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

[beachnut]

No idea. Simply pointing out the stupidity ...

You and Major Tom's CD delusion?

You can visually document creep of columns.

Prove it by publishing your findings in an engineering journal. Easy to do, even Heiwa got a letter published exposing his nonsense in a real journal; you can do it too!

In addition, by gathering information it is trivially simple to make very valid inference ...

True, but not in the case of idiotic delusions of CD; you guys make up the stuff and make up conclusions based on hearsay and lies.
If it is so simple why can't 911 truth make a valid conclusion after 9 years? Problems? Reality blocking the fantasy?

Extremely fine movement of multiple individual building elements separately.

Go ahead publish this. Which elements? What does this mean for CD?

Not quite getting this, are you.

You guys make up this nonsense as you go trying to back in CD, how can anyone get it. Like a card game made up by the dealer.

Nonsense suffixed with childish name-calling. A sure sign of hand-waving and weak position.

The weak position is the delusional CD claims, now cloaked in the moronic nonsense of this thread. 9 years of failure accelerating faster than free-fall toward infinity and beyond.

Hello ? Entire thread, multiple threads over at the911forum. Just because you choose to ignore such doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

the911forum? http://www.the911forums.com/ I have a matchbox, but that would be a 914Forum. Your 911 claptrap forums pretend there are conspiracies like CD and other nonsense; they are fantasy based BS forums, giving hearsay and lies equal value to reality based evidence.

You have nothing to add to the gravity collapse on 911. Impacts and fire destroyed the WTC, it was solved on 911. Failure is you and Major Tom trying to back in the fantasy of CD using your own made up junk science.

When will you and Major Tom publish this in a reality based journal; a real engineering journal? What does this nonsense have to do with 911 conspiracy theories? Where is the engineering stuff? Why is this nonsense so stupid? Did you or Major Tom finish engineering school? High School? What did you guys do for a living before you became failed paranoid conspiracy theorists? Explain why you and Major Tom have failed to make progress backing in CD? Or setting goals?

 

[Major_Tom]

Seymour's comments reveal the total hypocrisy of those who claim measurements of early building movement and detectable creep are useless.

For some reason, the NIST are considered to have transcended the need for physical observations to justify their own conclusions. The NIST claims no discernable east-west tilt of the antenna during the initial failure. This is a physical obswervation and it is false. East-west antenna lean begins about 9.5 seconds before visible movement.

The NIST claims rotation as a rigid block to the south. This is incorrect. Earliest movement was of the antenna shifting eastward and then sagging about 2 ft into the roof line, pulling the NW corner inwards. The NW corner movement is also detectable about 9.5 seconds before visible movement. The north wall and antenna tilted at a different angle, not together. The downward antenna movement is detectable long before and downward movement of the NW corner, clearly indicating they did not move or rotate together.

The NIST claims rotational movement of about 8 degrees before collective downward movement as R Mackey has so eloquently put in a visual for us. The true southward lean of the antenna was less than 1 degree as the NW corner failed, and the north wall tilt was less than that of the antenna (because they did not tilt together).


All these claims by the NIST are physical observations. All are wrong.

The NIST bases their own conclusions on a series of incorrect physical observations of early movement and any detectable creep movement.

Seymour post 177: "Because visual observables are worthless.

You cannot visually document creep of the columns."

The NIST claims to have determined south wall failure using a series of incorrect physical observations. When we provide correct observations on a much finer level, they are considered to be worthless??

Pure hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy requires a level of ignorance and unawareness, basically a lack of awareness of ones own hypocrisy. Lack of awareness is essential to be a good hypocrite. How can one claim our measurements are useless while the NIST relies on very incorrect measurements and observations to determine south wall failure?

 

[excaza]

So instead of bringing these obvious inconsistencies in the NIST report to someone that matters, you blather about it to nobodies on the internet.

Solid plan.

 

[Major_Tom]

If you consider yourselves and your fellow regular posters and all who read this to be a bunch of nobodies, then you may have a point.

Is that your meaning?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If you consider yourselves and your fellow regular posters and all who read this to be a bunch of nobodies, then you may have a point.

Is that your meaning?

He's referring to Truthers!

 

[Dog Town]

If you consider yourselves and your fellow regular posters and all who read this to be a bunch of nobodies, then you may have a point.

Is that your meaning?

The way I see it, Yes, in the sense we aren't NIST! Take it up with them! Write a freaken paper for a respected journal!
Do something!

For the record:
Nothing takes away from the general consensus, of what occurred that day, as far as I see. I'm open to being proved wrong!

 

[excaza]

If you consider yourselves and your fellow regular posters and all who read this to be a bunch of nobodies, then you may have a point.

Is that your meaning?

Don't be dense. You know exactly what I mean.

You believe you have this 'smoking gun,' yet you make no move to present it to anyone. This would easily land whoever you brought it to a Pulitzer, and you'd come out as a champion against extraordinary corruption and evil, yet you keep it to yourself. You pretend to care about The Man fooling hundreds of millions of people, but won't do anything about it. Instead you crow about it to whoever will listen on whatever obscure internet forum you can find. JREF doesn't matter. 9/11 forums doesn't matter. *insert forum here* doesn't matter. We are not the world. We are not the people to bring something of this supposed magnitude to.

So either you actually have something and you're a complete coward, or you're full of **** and you know it.

You think you have something soooo obvious, do something about it.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Don't be dense. You know exactly what I mean.

You believe you have this 'smoking gun,' yet you make no move to present it to anyone. This would easily land whoever you brought it to a Pulitzer, and you'd come out as a champion against extraordinary corruption and evil, yet you keep it to yourself. You pretend to care about The Man fooling hundreds of millions of people, but won't do anything about it. Instead you crow about it to whoever will listen on whatever obscure internet forum you can find. JREF doesn't matter. 9/11 forums doesn't matter. *insert forum here* doesn't matter. We are not the world. We are not the people to bring something of this supposed magnitude to.

So either you actually have something and you're a complete coward, or you're full of **** and you know it.

You think you have something soooo obvious, do something about it.

Everyone knows that keyboard warriors (aka Truthers) lack the sophication to research & gain insightful information through evidence based facts.

This is why they fail!

 

[tfk]

What are ALL of the columns doing?

No idea.

Yup, that's right.

Simply pointing out the stupidity of your comment, which results in a FTFY for your original verbage...

Nope, if you recognized the implications of what Seymour was saying, you'd realize that his point was right on the money.

You can visually document creep of columns.

Wrong.

You can document with external visual measurements SOME instances of creep in SOME columns. Such as buckling.
Not others.

First, as Seymour observed, you can not document the creep in any column that you cannot see.
Second, some types of creep result in no bulk changes in dimensions.

This second type is a common occurrence when several members are supporting the same load, and some members creep (i.e, stress relax), shedding the load to the other members, again with little or no change in gross structural dimensions.

You'd do well to read up on NIST's assessment of stress AND CREEP of the various columns in NCSTAR1-6D, and see if you can measure column length changes that occurred with the very significant amounts of creep that their analysis showed.

I'd expect that you cannot. If not, QED: Lots of creep and no ability to measure it visually.

If you can measure some difference in individual columns (& correlate them to NIST's results), then you'd be giving some substantiation to your claims.

If not, then I know exactly which results I am believing: the ones that have been substantiated by decades of testing and verification - NIST's FEA results.

And which ones I am disbelieving: yours.

In addition, by gathering information it is trivially simple to make very valid inference about what other building elements must be undergoing.

Lots of things are "… trivially simple …" to those who don't understand them.

For example, descent of the antenna must involve movement of something underneath it. Thinking through implications for the hat truss reduces possibilities.

Why don't you show your calculations that you claim eliminate tilting of the antenna first. Some calculations (not just graphs) would be refreshing.

Hello ? Entire thread, multiple threads over at the911forum. Just because you choose to ignore such doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And just because a bunch of amateurs have convinced themselves that they've uncovered evidence that proves a bunch of experts were wrong, doesn't mean that "proof" really exists, either.

tom

 

[Major_Tom]

TFK, post 189: "Why don't you show your calculations that you claim eliminate tilting of the antenna first. Some calculations (not just graphs) would be refreshing."

It is impossible to measure the movement of a deforming body without tracking the movement of several points and comparing the movement. It is not a rigid block so it is impossible to derive meaningful information by assuming rigid global properties.

It is absolutely impossible to determine early movement without careful trace data of as many points as possible.

This is actually the only way to begin studying the complex motion exhibited by WTC1: Multiple point tracings of the deforming body. And that is what is done in the features list.

Comparison of our numbers with those of the NIST shows how primitive the assumption of rigid body rotation really is.


In truth, and this is no exaggeration, the features list in the OP is the single best record of WTC1 early movement publicly available on the planet. If you know of a better one, please link to it.

It needs a lot of editing, polishing, but still in it's present form there is no record of early WTC1 motion that comes within a country mile.

Consider the R Mackey literal rendition of the NIST description if you want to see how far behind NIST is with this information.

