Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

Everything NIST did was not incorrect and it is ignorant to assume that all parts of a large report are incorrect based on a finding that one area is.

Your reading comprehension in this case stinks. I didn't say it was ALL wrong and I certainly will not sayu it was ALL RIGHT. I said they got the wrong conclusions... and made mistakes in the report.... There was a lot of valuable information as well.

But you can't be a little bit pregnant eh?

[Tony Szamboti]

Everything NIST did was not incorrect and it is ignorant to assume that all parts of a large report are incorrect based on a finding that one area is.

Your reading comprehension in this case stinks. I didn't say it was ALL wrong and I certainly will not sayu it was ALL RIGHT. I said they got the wrong conclusions... and made mistakes in the report.... There was a lot of valuable information as well.

But you can't be a little bit pregnant eh?

Being pregnant implies all or nothing and is not a valid analogy here.

It is possible for a report to be very accurate in certain areas and at the same time have less accurate or even incorrect areas with incorrect conclusions. That description is what I think sums up the NIST report on the WTC collapses. There are accurate areas and the aircraft impact seems to be one and can be validated by other means.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Everything NIST did was not incorrect and it is ignorant to assume that all parts of a large report are incorrect based on a finding that one area is.

Your reading comprehension in this case stinks. I didn't say it was ALL wrong and I certainly will not sayu it was ALL RIGHT. I said they got the wrong conclusions... and made mistakes in the report.... There was a lot of valuable information as well.

But you can't be a little bit pregnant eh?

Being pregnant implies all or nothing and is not a valid analogy here.

It is possible for a report to be very accurate in certain areas and at the same time have less accurate or even incorrect areas with incorrect conclusions. That description is what I think sums up the NIST report on the WTC collapses. There are accurate areas and the aircraft impact seems to be one and can be validated by other means.

Can't know and no way to know if they got THAT right because they missed other observations which they COULD see.

[Albert Doyle]

Their problem is that a focused jet cannot be produced by a large falling mass. The pressure produced there would be widespread and unfocused.

That simply isn't true. The floor itself is a pad of corrugated steel used as a pouring platform onto which reinforced concrete is poured. When the mass of the falling section above started the floor collapse (ROOSD) this floor area served as a pump of sorts compressing downward and forcing the air outward laterally. You are seeing it happen right in front of you with the dust jets. The shape of the tower was a focused jet producer because of this set-up. It was a downward gun barrel with a core in the center. If you had better engineering understanding you would realize the path of least resistance vertically was the unsupported floor pads. Both the core and outer perimeter frames offered vertical static resistance. No such resistance existed under the floor pads which were suspended and not supported by columns. So science is telling you the downward force would seek the path of least resistance causing the floor pads to shoot down the shaft. The mass falling through that void would be a pile of material on the top side with the individual floor pad face on the bottom. As this plunging mass encountered each floor it would create an enormous rammed pneumatic compressed air blast seeking escape out the sides where there was least resistance. You cannot answer this obvious situation by repeating mantras over and over that the overpressure there would be widespread and unfocused. A person with a competent grasp of the mechanical engineering involved would automatically understand the shapes and forces described would automatically produce these results simply because it couldn't be any other way scientifically. Especially at the speed and intensity at which it occurred. The statement alone that "A focused jet cannot be produced by a falling mass" is so inherently ridiculous that it alone disqualifies the person who said it. There are centuries of engineering that rely on channeled forces creating focused jets.

What you had was a downward gun barrel effect where the lack of resistance of the floor pads in the unsupported area created an acceleration of the plunge in that area due to the greater resistance of the inner and outer frames causing the pneumatic overpressure to channel down the shaft. This ROOSD zone's susceptibility to air compression allowed a greater, quicker downward transfer of force creating a kinetic transfer of energy that ripped down the shaft slightly ahead of the speed of the falling mass of materials unzipping the inner core in the process. As odd as it is the flashover could have even served as a sort of piston explosion jump-starting the process.

Did I miss where you explained why there were no such dust jets at the alleged upper area around the 98th floor where you claim the initiating demolition charges occurred?

[Tony Szamboti]

Everything NIST did was not incorrect and it is ignorant to assume that all parts of a large report are incorrect based on a finding that one area is.

Your reading comprehension in this case stinks. I didn't say it was ALL wrong and I certainly will not sayu it was ALL RIGHT. I said they got the wrong conclusions... and made mistakes in the report.... There was a lot of valuable information as well.

But you can't be a little bit pregnant eh?

Being pregnant implies all or nothing and is not a valid analogy here.

It is possible for a report to be very accurate in certain areas and at the same time have less accurate or even incorrect areas with incorrect conclusions. That description is what I think sums up the NIST report on the WTC collapses. There are accurate areas and the aircraft impact seems to be one and can be validated by other means.

Can't know and no way to know if they got THAT right because they missed other observations which they COULD see.

Accuracy of one area does not depend on accuracy which should have been easier in other cases. The impact damage due to the aircraft was an independent study. You also provide no cases to back your claim and are simply making unsupported blanket and nonsensical statements.

[Jan Klimkowski]

The hypothesis should be correlated with the actual conditions of the collapse. If a full floor of core columns were magically removed the inner floor pad would drop pulling the fastened connections with the outer frame inward ripping the outer frame supports inward and out of line with those below them. The correct formula here, that is more in line with the actual event, is the entire section above would then become a downward pile driver initiating the floor pad collapse. This is probably very close to what actually happened. This would be aided by a damaged core and frame steel weakened by fires.

What Tony said were demolition plumes were actually air pressure plumes from the collapsing floors. A sharp eye could see they couldn't be from explosives in the core because the source was too close to the wall they were blasting out of. There were no detonation flashes from those plumes, their source was definitely pneumatic.

Albert - I've read your extensive and insistent posts in this thread with a sense of wonder, and have extracted the comments above as an example of your recent enquiries.

You are now writing about the collapse of 9/11 with what appears to be an expert degree of architectural and scientific knowledge.

In my judgement, Tony Szamboti is doing a good job of rebutting your arguments but still you keep jabbing away. Which is fine - that's part of the rationale for DPF. And Tony seems more than able to look after himself and the case he is proposing.

Before seeing these recent exchanges, I would have expected you to be more on Tony Szamboti's side of the argument than Jeffrey Orling's.

Has anything caused you to change your mind?

Jan

[Albert Doyle]

Your thinking regarding the structure below the 98th floor where initiation began is flawed. If that structure gave way first then the collapse would not have initiated at the 98th floor. I'll give you a reason the collapse started at the 98th floor. It was because it was the closest place to the impact where there was no damage and charges would not have been displaced. Even after the initiation the first floors to collapse where the 99th, 100th, and 101st floors. This is verifiable on video. Now why would four stories above the impact damage actually be the first to collapse?

I was suggesting the 95th floor right in the middle of the damage area. How about my suggestion that the collapse initiated at the impact zone because the core there was heavily damaged? Verified? What I see is the antenna giving way just before the whole top section plunges. It gave way because the impact zone inner core weakened to the point of failure due to crash damage and heat stress. The perimeter skirt quickly pulled inward causing the outer frame to displace and decouple off the outer frame below it. If the collapse started on the 98th floor it was because that was the last place where an intact core remained causing it to plunge as one solid unit into the wrecked core below it that finally gave out.

Where are the dust jet plumes for your 98th floor charges if it happened that way?

[Albert Doyle]

Albert - I've read your extensive and insistent posts in this thread with a sense of wonder, and have extracted the comments above as an example of your recent enquiries.

You are now writing about the collapse of 9/11 with what appears to be an expert degree of architectural and scientific knowledge.

In my judgement, Tony Szamboti is doing a good job of rebutting your arguments but still you keep jabbing away. Which is fine - that's part of the rationale for DPF. And Tony seems more than able to look after himself and the case he is proposing.

Before seeing these recent exchanges, I would have expected you to be more on Tony Szamboti's side of the argument than Jeffrey Orling's.

Has anything caused you to change your mind?

Jan

I wish people would just answer the arguments. I believe they are sound. If you side with Tony's "A falling mass cannot produce a focused jet" all I can say is good luck to you. "Rebutting"? That statement is inherently preposterous and violates basic scientific principles. And Tony has failed to answer some very key points repeatedly.

[Tony Szamboti]

Your thinking regarding the structure below the 98th floor where initiation began is flawed. If that structure gave way first then the collapse would not have initiated at the 98th floor. I'll give you a reason the collapse started at the 98th floor. It was because it was the closest place to the impact where there was no damage and charges would not have been displaced. Even after the initiation the first floors to collapse where the 99th, 100th, and 101st floors. This is verifiable on video. Now why would four stories above the impact damage actually be the first to collapse?

I was suggesting the 95th floor right in the middle of the damage area. How about my suggestion that the collapse initiated at the impact zone because the core there was heavily damaged? Verified? What I see is the antenna giving way just before the whole top section plunges. It gave way because the impact zone inner core weakened to the point of failure due to crash damage and heat stress. The perimeter skirt quickly pulled inward causing the outer frame to displace and decouple off the outer frame below it. If the collapse started on the 98th floor it was because that was the last place where an intact core remained causing it to plunge as one solid unit into the wrecked core below it that finally gave out.

Where are the dust jet plumes for your 98th floor charges if it happened that way?

The plumes come out of the 98th floor very evenly, indicating it is the 98th floor failing, not the damaged area below.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

NIST also determined the failure initiated at the 98th floor and their analysis here matches those of others and is not in dispute.

[Albert Doyle]

The plumes come out of the 98th floor very evenly, indicating it is the 98th floor failing, not the damaged area below. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k

If you compare the explosive dust jets blasting out further down the building in the other video to the plumes in this video it is clear as day that they are different. I think you know that. Any competent observer would instantly see that the dust plumes in this video are timed to the compression force of the falling tower and are simply smoke and dust clouds being forced out by the billowing effect of the collapse. If these were explosive blast jets they would be stronger like those allegedly in the lower floors and, more importantly, slightly precede the collapse. These plumes are soft and happen in synch with the collapse meaning they are caused by the collapse and did not cause the collapse. This is outright dishonesty because anyone can see the antenna starts to fall long before any plume of smoke appears meaning the timing is obviously way off for those plumes to be blast jets from charges that caused the antenna to drop. Meanwhile, you've failed to explain why these plumes are much slower in velocity if they are the same charges? I can explain why they are slower. Because the ones lower down are from the much greater forces involved with increasing collective mass as the plunging tower reaches terminal velocity. In short, the natural process fits the evidence. You, on the other hand, are left with weak answers that don't answer the majority of what has been said. You have yet to answer why, if the collapse was initiated by CD charges at the 98th floor, are there no dust jets like there allegedly are on the lower floors?

You're not answering the points.