• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Legge/Szamboti: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

Lame.

Their interpretation of the NIST's conclusion is wrong, they're still thinking of a pancake collapse.
 
This idiocy has already been discussed. See the Journal of 9/11 Studies "100th paper" thread.
 
They describe a collapse mechanism that obviously didn't happen, thus whatever they conclude is totally moot.
 
Max, we are still reading that incredibly detailed 1 and 1/2 page long note, and waiting instructions from the folks at MilDec.

In the interim, one may wish to read that whole other thread that was started about this jotting. And given the fact there is already a thread on it, I fully expect you to come in with a hard hitting analysis, right out of the gate! Go Max!
 
Sorry, I didn't realize the paper was being discussed elsewhere.


This station is signing off.


* * *
 

Attachments

  • ist2_267869_ntsc_tv_test_pattern.jpg
    ist2_267869_ntsc_tv_test_pattern.jpg
    19.1 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
I thought the circus was seasonal.
 
Last edited:
dumb paper! Fetzer method proof by saying so

Max Photon said:
* * *

Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti have a relatively new paper in - your favorite - the Journal of 911 Studies:

911 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible


This scratching post is for all you intellectual felines.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the paper?
Click to expand...
The paper says nothing, presents nothing, is nothing. If you have some points that you can support please present them. But Tony has problems with reality, he makes up lies about 9/11 and posts political tripe in his old failed paper; even if you agree with his politics why is political junk in a science paper. The paper is like your stuff, wrong. You posted it and have no idea why it is wrong, and no idea why they are making it up.

Tony's paper has no numbers, no calculation, no science, just talk! The talk it up and prove nothing. Tony and Frank use talk to state a lie. Do you understand they did nothing! Read the paper, they talk about it, and say it can't happen. They say "it appears". They have no proof, they just say it can not happen, the old Fetzer method of stupid, just say it is so, it is so.

Summing up the paper, the sudden collapse initiation was impossible because they say so! Wowzer, and they ignore GRAVITY! Good job for these two with a new dolt idea on 9/11. Doltalicious

They say cause the sag had to go slow, the building would just sag down. They were proven wrong on 9/11, twice! Fools with education. If you have only a high school degree, you now see why there are many millionaires who share your plight of being rational and smart; higher educations does not prevent real dumb ideas from flowing from educated fools!
 
Last edited:
I agree with you Beachnut, it is of the same level as the Blanchard report, you remember, the BS'er with an axe to grind...

Some calculations would be very needed. I think they should set up a mathematical model, 1d for example and then estimate a function representing the resistive static force as function of time. They should prove that the kinetic impact energy after the collapse of the first story is insufficient to collapse the next one. The paper, although their idea can made plausible, is no real high level science paper.
 
beachnut said:
The paper says nothing, presents nothing, is nothing. If you have some points that you can support please present them. But Tony has problems with reality, he makes up lies about 9/11 and posts political tripe in his old failed paper; even if you agree with his politics why is political junk in a science paper. The paper is like your stuff, wrong. You posted it and have no idea why it is wrong, and no idea why they are making it up.

Tony's paper has no numbers, no calculation, no science, just talk! The talk it up and prove nothing. Tony and Frank use talk to state a lie. Do you understand they did nothing! Read the paper, they talk about it, and say it can't happen. They say "it appears". They have no proof, they just say it can not happen, the old Fetzer method of stupid, just say it is so, it is so.

Summing up the paper, the sudden collapse initiation was impossible because they say so! Wowzer, and they ignore GRAVITY! Good job for these two with a new dolt idea on 9/11. Doltalicious

They say cause the sag had to go slow, the building would just sag down. They were proven wrong on 9/11, twice! Fools with education. If you have only a high school degree, you now see why there are many millionaires who share your plight of being rational and smart; higher educations does not prevent real dumb ideas from flowing from educated fools!
Click to expand...

Excellent points.

When I was in college one of my classmates was a brilliant 4.0 student who, I swear, couldn't figure out how to put gasoline in his car.

He was the "smartest" guy I've ever known but he was also as dumb as a rock!
 
Last edited:
This paper is nothing but one long face-palm. How inept can two people possibly be?
 
they did a model, it proved them wrong

einsteen said:
I agree with you Beachnut, it is of the same level as the Blanchard report, you remember, the BS'er with an axe to grind...

Some calculations would be very needed. I think they should set up a mathematical model, 1d for example and then estimate a function representing the resistive static force as function of time. They should prove that the kinetic impact energy after the collapse of the first story is insufficient to collapse the next one. The paper, although their idea can made plausible, is no real high level science paper.
Click to expand...
Yes you agree Tony, the realcddeal, and Frank have just made up stuff to fool people unable to understand physics and engineering. They lied to fool people in 9/11 truth. Too bad they have no facts or evidence. Gee, the aircraft impacts alone had enough energy to cut all the columns. No wonder these guys ignore gravity and other factors as they spin a talking tale of woo.

The best part is where they seem to say steel gets stronger with heat. They have twisted some stuff to make it seem like there were explosives used to bring down the WTC. Liars with no facts. Yes, since they are trying to deceive people, even you have fallen for their foolish attempt at science. Why do they beat around the bush like you?

I love how you bring up an off topic item to make your false agreement more dumb.

You can do a quick calculation and prove Tony wrong; just like Ross is wrong.

I have no idea where you stand on 9/11, you have done a great job not supporting anything 9/11.

Jim Hoffman fails to make his point on B man. But nice try; JH was killed in Iraq, just like the terrorists are still alive! Aside from that BS, you failed to make a point that Blanchard is wrong, in fact he is correct. Funny, you can be biased and be right, and yoiu can be biased like Tony, Jones and other 9/11 fools and be wrong. Ironic
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
Excellent points.

When I was in college one of my classmates was a brilliant 4.0 student who, I swear, couldn't figure out how to put gasoline in his car.

He was the "smartest" guy I've ever known but he was also as dumb as a rock!
Click to expand...

I remember a theoretical physics professor, he works on non-abelian gauge theories, quantum fields etc., but when he met the coffee maker he was really confused and had no idea how to make coffee.
 
beachnut said:
I have no idea where you stand on 9/11, you have done a great job not supporting anything 9/11.
Click to expand...
I'm the person who pay you guys and disguise as a twoofer in order to check you guys are doing your job well... just kidding. No, I'm a year active in 9/11 world and am very aware that a lot of the theories don't hold, but I'm still not 'cured' because I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
I'm the person who pay you guys and disguise as a twoofer in order to check you guys are doing your job well... just kidding. No, I'm a year active in 9/11 world and am very aware that a lot of the theories don't hold, but I'm still not 'cured' because I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI
Click to expand...
Isn't that first video the one from 9-11 mysteries that Sophia(?) admits to adding the explosions?
 
einsteen said:
I'm the person who pay you guys and disguise as a twoofer in order to check you guys are doing your job well... just kidding. No, I'm a year active in 9/11 world and am very aware that a lot of the theories don't hold, but I'm still not 'cured' because I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI
Click to expand...
You do know in the first 3 seconds there are fake sounds? Where did you get that clip, the first 3 seconds are dub sounds.

But there are no explosives making noises in the rest of your clip. Sounds more like a KC-135 crashing.

Your video proves there are no explosive sounds, no real sounds of explosives, just building falling.

Your video on 93 shows exactly what a plane looks like that hits at high speed. I have been worked aircraft crash scenes like this. Not one thing is strange with 93, nothing is out of the ordinary. 93 is what you get when you run a plane into the ground. So you have two good videos proving no explosives and nothing strange about 93. You are working too hard.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom