Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

Whatever you say Tony!

[Tony Szamboti]

Whatever you say Tony!

You should give it up Jeffrey. The buildings were clearly demolished and that was not due to aircraft impacts and fires. The cat has been out of the bag for quite a while now. Only politics is keeping a new (real) investigation from occurring.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Whatever you say Tony!

You should give it up Jeffrey. The buildings were clearly demolished and that was not due to aircraft impacts and fires. The cat has been out of the bag for quite a while now. Only politics is keeping a new (real) investigation from occurring.

I'd like an investigation.

You have not convinced me and others... keep trying.

[Lauren Johnson]

Your explanations of why the three buildings come down diverge from NIST's explanations. NIST had a large budget and lots of engineers to come up with its story. Why isn't NIST as smart as you are?

[Jeffrey Orling]

Your explanations of why the three buildings come down diverge from NIST's explanations. NIST had a large budget and lots of engineers to come up with its story. Why isn't NIST as smart as you are?

I assume the question is directed at me. But Tony and Albert can take a crack at this because neither of their expanations match NIST.

The total smarts and resources of NIST far exceed what I have. Not even close.

However what I present is not MY work... but I am expressing a set of ideas that many people have contributed to and I actually very little. I just happen to agree with the points I use and take the time to present them in discussions such as these.

I do think a more formal presentation should be made to NIST for comment. Lots of math and gifs and diagrams and so forth... including a critique of the NIST reports. That's not something I could do but I would be willing to add what I can, drawings and so forth. I have no intention of publishing or being a leader of any sort of movement. I am not smart enough and don't want to. This is for someone else. Tony publishes, Tom has a web site and there is the 911 FreeForum which I am sure NIST must read... why wouldn't they?

NIST appears to me to be in a position to not respond and has the power to dominate and control at least the mainstream. They have the evidence too... that is whatever is left of it. That alone puts detractors at a huge disadvantage. Playing field is hardly level.

As I have suggested, I think NIST's reports provided cover for all manner of incompetence, professional misconduct, corruption and so forth. Like the Pinto gas tanks.... People died BECAUSE of accidents AND because the gas tank design was defective. The tank defect was not the sole cause of death and so Ford tried to argue they were no liable. They were found to be ALSO liable. And so it might be with the WTC buildings. Anyway that is my guess to explain why NIST came up with the explanations they did. CTer will say because they covered up for CD... and that would be another explanation of their behavior.

My sense is that most observers in the end think even if it was defects... we were still attacked and the attacks caused the collapse... The question of whether it was AQ or PNAC is a political one and not a technical one about how the towers fell as they did.

[Albert Doyle]

Tony has repeatedly failed to answer some key points in my previous posts culminating with post 358 and 359 which he also passed on answering.


I think that's all you need to know about Tony Szamboti and his CD theories.


The video he asks me to watch is just offhand accounts of loud booms being called explosions by people who have been shocked by a terrorist attack. Tony doesn't realize he is mixing random booms with alleged methodical demolition charges and, once again, fails to account for the discrepancy.


What I don't understand is people who think they could continue arguing after being unable to answer the point about the sonic fingerprint of the alleged demolition charges.

[Lauren Johnson]

From the Jan Klimkowski Way Back Machine with regard to whether the must come down:

This is a layer cake.

In terms of creating a casus belli, any of the acts alone would potentially suffice.

Just as JFK could have been assassinated in private, out of sight.

However, the imposition of a paradigm shift requires a mass public trauma.

JFK must be slaughtered in full view, his head exploding.

The Twin Towers must crumble, their phalllic arrogance smashed.

The Theatre of the Damned.

Jeffrey calls this ideology. To me, it is the mode of analysis which is the core of DPF.

Up until now, I could have been persuaded that maybe, just maybe the towers came down via natural causes after having been weakened by an unnatural attack. The deep political analysis of JK above argued in favor. It would require a strong argument against CD to persuade me otherwise. I finally have seen how weak and flawed your arguments are. Case closed.

[Albert Doyle]

If you'll notice Tony ducked and ran from my posts about the "corner" jets. David Chandler gets control of the video microphone and assures us he sees evidence of corner charges in the collapse video. He intones this with the solemn voice of expertise and authority. He then tells us careful measurements were taken of the standing corner column. However Chandler failed to take basic careful measurements of the corner jets themselves. If he had he would realize there's no way they were explosions because even the naked eye can see they happen far too slowly to be blasts caused by explosives. Look at the video. The stainless steel facia falls off slowly as if it was pushed away by natural collapse. There's no doubt that if that facia was blasted by an explosives charge it would have been violently blown-off as the explosives charges in the You-Tube demolition video I posted show. Chandler speaks as if he's a credible expert informing the public but he makes a basic clownish mistake with his corner column charges claim. He's dishonest because he himself realizes this which is why he then adds that perhaps the cut was made with a thermite cutter pack. However any look at the You-Tube video of such thermite cutter packs shows that they burn with extreme intensity and sparkles. The corner columns are right flush with the facade. If such thermite packs were responsible for the corner collapse you would have seen red hot sparkling cutter burns occurring. Look at the video. They're not there.


I pointed-out that Chandler claimed the initiating impetus for the collapse were explosives charges near the 98th floor. This conflicts with Tony's claim that there were no explosives in that area and the collapse was caused by a thermite burn. Tony admitted the smoke billows in the upper section were too slow to be charges and said they were cutter packs instead. This means Tony conflicts directly with David Chandler.


You can't just ignore this stuff and still have credibility.

[Lauren Johnson]

If you'll notice Tony ducked and ran from my posts about the "corner" jets. David Chandler gets control of the video microphone and assures us he sees evidence of corner charges in the collapse video. He intones this with the solemn voice of expertise and authority. He then tells us careful measurements were taken of the standing corner column. However Chandler failed to take basic careful measurements of the corner jets themselves. If he had he would realize there's no way they were explosions because even the naked eye can see they happen far too slowly to be blasts caused by explosives. Look at the video. The stainless steel facia falls off slowly as if it was pushed away by natural collapse. There's no doubt that if that facia was blasted by an explosives charge it would have been violently blown-off as the explosives charges in the You-Tube demolition video I posted show. Chandler speaks as if he's a credible expert informing the public but he makes a basic clownish mistake with his corner column charges claim. He's dishonest because he himself realizes this which is why he then adds that perhaps the cut was made with a thermite cutter pack. However any look at the You-Tube video of such thermite cutter packs shows that they burn with extreme intensity and sparkles. The corner columns are right flush with the facade. If such thermite packs were responsible for the corner collapse you would have seen red hot sparkling cutter burns occurring. Look at the video. They're not there.


I pointed-out that Chandler claimed the initiating impetus for the collapse were explosives charges near the 98th floor. This conflicts with Tony's claim that there were no explosives in that area and the collapse was caused by a thermite burn. Tony admitted the smoke billows in the upper section were too slow to be charges and said they were cutter packs instead. This means Tony conflicts directly with David Chandler.


You can't just ignore this stuff and still have credibility.

I will be reviewing this. I was focusing more on Jeffrey's cartoon's.

Albert, I do recall that when you, Jeffrey and I were going at it over the Banfield video, you were not able to dismiss it out of hand -- unlike Jeffrey. I give you credit for that.

Question: what is at stake for the natural vs. CD causes for the collapse of the buildings? Clearly it must be more than the disinterested search for truth. You are quite passionate in your exchanges with Tony.

Another question: here is a quote from the Albert Doyle way back machine:

I think JO should take some time off and return with a depersonalized defense of his position vs analysis of the Banfield oscilloscope. The personal stuff detracts from the arguments in my opinion and should be avoided.


I'd be interested in his answer to the booms.


I'd also be interested in NIST's answer to many emergency personnel saying they were going to bring it down.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?10762-World-Trade-Center-Buildings-(and-Others-)-Pre-Rigged-for-Controlled-Demolition-A-Hypothesis/page3

What persuaded you to so forcefully join JO side?

[Charles Drago]

If you'll notice Tony ducked and ran from my posts about the "corner" jets. David Chandler gets control of the video microphone and assures us he sees evidence of corner charges in the collapse video. He intones this with the solemn voice of expertise and authority. He then tells us careful measurements were taken of the standing corner column. However Chandler failed to take basic careful measurements of the corner jets themselves. If he had he would realize there's no way they were explosions because even the naked eye can see they happen far too slowly to be blasts caused by explosives. Look at the video. The stainless steel facia falls off slowly as if it was pushed away by natural collapse. There's no doubt that if that facia was blasted by an explosives charge it would have been violently blown-off as the explosives charges in the You-Tube demolition video I posted show. Chandler speaks as if he's a credible expert informing the public but he makes a basic clownish mistake with his corner column charges claim. He's dishonest because he himself realizes this which is why he then adds that perhaps the cut was made with a thermite cutter pack. However any look at the You-Tube video of such thermite cutter packs shows that they burn with extreme intensity and sparkles. The corner columns are right flush with the facade. If such thermite packs were responsible for the corner collapse you would have seen red hot sparkling cutter burns occurring. Look at the video. They're not there.


I pointed-out that Chandler claimed the initiating impetus for the collapse were explosives charges near the 98th floor. This conflicts with Tony's claim that there were no explosives in that area and the collapse was caused by a thermite burn. Tony admitted the smoke billows in the upper section were too slow to be charges and said they were cutter packs instead. This means Tony conflicts directly with David Chandler.


You can't just ignore this stuff and still have credibility.

I will be reviewing this. I was focusing more on Jeffrey's cartoon's.

Albert, I do recall that when you, Jeffrey and I were going at it over the Banfield video, you were not able to dismiss it out of hand -- unlike Jeffrey. I give you credit for that.

Question: what is at stake for the natural vs. CD causes for the collapse of the buildings? Clearly it must be more than the disinterested search for truth. You are quite passionate in your exchanges with Tony.

Another question: here is a quote from the Albert Doyle way back machine:

I think JO should take some time off and return with a depersonalized defense of his position vs analysis of the Banfield oscilloscope. The personal stuff detracts from the arguments in my opinion and should be avoided.


I'd be interested in his answer to the booms.


I'd also be interested in NIST's answer to many emergency personnel saying they were going to bring it down.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?10762-World-Trade-Center-Buildings-(and-Others-)-Pre-Rigged-for-Controlled-Demolition-A-Hypothesis/page3

What persuaded you to so forcefully join JO side?

That's my question, too.

To whom, specifically, are you addressing it?