OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Myriad]

Sorry, drawing colored ovals on two different images is not evidence that the items appearing therein are the same. Do you have an actual argument for that point?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[beachnut]

...

60 ft of beam flooring from the 75th fl jumps out of the building intact. Wake up, guys.

You have delusions, and there is nothing strange about the building falling apart in a gravity collapse with kinetic energy over 130 TONS of TNT. Learn physics and stop Spamming your failed analysis based on your inside job lies.

 

[pgimeno]

Can anyone tell what that big black rectangular thing is attached to the back of the falling perimeter column section in this image?

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/flooring.jpeg[/qimg]

Isn't that a floor slab?

I would rather prefer to call it unidentified falling object.

Go ahead and play "what if" though, which I imagine is your next game, or rather "since it is", but don't expect much of a positive reaction.

This reminds me of EVP. "Hey, didn't it just say 'I'm scared'?" And they listen again and hear what they're told to hear.

 

[DGM]

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/flooring.jpeg[/qimg]

60 ft of beam flooring from the 75th fl jumps out of the building intact. Wake up, guys.

"Intact"? Your eyes are "better" then mine.

BTW: What's the green (I'm blue/green color blind so cut me some slack) supposed to show, it looks to me like a random collection of (?)?

 

[carlitos]

This reminds me of EVP. "Hey, didn't it just say 'I'm scared'?" And they listen again and hear what they're told to hear.

I know. I was kidding a bit before with bigfoot and JFK references, but that's where we are. Jumpy, blurry gifs and circled blurry photos, coupled with incredulity.

Major_Tom will only consider VISUAL evidence (i.e., the "observables") and now even his own circled photos don't fit with his own ROOSD that is, in his own words, "the only known propagation mechanism which agrees with all observables?"

 

[LightningTeg]

Uh the building crashing to the ground?

 

[ozeco41]

I know. I was kidding a bit before with bigfoot and JFK references, but that's where we are. Jumpy, blurry gifs and circled blurry photos, coupled with incredulity....

IMNSHO there is no problem with a bit for fun provided it stays reasonably close to the topic or the processes of discussing the topic.

...Major_Tom will only consider VISUAL evidence (i.e., the "observables") and now even his own circled photos don't fit with his own ROOSD that is, in his own words, "the only known propagation mechanism which agrees with all observables?"

"ROOSD" and "OOS" have been good marketing ploys by Major_Tom.
Many of us, myself included, have published the same concept - so much so that I regard it as the mainstream accepted explanation for the "global collapse" stage of Twin Towers collapse. But I never gave it a name or an acronym. So MT repeatedly claims "ROOSD" as his own. The label is. The concept isn't. And "brand identity" is a key concept of good marketing. Good for MT on the marketing, but let's not forget that many of us got there. Some of us got there before MT.

Now it seems that MT is finding "observables" which he claims contradict "ROOSD".

But that is MT's consistent style. What he means is that (so far) he cannot reconcile the contradictions with ROOSD.

Worry not folks. ROOSD is valid - it would be better if we had a label not associated with MT but don't let that confuse us. ROOSD is valid. No-one has proposed a better explanation. I will add my extensions and others can add their detail. But the core of ROOSD is sound.

So the issue before us is whether or not we need to address Major_Tom's contradictions. Those who are familiar with my approach can predict my response.

I am not concerned about any contradictions MT or anyone can identify until they persuade me that it affects the bigger picture of Twin Towers collapse.

Till then, I leave you with it.

 

[Norseman]

According to the ROODS concept, whether employed naturally or intentionally, the activity around MER floors is pretty important. These are natural discontinuties in the ROOSD process.

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/678916575.jpg[/qimg]

Notice that there are no ejections in the areas with known air ventalation openings.

The ejection along the north face off the NE corner have no natural explanation. There are no vents in the corners.

Assuming the 75th fl layout is the same as fl 41.

On the east west side of the north face the same thing is happening. Observe:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/MERnorth1.jpeg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/MERnorth2.jpeg[/qimg]

It is obvious that something is happening to the interior of fl 41 that cannot be attributed to venting or elevators.

43, 41 MER activity visible from the south also:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/MERsouth.jpeg[/qimg]

Major_Tom you need to take a close look at figure A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8 on page 422 - 425 in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A (Chap_9 - AppxC). Below I have posted figure A-6 showing the location of louvers on floor 75 and 76 on the north face of WTC 2.



Figure 4-6 and 4-8 that you posted from NIST NCSTAR 1-4D does not show all the details, since they as stated in figure 4-6 are schematics. Looking at figure 4-8 one will get the impression that the return air on the west and east side is vented to the outside on those two faces. But this is not the case, as indicated by the exhaust arrows in figure 4-8, since there are no louver openings on the west and the east side of floor 76. Instead the ventilation system works as follows. The return air is led in to spill plenums, where some of the air could be recirculated back in to the tower through the spill dampers. The air that was not recirculated was led to the spill louvres located in the corners on the north and the south side of WTC 2.

So contrary to what you claim there are ventilation openings in the corners on all four faces of both WTC 1 and WTC 2. And the smoke ejections on the mechanical equipment room floors do line up with known air vents.

The blueprints for WTC 1 do also indicate the louver openings on the mechanical equipment rooms. They are located on this truther website in this convenient multi-resolutin viewer:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

Note that the drawings for WTC 1 can be applied to WTC 2 by rotating counterclockwise 90 degrees, and those for WTC 2 can applied to WTC 1 by rotating 90 degrees clockwise.

 

[ozeco41]

Can anyone remember why we are looking at this detail?

 

[Norseman]

Can anyone mangle a post quite like Beachnut?


Here is a closer look at the 75N, 77W pair of ejections.

[qimg]http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4527/jet75.gif[/qimg]

It is interesting how the 75th fl north face "random fart" lines up with the hallway. The ejection does not line up with some air vent, but with a hallway to the interior core.

I would say that it lines up with the West Peripheral air intake. Especially if you factor in the wind direction.

 

[Norseman]

Can anyone remember why we are looking at this detail?

That is a question I do ask myself to. But I could not resist my temptation to point out some factual errors in Major_Toms reasoning, whatever he attempts to prove in this thread.

 

[BasqueArch]

Deleted-wrong thread

 

[Major_Tom]

R Mackey on the OOS propagation model, May 2010:

The whole line of investigation is ridiculous. What unanswered question does this paper purport to examine? None. Existing, reliable, reviewed scientific literature covers it quite thoroughly. All the made-up acronyms and appeals for attention are no more than fatuous Truther narcissism.

R Mackey on how buildings collapse through "crush down, then crush up", August 25, 2010:

It's the latter.




Think of it in terms of impulse -- the total change of momentum at a particular impact. Impulse is equal and opposite, by conservation of momentum. Impulse is equal to F delta-T (force times the time over which the force is applied), or M delta-V (the raw change of momentum in its familiar definition P = m V).

When we look at the "upper block," it's delta-V is smaller than the delta-V experienced by the newly broken part of the lower block. As you say, the upper block decelerates by an average 1/3 g, while the lower block accelerates by an average 2/3 g. This is because the participating part of the lower block masses less than the participating part of the upper block -- it really is the compacted mass and upper block versus a small number of floors at a time, not the entire lower block.

The reason only part of the lower block participates at any given time is because the lower block is still a mostly intact sparse structure of braced columns. When it's hit, the columns lose bracing, get loaded eccentrically, shear their welds and bolts, and in some cases are totally overwhelmed and fracture entirely. These pieces break at a stress much too low to actually support the descending mass. This also has nothing to do with the strength of the perfectly intact building -- the descending rubble heap isn't contacting the lower structure at its strongest points, and it's introducing brand new failure modes, so the effective opposing strength of the lower structure is far lower than its ideal carrying capacity. Furthermore, where the lower structure does resist at or near its ideal strength, it can only do so for a very brief delta-T -- until reaching its failure strain, which takes only about ten milliseconds at the speeds of collapse -- and this is not enough to amount to all that much total impulse.

The upper chunk, in contrast, is cushioned by a thick layer of rubble. This is compacted about as far as it can, thus it doesn't have those complex failure modes and it doesn't suffer much more "damage" even at much higher stresses. So the rubble pile remains, and the lower structure gives way. This is for the same reason you don't sink into the ground, even though you can push your finger easily through a cupful of soil.

The "upper block," what remains of it, rides on top of this cushion of debris. It is supported pretty well. It also only decelerates at that lower rate, thanks to the much greater inertia of the upper block + debris. So the only real force it suffers is the inertial force, i.e. its own self-weight times its deceleration, again about 1/3 g. It can be expected to survive this deceleration. It's only when the rubble pile has nowhere else to go and the upper block has to suddenly stop, dissipating all of its momentum in mere milliseconds, that it totally fails.

Again, this is slightly idealized, but you get the point. Unless you're a Truther.

Is there anyone regular JREF poster who can see the massive contradictions in these posts?

 

[Major_Tom]

As I post I am having my words deleted. Why?

 

[Major_Tom]

Some notes and slight reorganization of this thread:

Review of topics presented

Refutation of BV, BL and BLGB first introduced June, 2010

Some people ask about initiation and explosives. This is obviously a very important topic, but in the first few pages of this thread some people posted things against the model in the OP that were untrue. Many people have insulted me but nobody has yet been able to admit that some of the earlier posts criticizing the study are untrue.



Sheeples, I am not obsessed with Bazant. I can see what these papers prove and what they do not prove or address. Many people in your forum use his papers as if they are perfect. They do not provide the "proof" many people imagine they do.

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

To make my views on each paper perfectly clear, I am posting a first draft of my review of each paper.

Review of Bazant and Zhou at
http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-zhou-t375.html

Review of Bazant and Verdure at
http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-and-verdure-t378.html

Review of Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson at
http://www.the911forum.freeforums.org/review-of-bazant-le-greening-benson-t379.html

Review of BL(BVReply) will be posted soon, but it follows the same line of argument that BV does.


Each review is just a first draft but I think each can already show what the papers actually prove and what they do not prove or address.

Many of these comments will probably not make some of you feel happy, but I believe each of my comments are true or I wouldn't post them. If anyone wishes to challenge any section or comment, please be specific. If anyone needs me to further address specific passages or issues, please ask.

This was followed by months of people calling me names and accusing me of "not understanding models". The responses to this post are quite enlightening, revealing the state of mind in which many posters were in at that time.

Of course, now, very few people save Beachnut will defend these papers and he does so by accusing me of "not understanding models".


Ah, the memories....

 

[Major_Tom]

The concept of WTC1 tilt and the NIST statements involving 8 degrees was first posted in june, 2010 here:

Pgimeno writes: "(Emphasis added). That's not my reading of NIST. From NCSTAR 1-6D p. 314 (378 of the PDF):

The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south (observed at about 8°, Table 5-2) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall to the adjacent east and west walls (see Fig. 5-8), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns.

(Emphasis added again). From my reading, they DON'T say that the perimeter columns failed over an 8° tilt."

How do you interpret that? That the core columns successively failed over that amount of tilt? The perimeter columns would require even more tilt?

Here is a cleaned-up video taken from the west. This is a good clip to estimate the angle of tilting over which the initial failure sequence takes place. Please hold an object at about 8 or 10 degrees over the screen and you can see without taking a single measurement that the NIST claims of an 8 degree tilt over which the columns originally failed is way, way off. There is very little tilt during the initial column failure sequence.

http://www.youtube.com/user/femr2?&MMN_position=312:312#p/u/2/3Syq4HebZvw


Please recall the following comments by the NIST concerning an 8 degree tilt for WTC1:

1-6D, p 312:




1-6D, pg 314:





1-6draft, p 288, Table 9-5 titled "Observations for WTC1", fifth entry:
and
1-6D, p 312, Table 5-2, last entry



1-6draft p 290, figure 9-8 on probable collapse initiation sequence for WTC1:



1-6draft, p 294:




1-6draft, p 317:




Isn't is obvious that the angle is much, much smaller than 8 degrees before taking your first measurement?

Pretty incredible the level of abuse that post unleashed as people would accuse me for the next 11 months of all sorts of things.


Anyway, finally in May 2011, this month, people are starting to realize that everything I said about tilt was basically true. Do the insults stop? No.

Does anyone step up to acknowledge the mistakes and their consequences? No.

Now, I guess we pretend the exchange never took place. Does R Mackey ever admit his descriptions of WTC1 collapse initiation and collapse progression are incorrect and highly misleading? No.

 

[Major_Tom]

On a positive note, in this next post in June 2010 Pgimeno makes an interesting observation:

This is Fig. 5-8:

In that pic, I can measure a little over 3° for the antenna, and about 1° for the top.

Could it be that the core failed before the perimeter did, causing the antenna to tilt without a visible hint in the perimeter walls?

Yes! Good observation, but why did I have to argue with you for months to come?

You figured something out very quickly. Why didn't you follow up on your own observation?

 

[dafydd]

That is fine. You keep not caring and I'll keep posting.

I'd prefer less noise in my threads, anyway, so it works out well for all of us.

You couldn't have come to a less noisy place than this obscure internet site. When are you going to go public with this and astound the world? Everybody needs a hobby,I suppose. Happy fantasizing!

 

[Major_Tom]

At 60,000 hits for my 2 threads so far, this site is not as obscure as you think.

Now think again why I post here. Do you think I post here because I am lonely and want to bond with some of you?

 

[DGM]

Now think again why I post here........

Because you don't have enough confidence in your work to challenge the experts?