NoahFence
Banned
For the 10,344,558th time,
THEIR CONCLUSION OF FIRE AS THE CULPRIT WAS RIGHT AND NEITHER YOU NOR MT HAS PROVEN OTHERWISE
That is the view of "many members" here. Fire.
DO YOU DISAGREE?
Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
For the 10,344,558th time,
THEIR CONCLUSION OF FIRE AS THE CULPRIT WAS RIGHT AND NEITHER YOU NOR MT HAS PROVEN OTHERWISE
That is the view of "many members" here. Fire.
DO YOU DISAGREE?
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
Are you suggesting the perimeter wasn't buckled before those bolts snapped? If you are then you obviously have a different definition of buckling than I do.
You said earlier that you had read the911forum content. Did you miss all discussion about the geometry of IB ?
Yes ? Okay, how much *sag* would be required to produce the maximum IB identified on the East face of WTC2 ? (Vertical sag distance)
I assume you have seen diagrams in this form before...
But you STATE buckling. Based upon what ? Guess ?
Did you notice the perimeter sections *springing-back* into a nice straight form once the bolt seams failed ?
NoahFence
Banned
I noticed the massive fire that caused the whole thing....
you?
you?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Are you saying you don't know what scale of sag would be required ? How on earth can you conclude that sag caused the IB if you don't even know what is required in order for it to occur ?
How much *sag* would be required to produce the maximum IB identified on the East face of WTC2 ? (Vertical sag distance)
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I used my natural intuition. The exact amounts really don't mater to me. I also concluded that damage and fire brought down the buildings. I can't for the life of me imagine how it could be anything else. I did not need the NIST report to tell me this.
Do you have a good reason I should change my mind? I'm open to suggestions.
My point on the NIST collapse initiation scenarios is simple:
People claim the NIST explanations for the how and why of the collapses is "good enough" because they can feel it in their "gut".
In reality, the initiation scenarios contradict the visual record for all 3 buildings. This is verifiable and was shown for WTC1 in the thread that was removed.
Posters are largely ignorant of the NIST explanations and don't seem to care that they do not know. They are quite ignorant of the actual visual record but they don't seem to care about that.
People claim the NIST explanations for the how and why of the collapses is "good enough" because they can feel it in their "gut".
In reality, the initiation scenarios contradict the visual record for all 3 buildings. This is verifiable and was shown for WTC1 in the thread that was removed.
Posters are largely ignorant of the NIST explanations and don't seem to care that they do not know. They are quite ignorant of the actual visual record but they don't seem to care about that.
You concluded inward bowing of the East face of WTC2 was caused by pull-in from sagging floor trusses without influence from the NIST report ?
At what point did you observe the IB ?
Why on earth not ? Is about 8ft something you are comfortable with ? How about a larger value ? How do you visualise a floor assembly and concrete slab with all of its integral steel reinforcement actually sagging to that extent ?
How do you visualise such large sag not causing IB on the North and South face also ?
The diagrams I provided you with indicate an alternate geometric possibility. I note you have not mentioned them, though you have previously stated you've read the911forum content.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
September 12 or 13, 2001 if I remember correctly.
Actually I think the floors slabs would not have remained completely intact. Your diagrams only show what happens with everything moving together. I believe it was far more chaotic. You know, lots of local failures. I know this is not by the letter of NIST but, how would you model or predict exact behavior like that. I think NIST got the general jist of things right.
Anyway night time here.
.
This is an example of core failure mechanism that pulls in the perimeter wall similar to what femr has shown.
It shows that in general there are ways to create IB by partial core failure rather than with long truss sagging as the NIST claims.
There are a number of observable features that are consistent with a core-led initiation mechanism for WTC1 and 2. I had shown them in the threads that were removed.
It shows that in general there are ways to create IB by partial core failure rather than with long truss sagging as the NIST claims.
There are a number of observable features that are consistent with a core-led initiation mechanism for WTC1 and 2. I had shown them in the threads that were removed.
Last edited:
And you want us to believe that you used that word in the title just as a keyword for these videos to be found...
Fact is, a title is something giving a quick summary of the contents, or may and will be taken as such, and you know this. You are not titling the videos, say, "WTC Demolition or not". You are titling, i.e. describing them as "WTC Demolition".
And the childish hide-and-seek game that you play trying to escape from obvious facts is getting old.
Thanks for the example of what a title is: descriptive of the contents. Now, stop trying to deceive with your games.
You can believe whatever you please.
As I am sure you are aware, most of my videos simply contain the highest quality clips of the events available.
See above.
Irrelevant.
You are posting in a 9/11 conspiracy sub-forum, therefore you must believe that space aliens with nuk-o-beams vaporised downtown NY in retalliation for dropping off big-foot on the moon.
No, don't try and wriggle out of it, you just proved it by posting here !!11!1eleventy.
What a moon-bat crazy nut-job y'are
Indeed.
They proved that there is a mechanism that, given initial damage and fire, causes the buildings to collapse.
There was initial damage.
There was fire.
And the buildings collapsed.
That qualifies as "good enough" for me: they didn't need to get every detail right. And it strongly shifts the burden of proof on those claiming there was a demolition, as opposed to a collapse caused by damage and fire, that NIST showed as likely.
I have in past contended your and femr2's assertion that NIST's conclusions would change significantly if they got the initiation mechanisms wrong. NIST's conclusions are stated in chapter 8 (Principal Findings) and chapter 9 (Recommendations) of NCSTAR 1.
Here are, again, all 49 pages of chapter 8 and chapter 9 combined, shown as a single graph. I have highlighted the part of those chapters that would be affected in case you're right about the initiation mechanism in WTC1 and 2.
The highlighted part is a part of a single phrase that reads:
the column instability propagated to adjacent faces and caused the initiation of the building collapse.
Guess what? The 8 degrees of tilt are not mentioned at all in the section titled Principal Findings, proving that that detail is completely accessory and irrelevant to the conclusions and for the purpose of the report. The recommendations NIST made would not change a single bit in case you were right.
I have already noted that in past. Unsurprisingly, your response included no counterargument to the statement that this is the only part of the NIST conclusions affected by your claims.
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
Cool Graphics.
I'm 100% convinced that fire took down the towers. I knew that before I even heard of NIST.
Having said that, what is it I should be looking for in those diagrams (or any of them you two have posted) that would change my mind? What is it about them that shows explosive controlled demolition?
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
This is an example of core failure mechanism that pulls in the perimeter wall similar to what femr has shown.
It shows that in general there are ways to create IB by partial core failure rather than with long truss sagging as the NIST claims.
There are a number of observable features that are consistent with a core-led initiation mechanism for WTC1 and 2. I had shown them in the threads that were removed.
For WTC1,2, the core columns sagged a few inches gradually over time, therefore the core columns vertical displacement could not have caused the perimeter walls that bowed a few feet gradually over time.
The trusses sagged a few feet gradually over time, causing the perimeter columns to bow a few feet gradually over time.
This graphic shows the core columns sudden vertical displacement of 12 feet. A displacement of 12 feet could not have been gradual and the failure would have been “observable”. Didn’t happen.
“ Inward bowing of an exterior wall was necessary, but not sufficient condition to initiate collapse. In both WTC1 and WTC2, significant weakening of the core due to aircraft impact damage and thermal effects was also necessary to initiate building collapse.” - NCSTAR 1-6
So MT accidentally agrees with NIST.
Last edited:
Said with such sure conviction...yet simply parroted from the NIST report.
You have clearly not understood the geometry of the alternate IB mechanism suggested. Nor the geometry of the NIST proposed mechanism.
Have you ever actually bothered to check how much the floor assembly would have to sag to cause the associated IB ? Clearly not. A few feet ? No. Over 8 feet. Behaviour all at the mercy of a few bolted and welded connections...
Given that you lack the qualifications to make such statement, as I do, let me contend that point.
Buckling is a process that occurs in columns as a result of non-homogeneity in their composition and physical details. I mean, ideally, if you compress a column axially, you should get a compressed column, not a buckled column, if the column is totally homogeneous and not subject to any defect. This is unthinkable to happen in any practical situation but it serves to illustrate my point.
My point is that buckling is a consequence of that non-uniformity. The perimeter columns in the WTC 1 and 2 were highly non-uniform: they were made of assemblies bolted together. Regardless of whether the assemblies buckled or not, that doesn't mean the columns didn't buckle. They buckled, and developed at least three hinge points. You are probably already familiar with this graphic:
Therefore, you have shown no contradiction in the NIST assertion that the perimeter columns buckled, even if the bolts snapped.