Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grizzly Bear said:
Please inform your audience how a sampling that represents only one percent of all the columns on those floors justifies such a sweeping conclusion on your part. Did you mention to your audience that the testing method was based on paint spalling which only provides a minimum temperature?
Click to expand...

They did metallurgical testing also and it will show actual temperatures experienced.
 
aggle-rithm said:
The problem here is that we have spent 53 pages discussing ONE LINK in the chain...whether it is possible for the towers to have collapsed from the airline crash damage alone.
Click to expand...

LOL! This link is about Why a one-way Crush down is not possible!

Breach of Rule 11: Posts must be on topic to the thread subject.

But you are right! 53 pages ... and nobody seems to be able to explain that a one-way crush down is possible. It makes me happy.
 
newton3376 said:
Tony....you just got PWND.

Maybe you should climb down from that mountain of stupid you have climbed and actually READ SOMETHING BEFORE CLAIMING IT SAYS SOMETHING IT DOESN'T SAY.
Click to expand...

It looks like Gamolon left some important parts out of John Skilling's comments to the Seattle Times. Read the actual article here

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

It sounds like you and Gamolon might be the ones who need to read something before claiming it says something it doesn't say.

This kind of thing is getting kind of tiring lately.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Your contention that the columns would all land on the floors is impossible and not even worthy of consideration.

I only showed the fact that the floors could handle 29 million lbs. to show that they were not insignificant.
Click to expand...

There were approximately 300 total columns (core & peripheral).

2/3rd of the columns spanned the 98/99 floors. That is, had no connection at the midpoint of floor 98. These columns were gone, blown outward or inward, and could not have impacted the floor of F98.

1/3rd of the columns had a floor 98 joint & fractured at that connection.

Of those 100 columns, since the upper block had shifted to the side, ~50 fell into space & ~50 landed on the concrete floor of F98. Those 50 columns carried ALL of the weight of the upper block. Each column had a surface area of approximately 1 square foot. (Actually, substantially less, since they were thin walled rectangular tubes, not solid posts.)

According to Greg Urich, the upper block (F99 - F110) weighed 3.4E+07 Kg for a total of 75 million pounds. If we apportion just half that weight onto these 50 columns, you get 180 tons/column. (Others have calculated this number at 79 tons/column. Close enough. It doesn't matter, the column won't be able deliver either load.)

Now, the concrete is rated to support 100psf live load, with a FS of about 3. Let's pretend that it's made of superduper concrete that will be able to withstand 1000 psf.

Are you REALLY contending that this 4" thick piece of concrete flooring, that is sized for people, desks & office equipment, will be able to stop 50 spears delivering over 100,000 psf each???

That is the ONLY question that matters.

Tom
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It looks like Gamolon left some important parts out of John Skilling's comments to the Seattle Times. Read the actual article here

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

It sounds like you and Gamolon might be the ones who need to read something before claiming it says something it doesn't say.

This kind of thing is getting kind of tiring lately.
Click to expand...

Where does it say in that article, quoting Skilling, that he and his people did an analysis of the effects of an office fire on steel.

Please.

I'm all ears.
 
tfk said:
Are you REALLY contending that this 4" thick piece of concrete flooring, that is sized for people, desks & office equipment, will be able to stop 50 spears delivering over 100,000 psf each???

That is the ONLY question that matters.

Tom
Click to expand...

Excellent. In addition to the sheared floor truss connections.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Skilling made a number of comments to the Seattle Times in 1993 which you can find on-line.

Robertson making the fuel comment can be seen on 911 Mysteries. I think it was from an interview for the show How the Towers Fell.

He also made comments in 1984/85 along the lines of no matter how the buildings were attacked that a collapse would be very unlikely.
Click to expand...
.
Do you REALLY think that one of the principle structural engineers of the towers is going to say anything OTHER than "no matter how the buildings were attacked that a collapse would be very unlikely"???

You have no future anywhere NEAR the top of any engineering organization. You will NOT be allowed to speak to the public on behalf of your organization. You will be kept huddled in the bowels of some department. From the evidence that I've seen, it will not be the engineering department.

Tom

Please answer a few of my questions to you...
 
Tony Szamboti said:
They did metallurgical testing also and it will show actual temperatures experienced.
Click to expand...
This is not a complete answer. You're conclusion is based on taking sample data and then extropolating it as if the samples that were available are representative of the whole. What procedures are involved in establishing a conclusion on this basis?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It looks like Gamolon left some important parts out of John Skilling's comments to the Seattle Times. Read the actual article here

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
Click to expand...

Funny, but you seemed to have ADDED your own quotes into the article:
Tony Szamboti said:
His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.
Click to expand...

Show me the exact quote in the article that you are speaking of which shows him saying they did an analysis on the effects of fire and the structural steel.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It looks like Gamolon left some important parts out of John Skilling's comments to the Seattle Times. Read the actual article here

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

It sounds like you and Gamolon might be the ones who need to read something before claiming it says something it doesn't say.

This kind of thing is getting kind of tiring lately.
Click to expand...


Speaking of the kind of thing that is getting extremely tiresome...


(from NIST's FAQ page)

"The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation."
 
Gamolon said:
Excellent. In addition to the sheared floor truss connections.
Click to expand...

... which happened about 100 milliseconds after the concrete floor punch thru.

Since approximately 2/3rds of all floor trusses, truss support plates, welds and bolts are already gone before the impact, then there are only about 600 5/8" bolts, 100 fillet welds &/or 100 angle plates that must be destroyed.

But to be fair, this collision is also going to destroy another 600 on Floor 97 and another 600 on Floor 96. With their associated welds & support plates. Of course, these are going to be much easier to destroy, since the remaining columns act like 36' long pry-bars.

Oh yeah, 1200 1" diameter bolts and welds tying together the columns.

So, a grand total of about 3000 small bolts, 300 fillet welds and/or 300 angle iron support plates NEED to be destroyed in order for the collapse to continue.

Of course, a lot more was destroyed. The above is all that NEEDED to be destroyed.

Tom
 
Tony, Heiwa, Bill.

Since you all seem to think that you are adept at discrediting the official collapse explanation and have provided ample proof that the story is bogus, I have a proposition.

How about you come up with YOUR theory of how the towers were brought down by explosives/thermite. Step by step. From the collapse initiation all the way to the end. Complete with calculations and diagrams. Make sure that your explanations match all the videos that we have on hand.

Show us what you think DID happen and how it worked.

Or has this been done already and I just missed it?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Result of controlled demolition, no doubt. But you are off topic. Rule 11!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's not off topic You say a one way crush down is not possible and that it had to be a controlled demolition. I am asking you to explain how your controlled demolition worked in regards to video evidence that we all have access to.

When you post comments in a thread about a certain topic, those comments can be scrutinized and questioned.

Sorry old chum, but you're wrong.
 
Gamolon said:
Tony, Heiwa, Bill.

Since you all seem to think that you are adept at discrediting the official collapse explanation and have provided ample proof that the sory is bogus, I have a proposition.

How about you come up with YOUR theory of how the towers were brought down by explosives/thermite. Step by step. From the collapse initiation all the way to the end. Complete with calculations and diagrams. Make sure that your explanations match all the videos that we have on hand.

Show us what you think DID happen and how it worked.

Or has this been done already and I just missed it?
Click to expand...


Heiwa has NEVER supplied any sort of calculation, and he never will.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It looks like Gamolon left some important parts out of John Skilling's comments to the Seattle Times. Read the actual article here

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

It sounds like you and Gamolon might be the ones who need to read something before claiming it says something it doesn't say.

This kind of thing is getting kind of tiring lately.
Click to expand...

That article still doesn't prove your "point"....I'll try to go slow here Tony since your reading comprehension seems to be not quite "up to par"....

You said....

Tony Szamboti said:
Leslie Robertson has said some curious things since 911, as some of them seem to contradict things that John Skilling had previously said and even things Robertson said in the past himself.

It is a shame Skilling isn't alive.
Click to expand...

So what are you implying here? You use the word "curious" as if the statements contradict each other in a manner that implies deceit...if you simply thought one or both of them were simply wrong you wouldn't bother since that doesn't fit in with your conspiracy nonsense.

So right from the start you are implying something with your language....

You were then asked about this comment and you replied....

Tony Szamboti said:
His comment that as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel from the aircraft in the analysis. Skilling says they did.
Click to expand...

Since this conversation is in the context of a discussion about the buildings collapsing.... your comment implies that they did an analysis on the effects that fire would have on the collapse. But this is an assumption on your part and without some kind of proof it is just an assumption.

But here is the interesting part....EVEN IF YOUR ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT it proves nothing. Why? Well notice what you yourself wrote...

"as far as he knows they didn't consider the fuel...."

As far as he knows. That leaves the possibility that maybe just maybe he is simply WRONG.

As in...incorrect...in error....mistaken. But you, of course, assume that it implies deceit....

So even if you can provide a quote PROVING that they considered the fire from the fuel as part of a collapse scenerio, you still have not proven any deliberate deceit.

Let's take a look at a quote from Gamolon (I've bolded the really really important part for you Tony)....

Gamolon said:
Skilling says that his people did an analysis of the IMPACT of a Boeing 707. IMPACT. I see no quote whatsoever that Skilling and his people did a fire analysis to identify the effects of a large office fire on the steel structure. They did an IMPACT study. Skilling even says that the biggest problem would be the FUEL WOULD DUMP INTO THE BUILDING....THERE WOULD BE A HORRENDOUS FIRE, but mentions nothing of HORRENDOUS fire's effect on the steel, only that there would be a lot of people killed.
Click to expand...

Here is the bolded part again...

no quote whatsoever that Skilling and his people did a fire analysis to identify the effects of a large office fire on the steel structure.

If you can provide such a quote then I can at least agree with you that Robertson and Skilling are in disagreement...if you can't then your assumption is unproven. Put up or shut up.

Once you provide such a quote, you then have to prove that Robertson was being deceitful instead of simply being wrong. Something that shows this (like maybe another quote) would be helpful in proving this implication of yours. Again....put up or shut up.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
... which happened about 100 milliseconds after the concrete floor punch thru.

Since approximately 2/3rds of all floor trusses, truss support plates, welds and bolts are already gone before the impact, then there are only about 600 5/8" bolts, 100 fillet welds &/or 100 angle plates that must be destroyed.

But to be fair, this collision is also going to destroy another 600 on Floor 97 and another 600 on Floor 96. With their associated welds & support plates. Of course, these are going to be much easier to destroy, since the remaining columns act like 36' long pry-bars.

Oh yeah, 1200 1" diameter bolts and welds tying together the columns.

So, a grand total of about 3000 small bolts, 300 fillet welds and/or 300 angle iron support plates NEED to be destroyed in order for the collapse to continue.

Of course, a lot more was destroyed. The above is all that NEEDED to be destroyed.

Tom
Click to expand...

Well done.
I posit that if Tony or any of his other colleagues had bothered to consult industry leaders in relevant areas (which would have had to include people like Leslie Robertson and Mark Loiseaux for example) when formulating their theories, they would quickly have received good guidance and altered them.
They have assiduously avoided doing this, in fact consulting with some of the least qualified people, when they've even bothered to consult.

A few pages back I asked Tony to list just these types of mentors, and he had to make all sorts of excuses why he didn't follow that prudent course, and with regard to demolitions, offered nothing.

And while he now has formulated a rather questionable theory as to where explosives might have been placed, he apparently has come up with this on his own, without consulting demolition industry leaders. How could he possibly be competent to do this?
Similarly, he relies on Dr. Steven Jones for the nature of the explosives, which of course are going to be thermite-related, since that's all Dr. Jones sees thru his blinders.
Dr. Jones himself has only a vague knowledge of how such nanothermites might be produced, and doesn't seem to have succeeded in consulting those who do have the expertise.
Nor has Dr. Jones succeeded in demonstrating, by his own experiments or by citation of others, that these hypothetical materials can actually perform the tasks he, Chandler, Harrit and Szamboti claim they did.

All the above nonsense and slander could have been avoided if these people had not appointed themselves as experts in fields where they clearly are not.

I suspect, almost 8 years after 9/11, that their motivations come more from ego and emotion rather than anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom