• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?

  • Total voters
    153
Dave Rogers said:
Interesting. Another distinction you appear not to understand.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, your comments have been attempts at demeaning my points but devoid of any technical basis since I asked you to identify or describe a mechanism which could produce the inward bowing minutes before collapse and you weren't able to comply.

I wouldn't expect a professional to be petty about it.

If all you want to do is try to take emotionally driven potshots, then you are lowering yourself to the level of some of the others who have nothing technical to add.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
After more than a decade you can't convince a single law enforcement official federal authorities that you have enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

And there's a good reason for that. The people who judge whether the power of the state is needed are suitably unimpressed corrupt.
Click to expand...

The corrections I made here are much more descriptive of the actual situation at the federal level and the city of New York has refused to get involved saying it was a federal matter.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The corrections I made here are much more descriptive of the actual situation at the federal level and the city of New York has refused to get involved saying it was a federal matter.
Click to expand...
Why not bring it to other jurisdictions? Are they all corrupt? Any prosecutor in any jurisdiction can prosecute your case. Didn't you know this?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The corrections I made here are much more descriptive of the actual situation at the federal level and the city of New York has refused to get involved saying it was a federal matter.
Click to expand...

Your attempt to put different words in my mouth is a straw-man argument. You say that "in your opinion" you have a strong legal case. But you are not a lawyer or a law enforcement official. Therefore I want you to name any law enforcement official who agrees you have a prosecutable case, as you claim.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Dave, your comments have been attempts at demeaning my points but devoid of any technical basis since I asked you to identify or describe a mechanism which could produce the inward bowing minutes before collapse and you weren't able to comply.

I wouldn't expect a professional to be petty about it.

If all you want to do is try to take emotionally driven potshots, then you are no better than some of the others who have nothing technical to add.
Click to expand...

Tony there is one big whole in you hypothesis,
why have a CD?
Why not just predamage the fire proofing,
crack some core welds and allow elastic strain
To destroy the core causing a natural like collapse?
There was never any reason tbat a CD. Was
required not from predamaging the towers.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The corrections I made here are much more descriptive of the actual situation at the federal level and the city of New York has refused to get involved saying it was a federal matter.
Click to expand...

Ahhh there it is the twoofer motto: all authorities are corrupt.

It couldn't be your competency or lack thereof now could it?.

Let me know when you get a meeting with ASCE, I want to watch as they laugh you out of the room.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Dave, it is no video and no mechanism. Just not having video doesn't make it a solid argument. It is also when there is no mechanism that it becomes very solid.

Remember, you haven't been able to identify, or even describe, a mechanism for causing the inward bowing minutes before collapse. The reality is that it did not happen until the core went down during the collapse. The inward bowing minutes before is nothing but a construct of the NIST report to stay away from controlled demolition. However, they can't identify a mechanism without it either.

You shouldn't get down about it though. You should just reconsider your thinking on it.
Click to expand...

In your desperation to maintain your religious beliefs, you are now outright lying. There is photo evidence and eye witness accounts of the inward bowing before the collapse.......your "construct of the NIST" is simply a LIE to maintain you fantasy.


You can whine about "mechanism" all you want.....the inward bowing long before the collapse is a FACT that you cannot hand wave away.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Tony there is one big whole in you hypothesis,
why have a CD?
Why not just predamage the fire proofing,
crack some core welds and allow elastic strain
To destroy the core causing a natural like collapse?
There was never any reason tbat a CD. Was
required not from predamaging the towers.
Click to expand...

I believe the intent was to ensure a complete collapse. Controlled demolition has a much greater chance of success at doing that than what you are proposing.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I believe the intent was to ensure a complete collapse. Controlled demolition has a much greater chance of success at doing that than what you are proposing.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't predamage insures the complete collapses,
it is much simplar than CD. Undetectable, as it would look
Natural.
It also does not produce detonation waves
or shrapnel.
Two.things that are missing from your CD theory.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The ASCE Journals didn't laugh at the Discussion paper Richard Johns and I sent to them criticizing the Le and Bazant January 2011 paper they published.

See http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf
Click to expand...

:dl:

Are you really that obtuse? They made you look like a fool, but thanks for bringing that up again so I could have a good laugh.

When is your peer reviewed CD paper coming out? Please let me know, I'm a big fan of free comedy.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Dave, your comments have been attempts at demeaning my points but devoid of any technical basis since I asked you to identify or describe a mechanism which could produce the inward bowing minutes before collapse and you weren't able to comply.
Click to expand...

Wrong; I chose not to follow your red herring. The inward bowing is an observation, not a deduction, and your refusal to accept the validity of the observation is symptomatic of the level of intellectual dishonesty that you have always brought to this discussion. You accuse others of ignoring evidence that doesn't suit them, then blatantly do so yourself. And you've had the mechanism explained to you by other posters, another point you refuse to acknowledge. All you have is denial and appeals to your own non-existent authority, and it's hardly surprising that nobody except your co-worshippers takes you seriously.

Dave
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I believe the intent was to ensure a complete collapse. Controlled demolition has a much greater chance of success at doing that than what you are proposing.
Click to expand...

Why would a complete collapse be important?

Tony Szamboti said:
The ASCE Journals didn't laugh at the Discussion paper Richard Johns and I sent to them criticizing the Le and Bazant January 2011 paper they published.

See http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf
Click to expand...

Why would they? It was a discussion to a limiting model. Still having problems separating model vs reality.

If memory serves you didn't introduce a theory of CD in that paper. Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Tony there is one big whole in you hypothesis, why have a CD?
Why not just predamage the fire proofing, crack some core welds and allow elastic strain To destroy the core causing a natural like collapse?
There was never any reason tbat a CD. Was required not from predamaging the towers.
Click to expand...


There is good reason to suspect that there was some "predamage" as you say. Or, technically, CD doesn't mitigate the possibility of predamage.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I believe the intent was to ensure a complete collapse. Controlled demolition has a much greater chance of success at doing that than what you are proposing.
Click to expand...

That is all you have after 13 years......your "belief"

Not one shred of evidence.

And troofers wonder why they are considered the lunatic fringe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom