Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

I suppose it is the same in the JFK area. Some think there was another team on the South Knoll. Others don't. Some think there were 2 bodies, 2 autopsies etc. Others don't. Some think there were 2 or more Zapruder films. Or one intact one tampered. Others don't go for that. None of them need support the 'official' story. But there are differences of opinion on what did and did not happen. Same with 911. Some think there were middle eastern hijackers in control of the planes. Others think the planes were remotely controlled. Some think the buildings were a controlled demolition. Others think it was a natural progression. Or that it was a controlled demolition on 7 and maybe not in the towers. Just because thee is no unified theory in these events does not mean the official version is accepted. Just that there are difference on what did and did not happen.

The suppression of the Zapruder film alone shows subterfuge in the JFK case. Taken together, the head motion to the back and left, the Parkland doctor's testament to a large hole in the right rear, and the back wound, show there was at least shooting coming from two directions and that there had to be more than one person involved.

In 2012 the drawings for WTC 7 were finally released due to an FOIA and scrutiny of them shows that the NIST WTC 7 report omitted structural features from their analysis in the area where the report says the collapse initiated. When these features are involved in the analysis the failures are not possible by a large margin. So there is obviously subterfuge occurring here also. The symmetric free fall acceleration for the first eight stories of WTC 7's fall is impossible in a natural collapse, as all of the potential energy is being converted to motion with none left over to crush and deform the building. Thus it is clear this building was brought down via controlled demolition. The next question involves when the charges were set, as it could not have been done on Sept. 11, 2001.

The complex points that you show that some bring up with the Kennedy assassination cloud the much simpler issue I mention above. In both cases there is clear subterfuge and an attempt to hide what actually occurred by officials responsible for explaining what happened. Why?

[Charles Drago]

I suppose it is the same in the JFK area. Some think there was another team on the South Knoll. Others don't. Some think there were 2 bodies, 2 autopsies etc. Others don't. Some think there were 2 or more Zapruder films. Or one intact one tampered. Others don't go for that. None of them need support the 'official' story. But there are differences of opinion on what did and did not happen. Same with 911. Some think there were middle eastern hijackers in control of the planes. Others think the planes were remotely controlled. Some think the buildings were a controlled demolition. Others think it was a natural progression. Or that it was a controlled demolition on 7 and maybe not in the towers. Just because thee is no unified theory in these events does not mean the official version is accepted. Just that there are difference on what did and did not happen.

Well argued, Magda.

As far as it goes.

But the devil is in the details.

Within the ostensible JFK research community we note the presence of agents provocateur who shout to the heavens their "belief" in conspiracy, only to attack the truth from within by, among other methods, espousing ludicrous theories (e.g. Masonic symbolism in wound locations; LBJ as "mastermind" of the conspiracy; Secret Service agents inept but none murderous in intent; etc.) and attempting to Balkanize researchers (e.g. the Oswald Innocence Project and its case officers).

Thus when you write, "Just that there are difference[s] on what did and did not happen," you make the grave mistake of assuming that all such differences of opinion within the research community are honest.

Are all JFK questions answered? Absolutely not.

Do far too many of those questions beg wholly naive and counterproductive yes/no or A/B answers? Absolutely.

Based on the complexity of an issue -- for example, Z-film alteration -- could those arguing apparently mutually exclusive conclusions both be right? Or wrong? Absolutely.

I don't know Orling other than by reputation and what he posts here. I don't have the training required to challenge his technical analyses and the conclusions that follow.

Other DPF posters do, however.

So how do I reach conclusions regarding Orling's mind and motives?

Simply by applying deep political analyses of his work here -- analyses that I am well qualified to conduct.

Here's the tipping point: Orling repeatedly assures us, directly and by implication, that his deep politics credentials are non-existent. Yet he continues to proffer analyses of a major deep political event.

What, he has asked more than once, does JFK have to do with 9-11?

What does JFK have to do with 9-11???

Feel free to respect Orling and to apply the benefit of the doubt to the workings of his mind.

Feel free to ignore indications of a Sunsteinian agenda (e.g. immediate, multiple, lengthy, seemingly prepared-in-advance responses to a single challenge, etc.) in his actions here.

Some of us shall do otherwise.

This war is fought on many, many fronts.

[David Guyatt]

An open question to all. If, as I believe this Forum has decided, we don't long 'suffer' those who support [for whatever reason - benign naivete or non-benign motives] the official version of the WC - i.e. the official version of who shot and how JFK died; then why do we long suffer those who [for whatever reasons] support or appear to most on this Forum to support the official version of the events of 9-11-01? Must we wait another 38 years for that to be so here? It is an open question, and one I think needs some explication and discussion. Where one draws the 'line' will always be somewhat subjective, and the prerogative of the owners; but I hope we Plebs have some 'moral' sway. :tampfeet::

It has always been the case - and always will be - that those trolls that we have identified have enjoyed only a short stay here as members.

The thing is Pete, that we need to always endeavour to share a degree of balance and reasonableness in what we do and how we present ourselves. We don't burn at the stake those who dare to have heretical and differing views, or who utterly disagree with us either. How could we? We are, by definition of our presence here, a community that are ourselves heretical and different to our very cores.

The great danger as I see it, is the possibility of becoming the unorthodox orthodoxy, and it is, I believe, something we must guard against. After all, history is dotted with case histories of those who began by opposing the reigning/political orthodox views of the world in which they lived, only later to become themselves the corrupted ones.

As you know, I could't care less about the JFK folder. For me it's too much ado altogether. I just can't get enthused about the subject. I know I'm in a minority. I'm much the same with 911. Having said all that, like most others here, I disagree with Jeffrey's position on 911. But I can live with him banging on about it. I don't get eristical about it.

Viva la difference I say. How turgid and boring this place would be, if we all agreed all the time. You'd become deaf in a very short time, listening to the swing doors banging shut together as everyone made their rapid exit.

And yes, god will strike me down for saying so, but even I sometimes favour the official view on certain matters. ::

[Tony Szamboti]

An open question to all. If, as I believe this Forum has decided, we don't long 'suffer' those who support [for whatever reason - benign naivete or non-benign motives] the official version of the WC - i.e. the official version of who shot and how JFK died; then why do we long suffer those who [for whatever reasons] support or appear to most on this Forum to support the official version of the events of 9-11-01? Must we wait another 38 years for that to be so here? It is an open question, and one I think needs some explication and discussion. Where one draws the 'line' will always be somewhat subjective, and the prerogative of the owners; but I hope we Plebs have some 'moral' sway. :tampfeet::

It has always been the case - and always will be - that those trolls that we have identified have enjoyed only a short stay here as members.

The thing is Pete, that we need to always endeavour to share a degree of balance and reasonableness in what we do and how we present ourselves. We don't burn at the stake those who dare to have heretical and differing views, or who utterly disagree with us either. How could we? We are, by definition of our presence here, a community that are ourselves heretical and different to our very cores.

The great danger as I see it, is the possibility of becoming the unorthodox orthodoxy, and it is, I believe, something we must guard against. After all, history is dotted with case histories of those who began by opposing the reigning/political orthodox views of the world in which they lived, only later to become themselves the corrupted ones.

As you know, I could't care less about the JFK folder. For me it's too much ado altogether. I just can't get enthused about the subject. I know I'm in a minority. I'm much the same with 911. Having said all that, like most others here, I disagree with Jeffrey's position on 911. But I can live with him banging on about it. I don't get eristical about it.

Viva la difference I say. How turgid and boring this place would be, if we all agreed all the time. You'd become deaf in a very short time, listening to the swing doors banging shut together as everyone made their rapid exit.

And yes, god will strike me down for saying so, but even I sometimes favour the official view on certain matters. ::

Video analysis showed that the space shuttle Challenger had leaks from its rocket boosters that were in contact with the large external fuel tank and it was clear and logical that this caused the fuel tank to explode. Video analysis showed that the space shuttle Columbia had foam insulation break off of the external fuel tank at 500 mph and impact the heat shield tiles under the wing. Testing then showed this would seriously impair the tiles and cause catastrophic problems on re-entry.

Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse. Jeffrey Orling implicitly argues against this as he supports the natural collapse theory. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse. Jeffrey Orling implicitly argues against this as he supports the natural collapse theory. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.

This argument has power and integrity.

[Charles Drago]

The great danger as I see it, is the possibility of becoming the unorthodox orthodoxy, and it is, I believe, something we must guard against. After all, history is dotted with case histories of those who began by opposing the reigning/political orthodox views of the world in which they lived, only later to become themselves the corrupted ones.

We are in complete AGREEMENT on this point.

[David Guyatt]

Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.

I would say that this is a rather gross overstatement of the facts.

Where has a reasonable inquiry be prevented in this thread? What I see is a thread that has seen some extensive and really powerful arguments presented.

That one person disagrees with the majority on this forum is, in the scheme of things, neither here nor there. Other members and other visitors have benefited from the debate itself and are able to silently reach their own conclusions.

The paralysis you speak of Tony, stems from the ruling elite itself. Let's apportion blame where it truly belongs - and avoid selecting a convenient goat to blame in their place.

JFK has been dead for 50 years and there still is a never ending debate. Unless or until the elite choose to come clean, and personally I don't see that ever happening, his death will constitute a never ending debate for decades to come. Think Pearl Harbour and start walking further backwards in time.

Ditto, I think, 911.

But at least, unlike the ruling elite, we don't have to leave bodies strewn beside the pathways we move along.

There is a world of difference between making a winning argument and the need to be seen to win an argument.

Charlie, thank you.

[Tony Szamboti]

Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.

I would say that this is a rather gross overstatement of the facts.

Where has a reasonable inquiry be prevented in this thread? What I see is a thread that has seen some extensive and really powerful arguments presented.

That one person disagrees with the majority on this forum is, in the scheme of things, neither here nor there. Other members and other visitors have benefited from the debate itself and are able to silently reach their own conclusions.

The paralysis you speak of Tony, stems from the ruling elite itself. Let's apportion blame where it truly belongs - and avoid selecting a convenient goat to blame in their place.

JFK has been dead for 50 years and there still is a never ending debate. Unless or until the elite choose to come clean, and personally I don't see that ever happening, his death will constitute a never ending debate for decades to come. Think Pearl Harbour and start walking further backwards in time.

Ditto, I think, 911.

But at least, unlike the ruling elite, we don't have to leave bodies strewn beside the pathways we move along.

There is a world of difference between making a winning argument and the need to be seen to win an argument.

Charlie, thank you.

Your points about the ruling elite are not part of the discussion you started. You seemed to be pleading for Jeffrey's right to make his case and that his banging on with it, whether you agreed or not, did not bother you.

Detectives need to collect evidence and weigh the possibilities to investigate. As part of this process they need to dismiss impossibilities, or they would never solve a case. Jeffrey Orling's arguments were shown in detail to be impossibilities and needed to be dismissed. Once he was shown his views were impossible any continuing with them on his part would actually constitute an obstruction of justice.

I think your nonchalance and tolerance concerning people who continue to promote impossibilities in a criminal case is wrongheaded and actually dangerous. It is not the same as tolerance of religious differences, decorating differences, clothing and hair styles, even how one goes about their job, since one can arrive at solutions to problems a number of ways. Those differences can and should be tolerated among us, as they are not hurting anyone. Tolerating someone promoting known impossibilities in a criminal case is akin to tolerating lies about the case. That is harmful in the overall sense of justice being delayed or not served at all, by keeping things much more complex than they actually are and confusing to those trying to understand.

[Charles Drago]

Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse. Jeffrey Orling implicitly argues against this as he supports the natural collapse theory. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.

This argument has power and integrity.

AND

Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.

I would say that this is a rather gross overstatement of the facts.

I am heartened by the divergence of opinion between Jan and David here on display.

This is precisely the sort of (de facto) debate from which deep political insight develops.

And not that it should matter, but I share Jan's point of view on this issue.

[Peter Lemkin]

Just in case anyone thinks Tony S. is a 'lightweight' on 911 matters, I'd like to set them straight. He has done many articles in peer reviewed 911 journals. Here is one search that will turn up just some of them...
https://www.google.cz/search?q=Tony+Szam...%20studies