OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[achimspok]

STFU

I nominated your post because you look so sexy when you're stupid.

 

[beachnut]

I nominated your post because you look so sexy when you're --------.

When will you help Major Tom publish his fantastic work? When will you figure out his claims of CD are a moronic delusion? Don't let your lack of evidence hold you back from doing nothing about your failed ideas on 911.

OOS was done by Major Tom to back in CD. Any comments on topic?

 

[achimspok]

When will you help Major Tom publish his fantastic work?

publish = the activity of making information available for public view
Do you mean when will I help Major Tom to publish his fantastic work in Popular Mechanics or Vanity Fair? Never! If you need the information on a paper just use your printer in the meantime!

When will you figure out his claims of CD are a moronic delusion?

When there is any evidence for one way or another. So far I don't know if he mentioned CD at all. I think he mentioned that the inward bowing could be described as the mechanical result of a slowly failing part of the core that will rotate with the girders and pull the perimeter inwards. Well, somehow that's what NIST says too, isn't it? Just the amount of inward bowing is alarming.

Don't let your lack of evidence hold you back from doing nothing about your failed ideas on 911.

Surprisingly it's your lack. What's about the Atta parking lot? Simple question simple answer, please! (Should I publish it on Vanity Fair first?)

OOS was done by Major Tom to back in CD.

That's what you fear the most, isn't it? Will it affect your bill or something? We would shut up immediately.

...but so far it's all about measured data. Simply that. A building, a scale, different methods of measurement and some strange results. That's all.

 

[achimspok]

Sorry, we don't need the last post twice. But maybe we can use this empty space for adding some evidence for faked evidence later.

 

[Major_Tom]

So, in the last gif, which I've shown many times, we see a rapid overpressurization coming from the collapse initiation floor, lining up with the core, before the west perimeter even starts to move. Drop curves of trace points on the SW, NW and NE corners of the building and on the antenna show that none of these points had been released to fall before the rapid overpressurization became visible.

And the response from regular members of this forum is.......nothing.

How can a failure of the south wall do that? It cannot. Did the floor slab within the core detach from the 47 columns and begin to fall? Or can we blame this one on the OOS west floor slab? Perhaps the west floor slab felt the impending inevitable doom and leapt to it's death before the perimeter moved?

What possible excuse can the regular posters give for the timing and strength of the row of ejections lining up with the core while clinging to the NIST explanation of the famous sagging OOS south floors?

Any response besides...failed...moronic....delusional....9 years....publish.... ???

 

[Myriad]

So, in the last gif, which I've shown many times, we see a rapid overpressurization coming from the collapse initiation floor, lining up with the core, before the west perimeter even starts to move. Drop curves of trace points on the SW, NW and NE corners of the building and on the antenna show that none of these points had been released to fall before the rapid overpressurization became visible.

The building started collapsing and (maybe) caused a pressure pulse.

The gif itself shows some of the floors above beginning to drop. This is much more clearly visible than the "rapid overpressurization" which looks a lot like all the other smoke that is billowing out the whole time.

Blah, blah, blah, corners (which are conveniently out of frame) didn't release yet. Take your word for it? Sure, why not, you're scrupulously honest and tend to get things right. Let's pretend. Nonetheless: you can see the wall above descending right there in your gif.

"Lining up with the core" is the really strange part of your claim. You claim to be showing the effects of an overpressurization but pressure by definition acts in all directions so there's no reason for it to "line up with" anything and no significance if it does so. The window openings through which the smoke is flowing, which are near the center of the face, happen to be parallel to the core. So the building was constructed with right angled walls and the core in the middle. That's supposed to be suspicious?

If you think you have something, publish. I don't see any significance but that's why there are professional peer reviewers. They might see it differently. Sorry if you don't like that advice. I don't like the advice my doctor gives me (such as, if I want to be healthier I should lose weight and to do that I should eat less) but I'm glad he has the expertise and honesty to tell me the truth.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[achimspok]

I don't like the advice my doctor gives me too (such as, if I want to see I should open my eyes) but I'm glad he has the expertise and honesty to tell me the truth.

The gif itself shows some of the floors above beginning to drop.

Do you see it prior to the drop of the fl104 fire? ...just some floors or all floors?

 

[carlitos]

So far I don't know if he mentioned CD at all.

cores which a demolition team can exploit by setting up sufficient initial conditions higher in the towers.

What's about the Atta parking lot? Simple question simple answer, please! (Should I publish it on Vanity Fair first?)

This might seem to be a simple question, but I don't understand it, nor does it related to "OOS" - or does it?

 

[achimspok]

"a demolition team can exploit" Ahhh! Ohhh! I seeeee!

I don't understand it, nor does it related to "OOS"

Nutty knows! Well, he often goes off topic and he always gets me replying on that. It's a pity, I know.

What do you think about core sagging? ...enough to pull in* the perimeter and to sever the floor connections? ...some kind of "natural" OOS-avalanche-onset?
*or better enough to force down the perimeter via the hat truss

 

[carlitos]

achimspok,

Please don't rush your response, and try to leave out all the weird stuff.

If it's all about "measured data," the "demolition team" is a complete non-sequitur. Where did the idea of a "demolition team" come from?

Unless, as beachnut noted, Major_Tom is trying to "back in" the idea of controlled demolition? In other words, MT is starting with a conclusion and then finding data to support it. Not just looking at "measured data" at all.

 

[beachnut]

"a demolition team can exploit" Ahhh! Ohhh! I seeeee!

Nutty knows! Well, he often goes off topic and he always gets me replying on that. It's a pity, I know.

What do you think about core sagging? ...enough to pull in* the perimeter and to sever the floor connections? ...some kind of "natural" OOS-avalanche-onset?
*or better enough to force down the perimeter via the hat truss

You said it will not be published. Good for you.
This is not published, this is posting to fool people like you who gravitate to dirt dumb non-engineering trash called OOS which has no math, no engineering, no value, and exposes your complete lack of math, engineering, and logical thinking skills. It is not a surprise 911 truth has failed for 9 years, and is doomed for an eternity of pushing stupid delusions. People who lack knowledge will defend this tripe with talk, and no more. People believe in Bigfoot, you believe in insane delusions from 911 truth. What is new?

Major Tom was upset with 911 truth no knowing how much explosives were needed and all the large numbers used. The fact is very little explosives are used for CD; IN FACT, gravity is the major energy source used for CD. BINGO! This is why CD looks like GRAVITY COLLAPSE.

So Major Tom goes lookie, I say it only take a few key elements to make the WTC towers fall. But reality has fire acting on many key elements and the WTC fell. Fire has more energy than any explosives needed to bring down the WTC, and it was there on 911. Explosives cook off in fire and will not work, Fire works in fire and keeps working. Gee, we have an epiphany here, fire did it.

 

[Myriad]

I don't like the advice my doctor gives me too (such as, if I want to see I should open my eyes) but I'm glad he has the expertise and honesty to tell me the truth.

If you say so. That's a very strange thing for your doctor to be telling you though. Did you ask, or did he or she have some reason to give you that advice?

Do you see it prior to the drop of the fl104 fire? ...just some floors or all floors?

The drop of the floors becomes readily noticeable approximately synchronous with the drop of the fire, which is also about the same time that the ongoing smoke from the windows changes noticeably in texture and velocity to indicate a likely pressure pulse. Both events begin when the red animated carat mark in the gif has moved about halfway. Consistent with the ejection being caused by a pressure pulse, when the faster ejection does begin it appears nearly simultaneously across the row. The moving carat mark is apparently meant to suggest otherwise (whether or not a deliberate attempt at deception I can't tell) but it fails to be convincing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Newtons Bit]

"a demolition team can exploit" Ahhh! Ohhh! I seeeee!

Nutty knows! Well, he often goes off topic and he always gets me replying on that. It's a pity, I know.

What do you think about core sagging? ...enough to pull in* the perimeter and to sever the floor connections? ...some kind of "natural" OOS-avalanche-onset?
*or better enough to force down the perimeter via the hat truss

Sagging floors do not brace the column. This alone can drastically reduce the strength of a column depending on its slenderness ratio.

 

[Miragememories]

Sagging floors do not brace the column. This alone can drastically reduce the strength of a column depending on its slenderness ratio.

Here ya go.

I have never understood this concept of "sagging floors"?

I mean, sagging ropes, chains, any material that is intrinsically soft, I understand the sagging phenomenon.

But structural steel floors which bend downwards due to heat expansion against stronger resistant columns being referred to as "sagging"?

They are not acting like chains...which can sag.

They are still hard steel.

They are merely bending.

Until they stop expanding (and thus pushing) against the columns, they do not add any additional sagging weight, or pull, on the columns to which they are attached.

"slenderness ratio" is also a term I haven't encountered before..well except when referring to women.

Please enlighten me Newtons Bit.

MM

 

[Reactor drone]

Here ya go.

I have never understood this concept of "sagging floors"?

I mean, sagging ropes, chains, any material that is intrinsically soft, I understand the sagging phenomenon.

But structural steel floors which bend downwards due to heat expansion against stronger resistant columns being referred to as "sagging"?

They are not acting like chains...which can sag.

They are still hard steel.

They are merely bending.
Until they stop expanding (and thus pushing) against the columns, they do not add any additional sagging weight, or pull, on the columns to which they are attached.

"slenderness ratio" is also a term I haven't encountered before..well except when referring to women.

Please enlighten me Newtons Bit.

MM

Things which bend due to gravity are often said to be "sagging".

As for slenderness ratio, that refers to thickness in relation to length. As an example, if you take a steel ruler you'll find it quite easy to bend but if you take a 2cm long piece of that same ruler you'll find it very difficult to bend.

 

[Miragememories]

"I have never understood this concept of "sagging floors"?

I mean, sagging ropes, chains, any material that is intrinsically soft, I understand the sagging phenomenon.

But structural steel floors which bend downwards due to heat expansion against stronger resistant columns being referred to as "sagging"?

They are not acting like chains...which can sag.

They are still hard steel.

They are merely bending.

Until they stop expanding (and thus pushing) against the columns, they do not add any additional sagging weight, or pull, on the columns to which they are attached."

Things which bend due to gravity are often said to be "sagging".

Structural steel that bends due to resistance to expansion is not "sagging".

Surely you can do better?

MM

 

[fess]

What do you think about core sagging? ...enough to pull in* the perimeter and to sever the floor connections? ...some kind of "natural" OOS-avalanche-onset?
*or better enough to force down the perimeter via the hat truss

While I certainly don’t agree with some of your assumptions, I will admit that you are one of the few to mention the hat truss. Without trying to derail this thread, I believe the hat truss played a vital part in the collapse of the towers. Of course, there is no way of knowing exactly when the hat truss actually failed.

 

[fess]

Here ya go.

I have never understood this concept of "sagging floors"?

I mean, sagging ropes, chains, any material that is intrinsically soft, I understand the sagging phenomenon.

But structural steel floors which bend downwards due to heat expansion against stronger resistant columns being referred to as "sagging"?

They are not acting like chains...which can sag.

They are still hard steel.

They are merely bending.

Until they stop expanding (and thus pushing) against the columns, they do not add any additional sagging weight, or pull, on the columns to which they are attached.

MM

Fire does not “bend” metal, it causes it to distort, twist, elongate, and sag. As the trusses elongate, they push against the outer perimeters of the structure. When they sag, they pull inward on the outer perimeter. I have seen a number of concrete block shells collapse under these types of loads.

 

[Major_Tom]

Beginning at about 9.5 seconds before the visible collapse initiation, building movement first became detectable using tracing methods.

These measurements show us a few very important features, or attributes, of the collapse initiation process. This information is new and the NIST know about it.



The detection of the earliest tendencies of movement of the building is a gift for the serious researcher. We can observe the NW corner get pulled eastward from fl 98 upwards oiver a 9,5 second interval. At the same time, the base of the antenna is moving eastward and then sags in a "hook" motion. while we see no movement along the west edge of the building.




Two approaches, same results.


First analysis:

SOURCE VIDEO

http://xenomorph.s3.amazonaws.com/Etienne-Sauret-WTC1-DVD.mpg

Frame 1 in analysis = Frame 370 in the deinterlaced mpg.

Processing...

1) Deinterlace - unfold.
2) VideoEnhancer Resolution Upscale (*2x, *4y)
3) Deinterlace - fold.
4) Bob Doubler (Alternate Fields, No resize)

Only the first 1300 (interlaced), 2600 (deinterlaced) frames are examined.

Written out as .bmp, download yields 2600 files, totalling 10,782,860,400 bytes (10 Gb)




HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT, NW CORNER

http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-426-3



Camera shake is obvious (between frames 1150-1250).

Black thick line is horizontal movement of the NW corner.

Grey is raw NW corner.

Blue is static point.

(Remember there would be a time delay between event and camera if indeed the source of shaking originated from WTC1)



STATIC POINTS

Two static points are used, one in the foreground (on the building on the left of frame), and one low on the East side of the building. The locations are shown in the following linked images:

The static feature fixed to WTC1...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/700962521.png


The foreground static feature...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/556859827.png

The following graph compares and shows the difference between both static points...

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-427-3



Blue is FG static point.
Grey is Building static point.

Black is the difference.

Note...

1) There is good correlation between both until near the very end of the trace, indicating that parralax effects are minimal between near and far field objects.

2) There is Westward movement of the static point on the building at the end of the trace.

3) Camera shake period should be obvious.

Static Feature Comparison (Vertical)

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-428-3


Notes...

1) Slight gradual vertical drop of building static feature following camera shake.

I'm aware of stating movement of static features here, but I was expecting the traced point on the building to *stay* static.


Washer Horizontal Movement (Normalised to FG static point)...

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-431-3



Notes...

1) Camera shake is between 1150 and 1250.

2) Eastward movement follows shake.

Static Point Foreground Vertical...

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-432-3



NW Corner Raw Vertical...

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-433-3



Draft NW Corner Normalised Vertical...

HiRes http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-434-3




Original posting of first analysis at
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/onset-of-wtc1-movement-and-sauret-shake-t386.html

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

Second analysis:



The entire Sauret clip is tracked to detect vertical and lateral pre-release movement of WTC1.

SOURCE VIDEO
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/enhanced-video-sources-t394.html#p11816


TRACKED POINTS: 4 GROUPS

1) Several static points in the foreground (3 on the metal stick, 2 on the windows behind stick). These "static points" in the foreground are represented by the blue curves.
2) "Static point" at the 92nd floor NW corner of WTC1 (yellow).
3) Several points near the roof (washer, roof corner, window at 110 NW corner). Roof measurements are represented by the green curves. The curve for the window of the 110th floor is a very bright green and appears almost white.
4) Antenna mast along the black/white transition. The movement of the antenna is represented by the red tones.

IMPORTANT NOTE
The trackers have a problem staying exactly in position during the shaking. Many trackers indeed lost the track and were not able to measure the assigned position during the entire length of the clip. Some trackers stayed "connected" but re-calculated the "best fit" several times during the shaking. Therefore we may have different relative positions of tracked points at the end of the shaking. That deviation of the curves doesn't mean that a real displacement of the measured points occurred. Instead we can use the new relative positions as "zero movement" if we are not able to track the movement during the shaking precisely.

HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT

HiRes:http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9873/sauretfulllengthl.png

EASTWARD LEANING
Prior to the shaking of the camera all curves follow the blue "static foreground". There is no measurable movement of the tower. All apparent movements are the result of the shaking of the camera. After the shaking the yellow curve (floor 92) stays with the blue curves (static foreground). This means the 92nd floor didn't change it's position relative to foreground static points until the 92nd floor was pushed westward during the collapse.
Interestingly, all measured points above 92 - roof, washer (green) antenna (red) - started to lean east immediately after the shaking (about frame 1350).

VERTICAL DROP

HiRes:http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/9484/sauretfulllengthv.png


Prior to the shaking of the camera all curves follow the blue "static foreground". After the shaking all curves vary somewhat but move with the blue curves for about the next 200 frames. At about frame 1465 the antenna mast clearly started to "sag" while roof (green) and 92nd floor (yellow) stayed with the static foreground (blue).
We will have to compare the result with the calculated relations for the south tilt before we can differentiate between tilt and drop. Nevertheless, prior to any sag/tilt the entire upper part of the buildings started to creep eastward.
The east leaning (wide side of the core) is hardly explainable as induced by the south wall inward bowing if we do not measure any increasing south tilt during this interval. The same object tracking tool is used to measure south tilt as well as eastward tilt. Any south tilt would significantly shorten the measured vertical distance between roofline and any tracked point on the antenna.

Perhaps we wouldn't notice a small trapezoidal perimeter deformation towards the southeast if the antenna remained straight up. In that case the perimeter columns would bow towards the southeast, yet the total circumpherence of thr roofline along the perimeter must remain the same and we do not see a corresponding movement of perimeter roofline columns extending from the SW corner to the NE corner. Therefore such a hypothetical SW perimeter fold-in as the antenna remains near plumb does not match the visual record and so can be excluded as a possibility.
Once again everything points to a core-led collapse, not to a collapse initiated by instability in the south perimeter..

Interesting to note that prior to the collapse the distance between roof and 92nd floor decreases as seen in the HiRes plot of vertical displacement. After the collapse of the 98th floor the 92nd floor was sagging (compared to the "blue" static points in the foreground) until it was destroyed when the collapse reached that floor.

Frame 1641 of that long enhanced video is the frame 0 of the older set of measurements by achimspok.
Originally posted at
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/onset-of-wtc1-movement-and-sauret-shake-t386-30.html#p11880

 

[achimspok]

Sagging floors do not brace the column. This alone can drastically reduce the strength of a column depending on its slenderness ratio.

No doubt about it.
In the case of WTC1 the south west corner burnt for 70 minutes without sagging or bowing. At the very moment of the onset of the WTC2 collapse the fire swapped to the south east while the south west nearly smothered.
After 18minutes NIST measured 55inches of inward bowing in the south east. 55 inches require about 3 meters of centenary sagging in the given time.
NIST did a full scale test of max. loaded long span trusses in 2h of ideal burning conditions. The result was some inches of sagging.
No need to mention the fireproofing. The burning floors at WTC1 had renovated fireproofing. The south side was shielded by the core. Even NIST estimated just minor or no damage to the fireproofing in the south east.
The plane banked to the left. The port side wing hit the lower floors 92-95. So the excessive bowing (sagging) of especially the floors above 96 in the south east remains a little mystery.
Even if extreme heat would have destroyed all floor connections in the south east the unsupported exterior columns either would bow outwards or the hypothetically "hanging" floors have to hang well away from the perimeter on several floors to allow the measured bowing.
Finally such excessive sagging or hanging should affect the east and west face too but... nothing.
Therefore I'm pretty sure that NIST barked up the wrong tree.