ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 22nd June 2012, 03:54 AM   #1
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,698
South Tower Top Section Lean

Hi all.

I've been listening to a few audio debates, a couple involving Richard Gage, and this one topic constantly comes up.

The claim by conspiracy theorists is that the top of the South tower leans over, and then seemingly out of nowhere, just begins to fall down through the building instead of falling off the top like "it should".

The usual rebuttal consists of everything from force of gravity, lack of angular momentum, lack of solid pivot point for the top section to continue pivoting on, dealignment of core columns from the tilt, etc.

I've been looking at videos of the South Tower from multiple angles, and have made several observations.

1. The top section does not begin leaning over first. The top section begins a downwards motion at the same time, if not slightly before the top section begins leaning to the east.

2. The lean and angular momentum of this top section does not suddenly stop in favor of a downwards motion. It appears to continue as the collapse accelerates downwards.

3. The east face of the top section does in fact end up falling off the side of the building.

4. The remaining top section, including the additional mass gained per floor as the building collapses, continues to cause the collapse of the south tower.

Conclusion:

Conspiracy theorists have been wrong on two counts; that the top section began leaning before any downwards motion, and also that the top section, or at least the east face of that top section, did actually end up 'tipping' off.

Although this does not really change anything, I figured it was worthy of mention, being as it seems to be consistently bought up in conspiracy arguments.

Have a watch of some of these angles, you'll see what I mean. In particular, have a look at what happens to the top section on the East side of the building as it collapses.

[edit] In particular, the small clip at 1:27, 1:35, 3:50, 4:56 (probably the best one), 5:48 (notice the East face of the top section) Just to point out a few.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

Last edited by cjnewson88; 22nd June 2012 at 04:13 AM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 06:25 AM   #2
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
1. The top section does not begin leaning over first. The top section begins a downwards motion at the same time, if not slightly before the top section begins leaning to the east.
No. Progression of perimeter failure can be observed traversing from East to West on the North face of the building...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Quote:
2. The lean and angular momentum of this top section does not suddenly stop in favor of a downwards motion. It appears to continue as the collapse accelerates downwards.
Correct, though it does reduce.

Quote:
3. The east face of the top section does in fact end up falling off the side of the building.
No. That is the LOWER East face being pushed outwards by the descending tilting upper section...



femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 06:35 AM   #3
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,392
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
1. The top section does not begin leaning over first. The top section begins a downwards motion at the same time, if not slightly before the top section begins leaning to the east.
No. Progression of perimeter failure can be observed traversing from East to West on the North face of the building...
It seems to me that this question is a great deal deeper than whether the top block rotated before or after beginning to descend; the problem is defining what part of the motion is considered rotation and what part descent. If you want to deconvolute the motion of the upper block into rotation and translation, then it depends where you place the axis of rotation. Place it about the hinge point and there can be no downward motion until the hinge fractures, which will inevitably be at a non-zero rotation. Place it nearer the building centre and you'll find a downward motion term as soon as you take out the rotation. Place it higher up and out pops a lateral motion term. Most conspiracy theorists, though, don't have a good enough grasp of geometry to even understand that there's an issue here. Their claim isn't even wrong; it isn't being coherently stated.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 22nd June 2012 at 06:38 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 06:47 AM   #4
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It seems to me that this question is a great deal deeper than whether the top block rotated before or after beginning to descend; the problem is defining what part of the motion is considered rotation and what part descent.
It's been discussed in detail at the911forum.

The exact pivot point is still a bone of contention, but West side of core is probable.

The East to West progression of perimeter failure can be seen.

There's not vertical descent of the entire upper section before rotation begins.

There's a clear "release point" of the upper section, when the West face fractures.

The scenario suggested by cjnewson88 did not happen.

Am sure I have some trace data for WTC2 initiation kicking about.

ETA: And lest it's forgotten...it won't be a rigid structure either.

Last edited by femr2; 22nd June 2012 at 07:01 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 08:01 AM   #5
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,392
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
It's been discussed in detail at the911forum.

The exact pivot point is still a bone of contention, but West side of core is probable.

The East to West progression of perimeter failure can be seen.

There's not vertical descent of the entire upper section before rotation begins.
Again, definitions. If the upper block is pivoting about the West side of the core, then the East side of the block is descending from the moment rotation begins, simply because of the rotation. Simple geometry. It's a geometrical impossibility for the top section to rotate without at least some part of it moving downwards. So any statement of the form "the top of the tower starts leaning before it starts to fall" is so vaguely framed as to be meaningless; the very fact that part of the tower is leaning means that it has begun to fall.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 08:23 AM   #6
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Again, definitions.
Not really necessary.

You know as well as I do that "rotation/tipping" preceeded "release/vertical descent" of the upper section.

Quote:
If the upper block is pivoting about the West side of the core, then the East side of the block is descending from the moment rotation begins, simply because of the rotation. Simple geometry.
Sure, and again I suggest reminding yourself that it's not a rigid block either.

Slightly pedantic geometry of rotation about pivot discussion aside...

The OP suggesting vertical descent before rotation is incorrect. Clear tipping occurred before release. A point I note you chopped from my previous response.

Quote:
It's a geometrical impossibility for the top section to rotate without at least some part of it moving downwards.
...and some other part moving upwards, given the suggested pivot point, assuming a rigid block, ...

Quote:
So any statement of the form "the top of the tower starts leaning before it starts to fall" is so vaguely framed as to be meaningless; the very fact that part of the tower is leaning means that it has begun to fall.
You decided to cut out the real=world clarification...

There's a clear "release point" of the upper section, when the West face fractures.

The scenario suggested by cjnewson88 did not happen.

Am sure I have some trace data for WTC2 initiation kicking about.

And lest it's forgotten...it won't be a rigid structure either.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 08:29 AM   #7
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,392
Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to. Let me try again:

Yes, femr2, you're right. It doesn't matter what I said, or whether you've got the faintest understanding of what I meant, or what anybody else said; you're just right, because you always are.

Happy now?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 08:30 AM   #8
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
...and some other part moving upwards, given the suggested pivot point, assuming a rigid block, ...
This is not necessarily true. A block that is hinged at the corner will not have any part of itself moving up at any point. Of course, that is a mathematical idealization and hardly in any way realistic, but you're just trying to avoid the point: Downward motion and rotation are inextricably linked and difficult to differentiate.
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 10:02 AM   #9
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,698
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
definitions. If the upper block is pivoting about the West side of the core, then the East side of the block is descending from the moment rotation begins, simply because of the rotation. Simple geometry. It's a geometrical impossibility for the top section to rotate without at least some part of it moving downwards.
Dave
This was what I was getting at. However I was also looking at the idea of whether there was any downwards motion before the tip began. I don't give the western pivot as much credit as others seem to.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
No. Progression of perimeter failure can be observed traversing from East to West on the North face of the building...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/5/2/152523643.gif
See Daves post.


Quote:
I would disagree. Look at your own .gif better, the lower easter face is being smashed to piece well before that eastern face collapse becomes visible. To my observation, even your own gif shows the eastern face of the top section is what becomes visible and does in fact topple off. Look how far East the collapse of the South Tower reaches. It goes far further East than it does West.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

Last edited by cjnewson88; 22nd June 2012 at 10:04 AM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 10:58 AM   #10
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
This is not necessarily true.
It is when the pivot is not at the corner, which it isn't.

Quote:
A block that is hinged at the corner will not have any part of itself moving up at any point.
See above.

Quote:
Of course, that is a mathematical idealization and hardly in any way realistic, but you're just trying to avoid the point: Downward motion and rotation are inextricably linked and difficult to differentiate.
Not trying to avoid the "point" in the slightest. It's more pedantic JREF crap.

The point being...
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
1. The top section does not begin leaning over first. The top section begins a downwards motion at the same time, if not slightly before the top section begins leaning to the east.
Nope. Rotation (with pedantic mathematical features applicable to a perfectly rigid structure aside) first, until perimeter failure progressed visibly from East to West, followed by West perimeter failure, at which point all four corner had released. At that point rotation continued, and vertical "fall" began. It's visible behaviour. Observable.

As I said, I'll dig out trace data for WTC2.

3 out of 4 of your assertions were incorrect.

I don't bother to engage in these "discussions" unless I've already looked at the behaviour in detail.

We can waste time dragging up years old research, but I suggest you readdress your OP.

Last edited by femr2; 22nd June 2012 at 11:26 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 11:01 AM   #11
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,392
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Rotation (with pedantic mathematical features applicable to a perfectly rigid structure aside)
And, for that matter, relevant geometrical features equally applicable to a non-rigid structure...

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 11:20 AM   #12
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
This was what I was getting at. However I was also looking at the idea of whether there was any downwards motion before the tip began.
Nope. West corner column fixed and in-place until North perimeter failure progressed from East to West...



Quote:
I don't give the western pivot as much credit as others seem to.
Credit or not, there is a pivot point, roughly around the West edge of the core. Opinions vary about exact location.

Quote:
I would disagree.
Disagree all you please good sir. But it IS the lower East perimeter, NOT the upper. End of. Many hours of observational study by multiple folk. Narrowed down to exact piece.

Quote:
Look at your own .gif better
No need. Looked at it for hours. Traced it. Generated it. Stabilised it. Rendered it in a 3D modeller, ...

Quote:
the lower easter face is being smashed to piece well before that eastern face collapse becomes visible
Incorrect.

Quote:
To my observation, even your own gif shows the eastern face of the top section is what becomes visible and does in fact topple off.
You need to correct your observation then.

Last edited by femr2; 22nd June 2012 at 11:31 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 11:22 AM   #13
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And, for that matter, relevant geometrical features equally applicable to a non-rigid structure.
Increasing pedantry.

femr2

Last edited by femr2; 22nd June 2012 at 11:24 AM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 11:27 AM   #14
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Single best record of WTC2 early movement and behavior on the planet available at the following link:

3: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories


Guys, map first, ask questions later.

(Which is, of course, a variation of "shoot first, ask questions later", which has now become "drone first, ask questions later".)


You have to carefully map a complex deforming body before making global geometric assumptions.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 22nd June 2012 at 11:29 AM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 11:30 AM   #15
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
...Disagree all you please good sir. But it IS the lower East perimeter, NOT the upper. End of. Many hours of observational study by multiple folk. Narrowed down to exact piece....
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Increasing pedantry....
That blue sky approach is persistent.

ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 11:44 AM   #16
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Single best record of WTC2 early movement and behavior on the planet available at the following link:

3: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories


Guys, map first, ask questions later.

(Which is, of course, a variation of "shoot first, ask questions later", which has now become "drone first, ask questions later".)


You have to carefully map a complex deforming body before making global geometric assumptions.
There is literally no amount of facepalm that will suffice.

Listen.

This is the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Forum.

WHERE IS YOUR CONSPIRACY?

Your math and graphs are all 100% dead on accurate. You have collected the best observables in the known UNIVERSE.

Now, the relevant question is, so what?

What.
Does.
It.
Mean?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 11:50 AM   #17
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...You have to carefully map a complex deforming body before making global geometric assumptions.
You could well be right on this specific instance M_T. Despite the ironic juxtaposition of your recognition of "global geometric assumptions" with your own global logical assumption implicit in the "have to"

The big issue being that it is a "complex deforming body" - a simple fact that many people from both extremes of the polarised WTC collapse discussion ignore leading them to false conclusions. The "Heiwanesque" rigid block claims being common bad examples. And the Tony Szamboti resurrection of Heiwanism in the "Can 15 floors crush one floor?" thread being the current active claim based on the same falsehood.

Given the complexity of the body and that it is deforming this is probably one of those situations where only measurements and observations can lead to the correct interpretation. It is not amenable to theoretical analysis and as always what was actually seen to happen should over-rule any theoretical considerations which disagree with valid observations.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 11:58 AM   #18
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
There is literally no amount of facepalm that will suffice.
Oncoming derail and rule 12 I reckon...

Quote:
Listen.
To the written word. Cool.

Quote:
This is the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Forum.
Really ? I never knew that.

Quote:
WHERE IS YOUR CONSPIRACY?
Why are you addressing MT ?

He's simply provided the OP with information with which to correct his incorrect OP assertions with.

As has been bandied around here a bit recently (with no infractions raised)...why don't you go bust the OP's balls instead ?

Quote:
Your math and graphs are all 100% dead on accurate. You have collected the best observables in the known UNIVERSE.
I doubt MT would assert there's absolutely zero inaccuracy, but it's pretty expansive and detailed.

Quote:
Now, the relevant question is, so what?

What.
Does.
It.
Mean?
It's information which the OP can use as a reference and correct his erronious OP assertions.

Beyond that, speak to the OP

Last edited by femr2; 22nd June 2012 at 12:04 PM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 12:23 PM   #19
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,698
Thanks for the link Tom.

After a look, I correct myself slightly with observation 1. to the point which the top section does not begin to move downwards before it tilts, however I will stick with the obvious that the tilt was in sync with a downwards motion, even if that downwards motion is a result of the tilt itself, there is still a downwards action occurring.

I do however remain firm at this stage with the observation it is the upper east wall ejecting out and becoming visible part way through collapse. According to the gif used, for the object to be from the lower section, it would have to be remaining relatively stationary while the upper section just 'slides' in behind it for the beginning seconds of collapse. This just seems highly unlikely to me. Truth of the matter is, behind all that dust, we can only guess what is going on, however it seems far more likely to me that it is the east wall of the top section falling off.

That purple line shape comparing bit seems flawed in my opinion. The entire building was made up of those prefabricated sections of jigsaw like spandrels, drawing a purple line over some of them and saying 'it looks like this bit here' does not prove anything at all. I could just as easily draw a purple outline over a random part of the top section and say 'minus these two parts here, it's identical!'. Not very conclusive in my opinion.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

Last edited by cjnewson88; 22nd June 2012 at 12:25 PM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 12:29 PM   #20
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Quote:
This is the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Forum.
Really ? I never knew that.
Quote:
WHERE IS YOUR CONSPIRACY?
Why are you addressing MT ?
It is a reference to a false assumption. The criteria (? singular) for admission to this sub-forum is that the topic is about 9/11. It is not a requirement that it explicitly reference "conspiracy". SEE BELOW If that false premise applied then for consistency all of the Oystein, Ivan Kminek and ChrisMohr posts/threads about WTC Dust analyses would have to be banished to some other pure science area.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Quote:
Now, the relevant question is, so what?

What.
Does.
It.
Mean?
It's information which the OP can use as a reference and correct his erronious OP assertions...
It is a question which has been put many times to M_T in other situations BUT it is not relevant here. The info from M_T being validly on topic as I suggested in my post.
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
...Beyond that, speak to the OP
Definitely. The ongoing need to remember the topic and who raised the specific issue...

However the latter part of M_T's post could also be seen as gratuitous - adding nothing to this topic.

EDIT:

On review I think that my comment "The criteria (? singular) for admission to this sub-forum is that the topic is about 9/11. It is not a requirement that it explicitly reference "conspiracy". " is not quite accurate. It is too weak. The original intention, as I recall it being discussed, was that ALL 9/11 matters go into and stay in this sub forum.

Last edited by ozeco41; 22nd June 2012 at 01:28 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 12:36 PM   #21
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
...I do however remain firm at this stage with the observation it is the upper east wall ejecting out and becoming visible part way through collapse. According to the gif used, for the object to be from the lower section, it would have to be remaining relatively stationary while the upper section just 'slides' in behind it for the beginning seconds of collapse. This just seems highly unlikely to me. Truth of the matter is, behind all that dust, we can only guess what is going on, however it seems far more likely to me that it is the east wall of the top section falling off....
Good for you to stick to your guns.

But whilst we are running our various forms of "personal incredulity" I remain firmly convinced that femr2 is right.
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
...That purple line shape comparing bit seems flawed in my opinion. The entire building was made up of those prefabricated sections of jigsaw like spandrels, drawing a purple line over some of them and saying 'it looks like this bit here' does not prove anything at all. I could just as easily draw a purple outline over a random part of the top section and say 'minus these two parts here, it's identical!'. Not very conclusive in my opinion.
Have you examined the totality of Major_Tom's research into the break up of perimeter panels and what bits landed where and how they fell with whatever rotating or flipping in mid air? Taken overall I find it very persuasive. You may not agree but it is worth a look. M_T or femr2 can give the links. I'll see if I can find them also.

You are probably right to express scepticism - but personally I would not be confident enough to claim he was wrong based on little more than a "gut feel incredulity".

Last edited by ozeco41; 22nd June 2012 at 12:40 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 12:39 PM   #22
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,698
*at this stage meaning I'm still going through Tom's info

These were observations of mine, they were not concrete, opinions are always open to shifting, I'm simply offering another possibility.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 12:42 PM   #23
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
*at this stage meaning I'm still going through Tom's info

These were observations of mine, they were not concrete, opinions are always open to shifting, I'm simply offering another possibility.
I fully support your position on those points.

BTW I edited my post and we have crossed - it shouldn't matter.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 12:54 PM   #24
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,698
Just reading through this section. I wasn't aware of the large reinforced area below the failure point. This would go to explaining how that section remained in place during the initial collapse of the top section. Looks like I may have to concede defeat
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

Last edited by cjnewson88; 22nd June 2012 at 01:17 PM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 01:05 PM   #25
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
the top section does not begin to move downwards before it tilts
Splendid.

Quote:
however I will stick with the obvious that the tilt was in sync with a downwards motion, even if that downwards motion is a result of the tilt itself, there is still a downwards action occurring.
If you mean downward motion of all four corners...ie post-release...no. Release was a bit later on, but ho hum. As I said I'll dig out trace data and present inter-corner behaviour in visual form.

Quote:
I do however remain firm at this stage with the observation it is the upper east wall ejecting out and becoming visible part way through collapse.
Not splendid, though "at this stage" is good.

It really is the lower East perimeter. I've tracked it down to individual and specific wall panels...



Quote:
According to the gif used
Dozens of videos inspected in great detail are the basis of the assertion, not a quick eye-ball at a singluar GIF.

Can I suggest taking some time scrubbing through your video collection in HuffYUV format, enabling you to build a much clearer and accurate mental picture of the motion involved ?

Quote:
for the object to be from the lower section, it would have to be remaining relatively stationary while the upper section just 'slides' in behind it for the beginning seconds of collapse
That's right, though it's obviously separating the East perimeter from the OOS flooring quite efficiently (which we can also see as descent progresses)

Quote:
This just seems highly unlikely to me.
Nevertheless the upper East perimeter does indeed travel behind the lower East perimeter, until around the level of the "knuckle", at which point the lower East wall is rapidly ejected.

Quote:
Truth of the matter is, behind all that dust, we can only guess what is going on
Incorrect. Fairly tedious and laborious observation from multiple angles can allow fully qualified assertion.

It is the lower East facade...


Watch until your eyes bleed

Quote:
however it seems far more likely to me that it is the east wall of the top section falling off.
It's not.

Quote:
That purple line shape comparing bit seems flawed in my opinion.
It's not perfect. Some visual cueing only.

Quote:
The entire building was made up of those prefabricated sections of jigsaw like spandrels
I know. See rendered image above.

Quote:
drawing a purple line over some of them and saying 'it looks like this bit here' does not prove anything at all.
Prove, no. Assist in allowing you to "see the wood from the trees", hopefully.

Quote:
I could just as easily draw a purple outline over a random part of the top section and say 'minus these two parts here, it's identical!'.
No, that would be pretty stupid.

Quote:
Not very conclusive in my opinion.
Unfortunately your opinion is/was wrong on several points within this thread.

Again, I'll dig out additional information for you, as it is the lower East perimeter being ejected.

ETA: "Just reading through this section. I wasn't aware of the large reinforced area below the failure point. Looks like I may have to concede defeat"

There's no "defeat". No battle. I'll still dig out WTC2 corner trace data for completeness.

Last edited by femr2; 22nd June 2012 at 01:10 PM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 01:31 PM   #26
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
...ETA: "Just reading through this section. I wasn't aware of the large reinforced area below the failure point. Looks like I may have to concede defeat"

There's no "defeat". No battle. I'll still dig out WTC2 corner trace data for completeness.
Agreed. It's a good point to remember.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 01:40 PM   #27
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Just reading through this section. ...
It is impressive work IMO. Hence my disagreement with those who dismiss Major_Tom and others on the spurious grounds that the are, were, or may have been "truthers". If the research is good it is good independent of what position the author holds on scepticism.

It is similar in my opinion to those who call for peer reviewed papers OR proof of PhD as excuses to avoid the reality that facts have been presented. If the facts are true they are true independent of author qualification or level of review. Conversely if the facts are wrong they are wrong despite those "safeguards".

ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 02:00 PM   #28
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,698
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
It is impressive work IMO.
It is. I didn't even know it existed
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 02:18 PM   #29
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
It is. I didn't even know it existed
I've been raising the wrath of some JREF members by praising the work of femr2 and M_T - mostly M_T because his stuff has helped me a lot. e.g. the perimeter peel off studies I regard as the definitive rebuttal of all those crazy claims that heavy beams were thrown 5-600 feet by explosives. The "peel off" mechanisms described by M_T show how those long range beam "throws" are simply explained as "bowling" including the various spins that Shane Warne would be proud to own.

Still I don't expect a Kiwi to agree with an Aussie on Cricketing analogies... BTW I'm 60/71 Aussie, the remaining 11/71 Pommie which further confuses the cricketing loyalties (Not true, the cricket loyalties are 100% Aussie - my local street corner newsagent, where my kids earned their first pay delivering newspapers, was a chap called Roger Waugh. He had a few sons who played cricket when not selling newspapers.)

...nor do I expect US members to even know what we are talking about..

BUT those beams were thrown 5-600 feet by "slow bowling with a variety of spin"

AND anyone on this JRE Forum or the911Forum will know that I have expressed and explained strong disagreements with M_T on some aspects of his presentation of his claims. But never directed at his technical research. Or femr2's by the way - and the technical stuff has involved both as contributors. My agreements and disagreements with Major_Tom would make a study of their own....but not here in this thread
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 02:50 PM   #30
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,698
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
The "peel off" mechanisms described by M_T show how those long range beam "throws" are simply explained as "bowling" including the various spins that Shane Warne would be proud to own.

Still I don't expect a Kiwi to agree with an Aussie on Cricketing analogies...
While the all blacks are doing a lot better than the black caps, i'll pretend I have no idea what you're talking about

Quote:
My agreements and disagreements with Major_Tom would make a study of their own....but not here in this thread
May as well, following my rather embarrassing intellectual ass kicking, this thread isn't good for much else
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 03:09 PM   #31
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
While the all blacks are doing a lot better than the black caps, i'll pretend I have no idea what you're talking about
Touché
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
...May as well, following my rather embarrassing intellectual ass kicking, this thread isn't good for much else
Overall it's been a good thread. We can stop posting now.

The ozeco v Major_Tom areas of disagreement go to aspects of his logic and style. I have attempted several times on two forums to assist but, put very diplomatically, our discussions have not progressed.

The thread "Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas" is as good a revelation of the issues as you should need. Oystein shares similar opinions to mine and there is variety between our styles of explaining/addressing the issues of concern.

Bottom line is that I have challenged M_T to a one on one discussion on both this forum the 911Forum. The challenges neither acknowledged nor accepted on either forum. So I won't be pushing it. Horses, water, leading and forced imbibing of fluid being the sort of issues which arise.

And let's not misuse this thread by derailing into more details.

Time for me to do some work - just after 0800 over here on the "Western Islands" of NZ where us "strines" live.

Cheers.

Last edited by ozeco41; 22nd June 2012 at 03:11 PM. Reason: Fixed the accent on Touché so it doesn't read as "toosh"
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 03:15 PM   #32
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Oy Vey, this again. Yet another windmill for AE911T to tilt at?

The pivot point is all but immaterial as no matter where it is, it is not going to survive for long. If one had a hinge between two pieces of plywood and set them up vertically the top one would rotate until it was parallel to the other. However that's only because the hinge itself is a real hinge and not a length of steel that is being compressed on the inside of the angle and in increasing tension on the outside of the angle, it is not subject to massive loads that it was never designed to take.

Once the hinge/pivot breaks down, and this will occur fairly quickly as columns buckle or snap, the entire mass will fall with it Center of Mass moving straight down. Any angular momentum it has built up while pivoting will now be converted to angular momentum with the CoM as the center of rotation.

Unless the mass has been rotated such that the CoM is now outside the footprint of the structure then the greatest percentage of that mass will impact the lower structure. There will be NO column on column impact, all mass within the foot print of the next lower floor space will impact that floor pan with a huge dynamic force that will collapse that level which only adds to the falling mass and load on the next floor down, etc., etc., etc.

Is this a difficult concept?

ETA: I see that this thread has run its course,,, oh well I believe my point still stands.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 22nd June 2012 at 03:22 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 04:01 PM   #33
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Oy Vey, this again. Yet another windmill for AE911T to tilt at?...
I don't see where AE911 comes into this thread...BUT they may be desperate.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
...The pivot point is all but immaterial as no matter where it is, it is not going to survive for long...
Sure - but the discussion is about what happens in the period which is "not going to survive for long..." So a discussion about details NOT the big picture. It probably wouldn't interest those who are only interested in the end point but it is a valid interest for those who are interested. Notwithstanding that bit of circular logic.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
...There will be NO column on column impact, all mass within the foot print of the next lower floor space will impact that floor pan with a huge dynamic force that will collapse that level which only adds to the falling mass and load on the next floor down, etc., etc., etc.

Is this a difficult concept?...
Not difficult at all. It has been explained yet again in full 3D colour and multi-channel sound over on the "Can 15 floors crush one floor?" thread mainly for the benefit of Doubting Tony Sz.

OH, alright, prune out my hyperbole. Substitute "It has been explained yet again in comprehensive reasoned arguments put by ozeco41, Oystein and femr2...." with encouragement,support and agreement from several other members. Then replace the "Doubting Tony ...etc" with "Determined denialist in face of and ignoring all reasoned arguments including visual evidence of his faulty reasoning Tony ...etc"

The key point to understanding "NO column on column impact" is IMNSHO the simple fact that once the top block started to fall all columns had failed (or were in the process of failing) AND their ends were already past each other (or were heading that way) Both the disclaimers needed to keep my logic pure. They allow for highly unlikely bits of "yes butting" and are easily explained for Doubting T...er "Thomases" - if said DT's are prepared to listen. BTW it is interesting how many people miss that point - with the "top Block" falling it is already too late for axial end for end contact. (And, once again, with an easily disposed of minor disclaimer.). Additional argument from femr2's observations that the outer perimeter did in fact miss. But visual evidence is also ignored by certain doubters.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
...ETA: I see that this thread has run its course,,, oh well I believe my point still stands.
Yes And Yes - with a few minor nit-picks not worth worrying about.

Last edited by ozeco41; 22nd June 2012 at 04:19 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 04:38 PM   #34
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
There will be NO column on column impact
Whilst I agree that perfect axial column-column impact is impossible, it's possible that some columns may come into partial contact with others (or parts of themselves). Not at all like the scenario painted within TMJ.

Quote:
all mass within the foot print of the next lower floor space will impact that floor pan
Not all at once, and not all at the same time. Different places at different times.

Quote:
with a huge dynamic force
Multiple smaller.

Quote:
that will collapse that level
Too simplistic wording imo, but successive OOS region support failure, yes, with, in practice, multiple separately propogating "crush fronts" closely matching the OOS region "zoning".

Quote:
which only adds to the falling mass and load on the next floor down, etc., etc., etc.
Again, too virtual and simplistic. In reality it is highly probable both theroetically and by observation that only a portion of mass descending within the perimeter was involved in propogating ROOSD. The rest trailing behind a-bumpin' into other stuff the first "crush front" didn't dislodge.

Quote:
Is this a difficult concept?
No, but stated in a rather 1D "block" type manner still.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 05:08 PM   #35
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Whilst I agree that perfect axial column-column impact is impossible, it's possible that some columns may come into partial contact with others (or parts of themselves). Not at all like the scenario painted within TMJ...
Which is the main reason I include the disclaimers in my otherwise simple claim.

A couple of scenarios to explain:
1) If a columns or a few columns came into end for end contact the overwhelming falling weight would result in "instantaneous" buckling and back into all ends missing. The flexibility of the structures would not prevent that buckling and I use "instantaneous" for brevity of writing. More wordy explanations if needed so nobody ask please.

2)The most likely place for such brief end for end IMO being in the initiation zone (which is where we are anyway in case we forget) with columns that could have broken leaving some separated ends with vertical space between them. (Again a simplified explanation...please don't ask etc )

3) At that initiation stage and more so as progression works down the core (but not the perimeter) there could be opportunities for glancing contact between falling bits and "columns which are leaning out of vertical". Or out of vertical columns falling on other bits including out of vertical....you will get my drift.

So your proviso femr2 is what I have in mind with my "disclaimers" against the simple scenario. But easily explained.

And "TMJ" is pure fantasy based on a false concept of how the collapse transitioned from "initiation " to "progression" PLUS arse about sequencing in both physical events and timing of Tony's base premise that something is falling "from above" to "later" land on something below.

The confusion at least in part probably resulting from his pre-determined belief that bits of columns had been removed by CD cutting --- then his need to "prove CD" which led him into the circular logic aspect of TMJ where he in effect proves his initial assumption.

Simple as that methinks.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 06:16 PM   #36
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,207
I see with a bit of sadness a gulf between Dave Rogers and femr2 that ought to, and could easily, be marrower.

And I think much of it is (besides learned and practiced animosity) quite simply about the semantis of the word "release".

In Dave's mind, "release" is the approximate point in time when the center of mass enters the period of sustained dropping at increasing velocity greater than that which results from creep and localized failures.
In femr's mind, release is the moment after which all sub-assemblies across the floor above crush zones are moving down - from corner to all corners.

Dave's release may be a little earlier.

Obviously, the tilt implies absolute and never stopped descent of the center of mass, so by that definition, tilt can't possibly start before release.
But that cannot reasonably be what the OP asked about - because in that definition, tilt is logically tied to descent: if tilt, then descent (not necessarily vice versa).



If you want to think about tilt and drop as independent quantities, I think femr's approach makes slightly more sense.


Best would be if we knew where the center of mass is, and could track its movement. But that is practically impossible.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2012, 07:06 PM   #37
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I see with a bit of sadness a gulf between Dave Rogers and femr2 that ought to, and could easily, be marrower....
I had similar thoughts but couldn't see how to address the issue.
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...(besides learned and practiced animosity)...
..that is the hard bit given that the mechanism is both two sided and based on poor foundations. You and I having some experience of both sides whether for better or "not so good".

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...If you want to think about tilt and drop as independent quantities, I think femr's approach makes slightly more sense....
Yes. But the whole discussion seems to have a few doubtful premises mixed in among the pearls. My simplistic view being that:
1) If one side of the damaged zone crushes it will lower the "top bit which I won't call a block even though I don't think it is rigid"; AND
2) One side going down will:
3) cause "dowmward movement" of parts of the top bit;
4) at the same time causing rotation of the whole top bit;
5) with both of those effectively just orthogonal vectors of the same movement; AND
6) the balance of which parts of the whole moved where/how far depending on where the hinge was; AND
7) the flexibility of the lot; AND
8) all of the above most likely varying as time passes; AND
9) including movement of the (virtual) hinge...
10) and I had the arrogance to call this "simplistic"

and there are probably a few more but those will do for starters.

Which is why I prefer to stay with the big picture logic when that dominates rather than go into details which as often as not can only be conjectures etc etc...

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...Best would be if we knew where the center of mass is, and could track its movement. But that is practically impossible.
Which says most of what I just said but with more efficient usage of words than my verbose legalistic pedantry allows me.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2012, 06:04 PM   #38
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Okay, I am not sure Iam following all of the previous descriptions of the motion that we see going on. Correct me if I am wandering into undefended territory here.

Look at the tower from an angle that put the hot spot where the molten metal appeared on the left of the screen.

When collapse begins, the bottom edge of the top block moves toward the camera, very slightly, in the scale which we see, but, given the size of the towers in real life, this could be a matter of feet. Given that the face we are looking at is on the up-wind side, it may be safe to assume that there are fewer floors damaged by heat there. Most of the damage to this face is ballistic in origin. The most heat would be down-wind, thus more floor trusses would have failed due to sagging. The top block is, therefore, heaviest on this side. The columns to the left would have sustained the most damage in the initial crash, and those to the right almost no damage. They were also sheltered from the most direct heating.

I am now thinking of the video we have often seen of a massive I-beam bent into a horseshoe shape at obviously quite high temperature. From this, I have drawn a mental picture of the top block not being dropped abruptly on the lower, but being set down on it as the columns sagged, rather than snapped.

This sagging would, obviously, disalign the ends of the columns at the point of failure. Based on my conclusion that the side of the builoding toward the camera weighed more, it would seem logical that the upper columns would have been pulled toward our point of view. Once the upper columns are set in motion, it follows that they would continue to some degree, for a time, in the same direction.

Now we have the heavier portion of the descending block pulling the other side of the building over a pivot point across the tops of the standing core columns. This puts a strain on the undamaged columns to the right side of this face, so that they break as well.

It is clear to me that the vidoes of the event show the top of the falling block moving slightly toward the failure point until well into the process of collapse. The less robust upper core structure is breaking itself to pieces on the lower, more robust core. (This also damages the lower core to some extent, causing it to be vulnerable to the vibrations and resonances set up by the pummelling of ther collapsing floors and the upward rush of air turbulence created when the floors collapse and air can find exit only out to the sides or up the core.)

Anyone using the word "symetrical" to describe the collapse is pulling evidence out of his underwear.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2012, 06:23 PM   #39
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Anyone using the word "symetrical" to describe the collapse is pulling evidence out of his underwear.
The word "symmetrical" appears only once in this thread, well, twice including my quote from your post above
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2012, 06:27 PM   #40
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,392
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I see with a bit of sadness a gulf between Dave Rogers and femr2 that ought to, and could easily, be marrower.

And I think much of it is (besides learned and practiced animosity) quite simply about the semantis of the word "release".
I appreciate your concern, and I think you're probably right on most of it, though in the great scheme of things it's no major tragedy if two people continue to bicker on the Internet. But I think the real disconnect is that femr2 is talking about the fine details of the collapse mechanism, whereas I'm talking about the confused thought processes of the people making the original claim. Going back to the way it was stated in the OP:

Originally Posted by cjnewson88
The claim by conspiracy theorists is that the top of the South tower leans over, and then seemingly out of nowhere, just begins to fall down through the building instead of falling off the top like "it should".
Although this is prey to accusations of a strawman argument, it's not a bad representation of the way supposed anomalies are commonly presented by conspiracy theorists. In particular, it's very vaguely phrased. It seems to me that this is a mechanism, whether wilful or accidental, by which the claim of an anomaly is supported. Suppose a conspiracy theorist were to say, "Have you ever noticed how the upper part of the South Tower initially appears to rotate about a fixed axis somewhere within the building at or close to the level at which collapse initiates, but then at some subsequent point, instead of continuing to rotate about that point, the otion of upper part of the structure also acquires a downward component?" It would then be a rather trivial matter to point out that this is exactly how a hinge point in a collapsing structure would be expected to behave, even though this is no more than a more precise statement of the original claim. And it's the inability or unwillingness of conspiracy theorists to state their claims clearly enough to allow them to be effectively refuted that I was originally commenting on, not the details of the collapse mechanism.

Of which, I should add, I have no issue with femr2's description. He was simply addressing a very different point to the one I was trying - apparently rather ineffectively, it appears - to make.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.