Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
Tony Szamboti Wrote:The entire core did come down inside and it pulled the perimeter inward causing the entire upper section to come down. The problem is how the entire 12 story core upper section came down, not whether it did or not. Albert's logic is circular and his thinking that the 360 ton antenna somehow caused the fall of the core is ridiculous on its face as the core columns at the 98th floor were capable as a unit of handling 55,000 tons. There was also little damage to the 98th floor.



Hardly ridiculous. I think you are smart enough to realize the fact the antenna drops first shows the core underneath it gave out. There are two choices. This was either caused by a controlled demolition or collapse of the core section from creeping fatigue. I personally think you are trying to get away with murder here because you are trying to offer as simple an explanation as you can in order to use CD as a crutch for the greater arguments you don't involve. You are using voodoo engineering because the core columns from the 98th floor up would not handle the antenna weight if they had been undercut at the impact zone. This undercutting could be reasonably estimated using complex computer models that involved the strength of the columns vs the kinetic force of the Boeing. The video of the North Tower impact doesn't show the serious exit out the opposite side that indicated a serious passage of mass through the building from the Boeing. This had to result in serious damage to the core around the 95th floor. The weight of the antenna would be supported by this damaged area which would be undergoing load distribution and fatigue in a damaged burning zone. Once again, you compare undamaged theoretical conditions to a radically different scenario as it existed. It's the equivalent of smoke and mirrors vs what is being actually argued.



Tony Szamboti Wrote:Finally, none of the columns were involved in the resistance to the collapse as measurements and calculations show. This is extraordinarily difficult to assign a natural collapse theory to and is the basis of the need for something more being involved to have caused the collapse, such as demolition devices. The claim that no sounds or flashes were heard or seen is bogus. There are plenty of firemen on record as saying they saw and heard flashes and explosions.




No, because their load capacity had been exceeded by the falling section above them when viewed in relation to the complex dynamic that occurred during that fall - including extreme lateral forces from the falling floor pads. You continue to talk in 2 dimensions while the event we are talking about occurred in 3. That 'more' was pneumatic blasting. Meanwhile you have failed to account for the related particulars you would necessarily see if that demolition occurred, like detonation flashes, dust jets at the upper floors, and chemical residue from explosives, as if that could just be ignored.

Here's where Tony refers to the street level version in order to get around what he can't answer. It's very plainly obvious that if the sound of demolition charges were heard on Ashley Banfield's video then they should have been heard on the videos of the North Tower collapse. Especially since Tony's dust jets are much more visible than anything seen in Building 7 and the media crew was much closer to the North Tower than Ashley was to Building 7. Yet, no such audio track of synchronized demolition explosions exists. It is painfully obvious Tony doesn't have any explanation for that so he resorts to the "everybody knows" that many firemen heard and saw it. This is an attempt to defy reality since we are watching the video of the collpase and we don't hear any demolition explosions nor see any detonation flashes. What Tony is telling us is forget what you are seeing right in front of you - those guys heard and saw it! Ya. For anyone who knows what they are looking at those dust jets are clearly pneumatic in origin.

This isn't honest because even Chandler's home-made, Fetzer-like video shows the explosions witnessed by those firefighters as being isolated and separate from the collapse event we are talking about.


Messages In This Thread
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - by Albert Doyle - 11-08-2013, 05:21 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  WTC-7 Before Collapse - Video of activities inside and outside Peter Lemkin 0 4,998 04-12-2015, 09:45 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New Detailed Analysis of WTC 7 Controlled Demolition Peter Lemkin 0 5,240 01-12-2015, 04:42 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  The case against the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis Tony Szamboti 4 4,049 04-11-2013, 07:11 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New Analysis Summary Of 9-11-01 Insider Trading [with some very interesting facts, if true]! Peter Lemkin 4 5,555 28-10-2013, 03:01 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis: Redux Lauren Johnson 0 3,733 16-08-2013, 03:39 AM
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
  New Seismic Analysis Further Points to Controlled Demolition.... Peter Lemkin 0 3,721 03-12-2012, 05:21 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  911 Meta Analysis Jeffrey Orling 18 10,688 23-10-2012, 08:54 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  STill the best and most comprehensive timeline and information source for 911-related events Peter Lemkin 0 2,701 10-08-2012, 08:10 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New theory explains collapse of Twin Towers- Aluminium and water explosions Magda Hassan 7 9,258 27-09-2011, 05:47 PM
Last Post: Jeffrey Orling
  First Wikileaks Cable possibly related to 911, Al Quaeda, etc. Peter Lemkin 0 6,487 26-09-2011, 08:02 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)