The 9/11 Forum

Engineering IS physics - applied real world materials based physics. Euler's work is a direct derivative of Newton's work.

No, physics is physics.

Engineering is engineering.

Math is math.

The fact that physics uses math doesn't make it mathematics.

Physics is mathematics, where it uses mathematics, AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD TO DESCRIBE THE REAL WORLD as validated by empirical, falsifiable, reproducible experiment.

Just doing math is not physics. You actually need to do the experiments too.

Similarly just knowing the basic laws of physics is not the same as building a building.

When you build a building you use equations generated by physics to KNOWN APPLICATIONS IN KNOWN SETTINGS. This is completely different from physics, which intrinsically appeals to FAILED ATTEMPTS AT EMPIRIC FALSIFICATION, not RATIONAL VALIDATION.

This really does go to the very heart of the difference between the two disciplines.

Raw, direct observation, unfiltered by preconceptions.

This is problematic as an approach because in reality there is no such thing.

You cannot SEE, your eyes interpret the input of photons given off by a computer screen and your brain interprets this as vision. This may seem like a sophist's dilemma to you but I can assure you it will torpedo every attempt you make to solve the problem using "direct unfiltered observation".

You DO make assumptions about things you cannot see at every step along the way of your observation driven investigation. You either assume that what you are seeing is happening as the result of gravity alone or is being helped along by explosives.

Try as you might you cannot NOT do this. Just saying that you don't make assumptions is not sufficient.You DO make assumptions because you HAVE TO make assumptions to do even basic thought processes.

What you, as a scientist need to do is not claim access to ultimate unadorned truth through the quasi-magical medium of your eyes. You need to

STATE
YOUR
ASSUMPTIONS
CLEARLY

in a manner that we can all evaluate explicitly exactly how you are reaching the conclusions you reach. It may seem to you that you are admitting failure when in fact you are just applying the bare minimum honesty in the face of necessarily incomplete knowledge.

If you don't state your assumptions the reader is forced to assume that you have made assumptions which support your case and didn't tell me about it.

If I may be so bold as to say that it is not only okay to make assumptions, but that you are required to do so, because explicitly making assumptions means that you are fully aware of what they are. Knowing which assumptions you make and stating them is not a negotiable part of the process.

There are some curious events but nothing that could be called an early interior onset of catastrophic collapse which deviates much from the accepted timing for global collapse. Mass expulsion does start ahead of the uniform downward displacement of the top by a second or two maybe (femr2 can correct me if I'm wrong), but that's not enough.

This gets the the nub of it.

You can integrate ROOSD, the perimeter peeling and the lateral forces into the same solution here:

1) Something is pushing down (the ROOSD rubble driver)
2) Something is resisting and being compressed and elastic potential is being stored
3) Something is releasing that elastic potential

The way I see it these cannot be the same things, leading me to suspect an additional driver, here's why:

A represents ROOSD "classic" with the material falling down the chute.

A |>>>>*<<<<|

|=perimeter
> and < = lateral forces
*= breakpoint.

In this case, when the breakage occurs, the rubble, the driver and the newly broken floor are all shot outwards violently. The rubble driver would be disturbed at every such event because the counteracting motion is up and out, against the preferred motion of the driver.

The only way for the diver to not get broken up by this would be if it just fell through without storing much elastic potential. If so, what is causing the lateral motion? The driver has already passed through, it can't push out anymore.

If this were the case I would have expected to either have seen stuttering collapse and/or rapid arrest.

Alternatively there is case B

B |*>>><<<*|

Here the same elastic storage occurs, but the breakage occurs at he perimeter. This allows the rubble to carry on down and the perimeter only to be shot outwards as observed. This allows most of the mass the contribute to ROOSD.

The big problem with this is it is essentially a "pancake" theory and has the same problem that all pancake theories have: No pancakes at the bottom. The rubble pile at the end cannot be squared with any type of pancake like this.

The only way to get around this is to have that rubble driver be REALLY dense and REALLY energetic REALLY early on in the collapse. By the time we see the perimeter action the driver must already be several stories below. After a while there is probably a phase transition where what we observe as the outward push is caused by infalling material rather than the driver, but by this time the floor elements have already been severed and ROOSD is only providing the lateral forces, because there is nothing structurally significant to break anymore. The violent ejections may well be tracking the driver itself in this scenario, although that is speculative.

This seems like the best summation (OWE's I mean, not mine) of the problem I have seen so far as it manages to capture all the relevant problems in one nutshell.

If one could explain how a ROOSD driver could have these characteristics so early on by the action of gravity alone I would be tempted to change my stance, but I am not holding my breath.

As an aside, if this were the case it is crucial to the CD hypothesis that the actual observable collapse occurs much slower than freefall, wouldn't that be ironic. I'd love to see debunkers arguing that the collapse was occurring at near freefall or faster to catch up to the driver.

I imagine the onset of ROOSD is a the destruction of the top 12 floors. This occurs in wtc 1 over about 4 seconds. During this 4 second period impacts from rubble and debris from these 12 floors rains down on the more or less intact cold top floor of the lower part the tower. It's like that the assault of this debris and rubble is causing local destruction on the upper floor or two largely unseen behind and intact facade just below the crash zone.

This facade is acting like the walls of a basket containing the dropping floor rubble and debris during those 4 seconds. Some sections of those upper floors are even locally collapsing down a floor or two (or more). The 12 floors cannot be contained by the upper panel "basket" nor the floor(s) which this debris is crashing down on. The moment this "happens" the facade (basket) bursts and the debris is spilled and "ejected" outward and the actual ROOSD gets going. The remaining 12 floors of mass broken apart, randomly distributed is not driving downward perhaps 20-30,000 tons or more... much more than any floor can support (arrest). It is preposterous to think that a single 4" no stone aggregate concrete slab with little rebar could support such loads with trusses beneath a 6'-8" OC. And it's also likely that the trusses could not either. Weaker elements fail first, but none of them would resist such dynamic loads

As the rubble mass drives downward it creates a basket with wall of increasing height which fails to contain the growing mass of rubble. The facade then gives way at the level of descending bottom or the basket and we see a "facade peel" forced outward by the "fluid" of the rubble exerting forces downward and laterally.

It may be that the confinement of the facade is contributing to the grinding process of the rubble. I certainly do not envisions entire slabs dropping like pancakes... the over loading was not uniformly distributed at THE SAME TIME... it was a time elapse event however compressed that elapsed time was. This means not a single impact but multiple impacts and this is what destroyed the floors.

Just saying.

Darkwing:

You cannot SEE, your eyes interpret the input of photons given off by a computer screen and your brain interprets this as vision. This may seem like a sophist's dilemma to you but I can assure you it will torpedo every attempt you make to solve the problem using "direct unfiltered observation".

I have watched people substitute concept for direct observation from the beginning of the debate.

These same people were unable to locate two cases of HTFCPHST-type sheet layouts.

You seem to live in a world of over-conceptualization, but you certainly do have a sense of humor.

If you were unable to spot HTFCPNST-type layouts, there isn't much to say.

I have watched people substitute concept for direct observation from the beginning of the debate.

Direct observation is conceptual process. The idea that it is any closer to the actual reality is nothing but an illusion.

You still haven't outlined the assumptions you base your claim that the HTFCPHST-type sheet layouts have any explanatory power in this context. You clearly think it has, but you haven't made the case as far as I can see.

Until outline your assumptions explicitly you are expecting us to sift through your argument and find them for you, which is rather tedious and doesn't get us anywhere. You are assuredly making assumptions, not revealing them detracts from your arguments, it lends no weight.

I imagine the onset of ROOSD is a the destruction of the top 12 floors.

There is no mass to drive ROOSD in the top twelve floors. ROOSD is predicated on the mass of those floors impacting the lower floors.

The only thing in the natural model that could be causing those floors to disintegrate like that is fire and I have seen no credible evidence that fire could do it. If thermite has a hard time, office fires would be nigh-on impossible.

The 12 floors cannot be contained by the upper panel "basket" nor the floor(s) which this debris is crashing down on.

You are implying that the debris is crashing down onto the floor until it overloads the relevant floor element, but if that is the case why are invoking dynamic loads. If it is collecting in one spot the overwhelming majority must be in a static state. In fact the collected debris would act as a "mattress", dissipating any dynamic loading from subsequent debris.

You need a fairly big event to get the process going, gradual accumulation won't cut it.

You live within a world in which there is no evidence in 10 years of professional and academic literature that anyone has recognized HTFCPNST-class sheeting.

You live in illusion already.

Darkwing:

Direct observation is conceptual process.

It is important to distinguish concepts originating from your own mind from reality.

This is an art, far superior than anything western science, based on love of the concept, has or can "achieve".


The 9-11 debate is a great living example of people lost in conceptual illusions.

It is all around us. I'm sure you see it too?

If you run a little faster...



I hope we all progress soon before poison levels become intolerable. Better run faster!


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Slow down. Watch. Stop spinning conceptions like a spider web.

Darkwing wrote:Direct observation is conceptual process. The idea that it is any closer to the actual reality is nothing but an illusion.

There is a difference between staring up at the night sky, wondering what those dots are, and watching the road in front of you. This remark, as with some others, gives the impression that all observation is created equal. The paths to the brain and the means of processing may be in common, but that's about where it ends; not all information and interpretation is in the same class.

You still haven't outlined the assumptions you base your claim that the HTFCPHST-type sheet layouts have any explanatory power in this context. You clearly think it has, but you haven't made the case as far as I can see.

The point is, explanations come after observation. You said so yourself. Far too many people have launched into explanation without even taking a second to identify that which is to be explained. Therefore you have engineers like Eagar and Bazant early on trying to explain freefall collapses because someone told them that was the phenomena needing explanation. Then organizations like AE911Truth propagate the myth of freefall for a decade. True sustained free fall in the towers demands an explanation, and would still be lacking if it were true. A 14 second collapse still demands an explanation, but the difference is the explanation is reasonable and can only be because the observation is correct.

It's so obvious that it's built into the acronym, but despite that the pattern wasn't known until Major_Tom took the time and trouble to look. Instead of needing to explain the imaginary and false observations that seem to be made up out of thin air, it helps to have a clear set of knowns from which to work. If it were so trivial, someone would have done it before now. There were crude graphics showing the layout of debris but that's quite a bit different from identifying the origin of some set of panels and following them periodically through their trajectory to a final resting location.

Without knowing this, how can any theorizing be of value? Once known, why invoke things which don't make sense as explanations? These large sheets weren't blown outward, they fell over! Big difference. If all you had was the "crash scene", it may not be possible to determine how some things ended up where they were. But, with multiple videos of the crash, huge swaths of useless speculation can be swept aside.

Until outline your assumptions explicitly you are expecting us to sift through your argument and find them for you, which is rather tedious and doesn't get us anywhere. You are assuredly making assumptions, not revealing them detracts from your arguments, it lends no weight.

Assumptions about tracking and assembling hard evidence? Some observations rightly lead directly to conclusions. When I see my shoes are there, I need not question the conclusion that they will also be there when I reach in that direction.

I imagine the onset of ROOSD is a the destruction of the top 12 floors.

There is no mass to drive ROOSD in the top twelve floors. ROOSD is predicated on the mass of those floors impacting the lower floors.

Yes it is predicated on something like that. Some devilish details.

The only thing in the natural model that could be causing those floors to disintegrate like that is fire and I have seen no credible evidence that fire could do it. If thermite has a hard time, office fires would be nigh-on impossible.

