Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas

[Major_Tom]

As applied to JREF, many of you have been making my point for 17 pages.

[AsbjornAndersen]

@Major Tom
The thing I don't get is, why don't you publish your corrections and better calculations in an engineering journal or similar, where it will get more attention amongst fx structural engineers and improve the quality of the available collapse-analysis? Especially since NIST's main focus was on the initiation of the collapse.
I, for one, am not a structural engineer, so I can't evaluate whether your work is better than NISTs or not.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen

@Major Tom
The thing I don't get is, why don't you publish your corrections and better calculations in an engineering journal or similar, where it will get more attention amongst fx structural engineers and improve the quality of the available collapse-analysis? Especially since NIST's main focus was on the initiation of the collapse.
I, for one, am not a structural engineer, so I can't evaluate whether your work is better than NISTs or not.

It's because he'll get the same reaction from them that he is getting from JREF

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

As applied to JREF, many of you have been making my point for 17 pages.

And you are making my point for 1,500 messages.

[MileHighMadness]

Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen

@Major Tom
The thing I don't get is, why don't you publish your corrections and better calculations in an engineering journal or similar, where it will get more attention amongst fx structural engineers and improve the quality of the available collapse-analysis? Especially since NIST's main focus was on the initiation of the collapse.
I, for one, am not a structural engineer, so I can't evaluate whether your work is better than NISTs or not.

No Engineering Journal is going to publish this...

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

As mentioned, the book contains what is undoubtedly the best mapping of the collapse movements of all 3 buildings available within the public domain.

Book available at the link at the bottom of this thread.


So far only one member of this forum has had the courage to agree.

Psychological study of JREF tendencies and attitudes in progress.


The information contained within the book has been actively censored within JREF for over 2 years.

Is there a second active member of the forum that is capable of breaking rank with the cluster and agreeing with the initial statement?

Was it CD or not? Your "book" has no conclusion on 911, it rambles about nonsense, nothing to do with the WTC collapse.

Censored? lol

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=548:548

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=548:548

Not Censored twice.

It is not censored, it is nonsense.

Quote:

THE SKEPTICAL MIND: WHERE DID IT GO?
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=549:549

One of the conclusions. Is it CD or what? No, it is where did the skeptical mind go. A complex engineering conclusion.

CD or gravity collapse, let me check the "BOOK", the conclusion.

Quote:

THE GLASS WALL OF DENIAL
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=549:549

Is there a glass wall in the WTC? Did it break? What?


What is the conclusion?

Quote:

WHERE DID ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE COLLAPSES GO? QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS...
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=549:549

A question? The answer. Video. Video is where all the accurate descriptions of the collapses are. I have the accurate descriptions of the collapse on my computer, in video form; without having someone tell me what I see. 11 years ago, I saw an accurate description of the collapse; years before the "BOOK".


Then the final conclusion.

Quote:

Direct measurements extracted from the visual record of the collapses grossly contradict history as it is generally presented. A record of measurements and documented observables of all 3 collapsed buildings on a level far more intricate than that which previously existed has been presented. The record is verifiable superior to and grossly contradicted by the record provided by U.S. Government agencies.

In reality there is no scientific approach and, therefore, no technical history of the collapses at all. This is a verifiable statement.

Nonsense based on opinions not engineering. A new low-technobabble science of observable.

CD or gravity collapse caused by fire? Not answered. oops

Did NIST not have the video? NIST's BOOKS are all bigger.


For a book which starts with a lie for the Thesis.

Quote:

There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses.

It would be hard to get more technical than the lie.

With all presentation there should be some comedy to keep people awake; the "BOOK" has comedy. Set the tone.

Quote:

This work is focused toward those who realize that claims, models and theories that do not center on the need for accuracy are a waste of time. May the book bring the reader a few hours of suggestive thought and may it help form the basis of a realistic and verifiable technical history of the World Trade Center collapses, as opposed to that which currently exists within the public record.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=548:548

F=ma is a waste of time; engineering models are a waste of time. Stop using math and physics, all a waste of time. Use observables, a new science as outlined in the "BOOK".

Not censored three times, a charm.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page &PAGE_id=286&MMN_position=548:548

Be sure to read the censored "BOOK" by Major Tom. Censored by JREF. Does that make it more valuable?

[Major_Tom]

From another thread:

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman

I'm a curious person myself, by no means predisposed to believe that the NIST reports are inerrant in the original manuscripts or in any other form. But I am curious about many things, and ad hominems are not chief among them. Surely ozeco is not a NIST fundamentalist.

The amount and type of effort we should put into correcting NIST presumably depends on the value of what we might learn -- about 9/11, or design issues, or something beyond our alleged predisposition to tribalistic false binaries. Yes, people are predisposed to tribalistic false binaries; this is not news, nor is it supposed to be the topic of the thread.

It isn't the topic of this thread, but it a fundamental theme that runs through this entire subforum. It also runs through AE911T, STJ911 and most everything either Richard Gage of Steven Jones presents. It is tribalistic and it is a false binary. I describe it as an artificially narrowed false choice.
................


On general attitudes toward the NIST as expressed by JREF forum members who identify with other posters as "we", the following 5 sections give a pretty good summary of the purpose of the NIST reports and a summary of some of the key mistakes they made.


....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations
....3.3: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentations
....3.4: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentations
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports


Considering the information in these 5 sections, is there anyone here that can spot contradictions between what the NIST aggreed to do in 2002 and what they actually presented in 2005 and 2008?

Do you see anything contradictory between the aim of the investigation as expressed in 2002 congressional testimony and what they actually produced in 2005 and 2008?

[carlitos]

Another blurb for your book:

If you want the latest, greatest news from the structural engineering world, go no further than "Sharp Printing, Inc." Forget the dry, academic rags like JEM. Sharp Printing has it all - cargo-cult science, pop-psychology, throbby .gif files, internet drama - so much more than just engineering, and for a much lower price!
-carlitos

[MileHighMadness]

Has Major Tom ever stated his education or technical background?

I assume not...

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by MileHighMadness

Has Major Tom ever stated his education or technical background?

I assume not...

I don't think so.

Personally I try to avoid debate based on qualification - it gets misused far too often IMNSHO. The test I prefer is "are his claims right" not "has he got a bigger degree than me".

I have often posted comments along the line of "I would take the claims of a non engineer who was right in preference to the claims of a multi-degreed engineer who was wrong."

The two areas where I accept Major_Tom's research are:
1) In identifying where the perimeter column sheets separated in the WTC1&2 collapses and where those sheets fell to. His work on that is dismissed as a detail by many here but it is sound evidence to explain the "outflier" bits of columns which went a long way and usually claimed by truthers as explosively projected. Commendable research IMO - for those who need the data.

2) The collapse mechanism he labelled "ROOSD" - which happened to be the same mechanism I had described some years earlier in 2007. So I couldn't disagree with his findings could I? He has taken the analysis much further than I did or than I needed to explain the runaway global collapses of WTC1 & 2.

So those two technical bits OK. The rest of his packaging is mostly crap - pseudo psychology and snide insults.

BTW He has a pretty clear understanding of the limits of Bazant's work but tends to misuse the info due to his insulting style of posting.

[Major_Tom]

The following 5 sections give a pretty good summary of the purpose of the NIST reports and a summary of some of the key mistakes they made.


....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations
....3.3: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentations
....3.4: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentations
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports


Considering the information in these 5 sections, can anyone else spot anything contradictory between the aim of the investigation as expressed in 2002 congressional testimony and what they actually produced in 2005 and 2008?

[MileHighMadness]

Major_Tom: WTC1 early movement remains a mystery to this day, no official or academic body having measured and mapped its movements or behavior in a remotely accurate way.

It called plastic and creep deformation. As the structural steel heats up, it loses both structural strength and stiffeness. No mystery here...

[Major_Tom]

Actual early motion of WTC1 can be understood as a rapid succession of 9 identifiable events occurring in the following order:


1) Deformations: Inward bowing of the south face
2) Earliest detectable creep movement of the antenna and northwest corner
3) Appearance of ~87th fl S face ejections
4) Appearance of 95th fl W face ejection
5) Visible downward movement begins: Columns fail over tilt of less than 1 degree, appearance of 98th fl ejections
6) Appearance of 77th fl W face ejections
7) Splitting of all perimeter walls: All visible upper parts fall out and over lower parts
8) Southward sliding of upper portion
9 ) Dis-integration of upper portion

What is perceived as visible movement does not begin until item #5, after ejections appear on the 95th and ~87th floors with signs of overpressurization on fl 92.




In contrast, all NIST descriptions of early movement are given in the link you were just reading but were apparently unable to understand. One example:

WTC1:

"The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces, not only the bowed and buckled south face) to the south (at least about 8 degrees) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls."

- page lxviii, NCSTAR 1-6




MHM, can you spot the contradiction there?

[MileHighMadness]

LOL...the contradiction only exists in your mind. I'm not playing this game.

What does Zdeněk Bažant think of your Book? I assume you sent it to him.

My opinion, is all doublespeak...

[Major_Tom]

You cannot perceive the difference between the NIST descriptions of WTC1 early motion and the actual behavior of the building?

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

The two areas where I accept Major_Tom's research are:
1) In identifying where the perimeter column sheets separated in the WTC1&2 collapses and where those sheets fell to. His work on that is dismissed as a detail by many here but it is sound evidence to explain the "outflier" bits of columns which went a long way and usually claimed by truthers as explosively projected. Commendable research IMO - for those who need the data.

Who would need this data? For what purpose?

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

You cannot perceive the difference between the NIST descriptions of WTC1 early motion and the actual behavior of the building?

For good reason! It changes NOTHING!

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Who would need this data?

Anyone who wants to use it, obviously. I understand from previous posts that you have no need for it. That is your call. But it does not carry the right to deny anyone else use of the information. (and to shortcut one come-back - nor to ridicule those who derive it or others who use it. )

Originally Posted by carlitos

...For what purpose?

Should also be obvious - anyone who needs the data as evidence to support an argument.

For example I have over the years engaged truthers in discussing the issue of isolated large column "outfliers" which landed at distances several hundreds of feet from the collapsing WTC1 and WTC2. The details identified by Major_Tom of how the outer perimeter columns fell away in sheets and specific identification of where many of them fell is strong supporting evidence in the argument against "explosive ejection". It is my choice to use it. It makes explanation a lot easier. And I do not reject it because of disparaging categorisations that other members choose to levy on Major_Tom. (And, BTW I have almost certainly had more nonsense sent my way by M_T than anyone posting here. For many months he "stalked" me and misreported many of my posts - whether or not they disagreed with him. He is not fussy when it comes to personal denigration. ) He is wrong on many things he posts. His style is usually offensive BUT the gems of true technical fact do not become "wrong" simply because if his posting style.

And, again, If the data is of no value to you, you are not compelled to use it.

And I neither know nor care who else uses it. It is their choice.

[Reactor drone]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

Actual early motion of WTC1 can be understood as a rapid succession of 9 identifiable events occurring in the following order:


1) Deformations: Inward bowing of the south face
2) Earliest detectable creep movement of the antenna and northwest corner
3) Appearance of ~87th fl S face ejections
4) Appearance of 95th fl W face ejection
5) Visible downward movement begins: Columns fail over tilt of less than 1 degree, appearance of 98th fl ejections
6) Appearance of 77th fl W face ejections
7) Splitting of all perimeter walls: All visible upper parts fall out and over lower parts
8) Southward sliding of upper portion
9 ) Dis-integration of upper portion

What is perceived as visible movement does not begin until item #5, after ejections appear on the 95th and ~87th floors with signs of overpressurization on fl 92.

Most of that seems to have been covered in NCSTAR 1-5A chapter 8.8

[GlennB]

Major_Tom - given that you have now performed this considerable volume of work and come up with extra and more accurate measurements than NIST, do you conclude that anything other than impact damage and the effects of fire caused WTC1+2 to collapse?

[Major_Tom]

Originally Posted by Reactor drone

Most of that seems to have been covered in NCSTAR 1-5A chapter 8.8

Every NIST description of WTC1 early movement and all visual evidence used to justify their descriptions reproduced here:


....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations

It is not difficult to spot major contradictions between them and the actual movement given the more accurate mappings.

Getting anyone here to perceive or admit that is much more difficult.

[Major_Tom]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Who would need this data? For what purpose?

If you take the time to understand the purpose of their investigation as stated in congressional hearing transcripts and in their own reports, the answer should be obvious.

All information and links needed to do just that are available here:

....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

Getting anyone here to perceive or admit that is much more difficult.

Incorrect!

[Starving for Truth]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

If you take the time to understand the purpose of their investigation as stated in congressional hearing transcripts and in their own reports, the answer should be obvious.

There was no investigation, the commission report didn't even mention building 7. Try to keep up.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Major_Tom - given that you have now performed this considerable volume of work and come up with extra and more accurate measurements than NIST, do you conclude that anything other than impact damage and the effects of fire caused WTC1+2 to collapse?

Bump for Major_Tom

(and please don't bother to tell us that you believe accurate measuring is vital. We know that. You've said it a hundred times. The bolded part is what I'd like you to answer.)

[Reactor drone]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

Every NIST description of WTC1 early movement and all visual evidence used to justify their descriptions reproduced here:


....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations

It is not difficult to spot major contradictions between them and the actual movement given the more accurate mappings.

Getting anyone here to perceive or admit that is much more difficult.

None of those quotes are from the extensive visual timeline that NIST provided in NCSTAR 1-5. You seem very hung up on a one sentence summary that appears a few times pointing out some of the gross features of the collapse, you then compare the entirety of your work to that one sentence as if that's the entirety of the NIST report and conclude that you are superior.

Would it be safe to say your major critisism is that NIST didn't mention a one pixel shift in the apparent position of the building after some camera shake and that they use 7-8 degrees when talking about the tilt during collapse rather than your 1 degree figure?

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Reactor drone

...You seem very hung up on a one sentence summary that appears a few times pointing out some of the gross features of the collapse, you then compare the entirety of your work to that one sentence as if that's the entirety of the NIST report and conclude that you are superior...

You are spot on identifying the key error of logic and reasoning that destroys the credibility of most of Major_Tom's work.

He looks for one issue where he can allege error, totally ignores the questions of "relevance" and "significance" i.e. relevance in the contextual setting - where does it fit in? what does it affect? AND significance in the sense of "is it big enough to change any outcomes".

So he finds a minor detail in (say) the NIST report then claims - often by inference - that the whole content of the NIST reports is wrong.

AND he denies those statements I have just repeated for the umpteenth rime.

AND refuses to discuss them or accept explanatory help.

AND if you press him as I have on at least six occasions over recent years he resorts to insult - again usually by inference.

Because using inference or innuendo to deliver insults or tell untruths is also a standard operating practice....but that is a separate topic.

[Major_Tom]

NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems
*

NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
*

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
*

NIST NCSTAR 1-4: Active Fire Protection Systems
*

NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
*

NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
*

NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication
*

NIST NCSTAR 1-8: The Emergency Response Operations

............

NCSTAR 1-5 is reconstruction of the fires from the visual record. Descriptions of early movement of each building are given in 1-6.

Every description of early movement within 1-6 of both WTC1 and WTC2 were given in a link I already provided.

Please try to learn your material before trying to teach others.

Can you produce a single description of ear;ly movment of either WTC1 or 2 from the entire report that I haven't already quoted?

I gave every description and listed every page where they are located.
................


Most every image from the fire reconstruction is reproduced on my website in the photo album menu. Note the grouping of links that looks like this in the photographic record menu:

-----PHOTO RECORD OF FIRE PROGRESSION-----
Fire Progression, WTC1 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 West Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 West Face


That is from 1-5. It is fire, not early motion.
..................

NIST explains very clearly that they are dependent upon the same visual record that we are using to determine all inputs to their model and to check the model agains the visual record of early motion in NCSTAR 1-6, section 9.2. I reproduced the whole section in a link I already provided.


For a few years many posters in this forum have shown an embarrassingly poor knowledge of the very things they claim to be defending.

How is it that you cannot even locate the location of material in the very reports you claim to be defending?


Does anyone else need help locating where the NIST descriptions of early motion are located?

Remember, fire reconstruction in 1-5, all descriptions of early motion in 1-6. Every description has already been extracted and given to you already. All images the NIST used to back up their claims of early motion have already been reproduced in the links provided.

Nothing was cherry picked and if the NIST descriptions quoted are crappy and scant, that is because the entirety of what they offered within the report is crappy and scant.

It has nothing to do with me. My mappings are much, much better.

[Major_Tom]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations

EVERY description the NIST gives for the early motion of WTC1 and WTC2 in the NIST report are reproduced in the link provided. If anyone can find a quote of the motions that I have left out, please quote it and I will include it in the list.

I present this information and I watch how various people here perceive it. If the same mappings were shown to people who strongly support AE911T, they react in a very similar way to how people react here.

There really is no difference. I could post large quantities of contradictory material right in front of either of the two groups and it can't be perceived by either party.

In both cases posters are surprisingly ignorant of the things they are defending and show very little interest in fact-checking what they are claiming.

The reactions of both parties are virtually identical.

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

It has nothing to do with me. My mappings are much, much better.

This certainly says it all!

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Who would need this data? For what purpose?

ozeco gave an example already: AE911Truth claims that large pieces of steel were blown "explosively" over distances of 600 ft. M_T's mappping of perimetar wall sections shows this is a nonsense claim - the perimeter walls peeled off and fell over in large pieces, sorta like toppling trees.

[Oystein]

Major_Tom - given that you have now performed this considerable volume of work and come up with extra and more accurate measurements than NIST, do you conclude that anything other than impact damage and the effects of fire caused WTC1+2 to collapse?

("Don't know" or "too early to tell" are acceptable answers, IMO. Your ignoring this question appears as if you want to make it appear as if you are not interested in this question. But why else would you devote so much of your life to these building failure, and none to any others?)

[Reactor drone]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
*


...
NCSTAR 1-5 is reconstruction of the fires from the visual record. Descriptions of early movement of each building are given in 1-6.

...

That is from 1-5. It is fire, not early motion.
..................

That's funny, the one I was talking about was called "NCSTAR 1-5A Visual evidence, damage estimates and timeline analysis" and contains the visual record of both structural damage and fire progression including timings of material ejections from various floors and bowing of the south face perimeter columns.

Chapter 8.8 contains the visual record from 10.18 until the collapse of WTC1 and notes several ejections speculating that they were caused by internal collapses of floors or movement in the core.

Of course if none of that counts as descriptions of early movement of the building then maybe I'm reading it wrong.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Oystein

ozeco gave an example already: AE911Truth claims that large pieces of steel were blown "explosively" over distances of 600 ft. M_T's mappping of perimetar wall sections shows this is a nonsense claim - the perimeter walls peeled off and fell over in large pieces, sorta like toppling trees.

Except, that result was already known before MT pointed it out, as was most of the rest of his technical work. He merely refined it.

Perimeter walls of the building seem to have peeled off and fallen directly away from the building face, while portions of the core fell in a somewhat random manner. The perimeter walls broke apart at the bolted connections, allowing individual prefabricated units that formed the wall or, in some cases, large assemblies of these units to fall to the street and onto neighboring buildings below.

(FEMA 403 chapter 2 p.2-27)

[Major_Tom]

Originally Posted by Reactor drone

That's funny, the one I was talking about was called "NCSTAR 1-5A Visual evidence, damage estimates and timeline analysis" and contains the visual record of both structural damage and fire progression including timings of material ejections from various floors and bowing of the south face perimeter columns.

Chapter 8.8 contains the visual record from 10.18 until the collapse of WTC1 and notes several ejections speculating that they were caused by internal collapses of floors or movement in the core.

Of course if none of that counts as descriptions of early movement of the building then maybe I'm reading it wrong.

I agree that all behavior suggestiing structural changes through ejection patterns in 1-5 and all descriptions of early movement should be taken as a continuous whole. I do that in part 2 of the book, including the timeline of inward bowing, the 9:59 ejections, the 10:18 ejections. All important.

As for the NIST descriptions of movement during collapse initiation, every description of it within the entire report should be gathered together, including every description in both 1-5 and 1-6. I believe that has already been done and the complete list of quotations, including all visual evidence they cite in support of their descriptions of collapse initiation movement, is included in the 3.2 link already given.

If you find a single description of early movement I have left out anywhere in the report, including 1-5, please let me know and I will include it on the list.

If the list is missing even a single quote of the NIST description of early movement, then it is incomplete and needs to be completed.

In 3.2 I also give every description of WTC2 ealy movement and include it, quote for quote, along side the WTC1 descriptions.

By putting the quotes together it is easy to see that the NIST describes WTC1 south tilt exactly as they describe the eastward tilt of WTC2. There can be no doubt that they believe WTC1 tilted as much to the south as WTC2 tilted to the east.

Please note that these descriptions of WTC1 and WTC2 early movement always appear in pairs and WTC2 east tilt is always described in the same way that WTC1 south tilt is described.

We can go over the pairs of quotes 1 by 1 if you like to verify this. All descriptions at the 3.2 book link.

[Major_Tom]

Reactor drone, this is one example:

WTC1:

"The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces, not only the bowed and buckled south face0 to the south (at least about 8 degrees) as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall along the adjacent east and west walls."

- page lxviii

comparison to the WTC2 description:

"The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces, not only the bowed and buckled east face) to the east (about 7 to 8 degrees) and south (about 3 to 4 degrees) as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls. The building section above the impact continued to rotate to the east as it began to fall downward and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees."

-page lxix

....................

The descriptions always come in pairs and it is easy to verify from the complete list that the NIST was under the impression that WTC2 tilted to the east to the same degree that WTC1 tilted to the south.
........................

[Major_Tom]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Major_Tom - given that you have now performed this considerable volume of work and come up with extra and more accurate measurements than NIST, do you conclude that anything other than impact damage and the effects of fire caused WTC1+2 to collapse?

("Don't know" or "too early to tell" are acceptable answers, IMO. Your ignoring this question appears as if you want to make it appear as if you are not interested in this question. But why else would you devote so much of your life to these building failure, and none to any others?)

What I have verified beyond doubt is that both sides misrepresent building behavior. Our history as it is being passed down consists of nothing more than a chain of misrepresentations.

I have verified that neither side has a grasp of the information they are defending.

The more vocal people of either side project their own mistakes and shorcomings onto some evil "other". It is very easy for many of you to see how AE911T does this. It is not so easy to see the same behavior being practiced here.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Major_Tom

What I have verified beyond doubt is that both sides misrepresent building behavior. Our history as it is being passed down consists of nothing more than a chain of misrepresentations.

I have verified that neither side has a grasp of the information they are defending.

The more vocal people of either side project their own mistakes and shorcomings onto some evil "other". It is very easy for many of you to see how AE911T does this. It is not so easy to see the same behavior being practiced here.

We know this is how you feel, as you've repeated it often enough.

Meanwhile:

Major_Tom - given that you have now performed this considerable volume of work and come up with extra and more accurate measurements than NIST, do you conclude that anything other than impact damage and the effects of fire caused WTC1+2 to collapse?

[dafydd]

Why is this still going on after more than ten years? Trutherism is a dead duck.

[Major_Tom]

EVERY description the NIST gives for the early motion of WTC1 and WTC2 in the NIST report are reproduced in the link provided.


....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations

It is not difficult to spot major contradictions between the description of WTC1 movement and the actual movement given the more accurate mappings here:

....2.3: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History



I present this information and I watch how various people here perceive it. In exchanges up to the present time, I haven't seen a single regular poster that knows how the NIST describes WTC1 motion. This is why I reproduce every quote and image from the report which describes WTC1 early motion and post the descriptions directly in front of you.


Are there readers that are still incapable of seeing that the NIST was clearly under the impression that WTC1 tilted to the south to the same degree that WTC2 tilted to the east?