it was his building, he designed the structural elements that made the WTC strong, and he understands why the WTC collapsed.

The expert, the top expert says this!, "... the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

No one in 911 truth has the expertise to come close to refuting the person who built the WTC. 8 years of failure and we have non-engineers playing engineer and failing to understand simple models and terrorists. Instead they have to invent BS to stratify their needs of paranoid conspiracy theories. The funny part about 911 truth failure is it does not take an engineer to figure out 911, not even the structural engineering parts if they are capable of rational thinking. It is amazing people bring with a straight face the delusions of CD to a skeptics forum and expect a free ride as they try to support an idiotic lie.

 

[femr2]

Why didn't you simply look at the relevant section, photographs they used to come up with the 8 degree measurement, and collapse sequence described in table 6-1? The confusion would be greatly reduced.

1-6 Table 6-1 uses the exact same wording I quoted in my previous post.
Titling for image 6-11 differs, indeed.
The text I quoted is repeated numerous times in several tables (1-6 6.1 - 1-6D E1 & 5-2)
You appear to think the text under one image takes precedence.

Whatever.

They clearly note the downward movement before the 8 degrees

Where ?

and the images and captions from the video clearly support the case that the 8 degrees was after movement of the UPPER building section

I think your, er, case, is more than a little flimsy.

You asked how they got the number.

No I didn't.

But it wasn't the error and photo you were hoping for.

Wasn't hoping for either.

Clearly said interpretation is always of note, and that, due to the implications, the detail should be very clear, and very accurate.

Regardless, vertical drop of the upper section began after rotation of roughly 1 degree, regardless of how many times it says in the NIST report that *Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south ocurred before the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.*

I assume you have no issue with that.

 

[carlitos]

femr2, until you state an alternative hypothesis that better explains events, rest assured that your impotent arguing for the sake of arguing is accomplishing nothing in the real world.

 

[pgimeno]

Very different to your re-interpretation that they are talking about dust obscuration.

How is it a reinterpretation, based on this?

The WTC 1 building section above the impact and fire area tilted to the south as the structural collapse initiated, as shown in Fig. 6-7. The tilt was toward the side of the building that had long span floors. Video records taken from east and west viewpoints showed that the upper building section tilted to the south. Video records taken from a north viewpoint showed no discernable east or west component in the tilt. A tilt to the south of at least 8 degrees occurred before dust clouds obscured the view and the building section began to fall downwards.
​

(NCSTAR 1-6 p.155). Do you think that NIST thought that the top didn't fall before the dust obscured the view? Granted, the wording is confusing enough, but the figures remove all ambiguity. Furthermore, let's see how another engineer has interpreted it in a peer-reviewed paper:

For the North Tower, it was assumed in the calculations that the tilt in the south direction varied during the first 5 s from 2.8° to 8° [which is the angle reported by NIST (2005)], and that it was zero in the east direction.
​

Bazant; Le; Greening; Benson - What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York, p.901

 

[femr2]

your impotent arguing for the sake of arguing is accomplishing nothing in the real world.

I'm not arguing.

Accomplishment is a relative term.

Let me ask you...

What angle did WTC 1 tilt through before vertical drop began ?

 

[carlitos]

Lack of accomplishment you mean.

What effect have your efforts had on any real world events?
- prosecutions?
- building codes?
- video production standards?
- engineering principles?
- political change?

 

[femr2]

How is it a reinterpretation, based on this?

I'm not responsible for NIST contradicting themselves with their sloppy work.

As long as everyone is clear about what angle WTC 1 actually tilted through before vertical drop began, it's all good.

 

[femr2]

Lack of accomplishment you mean.

No, I mean...

Let me ask you...

What angle did WTC 1 tilt through before vertical drop began ?

 

[beachnut]

The reality version of collapse sequence is the entire chapter 5.

911 truth wants to make up their own science, quote mind, cherry-pick and make up their own what NIST said as they ignore many studies which agree impacts and fires destroyed the WTC. How many more years will these clowns post models, letters, and papers so nonsensical they are also afraid to publish or expose their work to real engineers.

NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf All of chapter 5 is the collapse sequence, not some cherry-picked lines 911 truth cult member can quibble about and continue the non-evidence support of the faith based CD delusion.

 

[Myriad]

No, I mean...

Let me ask you...

What angle did WTC 1 tilt through before vertical drop began ?

If by vertical drop you mean vertical drop of the center of gravity, then the answer is "zero." Because tilt of any angle (unless hinged through the exact center which no one is claiming happened) must lower the center of gravity.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[femr2]

If by vertical drop you mean vertical drop of the center of gravity, then the answer is "zero." Because tilt of any angle (unless hinged through the exact center which no one is claiming happened) must lower the center of gravity.

Respectfully,
Myriad

No, I mean (and I think it's been stated way back in the thread) that rotation of ~1 degree occurs before release of all four corners. All four corners are descending after that point. Before that point, the NW and NE corners had not failed.

I agree with what you are saying about COG though of course.

 

[Kent1]

1-6 Table 6-1 uses the exact same wording I quoted in my previous post.
Titling for image 6-11 differs, indeed.
The text I quoted is repeated numerous times in several tables (1-6 6.1 - 1-6D E1 & 5-2)
You appear to think the text under one image takes precedence.

I don't believe that the text under 1 picture takes precedence. But the picture itself of where the measurement came from, the text under figure 6-11, the photo of figure 6-8 where it states the downward movement and the times listed. All of which you clearly missed. The text you mentioned was clearly not complete.

OK major tom asked how they got the number. Now we know.

 

[femr2]

All together now...

What angle did WTC 1 tilt through before vertical drop began (release of all four corners) ?

Was it 8 degrees ?

 

[Kent1]

I would be happy to say 1 percent.

 

[carlitos]

femr2, you aren't a complete moron, so I know that you understand my point. Please don't pretend otherwise, like your co-religionists do.

How does the degree of tilt before / after / during the drop of the top part of the WTC tower fit into any scenario of yours? What is the significance? How does it fit into your broader hypothesis of the days events? Why are you discussing it in a forum about "9/11 conspiracy theories?"