OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[Reactor drone]

It is pretty obvious to most of us that careful examination of the 47 column sections spanning floors 98 to 101 and the 47 column sections spanning floors 98 to 95 would show us all we need to know. For example, if these columns were pretty straight on the whole, lacking significant signs of visco-plastic creep and buckle hinges, that would tell us there was no collective core buckling.

Instead, we get to look at only one piece of one column.

So, from that, I'm assuming you think that everyone examining the steel and setting aside pieces for further study was in on it, that identifiable core columns from that area were deliberately discarded to get rid of evidence or that no-one who saw undamaged empty bolt holes would think they were worth further examination?

 

[Major_Tom]

Reactor Drone, no.

It tells us that the inventory of steel that the NIST had was really, really crappy. Totally inadequate to determine much of anything, especially the cause and order of the initial column failure sequence.

One piece from a total of 94 significant column pieces from the collapse initiation floors? How serious could the effort have been do collect vital core column samples?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We also have seen that the tilt angle stated by the NIST over which the initial column failure sequence occurred is so bad it defies an explanation.

NIST NCSTAR 1-6D, p 314: "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 along the adjacent east and west walls (see Fig. 5–8), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns."

1-6D, p312: "Tower began to collapse – first exterior sign of collapse was at
Floor 98. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before
the building section began to fall vertically under gravity."

1-6 Draft, p 290: • "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."

1-6 Draft, p 317: "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."


What do these quotes tell us?

Recall the 5 stage process of WTC1 collapse described by Bazant in BZ and slightly reworded by me 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)


These quotes tell us that the NIST was totally clueless as to what happened during stage 3. They are totally oblivious to how quickly the initial column failure propagated from south to north in WTC1.

Many of us have agreed that stages 2 and 3, the initial column failure, are the most important places to study for the purposes of CD. We have already agreed that the Bazant papers do not examine stage 3 in any detail.

Some of the posters mentioned that I was a bit stupid for not seeing that stage 3 is treated by the NIST, not by Bazant. We generally agreed that if we want proof that the initial column failure sequence happened naturally, we should look in the NIST reports, not the Bazant papers.

We are now looking at the NIST reports the small mention of the WTC1 stage 3 process got the collapse angle totally wrong, meaning they have no clue how fast failure propagated through the core.

Do any of the readers have even a rough estimate of how quickly failure propagated from the SW corner to the NW corner? Over what angle failure propagated?

(try 0.5 seconds. That is really, really freaking fast.)

 

[Reactor drone]

Reactor Drone, no.

It tells us that the inventory of steel that the NIST had was really, really crappy. Totally inadequate to determine much of anything, especially the cause and order of the initial column failure sequence.

One piece from a total of 94 significant column pieces from the collapse initiation floors? How serious could the effort have been do collect vital core column samples?

FEMA had access to every piece of steel from the WTC site , inspected everything and saved anything that could be positively identified as being from the collapse zones as well as anything else that was interesting or unusual.

You don't think they randomly picked a collection of steel to save and then later found that they'd only pulled one core column from the collapse floors do you?

 

[Major_Tom]

In post 572 Dave Rogers wrote: "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."

Dave, using the Bazant 5 stage description, what is collapse initiation?

It is stage 3 and the tail end of stage 2. We know that if you have no clue about the angle of tilt over which stage 3 occurred and and rate at which stage 3 occurred, it is safe to say you have no clue about stage 3.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the NIST studied stages 1 and 2 to the point that stage 3 seemed inevitable. They did not study stage 3 as is obvious by their poor description of the event.

Bazant studied features of stages 4 and 5.

Between them they just skipped over stage 3, but you may argue that it doesn't matter because the NIST examination of stage 2 showed that stage 3 was inevitable.

This way the regular posters can admit that stage 3 was skipped over but it doesn't matter anyway.

Does that seem correct from a debunking point of view?

 

[Major_Tom]

Reactor Drone writes: "FEMA had access to every piece of steel from the WTC site , inspected everything and saved anything that could be positively identified as being from the collapse zones as well as anything else that was interesting or unusual."

You honestly believe that 93 of the 94 critical core sections going through floor 98 could not be identified?

 

[pgimeno]

We also have seen that the tilt angle stated by the NIST over which the initial column failure sequence occurred is so bad it defies an explanation.

NIST NCSTAR 1-6D, p 314: "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 along the adjacent east and west walls (see Fig. 5–8), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns."

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?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

How many core column pieces were recovered from the collapse initiation zone of WTC2?

One.

How many core column pieces were recovered from the collapse initiation zone of WTC1?

Two. The piece labeled HH shown in the last few posts and another piece labeled C-80 is column 603 from floors 92-93.

This is incorrect in both specific fact and via being misleading by omission. In specific fact: Two columns from the impact zone of WTC 2 was studied, not just one. And regarding being misleading by omission: Tom is ignoring the fact that pieces of steel other than the columns were recovered; the core truss seats, for example. NCSTAR 1-3C inventories those and provides imagry of them. Ignoring the error in numbers recovered, it is misleading for him to only point out that 3 columns were studied because columns were not the only core structural elements that were recovered and significant. Furthermore, much of what is known about the core columns was built from NIST's modeling of the collapses, not only from the study of the recovered structural elements.

Let's also remember that identification of all the core columns were not possible For starters, parts of the jets - UA175 more so that AA11 - directly hit some columns and rendereed them unidentifiable from the impact alone. Two, the fires and collapses would have further obliterated columns and identifiable marks on surviving columns. Suggesting that all core columns in each tower be studied is asking the patently impossible.

Reactor Drone, no.

It tells us that the inventory of steel that the NIST had was really, really crappy. Totally inadequate to determine much of anything, especially the cause and order of the initial column failure sequence.

Again, the knowledge built is based on more than just the recovered pieces; it is also built on modeling. Phrasing like that implies that the conclusions reached were only based on a study of the core columns alone, and this is not correct. The conclusions were built on a study of all the significant materials, not merely the core columns, and were built on modeling from first principles.

One piece from a total of 94 significant column pieces from the collapse initiation floors? How serious could the effort have been do collect vital core column samples?

Very serious. What Major_Tom is omitting is that 50-some columns core coulmns from the impact and fire zones were actually recovered, and were winnowed down to the ones that were studied. Those ones were chosen because their locations within the towers could be unambiguously identified.

Recall that the identification and inventory process took on the order of months, and involved quite a few people, a notable personage being Dr. Astaneh-Asl. And many of those pieces were examined first at the recycling areas by the FEMA BPAT researchers. Regardless, Tom here is building a false picture regarding the recovery effort.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Finallly, let's recall what prompted me to post in the first place:

Here is a picture of a typical bolted splice connection along a typical H beam.

In this case the plates are welded to the lower column section, For WTC1 they were bolted.

If a demo team had access to such connections it would be rather dumb of them not to exploit them.

Why nuke the building or attack it with space beams if you can just knock the top H beam sections off the bottom ones in the collapse initiation region?

Why cut steel when you don't have to?

How many simple ways can you think of to knock the top column section off the bottom one with minimal force? Why not just remove a few bolts with a wrench? Why not all of them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My point is that it doesn't require a genius to figure out how to initiate the WTC1 collapse. No nukes or space beams required.

All core column bolted connections in the collapse initiation zone are on floors 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104 about 3 feet above the flooring. These are the natural targets so it is important to carefully look for unusual activity on these floors during the 30 minutes leading up to collapse.

Tom has proposed that the columns were intentionally severed, and as one element of the proposal suggested that it would be trivial to simply "unbolt" the columns. However, his entire backing for this has not been positive evidence, but merely attempts to find limitations in the currently known and accepted narrative. Regardless of any shortcomings in the investigations or body of knowledge that has been built, the fact remains that even if you accept his base proposals (analysis limited to 3 columns, ignore other significant elements, ignore modeling, ignore acceptance by code bodies across the world, etc.), the fact remains that he's presented far less evidence - zero - than what he acknowledges (much less ignores) supporting the narrative he's arguing against. His entire argument is "something else happened", but he's provided zero as far as supporting that "something else". Furthermore, even accepting his critiques regarding the NIST report, Bazant, etc., none of them even open the door to allowing intentional demolitions to become a possibility. Even if you accept that the number of steel pieces studied were insufficient, it still remains that their state does not indicate alternate failure modes therefore alternate collapse initiation events. Clearly, none of the studied columns showed signs of intentional demolition, but why they don't and others would goes unremarked upon by Tom. The point here is that even if one was to ignore the current body of knowledge, there is zero provided by Tom that grants any legitimacy to the notion of intentional demolitions. When one accepts the current and total body of knowledge, though - studies it, understands the narrative it builds - one sees that the notion of intentional demolitions is not merely illegitimate, it is refuted.

Explosives demolitions are not possible; see the standard links at 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11, and previous threads here on the subject.

Incendiary demolitions are disproved; again, see the standard links already in existence.

Any evidence that may support or contradict the notion that someone could have "(removed) a few bolts with a wrench" has not been built yet, but it can be considered in the context of what is known:

1. Jets had impacted the towers.
2. Those impacts started large, intense fires
3. Major_Tom's suggestion is to investigate the possibility of suspicious activity on the collapse initiation zone floors.

In sum, Major_Tom is suggesting that there may be something suspicious to be known about in an area that had just been hit by a speeding jetliner and was on fire. To support this notion, he complains that elements of studies like the NIST report, and papers like what Bazant had published, were insufficient. This is silly in the extreme. Regardless of whatever shortcomings can be identified regarding the current body of fact and knowledge, there is nothing about the collapses that cannot be explained by the impacts and subsequent fires. And there is zero provided by what is known that justifies including intentional demolitions or malicious plotting in the narrative.

 

[Major_Tom]

pgimeno asks: "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!! You observation that the antenna angle is different than the NW corner angle is very important. They are not moving together as a rigid body.

The truth is there is no such thing as an "upper block tilt". There is an antenna tilt and a north wall tilt, but they don't tilt together.

There actually is detectable drift in the antenna up to 4 seconds before any visible movement and there is good reason to believe that drift movement is detectable up to 9 seconds before visible movement.

The truth is that there never was a rigid upper block. Mappings of the earliest movement show the movement is one of deformity. Pure deformity. The antenna and all visible perimeter walls and corners have different angles at any moment in time from 9 seconds before visible movement throughout collapse initiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is why an accurate record of the earliest movement of WTC1 is so important. As you mention, it could be revealed that the core failed slightly before the perimeter through careful measurements.

And this would tell us that the NIST WTC1 collapse initiation scenario is totally wrong. South perimeter destabilization was not the cause of the collapse.

Instead, it would show that WTC1 "died" of congestive core failure.

 

[carlitos]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

[Seymour Butz]

South perimeter destabilization was not the cause of the collapse.

Strawman.

This isn't NIST's stated cause.

It was many things combined.

 

[carlitos]

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

 

[TexasJack]

I see someone still hasn't taken the time to figure out how to use the quote function. Amazing.

 

[carlitos]

Formatting quirks are one of the many "marks of woo." It adds authenticity.

 

[DGM]

Yes!! You observation that the antenna angle is different than the NW corner angle is very important. They are not moving together as a rigid body.

Tony Szamboti is not going to like to hear this! Have you told him yet?

 

[beachnut]

... Instead, it would show that WTC1 "died" of congestive core failure.

The thing your posts expose, are not how your paper is a big piece of junk with the delusional conclusion, but, you don't understand the quote button; you also fail to get 911 right given the correct answers and all the evidence you ignore. How is your paper coming? Where is the math? I notice 911 truth does not do math, unless it is Balsamo 11.2g special math for morons, found in the fantasy-land called 911 truth.

 

[Major_Tom]

ElMondoHummus writes: "His entire argument is "something else happened", but he's provided zero as far as supporting that "something else".

You are right that I have not supplied the "something else" yet.

First I have to destroy the readers belief that the NIST and Dr Bazant have "proven" that collapse initiation was a natural process. In reality they just skipped over the stage 3 process (initial failure sequence), which we agree are the most important moments to study.

The basic argument we hear continuously on this forum is that the supreme authority figures Bazant and the NIST have checked everything out and have categorically concluded that the towers collapsed naturally. As long as you believe that, you'll never understand the need to ask questions since, to you, they have already been answered. Because of this firm fixation within this forum that there is no need to look deeper and closer at the events thanks to the "exhaustive and meticulous" work of the experts at the NIST, very few of the readers here will even look at the activity on floors 104, 101, 98, 95, 92 and 89.

As long as you are convinced that your experts know everything you will never look closer, even though you know very little yourselves. Therefore I need to destroy your illusions that the collapse initiations of WTC1, 2 and 7 have been studied competently before presenting that "something else".

This thread is proof positive that almost none of the regular posters at this forum can admit to any mistakes in the Bazant papers or the NIST reports. This reached absurd extremes when nobody could admit that the NIST made a big mistake in estimating the angle through which the initial column failure sequence occurred. Not one poster was able to admit that the NIST was very, very incorrect.

This thread is 18 pages of recorded denial that your authority figures, Bazant and the NIST, have made any mistakes. Not one person was able to explicitly admit to a single mistake, though to be fair some people like Sheeples and pgimeno seemed willing to admit to some.

This is the extreme psychological barrier I am up against here: They inability to carefully look at visuals and data because you feel warm and protected by the authoritative explanations of the NIST and Bazant. I need to destroy the readers sense of security that the authorities have addressed the most important issues (early deformity and the collapse initiation sequence) correctly. Only then will the reader be willing to look a little closer at the real events.

We are well into the process of destruction of those illusions. The creation of a more detailed, more accurate study of the events leading to collapse initiation will follow.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You won't be able to convince anyone of your supposed sanity when you make propositions such as someone unbolting the columns. You also won't convince anyone that you're on any sort of legitimate track when you propose that there's any activity on the impact and fire floors that is worthy suspicion, especially when you do not provide any substantiation of any such activity having ever taken place. Furthermore, none of your critiques of Bazant or NIST rise to the level of allowing for some initiation cause alternate to impact damage and fires weakening the structure to enter the picture. You're failing on all counts, Tom. Even if you were being successful at demonstrating fatal flaws in the NIST narratives and Bazant's work, you've not provided information that negates the overall discovery that impact damage exacerbated by fires is what led to the collapses. You've certainly done zero to reopen the door to well refuted claims of intentional demolitions, and your excuse-making for why you have not done so falls flat: There is no need to "destroy" the NIST narrative in order to build a competetive one with positive evidence. You've not shown any positive evidence because you do not have any, not because you are merely holding it in reserve.

As is standard in the truther world, you think that finding nits to pick with established knowledge somehow negates that knowledge in it's entirety, rather than indicating point issues, differences in scope, or just plain differences in detail. If you want to see legitimate dissent on NIST's findings, go read James Quintiere, or study the disagreements that the Arup/University of Edinburg has with NIST's findings. And if you want to criticize Bazant's work, base it on what he actually was trying to show, not on your misinterpretations of it, misinterpretations that were addressed in the first few pages of this thread.

----

And last: Use the damn quote button. I'm this close to reporting you for not doing so.

 

[pgimeno]

Recall the 5 stage process of WTC1 collapse described by Bazant in BZ and slightly reworded by me 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)

Many of us have agreed that stages 2 and 3, the initial column failure, are the most important places to study for the purposes of CD. We have already agreed that the Bazant papers do not examine stage 3 in any detail.

First I have to destroy the readers belief that the NIST and Dr Bazant have "proven" that collapse initiation was a natural process. In reality they just skipped over the stage 3 process (initial failure sequence), which we agree are the most important moments to study.

Who is "we"? Besides you, that is.

 

[Toke]

First I have to destroy the readers belief that the NIST and Dr Bazant have "proven" that collapse initiation was a natural process. In reality they just skipped over the stage 3 process (initial failure sequence), which we agree are the most important moments to study.

We have a unfought fire in a steel structure, that eventually collapses.
Steel is well known to loose it's strength when heated.

And you are suggesting that a collapse required people to walk into the fire to dig into walls and remove bolts from steel columns?