|
Post by shred on Apr 25, 2013 11:45:27 GMT -5
Whatever, I'm not interested in your drivel.
Evidence please Bob.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 25, 2013 13:02:21 GMT -5
Whatever, I'm not interested in your drivel. Evidence please Bob. Do I owe you something?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 25, 2013 18:31:07 GMT -5
Yes. Evidence to back up your claims please.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 25, 2013 20:02:31 GMT -5
Yes. Evidence to back up your claims please. I don't have any claims so I have no evidence to back up claims that I never made. You're the one who makes claims. I have posted numerous links to videos, photos, papers and experts' opinions as well as my own opinions and theories. Regardless, I still owe you zero.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 26, 2013 2:00:21 GMT -5
Your videos are irrelevant, that last one you showed of WTC7 was clearly a bad video edit the explosions were less realistic than Jordan's bust.
Genuine raw footage of WTC 7's collapse for comparison:-
Scientific evidence to back up your claims about the WTC collapses please.
Answer this question, how could three steel framed buildings whose structure had been damaged before hand, which had caught fire and burned severely, survive with a strength loss of more than 80% in the affected regions ? How could lateral distortion through thermal expansion be prevented ? How could firefighters have saved building 7 without water to fight the fires raging inside ?
Explain please. You're the one saying they couldn't have fallen without explosives / nanothermite. The onus is on you to provide evidence oh truth seeker.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 26, 2013 7:55:18 GMT -5
"Your videos are irrelevant"
Get over it if you can, they're NOT MY videos. I didn't create them in my basement. They're irrelevant to you because they show the FACTS and the TRUTH.
"Answer this question"
You asked 3 questions and the first one is loaded with your personal opinion. The second one I'll leave to experts, although I understand lateral expansion depends on many, many factors besides temperature. The 3rd one assumes WTC7 could not be "saved", depending on what your definition of "save" is. Not one of your questions has anything to do with what happened to those 3 buildings on 9/11, that is, that all 3 collapsed in a very specific unnatural fashion.
"You're the one saying they couldn't have fallen without explosives / nanothermite."
Wrong, I'm far from the only one and what I said was in MY OPINION and the opinion of experts, those 3 buildings could NOT have collapsed in the manner they did collapse unless they were deliberately made to collapse in that manner. And the only known way that could have happened is via controlled demolitions. Natural collapses due to fire, airplanes or both, could NEVER have caused all 3 buildings to collapse in the manner they did collapse. No other high rise steel frame building has ever globally collapsed due to fire, airplanes or both and there are many examples of much greater fires both before and after where the buildings did not collapse.
The explosions are self evident, there are numerous videos on the subject. The nano-thermite was discovered by experts, not me. There's a peer reviewed paper on the subject and supporting independent studies. I'm not an expert on nano-thermite.
"The onus is on you to provide evidence"
How so?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 26, 2013 8:15:30 GMT -5
How it it just my opinion that they were damaged and on fire ? They were damaged and on fire. FACT. Your opinion and the opinion of Richard Gage (and his unqualified fake experts) isn't evidence. The collapses weren't controlled, debris from the twin towers rained down on other buildings damaging and destroying buildings that were hit. No other high rise steel framed building has ever been crashed into with a 767 or smashed into by the collapsing remains of a building that had been hit by a fuel laden 767 at high speed. No other high rise tube in tube building of that design has ever been subjected to such stresses and survived. The 'explosions' are air. Do you realise that 90% cubic space of the towers were air ? As the floors fell the air had to go down also, increasing air pressure below. That air blew out windows. Stairwell survivors described the wind as the tower collapsed above them. nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/Sixteen people from Stairwell B survived the collapse of the North Tower. They didn't hear any timed controlled demolitions charges go off before or during the collapse.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 26, 2013 10:59:57 GMT -5
"How it it just my opinion that they were damaged and on fire ?"
It's your opinion that they "burned severely" and they had "a strength loss of more than 80% in the affected regions".
The vast majority of all 3 buildings were never on fire or damaged and the 80% strength loss is your opinion. Even if it's 100% fact, it does not explain how or why all 3 buildings globally collapsed in the manner they did.
"Your opinion and the opinion of Richard Gage (and his unqualified fake experts) isn't evidence."
Your opinions are not evidence either. And your "unqualified fake experts" characterization is just made up childish nonsense. No one's opinions is ever evidence. So?
"The collapses weren't controlled".
That's your opinion. The rest of your post has nothing to do with the manner in which the 3 buildings collapsed, so it's mostly irrelevant to the point.
"Sixteen people from Stairwell B survived the collapse of the North Tower. They didn't hear any timed controlled demolitions charges go off before or during the collapse."
You spoke to all of them and they told you that? Regardless, many others saw, heard and felt explosions, that's on video and documented. There's a video that shows timed explosions in WTC7 at the moment it started to collapse. You claim it's doctored and therefore fake, yet you haven't yet provided any evidence that it's fake. So it's just your opinion based on nothing. I assume you made that silly claim (as with most of your claims) because the FACT that the collapse of WTC7 looks and sounds exactly like a controlled demolitions does not fit in with any of your beliefs (or you're pretending). Unless and until you can show any realistic evidence that it's fake, the video EVIDENCE is irrefutable.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 26, 2013 11:29:03 GMT -5
They were all interviewed. Regardless there is a difference between an explosion and an explosive. Windows were blown out because of pneumatic pressure not explosive charges.
Windows were blown out after the collapses initiated not before. The video you've shown me of timed explosives, is a fake, a lie. I watched it. It's CGI bullcrap. I've shown you the genuine collapse video of raw unedited footage which contradicts it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 26, 2013 12:35:37 GMT -5
"They were all interviewed."
By you? And they all told you they heard nothing and saw nothing? Well again, it doesn't matter, some didn't but others did hear, see and feel explosions, that's all on video and documents.
"Regardless there is a difference between an explosion and an explosive."
True an explosion is sometimes caused by explosives.
"Windows were blown out because of pneumatic pressure not explosive charges."
That may or may not be true for some windows but again, many heard, saw and felt explosions.
"Windows were blown out after the collapses initiated not before."
Some were and some at initiation as seen on the WTC7 video, which is irrefutable.
"The video you've shown me of timed explosives, is a fake, a lie. I watched it. It's CGI bullcrap."
But you have nothing to back up your claim just your repetitive opinion. I understand, you're big into making up things repetitively as you go. It seems you believe repetition is just as good as supporting evidence.
"I've shown you the genuine collapse video of raw unedited footage which contradicts it."
It doesn't contradict anything, it's taken much further away, and the other raw unedited footage clearly shows TIMED EXPLOSIONS.
Nothing you posted explains why all 3 buildings collapsed in an unnatural manner.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 26, 2013 13:25:12 GMT -5
Er the columns being weakened to a point they could no longer support the load upon them explains the collapse of every steel building that has ever collapsed in fire let alone 9/11. The collapses were absolutely natural, THEY WERE STRUCTURALLY DAMAGED, THEY WERE ON FIRE, the fires were hot enough to reduce the strength of steel by more than 80%, THAT IS WHY THEY COLLAPSED.
If you're too ignorant to understand how the load bearing properties of steel weaken above 300 degrees C and have lost more than 80 % of strength by 800 degrees C I can't help you. It's quite simple to normal people, how come you're having trouble understanding metallurgical tried and tested FACTS.
Your video is a doctored edited fake, all raw footage proves what I'm saying. Your video is a fake mate. Watch mine, mine is genuine.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 26, 2013 13:51:28 GMT -5
"the columns being weakened to a point they could no longer support the load upon them explains the collapse of every steel building that has ever collapsed in fire let alone 9/11."
No high rise steel framed building has ever globally collapsed prior to or after 9/11 from anything other than a controlled demolition, so no that's not an explanation, it's just another one of your opinions based on vaporware. And even if "the columns being weakened to a point they could no longer support the load upon them" doesn't explain why the 3 buildings collapsed in that manner. Since the fires and the damage in all 3 buildings were restricted to only a very small fraction of the buildings, how were the columns "weakened" in the unscathed parts that made up about 90% of the rest of the buildings? Why did the 90% or so unscathed parts collapse in a virtually identical manner as the parts that were affected? I know I'm asking someone who makes things up and lies all the time and I know you have no real answer, so consider the questions rhetorical. I certainly don't expect a logical answer from you.
"The collapses were absolutely natural"
3 buildings globally collapsing at near free fall speed, one at free fall for 2+ seconds, all 3 in a uniform manner and all 3 in their own footprints are not natural collapses except perhaps in your delusional (or more likely lying) world.
"If you're too ignorant to understand how the load bearing properties of steel weaken above 300 degrees C and have lost more than 80 % of strength by 800 degrees C I can't help you."
I never asked for your help. I don't need that kind of "help". Your bulls**t doesn't help anyone but those who swallow your bulls**t. For example, what happened to the EVIDENCE that supports your claim that the video of WTC7 I provided a link to was doctored and is a fake? More bulls**t? Did you miss the question I asked about 3 or 4 times?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 26, 2013 15:31:54 GMT -5
Near free fall, not actual free fall.
Nothing unnatural about that, the debris falling away from the twin towers fell faster than the upper block was falling. And FYI Metallurgy is not 'bulls**t'.
This WTC7 footage came from a FOIA request from NIST, it's full undoctored footage, featuring the collapse of WTC7 as people on the ground are talking. No sequence of explosions or any troofer bs can be heard. At 1 minute in, a first responder named Barbara Crowley was being interviewed for CBS news, WTC7 was in the background, it starts collapsing during the interview. NO explosions are heard. This means the sounds in your video are FAKE, and were added afterwards, the 'flashes' in your video were also fake and were added afterwards. It's easily to overlay fake sounds and images but VERY hard to remove the genuine article. Pay attention at 1 minute 50 seconds the penthouse kinks and collapses into WTC7 while she's talking. She carries on talking as WTC7 collapses, then the shock of people around causes her to turn around and ask "Holy s**t, what is it ?"
Any explosions would be happening as she's talking and would not be possible to separate out from the audio track without cutting out her voice and other background noises.
Her surprise is obvious because the collapse was quiet and she didn't hear it start to go.
Please, even if you never watch another youtube vid recommended by me, please watch the first couple of minutes of this one.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 26, 2013 19:54:57 GMT -5
"Near free fall"
Correct.
"not actual free fall."
Incorrect for 2+ seconds for WTC7, also agreed to by NIST. That means according to Shyam Sunder that there was no structure below. Either way it makes no sense for a natural collapse. A natural collapse of a steel framed high rise where over 90% was undamaged and unaffected by fire could never collapse at near free fall as if there was nearly zero resistance and especially not at free fall.
"Nothing unnatural about that"
There's nothing unnatural about your lies and fabrications, these come naturally for you. As to high rise collapses, see above.
"the debris falling away from the twin towers fell faster than the upper block was falling"
Yes and I understand some of it was measured as falling faster than free fall. There's nothing on this planet that can fall faster than free fall unless there's some other force acting on it. If you understood the laws of physics, you would know that.
"Metallurgy is not 'bulls**t'."
I never said it was, I said much of what you post is bulls**t. I'm sure you knew that but you like to twist what I post.
"This WTC7 footage came from a FOIA request from NIST, it's full undoctored footage, featuring the collapse of WTC7 as people on the ground are talking. No sequence of explosions or any troofer bs can be heard. At 1 minute in, a first responder named Barbara Crowley was being interviewed for CBS news, WTC7 was in the background, it starts collapsing during the interview. NO explosions are heard."
It says WCBS-TV, not that it's consequential. Not only "no sequence of explosions" are heard but the collapse itself is inaudible because obviously, the building is too far. That's evident when the camera zooms in and the foreground. The collapse of WTC7 cannot be inaudible even without explosions, that makes no sense.
"This means the sounds in your video are FAKE, and were added afterwards, the 'flashes' in your video were also fake and were added afterwards."
Again, it's not MY video, I didn't create it. It doesn't mean or prove any such thing. The video was captured at a point much closer than the video you posted the link to and therefore, detail and sound are both much clearer. That's all it means. Your conclusion is just your pretend belief, it isn't proof of anything by any stretch. Real proof would require an expert with highly sophisticated software who could analyze the video and show that something was cut and pasted into it. And preferably an independent corroboration. I don't believe you have anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 27, 2013 2:51:02 GMT -5
You're desperate and it's showing Bob. This bridge is a long way away but the 120db explosives are audible. Mobile phone footage of Sighthill Flats Edinburgh demoliiton, much further away YET explosion sounds reach the house it's filmed from and are loud: Different angle to prove it's not been doctored (blasts happen at 3m36s): Broomview House demolition 2008 several different camera angles are shown, debris is left in a neat pile. And how is it (if controlled demo) that the buildings collapses began at the exact points where planes had struck and fires had been raging ? Demo charges are combustible and would be ignited in fire. Any detonators would be prematurely set off, meaning WTC1 would have collapsed first as it was first hit. The facts I've given you about steel which you call "bulls**t" are scientific proven facts from fire tests. Other steel buildings have collapsed in fire, Atherstone warehouse fire in Warwickshire being one of the worst cases, four firemen died inside when it fell on them. As is obvious from these photographs the steelwork was not "melted" and yet it did fail. It was made of the same stuff skyscrapers are made from. Though not a fully steel framed building, my local leisure centre had steelwork in it and that steelwork was damaged when it caught fire. No plane hit it, the only combustibles were carpets, wood, and some plastics from gymnasium equipment including exercise bikes. It's clear that if the effect of temperature profile and the effect of load are right, steelwork will fail in fire. That is what happened on 9/11 in the structurally damaged buildings of the world trade centre.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 27, 2013 9:39:40 GMT -5
"You're desperate and it's showing Bob."
Really? Desperate about what? What's "showing"? Desperation is making up stories about folding wings, desperation is using the word "troofer", desperation is calling over 2,000 people "so-called" and "fake" experts, desperation is saying a video is "doctored" or "fake" without any supporting basis, desperation is claiming that flying a large commercial airliner and conducting extreme maneuvers is a "piece of cake", desperation is showing pictures, videos and papers about many things that have nothing to with 9/11, desperation is claiming an anonymous "debunking" site is the best place anyone can go to get truthful information about 9/11, etc. I could go on and on but those are some of the many signs of your OBVIOUS desperation. How desperate am I if I urge everyone to study everything, including your opinions and theories? When you spew the list of nonsense above, it only shows you have no confidence in your own arguments because you resort to trying to enhance them with utter nonsense.
The videos and pictures you show in your last post have nothing to do with what happened on 9/11, as usual. The following is exactly part of what happened on 9/11, in all its gory detail, closeup and personal:
and of course, the infamous "doctored" video:
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 27, 2013 9:54:48 GMT -5
No, desperation is trying again and again to make out that a simple terrorist attack was a complicated inside job. Desperation is trying again and again to make out that 2000 people with no relevant qualifications are 'experts' when they're fakes. Desperation is trying to make out that metal wings will not bend backwards when flown into a concrete building. Desperation is trying to make out that somehow despite all genuine footage of the collapses showing no signs or sounds of controlled demolition and lots of signs of structural damage and fire, that in your opinion the structural damage and fire those buildings were subjected to had nothing to do with the reasons they collapsed.
Wake up.
I've shown you real experts. I've shown you that steel in fire can fail if the effects of temperature profile and load are too great. You know that the WTC's were structurally damaged and on fire and that those fires were severe. I've shown you the bending moment in WTC2 step by step. I've shown you the undoctored footage of WTC7 as it collapsed proving that your doctored video is a FAKE.
Please for the love of God stop lying to yourself.
I'd much rather talk beer and music than 9/11 I hate having to look at footage of the towers because people DIED. They did not die because of an inside job but because of ISLAMIC TERRORISM.
How can you ignore all the facts in favour of such complete and total RUBBISH ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Apr 27, 2013 11:12:00 GMT -5
"Please for the love of God stop lying to yourself."
Now you resort to begging and a silly claim that I'm "lying to myself"? And you say I'm desperate? Why are you trying in your own silly and simplistic way to silence me?
"I'd much rather talk beer and music than 9/11"
You're joking right? I think you drink way too much beer. At least put it in the fridge before you drink it.
"How can you ignore all the facts in favour of such complete and total RUBBISH ?"
Virtually everything I post about 9/11 is about 9/11. Those are the FACTS. The FACTS may be "rubbish" to you but they're not rubbish to me. Rubbish is your claim that you'd "much rather talk beer and music than 9/11", yet 99% of your posts in this forum are about 9/11 (or purport to be because a lot of it is just distraction). Just in the previous posts, you posted videos and pictures that have nothing to do with 9/11 and I posted 3 videos that are clearly about the 3 building collapses. Why would you post so much that has nothing to do with 9/11 and claim they're "facts" about 9/11? In my opinion, these only serve as distractions.
I must admit you are a very interesting person though. There's always at least one in every forum I've ever participated in who rabidly and obsessively supports the official story. I've always wondered why. I can understand agreeing with the official story to a large degree. Many people just don't have all the facts and/or don't do the research. And then there are many who just bend over to authority and rarely question it, either out of fear, ignorance or both. But I don't quite believe people like you fall into that category. You're way too obsessive about it and it's obvious you've done quite a bit of research. Unfortunately, your knowledge is only used for the purpose of supporting the official story, definitely not for the purpose of questioning any part of it. So I'm still baffled as to what your true agenda is. It's not that it's really important to me, I'm just curious. Of course, I'm sure I'll never get an answer from you anyway.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Apr 27, 2013 11:24:16 GMT -5
No mate I'm not the one posting fabrications and lies about 9/11 I'm posting the facts whether you like it or not.
Regarding beer you should try a pint of English ale sometime without freezing the hell out of it, you might find the malty flavours somewhat delicious. I'm not talking warm like a cup of coffee that's not gone cold yet, when cask conditioned ale comes out of a vacuum pump it comes out at roughly the same temperature that cold water comes out of a cold tap at.
I'm not sure you'd like the hoppy tang of an IPA but you might like a Porter or a creamy Stout or even a Dark Mild.
I'm an ex conspiracy theorist. Back in the late 1990's I was very into conspiracy theory stuff, and was quite interested in Groom Lake (aka Area 51) but then along came the 9/11 theories which leaped out at me as pure BS. I learned that I needed to think more before buying into a conspiracy theory.
I don't have any interest in what your government says about it. I'm only interested in the physics. The physics prove that steel framed buildings can collapse in the manner that the WTC buildings did. That's good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 5, 2013 18:22:59 GMT -5
Once again the Margaret Crowley interview in which WTC7 collapses LIVE ON TV WITHOUT ANY SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIVES.
1m52s penthouse starts to kink and collapse. She carries on talking, at first oblivious to the building falling behind her. Goodnight all.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 5, 2013 19:58:59 GMT -5
"Once again the Margaret Crowley interview in which WTC7 collapses LIVE ON TV WITHOUT ANY SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIVES."
You need to repeat that at least 50 more times, maybe it will help, you never know. In one post you say the collapse was silent and in another post it was deafening. Yeah, I got it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 6, 2013 1:48:41 GMT -5
Bob, don't put words in my mouth. You know that's not what I was saying. What I said there were explosions that day (The aviation fuel in the planes, petrol tanks in cars set alight by the debris from the twin towers) but explosives did not bring down WTC 7.
WTC7 collapsed quietly. Raw tv footage proves that.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 6, 2013 7:10:21 GMT -5
Bob, don't put words in my mouth. You know that's not what I was saying. What I said there were explosions that day (The aviation fuel in the planes, petrol tanks in cars set alight by the debris from the twin towers) but explosives did not bring down WTC 7. WTC7 collapsed quietly. Raw tv footage proves that. No problem, in your world, WTC7 collapsed quietly except when it made a deafening sound. And the explosions heard in WTC7 were actually cars exploding.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 7, 2013 4:45:34 GMT -5
Except that in the minutes before it's collapse and at the moment of it's collapse as people were being interviewed on live television there were no deafening explosions that your fake video claims were being made.
You have no evidence at all to support your controlled demolition theory.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 7, 2013 6:55:49 GMT -5
Except that in the minutes before it's collapse and at the moment of it's collapse as people were being interviewed on live television there were no deafening explosions that your fake video claims were being made. You have no evidence at all to support your controlled demolition theory. Your opinion has been posted here ad nauseum, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 7, 2013 7:03:56 GMT -5
As has yours mucker as has yours ;o)
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 7, 2013 10:14:35 GMT -5
CBS News Reporter Vince Dementri got through the cordon and filmed WTC7 burning from within "ten feet" of it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 7, 2013 10:25:23 GMT -5
"CBS News Reporter Vince Dementri got through the cordon and filmed WTC7 burning from within "ten feet" of it."
And the video clearly shows flames coming from 1 floor on one side of the building. It does not show an inferno or all floors on fire. It doesn't show the entire floor on fire, just a part of that floor. There is NO video that shows an inferno or all floors on fire.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 7, 2013 14:05:45 GMT -5
"CBS News Reporter Vince Dementri got through the cordon and filmed WTC7 burning from within "ten feet" of it."And the video clearly shows flames coming from 1 floor on one side of the building. It does not show an inferno or all floors on fire. It doesn't show the entire floor on fire, just a part of that floor. There is NO video that shows an inferno or all floors on fire. The video clearly shows flames coming from open windows that had failed in the heat. Fire was certainly present behind other windows but masked by soot & smoke. All the smoke gushing south from all the floors above prove that, it takes a lot of fire to make that much smoke mate, a lot of fire. FDNY eyewitness speaks about the collapse of WTC7:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 7, 2013 14:43:18 GMT -5
"The video clearly shows flames coming from open windows that had failed in the heat."
Yes, anyone can see a fire coming from the windows of one floor on one side.
"Fire was certainly present behind other windows but masked by soot & smoke."
A raging fire can be seen despite smoke. If it's not a raging fire and/or it's internal then it may not be visible. I provide links to 3 different infernos and the fires were clearly visible, not obscured by smoke and there was plenty of smoke as well in all 3 infernos.
"it takes a lot of fire to make that much smoke mate, a lot of fire."
That's not true at all, you can have a tremendous amount of smoke with small fires. Regardless, a "lot of fire" would be clearly visible as evidenced by the infernos I provided links to.
"FDNY eyewitness speaks about the collapse of WTC7"
Yes from the "Conspiracy Files" from the BBC documentary. In other words, BBC selected one particular firefighter to try to support their attack on those who question the official account. That one says there were no explosions. Other FDNY eyewitnesses who say they saw, heard and felt explosions, have also spoken about many things, he's not the only one but BBC did not ask them for an interview. I did note that he said the collapse "sounded like a jet engine", yet another person who contradicts your claim that it was silent.
|
|