Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Lauren Johnson]

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.