Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

Albert, do you post on the JREF Forum?

[Phil Dragoo]

Pursuant to this end I have transcribed a dozen installments of the analysis of Tony Szamboli above to the Word Document attachment herein.

Deep Politics Forum has had ample opportunity for other viewpoints. The point of diminishing returns in this regard, that is, the noise over signal equation, obscures a continuity of the thought process.

In my view, the official commission operated under the identical covert mandate of the so-called Warren Commission, that is, at all cost, conceal the implementation.

The warnings of John O'Neill and Colleen Rowley and Able Danger et al were clear--too clear; had to be stilled, stifled, muffled, muddled.

Read, the Chicago plot, "Marty, you worry too much about me. The Secret Service told me they've taken care of everything."

In no way is the official "steel weakened by fire" device operative.

As patiently, and persistently explained by Mr. Szamboli, the initiation required explosives to remove several stories, in the North Tower, as well as the South, and Tower Number Seven.

How many shots were heard in Dealey Plaza? Were suppressors used? Were volleys fired?

Arguments to the absence of sound are not convincing as to the absence of explosives. Indeed multiple witnesses reported the sound of explosives, and the video record is replete with evidence--not to mention the inference--

In the discovery of a moon of a planet or a planet of a sun or a secondary star, the gravitional calculation can be made from the observation of movement.

In the case of the towers, the evidence of removal of floors is apparent and inferred.

The official animation of sagging floor trusses is a gross exaggeration of the testing: forty inches in theory, two to six in practice, thus it is demonstrated that part of the explanation is false.

We have seen the explanatory CIA animation of TWA 800, the various Dale Myers "proofs" of the single or magic bullet.

These and the fire-weakened steel/pile-driver explanation are false, do not prove the a priori conclusion.

The deep political depiction of a casus belli a la Northwoods meets the objective dispositive of the ordained mechanism of collapse.

Yesbut and Butwait still cannot hear Tony while the shower is running; the chorus of la la la I can't hear you will continue for another forty-five pages.

Hence I have provided a useful field manual linked below.

[Jim Hackett II]

Physics is reality and hyperbole is NOT.

Aside from insults and slanders of (with others), NYFD, First Responders and any that dare oppose the Dilbert and Whoreling Show, an agenda is clear for the show.
Stiil I knew the Show was no more than agenda of disruption.

I knew thermite accelerants to be known facts in evidence since the time of the US Governments release of the WC2 - the Official Fable of 2004 and very shortly there after.
Best Seller of it's day like the 1964 release of WC1, but nothing more than obfuscation, er, Officially Authorized Obfuscation in the Color of Authority.

None of the obfuscating BS changed my mind about reality.
All of the junk only exposed the Show of BS trying to stand in for truth,
just like Warren's BS and
HSCA's Blakey's WC Ver. 2.0 BS and
......BS in general.

BS is not worth the hassle except to expose.
===========================================

PS. Thanks Phil for this compilation of Tony's work.

[Albert Doyle]

I am hardly mixing anything. The problems those advocating natural collapse scenarios for the North Tower have is that they cannot explain

- the rapid horizontal propagation
- the rapid acceleration through the first story
- why the columns were never involved in resisting the collapse.

Good. You're backpedaling into rhetoric instead of answering the direct forensic points. You also said the booms were heard by people inside the buildings, forgetting that those people were killed in the collapse. Don't worry Tony, you can enter virtually anything without explanation and not answer the qualifying necessary particulars and you'll still be backed by the unquestioning chanters. Anyone can read this thread to see the things you yourself can't explain. Trust me, the reason Chandler never showed the public the video of the dust bursts cascading down the South Tower is because it's obvious that they are from pneumatic air blasts caused by floor collapse.

The acceleration through the first storey was not so rapid as I already showed. Tony, you have an annoying habit of being shown a technical point, ignoring it, and then returning to your overly-general rhetorical points by just repeating them again. As I pointed-out you can see a delay between the South Tower's top section's impact and the second type of dust burst that occurs in direct relationship to that impact. There's your deceleration. What happened there was a slight 'jolt' where the top section's mass transitioned to natural ROOSD. Watch the video as I advised before. You can see the first floor of dust burst waterfall occurs in direct synchronization with that impact and slight delay. Chandler intoned that science is based on observation. Well, there's your observation. You refused to answer it - which is all anyone needs to know.

I have said there would have been charges on the corners of the perimeters and at certain places lower in the structure, in addition to the first ten stories, to ensure continued and complete collapse.

Safely where no one could ever refute them. Meanwhile when we challenged you on the alleged corner charges Chandler claimed in the North Tower you couldn't answer. He's claiming the corners were CD'ed. When I pointed-out those corners showed none of the necessary forensic signs of either explosives or thermite burning you couldn't answer. Great credibility there.

You have no argument to get the collapse started to begin with, you can't explain the lack of column involvement in resisting the collapse from the start, and your "we don't hear enough explosive noise" is quite flawed as I have shown.

You're ruminating. Sure, you've shown my sound pattern claims to be quite flawed. You mean like when you referred to the people in the building who heard the booms, forgetting the building then fell and killed them, meaning they couldn't be witnesses. I like the way you admitted that gaffe (as you have shown). You never did answer my proof that at least one witness heard the booms from outside the building. In fact, as I've shown, most of those witnesses would have had to have heard them from outside otherwise they wouldn't have survived to tell about them. So, seeing the correct interpretation you then failed to give any answer and returned by saying you've shown my argument to be "quite flawed". OK. And you said arguing with me was like arguing with a kid.

You're not being honest Mr Szamboti. If you were you would admit the booms were obviously loudly heard by people outside the building as you claimed in your video, therefore the complete lack of any booms on the numerous microphones around the building is not good for your claims. People can see you can't reconcile your own claim of loud booms with your claim of them being muffled in the roar. I'm enjoying your showing the flaws in my claims.



Watch the South Tower video and you'll see the eye doesn't lie and there's a slight delay between the impact of the top section and the first dust burst of the waterfall cascade of dust and materials. Seen at 4:38 - 5:13 - and 6:29 -



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA



.

[Albert Doyle]

Tony, you've got a serious forensic problem because the clips I cite above show a first floor dust burst that occurs over a full second after the drop of the South Tower's top section. This irrefutably scientifically proves beyond a doubt that those bursts can't be from explosives because their timing is way too late to be from explosives. There irrefutably can't be any core-destroying explosives involved in that first storey burst because it obviously happens over a full second after the top section drops. This disproves your "first ten stories of assist claim" as far as Chandler's claimed explosives. So therefore they are from ROOSD (as was obvious).

You've got a serious problem because those dust blasts are no different than those shown to us by Chandler on the North Tower. Blasts that Chandler openly claims are caused by explosives charges designed to destroy the Tower. How does this proof of those dust bursts not being explosives reflect on Chandler's claims involving the North Tower? And do any of you ever wonder why Chandler chose not to show you this extreme example of dust jets on the South Tower? Is it because he knew they disproved explosives from the delay in timing?

You have a real problem because this means your own witnesses' "Boom, boom, boom, boom, booms" can't be from CD explosives. At the very least you have presented easily-disproven, bogus claims to the public.


Try following the arguments and answering them directly next time Tony...

[Keith Millea]

Albert, do you post on the JREF Forum?

Since Albert continually whines about other people not answering his questions.And,since Albert Never answers questions posed to him.I'd like to bump this open question from Tony.

And It's such an easy one Albert...

Please try answering this directly.Thanks

[Tony Szamboti]

I am hardly mixing anything. The problems those advocating natural collapse scenarios for the North Tower have is that they cannot explain

- the rapid horizontal propagation
- the rapid acceleration through the first story
- why the columns were never involved in resisting the collapse.

Good. You're backpedaling into rhetoric instead of answering the direct forensic points. You also said the booms were heard by people inside the buildings, forgetting that those people were killed in the collapse. Don't worry Tony, you can enter virtually anything without explanation and not answer the qualifying necessary particulars and you'll still be backed by the unquestioning chanters. Anyone can read this thread to see the things you yourself can't explain. Trust me, the reason Chandler never showed the public the video of the dust bursts cascading down the South Tower is because it's obvious that they are from pneumatic air blasts caused by floor collapse.

The acceleration through the first storey was not so rapid as I already showed. Tony, you have an annoying habit of being shown a technical point, ignoring it, and then returning to your overly-general rhetorical points by just repeating them again. As I pointed-out you can see a delay between the South Tower's top section's impact and the second type of dust burst that occurs in direct relationship to that impact. There's your deceleration. What happened there was a slight 'jolt' where the top section's mass transitioned to natural ROOSD. Watch the video as I advised before. You can see the first floor of dust burst waterfall occurs in direct synchronization with that impact and slight delay. Chandler intoned that science is based on observation. Well, there's your observation. You refused to answer it - which is all anyone needs to know.

I have said there would have been charges on the corners of the perimeters and at certain places lower in the structure, in addition to the first ten stories, to ensure continued and complete collapse.

Safely where no one could ever refute them. Meanwhile when we challenged you on the alleged corner charges Chandler claimed in the North Tower you couldn't answer. He's claiming the corners were CD'ed. When I pointed-out those corners showed none of the necessary forensic signs of either explosives or thermite burning you couldn't answer. Great credibility there.

You have no argument to get the collapse started to begin with, you can't explain the lack of column involvement in resisting the collapse from the start, and your "we don't hear enough explosive noise" is quite flawed as I have shown.

You're ruminating. Sure, you've shown my sound pattern claims to be quite flawed. You mean like when you referred to the people in the building who heard the booms, forgetting the building then fell and killed them, meaning they couldn't be witnesses. I like the way you admitted that gaffe (as you have shown). You never did answer my proof that at least one witness heard the booms from outside the building. In fact, as I've shown, most of those witnesses would have had to have heard them from outside otherwise they wouldn't have survived to tell about them. So, seeing the correct interpretation you then failed to give any answer and returned by saying you've shown my argument to be "quite flawed". OK. And you said arguing with me was like arguing with a kid.

You're not being honest Mr Szamboti. If you were you would admit the booms were obviously loudly heard by people outside the building as you claimed in your video, therefore the complete lack of any booms on the numerous microphones around the building is not good for your claims. People can see you can't reconcile your own claim of loud booms with your claim of them being muffled in the roar. I'm enjoying your showing the flaws in my claims.



Watch the South Tower video and you'll see the eye doesn't lie and there's a slight delay between the impact of the top section and the first dust burst of the waterfall cascade of dust and materials. Seen at 4:38 - 5:13 - and 6:29 -



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA



.

What an incredible post you have here. The two firefighters that are first in the video were in the building when they heard explosions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNLa93Q_rvM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbFL5OzQn3o. They weren't all killed. Some people on the outside also heard things, but those inside are the ones that heard them prominently and made that clear.

Additionally, the vertical acceleration through the first story in the North Tower was 5.1 m/s^2. That is far too fast for fire weakened columns. The horizontal propagation was also extraordinarily fast, as it went from the southwest corner to the north east ( a distance of about 293 feet) in less than a second. That horizontal acceleration would have been about 300 feet/s^2 or 91 m/s^2.

[Albert Doyle]

Tony:


You haven't answered for the persons who heard the booms outside the building. Nor have you shown why the people outside the building heard them less prominently than those who were inside? They all seem to be describing clearly-heard booms. You're not answering the whole point in its clearly-stated context. So answer my point in relation to the man you admit was outside the tower. He said he clearly heard booms. So were they muffled by the roar or were they audible? Which is it? You're not being honest. You're avoiding the point. There are many other persons in your video who said they heard the booms. You answered by saying there were two firefighters who heard them from inside - but that wasn't the question. The question was how did the blasts heard from outside the building escape Burkett's microphone at the frequency level? If those blasts were loud enough to be heard from outside the building (as you admit) then their blast crack signatures should have been picked-up by Burkett's microphone just like Ashley Banfield's. Banfield said she was 5-10 blocks away, yet her mic allegedly picked-up these explosives signatures. So since you now admit some witnesses heard them from outside the building where then is their signature on Burkett's mic that was literally right under the Tower? Please answer this directly and honestly.


I made a very direct point about there being a provable delay in the dust bursts of at least one second. This proves that the dust bursts could not have been caused by explosives as Chandler contended. Please answer this directly. (Or are you indirectly admitting Chandler showed false information in his video?)

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony:


You haven't answered for the persons who heard the booms outside the building. Nor have you shown why the people outside the building heard them less prominently than those who were inside? They all seem to be describing clearly-heard booms. You're not answering the whole point in its clearly-stated context. So answer my point in relation to the man you admit was outside the tower. He said he clearly heard booms. So were they muffled by the roar or were they audible? Which is it? You're not being honest. You're avoiding the point. There are many other persons in your video who said they heard the booms. You answered by saying there were two firefighters who heard them from inside - but that wasn't the question. The question was how did the blasts heard from outside the building escape Burkett's microphone at the frequency level? If those blasts were loud enough to be heard from outside the building (as you admit) then their blast crack signatures should have been picked-up by Burkett's microphone just like Ashley Banfield's. Banfield said she was 5-10 blocks away, yet her mic allegedly picked-up these explosives signatures. So since you now admit some witnesses heard them from outside the building where then is their signature on Burkett's mic that was literally right under the Tower? Please answer this directly and honestly.


I made a very direct point about there being a provable delay in the dust bursts of at least one second. This proves that the dust bursts could not have been caused by explosives as Chandler contended. Please answer this directly. (Or are you indirectly admitting Chandler showed false information in his video?)

The very first witnesses in the video (the two firefighters) show your attempted argument to be inconsequential. There were explosions heard by those inside the building and the interior of the building started falling apart causing them to flee for their lives.

So we clearly have evidence of explosions causing damage to the building.

Then when the collapse up top starts, and the measurements and calculations show the columns could not have been involved, you want to say it was natural because we can't hear enough booms. Get real.

[Albert Doyle]

Also your two dusty firefighters who were in the lobby don't describe the progressive booms the others do. They say "three explosions". You would think persons who were near the building translation of explosives down the framework would have heard the progressive charges Chandler claims?


Now you have a problem because the man you admit was outside the building describes "firecrackers" going "crack, crack, crack, crack, crack". There's you blast crack signature and no booms muffled by the roar.


Ask an expert if you can hide such clearly-expressed "cracks" from audio equipment.