Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Thanks again. One more question. How do you interpret the ejections or squibs seen well below the collapse levels of WTCs 1 & 2?

I interpret them as squibs destroying the structural integrity before the collapse wave reached that point. People wedded to a natural collapse theory or its defense cannot ever admit there were squibs of any sort, as that is an admission of controlled demolition. Their problem is that a focused jet cannot be produced by a large falling mass. The pressure produced there would be widespread and unfocused.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Tony,

Thanks again. One more question. How do you interpret the ejections or squibs seen well below the collapse levels of WTCs 1 & 2?

I interpret them as squibs destroying the structural integrity before the collapse wave reached that point. People wedded to a natural collapse theory or its defense cannot ever admit there were squibs of any sort, as that is an admission of controlled demolition. I have seen them attempt to provide all kinds of tortured explanations of what they could be indicative of other than squibs, none of which would ever produce a focused jet emanating from the building.

Right and 6 or 7dust ejections in one tower were part of this organized CD... why only one tower?

There are very good explanations but you refuse to accept them. Odd that the ejections are at the floors where local elevator pits were... no?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Albert, there was a very detailed computer simulation of the impact done by the NIST. See NCSTAR 1-2. There were very few core columns damaged as the wings did not make it to the core. So by volume alone only a few core columns could be hit.

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?

NIST is fine when you agree with them and the devil when you don't. Shorter.. NIST did not produce reliable report, flubbed observations and came up with the wrong explanation for all the collapses but got some stuff right.

The mass of the plane... like 250,000 or whatever (look it up) and the fuel... did not disappear and it was moving at 450 knots. Do you know how much kinetic energy is the fuel alone has...not to mention the keel, the landing gear, the engine and so forth.

And the interior core damage is hard to determine has has not been documented by NIST... But one landing gear made it through the building and landed in a parking lot on Liberty Street...puny wheel.

We know the building showed movement before release... so it was coming apart up there and when enough of the frame was useless the whole top dropped and ROOSD began and no need to weaken the frame... and we know it survived the floor collapse anyway.

Face the truth... the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

There is no evidence for placed devices in the towers...

[Tony Szamboti]

Albert, there was a very detailed computer simulation of the impact done by the NIST. See NCSTAR 1-2. There were very few core columns damaged as the wings did not make it to the core. So by volume alone only a few core columns could be hit.

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?

NIST is fine when you agree with them and the devil when you don't. Shorter.. NIST did not produce reliable report, flubbed observations and came up with the wrong explanation for all the collapses but got some stuff right.

The mass of the plane... like 250,000 or whatever (look it up) and the fuel... did not disappear and it was moving at 450 knots. Do you know how much kinetic energy is the fuel alone has...not to mention the keel, the landing gear, the engine and so forth.

And the interior core damage is hard to determine has has not been documented by NIST... But one landing gear made it through the building and landed in a parking lot on Liberty Street...puny wheel.

We know the building showed movement before release... so it was coming apart up there and when enough of the frame was useless the whole top dropped and ROOSD began and no need to weaken the frame... and we know it survived the floor collapse anyway.

Face the truth... the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

There is no evidence for placed devices in the towers...

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. The wings could not have made it to the core in the North Tower as they were shredded by the exterior and the floors they hit edge on. Even if they were to take out everything in their path, by volume alone the remaining fuselage, landing gear, and engine parts could not have damaged many core columns.

When a fireman says he saw flashes going around the building like a belt and the building is coming down like there is no tomorrow, that isn't evidence of some form of devices in the building to you?

[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