|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 10:45:52 GMT -5
Cars exploding had nothing to do with why the towers fell. No argument there. Why did you even bring it up?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 10:50:26 GMT -5
"Bending moment ..."
Yeah I have bending moments too when I have to throw up. How about you?
"Start paying attention."
I've been paying attention all this time, haven't you noticed? It seems it's you who is deliberately not paying attention when you're caught. You either change the topic, lie or make something up from thin air.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 11:51:36 GMT -5
Bending moments are a law of physics, the point at which a structure can no longer support the load acting upon it and starts to give.
Your heroes 'evidence' has been one big lie mate. I'm telling you the real truth that ae911liars want suppressed. The structures were damaged caught fire weakened and gave way to load. It is you who is lying to yourself if you cannot see that.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 12:23:00 GMT -5
"I'm telling you the real truth"
Of course, you would never lie, you're such an honest fellow.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 14:29:47 GMT -5
I have not lied to you and would not lie to you, why would I lie about something so serious ? Richard Gage lies because he makes money from lying and doesn't have to work. Steven Jones lies because he makes money from lying and doesn't have to work.
I have to work. As an ex conspiracy theorist I was once like you. I once trusted people like your lying heroes.
When the planes hit the buildings they structurally damaged them. WTC 1's core was so badly damaged all the stair wells were cut. Nobody escaped from above the impact zone. Core columns were severed, drywall supposed to protect core columns from fire was smashed. Core columns were exposed to fire weakened and gave way to load.
WTC 2 was hit lower down, less damage was done to it's core but it's outer skeleton was damaged more and buckled inwardly and gave way first.
These couldn't have been controlled demos. The exact floors at which the aircraft had hit were the first to fail structurally, with the loads they supported falling down onto them. The floors above had kinetic energy added to their mass as they fell. They became a hammer shattering the structure below and shearing bolts that held everything together.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 14:45:58 GMT -5
"I have not lied to you and would not lie to you, why would I lie about something so serious ?"
Because you obviously have some sort of agenda. I've caught you in so many lies and fabrications. I've even posted a partial list a few times only because I can't remember all your lies and fabrications, there are so many. Some of them are real whoppers.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 15:02:42 GMT -5
My 'agenda' with regards to 9/11 is the truth. Yours seems to be to make up any excuse for those who did it to claim it wasn't them. You ignore the hijackings, the structural damage, the fire, eyewitnesses, even video footage proving you wrong. Basically you ignore / attack anything that is inconvenient to your agenda.
I have exposed numerous lies in your posts. Your posting of a doctored video, your claim that wings would go straight through concrete without bending backwards, your claim that rust = "nanothermite".... Your claim that there were only a few small fires in WTC7 was another big whopper.
It's time to wake up my friend. I am not here to attack you.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 15:36:50 GMT -5
"My 'agenda' with regards to 9/11 is the truth."
So you've been caught in numerous lies and fabrications in order to provide the truth. I get it.
Also since everything you say about 9/11 is the same as what government has fed the world and in your opinion, it's the truth, why are you here? Aren't you confident enough in the "truth" that you should not have the need to rabidly defend it? It seems to me you're really not that confident because you spend an enormous amount of time on 9/11 trying to defend it.
"I am not here to attack you."
You're here to attack any and every contradiction to the official 9/11 narrative. You attack experts who have discovered many things about 9/11 that contradict the official story by denigrating them.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 17:22:44 GMT -5
You say I have lied but not what those "lies" are and have no evidence to contradict anything I've said.
Since what NIST say is true, someone should be around to speak up for them and defend them against the liar movement who are defending the 19 real killers who hijacked and crashed the planes.
Your 'experts' who claim to have made discoveries that contradict the "official" narrative, have doctored videos by including fake flashes and fake sounds, have claimed thermite to be explosive( it's incendiary not explosive) have claimed molten steel, yet one of the pics you claimed to be a meteorite of molten material had paper on it with legible type, and was actually parts of 3 floors compressed together.
They found no evidence of any high explosive material or blasting caps or detcord. Even the thermite "evidence" turned out to be nothing more than a little bit of rust.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 17:36:42 GMT -5
"You say I have lied but not what those "lies" are and have no evidence to contradict anything I've said."
I'm not going to give you another list, your lies and fabrications speak for themselves.
"Since what NIST say is true"
Very little they say is true but the free fall certainly is because it's irrefutable. But you deny it while at the same time you say what NIST says is true. You can't have it both ways.
"someone should be around to speak up for them and defend them"
You're operating under the delusion that they need to be defended by you? Are you serious? Why do you feel the need to defend a US government agency? Are you being paid? How much?
You seem to be going over the top real fast Shred. Who are you really and what is your real objective? You're getting to the point where very little you post about 9/11 makes much sense anymore.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 17:50:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 18:47:31 GMT -5
"I have not lied my friend I have not fabricated either. Stop insulting and start discussing the details."
You're not my friend, I don't know you. I posted one perfect example of your contradiction, the denial of free fall claims you've made that NIST agreed with and your claim that NIST is truthful. You ignored it and changed the subject. It's you who's trying to insult my intelligence. Once again Mr. pilot/engineer/Einstein, you can't have it both ways. Either you disagree with NIST and deny the FACTS or you agree with NIST and the irrefutable FACT that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds. Which is it? Changing the subject is NOT an answer to the question.
You also posted that you're here to defend a US government agency and I asked you if you're being paid and how much. You ignored that too. Others believe you're a paid disinformation antagonist and if you are, you don't belong in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 16, 2013 3:42:20 GMT -5
Er show me where in the NIST reports they've claimed free fall (not some conspiracy paper, a proper NIST report). And stop ignoring the evidence that Steel was exposed to high temperatures and was weakened.
I gave you evidence there that Structural Steel in WTC7 was heated up to around 1000C.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 16, 2013 7:38:44 GMT -5
I gave you the link to the video several times and the quote from NIST's report. Why do you need it again? The fact that you're asking for it means to me that you were not interested in viewing/reading it when I gave it to you. But here it is yet again.
And this is in NIST's own report:
4. NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (brief report), November 2008, p. 45. ↩
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g."
Here's a video that's more complete on the subject of free fall:
"And stop ignoring the evidence that Steel was exposed to high temperatures and was weakened.
I gave you evidence there that Structural Steel in WTC7 was heated up to around 1000C."
Once again you believe that changing the subject is an answer to my questions. Answer the questions, what are you afraid of?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 17, 2013 5:26:23 GMT -5
NIST denied that the collapse was at freefall. Having 2.25 seconds of near freefall in an 16 second collapse is NOT FREEFALL. No explosives heard, no flashes observed in any legit footage. Natural collapse due to structural damage + fire only possible explanation. Structural damage + fire = weakness & collapse.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 17, 2013 6:53:07 GMT -5
"NIST denied that the collapse was at freefall."
Yes they originally did but when cornered by David Chandler, NIST was forced to admit free fall and documented it in their own report. I quoted it from the exact page in their report and put their words in bold type. I'm sure you know how to read. The irrefutable EVIDENCE of free fall is also in the video so it's undeniable unless one wants to play games.
"Having 2.25 seconds of near freefall in an 16 second collapse is NOT FREEFALL."
The collapse took place in less than 16 seconds, this is also measurable and irrefutable. But even if it took 16 seconds, it would be impossible without the removal of all the columns. Fires cannot remove 82 columns and a natural progressive building collapse of a 47 stories cannot be a global collapse that takes place in 16 seconds. The 2.25 seconds is EXACT free fall of the first 100 feet (8 stories) as measured no matter how long the global collapse took, that is also irrefutable.
Denying the FACTS doesn't change the FACTS and it doesn't excuse you from failing to answer my questions. It only serves as your admission that you're a fake and possibly a paid disinformation agent.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 17, 2013 9:35:45 GMT -5
The collapse took place in at LEAST 16 seconds. Stop ignoring the collapse of the penthouse and the collapse of the interior. Stop ignoring the structural damage caused by WTC1 stop ignoring the fire and look at the facts for once in your life.
Your claims only go to show that you're paranoid and haven't a clue what you're talking about.
I'm sure your software is capable of logging ip addresses. Mine is from the UK. As for disinformation agents, how am I to know that you aren't a paid disinformation agent pushing ridiculous theories to make critics of your government look silly ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 17, 2013 9:55:29 GMT -5
"The collapse took place in at LEAST 16 seconds."
Like I said, anyone can count off the seconds using the video. Maybe they count differently or time flies faster where you are but for the rest of the planet, it all works the same way.
"Stop ignoring the collapse of the penthouse and the collapse of the interior. Stop ignoring the structural damage caused by WTC1 stop ignoring the fire and look at the facts for once in your life."
I haven't "ignored" any of the above. You're the one who wants to pretend free fall didn't take place, despite the FACTS.
"Your claims only go to show that you're paranoid and haven't a clue what you're talking about."
I may be wrong about you but it is fact that paid disinformation agents are used to try to defend the official 9/11 story in numerous forums.
"I'm sure your software is capable of logging ip addresses. Mine is from the UK."
I'm well aware of the location of your IP address and it's more than 100 miles from where you claim you live.
"As for disinformation agents, how am I to know that you aren't a paid disinformation agent pushing ridiculous theories to make critics of your government look silly ?"
Huh? How do my posts about 9/11 make critics of my government look silly? My posts may make you look silly but that's understandable. And I'm a critic of my government so why would I post things that would make me look silly? And why would someone pay me to make myself look silly? And why would I want to accept money for that? You make no sense unless your wording is discombobulated.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 28, 2013 15:01:28 GMT -5
The following is a more direct quote from NIST's Final Report on WTC7 with regard to free fall: "The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below." - NIST NCSTAR 1A - Page 48 (from last paragraph) www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 29, 2013 15:00:55 GMT -5
Stop lying and misrepresenting the facts Bob WTC7 collapsed on camera during a live interview. No explosions.
No flashes.
Nothing you say fits the facts mate.
It was structurally damaged and burned severely for seven hours. Photos show thick smoke belching from all floors on the south side. It was bulging on one corner and leaning. Firefighters had no water to fight the fires and had to pull out.
Why can't you admit you're wrong and the 'truth' movement is full of crap ?
|
|