Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

Albert, Charles has can be a little cutting, no, wait ... Starting over. Charles, can stick the knife in, but not twist it too hard, Actually ....

Look Albert, I have been amazed and then appalled at your ability to behave as if you are structural engineer, or some such. I disagree with Jeffrey but I wouldn't dare to tell him he is incompetent, as you have with Tony. Your posts the last few days have been jaw dropping--and not in a good way.

I'm failing to see what point you are trying to make if you can't answer what I wrote in my last posts? If you can't answer that means the controlled demolition proponents can't back their claims.

I would say the way they back their claims is by selecting what they believe is evidence in support of them, ignoring any evidence which undermines them and often making ad hom insults at those who disagree.

I've long said the technical debate can only be had if the two sides stipulate to the same set of facts and include all observations.

However interpreting observations is key because one side sees X and attributes a CD to cause to it and the other side sees X and says it is a non CD cause.

Obviously no one is litterally seeing the frame members or joints/connections failing... but the tell tale signs of their failure.