|
|
Post by turbonium on May 12, 2007 7:50:17 GMT -4
This issue came up earlier, and it's a worthy topic to pursue in a new thread - the North Tower collapse initiation. NIST claims that the evidence "conclusively" shows the collapse initiated at the perimeter..... Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htmAs for NIST's "evidence", I could only find a single photo, purportedly showing the "inward bowing" south face of the North Tower, just prior to collapse......  Some points were raised earlier, in support of NIST's theory.... You're assuming that the collapse initiation would be visible on all four faces simultaneously. All the available angles on video do show the central core (antenna) is the collapse initiation area. If the collapse began on a side not visible to the camera, the antenna would begin to move before collapse was visible on the sides facing the camera, as the roof tilted due to the failure of the supports on one side. Well, what sides are visible in the video clips? Your clip shows the entire north face, with the west face angled....  One clip I linked shows the east face (left side) and the north face (right side)....  Another clip shows the west face...  That gives us a full view of the west, east, and north faces. Only need a video showing the south face to completely cover all angles. The three faces available all show the antenna (central core) as the first point of collapse. And it also comes straight down at first, before it starts to lean away. But NIST claims otherwise, as I'll discuss later... Also, any vibrations or movement of the roof would appear exaggerated due to the antenna's length and (relatively) weak bracing. That has nothing to do with the issue. Here is a video of the collapse of the north tower. Please explain how the video shows any evidence that the collapse initiated in the core.. These stills from the video clip show how the antenna begins to collapse first....  Watch another clip showing how the antenna begins to collapse first, at the 30-31 second mark.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujw1FPq0pNM Frames from the clip above....  A lesser quality clip below, again showing the antenna collapsing first, at the 0-2 second mark.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyNKZyONh24 And the clip below specifically addresses the antenna collapse... www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb5i_D9DcEsMy next post will address some of NIST's other claims regarding the North Tower collapse initiation... |
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 13, 2007 6:06:31 GMT -4
Many serious problems exist within the NIST report. Their assessment of the North Tower collapse initiation alone has several of them. NIST first claims the top section tilted to due south....  (pg. 40) This was the only source I could find to support NIST's claim....  (pg. 82) A summary observation table again mentions the tilt to the south....  (pg.137) NIST, giving absolutely no explanation for how they managed to come up with a figure, then claim it tilted 8 degrees to the south ...  (pg.201) Later, NIST still claims that the top section tilted to the south (3 to 4 degrees) But now, they say that it also tilted to the east, and by twice as much (7 or 8 degrees) as to the south....  (pg.202) On the very next page, NIST once again claims that the top section only tilted to the south, by about 8 degrees.....  (pg. 203) One last mention of the tilt to the south....  (pg. 225) _______________________________________________________ NIST makes two seriously conflicting claims about the direction of the tilt. The exclusively south tilt is claimed several times. The "east and south" tilt is only cited once, but the degree of tilt is included for both directions. That means it isn't just a typo, or some other irrelevant mistake. And where did NIST come up with their data for the degree (or is it degrees?) of tilt? They provide no explanation for how they arrived at these numbers. I intend to contact NIST about these issues. But I won't hold my breath waiting for a decent explanation or resolution. Another significant problem is NIST's total lack of solid evidence for these claims.... 1. That the "tilting" was the first externally observed indication (initiation point) of collapse. No photos or videos support this argument. NIST bases their claim on nothing more than a report from observers in NYPD helicopters?!? So it would seem. 2. That the south face was "bowing" inward just prior to collapse, which then led to collapse initiation. One photo is apparently all of the evidence required to support their entire theory of collapse initiation!! Utterly ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 13, 2007 6:50:12 GMT -4
The FEMA report, which came out before the report by NIST, stated.....  I had mentioned this point, previously. In a reply, I was told that NIST did in fact take this into consideration before dismissing it and going with their own "perimeter" theory. (I couldn't find anything about this in the NIST reports. If a source does exist, anyone able to provide a reference for me would be appreciated) I fully agree with FEMA's observation, in that the transmission tower (antenna) began to collapse first, before the perimeter. As they noted, the collapse videos, taken from various angles, indicate this is what actually occurred. This suggests collapse initiated in the central core region, according to FEMA. I concur with this argument, as well. When we compare the two sides.... FEMA has convincing video evidence to support their case, while NIST, from what I can see, support their case with comments from a few people inside an NYPD helicopter. Unless I've overlooked something, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of FEMA's argument. Which would mean that NIST is completely wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 13, 2007 11:58:22 GMT -4
The angle in the videos can be misleading, after a bunch of watching it is apparent the top of the tower did fail asymmetrically. The antenna tilts with the top of the building, then drops as the whole thing starts falling. Its clear in the first link (Etienne) that they fall together.
8 degrees? 12 degrees, I don't know, but it is definitely tilting, as seen in the news tape replay. The multiple views provided in your links make it clear that the antenna tilts, then drops, with the top of the building.
Incidently, you have several still sequence shots taken from the videos purportedly showing the antenna dropping. You may want to look at the roofline of the building in the shots as well, it too drops through the sequence, along with the antenna.
The whole structure has started to drop.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 13, 2007 19:56:08 GMT -4
Wow, this page is wide. My monitor disapproves.
|
|
|
|
Post by papageno on May 14, 2007 16:08:32 GMT -4
turbonium, have you read the report NCSTAR 1-6, available as a PDF file from the wtc.nist wedsite? (In particular, chapter 6.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on May 14, 2007 23:40:58 GMT -4
The problem with turbonium's idea that the core went first is that the antenna was not afixed to the core. It was afixed to the truss hat which in turn was fixed to both the core frame and the perimeter moment frame IIRC
I didn't see great explosions separating the antenna area from the truss hat
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 15, 2007 21:38:26 GMT -4
Many serious problems exist within the NIST report. Their assessment of the North Tower collapse initiation alone has several of them. NIST first claims the top section tilted to due south.... (pg. 40) This was the only source I could find to support NIST's claim.... (pg. 82) A summary observation table again mentions the tilt to the south.... (pg.137) NIST, giving absolutely no explanation for how they managed to come up with a figure, then claim it tilted 8 degrees to the south ... (pg.201) Later, NIST still claims that the top section tilted to the south (3 to 4 degrees) But now, they say that it also tilted to the east, and by twice as much (7 or 8 degrees) as to the south.... (pg.202) On the very next page, NIST once again claims that the top section only tilted to the south, by about 8 degrees..... (pg. 203) One last mention of the tilt to the south.... (pg. 225) _______________________________________________________ NIST makes two seriously conflicting claims about the direction of the tilt. The exclusively south tilt is claimed several times. The "east and south" tilt is only cited once, but the degree of tilt is included for both directions. That means it isn't just a typo, or some other irrelevant mistake. And where did NIST come up with their data for the degree (or is it degrees?) of tilt? They provide no explanation for how they arrived at these numbers. I intend to contact NIST about these issues. But I won't hold my breath waiting for a decent explanation or resolution. Another significant problem is NIST's total lack of solid evidence for these claims.... 1. That the "tilting" was the first externally observed indication (initiation point) of collapse. No photos or videos support this argument. NIST bases their claim on nothing more than a report from observers in NYPD helicopters?!? So it would seem. 2. That the south face was "bowing" inward just prior to collapse, which then led to collapse initiation. One photo is apparently all of the evidence required to support their entire theory of collapse initiation!! Utterly ridiculous. "Utterly ridiculous" describes your research the tilt to the east above the impact zone on the 82nd floor obviously was referring to the South Tower. D'uho |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 16, 2007 16:48:46 GMT -4
"Utterly ridiculous" describes your research the tilt to the east above the impact zone on the 82nd floor obviously was referring to the South Tower. D'uho Spoiler, I was waiting to see how long it would take Turbonium to realise that on his own, now we'll never know. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 16, 2007 22:56:00 GMT -4
I'm still trying to understand if I'm supposed to be seeing the antennae falling first in the stills provided above. From a rough measurement it appears the antennae maintains the same distance from the upper margin of the first "light-colored" section of building. Am I missing something?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 17, 2007 8:07:37 GMT -4
"Utterly ridiculous" describes your research the tilt to the east above the impact zone on the 82nd floor obviously was referring to the South Tower. D'uho Spoiler, I was waiting to see how long it would take Turbonium to realise that on his own, now we'll never know. Don't kid yourself, I doubt he will admit error when he shows up again, he'll probably take NIST to task for saying the 82nd floor was part of impact zone of WTC 1! I hope he contacted them like he said he would! I'm still trying to understand if I'm supposed to be seeing the antennae falling first in the stills provided above. From a rough measurement it appears the antennae maintains the same distance from the upper margin of the first "light-colored" section of building. Am I missing something? You know you're right there is no evidence in his stills that the antenna dropped 1st. LOL LO -Can you fix this page's width problem? |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on May 17, 2007 8:27:14 GMT -4
I find it more telling that he considers the supposed collapse of the antenna in advance of the perimeter structure to be evidence of the core's collapse, whereas he considers the collapse of WTC 7's mechanical penthouse to be an isolated event, unrelated to the rest of the building collapsing beneath it.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on May 17, 2007 10:17:47 GMT -4
LO -Can you fix this page's width problem? Not without deleting images. I will leave it to Turbonium to fix it. |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 17, 2007 20:03:40 GMT -4
I find it more telling that he considers the supposed collapse of the antenna in advance of the perimeter structure to be evidence of the core's collapse, whereas he considers the collapse of WTC 7's mechanical penthouse to be an isolated event, unrelated to the rest of the building collapsing beneath it. But that is because he seems to think that the Mechanical Penthouse simply collapsed onto the roof, he doesn't seem able to acknowledge that the roof collapsed into the building below and that the Mechanical Penthouse then fell into a dirty big hole created by the building under it falling away. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on May 18, 2007 7:52:51 GMT -4
Indeed, which is exactly my point. How does he know that the antenna isn't simply collapsing onto the roof of the tower, as well?
|
|
