Testing the Thesis for Validity
Reconstructing and comparing the visual and written histories of the WTC collapses
In part 2, reconstructions of the collapse events for WTC1, 2 and 7 were assembled. In part 3 it was shown that by using the visual reconstructions created, it is possible to spot common misrepresentations in what is currently considered the historic record of collapse events given through the government reports (the NIST reports). It is also possible to spot misrepresentations in ASCE publications and in claims surfacing through various groups and individuals. These misrepresentations seem to come in complementary pairs, and discussions using these misrepresentations results in types of pseudo-debate, which I referred to as a false choice
. Part 6 demonstrated how these groups of misrepresentations have been widely distributed to the general public through individual journalists and media organizations.
By carefully examining the visual record of the collapse events one can learn to spot misrepresenations in the NIST reports, in ASCE publications and in claims by various groups and individuals.
The first notable item within media and academia is that people on the whole tend to be remarkably detached from the visual record. This is understandable. It is quite difficult to reconstruct events from the visual record, and a comprehensive visual record of events was not even available to the public until close to a decade after the collapses. This detachment is what has allowed misrepresentations to continue to repeat themselves and flourish unchecked.
People tend to be detached from the history of the collapses in 2 ways:
1) They are detached from the visual record of events
2) They are detached from written records of events
The resulting atmosphere allows historic revisionism to flourish unchecked. In other words, anyone can say anything they want and there is little effort or capacity to check the claim for accuracy. Groups of like-minded people emerge under the banner of some common, shared beliefs. Since the groups are detached from their own visual records and written histories of the events, they make little or no effort or have little or no ability to fact-check their own claims.
When one is detached from both the visual record and the written records of the collapses, there is no way to verify or fact-check anything they are told. Even so, many people will still take on very strong opinions over what actually happened to the WTC towers. When people come to believe in misrepresentations, they form a detachment from the historic record, often without being aware of it. The misrepresentations, to them, become truer
than the events themselves. Accumulation of beliefs in these misrepresentations come to form a type of historic revisionism.
Reviewing the written record
Lists of all academic papers, ASCE peer reviewed papers and literature on the WTC collapses can be seen at this link
. Just as the visual record can be gathered and inspected, so the large body of written history over the last decade can be gathered together and examined for common recurring patterns and mistakes. With the improved body of knowledge now available, one can look back over the entire body of these written descriptions of the events over the last 11 years in the form of technical papers in professional publications and spot quite a few recurring errors.
7.1: THE COLLAPSES AS SEEN THROUGH THE LENS OF JOE AVERAGE
As demonstrated in parts 2 and 3, The global attributes of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 are best viewed through the lens ROOSD, or massive chains of progressive floor collapses, which is quite different from the way the collapses are viewed through much of the written history of the collapses, including both the AE911T lens and the NIST lens. In parts 4 and 5 it was also shown that viewing the collapses through the NIST lens while viewing any opposition to the NIST view only through the lens of AE911T will inevitably result in incorrect beliefs.
The main thesis of this book can be tested in many ways. One of which is by looking at the collapses through a few more lenses; the lenses of a hypothetical Joe Average, Joe Student, and Joe Pro.
One of the many consequences of there being no accurate technical description or history of the collapses is that there is a large information void right in the middle of the events of 9-11-01. There is a gaping void of verifiable, correct information regarding each collapse and people are filling that gap of information in various ways.
What does the absence of any accurate global collapse model for WTC1 and 2 have on the general perceptions and opinions of the larger populace toward the collapses?
Well, absent reasonable descriptions, what would one expect them to see?
Consider these unique global shapes and flows taken by the interactions of structure and particulates in the following images. These formations and shapes are etched into the minds of millions and millions of human beings from all parts of the world in connection to the events of 9/11/01.
Consider, what resources does Average Joe have available to him that are capable helping resolve his inevitable confusion concerning the patterns witnessed in images of the collapses?
This is what different people tend to see when they look at the structure/particulate cloud formations:
Different Joes will see different things. He might as well toss a coin to decide what is actually happening. After all, how are people to interpret the distinct global formations witnessed during the collapses with the information given to them?
While explaining none of these giant particulate formations to the general public, it hardly seems fair to blame the average Joe or Jane for being confused and having questions about what they see. They are starved of the information necessary to understand the complex movements and flows being witnessed. If Dr Bazant could not decipher the patterns witnessed, it seems absurd to blame Average Joe for not understanding the same complex flow. Average Joe is forced to choose a belief
Perhaps Joe Average will be able to decipher the WTC2 mass and particulate patterns more clearly:
Like Joe Average, millions and millions of people look at these images with distinct characteristic global shapes but they are not given any accompanying explanation as to why anything took the appearance and large scale formations that they did.
With the information available to them, their opinions can never rise to more than a vague, confused belief. Many people may believe they are quite certain
and those who disagree are "black" while they are "lilly white", but deeper analysis and questioning can show that they are just as confused and unable to interpret what they see as any other Average Joe or Jane.
Their sense of certainty is only an illusion that easily crumbles when put to the test. Underneath the false certainty there is a void of reliable technical information to help one understand what one sees.
The source of confusion starts from there being an information void
, not from the private citizens forced to grope in the dark as a result. To be ignorant of the gaping information void in which the larger populace finds itself, and then to blame large elements of the populace for any misunderstandings they may have regarding collapse characteristics, is really to misrepresent the whole chain of responsibility. This should become even clearer in the case of Joe Student considered next.
As a result, the Average Joe is basically reduced to a state of belief when he looks at the visual record of the collapses. He may believe one way, or another, or a third, but whichever way he goes it can never be anything more than a belief.
My conclusions are that his confusion is very legitimate. It is an inevitable response to the lack of information available to him. He is simply responding to the void. This author does not blame people for being quite confused. In fact, if they were able to describe what they are looking at within the general shapes the collapses take shown earlier, I'd be quite surprised.
7.2: THE COLLAPSES AS SEEN THROUGH THE LENS OF JOE STUDENT:
Joe Student unwittingly tests the thesis.
In this case a hypothetical Joe Student is considered. He is like Joe Average but with the added capacity and patience to study the subject on an academic level.
Imagine that Joe Student volunteers to do a report on the collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers as a special assignment. He may think1
he will have an easy time of it and begins by using the search engines google, yahoo and bing to scour for information. He also has access to all the information within the FEMA and NIST reports and all published articles within ASCE and other professional journals.
This young bright student is given the ability to read all the technical papers they can find on the collapses and progressive collapse in general. And to test the thesis completely, it is imagined that Joe Student takes such an interest in the subject that he reads all the most up-to-date academic and professional papers he can on progressive collapse.
Joe's base resources are
Search engines Google, Yahoo, Bing
"progressive floor collapse"
"world trade center collapses"
ASCE Database search
FEMA reports with search function
NIST reports with search function
9-11 Commission Report transcripts
2002 and 2005 Congressional Hearings Transcripts on the WTC Collapses
Joe also has access to the core literature reinforcing block mechanics2
All 4 Bazant papers BZ, BV, BL and BLGB, linked and reviewed here
Frank Greening, Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse, linked and reviewedhere
Keith Seffen, Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis, linked and reviewed here
Gordon Ross: Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1 linked here
and Joe takes a special active interest in the most up-to-date published papers on the phenomenon of progressive collapse available.
What will Joe Student find through these sources?
A large representative sample of the best search results, first 20 pages of results for google, yahoo, bing is reproduced below1
, extracted on May 6, 2012.
Typology of Progressive Collapse by Uwe Starossek
Collapse of the World Trade Center, Academic Kids
JOM, Why did the World Trade center collapse? Eager and Musso
World Trade Center, some engineering aspects, University of Sydney
Sideplate design systems
RETROFIT OF FLAT-SLAB COLUMN CONNECTIONS USING CFRP STUDS TO RESIST PUNCHING-SHEAR FROM CYCLIC LOADING
Dom Joavanni O. Cueva and Ian N. Robertson
Research Report UHM/CEE/08-03
Macro and Micro Nonlinear Analysis Methods to Assess Progressive Collapse Potential in Steel Frame Buildings
as a Function of Beam-to-Column Connection Behavior
Jesse E. Karns, S.E. and David L. Houghton, S.E.
Myers, Houghton & Partners, Inc. â€" Structural Engineers
Wikipedia entry on progressive collapse
Structural Systems for Progressive Collapse Prevention
Joseph Burns, John Abruzzo, Mark Tamaro
Progressive Collapse of Structures
Hamburg University of Technology
(sample chapters of book)
9/11 Myths on the subject of progresswive collapse
Pediaview Collapse of the World Trade Center
Mitigation of Post 9-11 Realities in Steel Frame Structures
As a Function of the Choice of Connection Geometry
David L. Houghton1, M.S., S.E. and Jesse E. Karns2, S.E.
17th International Symposium on Military Aspects of Blast and Shock
Las Vegas, Nevada
June 10-14, 2002
(A powerpoint presentation on) Comparing Progressive Collapse Due To Fire In Different Structural Systems
UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA (UFC)
DESIGN OF BUILDINGS TO RESIST PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE 2009, 2010
Study on the design methods to resist progressive collapse for building structures
Xinzheng Lu1,2, Yi Li1,2, Lieping Ye1,2 Yifei Ma1,2 and Yi Liang1,2
Âą Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, P.R. China
Phys.org Construction strategies to avoid progressive collapse
Seminar on introduction to progressive collapse by Ms. Margaret Tang, Weidlinger Associates in 2011
New York Magazine, Total Progressive Collapse
Why, precisely, the towers fell.
By Matthew Giles
Published Aug 27, 2011
In addition to these search results Joe Student is fed a steady diet of links to the Bazant papers within each search engine
Joe Student then visits the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) database....
From search here results reproduced in footnote 3 at the bottom of this page. Many of these entries are also included in the comprehensive written record of the colapses over the last 11 years linked earlier.
Joe Student then visits Wikipedia...
The description of the mechanics of the collapses was updated to the current wikipedia entry on the WTC collapses
Wikipedia 2008-2009 entry on the collapses here
Joe Student then visits the THE INVESTIGATION OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE: FINDINGS,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 2002 and OCTOBER 26, 2005...
Joe Student then visits the NIST website
Joe Student then visits Nova, World Trade Center Collapse
Joe Student then visits Popular mechanics Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
and, lastly, Joe Student also visits the gravysites technical reference page
Equipped with these initial lists of references, Joe Student sets out to write his report on the actual collapse modes of the Twin Towers.
7.3: WHAT WILL JOE STUDENT SEE AMONG THIS LIST OF SOURCES?
Joes of different levels of interest, talent and sincerity will see different things
Not all Joes are created equal in this respect. Not all Joe Students will take the time to understand the large body information before them.
The Case of Joe Lazy
Many Joe Students will want to grab a few sources and whip up a report quickly. This type of student will notice that the general information available can be grouped into 2 rough catagories.
1) Basic descriptions of the collapse modes through wikipedia, the NIST webpages, and other sources which are easy to read.
2) Current papers written on specific elements of the phenomena of progressive collapse.
Since the first type is much easier to read than the second, Joe Lazy will choose that first type.
wikipedia entry on the WTC collapses
New York Magazine
"Total progressive collapse
The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse. 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."
, (linked here
As part of their "Encyclopedia of 9/11", in an article called "Total Progressive Collapse: Why, precisely, the towers fell."
By Matthew Giles
Published Aug 27, 2011
Larger version here
Just like the wikipedia entry, the towers are described literally as crushing blocks, crushing down before crushing up.
Pediaview Collapse of the World Trade Center
The Towers failed, however, not because of C-4 or any other explosive but because of â€śtotal progressive collapse,â€ť an engineering phenomenon first identified in the late sixties after the partial destruction of a 22-story apartment complex in East London.
Although the steel didnâ€™t melt, it greatly softened, and buckled; as the floors began to sag, the exterior columns were pulled inward. The combination of gravity and the downward kinetic force of the higher floors caused the floors below to successively collapse (causing the puffs of dust and debris) until they hit the ground. The top floors then collapsed on top of the already-reduced-to-rubble pile, causing further wreckage.
Once again, described in terms of crushing blocks, crush down first, followed by crush up.
Total progressive collapse
The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse. 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 first Joe will probably grab the 3 or 4 references from the list that are easiest to read and write his paper from those. In other words, he will write down incorrect collapse modes and never know his description is nothing more than a cartoon.
Neither he nor his teacher who grades the paper will ever sense a contradiction in the collapse modes offered or understand that that they are nothing but cartoon-like misrepresentations.
The Case of Joe Astute (though limited in math skills)
Some Joe Students may be quite interested in the subject but lack the tools necessary to read the more advanced papers on the subject of progressive collapse. What will that type of Joe Average Student see within the sources cited above?
He will see everything the first Joe Student sees, but he will dig deeper into the resource list to the degree that he is able. For example, he has access to the block formulations of the papers on WTC collapse progression:
All 4 Bazant papers BZ, BV, BL and BLGB, linked and reviewed here
Frank Greening, Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse, linked and reviewedhere
Keith Seffen, Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis, linked and reviewed here
Gordon Ross: Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1 linked here
He will have access to the papers but he won't have the math skills to challenge and double-check what he is reading.
He will also has access to following articles because they are simpler to read:
Typology of progressive collapse*
Structural Analysis and Steel Structures Institute, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH)
Denickestr. 17, 21073 Hamburg, Germany
He refers to the WTC explicitly, so one would assume he can identify specific features of the collapse mode, which appears to be by far the largest chains of progressive floor collapses in history.
A typology and classification of progressive collapse of structures is developed that is founded on a study of the various underlying mechanisms of collapse. Six different types and four classes are discerned, the characteristic features of each category are described and compared, and a terminology is suggested. On this basis, the theoretical treatment of progressive collapse and the development of countermeasures are facilitated because they differ for different types of collapse. Some conclusions drawn here concern analogies that should be pursued further, collapse-promoting features, and possible countermeasures.
Keywords: Progressive collapse; Mechanisms; Typology; Classification; Analogies; Countermeasures
But if one assumes that, they are wrong. This is all he has to say about the mechanism of progressive collapses in the Twin Towers:
No, it didn't. It led to the stripping of flooring from columns.
2. Types of progressive collapse
2.1 Pancake-type collapse
This type is exemplified by the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. The impact of the airplanes and the subsequent fires initiated local failures in the areas of impact. The ensuing loss in vertical bearing capacity was limited to a few stories but extended over the entire cross section of the respective tower [1, 2]. The upper part of the structure started to move downwards and accumulated kinetic energy. The subsequent collision with the lower part of the structure, which was still intact, caused large impact forces which were far beyond the reserve capacities of the structure. This in turn led to the complete loss of vertical bearing capacity in the area of impact. Failure progressed in the same manner and led to a total collapse.
A pancake-type collapse exhibits the following features:
â€" initial failure of vertical load-bearing elements
â€" partial or complete separation and fall, in a vertical rigid-body motion, of components
2007 was the same year that Dr Bazant's first 2 papers on the mechanics of progressive collapse appeared in ASCE publications. 6 years after the collapses, neither Bazant nor this gentleman recognizes any specific features of the collapses and mistakes the collapse mode for generic block interactions.
University of Sydney, Civil Engineering Department
A definitive version was subsequently published in Engineering Structures Vol. 29, No. 9, pp. 2302-2307, Sept. 2007
No, the flooring is stripped from the columns. This is yet another example of an author who does not know anything about the specifics of the collapse mode of the twin towers.
Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground.
The collapse mode did not have much to do with columns, but with column-to-floor connections. The actual collapse fronts moved with near constant velocity through the OOS regions into the basements.
Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
The progression fronts did did slow down, hence the near constant velocity of the collapse fronts and the highly regulated, tightly confined processes. Constant velocity at about 8 floors per second cannot be achieved without a resistive component.
False choice based on ignorance of the actual progressive collapse mechanisms and ignorance of the nature and locations of column-to-column connection locations.
The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
If the actual collapse progression modes were identified, one may not be so impressed with the design. The current tenents of the I.B.M. building in Seattle may want to consider the actual collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers before renewing their leases.
The Structural System
The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures."
The second Joe is in the same position as the first despite his good intentions. He has no means at his disposal to check the claims. Once again, he will be wrong but never sense the contradiction.
Note that in the cases of Joe Average, Joe Lazy and Joe Interested, none of the three will have the resources necessary to understand what they are looking at in the WTC collapse videos and images.
The Case of Joe Super Student
What about that rare student who takes a burning interest in the subject from both a physical and psychological point of view? He can be called "Joe Super Student". What will that type of Joe Student see within the sources cited above?
He will be able to read the Bazant, Greening, Seffen, Ross Papers on progressive collapse which means he can understand the mathematics and reasoning used within the papers and actively check claims for mistakes.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Feature: Special Report
No, but the fact that it did not tip during the collapse progression processes is a huge clue toward identifying what appears to be the actual collapse modes.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
If one considers how massive chains of collapsing, shattering floors are literally trapped inside the tightly confining perimeter caging, the lack of tilt and the "imploding" upon itself, one wouldn't need the descriptions offered in the quote.
If one observes more carefully, there is no need to speculate about lateral loads, centers of gravity and lateral velocities.
One may want to recognize that these appear to be the largest sets of cascading floor collapses in history before making claims like this.
WAS THE WTC DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED?
The World Trade Center was not defectively designed.
The third Joe Student, being a prized pupil, may get the sense that something is not quite right with these descriptions. But without any access to mappings of the collapse progression processes, how can he verify his hunch?
You see, every one of the sources on the list of references is repeating the same misrepresentation. Because there are so many different sources making the exact same mistakes, this appears to be "consensus" that the buildings "crushed down" and then "crushed up" and that the columns were successively "buckled" down to the basement levels.
Earlier I explained that Joe Average will not have a snowball's chance in hell of understanding the complex mass and particulate flows by looking at the available images of the collapsing buildings.
Likewise, all 3 cases of Joe Student will not be able determine what appears to be the actual collapse progression modes by studying the references compiled. Instead, they will encounter an echo chamber of the same incorrect collapse progression descriptions repeated through multiple sources.
Even if they look with the skill and patience of Joe "Well Above Average' Student, they will see nothing more than various forms of misrepresentations wrapped in the appearance of professional consensus.
THE CASE OF JOE PRO: Joe Engineer unwittingly tests the thesis
One of the best ways to test the thesis is by looking at the collapse mechanisms of WTC1 and WTC2, and WTC7 through the lenses of various professional organizations and published authors on the subject of the collapses. Lists of all academic papers, ASCE peer reviewed papers, and literature on the WTC collapses can be seen at this link
It is possible to check how various published authors understand the collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7. For example, one could simply e-mail a representative sample of published authors who specialize in the phenomenon of disproportionate collapse and ask them the following 3 questions:
Q1: Are you aware that the collapse progression modes of the Twin Towers were most probably a massive cascading chain of progressive floor collapses tightly confined within the perimeter walls?
Q2: If so, what information did you use to reach this conclusion?
Q3: Did you find the information published on the subject of the collapse progressions by U.S. Government agencies to be helpful in determining the actual collapse progression mechanisms? Why or why not?
One can also test how well various observers understand their own written and visual histories simply by asking them some basic questions about the NIST claims, conclusions, and about the visual record of collapse events.
In accordance with the thesis one could expect to see a range of quite lively, colorful replies to a simple list of questions.
Viewing the available information as a whole: A journey through the extremes of the technical pyramid
In the red portion of the pyramid the available literature is linked below
FEMA Building Performance Study
All NIST Reports on WTC Collapses
ASCE Published Papers and Research on WTC Collapses
Careful reading of these sources reveals that the FEMA reports claim the twin towers failed through the cores of each building, whhile the NIST reports claim something quite different. The FEMA and NIST reports claim that during the collapse initiation processes the buildings moved in different ways.
There are groups of ASCE publications on the collapses that still
claim the buildings collapsed like interacting blocks, crushing down before crushing up. Within the literature there ire no consistent mappings of observed building behavior available anywhere.
As shown in part 6, journalists are understandably helpless to read or fact-check technical claims made in the literature linked above. They generally echo or parrot the most general points of the literature linked above.
The tangled web of the internet
On the public (green) level there are various websites and public forums accessible through the internet:
History Commons 9/11 Timeline
Skyscraper Safety Campaign
There are websites associated with individuals and groups commonly referred to as "truthers" as well as websites associated with people who attempt to "debunk" the claims made at the truther websites, such as:
Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice
Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth
Scholars for 911 Truth
Gordon Ross Website and Review
Consensus Panel 9/11
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Journal of 9-11 Studies
There is quite a lot of confusion and contradictory claims made within these websites.
There are forums available and blog records on the WTC collapses, such as:
The 9/11 Forum
Loose Change Forum
Abovetopsecret 9/11 Forum
Letsroll 9/11 Forum
JREF 9/11 Forum
9/11, 7/7 Forum
Pumpitout 9-11 Forum
Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum
The same confusion is clearly visible within comments and threads within these forums.
JOE SUPER STUDENT TURNS TO INDEPENDENT RESEARCH, directly observing the visual record to fact-check all claims.
Using direct observation of the visual record, Joe Super Student will be able to see contradictions between the visual record and written records of the collapse events in a way that the other students were not able to notice. The lists of references provided thus far contain a wide variety of mutually contradictory information but many people will not be able to spot the myriad contradictions without extra effort and some understanding of the visual record.
Let us say that Joe Super Student is an unusually perceptive lad and can read through the most current information on the subject within the professional and academic communities. He will notice that the engineers and professors/grad students publishing this information seem to have no clear idea of the actual collapse modes of the WTC towers
. None of them seem to disagree that disproportionate collapse is a serious concern within all structures, but, at the same time, very few authors seem able to positively identify the actual collapse mode of the Twin Towers as a ROOSD-type phenomenon. The careful reader can verify a vagueness within the literature as a whole when it comes to identification of the actual collapse progression mechanisms of the towers.
According to the thesis, if one looks carefully through the information offered at the link containing the most comprehensive written records, one will see many very confused people who do not seem to realize how confused they are. There will also be a lot of vague, provably incorrect descriptions of the Twin Towers collapse progression modes in the written records.
Joe Super Student will be able to see that both Joe Average and Joe Student are given a series of mutually contradictory and blurry, vague descriptions of the collapse progressions.
The collapse progression modes are described in the most general terms; few authors if any seem to have a clear idea of what the collapse progression modes actually were. People know it happened, but they are quite vague as to the specific mechanism.
He can verify that there is much confusion and contradiction surrounding the events. He will be able to verify that he was not told the whole truth. He can verify that there are omissions from the written record of events and can spot contradiction between the written and visual records. The more he studies, the more he will be able to verify the state of confusion within the historic record and in those around him.
As for the collapse initiation modes of all 3 fallen buildings the descriptions are just as poor. The more they learn, the easier it will be to test the information void and see the inevitable confusion which results.
They will be increasingly able to spot false certainty for what it is, susceptibility for what it is, group-think, ignorance and taboo surrounding the collapse events for what they are.
Joe will be able to see cracks in the fragmented historic record as it was presented to him. And like the many examples given in part 6, Joe Super Student can be expected to react to the information vacuum in which he finds himself.
In this sense, the varied reactions Joe Super Student may take as a result of seeing contradiction between the visual and written records of the collapse events can act as a type of mirror or reflection of his society's own internal contradictions. Where within society these contradictions remainunperceived, repressed and denied, in Joe Student it begins to be recognized as a self-contradictory vacuum of information; A pseudo-history.
The underlying truth is that if Joe Super Student wants an accurate history of visible building behavior during the 9/11/01 WTC attacks and collapses, he had better make it himself or look for alternative resources through independent researchers who have already compiled one. If he wants a proper, accurate understanding of his own written history he has to look deeper for alternative resources created by those who noticed the same contradictions.
On to Author's Conclusions
2 It is easy to see that the tools now available allow for a far better understanding of specific properties of the collapses. These authors had no clear concept of anything like a ROOSD mechanism when each of these papers were written.
Far superior methods for approaching the collapse progression processes of the twin towers are assembled within this book and at these links:
WTC Progressive Floor Collapse Model
Single Wall Collapse Model
Global Perimeter Shedding Model
Study of a Simple 1 Dimensional Stacked System
Progressive Floor Collapse FEA Simulations
Models of Inelastic Accretion
Attributes of a Rubble Driven Collapse
WTC Collapse Simulator
From the current vantage point it can be seen that each of these authors were for the most part grappling in the dark and were only able to see the grossest features of the collapse processes.
They would embrace what some of us now recognize as cartoons seemingly without realizing how badly their conceptions were contradicted within the visual record.
They seemed to have no specific conception of mechanism
at all. The actual process of propagation was treated only in generalities.
But Joe Student works only through his reference sources, and this superior information is not included through the usual sources.
ASCE database search results:
Found 177 Records with the keyword term of "Progressive collapse"
Displaying 100 records - please modify your search for better results.
2011 Alternate Path Progressive Collapse Analysis of Steel Stud Bearing Wall Structures
2011 Analytical Load and Dynamic Increase Factors for Progressive Collapse Analysis of Building Frames
2011 DoD Research and Criteria for the Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse
2011 Finite Particle Method for Progressive Failure Simulation of Truss Structures
2011 Large-Scale Experimental Evaluation of Building System Response to Sudden Column Removal
2011 New Methods for Progressive Collapse Testing and Simulation
2011 Probabilistic Robustness Assessment of Pre-Northridge Steel Moment Resisting Frames
2011 Progressive Collapse Analysis of RC Structures Including Beam Axial Deformation
2011 Progressive Collapse Resistance of an Actual 11-Story Structure Subjected to Severe Initial Damage
2011 Punching Shear Failure in Progressive Collapse Analysis
2011 Testing and Analysis of Steel and Concrete Beam-Column Assemblies under a Column Removal Scenario
2011 Three-Dimensional Effects in Progressive Collapse Modeling
2010 Building Robustness Research during World War II
2010 Disproportionate Collapse: Terminology and Procedures
2010 Dynamic Analysis of Gap Closing and Contact in the Mixed Lagrangian Framework: Toward Progressive Collapse Prediction
2010 Effects of Random Imperfections on Progressive Collapse Propagation
2010 Experimental and Analytical Assessment on Progressive Collapse Potential of Two Actual Steel Frame Buildings
2010 Krylov Subspace Accelerated Newton Algorithm: Application to Dynamic Progressive Collapse Simulation of Frames
2010 Linear and Nonlinear Static Analysis for Assessment of Progressive Collapse Potential of Multistoried Building
2010 Parallel Axial-Flexural Hinge Model for Nonlinear Dynamic Progressive Collapse Analysis of Welded Steel Moment Frames
2010 Progressive Collapse Mechanisms of Brittle and Ductile Framed Structures
2010 Progressive Collapse Resistance of Steel-Concrete Composite Floors
2010 Seismic Progressive Collapse Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Bridges by Applied Element Method
2009 Applicability of Prescribed Robustness and Design Approaches to Building Classes for Disproportionate Collapse Resistance
2009 Behavior of Varied Steel Frame Connection Types Subjected to Air Blast, Debris Impact, and/or Post-Blast Progressive Collapse Load Conditions
2009 Comparison and Study of Different Progressive Collapse Simulation Techniques for RC Structures
2009 Design-Oriented Approaches for Progressive Collapse Assessment: Load-Factor vs. Ductility-Centred Methods
2009 Development and Application of Linear and Non-Linear Static Approaches in UFC 4-023-03
2009 Development of 3D Models of Steel Moment-Frame Buildings for Assessment of Robustness and Progressive Collapse Vulnerability
2009 Development of Reduced Structural Models for Assessment of Progressive Collapse
2009 Discussion of Examples Using the Revised DOD Progressive Collapse Design Requirements
2009 Disproportionate Collapse Research Needs
2009 Dynamic Energy Based Method for Progressive Collapse Analysis
2009 Evaluation of an Existing Steel Frame Building against Progressive Collapse
2009 Evaluation of Missing Column Analyses in Progressive Collapse Design Codes
2009 Investigation of Progressive Collapse-Resisting Capability of Steel Moment Frames Using Push-Down Analysis
2009 Methodologies for Progressive Collapse Analysis
2009 Overview of the Revised DOD Progressive Collapse Design Requirements
2009 Performance as a Measure of Robustness
2009 Probabilistic Approach to Progressive Collapse Prevention. Physics Based Simulations
2009 Progressive Collapse: Failure Criteria Used in Engineering Analysis
2009 Progressive Collapse Nomenclature
2009 Progressive Collapse of Cable-Stayed Bridges
2009 Progressive Collapse Simulation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Using Column Models with Strength Deterioration after Yielding
2009 Revision of the Tie Force and Alternate Path Approaches in the DOD Progressive Collapse Design Requirements
2009 Structural Robustness Evaluation
2008 Assessment of Progressive Collapse Residual Capacity Using Pushdown Analysis
2008 Blast Testing of Steel Frame Assemblies to Assess the Implications of Connection Behavior on Progressive Collapse
2008 Effect of Progressive Failure on Measured Shear Strength of Geomembrane/GCL Interface
2008 Finite Element Simulation on Progressive Collapse Resistance of Reinforced-Concrete Frame
2008 Foundation Design against Progressive Collapse of Buildings
2008 Inelastic Dynamic Progressive Collapse Analysis of Truss Structures
2008 Macro Models for Progressive Collapse Analysis of Steel Moment Frame Buildings
2008 Macromodel-Based Simulation of Progressive Collapse: RC Frame Structures
2008 Macromodel-Based Simulation of Progressive Collapse: Steel Frame Structures
2008 A Model for Progressive Collapse of Conventional Framed Buildings
2008 Nonlinear Analysis for Progressive Collapse Investigation on Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures
2008 Progressive Collapse Analysis and Retrofit Design Using the Unified Facilities Criteria
2008 Progressive Collapse Analysis of a Steel Building with Pre-Northridge Moment Connections
2008 Progressive Collapse Analysis, Retrofit Design, and Costs for Existing Structures
2008 Progressive Collapse and Earthquake Resistance
2008 Progressive Collapse of a 2-story Reinforced Concrete Frame
2008 Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis
2008 Progressive Collapse Resistance of Hotel San Diego
2008 Progressive Failure of a Dam Abutment: A Fracture Mechanics Analysis
2008 The Role of Foundation Design in Progressive Collapse of Buildings
2008 System Safety Performance Metrics for Skeletal Structures
2008 Towards Modeling Progressive Collapse in Reinforced Concrete Buildings
2008 Unified Progressive Collapse Design Requirements for DOD and GSA
2007 Experimental and Numerical Study of Uplift Behavior of Shallow Circular Anchor in Two-Layered Sand
2007 Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
2007 On Potential Progressive Failure of Large-Panel Buildings
2006 Behavior and Design of Commercial Multistory Buildings Subjected to Blast
2006 Comparison of Various Procedures for Progressive Collapse Analysis
2006 Global System Considerations for Progressive Collapse with Extensions to Other Natural and Man-Made Hazards
2006 Mitigating Risk from Abnormal Loads and Progressive Collapse
2006 Modeling the Impact of Failed Members for Progressive Collapse Analysis of Frame Structures
2006 Murrah Building Bombing Revisited: A Qualitative Assessment of Blast Damage and Collapse Patterns
2006 Preventing Disproportionate Collapse
2006 Progressive Collapse â€" An Implosion Contractorâ€™s Stock in Trace
2006 Progressive Collapse of Structures: Annotated Bibliography and Comparison of Codes and Standards
2006 Static Equivalency in Progressive Collapse Alternate Path Analysis: Reducing Conservatism While Retaining Structural Integrity
2006 Strong Diagonals
2006 Study of Mitigation Strategies for Progressive Collapse of a Reinforced Concrete Commercial Building
2005 Can Strengthening for Earthquake Improve Blast and Progressive Collapse Resistance?
2005 Development of An Analytical Database to Support a Fast Running Progressive Collapse Assessment Tool
2005 Multi Hazard Approach to Progressive Collapse Mitigation
2005 Prediction of Injuries to Building Occupants From Column Failure and Progressive Collapse With the Bicads Computer Program
2005 Progressive Collapse: Case studies Using Nonlinear Analysis
2005 Progressive Collapse of Moment Resisting Steel Frame Buildings
2005 Progressive Collapse of Precast Panel Buildings Subjected to External Loading
2005 SDOF Model for Progressive Collapse Analysis
2005 Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires
2005 Strategies for Mitigating Risk of Progressive Collapse
2005 A Study of Progressive Collapse in Multi-Storey Steel Frames
2004 Defensive Design: Blast and Progressive Collapse Resistance in Steel Buildings
2004 Possibility of Postliquefaction Flow Failure due to Seepage
2004 Progressive Analysis Procedure for Progressive Collapse
2004 State-of-the-art vs. State-of-the practice in Blast and Progressive Collapse Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
2004 U.S. General Services Administration Progressive Collapse Design Guidelines Applied to Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame Buildings
Created on 05/11/2012 08:57 PM by admin
Updated on 05/30/2013 10:31 PM by admin