Deep Politics Forum

hahaha

Tony,

It's comments like this that reinforces the notion that 9/11 truthers are paranoid whackos.

Yes that's precisely why I went because he wanted to introduce me to Richard Krushnic.... I went and found his email... email him and ask. Or Dan LaLiberte...

rkrushnic@gmail.com

You are grasping at straws. You actually believe I am some agent sent to destroy your truth movement? Really?

Ask Sander Hicks... Oh I forgot he and Ted Walter had a falling out..

I can't take you seriously. You are outing yourself as the archetypical a paranoid conspiracy nutter. Is that anyway to win an argument?

We DO need to expose the cover up... but you guys are standing in the way with your absurd claims... which few people are taking seriously. Maybe you are the one who is running the block so we never get a new investigation? Tracy Blevins.. anyone? Birds of a feather stick together.

Stop with the nonsense Szamboti. It's undignified.

It would be more helpful if you 2 guys could just lay out the technical details of your respective positions and refute the others based on that rather than all the emotional name calling stuff which is just unhelpful.

Magda Hassan Wrote:It would be more helpful if you 2 guys could just lay out the technical details of your respective positions and refute the others based on that rather than all the emotional name calling stuff which is just unhelpful.

I have done that already and the paper speaks for itself. Jeffrey is the one making false claims about it and trying to confuse by lumping in other details which don't have to do with the paper, which is the subject of this thread. People should just read it and understand that it has been proven that there was not enough kinetic energy in the fall of the upper section of the North Tower to overcome the energy absorption of the columns below to naturally continue the collapse. They should also understand that the paper also shows that the acceleration through the first story was much too high to have been due to heat weakened columns.

Magda Hassan Wrote:It would be more helpful if you 2 guys could just lay out the technical details of your respective positions and refute the others based on that rather than all the emotional name calling stuff which is just unhelpful.

Magda, sorry, I just gotta say this.

Every one of your colleagues here at DPF, with the exception of Bernice, have tried to "correct" Mr. Orling -- with no luck. The other times, well...it hasn't been pretty. He is here to enlighten and not be enlightened. His explanations of LIHOP vs. MIHOP are like Yogi Berra and Casey Stengel explaining string theory. Peter Lemkin after many posts gave up in frustration calling him a disinfo. His explanations of the collapse of Bldg 7 are an epic in the explorations of alternative realities.

Tony, just walk away. Orling will never engage you. He might be a disinfo. He might be a guy who likes to argue. Either way, you will never get anywhere with him. Ever.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Magda Hassan Wrote:It would be more helpful if you 2 guys could just lay out the technical details of your respective positions and refute the others based on that rather than all the emotional name calling stuff which is just unhelpful.

Magda, sorry, I just gotta say this.

Every one of your colleagues here at DPF, with the exception of Bernice, have tried to "correct" Mr. Orling -- with no luck. The other times, well...it hasn't been pretty. He is here to enlighten and not be enlightened. His explanations of LIHOP vs. MIHOP are like Yogi Berra and Casey Stengel explaining string theory. Peter Lemkin after many posts gave up in frustration calling him a disinfo. His explanations of the collapse of Bldg 7 are an epic in the explorations of alternative realities.

Tony, just walk away. Orling will never engage you. He might be a disinfo. He might be a guy who likes to argue. Either way, you will never get anywhere with him. Ever.

Thanks Lauren. I hope you understood my layman's terms explanation.

Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.

Is it possible the inner core/outer frame structure caused a lateral force that was exacerbated by the floor platforms falling into the void caused by this lateral shift and ensuing removal of the floor platform supports that caused an unexpected massive kinetic force that drove the collapse of the inner core therefore defeating the expected resistance models you cite? In other words the resistance wasn't there because the outer frame and inner core both shifted away from the floor supports causing that mass to plunge unobstructed therefore causing the force it would have taken to overcome the column energy absorption you cite? When those inner core columns were compromised by that lateral force they would no longer possess the vertical resistance you cite. This failure would be almost instantaneous and not possess the expected deceleration you cite.

And what about the South Tower?

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Magda Hassan Wrote:It would be more helpful if you 2 guys could just lay out the technical details of your respective positions and refute the others based on that rather than all the emotional name calling stuff which is just unhelpful.

Magda, sorry, I just gotta say this.

Every one of your colleagues here at DPF, with the exception of Bernice, have tried to "correct" Mr. Orling -- with no luck. The other times, well...it hasn't been pretty. He is here to enlighten and not be enlightened. His explanations of LIHOP vs. MIHOP are like Yogi Berra and Casey Stengel explaining string theory. Peter Lemkin after many posts gave up in frustration calling him a disinfo. His explanations of the collapse of Bldg 7 are an epic in the explorations of alternative realities.

Tony, just walk away. Orling will never engage you. He might be a disinfo. He might be a guy who likes to argue. Either way, you will never get anywhere with him. Ever.

That's cool Lauren. Worth a shot.

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Tony Szamboti Wrote: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.

Is it possible the inner core/outer frame structure caused a lateral force that was exacerbated by the floor platforms falling into the void caused by this lateral shift and ensuing removal of the floor platform supports that caused an unexpected massive kinetic force that drove the collapse of the inner core therefore defeating the expected resistance models you cite? In other words the resistance wasn't there because the outer frame and inner core both shifted away from the floor supports causing that mass to plunge unobstructed therefore causing the force it would have taken to overcome the column energy absorption you cite? When those inner core columns were compromised by that lateral force they would no longer possess the vertical resistance you cite. This failure would be almost instantaneous and not possess the expected deceleration you cite.

And what about the South Tower?

I don't believe what you are contemplating is possible for several reasons.

1. The only mechanisms acting on a building which can provide lateral forces are wind loads and seismic loads and a building would be designed to handle these without shifting between floors. So I don't know where the lateral force required would come from and how it could accomplish what you are saying. It would have to be applied to only the upper section and would have to be enormous to shift the upper section due to inertia and with its columns still connected to the lower section.

2. The columns would not buckle after losing support for one story. They all could go at least three stories without lateral support before buckling. It is hard to see how this contemplated shift could ever be sufficient to dislodge three stories worth of floors from their vertical supports. The shift would have to be massive and even then it would only potentially separate the floors from their vertical supports in one direction, since it would only affect the floors that are normal to the shift not those parallel to it. What would really need to happen, for what you are contemplating, is for the core to shrink in girth and the exterior to expand. That is even less possible than the shift.

3. For the lower section columns not to provide resistance to the fall of the upper section their lateral support needs to be completely removed before the upper section hits it.

4. The core floors would not be susceptible and the core was self supporting, so it would not fall without providing resistance.

I would say what you are contemplating would be on par with a magic trick. It just has no basis for occurring in reality.

The paper is about the North Tower. If there is a serious problem with it then it is not hard to imagine a problem elsewhere.

I don't consider the forum the appropriate place to get into technical discussions. I presented many technical points in the Where did the Towers Go thread which was one of the longest threads on this site. Where was Tony back then?

Peter Lemkin simply posts or reposts articles he finds on the web.

It is my belief based on what I have studied and the work I have done, some of which Tony has seen that the designs themselves had Achilles' heels and that the forces released (gravity) by the plane strikes and the heat from fires was enough to tip the towers from stable and standing over the brink to rapid progrssive failure.

I linked to the reasons why Tony's paper was discredited and in error. The discussion is complex... very complex and perhaps very technical. Even Tony does not believe (I think) that post initiation...the main collapse included devices. It simply fell from gravitational forces... as most intended demoltions do.

Most people understandably look at the buildings coming down and see them through almost a child's conception of the world. In fact, many will say that even a child can see that the towers weree exploding. Maybe the children should conduct the techincal investigation explaining the mechanism of collapse.

Tony has now taken to characterize me or my interest in understanding and sharing my views about 9/11 as the work of a government agent. How dare I attend a public event and meet friends or discuss my ideas with people or listen to the presentation of the "researchers". When I was in Hartford I carefully listened to MacQueen's presentation about witnesses to explosions. But he didn't discuss what explosions sound like and what things do explode or might have expoded at the towers which would be mistaken for bombs. And there were several. I've noted that the WTC had hundreds and hundreds of step down power transformers which rather frequently explode. The bigger the transformer the bigger the bang when they do. I've had several explode in my neighborhood and witnessed my neighbors and running to the street asking where the bomb was that exploded. Another one exploded a few days ago! MacQueen doesn't even consider that many of the reports of explosions were not bombs.

All bombs produce explosions
Not all explosions are produced by bombs

An intellectually honest discussion about the explosive sounds at the WTC on 9/11 would include all possible causes of explosions.

And then consider that rather early on in the morning people beleived that there was a terrorist attack. And what do terrorist's use for their attacks? Bombs... all manner of bombs.. IEDs, bombs strapped to people worn as vests... now we here of pressure cooker bombs, or fertilizer bombs. Everyone knew that the WTC was a target of the 93 bombing. When people think terrorism attack... every loud sound with be heard as a bomb... every explosion as a bomb. Did a single witness comment that the explosions sounded like transformers exploding? How many people have heard them explode.. or seen them explode? Very few...and that includes first responders, office workers and even fireman or police.

So the MacQueen report.. like the Szomboti takes some cherry picked observations... and frames the conclusion as if there were hundreds of witnesses to bomb sounds. But where is the evidence of steel exploded by bombs? Where is a single steel column or beam which shows the tell tale sign that it's been ripped apart by a bomb? Or even possibly suggesting that? There's not one the bomb advocates can show. And when asked to explain that... the answer is the site was scrubbed of evidence. Think about the absurdity of that claim... all the thousands of clean up workers were trained to spot the bomb evidence and get it removed and disposed of before anyone could see it. And don't forget that the pile was perhaps a million or more tons or debris including hundreds of thousands to tons of steel... steel which required massive machinery to move. It tool almost a year to clean the site. So the conspiracy included training 1000's of volunteers working for a year to pick out the evidence of CD and keep it from the public. And not one took a picture of anything unusual?

Where are the pics of the flowing melted steel (in rivers)? Where are the pieces that hardened? Wouldn't they be massive and heavy and hard to lift and move and conceal? How could this be hidden from the public?

Building 7 in many ways is the key to understanding that 9/11 was not an inside job... although truthers keep say it was precisely the proof that it was. They begin with their weird statement that since it was not hit by planes as the towers were.. faling down HAD to be a CD. This almost is an admission that the planes DID or may have contributed to the twins' collapse.

But what hasn't been discussed by NIST nor the truthers is the bizarre structure features of 7 and where those features were located and why they were there. 7 was built over top one of the 23 massive power sub stations for the city of NY. Just the decision to build over the tower after purchase of air rights is something that was never even looked into... especially considering there was a vacant lot across West Street when it was built... which remained vacant on 9/11. Why would anyone by air rights and do an expensive and complicated structure building over a power station and not on a vacant lot?

That structure was essentially like erecting a skyscaper on a bridge span... The load transfer structure was massive. But it was field erected and with bolts and welded plates. The connections WERE the weak links not the massive sections used to construct the transfer trusses and cantilever girders. Like a chain... it completely fails when the weakest link goes... these trusses completely fail when a connection fails. And it takes a lot less to fail a connection than it does to fail or buckle a member. And of course all of this is SEEN in the debris... destroyed connections and intact members. Could those connections have been attacked by placed devices? Why not? But where's the evidence of this? They could have had robots inside with torches cutting them too. Where's the evidence of this?

NIST has effectively provided cover for the engineers, developers and designers or the WTC... and Con Ed... all of whom share responsibility for the designs which unzipped as they did. How many buildings in NYC have 30,000 gallons of flammable fuel stored in them and under them? Only one that I know of - Building 7.

So why would anyone want to destroy 7? Truthers will tell you because it contained all manner of things which had to be destroyed and this was the expedient way.... SEC records and of course the control center for the demo of the WTC. Wouldn't a fire at any old time have taken care of the SEC records? Did these insiders who clearly were in the cross hairs of the SEC need to blow up the entire building along with the WTC and kill thousands? Does that make sense?

Where is the study by ANYONE about the performance of steel connections exposed to heat? All we hear is the massive box columns of the tower cores.... but there were no box columns where the collapse began in either tower. And no box columns so any signs of being exploded. Sure steel was mangled from dropping 1300 feet to the ground and having as much as 400,000 tons of debris fall in it. What would you expect?

I don't know the motives of those in the truth community. I suspect the followers people are simply pissed of at the lies of the government, the MIC and the DOD/NSS for their militaristic and fascist polices. I am too. But I am also aware that there are terrorists who are pissed enough to do something about the abuse of their people, and their lands. There wouldn't be all the counter insurgency BS if there was insurgencies bubbling up where there is oppression and exploitation. You don't think the violence Palestine is all staged by the Israelis so they can then attack the poor innocent Palestinians in a series of hundreds of false flag operations?

Does intel stage terror attacks to leverage their franchise... sure they do. Police do drug buy and busts and stings all the time. The entire war on drugs seems to be more about breaking the black community apart and locking them up then it does about the problems of substance abuse.

The cover up here was not the bombs placed within massively strong structures... but the fact that the structures were flawed designs and were vulnerable to the ravages of unfought fires. Engineers know that steel MUST be protected from the heat of fire and it's why steel has applied fire protection... As hard it is to accept once a frame weakens enough it can't stand... and that the events of 9/11 show this can and will happen in steel frames.

I suggest Tony do a study of the performance of the connections of the WTC buildings under fire/heat stress. I think this study will reveal why the frames came undone. Imagining bombs on the 24 core columns is pure fantasy. And it doesn't even explain the observed building movements as has been pointed out by others.

The public has been victimized by those who were supposed to explain what happened including the truth movement which is letting the inherent weaknesses in the designs get a pass.

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I don't consider the forum the appropriate place to get into technical discussions. I presented many technical points in the Where did the Towers Go thread which was one of the longest threads on this site. Where was Tony back then?

I didn't know about this forum until doing a search on "Some Misunderstanding Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" and found you were trying to claim it was debunked by linking to the silly JREF Forum thread.

Quote:The public has been victimized by those who were supposed to explain what happened including the truth movement which is letting the inherent weaknesses in the designs get a pass.

It is hard to imagine that you are talking about the building design which successfully withstood a three hour fire starting on the 11th floor and going as far as the 9th below and 19th above of the North Tower in 1975 http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLE..._fire.html and a 1,200 pound truck bomb in the basement of the North Tower in 1993, pretty much without missing a beat. I don't believe the building was ever even closed. It sounds like the inherent weaknesses in the design are in somebody's head only.