Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:This doesn't answer the questions:

...tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.

par for the course Tony with you because you make it up and then offer up your own brand of proof.

And such hubris....not even a bit of doubt...

Tony Szamboti Wrote:

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:

Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.

This doesn't answer the questions:

...tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.

par for the course Tony with you because you make it up and then offer up your own brand of proof.

And such hubris....not even a bit of doubt...

I did say the only columns which could have been severely damaged were the core columns in the center from north to south on floors 94 and 95 that were in the path of the fuselage before it was completely broken up. That would be approximately 9 to 10 columns maximum out of 47, or about 20% maximum, three stories below where the collapse actually initiated. This can be proven based on a volume analysis.

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:

Tony Szamboti Wrote:

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:This doesn't answer the questions:

...tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.

par for the course Tony with you because you make it up and then offer up your own brand of proof.

And such hubris....not even a bit of doubt...

I did say the only columns which could have been severely damaged were the core columns in the center from north to south on floors 94 and 95 that were in the path of the fuselage before it was completely broken up. That would be approximately 9 to 10 columns maximum out of 47, or about 20% maximum, three stories below where the collapse actually initiated. This can be proven based on a volume analysis.

You answered the the question by not answering it. You don't know.... you GUESS. Clearly the plane could not have destroyed ALL the core columns because our CD thing would not have been necessary. Enough remained to carry the tower for an hr of so as the weakening process proceeded.. or someone decided it was time enough to detonate the devices...

Tony Szamboti Wrote:Hey Jeffrey, you should learn how to multi-quote, if you really feel the need to do that. You have been upsetting the quotes somehow and causing it to look like I am saying what you said and vice versa.

I don't have a problem with you being given credit for things I have said, but I really don't want to be accused, by somebody who isn't aware of the mix-up you are causing here, of saying some of the things you think could have caused the collapses.

I can correct it in my replies but not in your posts.

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Albert - I've read your extensive and insistent posts in this thread with a sense of wonder, and have extracted the comments above as an example of your recent enquiries.

You are now writing about the collapse of 9/11 with what appears to be an expert degree of architectural and scientific knowledge.

In my judgement, Tony Szamboti is doing a good job of rebutting your arguments but still you keep jabbing away. Which is fine - that's part of the rationale for DPF. And Tony seems more than able to look after himself and the case he is proposing.

Before seeing these recent exchanges, I would have expected you to be more on Tony Szamboti's side of the argument than Jeffrey Orling's.

Has anything caused you to change your mind?

Jan

I wish people would just answer the arguments. I believe they are sound. If you side with Tony's "A falling mass cannot produce a focused jet" all I can say is good luck to you. "Rebutting"? That statement is inherently preposterous and violates basic scientific principles. And Tony has failed to answer some very key points repeatedly.

Quote: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.