+- 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 - Albert Doyle - 11-08-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:NIST also determined the failure initiated at the 98th floor and their analysis here matches those of others and is not in dispute.
Sure. The 98th floor is well within the 93rd floor to 99th floor impact zone. You fail to comprehend that it is perfectly reasonable that the collapse would appear to start on the 98th floor because that was the first level of stable, intact structure vs the unstable, wrecked structure below it that gave out. The load's "center of gravity" was redistributed to the first intact level, the 98th floor. When the area below that failed this intact area dropped as one unit creating the appearance of the collapse starting on the 98th floor, which technically it did, but was caused by the floors below it failing.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Lauren Johnson - 11-08-2013
I assert WTC 1.2, and 7 came down by controlled demolition. This is a complex problem. If I had expertise in the mechanical engineering of high rise buildings, I would be able to solve the problem to my satisfaction. But I am not. I have to depend on others. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth put for a very persuasive argument to push back against the NIST reports. I buy it.
But we have Jeffrey Orling who also has credentials giving a counter argument with regard to WTC 1 and 2. How am I to decide? They both from my layman's position could be correct. My sense is that AE911 has the strong edge in my eyes, but Jeffrey indeed has credentials. He could be right.
This brings us to WTC 7. Jeffrey's arguments regarding WTC 7 just have never held water, even from my layman's position. The visual power of its symmetrical collapse requires a strong argument to counter the obvious conclusion that there was CD. The David Chandler/Ashleigh Banfield video is case closed. Controlled demolition.
Therefore, if there is controlled demolition in WTC 7, the case for CD in WTC 1 & 2 is near 100%. Case closed.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 11-08-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:NIST also determined the failure initiated at the 98th floor and their analysis here matches those of others and is not in dispute.
Sure. The 98th floor is well within the 93rd floor to 99th floor impact zone. You fail to comprehend that it is perfectly reasonable that the collapse would appear to start on the 98th floor because that was the first level of stable, intact structure vs the unstable, wrecked structure below it that gave out. The load's "center of gravity" was redistributed to the first intact level, the 98th floor. When the area below that failed this intact area dropped as one unit creating the appearance of the collapse starting on the 98th floor, which technically it did, but was caused by the floors below it failing.
This is just pure nonsense.
Using a twenty step ladder with 12 inches between steps as an example I will describe for others why what you are saying can't be right.
Imagine the ladder is in the vertical position against a wall and steps 7 and 8 are damaged, with minor damage to steps 9 and 10, and very minor damage to step 11.
You are saying that if the ladder vertical side bar supports fail at steps 7 and 8 that it would appear to fail at step 11 because it is the first step with little to no damage.
You are also saying that even if it appears to fail at step 11 that it would have actually failed at steps 7 and 8 and we couldn't tell in a video of the failure taken from fairly close by.
The reality is that there was more than sufficient resolution in the video, so we could tell that a failure at step 11 is where the failure actually took place and we would have to find out why it failed there and not where the more significant damage was located.
Another point to remember about all of this is that there were not many core columns damaged on any floor, and there were none damaged at floor 98, where the collapse most certainly did initiate, whether you like it or not.
What you should be asking yourself is why the core failed at all.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 12-08-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Jeffrey's diagram may underplay the damage to the core columns.
How many core columns do you suppose out of the 47 of them were severely damaged or severed in the North Tower?
Purdue took a shot at it:
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
[/URL]
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 12-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:I assert WTC 1.2, and 7 came down by controlled demolition. This is a complex problem. If I had expertise in the mechanical engineering of high rise buildings, I would be able to solve the problem to my satisfaction. But I am not. I have to depend on others. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth put for a very persuasive argument to push back against the NIST reports. I buy it.
But we have Jeffrey Orling who also has credentials giving a counter argument with regard to WTC 1 and 2. How am I to decide? They both from my layman's position could be correct. My sense is that AE911 has the strong edge in my eyes, but Jeffrey indeed has credentials. He could be right.
This brings us to WTC 7. Jeffrey's arguments regarding WTC 7 just have never held water, even from my layman's position. The visual power of its symmetrical collapse requires a strong argument to counter the obvious conclusion that there was CD. The David Chandler/Ashleigh Banfield video is case closed. Controlled demolition.
Therefore, if there is controlled demolition in WTC 7, the case for CD in WTC 1 & 2 is near 100%. Case closed.
Interesting logic there... sort of weighing the supposed experts you've looked at or read and rendered your decision.
Both AE911T and I and many others dispute the NIST explanation of the girder walk off at col 79 on the 13th flr.
So now what explains the movements?
AE in their presentation and the famous vid of FF actually DOES NOT include the movement BEFORE the release of the facade which included the drop of both the East and West Penthouses and measured swaying of the tower in an east-west direction. So whatever the time of the drop of the facade... the collapse clearly took longer and indicates that the INSIDE was not "there" or had collapsed by the time the 7 second collapse vid period. This is deceptive.
AE's explanation for the 7 second, 108 foot 8 story drop is that all 81 of the columns (24 core) and 57 perimeter) were "CDed" or made to disappear in an instant so there was nothing to resist the FF drop. Of course this is not specific as to which 9 floors and at the lowest level there actually about 15 (don't recall the actual #) of columns fewer than above the 7th floor. The 81 col cofig began at floor 8 108' above grade. They don't say if the think it was floors 8-16 which were CDed... or not.
The famous video also shows a very pronounced inward bowing of the north curtain wall which extended the entire width of the lot. One sees NO glass breaking and the IB is like a folding screen... But how could it fold inward if there were spandrel beams and floors behind that curtain wall? The answer is of course, the curtain wall cannot bow inward with or without breaking the glass with spandrels and floors behind. Ergo there were none when the curtain wall was dropping... meaning that the entire inside on the north side was gone before the drop and we are seeing JUST the curtain wall(s) and not the building drop.
And using moire analysis it has been determined that the penthouse drop all the way down all visible floors not merely a story or two as if there was some failre just below the PH.
There were other observation and events which support TTF, a theory which AE has not even considered or critiqued. TTF 1 end 2 which I believe are where it began happen to be below 40 stories below the east penthouses... and the entire curtain wall opposite the core on the north side seen on the vid... was supported on the ends of cantilevers 8 stories above grade! How bout that! The other end (south) of these 8 cantilever griders rested on the core's north side which had a e-w girder connected to the 8 columns of the core. At the west side was TT3 carrying the last girder's south end.
There WERE diesel day tanks on floors 6 or 7 adjacent to TT1 and the stair which collapsed after an explosion which WAS witnessed by Jennings and Hess at 10am happened to also be between these two massive transfer structures. YES there was an explosion at 10 am... but what was it? Gas? Diesel fuel? Leaked transformer oil (explosive)... flamable fumes? Within those TTs were all the electrical power equipment for 7, both mains and back up and it all sat over the 3 story high massive power transformers of the Con Ed substation which was part of the grid supply power to lower Manhattan and all the WTC. Con Ed reported that when the plane hit at 8:58 they lost 13 feeders which were obviously picked up by other sub stations in the grid. 7 was on back up power shortly after Jennings and Hess arrived at 7 just after 9am. The loss of power destroyed the wet sprinkler system's ability to pressurize and a water main break made fire fighting impossible with standpipes.
Just before 7 dropped there was a massive flare out from the lower floors on the NW side... much like what is seen in the twin as the moment of release.
Of note is that the building's Engineer Irwin Cantor stated in 2002 that he believed the tower came down because the massive transfer trusses were weakened by heat from diesel fires. He was not specific of the precise mechanism. ASCE stated in 2002 to congress that they believe the connections in the trusses might have failed first and that NIST should study them in their coming investigation. NIST did not. NIST stated that there was nothing of interest below floor 8. Ha?
Could devices have destroyed the connections? To destroy the massive truss members the bombs or devices would be extremely loud... and nothing like the boom on the Banfield tape which is likely the truss steel dropping and the mech floors coming down on Con Ed.
There is a lot more to support the TTF theory... one which no one wants to seriously consider except a few at Pfor911T... but they refuse to consider that heat could possibly weaken steel... they think it was some sort of eutectic attack device (no evidence for this.... but it doesn't make noise)
There are many reasons why NIST produced the nonsense the did. There were many questionable decisions in the design of 7 which led to it collapsing as it did. They decided not to open up that can of worms... essentially protected the developers, Con Ed, Guiliani, the engineers and PANYNJ, NYC planning commission and so forth. Cantor now sits on NYC City Planning commission.
7 likely came down from failed connections on the transfer structure... and if so it would pretty much nail the fact that all three towers came down without CD.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 12-08-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:The Purdue simulation doesn't show things much different than what the NIST analysis shows. In both cases the wings never hit the core as they were shredded beforehand by the exterior and the floors outside of the core. Only the core columns in the center would have been hit with the fuselage at the 95th floor and 94th floor, as the impact was between the 95th and 96th floors with the aircraft pitched downwards at 10.6 degrees. NIST found no more than about 9 core columns would have been severely damaged and that was three stories below the initiation floor.Tony Szamboti Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Jeffrey's diagram may underplay the damage to the core columns.
How many core columns do you suppose out of the 47 of them were severely damaged or severed in the North Tower?
Purdue took a shot at it:
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
[/URL]
You don't seem to want to discuss how many core columns were actually damaged and where and why the core came down to begin with. The reality is that the core collapse at the 98th floor had nothing to do with the 9 core columns damaged in the center of the core three and four stories below. Just like the collapse starting at the south side exterior had nothing to do with the north face aircraft damage.
The real truth is it seems the aircraft impacts were nothing but causal ruses to make it appear as though they caused the collapse. The real reasons for the collapse involve why it started in the core just above the impact damage and on the south exterior.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 12-08-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:You don't seem to want to discuss how many core columns were actually damaged and where and why the core came down to begin with.
Because no one knows... not NIST, Pedue, me or you... But one thing's for sure... by the time the top drops... they were all gone.. and just before that whatever was left went in very rapid succession.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 12-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:You don't seem to want to discuss how many core columns were actually damaged and where and why the core came down to begin with.
Because no one knows... not NIST, Pedue, me or you... But one thing's for sure... by the time the top drops... they were all gone.. and just before that whatever was left went in very rapid succession.
Jeffrey: blah, blah, blah nobody knows.........blah, blah, blah nobody knows...........blah, blah, blah nobody knows.
You sound like a parrot that heard a retarded comment and kept repeating it.
A simulation knowing the aircraft construction, fuel load, impact velocity and orientation, and the building structure could certainly come within 10% accuracy. I'll even allow for 10 core columns taken out three stories below the initiation floor. It has nothing to do with the initiation and wasn't anywhere near enough to cause instability. The instability could only have come from devices at the 98th floor and above as the first floors to go then were the 99th through the 101st.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 12-08-2013
Fine Tony... you tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.
Listening.... (to Glen Gould Bach's Goldberg Variation while you respond).
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 12-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Fine Tony... you tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.
Listening.... (to Glen Gould Bach's Goldberg Variation while you respond).
I think I have already told you both things a number of times, but I'll do it again to ensure you get it.
There would have only been a chance for about 9 to 10 core columns in the center of the core to be severely damaged due to volume alone and this would have been at the 94th and 95th floors.
The initiation happened at the 98th floor because the devices didn't need to survive the plane damage there and it was the closest to the aircraft damage where it could be assured the devices weren't displaced/damaged and to make it look good. This is also why the 99th through 101st floors were blown just after. That would be to develop momentum in case some of the devices at the main aircraft impact floors (94, 95, and 96) were displaced or damaged.