Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Kevin Hall]

Jeffrey, you obviously have not found a cooperative audience here. In fact, you encounter opposition with your every opinion.
Why are you still here? Your message certainly isn't being received. Are you headstrong? Having fun antagonizing the natives? What?

Given your persistence is it truly a surprise to you that many think you are here on the clock?

If not, then surely you have better things to do, yes?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Jeffrey, you obviously have not found a cooperative audience here. In fact, you encounter opposition with your every opinion.
Why are you still here? Your message certainly isn't being received. Are you headstrong? Having fun antagonizing the natives? What?

Given your persistence is it truly a surprise to you that many think you are here on the clock?

If not, then surely you have better things to do, yes?

I explained in the past so I won't repeat how I cam to this forum. I get email notifications to the thread I comment and and when I see bullsh*t.. my BS meter alerts me and I feel compelled to call BS when I see it.. Wouldn't you?

Do you think it matters to me that this forum is populated by people who are essentially clueless about the technical issues of structure and physics and so forth and simply parrot BS they read somewhere else? And things they can't explain or defend... but they sure can repeat...


I was laboring under the assumption that intelligent people are open minded and actually can think independently and do their own research at times... or at least hold back opinions about matters they are unqualified in... and I am not referring to degrees and licenses and so forth... but qualified by the breath and depth of the understanding of the subject matter being discussed. Asking questions often is at the level of a child... or it could be a more sophisticated question too.

The only person I've observed with any amount of inquisitiveness is Lauren... The rest seems to be towing a common set of beliefs and accusing ME of being an agent...even paid to spread disinformation. That is so preposterous it should be embarrassing.

You can bring a horse to water but you can't make her think.

This can be a waste of time... I agree.

[Tracy Riddle]

As with the Kennedy assassination and the argument over the authenticity of the Zapruder film, we should all try to avoid staking out inflexible positions and then calling people who disagree with us disinformation agents. IMO.

[Kevin Hall]

Jeffrey, are you a disinformation agent? I have no idea if you are, but your actions here do arouse my curiosity.
Looking at it from your point of view, what does it really matter if the forum is nothing but BS published by know-nothings with closed minds?
Why contest it, what benefit is there to be gained if that is your belief? Most would put it in the rearview mirror and not look back.
Can you at least see how this might look suspicious?

[Lauren Johnson]

The only person I've observed with any amount of inquisitiveness is Lauren...

Jeffrey, my inquisitiveness comes from my 4 semesters of college calculus, 4 semesters of college physics, and I had started into the upper division of chemistry when I decided to switch majors to philosophy. Non of that is enough to even pretend to think like a structural engineer. But as I read your explanations, looked at your diagrams and sketches and read Tony's work side-by-side, I have become convinced that your work is deeply flawed. CD is still the best explanation.

[Jeffrey Orling]

The only person I've observed with any amount of inquisitiveness is Lauren...

Jeffrey, my inquisitiveness comes from my 4 semesters of college calculus, 4 semesters of college physics, and I had started into the upper division of chemistry when I decided to switch majors to philosophy. Non of that is enough to even pretend to think like a structural engineer. But as I read your explanations, looked at your diagrams and sketches and read Tony's work side-by-side, I have become convinced that your work is deeply flawed. CD is still the best explanation.

deeply flawed?

What are the flaws in my diagrams? I'd like to correct them...

You do realize that Tony's papers have been roundly criticized... or in the common parlance debunked by all sorts of physicists and engineers... I posted links... Did you find the critiques deeply flawed too? What were their flaws?

I am sure they would like to correct their mistakes as well.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Jeffrey, are you a disinformation agent? I have no idea if you are, but your actions here do arouse my curiosity.
Looking at it from your point of view, what does it really matter if the forum is nothing but BS published by know-nothings with closed minds?
Why contest it, what benefit is there to be gained if that is your belief? Most would put it in the rearview mirror and not look back.
Can you at least see how this might look suspicious?

You don't know the history of my being on this board.... go to the bear pit and read the thread... Where did the towers go... and then you might understand.

If I had something better to do I wouldn't natter on the nets...

[Tony Szamboti]

I think what you should say is that some don't accept that any part of the collapse was natural. However, it is likely that while much of the destruction, after the initiation and first several floors, could have been due to gravity, the corners of the perimeters were very likely separated with some form of charges. You have not accepted this in the past but had no real argument against it and there is clear evidence of it with focused ejections running down the corner in close proximity. The corners would need to be artificially separated as they were stiff and could easily have slowed or stalled a collapse.

The reality may be that the collapse needed less help after it had progressed past the first several floors which were surely instigated artificially, since it is provable that there was no column involvement in resisting it.

The corners were no stiffer ie... the connections than were the sides.. all were the same.

I have not accepted that there was any destruction of the corners.. which would have had to occur every two stories. No evidence of that whatsoever.

The corners were no different and material was pushed out the window/openings... weaker than the columns... just like the side.

You are making stuff up and that won't fly.

You don't know what you are talking about if you don't think the corners were stiffer than the centers of the exterior walls. Don't you understand moment of inertia and what a gusset does?

[Phil Dragoo]

The official explanation does not explain; it conceals.

Of note is the observation of Tony Szamboti at 479

If I had to bet I would say it is a job. Only somebody in that situation would keep coming back saying the same things, after what they were saying had been shown to be extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, numerous times.

It is the same method of propaganda used to keep the JFK assassination under wraps by its perpetrators. Put enough theory twisters (obfuscators) out there to muddy things and make it real complex to keep newcomers away and those who have seen the acts for what they actually were from making any progress alerting their fellow citizens. From what I see the theory twister usually starts out paying their dues to gain acceptance by initially making it look like they are sympathetic with the view of those who say the investigations of the crimes were frauds and that the real perpetrators were allowed to get away with it. They then proceed to gradually torture everything anyone says that makes any sense towards showing the crimes for what they actually were. If successful the theory twister causes enough doubt to bring on paralysis and the mirage of divided opinion, giving politicians an out because they can then say there is no consensus and we will never know.

With a recent aside from Yesbut and Butwait


If I had something better to do I wouldn't natter on the nets...

We haven't had nattering since Nixon's Agnew lashed out at nabobs

The towers did not collapse from heat-weakened steel, but from charges placed in advance

Gee, is this let it happen, make it happen, or play with your food

The result was to execute the pre-existing Iraq invasion plan and access the world's heroin supply

The lever was the alleged terror attack

The fulcrum was the horrible, intentional sacrifice of three thousand initially, and countless to follow, and follow

Peter has many valid points; hardly rubbish

A commission which would not look for explosives--after an earlier one which would not look beyond the a priori lone gunman

And a war after that one, too

Natter, no, not here

[Tony Szamboti]

The only person I've observed with any amount of inquisitiveness is Lauren...

Jeffrey, my inquisitiveness comes from my 4 semesters of college calculus, 4 semesters of college physics, and I had started into the upper division of chemistry when I decided to switch majors to philosophy. Non of that is enough to even pretend to think like a structural engineer. But as I read your explanations, looked at your diagrams and sketches and read Tony's work side-by-side, I have become convinced that your work is deeply flawed. CD is still the best explanation.

deeply flawed?

What are the flaws in my diagrams? I'd like to correct them...

You do realize that Tony's papers have been roundly criticized... or in the common parlance debunked by all sorts of physicists and engineers... I posted links... Did you find the critiques deeply flawed too? What were their flaws?

I am sure they would like to correct their mistakes as well.

We have no idea if the people on the JREF and 911 Forums are actually physicists and engineers, like you want to say, as they are all anonymous. That means you can't know either. Regardless of what they are it is a joke that you would say they debunked my work and of course you provide no basis for that, just links to long winded nonsensical threads. No surprise there.

It is talk like this that truly exposes your unjustified bias Jeffrey (meaning you have an agenda) and when you behave like that, and try to fool people, you become deserving of ridicule. You have been told what the problems with your diagrams and sketches are and you haven't changed anything, so it is hard to take you seriously when you say you would like to correct them.