Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Magda Hassan]

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.

I'll try and fix the quotes for you.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I never learned how to multi quote as you call it. I apologise... It's the sort of thing that doesn't seem terribly important to me... but I don't want to put words in your mouth so to speak. At my age I've forgotten way more than I ever knew.

[Lauren Johnson]

Could devices have destroyed the connections? To destroy the massive truss members the bombs or devices would be extremely loud... and nothing like the boom on the Banfield tape which is likely the truss steel dropping and the mech floors coming down on Con Ed.

Jeffrey, the Banfield tape shows two loud booms and a series of lesser explosions in a very tight sequence. Judging from the startle reaction by Banfield and the young woman, the noise is very loud, just like you said Jeffrey.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Jeffrey, the Banfield tape shows two loud booms and a series of lesser explosions in a very tight sequence. Judging from the startle reaction by Banfield and the young woman, the noise is very loud, just like you said Jeffrey.

I would expect the initiation of TTF to have a series of loud noises at the frame comes apart and crashed downward onto the structure below. We're not talking one single KABOOM. Progessive faliure is MULTIPLE failures... multiple sounds. No?

[Magda Hassan]

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?

Sorry, where did any one say just one tower? Or are you referring to the North tower as referenced in Tony's paper in the first post here?

[Jeffrey Orling]

I was unaware of seeing dust ejections from all faces of both twin towers. Are those who claim these were or detonation origin claiming that they appear on all four faces and both towers? If they are not appearing on all faces in both towers... what do we make of this claim?

[Lauren Johnson]

I was unaware of seeing dust ejections from all faces of both twin towers. Are those who claim these were or detonation origin claiming that they appear on all four faces and both towers? If they are not appearing on all faces in both towers... what do we make of this claim?

The obvious thing for someone to do who seeking to come to conclusions about this the following. First, do the research which is quite easy to do. Second, say what you think your findings mean. Why not just do that?

[Jeffrey Orling]

I was unaware of seeing dust ejections from all faces of both twin towers. Are those who claim these were or detonation origin claiming that they appear on all four faces and both towers? If they are not appearing on all faces in both towers... what do we make of this claim?

The obvious thing for someone to do who seeking to come to conclusions about this the following. First, do the research which is quite easy to do. Second, say what you think your findings mean. Why not just do that?

Lauren,

I think I've represented my position based on the work I've done. I don't call it research... but this wiki found definition may apply:

"Another definition of research is given by Creswell who states - "Research is a process of steps used to collect and analyze information to increase our understanding of a topic or issue". It consists of three steps: Pose a question, collect data to answer the question, and present an answer to the question."

My tools for investigation are limited.... to basically what my own education and profession as an architect has given me. And this is how I approach my quest at understanding the collapse of the 3 towers. I was expecting NIST to provide a sensible explanation. That never happened.

All sorts of others came forward with their conclusions, and what led them to reach these conclusions. I reviewed these works as best I could and found deficiencies in all... hardly different than NIST. I then tried to connect the dots I could see.. some dots that others apparently don't or choose to ignore. I am trying to include all observations and known "facts" but how can one ever know?

I've offered explanations which satisfy me within the limits of what I can know... obviously including some guesses and assumptions. If it was all there in black and white there would be no need to figure it out... would there? My explanations are MECHANISMS which account for the entire sequence from start to finish. While one can destroy with devices... destruction can and does take place from such things as fire, heat and other natural forces. The WTC matter also included the enormous input of the jets hitting the towers and the fact that they were fully occupied and ENERGIZED with electricity, steam, gas and so forth.

I do not see the case for placed devices...because I see no unmistakable evidence of them. At best a device is asserted to do what we know natural "forces" can. In the case of heat it's been a matter of amplitude not that heat is not capable of destroying the integrity of building materials and systems. And fire is chemically destruction as well... rapid oxidation.

Tony has proposed something approaching a mechanism using unspecified devices. Unfortunately he ignores observations and data others have found and this invalidates his model. Gage proposes no model. Peter Jennings or Ashley Banfield are talking out of technical ignorance... no different from a child really. David Griffin admits he relies on others for his facts... again not competent to solve the mystery of explaining what happened. Jones makes things up and hides beyond his credentials. That's shameful because of his lying. Many others try to use logic to support their conclusions... twisted logic. Fetzer is a clown, his friend Boldwyn doesn't know his stuff though he claims to. Chandler is also peddling his bias as fact.

And the bigger political picture complicates this... and as I've said whether we were attacked by 19 Arab hijackers or it was something else... the outcome was a foregone conclusion. The MIC was going to milk it for all its worth. This does not mean they pulled the whole thing off. And that sort of "research" is outside my expertise and it's just speculating.

[Albert Doyle]

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.

But this doesn't really answer the majority of what was said. You tend to answer in one-line protests as if we were coming to you for your opinion and begging for your approval. If you watch the Perdue video the core suffered serious damage compromising the main center support area beneath the antenna. As Jeffrey explained the load was redistributed and the antenna 'floated' on the remaining intact core above the damage zone. It was benefiting from the redundancy of the rescuing members. However the damaged core suffered a fatal blow and was heated by fires that caused the floors and core members to slowly sag into this void. Eventually it applied lateral stress that overcame the redundancy of the rescuing members the load had been shifted to and gave way. The failure mode exhibited this by having the intact core from 98 up drop into the void in the core. This is a very obvious failure pattern. The core below the antenna dropped and yanked in the perimeter columns dropping the whole section as you see. Just like the pneumatic dust jets you are seeing, it happens right in front of you if you know what you are looking at. Meanwhile we once again have you protest with a one-liner while avoiding answering the obvious difference in the dust plumes between the 98th floor and further down that disproves them being explosives.

[Albert Doyle]

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. .

Those devices did damned good considering they were incinerated in intense fires for 102 minutes. Could you technically explain how those devices managed to function after being exposed to furnace heat for 102 minutes? Specifically what activation devices could withstand that heat and still work?