|
Post by bob0627 on May 1, 2013 10:46:25 GMT -5
Perhaps if you asked a legitimate question without peppering it with your opinion, I might entertain an answer. But when I answer, I'll answer as I see fit, if you don't mind (or even if you do).
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 1, 2013 11:16:47 GMT -5
Is it your opinion that structure wasn't damaged by the 767's ? Is it your opinion that there wasn't fire ?
I can show you holes in the towers that prove the structure was damaged. I can show you photos of the fires that prove they were on fire.
Please explain mathematically how those towers could have survived ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 1, 2013 11:43:14 GMT -5
"Is it your opinion that structure wasn't damaged by the 767's ?"
The twin towers were hit and damaged by airplanes, if that's what you're asking. That's not an opinion, it's fact. WTC7 was not hit by any airplane. The Pentagon was hit by some object, I don't know what it was.
"Is it your opinion that there wasn't fire ?"
All the above were on fire on 9/11, that's no an opinion, it's fact.
"I can show you holes in the towers that prove the structure was damaged. I can show you photos of the fires that prove they were on fire."
So can all the videos and photos I've already seen. So?
"Please explain mathematically how those towers could have survived ?"
Why? What makes you think I owe you any such thing? And even more to the point, why am I even answering these asinine questions? I guess I'm just trying to be somewhat polite.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 1, 2013 17:31:13 GMT -5
WTC7 wasn't hit by an aeroplane but it was hit by WTC1 as it fell and this tear in the south side from top to bottom is of serious importance: Also crucial is the fire inside, Fire Photographer Steve Spak is an honoury fire chief in the NYFD, he was one of the only people able to get close enough to WTC7 to photograph it. On the following page is one of his photographs: www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc2.htmlHe states that thick smoke was coming out WTC7, there was fire on all floors. Footage here supports his claim: Footage in this video at the one minute mark shows thick smoke and flames belching out of WTC7's south side, it also shows fire in the windows of the relatively un-scarred north side. And this: Just a few fires ? Seriously friend, it looks like an inferno.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 1, 2013 19:18:15 GMT -5
"He states that thick smoke was coming out WTC7, there was fire on all floors."
He said there was fire on all floors? Do you have a link to his exact quote? No one else I ever heard say that, not even those who agree with the official theory. Most everyone agrees the fires were limited to just a small number of floors and all the videos support it. There may be a lot of smoke but that's not the same as a fire on every floor.
"Seriously friend, it looks like an inferno."
An inferno? Every single video that shows the WTC7 collapse shows nothing of the kind, not even close. Here you go again, trying to tell people what you want them to see that they can see for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 2, 2013 3:42:46 GMT -5
Every video of the WTC7 collapse itself I've seen shows the NORTH FACE (the rest of the WTC's were to its South), and it's south face was damaged. The area to the south of WTC 7 was evacuated, there's very little footage of the collapse of WTC 7 from the South but there is some. WTC 7 before collapse of twin towers: WTC 7 after collapse of twin towers: Look at the bigger picture, not the small picture. The bigger picture is a trapezoid shaped building damaged on three sides and as videos show, it was on fire and belching smoke. Firefighters weren't able to fight the fires in WTC7 as water mains had been damaged and fire chief Daniel Nigro had ordered them to pull out. As a result fires burned on all floors of WTC7 according to eyewitness. The footage of WTC7 I've shown you above corroborates what they've been saying, so as to why these fires could not all have been observed through the windows of the North Face, quite a lot would have been sooted up, while others broke in the heat. Fire Chief Daniel Nigro who had to take command following the death of his colleague Fire Chief Orio Palmer in the South Tower, he was the man who gave the pull out order re WTC7. He is interviewed here from 2m53s he categorically states "We don't need to ask permission from the owner, no, when we're in charge of the building that decision would be the decision of the Fire Chief and his alone, that's why I know that there is no conspiracy because uh, for me to be a part of that would be obscene and it disgusts me to even think about it". And here from 8m7s onwards he gives a piece of his mind to conspiracy theorists: Eyewitness Firefighter Lt Frank Papalia is interviewed at 7 minutes 24 seconds from the same youtube clip, he saw the fire and the smoke and that convinced him, he described the collapse as sounding like a jet engine.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 2, 2013 7:29:48 GMT -5
So once again you make things up and you have nothing to back up your fabrications. You claim Fire Photographer Steve Spak said "there was fire on all floors" and I asked you for a link to the exact quote and instead you posted another typical garbage propaganda documentary from the BBC whose purpose is to try to ridicule and silence those who question the official narrative. The title itself ("The Conspiracy Files") is a total mockery.
I have yet to see one mainstream documentary that questions anything spewed by government. It's always about denigrating those who question the official narrative. Yet we know for a FACT the official narrative is full of lies. That we know from the 9/11 Commission itself.
And in your last sentence you say "he described the collapse as sounding like a jet engine" but yet in other posts you claim the collapse of WTC7 was silent. You have a knack for posting one point when it fits one post and a contradictory point when it fits another post.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 2, 2013 14:20:03 GMT -5
Ask him about it, he has an email address.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 2, 2013 14:41:13 GMT -5
Ask him about it, he has an email address. In another words, you made it up as usual. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 2, 2013 15:28:34 GMT -5
His email address is at the bottom of this page, if you don't believe me, ask him he was THERE www.stevespak.com
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 2, 2013 16:00:51 GMT -5
I don't need to ask him anything, YOU made the claim, I asked YOU to provide a link to his quote if YOU could since YOU must have gotten that from somewhere. I'm sure YOU didn't e-mail him and he told YOU that in response. YOU failed to do that therefore YOU made it up.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 3, 2013 2:44:56 GMT -5
I emailed him years ago. I've reinstalled my pc since then.
If you're not willing to talk to him that's quite cowardly, you've already refused to carry out basic scientific tests upon steel. You've already refused to look at the science of bending moments. Are you as interested in the truth as you claim to be ?
He was there. He witnessed building 7 fall with his own eyes and his hearing is fine. Ask him.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 3, 2013 7:29:40 GMT -5
You don't need to bulls**t me any further, it's quite obvious he never said that and you made it up, otherwise you would have had a ready link to what he said just like all the hundreds of other links you never had a problem posting.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 3, 2013 7:39:42 GMT -5
I'm not bulls**tting you.
You haven't checked with him have you ? Are you afraid to email someone who was there, who witnessed the collapse of WTC7 who witnessed and filmed the fire ?
It's quite obvious that you're a coward afraid of the facts. Because you've wasted years of your life on a wild goose chase. You lie and evade frequently to defend your shaky position re 9/11. Sorry but that's the truth pal.
Video footage from him shows smoke coming out of all floors of WTC7 there was fire on all floors of WTC7 his videos confirm it. He gave an interview to the BBC's conspiracy files programme and disproved the claims of Richard Gage, with his own footage (you haven't watched that programme have you?).
You're still clinging to crappy conspiracy theories about 9/11 like a baby to it's mother's apron. Talk to Steve he won't bite, he's a really nice chap.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 3, 2013 11:10:18 GMT -5
You are so transparent. You made a false claim and now you're trying to place the onus on me to try to research your false claim when you could easily support it yourself by just providing the link to the quote. The FACT that you don't only means one thing, you LIED. I don't need to e-mail anyone to try to verify your LIES. You can do that yourself if you really had any intention of supporting your claim. Not that I really give a s**t but get back to me when and IF you can get the actual quote, that's IF you want to show that it's not a LIE, otherwise it just remains yet another LIE.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 5:01:05 GMT -5
What false claim ? You're the one using doctored youtube videos as evidence.
This is a legit video, showing smoke coming from all floors of WTC7:
If that's not good enough for you talk to someone who was there, talk to Steve Spak.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 4, 2013 8:29:53 GMT -5
"What false claim ?"
You know very well what false claim. You need a reminder? You said:
"He [Steve Spak] states that thick smoke was coming out WTC7, there was fire on all floors."
but you never produced a link to the above quote.
"You're the one using doctored youtube videos as evidence."
But you can't produce any evidence that any of the videos I posted links to are "doctored".
Your fabrications are outrageously OBVIOUS. Who are you trying to fool?
"This is a legit video, showing smoke coming from all floors of WTC7:"
Yes and it clearly shows that there was NOT a fire on every floor. In FACT, NO ONE every said that except YOU. And how do you know that one is not "doctored" but those that contradict your beliefs are?
"If that's not good enough for you talk to someone who was there, talk to Steve Spak."
What for? Is he the ultimate person for information about 9/11?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 10:28:03 GMT -5
I don't need to produce a link, I emailed him years ago. Email him yourself.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 4, 2013 12:20:21 GMT -5
I don't need to produce a link, I emailed him years ago. Email him yourself. Sure fake one. If you really believe there was a fire on every floor of WTC7 why don't you produce a supporting link from any credible source who supports that contention? It's obvious you can't because there is no such thing, just your made up stories.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 12:39:23 GMT -5
I gave you a link to a Steve Spak interview. His testimony debunks your theories. Once again you're on the back foot. Daniel Nigro's testimony debunked your claims also.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 4, 2013 13:26:58 GMT -5
"I gave you a link to a Steve Spak interview."
Thank you.
"His testimony debunks your theories. Once again you're on the back foot. Daniel Nigro's testimony debunked your claims also."
I don't have any theories to "debunk". Neither of these 2 are the ultimate authorities on what happened on 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 17:34:05 GMT -5
They were witnesses to what happened, their testimony is evidence.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 4, 2013 18:00:51 GMT -5
They were witnesses to what happened, their testimony is evidence. I don't disagree with that, all eyewitnesses can provide evidence, including and especially those who saw, heard and felt explosions, you know what was never mentioned or even investigated.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 4, 2013 18:08:45 GMT -5
Yes, there were explosions, the fuel tanks from the planes being the biggest.
But explosions don't automatically mean deliberately planted explosives.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 4, 2013 18:45:35 GMT -5
Yes, there were explosions, the fuel tanks from the planes being the biggest. But explosions don't automatically mean deliberately planted explosives. And I care what you think they don't "automatically mean"? There were at least 100+ documented eyewitnesses to explosions from responders, those are usually the most credible. If it doesn't mean planted explosives to you that's fine. It's your opinion, you have a right to it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 15:27:53 GMT -5
When caught in another lie, change the subject. You're so predictable.
LOL
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 16:00:27 GMT -5
When caught in another lie, change the subject. You're so predictable. LOL And how did I change the subject? You are an incredible and relentless fake. But that's ok, anyone with any amount of intelligence can size you up.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 16:14:23 GMT -5
You're always ignoring the south side damage and fire.
You're ignoring key details of the bigger picture that explain everything. WTC's 1 & 2 were hit by planes structurally damaged ignited weakened and collapsed due to bending moment of weak structure. WTC 3 was hit by debris from WTC's 1&2 and completely crushed. Debris from WTC's 1&2 also hit WTC's 4 5 6 & 7, structurally damaging and igniting. WTC7 had an exceptionally wide load spread because of the pre existing con ed substation below it. There was no water to fight fires. WTC7 was extremely badly damaged on it's south side spewing flame and smoke.
Firefighters had pulled out on the orders of Fire Chief Nigro.
WTC7 weakened and collapsed.
You ignore all these details and continually try to change the subject.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 6, 2013 21:42:21 GMT -5
9/11 researcher Adam Taylor talks about his latest paper, "Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC". One by one he goes over each structure cited in his paper, which have been erroneously compared by some to the WTC high-rise destructions, and explains how these structure failures are nothing like what happened to the Twin Towers and Building 7:
(The significant portion starts at about 6:45)
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 7, 2013 7:34:28 GMT -5
LOL very funny.
Once again structural damage and fire are ignored by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists just as they ignore hijackings of planes.
Morons.
|
|