• 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.

Merged ReThink911 - a Richard Gage ad campaign

What an utter piece of garbage.

From their own results page:

"One in Two Surveyed Have Doubts About Government’s Account of 9/11."

"38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it"

Talk about massaging the numbers!

If 38% have "some doubts", how can 50% "have doubts"?


They had to poison the well with that video, and yet even with that coercion, they still can only get 10% to not believe the "official story at all"!

:big:
 
Last edited:
It's a classic example of the "Trick Question" we learned in Statistics 101.#
"why do white sheep eat more than black sheep?"

and related to the one Aussies of my age remember:
"Four out of five dentists recommend Colgate Toothpaste"

And, going back a few years in AU, "Holden Cars are involved in more accidents than any other brand!"



# ...or, in my case, "Extremely Dumbed Down Statistics for Engineers" :o
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
...If 38% have "some doubts", how can 50% "have doubts"?...
Click to expand...
Truther maths...1 + 1 = banana

Orphia Nay said:
...They had to poison the well with that video, and yet even with that coercion, they still can only get 10% to not believe the "official story at all"!
Click to expand...
And that is 10% of the already biased sample.

The really sad part is that even if we generously avoid the hard judgements - "liars" -- "con artists" and such...

...they reveal a level of stup... ...err.... "low intellect" which is pathetic.

There is no way "they" would realise that we can see through the nonsense.

How do such people even survive in daily domestic decision making???
scratch.gif
 
Spanx said:
Does anyone have any views on what to expect from Ben Swann.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCPcvJ-TkDQ&feature=youtube
Click to expand...

Pretty standard kookery:

Today, more than 2,000 progressional architects and engineers from around the world have joined together to say that the NIST claim that Building 7 came down because of office fires is not only untrue, it is not possible. That no skyscraper in history has ever come down that way.
Click to expand...

I do love this little bit of nonsense:

A newly commissioned poll on this very subject finds that 12 years after the 9/11 attacks, there is growing skepticism in the public.

According to that poll, 38% of Americans have doubts about the official account of 9/11 and 10% do not believe it at all. That is compared to only a minority of those polled, 40% who are completely satisfied
Click to expand...
.

Of course, the only group in there who are total nuts are the 10%; 78% believe the "official" account, although about half of those have some doubts.
 
Today, more than 2,000 progressional architects and engineers from around the world have joined together to say that the NIST claim that Building 7 came down because of office fires is not only untrue, it is not possible. That no skyscraper in history has ever come down that way.
Click to expand...

That isn't what the petition says.
 
Orphia Nay said:
What an utter piece of garbage.

From their own results page:

"One in Two Surveyed Have Doubts About Government’s Account of 9/11."

"38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it"
...
They had to poison the well with that video, and yet even with that coercion, they still can only get 10% to not believe the "official story at all"!

:big:
Click to expand...

One in two first graders have doubts 2+2=4 ... they want a recount after lunch.


“Even the government’s own computer model disproves its theory. It looks nothing like the actual collapse,” said Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer from the Philadelphia area. “Not only that, they refuse to release the data that would allow us to verify their model. In the world of science, this is as bad as it gets. I’m glad most people can look at the collapse and see the obvious.” http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/
Click to expand...

I am amazed at the great skill 911 truth has at making 911 truth dumber each year. Tony exposes he has no clue what a computer model is, and how it should look.

Brainster said:
Pretty standard kookery:

I do love this little bit of nonsense:
.

Of course, the only group in there who are total nuts are the 10%; 78% believe the "official" account, although about half of those have some doubts.
Click to expand...

http://benswann.com/reality-check-more-americans-are-rethinking-911/

How many times does Tony get his 15 minutes?
To better understand the claims of AE for 9/11 Truth, I talked with Tony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with 27 years of experience in the aerospace and communications industries and one of the 2,000 engineers calling for an a new, independent investigation of the collapse of Building 7 and the World Trade Center towers.
Click to expand...
Aerospace and communication background has failed in this case.

Logic fails the expert news caster, Ben Swann?

Over the last 12 years, we have watched just about every single constitutional liberty afforded to Americans taken away as a result of our “war on terror”. We have watched our government take away our right to speech,
Click to expand...
Wow? and?
Despite all the rights that have been taken away, at least one right that still remains… the right to question who took those rights, how and why.
Click to expand...
Wait, I thought we lost the right to "speech"?
Wait, the right of JAQ is still active, the NWO failed to take it away. Thought that was speech.
And?
And that is Reality Check.
Click to expand...
Love his sources ...
http://rethink911.org/docs/ReThink911_YouGov_Poll_Results_Summary.pdf

The survey was carried out online - online is always the truth ...
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
.“Even the government’s own computer model disproves its theory. It looks nothing like the actual collapse,” said Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer from the Philadelphia area. “Not only that, they refuse to release the data that would allow us to verify their model. In the world of science, this is as bad as it gets. I’m glad most people can look at the collapse and see the obvious.” http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-...-911-theories/
Click to expand...
I have repeatedly asked what exactly AE911T would do with the data they say NIST refuses to turn over. For instance, with the fire Sim input data for 7WTC? It seems that what they want to do is simply re-run the exact same fire Sim program with the exact same initial conditions data and determine if the results match what NIST reported. That is NOT technical or scientific research. Another approach that is hinted at is to simply quibble about NIST's parameters, for instance combustible loads in various office types. That is a fishing expedition for malfeasance.
A technical/scientific research approach would be for AE911T to come up with their own data set, for instance combustibles loadings in various office types, and run the program. They could compare their results to NIST's and demand to discuss the differences, if any.

However, this approach could result in supporting the fire/heat distribution maps that NIST reported or show minor differences.
Why won't AE911T perform real engineering research into what actually took place? Why won't they declare their exact intentions wrt to the data they have asked for? Surely its not because they are a collection of dishonest frauds and sophists.
 
jaydeehess said:
I have repeatedly asked what exactly AE911T would do with the data they say NIST refuses to turn over.
Click to expand...

This whole argument is a Red Herring. All the data needed is in the report. You would think 2000 engineers could have done something with this information by now.

The problem is, they have one engineer working on this and he can't get past the fact that reality is not a two dimensional model. :rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by beachnut
.“Even the government’s own computer model disproves its theory. It looks nothing like the actual collapse,” said Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer from the Philadelphia area. “Not only that, they refuse to release the data that would allow us to verify their model. In the world of science, this is as bad as it gets. I’m glad most people can look at the collapse and see the obvious.” http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-...-911-theories/
Click to expand...
I am amazed at the great skill 911 truth has at making 911 truth dumber each year. Tony exposes he has no clue what a computer model is, and how it should look.
Click to expand...
You take umpteen members degrees of freedom permutations, probable initial conditions, exponential variables , chaos, weeks of computer processing and it’s surprising NIST got it as close as they did.
You should do what truthers would do, I told them - just trace the video.
 
Last edited:
ReThink 911
Quote:
To better understand the claims of AE for 9/11 Truth, I talked with Tony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with 27 years of experience in the aerospace and communications industries and one of the 2,000 engineers calling for an a new, independent investigation of the collapse of Building 7 and the World Trade Center towers.
Click to expand...
Q: How many AE 911T architects and engineers does it take to equal one Bazant?
A: Nonsensical question. 2000 wrongs don’t make one right.
 
Originally Posted by beachnut
.“Even the government’s own computer model disproves its theory. It looks nothing like the actual collapse,” said Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer from the Philadelphia area. “Not only that, they refuse to release the data that would allow us to verify their model. In the world of science, this is as bad as it gets. I’m glad most people can look at the collapse and see the obvious.” http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-...-911-theories/
Click to expand...
See the obvious:
Gage+2,000 wrongs+$350k=no model
 
Last edited:
From the Ben Swann link:

Szamboti: “And they say that. They say that thermal expansion caused it. What I say caused it and you can cut this out or leave it in, but I think they took out the core columns for 8 full stories, and that pulled in the exterior. When you have controlled demotion, and when take the core out, you pull in exterior and it comes down. When you take out 8 stories it all comes in.”
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this essentially what the NIST Report concluded? An internal collapse which was followed by the perimeter columns failing. So the collapse mechanism Tony describes is essentially in agreement with NIST; it is a disagreement over what caused that mechanism to initiate: Fire/Heat [of which there is plenty of evidence] vs SuperDuperHushaBoomiteExplosive [of which there is zero evidence].

Did Tony shoot himself in the foot again? Can the headline now read [in Truther mode]:
"Tony Szamboti Agrees With NIST Report!"?
 
Last edited:
Keep up the good work Tony. There won't be enough rocks when the MSM is exposed as a propaganda machine for subversive anti-American neoconservative/Zionist agendas.
 
cantonear1968 said:
From the Ben Swann link:



Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this essentially what the NIST Report concluded? An internal collapse which was followed by the perimeter columns failing. So the collapse mechanism Tony describes is essentially in agreement with NIST; it is a disagreement over what caused that mechanism to initiate: Fire/Heat [of which there is plenty of evidence] vs SuperDuperHushaBoomiteExplosive [of which there is zero evidence].

Did Tony shoot himself in the foot again? Can the headline now read [in Truther mode]:
"Tony Szamboti Agrees With NIST Report!"?
Click to expand...

No I don't agree with NIST. They say the interior of WTC 7 collapsed on the east side first going north to south and then east to west naturally. If that were true then the east side exterior would have started coming down when the interior went down on that side. It doesn't. I think the east side penthouse drop was a somewhat local (at the top only) event, and that the full core was cut over eight stories lower in the building at one time and that is what caused the symmetric collapse of the exterior. There is no need to cut the exterior when the core will pull it inward over eight stories making its resistance insignificant.
 
Last edited:
I was in the vicinity of where this billboard is posted today and saw it with me own eyes. If I didn't know about it before hand I doubt I would have noticed it. It amazes me how people would spend so much money in the city of hustle and bustle. The only time I stopped to see it was when I waited for the light to turn red so I could cross the street. When it changed I walked past it without giving it a moments thought otherwise, as most New Yorkers most likely did the same.

Afterward, I called my dad and told him about it. He didn't know what the heck I was talking about. He got really angry that there are people out there who think our own government would do that to us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom