Reassessing the Question of Demolition
REASSESSING THE QUESTION OF DEMOLITION
The technical portion of the book
Technical information is contained within 3 parts of the book in 3 main groups: (1) accurate records of the collapse processes and the discovery of pattern, (2) misrepresentations of the WTC collapses, and (3) seeming exceptions to pattern.
ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS AND DISCOVERY OF PATTERNS
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History
....2.4: WTC2 Accurate Collapse History
....2.5: WTC7 Accurate Collapse History
....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
SEEMING ANOMALY IN PATTERN
....5.1: The Case of WTC1
....5.2: The Case of WTC2
....5.3: The Case of WTC7
The overall layout being grouped as:
1) Accurate collapse descriptions and discovery of pattern
3) Anomaly in pattern
The book is centered around accurate mappings of the collapse processes. The mappings reveal patterns. It is impossible to address any issue involving anomaly in pattern unless existing patterns are recognized.
The most accurate and detailed mappings of the collapses possible also serve as a tool through which all claims can be fact-checked. It is the accuracy and detail of the mappings that allow one to spot mistakes and misrepresentations in the existing records.
No matter how one approaches these issues, accurate mappings must lie at the heart of the analysis. Claims cannot be directly verified or refuted without access to accurate detailed mappings of the collapse events themselves. Likewise, only through the discovery of flow and pattern can the subject of anomaly be addressed.
5: APPROACHING THE QUESTION OF COLLAPSE, ANOMALY, OR DEMOLITION THROUGH VARIOUS LENSES
3 definitions of ANOMALY (Merriam-Webster):
1: the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2: deviation from the common rule : irregularity
3: something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified
The first definition is not related to the WTC towers so that leaves definitions 2 and 3.
As a deviation from a common rule, in the case of the WTC collapses what is "the common rule"? As something irregular, in the case of the WTC collapses, irregular in comparison to what? To what are the collapses to be compared to determine if phenomena are irregular?
Or consider the third definition: An anomaly is simply something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified.
In part 3 it was shown that viewing the collapses through the NIST lens will lead to what basically amounts to a fabrication of the collapse descriptions. When the NIST descriptions of the collapses are compared directly to the visual record for WTC1, for example, it is as if the NIST is describing some other building.
As has been demonstrated, the actual patterns, particulate flows and structural movements of the collapsing buildings are quite complex. What a person sees within images of the collapses largely depends through what lens the buildings are being viewed. In this sense the collapsing buildings themselves are similar to a Rorschach inkblot test.
Within an environment of confusion, people often tend to see what they want to believe, changing the collapsing buildings into whatever they need them to be to maintain ones sense of "reality", ones ingrained sense of "right and wrong" or "good and bad".
As demonstrated in parts 2 and 3, The global attributes of the collapses of each tower are best viewed as massive chains of progressive floor collapses, which is quite different from the way the collapses are viewed through much of the written record, including the NIST reports.
In part 3 it was also shown that viewing the collapses through the NIST lens while viewing any opposition to the NIST viewpoint only through the lens of groups like AE911T will inevitably result in incorrect beliefs.
Each of these viewpoints, or lenses, will frame the question of collapse, anomaly, or the controversial subject of demolition in a different way. Through the NIST lens, no contradictions or anomalies suggesting demolition can be seen because observables and measurables are basically fabricated to fit their particular theory.
- The ejection patterns are fabricated.
- The earliest movements are fabricated.
- Ejections witnessed during the collapse progressions are ignored.
Viewing the question of collapse or demolition only through the lens of AE911T, on the other hand, results in the belief that massive chains of progressive floor collapses are not naturally possible. In part 3 it was shown that both viewpoints suffered from the following main weaknesses:
Some examples of false choices
1) Poor observation skills: Recognition of observable and measurable building features is considered optional or unnecessary.
2) No verification of claims: Incapacity or unwillingness to verify claims. A lack of awareness that independent verification is possible.
3) Use of surrogate models: Models for building behavior are accepted as true even though they have little or no correspondence with what was observed.
Consider some of the main collapse features as seen through either the NIST lens or through the AE911T lens.
Collapse progression through the NIST lens:
There is none, so the lens of Bazant is used. Through this lens the buildings are seen as crushing blocks, crushing down completely before the top portion crushes upward.
Opposing viewpoint; Collapse progression through the AE911T lens:
They claim that natural modes of collapse progression like a massive chain of progressive floor collapses are is physically impossible. Therefore, they view the fact that collapse progressions went to completion as a type of proof that demolition must have occurred and bombs must have been placed throughout the building to allow the collapse progression process to run to completion.
Identification of the collapse fronts through the NIST lens:
There is none. There is also none using the lens of Bazant. In fact, it is quite revealing that there is not a single identification of the collapse front to be found in any government, academic or professional literature on the collapses.
Opposing viewpoint; Identification of the collapse fronts through the AE911 lens:
One collapse front is identified in a video presentation but, since it is seen as ejections, it is described as a long string of bombs. Through the AE911T lens there is no effort to distinguish between ejection patterns caused through natural destructive processes and those that may have been caused by local demolition devices. Through the AE911T lens all visible ejections are caused by bombs. The fact that a visible ejection exists is considered proof of the existence of a corresponding bomb.
Overpressurizations below the collapse fronts through the NIST lens:
There is none. Through the Bazant lens of crush down, then crush up of some upper and lower "blocks", a corresponding pressure model emerged, describing the building interaction as essentially a single giant piston.
Opposing viewpoint; Overpressurizations below the collapse fronts through the AE911T lens:
AE911T offers no hint that it has been able to correctly identify the collapse fronts, so both the collapse fronts and the overpressurizations below them are merged and collectively considered to be proof of thousands of bombs.
Rubble layout through the NIST lens:
There is no mention of the distinctive patterns.
Opposing viewpoint; Rubble layout through the AE911T lens:
The debris located farthest away from the footprints is considered as proof that something akin to large, powerful bombs kicked heavy debris off of the buildings horizontally at high initial speeds. In reality, it is directly related to the massive contradiction within the written collapse histories. Once again, the question of mechanism is being misapplied.
Everything from the debris layout to ejections both at and below the collapse fronts are colored by the lens through which one views the collapses.
The question of demolition is incomprehensible through the NIST lens. Through the false representation of early movement, through the lack of a realistic collapse progression model, through the narrowed perspective and incorrect records of building behavior it is impossible to assess the question of demolition through the NIST lens with the slightest bit of realism.
Likewise, from the AE911T viewpoint no realistic assessment of building behavior is possible. Therefore no realistic assessment of demolition is possible through this lens either.
THE ACTUAL COLLAPSES: REMARKABLE ORDER WITHIN APPARENT CHAOS
Using accurate and detailed isual mappings of the collapse processes, it was found that each of the twin towers moved in a quite organized way as 3 main structural elements:
Once this pattern was observed, the processes of collapse could be understood to be highly organized, as all 3 components are found to fall in well-ordered, highly predictable ways.
HYPOTHETICAL SKYSCRAPER DEMOLITION BASED ON ROOSD PRINCIPLES
Given what is now known, a practical question concerning what could be expected in the case of demolition:
If a demolition team were to intentionally bring down this structural system, given what is knowable and verifiable to date, what is the best way to do it?
What can be learned about the structure of the Twin Towers by recognizing the remarkable order within the Twin Tower's collapses?
In retrospect, the collapses were found to be remarkably controlled processes due to the nature of how the collapse fronts propagated down structures trapped within confining outer walls. The collapse progressions was also highly regulated processes, moving at a near constant 8 floors per second downward through the structures.
If one were to approach a demolition of these particular structures, why wouldn't one utilize the highly controlled, predictable features of confinement and regulation unique to the structure of these towers? The ROOSD process leads to a natural decomposition of a 3 part system ((1) flooring, (2) perimeter, and (3) core) in a highly organized, predictable way. Obviously, this order, however initiated, can be utilized by demolition planners of similar large high rises in the future.
Can trigger a naturally cascading interaction in a stacked and caged system. The system is highly confined and regulated. It is therefore highly predictable once triggered.
PERIMETER ACTS AS CAGING: The outer wall grid determines what can fall outside the footprint. The upper size limits of ejected materials are determined by the 2'x8' grid stricture. All ejected material must be able to fit out of a 2'x8' opening or remain confined to within the footprint.
TRIGGER EVENTS FOR PROGRESSIVE FLOOR COLLAPSE:
a) From the collapse initiation region
b) The mechanism of release as a core-led process
c) Column to column connections are the weakest link.
d) Nature and locations of the connections near the collapse initiation zones at this link
POSSIBLE PROPAGATION DISCONTINUITIES: At MER levels due to the beam flooring architecture used on those levels. MER layout and structure described in greater detail at this link
After the passing of the highly confined, regulated and predictable ROOSD process downward within the building, stripped perimeter walls and stripped, standing core columns will be all that remains of the structure.
HAT TRUSS: A special problem of the hat truss. Hat truss and MER structures were the only extra-strong reinforcement of the global structure.
2) PERIMETER FALLING
Each perimeter falls in 3 stages.
Natural break points are just above the MER panels, along the lowest possible bolted rows of connections. The staggered rows of bolted connections are located at this link
3) CORE FALLING
Deconstruction of the core in 10 to 20 floor sections high in the building and at the base (basement level).
Core-led demolition and perimeter response possibilities, partial (IB) and total.
RESULTS IN A PREDICTABLE LAYOUT AND RANGE OF RUBBLE
Predictable final condition of building rubble layout as three main elements: flooring, perimeter panels and core column sections. The farthest sections of perimeter walls will be found about 30 floors outward from the base of the building on each side. This is due to the 3 stage dropping of each perimeter wall.
Dropping all caged debris within the footprint. Dropping the perimeter walls outward, maximum 30 floors outward from the base. Dropping the core.
Collapse propagation rates down OOS regions move at a highly regulated 8 floors per second. This allows for accurate drop time predictions of all three main structural components.
REVIEW OF COLLAPSE FEATURES OF WTC1, WTC2, AND WTC7 WITH FOCUS ON THE QUALITIES OF CONFINEMENT, REGULATION, AND ANOMALY IN PATTERN
TO WHAT DEGREE DOES ANOMALY IN PATTERN EXIST WITHIN THE VISUAL RECORD?
From this point of view the controversial question of demolition becomes: To what degree does anomaly exist within pattern?
This is a difficult question to answer because without the discovery of pattern, it is impossible to spot anomaly within that pattern.
5.1: The Case of WTC1
5.2: The Case of WTC2
5.3: The Case of WTC7
The book Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, cited in part 4, provides some excellent insights into how the appearance of anomaly has traditionally been dealt with in various sciences over the last few hundred years.
Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" (5)'"scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.
Various people have been claiming to know the answer to the question of anomaly with certainty since the WTC towers first collapsed over 11 years ago. They predicate their research on the assumption that they already know what happened even before they began researching.
Many of these same people demonstrated numerous times that they had no understanding of the patterns in which the so-called anomalies appeared. For this reason alone it is impossible that these people could make such claims with certainty.
Normal science is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education". Phenomena that will not fit the box are often not seen at all.
This type of phenomena, the ones that do not fit neatly into a conceptual box, is what is being referred to as "anomaly in pattern".
In the case of the WTC collapses, into what conceptual boxes are people trying to put the various phenomena within the visual record? The conceptual box is the assumption that researchers already know what happened before they began researching the events.
Scientists neither test nor seek to confirm the guiding theories of their disciplinary matrix. Nor do they regard anomalous results as falsifying those theories.
or, described in more detail:
Kuhn's view is that during normal science scientists neither test nor seek to confirm the guiding theories of their disciplinary matrix. Nor do they regard anomalous results as falsifying those theories. (It is only speculative puzzle-solutions that can be falsified in a Popperian fashion during normal science (1970b, 19).) Rather, anomalies are ignored or explained away if at all possible. It is only the accumulation of particularly troublesome anomalies that poses a serious problem for the existing disciplinary matrix. A particularly troublesome anomaly is one that undermines the practice of normal science.
In this case the guiding theory is that they believe they already know what happened. They are not seeking to test or confirm the belief that they already know what happened. Anomalies and contradictions can
trigger a questioning of ones system of beliefs, but not if they are ignored or not perceived at all.
In contrast, extraordinary science pays close attention to the emergence of anomaly
"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."
In this quote Einstein is basically saying that one cannot ignore phenomena that cannot be fit into the currently accepted boxes.
It seems self evident that only through the viewpoint of an accurate and complete record of building movements and behaviors can the collapses, anomaly, or the question of demolition be properly addressed. There is simply no substitute for accuracy.
David Bohm describes another purpose of physical theories:
"A theory is to make you understand what is going on, to make it (the process under study) intelligible."2
From this viewpoint, the models presently offered to the public do not give coherent, intelligible explanations for the World Trade Center building collapses.
A striking feature of doing research is that the aim is to discover what is known in advance.
This in spite of the fact that the range of anticipated results is small compared to the possible results.
When the outcome of a research project does not fall into this anticipated result range, it is generally considered a failure, i.e., when "significance" is not obtained.
Studies that fail to find the expected are usually not published.
In this case the NIST reports were published. Contradictions between claims within the reports and the visual record went largely unnoticed. The public had no access to the visual record as a whole until it was released by the NIST years after the reports were published. Those who took the time to fact-check claims as the visual record became available were ignored.
Since, as Kuhn described, normal science is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like
, the aim of research becomes the repeated reconfirmation of that assumption.
And,as Kuhn wrote, "scientists take great pains to defend that assumption
Extraordinary science, in contrast, questions that assumption by attempting to account for anomalies that have accumulated by were ignored. They were ignored because they could not be classified through "conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".
Recalling the definition of anomaly: something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified
. Anomalies are not easily classified by definition
; that is what the word means.
In the case of the WTC collapses, the conceptual boxed can be thought of as the NIST reports and all academic and professional literature on these subjects for the last 11 years. As has been demonstrated repeatedly in parts 2 and 3, there are various phenomena visible within the visual record of the collapses that are not addressed through the currently accepted conceptual boxes supplied by professional and government institutions.
These phenomena are therefore, by definition
It is impossible to know there is or is not anomaly in pattern unless patterns are first recognized. Yet the written record demonstrates that this is what researchers and ordinary citizens have claimed to know repeatedly.
What a person sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see.
Literally as well as metaphorically, the man accustomed to inverting lenses has undergone a revolutionary transformation of vision. The subjects of the anomalous playing-card experiment discussed in Section VI experienced a quite similar transformation. Until taught by prolonged exposure that the universe contained anomalous cards, they saw only the types of cards for which previous experience had equipped them. Yet once experience had provided the requisite additional categories, they were able to see all anomalous cards on the first inspection long enough to permit any identification at all.
Both professional and laymen researchers will tend to be quite ignorant on questions of anomaly if they are also ignorant on questions of pattern.
"The temptation to write history backward is both omnipresent and perennial."
It certainly is. It can be expected to be written backward in such a way as to remove anomaly, contradiction, confusion, and uncertainty. Kuhn continues:
But scientists are more affected by the temptation to rewrite history, partly because the results of scientific research show no obvious dependence upon the historical context of the inquiry, and partly because, except during crisis and revolution, the scientist’s contemporary position seems so secure. More historical detail, whether of science’s present or of its past, or more responsibility to the historical details that are presented, could only give artificial status to human idiosyncrasy, error, and confusion."
Since normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like", the historic rewrite can be expected to make it appear that this assumption is true.
This observation by Kuhn is quite applicable to the case of the WTC collapses. It is also one of the main themes of this book. In this case, more historical detail and more knowledge of and ability to compare the visual and written records of the collapse events shows quite clearly that people are very confused and have made a large number of errors. Many people claimed to know things with certainty that they couldn't possibly have known.
Historic details reveal how confused various official bodies, groups and individuals actually are more than 11 years after the WTC collapses occurred.
On to part 6:
6: Collapses Misrepresented as a False Choice
Created on 04/14/2012 09:57 AM by admin
Updated on 03/14/2013 12:09 PM by admin