Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

In Orwell we see the type of doublethink which allows one to not be influenced by his distrust of his government.

(will the veiled sister pray over the split infinitive)

Tony, in your 101 above you write:

Of course, Jeffrey simply says something along the lines he said to you here

I think you are neither familiar with the design nor understanding where the possible failures may have been. First, there were no columns which were melted or even heated hot enough to bend them. Heat weakens steel and if it weakens it below the service load it buckles and bends from BUCKLING not from plastic deformation. Second the failures in the frame were more likely the CONNECTIONS and they were not as strong as the sections themselves.

and I have asked him many times on other forums to explain how the rapid constant acceleration through the first story would be possible with heat weakening caused buckling of columns or the column connections breaking. He just goes into a "we can't see inside" mode and never tries to provide a technically plausible explanation. I have to believe that is because there isn't one, but that doesn't give him reason to pause and possibly re-evaluate his position. No, he keeps on repeating the same unsupported points about heat weakening being the cause. Bottom line is Jeffrey can't explain the details of the collapse in natural cause terms, but he will tell you he is sure it was a naturally caused event due to the effects of impact damage and fire with a poor design (he never explains the poor design either), and that those with the motive to take advantage of the event (the oil cabal with operatives like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld etc.) just waited for it to happen. Given the natural cause problems and the aftermath, that position is at the very least naïve in the most extreme sense, and all of the time Jeffrey seems to have to post long winded replies all over the Internet on this issue (he is on several 911 related forums) along with his problems with NYC CAN and AE911Truth make me wonder about his motives.

In Chomsky we see one insisting a conspiracy was impossible, and that it presupposes a marked departure by Kennedy.

We here in DPF understand that there was/is a conspiracy, and that Kennedy was a marked departure.

In my view Tony has cogently stated the impossibility of the official explanation, and the repeated denial of intentional agency in the collapse by the prolific poster.

Could we save bandwidth by, instead of saying some variation of "I don't see anyone making it happen" simply typing "ibid" or "see above" or "ditto."

And all this pasting entire posts simply to add a line or a paragraph--all the bytes over the Niagara in vain.

With Dallas we have a crossfire resulting from a conspiracy resulting in a coverup and an effective coup.

It put the security state in firm control, publicly, dramatically, inyourfacedly.

Now comes another "tragedy" and another "commission" and another "explanation" and the bodyguard is the ubiquitous Mr. Nothing-To-See-Here.

Not since the mimeograph has technology had such a smell, that perfume from the principal's office announcing another school fair with a goldfish toss.

Tony, you're on the verge of saying a contrived initiation regarding columnar collapse.

I suggest it's not so impossible.

Consider a replication of the 1978 midnight elevator shaft activity utilizing state of the art nanothermite and wireless detonators.

We have a loitering E4.

And molten steel.

Business is business.

JFK could not leave the Plaza. The towers could not remain standing.

The show (war) must go on.

Or we go to sleep to the lullaby of the Chomsky symphony of no conspiracy.

Fireman! Put out the fire on XYZ Forum! Stat!

Brass poles, black holes, and on to Damascus

It can't be stated much better than you do here. JFK could not leave the plaza alive and the towers could not remain standing.

Anyone who doesn't get it at this point is either a very confused soul or an intentional deluder. There is no in between because it really isn't all that hard to see what happened at this point. Seeing the collapse of WTC 7 and remembering one was told it fell due to fire is just like when one finally saw the previously suppressed Zapruder film and remembers they had been told John Kennedy was shot from the right rear. These were major league conspiracies in every sense of the word, which ultimately proved impossible to cover-up. But brute force politics and a good set of shill infiltrators, to keep the masses paralyzed, is all that seems necessary to get away with it if you have enough money and power.

The charges were most likely set in WTC 7 when Rudy Giuliani's OEM bunker on the 23rd floor was built as the AMEC company had access to the entire building for ventilation and back-up power. This is why Rudy insisted on putting his bunker there.

The charges in the towers would have been placed during the elevator renovation project occurring for eight months prior to Sept. 11, 2001. ACE Elevator was a front company with the towers being 90% of their business. It is hard to understand how they could ever beat out Otis Elevator for the maintenance contract and be considered competent enough to do the elevator renovation project. In 2011 the Empire State Building let a contract to Otis to do its elevator renovation on its 67 elevator system and they only considered three companies competent enough to bid on it (Otis, Schindler, and Thyssen-Krupp). The Twin Towers had 99 elevators each.