Either Newton is wrong or the NIST is wrong... You decide!

Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Jun 8, 2016.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My claim (no significant jolt/hesitation/collision) stands, all the videos support it, others who have measured the rate of acceleration show a straight slope (more or less), there's no reason and I have no incentive to "do the math" for you or anyone. Do it yourself if it's that important to you. My other claim also stands, that NIST committed scientific and criminal fraud also stands, the facts speak for themselves. The technical analysis exposing NIST's chicanery is incontrovertible and admitted to by NIST itself (with regard to its many "mistakes" which really amount to a vast deception). If you really believe in NIST's lies (the facts are laid out for you), that's your problem, I don't care. All the facts point to that NIST knew the fire/planes/damage induced collapse theories are fraudulent inventions designed to coverup the reality of what happened on 9/11.
     
  2. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,996
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have. You're wrong that no reduction in acceleration took place. You're wrong that it should be viewable as a "jolt" in the videos we have. The fact that you have no incentive to do the math for yourself shows that you're willing to swallow garbage that supports your predetermined conclusion.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No you didn't, no one saw anything like that in any video. You can't see the East Penthouse falling through the center of the building, no one can. What it shows is the East Penthouse disappearing into the building first. It wasn't even located at the center of the roof. The West Penthouse, which took up a much larger area of the roof, remained on the roof until the moment the roof line began its descent.

    You can't see any "columns" in any video, who are you fooling? Why do you need to make **** up that anyone looking at the video can see is not true?

    The East Penthouse does not fall through the middle of the structure, that's impossible since it wasn't located in the middle of the roof. Perhaps you should consult an ophthalmologist.

    Clearly you're claiming to see things that no one can see and can't see things everyone else can see. It's obvious you're really trying to parrot NIST's fraudulently contrived theory by claiming to see things no one can see, and not even parroting it accurately. This is what you're trying to claim to be seeing (and it's not even occurring through the center of the building according to NIST, you just enhanced NIST's claim).

    [video=youtube;XujahQ9yNiM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XujahQ9yNiM[/video]

    Prior to 9/11 - No steel frame tower ever collapsed due to fire, damage, planes, rockets or a combination.
    9/11 - South tower globally collapsed perfectly, just like any well planned and executed CD, a constant accelerating descent with no significant jolts/hesitation.
    9/11 - North tower globally collapsed perfectly, just like any well planned and executed CD, a constant accelerating descent with no significant jolts/hesitation.
    9/11 - WTC7 globally collapsed perfectly, just like any well planned and executed CD, a constant accelerating descent with no significant jolts/hesitation.
    After 9/11 - No steel frame tower ever collapsed due to fire, damage, planes, rockets or a combination.

    Other than 9/11, there have been 40+ fires in steel frame high rises, some infernos almost completely engulfing the entire building and some burning for up to 26 hours. Not one globally collapsed. The Usce Tower was hit by multiple missiles on 2 separate occasions, burned, stood and has been renovated and is in use today as an office building. In 1975, the North Tower suffered a fire over about 8 floors that burned for about 3 hours and was quite intense, the building stood, OBVIOUSLY.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There probably was a reduction in acceleration, near the end of the collapses, after all the 3 building collapses were halted by the ground. However if you can show a significant "reduction" in acceleration for any of the 3 buildings, during the main part of the collapse(s), post it here. While you're at it, if you can show pieces of the building colliding with other pieces or the building itself (for any of the 3 towers) just like a true natural collapse might show, by all means, go for it. Here is a video of failed CDs where there should have been no jolts/hesitation if they were done properly. Since they weren't, every single one of them experienced jolts/hesitation.

    [video=youtube;f8VjFBPQm2k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8VjFBPQm2k[/video]

    Well then, feel free to show any example of any natural collapse where there are no jolts. I showed a video of collapses with obvious jolts/hesitation.

    I don't need to do the math for myself, the facts and evidence are overwhelming, they are far from "garbage". What is "garbage" is the NIST pretend investigations and their resulting reports. That's what YOU swallow. I don't have any "predetermined conclusion", in fact, I bought the official story for about 3 years because I didn't have enough to go on to see the massive contradictions at the time and I didn't even bother to investigate, which I'm not proud of. I did find the collapse of the twin towers suspicious from the moment I saw it though. I didn't know anything about WTC7 until 3 years later because the MSM suppressed it as they still do to this day. As a result, many still have no idea that happened on 9/11.
     
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,996
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You might as well have handed me a bunch of crayon drawings of things you saw outside your window at kindergarten. It would be just as relevant as the vomit you just presented.

    I'm done until you're able to actually support your claim with a mathematical model of the actual buildings.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what I figured facts and reality are to you.

    Oh good, thanks. So you won't be parroting NIST's impossible fraudulently contrived theories to me then? You know, the ones where YOU personally saw with your own eyes the "East HVAC penthouse falling through the center of the building", the bucking of perimeter columns and the entire inside of the building collapsing before the walls moved? It's amazing how that works, isn't it? NIST claims that's what happened and you personally saw that but no one else did or could.

    You want math, sure. 1 North Tower + 1 South Tower + 1 WTC7 Tower, all collapsing on the very same day just like a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition = 1 giant mother****ing scam that you bought lock, stock and barrel and don't bother to question. But questioning me and asking me to do the math should solve 9/11 for you. What was that about "vomit" again?
     
  7. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,996
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKgLKyhqHk

    It must be difficult to see with the log in your eye.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wait, I thought you were "done" until I'm able to actually support my claim with a mathematical model of the actual buildings? I guess not really huh?

    True there's probably a "log in my eye" and everyone else too because the only one who "sees" the East Penthouse collapse into the "CENTER" of WTC7 and sees "buckling of perimeter columns" and the entire interior collapsing before the walls start to move is YOU. You must have X-ray vision and an even better version than Superman because it's all just on video. And they probably moved the East Penthouse to the center of the roof just before it dropped so it could collapse into the center of the building (I must have missed that part too). Who do you figure buys this lunacy? That's rhetorical, I can name a few anonymous posters in this forum by their IDs besides you. At least that's what they say they believe.

    You know of course the text in the above video is a red herring designed to ridicule those who don't swallow the NIST "vomit" as you would describe it. Everyone who has eyes can see the East Penthouse dropping into WTC7 before the rest of the building starts descending. It doesn't change the fact that the West Penthouse, a structure that takes up a larger area of the roof than the East Penthouse doesn't drop until the entire building begins to descend. That means that most of the roof and everything under it, the roof line (seen from the east, west and north) and 3 walls (east, west and north) all drop at the exact same time. That would be most of the building, including the interior. Unfortunately there's no video that shows the south side of the building at the time of collapse but one would presume (common sense wise), that the south wall and south roof line (being all attached to the rest of the building), also drop at the same time as the rest of the building. But not for you of course because you can see what no one else can see. NIST must have blessed you with extraordinary vision.
     
  9. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think you're playing semantics ... I'm sure by center he meant inside the curtain wall which it clearly did before the curtain wall collapsed ... it shows that in the NIST simulation as well ... what kind of CD would be set up like that in your opinion? ...
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah you're his personal valet? So in your opinion, he didn't SEE what he claims he saw and I'm the one who is "playing semantics" because he keeps insisting he saw all the things he claims to have seen? Well it's a good thing you don't believe it either, who can?

    Then he should say so, no? How do you know what he meant? You share his brain and eyes too?

    The NIST cartoon shows what no one can see in the videos. But we all know about how NIST falsified all sorts of data to try to come up with its concocted theories. So the cartoon wants you to believe that NIST also SEES what no one else can see. You see that too in the videos?

    Like what? Like the NIST made up cartoon? None I ever heard of, you? What kind of fire induced collapse would look like the one NIST shows in the cartoon? Is there an example? How does the cartoon compare to the actual collapse of WTC7?

    [video=youtube;pmdcMb5D9gM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmdcMb5D9gM[/video]

    Oh yeah, it's a mirror image. Oh wait, let me actually open my eyes.
     
  11. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    50
    Trophy Points:
    48
    trying to be reasonable with you Bob ... do you agree that the penthouse collapsed well before the curtain wall? ... that' s what the video shows ... did they rig it that way and if so, why would that make any sense? ... misfire of the supposed explosives? ...

    That is not a classic CD ...
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's fine, just stick to your own personal issues, there's no reason for you to make assumptions about someone else or speak for someone else.

    There's no way to deny it, it is clearly visible in the videos that the East Penthouse dropped into the building first, but not the West Penthouse. If the West Penthouse, an object with a much larger area, remained visible until the moment the roof line began to descend, then everything under it (i.e. the interior structure beneath) also remained intact.

    I have no clue, you're asking the wrong person. I couldn't tell you in a million years if they rigged it that way or not or whether it makes sense or not. I wasn't involved and I was never asked to investigate. I can tell you I saw a video of a known CD pointed at the roof of a building where a very similar thing happened. Koko posted it once and I asked him months later if he still had a link to the video but he couldn't find it. It was NIST's job to investigate why and how it collapsed, according to their first objective and you know by the facts they did no such thing, at least not in any legitimate sense.

    To me a "classic CD" is one that is planned and executed such that the entire building is globally destroyed in seconds. That is exactly the purpose and goal of a CD. So I don't know what you think a "classic CD" is, but to me all 3 towers share that characteristic. That was certainly not a classic fire induced collapse of a steel frame high rise, there is no such thing. Danny Jowenko was a CD expert and immediately claimed it was a CD, without a doubt. So apparently to a CD expert, it was a classic CD. You are not in any position or have any standing or any reason (other than denial or just buying NIST's snake oil) to claim it wasn't a classic CD, especially not when it exhibits the primary characteristics of a classic CD.

    So let me know when you're going to start being reasonable as opposed to just "trying".
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Back to the topic:

    Either Newton is wrong or the NIST is wrong... You decide!

    Sir Isaac Newton has never been proven wrong (although some portions of physics do not necessarily apply in extreme environments - e.g. a Black Hole) and the science of physics is a universal standard.

    As to NIST, the deeper one looks at the evidence, the more likely any reasonable person would conclude that NIST isn't "wrong" either but rather that NIST committed serious scientific and criminal FRAUD. NIST's fraud is fully detailed in a series of posts in the following ongoing thread:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    Post #19 in the thread, taken from a paper titled "Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study", defines criminal negligence:

    In any scientific investigation, use of selective or fraudulent data to support a hypothesis or claim is an ethical violation whose severity can depend on the circumstances. For events that involve great loss of life and property, and that may represent a criminal act, or a systemic problem that may occur again unless dealt with honestly and correctly, omission and misrepresentation become synonymous with “criminal negligence.” West's Encyclopedia of American Law defines criminal negligence in this way:

    Criminal Negligence: “The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.”

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory-2.html
     
  14. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,996
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    15 years and the truthers are no closer to a cohesive alternative truth than they were when they started. They can't support their objections with reviewable research. They can't agree on just about any subject. They are completely unserious about discovering the truth. They recycle previously abandoned arguments that they have been historically crushed on without blinking.

    Maybe they should go back to high school. Or not and end up exactly where they are right now....nowhere with nothing to show for it.
     
  15. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,996
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Awesome...so go ahead and present me with all of that technical detail you say exists. Or continue to discuss the collapse as a high school kid might. Your choice.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Talk about high school (more like grade school in your case), my choice is to ignore your silly childish games. I provided the link to the thread that exposes NIST's fraud more than once and you keep on asking me for "technical detail" that is fully available to you in the thread (and more will be forthcoming) that you've eloquently characterized as "vomit". It's not my job, my interest or my incentive to educate you or anyone who insists on wearing blinders. I provided the information from my research for anyone to examine, you can ignore it or not, that's your prerogative. It's more than obvious to me you have no interest in reality.
     
  17. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,996
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We're here to discuss the topic of this thread: the supposed phenomenon you describe as a visible jolt. A shotgun blast post of nonsequiter material is certainly vomit in this context.

    Please post your mathematical model of the supposed "jolt" phenomenon as you believe it should have presented in the structure of the actual buildings in question. In specific I'm interested in the specific magnitude and duration of the change in acceleration you believe should have been visible in the videos you have presented.

    My prediction is another post that does not provide this information despite the fact that it is necessary to support the premise of the thread.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong, post #1,030 is on topic, so are several others I posted. The missing "jolt/hesitation" during the collapse of all 3 buildings was a side issue. What you describe as a "phenomenon" is (or should be) a natural byproduct of any collapsing structure in accordance with Newtonian physics. That you describe it as a "phenomenon" puts your mentality on a par with NIST's fantasies, in other words, that you believe NIST is right and Newton is wrong.

    Your prediction is also wrong, the information necessary to support the premise of this thread has been provided in meticulous technical detail and solves the answer to the question raised by the topic.

    But in your world, ignore all the evidence provided and stick with NIST is right and Newton is wrong. So there's the answer you personally want.
     
  19. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,996
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The observant truther should note that there are only 69 posts in this topic. 1030 was the total number of posts bob0627 has made on this forum. Good thing truthers are such sticklers for detail.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Useless nonsense omitted.

    Thanks for the correction (minus the silly nonsense) and my sincere apologies for my error. The post I was referring to is post #63 in this thread. Now if you care to address what I posted using the corrected post #, please do so, otherwise I consider what you're doing as trolling.
     
  21. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,996
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Video one from your link vomits some strawman argument about sheer studs in the WTC7 floor system with no insight provided to the topic of "visual jolts" in video recordings of the collapse.
    Video two from your link vomits some strawman argument about thermal expansion in the WTC7 with no insight provided to the topic of "visual jolts" in video recordings of the collapse.
    Video three from your link vomits some strawman argument about column 79 with no insight provided to the topic of "visual jolts" in video recordings of the collapse.
    Video four from your link vomits some strawman argument about the NIST erratum report regardin the previously covered topics with no insight provided to the topic of "visual jolts" in video recordings of the collapse.
    Video five from your link vomits some strawman argument about stiffner plates in the WTC7 floor system with no insight provided to the topic of "visual jolts" in video recordings of the collapse.

    The website you linked vomits some strawman argument about the above 5 video series with no insight provided to the topic of "visual jolts" in video recordings of the collapse.

    The PDF document you linked vomits some strawman argument about the mechanism of the WTC7 collapse initiation with no insight provided to the topic of "visual jolts" in video recordings of the collapse.

    The entire post has no content that deals directly with the subject of this thread. It was correctly described as an off topic shotgun blast of vomit.

    Now would you please post the details of the theoretical magnitude and duration of the change in acceleration that you describe in this thread as a visible jolt that you would expect to see in the existing videos of the event?
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When and if you're ready to write what I would consider an adult post, I will be respond in kind. Thanks.
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,996
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That adult enough for you?
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,390
    Likes Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it's utter nonsense. Anyone is qualified to post technical articles and videos that directly address the topic of the thread and that support their personal opinion(s). Describing them all as "vomit" and "strawman arguments" and failing to address any of them in any reasonable adult manner only exposes your (lack of) qualifications and especially your immaturity. But you certainly can try again, if you're capable at all.
     

Share This Page