|
Post by shred on Aug 2, 2013 10:25:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 2, 2013 11:26:41 GMT -5
"Your opinion about Bin Laden is based upon what you have been fed by the 9/11 'truth' movement who are upset that his admission of guilt utterly demolishes their inside job controlled demolition theories."
I didn't post my opinion about Bin Laden other than that the person in the video does not look like him and that is pretty OBVIOUS, I didn't need to be "fed" that. My eyes still work just fine. I posted the FACTS about the videos as they exist. If you want my personal opinion, I'm surprised Bin Laden would deny having taken part in 9/11 even if he had nothing to do with it. If he did "confess", it really means nothing anyway because a confession is NEVER proof of anything. Many people "confess" to crimes they have never committed and some have "confessed" to crimes they had nothing to do with under torture. And even if Bin Laden was the "mastermind" of 9/11 and did confess to it, it still doesn't change the possibility that elements within the US government were involved. And indeed, the free fall of WTC7 is slam dunk PROOF that WTC7 did NOT collapse naturally anyway, that is incontrovertible. So your point is utter nonsense. Regardless, like I said, there's nothing definitive about the alleged Bin Laden "confession", it's all disputable regardless of your strongly biased opinion.
As to the Ted Olson issue, I have no idea what you're trying to show other than a link from yet another anonymous debunking site. There's a link to a PDF document there but it's over 70 pages long and I'm not going to sift through it. Point to the page number you think is relevant and I'll look at it. Either way, it's the same issue, it's all disputable as most everything is when it comes to the official narrative. You want to try to make the case that there's nothing to question about 9/11 and that's complete garbage as you can easily see just by the 50 FACTS written by Jon Gold. But even that is far from the only points that throws the entire 9/11 narrative into the toilet.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 3, 2013 4:22:49 GMT -5
In your opinion. In my opinion he looks like Bin Laden.
Initially after the attacks there was worldwide condemnation including condemnation from Yassir Arafat, a man Osama Bin Laden looked up to, and Osama Bin Laden said this:
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed delegated the job of planning the attacks on his behalf, what Osama Bin Laden did was to sponsor the attacks and his statement did not deny sponsoring the attacks, nor did he deny having knowledge or Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's plan. Al Qaeda did it, and later Osama Bin Laden admitted the full responsibility of his organisation.
9/11 conspiracy theorists require it to be an inside job and the facts pointing to Al Qaeda are an inconvenience to their money making scam. They have to deny that it was Osama Bin Laden in the videos, they have to deny that his organisation did it, they have to deny the hijackings, and the damage the hijacked jets did when they crashed into the twin towers. Otherwise all they've got left isn't very exciting, as 19 terrorists did it and the authorities messed up.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 3, 2013 7:43:25 GMT -5
"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed delegated the job of planning the attacks on his behalf, what Osama Bin Laden did was to sponsor the attacks and his statement did not deny sponsoring the attacks, nor did he deny having knowledge or Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's plan. Al Qaeda did it, and later Osama Bin Laden admitted the full responsibility of his organisation."
Parroting somewhat from the 9/11 Commission Report, which was an admitted lie and a fraud. There is very little that's reliable information that comes from that fake propaganda rag. KSH was renditioned and tortured mercilessly. It is well known that he was waterboarded 183 times. It is well known that he or anyone would say anything the torturers wanted him to say to get them to stop the torture. It is known that the 9/11 Commission got much of their information on this through 3rd parties because although they asked, they were never allowed to interview those who were tortured. See FACT #31.
The majority of the testimony from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks, something the 9/11 Report is heavily based on, was gotten through torture, and “third-hand – passed from the detainee, to the interrogator, to the person who writes up the interrogation report, and finally to [its] staff in the form of reports, not even transcripts.”
Because of the latter, the 9/11 Commission decided to add a disclaimer to the chapters that are heavily based on detainee interrogations. The disclaimer says, “Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaeda members. A number of these ‘detainees’ have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process. We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al-Qaeda members in our report. We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the US government.”
The 9/11 Commission became unhappy because the government’s investigators were “not asking the detainees the kinds of questions [it wanted] answered.”
On 8/6/2007, the New Yorker reports that a former CIA official estimates that about “ninety percent of the information was unreliable.”
KSM’s interrogations are mentioned as a source in the 9/11 report 211 times.
On 6/15/2009, the Associated Press reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said he would “make up stories” in order to get them to stop torturing him.
On 8/6/2010, it is reported that “four of the nation’s most highly valued terrorist prisoners were secretly moved to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2003, years earlier than has been disclosed, then whisked back into overseas prisons before the Supreme Court could give them access to lawyers, The Associated Press has learned. The transfer allowed the U.S. to interrogate the detainees in CIA “black sites” for two more years without allowing them to speak with attorneys or human rights observers or challenge their detention in U.S. courts.”
The majority of the information and opinions you post about 9/11 is the official narrative and taken from anonymous "debunking" sites. I never post anything from anonymous sources, except my own personal opinion of course.
Like I said Bin Laden, KSH, Al Qaeda and whoever else the US government and its puppet media says was involved in 9/11 may or may not have been involved. We don't really know because nothing that comes from these propagandists is reliable. However, there is a huge amount of evidence that points to the complicity and involvement of those other than the Al Qaeda gang.
The rest of your post is useless garbage not worth addressing.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 3, 2013 8:10:40 GMT -5
The truth is inconvenient to your controlled demolition conspiracy theory agenda. Nothing you've posted proves the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. Nothing you've posted excuses the crimes of the 19 hijackers or disproves NIST's reports or the numerous other expert reports which point to structural damage and fire as being the causes of the collapses of the towers so you're trying a new tactic to try and rebuild your credibility. Problem is you're still trying to tie everything into the 9/11 'truth' movement controlled demolition conspiracy theory agenda. You're still referencing the fraudulent ae911'truth' in your posts.
Move past it. There was no inside job with regards to 11th Sept 2001. The US government conspiracy to invade Iraq is a completely separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 3, 2013 8:31:43 GMT -5
"The truth is inconvenient to your controlled demolition conspiracy theory agenda."I don't have any "controlled demolition conspiracy theory agenda". I didn't post anything about any "controlled demolition conspiracy theory agenda". "Nothing you've posted proves the controlled demolition conspiracy theory."I didn't post anything about a "controlled demolition conspiracy theory", much less "proved" it. "Nothing you've posted excuses the crimes of the 19 hijackers or disproves NIST's reports or the numerous other expert reports which point to structural damage and fire as being the causes of the collapses of the towers so you're trying a new tactic to try and rebuild your credibility."There are many other threads that prove that NIST's report is a complete fraud, including the contradictory NIST report itself but I don't believe there's anything in this thread about that. No one is excusing any criminals of any crime. "Problem is you're still trying to tie everything into the 9/11 'truth' movement controlled demolition conspiracy theory agenda."I'm merely showing that the official narrative is a proven fake and that we don't know what the truth is in its entirety. You want to pretend the official narrative is truth when the facts and evidence show otherwise. "You're still referencing the fraudulent ae911'truth' in your posts."There's nothing that I know of that's fraudulent about AE911TRUTH. There's not one single person associated with it who is anonymous. There are almost 2,000 experts who have signed the petition and another 17,000+ who have also signed it, everyone has been identified, credentialed and verified. There are hundreds of millions of others, including many experts who have endorsed it. In fact, there's a recent campaign to expose the planet about WTC7 since that's still taboo news and millions are still unaware. As much as you huff and puff, this isn't going away any time soon. Are you worried? rethink911.org/"Move past it."Why do you want me to do that? Are you terrified of something? Do you actually believe I'm going to "move past it" because you asked me to?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 4, 2013 0:59:13 GMT -5
I want to help you to evolve your understanding that so that you can regain some grip on your credibility which is being destroyed by the pack of lies ae911'truth' and other 'truth'er frauds have fed you.
NIST's reports are legit and verified by experts across the world's steel & construction industry & university civil engineering departments, also supported by genuine civil engineering journals, as proven elsewhere on this board and whether you like that or not there was no controlled demolition of any WTC building on the 11th September 2001. WTC's 4, 5 & 6 were later pulled down with cables.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 4, 2013 8:07:49 GMT -5
"I want to help you to evolve your understanding that so that you can regain some grip on your credibility which is being destroyed by the pack of lies ae911'truth' and other 'truth'er frauds have fed you."That's a joke right? "NIST's reports are legit and verified by experts"
Really? Experts have denounced it as contradictory and a fraud. There is no one on earth who can verify that NIST's column 79 theory is fact. It's not based on fact and evidence and contradicted by NIST's own claim that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds, among many other facts posted in other threads. The free fall claim WAS VERIFIED by experts and in fact, NIST had to modify its initial draft when it had no choice but to accept that FACT that they initially denied. Unfortunately for NIST, it contradicts their entire column 79 theory. See also FACT #45: Fact #45 NIST released a report about the collapse of building 7 that is in dispute.
Recently, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) published comments critiquing NIST’s report on building 7.
www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf
The September Eleventh Advocates released a statement that cleverly mocked their report.
911blogger.com/node/17945
There is an organization known as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that disputes this report.
NIST’s questionable report on building 7 caused people that were once on the fence regarding the collapse of those buildings on 9/11, to think that those advocating something different than NIST’s conclusions, responsibly, might be right.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 5, 2013 4:38:11 GMT -5
Those fake experts you refer to, have been exposed as incompetent unqualified liars bereft of the most basic understandings of the damage, the effect of fire and the physics of the collapses.
I've shown you many genuine expert civil engineers and structural fire engineers who support the findings of NIST's reports. I've shown you eyewitness firefighters who categorically state WTC7 had lost structural integrity, was leaning, was so seriously involved in fire that nothing could put it out, and that they expected it to collapse. I've shown you raw footage of WTC7's collapse during live interview which disproves controlled demolition.
NIST is right, AE911'truth' are liars.
In a TV interview for the BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary, Richard Gage said that smoke from WTC7 didn't come from WTC7 and claimed it came from WTC6, Steve Spak then provided his own footage showing the smoke coming out of WTC7. Richard Gage is a liar.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 5, 2013 8:13:54 GMT -5
I'm really not interested in any lamestream "conspiracy" propaganda designed to silence anyone who questions 9/11 or your personal opinion of AE911Truth, Gage, Jones, Harritt and virtually everyone who has denounced the official narrative as a blatant fraud. It is what it is, an OBVIOUS fraud designed to COVER-UP the 9/11 crime. The FACTS and EVIDENCE that it is a fraud is overwhelming (see the 50 FACTS that are listed in this thread and all the FACTS in all the other threads). Thanks to real experts and those who have done extensive research, government and the complicit media, including the BBC have been exposed. As for the BBC, it couldn't be more OBVIOUS than the footage of a reporter announcing the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes BEFORE it actually collapsed. Any fool can figure out that fraud.
There are quite a number of fake "documentaries" (i.e. propaganda) designed to silence those who question the official narrative: BBC, National Geographic and the History Channel to name just 3. They all label their documentary using the term "conspiracy" yet not one of them admit that the government narrative is itself a conspiracy theory. They all present it as fact and truth when it has been publicly admitted to be a LIE and a FRAUD by those who took part in the LIE and FRAUD.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 5, 2013 9:01:32 GMT -5
You haven't even watched it, have you ? It's not propaganda it's evidence based factual documentary proof that the 9/11 'truth' movement's claims are false. Many eyewitnesses including Barry Jennings are interviewed along with firefighters, fire chief Daniel Nigro, Richard Rotanz who had to go into the heavily damaged and burning WTC7 to investigate it's condition. Richard Gage is interviewed for that programme and is clearly caught out lying.
And the matter of a BBC erroneously reporting WTC7's collapse is addressed in that programme if you weren't so prejudiced you'd watch and learn.
A mountain of evidence destroys the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. Open your eyes and ears and stop being prejudiced.
You claim to be interested in both sides of the argument but are you ? Or are you a prejudiced blinkered mouthpiece for ae9/11'truth'?
I'm sure you have the intelligence to watch the video and see that what I'm saying about Gage is true, he was caught out lying about the smoke on that programme, and Steve Spak's evidence destroyed his claims.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 5, 2013 10:45:36 GMT -5
"You haven't even watched it, have you ?"
Yep, I did and there's not much new I gathered from this propaganda piece. It was created before NIST published the Final Report on WTC7. There's nothing in it that changes the FACT that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds (as published in the Final Report) which is slam dunk evidence that WTC7 did NOT undergo a natural collapse.
I did note a couple of contradictions, exaggerations and other points though.
The term "inferno" was specifically used by the narrator. The videos clearly show perhaps a lot of smoke on one side of the building, and a few fires in parts of floors but nothing that can be characterized as an "inferno". The narrator also claims that there was only one dust sample taken from the Brooklyn Bridge when there actually were 4. It also claims that the iron spheroids found in the dust could have come from steel cutting torches but if that's true, how could that be found in dust on the Brooklyn Bridge? Richard Gage should not be engaged in speculatory opinions but he does say his opinion is just that. Barry Jennings was interviewed on 9/11 and made specific claims about stepping over dead bodies in the lobby of WTC7, then retracted it in a later interview. Anyway those are just a few observations.
The video changes nothing.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 6, 2013 3:37:36 GMT -5
And after 2.25 seconds WTC7 wasn't in freefall but was collapsing at a slower rate, crucial evidence that it was a natural collapse. The building had polarised reflective windows, which would also have been sooted up on the interior side of the glass. With the exception of window breakage it was not possible to see into the building and observe the fire from the north side. Where windows had broken, the fire bursting out of them was extremely bright and the flames intense. Intense fire on multiple floors: Serious fire moving from window to window. Now to the south face, there's no smoke without fire and there's such a large thick heavy smoke plume from WTC7's south face that the fire must have been immense. Look at the speed at which the smoke is moving: The energy required to propel that smoke so far sideways at that speed, that takes a lot of fire.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 6, 2013 7:42:49 GMT -5
"after 2.25 seconds WTC7 wasn't in freefall but was collapsing at a slower rate, crucial evidence that it was a natural collapse."
The FREE FALL is crucial EVIDENCE that is wasn't a natural collapse, you're deliberately obfuscating, it's more than OBVIOUS. A 47 story building collapsing on itself is going to meet resistance at some point whether it's collapsing naturally or not. The pictures you posted show exactly what I said, the only fire seen was restricted to a portion of one floor in both photos. There were fires on other floors but there's not one single picture of anything that can be characterized as an "inferno".
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 6, 2013 8:08:56 GMT -5
Crucially there was no audible or visual sequence of explosives going off (point proven by footage of the Crowley interview with WTC7's audible collapse in the background), and the brief moment of freefall you refer to was arrested and slowed by resistance from the structure and the rest of the collapse was not freefall. So not a fully freefall collapse as you seem to imply but a natural collapse due to structural failure following structural damage and seven hours of fire. It was not a controlled demolition, there is no evidence of it being so, there is evidence of extreme fire in the building and no controlled demolitions explosives have ever been used to bring down a burning building in a controlled manner. Those photos and here's more: Video evidence that multiple floor fires were burning hot enough to break windows show window failures and extensive fires breaking windows along the side of the building and on multiple floors visible on the north side. There was fire behind unbroken windows also, but because of the polarised glass it was impossible to see into the building through polarised shiny mirror like windows. Firefighter eyewitness predicted it's collapse before it fell: The 16 second + collapse time of WTC7 (from initial penthouse collapse to it being a debris pile) is further evidence of natural collapse.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 6, 2013 10:34:23 GMT -5
"not a fully freefall collapse as you seem to imply"
I never implied any such thing. First you denied the free fall, then you claimed the free fall happened at the end of the collapse (which is nonsense) so it doesn't count, then you claimed free fall wasn't free fall because the collapse took 16 seconds (a number you made up that no one agrees with, not even NIST). That of course makes no sense, free fall is still free fall even if the collapse took an hour. Now you seem to agree there was a free fall that happened before the rest of the collapse but you're pretending that it's insignificant and everything else points to a natural collapse. Your opinions change with the wind. Your fakery is well noted. And there's still not one single photo or video that shows an inferno engulfing a good portion of WTC7 no matter how many photos you come up with that show a couple of isolated fires. That just doesn't exist.
There is no amount of dancing or hot air that you can spew that changes these FACTS and they are IRREFUTABLE.
1. The free fall took place for the first 100 feet (or 8 stories) of the collapse and lasted 2.25 seconds.
2. A free fall means that there can be no resistance that impedes the falling object.
3. WTC7 contained 81 steel columns and in order for any free fall to occur, ALL 81 columns had to removed at the exact same time.
4. Fire cannot remove 81 columns at the exact same time.
This is NOT rocket science, it's quite basic and it is completely in line with Newtonian physics.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 6, 2013 10:55:05 GMT -5
1) Roofline collapse went as follows: 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 2) Stage 3 proves resistance. Stage 3 impeded the falling object, this wouldn't have happened had it been a controlled demolition. 3) 81 columns failed progressively beginning with the failure of the columns supporting the east penthouse. The east penthouse then fell into the building doing massive internal damage, all the load was transferred to the remaining columns on the exterior, which became overloaded, supporting the full weight of the roofline taking the strain from interior columns which had already failed, the exterior columns failed and the roof fell. 4) Fire only needed to weaken the already damaged interior for the whole building to be comprimised. www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 6, 2013 11:14:31 GMT -5
This comes from your own post:
A. "Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"
B. "81 columns failed progressively"
A & B contradict each other. A can't happen if B happened and B can't happen if A happened (see points 2 through 4), it's an impossible contradiction. Like I said, it's not rocket science, another FAIL on your part.
The rest is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the above logic.
You need to take some dancing lessons, you keep tripping over your own 2 feet.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 6, 2013 13:52:15 GMT -5
A) You forget, after 2.25 seconds, the rate at which the building was falling at was a slower velocity than freefall, because there was resistance.
B) It works like this, if there are 81 columns designed to support double the weight of the building and the strength of the columns is halved, there are 81 columns that can only support the weight of the building, after that when any one of those columns loses any more strength, these 81 columns are overloaded. After that the first column to fail leaves 80 even more overloaded columns supporting the full weight of the building that is supposed to be spread across 81 columns and the most heavily overloaded column remaining will fail next and when it does, the 79 columns remaining are even more overloaded and even more likely to fail and so they will give way.
C) The building was observed bulging across three floors and leaning, meaning columns were overloaded and large gradual deformations & structural failures were taking place over the seven hours it was burning for before collapse.
D) WTC7 fell beyond it's own footprint damaging Fiterman hall and the Verizon building.
E)
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 6, 2013 14:24:36 GMT -5
More from Peter Hayden on the events of 9/11 and WTC7:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 6, 2013 14:27:59 GMT -5
"You forget, after 2.25 seconds, the rate at which the building was falling at was a slower velocity than freefall, because there was resistance."
Like I already said multiple times, I didn't forget anything. If you go back to every one of my posts that addresses it, I agree that there was resistance AFTER the free fall. You don't need to lie and say I forgot in order to obfuscate. In fact, the collapse after the free fall was still ACCELERATING, perhaps at slower than free fall acceleration but yet accelerating through the point of GREATEST RESISTANCE. In other words, there was MINIMAL RESISTANCE despite that there was 39 stories left for the building to drop. That 39 stories should have provided an enormous amount of resistance that should have slowed or even stopped the collapse, never mind increased the velocity of the collapse.
Your point has NOTHING to do with the FACT that it was in free fall for 2.25 seconds. That's the issue YOU want to forget. You're constantly trying to skip the free fall issue because it obviously contradicts the false official narrative that it was a natural collapse due to fire. As much as you try, you can't refute the 4 points I posted. It's impossible for you to do so because it's elementary physics. So you play this idiotic game about what may or may not have happened AFTER the free fall. But even if you want to skip the free fall event, the rest of the collapse makes ZERO sense in a natural collapse. That leaves only one other possibility, that it wasn't a natural collapse due to fire.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 6, 2013 14:29:08 GMT -5
"More from Peter Hayden on the events of 9/11 and WTC7:"
Peter Hayden can't change the FREE FALL FACT, no one can.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 6, 2013 15:33:18 GMT -5
Partial freefall from an otherwise not freefall collapse after serious structural damage and seven hours of unfought fire is not evidence of controlled demolition.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 6, 2013 16:05:15 GMT -5
Partial freefall from an otherwise not freefall collapse after serious structural damage and seven hours of unfought fire is not evidence of controlled demolition. There's no such thing as a "partial free fall". FREE FALL is free fall no matter how short or how long it lasted. It is clear EVIDENCE of an unnatural collapse whether it took 1 second or an hour. You still didn't and can't refute the 4 points I posted with either evidence or logic. Just more dancing and tripping over your own 2 feet on your part. Once again a complete FAIL.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 6, 2013 19:55:07 GMT -5
The collapse took far longer than the 2.25 seconds part. Ergo only part of the collapse was freefall, ergo partial freefall from an otherwise not freefall collapse after serious structural damage and seven hours of unfought fire isn't evidence of controlled demolition especially when one considers that no sequence of explosives are observed aurally or visually in the raw footage of the collapse and that it fell beyond it's own footprint causing damage to the Verizon building and to Fiterman Hall.
Goodnight my friend.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 6, 2013 22:56:45 GMT -5
The collapse took far longer than the 2.25 seconds part. Ergo only part of the collapse was freefall, ergo partial freefall from an otherwise not freefall collapse after serious structural damage and seven hours of unfought fire isn't evidence of controlled demolition especially when one considers that no sequence of explosives are observed aurally or visually in the raw footage of the collapse and that it fell beyond it's own footprint causing damage to the Verizon building and to Fiterman Hall. Goodnight my friend. You're repeating your FAIL and it still doesn't contradict any of the 4 points I posted. Yet another FAIL. You can repeat yourself again and again, even rearrange the words as you like to do but nothing will change, those 4 points stand UNCHALLENGED and IRREFUTABLE because not only do you have no standing to challenge or refute the laws of physics but you couldn't do it even if you had proper standing. The only place the laws of physics don't apply is in a black hole. In fact, since the free fall is obviously problematic for you, you can't and haven't even refuted the point I made about the accelerated velocity of the collapse following the free fall. The same issue exists with the collapse of the twin towers. Both collapses ACCELERATED through the point of GREATEST RESISTANCE at near free fall acceleration.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 7, 2013 2:02:35 GMT -5
No you're repeating your failure to understand what happened to WTC7 and parroting the lies of ae911 so called 'truth'. You can repeat your lies as many times as you like but stage 3 of the roof line collapse was slower than freefall velocity due to resistance.
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've lost the argument and failed to provide any proof of controlled demolition (again).
Compare WTC7's collapse:
to this real controlled demolition:
and this real controlled demolition:
It's blindingly obvious that there was no sequence of explosives used to bring down 7.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 7, 2013 7:06:02 GMT -5
"you're repeating your failure to understand what happened to WTC7 and parroting the lies of ae911 so called 'truth'."
1. The free fall took place for the first 100 feet (or 8 stories) of the collapse and lasted 2.25 seconds.
2. A free fall means that there can be no resistance that impedes the falling object.
3. WTC7 contained 81 steel columns and in order for any free fall to occur, ALL 81 columns had to removed at the exact same time.
4. Fire cannot remove 81 columns at the exact same time.
Which one of the above is a lie and why? Which one of the above is it YOU don't understand?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 7, 2013 7:24:09 GMT -5
Perhaps you're having trouble understanding English in normal case, I'll try to make it easier for you to read.
1) AFTER 2.25 SECONDS THERE WAS RESISTANCE, THIS WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THE CASE IN AN EXPLOSIVE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
2) AS ALREADY EXPLAINED THE COLUMNS FAILED PROGRESSIVELY, INTERIOR COLUMNS FAILED FIRST AFTER WEAKENING BY FIRE, THE PENTHOUSE FELL INTO THE BUILDING DAMAGING FLOORS INSIDE AND THE OUTER COLUMNS WERE LEFT SUPPORTING THE ENTIRE ROOFLINE, THEY WERE OVERLOADED AND FAILED DUE TO LOAD, THE BUILDING FELL BEYOND IT'S FOOTPRINT DAMAGING FITERMAN HALL AND THE VERIZON BUILDING.
3) THERE'S NO TELL TALE BANG BANG BANG SEQUENCE OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSIVES AUDIBLE IN GENUINE RAW FOOTAGE OF THE COLLAPSE.
4) FIRE CAN WEAKEN COLUMNS TO THE POINT WHERE THEY CANNOT SUPPORT LOAD, WHEN ONE FAILS IT'S LOAD IS REDISTRIBUTED TO THE NEXT AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS THE NEXT COLUMN SUPPORTS THE LOAD IT WAS DESIGNED TO CARRY AS WELL AS THE LOAD THE FAILED COLUMN WAS DESIGNED TO CARRY, THUS INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD OF IT'S OWN FAILURE.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 7, 2013 7:51:44 GMT -5
1. The free fall for 2.25 seconds is 100% correct and irrefutable. All sides agree (including you) because it was recorded and measured. What happened after the free fall has NOTHING to do with the free fall.
2. What you believe happened with the columns ("progressive failure") has NOTHING to do with the FACT that a free fall means that there can be no resistance that impedes the falling object. That's elementary physics and it is incontrovertible.
3. "Bang, bang" or no "bang, bang" has NOTHING to do with the FACT that WTC7 contained 81 steel columns and in order for any free fall to occur, ALL 81 columns had to removed at the exact same time. That's also elementary physics and it is incontrovertible.
4. Fire "weakening columns" has NOTHING to do with the FACT that fires cannot remove all 81 steel columns at the same time. That's also elementary physics and it is incontrovertible.
So not one of the 4 points was even addressed, much less shown to be a lie. All you did was try to dance around each point by changing the subject. So either you didn't understand any of the 4 points or you deliberately tried to change each one. Based on your M.O., I'd be correct in saying it's the latter.
|
|