|
Post by shred on Aug 7, 2013 8:35:55 GMT -5
1) After 2.25 seconds of freefall there was resistance whilst the building was still collapsing and that is irrefutible proof that it was only a partial freefall collapse rather than a global freefall collapse that would have been unimpeded all the way from top to bottom had it been a controlled demolition.
2) See point one regarding resistance.
3) After the penthouse collapse less than 81 steel columns were supporting the load, the remainder were overloaded and weren't strong enough to continue holding the building up.
4) Fire weakening and deforming of columns and floor beams has everything to do with their ability to support and evenly distribute weight. The weight of the building became too much for the mechanically damaged fire weakened structure.
As deputy fire chief Peter Hayden said, there was a bulge between floors 10 & 13.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 7, 2013 9:31:57 GMT -5
It's just another iteration that doesn't address any of the 4 points. Yet another FAIL. You say the same thing but change the words. Let me know when and IF you ever want to address any of the 4 points. Never mind, that's silly, you never will. It's just your typical fakery.
In fact, you cite NIST's column 79 failure theory which contradicts the free fall FACT and their admission. The failure of a single column CANNOT result in a free fall, ALL 81 columns must be removed at the same exact time for free fall to occur (see Point 3, I'm sure you did).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 7, 2013 9:52:42 GMT -5
Your posts focus on one small part of an otherwise less than freefall collapse as if to suggest the building was destroyed by controlled demolition. You need more evidence than 2.25 seconds of freefall, like detcord remnants & blasting caps... Such things cannot be hidden in the debris of a controlled demolition but there wasn't any. Also the use of explosives to bring down a building so big would have created a pressure blast that would have broken the windows of nearby buildings.
All the evidence points to structural damage and fire as being the cause of WTC7's collapse. Nobody was in it anyway (it had been evacuated) so why risk fire fighters lives on a futile attempt to save an empty building without water ?
Why won't you face facts instead of impotently parroting the ae911liars (Richard Gage and co) propaganda?
It was damaged, it was on fire, firefighters expected it to collapse and described how it was deformed, leaning, bulging between floors 10 & 13. This was a structurally damaged unsound building in it's death throes and doomed to naturally fall, the penthouse fell first and NIST's reports explain perfectly well how it could not have survived the damage and fire it had received. The firefighters were right to evacuate the area around it, it would have been madness to try and fight the fire without water.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 7, 2013 11:15:43 GMT -5
"Why won't you face facts"
It's you who refuses to address the FACTS.
You claim that I'm lying and parroting propaganda. Ok, let's see if that's true.
Let's break this down into the simplest terms since you want to try to complicate what should be really simple. I'm sure this is going to be a waste of time but I'll give it one last try. Note, To simplify the issue even further, I'm going to take what happened on 9/11 out of all the following except for #1. I'm also going to take WTC7 out where I can. With it, I take AE911 and Richard Gage out of the discussion entirely since you believe these are evil boogeymen. Here are the FACTS as I posted with minor changes which don't change any of the FACTS:
FACT #1. The free fall took place for the first 100 feet (or 8 stories) of the collapse and lasted 2.25 seconds.
You agreed with this so do you now disagree and is the above a lie? YES or NO?
FACT #2. A free fall means that there can be no resistance that impedes the falling object.
The above has nothing to do with 9/11 or WTC7. Is the above a lie (in your opinion)? YES or NO?
FACT #3A. WTC7 contained 81 steel columns.
The above has nothing to with 9/11. Is the above a lie (in your opinion)? YES or NO? FACT #3B. In order for any free fall to occur in any collapsing building that contains 81 steel columns, ALL 81 columns have to removed at the exact same time.
The above has nothing to do with 9/11 or WTC7. Is the above a lie (in your opinion)? YES or NO?
FACT #4. A building fire cannot remove 81 steel columns at the exact same time.
The above has nothing to do with 9/11 or WTC7. Is the above a lie (in your opinion)? YES or NO?
You have exactly 2 choices for your answer to each question, YES or NO. There are no other possible answers and changing the subject is NOT an answer. If you answer YES, then please by all means, elaborate. If you can't answer YES to any of them, then I haven't posted any lies or any propaganda. It's really that simple. If you refuse to answer yes or no, and instead go into other unrelated issues (as is your M.O.) then the assumption is that all answers must be NO since you're avoiding every question because you can't or refuse (deny) to answer YES.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 7, 2013 12:57:39 GMT -5
Fact 1) You're only telling part of the story, because you ignore the resistance it encountered after 2.25 seconds that would not have been encountered in an explosive controlled demolition.
Fact 2) Freefall means falling without resistance, but after the brief 2.25 seconds bit you refer to there was resistance.
Fact 3) Before WTC7 was damaged it had 81 columns bearing the load of the building. When debris from WTC1 hit it, it was structurally damaged tore a chunk out of the building's south face, floor girders sagged and and expanded, columns were weakened and buckled.
Fact 4) When a load bearing column fails, the other columns around it have to support it's load as well as the load they were designed to carry. Ultimately after the Penthouse collapse, most if not all interior columns had failed leaving only the exterior bearing the load. The downward gravitational load was greater than the load bearing strength of the remainder of the columns still standing, so there was a structural failure and the load collapsed. Footage of the collapse shows a downward kink in the roof line.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 7, 2013 14:02:04 GMT -5
Once again, you failed to answer ANY of the 4 questions with a simple yes or no. Once again, you tried to change the subject with each point and pretended it's an answer. Other than #1, I took 9/11 and in most cases, WTC7 out of it and you only tried to insert both irrelevant to any of the points. I'm not going to question you any more on these FACTS because they are FACTS that are IRREFUTABLE no matter how many times you try to change the subject. Other than #1 (the free fall of WTC7 that you agreed with) the other 3 points are pure physics and quite elementary.
Not one of those FACTS is a lie or propaganda. You only prove yourself to be fake over and over again. The 4 FACTS I posted are in addition to the 50 FACTS that started this thread. And certainly they are far from the only FACTS about 9/11, the science and the logic behind it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 8, 2013 9:48:24 GMT -5
Once again you ignore the fact that there was resistance. Once again you ignore the structural damage and fire caused to WTC7 when the twin towers collapsed, and the damage to the water mains which prevented firefighting operations. Once again you ignore the firefighter's comments that the building had lost structural integrity was bulging and deforming and moving towards a collapse. Once again you ignore the fact that the conditions inside the building rendered it impossible to blow up with demolition charges. Once again you ignore the fact that 19 muslims hijacked four planes and deliberately crashed them. Once again you ignore the damage the twin towers received due to the physical impact of the hijacked planes (well beyond design tolerances) and the widespread fires caused by their fuel. Once again you ignore the fact that the twin towers collapses initiated at floors in which the aircraft had crashed. Once again you ignore the fact that this happened in broad daylight and on camera. Once again you ignore the lack of detcord fragments or blasting cap fragments. Once again you ignore the fact that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Once again you ignore the fact that there was a shoot down order given after WTC2 was hit. Once again you ignore the fact that the US National Air Guard had only 14 fueled jet fighters to cover the whole of the USA because of the post cold war cuts of the 1990's made by Bill Clinton and that NORAD and the FAA did not have commonality of radar systems.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 8, 2013 10:25:10 GMT -5
Everything you mentioned is a complete lie. There is not one point you posted that I've "ignored" that you believe is "fact" or opinion. You're the one who ignores the 4 FACTS I posted and claims they're lies and propaganda, when in FACT, you agreed with the first FACT and can't show how the other 3 physics FACTS are lies or propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 9, 2013 4:12:30 GMT -5
No everything I've mentioned is a FACT. Everything you post about 9/11 is either a misrepresentation of the truth or an untruth. Examples of misrepresentation: You misrepresented the brief moment of freefall from WTC7's roofline collapse as if to suggest that WTC7 collapsed without resistance, and you claimed the pentagon exit hole was an entry hole.
Examples, the hoax video of WTC7 you posted, your lies about thermites, your lies about a stand down order.
The truth is inconvenient for the fake 'truth' movement whose false claims you parrot, because the facts disprove controlled demolition show that a hijacked 757 hit the Pentagon and prove that it was an outside job. The facts are indisputable. 19 Muslims attacked your country and murdered nearly 3000 people in a coordinated Kamikaze attack. Accept it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 9, 2013 6:21:24 GMT -5
4 more irrefutable FACTS:
FACT #5: A falling object cannot accelerate through resistance greater than the weight of the falling object.
The north tower accelerated through the lower section at a uniform 64% free fall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section. Newton's third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of its weight, which means it exerted much less force than when supported at rest.
Also the top section, after collapsing the distance of 1 story, did not slow at all upon encountering the intact lower section. This is impossible as a falling mass cannot crush MORE resistance and maintain the same speed, it has to slow down. However, the mass continued to accelerate uniformly.
All indications of an unnatural collapse.
FACT #6: Newton's third law states that colliding objects exert equal force on each other, which means that for every floor destroyed in the lower section, a floor must be destroyed in the falling section, therefore after 15 floors there is no "pile driver" left, it would slow down before then anyway, as the mass of the falling object is reduced and energy is absorbed through disintegration and the superior upward resistance.
That it didn't slow down and instead accelerated is a clear indication of an unnatural collapse.
FACT #7: The top section of the south tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics indicates that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum. The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. Discontinuation of toppling proves the removal of resistance, disproving a gravity induced collapse. An off center leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.
Yet more clear EVIDENCE of an unnatural collapse.
FACT #8: All 3 towers collapsed symmetrically at an accelerating velocity through the path of GREATEST RESISTANCE. All 3 towers were massive structures where the majority of all 3 towers were unaffected by fire, airplanes (not at all for WTC7) and/or structural damage. Yet the unaffected majority portions of all 3 towers provided little or no resistance (as in the case of WTC7).
There's no way to get around Newton's laws of physics. Physics did not change on 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 9, 2013 6:59:06 GMT -5
Stop lying and misrepresenting what happened bob. Fact 5) There was resistance in all collapses. For example WTC2 reached a peak speed of 125mph, freefall speed would have been 186mph. Fact 6) This is explained in Bazant paper and NIST reports (which you've never read). www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdfFact 7) explained in Bazant paper. READ IT AND STOP ACTING LIKE AN IDIOTFact 8) You debunked this claim yourself by admitting WTC2's upper block tilt when the impact floors failed, WTC2 did not collapse symmetrically it collapsed asymmetrically as columns on one face failed before they failed at the other side due to increased load, WTC7 collapsed backwards and hit Fiterman Hall and the Verizon building. You're going to have to come to terms with what happened almost 12 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 9, 2013 8:52:02 GMT -5
There are now 58 IRREFUTABLE FACTS posted in this thread that contradict the official narrative. As the title of the thread says the FACTS Speak for Themselves. There are hundreds (if not thousands) more FACTS but most of these stand out.
As to the last 8 FACTS, most are elementary physics FACTS, all supported by many videos.
The SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSES (or more precisely DISINTEGRATIONS for WTC1 and WTC2) are indisputable as the videos VERIFY. The massive structures, the vast majority of which were not affected by anything, provided LITTLE or NO RESISTANCE to slow the ACCELERATING collapses. In the case of WTC1 and WTC2, following the separating upper floor section, the buildings disintegrated top down symmetrically, unimpeded and at an accelerating velocity. The FACT that both structures were built such that the lower portions were more massive than the upper portions had no effect on the increasing velocity of the collapses. In the case of the South Tower collapse, the top portion separated from the rest of the building at a 22 degree angle, rotated, then disintegrated as the rest of the building collapsed uniformly (symmetrically). In the case of WTC7, the entire building collapsed in one piece beginning with the roof line down, initially at free fall velocity, then at near free fall velocity. It did not collapse partially, in pieces or hesitantly.
None of the above is possible in a natural collapse due to fire, airplanes, structural damage, any combination or all 3.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 9, 2013 9:37:15 GMT -5
LOL can't you ever stop LYING ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 9, 2013 10:48:29 GMT -5
LOL can't you ever stop LYING ? FACTS are not lies. I don't need to lie, I have NO agenda other than educating as many people as possible about the 9/11 FACTS. See aibafs.freeforums.net/thread/7678/rethink911-global-campaign-official-video to understand why, not that you're interested. Like I posted, the facts speak for themselves. Physics is NOT a lie despite your silly games. I don't need to debate you on elementary physics. You claim to have taken engineering courses. If true, I'm sure among the subjects you studied are the laws of physics. I know this because I majored in mathematics at the university and minored in engineering. It was a very long time ago but the laws of physics haven't changed since Newton and even since the beginning of time, except perhaps during the first moments of the Big Bang and in a black hole. You'll have to check with Stephen Hawking on those exceptions. In fact, since he's in your driving range, why don't you ask him about that and what I posted and see if he agrees that I lied about all the physics FACTS. You didn't want to answer if 3 basic physics facts I posted were lies or propaganda as you claimed but you constantly call me a liar when these physics facts are in any physics school book, even in the UK (again, feel free to check with Hawking). The laws of physics apply in every country, even yours. Your childish games are more than obvious.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 10, 2013 10:14:11 GMT -5
Then why do you lie and post half truths and misrepresent facts out of context ? You fail to understand that when columns are bent they have half the cross sectional load bearing area of a straight column, furthermore the convex side is in tension and likely to tear the convex side is under increased compression because cross sectionally it is bearing double the load because the supporting area is halved. You fail to understand that fire weakens load bearing columns, and that when a load bearing column is weakened the load acting on it can cause it to fail. You fail to understand that when one column fails the others have to support the load that a failed column could not support, and they too will fail progressively. In stills this bending effect can be seen thus: By this point it has failed on one side, but not the other faces, but the load increases on those, and columns break all around: Why the upper block did not fall off is explained here: www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdfOr if that's too complicated for you, it was too heavy to topple off over the side and the floors below did not offer enough resistance as they themselves were breaking and the floors themselves pancaking as the outer columns gave way and the core connections to the floor trusses were stripped. The weakest point these buildings were the bolts that held everything together, the effect of pancaking floors stripped those bolts. The maximum recorded temperatures (NYPD helicopters have infrared cameras) were over 1000C. At 1000 degrees C steel has less than 10% of it's residual load bearing strength. You have no idea of what you're talking about Bob as you've been mislead by fake experts peddling controlled demolition conspiracy theories. But the twin towers collapsed top down with failure initiating exactly at the floors the planes had struck and in which fire had been raging, no demolition charge could survive such conditions. When the JL Hudson building was destroyed by CDI in 1998 it took them 24 days to rig the building with unlimited access to the building, to strip out walls, pre cut columns with oxyacetylene to mount charges The logistics of rigging the twin towers unnoticed is an impossibility, and Mark Loizeaux of CDI inc says that the columns at the base of the twin towers were too large for conventional sized charges, and that if bespoke charges were made they'd be so large it would require forlkifts to carry them into the building. Another thing, if as Rodriguez claims, there was a blast at the base of the building why is it that the columns left standing were at the base of the building and that the buildings collapsed top down? A controlled demolition wouldn't have left 16 survivors from the North Tower's Stairwell B. A controlled demolition wouldn't have damaged other buildings and the towers would have fallen neatly into their own footprints instead. It wasn't a controlled demolition, it wasn't an inside job and you need to learn not to trust conspiracy theory websites about 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 10, 2013 12:53:39 GMT -5
Of course this is going to be yet another waste of time but I'll respond anyway.
"why do you lie and post half truths and misrepresent facts out of context ?"
I challenged you to answer how I lied about physics FACTS and you refused to answer yet continue to claim I lied without ever posting any supporting evidence. The laws of physics are not "half truths and misrepresent[ed] facts out of context", they are FACTS and they are indisputable.
"You fail to understand that when columns are bent they have half the cross sectional load bearing area of a straight column"
When columns "bend", buildings can't collapse at free fall, near free fall and/or symmetrically. This is supported by all the simple laws of physics. This is exactly what I challenged you on and you FAILED. I know you understand the issue quite well but you want to create a pretense with other distracting nonsense that clearly defies the laws of physics.
As to floors "pancaking", that was the original FEMA theory that was contradicted by NIST itself because the video evidence did not support the pancaking theory. To this day, Popular Mechanics, others and you continue to promote the pancaking theory. There is NO evidence that any of the 3 towers exhibited a pancaking collapse. Indeed if any did, the collapses would have taken much longer than they actually did, certainly not less than 2 or 3 seconds short of free fall or less than 1 second for WTC7.
As to the Bazant nonsense which seems to be your 9/11 bible that you keep trotting out, it was proven to be a complete fake by several other experts. I posted several papers on that subject so this is really old.
As to CDI, they were hired and paid by government to destroy all the WTC EVIDENCE under pretense of a "clean up". So anything they have to say on the subject might as well have been said by government, the same entity that provided us with the FEMA fraud, the 9/11 Commission fraud and the NIST fraud.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 10, 2013 13:14:23 GMT -5
You lied and said the collapses were symmetrical, you lied and said the upper block should have disintegrated after just a few floors of falling, you ignore the fact that bending columns (designed to be straight) are one step away from breaking because of metal fatigue. Sufficient weight pushing downwards on a bowed column causes a fatigue tear in the convex side of the column thus bowed columns shear and load falls. 18 minutes after impact columns on WTC2's east face had bowed inwardly by 10 inches WTC1's south face was bowed inwardly by some 55 inches six minutes before it's collapse. Physics lesson for you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 10, 2013 14:00:09 GMT -5
"You lied and said the collapses were symmetrical"
Any fool can see on all the videos that all 3 collapses were symmetrical, all it takes is a pair of eyes. You want to claim I lied about that when it's obvious to anyone who can see?
"you lied and said the upper block should have disintegrated after just a few floors of falling"
I didn't say it should, I said it DID. That's also obvious to anyone who can see. After falling just a few feet, the entire block simply disappears (turns to dust in mid-air). You want to make yet another claim that I lied about what anyone can see on video? Instead of constantly posting unrelated pictures, post just one that shows the upper block intact after falling a few feet.
Your posts get more ridiculous all the time. All you're managing to do with your nonsense is show what a complete fake you are.
"Physics lesson for you"
I don't need any physics lessons. I posted physics FACTS for YOU that you haven't been able to show are lies despite making that claim, remember?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 11, 2013 3:05:03 GMT -5
Raw footage of WTC2 collapse. Upper block tilts asymmetrically and falls a lot more than a few feet, by which time all the floors inside are pancaking and progressive collapse cannot be arrested. The dust is from Gypsum wall boards, glass windows, and concrete floors.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 11, 2013 10:38:48 GMT -5
So you can't show the upper block intact after falling a few feet, instead you post a video that shows very little detail. Why don't you show the videos below? I'm sure you know they exist. They show the 2 towers disintegrating symmetrically after the top section separates and WTC7 dropping in one piece which can't be anything other than symmetrically. Not one of these towers collapses in large pieces (indicating pancaking floors) after the top piece separates in the case of the twin towers or hesitates, indicating any type of obstruction. They all go down at an accelerating velocity through the path of greatest resistance.
North Tower (explained in detail by David Chandler):
South Tower (explained in detail by David Chandler):
WTC7 (explained in detail by David Chandler):
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 16, 2013 10:15:30 GMT -5
BOB, READ THE BAZANT PAPER, ALL IS EXPLAINED IN THE BAZANT PAPER. www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdfIt's only six pages. it's time you were bothered to read it and learnt something. Forget what lying bulls**t troofer sites tell you to think about it and use your own brain. Bazant's paper is bad for their business, but it's great for people who are genuinely interested in the truth. It's got a lot of maths in it and I cannot post math symbols into a quote box. The south tower footage you posted omits sound (I wonder why?) and if the sound had been included it would have been clear that the sound was that of floors hitting floors not demolition charges going off and bringing down the building (which was 90% air, and the pancaking floors inside were compressing that air). Re the WTC7 video you posted, it doesn't feature the penthouse collapse, it doesn't feature any sound of the collapse, and the view of building 7 collapsing is obscured by the roofline of another video and the author of the video assumes that once it's gone out of view that's it it's down. It was not down it was still collapsing. That video is worthless. The collapse occurred on live tv. It wasn't a controlled demolition and no matter how many 9/11'truth' videos you post where some berk tells you it looked like a controlled demolition, it wasn't (as raw footage proves). OK ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 16, 2013 12:44:25 GMT -5
You don't need to keep telling me to read what I've already read. That and at least 3 other papers that contradict Bazant. But you can just keep pushing the rag that Bazant put together a couple of weeks after 9/11 as if it's the definitive bible on 9/11, I don't care.
The videos I posted are extremely detailed, in multiple video loops and in slow motion. David Chandler explains everything down to the most minute detail and uses software to show the FREE FALL of WTC7. This is the same person who forced Shyam Sunder to ADMIT that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds, a critical FACT that NIST wanted to hide but could not once they were exposed. So that fact that was missing from the initial report appears the FINAL NIST REPORT. The very same one you keep citing and agree with. This is all endorsed by thousands of experts. How could it not be?
In any case, I don't need to debate you about something that's so clearly obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and even more obvious to anyone who has ever studied and understood basic physics.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 18, 2013 2:37:39 GMT -5
You haven't read it Bob so stop lying. The fraudulent videos you've posted are worthless propaganda pieces full of fake and misrepresented details.
And the 2.25 seconds you refer to out of WTC7's 16+ second collapse are irrelevant. Stage 3 of the roof line collapse proves that it was falling slower than free fall after those 2.25 seconds, so you do not understand the subject you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 18, 2013 10:05:49 GMT -5
The FACTS speak for themselves, there's nothing you can say that changes any of the FACTS.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 19, 2013 2:02:00 GMT -5
The facts are kamikaze hijackings, structural damage and weakening by fire and none of your fraudulent misrepresentations & lies can change that.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 19, 2013 8:15:23 GMT -5
"the 2.25 seconds you refer to out of WTC7's 16+ second collapse are irrelevant."
No one says the collapse of WTC7 took more than 7 seconds but you. But out of curiosity, even if it took 30 seconds, why is the free fall of the first 100 feet (8 stories) "irrelevant" other than you want to pretend it is?
|
|