Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[Myriad]

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.

The purpose of the diagram is to show how a tilt of the upper mass negates any possibility of square floor-on-floor impacts that would cause significant "jolts" in the motion of the descending upper block. Such jolts are easily observed in e.g. verinage demolitions where there is no tilt.

Neither the specific angle "at the moment of release" nor the likelihood of column-on-column impacts were issues in the diagram's original context. (Nor, for that matter, was whether or not intact floors could pass through one another; I just point that out to highlight the Rorschach nature of what people choose to see and choose to ignore in the diagram.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[femr2]

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?

They are very sloppy in this area, making contradicting statements all over the place.

One of several instances and scopes is...

The building section began to fall vertically after rotation of about 1 degree.

There is an entire thread of ping-pong on the subject. I'm sure MT will direct you to it.

 

[Animal]

Obviously the World Trade Center twin towers are much Much more stronger than the Empire State Building. World Trade Center twin towers are made with Full Reinforced Steel Frame , the Empire State building is just concrete

Wrong on so many levels, but that is nothing new.

 

[aggle-rithm]

They are very sloppy in this area, making contradicting statements all over the place.

One of several instances and scopes is...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/560593859.png[/qimg]

The building section began to fall vertically after rotation of about 1 degree.

There is an entire thread of ping-pong on the subject. I'm sure MT will direct you to it.

Indeed, that is pretty sloppy. However, if you read the whole report and not just the tables and figures, you will see that this 8 percent tilt before moving downward is not really claimed as part of the analysis. A later caption says that the section tilted 8 degrees before smoke and dust obscured it...meaning that even if it tilted any more, we couldn't see it.

This timeline wouldn't seriously be considered by anyone to be the ultimate "source of truth" in this document. Its purpose was to show when key events occurred, not to provide a detailed analysis of the event.

If there is a conflict between the text of this timeline and the more meaty parts of the report, then it's pretty clear which can be dismissed and which deserve serious consideration.

 

[ozeco41]

The purpose of the diagram is to show how a tilt of the upper mass negates any possibility of square floor-on-floor impacts that would cause significant "jolts" in the motion of the descending upper block. Such jolts are easily observed in e.g. verinage demolitions where there is no tilt....

Thanks. There are several "big issues" involved which go to the understanding of initial collapse and the transition into global collapse. They all support the "no [big] jolts" conclusion I won't risk further derail by pursuing the details.

...Neither the specific angle "at the moment of release" nor the likelihood of column-on-column impacts were issues in the diagram's original context....

understood thanks.

...(Nor, for that matter, was whether or not intact floors could pass through one another; I just point that out to highlight the Rorschach nature of what people choose to see and choose to ignore in the diagram.)...

Naturally - it's not surprising since few people seem to be able to give a comprehensive description of how the initial collapse mechanism may have operated. I doubt we will ever know in detail how it did operate.

The best I have been able to do is explain why column ends had to be bypassing when collapse started and where the false circular argument lies in "missing jolt". Plus some probable elements of mechanism of initial collapse.

Thanks again.

 

[femr2]

Indeed, that is pretty sloppy.

Indeed.

However, if you read the whole report and not just the tables and figures, you will see that this 8 percent tilt before moving downward is not really claimed as part of the analysis.

I have read the analysis, and it is clear that their viewpoint on this observation is most certainly not clear.

A later caption says that the section tilted 8 degrees before smoke and dust obscured it...meaning that even if it tilted any more, we couldn't see it.

Yes, I know. That's why I said they are sloppy.

This timeline wouldn't seriously be considered by anyone to be the ultimate "source of truth" in this document. Its purpose was to show when key events occurred, not to provide a detailed analysis of the event.

You can try the executive summary if you like...

For clarity: Column instability was done and dusted after tilt of about 1 degree, as after that point the entire upper section entered into vertical descent.

It did not tilt to at least 8 degrees AS column instability progressed.

If there is a conflict between the text of this timeline and the more meaty parts of the report, then it's pretty clear which can be dismissed and which deserve serious consideration.

What is important from my perspective is...

Did NIST have any idea about what angle the *upper block* tilted through before vertical drop ensued ?

I suggest not. I suggest they think it was *at least 8 degrees*. It wasn't. Does that change the world ? No. Does that change how initiation process functioned ? I'd say so.

Does it indicate NIST didn't observe that element of motion in any clear detail ? You betcha.

 

[femr2]

the specific angle "at the moment of release" ... [was not an] issue in the diagram's original context.

However, the choice of 8 degrees came from *somewhere*.

It's highly likely that the value was *picked up* from the NIST report.

There are other instances of the 8 degree tilt cropping up (I'm sure MT has an extensive archive of quotes), and I suggest they all arise from the same original source, NIST.

Without going into the ping-pong again...

I am sure that various folk did indeed believe that the *upper block* of WTC 1 tilted through 8 degrees before descending vertically.

All of those folk who believed that...were wrong.

About 1 degree.

 

[beachnut]

Obviously the World Trade Center twin towers are much Much more stronger than the Empire State Building. World Trade Center twin towers are made with Full Reinforced Steel Frame , the Empire State building is just concrete

Physics.
B-25 impact eqaul 18 pounds of TNT, not a lot of fuel
Design of the WTC impact of a 707 low on fuel, 187 pounds of TNT

Impacts on 911
Flight 11, 1300 pounds of TNT, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel
Flight 175, 2093 pounds of TNT, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel

On 911 the impacts were 7 to 11 times greater than design. and 70 to 1100 times greater than the impact at the ESB. You should do the physics, the math before you expose your lack of knowledge and your inability to make rational conclusions.

E=1/2mv²Why did you fail to do the math? Major Tom and femr2 share your failure, they have the CD delusion, and 9 years of failure behind.

Remember femr2 thinks failed truther papers are technical papers worth a place in his technical section at his web site. http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4

There is no core-led explosive demolition, it was a delusion of ergo, and now femr2 and major tom are trying to save ergo's delusions and the idiotic CD delusion 911 truth movements core delusion, CD.

What motivates Major Tom to his fuzzy goal of proving CD.

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. (major tom)

femr2, besides making attacks on NIST whenever possible, like UBL attacking Americans whenever possible before he was dead, believes the Official Story is fictional.

Not sure how the delusion of the OP has Major Tom and femr2 engaged, their failed defense of ergo's premise is noted, as they spin out of control repeating junk they can't publish because it does not matter, and was made up.

911 truth will celebrate 10 years of nonsense and lack of comprehension of gravity collapse this September. 911 truth only product, eternal failure.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Femr, as I was telling MT those angles were achieved during descent before the dust completely obscured them. Case in point, videos make it clear that WTC 2 barely began to rotate before its own columns snapped under the pressure. I made this graphic last year to show it to someone else:

There's no reason to think that WTC 1 would have been any different if you're talking about the amount of tilt required to make the columns buckle.

I haven't read nearly all of the NIST report but I have read that much. It's one of the main reasons why I think there's so much confusion in the exchanges going on around here. Some people are interpreting the tilts were maximized before they began falling vertically. In my reading of the NIST on this part they seemed pretty clear that they were talking about what was being seen before the dust clouds obscured them and that was during the falls. Took much less than those values to allow for the columns to fail... MT seems to have utterly honed in on the antennae movement and refuses to look elsewhere that the NIST was talking about. Why this is proving so difficult for others who supposedly read the NIST a great deal more than myself is beyond me...

 

[femr2]

There's no reason to think that WTC 1 would have been any different if you're talking about the amount of tilt required to make the columns buckle.

I'm pointing out the sloppy nature of the statements in the NIST report, and how they have propogated out into *the real world*.

I, as MT, do not like that kind of vague observational behaviour in the report. It is motion at a most critical time, and for NIST to have not clearly stated that *key observation* is more than lame imo (read abysmal).

As far as I'm concerned if you are going to have a list of key observations, that is one that should be clear. There are many other poorly defined observations (or lack thereof) within the report.

Some people are interpreting the tilts were maximized before they began falling vertically.

There shouldn't really be much in the way of grey here. *A few guys in an obscure forum* have been able to make a much clearer description of the early motion, by necessity as there wasn't a pre-existing one. It shouldn't have been be necessary.

In my reading of the NIST on this part they seemed pretty clear that they were talking about what was being seen before the dust clouds obscured them and that was during the falls. Took much less than those values to allow for the columns to fail.

Again, seems/pretty clear/what they were talking about...should all not be necessary. Should be effectively black-and white, especially during initiation, imo.

MT seems to have utterly honed in on the antennae movement and refuses to look elsewhere that the NIST was talking about.

Quite a lot of the early motion data was extracted from the Sauret footage by me btw...

 

[aggle-rithm]

Indeed.


I have read the analysis, and it is clear that their viewpoint on this observation is most certainly not clear.


Yes, I know. That's why I said they are sloppy.


You can try the executive summary if you like...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/829561750.png[/qimg]

For clarity: Column instability was done and dusted after tilt of about 1 degree, as after that point the entire upper section entered into vertical descent.

It did not tilt to at least 8 degrees AS column instability progressed.

It tilted as column instability progressed. The degree of tilt reached at least 8 degrees before it became obscured by smoke, dust, and debris.

I see how it could be misinterpreted. However, this is a SUMMARY. If you read the report in its entirety, any confusion is cleared up.

What is important from my perspective is...

Did NIST have any idea about what angle the *upper block* tilted through before vertical drop ensued ?

I suggest not. I suggest they think it was *at least 8 degrees*.

You have absolutely no idea what they thought, only what they included in the report.

It wasn't. Does that change the world ? No. Does that change how initiation process functioned ? I'd say so.

Does it indicate NIST didn't observe that element of motion in any clear detail ? You betcha.

You're nitpicking. And cherry picking.

The language may be unclear at times, but it is clear that the phenomenon as a whole was studied in great detail.

 

[femr2]

It tilted as column instability progressed. The degree of tilt reached at least 8 degrees before it became obscured by smoke, dust, and debris.

I see how it could be misinterpreted. However, this is a SUMMARY. If you read the report in its entirety, any confusion is cleared up.

You have absolutely no idea what they thought, only what they included in the report.

You're nitpicking. And cherry picking.

The language may be unclear at times, but it is clear that the phenomenon as a whole was studied in great detail.

Then quote me the detail within the report that clarifies, and states at what angle tilt transitioned into vertical drop post-release of all four corners...

 

[Major_Tom]

The purpose of the diagram is to show how a tilt of the upper mass negates any possibility of square floor-on-floor impacts that would cause significant "jolts" in the motion of the descending upper block. Such jolts are easily observed in e.g. verinage demolitions where there is no tilt.

Neither the specific angle "at the moment of release" nor the likelihood of column-on-column impacts were issues in the diagram's original context. (Nor, for that matter, was whether or not intact floors could pass through one another; I just point that out to highlight the Rorschach nature of what people choose to see and choose to ignore in the diagram.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

R Mackey explicitly states how he uses the diagram and what it means in the video at the times mentioned. Gregory Urich told me himself. Greg doesn't lie by habit like others do. I knew I'd get an honest answer from him.

That is why it is very funny to have so many people on record defending R Mackey without ever listening to his own words in the video. Like knee-jerk BS.


You have been lying about what he meant and what the NIST meant for a long time. Imagining tilt angles, using false descriptions of WTC1 movement.

I have his words recorded. That is the only way to get people to tell a little truth in this forum.

 

[DGM]

. It is motion at a most critical time,

Could you explain this more fully? How is this movement (after the building has started to collapse) the "most critical time"? Isn't this after collapse "initiation"?

Thanks

 

[femr2]

Could you explain this more fully? How is this movement (after the building has started to collapse) the "most critical time"? Isn't this after collapse "initiation"?

Thanks

I said *a* critical time, not *the* critical time.

As far as I'm concerned initiation as a phase ends after release of *the upper block*, so, no, during initiation.

There'a an entire thread of discussion about implications for core-led versus south facade led initiation.

MT: Care to point DGM in the right direction ?

 

[Kent1]

Here. MajorTom and femr2 weren't aware of certain sections of the report. Then we went back and forth.
But I don't have a big problem with MajorTom and femr2's measurements of 1 degree.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175334&page=26

 

[DGM]

I said *a* critical time, not *the* critical time.

My bad.

As far as I'm concerned initiation as a phase ends after release of *the upper block*, so, no, during initiation.

So it's a what part after part "A" failed causing part "B" to fail into....(you get it) kind of thing.

(to be clear, I believe the building was "done" when the parameter wall buckled)

 

[femr2]

So it's a what part after part "A" failed causing part "B" to fail into....(you get it) kind of thing.

I'm sure you were involved in the prior discussions.

A focus is the NIST initiation process descriptions, aka what they think happened. A simple, but significant, pivot point of description would be core-led, or south perimeter led.

The discussion has ensued before. I suggest refreshing from the original thread (I'll try and find it in the soup)

 

[Major_Tom]

Collapse initiation is the initial buckling sequence and event leading up to it.

Very simple: The first buckling of each column.

 

[femr2]

(to be clear, I believe the building was "done" when the p(e)r(i)meter wall buckled)

Did the perimeter wall buckle causing core column instability, or did core column instability cause perimeter wall buckling....iow...what was the actual behaviour and sequencing, in detail...etc.

I'm not likely to be repeating everything from t'other thread here. I suggest you have a hunt for it.