• 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
Animal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you always take things out of context?

I was asked why the perpetrators felt they needed to use controlled demolition and said what I thought.

Why they did it is not what we have evidence for, it is what they did, which in the case of the three high-rises in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 is unlawful artificially instigated and promulgated collapses.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Do you always take things out of context?

I was asked why the perpetrators felt they needed to use controlled demolition and said what I thought.

Why they did it is not what we have evidence for, it is what they did, which in the case of the three high-rises in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 is unlawful artificially instigated and promulgated collapses.
Click to expand...


Not out of context AT ALL
You offer nothing but your "belief" You have no evidence, no fact to back up your fantasy. You simply have wild claims with no basis in reality. You ignore and hand wave away evidence and corroborating eye witness testimony that destroys your fantasy. You expect the world to accept your claims based on faith. You have failed at every turn, and now in your desperation resort to a barrage of incredulity and personal insults. In short, the troofer movement is a pathetic lunatic fringe group that has done nothing in 13+ years.
 
Animal said:
Not out of context AT ALL
You offer nothing but your "belief" You have no evidence, no fact to back up your fantasy. You simply have wild claims with no basis in reality. You ignore and hand wave away evidence and corroborating eye witness testimony that destroys your fantasy. You expect the world to accept your claims based on faith. You have failed at every turn, and now in your desperation resort to a barrage of incredulity and personal insults. In short, the troofer movement is a pathetic lunatic fringe group that has done nothing in 13+ years.
Click to expand...

You obviously have no rebuttal to my point that there is no video or mechanism for the inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse and that it is nothing but an unsupportable construct in the NIST report.

I am trying to talk about the technical issues. You aren't because your argument has been shown to have no merit. Your post here is also nothing but projection of what the insidious cover-up is doing. What is pathetic is that people would stoop to lying to maintain a cover-up.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You obviously have no rebuttal to my point that there is no video or mechanism for the inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse and that it is nothing but an unsupportable construct in the NIST report.

I am trying to talk about the technical issues. You aren't because your argument has been shown to have no merit. Your post here is also nothing but projection of what the insidious cover-up is doing.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, what other claims can we think of that have no video or mechanism support and are simply an unsupportable construct of a certain group of like-minded individuals?
 
Mark F said:
Hmmm, what other claims can we think of that have no video or mechanism support and are simply an unsupportable construct of a certain group of like-minded individuals?
Click to expand...

Can you possibly make a technical argument for anything or are you just a utility player type wise guy?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You obviously have no rebuttal to my point that there is no video or mechanism for the inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse and that it is nothing but an unsupportable construct in the NIST report.

I am trying to talk about the technical issues. You aren't because your argument has been shown to have no merit. Your post here is also nothing but projection of what the insidious cover-up is doing. What is pathetic is that people would stoop to lying to maintain a cover-up.
Click to expand...

What is really pathetic is you arguing that there was no pre-collapse bowing of the perimeter columns. Getting desperate much?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You obviously have no rebuttal to my point that there is no video or mechanism for the inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse and that it is nothing but an unsupportable construct in the NIST report.

I am trying to talk about the technical issues. You aren't because your argument has been shown to have no merit. Your post here is also nothing but projection of what the insidious cover-up is doing. What is pathetic is that people would stoop to lying to maintain a cover-up.
Click to expand...

You obviously cannot accept the FACT that "video" evidence is not required.....there is plenty of photographic and corroborating eye witness accounts. YOU are the only one hand waving away evidence and demanding ONLY video evidence.

You have not tried to talk about technical evidence.....all you have talked about is your fantasy devoid of ANY evidence. It is comical you talk of projection when that is about all you do.

There is no cover up....but there is a pathetic fantasy promoted by the AE troofer group....aka the dicky gage vacation fund.

NO matter how much hand waving and foot stomping you do.....the FACT remains that there was inward bowing long before the collapse initiation. Your fantasy CD remains a fantasy.......refuted by facts you choose to ignorantly and willingly ignore.
 
cntdrv55 said:
What is really pathetic is you arguing that there was no pre-collapse bowing of the perimeter columns. Getting desperate much?
Click to expand...

Another non-technical argument offered against my technical argument. This is getting pathetic.

The obvious reality is that you can't answer my argument.
 
Animal said:
You obviously cannot accept the FACT that "video" evidence is not required.....there is plenty of photographic and corroborating eye witness accounts. YOU are the only one hand waving away evidence and demanding ONLY video evidence.

You have not tried to talk about technical evidence.....all you have talked about is your fantasy devoid of ANY evidence. It is comical you talk of projection when that is about all you do.

There is no cover up....but there is a pathetic fantasy promoted by the AE troofer group....aka the dicky gage vacation fund.

NO matter how much hand waving and foot stomping you do.....the FACT remains that there was inward bowing long before the collapse initiation. Your fantasy CD remains a fantasy.......refuted by facts you choose to ignorantly and willingly ignore.
Click to expand...

You have no video proof of inward bowing minutes before collapse and you can't identify a mechanism to produce it. That is a strong argument that it did not happen. The no mechanism part is quite important. Don't you understand that?
 
Last edited:
The International Conference on Science and Paranoia 2015​
“Bad Physics, Bad Engineering and Dung ; How High Can It be Piled Before Collapse”​
 
BasqueArch said:
The International Conference on Science and Paranoia 2015​
“Bad Physics, Bad Engineering and Dung ; How High Can It be Piled Before Collapse”​
Click to expand...

Another non-technical post in a technical discussion.

It is pretty clear that their inability to provide a mechanism to cause inward bowing minutes before collapse has caused the controlled demolition deniers here to have exhausted their ability to spin things technically and they have lost all pretext of any legitimacy.

In other words, they are stumped, and the reality doesn't agree with what they would like to believe or what they want others to believe, so now all they can do is shoot the messenger.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Another non-technical post in a technical discussion.

It is pretty clear that the controlled demolition deniers here have exhausted their ability to spin technically and lost all pretext of any legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Tony, nobody's bothering to offer technical arguments any more because all you do is ignore them, try to handwave away the evidence for them, or tell everybody that you're clever and they're stupid, despite despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You're simply not worth the bother of constructing an intelligent response any more, so if you still want attention you'll have to make do with mockery.

Dave
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Another non-technical post in a technical discussion.

It is pretty clear that the controlled demolition deniers here have exhausted their ability to spin things technically and lost all pretext of any legitimacy.
Click to expand...
The technical discussion part is over. All there is left is the dung parts.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Tony, nobody's bothering to offer technical arguments any more because all you do is ignore them, try to handwave away the evidence for them, or tell everybody that you're clever and they're stupid, despite despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You're simply not worth the bother of constructing an intelligent response any more, so if you still want attention you'll have to make do with mockery.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, I didn't ignore your arguments. You have not yet provided a mechanism to produce the minutes before collapse inward bowing you claim occurred. It seems that you basically have no argument to support your contention.
 
BasqueArch said:
The technical discussion part is over. All there is left is the dung parts.
Click to expand...



How about providing that mechanism to cause the inward bowing minutes before collapse. If you can't and all you do is keep trying to demean me then it would certainly be you and those who agree with you are the ones with a smell attached to their posts.
 
cntdrv55 said:
You honestly can't figure this one out?

https://youtu.be/bMZ-nkYr46w?t=1m40s

And here I thought you were supposedly an engineer or architect or something. You should ask for your money back.
Click to expand...

That video is nothing but an artist's rendition. It has no technical basis. It isn't even correct as far as the structure as it doesn't include the bridging trusses.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom