+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis (/thread-11027.html)
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 09-08-2013
Albert Rossi Wrote:Phil Dragoo Wrote:[URL="http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_07.htm"]
[/URL] ...
Phil's note: We see a "drill" conducted at the scene of a covert operation, as per that said to be in progress in Dealey, at Murrah where ATF heros broke open elevator doors--oh, that's right, they lied.
...
[URL="http://www.ae911truth.net/videos/gallery/MoltenMetalFlowsatGrPFC.wmv"]
[/URL]In addition to the FDNY witnessing the molten metal, Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer of the WTC noted: "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running," at the National Conference of Structural Engineers on October 5, 2001.
Of course what does he know; what does he think he is, the structural engineer for the towers? Oh, wait a minute. . . .
Phil, this is all very intriguing material. And thanks for reporting the statement from Robertson. I wonder what must really be going through his mind.
This Robertson quote... needs context and verification.
But note that the engineer Irwin Cantor of bldg 7 stated that he believed diesel fires weakened and led to the failure of the transfer trusses and the collapse of 7.
Robertson is not an expert and building collapses or fires which burn for months under rubble of burning collapsed buildings. As him about the design decisions he made which facilitated his towers to collapse so easily. Ask him to explain how they came to collapse. That would be telling.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Lauren Johnson - 09-08-2013
I find David Chandler's video giving evidence of the sounds of sequential explosions captured in the directional mic of NBC TV reporter Ashleigh Banfield just prior to the collapse of WTC 7 to be persuasive.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 09-08-2013
This is just nonsense.
The distraction of the sound that Banfield heard was the stucture breaking and collapsing int he load trqasfer region below floor 7 as I mentioned. You can see the dust being ejected from this. And the low rumbling sounds are not percussive sounds that explosives make. This is typical of Chandler usinghis bias and attempting to dress it up with what appears to be scientific analysis.
Were there rumbling sounds associated with all the collapses? YES Just before or as motion begins (release) YES.
Please consider that sound travels 1100 feet per second. Witnesses on the ground would hear sounds of the twins tops crashing down 1 second after they could see it. This IS disorienting for sure, but none of these witnesses could connect the sound as occuring BEFORE the motion or collapse. The sounds were made AS the structure was collapsing.
Building 7 is hardly different. The banfield interview was conducted at leat 5 city blocks north of WTC 7 and by the time they heart something.... the rummble of the collapse... it is underway and they see the dust ejections... which they confuse as the pressure wave of an explosion. However it doesn't even LOOK like what an explosion produces.
More smoke and mirror of the prattling David Chandler who has mislead too many naive people.
Learn to think and analyze.
Truust but Verify.
You found this convincing because of your confirmation bias... you are hunting around to find proof of / for your fantasy. David is one hell of a snake oil salesman... but one of many.
What this clip does show is that the failure occured in the lowest floors where the load transfer structures were located... and supports the transfer truss theory as well as what the building's engineer Cantor believed. it refutes NIST and AE911T's fantasies. This is not sufficient evidence to deminstrate TTF, but one of many bits of evidence which in the aggregate supports that theory. All observations must support the correct theory.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 09-08-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:I don't think I saw your observation that no firefighters reported thermite in the stairwells.
There was only one radio transmission from firefighters who were near fires, and that from the South Tower three minutes before it fell, when chief Orio Palmer said they had reached the fire on the 78th floor and said they could knock it down with two lines. Thermite very likely would have been used on critical joints and wouldn't have been anywhere near the stairwells.
I beg to differ. A simple view of a cross-section blueprint of the tower would show the stairwells were mixed in to the core columns. The You-Tube video I linked showed that thermite burns with extreme sparkling intensity and smoke. If there were thermite packs in the columns they would have been seen burning for a few seconds and would have raised a burst of radio reports of thermitic fires in the stairwells by the firefighters who were trained to notice such things. Not a peep.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:The columns were certainly not involved in the collapses
You've been arguing they were. They would have to be by science. How could they not be? The North Tower, for instance, probably had a good percentage of the core cut through because of the center hit of Flight 11. I also wonder if a direct hit on a floor pad might push the whole pad through the core laterally like a cutter. The transfer of mass would be huge with a speeding 767.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:and the only plausible explanation I can think of is controlled demolition with devices eliminating their ability to provide structural resistance. In addition to the lack of column involvement and no deceleration problems for a natural collapse in the North Tower there is also video evidence of focused and concentrated blowouts which can only be from squibs. See this short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
I don't mean to start any thread problems but that video is laughable. Any fool can narrate a video to see and say what he wants. I heard a voice assuring me of things he wanted to see in that video. What I saw in that video fit exactly the collapse dynamic I tried to explain in my previous posts. First the controlled demolition people are saying there was thermite residue found in the wreckage. Yet here we have the narrator telling us a series of timed explosives charges cascaded in sequence down inside the building. So which one is it? Funny how that cascade happens exactly in synch with the pancaking floor pad theory. What CD proponents fail to fathom is the accelerated compressed air blast phenomenon that would collapse the floors faster than gravity and create all those visual clues the narrator is calling signs of explosions. This force would blast the core columns and the outer frame as you are seeing happen in the video. The outward force seen in those explosive dust bursts is something that would, by science, unzip the outer frame. A study of modern explosives shows that their components can be traced in wreckage residue. As I've already explained the unique hanging floor pad design with an inner core and outer frame may explain the lack of deceleration in the North tower. There was some delay in the initiation of the collapse where that deceleration could have occurred according to the design of the tower, and I don't see any detonation flashes in those cascading explosions.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Don't you understand that the building got stronger as you moved down the tower? It was a virtual pyramid strength wise. The columns under the 28 story load on the South Tower were built to withstand an average of four times the load above them, just like the columns under the 12 story load on the North Tower were built to withstand an average of four times the load above them. The further down you went the bigger the columns got to handle the bigger load above them.
You obviously didn't absorb what I wrote before. Did it ever dawn on you what your video is showing is exactly the collapsing floor dynamic I spoke of where extreme air blast pressure caused by floor pads displacing air under extreme weight appeared as explosions and crushed the inner core as it progressed downward? Not only would this downward progressive dynamic occur faster than gravity but it would create results that were identical to what you see in the collapsing tower. What we are talking about here isn't a sturdy pyramid of structure under the collapsing section but a funnel of force contained by the outside frame that transferred extreme energy down the column in a unique phenomenon caused by the tower's hanging floor design. A pyramid doesn't have a huge structural void like the towers did. What we are talking about here is the isolated point where that extreme air blast pressure is turned laterally and focused on the columns in a direction where they were vulnerable to lateral forces they weren't designed for. While the vertical resistance of the columns may have been designed for 4 times overkill they were not designed for a massive force cutting against them laterally on an individual floor basis. You are looking at that lateral force in your video. It isn't explosives. It's extreme, blasting compressed air pressure.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 09-08-2013
Very good explanation... much more logical than truther CD nonsense. I would point out that the columns virtually post initiation show that the "failed" or came apart... at their connection splices which were not aligned with the the floor system. The 36' length columns had connections at about 4' above the floor slab. The splce was simply to keep the two columns aligned and offered very little resistence to lateral motion. That was accomplished by the three floors and the bracing that supported them above the splice.
When the floors were stripped away in the collapse and floow of the floor mass down through the areas BETWEEN the columns which Albert refers to as a structure void (and is correct)...this left the columns with no lateral bracing and the strength of a column is determined in part by its unbraced length. So the floor stripping led to column weakening and then buckling and fracturing of the splices and the core columns came apart like pick up sticks. Not a single bit of evidence of explosives dismembering the frame.
But then again you'd have had to have studied the debris and the columns lying there to understand this... and know how the frame was erected... and how the bracing was attached and where... and so on and so on... or
You can listen to people who have no idea about any of the above but spout junk which sounds like science. And you believe it because it fits your need and preconcieved beliefs.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 09-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Quote:Your controlled demolition claim has trouble there because that is a basic indicator of weakness/stress-based initiation of the collapse.
Are you an engineer or did you get this from somewhere reputable? Or did you just make something up just now?
I think the controlled demolition proponents are so convinced of their beliefs that they fail to look at other simple explanations. KISS: The South Tower collapsed first because it had more weight above the heat-weakened damaged area causing more stress.
Why would they collapse the South Tower first if they were trying to imitate a natural collapse? Peter said all sorts of unpredictable screw-ups occur and maybe some CD devices had snafus that caused this. But if you stop to think how they would have fixed that it ventures into the preposterous. No chance it was because the South Tower had more weight above the impact zone that caused the collapse earlier than the North Tower? It sort of makes sense doesn't it?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 09-08-2013
Jeffrey's notion that the floors in the towers would break loose from the columns enough to instigate the collapse is akin to him trusting that the moon is made of green cheese. He has thought about this and some people have told him it was what happened, so it must be. However, he will verify it when he gets there.
The inanity is high with some of these people.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 09-08-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:Quote:Your controlled demolition claim has trouble there because that is a basic indicator of weakness/stress-based initiation of the collapse.
Are you an engineer or did you get this from somewhere reputable? Or did you just make something up just now?
I think the controlled demolition proponents are so convinced of their beliefs that they fail to look at other simple explanations. KISS: The South Tower collapsed first because it had more weight above the heat-weakened damaged area causing more stress.
Why would they collapse the South Tower first if they were trying to imitate a natural collapse? Peter said all sorts of unpredictable screw-ups occur and maybe some CD devices had snafus that caused this. But if you stop to think how they would have fixed that it ventures into the preposterous. No chance it was because the South Tower had more weight above the impact zone that caused the collapse earlier than the North Tower? It sort of makes sense doesn't it?
The firemen had reached the fires in the South Tower a few minutes before it collapsed and radioed that they were there and that the fires were very manageable. Had they put them out the impact damage and fire ruse can't work. You might blow that off as a conspiracy theory, but if you believe there was a conspiracy concerning certain aspects of 911 then you can't just dismiss it.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 09-08-2013
There is something else in play here. And that is what I call reading evidence or observations. We tend to use a result - outcome to tell us what caused that result outcome.
We see smoke we think (understandably) it was caused by fire. This works most of the time because we have a basic understanding of how the world works.. stimilus - response .. cause and effect.
But let say we saw a photo of a object in the sky.... a steel beam. Is it falling? Is it moving upward... or horizontally? One still pic we can't tell much.. that is other than the force of gravity and maybe some other forces might be acting on it. If we see a timed sequence we can know a lot more about the piece of steel and if we know the size and mass we can know a lot more. Our understanding is informed by the more ACCURATE data we have about the observation.
With respect to the collapses of the WTC buildings we have many poorly skilled observers reporting what they experienced. These reports are not scientific data, but anacdotal at best... although the observations of a trained skilled person would be more reliable than a laymen. I have more confidence in what a meteorologest sees looking at the sky than I do.
So the first thing is to take ALL lay observations with a HUGE grain of salt.
The there is the context. On the morning of 9/11 NYers were told they were under attack by terrrorists. They could see buildings on fire debris pouring from them smoke billowing skyward and the idiots on TV telling them what to think. So their observation of sounds will be HIGHLY prejudiced... loud noises are all bombs!
And further think of the language itself... most common use for a loud noise is the word EXPLOSION.... or maybe loud "BOOM".. explosions can BOOM too. Then there is ROAR like a loud train... or THUNDER which can BOOM or CRACK. All of these are the result of highly energetic events which release mechanical energy which is experience as sound. The collapse sounded to me like a ROAR not a series of explosions. A huge floor dropping would probably make a BOOM sound... and a series would sound as BOOM, BOOM, BOOM... what other way is there to describe the sound of floors collapsing?
The sort of sloppy thinking is on display with respect to dust ejections, smoke and dust laden air seen with the WTC collapses. The collapsing building occupied huge volumes of air and when the came down the collapses involved and CREATED enormous amount of air movements. Fires also cause air to move...heating it and causing it to rise and cooler air to rush in to replace it. Fires can create enormous local wind effects.
And these towers stood amidst the local wind conditions which were about 20 knots from the NW blowing SE. This too influences the observations. Dust in the air causes light to be refracted and color shifted, not to mention the low sun angle at the time of the plane strikes.
Down drafts were created from the collapsing billions of cubic feet of air rushed into behind/above the collapse and then spread laterally taking the heat from the smoldering fires in the rubble..and dust. This blast was like a huge bellows on the flaming debris pile stoking it hotter.
The event was so complex that it boggles the mind to try to describe all that was going on. But this does not prevent a single person from offering a description of what they saw. And people like Graham MacQueen from using statistics to determine what happened based on interviews of firemen and key words in their written accounts. Truth by word stats!
And truth because some self declared fake scientist tells you what you saw...
What to do?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 09-08-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:The firemen had reached the fires in the South Tower a few minutes before it collapsed and radioed that they were there and that the fires were very manageable. Had they put them out the impact damage and fire ruse can't work. You might blow that off as a conspiracy theory, but if you believe there was a conspiracy concerning certain aspects of 911 then you can't just dismiss it.
The firemen who made this report could not possible have examined or seen 47 core columns on perhaps 6 separate floors... they couldn't even get close to them where there were fires. Are you denying that there was huge amounts of smoke CONTINUOUSLY POURING from the south tower frokm the instant of the plane strike until it collapsed?
Are you tell me that this one fireman inside the tower saw everything going on? Are you effin crazy? You are cherry picking and quote mining and being intellectually dishonest. Shame on you for trying to pull a fast one and using this poor soul who probably was killed and can't explain himself. That is.... disgusting Tony. Have you no shame?