Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Kyle Burnett]

I say there is not enough evidence for or of CD and so one should have the default that it was natural.

Well at least you've implicitly acknowledged that there is evidence of CD, now if only you could get over the notion that one should have a default conclusion rather than all hypothesis to the same burden of proof.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I say there is not enough evidence for or of CD and so one should have the default that it was natural.

Well at least you've implicitly acknowledged that there is evidence of CD, now if only you could get over the notion that one should have a default conclusion rather than all hypothesis to the same burden of proof.

Perhaps I mispoke a bit here. I think that the RESULTS that we see... the towers coming down as they did... IS EVIDENCE of destruction of capacity to support the service loads... in the twin this destruction occured at the plane strike region and the tops dropped down beginning a ROOSD which is a natural destructive process. In 7 the transfer structures lost capacity and the redistribution of loads is a natural process which led to the entire structure down there losing capacity and the top of the building coming down

All three collapses... the dropping down phase was natural ... or need not have had CD devices and there is no evidence in this phase.

The twins had both mechanical destruction and heat weakening. The issue is how much load capacity destruction did this mechanisms do. Tony says they could not do enough. I say they could and that could only be determined conclusively with more data. He tries to minimize the mechanical destruction from the plane strikes and the amount of weakening from heat from fires. These are his guiding assumptions to his CD conclusion. If these factors were sufficient then the top drops would not require any devices.

Others in the truth movement believe that ROOSD was not possible that is the columns all through out the towers had to be destroyed and cite material ejections as evidence of this. But the contradictory evidence is clear in the surviving core columns after the floors and the facade had fallen to the ground.

If one wants to assert a device did something, one needs proof of it and I don't see any proof.

[Jeffrey Orling]

If I had to bet I would say it is a job. Only somebody in that situation would keep coming back saying the same things, after what they were saying had been shown to be extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, numerous times.

Are you asserting that my 911 postings is a job? That I am working for some group to promote the OCT or destroy the truth movement?

That's a pretty bold and somewhat libelous statement. And you have not a shred of proof of this.

Why is it a problem for you if someone expresses their POV and not only is persistent but that POV evolves over time? Understanding often does and POVs do change. I happen to be interested in the destruction of the WTC because I had never seen any building collapse and was, as an architect, curious as to how this happened. Obviously they could have been intentionally destroyed and at first there was a presumption that this was the intent. If so, CD would make sense.

This framed my earliest conception of the event and it was bolstered by how the officials stalled the investigation and used 911 as a pretext for wars and domestic repression. When the reports came out they did not satisfy my and it appeared that they were covering up something. Could it have been CD or insider involvement? Maybe. That became the truth movement's position and filter for seeing the entire event.

Yet I was not seeing a sufficient descriptive mechanism as to how this took place? What sort of devices? Where were they placed and how were the detonated or set off? The truth movement has not really bothered with this level of specificity, dodging it all the time and using bait and switch always returning to some unexplained (or unconfirmed) anomaly. NIST produced an easy target for criticism.

The ROOSD explanation was the best fit for the collapse phase and this took the CD devices off the table during the collapse phase.

Then it became clear that people were not seeing what was taking place in the collapse phase but what they WANTED to see. If they couldn't see the obvious... seeing the more nuanced at and before initiation was not going to happen. The debate took on a theoretical frame.. divorced from what actually took place. Bazant was guilty of this, NIST was, Chandler was and it seems most who jumped in with explanations were.

And one's political views seem to distort perspective when dealing with basic physics and engineering and the evidence and data derived from it about the destruction of the WTC.

Stick to the facts and the observations.

[Kyle Burnett]

[Tony] tries to minimize the mechanical destruction from the plane strikes and the amount of weakening from heat from fires.

If you can provide more accurate estimates, please do.

Others in the truth movement believe that ROOSD was not possible that is the columns all through out the towers had to be destroyed and cite material ejections as evidence of this. But the contradictory evidence is clear in the surviving core columns after the floors and the facade had fallen to the ground.

Perhaps some have erroneously argued that every last column had to be rigged to come down, but that's hardly relevant to the discussion at hand.

The ROOSD explanation was the best fit for the collapse phase and this took the CD devices off the table during the collapse phase.

Where exactly can one find this ROOSD explanation detailed with the level of specificity you demand of CD, or do you not hold it to the same standard?

[Tony Szamboti]

If I had to bet I would say it is a job. Only somebody in that situation would keep coming back saying the same things, after what they were saying had been shown to be extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, numerous times.

Are you asserting that my 911 postings is a job? That I am working for some group to promote the OCT or destroy the truth movement?

That's a pretty bold and somewhat libelous statement. And you have not a shred of proof of this.

Why is it a problem for you if someone expresses their POV and not only is persistent but that POV evolves over time? Understanding often does and POVs do change. I happen to be interested in the destruction of the WTC because I had never seen any building collapse and was, as an architect, curious as to how this happened. Obviously they could have been intentionally destroyed and at first there was a presumption that this was the intent. If so, CD would make sense.

This framed my earliest conception of the event and it was bolstered by how the officials stalled the investigation and used 911 as a pretext for wars and domestic repression. When the reports came out they did not satisfy my and it appeared that they were covering up something. Could it have been CD or insider involvement? Maybe. That became the truth movement's position and filter for seeing the entire event.

Yet I was not seeing a sufficient descriptive mechanism as to how this took place? What sort of devices? Where were they placed and how were the detonated or set off? The truth movement has not really bothered with this level of specificity, dodging it all the time and using bait and switch always returning to some unexplained (or unconfirmed) anomaly. NIST produced an easy target for criticism.

The ROOSD explanation was the best fit for the collapse phase and this took the CD devices off the table during the collapse phase.

Then it became clear that people were not seeing what was taking place in the collapse phase but what they WANTED to see. If they couldn't see the obvious... seeing the more nuanced at and before initiation was not going to happen. The debate took on a theoretical frame.. divorced from what actually took place. Bazant was guilty of this, NIST was, Chandler was and it seems most who jumped in with explanations were.

And one's political views seem to distort perspective when dealing with basic physics and engineering and the evidence and data derived from it about the destruction of the WTC.

Stick to the facts and the observations.

As I have said many times to you, ROOSD cannot start until the momentum is sufficiently high to cause self-propagation. The building and the floors were very robust with the floors being able to take 12 times their own static load. That was a greater factor of safety than the columns with 3 in the core and 5 on the exterior. You want to say that because natural propagation could occur after at least five to six stories have collapsed that everything is fine. This is an insufficient argument period, and I wonder why you would even consider it a way forward when the initiation and those first several stories cannot be explained naturally. Controlled demolitions are usually done mostly with gravity. The assistance is to break enough mass loose to create the momentum needed for gravity to do most of the work.

It is kind of like somebody being pushed off a cliff and you only wanting to look at the fact that they died of internal injuries experienced during the impact at the bottom, considering that natural, and forgetting that what started the process was not.

[Jeffrey Orling]

...

It is kind of like somebody being pushed off a cliff and you only wanting to look at the fact that they died of internal injuries experienced during the impact at the bottom, considering that natural, and forgetting that what started the process was not.

Tony,
Most CD supporters including Chandler assert that there were charges in the collapse phase...ie post initiation during what is referred to as ROOSD. He and others do no accept that the collapse was natural AT ALL.

[Tony Szamboti]

...

It is kind of like somebody being pushed off a cliff and you only wanting to look at the fact that they died of internal injuries experienced during the impact at the bottom, considering that natural, and forgetting that what started the process was not.

Tony,
Most CD supporters including Chandler assert that there were charges in the collapse phase...ie post initiation during what is referred to as ROOSD. He and others do no accept that the collapse was natural AT ALL.

I think what you should say is that some don't accept that any part of the collapse was natural. However, it is likely that while much of the destruction, after the initiation and first several floors, could have been due to gravity, the corners of the perimeters were very likely separated with some form of charges. You have not accepted this in the past but had no real argument against it and there is clear evidence of it with focused ejections running down the corner in close proximity. The corners would need to be artificially separated as they were stiff and could easily have slowed or stalled a collapse.

The reality may be that the collapse needed less help after it had progressed past the first several floors which were surely instigated artificially, since it is provable that there was no column involvement in resisting it.

[Peter Lemkin]

I say there is not enough evidence for or of CD and so one should have the default that it was natural.

Well at least you've implicitly acknowledged that there is evidence of CD, now if only you could get over the notion that one should have a default conclusion rather than all hypothesis to the same burden of proof.

This is either folly of a near criminal kind - or disinformation. There was nanothermite and nanothermite residue in the dust - enough to calculate out to tons of it, originally. Add to that the floors struck by the planes [likely computer guided] hit the very floors in each of the two of the three towers hit that were undergoing work on the beams [for new fireproofing and other upgrades near the beams!]. There is more, but why waste one's time arguing with someone at best only trying to pedal his theory 'widely held' by one person -ONLY; or a disinfo agent here to waste our time, at worst. When one adds that his theory doesn't account for the energy expended in the collapse [greatly more than the gravitational potential energy], nor the pyroclastic cloud, nor the squibs, nor the sound of explosions, nor the explosions seen and heard in other locations, nor the fact the fires were out and cool after about 20 minutes, nor the collapse of WTC7 in the same manner with minor fires and also having explosions, nor the cover-up, nor the destruction of evidence, nor the non-investigations, nor the impossible disappearance of the huge separated top of one tower, nor the lateral projection huge distances of beams weighing tons, nor the melting and twisting of enourmous core beams, nor the molten metal that was molten for months....give it up.....this is insanity parading as voodoo 'science'.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I think what you should say is that some don't accept that any part of the collapse was natural. However, it is likely that while much of the destruction, after the initiation and first several floors, could have been due to gravity, the corners of the perimeters were very likely separated with some form of charges. You have not accepted this in the past but had no real argument against it and there is clear evidence of it with focused ejections running down the corner in close proximity. The corners would need to be artificially separated as they were stiff and could easily have slowed or stalled a collapse.

The reality may be that the collapse needed less help after it had progressed past the first several floors which were surely instigated artificially, since it is provable that there was no column involvement in resisting it.

The corners were no stiffer ie... the connections than were the sides.. all were the same.

I have not accepted that there was any destruction of the corners.. which would have had to occur every two stories. No evidence of that whatsoever.

The corners were no different and material was pushed out the window/openings... weaker than the columns... just like the side.

You are making stuff up and that won't fly.

[Jeffrey Orling]

This is either folly of a near criminal kind - or disinformation.

Rubbish... it's not dis info... it's my opinion based on my research. Stop with you usual ad homs... and *facts* made up out of whole cloth.