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:
Yes; he has his own incredulity as well, because he can't think of a mechanism to explain what actually happened.

Dave
Click to expand...

Sure I can think of a mechanism which explains what happened. The core was removed and pulled the exterior columns inward causing them to buckle and for the entire upper section to then fall. However, it all happened within seconds, with the core being the initial failure point, not with the exterior somehow inwardly bowing minutes before and initiating it.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The bridging trusses would not allow what is shown in the video about Thomas Eagar's proposed unzipping. Why weren't they shown there?
Click to expand...

Because with out the concrete slabs providing floor stiffness the bridging trusse fail the concrete degrades spalls, expands cracks in the fires the floor pans weaken and
Apply uneven force on the trusses.

All that has to be taken into account after fire proofing is removed, in a real
Life building.

The unzipping model in the video is a simplified example not the real complex event.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The columns below could not be bypassed, that is an enormous leap without a basis, as there is no mechanism to shift the upper section laterally and inertia will cause it to fall in place.
Click to expand...

The single biggest leap without basis is saying that a building collapse HAD to be controlled demolition, while having 0 evidence to back up such a stupid statement.

There is no evidence. No hard evidence. No circumstantial evidence. Nothing - Nada - zero - ziltch.

10 year olds whose engineering experience is playing with Lego's have amassed enough real-world experience to tear every single one of your asinine theories to shreds.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The photos shown in the NIST report of the inward bowing are stills taken from video of the collapse initiation when the core was removed and pulled the exterior inward.

They are just telling you it was minutes before, thinking nobody would ever question their mechanism.
Click to expand...

No, your a simply making a false claim to protect your CD fantasy.

Eye witness corroboration of the inward bowing minutes before the collapse shred your CD fantasy.....no matter how many times you repeat your lies. :rolleyes:
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Because with out the concrete slabs providing floor stiffness the bridging trusse fail the concrete degrades spalls, expands cracks in the fires the floor pans weaken and
Apply uneven force on the trusses.

All that has to be taken into account after fire proofing is removed, in a real
Life building.

The unzipping model in the video is a simplified example not the real complex event.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are moving to the "it is just too complex for us to ever understand" camp so you don't have to provide an explanation.

The reality is that it wasn't that complex. The core was removed and caused the exterior to be pulled inward and buckle under its own load due to a high degree of eccentricity and p-delta effects.
 
DGM said:
So you have no real proof to back your claim that the NIST fudged the time to cover their deception. Thought so.
Click to expand...

Please provide a mechanism for inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse and maybe you will be taken seriously. Absent that you are just blowing smoke without a basis for anything you say.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
To answer the question of this thread simply, there are obviously several reasons to question the present official narrative for the collapses of the three high-rise buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 as they are either devoid of mechanisms to produce the observations or wildly exaggerated.

Both the NIST WTC report and Bazant's analyses (which had been accepted by the NIST WTC report) are clearly non-explanatory and should be dismissed as frauds as stated by Dr. Lynn Margulis several years ago.
Click to expand...

 
Tony Szamboti said:
It sounds like you are moving to the "it is just too complex for us to ever understand" camp so you don't have to provide an explanation.
The reality is that it wasn't that complex. The core was removed and caused the exterior to be pulled inward and buckle under its own load due to a high degree of eccentricity and p-delta effects.
Click to expand...

The highlighted is probably the most accurate thing you've posted since you started here, but not for the reasons you think.

The reality is that it wasn't that complex - steel doesn't fare well in a fire.

Period.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
To answer the question of this thread simply, there are obviously several reasons to question the present official narrative for the collapses of the three high-rise buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 as they are either devoid of mechanisms to produce the observations or wildly exaggerated.
Click to expand...
]

Because controlled demolition explains so many more observations, has a completely established mechanism, and isn't the least exaggerated. You do more than just "question" the conventional narrative. You propose a detailed alternative narrative which completely fails to meet your own standard of proof. Hence the conclusion we drew on the front page of this thread, which is that the question is poorly framed and -- as we've seen -- obviously loaded.

...are clearly non-explanatory and should be dismissed as frauds as stated by Dr. Lynn Margulis several years ago.
Click to expand...

99.5 percent. That number doesn't go away.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Please provide a mechanism for inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse and maybe you will be taken seriously. Absent that you are just blowing smoke without a basis for anything you say.
Click to expand...
I'm just asking you to support your claim the NIST fudged the time stamps.

Can you support it or is it a case of "they must have"? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Please provide a mechanism for inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse and maybe you will be taken seriously. Absent that you are just blowing smoke without a basis for anything you say.
Click to expand...

No mechanism need be shown......the proof is the photographs and corroborating eye witness accounts. Meanwhile your proof of a CD......after 13+ years remains at 0

All you have is your personal incredulity, fantasies and personal insults. :rolleyes:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Funny, your cartoon describes precisely what I think the present official narrative believers here are doing, if not worse.
Click to expand...

Except that 99.9 % of relevant professional will say you are wrong.

I guess besides having fingers in your hears, you have a blindfold on as well.
 
DGM said:
Thanks for this. Naturally you have more than your opinion to back up your claim that the NIST fudged the time stamps of the NYPD video to create this deception?
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. The series of photos I'm looking at were taken with a still camera, an Olympus C2100UZ specifically. The change of angle combined with the timings show Tony to be full of it.

Just 2, to save space. The final wide-angle shot has been posted here many times :



 
Of course there's no need to follow the arse about logic... if Tony thinks there's a "CD" mechanism he needs to show it caused the collapse, and the prima fascia element to that argument is showing that "CD" took place and that the mechanisms he's arguing in favor of were present.

The collapses started at the point of impact in the towers, at the locations where fires were most heavily concentrated. There was no failure of the exterior perimeter or lower structure until the collapse front reached it. If he believes "they" set off devices high up in the fire regions to start the collapse, then he needs to demonstrate evidence that it happened. And if he thinks that "they" used devices to continuously fail the columns down the building he can present both evidence of whatever devices he thinks were used, and/or documentation showing that the columns exhibited "cut" or "melt" failure patterns which is by far easier to look at with photos of the debris.

To date the participants arguing for "CD" have done little more than argue that they can't see a mechanism for how fire/impact could initiate collapse, if that's the case they need to converge their "dots" and "links" to their prima fascia case.... a link that current doesn't exist and cannot overcome in current form the defacto mechanism that impact/Fire + overload/eccentric load/cascade failure initiated and progressed the fall of the buildings...

keeping in mind that the collapse mechanics involved several distinct mechanisms

Time to put up or shut up if this thread is staying deviated from the OP.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom