Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

I would say that this is a rather gross overstatement of the facts.

Where has a reasonable inquiry be prevented in this thread? What I see is a thread that has seen some extensive and really powerful arguments presented.

That one person disagrees with the majority on this forum is, in the scheme of things, neither here nor there. Other members and other visitors have benefited from the debate itself and are able to silently reach their own conclusions.

The paralysis you speak of Tony, stems from the ruling elite itself. Let's apportion blame where it truly belongs - and avoid selecting a convenient goat to blame in their place.

JFK has been dead for 50 years and there still is a never ending debate. Unless or until the elite choose to come clean, and personally I don't see that ever happening, his death will constitute a never ending debate for decades to come. Think Pearl Harbour and start walking further backwards in time.

Ditto, I think, 911.

But at least, unlike the ruling elite, we don't have to leave bodies strewn beside the pathways we move along.

There is a world of difference between making a winning argument and the need to be seen to win an argument.

Charlie, thank you.

Your points about the ruling elite are not part of the discussion you started. You seemed to be pleading for Jeffrey's right to make his case and that his banging on with it, whether you agreed or not, did not bother you.

Detectives need to collect evidence and weigh the possibilities to investigate. As part of this process they need to dismiss impossibilities, or they would never solve a case. Jeffrey Orling's arguments were shown in detail to be impossibilities and needed to be dismissed. Once he was shown his views were impossible any continuing with them on his part would actually constitute an obstruction of justice.

I think your nonchalance and tolerance concerning people who continue to promote impossibilities in a criminal case is wrongheaded and actually dangerous. It is not the same as tolerance of religious differences, decorating differences, clothing and hair styles, even how one goes about their job, since one can arrive at solutions to problems a number of ways. Those differences can and should be tolerated among us, as they are not hurting anyone. Tolerating someone promoting known impossibilities in a criminal case is akin to tolerating lies about the case. That is harmful in the overall sense of justice being delayed or not served at all, by keeping things much more complex than they actually are and confusing to those trying to understand.