Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

If I had to bet I would say it is a job. Only somebody in that situation would keep coming back saying the same things, after what they were saying had been shown to be extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, numerous times.

Are you asserting that my 911 postings is a job? That I am working for some group to promote the OCT or destroy the truth movement?

That's a pretty bold and somewhat libelous statement. And you have not a shred of proof of this.

Why is it a problem for you if someone expresses their POV and not only is persistent but that POV evolves over time? Understanding often does and POVs do change. I happen to be interested in the destruction of the WTC because I had never seen any building collapse and was, as an architect, curious as to how this happened. Obviously they could have been intentionally destroyed and at first there was a presumption that this was the intent. If so, CD would make sense.

This framed my earliest conception of the event and it was bolstered by how the officials stalled the investigation and used 911 as a pretext for wars and domestic repression. When the reports came out they did not satisfy my and it appeared that they were covering up something. Could it have been CD or insider involvement? Maybe. That became the truth movement's position and filter for seeing the entire event.

Yet I was not seeing a sufficient descriptive mechanism as to how this took place? What sort of devices? Where were they placed and how were the detonated or set off? The truth movement has not really bothered with this level of specificity, dodging it all the time and using bait and switch always returning to some unexplained (or unconfirmed) anomaly. NIST produced an easy target for criticism.

The ROOSD explanation was the best fit for the collapse phase and this took the CD devices off the table during the collapse phase.

Then it became clear that people were not seeing what was taking place in the collapse phase but what they WANTED to see. If they couldn't see the obvious... seeing the more nuanced at and before initiation was not going to happen. The debate took on a theoretical frame.. divorced from what actually took place. Bazant was guilty of this, NIST was, Chandler was and it seems most who jumped in with explanations were.

And one's political views seem to distort perspective when dealing with basic physics and engineering and the evidence and data derived from it about the destruction of the WTC.

Stick to the facts and the observations.

As I have said many times to you, ROOSD cannot start until the momentum is sufficiently high to cause self-propagation. The building and the floors were very robust with the floors being able to take 12 times their own static load. That was a greater factor of safety than the columns with 3 in the core and 5 on the exterior. You want to say that because natural propagation could occur after at least five to six stories have collapsed that everything is fine. This is an insufficient argument period, and I wonder why you would even consider it a way forward when the initiation and those first several stories cannot be explained naturally. Controlled demolitions are usually done mostly with gravity. The assistance is to break enough mass loose to create the momentum needed for gravity to do most of the work.

It is kind of like somebody being pushed off a cliff and you only wanting to look at the fact that they died of internal injuries experienced during the impact at the bottom, considering that natural, and forgetting that what started the process was not.