Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
Albert Doyle Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote:This is just pure nonsense.



No it's not. If the 98th floor were intact and had its frame solidly connected it would fall as one unit as the structure below it failed. This would give the illusion of the collapse starting at the 98th floor but would really be the first level that fell as one unit appearing to be the fail point. Truth is the remaining damaged area below it is what gave out and the intact 98th floor flat is what fell into it.

I've tried to make this point to Tony numerous times with no success. The columns and stucture in the 3 floors BELOW 98 all supported by columns from 4' above floor 96 to 4 feet above 98 sustained considerable impact damage as did those from 93 to 96. When this 6 story region failed the top which was little damaged came down.... see the attached slide. The outburst of debris is consistent with the damage and the structure.


Attached Files
.pdf   North Tower Impact Damage.pdf (Size: 448.6 KB / Downloads: 1)
Tony Szamboti Wrote:[
The real truth is it seems the aircraft impacts were nothing but causal ruses to make it appear as though they caused the collapse. The real reasons for the collapse involve why it started in the core just above the impact damage and on the south exterior.



The south exterior where the fuel would have been caught by the back wall and pooled. This is where the fuel would have burned hottest. Once again, the evidence showing a natural collapse.
Albert Doyle Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.



Tony, you didn't answer this. I'd be very interested in seeing one of the rebuttals Jan credits you over with this particular point. Please answer this directly. This is a checkmate as far as I'm concerned as long as you can't answer it.






I think Albert conveys an excellent conception of what happened.
Albert Doyle Wrote:
Albert Doyle Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.



Tony, you didn't answer this. I'd be very interested in seeing one of the rebuttals Jan credits you over with this particular point. Please answer this directly. This is a checkmate as far as I'm concerned as long as you can't answer it.








I did not say the dust and debris coming out of the 98th floor was due to charges, of course that is from the collapse. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What is wrong with you?

However, the focused jets on the corner as shown in this video are not from the collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

I have answered your points, unless you are talking about some hidden little item in one of your cramped paragraphs. You and Jeffrey are similar in the sense that both of you could use some work on your writing styles and comprehension.
Jeffrey, As I understand your sketch entitled Top Drop Cartoon, the load supported by the compromised core columns was slowly transferred to the perimeter columns via the hat trusses. As the perimeter column exceeded their designed load capacity, they began to buckle and slip pulling the core columns down. The core detaches from the hat trusses. After that I am a little vague. But somehow this leads to a cascading collapse which Major Tom calls ROOSD, which stands for Runaway Open Office Space Destruction. Am I correct in interpreting your cartoon?


Attached Files
.pdf   Top Drop Cartoon (3).pdf (Size: 262.21 KB / Downloads: 2)
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I

"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
deleted
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:
Albert Doyle Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote:This is just pure nonsense.



No it's not. If the 98th floor were intact and had its frame solidly connected it would fall as one unit as the structure below it failed. This would give the illusion of the collapse starting at the 98th floor but would really be the first level that fell as one unit appearing to be the fail point. Truth is the remaining damaged area below it is what gave out and the intact 98th floor flat is what fell into it.

I've tried to make this point to Tony numerous times with no success. The columns and stucture in the 3 floors BELOW 98 all supported by columns from 4' above floor 96 to 4 feet above 98 sustained considerable impact damage as did those from 93 to 96. When this 6 story region failed the top which was little damaged came down.... see the attached slide. The outburst of debris is consistent with the damage and the structure.

I think you mean a splice was located every three floors in the core and the ones involved in the damaged area would have been 4 feet above the 95th floor slab.

The 98th floor did not suffer impact damage except for one perimeter column and the 97th almost no core damage.

You and Albert are both wrong if you think the 6 story impact region is what failed to initiate the collapse. The initiation occurred nearly simultaneously across the actual 98th floor and then went upwards at first with the 99th through 101st floors collapsing before the 97th and down. This could only have been a result of charges.
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey, As I understand your sketch entitled Top Drop Cartoon, the load supported by the compromised core columns was slowly transferred to the perimeter columns via the hat trusses. As the perimeter column exceeded their designed load capacity, they began to buckle and slip pulling the core columns down. The core detaches from the hat trusses. After that I am a little vague. But somehow this leads to a cascading collapse which Major Tom calls ROOSD, which stands for Runaway Open Office Space Destruction. Am I correct in interpreting your cartoon?

Basically you are getting the gist of the diagram. It's meant to show what happens as the core columns are weakened. When the lose capacity the 12 floors of the core ... and there were only 2 elevator chafts in the core at that height... were hanging from the hat truss. And this include part of the weight of the floors outside the core as the 24 perimeter core columns support about 45% of the outside the core floor loads. When the core lost capacity all of the loads were moved over to the facade columns which buckled and in so doing there was lateral translation and the facades slipped past each other 2 side passed outside and 2 inside. But surely the facade wasn't able to carry the floor loads alone including those inside the core up there. This mass.. became the ROOSD mass driving through the inside of the tower down to the ground.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey, As I understand your sketch entitled Top Drop Cartoon, the load supported by the compromised core columns was slowly transferred to the perimeter columns via the hat trusses. As the perimeter column exceeded their designed load capacity, they began to buckle and slip pulling the core columns down. The core detaches from the hat trusses. After that I am a little vague. But somehow this leads to a cascading collapse which Major Tom calls ROOSD, which stands for Runaway Open Office Space Destruction. Am I correct in interpreting your cartoon?

Basically you are getting the gist of the diagram. It's meant to show what happens as the core columns are weakened. When the lose capacity the 12 floors of the core ... and there were only 2 elevator chafts in the core at that height... were hanging from the hat truss. And this include part of the weight of the floors outside the core as the 24 perimeter core columns support about 45% of the outside the core floor loads. When the core lost capacity all of the loads were moved over to the facade columns which buckled and in so doing there was lateral translation and the facades slipped past each other 2 side passed outside and 2 inside. But surely the facade wasn't able to carry the floor loads alone including those inside the core up there. This mass.. became the ROOSD mass driving through the inside of the tower down to the ground.

This disagrees with the NIST analysis I take it--although the details escape me? And has this thesis been discussed in the requisite journals? I gotta say that anon posters over at randi don't cut it when it gets down to it. OK, now I will stare at the diagram some more.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I

"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  WTC-7 Before Collapse - Video of activities inside and outside Peter Lemkin 0 4,810 04-12-2015, 09:45 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New Detailed Analysis of WTC 7 Controlled Demolition Peter Lemkin 0 5,110 01-12-2015, 04:42 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  The case against the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis Tony Szamboti 4 3,726 04-11-2013, 07:11 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New Analysis Summary Of 9-11-01 Insider Trading [with some very interesting facts, if true]! Peter Lemkin 4 5,233 28-10-2013, 03:01 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis: Redux Lauren Johnson 0 3,631 16-08-2013, 03:39 AM
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
  New Seismic Analysis Further Points to Controlled Demolition.... Peter Lemkin 0 3,585 03-12-2012, 05:21 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  911 Meta Analysis Jeffrey Orling 18 9,965 23-10-2012, 08:54 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  STill the best and most comprehensive timeline and information source for 911-related events Peter Lemkin 0 2,589 10-08-2012, 08:10 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New theory explains collapse of Twin Towers- Aluminium and water explosions Magda Hassan 7 8,581 27-09-2011, 05:47 PM
Last Post: Jeffrey Orling
  First Wikileaks Cable possibly related to 911, Al Quaeda, etc. Peter Lemkin 0 6,373 26-09-2011, 08:02 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)