Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

Unearned vs the facts in my opinion. It's damaging to Deep Political science to accept most-likely false theories too quickly IMO.

Albert, so what is your take on the collapse of the buildings? The terrorists pulled it off? LIHOP? MIHOP? What? So far, all I have heard from you is everybody except Jeffrey is an idiot. Is that all you got?

Of course I am an idiot to those who think I am. My position is that planes hit the towers... I am not even sure whether they were hijacked or if by whom or how. Most of the plane stuff is all a fog. So it's possible the plane stuff is an inside job...

The cover up was an insider operation.

[Albert Doyle]

Unearned vs the facts in my opinion. It's damaging to Deep Political science to accept most-likely false theories too quickly IMO.

Albert, so what is your take on the collapse of the buildings? The terrorists pulled it off? LIHOP? MIHOP? What? So far, all I have heard from you is everybody except Jeffrey is an idiot. Is that all you got?

I don't think I deserve that tone considering that I just disproved the Controlled Demolition theory. You can't get past the audio signature point, which is why Tony can't answer it.



My personal position is 9-11 was a MIHOP through LIHOP. Jeffrey doesn't seem to get this but I know it's true.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Unearned vs the facts in my opinion. It's damaging to Deep Political science to accept most-likely false theories too quickly IMO.

Albert, so what is your take on the collapse of the buildings? The terrorists pulled it off? LIHOP? MIHOP? What? So far, all I have heard from you is everybody except Jeffrey is an idiot. Is that all you got?

I don't think I deserve that tone considering that I just disproved the Controlled Demolition theory. You can't get past the audio signature point, which is why Tony can't answer it.



My personal position is 9-11 was a MIHOP through LIHOP. Jeffrey doesn't seem to get this but I know it's true.

I am aware of the concept of a LIHOP is a MIHOP... to me it hardly matters.

[Phil Dragoo]

We were presented with an emotional psychological operation on September 11, 2001, a contrived "tragedy" arising from an act of "terrorism" in order to mobilize us for two wars, where "us" is the American body politic.

The model presented by the official commission and its delegated experts relied upon the three points of the paper linked at 345 above by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboli:

Also of note Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST--Bazănt Collapse Hypothesis

(see attachment at 345 above)

NIST's Hypothesis of Total Collapse:

Three essential elements of NIST's hypothesis of total collapse are made explicit in the Final Report and the companion volumes of the study:

1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire, the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit. [2]

2. This "rigid block" of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptly
fell onto the stories beneath it. [3]

3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that "global collapse began."[4]

There follows a meticulous study of the fall of the floors leading to


Conclusions

We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.

~~~

I thank Tony Szamboli for correcting my conflation of terms in his 347--in fact, I intended to write floor truss, not hat truss--as the model presented in the official animation showed floor trusses weakened by heat and sagging an exaggerated amount pulling in facades and causing irreversible collapse.

The weakening by fire has not been proved but is essential to the official model--it is central to Jeffrey's scenario at 351 of a core collapse due to physical damage and temperature weakening which left twelve stories of load depending in tension from the hat truss which imploded and pulled in the facade.

Tony disagrees, stating the hat truss a-frames were not adequate for the forces implied.

The conclusions I posted at 345 of David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen and Tony Samboli indicate heat weakening did not reduce the core strength, but that sequential charges may well have done.

The Bazant falling block or pile driver is not shown, no more so than the heat weakening or the plane damage.

The official explanation for the North Tower collapse is defended even as it is unsupported, much as the single-bullet or Magic Bullet contrivance arising out of the ambitious and unscrupulous Arlen Specter faced with the inconvenient wound to James Tague's cheek.

By what alchemy was the extreme temperature necessary to weaken steel produced by the burning jet fuel which was gone in ten minutes--

--or by the office furniture which, although toxic and dramatic, cannot "melt" steel?

The dropping antenna indicates core column failure, but the official explanation fails to explain.

Any more than separation of domestic and foreign intelligence explains the disbanding of Able Danger as it identifed a 9/11 cell in CONUS a year before the event.

Or the sabotage and sidelining of John O'Neill when the FBI counterterrorism chief warned of such an attack

or Special Agent Colleen Rowley whose warnings of Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons sans takeoff and landing were ignored by her FBI supervisors

Ace Elevator had access--

(is that a typo. . .shouldn't it be Wiley Coyote's Acme Elevator)

No one heard explosions--someone still makes that claim

When a fireman describes boom boom boom

[Jeffrey Orling]

We were presented with an emotional psychological operation on September 11, 2001, a contrived "tragedy" arising from an act of "terrorism" in order to mobilize us for two wars, where "us" is the American body politic.

....

NIST's Hypothesis of Total Collapse:

Three essential elements of NIST's hypothesis of total collapse are made explicit in the Final Report and the companion volumes of the study:

1. Because of damage to stories 93 to 98, and especially because of column buckling due to fire, the top 12 stories of the North Tower (99-110) plus the roof were, in effect, separated from the rest of the Tower and began to behave as a unit. [2]

2. This "rigid block" of 12 stories plus the roof began to move. First it tilted, and then it abruptly
fell onto the stories beneath it. [3]

3. The fall of the rigid block caused such damage to the lower structure that "global collapse began."[4]

NIST explanation is wrong. Does not make it a CD. Other explanations have been advanced which match the obsevations including witness testimony.

There follows a meticulous study of the fall of the floors leading to


Conclusions

We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.

The motion did not show smooth accerlation. Tony's data is not the best. What you see in any case is the facade and you have no way of knowing it was a BLOCK. But there are ways to know that it wasn't because of pre release movements no limited to to drop of the antenna before "release"

~~~

I thank Tony Szamboli for correcting my conflation of terms in his 347--in fact, I intended to write floor truss, not hat truss--as the model presented in the official animation showed floor trusses weakened by heat and sagging an exaggerated amount pulling in facades and causing irreversible collapse.

