Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Tony Szamboti]

I did read it. I was talking about your first two. Would you still look for the jolt through a couple floors of damage?

The calculations show that the energy expended to deform and buckle the remaining columns in a natural collapse would have always resulted in an observable jolt. An arrest would result in a jolt (deceleration) and a stop.

Take a look at the graph at the end of this paper http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf

 

[DGM]

The calculations show that the energy expended to deform and buckle the remaining columns in a natural collapse would have always resulted in an observable jolt. An arrest would result in a jolt (deceleration) and a stop.

How many floors of damaged columns did your "jolt" paper account for in fall before total match-up was achieved? Remember, tilt was seen early on.

BTW: You seem to be ignoring the post concerning the inward bowing, inconvenient?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

How many floors of damaged columns did your "jolt" paper account for in fall before total match-up was achieved? Remember, tilt was seen early on.

The tilt in the North Tower didn't appear until the upper section had fallen two or three stories.

The jolt would have had to take place before that if it was a natural collapse.

I have said more than enough about the inward bowing here. Did anyone ever call you a noodge?

 

[DGM]

The tilt in the North Tower didn't appear until the upper section had fallen two or three stories.

The jolt would have had to take place before that if it was a natural collapse.

You just said the collapse started above the impact zone. Tell us how many floors was that?

I have said more than enough about the inward bowing here. Did anyone ever call you a nudge?

I expected as much, and yes, my kid says this all the time when he comes home late.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You just said the collapse started above the impact zone. Tell us how many floors was that?

The collapse in the North Tower started at the 98th floor and in reality the next floors to fail were the 99th, 100th, and 101st before anything impacted the 97th floor.

That is why there is no jolt and it also shows it wasn't impact causing the vertical progression.

If the 98th floor had been the only floor to fail and it was natural then the 99th would have impacted the 97th and there would have been a significant observable jolt (deceleration) and most likely a full arrest.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You just said the collapse started above the impact zone. Tell us how many floors was that?



I expected as much, and yes, my kid says this all the time when he comes home late.

The word I meant to use was noodge. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Noodge

If you are as much of a silly ass pain in the neck to your kid, as you are to others here, he should call you one too.

You generally don't get that there is no way around controlled demolition and probably never will.

 

[DGM]

The collapse in the North Tower started at the 98th floor and in reality the next floors to fail were the 99th, 100th, and 101st before anything impacted the 97th floor.

That is why there is no jolt and it also shows it wasn't impact causing the vertical progression.

If the 98th floor had been the only floor to fail and it was natural then the 99th would have impacted the 97th and there would have been a significant observable jolt (deceleration) and most likely a full arrest.

Why would we expect that progression? Could multiple floors not collapse at same time?

 

[DGM]

The word I meant to use was noodge. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Noodge

If you are as much of a silly ass pain in the neck to your kid, as you are to others here, he should call you one too.

You generally don't get that there is no way around controlled demolition and probably never will.

I haven't had any complaints from members here about my posting (well, since I started avoiding politics and religion) . Who are these "others"?

 

[ozeco41]

The tilt in the North Tower didn't appear until the upper section had fallen two or three stories.

The jolt would have had to take place before that if it was a natural collapse.

I have said more than enough about the inward bowing. Did anyone ever call you a nudge?

Tony - for the umpteenth time:

1) There never was a scenario for your jolt in the real event.
Let me explain the simple basics one more time.

AND I'll even leave the possibility of CD on the table.

2) The collapse initiated through the cumulative failing of columns at (or slightly above) the impact and fire zone. <<Do you agree Tony?

3) All of those column failures resulted from:
a) Cut by aircraft;
b) Cut by CD if there was any; AND
c) Failed in axial overload under a combination off effects. (Existing load, additional re-distributed load, reduced capacity if any due to bracing damage elevated temperature. Possibly some second order factors.) <<Do you agree Tony?

4) As each of those occurred the structure above the column lowered somewhat - due to lack of support in the two cases of cutting AND because load coming downwards is the way that axial overload happens. IF the column does not get shorter under the load it won't overload or buckle. <<Do you agree Tony?

5) for EACH individual column failing under axial load it buckles/folds/twists and turns/whatever BUT the distance top of column to bottom GETS LESS. <<Do you agree Tony?

6) So whether it folds or breaks the ends of column are already past each other as it fails. <<Do you agree Tony?

7) For each column as it fails there is no direct full load bearing axial impact of a broken column end "falling" through a gap till it impacts. <<Do you agree Tony?

8) So no possibility of any column contributing the sort of effect needed to produce your alleged jolt. <<Do you agree Tony?

9) Add all those up as they occur in sequence also says - the sequence bit - that even if there was a source of jolt from each single column - they could not coincide into one "big jolt"^TSz <<Do you agree Tony?

10) So there was no column by column source for your 'big jolt" and EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN they would not add up to your "big jolt"

Then comes the irony:

Your research into "Missing Jolt" found no jolt so you concluded CD (Yes I know - CD was the starting assumption not the conclusion but lets play this through as if we are serious)

Irony: If there had been a gap producing bit of CD the way you claim it could have produced Jolts once the gaps were traversed.

So your claim is self rebutting by your own logic.

My apology to other members for that bit of fantasy which relies on my use of "Tony Logic".

Over to you Tony. I've marked eight (8) logical postulations thus <<Do you agree Tony?
. Can you falsify any of them by reasoned argument?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony - for the umpteenth time:

1) There never was a scenario for your jolt in the real event.
Let me explain the simple basics one more time.

AND I'll even leave the possibility of CD on the table.

2) The collapse initiated through the cumulative failing of columns at (or slightly above) the impact and fire zone. <<Do you agree Tony?

3) All of those column failures resulted from:
a) Cut by aircraft;
b) Cut by CD if there was any; AND
c) Failed in axial overload under a combination off effects. (Existing load, additional re-distributed load, reduced capacity if any due to bracing damage elevated temperature. Possibly some second order factors.) <<Do you agree Tony?

4) As each of those occurred the structure above the column lowered somewhat - due to lack of support in the two cases of cutting AND because load coming downwards is the way that axial overload happens. IF the column does not get shorter under the load it won't overload or buckle. <<Do you agree Tony?

5) for EACH individual column failing under axial load it buckles/folds/twists and turns/whatever BUT the distance top of column to bottom GETS LESS. <<Do you agree Tony?

6) So whether it folds or breaks the ends of column are already past each other as it fails. <<Do you agree Tony?

7) For each column as it fails there is no direct full load bearing axial impact of a broken column end "falling" through a gap till it impacts. <<Do you agree Tony?

8) So no possibility of any column contributing the sort of effect needed to produce your alleged jolt. <<Do you agree Tony?

9) Add all those up as they occur in sequence also says - the sequence bit - that even if there was a source of jolt from each single column - they could not coincide into one "big jolt"^TSz <<Do you agree Tony?

10) So there was no column by column source for your 'big jolt" and EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN they would not add up to your "big jolt"

Then comes the irony:

Your research into "Missing Jolt" found no jolt so you concluded CD (Yes I know - CD was the starting assumption not the conclusion but lets play this through as if we are serious)

Irony: If there had been a gap producing bit of CD the way you claim it could have produced Jolts once the gaps were traversed.

So your claim is self rebutting by your own logic.

My apology to other members for that bit of fantasy which relies on my use of "Tony Logic".

Over to you Tony. I've marked eight (8) logical postulations thus <<Do you agree Tony?
. Can you falsify any of them by reasoned argument?

Ozeco, controlled demolition was not my starting assumption. I looked at the video of the collapses and the explanations we were given with an open mind. Unfortunately, I did not find the explanations convincing.

The main problems I have in the case of the North Tower are

- the NIST lack of a mechanism for the exterior inward bowing they claim occurred minutes before the collapse and the fact that we know the core went down first and that it would pull the exterior inward and cause it to buckle under its own load due to high eccentricity and p-delta effects.

- the fact that the horizontal propagation occurs in less than a second across the entire building.

- the fact that the collapse initiation occurs above the aircraft impact damage on the first floor where there was little to no impact damage.

- the fact that the stories which collapsed after the initiation at the 98th floor were the 99th, 100th, and 101st, meaning it was not due to impact with floors below.

- the fact that the collapse never decelerated as it would with a natural collapse due to impact. I do not agree that column ends or knees of buckled columns would not be in line with each other as the upper section did not tilt immediately and came down straight for at least two stories and it would fall in place due to inertia. The collapse was also very even across the building with the horizontal propagation occurring so quickly.

- the focused jets/expulsions coming off the northeast corner certainly are not from air pressure due to the collapse. They are most certainly squibs designed to remove orthogonal support from the exterior to allow it to petal outward and cut down its resistance without extra charges being involved.

I have looked into the collapses of both WTC 1 and WTC 7 quite rigorously by study of the NIST reports, the building structure through various information that had been put out over the years on it, and the videos of the collapse. This work has unfortunately shown me that these two buildings were demolished with some form of demolition devices. It is not what I would prefer to say, it is just the conclusion I have been forced to draw, like it or not.


I have not studied the collapse of WTC 2 as rigorously as it does tilt significantly and can't be measured very well. However, if both WTC 1 and WTC 7 were controlled demolitions the likelihood of it not being one is remote.

We have been given ridiculously non-viable explanations for the three collapses and it is disquieting.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why would we expect that progression? Could multiple floors not collapse at same time?

Explain how multiple floors would collapse at the same time in a natural collapse scenario.

I don't see it as possible except for the exterior falling two stories when being pulled in by the core. Somehow I don't think that is what you are getting at. Even with a two story fall there should still have been a significant jolt and most likely an arrest, as it would not generate enough momentum.

 

[DGM]

Explain how multiple floors would collapse at the same time in a natural collapse scenario.

I don't see it as possible except for the exterior falling two stories when being pulled in by the core. Somehow I don't think that is what you are getting at. Even with a two story fall there should still have been a significant jolt and most likely an arrest, as it would not generate enough momentum.

If floor trusses failed over multiple floors the number could be anything. The floor system braced the columns from buckling.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have looked into the collapses of both WTC 1 and WTC 7 quite rigorously by study of the NIST reports, the building structure through various information that had been put out over the years on it, and the videos of the collapse. This work has unfortunately shown me that these two buildings were demolished with some form of demolition devices. It is not what I would prefer to say, it is just the conclusion I have been forced to draw, like it or not.

Strange, then, that I clearly recall you posting on this forum under the username realcddeal long before your "Missing Jolt" paper, or most of the other work you listed above as informing your conclusion. One can only draw the inference that, conversely, the conclusion informed the subsequent analysis.

Dave

 

[pgimeno]

BTW: You seem to be ignoring the post concerning the inward bowing, inconvenient?

That mole was whacked. New ones are on the way. Get your hammers ready!

 

[Dave Rogers]

BTW: You seem to be ignoring the post concerning the inward bowing, inconvenient?

FTFY.

Dave

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by DGM
More or less from the start of building high-rises. (sprinklers later)

Masonry was used early on but the weight penalty drove engineers to design lighter products. Funny you don't know this.

Way back in 1931:
http://www.buildings.com/article-det...kyscraper.aspx

I believe insulative material was only used on columns and not floor beams and girders until fairly recently with the advent of spray on foam (SFRM).

You are wrong in your belief:

Engineering assessments suggest that the vintage terra cotta fireproofing materials that protected the steel structure of 90 West Street -- including four-inch-thick blocks of tile around the columns and foot-thick layers of tile between the building's floors -- limited the spread of fire. Only a few structural columns on the upper floors buckled in the heat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/n...dages-1907-landmark-will-be-restored-for.html

This is about 90 West St, which burned for days but survived, designed by Cass Gilbert and Gunvald Aus. Good old Cass and Goonie knew their stuff!

If you want to advance your cause, you should be better informed as to the facts.

ETA: Why do you suppose that Aus would have gone to so much trouble to insulate the floors of 90 West St? Could it be that the dangers of fire to steel were already well known?

 

[ozeco41]

Ozeco, controlled demolition was not my starting assumption. I looked at the video of the collapses and the explanations we were given with an open mind. Unfortunately, I did not find the explanations convincing.

Thanks for the reply Tony.

Don't confuse "Starting Point in time" with "Starting point of logic". It may not have been your first thoughts on coming to the topic back in the day. BUT it is clearly your logical stating point now. Your arse about approach to what bit of reasoning you do is pure truther - you start from the bit of anomaly you do not comprehend THEN try to select evidence to support your predetermined outcome. WRONG. Start from known fact and build a coherent total scenario THEN see where the anomaly fits in that scenario.

And whether it is "don't think that way because cant think that way" OR "choose not to think properly" doesn't matter. You may need to learn how to reason from known facts rather than making assumptions based on bare assertions.

I made a series of logically linked postulations. See if you can falsify them by REASONING not simply the "I don't believe it" bare assertions.

The main problems I have in the case of the North Tower are:

I am well aware of your concerns - many of us are aware of the things you have problems understanding. Many of us can also see why you have the problems. Repeating - restating - your problems does not achieve anything

What you need is understanding and explanations,.

I've given you one. Try it - stop running away and falling back on your repeated stating of your problems and your bare assertion claims.

I probably shouldn't do this - going round the same circle BUT here are my quick and dirty first comments on your list of points:

- the NIST lack of a mechanism for the exterior inward bowing they claim occurred minutes before the collapse and the fact that we know the core went down first and that it would pull the exterior inward and cause it to buckle under its own load due to high eccentricity and p-delta effects. <<You have been advised that you are wrong in the time sequence.

- the fact that the horizontal propagation occurs in less than a second across the entire building. <<You are assuming "Propagation" rather than "Near Coincidence" and the underlying issue is that you do not comprehend the cascade failure despite me (maybe others??) explaining the basics for you many times.

- the fact that the collapse initiation occurs above the aircraft impact damage on the first floor where there was little to no impact damage. << You need to comprehend a multi floor level cascade failure. It is 3D - you are probably still thinking in 1D from a conceptual basis in Bazant

- the fact that the stories which collapsed after the initiation at the 98th floor were the 99th, 100th, and 101st, meaning it was not due to impact with floors below. <<I don't accept your claim BUT the way forward for you is to comprehend the cascade failure THEN look to the bits YOU do not understand. You need a sound foundation scenario as starting point...you haven't got one. Once again you are starting from the finish line.

- the fact that the collapse never decelerated as it would with a natural collapse due to impact. I do not agree that column ends or knees of buckled columns would not be in line with each other <<STOP RIGHT THERE if you can. That is your central error. The issue is what happens with ONE COLUMN as the load above it comes down. Until you comprehend the reality of what happens to a single column you wil not get out of your self created trap. THIS NEXT BIT IS IRRELEVANT - you haven't got away from the starting line YET>> as the upper section did not tilt immediately and came down straight for at least two stories and it would fall in place due to inertia. The collapse was also very even across the building with the horizontal propagation occurring so quickly. <<STOP bringing in bigger picture aspects til you get the primary element clear. How does a crushing column behave? What happens as the top and bottom ends of a column get pushed closer together?

- the focused jets/expulsions coming off the northeast corner certainly are not from air pressure due to the collapse. They are most certainly squibs designed to remove orthogonal support from the exterior to allow it to petal outward and cut down its resistance without extra charges being involved.
<< you are regressing to ~2006 silliness to evade the simple facts. You are not prepared to understand how a column crushed into buckling by axial overload bends and twists and fails and the ends by pass. The bigger picture which you are determined to not accept is the undeniable fat that once the Top block started falling all columns had failed AND their ends had missed. Recall my repeated message. Stop starting at the arse end. Work from known facts.

I see no point in me chasing you as you drift further away from the focus - I'll leave the rest without comment >>
I have looked into the collapses of both WTC 1 and WTC 7 quite rigorously by study of the NIST reports, the building structure through various information that had been put out over the years on it, and the videos of the collapse. This work has unfortunately shown me that these two buildings were demolished with some form of demolition devices. It is not what I would prefer to say, it is just the conclusion I have been forced to draw, like it or not.

I have not studied the collapse of WTC 2 as rigorously as it does tilt significantly and can't be measured very well. However, if both WTC 1 and WTC 7 were controlled demolitions the likelihood of it not being one is remote.
We have been given ridiculously non-viable explanations for the three collapses and it is disquieting.

Tony I have put before you an outline of a reasoned explanation of "cascade failure".

Start at my point "1" and work through them serially and either agree OR give sound reasons why they are wrong. THEN we will have the basis for a reasoned discussion.

 

[Redwood]

Ground Zero was pretty hot until that December when the underground fires were extinguished.

http://www.edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/20/rec.athome.facts/index.html

Actually, most of the fires were put out by Sept. 23. There were a few persistent fires deep in the rubble, common such as with landfill fires and coal-seam fires.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Strange, then, that I clearly recall you posting on this forum under the username realcddeal long before your "Missing Jolt" paper, or most of the other work you listed above as informing your conclusion. One can only draw the inference that, conversely, the conclusion informed the subsequent analysis.

Dave

Dave, the conclusion I had come to was before I joined this forum and a result of at least a year of research. I joined this forum in June 2007 (as you can see) and had been looking into the collapses since early 2006. I used a pseudonym because everyone seemed to be using one. The reason for the pseudonym "realcddeal" was because I saw others trying to say the buildings did not collapse due to controlled demolition and my research told me they had.

The first paper I did, which pointed to evidence for controlled demolition, was written and published just before I joined this forum. I think you are a bit hasty in your judgement at times and I really don't see the reason for it other than you wanting to be an irritant, which would be quite irresponsible and unethical in this situation.

Additional papers came as I did even more research further confirming what I had initially found. The evidence for controlled demolition was extensive. I also finally just decided to use my real name here and say what I had to say.

The buildings were most certainly brought down via controlled demolition and there had to be others involved besides those on the planes. Individuals who had access to the interiors of those buildings such as contractors, maintenance people, and security people should be investigated.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If floor trusses failed over multiple floors the number could be anything. The floor system braced the columns from buckling.

The floor trusses didn't go anywhere. They were quite robust. The only ones that went anywhere were the ones impacted by the aircraft. That is it.

Can't you see that in the video shown here they didn't even include the bridging trusses? That was clearly done to make it look more possible. You are either gullible, or just can't accept the fact that other people, besides those on the planes, were involved in controlled demolition of those buildings.