Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

Somebody was being nice by just saying your diagrams and sketches were deeply flawed, as it is becoming apparent that they are really an attempt at a con job.

Actually, I said or meant to say his entire argument is deeply flawed after I had spent hours reading his stuff and looking at his diagrams. Not having credentials in the area I would not be qualified to say his diagrams en toto are deeply flawed.

However, I did zero in on his Top Down Cartoon because that one seemed to be central in explaining his ideas around a natural collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Recall I proposed a thought experiment in which the core columns were instantly removed from one floor of the building. I wanted to tease out what if anything would cause a cascading collapse. Your answers were central. You said that a such a collapse could happen if core columns from 5 floors would indeed cause such a collapse, but not just one. Tony's point is that something has to explain the downward measured acceleration of 5.1 m/sec^2. Slowly weakening columns from exposure to low heat fires just can't explain it. I catastrophic, cascading collapse without extra help can't happen.

That's the read of a non-engineer interpreting two conflicting POV from two different professionals. If fact, Jeffrey's argument just seems bizarre -- and those are stronger words than deeply flawed. I have written earlier that the building 7 collapse is the strongest evidence for CD and therefore CD in WTC 1 & 2. Now even without the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, there is still a strong argument for CD in WTC 1 & 2.

Lauren,

I don't have the time to explain to you what you are clearly incapable of understanding. The top drop sketch sequence was a 1D sequence and was not intended to be represent exactly WHAT happened but suggest a possible sequence... depending of course on actual data inputs. There are no values in the diagrams. The drawing is simply a way to conceptualize what COULD have happened.

Any definitive explanation has to be linked to the actual obervations and data and the physics and engineering as it applies. I don't have that data nor the facility to do the math... and I make no pretense that I do. 911FF have produced the most reliable observations and data and the analysis to go along with it. Tony is making stuff up... and using some math to make it seem like it's a proof of something. He's fooled you but not most physicists and engineers.

There is a lot of garbage published... publishing garbage is not proof of anything.

The motion has been explained.. go read the explanations.