+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis (/thread-11027.html)
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Lauren Johnson - 11-08-2013
Quote:A three story collapse at one time would have been impossible. The columns are supported by beams at every floor.
Jeffrey, Tony, Thanks for your responses.
Tony, unless I am missing something, the three story collapse came from my thought experiment. Jeffrey pointed out that the columns were actually three stories tall. And to make matters clearer, I was supposing in my thought experiment that the entire support structure, columns, and all the cross bracing instantly vanished. The entire core structure is severed instantly and completely.
Tony, you said the initiation of a ROOSD would require five floors of core columns and their support structure to vanish to provide the sufficient force. I believe Jeffrey, said it would require only one floor.
That is helpful.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 11-08-2013
Uh, I thought 12 floors fell above the collapse zone in the North Tower?
Tony Szamboti Wrote:12 floors did not immediately fall onto one floor. Jeffrey is talking about floors assemblies falling onto each other when he usues the term ROOSD (runaway outside office space destruction).
Funny that's what I see in the video.
Once again, you have an annoying tendency to not answer the point. You said it would take 5 storeys of falling mass to break the static resistance of the structure below. I pointed-out that the video clearly shows the 12 storeys of the top section falling into the building below. Sorry, but when I view the video I see a 12 storey section immediately falling into the top floor of the building below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fg1jmr3n6w
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Lauren Johnson - 11-08-2013
Quote:Once again, you have an annoying tendency to not answer the point. You said it would take 5 storeys of falling mass to break the static resistance of the structure below. I pointed-out that the video clearly shows the 12 storeys of the top section falling into the building below. Sorry, but when I view the video I see a 12 storey section immediately falling into the top floor of the building below:
Albert, calm yourself. Tony gave the number 5 based on my thought experiment of n number of floors of core support instantly vanishing. By the way, what are your credentials in this area again?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 11-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:[
Tony, you said the initiation of a ROOSD would require five floors of core columns and their support structure to vanish to provide the sufficient force. I believe Jeffrey, said it would require only one floor.
That is helpful.
If I read it correctly Tony said it would take the mass of a 5 storey section to break the static resistance of the intact building below it. What static resistance means is simply the structural strength of the building below in its total state or stasis. When I pointed-out to him that a 12 storey section clearly fell on the rest of the building in the North Tower he failed to give a straight answer.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 11-08-2013
[quote=Lauren Johnson][QUOTE]
Tony, you said the initiation of a ROOSD would require five floors of core columns and their support structure to vanish to provide the sufficient force. I believe Jeffrey, said it would require only one floor.
[/QUOTE]
I said that a twin tower floor could support perhaps an additional one or two floors applied as a static load. I think as a dynmic load the applied forced could be 10x or more than a static load and so this may be able to fracture the floor this came down on and kick off the ROOSD process or prgressive unstopppable floor collapse.
Albert's point is that the move of the antenna strongly suggests that the entire core area may have come undone and the ALL the floors bove 98 were free and falling... inside the facade and the 12 story facade was pulled downward by those 12 floors as rhey came free from the core and were plunging down. Unfortunately we can see inside past the facade and have to use the movements telegraphed through it and to it. There defintely was subtle movement of the top which suggests the frame was under extreme stress and experiencing individual and aggregate column strength loss before the visible release and downward motion of the facade and the flash over and expulsion of material.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jan Klimkowski - 11-08-2013
Charles Drago Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Jan Klimkowski Wrote:At its most fundamental level, Gladio is not about right-wing or left-wing politics.
Gladio, and its successor operations, are about Power and Control.
And I will assert that "power and control" are the currency of the right.
Or what one could say most people would call "the right", so your statement is accurate in that respect.
The very foundation of this argument -- that there are significant distinctions between the ideologies we define as politically "Right" and "Left" -- is the fatal flaw in it.
"Right or Left" -- a false choice of sinister design and application.
Precisely.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 11-08-2013
Jan could you elaborate on this statement... I am honestly confused as I see the positions and world views (common wisdom) of the right and left to be polar opposites.
While the views people who embrace these ways of seeing the world are opposite and very different, they may emply the same tactics and strategies to advance their agenda toward acheiving their goal. So we see the use of force as a means of struggle emplyed by both the right and the left... in that the two opposites are similiar.
However, the implication of your statement (to me) is that the difference between the left and the right is of no signifance and it's simply a different name... and ultimately a distraction and a way to divide people.
I am not opposed to seeing this differently, but a mere assertion is not a convincing argument.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jan Klimkowski - 11-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Jan could you elaborate on this statement... I am honestly confused as I see the positions and world views (common wisdom) of the right and left to be polar opposites.
Which means you've bought a ticket for the stalls and are happy to suspend disbelief in uncritical fashion.
Check my signature.
In America, the nature of this theatre is even more brazen than in Europe. You still have the false and manufactured dichotomy of the Republican and Democratic parties.....
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 11-08-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Which means you've bought a ticket for the stalls and are happy to suspend disbelief in uncritical fashion.
Check my signature.
In America, the nature of this theatre is even more brazen than in Europe. You still have the false and manufactured dichotomy of the Republican and Democratic parties.....
Jan, kindly answer the question and don't be cryptic. I am well aware the the repubicans and democrats in the USA represent corporations and are not anything like a left and a right in the traditional sense.
This goes back to the Gladio issue where I said it was the right v left in Italy and several other countries in Europe. Gladio was a program of the RIGHT... decidedly not the left which was the victim of Gladio.
Do you disagree with this or not?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jan Klimkowski - 11-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Which means you've bought a ticket for the stalls and are happy to suspend disbelief in uncritical fashion.
Check my signature.
In America, the nature of this theatre is even more brazen than in Europe. You still have the false and manufactured dichotomy of the Republican and Democratic parties.....
Jan, kindly answer the question and don't be cryptic. I am well aware the the repubicans and democrats in the USA represent corporations and are not anything like a left and a right in the traditional sense.
Jeffrey - I'm not being cryptic, and I'm not going to spoonfeed you.
You've been a member of DPF since January 2011, but I see no development in your deep political analysis since the day you joined.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:This goes back to the Gladio issue where I said it was the right v left in Italy and several other countries in Europe. Gladio was a program of the RIGHT... decidedly not the left which was the victim of Gladio.
Do you disagree with this or not?
Yes, I totally disagree.
I've already answered this very explicitly.
Here you are again:
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:The Deep Politics Forum is named after Peter Dale Scott's work, and looks to develop and explore understanding of deep political structures.
Just as it is puerile to assert that a monolithic organisation such as the CIA or the Masons assassinated JFK, so it lacks rigour to state that Gladio was a "creation of the right".
In truth, Gladio was in no sense "a creation of the right". Gladio was a highly compartmentalised intelligence operation, with a deep and isolated cell structure, and a mission to create chaos: Strategia Della Tensione.
Gladio was opportunistic: it used and exploited groups originally created for other purposes, such as the "stay behind" structures.
The links between the controlling echelons of Gladio and Gehlen Org are shadowy but clear, provocative and dangerous.
Gladio false flag operations were typically atrocities, directed at the citizenry, to spread fear and terror.
At its most fundamental level, Gladio is not about right-wing or left-wing politics.
Gladio, and its successor operations, are about Power and Control.