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.

[Jeffrey Orling]

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.

You ignore the building motion pre release which indicated the core had begun to collapse, fail and the motion led to lateral motion and fracturing of column connections. You don't know the temps and where they were applied and you've made up the facts to suit your theory. The link provided explains the flaws in your thinking.

Ed De Paolo examined the steel and stated the heat destroyed the strength of the steel. I suggest you take it up with him not me. I can give you his contact info or look it up yourself - Severud Associates.

"
Summary of my "Discussion" with Tony

---

14/7
Presentation of motion over 9s prior to release.
Presentation of significant "jolt".
Presentation of data highlighting magnitude of "jolt" Tony's abysmal methods would miss.

15/7
Tony's acceptance of "tilt", though with later repeated and deliberate misinterpretation of the data source.
Presentation of errors in Tony's latest paper.
Tony's acceptance that clean column ends would never collide.
Presentation of to-scale diagram of (really skinny) core column dimensions.
Presentation of tilt data showing Tony's value to be false.

17/7
Presentation of energy required to sever OOS floor structure from perimeter and core.
Request to take early motion, tilt, identified "jolt", perimeter "unzipping", visible misalignment of perimeter columns and relatively tiny core column dimensions onboard.
Presentation of 0.2px Sauret footage displacement for thickest core column misalignment.
Presentation of accurate per-floor masses. (spreadsheet)
Repeated request to Tony to include identified additional factors.

20/7
Presentation of 14 (unanswered) questions.
Query (ignored) of horizontal propogation timing.
Presentation of NW corner velocity plot, showing non-smooth motion history.
Presentation of ROOSD propogation requirements.
Presentation of 14 (ignored) questions.

21.7
Presentation of external material refuting Tony's claims relating to inertia.
Presentation of issues with Tony's motion history data.
Presentation of confirmation of Bazant's data aquisition methods (a ruler stuck on the monitor).
Refudation of false trace data assertions by David Chandler.

21/7
Re-presentation of non-smooth motion history data, identified "jolt" data, early motion data, and 11 (ignored) questions.

22/7
Presentation of additional external comment relating to inertia.
Presentation of refutement to Tony's claim that "jolt" prior to 12ft descent of roofline is impossible.
Re-presentation of external inertia information.
Presentation of accurate storey masses.
Birth of Tony's "24 outer column removal" theory.
Presentation of imagery representing Tony's belief about column buckle mode, and acceptance of such by Tony.

23/7
Questions leading to embellishment of Tony's "24 column" theory.
Questions (ignored) fatal to Tony's new (and old) theory.
Presentation of fatal flaws borne from Tony's new theory.
Presentation of fragility of abstract virtual models.

24/7
Birth of Tony's "24 column removal" causes "perimeter pull-in" theory.
Presentation of imagery showing perimeter "unzipping" along bolted seams.

25/7
Presentation of trace data accuracy details.

27/7
Tony continues to demonstrate he cannot interpret simple graphs.

28/7
Presentation of some summary details.
Tony's "pull-in" theory reiterated.
Further summary of implications for Tony's papers.
Repost of sensitivity of virtual models.
Presentation of imagery highlighting tilt+descent.
Tony declares distance from trace point affects "jolt" magnitude.
Presentation of correct NW corner to South face distance.
Tony demonstrates his inavility to think beyond 1D.

29/7
Presentation of correct Roofline to 98th floor measurement.
Presentation of proof of Tony's dataset source, and proof of him altering it.
Request for response to Bazant critique.
Presentation of acceleration plot from actual Tony data., refuting "constant acceleration" claim.
Presentation of original David Chandler Trace Data.

30/7
Another summary with extensive uestions (ignored)

31/7
Request to explain real-world inward bowing.

3/8
Tony demonstrates his level of professional integrity.

4/8
More ignored questions.
Presentation of animation depicting the Tony "pull-in" mechanism. and request to provide drop/pull-in values.

and:

1) Inertia is mentioned only in "6." wrapped in a false assumption that the "upper section" was static prior to release. The word Placticity is not contained in the main body of the paper.

2) Tony has demonstrated he had no idea about the real-world motion of the building, and clearly was in no position to "correct" any "assumptions related to the beginning of downward motion". He has now accepted "tilt" and "perimeter unzipping", and really should be accepting higher quality motion data, and its derivatives.

3) Whilst it is fairly clear the paper highlights errors in the Bazant and co. calculations, extrapolating to "conclusions" is over-reaching.

interested persons can find a discussion and critique of Tony's theories and erroneous conclusions at the links previously provided.

You decide.

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

You ignore the building motion pre release which indicated the core had begun to collapse, fail and the motion led to lateral motion and fracturing of column connections. You don't know the temps and where they were applied and you've made up the facts to suit your theory. The link provided explains the flaws in your thinking.

Ed De Paolo examined the steel and stated the heat destroyed the strength of the steel. I suggest you take it up with him not me. I can give you his contact info or look it up yourself - Severud Associates.

So now you want to say a vertical drop of the core caused a large side to side motion that fractured perimeter connections. How did the core drop and why would it cause a large horizontal motion? Additionally, if the perimeter connections were so susceptible to horizontal motion the wind resistance of the design would not have been nearly what the designers purported it to be.

The chief engineer John Skilling is on record explaining to authors Glanz and Lipton

The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. --City in the Sky, p 133

It is obvious that you still can't provide a plausible mechanism for heat weakening causing the rapid horizontal propagation (the NE corner 300 feet away fell within 0.7 seconds of the SW corner) and the constant and rapid (5.1 m/s^2 or 17 feet/s^2) vertical acceleration of the first story of the collapse of the North tower at the 98th floor.

Maybe you can show us some of your cartoons you say you use for understanding and we can see why you can't explain things.

[Jeffrey Orling]

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.

You ignore the building motion pre release which indicated the core had begun to collapse, fail and the motion led to lateral motion and fracturing of column connections. You don't know the temps and where they were applied and you've made up the facts to suit your theory. The link provided explains the flaws in your thinking.

Ed De Paolo examined the steel and stated the heat destroyed the strength of the steel. I suggest you take it up with him not me. I can give you his contact info or look it up yourself - Severud Associates.

So now you want to say a vertical drop of the core caused a large side to side motion that fractured perimeter connections. How did the core drop and why would it cause a large horizontal motion? Additionally, if the perimeter connections were so susceptible to horizontal motion the wind resistance of the design would not have been nearly what the designers purported it to be.

The chief engineer John Skilling is on record explaining to authors Glanz and Lipton

The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. --City in the Sky, p 133

It is obvious that you still can't provide a plausible mechanism for heat weakening causing the rapid 0.5 to 0.7 second horizontal propagation and the constant and rapid (5.1 m/s^2 or 17 feet/s^2) vertical acceleration of the first story of the collapse of the North tower at the 98th floor.

So why bother with all the columns if they weren't needed? That's a BS quote and taken out of context.

Not spending more time arguing with you Tony as you refused to see the facts the inconvenient truths which destroy your pet theories.

I've tried to be open and objetive and my views have evolved and will continue ton evolve. You have not made a case that convinces me and you are stuck like a broken record. Others much smarter than I have shown you your mistakes and you simply do not answer and take flight to peddle your theories on another site such as this. Good luck! I am sure some will embrace your smoke and mirrors as the next best thing to sliced bread for the truth movement.

It's been 12 years and there are remarkably less than a handful of truth people who have even taken in a scientific technical study. They have shown that NIST did a poor job with its work, but have not provided a convincing argument for what DID happen... with your efforts being one of the handful. Very sloppy work trying to pass as rigorous scientific and engineering analysis. It convinces the truth lay guys but is not convincing the huge engineering and scientific community. Why is that? Please don't answer that they are all in on the inside job or intimidated that they will suffer consequences.

We DO need a proper explanation and more data derived from evidence... but you are not providing it. You make stuff up to suit your preconceived views.

We have seen the government abuse the trust of the people and the MIC and the NSS/intel monster grow to enormous proportion and suck all the air out of the room and are running rough shod over the world and the nation. They have the power to do virtually whatever they want... but they don't orchestrate every single world event... even when they behavior causes many of them. They try and successfully turn all world events into an excuse to advance their agenda of achiving more control and less opposition... in the name of security. This is has been foreseen in Brave New World... and 1984.

nuff said.

[Tony Szamboti]

We have seen the government abuse the trust of the people and the MIC and the NSS/intel monster grow to enormous proportion and suck all the air out of the room and are running rough shod over the world and the nation. They have the power to do virtually whatever they want... but they don't orchestrate every single world event... even when they behavior causes many of them. They try and successfully turn all world events into an excuse to advance their agenda of achiving more control and less opposition... in the name of security. This is has been foreseen in Brave New World... and 1984.

So in your mind these guys just sit around and wait for something like a once in a generation occurrence (such as the JFK assassination or 911) to happen so they can move forward with their plans. Doesn't sound like they are the same type of guys who would proactively lie us into a war with Iraq. That sort of points to the fact that they don't wait around. They make it happen.

[Albert Rossi]

Albert Rossi

Your linked pdf articles are key to the run-up. Here then is a synopsis:

Phil, thanks for doing this. Does DPF consider it better protocol to inline or to attach information? If the former, my apologies for not summarizing as you did.

Yes, offhand, I do see a rhyme of history here of sorts. Choose a group that you have been working with, who has potential "blowback" capabilities, and monitor, manipulate, and fund them (like the Cubans in 1963: "You must eliminate Kennedy"). Run operations in parallel which preempt others, hold them at arms length, or even tell them to stand down ("hey, FBI, hands off Oswald: he's working for us, and we're running him in a special anti-FPCC program aimed at non-domestic penetration; that's why we sent him to Mexico"; so off goes the FLASH switch). Obviously, the JFK/WTC scenarios are not "exact" replicas of each other, but "intelligence operation" is written all over both of them. It certainly looks like more than just waiting around for it to happen.

[Jeffrey Orling]

"These guys" is a rather ill defined term. My sense is that the NSS and people in positions of power all pretty much have the same "paranoid" view of the world. Some will abuse their position of power more than others... perhaps most are just right wingers and not necessarily with no moral compass. The have always been and there always be people who get into the inside of the power structure with criminal minds, hidden agendas and will abuse their position to advance their agenda.

I am just guessing that the neocons flooded the MIC and the NSS and then wanted to find the excuses to move policy where they wanted it to go. There is some pretense as transparency and so starting a war and submitted bloated nonsense (seeming) procurement budgets is not possible. The MIC etc. is already sucking up too much and has too much discretionary power with no oversight.

In the early 60s intel was given the green light to engage in covert operations around the world. This was justified as the more effective foreign policy for the US (empire... and corporations which make up the Empire along with the military). There have been assassinations successful and not and support of rebels like the contras to remove popularly elected leftist governments. Any state that is not capitalist is deemed an enemy. The CIA ran rampant thru Latin America, Philippines and Africa and the ME installing and propping up pro capitalist authoritarian governments... The DOD sucked the US into disastrous wars in SE Asia which they did not win. The US talks democracy but acts fascist around the world. The PR is not impressing the oppressed. And the right (MIC-NSS- fascists-transnational corps) wanted to take of the gloves and with the collapse of the USSR become the planet's unchallenged bully installing puppets and taking whatever they wanted without challenge.

Right wing governments in EU etc fell right in line and their leaders were partners in corruption such as Noriega until they showed some independence and then were useless and taken down. Insurrection is the problem for the fascists and the more oppressive they are the more brazen the abuse the more fuel they provide to rebels, insurgency groups and so called terrorists... who struggle to get the empire off their backs and out of their lands. It's a very asymmetrical struggle.

The insurgencies believe that to win the empire will have to crumble from within.. a victim or its own corruption and excessive funding for military adventures which will bankrupt the country and plunge it into economic collapse. USSR seems to have fallen under the burden of too much spending on military defense... in the cold war. That is now taking place in the US-NATO empire. A democracy will not allow this to happen and so the US democracy has been devolved and exists in name only. US is a fascist state which is now collapsing under the burden of militarism and corruption. There is no means to change this trajectory. It will consume itself and turn the world into a vast neo feudal state or crumble. The outcome is yet to be determined.

The neocon fascist types are pushing for more and more control and less and less democracy and transparency. There's little left now. What we have is a veneer with no substance with a fascist agenda. But clearly not everyone inside the MIC-Military and NSS is active in promoting fascism... a fair amount are simply sadists who want to protect the greedy American way of life called a consumerist driven "free market".

We've seen how little accountability and oversight there is... how much of what the NSS and intel does is hidden and beyond scrutiny... how often policies are simply rubber stamped and hidden from the public. They lied big time about the breath and scope of the surveillance state... who created those programs and who is taking the surveillance data and what are they doing with it?

We've also seen how control and secrecy is protected with compartmentalization and plausible deniability... all done in service to allowing criminal behavior to go unnoticed.

The CD project and the vast conspiracy would involve hundreds if not thousands choreographed to precision without rehearsal. This alone makes the CD inside job conspiracy hard to swallow and the more likely one that insiders intent and changing foreign policy used intel to allow the supposed pretext for that new policy... even authoring the USAPATRIOT in advance. Think tanks like PNAC are pushing their agenda... why would they do it so openly?

The bureaucracy is tripping over itself.... it's only a matter of time before it shatters. But when it does these guys are not going gently into that good night, but with all their gins blazing.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Albert Rossi

Your linked pdf articles are key to the run-up. Here then is a synopsis:

Phil, thanks for doing this. Does DPF consider it better protocol to inline or to attach information? If the former, my apologies for not summarizing as you did.

Yes, offhand, I do see a rhyme of history here of sorts. Choose a group that you have been working with, who has potential "blowback" capabilities, and monitor, manipulate, and fund them (like the Cubans in 1963: "You must eliminate Kennedy"). Run operations in parallel which preempt others, hold them at arms length, or even tell them to stand down ("hey, FBI, hands off Oswald: he's working for us, and we're running him in a special anti-FPCC program aimed at non-domestic penetration; that's why we sent him to Mexico"; so off goes the FLASH switch). Obviously, the JFK/WTC scenarios are not "exact" replicas of each other, but "intelligence operation" is written all over both of them. It certainly looks like more than just waiting around for it to happen.

I think this makes a lot of sense... and demonstrates the nature of the complicity but is hardly the so called inside job which planned the entire event to a T. Maybe

[Jeffrey Orling]

How could there be any major international matter without intel's fingerprints NOT on it?

[Albert Rossi]

Albert Rossi

Your linked pdf articles are key to the run-up. Here then is a synopsis:

Phil, thanks for doing this. Does DPF consider it better protocol to inline or to attach information? If the former, my apologies for not summarizing as you did.

Yes, offhand, I do see a rhyme of history here of sorts. Choose a group that you have been working with, who has potential "blowback" capabilities, and monitor, manipulate, and fund them (like the Cubans in 1963: "You must eliminate Kennedy"). Run operations in parallel which preempt others, hold them at arms length, or even tell them to stand down ("hey, FBI, hands off Oswald: he's working for us, and we're running him in a special anti-FPCC program aimed at non-domestic penetration; that's why we sent him to Mexico"; so off goes the FLASH switch). Obviously, the JFK/WTC scenarios are not "exact" replicas of each other, but "intelligence operation" is written all over both of them. It certainly looks like more than just waiting around for it to happen.

I think this makes a lot of sense... and demonstrates the nature of the complicity but is hardly the so called inside job which planned the entire event to a T. Maybe

Well, as I said earlier, I am not in a position to pronounce on 9/11, but it is my view that the JFK assassination was indeed planned to a T from the inside, even if it may not have come off perfectly.