What a long poop again.
Btw OOS = Open Office Space (no math needed)
Btw "fire present = fire did it" isn't that much of a logical thinking skill. It's a simple thinking skill.
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
Btw OOS = Open Office Space (no math needed)
Btw "fire present = fire did it" isn't that much of a logical thinking skill. It's a simple thinking skill.
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
15" of sagging on the 35' span. This doesn't tell you how much a 60' span will sag in the same situation. Gravity droop of the floor is also not the only factor driving the column buckling/bowing.
So, if you think NIST is barking up the wrong tree, what do you estimate the droop of a 60' span will be in those fire conditions and how much will the columns deform before the hat truss transfers a significant amount of the south face column load into the core?
911 truth does not do math; I know the delusion of CD requires only fantasy to come true for you and 911 truth; math not needed? 911 truth does not do math, unless it is Balsamo's 11.2 g moronic math.
Fire did it, and people used math to explain it. A reason why 911 truth may fail to grasp the fire fact, math is needed. 911 truth failed to understand fire, it is funny it could be a deficiency in math. Is being math challenged a prerequisite for membership in 911 truth?
Oops, Major Tom said math was needed. You say no math. Which is it, anti-intellectual hand waving, or we would have the math but it is not needed because in the fantasy world of 911 truth using math is a sign of weakness, or what?
It is funny, the OOS goal is to back in CD. Thermite or conventional explosives? Silent explosives, no blast explosives, or no left over iron thermite, the invisible thermite products thermite (ITPT). This is hilarious, 9 years of failure, trying to back in ideas which have zero physical evidence.
Go ahead make another fact filled post about poop, it is the only option you have since you are void of evidence. Do your best to help Major Tom's invisible thermite and silent explosives scam; will OOS help make CD possible without evidence? no
60' span after 20 minutes of fire? I would estimate about NO sagging.
The mechanical process you imply looks like this: 12...16 floors hanging down two outrigger of the hat truss like hanging down a crane. The outriggers are capable to carry the load without bending. The 55 inches of inward bowing might result in a 6inch sagging of the roofline but most of the load will be distributed via the spandrel trusses (see north face) towards the corners.
The south face was bowed but the corners were straight as far as I know.
And even the east and west face were straight while carrying virtually 206ft of excessively sagged floor slaps. That's a lot of catenary force if that force should account for the south face bowing.
Or you sever all connections in the east and west while the connections in the south pull in the wall. You get an unsupported exterior length of 4-6floors in the east and west. So I would expect that these columns will bow. How ever that process would result in a tiny little bit of convex roof deformation.
Since you are familiar with the outrigger crane theory, what do you think about concave roof deformation? How much load could the core redistribute to the perimeter before the weaken floors start to bow? Would it be possible that the 1000 row of core columns went down pushing the south perimeter downwards instead of holding it up. Would it be possible that the east and west face don't bow while the south outriggers forcing the south face to bow while the entire load is hanging between the perimeter and the 900 row? ...or the 900 and 1000 row are hanging between perimeter and 800 row?
Beachnut, you are a propagandist.
You don't need no math to understand what "open office space" means, do you?
The theory is no about CD. It's about the visual evidence.
Where are your evidence? Have you calculated your fire? Based on what?
Here is a video I made for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTuvo4b4E9Y
The WTC towers were 95 percent air, rental space, your OOS, math required. Too bad you guys don't do math. OOS is Major Tom's attempt to back in your CD delusions. Why did it fail? Does this mean you will not be helping Major Tom with his math?
The theories of CD are based failed opinions, hearsay, and moronic lies. The visual evidence? You think gravity collapses look like CD, but CD looks like a gravity collapse; fact since gravity is the primary energy source of CD. Thermite, the chips Jones found have carbon in them; Carbon is not in thermite. ... the heat energy of the chips/dust does not match thermite. oops
Are you a thermite delusion believer? Does thermite suck in buildings?
Wow, you debunked CD posting a video, with moronic annotations.
Was it thermite in your delusion, or what? Evidence, your ejection of air due to collapse, a fire flare up, a hush-a-boom bomb. Your failure is noted, and another moronic video is posted. Too bad your ideas are delusions, you would have a Pulitzer if your failed opinions were based on evidence and your claims were not failed delusions.
You understand your video does not make sense, and you have failed to make a valid point? Is there a suck-a-silent-boom explosive?
Your investigate statement is pathetic tripe. Many investigations have taken place, and your work is nonsense. Albeit your work debunks CIT, but you fail to make a complete break with delusions.
You understand OOS is Major Tom attempt at backing in CD. Was that video to debunk Major Tom? wow
Propaganda? You are a JREF debunker now, that video seals the deal. Your video is propaganda, now where is your ample evidence? Did you get your engineering degree from GaTech? Sorry tech grads.
Last edited:
Nothing but a wish.
What you have seen in the video that is the evidence - the most important evidence and about the only one evidence. What ever you can calculate based on any theory that is not based on these images is bullsh**!
So do your math or use your imagination and tell me what happened instead of raising a hue and cry always and ever.
I asked you dozens of questions. I can not remember a single answer. Oh, once you had something like an answer:
Your 5 year old daughter flies Boeing simulators at high speed right against the center column. That fu**ing easy is 9/11, right? ...at least if you believe in 20 young and well educated men so full of hate and cocaine that they loved to die (carrying two bags on their last trip).
What sucked the west wall in on several floors simultaneously? The floor slaps that pulled in the south wall due to sagging like crazy but without pulling in the east and west wall? Obviously the floor slaps were still in place and did the expectable, didn't they? That's why you cry debunked OOS debunked OOS and waving flags, right?
So what caused the high pressure ejections below the impact zone? What tells your math? How much pressure do you want to calculate prior to the tilting?
What do you think about the shaking and the subsequent east tilt?
Wow, so much nonsense it is self-debunking.
Better take your moronic video to CBS, and break the news you have crazy CD delusions about 911.
What sucked in the wall? Your silent suck-a-boom thermite bomb. Can't you answer your own questions about your fantasy?
Air ejections. You need math to understand, and you don't do math with OOS; your own words, and OOS is only talk to back in CD.
Good luck backing in a CD delusion using OOS. Have you sent your video to the FBI?
Last edited:
Wow, so much nonsense is self-debunking.
What sucked in the wall? Can you answer the question? (Just a single time, Mr. Pilot-Engineer? ...if you are an engineer or pilot at all.)
Since I debunked "OOS back in CD" - your words - you should be happy instead of vomiting nonsense over every single detail of the 9/11 story.
And if you want to review all the last pages I never said that the towers were brought down by CD. I said that
1) it matters how they collapsed even if fire was present
2) the way NIST described the collapse do not match the visual evidence
3) The OOS runaway destruction (as far as I understand it) is not an invention of Major Tom and is not about CD. It's a way to describe the destruction of the open office space as seen in the videos: huge avalanches down the corners of the towers.
I made a video about these avalanches too - when they became first visible, the lack of acceleration...
I know, all of that is pretty new for you because you never dealt with these things because fire was present.
We had a lot of discussion about it and the possible physical/technical meanings, quasi fluid behavior, possible initiation and progress and so on. ("We" is not a bunch of moronic CD enthusiasts like you want to paint the picture of your cold sweat fantasies.) You will never reach that point of discussion because you simply are to anxious. Every time a "possible CD" looks around the corner you run away like a bunny smelling the wolf making a lot of noise.
MY silent suck-a-boom thermite bomb? I never mentioned something like that. You are the one who is talking persistently about all kinds of controlled demolition fantasies. It seems to be some kind of freudian anxiety. "Booo someone try to destroy your inner Disneyland."
So don't blame the "moronic" twoofers for your inventions, Nutty!
You have no clue about what happened. You super-pilot-engineer never noticed that NIST measured bullsh** down the WTC7.
And that's exactly the problem here. Your math is based on fantasies. That's the way you can calculate the rotation of the sun around your house. Your results will be some how satisfying until you realize the small discrepancies.
95 percent air? Wow, what a building!beachnut said:
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
I made my own analyses of WTC Towers collapse mid to late 2007 during discussions with a friend who is a "conspiracy nut" - he admits and uses that term. My only "conspiracy" interest was the WTC Twin Towers due to my civil structural engineering career plus military engineering/demolitions experience in the Aust Army reserve.
So I first posted my own explanation of the global collapse phase somewhere Nov 2007 through Feb 2008 and added to it for clarity over first half 2008. My explanation of the global collapse phase covers the three areas - OOS, outer tube columns and core.
That explanation of mine seems to be contemporary with Major_Tom's first explorations of what he calls OOS and ROOSD - both his work and the acronyms were not known to me until recent weeks reading this forum.
The main point I suggest is that the broad principle of OOS as Major_Tom labels it is essentially the mainstream accepted mechanism for the global collapse phase OR a key part of that mechanism. I fail to see how it can be perceived as a "truther" position.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
...they will probably correct me if I'm not wrong also...
Last edited:
Here is my math, Beachnut!
Beachnut
Join Date: Oct 2006
Now, we have about October 2010.
4*365= 1460 days
Posts: 14,281
14281/1460 = 9,781506849 Posts per day for the last four years.
Have I sent my video to the FBI?
Post edited, breach of Rule 0. Please do not change member names....
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Locknar
Last edited by a moderator:
Beachnut, post 1229: "What sucked in the wall? Your silent suck-a-boom thermite bomb."
The data shows NW corner being pulled inward over a period of 9.5 seconds before visible collapse initiation.
Likewise, the antenna is shifting eastward and downward in a hook motion during this interval.
We also have an overpressurization along the 98th floor west face before we can measure any building features being released to fall, and they emerge before the fire on the SW corner starts to move downward.
(Likewise, all columns in the north and west walls, 2 adjacent perimeter walls, fail within a 0.5 second interval)
Many more attributes to come.
These collapse initiation attributes are measurable and they will not go away just because they are ignored.
The data shows NW corner being pulled inward over a period of 9.5 seconds before visible collapse initiation.
Likewise, the antenna is shifting eastward and downward in a hook motion during this interval.
We also have an overpressurization along the 98th floor west face before we can measure any building features being released to fall, and they emerge before the fire on the SW corner starts to move downward.
(Likewise, all columns in the north and west walls, 2 adjacent perimeter walls, fail within a 0.5 second interval)
Many more attributes to come.
These collapse initiation attributes are measurable and they will not go away just because they are ignored.
... , lucky for me, I took typing class! And, Bravo, this is the kind of evidence filled posts that keep 911 truth on track for continued failure.
Was , "have you sent your video to the FBI?", too hard to answer? That video proves you are the expert 911 truth needs to lock in 10 years of failure. ...911 truth, on track for another evidence free year, and OOS is helping!
You have no math to help Major Tom? Is a weak attack on me reflective of a zero evidence approach to 911?
Can you get Major Tom to use the quote button? Please.
Major Tom failed publish his OOS model, it will not enable him, or you, to back in the delusion of CD.
Can you help Major Tom publish his work? Many more attributes to come! Help...
Last edited:
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
Just a couple of points about that video. Why did you crop the top off the building when you're showing the ejected smoke plume? Surely the antenna and building top are better reference points for seeing at what stage of collapse the smoke is ejected rather than a spot of fire.
I also think your column pull in is an optical illusion due to movement of smoke. The actual position of any particular column doesn't change on screen.
Quantity.
Answer the questions!
Answer my question about the FBI agent Lechner!
You have seen the evidence. Answer the questions!
We even work on FEA models. Answer my questions instead of making noise.
Answer the questions, Nutty Bunny!
Of course. Should he quote some parts of your Hi-Quality-Posts somewhere?
Booo!
95% air! What a post!
More evidence? How does this support CD and OOS?
ozeco41
Philosopher
This is the central point of the explanation of the global collapse which Major_Tom calls "OOS" or more correctly "ROOSD".
Am I missing something?
Why the angst about OOS?
Is it simply that it is Major_Tom's label?
It also is a central premise of my explanation which I first proposed late 2007. Nothing in that paragraph says CD. And, as far as I am aware, it is part of most commonly held explanations for the "global collapse".Major_Tom said:
Am I missing something?
Why the angst about OOS?
Is it simply that it is Major_Tom's label?
You see it in the full shot and you see it in the cropped close up. Btw, you can watch the video in 720HD and don't need the cropped shot at all.
Furthermore there are several sync points. One good sync is the 3rd fireball that shot far out of the SE corner (green). That fireball is visible in the NE view and the NE view shows you the huge fireball from the north face 92nd floor (pink). This way you have a good time reference all around the building.
Furthermore you have references in the smoke ejection along the NW corner just to check your precision.
The synchronized moment of initiation looks this way:
- after black smoke began billowing from the center of W92
- before SW columns were pulled into the building
- after the debris ejection in the south that started the whitish dust fountain that became visible in the south view
First frame in Hi-Res:
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3185/momentu.png
Well, you can have it synchronized to any view you want. Nevertheless, the 104 fire has a major advantage. We had to distinguish between
- a tilting antenna to the east
- a tilting antenna to the south
- a sagging antenna into the roof
- a tilting top to the east
- a tilting top to the south
- a falling top
The antenna is a very good indicator for the movement but the fire in the south west corner 104th floor is a very good indicator for the amount of movement - much better than the antenna.
Well that's funny. Everywhere the smoke came out of the building it looks like smoke came out of the building but not in the crucial area. There it looks like columns go into the building.
No, Reactor drone! The video runs at 4 fold speed. The 1second snippet covers 4 seconds in real time just to make the much slower movement visible. A smoke illusion would require some smoke bank with a straight edge that expands very slowly towards north without turbulences. In the meantime the entire area had to fade somehow to look like the movement of the wall - not just of one or two columns. So no, that's not just an illusion. The Gif above covers only the frames before smoke became visible between the columns in question.
99% air! Answer the questions, Nutty Bunny!
I guess MT might have mentioned anywhere that it would be possible to release just one floor slap to demolish the entire building.
Obviously that's a simple truth. The connections of the floor slap below would shear off. The result would be an unsupported column length of x floors and so on. (Of course the core columns still would be supported by the neighbors but the perimeter would fail and pull down the outriggers.)
Maybe Beachnut has calculations that contradict such a pancaking progress or it's just the "Booo"-effect of the possibility.
Btw, the mechanism MT might have mentioned isn't that far from reality. In the case of WTC2 a dropping white blop falling from 83 onto 82 is the first visible sign of the total collapse. When it hit the 82nd floor all surrounding columns immediately broke explosion like. That's the visible initiation (not the NE corner) and you can see how the collapse progressed to both corners.
A new released video (upper right corner) show that black smoke was pushed out of the middle of the South face below the impact hole.
Imo the core must be involved in the drop of the white blop and that (once again) "debunks" a released floor slap. I'm afraid that beachnut will not feel much more comfortable with my "dubunkings". Why? Maybe he can explain it but I don't think so.
Last edited:
- Status