Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Keep waiting.

I am not providing anything other than the links to work others have done... already provided.

Anyone who chooses to be willfully ignorant will never look and is incapable of seeing anything which undermines their beliefs.

Not my job to change anyone who does not want to change their thinking for any reason.

Good luck with your research...

But Mister Jeffrey, you can't expect us to just take your word that the core columns fell due to heating and that the columns would have missed each other without some form of scientific rationale for how you came to your conclusions on these matters. The information doesn't need to be your own.

re iron mico spheres and Harrit:


"Sunday, December 19, 2010

Dr. Rancourt

Thank you for your interest in our publication, and the effort you have made to formulate the questions as they appear in

http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/...-911-cant.html

Our answers follow below. Your questions are highlighted in green. (on this post here they are italics)

Yours sincerely

Niels Harrit

...

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS: Much is made of the fact that Fe-rich spheroids are present after reaction but there is no discussion of the grey-layer or of the origin of the Si-rich spheroids. Heating causes many things and there is an exothermic reaction so the conclusions about the presence of Fe-rich spheroids (which are reported to contain oxygen) as evidence for the thermite reaction is tenuous.

ANSWER: A scientific paper is a set of data and the best hypothesis rationalizing the observations. Fe-rich spheroids are observed after a thermite reaction. Fe-rich spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction."

Mister Jeffrey, it doesn't look like Dr. Harrit said there was only one way to form iron microspheres. He actually said "they have never been observed except in a thermite reaction". There is a difference. However, if Dave Thomas did find one iron microsphere in his test (and I didn't see more than one shown in the video) then they have been observed in other ways. This does not explain the finding of iron microspheres in abundance in the WTC dust along with nano-thermite, which actually forms iron microspheres when ignited.

An analogy here would be of a man found with bird shot pellets all throughout his body and a shotgun found nearby and Dave Thomas saying well bird shot pellets are the same size as those from a BB-gun. Does it even make any sense that the man was actually shot with a BB-gun vs. a shotgun with Birdshot?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Tony at 555

Lacking is any initiator of the observed multifloor failure and drop.

The drop and movement were the result of multiple forces and factors... beginning with the mechanical destruction of the columns by the plane impact, the fires which started from the air line fuel, and electrical shorts, office contents inlcuding plastic and other combustible substances, failure of the fire protection. Connections were the weak links in the steel frame and failed before any steel they connected would.

No one knows the precise sequence of failures and how the frames loads were redistributed and eventually overwhelmed what was left of the structure (axial load paths). When axial load strength dropped below service loads the top section descended and the facade dropped, twisted, translated and the connections broke and some sections still connected cuckled... as in the last remaining connected columns.

This is what the observations indicate. Ignore at your own peril.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony at 555

Lacking is any initiator of the observed multifloor failure and drop.

The drop and movement were the result of multiple forces and factors... beginning with the mechanical destruction of the columns by the plane impact, the fires which started from the air line fuel, and electrical shorts, office contents inlcuding plastic and other combustible substances, failure of the fire protection. Connections were the weak links in the steel frame and failed before any steel they connected would.

No one knows the precise sequence of failures and how the frames loads were redistributed and eventually overwhelmed what was left of the structure (axial load paths). When axial load strength dropped below service loads the top section descended and the facade dropped, twisted, translated and the connections broke and some sections still connected cuckled... as in the last remaining connected columns.

This is what the observations indicate. Ignore at your own peril.

Mister Jeffrey, this is not a scientific explanation. Can you please provide the following

- where the evidence is for the necessary 650 deg. C (1,202 deg. F) steel temperatures to cause the core column axial load strength to fall under their service load.

- where the lateral load necessary to translate the 12 story upper section and cause the columns to miss each other, the way you claim, would have come from.

so we can see how you came to your conclusions. Again, they don't need to be your own and can even be estimates of some sort. Isn't it important to you that you are seen as being a rational person who would base their thinking on science?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Can you please provide the following

- where the evidence is for the necessary 650 deg. C (1,202 deg. F) steel temperatures to cause the core column axial load strength to fall under their service load.

- where the lateral load necessary to translate the 12 story upper section and cause the columns to miss each other, the way you claim, would have come from.

so we can see how you came to your conclusions. Again, they don't need to be your own and can even be estimates of some sort. Isn't it important to you that you are seen as being a rational person who would base their thinking on science?

Nope... find it for yourself.

I have no problem with my reputation. I don't hold myself out to be an expert on what happened at on 9/11. I don't publish papers and speak to conferences as if I know what I am talking about. That's what YOU do.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. That's what YOU do.

I simply present my conception based on what I read and see. I am an armchair observer. I make not claim to be anything but. You claim to be an expert and know what happened (you don't and you aren't an expert).

I am not online to jump to your demands. You can learn from other sources as I have done. You don't want to. Not my problem. I am not here to educate you.

I am a rational person. It is you who are not and pretend to be and attempt to apparently convince others that you are a serious person. You don't give me that impression. It hasn't worked.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Mister Jeffrey

That sort of term shows what a childish person you are. You are finding new ways to discredit yourself as a serious person.

[Phil Dragoo]

Lacking is any initiator of the observed multifloor failure and drop.

At 562 Jeffrey responds

The drop and movement were the result of multiple forces and factors... beginning with the mechanical destruction of the columns by the plane impact, the fires which started from the air line fuel, and electrical shorts, office contents inlcuding plastic and other combustible substances, failure of the fire protection.

This is the official explanation of mechanical damage and heat weakening.

Now the explanation is apparently limited to column splices above 98 (above the impacted floors).

Sustained heat of 600 degrees Centigrade not seen. Limited impact below not shown to have removed columns, yet columns absent from observed drop.

Mechanical damage and heat weakening not adequate to support official explanation, nor account for sudden onset and rapid, unimpeded structural failure.

Twelve years of because-we-say-so argument-from-authority to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Tony Szamboti]

Lacking is any initiator of the observed multifloor failure and drop.

At 562 Jeffrey responds

The drop and movement were the result of multiple forces and factors... beginning with the mechanical destruction of the columns by the plane impact, the fires which started from the air line fuel, and electrical shorts, office contents inlcuding plastic and other combustible substances, failure of the fire protection.

This is the official explanation of mechanical damage and heat weakening.

Now the explanation is apparently limited to column splices above 98 (above the impacted floors).

Sustained heat of 600 degrees Centigrade not seen. Limited impact below not shown to have removed columns, yet columns absent from observed drop.

Mechanical damage and heat weakening not adequate to support official explanation, nor account for sudden onset and rapid, unimpeded structural failure.

Twelve years of because-we-say-so argument-from-authority to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is the explanation Jeffrey supports and says the rest of us should just accept, even though it has been shown to be seriously in error and literally impossible, while he also admits he doesn't have the ability to critique it scientifically. Interesting.

[Tony Szamboti]

Mister Jeffrey

That sort of term shows what a childish person you are. You are finding new ways to discredit yourself as a serious person.

You see, when somebody is being silly, like you are with your provably nonsensical claims about the Twin Tower and WTC 7 collapses, they deserve to be treated as such.

If you don't like it then stop acting silly.

[David Guyatt]

Can you please provide the following

- where the evidence is for the necessary 650 deg. C (1,202 deg. F) steel temperatures to cause the core column axial load strength to fall under their service load.

- where the lateral load necessary to translate the 12 story upper section and cause the columns to miss each other, the way you claim, would have come from.

so we can see how you came to your conclusions. Again, they don't need to be your own and can even be estimates of some sort. Isn't it important to you that you are seen as being a rational person who would base their thinking on science?

Nope... find it for yourself.

I have no problem with my reputation. I don't hold myself out to be an expert on what happened at on 9/11. I don't publish papers and speak to conferences as if I know what I am talking about. That's what YOU do.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. That's what YOU do.

I simply present my conception based on what I read and see. I am an armchair observer. I make not claim to be anything but. You claim to be an expert and know what happened (you don't and you aren't an expert).

I am not online to jump to your demands. You can learn from other sources as I have done. You don't want to. Not my problem. I am not here to educate you.

I am a rational person. It is you who are not and pretend to be and attempt to apparently convince others that you are a serious person. You don't give me that impression. It hasn't worked.

I actually don't agree with Jeffrey's thesis and have never done so - but am a lot less knowledgeable than he is on the subject anyway - but will defend to the death his right to argue his beliefs. He has done so politely and rationally ever since he has been a member here. That's what this forum is all about.

People disagree with him. Fine. That's as it should be.

But if we ever reach the stage when the need to argue (for the sake of "winning"?) grows bigger than the need to learn and inform - and we
become a place where contrary views and arguments are no longer acceptable, that is the day we have lost our raison d'être.

[Magda Hassan]

I actually don't agree with Jeffrey's thesis and have never done so - but am a lot less knowledgeable than he is on the subject anyway - but will defend to the death his right to argue his beliefs. He has done so politely and rationally ever since he has been a member here. That's what this forum is all about.

People disagree with him. Fine. That's as it should be.

But if we ever reach the stage when the need to argue (for the sake of "winning"?) grows bigger than the need to learn and inform - and we
become a place where contrary views and arguments are no longer acceptable, that is the day we have lost our raison d'être.

:::: ::bowtie::