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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Tony Szamboti Wrote:You need to separate impact of floors (think floor slabs) from impact of columns in your thinking.

Albert Doyle Wrote:

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.

Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.

Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote: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.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony,

Thanks again. One more question. How do you interpret the ejections or squibs seen well below the collapse levels of WTCs 1 & 2?

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.

Hardly ridiculous. I think you are smart enough to realize the fact the antenna drops first shows the core underneath it gave out. There are two choices. This was either caused by a controlled demolition or collapse of the core section from creeping fatigue. I personally think you are trying to get away with murder here because you are trying to offer as simple an explanation as you can in order to use CD as a crutch for the greater arguments you don't involve. You are using voodoo engineering because the core columns from the 98th floor up would not handle the antenna weight if they had been undercut at the impact zone. This undercutting could be reasonably estimated using complex computer models that involved the strength of the columns vs the kinetic force of the Boeing. The video of the North Tower impact doesn't show the serious exit out the opposite side that indicated a serious passage of mass through the building from the Boeing. This had to result in serious damage to the core around the 95th floor. The weight of the antenna would be supported by this damaged area which would be undergoing load distribution and fatigue in a damaged burning zone. Once again, you compare undamaged theoretical conditions to a radically different scenario as it existed. It's the equivalent of smoke and mirrors vs what is being actually argued.

Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.

No, because their load capacity had been exceeded by the falling section above them when viewed in relation to the complex dynamic that occurred during that fall - including extreme lateral forces from the falling floor pads. You continue to talk in 2 dimensions while the event we are talking about occurred in 3. That 'more' was pneumatic blasting. Meanwhile you have failed to account for the related particulars you would necessarily see if that demolition occurred, like detonation flashes, dust jets at the upper floors, and chemical residue from explosives, as if that could just be ignored.

Here's where Tony refers to the street level version in order to get around what he can't answer. It's very plainly obvious that if the sound of demolition charges were heard on Ashley Banfield's video then they should have been heard on the videos of the North Tower collapse. Especially since Tony's dust jets are much more visible than anything seen in Building 7 and the media crew was much closer to the North Tower than Ashley was to Building 7. Yet, no such audio track of synchronized demolition explosions exists. It is painfully obvious Tony doesn't have any explanation for that so he resorts to the "everybody knows" that many firemen heard and saw it. This is an attempt to defy reality since we are watching the video of the collpase and we don't hear any demolition explosions nor see any detonation flashes. What Tony is telling us is forget what you are seeing right in front of you - those guys heard and saw it! Ya. For anyone who knows what they are looking at those dust jets are clearly pneumatic in origin.

This isn't honest because even Chandler's home-made, Fetzer-like video shows the explosions witnessed by those firefighters as being isolated and separate from the collapse event we are talking about.