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

[Major_Tom]

The first image in a slide presentation in which only Shyam Sunder is speaking the whole time.

And he is somehow unaware of the slides?

It is his presentation and you don't think he is aware of how it is presented? You don't think he has seen it before? Or his editorial judgement would be over-ridden by the NOVA staff?

He describes the snapping back in his own words as the slides are shown. He describes what is being shown.


Once again, blind to any contradiction. Any excuse to not see a contradiction.

 

[DGM]

The first image in a slide presentation in which only Shyam Sunder is speaking the whole time.

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


And he is somehow unaware of the slides?

It is his presentation and you don't think he is aware of how it is presented?

He describes the snapping back in his own words as the slides are shown. He describes what is being shown.


Once again, blind to any contradiction. Any excuse to not see a contradiction.

Have you talked to him about this?

 

[ozeco41]

...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?....

This issue goes right to an area where you and I have preciously faced communication difficulties over conceptual thinking. I have no difficulty separating complex issues into levels of "bigger picture" and "lower level details". You have not been comfortable with the concept.No-one has made such an argument.

I made a statement to this same effect back at the start of our interactions. Put simply I sincerely doubt that no matter what technical details you and your colleagues find/assert it will have no effect on the "No CD, MIHOP or other human assistance" position. The strongest arguments against CD etc lie in the domains of logistics, security and strategic intent. Until the barriers to CD etc in those domains are overcome no technical finding will change the conclusion of "no CD". If technical arguments are raised which appear to support CD etc those arguments will remain at the status of "FALSE" until all the logistic and security barriers are overcome. After nine years no-one has even dented those barriers so your technical investigations remain pie in the sky wishful thinking. I suggest that they will remain at that status.

Now if I leave the "big picture" and come to a middle level where you have an interest in proving NIST wrong. I have little interest in whether or not NIST is correct in details. As I have said on previous occasions I am satisfied that NIST has presented plausible explanations for key items such as Twin Towers collapse initiation and WTC7 collapse. If there are other plausible explanations is of little consequence. I am aware that you have multiple times claimed that NIST has not fulfilled it's objectives if the details are flawed. You base that interpretation on false logic about the relationship of global goals to details. We have discussed that aspect previously to no avail.

Finally at the level of details which is where you are currently operating. No further comment is logically necessary. Until your technical details can overcome the barriers in the "bigger picture" they are to no avail.

Hence my attempts to persuade you to address the issues rigorously especially in those areas where you persist in making bold claims which are not supported by your evidence and/or logic.

...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....

Again you drift of the focus of discussion. And drift into broadside attack on both persons and topic.

...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.

...and these globalised claims add nothing to our present discussion.

 

[Dog Town]

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

Funny how Femr2 has the exact same issue.

 

[Myriad]

The first image in a slide presentation in which only Shyam Sunder is speaking the whole time.

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

And he is somehow unaware of the slides?

It is his presentation and you don't think he is aware of how it is presented? You don't think he has seen it before? Or his editorial judgement would be over-ridden by the NOVA staff?

He describes the snapping back in his own words as the slides are shown. He describes what is being shown.

Irrelevant.

Who said the tilt ripped the core and perimeter columns? Does that really describe your perception of how collapse initiated in the NIST scenario?

Are you claiming tilt is required to make a column break or buckle? If so, how much tilt is necessary?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Major_Tom]

Ozeco post 1003: "Now if I leave the "big picture" and come to a middle level where you have an interest in proving NIST wrong. I have little interest in whether or not NIST is correct in details. As I have said on previous occasions I am satisfied that NIST has presented plausible explanations for key items such as Twin Towers collapse initiation and WTC7 collapse."

Your concept of "big picture" and "middle level" are constructs of your own mind. That is your approach, not mine.

You keep insisting that your approach should my approach. It is not.

You say " I have little interest in whether or not NIST is correct in details."

You believe that the contradictions are only details. This is incorrect.



Within the preface of each NIST report the following statement is repeated:

Quote:
The specific objectives were:

1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the
aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;

2. Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location,
including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and
emergency response;

3. Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation,
and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and

4. Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and
practices that warrant revision.


If they fail in objective #1, that is not a little detail.



Recall when discussing the Bazant papers how much time was needed simply to explain to many posters that the BZ collision and the BV propagation model are two different things? From May 2010 to January 2011. That is how long it took to break through a fixed illusion.

The case is the same for the NIST WTC1 collapse initiation model but you do not realize it yet. I can tell by your posts that you do not really understand what the NIST model is.

On the one hand, you want to insist that the contradictions are just details, but on the other hand you do not seem to be interested to learn about the NIST model enough to tell whether your belief is true.

Just as with the many posters that were making basic mistakes in reading the BV, BL and BLGB papers without realizing it, so you are calling contradictions "details" without understanding the NIST model.

You call them details, but to what degree to you understand the NIST model to make that judgement?

It is a convenient lie to tell oneself.

 

[ozeco41]

...Your concept of "big picture" and "middle level" are constructs of your own mind....

FALSE. There are structural relationships between the issues which form the complex of issues which is WTC Twin Towers collapse OR any other complex topic. Those structural relationships are inherent in the issue...not any ones interpretation of the issue. It is possible that I could misidentify the actual relationships however it is undeniable that some aspects are at a higher level than others.
those 'others' are details relative to the higher level or 'big picture' issues. I would question anyone's ability to disprove that "aircraft crash damage plus damage from unfought fires" are aspects at the top level for Twin Towers collapses. I would also state that "CD" or any other form of human assistance would also be at the top level alongside the previous named two. And that is correct whether or not there was any actual "human assistance". Relative to those big picture items details such as which columns failed first OR whether NIST's explanation is correct are lower level and subordinate details.

...That is your approach, not mine....

That much is true. I am convinced after following your arguments and my attempts to explain that you simply lack the conceptual understanding to deal with the logical structure of issues. The problem has been cynically described as a "flat earth approach to logic". It seems to impose a severe limitation on your analytical processes. But I have previously failed to explain to you and don't think I would succeed now. Since you deny the relationship of foundation issues in the Twin Towers collapse debate there is little hope for out discussion to progress. I will have to leave the distinction between "big picture" aspects and various levels of detail for my interaction with other members.

...You keep insisting that your approach should my approach. It is not....

Not so. What I do insist is that you deal with the logical relationship of the various issues which make up the complex set of issues involved in WTC Twin Towers collapses.

Your attempt to deny logic by attributing it to a skills limitation on my part is an evasion - either deliberate OR, as I suspect, coming from a limited approach to the logic of the relationships inherent in complex subjects.

...You say " I have little interest in whether or not NIST is correct in details."...

Correct.

...You believe that the contradictions are only details. This is incorrect....

Not so. I have avoided commenting on your alleged contradictions for several reasons. The first is that you have ignored my multiple requests to clarify your use of the concept of tilt. Second all of your "contradictions" seem to be framed as loaded questions designed to constrain the discussion onto the foundation of your logic which is seriously flawed. Third....no those two will suffice.

...Within the preface of each NIST report the following statement is repeated:
....practices that warrant revision....

I am aware of your interpretation of the NIST objectives. I have previously explained why I regard your logic as flawed. In part you rely on "global" or "exclusive" conclusions. I have commented many times on your habit of making claims which your evidence and logic does not support.

...If they fail in objective #1, that is not a little detail....

Correct BUT your implication that they have failed based on your flawed logic AND without any supporting argument is FALSE

...Recall when discussing the Bazant papers how much time was needed simply to explain to many posters that the BZ collision and the BV propagation model are two different things? From May 2010 to January 2011. That is how long it took to break through a fixed illusion....

Maybe to the "break through". This time the logical barrier is on the "other side".

...The case is the same for the NIST WTC1 collapse initiation model but you do not realize it yet. I can tell by your posts that you do not really understand what the NIST model is.

On the one hand, you want to insist that the contradictions are just details, but on the other hand you do not seem to be interested to learn about the NIST model enough to tell whether your belief is true.

Just as with the many posters that were making basic mistakes in reading the BV, BL and BLGB papers without realizing it, so you are calling contradictions "details" without understanding the NIST model.

You call them details, but to what degree to you understand the NIST model to make that judgement?

It is a convenient lie to tell oneself.

Patronising and insulting tripe.

For the last time, I hope.
Focus on the OP and identifying the features of an initiation model. Stop diverging to prove NIST wrong. Stop telling me what I do not understand when it has nothing to do with pursuit of the topic. Get your head around the concept of "big picture" OR "higher level" issues contrasted with details which may or may not matter.

 

[Major_Tom]

From another thread:

Understood.

I am currently involved in a series of exchanges where my "opponent" keeps making those false global claims "...so your results are totally invalid...."

The false logic comes in many flavours "Detail 'X' is wrong so 'everything NIST says is totally wrong'"
....when at best/worst it could be partially wrong BUT often, as per your example, the "error" has no effect whatsoever.

You seem not to know the NIST model, so how can you distinguish fundamental problems from details?

Please tell me what a fundamental problem would be with the NIST report? Do you even know?

What are the central objectives? The "how and why" of collapse, no?

If their initiation mechanism is wrong, they failed in answering the "how and why".

Earlier I mentioned the possibility of a core led collapse and you mentioned that wouldn't affect the NIST conclusions.

You do not understand what the NIST conclusions are because you do not understand the mechanism upon which it is based. You previous comments suggest you beleive that there is some general conclusion within the NIST report that aircraft impact and fire brought down the towers and whether the core or south perimeter leads is unimportant.

This is totally incorrect. The report is written around a specific mechanism. You think the collapse mechanism in the report can be replaced with a different mechanism and the report will still be just fine.

You really do seem to beleive that core or south perimeter-led collapse is interchangable in the NIST report and it would not affect the conclusions.


Remember how some people invented their own collapse mechanics and attributed it to Bazant? This strange merging of the papers BV and BZ into a collapse mechanics which exists in their own imaginations only?

That is what you are doing with the NIST reports. You are basically inventing your own interpretation in which core or perimeter failure can be freely interchanged.

That is not the NIST report. That is your own idea which you invented. WIthout long truss floor sagging and south perimeter failure, the NIST explanation of the "how and why" of the WTC1 collapse has no meaning at all.

There is no generic answer in the reports as you imagine. It is written around one specific collapse mode.

Please look at the video of Shyam telling you himself. In this environment of group-think it is very easy to invent your own theory without even realizing it.

If you think that the NIST report explains the "how and why" of the WTC1 collapse independent of a particular mechanism, then you have invented your own personal theory.

 

[Major_Tom]

No doubt you have invented your own NIST theory.

Shyam can say the objectives and collapse mode himself and you just ignore him.

 

[Reactor drone]

The first image in a slide presentation in which only Shyam Sunder is speaking the whole time.

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

And he is somehow unaware of the slides?

It is his presentation and you don't think he is aware of how it is presented? You don't think he has seen it before? Or his editorial judgement would be over-ridden by the NOVA staff?

He describes the snapping back in his own words as the slides are shown. He describes what is being shown.


Once again, blind to any contradiction. Any excuse to not see a contradiction.

Do you believe that this is a full technical presentation for engineers or would you consider this to be a simplified presentation for people who may not have any technical background in structures?

I consider that to be a very simplified presentation. If people need more detailed information the NIST reports are available.

As to what failed first, do you consider the buckled south wall columns to be failed? If they've lost their load bearing capability and transferred their loads to other parts of the structure would it not be fair to say that the south wall columns were the first to fail?

 

[Major_Tom]

Here are some observables of the WTC1 collapse. Is the "how and why" of the WTC1 collapse given by the NIST consistent with these observables?


Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse
Earliest Ejections are from fl 95, W Face, S Side
Tilt: Upper Portions tilt less than 1 Degree in 0.5s before Falling
West Face: All 60+ Columns W Fail Within 0.5s and 1 Degree
Adjacent Perimeter N and W Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval

Quite interesting that if it was a core led collapse, all but one feature listed makes perfect sense.

It would not be surprising for the north and west perimeters to fail very quickly over a 0.5 second interval with minimal tilt.

The tilt angle of less than 1 degree would make sense because the forces pulling down are from the center, not the south wall. Early movement of the antenna and the pulling in of the west wall would also make perfect sense.


But when you try to squeeze all these observables into a collapse led by the south wall, you need to embellish an explanation with a lot of BS.


Ozeco post 1007: "For the last time, I hope.
Focus on the OP and identifying the features of an initiation model. Stop diverging to prove NIST wrong. Stop telling me what I do not understand when it has nothing to do with pursuit of the topic."

Stop telling me what my priorities are and what you think the topic is. Problems with the NIST collapse initiation scenario is on topic, obviously to be compared to the observables.

It was part of my original intention.

Why do you imagine you know what the direction should be in a thread I created?

 

[Major_Tom]

Do you believe that this is a full technical presentation for engineers or would you consider this to be a simplified presentation for people who may not have any technical background in structures?

It is a usefull presentation because it is from Shyam himself and that means it is harder for people to lie about what he "intended".

It is hilarious to see him screw up on so many subjects in such a short time.

(Few would notice how badly he screwed up on the WTC2 aircraft impact angle.)

 

[Major_Tom]

Rapid perimeter failure with minimal tilt angles make perfect sense....in a core-led collapse.

All measured deformity also makes perfect sense....in a core-led collapse.

(Even inward bowing can be seen as being the result of multiple geometric possibilities. Partial core failure along the 1000 row columns may also create the IB observed. Maybe it wasn't massively sagging floors but partial core failure that created the IB?)


If it was the core that actually failed at 10:28, then it is not unreasonable to consider IB as the possible result of a partail core failure beginning around 10:00.

 

[ozeco41]

...You seem not to know the NIST model, so how can you distinguish fundamental problems from details?
.....[MORE OF THE SAME].....
If you think that the NIST report explains the "how and why" of the WTC1 collapse independent of a particular mechanism, then you have invented your own personal theory.

Your repetitions of the same nonsense are tedious and, more importantly, show no sign of moving forward. Since you once again ignore my comments our discussion need go no further.

There is a limit to my patience. You seem to have found it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

...You say " I have little interest in whether or not NIST is correct in details."...

Correct.

...You believe that the contradictions are only details. This is incorrect....

Wasn't Major_Tom the person who told us his omissions of square roots and minus signs were mere details that could not affect the "mathematical certainty" of his calculations and conclusions?

(If so, then a great many laughing dogs should be inserted here.)

 

[carlitos]

Major_Tom's crime:


[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/differences_projection.png[/qimg]


Yes, a quick glance tells us that the plus sign in the first expression should be minus. Crime.

Yes, the terms for magnitude for the vector difference should have a square root. A quick glance tells us that if vector Q=0, the magnitude of B is b^2. wrong. Crime.

These vector graphics came in a rewrite. I'll show step by step next weekend why fixing the symbols don't affect the conclusions or the graphs at all.

Did this happen?

 

[Major_Tom]

The NIST claims that the trusses behind the red circle heat up, sag and pull in that area over 4 ft in the next 24 minutes. There is no damage to the fireproofing in that area.


They never noticed that the following measurable deformations were occurring from 10 seconds before visible collapse:


Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse

They claim the first sign of collapse is from the 98th fl. This is not true. It is from the 95th fl:


Earliest Ejections are from fl 95, W Face, S Side


Nobody seemed to recognize that all columns had failed within 1 degree of tilting of any vertical feature:

Tilt: Upper Portions tilt less than 1 Degree in 0.5s before Falling

There isn't a single statement in an official literature that recognizes at how small an angle all columns failed.

All core and perimeter columns had failed by this moment:

Nobody seemed to notice that the north and west walls failed over the same 0.5 second interval:

West Face: All 60+ Columns W Fail Within 0.5s and 1 Degree
Adjacent Perimeter N and W Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval


I haven't seen any poster here that can acknowledge any contradiction between the NIST initiation mechanism and observables.

It is the same in each thread, a blanket ignorance of contradiction supported only by group-think. Nobody can give a solid argument about the observables, so if enough posters share the same ignorance, that ignorance is passed off as reality.

That works as long as you stay huddled in a group of like minds.

 

[Reactor drone]

I haven't seen any poster here that can acknowledge any contradiction between the NIST initiation mechanism and observables.

That's probably because you haven't shown any contradiction between the NIST initiation mechanism and observables.

 

[Norseman]

Is there any consideration of the possibility of a collective core failure within the NIST examination of the cause of initiation?

No. The NIST explanation relies only on the mechanism of sagging long span trusses in the south OOS region which pull in the south perimeter to the point of failure. No suggestion is ever given by the NIST of the possibility of collective core failure. It is never considered as an option.

This claim is wrong Major_Tom, as pointed out to you by BasqueArch:

False. NIST considered the failure of the core before the perimeter walls but dismissed it. You just don’t know where this is.

I cannot see that you have responded to this, nor acknowledged this fact Major_Tom, so I am going to point you to some of the relevant parts of the NIST report.

The fact is that NIST found that the core played a key role in the collapse. In NIST NCSTAR 1, the main report, on page 147 and 148 NIST states the following:

With intact, cool core columns, any inward bowing of the west exterior wall that might occur would be readily supported by the adjacent exterior walls and core columns.

......