The weakening by fire has not been proved but is essential to the official model--it is central to Jeffrey's scenario at 351 of a core collapse due to physical damage and temperature weakening which left twelve stories of load depending in tension from the hat truss which imploded and pulled in the facade.

Tony disagrees, stating the hat truss a-frames were not adequate for the forces implied.


The actual temps is indeterminate. There were no thermo couples and no one can dispute that heat DOES reduce the strength of steel If the core DID collapse as movements at parts of the facade suggest it means that the core was gone and the floors were no longer supported... integrity gone.

The conclusions I posted at 345 of David Chandler, Graeme MacQueen and Tony Samboli indicate heat weakening did not reduce the core strength, but that sequential charges may well have done.

Pure speculation without a shred of evidence.

The Bazant falling block or pile driver is not shown, no more so than the heat weakening or the plane damage.

Not quite... there was no block drop and Bazant was simply a theoretical limiting case.

The official explanation for the North Tower collapse is defended even as it is unsupported, much as the single-bullet or Magic Bullet contrivance arising out of the ambitious and unscrupulous Arlen Specter faced with the inconvenient wound to James Tague's cheek.

Comparison is not a factual basis for a conclusion.

By what alchemy was the extreme temperature necessary to weaken steel produced by the burning jet fuel which was gone in ten minutes--

The fires burned continuously... look at the video. There were other things burning as well... carpet, plastics and furnute. The fire was continuous up until collapse.

--or by the office furniture which, although toxic and dramatic, cannot "melt" steel?

No steel was melted... doesn't have to reach melting point to lose enough strength to fail

The dropping antenna indicates core column failure, but the official explanation fails to explain.

Official explanation is wrong. Unofficial explanation have accounted for antenna drop.

Any more than separation of domestic and foreign intelligence explains the disbanding of Able Danger as it identifed a 9/11 cell in CONUS a year before the event.

Or the sabotage and sidelining of John O'Neill when the FBI counterterrorism chief warned of such an attack

or Special Agent Colleen Rowley whose warnings of Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons sans takeoff and landing were ignored by her FBI supervisors

Not related to the technical issues

Ace Elevator had access--

Supposedly they were doing an elevator upgrade.

(is that a typo. . .shouldn't it be Wiley Coyote's Acme Elevator)

No one heard explosions--someone still makes that claim

When a fireman describes boom boom boom

Massive sections of dropping floors would make a sound described as boom boom boom. If you think another word is more appropriate... please let on.

comments in red

[Danny Jarman]

I can't believe after looking at it properly people can still somehow conclude the towers fell naturally.

:loco:

[Tony Szamboti]

Ace Elevator had access--

(is that a typo. . .shouldn't it be Wiley Coyote's Acme Elevator)

No one heard explosions--someone still makes that claim

When a fireman describes boom boom boom

Phil, thanks for posting that video. Let's see what Albert has to say about it. He really needs to watch it if he hasn't yet.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I have to say that all witness testimoney is insufficient in itself to prove anything and most of it is simply wrong.

[Tony Szamboti]

I have to say that all witness testimoney is insufficient in itself to prove anything and most of it is simply wrong.

Yeah, the witnesses are all just mistaken, just like the legendary Allen Dulles said everyone was who ran towards the grassy knoll after having heard gunfire from that end of Dealey Plaza.

It had to be electrical transformers blowing that they heard. Yeah, that's the ticket, transformers. When they explode walls fall apart in some other world. Maybe the place Orwell talked about.

Of course, Allen Dulles is very likely one of those who said the Zapruder film and its back and to the left motion of JFK's head was too much for the public to see so it had to be suppressed. What a shame that Jim Garrison broke it loose from the grips of Life magazine's vault for the trial of Clay Shaw. Life fought Garrison's subpoena all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court who had no grounds to dismiss it. What a shame the court wasn't able to stop it. This is also reminiscent of the court case to get the Oral Histories released. You know, the ones taken down in the four months after 911 where 118 firefighters and emergency workers talk about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions. Again what a shame they weren't able to stop it and that they were ultimately released in August 2005. The American people don't need to be confused by hearing about explosives at the world trade center. It was just about the planes and fires. That's all they need to know.

These witnesses have to be mistaken. They have to be. When asked about explosives being involved at a press conference Rudy Giuliani turned and asked Bernard Kerik if there was any evidence of explosives, and Bernie said no, so the witnesses all have to be mistaken. Never mind that this is the same Bernie Kerik who went to jail for fraud a few years later after making millions with Giuliani on the coat tails of 911 as "security" specialists.

[Lauren Johnson]

I can't believe after looking at it properly people can still somehow conclude the towers fell naturally.

:loco:

Danny, why is that I knew you would have to wait only a short while before getting your answer. :banghead: