Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Quote:Somebody was being nice by just saying your diagrams and sketches were deeply flawed, as it is becoming apparent that they are really an attempt at a con job.

Actually, I said or meant to say his entire argument is deeply flawed after I had spent hours reading his stuff and looking at his diagrams. Not having credentials in the area I would not be qualified to say his diagrams en toto are deeply flawed.

However, I did zero in on his Top Down Cartoon because that one seemed to be central in explaining his ideas around a natural collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Recall I proposed a thought experiment in which the core columns were instantly removed from one floor of the building. I wanted to tease out what if anything would cause a cascading collapse. Your answers were central. You said that a such a collapse could happen if core columns from 5 floors would indeed cause such a collapse, but not just one. Tony's point is that something has to explain the downward measured acceleration of 5.1 m/sec^2. Slowly weakening columns from exposure to low heat fires just can't explain it. I catastrophic, cascading collapse without extra help can't happen.

That's the read of a non-engineer interpreting two conflicting POV from two different professionals. If fact, Jeffrey's argument just seems bizarre -- and those are stronger words than deeply flawed. I have written earlier that the building 7 collapse is the strongest evidence for CD and therefore CD in WTC 1 & 2. Now even without the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, there is still a strong argument for CD in WTC 1 & 2.

Tony Szamboti Wrote:Yes, thanks for the reminder that Jeffrey made it a point to approve of him in spite of the arcane, ridiculous, and in some cases, like your quote above, demonstrably impossible ramblings, we were treated to by Albert. Of course, this proves the point that Jeffrey has an unjustified bias, which can only be explained by his having an a priori agenda.

In the meantime, Jeffrey claims it is others at AE911Truth etc. who are not objective. I think it is a general technique of the trade called projecting, where the propagandist publicly claims their adversary is doing what the propagandist is actually guilty of, and in a sense beating their adversaries to the punch.

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Lauren,

I don't have the time to explain to you what you are clearly incapable of understanding. The top drop sketch sequence was a 1D sequence and was not intended to be represent exactly WHAT happened but suggest a possible sequence... depending of course on actual data inputs. There are no values in the diagrams. The drawing is simply a way to conceptualize what COULD have happened.

Any definitive explanation has to be linked to the actual obervations and data and the physics and engineering as it applies. I don't have that data nor the facility to do the math... and I make no pretense that I do. 911FF have produced the most reliable observations and data and the analysis to go along with it. Tony is making stuff up... and using some math to make it seem like it's a proof of something. He's fooled you but not most physicists and engineers.

There is a lot of garbage published... publishing garbage is not proof of anything.

The motion has been explained.. go read the explanations.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:IMO, many of you have fallen victim of a disinformation - distraction agent. You are playing his game here for 2.5 years - long before many of you even came to this forum. To my knowledge only one person on the planet will publicly acknowledge they 'buy into' his theory. He is spinning your wheels and wasting your time - trying to discredit you and your ideas...that is his purpose and perhaps his basis for a 'living'. J.O., what were your last commissions as an architect? - or are you now just an 'architect mirror of Colby from the EF? - and Sunsteinian cognitive dissonance agent?! This is all heat and NO light...as you can't get light when you don't have an honest opponent. I'll go on record as stating I do NOT believe even J.O. believes in his 'theory'. Sue me for slander.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:IMO, many of you have fallen victim of a disinformation - distraction agent. You are playing his game here for 2.5 years - long before many of you even came to this forum. To my knowledge only one person on the planet will publicly acknowledge they 'buy into' his theory. He is spinning your wheels and wasting your time - trying to discredit you and your ideas...that is his purpose and perhaps his basis for a 'living'. J.O., what were your last commissions as an architect? - or are you now just an 'architect mirror of Colby from the EF? - and Sunsteinian cognitive dissonance agent?! This is all heat and NO light...as you can't get light when you don't have an honest opponent. I'll go on record as stating I do NOT believe even J.O. believes in his 'theory' [which defies the evidence, the laws of Physics, logic [both common and in his 'field', reason he was removed from A&E4911Truth, and can find no other suitable and welcoming forum but here. If we don't accept or long suffer those who believe LHO was the lone assassin; I believe we should not accept nor long suffer those who think 9-11 did not have at its core Controlled Demolition. Sue me for slander, I'd welcome it.

J.O. doesn't just post his lone idea of how the towers came down. Every other post of how they came down he interjects/contradicts/confounds/doubts/questions. This entity has an agenda that coincides, IMO, with the official version and the 'officials' behind the 'curtain' of power.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey proposes the hat truss system distributes load into the vertical columns. My understanding is that the spandrals (sp?), the horizontal steel beams which tie the vertical columns into a kind of web surrounding the buildings, serve to distribute load in a very significant way. How would this load distribution system compare with that of the hat truss system?