Inward bowing was a necessary but not sufficient condition to initiate collapse. In both WTC 1 and WTC 2, significant weakening of the core due to aircraft impact damage and thermal effects was also necessary to initiate building collapse.

You will find the same conclusion at the bottom of page 325 in NIST NCSTAR 1-6, and on the following page.

Further from NIST NCSTAR 1-6 page 301:

Exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors (beginning at about 80 min), and additional loads redistributed from the core. The observed inward bowing of the south wall at 10:23 a.m. was 55 in. while the calculated inward bowing was 31 in., as shown in Figs. 9–11 and 9–12. Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at
9:55 a.m., the south wall was considered to begin bowing inward around 10:10 a.m. when the floors on the south side began to experience large sagging. The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to additional gravity loads caused by core weakening and increased temperatures on the south wall. As the floor applied inward pull to the south exterior wall at approximately 80 min, the south wall began to unload to adjacent walls and the core.

In NIST NCSTAR 1-6D on page 182 and 183 NIST states that:

Figures 4–68 to 4–71 show the calculated axial load demand-to-capacity ratio of each core column before and after the aircraft impact, at 80 min (at the end of Step 17), and 100 min. Compressive capacities of the core columns were calculated using Eq. E2-1 in the American Institute of Steel Construction’s Manual of Steel Construction Load and Resistance Factor Design (AISC LRFD) for inelastic buckling with an effective length factor, K, of unity and a resistance factor of unity. At 100 min, a large number of core columns (501, 601, 603, 606, 701, 703, 705, 707, 801, 804, 806, 807, 901, 903, 904, 905, 906, 908, and 1001) exhibited demand-to-capacity ratios larger than 0.7. Eight columns (501, 606, 705, 707, 804, 806, 807, and 908) exhibited ratios larger than 1.0. Although there is some significant uncertainty associated with calculation of both the load on these columns and the buckling capacity, this indicates that at this time step, the core had either initiated or was close to initiating buckling-induced failure.

So why are you bashing NIST Major_Tom, when you actually can use the NIST report to support your core lead collapse claim, if you want? But this does not change the overall picture of structural weakening from aircraft impact damage, and further weakening induced by fires leading to collapse.

 

[Norseman]

There isn't a single statement in an official literature that recognizes at how small an angle all columns failed.

That's because NIST never analyzed at what angle the columns in WTC 1 failed when the building collapsed. It was not a part of the simulations done by NIST described in the NIST NCSTAR 1-6 reports. If you had read the report properly you would have found that WTC 1 never collapsed in the simulation run on the global tower model, contrary to the WTC 2 simulation where WTC 2 collapsed at 43 minutes in a simulation designed to simulate 50 minutes. The WTC 1 simulation was designed to simulate 100 minutes. At 100 minutes NIST concluded the following in NIST NCSTAR 1-6D on page 181:

The predicted inward bowing gradually increased to approximately 43 in. at 100 min. However, the south wall did not show instability (buckling) at 100 min.

Analyses of isolated exterior wall substructure models and of the global model showed that the amount of inward bowing predicted for the wall was highly sensitive to the magnitude of the applied pull-in forces. For a comparison, when pull-in forces were revised from the 5 kip magnitude used in the analyses discussed above to 4 kip, the predicted inward bowing of the south wall decreased dramatically from nearly 43 in. at 100 min to approximately 15 in. Minor upward adjustment of the pull-in forces, from the 5 kip used in the analyses, would have produced wall instability by 100 min. It is likely that the pull-in forces in the actual building increased with time, and that likely, this inward bowing of the south wall did trigger instability, which initiated the global structural collapse.

As for the 8 degree tilt angle mentioned in the NIST NCSTAR 1-6 reports, it is just an observation carried over from the NIST NCSTAR 1-5 reports. To me it looks like it was added as an afterthought in the text, just to have a measurement when describing the behavior of the upper block of WTC 1 after the start of the collapse. NIST could just as well have left it out, because at what time after collapse initiation the upper block had what angle is not significant in relation to the described collapse mechanism. The significant observation is that the upper block rotated south consistent with a south wall failure likely initiating global collapse. I doubt very much that NIST would disagree with you that all the columns were toast long before the upper block reached 8 degrees. Just take a look at the last picture in figure 6-8 on page 163 in NIST NCSTAR 1-6.

So the whole 8 degree tilt angle debate throughout this thread is pretty pointless in my view. And for your own bewilderment in relation to how fast the collapse progressed from south to north, well that is just your own incredulity Major_Tom.