OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[funk de fino]

I didn't expect such massive resistance to the study in the OP. I realized that most of the people posting here use the Bazant papers like a security blanket.

Stop lying.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Two more questions for those who believe the NIST report was accurate:

Seriously now, it's been pointed out that you're misrepresenting Bazant's papers.

The crush up/down thing STILL refers to the idealized case of the strength of the columns, not the floors, being the determining factor in his equations.

There's more examples of your twoofiness available to any who care to waste their time pointing them out to you.

If you can't admit that, there's zero reason to engage you seriously. Instead, it is appropriate to ridicule you if you cannot.

This is what you deserve.

 

[Major_Tom]

You may be thinking that I quoted the wrong sections of the NIST reports, that 8 degree tilt was actually the description of WTC2, not WTC1.

But if you look carefully you will see I am quoting sections describing WTC1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How much did it actually tilt before collectively falling downward?

I don't expect anyone to answer this correctly since that would require doing your own research. That requires effort.

We are measuring less than 1 degree.

How can NIST screw up that badly?

 

[Major_Tom]

Seymore writes: "Seriously now, it's been pointed out that you're misrepresenting Bazant's papers.

The crush up/down thing STILL refers to the idealized case of the strength of the columns, not the floors, being the determining factor in his equations."

Wrong, and that has been pointed out to you many times.

Why don't you explain that to Dr Benson?

DO you even know what paper "crush down, then crush up" comes from?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Wrong, and that has been pointed out to you many times.

From 2008:

"The aforementioned distance of initial crush-up would be larger if the column cross sections
changed discontinuously right below or right above the first collapsed story. However, this does
not appear to be the case. A sudden change of column cross section after the crush-down front
has advanced by more than a few stories would not produce crush-up because the compacted
layer B has already become quite massive and acquired a significant kinetic energy."

Therefore, he is still giving equations for the idealized case.

Your failure to admit this relegates you to the sidelines of woo. Heck, not even the sidelines. Give back your jersey, and pick up that water bucket. That's the only way you'll stay on the team.....

 

[Dave Rogers]

WTC1 collapse initiation occurred through the 98th floor at an angle of failure much less than what is mentioned in the NIST reports. A natural bolted seam though every core column though the 98th floor is unimportant?

If you're arguing that there was a natural point of weakness at the actual failure point, that seems to me to be an argument against artificial initiation; you're suggesting that it's suspicious that the structure failed at exactly the point one would expect it to fail.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If you're arguing that there was a natural point of weakness at the actual failure point, that seems to me to be an argument against artificial initiation; you're suggesting that it's suspicious that the structure failed at exactly the point one would expect it to fail.

Dave

But at least he's talking about the collapse initiation zones now. Let's give him a bit; maybe he'll discover NCSTAR 1-3C and learn something.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How much did it actually tilt before collectively falling downward?

I don't expect anyone to answer this correctly since that would require doing your own research. That requires effort.

We are measuring less than 1 degree.

I measured two degrees on a video frame that showed less than a quarter-storey descent of the top edge. Which videos did you use and what directions were they taken from? Did you consider the geometrical point that measurements from a single video will only give the component of rotation about an axis parallel to the line of sight, so that (for example) a video taken from a direction perpendicular to the axis of tilt will reveal little or no rotation despite rotation having actually taken place? Given which, is there actually a video available from which the actual rotation can be measured?

Dave

ETA: I would suggest that "correctly" does not necessarily mean "agreeing with me in every detail". I suspect you may feel otherwise.

 

[Major_Tom]

Dave mentions: "you're suggesting that it's suspicious that the structure failed at exactly the point one would expect it to fail."

Dave, is there any mention of the 47 bolted core column connections along the 98th floor in the NIST reports? If "one would expect" the failure to occur along bolted connections on the 98th floor at less than 1 degree of tilt, how could the NIST have missed this?

How could they have been over 800% wrong in measuring the actual tilt at which the top portion started to collectively move downwards? Why didn't they mention the aligned, bolted connections located at the same place where the 98th floor failed at less than 1 degree?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But of course I am a "twoofer" so according to the accepted standards of this forum I am considered a "liar" with a "low IQ", so how do you know there was a horizontal plane about 3 ft above the 98th floor slab along which all core columns had bolted connections? Just because I said so?

Where can the good people of this forum go to verify whether this is true?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1) Were the core columns (CC) around the 98th floor box columns or H beams?

H beams (much, much easier than box columns to plant, conceal, protect and muffle charges within these)

2) Each column section is about 36 ft long, spanning 3 floors. How were the columns connected to each other at that elevation? Were they welded, bolted or both?

Only bolted.

3) Were the CC to CC connections for adjacent columns staggered relative to each other, or are the CC to CC connections for all 47 CCs at the exact same elevations?

All at the same elevations, not staggered

4) If the connections for all 47 CCs were at the exact same elevations, on which floors are they located around the collapse initiation area.

Floors 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104, about 3 ft above the floor slabs

But don't believe me. Where do you go to verify this information for yourselves?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave, do you agree with Seymour's statement in his last post?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave, in your post before this, it is a very complicated question which requires a study of it's own. That would be part of what I was planning to show in my next(?) study. I can't do it in one post so please be a little patient. Even at your conservative 2 degrees, that still means that the NIST was 400% off in their measurements.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, is there any mention of the 47 bolted core column connections along the 98th floor in the NIST reports? If "one would expect" the failure to occur along bolted connections on the 98th floor at less than 1 degree of tilt, how could the NIST have missed this?

You've misunderstood me slightly. I don't actually know exactly how the core connections were arranged; I'm simply saying that, if you're correct, then your claim amounts to one that the tower failed at a weak point, and that this is suspicious because it's exactly what would be expected. I wasn't commenting on whether what you said was true or false. As for "how could NIST have missed this", I think you mean "Why did NIST not stress this point in their report?" I suspect the answer is that they knew this but didn't expect their work to be criticised by laymen, so they didn't express everything in the simplest possible terms.

Dave, do you agree with Seymour's statement in his last post?

If you could just take the time and effort to learn to use this forum correctly - it really isn't difficult - then I'd have a better idea which statement you mean. If you can't be bothered, then I can't be bothered to compensate for your laziness.

Dave, in your post before this, it is a very complicated question which requires a study of it's own. That would be part of what I was planning to show in my next(?) study. I can't do it in one post so please be a little patient.

Try to get round to it some time, please. Even my attention span isn't long enough for this.

Even at yopur conservative 2 degrees, that still means that the NIST was 400% off in their measurements.

I don't claim to have measured the maximum tilt before the upper block started to descend; I've just noted that in one specific frame of one specific video I find it to be 2 degrees, which is somewhat at odds with your claim that it was less than one degree. A couple of amusing points, though: expressing multiplicative errors in percentage is a classic example of scare tactics, as 400% looks like a bigger number than 4; and if you must use this subtly misleading approach, at least get it right. 8 is 300% larger than 2, not 400%.

And so far, you appear to me to be off by at least a factor of two.

Dave

 

[femr2]

The angle at which the upper section of WTC 1 rotates through before collective downward motion begins has been looked at in detail over at The911Forum. Numerous members here are members over there. Anyone lurking at recent activity over the last 3 months cannot have missed the focus of discussion....missing jolts found thread.

It's been looked at from multiple angles and cross-referenced using similar techniques as have been honed to perform the very accurate feature traces from the Sauret footage revealing a number of low-magnitude *mini jolts*.

Taking noise levels into account, it's very reasonable to say ~1 degree.

NIST suggest 8 degrees. Pathetic analysis.

I think you mean "Why did NIST not stress this point in their report?" I suspect the answer is that they knew this but didn't expect their work to be criticised by laymen, so they didn't express everything in the simplest possible terms.

An absurd thing to say.

If that is where the failure occured, why not say so. Too simple for them eh ?

So where did the initial failure occur ? NIST reference welcome.

A couple of amusing points, though: expressing multiplicative errors in percentage is a classic example of scare tactics,

Because you don't like to hear how pathetic the NIST version of the number was ?

~700% out of whack.
Exaggerated SEVEN times.
Wrong.
Badly wrong.

Implications ?

 

[DavidJames]

You've got to love Internet Engineers. Not smart enough to get the education and a job in the field but think they are smart enough to out engineer those that are. If they did somehow manage to do both, then they don't have the guts (or the brains) to put together a engineering paper and submit it for official peer review.

Major Tom, femr2 - where do you guys fit in there?

 

[femr2]

DavidJames,

What angle did the upper block rotate through before collective downward motion ensued ?

Where did NIST state the initial failure occurred ?

If you are suitably capable, why not apply your time to development of the equations of motion required to complete to OOS study, rather than pointless whining ?

Have you not submitted your own papers ? I assume they will/have highlighted the gross errors within the NIST report. If not, why not ? I assume it's not news to you that the NIST answer to Q1 above was far from accurate, so I assume you've pointed it out before, and stated the implications of that error, yes ? Please point me to your post/papers where you highlight such. Ta.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The angle at which the upper section of WTC 1 rotates through before collective downward motion begins has been looked at in detail over at The911Forum. Numerous members here are members over there. Anyone lurking at recent activity over the last 3 months cannot have missed the focus of discussion....missing jolts found thread.

Since I haven't even lurked there in the last three months, I haven't seen any of this analysis. A summary would be nice. Alternatively, why not submit a paper to the journal of 9/11 studies? As long as you conclude that 9/11 was an inside job, there shouldn't be an issue with adverse peer review.

Dave

 

[Telltale Tom]

I am not sure if the WTC 1 tilt of 1~ 2 degrees prooves that the explosives caused the failure of the towers or if the tilt of WTC 2 of 8 degrees disproves the explosive demo theory

But as a structural engineer would you expect a building that was hit lower down in the corner to tilt more than one that was hit higher up in the middle. And which one would you expect to tilt and which one would you expect to fail first

Of course we at ae911truth believe that the failures conclusively prove that a
structural engineer must have pushed the plungers making sure that the buildings fell in the correct order and fell the correct way. So that they just looked like a fire failure.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I am not sure if the WTC 1 tilt of 1~ 2 degrees prooves that the explosives caused the failure of the towers or if the tilt of WTC 2 of 8 degrees disproves the explosive demo theory

But as a structural engineer would you expect a building that was hit lower down in the corner to tilt more than one that was hit higher up in the middle. And which one would you expect to tilt and which one would you expect to fail first

Of course we at ae911truth believe that the failures conclusively prove that a
structural engineer must have pushed the plungers making sure that the buildings fell in the correct order and fell the correct way. So that they just looked like a fire failure.

*Muffled giggles

 

[R.Mackey]

Of course we at ae911truth believe that the failures conclusively prove that a
structural engineer must have pushed the plungers making sure that the buildings fell in the correct order and fell the correct way. So that they just looked like a fire failure.

So... you "know" it was a controlled demolition, using explosives, but you can't provide any additional information at all.

You "know" this because it looked just like it would if there were no explosives used.

Riiiiiiiight.

Consult a psychiatrist. Seriously.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Sarcasm, dude.

Sarcasm.

Damn scientists.....

 

[R.Mackey]

Oops. Got my Toms confused...

Darn you, Poe!

 

[Myriad]

How much did it actually tilt before collectively falling downward?

I don't expect anyone to answer this correctly since that would require doing your own research. That requires effort.

We are measuring less than 1 degree.

How can NIST screw up that badly?

The answer is that it did not tilt at all before collectively falling downward. Because any such tilt requires the center of gravity to move downward, and what other possible meaning could "collectively falling downward" have besides downward movement of the center of gravity?

That is, unless someone is claiming that the top section first tilted like a seesaw. One side tilting down, and the other side moving upward, around a fulcrum in the middle, so that the center of gravity did not drop. But I've seen no evidence of any upward movements of any walls, or of any crack opening up on any side which would have to happen if seesaw tilting occurred. Furthermore, there was no structural portion of the towers that could be a strong enough or rigid enough lever arm for seesaw tilting, even if the core were capable of serving as a fulcrum.

So, assuming we're all agreed that seesaw tilting was neither realistically expected nor observed, any observable tilting and the collective falling downward (downward movement of the center of gravity of the upper section) must have started at the same moment.

So what Major Tom is arguing about is the amount of tilting that existed at a certain poorly defined time marker, that being the start of a "collective falling downward" which is somehow not indicated by the start of falling of the center of gravity but by something else that happened later. Tom, how is the start of what you consider "collective falling downward" defined and measured for your 1% figure? Did NIST use the exact same time reference for their supposed 8% figure? If not, then you're comparing the states at two different times so it's no surprise that they are different.

Respectfully,
Myriad