Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Peter Lemkin]

I think this thread shows who actually has had the experience of having their proverbial ass handed to them Jeffrey, and it is not the one who can back their comments with analysis. This is something you and your ilk can't do because what you say is nothing but a mirage and not what actually happened or even could have happened.

Whatever you say... You run away when challenged... I've seen this on several forums. Have a blast... you're able to do your dog and pong show here and they are eating up.

Speaking of running or walking away. You haven't answered what attracted you to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth; had you active in it for a while and get close to the head, then left, or were sort of pushed out. Why could you not convince even one person there of your theory? They are all professionals in the field and interested in 9-11. Why are you here, trying to counter any post speaking of alternatives to the official version, to try to steer things back to doubt, smoke, and mirrors that the 'official' version might just be the correct answer....if only one uses your unzip theory - to whom no on but you [correct me if I'm wrong] buys. Your agenda is showing, IMO.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony

I see your propagation calculation and recognize the calculation twice two oh seven squared is 293 squared.

Your video is dramatic as is one titled WTC1 collapse initiations visible signs:

The official explanation is mechanical damage plus heat weakening.

The observed event is a sudden floor-wide flame spread with exterior ejection of smoke and debris.

Where is the "eight degree rotation"?

The appearance is that suddenly a multifloor void was created intitiating rapid, smooth, uninterrupted drop of the entire structure.

I take it this is where your "columns not resisting" comes in--

According to the video NIST would not release data until a FOIA suit was brought.

The recorded witness accounts of the firefighters were suppressed.

Evidence of explosives was not sought, yet has been described in reports of nanothermite, molten steel, sounds of explosions, et cetera.

The official commission attempted to pronounce "case closed" on the basis of a hypothesis which required floor trusses to sag forty inches.

Tests showed two to six.

The structure was scaled to provide more robust cross sections descending yet no deceleration presents in any video; collapse is continuous.

In each of the three structures.

Collapse of a skyscraper from fire had not previously been demonstrated.

Nor, we suspect, in this case.

Phil, the building actually drops vertically a couple of stories, at a very small tilt of 1 degree or less, before the 8 degree tilt occurs. NIST is wrong about the 8 degrees occurring immediately and before any vertical movement. I don't think they looked at it close enough. The columns were never involved in the collapse based on acceleration measurements and column energy absorption capacity calculations. In other words, had the columns been involved the accelerations achieved would not have been possible. The small tilt does not misalign the columns in any significant way and inertia and the reality that buckling ductile columns don't just separate would cause the upper section to stay aligned in the absence of any significant lateral load on it, so there is no reason for misalignment. We find the collapse should have arrested after a one or even two story natural fall, as there would not have been enough kinetic energy to get through the columns.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Speaking of running or walking away. You haven't answered what attracted you to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth; had you active in it for a while and get close to the head, then left, or were sort of pushed out. Why could you not convince even one person there of your theory? They are all professionals in the field and interested in 9-11. Why are you here, trying to counter any post speaking of alternatives to the official version, to try to steer things back to doubt, smoke, and mirrors that the 'official' version might just be the correct answer....if only one uses your unzip theory - to whom no on but you [correct me if I'm wrong] buys. Your agenda is showing, IMO.

Answered in post #520

I didn't have any theories about what happened until months after I left AE and began to look for aswers to the question of how DID the towers come down.

I was on board with the AE story / conception / Pillars of Truth before and during my tenure with AE. Once I left I decided to trust but verify. When I left that I began to see that the AE explanation was speculative and based on inaccurate obervations, poor or little data and others were making more sense of what happened... such as the 911FF.

I formed my own *speculative* theory and there are others at the 911FF and elsewhere who have similar conceptions... which are NOT the official explanation. My hypothesis put me atr odds with both the truth guys and those who stomped for the OCT such as at JREF. I didn't care. About 1 year ago I turned my attention from the twins to wtc 7 and came up with the TTF hypothesis... again not in line with AE or NIST.

People I have encountered online who are truthers believe I am a decoy and really a NIST proponent. They are wrong. I do not agree with NIST's reports findings.

Like others who believe they have something POSITIVE to add to the discussion... In attempted to share ROOSD and TTF with others online. Lots of resistance from Truthers and constant ad homs. Pilots for 911 truth eventually seemed to agree with TTF but that it had to be done by placed devices.

People can choose what and how they wish to inform their own thinking and understanding. I tried to show something different. If they reject it... for whatever reason... it is functionally no different that someone rejecting any analysis... be it global warming, evolution, creationism, abiotic oil, or deep politics etc.

I have stated that more research needs to be done to rule in or out the ideas I have expressed. If you want very technical discussions look at 911FF to find them. I try to communicate my understanding with basic concepts easily accessible.

A black box is not an acceptable explanation and neither is one that ignores evidence which contradicts one's beliefs.

[Jeffrey Orling]

..... The columns were never involved in the collapse based on acceleration measurements and column energy absorption capacity calculations. In other words, had the columns been involved the accelerations achieved would not have been possible.

When core aggregate axial load capacity had dropped below service loads the movements show that the columns were translated laterally enough so that and there would therefore be no column resistence or impacts. Didn't happen... strawman argument. There was likely a few remaining columns which saw enormous loads and rapidly buckled like a pretzel and accounted for the virtual hinge rotation and translation.

[Peter Lemkin]

No 'explanation' that works for WTC 1 and 2 could possible work for WTC 7 - proving that any such 'explanation' short of CD is but a desperate gambit to support the unsupportable 'officially and knowingly wrong version'. WTC was constructed totally differently and quite asymmetrically, yet it collapsed in almost the exact same way - again only CD explains this. Add to that the nanothermite chips and residue; the excess energy output; the explosions seen and heard; the planes hitting 1 and 2 exactly at the same floors that had undergone retrofitting of the fire-insulation and other upgrades; those with pre-knowledge of the event; the molten steel in the basement of all three towers for months...and on and on [I'm leaving out about 30 other things that lead most without an agenda to support the government to believe controlled demolition occurred]....What I hear from Orling is starting from a desired 'outcome/explanation' and working backwards; rather than working with the evidence, as it stands, and trying to work out what happened.

Those at AE4911Truth that I emailed said you had your alternative views when there; and they felt increasingly uncomfortable about your presence there among them. Some thought you just a bit eccentric, and some wondered if you weren't infiltrating the organization. Some were all the more suspicious that you had maneuvered to be close to the lead person in the group. To my knowledge, you convinced no one when you were there or since. IMO your theory fails on WTC 1 and 2 and misses by a giant margin on WTC 7 - though they all collapsed in the same manner. To me the most suspicious thing is you've stated your 'theory'....so leave it said...but whenever [WHENEVER] someone posits controlled demolition you seem to take it as your job on this Forum to refute that with your lone-man unzip theory [which doesn't comport with what I know of the evidence nor of physics] - rather than let others have their views on what happened. And, you don't get Deep Politics, nor the interconnections between the various aspects of it - the various operations and power configurations/entities that have made it up and make it up still, as well as their motives, repetitive M.O., etc.

Its the 'WTC Collapse Innocence Project'

[Tony Szamboti]

When core aggregate axial load capacity had dropped below service loads the movements show that the columns were translated laterally enough so that and there would therefore be no column resistence or impacts. Didn't happen... strawman argument. There was likely a few remaining columns which saw enormous loads and rapidly buckled like a pretzel and accounted for the virtual hinge rotation and translation.

What you are saying here is just as impossible as your notion of the hat truss transferring the core loads to the perimeter, and it is not a surprise that you provide no scientific basis for it.

To get the core to drop naturally the columns would have needed to be heated to 650 degrees C (1,202 degrees F) nearly simultaneously. Where is the evidence for that kind of heating, without even considering the simultaneous nature of it needed?

Even if heating could have gotten as hot as needed the constant vertical acceleration observed through the first story can be shown to be impossible due to heating induced buckling. If you think that heating caused it you should be able to show how it could accelerate as fast as it did via an energy calculation for the remaining column resistance during buckling. So how do you account for the 5.1 m/s^2 vertical acceleration through the first story?

Lateral translation requires a lateral load, and lateral movement of large things, like the upper 12 stories of the North Tower, would require a very large lateral load. From where I sit the only significant load acting on the upper section is due to gravity and that is a vertical load. Where does your lateral load to shift the upper section columns out of alignment with those of the lower section come from?

Come on Jeffrey, provide a scientific basis for what you are saying here. Let us see how you came to these conclusions.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Lateral translation requires a lateral load, and lateral movement of large things, like the upper 12 stories of the North Tower, would require a very large lateral load. From where I sit the only significant load acting on the upper section is due to gravity and that is a vertical load. Where does your lateral load to shift the upper section columns out of alignment with those of the lower section come from?

Come on Jeffrey, provide a scientific basis for what you are saying here. Let us see how you came to these conclusions.

You know that the small degree of rotation caused the columns to mis align and they were unrestrained connections 4' above the slab. You were shown this... but ignored it. Also the column ends were 8' below the lateral restraint and the splice connection to the column below was little more than some welded plates to align them for erection purposes. These connection failed and you had the misalignment.

[Jeffrey Orling]

No 'explanation' that works for WTC 1 and 2 could possible work for WTC 7 - proving that any such 'explanation' short of CD is but a desperate gambit to support the unsupportable 'officially and knowingly wrong version'. WTC was constructed totally differently and quite asymmetrically, yet it collapsed in almost the exact same way - again only CD explains this. Add to that the nanothermite chips and residue; the excess energy output; the explosions seen and heard; the planes hitting 1 and 2 exactly at the same floors that had undergone retrofitting of the fire-insulation and other upgrades; those with pre-knowledge of the event; the molten steel in the basement of all three towers for months...and on and on [I'm leaving out about 30 other things that lead most without an agenda to support the government to believe controlled demolition occurred]....What I hear from Orling is starting from a desired 'outcome/explanation' and working backwards; rather than working with the evidence, as it stands, and trying to work out what happened.

Those at AE4911Truth that I emailed said you had your alternative views when there; and they felt increasingly uncomfortable about your presence there among them. Some thought you just a bit eccentric, and some wondered if you weren't infiltrating the organization. Some were all the more suspicious that you had maneuvered to be close to the lead person in the group. To my knowledge, you convinced no one when you were there or since. IMO your theory fails on WTC 1 and 2 and misses by a giant margin on WTC 7 - though they all collapsed in the same manner. To me the most suspicious thing is you've stated your 'theory'....so leave it said...but whenever [WHENEVER] someone posits controlled demolition you seem to take it as your job on this Forum to refute that with your lone-man unzip theory [which doesn't comport with what I know of the evidence nor of physics] - rather than let others have their views on what happened. And, you don't get Deep Politics, nor the interconnections between the various aspects of it - the various operations and power configurations/entities that have made it up and make it up still, as well as their motives, repetitive M.O., etc.

Its the 'WTC Collapse Innocence Project'

More paranoid rubbish...

I wrote a detailed explanation and no I did not advance a single alternate theory which I was at AE911T anyone who thinks they have evidence that I did... needs to present it. They can't and so this is simply BS and a slanderous.

Eccentric? What the hell does that mean?

Maneuvered? I volunteered... Gage INVITED me to the board and I DECLINED HE PERSISTED. I supposed Gage maneuvered himself to the CEO of AE911T and payed himself 80K in salary and another 25K or more in benefits and perks. Pretty effective maneurvering!

I maneuvered myself right out of that cultlike operation... or was I tossed out by paranoid people who thought that the term - engineered distruction- instead of CD would destroy their organization? Hardly matters... AE is a sham and all hat and no cattle. It will collapse like a house of cards one of these days.. IF people wake up and realize they've been sold a bill of goods.

Lemkin, once again you assert/report unsubstantiated BS... which has the only purpose of insult and slander. But coming from you or the other cowards who refuse to surface themselves or any proof it hardly matters. My post named the paranoid... fo back to post #520 and their names are all there. I've forgotten most of them...

Publish or perish.

[Jeffrey Orling]

No 'explanation' that works for WTC 1 and 2 could possible work for WTC 7 - proving that any such 'explanation' short of CD is but a desperate gambit to support the unsupportable 'officially and knowingly wrong version'. WTC was constructed totally differently and quite asymmetrically, yet it collapsed in almost the exact same way - again only CD explains this. Add to that the nanothermite chips and residue; the excess energy output; the explosions seen and heard; the planes hitting 1 and 2 exactly at the same floors that had undergone retrofitting of the fire-insulation and other upgrades; those with pre-knowledge of the event; the molten steel in the basement of all three towers for months...and on and on [I'm leaving out about 30 other things that lead most without an agenda to support the government to believe controlled demolition occurred]....What I hear from Orling is starting from a desired 'outcome/explanation' and working backwards; rather than working with the evidence, as it stands, and trying to work out what happened.

The twins and 7 were different sysems and failed in different places because of where the damage was. 7 failed from TTF failures on floors 5,6&7.... twins by collapsing mass driving down and then the core collapsing from Euler forces.

Gravity works pulling mass straight down... and considering the mass distribution of those buildings one would expect them to come straight down and organized but not *symmetrical* ... there was no symmetry in the collapse.

Heat was the straw that broke the camel's back and led to all three collapses.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Please comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...LyYv5Y2YSM