Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

I think this thread shows who actually has had the experience of having their proverbial ass handed to them Jeffrey, and it is not the one who can back their comments with analysis. This is something you and your ilk can't do because what you say is nothing but a mirage and not what actually happened or even could have happened.

Whatever you say... You run away when challenged... I've seen this on several forums. Have a blast... you're able to do your dog and pong show here and they are eating up.

I never ran away. I just didn't want to continue having my time wasted by anonymous fraudulent goons, like those on the JREF Forum or even the 911 free forum. The people here (who also happen to give their real names) are clearly honest purveyors of reality as that is what I would think attracted them to Peter Dale Scott's exposure of shadow government type actions that make up some of what many of us feel is a bogus reality concerning the assassinations and 911.

With an audience of people living in the real world and understanding how things sometimes work behind closed doors, anyone pushing nonsense on an issue, no matter how clever, will lose in the long run to someone knowledgeable of the issue and telling the truth. It clearly fits Abe Lincoln's adage of "You can fool some of the people all the time, you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". You couldn't hang in the long run, because what you are saying simply isn't true, and that does not work here.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I never ran away. I just didn't want to continue having my time wasted by anonymous fraudulent goons, like those on the JREF Forum or even the 911 free forum. The people here (who also happen to give their real names) are clearly honest purveyors of reality as that is what I would think attracted them to Peter Dale Scott's exposure of shadow government type actions that make up some of what many of us feel is a bogus reality concerning the assassinations and 911.

With an audience of people living in the real world and understanding how things sometimes work behind closed doors, anyone pushing nonsense on an issue, no matter how clever, will lose in the long run to someone knowledgeable of the issue and telling the truth. It clearly fits Abe Lincoln's adage of "You can fool some of the people all the time, you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". You couldn't hang in the long run, because what you are saying simply isn't true, and that does not work here.

Who referred to the members at DP as anything but well intentioned? Being self deluded does make someone intentional liars... or people who use nicks goons. Many people who post on the internet use nicks and enjoy more free to discuss all sorts of topics.

Who is arabesque?

Look at the content of the argument rather than the name of the author.

[Tony Szamboti]

I never ran away. I just didn't want to continue having my time wasted by anonymous fraudulent goons, like those on the JREF Forum or even the 911 free forum. The people here (who also happen to give their real names) are clearly honest purveyors of reality as that is what I would think attracted them to Peter Dale Scott's exposure of shadow government type actions that make up some of what many of us feel is a bogus reality concerning the assassinations and 911.

With an audience of people living in the real world and understanding how things sometimes work behind closed doors, anyone pushing nonsense on an issue, no matter how clever, will lose in the long run to someone knowledgeable of the issue and telling the truth. It clearly fits Abe Lincoln's adage of "You can fool some of the people all the time, you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". You couldn't hang in the long run, because what you are saying simply isn't true, and that does not work here.

Who referred to the members at DP as anything but well intentioned? Being self deluded does make someone intentional liars... or people who use nicks goons. Many people who post on the internet use nicks and enjoy more free to discuss all sorts of topics.

Who is arabesque?

Look at the content of the argument rather than the name of the author.

People who use pseudonyms have no fear of reputation or credibility damage and many abuse it and that is very likely why they don't use their real name. I certainly don't find much of what I see from people using pseudonyms persuasive. In fact, it is one of the few things I dislike about the Internet. Thankfully, there are people, like those here, who use their real names, and as such can be taken much more seriously.

Since pseudonyms aren't allowed on the DPF you have taken a serious hit to your credibility and reputation, as you should for peddling phony garbage. However, nobody can be blamed for this but you. Had you not been forced to use your real name you wouldn't have, but then your argument should not have been given as much of a chance either. Your argument was given a chance here and it fell on its own because it had no merit.

[Lauren Johnson]

the rapid horizontal propagation across the 98th floor of the North Tower.

Tony, I believe you said this propogation was 1/250th of a second? How did you calculate this?

[Tony Szamboti]

the rapid horizontal propagation across the 98th floor of the North Tower.

Tony, I believe you said this propogation was 1/250th of a second? How did you calculate this?

Lauren, I said the horizontal propagation across the 98th floor in the North Tower occurred in 250 milliseconds in one of my e-mail answers to Jeffrey. That would be 1/4 of a second, as there are 1,000 milliseconds in a second.

The calculation was based on measurements of the fall of the corners of the building and the frame rate of the video being used for the measurement. The video frame rate was the standard 29.97 frames per second, so each frame is 33 milliseconds.

The calculation has varied between 250 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds depending on who is doing it and their measurement accuracy. Even accounting for a small error, it is clear that the propagation occurred very rapidly and was most certainly less than a second. This is significant when one realizes there is 293 feet between diagonal corners in a building which is 207 feet long on each side.

Watch this short slow motion video to see how uniform the smoke comes out and how evenly the upper section comes down at first http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k.

[Phil Dragoo]

Tony

I see your propagation calculation and recognize the calculation twice two oh seven squared is 293 squared.

Your video is dramatic as is one titled WTC1 collapse initiations visible signs:



The official explanation is mechanical damage plus heat weakening.

The observed event is a sudden floor-wide flame spread with exterior ejection of smoke and debris.

Where is the "eight degree rotation"?

The appearance is that suddenly a multifloor void was created intitiating rapid, smooth, uninterrupted drop of the entire structure.

I take it this is where your "columns not resisting" comes in--

According to the video NIST would not release data until a FOIA suit was brought.

The recorded witness accounts of the firefighters were suppressed.

Evidence of explosives was not sought, yet has been described in reports of nanothermite, molten steel, sounds of explosions, et cetera.

The official commission attempted to pronounce "case closed" on the basis of a hypothesis which required floor trusses to sag forty inches.

Tests showed two to six.

The structure was scaled to provide more robust cross sections descending yet no deceleration presents in any video; collapse is continuous.

In each of the three structures.

Collapse of a skyscraper from fire had not previously been demonstrated.

Nor, we suspect, in this case.

[Peter Lemkin]

I think this thread shows who actually has had the experience of having their proverbial ass handed to them Jeffrey, and it is not the one who can back their comments with analysis. This is something you and your ilk can't do because what you say is nothing but a mirage and not what actually happened or even could have happened.

Whatever you say... You run away when challenged... I've seen this on several forums. Have a blast... you're able to do your dog and pong show here and they are eating up.

Speaking of running or walking away. You haven't answered what attracted you to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth; had you active in it for a while and get close to the head, then left, or were sort of pushed out. Why could you not convince even one person there of your theory? They are all professionals in the field and interested in 9-11. Why are you here, trying to counter any post speaking of alternatives to the official version, to try to steer things back to doubt, smoke, and mirrors that the 'official' version might just be the correct answer....if only one uses your unzip theory - to whom no on but you [correct me if I'm wrong] buys. Your agenda is showing, IMO.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony

I see your propagation calculation and recognize the calculation twice two oh seven squared is 293 squared.

Your video is dramatic as is one titled WTC1 collapse initiations visible signs:

The official explanation is mechanical damage plus heat weakening.

The observed event is a sudden floor-wide flame spread with exterior ejection of smoke and debris.

Where is the "eight degree rotation"?

The appearance is that suddenly a multifloor void was created intitiating rapid, smooth, uninterrupted drop of the entire structure.

I take it this is where your "columns not resisting" comes in--

According to the video NIST would not release data until a FOIA suit was brought.

The recorded witness accounts of the firefighters were suppressed.

Evidence of explosives was not sought, yet has been described in reports of nanothermite, molten steel, sounds of explosions, et cetera.

The official commission attempted to pronounce "case closed" on the basis of a hypothesis which required floor trusses to sag forty inches.

Tests showed two to six.

The structure was scaled to provide more robust cross sections descending yet no deceleration presents in any video; collapse is continuous.

In each of the three structures.

Collapse of a skyscraper from fire had not previously been demonstrated.

Nor, we suspect, in this case.

Phil, the building actually drops vertically a couple of stories, at a very small tilt of 1 degree or less, before the 8 degree tilt occurs. NIST is wrong about the 8 degrees occurring immediately and before any vertical movement. I don't think they looked at it close enough. The columns were never involved in the collapse based on acceleration measurements and column energy absorption capacity calculations. In other words, had the columns been involved the accelerations achieved would not have been possible. The small tilt does not misalign the columns in any significant way and inertia and the reality that buckling ductile columns don't just separate would cause the upper section to stay aligned in the absence of any significant lateral load on it, so there is no reason for misalignment. We find the collapse should have arrested after a one or even two story natural fall, as there would not have been enough kinetic energy to get through the columns.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Speaking of running or walking away. You haven't answered what attracted you to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth; had you active in it for a while and get close to the head, then left, or were sort of pushed out. Why could you not convince even one person there of your theory? They are all professionals in the field and interested in 9-11. Why are you here, trying to counter any post speaking of alternatives to the official version, to try to steer things back to doubt, smoke, and mirrors that the 'official' version might just be the correct answer....if only one uses your unzip theory - to whom no on but you [correct me if I'm wrong] buys. Your agenda is showing, IMO.

Answered in post #520

I didn't have any theories about what happened until months after I left AE and began to look for aswers to the question of how DID the towers come down.

I was on board with the AE story / conception / Pillars of Truth before and during my tenure with AE. Once I left I decided to trust but verify. When I left that I began to see that the AE explanation was speculative and based on inaccurate obervations, poor or little data and others were making more sense of what happened... such as the 911FF.

I formed my own *speculative* theory and there are others at the 911FF and elsewhere who have similar conceptions... which are NOT the official explanation. My hypothesis put me atr odds with both the truth guys and those who stomped for the OCT such as at JREF. I didn't care. About 1 year ago I turned my attention from the twins to wtc 7 and came up with the TTF hypothesis... again not in line with AE or NIST.

People I have encountered online who are truthers believe I am a decoy and really a NIST proponent. They are wrong. I do not agree with NIST's reports findings.

Like others who believe they have something POSITIVE to add to the discussion... In attempted to share ROOSD and TTF with others online. Lots of resistance from Truthers and constant ad homs. Pilots for 911 truth eventually seemed to agree with TTF but that it had to be done by placed devices.

People can choose what and how they wish to inform their own thinking and understanding. I tried to show something different. If they reject it... for whatever reason... it is functionally no different that someone rejecting any analysis... be it global warming, evolution, creationism, abiotic oil, or deep politics etc.

I have stated that more research needs to be done to rule in or out the ideas I have expressed. If you want very technical discussions look at 911FF to find them. I try to communicate my understanding with basic concepts easily accessible.

A black box is not an acceptable explanation and neither is one that ignores evidence which contradicts one's beliefs.

[Jeffrey Orling]

..... The columns were never involved in the collapse based on acceleration measurements and column energy absorption capacity calculations. In other words, had the columns been involved the accelerations achieved would not have been possible.

When core aggregate axial load capacity had dropped below service loads the movements show that the columns were translated laterally enough so that and there would therefore be no column resistence or impacts. Didn't happen... strawman argument. There was likely a few remaining columns which saw enormous loads and rapidly buckled like a pretzel and accounted for the virtual hinge rotation and translation.