So the WTC1 mast is either tilting straight away from or straight towards the cameras on all videos and that it's why we don't see the tilting of the mast - even if NIST sees the tilting of the roof? When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed." (NIST 2005) Sounds strange. Or are you quoting from WTC2?
Ever heard the term "invincible ignorance?" Apparently, I wasn't able to shame you into looking at this stuff a little more carefully before blathering on.
All videos from the side that show the antenna at all show the antenna leaning southward. In many of them, it's hard to tell what the roof is doing at the same time because of the smoke, but here's one from the northeast that does show the northwest corner of the roof clearly:
http://www.studyof911.com/video/files/wtc1_coll_NE_01.wmv
And here's an enlarged and slowed-down animation of the first few frames of the collapse, clearly showing that the northwest corner starts moving at exactly the same time as the antenna:
And as I said, despite your preference for spewing more ignorance instead of taking another look, even the videos from the north that don't show the tilt
do show that corner starting to move at the same time as the antenna:
Because if the roof - or for that matter the whole mass above - is tilting to the south, we must assume that the whole south wall (not very hot) has buckled - 59 perimeter columns - and I cannot see that.
And I think we've established that you haven't looked very hard, either. The fuzziness of your thinking here is in assuming that all 59 perimeter columns had to fail at exactly the same instance. Try to imagine, instead, removing the columns one at a time over a period of many minutes. Each time you remove a column, its load gets transferred to adjacent columns. Eventually, you get to the point where all the load is being carried by very few columns, yet the building is still standing. Now keep removing them. If you don't think that catastrophic buckling of those last few columns could then happen very suddenly, with very little resistance to the falling section, then you simply don't know enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently. The columns weren't removed, of course, but this is a much closer approximation to what actually happened, as more and more columns slowly bowed inward several feet, than your speculations about the implausibility of 59 columns failing "simultaneously."
It means that the center of gravity of the mass above has shifted sideways and that the south wall above the buckled wall is outside of the south wall below. What would you expect to happen then?
What I would expect to happen as the top section began to tilt is that the falling side would be trying to lift the opposite side
up, using the core columns and a few side perimeter columns as a fulcrum, so all of the load of the top section would then be on those columns. I would also expect that the tilting would move the center of mass toward the failed side, so the load would not be equally distributed on those columns, either; it would be heavier on that side of the core than it was on the opposite side of the core -- a combined effect that progressed farther and father toward the failed side as the tilt progressed. Since the core was designed only as a gravity frame, with a standard 1.67 factor of safety, I would
not expect the core columns on that side and the few perimeter columns involved to withstand both the overloading and the bending (since bending would reduce their carrying capacity, in addition to any heat effects from the fire). So, I would expect those columns to fail next, quickly followed by the failure of the remaining core columns (for the same reasons), quickly followed by the failure of the remaining perimeter columns. In short, "progressive horizontal failure."
Oddly enough, what I would expect to happen seems to be exactly what did happen. On the other hand, you seem to be starting from a very fuzzy understanding of
what happened, and then expecting people to be mystified (but impressed) with your own inability to explain
why it happened.
For once I would expect the mast to fall sideways towards south. On at least one video. Otherwise the tilting as suggested by NIST of WTC1 cannot be correct. And then I would assume that the south wall above the rupture zone would continue to tilt to the south and pull the mass above further south ... etc.
Once the last perimeter columns failed and the entire top started down, that top section was actually trying to rotate around it's center of mass, with very little southward inertia having developed during the initial tilting. The last views of the antenna show that the top
was still rotating after the total collapse began, and the center of mass
did continue southward somewhat, but with the building being over 200 feet wide, the center of mass never got very close to the edge of the building before the entire top had been destroyed.
Not that what appears to be an explosion occuring inside blowing floors 94-96 to pieces throwing the walls >60 meters sideways and the floors upwards. That is not how a global collapse (downwards) starts!
It doesn't look like an "explosion" to me -- certainly not high explosives like TNT or RDX. The characteristic of those explosives is that a cloud of smoke expands
very rapidly (because it's the high velocity of the pressure wave that makes those explosives destructive), and which then slows down. What we see in the collapse is a cloud of smoke and flames exiting the building at nowhere near the velocity of explosives, and then speeding up -- exactly what we would expect if it's being driven by air being forced out of the building by the collapse.
Read my childrens piece once again!
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm
No thanks; all it takes is a few paragraphs to realize that your "childres piece" is based on sloppy research and fuzzy thinking. Apparently, that doesn't bother you at all. If you're going to write fantasies for children, I suggest sticking to magical bunnies and talking trains, since kids outgrow that sort of nonsense. The paranoid conspiracy theories are much harder to shake, and they're poisonous to rational thinking. You are spreading BS.
