+- 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 - Jan Klimkowski - 11-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Jan,
With all due respect... that comment is very dismissive. I am thinking and it is you that is not engaging in a dialog.
I have asked you to explain something... something that i can't comprehend by THINKING, reasoning and using the tools of logic I have... and your reply is
THINK
are you serious?
Jeffrey - I am dismissive of your comments because you post assertive deep political statements without undertaking any research or performing due diligence.
There are numerous threads about Gladio, and its successor operations, here. Indeed, I can confidently say that DPF is the internet forum which has the most material about, and analysis of, Gladio.
You appear to have read none of it.
Or if you have read some of it, you haven't understood it.
Exhibit #1:
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Gladio was created after WWII as a check by the right on the leftists who were being supported by the USSR.
This is completely and utterly wrong. I have shown you why it is wrong. More than once. And then you drag Dawkins and biological determinism into it.....
DPF is not a deep political kindergarten.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 11-08-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:[
Tony, you said the initiation of a ROOSD would require five floors of core columns and their support structure to vanish to provide the sufficient force. I believe Jeffrey, said it would require only one floor.
That is helpful.
If I read it correctly Tony said it would take the mass of a 5 storey section to break the static resistance of the intact building below it. What static resistance means is simply the structural strength of the building below in its total state or stasis. When I pointed-out to him that a 12 storey section clearly fell on the rest of the building in the North Tower he failed to give a straight answer.
I said it would take 5 floors falling on one floor to break the connections of the floor to the columns. You are confusing impact of floors with impact of columns. There is a big difference. 12 floors could not fall on one floor. You are not realizing the columns would have prevented that in a natural collapse and they are designed to support many times the story load above them. The columns of the 98th floor, which were supporting 12 stories above them, had enough reserve strength to support about 48 stories with no margin.
You need to separate impact of floors (think floor slabs) from impact of columns in your thinking.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Magda Hassan - 11-08-2013
Jeffrey, perhaps some reading about psychopathology would be more informative than what Dawkins writes about. Not really his subject area. More Jungian.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jan Klimkowski - 11-08-2013
Magda Hassan Wrote:Jeffrey, perhaps some reading about psychopathology would be more informative than what Dawkins writes about. Not really his subject area. More Jungian.
:danceing:
:wheel:
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 11-08-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Jan,
With all due respect... that comment is very dismissive. I am thinking and it is you that is not engaging in a dialog.
I have asked you to explain something... something that i can't comprehend by THINKING, reasoning and using the tools of logic I have... and your reply is
THINK
are you serious?
Jeffrey - I am dismissive of your comments because you post assertive deep political statements without undertaking any research or performing due diligence.
There are numerous threads about Gladio, and its successor operations, here. Indeed, I can confidently say that DPF is the internet forum which has the most material about, and analysis of, Gladio.
You appear to have read none of it.
Or if you have read some of it, you haven't understood it.
Exhibit #1:
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Gladio was created after WWII as a check by the right on the leftists who were being supported by the USSR.
This is completely and utterly wrong. I have shown you why it is wrong. More than once. And then you drag Dawkins and biological determinism into it.....
DPF is not a deep political kindergarten.
Jan,
I signed up at DPF because Ed Jewit thought I could add something of use to the 911 discussions. That was no easy task consider the technical perspective I was trying to bring to the discussion. But there was some uninformed nonsense coming from Fetzer and Boldwyn with Lemkin parroting whatever he read and dropping it into the discussion along with insults.
I did not read the Gladio thread and have barely a cursory interest in Deep Politics, although I am interests in political analysis and not the rubbish in the MSM and what passes for politics in the USA.
I don't like to be sent off to do homework when a summary in a response should be enough to explain the (gladio) matter. If the summary book jacket interests me I will read the book.
Whatever Gladio IS or was... when it began and so forth, precipitating it down to:
it's a power and control extending power and control is hardly distinguishing Gladio from any other entrenched power structure is in constant self preservation mode and seeking to secure this... obviously through... you guessed it.. power and control.
So no 911 was not simply about knocking down a few buildings... it had a bigger purpose to whomever was behind it. That's pretty fundamental.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jan Klimkowski - 11-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I did not read the Gladio thread and have barely a cursory interest in Deep Politics, although I am interests in political analysis and not the rubbish in the MSM and what passes for politics in the USA.
Condemned out of your own mouth.
If you have no interest in deep politics, why do you make endless rambling posts wrongly defining the nature of Gladio and false flag attacks for members of the forum?
You claim to be an intelligent man and yet you do not see the hypocrisy and arrogance in this?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 11-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I said that a twin tower floor could support perhaps an additional one or two floors applied as a static load. I think as a dynmic load the applied forced could be 10x or more than a static load and so this may be able to fracture the floor this came down on and kick off the ROOSD process or prgressive unstopppable floor collapse.
Albert's point is that the move of the antenna strongly suggests that the entire core area may have come undone and the ALL the floors bove 98 were free and falling... inside the facade and the 12 story facade was pulled downward by those 12 floors as rhey came free from the core and were plunging down. Unfortunately we can see inside past the facade and have to use the movements telegraphed through it and to it. There defintely was subtle movement of the top which suggests the frame was under extreme stress and experiencing individual and aggregate column strength loss before the visible release and downward motion of the facade and the flash over and expulsion of material.
A dynamic load amplification of 10X requires a significant stiffness to be involved and it is not automatic.
The entire core did come down inside and it pulled the perimeter inward causing the entire upper section to come down. The problem is how the entire 12 story core upper section came down, not whether it did or not. Albert's logic is circular and his thinking that the 360 ton antenna somehow caused the fall of the core is ridiculous on its face as the core columns at the 98th floor were capable as a unit of handling 55,000 tons. There was also little damage to the 98th floor.
Finally, none of the columns were involved in the resistance to the collapse as measurements and calculations show. This is extraordinarily difficult to assign a natural collapse theory to and is the basis of the need for something more being involved to have caused the collapse, such as demolition devices. The claim that no sounds or flashes were heard or seen is bogus. There are plenty of firemen on record as saying they saw and heard flashes and explosions.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Lauren Johnson - 11-08-2013
Quote:The entire core did come down inside and it pulled the perimeter inward causing the entire upper section to come down. The problem is how the entire core came down, not whether it did or not. Albert's logic is circular.
Tony,
Do think that the core was blown (CD) at the point of impact unleashing a cascading collapse the rest of the way? Or was it blown all the way down every three floors using cutter charges?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 11-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Quote:The entire core did come down inside and it pulled the perimeter inward causing the entire upper section to come down. The problem is how the entire core came down, not whether it did or not. Albert's logic is circular.
Tony,
Do think that the core was blown (CD) at the point of impact unleashing a cascading collapse the rest of the way? Or was it blown all the way down every three floors using cutter charges?
I think the core was initially blown at the 98th floor in the North Tower and then at least for the next several three story increments to generate enough momentum for the collapse to become self-propagating. The corners of the perimeters were also blown for this period and may have been cut for a much longer period to prevent orthogonal resistance and allow the exterior walls to petal outward.
It is also important to bear in mind that the initiation floor (the 98th) was above the aircraft impact damage, so impact damage could not have contributed to the initiation. The majority of the impact damage was to the north face and largely limited to the 94th through 96th floors.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 11-08-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:I said it would take 5 floors falling on one floor to break the connections of the floor to the columns. You are confusing impact of floors with impact of columns. There is a big difference. 12 floors could not fall on one floor.
I think you are trying to get around the obvious here. If you view the video there's a point where the collapsing top section impacts the building with its full weight. Your argument was very specifically an argument of the threshold of weight or mass required to break the static resistance of the building below. There's no doubt that threshold was reached during the collapse of the 12 storey top section by your own definition. I feel you are equivocating here and not answering the point. The collapse has obviously given you your required 5 floors plus. You have failed to answer this point directly. We have provided proof, by your own definition, that the conditions to initiate floor collapse were met. Besides, you're wrong because the video clearly shows 12 floors of top section falling on the remaining building below which possessed the first floor to be hit by this mass. The statement "12 floors could not fall on one floor" is clearly wrong then, especially since you can see it happening right in front of you in the video.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:You are not realizing the columns would have prevented that in a natural collapse and they are designed to support many times the story load above them. The columns of the 98th floor, which were supporting 12 stories above them, had enough reserve strength to support about 48 stories with no margin.
If that were the only dynamic in question. My argument is that lateral forces you are repeatedly not recognizing in your model defeated that resistance by blasting pneumatic pressure inward in a manner the core columns were not designed for. What I'm saying is those same columns had no resistance to the kinetic force of blasted air from the floor pad collapse. As long as the lateral destructive force of the blast wave that descended as the floor pads fell was stronger than the columns' ability to resist it this force would defeat any vertical resistance you refer to and there render your model invalid. The simple explanation is the core columns were not designed to resist many times the storey load above them when they are being compromised by extreme lateral blasting force from pneumatic air blasts caused by the falling floor pads. You are seeing evidence of those blasts in your video.
You haven't explained why, if those dust jets are explosions from controlled demolition charges, aren't there similar jets further up the building where the initiating cd allegedly occurred?
Tony Szamboti Wrote:You need to separate impact of floors (think floor slabs) from impact of columns in your thinking.
You're obviously trying to force a deficient theory in order to avoid answering the points you can't answer. However, I feel you're wrong because the driving force of the floor mass from the 12 storey section was enough to create this lateral blast on the first section of intact core column it encountered. You can't reference static vertical resistance if it isn't there because it has been compromised by an intense lateral pneumatic force caused by those falling floor pads. I think it is you who fails to realize the parameters for this force were met when the 12 storey section impacted the first floor of the building below.