• 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:
I think the appropriate way to answer the questions involves objectivity. Can you be objective and stop meandering into subjective areas like who has what credibility? It doesn't address the points Jay has brought up about the seeming dearth of thermal energy required to heat the structure enough to cause it to collapse.
Click to expand...

OK, in the interests of objectivity, how about someone justifying Jay's assertion that there wasn't enough energy present to begin with by actually posting some numbers? Or do you just think you can pretend evidence exists without having to show it?

Oh, wait. Sorry. Forgot who I was talking to.

Dave
 
Spanx said:
Ok let's play the game of English translated to German then translated back to English.

Great fun, is it hitting the spot for you ?
Click to expand...


I made the argument Gage made myself in the post responding to JayUtah's usual arrogant nonsense. The Gage quote was an additional goody. Go back and read my post; it's in English.
 
Dave Rogers said:
OK, in the interests of objectivity, how about someone justifying Jay's assertion that there wasn't enough energy present to begin with by actually posting some numbers? Or do you just think you can pretend evidence exists without having to show it?

Oh, wait. Sorry. Forgot who I was talking to.

Dave
Click to expand...


As to you earlier response to my post: "Gravity" is not a force significant to what is described in the NIST reports which ends before the "collapse" event, as we all know. Discussion is about initiation of that event.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I made the argument Gage made myself in the post responding to JayUtah's usual arrogant nonsense. The Gage quote was an additional goody. Go back and read my post; it's in English.
Click to expand...

Yes and like I have said, it's Gage's way of getting people to donate more money.

Perhaps the 15 A&Es will actually start their own investigation. Although if they don't agree with Gage after reading the NIST report he will ignore them and carry on fund raising.
 
Spanx said:
Yes and like I have said, it's Gage's way of getting people to donate more money.
Click to expand...


Really?

Childlike Empress said:
The "thousands of practicing professionals" argument is as old as it is lame, given that most "professionals" never came across this argument.
Click to expand...


That's Gage's way of making more money? You already forgot what we were talking about. Not uncommon in interaction with "debunkers".
 
Childlike Empress said:
Really?




That's Gage's way of making more money? You already forgot what we were talking about. Not uncommon in interaction with "debunkers".
Click to expand...

But if the thousands of A&Es aren't aware of wtc7 collapse they are also unaware of the NIST report. One of Gages presentations would not be enough for them to have a valid opinion on the collapse of wtc7.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Pardon?
Click to expand...

There are thousands and thousands of architects and engineers around the world who have , for example, have never heard of the collapse of WTC 7 - they can therefore provide no qualified judgment about it. Those we reached our lectures , mostly close to our conclusions . At the event in the Urania fifteen engineers and five architects were present. None of them left the event in the belief that the official version does , but they all agreed to our demands . If we confront colleagues with the information gathered by us facts that make us experience has shown that most, only a few insult us as " conspiracy
Click to expand...

If the above is what your German article says you may understand what I am talking about.

A&E's unaware of wtc7 and the NIST report agree with Gage after an hour or so.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Thousand words argument, "debunked" in a sentence, deflected with a "tell it all" demand in a minute. It isn't a nice picture you're painting here, Dave.
Click to expand...

Jay isn't actually painting a picture at all, he's just telling us about one he claims to have seen but won't tell us where it is. And you're painting a rather clear picture of your own ignorance if you think gravity wasn't a source of energy in a collapse mechanism that involved floor pans sagging and pulling inwards through catenary action. As usual, the truth movement is made up of the criminally ignorant trying to lecture the people who actually understand.

So let's try that again. An important part of NIST's collapse initiation model was the sagging of the floor pans. If gravity is not a significant part of that mechanism as you claim, what caused the floor plans to sag?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Jay isn't actually painting a picture at all, he's just telling us about one he claims to have seen but won't tell us where it is
Click to expand...


What the ... is this even supposed to mean, Dave? Fact is that you have spent years defending something you have no clue about, because you have no scientific education at all. You just trusted the "debunker heros" until they vanished and then repeated their mantra. And your lame attempt at making me claim something I didn't is futile. I wear the "no-claimer" medal I earned years ago with pride.
 
Childlike Empress said:
What the ... is this even supposed to mean, Dave? Fact is that you have spent years defending something you have no clue about, because you have no scientific education at all. You just trusted the "debunker heros" until they vanished and then repeated their mantra. And your lame attempt at making me claim something I didn't is futile. I wear the "no-claimer" medal I earned years ago with pride.
Click to expand...

No claim no model, no reason no logic, no science, no understanding.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Jay isn't actually painting a picture at all, he's just telling us about one he claims to have seen but won't tell us where it is. And you're painting a rather clear picture of your own ignorance if you think gravity wasn't a source of energy in a collapse mechanism that involved floor pans sagging and pulling inwards through catenary action. As usual, the truth movement is made up of the criminally ignorant trying to lecture the people who actually understand.

So let's try that again. An important part of NIST's collapse initiation model was the sagging of the floor pans. If gravity is not a significant part of that mechanism as you claim, what caused the floor plans to sag?

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, how can you claim sagging floor trusses pulled the exterior columns inward when the NIST FEA analysis did not produce that effect?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom