Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[ozeco41]

It is a direct quote from the the preface of each NIST report. Don't you realize that?


Please specify what you mean by "claim" whenever you use that word. I have no idea which "claim" you mean. I am showing you portions of the NIST reports and you don't seem to recognize them.


Please quote a "claim" to verify that I made it.

Ozeco, it seems from your posts that you do not understand the NIST initiation mechanism. If you do not know what it is, how can you offer comments on my criticism of it?

You also don't seem to understand that tilt angles of less than 1 degree cast serious doubt , presumeably to describe an alternate initition mechanism to that put forward by NIST.on whether the NIST correctly identified the "how and why" of WTC1 initiation.

Major_Tom.

This gets sillier..

I have many times commented on your confusion about objectives.

This thread is your OP, presumably to describe an alternate initiation mechanism to that put forward by NIST.

I am simply trying to find out how you use the factor of tilt in your explanation of the initiation. I cannot accept that you do not understand the term "claim" in the context of an Internet discussion where you are claiming that NIST is wrong but, more relevant, where you are claiming or working towards claiming an alternate explanation of initiation.

Your persistent evasion of my specific questions also places your credibility in doubt.

If it is not your purpose to explain initiation then come clean and say so. If your purpose is merely to prove NIST wrong then say that explicitly and I will stop wasting time trying to work out what you are trying to say.

I recall some of our earliest interactions where I commented on your confusion of objectives. What is your objective for this thread? You seem to want to develop an alternate to NIST's initiation explanation which you can claim occurred? Yet you persist in criticising me for allegedly not understanding the NIST reports. I don''t give a proverbial crap about the NIST reports I am trying to understand why you are obsessed with tilt angle.

Do you think tilt caused the column failures?

OR

Are you using the 1 degree tilt as a stage or timing mark in the process??

 

[ozeco41]

...In no case is it ever possible to rationally conclude that a given column could not have or should not have failed because the tilt was insufficient to cause a failure.

So, with that in mind, what significance is being claimed here regarding the amount of tilt over which all columns failed? What if anything is indicated if the angle is small, or large?...

Thank you Myriad.

I was beginning to think I was the only one trying to deal with that point. Those two points to be pedantic.

...which M_T continues to ignore for some reason. Surely I have put the questions explicitly enough and several times???

 

[Major_Tom]

Major_Tom.


This thread is your OP, presumably to describe an alternate initiation mechanism to that put forward by NIST.

You presume wrong. I list features, and then extract a descriptive model based on those features.

This was done with the OOS propagation model also.

1) List real features
2) Describe processes that are consistent with those features.

It just so happens that when the features are listed correctly, the OOS propagation idea became pretty obvious. It is a logical conclusion from the features.



Likewise, if features surrounding initiation are listed correctly a few things become apparent.

First, that the existing official model doesn't make much sense. This is not a claim, but an inevitable consequence of listing the features completely and correctly.

The same thing happened with the Bazant papers BV, BL abd BLGB. When they are examined and compared with a list of observed features, the papers fall to pieces.

They look good as long as you don't look too carefully, but upon examination they fall to pieces.



Without a correct list of features, or observables, we have nothing to study. Without a verifiable list of observables, we will just rant and opine like Beachnut. Or say any false statement that enters our minds like Basquearche.

WIth a correct list of observables it is natural to ask if they are consistent with the current official explanation.

In the case of BV, BL and BLGB and collapse propagation, they are totally inconsistent with observables.

Likewise, the explanation of the initiation of WTC1 by the NIST is not consistent with observables.

The next question after that is to ask if the observables are consistent with a process assisted collapse. My claim concerning this will always be the same and can be read in the FAQ section of my website:


Q: Does the Author believe that the WTC towers were intentionally demolished? Why?

Yes. An absurdly large number of improbable coincidences occurred during the initial airplane impacts, the events leading up to each collapse and the collapses themselves. This website documents these events.


I work by using a detailed list of observables and noting the number of independent events which make no sense at all.

