|
Post by shred on May 8, 2013 3:40:51 GMT -5
Every fire fighter who was at the site saw the fire and the smoke and the damage. Every fire fighter who was at the site had a radio telling them to pull out of the burning buildings as there wasn't enough water pressure to fight the fires properly. If they'd kept fighting fires in buildings that had been evacuated, more firefighters would have died.
Lt Frank Papalia's testimony is valid. You don't like it because it disproves your theories. But he's telling the truth.
Raging fires produce lots of smoke.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 9, 2013 8:24:01 GMT -5
Every fire fighter who was at the site saw the fire and the smoke and the damage. Every fire fighter who was at the site had a radio telling them to pull out of the burning buildings as there wasn't enough water pressure to fight the fires properly. If they'd kept fighting fires in buildings that had been evacuated, more firefighters would have died. Lt Frank Papalia's testimony is valid. You don't like it because it disproves your theories. But he's telling the truth. Raging fires produce lots of smoke. Agree on almost everything except "You don't like it because it disproves your theories". That point makes no sense. In the first place, Lt. Frank Papalia's testimony is crucial as is everyone's testimony who was there. In the second place, his testimony has no effect on whether I "like it" or not, it's just his testimony. In the third place, it doesn't prove or disprove anything in itself, never mind "my theories", which you likely misinterpret or try to confuse as my opinions. And yes raging fires do produce lots of smoke, so do many other types of fires, raging or not. And even when fires are extinguished (or go out on their own), there is often a lot of smoke. As to "Every fire fighter who was at the site had a radio telling them to pull out of the burning buildings", I have no idea if that's true or not and neither do you, so you're making this up as you often make things up. I do know that many of the radios failed to work properly on 9/11 and Giuliani was severely criticized by many firefighters because he was well aware of that for years prior to 9/11 but did nothing to correct the problem: New Film Exposes How Rudy Failed Firefighters On 9/11
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald has released another explosive short documentary film about Rudy Giuliani, this time highlighting the former New York City mayor's controversial handling of radios used by the city's fire department on Sept. 11. Greenwald is also petitioning the New York City Council to launch an investigation into the matter. The web video, released Monday by Brave New Films, alleges that during his administration Giuliani failed to equip the FDNY with adequate, let alone functioning, communication equipment. That in turn created massive problems on 9/11 and may have contributed to the unnecessary deaths of dozens of servicemen. "What did Mr. Giuliani do [about faulty radios]?" Al Santora, the retired Chief of Safety for FDNY whose son died on 9/11, asks in one of the film's most poignant moments. "He had eight years. He did nothing to correct that situation... We got people dead as a result." As Greenwald documents, the radios used by the FDNY on 9/11 were precisely the same ones that malfunctioned during the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years after that attack, Giuliani did replace the defective equipment. But the new radios he bought under a no-bid, $14 million contract from Motorola (the previous contract was $1.4 million) were never field-tested. The "upgrade" proved disastrous. Within a week, the just-purchased radios were recalled after a firefighter's mayday went un-heard. Giuliani was forced to reissue the old, faulty batch. And on 9/11 when a police helicopter warned that the North Tower could collapse, more than 120 firefighters remained inside. "The radios failed them and that was Giuliani failing them," says Roseleen Tallon, whose brother Sean was an FDNY member killed in 9/11. In addition to releasing the film on www.therealrudy.org, Greenwald is petitioning New York City Councilman Eric Gioia to initiate a public investigation into Giulaini's handling of the FDNY radios. "No investigation has ever taken place," Greenwald told the Huffington Post. "People were killed because he screwed up... and family members want questions answered." Giuliani's office did not return calls requesting comment. This is the second Giuliani film made by Greenwald. The first explored the former mayor's decision to ignore the advise of his own security experts and locate New York's terrorist command center at the World Trade Center, despite its centrality as a potential terrorist target. www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/new-film-exposes-how-rudy_n_68426.html
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 10, 2013 4:39:08 GMT -5
Irrelevant that does not prove controlled demolition. The subject is steel in fire. The evidence is that steel buildings suffered structural damage, weakening by fire, bending and collapse.
You are saying that the buildings should have survived the structural damage, not been weakened by fire, not suffered bending and not collapsed. So please, explain HOW they would have survived?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 10, 2013 7:32:30 GMT -5
"Irrelevant that does not prove controlled demolition."
My last post wasn't about proving controlled demolition. And it's far from irrelevant, it's extremely significant to the events on 9/11 and prior.
"The subject is steel in fire."
That's your subject. I post what I want to post in response to your post or whatever I want to post period. If you don't like what I post, it's not my problem, nor do I care.
"The evidence is that steel buildings suffered structural damage, weakening by fire, bending and collapse."
The evidence and the facts are that the 3 buildings were damaged, they were on fire and they all collapsed.
"You are saying that the buildings should have survived the structural damage, not been weakened by fire, not suffered bending and not collapsed."
It doesn't matter what I say and certainly what you say. The EVIDENCE speaks for itself. The EVIDENCE is that only limited parts of all 3 buildings were damaged, were on fire, and all 3 collapsed in free fall and near free fall, symmetrically, globally and in their own footprints.
"So please, explain HOW they would have survived?"
Why do I need to explain to you how they would have survived? They didn't, they all collapsed unnaturally, that's a FACT.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 10, 2013 7:36:18 GMT -5
Don't be evasive, I'm just asking questions.
How could the buildings have survived without naturally collapsing ?
You don't know how they could do you ?
The collapses may have looked 'unnatural' to you but that's your untrained opinion.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 10, 2013 7:50:27 GMT -5
"Don't be evasive, I'm just asking questions."
I wasn't being evasive, I responded.
"How could the buildings have survived without naturally collapsing ?"
Your question is a straw man, they didn't collapse naturally.
"The collapses may have looked 'unnatural' to you but that's your untrained opinion."
1. I don't need any "training" to know the difference between a natural collapse and an unnatural one.
2. Over 2,000 experts and hundreds of millions of others agree none of the buildings collapsed naturally.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 10, 2013 8:23:52 GMT -5
They did collapse naturally. How could they not ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 10, 2013 9:00:38 GMT -5
They did collapse naturally. How could they not ? The global collapse of 3 steel framed buildings, 2 over 100 stories, one 47 stories, in free fall, near free fall, symmetrically and in their own footprints is not a natural collapse. In fact the twin towers didn't even "collapse", they both disintegrated top down and "peeled". That is, steel beams (and other building material) weighing 50-70 tons were ejected laterally at speeds calculated to be as much as 70 MPH and some imbedded themselves into adjacent buildings. Human remains were found on the roof of adjacent buildings. Debris from the "collapse" of the North Tower had enough momentum to damage WTC7, 335 ft away and started fires. A natural collapse is a gravitational collapse, which means material goes down, not sideways. Other debris were ejected at downward speeds faster than free fall, which can only mean another force acting on it. All of it is evident in all the various videos and photos and all the speeds are calculable and have been calculated.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 10, 2013 11:08:09 GMT -5
They were NOT in free fall, to even claim that they were in free fall is a complete and total lie. WTC's 1 & 2 did not collapse into their own footprints, they collapsed away damaging and destroying other buildings including the Greek Orthodox Church of St Nicholas, WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, WTC 7's south side, the Bankers Trust building.
WTC7 didn't collapse into it's own footprint either, parts of it damaged Fitterman hall.
All collapses including controlled demolitions are gravitational matey.
Debris went sideways because of internal resistance in the twin towers because they were not being destroyed in a controlled manner. The upper block fell as a dynamic load, the lower block wasn't already falling so took time, pushed back (every action has an equal and opposite reaction, Issac Newton) as it's bolts sheared, parts flew off outwards because that was the path of the least resistance.
If explosives had brought down the twin towers, the collapses would have been neat, other buildings would not have been damaged by their debris.
The collapses WERE NATURAL, anyone who says otherwise is no expert regardless of whether they profess to be an architect or engineer for 'truth'.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 10, 2013 11:50:09 GMT -5
"They were NOT in free fall"
WTC7 collapsed in free fall for about 2.25 seconds. This is measurable by anyone, including you, assuming you were to do it honestly. Even NIST agreed that's what happened. Professor David Chandler has a YouTube video on exactly how this can be done. He's the same person who got Shyam Sunder to agree that WTC7 was in free fall for over 2 seconds.
"to even claim that they were in free fall is a complete and total lie."
So you believe NIST (Shyam Sunder) lied? But yet you agree 100% with NIST? That's quite a contradiction.
"WTC's 1 & 2 did not collapse into their own footprints, they collapsed away damaging and destroying other buildings including the Greek Orthodox Church of St Nicholas, WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, WTC 7's south side, the Bankers Trust building."
That's because as seen on videos, debris was hurled laterally into other buildings as the twin towers peeled and as seen on videos and photos.
"WTC7 didn't collapse into it's own footprint either, parts of it damaged Fitterman hall."
The collapse as seen on video is virtually straight down with a slight lean toward one side. The building collapsed in one piece. Anyone can see that on all the videos.
"All collapses including controlled demolitions are gravitational matey."
That's correct.
"Debris went sideways"
So once again you're contradicting yourself, a gravitational collapse means a downward collapse. Material, especially beams weighing up to 70 tons should not have been ejected laterally.
"parts flew off outwards because that was the path of the least resistance."
70 ton beams? At speeds of 70 MPH? "Flew outward" is quite an understatement.
"If explosives had brought down the twin towers, the collapses would have been neat, other buildings would not have been damaged by their debris."
You're speculating. The videos clearly show massive amounts of material, including beams, being hurled outward and the photos show beams imbedded into adjacent buildings. This is indisputable and irrefutable, unless of course you can show that all the videos and photos were doctored.
"The collapses WERE NATURAL, anyone who says otherwise is no expert regardless of whether they profess to be an architect or engineer for 'truth'."
So the fact that over 2,000 experts agree the collapses were not natural and you disagree, makes them non-experts? Regardless of their credentials? David Chandler's free fall measurements automatically converts him to a non-expert in your opinion because you can't accept the FACTS and the REALITY? Shyam Sunder too?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 10, 2013 12:16:54 GMT -5
You miss out most of the WTC 7 collapse in that video it is invalid. It is not raw footage. The Raw footage of the Margaret Crowley interview shows it took far longer than you claim.
So far your alleged list of 2000 'experts' include no structural fire engineers metallurgists or civil engineers, just graphic artists, electrical engineers, software engineers and architects. They are NOT EXPERTS and thus they are irrelevant.
I once discussed 9/11 with Doug Plumb of AE911 truth, he admitted not being an expert.
Amongst my emails from him was this:
The berk recommends Judy Wood and her space beams theory and says "no-one is more qualified than her". She's a dental engineer who designs DENTURES for God's sake! Doug Plumb is Richard Gage's #2 and an Electrical Engineer (Electrician) by trade and a self employed computer programmer by employment.
He can't even say Bazant properly. Expert my fragrant bottom.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 10, 2013 12:34:53 GMT -5
"You miss out most of the WTC 7 collapse in that video it is invalid. It is not raw footage."
So again, why is it "invalid"? Are you claiming that the video Chandler used is also "doctored"?
"The Raw footage of the Margaret Crowley interview shows it took far longer than you claim."
How does it "show" that? Did you measure it?
"So far your alleged list of 2000 'experts' include no structural fire engineers metallurgists or civil engineers, just graphic artists, electrical engineers, software engineers and architects. They are NOT EXPERTS and thus they are irrelevant."
I didn't make up any list, so it's not MY list. All these people listed themselves. They're not anything other than what they claim they are. It doesn't make them experts in cooking, garbage collection or valets either. It also does not dismiss any of them for their opinions based on their backgrounds. They may be irrelevant to you but you're irrelevant to me as far as anyone who knows anything about what happened on 9/11. Your only relevance is to help expose what happened on 9/11 using your own opinions.
The rest of your post is even more irrelevant, especially this part: "He can't even say Bazant properly".
I notice you failed to address that Shyam Sunder agreed with the free fall observation and that you contradicted him. Why is that? Is it an inconvenient point for you?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 11, 2013 3:06:10 GMT -5
You claim 2.5 seconds, the collapse is obviously much longer than that, the collapse begins with the mechanical penthouse, the floors inside then pancake, then without anything to brace the outer structure the outer structure falls and hits Fitterman Hall as it does so.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 11, 2013 9:06:23 GMT -5
"You claim 2.5 seconds"It's not MY claim, I did not perform the necessary calculations using the videos. David Chandler did and explained how he did it and what kind of tools he used, which are available to anyone. It is supported and agreed to by over 2,000 experts as well as NIST (Shyam Sunder), you know that government hired agency you agree with 100%, so that's good enough for me. The free fall was measured for approximately 2.25 seconds or about 8 stories. It isn't the time it took for the entire collapse, it's the time measured for the first 8 stories of the collapse. You don't need to try to pretend ignorance, you know full well that's not the time for the entire collapse. The rest of your post has nothing to do with the free fall. However, as to the rest, you're trying to describe what no one on earth can see and verify. You say: "the floors inside then pancake"Do you hold this as your claim that that's exactly what happened or is this just your opinion? If it's the former, how on earth do you know that and with what kind of alchemy can you support/validate this claim? You refuse to acknowledge what can easily be verified by anyone using available videos and software to do the calculations but you want to make claims for a scenario that no one on earth can establish as valid. And you're using your made up fantasy as a contradicting argument to the free fall that both sides agree with. This is another gem akin to your folding wing theory that no one else has claimed.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 12, 2013 16:04:09 GMT -5
AE Liars aren't experts even if there are 2000 of the frauds. NIST is correct. AELIARS are frauds.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 13, 2013 8:33:41 GMT -5
AE Liars aren't experts even if there are 2000 of the frauds. NIST is correct. AELIARS are frauds. So Chandler PROVED there was free fall, NIST agreed, you said there was no free fall (but can't support your contradiction) and claim NIST is correct. You're utterly confused. Which is it? It can't be both.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 13, 2013 12:29:21 GMT -5
NIST hasn't said freefall. There was structural resistance. Get with it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 13, 2013 12:55:58 GMT -5
NIST hasn't said freefall. There was structural resistance. Get with it. I provided the link to a video of Shyam Sunder's free fall admission. Denying the facts and reality really isn't going to change the FACTS or the REALITY. And if there was "structural resistance", free fall would have been impossible, that's something else that Shyam Sunder agrees with and that's also on video.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 13, 2013 15:59:06 GMT -5
I've watched the collapse of WTC7, the time between the start of it's collapse and the end of it's collapse is roughly 16 seconds. Of course the full collapse includes the penthouse collapse and 'truthers' (as they call themselves) like to ignore that bit.
The fundamentally important facts 'truthers' ignore: Structural damage caused by the debris of WTC1. Widespread and serious fire started by burning debris from WTC1. Firefighters predicted it's natural collapse and pulled out for their own safety. No explosive residues, blasting caps or detcord remnants were found. No explosive blasts were heard by any of the microphones in the vicinity of WTC7 in the seconds before collapse despite being trained in the direction and cameras rolling as interviews with first responders took place.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 13, 2013 16:30:43 GMT -5
"I've watched the collapse of WTC7"
Yes and you apparently saw the floors inside "pancake" with your x-ray vision.
"The fundamentally important facts 'truthers' ignore:"
The fundamental FACT you want to pretend doesn't exist is that WTC7 was in free fall for over 2 seconds (or 8 stories or about 100 ft.). That cannot happen in a natural collapse because it would mean there was NO STRUCTURE below the collapse to create any resistance. It can only happen if ALL the columns were taken out at the same time and a fire cannot do that.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 14, 2013 1:31:31 GMT -5
The floors inside could only have pancaked, it's what happens when floors fall onto floors. The building's weren't designed to be able to withstand progressive collapse. The collapse of WTC7 took 16 seconds from initiation to finish. Watch the Margaret Crowley interview again. It doesn't matter how you try to spin things, the facts are structural damage overloaded the structure, fire weakened it, the structure around column 79 suffered viscoplastic creep, column 79 itself suffered a bending moment, the load it supported fell into the building causing floors to fall onto floors. The outer shell lost all remaining structural integrity and fell towards Fiterman Hall damaging Fiterman Hall. Had WTC7 been a real controlled demolition loud bangs and flashes would have been heard and seen in the Crowley interview, and by all other cameras watching live at the time. WTC7 would have collapsed into a neat pile instead of damaging Fiterman hall. The fires in WTC7 were worse than you claim. You ignore that fire can weaken steel. You ignore the structural damage to it from WTC1.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 14, 2013 7:46:36 GMT -5
As usual, when you can't contradict the free fall (other than to simply say "no it didn't free fall"), change the subject and state your opinion about different subjects. You don't even realize (or maybe you do but you want to keep up the charade) that if the floors inside did indeed pancake, not only would the free fall have been impossible because of massive resistance but the entire collapse itself could have never happened as seen on video for the same reason.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 14, 2013 12:28:52 GMT -5
As usual you can't back up the controlled demolition allegation with any real evidence my friend. No explosions not even one preceded any of the WTC collapses in their final moments.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 14, 2013 12:48:28 GMT -5
"As usual you can't back up the controlled demolition allegation with any real evidence my friend."
The allegation is that the 3 collapses were natural gravitational collapses. That they were not has been backed up by evidence, whether you like it or not. The free fall of WTC7 is FACT not fiction or theory, both sides agree, whether you like it or not.
"No explosions not even one preceded any of the WTC collapses in their final moments."
There were well over 100 eyewitness accounts of explosions, many of these are on video. Denial doesn't change a thing.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 5:22:06 GMT -5
Not in the seconds before collapse my friend and video evidence also shows what I'm saying to be true.
Jet fuel exploded when the planes hit the twin towers, and this has been widely witnessed.
Cars exploded after the twin towers had fallen, again witnessed. Comments about these events can easily be taken out of context my friend.
No explosions immediately preceded the collapses, raw undoctored footage proves what I'm saying & cameraplanetarchive on Youtube has a hell of a lot of raw footage.
Thermite being incendiary does not explode and so the 'truthers' invented the thermite theory to try and explain the lack of explosions at the moments of collapse and with the buildings being made out of the precursors of thermites people like you were easily fooled.
Structural damage plus fire brought down the towers the laws of physics are absolutely clear about that.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 7:45:39 GMT -5
"Not in the seconds before collapse ..."
So then you agree there were explosions, just not in the seconds before the collapse (in your opinion)? And if you agree, then why do you not question the FACT that this was NEVER investigated? I posted that this was standard NFPA protocol (as supported and cited by firefighters) but that doesn't raise any red flags with you?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 9:44:57 GMT -5
There were explosions when the airliners crashed and the fuel they were carrying exploded. There were explosions when the fuel tanks of cars and other vehicles set on fire by burning debris from the twin towers collapses exploded.
Reports of these explosions have been misrepresented by conspiracy theorists.
Explosives were not responsible for the collapses of the towers, structural damage and fire was responsible for the collapses of the towers. All raw footage shows this to be the case.
WTC2 collapses, bending moment in outer skeleton responsible:
Collapse initiates at 56s
WTC1 Collapses: Reporter asks why he's being pulled out of the area, voice says because the tower is leaning, then voice says "Oh my God there it goes!"
Bending moment in core columns brought this building down:
WTC7: Ashleigh Banfield describes four cars exploding AFTER the twin towers had fallen:
WTC7 collapse, no explosives are going off as it gives up the ghost and falls:
That my friend is what bending moments do.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 15, 2013 10:00:26 GMT -5
"There were explosions when the airliners crashed and the fuel they were carrying exploded."
True but none of the eyewitness accounts have anything to do with that.
"There were explosions when the fuel tanks of cars and other vehicles set on fire by burning debris from the twin towers collapses exploded."
Possibly true but none of the eyewitness accounts have anything to do with those either.
"Reports of these explosions have been misrepresented by conspiracy theorists."
So you characterize yourself as a "conspiracy theorist"? I ask because it seems you're the one who's misrepresenting what eyewitnesses saw, heard and felt. None of them have ever said anything about the explosions being from planes or cars that I've ever heard in their testimony. Do you speak for everyone of them?
And now that you agree there were explosions, why do you suppose explosions and explosives were NEVER investigated (by NIST's own admission)? Why aren't you questioning that? Why instead do you insist on creating your own opinion about what happened rather than question why so much was never investigated? Why does it not occur to you (or you pretend) that a REAL investigation could have resulted in a completely different conclusion?
Your fakery is so OBVIOUS. Why don't you just reveal your true agenda?
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 10:24:09 GMT -5
Cars exploding had nothing to do with why the towers fell.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 15, 2013 10:30:29 GMT -5
There were explosions when the airliners crashed and the fuel they were carrying exploded. There were explosions when the fuel tanks of cars and other vehicles set on fire by burning debris from the twin towers collapses exploded. Reports of these explosions have been misrepresented by conspiracy theorists.Explosives were not responsible for the collapses of the towers, structural damage and fire was responsible for the collapses of the towers. All raw footage shows this to be the case. WTC2 collapses, bending moment in outer skeleton responsible: Collapse initiates at 56s WTC1 Collapses: Reporter asks why he's being pulled out of the area, voice says because the tower is leaning, then voice says "Oh my God there it goes!" Bending moment in core columns brought this building down: WTC7: Ashleigh Banfield describes four cars exploding AFTER the twin towers had fallen: WTC7 collapse, no explosives are going off as it gives up the ghost and falls: That my friend is what bending moments do. Start paying attention.
|
|