Lauren Johnson Wrote: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 spandrels were on every story of the perimeter columns and there was a lot more steel there and the load is acting over a much shorter distance from perimeter column to perimeter column so the moment isn't nearly as high as it would be in trying to transfer core loads to the perimeter. Jeffrey is out to lunch on that one and shows his lack of understanding mechanics and stress analysis there. There is simply no chance the core gravity load could have been transferred to the perimeter through the hat truss.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:The spandrels were on every story of the perimeter columns and there was a lot more steel there and the load is acting over a much shorter distance from perimeter column to perimeter column so the moment isn't nearly as high as it would be in trying to transfer core loads to the perimeter. Jeffrey is out to lunch on that one and shows his lack of understanding mechanics and stress analysis there. There is simply no chance the core gravity load could have been transferred to the perimeter through the hat truss.
We know what you want to believe Tony.... but the movement of the building tells a different story.
Moments? What moments? Stops trying to confuse people with terms they don't understand and don't apply.
23-08-2013, 11:13 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2013, 02:30 AM by Tony Szamboti.)
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote:The spandrels were on every story of the perimeter columns and there was a lot more steel there and the load is acting over a much shorter distance from perimeter column to perimeter column so the moment isn't nearly as high as it would be in trying to transfer core loads to the perimeter. Jeffrey is out to lunch on that one and shows his lack of understanding mechanics and stress analysis there. There is simply no chance the core gravity load could have been transferred to the perimeter through the hat truss.
We know what you want to believe Tony.... but the movement of the building tells a different story,
Moments? What moments? Stops trying to confuse people with terms they don't understand and don't apply.
See my answer to Jeffrey after his massive post about his dealings with AE911truth. I deleted my reply here so it wouldn't be drowned out by the length of Jeffrey's post on this page.
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Mr. Orling. When and why did you join A&E4911Truth?
I don't know when I signed their petition... perhaps 08... they would know. I've removed my sig so I can't look it up. I decided since I am an architect and I wanted an investigation (and still do) and a proper explanation (still do) AE would be the place to go for it. I wasn't visiting their web site at that time. WBAI had a show on and mentioned a 9/11 event in Fall 09 organized by Sander Hicks (didn't know him) at the time. I think the conference was called We demand Transparency or something. I met Tony there at St Mark's church where the event was held. I took my wife. I listened to the presentations from Zwicker, Kissen, Russ Baker and others.. forget all of them. Talked personally several and Craig Ranke and got his DVD. Introduced myself to Gage who did his typical talk and mentioned I was a signer and gave him my card and he invited me to join his Thursday teleconf call. Wrote him a long letter about my doubts about the official story. He emailed me with the conf number details and I called in and listened to figure out how they conducted biz... being a virtual organization.... never worked in a virtual biz. He invited me to a strategy call or something... smaller and I raised a few organizational points and sent an email and was on the email list serve and presenting them with ideas to work more efficiently.
I gave them the Basecamp virtual office which Gage liked and asked me to teach the other group leaders. And told them they needed a mission statement and all sorts of things they were lacking. I helped write their mission statement. Gage liked the enthusiasm I showed and I was on each team call to introduce Basecamp etc. He went off to Asia but when he returned he had made me almost his right hand man... we talked daily. I planned or story boarded the 1000 press conference and the volunteers ran with it.
Why did you manage/maneuver to get VERY close to its director?
I didn't. He invited me to the group and I did what any volunteer does... and did what he asked well... And because I was an old architect... he liked that as opposed to the non architect/engineer volunteers who work there.
Why did you leave; or were asked to leave?
When the 1000 event was being organized... the volunteers wanted to do X, Y and Z...their vision... Not mine... there was normal difference of opinion. They perceived me as acting as if I was above them because I was RG's liaison. It was then that he asked me to join the board. I refused saying I was never on a board, had no experience and didn't want any responsibility. He was very persistent and I agreed. It was weird... virtual board meetings on a teleconference. Basecamp had a chat feature which could be used during all the calls...that proved handy. The volunteers thought I had risen too fast and something was fishy. I had also written a few articles on basecamp to get some technical discussions going. I wanted AE do undertake some FEA and so forth. The volunteers were merely marketing the blue print for truth and trying to get more presenters aside from Gage. The 1000 event was going to be a big PR coup... at least that was the idea.
Several volunteers organized and presented an ultimatum to Gage... get me off the board and remove me from AE. He and the board refused to accept... but told then to get back to work and no sabotage the press conference. The board offered to adopt a grievance procedure... and that was supposed to take place after the feb presser. I was told by the board to write the grievance procedure... which the board reviewed, edited and presented to the volunteers. They didn't accept it. They got Griffin involved who decided I was a Sunstein infiltrator and he told Gage that any airing dirty laundry sucks.... whether I was or wasn't..hardly matter get rig of him. Gage called me several times and almost begged me to resign from the board. I said .. why? I had not done anything wrong. Although he agreed he was between a rock and a hard place. They then had a vote and Deets blocked my ouster. Next they had a secret board meeting.. voted to change the by laws... proposed Kevin Ryan be another board member. We had the next board meeting and I voted to have KR on the board. The next order of business was to expel me from the board. Now with the new bylaws and KR they voted me off... and expelled me from the group. That is the short version.
Why not stay high in an organization of architects and building engineers and convince them and their followers of your 'unique' theory?
They are not interested in anything but promoting their CD theory. They don't do any research, nor even fun it. No interest in the FEA for example. No interest in any technical discussion. They are a PR organization and RG pays himself what amounts to 100K per year to run around doing his dog and pony shows. PERIOD. Their finances were a disgrace... I won't go into it. I don't care.
Why leave and wander among the unanointed?
I left and decided to do my own research and I was not interested in organization issues... like org charts and so forth. I had wanted to learn what happened. AE was not telling me. So I did what I could on my own... and discovered factual errors in their presentation... emailed Gage about it. They never corrected it.
Then I came up with the vertical avalanche concept... accidently found 911FF and was exposed to engineers and physicists who WERE trying to make sense from the public record. I was impressed. I read a lot there and began posting a few things. And I discovered the ROOSD idea which was pretty much what I had come up with. That felt good. I wrote to Gordon Ross...who has left the truth movement but had published a paper. I expressed my ideas and he wrote back and essentially agreed adding he left the truth movement because he was tired of the low level of the people in the movement he called them bakers and candlestick makers.He admitted he had made some errors.
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.
The following letter was not sent… but conveys the background at AE911T
I, Jeffrey Sandor Orling, submit herewith my response to allegations of misconduct related to my volunteer work with Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911T) beginning September 2009. It should be noted that in the absence of any written or orally conveyed code of conduct defining such matters as to what would be inappropriate topics for or language to use in AE911Truth discussions, judging behavior by a standard created or stated after the fact is inherently unfair and unjust.
This response is presented in the interest of justice and is the response to the following grievance complaints:
That I acted as a "covert agent" (spook), who joined AE911T for the purpose of disruption or destruction of the organization.
That my conduct and style is aggressive, grating, overbearing, non collegial and in summation I am difficult to work with and am not a team player.
Background
The conflict resolution process to which I am now being subjected, including the suspension of the privilege to volunteer my time, experience and ideas to the general team work environment and participate as a member of the board directors is an after-the-fact attempt at conflict resolution. Regardless of the basis for any complaints now formally lodged, there have been to date no defined policies about same, neither written nor conveyed orally to the team. It should be noted that I am being subjected to a grievance process concerning violations of rules which were never stated nor written.
Until this present case there has been no AE911T conflict resolution procedure in place for addressing matters of misconduct. In fact, the absence of such policies, practices and standards, in addition to the absence of grievance procedure or stated code conduct is what is at the root of the first charge of disruption. Without a mechanism to address a grievance it is as likely to grow as go away. Disruption or the perception of same can be self fulfilling.
The assertions of misconduct are:
That my actions over the last several months were intentionally provocative and went unchecked by myself, Richard and the board
That I wrote or said things which would seemingly obligate others to respond to on and off topic matters for the sole purpose of distraction
That I drew volunteers into debates into what was perceived as settled AE911T "law"
That I attempted to change key language and questioned the pillars of truth in the BFT message
That I insulted David Chandler (unspecified)
These assertions would require that the grievance panel view such matters in light of
What is acceptable conduct for AE911T staff?
What are permissible topics for discussion within AE911T?
What is within or outside the scope of the mission of AE911T?
What is the limit of free speech and how would this be applied to me as a volunteer or board member of AE911T?
A potential personal conduct issue might have been easily dealt with if the hiring/vetting practices of AE911T were properly established. As a volunteer organization the presumption is after an informal vetting process each new volunteer selects a team to contribute their skills. The present process absent stated or written standards is bound to produce some of the problems of conduct.
As a licensed architect in NY State (NY 015625 -1982) to hold a license the law states the license holder must:
"… be of good moral character as determined by the department.."[1]
Apparently since 1982 as there have been no complaints related to my moral character the verification by AE911Truth of my license was deemed sufficient to have my name and license on the petition and reflects that NYS found me to be of good moral character.
I was invited to the team as a volunteer by the Richard Gage after personal contact at his We Demand Transparency Conference in September 2009. Apparently Richard Gage correctly assumed that, as a senior architect, I would meet the basic (unstated) requirements to work as a volunteer for AE911T.
How it Began
My first exposure was to AE911T team members was on a conference call at the invitation of Richard after meeting him personally, exchanging business cards and writing him a long letter which contained about my views about what was at stake as a result of 9/11 attacks. (see attached letter 9.14.09)
On that conference call I was welcomed by Richard and the team and afterwards Sean Brizendine and Chris Sarns phoned me; Chris assured me that he was the resident expert on WTC 7 and Sean mentioned that AE911T needed intelligent committed and experienced people such as he perceived me to be to help the organization and hoped I would remain.
After a week or so and much confusion, I was supplied an AE911T.org email address and began to receive a flood of emails ranging over many topics. A fair number of those emails were discussions about 9/11 news in general. Many of these emails were discussions I had no interest in. Once on the team email list I could do nothing about the flood of email except read or not read and delete them. This took a lot of my time.
Next, I tried to learn when the conference calls took place, how AE911T business was done with email, what were the topics they worked on, and who was on the "teams". Tania Torres emailed me a spreadsheet which was the core team roster and included the conference call schedule. I took the initiative to organize it a bit and sent it to the volunteer team leader at the time (Mary Wilson) with some suggestions. I believe she adapted my format and began working with my suggestions. No indication on the spread sheet whatsoever about who the non core team volunteers were, what were their backgrounds or qualifications and so forth. I thought; what an unusual way to work collaboratively.
I continued to ask many questions (how else was I to learn?), in email, on conference calls and in a rather short time discovered (in my opinion) how disorganized AE911Truth was. My finding is not to diminish the fact that AE911T had established a solid "brand" , had accomplished much and was understood as the group which spoke for almost 1,000 architects and engineers on issues related to 9/11 though exclusively confined to the destruction of the 3 towers at the WTC. The image in my mind of what such an organization should be and what I observed in AE911T operations did not match. I was learning.
I asked: Is there a plan a business plan? Is there a mission statement other than the petition statement that I had signed? How were operation decisions made? How were policy decisions made? How was AE911T all funded? Was there a virtual office? No one provided all the answers to the above. The answers came from my observations and a few direct replies to my questions but what might best be described as osmosis. Richard apparently was "the decider" and the person who approved almost everything done at AE911T. Was he a leader or a micro manager? Was he guarding his power and hording the decision making? I learned there was a board.
I began to make some suggestions. How about a virtual office product called Basecamp? Or, how about a map where we could locate our petition signers, the A&Es, others, volunteers and so forth? How about a database I could use to locate some AE911T people to do some tabling at an upcoming D.C. 12/12 peace rally? When I did try to get some response from "the group" with this request I got no helpful information, so I wrote an email to the web team (if memory serves me) stating that whomever had set up the database and omitted the ZIP CODE field was incompetent. The omission of this field from the database was clearly a mistake (or oversight… but why wasn't anyone else concerned about glaring omission occurred? Perhaps they group did not reach out to petition signers). This field omission may not have been indicative of incompetence. And my words may have been a harsh, even insensitive characterization, but there was an element of truth to my statement. Why did it take me to notice this and report it? And why was my comment not reported immediately and I dressed down for this remark right after I made it?
One such transgression as that email is hardly a basis for either the claim of non collegiality, an unwillingness to work with the team or being disruptive. I handled this poorly and I certainly should have not made that comment. If I learn who was involved in this omission I will issue a formal apology to all associated with it.
Charge #1 Disruption & Spying
The first charge has no factual basis and is spurious. I have never acted on behalf of any person or organization as implied, nor have I done what is charged on my own initiative. There is no evidence to demonstrate this and it is speculation and has damaged my reputation.
At no time since joining AE911T as a volunteer in September 2009, did I have the intention to offend any team member or commit any wrongdoing. As the only person who can truly know my own intentions, I can declare that my intention at all times was to assist AE911T. For anyone else to assert that they know my intentions is illogical and has no basis in fact. This would be speculation.
On 24 January 2010, following a presentation of the idea for "About Us Team Volunteer Bios" on a conference call, post the following message to Basecamp, with the knowledge of and without objection by Richard Gage:
We would like to post narrative bios, not resumes, about each of our team members, volunteers and "staff". These biographical sketches can and should include the information which tells others who you are, your skills, your interests, your accomplishments, if you wish, about your family, your pets, your travels, even your favorite music or books and of course why you are working with AE911T. You should post a link/upload a photo(s) as well.
Use the comments feature below and begin your ABOUT US BIO with your name and write a few paragraphs
I was the only person who performed any maintenance on Basecamp and who was appointed by Richard Gage as the go-to guy for all things Basecamp, including training and orientation. Accordingly, I used my judgment, and also in consideration of my position as a member of the board with unspecified oversight duties for AE911T I did remove several comments posted by team members (of the Reformer Team) in early February 2010. I believe that the removed posts were off topic, and served no purpose than to embarrass, distract and disrupt others from doing their work, and were nothing but mean spirited. The removal of these comments was not to curtail free speech, but it was intended to discourage ad hominen and insulting comments directed at others (including but not limited to me). I suspect type of "moderation" should and will become an stated policy a zero tolerance for insulting and ad hominem attacks.
I posted to Basecamp the following explanation for my removal of a few comments on the About Us discussion:
Thank you for your comment Debora. I support free speech as much as you and I do not abide slander of ad hominem attacks on colleagues. As an administrator of Basecamp, as long as I hold this permission level I will remove any posts which I deem offensive and make no contribution of substance.
If you would like to comment on the About Us concept, or add something about you, please feel free to exercise your free speech rights.
It remains my belief that the type of insulting and insinuating messages posted to this discussion on Basecamp (by A Dreger, L Burik and D Blake) in the discussion cited are inappropriate and never should have been permitted in the first place. This is not a free speech issue, but one of decorum and collegiality.
The aspect of the misconduct case I am responding to herein should serve as an example what happens in the absence of establish procedures and guidelines, or in this case, rules of personal conduct, on conference calls, in email and on basecamp or any form of communication between staff.
My *moderation action* was to remove offensive comments and in direct response to the growing mob-like activity of the Reformer Team's inappropriate conduct which was spiraling out of control. As many as 10 persons had administrative permissions at the time. I choose to exercise them.
In this example, one might ask what was the more disruptive behavior and what was the cause of it?
Charge #2 Inappropriate Personal Style & Misconduct
It is hard for me to evaluate my own style on the many calls I have participated on. I am more longwinded and assertive then some and less than others. I suppose one would have to consider my content as well as my style. But it is understood that if the style is unacceptable the content will never get a fair hearing.
The fact is that many of my ideas and suggestions were adopted, from Basecamp to consolidating the conference call reminders into a single email, to a protocol for naming files, to a simple procedure for introducing a proposal for a project, to the basic scenario for the 1000 press conference, to creating an Org Chart to try to help us understand what we are doing, to the 1000 logo and other Basecamp "work arounds" etc. seems to be the basis for the claim that I was aggressive and usurping power.
A. Basecamp - Perceived as a Problem not a Solution
I was clearly associated with the idea of adapting Basecamp as a virtual collaborative work environment. I did not invent the concept but I recognized the utility of the virtual office concept. Sharepoint has been proposed by others before my time at AE911Truth who recognized a similar need, but this product had been a failure with this group. Perhaps it was the wrong product, but the right idea.
My proposed plan was that we could use Basecamp in a free trial period and decide if it was a worthwhile cost/benefit. It was proposed that volunteers would provide evaluations of the product during the free trial period. This required that they actually use it. Richard agreed to this approach and appointed me as the go-to guy for Basecamp. I was expected to set it up and train volunteers. The idea was that some of the time on each team conference call would be used for Basecamp training, by me. This was perceived by others as my engineering a change of culture and evidence that I had been given a special status with undeserved and increased power.
There were few volunteers who gave Basecamp a try, with the exception of the Verifications Team, led by Dave Carrig and the Writing Team led by Dwain Deets. It should be noted that Dwain made several attempts to shoehorn the product into something which would work better for AE911T. None of the other volunteers or team leaders showed interest in the product or offered an evaluation. Over time the Translation Team, the Presenter Team and other teams began to use Basecamp with measurable good results. I set up several categories as general catch-all topics under the Project AE911T which contained:
I then populated Basecamp and many of the above projects/categories with articles in the attempt to stimulate discussion, provide examples of how to use the product and provide a forum to discuss and present items which were non Team Specific.
It should be noted that the web team began working on planning a Joomla based virtual office. This was in response to the fact that Dwain, Gary, Justin, I and a few others noted obvious weaknesses and shortcomings in Basecamp. The web team decided to find or create a better mousetrap it was to be joomla and be integrated with the new joomla based web page.
I was not only appointed Basecamp trainer for the entire team, but was the person who started many discussions and articles including the About Us Team Volunteer Bios item which became part of the assertion that I was a spy trying to ferret out information about other team members.
I took the initiative to propose an alternate virtual office so others would learn how a virtual office environment would be a useful tool for AE911T. I still hold this belief and note that if people do not try the product, it can never be a success or demonstrate that this type of tool is something AE911T should adapt. The introduction of a virtual office can be seen as disruptive if there is resistance to fully embrace the concept. Without most people working in the virtual office it will be a failure and such a proposal will be seen as a tactic of disruption.
B. Assertion that BFT Evidence was Denied in email and on Basecamp
Perhaps the most outrageous claim was the conspiracy to oust me by the g9 (L Burik, D Blake, R Allen, C Sarns, D Chandler, A Dreger, M Marino, John Parulis) and then the Reformer Team (which added "outsiders" to the g9) based on the unfounded and mistaken notion that discussion of the AE911T's "evidence" was a tactic to undermine the Blueprint for Truth, replace it and effectively destroy AE911T's credibility and standing in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
The repeated false statements that I did not "believe in" controlled demolition, nano thermite and other statements was asserted as proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I was set on destroying the main pillars of the BFT so closely identified with AE911T.
This demand escalated to an ultimatum demanding my expulsion, despite the fact that I mentioned explosives in my 11/07 petition signing statement, my first letter to RG after meeting him personally, and repeated this many times on conference calls and in email.
I could not overturn with anything I wrote or said, the paranoid perception of the Reformer Team that I was a heretic. As evidence, I supposedly refused to even use the term - controlled demolition - and was set on confusing the message by proposing an alternative - engineered destruction - as a description of what happened to the 3 towers. Never mind that this was a more accurate and precise description and there was nothing "controlled" about the destruction of the Twin Towers this was proof that I was a plant, a spook and not to be trusted. WTC 7 looked like a CD because it fell down in its footprint from destruction of a 100' high lower section of the building. This was not the case for the Twin Towers, which were destroyed in a manner not seen in standard controlled demolition. In fact, all three were engineered destructions
C. Strategy Discussions Undermining AE911T by Trying to Change It.
Richard had scheduled a 2 hour conference call open to the entire team held each Thursday to engage in strategy discussions. The only evidence of strategy was that the purpose of the group was to achieve a new investigation into the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers.
The Petition Statement I signed:
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
The Mission Statement (produced after my arrival):
Dedication:
Our work at AE911T is dedicated to the victims, families and
all others throughout the world affected by the tragic events of
September 11, 2001 and its aftermath.
Mission Statement:
To research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence
relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center
skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent
investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.
Please note that these statements do not state that AE911T has proof beyond a reasonable doubt of anything and it might considered unwise to make such a statement as they go beyond what the petition signers have given the names to. A conclusive statement may be a powerful means to draw support from the public as it is perceived to come from "building professionals".
I deduced the AE911T strategy from both the mission and the petition statement. I considered the BFT a *work product* which was created to market the case for a new investigation and educate the public. It was a tactic and an effective one. The deduced mission of AE911T was:
1. Research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence
We had, as far as I could tell compiled probable cause evidence and were disseminated it. We were effectively gathering support from the public and the professions.
I see little of no evidence that AE911T has done any independent research or consulted with its A/E petition signers including detailing of how the pillars are related to architecture or engineering principles. N.B. that the BFT evidence is more physics and logic than specifically structural engineering and statics.
2. Call for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice
This is a self reference to the petition statement call for an investigation. I see no evidence of an articulated strategy to or even identification of tactics about getting an investigation of any kind, let alone a congressional one. I am aware of some discussion about the encouragement of independent initiatives such as letter writing to one's congressional representative.
I acknowledge the letters to NIST and the OIG and the participation by David Chandler by raising his question at the NIST press conference as direct efforts in support of a new investigation. I consider these effective advocacy and support more of the same. This sort of tactic can be in support of an "achieving a new investigation" strategy.
Gary Trujillo's main issue, which I supported and one I thought the "management" (those who create and approve of the organization's strategy) needed to consider was to define AE911T strategies which support its mission and petition statements.
A *strategic vision* would normally be part of the founding documents (there were none). The aforementioned strategy conference call was more of a tactics conference call related exclusively to message dissemination. I informed Gary on a number of occasions that he should back off on his strategic vision discussions on these conference calls and on Basecamp and draft his approach in a document submitted to Richard for presentation, if he supported it, to the board. I even suggested a Strategy Advisory Committee concept to him which might be considered at a future date.
Gary became the target of cruel and anti intellectual ridicule. I believe his intent was completely misread on this matter. He did make some mistakes, such as not signing the petition statement and then using the word amateur as a adjective in the wrong place. Smart people do dumb things. I believe he has acknowledged that these were wrong headed.
D. 1,000 Press Conference
I had proposed the theme and script for the 1,000 petition signer milestone on a strategy call on 24 December 2009, and again on 1 January 2010. On both those calls I noted that there was no hurry to set the date, but that we needed to establish a date and venue and then begin the actual planning. I posted my vision to Basecamp on 2 January 2010. I added a comment on implementation ideas a day later.[2] I laid out a decent proposal to work from. I am not an event planner. No one on the reformer team or the team added to that Basecamp discussion about the event.
I suggested that a local person be appointed to spearhead the project. Richard selected Mike Marino who accepted. At this point I was no longer especially active except in participating on a few conference calls and adding some opinions to the discussions. I cautioned against a lavish gala event which I thought was completely inappropriate.
Richard was supposed to schedule a date at the AIA and that decision was delayed and the venue fell through. Mike Marino, with visions of grandeur, then decided on his own to pick a 4 star hotel for the event. Richard drafted a schizophrenic sounding letter to the 14,000 on our email list asking for money and announcing Mike Marino's elaborate vision of a gala event. He sent the draft of this letter which was supposed to be sent to me and Debora Blake. I attempted to edit the letter but did not change the thrust of it. Debora Blake rightly noted that it was completely the wrong approach and Richard decided to hold off and reconsider the venue.
Mike Marino finally came up with the Marine's Memorial Hotel and I was asked to write the article for the newsletter that has been outlined by Dick Scar from the writing team who was away on vacation. I flushed out the article which went through several edits by others. It was collaboration at its best.
I was not deeply involved in the nuts and bolts of the press event. Richard responded to an email I had sent to him with a copy to the board about framing the event asking me to elaborate on my concept. I replied (see attached email) in an email to Richard. I was responding to his solicitation. I included Mike Marino's idea of inviting Jesse Ventura. My email does not direct anyone to do anything. It is begins:
Thank you for considering this approach. Here is how this might be done. Please ask the pros to weigh in on this as I am not a PR person.
I became aware of a discussion about the implementation of one of my ideas for the press conference: the scrolling video of the names of the 1000 petition signers (see the Basecamp post previously cited). I emailed a comment on my opinion of how I thought it should be done.
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Jeffrey Orling
to Gregg, Verification, webteam, Debora, Richard [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE] [/TD]
[TD] Feb 3 [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE] You don't need numbered lists.
You need a list of names and their professional titles and addresses (perhaps age??)
You need a scroll of their statements and/or a handout book of same
The following Debora Blake email was the response (emphasis mine):
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][IMG]file:///C:\Users\JEFFRE~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif[/IMG]Debora Blake
to Richard, me, Gregg, Verification, webteam, Richard [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE] [/TD]
[TD]Feb 3 [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
What reason do you give for just assuming we don't need a numbered list, Jeffery? Richard S and I are video professionals and we think the message will be more effective WITH a numbered list. Gregg has just shown support for the idea. Excuse me, but must you butt in everywhere from now on?
It would be great if we, as an organization, could stop blurring the lines. Yes, we function as a team. But when specialists are working hard to deliver a professional result with all their skills and savvy, it's really annoying to have extraneous individuals such as yoursemf chirping up with comments like that out of the blue, with no justification for them, nor professional experience to back them up.
Thank you.
Debora The above is precisely, in a nut shell, what I was facing and shows how I was not only insulted multiple times, but accused of interfering with something which was my own idea the scrolling petition signer list. And this was an email I was copied on. I can't even imagine what was said or written which I was not copied on.
Mitigating Considerations
In deciding my overall conduct with AE911T I would suggest that my other activities be considered as well. Some of my other contributions included volunteering to be the only architect from AE911T at the VA AIA convention after being with AE911T only a month or so. For being present at the VA AIA, I was accused of being a liar by Ralph Allen.
In an unofficial AE911T capacity I presented AE911T BFT material with Richard's express permission and knowledge at a NYC City Council presentation in support of the City Council introducing a motion to have the NYC City Council Investigation Committee take up the issue of 9/11. My work was quite well received on January 28[SUP]th[/SUP] as the pressure to oust me from AE911T was growing. I reported my experience in an email to Marian Galbraith the team leader for the Presenter Team and on a call to her team a week later. It was well received.
I am also a founding member of The NYC Citizens Committee for a Grand Jury Investigation in 2010 which is using the Misprision of Treason law to compel an investigation into 9/11. This approach was something that was then included in the proclamation made at the 1,000 Press Conference.
Final Thoughts
I firmly believe that the issues of the g9 should have been addressed when first noted by dealing with any specific grievance and putting them to bed when the first suspicion of misconduct or doubt of my intentions arose. Without addressing such matters in a timely manner disruption festered and morphed into the Reformer Team's irrational ultimatum.
The Reformer Team with the best of intentions went outside the group, which is in itself rather troubling conduct and got people involved who should have had the good sense to not become involved including but not limited to David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, Graeme MacQueen, Kevin Ryan all of which have had no direct contact with me except Graeme MacQueen, who I consider to be a friend. This was wrongheaded and put these people in a difficult position which led in some cases to their supporting unethical actions and further pressure AE911T to capitulate to an irrational ultimatum for expediency.
If these outside parties wanted to help and accepted the concerns of the Reformer Team, they should have suggested a rational process to review the Reformer Team claims, not simply support them and add their names to an internal matter they had no standing or "skin" in. Understandably they were concerned about the image of AE911Truth.
The revered outsiders did not suggest this sage approach and this was a sad moment for the entire 9/11 Truth movement in my belief and demonstrates that even giants of rational thinking, logic and ethics can be led to state conclusions without looking at all the evidence before reaching a conclusion on their own.
What should have been a highpoint in a test of truth and integrity became an over-the-top power struggle being fought over innuendo and trumped up charges which sought expedient solutions instead of just ones. The giants of the truth movement revealed something very telling things about this movement and their places of power within it.
Richard was given an ultimatum and his words supporting me meant nothing to his trusted staff and he found himself in a moral dilemma given a Hobson's choice where everyone ends up a loser. It was I, who proposed a win-win solution to find a face saving way out for all parties. This did not come to pass.
I suspect that Richard had perhaps told the g9 that he thought I had "style" problems (not specified by the way), and may have told them he thought my contributions were appreciated, and he did not believe (so he said to me) I was a spook. Richard was aware that the success of a key public relations effort being held hostage by people who claimed to support AE911T, but their irrational ultimatum was undermining it and they were blaming the entire matter on me. Richard's proposed solution was to get rid of what he perceived as the problem me and Gary: expedient but not a fair solution, nor an ethical one, and not the one the board had decided upon and one he agreed to.
This brings this entire matter to a consideration the notion of ethics[3] which should inform our conduct. This is of particular importance because AE911T has Truth in its name and demands a fair and open investigation as its mission.
Evidence that others observed a systemic failure by the founder(s) of AE911T was noted in the recent email on 10 February of Marian Galbraith which identified the roots of the problem systemic failure of the organization. Sooner or later AE911T would unravel because it was not properly founded and operated was her concern.
Would better vetting have determined I was not a spook or that I would not have sent an email with improper language as a manner of speech which was read as a threat to some stranger and made me unsuitable to work with AE911Truth? I don't think vetting would have barred me from becoming a volunteer. I am not perfect and would remind others that, "he who is without sin cast the first stone." Note that Marian uses the same word incompetence - in her recent email to Richard and the board. Will she face charges of misconduct?
What Does AE911T Do?
I have come to understand what AE911T is and what it isn't. It is largely a public relations operation which presents the Blueprint for Truth evidence, mostly by Richard Gage the founder in the attempt to gather petition signers and "spread the word". It also offers these presentations for download and sale from its website.
As far as I can tell AE911T does not do research, or exploit the technical expertise of its A/E petition signers. It only uses their licenses as a platform for credibility and to enable those who could begin a new investigation to accept AE911Truth's evidence message.
At this writing AE911T has not made any effort to bring the BFT or any other evidence to bear to induce the investigation it calls for. In a sense this is no different from any peace group calling for an end to war. Important to do, but simply waiting for the government to be inspired to do something about the public protest is not stopping war. The truth itself will not set you free, an action in or by the justice system will.
AE911T has brought pressure on NIST and the OIG in efforts to hold the government accountable to provide the investigation we deserve. These are good first steps and they have filed a FOIA to drill into and expose NIST's malfeasance.
Yes, I came to learn that I wanted a different AE911T than I found. I want one that develops A/E specific evidence which its petition signers would and could testify with/to in the new investigation we call for.
Yes, I wanted to work on strategies and tactics to get a new investigation lobbying congress for congressional investigation, grand jury investigation, NYC City Council investigation, federal Qui Tam (false claims act the "whistle blower" law), civil law suits, amicus curiae briefs etc. All of these and more are what I would like to see AE911T working on and towards. These are not my decision, these are my suggestions, my vision. I thought I had a right to make suggestions. Perhaps I don't.
Yes, preparing the evidence to a legal, not a court of public opinion standard, which would be admissible in a court or in a congressional testimony are things I would like to see this group do. For believing this, for articulating it, for inviting and encouraging others to discuss this and any evidence claimed I am labeled a disruptive force and a spook and forced to waste my time defending myself against these spurious charges, by people who apparently neither considered the above, nor, if they have, simply dismissed it as outside the mission of AE911T.
In my opinion this has exposed the blinders of many of the people who are associated with AE911T. It has shown me that smart people do and say dumb things without thinking (me included). This not the sort of environment I want to work in, or lend my passion to, let alone my experience to.
I have never founded a political/professional advocacy group until recently (and in that, I am only being asked to help). However, I would have sought advice of those who have and stood up a similar organization, created a clear plan, an operations model, a funding plan, and a vision on how it might achieve its stated goals.
Are There Any Villains in this Story?
In my opinion the greater wrongdoing has been committed by my accusers the g9 and the Reformer Team, by their baseless charges of spying and disruption, and their mean spirited and even slanderous comments distributed not only within this group but to people who have never met me, know anything about my character, work, or intentions.
What has happened is nothing short of a 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century witch hunt. And as if this was not bad enough, the founder, Richard Gage and the oversight board, appear to not have the moral clarity to see this and to have shut it down immediately. Instead they effectively joined in with this by issuing a useless (incorrectly worded) Resolution 1.
WHEREAS AE911T.org, in accordance with their mission statement seeks to "to research, compile and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice; and
WHEREAS, the official hypothesis of a fire induced collapse does not address that compiled scientific evidence, and
WHEREAS all compiled evidence to date, including but not limited to the extremely high temperatures necessary to create the iron microspheres, the eutectic steel found by FEMA, the free fall acceleration of WTC 7, the nano-thermite found in the dust, the eyewitness testimony by over 100 eyewitness of explosive sounds, the high speed expulsions of dust below the collapse wave, the energy necessary for the lateral ejection of steel, the pyroclastic flow of dust, as well as other direct and observable evidence.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that AE911T.org endorses a focus on the best hypothesis that integrates all known evidence for the destruction for the three world trade center towers which will address the events, and that best hypotheses put forth to date is that some form of explosive controlled demolition brought down the three towers.
This resolution was offered by Jon Cole, a board member as a means to bring the team together and remove the suspicion and doubt that anyone (me, a board member) was intending to dilute the message, or dispense with the BFT's pillars of evidence. I support the stated purpose of the resolution, but as I predicted it would have precisely the opposite results from what was intended. This prediction proved correct as the g9 morphed into the Reformer Team and attacked a week later with a renewed vengeance in their irrational ultimatum delivered to Richard Gage.
Who are the victims and who are the villains in this tale?
My Reasonable Suggestions
I produced many suggestions to escape the mess that AE911T was forced into. They included:
Richard categorically declare that such baseless claims were unacceptable. If they did not stop, he would remove those who continued to make false and insulting claims.
I proposed when presented by the g9 demands that he affirm his confidence in his own decisions to support me and my performance. If there were specific charges of misconduct they will be addressed fairly on a case by case basis.
I proposed and then wrote a Grievance Procedure for conflict resolution to resolve the issues in the Reformer Team's ultimatum. It gave the entire team standing in crafting a grievance procedure and of being selected to serve on a Grievance Committee. (the board rejected that idea)
I offered to tender my resignation from the board and the team in a reasonable time frame (by June 2010 or sooner) but not without due process related to the false claims that would allow mob rule to compel unethical activity of AE911T and the board.
AE911T should ask other volunteers to step in to fill the roles the Reformer Team refused to do by their walk out and make the 1000 press conference a success.
I supported and cooperated with the suspension under the same conditions of all who were party to the dispute, despite knowing that the charges against me did not merit suspension.
[COLOR=#006400]
Parenthetically I have observed only a few on the team who have shown an indication of having a moral center in regard to this matter, David Carrig, Sean Brizendine and Dwain Deets and each has done so differently. There may be others who have chosen to remain silent
My assertion of the right to protect my reputation should in no way diminish the work or reputation of AE911T. This is not ego. This is what justice looks like. This entire matter has been a very sad realization for me. And it should be a wake up call to Richard and the board and the other *giants* in the Truth Movement.
It's perhaps past time to re-found (or clearly define) AE911T and include the notion that it speaks for and with its A/E petition signers and includes specific engineering evidence related to the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers and of course honor the key word in its name Truth - and its mission to call for an open and honest investigation.
The instant case is one to put this credo to the test.
I rest my case.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey Sandor Orling Architect
N.B. If the grievance committee is to be made up entirely of this board with already 4 votes declared against me, as evidenced by the recent unsuccessful vote to remove me from the board, it will not be a fair process. Accordingly those who have previously voted to expel me from the board must, if the process is to be fair, recuse themselves from the grievance committee in the review of any complaints lodged against me.
ATTACHMENTS
14 September 2009
Richard Gage, AIA
Architect & Engineers for 911Truth
2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189
Berkeley, CA 94704-1517
Dear Richard,
I want to begin by once again thanking you for the yeoman's effort you have done to make the truth about 9.11 known. You have uncovered some of the lies that cuts through the cover story told to the American people and the world about the events of that fateful day. Debunking the supposed structural collapse resulting from fire of the 3 WTC towers will be irrefutable evidence that we were led to believe the wrong conspiracy theory and that the conspiracy was in fact much larger, more complex and more sinister. It also effectively makes the 9.11 commission nothing more than a perpetuation of a cover up and its members accessories to the crimes committed.
We live in a society absent accountability. Accountability is only possible if there is truth and consequences and that truth is valued. What has happened in America since the work of Edward Bernays in the early 20th century is that narratives can be created with the use of public relations and mass psychology. Those who understood that have given us a consumer economy of useless junk, a retreat from education and a return to mythology (religion and creationism) and led us to fight war after war when there was no rear threat to our nation. Dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan was nothing short of genocide.
We screamed about Halabjah where perhaps a few hundred Iraqis were gassed and then proceeded to invade and kill up to a million and displace 4 million and destroy the entire infrastructure of a nation because "Saddam Hussein was evil" or we needed to give them democracy. But it was all OK because Bechtel et al were given no bid contracts paid with our tax dollars to rebuild what our bombs had destroyed with no oversight or accountability again. We never learn.
While it is always important to fight for the truth, we need to consider the implications that this truth represents for our society. What would happen if the truth about 911 was to be made widely known the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? As Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men: You can't handle the truth'". I can. You can, but can America? Can we face what we have become?
I didn't remain for the last panel at the recent even at St. Mark's church 9.11 We Demand Transparency conference where this problem may have been discussed. But this is indeed a real problem of strategy if not tactics for the "Truth Movement". What will we as a nation do with the truth?
This movement is populated by many brilliant and dedicated investigators such as yourself, Prof. Stephen Jones, Dr. David Ray Griffen and many others who are busting the lies and standing up the truth, fact by irrefutable, undeniable fact. The sum total, if we ever get there will be "the whole truth" about 9.11. We probably won't get the whole truth, because people who engaged in criminal behavior are reasonably clever at covering their tracks, leading investigators down the wrong path and destroying evidence that connects them to their crimes. Covering up the crime is perhaps more important than committing the crime to the criminal.
And as we have seen, the covering up of this colossal crime has enlisted some of the most respected and revered member of society and government. They are now part of the
By all means do your best to get permission to make public the correspondence that addresses the nature of Orling.
In the meantime, everyone here who is not genetically predisposed to blessing their blood enemies with the benefit of the doubt should understand the recent manic posting of Orling for what it represents: desperate efforts to flood the system with confusing and otherwise impenetrable data as a means to diminish his critics' contributions, create the false impression of honest debate, and -- most significantly -- preemptively strike you before your information can be published.
This is not debate.
This is war.
Period.
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
24-08-2013, 02:28 AM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2013, 12:33 AM by Tony Szamboti.)
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:
Tony Szamboti Wrote:The spandrels were on every story of the perimeter columns and there was a lot more steel there and the load is acting over a much shorter distance from perimeter column to perimeter column so the moment isn't nearly as high as it would be in trying to transfer core loads to the perimeter. Jeffrey is out to lunch on that one and shows his lack of understanding mechanics and stress analysis there. There is simply no chance the core gravity load could have been transferred to the perimeter through the hat truss.
We know what you want to believe Tony.... but the movement of the building tells a different story.
Moments? What moments? Stops trying to confuse people with terms they don't understand and don't apply.
Jeffrey, when the core load is applied to one side of the hat truss over the arm of the A-frames that generates a bending moment in the A-frames which they could not take. They would fail as soon as that load was applied. The connection at the perimeter side could not take the shear load either.
bending moment = force x distance
and
bending stress in the A-frame = (bending moment x distance to neutral axis) / moment of inertia of A-frame
The 12 story upper section of the North Tower weighed about 73 million lbs. and the core load would have been about half of that at 36.5 million lbs.. So if we have 16 outrigger A-frames you are proposing that they could take 2,281,250 lbs each and the longer distance 60 foot span outriggers would have a moment of 2,281,250 lbs. x 60 feet = 136,875,000 ft-lbs. or 1,642,500,000 in-lbs. of torque applied to them trying to bend them. That is 1.6425 billion in-lbs. of torque in case you don't quite follow.
The maximum yield stress of the medium grade steel which would have been used is about 50,000 psi. Since bending stress = MC/I, lets see how deep a 2 foot wide solid rectangular beam would need to be to take the load you are saying the outriggers could take
50,000 psi = (1,642,500,000 in-lbs. x depth/2) / (1/12 x 24 x depth ^3) and we can get depth by itself as
50,000 psi = (1,642.500,00 in-lbs. x depth/2) /(2 x depth^3) = (821,250,000 x depth) / (2 x depth^3) = 410,625,000/depth^2 so
That is a 7.5 foot deep x 2 foot wide solid beam and you would need 16 of these to transfer the core load to the perimeter. The beams themselves would weigh nearly half a million lbs., and I didn't consider the self weight in the calculation. The A-frame outriggers were 3 stories tall (36 feet) but they were far from solid and were never meant for the kind of bending stress dumping the core on them would apply. Those outriggers could not take the bending you want to impose on them and in reality they failed before they ever transferred the core load to the perimeter, as we can see with the antenna coming down before the roofline. The roofline then came down because the core pulled the perimeter inward where it was falling at the 98th floor. Your theory doesn't explain why the perimeters would fail at the 98th floor either.
With a 4 inch thick web I-beam (which would be an enormously thick web) the depth would need to be 222 inches or 18.5 feet deep. A 3 inch thick web I-beam would need to be 256 inches or 21.3 feet deep to take the bending stress you want to put on them and that is just barely taking it with no margin. If you had a 1.5 margin the 4 inch web would need to be 272 inches or 22.67 feet deep and a 3 inch web with a 1.5 margin would need to be 314 inches or 26.17 feet deep. These are solid I-beams which the outriggers certainly were not. The outriggers could not have been able to take even half the stress imposed by the core load on them with their fulcrum at the perimeter. Additionally, these beams I am talking about would be full height or depth across the full span. The maximum stress would have been at the perimeter side and the A-frames tapered to about 2 foot deep beams at that point. The bending resistance is a function of the depth cubed so a 2 foot deep beam is about 64 times weaker in bending than an 8 foot deep beam. The outriggers were designed to transmit antenna wind loads out to the perimeter and would have worked fine in that capacity.
Just so others know, I explained this in detail to Jeffrey in an e-mail exchange a couple of years ago when he sent me his cartoons. He apparently doesn't understand or doesn't want to change what he has and is still trying to sell.
24-08-2013, 02:44 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2013, 03:00 AM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Tony Szamboti Wrote:\
Just so others know, I explained this in detail to Jeffrey in an e-mail exchange a couple of years ago when he sent me his cartoons. He apparently doesn't understand or doesn't want to change what he has and is still trying to sell.
No Tony you simply said I was wrong and it was a several months ago less than a year. Do I have to post the email. Stop lying and who cares what the "others" think... I know what you said and I don't want to stop to that level. Go find another engineer aside from your partner to say that the hat trusses couldn't transfer loads to the facade from the core.
There is no way an entire 36 foot length could fail at one time with beams framing into the columns at every story. There was very little damage to the 97th floor core columns also and little to the core overall in WTC 1.
The failure was not over three stories it was at the 98th floor and went across the building on that floor in a 250 millisecond time frame. In my opinion, it would be nothing short of magic if this was a natural event.
The hat truss was not capable of transferring the core loads to the perimeter as it was not three stories deep over to the perimeter, as I thought you were saying earlier, which it would have to be to transfer those kinds of loads. The outriggers were simply A-frames beyond the core.
I can certainly prove that the A-frame outriggers could not have transferred a 12 story core gravity load to the perimeter columns.
Just so others know, I explained this in detail to Jeffrey in an e-mail exchange a couple of years ago when he sent me his cartoons. He apparently doesn't understand or doesn't want to change what he has and is still trying to sell.
No Tony you simply said I was wrong and it was a several months ago less than a year. Do I have to post the email. Stop lying and who cares what the "others" think... I know what you said and I don't want to stop to that level. Go find another engineer aside from your partner to say that the hat trusses couldn't transfer loads to the facade from the core.
There is no way an entire 36 foot length could fail at one time with beams framing into the columns at every story. There was very little damage to the 97th floor core columns also and little to the core overall in WTC 1.
The failure was not over three stories it was at the 98th floor and went across the building on that floor in a 250 millisecond time frame. In my opinion, it would be nothing short of magic if this was a natural event.
The hat truss was not capable of transferring the core loads to the perimeter as it was not three stories deep over to the perimeter, as I thought you were saying earlier, which it would have to be to transfer those kinds of loads. The outriggers were simply A-frames beyond the core.
I can certainly prove that the A-frame outriggers could not have transferred a 12 story core gravity load to the perimeter columns.
Tony
I showed you quite a while ago, in a numerical way, just why the outriggers could not have transferred the core load to the perimeter. I do mention that I had done just that in this e-mail from Feb. 3, 2013 to you.
Jeffrey,
I had gotten what you were saying and understood it to be exactly what you depict in the cartoon.
Unfortunately, it could not have happened that way as the hat truss was incapable of transmitting the core's gravity load to the perimeter. I showed you why this was true with real numbers. The moment on the outriggers would have been enormous and broken their connections to the perimeter immediately.
Without even having seen any calculations you should think about what you are saying here. You are trying to say the four outrigger connections per wall could have successfully transmitted a load that then buckled 59 perimeter columns. It is a non-starter.
Tony
I can't find the actual numerical proof I gave you then, as it may have been on a forum and not in an e-mail. However, regardless of that, I showed you again right on this Forum here tonight. You need to stop saying the core load was transferred to the perimeter, as it could not have been. The only thing the core did to the perimeter was pull it inward lower down at the 98th floor, where the collapse initiated.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:\
I can't find the actual numerical proof I gave you then, but regardless I showed you again right on the Forum here tonight. You need to stop saying the core load was transferred to the perimeter, as it could not have been. The only thing the core did to the perimeter was pull it inward lower down at the 98th floor, where the collapse initiated.
You can't find it because you never sent it.... you just lied that you sent it to me.
Tony Szamboti Wrote:\
I can't find the actual numerical proof I gave you then, but regardless I showed you again right on the Forum here tonight. You need to stop saying the core load was transferred to the perimeter, as it could not have been. The only thing the core did to the perimeter was pull it inward lower down at the 98th floor, where the collapse initiated.
You can't find it because you never sent it.... you just lied that you sent it to me.
People make mistakes. They are forgiven.
Don't lie.
So why did I say in the Feb. 3, 2013 e-mail that I had already shown you numerically that the outriggers could not transfer the core load to the perimeter? Was I lying then too? Give me a break. I have shown you why what you are postulating could not be true at the very least once in the past and you argued in an incoherent way then just like now. I wouldn't doubt I showed you multiple times.
A sign of a shill is that they seem to have all the information that ever transpired on this subject at their fingertips. I also found it strange that every time you replied to my e-mails it was with a different e-mail, instead of keeping the same chain. Was that for future referencing?
![[Image: cleardot.gif]](https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif)