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

[Tony Szamboti]

Exactly and the elastic stress produced would pop
The welds that were welded in the core every 36 feet.

This would not explain the initial horizontal and vertical propagation, which is what the discussion was about.

There is also a problem with the core beams being bolted to the columns at every story with healthy moment connections on most of them. So the popping of the core column welds every three stories isn't a given but it would likely happen once the collapse was sufficiently underway. By that I mean three or more stories.

There is a serious problem for the present story with the very fast horizontal and no deceleration vertical initial propagation mechanisms. Controlled demolition with a core driven initiation and a pull-in of the exterior by the dropping core stories explains it very well. The whole notion of sagging trusses causing inward bowing minutes before collapse and it eventually causing exterior and core collapse does not work and is fraught with incoherence and inconsistencies.

 

[Oystein]

... Controlled demolition explains it very well ...

Tony, at the end of the day, we all need a theory that explains ALL the events of 9/11 very well.

Does such a theory, involving an element if CD, exist, yes or no?
If yes, I cordially invite you to post it in the Roll-Call-thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185004
...and be the first CD-proponent who is not a holocaust denier to do so.

If you elect not to present this theory even though you think it exists, please explain your reasons.

If you think no such theory exists AND you are man enough to admit it, you earn my respect for it.




ETA: Prediction: Tony will once again ignore this invitation and pretend he doesn't see it; nor will he acknowledge Chainsaw's latest new thread.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, at the end of the day, we all need a theory that explains ALL the events of 9/11 very well.

Does such a theory, involving an element if CD, exist, yes or no?
If yes, I cordially invite you to post it in the Roll-Call-thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185004
...and be the first CD-proponent who is not a holocaust denier to do so.

If you elect not to present this theory even though you think it exists, please explain your reasons.

If you think no such theory exists AND you are man enough to admit it, you earn my respect for it.




ETA: Prediction: Tony will once again ignore this invitation and pretend he doesn't see it; nor will he acknowledge Chainsaw's latest new thread.

Of course, viable controlled demolition theories for the Twin Towers and WTC 7 exist. The collapses of WTC 7 and WTC 1 can be shown to be core driven symmetric collapses with no deceleration, which can only be achieved by controlled demolition.

The cover stories for the opportunities to set charges in the buildings are also known. For WTC 7 it was the outfitting of the OEM bunker on the 23rd floor and for the Twin Towers it was the elevator renovation project.

 

[NoahFence]

Of course, a viable controlled demolition theory for the Twin Towers and WTC 7 exists. The collapses of WTC 7 and WTC 1 can be shown to be core driven symmetric collapses with no deceleration, which can only be achieved by controlled demolition.

The cover stories for the opportunities to set charges in the buildings are also known. For WTC 7 it was the outfitting of the OEM bunker on the 23rd floor and for the Twin Towers it was the elevator renovation project.

You're under the impression that's ALL 9/11?

You're not missing anything, such as two of the three crime scenes?

 

[Oystein]

Of course, a viable controlled demolition theory for the Twin Towers and WTC 7 exists. The collapses of WTC 7 and WTC 1 can be shown to be core driven symmetric collapses with no deceleration, which can only be achieved by controlled demolition.

The cover stories for the opportunity to set charges in them are also known. For WTC 7 it was the outfitting of the OEM bunker on the 23rd floor and for the Twin Towers it was the elevator renovation project.

I am asking for a theory that explains all the evidence for all the events of 9/11. You do realize that merely claiming "CD" explains basically nothing about what really happened that day, don't you? Planes were hijacked, only half of them crashed at the WTC.
Are you saying your CD theory can't explain any of the events beyond GZ, or are you claiming that no CD theory exists at all that can explain any of the events beyond GZ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I am asking for a theory that explains all the evidence for all the events of 9/11. You do realize that merely claiming "CD" explains basically nothing about what really happened that day, don't you? Planes were hijacked, only half of them crashed at the WTC.
Are you saying your CD theory can't explain any of the events beyond GZ, or are you claiming that no CD theory exists at all that can explain any of the events beyond GZ?

Your point/request isn't germane to the discussion here. My point is that the three high rise collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 were due to controlled demolition and that requires a new investigation to determine who was involved. It certainly had to be more than the people in the planes.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This would not explain the initial horizontal and vertical propagation, which is what the discussion was about.

There is also a problem with the core beams being bolted to the columns at every story with healthy moment connections on most of them. So the popping of the core column welds every three stories isn't a given but it would likely happen once the collapse was sufficiently underway. By that I mean three or more stories.

There is a serious problem for the present story with the very fast horizontal and no deceleration vertical initial propagation mechanisms. Controlled demolition with a core driven initiation and a pull-in of the exterior by the dropping core stories explains it very well. The whole notion of sagging trusses causing inward bowing minutes before collapse and it eventually causing exterior and core collapse does not work and is fraught with incoherence and inconsistencies.

Then what caused the popping of the welds directly below the impact
Zone with evidence of shear lag?
As was evident in the photos of the steel after collapse?

 

[Oystein]

Your point/request isn't germane to the discussion here.

A reminder: The thread title is "Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?"
The official narrative is a theory that explains ALL the events of 9/11, from the time the hijackers checked in to the time UA93 was crashed in PA.
In a scientific discourse, if you question an incumbant theory, the best thing would be to propose a theory that explains all the available evidence better than the old one.

My point is that the three high rise collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 were due to controlled demolition and that requires a new investigation to determine who was involved. It certainly had to be more than the people in the planes.

So you feel that CD explains a small subset of the events of 9/11 better than "fires started by plane crashes" does. I accept that for the moment as your honest opinion, and ask you: Do you have a theory involving this CD aspect that also explains all the rest at least as well as the incumbant theory?

AND I invite you to present this theory in anothe and appropruate thread, so your objection that my "point/request isn't germane to the discussion here" is kinda moot.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The NIST report is littered with photos of both towers in which the bowing is analysed. You demand video evidence for one particular face of the N tower?

Explain why core-led collapse led to bowing of exterior columns, in both towers, minutes before collapse initiation. No need to refer to NIST models, btw, just explain how your theory lives with this contradiction.

As Tony has made perfectly clear, that evidence disagrees with his hypothesis and must therefore be discarded on the basis that video evidence is the only form of valid evidence there is, and not the basis that it blows everything he believes out of the water, definitely not, no siree. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Of course, viable controlled demolition theories for the Twin Towers and WTC 7 exist. The collapses of WTC 7 and WTC 1 can be shown to be core driven symmetric collapses with no deceleration, which can only be achieved by controlled demolition.

The cover stories for the opportunities to set charges in the buildings are also known. For WTC 7 it was the outfitting of the OEM bunker on the 23rd floor and for the Twin Towers it was the elevator renovation project.

No only people saying looks like is.
Also there is observed deceleration
Present in the seismic data.
It is not much however it is there.
What is not in the data or observed,
is any form of detonation wave.

 

[Jango]

Of course, viable controlled demolition theories for the Twin Towers and WTC 7 exist. The collapses of WTC 7 and WTC 1 can be shown to be core driven symmetric collapses with no deceleration, which can only be achieved by controlled demolition.

The cover stories for the opportunities to set charges in the buildings are also known. For WTC 7 it was the outfitting of the OEM bunker on the 23rd floor and for the Twin Towers it was the elevator renovation project.

It doesn't matter if they exist or not, man, it matters if you can prove it. You can't. Like trying to prove a wife wrong. It cannot happen

 

[NoahFence]

Your point/request isn't germane to the discussion here.

So you're going to continue to ignore 2/3rds of the events of 9/11.
<---- That's my shocked face.

 

[Animal]

The reality has to be that the inward bowing occurred when the core dropped and pulled on the exterior through the floors. That is the only mechanism that works.

The problem is that the core drops right before the exterior, so there is no time for the exterior to be bowed inward minutes beforehand on the south face of the North Tower.

They say there is a photo of this occurring, but strangely no video. I tend to think somebody is blowing smoke about the minutes before collapse inward bowing and it is what is causing the incoherence.

Hand waving away hard evidence that conflicts with your fantasy. How troofer of you.

Once again we have troofers demanding evidence, but extra corroborating evidence as well.....meanwhile promoting their fantasy without one shred of evidence in 13 years......and they wonder why they are the lunatic fringe?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As Tony has made perfectly clear, that evidence disagrees with his hypothesis and must therefore be discarded on the basis that video evidence is the only form of valid evidence there is, and not the basis that it blows everything he believes out of the water, definitely not, no siree. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

Dave

Dave, it is noted that you still can't provide a mechanism for the inward bowing of the exterior columns in concert with your belief that it occurred minutes before the collapse.

Your attempt to spin away from it with the childish comment above is a sad commentary on your state of mind. You can change it if you want to.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A reminder: The thread title is "Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?"
The official narrative is a theory that explains ALL the events of 9/11, from the time the hijackers checked in to the time UA93 was crashed in PA.
In a scientific discourse, if you question an incumbant theory, the best thing would be to propose a theory that explains all the available evidence better than the old one.


So you feel that CD explains a small subset of the events of 9/11 better than "fires started by plane crashes" does. I accept that for the moment as your honest opinion, and ask you: Do you have a theory involving this CD aspect that also explains all the rest at least as well as the incumbant theory?

AND I invite you to present this theory in anothe and appropruate thread, so your objection that my "point/request isn't germane to the discussion here" is kinda moot.

I highlighted a word in the title of the thread above that should explain my basis for response. Your reasoning, that it somehow doesn't discount the explanation, if one only shows one part of it doesn't work, is flawed and actually silly. I don't need to explain every event that occurred on 911 to say there needs to be a new investigation into who was behind the building collapses.

 

[LSSBB]

I highlighted a word in the title of the thread above that should explain my basis for response. Your reasoning that if one only shows one part of an explanation doesn't work that it somehow doesn't discount the explanation is flawed.

Tony, congratulaions, I agree with you on something. The OP, as worded, appears to me to only be looking for a (any) reason.

I believe the poll itself to be flawed, however that is irrelevent to whether you are in your rights with your post.

 

[Animal]

Dave, it is noted that you still can't provide a mechanism for the inward bowing of the exterior columns in concert with your belief that it occurred minutes before the collapse.

Your attempt to spin away from it with the childish comment above is a sad commentary on your state of mind. You can change it if you want to.

What is sad is your continued hand waving away of any fact that conflicts with your fantasy.

No need to "provide a mechanism"when in fact it was obvious......as for time.......once again facts crush your fantasy.

The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.

In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.
http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040619.html

 

[NoahFence]

Tony -
Is it not possible that acknowledging and studying the other 2 crime scenes could shed light on NYC?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What is sad is your continued hand waving away of any fact that conflicts with your fantasy.

No need to "provide a mechanism"when in fact it was obvious......as for time.......once again facts crush your fantasy.

The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.

In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.
http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040619.html

There is no video of inward bowing of the south face of the North Tower minutes before the collapse.

What you are showing has little credibility as there is no police officer quoted, it is first said three years after the event, and simply goes along with an unsupported contention in the NIST report that was due to be released shortly.

NIST could not provide a mechanism for inward bowing minutes before the collapse.

 

[GlennB]

This getting ridiculous. There are ample photos and videos both showing the bowing and that it preceded the collapse. That you demand video of one particular face to settle the argument is truly bizarre, and I can only assume it's because you know there is no such video.