Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

You seem to forget that you need to get through a set of columns before floors can be collapsing on floors. You keep putting the cart before the horse and forgetting it can't go anywhere on its own. Of course, I have seen you try to get around that by insisting a 207 foot square 73 million lb. 12 story section of building just shifts sideways somehow so that the columns miss each other. In reality once loosened the upper 12 story section would fall in place as there is no lateral load to shift it.

The asymmetrical nature of the destruction led to asymmetrical support of the upper floors and this induced rotation when the capacity of the columns dropped below the imposed loads which caused a rotation... and this was all it took for the remaining connected column ends to rotate and break free. Same think happened in 2WTC, but the mechanical damage was ever more off center and the rotation greater. The columns ends where the connections were had no lateral restraint and were simply more like alignment splices at 4' above the floor line were the bracing and lateral restraint was.

Your understanding of how the damage at the core manifest is incorrect... but it enables you to construct your irrational belief that explosives or placed devices account for the rotation or the lateral movement. And just how would they have accomplished that?

There was no more than 1 degree of rotation through the first couple stories of the collapse. That would provide very little lateral load. I have done the calculations to show it would not cause any significant shift and the columns would still be relatively closely aligned.

The core columns were taken out over a number of stories starting at the 98th floor and moving upward through the 101st story with some form of demolition devices. Do you need a diagram for how a column is removed or connections melted? Can you do any calculations to back up what you are trying to say concerning how the rotation you espouse would have done what you say?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Femr posted a diagram on JREF... do I need to construct it and measure? Or can you find the drawing over there.

[Tony Szamboti]

Femr posted a diagram on JREF... do I need to construct it and measure? Or can you find the drawing over there.

femr2 is an anonymous individual whose work on the WTC collapses is nonsensical. He is the only person who has ever claimed to have found a jolt in the North Tower's fall and it occurs during the first story drop where there hasn't even been anything to impact yet. It is obviously noise due to his trying to enhance the resolution. I do not accept his work and if you can't do the calculations yourself, we can see what is actually going on with you.

[Phil Dragoo]

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20...ootage.htm

In the first part of this four-minute video on Corbett, WTC7 collapses--symmetrically, appearing to build speed (accelerate).

At the 2:00 mark, The North Tower similarly collapses symmetrically, with growing speed (accelerating).

Certainly dramatic in its impact, the video "appeared" in 2008, and presents the clearest view of two very suspicious events.

No other buildings have suffered such "natural" collapse.

Tony, your hypothesis bears examination: the removal of three floors of columns--coincidentally the length of the columns involved--appears necessary to initiate collapse--otherwise the damaged buildings would have remained standing.

The Commission insisted heat weakening and mechanical damage were responsible.

Evidence suggests the official explanation fails to explain.

[Albert Doyle]

femr2 is an anonymous individual whose work on the WTC collapses is nonsensical. He is the only person who has ever claimed to have found a jolt in the North Tower's fall and it occurs during the first story drop where there hasn't even been anything to impact yet. It is obviously noise due to his trying to enhance the resolution. I do not accept his work and if you can't do the calculations yourself, we can see what is actually going on with you.

Gordon Ross also found deceleration:


" The lower collapse front did not accelerate at the same rate as the roof line. "



[size=12]If you think about it the above is the definition of deceleration.


The JREF is a denial troll site. A Von Pein-like Hades.






[/SIZE]

[Jeffrey Orling]

Roger that Tony.... I'll do a graphic for you... when I have the time.

[Phil Dragoo]

Oh, and in Kevin Ryan, Another Nineteen, Richard Clarke is chairing table top exercises in 1998 in which hijacked jets are flown into buildings

He will soon forecast that America will be hit in her "Achilles' heel" namely, "New York, and Washington"

I present this brief outline of the equivalent to the lone gunman with his junk rifle and a magic bullet,

in which we are to believe that buildings designed to withstand aircraft impact collapsed in never-before-seen fashion

sans heat required for the "official explanation" which, to be sure, explains nothing:

A rational look at the Twin Tower collapses reveals that the official story contradicts the laws of physics and the most basic knowledge of the behavior of steel structures, and matter itself.

• The Towers were designed to survive jet impacts of the type that happened on September 11th.
  
• The fires were not very severe in the South Tower and were diminishing. Even severe fires would not have initiated a collapse.
  
• Skyscapers have never collapsed due to fires or any other cause other than controlled demolition.
  
• The Towers underwent explosive disintegrations that didn't look anything like the way such buildings would fall.
  
• The destruction of the Towers displayed several unique features of controlled demolition.
  
• There are relatively simple proofs that the buildings did not fall of their own weight.
  

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/towers.html

I for one have been fascinated by Tony's engineering arguments.

Jeffrey, we await your graphic of the rotation you describe which Tony stipulates did not occur.

When we see the North Tower collapse in context with the virtually identical collapse of the South Tower

and the most curious collapse of the seven building

all with the efficiency of controlled demolition

none of which has ever been observed

we have to ask

why?

[Jeffrey Orling]

• The Towers were designed to survive jet impacts of the type that happened on September 11th.
  

The towers' design was theoretical tested for a low speed 707 impact. Both designs DID in fact withstand the initial impact and remain standing. The subsequent weakening from imposed fuel load, loss of fire insulation, no fire fighting led to the failure of the core and the subsequent drop of the mass on to the floor composites and the runaway cascading collapse/destruciton of the floor composites, then the failure of the unbraced facade and core from Euler forces.

• The fires were not very severe in the South Tower and were diminishing. Even severe fires would not have initiated a collapse.
  

According to who? Fire alone would not cause a collapse but added to the mechanical damage from the planes and the loss of insulation from the impacts driving materials through the floor the fires CONTRIBUTED to the weakening... the straw that broke the camel's back.

• Skyscapers have never collapsed due to fires or any other cause other than controlled demolition.
  

No skyscapers had the same engineering design nor were hit by jumbo jets.

• The Towers underwent explosive disintegrations that didn't look anything like the way such buildings would fall.
  

The collapse involved 400,000 tons of chaotically falling and colliding debris. This is what caused the extensive communition of materials not durable enough to be destroyed and rendered to such small grain sized remains... much like stone dust us made from tumbling granite.

• The destruction of the Towers displayed several unique features of controlled demolition.
  

They displayed the features of a collapse.

• There are relatively simple proofs that the buildings did not fall of their own weight.
  

Nothing falls from it's own weight. All materials have mechanical properties if exceeded will fail. A person down not fall from his own weight but if his thigh bones are severed he cannot stand up. This is a completely nonsense statement proofing nothing.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/towers.html

I for one have been fascinated by Tony's engineering arguments.

This is because you don't know that Tony makes assumptions and his case is not a real world one. It has been refuted quite extensively by several others and it can be found online at the 911FreeForums and http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=261678

Jeffrey, we await your graphic of the rotation you describe which Tony stipulates did not occur.

You can find the graphic within the thread of the second link.

When we see the North Tower collapse in context with the virtually identical collapse of the South Tower

and the most curious collapse of the seven building

all with the efficiency of controlled demolition

none of which has ever been observed

we have to ask

why?

Asking "why?" is fine... Seek the answer in science and reason, in observation and data...There is a political answer which the radical Islamists gave whether you believe it or not... and that is that they wanted to strike at the symbol of US hegemony and dominance. There was no intent to destroy the WTC but to strike a blow. They succeeded. The destruction was an unforeseen (by the hijacker/conspirators) consequence of a series of cascading progressive failures analogous to the fall of dominoes by lightly pushing a single one which can topple 10,000 or any amount. The destruction was extremely complex and does not lend itself to a simple cause and effect physics explanation, but involves multiple factors which are beyond the grasp of most observers who tend to not understand engineering, materials science and physics or have cartoon like conceptions of how the world work.

Like the Greeks, who connected the dots called stars they saw in the sky they called the heavens... and saw depiction of their gods called the zodiac and attribute causality of human behavior to the stars... people connect the dots they see on 9/11/01 and create the story they want, based on the limits and quality of their thinking.

The answer lies not in the stars but in ourselves.

[Jeffrey Orling]

for those to lazy to search... read this comment: (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/the-pub-t82-1170.html)

"

femr2 is an anonymous individual whose work on the WTC collapses is nonsensical. He is the only person who has ever claimed to have found a jolt in the North Tower's fall and it occurs during the first story drop where there hasn't even been anything to impact yet. It is obviously noise due to his trying to enhance the resolution. I do not accept his work and if you can't do the calculations yourself, we can see what is actually going on with you.

He just can't help himself, can he. What an idiot. Even though he's already been told, repeatedly, he still chooses to write this kind of crap, and digs himself a mahoosive hole in the process.

Le dissection...

femr2 is an anonymous individual

It doesn't say "femr2" on my birth certificate, sure. But everything I've presented can be replicated in full, with full step-by-step instructions. Tony is quite capable of checking any data presented. He simply CHOOSES not to.

whose work on the WTC collapses is nonsensical

Read "inconvenient for Tony's purposes".

A whole bunch of other folk seem to understand. Tony must be stupid. It's hardly rocket science.

Boils down to:

1) Record position of feature as accurately as possible for each frame of video.
2) Plot graph.

Mind boggling stuff

He is the only person who has ever claimed to have found a jolt in the North Tower's fall

Liar.

Tony's data (which he nicked from Chandler) includes "jolts".

The Chandler data uses a sample rate so low that a 4G "jolt" could be missed.

OWE data includes "jolts".
Achimspok data includes "jolts".
My data includes "jolts".

Everyone who has actually bothered to extract per-frame accurate positional data has found "jolts".

And, again, TONY's DATA includes "jolts". They are just smaller then he thinks they should be.
and it occurs during the first story drop where there hasn't even been anything to impact yet.


HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Tony repeatedly makes this absurdly stupid and inept statement, borne from his utter inability to perceive anything in more than one dimension.

Yeah, right Tony...the upper section didn't "tilt", there's absolutely nothing in between one storey floor and the one above, ...

And the wonderful thing about his nuttiness here is that when you challenge him about it he digs an enourmous hole for himself.

What he says when you explain it (again) is that (assuming a tilted upper section drop) it's not possible for the impacts furthest from the NW corner to be detected at the NW corner as they are too far away.

Tony has been told over and over again that his "missing jolt" theory must take account of the fact that "jolts" occurring many floors away from the NW corner, and away from the North face, must propogate through a deforming non-rigid structure, which will dampen, absorb, ...

He denies this.

Yet like an absolute numpty makes that the very factor he uses to deny the possibility of "jolts" occurring before the NW corner has descended 1 storey.

HA HA HA HA HA

It is obviously noise due to his trying to enhance the resolution.

Oh, obviously

Sub-pixel tracing techniques have been validated time and time again. There is some noise present, of course, but Tony doesn't seem to realise that the noise level is itself sub-pixel. No noise is being "added". it's simply that measurements are so accurate that noise from various sources becomes VISIBLE. Smoothing and averaging techniques are used to cut through the noise in data presented, so he has no leg to stand on.

I do not accept his work

Liar.

He accepts what he thinks supports his position, such as sub-pixel tracing to determine pre-release "tilt" of the upper section. But rejects data generated using exactly the same techniques which kicks his theories into touch, such as over 9s of pre-release motion, or "jolts", or proof of "non-smooth motion history", or proof of "non-constant acceleration", or...

Lying, cheating, manipulative scumbag.

and if you can't do the calculations yourself

Tony is quite capable of "doing the calculations" himself. Again, he simply chooses not to.

we can see what is actually going on with you.

Paranoid nut-job.

I've been logging all of the traffic from his IP for years now. Naughty Tony ! "

[Magda Hassan]

The trouble with this is it is from the Randi forum which is hardly a source of good verification. Un-named sources spouting shit. Is there nothing more substantial from an academic source? Or more trustworthy than the Randi forum? Something that you can use to refute Tony's hypothesis?