|
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. |
26th October 2010, 08:51 PM | #2 |
Illuminator
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. |
27th October 2010, 12:36 AM | #3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
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. |
27th October 2010, 07:39 AM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
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. |
27th October 2010, 01:30 PM | #5 |
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:
1-6D, pg 314:
Quote:
1-6draft, p 288, Table 9-5 titled "Observations for WTC1", fifth entry: and 1-6D, p 312, Table 5-2, last entry
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1-6draft, p 317:
Quote:
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. |
27th October 2010, 01:40 PM | #6 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
|
|
__________________
http://the911forum.freeforums.org |
|
27th October 2010, 11:15 PM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
27th October 2010, 11:33 PM | #8 |
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.
|
28th October 2010, 02:51 AM | #9 |
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? |
28th October 2010, 03:30 AM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
28th October 2010, 05:15 AM | #11 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 314
|
"Earliest Detectable and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted"
links to w3schools. |
28th October 2010, 05:16 AM | #12 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
|
|
__________________
http://the911forum.freeforums.org |
|
28th October 2010, 09:06 AM | #13 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
|
__________________
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' |
|
28th October 2010, 09:23 AM | #14 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
|
|
__________________
http://the911forum.freeforums.org |
|
28th October 2010, 09:57 AM | #15 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
|
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. |
28th October 2010, 01:40 PM | #16 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
|
__________________
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' |
|
29th October 2010, 10:39 AM | #17 |
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. |
29th October 2010, 11:22 AM | #18 |
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. |
29th October 2010, 12:05 PM | #19 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
|
[quote]
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. |
29th October 2010, 12:18 PM | #20 |
Skeptic not Atheist
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 |
|
29th October 2010, 01:02 PM | #21 |
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? |
30th October 2010, 07:30 AM | #22 |
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? |
30th October 2010, 07:35 AM | #23 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
|
|
__________________
------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept. |
|
30th October 2010, 08:36 AM | #24 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
|
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. |
__________________
http://the911forum.freeforums.org |
|
30th October 2010, 09:06 AM | #25 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
|
__________________
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' |
|
30th October 2010, 10:05 AM | #26 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
How about a 10,000 page report from some of the top experts in their field?
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. That is not what I said I all. wtc.nist.gov should work fine. You're correct. Congratulations. If it had been a bigger bomb, and placed differently, possibly. 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. 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? 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. |
30th October 2010, 10:28 AM | #27 |
Skeptic not Atheist
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 |
|
30th October 2010, 10:48 AM | #28 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
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? |
30th October 2010, 10:49 AM | #29 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
|
30th October 2010, 10:51 AM | #30 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
|
30th October 2010, 10:56 AM | #31 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
30th October 2010, 11:00 AM | #32 |
Illuminator
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"?
|
30th October 2010, 11:02 AM | #33 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
30th October 2010, 11:15 AM | #34 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
Well, first of all, how would a truss sag pull in either the core or the perimeter?
|
30th October 2010, 11:19 AM | #35 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
30th October 2010, 11:26 AM | #36 |
Illuminator
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.
|
30th October 2010, 11:28 AM | #37 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
30th October 2010, 12:10 PM | #38 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
|
30th October 2010, 12:25 PM | #39 | |||
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
|
By how much...
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 ? |
|||
__________________
http://the911forum.freeforums.org |
||||
30th October 2010, 12:49 PM | #40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|