You keep waiting for some demo theory to emerge, but I can only document the events and features I can see and verify.

 

[Major_Tom]

Major_Tom.

This gets sillier..

I have many times commented on your confusion about objectives.

This thread is your OP, presumably to describe an alternate initiation mechanism to that put forward by NIST.

I am simply trying to find out how you use the factor of tilt in your explanation of the initiation. I cannot accept that you do not understand the term "claim" in the context of an Internet discussion where you are claiming that NIST is wrong but, more relevant, where you are claiming or working towards claiming an alternate explanation of initiation.

This is what you imagine I am claiming.

How can I respond? These are your ideas, not mine. I'm not doing that.

 

[ozeco41]

...This thread is your OP, presumably to describe an alternate initiation mechanism to that put forward by NIST....

You presume wrong. I list features, and then extract a descriptive model based on those features....

This must be the limit in word pedantry idiocy. You disagree with NIST. You are undertaking a process which leads to an explanation. You choose to call it a model. But when I call it a mechanism you tell me I presume wrong.

Unless you care to publish a glossary of how you misuse the English language this discussion can go nowhere.

I see that once again you decline to acknowledge or answer the simple question I have put to you repeatedly. viz:

• 
  Do you think tilt caused the column failures?
  
  OR
  
  Are you using the 1 degree tilt as a stage or timing mark in the process??

I note the multiple examples of your personal arrogance in making bold assertions as if matters of your own perception or limited expertise are matters of fact. Examples are:

• "the existing official model doesn't make much sense" - you mean does not make much sense to you.
• "with the Bazant papers BV, BL and BLGB.....the papers fall to pieces." No they don't and once again you make claims which go beyond the support of your evidence and/or logic. I have commented on this bad habit of yours several times.
• "BV, BL and BLGB and collapse propagation...are totally inconsistent with observables." Two errors. You omit "in my opinion" and again your bad habit of making unsupported global claims "totally" That "totally" is utter tripe.
• ...I won't waste my time with more.

I won't comment on your personal attacks. It is a game I do not support. Whether against you or by you.

But this little gem should get me a mix of plaudits and "told you so's" from the other members:

...Q: Does the Author believe that the WTC towers were intentionally demolished? Why?
Yes. An absurdly large number of improbable coincidences occurred during the initial airplane impacts, the events leading up to each collapse and the collapses themselves. This website documents these events.

Well that is something to put openly on the table. It is a ridiculous position to hold as I am sure many members will delight to tell you and with strong reasons.

 

[Major_Tom]

All columns failed within 1 degree of tilt. That is how I have always used comments of 1 degree.

I have stated that many, many times.


Do I think tilt caused the column failures? I cannot see inside the core. I can measure that all columns failed within a tilt of 1 degree of either the antenna or the north face.


That is a measurement. It is independent of what I think. What does my personal opinion have to do with the observabes?


All columns failed by this moment:

That is a fact. If you think south wall failure can do that, great.

 

[Major_Tom]

NIST measurements of inward bowing at about 10:22:

Time-line of the formation of WTC1 inward bowing along the south wall:

9:58 No fires are visible on the east side of the south perimeter. Only some smoke coming out of a few windows.

9:59 3 large fireballs emerge from the middle and east side of the south perimeter as WTC2 starts to collapse. These locations mark the center of where IB will be visible after a few more minutes. Two clips which highlight the ejections:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htVnlp_qg9g&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWqdMXV6qY

10:06 Southward leaning and IB are first reported

IB increases to a maximum measured 55 inches over 22 minutes (this would require about 9 feet of floor sagging to attain)

The NIST's own fire simulations do not provide excessive heat for the slabs to create such bowing as seen in this gif:

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/862176508.gif

10:28 Building collapses. The NIST claims that floor sagging pulled in the south perimeter to the point of failure. The south wall failure overloads the core, causing progressive column failures from south to north over a tilt of 8 degrees.

