Is the 9/11 Forum Dying?

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent




You are drawing conclusions based on your own lack of experience in any of the fields needed.


so you all say...yet can't show this to be true...

you are DELIBERATELY posting I AM WRONG...yet offer NOTHING to show, but state I am ignorant in what I was taught.....lol!




If there were any merit to your personal beliefs there would be a ground swell of experts coming forth.


oh there is......and anyone whom believes the initial official claims does so based on TRUST, that the ones involved will do the right thing....

people do NOT even know there was a 2008 NIST webcast technical briefing let alone a claims of NEW physics phenomenon.
.....put it this way, no one WANTS to believe it UNTIL they actually hear it coming out of their own mouths.....
btw, my posting were discussed with me by a structural engineer whom wished to remain working in his field with no prejudice...when ya have the stigma of GB stating in a speech NOT to believe the 'conspiracy theories'....it takes a while to show that is the lie...but as you see, it does not take much to convince someone there is something seriously wrong with the OS.

so please do respond again when you have ACTUAL supporting evidence that shows me wrong




posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob



The Delft school of Architecture partially collapsed from fire several years ago. Witnesses reported hearing loud explosions.


really.....wow.......were the people at that collapse 1400 feet away, and did they HEAR the explosion BEFORE the building collapsed as in ALL they quotes I supplied state occurred???


Eyewitnesses report explosions. Unless you can use science to disprove those EYEWITNESS reports you must accept that all YOUR IDEAS whom you have have had about explosions at the world trade center are WRONG.

Why can't you do that with SCIENCES?



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: JuniorDisco




Why can't you do that with SCIENCES?


why can't you...that is all I quote....

ALL science tells us that light is FASTER than sound through air at sea level....there is no debating that fact...


LIEUTENANT PATRICK SCARINGELLO EMS
WTC2
"I heard the explosion from up above. I looked up, I saw smoke and flame and then I saw the top tower tilt, start to twist and lean".


cept on 9-11 when they are told what they hear is NOT explosions, but just the building collapse.....

since the SOUND already took about 2 seconds to reach them being 1400+ feet away from the source, THEN, they react, looking up to SEE the building START to collapse, AFTER the sound that gets their attention to look up...


so, lets see your science that makes that sound , just the sound of collapse.

if the sound is the collapse, they would have NEVER seen the start if it...because the initial sound wont reach them for two more seconds.....






that all YOUR IDEAS



where are these "ideas"?....I am posting facts and demanding an answer......how do ya like that idea!

why don't you list what YOU think are my ideas....

if one is asking questions and DEMANDING the supporting evidence of the ALREADY in-place claims pushed as truth.....then yer right......[WOW!...an OS pusher that can still get some things right]



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob

since the SOUND already took about 2 seconds to reach them being 1400+ feet away from the source,

You are obviously incapable of doing the math, so I will do the math for you.

Lieutenant Patrick Scaringello location Fulton and Church.

Distance from center of WTC2 to center of Fulton and Church: 722ft

Hight of collapse zone: 960ft

Resulting distance between collapse zone and Fulton/Church: 1201ft

Speed of sound at 70 deg F : 1128 feet per second.

Time it took sound to reach Patricks ear : 1.06 seconds

Distance top of tower would have fallen in that amount of time at 60% G : 9.8ft

In other words Patrick Missed observing about 10ft of a 1,362 ft collapse due to light/sound speed difference.



....I am posting facts


Obviously not.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob


It has been shown to you over and over just where you were wrong, and you refuse to accept it or even acknowledge it. You dont even bother clicking on any of the links provided that also explain why you are wrong, and you refuse to listen to anyone that disagrees with you and offers solid evidence disproving you.

For the umpteenth time, what the described was the sound of the building collapsing. The "explosion" they describe is how the described the collapse. You have to learn a thing or two on human reaction and recalling of events. The way they describe events is in their view. Did you know people described the plane crashes as explosions too? Did you know they also described the people bodies hitting the ground as explosions? Again, people describe any loud sudden sound as an explosion. I can give you a list of events that were non-explosive in nature that were described as sounding like an explosion or thought to have been explosions, from car wrecks and train derailments to building collapses and tornadoes.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne





Lieutenant Patrick Scaringello location Fulton and Church.


that was just one of many....


FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BOERI WTC2
"We had our backs to the tower and under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide"

FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2-
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down"






Distance from center of WTC2 to center of Fulton and Church: 722ft


the sound was not from the center, neither was the start of the collapse.....it was up near the top...now why would you say that?




Time it took sound to reach Patricks ear : 1.06 seconds


only by your own math claiming the origin of the sound they hear to get their attention was from the center of the building...it was not.....or are you claiming it was?






Distance top of tower would have fallen in that amount of time at 60% G : 9.8ft



uhm...WHOA!!!!......60%G !?!?!?!?!?!?

how does that happen....NOT from impact damage...2005 NIST found 14.5% asymmetrical damage and that did not effect collapse.

there are still 240 INTACT FIREPROOFED load bearing vertical support there.....and NO supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT failed any.

so YOU using the collapse to EXPLAIN the collapse does ya no good.....


....and guess how much space is in between the floor slabs.....around 12 feet.

and regardless...WTF did you prove??????

I'll tell ya....the math STILL PROVES the sound they hear is NOT collapse, it DOES NOT START until AFTER they look up...AFTER they hear the sound......the building is STATIC...NO dynamics to make the noise.


that was the ENTIRE point of my post , and you TOTALLY FAILED with the pathetic few tenths YOU are ATTEMPTING to distract with from your false starting point.....lmao!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob

WTF did you prove??????




Patrick Missed observing about 10ft of a 1,362 ft collapse due to light/sound speed difference.

Is the math too difficult for you to understand ?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne




Patrick Missed observing about 10ft of a 1,362 ft collapse due to light/sound speed difference.

Is the math too difficult for you to understand ?


did my post reflect that....no, I acknowledged your correction, TOLD you that you started your 'math' from a false point, but it DID NOT ALTER what I post ONE IOTA!!!!!...did it...because they STILL HEAR the sound of collapse BEFORE seeing the actual collapse occurring....the a few seconds later, THEY HEAR THAT!!!

now how bout we try this again and FOCUS on the point of the post.

remember the cartoons when characters got hit, they saw starz.....you have starz around that comment.....lol



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

You mean they heard a loud sound they took as an explosion. That is a big difference. They heard the floors start to collapse internally prior to the exterior visible collapse. Also, you had so many chemical reactions going on inside the fires, including flammable gases being formed from the combustion of the items burning inside, to hydrogen explosions from the molten aluminum coming into contact with water from broken water pipes.

Also, thermal expansion does not require super high temps. Steel can expand at far lower fire temps. Didnt you know this? When steel expands at different rates, the steel loses its ability to remain in a rigid shape. Add external forces on it, extra weight, and the steel will deform. Once rigidity is lost, the steel behaves in a more plastic way, the steel will fail and cause collapse. In fact, every firefighter knows this is simple adage: Never trust a truss. Trusses are THE MOST SUSCEPTIBLE to collapse from fires. And they fail RAPIDLY when exposed to fire temps. Plenty of examples are recorded in history, most famous being the McCormick Place fire in Chicago back in 1967. A large heavy steel trussed roof collapsed within 20 minutes of fire exposure. They thought it was impossible because it was large steel trusses, but they are dangerous in fires. Fireproofing helps but not if it is damaged, destroyed or never put on in the first place. this is what happened to the WTC Towers. The trusses were what helped bring down the buildings, due to damage and fires out of control. The trusses holding up the floors are the same kind you see holding up roofs of many of todays small single story businesses. Firefighters NEVER enter buildings like this due to the roof collapse that is inevitable.

You really need to get a little more educated in these things before making such ignorant claims and assumptions. I used to be a "truther" myself and thought Loose Change and all those Truther websites were amazing............... till I did my own research and noticed a lot of basic logic errors, lies, half truths, and just misinformation. Idiotic misinformation. It only took a couple days.

I love how you selectively use NIST to prop up your argument, but then totally ignore everything else that disproves your argument.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join