 

[femr2]

You can document with external visual measurements SOME instances of creep in SOME columns. Such as buckling. Not others.

Which is what I said

First, as Seymour observed, you can not document the creep in any column that you cannot see.

Can't have the antenna descending without the structure underneath it deforming tom.

Second, some types of creep result in no bulk changes in dimensions.

Irrelevant.

You'd do well to read up on NIST's assessment of stress AND CREEP of the various columns in NCSTAR1-6D, and see if you can measure column length changes that occurred with the very significant amounts of creep that their analysis showed.

You can't see those columns tom

I'd expect that you cannot. If not, QED: Lots of creep and no ability to measure it visually.

Lots of creep ? Where ? In the NIST (boys with toys) virtual model only ? (See your complaint above)

The WTC 7 early motion traces show movement up to 5 minutes prior to release, in the order of a couple of inches of oscillation. Creep ? Perhaps. Unlikely as it's an oscillation. Early motion of WTC 1 doesn't *recover* so more likely to be creep.

I know exactly which results I am believing: the ones that have been substantiated by decades of testing and verification - NIST's FEA results.

Nonsense. There has been no testing or verification of the system NIST used, nor their results. Bespoke modules bolted into an off-the-shelf FEA with no attempt to verify its validity. Boys with toys (as you have previously agreed)

 

[DGM]

Major Tom / femr2

What has NIST had to say about your observations?

 

[carlitos]

NIST, chock full of world-class experts in their fields

vs.

Guys on the internet who can't even correctly use "its"

Who ya gonna believe?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

NIST, chock full of world-class experts in their fields

vs.

Guys on the internet who can't even correctly use "its"

Who ya gonna believe?

Does Ghostbusters count?

I'll pick NIST!

 

[twinstead]

Yea. Femr2 disagrees with the NIST report. Call out the national guard!! He's going to blow the lid right off this thing!

 

[dafydd]

NIST, chock full of world-class experts in their fields

vs.

Guys on the internet who can't even correctly use "its"

Who ya gonna believe?

Gosh,that's a hard one!

 

[fess]

The NIST claims rotation as a rigid block to the south. This is incorrect. Earliest movement was of the antenna shifting eastward and then sagging about 2 ft into the roof line, pulling the NW corner inwards. The NW corner movement is also detectable about 9.5 seconds before visible movement. The north wall and antenna tilted at a different angle, not together. The downward antenna movement is detectable long before and downward movement of the NW corner, clearly indicating they did not move or rotate together.

Could this not be indicative of hat-truss failure caused by the failing of some of the inner core columns?

 

[Major_Tom]

Many posters have asked why they should believe the information presented.

I insist you should believe nothing. That is why all source video is provided for download.

This isn't church. No belief required. All graphs can be duplicated by anyone who is able and not lazy.

This is how I read the question of belief: I am too lazy to verify data for myself so it comes to who I should believe. I am too lazy to cross-check claims or do the slightest reality check on measurements by looking at publicly available video, so I have to believe someone else. Who should I believe?



YOU VERIFY EVERYTHING, BELIEVE NOTHING. Once you verify it you make it your own. It is something human beings have the responsibility to do on their own. If you do not, then you must rely on "belief". It has nothing to do with me, the messenger.

>>>>>>>>>>

fess, here is the hat truss. The antenna sits on that base. You think just a couple of inner columns can make the antenna sag 2 ft?

 

[Dog Town]

Many posters have asked why they should believe the information presented.

It seems to me that "many" posters want to you to DO SOMETHING, about it. Not whine about us believing!
GO! Submit a paper, write NIST! Quit crying to us.

 

[femr2]

It seems to me that "many" posters want to you to do something , about it.

(Childish WYSIWYG formatting removed)

Strikes me that MT is doing something about it, namely posting the information into the public domain.

Not whine about us believing!

Whining ? Nope, highlighting the rather pathetic belief based reasoning being posted by your other members. If the other members don't make such pointless belief based comments, there will be no need to highlight the failings of such a position.

GO! Submit a paper

Submit a paper about what ? A paper on the many failings of the NIST report ?

write (to) NIST!

To achieve what ? You think they'll respond by saying *oh yeah, we messed up, we'll get right on to an updated report.* ? That's not going to happen now, is it. NIST made it quite clear following the ridiculously short 21 day public review period for the WTC 7 final report that they would be *closing that book*.

Quit crying to us.

Who is crying ? Looks like you are from where I'm sitting.


It appears you have no issues with the information presented (or you would surely say so and not whine or cry about other factors), so, given your signature, it begs the question...

Do you *get it*, or not ?