Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

I think what you should say is that some don't accept that any part of the collapse was natural. However, it is likely that while much of the destruction, after the initiation and first several floors, could have been due to gravity, the corners of the perimeters were very likely separated with some form of charges. You have not accepted this in the past but had no real argument against it and there is clear evidence of it with focused ejections running down the corner in close proximity. The corners would need to be artificially separated as they were stiff and could easily have slowed or stalled a collapse.

The reality may be that the collapse needed less help after it had progressed past the first several floors which were surely instigated artificially, since it is provable that there was no column involvement in resisting it.

The corners were no stiffer ie... the connections than were the sides.. all were the same.

I have not accepted that there was any destruction of the corners.. which would have had to occur every two stories. No evidence of that whatsoever.

The corners were no different and material was pushed out the window/openings... weaker than the columns... just like the side.

You are making stuff up and that won't fly.

You don't know what you are talking about if you don't think the corners were stiffer than the centers of the exterior walls. Don't you understand moment of inertia and what a gusset does?

[Phil Dragoo]

The official explanation does not explain; it conceals.

Of note is the observation of Tony Szamboti at 479

If I had to bet I would say it is a job. Only somebody in that situation would keep coming back saying the same things, after what they were saying had been shown to be extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, numerous times.

It is the same method of propaganda used to keep the JFK assassination under wraps by its perpetrators. Put enough theory twisters (obfuscators) out there to muddy things and make it real complex to keep newcomers away and those who have seen the acts for what they actually were from making any progress alerting their fellow citizens. From what I see the theory twister usually starts out paying their dues to gain acceptance by initially making it look like they are sympathetic with the view of those who say the investigations of the crimes were frauds and that the real perpetrators were allowed to get away with it. They then proceed to gradually torture everything anyone says that makes any sense towards showing the crimes for what they actually were. If successful the theory twister causes enough doubt to bring on paralysis and the mirage of divided opinion, giving politicians an out because they can then say there is no consensus and we will never know.

With a recent aside from Yesbut and Butwait


If I had something better to do I wouldn't natter on the nets...

We haven't had nattering since Nixon's Agnew lashed out at nabobs

The towers did not collapse from heat-weakened steel, but from charges placed in advance

Gee, is this let it happen, make it happen, or play with your food

The result was to execute the pre-existing Iraq invasion plan and access the world's heroin supply

The lever was the alleged terror attack

The fulcrum was the horrible, intentional sacrifice of three thousand initially, and countless to follow, and follow

Peter has many valid points; hardly rubbish

A commission which would not look for explosives--after an earlier one which would not look beyond the a priori lone gunman

And a war after that one, too

Natter, no, not here

[Tony Szamboti]

The only person I've observed with any amount of inquisitiveness is Lauren...

Jeffrey, my inquisitiveness comes from my 4 semesters of college calculus, 4 semesters of college physics, and I had started into the upper division of chemistry when I decided to switch majors to philosophy. Non of that is enough to even pretend to think like a structural engineer. But as I read your explanations, looked at your diagrams and sketches and read Tony's work side-by-side, I have become convinced that your work is deeply flawed. CD is still the best explanation.

deeply flawed?

What are the flaws in my diagrams? I'd like to correct them...

You do realize that Tony's papers have been roundly criticized... or in the common parlance debunked by all sorts of physicists and engineers... I posted links... Did you find the critiques deeply flawed too? What were their flaws?

I am sure they would like to correct their mistakes as well.

We have no idea if the people on the JREF and 911 Forums are actually physicists and engineers, like you want to say, as they are all anonymous. That means you can't know either. Regardless of what they are it is a joke that you would say they debunked my work and of course you provide no basis for that, just links to long winded nonsensical threads. No surprise there.

It is talk like this that truly exposes your unjustified bias Jeffrey (meaning you have an agenda) and when you behave like that, and try to fool people, you become deserving of ridicule. You have been told what the problems with your diagrams and sketches are and you haven't changed anything, so it is hard to take you seriously when you say you would like to correct them.

[Magda Hassan]

deeply flawed?

What are the flaws in my diagrams? I'd like to correct them...

You do realize that Tony's papers have been roundly criticized... or in the common parlance debunked by all sorts of physicists and engineers... I posted links... Did you find the critiques deeply flawed too? What were their flaws?

I am sure they would like to correct their mistakes as well.

We have no idea if the people on the JREF and 911 Forums actually are physicists and engineers like you want to say, as they are all anonymous. That means you can't know either. Regardless of what they are it is a joke that you would say they debunked my work and of course you provide no basis for that, just links to long winded nonsensical threads. No surprise there.

It is talk like this that truly exposes your bias Jeffrey and when you behave like that you become deserving of ridicule.

I have to agree about the JREF forums and much of the 911 forums. Very dodgy. So moving from the forums what about the academic journals?

[Tony Szamboti]

deeply flawed?

What are the flaws in my diagrams? I'd like to correct them...

You do realize that Tony's papers have been roundly criticized... or in the common parlance debunked by all sorts of physicists and engineers... I posted links... Did you find the critiques deeply flawed too? What were their flaws?

I am sure they would like to correct their mistakes as well.

We have no idea if the people on the JREF and 911 Forums actually are physicists and engineers like you want to say, as they are all anonymous. That means you can't know either. Regardless of what they are it is a joke that you would say they debunked my work and of course you provide no basis for that, just links to long winded nonsensical threads. No surprise there.

It is talk like this that truly exposes your bias Jeffrey and when you behave like that you become deserving of ridicule.

I have to agree about the JREF forums and much of the 911 forums. Very dodgy. So moving from the forums what about the academic journals?

Not one of the people Jeffrey seems to regard so highly has published anything anywhere except as an anonymous person on the Internet. Dodgy is an appropriate word for them and I regret to say for our friend Jeffrey also.

[Lauren Johnson]

Somebody was being nice by just saying your diagrams and sketches were deeply flawed, as it is becoming apparent that they are really an attempt at a con job.

Actually, I said or meant to say his entire argument is deeply flawed after I had spent hours reading his stuff and looking at his diagrams. Not having credentials in the area I would not be qualified to say his diagrams en toto are deeply flawed.

However, I did zero in on his Top Down Cartoon because that one seemed to be central in explaining his ideas around a natural collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Recall I proposed a thought experiment in which the core columns were instantly removed from one floor of the building. I wanted to tease out what if anything would cause a cascading collapse. Your answers were central. You said that a such a collapse could happen if core columns from 5 floors would indeed cause such a collapse, but not just one. Tony's point is that something has to explain the downward measured acceleration of 5.1 m/sec^2. Slowly weakening columns from exposure to low heat fires just can't explain it. I catastrophic, cascading collapse without extra help can't happen.

That's the read of a non-engineer interpreting two conflicting POV from two different professionals. If fact, Jeffrey's argument just seems bizarre -- and those are stronger words than deeply flawed. I have written earlier that the building 7 collapse is the strongest evidence for CD and therefore CD in WTC 1 & 2. Now even without the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, there is still a strong argument for CD in WTC 1 & 2.

[Lauren Johnson]

Tony, you seem to have forgotten our own Albert Doyle. This was his first contribution before he realized you were too cowardly to face the onslought of his powerful intellect.

Is it possible the inner core/outer frame structure caused a lateral force that was exacerbated by the floor platforms falling into the void caused by this lateral shift and ensuing removal of the floor platform supports that caused an unexpected massive kinetic force that drove the collapse of the inner core therefore defeating the expected resistance models you cite? In other words the resistance wasn't there because the outer frame and inner core both shifted away from the floor supports causing that mass to plunge unobstructed therefore causing the force it would have taken to overcome the column energy absorption you cite? When those inner core columns were compromised by that lateral force they would no longer possess the vertical resistance you cite. This failure would be almost instantaneous and not possess the expected deceleration you cite.

And Jeffrey annointed him as one who had really gotten the point.

[Phil Dragoo]

The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers. Tony Szamboti. Feb. 17, 2008. Mechanical Engineer.

(pdf attached)


Phil's note:

I found the concise summary of problems with the official theory of collapse to be presented in a manner leading to a) discovering the actual cause; and b) examining the method and motives of the event.

The paper in its entirety is eleven pages with notes, and is recommended as a complete summation of the official fable versus the known:

Here is a series of excerpts:


It was the revelation of the presence of large quantities of molten metal, in the rubble of all three buildings which collapsed in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, which caused Dr. Jones in 2005 to begin to question whether the present U.S. government explanation, for the collapses, was sufficient. It is provable that the molten metal in the rubble was not aluminum and that diffuse flame fires cannot achieve temperatures sufficient to melt steel. Steel can only be melted in the controlled environment of a blast furnace, with the use of incendiaries, an electric arc welder, or an oxy-acetylene torch. The amount of metal melted with an electric arc welder or an oxy-acetylene torch is small and does not produce large pools of molten metal.



There is very credible witness testimony of seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, in many areas of the towers, both before and during the collapses. This testimony can be found in the Oral Histories of the 503 NYC firefighters and emergency personnel, who were on the scene that day and survived. Their testimony was taken and transcribed in late 2001 and early 2002 by order of the NYC fire commissioner. However, afterward the mayor of NYC repeatedly refused to release these testimonies to the public. They were only released due to a court order from the New York State Court of Appeals in August of 2005, after earlier court challenges had failed to gain their release. Amazingly, in spite of the existence of this testimony, there was no testing done for explosive residue on the steel structural elements during either the NIST or FEMA investigations of the building collapses. An article by Dr. David Ray Griffin discussing and quoting these Oral Histories can be found at


http://www.911truth.org/article.php?stor...8104223192





~~~

The fact that fires have never in history caused a complete vertical collapse of a steel framed high rise structure, let alone any built as robustly as the twin towers, has been amply documented.

~~~

Editor Bill Manning wrote in Fire Engineering magazine in 2002 that: "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the official Investigation' blessed by FEMA... is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure... Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers....".

~~~

It appears the press release and report want to say that the entire interior structure was sagging. It is interesting that neither the NIST press release or
report seem to concern themselves with the fire testing of the floor deck and supporting truss assembly models, done under contract for them by Underwriters Laboratories. Full scale models of the floor deck and supporting truss assemblies were fire tested, under load, for two hours per ASTM E119. These tests did not produce a collapse and the 35 foot long trusses sagged just 3 inches at midspan, not likely enough to buckle the perimeter wall columns. In fact, NIST needed a non-evidence supported floor truss deflection of over 40 inches in their computer model to cause buckling of the perimeter columns. The central core columns great mass gave them a large heat capacity, and their interconnection gave them the ability to transfer heat to other areas of the building. The lack of high temperature evidence on the core columns is a testament to these points. These factors would have certainly made them even less susceptible to weakening than the floor trusses.

~~~

The downward movement of the antenna mast, before the perimeter roofline, certainly makes it appear that the central core failed first and that it's failure is what caused the floor trusses to move downward and pull on the perimeter columns, causing them in turn to bow inwardly, buckle, and fail. The central core needed to have a loss of 67% of its original strength before any collapse initiation could begin to occur, and even then it could not be sudden, due to the strain hardening of the steel which would take place after initial yielding.10 Since the evidence for column damage, due to aircraft impact and fire, cannot account for more than a 20% loss of strength in the central core, it does not appear any collapse initiation, let alone a sudden initiation, can be accounted for without some form of artificial weakening process or controlled demolition being involved. By demolishing the central core, the destruction of the building could also be done with the added advantage of the demolition being mostly hidden from view.

It would seem that any honest and objective look at; the design of the buildings, the true damage potential of the aircraft impacts, the physical evidence of the low steel temperatures, the physics of the collapses, the evidence of pools of molten metal in the rubble, and the emergency personnel testimony, should cause one to conclude that the towers must have been destroyed by a form of controlled demolition. In addition to what has been mentioned so far, there is also evidence of the presence of incendiaries, in the chemical analysis of the dust from an apartment and other locations near the towers, which have been analyzed by Dr. Jones and others.


~~~

The spectacular collapses of the twin towers, which were most probably caused by controlled demolitions, shocked us all, and caused us to demand action against the foreign entities that we were told supported the hijackers. However, the placing of charges, to cause the controlled demolitions, would have required access to the interiors of the buildings, which outsiders were very unlikely to have had in highly secure buildings such as the towers and WTC7. It thus needs to be considered as to whether it is conceivable that the aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses, to allow the collapses to be blamed on outsiders.


If it were insiders who placed and detonated the charges in the buildings, one may wonder who would want people in Afghanistan and Iraq to be blamed if they didn't do it. It seems that a good hard look at the soon to be built U.S. oil company controlled gas and oil pipeline through Afghanistan to the Caspian area, and the privatization of Iraq's oilfields to U.S. oil companies, might be astart at solving that puzzle for oneself. Neither of these situations would have been possible, without the support of the American people, for the use of the U.S. military, to overthrow the previous governments of these countries.


~~~

Phil's footnote:

The above linked and excerpted paper by Tony Szamboti presents a compelling refutation of the official explanation and a powerful argument for controlled demolition as the only means to initiate the collapse.

The author concludes with a cui bono hypothesis which parallels John Newman's argument that only intelligence insidersnot clichéd false sponsorscould have manipulated Oswald's fileeven as Matthias Broeckers argues only the military-intelligence insiders could have controlled the autopsy.

Deep engineering meets deep politics to explain the milestone operations of our time.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, you seem to have forgotten our own Albert Doyle. This was his first contribution before he realized you were too cowardly to face the onslought of his powerful intellect.

Is it possible the inner core/outer frame structure caused a lateral force that was exacerbated by the floor platforms falling into the void caused by this lateral shift and ensuing removal of the floor platform supports that caused an unexpected massive kinetic force that drove the collapse of the inner core therefore defeating the expected resistance models you cite? In other words the resistance wasn't there because the outer frame and inner core both shifted away from the floor supports causing that mass to plunge unobstructed therefore causing the force it would have taken to overcome the column energy absorption you cite? When those inner core columns were compromised by that lateral force they would no longer possess the vertical resistance you cite. This failure would be almost instantaneous and not possess the expected deceleration you cite.

And Jeffrey annointed him as one who had really gotten the point.

Yes, thanks for the reminder that Jeffrey made it a point to approve of him in spite of the arcane, ridiculous, and in some cases, like your quote above, demonstrably impossible ramblings, we were treated to by Albert. Of course, this proves the point that Jeffrey has an unjustified bias, which can only be explained by his having an a priori agenda.

In the meantime, Jeffrey claims it is others at AE911Truth etc. who are not objective. I think it is a general technique of the trade called projecting, where the propagandist publicly claims their adversary is doing what the propagandist is actually guilty of, and in a sense beating their adversaries to the punch.

[Charles Drago]

Tony, you seem to have forgotten our own Albert Doyle. This was his first contribution before he realized you were too cowardly to face the onslought of his powerful intellect.

Is it possible the inner core/outer frame structure caused a lateral force that was exacerbated by the floor platforms falling into the void caused by this lateral shift and ensuing removal of the floor platform supports that caused an unexpected massive kinetic force that drove the collapse of the inner core therefore defeating the expected resistance models you cite? In other words the resistance wasn't there because the outer frame and inner core both shifted away from the floor supports causing that mass to plunge unobstructed therefore causing the force it would have taken to overcome the column energy absorption you cite? When those inner core columns were compromised by that lateral force they would no longer possess the vertical resistance you cite. This failure would be almost instantaneous and not possess the expected deceleration you cite.

And Jeffrey annointed him as one who had really gotten the point.

Yes, thanks for the reminder that Jeffrey made it a point to approve of him in spite of the arcane, ridiculous, and in some cases, like your quote above, demonstrably impossible ramblings, we were treated to by Albert. Of course, this proves the point that Jeffrey has an unjustified bias, which can only be explained by his having an a priori agenda.

One cannot overestimate the value of this deep political insight.

There is so much more I could tell.