|
Post by shred on Jul 21, 2013 9:50:42 GMT -5
Yet again NIST are right and the 'truthers' are wrong. Thermite incendiaries cannot neatly cut through vertical steel columns, as soon as they burn gravity takes hold of it and it would fall off. This is why the 2007 'truthburn' project to cut vertical steel columns at the Burning Man festival (which had the support of fraudsters Richard Gage Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan) failed utterly. 911truthburn.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/truthburn-art-project-at-burning-man.html
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 21, 2013 10:08:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 21, 2013 11:15:34 GMT -5
incorrect as usual bob and as usual you rely on invalid conspiracy websites to prop up your none argument. Erik Lawyer debunked here: screwloosechange.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/eric-lawyer-debunked.htmlRobert Moore debunked here: www.debunking911.com/thermite.htmNano thermites already debunked (see Millette paper), dust contained Kaolinite (China Clay, which contains Aluminium Silicate) aluminium Silicate is not found in thermitic material. 'journal'of9/11 studies is a fraudulent website already exposed elsewhere, it's creators wished to avoid negative peer review by genuine highly respected science journals and created a phony journal to give their unscientific tat a false appearance of credibility. Read the NIST reports instead of what the 'truthers' tell you to think they say.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 21, 2013 11:42:57 GMT -5
I'm not interested in your anonymous "debunking" sites and their opinions. They are the same fraud as NIST and you.
"Read the NIST reports"
I did and it says on page 48 that WTC7 was in free fall at "stage 2" of its collapse for the first 100+ feet for 2.25 seconds. That FACT contradicts their entire report, which makes it a FRAUD.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 21, 2013 12:08:36 GMT -5
Stage two eh ? What about the other stages ? You don't talk about those stages.
What about the fire ? What about the lack of bangs and flashes ?
No explosive demolition has ever taken place in a burning building and considering the amount of smoke coming from 7 (see my new avatar) there was extensive fire throughout the building making it an incredibly hazardous place to be. It was also leaning before it's collapse and damaged other buildings when it fell.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 21, 2013 17:55:42 GMT -5
"Stage two eh ? What about the other stages ? You don't talk about those stages."
I didn't make up the term "stage" and I didn't break the collapse up into 3 stages, NIST did. The free fall, even by itself, is quite enough EVIDENCE that WTC7 did NOT collapse naturally. In NIST's Final Report, it acknowledges that WTC7 was in free fall. As I (and ALL experts, including NIST's Shyam Sunder) have repeated numerous times, in order for that structure to free fall, ALL 82 columns would have to have been removed at the exact same time, this is a very basic and IRREFUTABLE physics FACT. Only in "Alice in Wonderland" can a fire cause 82 columns to be removed at the exact same time.
So now, what about the other 2 NIST "stages"? Well there's not a thing that the other 2 NIST "stages" can do to change the above FACTS. And as much as you huff and puff, there's not a thing you have ever brought to this forum that can change the above FACTS.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 22, 2013 3:20:26 GMT -5
No it isn't evidence of unnatural collapse Bob. What happens when structural failure means load is unsupported ?
You're not going to see a cartoon situation of the thing still suspended in the air for a moment like Wiley Coyote, it will fall. There's nothing unnatural about WTC7's collapse, no sequence of explosions and flashes in the seconds before it fell, it was leaning. It was on fire for seven hours, it had major structural damage, it lost integrity and fell naturally and all you have by way of argument to allege that it's collapse was unnatural is a 2.25 second part of it's collapse which you do not understand (but which the experts at NIST do understand).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 22, 2013 7:41:18 GMT -5
"all you have by way of argument to allege that it's collapse was unnatural is a 2.25 second part of it's collapse which you do not understand"
There's nothing much one with an intelligent and mature functioning brain needs to understand about free fall. It is what it is and it's incontrovertible. Even if that's "all I have", it's more than enough EVIDENCE of an unnatural collapse. There's so much more supporting EVIDENCE though besides free fall that clearly shows it was indeed an unnatural collapse. Like I said, keep denying, huffing and puffing, the FACTS and EVIDENCE speak for themselves.
"the experts at NIST do understand"
That's a given, they understand it quite well, that's only one part of what makes them a complete FRAUD. They tried to deny FREE FALL (it wasn't in their initial report) but when cornered by David Chandler, they knew they couldn't get away with it and were forced to put it in their Final Report because they knew it was irrefutable. You think David Chandler had to school NIST on physics? And in turn YOU understand the implications of FREE FALL quite well too, despite your huffing and puffing. Pretending it doesn't exist or making all sorts of lame excuses doesn't change the FACTS, as much as you would like it to. And even and especially if you're not lying that you have an engineering background, any schoolchild who took a course in physics knows the implication of FREE FALL. So that makes you the same FRAUD as NIST.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 22, 2013 14:13:22 GMT -5
Your misrepresentations are irrelevant there is recorded video footage of the collapse (which took far far longer than 2.25 seconds).
No sequence of explosives, no sequence of flashes. Just natural structural failure as a result of structural damage and fire.
Stop lying to yourself Bob, accept the truth, it wasn't an inside job, it was an outside job.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 22, 2013 14:56:34 GMT -5
"Your misrepresentations are irrelevant there is recorded video footage of the collapse (which took far far longer than 2.25 seconds)."
I didn't misrepresent anything, the total collapse time was approximately 6.5 seconds by most calculations, including NIST. The free fall collapse time took place during the first 100 feet or 2.25 seconds of the collapse, as VERIFIED by NIST. So what was misrepresented exactly? It seems the only one who's trying to misrepresent the FACTS is you, who is trying to mix the total collapse time with the free fall time as a lame attempt to obfuscate the FACT that WTC7 was in FREE FALL for 2.25 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 22, 2013 14:59:35 GMT -5
Oh yes you did misrepresent everything. Watch the video, the total collapse time, from moment of penthouse collapse (crucial due to it's effect on the floors within) to ground, took at least 16 seconds, by the time building seven disappears behind the buildings in shot there's still many floors left to go before ground, it was a 47 storey building.
Stop lying.
There was no sequence of explosives, no sequence of flashes, meaning no controlled demolition.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 22, 2013 15:16:43 GMT -5
There is not one thing you posted that shows I misrepresented anything. The total collapse time appears on Page 48 in the Final NIST Report and I didn't write it, NIST did, The FREE FALL collapse time also appears on the same page, I didn't write that either, NIST did. I'm not NIST, I had/have nothing to do with those FRAUDs. You said you agree with them 100% so maybe you need to e-mail NIST and tell them they misrepresent everything (which would be quite a contradiction on your part), you have the wrong person. I already provided the link to the NIST Report, all you have to do is go to Page 48, read it and see that I didn't make that up, it's all in black and white.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 22, 2013 15:21:43 GMT -5
How is this evidence of explosive controlled demolition when no sequence of bangs or flashes were heard or seen in genuine video footage of it's collapse (or for that matter footage of the other WTC collapses)?
South Tower:
North Tower:
WTC7:
Start paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 22, 2013 15:37:37 GMT -5
Posting the same videos that you posted in another thread still doesn't show that I misrepresented anything. Why are you not questioning NIST? Everything I posted comes from NIST. Why are you saying I misrepresented when it's NIST who you believe misrepresented? Again, I didn't write the Final NIST Report, NIST did. Go take up your problems with them if you believe they misrepresented.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 22, 2013 15:46:47 GMT -5
Sorry mate, but it does. You say without evidence that it was a controlled demolition ignoring the global situation in the buildings, and the full time of the collapse of WTC7.
The videos prove you wrong, get over it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 22, 2013 17:15:06 GMT -5
Sorry mate, but it does. You say without evidence that it was a controlled demolition ignoring the global situation in the buildings, and the full time of the collapse of WTC7. The videos prove you wrong, get over it. Read it again fake one, not that it matters. I cited what NIST cited, including NIST's timing of the full collapse that appears on page 48 of their report. The videos don't have anything to do with your claim that I misrepresented what was in the NIST report.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 23, 2013 6:31:01 GMT -5
No you misquoted and misrepresented NIST to portray something different. In the past you've posted a fake video of WTC7's collapse featuring dodgy cgi and fake sounds.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 23, 2013 7:24:58 GMT -5
"you misquoted and misrepresented NIST to portray something different."
Such as?
"you've posted a fake video of WTC7's collapse featuring dodgy cgi and fake sounds."
I posted a video that's on YouTube that YOU decided was fake because you didn't like what it shows. I didn't create it, I had nothing to do with it other than posting it. You haven't shown ANY evidence that it is as you claim, fake, just a wild claim. However, if you can point to any link anywhere on the web that shows a valid analysis of that video and can prove it's really fake, I will agree with you 100%. Go for it fake one.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 24, 2013 3:32:39 GMT -5
Such as your misquoted freefall claim.
You posted a fake video that's on youtube that had you fooled and so you claimed it to be real. Raw footage of the collapse in which interviews were taking place proves what I'm saying about that fake video as a sequence of explosives and flashes going off to bring down 7 would have been heard and caught on camera in at least two separate live interviews and would have been impossible to mask had there been any explosives used to bring down that building and all other raw footage of 7's collapse would have featured those sounds had they been real.
You posted a photograph of the pentagon exit hole and claimed it was the entry hole, you claimed there was no debris from a 757 in or around the pentagon, you claimed the twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolition.
Stop parroting the debunked lies of the so called 9/11 'truth' movement and free yourself from their deceitful agenda. You are wasting your life and your talents on a wild goose chase.
Firefighters had commented on how 7 was leaning, how it was impossible to fight the fires raging inside without water, and how they expected it to collapse. The biggest mystery regarding 9/11 is how someone like you who claims to seek the "truth" can obstinately refuse to look facts in the face.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 24, 2013 7:57:50 GMT -5
"Such as your misquoted freefall claim."
Copy and paste the alleged free fall NIST "misquote" from any of my posts if you can. What exactly did I "misquote"? You're only repeating your allegation without providing any proof.
"You posted a fake video that's on youtube that had you fooled and so you claimed it to be real."
Same here. I asked you to provide a link that might validate your allegation, any link, just one, and all you can do is repeat your allegation and add your opinion which has nothing to do with the above allegations.
You constantly PROVE that you have NO BASIS for any of your allegations, just hot air. Try again if you can fake one, so far it's a complete fail.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 24, 2013 8:08:42 GMT -5
A small fraction of a NIST report taken way out of context isn't evidence.
You've posted the video enough times you've seen it I've seen it, I've posted enough video evidence to disprove it, go back through the threads and watch Bob.
You have no basis for your allegations no genuine chain of explosives no remnants of explosives you're wasting your time.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 24, 2013 8:17:31 GMT -5
A small fraction of a NIST report taken way out of context isn't evidence. You've posted the video enough times you've seen it I've seen it, I've posted enough video evidence to disprove it, go back through the threads and watch Bob. You have no basis for your allegations no genuine chain of explosives no remnants of explosives you're wasting your time. Why don't you just say you have nothing, just hot air. You can't produce a copy and paste of even one alleged misquote and certainly not one link that supports your allegation that the video that appears on YouTube is fake.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 24, 2013 9:04:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on Jul 24, 2013 9:37:14 GMT -5
shredder in your own video, just prior to 7 falling, anyone can see a sort of an explosion in the penthouse
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 24, 2013 10:08:23 GMT -5
So ? Doesn't mean explosives, explosives are very noisy and when they explode the flashes are very fast and very bright and none are heard or seen in the raw footage of the interviews, in the Crowley interview she doesn't turn until the building is already falling and others have alerted her to it's collapse with their gasps of horror, the Penthouse fell because it's supports were weakened by fire and succumbed to load. When it fell it fell onto the floors underneath and caused damage to them.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 24, 2013 11:01:43 GMT -5
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
That's 2.25 seconds in FREE FALL. I quoted NIST EXACTLY, there is NO misrepresentation, it is as I quoted it. And of course, still no supporting link for your fake video claim. I don't expect you'll ever produce one. Thanks for exposing your own hot air.
"During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below."
Try again but more accurately instead of obfuscating. The ENTIRE building was in FREE FALL for 2.25 seconds, indicating NO SUPPORT of any kind from the structure below, including ALL 82 STEEL COLUMNS. Free fall means NOTHING can impede its collapse (see video below at 3:19 - Sunder's statement). Every single video that shows the WTC7 collapse shows the ENTIRE building collapsed essentially in ONE PIECE following the penthouse collapse. This is indisputable. NIST's cartoon doesn't match what anyone can plainly see in the videos. The first 100 feet means the ENTIRE BUILDING, not just the "north face". You want to try to say that the other 3 faces collapsed more slowly than the north face? How ridiculous is that? Where is a video that shows that?
Additionally, if you note your own statement, the total time for all 3 stages, even according to NIST took 5.4 seconds. All the rest of your bulls**t is exactly that. I quoted NIST exactly as it appears on Page 48 of the NIST Final Report. There is no misquote or misrepresentation.
You try to include the initial draft of the NIST Report as your supporting argument but OBVIOUSLY, NIST modified its initial claims and contradicted itself in its Final Report. The initial draft says nothing about free fall. They tried to pretend that didn't happen, they even tried to claim a constant speed of collapse (as opposed to constant acceleration) then changed it in their final report. This is all explained in greater detail below.
NIST is a FRAUD and so are you.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 24, 2013 11:08:14 GMT -5
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall). Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.
You don't understand the significance of stage 3: RESISTANCE, i.e. not a controlled demolition. Read the NIST report again you phoney.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 24, 2013 11:15:39 GMT -5
"Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall). Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity."
Give it up fake one. I did read it and I posted the above exactly as it appears on page 48 of NIST' Final Report and as you posted it. Stage 3 doesn't change stage 2, nothing does, no matter how significant you believe it is or how much you want to huff and puff.
At least you finally admitted you agree that WTC7 was in free fall as opposed to making the idiotic claim that free fall is not free fall.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Jul 24, 2013 11:55:52 GMT -5
Wrong fraud, a small freefall part of a 16 second collapse (starting with the penthouse collapse) isn't a fully freefall collapse is it ? There was considerable resistance after that 2.25 segment. There's no audible or visual sequence of explosives. No evidence of controlled demolition, and lots of evidence of serious unfought fire and serious structural damage to the south side. It was so badly damaged by WTC1 that the firefighters were pulled out, and you have the testimony of Fire chief Daniel Nigro on that, he gave the order to pull out.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Jul 24, 2013 12:15:19 GMT -5
"a small freefall part of a 16 second collapse (starting with the penthouse collapse) isn't a fully freefall collapse is it ?"
No one said it collapsed in free fall during the entire time of collapse. I certainly never said that, you don't need to keep making things up, your hot air has been exposed numerous times. It collapsed in FREE FALL during the first 100 feet (or 8 stories). That is the claim by NIST and Chandler, which has been PROVEN. Whether you want to pretend it was a "small part" of its entire collapse which was actually measured at approximately 6.5 seconds in total by just about everyone except you (or even if it took 16 seconds or even 24 hours to collapse in its entirety) does NOT change the FACT that it collapsed in FREE FALL for 2.25 seconds, which means ALL 82 columns would have to have been removed at the exact same time. And even you know that fire can't do that, despite your fakery.
|
|