|
Post by shred on Jun 29, 2013 16:15:47 GMT -5
Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by peteetongman on Jun 29, 2013 16:32:46 GMT -5
I can't wait to hear the tinfoil hat-wearing kooks answer that one shred. This should be entertaining
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 30, 2013 5:05:02 GMT -5
Very
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 30, 2013 9:46:42 GMT -5
Why indeed. That would be in the domain of a REAL independent forensic criminal investigation wouldn't it be? Why aren't you asking why that was never done? Why aren't you asking the same hundreds of questions that have never been looked into, never mind answered. You're not really posting a great argument against 9/11 "conspiracy theories" because the ONLY conspiracy theory that means anything is the one one fed by government and its puppet media. What you're really doing is what you continue to do daily, try in your immature way to silence those who question the official narrative. You do that with virtually all your posts about 9/11, down to name calling and making things up. Those who are intelligent enough to know that government and its puppet media LIE all the time know the official narrative is full of LIES and DISTORTIONS. That no one has been held accountable for government's CATASTROPHIC FAILURE to prevent or stop 9/11 is a GLARING TRUTH and HISTORICAL FACT. That some of those responsible for that FAILURE have been promoted and/or rewarded is HISTORICAL FACT. That enormous profits have been made from the 9/11 event is HISTORICAL FACT. That our civil liberties have been destroyed by unconstitutional legislation as well as Executive dictate and Judicial activism is HISTORICAL FACT. That government, the US military/intelligence apparatus and all the alphabet agencies did NOTHING on 9/11 is NOT a "conspiracy theory", it's HISTORICAL FACT. It's all undeniable and irrefutable. These are just some of the REAL 9/11 issues, not the garbage you keep trotting out. Your daily posts on this subject expose your FRAUD. You NEVER question anything and always attack those who do, anyone and everyone, that makes your fraud more than obvious to anyone with a brain. And Pete, as an American, if you are one, why aren't you making these same observations and asking these same questions? Are you that blind to what's happening in the US, all under pretext of 9/11? And last, are you calling me a "tinfoil hat-wearing kook" because I'm not satisfied with the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as anything more than LIES? Let me know if you've personally stooped down to attacking me since you run this forum.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jun 30, 2013 13:44:28 GMT -5
Why aren't you asking why your 9/11 'truth' movement felt the need to invent fake evidence ? Why aren't you asking why your 9/11 'truth' movement feels the need to avoid getting their 'scientific' papers peer reviewed by reputable scientific journals ? Why do you continue to lie and obfusticate and deny the most basic of facts about 9/11 and call for American taxes to be wasted on a wild goose chase?
The facts have already been ascertained. 19 Muslims did it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jun 30, 2013 19:24:33 GMT -5
Why aren't you asking why your 9/11 'truth' movement felt the need to invent fake evidence ? Why aren't you asking why your 9/11 'truth' movement feels the need to avoid getting their 'scientific' papers peer reviewed by reputable scientific journals ? Why do you continue to lie and obfusticate and deny the most basic of facts about 9/11 and call for American taxes to be wasted on a wild goose chase? The facts have already been ascertained. 19 Muslims did it. Just more senseless garbage that has nothing to do with what I posted.
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on Jun 30, 2013 21:43:39 GMT -5
very astute shredder, flight 99, wtc 7, and the pentagon come to mind
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 1, 2013 4:20:39 GMT -5
Richard, WTC7 was hit by WTC1 (extensive south side damage and heavy fires are documented fact, it's collapse happened on live tv during an interview with a first responder named Barbara Crowley, no explosions were heard in the seconds before during or after it's collapse). The Pentagon was hit by Flight 77 observed by many eyewitnesses, debris evidence corresponds with AA 757 fitted with RB211-535e engines), Flight 93 was hijacked but crashed early because of a passenger's revolt (Flight Data Recorder evidence).
Following the terrorist attacks American Airlines and United Airlines nearly went bankrupt, the US economy took a massive hit (just as you needed war funds), Swiss Air went bankrupt and a number of Airlines around the world went out of business. To say that the US Government would do this is not logical. The attack on the USS Cole was enough to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. Bush could have used it (and the previous embassy bombings) as justification for getting Osama bin Laden, George Bush could have made a clear break from his predecessor by taking immediate action upon taking office.
I know you hate Bush, but he's innocent (of this crime).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 14:15:08 GMT -5
"And Pete, as an American, if you are one..."
Peteet, you gonna take that?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 14:20:52 GMT -5
Why indeed. That would be in the domain of a REAL independent forensic criminal investigation wouldn't it be? Why aren't you asking why that was never done? Why aren't you asking the same hundreds of questions that have never been looked into, never mind answered. You're not really posting a great argument against 9/11 "conspiracy theories" because the ONLY conspiracy theory that means anything is the one one fed by government and its puppet media. What you're really doing is what you continue to do daily, try in your immature way to silence those who question the official narrative. You do that with virtually all your posts about 9/11, down to name calling and making things up. Those who are intelligent enough to know that government and its puppet media LIE all the time know the official narrative is full of LIES and DISTORTIONS. That no one has been held accountable for government's CATASTROPHIC FAILURE to prevent or stop 9/11 is a GLARING TRUTH and HISTORICAL FACT. That some of those responsible for that FAILURE have been promoted and/or rewarded is HISTORICAL FACT. That enormous profits have been made from the 9/11 event is HISTORICAL FACT. That our civil liberties have been destroyed by unconstitutional legislation as well as Executive dictate and Judicial activism is HISTORICAL FACT. That government, the US military/intelligence apparatus and all the alphabet agencies did NOTHING on 9/11 is NOT a "conspiracy theory", it's HISTORICAL FACT. It's all undeniable and irrefutable. These are just some of the REAL 9/11 issues, not the garbage you keep trotting out. Your daily posts on this subject expose your FRAUD. You NEVER question anything and always attack those who do, anyone and everyone, that makes your fraud more than obvious to anyone with a brain. And Pete, as an American, if you are one, why aren't you making these same observations and asking these same questions? Are you that blind to what's happening in the US, all under pretext of 9/11? And last, are you calling me a "tinfoil hat-wearing kook" because I'm not satisfied with the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as anything more than LIES? Let me know if you've personally stooped down to attacking me since you run this forum. Because I'm an open-minded person, I've recently been watching this 9/11 conspiracy video Part of it goes over the whole "thermate" use, pools of molten metal in the wreckage, etc., but again NOT ONCE, do any of these people discuss the logistics of wiring all of these buildings surrepticiously - over what had to be several weeks - without being discovered. Until you can provide some manner of evidence other than what I saw with my own eyes Bob, I don't know how you could expect anyone to believe these things
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 1, 2013 15:18:41 GMT -5
"Until you can provide some manner of evidence other than what I saw with my own eyes Bob, I don't know how you could expect anyone to believe these things"
The EVIDENCE that all 3 buildings did not collapse naturally is right in front of your own eyes. All 3 collapsed at near free fall acceleration.
WTC7 collapsed at free fall acceleration for the first 100+ feet or 8 stories. This is VERIFIABLE and ACCURATE from the video. It has also been published in the Final NIST Report (see Page 48) so even NIST agrees. The only way that can happen is if there is NOTHING below to resist the collapse. As you may or may not know, WTC7 was a 47 story steel frame structure with 98 steel columns, so there had to be immense resistance, yet it collapsed like a house of cards.
The twin towers did not even collapse, they disintegrated at near free fall acceleration. In one case, about 1.2 seconds short of free fall. This is also impossible in a natural collapse given the structure of the towers.
ALL 3 collapses ACCELERATED. Not one of these collapses experienced anything that one can call significant RESISTANCE. As you can see on all the videos of the twin towers, the majority of the lower portion of each tower was NOT affected by planes or fires and they were both built so that the lower portions were significantly stronger than the upper portions to account for the massive weight. Yet the collapse of the lower part accelerated as if there was NO RESISTANCE.
There's much more to it than just the accelerating collapses (see video below).
Whatever way these buildings may have been set up to collapse as they did is not the question. That's something only a real independent forensic investigation might be able to uncover/answer. Until then, one can only speculate. The FACT is that these towers did NOT collapse naturally and that's in PLAIN SIGHT. And no, I did not notice that when I first saw the footage, it was brought to my attention years later. I also was not aware that WTC7 collapsed until years later.
I believe a better explanation can be found in this video:
As to your original statement above "I don't know how you could expect anyone to believe these things", hundreds of millions people do not accept government's official conspiracy theory and it's just a theory that's loaded with ADMITTED LIES and DISTORTIONS and I personally don't know how anyone can accept that theory as truth. The problem is not whether one wants to accept anyone else's opinion on the subject or not, the problem is that NO ONE really knows what happened because we have NEVER had a REAL INDEPENDENT FORENSIC CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION into the 9/11 events. And that's by DESIGN (read COVER-UP).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 1, 2013 18:00:26 GMT -5
These buildings collapsed without bangs or flashes, all the raw video footage confirms this. The logistics of rigging them with pre planted bombs unnoticed and able to survive the plane crashes, is frankly ridiculous. People would have had to be complicit in their own deaths for this fraudulent explanation of yours to work Bob. Stop being silly, it wasn't an inside job.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 18:11:47 GMT -5
These buildings collapsed without bangs or flashes, all the raw video footage confirms this. The logistics of rigging them with pre planted bombs unnoticed and able to survive the plane crashes, is frankly ridiculous. People would have had to be complicit in their own deaths for this fraudulent explanation of yours to work Bob. Stop being silly, it wasn't an inside job. Further to this point, for the whole "accelerated free fall" evidence to be correct, even MORE explosives would have to be in place in the lower half of the structure and the detonation timed perfectly to have such an effect. Again, I just don't see how a crack demolition team could have been operating to rig column after column without anyone ever taking notice. Also, in the 9/11 "truther" video, they cite the Madrid tower as an example of a steel framed structure subjected to extreme heat without collapse, but I wonder if the framing details were the same and/or if that structure had a concrete core?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 1, 2013 18:48:05 GMT -5
"... for the whole "accelerated free fall" evidence to be correct ..."The free fall acceleration for WTC7 is indisputable and easily verifiable so it can't be incorrect. The timing of all 3 building collapses is also indisputable because they're all easily measurable. Like I said, even NIST agrees on the free fall acceleration of WTC7. It doesn't matter what you want to believe or not, what theories or speculations you want to suggest, what you believe should have happened in order for the collapses to occur in the manner they did occur. The FACT is that they all collapsed at an accelerated speed and not one building's collapse was reasonably impeded by its massive structure. You can go through Professor Chandler's detailed explanations of all 3 collapses using the actual videos, if you're interested: 911speakout.org/?page_id=8There's also a video of the WTC7 collapse that clearly shows timed explosions immediately at the time of the collapse. Shred will rabidly claim it's "doctored" all day long but there is no evidence to suggest that's true. Doctored video or not, the free fall acceleration is incontrovertible. As to other building collapses, including the Windsor Tower, there was a paper written fairly recently on that subject if you care to review it: www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Other_Collapses_Apr27_2013.pdfOf course your other option is to dismiss anything and everything that contradicts the official narrative as Shred does. It's easy, you won't have to question anything then, just go straight to the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Report. Note that the NIST Report immediately contradicts its own theory when it says WTC7 collapsed at free fall acceleration, but you can skip that part if you want. You can't have it both ways. Either it collapsed naturally or it didn't. A free fall building collapse is NOT a natural collapse on this planet. It makes things so much easier when one just accepts what one is told by authority as truth.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 1, 2013 19:28:18 GMT -5
These buildings collapsed without bangs or flashes, all the raw video footage confirms this. The logistics of rigging them with pre planted bombs unnoticed and able to survive the plane crashes, is frankly ridiculous. People would have had to be complicit in their own deaths for this fraudulent explanation of yours to work Bob. Stop being silly, it wasn't an inside job. Further to this point, for the whole "accelerated free fall" evidence to be correct, even MORE explosives would have to be in place in the lower half of the structure and the detonation timed perfectly to have such an effect. Again, I just don't see how a crack demolition team could have been operating to rig column after column without anyone ever taking notice. Also, in the 9/11 "truther" video, they cite the Madrid tower as an example of a steel framed structure subjected to extreme heat without collapse, but I wonder if the framing details were the same and/or if that structure had a concrete core? The 32 storey Edifico Windsor Tower in Madrid did suffer extensive progressive slab collapse early on into it's fire, it was only because of a very robust concrete core and the reinforced transfer structure between the 16th and 17th floors that it didn't suffer global collapse. www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htmNeither of the Twin Towers (or WTC 7 for that matter) had concrete reinforcements to any vertical load bearing columns. Bob's video of 'timed explosions' in WTC7 is a doctored FAKE with synthetic sounds and flashes added afterwards by frauds, the building collapsed live during this interview with first responder Barbara Crowley: Watch her reaction, does she look like she's just heard a building being brought down by bombs ? It starts collapsing and THEN she looks round. If blown up she'd have looked round immediately.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 1, 2013 20:27:42 GMT -5
"Bob's video of 'timed explosions' in WTC7 is a doctored FAKE with synthetic sounds and flashes added afterwards by frauds"
See? Like clockwork, he never misses a chance to make the above unsupported claim. He also likes to claim it's my video although I wasn't there and had nothing to do with it.
He can post his nonsense day in and day out but there's nothing he can say that can contradict the FACT that WTC7 was in free fall for the first 100 feet (8 stories) for 2.25 seconds. There's also nothing he can say that contradicts the FACT that the collapse of all 3 towers accelerated at near free fall, as if no part of their respective structures impeded their collapses. In my opinion, this is the strongest and clearest EVIDENCE that not one of these collapses were natural. There's much more supporting evidence of course but this EVIDENCE is indisputable and in plain sight.
As to explosions, there are well over 100 independent eyewitness accounts, many are on video. This is also indisputable:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 21:22:22 GMT -5
"Bob's video of 'timed explosions' in WTC7 is a doctored FAKE with synthetic sounds and flashes added afterwards by frauds"
See? Like clockwork, he never misses a chance to make the above unsupported claim. He also likes to claim it's my video although I wasn't there and had nothing to do with it. He can post his nonsense day in and day out but there's nothing he can say that can contradict the FACT that WTC7 was in free fall for the first 100 feet (8 stories) for 2.25 seconds. There's also nothing he can say that contradicts the FACT that the collapse of all 3 towers accelerated at near free fall, as if no part of their respective structures impeded their collapses. In my opinion, this is the strongest and clearest EVIDENCE that not one of these collapses were natural. There's much more supporting evidence of course but this EVIDENCE is indisputable and in plain sight. As to explosions, there are well over 100 independent eyewitness accounts, many are on video. This is also indisputable: So Bob, moving on to the rest of this truther video, they go in to American Flight 77 and the impossibility of it hitting the Pentagon - plane couldn't make the manuever, pilots weren't trained, no videos, no telltale wreckage - so, I ask you....what happened to American Flight 77? Were the crew, aircraft, and passengers taken to a FEMA camp?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 1, 2013 22:04:57 GMT -5
"So Bob, moving on to the rest of this truther video"There's no such thing as a "truther video". You're moving on rather quickly, what happened with the free fall issue? No longer interested? Why is that? "they go in to American Flight 77 and the impossibility of it hitting the Pentagon - plane couldn't make the manuever, pilots weren't trained, no videos, no telltale wreckage - so, I ask you....what happened to American Flight 77? Were the crew, aircraft, and passengers taken to a FEMA camp?"You're asking the wrong person. Like I said from the beginning, there are many unanswered questions about the events of 9/11. And when and if some of those questions are answered, there will be many more questions that will come up from the answers. I can only get into the FACTS of 9/11 as we know them, the science and expert opinion. I can't get into what a REAL investigation should get into and what it might uncover. Too many things about the Pentagon crash as we now know don't make any sense. Some are downright unrealistic. Here again, government failed to conduct an independent forensic criminal investigation. For example, look at this picture of another airliner disaster (TWA Flight 800): You can see they reconstructed the airplane for investigative purposes. Why was that not done with the Pentagon plane (flight 77)? How about the plane that crashed in Pa. (flight 93)? This is standard with airliner crashes as far as I know but not when it comes to 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 23:00:38 GMT -5
"So Bob, moving on to the rest of this truther video"There's no such thing as a "truther video". You're moving on rather quickly, what happened with the free fall issue? No longer interested? Why is that? "they go in to American Flight 77 and the impossibility of it hitting the Pentagon - plane couldn't make the manuever, pilots weren't trained, no videos, no telltale wreckage - so, I ask you....what happened to American Flight 77? Were the crew, aircraft, and passengers taken to a FEMA camp?"You're asking the wrong person. Like I said from the beginning, there are many unanswered questions about the events of 9/11. And when and if some of those questions are answered, there will be many more questions that will come up from the answers. I can only get into the FACTS of 9/11 as we know them, the science and expert opinion. I can't get into what a REAL investigation should get into and what it might uncover. Too many things about the Pentagon crash as we now know don't make any sense. Some are downright unrealistic. Here again, government failed to conduct an independent forensic criminal investigation. For example, look at this picture of another airliner disaster (TWA Flight 800): You can see they reconstructed the airplane for investigative purposes. Why was that not done with the Pentagon plane (flight 77)? How about the plane that crashed in Pa. (flight 93)? This is standard with airliner crashes as far as I know but not when it comes to 9/11. Can you understand the difference between a plane that crashes in to the ocean (TWA 800) and one that crashes in to a building and explodes?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 1, 2013 23:26:28 GMT -5
"Can you understand the difference between a plane that crashes in to the ocean (TWA 800) and one that crashes in to a building and explodes?"
Yeah and? Well that was an easy way of ignoring my questions and avoiding the REAL glaring problems with the official story.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 2, 2013 1:42:20 GMT -5
Bob, your video of WTC7 is a fake, I support my claim with genuine raw footage of it's collapse during a live interview. Re Pentagon, flight 77 was witnessed as it deliberately crashed at very high speed into concrete, whereas the cause of TWA800's crash into the sea was unknown. Aircraft reconstruction is carried out when the circumstances of a crash are unknown and it needs to be determined as to whether a bomb or an aircraft structural failure brought down the plane.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 2, 2013 7:56:36 GMT -5
"your video of WTC7 is a fake, I support my claim with genuine raw footage of it's collapse during a live interview."
You keep saying it's MY video when I had nothing to do with it other than posting it in this forum. I didn't create ANY videos on 9/11. One video has nothing to do with the other. The video I posted is also alleged to be raw film footage and taken at a distance far closer than the one you claim "supports" your contention that it's a fake. There is nothing in any video of the collapse of WTC7 that contradicts what is seen in another video that I have seen. The ONLY possible way a video can be investigated for fakery is by an expert, preferably with the original film and using proper tools. You're certainly not an expert and you don't have access to the original video so all you're doing is making claims from hot air (as usual).
As to when airplanes are reconstructed after a crash and when they're not, I'm not an airline crash investigator so you may be correct or maybe not, I don't know. All I know is that there was never any independent forensic investigation into the Pentagon crash. If an investigation was conducted, and if all the parts of the airplane were there, it seems to me they could have attempted to reconstruct the plane for investigative purposes.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 2, 2013 9:58:19 GMT -5
Bob, you chose to use it in your argument, even though it's a faked doctored hoax video. That makes you complicit in a fraud.
As to when aeroplanes are reconstructed after a crash, they're only ever put back together when the cause of the crash has not been established. When the cause of the crash has been established theres no bloomin point.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 2, 2013 10:19:17 GMT -5
"you chose to use it in your argument, even though it's a faked doctored hoax video. That makes you complicit in a fraud."
Sure Shred, is that supposed to be a joke or what? Why don't you make some stuff up that at least sounds realistic, your material gets worse with each post.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 2, 2013 10:20:50 GMT -5
LOL you're the one posting fake videos and lies dear.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 2, 2013 10:24:49 GMT -5
"As to when aeroplanes are reconstructed after a crash, they're only ever put back together when the cause of the crash has not been established. When the cause of the crash has been established theres no bloomin point."
I'm not an airliner crash investigator but I see a lot of potential in trying to put the pieces of an airline together in every crash. In this case, and just for one example, to positively identify the airplane since there's a tremendous amount of controversy as to what it was that crashed into the Pentagon. I know you just accept what you're fed as truth but those of us with a functional brain don't accept stories as fact from a government that LIES all the time.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 2, 2013 10:34:45 GMT -5
Not every crash dear, only when the cause is unknown. If the Flight Data Recorder entry is enough, then there's no reason to go to huge cost reconstructing it mechanically. If eyewitnesses, telephone calls from the plane, and forensic evidence on the ground is enough, there's no need to reconstruct it mechanically. If the fragments are too small, reconstruction can be impossible. If wreckage is too deeply submerged, reconstruction can be impossible (Air France Flight 447, all they recovered were the black boxes).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 2, 2013 11:00:34 GMT -5
I'm not your "dear" fake one.
Your opinion has merit as does mine in this particular case, especially given the controversy as to what actually crashed into the Pentagon. No matter how much other circumstantial or other evidence exists, reconstruction of the airplane can yield yet more evidence or contradict other evidence. A real investigation should leave no stone unturned.
It's the same issue with the failure to investigate for explosions or explosives at the WTC site. Just because one believes there were no explosions or no explosives does not mean an investigation should exclude a forensic study in this area. In fact, it is standard NFPA protocol that was ignored by NIST, not to mention ignoring eyewitness testimony.
All of these points just supports the FACT that no real investigation into the events of 9/11 ever took place.
My points also reveal that you have not a single clue as to how to conduct an investigation, using s**t like "dear" in your responses and making things up does nothing to make you sound more intelligent, you're way too transparent.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 3, 2013 13:16:30 GMT -5
LOL you keep going on about explosions and Thermite without twigging on that Thermite ISN'T an EXPLOSIVE. And as for explosions, the word explosion can be used figuratively as well as literally. This means that the word doesn't always refer to bombs dear.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 3, 2013 13:46:23 GMT -5
LOL you keep going on about explosions and Thermite without twigging on that Thermite ISN'T an EXPLOSIVE. And as for explosions, the word explosion can be used figuratively as well as literally. This means that the word doesn't always refer to bombs dear. As usual the above has nothing to do with my point on investigating for explosions and explosives or reconstructing the airplane for investigative purposes. In this case, identification and the potential for the discovery of other evidence. Read the NFPA guidelines if you really want to learn how fire investigations are conducted, I'm sure you're not interested and would rather just spew your nonsense and make things up.
|
|