Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

You have it right about there not being enough heat to cause what we observed. The NIST didn't find evidence of high temperatures on the steel. They only found three pieces out of the 236 they got from the twin towers that had even seen temperatures beyond 250 degrees C, where steel hasn't even begun to lose strength.

You ignore the building motion pre release which indicated the core had begun to collapse, fail and the motion led to lateral motion and fracturing of column connections. You don't know the temps and where they were applied and you've made up the facts to suit your theory. The link provided explains the flaws in your thinking.

Ed De Paolo examined the steel and stated the heat destroyed the strength of the steel. I suggest you take it up with him not me. I can give you his contact info or look it up yourself - Severud Associates.

So now you want to say a vertical drop of the core caused a large side to side motion that fractured perimeter connections. How did the core drop and why would it cause a large horizontal motion? Additionally, if the perimeter connections were so susceptible to horizontal motion the wind resistance of the design would not have been nearly what the designers purported it to be.

The chief engineer John Skilling is on record explaining to authors Glanz and Lipton

The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. --City in the Sky, p 133

It is obvious that you still can't provide a plausible mechanism for heat weakening causing the rapid 0.5 to 0.7 second horizontal propagation and the constant and rapid (5.1 m/s^2 or 17 feet/s^2) vertical acceleration of the first story of the collapse of the North tower at the 98th floor.

So why bother with all the columns if they weren't needed? That's a BS quote and taken out of context.

Not spending more time arguing with you Tony as you refused to see the facts the inconvenient truths which destroy your pet theories.

I've tried to be open and objetive and my views have evolved and will continue ton evolve. You have not made a case that convinces me and you are stuck like a broken record. Others much smarter than I have shown you your mistakes and you simply do not answer and take flight to peddle your theories on another site such as this. Good luck! I am sure some will embrace your smoke and mirrors as the next best thing to sliced bread for the truth movement.

It's been 12 years and there are remarkably less than a handful of truth people who have even taken in a scientific technical study. They have shown that NIST did a poor job with its work, but have not provided a convincing argument for what DID happen... with your efforts being one of the handful. Very sloppy work trying to pass as rigorous scientific and engineering analysis. It convinces the truth lay guys but is not convincing the huge engineering and scientific community. Why is that? Please don't answer that they are all in on the inside job or intimidated that they will suffer consequences.

We DO need a proper explanation and more data derived from evidence... but you are not providing it. You make stuff up to suit your preconceived views.

We have seen the government abuse the trust of the people and the MIC and the NSS/intel monster grow to enormous proportion and suck all the air out of the room and are running rough shod over the world and the nation. They have the power to do virtually whatever they want... but they don't orchestrate every single world event... even when they behavior causes many of them. They try and successfully turn all world events into an excuse to advance their agenda of achiving more control and less opposition... in the name of security. This is has been foreseen in Brave New World... and 1984.

nuff said.