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

In reality, all core and perimeter columns have failed with minimal tilt. both the antenna and north wall had tilted less than 1 degree during the entire column failure sequence. All columns have failed by this moment:

Ozeco, if you think the east side of the south wall can erupt in flames at 10:00 and cause the south flooring to sag about 9 ft over the next 22 minutes, good for you.

That is your opinion. You obviously know quite a lot about the NIST initiation model.

And then, that wall rips the rest of the building down with minimal tilt. That is a great model.


And anyone who doesn't suck up to it deserves a stream of insults.

I am sorry but I cannot suck up as easily as you with so many contradictions wherever I look.

 

[Major_Tom]

55 inches of inward bowing at 10:22 to a place that wasn't even on fire at 9:59 (until the big fireballs)?


And you believe that is caused by long truss sagging of up to 9 ft in a place where there was no damage to the fireproofing?

And that pulled in the south wall, which ripped the rest of the building down within 1 degree of tilt?

And you believe that because the NIST told you so?

It is like you will believe....anything "official".

 

[Major_Tom]

The ill-fated perimeter section in red is where the maximum measured inward bowing is observed only 24 minutes later.

It will be pulled in more than 4 ft in 24 minutes by the famous sagging floor trusses.


Then, that wall will rip the east and west perimeter and the core down while not causing any vertical feature to tilt more than 1 degree from plumb.


And for some reason, this seems to make sense to you.

I guess the less you look at it, the more it may seem to make sense. If you can ignore the gaping contradictions completely, it may seem to make perfect sense.

 

[Reactor drone]

Then, that wall will rip the east and west perimeter and the core down while not causing any vertical feature to tilt more than 1 degree from plumb.


And for some reason, this seems to make sense to you.

I guess the less you look at it, the more it may seem to make sense. If you can ignore the gaping contradictions completely, it may seem to make perfect sense.

The south wall columns failed at 0° tilt. What do you believe the association is between the tilt and the load condition of any particular column?

 

[DGM]

You presume wrong. I list features, and then extract a descriptive model based on those features.

This was done with the OOS propagation model also.

1) List real features

Good so far.

2) Describe processes that are consistent with those features.

What expertise do you draw on to make these "descriptions"? Do you have any criteria to discard ideas that "don't make sense"?

 

[carlitos]

Major_Tom - more honest than femr2!

Q: Does the Author believe that the WTC towers were intentionally demolished?
A: Yes.

Sorry ozeco41, but I didn't want your prediction to be wrong.

An absurdly large number of improbable coincidences occurred during the initial airplane impacts, the events leading up to each collapse and the collapses themselves. This website documents these events.

 

[Major_Tom]

This is a wonderful presentation by Shyam Sunder himself explaining the WTC1 collapse initiation mechanism and the fundamental goals of the NIST investigation.

The section called "collapse" is where he describes it, but the whole collection of videos is a gift from Heaven..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html

Shyam heart to heart, in his own words. It is like we are sitting in front of a warm fire with him as he explains the essence of NISTian thought with detailed images.

We can use the feature list to see how many untrue statements he makes during this short presentation.

 

[Major_Tom]

Shyam describes the columns pull in and then "snap" like this:

It's like a big rubber band.


I guess, at this time the famous tilt begins which rips all core and perimeter columns by this moment:

So, I guess, that puppy just keeps snapping right through the building, through core and all perimeter walls, in about 0.5 seconds.

It is as if the building was "decapitated" very quickly though a great snap.

 

[Major_Tom]

Anyway, I guess the area in red gets pulled back about 4 1/2 feet in the next 24 minutes due to the sagging floor trusses under extreme heat, and...Boing!!

The whole upper portion snaps off within 1 degree of tilting and falls.


That is a great theory.

Why would anyone have further questions about such a convincing initiation scenario?


This forum tends to ridicule those who remain unconvinced by such a professional analysis.

More than ridicule, basically it is a collective attempt to dehumanize those who can see gaping contradictions in the visual record of events.

 

[Myriad]

Shyam describes the columns pull in and then "snap" like this:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/snap.jpeg[/qimg]

Argument by artist's impression? Really?

Did Dr. Sunder create that image? Or have sufficient editorial control over the Nova episode to make him answerable for its visual content? If not, it's irrelevant.

It's like a big rubber band.

Sure. Except rubber bands are enormously less brittle, have much lower compressive strength, and have enormously higher elasticity than steel. But what would those properties have to do with how something might "snap" under overload? Nothing, right?

I guess, at this time the famous tilt begins which rips all core and perimeter columns by this moment:

The tilt rips the core and perimeter columns? Nonsense. Who ever claimed that?

So, I guess, that puppy just keeps snapping right through the building, through core and all perimeter walls, in about 0.5 seconds.

It is as if the building was "decapitated" very quickly though a great snap.

NIST's collapse initiation scenario is wrong because you can add nonsensical sound effects to it? You say "rip" and "snap" but you forgot "crackle" (the fire) and "pop" (the airplane impact).

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ozeco41]

All columns failed within 1.degree of tilt. That is how I have always used comments of 1 degree.

I have stated that many, many times...

Yes - and always with the same ambiguity between "caused the failure" AND "acts as a marker in time or process". On this occasion it seems to be a time/stage marker.

...Do I think tilt caused the column failures? I cannot see inside the core. I can measure that all columns failed within a tilt of 1 degree of either the antenna or the north face.

That is a measurement. It is independent of what I think. What does my personal opinion have to do with the observables?...

I have multiple times queried you use of the word "tilt". Whether or not you actually think tilt causes the failures I am questioning how you use the word. Somehow I suspect that you do not appreciate the distinction.

...All columns failed by this moment:
[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/sauret_ballou.jpeg[/qimg]...I won't interpret the picture but clearly you refer to a stage of process.

....That is a fact. If you think south wall failure can do that, great.

False attribution OR strawman. What I think is not under discussion.

10:06 Southward leaning and IB are first reported

IB increases to a maximum measured 55 inches over 22 minutes (this would require about 9 feet of floor sagging to attain)...

Unsupported/False claim. It presumes that sagging is the only cause of inwards bowing.

...The NIST's own fire simulations do not provide excessive heat for the slabs to create such bowing as seen in this gif:...

Chasing your own strawman.

10:28 Building collapses. The NIST claims that floor sagging pulled in the south perimeter to the point of failure. The south wall failure overloads the core, causing progressive column failures from south to north over a tilt of 8 degrees....

You are off on the tangent of "prove NIST wrong" rather than build your model by identifying features.

...In reality, all core and perimeter columns have failed with minimal tilt....

Now the clear implication is "tilt caused it"...

... both the antenna and north wall had tilted less than 1 degree during the entire column failure sequence. All columns have failed by this moment:...

We are back to a "moment in time usage".

....Ozeco, if you think the east side of the south wall can erupt in flames at 10:00 and cause the south flooring to sag about 9 ft over the next 22 minutes, good for you.

That is your opinion....

False attribution and strawman. What I think about an ice cream factory in Hong Kong is irrelevant.

You obviously know quite a lot about the NIST initiation model.

The sarcasm is unnecessary AND what I know about the NIST model is irrelevant AND the NIST model is not the only explanation. Once again your confusion of objectives leads you astray.

...And then, that wall rips the rest of the building down with minimal tilt. That is a great model.

Sarcasm aside you are again implying tilt as the causal factor.

...And anyone who doesn't suck up to it deserves a stream of insults

I am sorry but I cannot suck up as easily as you with so many contradictions wherever I look.

The personal insult is unfounded. You are well aware that I do not have NIST on a pedestal. AND the world is not two groups of people - those who agree with Major_Tom OR all the others who "suck up to NIST".

55 inches of inward bowing at 10:22 to a place that wasn't even on fire at 9:59 (until the big fireballs)?

...And you believe that is caused by long truss sagging of up to 9 ft in a place where there was no damage to the fireproofing?...

What I believe is not under discussion. For the record I don't. And yet again your bad habit of claiming more than your evidence and/or logic can support.

...And that pulled in the south wall, which ripped the rest of the building down within 1 degree of tilt?...

Again your implicit belief that "tilt" somehow caused the "ripped" (or at least helped the south wall.)

...And you believe that because the NIST told you so?

It is like you will believe....anything "official".

You know full well that those two claims are false when applied to me.

And, quite amusing if you have my twisted sense of humour, it is two more examples of your bad habit of claiming more than your logic/evidence can support.

[A Lot Edited]

And for some reason, this seems to make sense to you.

I guess the less you look at it, the more it may seem to make sense. If you can ignore the gaping contradictions completely, it may seem to make perfect sense.

Still off track. The issue is not what you allege makes sense to me. We are looking for your explanations of "features" for an "initiation model". What "makes sense to me" is no way a feature of the initiation of WTC collapse on 9/11. I was in Wales at the time and any powers of telepathy I may possess to not operate across the Atlantic PLUS the towers were down before I had opportunity to exercise my mental prowess.

 

[Major_Tom]

It is not a NOVA episode. It is a 6 part presentation given by Shyam Sunder. He is the only person speaking through all 6 parts.

There is no doubt he is aware of all the contents.

DId you watch any of it?


Ozeco post 997: "I was in Wales at the time and any powers of telepathy I may possess to not operate across the Atlantic PLUS the towers were down before I had opportunity to exercise my mental prowess. "

What about your mental prowess right now? This initiation scenario makes sense to you? Please be honest, just as you were in the "applicability" thread.

It is right in front of your face. You cannot see some contradictions?


WHy not admit to contradictions when they are there? Most of these threads are people tap dancing around contradictions. It is so hard for many of you to admit to a contradiction between NIST/Bazant statements and observables.


Months of apology for Bazant's papers (not you, Ozeco). Months of arguing against tilt measurements. Years of apologizing for the NIST. Like an induced state of belief where critical thought is suspended in order to cling to any official claim, no matter how absurd.

 

[Myriad]

DId you watch any of it?

Irrelevant to the question of whether Dr. Sunder is answerable for the accuracy of the visual content.

Argument by artist's impression? Really?

Did Dr. Sunder create that image? Or have sufficient editorial control over the Nova episode to make him answerable for its visual content? If not, it's irrelevant.

There is no doubt he is aware of all the contents.

That's a "no" then.

It is not a NOVA episode. It is a 6 part presentation given by Shyam Sunder. He is the only person speaking through all 6 parts.

It is hosted on the NOVA web site with NOVA's logo on it.

But why are you quibbling over this trivia (by whose exact definition does it or does it not qualify as an "episode"?) when the important topic-relevant question remains unanswered:

The tilt rips the core and perimeter columns? Nonsense. Who ever claimed that?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Reactor drone]

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/IBlocation.jpeg[/qimg]

Anyway, I guess the area in red gets pulled back about 4 1/2 feet in the next 24 minutes due to the sagging floor trusses under extreme heat, and...Boing!!

The whole upper portion snaps off within 1 degree of tilting and falls.

That is a great theory.

Why would anyone have further questions about such a convincing initiation scenario?

This forum tends to ridicule those who remain unconvinced by such a professional analysis.

More than ridicule, basically it is a collective attempt to dehumanize those who can see gaping contradictions in the visual record of events.

Do you harvest your own straw for these arguments or buy it in?

I strongly suggest you re-read the NIST reports since your understanding of the collapse seems to bear no resemblance to that presented in the reports. You only ever seem to argue against 2-3 sentence summaries and media presentations which you can distort more easily than the main body of work.

You freely admit that you have no competing theory and can't tell what's happening to the core yet you continue to raise your arguments from incredulity against the NIST report based on little more than your belief that the point in the collapse that you've identified as 1° is the same point where NIST mentions 8° ( a timepoint separated by about a second).