|
Post by shred on May 7, 2013 7:09:12 GMT -5
Er yes I have been able to support my claims. I provided a wealth of evidence both technical and photographic (which you've chosen to ignore).
Unsubstantiated cd/thermite conspiracy theories about 9/11 have no credibility with civil engineers, air crash investigators, structural fire engineers, clean up workers, or the fire fighters who saw the south side of WTC7 burning i.e. the people whose opinions matter.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 7, 2013 7:55:55 GMT -5
"I have been able to support my claims"
You haven't supported any of the following:
1. Your folding wing theory. I asked you to provide a link to anyone who agrees with that, you failed.
2. You claimed a video was "doctored" but you haven't provided any evidence for that claim either.
3. You claimed an eyewitness firefighter said there was a fire on every floor of WTC7, I asked you for a link to that quote, you failed to provide one.
4. You said thousands of experts are really non-experts and have all collaborated to create fake videos and documents. No evidence to support that either, not to mention it's such an outrageous claim from thin air.
5. You claim that what some experts found and said is nano-thermite is actually "rust". Nothing to support that claim either.
6. You said the WTC7 collapse was silent and contradicted yourself in another post when you pointed to an eyewitness who said it was deafening. That's not to mention that a 47 story building cannot silently collapse, at least not on this planet.
7. You said both NIST reports were peer reviewed and I explained to you why it would have been impossible for anyone to peer review their reports and all you could do was provide a link to a bunch of names and claimed that the list of names was evidence that the reports were peer reviewed.
I could go on and on, those are just some samples of your ridiculous claims. Most of which you don't even try to claim they're just your opinions, you maintain they're fact.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 7, 2013 14:17:59 GMT -5
1) Wing spars are maleable and ductile, they're made of steel, steel can and will bend & twist. This is also steel, and demonstrates how steel can bend: Concrete doesn't bend concrete either breaks or it doesn't break. 2) Your video is doctored, all other videos recorded live at the time don't feature it's badly drawn flashes or it's audio. Your video is evidence that it's doctored. 3) Eyewitness Steve Spak: www.mrctv.org/node/120889Eyewitness Frank Papalia: 4) You have yet to provide one genuine expert (like a civil engineer or structural fire engineer) who supports the controlled demolitions theory. 5) Iron oxide is rust. Next. 6) WTC7's collapse was quiet because of structural failure. No loud bangs indicative of demolitions charges. 7) Amongst others, respected Metallurgist John Dowling (commissioner of the Cardington Fire tests) was invited to peer review the NIST reports. 8) Your claims are unsubstantiated. Still waiting for you to provide evidence of controlled demolitions / thermite cutter charges.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 7, 2013 15:00:08 GMT -5
1. You still failed to produce a link to anyone who supports your folding wing theory.
2. You still failed to provide any evidence that the video was doctored.
3. You still failed to provide a link to the fire on all floors quote.
4. You still failed to provide any evidence that experts who contradict the official 9/11 story and have provided their credentials are not experts.
5. You still failed to provide any evidence that contradicts that what was found in the 4 dust samples are nano-thermite chips. Saying "iron oxide is rust" means nothing. I can say water is H2O, next, what does that prove?
6. You're still saying that the collapse of WTC7 was quiet despite that eyewitnesses from your own videos contradict you. In fact, they don't even have to say anything, any idiot knows that the collapse of a 47 story building could not be "quiet". You are being absurd.
7. You still failed to provide any evidence that the 2 NIST reports were peer reviewed and failed to explain how on earth anyone can peer review them when NIST refused to make materials they used for their report publicly available.
8. I haven't made any claims other than those above. I have posted my opinions. Unlike you, I don't hold my opinions as factual claims.
That's a lot of fail. I won't be going over this again, I really don't need to. Your nonsense speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 8, 2013 3:33:20 GMT -5
1) Steel is maleable and ductile and thus can bend and deform when force is applied to it, scientific metallurgical FACT. So there's no theory about it. Photographs of where the wings struck the Pentagon shows the impact of the leading edge of the wing, shows a scar, shows the wing didn't go through the concrete, and can only have been pushed back. Your theory that the wings couldn't fold has been utterly disproven. 2) I provided lots of evidence, open your mind and recognise your footage contains false sounds and false flashes not present in any other footage of 7's collapse. Therefore yours is an abberation. Your's is doctored and false. 3) Plenty of quotes say the building was fully involved in fire, stop being pedantic. Next. 4) a software engineer may be an expert at software engineering but when it comes to structural fire engineering issues is clueless. Architects may be experts at designing fancy fronts, but it's the engineers who make things work. Minoru Yamasaki set the style for the twin towers but Leslie E Robertson and John Skilling designed the structure itself. 5) Iron oxide is not nano thermite it's rust, you have yet to provide any evidence of engineered nano thermite at the WTC's. 6) The collapse of WTC7 was extremely quiet relative to real controlled demolitions such as the Fort Worth Landmark Tower implosion. 7) John Dowling for one, peer reviewed the NIST reports. 8) You've claimed that no plane hit the pentagon that WTC7 wasn't badly damaged or fully involved in fire, you've claimed nano thermite residues were found but provided no chemical evidence other than iron oxide (rust)
That really is a lot of fail on your part dude. Your fake experts have really done a job in connning you.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 8, 2013 10:29:43 GMT -5
Like I said, I don't need to re-visit all the points you failed to support and failed yet again in your most recent post. However, I will address your last point because it's just another distortion of the facts.
"You've claimed that no plane hit the pentagon"
I never claimed any such thing. What I did say is that I have no idea what hit the Pentagon. I also said that the evidence that a large commercial plane hit the Pentagon is extremely flimsy and that it is unsupported or likely contradicted by known evidence.
"that WTC7 wasn't badly damaged"
I never claimed it wasn't "badly damaged", the photos and videos of the actual level of damage speak for themselves. I said that NIST concluded that the collapse of WTC7 was not a direct result of any damage and I also said that the manner in which WTC7 collapsed had nothing to do with the damage.
"or fully involved in fire"
I never said it wasn't "fully involved in fire", that's your terminology. I said that the fires occurred on a limited number of floors, probably less than 10% of the building if that, that the photos and videos do not support a fire on every floor or the characterization of an "inferno" or "fully engulfed in flames" as you have claimed, and that no one said that or anything similar other than you.
"you've claimed nano thermite residues were found but provided no chemical evidence other than iron oxide (rust)"
I never made any such claim. I provided a link to a peer reviewed paper that described what was found (nano-thermite) in 4 independent samples of WTC dust. I never provided any chemical evidence of anything, much less "iron oxide" and never claimed that I have any such evidence so why would you expect me to provide such evidence?
"That really is a lot of fail on your part dude."
Lies and deflections are not going to help support your arguments. Like I said, anyone can judge for themselves what you're doing.
"Your fake experts have really done a job in connning you."
I don't have any "fake experts" so whoever those are supposed to be cannot "con" me if they don't exist. If anyone is trying to "con", you sure are spending a lot of time and energy in that endeavor. I've asked you multiple times what is your real agenda but I never get an answer or any answer that makes sense. So I suppose you will continue your bulls**t. You do have a handful of supporters in this forum and it works for them but that's ok, there are many who just bend over and accept what they're fed by government and its puppet media without question. And that's really sad because this government needs that kind of support to carry on all the war crimes and racketeering under pretext of 9/11. They are enablers just like you. If you are really from the UK, your government is no different, it also needs to peddle and garner support for the official story for a similar agenda.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 8, 2013 12:55:30 GMT -5
Less than 10% of the building ? Your evidence ?? You weren't even there mate. Neither were your FAKE 'experts'. Your alleged peer reviewed paper, cited iron oxide spherules and claimed thermite. Iron oxide is rust. Iron oxide in a debris pile containing rusty steel isn't something to get worked up about. Sulphur isn't anything to get worked up about either. Steven Jones is a proven liar regarding thermite. As for my government they're load of crap mate. One minister got gaoled for perjury recently. They won't even give us a referendum on our membership of the EU. Nick Clegg's a traitor to his core voters, he broke his pledge on Tuition Fees months after joining the Conservatives in Coalition Government. Labour weren't any better. They introduced tuition fees in the first place, introduced RIPA act 2000 spying on people's internet use, requiring massive data centres monitoring 7 years of internet use at a time, as a result our isp's are more expensive than they'd otherwise be councils have been caught spying on people over how they use their bins & whether they're in the right catchement area for schools. I could talk politics all day long, about how I dislike the politicians of various nations, including your former President. The man's a war criminal. But he's not the man responsible for 9/11, sorry. Your allegation that my views on 9/11 are based upon what your government has fed me is grossly offensive and you will apologise. My views are based upon my own experiences and my education in engineering and have NOTHING to do with what any government has told me. OK ? I look forward to your apology in writing over that insulting remark. A lot of people died on 9/11 even more were hurt. I've done research. If I'd found real evidence of conspiracy I'd be backing your side of the argument with scientific proof. I've found no scientific proof for anything any conspiracy theorists have said about controlled demolitions regarding any of the WTC buildings. I've found lots of proof of natural bending moments.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 8, 2013 14:21:46 GMT -5
"Less than 10% of the building? Your evidence ??"I don't have any evidence. The videos are the evidence and there are multiple accounts that the fires were limited to parts of about 8 floors. So even if the fires were fully on all 8 floors, that's only 17% of the building. However, even the videos you post links to show a fire on only one floor and only on one portion of that floor. "Your alleged peer reviewed paper ..."I don't have any peer reviewed paper, alleged or otherwise. "As for my government they're load of crap mate."I only wish my pretend government was only a "load of crap". Unfortunately it is much worse than that. "I could talk politics all day long, about how I dislike the politicians of various nations, including your former President. The man's a war criminal. But he's not the man responsible for 9/11, sorry."You don't need to apologize for what you don't know anything about. Agreed that he's a war criminal so is the current President. As to 9/11, the STAND DOWN by Bush is admitted by Bush himself and documented. By not doing anything both before (regardless of multiple warnings) and during 9/11, he is as responsible for 9/11 as those who carried it out, assuming he did not have his hands deep into the cookie jar. In my country it's called treason and criminal complicity, not to mention many other crimes. "Your allegation that my views on 9/11 are based upon what your government has fed me is grossly offensive"You haven't questioned one thing about what this government has fed you about 9/11. In FACT, you supported every single facet and even made things up on your own that I never even heard from this government or anyone else for that matter. So how else would you characterize your views if they match up completely? "you will apologise"
That's a joke, right? "My views are based upon my own experiences and my education in engineering and have NOTHING to do with what any government has told me. OK ?"Now you're a pilot and an engineer. What else? Doctor, cook, candle stick maker? Your views are your views regardless of your background and you certainly have a right to your views. That I can't and won't dispute. Again your views are lock step with what this government has fed the world plus a bunch more of your own fabrications. "I look forward to your apology in writing over that insulting remark."Another joke? "A lot of people died on 9/11 even more were hurt."That's correct and many of their loved ones are still looking for the truth about 9/11. That it was never investigated is an abomination (and a crime) to the survivors, their loved ones, all Americans and really the entire world, especially those who have been murdered under pretext of 9/11. "I've done research."So have I obviously. "If I'd found real evidence of conspiracy I'd be backing your side of the argument with scientific proof. I've found no scientific proof for anything any conspiracy theorists have said about controlled demolitions regarding any of the WTC buildings. I've found lots of proof of natural bending moments."That's your problem, not mine. My research and the facts convince me 100% that the official story about what happened on 9/11 is loaded with lies (that's not even a theory, it's an admitted fact) and a cover-up. So our opinions are worlds apart. The difference is I have no interest in convincing you of anything and have even stated on several occasions that all opinions/sides must be heard including YOURS. As for you, you have never stated any such thing and you're trying to convince me (and I guess anyone else who has followed these threads) that your claims and opinions, including your made up stories, are fact and anything and everything else that might contradict your views is a lie and a fake.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 8, 2013 14:48:50 GMT -5
Sorry but the facts contradict you 100% re the twin towers and wtc7. Not saying this to be nasty, I'm sure you mean well but you've been lied to by the people you trust.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 8, 2013 15:03:04 GMT -5
"the facts contradict you 100% re the twin towers and wtc7."
In your opinion.
"you've been lied to by the people you trust."
I don't trust very many people outside my immediate family and even some of those ....
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 8, 2013 15:11:28 GMT -5
You've yet to produce any facts to back up your theories.
I on the other hand have given you concise information about the performance of steel in fire, of how bending moments work, of how steel performs as an elastic material. You've chosen to ignore the facts and that's your problem not mine.
I've given you in depth evidence of the debris at the pentagon, and of the scars it's wing left on the wall. Again you ignore facts. You ignore eyewitnesses who saw with their own eyes the 757 as it flew into the pentagon. You ignore eyewitnesses who had to duck because the 757 was so low. You ignore firefighters who 1) predicted it's collapse & 2) witnessed it's collapse. If you truly are open minded then open your mind and look again at what I've been telling you, but this time without bias.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 8, 2013 16:12:59 GMT -5
"You've yet to produce any facts to back up your theories."
We've been through this time and time again. Government has theories about 9/11 and they are not only based on lies, they also make no sense. I don't need to produce any facts to back up any of my opinions. I have however posted many links along with my opinions. I don't need to prove anything to you. You accept it for what it is or reject it as you prefer, I don't really care.
"I on the other hand have ..."
Posted many links, your theories and opinions along with a whole bunch of lies and fabrications. And I appreciate that, even your lies and fabrications. It all says something.
"You ignore ..."
I haven't ignored anything. I've looked at everything you posted. I've read the "debunking" websites you referred me to years before I joined this forum. I would say I've already seen at least 70-80% of what you posted here before you posted it. You did post some new information and I appreciate that. I learn from everything.
|
|