Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[aggle-rithm]

Hre is a simple way to understand my point. Take this graphic by R Mackey:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/mackeytilt.jpg[/qimg]


But now we will use real measurements instead of fake ones.

1) Draw an antenna at about 0.8 degrees and a north wall at about 0.4 degrees.

2) Allow the north wall to fail at that angle

2) Allow the antenna to move east and downward from 9.5 seconds before visible initiation.

3) Pull the northwest corner inward for about 9.5 seconds before visible iniation.

4) When the south wall fails, allow the upper wall to fall out over the lower wall adn do the same on the west and north sides.


If you do these things you are using real measurements, not fake ones. They change the whole process of WTC1 collapse initiation. If you do that, you will realize that the initiation process that the NIST and R Mackey describe is very incorrect and misleading.

Thank you, that's makes it much clearer.

Question: Did Mackey and NIST actually claim that the upper portion rotated to 8 degrees before it fell, or is that simply what you concluded from the illustration?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I mentioned before that if you do not understand what the NIST and R Mackey are saying, you won't understand why correct measurements are important.

Here is what I understand the theory is: At the most heavily damaged floor of the tower, fires caused the floor assembly to sag. The connections between the floor and perimiter columns caused the columns to buckle inward as this happened. Once the buckling began, all the outer columns failed, transferring the load to the heavily damaged central columns, which were immediately overwhelmed and also failed. Collapse began at this point.

As I understand it, the relevance of the initial tilt is that it is evidence of the buckling that began slowly then sped up exponentially when a certain critical point was reached.

Do I have it right?

 

[Major_Tom]

Thank you, that's makes it much clearer.

Question: Did Mackey and NIST actually claim that the upper portion rotated to 8 degrees before it fell, or is that simply what you concluded from the illustration?

Listen to the video and at the 2 times mentioned and hear it in his own words.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Listen to the video and at the 2 times mentioned and hear it in his own words.

What video?

 

[BasqueArch]

Hre is a simple way to understand my point. Take this graphic by R Mackey:

But now we will use real measurements instead of fake ones.

1) Draw an antenna at about 0.8 degrees and a north wall at about 0.4 degrees.

2) Allow the north wall to fail at that angle

2) Allow the antenna to move east and downward from 9.5 seconds before visible initiation.

3) Pull the northwest corner inward for about 9.5 seconds before visible iniation.

4) When the south wall fails, allow the upper wall to fall out over the lower wall adn do the same on the west and north sides.


If you do these things you are using real measurements, not fake ones. They change the whole process of WTC1 collapse initiation. If you do that, you will realize that the initiation process that the NIST and R Mackey describe is very incorrect and misleading.

And what do you claim is wrong with Mackey's graphic.

 

[BasqueArch]

As long as I’m here. I’m disappointed that some of the locals have been seduced by MT’s Siren Song. But they can't help it, baffle them with bullcrap works on a percentage of the marks. I won’t be spending the time I used to, to research the exact particulars, but the analysis and conclusions will be true.

 

[ozeco41]

And what do you claim is wrong with Mackey's graphic.

I would have to go back to the original context BUT the apparent attribution of "thus there are no square impacts" to tilt is not the way I would explain it.

I take it "square impacts' refers to column on column axial contact. If it does mean that then with or without tilt there were no "square impacts". The lack of axial contact between column upper and lower portions was a natural consequence of whatever the initial collapse mechanism was. "tilt" could be a contributory factor but neither the only one nor an essential one.

I won't comment on the other two which prima facie look dubious but I would need to research the context before commenting.

Meanwhile I am waiting for Major_Tom to clarify why he is insisting on less than 1 degree tilt before all columns failed.

 

[femr2]

Meanwhile I am waiting for Major_Tom to clarify why he is insisting on less than 1 degree tilt before all columns failed.

After that point all 4 corners had released, all four perimeters had released and the entire *upper section* including the antenna had entered into vertical motion.

 

[BasqueArch]

After that point all 4 corners had released, all four perimeters had released and the entire *upper section* including the antenna had entered into vertical motion.

And why does this prove cd of the core.

 

[ozeco41]

After that point all 4 corners had released, all four perimeters had released and the entire *upper section* including the antenna had entered into vertical motion.

Thanks.

And why does this prove cd of the core.

Eh? Where did that come from?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Eh? Where did that come from?
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg]

The title of the thread is "Core-led collapse and explosive demolition"

 

[ozeco41]

The title of the thread is "Core-led collapse and explosive demolition"

Sure - but ergo seems to have abandoned his OP.

 

[Major_Tom]

Ozeco, angle measurements explained here

The building fails from south to north and east to west. This means that the northwest corner is the last set of columns to fail.

We have a very good view of the northwest corner failing:

This clear view of the northwest corner allows us to know when the last columns fail, and at that moment we take measurements of the tilts of the antenna and north face.

When this is done, it is found that both tilts are less than 1 degree. Nobody knew that before to my knowledge. Nobody knew how minimal the true tilt really was.

The general habit has been to over-exaggerate the tilt and ksay the south wall must have failed. That is what the +20 million dollar NIST report does. They make up an exaggerated tilt and blame the south wall for failing.

This is what R Mackey does also. He makes up a tilt in his mind and claims WTC1 tilted as he imagines.

 

[Major_Tom]

And what do you claim is wrong with Mackey's graphic.

Holy Canoli!

Ozeco, just as it was with BV, BL and BLGB, so it is with the WTC1 (pimple of a) tilt.

If someone cannot see the problem with R Mackey's graphic, there is little more I can say or do to help that person.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

WTC 2 didn't start it's tilt at 30 degrees... Why in god's name does the 8 degrees measured for the other one have to be instantaneous?

 

[Myriad]

If someone cannot see the problem with R Mackey's graphic, there is little more I can say or do to help that person.

I always thought the main problem with it is that it shows two intact floors passing right through each other. Yet M_T doesn't seem to care about that at all.

I believe that M_T's major complaint is that he claims the drawing shows the upper block having reached eight degrees of tilt while there is still an un-released "hinge" at the left. However, since the drawing actually does not show any such hinge, he seems to be just seeing what he wants to see. (The lines don't connect, and the floor spacing at the left edge where the two blocks meet is inconsistent with simple downward hinging of one floor unless the upper block lifted up first.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ozeco41]

Ozeco, angle measurements explained ...]

The building fails from south to north and east to west. This means that the northwest corner is the last set of columns to fail.

We have a very good view of the northwest corner failing:

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/700566080.gif[/qimg]


This clear view of the northwest corner allows us to know when the last columns fail, and at that moment we take measurements of the tilts of the antenna and north face.....

Now I understand - and it is as simple as I suspected.

Remember that my definition of the initial collapse is "when the top block starts to fall" and the consequence of that definition is that all the columns have failed or are in the process of failing. (that last bit if italicised pedantry not needed here.)

So my definition and yours correspond and my puzzlement over what you meant is over.

I always thought the main problem with it is that it shows two intact floors passing right through each other. Yet M_T doesn't seem to care about that at all....

I have never taken the graphic as "literally accurate" There are far too many problems. and that is part of the reason for my earlier comment. The presumed rigid geometry of top block v lower tower with tilt is not the main reason that column top parts did not sit on column bottom parts. It is at most one factor and a minor one at that.

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch
And what do you claim is wrong with Mackey's graphic.

Holy Canoli!

Ozeco, just as it was with BV, BL and BLGB, so it is with the WTC1 (pimple of a) tilt.

If someone cannot see the problem with R Mackey's graphic, there is little more I can say or do to help that person.

Wrong answer.

 

[BasqueArch]

Ozeco, angle measurements explained here

The building fails from south to north and east to west. This means that the northwest corner is the last set of columns to fail.

We have a very good view of the northwest corner failing:

(deleted graphic)

This clear view of the northwest corner allows us to know when the last columns fail, and at that moment we take measurements of the tilts of the antenna and north face.

When this is done, it is found that both tilts are less than 1 degree. Nobody knew that before to my knowledge. Nobody knew how minimal the true tilt really was.
The general habit has been to over-exaggerate the tilt and ksay the south wall must have failed. That is what the +20 million dollar NIST report does. They make up an exaggerated tilt and blame the south wall for failing.

This is what R Mackey does also. He makes up a tilt in his mind and claims WTC1 tilted as he imagines.

MT's vainglorious claim has been disproven before.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom
Guys, over what tilt angles did all columns in WTC1 fail?
It has nothing to do with your religious submission to the Word of NIST.
I'm looking for an actual number.
………
Is there anyone courageous enough to stray from the herd and simply admit that all columns failed with minimal tilt? About 1 degree?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
While I wait for someone to show the smallest amount of backbone, the next question is...
……….

Originally Posted by Major_Tom
……….
How is the failure of all core and perimeter columns over tilting of less than 1 degree explained in official govt reports and academic literature?
It is not explained at all. It is not even recognized to exist. There is no evidence in any govt report or academic paper on the subject that any author or research group was aware of such a small tilt angle.
……….

Originally Posted by Major_Tom
……… The statement about the official lack of recognition of the minimal tilt angle over which all columns failed is a fact.
You cannot produce proof otherwise because the statement is a fact. Nobody can. (Because such recognition doesn't exist).

There are no official statements or academic literature that recognizes that all columns failed within 1 degree of tilting of the antenna or north wall. There is no acknowledgement of how small the angle range actually was. This thread has many examples of people who over-estimate the tilt angle. The thread is an excellent example of how few people seem to realize just how small the tilt was as the last columns failed.

Bazant already calculated this angle. You just don’t know where it is.

Nor does MT know what forces caused the failure of all the columns at a small angle due to tilt not core cd.
From a year ago post:
Quote from Bazant 2002 paper. With math in the paper.

Major Tom
.....

…. From this we further conclude
that the reaction at the base of the upper part of SouthTower must have begun shearing the columns plastically already
at the inclination of approximately 2.8 degrees.
The pivoting of the upper part must have started by an asymmetric
failure of the columns on one side of building, but already at
this very small angle the dynamic horizontal reaction at the base
of the upper part must have reduced the vertical load capacity of
the remaining columns of the critical floor …..”
http://tinyurl.com/3u7bnc4
It’s this pivoting horizontal reaction thrust that contributes to the displacement of all columns in both towers and is missed by CTs.
…..

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

…..
Truther critics of Bazant have not read his papers, or if they have they don’t understand them, or if they understand them they are misrepresenting him.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The general habit has been to over-exaggerate the tilt and ksay the south wall must have failed. That is what the +20 million dollar NIST report does. They make up an exaggerated tilt and blame the south wall for failing.

This is what R Mackey does also. He makes up a tilt in his mind and claims WTC1 tilted as he imagines.

Can you direct me to the part of the NIST report where it says the tilt was more than 1 degree when the last column failed?

It seems awfully sloppy of them to make a claim that is so easily disproved by watching one of the many videos. Why did it take nine years for someone to catch it?