Slideshow image


Since your web browser does not support JavaScript, here is a non-JavaScript version of the image slideshow:

slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


Why Fact-check? Why preserve a visual record?

The Website Written as a Book
Introduction
1: Science and Subjective Viewpoints
2: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
....2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History
....2.5: WTC2 Accurate Collapse History
....2.6: WTC7 Accurate Collapse History
3: WTC Collapse Misrepresentations
....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations
....3.3: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentations
....3.4: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentations
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports
....3.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions
....3.7: Block Misrepresentations of Collapse Progressions
....3.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
4: Scientific Institutions Can Be Unaware of Contradiction
5: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
....5.1: The Case of WTC1
....5.2: The Case of WTC2
....5.3: The Case of WTC7
6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication
....6.1: Meme Replication in Technical Literature
....6.2: Meme Replication in Mass Media
....6.3: Meme Replication in Popular Culture
....6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records
Conclusions

WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

Official, Legal Attempts to Explain Collapses

Academic Attempts to Explain Collapses Reviewed

On the Limits of Science and Technology

WTC Video Record

WTC Photographic Record
WTC1 Attack to Collapse
WTC2 Attack to Collapse
WTC 7
.
-----PHOTO RECORD OF FIRE PROGRESSION-----
Fire Progression, WTC1 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 West Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 West Face
.
----DEBRIS LAYOUT AND CONDITION, BY REGION-----
Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings
Perimeter Column Photo Record
Perimeter Columns: Types of Damage
Core Box Columns: Types of Damage
Complete Photo Archive
Other Major 9-11 Photo Archives
The 911Dataset Project

WTC Structural Information

Log In
Username

Password

Remember Me



Online Misrepresentations of the WTC Collapses

Forum, Blog Representations of the WTC Collapses

The Book Tested Through Experiments

Miscellaneous Notes, Resources
FAQ for Miscellaneous Notes
History Commons 9/11 Timeline
The 911Dataset Project
Skyscraper Safety Campaign
First and Largest 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Key Words in Book and Website
Trapped Within a Narrowed False Choice
Vulnerability and Requestioning
On Memes and Memetics
Obedience, Conformity and Mental Structure
Denial, Avoidance (Taboo) and Mental Structure
Taboos Against Reviewing the Collapse Events
Extreme Situations and Mental Structure
Suggestibility, Hypnosis and Mental Structure
Awareness and Behavior
Magical, Religious, Scientific Cause-Effect Relations
The Extreme Limits of Mental Dysfunction
Orwell's "Crimestop", "Doublethink", "Blackwhite"
William James, Max Born: Science as Philosophy
Plato on Self Reflection and Mental Structure
Rewriting History, part 1
Rewriting History, part 2
On Smart Idiots

New Ideas in Education

Toward Accurate Collapse Histories

Toward Accurate Collapse Histories





2: TOWARD ACCURATE COLLAPSE HISTORIES


It is commonly accepted that the reports written by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the WTC collapses , released in 2005 and 2008, are the single best records of collapse events available to the public.

The reports are examined in part 3 of this book. At the time of their release it was impossible to independently reconstruct events related to the building behaviors and collapses directly from the visual record since much of the material necessary to do so was not available to the public. The necessary information was soley in the possession of the NIST. Also, the computer simulations of building behavior of the twin towers leading up to the collapse events upon which their claims and conclusions are based were never released to the public for independent review.

Only years later were some of the essential components of the complete visual record made available after FOIA requests that the NIST release the information. More detailed imagery of WTC collapse events were released to the public in 2008-2010 as a response to FOIA petitions. This newly released imagery allowed outside independent review of the collapse events directly through the visual record and the ability to directly verify or refute claims made by the NIST and various organizations and individuals for the first time since the 9/11/01 attacks.






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, the largest and most complete visual record possible1 was gathered together and examined directly.


Second, the collapse events from the visual record were reconstructed 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 will be demonstrated in parts 2 and 3 of this book, the NIST explanations for both collapse progression and collapse initiation of all 3 collapsed buildings given 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 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.



This approach to constructing sets of sequenced mappings from observed events is very similar to what the NIST claims to have done within their reports. The stated purposes of the NIST reports and their reliance on the visual record for inputs to their model are discussed in detail in sections 3.1 and 3.5 of this book.


The NIST used observations to develop timelines just as this book uses features to develop mappings. As they describe in NCSTAR 1-6 section 9.2:

Observables were used in all the analyses in three ways: (1) to determine input parameters, such as the aircraft speed and direction at impact, (2) to impose time-related constraints on the analysis, such as imposing observed broken windows over time to constrain the spread of fire, or (3) to validate analysis results, such as global stability after impact and during thermal loading.





HOW DOES ONE TRACK THE MOVEMENT OF A COMPLEX DEFORMING OBJECT?

It is probably best to track and list as many attributes of the moving object as possible. The complex motion can then be deciphered by considering all the measurements and observations listed to be true in the same time interval, as elements of the complex behavior are all happening together over a very short time interval. For example, if measurements A, B and C and observations C, D, and F are made over a 3 second interval, then the complex motion can be understood as the statement:

A, B, C, D, E, F are simultaneously true (over the 3 second interval).

Complex motion requires a complex description involving many near simultaneous features and measurements. To try to grasp it, the observer must keep all the relevant events and measurements in mind over a specific time interval. One cannot pick and choose which measurements and observations exist. They must all be taken together and understood as a whole.


Likewise, one cannot assume any particular global geometry. For example, simply because the WTC1 north wall is observed to fall outside the lower portion does not mean that the south wall fell inward. Considering deformation and small tilt angle during the failure sequence, both south and north walls can fall outside the lower portion. Each perimeter wall failure has to be mapped individually, since the behavior of one wall does not determine the behavior of an adjacent or opposite wall.

It is natural to list all key indicators of structural failure such as:

1) Structural deformations
2) Ejections and overpressures indicating internal activity
3) Movement through the initial column failure sequence

including

4) The earliest detectable movement, which can be found by tracing the collapse initiation movement of various points on the building back to the moment in time when it first becomes detectable.


It will be clearly shown that the building moved in a quite organized way as 3 main structural elements within this section and the next: (1) flooring, (2) core, and (3) perimeter. For this reason it is also natural to ask how each exterior wall moved and how the core moved.

  • How did floors move?
  • Did the upper portion of the exterior wall fall within the lower portion or did it fall out and over the lower portion?
  • Along what failure line did it give?

  • Where were the earliest deformations detectable?
  • How does that relate to the earliest detectable motion?
  • How can the transition between earliest deformations and the earliest detectable motion be explained structurally?



A person cannot choose which features to "allow to exist" and which features to randomly ignore. If one reviews the NIST description of collapse initiation (in section 3) and the Bazant description of the collapse progression (in section 3.6), it is clear that observations and measurables seem to be chosen almost at random. Most every major observable is basically ignored, while both parties seemed to see only what they chose to see.

It will be demonstrated that the NIST substituted false data and observables for a realistic descriptions of building behavior while Bazant ignored observables as large as global perimeter movement. When Bazant claimed that his crush down, then crush up model matches all observables, he was clearly picking and choosing which observables to consider and which to ignore.


2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers

2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapes

2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation

2.4: Toward an Accurate Technical Record of the WTC1 Collapse

2.5: Toward an Accurate Technical Record of the WTC2 Collapse

2.6: WTC7 Toward an Accurate Technical Record of the WTC7 Collapse






2.6 THE FINE LINE BETWEEN VERIFICATION AND SPECULATION


It is important to verify what one can. It makes no sense to spend time speculating over something that is within ones power to verify. In fact, one would think it is the duty of a researcher or journalist to verify what one can, and to understand the difference between verification and speculation.

Earlier research into the collapse events prematurely concluded that the collapse processes could not be visually mapped. Much of the attacks and collapses could be reconstructed from the raw visual record of the events if people made the effort to do it carefully.

It wasn't a case that it couldn't be done, but that so few people did it.


One can go back to exchanges during 2007-2008 across multiple media to verify that there were no mappings of the collapses at all. That means 6 to 7 years after the collapses, and 2 to 3 years after the NIST reports were released on WTC1 and 2, there was still no concrete understanding that massive chains of progressive floor collapses were the most probable collapse propagation mechanisms for those buildings.





THE VALUE OF MAPPING ACCURATELY


Physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, anatomy are some of the most fundamental external mappings ever created by human beings.

Researchers at the frontiers of any science can be thought of as "map makers"2. They are doing nothing more than mapping structure, quantitative and qualitative features and mechanisms. They are mapping form and pattern. The applied part of science and engineering is in the manipulation of the structures and mechanisms inherent in nature for specific uses.


For example,
mapping stars3
mapping organisms and organs
mapping genomes
mapping elements


Mapping fundamental constituents of matter by smashing them together and watching what comes out:
here and
here



On the value of clarity and detail in a map

The clarity of ones map allows one to move from the vague to the specific.



For example, this is a world map circa 1400 A.D.. The more one knows, the clearer the mapping becomes. Or consider the mapping of Solar System according to Copernicus here

A mapping of U.S territory, coast to coast (Louis and Clark) circa 1800 A.D. here provides another example. As more is learned, more precise mappings can be made.

Mappings of the atom, Thomson and Rutheford models, circa 1900 A.D.



The parallel between the clarity or vagueness in ones mappings and seeing a blurry image through a dirty or out of focus lens is striking.




A good mapping is like seeing through clean glasses with lenses in focus. To the degree ones conception or mapping is vague and indistinct, one cannot clearly see what is going on. Cartoons, abstractions and misrepresentations are foggy conceptions.

As mentioned earlier, the scientific method is completely dependent on accurate and detailed observations and measurements. An accurate collapse record must be based within the most comprehensive and accurate list of observations and measurements on the collapses possible. These mappings cannot be simplified and must be understood in detail. Richard Feynman explains4:







Likewise, the author does not simplify building movements or fake them. The author does not tell you the buildings behave something like blocks or like ball bearings on a spring, because they don't. They do not behave as Dr Bazant claims, nor do they tilt rigidly as the NIST claims.

The author is simply describing how the buildings actually behaved using the most accurate mappings possible.



On to Part 3: WTC Collapses Misrepresented




Created on 04/14/2012 09:48 AM by admin
Updated on 10/11/2014 09:34 AM by admin
 Printable Version

Copyright © 2008 WiredTech, LLC
phpWebSite is licensed under the GNU LGPL