|
Post by shred on Aug 25, 2013 14:32:51 GMT -5
One need only look at the photos of it's from every available angle, the firefighters eyewitness statements about the damage it had received and the footage of it burning and it falling Bob.
It got damaged on it's south face. It was heavily involved in fire and smoke was belching from it. After seven hours of fire it gave up the ghost and collapsed without any explosives going off. There were no detcord remnants or blasting cap remnants in the debris pile. All these statements are statements of fact.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 25, 2013 15:49:26 GMT -5
So you can't come up with the link to your made up quote. Like I said, honesty is not one of your traits.
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on Aug 25, 2013 19:22:35 GMT -5
shredder like devinchi, painting the masterpiece, ....he does have some of the best photos i have to admit, his reality
Joule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The megajoule (MJ) is equal to one million (10 6) joules, or approximately the kinetic energy of a one-ton vehicle moving at 160 km/h (100 mph). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule Megajoule | Define Megajoule at Dictionary.com noun Physics. a unit of work or energy, equal to one million joules . Origin: mega- + joule Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random ... dictionary.reference.com/browse/megajoule
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 25, 2013 23:31:03 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."EyewitnessesThe following is a sampling of the eyewitness accounts of explosions just before and during Building 7’s collapse: Craig Bartmer, Former NYPD, and 9/11 First Responder:<i> “All of a sudden, the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, ‘Get away, get away, get away from it!’ And, I was like a deer in the headlights. And I looked up, and…Two guys that I knew were on the transit radio. I don’t know if those tapes are out there… And I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. You know the thing started peeling in on itself and, I mean there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at. Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the s**t’s hitting the ground behind me. And the whole time you’re hearing, ‘THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM!’ So, I, I think I know an explosion when I hear it, you know? So yeah, I wanna know what took that building down. I don’t think it was a fire and it certainly wasn’t a plane…It had some damage to it but nothing like what they’re saying…I am shocked at the[official] story we’ve heard about it, to be quite honest.” [Underlining emphasis added.] Kevin McPadden, Emergency Medical Technician, and 9/11 First Responder:<ii> “And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard “3-2-1”, and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life, just run for your life.’ And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind.” [Underlining emphasis added.] Peter DeMarco, Daily News:<iii> “There was a rumble. The building’s top row of windows popped out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out. Then the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray.” First Year NYU Medical Student interviewed on 1010 Wins Radio only a few minutes after the building’s collapse, identified only by his first name, Darryl:<iv> “We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. Turned around, we were shocked to see that the building was – well, it looked like there was a shock wave ripping through building, and the windows all busted out. It was horrifying. And then, about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that. And we saw the building collapse down all the way to the ground.” [Underlining emphasis added.] rememberbuilding7.org/eyewitnesses/
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 27, 2013 5:55:15 GMT -5
Oh really ? Then why aren't these explosions heard by Barbara Crowley as she's being interviewed live on camera? You'd have thought if charges were going off she's immediately have spun round in surprise before the building fell not after the building was already falling and other people's shouts alerted her.
You really must try harder.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 27, 2013 7:40:38 GMT -5
Oh really ? Then why aren't these explosions heard by Barbara Crowley as she's being interviewed live on camera? You'd have thought if charges were going off she's immediately have spun round in surprise before the building fell not after the building was already falling and other people's shouts alerted her. You really must try harder. Why do I need to "try harder"? Try harder what? What does Crowley have to do with those eyewitness accounts? She didn't hear explosions. Ask her why. Too far away, too much wax in her ears? You think a 47 story building collapses without a sound? She apparently didn't hear that either. I posted a 2 hour+ video of eyewitness accounts of explosions and you posted a video of your best bud's father saying he heard a huge explosion. You claimed Jowenko would have come to a different conclusion if he heard sound in the video. So you think if he heard the explosions (or at least knew about all those eyewitness accounts of explosions) he would have said it wasn't a controlled demolition?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 27, 2013 10:23:53 GMT -5
A sound which goes bang and is described by a layperson with the word explosion doesn't automatically mean explosives. When steel breaks naturally it goes with a bang, doesn't mean a bomb made the bang...
The Barbara Crowley interview video is an eyewitness account, it was filmed live, the cameras and microphones recording everything. When buildings are brought down by explosives the sounds can be heard for miles because of the extremely high velocity the charges detonate at. The explosive velocity of RDX is 8750 metres per second. Consider how far the sound travels.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 27, 2013 10:56:16 GMT -5
"A sound which goes bang and is described by a layperson with the word explosion doesn't automatically mean explosives."
Right, over 100 eyewitnesses heard EXPLOSIONS but they heard something else or they're all lying. You can peddle your ignorant crap all you want, it won't change any of the FACTS.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 27, 2013 11:14:04 GMT -5
100 people using the word explosion as a figure of speech means nothing, the building had been on fire for seven hours. No burning building has ever been destroyed by controlled demolition. Cars exploded that day. WTC7 had an electrical substation in it. Electrical items often go bang in fire.
There were no detcord remnants no blasting cap fragments in the debris, the debris damaged other buildings. No sounds of explosives can be heard in any legit video of it's collapse. Such sounds would travel for miles. There was no window breakage from explosives in surrounding buildings. The testimony of Firefighter Lt Frank Papalia describes it sounding like a jet engine, as the penthouses collapsed and the roof shook and then it falling.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 27, 2013 12:52:56 GMT -5
"100 people using the word explosion as a figure of speech means nothing"
That's right, it was over 100 people using the word "explosion" as a "figure of speech", so it "means nothing". And who do you think buys that horses**t? Never mind, there are at least a half dozen posters in this forum who do. Goes to show one can sell anything to a gullible fool and there are plenty where they come from. The thing is, I'm 100% sure you're not one of them. That's why it's all too obvious what you're trying to do. It has been practically from your first post on this subject. I still don't know what your real agenda is but I wouldn't be shocked to learn you're getting paid for it.
I have difficulty believing you're trying to convince me of anything because I'm sure you figured out by now, you haven't made one tiny dent and I'm sure you know you never will. So this is just for the benefit of some gullible fools who, no matter how much evidence and logic I post, are convinced that 9/11 is as they were fed (or at least they're too frightened to contemplate the alternative - sort of a "Stockholm Syndrome" mentality). And you're trying your darnedest to make sure there's always a ready excuse that sounds "legitimate" for everything I post that contradicts the official narrative, to keep them on a short leash. But don't worry, those types will never wake up so you can at least take comfort in knowing they will never change their minds. Anyway, there's always a comic book version for them that fits their level of intelligence and maturity just perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 28, 2013 4:57:07 GMT -5
Firefighter Lt Frank Papalia's eyewitness testimony:
Firefighter Miller predicting WTC7's collapse:
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 5, 2013 10:45:04 GMT -5
9/11 was an outside job, above videos prove WTC7 wasn't destroyed by controlled demolition.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 7, 2013 5:05:43 GMT -5
9/11 was an outside job Bob.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 7, 2013 8:48:57 GMT -5
Yeah 9/11 happened outside. Some it it happened inside too.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 11, 2013 3:17:10 GMT -5
9/11 was the work of the Hamburg cell, of whom five were trained pilots, four were licence holding qualified pilots. Zacarias Moussawi got caught in August 2001.
Al Qaeda did it Bob.
RIP the victims.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 20, 2013 9:31:42 GMT -5
Truthers hate the truth, the NIST reports are true, AE9/11'truth' are money making fraudsters telling lies for profit.
They have NO evidence of explosives being used to bring down any WTC building yet they misrepresent all the facts just like pilotsfor9/11'truth' lie.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 20, 2013 10:11:51 GMT -5
"the NIST reports are true"Which part? Actually, there's a document written by experts called "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction". Did you ever read it? www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/articles/V002/35TOCIEJ.pdfAnd most everyone agrees with NIST that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds for the first 100 feet (8 stories), even you. Although at one time you said that it happened at the end of the collapse, then you seem to have changed your mind. They didn't want to mention that little bitty fact until they were forced to. But that didn't change anything else in their report, not even their fabricated cartoon that looks nothing like the actual collapse. You do own a pair of eyes that work, right? So what's "true" about their cartoon? Unfortunately, the majority of the NIST Reports have been proven to be fabrications, distortions, obfuscations and outright lies. The latest discovery through an FOIA is the ignored stiffeners by NIST which were quoted by real engineers as a "game changer", not to mention their fabricated claim of no shear studs. "AE9/11'truth' are money making fraudsters telling lies for profit."Of course Shred, your daily character assassination post. What would this forum be without that?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 20, 2013 10:37:38 GMT -5
No the fraudulent fake 'truth' movement is the fabricator. I've seen you post plenty of lies Bob. It's quite a shame for you that you can't see how delusional and paranoid you have become.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 20, 2013 11:11:22 GMT -5
"No the fraudulent fake 'truth' movement is the fabricator."
So according to you anyone and everyone who disagrees with the official narrative and wants the truth is a fraud and/or a fabricator. Well it's a good thing you didn't address anything I did in the last post. That way you can just do your usual mass character assassination routine and skip anything you can't answer.
"I've seen you post plenty of lies Bob. It's quite a shame for you that you can't see how delusional and paranoid you have become."
Yeah, what a shame, I'm such a liar and I feel so devastated that I'm delusional and paranoid.
Do you ever have anything real to post about 9/11? I mean once in a blue you do bring about points that can be discussed but most of the time, it's just all this irrelevant utter garbage meant for children.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 21, 2013 14:47:19 GMT -5
Not according to me Bob, according to THE EVIDENCE mate.
Whereas you're saying the planes that hit the towers were going supersonic, that the towers didn't suffer severe fires (despite photographic evidence that contradicts you), that thermite is used in controlled demolitions and goes boom, you're saying that no plane hit the Pentagon despite over 100 eyewitnesses seeing it with their own eyes some of whom recognised it as a Boeing 757. You're saying that WTC7 was blown up despite there being NO evidence for this and no bangs and flashes in the real footage of it's collapse.
You're the fabricator Bob.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 21, 2013 15:59:14 GMT -5
"Not according to me Bob, according to THE EVIDENCE mate."
Evidence never makes any claims, people do. You're the one who made the claim that anyone and everyone who disagrees with the official narrative and wants the truth is a fraud and/or a fabricator.
"you're saying the planes that hit the towers were going supersonic"
I said no such thing. I have no way of determining the speed of the planes. That claim comes from data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board from a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study", not me.
"the towers didn't suffer severe fires (despite photographic evidence that contradicts you)"
I didn't make any claims about the severity of the fires either, the photographic evidence speaks for itself. Fires on a limited number of floors is not an inferno as you have claimed. Severity depends on what one determines is severity. Extreme exaggeration when it fits your agenda is the hallmark of all your arguments.
"that thermite is used in controlled demolitions and goes boom"
I never said any such thing. I said experts discovered nano-thermite in 4 independent samples of WTC dust and there are one or more videos that show what ignited thermite can do to metal.
"you're saying that no plane hit the Pentagon"
I never said any such thing either. I said the official account of what hit the Pentagon is questionable and a lot of the evidence makes the whole story dubious. I have no clue what actually hit the Pentagon and neither do you. There is no conclusive evidence because the photo evidence that would most likely show what actually hit the Pentagon has never been made public.
"You're saying that WTC7 was blown up"
Once again, I never said any such thing. I said WTC7 did not collapse naturally and there are multiple eyewitness accounts of explosions prior to its collapse and one video that shows what appears to be timed explosions at the point of collapse.
"You're the fabricator Bob."
Actually no, everything you posted that I'm responding to is a complete fabrication. There's not one thing you posted that's accurate. So in fact, you're the fabricator.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 21, 2013 20:12:25 GMT -5
Stop lying Bob and accept the truth, you've wasted 12 years of your life on a wild goose chase mate.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 21, 2013 23:06:41 GMT -5
You constantly make s**t up and when you're taken to task, this is the best you can do:
"Stop lying Bob and accept the truth, you've wasted 12 years of your life on a wild goose chase mate."
Truly pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 22, 2013 2:35:37 GMT -5
The made up conspiracy theory lies you repost are truly pathetic. There was no nanothermite in the WTC dust, the columns had ceramic anti corrosion coatings made from China Clay. China Clay contains aluminium silicate, still attached to fragments of the China clay (Kaolinite coating) were small bits of steel hence Red (Epoxy & Clay) / Grey (Steel) chips. Independent testing verified by that these chips are ceramic in nature not thermitic. ae911truth.info/wordpress/2012/arguments/independent-study-confirms-redgray-chips-in-wtc-dust-not-thermite/You have been conned by the fabrications of lying conspiracy theorists who fraudulently make money from selling s**t to gullible people like you. You have turned yourself into a proxy for lying fabricating con artists but their lies will never go unchallenged.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 22, 2013 8:17:30 GMT -5
"You have been conned by the fabrications of lying conspiracy theorists who fraudulently make money from selling s**t to gullible people like you. You have turned yourself into a proxy for lying fabricating con artists but their lies will never go unchallenged."
Well, so much about me. And you've been conned by a lying government that helped its masters (the banksters and MIC) reap trillions in profit, its complicit media and a bunch of anonymous "debunkers".
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 27, 2013 3:08:36 GMT -5
I have not been conned Bob I looked at the towers saw the damage the planes did, observed the bending moment in the impact zone of WTC2 from where the fire weakened structure failed and understood what I was looking at. I don't need any government to tell me that. It's basic physics Bob.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 27, 2013 7:44:05 GMT -5
"I have not been conned Bob I looked at the towers saw the damage the planes did, observed the bending moment in the impact zone of WTC2 from where the fire weakened structure failed and understood what I was looking at.
I don't need any government to tell me that.
It's basic physics Bob."Actually you did need government to tell you that. You're citing exactly what you were told by NIST (government) and parroted by "debunkers", not what you claim you "observed and understood". All anyone has to do is watch the New Pearl Harbor DVD 2 starting at 1:06 and focus at 1:13 to see the "bending moment" hypothesis. The video provides a clear explanation of why it's not possible and why "basic physics" does not support it. aibafs.com/thread/10040/new-pearl-harbor?page=1&scrollTo=76637
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 27, 2013 9:09:09 GMT -5
No, the building bent and buckled before falling top down. Photographs and videos are evidence of this. The plane had crashed into the exact region of the building that failed. The columns on the east face of WTC2 were photographed bowing inwardly, the bowing became more severe before failure. Fuel had exploded with tremendous force in that region, core fireproofing was destroyed, survivors have testified to that, also fireproofing on the trusses was destroyed, the thermobaric fuel explosion from the plane's fuel tanks literally blew it away.
This is all documented.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 27, 2013 9:37:28 GMT -5
This is why most of the time, I can't discuss anything with you on an intelligent and intellectual level. When you're caught making things up, such as the "bending moment" you "observed" and "understood", you deny that you actually got that from NIST and change the subject. Then you continue to stick with another unsupported NIST hypothesis (the "core fireproofing was destroyed") even after it's been shown to be a made up claim based on a shotgun experiment that has zero to do with any 9/11 event. So you see, you clearly need government to tell you what to believe. Or at least you pretend that's what you believe and that you came up with these nonsensical ideas all on your own.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 27, 2013 10:01:53 GMT -5
Bob, no disrespect to you but body parts were propelled as far away as two blocks. Sprayfoam fireproofing is so weak it can be brushed off by hand, as explained here it's often susceptible to mechanical damage: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/prescriptive/Steel%20Structures/systems.htm there's no way that Sprayfoam can survive the same fuel explosion that blows out windows and blows people two blocks away from the office they were in. The fires in the buildings were severe, there were enough flammable office materials in them that the fires in the debris weren't extinguished until 2002. Scientific process is about looking at the facts and seeing what is there. When I look at what happened to the twin towers I see airliner crashes. I see flammable office materials were set on fire by burning fuel. I see steel weakening in the intense heat, buckling inwards and giving way. I see a top down collapse the structure could not arrest. I see no evidence of demolition charges being able to survive these conditions let alone bring down that building. I haven't seen any evidence that nano thermite could be used to make the neat cuts which appear in debris photos, but I have seen photos of cutting torches in action making neat diagonal cuts after the buildings had already collapsed.
|
|