Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

Jeffrey's notion that the floors in the towers would break loose from the columns enough to instigate the collapse is akin to him trusting that the moon is made of green cheese. He has thought about this and some people have told him it was what happened, so it must be. However, he will verify it when he gets there.

The inanity is high with some of these people.

It's not MY notion... it's what in fact happened and most who have studied the confirm this to be the case... and the evidence of the steel, the destroyed beam seats and crushed concrete slabs and intact steel columns demonstrates this.

Sorry Tony... you need to open you eyes and see what happened. People have shown you... but you are in denial.

[Tony Szamboti]

Let's see if Jeffrey's notions of the floors collapsing first and instigating the collapse of the North Tower can hold up to scrutiny when combined with observation and how things actually work.

1. In order for the floors to instigate the collapse they would have needed to collapse at least three floors before leaving the columns unsupported enough for buckling of the columns to even be possible.

2. If the three floors had collapsed before the columns buckled we would have seen huge amounts of smoke and dust coming out of the windows before the roofline fell. We don't and three stories if 36 feet of height so this would not have been something easy to miss. So the floors did not instigate the collapse.

So Jeffrey's floors first theory does not hold up to scrutiny and it is no different than saying the moon is made of green cheese.

What actually happened is the core went down first and pulled the perimeter columns inward causing them to buckle and fail and smoke and dust came out of one story 9the 98th) across the building as the roofline started going down.

[Lauren Johnson]

The firemen had reached the fires in the South Tower a few minutes before it collapsed and radioed that they were there and that the fires were very manageable. Had they put them out the impact damage and fire ruse can't work. You might blow that off as a conspiracy theory, but if you believe there was a conspiracy concerning certain aspects of 911 then you can't just dismiss it.

The firemen who made this report could not possible have examined or seen 47 core columns on perhaps 6 separate floors... they couldn't even get close to them where there were fires. Are you denying that there was huge amounts of smoke CONTINUOUSLY POURING from the south tower frokm the instant of the plane strike until it collapsed?

Are you tell me that this one fireman inside the tower saw everything going on? Are you effin crazy? You are cherry picking and quote mining and being intellectually dishonest. Shame on you for trying to pull a fast one and using this poor soul who probably was killed and can't explain himself. That is.... disgusting Tony. Have you no shame?

Jeffrey, you have just taken things to the next level. You have now told us that these firefighters do not know their jobs. They were actively fighting fires that they expected to put out rather quickly. They on the other hand did not say something like, These fires are way too hot. We have got to let them burn down for a while. They were up at the impact level and the were planning to put the fires out.

But considering your position, you would naturally have to do whatever it takes to denigrate their competence.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Let's see if Jeffrey's notions of the floors collapsing first and instigating the collapse of the North Tower can hold up to scrutiny when combined with observation and how things actually work.

1. In order for the floors to instigate the collapse they would have needed to collapse at least three floors before leaving the columns unsupported enough for buckling of the columns to even be possible.

2. If the three floors had collapsed before the columns buckled we would have seen huge amounts of smoke and dust coming out of the windows before the roofline fell. We don't and three stories if 36 feet of height so this would not have been something easy to miss. So the floors did not instigate the collapse.

So Jeffrey's floors first theory does not hold up to scrutiny and it is no different than saying the moon is made of green cheese.

What actually happened is the core went down first and pulled the perimeter columns inward causing them to buckle and fail and smoke and dust came out of one story 9the 98th) across the building as the roofline started going down.

Don't misrepresent my position. Let's try again:

Planes did substantial mechanical damage to the core and the facade. Loads were redistributed driving down FOS in the aggregate and likely pushing SOME columns periously close to failure. There were damaged or dented columns as well clearly not able to perform at capacity

Fire proofing was blasted off many columns by the plane impact and debris flying the the structure... a jumbo jet would be very disruptive to the interiors including the fire protection. It also severed and shorted electrical risers causing electrical explosions and fires on 108 and in the sub basement where sub stations and switch gear was located.

The heat eroded the strength of the frame. Several large section of floors were destroyed by the plane and sections becan to collapse. The supports for the slabs were rather few steel angle seats... debris shows many bent over and riped from the belt girder and the facade panels. Perimeter core columns lost bracing and unbraced length increased weakened those still in place.

Fires advanced through several floors in the core which was tenant space as the shafts mostly ended on flr 78 sky lobby. These floors supported the spread of the fires and pooled fuel that entered with the plane... not all fuel ignited outside... most likely burned inside the tower and flowed in some cases down the vertical riser shafts adjacent to the core columns.

Bracing splices began to fail from the heat weakening... columns continued to weaken from multiple assaults. Weaker column splice joints were 4' above the floor slabs and subject to intense heat from the flames. Steel warped and twists and columns moved out of alignment.

The center core columns were the weakest one and now were seeing the displace loads from the destroyed stronger columns. The failed and this led to the 360 ton antenna to plunge down into the core area of the 3 top floors. At this point the entire interior including the core was coming apart... the facade was incapable of carrying the floor loads without the core side support fully functioning... it began to buckle and as the FOS dropped to one and all reserve strength was gone... the 30,000 tons plunged down through the building setting off the ROOSD... the facade without lateral support broke apart and came down in sheets of varying sides. The collapse or the top inside the tower caused a huge flashover shooting smoke and flames and debris outward and ROOSD began.

It was something similar to what is depicted in the attached cartoon.

perhaps

[Jeffrey Orling]

The firemen who made this report could not possible have examined or seen 47 core columns on perhaps 6 separate floors... they couldn't even get close to them where there were fires. Are you denying that there was huge amounts of smoke CONTINUOUSLY POURING from the south tower frokm the instant of the plane strike until it collapsed?

Of course they were doing their jobs as best they could. I would not denigrate them or their bravery. I am saying that they could not possibly have seen ALL the fires going on. No one could pass up through the plane strike zone. I think they were reporting what they saw... but they couldn't and didn't see the full extent of the fires. PERIOD.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Let's see if Jeffrey's notions of the floors collapsing first and instigating the collapse of the North Tower can hold up to scrutiny when combined with observation and how things actually work.

1. In order for the floors to instigate the collapse they would have needed to collapse at least three floors before leaving the columns unsupported enough for buckling of the columns to even be possible.

2. If the three floors had collapsed before the columns buckled we would have seen huge amounts of smoke and dust coming out of the windows before the roofline fell. We don't and three stories if 36 feet of height so this would not have been something easy to miss. So the floors did not instigate the collapse.

So Jeffrey's floors first theory does not hold up to scrutiny and it is no different than saying the moon is made of green cheese.

What actually happened is the core went down first and pulled the perimeter columns inward causing them to buckle and fail and smoke and dust came out of one story 9the 98th) across the building as the roofline started going down.

No Tony... that's not what the visuals tell us. Have you looked and read the linked critique of your conception?

[Lauren Johnson]

The firemen who made this report could not possible have examined or seen 47 core columns on perhaps 6 separate floors... they couldn't even get close to them where there were fires. Are you denying that there was huge amounts of smoke CONTINUOUSLY POURING from the south tower frokm the instant of the plane strike until it collapsed?

Of course they were doing their jobs as best they could. I would not denigrate them or their bravery. I am saying that they could not possibly have seen ALL the fires going on. No one could pass up through the plane strike zone. I think they were reporting what they saw... but they couldn't and didn't see the full extent of the fires. PERIOD.

This is a modified limited hangout. What you are going, intentionally IMO, is to shift the focus from how hot the fires were, to they didn't know everything. Chief Palmer needed to know enough to call up more men and equipment to knock down a couple of fires to not be calling them to their deaths.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Lauren,

Please stop with your nonsense tag lines like LIMITED HANGOUT. It's beneath you and it's insultinbg to me.

I am writing / speaking honestly exactly as I see it and not representing any point of view other than my own. You can disagree but at least acknowledge that I am not being disengenuos or carrying water for some group...not to mention insulting. I am just as angry at these fascists as you.


A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details.
It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.
A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.
Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admittingsometimes even volunteeringsome of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."[SUP][1][/SUP]

[Lauren Johnson]

Moving over to your collapse cartoon: I have studied it and do not understand it.

First, what is axial strength?

Second, I see that after the airplane impact, their are two load arrows, one pointing down and one pointing up. Obviously you don't mean that when the up arrow is bigger than the down arrow, the core starts to push out the top of the building. Or do you? And then the load appears to transfer out the hat truss and down the perimeter columns until collapse. It appears that as the load transferred symmetrically by the perimeter columns becomes so great it causes the weakened core columns to compress like a piston pulling down the entire building from floors 94 and up uniformly down onto the building below. That's the way I read your cartoon.

[Jeffrey Orling]

First thanks for attempting to make sense of my cartoon. It's a cartoon and obviously not a depiction of the actual dynamics but suggests/shows how the gavity forces work as the structure degrades.

axial strength refers to the ability of a column to resist or support loads applied directly above (compression)

A column's axial strength is limited by its slenderness ration.. stout columns are stronger then slender ones. Too slender will buckle from their own weight.. meaning that as the unbraced length increases... a given column section weakens ie supports less load and thus is more subject to buckling (failure)

The arrows are meant to indicate the direction of the loads...

When a column is removed if a multistory structure the column above it has no support and can't couple the forces (loads) to the foundation and the earth. These loads are then redistributed to columns that are coupled. The load has not changed... it has to and does find other paths.

you weigh 100 pounds and when standing each food supports 50 pounds. If you stand on a scale with both feet it shows 100. If you lift one foot it STILL shows 100 because all the 100 pounds are resisted by one leg.

Now if you lift the heaviest thing you can... say your dog which weighs 50#... each leg is at its limit of 75 pounds. On the scale it shows 150.

If you try to stand on one leg... you collapse... your leg would *buckle* at the knee and you'd call down and you would likely fall in the direction of the missing or lifted leg.

The twin towers had many columns and they shared the load carrying and when the columns were destroyed and weakened the load sharing was shifted all about. This caused uneven stresses and even warping, torquing and distortion and eventually collapse when the capacity was eroded below loads imposed. The failure rapidly propagates one this happens... the structure does not fall at once... but the propagation can be very quick when as more and more load is carried by fewer and fewer columns. This also introduces some eccentricity and tilt of the falling top... as it's almost impossible to have a completely symmetrical force/load redistribution.

We know the core collapsed first because we see the antenna begin to sink into the top... and this was followed by the release but inside the entire core up there and the floors were already probably dropping. The facade hung together because of the nature of the structure... structures without internal stress do not fall apart or even distort... they sort of float (as in free fall) When they meet resistance or forces they yield to them in some manner.

The disconnected mass of the top floors is what drives down through the tower destroying it.