Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

Clayton Moore said:
Don't lock me into this but I guess when he heard/felt the explosion he looked at his watch and later noticed that it was different than the time the plane hit the tower.
Click to expand...

Dude, a guy ran into his office with his skin melting off... you really think he was noting times?? He heard two impacts a few seconds apart.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Don't lock me into this but I guess when he heard/felt the explosion he looked at his watch and later noticed that it was different than the time the plane hit the tower.
Click to expand...

Because everyone knows that a watch will NEVER be inaccurate at all! Ever!!

:rolleyes:
 
With north wall, west wall and south wall failing by having the upper wall fall out and over the lower wall,

and with minimal tilt of less than 1 degree over which all core and perimeter columns failed,

and with pull-in of the northwest corner from 9.5 seconds before collapse,

and with the antenna shifting eastward and downward from 9.5 seconds before collapse


Isn't it finally time to admit WTC1 collapsed through the core?


Considering that the NIST report didn't report any of these movements and got their own observations quite wrong, isn't it time to move your own personal understanding beyond recitations of the official report?

You have more than enough information to see evidence of failure through a central downward pull at minimal angle. Only some queer loyalty to the NIST stops you from seeing the obvious.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
...
Isn't it finally time to admit WTC1 collapsed through the core?
...
Click to expand...
There is the core, so the WTC did not collapse through the core, it collapsed around the core.
1WTCCoreNoShellItfalls.jpg

Looks like the floors collapsed around the core. But go ahead, try to back in your silent explosives, thermite CD delusion. How many more years will it take for you to go get a degree in structural engineering so you stop pushing nonsense and join reality? When will you break the big story?
 
Last edited:
Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge and admitted that Building 7 actually descended at free fall acceleration. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
 
walkyrie said:
Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge and admitted that Building 7 actually descended at free fall acceleration. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
Click to expand...
Are you aware that femr2 posts evidence they were both wrong? Chandler (apparently) is not interested in "new data" and NIST will not be notified.
 
Beachnut, have you noticed me mention the concept of a ROOSD progression sometime in the last year?

Have you figured out what that means yet? How about "OOS"? (Hint: Open office space, around the core)

Good find with that photo. You are way ahead of the curve!
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
Beachnut, have you noticed me mention the the concept of a ROOSD progression sometime in the last year?

Have you figured out what that means yet?
Click to expand...


Have you explained yet how the NIST explanation is inconsistent with the "ROOSD progression"?
 
walkyrie said:
Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge and admitted that Building 7 actually descended at free fall acceleration. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
Click to expand...

Not through controlled demolition, certainly, since free-fall is not a feature of controlled demolition.

Must have been something else. Maybe it had something to do with a massive skyscraper falling on it earlier in the day...?
 
Major_Tom said:
Beachnut, have you noticed me mention the concept of a ROOSD progression sometime in the last year?

Have you figured out what that means yet? How about "OOS"? (Hint: Open office space, around the core)

Good find with that photo. You are way ahead of the curve!
Click to expand...
Yes, unlike your BushSpeak.
Major_Tom said:
... Isn't it finally time to admit WTC1 collapsed through the core?...
Click to expand...
When will you figure out 911? How is Engineering school going?

I knew the design of the WTC in the 70s, you are late with your ROOSD nonsense, as you fail to back in CD for the 10th year.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Not through controlled demolition, certainly, since free-fall is not a feature of controlled demolition.

Must have been something else. Maybe it had something to do with a massive skyscraper falling on it earlier in the day...?
Click to expand...

Free-fall, and therefore not CD. He could use a little help too.
 
Major_Tom said:
...
But if you need the south wall failure the NIST offers, probably best to keep believing in the imaginary building that tilts significantly and keep your head in the sand.
Click to expand...
Real engineers don't have to bash NIST, they only have to publish their work. When will you publish your nonsense and try to pass it off as work? What engineering school did you go to? You failed to comprehend models, you need to repeat that part of engineering. Good luck. Have you dropped the inside job CD claims?
You got something new, or ready for publication?
 
Major_Tom said:
For anyone who wants a realistic idea of what the NIST and R Mackey both do wrong....
Click to expand...
Major_Tom I have said it before and saying it again now is probably a waste of time but .....here goes.

If you want to persuade me you will need to start saying what your claim is. AND stop bagging NIST, Bazant, R Mackey or any other 'authority figure' you happen to disagree with.

As it stands your obvious apparent objective is to disagree with and make pejorative comments about any accepted authorities and those of us who happen to agree with them AND the models and explanations they hold.

You fail to present a coherent alternate explanation - your opposing hypothesis if you prefer that term.

So what we have is a simple false dichotomy - "All the others are wrong plus lots of insults" THEREFORE I am right even though I haven't put my claim forward.

That is not the way to persuade any of us that you have a better model or explanation. Especially whilst in your hurry to insult NIST, Bazant, Mackey and most of the members here you fail to tell us what your model is.

So how about you drop the pejorative mud slinging and tell us your alternative?
 
Last edited:
Some people do not comprehend models, so they attack them and people because they have delusions of CD. In a hopeless need to support their failed conspiracy theories, they lash out, failing to make a point, lost with their failed claims. 911 truth makes up statements of core-led collapse, explosive demolition, and offer no evidence, no engineering, nothing. 10th year of core-led explosive nonsense. Where is their evidence? Safe in their fantasy of 911. When will 911 truth sling some engineering to support their failed CD claims? Never. Publish their work? Never. Do anything more than make failed claims of CD? Never.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
NIST does initiation (wrongly). ROOSD is a collapse progression mechanism.

WIth the information of the north wall, south wall, west wall, tilt and early antenna and northwest corner movement, it is not hard to see why the NIST initiation scenario is wrong.

But first you have to know what the NIST scenario is for WTC1. It is just a "copy-paste" version of the WTC2 failure scenario with a south wall failure instead of an east wall failure.

But this time you need a south wall that looks just like a core failure with almost no tilt.


The NIST solution? Ignore the minimal tilt, ignore the early antenna movement, ignore the fact that the north, west and south walls fail with upper wall failing out and over the lower wall and call it a south wall failure anyway. They then overestimate the tilt and assume you are too gullible to notice.

Your solution to the contradictions? Ignore them and believe NIST. Pretty scientific.

What about R Mackey's solution? Make up a south wall tilt. Pretend it happened anyway. That was his solutiopn of the Hardfire program: Make an imaginary building that tilts, call it WTC1 and hope you are too gullible to notice.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

But...you haven't explained anything. The tilt, antenna movement, and upper walls falling outside the lower walls are not inconsistent with the NIST report.

Unless you can show that they are?
 
Hi guys, Im new here and although Ive read through as many of the pages for this thread as I can atm, I havent finished them all so I apologise if this has been covered.

Im genuinely curious about the speed at which all 3 building fell. (I know there was a little posted about WTC7). My knowledge of engineering or whatever topic it would be, is very limited so would somebody explain to me how a 92 story building can collapse at almost free fall speed?

The pancake theory the report is so fond of, would still mean it should have fallen at 92 seconds if 1floor = 1 second to collapse, or at best 46 secs if its 0.5 seconds per floor (if I've understood correctly).

How can 92 stories fall in under 10? I find it hard to believe that any collapse theory could explain a fall so quick.

Please dont jump down my throat like you have been with each other, I am neither conspiracist or debunker, i just dont know enough about things like this and I would like to find out.

Many thanks for any help you can give me :)
- Ash
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom