Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

Okay, I accept your apology.

I don't believe the photo is from minutes before the collapse of the North Tower. I believe the photo is actually from when the collapse started and the mechanism to pull the exterior columns inward was the falling core.

 

[DGM]

.

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?

Who's "they"? The NYPD? FEMA?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Unprotected zinc oxidizes rapidly in fires and can cause significant
heat generation, even generation of hydrogen gas.

Are you saying that you actually believe that the thin coating of zinc galvanize on the floor pan under the concrete could have generated a gas pressure and caused some kind of collapse?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Who's "they"? The NYPD?

No, I think someone at NIST is fraudulently saying the photo was from minutes before the collapse. They don't have a mechanism to cause it at that time.

 

[DGM]

No, I think someone at NIST is fraudulently saying the photo was from minutes before the collapse. They don't have a mechanism to cause it at that time.

The inward bowing was reported on 9/11/01. It was one of the warnings the NYPD gave the FDNY that the **** was about to hit the fan several minutes before the collapse.

How can you deny this fact?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Are you saying that you actually believe that the thin coating of zinc galvanize on the floor pan under the concrete could have generated a gas pressure and caused some kind of collapse?

The floor pans would have trapped and generated heat, above the
Trusses causing uneven heating and warpage.

If you want I have photos of a hydrogen reaction and videos
of said reaction from 2005 here somewhere, caused by PVC
Plastic pyrosis smoke, in a fire very similar to the towers.
It will take me some time to find them along with my video of my test
of the moment connections, ductible response of a pre
1988 design.
What you said of moment connections, is true of post 1988 connections
not of pre 1988 connections.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The floor pans would have trapped and generated heat, above the
Trusses causing uneven heating and warpage.

I don't see how what you are saying provides a mechanism for collapse and I seriously doubt there would have been any serious warpage. If you can quantify what you are saying somehow with calculations of some sort it would be something I could at least consider.

 

[DGM]

The floor pans would have trapped and generated heat, above the
Trusses causing uneven heating and warpage.

I don't think you really need to think that closely about this. The fact the slab will act as a heat sink and the lower cords will expand faster will make the truss reaction unpredictable. I've seen in real life trusses twisted into unreal shapes due to fire. Ask any fire fighter how they feel about them.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The inward bowing was reported on 9/11/01. It was one of the warnings the NYPD gave the FDNY that the **** was about to hit the fan several minutes before the collapse.

How can you deny this fact?

The claim that the photo of inward bowing was from minutes before the collapse came from the NIST report.

I have to go back to the no mechanism problem. Without a mechanism minutes beforehand the photo cannot be from minutes beforehand.

The inward bowing could not have happened until the core dropped during the full collapse initiation.

 

[DGM]

The claim that the photo of inward bowing was from minutes before the collapse came from the NIST report.

I have to go back to the no mechanism problem. Without a mechanism minutes beforehand the photo cannot be from minutes beforehand.

The inward bowing could not have happened until the core dropped during the full collapse initiation.

No, this evidence was used in the FEMR report and also reported on 9/11/01. It was the reason the FDNY attempted to withdraw their forward responders from the towers prior to the collapse.

I thought you watched the events of the day and studied them afterwards.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, this evidence was used in the FEMR report and also reported on 9/11/01. It was the reason the FDNY attempted to withdraw their forward responders from the towers prior to the collapse.

I thought you watched the events of the day and studied them afterwards.

It doesn't matter how many witnesses you can produce who try to say a flying saucer landed in a certain field if there is no mechanism for getting it there.

No mechanism for inward bowing of exterior columns minutes before collapse means it could not have happened minutes before collapse. I think it happened as the collapse started and later it was claimed it occurred minutes before to fit with a story that fire somehow caused the collapse. However, no mechanism is a severe problem for the story and would hold up in court no matter how many witnesses you produce trying to say something different.

 

[DGM]

It doesn't matter how many witnesses you can produce who try to say a flying saucer landed in a certain field if there is no mechanism for getting it there.

Denial of reality noted.

Does this also work with witnesses of "explosions"?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I never said there wasn't a fire on the 98th floor of WTC 1.

*Sigh* Unfortunately for me it does appear I owe you a retraction for my reading of your post. You've made similar claims before but that post of yours wasn't one of them. My apologies.

....when those who can't imagine the buildings could have been brought down by controlled demolition are stumped.

No, in this case I read your post and conflated it with another of your remarks. Although I have my criticisms for your ignoring those issues and will sometimes be very scathing on my commentary, I do not respond intending to misrepresent your words. I made an error from not reading your post closely enough... it was a pretty simple error... and you have my thanks for catching it.

On the other hand, regarding the controlled demolition angle, I've ran some ideas in my head on workable scenarios but the only one realistic that I've seen is to somehow get the explosives to initiate the collapse from the impact regions and let gravity do the rest. In that scenario however I would need evidence that overrides all of the hurtles that the devices would have been exposed to, and to date I have not seen that. I am open to other channels of finding that critical point evidence but thus far I haven't seen it, and frankly, the ultimate collapse mechanism had little to do with the initial damage from the planes... it was secondary effects from it. It does not erase my misreading of your post earlier, however I'm not seeing the same significance in it as you.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Denial of reality noted.

Does this also work with witnesses of "explosions"?

Reality is that there was no mechanism to cause the inward bowing minutes before collapse. Witnesses are not as strong as physical evidence or something along the lines of no possibility of it occurring due to a lack of a mechanism.

The blood and autopsy evidence in the Michael Brown case showed the cop (Darren Wilson) was telling the truth and not Michael Brown's friend who said the cop shot him while he had his hands up and was moving away. The reality is the cop shot him while he was charging at him and his hands were not up.

 

[NoahFence]

reality is no mechanism. Witnesses are not as strong as physical evidence or something along the lines of no possibility of it occurring due to a lack of a mechanism.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any other examples of inward bowing being caused by controlled demolition?


Or is this the first time you've ever seen this phenomenon?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any other examples of inward bowing being caused by controlled demolition?


Or is this the first time you've ever seen this phenomenon?

I think it is a well known methodology in the controlled demolition industry. Danny Jowenko explained that is what would happen when you remove the core and is why you don't need charges on the exterior columns. That mechanism satisfies anything I understand and I can see why it works with the eccentricity generated and p-delta effect on the exterior columns. they will buckle under their own load and collapse with little resistance due to those things.

 

[DGM]

Reality is that there was no mechanism to cause the inward bowing minutes before collapse. Witnesses are not as strong as physical evidence or something along the lines of no possibility of it occurring due to a lack of a mechanism.

The blood and autopsy evidence in the Michael Brown case showed the cop (Darren Wilson) was telling the truth and not Michael Brown's friend who said the cop shot him while he had his hands up and was moving away. The reality is the cop shot him while he was charging at him and his hands were not up.

So now we're back to you providing a more plausible mechanism. "Took out the core" is not a mechanism.

Care to give it a try or do you need subpoena power?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I don't think you really need to think that closely about this. The fact the slab will act as a heat sink and the lower cords will expand faster will make the truss reaction unpredictable. I've seen in real life trusses twisted into unreal shapes due to fire. Ask any fire fighter how they feel about them.

Yes I know, the trusses Tony mentioned as preventing pull in are the most venerable just pointing out that some of us do real world testing to determine merit of our Ideas, others merely make assumptions, 2500C, temps above the floor trusses is one of the possibilities
In the towers. The reaction would be limited in volume but high temperature.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So now we're back to you providing a more plausible mechanism. "Took out the core" is not a mechanism.

Care to give it a try or do you need subpoena power?

I don't agree with you saying taking out the core is not a mechanism for the inward bowing. But just for the sake of argument (since how the core collapsed is a separate argument) let's just say "when the core collapsed it caused the inward bowing".

There is no question about plausibility. When the core columns fell they would have pulled the exterior columns inward and it is the only mechanism I can see that was available. It just couldn't and didn't happen when somebody doing the report wanted it to, so they changed the timeline.

 

[DGM]

I don't agree with you saying taking out the core is not a mechanism for the inward bowing. But just for the sake of argument (since how the core collapsed is a separate argument) let's just say "when the core collapsed it caused the inward bowing".

There is no question about plausibility. When the core columns fell they would have pulled the exterior columns inward and it is the only mechanism I can see that was available. It just couldn't and didn't happen when somebody doing the report wanted it to, so they changed the timeline.

Several minutes before the global collapse?