New Video proves FEMA and NIST are correct.

[stateofgrace]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[Andrew Johnson]

What I liked best about it was:

The thorough discussion and mathematical analysis of freefall collapse of WTC 7, as well as 1 & 2 which completely destroys my own (very humble) analysis:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collapse%20of%20Towers.swf

A discussion of Conservation of Momentum

A thorough explanation of how Kerosene burning in air was able to melt the steel.

The best bit, however, was how they explained the near-instant pulverisation of the 47 interior steel columns.

I am just staggered how they packed all that into 65 seconds of video!

An awesome achievement!

Thanks for posting!!

I am so overwhelmed, I can't face adding anything else to this thread - that clip was so comprehensive.

[stateofgrace]

Andrew I loved your side show absolutely fantastic.

I liked the bit when you said somebody planted the explosives and somebody blows it up.

Any idea who?

You see I'm not a civil engineer, nor a mathematician, nor do I claim to be but when hundreds of thousands of civil and structural engineers all agree with NIST as opposes to you I tend to believe them.

Hey maybe you should submit your slide show to them, maybe get it reviewed by the same 200 odd independent experts that assisted NIST in their investigations.

You see I may find it all very baffling and confusing but I'm sure they won't. So here’s what you do to convince me further. Submit it to an Institute of Civil engineers and ask for their appraisal and when they give it maybe you could let everybody know what they said. After all your science is sound, your maths are sound so why keep it a secret?

Put it to the real experts and get a totally independent appraisal of it and maybe it will carry some weight, until then well it is simply going nowhere.

Of course if you already have then let us know what they said.

See this is the stumbling block to your theory that being that the vast majority of qualified engineers all agree there was nothing unusual about the way the Towers collapsed. They over whelming support NIST.
Now the point to this clip, which you mockingly dismissed, was to show you and me, everybody that the cores did not collapse at the same time as the outside of the building. They stood, momentarily before collapsing.

So you now have to rethink your theory, because if they did the building did not collapse in a uniformed manner as suggested by the CD theory but the outer part collapsed first, followed very closely by the cores. Why would that happen?

So were the explosives timed to go off at different times?
Did they not plant explosives in the core?
Why did the cores not collapse at the same time as the rest of the building?

If the cores were still standing as the rest of the building collapsed they would simply collapse themselves would they not? The cores were simply the central structure that was supported by the floor trusses yes? Without which it would simply collapse.

Since the core was still standing as the building collapsed then explosives in the core could not have brought this building down.

[blackcat]

Dust - all dust.

[Andrew Johnson]

[stateofgrace]

I will enjoy reading it all; infact I am going to spend some time reading it. Up to page ten just now and not really universal support for you here.

Schneibster hasn't taken too kindly to your theories but hey maybe it gets better.

By the way when you put forward this theory did explain why one of the cores was still standing as the rest of the building collapsed?

Be back in a while after I have read it all.

[stateofgrace]

Well I'm up to page 40 just now. It's very interesting and saddening isn't it?

Why your supporters choose to call this guy a troll or ball sucker rather than answer his questions maybe the next instalment will throw some light on it.

Figured out why the core was standing yet ?

[Andrew Johnson]

sog,

Link was posted for other's benefit really, rather than yours. I could, if you like, copy all the posts to this thread - because that's what it will end up like.

Concrete core? Steel Core? Chocolate core? Freefall man! Freefall! Freefall - yeah freefall. I said iamongst the 1st 10 or 15 posts.

None of those 14,000 posts are likely to change your reason for being here. Not surprised you came back though. "Crisis management" and all...

see ya later.

[Johnny Pixels]

[chipmunk stew]

[Andrew Johnson]

Steve miller band!

Yeah! It's a nice riff!

melt / snap = freefall

soften/weaken = resistance = not freefall

Yup, it's that simple!

Full. Stops. Don't. Make. It. Right.

Basic Physics does, however.

The energy calculations are too complicated for me to comment on. Freefall isn't.

Bye.

P.S. CS - Thanks for your friendly constructive comments. I will use your technique with my OU students. It will boost their morale no end!

Cheers

[scubadiver]

[quote="Johnny Pixels

Steel. Does. Not. Need. To. Melt. To. Weaken.

[/quote]

So being an expert in metals, can you tell me what does? The WTC were up for, what, 30 odd years?

[chipmunk stew]

[Andrew Johnson]

Oh sorry - If forgot:

"But that's pathetic it's NOT freefall"

"Yes it is freefall"

"No it isn't"

"Well, this isn't an argument it's just contradication...."

Bye!!!

[chipmunk stew]

[stateofgrace]

[Johnny Pixels]

[gordon]

Can you explain what new information has been given by this new video that we did not already know from Aman Zafar's photographs?

Gordon.

[stateofgrace]

Aman Zafars photographs don't show the core, this video does.

[gordon]

[stateofgrace]

Eh no I've found this.

http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208- 8-06.pdf

And this.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC2TIP.pdf

Remember we are talking about WTC2.

Now I have looked at these photographs and cannot see the core, could you link the exact photograph?

[gordon]

On this site you will find his photograph, WTC18.
This removes any doubt that there was a core failure involving complete horizontal disassociation of all of the core structure, and furthermore shows that a failure took place below the aircraft impact level.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm

Gordon.

[stateofgrace]

Gordon I am looking at the photographs right now.

Here are the comments from the photographs.

[gordon]

Surely any controlled demolition of the internal core would have brought the 30 odd floors above straight down, not tilted it.


If the core columns were cut, this would allow some downward movement. That would be limited by the action of the hat truss, and to some extent, the floors. In the extreme the disassociated upper core section would be hanging from the hat truss and connected to the walls via the floors.
If the core section was cut at a 45 degree angle, or similar, there would also be a lateral horizontal movement. That movement would exhibit in two ways. The first would be in an inward bowing of one perimeter wall, and the second would be in a tilt of the upper section.
Both of these phenomenon were apparent in visual evidence, and in the case of the bowing, we know that this was present several minutes before collapse initiation. I know of no other collapse initiation and progression theory which encompasses these phenomenon, and neither do they fully explain all of the other evidence which was on display.

Gordon.

[stateofgrace]

Come on, Gordon, of course what you say is theoretically true, but practically?

Look at the logistics of it. Cutting the cores at 45 degree at the precise point the plane hit and more so cutting them in the precise direction to initiate a collapse into the side the plane hit. What odds would you give that?

The plane came in from, I believe the south hit the East side and exited the North side (I could be wrong here, this is off the top of my head).The building collapsed into the face where the plane travelled through it.

Honestly who, if anybody could have predicted precisely where this plane was going to hit and preplanted explosive devices in such perfect positions so that it collapsed into the damaged area.

It may not be fully explained but really, what you are saying would be practically unworkable.

The bowing explained away as the weight above bore down on the weakened area. The fires may well have accelerated this process and yes I agree they were not solely responsible for the total failure.

I think we are now talking in circles. NIST have said this core did not fail. I have said I am neither a civil engineer nor a mathematician but am simply looking at this from both sides of the fence and approaching it with common sense.

Anything is possible Gordon but not everything is plausible. I'm sorry but arguing that the cores inside WTC2 were cut with such precision and this was all worked out beforehand although possible is simply unworkable.

I simply use critical thinking with these theories and I personally feel they are so unworkable that they really, although question NIST don’t really offer up a credible alternative.

stateofgrace.

[gordon]

I think what you are saying is that I have explained these phenomenon of the collapse but have not explained how the charges were placed? Correct me if I am wrong.

I must be clear on one very significant point. You talked of the chances of the aircraft impacting the area where the core charges were placed. The Aman Zafar photograph shows a disassociation of the core well below the aircraft impact levels. Analysis of the rotation of the upper section also makes much more sense if viewed with this knowledge.

Before we move on to how they placed the charges, we should narrow down where they were placed. We can do that by showing a narrative of the collapse which includes all of the available evidence from the collapse.
Using the same evidence we can also rule out other collapse theories. The more information we have on the evidence list the more watertight a theory will become, and the more easily do false theories become discredited. So we can't just look at the survival of a part, even a substantial part of the core structure in isolation. For any analysis and theory to hold good, we must include all of the following;

+ Survival of the core structure until an advanced stage of the collapse.
+ Survival of the corners of the perimeter structure after the collapse front has passed.
+ Inward bowing of the perimeter walls.
+ Sagging of floors
+ Tilting movement of the upper section.
+ Bending of upper section
+ Early disintegration of upper section
+ Early downward movement of the antennae.
+ Ejections of dust & debris simultaneously across whole floors.
+ Behaviour of the "spire"
+ Flashes of light
+ Colour and character changes of smoke emisions
+ Molten metal ejections
+ Failure of core structure horizontal bracing
+ Angle cut core columns

No official theory complies with the evidence, quite simply because there is no detailed collapse initiation and progression theory. Others, such as the pancake theory, are simply speculation which falls quickly under scrutiny.
As far as I am aware, neither is there a finished, detailed collapse theory having controlled demolition as its basis.

Gordon.

[stateofgrace]

No Gordon that is not what I have said at all. You have put forward an unworkable theory, this I have pointed out to you.

It is simple and I have explained it several times and this will be the last time as I have better things to do than keep repeating what I have already said.

The core did not fail, this NIST have stated. You put forward a totally unworkable theory that the cores could have been cut somewhere in the region of the plane crash area.

There is no point in moving on to other areas at all, because your core cutting theory is not workable.

Please accept it Gordon, it will not work.

[gordon]

If Nist say the core did not fail then how do they account for it not being in its original position after collapse initiation. Aman Zafar's photograph shows quite clearly that the upper section of the core is not there. The only way it could be not there is by a total horizontal disassociation of the core structure. Your initial argument that there was no core failure does not stand scrutiny.
Neither does any no-core-failure theory account for the other evidence that has been compiled.

Gordon.

[stateofgrace]

Gordon,

Please read what I said. NIST did not say that core did not fail at some point they said the core did not fail first.

This is what they say.

The external supports fail along with floor trusses.
The core at some point after the collapse started failed. It did not contribute to starting the collapse.

The collapse of WTC 2 was not started by a core failure.

I'm sorry Gordon I simply cannot put this any simpler to you.

The photographs indeed show the core standing with top section gone. This top part of the core failed after the building had started to collapse.

This total horizontal disassociation could easily have been brought about by the very fact that the top tilted and did not fall squarely; it fell through the building angled. That’s even if it total horizontal, the photograph simply shows the core surrounded by dust. You cannot say with any degree of certainly it was totally horizontal

NIST’s theory may not be perfect but it far more credible that cutting the cores at the precise point and in the precise direction the plane hit.

Also.

You seem to be saying that core failure at the top of the building was enough to bring this building down,is that correct?

If what you are saying is correct then a core failure at the top in this building was enough to bring down the entire building.

Pancaking, which has been denied by you guys for years, now did the rest?

[gordon]

NIST’s theory may not be perfect but it far more credible that cutting the cores at the precise point and in the precise direction the plane hit.

You are not really paying attention are you?
I have stated categorically that the disassociation took place well below the aircraft impact levels. I have emphasised that point.


If the core failed at some point after the perimeter structure then the fall of the core should have been preceded by a fall in the perimeter structure. This did not happen, and in fact the core movement preceded the movement of the perimeter. There is no way to account for this phenomenon without a core failure prior to initiation of the collapse of the perimeter.

You are correct, however, when you say that the core failure did not initiate the collapse. That was not the object of this stage of the demolition. The perimeter structure still had the ability to hold all of the mass above, so initiation of the collapse was necessarily concerned with the removal of this ability.

Gordon.