|
Post by donnieb on May 18, 2007 11:17:43 GMT -4
Well, step one, he needs to demonstrate that the antenna does in fact begin to fall before the external columns of the tower. I don't see much support for that (no pun intended).
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 19, 2007 21:39:58 GMT -4
I reduced the size of the two image sequences in my earlier post. Let me know if this takes care of the problem, or if the other images need resizing as well. As for the tilt to the east and south, I stand corrected in that it referred to WTC 2. I had read the start of the section as "In WTC 1....", while it actually begins with "As in WTC 1....". I hope this won't discourage lenbrazil in his petition to stigmatize anyone who would dare consider any degree of government involvement in 9/11 as a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 19, 2007 23:38:04 GMT -4
I'm still trying to understand if I'm supposed to be seeing the antennae falling first in the stills provided above. Yes, but only a partial collapse of the antenna, less than a second before collapse is observed elsewhere (ie: perimeter) From a rough measurement it appears the antennae maintains the same distance from the upper margin of the first "light-colored" section of building. What clip did you use? What was your reference point on the antenna to measure the distance from it, to the upper margin of the first "light-colored" section? Yes, although that may be my fault, by not being specific enough in what to look for. I linked this video clip earlier..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb5i_D9DcEs Watch as the antenna begins to drop first, before anything else does. The video is "frozen" just after that occurs.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 20, 2007 1:30:27 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 The antenna was indeed affixed atop the hat truss. And the hat truss was indeed well-connected to both the core and perimeter columns, in order to redistribute the load. A schematic of the hat truss below.... A diagram of the hat truss, as located within the tower. Notice how the hat truss geometry conformed to the core column area below it.... And a close-up photo..... The antenna began to collapse about 1/2 second before any other area of the tower (from external observation). This initial drop (rough est. ~ 12 to 18 feet) was - from all available angles - essentially a straight down, vertical drop. I didn't see great explosions separating the antenna area from the truss hat Nor did I. But severing the connections between the antenna and the hat truss is extremely unlikely to result in the antenna's initial (and nearly straight down) collapse, as seen in the videos. The hat truss was built from the 107th floor up to the 110th, and slightly protruded above the main rooftop. All of the critical hat truss supports would have had to fail simultaneously to cause such a drop, in your scenario.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 20, 2007 18:14:58 GMT -4
As for the tilt to the east and south, I stand corrected in that it referred to WTC 2.
I want to make special mention of this, it isn't often that we see Turbonium admit a mistake, so I wanted to congratulate him on doing so in this case.
Now having said that, Turbonium, I am sure that you are aware that NIST's second line of investigation for WTC 1 (after ruling out pancaking of the floors as the initial collapse mechanism) was a failure in core and the hat truss, mainly because the video they initially had seemed to show what you are claiming. They ended up rejecting this senario as well after getting more evidence that showed that the outer columns on the south face gave way first. In fact one of the things that the "Truthers" like to criticise NIST for is that they "kept changing their minds" with each preleminary report, a result that comes from looking at the observed evidence and matching it to the theory then seeing if it matches. In this case, NIST found that the collapse started in the south face, not the hat truss, and so rejected the hat truss as the cause, showing instead that the south face buckled prior to the core and hat truss failure. As such you seem to be following in NIST's footsteps, but then refuse to move on with each next step until forced too. Do you really think that NIST would reject the, then, Official Report (FEMA's), investigate the cause you are claiming, reject it, and then go for something that was obviously wrong? Or do you think that perhaps they know a little bit more about structural failure than you do, have more access to footage and images of the collapse than you do, and that they found that there is very good evidence to say that the southern face failed first.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 20, 2007 18:22:50 GMT -4
What I don't understand is why the attempt to prove a core failure diagnosis. Is it because this will "prove NIST wrong" (as there are public statements by them before and after considering hat truss failure as a proximate cause)? Or is it because a core failure somehow fits in better with the fabulous ever-moving explosives/thermate/ninja bunnies with Sawsalls?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 20, 2007 21:25:32 GMT -4
I find it very tedious that changing one's mind upon further evidence is considered such a bad thing these days. In politics, for example, it's called "flip-flopping." And, yes, it's entirely possible that NIST did change their minds about what happened; as they got new evidence, they probably ought to have, unless they had the good luck to be right in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 21, 2007 0:43:51 GMT -4
I find it very tedious that changing one's mind upon further evidence is considered such a bad thing these days. In politics, for example, it's called "flip-flopping." And, yes, it's entirely possible that NIST did change their minds about what happened; as they got new evidence, they probably ought to have, unless they had the good luck to be right in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community call it, Scientific Method.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 25, 2007 23:55:06 GMT -4
Now having said that, Turbonium, I am sure that you are aware that NIST's second line of investigation for WTC 1 (after ruling out pancaking of the floors as the initial collapse mechanism) was a failure in core and the hat truss, mainly because the video they initially had seemed to show what you are claiming. They ended up rejecting this senario as well after getting more evidence that showed that the outer columns on the south face gave way first. Indeed, that is essentially what NIST is claiming. However, I believe that NIST has completely failed to support their claim with valid evidence. As I pointed out earlier, NIST appears to have supported their entire claim for the North Tower collapse initiation with a single photo. Nothing else. On the other hand, several videos provide solid evidence for the claim that the North Tower collapse initiated at the core area. If the NIST claim has any other evidence I may have overlooked, then please provide a source(s). Otherwise, it's not remotely debatable. In fact one of the things that the "Truthers", like to criticise NIST for is that they "kept changing their minds"; with each preleminary report, a result that comes from looking at the observed evidence and matching it to the theory then seeing if it matches. If NIST could truly justify "changing their minds", with solid evidence, then any such criticism wouldn't have merit. In this case, NIST found that the collapse started in the south face, not the hat truss, and so rejected the hat truss as the cause, showing instead that the south face buckled prior to the core and hat truss failure. Again - this is a claim that NIST has failed to substantiate. As such you seem to be following in NIST's footsteps, but then refuse to move on with each next step until forced too. ?? Do you really think that NIST would reject the, then, Official Report (FEMA's), investigate the cause you are claiming, reject it, and then go for something that was obviously wrong? No, I wouldn't really think they would do that. But apparently, that is exactly what they did. Or do you think that perhaps they know a little bit more about structural failure than you do, I would certainly hope so. have more access to footage and images of the collapse than you do, They certainly would. and that they found that there is very good evidence to say that the southern face failed first. But they just didn't include it in their reports?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 26, 2007 0:26:59 GMT -4
What I don't understand is why the attempt to prove a core failure diagnosis. Is it because this will "prove NIST wrong" (as there are public statements by them before and after considering hat truss failure as a proximate cause)? Or is it because a core failure somehow fits in better with the fabulous ever-moving explosives/thermate/ninja bunnies with Sawsalls? Here's the primary objective, which you didn't mention: Find out the truth of the matter. No "ninja bunnies" required. A belief in thermate/explosives/etc. is not necessary. Furthermore, a belief in the official theory of fire/impact damage doesn't preclude or prohibit anyone from disputing specific points within that theory (such as the collapse initiation point). What I'm still waiting to see is someone provide a valid argument that can support NIST's position on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 26, 2007 5:41:03 GMT -4
Turbonium, I've just noticed that on another forum you have just admitted to fabricating evidence as a joke. Why should we take you seriously here?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 26, 2007 6:52:32 GMT -4
Do you believe in absolute truth? Do you assert that until something is known without question, your knowledge is useless?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 26, 2007 15:48:09 GMT -4
But they just didn't include it in their reports? Is it possible that you don't understand their reports well enough to say?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on May 26, 2007 16:10:48 GMT -4
Turbonium, I've just noticed that on another forum you have just admitted to fabricating evidence as a joke. Why should we take you seriously here? I suppose I should be surprised at this, but in reality, I'm not. You've been busted, Turbonium.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 26, 2007 19:42:28 GMT -4
What videos show solid evidence that the collapse initiated in the core area? Not the ones you showed earlier, the tower starts down with the rest of the top of the building in those. It's clearly shown in the stills, the roofline drops with the top of the antenna..
|
|