|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 17:14:54 GMT -5
Those damn Illuminati!
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 8, 2013 17:45:12 GMT -5
Ah the Pod theory, poddly enough the 'pods' are exactly where the fairings for the undercarriage is.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 8, 2013 17:47:26 GMT -5
So all those eyewitness statements are crucial as well as the photos and video. The imbedded opinions are just opinions. Everyone has an opinion. I'm sure not one of those eyewitnesses were ever interviewed by any independent criminal investigation because there never was any.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2013 18:08:24 GMT -5
So all those eyewitness statements are crucial as well as the photos and video. The imbedded opinions are just opinions. Everyone has an opinion. I'm sure not one of those eyewitnesses were ever interviewed by any independent criminal investigation because there never was any. The investigation in to 9/11 was the largest criminal investigation in US history Bob. It identified the perpetrators as well as their means, motives, and opportunity for crashing planes in to buildings. Even Al-Qaida was surprised that the WTC buildings collapsed, but that's what happens when you have 110 floors of successive dynamic loading the structures were never designed for.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 8, 2013 20:00:59 GMT -5
So all those eyewitness statements are crucial as well as the photos and video. The imbedded opinions are just opinions. Everyone has an opinion. I'm sure not one of those eyewitnesses were ever interviewed by any independent criminal investigation because there never was any. The investigation in to 9/11 was the largest criminal investigation in US history Bob. It identified the perpetrators as well as their means, motives, and opportunity for crashing planes in to buildings. Even Al-Qaida was surprised that the WTC buildings collapsed, but that's what happens when you have 110 floors of successive dynamic loading the structures were never designed for. If you're talking about the 9/11 Commission, it was not an investigation, it was a political fraud. Someone calculated that 25% of the footnotes came from 3rd party accounts taken from those who were tortured at Gitmo into "confessing". One of those was forced to sign a confession he wasn't allowed to read. Any fool knows that anyone will "confess" to anything a torturer wants him to confess to in order to stop the torture, even you. I'm 100% certain that if you were tortured in the same manner they were, you would "confess" to JFK's assassination and being the mastermind behind 9/11 if that's what your torturer wanted you to confess to. Worse (if there can be worse), the accounts were taken from others and not from those who were behind bars at Gitmo because the Commission was not allowed to interview them. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The majority of the Commission members and the lead counsel publicly admitted they knew they were lied to, underfunded, set up to fail and recommended that a permanent commission be set up because they knew they did not get at everything. The person who was responsible for the final edit of the report was Philip Zelikow, a Bush stooge. You must have heard that Bush & Cheney refused to testify separately, did not want to testify under oath and refused to have any recordings made of their testimony? The 9/11 Commission was NOT an independent forensic criminal investigation by any stretch. Every single member had a conflict of interest. Over 500 questions were submitted to the Commission by survivors and family members and only a very small number of these questions were even addressed, never mind answered adequately. Very few eyewitnesses were interviewed and a ton of eyewitness testimony never made it into the report. The Commission proclaimed from the start that they were not going to hold anyone responsible for the failures on 9/11 and they did not. To say it was the "largest criminal investigation in US history" is an absolute farce. It wasn't any kind of investigation, never mind a criminal investigation. It was designed to pretend it was but it was in fact, a massive criminal fraud. As to the collapse of the 3 towers, I went over that in quite a bit of detail and you just keep going back to your biased opinion as to what caused the collapse as if you reviewed nothing or you just plain ignore the FACTS. Look, I don't need to convince you of anything, as you said, your narrow mind is made up. So why are you trying to convince me, especially with total nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 9, 2013 2:52:14 GMT -5
Er, once again oh forgetful one, FIVE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED not three.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 9, 2013 7:36:47 GMT -5
Er, once again oh forgetful one, FIVE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED not three. Yeah thanks for the correction. 3 totally collapsed unnaturally, all the others partially collapsed naturally as a result of the collapse of WTC1 & WTC2. One other however had eyewitness claims of multiple explosions. That was all addressed in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 9, 2013 17:43:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 9, 2013 18:02:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 9, 2013 18:08:23 GMT -5
LOL there you go again lying about freefall. Change the bleedin record. Journal of 9/11 studies is a fake journal and not respected in the engineering community. ASCE's journal is a REAL science journal well respected in the engineering community. Bazant's paper was peer reviewed by the ASCE Journal: ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282002%29128%3A1%282%29Addendum here: ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282002%29128%3A3%28369%29(asce subscription required) Your papers are the ones not good enough even to be used bog rolls Bob. Stop being such a big girls blouse and man up. You got this wrong. Move on. No 'truther' paper has ever been submitted for peer review by a genuine scientific journal such as ASCE, you know I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 9, 2013 19:02:37 GMT -5
"there you go again lying about freefall."Yeah, slam dunk EVIDENCE, it comes up all the time when discussing the 9/11 WTC towers. It must bother you a lot. "Change the bleedin record."Of course, you would like that, that's what your agenda is all about. It doesn't fit the official conspiracy theory so let's not talk about FREE FALL. "Bazant's paper was peer reviewed by the ASCE Journal:"Providing a link to his paper and the addendum is not proof of peer review, all it shows is that it was published in the ASCE Journal. So all you did was show you have no such proof. "Your papers are the ones not good enough even to be used bog rolls Bob."
Probably, if I had written papers that is, but I haven't written one single paper so your point is meaningless. "Move on".I'm trying to but you keep coming back to the same issues that have already been discussed time and time again. You lies and fabrications get really boring, so does your dance routine whenever you're caught. I did post something completely new despite your shenanigans, did you get a chance to read it yet? aibafs.com/thread/7093/consensus-panel-rethink911-global-campaign
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 10, 2013 18:58:51 GMT -5
LOL still you push the free fall lie and yet the collapse of WTC7 took at least 16 seconds from penthouse collapse to a pile of debris at ground level, for a 47 storey building.
You lost the argument months ago wake up.
And Bazant's paper would not have been published by ASCE if it had failed to meet the scientific standards required by the peer reviewers (which incidentally is why no troofer paper will ever be submitted to a real science journal as they know they fail to comply with scientific standards, they know they'd be torn apart).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 10, 2013 23:10:48 GMT -5
"still you push the free fall lie"
The free fall "lie" was published by NIST in their Final Report after Shyam Sunder was forced to admit that FACT because Professor David Chandler took him to the cleaners. You said you agree 100% with NIST, so you've already contradicted yourself. NIST also calculated the total time of the collapse in 3 stages at a total of 5.4 seconds and you claim 16 seconds, another contradiction. Others have calculated it at about 6.5 seconds but no one calculates it at more than 8 seconds other than "debunkers". Do you think NIST would have published that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds if they could prove it wasn't? OBVIOUSLY they were forced to agree because it's an IRREFUTABLE FACT that anyone can measure.
As to Bazant, many papers are published by ASCE, peer reviewed or not and there's nothing that indicates that his paper was peer reviewed other than you making up s**t as usual. Like I said, if it was peer reviewed, it wouldn't stand up, it was already refuted by 2 other papers. Logically, it's total garbage anyway because no one could have known exactly what happened less than 4 weeks after 9/11 so all it is is knee jerk THEORY at best, not reality. It was actually published about 4 weeks after 9/11 so either he wrote it the day before publication or he actually wrote it about a week or two after 9/11 and it took time to get it into publication. Either way, 1 week to 4 weeks is not enough time for any peer review process so it's another factor that makes your peer review fairy tale what it is, a made up fairy tale.
You want to deflect and constantly call me a liar whenever I expose your made up lies and there are so many I've lost count.
If you were genuine, you would not need to resort to lying and fabrications, you could just parrot the official conspiracy theory from the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Report. But you choose instead to contradict the NIST Report and make things up that even NIST didn't publish.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 6:34:15 GMT -5
"still you push the free fall lie"The free fall "lie" was published by NIST in their Final Report after Shyam Sunder was forced to admit that FACT because Professor David Chandler took him to the cleaners. You said you agree 100% with NIST, so you've already contradicted yourself. NIST also calculated the total time of the collapse in 3 stages at a total of 5.4 seconds and you claim 16 seconds, another contradiction. Others have calculated it at about 6.5 seconds but no one calculates it at more than 8 seconds other than "debunkers". Do you think NIST would have published that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds if they could prove it wasn't? OBVIOUSLY they were forced to agree because it's an IRREFUTABLE FACT that anyone can measure. As to Bazant, many papers are published by ASCE, peer reviewed or not and there's nothing that indicates that his paper was peer reviewed other than you making up s**t as usual. Like I said, if it was peer reviewed, it wouldn't stand up, it was already refuted by 2 other papers. Logically, it's total garbage anyway because no one could have known exactly what happened less than 4 weeks after 9/11 so all it is is knee jerk THEORY at best, not reality. It was actually published about 4 weeks after 9/11 so either he wrote it the day before publication or he actually wrote it about a week or two after 9/11 and it took time to get it into publication. Either way, 1 week to 4 weeks is not enough time for any peer review process so it's another factor that makes your peer review fairy tale what it is, a made up fairy tale. You want to deflect and constantly call me a liar whenever I expose your made up lies and there are so many I've lost count. If you were genuine, you would not need to resort to lying and fabrications, you could just parrot the official conspiracy theory from the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Report. But you choose instead to contradict the NIST Report and make things up that even NIST didn't publish. Bob, David Chandler is not a "professor" but a retired high school teacher. Stop creating credentials for this nut job which don't exist. He's also been thoroughly debunked:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 11, 2013 7:45:38 GMT -5
Yep he's a retired physics teacher who is highly intelligent and was able to corner Shyam Sunder. So? How is he a "nut job"? Because you disagree with him? What is your standing to disagree with a retired physics professor?
You already posted this anonymous "debunking" video and it didn't do anything for me even though I reviewed it in its entirety. You say you're open minded but your posts contradict you and reveal the exact opposite. In contrast, I review everything, even "debunking" sites and videos no matter what I feel about these disingenuous sites.
Why are you trying to convince me when even NIST agrees with David Chandler on the free fall issue and NIST completely disagrees with the anonymous (alienentity1) regarding the total collapse time? Do you think if you post it once again, you're going to convince me? It sounds more like you're not really sure and you're trying to convince yourself.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 11, 2013 14:27:28 GMT -5
He's a retired (thank God he's retired cos God knows what rubbish he taught the kids) nutjob. And he's been utterly debunked.
Get over it. I'd be more bothered about the implications of Saturday's 777 crash if I were you mate.
|
|