OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[ozeco41]

...These are not "little bits". They show an entirely different process than the one the NIST describes.

They are bits of a "core led collapse" rather than a "periphery led collapse" and you are building a case. At this stage still disconnected parts of a "core led" scenario.

Please continue - I am not disagreeing (nor accepting) at this stage. Remember my primary focus.

 

[femr2]

I intend no derogatory comment even if I do use "game" as a descriptor.

No derision taken. Simply speaking my mind when things like grey terms are used. I mentioned MIHOP...to me the meaning of that is simply made (descent to ground) happen on purpose, by whatever means.

The path you are taking at present seems to lead, in the set of scenarios I can comprehend, towards an inevitable collision with the case for human causation.

Human causation is absolute, regardless of any *fence side*. My path may lead to any outcome. I would have thought that presenting trace details which not only suggest, but actually confirm early motion behaviour would be welcomed with open arms from those who see me as *the opposition*/*twoofer*/*nutjob*/whatever...yes ? Those details do preclude a set of scenarios don't you think ?

I have no difficulty accepting that the road map of pathways may have pathways which I cannot see at present.

I think the above should help you to see that it's not about, as the (disturbing) comments from Beachnut suggest, *backing in CD*, but gathering actual real-world data to clarify what the actual real world behaviour was, not what may have happened, or what a black-box model may have churned out, or...

Your following comment "...one reason being that there are major issues with the published texts on the subject.." reveals (or seems to reveal to me) a confusion of objective.

One reason. Again, it is the implications (mostly not yet stated) of identified issues that may cause conflict, but until they are stated I see no confusion.

There are two questions viz 1) What caused the collapse? AND 2) Did NIST et al explain it right? Those are separate issues. In your approach the two are linked. They are not to me. I have no real concern that NIST could have got some bits wrong.

Have you worked through the implications of those *some bits* ? Do you know what they are ?

Yours is "no big question can be answered until all the details are explained".

The devil is in the details, as they say. Bound to be a wonderfully popular suggestion, but ever seen a really good magicican live ?

You are working from the minutiae towards the big picture.

Not really. If you were looking at the wood through the trees...The basic natural collapse premise is that progressive CC creep led to global core failure (immediately throwing a spanner in the NIST report conclusions I would add). I have spend quite a bit of time, using various methods to attempt to find confirmation of such. You could say I've managed to find it, and perhaps that early movement indicates CC creep, perhaps not. However, in the process of delving into such low-level details (which are necessary to even approach that question) more spanners and unexpected behaviours have been identified. So they must also be placed in their proper place in *the big picture*. imo.

Your logic of "all the little details need to be understood before we approach the big question" is flawed. you are at complete liberty to follow that path but it is wrong to claim that my alternate path is wrong and your path is correct.

Where did I say that ?

Simply put it could not have been used therefore it wasn't. Said simplistic position backed up by necessary details if needed.

Is not a subject I have much interest in and doubt here is the place for you to state that, but would be interested in your viewpoint. Would hope it's not a *supernanothermiate cannot explosively cut vertical columns* thing.

Yes. I got the locked door treatment over there when I tried to join about 12-18 months back.

I'm sure there would be no problem if you were to do so again.

I don't care if NIST "got a few bits wrong". There would be a threshold level of "how much NIST got wrong" which could lead to government review. But I doubt that technical matters would reach such a threshold - pure politics methinks. Technical doubt could become the catalyst to a political process. However that is speculation. I thought you didn't like speculation.
I doubt the wisdom/prudence of attempting such a discussion here unless the objective is to raise opposition.

Again, here is not the right place to begin discussion of it, but are you aware of my analysis of the Flight 175 impact trajectory and orientation as opposed to that chosen by NIST ? What I was saying earlier about implication then comes into play. Get the very first part of the simulation chain wrong, and what follows is... ?

 

[Myriad]

The derail about hijacker identities, and various bickering, was sent to AAH. Please stay on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Myriad

 

[beachnut]

Well, that's a good question.

Given the fact that 25° continuously banking and 490mph means a radius of about 11000 meters. That plane changes it's heading for 1.1° per second and you will hardly see the center column from 5 seconds away.
...?

When you fly a jet you aim, like driving a car, either you can drive down the road or you can't; the terrorists with the super high speed turn of 6 miles radius must of been so challenged to hit the center of the building, something pilots train for on every flight, to be on center line using eyes. You have to hit the centerline of a runway, or you flunk. Flying 757/767 are easy with your eyes.

However, a bank of 25 degrees does not mean the plane is turning the direction you think it is. A plane has 6 degree of freedom, and you are missing data on the control inputs; so we don't have any idea what the plane is doing.

You aim for the center, you can see it from miles away. The fact the plane is in a bank does not mean much since you have no idea which way the elevator is going, or the rudder.

If you bank and push you go the other way, if you bank and pull you go the way you expect. Was the plane turning, we have no clue because we don't know if the pilot is pushing, or pulling. The post is missing evidence as to what the plane is doing; it may not be turning at all, just in a bank, not turning;
What some of us don't know about flying fills can fill books.

The faster you go, the lower the boredom level! Going faster means you hit the target faster. Faster, is more accurate, when your target is fixed, less boredom. Flying a jet is easier than flying a single engine prop plane.

 

[achimspok]

When you fly a jet you aim, like driving a car, either you can drive down the road or you can't

What's about a new thread called "a moped driver in a bus at 200mph hitting the garage door precisely?" but don't know how to push the talk back button.

 

[ozeco41]

No derision taken. Simply speaking my mind when things like grey terms are used. I mentioned MIHOP...to me the meaning of that is simply made (descent to ground) happen on purpose, by whatever means.

Thanks. I think we are near enough to understanding each others position that we can leave the clarification debate with a few final comments.

...Human causation is absolute, regardless of any *fence side*. My path may lead to any outcome. I would have thought that presenting trace details which not only suggest, but actually confirm early motion behaviour would be welcomed with open arms from those who see me as *the opposition*/*twoofer*/*nutjob*/whatever...yes ? Those details do preclude a set of scenarios don't you think ?

Yes.

...I think the above should help you to see that it's not about, as the (disturbing) comments from Beachnut suggest, *backing in CD*, but gathering actual real-world data to clarify what the actual real world behaviour was, not what may have happened, or what a black-box model may have churned out, or...

I am very clear as to the boundary you place meticulously in your posts. So I support your technical investigation. Such research is not my forte - my engineering career was mostly in managing other engineers. I am very aware of the accusations of CD directed at you despite there being no explicit claims of CD in your posts. There seems to be a presumption as to where you could be heading and that presumption extended to an assumption as to where you are heading. The polarised climate on this forum seems to make those presumptive leaps inevitable.

...One reason. Again, it is the implications (mostly not yet stated) of identified issues that may cause conflict, but until they are stated I see no confusion...

Understood.

...Have you worked through the implications of those *some bits* ? Do you know what they are ?

No and No. My "big picture" viewpoint is simplistic. Even if NIST got the main mechanism of collapse initiation wrong it does not change my "no demolition" viewpoint until someone puts up a positive "human assistance" hypothesis. I am not looking for it. I will deal with it if and when it comes.

...Where did I say that ?..

possibly my over interpretation. Can we let it pass?

...Is not a subject I have much interest in and doubt here is the place for you to state that, but would be interested in your viewpoint. Would hope it's not a *supernanothermiate cannot explosively cut vertical columns* thing...

Now is not the place and this is neither the thread not probably the forum. And "no, it isn't."

...I'm sure there would be no problem if you were to do so again...

Understood.

...Again, here is not the right place to begin discussion of it, but are you aware of my analysis of the Flight 175 impact trajectory and orientation as opposed to that chosen by NIST ? What I was saying earlier about implication then comes into play. Get the very first part of the simulation chain wrong, and what follows is... ?

Mmmm... I will resist the temptation to go around the same circle of concepts and methods transferred from WTC to Pentagon.

 

[achimspok]

They are bits of a "core led collapse" rather than a "periphery led collapse" and you are building a case. At this stage still disconnected parts of a "core led" scenario.

Please continue - I am not disagreeing (nor accepting) at this stage. Remember my primary focus.

As we saw previously it is very hard for some of us (including me) to draw the bigger picture small enough not to be off topic. How ever, what do you think from your distant perspective would be necessary to connect the parts?

Imo one crucial connection would be the mechanism that was capable to pull in the floor slaps for several feet prior and during collapse initiation.

According to the videos from the WTC2 collapse
1) something fell from 83
2) explosion-like collapse of some former straight and probably cold exterior columns
3) fast pull in of the bowed area before tilting occurred

(That's of course not the result of a sudden catenary sagging nor the result of the tilting top.)

4) tilting and total collapse

I cannot exclude the possibility than some small amount of 3) might have caused 1) and 2) but I would exclude that 4) is the leading process.

The similarities to the fate of WTC1 are obvious so hopefully one explanation would work for both towers.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

<snipped partly due to brevity and partly due to narrowing to the main point...>

The main 2 rows of smoke ejections are separated by 3 floors. What natural structural failure within the building can eject rows of smoke separated by 3 floors? And remember that the 92nd floor had no visible fires before that sizable row of ejections.

Since the core of WTC 1 was the first to begin giving way, wouldn't a valid explanation be that those ejections were the result of partial floor collapses or the beginning of movement within the building interior immediately before the main collapse started? The ejecta simply looks like smoke, which doesn't appear particularly strange to me....

 

[femr2]

I am very clear as to the boundary you place meticulously in your posts.

Okay. Sorted.

I will resist the temptation to go around the same circle of concepts and methods transferred from WTC to Pentagon.

Not sure I understand what you mean there, but for reference..(draft)...

175-p1
175-p2

There is another part, but haven't found time to dot the i's.

 

[pgimeno]

I am very aware of the accusations of CD directed at you despite there being no explicit claims of CD in your posts. There seems to be a presumption as to where you could be heading and that presumption extended to an assumption as to where you are heading. The polarised climate on this forum seems to make those presumptive leaps inevitable.

Well, you can't blame someone who sees the titles of these videos for making that assumption about the uploader:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CebtLGtkAkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkAtoZZ1Tgs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSod-MDt_Dw
http://www.youtube.com/user/femr2

 

[carlitos]

Well, you can't blame someone who sees the titles of these videos for making that assumption about the uploader:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CebtLGtkAkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkAtoZZ1Tgs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSod-MDt_Dw
http://www.youtube.com/user/femr2

Right. Ditto Major_Tom's inclusion of a would-be "demolition team" in his paper linked in the OP. Deliberately vague, obtuse non-claims are a truther hallmark. Of course they are trying to prove explosives / thermite / whatever. Like the "new investigation" people, their exposition of the truth remains forever just around the corner.

 

[femr2]

Well, you can't blame someone who sees the titles of these videos for making that assumption about the uploader:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CebtLGtkAkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkAtoZZ1Tgs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSod-MDt_Dw
http://www.youtube.com/user/femr2

Most of my YT video titles are prefixed with *WTC Demolition*.

Is there anything in the content of those videos you object to ?

Basically the entire *9/11 Conspiracy Theories* thread and sub-threads here are all about *WTC Demolition*.

None of us would be here otherwise eh.

What I'm making clear is that accusations such as *trying to back-in CD* are simply incorrect. If folk want to make assumptions, that's fine. It doesn't change what I'm doing, and doesn't really bother me at all.

What I do find very interesting on this thread is the level of objection to what the likes of Beachnut phrase the *failed OOS theory*, which, bearing in mind it is a post-initiation self-sustaining progressive gravity-driven mode of destruction for the entire OOS region (and perimeter via peeling) indicates, not problems with my approach, or the ROOSD study, but problems with interpretation/comprehension/... for folk who can't/won't see past the *monikers* they have applied to others.

Do I accept being branded by whatever moniker ? Sure, openly MIHOP, especially if you get the scope of what I think that means. Am I a floor-by-floor explosive demolition sort ? Absolutely not.

Do statements such as *of course they are...* make me giggle somewhat ? For sure. Address the argument, not the arguer would be my first thought there

 

[femr2]

Well, you can't blame someone who sees the titles of these videos for making that assumption about the uploader

Right.

I'd suggest googling...

"assumption is the"

Now, perhaps time to get to the arguments rather than the arguers eh ?

 

[Major_Tom]

I have no problem saying that according to the data and visual record of the events at the WTC complex, you were told a big lie about what happened. Our societies are most probably murdering the wrong people by the tens of thousands to steal the available resources and if that is true, we live in an utterly barbaric relationship with our fellow man and nature.

Would be nice if you can address the visuals and data presented to prove me wrong.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What I'm making clear is that accusations such as *trying to back-in CD* are simply incorrect. If folk want to make assumptions, that's fine. It doesn't change what I'm doing, and doesn't really bother me at all.

I don't think being MIHOP'er explicitly means being a controlled demolition arguer. You appear to follow a track that's left me rather curious as to why the remainder of the TM hasn't followed. I still don't believe any evidence exists to suggest "explosives" other than the planes themselves and the ensuing fires were used to assist in initiating the collapse, but the part of the TM movement that represents "demolition" would probably have a better case if they simply dropped the idea that it was lin any way shape or form "controlled." Many of those people already say afterall it was at the same time intended to be "unconventional"....

I'm not too terribly interested in motive, or for that matter "how" they would have gotten them inside the building, instead I'm more interested in how the lack of what would obviously be present in such a case is to be explained. And given the mechanisms that are being discussed here, I'm still seeing "also" capable with an unassisted mechanism for the initiation phase.

 

[carlitos]

I have no problem saying that according to the data and visual record of the events at the WTC complex, you were told a big lie about what happened. Our societies are most probably murdering the wrong people by the tens of thousands to steal the available resources and if that is true, we live in an utterly barbaric relationship with our fellow man and nature.

1 - Who is "you," since you refuse to quote people
2 - Your second sentence appears to be affirming the consequent?

 

[femr2]

You appear to follow a track that's left me rather curious as to why the remainder of the TM hasn't followed.

I'm sure part of the intention of the ROOSD study is to get rid of the continued suggestions of floor-by-floor explosives, in a way that is matched directly to observable behaviour. Folk reading it don't have to do the math or the physics. They can simply spend time interpreting the visual evidence, with the conclusion that it doesn't match that *theory*.

It doesn't deal with initiation, and so it is valid to state that it doesn't prove how initiation occurred. Some folk seem to have issue with the wording, but personally, I don't think there's a huge problem with making the distinction. Wording, whatever.

 

[BigAl]

I have no problem saying that according to the data and visual record of the events at the WTC complex, you were told a big lie about what happened.

Where is "Eyewitnesses for Truth"? No eyewitness to what happened at WTC have joined the Truth Movement.

A million or more people were witness to some aspect of 9/11. I'm one of those people. I guess I didn't get the memo.

 

[achimspok]

Where is "Eyewitnesses for Truth"? No eyewitness to what happened at WTC have joined the Truth Movement.

You can start with Rodriguez or the Firefighters for truth or have a look in these forums. You meet them everywhere, answering questions, helping with material ... You don't need to be a MEMBER to have problems believing a story that do not fit.
Are you the only one here? What have you seen? ...which aspect? (Well, it's maybe a new thread.)

 

[BigAl]

You can start with Rodriguez or the Firefighters for truth or have a look in these forums. You meet them everywhere, answering questions, helping with material ... You don't need to be a MEMBER to have problems believing a story that do not fit.
Are you the only one here? What have you seen? ...which aspect? (Well, it's maybe a new thread.)

None of them are eyewitnesses except for Rodriguez and all he saw was a gas vapor explosion. None of them demonstrate any knowledge of the massive amount of evidence, let alone explain why it is wrong, None of them are speaking within their area of expertise. None of them speak in public where they have to take questions from people with relevant expertise. Until they do this, alleged quotes from a web site counts for nothing.