TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
What do you hope of accomplishing here?
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
Myriad writes: "In normal discourse this would not be a concern, but this is not normal discourse because you have been willing, previously in this thread, to exploit exactly such ambiguities in NIST's statements about time sequences -- for example, interpreting a statement to the effect that an 8 degree rotation was occurring at time T (meaning, apparently, beginning at or before time T) was equivalent to a claim that 8 degrees of rotation had already occurred at time T."
The NIST was pretty clear about what they meant. The posters here couldn't admit the NIST was wrong. Instead, some of you seem to be saying that the NIST is so unclear about what the "8 degrees" refers to that you can't tell what the hell they mean.
One thing is clear. They had no idea that all columns failed within one degree of tilting. They had no clue.
Myriad continues: "You have also not defined the event "failure" clearly enough. By some definitions, failure most likely occurred (or began) at the moment the planes impacted the structure. (Had no further events ensued, the buildings would have probably been condemned anyway for structural failure, that is, distortions in the structural framework that made it no longer safe to occupy, had there been any opportunity to closely assess and measure its condition.) By some definitions, failure occurred when members became visibly distorted, indicating that they were no longer capable of bearing their designed loads and that significant load redistribution had occurred in the structure. By some definitions, failure occurred when the structure above (either immediately above, or above in the sense of being partially supported by, two distinctly different possibilities) the failed area began moving, or began descending (the latter being a subset of the former, again two different possibilities).
Please provide a clear definition of "failure" including whether you are treating it as the moment a certain global state or condition is reached (an event of zero duration), a physical process such as the buckling of a member or group of members (an event that has a duration), or the condition of multiple members each reaching an individual state (which also has a duration if not all the members in the group reach that state at exactly the same time). Whatever definition you choose, please include what states or conditions define the beginning and end of that event. Then, restate your hypothesis as a time line clearly indicating the relationship of those failures in time, including whether and how they overlapped."
I want to be very clear about the description of the initial column failure sequence.
I describe the 5 stages of collapse as:
stage 1) Airplane damage, fuel and fires
stage 2) Visible deformations leading into initial buckling sequence, especially inward bowing (IB) of the south face.
stage 3) Initial buckling sequence (initial lateral propagation of column failure and trajectory over the first 12 ft.
stage 4) Initial collision and resulting trajectory and behavior through subsequent collisions
stage 5) Runaway collapse propagation (ROOSD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Femr seems to be talking about stage 3, the initial column failure sequence, here:
1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.
I assume he means the south wall began collapsing first according to the NIST. I think by "failure" he means movement. "Failure" is when the top part of the wall begins to move independently of the bottom part.
The south wall is obviously failing over a long period of time. Slow deformation happens during stage 2. It may be possible to detect "creeping" or slow drift through measurements over extended times. But it finally fails when we can first detect visible downward motion.
I will show many drop curves of points along the antenna and perimeters of WTC1 for data plotted during collapse initiation. Each drop curve may or may not show "sagging" or drift before visible downward motion is detected. There is a point in each curve when significant downward velocity begins. It is this point that can be called the moment of "failure" or "release".
Drop curves of all tracked points on WTC1 during collapse initiation will have a "release point". All movement before that point is sagging, drifting, leaning or some other form of gradual, "creeping" movement. Movement after that point involves downward acceleration at a significant faction of gravity.
When I show you a few examples it will be clearer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We can track many points on WTC1 to find the order in which columns "failed". In this sense we are describing "failure" as the beginning of movement.
So, when we say the south wall "failed" first, it means it started to move before the other walls and the core.
Femr seems to be splitting the building supports into 5 general regions:
1) south wall
2) east wall
3) west wall
4) north wall
5) core
By "failure" it just means the south wall will be seen to move downward before the other walls or core. We detect failure by watching for movement. According to the NIST, the loss of the south wall starts a failure propagation from south to north.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When is stage 3 complete? (When is the initial buckling sequence over?)
We can define this time as the "release point" of the NW corner. This allows us to define what has been called the "breaking of the hinge" with precision, within a few frames in a video clip.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When does stage 3 begin? During the earliest visible movement.
The NIST was pretty clear about what they meant. The posters here couldn't admit the NIST was wrong. Instead, some of you seem to be saying that the NIST is so unclear about what the "8 degrees" refers to that you can't tell what the hell they mean.
One thing is clear. They had no idea that all columns failed within one degree of tilting. They had no clue.
Myriad continues: "You have also not defined the event "failure" clearly enough. By some definitions, failure most likely occurred (or began) at the moment the planes impacted the structure. (Had no further events ensued, the buildings would have probably been condemned anyway for structural failure, that is, distortions in the structural framework that made it no longer safe to occupy, had there been any opportunity to closely assess and measure its condition.) By some definitions, failure occurred when members became visibly distorted, indicating that they were no longer capable of bearing their designed loads and that significant load redistribution had occurred in the structure. By some definitions, failure occurred when the structure above (either immediately above, or above in the sense of being partially supported by, two distinctly different possibilities) the failed area began moving, or began descending (the latter being a subset of the former, again two different possibilities).
Please provide a clear definition of "failure" including whether you are treating it as the moment a certain global state or condition is reached (an event of zero duration), a physical process such as the buckling of a member or group of members (an event that has a duration), or the condition of multiple members each reaching an individual state (which also has a duration if not all the members in the group reach that state at exactly the same time). Whatever definition you choose, please include what states or conditions define the beginning and end of that event. Then, restate your hypothesis as a time line clearly indicating the relationship of those failures in time, including whether and how they overlapped."
I want to be very clear about the description of the initial column failure sequence.
I describe the 5 stages of collapse as:
stage 1) Airplane damage, fuel and fires
stage 2) Visible deformations leading into initial buckling sequence, especially inward bowing (IB) of the south face.
stage 3) Initial buckling sequence (initial lateral propagation of column failure and trajectory over the first 12 ft.
stage 4) Initial collision and resulting trajectory and behavior through subsequent collisions
stage 5) Runaway collapse propagation (ROOSD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Femr seems to be talking about stage 3, the initial column failure sequence, here:
1) South face failure, followed rapidly by...
2) South to North core and East/West perimeter failure, followed rapidly by...
3) North face failure.
I assume he means the south wall began collapsing first according to the NIST. I think by "failure" he means movement. "Failure" is when the top part of the wall begins to move independently of the bottom part.
The south wall is obviously failing over a long period of time. Slow deformation happens during stage 2. It may be possible to detect "creeping" or slow drift through measurements over extended times. But it finally fails when we can first detect visible downward motion.
I will show many drop curves of points along the antenna and perimeters of WTC1 for data plotted during collapse initiation. Each drop curve may or may not show "sagging" or drift before visible downward motion is detected. There is a point in each curve when significant downward velocity begins. It is this point that can be called the moment of "failure" or "release".
Drop curves of all tracked points on WTC1 during collapse initiation will have a "release point". All movement before that point is sagging, drifting, leaning or some other form of gradual, "creeping" movement. Movement after that point involves downward acceleration at a significant faction of gravity.
When I show you a few examples it will be clearer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We can track many points on WTC1 to find the order in which columns "failed". In this sense we are describing "failure" as the beginning of movement.
So, when we say the south wall "failed" first, it means it started to move before the other walls and the core.
Femr seems to be splitting the building supports into 5 general regions:
1) south wall
2) east wall
3) west wall
4) north wall
5) core
By "failure" it just means the south wall will be seen to move downward before the other walls or core. We detect failure by watching for movement. According to the NIST, the loss of the south wall starts a failure propagation from south to north.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When is stage 3 complete? (When is the initial buckling sequence over?)
We can define this time as the "release point" of the NW corner. This allows us to define what has been called the "breaking of the hinge" with precision, within a few frames in a video clip.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When does stage 3 begin? During the earliest visible movement.
Last edited:
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
How about you femr2, what do you hope to accomplish by posting here?
They proved gravity collapse. The opposite of Heiwa, they say gravity collapse can happen. Since there is no evidence of explosives or idiots cutting columns like Major Tom tries to back into his conclusion, they proved gravity collapse. Something Heiwa says can't happen, the old position of 911 truth, no way a steel frame building fails in fire. Now Major Tom and femr2 say fire can destroy a steel frame building. Add all evidence and they have debunked 911 truth.
If they disagree, the evidence is enough to make this conclusion. Using Major Tom's work we prove no CD (all you have to add is evidence).
As usual 911 truth conspiracy theorists, apologizing for terrorists with flawed moronic work, have debunked themselves without knowing it.
Maybe femr2 and Major Tom have realized how dirt dumb their old CD delusion is and that Jones is insane and Gage is a fraud traveling and living on funds he collects from spreading lies.
I wonder if they will use Balsamo 11.2g special moron math and physics to complete their paper?
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Isn't it obvious?
Trolls have a need to argue stupidity. They've become addicted to the endorphin rush that they get when someone responds to them.
They aren't getting it over at Greg's forum, discussing these issues amongst themselves.
Therefore, they come here to get it.....
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Let them come,a good laugh does one good.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
Ranke?
Well, that's not quite the precision of description I was hoping for, but I guess it might do. A few provisos with my acceptance that "south perimeter fails...core fails...north perimeter fails" is indeed "in essence" the sequence presented by NIST.
1. The problem of "t0": the earliest point in time when movement is first observed is not, cannot ever be, the point in time when the movement began. Obviously, for movement to be observed, something must already have moved, which means movement has already begun. Normally one determines t0 by extrapolating backward from later measurements of the movement, but doing so requires making assumptions about the mathematical curve of the movement (e.g. constant acceleration or constant jerk) which might not be valid when the underlying physical processes are nonlinear. For example, constant acceleration is a reasonable assumption for a body in free fall, but not for a frame system undergoing buckling.
2. The nature of progressive events.
I once put a 10-pound loosely packed sack of potatoes on my kitchen counter after bringing it home from the market. About a minute later, I heard a sudden loud thump caused by the sack hitting the floor in front of the counter.
What had happened? I experimented, putting the sack back on the counter. The first few times I tried that, nothing happened. Then on about the fifth try, I observed what had caused the sack to fall the first time. The sack was placed so that one of the potatoes in it was hanging over the edge of the counter. At first that potato hung in place by friction against another potato, but gradually over a few seconds it slipped and dropped below the level of the counter top. This changed the tension on the bag, pulling another potato toward the edge, until it too dropped. That additional weight started shifting another potato. This process (in some tries) continued and accelerated until the whole bag tumbled off the counter. (In other tries, the process "arrested" after one, two, or three potatoes had gone over.) In the process, the center of gravity of the bag of potatoes moved horizontally at least eighteen inches.
This is an example of a progressive process, a failure (in this case failure of the sack to stay where I wanted it to) in which each stage was a pre-condition for the next stage to occur.
There is a type of argument often offered by Truthers in which a progressive process involving multiple individual components is misrepresented as a single event involving a single object made up of those components. Such an argument, applied to my bag of potatoes, would be stated something like: "You expect anyone to believe that a ten pound bag of potatoes suddenly leaped horizontally eighteen inches off the counter?" In 9/11 conspiracy discussions, it appears as arguments like "We're supposed to believe that 1/10 of a building could destroy the other 9/10?" or "Even if we allow weakening from collision damage and fire, the total load bearing capacity of all the remaining columns still exceeds the total weight of the upper block, so collapse could not have occurred without additional sabotage e.g. explosives." As far as I know there is no official name for this relatively unusual type of fallacy, but one might call it "fallacious synecdoche" (the latter word referring to a figure of speech in which a whole is substituted for a part, or vice versa).
Phrasing my falling potatoes event as "a bag of potatoes moving eighteen inches across a counter" misrepresents the scenario by implying that the bag of potatoes was a single filled-bag-shaped object rather than a collection of smaller round objects wrapped by a very flexible outer skin, and by then implying that the movement across the counter was an acceleration of the whole bag at once, rather than a series of individual movements of individual parts.
So, I hope you'll forgive my suspicion that a description of some of the events in the 9/11 tower collapses as "X wall fails" or "core fails" or "perimeter fails" is a setup for a subsequent argument based on fallacious synecdoche, by implying that for instance the core, in a detailed analysis of the collapse initiation, can be considered a single object that must have failed in its entirety all in the same moment. Hence my need to state this second proviso.
With those provisos understood, please continue.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
Thanks for the response. Bit short on time, so I'll respond in chunks...
Axes drop(ft)/time(s) - The smooth(ish) curve is NW corner.
I can of course *zoom in* on the vertical axis if it helps.
(The wobbly graph is velocity, but we can ignore that in this context)
Where would you place t0 on this graph, or would you place it before the start of the data-set ?
Axes drop(ft)/time(s) - The smooth(ish) curve is NW corner.
I can of course *zoom in* on the vertical axis if it helps.
(The wobbly graph is velocity, but we can ignore that in this context)
I just explained (and you just quoted) why this cannot be done without a mathematical model (necessarily incorporating assumptions) of the shape of the descending curve, such as what order of equation to fit it to. Some information about the error range of the data would be helpful too.
Also, I find it rather impossible to ignore the data showing a velocity consistently trending about approximately -2.5 somethings (ft/sec?) for the first three seconds, while position remains near zero over time same time period. Without knowing the velocity of what, or how either data set was measured, it appears to be a glaring inconsistency in the graph which would make it rather foolish to derive anything at all from it.
Respectfully,
Myriad
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why do I find this to be hilarious? I sincerely hope you have found a life since this event.
If I could have proven it was poltergeists (potatogeists?) or telekinesis I could have won a million dollars. If it had been a ninja hiding behind the toaster, finding that out could have saved my life. If it had been a cat, I might have gotten a free cat, since I owned no cat at the time. Ditto skunk, squirrel, etc. Unfortunately, all I got out of the experience was a slightly better understanding of proper food shelf-storage techniques (it happens a lot more readily with bags of onions, especially with those expanding plastic mesh bags), and a good example to illustrate counterintuitive progressive failure phenomena.
Respectfully,
Myriad
ETA: So if you put a ten-pound object down on a broad flat surface in your home, and minutes later it crashed to the floor for no apparent reason, you wouldn't be curious enough to spend five minutes figuring out why? That's interesting. How common is that attitude, do you think? And what might cause it? Maybe there's something interesting to be learned here...
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I seriously doubt it. this is the 9/11 conspiracy section.
The thing is I do own a cat and a 12 year old son. I'm not saying I OWN my son I just pay the bills so I think I do have some leeway on who owns who.
As far as the cat goes, you never really own a cat. For my cat I'm the thing that puts out the food, opens the door and pets his head. I'm fairly sure he has no concern and gets very annoyed when I question his involvement with events around the house, so I no longer bother.
My son is an absolute saint when it comes to things falling, noises or any other disturbances. All you need to do is ask him, really he'll tell you in excruciating detail how he's not involved (in anything for that matter).
So, you ask if I would be curious? No, not me! I'll simply pass it of as **** happens because I have way too much gray hair to sweat the small ****. Besides my doctor said I'll live longer if I'd not worry so much and take it easy.
I did enjoy your story though.
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Myriad, you freakin' nerd! I just woulda dumped the potatoes into a box and have been done with it.
If I would've needed to blame something, I just would've blamed the resident poltergeist.
No worries. No, I'm not one to suggest anything being *instant*, and not one to suggest the core as a single object. Thousands of components, all with potentially overlapping changes of state, from impact to descent.
One thing your point brings to mind is *progressive tilt*. I started a thread a while back that am sure clarified several folks viewpoint, namely that the *scale* of any potential progressive tilt is so small as to be invisible in even the highest quality photographs, let alone broadcast quality video. The side-along implication is that the relative scale of CC creep could also be quantified and limited by such.
Am just trying to determine whether your t0 starts at impact or not. I have a feeling you'll put t0 there, even though the graph above shows effectively zero movement until ~3.5s into the dataset. If there was a 20 minute long version of the sauret footage, I'd do a 20 minute trace, but sadly...
Without that, the miniscule potential *creep* (which is likely to be *0* at the NW corner in any case) cannot be detected.
I'd put t0 at the point where vertical movement approaches zero, taking noise levels into account.
I'll have to go back to the data to do error analysis, but it's fairly noisy. Rough guess of +/-4 inches per sample (which is at 59.94sps). Will have a look at the original data, and zoom in on the *flat-line*.
The velocity graph is an overlay. It is correctly aligned on the time axis, but has it's own arbitrary vertical axis. It's just there to show the *jolts* (for Tony) relative to the displacement curve. (I did suggest ignoring it).
Last edited:
Yes.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
femr2:
I'm getting the impression from your last two post that you agree that the video resolution is not good enough to do any real authoritative analysis.
Am I correct in this assumption?
ETA you added a third after my post (the third not applying)
I'm getting the impression from your last two post that you agree that the video resolution is not good enough to do any real authoritative analysis.
Am I correct in this assumption?
ETA you added a third after my post (the third not applying)
Last edited:
- Status