The 9/11 Forum

oops i forgot to upload what i promised

My first uploads of the video was cut from this file,with Pinnacle Studio 10, because with MPG2Cut i was not able to cut precise.

Cut with MPG2Cut
http://rapidshare.com/files/148369872/WTC7-1.vob

just to make sure i didnt mess up the quality or even worse with the other program.

ETA: Might be there are less spelling errors now

I think it is good you posted it, I get this using a near identical method as the last set of data.

Based on height=174 meter

t,y(t)
------------------------------
0.02,0.737149312747129
0.04,0.737149312747129
0.06,0.737149312747129
0.08,0.737149312747129
0.1,0.737149312747129
0.12,0.737149312747129
0.14,0.737149312747129
0.16,0.737149312747129
0.18,0.737149312747129
0.2,0.737149312747129
0.22,0.737149312747129
0.24,0.737149312747129
0.26,0.737149312747129
0.28,0.737149312747129
0.3,0.737149312747129
0.32,0.737149312747129
0.34,0.737149312747129
0.36,0.737149312747129
0.38,0.737149312747129
0.4,0.737149312747129
0.42,0.737149312747129
0.44,0.737149312747129
0.46,0.737149312747129
0.48,0.737149312747129
0.5,0.737149312747129
0.52,0.737149312747129
0.54,0.737149312747129
0.56,0.737149312747129
0.58,0.982865750329505
0.6,0.737149312747129
0.62,0.982865750329505
0.64,0.982865750329505
0.66,0.982865750329505
0.68,0.982865750329505
0.7,0.982865750329505
0.72,0.982865750329505
0.74,0.982865750329505
0.76,0.982865750329505
0.78,0.982865750329505
0.8,0.982865750329505
0.82,0.982865750329505
0.84,0.982865750329505
0.86,0.982865750329505
0.88,0.982865750329505
0.9,1.22858218791188
0.92,0.982865750329505
0.94,1.22858218791188
0.96,1.22858218791188
0.98,1.22858218791188
1,1.22858218791188
1.02,1.47429862549426
1.04,1.22858218791188
1.06,1.47429862549426
1.08,1.47429862549426
1.1,1.72001506307663
1.12,1.72001506307663
1.14,1.72001506307663
1.16,1.72001506307663
1.18,1.96573150065901
1.2,1.96573150065901
1.22,1.96573150065901
1.24,2.21144793824139
1.26,2.21144793824139
1.28,2.45716437582376
1.3,2.45716437582376
1.32,2.70288081340614
1.34,2.70288081340614
1.36,2.94859725098851
1.38,2.94859725098851
1.4,2.94859725098851
1.42,3.19431368857089
1.44,3.19431368857089
1.46,3.44003012615327
1.48,3.68574656373564
1.5,3.93146300131802
1.52,3.93146300131802
1.54,4.1771794389004
1.56,4.1771794389004
1.58,4.42289587648277
1.6,4.66861231406515
1.62,4.66861231406515
1.64,4.91432875164752
1.66,5.1600451892299
1.68,5.40576162681228
1.7,5.65147806439465
1.72,5.65147806439465
1.74,5.89719450197703
1.76,6.14291093955941
1.78,6.38862737714178
1.8,6.38862737714178
1.82,6.63434381472416
1.84,6.88006025230653
1.86,7.37149312747129
1.88,7.37149312747129
1.9,7.61720956505366
1.92,7.61720956505366
1.94,8.10864244021841
1.96,8.35435887780079
1.98,8.60007531538317
2,9.09150819054792
2.02,9.09150819054792
2.04,9.3372246281303
2.06,9.58294106571267
2.08,9.82865750329505
2.1,10.3200903784598
2.12,10.5658068160422
2.14,10.8115232536246
2.16,11.0572396912069
2.18,11.3029561287893
2.2,11.5486725663717
2.22,11.7943890039541
2.24,12.0401054415364
2.26,12.5315383167012
2.28,12.7772547542836
2.3,13.0229711918659
2.32,13.2686876294483
2.34,13.7601205046131
2.36,14.0058369421954
2.38,14.2515533797778
2.4,14.7429862549426
2.42,14.9887026925249
2.44,15.4801355676897
2.46,15.7258520052721
2.48,15.9715684428545
2.5,16.4630013180192
2.52,16.7087177556016
2.54,17.2001506307663
2.56,17.4458670683487
2.58,17.9372999435135
2.6,18.4287328186782
2.62,18.6744492562606
2.64,19.1658821314253
2.66,19.4115985690077
2.68,19.9030314441725
2.7,20.1487478817548
2.72,20.3944643193372
2.74,20.885897194502
2.76,21.1316136320844
2.78,21.8687629448315
2.8,22.1144793824139
2.82,22.6059122575786
2.84,23.0973451327434
2.86,23.3430615703257
2.88,23.8344944454905
2.9,24.3259273206552
2.92,24.5716437582376
2.94,25.0630766334024
2.96,25.8002259461495
2.98,26.0459423837319
3,26.2916588213143
3.02,26.783091696479
3.04,27.2745245716438
3.06,27.7659574468085
3.08,28.2573903219733
3.1,28.5031067595556
3.12,28.9945396347204
3.14,29.4859725098851
3.16,30.2231218226323
3.18,30.4688382602147
3.2,30.9602711353794
3.22,31.4517040105442
3.24,31.9431368857089
3.26,32.4345697608737
3.28,32.9260026360384
3.3,33.6631519487855
3.32,33.9088683863679
3.34,34.4003012615327
3.36,34.8917341366974
3.38,35.3831670118622
3.4,35.8745998870269
3.42,36.3660327621917
3.44,36.8574656373564
3.46,37.3488985125212
3.48,38.0860478252683
3.5,38.5774807004331
3.52,38.8231971380154
3.54,39.3146300131802
3.56,40.0517793259273
3.58,40.5432122010921
3.6,41.0346450762568
3.62,41.5260779514216
3.64,42.0175108265863
3.66,42.5089437017511
3.68,43.2460930144982
3.7,43.737525889663
3.72,44.2289587648277
3.74,44.7203916399925
3.76,45.2118245151572
3.78,45.703257390322
3.8,46.4404067030691
3.82,46.6861231406515
3.84,47.4232724533986
3.86,48.1604217661457
3.88,48.4061382037281
3.9,49.3890039540576
3.92,49.63472039164
3.94,50.1261532668047
3.96,50.8633025795519
3.98,51.3547354547166
4,52.0918847674638
4.02,52.5833176426285
4.04,53.0747505177933
4.06,53.566183392958
4.08,54.3033327057051
4.1,55.0404820184523
4.12,55.531914893617
4.14,56.0233477687818
4.16,56.7604970815289
4.18,57.2519299566937
4.2,57.7433628318584

maple:

1.885752215 - 5.29509154079076082 y + 4.46825429942136942 y^2
1.916029506 - 5.38017916952337494*y + 4.51854212045183168*y^2- .794436351192172493e-2*y^3

The 2nd or 3rd order curves fit well with the complete collapse(time) function, but that also increases its value around t=t_init, at t=t_init the acceleration is slower than the values maple's least squares gave. Perhaps 186/174 will compensate that...

Where's DBB ?

ps. I want to create a demo video to show how this primitive method gave the data.

Einsteen:

I have been discussing smearograms with OneWhiteEye over on the "Other Technical Issues" thread and a lot of what I said on that thread in my last post from yesterday would apply here.

A quick look at your latest data shows that it is quite similar to your Sept 14th curve. (Please correct me if you disagree on this!) Thus I would say that the motion does not really take off until t = ~ 0.6 seconds and therefore I would be inclined to subtract 0.6 seconds from your times to get the real collapse initiation time, t(0).

Interestingly, if you take your quadratic fit and extrapolate to 4.6 seconds, which would be 4.0 seconds of real drop time, the drop distance comes out to ~ 72 meters. This is in reasonable agreement with the 69 meters in 4 seconds I proposed on the "Other Technical Issues" thread.

Dictator Cheney has shown the scaling of deflection to be 1:1. I guess that's hard for some to accept, even when shown it to be so.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from WTC 7 Collapse with Debris Impact Damage – Physics Based Model
Credit: NIST



Excerpts from Naudet video, looking at west face:



Excerpts from CBS video, enhanced, looking at west face:




Please note in the last simulation image, the SW corner has dropped no more that 3 stories, probably less and, while it's hard to tell from the animation, it seems the NW corner drops further. The west face is gnarled from top to bottom. The SW corner vertical edge is mangled beyond recognition.

In the videos, the top has dropped at least 8 and 6 stories respectively and the portion of the east face (Edit: I meant west) still visible has only the slightest deformation. In the CBS video, that face is washed out from reflection. If the face were to warp significantly, the variation in reflection (and therefore brightness) across the surface would likely be quite pronounced. It remains uniform. Finally, all edges remain essentially true, as best as they can be seen. I'm going to work on bringing the detail out as much as possible.

yeah, Norseman pointed out that the Figure 12-69 is without Impact Damage, which is correct.

But then rwguinn posted again.

and i was speechless. he twisted the NIST mail and claims some normalisations , whatever that might be.

20+ years of dealing with people that missinterpret FEA, he said, but still he is not able to read a FEA.

i started already making pictures of the FEA and compare them with video, but it was late, and i almost messed it up, got confused about the times.
once they start 0 when outer fassade comes down, and then they start timing when the penthouse came down......
But i will do that till next weekend.
and i rwote to NIST again
to get an even more clear statement than the one i got already.

i think the problem is, they dont comapre it themself, they read NIST saying it fits well the oservations, and stop thinking and looking. Thats not sceptical thinking afaik.

Dictator Cheney:

I notice my "Comments on the NIST Draft Report" are being criticized on the J**F Conspiracy Forums because of just one point.

Here is a rebuttal. Sorry its so laborious, but its the only way to deal with this type of criticism!

In Section 5.0 of my Comments on NIST’s Draft Report I stated:

“Now consider NIST’s description of the final moments of WTC 7 as exemplified by the computer-generated simulacra of NCSTAR 1-9 and 1-9A. Computer images of the final collapse of WTC 7, such as Figure 12-69 of NCSTAR 1-9 and Figures 4-46 and E-4 of NCSTAR 1-9A, show very extensive buckling of the exterior columns over much of the building a few seconds into the collapse. While there may be some questions regarding the scaling of the maximum deflections shown in Figure 12-69, Figures 4-46 and E-4 use lateral and vertical displacement contours that span 2 meters, a level of building distortion that should have been visible in the WTC 7 collapse videos, but was in fact not seen. And consider also Figures 4-53 and 4-54 of NCSTAR 1-9A that show a localized cave-in of the top ten floors of WTC 7 at its northeast corner about the time of global collapse initiation – another behavior of Building 7 that was never observed. It is simply astounding that, although NIST’s computer generated images of a crumpled and severely distorted Building 7 look nothing like the video images of the real thing, NIST nevertheless concludes: “the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

It has recently been suggested, (on the JREF 9/11 Conspiracy Forum), that this criticism of NIST’s Draft Report is invalid because NIST actually carried out two major computer simulations of WTC 7 - one with the inclusion of debris impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1, and one without – and the analysis with debris impact damage showed relatively minor buckling of the upper exterior structure of WTC 7. Thus, it is argued by these JREF supporters of NIST, the appearance of WTC 7 near and above the building mid-height in the early stages of global collapse was in fact accurately reproduced by NIST, especially if the simulations with debris impact are assumed to be more reliable than the simulations without debris impact.

This show of support for NIST’s computer simulations of the collapse of WTC 7 has prompted me to revisit the Draft Report, particularly with respect to the material presented in Chapter 12 of NCSTAR 1-9 and Chapter 4 of NCSTAR 1-9A, to see if the claims being made on JREF are indeed valid. Regrettably, as I show below, my reinvestigation has only revealed more problems with NIST’s Draft Report.

To begin this discussion it is important to recognize that NIST itself does not claim there were tremendous differences in the collapse simulations it conducted with and without debris impact damage; on the contrary, NIST acknowledges that the differences that emerge from the two simulations are relatively minor. Thus in the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1-9A we read:

“The global analysis without debris impact damage showed that WTC 7 would have collapsed solely due to the effects of fires. The initiation of the collapse was virtually the same as for the global analysis with debris impact damage.

The initial failure event, vertical progression of failure, and early stages of the horizontal progression of failure occurred in the same order and at essentially the same times……

As the horizontal progression moved from east to west, some differences began to occur relative to the analysis with impact damage. Some floors failed at mid-height of the building around Columns 73 to 75, leading to buckling of some interior columns at this location, rather than lower floors. The buckling at lower floor elevations in the analysis with impact damage was influenced by the damage around the west core columns when the debris impact damage was applied…

For analysis without debris impact damage, the timing of the exterior column buckling and onset of global collapse occurred at a slightly later time than was calculated for the analysis with impact damage.”

Clearly then, the effect of including or excluding debris impact damage in NIST’s computer simulations of the collapse of WTC 7 was mostly on the timing of the collapse – the collapse being faster when impact damage was included – and on the location and sequence of certain core column bucklings. However NIST emphasizes that the collapse initiation was not dependent on debris impact damage, stating on page 593 of NCSTAR 1-9:

“…the calculated time for the buckling of columns 78, 80 and 81, the calculated and observed times for the start of the East Penthouse downward movement due to the vertical collapse progression, and the calculated and observed times for the descent of the East Penthouse below the roofline were quite similar, independent of the debris impact damage.”

Then, on page 594, we discover that the only significant effect of not including debris impact damage in NIST’s computer simulations was that exterior columns were predicted to buckle between floors 17 and 29 rather than between floors 7 to 14 when impact damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7 was included.

And how do these different bucklings play out in the two global collapse scenarios? Remarkably NIST provides only very sketchy information on this, even though an estimate of the extent of exterior column buckling is arguably one of the best ways for NIST to link the predictions of its simulations to observations of the real collapse. Thus for the analysis of the collapse with impact damage, we have Figures 4-47 and 12-62 which selectively show the calculated exterior column bucklings only between floors 1 and 24 viewed from the west and south - two viewing angles for which photographic images of the collapse of WTC 7 are totally lacking. By comparison, for the analysis of the collapse without impact damage, we have Figures 4-62 and 12-69, which show the calculated exterior column bucklings for all floors, (1 – 47), viewed from the west, south and north.

Unfortunately there are additional problems in comparing Figures such as 12-69 and 4-47 with actual images of WTC 7 because NIST is sometimes quite vague about the global collapse times represented by many of its computer-generated images. For example, it appears that Figure 12-69 represents the condition of WTC 7 about 3.8 seconds into global collapse when the roofline had dropped about 20 meters, while Figure 4-47 supposedly represents WTC 7 about 1.6 seconds into the collapse when the roofline had dropped about 12 meters. Evidently these computer images correspond to different times in the global collapse so different degrees of buckling are to be expected.

A similar problem with the relative timing of collapse events is apparent for two other sets of images- Figure 4-46 and Figure 4-61. These figures are derived from simulations with and without debris impact damage, respectively. The timing problem stems from the fact that Figure 4-46 is stated to be 1.6 seconds after global collapse initiation, while Figure 4-61 is 6.1 seconds after collapse initiation. NIST points out on page 107 of NCSTAR 1-9A that the faster column collapse in the simulation with debris impact damage causes the roofline to fall more uniformly than in the analysis without debris impact damage and thus shows better agreement with the observed collapse. Hence Figure 4-46 probably represents NIST’s “best estimate” of how the north face of WTC 7 behaved during the first few seconds of global collapse since it involves a visualization using NIST’s preferred “collapse with debris impact” simulation. Figures 4-46 and 4-61 certainly show different degrees of buckling of the north face of WTC 7, but let’s consider how these computer images compare with the available photos and videos of the collapse of building 7.

Among the many photos and video frames included in NIST’s Draft Report I would direct the reader to Figures 5-207, 5-209, 5-212 and 5-214 in Chapter 5 of NCSTAR 1-9. These images show WTC 7 approximately 2, 3, 4 and 5 seconds, respectively, after global collapse initiation. The first image in this series, Figure 5-207, is particularly revealing because it provides an unobstructed view of most of the western half of WTC 7’s north face from floors 18 to 37 and shows that at 2 seconds into the collapse there was no significant buckling throughout this area of the building. Figure 5-207 also shows that at this time the eastern edge of the north face was still close to vertical and was free from buckling-induced distortions throughout floors 24 to 37. Inspection of the subsequent, one second delayed, images in this series of frames further reveals that the eastern and western faces of WTC 7 eventually, (i.e. 4 seconds into the collapse), tilted inwards by about 5 degrees; however, this tilting motion occurred without significant buckling of the upper half of the north face of the building.

Now compare and contrast these real-world observations with the computer-generated images of NIST. The left-hand image of Figure 4-46 of NCSTAR 1-9A, (which should closely match the video image of Figure 5-207 of NCSTAR 1-9), shows severe east-west buckling-induced distortions of at least ± 1 meter along the entire eastern edge of the north face of WTC 7. In addition, Figure 4-46 shows an inward (eastward) bowing, by about 8 degrees, of the upper half of the west face of WTC 7; and bear in mind, this behavior is predicted by NIST to occur within the first 2 seconds of collapse. I therefore stand by my original comment that NIST’s computer generated images of a crumpled and severely distorted Building 7 look nothing like the video images of the real thing. And I still find it unacceptable for NIST to claim: “the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

Very nice Dr. G

Very detailed and very well writen I think. thank you.
I hope Gregory has time to post it on JREF today. (He has a good reputation there, not like me )

At weekend i will post the by you described Figures, so they can have a look at it without taking the wrong document and geting confused.

Dictator Cheney:

Thanks for the comments. I wish I had the time, (and the expertise) to cut and paste the appropriate images from the NIST Draft Report. This would certainly help with understanding my text. As the saying goes: "A picture saves a thousand words!"

By the way, on the topic of posting my stuff at J**F, since I am banned over there I think you can only post a link to this site. (Crazy, of course, but you have to abide by the rules....) If you quote too much of my exact words they could ban you too, and I wouldn't want that to happen. However, I think if you summarize my main points the J**F moderators can't do much to prevent that and I would like to hear how my critics respond to my missive.

that sounds like i can make myself usefull here
doing some copy paste will be of alot more use than my handbagfights with Beachnut at JREF

There are some suggestions out there that the "inside" of WTC 7 fell before the "outside". This is perhaps because of some statements made by NIST in its Draft Report on building 7. One such example refers to the moment just before the end of the approx 10 second period between the buckling of column 79 and the downward movement of the entire building; it is to be found on page 20 of NCSTAR 1A: "The exterior facade on the east quarter of the building was just a hollow shell."

Now this is very dramatic prose - "just a hollow shell" - but I would ask all the NIST apologists out there to explain how the "inside" of a building could detach itself from the "outside" of the building to leave a "hollow shell", and do this without inflicting any visible signs of trauma to the exterior facade of the building?

In particular, how could the core of WTC 7 detach itself from the roof and fall "before" the exterior of the building?

Dr. G wrote:Now this is very dramatic prose - "just a hollow shell" - but I would ask all the NIST apologists out there to explain how the "inside" of a building could detach itself from the "outside" of the building to leave a "hollow shell", and do this without inflicting any visible signs of trauma to the exterior facade of the building?

Are you asking this of the same people who have said neither the core nor the perimeter of the towers could stand alone, let alone in a breeze?

OneWhite Eye:

Well I know some JREFers insist that the cores of WTC 1 & 2 could not stand for very long following the loss of the perimeter walls. Perhaps that's true, but I would like to have it explained to me .......

And I think I understand that a building like one of the Twin Towers could lose its perimeter walls like peeling an orange or something; but I am wondering how a building could lose its core and not show some damage to the facade.

"Just a hollow shell"

Hmm.......

Tried to PM you Dr. G, but for some reason the board has decided to let the messages sit in my outbox instead of actually sending them, so I don't know if you got them or not.

as promised the Figures

Figures 4-46 and 4-47



Figures 5-207 and 5-209

OneWhiteEye and Dictator Cheney:

Thanks for the PM's, ...... (yes, I did get them), .... but have been too busy to reply - for which I apologize!

It's true, for whatever reason, I am having trouble posting images from the NIST Report - probably my own fault - but DC has now posted the figures that are important for making comparisons of NIST's FEA model with the photographic record of 9/11.

Unfortunately I would say the score now stands at:

Photographic record: 1 point,

NIST: 0 points.