|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 9:29:16 GMT -5
Sorry Bob, but it looks like you're down for the count...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 9:38:53 GMT -5
Pentagon "missile" debunked...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 9:48:51 GMT -5
And now, WTC7 controlled demolition completely debunked...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 10:21:53 GMT -5
WTC7 "explosions" Really?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 7, 2013 10:26:50 GMT -5
Sorry Bob, but it looks like you're down for the count... The video narration itself is a straw man. Even if the explanation for the start of the collapse is accurate, there is nothing in the video that explains or can explain the FACT that the entire building collapsed less than 2 seconds short of FREE FALL acceleration. The building was a massive structure where the vast majority of it below the point of impact was unaffected by either fire or airplanes. The massive structure was built such that it increased in strength at the lower floors and should have caused massive resistance even if the upper floors collapsed naturally. Yet the collapse through the path of HIGHEST RESISTANCE not only experienced NO resistance but it actually ACCELERATED. This makes NO SENSE in a natural collapse. aibafs.com/thread/6126/11-twin-towers-common-senseFurthermore, that's just a discussion on WTC1 and WTC2, it does nothing to explain the collapse of WTC7 where FREE FALL occurred for 2.25 seconds for the first 100 feet. That means there was NO RESISTANCE at all for that to happen. In other words, all 98 columns of the 47 story building would have had to be taken out at the exact same time. Fires just can't do that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 10:36:00 GMT -5
And, about this whole thermite thing....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 10:39:10 GMT -5
More controlled demolition debunking...
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 7, 2013 10:53:49 GMT -5
And now, WTC7 controlled demolition completely debunked... 1. The entire collapse of WTC7 in the manner it did collapse makes no logical sense if one says it's a natural collapse due to fire alone. That can easily be established from all the videos and history. 2. The starting point of the collapse is correct as Chandler pointed out, not as NIST or this anonymous guy states. Although the penthouse started collapsing BEFORE the rest of the building collapsed, the actual total building collapsed beginning with the point on the right side of WTC7. To say the entire building collapsed when the penthouse started moving is disingenuous because the penthouse could have easily collapsed by itself due to whatever may have caused it to collapse first, then the total remainder of the building collapsed in ONE PIECE, not in parts. 3. There is nothing in the video that explains the FREE FALL acceleration time of 2.25 seconds measured and agreed to by both NIST and Chandler for the first 100 feet. 4. An anonymous self admitted "debunker" (see his e-mail address "truthvs911truthbots") has no credibility because as with all anonymous (which most of them are) or even non-anonymous "debunkers", they have only 1 purpose, same as Shred, to try to silence those who don't agree with the official narrative. Not one of them ever questions the official narrative, they only try to support it, even though it is a publicly admitted LIE (see the many statements from the 9/11 Commission members). In this case, there is not one mention of the FACT that NIST ignored standard NFPA protocol in their alleged "investigation".
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 7, 2013 10:56:47 GMT -5
Pentagon "missile" debunked... Very little about what happened to the Pentagon makes much sense, whether a plane hit it or something else. All the videos have been confiscated by the FBI and only about 4 frames from 1 video has been publicly released which shows nothing other than an explosion. By failing to release all the videos (for which there is NO excuse), the FBI or whoever is engaged in a COVER-UP.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 7, 2013 11:00:16 GMT -5
WTC7 "explosions" Really? Yeah REALLY. You weren't there and neither was I but eyewitnesses were who testified about explosions in WTC7.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 7, 2013 11:02:39 GMT -5
And, about this whole thermite thing.... The nano-thermite issue in 4 independent samples of WTC7 dust has been documented and corroborated.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 7, 2013 11:04:04 GMT -5
More controlled demolition debunking... Right, yet another credible source "alienentity1". I'm so impressed.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 7, 2013 17:24:53 GMT -5
Bob, I pity you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 7, 2013 17:26:29 GMT -5
And, about this whole thermite thing.... The nano-thermite conspiracy theory about 4 independent samples of WTC7 dust has been debunked by Millette and found to be Kaolin and Steel. Corrected.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 7, 2013 21:28:39 GMT -5
Thanks DEAR, I'll take that as a compliment coming from you.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 7, 2013 21:32:27 GMT -5
Sorry Bob, but it looks like you're down for the count... One more point Snuff, based on the fact that you're addressing me. Are you trying to convince me or yourself?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 8, 2013 1:49:50 GMT -5
You are out for the count I'm afraid Bob, Snuff's right. Change the record.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 8:22:11 GMT -5
"The starting point of the collapse is correct as Chandler pointed out, not as NIST or this anonymous guy states."
So we should rely on Chandler, the high school teacher rather that the structural engineers at the NIST?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 8, 2013 8:42:53 GMT -5
"The starting point of the collapse is correct as Chandler pointed out, not as NIST or this anonymous guy states." So we should rely on Chandler, the high school teacher rather that the structural engineers at the NIST? You don't have to rely on anyone. Use your brains and use logic. In my opinion, NIST have NOT conducted a REAL investigation. NIST came up with a THEORY as to how WTC7 collapsed and created a computer simulation based on an unsupported THEORY (column 79) using invalid information. There was a thorough video on how and why NIST's THEORY is not valid (see first post): aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/46/nist-fraud-revealed?page=1In any case, among other things, NIST failed to conduct an investigation based on standard NFPA protocol. NIST also denied FIOA requests for a great deal of information it used in its alleged investigation, therefore, nothing can be peer reviewed. NIST cited that it would "endanger public safety" if such were released. Does that make sense to you? To me, this is CLEAR FRAUD and a COVER UP on NIST's part. NIST also contradicted their own report in many ways. One way is the free fall admission by NIST that contradicts everything in their report, especially the computer simulation. The free fall issue was discovered and measured by Chandler, it is IRREFUTABLE and anyone can duplicate and verify his findings. What Chandler discovered is agreed to, not only by NIST but by almost 2,000 architects and engineers who have VERIFIED credentials and have signed their names (i.e. they are NOT anonymous). So you decide for yourself, I can't make that decision for you. I'm not even interested in trying to convince you but I will respond to any erroneous claims because I will not let those go unanswered.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 8, 2013 8:55:05 GMT -5
And BTW Snuff, I asked you who you're trying to convince, me or you and you didn't answer. Some of your posts tend to the possibility that you're trying to convince me but I have so many posts in this forum that address just about everything you've recently brought up, so you can surmise how well that's going to work out for you. Some of your questions though sound like you're asking me for direction even though you claim you are already convinced and there's not a thing anyone can show you that will make you change your mind. Then again, I believe you also said in another post you're an open minded guy so that's a basic contradiction on your part. By asking me for direction, it really looks like you're unsure of yourself. But like I said, that's your own struggle, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 9:01:51 GMT -5
No computer simulations here....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 9:07:39 GMT -5
And BTW Snuff, I asked you who you're trying to convince, me or you and you didn't answer. Some of your posts tend to the possibility that you're trying to convince me but I have so many posts in this forum that address just about everything you've recently brought up, so you can surmise how well that's going to work out for you. Some of your questions though sound like you're asking me for direction even though you claim you are already convinced and there's not a thing anyone can show you that will make you change your mind. Then again, I believe you also said in another post you're an open minded guy so that's a basic contradiction on your part. By asking me for direction, it really looks like you're unsure of yourself. But like I said, that's your own struggle, not mine. Well Bob, you're certainly entitled to interpret things as you wish, but one theme you return to frequently is that somehow, people who challenge your 9/11 conspiracy faith are in fact trying to silence you. Nothing could be further from the truth. But until I see compelling evidence and hear a convincing argument as to how such a enormous undertaking to use controlled demolition to take down three massive buildings could have been accomplished, I have to side with the recognized experts who have studied these things.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 8, 2013 9:40:23 GMT -5
No computer simulations here.... That's correct, however, the video contains a ton of interspersed opinion from the person who created the video then claims that the video, along with his opinion is proof that he has thoroughly "debunked" (there goes that word again) anyone who questions the official theory of how and why WTC7 collapsed. There's no mention of free fall, there's no mention of how and why debris from the tower could have been been laterally ejected 350 feet (more than a football field) with enough momentum to damage WTC7 when the tower allegedly experienced a natural gravitational collapse, there's no mention of the FACT that NIST claims debris from the tower did not contribute to the collapse of WTC7 other than allegedly setting it on fire, he speculates that the fires were fed by diesel generators but NIST does not agree on that and much more of his speculations. Opinion and speculation does nothing to answer any of the points I listed. Again, are you trying to convince me of something put together by an anonymous "debunker"?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 8, 2013 9:49:29 GMT -5
And BTW Snuff, I asked you who you're trying to convince, me or you and you didn't answer. Some of your posts tend to the possibility that you're trying to convince me but I have so many posts in this forum that address just about everything you've recently brought up, so you can surmise how well that's going to work out for you. Some of your questions though sound like you're asking me for direction even though you claim you are already convinced and there's not a thing anyone can show you that will make you change your mind. Then again, I believe you also said in another post you're an open minded guy so that's a basic contradiction on your part. By asking me for direction, it really looks like you're unsure of yourself. But like I said, that's your own struggle, not mine. Well Bob, you're certainly entitled to interpret things as you wish, but one theme you return to frequently is that somehow, people who challenge your 9/11 conspiracy faith are in fact trying to silence you. Nothing could be further from the truth. But until I see compelling evidence and hear a convincing argument as to how such a enormous undertaking to use controlled demolition to take down three massive buildings could have been accomplished, I have to side with the recognized experts who have studied these things. So you can't answer my question. I don't have any "9/11 conspiracy faith" and yes there are many who want to silence those who question the official 9/11 narrative, Shred is one of those. He told me recently that I should "shut [my] gob" and similar s**t several times and that I should change the subject. So what you're saying is completely untrue. As to you wanting to "see compelling evidence and hear a convincing argument as to how such a enormous undertaking to use controlled demolition to take down three massive buildings could have been accomplished", that's fine, however, there's an enormous amount of evidence readily available for you if you care to study it that clearly shows the official story is full of lies, fabrications and contradictions and that the 3 buildings did NOT collapse naturally. Of course you can discount everything and wait for what you're looking for, that's your business.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 10:01:16 GMT -5
Well Bob, you're certainly entitled to interpret things as you wish, but one theme you return to frequently is that somehow, people who challenge your 9/11 conspiracy faith are in fact trying to silence you. Nothing could be further from the truth. But until I see compelling evidence and hear a convincing argument as to how such a enormous undertaking to use controlled demolition to take down three massive buildings could have been accomplished, I have to side with the recognized experts who have studied these things. So you can't answer my question. I don't have any "9/11 conspiracy faith" and yes there are many who want to silence those who question the official 9/11 narrative, Shred is one of those. He told me recently that I should "shut [my] gob" and similar s**t several times and that I should change the subject. So what you're saying is completely untrue. As to you wanting to "see compelling evidence and hear a convincing argument as to how such a enormous undertaking to use controlled demolition to take down three massive buildings could have been accomplished", that's fine, however, there's an enormous amount of evidence readily available for you if you care to study it that clearly shows the official story is full of lies, fabrications and contradictions and that the 3 buildings did NOT collapse naturally. Of course you can discount everything and wait for what you're looking for, that's your business. Your "question" Bob is just baiting me - and I refuse to take the bait. All of the other controlled demolition videos I've seen feature the sounds of hundreds of charges going off in order to sever columns supporting the buildings. NONE of that is heard in the WTC7 videos, none. And why not collapse the building at the same time WTC 1 & 2 were being taken down? Why wait several hours and have those obviously staged fires burning?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 8, 2013 10:37:39 GMT -5
"Your "question" Bob is just baiting me - and I refuse to take the bait."
Sorry I wasn't "baiting" you, I asked you a legitimate question. Your non-answer is an answer. It tells me you are not really convinced and you're looking for reassurance that the official account is correct. I can't believe you're trying to convince me of that because you have my hundreds of posts on this subject to support the FACT that you can't convince me and logically that does not make sense. Most of your posts on 9/11 to date have already been addressed in prior posts.
"All of the other controlled demolition videos I've seen feature the sounds of hundreds of charges going off in order to sever columns supporting the buildings. NONE of that is heard in the WTC7 videos, none."
You weren't actually there, numerous eyewitnesses have made claims of explosions, I already posted the video but put your blinders on or make believe it was doctored as Shred claims. The free fall of WTC7 is plenty of EVIDENCE by itself that it did not collapse naturally, same with the accelerated collapses (or more descriptively, disintegration) of WTC1 and WTC2. You haven't heard the sound of WTC7 collapsing on video either and neither did I so do you actually believe as Shred claims that it collapsed silently?
I posted a video that clearly shows timed explosions in WTC7 at the initiation of its collapse. If you also believe it was "doctored" as Shred claims without any supporting evidence, then ignore it, that's your prerogative. However, if it really wasn't doctored, then there's some of the evidence you might be looking for.
"And why not collapse the building at the same time WTC 1 & 2 were being taken down? Why wait several hours and have those obviously staged fires burning?"
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of questions that have never been answered, the above is yet another question. So OBVIOUSLY you know that 9/11 was never thoroughly investigated (and really never at all), otherwise many of these questions could have been answered. Only a true forensic criminal investigation might yield the answer to your questions. You should be asking why none was ever conducted but I don't hear you asking that question. You're only asking why anyone should question the official account because in your narrow minded world (as opposed to your open minded claim), you can't see that the official account is full of lies and fabrications, even when the lies have been DOCUMENTED.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 12:01:12 GMT -5
"Your "question" Bob is just baiting me - and I refuse to take the bait."
Sorry I wasn't "baiting" you, I asked you a legitimate question. Your non-answer is an answer. It tells me you are not really convinced and you're looking for reassurance that the official account is correct. I can't believe you're trying to convince me of that because you have my hundreds of posts on this subject to support the FACT that you can't convince me and logically that does not make sense. Most of your posts on 9/11 to date have already been addressed in prior posts. "All of the other controlled demolition videos I've seen feature the sounds of hundreds of charges going off in order to sever columns supporting the buildings. NONE of that is heard in the WTC7 videos, none."You weren't actually there, numerous eyewitnesses have made claims of explosions, I already posted the video but put your blinders on or make believe it was doctored as Shred claims. The free fall of WTC7 is plenty of EVIDENCE by itself that it did not collapse naturally, same with the accelerated collapses (or more descriptively, disintegration) of WTC1 and WTC2. You haven't heard the sound of WTC7 collapsing on video either and neither did I so do you actually believe as Shred claims that it collapsed silently? I posted a video that clearly shows timed explosions in WTC7 at the initiation of its collapse. If you also believe it was "doctored" as Shred claims without any supporting evidence, then ignore it, that's your prerogative. However, if it really wasn't doctored, then there's some of the evidence you might be looking for. "And why not collapse the building at the same time WTC 1 & 2 were being taken down? Why wait several hours and have those obviously staged fires burning?"There are literally hundreds if not thousands of questions that have never been answered, the above is yet another question. So OBVIOUSLY you know that 9/11 was never thoroughly investigated (and really never at all), otherwise many of these questions could have been answered. Only a true forensic criminal investigation might yield the answer to your questions. You should be asking why none was ever conducted but I don't hear you asking that question. You're only asking why anyone should question the official account because in your narrow minded world (as opposed to your open minded claim), you can't see that the official account is full of lies and fabrications, even when the lies have been DOCUMENTED. There have been several investigations Bob, but none of them come to the conclusions you want, so you persist with this nonsense.. Here's yet another video debunking the whole free fall issue...
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on Jul 8, 2013 12:01:23 GMT -5
elequently put bob, still strikes my funny bone to think bengazi stirred it all back up. those debunker doctored proofs, well done as they are, are further proof of a deeper conspiracy,and how far they might go to quell it. imho
...oh yeah bob ur definetly not on the right track
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 8, 2013 12:57:36 GMT -5
"Your "question" Bob is just baiting me - and I refuse to take the bait."
Sorry I wasn't "baiting" you, I asked you a legitimate question. Your non-answer is an answer. It tells me you are not really convinced and you're looking for reassurance that the official account is correct. I can't believe you're trying to convince me of that because you have my hundreds of posts on this subject to support the FACT that you can't convince me and logically that does not make sense. Most of your posts on 9/11 to date have already been addressed in prior posts. "All of the other controlled demolition videos I've seen feature the sounds of hundreds of charges going off in order to sever columns supporting the buildings. NONE of that is heard in the WTC7 videos, none."You weren't actually there, numerous eyewitnesses have made claims of explosions, I already posted the video but put your blinders on or make believe it was doctored as Shred claims. The free fall of WTC7 is plenty of EVIDENCE by itself that it did not collapse naturally, same with the accelerated collapses (or more descriptively, disintegration) of WTC1 and WTC2. You haven't heard the sound of WTC7 collapsing on video either and neither did I so do you actually believe as Shred claims that it collapsed silently? I posted a video that clearly shows timed explosions in WTC7 at the initiation of its collapse. If you also believe it was "doctored" as Shred claims without any supporting evidence, then ignore it, that's your prerogative. However, if it really wasn't doctored, then there's some of the evidence you might be looking for. "And why not collapse the building at the same time WTC 1 & 2 were being taken down? Why wait several hours and have those obviously staged fires burning?"There are literally hundreds if not thousands of questions that have never been answered, the above is yet another question. So OBVIOUSLY you know that 9/11 was never thoroughly investigated (and really never at all), otherwise many of these questions could have been answered. Only a true forensic criminal investigation might yield the answer to your questions. You should be asking why none was ever conducted but I don't hear you asking that question. You're only asking why anyone should question the official account because in your narrow minded world (as opposed to your open minded claim), you can't see that the official account is full of lies and fabrications, even when the lies have been DOCUMENTED. There have been several investigations Bob, but none of them come to the conclusions you want, so you persist with this nonsense.. Here's yet another video debunking the whole free fall issue... First, there was NO independent forensic criminal investigation into the events surrounding and on 9/11. If you know of a legitimate one, please post the link, otherwise you're not talking about such an investigation. Second, it isn't about coming to the conclusion that "I want", it's about a REAL forensic criminal investigation, not the fake political ones conducted by government agencies that were used to COVER UP 9/11. I'm looking for REAL answers not made up theories based on made up data as NIST came up with. Third, questioning government and its puppet media about 9/11, where the government appointed investigators themselves had made claims that they were LIED TO, SET UP TO FAIL, UNDERFUNDED, etc. is NOT nonsense except in your gullible and narrow minded world. And finally you post yet another anonymous "debunking" video that purports to time the collapse of both towers. If you note, NIST does not agree with these timings, neither do most others: 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A). 911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.htmlRegardless, the twin towers disintegrated through the path of HIGHEST resistance at an accelerated speed. In other words, its massive structure, most of it unaffected by fire and planes, offered NO resistance. Furthermore, steel beams weighing up to 70 tons were laterally ejected at speeds of over 50 MPH and had enough momentum to imbed themselves into adjacent buildings. Some of these reached WTC7, 350 feet away and damaged the building. This is NOT a natural gravitational (read DOWNWARD) collapse that makes any logical sense.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 8, 2013 14:53:32 GMT -5
Incorrect, read Bazant, he explains the progressive collapse mechanism and as entire spandrels (not just individual beams) were ejected outwards instead of falling straight down there had to be considerable resistance in the collapses of the twin towers to propel the spandrels outwards.
Bazant's paper has been peer reviewed by the American Society of Civil Engineers for their much respected scientific Journal ASCE, whereas this load of tosh you've posted hasn't (and would be laughed at by ASCE if it's numpty author submitted it).
|
|