+- 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 - Lauren Johnson - 13-08-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:He will have his chance to clear things up now. Let's just wait for him to answer.Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony said that if that happened, it would require the instantaneous disappearance of five floors to allow enough momentum to begin the cascading collapse.
I already explained Tony did not say that. If you read what he said, he said it would take the specific weight of 5 floors of the North Tower to break the threshold of static resistance below in the main structure. He even gave that specific weight.
When I explained that 12 floors fell, meaning a weight well above what he described was involved, Tony never gave a straight answer.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 13-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:He will have his chance to clear things up now. Let's just wait for him to answer.
It's right there in his previous post. He already had a chance to answer that the last time you asked it and chose not to. Ever wonder why?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Lauren Johnson - 13-08-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:He will have his chance to clear things up now. Let's just wait for him to answer.
It's right there in his previous post. He already had a chance to answer that the last time you asked it and chose not to. Ever wonder why?
Suddenly, out of nowhere, this new version of Albert Doyle appears. Who is this guy?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 13-08-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote: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.
Jan,
Let's invite Tony to explain why the robust explosives blasts he and Chandler claim are seen emerging from the sides of the collapsing North Tower weren't caught on audio track? Certainly such obvious and pronounced blasts would register on the audio recording equipment that was right nearby under the Tower? Surely Tony can offer a specific example of the rebuttals you cite with this one example...
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 13-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Suddenly, out of nowhere, this new version of Albert Doyle appears. Who is this guy?
Quote:Jeffrey thinks his ROOSD can begin right away but it can't as the floors could take 29 million lbs. of force, which is a static load of about five additional full floors with their live load. The dynamic load of one floor assembly would be nowhere near 5g's so ROOSD needs to wait until a sufficient number of floors have broken loose and gained momentum.
Can we just answer the points please?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Lauren Johnson - 13-08-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:Suddenly, out of nowhere, this new version of Albert Doyle appears. Who is this guy?
Quote:Jeffrey thinks his ROOSD can begin right away but it can't as the floors could take 29 million lbs. of force, which is a static load of about five additional full floors with their live load. The dynamic load of one floor assembly would be nowhere near 5g's so ROOSD needs to wait until a sufficient number of floors have broken loose and gained momentum.
Can we just answer the points please?
Interesting, Jeffrey is away from his computer and magically "Albert Doyle" jumps in and continues with the program. I am only talking with Jeffrey because he actually has credentials.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 13-08-2013
Thank You Lauren.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 13-08-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony said that if that happened, it would require the instantaneous disappearance of five floors to allow enough momentum to begin the cascading collapse.
I already explained Tony did not say that. If you read what he said, he said it would take the specific weight of 5 floors of the North Tower to break the threshold of static resistance below in the main structure. He even gave that specific weight.
When I explained that 12 floors fell, meaning a weight well above what he described was involved, Tony never gave a straight answer.
I said to cause a self-propagating collapse of the floors (meaning the floor slabs outside of the core as implied by ROOSD) would require at least five floors to fall on one floor before it could be self-sustaining. That can't happen in the beginning of the collapse and you can't dump the entire 12 story upper section on the floor slab as there are columns in the way in a natural collapse. Getting those five floor slabs would require the collapse of at least five stories of columns. Now there is a problem as the columns should have provided significant resistance. They did not and it appears they weren't even involved in resisting the collapse. Why not?
Of course, some like to say the columns would have missed each other. However, the upper section would not just shift over without an enormous lateral load on it. There is no lateral load on it as gravity is a vertical load, and the small tilt provides very little lateral load component.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 13-08-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:The fuel capacity of a Boeing 767 is 24,000 gallons. At 6.8lbs per gallon that would be around 81 tons of fuel hitting the tower at hundreds of miles per hour. The fuel load was probably less than that because they didn't need to fill the tanks to go to LA.
We know each aircraft that hit the towers had 10,000 gallons on them when they left Boston for their trips to the West Coast. The 767-200ER aircraft had a 7,700 mile range and would have only been fueled to their full 24,000 gallon capacity for that range.
It is likely that about half of the fuel or about 5,000 gallons made it into the towers with the other half going up in the exterior fireballs. Now if one takes 5,000 gallons and spreads it over one of the acre size floors of a twin tower they will have a 3/16" thickness. Over two floors 3/32" thickness and over three floors 3/64" thickness. NIST believes the fuel burned up quickly due to being aerosolized and a thin film. I agree with that contention.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 13-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:This disagrees with the NIST analysis I take it--although the details escape me? And has this thesis been discussed in the requisite journals? I gotta say that anon posters over at randi don't cut it when it gets down to it. OK, now I will stare at the diagram some more.
Tony,
I think the content is important not the name of the poster. I think you could not find fault with the work of femr2 and achimspok... and perhaps a few others. But I agree some of the jref guys are pretty irrational and prehaps not a few but many. I know some of the anonymous posters by name so... heck these are real people. I read a ballet forum and there are mostly nicks used there and the comments are rather briliant and made by people who clearly know what they are talking about. Anon is not reason to dismiss the content.
But the diagram is a 2d dipiction of a 4D event so it clearly misses many things.