Posts: 979
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Tony Szamboti Wrote:You don't seem to want to discuss how many core columns were actually damaged and where and why the core came down to begin with.
Because no one knows... not NIST, Pedue, me or you... But one thing's for sure... by the time the top drops... they were all gone.. and just before that whatever was left went in very rapid succession.
Posts: 165
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:You don't seem to want to discuss how many core columns were actually damaged and where and why the core came down to begin with.
Because no one knows... not NIST, Pedue, me or you... But one thing's for sure... by the time the top drops... they were all gone.. and just before that whatever was left went in very rapid succession.
Jeffrey: blah, blah, blah nobody knows.........blah, blah, blah nobody knows...........blah, blah, blah nobody knows.
You sound like a parrot that heard a retarded comment and kept repeating it.
A simulation knowing the aircraft construction, fuel load, impact velocity and orientation, and the building structure could certainly come within 10% accuracy. I'll even allow for 10 core columns taken out three stories below the initiation floor. It has nothing to do with the initiation and wasn't anywhere near enough to cause instability. The instability could only have come from devices at the 98th floor and above as the first floors to go then were the 99th through the 101st.
Posts: 979
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Fine Tony... you tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.
Listening.... (to Glen Gould Bach's Goldberg Variation while you respond).
Posts: 165
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Fine Tony... you tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.
Listening.... (to Glen Gould Bach's Goldberg Variation while you respond).
I think I have already told you both things a number of times, but I'll do it again to ensure you get it.
There would have only been a chance for about 9 to 10 core columns in the center of the core to be severely damaged due to volume alone and this would have been at the 94th and 95th floors.
The initiation happened at the 98th floor because the devices didn't need to survive the plane damage there and it was the closest to the aircraft damage where it could be assured the devices weren't displaced/damaged and to make it look good. This is also why the 99th through 101st floors were blown just after. That would be to develop momentum in case some of the devices at the main aircraft impact floors (94, 95, and 96) were displaced or damaged.
Posts: 979
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Tony Szamboti Wrote:The initiation happened at the 98th floor because the devices didn't need to survive the plane damage there and it was the closest to the aircraft damage where it could be assured the devices weren't displaced/damaged and to make it look good. This is also why the 99th through 101st floors were blown just after. That would be to develop momentum in case some of the devices at the main aircraft impact floors (94, 95, and 96) were displaced or damaged.
This doesn't answer the questions:
...tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.
par for the course Tony with you because you make it up and then offer up your own brand of proof.
And such hubris....not even a bit of doubt...
Posts: 165
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 165
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:This doesn't answer the questions:
...tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.
par for the course Tony with you because you make it up and then offer up your own brand of proof.
And such hubris....not even a bit of doubt...
I did say the only columns which could have been severely damaged were the core columns in the center from north to south on floors 94 and 95 that were in the path of the fuselage before it was completely broken up. That would be approximately 9 to 10 columns maximum out of 47, or about 20% maximum, three stories below where the collapse actually initiated. This can be proven based on a volume analysis.
Posts: 979
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:The initiation happened at the 98th floor because the devices didn't need to survive the plane damage there and it was the closest to the aircraft damage where it could be assured the devices weren't displaced/damaged and to make it look good. This is also why the 99th through 101st floors were blown just after. That would be to develop momentum in case some of the devices at the main aircraft impact floors (94, 95, and 96) were displaced or damaged.
This doesn't answer the questions:
...tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.
par for the course Tony with you because you make it up and then offer up your own brand of proof.
And such hubris....not even a bit of doubt...
I did say the only columns which could have been severely damaged were the core columns in the center from north to south on floors 94 and 95 that were in the path of the fuselage before it was completely broken up. That would be approximately 9 to 10 columns maximum out of 47, or about 20% maximum, three stories below where the collapse actually initiated. This can be proven based on a volume analysis.
You answered the the question by not answering it.
You don't know.... you GUESS. Clearly the plane could not have destroyed ALL the core columns because our CD thing would not have been necessary. Enough remained to carry the tower for an hr of so as the weakening process proceeded.. or someone decided it was time enough to detonate the devices...
Posts: 165
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
12-08-2013, 01:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2013, 02:08 AM by Tony Szamboti.)
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:This doesn't answer the questions:
...tell me how you know which columns in the core failed, were damaged and survived the plane strike.
par for the course Tony with you because you make it up and then offer up your own brand of proof.
And such hubris....not even a bit of doubt...
I did say the only columns which could have been severely damaged were the core columns in the center from north to south on floors 94 and 95 that were in the path of the fuselage before it was completely broken up. That would be approximately 9 to 10 columns maximum out of 47, or about 20% maximum, three stories below where the collapse actually initiated. This can be proven based on a volume analysis.
You answered the the question by not answering it. You don't know.... you GUESS. Clearly the plane could not have destroyed ALL the core columns because our CD thing would not have been necessary. Enough remained to carry the tower for an hr of so as the weakening process proceeded.. or someone decided it was time enough to detonate the devices...
Analysis can show which core columns would be affected and at what story level they would be affected. It is not a guess.
When this type of analysis is done it severely undermines the case for natural collapse.
Posts: 165
Threads: 3
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2013
Hey Jeffrey, you should learn how to multi-quote, if you really feel the need to do that. You have been upsetting the quotes somehow and causing it to look like I am saying what you said and vice versa.
I don't have a problem with you being given credit for things I have said, but I really don't want to be accused, by somebody who isn't aware of the mix-up you are causing here, of saying some of the things you think could have caused the collapses.
I can correct it in my replies but not in your posts.