Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[Grizzly Bear]

There would be no need if many of you were able to see them for what they are.

I don't need to "debunk" BV, BL and BLGB. Been there, did that.

Thing is, you're saying they're wrong to someone who isn't entirely familiar with what you're arguing and you haven't reiterated it. This really doesn't require you to rewrite an entire essay; if you've posted it already on this forum or elsewhere you can link to it.

It would actually help to know what exactly you find wrong with their writings so people know whether you're interpreting them for what they are; limiting case models. They aren't perfect, but you need to also understand that they do and don't do. If they're wrong explain where they got it wrong in relation to what their models represent.

Concerning core led collapse for WTC1, my message is simple.

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

(Hardfire: 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.". R Mackey: '8 degrees about 1 axis"

R Mackey then explains that the upper south wall will come down inside the "lower block".)

As far as I've seen in videos of the North tower there was a tilt. It's visible in some videos of the collapse. I think where you're messing up is you're looking at the moment the collapse began, not a few seconds later once the collapse got going and the outer wall failure allowed for that movement. You can see the tilt of the antennae here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iA35icy2-c

where it is amply visible, and it only took a 10 second search on youtube.


femr seems to have done a video showing a graphic of what that tilt does to the alignment of the columns.

If you do not over-exaggerate the tilt angle like the NIST and R Mackey do and measure the real one instead,

and if you don't pretend that the measured early movement in the NW corner and the antenna do not exist,

and if you notice all the leading falling debris from the south wall,

then you will notice that all observables point to core-led failure and none to south wall failure.

The core failure in the impact regions sounds fine to me, but it does nothing to rebuke the fact that the outer walls failed in such a manner to allow for the tilt. This tilt is documented by videos of the collapse. I see it as a stage II of the collapse:
- Core fails at impact region
- Loads are redistributed to exterior columns that are weakened by fire where they were burning the most concentrated,
- And that exterior wall failure started the tilt.

If you're arguing for CD, the collapse initiation stage is the only viable point for it if there's ever going to be a time for it at all, since core failure wasn't a factor beyond that point.

It seems to me that you've gotten so concentrated trying to explain how the tilt is exaggerated that you've lost yourself in your own argument...

 

[Major_Tom]

GB, the best collection of WTC1 tilt measurements available are here

Less than 1 degree tilt of antenna or north wall as all 4 walls and the core completely fail.

 

[tsig]

JREF is a place where submission to authority seems to be the norm.

The spell must be broken.


There is a lot of mud to sling. I am not interested in convincing you with these posts. You do not represent majortiy opinion on this forum.

For you I will use the other forum. On this forum you are posting next to people like Beachnut.

As long as I continue to receive the usual propaganda, I will respond in a way to break the hypnotic spell such propaganda has over people.



You cannot imagine how boring it is for me to explain basic mistakes to people over and over again. You do not need the repetition. Apparently others still do.

Do not blame me for the anti-intellectual environment here. Do you see me posting the same way on the other forum? Think about why.




How can people not know where to find such information by now? (Hint: Check my rather large website for that.)

How many people posting have given a more comprehensive alternative to the NIST and Bazant? You are still asking for "an alternative"? Are you serious?

Ozeco, any question or comment you may have for me can be addressed on the other forum. It is not easy to communicate through the stream of "you don't know models", "when will you publiish". Not my fault.

Yes, what is the alternative?

 

[Major_Tom]

Get the measurements right. If you start by imagining significant tilt as columns slowly fail from south to north, you are living in a dream.

My alternative is proceed with real measurements instead fake ones. That is the whole difference.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Major tom, based on what I'm reading from both you and the website you linked you're talking about the antennae movement immediately preceding the onset of descent of the upper section.

Like I said before I don't have much an issue with saying that the collapse initiated in the core region with the impact area, but you are aware that you're talking about something that happened bit before that right? The 8 degree tilt is the maximum value that was attained before it was obscured by dust, not during the movement of the structure before the upper section began to drop.

Basically the 8 degres i's the same kind of maximal value of ~ 28 degrees was determined for WTC 2. You seem to be confusing the timing of everything when it's a pretty simple concept :\

 

[beachnut]

Get the measurements right. If you start by imagining significant tilt as columns slowly fail from south to north, you are living in a dream.

My alternative is proceed with real measurements instead fake ones. That is the whole difference.

How will this help your failed CD claims?
You said this based on photos? Do you stand by this?

NO MECHANISM OF COLLAPSE, BESIDES CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITH EXPLOSIVES, CAN EXPLAIN THIS PHENOMENA.

How does this play with the core-led explosive demolition nonsense in the OP?

You said this...

3) A detailed study of the "spire" seen still standing after the majority of each building had completely collapsed, particularly in the North Tower. Each visible standing core column seen in the North Tower spire can be identified. It is fascinating to see what columns remained standing in the North Tower spire. Therefore, this spire gives us very unique information as to how and in what order core columns "gave way".

So the core-led stuff was thus beat by the floors hitting the ground first, so the core-led collapse was not a core-led event. Or what?

How does this core-led junk fit with your claim

These are just some of the factors which, when studied in depth, show that the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric, so inhumane and morally impoverished that the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind.

Who do you blame? Bush? Dod? Military? Who? 10th year, why have you failed to make progress? Who planted your silent imaginary explosives?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If we use real measurements and not fake ones, the single biggest structural question for WTC1 is, "How did the core fail?" or "How did all 4 walls and the core completely fail within 1 degree of tilt?"

Answer: viscoelastic creep + pre-existing impact damage.
That's not very hard to figure out, you need to read my posts too you know... I've said this before. Nor is it very difficult to picture how the collapse begins: Core fails, and the loads are transferred to the exterior. The exterior walls fail, and the building falls. I expect that the NIST accounts for this.

If you want to continue calling the tilt angles faked despite being shown where these values are measured that's your thing, but i still find that you're not only confused over the whole thing, but that your dismissal of it as meaning nothing is also not true.

 

[Major_Tom]

I don't think you understand that you are contradicting the +20 million dollar NIST collapse initiation model.

Cool by me. I think it is a good idea.


GB:

Answer: viscoelastic creep + pre-existing impact damage.

Cool, any proof or will you leave it as a certainty you have aquired from a source beyond the reach of science?

 

[tsig]

Beachnut... I have enjoyed your explanations, comments, and other sundries for the past year... in fact, your explanation of FDR information about the Pentagon was outstanding! What I find unusual in your banter with MT is the level of proof that you hold him to. Not being a part of this forum for as long as most have been, there may be peer written papers by other posters but I am not aware of them (again I have not been here for years) but you are holding MT to this high level.

I truly like this string of discussion and applaud everyone who backs up their information with statistics what I find derailing is the insistence of mentioning CD when I don't see it mentioned by MT. Again, there may be history between the 2 of you and the both of you go directly to the core of the matter (no pun intended) while skipping the preliminaries but for me, this core proposition is interesting.

If plane damage and fires didn't make the buildings collapse then what did?

 

[Major_Tom]

I am incapable of reading minds or looking through walls. All I know is that all observables are consistent with collective core failure.

 

[tsig]

Far too many people use "publish a peer reviewed paper" as an evasion. The test of MT's - and any one else's - claims is "Is the claim correct?" Many times when you see challenges for MT or another person to "get it peer reviewed published" the challenge is actually a code. The translated version of that bit of code speak is "I cannot rebut your argument - I agree with the mob that you are a truther - therefore I will pour scorn on your claims without the normal courtesy of putting forward reasoned argument".

The second issue you identify is the practice of making dishonest accusations against the truther by accusing him of something he has not said or something which is not in the context of current discussions.

I have said it several times but if a "known truther^TM" makes the claim that the sky is blue it is considered reasonable to deny that claim on the basis that the truther once mentioned CD on another forum, several years ago and in another context. The unstated rule or standard seems to be that in any discussion with a "known truther^TM" any claims by the truther are to be treated as false even if exactly the same claims are accepted mainstream truth. Note for example many derogatory comments directed at what MT calls "ROOSD" and which is pretty much the core of the mainstream explanation of the WTC1 and 2 global collapses. Except when MT says it it somehow becomes ridiculous.

That's because anything other than a collapse caused by plane damage and fires is ridiculous.

 

[tsig]

I have challenged MT several times for bashing authorities including Bazant and NIST. It makes it very hard to discuss the point he tries to make when his posts seem to have the primary objective of bash whatever authority.

On the other side of the balance too many from 'debunker' side either explicitly or by inference accuse MT of claiming that NIST or Bazant are totally wrong. His responses do nothing to clear the argument. There are limitations as to where the various Bazant papers apply to the real world. MT doesn't always make it clear that those limitations are only portions of the overall Bazant picture. Then those opposing MT are rarely explicit and fair in the other direction. So too much black and whiting when the issues are shades of grey. Or possibly chequered patterns of black and white.

Hence my favourite little example of what would happen if a truther dared to claim 'the sky is blue'. I use it as a thought provoker.

So you're really just trolling for responses?

 

[Major_Tom]

It seems he is giving fair advice. Though bash I must if we still live in so much denial. Not you Ozeco, but you can see you are not in the majority. Just for commenting you will be suspected of siding with "the enemy".

I rest my case once again. What I describe is too transparent to deny. Therefore, you cannot expect me to respond to you while jousting against groups of posters still in denial about BV, BL and BLGB.

I am not avoiding any question with you since we have the other forum. This is not a deep place.

 

[ozeco41]

That's because anything other than a collapse caused by plane damage and fires is ridiculous.

Sure - such begging the question is another aspect.

So you're really just trolling for responses?

Your use of the emotive word "trolling" is quite intriguing. What false claim are you trying to imply? This is a discussion forum and a response is the mechanism of discussion.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If we use real measurements and not fake ones, the single biggest structural question for WTC1 is, "How did the core fail?" or "How did all 4 walls and the core completely fail within 1 degree of tilt?"

Nobody knows the answer to that, and the NIST reports cannot be applied.

Is it possible you're reversing cause and effect?

What exactly caused the 1 degree of tilt you're talking about?

Maybe I just don't understand your argument.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have said it several times but if a "known truther^TM" makes the claim that the sky is blue it is considered reasonable to deny that claim on the basis that the truther once mentioned CD on another forum, several years ago and in another context. The unstated rule or standard seems to be that in any discussion with a "known truther^TM" any claims by the truther are to be treated as false even if exactly the same claims are accepted mainstream truth. Note for example many derogatory comments directed at what MT calls "ROOSD" and which is pretty much the core of the mainstream explanation of the WTC1 and 2 global collapses. Except when MT says it it somehow becomes ridiculous.

I read MT's paper and it seemed fairly reasonable to me...I just don't understand how it shows that the NIST report is wrong. It seems to present information that's not in the NIST report, but it's not inconsistent with it.

Asking MT himself to clarify hasn't shed much light on the subject.

 

[Major_Tom]

It is an accurate measurement.

Many people including R Mackey and The NIST have been using incorrect information to over-exaggerate the tilt over which the core and all 4 walls failed. This created the illusion of south wall-led collapse initiation.

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.

 

[ozeco41]

...I want to know over what tilt angle all columns had failed. I don't care about a tilt angle after that since it means nothing.

All columns failed before the north wall and antenna tilted 1 degree.

It is good that you have no problem with core failure as the initiating event. I suspect Ozeco agrees. I agree, too....

I am somewhat agnostic on the place taken by tilt of the upper block in initial collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

In my opinion any explanation which relies on tilt to explain why the top bits of broken columns did not land axially on bottom bits shows that someone has not thought through the mechanisms of the initial collapse.

Beyond that I have no comprehension as to why you Major_Tom keep emphasising failure of all columns with less than 1 degree tilt. Or why you are interested in "what tilt angle all columns had failed".

My engineering "gut feeling" finds it easier to accept perimeter led failure over core led as the initiation mechanism. However I would be open to convincing argument either way or more likely a mix of the two.

You M_T are aware from other discussions that I do not hold NIST explanations as inviolate/sacrosanct - whatever NIST's own view of its explanations of critical events. so I regard NIST's explanations of collapse initiation for all three towers, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 - as plausible explanations. There could well be other plausible explanations.

 

[femr2]

A simple render of 1 degree tilt of the *upper block* for reference purposes...

I can sort one with..."antenna at about 0.8 degrees and a north wall at about 0.4 degrees." but I suggest a much larger image, as at this small scale (an including the height of the antenna) the angle will not be easily detectable.

 

[ozeco41]

I read MT's paper and it seemed fairly reasonable to me...I just don't understand how it shows that the NIST report is wrong. It seems to present information that's not in the NIST report, but it's not inconsistent with it...

Take care that we don't get confused between 'initiation' and 'progression'. ROOSD is about progression and, with due respect to M_T, all he has done is label it. I among others had identified what M_T calls ROOSD as the critical component of the global collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 some years ago. (2007 posted on another forum in my case.)

However I suggest the current lack of clarity:

...Asking MT himself to clarify hasn't shed much light on the subject.

...goes to collapse initiation which is the topic of this thread. And I am not clear what mechanism Major_Tom is proposing for the initiation of collapse. Nor why amount of tilt has any relevance as a cause rather than as a consequence.

It could be he is referring to something quite simple - but I cannot see what it is unless he makes it explicit.