|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 24, 2013 19:51:43 GMT -5
"Not just gravitational forces"Exactly, a gravitational collapse CANNOT cause those things to happen, that's simple physics. Other forces had to be present. Not to mention there was MASSIVE RESISTANCE, especially from the majority of the tower which was undamaged and unaffected by fire so a near free fall collapse (read: at ACCELERATING velocity) was impossible from a gravitational collapse. Bazant's paper was written a few weeks after 9/11. It's totally irrelevant since more than 11 years worth of new evidence and research by independent sources have been conducted since Bazant wrote his paper, including contradictions of his theories. Here's one called "NIST AND DR. BAZANT - A SIMULTANEOUS FAILURE": www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdfAnd here's a more recent one called "The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis" www.ae911truth.org/en/component/content/article/35-key-facts/73-technical-articles.html "Anyway it's late here. Goodnight."Sleep tight, tomorrow is a new day for you to promote the official conspiracy theory. Try to stay away from name-calling and shooting the messenger tactics if you can though, it's so incredibly juvenile. At times you seem to exhibit a reasonable level of intellect but when you resort to that, you lose it.
|
|
|
Post by jettz on Jun 24, 2013 20:49:50 GMT -5
Yeah, thanks Pete for that observation. To be more accurate though, 2 planes did hit 2 buildings and 3 fell down so that's not really all. always remember bob when a plane hit's a building and it falls down it always goes boom. and it will send shrapnal out that makes other things fall down and go boom.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 24, 2013 23:44:17 GMT -5
Yeah, thanks Pete for that observation. To be more accurate though, 2 planes did hit 2 buildings and 3 fell down so that's not really all. always remember bob when a plane hit's a building and it falls down it always goes boom. and it will send shrapnal out that makes other things fall down and go boom. No kidding? I would have never known that if you didn't post it here. You need to tell the 2,000 experts about the brilliant observation you came up with all on your own. Send an e-mail to Richard Gage, Steven Jones and Niels Harritt quick, maybe they don't know that. You could also write a paper and submit it for peer review at journalof911studies.com/
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 25, 2013 2:44:48 GMT -5
LOL Gage's mob of fraudsters are not experts, these frauds had to invent a journal because no genuine peer reviewed science journal like ASCE or The New Scientist would give their money making con a kind word.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 25, 2013 7:51:41 GMT -5
LOL Gage's mob of fraudsters are not experts, these frauds had to invent a journal because no genuine peer reviewed science journal like ASCE or The New Scientist would give their money making con a kind word. And I'm certainly extremely glad they "invented a journal" and created a host of websites. I would have never been able to review their work if they didn't do that. Then the only "news" I would be getting about 9/11 is what government and its puppet media feeds everyone. We all know how accurate and reliable that is, right? And you would have never been able to shoot the messenger daily if they didn't do that. You should thank them.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 25, 2013 18:04:58 GMT -5
Their fake journal is crap mate.
For a real peer reviewed paper, read Bazant & Zhou's paper, it was peer reviewed by the American Society of Civil Engineers and published in their scientific journal. Unlike Gage's mob or Steven Jones's mob, Zdenek Bazant didn't write his paper for profit, he wrote his paper to get at the truth.
And before you accuse me of 'shooting the messenger' again, you've shot the messenger loads of times. Firefighter Lt Frank Papalia, Steve Spak, Firefighter Miller, Fire Chief Daniel Nigro, the British Broadcasting Corporation and anyone else who doesn't support the ridiculous claims of the 9/11 'truth' movement.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 25, 2013 19:11:26 GMT -5
Their fake journal is crap mate. For a real peer reviewed paper, read Bazant & Zhou's paper, it was peer reviewed by the American Society of Civil Engineers and published in their scientific journal. Unlike Gage's mob or Steven Jones's mob, Zdenek Bazant didn't write his paper for profit, he wrote his paper to get at the truth. And before you accuse me of 'shooting the messenger' again, you've shot the messenger loads of times. Firefighter Lt Frank Papalia, Steve Spak, Firefighter Miller, Fire Chief Daniel Nigro, the British Broadcasting Corporation and anyone else who doesn't support the ridiculous claims of the 9/11 'truth' movement. That's a complete bald faced lie (as usual). While the BBC is just another lamestream puppet and not an eyewitness, I have never shot down any testimony by any firefighter or anyone else for that matter. In fact, I said that everyone's testimony is crucial, there are no exceptions. But I also said one can't selectively accept the testimony of some and discard the testimony of others. I also said these people have their own personal opinions, that's quite different than eyewitness testimony. You're the one who shoots down eyewitnesses if their testimony contradicts the official 9/11 narrative, a prime example is Willie Rodriguez. You even shoot down any video you disagree with and make outrageous claims that they're all doctored. Your second sentence is yet another shoot the messenger type. Personally if all these people personally profit from exposing 9/11 LIES and LIARS, they well deserve it. The criminals have made $trillions in profit under pretext of 9/11 and use 9/11 as pretext to destroy civil liberties and perpetrate wholesale genocide.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 26, 2013 3:18:20 GMT -5
The BBC is an impartial and independent broadcaster that has nothing to do with your government at all, it's not a puppet. Eyewitnesses did not hear or see a chain of demolitions charges go up the building before WTC2 fell, or before WTC1 fell or before WTC7 fell. Cameras filmed the collapses microphones recorded the sounds those collapses made. William Rodriguez's story has changed several times, and has been more and more embellished every time with numerous lies that he need not have added: sites.google.com/site/911stories/
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 26, 2013 7:30:14 GMT -5
New day, new shoot the messenger tactics. I rest my case. And of course, it comes from an obscure site (911myths.com) run by a guy named Mike Williams. So in reality, it's the opinion of one person no one ever heard of, same as you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 26, 2013 12:57:56 GMT -5
New day new evidence. William Rodriguez may be a hero but his story has changed more time than Dr Who's face. And this evidence comes from Mark Roberts not Mike Williams. You may not like the evidence but Mark Roberts is right.
This is Mark Roberts as when dunked the 'Scholars for 9/11 truth' in a proverbial bucket and wipes the floor with them:
And this is Mark Roberts with retired Batallion Chief Arthur Schuerman discussing WTC7.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 26, 2013 18:07:01 GMT -5
Shoot, shoot, shoot.
So Mike Williams, who created a personal "debunking" site, posted information taken from Mark Roberts (I had to look him up because I never heard of this guy) who is a rabid "debunker" and actually makes a living as a tour guide. And you, an OBVIOUS rabid "debunker" post all this "debunking" stuff here. And that's your EVIDENCE.
Thanks but Rodriguez wasn't alone when he said there was a massive explosion before the first plane hit, he was with several people who corroborated his story.
Regardless, these "debunkers" are intellectually dishonest and I have no idea why intelligent people would even want to engage them in a debate. That's one of my biggest criticisms about those who contradict the official 9/11 narrative. There's no point to it, the EVIDENCE speaks for itself. And I have no interest in those who spew the official narrative verbatim and defend it while questioning none of it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 27, 2013 2:34:57 GMT -5
I didn't bring Mike Williams up or refer to his site. Mark Roberts is a new york tour guide who has researched conclusively every eyewitness testimony he can including EVERY version of William Rodriguez's changing story.
William Rodriguez was in the basement and couldn't have heard or felt the first plane hit. His first indication there was something wrong was when lift doors opened and someone was burning and "all his skin was off" (William Rodriguez's original testimony). Because JET FUEL had gone down the lift shafts.
Secondly why would they bomb the basement when the building collapsed top down eh?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 27, 2013 7:54:51 GMT -5
"I didn't bring Mike Williams up or refer to his site."
Actually you did, Mike Williams site is 911myths.com.
You were not there, neither was Mark Roberts or Mike Williams so whatever you and they have to say is totally irrelevant.
Willie Rodriguez and those who were with him are eyewitnesses and their testimony are the ONLY thing important, not your opinions. Mark Roberts and/or Mike Williams are self professed "debunkers" who were not there and have NOTHING TO DO with 9/11 so again, they mean absolutely zero in the scheme of things. Like I said, in a REAL investigation ALL eyewitness accounts are important, including all the ones you mentioned. NO eyewitnesses should be ignored as the vast majority were because there was NEVER any real forensic criminal investigation into 9/11. It doesn't necessarily mean their stories are correct or incorrect. Your posts show you know nothing (or pretend to know nothing) about how criminal investigations are conducted and you just want to shoot anyone and everyone, including eyewitnesses, if their story might contradict the official narrative.
"why would they bomb the basement when the building collapsed top down eh?"
You're asking the wrong person, I'm not an investigator or an expert. A REAL INVESTIGATION might get you the right answer but as far as I know, in order to demolish a building, the foundation needs to be taken out FIRST. Again, I'm no expert on the subject but from what I've heard about how controlled demolitions are conducted, the collapsing building material has to fall into its foundation otherwise a lot of it would fall outside its footprint. In the case of ALL 3 collapses, that's exactly what happened more or less, they all collapsed into their footprints.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 27, 2013 12:26:22 GMT -5
No I wasn't there, I've never been to the States in my life, but I saw live footage of it. I know what I saw and heard and I saw a bending moment after the structure weakened and gave way to load.
William Rodriguez's story has changed greatly over time from his original version to his distorted claims and lies. He wasn't the last man out for example.
Mark Roberts has assimilated many eyewitness testimonies, and a great deal of evidence, he's spoken to people who were there, he's spoken to many survivors. As usual you've attempted to shoot the messenger (and failed : ).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 27, 2013 12:46:41 GMT -5
"No I wasn't there, I've never been to the States in my life"
Exactly, I rest my case.
"I saw live footage of it"
So have hundreds of millions of other people. So?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 27, 2013 12:59:56 GMT -5
My best friend's uncle was there. He didn't hear any bombs go off and he filmed WTC2's collapse. He was hit by debris as it fell.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 27, 2013 13:13:56 GMT -5
My best friend's uncle was there. He didn't hear any bombs go off and he filmed WTC2's collapse. He was hit by debris as it fell. Well that's good, then he's just another eyewitness, he's not unique. There are tens of thousands who were there. There are hundreds who saw, heard and felt explosions and were hit by debris. Many were injured. Perhaps he can post what he filmed on YouTube, ask him. Maybe there's something on his film that hasn't been captured before, perhaps from another angle, you never know. Every detail and eyewitness account is important, not just what you think is important.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 28, 2013 2:05:27 GMT -5
There you go again 'explosion'. Doesn't mean explosive.Explosion can be used as a figure of speech. Of course 9/11 'truther's don't understand the concept of using 'explode' as a figure of speech.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 28, 2013 7:43:45 GMT -5
There you go again 'explosion'. Doesn't mean explosive.Explosion can be used as a figure of speech. Of course 9/11 'truther's don't understand the concept of using 'explode' as a figure of speech. What an explosion means or doesn't mean to you is totally irrelevant. In an investigation, no one's going to ask you for your opinion of what it means.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 28, 2013 8:03:09 GMT -5
Spare me your bulls**t. There were no pre planted bombs involved in bringing down the towers.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 28, 2013 8:11:41 GMT -5
Spare me your bulls**t. There were no pre planted bombs involved in bringing down the towers. That is about the umpteenth time you posted the same opinion. What does yet another post like that accomplish for you?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 28, 2013 9:55:51 GMT -5
So it's ok for you to post your unsubstantiated opinion but if I post FACTS you don't like, apparently (despite there being no evidence of any high explosive charges having been used to bring down the towers) apparently it's my opinion, not an established commonly understood CONSENSUS amongst real experts, which most people on Earth know to be true?
LOL you're funny.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 28, 2013 10:27:45 GMT -5
You have never posted any FACTS I don't like. I may feel they're not relevant but I have no particular personal issue with any fact you've posted (as long as it's really fact, not your biased opinion).
All of my posts consist of FACT and EVIDENCE based research and papers and opinions based on those. What you post most of the time (usually on a daily basis) is the official narrative (almost verbatim), anything you find that supports the official narrative, character assassinations and opinions from "debunking" sites. The same ones that also use character assassination techniques and never question any part of the official narrative. Often when you do post facts, it's either irrelevant to the issue(s) or it's one sided, that is, it might work to support the official narrative if no other facts were present to contradict it. And when those are presented, you either deny them, claim they're insignificant, fabricated, you outright lie, shoot the messenger or use whatever tactic you believe will work for you.
Regardless of your constant fakery, obviously your tactics accomplish nothing. With all the posts you've written in this forum, you haven't changed my mind about anything relevant, yet you keep trying endlessly. Personally, I don't care if others accept your bulls**t tactics as anything more than that. I certainly don't expect to convince anyone of anything who has already made up his/her mind and does not want to hear about any new discovery or opinion on 9/11.
I only post for those who actually want to know and hear about anything new. That would of course not be you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 28, 2013 11:12:46 GMT -5
You wouldn't know a fact if it came up to you and snogged (a passionate kiss) you.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 28, 2013 11:56:03 GMT -5
You wouldn't know a fact if it came up to you and snogged (a passionate kiss) you. What I posted before the above inane response is FACT and you just proved it (the character assassination).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 29, 2013 6:31:16 GMT -5
You wouldn't know a fact if it came up to you and snogged (a passionate kiss) you. What I posted before the above inane response is FACT and you just proved it (the character assassination). No it isn't I'm still waiting for you to post any facts about the collapses of the WTC buildings instead of the usual debunked lies you keep posting.
|
|