Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Albert Doyle]

There's no greater travesty than mocking a very credible analysis because you don't understand it and then attributing false claims of Sunstein op to it when that person is wrongfully restrained from defending themselves. I could defend what I wrote there, but alas some people find it easier to censor it and mock it. It is really quite credible, as were my dust blast analyses.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Somebody was being nice by just saying your diagrams and sketches were deeply flawed, as it is becoming apparent that they are really an attempt at a con job.

Actually, I said or meant to say his entire argument is deeply flawed after I had spent hours reading his stuff and looking at his diagrams. Not having credentials in the area I would not be qualified to say his diagrams en toto are deeply flawed.

However, I did zero in on his Top Down Cartoon because that one seemed to be central in explaining his ideas around a natural collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Recall I proposed a thought experiment in which the core columns were instantly removed from one floor of the building. I wanted to tease out what if anything would cause a cascading collapse. Your answers were central. You said that a such a collapse could happen if core columns from 5 floors would indeed cause such a collapse, but not just one. Tony's point is that something has to explain the downward measured acceleration of 5.1 m/sec^2. Slowly weakening columns from exposure to low heat fires just can't explain it. I catastrophic, cascading collapse without extra help can't happen.

That's the read of a non-engineer interpreting two conflicting POV from two different professionals. If fact, Jeffrey's argument just seems bizarre -- and those are stronger words than deeply flawed. I have written earlier that the building 7 collapse is the strongest evidence for CD and therefore CD in WTC 1 & 2. Now even without the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, there is still a strong argument for CD in WTC 1 & 2.

Lauren,

I don't have the time to explain to you what you are clearly incapable of understanding. The top drop sketch sequence was a 1D sequence and was not intended to be represent exactly WHAT happened but suggest a possible sequence... depending of course on actual data inputs. There are no values in the diagrams. The drawing is simply a way to conceptualize what COULD have happened.

Any definitive explanation has to be linked to the actual obervations and data and the physics and engineering as it applies. I don't have that data nor the facility to do the math... and I make no pretense that I do. 911FF have produced the most reliable observations and data and the analysis to go along with it. Tony is making stuff up... and using some math to make it seem like it's a proof of something. He's fooled you but not most physicists and engineers.

There is a lot of garbage published... publishing garbage is not proof of anything.

The motion has been explained.. go read the explanations.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Yes, thanks for the reminder that Jeffrey made it a point to approve of him in spite of the arcane, ridiculous, and in some cases, like your quote above, demonstrably impossible ramblings, we were treated to by Albert. Of course, this proves the point that Jeffrey has an unjustified bias, which can only be explained by his having an a priori agenda.

In the meantime, Jeffrey claims it is others at AE911Truth etc. who are not objective. I think it is a general technique of the trade called projecting, where the propagandist publicly claims their adversary is doing what the propagandist is actually guilty of, and in a sense beating their adversaries to the punch.

Tony,

Keep making the claims that I have an agenda, that I am an agent for some group sent to destroy the truth movement, that I work for the NWO or whomever you think is behind 9/11

AND YOU LOOK LIKE A PARANOID IDIOT

I don't think Paul Zarembka shares your belief. I count him as a personal friend. He has stayed in my home and he is a truther.

P[size=12]LEASE KEEP UP TH[size=12]E AD H[size=12]OMS[size=12].... [size=12]IT[size=12]'S WHAT PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY CAN'T ARGUE THE FACTS OR DEFEND THEI[size=12]R OWN STATEMENTS.

Y[size=12]OU ARE NOW JOINING THE R[size=12]ANKS OF FETZE[size=12]R. HE USE[size=12]S THE SAME TECHNIQUES.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[Tony Szamboti]

Lauren,

I don't have the time to explain to you what you are clearly incapable of understanding. The top drop sketch sequence was a 1D sequence and was not intended to be represent exactly WHAT happened but suggest a possible sequence... depending of course on actual data inputs. There are no values in the diagrams. The drawing is simply a way to conceptualize what COULD have happened.

Any definitive explanation has to be linked to the actual obervations and data and the physics and engineering as it applies. I don't have that data nor the facility to do the math... and I make no pretense that I do. 911FF have produced the most reliable observations and data and the analysis to go along with it. Tony is making stuff up... and using some math to make it seem like it's a proof of something. He's fooled you but not most physicists and engineers.

There is a lot of garbage published... publishing garbage is not proof of anything.

The motion has been explained.. go read the explanations.

So if I read this right Jeffrey is admitting that he doesn't have the data or the facility to do the math. But then he conversely insists I am making things up and that he can tell when somebody has it right. Sounds like unjustified bias to me.

[Lauren Johnson]

Jeffrey proposes the hat truss system distributes load into the vertical columns. My understanding is that the spandrals (sp?), the horizontal steel beams which tie the vertical columns into a kind of web surrounding the buildings, serve to distribute load in a very significant way. How would this load distribution system compare with that of the hat truss system?

[Peter Lemkin]

IMO, many of you have fallen victim of a disinformation - distraction agent. You are playing his game here, now ongoing for 2.5 years - long before many of you even came to this forum. To my knowledge only one person on the planet will publicly acknowledge they 'buy into' his theory. He is spinning your wheels and wasting your time - trying to discredit you and your ideas...that is his purpose and perhaps his basis for a 'raison d'etre'. J.O., what were your last commissions as an architect? - or are you now just an 'architectural 'chimera' of Colby from the EF? - and a Sunsteinian cognitive dissonance agent?! This is all heat and NO light...as you can't get light when you don't have an honest opponent. I'll go on record as stating I do NOT believe even J.O. believes in his 'theory' [which defies the evidence, the laws of Physics, logic [both common and in his 'field'], it was the reason he was removed from A&E4911Truth, and he can find no other suitable and welcoming forum, but here]. He once left for several months, but unfortunately, IMO, returned.

If we don't accept or long suffer those who believe LHO was the lone assassin; I believe we should not accept nor long suffer those who think 9-11 did not have, at its core, Controlled Demolition.

Sue me for slander or anything else, I'd welcome it.

J.O. doesn't just post his lone idea of how the towers came down. Every other post about how they came down, no matter how well documented he interjects/contradicts/confounds/doubts/questions.

This entity has an agenda that coincides, IMO, with the official version of 911, the cover-up and confusion of 9-11, and the 'officials' behind the 'Deep Political curtain' of power.

[Charles Drago]

IMO, many of you have fallen victim of a disinformation - distraction agent. You are playing his game here for 2.5 years - long before many of you even came to this forum. To my knowledge only one person on the planet will publicly acknowledge they 'buy into' his theory. He is spinning your wheels and wasting your time - trying to discredit you and your ideas...that is his purpose and perhaps his basis for a 'living'. J.O., what were your last commissions as an architect? - or are you now just an 'architect mirror of Colby from the EF? - and Sunsteinian cognitive dissonance agent?! This is all heat and NO light...as you can't get light when you don't have an honest opponent. I'll go on record as stating I do NOT believe even J.O. believes in his 'theory'. Sue me for slander.

Not so fast, Peter. Orling's frustrating inability to understand the basic precepts of deep politics just as likely may be attributable to debilitating neurological and/or psychological conditions as to deliberate hostile intent. Think of it this way: All of our efforts to explain deep politics to him may be comparable to trying to explain pink or oxblood to someone who can see only red.

And if you believe that, I've got some ocean view property at Uluru you might want to buy.

[Lauren Johnson]

IMO, many of you have fallen victim of a disinformation - distraction agent. You are playing his game here for 2.5 years - long before many of you even came to this forum. To my knowledge only one person on the planet will publicly acknowledge they 'buy into' his theory. He is spinning your wheels and wasting your time - trying to discredit you and your ideas...that is his purpose and perhaps his basis for a 'living'. J.O., what were your last commissions as an architect? - or are you now just an 'architect mirror of Colby from the EF? - and Sunsteinian cognitive dissonance agent?! This is all heat and NO light...as you can't get light when you don't have an honest opponent. I'll go on record as stating I do NOT believe even J.O. believes in his 'theory' [which defies the evidence, the laws of Physics, logic [both common and in his 'field', reason he was removed from A&E4911Truth, and can find no other suitable and welcoming forum but here. If we don't accept or long suffer those who believe LHO was the lone assassin; I believe we should not accept nor long suffer those who think 9-11 did not have at its core Controlled Demolition. Sue me for slander, I'd welcome it.

J.O. doesn't just post his lone idea of how the towers came down. Every other post of how they came down he interjects/contradicts/confounds/doubts/questions. This entity has an agenda that coincides, IMO, with the official version and the 'officials' behind the 'curtain' of power.

Peter, I have come to agree with you. In May of last year, I called out JO for being a disinfo and was smacked down by Jan Klimkowski for not appreciating JO's presence as he has shared his expertese with us. Since that time, I have worked at having to be convinced that his credentials do not reflect an honestly held position. This long thread with Tony Szamboti's contributions have finally convinced me (rationally) that JO could not possibly be competent and honest. He may be competent but he is not honest. But if he is honest, then he is not competent. Either way, he should be placed on moderation.

Secondly, he has behaved in such a way consistent with a Sunsteinian disinfo agent. He has convinced no one here, as far as I can tell. He certainly has disabused me of the notion that he has any credibility. As much as I admire and respect Magda, her view that JO is engaged as an honest partner in discussion as an equal to TZ is no longer possible to believe. But then, some people believe the sun goes around the earth. Sorry Magda, you and presumably other mods, have been taken in. JO's continued posting privileges at DPF should be seen as an embarrassment.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Jeffrey proposes the hat truss system distributes load into the vertical columns. My understanding is that the spandrals (sp?), the horizontal steel beams which tie the vertical columns into a kind of web surrounding the buildings, serve to distribute load in a very significant way. How would this load distribution system compare with that of the hat truss system?

The twin tower walls were vierendeel trusses... almost like the entire side was a single plate made up of the 10'x36 panels. The weakest link here was the connections themselves.. the bolts used to connect one panel columns and spandrels to the other.

The hat truss was a multi story structure which spanned the entire footprint and all the core columns were integrated into this structrure. Think of the core as the trunk... the hat truss as the branch system... almost.

The hat truss was designed to support the massive antenna which put a 360 ton concentrated load on 3 of the smallest core columns. So the hat truss spread the load to the rest of the core and even some of the facade since it was the entire foot print in plan. It also acted like an end plate for the tube structure of the facade and the entire top 3 floors where NOT framed with the lightweight open web trusses by very heavy steel beams as all the mech floors were. So the entire top 3 floors were a rather massive steel frame with many disagonal members providing rigidity like a truss bridge structure but in 3 dimensions.

When the core columns at floors 93-5 lost their ability to carry load the columns above would be hangin (in tension) from the hatt truss. This meant that instead of the loads bearning DOWN.. they were being HUNG from the hat truss. This meant that those loads had to find (and did for a while) alternate load paths to bedrock... through the remaining columns... some core and some facade. As the core columns "dropped out* of the support *game* more and more load was transferred to remaining columns. When the hat truss could no carry the loads the core columns broke free and all hell broke loose... the facade was pulled downward... and it was translated

THERE WERE NO COLUMN TO COLUMN COLLISIONS... the entire top was rotated and distorted at that instant...the entire upper fls had broken free INSIDE the dropping facade and were what became the initiating ROOSD mass.

[Peter Lemkin]

Mr. Orling. When and why did you join A&E4911Truth? Why did you manage/maneuver to get VERY close to its director? Why did you leave; or were asked to leave? Why not stay high in an organization of architects and building engineers and convince them and their followers of your 'unique' theory?! Why leave and wander among the unanointed?!

In answering, let me in all fairness and full disclosure tell you that long ago [nearly 3 years ago], I emailed to the very TOP people at A&E4911Truth asking very pointed questions about you - and have those email responses still!

While I do not yet have permission to post them, after/if you answer [although I suspect you will evade answering], I will ask them for permission to post them here.

Enough is enough - no, too much!

Your zipper is open to question, and IMO VERY suspect as to its ultimate/ulterior motive.