Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Phil Dragoo]

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

(will the veiled sister pray over the split infinitive)

Tony, in your 101 above you write:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest it's not so impossible.

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

We have a loitering E4.

And molten steel.

Business is business.

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

The show (war) must go on.

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

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

Brass poles, black holes, and on to Damascus

[Jeffrey Orling]

I love the way Phil does his posts. Honestly I do.

[Lauren Johnson]

I love the way Phil does his posts. Honestly I do.

I loved this as much if not more than you, Mr. Jeffrey.

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

But now you have taken it to the point of some intentional agency without intentional agency. It's LIHOP without anyone deciding anything except for maybe the hive mind just knows what to decide except for when somebody decides to take advantage of what was never decided by anybody except by everyone. It was never an inside job but some insiders may have done something on purpose but who knows.

Perhaps some of the events of the day were MIHOP and others not.

BTW, your posts are the way disinfo's work. I continue to not find the manual how to be a disinfo; it gets posted here every once in a while.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Perhaps some of the events of the day were MIHOP and others not.

BTW, your posts are the way disinfo's work. I continue to not find the manual how to be a disinfo; it gets posted here every once in a while.

Lauren,

You really have to disabuse yourself of the idea that I am a dis info agent. I simply express what I think, what I have learned and so forth. It's really laughable because it is so absurd. You might claim that what I write amounts to information or idea which confuse. And that may be true. But there is no intent. I simply am expressing my viewpoint. And I have stated on any number of occasions that my thinking is constantly evolving... though my general political position is left.. decidedly anti fascist and anti capitalist. As far as the WTC collapses my own study leads me to believe that they could collapse as we saw without placed devices. They also could have been devices placed to do what I think the heat did. Why not? I simply do not see the evidence of these and so absent that I go with the heat being what weakened the structures.... the proxinate cause of the collapse... along with the mechanical damage from the planes in the cases of the twin towers. Seven was a very different design and it lost the strength at the bottom.

My posts are the way I think and the sloppy way I write. Take it or leave it.. but don't be a science denier.

[Lauren Johnson]

Perhaps some of the events of the day were MIHOP and others not.

BTW, your posts are the way disinfo's work. I continue to not find the manual how to be a disinfo; it gets posted here every once in a while.

Lauren,

You really have to disabuse yourself of the idea that I am a dis info agent. I simply express what I think, what I have learned and so forth. It's really laughable because it is so absurd. You might claim that what I write amounts to information or idea which confuse. And that may be true. But there is no intent. I simply am expressing my viewpoint. And I have stated on any number of occasions that my thinking is constantly evolving... though my general political position is left.. decidedly anti fascist and anti capitalist. As far as the WTC collapses my own study leads me to believe that they could collapse as we saw without placed devices. They also could have been devices placed to do what I think the heat did. Why not? I simply do not see the evidence of these and so absent that I go with the heat being what weakened the structures.... the proxinate cause of the collapse... along with the mechanical damage from the planes in the cases of the twin towers. Seven was a very different design and it lost the strength at the bottom.

My posts are the way I think and the sloppy way I write. Take it or leave it.. but don't be a science denier.

Jeffrey, I said you work like a disinfo, I did not say were one. A fair number of people think you are. But I have been trying to point out your shifting positions. You drop one and take up another sometimes in contradiction. Even now, you shift the subject from LIHOP/MIHOP to bldg 7 and then amazingly chide me for being a science denier.

My posts are the way I think and the sloppy way I write.

Of course, you might not be a disinfo. You might also just be a sloppy thinker. I don't expect to convince you of anything; I never have -- not once. No one has here at DPF.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Lauren,

Like is not is and so what I write or do may appear to like X, Y or Z but it be just a project and an illusion.

I dont know about the official rule book for dis info agents. I suppose the concept makes sense if one uses the anlogy of information overload and not all of it is worth a damn. If one is trying to make sure no one can figure something out sewing confusion would sure help.

I am not trying to do anything of the sort though in the greater context of the debate everything is considered... ain't it? My thinking shifts and evolves and I am OK with that because long ago I realized we are data starved with respect to 9/11... and we may never get enough to reach reliable conclusions. I've always been more concerned with the technical aspects of the collapses... as I knew the MIC/NSS etc. engage in disgusting behavior. I was made aware of this as young teen when JFK was shot and I went to a Mark Lane lecture because it was way too coincidental that LHO was shot and on live TV. My horror terned to curiosity and my innocense was gone. This coup has been running the agenda since then. Of this I am certain. But... they do not run every act or event in the world. This is not the Truman show... entirely.

[Tony Szamboti]

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

(will the veiled sister pray over the split infinitive)

Tony, in your 101 above you write:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest it's not so impossible.

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

We have a loitering E4.

And molten steel.

Business is business.

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

The show (war) must go on.

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

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

Brass poles, black holes, and on to Damascus

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

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

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

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

[Jeffrey Orling]

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

People like Jeffrey and Albert Doyle are either confused souls or intentional deluders. There is no in between because it really isn't all that hard to see what happened at this point. Seeing the collapse of WTC 7 and remembering one was told it fell due to fire is just like when one finally sees the Zapruder film and remembers they had been told John Kennedy was shot from the right rear.

You call that logic?

Why did someone decide that the towers had to come down?
And why 7? And why not during the day time... why why wait 7 hrs?

It didn't fall because of fire... it fell because heat and perhaps some electrical explosions... we don't know the precise cause... likely weakened the connections of the transfer trusses which failed and because a progressive failure through the core at flrs 5, 6 &7... which led to the inside dropping onto the sub station, destroying the braced frames on on perimeter extending to floor 8 and then the curtain wall and perimeter columns just inside them came down 8 stories at free fall until it began to crush up at the ground level. Whatever it was that destroyed the truss connections took the entire afternoon to do it. The FDNY reported the building was of questionable stability and had everyone evacuate because they expect it to collapse.

But of course you think the FDNY as in on the conspiracy to take it down.

I'm not intending to delude anyone. I am presenting what makes sense to me based on the limited evidence, building movements, witness reports and the structural design itself, plus the testimony before congress in 2002 where it was suggested that the connections might have failed.

Could devices have destroyed those connections? Sure. Where's the proof?

[Tony Szamboti]

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

People like Jeffrey and Albert Doyle are either confused souls or intentional deluders. There is no in between because it really isn't all that hard to see what happened at this point. Seeing the collapse of WTC 7 and remembering one was told it fell due to fire is just like when one finally sees the Zapruder film and remembers they had been told John Kennedy was shot from the right rear.

You call that logic?

Why did someone decide that the towers had to come down?
And why 7? And why not during the day time... why why wait 7 hrs?

It didn't fall because of fire... it fell because heat and perhaps some electrical explosions... we don't know the precise cause... likely weakened the connections of the transfer trusses which failed and because a progressive failure through the core at flrs 5, 6 &7... which led to the inside dropping onto the sub station, destroying the braced frames on on perimeter extending to floor 8 and then the curtain wall and perimeter columns just inside them came down 8 stories at free fall until it began to crush up at the ground level. Whatever it was that destroyed the truss connections took the entire afternoon to do it. The FDNY reported the building was of questionable stability and had everyone evacuate because they expect it to collapse.

But of course you think the FDNY as in on the conspiracy to take it down.

I'm not intending to delude anyone. I am presenting what makes sense to me based on the limited evidence, building movements, witness reports and the structural design itself, plus the testimony before congress in 2002 where it was suggested that the connections might have failed.

Could devices have destroyed those connections? Sure. Where's the proof?

Blah, blah, blah. It gets old talking to you and listening to your nonsense. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition if there ever was one. There is simply no chance for any other explanation when symmetric free fall through eight stories at the beginning of the collapse is understood. You might as well tell people JFK's head went backwards and to the left because of neuromuscular spasm. You might as well also ask for proof that Kennedy was shot from the front.

I don't think the FDNY was in on it to take it down and I have never said that. I think they were played by Rudy Giuliani's office about Bldg. 7 being lost, that it was going to collapse, and not to risk anymore lives. After what happened earlier that morning and hearing Giuliani's office's proclamations, who can blame the firemen for not going in there and setting up a safe zone away from it?

[Tony Szamboti]

This sounds to me like what is called LIHOP and very much the way I presently conceive of what happened from JFK forward.

I think the nasties establish themselves within the NSS for the purpose of covertly as well as overtly pushing the world hegemony agenda... of course personal wealth a la nepotism and corrupt practices... drugs, weapons and so forth. It's all good on the inside and the revolving door is so much fun!

When you leave the gate open to the fortress on purpose that is MIHOP by any definition.

Albert, if you believe that 911 was perpetrated by insiders and there was a lot more to it than 19 hijackers and four airplanes I owe you an apology.