Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[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

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

I asked for a scientific basis. That isn't what you provide here.

The 1 degree tilt only causes an offset of 3/8" on the complete opposite side of the building, so no it won't cause misalignment.

So now it sounds like you are saying the splices of the core column sections which were 4 feet above the slab on the 98th floor are what failed and that they just slipped to the side and missed each other. This would still require a lateral load. So how would they do that Jeffrey? Are you actually serious that the core column splices on the 98th floor are what you think failed? If so, why would they fail? How hot would they have needed to get? And why would the columns move even if the splices did fail? The columns were in vertical compression and there was little to no lateral load such as wind or seismic forces that day.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Please comment:

"The number of signatures Gage has on his 2000 List is irrelevant because
(1) Gage's petition with the 2000 signatures makes no mention of controlled demolition or US government involvement, the two central Truther claims. So those signing his petition are not agreeing with the keystone argument: that the buildings fell from Controlled Demolition. The petition calls for a 911 investigation without being specific as to what about 911 should be investigated.

(2) The petition does not state an opinion as to what brought the WTC buildings down. A signer is offering no opinion, certainly not agreeing with Gage. An engineer could sign Gage's petition because he thought al Qaeda rented offices in the buildings and planted explosives. While that is a crazy idea, it nowhere near is as crazy as the claim that the US government wired three massive buildings for a controlled demolition while occupied by some 25,000 tenants and security. (How would you even obtain entrance to the majority of the offices with private locks and security systems?)

(3) About 40% (my count) of the signers are neither architects or engineers. Many of the signers do not have a professional degree. Only a few of the signers have civil engineering degrees and, with two exceptions, those engineers are unreachable. (The two I reached with civil engineering degrees had conducted no analysis or research, which means they were not speaking as engineers).

(4) The "2000 list" has not been audited. How many of those names are legitimate? Many of the names are of people who are unreachable. People who did sign may no longer support a 911 investigation. "

[Tony Szamboti]

Please comment:

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

There might be a few ways to get iron microspheres, as all you need to do is make the iron molten and spray it somehow to cause surface tension to form it into a sphere.

However, the by-products of thermite are molten iron and aluminum oxide, and the real interesting part about the thermitic residue found in the dust of the WTC collapses is that when it is ignited it forms iron microspheres and a small chip of it formed a lot more microspheres than Dave Thomas seemed to get out of his box beam section.

You can't be seriously claiming that Dave Thomas' little experiment, that he actually did last summer, is a solid explanation for iron microspheres in the WTC dust, especially since they were found with thermitic material and the thermitic material produces iron microspheres when ignited.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Please comment:

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

There might be a few ways to get iron microspheres, as all you need to do is make the iron molten and spray it somehow to cause surface tension to form it into a sphere.

However, the by-products of thermite are molten iron and aluminum oxide, and the real interesting part about the thermitic residue found in the dust of the WTC collapses is that when it is ignited it forms iron microspheres and a small chip of it formed a lot more microspheres than Dave Thomas seemed to get out of his box beam section.

You can't be seriously claiming that Dave Thomas' little experiment, that he actually did last summer, is a solid explanation for iron microspheres in the WTC dust, especially since they were found with thermitic material and the thermitic material produces iron microspheres when ignited.

I didn't claim anything. But Harrit claimed that there was only one way to form iron microspheres and this proves him wrong.

Remember RJ Lee?

Quote:
"Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust
Well, let's start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron‐based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gasses are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino‐silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino‐silicate spheres in the well‐studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces."
Rich Lee