Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Charles Drago]

Always good to have an informed debate... but in the end one side is correct and the other is not.

This conclusion is anathema to deep political analysis.

A relevant example:

Q. Are the events of 9-11 herein under scrutiny accurately described by those making the LIHOP argument or the MIHOP argument?

A. Yes.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I am on my boat and so it's hard to do this now. I suspect one needs to understand what Tony attempts to prove and what are his premises. I think for starters he makes some assumptions about what did or did not happen.... and goes on from there. He ignores some evidence undermines his premises.

Bazant is not the issue and his work was theoretical not based on evidence or data from 9/11. The most reliable data is to be found at the 9/11freeforum by femr2, achimspok, Tom and the site admin OWE. Their data is ignored and so from my prespective TS's work is fantasy which tries to pass as rigorous analysis. It's essentially GIGO. Tony refuses to use the best data for the movement of the parts of the building.

[Tony Szamboti]

I am on my boat and so it'sn hard to do this now. I suspect one needs to understand what Tony attempts to prove and what are his premises. I think for starters he makes some assumptions about what did or happen.... and goes on from there. He ignores some evidence undermines his premises.

Bazant is not the issue and his work was theoretical not based on evidence of data from 9/11. The most reliable data is to be found at the 9/11freeforum by femr2, achimsopok, Tom and the site admin OWE. Their data is ignored and so from my prespective TS's work is fantasy which tries to pass as rigorous analysis. It's essentially GIGO. Tony refuses to use the best data for the movement of the parts of the building.

Zdenek Bazant's analysis has been proven invalid, and the NIST report had depended on it completely for vertical propagation. So there is now an incomplete section in their analysis. However, Jeffrey tells us there is no need to worry, implying Bazant was never important to NIST, and that we should just listen to him and the anonymous individuals he mentions. So in his mind there is no need for government reports and he is plenty satisfied with the word of anonymous posters and thinks the rest of us should be also.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Tony,
I made several criticisms about your conception of what happened. Others have provided a dose of reality with data derived from observations... observations you ignore or refuse to consider because they undermine your conception.

Who the eff cares about Bazan't theoretical model. We want real world. You make up another fantasy.

Those interested can read this page and decide for themselves.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p...ost9406464

We report you decide.

It was a perfect summer day.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,
I made several criticisms about your conception of what happened. Others have provided a does od reality with data derived from observations... observations you ignore or refuse to consider because they undermine your conception.

Who the eff cares about Bazan't theoretical model. We want real world. You make up another fantasy.

Those interested can read this page and decide for themselves.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p...ost9406464

We report you decide.

It was a perfect summer day.

It is telling that instead of explaining your assertions you link to a monstrous and inane 47 page thread that nobody would have time to read in full. I finally stopped posting on it as after a full month nobody on the JREF Forum has shown how the columns could not have been involved in the resistance to the collapse due to natural circumstances. Your motivation here is obviously to smear the paper and you have shown yourself to be nothing more than a bullshitter spreading nonsense and hoping people won't have the time to look into it themselves.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Tony,

I agree the thread is long and lots of junk and repetition. I linked to the last page of the thread because someone here asked me to explain the points. This forum is not a technical one. And I came here a few years ago when invited by a member who has since left to provide a some technical insights to the discussion. My first participation was in the Where did the Towers Go thread of Jim Fetzer who I feel, and many here feel is a loose canon. I think he's been tossed off this site but for other reasons. That thread was enormously long and degenerated into all manner of ad hominen attacks. But there is some interesting discussion there. The thread was closed and dropped in the bear pit.

Most of the 9/11 threads here consist of people reposting articles or parts of them found on other sites. There is litttle to no dissection of the content or discussion. I sometimes add a brief comment but the threads do not evolve to show any understanding on the topic. You either are expected to accept the author's views on face value or not. Authors don't show up to discuss, debate or defend their work. You're a first!

Lauren Johnson apparently tried to make sense of the new paper and wandered off to the JREF thread where it was supposedly being discussed. JREF is a hard pill to swallow and one can easily miss the forest for the trees. She gave up as I assume most lay persons would.

The last page I linked to of the thread where you indicated that you were withdrawing from the discussion has some summaries of the main critical points of the paper.

I find that your data and observations of the movements which are key to your thesis have been shown to be in error. You have not refuted this.

I find that showing Bazant was wrong as conventional wisdom for the collapse of the twin towers was irrelevant. It's a strawman argument and your opponents in the debate do not hold Bazant's position to be valid. It was a theoretical model not representative of the WTC.

I find you've made a series of assumptions about what happened leading to collapse which are just that... your assumptions... and there is no way to prove them. Your arguments rest upon them and they also have fallen because of them.

You have no evidence that 24 core columns were destroyed by some device.

You haven't demonstrated proof of your assertion that the facade was pulled in as a result of the destruction of the 24 columns of the core.

The safety factor of the facade is irrelevant to the collapse. it could not carry the slabs as cantilevers because the angles seats would fail first if there was no core side support and you know this. In any case observation show that some of the facade went inside and some went outside as the top began to come down.

There are several criticisms which appear to me to be valid and you have not responded to several questions and criticisms. I don't care who published your paper or ideas or even if it was published. When placed under scrutiny it has not stood up.

To me this is a GIGO... you start with whatever assumptions you want and go from there. Does not produce accurate, reliable or true results. Judy Wood is a perfect example of this flawed approach.

One commentor sums it up:

"I doubt that will ever happen. Tony has been behaving like this as long as I can remember.

Fully recognised and fully agreed. My experiences of Tony's work go back to ~Nov 2007 and his MO or SOP hasn't changed viz:
1) Predetermined outcome of CD;
2) Makes some false assumptions defining the problem to bias the outcome his way;
3) Pads out the commentary with "engineering looking gobbledegook"
4) engages in some "tit-for-tat" banter over technical details;
5) Resorts to insults or ignore whenever confronted by reasoned accurate argument.

Hence my claim that I must be getting a lot right -- Tony has ignored most of my posts because nearly all of them were simple statements of "bleedingly obvious" facts which were fatal to his claim. Most times he hasn't even been game to insult me in case I repeated the fatal argument"

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

I agree the thread is long and lots of junk and repetition. I linked to the last page of the thread because someone here asked me to explain the points. This forum is not a technical one. And I came here a ferw years ago when invited by a member who has since left to provide shed technical on the discussion. My first participation was in the Where did the towers go thread of Jim Fetzer who I feel, and many her feel is a loose canon. I think he's been tossed off this site but for other reasons. That thread was enormously long and degenerated into all manner of ad hominen attacks. But there is some interesting discussion there. The thread was closed and dropped in the bear pit.

Most of the 9/11 threads here consist of people reposting articles or parts of them found on other sites. There is litttle to no dissection of the content or discussion. I sometimes add a brief comment but the threads do no evolve to she any understanding on the topic. You either are expected to accept the author's views on face value or not. Authors don't show up to discuss, debate or defend their work. You're a first!

Lauren Johnson apparently tried to make sense of the new paper and wandered of the the JREF thread where it was supposedly being discussed. JREF is a hard pill to swallow and one can easily miss the forest for the trees. She gave up as I assume most lay persons would.

The last page I linked to of the thread where you indicated that you were withdrawing from the discussion has some summaries of the main critical points of the paper.

I find that you're data and observations of the movement which are key to your thesis have been shown to be in error. You have not refuted this.

I find that showing Bazant was wrong as conventional wisdom for the collapse of the twin towers was irrelevant. It's a strawman argument and your opponents in the debate do not hold Bazant's position to be valid. It was a theoretical model not representative of the WTC.

I find you've made a series of assumptions about what happened leading to collapse which are just that... your assumptions... and there is no way to prove them. Your arguments rest upon them and they also have fallen because of them.

You have no evidence that 24 core columns were destroyed by some device.

You haven't demonstrated proof of your assertion that the facade was pulled in as a result of the destruction of the 24 columns of the core.

The safety factor of the facade is irrelevant to the collapse. it could not carry the slabs as cantilevers because the angles seats would fail first if there was no core side support and you know this. In any case observation show that some of the facade went inside and some went outside as the top began to come down.

There are several criticisms which appear to me to be valid and you have not responded to several questions and criticisms. I don't care who published your paper or ideas or even if it was published. When placed under scrutiny it has not stood up.

To me this is a GIGO... you start with whatever assumptions you want and go from there. Does not produce accurate, reliable or true results. Judy Wood is a perfect example of this flawed approach.

One commentor sums it up:

"I doubt that will ever happen. Tony has been behaving like this as long as I can remember.

Fully recognised and fully agreed. My experiences of Tony's work go back to ~Nov 2007 and his MO or SOP hasn't changed viz:
1) Predetermined outcome of CD;
2) Makes some false assumptions defining the problem to bias the outcome his way;
3) Pads out the commentary with "engineering looking gobbledegook"
4) engages in some "tit-for-tat" banter over technical details;
5) Resorts to insults or ignore whenever confronted by reasoned accurate argument.

Hence my claim that I must be getting a lot right -- Tony has ignored most of my posts because nearly all of them were simple statements of "bleedingly obvious" facts which were fatal to his claim. Most times he hasn't even been game to insult me in case I repeated the fatal argument"

The paper is about how the towers could not have failed and shows the progressive column failure claimed by Zdenek Bazant to be in error. You told the people here that the paper was debunked on the JREF Forum. That is not true. You now say it is irrelevant that Bazant has been shown to be invalid, yet you said the paper was debunked. So are you retracting your comment that the paper was debunked on the JREF Forum or are you going to continue your attempt to smear?

[Jeffrey Orling]

No I am not.

The term debunked was made popular by Griffin. I don't care for it though I have used it as a handy shorthand term.

I believe, as I stated that your assertions have not been demonstrated as true and have been shown to produce incorrect conclusions.

The towers did fall and there is not a shred of evidence that there was a CD. You think you can prove or have proven that the collapse was impossible without placed devices on 24 columns. You haven't succeeded.

My thinking about 9/11 collapses has evolved. I wanted explanations because we all were told how strong these towers were.... implication being they couldn't collapse. That turned out to be an myth. They came down because of the engineering design and the fact that they were assualted with fires which weakened them along with the mechanical destruction from the planes. I don't see anyone showing this was not possible... without making stuff up.

[Tony Szamboti]

No I am not.

The term debunked was made popular by Griffin. I don't care for it thought I have used it as a handy shorthand term.

I believe, as I stated that your assertions have not be demonstrated as true and have been shown to produce incorrect conclusions.

The towers did fall and there is not a shred of evidence that there was a CD. You think you can prove or have proven that the collapse was impossible without placed devices on 24 columns. You haven't succeeded.

My thinking about 9/11 collapses has evolved. I wanted explanations because we all were told how strong these towers were.... implication being they couldn't collapse. That turned out to be an myth. They came down because of the engineering design and the fact that they were assualted with fires which weakened them along with the mechanical destruction from the planes. I don't see anyone showing this was not possible... without making stuff up.

The paper proves the columns were not involved in resisting the collapse and that has not been debunked.

The 24 core columns being removed to initiate the collapse notion is not in the paper. It was part of a discussion on the JREF Forum where I was asked why I thought the columns were not involved and how I think the collapse was accomplished. So that has nothing to do with the paper and the fact that you continue to use it as though it does have something to do with the paper (although you haven't proven it could not have been the case) is an indication of your motives here.

I think it is your job to go around to various sites and smear anything that threatens the natural collapse hypothesis. The only other explanation for your behavior is extraordinary obtuseness mixed with a dislike for anything you don't want to believe regardless of its basis in reality.

[Jeffrey Orling]

.

I think it is your job to go around to various sites and smear anything that threatens the natural collapse hypothesis. The only other explanation for your behavior is extraordinary obtuseness mixed with a dislike for anything you don't want to believe regardless of its basis in reality.

Hell no, I don't have a job related to anything 9/11. I did volunteer my time to AE911T and so forth. But I did my own research and realized that they were peddling rubbish and so I share my thinking. You share yours. Bully bully.

I would like people to be enlightened enough to understand the matter and not act like mindless bots repeating what others tell them. Too easy.

Power to the sheeple.

No no... I have no interest in leading or publishing as some self declared expert... You do... but it's not changing minds. Not a one I would guess. But who knows. Keep trying. Fetzer has proved to be a fraud...

So many fakes and so little time.