Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

The official explanation is served by Jeffrey arguing over the years against controlled demolition while failing to provide an alternative.

To the contrary I have provided an explanation. And this only occured after I stopped acting like a mindless bot repeating what others said.

The alternate is likely that mechanical damage and then heat weakening led to loss of axial strength in the core and the mass above dropped and started the ROOSD process.

Tony say there could not have been enough mechanical damage or heat. This is his ASSERTION not an established fact.

With no hard evidence for or of devices the default explantion is mechanical damage and then heat weakening.

The mech damage was different for each tower and the collapse began differently.

If you don't open your eyes, you don't see.

If you choose to blind yourself to observations and science... you can see/conclude whatever you want.

Interestingly, your default explanation is the present official story.

Unfortunately, it does not explain

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

- why NIST did not have evidence of high steel temperatures.

- why the columns were not involved in the resistance to the first several stories of the collapse.

and these issues are established facts, not just assertions by me.

[Jeffrey Orling]

The official explanation is served by Jeffrey arguing over the years against controlled demolition while failing to provide an alternative.

To the contrary I have provided an explanation. And this only occured after I stopped acting like a mindless bot repeating what others said.

The alternate is likely that mechanical damage and then heat weakening led to loss of axial strength in the core and the mass above dropped and started the ROOSD process.

Tony say there could not have been enough mechanical damage or heat. This is his ASSERTION not an established fact.

With no hard evidence for or of devices the default explantion is mechanical damage and then heat weakening.

The mech damage was different for each tower and the collapse began differently.

If you don't open your eyes, you don't see.

If you choose to blind yourself to observations and science... you can see/conclude whatever you want.

Interestingly, your default explanation is the present official story.

Unfortunately, it does not explain

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

- why NIST did not have evidence of high steel temperatures.

- why the columns were not involved in the resistance to the first several stories of the collapse.

and these issues are established facts, not just assertions by me.

blah blah blah... enjoy your 15 min...

[Tony Szamboti]

The referenced thread was a debate and discussion... including the author Tony Szamboti. The debunkers were several posters only a few of which I know from the 9/11FreeForum, including the guy who is a working physicst and runs the 911FF. Tony is a 911FF member but doesn't post there any more... He kinda got roasted over his last paper... The Missing Jolt. He's not a glutton for punishment and didn't expect the same at JREF... but he appears to have gotten his proverbaial ass handed to him over this paper.

I report... you decide. But you have to read to know. Odd how that works.

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.

[Jeffrey Orling]

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.

[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.