Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[Major_Tom]

What actually happened really doesn't matter to a sane person? The NIST bases their conclusions on a perimeter-led collapse but the visual evidence points to a core-led collapse, but it wouldn't matter to the sane?

Core-led, perimeter-led, no problemo? It's all good to the sane?

 

[triforcharity]

No, what he is sying, is that it doesn't matter what column section 149 did when truss section 401 sagged and pulled perimeter spandrel 448 inwards. It doesn't ******* matter. The building collapsed due to fire and impact damage, killing ~3,000 people.

Got it?

 

[BigAl]

What actually happened really doesn't matter to a sane person? The NIST bases their conclusions on a perimeter-led collapse but the visual evidence points to a core-led collapse, but it wouldn't matter to the sane?

Cite to support the assertion that NIST used imagery for their conclusions, please.

That's a polite way of saying you are wrong.

 

[femr2]

Cite to support the assertion that NIST used imagery for their conclusions, please.

That's a polite way of saying you are wrong.

Why not simply provide the detail you are requesting yourself ?

You are saying MT is wrong, so support your assertion.

One-liner responses with no detail are not likely to *cut-it* now.

You don't have to be impolite, though perhaps your statement is more aimed towards the angry outburst from triforcharity which neatly expresses the fine mechanisms of hand-waving, anger and lack of substance. The very hallmarks of total lack of argument. Standpoint based upon faith by the looks of it.

It doesn't matter whether NIST got it right ?

Hmmm, NIST tasked (and paid) to determine *what happened*, and seemingly got it wrong.

So who's got the 12000 page report that got it right kicking about ? That would be handy.

The building COULD have toppled immediately after impact, but it didn't.

The building COULD have toppled immediately after the 1993 bombing, but it didn't.

The building COULD have stood longer until the fires went out, and still be there, but it isn't.


Failure of the South perimeter COULD have led to further failures, but it really doesn't appear to be the case.


So, I have very little interest in what COULD happen. I'm interested in what DID happen.


And so to more focussed discussion.

Improved initiation model please. The NIST texts don't match observables.

 

[alienentity]

Why not simply provide the detail you are requesting yourself ?

You are saying MT is wrong, so support your assertion.

One-liner responses with no detail are not likely to *cut-it* now.

You ought to follow your own advice as well.

Can you please cite a peer-reviewed study in an engineering journal that supports your one-liners?

 

[triforcharity]

Why not simply provide the detail you are requesting yourself ?

You are saying MT is wrong, so support your assertion.

One-liner responses with no detail are not likely to *cut-it* now.

How about a 10,000 page report from some of the top experts in their field?

You don't have to be impolite, though perhaps your statement is more aimed towards the angry outburst from triforcharity which neatly expresses the fine mechanisms of hand-waving, anger and lack of substance. The very hallmarks of total lack of argument. Standpoint based upon faith by the looks of it.

Did I handwave anything? No.

Was I angry? Not really, but more like "God, these ******* moron truthers who think they have it all figured out, but yet hundreds of top experts got it wrong". I don't like you types, I really don't.

You see, faith has nothing to do with it. When I don't know something, I turn to the experts. It doesn't matter if it is plumbing, cutting my lawn and keeping it green, or pinpointing the cause of a collapse. I let the experts do their thing.

It doesn't matter whether NIST got it right ?

That is not what I said I all.

Hmmm, NIST tasked (and paid) to determine *what happened*, and seemingly got it wrong.

So who's got the 12000 page report that got it right kicking about ? That would be handy.

wtc.nist.gov should work fine.

The building COULD have toppled immediately after impact, but it didn't.

You're correct. Congratulations.

The building COULD have toppled immediately after the 1993 bombing, but it didn't.

If it had been a bigger bomb, and placed differently, possibly.

The building COULD have stood longer until the fires went out, and still be there, but it isn't.

No. Not really. The fire would have continued to burn for many many many hours. Possibly days. The building didn't hve a chance in hell. ANY steel framed structure subjected to fire for many hours, with no firefighting efforts, will collapse.

Failure of the South perimeter COULD have led to further failures, but it really doesn't appear to be the case.

Says you? When do you plan on submitting your conclusions to a respectable, peer-reviewed journal? I mean, if NIST got collapse initiation so horribly wrong, than all the codes that were changed after 9/11 not just here, but worldwide, are incorrect. They should be adjused accordingly.

Got paper?

So, I have very little interest in what COULD happen. I'm interested in what DID happen.


And so to more focussed discussion.

Improved initiation model please. The NIST texts don't match observables.

Well, NIST has the best possible theory. Do you have something else? I am sure the people of the world who have based the code changes on the results of NIST's investigation would love to crrect their mistake.

 

[DGM]

I don't see how any of this invalidates the main thrust of the NIST findings. It appears that there was small movements that NIST did not include but, how does this actually show they "got it wrong"? As far as I can tell all of these smaller movements seem to be related to the larger events that NIST used to shape their findings.

Maybe M Tom or femr2 could help clarify how all of this is important. If it's just to add to the knowledge base that's cool, if you think it's a "gotcha", I think you need to dig much deeper.

 

[ergo]

I don't see how any of this invalidates the main thrust of the NIST findings.

Reading what has been posted might help.

Can you think of how a core-led descent would differ from a perimeter-led descent? How would the stronger, tighter, more cross-braced core structure be able to sink ahead of everything else from a plane crashing into it and fires on a few upper floors?

 

[triforcharity]

Reading what has been posted might help.

Can you think of how a core-led descent would differ from a perimeter-led descent? How would the stronger, tighter, more cross-braced core structure be able to sink ahead of everything else from a plane crashing into it and fires on a few upper floors?

Can you think of how a core-led collapse would pull IN the outer columns?

The core columns were not cross-braced. Deal with it.

 

[ergo]

Can you think of how a core-led collapse would pull IN the outer columns?

The core columns were not cross-braced. Deal with it.

Yes, and yes, they were.

 

[DGM]

Reading what has been posted might help.

Can you think of how a core-led descent would differ from a perimeter-led descent? How would the stronger, tighter, more cross-braced core structure be able to sink ahead of everything else from a plane crashing into it and fires on a few upper floors?

That's not what this evidence actually supports. They're showing movement not failure.

 

[ergo]

And movement downward of a large, structural component of the building does not imply failure? It just "moves"?

 

[DGM]

And movement downward of a large, structural component of the building does not imply failure? It just "moves"?

How large were these "movements"? How do you think the core would react to a truss sag that was pulling in the perimeter?

 

[ergo]

Well, first of all, how would a truss sag pull in either the core or the perimeter?

 

[DGM]

Well, first of all, how would a truss sag pull in either the core or the perimeter?

Do you think the connections were not strong enough to do this? From what I can see (and I'm waiting for M Tom to respond) what we're seeing here is the building redistributing the loads as it was designed to do.

 

[ergo]

I think the connections are plenty strong, but sagging from heat would not have this effect. But I will let you await your answer from Major Tom.

 

[DGM]

I think the connections are plenty strong, but sagging from heat would not have this effect. But I will let you await your answer from Major Tom.

Why not? If a truss sags the distance between the two anchor points is reduced. Do you agree?

 

[triforcharity]

I think the connections are plenty strong, but sagging from heat would not have this effect. But I will let you await your answer from Major Tom.

What do you think the sagging from the heat would do? Produce kittens?

 

[femr2]

Why not? If a truss sags the distance between the two anchor points is reduced. Do you agree?

By how much...


Any viewpoint on the video content ?

There are a couple of parts.

What amount of pure *sag* do you calculate results in >50 inch IB ?

 

[beachnut]

I think the connections are plenty strong, but sagging from heat would not have this effect. But I will let you await your answer from Major Tom.

Major Tom has the CD delusion, you will not get much from Major Tom. You lack knowledge and skills in physics. You will fail to make progress in understanding 911 due to ignorance. It is impossible to back in CD unless you find a DeLorean.