Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Free Fall thread

1…457910…19

Comments

  • #182
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I have shown you why thats not the case starting at 106 page down.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058013685&page=8

    We've shown you why it is the case. Here's an example:

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf


  • #183
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    We've shown you why it is the case. Here's an example:

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf

    Your linking to a report.
    Where in the report does Weidliger talk about freefall?


  • #184
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    "Little office fires"

    https://youtu.be/XW7CACDE-oU?t=101


  • #185
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    "Little office fires"


    Overheal can close the thread the debate over- freefall never happened in the NIST study. Images from their own computer model show it.


    We moving goalposts here again and saying another study showed it possible?


  • #186
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    "Little office fires"

    https://youtu.be/XW7CACDE-oU?t=101

    Notice how on floors where the glass is blown out and the fires are blazing:

    you can't see behind any of the glass that isn't already missing. It's all blacked out.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Overheal can close the thread the debate over- freefall never happened in the NIST study. Images from their own computer model show it.


    We moving goalposts here again and saying another study showed it possible?

    Yes the other study showed how fire explains the progressive collapse. https://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf


  • #188
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I Can see the images and photograph of the buildings just before collapse.

    That's nice.

    WTC 7 on the right

    b734974e31ced3574d1f2dd0589c7da2.jpg


  • #189
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    That's nice.

    WTC 7 on the right

    b734974e31ced3574d1f2dd0589c7da2.jpg

    Sorry to burst your bubble the times are shown for this are highlighted by NIST on page 200 (around 2pm) and keep going you find the image (overheal was looking for the source) there too taken at 3pm.

    https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

    Freefall never happened in the NIST computer model     Can close the thread.


  • #190
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The thread doesn't open and close because of your say so. Stop bringing it up. It's backseat modding. We'd have to card you, then you'd storm off again, cursing about moderator bias while everyone else on the forum stands by amused at the transparency of such a face-saving scheme.


  • #191
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    You found quotes have you talked to them personally?

    Are you claiming these interviews are false?

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

    "A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them."


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Sorry to burst your bubble the times are shown for this are highlighted by NIST on page 200 (around 2pm) and keep going you find the image (overheal was looking for the source) there too taken at 3pm.

    https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

    Thanks that's easier, now everyone has the same hymn sheet and you can just mention a figure or page number.

    As I said, in the Weidlinger report on page B-4 you can clearly see the WTC glass is mirror-finished and tinted (youtube videos of the fire also confirm this, you can't see the fire through any remaining glass)


  • #193
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Are you claiming these interviews are false?

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

    "A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them."

    I'd leave to see someone's strongest stab at this.

    Will they say 503 1st responders all had the same lie? Do you know how improbable it would be to demonstrate any interview of 503 different people who are trying to tell same lie that didn't have dozens, if not hundreds of perjurious contradictions and inconsistencies?


  • #194
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Are you claiming these interviews are false?

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

    "A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them."


    :D
    https://www.ae911truth.org/images//PDFs/090116-118Witnesses.pdf


  • #195
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    The thread doesn't open and close because of your say so. Stop bringing it up. It's backseat modding. We'd have to card you, then you'd storm off again, cursing about moderator bias while everyone else on the forum stands by amused at the transparency of such a face-saving scheme.

    I am finished. I proved my point hours ago.


  • #196
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    :D
    https://www.ae911truth.org/images//PDFs/090116-118Witnesses.pdf

    Attempted deflection but sure..

    Yes I am pretty confident these people heard explosions and loud bangs throughout the day. Firefighters also describe hearing these.

    Wouldn't that contradict your "silent explosives" theory?

    This doesn't address my question, the firefighters, chiefs and EMTs who described what they saw with their own eyes, are they lying according to you?


  • #197
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    I am finished. I proved my point hours ago.

    I haven't read a single post from a single skeptic that agrees with you there.


  • #198
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Interesting site containing a lot of info about Richard Gage's lies/deception

    Also the "expert" views of some of AE911's members..
    Here's what Gage's "expert" structural engineers say. All quotes are from Gage's website. These are the words of his best and brightest.

    –Charles Pegelow thinks nuclear weapons destroyed the towers. No, I'm not kidding.

    –Robert T. Mote thinks the tower collapses started from the bottom: "I could never understand the 'convenient' vertical collapse at the BASE due to an extreme event at height."

    –Structural engineer Dennis Kollar says, “For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD.” The "recorded explosions" he's referring to are wind noise captured by the camera in Hoboken, a few miles away from the WTC. That should be staggeringly obvious to anyone who has seen footage from close to the WTC, where what would be absolutely enormous "explosions" are not captured by any microphones.

    –Structural engineer Michael Donley says, "I have read the FEMA report and conclude that it is incomplete at best and a cover-up at worst.” The FEMA report? Welcome to 2002, Mr. Donley. You might try reading the 10,000 page NIST report. Can't blame you, though. Richard has led by example and not bothered to read the NIST report either. (Yes, I can prove that.)

    –Engineer Edward Knesl says, “We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.” Faster than freefall! He' hasn't even bothered to review videos of the collapses.

    Can these people possibly be any less competent?

    Actually, yes. Here's what AE 911 Truth engineer Donald Messerlian believes: “Seismographic evidence proved pre-planted explosives destroyed WTC 1, 2 and building 7 before the planes struck buildings 1 & 2.”

    Right. The three WTC buildings were destroyed before the planes hit. In the same vein of disturbed fantasy, Richard's aerospace engineer is a "no-planer":

    –"After performing some in-depth research on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that no commercial airplanes impacted the two WTC Towers. No commercial plane impacted the Pentagon. No commercial aircraft buried itself in Pennsylvania terra firma."

    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept


  • #199
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Attempted deflection but sure..

    Yes I am pretty confident these people heard explosions and loud bangs throughout the day. Firefighters also describe hearing these.

    Wouldn't that contradict your "silent explosives" theory?

    This doesn't address my question, the firefighters, chiefs and EMTs who described what they saw with their own eyes, are they lying according to you?

    It not silent. You can even see the demolition went off at the bottom here on video (see all black smoke moving to the left of the picture) and camera just far away you can't hear, the loud rubble sound. NIST also took out some frames for some reason, when the Penthouse fell. NIST is a deception group and hiding whats happening. Start at 8.13 minutes.



  • #200
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

    It not silent. You can even see the demolition went off at the bottom here on video (see all black smoke moving to the left of the picture) and camera just far away you can't hear, the loud rubble sound. NIST also took out some frames for some reason, when the Penthouse fell. NIST is a deception group and hiding whats happening. Start at 8.13 minutes.


    So now it wasn't thermite?


  • #201
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

    It

    More attempts to duck and evade, I would suggest a career in politics :)

    I'll ask the question again

    The firefighters, chiefs and EMTs who described what they saw with their own eyes, are they lying according to you?


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    So now it wasn't thermite?

    Harrit samples are from Twin Towers dust not wtc7.
    The towers exploded apart in air, suggests they used something else there.


  • #203
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    More attempts to duck and evade, I would suggest a career in politics :)

    Could say the same about you guys :)


  • #204
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    More attempts to duck and evade, I would suggest a career in politics :)

    I'll ask the question again

    The firefighters, chiefs and EMTs who described what they saw with their own eyes, are they lying according to you?

    I choose to infer that, since his only retort to your link to the NYT interviews of 503 people, was to link to AE911 who also holds up these interviews, and, he argues that these interviewees were correct in their statements, especially regarding explosive noises, then it would seem they are not lying according to him. So clearly skeptics and truthers here should be in complete agreement that there was a fire that ravaged the building through 12 to "nearly all" floors.


  • #205
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Harrit samples are from Twin Towers dust not wtc7.
    The towers exploded apart in air, suggests they used something else there.

    This is factually untrue - or at best misleading.

    If you want to get right down to this: Harrit et al. only had 4 dust samples, and none of them were in fact harvested from the WTC. The closest of the 4 samples is from an apartment across the street from the WTC complex, and it was harvested 1 week after the collapse, and it was collected by an amateur citizen in a plastic bag by unspecified mechanical means (no mention of gloves, etc). Section 1 of their paper explains this in clear detail.

    Therfore the samples are 'WTC dust' not just "WTC 1 dust" or "WTC 2 dust"


    There is only 1 sample, that you could have even tried this argument with:
    "The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was
    on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time
    the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He
    saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick
    dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful
    of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the
    end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the
    North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom
    Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of
    them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic
    bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust
    to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his
    testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape [17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It
    was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began
    later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7,
    which fell hours later."

    But, scientifically it's a contaminated sample. He carried it around in his hands, and so skin any other particles his hands touched before or after as he traveled to have it shown off apparently. And then it sat in storage for 6 years.

    (still, no aluminum oxide in any of those samples)

    https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

    Why would they use 'something else' for WTC 1 and 2 than WTC 7? Why not WTC 5? Or 3 or 4 or 6?


  • #206
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    This is factually untrue - or at best misleading.

    If you want to get right down to this: Harrit et al. only had 4 dust samples, and none of them were in fact harvested from the WTC. The closest of the 4 samples is from an apartment across the street from the WTC complex, and it was harvested 1 week after the collapse, and it was collected by an amateur citizen in a plastic bag by unspecified mechanical means (no mention of gloves, etc). Section 1 of their paper explains this in clear detail.

    Therfore the samples are 'WTC dust' not just "WTC 1 dust" or "WTC 2 dust"

    https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

    Why would they use 'something else' for WTC 1 and 2 than WTC 7? Why not WTC 5? Or 3 or 4 or 6?

    Read page 9! how they collected the dust and when.


  • #207
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Read page 9! how they collected the dust and when.

    Oh, I have. So, what is your point?


  • #208
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Overheal wrote: »
    Oh, I have. So, what is your point?

    Of course the nanothermite came from the collector hand. :) You solved it.


  • #209
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

    It not silent. You can even see the demolition went off at the bottom here on video (see all black smoke moving to the left of the picture) and camera just far away you can't hear, the loud rubble sound. NIST also took out some frames for some reason, when the Penthouse fell. NIST is a deception group and hiding whats happening. Start at 8.13 minutes.
    There's no explosion sound in this video. You only hear the sound of the building collapsing.

    According to you guys, 650 demolition charges just went off and took out all the steel supports on each of 8 floors.
    Yet, we can't hear any of them.

    That was why you guys invented the notion of thermite, to explain why there's no very obvious audio evidence.

    So again, no explosions, no explosives.
    No aluminium oxide, no thermite.

    Are you going to switch to space lasers like you have from thermite to explosives?

    Also, this video kinda also disproves the "symmetrical collapse" nonsense too.


  • #210
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,532 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Of course the nanothermite came from the collector hand. :) You solved it.

    Clearly he licked away all the aluminum oxide.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »

    According to you guys, 650 demolition charges just went off and took out all the steel supports on each of 8 floors.
    Yet, we can't hear any of them.

    But why do AE911 keep referring to "explosions" during the day, what, some shadowy unknowns were slowly blowing up a burning building during the day?

    Why? it's on fire, job is done! Why is there always this extra absurd effort and risk setting off explosives and nano-thermites

    And truthers deliberately avoid talking about this, like they know how bad it is, which requires some astonishing level of dishonesty and delusion


Advertisement