General 9/11 Conspiracy Discussion

[skyeagle409]

Perimeter columns bending inward could cause an illusion that makes the top look like it's slightly leaning.

That is pure bulloney and you know it. Eyewitnesses reports on the ground and in the sky have trashed your claim. According to you, this photo is an illusion of a tower that looks like it's leaning.

 

[LSSBB]

Perimeter columns bending inward could cause an illusion that makes the top look like it's slightly leaning. There is no photographic evidence that the entire tops of either tower were leaning.

How do you think those perimeter columns commenced to bending, praytell?

 

[BStrong]

snipped

You came back but still no answers

"What materials were known to be present that would produce fireballs?"

What does "Cheap and Easily traceable" mean in relation to explosives?

 

[Axxman300]

Perimeter columns bending inward could cause an illusion that makes the top look like it's slightly leaning. There is no photographic evidence that the entire tops of either tower were leaning.

Except there is. You can find it on YouTube.

 

[bknight]

Except there is. You can find it on YouTube.

Only if (s)he looks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Perimeter columns bending inward could cause an illusion that makes the top look like it's slightly leaning.

This is one of those comments that requires a few hours of contemplation to fully recognise just how stupid it is. Let's not forget that the inward bowing of the WTC1 columns is so overwhelming a piece of evidence against CD that Tony Szamboti has had to declare the photographs to be fake, and that video evidence of the WTC2 collapse clearly shows the inward buckling of the perimeter columns to be the first phase of collapse initiation. MicahJava is therefore arguing that we must reject the possibility that WTC7 was observed to be leaning, and that this would have been taken as evidence that it was about to collapse, because inward bowing of the perimeter, which would also indicate that it was about to collapse, could have been mistaken for a lean. So if someone saw inward bowing, mistook it for a lean, and concluded that the building was likely to collapse, even though the premise would have been faulty, the conclusion would have been correct. So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that someone saw bowing of the perimeter columns of WTC7, mistook it for the building leaning, and thought that this was a sign that the building was going to collapse; how does this prove, or even suggest, a CD? Wouldn't someone of normal intelligence just realise that it meant that the building collapse was caused by the fires?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

True. Kind of like when splinters of shattered shin bones protruding through your skin causes an illusion that makes it look like you've broken your leg.

Or when the incoherent or self-contradictory arguments you're putting forward cause an illusion that makes it look like you're making stuff up.

Dave

 

[bknight]

Since MJ has brought forth a bit of ignorance, I would implore him to research prior to making any additional claims.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=17

 

[Mark F]

Perimeter columns bending inward could cause an illusion that makes the top look like it's slightly leaning. There is no photographic evidence that the entire tops of either tower were leaning.

So hold the phone,... how does one have inward bowing of perimeter columns and NOT have leaning?

 

[Dash80]

So hold the phone,... how does one have inward bowing of perimeter columns and NOT have leaning?

That and the fact helicopter crews reported the North Tower was leaning, but hey what do they know huh...

 

[ozeco41]

So hold the phone,... how does one have inward bowing of perimeter columns and NOT have leaning?

BY having ALL perimeter columns bow inwards by the same amount???

 

[GlennB]

So hold the phone,... how does one have inward bowing of perimeter columns and NOT have leaning?

If the columns were all bowing? "Nah, the building looks fine. The columns have synchronised their bowing"

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the columns were all bowing? "Nah, the building looks fine. The columns have synchronised their bowing"

By the same token, one might note that no lean was visible after the collapse, so no doubt the building was fine then too.

Dave

 

[cantonear1968]

BY having ALL perimeter columns bow inwards by the same amount???

Now that would be an Inside Job!

Or an accordion.

 

[Mark F]

BY having ALL perimeter columns bow inwards by the same amount???

Well now, that makes total sense

 

[cantonear1968]

Well now, that makes total sense

Actually wasn't that a Tony Tzamboti theory to explain the bowing? That the core was cut with nanothermite on lower floors and as it sagged it pulled on the perimeter columns around floor 80?

How this occurred on one side of one floor he didn't really say.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually wasn't that a Tony Tzamboti theory to explain the bowing? That the core was cut with nanothermite on lower floors and as it sagged it pulled on the perimeter columns around floor 80?

How this occurred on one side of one floor he didn't really say.

He also had to declare the time stamps on the photos to be faked, because he couldn't explain why this happened a few minutes before the beginning of the collapse instead of a few milliseconds. And if he's reading this, he'll probably come back to the forum just to post something along the lines of an absolute insistence that nobody but an incompetent idiot could believe the time stamps weren't faked.

Dave

 

[Mark F]

Actually wasn't that a Tony Tzamboti theory to explain the bowing? That the core was cut with nanothermite on lower floors and as it sagged it pulled on the perimeter columns around floor 80?

How this occurred on one side of one floor he didn't really say.

That is a problem when you try to force an observation to fit the theory.

 

[cantonear1968]

He also had to declare the time stamps on the photos to be faked, because he couldn't explain why this happened a few minutes before the beginning of the collapse instead of a few milliseconds. And if he's reading this, he'll probably come back to the forum just to post something along the lines of an absolute insistence that nobody but an incompetent idiot could believe the time stamps weren't faked.

Dave

I was just reading the "WTC7 Girder walk off" thread from about 5 years ago. Tony really like using Ryan Mackeys Irreducible Delusion theory to hand wave away inconvenient facts.

This got me in trouble before, but it was amazing how similar he sounded to Jim Fetzer. Would not address specific points and questions and simply dismissed everyone as not knowing enough to discuss it with him.

 

[cantonear1968]

That is a problem when you try to force an observation to fit the theory.

Very true. CIT comes immediately to mind. You have to make a 60 year old cab driver the lynch pin to the most elaborate magic-trick/psy-ops exercise ever pulled for you to believe what you believe.