Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

Mister Jeffrey

That sort of term shows what a childish person you are. You are finding new ways to discredit yourself as a serious person.

[Phil Dragoo]

Lacking is any initiator of the observed multifloor failure and drop.

At 562 Jeffrey responds

The drop and movement were the result of multiple forces and factors... beginning with the mechanical destruction of the columns by the plane impact, the fires which started from the air line fuel, and electrical shorts, office contents inlcuding plastic and other combustible substances, failure of the fire protection.

This is the official explanation of mechanical damage and heat weakening.

Now the explanation is apparently limited to column splices above 98 (above the impacted floors).

Sustained heat of 600 degrees Centigrade not seen. Limited impact below not shown to have removed columns, yet columns absent from observed drop.

Mechanical damage and heat weakening not adequate to support official explanation, nor account for sudden onset and rapid, unimpeded structural failure.

Twelve years of because-we-say-so argument-from-authority to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Tony Szamboti]

Lacking is any initiator of the observed multifloor failure and drop.

At 562 Jeffrey responds

The drop and movement were the result of multiple forces and factors... beginning with the mechanical destruction of the columns by the plane impact, the fires which started from the air line fuel, and electrical shorts, office contents inlcuding plastic and other combustible substances, failure of the fire protection.

This is the official explanation of mechanical damage and heat weakening.

Now the explanation is apparently limited to column splices above 98 (above the impacted floors).

Sustained heat of 600 degrees Centigrade not seen. Limited impact below not shown to have removed columns, yet columns absent from observed drop.

Mechanical damage and heat weakening not adequate to support official explanation, nor account for sudden onset and rapid, unimpeded structural failure.

Twelve years of because-we-say-so argument-from-authority to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is the explanation Jeffrey supports and says the rest of us should just accept, even though it has been shown to be seriously in error and literally impossible, while he also admits he doesn't have the ability to critique it scientifically. Interesting.

[Tony Szamboti]

Mister Jeffrey

That sort of term shows what a childish person you are. You are finding new ways to discredit yourself as a serious person.

You see, when somebody is being silly, like you are with your provably nonsensical claims about the Twin Tower and WTC 7 collapses, they deserve to be treated as such.

If you don't like it then stop acting silly.

[David Guyatt]

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.

[Magda Hassan]

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.

:::: ::bowtie::

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

[David Guyatt]

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.

[Peter Lemkin]

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::

[Magda Hassan]

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.