Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
OneWhiteEye wrote:femr2 wrote:A Sauret overlay freefall vid is up btw (Not perfect, but feedback will help steer the next one)
Awesome! Thank you very much.
It matches up better than I thought, at least early on. The only feedback I have at this time is to try a view location 1560m away from the building vertical centerline and 415m below the roofline (scaled according to whatever your world coordinates are). That's a minor suggestion, and not at all important.
Major_Tom wrote:The lowest stuff ejected on the far right is from around the SW corner.
Major_Tom wrote:Bad angle to tell what the depth is. From the NW is the way to go. I don't want to insist it is from the corner. There is a massive NS variation in crush front altitude at any moment.
Note: I suspect "crush-front" is a bullsh*t word. I am not arguing against demo.
Regardless, can you think of a natural mechanism which would traverse so fast ?
Major_Tom wrote:Regardless, can you think of a natural mechanism which would traverse so fast ?
I understand JREF can leave you shell-shocked. You have me confused with being a "debunker". I'm arguing for demo, too.
Major_Tom wrote:femr2, considering the west wall, there are a few more strange properties I'd like to add.
1) Evidence for peeling as a single sheet for at least 50 floors from floor 94 downwards.
2) The highest surviving columns were from the far west side of the building. They stand about 70 stories high and are located only about 40 ft from the west perimeter. These columns had cross bracing attached between pairs, meaning cascading debris did not disturb them. (Will provide proof when requested.)
(and, as mentioned above, you can observe up to a 15 floor separation between different collpase front ejections at any moment).
How do you think all that could happen?
Hambone wrote:Hi femr,
Your calculated total mass above grade is 362x10E6 kg. I have calculated 281x10E6 kg and I think I have resolved most of the minor differences between our estimates. I think the main difference is that you have chosen live loads of 50 and 75 psf respectively for the core and outside. Are you aware of the research (Culver, 1976; Choi, 1989) indicating that in-service live loads (actual loads) are usually to 25% of design live load?
Anyone fancy explaining how the debris ejecta on the right hand side of the Tower is so far ahead of the simulated free-fall descent ?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests