OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[achimspok]

Consistent with the state of the windows and the development of fire; see figure 8-93 of NCSTAR 1-5A p.252 (p.348 of the PDF) and figure C-51 of the same report (different PDF) p.496 (200 of the PDF) and F-57 (yet another different PDF, p.668, p.164 of the PDF). Color codes for the last two are in p.445 (149 of the 2nd PDF) and p.611 (p.107 of the 3rd PDF). Nothing surprising there. The ejections are also visible in floor 93 in the area where the windows are broken (left side of north face); ditto for floor 97. Floor 94 does not exhibit such evident ejections but does exhibit some. As for the reduced pressure in floor 94, I'm wondering about the state of the elevator doors. This is speculation, but maybe there were some open/blown at floors 92 and 93 and all closed at floor 94. So the question is what caused the ejections, not where were they observed. Your wishful thinking makes its appearance again.

Maybe you read my last post. The "94/93 ejection" in the east of the north face is nothing but sunlight in a steep angle. The northface is in the shadow. In the shadow the smoke appears black. Some meters away from the north face the smoke enters the sunlight and appears white. That's not a separate ejection.
Well, NIST gave a lot of nice graphics and you should ask yourself why they gave the fire locations and window breakage especially for 10:18am. At the beginning of that minute the overall picture looked VERY different. At the end of that minute it looked like NIST plotted it in the graphics.

10:10am

10:18am

still 10:18

still 10:18

10 minutes later:

Have a look at the image you linked: F-57 (NCSTAR 1-5F Appx D-G, p.668, p.164 of the PDF). You see no fire or broken windows at 10:18am. Nevertheless we see black smoke from at least one window in the center of that floor and wall. A few minutes later...

 

[pgimeno]

Maybe you read my last post. The "94/93 ejection" in the east of the north face is nothing but sunlight in a steep angle. The northface is in the shadow. In the shadow the smoke appears black. Some meters away from the north face the smoke enters the sunlight and appears white. That's not a separate ejection.

I already observed that by myself and had it into account when I made my statement. Compare e.g. frames 6 and 7 of the above GIF. Both 93 and 94 show ejections. 93 had less intense fires, so the amount of smoke is expectable to be less too.

ETA: The smoke coming into sunlight seems to me to be from floor 93.

Well, NIST gave a lot of nice graphics and you should ask yourself why they gave the fire locations and window breakage especially for 10:18am.

Why should I ask myself that? I ask myself and answer: maybe because they had a nice reference event with which to check the window breakage? What's special about that?

 

[achimspok]

Looks like 77 and 79 to me. More wishful thinking?

Yet you are wrong.

 

[pgimeno]

Yet you are wrong.

Really?

My argument:

Yours?

 

[achimspok]

Really?

My argument:

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/wtc2-smoke-plume.jpg[/qimg]

Yours?

My...

...but may be you are right.

Why should I ask myself that?

Because a 10:17 graphic would look much different. ...or let's say a 10:18 graphic for the beginning minute.

I'm not convinced about 93 and 94. There is no change in the "black" smoke from this area until some haze at this elevation reaches the sunlight.

 

[femr2]

Looks like 77 and 79 to me.

Agreed. There is increase in smoke from 80 also, but it was chucking out black smoke anyway.

 

[pgimeno]

My...
[qimg]http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1899/floors3.gif[/qimg]
...but may be you are right.

To me it's pretty obvious that these are the windows that the guy that exited through the window opened, and the smoke escapes through these open windows. [Edited to add:] The flow is bigger because there are very few open windows; in the floor above there are more so the pressure is distributed over more escapes. [End edition] Your graph shows smoke below the blue line. There seem to be objects obstructing the lower part of the window, therefore the smoke escapes through the upper part, close to the roof.

Because a 10:17 graphic would look much different. ...or let's say a 10:18 graphic for the beginning minute.

I don't get your point. I guess the whole point of that study was to find ventilation paths to feed the fire simulator. Therefore they used the 10:18 time to feed the simulator with these changes. Anything wrong with that? Maybe they should have picked 10:19 to be more exact?

I'm not convinced about 93 and 94. There is no change in the "black" smoke from this area until some haze at this elevation reaches the sunlight.

Well, even with the poor resolution of the video it can be seen. This crop is from frames 3-5 of the gif above:

 

[tsig]

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

If you said what you think did happen you wouldn't have to spend so much time saying what you didn't think happened.


Saying "I believe in X" is easier than saying I don't believe in A, B, C, .....Z.

 

[tsig]

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.

I'm afraid there are no visuals and data that can prove to you that we are not murdering the wrong people by the tens of thousands and stealing their available resources.

 

[tsig]

And no "truther" can every say why. You don't find that curious?

All I've ever seen is "It looked like it to me" or as I like to call it, Willful Blindness.

 

[Major_Tom]

Correction, the NIST identified fl 95 correctly and also noted fl 98. The reference to 94 is a slight drifting of grey smoke along the east side of the north face:


At 10:18:48 a.m., a pressure pulse pushed large amounts of smoke and fire out of open windows on
multiple floors and faces of WTC 1. The most dramatic effect of this pressure pulse was on the 92nd
floor, where a long line of smoke appeared from open windows on the north face. Up until this time,
there had been very little smoke coming through the open windows from the widespread fires burning on
this floor. During the final ten minutes prior to the collapse of WTC, a large fire grew on the 92nd floor
in the large open area on the west side of the north face. A large burst of fire was pushed from the area
when WTC 1 collapsed.
The pressure pulse at 10:18:48 a.m. also seemed to cause a fire burning in a room in the northwest corner
of the 95th floor to suddenly intensify and to extend flames from north face windows.

-NCSTAR 1-5A Draft, p 290
...............


Two pressure pulses that were large enough to force smoke and fire from open windows on multiple faces
and floors were observed during the period. The first occurred at 10:18:48 a.m. and the second just
seconds prior to the collapse of the tower at 10:28:22 a.m. The sources for these pressure pulses are
unknown, but it seems likely that they resulted from significant structural changes within the tower.

p 280
................


With the exception of the fires that grew on the 96th and 97th floors shortly after the aircraft impact, it
has generally been observed that very little smoke and/or extended flames flowed from open windows on
the north face where fires were visible. This has been interpreted to indicate that the smoke from these
fires was venting elsewhere within the tower. The fact that smoke and fire continued to vent from the
north face following the pressure pulse may be an indication that the internal ventilation pathways were
changed as the result of the event responsible for the pressure pulse.

p 257
...................


At 10:18:48 a.m. an event took place within the tower that created a pressure pulse of sufficient
magnitude to force smoke out of numerous windows on the north face, as well as from the other faces.
The most obvious effect of this pressure pulse was the release of a dense line of smoke along a length of
the 92nd floor on the north face, extending from roughly window 94-110 to window 94-139. This smoke
release was evident in numerous videos, including a number shot at great distances. Figure 8–95
compares two frames taken from a video showing the north face just prior to the smoke release and the
appearance just over 4 s later. Even though the video was shot from a distance, the line of smoke that has
appeared from the 92nd floor is readily apparent. It is significant that until this time very little smoke had
been observed coming from the open windows on this floor, even though fires had been burning on the
floor for some time.
Closer inspection of this video, as well as others, shows many additional effects of the pressure pulse at
other locations on the tower. Smoke and/or dust were pushed out of windows on the east side of the north
face at the 94th floor. This material is responsible for the light-colored “smoke” seen near the eastern
edge of the building immediately above the darker smoke released from the 92nd floor in Figure 8–95.

p 253
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Kind of odd how this event can send pulses through fls 98, 95 and 92 at the same time and be seen along fl 92 on the SW corner.

 

[Major_Tom]

Later, thet identify a pressure pulse and a noticable increase of fire from the 98th fl. east side about 3 seconds before the 98th fl failed.

In this thread we have also identified a strong row of ejections on the 98th fl west face just before any observable point on the building was released to move downward. Ejections just before movement from fl 98. Strange.

 

[Major_Tom]

Reminder: From NCSTAR 1-2A

Columns splices located as shown, bolted only, at fls 101, 98, 95, 92, 89...

 

[achimspok]

Well, even with the poor resolution of the video it can be seen. This crop is from frames 3-5 of the gif above:

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/wtc1-plumes-frames-3-4-5.gif[/qimg]

Well, we need a better resolution of that video. I strongly doubt that you highlighted some smoke movement from 93 for 2 reasons. That movement is somehow jerky even in all frames. It looks like a result of video compression. That jerky movement fades into the bright smoke in the sunlight which has to be distant to the wall. So I consider that the smoke from 1 floor below and the center of the wall should be more distant than the smoke that emerged right there. That smoke would float to the left before it reaches the sunlight. So we cannot be sure from that poor video but (reason 2) NIST had the full resolution video and didn't mention 93. They sometimes mention 94 without 95 or they mention 95 without mentioning 94. Probably just a failure.

I don't think that NIST made these nice 10:18 graphics to confuse the changes at 10:18. You are right, they probably just fed the "simulation" with these data.
You used these graphics to say that virtually nothing happened at 10:18 because - look at these graphics! - there is fire and there are a lot of broken windows. Yes, that was the end of 10:18 but it is no argument for "nothing unusual".

 

[achimspok]

Saying "I believe in X" is easier than saying I don't believe in A, B, C, .....Z.

I think it's not about "believes" at all. If you find convincing arguments to exclude A, B, C, .... Z then it is a good reason to exclude these "believes" imo.

 

[achimspok]

I'm afraid there are no visuals and data that can prove to you that we are not murdering the wrong people by the tens of thousands and stealing their available resources.

Right, these murdered people are wrong ones anyway.
Btw, UBL has a new voice message. LOL

 

[achimspok]

And no "truther" can every say why. You don't find that curious?

All I've ever seen is "It looked like it to me" or as I like to call it, Willful Blindness.

All anti-truther say that WTC7 came down simply due to some Tiny Toon like chain reaction but no anti-truther can ever say how the top of 3x3 core columns can buckle at g. ...and the next section too. ...and the perimeter too. Willful Blindness?

 

[BigAl]

All anti-truther say that WTC7 came down simply due to some Tiny Toon like chain reaction but no anti-truther can ever say how the top of 3x3 core columns can buckle at g. ...and the next section too. ...and the perimeter too.

Cascading failure.

 

[achimspok]

Cascading failure.

A cascade of what? Some kind of synchronous straight down buckling?
NIST measured bullsh** and got a much too long 5.4 seconds fall time interpreted as fall of the north face. The simulation was not able to get it that slow. It was slower.

 

[DGM]

All anti-truther say that WTC7 came down simply due to some Tiny Toon like chain reaction but no anti-truther can ever say how the top of 3x3 core columns can buckle at g. ...and the next section too. ...and the perimeter too. Willful Blindness?

And your theory is?