Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
Tony Szamboti Wrote:
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote:There were no kingpins in the twin towers. These were highly redundant structures, including the connections, and random heating would not have worked to break things loose. Getting enough momentum going in all three cases required significant assistance in the beginning of the collapses for overloading of floors and a cascade causing columns to be unsupported etc. to then finish the job of destroying the buildings.

The connections are the weakest link in any structure, but the word weakest does not mean weak. It is relative to the other items and if the weakest link can handle several times the load, the structure is considered robust by any measure.

There were also no kingpins in WTC 7, and in that case its top section did act like a pile driver after its momentum was generated by eight stories of its entire core being pulled symmetrically between floors 7 through 14.

Whatever you say...

Please describe what this is:

eight stories of its entire core being pulled symmetrically between floors 7 through 14

Betcha you can't and you can't find a shred of evidence to support this in any of the debris. I know they sold it for scrap.

The evidence is in the video showing the eight stories of symmetric free fall of the entire building, which starts when the west penthouse is just dropping and not even below the roofline. That can only have been caused by eight stories of the core being removed.

Please don't try to say the perimeter columns came down on their own after being left unsupported and that it couldn't have been the entire core as the east penthouse came down seven seconds before. These things could not be true as if the east side core had come down fully to the ground when the east penthouse went down the east side perimeter columns would have also come down. The fact that the east side perimeter did not come down with the east side penthouse shows the penthouse collapse was only into the building at the top. The entire core of WTC 7 was being dropped when the west penthouse went down and it pulled in the perimeter columns across the building over eight stories, resulting in a complete symmetrical free fall for over 100 feet of the entire building.

This is like beating a dead horse... I don't like it.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote:
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote:There were no kingpins in the twin towers. These were highly redundant structures, including the connections, and random heating would not have worked to break things loose. Getting enough momentum going in all three cases required significant assistance in the beginning of the collapses for overloading of floors and a cascade causing columns to be unsupported etc. to then finish the job of destroying the buildings.

The connections are the weakest link in any structure, but the word weakest does not mean weak. It is relative to the other items and if the weakest link can handle several times the load, the structure is considered robust by any measure.

There were also no kingpins in WTC 7, and in that case its top section did act like a pile driver after its momentum was generated by eight stories of its entire core being pulled symmetrically between floors 7 through 14.

Whatever you say...

Please describe what this is:

eight stories of its entire core being pulled symmetrically between floors 7 through 14

Betcha you can't and you can't find a shred of evidence to support this in any of the debris. I know they sold it for scrap.

The evidence is in the video showing the eight stories of symmetric free fall of the entire building, which starts when the west penthouse is just dropping and not even below the roofline. That can only have been caused by eight stories of the core being removed.

Please don't try to say the perimeter columns came down on their own after being left unsupported and that it couldn't have been the entire core as the east penthouse came down seven seconds before. These things could not be true as if the east side core had come down fully to the ground when the east penthouse went down the east side perimeter columns would have also come down. The fact that the east side perimeter did not come down with the east side penthouse shows the penthouse collapse was only into the building at the top. The entire core of WTC 7 was being dropped when the west penthouse went down and it pulled in the perimeter columns across the building over eight stories, resulting in a complete symmetrical free fall for over 100 feet of the entire building.

This is like beating a dead horse... I don't like it.

It doesn't matter what you like it is only reality that counts. Most of us don't like the fact that the three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Albert, you used to be much more inquisitive about Jeffrey's positions, as I quoted, then you turned into his fan boy. What happened? If Tony would have been here then, the Albert I knew would have been asking him questions. You don't seem like the same guy.




You are trying to provoke me Lauren because you know that this flagrant attempt to switch the topic to ad hominem attack will be backed by some of the others. But anyone can see you're doing it because you can't answer my points.


Is there a reason you did this instead of answering my points? You destroy your credibility by doing this. Is a certain member PM'ing you?


Also, I'd be interested in your response to my corner column CD claims forensic arguments. You're a big asker of questions. May I ask why you and Tony flagrantly dodged that?


.
I am leaving this so called debate because I feel nothing is gained going over and over the same territory. I'm not here to do anything more than expose the politically minded to some of the technical realities. I don't think the case for CD is supported by evidence and contradicted by other evidence. Others can decide for themselves. I am not here to convince Tony as he clearly is convinced that his position is supported by facts and not undermined by others.

So be it.

Summaries have been made, didactic diagrams offered,clarifications presented and links to resources provided.

Readers can do with this what they wish. This is not as simple as it first appears and the political is truly a separate matter... holism not withstanding.
Lauren Johnson Wrote:My understanding of how the buildings came down has actually been influenced by Jeffrey's ROOSD explanation. Relatively quiet thermite charges and well placed explosives high up the building triggered the progressive collapse. But remember there were witnesses (many) who claimed to hear these explosives.

Why weren't these charges picked up on they many mics. From what I understand from both Tony and Jeffrey, WTC 1 & 2 were easier to bring down. All you needed was a mass of material reaching sufficient velocity to hit the lower floors and you Bobs your Uncle. WTC 7 really did require the blowing of massive beams; a ROOSD collapse would not have been possible.

I know Jeffrey thinks he can pin it down to the one beam that started it all that would trigger the nice, neat symmetrical collapse. Come on. That dog won't hunt.



Not acceptable, sorry. You're not answering the point. That point was that the series of pronounced dust jets seen cascading down the side of the building was so out there and obvious that it would have made an audio signature on the audio tracks of the media around the building. You are not following the arguments here. That argument said if the alleged demolition charges in Building 7 were inside the building and not seen nearly as prominently, yet they managed to register on Ashley Banfield's audio track, as Chandler suggests, then why didn't these cascading dust jet blasts seen on the North Tower register a similar audio fingerprint since they were much more visible?

You just flagrantly dodged the point above. Reality dictates that, since you can't answer it, therefore you don't have the right to take the attitude you do. You can't explain why the prominent dust jets Tony and Chandler claim were methodically-timed demolition charges didn't register any distinct sonic explosives fingerprint on the numerous media microphones that were nearer to the collapse than Banfield's microphone was.

What doesn't hunt here is yours and Tony's obvious inability to answer basic forensic points.
Albert Doyle Wrote:
Lauren Johnson Wrote:My understanding of how the buildings came down has actually been influenced by Jeffrey's ROOSD explanation. Relatively quiet thermite charges and well placed explosives high up the building triggered the progressive collapse. But remember there were witnesses (many) who claimed to hear these explosives.

Why weren't these charges picked up on they many mics. From what I understand from both Tony and Jeffrey, WTC 1 & 2 were easier to bring down. All you needed was a mass of material reaching sufficient velocity to hit the lower floors and you Bobs your Uncle. WTC 7 really did require the blowing of massive beams; a ROOSD collapse would not have been possible.

I know Jeffrey thinks he can pin it down to the one beam that started it all that would trigger the nice, neat symmetrical collapse. Come on. That dog won't hunt.



Not acceptable, sorry. You're not answering the point. That point was that the series of pronounced dust jets seen cascading down the side of the building was so out there and obvious that it would have made an audio signature on the audio tracks of the media around the building. You are not following the arguments here. That argument said if the alleged demolition charges in Building 7 were inside the building and not seen nearly as prominently, yet they managed to register on Ashley Banfield's audio track, as Chandler suggests, then why didn't these cascading dust jet blasts seen on the North Tower register a similar audio fingerprint since they were much more visible?

You just flagrantly dodged the point above. Reality dictates that, since you can't answer it, therefore you don't have the right to take the attitude you do. You can't explain why the prominent dust jets Tony and Chandler claim were methodically-timed demolition charges didn't register any distinct sonic explosives fingerprint on the numerous media microphones that were nearer to the collapse than Banfield's microphone was.

What doesn't hunt here is yours and Tony's obvious inability to answer basic forensic points.

I guess your argument must be that because you say there were no booms picked up during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, therefore the Banfield audio can be dismissed?

This is the only answer I have. The Banfield audio comes at a time when there is not a lot of background noise. If a fire truck was going by with its siren going, no loud booms will be detectable.

Why weren't they picked up on mics while the buildings were collapsing was for the same reason I gave for the Banfield audio except the opposite: there was a lot of noise -- the roar of a collapsing high rise building. Parsing out discrete sounds on directional mics meant for interview people as was Banfield's, could not have picked up the charges you are imagining. They just blend in the roar. During the initiation of the collapse, the charges used made less noise than the Banfield audio and could be hidden in the noise of the early collapse.

That's my best answer.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I

"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Lauren,



Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.
Albert Doyle Wrote:Lauren,



Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.

Albert,

I am thoroughly impressed by and envious of your command of these technical issues and the erudite manners in which you bring it to bear on the topics being discussed on this thread.

Would you be so kind as to provide a brief reading list so that I and others might further develop our appreciations of this otherwise arcane and challenging material?

Forgive me if I'm being forward, but the sooner I can get my hands on your source material, the sooner I can attempt to achieve mastery of the topic commensurate with your own.

With thanks in advance,

Charles
Albert Doyle Wrote:Lauren,



Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.

Albert, I have noticed you have made demands of people to respond often accompanied with accusations. I just got done responding. I would expect something like, 'Thanks, Lauren. Hmmm. I'll think about it.'

Nope. Nothing. Just the next task. This has happened before. I'll pass.
"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --William J. Casey, D.C.I

"We will lead every revolution against us." --Theodore Herzl
Lauren Johnson Wrote:I guess your argument must be that because you say there were no booms picked up during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, therefore the Banfield audio can be dismissed?

This is the only answer I have. The Banfield audio comes at a time when there is not a lot of background noise. If a fire truck was going by with its siren going, no loud booms will be detectable.

Why weren't they picked up on mics while the buildings were collapsing was for the same reason I gave for the Banfield audio except the opposite: there was a lot of noise -- the roar of a collapsing high rise building. Parsing out discrete sounds on directional mics meant for interview people as was Banfield's, could not have picked up the charges you are imagining. They just blend in the roar. During the initiation of the collapse, the charges used made less noise than the Banfield audio and could be hidden in the noise of the early collapse.

That's my best answer.


If you got experts to look at the collapse video they would tell you the "jets" Chandler refers to are pneumatic air blasts. You can see from their nature that they occur not at the inner core, as Chandler infers, but right there at the outer frame wall where the collapsing floors pushed compressed air blasts through the openings. A sharp observer would see the dust jets happen in horizontal uniformity with the corner jets happening at the same time as the middle jets. If these jets were the product of charges placed on the inner core columns they would happen in a radial pattern in obedience to the location of the core relative to the jets. Middle first then corners a split second later. Also, I already pointed-out that if you look at the You-Tube of controlled demolitions a normal CD charge produces nowhere near the gigantic overkill blast of those jets. So if the spooks were going to take down the tower covertly, and could do so with more discrete charges, why would they use these comical overkill blasts to do it when they could have done it less visibly?

Like Tony, Chandler also mushes his claims. He says the cascading charges do not happen on a floor by floor basis. However he doesn't explain what basis they did occur on? If they were going to place very precisely timed unzipping wave charges in the core then why would they not be on a floor by floor basis? It's obvious to anyone of any intelligence that Chandler is exploiting the uneveness of the natural collapse jets because of ductworks and uneven resistance. The truth is the jets do happen on a floor by floor basis and do evidence ROOSD. Once again Chandler fails to realize their slight uneveness is more a sign of natural collapse and differs from the precision timed progressive cascading charges would have had.

Your answer above isn't good enough and doesn't explain how, if the demolition booms were drowned-out by sirens, did the numerous witnesses you presented in your You-Tube video hear them then? Those witnesses were very clear in their statements that they heard clear and loud progressive "Boom, boom, boom, boom, booms". You can't have it both ways and serve us mush as forensic steak.

You and Tony haven't answered why they did the South Tower first if they were trying to imitate a natural collapse?

Nor did you answer why Chandler says the initiating charges at the top were explosives charges yet Tony says they were burning thermite cutter packs?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  WTC-7 Before Collapse - Video of activities inside and outside Peter Lemkin 0 4,971 04-12-2015, 09:45 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New Detailed Analysis of WTC 7 Controlled Demolition Peter Lemkin 0 5,220 01-12-2015, 04:42 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  The case against the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis Tony Szamboti 4 4,009 04-11-2013, 07:11 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New Analysis Summary Of 9-11-01 Insider Trading [with some very interesting facts, if true]! Peter Lemkin 4 5,513 28-10-2013, 03:01 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis: Redux Lauren Johnson 0 3,708 16-08-2013, 03:39 AM
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
  New Seismic Analysis Further Points to Controlled Demolition.... Peter Lemkin 0 3,691 03-12-2012, 05:21 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  911 Meta Analysis Jeffrey Orling 18 10,568 23-10-2012, 08:54 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  STill the best and most comprehensive timeline and information source for 911-related events Peter Lemkin 0 2,676 10-08-2012, 08:10 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New theory explains collapse of Twin Towers- Aluminium and water explosions Magda Hassan 7 9,161 27-09-2011, 05:47 PM
Last Post: Jeffrey Orling
  First Wikileaks Cable possibly related to 911, Al Quaeda, etc. Peter Lemkin 0 6,460 26-09-2011, 08:02 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)