Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[ozeco41]

I suppose I must have seen this paper, because I posted in the thread, but I must have not bothered to take it seriously.

I noticed it because of the several ironies - which is why I stays in my memory.

The entire conclusion is based on a number chosen as a starting assumption rather than calculated from observation, so in effect it's a circular argument; if we assume that the structural resistance of WTC1 never falls below the amount required to support the upper block, then the building can never collapse. I see my decision not to take it seriously was a sound one.

Dave

Both those are characteristic of Tony:
A) False starting assumptions - as per the 2007 one I identified in my first internet post - re-appearing in his WTC7 criticism of NIST where his starting assumption was unproven and almost certainly wrong;

B) Proving his assumptions by circular argument - which was ONE of several fatal aspects of "Missing Jolt."


With "Missing jolt" there is a flow on irony that I identified which AFAIK has never been followed up. His presumption of columns falling through a "gap" could only come from explosive cutting CD - so his assumption chosen to support the pre-determined conclusion.

BUT if the gap had been there the "jolt" would occur once the gap was traversed. Tony showed "no jolt" so there cold not have been a CD created "Gap". Thereby self rebutting.

Too subtle for most when I posted it a few times in former years. AND it is as close as I will go "tongue in cheek" parodying Tony reasoning - people may start to worry abut my sanity. My sense of humour already causes me enough....issues.

 

[ozeco41]

I'm tempted to "retire" from these 9/11 threads soon...

Me too. The mediocrity of "Whack -a-Mole" is boring.

TS is the most "interesting" participant these days,..

There are a few - 3 or 4 - quite intelligent Poes or Trolls on a couple of forums who are testing out the mediocrity of much current debunker side argument. The average "debunkers" not seeing the game being played on them. The result is similar to the "genuine uncommitted sceptics" I met 2007-8 who would find any holes in "debunker" logic - kept us honest in those days and I miss their role in "quality assurance". And yes - it was before the words "truther" and "debunker" became popular AND before the "two sides" polarisation. It was a definite "four sides" demography then on the forum I inhabited.

I know by this point there's no intent to correct the most obvious errors, thus I really can't think of anything more to add.... Mocking's not my strong suit when it comes to killing time.

Much same as my position. I'm not into mocking and I resist feeding trolls* - why play their ego game? So my posting tends to be limited despite the spurt of activity here in recent days.



* No longer relevant here on ISF where Trollus Forumii is a rapidly declining endangered species. May have to feed any remaining ones to prevent extinction.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There are a few - 3 or 4 - quite intelligent Poes or Trolls on a couple of forums who are testing out the mediocrity of much current debunker side argument. The average "debunkers" not seeing the game being played on them. The result is similar to the "genuine uncommitted sceptics" I met 2007-8 who would find any holes in "debunker" logic - kept us honest in those days and I miss their role in "quality assurance". And yes - it was before the words "truther" and "debunker" became popular AND before the "two sides" polarisation. It was a definite "four sides" demography then on the forum I inhabited.

The kokos-mediocriose species was intriguing during my brief run but seeing people repeat questions over and over at an obvious "not so serious poe" got to me. I ultimately took retirement after some issues arose from me citing public off-site posts because it was considered a bad thing to them

But I see where you're getting at.

And with this being the only site I spend any time on this topic again, and a dwindling TM population... and a big pile up effect on the remaining few.... well... yeah

 

[ozeco41]

The kokos-mediocriose species was intriguing during my brief run but seeing people repeat questions over and over at an obvious "not so serious poe" got to me. I ultimately took retirement after some issues arose from me citing public off-site posts because it was considered a bad thing to them.

My main interest is in explaining some of the more complicated physics - going against the tide of general debunkerdom which is content to play down in the level set by the truthers. So that situation gave me opportunity to explore one of the two or three areas which are still not clearly understood - on that occasion "Why the Top Block(s) Didn't Topple". Ironic that a Poeing Troll should present the challenges and the debunkers not interested.

But I see where you're getting at.

And with this being the only site I spend any time on this topic again, and a dwindling TM population... and a big pile up effect on the remaining few.... well... yeah

Great for the current trolls ego feeding. Go back a few years and it was much easier to ignore trolls because there was a lot of serious discussion to keep us busy. Most forums nothing but trolls left. Here must be uniquely ber troll free with the departure of Clayton, Mirage and reduced attendance by ergo.... Hasn't been the same since Bill Smith retired

Only T Sz and his tag teamers left. And the 492nd repeat of the same nonsense. Or is it 493?

Plus some routine monitoring of Gages latest antics, updating by Oystein's stats (he does a great job) and occasional questions in the thermite and dust arena.

Meanwhile there are "legitimate reasons to question the official narrative" as I have maintained for some time. Global claims are almost certainly wrong. You only need ONE example...

....this thread the OP is even specific "a legitimate reason" - "a" - one - singular - doesn't even say "reasons"

So here goes with my one reason:

The Official Narrative includes a NIST assertion that Column 79 failure initiated WTC7 collapse.

Must be wrong says I. There - all I have to do is post my reasoning and I have proved the OP of this thread.

[/EndThread]

 

[Oystein]

...
So here goes with my one reason:

The Official Narrative includes a NIST assertion that Column 79 failure initiated WTC7 collapse.

Must be wrong says I. There - all I have to do is post my reasoning and I have proved the OP of this thread.

[/EndThread]

IMO, it's a silly semantics play to consider that wrong. NIST's collapse scenario starts earlier, as you know, with several connections within the floor framings failing. One such failure being the girder walk-off at col 79/floor 13, which triggered the collapse of several floors, which triggered the failure of c79.
And something triggered that walk-off. And that something was in turn triggered by something. NIST explains it all.

The label "collapse initiation event" is essentially arbitrary. There is no strict "right" or "wrong". There was a chain of events that started with Atta pointing the nose of the plane he was commandeering toward the 80th(+/-) story of the North Tower, smack center. That initiated a cascade of events that culminated in the rapid collapse of building 7 many hours later.

 

[ozeco41]

Where is the forum rule that says I have to be serious?

Does it only apply to me?

 

[ozeco41]

OK - I'm filling in time here so.....

IMO, it's a silly semantics play to consider that wrong. <<Of course NIST's collapse scenario starts earlier, as you know, with several connections within the floor framings failing. <<You know I don’t rely on NIST. So two topics here (1) I know that Col 79 must have failed. And I know the range of three possible causes of failure. And I don't need NIST to tell me that. In fact IF NIST disagreed they would be wrong. (2) I happen to think NIST was right. One such failure being the girder walk-off at col 79/floor 13, which triggered the collapse of several floors, which triggered the failure of c79.
And something triggered that walk-off. And that something was in turn triggered by something. NIST explains it all. << Yes - and NIST agrees with me - so NIST must be right.

The label "collapse initiation event" is essentially arbitrary. There is no strict "right" or "wrong". There was a chain of events that started with Atta pointing the nose of the plane he was commandeering toward the 80th(+/-) story of the North Tower, smack center. That initiated a cascade of events that culminated in the rapid collapse of building 7 many hours later.<<OK - you are preaching to the choir. serves me right for having a bit of silly fun. Must learn to be more restrained and circumspect. AKA act my age

 

[DGM]

Where is the forum rule that says I have to be serious?

Does it only apply to me?

I certainly hope not................

The problem now is, there's really nothing to take seriously.........

 

[jaydeehess]

My problem will be finding something to replace posting on 911 conspiracy threads in the several hours a week that I am stuck to one spot with little to do.

The commercials for "Boom Beach" are intriquing.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by NoahFence
A person would literally have to be insane to the point of hospitalization to think explosives of all things could survive the impact and raging fires.

It's that simple.

The stupid thing is, what would be the need to shield the "explosives" ?

Why not just let them explode on the impact of the planes ?

Perhaps Tony could answer that question I'm sure he has an answer.

It's in Dr. Evil's Rules for Conspiracies: One must always do things in the most complicated manner possible.

 

[000063]

There are ways to shield and insulate charges from fire.

Additionally, in case you hadn't thought of it, the fires hurt your brittle fracture argument, although that seems to be moot now.

Is there any way to shield them from being hit by a plane and knocked clear out of the building? Because They couldn't predict how the damage from the impacts would go.

What if the steel gets hot? Do you shield the and insulate charges from steel, too?

It's insulation all the way down!

And the "Debris couldn't cross the 350' gap, except the thermite or molten metal that travelled an extra 50yds to light the car fires in Barclay St."

Or is this covered by 'doesn't understand simple Newtonian mechanics' ?

Well, considering that he never, ever mentions the height of the towers themselves, I think he does understand and is just ignoring it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Is there any way to shield them from being hit by a plane and knocked clear out of the building? Because They couldn't predict how the damage from the impacts would go.

Apparently you aren't aware that the collapses initiated just above the aircraft impact damage.

 

[000063]

Apparently you aren't aware that the collapses initiated just above the aircraft impact damage.

I am aware that the locations and impacts were determined by a number of factors that could not be anticipated, such as the exact load of the planes (weight, location, balance), prevailing winds, drag, etc. If the plane had been off by a few vertical feet, yawed up or down, or hit it at the wrong horizontal angle, or the wrong speed, the hypothetical charges are in the wind. There's too many ways for it to go wrong for it to be a workable plan.

So, want to get back to explaining how the aforementioned "tamping" worked?

 

[ozeco41]

The whole topic is moot.

There were no charges and no point discussing claims until the truther - any truther - puts up a prima facie claim for CD which establishes the presence of charges. Standard arse about "truther logic" with the mandatory "reversed burden of disproof". 13 years on and the same CT debating trickery.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I am aware that the locations and impacts were determined by a number of factors that could not be anticipated, such as the exact load of the planes (weight, location, balance), prevailing winds, drag, etc. If the plane had been off by a few vertical feet, yawed up or down, or hit it at the wrong horizontal angle, or the wrong speed, the hypothetical charges are in the wind. There's too many ways for it to go wrong for it to be a workable plan.

So, want to get back to explaining how the aforementioned "tamping" worked?

If you load tens of floors with computer controlled charge detonators and fly remotely controlled aircraft with homing devices in the building you can be fairly accurate. Whatever little inaccuracy occurs can be taken care of by assessing where the charges are still live above the damage and program the demolition from that point. That is precisely what it looks like happened. The first floor with little to no aircraft impact damage in the North Tower was the 98th floor and the 82nd in the South Tower and those are the floors where the collapses initiated. Isn't that interesting?

The time needed for the above also explains why the buildings weren't dropped as soon as the aircraft impacted them.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

If you load tens of floors with computer controlled charge detonators and fly remotely controlled aircraft into the building all you need to do is assess where the charges are still live above the damage and program the demolition from that point. That is precisely what it looks like happened. The first floor with little to no aircraft impact damage was the 98th floor and that is where the collapse initiated.

This is a serious question: How did you rationalise such a scenario in your mind? I'm curious because such a story would be dismissed as implausible by most rational individuals.

How did you make that story seem plausible? As I see it, the chances of getting such an outrageous plan right are quite minimal, while taking a giant risk of exposure upon failure.

I'm sorry, but this does not make sense without further illumination.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is a serious question: How did you rationalise such a scenario in your mind? I'm curious because such a story would be dismissed as implausible by most rational individuals.

How did you make that story seem plausible? As I see it, the chances of getting such an outrageous plan right are quite minimal, while taking a giant risk of exposure upon failure.

I'm sorry, but this does not make sense without further illumination.

It doesn't sound like you see real well. You just sound incredulous with no basis for it.

The South Tower aircraft flight path shows it heading towards NY City Hall until it is about three miles away and then it makes a 45 degree turn 5 seconds from impact and then a precise adjustment 2 seconds before impact. The level of control needed can't be done at sea level at 500 mph by a human pilot using manual control. The fact that it was heading for City Hall says there may have been a long range antenna/beacon there and a handoff to a smaller short range beacon in the Tower was done when it was close enough. A human pilot would have been nosing for the building from a distance as the buildings were plenty visible from the air at long distance.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

It doesn't sound like you see real well. You just sound incredulous with no basis for it.

The South Tower aircraft flight path shows it heading towards NY City Hall until it is about three miles away and then it makes a 45 degree turn 5 seconds from impact and then a precise adjustment 2 seconds before impact. The level of control needed can't be done at sea level at 500 mph by a human pilot using manual control. The fact that it was heading for City Hall says there may have been a long range antenna/beacon there and a handoff to a smaller short range beacon in the Tower was done when it was close enough. A human pilot would have been nosing for the building from a distance as the buildings were plenty visible from the air at long distance.

That doesn't answer my question. I'll try it another way:

Why do you think your story of the buildings 'pre-wired' for explosives to be triggered by aircraft is plausible? Personally, that sounds too inane even for a Bond Plot.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That doesn't answer my question. I'll try it another way:

Why do you think your story of the buildings 'pre-wired' for explosives to be triggered by aircraft is plausible? Personally, that sounds too inane even for a Bond Plot.

I don't think the pre-positioned explosives were triggered by the aircraft impact. What gave you that idea?

I think the aircraft impacts were causal ruses and the pre-positioned explosives were detonated from nearby using wireless detonators after it was determined where the charges had not been disrupted.

There is another interesting point to make about the North Tower collapse that points to this being what happened. That is that after the initiation at the 98th floor the next floors to disintegrate were the 99th, 100th, and 101st and this happened before they impacted the lower stories. The reason for this would be to ensure there would be enough momentum to go through the impact damage at the 93rd through 97th floors in case too many charges there had been disrupted.

 

[000063]

If you load tens of floors with computer controlled charge detonators and fly remotely controlled aircraft with homing devices in the building you can be fairly accurate. Whatever little inaccuracy occurs can be taken care of by assessing where the charges are still live above the damage and program the demolition from that point. That is precisely what it looks like happened. The first floor with little to no aircraft impact damage in the North Tower was the 98th floor and the 82nd in the South Tower and those are the floors where the collapses initiated. Isn't that interesting?

The time needed for the above also explains why the buildings weren't dropped as soon as the aircraft impacted them.

The only time someone tried to fly a jet by remote, it crashed when they tried it without a pilot onboard. The plan doesn't require "accurate enough", it requires pinpoint accuracy. There's no way to remotely assess potential damage to the explosives and wiring, so the bad guys couldn't even be sure if their charges would work.

And, of course, you're "missing" my point about beams with charges on them potentially being knocked out of the building from random impact factors. There's simply no way to keep the building safe.

It doesn't sound like you see real well. You just sound incredulous with no basis for it.

Physician...

The South Tower aircraft flight path shows it heading towards NY City Hall until it is about three miles away and then it makes a 45 degree turn 5 seconds from impact and then a precise adjustment 2 seconds before impact. The level of control needed can't be done at sea level at 500 mph by a human pilot using manual control. The fact that it was heading for City Hall says there may have been a long range antenna/beacon there and a handoff to a smaller short range beacon in the Tower was done when it was close enough. A human pilot would have been nosing for the building from a distance as the buildings were plenty visible from the air at long distance.

Oh, so it wasn't enough to have beacons and explosive charges planted in the Towers, they had to sneak at least one into City Hall too.



Say, were the airline maintenance crews the ones to install this remote control system? I only ask because the plan just keeps getting more and more complicated, which means exponentially more chances for something to go wrong or for a whistleblower to screw them over by now. In fact, they'd have to spend more effort monitoring their people for the rest of their lives than they actually did on 9/11. And plenty of those people are themselves really smart.

Also, this seems a lot like a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Wouldn't it be easier to just have a fake terrorist fly the actual plane into the building?

...
I think the aircraft impacts were causal ruses

The cause of what, exactly?

and the pre-positioned explosives were detonated from nearby using wireless detonators

In the giant steel-framed building, with lots of other radio signals in the area.

after it was determined where the charges had not been disrupted.

Which would be impossible to do remotely, especially if their radio transmitters were damaged somehow.

There is another interesting point to make about the North Tower collapse that points to this being what happened. That is that after the initiation at the 98th floor the next floors to disintegrate were the 99th, 100th, and 101st and this happened before they impacted the lower stories. The reason for this would be to ensure there would be enough momentum to go through the impact damage at the 93rd through 97th floors in case too many charges there had been disrupted.

Oh no you don't. This is already a tangent meant to distract us from the idea that the charges might've been knocked out of the building.