• 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
Tony Szamboti said:
The floor trusses didn't go anywhere. They were quite robust. The only ones that went anywhere were the ones impacted by the aircraft. That is it.

Can't you see that in the video shown here they didn't even include the bridging trusses? That was clearly done to make it look more possible. You are either gullible, or just can't accept the fact that other people, besides those on the planes, were involved in controlled demolition of those buildings.
Click to expand...
I'd have to be gullible to take your word for something.

Still denying the inward bowing?
 
DGM said:
If floor trusses failed over multiple floors the number could be anything. The floor system braced the columns from buckling.
Click to expand...

Three story failure is induced by leverage causing overloading of the welds.
36 ft. Long, column sections same thing that happened
in 7 happened in the towers.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The floor trusses didn't go anywhere. They were quite robust. The only ones that went anywhere were the ones impacted by the aircraft. That is it.

Can't you see that in the video shown here they didn't even include the bridging trusses? That was clearly done to make it look more possible. You are either gullible, or just can't accept the fact that other people, besides those on the planes, were involved in controlled demolition of those buildings.
Click to expand...

What about the thermal warpage induced in the trusses by the floor pans and lighting trays?
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
What about the thermal warpage induced in the trusses by the floor pans and lighting trays?
Click to expand...

The steel pans had a coefficient of thermal expansion similar to the concrete so there would not be much thermal mismatch stress. That is why we can get away with steel reinforcing rods in concrete.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The steel pans had a coefficient of thermal expansion similar to the concrete so there would not be much thermal mismatch stress. That is why we can get away with steel reinforcing rods in concrete.
Click to expand...

Oh no I guess your a chemist now can you tell me what reaction would
Be occurring on the exposed zinc?
 
As we see, Tony true to form, now changes subject after he can't support yet another lie.

Good thing his intended audience is illiterate. :rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
As we see, Tony true to form, now changes subject after he can't support yet another lie.

Good thing his intended audience is illiterate. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I wonder what good ole Frank would say If I called him about Tony's Lie
That he now supports CD.
I do have his number around here some where and I can find no public Statements
From Frank= Dr. Greening stating he supports CD.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Oh no I guess your a chemist now can you tell me what reaction would
Be occurring on the exposed zinc?
Click to expand...

The 0.003 to 0.004 inch thick galvanize would not cause any issue and would stay bonded to the steel like it does with galvanize products out in the weather.

I don't get the chemist concern you have here. The only way I could see that you could have envisioned warping was with bonded materials with different CTEs being subject to high or low temperature extremes.
 
DGM said:
As we see, Tony true to form, now changes subject after he can't support yet another lie.

Good thing his intended audience is illiterate. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nobody is lying. What are you even talking about? Or are you just mumbling to yourself?
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I wonder what good ole Frank would say If I called him about Tony's Lie
That he now supports CD.
I do have his number around here some where and I can find no public Statements
From Frank= Dr. Greening stating he supports CD.
Click to expand...

Frank Greening has stated publicly that he now believes WTC 7 may have been a controlled demolition. He does not believe the NIST report contentions on it and has no other explanation for it. Give him a call.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Nobody is lying. What are you even talking about? Or are you just mumbling to yourself?
Click to expand...
== TS: "No fire" on floor 98 ==
== Grizzly: Shows picture of fires from floor 97 through 103 ==
== TS: --- ==

....
==TS: Absolutely no fires==

==Grizzly: .....==
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Frank Greening has stated publicly that he now believes WTC 7 may have been a controlled demolition. He does not believe the NIST report contentions on it and has no other explanation for it. Give him a call.
Click to expand...

He has said NIST was wrong on the energy values and temperatures.
He has not stated that he believes it to be a Controlled Demolition.
If you want I still have his number in Canada from when he called me
In 2005 and I can call and ask I have always considered Frank a friend.
 
DGM said:
Did you forget you claim the inward bowing did not occur when documented and claim the NIST fudged the report/time stamp in an attempt to hide their deceit?
Click to expand...

That is not a lie. I said that is what the lack of mechanism shows had to have happened. There is no way there could have been a photo of inward bowing minutes before the collapse without a mechanism to have caused it.

I think it is a still from video from when the core collapsed and pulled the exterior inward at the time the collapse was occurring, not minutes beforehand.

They might have shown a photo they claimed to have been taken minutes before collapse but that doesn't mean it was not from when the collapse started. Are you saying you can be absolutely sure they would not fake when the photo was taken?
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
== TS: "No fire" on floor 98 ==
== Grizzly: Shows picture of fires from floor 97 through 103 ==
== TS: --- ==

....
==TS: Absolutely no fires==

==Grizzly: .....==
Click to expand...

I never said there wasn't a fire on the 98th floor of WTC 1. I said there was little to no aircraft impact damage there and it seems quite interesting that it was where the collapse initiated.

If I had to guess it would be because it was the first floor above the damage where there would be confidence the charges were not displaced from the impact and it still looked like it was in the impact area.

I have to wonder about your comprehension with posts like this. I say that because I would hate to think you deliberately took what I said out of context although that seems to happen here often when those who can't imagine the buildings could have been brought down by controlled demolition are stumped.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
That is not a lie. I said that is what the lack of mechanism shows had to have happened. There is no way there could have been a photo of inward bowing minutes before the collapse without a mechanism to have caused it.
Click to expand...
So you deny the existence of all the photo and testimony shown in support of inward bowing several minutes before the collapse. I retract my statement you lied about this, sorry.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The 0.003 to 0.004 inch thick galvanize would not cause any issue and would stay bonded to the steel like it does with galvanize products out in the weather.

I don't get the chemist concern you have here. The only way I could see that you could have envisioned warping was with bonded materials with different CTEs being subject to high or low temperature extremes.
Click to expand...

Unprotected zinc oxidizes rapidly in fires and can cause significant
heat generation, even generation of hydrogen gas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom