OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[carlitos]

The creation of a more detailed, more accurate study of the events leading to collapse initiation will follow.

The big reveal is always just around the corner it seems.

Your logic that you must "destroy" NIST and Bazant before you begin to lay our your theory is not sound. Just say whatever the hell you think happened, and provide a little evidence for it. Geez, what is it with these guys.

 

[Dog Town]

Geez, what is it with these guys.

Delusions, on multiple levels. A panel of therapists, would need life times, and still get it wrong. Darn entertaining though!

 

[bill smith]

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.

This video shows the antenna movement in slow motion. I recommend going full screen. It is very easy to see that the antenna is the first thing to start moving downwards. When the clip is fully loaded you can watch the dynamic by pulling the slider back and forth.

I see in my mind's eye the antenna attached to the hat truss which is attached to some core columns which have been most probably melted. You can see the smoke pump out in a belt around the middle of the upper block as the hat truss drops. This may have pulled in the wall or walls as it fell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k antenna

 

[beachnut]

... 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.

You got a mouse in your pocket? What a sad, delusional post. 8 years of failure and you make idiotic delusional claims.

You are adding to 911 truth's 8 years of pathetic failure, pushing the moronic, idiotic CD lie. The stuff of paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Terrorist, better engineers than all of 911 truth's failed experts, laugh at your delusions as you continue to fail and proclaim your greatness of things to follow. UBL initiated 911 events, you are one of the fringe few paranoid conspiracy theorist practicing engineering without a degree and failing faster than free-fall. Proof; you are not published, your fellow 911 truth liars are not published or recognized as anything more than nuts with delusions. The best 911 truth can do is be exposed in real journals as delusional; Heiwa proved it, and your work is the same. Want more proof? Find a real engineering journal and see why your work is delusional.

Why do people in 911 truth make up lies? Is it a medical condition, chemical addiction, or ignorance? Why do you lie about 911?

... We are well into the process ...

of failure; 8 years and now shooting for 8 more! How can people be so thoughtless and ignorant as they spew nonsense based on zero evidence; based on idiotic opinions.

Your thread, about your paper, has zero evidence to save your lies of CD. You tangentially attack NIST and Bazant and fail to support your work which was generated to back-in CD. F-

One reason the USAF sent me to engineering grad school was to give me the knowledge to spot fraud in engineering proposals - it worked, your work is fraud. Your work is bad; takes seconds to see it is nonsense; ask an engineer. Why are you unable to get any engineers who are not paranoid conspiracy theorists to support your efforts?

Learn to use the quote button! If you can learn something it may start a trend...

 

[Major_Tom]

Guys, in reality you have no official explanation of the WTC1 stage 3 process.

NIST takes the simulations to the point where the south wall is poised to fail. Bazant starts during the first collision after a 12 ft fall.

They skipped over the initial column failure sequence.
>>>>>>>>>>

Do you have any idea over what tilt angle the columns initially failed from south to north?

Do you know how quickly column failure must have moved through the core and down the west perimeter wall?

Do you know which failed first: The core or the south wall?


If you cannot answer these questions you have no clue what happened during stage 3. You don't have a theory of how the WTC1 columns originally failed.


Does Bazant and /or the NIST attempt to explain how the core failed within 1 degree of tilt?

The answer is no. There is nothing within their literature which hints that they are even aware of it. The only mention of the tilt over which the columns failed is 8 degrees by the NIST.

Do Bazant or the NIST know how quickly all the columns must have failed for complete column failure to occur within 1 degree of tilt?

No. there is no recognition whatsoever within the literature that the initial failure sequence was an extremely rapid process. Only the mention of an initial failure over 8 degrees by the NIST, suggesting a gradual process.

Does Bazant or the NIST know if the south wall failed before the core?

The NIST claims that sagging floors pulled in the south wall to the point of failure. Column instability progressed through the east and west walls and through the core over a tilt of 8 degrees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Guys, it looks like NIST and Bazant skip from stage 2 to stage 4, giving stage 3 a short, vague description which is very, very wrong.

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

Just a reminder: Why are the initial column failures and moments leading up to them the most important moments to study?

Because, obviously, it is the first splitting of the columns into two pieces when CD would occur. That is "stage 3": The initial column failure progression from the earliest movement to the release of the NW corner.

Just to remind you, that is where to look. Some of the wiser among you have already agreed that this is where to look. It's obvious, no?

 

[Major_Tom]

Concerning unbolting splices: I said that the bolt splices along the 98th floor would be a natural target. I have no idea if they were unbolted.

You were probably not aware that the core column splices were all aligned every 3 floors until I mentioned it. Nobody seemed aware that the splices were bolted and not welded. Nobody seemed aware that the whole core has splice plates aligned on the 98th floor.

I was just pointing that out to you, and that it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to exploit such a vulnerability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'd also like to point out that all estimates of explosives needed and noise levels expected are pure BS if you understand nothing of the natural targets. Pure BS

 

[Major_Tom]

Let me give you an example of how little you know about the WTC1 initial failure sequence:

This is the west face of WTC1.

Do the initial ejections come out before or after the fire starts to move downward?

From where are the first ejections seen?

 

[BigAl]

Let me give you an example of how little you know about the WTC1 initial failure sequence:

[qimg]http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9109/femrnew.gif[/qimg]

This is the west face of WTC1.


Do the initial ejections come out before or after the fire starts to move downward?

From where are the first ejections seen?

The "ejections" look like smoke to me and this is easily explained by internal floor collapse immediately prior to the general collapse.

What is your point?

 

[bill smith]

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

​

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.

Does this picture show where the Lower hollow core columns transitioned to H-beams ?

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/bolted_splice.jpg

 

[pgimeno]

Guys, in reality you have no official explanation of the WTC1 stage 3 process.

NIST takes the simulations to the point where the south wall is poised to fail. Bazant starts during the first collision after a 12 ft fall.

They skipped over the initial column failure sequence.

Guys, it looks like NIST and Bazant skip from stage 2 to stage 4, giving stage 3 a short, vague description which is very, very wrong.

If so, so what? They proved the building was doomed, they proved the collapse was unstoppable. You seem to be trying to argue that right in the point where the steel was so weak that it couldn't bear the weight of the building, "someone" acted to make it fall.

Just to remind you, that is where to look. Some of the wiser among you have already agreed that this is where to look. It's obvious, no?

Where to look for what? The building was doomed before that.

Concerning unbolting splices: I said that the bolt splices along the 98th floor would be a natural target. I have no idea if they were unbolted.

You were probably not aware that the core column splices were all aligned every 3 floors until I mentioned it. Nobody seemed aware that the splices were bolted and not welded. Nobody seemed aware that the whole core has splice plates aligned on the 98th floor.

I was just pointing that out to you, and that it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to exploit such a vulnerability.

It doesn't take a genius either to figure out that conspiring to bring a doomed building down is plain stupid.

 

[carlitos]

What is your point?

Indeed.

 

[Reactor drone]

Concerning unbolting splices: I said that the bolt splices along the 98th floor would be a natural target. I have no idea if they were unbolted.

You were probably not aware that the core column splices were all aligned every 3 floors until I mentioned it. Nobody seemed aware that the splices were bolted and not welded. Nobody seemed aware that the whole core has splice plates aligned on the 98th floor.

I was just pointing that out to you, and that it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to exploit such a vulnerability.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'd also like to point out that all estimates of explosives needed and noise levels expected are pure BS if you understand nothing of the natural targets. Pure BS

Since we've been concentrating on WTC 1 it might be worth asking how your ideas work for WTC 2. Since that tower was hit lower there were built up box sections in the core and these had welded splices, how do you target the vulnerabilities there?

Explosives make loud noises, even one charge makes a loud noise. I know you're trying to avoid actually having to make any claims by concentrating on Bazant but you might want to remember that if you ever do pluck up the courage to present an idea rather than just creating the impression that you might have one.

PS- I can't speak for anyone else but I was previously aware of the length and lack of staggering of the core columns before you showed up.

 

[Dog Town]

You seem to be trying to argue that right in the point where the steel was so weak that it couldn't bear the weight of the building, "someone" acted to make it fall.

Reminds me of fundies, when cornered about evolution, claim it was God that created it in the first place.

 

[Major_Tom]

Bill Smith, that is an H-beam to H-beam bolted splice.
......

A few pages ago femr kept asking:

"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."

I think he was doing that to get everyone to admit to the general order of column failure that the NIST claims to have "proved".

In the words of the NIST they claim to have "proved" the collapse initiation was caused this way:


1-6D, p 312:

"Table 5–1. Summary of main events that led to the collapse of WTC 1.
Event Number........ Event
1 .......................Aircraft impact
2 .......................Unloading of core
3 .......................Sagging of floors and floor/wall disconnections
4........................Bowing of the south wall
5 .......................Buckling of south wall and collapse initiation"




1-6D, pg 314:

"Bowing of South Wall

The exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors beginning at 80 min, and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core. Figure 5–6 shows the observed and the estimated inward bowing of the south wall at 97 min after impact (10:23 a.m.). Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at 69 min (9:55 a.m.), as shown in Table 5–2, it is estimated that the south wall began to bow inward at around 80 min when the floors on the south side began to substantially sag. The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to continuing floor sagging and increased temperatures on the south wall as shown in Figs. 4–42 and 5–7. At 97 min (10:23 a.m.), the maximum bowing observed was about 55 in. (see Fig. 5–6).


Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation

With continuously increased bowing, as more columns buckled, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progressed horizontally toward the sides. As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall significantly unloaded (Fig. 5–3), redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels. The onset of this load redistribution can be found in the total column loads in the WTC 1 global model at 100 min in the bottom line of Table 5–3. At 100 min, the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively. 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. The release of potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."



If their description is correct, how can ejections emerge the width of the core along floor 98 west face before the upper SW corner is seen to fall downward?

BigAl says the solution is easy. The 99th floor slab detached from the perimeter moments before the upper SW perimeter is seen to fall downwards along the lengh of the core and pushed air outward evenly as witnessed.

BigAl, is that idea consistent with the NIST description? Is downward movement of the core before the upper SW perimeter consistent with the NIST description?

BigAl, why would the 99th floor slab become detached from the perimeter across from the core over such a wide length so quickly and evenly?
>>>>>>>

How can 2 floor slabs come together before the perimeter starts to move downward? Their outward edges are attached to the perimeter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There is an easier solution: Just look for sources other than the OOS west region floor slabs that may be coming together at that moment.

(Maybe core floor slabs came together before the west perimeter started to fall downward. I don't know, but you will have to leave the NIST script because it cannot possibly explain the timing of the ejections.)

 

[Major_Tom]

pgimeno, who "proved" the tower was "doomed"? You must be talking about the NIST explanation for the north wall inward bowing and their "proof" that the building failed as described in their own words in my last post.

And if they were wrong about whether the core or south perimeter failed first? How does their description of failure explain the timing of the 98th floor west face ejections across the length of the core as seen in the gif?

If they do not even know in what order the columns failed, how could anyone claim the NIST "proved" anything but how authority figures can be wrong?

 

[pgimeno]

pgimeno, who "proved" the tower was "doomed"? You must be talking about the NIST explanation for the north wall inward bowing and their "proof" that the building failed as described in their own words in my last post.

No. Their investigation proves that the steel temperature was high enough as to doom the building. There was bowing of columns, there were partial collapses and the fires continued raging unfought. How many partial collapses would the building sustain before falling? It was doomed. And as I already said, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that conspiring to bring a doomed building down is plain stupid.

And if they were wrong about whether the core or south perimeter failed first? How does their description of failure explain the timing of the 98th floor west face ejections across the length of the core as seen in the gif?

Irrelevant. Regardless of whether they get their description of that part right, it's clear that the building fell due to the effect of the fires.

How about this? The building was demolished by throwing a plane against it.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Major Tom, when can we expect you to submit your paper for peer review?

Sometime this decade perhaps?

 

[bill smith]

No. Their investigation proves that the steel temperature was high enough as to doom the building. There was bowing of columns, there were partial collapses and the fires continued raging unfought. How many partial collapses would the building sustain before falling? It was doomed. And as I already said, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that conspiring to bring a doomed building down is plain stupid.


Irrelevant. Regardless of whether they get their description of that part right, it's clear that the building fell due to the effect of the fires.

How about this? The building was demolished by throwing a plane against it.

Delete: A little off topic

 

[Seymour Butz]

B

I think he was doing that to get everyone to admit to the general order of column failure that the NIST claims to have "proved".

There's your problem right there.

Just because NIST them 1,2,3,4,5 does NOT mean that this is the order in which they failed.

It means that they are separate things going on.
1- core shortening/unloading
2- floor sagging
3- load transfers
4- ext column bowing
5- etc

Most people understand that all these things were happening at the same time.

 

[femr2]

Most people understand that all these things were happening at the same time.

NIST don't seem to...

With continuously increased bowing, as more columns buckled, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progressed horizontally toward the sides.

Clearly referencing the South wall perimeter columns, from the center of the facade towards the South perimeter corners.

As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall significantly unloaded (Fig. 5–3), redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels.

As a result of. Following. Subsequent to. A consequence of. Load redistribution from deforming East and West perimeter to core.

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.

Clear order of events being described. FROM South wall, TO East and West walls, TO core columns.

NIST clearly describe these as progressive processes, not simultaneous.