|
Post by shred on Oct 12, 2013 17:19:29 GMT -5
You can parrot all the official ae9/11'truth' lies you like but you have NO EVIDENCE and no motive. What you are saying is not logical. What you are saying does not fit with firefighters testimonies or video footage of the building before and during it's collapse.
19 Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes and crashed them. Two of those planes hit the twin towers with immense force those towers caught fire and collapsed in an uncontrolled manner damaging WTC7 which was structurally damaged and burned for seven hours. At best it's fireproofing was only rated for three hours. Firefighters hadn't the water to put the fires out so they pulled out and let it burn.
There is no evidence of an inside job re wtc7, for it to be an inside job the firefighters would have had to have been in on an attack which killed over 300 of their brother firefighters. The very idea of it being an inside job is crazy and there is NO EVIDENCE. No burning building has ever been brought down by controlled explosive demolition.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 12, 2013 22:23:09 GMT -5
It's impossible to have any meaningful discussion with you. The subject is NIST and the missing WTC7 stiffener plates. NIST published the column 79 connecting structure deliberately omitting the stiffeners in their drawings which are fully present in the actual Frankel drawings. They did this to try to support their column 79 theory because if they used the authentic drawings, their theory becomes impossible, not that it was possible in the first place. There is nothing illogical about this yet you're making a claim that what I'm saying is not logical and you provide nothing to back up your claim. There's not one thing you brought up that has anything to do with this subject. So unless you want to discuss this issue intelligently, there's nothing further to discuss here.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 13, 2013 6:56:21 GMT -5
Simple questions for you: How many burning buildings have been brought down by explosive controlled demolitions ?
What motive would your government have for killing over 3000 mostly civilian people in New York and Washington ? What motive would your government have for destroying WTC7 ? Why weren't explosives heard in the recordings of the twin tower collapses or WTC7's collapse when recordings of real explosive controlled demolitions feature very loud very sharp discernible explosions?
The above four videos are evidence of what real controlled demolitions sound and look like.
This is what WTC2 sounded and looked like:
This is what WTC1 sounded and looked like:
This video features WTC7 shortly before it's collapse:
And this is WTC7's collapse, Penthouse collapse is clearly visible no explosives are heard.
So given the lack of evidence of explosives, how else could it have collapsed other than structural damage + fire being the cause ? EH ?
Think about it Bob.
Steel is maleable, it doesn't like fire.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 13, 2013 8:33:14 GMT -5
"Think about it Bob."
Obviously since I posted literally hundreds of 9/11 issues in this forum, I've thought about it quite extensively. And obviously since you question nothing about the official narrative despite the hundreds of issues I've brought up, you also know the FACTS but want to spend nearly all your time in this forum attempting to support an impossible narrative. Your questions and all the photos you posted are all irrelevant to this particular topic and it's clear you don't want to address any part of it. You haven't once discussed or even questioned why NIST would doctor the Frankel drawings and how that affects their column 79 theory. So you bring up issues totally unrelated in an effort to change the topic. Stick to the topic at hand if you can or there's no discussion (Reminder: It's about the missing stiffener plates that NIST published in their report and their column 79 theory). Personally, I don't really care what you believe or pretend to believe, it usually never has anything to do with reality. It's just that I'm curious as to how you can sing and dance to this particular issue since that's what you always want to do. So far, you're singing and dancing to a different beat. You always do when you can't tackle a basic anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 13, 2013 9:29:44 GMT -5
A paper on the subject of the stiffener plates (see Pages 7 & 8 for 2 CAD drawings): A Discussion of "Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse"Therese P. McAllister, Robert MacNeill, Omer Erbay, Andrew Sarawit, Mehdi Zarghamee, Steven Kirkpatrick and John Gross Journal of Structural Engineering, January 2012, Vol. 138, No. 1 Ronald H. Brookman, M.S., S.E journalof911studies.com/resources/Brookman-Vol-33-Oct2012.pdf
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 13, 2013 15:03:32 GMT -5
That paper is speculative and unsubstantiated and based on a false premise I'm afraid Bob. The false premise being that WTC7 wasn't badly damaged. The reality is that it suffered major structural damage from WTC1 debris.
You still haven't answered what motive there would be in deliberately blowing up WTC7 on the 11th of Sept 2001?
You still don't acknowledge that when the twin towers fell the water mains were burst open by the falling debris, firefighters hadn't got the water pressure to fight the fires inside WTC7, the building wasn't safe and they PULLED OUT. WTC7 was allowed to burn. It had a bulge between floors 10 and 13. Firefighters put a transit on the bulge and predicted it was going to collapse.
The longest the fireproofing could survive for, is three hours. It burned for seven.
There is no mystery. Unlearn what those liars have taught you and think for yourself. Look at the pictures of it damaged and burning. Look at the firefighters testimonies testifying that they expected the structural damage and fire to cause it to collapse. Watch the video of it's collapse with audio proving there were no explosives going off.
There is no evidence to support ae9/11'truth's narrative.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 13, 2013 17:44:53 GMT -5
"That paper is speculative and unsubstantiated and based on a false premise I'm afraid Bob. The false premise being that WTC7 wasn't badly damaged."
The paper is about the NIST Report, more specifically about column 79, the shear studs and the stiffeners, there's nothing false about it. At least nothing you can and want to show that's false, without resorting to making things up or changing the topic to avoid that discussion. The real drawings were obtained via the FOIA and the drawings that NIST used appear in their report. They're not the same even though NIST had full access to the blueprints. Once again, you want to change the topic and immediately make unsupported claims without addressing one single thing in the paper. There's no discussion on your part about the column 79 theory and/or the missing stiffeners and shear studs. No balls, end of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jettz on Oct 14, 2013 4:51:19 GMT -5
i can't sleep wondering what happened to those stiffener plates.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 14, 2013 6:43:02 GMT -5
i can't sleep wondering what happened to those stiffener plates. Then I probably shouldn't tell you because you're going to have nightmares but according to NIST, the shear studs are also missing. Sorry, my bad.
|
|
|
Post by jettz on Oct 14, 2013 6:47:09 GMT -5
i can't sleep wondering what happened to those stiffener plates. Then I probably shouldn't tell you because you're going to have nightmares but according to NIST, the shear studs are also missing. Sorry, my bad. it is interesting indeed. what is your personal thought then?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 14, 2013 7:20:04 GMT -5
Bob's claims about the stiffener plates are a red herring. Even stiffener plates are malleable. Even stiffener plates will expand if they get hot. Steel is just an alloy of Iron and Carbon. When Iron mongers make horse shoes they heat the metal up so it becomes more malleable, they don't melt it and cast Horse shoes in a mould, they'd take a straight piece and bend it into shape over an anvil then quench the metal rapidly cooling it with water so the crystals take the best form, if heated up again, the effect of the quenching is reversed and the metal is annealed. The steelwork of WTC7 was heated up, it expanded. It also weakened. Steel begins weakening at just 300 degrees C. By 600 degrees C it's lost half it's strength. NYFD say it was fully involved in fire with fire on nearly all floors. The building was a fundamentally flawed design, load was distributed way beyond the footprint of it's foundations which were laid in the 1960's for a much smaller building. It had to straddle an electrical substation. It suffered immense structural damage when spandrels weighing more than 50 tonnes and burning debris hit it taking out load bearing columns, immediately causing a partial collapse of the building, and starting major fires inside which were unfought and which burned for seven hours before collapse. Malleable, adjective: "able to be hammered or pressed into shape without breaking or cracking: a malleable metal can be beaten into a sheet" oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/malleableThe fires made the metal easier to deform under load and deform it did.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 14, 2013 7:25:05 GMT -5
Then I probably shouldn't tell you because you're going to have nightmares but according to NIST, the shear studs are also missing. Sorry, my bad. it is interesting indeed. what is your personal thought then? It's more than obvious that NIST was a politically motivated fraud designed to support the official narrative. Besides that NIST failed to use NFPA protocol (standard fire investigation procedure) that they help develop, NIST did not use the scientific method and of course, there's the FACT that they modified data, doctored structural drawings (they had access to the blueprints), invented an impossible theory (the single column 79 failure) and concocted 2 computer simulation cartoons that bear no resemblance to the actual videos of the collapse of WTC7. I will post a more detailed article that was published in 2008, well before the FOIA requests that revealed NIST's fraud re: the missing stiffener plates.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 14, 2013 7:39:50 GMT -5
"Bob's claims about the stiffener plates are a red herring."
They're not MY claims. The FACT that NIST doctored the structural drawings was discovered via a FOIA request. I didn't make the request. Nothing you posted changes the FACT that NIST doctored the drawings. Why would they need to do that if they were certain that their column 79 theory had any merit? You'll never ask that question but you'll always make any claim to try to support the official 9/11 conspiracy theory while never questioning anything, including OBVIOUS FRAUD.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Oct 14, 2013 7:40:40 GMT -5
Oh really ?
Evidence please.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Oct 14, 2013 8:22:05 GMT -5
Oh really ? Evidence please. For you? There is none and never will be. You're not interested in any of it, none of this concerns you. It doesn't matter how much evidence I post daily, you can't see any of it when you wear blinders. For those who care however, it's in this thread and all the threads I started and many of the supporting posts.
|
|