Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,
Quit the ad homs. I have no agenda and I could care less. You and others have accused me of being a paid agent for the US government which is complete rubbish. You have made all sorts of attacks when all I did was state that your arguments have not held up to scrutiny. Let readers decide, if they can whether you are making it up and cherry picking to support your pre concieved beliefs or if you are truly trying to figure out what happened. When those much smarter than me have asked you to defend your positions you have dodged. I tried to share my work with you in a polite and civilized way and you gotten all childish and attacked me as having some sort of agenda.

No I won't swear that anything happened. I will say that the CD case has not been made and that a further investigation to hopefully get more data and proper analysis should be done. I do not agree with the NIST explanation for the twins and building 7's collapse.

See I am not a government shill for a truther bot. I tried to examine the evidence and the structure at my level of understanding and to understand all the arguments made for and against CD and the inside job. The extraodinary claim of CD puts the burden on the CD side to present an affirmative case with supporting evidence along with the mechanisms and so forth. They have not. NIST bulding 7 analysis has been debunked by truth guys and I concur with their findings. I don't buy the sagging truss stuff either. Having said that your claim makes no sense and has not convinced me. But your critics have convinced me that you are wrong.

This is a debate and people who are interested need to inform themselves of all the relevant issues, science and engineering. Or... they can repeat what some expert claims. And I don't know many who consider Bazant as the go to guy who explained the collapse of the towers.

If you don't agree with me... fine. Just confine your remarks to the substance and leave the personal attacks out of it. it's undignified. And it makes you sound a bit desparate... when you can't argue the facts attack the messenger.

Jeffrey, let's just say you have proven yourself. People don't go out of their way to prove the government or any organization accused of a cover-up is right unless they are involved somehow. Of course, you try to couch that by saying you don't agree with them, but actions speak louder than words. You have shown me personally with what Ted Walter told me, your performance with AE911truth, and your ability to be at 911 events to argue an opposing point of view. You were at the Investigate Building 7 conference at the University of Hartford to argue with me after my presentation. People don't make those kinds of trips to defend the primary premise of a big organization like NIST because they feel like it. NIST is big enough to answer the questions themselves. They shouldn't need individuals like you going around picking squawks with those opposing their conclusions. You weren't doing that out of the goodness of your heart. There is no debate any longer. It has been proven that the columns were not involved in the resistance to the collapse and that could not have been due to natural circumstances. Get another job.