I document features and motion. I don't "consider" Bazant, R Mackey or the NIST to be wrong. They flatly contradict the visual record. This is the first question to ask:
1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?
The answer for WTC1 is "no". It is not because I "believe" it, but because the visual record flatly contradicts the NIST description of how the building really moved.
The R Mackey claim of tilt and BV, BL and BLGB are incorrect because they flatly contradict the visual record.
This is an important finding in itself because it means your official history is incorrect. I'm sure many of the readers don't care about that but the truth is that the NIST claims to have identified the how and why of the WTC1 collapse but they did not.
The how and why are still unknown. Nobody has answered the question but a big, fat NIST report seems to have the answer buried within it. It is just an illusion though I'm sure few readers would care about such trifles.
Anyway, for the few who may care about the actual history, the truth is that the true collapse mechanism remains unidentified.
This is why questions #2 and #3 are important to answer, because we can all check the visual evidence and verify that the NIST does not describe the how of WTC1 earliest movement and early visible movement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Moving on to question #2:
2) Does the visual record match any of the known "truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?
It depends on the "truther". Let us first consider Richard Gage.
Claims made by AE911T in support of demolition
A summary of all claims made by AE911T can be found on their home page and their webpage titled "evidence".
A basic list of claims on which AE911T bases demolition can be found on the AE911T home page. This is a direct quote from the home page concerning WTC 1 and WTC 2:
Well, the photo is of WTC2 but Richard Gage never bothers to specify how that shows squat for WTC1.
Do these observations match the visual record?
If we compare these claims with the list of measurable, observable attributes documented on this website, we see that the AE9/11T list does not describe WTC1, but some imaginary building which exists only in the minds of the website's authors.
By comparing the list of actual observed and measurable features with the list given by the Architects and Engineers home page, we can check point by point which of these claims are real and which are not real.
Points easy to refute:
Examination of basic points:
1) Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Consider the first item on the AE911T list, claiming near free fall acceleration of the collapse front.
A visual record of the leading heavy object in free fall from WTC1 is linked below. If you compare the position of the object with the collapse fronts at any moment, anyone can verify that the AE911T claim cannot be correct without making a single calculation.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=96&MMN_position=230:230
5 or 6 publicly available photos is all that is necessary to debunk the first claim on AE911T list.
The near free fall claim cannot be true.
The same comparison between the earliest falling heavy object and the observed collapse fromt for WTC2. Done at the link:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=96&MMN_position=230:230
It is obvious the earliest falling objects are way, way ahead of the collapse front for both WTC1 and WTC2 at all times.
Any large free-falling piece opf metal can be compared to visible collapse fronts progressing down the building to verify that claims of free-fall collapse are absurd.
2) Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
The most probable way in which debris propagated through the building to earth has been identified. The OOS Collapse Propagation Model is the only known mechanism that argees with observables. According to an OOS propagation mechanism, the outward peeling of the perimeters is the main mechanism by which heavy debris is pushed outward from the building and stretched from the footprint outwards in each direction.
The debris layout has been recorded and sheets of perimeter lying outward from the footprint from all faces has been identified. Such distribution would be expected to be relatively symmetrical as witnessed.
5) Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Peeling mechanism explains lateral movement ans range of observed debris.
6) Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
An ordinary demolition doesn't require the building be blown to bits. An ordinary demolition that splits columns in such a way that gravity does most all the work does not require massive mid-air pulverization of concrete.
7) Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
A demolition engineered on ROOSD principles would create a similar cloud through a natural process of crushing.
8) 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
The perimeter columns extended out from each side of the footprints, the longest extending outward possibly 500 ft.
The peeling process provides a mechanism by which the farthest columns can be propelled outwards as the top portions of a large peeling sheet.
10) Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
The ROOSD process would be expected to remain confined to within the perimeter caging, propagating to earth with no discontinuous barriers besides the mechanical room floors. There is no reason to expect the ROOSD process to be halted.
11) Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12) Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13) Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Neither the NIST or Richard Gage properly identified the "how" of WTC1 building failure. They are both wrong.
1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?
The answer for WTC1 is "no". It is not because I "believe" it, but because the visual record flatly contradicts the NIST description of how the building really moved.
The R Mackey claim of tilt and BV, BL and BLGB are incorrect because they flatly contradict the visual record.
This is an important finding in itself because it means your official history is incorrect. I'm sure many of the readers don't care about that but the truth is that the NIST claims to have identified the how and why of the WTC1 collapse but they did not.
The how and why are still unknown. Nobody has answered the question but a big, fat NIST report seems to have the answer buried within it. It is just an illusion though I'm sure few readers would care about such trifles.
Anyway, for the few who may care about the actual history, the truth is that the true collapse mechanism remains unidentified.
This is why questions #2 and #3 are important to answer, because we can all check the visual evidence and verify that the NIST does not describe the how of WTC1 earliest movement and early visible movement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Moving on to question #2:
2) Does the visual record match any of the known "truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?
It depends on the "truther". Let us first consider Richard Gage.
Claims made by AE911T in support of demolition
A summary of all claims made by AE911T can be found on their home page and their webpage titled "evidence".
A basic list of claims on which AE911T bases demolition can be found on the AE911T home page. This is a direct quote from the home page concerning WTC 1 and WTC 2:
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1) Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2) Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3) Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4) Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5) Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6) Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7) Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8 ) 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9) Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10) Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11) Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12) Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13) Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14) No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1) Slow onset with large visible deformations
2) Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3) Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4) High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
Well, the photo is of WTC2 but Richard Gage never bothers to specify how that shows squat for WTC1.
Do these observations match the visual record?
If we compare these claims with the list of measurable, observable attributes documented on this website, we see that the AE9/11T list does not describe WTC1, but some imaginary building which exists only in the minds of the website's authors.
By comparing the list of actual observed and measurable features with the list given by the Architects and Engineers home page, we can check point by point which of these claims are real and which are not real.
Points easy to refute:
Examination of basic points:
1) Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Consider the first item on the AE911T list, claiming near free fall acceleration of the collapse front.
A visual record of the leading heavy object in free fall from WTC1 is linked below. If you compare the position of the object with the collapse fronts at any moment, anyone can verify that the AE911T claim cannot be correct without making a single calculation.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=96&MMN_position=230:230
5 or 6 publicly available photos is all that is necessary to debunk the first claim on AE911T list.
The near free fall claim cannot be true.
The same comparison between the earliest falling heavy object and the observed collapse fromt for WTC2. Done at the link:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=96&MMN_position=230:230
It is obvious the earliest falling objects are way, way ahead of the collapse front for both WTC1 and WTC2 at all times.
Any large free-falling piece opf metal can be compared to visible collapse fronts progressing down the building to verify that claims of free-fall collapse are absurd.
2) Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
The most probable way in which debris propagated through the building to earth has been identified. The OOS Collapse Propagation Model is the only known mechanism that argees with observables. According to an OOS propagation mechanism, the outward peeling of the perimeters is the main mechanism by which heavy debris is pushed outward from the building and stretched from the footprint outwards in each direction.
The debris layout has been recorded and sheets of perimeter lying outward from the footprint from all faces has been identified. Such distribution would be expected to be relatively symmetrical as witnessed.
5) Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Peeling mechanism explains lateral movement ans range of observed debris.
6) Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
An ordinary demolition doesn't require the building be blown to bits. An ordinary demolition that splits columns in such a way that gravity does most all the work does not require massive mid-air pulverization of concrete.
7) Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
A demolition engineered on ROOSD principles would create a similar cloud through a natural process of crushing.
8) 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
The perimeter columns extended out from each side of the footprints, the longest extending outward possibly 500 ft.
The peeling process provides a mechanism by which the farthest columns can be propelled outwards as the top portions of a large peeling sheet.
10) Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
The ROOSD process would be expected to remain confined to within the perimeter caging, propagating to earth with no discontinuous barriers besides the mechanical room floors. There is no reason to expect the ROOSD process to be halted.
11) Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12) Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13) Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Neither the NIST or Richard Gage properly identified the "how" of WTC1 building failure. They are both wrong.
Last edited:
