Yes, nice gifs, showing most likely the tops of large sheets of connected wall panels - we see the top-most, staggered row of panels. I also agree with the general gist of you "simple visualization of my gash maker hypothesis" - except that these particular "red things" are, IMO, not the "gash makers". They seem to fall too far to the east.I am pleased that it at least occurred to you as a possibility.
- Do you agree that in my looping gif the red "things" rotate as one rigid object? (Angles and parallel lines between parts are maintained as the system rotates and moves.)
@Zett eL If I have understood you correctly, in the following image, you see the magenta/purple shape as one object, a core column, and the red shape as a façade columns (correct me if I have misunderstood you). Let us call this hypothesis A. Two independent objects.
I have an alternative hypothesis B. I feel that there is only one object, looking something like the red in the following diagram. This object is a huge connected piece of the façade.
- Have I described your view correctly?
- Do you think my hypothesis B is possibly true?
I can't really say anything about the left or middle, I do think the left is a large piece of façade but I could only really tell what you guys were talking about when it was clearly pointed outLet´s forget the facade section for a second.
Let´s even forget my gash maker for a second.
I don´t know if you paid any attention to the following gif yet - please do:
So again: I splitted the screen into three areas.
The left area would be the place to look for our facade section and for my gash maker - but forget about that area for now.
Please focus on the center area and the area on the right.
Do you see what I would call "bundles of core columns" there?
Do you see what I mean when I say "there are longish objects that look much more like core columns than wall sections"?
Maybe start with the area on the right, I think they´re the most obvious ones.
Not core, façade.The red lines drawn in which are supposed to represent the orientation core column
I was merely identifying a second hypothesis based on the rotational integrity of the object in the looping gif. Once you see how big it is and that it is rigid, there a pretty few options for what is could be.The red lines drawn in which are supposed to represent the orientation core column remind me of a comment I just made on a Sandy Hook Hoax video where I said it looks like someone watching a film with no sound and describing the actions of those on screen to suit what they want to see. Frankly, you can draw the lines in whatever way you want there behind the dust cloud. You could draw in Godzilla behind the dust cloud. Yes, I know that is ridiculous but my point is whatever you imagine to have back there can be there.
What are these bumps in relation to the above picture?
I can't really say anything about the left or middle, I do think the left is a large piece of façade but I could only really tell what you guys were talking about when it was clearly pointed out
The one on the right you're talking about though, if I've got the right "object", I'm pretty sure that can't be from the centre of the building. Using the full frame of the video with the corner as a point of reference, when the top of the object becomes visible it looks to be far too close to the edge (the first is ~0:14 in the video, I did a crap job of cropping it).
It's even more apparent when it starts to topple, the point it pivots from (roughly in the red circle).
Ray Von
Good question.Could you please draw in roughly the size and shape of your estimated wall section
No, I didn't. As I clearly said, the object becoming visible and the object starting to topple are separate points in time, separated by several frames in the video.Oh come on...
You mistake the moment the object first appears for the moment the toppling began
Again, no I didn't. Why would you need to see the pivot point to get a rough idea of where it was? We see the object toppling as it leans "right" in the video, so all we need to gauge the pivot point is to visualise a line running down the centre of the object. Where the imaginary lines of the object before it topples and as it topples intersect would be the pivot point - the point where it either became detached from whatever it was attached to below, or whatever it was still attached to below went "left". This assumes of course it didn't bend, but we can make a pretty good guess that it didn't and also that it became detached, because it looks like we can see the bottom of it as it falls (smoke, debris, relatively poor video quality, lack of stabilisation etc taken into account).and you mistake the lowest visible point of the object for the pivot.
There's no need to be so defensive, I'm quite ready to be proved wrong, but the point I notice you didn't address was the main one - whether the initial position of the object when the corner of the building is available as a point of reference means (as it appears) that it's close to the extremities of the building, or whether it's position fits with it actually being further back where the core columns would be and it just looks to be near the edge because everything else (floors, façade etc) has already collapsed away from it.Weak basis to rule out my core columns...
Could you please draw in roughly the size and shape of your estimated wall section:
No, I didn't. As I clearly said, the object becoming visible and the object starting to topple are separate points in time, separated by several frames in the video.
Why would you need to see the pivot point to get a rough idea of where it was?
A jagged version of this:
Whether it is a core column or a façade, does it matter? It is clearly not being "ejected" laterally, which is how this thread started. You could argue that it is a core column, because it "looks" like the base of whatever is toppling over has the pivot point inside the building perimeter. However, it could be a large façade piece that fell vertically, landed on a fixed point and then toppled from a pivot. There is too much dust and smoke. I would imagine that either would be substantial enough to do serious damage to whatever it hits; such as WTC 7. Neither scenario looks to me like it is being "exploded" outward, which is what the original post in this thread was addressing. If you stack up blocks into a tower and they collapse downward, they go all over the place as they come in contact and collide with each other. A wide spread of debris seems like a logical result of this type of progressive collapse, and would not need any sort of explosives to make it happen.
It is on video, and what would be the purpose? The goal? Why? The structure of the WTC towers is known, the strength of each part known. What would a study of a collapse be good for?In my opinion, a detailed collapse analysis is long overdue. Nobody did it. No FEMA, no NIST, no AEtruth.
In my opinion, a detailed collapse analysis is long overdue. Nobody did it. No FEMA, no NIST, no AEtruth.
Not only would it not need explosives - worse yet, explosives can't do it without totally obvious supersonic shockwaves from very substantial high explosives charges. I am currently writing up a paper that investigates how much explosives it would take to hurl a wall panel at rest from the nearest WTC wall to the adjacent walls of peripheral buildings (130 Liberty St, WTC 7, WFC3) - or 600 ft, as claimed by AE911T. I have developed math formulas to compute (1) the lateral velocity needed to cross a distance d from a height of h, and then (2) the mass ratio steel:explosives needed to attain that velocity, given the Specific energy of the explosive material. The latter is varied through a range from 1.5 MJ/kg (nano-thermite; or conventional explosives with 30-50% efficieny) to 6.0 MJ/kg (the most energetic high explosives at almost 100% efficiency).Whether it is a core column or a façade, does it matter? It is clearly not being "ejected" laterally, which is how this thread started. You could argue that it is a core column, ... it could be a large façade piece ... Neither scenario looks to me like it is being "exploded" outward, which is what the original post in this thread was addressing. ... would not need any sort of explosives to make it happen.
Not only would it not need explosives - worse yet, explosives can't do it without totally obvious supersonic shockwaves from very substantial high explosives charges. I am currently writing up a paper that investigates how much explosives it would take to hurl a wall panel at rest from the nearest WTC wall to the adjacent walls of peripheral buildings (130 Liberty St, WTC 7, WFC3) - or 600 ft, as claimed by AE911T.......
Pushing it I get about:
Yeah, could fit.
Ok, and the highest point of this twisted part of a wall would as least be as broad as one single facade panel that´s aligned like this, right?:
Panels were not like that... they were like this:
After the initial collapse of the upper section, the collapse can't stop when there is more than 12 floors of mass falling.
But a great question; are you satisfied the ejections see on 911 were due to the gravity collapse of the WTC towers?
WTC towers... , showing a concrete building is not the WTC tower.What´s the basis for this claim?
...
That video reminds me of the time my husband decided to take down a separate two car garage on our property single handedly. He took it down to the studs, and cut the studs carefully then took a sledgehammer and knocked out the last one holding it up..... and the whole thing tilted over and ..... stopped cause he'd left a tall ladder standing inside. And the whole structure balanced on the ladder and stood there. All the neighbors watching got a good laugh at theat.
have to look up the report, and see who was hired to risk going in the building to finish the job.
Hehe yes, all true. I haven't made up my mind about how to deal with these exaggerated distances. On one hand, the bolder the claim, the more it fails. Claiming 600 ft instead of a maximum of 441 feet increased the minimum charge size by 36%. On the other hand, the minimum charge size for 441 feet is already ridiculous, and then you get to show that truthers dishonestly exaggerate their claims as an added bonus.A completely unsubstantiated AE911T claim...
From the aerial photos, zoning maps and so on the furthest from the towers steel found... was something like 441' west of the west facade of 1wtc (the Winter Garden) at 3WFC). 7wtc was about 340 feet from the north face of 1wtc.
...
So that was 500 feet then. Many truthers reference Griffin.[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers
In August 2008, they had reduced the weight, but kept the distance:Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
This stayed until Nov 20, 2008, still referencing Hoffman.Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
By my formula, and assuming a very efficient explosive at 4.5 MJ/kg, to propel 100 tons of steel as a unit to 54 mph would require an absolute minimum of 1775 pounds of high explosives going of at precisely the same moment. And that was supposed to leave most windows at the WFC intact???100 Tons of steel ejected in an instant at speeds near 55 MPH
And now AE referenced a David Chandler video that was uploaded already on Dec 26, 2007:Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
7wtc was about 340 feet from the north face of 1wtc.
WTC towers... , showing a concrete building is not the WTC tower.
I guess after falling 1000 to 1300 feet the top of the WTC towers (okay, some bs) fell apart due to a lot of KE.
Ironically you showed 12 floors standing on the ruble they destroyed below, thus, ,, what was the video for? Gee, I was right even for a concrete building in the case you found on youtube; you cherry picked a case which shows 12 floors crushing the part below; cool.
Beachy probably has #12 in these NIST FAQs in mind:Oh, so your 12 floors claim was exclusively for the WTC towers...
However, I still don´t see any basis for your claim. Why is it 12 floors, not 10 or 14 for example?
Oh, now I´ve got you... You even claim the toppling began several frames after the object emerges from the dust! I totally disagree.
I asked you because you seemed to think I'd picked the pivot point because I could see it, and I wanted you to be clear that I hadn't.You ask me?!?
It's only moving away from the centre once it starts to topple, which hopefully you'll agree the above video shows didn't begin until after the object became visible. The pivot point must be along the imaginary line we can draw through the middle of the object before it moved. Which brings us back to viewing the image with the corner as a reference point.Look at your "pivot point" again in the video. It´s moving away from the center of the building and it´s descending. Because the actual pivot would be much deeper in the dust cloud.
I am not sure what you mean.Yeah, could fit.
Ok, and the highest point of this twisted part of a wall would at least be as broad as one single facade panel that´s aligned like this, right?:
I am not sure what you mean.
What video is that from?Please try to explain exactly what part of this:
...would represent this:
I don't what building and what floor you are calculating the percentage of area of the steel columns compared to the entire foot print.... but for flor 2 where the column size was max... the columns were 0.748% of the foot print. ..les than 1% and higher up it would have been probably about 1/3 of that so it the columns at floor 78 would be about 0.25% of the total footprint. (twin towers)This assumes (reasonably, I think) that much of the falling mass would impact floors. When you look at a floor plan, you'll find that only 2% of the area was occupied by columns, so in a purely random avalanche, 98% of the falling mass inside the footprint would hit floors and.
.
Please try to explain exactly what part of this:
...would represent this: