The 9/11 Forum

I intend to create a YT video (yeah, and ?! ) summarising some of the recent observations and their implications.

A primary focus will be the early motion detected for WTC1, and the base implication that such behaviour effectively rules out the simplistic viewpoint that the tower was stable, but was then exploded resulting in immediate initiation of descent.

No point blowing the thing up if it's already moving naturally, yes ?

I may also include the ROOSD process within the presentation, showing that per-floor explosives were not necessary, and do not match the visual record.

I'm aware of the flak the video is likely to get, but hey ho.

Now, tip-toeing around, what I hope to achieve is to shift the *truth movement* viewpoint a little, by actually SHOWING folk the early motion (rather than shouting about lack of engineering understanding or wotnot), and making the point clear that any MIHOP process would HAVE to occur BEFORE that motion began, and thus require a serious rethink if they are of the opinion *boom* followed by immediate *collapse*.

What I'm after in this thread is suggestions for inclusion (or exclusion) within the video presentation.

For example, I could go through some of the AE911T bullet points ?

Just sounding out things I can chuck in there that we're concrete about.

I'm not going to say PROVES collapse or PROVES early MIHOP or anything like that, simply the end result shifting of focus for those who haven't been privvy to our more detailed understanding about event sequencing...

Fire away...

Oh excellent!

My general suggestion would be to make people understand the implications for all the "pre collapse movement"... what that actually might tell about the coming collapse... not so much as we can know exactly what was happening where, but that something was serious wrong and the structure was experiencing load/stress redistribution and those movements were the signs if it.

This does seem to make it seem that a BOOM and collapse would be unnecessary for a perpetrator. But the initial stress redistribution could be caused from natural failures progressing or "unnatural" engineered attacks of some sort. All that this shows is the structure was starting to be seriously "weakened".

Perhaps identify the phases of the event and how they transitioned from one to the next.

Perhaps spend some time on providing a science / engineering based explanation for the observations. Is an ejection of dust from an explosion or over pressure from air? Can we tell anything about the case by looking at the ejections?

What does the motion of the falling facade sheets tell us about what go them moving like that? Could they be exploded off in large sheets? Why not? or Why?

My sense is that the main truth movement is where it is because of garbage in give garbage out and then all the followers parrot what uninformed "truth experts" tell them is "evidence" in support of some theory.

BFT certainly can be "deconstructed" as this seems to be the foundation of many false beliefs in the truth movement.

There is also enormous misconception in the importance of and the strength of the columns in the core. ROOSD makes a great case that the columns had no part in the collapse phase one way or the other. How but them apples!

And then there's the spire to explain... which kinds supports ROOSD, but still needs to be explained as to why it "fell on its own".... mysteriously.

If you need help with drawings shoot me an email.

SanderO wrote:My general suggestion would be to make people understand the implications for all the "pre collapse movement"... what that actually might tell about the coming collapse... not so much as we can know exactly what was happening where, but that something was serious wrong and the structure was experiencing load/stress redistribution and those movements were the signs if it.

Yes, a case of...regardless of what you believe that WAS happening.

But the initial stress redistribution could be caused from natural failures progressing or "unnatural" engineered attacks of some sort. All that this shows is the structure was starting to be seriously "weakened".

Sure, that's why I don't intend to make it a *this proves this* thing, nut a THIS pretty much guarantees that DIDN'T happen, at least not THEN.

Sounds a bit wooly, but you know what I mean I hope. I'll work on the wording

Perhaps identify the phases of the event and how they transitioned from one to the next.

Which phases did you have in mind...

Perhaps spend some time on providing a science / engineering based explanation for the observations. Is an ejection of dust from an explosion or over pressure from air? Can we tell anything about the case by looking at the ejections?

Sure, but don't want anyone to have the excuse of not understanding engineering principles as a way of rejecting details, or going fuzzy eyed.

What does the motion of the falling facade sheets tell us about what go them moving like that? Could they be exploded off in large sheets? Why not? or Why?

I think just illustrating that they DO peel (rather than explode off) would be a good result.

There is also enormous misconception in the importance of and the strength of the columns in the core.

Yeah, well skinny...

And then there's the spire to explain... which kinds supports ROOSD, but still needs to be explained as to why it "fell on its own".... mysteriously.

Perhaps we should spend more time in the core motion threads.

If you need help with drawings shoot me an email.

Will do, though will probably use this model for most purposes...

I see the phases as

pre plane strike
plane strike itself
post plane strike (spreading fires etc)
movement of the towers (slight - not perceptible to the unaided eye)
initiating of top section destruction / collapses
destruction / collapse (tilt of 2) of the top section
destruction / collapses of the bottom section
core collapses
emerging debris cloud
lingering fires and heat

Hmmm. Quite an extended timeline. Not sure my production patience will extend that far, but I'll have a think. Was hoping to make it quite tight.

Perhaps that's a series of videos, rather than a single one ?

I'll be doing one for the poxy NIST WTC 2 impact orientation fubar separately. Doesn't seem criticism of the NIST report and side-line refudation of many exiting CD theories go hand in hand to my mind.

Probably a series of videos.

If you make a video covering early deformation, you may want to include the tilt measurement of within 1 degree over which all columns failed.

All columns failing by this moment:



In almost 10 years, there is not one official or academic recognition that the tilt angle was so minimal.

Ignored for almost 10 years. Big news. Early momement of antenna and NW corner leading into total columns failure within 1 degree of tilt.

>>>>>

I am going to make a few educational videos as an experiment. Basic stuff, but I will probably be including my voice as narrator.

Are you going to include narration? Your own voice?

Major_Tom wrote:Probably a series of videos.

Aiii. Probably...

1) Early motion, tilt to release. WTC1
2) UA175 impact orientation and trajectory
3) Early motion to release. WTC7
4) ROOSD and peeling.

Are you going to include narration? Your own voice?

Doubt it. Probably teletype a-la Alien (the start of film). Old skool

I'd like to see a ROOSD video include such bullets as
• Why ROOSD and nothing else
• Ejections that don't fit into ROOSD. If not ROOSD then why?

ROOSD is a growing subject. I'll have some basic ROOSD educational videos also. It will be big so maybe it shouldn't be included in descriptions of collapse initiation, like deformation and tilt.

It seems the early deformations and the minimal tilt angle go together.


ROOSD, peeling, surviving core, MER and other ejections and rubble go together.: Downward flow.


ROOSD educational videos are very important because much of the truth movement has taken the extreme position that sustained collapse progression is impossible, even though demo companies never need to blow buildings to bits to get them to fall.

There is no need to pulverize the buildings in mid air like many truthers seem to believe. When they claim as much, they will always loose the argument. It is a silly position to take, and has nothing to do with real CD arguments. It reveals poor, poor technical management in the Scholars groups and the AE911T group.

Shamelessly poor technical management responsible for many problems of their own making (intentionally or unintentionally).

ROOSD deserves to have a separate set of videos.

1) Early motion, tilt to release. WTC1
2) UA175 impact orientation and trajectory
3) Early motion to release. WTC7
4) ROOSD and peeling.

Good, and one more for WTC2. WTC2 is in the works.

That makes 5 basic divisions.