Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

What is your conclusion? You make claims of CD, are you still with the CD theory?

Your claim.
Major_Tom said:
... "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. ...
Click to expand...
Your claim, a claim you refuse to explain how it dovetails with this thread, your OOS thread, or anything you do.

What is your goal with this thread and how does it support your claim?

Why do you fail to explain your goal, and explain how this thread supports or destroys your claim? Are you able to explain your goals and conclusions?
 
A complete WTC1 feature list, leaner and meaner.

A number of changes have been made and a newer formulation for a collapse progression mechanism is introduced (will be posted in OOS model thread)




BEFORE COLLAPSE

Damage to Basement and Lobby
Fire, Smoke Ejections as WTC2 is Struck
Strong Fire Ejections As WTC2 Collapses
Inward Bowing of the S Perimeter
Ejections Witnessed at 10:18
Roofline Smoke Pulses just before Collapse


COLLAPSE INITIATION

Drift and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted: Summary
Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse
Fire Flair-up along E Face 3s before Collapse
Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling
Concave Roof Deformity Measured by Drop Curves
Earliest Ejections from fl 95, W Face, S Side
Over-pressurization of fl 98 before Falling Begins
Minimal Tilt: Less than 1 Degree before Falling
Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
NW Corner: Upper Slides over N Face, Behind W Face
NE Corner: Upper Assembly Snaps Over Lower Portion
Jolts Detected in Earliest Antenna, NW Corner Drops
88th Fl S Face Light Grey Ejection
77th Fl Over-pressurization Timing Inexplicable


COLLAPSE PROGRESSION AND COMPLETION

West Wall Motion
North Wall Motion
South Wall Motion
East Wall Motion
Ejections Below Collapse Fronts
Mechanical Floor Ejections
Ejections Traversing E Face, Fls 50-55
Antenna Section Falls Southward
Free-fall Comparison: Tracking Earliest Falling Object
Entire E-W Width of the Core Survives Initial Collapse
Rubble Layout and Column Conditions Recorded
 
Last edited:
The first thing to note is that I take a radical departure from the NIST approach in that I use real measurements and data rather than fake ones. The use of real measurements changes the results considerably in that what looked to the NIST like a perimeter-led collapse seems to be a core-led collapse in reality.

The key to understanding the correct order of events during collapse initiation seems to be in the identification of the correct tilt angles over which the core and all 4 walls originally failed.

If we use real measurements rather than fake ones it seems the core and all 4 walls had failed with minimal tilt, at less than 1 degree.
 
Last edited:
That is a very important question for WTC1. If you didn't use fake measurements and a fake model for years it may have been one of the first questions asked.

People may have wondered, "How did the whole core and all 4 walls of WTC 1 fail at less than 1 degree?"

It is a great question and the beginning of real debate after 10 years of fake debate.

Do you know?

My guess is that if it was a core-led-collapse the core would sink slightly down into the perimeter and fail to the side in which the core failed first. The perimeter would split evenly along along spandrels and the top part would fall over or fall within the bottom part.

Not much tilt at all, really. Kind of like what was witnessed.


Breaks just under spandrels like the lower edge of this piece:

wtc1westpiece.jpg


This is the upper part of the west wall that fell out and over the lower part.


Or like the upper NE corner assembly here:

NEcorner_piece_web.jpg
 
Last edited:
We should. For anyone who believed in this crap for the last few years:

mackeytilt.jpg



Hardfire program: 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. They report 7 or 8 degrees rotation about 1 axis and 2 to 3 degrees about another."

R Mackey: "At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video".




That would be you, Dave.

This basically represents your level of critical analysis and intelligence for the last few years.


It is fake of course.

I want to try something new and look at the same problem with real data instead of the information you have been using.

Were you planning on ever looking at the real buildings or just the imaginary ones in your mind?
 
Last edited:
Just for fun, I screengrabbed a frame from the below youtube of wtc1 from Hoboken and used Gimp to scratch out what an eight degree angle from a vertical looks like. I have not yet worked up what the viewing angle from Hoboken is against the reported direction of collapse, or what the trigonometry of that implies, but this looks like while not 8 it's at least in the ballpark. I suppose one could argue that the antenna could be detached or that t0 is vague. On the other hand, my feel for trig tells me that any given (arbitrary) viewing angle would tend to display less of a tilt than would an ideal perpendicular view. Perhaps I'll try to expand this view into a pulsating GIF. Perhaps not.

wtc1-a.jpg


 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
Breaks just under spandrels like the lower edge of this piece:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/8/wtc1westpiece.jpg[/qimg]

This is the upper part of the west wall that fell out and over the lower part.


Or like the upper NE corner assembly here:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/NEcorner_piece_web.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Wow! So the spandrels broke at the connection points and... by... ?
 
Highly intelligent comments. I can see I am in for a challenging debate.


Oody, That is a nice measurement, about at the level of tfk's earlier attempt. Many other attempts earlier in the thread. I rely on data from femr and other sources, but thanks.


A glimpse of the south wall during the earliest tilt shows a strong grey ejection emerging from close to the 88th floor.


sync1.gif


The arrows point to smoke releases that we can use as reference points to synchronize north and south views.

Note the grey ejection which emerges low early as the tilt varies from 0 to 2 degrees.

southdust1.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
How much tilt is normal, in a large building?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Major_Tom said:
That is a very important question for WTC1. If you didn't use fake measurements and a fake model for years it may have been one of the first questions asked.

People may have wondered, "How did the whole core and all 4 walls of WTC 1 fail at less than 1 degree?"

It is a great question and the beginning of real debate after 10 years of fake debate.

Do you know?

My guess is that if it was a core-led-collapse the core would sink slightly down into the perimeter and fail to the side in which the core failed first. The perimeter would split evenly along along spandrels and the top part would fall over or fall within the bottom part.

Not much tilt at all, really. Kind of like what was witnessed.


Breaks just under spandrels like the lower edge of this piece:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/8/wtc1westpiece.jpg[/qimg]

This is the upper part of the west wall that fell out and over the lower part.


Or like the upper NE corner assembly here:

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/NEcorner_piece_web.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

If it's important then why didn't you answer it?
 
tsig said:
If it's important then why didn't you answer it?
Click to expand...


Be patient. He's probably just beginning to appreciate the magnitude of the task of performing surveys of hundreds of large buildings to determine how much tilt they have. This shows admirable commitment to basing his answers on actual data rather than mere theoretical notions. But it might take a while.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
How much tilt is normal, in a large building?
Click to expand...

Major_Tom said:
That is a very important question for WTC1.
Click to expand...

tsig said:
If it's important then why didn't you answer it?
Click to expand...
[size=-2]I answered that "very important question" way back in post #822. To translate my answer into an angle, you'd have to know a little trigonometry. I think Major_Tom was too busy having a cow to notice, and I'm not sure he could handle the trigonometry in any case.[/size]
 
Major_Tom said:
That is a very important question for WTC1. If you didn't use fake measurements and a fake model for years it may have been one of the first questions asked.

People may have wondered, "How did the whole core and all 4 walls of WTC 1 fail at less than 1 degree?"

It is a great question and the beginning of real debate after 10 years of fake debate.

Do you know?

My guess is that if it was a core-led-collapse the core would sink slightly down into the perimeter and fail to the side in which the core failed first. The perimeter would split evenly along along spandrels and the top part would fall over or fall within the bottom part.
Click to expand...


You guess.............POORLY :rolleyes:
 
Major_Tom said:
We should. For anyone who believed in this crap for the last few years:

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


Hardfire program: 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. They report 7 or 8 degrees rotation about 1 axis and 2 to 3 degrees about another."

R Mackey: "At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video".




That would be you, Dave.

This basically represents your level of critical analysis and intelligence for the last few years.


It is fake of course.

I want to try something new and look at the same problem with real data instead of the information you have been using.

Were you planning on ever looking at the real buildings or just the imaginary ones in your mind?
Click to expand...

Wait - is all this criticism coming from the same guy who only last December produced those crappy diagrams and erroneous math? One would think he might be a little more humble, but I guess the internet provides a space for all types...
 
southdust1.jpeg



So this ejection from around the 88th fl comes out forcefully during this movement from 0 to 2 degrees.

CNN_Aircheck_Eric_Letvin_Cli24.gif



Any ideas, guys? Looks like destruction in the core earlier and lower than tilt can account for.

All 4 walls and the core had failed at less than 1 degree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom