NASA engineer agrees with Citizen Investigation Team

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

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Was there something you didn't understand about what I wrote?

    I don't need to have any "term" for these data points other than data points. What is your point?

    I'm not interested in your attempt to distract from the fact that the building descended at free fall acceleration for a significant period of time through its own massive structure. It's not important, what is important is that the building descended at free fall acceleration for a significant period of time through its own massive structure and in about 6 seconds total. But read on anyway Mr. Distractor.

    Which is observable in the videos.

    Why aren't you using the entire graph? That's rhetorical, I know why.

    [​IMG]

    If you note, the data points prior to free fall are not a straight line. So did the roof line move up and down several times? No, the data points are approximations, OBVIOUSLY. And you're trying to play your typical games.

    That's YOUR proper statement that YOU want to use in order to try to distract. The proper statement and what is most significant is that WTC7 descended at free fall through its own structure for a period of 2.25 seconds from the moment the roof line began to descend, end of story.

    I've seen all the videos that I'm aware of that exist that show the descent of WTC7. There is no video that I'm aware of that shows WTC7 descending from the south facade. However there are videos that show 3 corners descending uniformly. Although there are none that show all 4 corners that I'm aware of, I find it difficult to imagine that the 4th unseen SE corner is descending at a different rate. And I'm 100% certain you know this but if you really don't:



    I did in other posts. However the entire building, all 47 stories are descending at free fall for a period of 2.25 seconds (or 8 stories worth).

    Not a chance Gamo, you're trying to pretend my statement is deceptive. And by your semantics you're also trying to distract from the fact that the entire building dropped at free fall. It doesn't really matter how long the free fall time period was. It doesn't even matter if it was exactly free fall or less than free fall. What matters is the building descent ACCELERATED through its own massive structure, just like the twin towers that were destroyed top down at 2/3 free fall ACCELERATION through their own massive structures.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually I should re-phrase that for the semantically oriented distractors. There is no video that shows the entire building (all 47 stories) descending at once, the lower portion of WTC7 is not visible in videos. So what is visible (which is the majority of the building all the way up to the roof line) is actually descending symmetrically at free fall from the moment of descent and near free fall following 2.25 seconds of descent.
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is the graph that was published on AE911Truth's website.
    http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...efall-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler
    chandlergraph.PNG
    The data points in the red oval are when the roofline started to drop. There's no way around it Bobby. What do those three inline data points in the red oval represent? Do you know?
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So there was resistance right Bobby?
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Up and down? Isn't that a velocity over time graph?

    What do you think the first data point below the zero line represents?
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And it's obviously a cropped version of the graph that I posted from Chandler's paper. You have no point but you're desperately trying to invent one. I already responded to your distraction, I don't need to repeat myself. You want to make an issue out of a non-issue in order to try to sweep the real issue under the rug, the FREE FALL of WTC7 through its own structure. Perhaps you want to go back and repeat your 4 corner silliness since that's all you want to post is repetetive irrelevant crap. Or maybe you want to separate the core from the perimeter of WTC7 as if it wasn't attached and go with NIST's hollow building invention.

    [​IMG]

    You've been through this nonsense ad nauseum through the years. Try something new, maybe it will make sense to those who desperately want to believe the OCT.

    Of course a massive skyscraper such as WTC1 or WTC2 provides incredible resistance. That's why it makes no sense that either building was destroyed symmetrically at 2/3 free fall with no observable hesitation or significant slow down through its own structure strictly by a natural gravitational collapse, especially since it was built such that the resistance was progressively greater at the lower floors. The videos clearly show the North Tower exploding about every other floor or so in sequence top down. The resulting debris field clearly shows massive structural components were ejected at great distances (for a "gravitational collapse"???). All the damage created by the plane impact was confined to perhaps the top 20% of the building and there was no damage to the remaining portion.





    www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bob, why did you mention the roof line moving up and down in reference to the data points?

    Tell you what. Tell me what you think the first data point below the zero line means.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was being facetious OBVIOUSLY. Why are you still harping on useless nonsense? Never mind, I know why and posted why. The next post you write on this irrelevant garbage will be ignored.
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No you weren't!

    You interpreted the graph wrong because you didn't understand it!
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The data points represent acceleration downward Bobby, not position. The first data point means the referenced point in the video accelerated down. The second data point means it
    DECELERATED, but is still moving down, etc.

    Correct me if I'm wrong here.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sigh, this is against my better judgment.

    We're both wrong here.

    The trail of dots on the image of the building shows the motion of the NW corner over time. The graph in the top right corner of the display shows the computed velocity plotted as a function of time. This graph shows the NW corner holding steady, then suddenly transitioning to downward motion. The graph is essentially linear from the start of fall continuing for the next 2.5 seconds, indicating that the acceleration is uniform.

    [​IMG]

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

    So the very first referenced data point at approximately (t=0, vy=0) is taken from a video and is not exact, none of the data points are. So from t=0 to t=10 there is no actual movement and all the data points are approximations (as already explained) likely because the video does not show a steady image. None of this matters of course, what does matter is what happened from t=10 to about t=12.5. But even if you want to play games and there was some motion just prior to the free fall, it doesn't change the fact that the building descended at free fall symmetrically through its own structure from the moment the roof line began its descent and for a significant period time immediately afterward. That would be 37.5% minimum (2.25 seconds out of 6 seconds total) or 41.67% maximum (2.5 seconds out of 5.4 seconds total), depending on what popularly accepted time frame is being used. As already pointed out ad nauseum, it's not even really about free fall or less than free fall, it's about a 47 story steel frame building's symmetrical accelerated descent through its own structure for a significant period of time.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How was I wrong Bobby? You thought the graph represented up and down motion of the roofline and I said the graph represents acceleration/deceleration?
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Right. Downward motion. Shown by the data points in the red oval. Per Chandler's graph shown on AE911Truth's website.
    chandlergraph.PNG

    Bob, explain what the three data points in a row mean.
     
  14. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am sure Bobby will answer this with a David Chandler copy/pasta, his Troofer God ... whatever the high school physics teacher states is Gospel ...
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roflol:

    Can't say why because I wasn't wrong eh Bobby?

    Yes I was. On the graph that Chandler and AE911Truth used.

    No, you didn't. Not even close.

    You're done because you got owned Bobby. I wasn't the one who screwed up and interpreted Chandler's graph as positional data (up and down). Talk about a screw up!
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How is it out of context when it's the graph that AE911Truth has on their website, created by Chandler?
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Just so you understand, it was the graph that Chandler created and was the one posted at AE911Truth. Ask Chandler why he let them post a cropped graph.
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then stop quoting that number as your "big list" of "experts"!

    I didn't decide anything of the sort and your use of the word "hypocritically" suggests you don't know what it means. I decided you don't know what a good analogy is. You don't know how, in any way, to admit you are wrong on any single big or small item.

    Then once again, stop using this 3000 "experts" bullshit appeal to authority.

    Your confidence is based on your own woeful shortfall of knowledge on the subject. Dismissed. If you go back and read carefully I did not say the rest of the engineers et al. said YOUR engineers were full of crap. You blunder on making this same statement about "full of crap" ( 4th time?) which was made in the form of a deductive rhetorical question.

    Hogwash, your opinion is dismissed.

    Hogwash. I have argued mainly against the idea about no plane at the pentagon. I became embroiled in this turkey of a thread along the same subject that went off topic into a WTC7 issue.

    You have really been doing this same thing for so many years, you have lost all perspective on anyone who dares challenge your embittered fixated opinions. You label everybody the same way.

    Hypocrisy noted. Since your "report fest" and a conversation with a very reasonable moderator, I no longer do that. You continue to do it.

    I didn't invent it. It pours scorn on people having the gall to represent themselves as "truth seekers"!

    I await any such commission to validate their largely speculative findings. You don't need any such validation as they confirm your already established embittered opinions, so you automatically believe it.

    No problems.

    Your opinion is noted. My qualifications are my own business.

    I admitted I was doing what the anti-NIST team are doing.

    No relevance at all to content. If it is, so are you.

    A blatantly provably wrong statement. It is fairly simple to see that I have more or less posted in 2 threads and my responses are not all day, or every day. I am not the one who has 10 threads out of 26 on this front 911 page or how has posted in practically every one with the "last post" in your name on 10 of them.

    Not here no.

    I vent nothing at you without supporting my position. You routinely ignore evidence and direct questions.

    I vent nothing at professionals and your claim regarding the "full of crap" comment is your poor comprehension.

    Thank you for your correction on the matter. My "own hypothesis" is from this video, which itself contains the correction(in the description), about the collapse.



    "PLEASE NOTE: This video was made in September 2007. The official investigation into the collapse of WTC7 at this time was still ongoing and did its final report was not released until more than a year later, in December 2008. Therefore, everything in this video was based on their working hypotheses at the time, and it should come as no surprise that when the investigation concluded, some of their findings varied from their early hypotheses (as in any investigation). Namely, the claim in this video that the fires were "likely fed by a series of diesel generators" turned out not to be the case, and the hypothesis that the collapse started with Truss 1 was also incorrect. The collapse actually started in the same vicinity only a few floors up, with the collapse of Column 79. However, neither of these two greatly alter the overall conclusions for the mechanism of the collapse. I would go in and make these changes in the video itself, but all the video's data was on an old computer that I got rid of literally years ago."

    I was not. My reference to NIST was faulty. Consider me corrected.

    The problem with that Bob, is that one of us is prepared to accept new information. Unless you have anything direct and specific to discuss, preferably about the OP(!) would it be possible that you could avoid posting your same completely fixated claims in every single 911 thread on the forum?
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again, I don't own any experts, they are not my property and I don't own any big list of experts. Furthermore, I never said anything about that number being a list of experts, you're making that up. Here is exactly what I said on multiple occasions:

    I don't know what world you live in but in my world I know that architects and engineers should be fully qualified to understand the implications of free fall and building collapses, as well as understand the NIST report and critiques of the NIST report. And a number such as 3,000 is quite significant, even a number such as 100 is significant. OTOH your claim about the rest of the industry characterization of these people being "full of crap" is full of crap despite your phony backtracking in this post.

    You're contradicting yourself. You're the one who used that phony analogy that you claimed was missing several components and now you're saying I don't know what a good analogy is when you haven't cited a good analogy. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is in your world.

    Not long ago I admitted I misquoted the NTSB guy in the Pentagon video and I just recently admitted I'm wrong about data points on a graph and that I misunderstood your post in part so again you are incorrect. And I always have and always will admit I'm wrong when I feel I am. So please quit making dishonest claims about me. You have a propensity for doing that on a regular basis.

    Once again, I never did that. I cite experts who are truly experts and therefore are AUTHORITIES. Everyone who posts an opinion should be doing that because no one is an expert at everything. I certainly am not (my expertise is commercial software systems of every variety) and you certainly are not. And the fact is that over 3,000 colleagues with the proper background and standing and in a position to know agree with these experts whether you like it or not. YOU cited Mick West as some kind of expert, an anonymous video and NIST as an expert entity whom you used as an appeal to authority. Quit your blatant hypocrisy.

    Yet my knowledge is gained from papers, videos and presentations by experts. I don't post 9/11 issues from thin air, I try to source everything as appropriate and I've read ALL these papers and watched ALL the videos I could get my hands on. Based on your posts, your claims and your characterization of those experts who authored that body of work I doubt that you researched anything of what I researched. You cited Mick West and NIST and invented your own hypothesis from an old video that you never properly vetted. Mick West is no expert of any kind, not even at "debunking", the NIST reports have been proven to be based on fraud and the video you used to formulate your hypothesis is utter nonsense that contains a disclaimer that YOU quoted in this post. Even the disclaimer is incorrect. I'll get to that later in this post. And that's about the extent of your research on the subject from what you've posted.

    Skipping the irrelevant.

    You can await anything you like. There is very little that's "speculative" about their findings. The evidence of NIST's massive failure comes from analysis of NIST's reports compared to actual data and structural drawings that NIST was forced to release upon FOIA request. If you actually studied what I posted on the subject and understood the implications and you were honest, you would never characterize these as "largely speculative findings". You either have never done the proper research as I suspect, don't understand these critical analyses, or you're just a plain denier, or a combination.

    Actually that's incorrect. My "embittered opinions" were established in 2004, long before much of this material was available and from the moment I studied the destruction of WTC1 and WTC2 and was first made aware of the destruction of WTC7 (which was suppressed by the US government and the MSM). I do need all the material I can get my hands on for my own purposes. I do not automatically believe something even if it confirms an issue I already believe, that's completely false. If you read my posts on Hulsey's research, you would know that. Hulsey claims that his research shows that there is no way WTC7 collapsed as a result of fire alone. Although I know 100% that WTC7 did not collapse as a result of fire alone, I don't see anywhere in his preliminary report that he has proven it. That he has proven that NIST's hypothesis is not valid is true but he has not proven to my satisfaction that WTC7 did not collapse as a result of fire alone. Unless of course I missed something. You OTOH have specifically chosen sources that strictly defend the OCT none of which are fact based but they serve to confirm YOUR already established opinions. You can look in the mirror for much of what you post about me.

    And I agree. However your posts show you are not qualified nor do you have any standing to formulate your own personal hypothesis for the destruction of WTC7. And based on the sources you used, it's even more obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

    But you're really not. The "anti-NIST team" (whoever you think they are) are actually many experts from many different technical disciplines who have done quite a bit of research on the subject, as opposed to you whose research is severely limited (and unsupported and unqualified) to that which you believe supports the OCT.

    That correct. The difference is I source what I post and the sources I use are not anonymous, they are from verifiable experts of all kinds.

    Yet all your posts are pro-OCT and none question it. If I'm wrong link one that questions the OCT.

    Exactly. I don't know where else you post nor do I care. Your posts in this forum speak for themselves.

    Quite a bit of what you post was supported by insults and still is but tempered and/or veiled these days.

    You keep posting that fallacy about "ignoring evidence" but often it's "evidence" that you want to use out of context to the central point. It's similar to Gamolon insisting on discussing irrelevant data points and ignoring the relevant ones. And I agree that I won't answer questions that are irrelevant to me or loaded questions.

    If you say so, your tone implies I comprehended it just perfectly.


    So you formulated a hypothesis from a video created over 10 years ago that contains a disclaimer that contradicts much of the video, yet you use your hypothesis to contradict many experts who have done the research, none of which you actually studied. The disclaimer claims "neither of these two (incorrect assumptions) greatly alter the overall conclusions for the mechanism of the collapse", which is wholesale nonsense. The video itself is authored by some anonymous character called RKOwens4 whose qualifications are a mystery. And this is your personal hypothesis in lieu of actually researching papers written by named and verifiable experts. All you're doing is confirming my assessment of you that you really are clueless on this subject and that's why there's no point for me to discuss it with you. I read everything I can find on this subject, including everything written from self admitted anonymous "debunker" websites. I'm sorry but you don't even qualify as a researcher.

    Correct and comparing what I've been doing since 2004 vs what you've been doing since who knows when, that would only be me. But I will stand corrected and apologize if you have actually reviewed Dr. Hulsey's preliminary report or the more recent video presentation by Roland Angle and are in a position to discuss these on an intelligent, technical basis even if (and especially if) you disagree with them. So please show me exactly who is really prepared to accept new information.

    This topic is about a NASA engineer who agrees with CIT. He is the same person who vehemently disagrees with the NIST report. My preference for focus of discussion is NIST and their report. Having said that NIST is a perfect example of a phony or no investigation. And the same is true for the 9/11 Commission and the Pentagon, as well as Shanksville. So all these 9/11 discussions share many things in common.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I know what you said, my comprehension abilities are way ahead of yours. You are invoking the number as an appeal to authority. You simply are incapable of acknowledging a damn thing.

    I live in the world where the numbers mean nothing when the experience of each individual is not up to the task. If this were me quoting a million of them, you would be waving your hands in the air and complaining.

    I genuinely think you have been doing this so long it has clouded your judgement and made your comprehension skills dumbed down. Not only am I not backtracking, I am exactly correct in what I wrote:

    "So, can we take it the quarter of a million or whatever arbitrary figure we can attribute to the rest of the engineers and architects in America think they are mainly full of crap. Kindly stop quoting this AE911 group as some sort of appeal to authority."

    Yep, you've definitely been at this too long. You really are piling more bullshit onto your ever increasing pile. You are now analyzing something trivial at a level of incredible incompetence. The analogy about the tin can was perfect to show how great strength needs only one ingredient removed to catastrophically alter it. NOWHERE did I say "several components" were missing from the analogy. I actually said that the GRAPHIC could not incorporate unknowns. NOT the analogy.

    That isn't hypocrisy in anybody's world and you really need to find a better outlet for all your passive aggression.

    I saw that "admission" in the Pentagon video, I missed where you replied to the follow up clarifying what that meant. ie. so very many posts about you claiming ALL plane parts had a log to the plane they were on. Retract that one, right now.

    Again demonstrating you know nothing about what a hypocrite is. You DO cite the number as a bullshit appeal to authority. I cited a person and an organisation, neither of which are used as an arbitrary figure to embellish expertise. Not hypocrisy.

    You "research" ONLY things that relate to what you believe, you are the epitome of one led by confirmation bias. NIST reports have not been "proven" to be based on fraud. A dishonest claim.

    Yep, I shall do that. You are the dental mayhem equivalent of a pleasant reasoned debate.

    In other words, if the word 911 appears in the thread title, or the thread is in the 911 sub-forum, regardless of the title and OP, you will post your repetitive claims wherever you wish.
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bob-waffle. You just do not know how to debate without your passive aggression pouring out more crass observations.

    False.

    No, you are spamming already posted and responded to items.

    A pathetic and inaccurate claim. It is not a falsehood to claim an aircraft hit the Pentagon when we have witnesses, dead body DNA and plane parts.


    This is the absurd gentleman who claims he was doing walking through walls experiments? In all his years as what? He was never a crash investigator and I'm fairly sure he would not have attended a crash where the objective was to obliterate the plane in an enclosed space.

    How come you never respond to that MAJOR point? Anyone would think you constantly avoided things.

    Post 2 does it for me.

    Your opinion on his videos are noted and dismissed.

    I am amazed that you transpose the label aimed at "truth seeker" and apply it to people like Hulsey on my behalf. I await his final report and conclusions and the findings of any committee as a result.

    Here is some light reading for you:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/71yw9v/nist_versus_dr_leroy_hulsey_911_megathread/

    Just don't. Don't dare associate your forum posting behaviour as a so called "truth seeker" and apply it on my behalf to this guy!

    Bob-waffle. Tin can analogy that you were wrong about on about 3 different points and a video that you have nothing but hot air as rebuttal. Just because I don't share your rather disturbing obsession about this or developed some pre-conceived and un-wavering conclusions, does not mean I am not interested. The labels you refer to have been acquired through continual denial of evidence and points that go against the fixated conspiracy.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess you've never read my posts on the subject of debate. I have consistently stated that I don't join discussion forums to debate. A debate is a game of sorts with an expected winner and an expected loser. If you want to play games there are many game sites available for your entertainment pleasure. I join discussion forums strictly to discuss and my primary focus of discussion is 9/11. So whether you believe I know or don't know how to debate is irrelevant, I just don't engage in debates, period.

    What's pathetic is your failure to understand that he is not making any claims about whether an aircraft hit the Pentagon or not. Get a dictionary and a grammar school teacher to explain to you what Col. Nelson is talking about within the context of what I quoted.


    Non sequitur. He has the credentials and background to know what he's talking about. You don't even have the background or the credentials or even the understanding to criticize his expertise and what he writes.

    I just did even though it's really an absurd non sequitur (as explained).

    You don't need to think about it, I admit I avoid useless garbage posts.

    I agree, it's just your level. Then again you never did study any of the other posts in the thread that you believe do not agree with your mentality.

    That goes without saying, you've been dismissing facts and expertise in lieu of tin cans, old videos that disclaim their own claims and trolls who have been banned from this forum.

    What on earth for? What's wrong with tin cans?

    Finally some really good reading material that I have never come across before. I truly appreciate that link. There are some excellent and very intelligent posts on both sides of the discussion, some are even well sourced. I read several of them and will get to the rest when I get a chance.

    So did anything he lectured on sink in for you? I'm guessing you still never bothered to review the video not that you would understand much of it.

    I already told you I prefer pancakes to waffles.

    I know those labels are your best and most favorite argument. Toss them out liberally with every post and that settles the discussion for you. The intelligence and maturity is impressive. And those tin cans, they explain everything about WTC7. I going to buy a can of beans today, eat the contents, maybe blow out some hot air afterward and step on the empty can to absorb all the available knowledge about WTC7 in the process.
     
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Bob0627 and Eleuthera like this.
  24. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    let's just get to your first "expert", Barry Zwicker ...

    the Wayne Coste vids prove no internal explosion could have caused the damage to the Pentagon ...

    oh wait, you haven't watched those videos have you Scott? ...
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But Shiner, there must be "as-builts" for the Pentagon that no one knows anything about that might reveal something else altogether for what really happened.

    One the problems I have (among many) in accepting the large plane impact theory is the nearly perfect round hole at the entrance to ring C. Coste videos or not, it makes no sense to me that any alleged airplane impact through 2 rings could have caused such a nearly perfect cut out by the time the debris reached ring C.
     

Share This Page