OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Major_Tom]

Notice the word "before" in the quote.

There is no doubt what they mean. They are very wrong. Why not admit it?

 

[pgimeno]

Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before
the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.

Wrong.

Vertical drop began after ~1 degree rotation.

I think they are referring to the moment it ceased to pivot.

ETA: More exactly, the point at which *all* columns that supported the top had failed and thus there was no possibility of load redistribution.

 

[femr2]

Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before
the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.

Wrong.

Vertical drop began after ~1 degree rotation.

I think they are referring to the moment it ceased to pivot.

ETA: More exactly, the point at which *all* columns that supported the top had failed and thus there was no possibility of load redistribution.

Pivot ? Upon what ?

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?

Here's another instance of a very similar NIST statement...

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.

Now, regardless of how you may choose to reinterpret either almost identical statement, the bottom line is simply that...

A tilt to the South of approx. 1 degree occurred before vertical drop of the entire upper section ensued.

Or how about this slight rewording...

Rotation of about 1 degree to the south occurred before
the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.



So, JREF bods, anyone feel like being clear about the NIST initiation sequence ?

Any objection to...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

...?

The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls.

Hmmm.

 

[Seymour Butz]

What are the nature of the 98th floor core column connections? In old inspection reports they talk about inspecting core column connections in these areas. I found the information there.

There is also a photo of a core column from floors 98 to 101, WTC1 in the NIST reports. The end of that column has 2 bolted plates.

Pardon my skepticism, but this sounds just a wee bit like Tony's statement about seeing Silverstein saying that they demo'd 7 purposefully.

I'd need to see a lot more documentation than just your word, or at the very least, a referral to what NIST document.

 

[pgimeno]

Pivot ? Upon what ?

Whatever caused the tilt. Probably the north wall and core columns. How do you think the tilt would be produced, if not by pivoting?

 

[femr2]

Whatever caused the tilt. Probably the north wall and core columns. How do you think the tilt would be produced, if not by pivoting?

So you don't agree with Myriad then...

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?

Come on folks. A bit of consistency would be good for morale

So, anyone feel like being clear about the NIST initiation sequence ?

Any objection to...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

...?

The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls.

Hmmm.

 

[GlennB]

You're playing a semantic game, femr2. Nobody is impresssed.

Obviously any tilt involved a downwards motion of some of the upper block. In this sense tilt=falling, so at the onset of falling then tilt~0.

But then we might consider the degree of tilt at the point when the final intact wall (sometimes referred to as 'hinge') was seen to give way and the upper block began to fall in its entirety. This would appear to be the 8° referred to.

Thus, if I stand on a box and rotate forwards then "I" am falling, although my feet are not.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Whatever caused the tilt. Probably the north wall and core columns. How do you think the tilt would be produced, if not by pivoting?

So you don't agree with Myriad then...

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?

Come on folks. A bit of consistency would be good for morale

I'm surprised you can't see it, but these agree perfectly. The upper block pivots about a hinge formed by the north wall, which is off-centre and below the centre of gravity, as described by pgimeno. Any tilt about this axis must result in a downward movement of the centre of gravity, as described by Myriad. It's really no more than simple geometry. Try it with a rectangular block; support one lower edge, then tilt it so that the opposite edge moves downwards, and you'll see that the centre of gravity moves downwards.

So, anyone feel like being clear about the NIST initiation sequence ?

I've said before that I don't think NIST's use of language is always perfectly clear. This is largely because it was written for engineers who were seeking to learn lessons from it, rather than denialists who were seeking to portray any apparent ambiguity in it as proof of treasonous intent.

In this instance, the report says that the block starts to rotate as column instability progresses, and comments that the maximum observed rotation was 8º; it's unclear on whether this maximum value was observed before or after the hinge collapsed. In fact, the south side of the building began to fall immediately under gravity, while the north side did not; since the block remained rigid, it rotated. The only truly rigorous way to describe this motion would be to plot the motion of the centre of gravity as a function of time, and also to plot the rotational motion on the same axis. The result would be a graph showing at least three components of motion - vertical translation and rotation about N-S and E-W axes, although the rotations could probably be resolved into a single rotation about some oblique axis. Trying to express all this in one sentence is extremely difficult, as NIST no doubt found out. You don't seem to be doing any better; your statement that,

Rotation of about 1 degree to the south occurred before
the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.

is not only wrong, but a geometrical impossibility. There is no possible rotation about an axis below the centre of gravity that doesn't involve a downward movement of the centre of gravity.

Dave

 

[Major_Tom]

Glen B writes: "But then we might consider the degree of tilt at the point when the final intact wall (sometimes referred to as 'hinge') was seen to give way and the upper block began to fall in its entirety. This would appear to be the 8° referred to."

In the case of WTC1 the last columns to fail were along the NW corner, which is visible. We can know when the NW corner failed to within a few frames of video.

We measure less than 1 degree of antenna and north perimeter tilt at this moment. The NIST claims at least 8 degrees.

The NIST is very wrong on this point. You can verify this easily just by watching this video of initiation from the west:

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


Dave, there is no doubt what they mean concerning 8 degrees.

Dave writes: "I've said before that I don't think NIST's use of language is always perfectly clear. This is largely because it was written for engineers who were seeking to learn lessons from it, rather than denialists who were seeking to portray any apparent ambiguity in it as proof of treasonous intent. "

You cannot even find over what angle of tilt the collapse initiation sequence occurs for WTC1 in the reports.

Unclear for what reason? Who do you think you are fooling?

You cannot even admit a mistake on the angle?

 

[Major_Tom]

Femr originally wrote: " Rotation of about 1 degree to the south occurred before
the building section began to fall vertically under gravity. "

To which Dave responds "is not only wrong, but a geometrical impossibility. There is no possible rotation about an axis below the centre of gravity that doesn't involve a downward movement of the centre of gravity."

Dave, femr was quoting NIST directly, but he replaced their "8 degrees" with "1 degree", which is more correct. Please explain the geometrical impossibility to the NIST. It was their wording.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Is there a single regular poster from this forum that can admit that the NIST is mistaken about the WTC1 failure angle?

 

[Reactor drone]

Is there a single regular poster from this forum that can admit that the NIST is mistaken about the WTC1 failure angle?

Assuming that the difference is actually a difference in measurement of the same features of the collapse what does that show?

Is 1° indicative of a controlled demolition and 8° not?

Have you or Femr2 sent your measurements to NIST and/or asked for clarification on the issue?

How does this support whatever conspiracy you're peddling?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is there a single regular poster from this forum that can admit that the NIST is mistaken about the WTC1 failure angle?

Their wording is so unclear that I honestly can't say for certain whether they were right or wrong. Sorry not to share your absolute certainty that NIST got made a significant mistake, but in most conspiracy theorists that certainty precedes any identification, or even discussion, of what that mistake actually was.

But, as Reactor Drone has pointed out, what does this actually show? NIST didn't model the collapse, and none of their conclusions were based on the detailed mechanics of the collapse. Therefore, if they were wrong about their narrative of the collapse details, it has no implications whatsoever on any conclusions they drew on the cause of collapse initiation.

And, again, I thought you'd moved on from this angle of trying to identify fine details of the collapse to prove that it was a CD. Once the top block started moving at a measurable rate, the buildings were bound to collapse, and that's equally true of rotation or downward movement, whatever proportion they initially occurred in. Initiation is the only place you should be looking for your own personal invisible pink unicorn; even you admit it's not hiding somewhere in collapse propagation.

Dave

 

[femr2]

Their wording is so unclear that I honestly can't say for certain whether they were right or wrong.

How odd. When I quote NIST, changing their 8 degrees to 1 degree you said...

is not only wrong, but a geometrical impossibility

Hmm. If NIST say it, you can't say one way or t'other, but if I say it...it's wrong. Great stuff.

I think I'll conclude that you think the NIST statement is wrong, based upon your prior very clear response eh

Therefore, if they were wrong about their narrative of the collapse details, it has no implications whatsoever on any conclusions they drew on the cause of collapse initiation.

The question was about the sequent of initiation, not progression.

So, yet again, anyone feel like being clear about the NIST initiation sequence ?

Any objection to...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

...?

Initiation is the only place you should be looking

Am okay with that for the most part, so why is there still an apparent shying away from being clear ?

 

[DGM]

Am okay with that for the most part, so why is there still an apparent shying away from being clear ?

I don't think anyone has a problem with being "clear". I think the problem lies with not wanting to condense a complicated progression to a few sentences (especially in the light of how "truthers" like to narrow down then twist any point anyone makes).

So, why again do we need to do this?

 

[femr2]

I don't think anyone has a problem with being "clear".

Fine. Doesn't seem to be borne out in the actual post content, so by all means...

I think the problem lies with not wanting to condense a complicated progression to a few sentences

What's wrong with this nice simple description then...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

Something amiss there, or not ?

So, why again do we need to do this?

You don't have to do anything you don't want to, though personally, I reckon if you are not *going to* then it would be better to say nothing at all eh.

 

[DGM]

What's wrong with this nice simple description then...

1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.

Something amiss there, or not ?

Why do you need this? Why don't you just state where your going with this and get it over with? It would save a lot of time if you just give your complete narrative of the days events (it's been 9 years, don't you think it's about time)

 

[beachnut]

...
Unclear for what reason? Who do you think you are fooling?

You cannot even admit a mistake on the angle?

Your paper did not fool anyone it is garbage which apologizes for terrorists; after 8 years you defend your paper by attacking NIST and Bazant. ?? Is your paper that bad you have to throw up a smoke screen based on your delusion of CD?

Like Heiwa's work, your work is delusional too. This is why your work will only appear on line and in the Jones journal of woo on 911 if at all. You guys are the fringe guys with nut case theories on 911 based on lies, hearsay, and failed opinions.

What will the next 8 years look like for your failed movement and moronic paper? What does it take to make up this junk; how much C₂H₅OH does it take to make up this tripe?

 

[femr2]

Why do you need this? Why don't you just state where your going with this and get it over with? It would save a lot of time if you just give your complete narrative of the days events (it's been 9 years, don't you think it's about time)

Oh yawn. Dodge.

"Remember that the goal of <whatever you want to call yourself> is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution"

Give me a clear answer, or go do something more interesting instead.

 

[femr2]

Your paper did not fool anyone it is garbage which apologizes for terrorists;

Wow. So you don't think that the gravity driven mechanism of ROOSD is valid, and think that's *apologising for terrorists* ? Just wow. You are a stuck record beachnut. OCD for sure.

You are utterly incapable of providing rational response to any of MTs questions, and clearly have not bothered to read the study. You can disagree that you don't think the conclusion section should make the point that ROOSD neither proves nor disproves MIHOP, but the rest of your, well, delusion, is just that. Hilarious beachnut. Awesome.

 

[DGM]

Oh yawn. Dodge.

"Remember that the goal of <whatever you want to call yourself> is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution"

Give me a clear answer, or go do something more interesting instead.

The buildings collapsed do to being hit by the airplanes and resulting fires (with the ever present help of gravity). In the case of building 7 fire with the added benefit of ventilation from the damage from the collapse of the towers lead to it's demise.


Clear and simple enough?