Do you know if anyone has ever put together a procedural photographic "timeline" of the WTC collapses? Where they took photos showing "progression" at certain times during the collapse and then analyzed what was actually seen from a structural standpoint and maybe what was possibly going on?
I'm not aware of any such timeline of the actual collapse mechanism in photographic form. In fact, very few debunkers pay much attention to the timeline aspects whether in photographic form or written description. Yes, there has been a range of varying efforts to depict alternative false scenarios. Or the type of "confused conflation " which is causing @Thomas B
so much difficulty in this thread as it did in previous threads. Trying to "mix and match" aspects of a false scenario onto the real event will always be problematic. Remember it was themain error with Tony Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" And David Chandler's equivalent process AND most of the video explanations from Jonathon Cole. (And a whole club of early debunkers pre about 2007-9
Even among those debunkers who recognise the distinction between the two main stages of Twin Towers collapse viz "initiation" and "progression", many still get confused and overlap or conflate the two.
Personally, I have always distinguished three stages and in recent (2 or 3) years I have been recommending a four-stage understanding. In sequence those are:
1) "Initiation" - what happened from aircraft impact up to Top Block descending bodily. (And NOT "falling" >> that was the error most made wrongy following Bazant & Zhou.)
2) "Transition" >> complex and chaotic but we only need to comprehend two facts - viz it made sure that the falling column ends missed and it explains how ROOSD was started.
3a) "Early progression" >> The Top Block breaking up. Bazant & Verdure were wrong with CD/CU.
3b) "Established progression" > the pure ROOSD progression after the chaos of Top Block break up.
(The split of "progression" into two substages is the change I've made over recent years. It makes clearer the stage where the Top Block broke up. And puts me in direct opposition to Bazant and most debunkers who subordinate themselves to Bazant and/or NIST.)
Now if we get those clear - we have a valid frame for an explanation. The big problem is that the boundaries are hard to define in traditional "left-brained" style...doesn't matter but it is a barrier for those whose thinking cannot separate trees from forests.
Where they took photos showing "progression" at certain times during the collapse and then analyzed what was actually seen from a structural standpoint and maybe what was possibly going on?
I doubt that graphics help to separate the four legitimate stages OR the sub-stages of "progression". They may help to explain false models such as the Schneider paper which was the OP Topic of this thread AND the professional paper recently linked by @Thomas B
BUT both those papers are not of the real event. And I don't see any benefit in using photos to support a false explanation.
Like the photo below for example. At what time during the collapse was this and what does it tell us?
Hard to say - I'm not sure what that picture shows BUT we can answer the questions which follow:
Some percentage of the core was still standing?
"..percentage...standing" I suggest will never help understanding - 36.7% is meaningless BUT we can assert how the core was taken apart - which parts in what sequence. During the "progression stages" esp "3b)" the falling debris stripped off the OOS floor joists and at the same time debris falling in the core stripped of the floor beams of the core -- setting the stage for leaving the "spires" standing as shown by the next photo. "Floors stripped first" THEN "Columns mostly followed" and "Some columns remained standing" are the factors of significance. Representing them as percentages does nothing to help.
The hat truss had come apart and fell to the ground?
Most of the Top Block broke up during the stage "3a) Early progression". Exactly how long that stage took cannot be defined but it was finite. The Hat Truss almost certainly mostly broke up but I have vague recollections over 10 years ago seeing photos suggesting that some portions of Hat Truss made it all the way down. So we may never know exactly where and what bits came apart. And we have no need to know - that is just one of the irrelevant side trails which get introduced in discussions of alternate models of the type that Thomas and others choose to pursue. Hence my preference to understand what actually happened BEFORE worrying about what didn't happen.
No floors were attached to the visible core?
At what "sub-stage"? They were all attached when progression started. They were all detached when it ended with global collapse. And we will never know where each and every single beam was disconnected. Nor do we need to.
Then you progress to this photo below. What may have occurred between the first photo and the one.
It is the last few seconds - progression essentially over. All floors sheared off in both the "Open Office Space" tube and in the core. Perimeter and most core columns have peeled off or toppled. And some core column "spires" remained standing for a few seconds. Which is substantial proof of my assertion that the core failure was analogous to ROOSD - falling debris sheared off the floor beams in the core.
And, back to the theme. "Could a photo timeline help the explanation?" I doubt it. BUT getting those four stages clear is essential to any clear and comprehensive understanding.
Please excuse the lengthy response - it is still a bit of a sketchy outline. If anything needs more explanation just ask.
And the brief bottom line answer to your question: 'No. And I don't think we need a photo timeline of EITHER the overall collapse OR the details of the "progression stage"'