+- 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 - Tony Szamboti - 21-09-2013
David Guyatt Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:Can you please provide the following
- where the evidence is for the necessary 650 deg. C (1,202 deg. F) steel temperatures to cause the core column axial load strength to fall under their service load.
- where the lateral load necessary to translate the 12 story upper section and cause the columns to miss each other, the way you claim, would have come from.
so we can see how you came to your conclusions. Again, they don't need to be your own and can even be estimates of some sort. Isn't it important to you that you are seen as being a rational person who would base their thinking on science?
Nope... find it for yourself.
I have no problem with my reputation. I don't hold myself out to be an expert on what happened at on 9/11. I don't publish papers and speak to conferences as if I know what I am talking about. That's what YOU do.
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. That's what YOU do.
I simply present my conception based on what I read and see. I am an armchair observer. I make not claim to be anything but. You claim to be an expert and know what happened (you don't and you aren't an expert).
I am not online to jump to your demands. You can learn from other sources as I have done. You don't want to. Not my problem. I am not here to educate you.
I am a rational person. It is you who are not and pretend to be and attempt to apparently convince others that you are a serious person. You don't give me that impression. It hasn't worked.
I actually don't agree with Jeffrey's thesis and have never done so - but am a lot less knowledgeable than he is on the subject anyway - but will defend to the death his right to argue his beliefs. He has done so politely and rationally ever since he has been a member here. That's what this forum is all about.
People disagree with him. Fine. That's as it should be.
But if we ever reach the stage when the need to argue (for the sake of "winning"?) grows bigger than the need to learn and inform - and we
become a place where contrary views and arguments are no longer acceptable, that is the day we have lost our raison d'être.
Unfortunately, Jeffrey Orling's arguments concerning the causes of the collapses of the three NYC high rise buildings on Sept. 11, 2001 are similar to the nonsensical claims of neuromuscular spasm and jet effect being the causes of John Kennedy's back and to the left head movement when he was assassinated while we were told he was shot from the right rear.
Jeffrey was proven wrong scientifically many times and just kept spouting the same nonsense. At some point that kind of thing needs to be called what it is..........propaganda.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - David Guyatt - 21-09-2013
I disagree Tony, that Jeffrey spouts propaganda.
He may say a lot of things that don't jibe with most other members thinking on this issue - and may be very stubborn in adhering to his viewpoint. But you'd have a hard case in proving he has been engaged in propaganda if he chose to sue you for defamation (even though I'm sure he wouldn't).
Care needs to be taken in charges made. Not just for legal reason either. But common decency and courtesy must play a part.
This is not a community where zealous passions prevail and frustrations are given vent, but a discussion forum where civility is asked for and expected.
I'd like to take this opportunity to refer members to our forum rules and decorum that can be found HERE.
Lastly, I would like to add that my above post was not directed at you Tony, or any other single poster either. In case the wrong impression was given (and my apologies if it was).
There is a bigger picture involved, I assure you.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Peter Lemkin - 21-09-2013
An open question to all. If, as I believe this Forum has decided, we don't long 'suffer' those who support [for whatever reason - benign naivete or non-benign motives] the official version of the WC - i.e. the official version of who shot and how JFK died; then why do we long suffer those who [for whatever reasons] support or appear to most on this Forum to support the official version of the events of 9-11-01? Must we wait another 38 years for that to be so here? It is an open question, and one I think needs some explication and discussion. Where one draws the 'line' will always be somewhat subjective, and the prerogative of the owners; but I hope we Plebs have some 'moral' sway. :
tampfeet::
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Magda Hassan - 21-09-2013
I suppose it is the same in the JFK area. Some think there was another team on the South Knoll. Others don't. Some think there were 2 bodies, 2 autopsies etc. Others don't. Some think there were 2 or more Zapruder films. Or one intact one tampered. Others don't go for that. None of them need support the 'official' story. But there are differences of opinion on what did and did not happen. Same with 911. Some think there were middle eastern hijackers in control of the planes. Others think the planes were remotely controlled. Some think the buildings were a controlled demolition. Others think it was a natural progression. Or that it was a controlled demolition on 7 and maybe not in the towers. Just because thee is no unified theory in these events does not mean the official version is accepted. Just that there are difference on what did and did not happen.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 21-09-2013
Magda Hassan Wrote:I suppose it is the same in the JFK area. Some think there was another team on the South Knoll. Others don't. Some think there were 2 bodies, 2 autopsies etc. Others don't. Some think there were 2 or more Zapruder films. Or one intact one tampered. Others don't go for that. None of them need support the 'official' story. But there are differences of opinion on what did and did not happen. Same with 911. Some think there were middle eastern hijackers in control of the planes. Others think the planes were remotely controlled. Some think the buildings were a controlled demolition. Others think it was a natural progression. Or that it was a controlled demolition on 7 and maybe not in the towers. Just because thee is no unified theory in these events does not mean the official version is accepted. Just that there are difference on what did and did not happen.
The suppression of the Zapruder film alone shows subterfuge in the JFK case. Taken together, the head motion to the back and left, the Parkland doctor's testament to a large hole in the right rear, and the back wound, show there was at least shooting coming from two directions and that there had to be more than one person involved.
In 2012 the drawings for WTC 7 were finally released due to an FOIA and scrutiny of them shows that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted structural features from their analysis in the area where the report says the collapse initiated. When these features are involved in the analysis the failures are not possible by a large margin. So there is obviously subterfuge occurring here also. The symmetric free fall acceleration for the first eight stories of WTC 7's fall is impossible in a natural collapse, as all of the potential energy is being converted to motion with none left over to crush and deform the building. Thus it is clear this building was brought down via controlled demolition. The next question involves when the charges were set, as it could not have been done on Sept. 11, 2001.
The complex points that you show that some bring up with the Kennedy assassination cloud the much simpler issue I mention above. In both cases there is clear subterfuge and an attempt to hide what actually occurred by officials responsible for explaining what happened. Why?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Charles Drago - 21-09-2013
Magda Hassan Wrote:I suppose it is the same in the JFK area. Some think there was another team on the South Knoll. Others don't. Some think there were 2 bodies, 2 autopsies etc. Others don't. Some think there were 2 or more Zapruder films. Or one intact one tampered. Others don't go for that. None of them need support the 'official' story. But there are differences of opinion on what did and did not happen. Same with 911. Some think there were middle eastern hijackers in control of the planes. Others think the planes were remotely controlled. Some think the buildings were a controlled demolition. Others think it was a natural progression. Or that it was a controlled demolition on 7 and maybe not in the towers. Just because thee is no unified theory in these events does not mean the official version is accepted. Just that there are difference on what did and did not happen.
Well argued, Magda.
As far as it goes.
But the devil is in the details.
Within the ostensible JFK research community we note the presence of agents provocateur who shout to the heavens their "belief" in conspiracy, only to attack the truth from within by, among other methods, espousing ludicrous theories (e.g. Masonic symbolism in wound locations; LBJ as "mastermind" of the conspiracy; Secret Service agents inept but none murderous in intent; etc.) and attempting to Balkanize researchers (e.g. the Oswald Innocence Project and its case officers).
Thus when you write, "Just that there are difference[s] on what did and did not happen," you make the grave mistake of assuming that all such differences of opinion within the research community are honest.
Are all JFK questions answered? Absolutely not.
Do far too many of those questions beg wholly naive and counterproductive yes/no or A/B answers? Absolutely.
Based on the complexity of an issue -- for example, Z-film alteration -- could those arguing apparently mutually exclusive conclusions both be right? Or wrong? Absolutely.
I don't know Orling other than by reputation and what he posts here. I don't have the training required to challenge his technical analyses and the conclusions that follow.
Other DPF posters do, however.
So how do I reach conclusions regarding Orling's mind and motives?
Simply by applying deep political analyses of his work here -- analyses that I am well qualified to conduct.
Here's the tipping point: Orling repeatedly assures us, directly and by implication, that his deep politics credentials are non-existent. Yet he continues to proffer analyses of a major deep political event.
What, he has asked more than once, does JFK have to do with 9-11?
What does JFK have to do with 9-11???
Feel free to respect Orling and to apply the benefit of the doubt to the workings of his mind.
Feel free to ignore indications of a Sunsteinian agenda (e.g. immediate, multiple, lengthy, seemingly prepared-in-advance responses to a single challenge, etc.) in his actions here.
Some of us shall do otherwise.
This war is fought on many, many fronts.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - David Guyatt - 21-09-2013
Peter Lemkin Wrote:An open question to all. If, as I believe this Forum has decided, we don't long 'suffer' those who support [for whatever reason - benign naivete or non-benign motives] the official version of the WC - i.e. the official version of who shot and how JFK died; then why do we long suffer those who [for whatever reasons] support or appear to most on this Forum to support the official version of the events of 9-11-01? Must we wait another 38 years for that to be so here? It is an open question, and one I think needs some explication and discussion. Where one draws the 'line' will always be somewhat subjective, and the prerogative of the owners; but I hope we Plebs have some 'moral' sway. :
It has always been the case - and always will be - that those trolls that we have identified have enjoyed only a short stay here as members.
The thing is Pete, that we need to always endeavour to share a degree of balance and reasonableness in what we do and how we present ourselves. We don't burn at the stake those who dare to have heretical and differing views, or who utterly disagree with us either. How could we? We are, by definition of our presence here, a community that are ourselves heretical and different to our very cores.
The great danger as I see it, is the possibility of becoming the unorthodox orthodoxy, and it is, I believe, something we must guard against. After all, history is dotted with case histories of those who began by opposing the reigning/political orthodox views of the world in which they lived, only later to become themselves the corrupted ones.
As you know, I could't care less about the JFK folder. For me it's too much ado altogether. I just can't get enthused about the subject. I know I'm in a minority. I'm much the same with 911. Having said all that, like most others here, I disagree with Jeffrey's position on 911. But I can live with him banging on about it. I don't get eristical about it.
Viva la difference I say. How turgid and boring this place would be, if we all agreed all the time. You'd become deaf in a very short time, listening to the swing doors banging shut together as everyone made their rapid exit.
And yes, god will strike me down for saying so, but even I sometimes favour the official view on certain matters. :
:
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 21-09-2013
David Guyatt Wrote:Peter Lemkin Wrote:An open question to all. If, as I believe this Forum has decided, we don't long 'suffer' those who support [for whatever reason - benign naivete or non-benign motives] the official version of the WC - i.e. the official version of who shot and how JFK died; then why do we long suffer those who [for whatever reasons] support or appear to most on this Forum to support the official version of the events of 9-11-01? Must we wait another 38 years for that to be so here? It is an open question, and one I think needs some explication and discussion. Where one draws the 'line' will always be somewhat subjective, and the prerogative of the owners; but I hope we Plebs have some 'moral' sway. :
It has always been the case - and always will be - that those trolls that we have identified have enjoyed only a short stay here as members.
The thing is Pete, that we need to always endeavour to share a degree of balance and reasonableness in what we do and how we present ourselves. We don't burn at the stake those who dare to have heretical and differing views, or who utterly disagree with us either. How could we? We are, by definition of our presence here, a community that are ourselves heretical and different to our very cores.
The great danger as I see it, is the possibility of becoming the unorthodox orthodoxy, and it is, I believe, something we must guard against. After all, history is dotted with case histories of those who began by opposing the reigning/political orthodox views of the world in which they lived, only later to become themselves the corrupted ones.
As you know, I could't care less about the JFK folder. For me it's too much ado altogether. I just can't get enthused about the subject. I know I'm in a minority. I'm much the same with 911. Having said all that, like most others here, I disagree with Jeffrey's position on 911. But I can live with him banging on about it. I don't get eristical about it.
Viva la difference I say. How turgid and boring this place would be, if we all agreed all the time. You'd become deaf in a very short time, listening to the swing doors banging shut together as everyone made their rapid exit.
And yes, god will strike me down for saying so, but even I sometimes favour the official view on certain matters. :
Video analysis showed that the space shuttle Challenger had leaks from its rocket boosters that were in contact with the large external fuel tank and it was clear and logical that this caused the fuel tank to explode. Video analysis showed that the space shuttle Columbia had foam insulation break off of the external fuel tank at 500 mph and impact the heat shield tiles under the wing. Testing then showed this would seriously impair the tiles and cause catastrophic problems on re-entry.
Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse. Jeffrey Orling implicitly argues against this as he supports the natural collapse theory. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jan Klimkowski - 21-09-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse. Jeffrey Orling implicitly argues against this as he supports the natural collapse theory. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.
This argument has power and integrity.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Charles Drago - 21-09-2013
David Guyatt Wrote:The great danger as I see it, is the possibility of becoming the unorthodox orthodoxy, and it is, I believe, something we must guard against. After all, history is dotted with case histories of those who began by opposing the reigning/political orthodox views of the world in which they lived, only later to become themselves the corrupted ones.
We are in complete AGREEMENT on this point.