Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Charles Drago]

Albert, Charles has can be a little cutting, no, wait ... Starting over. Charles, can stick the knife in, but not twist it too hard, Actually ....

Look Albert, I have been amazed and then appalled at your ability to behave as if you are structural engineer, or some such. I disagree with Jeffrey but I wouldn't dare to tell him he is incompetent, as you have with Tony. Your posts the last few days have been jaw dropping--and not in a good way.

I'm failing to see what point you are trying to make if you can't answer what I wrote in my last posts? If you can't answer that means the controlled demolition proponents can't back their claims.

Fascinating exercise in the construction of a logical argument, Albert.

If Lauren can't answer a question, all whose views mirror his own on this issue must be wrong.

Why didn't I reach so painfully obvious and logical a conclusion?

Again, I'm respectfully asking that you take time out of what must be your extraordinarily time-consuming schedule of reading, teaching, and writing to help us appreciate your insights.

What do you read?

Who teaches you?

Honestly, I'm at a loss to find ways to reach independently your levels of insight.

And I need to. Desperately.

I need your help, and I can but hope that you don't hold our previous public disputes against me.

In good faith that mirrors your own,

Charles

[Lauren Johnson]

[Albert Doyle]

@3:22 where Burkett says "a huge explosion" ? That part?

You're not serious? You're joking, right?



Where we are is your spun video where you collected the statements of every and any one who said "boom" on 9-11 was made to look like a witness to the alleged controlled demolition blasts. Especially the ones who said "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom," as if that was witnessing of timed demolition charges similar to those contended by Chandler in his droning video where he makes-up what he wants to see as he goes along. The point that you have yet to answer was that if those booms were the demolition charges that were heard so easily by those witnesses then why didn't Burkett's microphone pick them up? You didn't really answer that. You tried to say that they were drowned-out by sirens, however the ABC video shows it was amazingly quiet around Burkett at the time. Also your boom video mixes random booms with timed demolition charges. The video didn't explain the technical aspect of the random isolated explosions they were showing. What were they doing, loosening the Tower slowly? If they had ripple charges up above, as Chandler is claiming, why then did they need those isolated explosions? Your claims are reckless, obviously made up to throw anything in that you can to suggest CD, and lack any technical explanation.


Meanwhile Tony disappears and doesn't offer a word over these conflicts. Real credibility there and a strong feeling of righteousness that his claims are valid and can be defended. Also, I've pointed-out several times now that Chandler claims the initiation charges were explosions while Tony admits the dust plumes up there are too slow so therefore they must have been burning cutter packs. That's a conflict that deserves a response yet not a peep from those who are so convinced of their rightness. They can just go with a sort of mushy "Well, it was something like that," just like Burkett's explosion above. You know, sort of like a general explosion that goes "boom". That's good enough. You see what I'm getting at here...


I'm really impressed by Tony's ability to come in and defend his corner column charges claim. Something that is obviously bogus by the simple forensics visible to the naked eye. Again, just another make-it-up-as-you-go-along, Cinque-like claim by Chandler who is trying to see things in the video that aren't there.


The dust jets in the North Tower are far too big to be demo charges. They are caused by the collapsing floors and ROOSD. You can see with the naked eye that they originate from the outer frame wall right on the edge of the floor pad. They are also in synch with ROOSD.

[Charles Drago]

@3:22 where Burkett says "a huge explosion" ? That part?

You're not serious? You're joking, right?



Where we are is your spun video where you collected the statements of every and any one who said "boom" on 9-11 was made to look like a witness to the alleged controlled demolition blasts. Especially the ones who said "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom," as if that was witnessing of timed demolition charges similar to those contended by Chandler in his droning video where he makes-up what he wants to see as he goes along. The point that you have yet to answer was that if those booms were the demolition charges that were heard so easily by those witnesses then why didn't Burkett's microphone pick them up? You didn't really answer that. You tried to say that they were drowned-out by sirens, however the ABC video shows it was amazingly quiet around Burkett at the time. Also your boom video mixes random booms with timed demolition charges. The video didn't explain the technical aspect of the random isolated explosions they were showing. What were they doing, loosening the Tower slowly? If they had ripple charges up above, as Chandler is claiming, why then did they need those isolated explosions? Your claims are reckless, obviously made up to throw anything in that you can to suggest CD, and lack any technical explanation.


Meanwhile Tony disappears and doesn't offer a word over these conflicts. Real credibility there and a strong feeling of righteousness that his claims are valid and can be defended. Also, I've pointed-out several times now that Chandler claims the initiation charges were explosions while Tony admits the dust plumes up there are too slow so therefore they must have been burning cutter packs. That's a conflict that deserves a response yet not a peep from those who are so convinced of their rightness. They can just go with a sort of mushy "Well, it was something like that," just like Burkett's explosion above. You know, sort of like a general explosion that goes "boom". That's good enough. You see what I'm getting at here...


I'm really impressed by Tony's ability to come in and defend his corner column charges claim. Something that is obviously bogus by the simple forensics visible to the naked eye. Again, just another make-it-up-as-you-go-along, Cinque-like claim by Chandler who is trying to see things in the video that aren't there.


The dust jets in the North Tower are far too big to be demo charges. They are caused by the collapsing floors and ROOSD. You can see with the naked eye that they originate from the outer frame wall right on the edge of the floor pad. They are also in synch with ROOSD.

Albert,

Just when I thought I couldn't be more impressed with your mind and scholarship ...

Again, I implore you to help me to improve my grasp of this case by sharing, in detail, your references and learning experiences: the books and papers you've studied, the relevant course work you've completed ... the masters from whom you've derived so much ... those sorts of things.

As I'm sure a man of your vision and conscience will agree, with great scholarship comes the responsibility to share not just what you've mastered, but also how you've mastered it.

It has been said that when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

I'm ready, Albert Doyle.

You've appeared, Albert Doyle.

Ready, willing, and eager to learn,

I remain,

Your student,

Charles

[Tony Szamboti]

Where we are is your spun video where you collected the statements of every and any one who said "boom" on 9-11 was made to look like a witness to the alleged controlled demolition blasts. Especially the ones who said "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom," as if that was witnessing of timed demolition charges similar to those contended by Chandler in his droning video where he makes-up what he wants to see as he goes along. The point that you have yet to answer was that if those booms were the demolition charges that were heard so easily by those witnesses then why didn't Burkett's microphone pick them up? You didn't really answer that. You tried to say that they were drowned-out by sirens, however the ABC video shows it was amazingly quiet around Burkett at the time. Also your boom video mixes random booms with timed demolition charges. The video didn't explain the technical aspect of the random isolated explosions they were showing. What were they doing, loosening the Tower slowly? If they had ripple charges up above, as Chandler is claiming, why then did they need those isolated explosions? Your claims are reckless, obviously made up to throw anything in that you can to suggest CD, and lack any technical explanation.


Meanwhile Tony disappears and doesn't offer a word over these conflicts. Real credibility there and a strong feeling of righteousness that his claims are valid and can be defended. Also, I've pointed-out several times now that Chandler claims the initiation charges were explosions while Tony admits the dust plumes up there are too slow so therefore they must have been burning cutter packs. That's a conflict that deserves a response yet not a peep from those who are so convinced of their rightness. They can just go with a sort of mushy "Well, it was something like that," just like Burkett's explosion above. You know, sort of like a general explosion that goes "boom". That's good enough. You see what I'm getting at here...


I'm really impressed by Tony's ability to come in and defend his corner column charges claim. Something that is obviously bogus by the simple forensics visible to the naked eye. Again, just another make-it-up-as-you-go-along, Cinque-like claim by Chandler who is trying to see things in the video that aren't there.


The dust jets in the North Tower are far too big to be demo charges. They are caused by the collapsing floors and ROOSD. You can see with the naked eye that they originate from the outer frame wall right on the edge of the floor pad. They are also in synch with ROOSD.

It is hardly reckless to connect the structural behavior which has the fingerprints of controlled demolition, such as no columns being involved in the resistance to collapse, with anecdotal evidence of charges in the building. This should be investigated and it hasn't been. The points you make that there was no sound picked up by microphones is spurious at best. Charges can be tamped and we know nano-thermite can be tailored for sound levels and explosiveness.

What I would call reckless and actually ridiculous is your characterization of the focused corner blowouts seen in the Chandler video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8 as being due to ROOSD.

[Albert Doyle]

Fascinating exercise in the construction of a logical argument, Albert.

If Lauren can't answer a question, all whose views mirror his own on this issue must be wrong.


Charles

Charles,


Answer my points about Chandler's corner columns claims. There's nothing wrong with them. So give them a shot. I think they show Chandler is uncredible and can be shown as so at the layman level.


Give it a shot.

[Lauren Johnson]

Albert, Tony has a this thing called a job. He cannot be at your beck and call so as to be abused and insulted by your self proclaimed expertise. As for me, I just see no reason to address you any more.

[Charles Drago]

Fascinating exercise in the construction of a logical argument, Albert.

If Lauren can't answer a question, all whose views mirror his own on this issue must be wrong.


Charles

Charles,


Answer my points about Chandler's corner columns claims. There's nothing wrong with them. So give them a shot. I think they show Chandler is uncredible and can be shown as so at the layman level.


Give it a shot.

I'll get right on that.

[Albert Doyle]

It is hardly reckless to connect the structural behavior which has the fingerprints of controlled demolition, such as no columns being involved in the resistance to collapse, with anecdotal evidence of charges in the building. This should be investigated and it hasn't been. The points you make that there was no sound picked up by microphones is spurious at best. Charges can be tamped and we know nano-thermite can be tailored for sound levels and explosiveness.

What I would call reckless and actually ridiculous is your characterization of the focused corner blowouts seen in the Chandler video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8 as being due to ROOSD.

You're speechifying Mr Szamboti. As Jeffrey pointed-out we have explained why no columns were involved yet you enter the same thing as if the entire previous thread didn't exist.


You are the one who is hand-waving here. I made a very specific point that if your people who you showed in your video heard the booms so clearly then why didn't Burkett's microphone pick that up? You have real problem here because Banfield's booms were barely audible yet the were picked-up at the audio frequency level as Chandler showed. Burkett was standing right under the friggin Tower. You show persons who clearly expressed that they heard loud and audible booms. Yet when we review Burkett's video there is no sign of any such explosions. Nothing. Your response to this is to claim my arguments are spurious, but once again you fail to enter any detail and any fool could see you haven't answered at the necessary technical level you pretend. Your arguments are weak and easily-refuted because if sound dampening devices were used then you have to ask the obvious question how then did those witnesses hear them so loudly? You once again offer mush as responses and try to have it both ways - just like you did with the initiating charges that you claim were burn packs yet Chandler claims were explosives. Is there a reason you ignored that now for the 3rd time? Could it be because it exposes the weakness of your case and methods? Where is the direct answer to that? Why do you and Chandler directly conflict on such an important detail?

Again, your competency is at stake here. You can't just offer the Chandler video as a response to technical points. You have to answer those points. Those points were: That the stainless steel facia Chandler shows on the corner comes off at too slow a speed to be caused by explosives. You have to remember that the corner columns are right there flush with the face. If they were exploded by charges the stainless steel facia would blast off violently. It didn't. The video shows it fell off slowly. Chandler realizes this so he suggests the corner columns might have been cut with thermite burning packs. However, as I pointed-out, the corner columns are flush with the face of the building. If they had been cut by burning thermite that thermite would burn white hot like it is known to do. It also burns with distinguishable sparkles. Since the video is focused on that spot there's no way we wouldn't have seen those tell-tale forensic signs. Additionally that thermite would most-likely have cut the facia in half as well since they were flush with each other. None of these necessary forensic signs are there and what you see is the corner separating as it necessarily would in the catastrophic failure of the structure.


Forgive me Mr Szamboti if I find your responses less than adequate. Try answering what I wrote next time. It's very obvious you can't live up to your claims.

[Albert Doyle]

Albert, Tony has a this thing called a job. He cannot be at your beck and call so as to be abused and insulted by your self proclaimed expertise. As for me, I just see no reason to address you any more.

No Lauren. Tony can't answer the points, as he's shown. Nor can you. I think you're fooling yourself.