• 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:
No, the core columns dropped and pulled in the exterior during the collapse. It could not and did not happen minutes before collapse.
Click to expand...
We're now at an impasse. I watched the reports on 9/11 and have read the reports prior to the NIST reports(NYPD, FDNY, FEMR). I'm unwilling to deny the fact the evidence supports the inward bowing several minutes before the collapse.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
We're now at an impasse. I watched the reports on 9/11 and have read the reports prior to the NIST reports(NYPD, FDNY, FEMR). I'm unwilling to deny the fact the evidence supports the inward bowing several minutes before the collapse.
Click to expand...

Maybe you will figure out a mechanism to cause inward bowing of the exterior columns minutes before collapse, but NIST certainly couldn't, and I can't.

I am sorry you have this conflict, but without a mechanism I have to say whatever you heard about it occurring minutes before collapse was wrong. It couldn't have happened until the core went down during the collapse, not minutes before.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

I dunno. Maybe I just need to dumb this down to as stupid as it gets.

"It is a well known methodology".

Here's the thing. If i said the same thing, only regarding say - the Red Sox recent success. That it was well known, all I'd have to do to back up that statement is show proof that they've won the title:



Now, if inward bowing is a well-known methodology, surely it would be just as easy for YOU to find an example of that as it was for me to find an example to back up my statement regarding the Red Sox. Seem fair?

Good. Now go. Show proof. I'll even go you one better. I'll sign over a crisp new c-note to fund Gage's travels if you do. Seem fair?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Maybe you will figure out a mechanism to cause inward bowing of the exterior columns minutes before collapse, but NIST certainly couldn't, and I can't.
Click to expand...
Easy - just comprehend the cascade failure - with or without CD assistance by the way. Then it is easy to explain. It's not very hard for a competent engineer - Remember I've explained it several times. In spoon fed little steps.

Whether NIST could or could not doesn't change what happened. Remember it happened 9/11 2001. NIST reported years later and reports written years later do not change history.

(The history changing technology is not even in alpha yet - next to your "Delayed Action Gravity" which AFAIK is still on the "back burner". :))

And the fact that you cannot explain it and don't seem to comprehend the engineering realities happen to be the priority issues we are trying to sort out in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Maybe you will figure out a mechanism to cause inward bowing of the exterior columns minutes before collapse, but NIST certainly couldn't, and I can't.

I am sorry you have this conflict, but without a mechanism I have to say whatever you heard about it occurring minutes before collapse was wrong. It couldn't have happened until the core went down during the collapse, not minutes before.
Click to expand...

Weakening of the top of the trusses because of the floor pans reflecting and producing heat, then the intense gravitational load on unevenly heated perimeter columns, who's outer surfaces is air cooled by conductive Aluminum.
And it was tested experimentially by me and no you have not proposed a mechanism to prevent it.
I point it out solely as a possibility, discovered in a mock up exposed to a fire involving diesel fuel carpet and PVC plastic with sufficient mist to generate steam.

Nist's model was not a floor mock up mine was, the truss design was similar to NIST but not exactly had to use salvaged trusses, from a dismantled building, and the floor pans and light weight concrete were my own build.
I cut longer trusses into with a portiband and used then to build the trusses you said would prevent pull in. For perimeter columns I substituted 6x4 square tubing 1/2 inch.
Also salvaged.

Was not even testing for pull in or collapse was looking for sources of microspheres, in the fires.
The floor pans with out insulation were, a heat sink, reflector, and fuel.
I told you Tony it was more complex than your simple argument, because you have never done any real world experiments, to check your assertions, a problem my buddy Frank Greening also has.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

By 1988 are you referring to when they put in the changes due to Northridge?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
No, the core columns dropped and pulled in the exterior during the collapse. It could not and did not happen minutes before collapse.
Click to expand...

Upthread I posted still photos taken from a helicopter which we know were taken 19 seconds apart (from the exif data) or - if you believe the exif data was faked - were taken from sufficiently different angles to guarantee that a substantial number of seconds must have elapsed between them. You don't even have to believe that the absolute time of those shots is accurate, it's the time elapsed that matters.

Both clearly show bowing. For your theory to hold water the core collapse must have been progressing all that time without onset of global collapse.

Is this what you believe happened?
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

And nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that fires tend to progress upwards in a structure because heat rises.

But I see you're now in effect arguing that either the impacts were controlled to the level of precision necessary to strike a specific floor but not the floor above, or that there were charges on every floor that could possibly have been the one above the impact zone; the latter implying that there must also have been charges on all the floors within the impact zone, and that these charges were not set off either by the impact or the resulting fires.

Of course, you don't realise you're arguing that, because you haven't thought through the implications of your latest wild guess, and of course you'll deny that your belief implies the above and attack the intelligence of anyone who thinks it does. But to anyone capable of reasoning, the implications are clear.

Dave
 
ozeco41 said:
Easy - just comprehend the cascade failure - with or without CD assistance by the way. Then it is easy to explain. It's not very hard for a competent engineer - Remember I've explained it several times. In spoon fed little steps.
Click to expand...

Apparently, no, you haven't, because Tony says nobody has.

It's getting rather pointless to argue any more, because Tony simply is not living in the real world. It's the classic woo peddler's argument; if the evidence doesn't agree with the theory, then the evidence must be ignored.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Apparently, no, you haven't, because Tony says nobody has...
Click to expand...
It's interesting to see the several sightly different explanation tracks. In these recent posts I've been saying "the initiation was a series of column failures. So if you understand what must happen to one column you can add them up".

Then I was just browsing the few 9/11 links I have archived and decided to read again your 2010 version based on the undeniable geometric consequences of tilt. I'd prefer to explain by just one "point of view". I have no difficulty visualising how two or more POVs add together - must obviously because they are all different valid explanations from different perspectives. So they are all - or in this case both compatible - my "add up the columns" and your "look at the tilt geometry". Visualising in 3D has always been one of my abilities so it is always challenging to meet engineers who cannot visualise. and there are many of them in the real world - but they drift into suitable jobs in RL. Fully exposed in this medium. Even tho' it is a verbal or words medium and ties down "visual explainers" like me.

Dave Rogers said:
It's getting rather pointless to argue any more, because Tony simply is not living in the real world...
Click to expand...
My interest is more about explaining rather than arguing in the sense of trying to beat the opponent. It's obvious in my posts - they tend to be long because they are intended to be explanatory. Down to the very simplified "follow the dots" "monkey see monkey do" step by step reasoning I put into a recent post. It will work with honest truth seeking truthers but the hard core obsessive denialists wont go down a reasoned road map of logic. Whether they see it or not they sense the coming trap.

Dave Rogers said:
It's the classic woo peddler's argument; if the evidence doesn't agree with the theory, then the evidence must be ignored.
Click to expand...
It's "faith based" "reasoning" - not rational objective logical reasoning. And the two do not interface. I saw a lot of it as Moderator and active poster on the Richard Dawkins forum. Creationists queueing up to face the evil atheists - we were convinced that their missionary training required them to get a tick in the box "Face the Atheists" and inevitably getting mauled. "Tested in the fire"

Change the topic but these few remaining hard core so called truthers are cast in the same mould. "My mind is made up - don't try to convince me with your logic and reasoning and evidence."

The only thing they seem to be missing is the "Holy Book of Truthing"...


...good idea - there could be a market for it. Even a full range:

"Introduction to Truthing"

"Truthing for Dummies."

...
...
...
...
"101 Debating Tricks for Truthers."
...
...
Get your Doctorate in Truthing - Bentham Mail Orders. No need to study - $500 gets you your Masters in Truthing by return mail...
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Apparently, no, you haven't, because Tony says nobody has.

It's getting rather pointless to argue any more, because Tony simply is not living in the real world. It's the classic woo peddler's argument; if the evidence doesn't agree with the theory, then the evidence must be ignored.

Dave
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are out of arguments for your position Dave.

Accusing me of not living in the real world is sort of low brow when all I am saying is that if there is no mechanism for inward bowing minutes before collapse it could not and did not happen, and you haven't been able to provide a mechanism for it either.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Accusing me of not living in the real world is sort of low brow when all I am saying is that if there is no mechanism for inward bowing minutes before collapse it could not and did not happen, and you haven't been able to provide a mechanism for it either.
Click to expand...

No, I'm accusing you of not living in the real world because you're rejecting evidence you can't explain. In the real world, you don't get to do that.

What's ironic is that you're engaging in exactly the kind of behaviour woo peddlers accuse skeptics of. The True Believer in psychic powers, for example, will accuse skeptics of saying "I refuse to believe you can foresee the future because I can't understand how you could do it," when in fact the argument is "I refuse to believe you can foresee the future because your predictions are either unverifiable or no more accurate than random chance." And that's what other posters are saying when they talk about projection; you've formed a false picture of the other side of the argument which is in fact the approach you yourself would take in their place. So you accuse people of ignoring your inferential evidence for CD while at the same time openly stating that you will ignore the pictorial evidence against it, for no other reason than that the evidence is against it. The irony is almost palpable. And there's nothing really left to do in this discussion than to highlight to observers how irrational your thinking has become, so that's all I'm really bothering to do now.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, I'm accusing you of not living in the real world because you're rejecting evidence you can't explain. In the real world, you don't get to do that.

What's ironic is that you're engaging in exactly the kind of behaviour woo peddlers accuse skeptics of. The True Believer in psychic powers, for example, will accuse skeptics of saying "I refuse to believe you can foresee the future because I can't understand how you could do it," when in fact the argument is "I refuse to believe you can foresee the future because your predictions are either unverifiable or no more accurate than random chance." And that's what other posters are saying when they talk about projection; you've formed a false picture of the other side of the argument which is in fact the approach you yourself would take in their place. So you accuse people of ignoring your inferential evidence for CD while at the same time openly stating that you will ignore the pictorial evidence against it, for no other reason than that the evidence is against it. The irony is almost palpable. And there's nothing really left to do in this discussion than to highlight to observers how irrational your thinking has become, so that's all I'm really bothering to do now.

Dave
Click to expand...

Irrational and over simplified.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It sounds like you are out of arguments for your position Dave.

Accusing me of not living in the real world is sort of low brow when all I am saying is that if there is no mechanism for inward bowing minutes before collapse it could not and did not happen, and you haven't been able to provide a mechanism for it either.
Click to expand...

That 'logic' seems kind of backwards. Cause happens before effect, after all.

Effect: 'Inward bowing' minutes before collapse undeniably (which is the word you would presumably disagree with) occurring. Cause: the supposedly unknown mechanism.

What you're saying: There is no possible cause, therefore the effect cannot have happened.

Reality: the effect happened, so there must have been a cause, regardless of what it was or whether you believe it.
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, I'm accusing you of not living in the real world because you're rejecting evidence you can't explain. In the real world, you don't get to do that.

What's ironic is that you're engaging in exactly the kind of behaviour woo peddlers accuse skeptics of. The True Believer in psychic powers, for example, will accuse skeptics of saying "I refuse to believe you can foresee the future because I can't understand how you could do it," when in fact the argument is "I refuse to believe you can foresee the future because your predictions are either unverifiable or no more accurate than random chance." And that's what other posters are saying when they talk about projection; you've formed a false picture of the other side of the argument which is in fact the approach you yourself would take in their place. So you accuse people of ignoring your inferential evidence for CD while at the same time openly stating that you will ignore the pictorial evidence against it, for no other reason than that the evidence is against it. The irony is almost palpable. And there's nothing really left to do in this discussion than to highlight to observers how irrational your thinking has become, so that's all I'm really bothering to do now.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, your argument is no different than if you were saying people saw a flying saucer land in a field outside London and that if I ask for a mechanism, and don't believe it if there isn't one, that I am not living in the real world.

I would think most people would put that description on your behavior in this situation.

I think we can all agree that there were people who said WTC 7 had already collapsed when it was still standing, and in some situations was still in the video right behind them.
 
uvar said:
That 'logic' seems kind of backwards. Cause happens before effect, after all.

Effect: 'Inward bowing' minutes before collapse undeniably (which is the word you would presumably disagree with) occurring. Cause: the supposedly unknown mechanism.

What you're saying: There is no possible cause, therefore the effect cannot have happened.

Reality: the effect happened, so there must have been a cause, regardless of what it was or whether you believe it.
Click to expand...

You can say you saw a guy put his head up his rear all you want but without you providing a mechanism for how it was supposedly accomplished it has to be discarded as hearsay and nonsense.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You can say you saw a guy put his head up his rear all you want but without you providing a mechanism for how it was supposedly accomplished it has to be discarded as hearsay and nonsense.
Click to expand...

Mmm ;)

Interesting you should say that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom