Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

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)

A fear of pure boredom makes me hesitate.

Femr, I'm afraid some debunkers could overcome my efforts by simply boring me to the point of paralysis. I am not sure if I could handle another discussion on that.

One more revision of any description including the term "8 degrees" could push me over the edge. I am actually afraid of another exchange with kent1.
 
Last edited:
A fear of pure boredom makes me hesitate.

Femr, I'm afraid some debunkers could overcome my efforts by simply boring me to the point of paralysis. I am not sure if I could handle another discussion on that.

One more revision of any expression including the term "8 degrees" could push me over the edge. I am actually afraid of another exchange with kent1.


Don't worry I don't think I'll go into it again.
If it makes you feel better I'll say this.

If you believe that the upper block of WTC 1 tilted through 8 degrees before descending vertically, I think your wrong too.
 
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.
Understood. I would think however, the wall first fits nicely with the fact the top "block" tilted.

;)
 
One more revision of any expression including the term "8 degrees" could push me over the edge.
:D I suggest folk search for that quoted element. There's lots kicking around. Or even "south perimeter", or howsabout "core failure". That should reduce questions, as long as there is some actual reading going on.
 
Last edited:
Especially considering large buildings are perfect rigid bodies.

:rolleyes:
And so the discussion would ensue again.

As MT has gone to great pains to highlight many times, yes, lots of deformation going on, making a mockery out of nonsense like...
829561750.png

*began tilting as a rigid block* indeed :rolleyes:
 
And so the discussion would ensue again.

As MT has gone to great pains to highlight many times, yes, lots of deformation going on, making a mockery out of nonsense like...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/829561750.png[/qimg]
*began tilting as a rigid block* indeed :rolleyes:
Your right. It's a good thing they went on to explain it better. You would almost think they were morons.

;)
 
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.


What an odd admission. Did you not listen to R Mackey's own words in the video yourself? If you did, why did you need Gregory Urich to tell you what he said?

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.


This strange lashing out does not change the reality, which is: 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, contrary to your own claim that "jolts" were "missing" because 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
 
And so the discussion would ensue again.

As MT has gone to great pains to highlight many times, yes, lots of deformation going on, making a mockery out of nonsense like...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/829561750.png[/qimg]
*began tilting as a rigid block* indeed :rolleyes:

Your right. It's a good thing they went on to explain it better. You would almost think they were morons.

;)
Too much micro-parsing. How far should the NIST authors have gone in predicting that every word would be scrutinised to see if it could be read to support an attack on NIST?

Sure the top block began tilting as "an integral structural whole whilst undergoing the elastic and plastic flexures that such an entity would exhibit whilst loaded in a manner dramatically different from the original design intent".

...some mouthful. And look at the opportunities for extended derails of discussion as we micro-dissect that lot.

My version is a bit longer than "a rigid block". And no rational engineer would read the original use of 'rigid' to mean rigid...so how far should NIST have gone in trying to make their language bullet proof? And could they ever achieve bullet proof in the face of committed attackers?

This thread could progress in discussing the OP if the focus was not on repetitively claiming that NIST was wrong. How about some focus on what the alternative claim is - currently the 'other side' of the argument cannot be seen through the fog.

What is the relevance to this discussion topic of who Major_Tom thinks is wrong? Or insulting R Mackey.
 
I listen to his words in the video. You have hidden you head in the sand for months.


Yet, you have not bothered to post any of those words, that would so embarrass me, here.

And I'm still confused about your comment about Gregory Urich in post 890 above. If you listened to Mackey's words yourself, what did what Urich told you have to do with anything?

I detect no integrity or interest in the truth in your posts at all.

Your game is so, so obvious.


My game, obviously, is to point out that the purpose of the diagram in question 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, contrary to your own claim that "jolts" normally observed in no-tilt events such as verinage demolitions were "missing" in the wtc tower collapses, and that the specific angle "at the moment of release" was not an issue in the diagram's original context.

My game, in other words, is to explain the context of the diagram that you are trying to take completely out of context and misrepresent as attempting to make a different point entirely (a supposed claim that eight degrees of tilt occurred while a "hinge" still existed) which the diagram does not even show (no "hinge" there). I doubt that would bother you had I not succeeded in doing so.

Myriad, I am not here to convince you.


Well, that's a step. I'm sure you've figured out that convincing me is of no more significance in the scheme of things than my convincing you. I am reasonably content with the status quo, and you will not engage in any form of contention that generates a decisive result (such as peer reviewed academia, court action, running for elected office or supporting a candidate for elected office) and so cannot change the status quo. I have nothing to lose by feckless pseudo-debate over trivial historical facts (real debate is over decisions and actions, about choosing the future we aspire to rather than the unalterable past) and you have nothing to gain by it, so by all means let's continue doing it.

i post to expose you. That has already been done.


Nope, I'm still fully clothed at the moment. I don't think your posts are having the effect on me that you're imagining.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
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).

Rather than discuss errors in how NIST explains the report he's calling certain elements that were brought up as completely fabricated. It's one thing to call the report's language confusing, but MT's assertion that the value is completely fabricated is absolutely baffling... The only way I can see his wording hold any meaning is if he reads the NIST as saying the maximal measurements were at the precise initiation time of the collapses, that might tie into what you're saying, but he has not indicated that direction at all...

At least you're willing to actually explain it and put your position in context. I can't say the same for him...
 
Last edited:
We cross-posted; you did post R. Mackey's transcript after all.

Is that really what you were on about all this time?

The quoted comments, of course, are still about the possibility of generating a jolt due to flat floor-on-floor impacts. Straight-down descent might generate a jolt, but that doesn't happen because tilt begins before any straight-down descent can occur.

R. Mackey's narration does erroneously state that eight degrees of tilt precede the breaking of the hinge. That is inaccurate, and if I ever claimed that Mackey's narration (as opposed to the diagram itself) did not make that claim, I was wrong too.

It does not affect the issue that was under discussion, as one degree of tilt (and increasing) is sufficient to preclude "jolt"-causing flat floor-on-floor or synchronized column-on-column impact.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
We cross-posted; you did post R. Mackey's transcript after all.

Is that really what you were on about all this time?

The quoted comments, of course, are still about the possibility of generating a jolt due to flat floor-on-floor impacts. Straight-down descent might generate a jolt, but that doesn't happen because tilt begins before any straight-down descent can occur.

R. Mackey's narration does erroneously state that eight degrees of tilt precede the breaking of the hinge. That is inaccurate, and if I ever claimed that Mackey's narration (as opposed to the diagram itself) did not make that claim, I was wrong too.

It does not affect the issue that was under discussion, as one degree of tilt (and increasing) is sufficient to preclude "jolt"-causing flat floor-on-floor or synchronized column-on-column impact.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You are giong to keep treading water? Stay with the same story and hope few see through it?

A suggestion: Lies look more believable when they have a little truth to them. Yours doesn't have any left. Need a new story.
 
You are giong to keep treading water? Stay with the same story and hope few see through it?


No, I admitted the part I got wrong.

Also, there is no water. (Water, in this context, is a metaphor for consequences. Because you have chosen to only engage in consequence-free disputation, the metaphor does not apply.)

A suggestion: Lies look more believable when they have a little truth to them. Yours doesn't have any left. Need a new story.


No, but you're welcome to point out anything else I got wrong. As always.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
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...

Admittedly, for anyone who thinks the exact angle of the upper portion at the moment of downward descent is important, the deeper analysis probably won't clarify anything. For those truly interested in knowing what initiated the collapse, that is explained thoroughly.

However, glancing over the images, tables, and summaries is insufficient.
 
If the NIST and yourselves had mistaken a south perimeter led collapse with a core led collapse, that basically nullifies their WTC1 report.

The stated purpose of the report is to find how and why each building collapsed.

There is nothing within the reports that supports a core-led collapse of WTC1 or 2 in any way.

Real measurements support a core led collapse and expose the official mistake of not properly identifying true early motion of WTC1. Real measurements at this point seem to nullify the entire NIST report on WTC1.


At this point I think we should collectively thank femr, OWE of the 9/11 forum, Achimspok and others that have provided the only real measurements on the WTC1 early motion. If they did not take the time to verify claims, none of us would even be aware of the minimal tilt during the initial failure.

None of us would be aware of the true WTC1 early motion at all.

The only mapping of the true motion of WTC1 available in the public domain is at my website linked at the bottom of the post or at the 9/11 forum. I collect the best sets of data available on the internet and put them all in one place for all of us to see and learn from.. Good thing, too!
 
Last edited:
It does not affect the issue that was under discussion, as one degree of tilt (and increasing) is sufficient to preclude "jolt"-causing flat floor-on-floor or synchronized column-on-column impact.

I don't believe anyone here has ever been discussing "flat" floor-on-floor impacts. The model under discussion has always been about column-on-column impacts. Your defence of the official theory must address this since an estimated 85% of core and perimeter columns in the impact zone remained intact.

How is one degree of tilt "sufficient to negate column-on-column impact"? How would even the sudden failure of the 85% remaining columns in the impact zone not cause a jolt as the descent of the upper block hits intact structural framing below?
In verinage you have all (or most of) the supporting structure removed in the middle floors of the building. Jolt evident. Here we had only 15% in the upper third and fifth respectively. Same manner of destruction in both buildings. Same missing jolt; same rapid, symmetrical downward destruction.

It's idiotic. It's a story for idiots. Let the idiots answer this.
 
Last edited:
So you will be getting your observations and "paper" published when exactly?
 
No. I will be clarifying and simplifying the overall presentation in the current website.

The purpose is to develop methods so open and transparent that anyone can use the site as an educational resource (including the NIST if they want to see what their key mistakes are).

Then I guess we will see where it goes.


I had this crazy idea that people would want to work with real measurements rather than fake ones. I know that is not everyones cup of tea.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom