The 9/11 Forum

0.1 Introduction

1.0 Science vs subjective viewpoints

2.0 World Trade Center collapses misrepresented
....2.1 Progressive Floor Collapse in the WTC Towers
....2.2 Purpose of the NIST Reports
....2.3 NIST WTC1 misrepresentation
....2.4 NIST WTC7 misrepresentation
....2.5 NIST WTC2 misrepresentation
....2.6 Bazant misrepresentation of collapse progression
....2.7 Block Mechanics
....2.8 AE911T misrepresentations

3.0 Toward an Accurate History of the Collapses

4.0 Reassessing the Demo Question

5.0 Collapses misrepresented as a narrowed false choice

6.0 Testing the Thesis for Validity

Conclusions

SCIENCE vs SUBJECTIVITY WITHIN WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS COLLAPSE HISTORIES



A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY CLAIMS


The events of 9-11-01 are truly unique as an historic event in that much of them were filmed. At no other time in recorded history was an initiating event for a series of wars been caught so carefully on film. This unique opportunity allows anyone that has access to a sufficiently complete visual record to be able to cross-check claims by any government agency, organization or individual now or any time in the future.

Earlier records and descriptions of the WTC1 and 2 collapses prior to 2009 were limited by a video and photographic record available to the public which was poorly assembled and poorly interpreted (a point which will be demonstrated in this section). Those initial limitations were overcome by 2010 and 2011 with visual reconstructions of the collapses progressions throughout each tower. For the first time all researchers, including those who have worked for the NIST during their investigations, can see a reconstructed visual mapping of each building which pretty much removes all doubt as to what the actual collapse mechanisms were.

The first direct visual mapping of movement of the WTC towers gives people an excellent opportunity to check their previous and current models of the collapses against the visual mapping to see if the models are correct or incorrect. It allows one to independently fact-check claims made by any party through direct observation and measurement. It also allows a fact-checking of ones own views as pre-conceived notions one has would be directly challenged by the visual record of the events themselves.

Concerning the investigations of the WTC collapses, how well were we able to keep subjectivity out of a scientific investigation? In this section collected observations and measurements are presented and used to test the currently accepted models.



RECONSTRUCTIONS OF THE COLLAPSE PROCESSES DIRECTLY FROM THE VISUAL RECORD


The approach this author took toward review and verification of all claims concerning WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 is quite simple.

First, gather the largest and most complete visual record possible and examine it directly. [footnote: linked to the most complete sets of video through the resources CTV, Xenomorph and Femr]


Second, Re-construct the events from the visual record as completely as possible.

Events reconstructed:

1) Collapse progression: The visual record is re-viewed and reconstructed to determine the collapse mode and global mass flow.

2) Detectable deformation into the collapse initiation sequence: With the visual record and knowledge of the collapse dynamics, the initiation sequences and movement leading up to them are reconstructed and mapped.

3) The aircraft impacts and the resulting fires:

4) The debris layout and condition:


Third, the observations and measurements obtained are used to fact-check claims by all official and non-official sources.


With the first step a library of the visual record of events is formed. As is demonstrated in this section, the explanations for both collapse progression and collapse initiation of all 3 collapsed buildings are verifiably incorrect. Without the formation and analysis of independent visual libraries of the events, the current explanations could never have been examined and cross-checked.



With the second step, the first comprehensive visual record and mapping of the collapse progression and collapse initiations of all 3 towers was assembled. The collapse initiation sequences and the events leading up to them are also extracted from the visual record using as much visual and measurable evidence as possible. The aircraft impacts are also reconstructed as completely as possible to check the impact angle and building features during impact. The resulting debris layout is also recorded and grouped according to region.


The third step uses the reconstructed events and mapping of the rubble condition and distribution to independently verify or refute various claims made about the collapses. Many of the resulting observations do not appear in any official or academic reports or papers on the collapses. Some of the observations and measurements directly contradict the official descriptions of the collapses.

PROGRESSIVE FLOOR COLLAPSE IN THE TWIN TOWERS


For example, within the technical history of the collapses, the collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers remain unidentified. Even so, careful, systematic observation of the WTC1 and WTC2 core remnants and perimeter motion allow for an understanding of the probable mechanism by which the Twin Towers collapsed. The perimeter seems to have been collectively stripped of flooring through progressive floor failure and fell outward as large, unbuckled, interconnected pieces while most core columns of the building survived the initial collapse.

In the case of WTC1, since the entire northern portion of the core survived unbuckled and the perimeter fell outwards, also unbuckled, it can be concluded that the portion of the flooring that holds the perimeter to the core must have been stripped or eroded as debris initially descended to the ground, leaving much of the core standing and the perimeter unsupported.







OOS means Open Office Space flooring. It is a name the author gives for the flooring which was outside the core and connected the core to the perimeter walls to distinguish it from flooring within the core area. It is shown above as the shiny silver region encircling the core.

From within the building, the open office space is seen with an open ceiling with trusses spanning from the perimeter to the core:





The layout of individual long and short span trusses on a typical floor:




Details of an individual floor truss with connectors:




Observed perimeter behavior and the temporary survival of both cores indicate that the OOS flooring was most probably stripped from both perimeter and core, leaving the core standing and the perimeter unsupported. Neither core nor perimeter columns are buckled in the process. The leading collapse fronts must have been located mainly in the OOS regions around the core.


Live loads in the OOS region:


Considering how the capacity to support live loads is regionally dependent, there is no reason to suspect that progressive floor failure in different OOS regions will propagate to earth at the same rate. For this reason, a typical OOS floor is divided into local regions similar to the divisions in the live load capacities.

A typical WTC 1 floor can be divided into 2 main sections having different strengths, one within the core area and another outside the core:

Open office space flooring (OOS)
Flooring within the core (CF)



The total OOS floor space can be divided into 8 smaller floor regions:

1) OOS directly north of the core (OOS n)
2) OOS directly east of the core (OOS e)
3) OOS directly west of the core (OOS w)
4) OOS directly south of the core (OOS s)
5) OOS northwest corner region (OOS nw)
6) OOS northeast corner region (OOS ne)
7) OOS southwest corner region (OOS sw)
8 ) OOS southeast corner region (OOS se)

These being, for the purposes of describing the model, 9 regions of a typical floor.


Furthermore, not all flooring is of the same construction. What has been called "typical" flooring is labelled type 1 within the NIST reports on the collapses.

Floor type:

WTC1 on the left, WTC2 on the right.

The orange regions are the floors which the aircraft struck. In the case of WTC1 on the left, all floors below the orange markings are of type 1 construction down to the 83rd floor. The floors with the strongest construction are the mechanical equipment rooms and the lower escalator floors. In the case of WTC2 on the right the MER floors are just below the aircraft impact region.



Beam flooring form possible discontinuities in OOS propagation rates


Type 12 and 13 flooring is constructed of beams to support the heaviest mechanical equipment within each building. The beam layout is shown below.



Typical type 1 OOS flooring could be expected to be most vulnerable to progressive floor collapse, while the MER beam flooring would most probably be the most resilient to progressive floor failure.



OOS Collapse Propagation Involves No Column Buckling

A major feature of the OOS approach to collapse propagation is in the role and treatment of core and perimeter columns. For example, collapse propagation down the north side of WTC1 would be understood as accumulating debris trapped in a "basket" between the surviving core 500 row columns and the north perimeter of the building.


The model must treat both core and perimeter columns around the OOS n phase 2 boundary only as "guide rails" to funnel debris motion. Estimates of structural resistance in this region will therefore be based on capacity of OOS n flooring to resist being crushed by a distribution of rubblized debris falling on it. The downward propagation rate has nothing to do with column buckling strength since neither core nor perimeter columns directly resist the movement of OOS debris. They are simply bypassed.




The MER beam flooring is red. These regions would provide the most resistance to a progressive floor collapse within the OOS region between perimeter and core. In the case of WTC1 where the collapse initiated within the 95-98th floor region, almost 20 floors of mostly type 1 progressive floor collapse could take place before the 75-77th floor MER level is reached.

The destruction can propagate down different OOS regions at different rates

Different OOS regions have different collapse fronts at different positions at any moment in time. The rubble in the OOS sw corridor of WTC1 was 10 to 15 stories ahead of OOS nw destruction midway into the collapse.

This means there were most probably different downward propagation rates in different regions. A regional approach to describing the collapse propagation means structural resistance, driving masses and equations of motion are regionally dependent.


Dividing the collapse into phases

Phases are natural physical stages in the collapse.

An OOS destruction model must allow for at least two different collapse phases:

1) Phase #1: process of mutual upper portion, lower portion destruction until the upper portion is essentially fragmented.
2) Phase #2: process of erosion after an intact upper structure disappears, leaving only rubblized debris smashing against the remainder of the building.

The crush mode must be different after the upper portion no longer acts as an intact "leveller". Current estimates seem to put this phase transition point near 10 stories below the collapse initiation zone. By allowing for the probable existence of different collapse phases, we are free to describe different successive crush modes employing different mechanics with transition points between them.

A major difference between phase 1 and phase 2 mechanics is that for phase 2 the rubblized zone has no rigid, fixed structure acting as a "crushing equalizer" or "leveling agent" above it. Questions of propagation mechanics such as speed of collapse, equations of motion or upward resistance force F are regional in nature. The upper portion of the building has ceased to exist as an intact structure and is now only the composite of 3 types of rubble (see footnote 1). Motion within different regions is no longer coupled or mutually dependent as it was during phase 1.



[Footnote 1: In phase 2 there is no more intact building above the rubble zone. The rubble in phase 2 consists of at least least 3 different types of rubble:

a) Core and perimeter columns (much more core than perimeter). Very elastic, very strong, very dense, retains original shape with minimal deformation.

b) Thinner metal components crushable and deformable (trusses, sheet metal flooring) pretty inelastic, easily bent but cannot be pulverized. Remains in "stuff" like a stringy, wire-like material.

c) Material that can be pulverized, ground up and reducible. This material when sufficiently pulverized has the unique property of being able to permeate the first two types of rubble and escape entrapment within the "basket". For the same reason this material cannot contribute to the crush front as an effective concentrated hammer. Very little elasticity.]

PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE COLLAPSE THAT SUPPORT THE MODEL


1) Observed Behavior of WTC1 Core



The entire northern portion of the WTC1 core survived the initial collapse to about the 50th floor with some columns extending as high as the 70th floor. all with no visible trace of buckling. The surviving columns are identified in Appendix A. All columns in the 500 and 600 CC rows remained erect and largely interconnected though the initial collapse. One 700-800 column pair was also identified, probably 703-803. There is good reason to believe that some other 700-800 column pairs survived to about the 40th floor because when the west portion of the surviving core did fall, column pair 501-601 was seen to fall with 703-803 in a single collective motion, suggesting all visible columns on the west were interconnected as a considerably larger structure just inside the obscuring dust. These images show that the flooring in the OOS n, nw and ne regions was stripped clean of the surviving columns.

IDENTIFICATION OF TEMPORARILY SURVIVING CORE COLUMNS:

WTC1:

Identification of west side columns


http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/492885684.gif

501 is the tallest column of all on the right and 504 is the tall one bending to the right.

We can see how 504 bends to the right and hits 503 in this gif:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7417/snapnorth.gif
which places the two columns in the same row.

We see 504 lean and hit 503 clearest in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sKs6nfkcvE

Columns 504, tall and leaning, and column 501 can serve as easily identifiable landmarks in most all video and photos of the core remnant. We know that columns 501 to 504 mark the boundaries of the the west half of the core. We also know that all columns east of 504 must be from the east side of the core. In the image the east and west sides of the core are distinguishable just by locating columns 501 and 504
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/882307471.jpg

CCs 501 and 504 are the tallest columns and easily identifiable. We can identify the east side columns as all those to the right of CC 504.


Identification of east side columns

Using CC 504 as a reference line, we catch a vivid glance of many core columns to the left of CC 504., both standing and falling away. This is the east side of the core, column pairs 505-605 to 508-608.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sKs6nfkcvE

This excellent gif lets us see the east side column pairs falling away. Use column 504 as a reference line to see where the east side begins
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/3991/newfoot.gif

Video that shows the east side of the core momentarily
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAa7WCtpwtw

This video shows the east side of the core moving and falling independently of the west side:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKzV1Pfyrl8

and images from the video allows us to see the west and east sides of the core and identify the east side columns, shown in this gif:
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7641/floorcoredesignfemr2b.gif

This shows the full width of the core. Identification of the full width of the core (8 column pairs total) allows us to conclude that the tallest column on the far west is indeed column 501, confirming the original claim.

Identification of 700-800 core column pair in the core remnant

The distance between 700-800 columns is significantly less than that of the 500-600 separation as a diagram with the spacing dimensions shows:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo_archives/pictures_with_graphics/wtc%20core%20dim.jpg

From the southwest two column pairs forming rectangles with different height to width (h to w) ratios are visible:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/spire_rectangles.jpg

The location of the photographer is known to be about 22 degrees from the building's east-west axis. This means:

width we see = actual width x cos(22) (roughly), while cos(22) =.93

Distance between 500-600 = 15.25 ft
between 600-700 = 20.5 ft
between 700-800 = 10.3 ft
distance between 704-805 = 9.5 ft
floor height about 12.5 ft

For the blue rectangle w>h while for the red one h>w giving h to w ratios matching the 500-600 row for the blue rectangle and 700-800 for the red one.

2) Observed Motion of WTC1, 2 Perimeter Walls



All observed exterior walls under the collapse initiation elevation of each tower fell away from the building as large unbuckled interconnected sheets of various sizes during the collapses. This fact becomes quite obvious as the observed movement and rubble layout on each side of the footprint is studied. A large collection of images of the visible movement and resulting perimeter layout in the rubble are shown in Appendix B.

MOTION OF THE PERIMETER WALLS


WTC 1: Recorded Motion of the Perimeter Walls


West Wall

...................



South Wall

.........



North Wall

.......




WTC 2: Recorded Motion of the Perimeter Walls


East Wall

........



West Wall

.......




South Wall

...............

3) Observed Behavior of the WTC1 Crush Front

High quality video shows the dynamics of the different collapse fronts at work. Linked below are high quality clips that show details of the OOS nw and OOS sw collapse fronts. It is very clear within the video that OOS sw leads OOS nw front by a considerable, ever increasing margin.



Slow motion version:

(H264 version can be downloaded at: http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/1-1-0-7)

When viewing these clips one should remember that much of the core, including the entire east-west width of the northern 500 and 600 CC rows survive the initial collapse with cross bracing intact. This means that the core, just 37 ft within the west wall and 60 ft within the north wall, remains intact while the collapse front progress to the ground.

It is clear that such evidence points to only one natural mode of possible progressive destruction: The OOS model.

Current knowledge of WTC perimeter action with discovery that the entire north half of the WTC1 core survived the initial collapse leaves little doubt that complete OOS destruction, essentially stripping the OOS flooring from both the perimeter and the core, was the mechanism by which the collapse propagated down the tower. Runaway OOS Destruction (ROOSD) is the only known descriptive collapse propagation model which matches observation.

4) Observation of core and perimeter columns within the rubble

The overwhelming majority of core and perimeter columns within the rubble were were seen to be relatively straight, showing no evidence whatsoever of having been buckled. The almost complete absence of buckled columns is a vital clue to the true collapse progression mechanism, though the NIST seems oblivious to this fact, not having mentioned it once in in it's reports on the collapses. Dr Bazant, to whose expertise the NIST refers concerning WTC1 collapse propagation, seems equally oblivious to the actual condition of these columns since no mention of this fact appears of his papers on the subject of collapse propagation (Bazant and Verdure or Bazant and Le). Dr Bazant formulates equations to describe the rate of collapse propagation based on continuous column buckling and rebuckling in Bazant and Verdure, even though there is a clear absence of buckled columns within the rubble.

The true conditions of core and perimeter columns as they were positioned in the rubble can be seen by using the largest photo collection of the original layout of the rubble publicly available (See Appendix C). Debris photos are grouped by region to allow the reader to get a sense of the rubble layout in each region without being overwhelmed or disorientated.




RUBBLE LAYOUT

As shown in Appendix B, the debris for each building was found within and near the footprints and was pushed, or fanned outwards from the 4 exterior walls.

If we ignore WTC7 and consider only debris from WTC1 and 2, all debris exists in 8 natural regions as shown below.



Southward from WTC1 and westward from WTC2 share a region (we'll call it "southwest complex") and eastward from WTC1 and northward from WTC2 share a region (the plaza area). Hence 8 natural regions total.

It is hoped that by rearranging all known useful debris photos by region, the reader can see for themselves how debris was distributed throughout the complex and in what condition without being overwhelmed with information.

The largest publicly available collection of debris photos are linked below:

Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint at http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=1&MMN_position=99:99&MMN_position=193:193

Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint at http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=6&MMN_position=100:100&MMN_position=194:194

Debris: From WTC1 Westward at http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=28&MMN_position=269:269

Debris: From WTC1 Northward at http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=29&MMN_position=270:270

Debris: From WTC2 Eastwardat http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=31&MMN_position=272:272

Debris: From WTC2 Southward at http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=30&MMN_position=271:271

Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex at http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=14&MMN_position=101:101&MMN_position=200:200

Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex at http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=photoalbum&PHPWS_Album_op=view&PHPWS_Album_id=32&MMN_position=273:273

5) Pieces of flooring remain intact and people survive at the base of WTC 1:

A small surviving core structure within WTC1:




Notice the floor slabs that survived the fall of one of the largest buildings on the planet directly above them.

When the ROOSD propagation hit earth, the whole perimeter was most probably (completely) enclosed. A massive, completely trapped impact results and the final collapse of each wall follows.
When the smoke clears, fragile flooring is still intact in the center of the footprint and some person actually survived in there.

The ROOSD debris cannot escape the funnel. This is important to realize. The ROOSD propagation takes place within a totally enclosed caging at all moments, even as it strikes earth. Initiating ROOSD may be as simple as just getting enough heavy objects inside the funnel and getting out of the way. If enough mass is dumped inside a funnel (it doesn't matter how high or how low it is done), it cannot stop.



6) Appearance at the base of each tower after collapse





Anybody considering the ROOSD process to earth probably assumes that the propagation will hit the lowest basement levels while the perimeter shell is still enclosing the ROOSD debris. So, when striking the earth, the whole perimeter through at least 20 floors and the tridents are still tubular and intact.

We may assume that the damage of the west wall spreading out from the footprint happens after this collision takes place. The west and south walls were erect and most probably still interconnected at all 4 corners when the massive collision takes place.


One can imagine how the damage occurs after the ROOSD mass strikes the earth, the massive outward pressurization upon impact. That means the mound shown in the footprints is the actual ROOSD debris, with some core columns sprinkled above as the core finally collapsed.



7) ROOSD may help explain the the degree of pulverization of objects and the massive quantities of dust

A process very similar to the ROOSD description of progressive floor collapse has been modelled mathematically by A.G. Vlassis, B.A. Izzuddin, A.Y. Elghazouli and D.A. Nethercot. The paper "Progressive Collapse of Multi-story Buildings Due to Failed Floor Impact" is available at this link.

Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Failed Floor Impact, linked:
http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/1466/1/EngStr09%20-%20AGV_BAI_AYE_DAN.pdf

From the paper a deforming slab responding to impact:




From the introduction:

"It is concluded that such structures are susceptible to progressive collapse initiated by impact of a failed floor, mainly due to insufficient ductility supply under combined bending and axial deformation modes. Moreover, the development of shear failure modes is identified, thus further increasing the observed vulnerability of the studied floor system. Since these shear
modes of failure are expected to be even more pronounced when the actual dynamic rather than the static response of the impacted floor is considered, the need for further research work focussing on the shear capacity of a variety of connection types subject to extreme events is established. Finally, practical design recommendations that can improve the impact response of floor systems exposed to impact from the floor above are made."

page 24: "Hence, it can be easily concluded that in the event of failure and subsequent impact of a single floor plate onto the floor plate below, the lower impacted system, modelled using a grillage-type approximation, is highly unlikely to possess sufficient dynamic load carrying capacity to resist the imposed dynamic loads and prevent progressive collapse."

page 26: "Thus, although assessment is based on a simplified grillage-type approximation rather than a detailed slab model, the explicitness of the results leads to the conclusion that a floor system within a steel-framed composite building with a typical structural configuration has limited chances to arrest impact of an upper floor. This is particularly true when the falling floor completely disintegrates and falls as debris without retaining any residual strength or spanning capability."

page 27: "To conclude, although there is room for further improvements with respect to its accuracy and applicability, the proposed assessment methodology provides an effective platform to rationally tackle the scenario of floor impact, which is one of the most prevalent progressive collapse initiation mechanisms."

Toward a mathematical model: Propagation mechanics

Runaway OOS mechanics will take the form:

for rubblized driving mass > M(1) moving at a downward velocity > V(1) , the runaway process is assured.

If driving mass M is large enough and the downward velocity V is large enough the conditions will probably escalate.


MEASURED COLLAPSE PROPAGATION RATE: As shown in appendix D, a collapse front down the west face of WTC1 remained visible and measurable down to the lower floors. The movement shows a relatively constant velocity after quickly levelling off after collapse initiation. The velocity is approximately 25m/s, or about 8 floors per second being destroyed. To the author's knowledge this is the first time that the propagation rate of a progressive floor collapse was measured.


Collapse front propagation rate down WTC1 southwest corner


Initial data for linear ejecta traversal from West face of WTC 1:



http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/linear_2/6-0-217
http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-217-3 (1280x720px/74.6Kb)

Source video in H264 format (1280x720x25fps):
http://femr2.ucoz.com/ffdemhd_264.avi

Crop of West Face Ejecta:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMeTGfCZWMI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F5Tw2ITMF8

Position:


http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-219-3 (1234x731px/67.0Kb)

Velocity:


http://femr2.ucoz.com/photo/6-0-220-3 (1224x730px/87.3Kb)


Code: Select all
Tracker1
0 721.476 375.888
1 721.696 375.767
2 721.786 375.408
3 721.557 376.272
4 721.589 375.405
5 721.523 375.117
6 721.536 374.440
7 721.702 374.986
8 721.823 374.718
9 721.890 373.537
10 721.904 373.412
11 722.034 373.501
12 722.239 373.204
13 722.288 373.265
14 722.315 372.381
15 722.423 372.789
16 722.255 372.125
17 722.535 372.497
18 722.852 372.621
19 722.631 371.841
20 722.793 371.743
21 722.827 371.847
22 722.981 371.589
23 723.136 371.182
24 723.382 370.738
25 723.224 370.404
26 723.224 370.024
27 723.677 369.614
28 724.114 369.077
29 723.977 368.649
30 723.831 368.179
31 723.895 367.813
32 723.816 366.855
33 724.307 366.007
34 724.275 365.239
35 724.010 364.010
36 722.378 365.754
37 722.322 364.987
38 722.356 364.142
39 722.513 363.098
40 722.643 361.575
41 723.096 360.693
42 723.314 360.003
43 723.005 358.306
44 722.755 356.862
45 722.338 353.314
46 721.611 349.568
47 721.799 348.582
48 721.889 347.614
49 721.201 345.762
50 720.922 344.640
51 720.986 344.161
52 721.178 343.460
53 721.100 342.730
54 721.049 341.913
55 720.598 340.999
56 720.528 339.843
57 720.435 339.126
58 720.551 337.950
59 720.641 336.576
60 720.600 333.557
61 720.632 332.382
62 720.666 331.251
63 720.977 328.214
64 721.196 324.659
65 721.027 324.176
66 720.872 323.056
67 720.715 319.442
68 721.311 316.582
69 721.420 314.769
70 721.152 311.920
71 721.441 309.419
72 722.035 306.544
73 722.081 304.624
74 721.956 300.797
75 721.828 298.748
76 721.627 299.510
77 721.540 298.074
78 721.502 297.110
79 721.428 296.212
80 721.376 294.837
81 721.423 292.971
82 721.756 291.283
83 721.655 289.267
84 721.697 287.807
85 721.738 285.502
86 721.548 283.144
87 721.064 279.980
88 720.074 280.793
89 719.950 280.047
90 719.805 279.261
91 719.800 279.212
92 719.511 279.090
93 716.514 267.100
94 716.386 266.929
95 716.764 266.540
96 716.956 266.266
97 717.002 265.814
98 717.003 265.281
99 717.080 264.576
100 717.133 263.321
101 717.282 263.370
102 717.346 262.469
103 717.545 260.871
104 717.946 257.634
105 717.865 251.882
106 718.090 250.194
107 718.073 248.865
108 718.098 245.680
109 718.037 239.270
110 718.085 237.249
111 718.387 236.537
112 718.721 235.793
113 718.519 233.065
114 718.472 228.316
115 718.422 227.104
116 718.653 225.120
117 718.545 222.672
118 719.019 221.439
119 722.126 213.375
120 722.246 211.262
121 722.001 209.885
122 721.852 207.668
123 721.908 206.588
124 722.097 204.839
125 721.176 201.106
126 722.181 200.257
127 722.095 197.693
128 721.876 195.204
129 721.547 191.086
130 720.900 188.512
131 722.005 190.771
132 721.005 189.940
133 720.947 189.156
134 722.433 186.081
135 721.467 186.299
136 721.357 185.068
137 721.178 184.047
138 722.741 180.704
139 721.809 179.750
140 721.815 177.667
141 722.808 176.460
142 721.805 174.569
143 721.649 172.482
144 721.519 169.953
145 721.750 167.671
146 721.297 164.847
147 721.582 163.334
148 722.217 161.045
149 721.223 158.648
150 721.321 154.494
151 720.598 147.592
152 720.305 143.547
153 720.073 141.692
154 720.971 140.331
155 721.675 140.290
156 720.780 139.178
157 721.064 137.044
158 721.232 134.618
159 721.280 132.761
160 721.083 129.975
161 721.170 127.780
162 721.291 125.300
163 721.254 123.477
164 721.098 120.468
165 721.266 119.545
166 721.144 118.425
167 721.476 116.745
168 721.339 115.437
169 721.787 114.309
170 721.950 113.038
171 722.083 113.299
172 722.955 106.587
173 723.276 106.367
174 723.597 106.324
175 723.774 99.059


Note: The first section of data is very difficult to determine (the curved section) and further work is required to separate the initial descent ejecta from the latter linear ejecta.

Correlation with other videos will be required to improve data quality, specifically this close-up BBC footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb1PfiBT7A0

The scale also needs to be determined more accurately in order to convert the raw data into velocity.

Footage is 25fps. Data is per-frame.

Phase 1 motion: Initiation features that could lead to ROOSD conditions

The Author does not claim to provide answers to what initiated the fall of WTC1. Collapse initiation is a highly complex subject involving early structural deformity and a very rapid lateral failure propagation of core and perimeter columns. Current measurements of the initial deformations points to early core sagging and failure before any visible perimeter movement was detected, contrary to the NIST conclusion that south perimeter destabilization initiated the collapse.

ROOSD is a collapse propagation model, applicable only once certain ROOSD conditions are met. The following description of phase 1 motion is meant only as the most general description to show how such conditions may come about. The question of initial buckling is completely bypassed as we simply displace and drop an upper portion onto the lower building.

General features of phase 1 mechanics:

Let's imagine dropping an intact "upper block" over the lower portion as shown in the graphic. This is the simplest possible case with no lean. The same can be done with a slight tilt.



The top is offset about two feet to the right and dropped. Our OOS collapse model treats the structural elements thus:

Core columns act as breakable spears, breakable at welds or bolted connections every 3 floors. Core columns are like "matchsticks" (just as they are found in the rubble). The 36 ft sections are not crushable.

Perimeter columns act as 2 dimensional sheets. No buckling (just as they are found in the rubble). Not crushable.

Concrete floor slabs are strong but crushable. Floor-perimeter and floor-core connections are breakable.


The First Collision

What is the very first impact? Floor against floor. Core columns act as spears. Columns puncture floor in core. Punctures go both up and down.

How does the perimeter collide with the building? The left and right sides are different cases. It depends on which sheet gets the inside advantage. On the right, the bottom slides inside the top and the lower perimeter hammers against upper floor connections. This strips the upper perimeter from it's flooring. On the left it is the opposite. The top perimeter sheet slips inside the bottom and collides against lower block outside floor connections acting as a hammer.

If the lower building was not there the top would go into freefall. Collisions hindering the building from freefall give a practical sense of the sources of resistance force F encountered. The first collision is in the core and along both perimeters as shown:



Both upper and lower core columns act as spears puncturing flooring. We can assume that the floor sheets, 4" concrete, won't do much to stop them. We see a destruction through spearing happen to both upper and lower flooring.

Along the perimeter we see only the lower floor slammed on the left and only the upper floor smashed on the right. Notice how different the damage is, depending on whether the lower perimeter sheet slips within or outside the upper sheet. Inner position is important.

The second collision.



Floor slab meets floor slab. The overlap region is in yellow. Will this create a jolt along the roofline? Would there be a jolt if the top was leaning slightly? Maybe and maybe not. We may assume so, but we notice the perimeter wall administered a shock to the outer flooring connections in the last collision. Wouldn't the perimeter spandrels smashing and breaking outer flooring connections send a pulse to the perimeter roofline more effectively than floor slab collisions?

In reality, it may not be stubby sections of perimeter columns that are smashing against the floor connections but the spandrel plate instead. The spandrel plate acts as a powerful hammer against flooring connections.

Each slab is an independent structure and is held onto the building only through perimeter and core column connections. Were it not for these connections each slab could move freely.

What is the nature of this collision? Neither slab has an advantage in the collision, so the destruction and connection breakage would be shared evenly. Each can be crushed. This collision must result in the disconnection of both slabs from the larger structures.

Please consider:

1) The slab resists disconnecting from the larger structure only as the strength of the connections allow.[/i] Were the slab strength and connection strength infinite the collision impulses would be transferred to the columns, core and perimeter. With finite connection strength the roofline fall would be slowed only as much as connection strength and floor crushing will resist breakage.

2) How does column yield strength enter into this collision? With finite floor connections it doesn't. There is no connection whatsoever, demonstrating one way that the OOS destruction model differs with the Bazant and Verdure approach.

3) What collisions act to slow the fall? (What is the source of resistance force F?) Connection breakage and rubblization of slabs.

Stripping the perimeter of flooring: The inside advantage

In the case of WTC1 (and WTC2 n, w and s walls) the upper perimeter walls are seen to fall outside the lower wall on all observable faces. We can see how this simple change in initial positioning can destroy the physical integrity of the upper block in the the diagram:



On each of the 8 WTC1, 2 faces very different phenomena result from whether the upper perimeter sheet or lower perimeter sheet slips to the inside during the earliest failure). This simple fact changes the mechanics of destruction along the outer OOS flooring. If the upper sheet slips (or is intentionally pushed) outwards, the subsequent behavior along that face changes.

The lower perimeter breaks successive outer floor connections along the red line. It strips the upper block perimeter columns from their flooring. Pop, pop, pop, pop all the way up. If the process were reversed (as shown on the left side of the building), the lower block perimeter would be stripped from it's flooring (as seen along WTC2 east face). Such a process may effectively disconnect and rubblize the OOS floor slabs along their outer edges, creating ROOSD conditions within the OOS zones.

If this is true, what is a large part of the resistance force F which controls the building descent as measured along the WTC1 north face roofline? It is the perimeter-floor connections and their resistance to being destroyed.

The ROOSD descriptive model of collapse propagation: Phase 2 motion

Is runaway OOS destruction possible?

How much debris would need to accumulate in OOS zones traveling at what velocity impacting the floors below to create a runaway process?

What "threshold" must be overcome to achieve runaway conditions?

These fundamental questions require a mathematical formulation of the ROOSD model.



Current descriptive and mathematical approaches to explain the collapse progression for WTC1 cannot account for the temporary survival of the entire northern portion of the core. The general description of WTC1 collapse propagation offered by Dr Bazant in Bazant and Verdure(2007), Bazant and Le(2008) and Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson(2008) cannot account for any of the 4 physical observations presented in this paper. Within the body of literature offered by Dr Bazant on the subject of WTC1 collapse progression there is no hint that Dr Bazant is even aware of the absence of column buckling, the temporarily survival of the whole northern core or the outward motion of the perimeter.


In the WTC1, 2 design a runaway destruction potential seems to have always existed in the OOS spaces completely surrounding the cores. This process, once set in motion, can destroy all OOS space and strip the 4 perimeter walls from all support all the way to earth.


...............................



Other Important papers for mathematical formulations for the potential for progressive floor collapse:

Vlassis, A.G. (2007). Progressive Collapse Assessment of Tall Buildings, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London.

Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Sudden Column Loss – Part I: Simplified Assessment Framework
http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/968/1/Progressive%20Collapse%20of%20Multi-Storey%20Buildings_I.pdf

Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Sudden Column Loss – Part II: Simplified Assessment Framework
http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/970/1/Progressive%20Collapse%20of%20Multi-Storey%20Buildings_II.pdf


Kaewkulchai, G., and Williamson, E.B. (2006). “Modelling the Impact of Failed Members for Progressive Collapse Analysis of Frame Structures,” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, 20(4), pp. 375-383.

Jarrett, N. D. (1990). “Axial Tests on Beam/Column Connections,” BRE Client Report CR 55/90, Building Research Establishment, Garston, Watford, UK.

Anderson, D., Aribert, J. M., Bode, H., and Kronenburger, H. J. (2000). “Design rotation capacity of composite joints,” The Structural Engineer 78(6), pp. 25-29.

COLLAPSE MODES OF THE TWIN TOWERS AS REPRESENTED IN PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC LITERATURE


It is interesting to note that not a single paper exists within professional literature which correctly identifies the most probable collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers.

Consider something as simple as the Wikipedia entry on the Twin Towers collapse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

Within the wikipedia link there is a section which (incorrectly) explains the mechanics of collapse progression. From the link:

"Total progressive collapse

The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse.[51] In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground."

The wikipedia entry on the WTC collapses is a cut-and-paste version of Bazant crush down, then crush up mechanics (Bazant Block mechanics is described and reviewed later in this section). Exactly like Bazant does, the collapses are described using the language of blocks. Just as Bazant does, the blocks are taken to represent real physical attributes of the collapse progression process.



The writer of this article is most probably presenting the information that is available to him. The article shows what the writer perceives to be the most current literature on the subject.
More than a decade after the collapses, the wikipedia entry on the collapses contains verifiably incorrect information which is commonly accepted as fact. The wikipedia entry is one of many demonstrations of my thesis, that there is no accurate record of either collapse progression or collapse initiation of any of the 3 buildings available in any government, academic or professional literature.