Or it could be the distortion of the upper block leaning as little as a degree might have exceeded the ductile elongation of the floor connections and many of them detached nearly simultaneously, which then allowed perimeters to deform radically and more floors detach, all very quickly. THAT'S the black box part. There are all manners of possible scenarios from any point in time forward which are consistent with observation but not necessarily an explanation. Major_Tom has made it very easy by trimming down the extent of the black box so we know what it is we're trying to explain.

Turns out, for most people, the boundary of the 'black box' is their eyelids.

So you can try to make a philosophical adventure out of tying your shoes, but don't be surprised or miffed if others just slap on their shoes and get about their business. A lot of this is not as occult as you make it out to be. Some of it's obvious, but no has bothered to look after all these years. Shameful.

Darkwing wrote:You are implying that the debris is crashing down onto the floor until it overloads the relevant floor element, but if that is the case why are invoking dynamic loads. If it is collecting in one spot the overwhelming majority must be in a static state. In fact the collected debris would act as a "mattress", dissipating any dynamic loading from subsequent debris.

Absolutely correct. It is the purpose of this thread to place reasonable estimated bounds on what characteristics can be expected from the scenario. It's a question which has come up time and again but it always manages to wander away without a resolution. Invariably, the dynamic aspect is overlooked or dismissed simply because it's not quantified at all. The argument degenerates to "the static load is sufficient to overload the floors and motion only makes it worse."

Technically true but practically worthless. This graph from earlier shows one example of how peak impulse drops off radically with particle separation in a conservative bounding case:



If the interpretation isn't obvious...

Falling block of cement != falling bag of cement != falling unconfined cement powder

You need a fairly big event to get the process going, gradual accumulation won't cut it.

Gradual accumulation takes time. IF the mechanics of a granular driver tend to degenerate to that of static loading, it could indeed be a very slow process.

Do the puffs prior to collapse indicate partial floor collapses leading up to an eventual overload? Can two floors which partially and gradually failed from fire slowly overload a third until it fails quickly and THAT is sufficient to start a cascade? I don't know. But I do see that arguments are playing on the margins unless or until the possibilities are pared to the minimum.

The point is, explanations come after observation. You said so yourself. Far too many people have launched into explanation without even taking a second to identify that which is to be explained.

That isn't the point.

The point is that even the simple act of stating what you observe is an explanation. Understanding, making sense of a picture in a picture in a certain way is a conceptual act by its very nature.

What differentiates science from balloney is not observation. It is REPEATABLE OBSERVATION OF FALSIFIABLE CONCEPTS STATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL UNDERLYING CONCEPTS ARE PLAINLY DESCRIBED.

The idea that you can just measure something and state your measurement as an explanation is what caused this problem in the first place.

All observation IS created equal, that is why science only progresses through rigorous application of the scientific method.

Assumptions about tracking and assembling hard evidence? Some observations rightly lead directly to conclusions.

Yes, by golly whillakers! Those things are the most prone to error, they are the cause of most horrendous blunders in scientific history.

People looked at horses for hundreds of years and thought they splayed their legs while running until someone set up a simple reproducible experiment with a camera to show that they don't.
Aristotle thought, perfectly reasonably at the time, that things slow down of their own accord simply on the basis of observation.
People thought Lucy the horse (or whatever her name was) could do complex mathematical problems simply on the basis of observation.

Kant (who you have to agree was fairly influential in this matter) established that even establishing something as existing in space and time is fitting it into a pre-existing conceptual framework.

You don't have to be meticulous in measuring to the nth degree to do science. You need to be meticulous about stating your assumptions to the nth degree. So that they can be rigorously tested and possibly falsified.

It is the assumptions that appear to you to be "patently obvious on the basis of observation" that are the most dangerous kind that are usually the source of greatest error.

After all, it is obvious after observing the evidence that Saddam Hussein has WMD's, is it not?

The problem in this case may have been too much concept and too little observation, but that doesn't mean that go crazy on the other side. Science relies on a disciplined and balanced approach balancing each clearly outlined concept with a reproducible observation.

OWE said:

Falling block of cement != falling bag of cement != falling unconfined cement powder

Yes.

What I am interested in finding out is if there is any way of finding by observation which is actually happening in this case.

I think everyone can agree that it LOOKS like the whole top is impacting the whole bottom and disintegrates in the process.

The big conceptual dichotomy is in that in order for the top part to disintegrate in this manner, setting up the conditions for subsequent ROOSD to occur, the bottom part must be successfully resisting most of the force of impact.

But the disintegrated top portion should, by rights, be exerting less of a coherent force than the original intact structure.

So why then does the addition of one more floor to the rubble overcome the resistance of the remaining floor so completely. I understand agglomeration is occurring, but agglomeration implies, well, agglomeration. An increase over time.

What we are observing here is a phase change, not an agglomeration. Why would the broken up rubble suddenly coalesce to transmit the force more efficient. Breaking is the opposite of coalescence surely?

The phase change is happening WITHIN THE RUBBLE ITSELF. It is is going from the state of "being broken up" to "being collected in a dense, efficient ROOSD driver".

Why?

One point of clarification here: When I say that the intact structure should be more efficient than the loose rubble at transmitting force I am thinking of a knife versus steel filings. The ROOSD analogue in this analogy would be a steel bullet. Same forces same mass. But fire a knife from a gun and you would find the bullet far more efficient, stab someone with a bullet and you won't get far.

These two are similarly efficient at doing a particular job, but will perform best at different levels of force (in fact the forces are comparable but delivered in a different way). But the knife does not create of a ROOSD scenario, it works by piercing, not crushing into rubble. The bullet works by a method far more analogous to ROOSD.

The filings? Well...

So the question is, how did we get from the knife to the bullet through the filings? This is a violation of the second law, inherently. You can't do this in natural systems.

I observed a couple of posts by Darkwing on this page, but he's convinced me that observation is the problem. Cannot trust what's right in my face.... Discarding misleading observation....

OK, serious now.

Darkwing wrote:The idea that you can just measure something and state your measurement as an explanation is what caused this problem in the first place.

What problem? If there's a problem, then there is.

All observation IS created equal...

To whatever extent that may be true, I'm not interested. Differential input is how perception works. If everything in a field is the same, nothing in the field can be discerned. If everything is the same, nothing can be discerned.

A visual observation is not the same as an audio observation. A fact about a construction detail (which may be observed) is not the same as a fact about momentum conservation (which may be observed). A set of measurements is not the same as AE911Truth claims of freefall. So, no, not all observations are equal (as in indistinguishable) and I'm not interested in any uber-level at which they cannot be distinguished. That's precisely the point where machinations of the mind cease to be useful. It's the great om.

OK, serious now.

I thought you were being serious...

Direct observation is horribly misleading, which is why we do scientific is inherently not merely a descriptive but a procedural method.

Here is Plato on the matter:

"We must maintain the principle we laid down when dealing with astronomy, that our pupils must not leave their studies incomplete or stop short of the final objective. They can do this just as much in harmonics as they could in astronomy, by wasting their time on measuring audible concords and notes.
'Lord, yes, and pretty silly they look', he said. 'They talk about "intervals" of sound, listen as carefully as if they were trying to hear a conversation next door. And some say they can distinguish a note between two others, which gives them a minimum unit of measurement, while others maintain that there is no difference between the notes in question. They are all using their ears instead of their minds.'
'You mean those who torment catgut, and try to wring truth out of it by twisting on pegs.'"

Visual illusion is a well documented phenomenon:
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

Trusting what is directly in front front of your eyes is always a mistake.

Turning a real event into a 2-d video and back into 3-d always necessarily involves substantial information loss (second law coming in again here), you can't treat your reconstructions as though they were the original object, no matter how carefully you measure.