Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

The presented tale of the fall of the towers is bogus.

Two reasons present.
First the things I was told by Ironworkers and Operating Engineers that went to NYC on the afternoon of the 11th.
Second, my own observation of the towers fall that day.

Not enough thermal energy was ever available to soften the steel as the fable is told.
I know how much heat and pressure it takes to "rebend" structural steel.
Misfabrication at the shop occurs, it is then the job of the Ironworker to apply the heat and pressure to bend the beam into the proper shape/alignment in the field.

So it is the old Richard Pryor thing, who ya gonna believe "Me or your lying eyes?"

No other story building ever collapsed from internal and sustained fires of paper and wood. Ignited by kerosine quickly consumed.
Not even buildings that burned for DAYS.

So someone rewrote the laws of physics for just that one day.
Or WE WUZ HAD like we were in Sept. 1964 when the WC published their bullcrap.

After these issues came forth I don't pay much attention to 911.
I know when I am being LIED to by my Government.
It has become easier to detect after years of deception.

I think you are neither familiar with the design nor understanding where the possible failures may have been. First, there were no columns which were melted or even heated hot enough to bend them. Heat weakens steel and if it weakens it below the service load it buckles and bends from BUCKLING not from plastic deformation. Second the failures in the frame were more likely the CONNECTIONS and they were not as strong as the sections themselves.

I have studied this in great detail for over 4 years and others much longer who are much smarter than I am. The NIST reports for the buildings were wrong... but that does not mean that the correct explanation was CD or placed devices.

I suggest you spend some time here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index....1d9c6a662f

and if you do you'll have a different perspective about the destruction. This is not a site of government shills and apologists for NIST. NIST takes it pretty hard... but not as hard as the CD and truther nonsense. It's a science based site and above the level of most but not always and if you invest the time you will learn something. Even Tony used to post there until his own work was heavily critiqued.

I have produced many slides some of which I have posted here... which I used to think and express my understanding. I am looking for understanding and not to publish or lead a movement... I do not accept the official explanations and I do not accept the CD one and therefore I do not accept the inside job or MIHOP. I don't know who flew the planes, or who put them up to it.. but I believe there were fuel ladened planes which it the towers... and they eventually came down when the aggregate column strength dropped below service load and delivered the huge mass of floors above which flowed down through the towers... leaving the columns below unbraced and unstable and they toppled because of that. I've explained this in the Where did the Towers Go? thread now in the bear pit.

And I've spoken with Ed Depaola who is a partner in the engineering firm Severud who examined the steel in the week after the collapse at the site. His assessment was that the steel suffered fatal loss of strength from heat. Perhaps he was gotten to and he's a liar and now part of the plot. Who knows? He seems like a stand up guy to me.