Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

The presented tale of the fall of the towers is bogus.

Two reasons present.
First the things I was told by Ironworkers and Operating Engineers that went to NYC on the afternoon of the 11th.
Second, my own observation of the towers fall that day.

Not enough thermal energy was ever available to soften the steel as the fable is told.
I know how much heat and pressure it takes to "rebend" structural steel.
Misfabrication at the shop occurs, it is then the job of the Ironworker to apply the heat and pressure to bend the beam into the proper shape/alignment in the field.

So it is the old Richard Pryor thing, who ya gonna believe "Me or your lying eyes?"

No other story building ever collapsed from internal and sustained fires of paper and wood. Ignited by kerosine quickly consumed.
Not even buildings that burned for DAYS.

So someone rewrote the laws of physics for just that one day.
Or WE WUZ HAD like we were in Sept. 1964 when the WC published their bullcrap.

After these issues came forth I don't pay much attention to 911.
I know when I am being LIED to by my Government.
It has become easier to detect after years of deception.

You have it right about there not being enough heat to cause what we observed. The NIST didn't find evidence of high temperatures on the steel. They only found three pieces out of the 236 they got from the twin towers that had even seen temperatures beyond 250 degrees C, where steel hasn't even begun to lose strength.

It isn't just that the collapse couldn't have started because there wasn't enough heat. There is another clue that it was unnatural as the acceleration through the first story was constant at 5.1 m/s^2. In a natural heat weakening situation the columns would have been softened to the point where they just couldn't handle the load when they began to fall. With constant acceleration, the average resistance should have been the strength just below where yield would start. So it should have been quite slow, but it was not. The observations of constant and rapid acceleration through the first story, along with the point that in a natural situation the fall would start when the columns would have been heated to where they just started to yield, are not consistent with heat weakening in a natural collapse.

The horizontal propagation across the entire 98th story of the North Tower in 0.5 to 0.7 seconds is not probable with heat weakening either.

Of course, Jeffrey simply says something along the lines he said to you here

I think you are neither familiar with the design nor understanding where the possible failures may have been. First, there were no columns which were melted or even heated hot enough to bend them. Heat weakens steel and if it weakens it below the service load it buckles and bends from BUCKLING not from plastic deformation. Second the failures in the frame were more likely the CONNECTIONS and they were not as strong as the sections themselves.

and I have asked him many times on other forums to explain how the rapid constant acceleration through the first story would be possible with heat weakening caused buckling of columns or the column connections breaking. He just goes into a "we can't see inside" mode and never tries to provide a technically plausible explanation. I have to believe that is because there isn't one, but that doesn't give him reason to pause and possibly re-evaluate his position. No, he keeps on repeating the same unsupported points about heat weakening being the cause. Bottom line is Jeffrey can't explain the details of the collapse in natural cause terms, but he will tell you he is sure it was a naturally caused event due to the effects of impact damage and fire with a poor design (he never explains the poor design either), and that those with the motive to take advantage of the event (the oil cabal with operatives like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld etc.) just waited for it to happen. Given the natural cause problems and the aftermath, that position is at the very least naïve in the most extreme sense, and all of the time Jeffrey seems to have to post long winded replies all over the Internet on this issue (he is on several 911 related forums) along with his problems with NYC CAN and AE911Truth make me wonder about his motives.