IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc1

Reply
Old 26th October 2010, 11:46 AM   #1
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

Any model of the WTC 1 collapse initiation or progression sequence should be based on a carefully prepared list of observations. The following features were observed for WTC 1:

(Links fixed)

Ejection from 75th Fl, E Side During AA11 Impact
Damage to Basement and Lobby
Fire, Smoke Ejections as WTC2 is Struck
Strong Fire Ejections As WTC2 Collapses
Inward Bowing of the S Perimeter
Ejections Witnessed at 10:18
Roofline Smoke Pulses just before Collapse
Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse
Fire Flair-up along E Face 3s before Collapse
Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling
Concave Roof Deformation
Earliest Row of Ejections from fl 95, W Face, S Side
Over-pressurization of fl 98 before Falling Begins
Upper Portions tilt less than 1 Degree in 0.5s before Falling
Earliest Detectable and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted
All 60+ Columns in W Face Fail Within 0.5s and 1 Degree
Adjacent Perimeter N and W Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
Jolts Detected in Earliest Antenna, NW Corner Drops
Upper W Wall Breaks Outward as Large, Unbuckled Pieces
Large W Wall Piece w/ Straight Break Along Bottom
Lower W Wall Pushed Outward Intact
Upper NW Corner Slides Out and Over Lower Portion
Lower NW Corner Remains Standing Below Fl 98
Upper NE Corner Assembly has Straight Break along Bottom
Upper N Wall Breaks Outward as Large, Unbuckled Pieces
E Wall Breaks Outward as Large, Unbuckled Pieces
Early Downward Acceleration Rates
88th Fl S Face Light Grey Ejection
77th Fl Over-pressurization Timing Inexplicable
SW Corner Section is Earliest Free-falling Object
N and W Rooflines Lose Shape and Pull Inwards
Ejections Advancing Down NW and SW corners
Ejections Below WTC1 Collapse Fronts
Mechanical Floor Ejections
Diagonal Ejections Traversing E Face, Fls 50-55
Lower Perimeter Peels Outward after Flooring Destroyed
Large Piece of Antenna Falls Southward
Whole E-W Width of the Core Survives Initial Collapse
Surviving Core Remnant Drops Collectively
Rubble Layout and Column Conditions Recorded



The list is roughly in chronological order. Reading down the list allows you to see the progression of events as they occurred.




I know it is a lot of information, but the true collapse as it was recorded was not a simple event. The earliest motion was one of pure deformity as sub-pixel measuring methods show.

It it interesting to study how well common descriptions of the collapse events match or contradict the recorded events. For example, how does the NIST's description of the initial failure sequence match the actual events as they are recorded and measured?

Do words like "hinge" or "tilt axis" have any real meaning for WTC1? Do the events show south wall failure as the initiating event or does a sagging core pull the building down?



Any model of the collapse initiation sequence must match the visual record, just as any collapse progression model must match all observables. The OOS collapse propagation model was based on a handful of features from this list.

Does any known collapse initiation model match this visual record? (No).

Last edited by Major_Tom; 26th October 2010 at 12:48 PM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2010, 08:51 PM   #2
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
This list makes me nauseous.

The work you put into this issue is stunning, Major Tom, and invaluable. Your site has to be one of the best WTC resources on the internet, if not the best, in the English language. I do not know of any others where the intent is so purely focussed on facts over rhetoric (and I'm one who is fond of rhetoric).

(But which is also why I find your OOS collapse argument puzzling, as, imo, the very evidence that you've taken such pains to archive and bring attention to does not match that model, and at times outright contradicts it. But that's for another thread, if ever.)

Just wanted to convey my appreciation. Sorry for the drift.

Last edited by ergo; 26th October 2010 at 08:52 PM.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 12:36 AM   #3
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...It it interesting to study how well common descriptions of the collapse events match or contradict the recorded events. For example, how does the NIST's description of the initial failure sequence match the actual events as they are recorded and measured?...
This is more or less the common description of events:
1) Airplane strikes tower, does some damage, starts some fires.
2) Fires are not fought allowing more damage to accumulate.
3) The accumulating damage causes load shedding and load redistribution.
4) The load redistribution events build up into a cascading sequence which weakens the impact and damage zone.
5) The damage reaches the point where there is insufficient remaining strength to support the "top block".
6) The impact zone ceases to support the Top Block.
7) The Top Block starts to fall and from that instant "global collapse was inevitable"

So that is my description and, as far as I am aware, it aligns with NIST on the key points which matter.

Any more micro details may be of interest depending on the objective of the person expressing interest.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 07:39 AM   #4
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Any model of the WTC 1 collapse initiation or progression sequence should be based on a carefully prepared list of observations. The following features were observed for WTC 1:

...
Any model of the collapse initiation sequence must match the visual record, just as any collapse progression model must match all observables. The OOS collapse propagation model was based on a handful of features from this list.

Does any known collapse initiation model match this visual record? (No).
I disagree. Some, many or even most of the observations you present are irrelevant to the collapse initiation model. They probably are all effects of the same cause (plane crash and ensuing fires), but that does not mean that the model must explain them all. It is virtually impossible to create a model that predicts every single observable, and it is also unnecessary. A large fire is too complex, too chaotic, to be modelled in every minute detail. The model only needs to predict the relevant parts.

To make this clear with an example:
Suppose I grab a machine gun and fire around at random.
Now you make the following observations:
- A man dies
- A squirrel dies
- A few windows break
- A fuel tank leaks and burns a car to the ground

Now you want to find out what killed the man. In order to do that, it is irrelevant to also explain what killed the squirrel, broke the windows or burned the car. All you need to do is forensically examine the man, examine the crime scene, identify any bullets that may have hit the man, and match them to my gun.

If it turns out that the man has one or more gun shot wounds, died as a consequence of them, you find all the bullets that hit the man, trace them to my gun, and establish that there was a line of sight between my gun and the man, you have a complete and convincing model that explains his death, even if you do not also explain how the squirrel died or the car was blown up.
The man would have died even if you had not observed the squirrel, the car and the windows, and your forensic examination would have yielded the very same result. Your result would even stand if you could show that I could not possibly have shot the squirrel or the car.

Last edited by Oystein; 27th October 2010 at 07:41 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 01:30 PM   #5
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Let's make this simpler.

A condensed but thorough summary of how the NIST explain the initial sequence of buckling which led to collapse of WTC1 is in NCSTAR 1-6D, Ch 5, section 5.2, p312 to 318 (draft form from p305 to 312), in a section titled "WTC 1 Collapse Sequence" and 1-6draft 9.3.1, p 287-295 in a section titled "Probable collapse sequence of WTC1". Relevant sections are reproduced below.
...................

1-6D, p 312:

Quote:
Table 5–1. Summary of main events that led to the collapse of WTC 1.
Event Number........ Event
1 .......................Aircraft impact
2 .......................Unloading of core
3 .......................Sagging of floors and floor/wall disconnections
4........................Bowing of the south wall
5 .......................Buckling of south wall and collapse initiation

1-6D, pg 314:

Quote:
Bowing of South Wall

The exterior columns on the south wall bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures, pull-in forces from the floors beginning at 80 min, and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core. Figure 5–6 shows the observed and the estimated inward bowing of the south wall at 97 min after impact (10:23 a.m.). Since no bowing was observed on the south wall at 69 min (9:55 a.m.), as shown in Table 5–2, it is estimated that the south wall began to bow inward at around 80 min when the floors on the south side began to substantially sag. The inward bowing of the south wall increased with time due to
continuing floor sagging and increased temperatures on the south wall as shown in Figs. 4–42 and 5–7. At 97 min (10:23 a.m.), the maximum bowing observed was about 55 in. (see Fig. 5–6).

Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation

With continuously increased bowing, as more columns buckled, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progressed horizontally toward the sides. As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall significantly unloaded (Fig. 5–3),
redistributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels. The onset of this load redistribution can be found in the total column loads in the WTC 1 global model at 100 min in the bottom line of Table 5–3. At 100 min, the north, east, and
west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south (observed at about 8°,
Table 5–2) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls (see Fig. 5–8), resulting in increased gravity load on the core columns. The release of potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain
energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.


1-6draft, p 288, Table 9-5 titled "Observations for WTC1", fifth entry:
and
1-6D, p 312, Table 5-2, last entry

Quote:
Tower began to collapse – first exterior sign of collapse was at
Floor 98. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before
the building section began to fall vertically under gravity.
1-6draft p 290, figure 9-8 on probable collapse initiation sequence for WTC1:

Quote:
3. Collapse Initiation
• The inward bowing of the south wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire south face.
• The south wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent east and west walls.
• The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls.
• The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
1-6draft, p 294:

Quote:
Buckling of South Wall and Collapse Initiation

The inward bowing of the south wall increased as the post-buckling strength of bowed columns continued to reduce. The bowed columns increased the loads on the unbuckled columns on the south wall by shear transfer through the spandrels. Consequently instability progressed horizontally, and when it engulfed the entire south wall, it progressed along the east and west walls. Moreover, the unloading of the south wall resulted in further redistribution of gravity loads on the south wall to the east and west walls and to the thermally weakened core via the hat truss. At 100 min, the north, the east, and the west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7 percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively. The section of the building above the impact zone began tilting to the south at least about 8° as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls, as shown in Fig. 9–13. The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued.

1-6draft, p 317:

Quote:
Finding 26: The WTC 1 building section above the impact and fire area tilted to the south as the structural collapse initiated. The tilt was toward the side of the building that had the long span floors. Video records taken from east and west viewpoints showed that the upper building section tilted to the south. Video records taken from a north viewpoint showed no discernable east or west component in the tilt. A tilt to the south of at least 8 degrees occurred before dust clouds obscured the view and the building section began to fall downwards.


This is the NIST description of WTC1 collapse initiation in a nutshell. If anyone has more relevant quotes on the initiation process, please post them.


Question: Does the NIST description of the collapse initiation sequence match the observables posted in the OP?

My answer: From the observables, we can see the NIST description of the initiation sequence is a fairy tale.

Numerous features point to core-led collapse initiation, not the one the NIST describes.

Last edited by Major_Tom; 27th October 2010 at 01:34 PM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 01:40 PM   #6
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Question: Does the NIST description of the collapse initiation sequence match the observables posted in the OP?
No.

I suggest you list which do, and which don't, and why.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 11:15 PM   #7
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...
Question: Does the NIST description of the collapse initiation sequence match the observables posted in the OP?
...
Look at the replies already given. They still stand.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2010, 11:33 PM   #8
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
A similar, much better "features list" is found in NCSTAR1-5A. If one wants to quibble over details, it might do to compare against that list, and focus on the differences.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 02:51 AM   #9
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis. Covers the fire progression and observations up to the collapse initiation sequence. Useful for that time interval, but says basically nothing about the initiation failure sequence.


I found their description of the initiation sequence in NCSTAR 1-6D, Ch 5, section 5.2, p312 to 318 (draft form from p305 to 312), in a section titled "WTC 1 Collapse Sequence" and 1-6draft 9.3.1, p 287-295 in a section titled "Probable collapse sequence of WTC1".

I reproduced the most relevant quotes from it a few posts ago. I wish the NIST had more to offer on the initial failure sequence, but that about covers it. If anyone has other useful NIST quotes of the initial failure sequence, please post them.

R Mackey, is that the superior list you had in mind?

Last edited by Major_Tom; 28th October 2010 at 02:54 AM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 03:30 AM   #10
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...
I found their description of the initiation sequence in NCSTAR 1-6D, Ch 5, section 5.2, p312 to 318 (draft form from p305 to 312), in a section titled "WTC 1 Collapse Sequence" and 1-6draft 9.3.1, p 287-295 in a section titled "Probable collapse sequence of WTC1".
...
R Mackey, is that the superior list you had in mind?
I am sure R Mackey considers the final version superior to the draft.

Why do you base your stuff on the draft?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 05:15 AM   #11
atecom
Critical Thinker
 
atecom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 314
"Earliest Detectable and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted"



links to w3schools.
atecom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 05:16 AM   #12
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I am sure R Mackey considers the final version superior to the draft.
I am sure M Tom cites from the draft simply because the PDF allows cut and paste.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 09:06 AM   #13
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
I am sure M Tom cites from the draft simply because the PDF allows cut and paste.
NCSTAR 1-5 is also in pdf form.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 09:23 AM   #14
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
NCSTAR 1-5 is also in pdf form.
The final versions are protected, disabling copy & paste of text....as-in...because the (draft) PDF allows cut and paste.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 09:57 AM   #15
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by atecom View Post
"Earliest Detectable and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted"



links to w3schools.
That sucks. Can't fix it now.

Here is the correct link:

Earliest Detectable and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ea...346.html#p9507

Draft version quotes are identical to the final version or I would not post them. FInal version is protected from copy/paste words and images. Identical sections for collapse initiation description, just shifted about about 13 pages. Easy to find.

I couldn't find much more information on the initiation sequence than the sections quoted. If anyone finds useful info elsewhere, please post it.

Last edited by Major_Tom; 28th October 2010 at 09:59 AM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2010, 01:40 PM   #16
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
The final versions are protected, disabling copy & paste of text....as-in...because the (draft) PDF allows cut and paste.
Oh I see. I don't have that issue on Mac OS X - you just open 'em in Preview and you can copy all you like.

If you're on a PC just use a free pdf unlocker. Hope that helps.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2010, 10:39 AM   #17
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
It is obvious that the NIST describes a perimeter-led collapse initiation sequence. The south wall fails first, somewhere around it's center, and column failure propagates around the perimeter through the east and west walls, and through the core.

Actual observations included in the list of features in the OP show a core-led collapse initiation. Some have suggested that this is only a minor detail, a "quibbling".

The models in the NIST reports study the building up to the moment the building is poised to collapse. Their work, based on long truss span sagging which pulls in the south wall, leading to perimeter failure, is so obviously dependent on a perimeter failure initiation mechanism that even the slowest of readers should understand that.

There is no amount of lipstick you can put on that pig to turn it into core-led collapse initiation model.

It seems a bit ridiculous to call visual evidence of a core-led collapse a minor detail.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2010, 11:22 AM   #18
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
The NIST's desctiption of WTC1 collapse initiation, and therefore their model of the events leading up to it, are contradicted by the visual record at it's most fundamental level. Collective core failure is a fundamentally different structural process than that of long truss sagging and perimeter pull-in to the point of failure.

No amount of lipstick can change one into the other.

Moreover, one must logically conclude that the inward bowing witnessed on the south side of the building was probably also caused by a fundamentally different process than the one the NIST modelled, like a possible partial core failure in the 1000 row core columns, the ones that support the other sides of the long trusses.

If collective core failure caused the building to collapse at 10:28 as the visual record seems to indicate, is it not reasonable to consider whether partial core collapse was responsible the south wall inward bowing witnessed in the minutes leading up to collapse? Not only reasonable but the logical choice.

Last edited by Major_Tom; 29th October 2010 at 11:28 AM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2010, 12:05 PM   #19
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
[quote]
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Any model of the WTC 1 collapse initiation or progression sequence should be based on a carefully prepared list of observations. The following features were observed for WTC 1:

You do understand that no sane person on earth cares less exactly what happened?
It does not really matter to a sane person. The exact collapse process is irrelevant as each impact and hence damage was unique, each fire was unique.
All that is important to sane people is that the impact and fire COULD have caused the collapse.
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2010, 12:18 PM   #20
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Never mind
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 29th October 2010 at 12:19 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2010, 01:02 PM   #21
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
What actually happened really doesn't matter to a sane person? The NIST bases their conclusions on a perimeter-led collapse but the visual evidence points to a core-led collapse, but it wouldn't matter to the sane?

Core-led, perimeter-led, no problemo? It's all good to the sane?
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 07:30 AM   #22
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
No, what he is sying, is that it doesn't matter what column section 149 did when truss section 401 sagged and pulled perimeter spandrel 448 inwards. It doesn't ******* matter. The building collapsed due to fire and impact damage, killing ~3,000 people.

Got it?
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 07:35 AM   #23
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
What actually happened really doesn't matter to a sane person? The NIST bases their conclusions on a perimeter-led collapse but the visual evidence points to a core-led collapse, but it wouldn't matter to the sane?
Cite to support the assertion that NIST used imagery for their conclusions, please.

That's a polite way of saying you are wrong.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 08:36 AM   #24
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
Cite to support the assertion that NIST used imagery for their conclusions, please.

That's a polite way of saying you are wrong.
Why not simply provide the detail you are requesting yourself ?

You are saying MT is wrong, so support your assertion.

One-liner responses with no detail are not likely to *cut-it* now.

You don't have to be impolite, though perhaps your statement is more aimed towards the angry outburst from triforcharity which neatly expresses the fine mechanisms of hand-waving, anger and lack of substance. The very hallmarks of total lack of argument. Standpoint based upon faith by the looks of it.

It doesn't matter whether NIST got it right ?

Hmmm, NIST tasked (and paid) to determine *what happened*, and seemingly got it wrong.

So who's got the 12000 page report that got it right kicking about ? That would be handy.

The building COULD have toppled immediately after impact, but it didn't.

The building COULD have toppled immediately after the 1993 bombing, but it didn't.

The building COULD have stood longer until the fires went out, and still be there, but it isn't.


Failure of the South perimeter COULD have led to further failures, but it really doesn't appear to be the case.


So, I have very little interest in what COULD happen. I'm interested in what DID happen.


And so to more focussed discussion.

Improved initiation model please. The NIST texts don't match observables.

Last edited by femr2; 30th October 2010 at 08:42 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 09:06 AM   #25
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Why not simply provide the detail you are requesting yourself ?

You are saying MT is wrong, so support your assertion.

One-liner responses with no detail are not likely to *cut-it* now.
You ought to follow your own advice as well.

Can you please cite a peer-reviewed study in an engineering journal that supports your one-liners?
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 10:05 AM   #26
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Why not simply provide the detail you are requesting yourself ?

You are saying MT is wrong, so support your assertion.

One-liner responses with no detail are not likely to *cut-it* now.
How about a 10,000 page report from some of the top experts in their field?

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
You don't have to be impolite, though perhaps your statement is more aimed towards the angry outburst from triforcharity which neatly expresses the fine mechanisms of hand-waving, anger and lack of substance. The very hallmarks of total lack of argument. Standpoint based upon faith by the looks of it.
Did I handwave anything? No.

Was I angry? Not really, but more like "God, these ******* moron truthers who think they have it all figured out, but yet hundreds of top experts got it wrong". I don't like you types, I really don't.

You see, faith has nothing to do with it. When I don't know something, I turn to the experts. It doesn't matter if it is plumbing, cutting my lawn and keeping it green, or pinpointing the cause of a collapse. I let the experts do their thing.


Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
It doesn't matter whether NIST got it right ?
That is not what I said I all.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Hmmm, NIST tasked (and paid) to determine *what happened*, and seemingly got it wrong.

So who's got the 12000 page report that got it right kicking about ? That would be handy.
wtc.nist.gov should work fine.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
The building COULD have toppled immediately after impact, but it didn't.
You're correct. Congratulations.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
The building COULD have toppled immediately after the 1993 bombing, but it didn't.
If it had been a bigger bomb, and placed differently, possibly.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
The building COULD have stood longer until the fires went out, and still be there, but it isn't.
No. Not really. The fire would have continued to burn for many many many hours. Possibly days. The building didn't hve a chance in hell. ANY steel framed structure subjected to fire for many hours, with no firefighting efforts, will collapse.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Failure of the South perimeter COULD have led to further failures, but it really doesn't appear to be the case.
Says you? When do you plan on submitting your conclusions to a respectable, peer-reviewed journal? I mean, if NIST got collapse initiation so horribly wrong, than all the codes that were changed after 9/11 not just here, but worldwide, are incorrect. They should be adjused accordingly.

Got paper?


Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
So, I have very little interest in what COULD happen. I'm interested in what DID happen.


And so to more focussed discussion.

Improved initiation model please. The NIST texts don't match observables.
Well, NIST has the best possible theory. Do you have something else? I am sure the people of the world who have based the code changes on the results of NIST's investigation would love to crrect their mistake.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 10:28 AM   #27
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
I don't see how any of this invalidates the main thrust of the NIST findings. It appears that there was small movements that NIST did not include but, how does this actually show they "got it wrong"? As far as I can tell all of these smaller movements seem to be related to the larger events that NIST used to shape their findings.

Maybe M Tom or femr2 could help clarify how all of this is important. If it's just to add to the knowledge base that's cool, if you think it's a "gotcha", I think you need to dig much deeper.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 10:48 AM   #28
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I don't see how any of this invalidates the main thrust of the NIST findings.

Reading what has been posted might help.

Can you think of how a core-led descent would differ from a perimeter-led descent? How would the stronger, tighter, more cross-braced core structure be able to sink ahead of everything else from a plane crashing into it and fires on a few upper floors?
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 10:49 AM   #29
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Reading what has been posted might help.

Can you think of how a core-led descent would differ from a perimeter-led descent? How would the stronger, tighter, more cross-braced core structure be able to sink ahead of everything else from a plane crashing into it and fires on a few upper floors?
Can you think of how a core-led collapse would pull IN the outer columns?

The core columns were not cross-braced. Deal with it.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 10:51 AM   #30
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Can you think of how a core-led collapse would pull IN the outer columns?

The core columns were not cross-braced. Deal with it.
Yes, and yes, they were.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 10:56 AM   #31
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Reading what has been posted might help.

Can you think of how a core-led descent would differ from a perimeter-led descent? How would the stronger, tighter, more cross-braced core structure be able to sink ahead of everything else from a plane crashing into it and fires on a few upper floors?
That's not what this evidence actually supports. They're showing movement not failure.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 11:00 AM   #32
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
And movement downward of a large, structural component of the building does not imply failure? It just "moves"?
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 11:02 AM   #33
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
And movement downward of a large, structural component of the building does not imply failure? It just "moves"?
How large were these "movements"? How do you think the core would react to a truss sag that was pulling in the perimeter?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 30th October 2010 at 11:05 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 11:15 AM   #34
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Well, first of all, how would a truss sag pull in either the core or the perimeter?
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 11:19 AM   #35
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Well, first of all, how would a truss sag pull in either the core or the perimeter?
Do you think the connections were not strong enough to do this? From what I can see (and I'm waiting for M Tom to respond) what we're seeing here is the building redistributing the loads as it was designed to do.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 30th October 2010 at 11:21 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 11:26 AM   #36
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I think the connections are plenty strong, but sagging from heat would not have this effect. But I will let you await your answer from Major Tom.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 11:28 AM   #37
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I think the connections are plenty strong, but sagging from heat would not have this effect. But I will let you await your answer from Major Tom.
Why not? If a truss sags the distance between the two anchor points is reduced. Do you agree?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 12:10 PM   #38
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I think the connections are plenty strong, but sagging from heat would not have this effect. But I will let you await your answer from Major Tom.
What do you think the sagging from the heat would do? Produce kittens?
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 12:25 PM   #39
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why not? If a truss sags the distance between the two anchor points is reduced. Do you agree?
By how much...
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Any viewpoint on the video content ?

There are a couple of parts.

What amount of pure *sag* do you calculate results in >50 inch IB ?
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2010, 12:49 PM   #40
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I think the connections are plenty strong, but sagging from heat would not have this effect. But I will let you await your answer from Major Tom.
Major Tom has the CD delusion, you will not get much from Major Tom. You lack knowledge and skills in physics. You will fail to make progress in understanding 911 due to ignorance. It is impossible to back in CD unless you find a DeLorean.

Last edited by beachnut; 30th October 2010 at 12:56 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.