World Trade Center Collapses Misrepresented
3: WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSES MISREPRESENTED
Concerning the investigations of the WTC collapses, how well were investigative bodies and researchers able to keep subjectivity out of a scientific investigation? In this section the collected observations and measurements are used to test the currently accepted models.
The NIST reports on the collapses are currently referenced as the most accurate descriptions of the collapses of all 3 buildings. But the reports never identify the collapse progression modes mode described in section 2.1. The reports never identify a specific collapse progression mode at all.
REVIEW OF OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONS; Is what the public was told in agreement with the visual record?
A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY CLAIMS
Earlier records and descriptions of the WTC1 and 2 collapses prior to 2009 were limited by a video and photographic record available to the public which was poorly assembled and poorly interpreted (a point which will be demonstrated in this section). Those initial limitations were overcome in a period from late 2009 to mid 2010 with visual reconstructions of the collapses progressions throughout each tower. For the first time all researchers, including those who have worked for the NIST during their investigations, could see accurate reconstructed visual mapping of each building which pretty much removes all doubt as to what the actual collapse mechanisms were.
The first direct visual mapping of movement of the WTC towers gives people an excellent opportunity to check their previous and current models of the collapses against the visual mapping to see if the models are correct or incorrect. It allows one to independently fact-check claims made by any party through direct observation and measurement. It also allows a fact-checking of ones own views as any pre-conceived notions one has could be directly challenged by the visual record of the events themselves.
With the gift of hindsight, a very small number of researchers since 2010 have been capable of assembling accurate and reproducible records of the collapses independently of and far superior to that of the NIST in 2005 and 2008. Researchers since 2010 have the advantage of being able to carefully document the mistakes made in previous attempts at mapping the movement of the buildings, such as:
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) Mirepresentations: Models for building behavior accepted as true even though they have little or no correspondence with what was observed.
By far, the single biggest mistake were the result of poor observation and poor or non-existent measurements of motion.
Government or Official Representations of the World Trade Center Collapses
The official investigations and most common claims are centered around 5 models or mechanisms. These models are assumed to be tested against the visual record and thoroughly reviewed by the general engineering community or by a sufficient number of professional representatives, and therefore truthful.
The 5 key models upon which this world-view is based are:
1) NIST WTC1 mechanism for collapse initiation2
2) NIST WTC2 mechanism for collapse initiation
3) NIST WTC7 mechanism for collapse initiation
4) Bazant argument in BZ 3
5) Bazant collapse progression model described in BV, BL and BLGB.4
The stated purpose and methods of the NIST reports are outlined in detail within this section:
....3.1 Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.5 Reviewing the Purpose of the NIST and FEMA Reports
With the various essays within part 3, each model except BZ is shown to be a misrepresentation, or oversimplified cartoon, of the collapse processes under study. BLGB and the NIST collapse initiation models seem to take on a life of their own, deviating from the visual record of the towers in a seeming random fashion.
The Purpose of Physical Theories
Within part 1 the author briefly reviewed the fundamental questions "What is science, physics, mechanism?", "What is the role of observables and measurables within science?" Not surprisingly, observation and measurement are the anchors of all physical theories. This can be summarized by Einstein's razor as:
"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."5
A datum of experience is that which is observable and measurable.
In contrast, these are mechanisms which are not constrained by observables. They have no need to conform to the events they model. It is as if they live and breathe on their own, unconstrained by independent fact-checking because they have no need to match real world behavior.
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 these models do not give a coherent, intelligible explanation for the World Trade Center building collapses.
The misrepresentations are taken to replace the visual record, to be truer than the recorded events themselves. In short, to a person who substitutes the models for the recorded events, observable facts and measurable motion are seen as unimportant secondary considerations (or even as threats) while the misrepresentations are embraced as real. Often the observer cannot see the gaping contradictions between the misrepresentations and the real world event being modeled and chooses not to even when shown by others.
Specific cases of misrepresentations of World Trade Center building behavior are presented in each subsection of this chapter:
....3.2 NIST WTC1 Misrepresentation
....3.3 NIST WTC7 Misrepresentation
....3.4 NIST WTC2 Misrepresentation
....3.6 Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progression
....3.7 Block Misrepresentations of Collapse Progressions
....3.8 AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
Please recall that the scientific method as defined is wholey dependent on accurate and detailed observations and measurements. Therefore, an accurate collapse record must be based within the most comprehensive and accurate list of observations and measurements on the collapses possible.
Careful, accurate observations and measurements are essential and no amount of analytical ability can substitute for poor eye-sight. No amount of analytical thinking can replace the careful use of accurate observations and data. No one can "decree" how the buildings moved; they have to map them.
WHY WOULD ONE INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRM CLAIMS? WHY MAP INDEPENDENTLY?
Without independent research and researchers, no accurate collapse record would exist. Without independent researchers it is not even possible to know that
no accurate collapse record exists.
The mappings in part 2 exist only because independent citizen researchers constructed them. Without their efforts, nobody would have any accurate basis by which to judge the general appearances of the collapses at all or the relative timings and relations between any series of events.
Through online forum records and review of all published papers through ASCE or general professional publications it can be verified that modeling the WTC collapse processes took a revolutionary leap forward beginning late 2009 with the introduction of a ROOSD model and with the careful and detailed visual evidence in support of it. The model is described in part 2.1. The extent of the surviving core remnants from both buildings were not accurately mapped until late 2009. Until that time the surviving WTC1 core was called a "spire" and was thought to be only a small section of columns. Subpixel measuring techniques were used to map slight deformities only as early as February, 2010. Before that time the upper portion of WTC1 was regularly described quite literally as a tilting rigid block with a pivoting hinge. In the case of WTC7, global perimeter flexure was only mapped as late as March, 2010. Forum records show that before that time the such visual evidence did not exist.
Likewise, a powerful set of ejections from the 88th floor south face ejection that emerges from WTC1 just before the earliest visible movement of the building is mappable. According to the NIST, the collapse is said to begin on the 98th floor, yet a set of sizable ejections emerge from 10 floors below the claimed failure level just before any visible movement begins. One would have to wonder how the location and timing of these ejections were not identified until late 2010. They are still not acknowledged to exist in any government or professional literature on the subject of the WTC1 collapse.
How is it possible such an ejection is not even recognized to exist? The answer is that the video necessary to locate it accurately was not available to the public until late 2010 until the NIST released it in a FOIA document request until that time. The ejection was identified and located within weeks of the video's release by independent researchers.
In the times before careful accurate global mappings of the collapse processes, the collapsing twin towers were often described quite literally as crushing block objects, "crushing down" before "crushing up". The 9 years before the current mappings were reconstructed was a period in which the collapsing buildings were described in only the most generic terms. When these descriptions are compared to the mappings in part 2, the former models on which such descriptions were bases seem like simplified cartoons. Looking back, it is hard to believe people took them seriously.
On to part 4:
How Scientific Institutions Can Be Blind To Contradiction
Created on 05/12/2012 05:07 AM by admin
Updated on 02/13/2013 12:51 PM by admin