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

[ozeco41]

I don't see how any of this invalidates the main thrust of the NIST findings. It appears that there was small movements that NIST did not include but, how does this actually show they "got it wrong"? As far as I can tell all of these smaller movements seem to be related to the larger events that NIST used to shape their findings.

Maybe M Tom or femr2 could help clarify how all of this is important. If it's just to add to the knowledge base that's cool, if you think it's a "gotcha", I think you need to dig much deeper.

Which was the point of my post, second response to the OP, where I stated:

...
4) The load redistribution events build up into a cascading sequence which weakens the impact and damage zone.
5) The damage reaches the point where there is insufficient remaining strength to support the "top block".
6) The impact zone ceases to support the Top Block.

Whether it was "perimeter led" or "core led" does not change the overall picture that a weakened impact zone dropped the top block and from that point "global collapse was inevitable".

However the concern that many members have, looking ahead a few steps, is that a "core led collapse" could make it easier to claim that the core was cut by demolition devices.

The practice that both Major_Tom and femr2 adopt in their posting, that of insisting on step by step exposing of their logic and not foreshadowing what is down the path, lends further support to those who see the path inevitably leading to claims of demolition.

I have commented previously on the discussion tactics and the inevitability that any attempt to sneak in a CD scenario will run into major barriers.

So let the "progressive revelation" tactics continue.

I also subscribe to "I don't see how any of this invalidates the main thrust of the NIST findings."

 

[femr2]

Whether it was "perimeter led" or "core led" does not change the overall picture

Upon what are you painting that *picture* ?

So for clarity, do you agree that the data presented suggests a *core-led*, rather than *perimeter-led*, er, picture ?

that a weakened impact zone dropped the top block and from that point "global collapse was inevitable".

If you put the NIST report to one side, upon what exactly are you basing your statement ?

However the concern that many members have, looking ahead a few steps, is that a "core led collapse" could make it easier to claim that the core was cut by demolition devices.

Such concern is irrelevant speculation.

The practice that both Major_Tom and femr2 adopt in their posting, that of insisting on step by step exposing of their logic and not foreshadowing what is down the path, lends further support to those who see the path inevitably leading to claims of demolition.

Your personal perception of posting *style* is also irrelevant. Sounds a little paranoid. Any unsupported *claims* would be rapidly examined, so you have nothing to fear, yes ? Why worry eh ? There's nothing ahead that could possibly cause you to question your belief that, regardless of the actual initiation sequence, it makes no difference at all. Makes you wonder why the likes of NIST even bothered to look at initiation at all.

It would be great if NIST got it right, but hey ho

I have commented previously on the discussion tactics

There are no *tactics*. Continuing to believe such is a little worrisome.

So let the "progressive revelation" tactics continue.

Eh ?

It's very simple...

Do you agree that presented factors indicate a core-led *picture*, or not ? If not, why not ?

I also subscribe to "I don't see how any of this invalidates the main thrust of the NIST findings."

Which findings do you mean (with references please) ?

 

[DGM]

Upon what are you painting that *picture* ?

So for clarity, do you agree that the data presented suggests a *core-led*, rather than *perimeter-led*, er, picture ?


If you put the NIST report to one side, upon what exactly are you basing your statement ?


Such concern is irrelevant speculation.


Your personal perception of posting *style* is also irrelevant. Sounds a little paranoid. Any unsupported *claims* would be rapidly examined, so you have nothing to fear, yes ? Why worry eh ? There's nothing ahead that could possibly cause you to question your belief that, regardless of the actual initiation sequence, it makes no difference at all. Makes you wonder why the likes of NIST even bothered to look at initiation at all.

It would be great if NIST got it right, but hey ho


There are no *tactics*. Continuing to believe such is a little worrisome.


Eh ?

It's very simple...

Do you agree that presented factors indicate a core-led *picture*, or not ? If not, why not ?



Which findings do you mean (with references please) ?

You didn't really address my question. How does any of this invalidate the NIST findings? I would expect movement caused by redistribution of load. Would any of this be inconsistent of this?

 

[femr2]

You didn't really address my question.

I wasn't responding to your post.

How does any of this invalidate the NIST findings?

What findings ? If you mean the conclusions based upon their proposed initiation sequence, then if the correct sequence is core-led, then of course findings based upon a perimeter-led sequence are invalidated.

I would expect movement caused by redistribution of load.

It's not about what you may expect. It's about what DID happen, not what COULD happen.

Would any of this be inconsistent of this?

Irrelevant.

Do you agree that presented details indicate *core-led* rather than *perimeter-led*, or not ? If not, why not ?

 

[DGM]

I wasn't responding to your post.


What findings ? If you mean the conclusions based upon their proposed initiation sequence, then if the correct sequence is core-led, then of course findings based upon a perimeter-led sequence are invalidated.


It's not about what you may expect. It's about what DID happen, not what COULD happen.


Irrelevant.

Do you agree that presented details indicate *core-led* rather than *perimeter-led*, or not ? If not, why not ?

Sounds to me like you guys have to start writing it up. You know like column A failed and caused truss B to move into........(you know).

It's not enough to say they got it wrong. You need to show how your analysis shows that (X) is the case.

Understand?


Your arguing with the big boys (NIST), STEP IT UP. (or are you just trying to cast doubt and hope someone with skills picks up the ball)

 

[Major_Tom]

DMG, if you read the list and look at the NIST quotes, you cannot miss the differences.


One advantage of a detailed list of features is that there is nothing to debunk other than whether those features exist or not. If nobody has arguments of whether any particular feature exists, then we have a common ground from which to discuss what actually happened during collapse initiation.

If the list is accepted, we can quickly conclude that the NIST description quoted earlier is a fairy tale.

Of course that in itsel does not mean that the building was demoed. It just means the NIST description and conception of the WTC1 collapse initiation sequence, and therefore of the events leading up to it, are a fairy tale. Nothing more.

Once we agree on this, a large load of useless intellectual baggage will no longer be distracting us from the real issues concerning CD.

So to start,

1) Do people generally agree the features as described in the OP exist?

2) If the features actually exist as described, Can we all agree that the NIST initiation scenario shown in the given quotes is a fairy tale? Not different only in small details only but painting a fundamentally different initiation process based only on fantasy?

 

[femr2]

Sounds to me like you guys have to start writing it up. You know like column A failed and caused truss B to move into........(you know).

It's an ongoing process, but resolving down to such specific details is, of course, impossible.

It's not enough to say they got it wrong.

It's entirely valid to show if they got it wrong.

You need to show how your analysis shows that (X) is the case.

Need to ? No. An alternate suggestion has already been made...core-led.

Understand?

I understand that for some reason you need or want your questions answered, and perhaps you will get that.

At the moment, are you planning on giving your viewpoint upon whether the details presented thus far indicate core or perimeter led, or not ?

Your arguing with the big boys (NIST)

Nope.

STEP IT UP

Showing that the end result of the NIST study is plain wrong is quite a large step. There's no rush. Chill

(or are you just trying to cast doubt and hope someone with skills picks up the ball)

Not casting doubt at all. Showing evidence indicating that the details in the NIST initiation sequence conclusions are wrong. There has been some ball dropping, but it ain't mine

 

[DGM]

So to start,

1) Do people generally agree the features as described in the OP exist?

How do you know these features are not just consequences of the larger events that NIST describes?

2) If the features actually exist as described, Can we all agree that the NIST initiation scenario shown in the given quotes is a fairy tale? Not different only in small details only but painting a fundamentally different initiation process based only on fantasy?

No! (see above)

 

[Major_Tom]

How do you know these features are not just consequences of the larger events that NIST describes?

Because the events as they are recorded are totally different than the description given by the NIST, It is not just my opinion. It is painfully obvious to anyone who looks.

 

[triforcharity]

Because the events as they are recorded are totally different than the description given by the NIST, It is not just my opinion. It is painfully obvious to anyone who looks.

And yet, only Truthers like yourself can see it....

When do you plan on submitting your paper to a respectable journal showing NIST wrong?

 

[R.Mackey]

And yet, only Truthers like yourself can see it....

When do you plan on submitting your paper to a respectable journal showing NIST wrong?

This is not a flippant question. There is plenty of room to question NIST's findings, and indeed there are several people who have issued conflicting theories. You'll all recognise Dr. James Quintiere, for instance. I reviewed these and I don't think NIST has it totally right either.

None of these conflicting theories points to Inside Jerb, of course.

So what are you waiting for? Take the first step down the path. Instead, Truthers always want to jump ahead and assume that any deviation they find immediately means [insert conspiracy of your choice here]. It ain't so. Do the work. Stop the shortcuts. Make your case or shut up already.

 

[femr2]

This is not a flippant question.

It is used as a stock response from many members here. It is flippant when simply thrown around. What paper ? A list of observations supporting the suggestion of core-led initiation is put on the table, and there are folk, who have not bothered to engage in any useful specific dialogue, calling for production of a paper and for it to be peer reviewed ?

Hmmm. Flippant imo.

There is plenty of room to question NIST's findings, and indeed there are several people who have issued conflicting theories. You'll all recognise Dr. James Quintiere, for instance. I reviewed these and I don't think NIST has it totally right either.

Good. I don't see why others here seem to feel threatened in some way when problems with the report are presented. All seems to fall back on some clandestine plan they perceive as being the point of posting the detail. Quite ironic really.

None of these conflicting theories points to Inside Jerb, of course.

Could you indicate what the *conflict* is ?

So what are you waiting for?

It's not clear to whom you are referring.

Take the first step down the path.

Step one...clarify whether perimeter or core led.

Instead, Truthers always want to jump ahead and assume that any deviation they find immediately means [insert conspiracy of your choice here].

It is the members here who do not have that mantle applied which are calling repeatedly for *jumps ahead*.

Stop the shortcuts.

Again, unclear what you mean. What shortcuts ?

Make your case or shut up already.

Not at all clear to whom you are referring. Sounds like a call for *the truthers* to, how did you say, jump ahead.

 

[triforcharity]

This is not a flippant question. There is plenty of room to question NIST's findings, and indeed there are several people who have issued conflicting theories. You'll all recognise Dr. James Quintiere, for instance. I reviewed these and I don't think NIST has it totally right either.

I couldn't agree more.

I personally believe that the fuel loads that NIST estimated for 7WTC were off. I think there was MUCH MORE fuel available.

But, it's doesn't matter, as even with the lower fuel loading, it still collapses.


/OT

 

[Reactor drone]

Again, unclear what you mean. What shortcuts ?

Things like this maybe,

Once we agree on this, a large load of useless intellectual baggage will no longer be distracting us from the real issues concerning CD.

See how the CD reared its head again without any justifying data?

If you want people to take this seriously someone will have to write up all the data, methodology and conclusions in some kind of coherent report. Clarity is important unless the entire aim of these observations is to baffle with ********
in the hope of backing in CD.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

However the concern that many members have, looking ahead a few steps, is that a "core led collapse" could make it easier to claim that the core was cut by demolition devices.

Snipped out the rest mostly for brevity but, if this is about WTC 1 as it is normally when I'm reading about a core-led collapse, didn't the plane pretty much hit the building dead center? I'm pretty sure that's one of the big reasons I've heard about for the movement of the antenna and the core failures being the initiation factor for the collapse.

So I'm not sure either what the difference should indicate...

 

[R.Mackey]

Things like this maybe,

See how the CD reared its head again without any justifying data?

Nailed it.

"NIST got a detail wrong" != "Inside Job." Amazing how few Truthers understand this.

 

[femr2]

Nailed it.

Nope. You read it with assumption. Read as "CD or not CD".

 

[tsig]

Why not simply provide the detail you are requesting yourself ?

You are saying MT is wrong, so support your assertion.

One-liner responses with no detail are not likely to *cut-it* now.

You don't have to be impolite, though perhaps your statement is more aimed towards the angry outburst from triforcharity which neatly expresses the fine mechanisms of hand-waving, anger and lack of substance. The very hallmarks of total lack of argument. Standpoint based upon faith by the looks of it.

It doesn't matter whether NIST got it right ?

Hmmm, NIST tasked (and paid) to determine *what happened*, and seemingly got it wrong.

So who's got the 12000 page report that got it right kicking about ? That would be handy.

The building COULD have toppled immediately after impact, but it didn't. The building COULD have toppled immediately after the 1993 bombing, but it didn't. The building COULD have stood longer until the fires went out, and still be there, but it isn't.


Failure of the South perimeter COULD have led to further failures, but it really doesn't appear to be the case.


So, I have very little interest in what COULD happen. I'm interested in what DID happen.


And so to more focussed discussion.

Improved initiation model please. The NIST texts don't match observables.

The building The building never COULD have toppled.

 

[tsig]

Because the events as they are recorded are totally different than the description given by the NIST, It is not just my opinion. It is painfully obvious to anyone who looks.

So, once again. your whole argument is "looks like".

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The building The building never COULD have toppled.

I don't think he meant it literally like a tree... Context simply doesn't signal that with me, probably meant it as a metaphor for "collapse". He doesn't have any problem with the collapse progression as far as he's made it clear...

The detail nitpicking of the NIST report however is IMO grasping at straws, especially in any suggestion that the initiation was caused by an outlying player :\