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

That's because NIST never analyzed at what angle the columns in WTC 1 failed when the building collapsed. It was not a part of the simulations done by NIST described in t.....etc
Great post. Very helpful in giving me a new "slant" on the NIST explanation.
...So the whole 8 degree tilt angle debate throughout this thread is pretty pointless in my view....
I fully agree. Whether it is "truther tactics" or not we so often see the debates going down side tracks into irrelevancies.
  • This one over the one degree - eight degree issue - with no clear statement as to why it matters or even if it does matter;
  • the whole of the debate of the Jones - Harrit paper "Was there thermXte or not?" when the bottom line is that thermXte was not used and it would make zero difference if there was a ten tonne pile of it at ground zero. It wasn't used;
  • Many/most of the challenges to publish peer reviewed papers;
  • The snide comments/proud claims as to which boy has the biggest one. (Qualification that is.); AND
  • ....add more to your own taste.
;)
 
Last edited:
"...So the whole 8 degree tilt angle debate throughout this thread is pretty pointless in my view.... "

yes, everything is pointless if Nist didn't care about it :rolleyes:

regardless the point of this thread is to list initiation features - not "initiation features that Nist cares about"
 
Any major skyscraper that rotates a few degrees off the vertical is going to break up and come straight down.

NIST doesn't care about the rotation because it behaved in exactly the manner predicted by the established science.
 
Any major skyscraper that rotates a few degrees off the vertical is going to break up and come straight down.

NIST doesn't care about the rotation because it behaved in exactly the manner predicted by the established science.

Once again, this isn't about what Nist cares or doesn't care about. And did you ever think that the cause of the rotation could be more interesting to researchers than the effect of the rotation?
 
My posta of the last few days, anything pointing out the mistakes of R Mackey wrt WTC1, have been deleted from the thread "core led collapse".

It is interesting how only comments pointing out the poor work of R Mackey were deleted.


Perhaps this is a more appropriate thread?

In summary:

R Mackey understanding of WTC 1 collapse initiation, 2009:


mackeytilt.jpg


Hardfire program: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDvDND9zNUk


R Mackey at 11:35 and 14:50, "We are talking 8 degrees of tilt. That is what the NIST reports. They report 7 or 8 degrees rotation about 1 axis and 2 to 3 degrees about another."

R Mackey: "At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video".

A total fabrication of the movement of WTC 1. As if he invented a building in his dreams.




R Mackey understanding of the collapse progression process, 8-25-2010:

Think of it in terms of impulse -- the total change of momentum at a particular impact. Impulse is equal and opposite, by conservation of momentum. Impulse is equal to F delta-T (force times the time over which the force is applied), or M delta-V (the raw change of momentum in its familiar definition P = m V).

When we look at the "upper block," it's delta-V is smaller than the delta-V experienced by the newly broken part of the lower block. As you say, the upper block decelerates by an average 1/3 g, while the lower block accelerates by an average 2/3 g. This is because the participating part of the lower block masses less than the participating part of the upper block -- it really is the compacted mass and upper block versus a small number of floors at a time, not the entire lower block.

The reason only part of the lower block participates at any given time is because the lower block is still a mostly intact sparse structure of braced columns. When it's hit, the columns lose bracing, get loaded eccentrically, shear their welds and bolts, and in some cases are totally overwhelmed and fracture entirely. These pieces break at a stress much too low to actually support the descending mass. This also has nothing to do with the strength of the perfectly intact building -- the descending rubble heap isn't contacting the lower structure at its strongest points, and it's introducing brand new failure modes, so the effective opposing strength of the lower structure is far lower than its ideal carrying capacity. Furthermore, where the lower structure does resist at or near its ideal strength, it can only do so for a very brief delta-T -- until reaching its failure strain, which takes only about ten milliseconds at the speeds of collapse -- and this is not enough to amount to all that much total impulse.

The upper chunk, in contrast, is cushioned by a thick layer of rubble. This is compacted about as far as it can, thus it doesn't have those complex failure modes and it doesn't suffer much more "damage" even at much higher stresses. So the rubble pile remains, and the lower structure gives way. This is for the same reason you don't sink into the ground, even though you can push your finger easily through a cupful of soil.

The "upper block," what remains of it, rides on top of this cushion of debris. It is supported pretty well. It also only decelerates at that lower rate, thanks to the much greater inertia of the upper block + debris. So the only real force it suffers is the inertial force, i.e. its own self-weight times its deceleration, again about 1/3 g. It can be expected to survive this deceleration. It's only when the rubble pile has nowhere else to go and the upper block has to suddenly stop, dissipating all of its momentum in mere milliseconds, that it totally fails.

Again, this is slightly idealized, but you get the point. Unless you're a Truther.


Describing the Bazant crush down, then crush up process. He has no understanding whatsoever of the collapse dynamics.

I'll be disussing the concepquences of these mistaken views in this thread..

This may help plsters see the machanics of WTC1 more clearly.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that in a thread called "core led collapse", any reference made to the correct tilt angle is removed from the thread..

If fact, upon rereading the thread now, it is as if any signs of mistakes make by R Mackey vanished overnight.

It is important to be able to identify the mistakes made by R Mackey wrt WTC1 because they help explain may of the basic mistakes repeated on this forum.

Real measurements are very important, since without them anybody could tell you anything yet you'd have no way to verify whether such information is true.

An excellent example is how, as a result of the mistakes by R Mackey, few if anybody in this forum has ever studied WTC1 in reality.

If you never recognized the minimal tilt angle, you have never studied WTC1 collapse initiation at all. How can you without that vital information?
 
Last edited:
R Mackey: "At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video".

His original interpretation of the report content is clear from the quote above, and suggests the original reasoning behind production of the referenced graphic.

He may well have (and appears to have) eventually corrected his erronious viewpoint, and in so doing accepted the small tilt angle before release identified.

In a similar vein to the Bazant thread a while back, there is now no excuse for anyone to spread any *8 degree before vertical drop* nonsense, and anyone doing so can be pointed to resource to correct their misunderstanding.

Ensuring correct understanding of initial tilt is of course critical to any WTC1 initiation features list discussion.
 
The silly "cat and mouse" game JREF has been playing with tilt fabrications is over.

It is interesting in that R Mackey was caught on video saying the exact same thing so many posters were denying for months.

Both of us knew they were in serious denial about WTC1 tilting and the NIST report, but the regular JREF posters seemed to have this deep need to falsify the angle to justify the mistakes by the NIST and R Mackey.


Thank God for video! Or the posters would still be denying the obvious and calling me names to boot.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Anyway, this allows us to see how so many people managed to fabricate a building in their minds and call it WTC1.

Quite simple: Just fabricate a "significant tilt". Amazing that I needed such a large feature list to figure that out.


Of course people do not individually fabricate a tilt. Some Authority Figure does it in a big report and then other self-proclaimed "experts" like R Mackey use a claim to supposed authority to keep pushing the fabrication.

Many others participate in the fabrication by "believing authority" and calling anyone who thinks for themselves or verifies claims a bunch of unpleasant names.


As a result our collective understading of the NIST analysis of WTC1 has undergone a quantum leap.

The whole NIST report on WTC1 relies on false tilt data.

The world imagined a significant tilt south wall failure while the data really shows a minimal tilt probable core led failure.


That is a quantum leap in understanding, my friend, and can be expressed in a way that everyone can understand, even Beachnut.
 
Last edited:
... That is a quantum leap in understanding, my friend, and can be expressed in a way that everyone can understand, even Beachnut.
What is your excuse again for failing to publish your disjointed nonsense? Why have you failed to make progress on your claims?

"gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric,
You are stuck with a failed paranoid conclusion and no evidence to back it.

Almost 4 years since you posted your fantasy conclusion and you have not published your work. What engineering school did you go to? Why can't your peers help you with your engineering opus?

I am an engineer, and your work is nonsense. How many excuses do you have for not publishing it? Let us hear some more reasons why you and femr can't publish in an engineering journal? What is the hold up. In Oct 2007 you knew 911 was an inside job and have failed to make an micro-step in progress; why? Here you are stuck SPAMMING the forum with the same old junk which does not support your inside job explosive demolition fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Most interesting is how basically nobody is able to see how bad the R Mackey descriptions are.

Nobody is able to just admit it.

This is why it is obvious that no decent analysis was ever given to the subject of WTC1 at all in this forum.


For example, Beachnut can keep posting basically the same thing but if there is no intelligence in the post, isn't it going to be more transparent the more he repeats it?


This is a great measure of the level of honesty encountered within this forum. Anyone can see the contradiction but who can admit the gaping mistakes?

If you cannot, your silence speaks volumes.
>>>>>>>>

Since the "bury ones head in the sand" strategy will probably be employed, I will use this thread to review earlier posts within the thread to show how deeply the illusion of significant tilt of WTC1 has been driven into the collective JREF subconsciousness.


In short, you have studied an imaginary building for years and haven't looked at the real one. Apparently forum members have agreed that the imaginary building wasn't demoed.


I believe you, but what about the real building? If your resident rocket scientist describes WTC1 as shown a few posts ago and if you do not know the grossest measurements of movement or the propagation mechanism, it is safe to say you have never looked at it seriously.
 
Last edited:
A simple solution, but a JREF miracle...

Crazy idea, what if R Mackey simply own up to the mistakes instead of months of lying and avoidance?
 
Last edited:
Do you understand that you have never studied WTC1? That you were unable to understand that the building that failed with significant tilt existed only in your own minds?


NIST basically ignored how WTC1 columns failed with minimal tilt, less than 1 degree with antenna tilt different than the north face?


Both the NIST and yourselves pretended to study a building that didn't really exist. The real one failed in such a way that nobody can explain. The core seems to have somehow given way.


I am an engineer, and your work is nonsense.

Than how can you have been so ignorant of the true motion of the WTC1 collapse initiation for so long while believing in fake descriptions of the collapse?

What is your excuse for being so cowardly as to noe admit there is something seriously wrong with both initiation and propagation descriptions given by R Mackey?

I put the poor descriptions right in front of your face and you still cannot admit to any problems. What is your excuse for being so transparently dishonest?
 
Last edited:
My posta of the last few days, anything pointing out the mistakes of R Mackey wrt WTC1, have been deleted from the thread "core led collapse".

It is interesting how only comments pointing out the poor work of R Mackey were deleted...

You know of course that no posts get deleted, they are at worst moved to AAH.
Here they are:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208423
You posted Mackey's 8°-tilt-graphic no less than 7 5 times in these posts. Maybe it got moved for spamming the forum.
 
Last edited:
Nobody accepts responsibility for the huge mistakes.

R Mackey never admits to them. He just pretends that these gaping examples of hypocrisy do not exist.

Nobody including you admits these mistakes or accepts their consequences.

It is too large to ignore. You cannot just pretend they don't exist and accuse me of spamming.

Such intellectual cowards, really.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

People have lied about the tilt angle for months on this forum after I showed them the mistakes. Months of lies, and now nobody can admit to a mistake? A big mistake?

Months of insults and false statements, and you do not even admit it. If I point out that you are ignoring it I am spamming?

You would have to be brain dead to not see the contradictions, they are so large. And you bury you head in the sand? Ignore them and further accuse me?
 
Last edited:
Nobody accepts responsibility for the huge mistakes.

R Mackey never admits to them. He just pretends that these gaping examples of hypocrisy do not exist.

Nobody including you admits these mistakes or accepts their consequences.

It is too large to ignore. You cannot just pretend they don't exist and accuse me of spamming.

Such intellectual cowards, really.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

People have lied about the tilt angle for months on this forum after I showed them the mistakes. Months of lies, and now nobody can admit to a mistake? A big mistake?

Months of insults and false statements, and you do not even admit it. If I point out that you are ignoring it I am spamming?

You would have to be brain dead to not see the contradictions, they are so large. And you bury you head in the sand? Ignore them and further accuse me?

Why does the tilt prove that explosives were used?
 
The real motion relative to JREF claims shows that you have no idea what happened with the building.

It shows the general cluelessness and gulibility of many posters on this forum, since you never really looked at the building but instead just believed what some report claims without fact-checking for years.

It shows that the scientific process for WTC1 was basically faked. People pretended to look at the building and then declared "case closed". That is the truth and gaping holes between JREF descriptions nearly 10 years after the event proves it.
 
Last edited:
People have lied about the tilt angle for months on this forum after I showed them the mistakes. Months of lies, and now nobody can admit to a mistake? A big mistake?
I don't think anyone here can figure out why you're so affixed to calling it fabricated (which is bluntly unfounded) when it's not even relevant to the stage of collapse you're talking about... Apparently you won't budge on it so the discussions' not going to get any further with anyone to post exchanges with. You're so affixed on an "error" that you literally can't see what's right in front of you, that's not an insult, it's an observation.
 
I don't think anyone here can figure out why you're so affixed to calling it fabricated (which is bluntly unfounded) when it's not even relevant to the stage of collapse you're talking about... Apparently you won't budge on it so the discussions' not going to get any further with anyone to post exchanges with. You're so affixed on an "error" that you literally can't see what's right in front of you, that's not an insult, it's an observation.

If you cannot see the differences between the collapse initiation and propagation described by R Mackey and that of the real building, you are living in a dream. This is provable, but you fail to see.

Like many experiences on this forum, the "hide ones head in the sand" approach to dealing with the gaping contradictions stands out as surreal. You wee informed of the real tilt in June 2010. You spent months criticising me for the observations. Posters systematically denied the measurements.

Now we pretend thsoe exchanges never happened because you have the ability to shut it out of your mind? One year of insulting me and you will just pretend it never happened? Your views are recorded for anyone to read over the last year, now it is denied?


Even today, you are denying what I am telling you.


Even today R Mackey will continue as if these huge contradictions do not exist.


You ignore the fruit of months of posting and shamelessly hide from admitting the errors.

Meanwhile, just as I told you a year ago, you never really looked at the building, simply read some passages of a report which was incorrect and called the analysis "science"..

How can a skyscraper collapse on multiple videos but you manage to totally botch the grossest observatiuons for years? Then you pretend it never happened even though it is all recorded in your own forum.


Surreal. How can no regular poster admit the error?
 
Last edited:
This is a short summary of where pretty much every regular JREF poster stands wrt the WTC1 collapse initiation process:


1) You do not have any accurate description of gross observables during collapse initiation

Many people assumed significant tilt during the initial column failure sequence because of poor observational skills. They didn't have real tilt data and believed the incorrect description given by the NIST.



2) Actual observables indicate core-led failure, but you have no science whatsoever that can explain how the core gave.


3) You have a fake collapse initiation theory based on south wall failure that you continue to believe even though real measurements a quite different type of movement.

I think many people cling to this because they would have to face some unpleasant truths if they admit early movement seems to indicate core failure. To admit this, you'd have to admit that the NIST conclusions are untrue. That could be a little too much honesty to handle.


And this is where you seem to be in May, 2011.


So, guys, where is your science on how the core failed? I don't see any in the NIST report. Where did I miss all that science on failing cores?


According to real measurements the core seemed to give way. Why should anyone believe you do not have a fake collapse initiation theory?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom