W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
It sounds as though you post here because you're jealous of DOC (almost 500,000 hits) and doronshadmi (over 350,000 hits).
OOS Collapse Propagation Model
- Thread starter Major_Tom
- Start date
- Status
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
"Christophera" had over 360,000 in this sub-forum alone. I won't link the thread because............well..................because.
Mixed answers to both questions, you'll have to figure out which ones answer which question(s):
- Because that picture actually does not prove the observation.
- Because I am not a qualified observer and thus can't evaluate the validity of the observation nor the consequences.
- Because you aren't either and still make numerous baseless assertions based solely on your biased belief.
- Because independently of that observation, you have so many things wrong that I've had to point them out repeatedly.
- Because you don't address the points that disprove you, therefore I have to insist in them.
- Because of the usual flamebait in your posts in the form of baseless smearing campaigns.
- Because you don't understand models.
Here is an image that represents a map of the 49 pages of NIST's conclusions (chapter 8 and 9 of NCSTAR 1) as a 7x7 collage:
In the next image, I have highlighted in red the points of the conclusions that would be affected in case they were wrong about the antenna tilt (something that I don't take as granted, just sounds reasonable):
Having a hard time finding the red highlighted areas?
Don't look any more, it's the same image. No part of the NIST conclusions would be affected in case the tilt was wrong.
For reference, here is a map of the NIST conclusions that would be affected in case they were wrong on whether the initiation sequence was core-led or perimeter-led:
Impressive achievement, huh? And that assuming it were right.
What consequences? One line of the conclusions that doesn't change one bit of the recommendations?
ETA: BTW, I have acknowledged that it's a possible mistake, so you go that wrong... too.
Last edited:
Thanks. You are proving my point just how clueless your conclusions are.
You have no way to describe how the core gave while both the antenna and north wall tilted at less than 1 degree.
The result of 1 year of showing you the correct measurements is a total blanket denial on your part with no admission you were wrong.
At this point few of you are claiming significant tilt like you were before.
Let us pretend that poster after poster didn't screw up on their tilt measurements, proving what I have been telling you.
It is all written down in this thread and others but, somehow, the posters, especially R Mackey, can never see that they are less than perfect. The writing is on the wall. Just read your own posts over the last year to see how many times you insisted that significant tilt occurred or that the BV, BL and BLGB papers were correct without having the capacity to read them.
I can tell you do not even review your own posts so I'll show them to you and review them for you.
You seem to have a short memory. I do not.
That is my point exactly, you have been faking the science. Significant tilt was faked. It never happened until after all column failed.
Poster by poster will step up to prove what I have been saying for the last year. You have nothing but hot air and blanket denials that you were wrong.
Next?
You have no way to describe how the core gave while both the antenna and north wall tilted at less than 1 degree.
The result of 1 year of showing you the correct measurements is a total blanket denial on your part with no admission you were wrong.
At this point few of you are claiming significant tilt like you were before.
Let us pretend that poster after poster didn't screw up on their tilt measurements, proving what I have been telling you.
It is all written down in this thread and others but, somehow, the posters, especially R Mackey, can never see that they are less than perfect. The writing is on the wall. Just read your own posts over the last year to see how many times you insisted that significant tilt occurred or that the BV, BL and BLGB papers were correct without having the capacity to read them.
I can tell you do not even review your own posts so I'll show them to you and review them for you.
You seem to have a short memory. I do not.
That is my point exactly, you have been faking the science. Significant tilt was faked. It never happened until after all column failed.
Poster by poster will step up to prove what I have been saying for the last year. You have nothing but hot air and blanket denials that you were wrong.
Next?
Last edited:
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Here is an image that represents a map of the 49 pages of NIST's conclusions (chapter 8 and 9 of NCSTAR 1) as a 7x7 collage:
In the next image, I have highlighted in red the points of the conclusions that would be affected in case they were wrong about the antenna tilt (something that I don't take as granted, just sounds reasonable):
Having a hard time finding the red highlighted areas?
Don't look any more, it's the same image. No part of the NIST conclusions would be affected in case the tilt was wrong.
For reference, here is a map of the NIST conclusions that would be affected in case they were wrong on whether the initiation sequence was core-led or perimeter-led:
Impressive achievement, huh? And that assuming it were right.
What consequences? One line of the conclusions that doesn't change one bit of the recommendations?
ETA: BTW, I have acknowledged that it's a possible mistake, so you go that wrong... too.
There's more information in this pgimeno graphic than in all the Fauve-Expressionist MT ones.
How do you manage to be wrong on every single post?
- To be faking the science I should have been doing science. [Edit:] Or are you blaming me for what others have said? [End edit]
- Significant tilt was not faked by NIST. At most it was a mistake whose source was identified by Kent1 in post 1039 of this thread, and that I elaborated on in post #1132:
I can agree with that for this discussion's purposes, but I'll quarantine my final word on it until I find expert corroboration. In my opinion, NIST got the 8 degrees from the point where the view was obscured by dust, as evidenced by Figure 6-11 (from NCSTAR 1-6, I forgot to specify in the last post, sorry). At some point, "before smoke and dust obscured the view" somehow was converted to "before the top start to fall" and they copied it that way everywhere. That hasn't prevented Bazant from making a more rational interpretation of NIST's words based on observations. Nothing more than a mistake, at worst, and not a big one anyway if so.
Last edited:
Hardfire program: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDvDND9zNUk
R Mackey at 11:35 and 14:50, "We are talking 8 degrees of tilt. That is what the NIST reports. They report 7 or 8 degrees rotation about 1 axis and 2 to 3 degrees about another."
R Mackey: "At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video".
Pgimeno, is R Mackey and Greg Urich incorrect, while you and kent1 managed to solve the mystery?
Here we go round the merry-go-round, the merry-go-round, the merry-go-round.....
How does your SPAM graphic support your claim of CD, of Satan doing it? Who is Satan in your delusion of CD?
Last edited:
Have you noticed it is not my graphic?
It is your understanding of the WTC1 collapse initation process.
It represents a fantasy building.
The real building seems to have failed through the core. You never noticed all the clues because you were too transfixed on the fantasy building.
You don't seem to be a very good engineer, Beachnut. You are certainly not good at observing things. (And you seem kind of gullible for believing in the fantasy building for so long.)
It is your understanding of the WTC1 collapse initation process.
It represents a fantasy building.
The real building seems to have failed through the core. You never noticed all the clues because you were too transfixed on the fantasy building.
You don't seem to be a very good engineer, Beachnut. You are certainly not good at observing things. (And you seem kind of gullible for believing in the fantasy building for so long.)
Last edited:
I did not solve any mystery:
Tough news, MT, you don't qualify for providing an expert corroboration to me.
It is your post, I doubt you did the graphic, you do failed work which you can't publish. You don't understand models, you attack NIST and Mackey with no evidence, failing to support your CD claim.
Is this your conclusion? Why have you failed?
You must be a great engineer, you see CD where there is none.
You are the one with the CD delusions, that is not gullible that is failure.
How does your work support your claim, and who is Satan in your conspiracy theory supported by your illusion of CD?
Last edited:
It is not tough news to me. I don't care what you do, that is your choice.
I am here to inform you that your present conception of WTC1 collapse progression and initiation is based on your own dreams. I did that.
What you do with that information is your problem.
Still looking for one honest regular JREF poster. Someone whe can admit the obvious without huddling in the middle of some herd.
I am still looking for someone capable of seeing the problems in the description of collapse initiation and progression given by R Mackey.
I am here to inform you that your present conception of WTC1 collapse progression and initiation is based on your own dreams. I did that.
What you do with that information is your problem.
Still looking for one honest regular JREF poster. Someone whe can admit the obvious without huddling in the middle of some herd.
I am still looking for someone capable of seeing the problems in the description of collapse initiation and progression given by R Mackey.
Last edited:
R Mackey at 11:35 and 14:50, "We are talking 8 degrees of tilt. That is what the NIST reports. They report 7 or 8 degrees rotation about 1 axis and 2 to 3 degrees about another."
R Mackey: "At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video".
Surreal.
Last edited:
It is your crappy description. It has nothing to do with me. I use the less than 1 degree value.
I am not looking for explanations. I am demonstrating your own hypocrisy to you. And from the responses it still doesn't seem to penetrate.
We don't even arrive to science without accurate measurements and descriptions.
You guys are living in a looking glass world. You aren't even close to science with WTC1. You to get the gross observables correct first.
Still looking for the first honest regular JREF poster. Can you see the problems in your own descriptions of WTC1 collapse initiation?
I am not looking for explanations. I am demonstrating your own hypocrisy to you. And from the responses it still doesn't seem to penetrate.
We don't even arrive to science without accurate measurements and descriptions.
You guys are living in a looking glass world. You aren't even close to science with WTC1. You to get the gross observables correct first.
Still looking for the first honest regular JREF poster. Can you see the problems in your own descriptions of WTC1 collapse initiation?
Last edited:
Value of what? I have never seen you post any math whatsoever.
As for my "crappy descripion," I have never described the collapse of WTC1 in detail. Why can't you just answer the question?
Where do you note and account for a difference between "rotation" and "tilt?" What is your point?
Yes, it is surreal you have a conclusion of CD based on nothing. You can't tie your work to much more than repeating it. Where is your evidence for CD and who is the Satan who did it? How does your work support your big picture conclusion? Why can't you answer this simple question, don't you understand your work?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Major_Tom the topic here is 'OOS Collapse Propagation Model' and NOT 'A vendetta against R Mackey, beachnut et al'
Now as I see it the first problem with the discussion is that it is dominated by unnecessary personal attacks.
The second problem is that no one, and especially you as the OP, is prepared to discuss the topic. Part of the reason could be that members have difficulty getting round the acronyms. 'ROOSD' and 'OOS' are seen as Major_Tom's acronyms for his version of the 'global collapse' or 'collapse progression' process. And pre-set biases come into play.
I have a suggestion - that we back off from the name calling to focus on the topic.
Since Major_Tom seems reluctant to put forward his explanation let me be the bunny and put forward my explanation of the global collapse. It seems to agree with M_T's 'ROOSD' but I never gave it a label. Those familiar with my ways of explaining will be aware that I tend to come from the direction of 'work out what did happen or must have happened - then add maths only when and if you need to.'
So let's set the context. I will keep it generic to both WTC1 and WTC2.
(Two disclaimers:
1) I have edited the following explanation from one posted several times since 2008 on other forums; AND
2) In the interest of clarity I will also take several simplifying shortcuts in the explanation. To stave off much of the 'let's prove him wrong' counter attacks I will label each such short cut thus 'SSC#1'
)The Context
At the start of the global collapse there was interaction between the bottom side of the Top Block AND the top side of the lower tower. And those two objects had this structure
...note the tube of outer wall columns, the core with multiple columns and cross braces and the open floor space resulting from the intentional adoption of the so called 'tube in tube' design. So the global collapse has to account for the interaction between the top block and the lower tower which are mirror reflections of each other and up till shortly before the initial collapse had been connected together.
There are three main questions:
1. What did the falling outer tube columns of the Top Block interact with and with what result?
2. How did the falling floor area interact with the floor area of the lower tower; AND
3. Ditto for the cores - how did the falling bit interact with the lower bit.
Set to one side for now the issue that the two blocks could not be perfectly aligned. It makes no significant difference. 'SSC#1'
What Happened with the Outer Tube?
It is clear that at some stage the Top Block broke up into its component parts. Where and precisely how that happened makes no difference for reasons which should become apparent.
The key factor is that as it fell the Top Block fell inside the outer tube of the lower Tower. And it appears that the outer columns of the top block were still attached at that stage which leads to the conclusion that those top block outer columns fell down inside the lower towers outer walls together with the floors and remainder of the top block. Either that or those top block outer columns fell outside the lower tower and were peeled off. As the global collapse progressed the outer tube columns of the lower tower were simply peeled off as the falling mass separated the floor joists from the columns. That part at least should be free of contention.
What happened to the Open Office Floor Areas?
Easy one. They fell onto the open floor areas of the lower tower. Whether still part of an integral Top Block or as components which had been disconnected. And it matters not which. 'SSC#2' If they fell as an integral block they would apply a load which was a significant portion of the Top Block weight. At later stages it is more likely that the falling load in the open floor area was the by now disconnected top block floors plus the accumulation of other floors as those floors were sheared of the columns. bottom line is that the falling mass sheared off the floors in sequence leaving the outer columns to fall over and the core columns with reduced horizontal restraint.
What happened to the core?
The key issue here is that by the time we entered this 'global collapse' stage all the core columns have failed and are not aligned 'top bit' sitting on 'bottom bit'. And even if some are still in that apposition the column has lost its load bearing capacity. So the wire basket of the top block core falls on the wire basket of the lower tower core.
And the key point is 'What part of the top block core strikes what part of the lower tower core?' It is not column on columns and must be the horizontal cross beams that land beam on beam and not in synchrony. 'SSC#3' The column 'end for end' contact had been displaced by the mechanism of the initial collapse. These beam on beam contacts are staggered in time. The dynamic, elastic and plastic factors make exact descriptions difficult to say the least BUT the first impact is one cross beam hitting another OR at the most a few such impacts at near enough to the same time. AND almost the total weight of the Top Block Core lands on one two or three beams.
The key descriptor is 'overwhelming'. The dynamic impact of 10 or 20 stories of core landing on a few cross beams 'SSC#4' will probably shear those beams at their shear critical point - probably the beam to column connection. And, if the beams yield in bending before failing they will drag columns out of alignment. As the collapse progresses falling material will impact columns as well as beams, columns already out of alignment. The interactions become far more complex BUT with one characteristic. It is not possible 'SSC#5' for true 'end for end' contact to be established which can develop the full load capacity of any one column. And even if it was for one column the falling weight is sufficient to instantly crush/buckle that one column into failure. The key concept at the start of global collapse is that the impact is of most of the weight of a 10 or 20 storey block dynamically applied to a few cross beams. Yes then a few more but never all at once in synchronism. And from that initial point contact with columns will be glancing contact against out of vertical struts leading to easy failure.
Now so far I have treated the collapse as outer tube on but actually missing outer tube; floor area on floor area and core on core. And all of those impacts involve overwhelming forces. If pure floor on floor it puts the total structure of 10 or 20 floors onto a floor designed to hold one floor. And the load is applied with dynamic impact. Failure is a foregone conclusion.
In reality the three components are joined - by the hat truss at roof level and by floor joist to column connectors at each floor of the top block. Those in interconnections would adjust the balance of where each bit of load was actually born but the falling mass landing on weak structural elements remains "overwhelming'.
And the key point to notice is that from the start of the global collapse stage the Top Block falls inside the outer tube of columns. Set aside for the moment the question of how it got wedged inside the lower tube. 'SSC#6' It is clear from just about every video of the collapse that the falling mass fell inside the outer tube of columns. And it is clear from the many photos of the outer tube columns lying scattered outwards from the tower that those columns had not been crushed end for end. They had simply been peeled off.
Summarising
Once the Top Block started to fall "global collapse was inevitable" to echo the words of NIST.
Inevitable because the strength of the outer tube of columns was bypassed. Because, once started with the separated columns not in alignment the strength of the core was mostly bypassed. The weights landing on the floor areas - many floors on one floor impacts and the weights landing on the core - many floors total weight landing mostly on the cross beams of one floor level of the core. Both areas saw structural elements overwhelmed by loads which as simple statically applied loads would have been at least a decimal order of magnitude higher than those elements were intended to support AND those loads applied dynamically further multiplying the gross overload.
As NIST said "global collapse was inevitable".
Major_Tom - does your ROOSD explanation differ in any significant way from my preceding explanation?
Cheers
Eric C
Last edited:
- Status