Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

Your points have been answered and you have not ever explained why the columns would not be involved. All you are doing is saying otherwise. You are like a kid denying something in the face of clear evidence.

[Albert Doyle]

Your points have been answered and you have not ever explained why the columns would not be involved. All you are doing is saying otherwise. You are like a kid denying something in the face of clear evidence.

You're dodging the technical forensic arguments about the corner columns. Let it be duly noted.



You're also dodging answering why you and Chandler differ on such an important aspect as the type of initiation device. Also, duly noted.


Your dampered blasts claim was refuted by the fact your own witnesses in your own video claimed they were very loud and audible. Also, not answered. Also duly noted.



You know as well as I that those witnesses in your own video are referring to "booms" that are much louder than those in the Banfield video. Do we need to go back and look at them saying they heard "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom" in the context of those being timed charges blasting the floor columns? Also your own collapse video claims the prominent dust jets shooting out of the Tower were responsible for those booms (Which is pure evidence they weren't dampened isn't it?). There's no way that such a forthright and audible event as told by the witnesses would be missed by Burkett's microphone and you haven't come up with an answer for that.

[Tony Szamboti]

Your points have been answered and you have not ever explained why the columns would not be involved. All you are doing is saying otherwise. You are like a kid denying something in the face of clear evidence.

You're dodging the technical forensic arguments about the corner columns. Let it be duly noted.



You're also dodging answering why you and Chandler differ on such an important aspect as the type of initiation device. Also, duly noted.


Your dampered blasts claim was refuted by the fact your own witnesses in your own video claimed they were very loud and audible. Also, not answered. Also duly noted.



You know as well as I that those witnesses in your own video are referring to "booms" that are much louder than those in the Banfield video. Do we need to go back and look at them saying they heard "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom" in the context of those being timed charges blasting the floor columns? Also your own collapse video claims the prominent dust jets shooting out of the Tower were responsible for those booms (Which is pure evidence they weren't dampened isn't it?). There's no way that such a forthright and audible event as told by the witnesses would be missed by Burkett's microphone and you haven't come up with an answer for that.

You point is a crock. The dampered blasts were audible to people "in the building", in case you forgot where they were when they heard them.

You are trying to say it couldn't have been a controlled demolition without full blown C-4 type sounds and that is absolutely untrue. There are numerous ways to keep the sound level down at the beginning of the collapse and that is one reason thermitic substances would have been used, and interestingly these type of substances were found in the dust.

Your argument is akin to somebody seeing a stealth aircraft doing everything an aircraft does and saying they saw it, but you tell them it couldn't have been an aircraft because it wasn't picked up on your radar. All I ever say about the initiation is that it was caused by some form of demolition devices. That is what the response of the building shows, just like the stealth aircraft can be visually seen to behave like an aircraft without much of a radar signature. Additionally, once the collapse starts the roar of it would mask explosive sounds just like chaff masks the radar signature of non-stealth aircraft.

As shown here, your argument concerning explosive noise is seriously flawed as it does not consider efforts which could be made to reduce noise levels at the beginning of the collapse and that they would be masked during the collapse.

[Albert Doyle]

You point is a crock. The dampered blasts were audible to people "in the building", in case you forgot where they were when they heard them.

Sure. The same buildings that then fell and killed the people in them. If you look at the witness at 2:30 minutes he clearly describes hearing those booms from outside the building. Sorry Tony but your answers are obvious as the cheap excuses they are. They greatly conflict with even your own evidence and don't answer the point that was being made. You should have known this answer wouldn't have worked because you can't have dampened blasts and prominent dust jets in the same place. You seem impervious to this. Now, since your excuses don't work, we're back to the original question you haven't answered. How could Burkett's mic not pick this up?

You are trying to say it couldn't have been a controlled demolition without full blown C-4 type sounds and that is absolutely untrue. There are numerous ways to keep the sound level down at the beginning of the collapse and that is one reason thermitic substances would have been used, and interestingly these type of substances were found in the dust.

Mush. You aren't answering how your witnesses could have heard those impressive booms they speak of in your video yet Burkett's microphone didn't? Sorry but science requires that any blast capable of making your massive dust jets shown in your video would have to be accompanied by an explosive sound. The same sound your witnesses speak of.

You didn't answer why Chandler chose explosives and you chose ill-defined thermitic devices? There's a conflict there your team needs to account for if you're going to make videos.

Your argument is akin to somebody seeing a stealth aircraft doing everything an aircraft does and saying they saw it, but you tell them it couldn't have been an aircraft because it wasn't picked up on your radar. All I ever say about the initiation is that it was caused by some form of demolition devices. That is what the response of the building shows, just like the stealth aircraft can be visually seen to behave like an aircraft without much of a radar signature. Additionally, once the collapse starts the roar of it would mask explosive sounds just like chaff masks the radar signature of non-stealth aircraft.

What is really being done here is you are saying a large fiery blast is seen but somehow it didn't make any noise. Show me an explosive blast that doesn't make any noise.

Your video is just the shocked victims telling what they heard. Meanwhile you haven't explained why they give many different versions of alleged demolition blasts? You haven't explained why the spooks would need isolated blasts if they already had synchronized wave charges in place that would do the job by themselves?

The roar didn't mask the booms your video witnesses heard (how many times do I have to repeat that?).

Your initiation device claim is too general. You also fail to explain why Chandler would claim the obvious bogus explosives initiation cause that isn't backed-up by the observations and conflicts with the huge explosions claimed to be coursing down the building. Somehow Chandler's explosions at the top don't make any dust jets and you've failed to explain that.

As shown here, your argument concerning explosive noise is seriously flawed as it does not consider efforts which could be made to reduce noise levels at the beginning of the collapse and that they would be masked during the collapse.

You don't seem to grasp the science involved with those dust jets. If they originated from explosives their size and strength seen in the video would require an accompanying boom. The noise caused by explosives is from the violent shockwave caused by the rapidly expanding gas of the explosion. According to your theory, your video dust jets must, by science, have been caused by such an event because of their easily-seen properties. You can't have silent blasts as you suggest unless they are pneumatic but even those would create a noise.

You've got a problem because if your demolition synchronized wave charges Chandler shows were muted by the roar then you have to explain what the "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom" the people in your video heard was? At the very least you've misrepresented what those people were hearing in your video. You continue to try to have it both ways and, frankly, don't seem to notice in your responses:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNLa93Q_...r_embedded



.

[Charles Drago]

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...highlight=

For your edification.

[Phil Dragoo]

Tony Szamboli at 377

I can say unequivocally that the collapse initiations and at least the first several stories of the collapses were assisted in the North Tower and WTC 7 to get things moving. The columns are not involved in either the initiation or first several stories of the drop of both buildings and that is impossible in a natural collapse. After that it doesn't matter, as controlled demolitions generally only involve breaking enough material loose, and generating enough momentum, to let gravity finish the job. In WTC 7 it is very clear that it was eight stories taken out before letting gravity do the rest with the loosened material. It could have been nine or ten in the towers, and there may have been additional help on the way down at key points, such as mechanical floors and the perimeter corners.

The North Tower and WTC 7 collapses were with the utmost probability due to controlled demolitions.

Yesbut and Butwait to the contrary notwithstanding, Tony has a paper here, a bridge document.

More to come. Although, less is more in this discussion.

[Albert Doyle]

This is why Chandler is dishonest because there's no reason he couldn't show you these videos of the South Tower. If you watch the whole video there's several close-up videos from the southeast and northeast sides of the collapsing South Tower that show an important uniform cascade of ROOSD floor collapse and dust bursts. If you watch the video intelligently you can see clear as day the timing of this dust burst waterfall down the walls of the tower is perfectly in synch with ROOSD and is not timed correctly to be core demolition. Also any idiot can see the robust waterfall-like nature of those bursts is too thick and extensive to be from explosives. The only thing that could push so much material at that precise speed and thickness would be floor collapse.

There's even more ROOSD gold in these videos. You can see two distinct types of dust bursts as the top section of the South Tower collapses. The first are the dust plumes caused by the initial collapse. The second type are those robust cascading uniform dust bursts that are the obvious result of the top section initiating ROOSD. There's clearly a difference between the two which means the second is from a different cause than the first. What a coincidence that it just so happens to be perfectly timed with the top section setting off ROOSD in the bottom section. Watch the video closely. The top section hits the bottom and the dust burst waterfall evidences the setting-off of ROOSD. Smart engineers will realize the shift from first plume to second is your deceleration.

It's obvious why Chandler didn't show you this:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA



.

[Tony Szamboti]

This is why Chandler is dishonest because there's no reason he couldn't show you these videos of the South Tower. If you watch the whole video there's several close-up videos from the southeast and northeast sides of the collapsing South Tower that show an important uniform cascade of ROOSD floor collapse and dust bursts. If you watch the video intelligently you can see clear as day the timing of this dust burst waterfall down the walls of the tower is perfectly in synch with ROOSD and is not timed correctly to be core demolition. Also any idiot can see the robust waterfall-like nature of those bursts is too thick and extensive to be from explosives. The only thing that could push so much material at that precise speed and thickness would be floor collapse.

There's even more ROOSD gold in these videos. You can see two distinct types of dust bursts as the top section of the South Tower collapses. The first are the dust plumes caused by the initial collapse. The second type are those robust cascading uniform dust bursts that are the obvious result of the top section initiating ROOSD. There's clearly a difference between the two which means the second is from a different cause than the first. What a coincidence that it just so happens to be perfectly timed with the top section setting off ROOSD in the bottom section. Watch the video closely. The top section hits the bottom and the dust burst waterfall evidences the setting-off of ROOSD.

It's obvious why Chandler didn't show you this:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA



.

There is no question that given enough momentum the collapses could self-propagate. However, it needs time to develop momentum so this ROOSD can't occur immediately. The assistance would have occurred at the beginning of the collapse and for the first ten stories or so. That is what can't be explained naturally, with the columns not being involved, the rapid horizontal propagation across the initiating story, and the high acceleration through the first story and the next several stories before ROOSD could even occur.

[Albert Doyle]

There is no question that given enough momentum the collapses could self-propagate. However, it needs time to develop momentum so this ROOSD can't occur immediately. The assistance would have occurred at the beginning of the collapse and for the first ten stories or so. That is what can't be explained naturally, with the columns not being involved, the rapid horizontal propagation across the initiating story, and the high acceleration through the first story and so forth.

But don't you understand, Mr Szamboti, that by saying that you are mixing your claims? To me your admission of self-propagation is tantamount to admitting the robust waterfall dust bursts you see at 4:20 are from ROOSD (which they are). Don't you understand that your side is claiming that huge cascade of bursting material coursing down the sides of the South Tower was from explosives charges set in sequence designed to collapse the tower?

Apparently the top section's impact and mass was enough to disintegrate the inner core. This was probably aided by ROOSD as the additional lateral dynamics assisted in this process. However there is no doubt that a seamless bursting dust cascade occurs down the sides of the South Tower. The timing of that bursting cascade would be nearly impossible to synchronize with the top section if it were done by manual activation. The eye can see very easily that the event occurs as one process. There is no detectable transition from ten stories or so of explosives inducing self-propagation to ROOSD. The eye doesn't lie. There's no rate change. Nor is there any perceptible change in the dust bursts.

The reason your ten stories or so of demolition assistance is wrong is because the timing of the dust bursts is such that it happens in perfect sequence with the driving of the top section into the bottom. The first few stories of dust burst occur after a slight delay which is significant of a type of deceleration absorption that obviously results in floor collapse and its ensuing dust cascade. Obviously what was being absorbed for that brief moment was the piling wreckage of the top section landing on the bottom.

By the way, where do you draw the line on the North Tower? How many stories of explosives assistance occurred there before Chandler was pointing things out that would be too low on the building and into the self-propagation zone you yourself admit to?

[Tony Szamboti]

There is no question that given enough momentum the collapses could self-propagate. However, it needs time to develop momentum so this ROOSD can't occur immediately. The assistance would have occurred at the beginning of the collapse and for the first ten stories or so. That is what can't be explained naturally, with the columns not being involved, the rapid horizontal propagation across the initiating story, and the high acceleration through the first story and so forth.

But don't you understand, Mr Szamboti, that by saying that you are mixing your claims? To me your admission of self-propagation is tantamount to admitting the robust waterfall dust bursts you see at 4:20 are from ROOSD (which they are). Don't you understand that your side is claiming that huge cascade of bursting material coursing down the sides of the South Tower was from explosives charges set in sequence designed to collapse the tower?

Apparently the top section's impact and mass was enough to disintegrate the inner core. This was probably aided by ROOSD as the additional lateral dynamics assisted in this process. However there is no doubt that a seamless bursting dust cascade occurs down the sides of the South Tower. The timing of that bursting cascade would be nearly impossible to synchronize with the top section if it were done by manual activation. The eye can see very easily that the event occurs as one process. There is no detectable transition from ten stories or so of explosives inducing self-propagation to ROOSD. The eye doesn't lie. There's no rate change. Nor is there any perceptible change in the dust bursts.

The reason your ten stories or so of demolition assistance is wrong is because the timing of the dust bursts is such that it happens in perfect sequence with the driving of the top section into the bottom. The first few stories of dust burst occur after a slight delay which is significant of a type of deceleration absorption that obviously results in floor collapse and its ensuing dust cascade. Obviously what was being absorbed for that brief moment was the piling wreckage of the top section landing on the bottom.

By the way, where do you draw the line on the North Tower? How many stories of explosives assistance occurred there before Chandler was pointing things out that would be too low on the building and into the self-propagation zone you yourself admit to?

I am hardly mixing anything. The problems those advocating natural collapse scenarios for the North Tower have is that they cannot explain

- the rapid horizontal propagation
- the rapid acceleration through the first story
- why the columns were never involved in resisting the collapse.

I have said there would have been charges on the corners of the perimeters and at certain places lower in the structure, in addition to the first ten stories, to ensure continued and complete collapse.

You have no argument to get the collapse started to begin with, you can't explain the lack of column involvement in resisting the collapse from the start, and your "we don't hear enough explosive noise" is quite flawed as I have shown.