Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Lauren Johnson]

He will have his chance to clear things up now. Let's just wait for him to answer.

It's right there in his previous post. He already had a chance to answer that the last time you asked it and chose not to. Ever wonder why?

Suddenly, out of nowhere, this new version of Albert Doyle appears. Who is this guy?

[Albert Doyle]

In my judgement, Tony Szamboti is doing a good job of rebutting your arguments but still you keep jabbing away. Which is fine - that's part of the rationale for DPF. And Tony seems more than able to look after himself and the case he is proposing.

Jan,

Let's invite Tony to explain why the robust explosives blasts he and Chandler claim are seen emerging from the sides of the collapsing North Tower weren't caught on audio track? Certainly such obvious and pronounced blasts would register on the audio recording equipment that was right nearby under the Tower? Surely Tony can offer a specific example of the rebuttals you cite with this one example...

[Albert Doyle]

Suddenly, out of nowhere, this new version of Albert Doyle appears. Who is this guy?

Jeffrey thinks his ROOSD can begin right away but it can't as the floors could take 29 million lbs. of force, which is a static load of about five additional full floors with their live load. The dynamic load of one floor assembly would be nowhere near 5g's so ROOSD needs to wait until a sufficient number of floors have broken loose and gained momentum.

Can we just answer the points please?

[Lauren Johnson]

Suddenly, out of nowhere, this new version of Albert Doyle appears. Who is this guy?

Jeffrey thinks his ROOSD can begin right away but it can't as the floors could take 29 million lbs. of force, which is a static load of about five additional full floors with their live load. The dynamic load of one floor assembly would be nowhere near 5g's so ROOSD needs to wait until a sufficient number of floors have broken loose and gained momentum.

Can we just answer the points please?

Interesting, Jeffrey is away from his computer and magically "Albert Doyle" jumps in and continues with the program. I am only talking with Jeffrey because he actually has credentials.

[Albert Doyle]

Thank You Lauren.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony said that if that happened, it would require the instantaneous disappearance of five floors to allow enough momentum to begin the cascading collapse.

I already explained Tony did not say that. If you read what he said, he said it would take the specific weight of 5 floors of the North Tower to break the threshold of static resistance below in the main structure. He even gave that specific weight.

When I explained that 12 floors fell, meaning a weight well above what he described was involved, Tony never gave a straight answer.

I said to cause a self-propagating collapse of the floors (meaning the floor slabs outside of the core as implied by ROOSD) would require at least five floors to fall on one floor before it could be self-sustaining. That can't happen in the beginning of the collapse and you can't dump the entire 12 story upper section on the floor slab as there are columns in the way in a natural collapse. Getting those five floor slabs would require the collapse of at least five stories of columns. Now there is a problem as the columns should have provided significant resistance. They did not and it appears they weren't even involved in resisting the collapse. Why not?

Of course, some like to say the columns would have missed each other. However, the upper section would not just shift over without an enormous lateral load on it. There is no lateral load on it as gravity is a vertical load, and the small tilt provides very little lateral load component.

[Tony Szamboti]

The fuel capacity of a Boeing 767 is 24,000 gallons. At 6.8lbs per gallon that would be around 81 tons of fuel hitting the tower at hundreds of miles per hour. The fuel load was probably less than that because they didn't need to fill the tanks to go to LA.

We know each aircraft that hit the towers had 10,000 gallons on them when they left Boston for their trips to the West Coast. The 767-200ER aircraft had a 7,700 mile range and would have only been fueled to their full 24,000 gallon capacity for that range.

It is likely that about half of the fuel or about 5,000 gallons made it into the towers with the other half going up in the exterior fireballs. Now if one takes 5,000 gallons and spreads it over one of the acre size floors of a twin tower they will have a 3/16" thickness. Over two floors 3/32" thickness and over three floors 3/64" thickness. NIST believes the fuel burned up quickly due to being aerosolized and a thin film. I agree with that contention.

[Jeffrey Orling]

This disagrees with the NIST analysis I take it--although the details escape me? And has this thesis been discussed in the requisite journals? I gotta say that anon posters over at randi don't cut it when it gets down to it. OK, now I will stare at the diagram some more.

Tony,

I think the content is important not the name of the poster. I think you could not find fault with the work of femr2 and achimspok... and perhaps a few others. But I agree some of the jref guys are pretty irrational and prehaps not a few but many. I know some of the anonymous posters by name so... heck these are real people. I read a ballet forum and there are mostly nicks used there and the comments are rather briliant and made by people who clearly know what they are talking about. Anon is not reason to dismiss the content.

But the diagram is a 2d dipiction of a 4D event so it clearly misses many things.

[Lauren Johnson]

This disagrees with the NIST analysis I take it--although the details escape me? And has this thesis been discussed in the requisite journals? I gotta say that anon posters over at randi don't cut it when it gets down to it. OK, now I will stare at the diagram some more.

Tony,

I think the content is important not the name of the poster. I think you could not find fault with the work of femr2 and achimspok... and perhaps a few others. But I agree some of the jref guys are pretty irrational and prehaps not a few but many. I know some of the anonymous posters by name so... heck these are real people. I read a ballet forum and there are mostly nicks used there and the comments are rather briliant and made by people who clearly know what they are talking about. Anon is not reason to dismiss the content.

But the diagram is a 2d dipiction of a 4D event so it clearly misses many things.

I said the quoted statement, not Tony.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Jeffrey, As I understand your sketch entitled Top Drop Cartoon, the load supported by the compromised core columns was slowly transferred to the perimeter columns via the hat trusses. As the perimeter column exceeded their designed load capacity, they began to buckle and slip pulling the core columns down. The core detaches from the hat trusses. After that I am a little vague. But somehow this leads to a cascading collapse which Major Tom calls ROOSD, which stands for Runaway Open Office Space Destruction. Am I correct in interpreting your cartoon?

Basically you are getting the gist of the diagram. It's meant to show what happens as the core columns are weakened. When the lose capacity the 12 floors of the core ... and there were only 2 elevator chafts in the core at that height... were hanging from the hat truss. And this include part of the weight of the floors outside the core as the 24 perimeter core columns support about 45% of the outside the core floor loads. When the core lost capacity all of the loads were moved over to the facade columns which buckled and in so doing there was lateral translation and the facades slipped past each other 2 side passed outside and 2 inside. But surely the facade wasn't able to carry the floor loads alone including those inside the core up there. This mass.. became the ROOSD mass driving through the inside of the tower down to the ground.

This disagrees with the NIST analysis I take it--although the details escape me? And has this thesis been discussed in the requisite journals? I gotta say that anon posters over at randi don't cut it when it gets down to it. OK, now I will stare at the diagram some more.

Jeffrey's scenario in his cartoon has never been proposed by anyone who has published anything because it is fully impossible and a certain fiction, as the hat truss outriggers were not capable of transferring 12 stories of core load to the perimeter (the exterior columns that Jeffrey calls the façade).

The outriggers were A-frames meant to transfer antenna wind loads to the perimeter to gain a larger lever arm than just that provided by the core. They were about 10% of what would have been needed to transfer 12 stories of core load to the perimeter and would have failed in bending immediately when the core load was applied to them.

The truth is the outriggers did fail when the core load was applied to them and that is why the interior did go down first, as evidenced by the antenna drop before the exterior roofline, which had to wait for the core to pull the perimeter columns in at the 98th floor causing them to buckle and fail. It wasn't because they were overloaded from the top the way Jeffrey wants to say. That was impossible and it can be guaranteed that Jeffrey has no analysis showing the outriggers could take and transfer the core load he claims.

Additionally, the core load was not capable of overloading the perimeter even if it could be transferred by the outriggers. The perimeter columns only had 20% of their capacity used and they supported at least 50% of the building load. So if the core load was placed on them they would only be loaded to 40% of their capacity. Jeffrey's cartoon has no basis in reality and was certainly not the cause of failure for the perimeter. They did buckle but it was not due to overloading from the top as he claims. It was due to pull in creating extreme eccentricity (which columns cannot tolerate) by the failed and falling core.

According to Tony... FEMA proposed a similar explanation in their initial report. But of course this contradicts his conception and the absence of his recognizing the pre release building movements.

The service use of capacity was not 20% and that's purer fiction.