|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 5:45:38 GMT -5
For 12 years idiots have continued to deny that a 167.3 tonne Boeing 767 ( N334AA - Flight 11) travelling at between 429mph (MIT study) and 494mph (FAA investigation) could have anything to do with the collapse of the building it struck at a slight left wing down attitude between floors 93 and 98 of WTC1. Despite the massive damage this plane did to the outer structure and to the core and severing every stairwell, and the widespread office fires started by the burning fuel from it's tanks, idiots continue to go to extremely elaborate lengths to lie and deny that the plane had anything to do with the collapse of WTC1, or that a Boeing 767 ( N612UA - flight 175 ) crashing into WTC2 at between 537mph (MIT study) and 586mph (FAA study) between floors 78 and 84 at a sharp left wing down attitude, had anything to do with the collapse of WTC2 despite both collapses beginning at the exact floors that were hit, and the effect of load being greater upon the damaged structure of WTC2 (which was hit second but fell first). AE9/11'truth' have gone to extremely fraudulent lengths inventing fake evidence and doctoring videos to portray a false reality. A favourite con trick of theirs is to speak of WTC7 and to show it's north side (which faced away from the other WTC buildings) as if it was evidence that WTC7 was undamaged. Pictures of WTC7's south face tell a different story. Not one genuine video of the collapse of any wtc building features sounds characteristic of a controlled demolition.
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on Aug 22, 2013 6:56:42 GMT -5
shred: io9.com airforce collabotory
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 7:03:16 GMT -5
what ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 7:33:36 GMT -5
"For 12 years idiots have continued to deny ..."
So don't worry about it. 9/11 is not your problem, there's not a thing you disagree with in terms of the official narrative so why are you worried what others think? Anyone and everyone who questions anything about 9/11 is an idiot, has brain damage, is a conspiracy theorist, etc. etc. etc. Pick a name a day. It seems you're running out of names, you've gone back to "idiot" too many times.
Did you get the 9/11 Commission Report comic book version yet? You can probably find it in the toy store next to Superman, Batman and Archie. Keep it next to your bed along with the Bible and the Bazant paper. Just in case you need to read it during a restless night after a waking up in a sweat from a nightmare about all those nutjob conspiracy theorists.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 7:58:50 GMT -5
I don't give a damn about 'official' narrative. I give a damn about idiots wasting their lives because of liars like Gage who make out that it was a controlled demolition and nothing to do with the 5,544.416 mega joule impact of an airliner + fire upon a building only designed to withstand a 120.9 mega joule impact without widespread fire.
BBC's independent investigation into the fall of the World Trade Center from 2002: Survivors were interviewed. Chief Engineer Leslie E Robertson was interviewed and explains how design limits were exceeded:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 8:33:35 GMT -5
"I don't give a damn about 'official' narrative."
For someone who doesn't give a damn about the official narrative, you cite it all the time as well as defend it to the point of fanaticism and you said you agree with it 100% (even though many of your posts contradict that).
"I give a damn about idiots wasting their lives because of liars like Gage"
And why is that? Why is it that in other posts you said you care about that and that you're here to "educate" them? (not that I really care what you give a damn about, just curious why that's important to you).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 10:14:45 GMT -5
No Bob I cite the facts all the time. I don't give a s**t about your government. I deal in the facts, you deal in fiction. Just because the facts don't fit with your controlled demolition conspiracy theories you get uppity. All real experts agree, it wasn't an inside job, it wasn't a controlled demolition.
I have given you lessons, but you chose to remain ignorant and not learn the facts.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 10:22:14 GMT -5
Richard Gage exposed as a liar:
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 10:40:18 GMT -5
Have you nothing to say in the defence of liar Gage now he's been exposed on video Bob ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 10:41:04 GMT -5
"I cite the facts all the time."
Interspersed with lies, distortions, obfuscations, fabrications, the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST Report, anonymous "debunking" sites, irrelevant opinions, name-calling, character assassinations, etc.
"I have given you lessons"
Yep, you taught me what a fraud you are. It was really easy to figure out though, just about from your first post in this forum. I believe you did bring up some things I never knew, so thanks.
So again, why are you so fanatically obsessed with defending the official narrative? It's difficult to imagine that you're not getting paid for it.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 10:44:16 GMT -5
Nope, you're the one who lies and misrepresents the facts Bob you forget, I exposed you early on when you posted that pic of the pentagon exit hole which you pretended was an entry hole, then there were the fake videos you posted, the fake thermite claims, your fake claims about rivers of molten steel.
You're a fraud lying to yourself and to others.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 10:53:26 GMT -5
So if I'm lying to myself, how does that affect you?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 22, 2013 11:00:35 GMT -5
More importantly, did you watch the video where Gage was caught lying on tv ? He's a fraud Bob. He's a con man who got caught out. He makes vast sums of cash from deceiving gullible ignorant people, reinvests some of that cash advertising for more money to get more gullible ignorant people to pay him so he can live the life of Riley. His organisation is a lie and will never achieve anything more than getting money from gullible idiots.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 22, 2013 11:24:16 GMT -5
"More importantly, did you watch the video where Gage was caught lying on tv ?"
In my opinion, Gage should not have been debating with Mark Roberts, who is nothing more than a tour guide and a self professed "debunker". There is nothing I heard from Gage that I caught as a lie. You always claim anything that comes from someone who doesn't agree with or questions the official narrative is a liar, a fraud and a host of other names. I don't need to defend Gage or anyone else, period.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 23, 2013 8:14:08 GMT -5
I'm not surprised you continue to defend that liar. Victims of conmen often defend the con artists who have fooled them. Here's some more pics of WTC7 Gage doesn't want you to see. WTC7 leaning as it fell: There was also an asymmetric roofline kink: This fits with what firefighters were saying before collapse: The south side seems to have fallen first, as debris from the North side was on top of the debris pile: The damaged Fiterman Hall building can be seen at the top of the pic. The collapse of WTC7 crossed Barclay street in order to hit Fiterman hall so it had to be leaning some way over.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 23, 2013 8:58:21 GMT -5
"I'm not surprised you continue to defend that liar."
And here I thought you said I'm lying to myself.
If you were genuine as opposed to a fraud, you would know by my many posts that I'm not defending anyone. The vast majority of my posts have nothing to do with Gage and I would estimate that I have cited at least a couple of hundred experts besides Gage. Further, physics has nothing to do with anyone in particular (other than perhaps Sir Isaac Newton). And the EVIDENCE and physics is all one needs to know to understand that it is impossible that the collapse of the 3 towers were all natural.
"Here's some more pics of WTC7 Gage doesn't want you to see. WTC7 leaning as it fell:"
Whether Gage wants me to see them or not is irrelevant, I've already seen all of them and I'm sure so did Gage.
You're absolutely right, WTC7 "leaned" as it globally collapsed SYMMETRICALLY in one piece, at FREE FALL for 2.25 seconds (the first 100 feet) through the path of GREATEST RESISTANCE and virtually in its own footprint. If one looks at videos of many controlled demolitions, one would notice that many "lean" as they collapse, some even fall over if done incorrectly. The video of the collapse of WTC7 is fully consistent with the videos of many controlled demolitions. This is why Danny Jowenko, a controlled demolition expert immediately said WTC7 was a controlled demolition when he saw the video. He did not know it was WTC7 on 9/11 before he was asked what he thought about the video. He was shocked when he was told what it was.
"There was also an asymmetric roofline kink:"
Yes there was. Compare the "kink" to the one shown in the fraudulent cartoon NIST claimed represented the collapse of WTC7. Any fool can see it doesn't match up at all.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 23, 2013 12:18:22 GMT -5
Danny Jowenko hadn't seen the footage of the collapse with sound. If he had, he'd realise that whilst it looked a lot like a controlled demolition it was nothing of the sort. Furthermore he hadn't seen any pictures of the damage to it nor did he have any idea of the extent of the fires inside. I'm not surprised he said it looked like a controlled demolition.
But it wasn't a controlled demolition.
I'm not interested in your biased distortions and lies Bob. I'm interested in the truth. The building was severely damaged, by the accounts of firefighters who were there it was burning, leaning and bulging and had lost structural integrity. Firefighters were pulled out of the area around it for their own safety as it was expected to collapse naturally (and it did).
Two videos that prove it wasn't a controlled demolition:
Live footage of the collapse with sound:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 23, 2013 13:06:45 GMT -5
"Danny Jowenko hadn't seen the footage of the collapse with sound."
That's correct, so he immediately decided what he believed it was just based on the video, without a moment's hesitation. In other words, in his expert opinion, the video was enough for him to make an immediate determination and sound was irrelevant.
"If he had, he'd realise that whilst it looked a lot like a controlled demolition it was nothing of the sort."
You got into his head? Obviously that's completely false, otherwise he likely would have said he can't make such a determination without sound. You're making s**t up as you always do.
"I'm not interested in your biased distortions and lies Bob."
I suppose that video is also doctored and same with the NIST animation and all the photos and videos I posted? Good, then ignore me if you believe I post "biased distortions and lies", doctored videos and fake everything. Why bother with a fanatical negative response to each and every post I write about 9/11? If it's all lies and distortions, it should be obvious to all readers. No one needs you to do the thinking for them.
"I'm interested in the truth."
Sure faker, that's why you constantly use the term "truther" in denigrating fashion and attack anyone who doesn't accept or contradicts the official narrative.
And BTW, in your opinion, does the NIST animation match the videos? Does the actual "kink" in the roof line match the NIST animation? How about the walls caving in on either side as shown in the animation match the actual video? If it does to you then I suggest you either get a new pair of glasses or you're just lying because there is not one iota of resemblance to anyone with a healthy pair of eyes. If it doesn't, then you need to modify your claim that you agree with NIST 100%, don't you think? Also, any fool with an intelligence level above that of the simian species should be able to easily recognize the OBVIOUS FRAUD in the animation. This is about as elementary as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 24, 2013 6:25:43 GMT -5
He wasn't given the full picture. He was lied to and based his opinion on misrepresented details. He would not have said it was like a controlled demolition if he'd seen the collapse with sound or the position of the debris pile. Does he STILL believe it was a controlled demolition ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 24, 2013 7:49:49 GMT -5
"He wasn't given the full picture. He was lied to and based his opinion on misrepresented details."
What were the lies he was told? What was missing from the video he was looking at (besides sound)? What "details" were misrepresented?
"He would not have said it was like a controlled demolition if he'd seen the collapse with sound or the position of the debris pile."
And again, you know what's in his head?
"Does he STILL believe it was a controlled demolition ?"
He died in a car accident but he never changed his mind that I know of.
Question(s): And BTW, in your opinion, does the NIST animation match the videos? Does the actual "kink" in the roof line match the NIST animation? How about the walls caving in on either side as shown in the animation match the actual video? If it does to you then I suggest you either get a new pair of glasses or you're just lying because there is not one iota of resemblance to anyone with a healthy pair of eyes. If it doesn't, then you need to modify your claim that you agree with NIST 100%, don't you think? Also, any fool with an intelligence level above that of the simian species should be able to easily recognize the OBVIOUS FRAUD in the animation. This is about as elementary as it gets.
NO ANSWERS. Why is that? Are the questions too difficult for you?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 24, 2013 8:25:56 GMT -5
He was lead to believe that nothing hit WTC7. WTC1 hit WTC7, he wasn't told of it's serious fires inside, how spandrels were sticking out of it, how it was bulging and bowing, or how major fire was burning inside unfought for seven hours as the fire fighters had pulled out of the area for their own safety because the building had lost structural integrity. These are critical details the so called 'truth' movement go out of their way to omit.
I am saddened to hear that Danny Jowenko has died.
As for the NIST animation, never watched it. I don't need to, I've seen the collapse of the real thing enough times to know it wasn't a controlled demolition.
This is a controlled demolition:
This is a controlled demolition:
This is a controlled demolition:
And this is a controlled demolition:
But WTC7 was not a controlled demolition:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 24, 2013 8:36:48 GMT -5
"He was lead to believe ..."
Where in the video was he "led to believe" anything? Please point to the time where the guy showing him the video leads him to believe anything.
Still NO ANSWERS to any of my questions regarding the NIST animation. Why are you ducking? Have you decided to temper your fanaticism?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 24, 2013 8:49:10 GMT -5
Jowenko was intentionally kept in the dark about the damage WTC7 had received, wasn't shown the penthouse collapse, wasn't shown south side damage, wasn't shown footage of the collapse with sound. You showed a NIST animation of the interior. I've seen the exterior. I know what happened to the interior because I've seen the Penthouse collapse.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 24, 2013 9:41:47 GMT -5
"Jowenko was intentionally kept in the dark about the damage WTC7 had received, wasn't shown the penthouse collapse, wasn't shown south side damage, wasn't shown footage of the collapse with sound."
The guy was a controlled demolition expert. You keep saying he was lied to and misrepresented. But any mental midget with a pair of eyes and ears can clearly see and hear in the video that no one is saying anything to Jowenko that would prejudice what he's being shown. Jowenko immediately says it's a controlled demolition. He doesn't ask if there's any video with sound. So please show me any evidence anywhere that once he learned more about all this, he changed his mind about what he immediately concluded when shown the video of the collapse of WTC7, if you can.
Then your answer to my questions:
4 videos of controlled demolitions that have nothing to do with any of my questions and an excerpt from a National Geographic propaganda "documentary" that also has NOTHING to do with any of my questions. The "documentary" conveniently stops the NIST animation well BEFORE the end and BEFORE the major "kink" and the depiction of the walls caving in toward the center of WTC7 which do not at all resemble the actual video footage of the collapse. So there's not one thing you've posted that explains the major difference between the actual footage of the collapse of WTC7 and the full NIST animation sequence (as far as it goes, then abruptly stops). I asked you if the NIST animation MATCHES any of the videos of the collapse of WTC7. Do you understand the question or is it too complicated for you?
So the FACT is that you still have not answered my question.
Then you make this absurd claim that also has nothing to do with my question:
I know what happened to the interior because I've seen the Penthouse collapse."
So please explain how on earth you know what happened in the interior of the building from seeing the Penthouse collapse on the EXTERIOR. Were you inside WTC7 when it collapsed? Did you see columns expanding and pushing column 79 causing it to walk off its seat as NIST claims?
And you call others frauds, liars and fakes?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 25, 2013 7:02:39 GMT -5
The Penthouse fell into the building taking out the structure inside, the outer shell was all that was left, the south wall collapsed and dragged the rest of it down with the roofline. Debris pile photos show it against Fiterman Hall, debris pile photos show the north side on top of the pile indicating that the south face was at the bottom of the pile.
You frauds say "investigate 9/11" but never practice what you preach.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 25, 2013 8:24:25 GMT -5
The Penthouse fell into the building taking out the structure inside, the outer shell was all that was left, the south wall collapsed and dragged the rest of it down with the roofline. Debris pile photos show it against Fiterman Hall, debris pile photos show the north side on top of the pile indicating that the south face was at the bottom of the pile. That's exactly NIST's theory/fantasy. There's not one shred of evidence that it has any basis in reality and in fact, NIST's theory has been exposed as a made up impossibility.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 25, 2013 13:28:28 GMT -5
It's not a theory Bob, it's reality, as this picture shows, it fell backwards. The debris pile also demonstrates this, as Fiterman Hall wouldn't have been damaged if it had fallen straight down into it's own footprint.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 25, 2013 13:37:03 GMT -5
Shred's THEORY #1:
"The Penthouse fell into the building taking out the structure inside, the outer shell was all that was left, the south wall collapsed and dragged the rest of it down with the roofline."
Shred's THEORY #2:
"it fell backwards."
So which is it now?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 25, 2013 13:55:18 GMT -5
Bob's theory: Covert NWO teams infiltrate three of New York's busiest office buildings perform highly invasive preparation work for controlled demolitions in three buildings on a scale bigger than that of the JL Hudson, without anyone noticing that their offices have been torn open on nearly every floor or noticing strange men precutting load bearing perimeter & core columns with oxyacetylene torches, and installing plane crash proof explosive charges. LOL! .................................. Neither of my statements is either a theory or contradictory. I am stating facts. It fell south after the Penthouse collapse took out the interior. The south face was damaged from the impact of debris from WTC 1 and was weaker than the North Face. This picture shows it leaning south as it fell: Raw footage of it's collapse shows there were no explosives going off. It was not an inside job.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 25, 2013 14:13:35 GMT -5
"Bob's theory: Covert NWO teams infiltrate three of New York's busiest office buildings perform highly invasive preparation work for controlled demolitions in three buildings on a scale bigger than that of the JL Hudson, without anyone noticing that their offices have been torn open on nearly every floor or noticing strange men precutting load bearing perimeter & core columns with oxyacetylene torches, and installing plane crash proof explosive charges. LOL!"
I quoted you exactly. Both quotes are taken from your most recent posts and it's indisputable. So why don't you provide the link where you got the above from so you can show what an honest guy you are.
|
|