05-08-2013, 11:39 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2013, 02:17 AM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Tony,
I agree the thread is long and lots of junk and repetition. I linked to the last page of the thread because someone here asked me to explain the points. This forum is not a technical one. And I came here a few years ago when invited by a member who has since left to provide a some technical insights to the discussion. My first participation was in the Where did the Towers Go thread of Jim Fetzer who I feel, and many here feel is a loose canon. I think he's been tossed off this site but for other reasons. That thread was enormously long and degenerated into all manner of ad hominen attacks. But there is some interesting discussion there. The thread was closed and dropped in the bear pit.
Most of the 9/11 threads here consist of people reposting articles or parts of them found on other sites. There is litttle to no dissection of the content or discussion. I sometimes add a brief comment but the threads do not evolve to show any understanding on the topic. You either are expected to accept the author's views on face value or not. Authors don't show up to discuss, debate or defend their work. You're a first!
Lauren Johnson apparently tried to make sense of the new paper and wandered off to the JREF thread where it was supposedly being discussed. JREF is a hard pill to swallow and one can easily miss the forest for the trees. She gave up as I assume most lay persons would.
The last page I linked to of the thread where you indicated that you were withdrawing from the discussion has some summaries of the main critical points of the paper.
I find that your data and observations of the movements which are key to your thesis have been shown to be in error. You have not refuted this.
I find that showing Bazant was wrong as conventional wisdom for the collapse of the twin towers was irrelevant. It's a strawman argument and your opponents in the debate do not hold Bazant's position to be valid. It was a theoretical model not representative of the WTC.
I find you've made a series of assumptions about what happened leading to collapse which are just that... your assumptions... and there is no way to prove them. Your arguments rest upon them and they also have fallen because of them.
You have no evidence that 24 core columns were destroyed by some device.
You haven't demonstrated proof of your assertion that the facade was pulled in as a result of the destruction of the 24 columns of the core.
The safety factor of the facade is irrelevant to the collapse. it could not carry the slabs as cantilevers because the angles seats would fail first if there was no core side support and you know this. In any case observation show that some of the facade went inside and some went outside as the top began to come down.
There are several criticisms which appear to me to be valid and you have not responded to several questions and criticisms. I don't care who published your paper or ideas or even if it was published. When placed under scrutiny it has not stood up.
To me this is a GIGO... you start with whatever assumptions you want and go from there. Does not produce accurate, reliable or true results. Judy Wood is a perfect example of this flawed approach.
One commentor sums it up:
"I doubt that will ever happen. Tony has been behaving like this as long as I can remember.
Fully recognised and fully agreed. My experiences of Tony's work go back to ~Nov 2007 and his MO or SOP hasn't changed viz:
1) Predetermined outcome of CD;
2) Makes some false assumptions defining the problem to bias the outcome his way;
3) Pads out the commentary with "engineering looking gobbledegook"
4) engages in some "tit-for-tat" banter over technical details;
5) Resorts to insults or ignore whenever confronted by reasoned accurate argument.
Hence my claim that I must be getting a lot right -- Tony has ignored most of my posts because nearly all of them were simple statements of "bleedingly obvious" facts which were fatal to his claim. Most times he hasn't even been game to insult me in case I repeated the fatal argument"
I agree the thread is long and lots of junk and repetition. I linked to the last page of the thread because someone here asked me to explain the points. This forum is not a technical one. And I came here a few years ago when invited by a member who has since left to provide a some technical insights to the discussion. My first participation was in the Where did the Towers Go thread of Jim Fetzer who I feel, and many here feel is a loose canon. I think he's been tossed off this site but for other reasons. That thread was enormously long and degenerated into all manner of ad hominen attacks. But there is some interesting discussion there. The thread was closed and dropped in the bear pit.
Most of the 9/11 threads here consist of people reposting articles or parts of them found on other sites. There is litttle to no dissection of the content or discussion. I sometimes add a brief comment but the threads do not evolve to show any understanding on the topic. You either are expected to accept the author's views on face value or not. Authors don't show up to discuss, debate or defend their work. You're a first!
Lauren Johnson apparently tried to make sense of the new paper and wandered off to the JREF thread where it was supposedly being discussed. JREF is a hard pill to swallow and one can easily miss the forest for the trees. She gave up as I assume most lay persons would.
The last page I linked to of the thread where you indicated that you were withdrawing from the discussion has some summaries of the main critical points of the paper.
I find that your data and observations of the movements which are key to your thesis have been shown to be in error. You have not refuted this.
I find that showing Bazant was wrong as conventional wisdom for the collapse of the twin towers was irrelevant. It's a strawman argument and your opponents in the debate do not hold Bazant's position to be valid. It was a theoretical model not representative of the WTC.
I find you've made a series of assumptions about what happened leading to collapse which are just that... your assumptions... and there is no way to prove them. Your arguments rest upon them and they also have fallen because of them.
You have no evidence that 24 core columns were destroyed by some device.
You haven't demonstrated proof of your assertion that the facade was pulled in as a result of the destruction of the 24 columns of the core.
The safety factor of the facade is irrelevant to the collapse. it could not carry the slabs as cantilevers because the angles seats would fail first if there was no core side support and you know this. In any case observation show that some of the facade went inside and some went outside as the top began to come down.
There are several criticisms which appear to me to be valid and you have not responded to several questions and criticisms. I don't care who published your paper or ideas or even if it was published. When placed under scrutiny it has not stood up.
To me this is a GIGO... you start with whatever assumptions you want and go from there. Does not produce accurate, reliable or true results. Judy Wood is a perfect example of this flawed approach.
One commentor sums it up:
"I doubt that will ever happen. Tony has been behaving like this as long as I can remember.
Fully recognised and fully agreed. My experiences of Tony's work go back to ~Nov 2007 and his MO or SOP hasn't changed viz:
1) Predetermined outcome of CD;
2) Makes some false assumptions defining the problem to bias the outcome his way;
3) Pads out the commentary with "engineering looking gobbledegook"
4) engages in some "tit-for-tat" banter over technical details;
5) Resorts to insults or ignore whenever confronted by reasoned accurate argument.
Hence my claim that I must be getting a lot right -- Tony has ignored most of my posts because nearly all of them were simple statements of "bleedingly obvious" facts which were fatal to his claim. Most times he hasn't even been game to insult me in case I repeated the fatal argument"