|
Post by bob0627 on May 19, 2013 11:02:27 GMT -5
That WTC7 collapsed in free fall for 2.25 seconds (the first 100 ft. or 8 stories) is irrefutable and agreed to by NIST. The only way that can happen is if all 82 steel columns were taken out at the exact same time. Neither structural damage or fire or both can do that. According to Shyam Sunder, NIST's mouthpiece, "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it". There are many videos of known controlled demolitions and although most do not collapse in exact free fall, the rate of global collapse for many of them (at least those that are successful) is near free fall. The rate of global collapse for WTC7 is also near free fall. In fact, there are videos of the WTC7 collapse taken side by side with known controlled demolitions and the rate of collapse for both are nearly identical.
NIST's theory is that fire in WTC7 started by debris from the collapse of WTC1 (about 300 ft. away) caused beams to expand from the heat, which in turn caused column 79 to be pushed off its seat and start a chain which caused the entire building to collapse (i.e. structural failure). Although NIST agrees that free fall took place, they do not account for it in their theory, that is, they do not account for the only possibility as to how that could happen, that is, the total failure of all 82 columns at the same time (see the quote from Sunder above). Following is a video that shows controlled demolitions and collapses that have resulted from structural damage alone. Anyone can tell they are vastly different.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 19, 2013 14:38:38 GMT -5
Controlled demolition:
Natural progressive collapse due to fire:
Natural progressive collapse due to structural damage + fire:
Fire weakened the already damaged structure of WTC7. WTC1 debris scooped out a lot of WTC7's interior and south side damage was severe.
Your allegation that the only way it could have fallen is by 'controlled demolition' is ridiculous, the NYFD predicted it's collapse as it was leaning. It fell because of structural damage plus fire.
The very nature of controlled demolitions is that collapses are controlled so other buildings aren't damaged. There were no tell tale sounds of controlled demolition, no sequence of flashes and bangs going up the whole building, when it fell it damaged Fiterman Hall, something a controlled demolition would not have done.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 19, 2013 16:58:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the contributions, including your opinion. The 2nd video you posted the link to shows a natural progressive gravitational collapse of a building due to fire as it says. Controlled demolitions can result in partial collapses as well, as seen on the video(s). However there is no known steel framed building that has ever collapsed globally at near free fall, and within its own footprint, due to structural damage, fire alone or both prior to and following 9/11. That kind of collapse has only been documented when it was caused by a controlled demolition.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 19, 2013 17:21:00 GMT -5
Yes the delft building only had a partial collapse (not constructed the same way as WTC7). WTC7 straddled an electrical substation, it's load distribution was exceptionally wide. WTC7 collapsed due to the combined effect of STRUCTURAL DAMAGE + FIRE not just fire.
No other buildings of that type have been exposed to the structural damage and fire that the WTC buildings were exposed to so your theories are meaningless. Stop ducking the issues.
WTC1,2, & 7 were all structurally damaged, all caught fire, all collapsed on camera, none of them had any chain of explosives go off in the moments before collapse or during collapse. There were no blasting caps found in the debris there was no detcord, no explosive residues were found either.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 19, 2013 17:32:50 GMT -5
"your theories are meaningless"
Nothing I posted is a theory. Everything that contradicts your opinion(s) is meaningless to you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 19, 2013 17:55:06 GMT -5
No mate, you have a theory but no evidence to support your claim.
What happened on 9/11 happened on camera. Structural Damage and Fire in those buildings are documented facts. The standard explosive used in modern controlled demolitions is RDX, it's auto ignition temperature is a documented fact. Buildings rigged for demolition with RDX require extensive work with large teams of men to take out walls and pre cut columns, it cannot simply be placed near to a column it has to be right up against it to work. RDX charges require detonators in order for them to explode. The velocity of detonation of RDX at a density of 1.76 g/cm³ is 8750 m/s. The volume of such a blast cannot be masked. The susceptibility to fire of RDX is a documented fact. The collapses of WTC's 1 & 2 began at floors heavily damaged by the impact of aircraft and raging fires.
Thermites on the other hand are not explosives, they are incendiaries and burn with intense heat at 2500 C. Metallurgical evidence proves that WTC7's steel only reached 1000 degrees C.
The evidence including that from Steven Jones is that no high explosive charges were anywhere near WTC7's Steelwork. The evidence is that WTC7's steelwork was weakened by fire. The evidence is that WTC7's steelwork was leaning. The evidence is that firefighters expected WTC7 to collapse due to the structural damage and fire in it.
You are in denial. Your theories have no foundation, no evidence to support them, all the evidence that contradicts your theories including video evidence, eyewitness testimony and metallurgical evidence is ignored by you.
Are you a paid disinformationist ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 19, 2013 18:11:14 GMT -5
"you have a theory but no evidence to support your claim."
I repeat, what theory did I post? What claim did I make that is unsupported by evidence?
"Are you a paid disinformationist ?"
Yeah I got rich from being paid by conspiracy theorists and truthers. Good catch!
That's why I'm telling everyone to be sure to read your posts so they can understand the differences between the official theory and that FACTS (the "disinformation" to you). They pay me well for that.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 19, 2013 18:56:21 GMT -5
You aren't interested in facts, you keep ducking the issues and trying to change the subject away from the extensive evidence of structural damage and fire.
You have NO evidence of controlled demolitions at all, no RDX residues or any other high explosive residue. No footage shows any signs or sounds of explosives detonating in the buildings except for the thermobaric explosions of jet fuel in the twin towers when the hijacked airliners were crashed into them. These facts are inconvenient for you.
Do you feel that you have to lie about controlled demolitions because you cannot accept that terrorists could do this? Or are you lying because you are being paid to lie about controlled demolitions so as to make critics of your government look stupid?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 19, 2013 21:50:59 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for you to state what theory I posted and what claim I made that's not supported by evidence. If you don't want to answer then I have to assume there is no theory, no lie and and no claim that I posted and you're just making this up as you often do.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 20, 2013 2:25:57 GMT -5
You have posted the theory that 9/11 was an inside job but provide no evidence that it was, you contend that the towers were destroyed by controlled demolition but provide no explanation as to how that could have been. You provide no evidence of RDX no evidence of blasting caps or detcord, no evidence of how a crew could have gone into those buildings and rigged thousands of charges unnoticed, no evidence of demolition blasts, only some tenuous convoluted story and a dubious claim about WTC7.
You allege that engineered nano thermite had something to do with the collapses yet ignore that the buildings were made of the precursors to thermite and that iron oxide particles naturally occur when steel has been in fire.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 20, 2013 7:35:16 GMT -5
"You have posted the theory that 9/11 was an inside job"
I didn't post any such theory. I posted the FACT that the Bush administration, the entire US defense apparatus and a host of alphabet agencies did NOTHING to prevent or stop 9/11. I said I and hundreds of millions of other people want to know the truth about 9/11 because it is a FACT that the official story is full of LIES. These are all FACTS, not theories.
"you contend that the towers were destroyed by controlled demolition but provide no explanation as to how that could have been."
I posted that the 3 buildings did not collapse naturally on 9/11 as readily seen on all the videos and supported by the FACTS (see free fall, near free fall, explosions and foreknowledge of collapses, among many other supporting FACTS) and that the official account of what made them all collapse in the manner that they did is not only impossible but is based on lies, fabrications and contradictions leading to theories. I provided tons of links to EVIDENCE and EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS that were NEVER investigated and that the alleged "investigations" were full of ADMITTED lies, omissions, distortions, contradictions and were no more than theories based on those. They were also a cover-up because no one in government was ever held accountable and the fake investigations were designed not to hold anyone accountable for the massive failure of government on 9/11.
"You allege that engineered nano thermite had something to do with the collapses"
I posted a link to a peer reviewed paper, authored by a host of experts, based on the discovery of abundant amounts of nano-thermite particles in 4 independent samples of WTC dust both in reacted and unreacted form along with abundant microscopic spheroids of iron that could have only occur as a result of a reaction. This was independently corroborated by yet another expert using a sophisticated differential scanning calorimeter that proved these chips were highly energetic. And that these findings could not have occurred naturally, according to experts, as nano-thermite at the time could only be manufactured in a lab. I also posted that there never was any independent forensic criminal investigation into 9/11 and that NIST, by its own admission, never investigated for explosives or explosive materials in direct contradiction to standard NFPA protocol.
Nothing above are theories or lies, they're all FACTS and they're all supported by EVIDENCE and the HISTORY of 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2013 8:09:24 GMT -5
if it were an inside job look at the sheer amount of people it would require. it would be like trying to cover the fall of the Berlin Wall.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 20, 2013 8:35:02 GMT -5
if it were an inside job look at the sheer amount of people it would require. it would be like trying to cover the fall of the Berlin Wall. Asking that question does nothing to change the FACT that NOTHING was done to prevent or stop 9/11 and that the 3 building collapses were NOT natural collapses due to fire, damage or both. It also does NOTHING to change the FACT that there NEVER was an independent forensic criminal investigation into the events surrounding and on 9/11. In other words, IF it was an inside job, we can't begin to find out who was involved because there never was any investigation to try to find out. IF it wasn't an inside job, we have no way of knowing how or why the 3 buildings collapsed in that manner. Theories unsupported and contradicted by the evidence and science do not explain it, they are just deliberate cover-ups. Your point puts the cart before the horse.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 20, 2013 13:12:02 GMT -5
Had you been in charge of the USA it's likely that you'd also have failed to stop 19 Mujahideen from hijacking the airliners and crashing them. Remember, pride comes before a fall.
How do you do a forensic examination of the remains of a hijacked aircraft that has been burned to a crisp so thoroughly that even it's black box has been destroyed? Why would they want to waste taxpayers money on an investigation that would prove what is already known? It wasn't an inside job.
The cleanup workers who cleared up at Ground Zero have demolitions experience and know what blasting caps look like and detcord and such things stick out like a sore thumb after a controlled demolition. Furthermore tests by your Nuclear Physicist hero Steve Jones did not reveal any chemical traces of high explosive substances, only rust (Iron oxide spherules which could easily have come from the rusty fire damaged Steel in the debris).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 20, 2013 13:37:19 GMT -5
"Had you been in charge of the USA it's likely that you'd also have failed to stop 19 Mujahideen from hijacking the airliners and crashing them."
Is your speculation supposed to be an excuse for doing NOTHING? How do you know?
"How do you do a forensic examination of the remains of a hijacked aircraft that has been burned to a crisp so thoroughly that even it's black box has been destroyed?"
Even if that's true, is that supposed to be an excuse for NOT conducting any investigation on anything? In any case, no black boxes have ever been destroyed in any airline crashes or failed to be located (conveniently other than on 9/11 of course). And why are you asking me such an irrelevant question?
"Why would they want to waste taxpayers money on an investigation that would prove what is already known?"
How can anyone already know anything or everything, much less prove it, without conducting an investigation?
Your point and the questions make no sense. These are the kind of questions a child who doesn't know any better might ask. Why are trying to make excuses for the failure to conduct any investigation?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 20, 2013 13:57:12 GMT -5
You doubt the capability of anyone to hijack planes kill the pilots and crash them at speed. If you'd been in charge I doubt you would have stepped up airport security.
The crucial thing with 9/11 is the speed at which the planes were crashed. Typical airliner crashes aren't high speed deliberate style kamikaze crashes.
You have valid questions but you ignore the answers to those questions and that my friend really is childish for there have been investigations.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 20, 2013 14:21:38 GMT -5
"You doubt the capability of anyone to hijack planes kill the pilots and crash them at speed."
Sorry, you're misinformed, I never said that, you're making this up. However, If you're talking about the alleged 9/11 hijackings and crashes, that's another story.
"If you'd been in charge I doubt you would have stepped up airport security."
I'm not in charge, have never been in charge and what I would or would not do is totally irrelevant to anything.
"The crucial thing with 9/11 is the speed at which the planes were crashed."
No that's only one issue, there are many crucial things about 9/11.
"You have valid questions but you ignore the answers to those questions"
There are no answers to literally thousands of questions about 9/11. You try to answer questions that you have no standing to answer and you only end up lying and making things up or just posting your opinions, none of which are answers. I don't ignore answers that make sense and are really answers.
"there have been investigations"
Can you name the independent forensic criminal investigation on 9/11 that you believe took place? When did it take place, who took part and where's a link to the report? If you can't, then you're making this up. And you are because I never heard of any such thing. But maybe I missed something so please enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 21, 2013 3:26:41 GMT -5
The speed at which the aircraft his is a very crucial issue, because the kinetic energy of those planes was so much greater than the landing aircraft lost in fog scenario envisaged by Leslie Robertson and John Skilling when they designed the twin towers.
The fuel the aircraft carried is a very crucial issue too, because the fuel load of an airliner wasn't considered by Robertson in his design.
There have been independent scientific investigations into 9/11 by the University of Manchester, and the University of Sydney, Northwest University USA, and many others, none of whom found any evidence of high explosives with regards to the collapses, even your hero Steven Jones did not find any evidence of high explosives. As for forensic criminal investigations, what would you have them forensically examine ? And how much money would it be wasted when all they will find is already known?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 21, 2013 7:17:36 GMT -5
"The speed at which the aircraft his is a very crucial issue"
It's one of thousands of crucial issues.
"As for forensic criminal investigations, what would you have them forensically examine ?"
That's not my call or yours. But I assume everything, period.
"And how much money would it be wasted when all they will find is already known?"
What kind of childish straw man question is that?
Yes there have been many investigations, including many I posted the links to. Some of these were indeed forensic evidence based investigations (see the Jones/Harrit paper). But you can't name any officially accepted independent forensic criminal investigation because there was none ever conducted obviously.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 21, 2013 7:34:01 GMT -5
1) The high speed crashing of fuel laden hijacked aircraft into populated working office buildings is the key issue. 2) Jones discovered no high explosive substances only "Iron rich spherules" (hardly surprising as Steel is Iron rich) of Iron oxide (rust). Without realising it Jones debunked the whole controlled demolition theory. Quite an own goal that . 3) The TMS investigation was forensic in it's examination of WTC steel at microscopic level and found that it had indeed been severely weakened by fire.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 21, 2013 7:45:44 GMT -5
"1) The high speed crashing of fuel laden hijacked aircraft into populated working office buildings is the key issue."
Really? So in your opinion. everything else about 9/11 is secondary?
"2) Jones discovered no high explosive substances only "Iron rich spherules" (hardly surprising as Steel is Iron rich) of Iron oxide (rust). Without realising it Jones debunked the whole controlled demolition theory."
What Jones, Harrit and others discovered is clearly outlined in the their paper. What you're claiming is your made up nonsense. Did anyone give you any WTC dust to analyze and are you qualified to analyze such dust?
"3) The TMS investigation was forensic in it's examination of WTC steel at microscopic level and found that it had indeed been severely weakened by fire."
If you say so, that still is not an officially accepted independent criminal investigation into ALL the aspects of 9/11.
I meant to ask you. Is it your opinion that it was best not to have any forensic criminal investigation conducted because it would have been a "waste of money" since theories are better than any investigation and there's never any need to prove these theories are actually true. One just has to accept theories as truth, right?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 21, 2013 8:41:00 GMT -5
1) If the planes hadn't crashed into the twin towers the twin towers would still be standing and thousands of people still alive.
2) In your opinion. In reality what Jones & Harrit discovered is clearly Iron oxide from the Steel, but interestingly the fools disproved controlled demolitions by proving forensically there were no trace residues of high explosive substances like RDX in the debris.
3) TMS say so. They're experts.
4) The facts are already known by everyone except the liar movement who continue with their flat Earther mindset determined to ignore any fact they find inconvenient. There is no need to have a criminal investigation when guilt has already been proven, and admitted by the Mujahideen that was responsible.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 21, 2013 9:08:15 GMT -5
"1) If the planes hadn't crashed into the twin towers the twin towers would still be standing and thousands of people still alive."
Is that supposed to be an intelligent revelation? I would have never figured that out if you hadn't posted it.
"2) In your opinion."
No it's not MY opinion, it's the findings of experts.
"3) TMS say so. They're experts."
TMS says what? That they conducted an officially accepted independent forensic criminal investigation into 9/11?
"4) The facts are already known by everyone except the liar movement who continue with their flat Earther mindset determined to ignore any fact they find inconvenient."
This is just more immature nonsense. Grow up.
"There is no need to have a criminal investigation when guilt has already been proven"
By what court of law? Are you afraid of one?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 21, 2013 9:39:31 GMT -5
1) I made a statement of fact. 2) Your opinion is irrelevant the people you refer to are not experts. 3) TMS carried out an officially accepted independent forensic investigation into the WTC steel. They have no power of arrest so it could not be said to be a 'criminal' investigation. But their forensic examination of the steel proves the established consensus and disproves the childish controlled demolition theories put out by the liar movement. 4) The 19 dead hijackers can't be prosecuted for what they did (not on Earth anyway). Why waste a court's time ? It'd be like trying to prosecute the corpse of Jimmy Savile.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 21, 2013 11:17:22 GMT -5
"1) I made a statement of fact."
Which one? The "liar movement"? Is that like a bowel movement?
"2) Your opinion is irrelevant the people you refer to are not experts."
To you.
"3) TMS carried out an officially accepted independent forensic investigation into the WTC steel."
I didn't ask you about that. I asked you if they claim they conducted an officially accepted independent forensic criminal investigation into 9/11? And your real answer is NO, right? BTW a criminal investigation has nothing to do with whether those investigating have the power of arrest or not. Only enforcement authorities have the power to arrest. You do understand that even though it seems you're having difficulty with the concept, right?
"their forensic examination of the steel proves the established consensus and disproves the childish controlled demolition theories put out by the liar movement."
I never heard of an "established consensus" about 9/11 or a "liar movement". I don't believe that anyone has even heard about an investigation into 9/11 by TMS so who would be involved in an "established consensus"? So what are you talking about?
"4) The 19 dead hijackers can't be prosecuted for what they did (not on Earth anyway)."
Anyone can be prosecuted at any time, living or not. People have been prosecuted and found guilty in absentia. I assume you have no clue about that.
"Why waste a court's time ?"
Why are you asking that question? Is it up to you to determine whether a court is wasting time or not? Why does that bother you?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 22, 2013 13:51:53 GMT -5
I don't see Jimmy Savile being prosecuted for his crimes and he's a dead paedophile. I'm aware that living people have been found guilty in absentia in the hope that one day they'll be caught and brought to justice. No people already known to be dead have ever been prosecuted. When criminals are dead they can't be brought back to life and put in prison. I'm asking you what the point of prosecuting a dead person would be ? They cannot be punished.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 22, 2013 14:22:11 GMT -5
I don't see Jimmy Savile being prosecuted for his crimes and he's a dead paedophile. I'm aware that living people have been found guilty in absentia in the hope that one day they'll be caught and brought to justice. No people already known to be dead have ever been prosecuted. When criminals are dead they can't be brought back to life and put in prison. I'm asking you what the point of prosecuting a dead person would be ? They cannot be punished. Your entire point about prosecuting dead people is totally irrelevant to a 9/11 investigation. A REAL 9/11 investigation would not be for the purpose of prosecuting dead people.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 22, 2013 15:05:33 GMT -5
Er dead people carried out the suicide attack, they can't be prosecuted.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 22, 2013 15:10:28 GMT -5
Er dead people carried out the suicide attack, they can't be prosecuted. What is it you pretend to fail to understand about that a REAL 9/11 investigation would not be for the purpose of prosecuting dead people? Never mind, that's a rhetorical question and a waste of time to even discuss it with you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 22, 2013 15:15:51 GMT -5
Real investigations have taken place, you may cover your eyes and ears because you don't want to accept the truth but your opinions don't matter. Real investigations have already found what happened.
|
|