NASA engineer agrees with Citizen Investigation Team

Discussion in '9/11' started by Scott, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No it is proof that WTC7 collapsed. I always failed to get the "why bother" part of this.

    Your claim is, "oh, it looks like a controlled demolition". Well apart from the penthouse area and the delays inherent with that, it does look like one. But then, when the base support gives way on one side, causing the penthouse to fall and redistributing the load, that is kinda what you'd expect!

    A rigged test from you is like the opposite of what you claim it is.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In fact Gamo, it's a controlled demolition company's wet dream. Just set a few scattered fires, wait a few hours and the whole shebang comes down just like a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition. No need for weeks of planning and preparation, no need for dangerous explosives, no need to spend a ton money, matches are real cheap. And the best part, some controlled demolitions fail miserably and this method is just so perfect. Why didn't anyone think of this before? And they're so frigging stupid because they still actually carry out these very expensive controlled demolitions, they never learn their lesson from 9/11. They're taking chances for this crap to happen:

     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't either since no one ever did that despite that NIST was tasked by Congress to do just that. For the twin towers, they plagiarized Bazant's garbage that is invented crap filled with errors and claimed they never bothered to investigate the collapse of the twin towers in a footnote, so that was easy breezy. Then they worked really hard to come up with a creative way to explain a "collapse" for WTC7 that has no basis in science/physics and reality, modifying the actual structural components and data as needed to fit their fantasy. They even came up with a cartoon that had nothing to do with the actual event. It was good for Loony Tunes lovers but unfortunately it was intellectually insulting to architects, engineers and just about anyone who understands basic physics.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't doubt that you understand basic physics, but you are denying visible evidence. Nothing new there then.

    I see colossal futility discussing anything with you. You have put 2 and 2 together and made a ballet dancers dress!
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Can you EVER just answer direct questions? Here, have a go at these:

    Why demolish this building? Please don't say "insurance job" as inviting such risk for Larry's benefit seems just a moronic stretch.

    If your answer is that you don't know, consider making this your signature!

    Why rig up a nice neat demolition? What crazy gain is there for doing that?
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I love it! Different parts of WTC7 collapse at different times and you lie and say it’s “symmetrical”...

    Keep giving me material.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't doubt you don't understand basic physics.

    I don't need to explain something no one can answer in order to know there's not a chance in hell it "collapsed" according to NIST's phony "most probable collapse initiation hypothesis".
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, I'm sure desks, computers, toilets and Guiliani's porn collection "collapsed" at different times too. Yet the building still descended symmetrically at free fall, even NIST agrees with that. That you don't want to accept that fact is irrelevant, there's no controversy about it except what you want to invent.

    You don't need any, you have your fantasies to dream about.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh Bob, behave. You are a 24x7 defender of the nonsense. You've been doing this for so long you've got yourself into a pit of failure. I feel a sense of apathy towards your opinion bordering on disdain.

    You really have become expert in avoidance. One could almost guarantee you would be unable to answer those really simple questions.

    Go on Bob, be a sport, break that habit you've got into!

    Why demolish this building?

    Why rig up a nice neat demolition? What crazy gain is there for doing that?
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Once the penthouse broke and the central collapse initiated catastrophic failure, yes, there was a certain symmetry. But free-fall is a lie.

    Point me to the part where NIST says it was free-fall speed. Perhaps you confuse the 2.25 seconds of truss collapse at free fall speed with the entire visible collapse NOT at free fall speed. But whatever Bob, another fine strawman.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I could swear I already explained to you that no one can answer that so why are asking me again? If and when the courts determine there's enough evidence supporting that the buildings were indeed demolished by unnatural means I am quite certain there will be a criminal investigation as to who, what, where, when and how. If a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich then this one is the mother of all pigs between 2 slices of bread.

    The good news son is that your opinion is worthless in the scheme of things and so is mine BTW. What has immense value is that experts claim NIST did not properly investigate the destruction of the towers on 9/11 and for that there is overwhelming evidence. And a central part of that evidence has been filed in the federal court in the Southern District of New York, which is part of the Second Circuit. The reason for the special grand jury petition is that experts have concluded not only that the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 has never been properly investigated but also that the buildings were control demolished on 9/11 and for that they also have ample evidence. More evidence will be filed shortly and all sorts of witnesses, eyewitnesses as well as expert witnesses will likely testify. The eventual goal is of course to have an impartial panel investigate what really happened to those buildings on 9/11. That was always the goal from inception. I'm just about 100% certain not one single expert witness, not even one from NIST if they should be called to testify, will confirm that free fall is a lie. They can't because they published that fact in their report. And that's what really matters, not what you believe (or pretend to for some sort of comfort).

    They didn't because free fall is a specific constant rate of acceleration not speed. See what I mean about you and basic physics? Since you already quoted a piece from the NIST report, you should be able to find where and what they wrote about free fall yourself. You don't need me to do that for you. But I will be nice and point you to post #49 where retired physics professor David Chandler quotes the NIST report and explains it in brief summary.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...1-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/page-3

    There's an even more elaborate explanation of what the free fall of WTC7 implies, also written by David Chandler if you're in need of a technical/physics education:

    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e

    I haven't confused anything and the straw man you've falsely attributed to me has zero to do with anything with respect to NIST, their report(s) and the expert analysis of all the NIST reports.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'd better link to the exact times in the videos at which the witnesses say the plane was on the North side of the gas station as a lot of viewers might not be taking the time to watch the whole series.

    Do a search on this video and start watching at the 8:20 time mark.
    National Security Alert - Part 2/9 - Sensitive Information

    In part 3 go to the 1:05, 3:50 and 8:25 time marks.
    In part 4 go to the 2:09 and 7:55 time marks.
    In part 5 go to the 1:30, 4:30 and 5:56 time marks.
    In part 6 go to the 1:40 time mark.


     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And even THOSE people can't agree on the correct flight path!!!
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's STILL a lie Bobby, no matter how bad you want it to be true.

    The East penthouse falling into the center of the building first, followed by the rest of the penthouse falling faster that the facade roofline is NOT symmetrical.

    Oh, by the way. Can you explain why WTC7 didn't immediately start in free fall? I mean if all the supports were removed. free fall speed should have been immediate. It wasn't.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can call it what you want and repeat your phony crap as often as you like but it will never change the facts about WTC7. Nor does anything you have to say on the subject matter Gamo. As I explained to your like minded pretend physics expert, what really matters is what experts claim and you're not one of these. David Chandler does a masterful job explaining the free fall symmetrical descent of WTC7 which anyone with a pair of functioning eyeballs can plainly see.

    if you don’t know ahead of time that the acceleration will be uniform (which would certainly apply in the case of a collapsing building), you would have to track the motion over short time intervals, calculate the velocity (speed) over each interval, and measure the rate of increase of velocity over time. If the calculated velocities are plotted on a graph, the slope of the graph would give the acceleration. If the acceleration turns out to be uniform, the v vs. t graph will be linear. Otherwise the “slope of the graph,” at any point, would be the slope of the tangent line.

    [​IMG]

    A body falling with no resistance falls in free fall. Conversely, for a body to be in free fall implies it is falling with no resistance. Somehow the building we are seeing is falling through its own structure with no resistance!

    One penthouse, on the east side of the building, collapses early, in an event separate from the overall collapse, but the structures on the west side of the building (the right) remain supported until about a half second before the overall collapse. They remain partially visible throughout the free fall portion of the collapse. This indicates that the interior support structure is compromised first, but it gives way only a fraction of a second ahead of the perimeter walls.


    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-131a94a1be7e

    For you it wasn't but no one cares about your personal opinion (or mine for that matter). Again, what matters is what experts have to say.

    As stated here, after having made their detour into comments about velocity and acceleration, NIST reverts fully to the original 5.4 second time interval dressed up as a three-stage process. But as we have seen, there is no gradual transition into free fall. If there is no gradual transition there is no Stage 1. If there is no Stage 1, there is no 5.4 second interval which is the linchpin of this analysis. The 5.4 second interval and the “three stages of collapse progression” are simply fabrications.

    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-part-4-6986c23835d7

    The truth of the matter is that while symmetrical free fall is quite revealing, the key is that WTC7's descent is one that ACCELERATES uniformly through its own massive structure. This is also true for the twin towers. There's not a chance that planes, damage, fire or any combination can cause that to happen.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's correct Bobby.

    Facts.

    There was no "immediate symmetrical collapse" as anyone can see and has been explained to you. No matter how hard you try, the east penthouse collapsed first, followed by the rest of the penthouse about 6 seconds later and then the facade/roofline.

    That's not "symmetrical" nor is it "immediate". Keep using your "buzzwords" to try and convince yourself.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And here you go again, making dishonest crap up about what I posted. Please quote where I used those words. You can't because I never did. I would never call it a "collapse" because a collapse implies a natural event and the destruction of WTC7 was not natural by any means. What anyone can plainly see is that WTC7 (the roofline and all 4 corners) suddenly descended at free fall and continued for about 2.25 - 2.50 seconds (approx. 8 stories, 100 feet). There is nothing natural about that, nothing fire alone can cause and it is very common in a well planned and executed controlled demolition.
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So "drop" is what you said. Again, there was no "sudden dropping, symmetrically, uniformly, and unimpeded" of WTC7 as has been proven by video evidence.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, keep repeating that phony claim. No one has a pair of working eyeballs other than you. Dan Rather knew what was up the moment he saw it. Any fool who's not hell bent on defending the OCT knows what this is the second he/she sees it.

     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What does any of this have to do with your claim that WTC7 was characterized as "suddenly dropping symmetrically, uniformly and unimpeded at free fall" when none of that is true as has been explained numerous times. The east penthouse falling into the center of the building about 6 seconds BEFORE the rest of the penthouse collapsed followed by the facade/roofline. And then the rest of penthouse falling FASTER than the facade/roofline to disappear behind it.

    Yeah, that's "symmetrical" and "uniform". You need to brush up on your definitions a bit.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whatever floats your boat Gamo. The point was that anyone can recognize an obvious controlled demolition when one sees one. No one with any degree of intelligence and in his/her right mind upon seeing that video would claim, hey look at that fire induced collapse. For you there were 3 stages of "collapse" because NIST said so. The east penthouse dropped first, followed by the much larger west penthouse, a fraction of a second prior to the entire building descending along with the west penthouse. And once the roof line begins its sudden descent, the entire building drops at free fall, unimpeded and uniformly through its own massive structure. I've seen that nearly exact sequence in a video of a known controlled demolition that Koko once posted (a view from above the CD'd building, penthouse caving in first). Unfortunately I asked Koko months later if he still had the video and he couldn't find it.

    It doesn't really matter, there's not a chance in hell NIST's "probable collapse initiation hypothesis" is possible and they were the only entity tasked by Congress to explain the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11. And what they actually did was perpetrate a criminal act that was used as pretext for committing war crimes and other crimes against humanity. So now we're left with NO official 9/11 investigation going on nearly 18 years after the mass murder of over 3,000 innocent people. And that amounts to US government treason. I am not optimistic but hopefully the grand jury will sort this out in due time. I just hope the prosecutor does not try to deliberately stack the jury with a bunch of physics illiterate people. Anyone who understands basic physics should be able to figure this one out in about 5 seconds given the evidence. But there is more than enough evidence for even a physics challenged jury to conclude that 9/11 has never been properly investigated.

    You need to brush up on your OCT defensive skills, you fool no one.
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nobody would look at that video and used the words "sudden", "symmetrical'", and "uniform". Those are buzzwords you try and hammer into your narrative to induce the awe factor.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't have a "narrative" or "buzzwords" nor do I need to "induce the awe factor" whatever that means. The video speaks for itself, I didn't create it. It is self evident as easily recognized by Dan Rather a non-expert. No one even needs the expertise of a control demolitions expert to figure out what this was, it stands as an "awe factor" on its own merit. But non-expert as well as expert all know the score, it's not rocket science.




    But no one needs to prove it was or wasn't a controlled demolition despite its easily recognizable appearance. What needs to be proven is that the destruction of WTC7 has never been legitimately investigated. And that was already accomplished as well and will soon be universally accepted as fact upon peer review.
     
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your evasion via every means is none too impressive Bob. I love being told how I don't understand basic figures through your simplistic and pedantic observations.

    Free fall is the acceleration bit. Free fall speed is what the speed is after a specific or measurable distance or time. It is a non specific expression, but we are talking about the very specific time quoted by NIST and the very specific measurable visible distance the building falls.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2019

Share This Page