Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse.

Is there video of a natural collapse of a sky scraper for comparison purposes?

A few points here.

The most detailed analysis done shows that the 100 foot descent of the curtain wall was neither completely smooth and has periods of above and below G.

There was movement which began about 7 - 10 seconds (don't recall) BEFORE the clocked 100' 2.25 second descent... indicating that the so called "collapse of the entire building" did not begin with the motion of the curtain wall and was in fact not at FF. The take away is the FF doesn't "mean" anything.

There are no "natural collapses" ever. That is unless you consider that forces of nature including erosion as natural causes. The Miamus River bridge and the Takoma narrows collapses were from corrosion weakening a pin in the CT collapse and wind pressure causing the structure to vibrate at its harmonic frequency and break apart.

In the case of the WTC we are asked to believe that mechanical damage from the planes hitting the two tower and fire which heated parts of the frame and weakened them below their design load capacity such that they failed leading to a (natural) load redistribution... which caused other nodes to fail leading a further redistribution of loads leading to more failures until there was insufficient axial capacity to support the loads and the tops came down and apart as they did and this drove the destruction of the floor systems which robbed both the facade and the core of the bracing required to stay erect and they too buckled. The progress WAS "natural" in that it's what engineering and physics predicts and describes.
But the plane damage and fires are not natural, or typical either in scope or magnitude and so they became the proximate causes initiating the collapses. Gravity was the main driving force.

7WTC was a bit different in that it had massive load transfer structures which redirected the column loads from above to bedrock. It appears that these massive structures located between flrs 5&7 may have failed a victim of the fact that they were constructed of massive steel will less massive connections and splices. These connections may have been the undoing of the massive structures which again weakened the nodes to below their design load capacity such that they failed leading to a (natural) load redistribution... which caused other nodes to fail leading a further redistribution of loads leading to more failures until there was insufficient axial capacity to support the loads. This is not the NIST explanation or theory. It is mine and I refer to it as TTF - transfer truss failure. The amount of heat down in the region in question has not been determined... hence the need for further investigation. But if the connections failed, the trusses would and that would lead to the visuals we have of the collapse. The fires were not fought. We don't know the fuel source and there is much to be determined. NIST refused to examine anything below flr 8. That seems odd to me.

But in conclusion... once axial load capacity has been eroded to below the design capacity of a node, it fails and this can and apparently lead to eventually global collapse. The progressive failure is a natural and predicted process. Whether one wants to call un fought fires natural or not as a cause... is another thing.

And true... we have no other visuals of large buildings collapsing without the INTENT to bring them down. In nature we have things like avalanches and rock slides... which are gravity driven natural collapses.

[Charles Drago]

::moose:: :: ::club::::throwbomb:: ::

Enough of this crap please.

More of this please:
:: ::passingjoint::::philosopher::;;hippie:: :::: ::

In which category do you place the following:

[Orling] has a life outside of 9/11. In my personal research on Jeffrey I found him to be actively involved in professional groups who seek to use design and architecture and planning for social responsibility. They put their professional skills to work for peace, environmental protection, ecological building, social justice, and the development of healthy communities.

There is a deep political term of art for such a life story.

"Legend."

There are deep political terms of art for such an individual.

"Sleeper." "Mole."

Does the name Robert Hanssen ring a bell? An alarm bell?

From Wikipedia:


Robert Phillip Hanssen was arrested on February 18, 2001 at Foxstone Park[2] near his home in Vienna, Virginia, and was charged with selling American secrets to the USSR and subsequently Russia for more than US$1.4 million in cash and diamonds over a 22-year period.[3] On July 6, 2001, he pleaded guilty to 13 counts of espionage in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.[4][5] He was then sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. His activities have been described by the U.S. Department of Justice's Commission for the Review of FBI Security Programs as "possibly the worst intelligence disaster in U.S. history."

According to USA Today, those who knew the Hanssens described them as a close family. They attended Mass weekly and were very active in Opus Dei. Robert Hanssen's three sons attended The Heights School in Potomac, Maryland, an all-boys preparatory school.[58] His daughters attended Oakcrest School for Girls, an independent Roman Catholic school. Both schools are associated with Opus Dei. Hanssen's wife, Bonnie, teaches religion at Oakcrest.

The priest at Oakcrest said that Hanssen had regularly attended a 6:30 am daily mass for more than a decade.[59] Opus Dei member Father C. John McCloskey III said Hanssen also occasionally attended the daily noontime Mass at the Catholic Information Center in downtown Washington, D.C. After going to prison, Hanssen claimed he periodically admitted his espionage to priests in confession. He urged fellow Catholics in the Bureau to attend mass more often and denounced the Russians as "godless," even though he was spying for them. [emphases added]

[Tracy Riddle]

We have the same sort of endless arguing about what hit the Pentagon - a missile? A plane? A drone?

As with the Kennedy assassination, we can spend all of our time and energy fighting with each other, and accuse each other of being agents, or we can all agree that a) the official story stinks and b) we don't know the details of what really happened and we're still trying to figure it out. Personally, I'm trying to spend less time on forums and more time doing research.

[Magda Hassan]

We have the same sort of endless arguing about what hit the Pentagon - a missile? A plane? A drone?

As with the Kennedy assassination, we can spend all of our time and energy fighting with each other, and accuse each other of being agents, or we can all agree that a) the official story stinks and b) we don't know the details of what really happened and we're still trying to figure it out. Personally, I'm trying to spend less time on forums and more time doing research.

I agree Tracy.

[Tony Szamboti]

Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse.

Is there video of a natural collapse of a sky scraper for comparison purposes?

No steel framed high rise building has ever completely collapsed for any reason naturally.

[Tony Szamboti]

Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse.

Is there video of a natural collapse of a sky scraper for comparison purposes?

A few points here.

The most detailed analysis done shows that the 100 foot descent of the curtain wall was neither completely smooth and has periods of above and below G.

There was movement which began about 7 - 10 seconds (don't recall) BEFORE the clocked 100' 2.25 second descent... indicating that the so called "collapse of the entire building" did not begin with the motion of the curtain wall and was in fact not at FF. The take away is the FF doesn't "mean" anything.

There are no "natural collapses" ever. That is unless you consider that forces of nature including erosion as natural causes. The Miamus River bridge and the Takoma narrows collapses were from corrosion weakening a pin in the CT collapse and wind pressure causing the structure to vibrate at its harmonic frequency and break apart.

In the case of the WTC we are asked to believe that mechanical damage from the planes hitting the two tower and fire which heated parts of the frame and weakened them below their design load capacity such that they failed leading to a (natural) load redistribution... which caused other nodes to fail leading a further redistribution of loads leading to more failures until there was insufficient axial capacity to support the loads and the tops came down and apart as they did and this drove the destruction of the floor systems which robbed both the facade and the core of the bracing required to stay erect and they too buckled. The progress WAS "natural" in that it's what engineering and physics predicts and describes.
But the plane damage and fires are not natural, or typical either in scope or magnitude and so they became the proximate causes initiating the collapses. Gravity was the main driving force.

7WTC was a bit different in that it had massive load transfer structures which redirected the column loads from above to bedrock. It appears that these massive structures located between flrs 5&7 may have failed a victim of the fact that they were constructed of massive steel will less massive connections and splices. These connections may have been the undoing of the massive structures which again weakened the nodes to below their design load capacity such that they failed leading to a (natural) load redistribution... which caused other nodes to fail leading a further redistribution of loads leading to more failures until there was insufficient axial capacity to support the loads. This is not the NIST explanation or theory. It is mine and I refer to it as TTF - transfer truss failure. The amount of heat down in the region in question has not been determined... hence the need for further investigation. But if the connections failed, the trusses would and that would lead to the visuals we have of the collapse. The fires were not fought. We don't know the fuel source and there is much to be determined. NIST refused to examine anything below flr 8. That seems odd to me.

But in conclusion... once axial load capacity has been eroded to below the design capacity of a node, it fails and this can and apparently lead to eventually global collapse. The progressive failure is a natural and predicted process. Whether one wants to call un fought fires natural or not as a cause... is another thing.

And true... we have no other visuals of large buildings collapsing without the INTENT to bring them down. In nature we have things like avalanches and rock slides... which are gravity driven natural collapses.

Your theory cannot produce a symmetric free fall of the entire building for eight stories, so it is nonsense and you shouldn't even be saying it.

People should use their common sense and ask themselves if a truss failing due to fire here and then one due to overload over there and another one would produce a symmetric free fall like that observed with WTC 7. In case everyone doesn't understand

symmetric means all at the same time

free fall acceleration is the full rate of gravity which is only possible with no resistance. This occurred for eight stories or just over 100 feet at the beginning of the collapse.

The symmetric free fall was due to eight stories of the core being removed simultaneously via controlled demolition.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse.

Is there video of a natural collapse of a sky scraper for comparison purposes?

No steel framed high rise building has ever completely collapsed for any reason naturally.

nor was hit by a jumbo jet and had the sprinkler system disabled
nor was built with massive trusses over a main urban power station and 30,000 gal of diesel fuel.

But yea....buildings don't collapse unless something happens.

Something happened.

[Charles Drago]

We have the same sort of endless arguing about what hit the Pentagon - a missile? A plane? A drone?

As with the Kennedy assassination, we can spend all of our time and energy fighting with each other, and accuse each other of being agents, or we can all agree that a) the official story stinks and b) we don't know the details of what really happened and we're still trying to figure it out. Personally, I'm trying to spend less time on forums and more time doing research.

I agree Tracy.

I don't.

First, it's not a question of "spend[ing] all of our time" pursing any single aspect of this case. Some of us can and do multi-task.

Second, when you use the term "each other" you imply some sort of union, or comradeship, or shared mission. I'm not "fighting with" my allies. I am, upon occasion, engaging individuals who, in my informed judgment, are wittingly or otherwise aiding and abetting the ongoing cover-up's Facilitators. Such action is as valid and as important to our shared cause as any academic "research" we may wish to conduct.

Third, the "a)" segment of the agreement which you wish for long ago has been reached.

Fourth, the underlying premise of your "b)" segment is false; we do indeed know a great deal about what "really" happened.

[Tony Szamboti]

Just in case anyone thinks Tony S. is a 'lightweight' on 911 matters, I'd like to set them straight. He has done many articles in peer reviewed 911 journals. Here is one search that will turn up just some of them...
https://www.google.cz/search?q=Tony+Szam...%20studies

But has he been peer reviewed in academic and professional journals?

Magda, this very thread is about a paper written by myself and two other engineers that was published this past June in the International Journal of Protective Structures, which is a peer reviewed journal concerning dynamics and structures. The abstract and listing of the paper can be seen here http://multi-science.metapress.com/conte...h25254748/

It is available from the publisher for 18 GBP, if one does not have a subscription to the journal. They did say they would allow it to be posted for free use on Jan 1, 2014.

Authors are allowed to send copies to colleagues for personal use, so I can send you or anyone else here a free copy if I have your e-mail address. My e-mail address is tonyszamboti@comcast.net.

[Jeffrey Orling]

You think publishing makes something correct? You don't think peer review can make mistakes? You don't think that science and engineering is constantly being revised and what is accepted one day is rejected the next? TSz has set up a few made up out of whole cloth assumptions and then does some calcs. But if the assumptions are wrong it's hardly representative of the real world.. very much like Bazant's published papers whic were theoretical limiting cases... not intended to represent any real world case. Strawman.. knock them down by calling them real world explanations. They weren't and it proves nothing.