+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis (/thread-11027.html)
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 28-09-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Magda Hassan Wrote:Just looking for independent university proffs without corporate/government ties but with an interest in what happened that day as it relates to their engineering/architectual/metalurgical/health and safety professional interests. Neither Tony nor yourself seem to be able to provide them.
Magda, I would hope you realize that the paper this thread is about was written by myself, a PhD mechanical engineer and author on the subject of shock and impact dynamics with extensive experience in the area of concern http://allweatherwood.ca/dbimages/Formulas-for-Mechanical-and-Structural-Shock-and-Impact-pdf-295531-text-book, and a University Professor.
There is a website now concerning 911 and academia where you will find peer reviewed papers by retired technical subject Professors Robert Korol, Terry Morone, Steven Jones and others here http://911inacademia.com/ and at the Journal of 911 Studies here http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Tony et al, You realize of course that the journal of 9/11 studies which is online organ for the truth movement. This is hardly an example of independent research by people with no skin in the game.
I don't dismiss your technical qualifications but the work must stand on the merits, regardless of your qualifications or background or affiliations. I believe legitimate criticisms of your work has been raised and this is irregardless of the qualifications or background or affiliations of the critics.
Depending on one's perspective, the jury is out or has already decided that the work in the journal you cite does not pass the test of credible science.
Jones who is the editor of said journal has been caught commuting scientific "fraud" with respect to publish a article about the diagonal cut column as being evidence of the use of themite. The photos he based his thesis on were taken after the column was cut during the clean up phase. He has never retracted his claim. He is discredited in my eyes as a legitimate researcher and his position as editor of the journal discredits what it publishes.
Others can decide for themselves,
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 28-09-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:Magda Hassan Wrote:Just looking for independent university proffs without corporate/government ties but with an interest in what happened that day as it relates to their engineering/architectual/metalurgical/health and safety professional interests. Neither Tony nor yourself seem to be able to provide them.
Magda, I would hope you realize that the paper this thread is about was written by myself, a PhD mechanical engineer and author on the subject of shock and impact dynamics with extensive experience in the area of concern http://allweatherwood.ca/dbimages/Formulas-for-Mechanical-and-Structural-Shock-and-Impact-pdf-295531-text-book, and a University Professor.
There is a website now concerning 911 and academia where you will find peer reviewed papers by retired technical subject Professors Robert Korol, Terry Morone, Steven Jones and others here http://911inacademia.com/ and at the Journal of 911 Studies here http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Tony et al, You realize of course that the journal of 9/11 studies which is online organ for the truth movement. This is hardly an example of independent research by people with no skin in the game.
I don't dismiss your technical qualifications but the work must stand on the merits, regardless of your qualifications or background or affiliations. I believe legitimate criticisms of your work has been raised and this is irregardless of the qualifications or background or affiliations of the critics.
Depending on one's perspective, the jury is out or has already decided that the work in the journal you cite does not pass the test of credible science.
Jones who is the editor of said journal has been caught commuting scientific "fraud" with respect to publish a article about the diagonal cut column as being evidence of the use of themite. The photos he based his thesis on were taken after the column was cut during the clean up phase. He has never retracted his claim. He is discredited in my eyes as a legitimate researcher and his position as editor of the journal discredits what it publishes.
Others can decide for themselves,
The people who wrote those articles published in the Journal of 911 Studies give their name and their credentials and it is curious that you would try to discredit the Journal as a whole without taking their arguments individually based on their merits. The same cannot be said of the JREF Forum and the 911 Free Forum, where pseudonyms are the norm, yet you insist the arguments there should be taken on their merits. Very curious thinking you have here Jeffrey.
As for your diagonally cut column allegation against Steven Jones, there are witnesses to the fact that there were a significant number of diagonally cut columns visible on the night of 911 before ironworkers were even there to have cut them in a cleanup. For some serious information on this watch from the 35 to 50 minute marks of Part 3 of Massimo Mazzucco's recently released documentary September 11, The New Pearl Harbor here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCw1TjfNKow
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 28-09-2013
Tony Szamboti Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:People are quick to call someone a liar. This assumes that the person who made the utterance or wrote a statement knew that it was factually untrue. People make such statements all the time believing them to be true without intent to deceive.
The cases of people referring to Tony as a liar I presume is based on the notion that Tony's has been made aware of the technical reasons why something he said or wrote is untrue. For those who make such a claim there is no wiggle room and Tony is believed to be perfectly capable of understanding his error and his persistence in repeating said claim can only be attributed to his inability to admit a mistake and or his willful attempt to maintain a fiction. I think this sort of charge applies to Tony because he claims to be technically on top of his game, unlike some others who post on internet forums and who simply copy, paste, and repeat and cheer from the sidelines so to speak. While what the supporters believe and do may be incorrect their error in thinking is somewhat understandable... they are not engineers, physicists and so forth and the positions they espouse are simply repeating what people who they believe are experts have said or written based on rigorous science and rational critical thinking.
Magda is asking for some academics who persumably have no skin the game to study and report on the matter. This is certainly a fine idea. But because of the charged politics it's hard to find anyone who hasn't taken a position either broadly supporting the official account or broadly opposing it. It's rather hard to produce blind studies of the WTC events.
And of course the level of discourse is pretty low and flooded with all manner of insults and ad hom arguments such as calling someone who does not support a belief an agent who is trying to destroy the movement of those who are striving for the truth.
I don't find the level of discourse at Randi something to hold up as an example for anyone. I will say there are at least a few people who post there who do have a fair amount of technical standing in a sea of others who don't. I do find the 911freeforms to be relatively free of non technically driven agendas. It's not a political site such as DP... and so it doesn't appeal to and is not read by member of DP. But if it's technical understanding of the little evidence that does exists, 911FF is the place to go to further understanding. And if one does spend time reading through the posts one can see that the level of understanding as evolved over time as the analysis and tools for analysis have improved.
You can only "debate" so much when you neither have all the facts nor can agree on the ones that are accessible.
Oops, time for another reality check here. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
The North Tower never decelerates and a natural collapse would have to. This is something Jeffrey seems to get tongue tied explaining.
He also forgets to tell you that his ROOSD (Runaway Outer Office Space Destruction or more commonly known as pancaking) requires a significant number of floors to be broken loose, so there needs to be column destruction during the first several stories of the collapse before ROOSD can even start.
By saying ROOSD explains everything Jeffrey is trying to tell you that a horse isn't required to pull the cart and that it magically moves on its own.
P.S. the only individuals who have ever called me a liar were anonymous individuals with wacky ideas and postulations on the JREF Forum. It is a disgrace that you would even say that here. Neither you or anyone on the JREF Forum has ever shown me to be in error, you only try to say you have. So it is also disgraceful for you to talk as though you and these anonymous individuals have. Your discourse here reminds me of that of a teenager telling fibs about things he has done to impress people.
ROOSD explains the destruction once the threshold mass, in this case perhaps 5 floor masses crashed onto an undamaged floor and the rest was wash rinse and repeat to the ground.
As I have stated for years now the issue is how did those top sections of the towers...12 -15 in 1WTC and about 30 in 2WTC break apart and break free. We know the plane damage severed several and weakened/damaged other columns. The damage as not symmetrical w/ respect to the CG of the upper sections in both cases. And neither was the weakening from heat which came from unfought fires on unprotected steel (assumed) which finally drove the capacity of the remaining columns below their imposed loads. The asymmetry of the remaining support with respect to the CG of the upper portions induced enough rotation such that the unrestrained column ends which were 4' above the slab level slipped out of alignment and facilitated an almost unimpeded descent delivering the threshold ROOSD mass. The pre release movements indicate in no uncertain terms that there was load redistribution underway inside the core (antenna drop)
There are a list of I believe 42 errors which have been raised about your work.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Tony Szamboti - 28-09-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:Oops, time for another reality check here. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
The North Tower never decelerates and a natural collapse would have to. This is something Jeffrey seems to get tongue tied explaining.
He also forgets to tell you that his ROOSD (Runaway Outer Office Space Destruction or more commonly known as pancaking) requires a significant number of floors to be broken loose, so there needs to be column destruction during the first several stories of the collapse before ROOSD can even start.
By saying ROOSD explains everything Jeffrey is trying to tell you that a horse isn't required to pull the cart and that it magically moves on its own.
P.S. the only individuals who have ever called me a liar were anonymous individuals with wacky ideas and postulations on the JREF Forum. It is a disgrace that you would even say that here. Neither you or anyone on the JREF Forum has ever shown me to be in error, you only try to say you have. So it is also disgraceful for you to talk as though you and these anonymous individuals have. Your discourse here reminds me of that of a teenager telling fibs about things he has done to impress people.
ROOSD explains the destruction once the threshold mass, in this case perhaps 5 floor masses crashed onto an undamaged floor and the rest was wash rinse and repeat to the ground.
As I have stated for years now the issue is how did those top sections of the towers...12 -15 in 1WTC and about 30 in 2WTC break apart and break free. We know the plane damage severed several and weakened/damaged other columns. The damage as not symmetrical w/ respect to the CG of the upper sections in both cases. And neither was the weakening from heat which came from unfought fires on unprotected steel (assumed) which finally drove the capacity of the remaining columns below their imposed loads. The asymmetry of the remaining support with respect to the CG of the upper portions induced enough rotation such that the unrestrained column ends which were 4' above the slab level slipped out of alignment and facilitated an almost unimpeded descent delivering the threshold ROOSD mass. The pre release movements indicate in no uncertain terms that there was load redistribution underway inside the core (antenna drop)
There are a list of I believe 42 errors which have been raised about your work.
So ROOSD needs about five floors to have collapsed first before it can get going. So what needs to happen before that is the columns need to be destroyed to let the floor masses go, and in any naturally caused collapse of the columns there would be deceleration, which is not observed.
The plane impact on the North Tower was on the north face, yet the collapse initiated favoring the south face. That sort of knocks your theory, about the asymmetric impact damage having anything to do with the collapse of that building, out of the box.
We also know that the number of damaged/severed columns was only about 15% and that the reserve strength of the columns in those buildings was quite large. The perimeter columns only had 20% of their capacity utilized and the core columns about 33%, for gravity loads, which was all that was on them on Sept. 11, 2001.
Your claim of 42 errors in my work is ludicrous.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Greg Burnham - 28-09-2013
Magda Hassan Wrote:Yeah, yeah, I know. I just have a visceral reaction to the Randi name. Funny, you are the second person to refer me to Galileo today. The other person being Greg Burnham. Who I could swear was channeling the voice of Charles. But I may be wrong. Just funny to see you on the same side of something.
I didn't refer you to Galileo!!! Ever. You read a post from TWO YEARS AGO [2011] and conflated it with REAL TIME? Oh my! Note the DATE in this screen shot... Sheesh. As for channeling Charles...you are being petty and getting personal...but why?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - David Guyatt - 28-09-2013
Greg Burnham Wrote:Magda Hassan Wrote:Yeah, yeah, I know. I just have a visceral reaction to the Randi name. Funny, you are the second person to refer me to Galileo today. The other person being Greg Burnham. Who I could swear was channeling the voice of Charles. But I may be wrong. Just funny to see you on the same side of something.
I didn't refer you to Galileo!!! Ever. You read a post from TWO YEARS AGO [2011] and conflated it with REAL TIME? Oh my! Note the DATE in this screen shot... Sheesh. As for channeling Charles...you are being petty and getting personal...but why?
Greg, with respect this discussion is not contributing to the thread at all.
It seems to me that you're here more for reasons that are concerned with personal animosity than with advancing the discussion.
You will, I think, be aware that feelings are extremely sensitive at the moment. And I cannot help but conclude that your last question was calculated to inflame.
This is not acceptable.
Please note this and adjust your posts accordingly.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Greg Burnham - 28-09-2013
David Guyatt Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Magda Hassan Wrote:Yeah, yeah, I know. I just have a visceral reaction to the Randi name. Funny, you are the second person to refer me to Galileo today. The other person being Greg Burnham. Who I could swear was channeling the voice of Charles. But I may be wrong. Just funny to see you on the same side of something.
I didn't refer you to Galileo!!! Ever. You read a post from TWO YEARS AGO [2011] and conflated it with REAL TIME? Oh my! Note the DATE in this screen shot... Sheesh. As for channeling Charles...you are being petty and getting personal...but why?
Greg, with respect this discussion is not contributing to the thread at all.
It seems to me that you're here more for reasons that are concerned with personal animosity than with advancing the discussion.
You will, I think, be aware that feelings are extremely sensitive at the moment. And I cannot help but conclude that your last question was calculated to inflame.
This is not acceptable.
Please note this and adjust your posts accordingly.
David,
I am not here to inflame. I have better things to do. I would appreciate not being accused of "channelling for Charles" or for anybody else. Thank you--
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - David Guyatt - 29-09-2013
Greg Burnham Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Magda Hassan Wrote:Yeah, yeah, I know. I just have a visceral reaction to the Randi name. Funny, you are the second person to refer me to Galileo today. The other person being Greg Burnham. Who I could swear was channeling the voice of Charles. But I may be wrong. Just funny to see you on the same side of something.
I didn't refer you to Galileo!!! Ever. You read a post from TWO YEARS AGO [2011] and conflated it with REAL TIME? Oh my! Note the DATE in this screen shot... Sheesh. As for channeling Charles...you are being petty and getting personal...but why?
Greg, with respect this discussion is not contributing to the thread at all.
It seems to me that you're here more for reasons that are concerned with personal animosity than with advancing the discussion.
You will, I think, be aware that feelings are extremely sensitive at the moment. And I cannot help but conclude that your last question was calculated to inflame.
This is not acceptable.
Please note this and adjust your posts accordingly.
David,
I am not here to inflame. I have better things to do. I would appreciate not being accused of "channelling for Charles" or for anybody else. Thank you--
Thank you for your understanding Greg. It's appreciated.
David
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Phil Dragoo - 29-09-2013
Jeffrey
At 628 you use red font to say the same things you've said for years, namely
heat weakening and runaway collapse
You use the term "jumbo jet" but these weren't 747s
You say the structures were designed to withstand a 707--but they didn't withstand these planes
Your runaway model requires removal of several floors which wasn't done by heat insufficient to weaken steel
Where's the 2300 degrees?
What removed the several floors?
You parallel the official explanation which does not explain
You say it looks like collapse--to be sure
It just doesn't look like the product of half the temperature required to weaken steel
Three buildings collapsed: two from collisions of planes within design parameters sans temperatures of 2300 degrees
One without any plane collision, seen to be perfectly symmetrical
Red font to the contrary notwithstanding, the official explanation does not explain
Unprecedented collapse despite insufficient heat to weaken steel
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Magda Hassan - 29-09-2013
Nice clarity there Phil.