Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:.
I think it is your job to go around to various sites and smear anything that threatens the natural collapse hypothesis. The only other explanation for your behavior is extraordinary obtuseness mixed with a dislike for anything you don't want to believe regardless of its basis in reality.
Hell no, I don't have a job related to anything 9/11. I did volunteer my time to AE911T and so forth. But I did my own research and realized that they were peddling rubbish and so I share my thinking. You share yours. Bully bully.
I would like people to be enlightened enough to understand the matter and not act like mindless bots repeating what others tell them. Too easy.
Power to the sheeple.
No no... I have no interest in leading or publishing as some self declared expert... You do... but it's not changing minds. Not a one I would guess. But who knows. Keep trying. Fetzer has proved to be a fraud...
So many fakes and so little time.
You are a strange duck Jeffrey. People here may not know that NYC CAN refused to have you involved in their outreach to NYC Council members after you annoyed the hell out of its director Ted Walter at the first council member meeting we had. I was there and heard it from Ted first hand how you were trying to revamp what they wanted to do. You did the same kind of thing once you worked your way onto the AE911 Truth board. The result there was a large number of people, including the normally sedate David Chandler, threatened to leave if you weren't removed.
If you aren't some type of shill muddying waters and smearing as necessary to keep the present official story of natural collapse intact and any threats to it at bay, I will eat my proverbial hat.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:and here's a list:
14/7
Presentation of motion over 9s prior to release.
Presentation of significant "jolt".
Presentation of data highlighting magnitude of "jolt" Tony's abysmal methods would miss.
15/7
Tony's acceptance of "tilt", though with later repeated and deliberate misinterpretation of the data source.
Presentation of errors in Tony's latest paper.
Tony's acceptance that clean column ends would never collide.
Presentation of to-scale diagram of (really skinny) core column dimensions.
Presentation of tilt data showing Tony's value to be false.
17/7
Presentation of energy required to sever OOS floor structure from perimeter and core.
Request to take early motion, tilt, identified "jolt", perimeter "unzipping", visible misalignment of perimeter columns and relatively tiny core column dimensions onboard.
Presentation of 0.2px Sauret footage displacement for thickest core column misalignment.
Presentation of accurate per-floor masses. (spreadsheet)
Repeated request to Tony to include identified additional factors.
20/7
Presentation of 14 (unanswered) questions.
Query (ignored) of horizontal propogation timing.
Presentation of NW corner velocity plot, showing non-smooth motion history.
Presentation of ROOSD propogation requirements.
Presentation of 14 (ignored) questions.
21.7
Presentation of external material refuting Tony's claims relating to inertia.
Presentation of issues with Tony's motion history data.
Presentation of confirmation of Bazant's data aquisition methods (a ruler stuck on the monitor).
Refudation of false trace data assertions by David Chandler.
21/7
Re-presentation of non-smooth motion history data, identified "jolt" data, early motion data, and 11 (ignored) questions.
22/7
Presentation of additional external comment relating to inertia.
Presentation of refutement to Tony's claim that "jolt" prior to 12ft descent of roofline is impossible.
Re-presentation of external inertia information.
Presentation of accurate storey masses.
Birth of Tony's "24 outer column removal" theory.
Presentation of imagery representing Tony's belief about column buckle mode, and acceptance of such by Tony.
23/7
Questions leading to embellishment of Tony's "24 column" theory.
Questions (ignored) fatal to Tony's new (and old) theory.
Presentation of fatal flaws borne from Tony's new theory.
Presentation of fragility of abstract virtual models.
24/7
Birth of Tony's "24 column removal" causes "perimeter pull-in" theory.
Presentation of imagery showing perimeter "unzipping" along bolted seams.
25/7
Presentation of trace data accuracy details.
scientific rigor is a bitch ain't it?
This all sounds like the neuromuscular spasm or jet effect explanations certain individuals proposed to try and explain away JFK's back and to the left motion once the public finally got to see the Zapruder film, which had been suppressed for 12 years. Of course, they were nonsensical, just like the things you list.
The refutation of Zdenek Bazant's analysis is the same type of thing, as the public is now being shown the kinetic energy was not available to continue the collapse in the North Tower, and all the kings men and all the kings horses can't put Zdenek's story back together again. So now the kings men will just say other things caused it, with the attendant smears of anyone who provides proof that they are just blowing smoke.
It is an old game Jeffrey is playing and people familiar with the Kennedy assassination have seen it before. But don't worry Jeffrey will tell you he is doing it for altruistic reasons, because he doesn't want us to think the buildings were brought down intentionally, and he will swear they weren't, just like certain people told us only Oswald was involved in the shooting during the assassination.
Tony,
Would you mind summarizing you position in non-technical language if you have the time-- if that is possible. I have looked through your paper and find it tough sledding.
My experiences with JO have been less than rewarding on a number of accounts.
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony,
Would you mind summarizing you position in non-technical language if you have the time-- if that is possible. I have looked through your paper and find it tough sledding.
My experiences with JO have been less than rewarding on a number of accounts.
Lauren, the columns below are designed to support several times the load above them for safety. In order to cause them to yield, and start to collapse, the upper section must fall on them from a height and generate what we call a dynamic/amplified load. This requires deceleration which there is no indication of in the measurement of the North Tower descent. Jeffrey will argue this, but he is taking the word of one anonymous poster who claims he measured a deceleration. Nobody using their real name has found any deceleration in their measurements. Now not only does there have to be a dynamic load to start the column yielding, but there has to be enough kinetic energy available to completely collapse the column, because as the column deforms it absorbs energy, and in the case of large steel columns lots of it. The fall of the upper section of the North Tower should not have progressed, because the column energy absorption capacity was significantly greater than the kinetic energy that was available. In other words, there wasn't enough energy available to break through the columns after a one or even two story drop. The reason Zdenek Bazant's analyses showed there was enough kinetic energy to break through was that he grossly overestimated it, by using a much larger than actual mass and having it fall faster than it actually was before impact, while also grossly underestimating column energy absorption capacity. We were able to show he was completely wrong with his available energy to energy absorption ratio now since enough details are finally publicly available about the actual weight of the building, the column sizes and grades of steel, and the measurements showing the actual fall velocity. When Bazant's calculations are redone with the correct parameters the collapse arrests after a one or two story drop. This means the columns were not involved in the collapse. We don't come right out and say it in the paper, but there is no natural way for that to happen. I apologize for the single paragraph as that is all the site lets me do while on my home computer.
Tony,
Quit the ad homs. I have no agenda and I could care less. You and others have accused me of being a paid agent for the US government which is complete rubbish. You have made all sorts of attacks when all I did was state that your arguments have not held up to scrutiny. Let readers decide, if they can whether you are making it up and cherry picking to support your pre concieved beliefs or if you are truly trying to figure out what happened. When those much smarter than me have asked you to defend your positions you have dodged. I tried to share my work with you in a polite and civilized way and you gotten all childish and attacked me as having some sort of agenda.
No I won't swear that anything happened. I will say that the CD case has not been made and that a further investigation to hopefully get more data and proper analysis should be done. I do not agree with the NIST explanation for the twins and building 7's collapse.
See I am not a government shill for a truther bot. I tried to examine the evidence and the structure at my level of understanding and to understand all the arguments made for and against CD and the inside job. The extraodinary claim of CD puts the burden on the CD side to present an affirmative case with supporting evidence along with the mechanisms and so forth. They have not. NIST bulding 7 analysis has been debunked by truth guys and I concur with their findings. I don't buy the sagging truss stuff either. Having said that your claim makes no sense and has not convinced me. But your critics have convinced me that you are wrong.
This is a debate and people who are interested need to inform themselves of all the relevant issues, science and engineering. Or... they can repeat what some expert claims. And I don't know many who consider Bazant as the go to guy who explained the collapse of the towers.
If you don't agree with me... fine. Just confine your remarks to the substance and leave the personal attacks out of it. it's undignified. And it makes you sound a bit desparate... when you can't argue the facts attack the messenger.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony,
Quit the ad homs. I have no agenda and I could care less. You and others have accused me of being a paid agent for the US government which is complete rubbish. You have made all sorts of attacks when all I did was state that your arguments have not held up to scrutiny. Let readers decide, if they can whether you are making it up and cherry picking to support your pre concieved beliefs or if you are truly trying to figure out what happened. When those much smarter than me have asked you to defend your positions you have dodged. I tried to share my work with you in a polite and civilized way and you gotten all childish and attacked me as having some sort of agenda.
No I won't swear that anything happened. I will say that the CD case has not been made and that a further investigation to hopefully get more data and proper analysis should be done. I do not agree with the NIST explanation for the twins and building 7's collapse.
See I am not a government shill for a truther bot. I tried to examine the evidence and the structure at my level of understanding and to understand all the arguments made for and against CD and the inside job. The extraodinary claim of CD puts the burden on the CD side to present an affirmative case with supporting evidence along with the mechanisms and so forth. They have not. NIST bulding 7 analysis has been debunked by truth guys and I concur with their findings. I don't buy the sagging truss stuff either. Having said that your claim makes no sense and has not convinced me. But your critics have convinced me that you are wrong.
This is a debate and people who are interested need to inform themselves of all the relevant issues, science and engineering. Or... they can repeat what some expert claims. And I don't know many who consider Bazant as the go to guy who explained the collapse of the towers.
If you don't agree with me... fine. Just confine your remarks to the substance and leave the personal attacks out of it. it's undignified. And it makes you sound a bit desparate... when you can't argue the facts attack the messenger.
Jeffrey, let's just say you have proven yourself. People don't go out of their way to prove the government or any organization accused of a cover-up is right unless they are involved somehow. Of course, you try to couch that by saying you don't agree with them, but actions speak louder than words. You have shown me personally with what Ted Walter told me, your performance with AE911truth, and your ability to be at 911 events to argue an opposing point of view. You were at the Investigate Building 7 conference at the University of Hartford to argue with me after my presentation. People don't make those kinds of trips to defend the primary premise of a big organization like NIST because they feel like it. NIST is big enough to answer the questions themselves. They shouldn't need individuals like you going around picking squawks with those opposing their conclusions. You weren't doing that out of the goodness of your heart. There is no debate any longer. It has been proven that the columns were not involved in the resistance to the collapse and that could not have been due to natural circumstances. Get another job.
Tony,
Cut the BS... Are you asserting that "truther" events are open only to tru believers? The last one I attened in Hartford where I did speak to you, a good friend from Boston who was a truther asked me to come up as he got a ride down there with Richard Crushic (sp?) who heads the Boston 911 truth group.
I WAS formerly working with AE and others but once I was booted from AE911T I began to do my own study to understand what happened and slowly moved away from the truth POV. This does not mean I abandoned friends I had met who were Truthers. Lenny is one I am in contact with as is Paul Zarembka who is a friend and who has stay at my place. I don't have to agree with a fried on everything. And in fact I may try to sway them and convince them just as you are trying to convince others. I don't work for anyone, and certainly not the insiders or the gov. You might ask my lawyer Martin Stoler who represented me against NYC for unlawful arrest at a demonstration (we won!) or Atty Joel Kupferman (
http://newyorkeljp.wordpress.com/) who was arrented with me and whom I met in the tombs... if I am a government agent.
Stop prattling on with attacks of my character.
I've taken those sorts of trips many times in my life to rallies and protests and marches in DC since the late 60s.
You simply can't believe that anyone could change their mind about something like CD or the inside job. But there are plenty of them including Charlie Vetich (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-mind.html) a former active truther who is way more vocal than I.
And no... I have no interest in attending any more truth dog and pony shows such as the one coming up in DC. It's more of the same and nothing new. Anyway I can see it on the internet... like Toronto and Vancouver...
Tony you don't know when to stop because you are digging yourself a deeper ditch.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony,
Cut the BS... Are you asserting that "truther" events are open only to tru believers? The last one I attened in Hartford where I did speak to you, a good friend from Boston who was a truther asked me to come up as he got a ride down there with Richard Crushic (sp?) who heads the Boston 911 truth group.
I WAS formerly working with AE and others but once I was booted from AE911T I began to do my own study to understand what happened and slowly moved away from the truth POV. This does not mean I abandoned friends I had met who were Truthers. Lenny is one I am in contact with as is Paul Zarembka who is a friend and who has stay at my place. I don't have to agree with a fried on everything. And in fact I may try to sway them and convince them just as you are trying to convince others. I don't work for anyone, and certainly not the insiders or the gov. You might ask my lawyer Martin Stoler who represented me against NYC for unlawful arrest at a demonstration (we won!) or Atty Joel Kupferman (http://newyorkeljp.wordpress.com/) who was arrented with me and whom I met in the tombs... if I am a government agent.
Stop prattling on with attacks of my character.
I've taken those sorts of trips many times in my life to rallies and protests and marches in DC since the late 60s.
You simply can't believe that anyone could change their mind about something like CD or the inside job. But there are plenty of them including Charlie Vetich (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-mind.html) a former active truther who is way more vocal than I.
And no... I have no interest in attending any more truth dog and pony shows such as the one coming up in DC. It's more of the same and nothing new. Anyway I can see it on the internet... like Toronto and Vancouver...
Tony you don't know when to stop because you are digging yourself a deeper ditch.
I don't believe you ever were opposed to the fraudulent explanations we received from those charged with explaining the collapses. I now believe that was nothing but a front to allow you to infiltrate groups who were questioning the official explanation for 911. Sure, you just happened to be at Hartford because a friend asked you to go and argue the opposing point of view from that of the conference and the moon is made of green cheese. I actually thought you were a very likeable guy and it was hard to think you might be an agent of some sort, but that is what the actions show. You had the balls to impugn the work of professionals with no basis and tried to confuse people about it, and now you are crying when I bring up what many consider to be suspicious activity by you. Get a new job Jeffrey.