Donte Stallworth's reflections on 9/11 CTs...

[Jango]

A good education.

Vague as hell, man. What specifically made you discount 1) what the buildings looked like on T.V. as they collapsed and 2) what eyewitnesses were saying, which included field news reporters?

Saying 'A good education' is a vague ass response to a question like that. A useless one-liner that addresses nothing. Why bother responding at all if you're not interested in commenting to each other back and forth about 9/11.

Are you obsessed about having the last word (even if your last words are devoid of any substance)?

"Whatever."

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Vague as hell, man. What specifically made you discount 1) what the buildings looked like on T.V. as they collapsed and 2) what eyewitnesses were saying, which included field news reporters?

I am more alluding to who did it, which apparently you haven't worked out in the ensuing decade and a half.

 

[marplots]

I am more alluding to who did it, which apparently you haven't worked out in the ensuing decade and a half.

Point of order. It happened less than 14 years ago.

 

[Jango]

The technical issue of "Why did the Twin Towers Collpase?" is relatively easy for a structural engineer who can employ reasoning to work out without official reports. Once you know the basic structural features. (Not all structural engineers can reason from base principles - many simply follow the book - or the FEA - or "the leader".... )

I my case I understood the overall mechanisms before I read the official reports. It was actually easier than wading through thousands of pages. Same goes for those academic papers - long on maths but short on thinking.

And - at about my second week of internet posting - I decided to never rely on official reasoning nor allow overlapping confused objectives. If I present engineering arguments they are mine. I occasionally critique other people's engineering - usually to identify where they went wrong tho sometimes to support their findings against misrepresentation. And the "overlapping objectives" refers to the both sides habit of getting lost between explaining the events of the collapses OR disputing whether NIST was wrong. Except back in 2007 it was all four sides- not the two sides we see today.

Whether NIST was right or wrong is irrelevant. What happened technically on 9/11 was written in the history books 9/11 - 2001. What NIST wrote years later cannot change that history despite arguments from both current "sides" that imply or rely on the belief that NIST (FEMA..etc etc) can change history... So that disposes of those bits of your "argument" Jango which rely on Government Information as the only source. (Carefully avoiding the false generalisation trap. )

AND the other big advantage I had over most active "debunkers" was I'd never heard of Bazant - so wasn't misled by him or those who misrepresented the events in the Bazant style. Didn't seriously take on the "limits of Bazant" until that thread here in 2010.

My post #7 in that thread clearly shows:
A) The limits of my grasp of the later Bazant papers at that time... AND
B) That I identified two key points which are still overlooked in a lot of debate. (If the Top Block is falling - then (i) All columns have failed; AND (ii) their broken ends are already missing - have bypassed.) To this day many from both sides still deny those two "bleedingly obvious" truths.

You know I like the way you look at things, however, this is where we collide. From my vantage point, not even you can guarantee what you are saying about the collapses. There are several important obstructions to a hands-off collapse sequence.

One of them I've proposed to you before and to my recollection, it has not been satisfied. Many argue that it is unimportant, but that flies in the face of commonsense IMO. The conundrum of What Failed To Cause The Collapse.

The North Tower and South Tower were enormous buildings. We all obviously know that. As big as the planes were, we can all see in the videos and the pictures that the buildings absorbed the planes. What was not destroyed and rendered useless continued to do its function at whatever strength it had.

When the buildings collapsed, they do so as though there was little to no resistance opposing the collapsing sections beneath. There similarly has been no explanation as to how the remaining necessary percentage of support structures failed to a degree that would usher in collapse.

The South Tower collapsed at 9:59AM.

However, in the official record is this passage:

At 9:37 a.m., a male caller from the 105th floor of WTC 2 phoned 911 and reported that floors beneath him “in the 90-something floor” had collapsed.

Emergency Medical Service response on September 11

 

[beachnut]

Vague as hell, man. What specifically made you discount 1) what the buildings looked like on T.V. as they collapsed and 2) what eyewitnesses were saying, which included field news reporters? ...

Are you saying 911 was CD because Dan Rather said CD?

Did you discount the fires? Maybe Dan meant CD, and he was wrong; or Dan was using simile. So you are fooled by the MSM, or simile. Which is it?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

When the buildings collapsed, they do so as though there was little to no resistance opposing the collapsing sections beneath. There similarly has been no explanation as to how the remaining necessary percentage of support structures failed to a degree that would usher in collapse.

Pretty simple even you should be able to figure it out:

http://www.zurmat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/construction-of-the-twin-towers-1970-america-wtc.jpg

 

[Jango]

I am more alluding to who did it, which apparently you haven't worked out in the ensuing decade and a half.

Yes, al Qaeda were on the planes and the hijacker pilots piloted the planes. Yes, terrorism is real too. I have never doubted their involvement in the plot. They had a growing appetite for attacking the United States. Their millennium plot was foiled. And then things get screwy in the government because a new administration takes over. Have you figured that out yet? How in the hell they actually failed to apprehend the al Qaeda sleeper cells? "Failure of imagination" is not the answer to that, nor is "could not connect the dots."


9/11 Commission -- Notes -- Chapter 6:

44. CIA cable,“Activities of Bin Ladin Associate Khalid Revealed,” Jan. 4, 2000. His Saudi passport—which contained a visa for travel to the United States—was photocopied and forwarded to CIA headquarters. This information was not shared with FBI headquarters until August 2001. An FBI agent detailed to the Bin Ladin unit at CIA attempted to share this information with colleagues at FBI headquarters. A CIA desk officer instructed him not to send the cable with this information. Several hours later, this same desk officer drafted a cable distributed solely within CIA alleging that the visa documents had been shared with the FBI. She admitted she did not personally share the information and cannot identify who told her they had been shared. We were unable to locate anyone who claimed to have shared the information. Contemporaneous documents contradict the claim that they were shared. DOJ Inspector General interview of Doug M., Feb. 12, 2004; DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael, Oct. 31, 2002; CIA cable, Jan. 5, 2000; DOJ Inspector General report, “A Review of the FBI’s Handling
of Intelligence Information Related to the 9/11 Attacks,” July 2, 2004, p. 282.

But let's get back to the World Trade Center:

what does al Qaeda have to do with 1) how the North Tower and South Tower looked when they collapsed and 2) what on-the-scene eyewitnesses had to say about the collapses.

Answer: it doesn't.

So, if you want to conversate, please address what I actually say to you, please, kind sir.

 

[beachnut]

When the buildings collapsed, they do so as though there was little to no resistance opposing the collapsing sections beneath. ....

BS.
This is BS, you made up or plagiarized from the delusional movement of 911 truth.
The building collapsed as they should; anyone can do a momentum model which shows the collapse matches how physics dictates the collapse would progress. Stop using 911 truth BS as your knowledge base; 911 truth is based on ignorance.

... There similarly has been no explanation as to how the remaining necessary percentage of support structures failed to a degree that would usher in collapse. ...

When will you read NIST, because you have no point, just BS here. Have you read any papers on the collapse? This statement prove you did not read or study NIST.

What are the support structures?

 

[LSSBB]

Mango, how much resistance does the connection of the floor members to the columns have to several stories worth of building hitting them?

 

[JSanderO]

When the buildings collapsed, they do so as though there was little to no resistance opposing the collapsing sections beneath. There similarly has been no explanation as to how the remaining necessary percentage of support structures failed to a degree that would usher in collapse.

You clearly don't understand how these structures came apart/collapsed. First they were, like most buildings...95% air which offers little to almost no resistance and is easily displace by solid masses falling.

Second, once the collapse began there was a mass fall which represented an huge DYNAMIC load which none of the members or components (slabs) could resist in a significant way. Slabs simply shattered under these dynamic loads in a NY moment.

The steel beam to steel column connections also could not resist to dynamic loading either and those connections failed in a instant. These failed connections are all over the place in the debris pile.

There WAS some resistance... and it was enough to extend the time it took for the top "things" to reach ground by perhaps 5-10 seconds longer than a free fall trough air collapse which would have taken 9 or so seconds.

The free fall and almost free fall stuff is rubbish.

Brush up on your steel engineering (statics) and physics and strength of materials science.

 

[pgimeno]

From my vantage point, not even you can guarantee what you are saying about the collapses.

Solipsism is hardly a "vantage point".

You seem to practice "selective solipsism": "we can't know, therefore whatever I decide to believe is true".

 

[ozeco41]

You know I like the way you look at things, however, this is where we collide. From my vantage point, not even you can guarantee what you are saying about the collapses. There are several important obstructions to a hands-off collapse sequence.

We will never collide whilst you are playing your game of runaway evasion by false generalisation.

If we were to collide it would require that YOU address - one by one - one at a time - the specific points I have made.

Out here in public view. I'll bet you are not game.

When the buildings collapsed, they do so as though there was little to no resistance opposing the collapsing sections beneath.

If I interpret the unclear language as:
A) "collapsed' referring to the progression stage to global collapse; AND
B) "collapsing sections" meaning the falling top sections.

Your statement is true - despite beachnut's contrary claim that it is BS.

BUT this bit is false and you must know it is false thus making it a lie:

There similarly has been no explanation as to how the remaining necessary percentage of support structures failed to a degree that would usher in collapse.

It was in each of the two cases a cascading failure which I and maybe one or two other members here can explain in language that a high school student would understand. So stop playing your dishonest games. If the problem is that you don’t understand it - say so.

And remember my opening comment:

You and I will never collide whilst you are playing your game of runaway evasion. YOU cannot collide with what I say if you are not prepared to engage with my reasoning.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Umm no. Three "on-scene people" who also happen to be fire experts knew WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing that day. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to trust them over someone who appears to be utterly clueless about fire science.




http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt



http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt



http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt
[/I]



There are thousands of videos that show the building collapses that day, in fact it is one of the most recorded events in the history of the planet, yet no truther, has ever produced a single, solitary video that captures the telltale sounds of a controlled demolition.

When you can produce a video like the one below people might take you seriously, until then you're just embarrassing yourself here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

So no response to "on-scene people" I've quoted above, you know the ones who actually understand what happens to buildings when large fires aren't fought.

How about that video, did you find one yet?

 

[WilliamSeger]

When the buildings collapsed, they do so as though there was little to no resistance opposing the collapsing sections beneath. There similarly has been no explanation as to how the remaining necessary percentage of support structures failed to a degree that would usher in collapse.

I blame David Chandler for formalizing the logical fallacies behind statements like that, with his infamous video claiming a "uniform" acceleration of 0.64g. He claimed that this "uniform" acceleration meant that the columns that should be expected to support three times the weight of the building were only providing resistance of about one-third of that weight, so the only explanation he could think of was that a lot of columns were blown away with explosives.

The first problem with that analysis is that he plotted some points for the position of the roof, plotted the velocity as a function of time (acceleration), drew a straight line through those points, and then claimed that his own straight line meant that the acceleration was uniform. But in fact, when you watch the roof fall, what you're actually seeing is the net result of thousands of individual failure events. Think, instead, of what was actually happening in those failure events. We know from the rubble pile that the most common failure mode was floor joists ripped from their support beams. Whatever resistance those joist connections were providing, it was completely gone in a tiny fraction of second, after which the debris (with its conserved momentum!) was completely free to resume falling at g acceleration. Even for the columns, Chandler fails to recognize that they could only provide their design strength for a few inches of downward deflection. Once a column began to buckle, its resistance would quickly drop, and if it broke at a column splice (which we also know from the rubble pile), then the resistance would drop to zero, and that debris would also resume free-fall.

So, regardless of how smoothly the roof appears to descend, what we're really seeing is the averaged effect of thousands of very "jerky" events -- impacts with deceleration and momentum transfer followed by resumed free-fall (or nearly free-fall in the case of columns that completely buckled). There shouldn't be any surprise that the net, averaged result was "close" to free-fall when most of it actually was free-fall.

Chandler's assertion that removing most of the columns would produce a uniform acceleration is absurd. With columns removed, the same jerky failure modes would occur, but the collapse would just proceed more quickly. If you want to see Chandler run away from a debate, challenge him to describe any scenario using explosives, thermite, or any other non-imaginary means to produce a "uniform" acceleration of 0.64g.

 

[Jango]

We will never collide whilst you are playing your game of runaway evasion by false generalisation.

If we were to collide it would require that YOU address - one by one - one at a time - the specific points I have made.

Out here in public view. I'll bet you are not game.

If I interpret the unclear language as:
A) "collapsed' referring to the progression stage to global collapse; AND
B) "collapsing sections" meaning the falling top sections.

Your statement is true - despite beachnut's contrary claim that it is BS.

BUT this bit is false and you must know it is false thus making it a lie:
It was in each of the two cases a cascading failure which I and maybe one or two other members here can explain in language that a high school student would understand. So stop playing your dishonest games. If the problem is that you don’t understand it - say so.

And remember my opening comment:

You and I will never collide whilst you are playing your game of runaway evasion. YOU cannot collide with what I say if you are not prepared to engage with my reasoning.

The technical arguments as I have viewed them over the years at various forums from various "debunkers" and "skeptics" alike boils down to impact + fires for the Twin Towers and debris damage + fires for Building 7.

I'm obviously not "running away" or "avoiding the issue" since I am replying to you. It would be a welcomed occurrence to be casually "walked-through" the technical aspects because as I've said before, my hang up is the initiation sequence, such as, What Had To Fail To Cause The Global Collapse.

To use terms I've seen you use before: What caused the "top block" to collapse.

I was not lying when I said I haven't seen that argument. I said that because I haven't seen that argument.

At most, the response I have gotten is "What does it matter if bolt #375 or bolt #748 failed?"

It matters because the planes withstood the impacts. There was obviously enough support strength in the buildings to absorb the trauma without collapsing as a result of the impacts.

It is in the open record that the buildings were designed to do what they did on 9/11 but with larger more modern planes: absorb it.

It is safe to assume that the designers, when thinking about plane impacts, would factor in jet fuel as well.

How did the fires get hot enough to compromise whatever necessary percentage of existing support structure to cause collapse?

I quoted and cited the material at the end of my post for a reason. I'm genuinely curious what your thoughts are on it.

 

[GlennB]

It is safe to assume that the designers, when thinking about plane impacts, would factor in jet fuel as well.

No. From Robertson:

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."

What's disturbing is that you think "it's safe to assume" such things when you could have googled the facts in a minute. Stop projecting your CT desires onto reality.

Oh, and where's that "logically-consistent alternative narrative" that you (and only you, so far) have read? We've been waiting.

 

[Jango]

I blame David Chandler for formalizing the logical fallacies behind statements like that, with his infamous video claiming a "uniform" acceleration of 0.64g. He claimed that this "uniform" acceleration meant that the columns that should be expected to support three times the weight of the building were only providing resistance of about one-third of that weight, so the only explanation he could think of was that a lot of columns were blown away with explosives.

The first problem with that analysis is that he plotted some points for the position of the roof, plotted the velocity as a function of time (acceleration), drew a straight line through those points, and then claimed that his own straight line meant that the acceleration was uniform. But in fact, when you watch the roof fall, what you're actually seeing is the net result of thousands of individual failure events. Think, instead, of what was actually happening in those failure events. We know from the rubble pile that the most common failure mode was floor joists ripped from their support beams. Whatever resistance those joist connections were providing, it was completely gone in a tiny fraction of second, after which the debris (with its conserved momentum!) was completely free to resume falling at g acceleration. Even for the columns, Chandler fails to recognize that they could only provide their design strength for a few inches of downward deflection. Once a column began to buckle, its resistance would quickly drop, and if it broke at a column splice (which we also know from the rubble pile), then the resistance would drop to zero, and that debris would also resume free-fall.

So, regardless of how smoothly the roof appears to descend, what we're really seeing is the averaged effect of thousands of very "jerky" events -- impacts with deceleration and momentum transfer followed by resumed free-fall (or nearly free-fall in the case of columns that completely buckled). There shouldn't be any surprise that the net, averaged result was "close" to free-fall when most of it actually was free-fall.

Chandler's assertion that removing most of the columns would produce a uniform acceleration is absurd. With columns removed, the same jerky failure modes would occur, but the collapse would just proceed more quickly. If you want to see Chandler run away from a debate, challenge him to describe any scenario using explosives, thermite, or any other non-imaginary means to produce a "uniform" acceleration of 0.64g.

Never heard of him before.

However, watching the collapses on video shows exactly what happened: a gap being created allowing the "top blocks" to begin falling downward as though it is not being resisted.

What created that gap to allow the buildings to collapse in the manner that we all can see that they did.

Your side has never filled in that gap, which is why it is still being questioned to this day.

Step One: Impacts + Fire
Step Two: ???
Step Three: Collapse


Definitely no explosives though, right?

So what did the fire make fail?

 

[Jango]

No. From Robertson:

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."

What's disturbing is that you think "it's safe to assume" such things when you could have googled the facts in a minute. Stop projecting your CT desires onto reality.

Oh, and where's that "logically-consistent alternative narrative" that you (and only you, so far) have read? We've been waiting.

1. He confirms the buildings ability to absorb a large aircraft impact.

2. The effects of burning jet fuel wasn't known in the 1960's? You buy that?

3. He says that he didn't have access to fireproofing systems. Why would he need them anyway? Jet fuel burning office materials did not = hot enough fires in the 1960's to cause steel to fail and collapse to the ground in a hurry.

4. How many skyscrapers around the world have been on fire for hours-and-hours and did not globally fail like the Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11?

 

[GlennB]

1. He confirms the buildings ability to absorb a large aircraft impact.

2. The effects of burning jet fuel wasn't known in the 1960's? You buy that?

3. He says that he didn't have access to fireproofing systems. Why would he need them anyway? Jet fuel burning office materials did not = hot enough fires in the 1960's to cause steel to fail and collapse to the ground in a hurry.

4. How many skyscrapers around the world have been on fire for hours-and-hours and did not globally fail like the Twin Towers and Building 7 on 9/11?

A 707 flying at low speed, aiming to land and low on fuel. Do the kinetic energy calculations, they're not hard. Get a handle on the fuel loads, that's not hard either.

Your ignorance of the basics is so profound you really should shut up.

 

[Jango]

A 707 flying at low speed, aiming to land and low on fuel. Do the kinetic energy calculations, they're not hard. Get a handle on the fuel loads, that's not hard either.

Your ignorance of the basics is so profound you really should shut up.

1. Are you sure that's the *only* analysis? And what does the size of the fuel tank have to do with the steel in the buildings? The much larger planes used on 9/11 had a lot of fuel at the time of impact and that fuel burned up in what, 5-10 minutes? Frank De Martini

2. The buildings withstood the impacts. The jet fuel burned up long before the collapses occurred. So, according to the POV you defend, the fires from flammable material within the Twin Towers were the heat source that caused the collapses. However, you don't know what failed (nor probably care), but you know for sure that the fires from the office materials is the culprit, along with the impacts the buildings absorbed just as they were designed to do.