• 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
DGM said:
Watch out cntdrv55. Next thing you'll know he'll attack the fact you don't use your real name.................:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Pardon? That IS in fact my real name thank you.

I also identify sexually as an attack helicopter and prefer the pronouns of zir, and zem.

Thank you very much.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
By posting that video and not understanding what I said about the NIST model not being able to generate the inward bowing with sagging trusses you have answered my question.
Click to expand...

The only one not understanding stuff here is you, tony. Par for the course.

You clearly are not a technical person and have no place in the argument as you apparently can't understand it.
Click to expand...

Haha. Which argument would that be tony? You move the goalposts so much it's kind of hard to keep up sometimes.
 
jay howard said:
The forensic work has already been done. The calibration tests gave the fires a very short window of failure opportunity. We don't need any more tests to demonstrate that the official explanation is corroborated only by itself--like the turtle who holds up the world:

Q: What's under the turtle who holds the world up?

A: Another turtle.

Q: What's under that?

A: It's turtles all the way down.

It's a ridiculous theory with no real-world underpinning, no forensic corroboration, and for which their own lab tests disconfirm it.

1100C gas temperatures for 10-20 minutes in any given location simply is not enough energy to cause the things we saw. In order for the NIST theory of collapse to be true, we must presuppose a thermodynamic miracle. There just isn't enough energy for paper, plastic, wood, carpet, kerosine, and all the other hydrocarbon sources combined to do the kinds of damage necessary.

Why not just say the buildings had the "cold explosion flu". The first two got it from the planes, then they spread it to building 7. That's at least a coherent theory. All the high temperature stuff, you could just say "side effects of CBF." Still coherent. At least.

There is an energy gap. That's the real problem with the NIST explanation when you get done poking holes in it like a straw through wet tissue paper: it doesn't address the expressions of energy. The tonnes of pulverized concrete, molten metal, the molten concrete that coated weapons in a basement armory, vaporized lead, the silicate microspheres as well as the iron ones, the NASA data indicating surface temperatures of thousands of degrees C lasting weeks, the "meteorite" artifact, the WPI steel, oh, you know. All those little things NIST investigators considered insignificant to the investigation of one of the most significant events in American history.

This isn't rocket surgery. The data is there.
Click to expand...

Not quite Nist never tested the effect of the
Giant smoke plume.

http://dustexplosions.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-csb-investigating-printing-ink.html?m=1
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, we will just wait for your VIDEO PROOF of demolition charges being planted. (I will not hold my breath) :rolleyes:

For the rest of the world (including the 99.7 % or relevant professional).....photographs and corroborating eye witnesses prove you wrong.

Once again....mechanism is irrelevant when there is photographic evidence with corroborating eye witnesses.

Meanwhile.....your evidence of CD remains at 0
 
Tony Szamboti said:
By posting that video and not understanding what I said about the NIST model not being able to generate the inward bowing with sagging trusses you have answered my question.

You clearly are not a technical person and have no place in the argument as you apparently can't understand it.
Click to expand...

comical and pathetic coming from someone who believes that floating gypsum dust would extinguish fires. :jaw-dropp
 
Its valid to criticize Tony for the irony of the exchange and his logic holes, but im not big on outright trolling people. Forgive me for being blunt people but sometimes i feel like im watching a scripted circuis act and perhaps its no coincidence given that these claims have been exhaled millions of times already... but i like to let the logic holes speak for themselves rather than muddy the water with recycled retorts towards something thats already known for being incorrecr... two wrongs dont make a right
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Its valid to criticize Tony for the irony of the exchange and his logic holes, but im not big on outright trolling people. Forgive me for being blunt people but sometimes i feel like im watching a scripted circuis act and perhaps its no coincidence given that these claims have been exhaled millions of times already... but i like to let the logic holes speak for themselves rather than muddy the water with recycled retorts towards something thats already known for being incorrecr... two wrongs dont make a right
Click to expand...
Well said and fully supported by me. Gawd forbid any debunker who points out a hole in debunker logic.

Now I dropped hand grenade myself yesterday - I will have to go back and find how much turmoil it caused.

I actually agreed with a point that Tony made - he was right. Shades of the numerous times I have supported Major_Tom when he has made correct technical claims. I don't adhere to the view that everything a truther says MUST be false. I mean what position should I take if a truther has the audacity to claim "The daytime cloudless sky is blue"? Tell him he is wrong because he is a truther?

So I agree it is a damn sight easier to address the objective logic of the issue under discussion. And "credibility of witness" is way down the hierarchy of grades of evidence. If the assertion is true credibility shouldn’t even enter the debate.

Then - I must be off my rocker - I actually agree with Jango's interpretation of the logic of the OP poll.
 
cntdrv55 said:
[qimg]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-17-2015/FXpYL8.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-17-2015/dp-Bb7.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That was a 2000 word post.


...since a picture is worth a thousand words.
thumbup.gif
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Its valid to criticize Tony for the irony of the exchange and his logic holes, but im not big on outright trolling people. Forgive me for being blunt people but sometimes i feel like im watching a scripted circuis act and perhaps its no coincidence given that these claims have been exhaled millions of times already... but i like to let the logic holes speak for themselves rather than muddy the water with recycled retorts towards something thats already known for being incorrecr... two wrongs dont make a right
Click to expand...

You need to keep in mind that these people are mocking the deaths of thousands of innocent people. This isn't a game.
 
Did he explain overnight why it has to be video of, specifically, the S side of the N Tower?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Dave said the exterior columns were inwardly bowed minutes before collapse. I said there is no video or mechanism to support that contention and asked him to at least provide a mechanism if he couldn't produce a video. He hasn't been able to do that and neither has anyone else here.
Click to expand...

Just to remind anyone who hasn't been paying attention, this inward bowing minutes before collapse was observed, reported and photographed by an NYPD helicopter, the photographs have been posted in the thread, and the mechanism has been repeatedly explained. Tony is well aware that this fact refutes his theory, and has therefore decided to demand a piece of evidence he knows does not exist and one which he has already been given but refuses to admit to the existence of.

Dave
 
jay howard said:
1100C gas temperatures for 10-20 minutes in any given location simply is not enough energy to cause the things we saw. In order for the NIST theory of collapse to be true, we must presuppose a thermodynamic miracle. There just isn't enough energy for paper, plastic, wood, carpet, kerosine, and all the other hydrocarbon sources combined to do the kinds of damage necessary.
Click to expand...

At last, a quantifiable claim. Pleas post your estimates of (a) the energy available, and (b) the energy required, so we can examine your reasoning. Two numbers will do fine. Since you've determined that one is greater than the other, you must have values for both, right?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Just to remind anyone who hasn't been paying attention, this inward bowing minutes before collapse was observed, reported and photographed by an NYPD helicopter, the photographs have been posted in the thread, and the mechanism has been repeatedly explained. Tony is well aware that this fact refutes his theory, and has therefore decided to demand a piece of evidence he knows does not exist and one which he has already been given but refuses to admit to the existence of.

Dave
Click to expand...
Known and understood. Perhaps he is trying to avoid issues with his earlier version where some character pointed out that Tony was relying on "Delayed Action Gravity" ["DAG"]

Apparently the technology for DAG hadn't been developed at 9/11 2001 - and some insensitive soul had the gall to point that inconvenient fact out to Tony.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Just to remind anyone who hasn't been paying attention, this inward bowing minutes before collapse was observed, reported and photographed by an NYPD helicopter, the photographs have been posted in the thread, and the mechanism has been repeatedly explained. Tony is well aware that this fact refutes his theory, and has therefore decided to demand a piece of evidence he knows does not exist and one which he has already been given but refuses to admit to the existence of.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, the mechanism for the inward bowing you say occurred minutes before collapse has not been explained, so please provide the mechanism.

For those here who do not realize it, these videos posted here by cntdrv55

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-17-2015/FXpYL8.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-17-2015/dp-Bb7.gif

are nothing but artist's renditions and are actually surreal cartoons which could not happen in reality. That is why it is important to note that the NIST FEA model could not produce the inward bowing with sagging trusses. An artist can draw a three year old pressing 1,000 lbs. over his head, lifting a truck, or jumping over a house, none of which could occur in reality.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Dave, please provide the mechanism for the inward bowing you say occurred minutes before collapse.

For those here who do not realize it, these videos posted here by cntdrv55

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-17-2015/FXpYL8.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-17-2015/dp-Bb7.gif

are nothing but artist's renditions and could not happen in reality. That is why it is important to note that the NIST FEA model could not produce it with sagging trusses. An artist can show a three year old pressing 1,000 lbs. over his head, but it doesn't make it real.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry. Where did you post the videos of the nanothermite and silent explosives doing the damage again?

Oh wait. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY? Well how can that be tony?

You don't even have a NIST FEA of it? Say it aint so!

Oh well then surely you MUST have at least an artist rendition then, right?

NO?

You mean to tell me all you have is a ridiculous theory that you cooked up with absolutely ZERO supporting evidence? And you have the gall to ***** about the animations I posted? :jaw-dropp

Tisk-tisk tony. Bad form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom