Goodbye, Mr Roberts

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

• There was no fire visible outside WTC2 when it collapsed and only modest fire visible before then, other than the initial fireballs outside the building at the time of impact.

Again, your assertion is in contradiction to the NIST report referenced. Certainly it is your prerogative (and others) to say so, but again the burden of proof must be surpassed in order to get me to agree with you. Anecdotal photographs are insufficient; a direct contradiction in this type of description should be easy to demonstrate in detail.

• There was little smoke coming from WTC2 when it collapsed, indicating little fire inside.

Again, a circumstantial view which can also be explained by the WTC2 simply having less fire.

• What little smoke that was coming from WTC2 by then was quite dark, indicating a cool fire.
• There were firemen up to floor 78, the bottom floor of the impact zone, inside the core, indicating rather mundane temperatures in the core at that level.

Again, the presence of less fire in a building 200 feet in diameter would indicate the possibility of the fire not completely enveloping the building.

Also the possibility of the firefighter in question being confused as to his actual floor, after having run up 70+ flights of stairs in less than 1 hour, is not to be discounted.

• The plane that hit WTC2 hit at an angle off-center, resulting in less damage to the core columns.

Again, this statement in direct contradiction to the NIST report.

• People above the impact zone were able to walk down the stairwell in the core through the impact zone in WTC2 (unlike in WTC1.)
• Three of the supporting columns in the exterior corners were undamaged by the impact and untouched by any sustained fire.

As mentioned previously regarding the fire.

• All or most of the core columns were undamaged, not being in the direct line of the WTC2 impact. [P.S. NIST 2005 Report says 11 of the 47 core columns were severely damaged or severed.]

As above, direct contradiction.

• The substantial majority of the exterior mid-wall (non-corner) columns (once again, enough to hold the tower by themselves) were undamaged and untouched by any sustained fire.

The statement of the exterior columns being sufficient to support the weight of the towers themselves - please show some proof of this assertion.

Secondly WTC2 had visible deformation of the outer walls. This by definition would include the columns. So again you are directly contradicting the NIST report with its photographs.

• The core columns, corner columns and mid-wall columns were each independently capable of supporting the weight of the building above them. The substantial majority of each were unharmed and unheated prior to the moment of the collapse.

Please clarify this statement. Are you saying that each individual column was strong enough to support the entire weight of the building above that point? If so, I will disagree vehemently.

If only 8 columns were needed to support the entire building, with another 8 for safety, then why put in 47 central columns and hundreds of exterior columns?

In turn, a 'substantial majority were unharmed and unheated' - please clarify what exactly you speak of. A majority of perimeter? A majority of the central core? Both?

A majority in either or both is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is the actual load capacity of each column as well as the weight distribution.

If the buildings were put together with 100% margin, then 50% damage to the columns would certainly permit a collapse. If the buildings were built with 100% margin, but 25% of the columns on one side were damaged, equally likely a collapse will ensue (diagonal stress resistance of a steel column is different than its vertical stress resistance).

• There was little of the usual flammable material in the core needed to sustain the typical "office" furnishings and interior construction materials fire.

Given that there were tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel plus the aluminum in the plane, this would be more than enough to set afire a substantial majority of the floor. As the WTC is an enclosed building, ANY heat generated largely stays in the building - doubly so if the fire was primarily interior.

In your scenario, what temperature did the steel have to get to and under what loadings, as say a percentage of the total force per area that the building design anticipated? It takes time to weaken steel by applying heat and force that are each at levels well below the point of rapid failure.

The NIST report says there is substantial evidence that maximum temperature reached was 1800 degree F. This is more than enough to weaken the steel.

Other steel buildings have taken 8 or 10 hours of raging fires to obtain even partial collapse; even WTC1 took a couple of hours (and that I claim also required explosives.) WTC2 fell in just 56 minutes. By a wide margin, your scenario lacks enough time, temperature and excessive (above design maximum loadings) force to initiate collapse. By a total margin, it lacks any means to sustain that collapse all the way to the ground, in the manner those towers collapsed on that day.

Again, the other buildings like Madrid achieved a similar temperature, but required much longer to do so because of the lack of jet fuel.

Your scenario requires that a sufficient number of the columns already be weakened somehow prior to collapse initiation that the remaining undamaged columns cannot hold the building. If enough undamaged columns are present, then no failure, gradual or sudden, of some columns will cause collapse, for no load bearing capacity whatsoever of the damaged columns is required to maintain structure integrity. How many columns (corner, core and mid-wall) do you claim were somewhat or somehow weakened prior to collapse initiation?

The NIST report listed specifically how many central core columns were severed or damaged by the planes. The number is approx. 1/4 of the total. Thus a 100% margin would already have been cut in half. Weakening due to temperature annealing could easily account for the rest.

You present a scenario that might explain a partial failure, asymmetric and above the impact zone, given hotter fires, longer fires, on a building with less mass of steel and less over design of structure or with more critical structure substantially damaged on initial impact. Nothing you've said even begins to explain the floor wide uniform collapse of each floor below the impact zone, crushing two of the most massive structures on the planet at near free fall speeds into fine dust.

I've gone over this before. The weight of the upper floors of WTC1 and WTC2 was in the tens of thousands of tons. Neither buildings' structure was designed to resist the impact of this type of weight.

Just as a karate master can stand on a board then break it with his fist/foot, so then there is a difference between impact and static load.

Why do you continue to dismiss, deny or ignore

• the demonstrated presence of thermetic material,

As I noted, the presence of thermitic material is neither a smoking gun nor unexplainable. Doubly so without any other evidence such as detonators, timing devices, etc. Use of a 'coverup' to explain any corroborating evidence is useless from a scientific standpoint.

• the reports (heard, seen and on video) of loud explosions,

Again, high energy environment. As Ghent12 mentioned as did I, breaking of multiple inch thick steel welds would produce loud sharp noises, much as impact of a bodkin point on a chest plate of a French knight makes a sharp sound.

• the eye-witness reports and video evidence from many angles of explosive charges all the way down the building in the co-ordinated manner of a top-down controlled demolition,

So why is it the NIST has thousands of photos and video evidence, but nothing resembling demolition? Oh yes, it has all been suppressed. Very neat, but completely not actionable.

• the repeated suppression of wide amounts of evidence including the material debris and eye witness reports,

Please provide evidence of this suppression. You've stated so many times but I haven't seen examples. Some examples would include: jailing of dissidents. Confiscation of evidence. Court orders. etc etc.

• the inability of even the 9/11 Commission report to describe the physical nature of the tower collapse past the "point of initiation",
• the inability of the 9/11 Commission report to even consider WTC7,

Given that there were no prior historical instances of modern jetliners flying into 110 story buildings and the resulting more or less flat and smoking debris pile, it is not surprising that a definitive answer cannot be given.

• the clear suppression (publicly noted and objected to by multiple of the commissioners whose names are on the 9/11 Commission report) of the true story of the failed DOD interceptor response to multiple hijacked planes in the air for over an hour, ...

The suppression of the DOD interceptor report is easily understandable from a bureaucratic ass-covering endeavor. Sure, it could be part of a larger plot, or it could be simple mental surprise on the part of the government/military which is too embarrassing to admit. I'd vote for the latter.

Have you read, carefully, the Herbst survey I referenced above? I have only touched on the long list of evidence, provided in that survey, that you ignore.

I'll look at that later, but I doubt I will continue beyond that barring something of relevance.

So far everything shown is plausible but not probable.

Furthermore the evidence against the NIST report has either focused on peripheral matters of questionable reference or directly contradicted what the NIST documented without being convincing in the process.

To be honest, the 9/11 'truth' evidence in toto is beginning to resemble the Bigfoot/flying saucer evidence...

http://www.weeklyscript.com/Hellboy.txt

INT. STUDIO T.V. HOST SHOW - INTERVIEW #2 - DAY

MANNING is a balding, official-looking guy in a suit.

MANNING
With their conveniently blurry footage
of their beloved "Hellboy." And they
claim that he works for the FBI-?

SUPER ON TV:

TOM MANNING, F.B.I.

HEAD OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS.

Manning on a TV SHOW a la Regis Philbin.

TV HOST
As the head of your division, you --
You have seen dozens of pictures
like this!!!

MANNING
Exactly -- so, why is it that they're
all out of focus? C'mon!! God knows,
people manage to get good pictures
at a wedding!!

He shows a blurry picture.

MANNING
That's the alleged best man -- ?

The audience applauds.

;)

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Again, your assertion is in contradiction to the NIST report referenced.

You're correct - see my post #160 above.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Again, this statement in direct contradiction to the NIST report.

This refers to my claim that there was less damage to the core columns in WTC2 than in WTC1. Yes, NIST claims otherwise.

The NIST claim is not based on observed evidence; neither is mine.

Their claim is based on their computer model, the critical input details for which they refuse to release.

I'd be quite surprised if there is any direct evidence of core column damage, other than that (1) people were able to traverse one of the stairwells through the impact zone in WTC2, but not so far as we know in WTC1, and (2) the observed more off-center impact of the plane hitting WTC2, compared to WTC1.

A careful analysis of the debris afterward might have been able to reconstruct some of this detail, but (1) by order of Mayor Gulliani the debris was (over the objections of various NY fire and poliice) quickly taken away and buried, and (2) more of the steel was reduced to a cloud of fine dust than anything in the official story can even begin to explain.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

This refers to my claim that there was less damage to the core columns in WTC2 than in WTC1. Yes, NIST claims otherwise.

The NIST claim is not based on observed evidence; neither is mine.

This is not a correct statement. Part of the NIST claim is based on a computer model, but part is also based on analysis of the opening left by the plane impact.

A careful analysis of the debris afterward might have been able to reconstruct some of this detail, but (1) by order of Mayor Gulliani the debris was (over the objections of various NY fire and poliice) quickly taken away and buried, and (2) more of the steel was reduced to a cloud of fine dust than anything in the official story can even begin to explain.

Certainly it is possible Giuliani was part of the conspiracy; it is more likely that Giuliani ordered as rapid a cleanup as possible so as to minimize disruption of business in the area - a major taxpaying center for New York City.

As for the steel being reduced - unless you're now going to tell me that the demolition reduced the 1/4 foot steel beams to powder, my view is that the high speed but even higher energy collapse combined to both grind and crush the steel.

And if you do say so, then I'd like to see just how much nano-thermite or whatever amount of other magical explosive would be needed to convert many miles of steel girders into powder.

[skyson]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

These words you use, they do not mean what you think they mean.
Let's take the word "destroy" and find out what you mean. You also use the word disintegrate, meaning you think its matter either dematerializes or becomes vapor or some other substance which no longer falls. This is demonstrably erroneous. Any quick glance at the video shows lots of dust, but every single analysis done by anyone and everyone concludes that the total amount of dust produced by the entire event is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total mass of the buildings involved. Therefore your concept of the upper section being "destroyed" is an unusable fallacy.

I don't understand how you can continue to believe that matter is simply vanishing! You think the entire upper section just disappears as it gets "destroyed" as you put it?

-------------------------
English is my second language, so I am not going to play word games with you, unless you want to do that in Chinese. Now with my limited English skills, I could still easily understand that "destroy" != "vanishing" or "disappear". So cut the crap.

I don't have the energy and inclination as THE COW to engage lengthy debate with you, so I will ask you a few simple questions, and please give your straight answers:

1. According to the THIRD NEWTON LAW - "Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction". In the case of WTC1, after the "initiaion of collapse", when the upper 16 floor section crashing into the lower 94 floor section, will the force of upper section exerting on the lower section (F upper) equal to the force of lower section exerting on the upper section(F lower)?
2. If F upper = F lower, then when the upper floor section "crushed" one individual floor of the lower section (94 floor), will the lower floor section "crushed" one individual floor of the upper section (95 floor)? If you ansewr "no", then please explain your rationals.
3. If step 2 repeats, how many floors of lower section will remain after the upper floor section exhausts its mass? Please explain your answer.

To assist you in answering the above questions, please look at the actual pictures and videos of WTC1 collapse:

pictures:
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/.../wtc1exp1.html
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/.../wtc1nenw.html
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/.../wtc1exp3.html
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/.../wtc1exp5.html
videos:
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/...rth_tower.html
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/nt_east.html

Where is the "pile driver"? It did not exist because of basic physics, common sense, and actual record.

Also, please take a look at this video. Witness the high energy and highly reactive collapse. Is this purely gravity at work?
-------------------------

Repeat after me:
The only things of importance that are being destroyed are the load-bearing structures within the building itself.

------------------
If the "pile driver" dose not exist, this point is moot.
------------------

Don't believe me? Drop a "destroyed" metal girder on your head and see what happens. (Please don't, because although you are vehemently ignorant, I don't wish for harm to befall you.)

----------------------
A more appropriate example would be: cut your head off, and drop it on my head.

In addition, while it is important to consider the effects on my head when your head impacts my head, it is also equally important to consider the effects on your head.

This is the essence of THIRD NEWTON LAW, which I have repeatedly tried to hammer it into your head all through this thread and the another thread.

Seriously, to me pursuing the truth of the event of 9/11 is an intellectual exercise that satisfies my inquiring mind and inner desire of good.

However, to the US citizens out there, you have much more at stake. Just thik about this: if the office version of 9/11 event is true, then the terrorists are having a success that could only exist in their wildest dream. The attack itself, allegely only costs a few hundred thousands dollar to finance, yet the damage to the US is to the tune of 2-3 billions. The US is engaging in multiple fronts in the "war on terror" after the attack, but the US population is losing their freedom and liberty, and in constant fear. The direct cost of wars in Iraq and Afghan is estimated to be upward of 3 trillions dollars by Stiglitz, but the stateless and faceless "terrorists" are a loose organization running a budget less than one hundred million annually.

Please, What is the objectives of this war? Can you win this war at the end? who benefits from this "war on terror"? How long can a nation's budget bleed in this kind of magnitude? How long can your economy sustain with this burden without total collapse? In history, all empires collapsed due to economic and budgetary crisis. America is no exception. When that happens, it is the normal citizens and average people suffer the most.

The matter is in your hands. Only the American people can clean up this mess and save yourselves from this destruction of your nation.

Think long and hard on this one.

If you are willing to explore more, here are the good links:

http://911research.com/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Again, the presence of less fire in a building 200 feet in diameter would indicate the possibility of the fire not completely enveloping the building.

We agree. If you were making a dissenting point here, I missed it, sorry.

Also the possibility of the firefighter in question being confused as to his actual floor, after having run up 70+ flights of stairs in less than 1 hour, is not to be discounted.

There is no reason to suspect such confusion in anything in the NIST or any other report. Why do you suggest it? In the recently released (long suppressed) audio of the radio dialogue of the firemen in WTC2 just before the collapse, they were calling out the floor numbers loud and clear. As I'm sure you have seen, stairwells in large buildings will commonly have a plate on the wall at each floor stating the floor number.

As above, direct contradiction.

See above, and the very P.S. which you just quoted in your reply.

The statement of the exterior columns being sufficient to support the weight of the towers themselves - please show some proof of this assertion.

It's in the reading material I have recommended to you repeatedly above. Please show some proof contradicting it.

Please clarify this statement. Are you saying that each individual column was strong enough to support the entire weight of the building above that point? If so, I will disagree vehemently.

Of course I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that the total supporting capacity of all the mid-wall columns could have held the building, ditto for the core columns, ditto for the corners. There were three kinds of support (mid, corner and core) each of which could hold the building's static load. The total static load capacity was some 4 to 6 times the actual static load.

If only 8 columns were needed to support the entire building, with another 8 for safety, then why put in 47 central columns and hundreds of exterior columns?

I do not understand where you get the number 8 from. The static load capacity of the building was designed to be about 4 to 6 times (I forget exactly) the static weight of the building, in order to withstand plane impacts, building fires, major hurricanes and whatever else man or nature might throw at the building.

In turn, a 'substantial majority were unharmed and unheated' - please clarify what exactly you speak of. A majority of perimeter? A majority of the central core? Both?

A majority of the core were undamaged (even NIST's computer model agrees with me on this.) A majority of the mid-wall and corner columns were undamaged other than the mild bending in some mid-wall columns, as can be seen from the images. Note the comment in my post #159 above regarding NIST's core column post counts.

A majority in either or both is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is the actual load capacity of each column as well as the weight distribution.

It's not irrelevant, but as you note, it is not by itself complete and conclusive proof. If one damages the load bearing columns sufficiently then the distribution of the damage does indeed matter. I did not claim otherwise.

Given that there were tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel plus the aluminum in the plane, this would be more than enough to set afire a substantial majority of the floor. As the WTC is an enclosed building, ANY heat generated largely stays in the building - doubly so if the fire was primarily interior.

As has been repeatedly noted and as can be easily seen on the videos, a substantial portion of the jet fuel fire in WTC2 was outside the building, in the fireball formed immediately after impact.

Yes much of the heat of a fire inside such a building will leave the building rather slowly. It will heat the building material such as its steel frame, which conducts heat rather well. As is incontrovertible, the bulk of the steel below the impact zone in those buildings was well within the range where humans can survive (which must be below 100 to 130 F or so) right up to the point of collapse.

The NIST report says there is substantial evidence that maximum temperature reached was 1800 degree F. This is more than enough to weaken the steel.

Well, yes, in one sense, there is indeed such evidence, such as molten steel and iron (not steel, iron) spheroids in the dust. NIST has published no evidence that the fuel and office material fires produced such temperatures. Perhaps they did in quite localized and temporary instances; so what?

Again, the other buildings like Madrid achieved a similar temperature, but required much longer to do so because of the lack of jet fuel.

Look at the Madrid pictures. There is a hotter raging much longer lasting inferno there than in WTC2. Office construction and furnishing material can produce similar temperatures to jet fuel. Even the government reports have acknowledge that most of the jet fuel burnt off in the first 10 or 15 minutes (I forget the exact number.) Much of the jet fuel in WTC2 burnt outside the building.

And look at what you just wrote -- similar temperature but required longer for lack of jet fuel. Are you saying a jet fuel fire damages quicker than some other fire of similar temperatures? That sounds odd to me.

The NIST report listed specifically how many central core columns were severed or damaged by the planes. The number is approx. 1/4 of the total. Thus a 100% margin would already have been cut in half. Weakening due to temperature annealing could easily account for the rest.

No -- see my post #159. You were confused by the manner of presentation of that NIST table. It did not list the count of entirely undamaged columns. Approximately 10 or 12 of the 47 core columns were severely damaged or severed.

I've gone over this before. The weight of the upper floors of WTC1 and WTC2 was in the tens of thousands of tons. Neither buildings' structure was designed to resist the impact of this type of weight.

I have agreed that neither building could withstand the impact of a substantial upper portion of the building being dropped on it from a sufficient height. I have in considerable detail and repeated posts asked you how such an impact height was achieved, but received only vague responses at best. However your scenario is less tenable than even I realized. See my next comment, right below.

Just as a karate master can stand on a board then break it with his fist/foot, so then there is a difference between impact and static load.

Yes, there is a difference. See my subsequent posts above referencing a quite interesting analysis of this difference.

In sum, the amount of force that a moving object (say that fist) imparts to the impacted object (say that board) can be directly calculated from measurements of the deceleration of the moving object on impact (F = ma, as you well know.) The falling upper level (unfortunately for the official scenario) did not decelerate while impacting the lower levels. The upper levels of WTC1 continued instead to accelerate at about 2/3's gravity and the bulk of WTC7 continued to accelerate at almost exactly gravity. The falling portions of these buildings were imposing less (not more, less) than their usual pre-9/11 static loads on the stationary portion. As I note in a post above, this is a crushing blow to the official story.

As I noted, the presence of thermitic material is neither a smoking gun nor unexplainable. Doubly so without any other evidence such as detonators, timing devices, etc. Use of a 'coverup' to explain any corroborating evidence is useless from a scientific standpoint.

The presence of the atomic elements (iron, sulfur, whatever) is easily explained many ways, of course. The presence of specific structures that can only be produced by advanced manufacturing techniques or temperatures hot enough to liquify iron and steel is quite unexplainable by the official story.

The point of my post #74 above apparently still escapes you. The well documented suppression of evidence certainly does explain the lack of collaborating evidence; how could you possibly suggest otherwise. NIST didn't find explosive material because as they state, they did not look. NIST didn't find evidence of explosive damage to the steel because, as they state, they did not look.

Again, high energy environment. As Ghent12 mentioned as did I, breaking of multiple inch thick steel welds would produce loud sharp noises, much as impact of a bodkin point on a chest plate of a French knight makes a sharp sound.

Such loud sounds are different from explosion sounds. People who know the difference heard the sounds and state with emphatic certainty they heard explosions. You have no basis for saying otherwise other than "high energy environment" Apparently you are deciding to discard competent witness testimony in any sufficiently "high energy" environment.

So why is it the NIST has thousands of photos and video evidence, but nothing resembling demolition? Oh yes, it has all been suppressed. Very neat, but completely not actionable.

NIST chose either not to collect and/or else not to report evidence of a demolition. Do not ask why they don't have such evidence; neither of us can know what they have. Ask why they did not collect and/or report such.

Not all the evidence of demolition has been suppressed, not even close. Lord knows, they tried. But no thanks to NIST, there is much evidence available, as reported in the material I have referenced.

Please provide evidence of this suppression. You've stated so many times but I haven't seen examples. Some examples would include: jailing of dissidents. Confiscation of evidence. Court orders. etc etc.

If you have not seen examples, then you have not looked. I prefer not to start listing examples here as it would take another thread with hundreds of posts to wade through the examples and evidence. That would be counterproductive to my purpose here, which is to inform others. Long divisive threads (such as this one ) turn others away. There are better media for informing others, such as lectures, movies, youtubes, articles and books.

For a good start on this, try a google search for 911 cover up. I just did this and the first few links looked worthwhile to me.

Given that there were no prior historical instances of modern jetliners flying into 110 story buildings and the resulting more or less flat and smoking debris pile, it is not surprising that a definitive answer cannot be given.

You have raised this concern before and stated it clearly and repeatedly. I find it to be an unfortunate concern. Essentially you're saying, as I read it, that since 9/11 was sufficiently unusual, therefore (to paraphrase) "aw heck, all hell broke loose, it was an unprecedented disaster, anything could have happened, therefore any difficult or controversial analysis that disagrees with one's current understanding can be discarded or dismissed as inconclusive. That is a quite unfortunate and objectionable conclusion.

The suppression of the DOD interceptor report is easily understandable from a bureaucratic ass-covering endeavor. Sure, it could be part of a larger plot, or it could be simple mental surprise on the part of the government/military which is too embarrassing to admit. I'd vote for the latter.

Ah - so you are aware of one example of suppression. Good. A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step.

I'll look at that later, but I doubt I will continue beyond that barring something of relevance.

I also recommend the Chandler paper reference in my post #162 above.

So far everything shown is plausible but not probable.

The official story is not even plausible.

Furthermore the evidence against the NIST report has either focused on peripheral matters of questionable reference or directly contradicted what the NIST documented without being convincing in the process.

The Chandler paper in my post #162 is quite convincing.

To be honest, the 9/11 'truth' evidence in toto is beginning to resemble the Bigfoot/flying saucer evidence...

A ton of evidence, expert and eye witness reports, and careful scientific and technical analysis compared to a few grainy images of blurry objects and hysterical reports. There is no resemblance.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

This is not a correct statement. Part of the NIST claim is based on a computer model, but part is also based on analysis of the opening left by the plane impact.

I claimed that the count of damaged or severed core columns is not based on observed evidence. That is a true statement. No one systematically observed all or most of the core columns in the impact zone after the impact before the collapse to inventory and report on their condition. I am confident that we agree on that statement.

NIST's computer model did (claim to) have some connection with the observed data of the plane impact damage, yes. But they won't let us see the calculations and numeric inputs to their model. They only let us see selected results. If you were a science teacher, you would not accept such work from a student (here's the surprising results; I won't show you the work.)

There's (quite literally) no telling what is going on in their model between the (claimed) plane impact inputs and the core column damage results.

Certainly it is possible Giuliani was part of the conspiracy; ...

Until you have examined the evidence sufficiently to realize that there was a cover-up, I doubt I will find it useful to discuss with you the other motivations you find plausible for an individuals actions.

As for the steel being reduced - unless you're now going to tell me that the demolition reduced the 1/4 foot steel beams to powder, my view is that the high speed but even higher energy collapse combined to both grind and crush the steel.

And if you do say so, then I'd like to see just how much nano-thermite or whatever amount of other magical explosive would be needed to convert many miles of steel girders into powder.

It would take a lot.

I find your position odd, to say the least.

You're saying it couldn't have been nano-thermite (or other such explosives) because it would have taken too much explosives to create all that dust (in mid-air, during the 10 seconds while the building was collapsing.) Yet the dust was there, in that time frame, being expelled (along with tonnage of steel) at high velocity, in all directions, from early in the collapse, before much kinetic energy from a falling top portion could have been built up.

So you conclude it cannot be explosives, because it would have required too much explosives, so it must be no explosives at all.

You should run for District Attorney (DA) in some city run by the Mafia. Then the next time they run a hit on someone and pump them full of 72 bullets, you can observe that it must have been a heart attack, because there is no way that anyone could have fired 72 bullets at someone, so there must not be any bullets at all. Then bury the corpse without an autopsy, threaten any of the first responders to the murder scene with loss of job or worse if they tell anyone what they saw, and do your best to ignore or discredit the intrepid researcher who finds a couple of lead bullets at the crime scene anyway. The Mafia will love you and you will have a long and prosperous career as DA.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I don't have the energy and inclination as THE COW to engage lengthy debate with you,

Once again, you demonstrate the superiority of Oriental over Occidental (or Bovine) wisdom .

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

The matter is in your hands. Only the American people can clean up this mess and save yourselves from this destruction of your nation.

True. It seems we have a long way to go.

Wish us well.

[cjppjc]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Don I'll get you for this if it's the last thing I do.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue Also the possibility of the firefighter in question being confused as to his actual floor, after having run up 70+ flights of stairs in less than 1 hour, is not to be discounted.

There is no reason to suspect such confusion in anything in the NIST or any other report. Why do you suggest it? In the recently released (long suppressed) audio of the radio dialogue of the firemen in WTC2 just before the collapse, they were calling out the floor numbers loud and clear. As I'm sure you have seen, stairwells in large buildings will commonly have a plate on the wall at each floor stating the floor number.

Again, you miss that a) anecdotal evidence of a firefighter in one stairwell is not indicative of the state of either the entire floor nor of the core columns, and b) even the most highly conditioned person suffers from physical and mental strain running up 77 flights of stairs.

In either case, nothing is conclusive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue The statement of the exterior columns being sufficient to support the weight of the towers themselves - please show some proof of this assertion.

It's in the reading material I have recommended to you repeatedly above. Please show some proof contradicting it.

I've gone through a long series of links now and none of them show any detail as to the architectural capability of the steel structure. Please be more specific since you are apparently familiar with the material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue Please clarify this statement. Are you saying that each individual column was strong enough to support the entire weight of the building above that point? If so, I will disagree vehemently.

Of course I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that the total supporting capacity of all the mid-wall columns could have held the building, ditto for the core columns, ditto for the corners. There were three kinds of support (mid, corner and core) each of which could hold the building's static load. The total static load capacity was some 4 to 6 times the actual static load.

Fair enough - as noted above please provide this information. It has not been obvious in any of the links I've gone through to date - and there have been quite a few.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue If only 8 columns were needed to support the entire building, with another 8 for safety, then why put in 47 central columns and hundreds of exterior columns?

I do not understand where you get the number 8 from. The static load capacity of the building was designed to be about 4 to 6 times (I forget exactly) the static weight of the building, in order to withstand plane impacts, building fires, major hurricanes and whatever else man or nature might throw at the building.

The number 8 was just thrown out as an example. As noted above, further proof of the asserted 4x to 6x load capacity would be useful. It is also useful to note that the NIST report included that the impact itself caused a vibration in the entire WTC1 and WTC2 structures, an example of the magnitude of the collision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue In turn, a 'substantial majority were unharmed and unheated' - please clarify what exactly you speak of. A majority of perimeter? A majority of the central core? Both?

A majority of the core were undamaged (even NIST's computer model agrees with me on this.) A majority of the mid-wall and corner columns were undamaged other than the mild bending in some mid-wall columns, as can be seen from the images. Note the comment in my post #159 above regarding NIST's core column post counts.
Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue A majority in either or both is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is the actual load capacity of each column as well as the weight distribution.

It's not irrelevant, but as you note, it is not by itself complete and conclusive proof. If one damages the load bearing columns sufficiently then the distribution of the damage does indeed matter. I did not claim otherwise.

Certainly the term majority is correct, but again the context matters. We've gone around again to the 4x to 6x you asserted above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue Given that there were tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel plus the aluminum in the plane, this would be more than enough to set afire a substantial majority of the floor. As the WTC is an enclosed building, ANY heat generated largely stays in the building - doubly so if the fire was primarily interior.

As has been repeatedly noted and as can be easily seen on the videos, a substantial portion of the jet fuel fire in WTC2 was outside the building, in the fireball formed immediately after impact.

Yes much of the heat of a fire inside such a building will leave the building rather slowly. It will heat the building material such as its steel frame, which conducts heat rather well. As is incontrovertible, the bulk of the steel below the impact zone in those buildings was well within the range where humans can survive (which must be below 100 to 130 F or so) right up to the point of collapse.

This is a circular argument. You are stating that steel conducts heat very well, and since the heat below the fire levels was survivable by humans, then the heat in the fire levels wasn't very high.

But this is clearly wrong. Madrid and Delft both had fires which causes extensive damage, were long duration (many hours), and were very hot.

If the heat were truly fully conducted to lower floors, it makes no sense whatsoever that the collapsed upper portions weren't followed later on by fires in the lower ones or a trail of dead firefighters or what not.

Disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue The NIST report says there is substantial evidence that maximum temperature reached was 1800 degree F. This is more than enough to weaken the steel.

Well, yes, in one sense, there is indeed such evidence, such as molten steel and iron (not steel, iron) spheroids in the dust. NIST has published no evidence that the fuel and office material fires produced such temperatures. Perhaps they did in quite localized and temporary instances; so what?

Again your tunnel vision is interfering with your sense. Madrid had fires of 800 degrees C - quite comparable to 1800 degrees F (+ jet fuel). I fail to see why one is implausible while the other clearly happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue Again, the other buildings like Madrid achieved a similar temperature, but required much longer to do so because of the lack of jet fuel.

Look at the Madrid pictures. There is a hotter raging much longer lasting inferno there than in WTC2. Office construction and furnishing material can produce similar temperatures to jet fuel. Even the government reports have acknowledge that most of the jet fuel burnt off in the first 10 or 15 minutes (I forget the exact number.) Much of the jet fuel in WTC2 burnt outside the building.

And look at what you just wrote -- similar temperature but required longer for lack of jet fuel. Are you saying a jet fuel fire damages quicker than some other fire of similar temperatures? That sounds odd to me.

What I wrote is that heat is generated by fire. More fire = more heat, similarly FASTER fire = more heat = greater temperature. A FASTER fire can be equal in total heat output to a longer but lower intensity fire - both with the same fuel load. But the FASTER fire is hotter. That's what bellows do: allow hotter fires by increasing combustion.

So, the jet fuel fire isn't more damaging per se, but it does release more heat more quickly than a normal office fire.

Doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue The NIST report listed specifically how many central core columns were severed or damaged by the planes. The number is approx. 1/4 of the total. Thus a 100% margin would already have been cut in half. Weakening due to temperature annealing could easily account for the rest.

No -- see my post #159. You were confused by the manner of presentation of that NIST table. It did not list the count of entirely undamaged columns. Approximately 10 or 12 of the 47 core columns were severely damaged or severed.

Given that I posted the pic, what I said is quite clear: WTC2 according to NIST had 11 core columns that were severed or were severely damaged. Another 12 were moderately or lightly damaged. You can argue how significant the moderate or light damage is to the individual columns' strength, but it is impossible to prove either way that this damage was inconsequential.

The point still stands: nearly 1/2 of the central core columns were damaged by the plane impact.

This damage reduced the amount of load the overall structure could support.

Was this reduction only 25%? 50%? Did it damage the overall structural integrity on those floors? Pure back of napkin calculations of static load cannot prove this one way or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue I've gone over this before. The weight of the upper floors of WTC1 and WTC2 was in the tens of thousands of tons. Neither buildings' structure was designed to resist the impact of this type of weight.

I have agreed that neither building could withstand the impact of a substantial upper portion of the building being dropped on it from a sufficient height. I have in considerable detail and repeated posts asked you how such an impact height was achieved, but received only vague responses at best. However your scenario is less tenable than even I realized. See my next comment, right below.

I've been quite explicit in what I think could have happened. As other videos have shown, catastrophic failures in buildings due to structural damage from fire is FAR from exceptional. The failure of the core steel structure in one or more floors is more than sufficient height to release a lot of impact energy - each floor being 10 or 12 feet times 20,000 tons times gravity is a lot of impact.

It wasn't a 1 inch fall, nor is it a 100 foot fall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue Just as a karate master can stand on a board then break it with his fist/foot, so then there is a difference between impact and static load.

Yes, there is a difference. See my subsequent posts above referencing a quite interesting analysis of this difference.

In sum, the amount of force that a moving object (say that fist) imparts to the impacted object (say that board) can be directly calculated from measurements of the deceleration of the moving object on impact (F = ma, as you well know.) The falling upper level (unfortunately for the official scenario) did not decelerate while impacting the lower levels. The upper levels of WTC1 continued instead to accelerate at about 2/3's gravity and the bulk of WTC7 continued to accelerate at almost exactly gravity. The falling portions of these buildings were imposing less (not more, less) than their usual pre-9/11 static loads on the stationary portion. As I note in a post above, this is a crushing blow to the official story.

You keep returning in circles to this concept: that the speed of the buildings' fall was too fast for anything but a demolition.

Yet you somehow disassociate the speed of the collapse in Delft and in the other videos I posted. Are you saying these were also demolition jobs?

Your assumption is that the impact of the upper floors on the next lower one is such that the remaining structure exerts a significant resistance.

This is an assumption which is not borne out by any of the other collapses; these all fell at very high speeds as well.

Your assumption is predicated on the intact WTC floors resisting the fall.

This is erroneous; if the lower structures were THAT strong, then a collapse might not have occurred at all.

Certainly you will then say that the lower structure should never have collapsed, but I have yet to see any numerical demonstration that said lower floors could handle the impact at all and therefore could exert any significant resistance to the mighty mass of the falling upper floors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue As I noted, the presence of thermitic material is neither a smoking gun nor unexplainable. Doubly so without any other evidence such as detonators, timing devices, etc. Use of a 'coverup' to explain any corroborating evidence is useless from a scientific standpoint.

The presence of the atomic elements (iron, sulfur, whatever) is easily explained many ways, of course. The presence of specific structures that can only be produced by advanced manufacturing techniques or temperatures hot enough to liquify iron and steel is quite unexplainable by the official story.

The point of my post #74 above apparently still escapes you. The well documented suppression of evidence certainly does explain the lack of collaborating evidence; how could you possibly suggest otherwise. NIST didn't find explosive material because as they state, they did not look. NIST didn't find evidence of explosive damage to the steel because, as they state, they did not look.

Your definition of well documented is apparently different than mine.

A total of 4 samples not corroborated from any other sample set with provenance not clearly excluded from other source does not constitute good documentation for me.

As someone who has worked extensively with semiconductor machinery - such material is absolutely possible to create. However, the time, cost, and effort to create it is astronomical. Furthermore the techniques for doing so leave very clear fingerprints. The so-called experts pushing this theory have not done any work showing that these fingerprints exist, or how such material could be created, or even how detonation of such material could be achieved.

This is all conveniently labelled under the magic nano-thermite umbrella.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue Again, high energy environment. As Ghent12 mentioned as did I, breaking of multiple inch thick steel welds would produce loud sharp noises, much as impact of a bodkin point on a chest plate of a French knight makes a sharp sound.

Such loud sounds are different from explosion sounds. People who know the difference heard the sounds and state with emphatic certainty they heard explosions. You have no basis for saying otherwise other than "high energy environment" Apparently you are deciding to discard competent witness testimony in any sufficiently "high energy" environment.

As there are no experts in nano-thermite available, furthermore that 'eyewitness' accounts are the single most unreliable element in any investigation, I stand by my statement.

Those who are expert in explosives don't have experience with 110 story steel structure welds breaking. Those with experience with breaking welds don't have experience with explosives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue So why is it the NIST has thousands of photos and video evidence, but nothing resembling demolition? Oh yes, it has all been suppressed. Very neat, but completely not actionable.

NIST chose either not to collect and/or else not to report evidence of a demolition. Do not ask why they don't have such evidence; neither of us can know what they have. Ask why they did not collect and/or report such.

Not all the evidence of demolition has been suppressed, not even close. Lord knows, they tried. But no thanks to NIST, there is much evidence available, as reported in the material I have referenced.

As I noted, by pointing everything to the conspiracy theory, you have just removed any possibility of proving your case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue Please provide evidence of this suppression. You've stated so many times but I haven't seen examples. Some examples would include: jailing of dissidents. Confiscation of evidence. Court orders. etc etc.

If you have not seen examples, then you have not looked. I prefer not to start listing examples here as it would take another thread with hundreds of posts to wade through the examples and evidence. That would be counterproductive to my purpose here, which is to inform others. Long divisive threads (such as this one ) turn others away. There are better media for informing others, such as lectures, movies, youtubes, articles and books.

For a good start on this, try a google search for 911 cover up. I just did this and the first few links looked worthwhile to me.

Provide 5 examples from your experience. I'm no longer looking through links which breathlessly point to this or that as I've looked through more than enough without finding substance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue Given that there were no prior historical instances of modern jetliners flying into 110 story buildings and the resulting more or less flat and smoking debris pile, it is not surprising that a definitive answer cannot be given.

You have raised this concern before and stated it clearly and repeatedly. I find it to be an unfortunate concern. Essentially you're saying, as I read it, that since 9/11 was sufficiently unusual, therefore (to paraphrase) "aw heck, all hell broke loose, it was an unprecedented disaster, anything could have happened, therefore any difficult or controversial analysis that disagrees with one's current understanding can be discarded or dismissed as inconclusive. That is a quite unfortunate and objectionable conclusion.

No, that is not what I said. What I said was: bureaucrats can only report a repetition of something in their experience. When you present a bureaucrat with something outside of their experience, they cannot give you any type of conclusive answer.

Scientists are much the same way. An experiment which does something completely wacky and unexpected will not yield further clarification until the effect is repeated, then the effect is teased out via further experimentation.

In this case, DHS and what not are devoting billions to preventing a repetition. How then can conclusive evidence be gathered?

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue The suppression of the DOD interceptor report is easily understandable from a bureaucratic ass-covering endeavor. Sure, it could be part of a larger plot, or it could be simple mental surprise on the part of the government/military which is too embarrassing to admit. I'd vote for the latter.

Ah - so you are aware of one example of suppression. Good. A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step.

Bureaucratic ass covering isn't the same as covering up a conspiracy which deliberately killed 3000+ Americans directly and another thousand plus in followup warfare.

One is understandable and sad, the other is psychotic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue I'll look at that later, but I doubt I will continue beyond that barring something of relevance.

I also recommend the Chandler paper reference in my post #162 above.


Quote:

Originally Posted by c1ue So far everything shown is plausible but not probable.

The official story is not even plausible.

I've tried very hard to understand why it is not plausible, and frankly your impression is diametrically opposite to mine.

I claimed that the count of damaged or severed core columns is not based on observed evidence. That is a true statement. No one systematically observed all or most of the core columns in the impact zone after the impact before the collapse to inventory and report on their condition. I am confident that we agree on that statement.

So how do you categorize the computer enhanced image of the impact point? Is that a model or is that observational data?

To me it is observational data; it is quite conceivable that 10 severed columns are observable from the hole left by the 767.

You're saying it couldn't have been nano-thermite (or other such explosives) because it would have taken too much explosives to create all that dust (in mid-air, during the 10 seconds while the building was collapsing.) Yet the dust was there, in that time frame, being expelled (along with tonnage of steel) at high velocity, in all directions, from early in the collapse, before much kinetic energy from a falling top portion could have been built up.

So you conclude it cannot be explosives, because it would have required too much explosives, so it must be no explosives at all.

No, what I'm saying is that IF I take your position - that the collapse was insufficient to destroy the steel structure members, then the only alternative is for nano-thermite or some other Deus Ex BlackHelicopter method which disintegrates the steel. At which point you have a clear calculation on how much nano-thermite is needed - a truly terrifying number.

If on the other hand the collapse was itself enough to grind/crush/bend/fold/spindle/mutilate the steel (and concrete, and people), then perhaps nano-thermite was not there as it is not necessary to explain anything.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

You keep returning in circles to this concept: that the speed of the buildings' fall was too fast for anything but a demolition.

You failed to understand the physics presented in Destruction of the World Trade Center North (pdf) by David Chandler, linked from my post #162 above.

The "speed" of the fall (if by that you mean the elapsed time) is rather secondary, depending on the distance involved.

The key quantity is the acceleration (rate of change of velocity) of the downward falling piece, in a scenario (such as the one you support here) where the downward falling piece is supposedly (taking out/crushing/collapsing/destroying/dustifying/...) whatever is below.

If that downward moving piece is accelerating (moving at an increasing velocity) downward during the impact, then it is exerting less force on whatever is below it than it would have exerted while stationary.

Your scenario requires that the downward moving upper portion exert more force on the lower portion than it did when not moving (static.) We all know that the lower building was able to support the upper building as a static load.

The amount of force which the downward moving portion exerts on the lower portion can be easily and accurately calculated from the acceleration or deceleration of the upper piece during the period of impact. If the upper piece slows down (like the hammer slowing when it hits the nail) then it is exerting increased force (f = ma/t). If the upper piece continues to speed up then it is exerting less force.

The acceleration or deceleration of the upper portions of WTC1 and WTC7 is readily measured, during the main collapse phase, from videos. Both were accelerating downward, one at 2/3's G, the other at almost exactly 1 G.

The Pile Driver scenario is totally and clearly and absolutely dis-proven. This is a level of proof that I would accept as legal (perhaps not emotional) proof of murder, if I stood as the accused.

The lower WTC1 was supporting much less than normal weight throughout the collapse of WTC1, and the bottom of WTC7 was exerting essentially zero force for at least the first eight stories of collapse (what's visible on video) of WTC7. The lower portions were not crushed and thereby removed from support; that would have decelerated the upper portions. The lower portions were reduced or eliminated from their support role before the falling upper portion reached them. Something else took out the lower portions first.

Yet you somehow disassociate the speed of the collapse in Delft and in the other videos I posted. Are you saying these were also demolition jobs?

I seriously doubt that Delft and Madrid were demo jobs. I have no specific timings of either of these, so don't know what such timings would show. I'd be quite surprised if they showed continuous rapid downward acceleration of downward pieces during a period of impact with heretofore undamaged lower structure.

Your assumption is that the impact of the upper floors on the next lower one is such that the remaining structure exerts a significant resistance.

Exactly backwards! Chandlers paper proves conclusively that this is exactly what did not happen.

This is an assumption which is not borne out by any of the other collapses; these all fell at very high speeds as well.

It's not the "speed" (do you mean elapsed time or velocity -- not either one.) It's the acceleration (change of velocity) during the period of impact of a moving body with a stationary body. If the moving body keeps moving faster (accelerates) then it is exerting less force than it would if also stationary. If the upper body moves with zero acceleration, that is with constant velocity (be that zero, as in a static body, or a steady movement) then it is exerting just its gravitational weight on what's below it.

Your assumption is predicated on the intact WTC floors resisting the fall.

I'm saying the lower floors were not intact prior to impact, so resisted the falling upper portion substantially less (WTC1) or not at all (WTC7.)

Something destroyed the lower floors before the upper ones fell on them. It was not the impact that destroyed the lower floors. Something else destroyed them first, allowing the upper to then fall.

This is erroneous; if the lower structures were THAT strong, then a collapse might not have occurred at all.

Entirely wrong. There are many ways for a building to fail. If sufficient fire and other damage had been inflicted on the lower tower portions, they could eventually be unable to support even the static weight of what was above them, and fail really really fast.

Chandler is just disproving the official story, that the heretofore undamaged lower portions were somehow crushed by the "Pile Driver" affect of a falling upper portion. His readily obtained data (even the final NIST report showed collaborating data) shows the upper portion accelerating right through the impact, hence the lower portion was exerting less than it's normal static load throughout the collapse. There was no period early in the collapse of any lower floor (floors below the airplane impact zone which were undamaged by the official story prior to general building collapse) supported anything close to its normal static load.

Certainly you will then say that the lower structure should never have collapsed, ...

Entirely wrong. As noted above, there are many ways for buildings to fail.

but I have yet to see any numerical demonstration that said lower floors could handle the impact at all and therefore could exert any significant resistance to the mighty mass of the falling upper floors.

NO! There was not an impact force of some amount greater than normal gravitational weight which required to be supported. We are not dealing with the SUM of gravity load PLUS some impact load. WRONG! The total force (sum of impact and gravity load) was LESS during the collapse than normal support. That is exactly what Chandler's paper and timings and evidence prove. The lower floors provided LESS support to the upper portions than at any time since the buildings were constructed.

The lower floors must have been substantially weakened (WTC1) or totally destroyed (reduced to zero structural capacity - WTC7) BEFORE the falling upper portions impacted them. We know that because the falling upper portions continued to accelerate throughout an extended period of the collapse.

Fact (even in NIST final report in the WTC1 case) and Physics. Learn it. Understand it. Deal with it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

So how do you categorize the computer enhanced image of the impact point? Is that a model or is that observational data?

To me it is observational data; it is quite conceivable that 10 severed columns are observable from the hole left by the 767.

The severed core columns were not observed through the impact hole and counted on some computer enhanced image. I have never even heard such suggested before.

The count of severed core columns were computed using a NIST computer model which simulated a plane impact matching the observed hole in the exterior columns.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

There are many ways for a building to fail. If sufficient fire and other damage had been inflicted on the lower tower portions, they could eventually be unable to support even the static weight of what was above them, and fail really really fast.

Another way, closer to what you're suggesting, c1ue, for a building to fall would be for a really big heavy upper section to fall onto some lower section, crushing it.

However one would observe (1) either the upper section decelerating during the time interval of impact, with the lower pushing back with the force resisting the impact plus the usual force it had applied to hold up the gravitational weight of the upper, or (2) the upper section still accelerating (faster, faster, ...) downward through the interval of impact, with the lower pushing back with some a total force less than the usual force it had applied to hold up the gravitational weight of the upper.

To this level of specification, you've been saying (1) and I'm saying (2).

However if you accept (2) then you have to answer the question: why was the lower unable to apply substantially LESS upward force than it normally had held, PRIOR to impact. Something had to weaken the lower BEFORE impact, given Chandler's data and analysis, which is indisputable. Something had to weaken substantially in WTC1 and entirely, totally in WTC1. The lower portion was only applying about 1/3 of its usual weight bearing force during the collapse in WTC1 and almost zero upward force in WTC7.

P.S. -- It's not just me "saying" (2). Chandler's data, clearly presented from good video of the collapses, proves (2).

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Another way, closer to what you're suggesting, c1ue, for a building to fall would be for a really big heavy upper section to fall onto some lower section, crushing it.

However one would observe (1) either the upper section decelerating during the time interval of impact, with the lower pushing back with the force resisting the impact plus the usual force it had applied to hold up the gravitational weight of the upper, or (2) the upper section still accelerating (faster, faster, ...) downward through the interval of impact, with the lower pushing back with some a total force less than the usual force it had applied to hold up the gravitational weight of the upper.

To this level of specification, you've been saying (1) and I'm saying (2).

However if you accept (2) then you have to answer the question: why was the lower unable to apply substantially LESS upward force than it normally had held, PRIOR to impact. Something had to weaken the lower BEFORE impact, given Chandler's data and analysis, which is indisputable. Something had to weaken substantially in WTC1 and entirely, totally in WTC1. The lower portion was only applying about 1/3 of its usual weight bearing force during the collapse in WTC1 and almost zero upward force in WTC7.

P.S. -- It's not just me "saying" (2). Chandler's data, clearly presented from good video of the collapses, proves (2).

The answer to the bold portion, once again, is dynamic loading. It's not just a computer engineering term.

q: Why can your chest withstand a ten-pound bowling ball to a safety factor of at least four (meaning it could withstand a forty-pound weight, if uncomfortably), but not withstand that bowling ball dropped from 12 feet?
a: Dynamic loading.

q: Why can a given table withstand your weight and then some, but breaks when you jump up and down on it?
a: Dynamic loading, plus cycling if applicable.

Chandler claims that the lower section was only subjected to 36% of the normal force. Perhaps that is the correct figure, perhaps not. Either way, what his simplistic, high-school level view is unable to comprehend, is the time integral involved.
q: Can the lower section withstand 36% of the previous static load if applied over the span of 10 seconds?
q: Can the lower section withstand 36% of the previous static load if applied over the span of 1 second?
q: Can the lower section withstand 36% of the previous static load if applied over the span of 10 milliseconds?
q: Can the lower section withstand 36% of the previous static load if applied over the span of 10 microseconds?
a: In reality, it is likely that the structure received close to 100% of the static load within a few milliseconds, and the normal force plus the restitution impulse were applied far too quickly in far too large a quantity for the load-bearing structure to withstand. This is dynamic loading.