The 9/11 Forum

I checked that forgotten third case...




I measured the model and the layered original video (same size, angle etc.) separately just to see what I get. I measured the fire and antenna of the video and the model 5 times each, averaged the 5 results (thin curves) and additionally averaged the results over 9 frames (fat curves). That's what I got:

Large:
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3738/graphinitialdrop.png
As you can see (e.g. the "stairs" in the thin pink curve) the failure due to pixel edges corresponds to about 0.06m.
At about frame 180 the top floors started to tilt and at about frame 230 the north face (the hinge) started to descent. Considering the relations the first sagging of the "real fire" curve (dark pink) is probably just caused by a flaming up of the fire in the first moments of movement.
I wouldn't interpret that fist sagging of the fire as a real movement that stopped for about 50 frames. Imo that fire curve is pretty close to the model and therefore to Case3 - " the immediately response of the south face to a vertical core collapse. The only difference to the "virtual" case - the model - is that the real antenna appears to be a tiny little bit lower than the model. In other words, the real antenna either dropped a little bit earlier or a little bit faster for a short period of time.
...or should I say, compared to the model the south face / SW corner indeed responded 5 frames later? How ever, there is NO CLUE of a perimeter collapse that overloaded the core. There is NO CLUE of a row by row core collapse. There is NO CLUE of any core resistance e.g. causing a convex roof deformation or just a delayed descent. There is NO CLUE that the tilting of the top caused any damage at all. Instead it appears that the core went straight down, overloaded the south perimeter, the bowed south perimeter responded almost immediately and collapsed, the perimeter collapse in the south caused a trapeze deformation of the outer shell (but not of the core = no additional hat truss tilting = the core was already at the same or a lower elevation compared to the SW corner), that deformation of the outer shell overloaded the corners and the east and west face, the south half of the west face bowed inwards between 92 and 98, the top started to tilt towards south, at a tilt angle of about 0.22° the north face started to descent, at the very same time and due to tilt and deformation of the outer shell the south side already dropped for about 0.9m ... global collapse.

Go to NIST and get your money back!

Can you post a link to the original original of the video you are using please ?

Of course. ...just one cigarette and I will start to upload a lot.

achimspok wrote:Of course. ...just one cigarette and I will start to upload a lot.

The engine of science runs on nicotine and Russian vodka...

original file: NBC NW-corner
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VABQMPWG

camera position relative to the center of the north tower:
662.84m north
29.26m east
1.5m elevation
28° tower turned towards east

NBC NW-corner and Sauret synchronized (1920x1080)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QIYRZNR3
it is a packed rar. It includes numbered JPGs for every frame at 59.94fps and the numbering I used. The videos are 29,97fps! Therefore you always have two times the same frame. The included Sauret is the blown up "field 0" of the original interlaced frames.

Two of your black graphs on the previous page are too small to read. Could you post links to larger ones?

Good stuff.

Points to collective downward movement of the core as the earliest visible motion. Totally different collapse initiation than that the NIST and all those "experts".

A small group of rag-tag researchers on a backwoods forum discovers collective core failure downwards.

Pretty funny.

collective downward movement of the core

Right, in the end it is really funny because it appears to be that obvious. If the core collapsed row by row from south to north then WHY??? The whole south side would hanging below the hat truss and the hat truss doesn't tilt...? But if the hat truss is strong enough to carry e.g. a hanging 1000 row then why should the 900 row collapse? Well, it didn't happen that way. The whole core went down before the top started to tilt. (Just one more little mystery but may be Sunders perimeter snapped and catapulted the whole core out off the window.)


The black graphs

Pure tilting = south face descent is a result of tilting
http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/6011/graph00010.png

Immediate response = south face descent is a result of core descent + tilting
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/2584/graph00005.png

trapeze deformation = perimeter collapse = south face descent is the sum of tilting + at least twice the amount of antenna sagging
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/8180/graph00000.png

Thanks for the vid.

A quick trace...


Black - Antenna
Red - Washer
Purple - SW Fire

59.94 fps - Resolution Doubled.

1 pixel on the graph is 0.5 pixels on the original video.

A quick trace...

Thanks! It looks pretty similar. Since there is no significant tilt angle or rotation whatsoever it really appears like the antenna is ahead of the SW corner and there is nothing we can do against it. Well, the perspective... the antenna is at a larger distance and the drop would appear a little bit smaller. Nevertheless, that damn thing is ahead.

And this is why the fire appears to drop after frame 160 (femr frame 75) (frame 40 in the gif)

...and btw, this one is still an open question, isn't it? ...or we name it "stage one".

Try it with the hi-res photographs #4 and #63!
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm

I think there must be A LOT of floor sagging but at least the spandrel in the middle of the fire at floors 99/100 south is still in the right position.
How much sagging of the south face would be necessary to bow the south half of the core downwards? (Well, we have to be careful with the north side of the core because there was a lot of damage. At least the plane was 60mph faster and 9° more perpendicular than NIST guessed.)

How strong was the outrigger system?

So, both roofs suffered concave deformation in the collapse. This is quite cool. Achimspok, do you think that the 106th floor kink can be explained by simple collective downward movement of the core and subsequent action of the hat truss system (if the outriggers were strong enough)?

If so, than the theory of 104th-106th floor cuts is obsolete for WTC2.

If so, than the theory of 104th-106th floor cuts is obsolete for WTC2.

Well, I put that theory in the very back of the folder "possibilities". The high cuts might prevent a load distribution from the perimeter to the core while the remaining and still connected columns had to carry a lot more distributed loads.
In the moment it looks like the allegedly collapsed perimeter is not accountable for the collapse initiation. So I put the (first though of many but apparently impossible) straight down core collapse initiation from the very back of the "possibilities" folder into the very first row. There is no other way to describe the action of the WTC1 top prior and at initiation.
The question for the outriggers (I don't know the answer) is indeed much more important now. If we consider that the core went down at one level with the south face (or a tiny little bit ahead) then imo the outrigger is responsible for the final collapse of the bowed wall and probably for the bowing as well. On the other hand, the damaged north face stood straight up completely unaffected by the sinking down antenna/hat truss/core until the perimeter collapse...
Wait! That is still something we should check first. Started the descent of the north face when the perimeter collapse at 98 reached the corners or may be earlier?

I really don't believe (but I don't know for sure) that a sagging south face would have deformed the core and caused a small tilting of the antenna. But then I'm pretty sure that core action would tilt the hat truss and would affect the heated perimeter.
How could the core/hat truss/antenna went down without tilting while e.g. the west perimeter had to be deformed into a trapeze??? Imo there is only one possible answer. The downward force of the core was much much bigger than the outrigger could handle against the resistance of the previously unbowed perimeter columns. The resistance of the bowed south wasn't big enough. ...and a zipper like chain reaction progressed around the building.

The WTC2 picture tells not much in this context since it was taken after all north perimeter columns were broken. The force of the NE corner hitting lower structures obviously pushes the corner of the roof upwards. The MER floors appear much more rigid than the perimeter structure below. Nevertheless, the corner (without support of the hat truss) is deformed.

Indeed, in one of my videos I asked especially for that WTC2 kink mostly because that kink shows a larger tilt angle of the MER floors than of the floors below.

Assuming a trapeze deformation of the whole structure we still have to deceit between two cases of collapse.

In short, why cut some columns below the hat truss just to overload the perimeter if you can have a collapsing core? I have no idea how it works, what you have to paint on the columns or how many tons of some Hi-Tech-Powder you have to place somewhere but the visible and measurable movement of the WTC1 top says "it happened". That's the way I'm able to interpret it. May be someone has a brilliant idea how floor sagging should cause all of that. So far...

...I would expect at least some inches of convex roof deformation to believe in a "perimeter accelerating first" collapse. What should decelerate the perimeter? The 3m sagged floor slaps??? ...enough resistance to bow the WTC2 corner upwards? ...to kink all perimeter columns below the Hat truss??? ...just to allow the core to accelerate a little faster??? It makes no sense at all.

The west face fast inward bowing can explain a lot of the MT's problems with the west perimeter kickout, can't it? Is there any chance of catching some kind of fast inward bowing for the north face of WTC2?

I have no idea how it works, what you have to paint on the columns or how many tons of some Hi-Tech-Powder you have to place somewhere

But we can eliminate the impossible possibilities and I think that we both have a similar view on the collapse initiation. Maybe we can expand it in one of the collapse initiation threads....? (or do you want to push your work on this a little bit further?

do you want to push your work on this a little bit further?

Which way? For me it looks like the NIST theory is 100% excluded. What the NIST report still is able to tell is that there is obviously no consideration of any "core went first" natural gravity driven collapse that topples over and away from the severed columns. What the NIST report still is able to tell is that they made a hell of efforts to prove something that never happened. What the NIST report still is able to tell is how to USE professionals for the reputation of a lie. What the NIST report still is able to tell is that it works for idiots and so called experts as well.

Where should we go from here? I don't know. I think it's time to stop that blue framed nonsense.

Where do we go from here?

Stop and verify whether the core falls before any perimeter movement.

If so, why continue to debate as before? If true, our mindset has to change. Everything changes.

To me there is no reason to study other aspects if WTC1 or 2 until this is proved certain.