|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 15, 2013 8:47:38 GMT -5
A Fairytale of New York
Once upon a time there was a plan to build a phallic symbol in Manhattan to show the might of the USA. The world’s leading architects and engineers worked to satisfy this demand. The result was not just the highest building in the world, but two, so that the point was nailed home.
In line with superman leaping tall buildings aims they had to be capable of being struck by airline jets and also be impossible to bring down by nefarious villains.
Careful checks were made to make sure that the steel would withstand severe fires as people didn’t like the idea of working a quarter of a mile up in the sky if they couldn’t get out in emergency.
Engineers proudly claimed that the steel would withstand a three hour severe fire and the building could be struck by multiple aircraft as it would be just like poking a screen door with a pencil.
It would laugh at hurricane winds and snicker at attempts to bomb it.
Time passed until it was noticed by the owners that they were having difficulty in finding tenants to fully occupy the massive spaces they had constructed. Rumblings about them having deadly asbestos throughout them didn’t help.
Offload was the cry before we are lumbered with massive costs.
Along comes a knight in white armor in the shape of Lucky Larry who bought the lease in June 01.
Hurray cries the masses - Larry to the rescue.
He rapidly insures the entire WTC complex against terrorist attack and smiles contently.
He is well named as ‘Lucky’ because within a few months 19 Arabs led by a man on dialysis, using a laptop in a cave in Afghanistan managed to circumvent the might of the entire USA defense system and arrange for jets to go wildly off course, strike the two phallic symbols of USA’s power in Manhattan and bring down three buildings there.
WTF cried the stunned Government !
How can this be ?
We couldn’t envisage people flying planes into buildings deliberately. At least only three times in the last few years and anyway the plans we made were only pretend. Tisn’t our fault. Didn’t you see that we were already practicing drills to counter such identical events that day and that was why all our defenses were confused? Wait a minute, did I just say that we couldn’t envisage people flying planes into buildings? Well, what I meant that err ………
Anyway, it was that Bin Laden who did it – anyone can see that. And that guy in downtown Manhattan wearing a Harley shirt could see what happened straight away and told you that it was fires and plane damage that caused these two incredibly strong buildings to fall within an hour.
And we know that steel frame buildings have never fallen down like this before but fear not we will ask the worlds leading experts, NIST, to explain to you what happened.
Time passes and the world falls into three kinds of people.
Ones who understand science and physics who can see that what they have been told is contrary to all the laws of physics.
Ones who understand science and physics, but find it impossible to overcome their disbelief that they would be lied to by their government and are capable of ignoring what they see.
Then there are those who watch the ball game on TV.
The points at issue are fairly basic.
The first group asks why gravity worked sideways that day ?
Massive six ton steel sections were observed and measured to reach 60mph within the first yard of movement and fly sideways for 300 feet to embed in adjacent buildings. Surely any rational person could expect gravity to work downwards.
People from group two accept that if the government say it can do that then, yes, gravity can work sideways.
People from group three are busy looking up the TV schedule for the next game.
Group one asks why the top part of one building began to tilt slowly to one side but when it reached 22 degrees list it disobeyed the Laws of Angular Momentum and turned to dust.
Group two say that if the government says that’s possible then why should they be questioned.
Group three are looking for their fourth beer.
Along comes another hero. Up gallops Bazant.
On 9/13/01 he released a comprehensive report explaining why these buildings became the first two in history to fall this way. He didn’t need to investigate or do any forensic tests. He just knew.
Group one checked his maths and found schoolboy errors.
Group two checked his maths and gave him an A+.
Group three asked what did the word ‘maths’ mean.
Bazant imagined an entire floor of the building to disappear when making his first and crucial calculation. The resulting impact speed of the upper block of a tower of 19 mph was then used to proceed to compound that error. He also imagined that 240 floor trusses were able to fail at the same instant to enable that upper block to free fall through that missing floor.
Group one stared in disbelief at the magnitude of these errors.
Group two nodded wisely and said ‘Good work’ Bazant.
Group three were looking for the TV remote hidden under ten beer cans.
Meanwhile, back at NIST they have been told to ensure that at all costs their report must end at the initiation of collapse and under no circumstances must they try to explain how all the laws of physics were broken that day by looking at total collapse.
That was tricky until out of the blue they got a report from Underwriters Laboratories who had re-tested a duplicate of a floor truss. After firing a shotgun at the fireproofing they put it in a furnace. Loaded it with double load, heated it to double the temperature, and for double the time.
Eureka !! They sag 47” – enough to pull the outer walls inwards and the upper block would fall just as Bazant had calculated. Go to press.
Group one said hang on.
A Manager of UL, Kevin Ryan, had been arguing there that the tests had shown 4” but was being ignored. He was concerned that NIST was working on false data so went directly there to inform them.
Two things happened.
He was fired by UL, and NIST ignored his information as they needed the 47” to make their story work.
Group two said. KR was being disloyal. How dare he undermine his Company's integrity. He probably wears brown shoes with a black suit. He can’t be trusted. And anyway the government has told us 47” so whats the problem.
Group three were asleep and missed the last quarter of the game.
And so it goes on.
Questions about ‘squibs’.
Questions about total energy calculations and kinetic equations.
Dust tests positive for energetic thermitic material.
Billions of iron rich microspheres in all the dust in Manhattan that indicate molten metal.
Group one stack up the evidence.
Group two refuse to apply the scientific method to examine that evidence and prefer their belief based system.
Group three worry that they have lost their freedoms and that their constitution is being ignored- and wonder why.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 15, 2013 12:46:38 GMT -5
Fireproofing systems were destroyed in the crashes. Fuel fires rapidly spread over a massive area. The buildings were at circuit height near to the approach line for JFK airport's Runway 13 right. There was a design consideration that an aircraft in fog could drift off course and accidentally crash into one of them. The approach for landing speed of the largest airliner of the time (Boeing 707) is around 135mph. Considerably less damage would have been done in this scenario, and the buildings would probably have survived such an accident. Planes don't land at 500mph, high speed deliberate crashes were not considered. Fuel loads were not considered. WTC dust samples do not test positive for thermitic material, dust tests positive for kaolinite which was the china clay anti corrosion coating which all spandrels and beams were coated with, china clay contains aluminium silicate which is present in dust, thermites do not contain aluminium silicate. The alleged squibs truthers refer to happened after the collapse initiated not before. By that time thousands of square feet of air were being forced down the lift shafts and stairwells by pancaking floors. The air pressure build up below and windows blew out. Kevin Ryan was a water tester who misrepresented Underwriters Laboratories work and was sacked for lying. When a floor hits a floor the bolts fail. It doesn't need the trusses to fail. Any building is only as strong as it's weakest link. Andrea Booher took a lot of photos at ground zero. Can you see the bolts that are pushed down ? Look very carefully at the tall column centre right (view the image itself it's bigger than this page suggests) those bolts were stripped and failed during the collapse. Thermites do not explode, they aren't used in controlled demolitions, tests have proven thermites don't work in this way and cannot have had anything to do with the collapses of the twin towers. The widespread office fires were not hot enough to melt steel but they were more than enough weaken it to the point of failure. When one fails load increases on the remainder until all remaining structural integrity fails and they give way to load. When load falls it takes on energy from gravity. Force = Mass x Acceleration. After the collapse, water was sprayed on the still burning debris pile. Water onto hot steel increases the rate of corrosion.
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Sept 15, 2013 13:55:54 GMT -5
"....build a phallic symbol in Manhattan...."
what kind of person looks at a tall building and sees a Johnson?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 15, 2013 15:35:26 GMT -5
"....build a phallic symbol in Manhattan...." what kind of person looks at a tall building and sees a Johnson? The narrator. He has a point though.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 15, 2013 23:23:37 GMT -5
This is a waste of time because everything you posted has been addressed in full multiple times. But I have some time to waste. "Fireproofing systems were destroyed in the crashes." Considering that NIST depends so heavily on the concept of extensive fireproofing loss, you would think it would have spent a great deal of its time investigating this effect and communicating the details. That was not the case, however.
NIST’s only test for fireproofing loss, never included in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative samples in a plywood box. Flat steel plates were used instead of column samples and no floor deck samples were tested at all. After criticism of the lack of testing provided in its draft report, NIST inserted the results into a 12-page appendix to the final report.
These shotgun tests actually disproved NIST’s findings. One reason is that there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. It is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically along the path of the impacting airliner. Moreover, there is no indication that fireproofing could have been stripped from beneath the aluminum cladding on the exterior columns, but in subsequent steps of its explanation, NIST depends on this.
NIST’s shotgun tests indicated that 1 MJ of energy was needed per square meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off. For the areas in question―more than 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surface―the extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.4
The problems with NIST’s explanation continue in step four, where high temperatures were said to have softened the columns and floors. NIST did tests for this as well, but then abandoned the results. The first test, which examined paint deformation on steel samples chosen specifically from the fire zones, showed that less than 2% of the samples had seen temperatures above 250 °C. And of that in the less than 2% that did, none of the temperatures exceeded 600 °C. The obvious problem was that steel does not soften or lose significant strength at the low temperatures indicated, yet NIST’s story depends on the softening or weakening of vast quantities of structural steel.rethink911.org/evidence/twin-towers/implausibility-of-the-official-theory-twin-towers/#pagecontent"Fuel fires rapidly spread over a massive area."There's no evidence of that. In fact, the video evidence disproves that and shows fires were limited to a few floors in each tower. "The widespread office fires were not hot enough to melt steel but they were more than enough weaken it to the point of failure."Fire resistance tests for the steel components used in the Twin Towers were performed by Underwriters Laboratories (UL), at the time of construction, and the results verified conformance to the New York City code requirements for multiple hours of fire resistance at the temperatures expected in a building fire. On 9/11, according to NIST, the fires in the failure zones did not actually last very long. NIST’s estimates indicate that the fires in the failure zones of the towers lasted for only about 45 minutes in each case, much less than the 3 or 4 hours of fire resistance required by the NYC code.rethink911.org/evidence/twin-towers/implausibility-of-the-official-theory-twin-towers/#pagecontent"Planes don't land at 500mph"Commercial airliners also don't fly at 100-200 MPH over VMO without breaking up. Certainly they're nearly impossible or completely impossible to control at those velocities. If you're really a pilot, you would not only know that, you would have noted it as every commercial pilot did that investigated, including one who actually flew those planes. aibafs.com/thread/9663/wtc-attacks-pilots-11-truthAlso see "New Pearl Harbor" DVD 1 at 1:26:50. "WTC dust samples do not test positive for thermitic material, dust tests positive for kaolinite which was the china clay anti corrosion coating which all spandrels and beams were coated with, china clay contains aluminium silicate which is present in dust, thermites do not contain aluminium silicate."
You've been contradicted by experts who actually found and tested the abundant nano-thermite particles found in 4 independent samples of WTC dust vs paint chips using a sophisticated calorimeter. "By that time thousands of square feet of air were being forced down the lift shafts and stairwells by pancaking floors."
NIST contradicted FEMA on the "pancaking" collapse because they knew the videos don't support a pancake collapse. The squibs are fully covered at "New Pearl Harbor" DVD 3 30:26. "Kevin Ryan was a water tester who misrepresented Underwriters Laboratories work and was sacked for lying."Character assassination is a clear indicator that you have no argument. But that's always what you resort to when you have nothing. "When one fails load increases on the remainder until all remaining structural integrity fails and they give way to load. When load falls it takes on energy from gravity."
Gravity is a downward force. Gravity does not hurl 50-70 ton beams horizontally at 60 MPH over 300 feet. See "New Pearl Harbor" Video 3 at 35:00. There's not one thing you posted that explains how the twin towers disintegrated in the manner seen on the videos. Neither does NIST. There's not one thing you question about the official narrative, just spew it almost verbatim as you always do. You don't even question how these "commercial" airliners could possibly maintain the velocities at near ground level and fly in full control without breaking up and you claim to be a pilot.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 16, 2013 7:38:32 GMT -5
On Thermite your fake experts have been contradicted by real experts and no evidence for thermites having brought down the twin towers exists. Independent forensic examination of WTC dust found that the red grey chips were kaolinite not thermite and the aluminium component is aluminium silicate from the clay. On the fires, a wealth of photographic evidence proves extensive fires across the impact levels, eyewitness testimony from survivors and of course there were those who couldn't get out and phoned loved ones to say goodbye. People weren't jumping by accident, the heat was unbearable. On the crashes, commercial airliners can fly far faster than VMO without breaking up so long as they don't go through VNE (velocity never exceed), they simply lined up, banked the planes to damage the most floors they could, centred the controls then throttled the engines to max. The planes hit the structures with greater force than the structures were designed to take, drywall and sprayfoam fireproofing was obliterated core stairwells were severed and the fuel spilled out setting fire to the offices and their contents and weakened the steel to the point of collapse. And even with VNE it doesn't automatically mean the airframe will fail (it means the manufacturers expect a high risk of failure and do not want their product flown beyond such speed). There are aircraft which have gone through VNE accidentally and survived, for example in the 1950's a Handley Page Victor accidentally went through the sound barrier in a dive without breaking up, despite not having been designed to do so. VNE VO and VMO are manufacturers guidelines based on known tolerances to ensure safe flying. Test pilots often fly beyond such speeds. Terrorists do not care about such guidelines. I have been through VO in a Schleicher K21 (97 knots is it's maximum maneuvering speed), been close to VNE at 140 knots (VNE for a K21 is 151 knots 166.1mph). If you're interested here's the spec sheet for the aircraft I fly: www.alexander-schleicher.de/service/prospekte/21E.pdfVNE of a 767 is Mach 0.86 or 567mph en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767You forget that Force = Mass x Acceleration, the mass of falling structure above the impact floors combined with it's dynamic gravitational acceleration into the structure below hit with enough force to propel 50 - 70 tonne spandrels outwards with enough force to hit and damage other buildings including WTC7 because bolts were sheared and there was compression from above and below. The only direction a lot of the spandrels could go was outwards.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 16, 2013 7:58:43 GMT -5
Like I originally said, it's a waste of time. You've been contradicted by thousands of experts you like to call to "fake" because you can't refute the evidence, science and logic. You might be considered somewhat genuine if you questioned any part of the official narrative (especially the parts the 9/11 Commission admit were lies) but you don't even question the most minute points, never mind the obvious. You even try to support issues that have been contradicted by your alleged peers (pilots). I suppose the pilot who flew 2 of the planes that crashed is also a fake.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 16, 2013 8:13:01 GMT -5
No, your fake experts are a waste of time Bob. They conned you. You are blinded by your hatred. Boeing 767 specs sheet here: www.flywestwind.com/hangar/aircraft_files/foms/B763ERFOM.pdfThe 9/11 commission was an investigation into the events before and during the attack, it was not an engineering investigation into building collapses. WTC7 wasn't a target it was part of the collateral damage from the collapses of the twin towers. As for questions about 9/11 I have plenty (for example the terrorists plan was to have five airliners hijacked and crashed, what were the other two targets ? ), but my questions are all sensible. Sadly yours are based upon fraudulent misrepresented and doctored information from fake experts such as Steven Jones and Richard Gage. Unfortunately for you, you've been conned and your position on here reflects the brainwashing you've received. I trust real relevantly qualified experts like Zdenek Bazant, Brett Blanchard, James Millette, John Dowling, Ali Nadjai, Colin Bailey and many others who do not believe the conspiracy theories. You trust fraudsters who have no relevant qualifications at all. You claim explosives but do not provide any evidence of explosives. You have no evidence at all. I share your shock and disgust at the deaths of so many innocent people, but you're going about this in the wrong way. Posting conspiracy theories on the internet won't change anything. If you believe there were explosives behind the collapse of the burning, get real evidence that there are explosives which can survive the impacts and fires without going off or burning, and take the people you believe did it to court. Thermite is not an explosive. Thermite does not go bang. What explosive do you believe was used, and how do you propose that the buildings were infiltrated and rigged ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 16, 2013 8:45:33 GMT -5
"the terrorists plan was to have five airliners hijacked and crashed"
What do you have on that? Link please.
"The 9/11 commission was an investigation into the events before and during the attack, it was not an engineering investigation into building collapses"
So then it wasn't any kind of an investigation. They admitted that anyway. It was a political circus masquerading as an investigation. All the members of the 9/11 Commission had conflicts of interest.
"my questions are all sensible"
As long as there's no question that might contradict the official narrative.
"I trust real relevantly qualified experts like ..."
Government, its hired agents, its complicit media, anonymous "debunkers" and every single person who supports the official narrative. And in some cases, only when they support it but you ignore them when they contradict it. You like to have it both ways.
But 9/11 is not about you or me, it's about the 9/11 LIES and all its horrible consequences.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 16, 2013 10:52:23 GMT -5
Zacarias Moussawi was a trainee pilot, logically the purpose behind his training was for him fly and crash a hijacked jet.
The 9/11 commission was an investigation into the hijackers, whether anything could have been done to stop them (and several things could have stopped them), and whether NORAD could have done more during the event itself or before the event itself (and more could have been done before the event itself) to minimise the loss of life.
Link please? Not some dodgy conspiracy site mind you, provide a genuine verifiable source for this claim please.
There is no 'official narrative' there are only the facts which are commonly understood and ludicrous conspiracy theories put out by fraudulent conspiracy theorists who profit from lying and denying the facts.
Colin Bailey, Ali Nadjai, James Millette, John Dowling, Zdenek Bazant and many other structural fire engineering experts are not hired by your government or complicit in any conspiracy and you have no evidence to support your childish claims about 9/11.
Naturally the consequences of 9/11 horrify me, but I can be horrified without being ridiculous and making out that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
RIP the victims, to hell with the terrorists who did it and RIP to the innocents killed in the crossfire of a war of terror.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 16, 2013 13:44:26 GMT -5
"The 9/11 commission was an investigation into the hijackers"So what you believe is that the 9/11 Commission had already been directed to investigate "hijackers". In other words, before they knew for a fact that there were "hijackers" as they were told prior to any investigation, they were to put on blinders and assume there were hijackers and go from there. In fact, that's not true anyway. At page xvi of the 9/11 Commission Report, it clearly states "Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned." By failing to investigate WTC7 for one, the 9/11 Commission obviously did not provide the fullest possible account of the events by any stretch. And that's just one very glaring OMISSION. There's a ton more omissions, including wholesale omissions of testimonies, failure to interview many known eyewitnesses, whose names were submitted to the Commission and many other failure issues. As to NORAD, the Commission itself claimed there were given at least 4 different versions so they knew they were lied to but yet issued a report with known lies. And that's far from the only problems. So to anyone with any reasonable amount of intelligence, it wasn't an investigation of any kind, it was politically motivated propaganda designed to fool the gullible and ignorant into believing it was an investigation. "Link please?"Sorry but I don't quite remember the exact words of the 9/11 Commission member who admitted that the 9/11 Commission was not an investigation or the source (I'm pretty sure it was on video during testimony). When I come across it again, I'll provide the link. However, any source I provide that you disagree with would be a "dodgy conspiracy site" to you. In fact, on page xvi of the 9/11 Commission Report, it clearly states "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame", which automatically discredits the 9/11 Commission as an "investigation". No real investigation would ever have a preconceived agenda not to assign blame. www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdfSo then you have no link to the 5th "hijacked plane" theory, just something else you made up?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 17, 2013 4:33:32 GMT -5
So you don't remember the exact words and you don't remember their name either ? Hardly evidence to back up your claim right now, but if you do come across any solid evidence I'll be interested to read it. The 9/11 Commission was an investigation into the circumstances and events leading up to and during the attacks. It was not an engineering investigation. NIST did the engineering investigation and the steel and construction industries are satisfied by the findings and have updated building codes and regulations to make steel buildings safer. The international industry working group the Steel in Fire Forum S.T.I.F.F. being one such supporter of NIST. Here's a list of true structural fire engineering experts who endorse NIST's findings (if you don't believe me, write to them) :- fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/steelinfire/contact.htmlThe American Society of Civil Engineers is also a supporter of the NIST study and has peer reviewed investigations into the structurally damaged fire weakened WTC building collapses. There was no fifth plane hijacked because Zacarias Moussaoi had been caught in August 2001 and wasn't available to fly and crash one as part of the hijackings. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoi#Capture
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 17, 2013 7:52:03 GMT -5
"So you don't remember the exact words and you don't remember their name either ? Hardly evidence to back up your claim right now, but if you do come across any solid evidence I'll be interested to read it."
Nope, I believe I got that from a recent video. I will be reviewing the New Pearl Harbor videos once more so if it's in one of those I'll let you know. It isn't anything that has any meaning to you anyway just like every single piece of evidence I've posted so far on the subject of 9/11, so just ignore it as you always do, it's not really for you.
"The 9/11 Commission was an investigation into the circumstances and events leading up to and during the attacks. It was not an engineering investigation."
It wasn't what you or they claim it was supposed to be and their claim differs from yours. Since they published what their objective was supposed to be, I'll take their word for it and discard your contradictory (false) claim as I usually do anyway because you often make things up. Either way, they did no such thing. The "FULLEST POSSIBLE ACCOUNT" can't be interpreted as anything but that except perhaps in your fantasy world. In other words, it's suppose to be ALL ENCOMPASSING (i.e. nothing left out). But we know a huge amount was left out, even you have to admit that and you did. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a hard, irrefutable FACT.
"Here's a list of true structural fire engineering experts who endorse NIST's findings"
There's nothing you posted that says any of these people endorse NIST's findings. You've made that claim in the past but have never backed it up, just your made up claim.
"(if you don't believe me, write to them)"
I don't need to contact anyone to find out if they endorse NIST's findings or not, that's a totally worthless endeavor and a ludicrous suggestion. If you're interested, you write to them and post their response. I have zero interest either way.
"The American Society of Civil Engineers is also a supporter of the NIST study and has peer reviewed investigations into the structurally damaged fire weakened WTC building collapses."
If it's true it makes them a worthless source about 9/11. There are many organizations that endorse the government/NIST narrative because they have to to continue to exist and in some cases continue to be funded. When evidence and simple physics overwhelmingly show the NIST theories to be impossible fantasy and they're endorsed by an organization that cannot exist without the science of physics, it goes to expose their mettle.
As to Moussaoi, thanks for the reminder. His trial was a typical US government circus trial. He claimed he had nothing to do with 9/11 and at least 3 jurors agreed. There is NO solid evidence that links him to a possible 5th "hijacking" on 9/11. According to the official narrative, each "hijacking" required more than one person (at least 4), so he would have needed accomplices. None were named or even investigated that I know of. He may have really had some plans or he may have just been delusional or he may have been just another FBI/CIA set up patsy. We'll never know the truth because everything we get about that comes from government, which of course is never the source of truth.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 17, 2013 8:42:24 GMT -5
If you don't believe me they endorse NISTS findings email them, they're experts, elsewhere on their site they carried out their own studies of the twin tower collapses and found structural damage + fire to be the cause. Don't be lazy.
As for ASCE, it's full of true experts. They don't support 'official narratives' they support facts i.e. Structural damage and intense fire brought down the twin towers which hit and damaged other buildings. If Structural damage and fire hadn't brought down the towers the real experts at ASCE and at universities around the world would have brought down your ex government.
S.T.I.F.F. is not accountable to the US Government, it is UK based and affiliated to the University of Sheffield (Sheffield was until recent times the steel capital of the world). Dr Ali Nadjai of the University of Ulster carried out a study of the WTC collapses for them. He did not find any evidence of controlled demolitions.
As for Moussaoi his passport betrays his travel history, he lived in Hamburg with the other hijackers including Atta, he took flight training at the same school as Atta, he knew Atta. The only reason he wasn't involved in the attack itself is the FBI had arrested him one month previously.
Instead of parroting conspiracy theories and making paranoid unsubstantiated allegations about why real experts support NIST and not conspiracy theories look at the real facts mate.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 17, 2013 9:59:25 GMT -5
"look at the real facts mate"
I did, I posted the REAL facts, including REAL videos (most of the same ones you posted), the REAL science, the REAL logic and REAL expert opinion. And that's why I know what you spew is unadulterated government propaganda garbage designed to disinform and support the government narrative regardless of all the ADMITTED LIES.
Like I keep saying, you can pretend ignorance or try to contradict some of what I posted (and it is an incredible amount of information), but pretending ignorance and trying to contradict ALL of it is obvious fakery. And like I keep saying 9/11 is not about you or me. You mean zero in the scheme of things other than to those who take comfort in your ignorant pretentious garbage. You're just an anonymous poster in a private forum hell bent on some kind of 9/11 agenda.
Question. At this point, why are you trying to convince me? Who are you trying to convince? Do you actually believe I'm going to all of sudden turn into an ignorant sheep and accept your ridiculous lies and fabrications as truth? Today, tomorrow, any time in the future? Do you think I'm ever going to dismiss over 2,000 experts and academics as frauds just like you do and accept nonsense from mostly anonymous "debunkers" such as yourself over their work? You don't need to answer any of these questions, they're all rhetorical and you know the answers anyway.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 17, 2013 10:26:00 GMT -5
Correction, you post half truths, outright lies, and misinformation. You cite unqualified frauds (a rag tag mob of architects, electrical engineers, software engineers and other irrelevant buffoons) and call them experts, you either ignore or attack real qualified structural fire engineering experts and attack the facts. You spend every day on this board denying the facts and lying as you make it out to be an inside job.
Why are you lying to people ? Who are you trying to convince ?
Why can't you accept that there's no evidence of explosive charges having anything to do with the collapse of the buildings ? There's no sounds of explosives in any genuine footage of the collapses of those buildings, but there would have been unmistakable sounds of explosives for miles around if there had been explosives used to bring them down.
Wake up mate you've been conned.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 17, 2013 12:07:18 GMT -5
"Who are you trying to convince ?"
Actually no one. There's not one single person I want to try to convince about anything. I posted that FACT many times in this forum. I've been around the block long enough to know you can't convince anyone about anything once they're already convinced and ignore or reject anything that might contradict their beliefs. Apparently you're too young to have learned that lesson. You're the one who wants to convince people that the official narrative is 100% true and you're pretty desperate about it too. That's clearly evident with your name calling, character assassination and fabrications. It's a childish attempt at best but the immature fall for it every time because they use the same tactics. They've been indoctrinated (by government and its complicit media) into the belief that once the terms "truther", "conspiracy theorist" or "tin foil hat" are used, it's a signal that causes them to automatically turn off their brains to anything associated with it. The Pavlov's Dog Principle.
I'm just posting many facts and opinions that no one will ever get from the complicit media. That source does not even want to inform people that WTC7 collapsed on 9/11, pretty $%#$@ed up, isn't it? And that's why there's a massive campaign to at least get people to learn that fact. A very recent poll shows that 46% are not even aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. The same poll shows that, after seeing video footage of the WTC7 collapse, 46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, 28% are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% don’t know. 41% of them support a new investigation of the WTC7 collapse and 21% oppose it. That's a pretty strong indicator of how education works.
There are many posters here who do want to be informed. What they accept as true and what they reject as false is completely up to them. It isn't my job to convince anyone of anything. My agenda is to EDUCATE and discuss, nothing more, nothing less. Education is the most potent tool available to try to battle tyranny. One can't begin to fight back without knowledge because one cannot understand what they're fighting for.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 18, 2013 3:58:13 GMT -5
WTC7 was not a target. WTC7 collapsed because WTC 1 hit it damaged it, set it on fire and caused it to lose structural integrity. 9/11 was a kamikaze hijacking.
The clue is in the hijacked planes which crashed.
The 9/11 commission was an investigation into the hijackers the hijackings and what could have been done to stop them, not an engineering report or an investigation into the ancillary damage of WTC's 3-7 or the collapse of St Nicholas Church either.
You know damn well there was massive damage in WTC7 from WTC1's debris, you know damn well there was immense fire in it due to the immense amount of smoke belching from it. You know damn well the watermains were damaged and there wasn't the water pressure needed to adequately fight the fires. You know damn well it was leaning and fire fighters feared it's collapse so much they pulled out and stopped trying to fight the fires in it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 18, 2013 7:07:22 GMT -5
There you go proving me 100% right again.
I said: "You're the one who wants to convince people that the official narrative is 100% true and you're pretty desperate about it too. That's clearly evident with your name calling, character assassination and fabrications."
So your most recent post is exactly one part of that, fabrications meant to try to convince people and me. The character assassination and name calling appeared in your prior post.
In this post, you repeat your claim yet again, "The 9/11 commission was an investigation into the hijackers the hijackings and what could have been done to stop them, not an engineering report or an investigation into the ancillary damage of WTC's 3-7 or the collapse of St Nicholas Church either." despite the FACT that the 9/11 Commission Report clearly says "Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 ...". And you know "damn well" that's what it was supposed to be. And how do I know that? Not because I know what's in your brain but because I posted it recently along with the link to the 9/11 Commission Report and exactly where it says that. And you know "damn well" that the 9/11 Commission Report does not mention one word of WTC7, never mind give the "fullest possible account" as it says in the report. And how do I know that? Not because I know what's in your brain but because of your own apologist post that I just quoted.
Then more fabrications. You claim I "know damn well" a whole bunch of things you claim I know "damn well" which are really things you keep making claims about. What I know "damn well" is what I posted about 9/11 and many other things you know nothing about because despite your claims, you don't know what's in my head or anyone else's.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 18, 2013 7:44:48 GMT -5
The key events of 11/9 are hijackings and deliberate crashes, delays between FAA discovering there were problems and passing the information to NORAD, NORAD then scrambling aircraft from bases that were too far away, NORAD not having enough aircraft stood by.
The twin towers not being resilient enough to withstand the combined effect of structural damage from the high speed crashes of airliners and fire is an engineering issue beyond the remit of the commission and the ancillary damage also.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 18, 2013 8:13:38 GMT -5
The key events of 11/9 are hijackings and deliberate crashes, delays between FAA discovering there were problems and passing the information to NORAD, NORAD then scrambling aircraft from bases that were too far away, NORAD not having enough aircraft stood by. The twin towers not being resilient enough to withstand the combined effect of structural damage from the high speed crashes of airliners and fire is an engineering issue beyond the remit of the commission and the ancillary damage also. And so the official narrative goes. No questions need to be asked, just read the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports, the "truth" is all there. Government and media says so and everyone knows they're the most honest entities on the planet. And in case you don't believe that, there are many "debunking" sites and "debunkers" such as Shred who will do whatever it takes to defend the official narrative and lambaste anyone who dares to question or contradict it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 18, 2013 8:28:58 GMT -5
Don't be paranoid.
The plane crashes exploded with enough force to blow people out of the offices, body parts were found blocks away as firefighters raced to the buildings. Spray foam fireproofing is extremely susceptible to mechanical damage and was destroyed. The crashes also destroyed the drywall boards which protected the steel cores of the buildings. Outer columns and core columns were cut. Intense fires were observed on camera and police helicopter infared cameras. Bending moments were filmed happening. No demolitions charges are audible in the collapse footage. No evidence of demolitions charges were found in the debris. No detcord no blasting caps no explosive residues on the steelwork.
The clue is in the hijacked planes which crashed at full throttle Bob and the Boeing 767 manual I posted the other day proves that VNE of a 767 is Mach 0.86 (654.6 miles per hour). Those planes were more than capable of doing fatal damage to the twin towers and deep down you know I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 18, 2013 9:13:00 GMT -5
Why do you feel the need to recite the official narrative day in and day out? Anyone who has read the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST reports and the lamestream media know the propaganda story by heart now.
"deep down you know I'm right"
Deep down and every which way I know you're full of s**t.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 18, 2013 12:53:34 GMT -5
"The clue is in the hijacked planes which crashed at full throttle Bob and the Boeing 767 manual I posted the other day proves that VNE of a 767 is Mach 0.86 (654.6 miles per hour)."So you're saying, Shred, an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous message forum, who claims to be a pilot, among many other claims he makes, knows better than these people, who are not anonymous and one of whom actually flew 2 of the planes that crashed on 9/11? aibafs.com/thread/9663/wtc-attacks-pilots-11-truthand You can review (not that you're actually going to) the New Pearl Harbor DVD 1 starting at 57:15 or skip to 1:28:20 (the part titled IMPOSSIBLE SPEEDS). aibafs.com/thread/10040/new-pearl-harborAnd you desperately want to try to convince people that you do know better. What kind of person do you figure is going to fall for that?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 19, 2013 5:48:01 GMT -5
I am a solo glider pilot, by both winch and aerotow. I went solo on winch launches in November last year and aerotows in May this year. This was my first solo aerotow:
The airliners were flying below VNE and so were not flying at impossible speeds. The Boeing 767 manual I posted proves that the planes are capable of such speeds.
The hijackers maneuvered then throttled up. It doesn't matter that they were beyond maximum maneuvering speed (VO) when lined up on the buildings as they weren't maneuvering.
Are you that desperate to convince people of your controlled demolitions theories that you deny the crashes of the airliners ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 19, 2013 7:09:13 GMT -5
"I am a solo glider pilot ..."
Congratulations, REAL pilots, including the one who flew 2 of the planes on 9/11 have fully explained it. They said the planes flew at IMPOSSIBLE near and over MACH 1 speeds so they could not have been commercial airliners. It makes perfect sense.
"Are you that desperate to convince people of your controlled demolitions theories that you deny the crashes of the airliners?"
Nope, I already said, I don't need to convince anyone of anything and I don't have any "controlled demolitions theories" anyway nor did I ever deny any airplane crashes that make sense. Evidence, physics and other sciences and expert opinion speaks for itself. Who do you think you speak for? The US Government, NIST, "debunkers", the complicit media?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 19, 2013 11:13:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 19, 2013 12:40:57 GMT -5
WikiPedia vs. REAL PILOTS "The aircraft, traveling at about 404 knots (465 mph; 748 km/h)" Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots (587 MPH) and 430 knots (495 MPH) for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.
Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots (414 MPH) and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed........ At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour (461 knots).pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 19, 2013 14:06:30 GMT -5
Pilots they may be, but they're also conspiracy theorist idiots and liars and that makes their theories irrelevant. They also have in their ranks John Lear whose friend Bob Lazar even says has a habit of exaggerating and making things up. www.ufomind.com/area51/people/lear/The planes were flying below the VNE of the airframe. They were lined up on target before the terrorists opened the throttles. Eyewitnesses saw the planes crash. Cameras filmed Flight 11 and Flight 175's final moments. You discredit yourself by citing those proven frauds as your source. John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series did an investigation of his own: 911blogger.com/node/20232Here's some video evidence of what airliners are capable of: Low passes and high speed climb from airliners: Boeing 707 barrel roll: Gliders are also very capable machines: The green part on the air speed indicator dial indicates safe maneuvering speeds, the yellow band indicates speeds unsafe for maneuvers, the red part indicates VNE.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 19, 2013 14:28:41 GMT -5
"Pilots they may be, but they're also conspiracy theorist idiots and liars and that makes their theories irrelevant."
There ya go, name calling and character assassination, that's always your number one stand by argument. With that, you automatically lose all credibility, not that you ever had any.
You're also citing from a site you denounced as a 9/11 conspiracy site? How much more of a hypocrite can you be?
"Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175"
Just a reminder for one who claims to be a pilot, a simulator is not a real aircraft, it never actually flies. Did they teach you that in pilot school?
|
|