Deep Politics Forum

Nice clarity there Phil.

EDITED 9.29.13 5pm

I am posting femr2's response to Tony's post... (which I DID NOT WRITE) published on the 9/11 FreeForum. I don't like to use wods like liar. I have received many insults on many forums related to 9/11 which range from dis info agent, to NIST shill and so worse. I don't really care as these sorts of insults avoid the substance of my commentary. Tony has been told many times what errors he has made and he refuses to face them. I only report... you decide:

Before I spend time compiling details for the Tony exclusive thread, this post was made by him recently...

Tony wrote:

The dissection...
Tony has been shown repeatedly that not only is this statement a nonsensical suggestion, but that it is verifiably and provably false...

Here is the acceleration plot from the data Tony actually uses. HIS (well, Chandlers' data)...



As can be seen, HIS OWN DATA contains "jolts".

The techniques by which that data was extracted from video are extremely primitive, with Chandler skipping over 90% of the available measurements.

Here is the data extracted by utilizing every available frame of the same video (though a better quality version than the awful copy Chandler chose to use)...





Tony has been told many, many times how to replicate generation of these plots, which show:

a) Tony's assertion of "missing jolt" to be false.
b) Tony's assertion of "constant acceleration" to be false.
c) Tony's assertion of "smooth motion history" to be false.

Tony has CHOSEN to ignore such data, and refuses to carry out the work to prove it to himself, despite being provided with step by step instructions.

Instead Tony chooses to reject such data with pathetic excuses.

Again, IF Tony wanted such data to have a "name" attached to it, he is quite capable of generating it himself. Tony clearly DOES NOT want such data attached to his own name, as it destroys several of his oft-repeated false axioms. Tony has been told many, many times why this statement is not fact. There are many reasons why behaviour of disconnected members during collapse of a structure may not present itself at a singular trace location on the building, in this case the NW corner of the building.

Tony chooses to cling to that false statement, and pretends to be deaf when told yet again. Tony has proven himself repeatedly and willfully deaf to all criticism. If clear fact affects his position he resorts to rejecting information based on such pathetic excuses as "you are not using your real name", even when Tony is perfectly capable of understanding the truth in such facts and replicating the information for himself.

He knows the facts are true. He chooses to repeat statements he knows to be false.

..OMITTED...
Tony has been told repeatedly and provided data to illustrate that a significant number of floors are NOT required to initiate ROOSD. Tony was even involved in the process of determining the energy requirements for propagation.



2 would suffice. 3 would be better.

Tony knows the detail above. He chooses to make false statements as above anyway.

The source of ROOSD and the number of floors required to propagate originates from us at the911forum. Tony has not performed any independent calculations to suggest values above those provided above.

He simply CHOOSES to make up figures he thinks will fool people into supporting his position.

Despicable behavior.
Absolutely false. All that has to happen for ROOSD to begin is for a could of OOS regions to detach from core and perimeter, requiring far less energy that would be required to "destroy" core and perimeter columns.
Tony has run out of steam and resorted to waxing lyrical here. No-one says ROOSD explains everything. Tony cannot comprehend that ROOSD is not a virtual "suggestion", it is simply a name for OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR that actually happened in the real world. It is not a "theory" in that sense.
False. Tony has been called a liar by many folk outside of JREF, including myself. I do not use the word lightly, and it is only through several years of telling Tony fact, then seeing him utterly ignore those facts and continue to post lies that I call him a liar. It is not an opinion, it is fact, and can be proven (as it will be in the new thread for compiling his destructive behavior)
Lying is a disgraceful act. Tony should stop lying, both to himself and to others.
Utterly false, as will be proven with a huge list of instances in the fore mentioned thread.
HA HA HA. It is interesting that Tony doesn't get "pulled" for these kind of pathetic insults, which have the potential for far more irritation and escalation .................... But, hey, all forums have biased moderation to some extent. Pity the discussion over there is so pathetic. I'd estimate about 5% of the population there actually understand the technical details. The rest simply choose to accept whichever opinion they prefer. Sad.

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I am posting this response to Tony's post... published on the 9/11 FreeForum. I report... you decide:

Before I spend time compiling details for the Tony exclusive thread, this post was made by him recently...

The North Tower never decelerates and a natural collapse would have to. This is something Jeffrey seems to get tongue tied explaining.

He also forgets to tell you that his ROOSD (Runaway Outer Office Space Destruction or more commonly known as pancaking) requires a significant number of floors to be broken loose, so there needs to be column destruction during the first several stories of the collapse before ROOSD can even start.

By saying ROOSD explains everything Jeffrey is trying to tell you that a horse isn't required to pull the cart and that it magically moves on its own.

P.S. the only individuals who have ever called me a liar were anonymous individuals with wacky ideas and postulations on the JREF Forum. It is a disgrace that you would even say that here. Neither you or anyone on the JREF Forum has ever shown me to be in error, you only try to say you have. So it is also disgraceful for you to talk as though you and these anonymous individuals have. Your discourse here reminds me of that of a teenager telling fibs about things he has done to impress people.

The dissection...

The North Tower never decelerates

Tony has been shown repeatedly that not only is this statement a nonsensical suggestion, but that it is verifiably and provably false...

Here is the acceleration plot from the data Tony actually uses. HIS (well, Chandlers' data)...

As can be seen, HIS OWN DATA contains "jolts".

The techniques by which that data was extracted from video are extremely primitive, with Chandler skipping over 90% of the available measurements.

Here is the data extracted by utilising every available frame of the same video (though a better quality version than the awful copy Chandler chose to use)...

Tony has been told many, many times how to replicate generation of these plots, which show:

a) Tony's assertion of "missing jolt" to be false.
b) Tony's assertion of "constant acceleration" to be false.
c) Tony's assertion of "smooth motion history" to be false.

Tony has CHOSEN to ignore such data, and refuses to carry out the work to prove it to himself, despite being provided with step by step instructions.

Instead Tony chooses to reject such data with pathetic excuses.

Again, IF Tony wanted such data to have a "name" attached to it, he is quite capable of generating it himself. Tony clearly DOES NOT want such data attached to his own name, as it destroys several of his oft-repeated false axioms.

a natural collapse would have to

Tony has been told many, many times why this statement is not fact. There are many reasons why behaviour of disconnected members during collapse of a structure may not present itself at a singular trace location on the building, in this case the NW corner of the building.

Tony chooses to cling to that false statement, and pretends to be deaf when told yet again.

This is something Jeffrey seems to get tongue tied explaining.

Tony has proven himself repeatedly and willfully deaf to all criticism. If clear fact affects his position he resorts to rejecting information based on such pathetic excuses as "you are not using your real name", even when Tony is perfectly capable of understanding the truth in such facts and replicating the information for himself.

He knows the facts are true. He chooses to repeat statements he knows to be false.

That is lying. Plain and simple.

He also forgets to tell you that his ROOSD (Runaway Open Office Space Destruction or more commonly known as pancaking) requires a significant number of floors to be broken loose

Tony has been told repeatedly and provided data to illustrate that a significant number of floors are NOT required to initiate ROOSD. Tony was even involved in the process of determining the energy requirements for propogation.

2 would suffice. 3 would be better.

Tony knows the detail above. He chooses to make false statements as above anyway.

The source of ROOSD and the number of floors required to propogate originates from us at the911forum. Tony has not performed any independant calculations to suggest values above those provided above.

He simply CHOOSES to make up figues he thinks will fool people into supporting his position.

Despicable behaviour.

so there needs to be column destruction during the first several stories of the collapse before ROOSD can even start.

Absolutely false. All that has to happen for ROOSD to begin is for a coupld of OOS regions to detach from core and perimeter, requiring far less energy that would be required to "destroy" core and perimeter columns.

By saying ROOSD explains everything Jeffrey is trying to tell you that a horse isn't required to pull the cart and that it magically moves on its own.

Tony has run out of steam and resorted to waxing lyrical here. No-one says ROOSD explains everything. Tony cannot comprehend that ROOSD is not a virtual "suggestion", it is simply a name for OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR that actually happened in the real world. It is not a "theory" in that sense.

P.S. the only individuals who have ever called me a liar were anonymous individuals with wacky ideas and postulations on the JREF Forum.

False. Tony has been called a liar by many folk outside of JREF, including myself. I do not use the word lightly, and it is only through several years of telling Tony fact, then seeing him utterly ignore those facts and continue to post lies that I call him a liar. It is not an opinion, it is fact, and can be proven (as it will be in the new thread for compiling his destructive behaviour)

It is a disgrace that you would even say that here.

Lying is a disgraceful act. Tony should stop lying, both to himself and to others.

Neither you or anyone on the JREF Forum has ever shown me to be in error

Utterly false, as will be proven with a huge list of instances in the forementioned thread.

Your discourse here reminds me of that of a teenager telling fibs about things he has done to impress people.

HA HA HA. It is interesting that Tony doesn't get "pulled" for these kind of pathetic insults, which have the potential for far more irritation and escalation than the simple factual assertion that Tony is a lying and manipulative scumbag. But, hey, all forums have biased moderation to some extent. Pity the discussion over there is so pathetic. I'd estimate about 5% of the population there actually understand the technical details. The rest simply choose to accept whichever opinion they prefer. Sad.

The measurement you show from the anonymous femr2 is noise due to his/her attempts to enhance the resolution with sub-pixel measurement. This is a logical conclusion as the dip in velocity on his/her graph occurs between stories during the fall through the first story, when there hasn't even been a chance for impact yet. The anonymous femr2 is the only individual who has ever claimed to have measured any deceleration in the fall of the North Tower. Nobody else gets the results he/she shows and it is certain to be due to his/her attempts at enhancement. He/she even claims to have measured pre-collapse movement of just inches in both WTC 7 and the North Tower. They are both quite still until onset per everyone else who has measured their drops.

It is time for that reality check again and to see David Chandler's measurements of both the North Tower and Balzac-Vitry building with the same method. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

The North Tower shows no deceleration, but the Balzac-Vitry building, which is brought down via hydraulic rams taking out the columns of two stories (so no explosives are used), shows definitive deceleration. David Chandler is a known person with credibility who forced the NIST to admit WTC 7 was in free fall for over 100 feet at the beginning of its collapse and his measurements of the North Tower have been validated by everyone else who has measured its fall, except the anonymous femr2 whose unverified measurements you feel are somehow valid.

femr2's measurements are clearly bogus and I have to say that you don't seem to do a very good job of scrutinizing claims and it is generous to say you are just gullible. It is actually surreal that you would give any standing to an anonymous individual who claims results, which have not been verified and are contrary to what all others have gotten, and try to debate me and say I am being dishonest with them. I really do have to question your motives here and the moderators should also.

Additionally, ROOSD cannot explain the collapse of the North Tower during the first several stories of the collapse. It needs a significant number of floors broken loose before it can self-propagate. Something caused the columns not to be involved in resisting the collapse in its early stages and where it started (above the aircraft damage), the constant acceleration, and rapidity of the collapse during those stages, prove it was not disparate heating from fires and aircraft impact damage.

DPF statement;

Quote:Ad homs, bickering and personal anima are no longer acceptable here.

OH REALLY?

Will someone please explain to me how JO can post a comment from another forum,from an anonymous entity,who repeatedly calls Tony a liar?JO has even flat out called Tony a liar.But,of course,we don't allow ad homs,bickering,and personal anima.....hahahahaha

It's a good point Keith. I'm going to take care of it.

Keith Millea Wrote:DPF statement;

Quote:Ad homs, bickering and personal anima are no longer acceptable here.

OH REALLY?

Will someone please explain to me how JO can post a comment from another forum,from an anonymous entity,who repeatedly calls Tony a liar?JO has even flat out called Tony a liar.But,of course,we don't allow ad homs,bickering,and personal anima.....hahahahaha

Glad somebody finally pointed this one out -- again.

I find the content is important

Tony Szamboti has provided papers and calculations pointing at the removal of two to three floors of columns to precipitate the collapse

Jeffrey Orling has over the years presented very similar assertions to the official explanation of weakened steel due to heat

yet we are given to understand that 2,300 degrees are required to accomplish this very essential-to-the-propaganda feat

It is akin to having demolished the single-bullet theory yet having to be lectured by Gary Mack and Dale Myers as to how the cow ate the cabbage

With the perspective of Kevin Ryan, Another Nineteen, the airliners were held out of reach of interceptors by the general heading the hijack center having absented himself from CONUS

The Commission would neither question him closely--nor look for explosives: their a priori position was that none were used ergo why look?

Such a complacent passive "defense" of the propaganda is not in keeping with the deep political event seen as such by the coiner of the term.

Keith Millea Wrote:DPF statement;

Quote:Ad homs, bickering and personal anima are no longer acceptable here.

OH REALLY?

Will someone please explain to me how JO can post a comment from another forum,from an anonymous entity,who repeatedly calls Tony a liar?JO has even flat out called Tony a liar.But,of course,we don't allow ad homs,bickering,and personal anima.....hahahahaha

I've never called anyone a liar.

I posted web published material... wrtitten by someone on the 911FF. Lemkin copies and pastes...and many others on this forum post articles and so forth which they find interesting to a discussion.

I try to confine my discussion to technical matters. I am not intersted in "refuting" others... I present what I think makes sense... readers can decide.

Phil Dragoo Wrote:I find the content is important

yet we are given to understand that 2,300 degrees are required to accomplish this very essential-to-the-propaganda feat

No one has made a claim that 2,300°F was required to weaken the steel in order to facilitate failure. At 900° steel has lost 50% of its' strength... at 1100° it has about 20% of its strength.

Please refer to the chart at this link to see how metal strength related to temperature

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-..._1353.html

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:

Phil Dragoo Wrote:I find the content is important

yet we are given to understand that 2,300 degrees are required to accomplish this very essential-to-the-propaganda feat

No one has made a claim that 2,300°F was required to weaken the steel in order to facilitate failure. At 900° steel has lost 50% of its' strength... at 1100° it has about 20% of its strength.

Please refer to the chart at this link to see how metal strength related to temperature

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-..._1353.html

The chart you show is not very accurate. Attached here is one strictly for structural steel from the AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). Steel loses about half its strength at 600 degrees C (1,112 degrees F). The AISC document I got this from is available free of charge here http://www.aisc.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=7046 See page 9 on the lower left for the chart.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5338[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]5339[/ATTACH]


Click on images to enlarge

The steel columns in the 98th floor core of the North Tower (where the collapse initiated) would have needed to be heated to about 650 degrees C (1,202 degrees F) to even be at the point where they could not handle the load above them and start buckling, and the average resistance of those heated columns during buckling would be too high to allow the sudden, then constant and fairly rapid acceleration of 5.1 m/s^2 it was measured at. See above attached image of this measured data. This actually proves heating was not the cause of the initiation, as heated columns would have started buckling and moving downward slowly and then gathered acceleration. It could not have been constant acceleration, or nearly as rapid, if the buckling started when the heating and the load became just enough to start the process.