Albert Doyle Wrote:

Tony Szamboti Wrote:I said it would take 5 floors falling on one floor to break the connections of the floor to the columns. You are confusing impact of floors with impact of columns. There is a big difference. 12 floors could not fall on one floor.

I think you are trying to get around the obvious here. If you view the video there's a point where the collapsing top section impacts the building with its full weight. Your argument was very specifically an argument of the threshold of weight or mass required to break the static resistance of the building below. There's no doubt that threshold was reached during the collapse of the 12 storey top section by your own definition. I feel you are equivocating here and not answering the point. The collapse has obviously given you your required 5 floors plus. You have failed to answer this point directly. We have provided proof, by your own definition, that the conditions to initiate floor collapse were met. Besides, you're wrong because the video clearly shows 12 floors of top section falling on the remaining building below which possessed the first floor to be hit by this mass. The statement "12 floors could not fall on one floor" is clearly wrong then, especially since you can see it happening right in front of you in the video.

Tony Szamboti Wrote:You are not realizing the columns would have prevented that in a natural collapse and they are designed to support many times the story load above them. The columns of the 98th floor, which were supporting 12 stories above them, had enough reserve strength to support about 48 stories with no margin.

If that were the only dynamic in question. My argument is that lateral forces you are repeatedly not recognizing in your model defeated that resistance by blasting pneumatic pressure inward in a manner the core columns were not designed for. What I'm saying is those same columns had no resistance to the kinetic force of blasted air from the floor pad collapse. As long as the lateral destructive force of the blast wave that descended as the floor pads fell was stronger than the columns' ability to resist it this force would defeat any vertical resistance you refer to and there render your model invalid. The simple explanation is the core columns were not designed to resist many times the storey load above them when they are being compromised by extreme lateral blasting force from pneumatic air blasts caused by the falling floor pads. You are seeing evidence of those blasts in your video.

You haven't explained why, if those dust jets are explosions from controlled demolition charges, aren't there similar jets further up the building where the initiating cd allegedly occurred?

Tony Szamboti Wrote:You need to separate impact of floors (think floor slabs) from impact of columns in your thinking.

You're obviously trying to force a deficient theory in order to avoid answering the points you can't answer. However, I feel you're wrong because the driving force of the floor mass from the 12 storey section was enough to create this lateral blast on the first section of intact core column it encountered. You can't reference static vertical resistance if it isn't there because it has been compromised by an intense lateral pneumatic force caused by those falling floor pads. I think it is you who fails to realize the parameters for this force were met when the 12 storey section impacted the first floor of the building below.

Tony Szamboti Wrote:The entire core did come down inside and it pulled the perimeter inward causing the entire upper section to come down. The problem is how the entire 12 story core upper section came down, not whether it did or not. Albert's logic is circular and his thinking that the 360 ton antenna somehow caused the fall of the core is ridiculous on its face as the core columns at the 98th floor were capable as a unit of handling 55,000 tons. There was also little damage to the 98th floor.

Tony Szamboti Wrote:Finally, none of the columns were involved in the resistance to the collapse as measurements and calculations show. This is extraordinarily difficult to assign a natural collapse theory to and is the basis of the need for something more being involved to have caused the collapse, such as demolition devices. The claim that no sounds or flashes were heard or seen is bogus. There are plenty of firemen on record as saying they saw and heard flashes and explosions.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:You appear to have read none of it.

Or if you have read some of it, you haven't understood it.

Exhibit #1:

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Gladio was created after WWII as a check by the right on the leftists who were being supported by the USSR.

This is completely and utterly wrong. I have shown you why it is wrong. More than once. And then you drag Dawkins and biological determinism into it.....

DPF is not a deep political kindergarten.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony,

Thanks again. One more question. How do you interpret the ejections or squibs seen well below the collapse levels of WTCs 1 & 2?

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Tony Szamboti Wrote:The entire core did come down inside and it pulled the perimeter inward causing the entire upper section to come down. The problem is how the entire 12 story core upper section came down, not whether it did or not. Albert's logic is circular and his thinking that the 360 ton antenna somehow caused the fall of the core is ridiculous on its face as the core columns at the 98th floor were capable as a unit of handling 55,000 tons. There was also little damage to the 98th floor.

Hardly ridiculous. I think you are smart enough to realize the fact the antenna drops first shows the core underneath it gave out. There are two choices. This was either caused by a controlled demolition or collapse of the core section from creeping fatigue. I personally think you are trying to get away with murder here because you are trying to offer as simple an explanation as you can in order to use CD as a crutch for the greater arguments you don't involve. You are using voodoo engineering because the core columns from the 98th floor up would not handle the antenna weight if they had been undercut at the impact zone. This undercutting could be reasonably estimated using complex computer models that involved the strength of the columns vs the kinetic force of the Boeing. The video of the North Tower impact doesn't show the serious exit out the opposite side that indicated a serious passage of mass through the building from the Boeing. This had to result in serious damage to the core around the 95th floor. The weight of the antenna would be supported by this damaged area which would be undergoing load distribution and fatigue in a damaged burning zone. Once again, you compare undamaged theoretical conditions to a radically different scenario as it existed. It's the equivalent of smoke and mirrors vs what is being actually argued.

Tony Szamboti Wrote:Finally, none of the columns were involved in the resistance to the collapse as measurements and calculations show. This is extraordinarily difficult to assign a natural collapse theory to and is the basis of the need for something more being involved to have caused the collapse, such as demolition devices. The claim that no sounds or flashes were heard or seen is bogus. There are plenty of firemen on record as saying they saw and heard flashes and explosions.

No, because their load capacity had been exceeded by the falling section above them when viewed in relation to the complex dynamic that occurred during that fall - including extreme lateral forces from the falling floor pads. You continue to talk in 2 dimensions while the event we are talking about occurred in 3. That 'more' was pneumatic blasting. Meanwhile you have failed to account for the related particulars you would necessarily see if that demolition occurred, like detonation flashes, dust jets at the upper floors, and chemical residue from explosives, as if that could just be ignored.

Here's where Tony refers to the street level version in order to get around what he can't answer. It's very plainly obvious that if the sound of demolition charges were heard on Ashley Banfield's video then they should have been heard on the videos of the North Tower collapse. Especially since Tony's dust jets are much more visible than anything seen in Building 7 and the media crew was much closer to the North Tower than Ashley was to Building 7. Yet, no such audio track of synchronized demolition explosions exists. It is painfully obvious Tony doesn't have any explanation for that so he resorts to the "everybody knows" that many firemen heard and saw it. This is an attempt to defy reality since we are watching the video of the collpase and we don't hear any demolition explosions nor see any detonation flashes. What Tony is telling us is forget what you are seeing right in front of you - those guys heard and saw it! Ya. For anyone who knows what they are looking at those dust jets are clearly pneumatic in origin.

This isn't honest because even Chandler's home-made, Fetzer-like video shows the explosions witnessed by those firefighters as being isolated and separate from the collapse event we are talking about.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony,

Thanks again. One more question. How do you interpret the ejections or squibs seen well below the collapse levels of WTCs 1 & 2?

Tony Szamboti Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony,

Thanks again. One more question. How do you interpret the ejections or squibs seen well below the collapse levels of WTCs 1 & 2?

I interpret them as squibs destroying the structural integrity before the collapse wave reached that point. People wedded to a natural collapse theory or its defense cannot ever admit there were squibs of any sort, as that is an admission of controlled demolition. I have seen them attempt to provide all kinds of tortured explanations of what they could be indicative of other than squibs, none of which would ever produce a focused jet emanating from the building.

Tony Szamboti Wrote:Albert, there was a very detailed computer simulation of the impact done by the NIST. See NCSTAR 1-2. There were very few core columns damaged as the wings did not make it to the core. So by volume alone only a few core columns could be hit.

Your thinking regarding the structure below the 98th floor where initiation began is flawed. If that structure gave way first then the collapse would not have initiated at the 98th floor. I'll give you a reason the collapse started at the 98th floor. It was because it was the closest place to the impact where there was no damage and charges would not have been displaced. Even after the initiation the first floors to collapse where the 99th, 100th, and 101st floors. This is verifiable on video. Now why would four stories above the impact damage actually be the first to collapse?

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:

Tony Szamboti Wrote:Albert, there was a very detailed computer simulation of the impact done by the NIST. See NCSTAR 1-2. There were very few core columns damaged as the wings did not make it to the core. So by volume alone only a few core columns could be hit.

Your thinking regarding the structure below the 98th floor where initiation began is flawed. If that structure gave way first then the collapse would not have initiated at the 98th floor. I'll give you a reason the collapse started at the 98th floor. It was because it was the closest place to the impact where there was no damage and charges would not have been displaced. Even after the initiation the first floors to collapse where the 99th, 100th, and 101st floors. This is verifiable on video. Now why would four stories above the impact damage actually be the first to collapse?

NIST is fine when you agree with them and the devil when you don't. Shorter.. NIST did not produce reliable report, flubbed observations and came up with the wrong explanation for all the collapses but got some stuff right.

The mass of the plane... like 250,000 or whatever (look it up) and the fuel... did not disappear and it was moving at 450 knots. Do you know how much kinetic energy is the fuel alone has...not to mention the keel, the landing gear, the engine and so forth.

And the interior core damage is hard to determine has has not been documented by NIST... But one landing gear made it through the building and landed in a parking lot on Liberty Street...puny wheel.

We know the building showed movement before release... so it was coming apart up there and when enough of the frame was useless the whole top dropped and ROOSD began and no need to weaken the frame... and we know it survived the floor collapse anyway.

Face the truth... the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

There is no evidence for placed devices in the towers...