Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

Very good explanation... much more logical than truther CD nonsense. I would point out that the columns virtually post initiation show that the "failed" or came apart... at their connection splices which were not aligned with the the floor system. The 36' length columns had connections at about 4' above the floor slab. The splce was simply to keep the two columns aligned and offered very little resistence to lateral motion. That was accomplished by the three floors and the bracing that supported them above the splice.

When the floors were stripped away in the collapse and floow of the floor mass down through the areas BETWEEN the columns which Albert refers to as a structure void (and is correct)...this left the columns with no lateral bracing and the strength of a column is determined in part by its unbraced length. So the floor stripping led to column weakening and then buckling and fracturing of the splices and the core columns came apart like pick up sticks. Not a single bit of evidence of explosives dismembering the frame.

But then again you'd have had to have studied the debris and the columns lying there to understand this... and know how the frame was erected... and how the bracing was attached and where... and so on and so on... or

You can listen to people who have no idea about any of the above but spout junk which sounds like science. And you believe it because it fits your need and preconcieved beliefs.

[Albert Doyle]

Your controlled demolition claim has trouble there because that is a basic indicator of weakness/stress-based initiation of the collapse.

Are you an engineer or did you get this from somewhere reputable? Or did you just make something up just now?

I think the controlled demolition proponents are so convinced of their beliefs that they fail to look at other simple explanations. KISS: The South Tower collapsed first because it had more weight above the heat-weakened damaged area causing more stress.

Why would they collapse the South Tower first if they were trying to imitate a natural collapse? Peter said all sorts of unpredictable screw-ups occur and maybe some CD devices had snafus that caused this. But if you stop to think how they would have fixed that it ventures into the preposterous. No chance it was because the South Tower had more weight above the impact zone that caused the collapse earlier than the North Tower? It sort of makes sense doesn't it?

[Tony Szamboti]

Jeffrey's notion that the floors in the towers would break loose from the columns enough to instigate the collapse is akin to him trusting that the moon is made of green cheese. He has thought about this and some people have told him it was what happened, so it must be. However, he will verify it when he gets there.

The inanity is high with some of these people.

[Tony Szamboti]

Your controlled demolition claim has trouble there because that is a basic indicator of weakness/stress-based initiation of the collapse.

Are you an engineer or did you get this from somewhere reputable? Or did you just make something up just now?

I think the controlled demolition proponents are so convinced of their beliefs that they fail to look at other simple explanations. KISS: The South Tower collapsed first because it had more weight above the heat-weakened damaged area causing more stress.

Why would they collapse the South Tower first if they were trying to imitate a natural collapse? Peter said all sorts of unpredictable screw-ups occur and maybe some CD devices had snafus that caused this. But if you stop to think how they would have fixed that it ventures into the preposterous. No chance it was because the South Tower had more weight above the impact zone that caused the collapse earlier than the North Tower? It sort of makes sense doesn't it?

The firemen had reached the fires in the South Tower a few minutes before it collapsed and radioed that they were there and that the fires were very manageable. Had they put them out the impact damage and fire ruse can't work. You might blow that off as a conspiracy theory, but if you believe there was a conspiracy concerning certain aspects of 911 then you can't just dismiss it.

[Jeffrey Orling]

There is something else in play here. And that is what I call reading evidence or observations. We tend to use a result - outcome to tell us what caused that result outcome.

We see smoke we think (understandably) it was caused by fire. This works most of the time because we have a basic understanding of how the world works.. stimilus - response .. cause and effect.

But let say we saw a photo of a object in the sky.... a steel beam. Is it falling? Is it moving upward... or horizontally? One still pic we can't tell much.. that is other than the force of gravity and maybe some other forces might be acting on it. If we see a timed sequence we can know a lot more about the piece of steel and if we know the size and mass we can know a lot more. Our understanding is informed by the more ACCURATE data we have about the observation.

With respect to the collapses of the WTC buildings we have many poorly skilled observers reporting what they experienced. These reports are not scientific data, but anacdotal at best... although the observations of a trained skilled person would be more reliable than a laymen. I have more confidence in what a meteorologest sees looking at the sky than I do.

So the first thing is to take ALL lay observations with a HUGE grain of salt.

The there is the context. On the morning of 9/11 NYers were told they were under attack by terrrorists. They could see buildings on fire debris pouring from them smoke billowing skyward and the idiots on TV telling them what to think. So their observation of sounds will be HIGHLY prejudiced... loud noises are all bombs!

And further think of the language itself... most common use for a loud noise is the word EXPLOSION.... or maybe loud "BOOM".. explosions can BOOM too. Then there is ROAR like a loud train... or THUNDER which can BOOM or CRACK. All of these are the result of highly energetic events which release mechanical energy which is experience as sound. The collapse sounded to me like a ROAR not a series of explosions. A huge floor dropping would probably make a BOOM sound... and a series would sound as BOOM, BOOM, BOOM... what other way is there to describe the sound of floors collapsing?

The sort of sloppy thinking is on display with respect to dust ejections, smoke and dust laden air seen with the WTC collapses. The collapsing building occupied huge volumes of air and when the came down the collapses involved and CREATED enormous amount of air movements. Fires also cause air to move...heating it and causing it to rise and cooler air to rush in to replace it. Fires can create enormous local wind effects.

And these towers stood amidst the local wind conditions which were about 20 knots from the NW blowing SE. This too influences the observations. Dust in the air causes light to be refracted and color shifted, not to mention the low sun angle at the time of the plane strikes.

Down drafts were created from the collapsing billions of cubic feet of air rushed into behind/above the collapse and then spread laterally taking the heat from the smoldering fires in the rubble..and dust. This blast was like a huge bellows on the flaming debris pile stoking it hotter.

The event was so complex that it boggles the mind to try to describe all that was going on. But this does not prevent a single person from offering a description of what they saw. And people like Graham MacQueen from using statistics to determine what happened based on interviews of firemen and key words in their written accounts. Truth by word stats!

And truth because some self declared fake scientist tells you what you saw...

What to do?

[Jeffrey Orling]

The firemen had reached the fires in the South Tower a few minutes before it collapsed and radioed that they were there and that the fires were very manageable. Had they put them out the impact damage and fire ruse can't work. You might blow that off as a conspiracy theory, but if you believe there was a conspiracy concerning certain aspects of 911 then you can't just dismiss it.

The firemen who made this report could not possible have examined or seen 47 core columns on perhaps 6 separate floors... they couldn't even get close to them where there were fires. Are you denying that there was huge amounts of smoke CONTINUOUSLY POURING from the south tower frokm the instant of the plane strike until it collapsed?

Are you tell me that this one fireman inside the tower saw everything going on? Are you effin crazy? You are cherry picking and quote mining and being intellectually dishonest. Shame on you for trying to pull a fast one and using this poor soul who probably was killed and can't explain himself. That is.... disgusting Tony. Have you no shame?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Jeffrey's notion that the floors in the towers would break loose from the columns enough to instigate the collapse is akin to him trusting that the moon is made of green cheese. He has thought about this and some people have told him it was what happened, so it must be. However, he will verify it when he gets there.

The inanity is high with some of these people.

It's not MY notion... it's what in fact happened and most who have studied the confirm this to be the case... and the evidence of the steel, the destroyed beam seats and crushed concrete slabs and intact steel columns demonstrates this.

Sorry Tony... you need to open you eyes and see what happened. People have shown you... but you are in denial.

[Tony Szamboti]

Let's see if Jeffrey's notions of the floors collapsing first and instigating the collapse of the North Tower can hold up to scrutiny when combined with observation and how things actually work.

1. In order for the floors to instigate the collapse they would have needed to collapse at least three floors before leaving the columns unsupported enough for buckling of the columns to even be possible.

2. If the three floors had collapsed before the columns buckled we would have seen huge amounts of smoke and dust coming out of the windows before the roofline fell. We don't and three stories if 36 feet of height so this would not have been something easy to miss. So the floors did not instigate the collapse.

So Jeffrey's floors first theory does not hold up to scrutiny and it is no different than saying the moon is made of green cheese.

What actually happened is the core went down first and pulled the perimeter columns inward causing them to buckle and fail and smoke and dust came out of one story 9the 98th) across the building as the roofline started going down.

[Lauren Johnson]

The firemen had reached the fires in the South Tower a few minutes before it collapsed and radioed that they were there and that the fires were very manageable. Had they put them out the impact damage and fire ruse can't work. You might blow that off as a conspiracy theory, but if you believe there was a conspiracy concerning certain aspects of 911 then you can't just dismiss it.

The firemen who made this report could not possible have examined or seen 47 core columns on perhaps 6 separate floors... they couldn't even get close to them where there were fires. Are you denying that there was huge amounts of smoke CONTINUOUSLY POURING from the south tower frokm the instant of the plane strike until it collapsed?

Are you tell me that this one fireman inside the tower saw everything going on? Are you effin crazy? You are cherry picking and quote mining and being intellectually dishonest. Shame on you for trying to pull a fast one and using this poor soul who probably was killed and can't explain himself. That is.... disgusting Tony. Have you no shame?

Jeffrey, you have just taken things to the next level. You have now told us that these firefighters do not know their jobs. They were actively fighting fires that they expected to put out rather quickly. They on the other hand did not say something like, These fires are way too hot. We have got to let them burn down for a while. They were up at the impact level and the were planning to put the fires out.

But considering your position, you would naturally have to do whatever it takes to denigrate their competence.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Let's see if Jeffrey's notions of the floors collapsing first and instigating the collapse of the North Tower can hold up to scrutiny when combined with observation and how things actually work.

1. In order for the floors to instigate the collapse they would have needed to collapse at least three floors before leaving the columns unsupported enough for buckling of the columns to even be possible.

2. If the three floors had collapsed before the columns buckled we would have seen huge amounts of smoke and dust coming out of the windows before the roofline fell. We don't and three stories if 36 feet of height so this would not have been something easy to miss. So the floors did not instigate the collapse.

So Jeffrey's floors first theory does not hold up to scrutiny and it is no different than saying the moon is made of green cheese.

What actually happened is the core went down first and pulled the perimeter columns inward causing them to buckle and fail and smoke and dust came out of one story 9the 98th) across the building as the roofline started going down.

Don't misrepresent my position. Let's try again:

Planes did substantial mechanical damage to the core and the facade. Loads were redistributed driving down FOS in the aggregate and likely pushing SOME columns periously close to failure. There were damaged or dented columns as well clearly not able to perform at capacity

Fire proofing was blasted off many columns by the plane impact and debris flying the the structure... a jumbo jet would be very disruptive to the interiors including the fire protection. It also severed and shorted electrical risers causing electrical explosions and fires on 108 and in the sub basement where sub stations and switch gear was located.

The heat eroded the strength of the frame. Several large section of floors were destroyed by the plane and sections becan to collapse. The supports for the slabs were rather few steel angle seats... debris shows many bent over and riped from the belt girder and the facade panels. Perimeter core columns lost bracing and unbraced length increased weakened those still in place.

Fires advanced through several floors in the core which was tenant space as the shafts mostly ended on flr 78 sky lobby. These floors supported the spread of the fires and pooled fuel that entered with the plane... not all fuel ignited outside... most likely burned inside the tower and flowed in some cases down the vertical riser shafts adjacent to the core columns.

Bracing splices began to fail from the heat weakening... columns continued to weaken from multiple assaults. Weaker column splice joints were 4' above the floor slabs and subject to intense heat from the flames. Steel warped and twists and columns moved out of alignment.

The center core columns were the weakest one and now were seeing the displace loads from the destroyed stronger columns. The failed and this led to the 360 ton antenna to plunge down into the core area of the 3 top floors. At this point the entire interior including the core was coming apart... the facade was incapable of carrying the floor loads without the core side support fully functioning... it began to buckle and as the FOS dropped to one and all reserve strength was gone... the 30,000 tons plunged down through the building setting off the ROOSD... the facade without lateral support broke apart and came down in sheets of varying sides. The collapse or the top inside the tower caused a huge flashover shooting smoke and flames and debris outward and ROOSD began.

It was something similar to what is depicted in the attached cartoon.

perhaps