• 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:
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...

That is because it is impossible to do that, it is not impossible for column pull in to occur, and is backed up by the occurance not once but twice in buildings of similar design.

That can only mean your modeling of the collapses is overly simplistic, you can not understand them as you claimed to do, and your engineering expertise in that respect is worthlessworthless.
Because it is nonexistent, cause and effect you ignore evidence to preach to the
faithful, people who are knowledgeable ignore you.
It is not a competition it is actually about the truth, which you are definitely
not representing.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
That is because it is impossible to do that, it is not impossible for column pull in to occur, and is backed up by the occurance not once but twice in buildings of similar design.

That can only mean your modeling of the collapses is overly simplistic, you can not understand them as you claimed to do, and your engineering expertise in that respect is worthlessworthless.
Because it is nonexistent, cause and effect you ignore evidence to preach to the
faithful, people who are knowledgeable ignore you.
It is not a competition it is actually about the truth, which you are definitely
not representing.
Click to expand...

NIST couldn't provide a mechanism to cause inward bowing minutes before the collapse and apparently neither can anyone here. I just said I can't think of one either.

I have also said I can provide a mechanism to cause it but that can only happen at the time of collapse. That is the core falling and pulling the exterior columns inward and causing them to buckle under their own load due to eccentricity and p-delta effects. That is likely what the photos are of, with the time changed by someone to fit a story they wanted to try and tell differently than the way it really happened.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
That is likely what the photos are of, with the time changed by someone to fit a story they wanted to try and tell differently than the way it really happened.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be good enough, because of the changed angles and the fact that the helicopter had retreated by the time of the collapse. The photos would have to have been faked completely.

Your approach to this part of the discussion would have been much simpler (though no less wrong) if you'd gone straight for that. You're extremely familiar, after all, with the testimony and physical evidence regarding pre-collapse bowing.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
NIST couldn't provide a mechanism to cause inward bowing minutes before the collapse and apparently neither can anyone here. I just said I can't think of one either.

I have also said I can provide a mechanism to cause it but that can only happen at the time of collapse. That is the core falling and pulling the exterior columns inward and causing them to buckle under their own load due to eccentricity and p-delta effects. That is likely what the photos are of, with the time changed by someone to fit a story they wanted to try and tell differently than the way it really happened.
Click to expand...

No Your making an assertion of which you have no evidence just Like Steven E. Jones,
I provided a plausible mechanism and you provided nothing that could possibly dispute it,
Conclusion the only possible conclusion is you do not understand how complex the collapses were.
There fore your claims are baseless ratings of a person that is pretending to be knowledgeable, and is not.
Ignorance like yours and Dr. Steven E. Jones's does not have to be answered it can simply be ignored.
There is no reason to try to dispute obviously baseless flawed claims especially since the
NY PD photos were posted on this forum in 2006 before the NIST report was released.
I have a copy of the photo with time stamps, that predates NIST.
Sent to me in 2005 by one of Jones's people, Named Lyte Tripp.

It is the exact same picture posted on the Forum here everything matches.

I started looking into these Ideas preNIST before the scholars for truth was founded.

Your either mistaken or lying about the time stamp being changed.

The photo I have was sent to me on 3 125,Pm. July 2005, from Lyte Tripp, on MySpace.
It came from the NYPD.

The source for the photo has always been the NYPD, not NIST Both Lyte and Gravy got copies from
The NYPD in 2005, PreNIST.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
No Your making an assertion of which you have no evidence just Like Steven E. Jones,
I provided a plausible mechanism and you provided nothing that could possibly dispute it,
Conclusion the only possible conclusion is you do not understand how complex the collapses were.
There fore your claims are baseless ratings of a person that is pretending to be knowledgeable, and is not.
Ignorance like yours and Dr. Steven E. Jones's does not have to be answered it can simply be ignored.
There is no reason to try to dispute obviously baseless flawed claims especially since the
NY PD photos were posted on this forum in 2006 before the NIST report was released.
I have a copy of the photo with time stamps, that predates NIST.
Sent to me in 2005 by one of Jones's people, Named Lyte Tripp.

It is the exact same picture posted on the Forum here everything matches.

I started looking into these Ideas preNIST before the scholars for truth was founded.

Your either mistaken or lying about the time stamp being changed.

The photo I have was sent to me on 3 125,Pm. July 2005, from Lyte Tripp, on MySpace.
It came from the NYPD.

The source for the photo has always been the NYPD, not NIST Both Lyte and Gravy got copies from
The NYPD in 2005, PreNIST.
Click to expand...

Sorry to spoil your point but someone at NIST was saying the inward bowing was occurring minutes before collapse in 2004. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aCuh.ATdfOXc&refer=top_world_news

From what you say here, this was apparently well before you or anyone here knew about it.

It is pretty clear that someone at NIST fraudulently changed the timing of when the inward bowing occurred to fit a story they wanted to tell rather than what really happened. Unfortunately for them their story doesn't work without a mechanism to cause the inward bowing minutes before collapse. The inward bowing could only have occurred when the core dropped during the collapse initiation.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
A lot of people knew about it on 9/11/01. That's when it was first reported.
Click to expand...

It is funny that you say that because the article says it wasn't necessarily reported that day.

From the 2004 article

``No evidence has been found to suggest the information was communicated to all emergency responders at the scene,'' said an executive summary of a progress report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is conducting the study.

It is quite clear that someone at NIST needed the inward bowing to occur minutes prior to collapse to fit the story they wanted to tell and that they changed the timing of when the inward bowing occurred. Their problem is they don't have a mechanism to cause it and that uncovers their fraud. There is only one mechanism to cause it and that is the core dropping, and it wouldn't have occurred until the collapse initiated.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It is funny that you say that because the article says it wasn't necessarily reported that day.

From the 2004 article

``No evidence has been found to suggest the information was communicated to al emergency responders at the scene,'' said an executive summary of a progress report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is conducting the study.

It is quite clear that someone at NIST needed the inward bowing to occur minutes prior to collapse to fit the story they wanted to tell and that they changed the timing of when the inward bowing occurred. Their problem is they don't have a mechanism to cause it and that uncovers their fraud. There is only one mechanism to cause it and that is the core dropping, and it wouldn't have occurred until the collapse initiated.
Click to expand...
You really need to learn to read for comprehension.

``No evidence has been found to suggest the information was communicated to all emergency responders at the scene,'' said an executive summary of a progress report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is conducting the study.
Click to expand...

I highlighted the part you need to read over a few times. :rolleyes:

Unlike your documentary with Silverstein "admitting" to demoing his building, this evidence exists.
 
Tony, do you people have like an ongoing contest to see who comes up with the most flawed reasoning, winner goes to dinner with Gage or something?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Sorry to spoil your point but someone at NIST was saying the inward bowing was occurring minutes before collapse in 2004. See http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aCuh.ATdfOXc&refer=top_world_news

From what you say here, this was apparently well before you or anyone here knew about it.

It is pretty clear that someone at NIST fraudulently changed the timing of when the inward bowing occurred to fit a story they wanted to tell rather than what really happened. Unfortunately for them their story doesn't work without a mechanism to cause the inward bowing minutes before collapse. The inward bowing could only have occurred when the core dropped during the collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

The first talk about inward bowing saw in 2002 By Thomas Edgars the Aluminum burns theory in 2002, that was presented on Nova the NYPD photos were downloadable from the PBS. Website.

Truss saying causing failure was first proposed in that program, an early debunked theory.
 
DGM said:
You really need to learn to read for comprehension.



I highlighted the part you need to read over a few times. :rolleyes:

Unlike your documentary with Silverstein "admitting" to demoing his building, this evidence exists.
Click to expand...

The reason for that line from NIST is to explain/provide a cover for why people did not know about it on 9/11/2001. Of course, they wouldn't have known about it because it didn't happen. There is no mechanism to cause inward bowing minutes before collapse and plenty of implied evidence that it was a timeline change to fit the story someone at NIST wanted to tell.

You would lose in court.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The reason for that line from NIST is to explain/provide a cover for why people did not know about it on 9/11/2001. Of course, they wouldn't have known about it because it didn't happen. There is no mechanism to cause inward bowing minutes before collapse and plenty of implied evidence that it was a timeline change to fit the story someone at NIST wanted to tell.

You would lose in court.
Click to expand...
I'd call in the witness that actually saw it and documented it.. You'd never get to court.
 
DGM said:
I'd call in the witness that actually saw it and documented it.. You'd never get to court.
Click to expand...

The lack of a mechanism would trump his testimony. All you would be doing is akin to calling in someone who said he saw flying saucers.
 
DGM said:
I'd call in the witness that actually saw it and documented it.. You'd never get to court.
Click to expand...

The air date on the Nova program that first described the inward bowing and released the picture was April 30, 2002 I believe NIST was not involved until May.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The reason for that line from NIST is to explain/provide a cover for why people did not know about it on 9/11/2001. Of course, they wouldn't have known about it because it didn't happen. There is no mechanism to cause inward bowing minutes before collapse and plenty of implied evidence that it was a timeline change to fit the story someone at NIST wanted to tell.

You would lose in court.
Click to expand...

Think about it Tony, why would NIST need to be told the evil plan that had taken place ?

Surely if anything went to court the judges will be bribed just like truthers claim for Neils Harrit's embarrassing episode.

Come to think of it, why don't you stop paying tax or rack up parking fines and go to court yourself. You may get the chance to show the Wtc7 collapse.
 
Passing time, changing angle, bowing there. Then the helicopter moved away :

 
Tony Szamboti said:
The lack of a mechanism would trump his testimony. All you would be doing is akin to calling in someone who said he saw flying saucers.
Click to expand...

No because expert witness testimony from actual.structural engineering professionals by the thousands and that the effect happened twice in one day, would have a grand Jury laughing at you!
You would be the clown in the room just Like Harrit- Jones's with even less respect!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom