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:
Why would a complete collapse be important?


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?
Click to expand...

The very question I was going to ask.

Tell us Tony how you know the intent of the attackers?
 
tsig said:
You are wanting the same government that you say lied to begin with to investigate itself?

Tony, how do PI's work without subpoena power?
Click to expand...

It is simply stunning that you would actually suggest Private Investigators could interrogate individuals who had access to the interiors of the three buildings properly.

I don't think they could as they would have no way of forcing testimony through subpoenas, making deals with any for immunity, etc. which is likely needed to get to who set the charges.
 
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...

There is no video or mechanism for planting explosives.
 
DGM said:
Still having problems separating model vs reality.
Click to expand...
Tony's trademark - or one of them.

Cannot separate model from reality.

"NIST's model didn’t THEREFORE the real thing couldn't"

Tony simply cannot accept that what actually happened is the STARTING POINT.

From there the challenge is EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED.

NOT - as Tony persists in trying - DECIDE WHAT CONCLUSION YOU WANT - then - deny reality till it fits your fantasy.

Like looking for a jolt that could never have been because the scenario never existed.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Another non-technical post to a technical discussion.
Click to expand...

Tony your posts are singularly devoid of numbers, most technical papers have numbers in them, you know 1,2,3,4.... that sort of thing and signs like +,=,- and * , your posts are full of assertions drawn from the first part of that word.
 
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...

Don't like 'em, don't read 'em.


(does the term concern troll still mean anything?)
 
I tested thermites and nano thermites causing
car fires at least 50-70 times, never worked
What did work was burning carpets and
Bits of burning plastic in air mixed with heated
Dried Gypsum dust, when the gypsum dust pulls water vapor
Out of the air it heats up.

I did all this years before Tony made his
Rediculous claims.
 
ozeco41 said:
"NIST's model didn’t THEREFORE the real thing couldn't"
Click to expand...

A point which I brought up many months ago, expounded in detail, and which Tony still pretends doesn't exist.

If he wants a real engineering argument, this is not the forum. There are plenty of forums (and I don't mean Internet kind) for that, but they roundly ignore him. Therefore he comes to the only place where his "technical argument" is tolerated, only to complain about how no one will give him a "technical argument" in return. (Even though he's getting plenty.)

In other words, it's a place where non-technical arguments and pseudo-engineering can sound technical enough to inflate a conspiracy theorist's self-esteem. The fact remains that all but a fraction of a percent of the "technical" people don't buy the Truther claims, and it has been that way for a very long time.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is simply stunning that you would actually suggest Private Investigators could interrogate individuals who had access to the interiors of the three buildings properly.

I don't think they could as they would have no way of forcing testimony through subpoenas, making deals with any for immunity, etc. which is likely needed to get to who set the charges.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness then, what is it exactly you believe has to happen in order for a 'real' investigation to begin?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It is simply stunning that you would actually suggest Private Investigators could interrogate individuals who had access to the interiors of the three buildings properly.

I don't think they could as they would have no way of forcing testimony through subpoenas, making deals with any for immunity, etc. which is likely needed to get to who set the charges.
Click to expand...

PI's do it in all other crimes, why is this one any different?

You are aware that there are other resources other than talking to witnesses?
 
ozeco41 said:
You didn't. Just remember that Tony doesn't do "technical argument"...

...and he uses the words "technical argument" to describe what the rest of us call "unsupported bare assertions" which are his stock in trade.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I've been following this thread loosely and wondered if I had missed a post where he actually used numbers and possibly combined them to form equations then drew conclusions but I guess I was hoping for too much.:)
 
tsig said:
Thank you, I've been following this thread loosely and wondered if I had missed a post where he actually used numbers and possibly combined them to form equations then drew conclusions but I guess I was hoping for too much.:)
Click to expand...

Careful! Tony sometimes (not in this thread, but there is precedent elsewhere) indeed uses numbers and combines them to form equations then draws conclusions - but having failed to use technical arguments and rational thinking to come up with a reasonable, realistic model to apply those equations to, he produces GIGO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom