Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[T.A.M.]

I am sure, given Sunder's qualifications, and given he was speaking on behalf of NIST, that when the complete paper is out, Mark will revise his paper to indicate this...of course, the wording of the paper may be important...do they rule it out, or simply say it was unlikely, etc...

I have no personal reason to doubt that Mark will revise his page on this once the NIST Final report on WTC7 comes out.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

911myths also states that Leslie Robertson was chief engineer of towers, when it was John Skilling. Robertson clearly worked under Skilling.

source please, or is this just opinion?

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

I don't know let's ask him.

Gravy do you plan to revise your paper to reflect this new statement.


Now it's your turn:

Will you revise your view on controlled demolition.

Thank you for quoting so that Gravy will read my post.

It is not my turn. Gravy has not addressed this yet. I did not post a paper suggesting that the WTC was a CD.

When I post a paper about 9/11, feel free to start a thread and we will discuss any inaccuracies.

[LastChild]

He wasn't even an honorary firefighter. He lied about that. Yes, that is at least part of why he is a fraud. God knows what else he's lied about regarding 9/11.

"It wasn’t until two years later that we began getting complaints about him," Tinney said. "We have one honorary firefighter and that is a child from the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Aside from the child, it is normally the chiefs and those above who are made honorary firefighters and he (Bellone) isn’t one. He’s saying he was made an honorary firefighter by New York Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta. That’s a fallacy."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2788173&postcount=8

Try again.


What's the original source of that quote?

[DGM]

Thank you for quoting so that Gravy will read my post.

It is not my turn. Gravy has not addressed this yet. I did not post a paper suggesting that the WTC was a CD.

When I post a paper about 9/11, feel free to start a thread and we will discuss any inaccuracies.
Your welcome:

Do you think you should change your "argument" about CD? I know you have not produced a paper but you do argue in favor quite strongly.

[T.A.M.]

TAM, you know better. There are long, detailed threads on the shortcomings of the NIST report. And you're right, a lot of people here are very familiar with Hoffman, as well as NIST. Is all criticism of the NIST report simply the ramblings of "truthers"? Nope, this criticism is damn legitimate.

You're just picking on the new kid. Some of which may be deserved considering the almost complete lack of proper grammar, punctuation and proofreading.

I am "picking on the new kid" because:

(A) He comes in here like a touted expert, making proclamations. He is the one who has used the word "unscientific" and that is what I am calling him on. I have no doubt that people have "problems" with the NIST report. After reading comments from some of the more honest scientists such as Greening, I actually believe there are areas of the report that could have used further investigation. I also trust the likes of R.Mackey and his opinions on the report. So, NO, not all of the NIST criticism is the rambling of truthers, but a VAST MAJORITY of it is exactly that, uneducated, uninformed, paranoid ramblings...

(B) I could care less about his grammar, punctuation, and proofreading, unless it is very glaringly poor.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

Your welcome:

Do you think you should change your "argument" about CD? I know you have not produced a paper but you do argue in favor quite strongly.

Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.

[RedIbis]

I am "picking on the new kid" because:

(A) He comes in here like a touted expert, making proclamations. He is the one who has used the word "unscientific" and that is what I am calling him on. I have no doubt that people have "problems" with the NIST report. After reading comments from some of the more honest scientists such as Greening, I actually believe there are areas of the report that could have used further investigation. I also trust the likes of R.Mackey and his opinions on the report. So, NO, not all of the NIST criticism is the rambling of truthers, but a VAST MAJORITY of it is exactly that, uneducated, uninformed, paranoid ramblings...

(B) I could care less about his grammar, punctuation, and proofreading, unless it is very glaringly poor.

TAM:)

Both points are well taken. I would just suggest that there isn't so much focus on the ramblings, and perhaps a bit more focus on the legitimate concerns some of us have raised. I know it's easy to attack the "twoofers", but this strategy is a poor defense of the official theories.

And I'm the first to admit that my focus on grammar and proofreading is a bit obsessive.

[Jonnyclueless]

You compare building collapses during construction as a comparision to 9-11. In using pic of collapse you say that debris "clearly falling faster than the rest of the building." How clearly is it when you can't see top of building because of huge dust clouds? the debris could be stuff that started falling before collapse or it could have been blown out by explosions and started again before collapse. You have called Steven Jones science the worst you have seen, how do you know more about the scientific method than Jones? He has looked at evidence, done tests, and came to a hypothsis, how is that "the worst science you have seen? That in itself a useless statement especially since with no qualifications yourself how much weight should we give your opinion?
How can any reasonable person take your opinion over somebody like David Griscom? You make statements, gets documents & pics from goverment sources why should we trust anything that comes from such a obviously corrupt source?
Why doesn't 911 myths have a scientific back & forth like journalof911studies? Have you read Greening & Ross at journal? Thats how we should be debate the issues, no name calling no personal attacks, just opinions on the evidence and complicated mathamatical equations. Thats how mature educated people discuss issues. 911myths also states that Leslie Robertson was chief engineer of towers, when it was John Skilling. Robertson clearly worked under Skilling.

As opposed to you twoofers who try to compare buildings of completely different designs and completely different damage circumstances? Stop being dishonest.

And yes the debris clearly DID fall faster than the top of the building. While you may live in denial and pretend it's obscured by dust, this is simply NOT TRUE. Although it's pretty ironic coming from a group that claims to know the exact collapse time being free fall when the bottom of the collapse cannot be seen.

How does he know more about the scientific method than Jones? Because ALL of Jone's methods have been scientifically proven as fraud. There's no debating this. How is it that you think that because jones is a scientist that he is therefore correct? You don't seem to hold this standard for the millions of other REAL scientists who all disagree with Jones. So your requirement for his credibility is simply that he is telling you what you want to hear, not that he makes actual valid scientific arguments. In fact I doubt you even understand his claims beyond something that confirms your pre-determined beliefs. Have you even READ any of the threads that show WHY his findings are absurd? Clearly you haven't. When he makes claims such as there being thermate based on the level of sulfer found and the levels of sulfer not only don't match that of his claims, but the key ingredient of thermate found is 0%, that's called FRAUD. A 1st grader could understand this flaw. But yet you don't. Because you probably didn't even bother to read any of Jone's findings. All you know is "scientist+conspiracy=must be right". And man of the people on this forum who have pointed out these errors in Jone's work are FAR FAR FAR FAR more qualified than Dr Jones and have far better credentials than Dr Jones. But you probably aren't even aware that Jones field of expertise is not in the proper field of study, he's a physicist, not a structural engineer. Not that that prevents him from being knowledgable, his work shows that. But since all that matters to people like you are credentials and not someone's actual work, then you fail on that point as well.

And how can anyone take Dave G seriously? Please stop diluting yourself. The bottom line is that you clearly have a pre-determined conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job based on your political beliefs and dislike for the current political party and simply base your conclusions on whomever will help you confirm your opinion so you can pretend your opinion is factual.

[funk de fino]

What's the original source of that quote?

Do not defend Ballone, it makes you look silly

You do know he was charged with stealing things also?

[chillzero]

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed. Then bodies were found strapped to their seats. How is that possible? could a human body survive in a plane that was destroyed almost completly?

To prevent getting this thread off topic again, perhaps you could start a new thread based on what I have quoted above, and explain exactly what you think happens when a plane crashes.

Do you think that to say a plane is totally destroyed means it simply vanishes, and so does everything that was within it?

Do you consider a plane to be destroyed if, for example, it is split into many many pieces, and the contents strewn around? Or is that not destroyed?

If you wish to respond appropriately, then you need to identify specifics about what Mark Roberts has been incorrect about, and show evidence of how he is incorrect. That's what this thread is about.

[DGM]

Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.
I'm sorry if I misunderstand your believes.

So you argue that it couldn't happen the way that is generally accepted but offer no alternative explanation? I can't recall too many times that you have argued against a "truther's" point of view. I have also seen you steadfastly defend Willie Rodriguez who does support the CD theory.

Maybe you would be better understood if you explain what you do stand for.

[Corsair 115]

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed. Then bodies were found strapped to their seats. How is that possible? could a human body survive in a plane that was destroyed almost completly? Because a human body is not an aircraft, and an aircraft is not a human body. Different materials, different structures, different properties, and thus different reactions to exerted forces.

[Belz...]

Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.

No, of course not...

[Gravy]

You compare building collapses during construction as a comparision to 9-11.Where do I do that?


In using pic of collapse you say that debris "clearly falling faster than the rest of the building." Many photos and videos show large debris hitting the ground 300, 400, 500 feet and more before the collapse wave. This isn't rocket science, lisabob.

You have called Steven Jones science the worst you have seen, how do you know more about the scientific method than Jones?Specifically what do I get wrong in my critiques of Jones? (I know you won't answer, but I'll give this the old college try.)

How can any reasonable person take your opinion over somebody like David Griscom? I ask no one to believe my opinions. Specifically what do I get wrong?

You make statements, gets documents & pics from goverment sources why should we trust anything that comes from such a obviously corrupt source?Specifically what do I get wrong? Show your evidence.

Why doesn't 911 myths have a scientific back & forth like journalof911studies?Feel free to suggest that to the person who runs that site, Mike Williams.

911myths also states that Leslie Robertson was chief engineer of towers, when it was John Skilling. Robertson clearly worked under Skilling.1) Why are you telling me what 911myths says?

2) Leslie Robertson was the Engineer of Record for the Twin Towers, not John Skilling. If you do your homework, you'll avoid looking like a fool.

[LastChild]

Do not defend Ballone, it makes you look silly

You do know he was charged with stealing things also?

I'm not defending anyone I'm asking. Someone asked me for the source of something and I produced it. Now I'm asking. Where is the original source of that quote. Who was that told to?

"It wasn’t until two years later that we began getting complaints about him," Tinney said. "We have one honorary firefighter and that is a child from the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Aside from the child, it is normally the chiefs and those above who are made honorary firefighters and he (Bellone) isn’t one. He’s saying he was made an honorary firefighter by New York Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta. That’s a fallacy."

[Gravy]

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed.Yes. The insurance adjuster wrote it off as a total loss.

I have heard Roberts disregard evidence as wrong and produce pics that he says prove him right.Prove it.

One more thing Roberts says plane that hit pentagon crashed going down when all "evidence"(light poles down, videos) show plane travelling horizontal. Completely ridiculous (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary).

since flying a 757 or 767 at altitudes below 1000 feet at high speeds is impossible, it would shake and be uncontrollable, according to Boeing engineers & Pilots.You made that nonsense up. That seems to be a habit with you. You really should stop doing that. Remember that this forum is populated by critical thinkers who don't suffer fools gladly.

-2787482791697822411

Now cut the crap, stop your pathetic whining and spewing of falsehoods, and get to work.

[Gravy]

I'm not defending anyone I'm asking. Someone asked me for the source of something and I produced it. Now I'm asking. Where is the original source of that quote. Who was that told to?

"It wasn’t until two years later that we began getting complaints about him," Tinney said. "We have one honorary firefighter and that is a child from the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Aside from the child, it is normally the chiefs and those above who are made honorary firefighters and he (Bellone) isn’t one. He’s saying he was made an honorary firefighter by New York Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta. That’s a fallacy."Ah, I see Google isn't working for you. That's unusual. Tell you what: an ex-roommate of mine is good friends with one of Google's founders. I'll give her a ring and see if she can run your problem by him. It is a holiday weekend, though, so your fix may have to wait until Wednesday. Is that okay?

[pomeroo]

I am not a moron. I find problems with nist report. David Griscom is not a moron and he finds problems with nist report. Gordon Ross is not a moron,Hugo Bachmann, PhD
Jörg Schneider,James R. Carr, PhD, PE ,Mario Fontana,Ted Muga,William Rice,Charles N. Pegelow all are very highly educated people and not morons all have issues with the unscientific nist report.
No call me a moron but when highly eduacted people agree on something it takes more than somebody who calls people morons on posts to make me change my mind.


William Rice is a guy in his eighties who has read absolutely nothing on 9/11 that wasn't produced by loons. His ignorance of the basic issues is staggering. Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider reject the fantasy movement's moonshine about explosives in the Towers. For reasons that remain inexplicable, they lend their names to baseless nonsense regarding the collapse of building 7. Pegelow works on oil rigs. I assume the others are members of Richard Gage's circus of frauds. Why do you suppose these clowns refuse to debate rationalists?

[AZCat]

I am not a moron. I find problems with nist report. David Griscom is not a moron and he finds problems with nist report. Gordon Ross is not a moron,Hugo Bachmann, PhD
Jörg Schneider,James R. Carr, PhD, PE ,Mario Fontana,Ted Muga,William Rice,Charles N. Pegelow all are very highly educated people and not morons all have issues with the unscientific nist report.
No call me a moron but when highly eduacted people agree on something it takes more than somebody who calls people morons on posts to make me change my mind.

Please take care in reading my posts in the future. I was responding to your claims that there were scientists who stated that the NIST report was unscientific. You respond with the claim that there are people (including you) who "find problems with the nist (sic) report".

Either you are incapable of reading my posts properly or you are moving the goalposts (a typical truther tactic).

Let me reiterate: If someone thinks the NIST report is unscientific, that person is a moron or hasn't read it. We get both types here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having problems with the NIST report. There are plenty of academics and professionals who have suggested or investigated improvements to the methods used by the NIST. To consider the report unscientific, on the other hand, is to dismiss the whole process, one where a large group of knowledgeable professionals took on a complex and daunting problem and largely succeeded in taming it.

[twinstead]

That's a well played card, but this thread is about Mark's errors. Do you think Mark should eliminate or revise that page?

Whose theory do you accept, Mark Roberts' or NIST's Sunder's?

I accept the theory that says the building was brought down by extensive damage and fire instead of CD.

Oh. Wait. That's both of them. My bad.

[Slayhamlet]

Do not defend Ballone, it makes you look silly

You do know he was charged with stealing things also?

He was cleared of charges (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:GFc6T7N4O9sJ:www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/September_05/) when the DA declined to prosecute him, probably because prosecuting a 9/11 hero for these minor offenses (he was using the equipment for his educational charity called T.R.A.C. Team and returned it (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:vapNgAH1AokJ:www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/October_05/) after the files were charged, and none of his impersonations were done with malicious intent) would generate horrible press. He was there at Ground Zero and he did help as a volunteer, but his credibility is shot to shreds by his many misrepresentations of himself as a safety director with the FDNY (http://www.blessedcause.org/Encourage/Biblepage.htm), WTC Task Force Fire Safety Director (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/911-sunday.html), Ground Zero Recovery Director (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2004/jan/26/ndn_ground_zero_exhibit_to_make_stops_in_collier__/), and of course "honorary firefighter". He was none of these.

The whole thing reminds me of this story (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/nyregion/27survivor.html).


Edited to fix links

[Jonnyclueless]

Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.

Clearly it was a good case o osmosis. Certainly couldn't have been that big plane and raging fires. THAT would be implausible. Probably just as well that those guys hit the buildings with planes seeing as those towers were coincidentally going to collapse that day anyways.

[A W Smith]

Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.

make your case for erosion then, if they didn't collapse or were not CD then its space beams or???? Go ahead ceramic bird. make your case. stop JAQing off.

[Gravy]

Wait, RedIbis is saying that my October, 2006 paper is in error when it states this:
Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?

Short answer: we don’t know. The final NIST WTC 7 report should shed more light on this issue, which is an important one.

And when the final report is out, we'll know more.

RedIbis, do not ask others to quote your posts for me. I have you on ignore for a reason: your astonishing ignorance combined with your obsession with me makes you a complete waste of time.

[Slayhamlet]

Ah, I see Google isn't working for you. That's unusual. Tell you what: an ex-roommate of mine is good friends with one of Google's founders. I'll give her a ring and see if she can run your problem by him. It is a holiday weekend, though, so your fix may have to wait until Wednesday. Is that okay?

It looks like gmtoday.com (website for a Milwaukee newspaper) takes down old articles from their site, but fortunately the article (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:vapNgAH1AokJ:www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/October_05/) is still in google cache.

[Pookster]

What's the original source of that quote?

The original link in the linked post isn't working now. Here is the cached version though ...

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:vapNgAH1AokJ:www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/October_05/10182005_10.asp+It+wasn%E2%80%99t+until+two+years+ later+that+we+began+getting+complaints+about+him,% 22+Tinney+said.+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[Pookster]

I'm not defending anyone I'm asking. Someone asked me for the source of something and I produced it. ....


If you're referring to me, I didn't ask you for anything. I asked Swing Dangler to provide the quote by DeMasi that details his 2004 claim. I still don't see it posted by him.

[Pookster]

It looks like gmtoday.com (website for a Milwaukee newspaper) takes down old articles from their site, but fortunately the article (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:vapNgAH1AokJ:www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/October_05/) is still in google cache.

You beat me to it. Thanks! :o

[beachnut]

Please quote me arguing strongly in favor of CD. I argue strongly that official collapse theories, for example, are contradictory, lacking, and often implausible. That's not the same as arguing in favor of CD.
No, arguing would include facts and evidence to support your non position. You are a non position person, you have made a mistake there saying you argue against some OCT, but you have not presented your case, you have no facts, you have no evidence, you have not argued. Your strongly is really funny. Fact less strongly supporting your fantasy non position. Wowzer.

Please point me to those times you strongly argue your anti OCT stuff? Funny!

[beachnut]

those pics are not evidence of anything but damage at ground zero. Jones said the core columns pic is curious but more test would have to be done on the core column. He did not jump to any conclusions about that pic. He has done scientific tests that he says suggest thermate was used and his hypothesis was that it or some other incenderary was used to weaken the steel columns. What scientific tests were done to prove him wrong?
Jones makes up stuff about 9/11. Fools believe him. I think this poves a lot about something.

Why are those who believe 9/11 truth unable to look up stuff on their own?

[LastChild]

The original link in the linked post isn't working now. Here is the cached version though ...

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:vapNgAH1AokJ:www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/October_05/10182005_10.asp+It+wasn%E2%80%99t+until+two+years+ later+that+we+began+getting+complaints+about+him,% 22+Tinney+said.+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Ok it says there is an on going investigation back in 2005. What happened? Was he convicted of something?

[LastChild]

He was cleared of charges (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:GFc6T7N4O9sJ:www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/September_05/) when the DA declined to prosecute him, probably because prosecuting a 9/11 hero for these minor offenses (he was using the equipment for his educational charity called T.R.A.C. Team and returned it (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:vapNgAH1AokJ:www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/October_05/) after the files were charged, and none of his impersonations were done with malicious intent) would generate horrible press. He was there at Ground Zero and he did help as a volunteer, but his credibility is shot to shreds by his many misrepresentations of himself as a safety director with the FDNY (http://www.blessedcause.org/Encourage/Biblepage.htm), WTC Task Force Fire Safety Director (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/911-sunday.html), Ground Zero Recovery Director (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2004/jan/26/ndn_ground_zero_exhibit_to_make_stops_in_collier__/), and of course "honorary firefighter". He was none of these.

The whole thing reminds me of this story (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/nyregion/27survivor.html).


Edited to fix links

I saw this after my last post.

Well granted if he went around claiming he was a firefighter then that is wrong. But he was there right and his story about the black boxes is the same as the firefighter who said they found three out of four no?

[LashL]

Ok it says there is an on going investigation back in 2005. What happened? Was he convicted of something?

Read #1022.

[Jonnyclueless]

I saw this after my last post.

Well granted if he went around claiming he was a firefighter then that is wrong. But he was there right and his story about the black boxes is the same as the firefighter who said they found three out of four no?

You mean the firefighter who also claims he was part of the challenger clean up. definitely a credible source...At least he isn't known for stealing too, oh wait...

[SpitfireIX]

No problem

It’s DeMasi who is claimed in the Aug 2003 book to have witnessed the following…

DeMasi was with now defunct Engine Company 261 in 2001. He wrote up his recollections of the Ground Zero recovery in a glossy book self-published by a group that calls itself Trauma Recovery Assistance for Children, or the TRAC Team. The book was published in 2003 but received little notice.
DeMasi, an all-terrain vehicles hobbyist - said he donated 4 ATVs to the clean-up and became known as “the ATV Guy.”

“At one point, I was asked to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes,” he wrote. “We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV...”

“There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.”

This was pointed to and brought to light in the 2004 Philadelphia News article that was then picked up and ran by other news agencies. If DeMasi or other are misrepresented then one would think there should be some sort of retraction somewhere. Unless of course you are making the implication that Bellone, DeMasi, and others, are conspiracy liars looking to make a buck on accusing innocents of murder. In which case you would think DeMasi would have followed up on his claims to milk it for all it’s worth.

Now would DeMasi a firefighter at the time be accusing himself of murder?

What is your implication? I don't think Swing pointing to an article from 2004 that quotes DeMasi from a late 2003 book can really be pointed to as inaccurate. At least not anywhere near the same level of inaccuracy shown by Gravy who seemed to conveniently miss this entire documented fact.


DeMasi's story is not a "documented fact" by any stretch of the imagination. It's nothing more than a single anecdote, and, as I've mentioned before, both here and on BAUT, it's totally non-credible.

First, the idea that three of the flight recorders could have been located in a single day of searching is utterly implausible. The recorders would have had to have been near enough to the surface of the debris to have been retrievable on that particular day, but not exposed in the open where someone would have noticed them and called attention to them. It is remotely possible that the CVR and FDR from one aircraft could have been located this way, had they both remained attached to a small section of the fuselage, but for recorders from both aircraft to have turned up in this way is a virtual impossibility.

Second, there is no special equipment that can help to locate flight recorders that end up on land. The only sort of beacons the recorders are equipped with are sonic Underwater Locator Beacons ("pingers") that activate if the devices are immersed in water (see here (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_fdr.htm)).

Finally, even if such equipment existed, it would have been operated by technicians from the National Transportation Safety Board, rather than Federal law-enforcement agents. Whenever the FBI takes over an air crash investigation because a criminal act is suspected, the NTSB still provides technical assistance, as it did in the analysis of the recorders from United 93 and American 77.

As usual, you uncritically accept any claim that appears to cast doubt on "the official story," no matter how [edit: weak] that claim might be.

[Pookster]

I saw this after my last post.

Well granted if he went around claiming he was a firefighter then that is wrong. But he was there right and his story about the black boxes is the same as the firefighter who said they found three out of four no?

Bellone is a liar and a fraud. The only claims I'm aware of by DeMasi were the ones in the book that was co-authored with this liar. I've seen no quotes by DeMasi claiming the book is accurate or true. Until I see such a confirmation of accuracy of the 2003 claims that can be provided by DeMasi, his book, and its claims, written with a proven fraud is worthless.

I've certainly seen no claims quoted from 2004 by DeMasi. This alleged claim is the one from the article posted by Swing Dangler to assert Gravy is in error. I'm beginning to wonder if that article is itself ... erroneous. Oh, the irony ... if that is the case.

[Gravy]

First, the idea that three of the flight recorders could have been located in a single day of searching is utterly implausible. ...Months later. By driving around the site. Where hundreds of people had walked every single day. Where signs were posted showing what the recorders look like. Absolutely absurd.

DeMasi may have found something of interest to the FBI, but it wasn't the black boxes. Note that he hasn't made the claim since.

Oh, and that "self-published" book of theirs? Well, it wasn't self-printed. They stuck the printer for $200,000. I don't know if it was ever paid back. That organization, which was not registered as a charity, wound up being sued several times by creditors.

[twinstead]

As usual, you uncritically accept any claim that appears to cast doubt on "the official story," no matter how that claim might be.

Oh dude. Say it isn't so...

[Pookster]

...Months later. By driving around the site. Where hundreds of people had walked every single day. Where signs were posted showing what the recorders look like. Absolutely absurd.

DeMasi may have found something of interest to the FBI, but it wasn't the black boxes. Note that he hasn't made the claim since.

Oh, and that "self-published" book of theirs? Well, it wasn't self-printed. They stuck the printer for $200,000. I don't know if it was ever paid back. That organization, which was not registered as a charity, wound up being sued several times by creditors.

(emphasis added)

DeMasi seems to be playing hard to get ever since 2003.

[SpitfireIX]

Oh dude. Say it isn't so...


Alas, it's true; I left out a word. I'm staying in this closet, and I'm never coming out :boxedin:

[RedIbis]

Wait, RedIbis is saying that my October, 2006 paper is in error when it states this:


And when the final report is out, we'll know more.

RedIbis, do not ask others to quote your posts for me. I have you on ignore for a reason: your astonishing ignorance combined with your obsession with me makes you a complete waste of time.

You have me on ignore because I've corrected you several times. You have me on ignore because you can't berate and intimidate me as you do to others.

And don't tell me what to do. This thread is for picking out your errors and as long as I stay within the rules of the forum, that's exactly what I intend on doing.

Speaking of which...

[RedIbis]

...on the same page, "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

there is this incredibly incorrect assumption.

"Debunk911myths.com makes the interesting point that the south face damage seen in the photo below aligns with WTC 7's emergency generator fuel distribution system."

As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face. The fuel distribution system does not extend above the ninth floor. The damage is definitely not consistent with the fuel distribution system. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

This is an error and Mark should correct or eliminate it. In fact, he might want to delete the whole page from his paper.

[DavidJames]

...on the same page, "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

there is this incredibly incorrect assumption.

"Debunk911myths.com makes the interesting point that the south face damage seen in the photo below aligns with WTC 7's emergency generator fuel distribution system."

As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face. The fuel distribution system does not extend above the ninth floor. The damage is definitely not consistent with the fuel distribution system. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

This is an error and Mark should correct or eliminate it. In fact, he might want to delete the whole page from his paper.At some point Red, maybe you or Swing will find an error which materially changes the entire point of his papers. Keep picking at nits though, I suspect it's pretty much all you've got to live for*

*in terms of your 9/11 CT fantasy.

[Jonnyclueless]

...on the same page, "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

there is this incredibly incorrect assumption.

"Debunk911myths.com makes the interesting point that the south face damage seen in the photo below aligns with WTC 7's emergency generator fuel distribution system."

As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face. The fuel distribution system does not extend above the ninth floor. The damage is definitely not consistent with the fuel distribution system. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

This is an error and Mark should correct or eliminate it. In fact, he might want to delete the whole page from his paper.

So you are saying that the damage didn't align with the generators? I don't believe the site (which was simply referred to as having made an interesting point, not claiming it as fact) is claiming nesc that the damage went below the 9th floor or conclusively shows that there was damage to the fuel tanks.

[twinstead]

Well, yea, 'cause the end result of both of Red's and Swing's arguments is exactly the same: Uncontrolled fires and heavy damage sealed the fate of the WTC7.

Was it from the fuel tanks?

Does it really matter? Unless said truthers can come up with a competing theory that fits the facts better this entire thread is a huge pile of feces.

[RedIbis]

At some point Red, maybe you or Swing will find an error which materially changes the entire point of his papers. Keep picking at nits though, I suspect it's pretty much all you've got to live for*

*in terms of your 9/11 CT fantasy.

Once Swing and I get through with Gravy's work, there won't be anything left to pick.

[T.A.M.]

Once Swing and I get through with Gravy's work, there won't be anything left to pick.

I hate to poke fun Red, but this comment is laughable. The "pointing out factual errors in Mark's paper" fray has been going on for a while now, and so far you are asking for corrections on something that is unofficial until NIST publishes their official WTC paper. At best it is a possible, or likely error based on the information at the time.

For my sake, please list the FACTUAL Errors you have found in his paper. Shouldn't take you long.:D

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

I hate to poke fun Red, but this comment is laughable. The "pointing out factual errors in Mark's paper" fray has been going on for a while now, and so far you are asking for corrections on something that is unofficial until NIST publishes their official WTC paper. At best it is a possible, or likely error based on the information at the time.

For my sake, please list the FACTUAL Errors you have found in his paper. Shouldn't take you long.:D

TAM:)


How about post 1043, about five posts up?

[LashL]

How about post 1043, about five posts up?

How about addressing the posts you've studiously ignored in the Naming Names thread, RedIbis? 270 and 301 for starters.

[CHF]

Once Swing and I get through with Gravy's work, there won't be anything left to pick.

:dl::dl::dl:

[RedIbis]

How about addressing the posts you're ignoring in the Naming Names thread, RedIbis?

Isn't there some rule about crossthread stalking?

[T.A.M.]

...on the same page, "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

there is this incredibly incorrect assumption.

"Debunk911myths.com makes the interesting point that the south face damage seen in the photo below aligns with WTC 7's emergency generator fuel distribution system."

As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face. The fuel distribution system does not extend above the ninth floor. The damage is definitely not consistent with the fuel distribution system. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

This is an error and Mark should correct or eliminate it. In fact, he might want to delete the whole page from his paper.

"Aligns" means to line up. he did not say that the gash directly crosses or passes through the area in question. Also, how do we know how far down the south face the gash persisted? We can see from the photo that the damage start up top, but smoke obliterates the end of the gash below, does it not??

TAM:)

[LashL]

Once Swing and I get through with Gravy's work, there won't be anything left to pick.

You and "Swing" (as you call him/her) had best get started then, since you haven't managed to land even a single body blow yet although you've been trying for quite some time now.

[RedIbis]

"Aligns" means to line up. he did not say that the gash directly crosses or passes through the area in question. Also, how do we know how far down the south face the gash persisted? We can see from the photo that the damage start up top, but smoke obliterates the end of the gash below, does it not??

TAM:)

Gravy is trying to suggest that the gash aligns with the fuel distribution system. It simply does not. The gash begins at the top, the system is only as high as the ninth floor.

Deceptive and misleading information. Gravy should omit it.

[T.A.M.]

RED:

Looking at the photos found here...

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

I would say the damage to the south face could very well have extended to the 9th floor...would you not say so??

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Isn't there some rule about crossthread stalking?

Usually I would agree with you, but he has a point; exactly how much do you expect to hide in other threads when your theories are legitimately under attack?

Isn't there some rule about crossthread avoidance of contrary evidence?

[T.A.M.]

Gravy is trying to suggest that the gash aligns with the fuel distribution system. It simply does not. The gash begins at the top, the system is only as high as the ninth floor.

Deceptive and misleading information. Gravy should omit it.

I would say it is speculative, but then again he does not state it as otherwise, if you read his wording he calls it "interesting", and he is referring to "Debunk911myths.com" and their take on it. This still is not a FACTUAL ERROR.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

I would say it is speculative, but then again he does not state it as otherwise, if you read his wording he calls it "interesting". This still is not a FACTUAL ERROR.

TAM:)

The factual error is that the gash aligns with the fuel system. It doesn't. Whether the gash was caused by the fuel system explosions is pure speculation.

[RedIbis]

Usually I would agree with you, but he has a point; exactly how much do you expect to hide in other threads when your theories are legitimately under attack?

Isn't there some rule about crossthread avoidance of contrary evidence?

Unless I'm mistaken, Lash is a female. The questions in that thread are based on speculation. I've stated my case over there, repeatedly.

[LashL]

Isn't there some rule about crossthread stalking?


Stalking? Don't flatter yourself.

I just happened to notice that you were here on this thread as I was reading it, and asked you to address the posts that you've been studiously avoiding on another thread. You call that "stalking"? I call it avoidance on your part.

*lightbulb* Oh, I see. If you claim that you are being "stalked" (as silly as that is), you think that gives you an excuse to continue to avoid answering legitimate posts and queries. Got it, now.

[T.A.M.]

The factual error is that the gash aligns with the fuel system. It doesn't. Whether the gash was caused by the fuel system explosions is pure speculation.

Yes, but Roberts is reporting it as something Debunk911myths.com has stated, so IF (a big if) there is an error in fact, it is with that site, not Mark's reporting of it.

If I write a paper on Myocardial Infarction, and I state,

"Dr. Blowmedown states that ACE Inhibitors are not protective for subsequent Infarctions when given immediately after an initial event." Is my paper in factual error if experts say that ACE Inhibitors are protective for subsequent Infarctions?

No, of course not.

TAM:)

[LashL]

Usually I would agree with you, but he has a point; exactly how much do you expect to hide in other threads when your theories are legitimately under attack?

Isn't there some rule about crossthread avoidance of contrary evidence?

No, there is no rule against avoidance, crossthread or otherwise. Members are entitled to avoid posts that cause them discomfort and entitled to avoid posts that they are ill-equipped to respond to in any meaningful fashion.

However, most people here are smart enough to recognize such avoidance when they see it. Unfortunate, that, for the likes of RedIbis. ;)

[LashL]

The questions in that thread are based on speculation.


My straightforward question to you is a direct question without any speculation whatsoever. Of course, you know that, which is why you've avoided answering it.

[pomeroo]

Once Swing and I get through with Gravy's work, there won't be anything left to pick.


Not to sound impatient, and I wouldn't want to suggest that I lack confidence in the abilities of two such sterling researchers, but are there any projections as to when either of you might actually find an error in one of Mark's papers?

[LashL]

Not to sound impatient, and I wouldn't want to suggest that I lack confidence in the abilities of two such sterling researchers, but are there any projections as to when either of you might actually find an error in one of Mark's papers?

Computerized extrapolation of the posts by RedIbis and SwingDangler indicates that the earliest possible date is somewhere around the twelfth of never.

[einsteen]

At some point Red, maybe you or Swing will find an error which materially changes the entire point of his papers. Keep picking at nits though, I suspect it's pretty much all you've got to live for*

*in terms of your 9/11 CT fantasy.
The difference between a diesel feeded fire or an ordinary office fire is no nitpicking David, especially not for the official theorists for who fire is essential to explain a fast, symmetrical and complete collapse.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

hey I can add another one:

“Gravy did not address the issue, except where he addressed the issue!”

“The buildings were not subject to massive smoke and fires except where they were subject to massive smoke and fires!”

"Gravy did not say he was talking about WTC7 except where he said he was talking about WTC7 (i.e. the title, the index, and the first line of the article itself.)"

I swear this guy is disinfo! Nobody can be THIS bad!

Oh yes! swing IS this bad!

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Isn't there some rule about crossthread stalking?

Yes. it's called being a Red-Coward when you run away from threads.

[Gravy]

Well, yea, 'cause the end result of both of Red's and Swing's arguments is exactly the same: Uncontrolled fires and heavy damage sealed the fate of the WTC7.

Was it from the fuel tanks?

Does it really matter? Unless said truthers can come up with a competing theory that fits the facts better this entire thread is a huge pile of feces.Oh, sweet, innocent twinstead! Don't you know that my making any mistakes means that:

9/11 was an inside job
All evidence to the contrary is invalidated
al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism don't exist
Bush will be impeached
Ron Paul will be elected
All truthers will receive one virgin, which will make two in the basementDon't you see, twinstead? This is a holy mission. It's like "The Nine Billion Names of God." It's like a Dan Brown novel. It's like, a revolution.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg

[Malmoesoldier]

That you're hoping for such a patently unlikely event, and that you think there are "big boys" in Richard Gage's group, tells me that you've never seen the ae911truth website.

I see you like to stay away from facts as always.

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in structural design questions the official account of the events of 9/11

The list goes on and on there are many experts that has spoken out, if you want to find that out just try to check out the facts ;)

[uk_dave]

I see you like to stay away from facts as always.

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Please link to his paper.


Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

You might want to double check that.


Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in structural design questions the official account of the events of 9/11


uh huh... you might want to look into that one too.


The list goes on and on....
No it doesn't. In fact it hasn't even started.

....there are many experts that has spoken out, if you want to find that out just try to check out the facts ;)

ohhhhh the irony.

:i:

[Malmoesoldier]

Please link to his paper.



You might want to double check that.



uh huh... you might want to look into that one too.


No it doesn't. In fact it hasn't even started.



ohhhhh the irony.

:i:

Please prove me wrong, show me where they have stated "i dont think it was a controlled demolition anymore" i cant see you did it in your post and i dont think you ever will do it either.

The list on http://www.ae911truth.org/ and http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ is fake right.

Those lists speaks for themself and they are intelligent people that understands the simple facts that 9-11 was an inside job even if there was no bombs in the building. But the massive evidence shows there was bombs.

[uk_dave]

So you can't and you won't.

No surprise there then.

[Malmoesoldier]

So you can't and you won't.

No surprise there then.

Dont show me the source then and keep making false claims if that makes you feel good.

[Gravy]

I see you like to stay away from facts as always.

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition.
Wow, a mechanical engineer who's an air conditioning specialist presents no evidence or research but calls for a new investigation into the collapses? We'd better get right on that then! :eye-poppi

What sad buffonery.

[Malmoesoldier]

Wow, a mechanical engineer who's an air conditioning specialist presents no evidence or research but calls for a new investigation into the collapses? We'd better get right on that then! :eye-poppi

What sad buffonery.

Steven jones and others as already provied hard evidence that only a fool can deny, and he agrees with that evidence. And he has 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices.

[Gravy]

Steven jones and others as already provied hard evidence that only a fool can deny, and he agrees with that evidence. And he has 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices.By gosh, you're right! Just look at all the hard evidence Jones has!
(http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept)

[RedIbis]

The difference between a diesel feeded fire or an ordinary office fire is no nitpicking David, especially not for the official theorists for who fire is essential to explain a fast, symmetrical and complete collapse.

It sure is going to be interesting to see how NIST comes up with a collapse theory for WTC 7 without the diesel being involved.

Not surprisingly, Gravy is going to wait to change his paper, even though Sunder has categorically ruled out diesel. Not a bad strategy when you consider how damn long it's going to take NIST to actually release the report.

Without diesel fuel, Gravy will have to eliminate a whole section of his paper.

[Belz...]

You have me on ignore because I've corrected you several times.

Red, a slight grammatical note: several doesn't mean "zero".

You have me on ignore because you can't berate and intimidate me as you do to others.

How does he intimidate them ? By threatening to charge more on the next tour ?

[funk de fino]

I saw this after my last post.

Well granted if he went around claiming he was a firefighter then that is wrong. But he was there right and his story about the black boxes is the same as the firefighter who said they found three out of four no?

No, he claims he only saw one of them (apparently)

[Belz...]

Once Swing and I get through with Gravy's work, there won't be anything left to pick.

Oh, this'll come back to bite you!

Not surprisingly, Gravy is going to wait to change his paper

Yeah, that's what we tend to do: improve upon previous work.

Without diesel fuel, Gravy will have to eliminate a whole section of his paper.

Assuming that this is removed from the final NIST report, right ?

[Gravy]

OMG! I'm going to have to alter a page that states a hope that more information will be forthcoming in NIST's final WTC 7 report, when more information is forthcoming in NIST's final WTC 7 report?

Whatever will I do?

It's hilarious that this concept is abhorrent to 9/11 deniers. Wait: no, it's sad.

[Jonnyclueless]

Are these guys brain damaged? Do they not understand what the word align means? Do why not understand that the comment is not making a claim that the fuel tanks played a part but merely pointing out that it's one possibility? And that the only reason for bringing it up is that the report is not yet out on WTC7. The only thing we really know for sure is that there has been no evidence what so ever found to suggest foul play in the collapse of WTC 7.

[Malmoesoldier]

OMG! I'm going to have to alter a page that states a hope that more information will be forthcoming in NIST's final WTC 7 report, when more information is forthcoming in NIST's final WTC 7 report?

Whatever will I do?

It's hilarious that this concept is abhorrent to 9/11 deniers. Wait: no, it's sad.

I wonder why you dont do a paper titled "Questions about 9-11 the government hasnt awnsered" because there are quite ALOT of questions that hasnt been awnsered.

Instead you make a paper that trys to debunk stuff (im sure you have found some mistakes and debunked theme) and then when your paper is finished you give the impression that why the towers fell has been explained when in reality the cause of the collapse hasnt been explained. anyone that says "NIST has proved the cause of the collapse with 100% evidence" is a lier.

So what a sane person that has looked into 9-11 would say instead of 100% of the time trying to debunk stuff would be "We need a new investigation into 911 because there are many unanswered questions, and the cause of the collapse of the towers hasnt been explaind" that is what a sane/honest person would say.

[Gravy]

Malmoe, you don't even know what paper is being referred to. You're making crap up. You embarrass yourself further with every post. Just stop. Deliberate ignorance is bad.

[Corsair 115]

Malmoe, you don't even know what paper is being referred to. You're making crap up. You embarrass yourself further with every post. Just stop. Deliberate ignorance is bad.Well, he is the same guy who started a thread about how the UN/NWO is secretly conspiring to wipe out 80% of the world's population (UN/NWO plan to reduce the world’s population by 80%
).

[Malmoesoldier]

Malmoe, you don't even know what paper is being referred to. You're making crap up. You embarrass yourself further with every post. Just stop. Deliberate ignorance is bad.

Im just saying you should be honest and do a paper about all the unanswered questions, and dont make it look like the cause of the collapse of the towers is explained.

Well, he is the same guy who started a thread about how the UN/NWO is secretly conspiring to wipe out 80% of the world's population (UN/NWO plan to reduce the world’s population by 80%
).

You are the guy that dont understand simple text you read?. Im sure you also thinks the human population has exceeded earth's biosphere capacity and that we cant be this many people right? that is not propaganda it is true right? and we should be around 1 billion right? and NSSM 200 doesnt talk about reducing the population in the third world by letting theme starve , etc etc, Right... Dont you people ever give up and just admit to yourself that something with your mind and the way you see the world dont seems right? because you give words new meanings all the time, an intelligent sane person wouldnt do that, would they?. First step, turn OFF the television.

[T.A.M.]

Im just saying you should be honest and do a paper about all the unanswered questions, and dont make it look like the cause of the collapse of the towers is explained.



You are the guy that dont understand simple text you read?. Im sure you also thinks the human population has exceeded earth's biosphere capacity and that we cant be this many people right? that is not propaganda it is true right? and we should be around 1 billion right? and NSSM 200 doesnt talk about reducing the population in the third world by letting theme starve , etc etc, Right... Dont you people ever give up and just admit to yourself that something with your mind and the way you see the world dont seems right? because you give words new meanings all the time, an intelligent sane person wouldnt do that, would they?. First step, turn OFF the television.

Yes and it is your crowd that believes in space aliens, bigfoot, Nessie, Pearl Harbour was an inside job, 9/11 was an inside job, etc...what is your point?

First step, TURN OFF THE PARANOIA!!!

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

You are the guy that dont understand simple text you read?. Im sure you also thinks the human population has exceeded earth's biosphere capacity and that we cant be this many people right? that is not propaganda it is true right? and we should be around 1 billion right? and NSSM 200 doesnt talk about reducing the population in the third world by letting theme starve , etc etc, Right... Dont you people ever give up and just admit to yourself that something with your mind and the way you see the world dont seems right? because you give words new meanings all the time, an intelligent sane person wouldnt do that, would they?. First step, turn OFF the television.Roffle! You've got a thread for that already. I even linked to it!

By the way, the rant of yours above only makes Gravy's comment seem even more accurate.

[A W Smith]

Yes and it is your crowd that believes in space aliens, bigfoot, Nessie, Pearl Harbour was an inside job, 9/11 was an inside job, etc...what is your point?

First step, TURN OFF THE PARANOIA!!!

TAM:)


Malmoe lost the remote control for the paranoia when it fell between the cushions of the sofa that was repossessed by the furniture rental company.

[Malmoesoldier]

Yes and it is your crowd that believes in space aliens, bigfoot, Nessie, Pearl Harbour was an inside job, 9/11 was an inside job, etc...what is your point?

First step, TURN OFF THE PARANOIA!!!

TAM:)

No my crowd does not belive in bigfoot Nessie. space aliens? offcourse there exist aliens somewhere, maybe humans even?. everybody today believes that, its the question if they have already visited earth that some dont believe, but we do KNOW that if the government made contact they wouldnt tell anything about it.

They knew the attack on pearl harbor was coming 12 days before and did nothing. You cant say anything that will make that okey, that is a rule in war you DONT put your soldiers in danger WITHOUT their permission.

When you talk about 911 you lie, you are not honest. you talk like there is proof of what caused the collapse, and you ignore all the unawnsered questions. First step for you, start beeing honest.

Roffle! You've got a thread for that already. I even linked to it!

By the way, the rant of yours above only makes Gravy's comment seem even more accurate.

The people in that thread are very weak/scared people. yes i have that thread and it is full with facts, anyone that dont agrees with that and states that they think we should reduce they have no future on this planet [edited]

Be civil and polite.

[DGM]

Malmoe:
Because you don't seem to have an English to Swedish dictionary:

fact
6 entries found.

factfact-checkfact finderfact of lifematter[1,noun]matter-of-fact



Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: \ˈfakt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century
1: a thing done: as aobsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> carchaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact : in truth

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fact

[beachnut]

No my crowd does not belive in bigfoot Nessie. space aliens? offcourse there exist aliens somewhere, maybe humans even?. everybody today believes that, its the question if they have already visited earth that some dont believe, but we do KNOW that if the government made contact they wouldnt tell anything about it.

They knew the attack on pearl harbor was coming 12 days before and did nothing. You cant say anything that will make that okey, that is a rule in war you DONT put your soldiers in danger WITHOUT their permission.

When you talk about 911 you lie, you are not honest. you talk like there is proof of what caused the collapse, and you ignore all the unawnsered questions. First step for you, start beeing honest.

The people in that thread are very weak/scared people. yes i have that thread and it is full with facts, anyone that dont agrees with that and states that they think we should reduce they have no future on this planet.[edited]
No facts on 9/11, add that with your income tax ignorance, and you have a long way to go to be rational on 9/11 and other subject. You have decided not to learn, but spew lies. Bad choice.

You can not even stay on topic; is that because you have no clue what happen on 9/11?

[T.A.M.]

No my crowd does not belive in bigfoot Nessie. space aliens? offcourse there exist aliens somewhere, maybe humans even?. everybody today believes that, its the question if they have already visited earth that some dont believe, but we do KNOW that if the government made contact they wouldnt tell anything about it.

They knew the attack on pearl harbor was coming 12 days before and did nothing. You cant say anything that will make that okey, that is a rule in war you DONT put your soldiers in danger WITHOUT their permission.

When you talk about 911 you lie, you are not honest. you talk like there is proof of what caused the collapse, and you ignore all the unawnsered questions. First step for you, start beeing honest.



The people in that thread are very weak/scared people. yes i have that thread and it is full with facts, anyone that dont agrees with that and states that they think we should reduce they have no future on this planet. [edit]

While you may not believe in Bigfoot and Nessie, I would put money on a larger percentage of the truther nuts believing it then the general populous. You seem wishie washie about the alien issue. And as for "everyone believing" their are aliens somewhere, you seem to be ignoring a lot of religious people who may beg to differ. I am not saying they are right, but your statement that EVERYONE believes there are aliens somewhere, is likely incorrect.

As for the rest...that's your paranoia, not mine...good luck with it.

TAM:)

[Malmoesoldier]

No facts on 9/11, add that with your income tax ignorance, and you have a long way to go to be rational on 9/11 and other subject. You have decided not to learn, but spew lies. Bad choice.

You can not even stay on topic; is that because you have no clue what happen on 9/11?

Been to your therapy today?. you where in war right? you probably needed much therapy after you had fighted for the dark side.

While you may not believe in Bigfoot and Nessie, I would put money on a larger percentage of the truther nuts believing it then the general populous. You seem wishie washie about the alien issue. And as for "everyone believing" their are aliens somewhere, you seem to be ignoring a lot of religious people who may beg to differ. I am not saying they are right, but your statement that EVERYONE believes there are aliens somewhere, is likely incorrect.

As for the rest...that's your paranoia, not mine...good luck with it.

TAM:)

Yes that is true, some religious people dont belive in it. that is something i cant understand, why would they call some other intelligent humans/aliens from a nother planet anything other then alien, they just like to use words that fits their religion more.

No i am not paranoid for demanding answers of unanswered questions, that is something any sane person would do, but some people is not interested in the truth and think they know what happen without evidence to prove it, and because some people think like that and dont demand answers of unanswered questions etc, people like hitler gets into power.

And there is nothing you can say that makes pearl harbor okey, if you agree with that decision not to tell the soldiers anything you are evil.

[beachnut]

Been to your therapy today?. you where in war right? you probably needed much therapy after you had fighted for the dark side.

Yes that is true, some religious people dont belive in it. that is something i cant understand, why would they call some other intelligent humans/aliens from a nother planet anything other then alien, they just like to use words that fits their religion more.

No i am not paranoid for demanding answers of unanswered questions, that is something any sane person would do, but some people is not interested in the truth and think they know what happen without evidence to prove it, and because some people think like that and dont demand answers of unanswered questions etc, people like hitler gets into power.

And there is nothing you can say that makes pearl harbor okey, if you agree with that decisions not to tell the soldiers anything you are evil.
You are off topic; the only people who act like hitler are people not smart enough to understand 9/11, and income tax! Ignorance of 9/11 and income tax are you primary attributes. You have failed on 9/11 and income tax, do you have anything on the topic, an error you would like to point out in Mark's work? Well do you? Bet you can not keep on topic! You will not fail me, your next post will have off topic content! (mil is mine)

So do I get a mil or not? NOT…
I told you! You have no rational question or ideas on 9/11, and you will post far out junk already debunked to the nth degree.

Back to topic or our posts will end up in AAH! So back to errors, is it still at zero errors found and supported in fact, yet a bunch of woo and off topic crap like me. Zero errors?

[Malmoesoldier]

You are off topic; the only people who act like hitler are people not smart enough to understand 9/11, and income tax! Ignorance of 9/11 and income tax are you primary attributes. You have failed on 9/11 and income tax, do you have anything on the topic, an error you would like to point out in Mark's work? Well do you? Bet you can not keep on topic! You will not fail me, your next post will have off topic content! (mil is mine)

Its TAM and the others that is offtopic, they state things like "you think pear harbor was an inside job" etc when i hadnt said anything about it. Im just answering their offtopic bs with the truth.

You think the cause of the collapse is explained in the NIST report right?. if thats the case then you are a lier or havnt read the NIST report. And there are many other questions sourounding 9-11 that hasnt been awnsered like why the refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/08graham.html

[Gravy]

yes i have that thread and it is full with facts, anyone that dont agrees with that and states that they think we should reduce they have no future on this planet.[edit]Anyone who supports population reduction should be killed!

[beachnut]

Its TAM and the others that is offtopic, they state things like "you think pear harbor was an inside job" etc when i hadnt said anything about it. Im just answering their offtopic bs with the truth.

You think the cause of the collapse is explained in the NIST report right?. if thats the case then you are a lier or havnt read the NIST report. And there are many other questions sourounding 9-11 that hasnt been awnsered like why the refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/08graham.html
As predicted by me, you are posting off topic. You are so ignorant on 9/11 topics you have to post tripe off topic? Why are you so ignorant on 9/11? ESL?

But your post is political tripe, ie. it should be posted under politics. Except it has CT, bizarre CT ideas! So!
Mr. Graham made the accusation in a new book and repeated it at a news conference Tuesday arranged by Senator John Kerry's (http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/johnfkerry/index.html?inline=nyt-per-pol) presidential campaign. Republicans called the accusations "bizarre conspiracy theories," and the Saudis said they were unsubstantiated and reckless.
You are talking about a book! And here the book is being pushed by political BS! Do you understand any of this. BTW, it is funny, the whole article if funny when you think about it. Ironic!
OK, everyone. This thread is for Xena, Swing, RedIbis, and any other Truther who wants to jump in here.

For the purposes of this thread, we'll assume that I am a fencesitter on all things 9/11. I stand willing to be persuaded on any matter.

What I would like to see is independent confirmation of an error that Mark Roberts has made. That is, I want to see just exactly where he's gone wrong. It's very simple, really; just say "Mark Roberts said X (link), but the truth is actually Y(link)."

I will accept no opinion pieces; I'm a skeptic after all. I want to see verifiable facts. Anything posted will be checked for accuracy and context.

Go to it. I'm waiting.
Here is the opening post, please try to post something on this and stop trashing the thread with your nonsensical post; this is not the comedy forum. Try hard to bring facts next time.

[DGM]

No my crowd does not belive in bigfoot Nessie. space aliens? offcourse there exist aliens somewhere, maybe humans even?. everybody today believes that, its the question if they have already visited earth that some dont believe, but we do KNOW that if the government made contact they wouldnt tell anything about it.

They knew the attack on pearl harbor was coming 12 days before and did nothing. You cant say anything that will make that okey, that is a rule in war you DONT put your soldiers in danger WITHOUT their permission.

When you talk about 911 you lie, you are not honest. you talk like there is proof of what caused the collapse, and you ignore all the unawnsered questions. First step for you, start beeing honest.



The people in that thread are very weak/scared people. yes i have that thread and it is full with facts, anyone that dont agrees with that and states that they think we should reduce they have no future on this planet. [edit]
Aren't you wishing humanity harm with this statement?:confused:

[Malmoesoldier]

Anyone who supports population reduction should be killed!

yep they should if it is in a way like letting people starve or Sterilization or policys that will cut down the worlds population to some billions less then what we are now. If you as a person makes that possible with votes or whatever you should be in jail, you have no right as a human to make that possible, you can think whatever you want inside you house for yourself but if you make it happen you should be in jail. satanic people arent welcomed on earth.

[Malmoesoldier]

[COLOR=black]And here the book is being pushed by political BS! Do you understand any of this. BTW, it is funny, the whole article if funny when you think about it. Ironic!

No its not BS. But it dont fit your belief system so you think it is BS.

Do you think Saudi Arabia would admit that they was involved in 9-11 if they where?. America does business with terrorist from Saudi Arabia.

Rudy Giuliani's Ties to Terror: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIPc6wHAO28

[Arus808]

malome, please take your off topic rants to their respective threads. This is about Gravy's paper, of which you haven't read at all. If you can't keep it to the paper in question, every post that you make, off topic will be reported

[TimB1]

because some people think like that and dont demand answers of unanswered questions etc, people like hitler gets into power.

No no, you're forgetting your own theory: the reason that Hitler got into power was that the UN funded him, remember?

[Malmoesoldier]

No no, you're forgetting your own theory: the reason that Hitler got into power was that the UN funded him, remember?

No i dont remember that because i never said that. But i did say who funded hitler and that was not a theory it was a fact people on this forum even admits it and they still think they are freeee. If you dont know who funded hitler i will tell you why you dont know, because school dont teach any real history. But UN are funded by people connected to the ones that funded hitler.

Stop all offtopic BS about me "you believe that and that" and i will leave this thread alone and let the other people debunk marks paper.

Please stay on topic: Mark Roberts' paper and any errors therein. If there is further discussion of Hitler or other off topic or derailing ideas, this thread will be split.

[pomeroo]

Im just saying you should be honest and do a paper about all the unanswered questions, and dont make it look like the cause of the collapse of the towers is explained.



You are the guy that dont understand simple text you read?. Im sure you also thinks the human population has exceeded earth's biosphere capacity and that we cant be this many people right? that is not propaganda it is true right? and we should be around 1 billion right? and NSSM 200 doesnt talk about reducing the population in the third world by letting theme starve , etc etc, Right... Dont you people ever give up and just admit to yourself that something with your mind and the way you see the world dont seems right? because you give words new meanings all the time, an intelligent sane person wouldnt do that, would they?. First step, turn OFF the television.


First step: Take your meds.

[pomeroo]

[snip]--drivel


They knew the attack on pearl harbor was coming 12 days before and did nothing. You cant say anything that will make that okey, that is a rule in war you DONT put your soldiers in danger WITHOUT their permission.


No, "they" didn't. "They" don't exist. Stop lying.

[TriskettheKid]

They knew the attack on pearl harbor was coming 12 days before and did nothing. You cant say anything that will make that okey, that is a rule in war you DONT put your soldiers in danger WITHOUT their permission.

Are you serious?

You think a General needs the permission of those serving underneath him to put them in harm's way?

You think Eisenhower held a vote on June 4th, and again on June 5th, on whether or not to invade?

[Minadin]

No my crowd does not belive in bigfoot Nessie. space aliens? offcourse there exist aliens somewhere, maybe humans even?.

<snip>



I'm fairly certain humans do exist somewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth).

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

I wonder why you dont do a paper titled "Questions about 9-11 the government hasnt awnsered" because there are quite ALOT of questions that hasnt been awnsered.
Why don't you write a paper about questions that have not been "AWNSERED"?
What are you waiting for?
Hurry before a well-dressed shill bring you you to the FEMA
camp I run here in houston!

[e^n]

You think the cause of the collapse is explained in the NIST report right?. if thats the case then you are a lier or havnt read the NIST report.

I have read the NIST report and I know that it does explain the cause of collapse. To state otherwise is a deliberate lie. You have no theory which accounts for things like

1. Progressive increase in floor disconnection
2. Perimeter column bowing experienced on both towers
3. WTC7's east penthouse
4. The statements of firefighters
5. The statements of structural engineers (on the day and in person, see Frank DeMartini)

Can you explain any of these without resorting to incoherent supposition and inference? NIST has provided explanations for each which fit with known facts. If you disagree please answer these quetions

1. What temperature do typical office fires reach
2. What temperature do beams in typical office fires reach
3. What force would be required to remove fireproofing from the towers
4. What element would resist collapse enough to slow it down by a significant amount?

You can explain none of the former, and answer none of the latter without jepoardising your case. I would put my christmas money on it.

[Corsair 115]

They knew the attack on pearl harbor was coming 12 days before and did nothing.Care to present your rock solid evidence to back up that claim? There's already an existing thread started by kageki to discuss it in: Pearl Harbor was not a surprise (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=99575).

yes i have that thread and it is full with facts...You seems to be overlooking the important point that all your alleged facts were roundly debunked. Of course, you could not accept this.

[Malmoesoldier]

Are you serious?

You think a General needs the permission of those serving underneath him to put them in harm's way?

You think Eisenhower held a vote on June 4th, and again on June 5th, on whether or not to invade?

Just tell the truth that you think it was a good decision to let theme die. love the government, they really care about you.

I have read the NIST report and I know that it does explain the cause of collapse.

I see you are a lier?. they dont give any evidence to what caused the collapse, they have a theory, not evidence. dont lie it can be a dangerous thing. you are on ignore.

Care to present your rock solid evidence to back up that claim? There's already an existing thread started by kageki to discuss it in: Pearl Harbor was not a surprise (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=99575).

You seems to be overlooking the important point that all your alleged facts were roundly debunked. Of course, you could not accept this.

No i dont care to present that, its very easy to find it on the internet and i am not interested in talking with a bunch of idiots in that thread, people on this forum are stupid as nazis. You can go to that thread and talk with ignorant people that WORSHIP their god the government.

No nothing in my thread got debunked but peolpe stated that they thought 80% of the population should die and that its not a bad thing with reducing the population down to a couple billion less then what we are now, its good for the earth they said. [edited]
"So what america funded hitler, what has that to do with my government?, it was many years ago. so what school didnt learn us that fact, it was probably the only fact they didnt learn us, i am freeeeeeee!

Stop using violent language and derailing this thread. Now.

[beachnut]

, people on this forum .

Do you have some facts to go with that?

I mean, some examples. You have failed to come up with an error in Mark's work. Why?

So do you even understand Mark's paper? Can you find it?

[DavidJames]

[edited]
"So what america funded hitler, what has that to do with my government?, it was many years ago. so what school didnt learn us that fact, it was probably the only fact they didnt learn us, i am freeeeeeee!Please seek professional help before you do something to harm yourself or those around you.

[Belz...]

They knew the attack on pearl harbor was coming 12 days before and did nothing.

Evidence ?

When you talk about 911 you lie, you are not honest. you talk like there is proof of what caused the collapse, and you ignore all the unawnsered questions.

Explain this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c4f64e35.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3266)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c65f25a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3267)

[Belz...]

Been to your therapy today?. you where in war right? you probably needed much therapy after you had fighted for the dark side.

You watch too many movies, or the same ones too often.

No i am not paranoid for demanding answers of unanswered questions

You are if the questions have already been answered and you refuse to accept it.

And there is nothing you can say that makes pearl harbor okey,

Tell that to the Japanese.

if you agree with that decision not to tell the soldiers anything you are evil.

"Evil" ? What's that ?

yep they should if it is in a way like letting people starve or Sterilization or policys that will cut down the worlds population to some billions less then what we are now.

Are... are you advocating the murder of millions of people ?

If you as a person makes that possible with votes or whatever you should be in jail, you have no right as a human to make that possible

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the right to opinion had been revoked. Which amendment was that ?

satanic people arent welcomed on earth.

Satan ? Who's that ?

[Corsair 115]

No i dont care to present that, its very easy to find it on the internet and i am not interested in talking with a bunch of idiots in that thread, people on this forum are stupid as nazis. You can go to that thread and talk with ignorant people that WORSHIP their god the government.Evasion noted.

For the record: when challenged to support his claim, Malmoesoldier refused to do so and instead resorted to silly and childish name calling.

I think that pretty much says all one needs to know about Malmoe's ability to argue a point of his.

[twinstead]

Evasion noted.

For the record: when challenged to support his claim, Malmoesoldier refused to do so and instead resorted to silly and childish name calling.

I think that pretty much says all one needs to know about Malmoe's ability to argue a point of his.

In his defense it must be frustrating that people keep asking him to support his claims with facts. I mean seriously. He doesn't have to. He's just right and we're just a bunch of mindless Nazis for even daring to doubt him and that's that. It's so OBVIOUS.

We should be ashamed of ourselves.

[Coffee]

In his defense it must be frustrating that people keep asking him to support his claims with facts. I mean seriously. He doesn't have to. He's just right and we're just a bunch of mindless Nazis for even daring to doubt him and that's that. It's so OBVIOUS.

We should be ashamed of ourselves.

At this point it should be obvious that Malmoesoldier is deeply entrenched in his belief system. He is incapable of engaging in a civil discussion. This is apparent by his own words where he expressed a desire to harm others. It would be best not to engage him further.

Now can we get this thread back on topic please?

Mark Roberts Factual errors ..GO! :)

[twinstead]

At this point it should be obvious that Malmoesoldier is deeply entrenched in his belief system. He is incapable of engaging in a civil discussion. This is apparent by his own words where he expressed a desire to harm others. It would be best not to engage him further.

Now can we get this thread back on topic please?

Mark Roberts Factual errors ..GO! :)

killjoy. As a third-string debunker I have to take my small victories when I can get them.

But, alas, you are correct.

[e^n]

I see you are a lier?. they dont give any evidence to what caused the collapse, they have a theory, not evidence. dont lie it can be a dangerous thing. you are on ignore.

I doubt you have actually ignored me but I though i'd make this point even if you had.

I gave you some specific questions which you must answer in order to show NIST has not provided evidence and I gave you some critical problems with theories which you must resolve for your point to be valid.

You have done neither, so when you say
they dont give any evidence to what caused the collapse
We can easily tell from this that you are either lying, or you are incompetent enough that you have read through the NIST report and failed to notice any of their supporting evidence.

Conspiracy theories are not inherently wrong, but when your only method of arguing is to claim of your opponent that he is a liar and you are ignoring him without providing any evidence is pathetic. Indeed your entire attitude towards this is childish and illogical. Why would you choose to insult me rather than show where I was wrong? Typically this is because you cannot do the latter so must resort to the former.

Tell me, have you met MirageMemories? (Yes MM I namedropped you in a post, you have been baiting me into it for some time but I felt it was relevant in a thread about someone who is utterly unable to come to terms with their own incorrectness).

[David B. Benson]

Just posting so I can avoid getting e-mail from this thread.

Bizarre design, IMO.

[Belz...]

I never get e-mail from any thread... you just chose to receive e-mail confirmation when you subscribed to the thread. I'm sure you can undo that.

[CHF]

So....any errors by Mark Roberts yet? And by that I mean any errors that actually make a difference.

[twinstead]

So....any errors by Mark Roberts yet? And by that I mean any errors that actually make a difference.

Well, I know he neglected to get me that 54 inch LCD HDTV I wanted for Christmas, if that counts...

[Gravy]

So....any errors by Mark Roberts yet? And by that I mean any errors that actually make a difference.I misspelled "Alhazmi" on my site. Fixed it...just in time!

Well, I know he neglected to get me that 54 inch LCD HDTV I wanted for Christmas, if that counts...I didn't have a box big enough, so it'll arrive at two 27-inch screens and a tube of Krazy Glue.

[RedIbis]

Wait, RedIbis is saying that my October, 2006 paper is in error when it states this:


And when the final report is out, we'll know more.

RedIbis, do not ask others to quote your posts for me. I have you on ignore for a reason: your astonishing ignorance combined with your obsession with me makes you a complete waste of time.

Obsession? If I had an obsession with you I would make youtube videos with fantasy dialogue, pretending to be you. Now that would be obsessive.

Your paper suggests that the WTC 7 southface gash is consistent with the fuel distribution system. Given the chart on pg 36 of http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf
are you ready to admit your error?

[Good Lt]

Obsession? If I had an obsession with you I would make youtube videos with fantasy dialogue, pretending to be you. Now that would be obsessive.

Your paper suggests that the WTC 7 southface gash is consistent with the fuel distribution system. Given the chart on pg 15 of http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf
are you ready to admit your error?

Wait...the Troofers who claim with no proff that 9-11 was an inside job are claiming fervently and repeatedly that others are committing noticeable factual errors?

:dl:

[RedIbis]

Wait...the Troofers who claim with no proff that 9-11 was an inside job are claiming fervently and repeatedly that others are committing noticeable factual errors?

:dl:

If nothing else I appreciate your quoting of my post.

[Good Lt]

That's fine, but you still haven't addressed your central and overriding error - 9-11 was not an inside job.

You're claiming that it was. You're wrong.

Address this please.

[RedIbis]

That's fine, but you still haven't addressed your central and overriding error - 9-11 was not an inside job.

You're claiming that it was. You're wrong.

Address this please.

Get real familiar with the quote function and address something that I actually posted.

[DGM]

Obsession? If I had an obsession with you I would make youtube videos with fantasy dialogue, pretending to be you. Now that would be obsessive.

Your paper suggests that the WTC 7 southface gash is consistent with the fuel distribution system. Given the chart on pg 15 of http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf
are you ready to admit your error?
Why do you refer to the diagram (page) fuel before the 1994 modifications. You need to read deeper into the report.

[Pookster]

If nothing else I appreciate your quoting of my post.

You seem a bit obsessed with making sure Gravy sees your words though. Just because one skeptic spurns your advances, doesn't mean you can't hook up with another. I mean, there are plenty of other fish in the sea ... like about 95.4% (minus 1, of course) of the population. Surely you can hook up with one of them. Go get'um, tiger!

[RedIbis]

Why do you refer to the diagram (page) fuel before the 1994 modifications. You need to read deeper into the report.

I did post the wrong page number. I will change my post to pg 36 which shows that the highest floor the distribution system was on is the 9th and does not correspond to the gash, as Gravy's paper suggests.

ETA: pg 36 is the final plan after modification.

[T.A.M.]

RED:

Looking at the photos found here...

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

I would say the damage to the south face could very well have extended to the 9th floor...would you not say so??

TAM:)

I am not sure if you saw this Red, but there is at least one photo on this site, where if you line up the floor numbers with the damage, it seems clear that SOME damage to the south facade did extend to the 9th floor...don't you think?

TAM:)

[Good Lt]

Get real familiar with the quote function and address something that I actually posted.

Seems to be working just fine.

So 9-11 wasn't an inside job, then?

Or was it?

[16.5]

Your paper suggests that the WTC 7 southface gash is consistent with the fuel distribution system. Given the chart on pg 36 of http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf
are you ready to admit your error?

I am mystified by your post. First, Gravy's paper is referencing another site, with a link. That site has numerous references to damage occurring well below the level of the 9th floor. In point of fact, your own post says as much. You said: "As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face." Are you claiming that it stopped at the Ninth floor?

You have not at all pointed to an error.

[DGM]

I am mystified by your post. First, Gravy's paper is referencing another site, with a link. That site has numerous references to damage occurring well below the level of the 9th floor. In point of fact, your own post says as much. You said: "As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face." Are you claiming that it stopped at the Ninth floor?

You have not at all pointed to an error.
I missed where he proved or has been proven that no damage below floor 9 also. I really don't see the error here.

[Jennie C.]

... Dont you people ever give up and just admit to yourself that something with your mind and the way you see the world dont seems right? because you give words new meanings all the time, an intelligent sane person wouldnt do that, would they?. First step, turn OFF the television.

The only things I watch on TV (other than sports) are 24, LOST and Smallville. You mean they AREN'T REAL???

oh no.:boxedin:

[Coffee]

The only things I watch on TV (other than sports) are 24, LOST and Smallville. You mean they AREN'T REAL???

oh no.:boxedin:

Come on, just admit that those 3 shows are part of the NWO message system. It is no secret that the super secret NWO secretly places secret cryptic messages in those shows for their secret agents. The secret messages are hidden in the actor's dialog and written on various props throughout the sets. You're not fooling anyone with your innocent TV watching act. Apparently, You're part of the secret NWO wing in Ohio.

[Jono]

Come on, just admit that those 3 shows are part of the NWO message system. It is no secret that the super secret NWO secretly places secret cryptic messages in those shows for their secret agents. The secret messages are hidden in the actor's dialog and written on various props throughout the sets. You're not fooling anyone with your innocent TV watching act. Apparently, You're part of the secret NWO wing in Ohio.

Aye, indeedoe, albeit one repetition short (of "secret") to win the customized NWO coffee-cup.

[Belz...]

The only things I watch on TV (other than sports) are 24, LOST and Smallville. You mean they AREN'T REAL???

oh no.:boxedin:

I don't even watch television anymore. Some brainwashing, eh ?

[lisabob2]

1. You heard???

2. The government photos and evidence is fake? Well there in lies the paranoid disclaimer that allows village idiots to become truthers. If it does not agree with the Conspiracy Theory, then clearly it was fake or tampered with.

3. There are a number of pilots and aircraft Technicians on this forum who would contest your proclamation that a 757/767 can't fly below 1000 feet.

TAM:)
I believe thats what truth movement is tryin to do. Also many family members of victims are pushing for indepnedent investigation.

[lisabob2]

1. You heard???

2. The government photos and evidence is fake? Well there in lies the paranoid disclaimer that allows village idiots to become truthers. If it does not agree with the Conspiracy Theory, then clearly it was fake or tampered with.

3. There are a number of pilots and aircraft Technicians on this forum who would contest your proclamation that a 757/767 can't fly below 1000 feet.

TAM:)
I said a 757 or 767 cannot attain high speeds below a certain height, not that they could not fly. They can fly, they just can't stay stable at high speeds until they reach a certain altitude. I knew test pilots & engineers at Boeing, and this fact has been verified by them. They have all said a 767 flying below 700 ft at 500 mph was impossible, it would be uncontrollable. Since they are experts it would take a physical test to show that they are wrong to have me believe otherwise. I find it hard to believe that they don't know what they are talking about.

[lisabob2]

those pics are not evidence of anything but damage at ground zero. Jones said the core columns pic is curious but more test would have to be done on the core column. He did not jump to any conclusions about that pic. He has done scientific tests that he says suggest thermate was used and his hypothesis was that it or some other incenderary was used to weaken the steel columns. What scientific tests were done to prove him wrong?
I never saw or heard Jones make those claims. I have heard him say more test need to be done. I have heard him say he has a hypothesis. And nothing you have posted proves anything Jones has said is wrong or unscientific

[DGM]

I said a 757 or 767 cannot attain high speeds below a certain height, not that they could not fly. They can fly, they just can't stay stable at high speeds until they reach a certain altitude. I knew test pilots & engineers at Boeing, and this fact has been verified by them. They have all said a 767 flying below 700 ft at 500 mph was impossible, it would be uncontrollable. Since they are experts it would take a physical test to show that they are wrong to have me believe otherwise. I find it hard to believe that they don't know what they are talking about.
So you believe that it was not a pair of air planes that hit the towers?

[lisabob2]

You are getting mixed up with the different crash sites




Same old crap. Anything that is produced is fake regardless of where it came from. Give it a rest.




Now you are just lying. please stop it. You are ignorant about aircraft and there are many pilots and technicians who know more that you on this site who say you are wrong. If you keep repeating this mistake then you are lying. There are many videos on youtube of aircraft like these flying at fast speeds at low levels. None of them crashed. The ones on 911 did.

If you are going to continue with this feeble attampt at being a truther at least read some of the threads on this site first and stop rehashing the same old crap. You are poor at this even by truther standards
Now you are just lying. please stop it. You are ignorant about aircraft and there are many pilots and technicians who know more that you on this site who say you are wrong. If you keep repeating this mistake then you are lying. There are many videos on youtube of aircraft like these flying at fast speeds at low levels. None of them crashed. The ones on 911 did.
I know test pilots & engineers at Boeing. They confirm the fact that 767/757 do not fly at high speeds unless they are at a certain altitude. At lower altitudes they become un flyable according to them. Actually look it up
www. youtube. com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY
Joseph Keith, a retired Boeing engineer:
"Boeing 757 cannot go faster than 330mph at 700ft altitude because air resistance is too "thick" at that speed. Air resistance causes the engines turbines to stop and the airplane starts to shake so hard it will break apart."
Facts seem to agree with me

[bynmdsue]

Joseph Keith, a retired Boeing engineer:
"Boeing 757 cannot go faster than 330mph at 700ft altitude because air resistance is too "thick" at that speed. Air resistance causes the engines turbines to stop and the airplane starts to shake so hard it will break apart."
Facts seem to agree with me


Then I guess it's a good thing they ran into some buildings before they shook apart.

Hey Kiddo,crashing airplanes is not that hard.Accept it.Move on.

[fezzic]

From reading part of an interview (http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=no_planer_resigns) it would seem that Mr. Keith is also a no-second planer.

Also note that the interview identifies that Joseph Keith as a retired software engineer not, as might be inferred from his having retired from Boeing or the aeronautical industry, an aeronautical engineer.

[T.A.M.]

how long was the plane below a height of 700 feet? how many seconds?

As for who was the right info or not, I will trust the pilots and engineers on this forum any day, over those you likely get your info from.

Joseph Keith - original founding member of 911group SPINE. PAAALLLEAAASSSEEE!!!!

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

I said a 757 or 767 cannot attain high speeds below a certain height, not that they could not fly. Yes, you've said that, but when asked for the source or sources for such information you reply with the rather vague:

I knew test pilots & engineers at Boeing, and this fact has been verified by them. Surely you can either a) list the names of these individuals and the specific statements they agree with in regards to the physical capabilities of the aircraft, or b) list the specific capabilities of the aircraft as stated in any publically available official documentation.

I could just as easily say I knew some test pilots and engineers at Boeing who emphatically disagree with your claim. Who should readers believe, me or you, without some sort of additional verification?

[Gravy]

Joseph Keith? The pilots on this forum who've flown Boeing mediums and heavies, such as beachnut (KC-135/707) and B-Man (747) say his claim is sheer nonsense. So does this video. The TAP Airbus is doing 434 mph.

-2787482791697822411

[Panoply_Prefect]

Heiwa has just made the same claim over at Flashback.info:

(translated)

According to videos it approaches at a speed of >800-900 km/h at 200 meters altitude and the question is if an ordinary commercial airliner can fly that fast at that low altitude. The air is much thicker down there (1.3kg/m3) than at 10,000-11,000 meter (0.3 kg/m3) where they normally fly at max speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY (http://www.flashback.info/leave.php?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY)

The answer appears to be that the airplane cant fly that fast at that low altitude. It would have broken apart (the air is to thick).


(The source appears to be Joseph Keith in the video)

Interesting how these things seem to surface at the same time all over.

Found this, could someone who knows this stuff explain to me what it means:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=175931&mesg_id=176559#176559]

[funk de fino]

I know test pilots & engineers at Boeing. They confirm the fact that 767/757 do not fly at high speeds unless they are at a certain altitude. At lower altitudes they become un flyable according to them. Actually look it up
www. youtube. com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY
Joseph Keith, a retired Boeing engineer:
"Boeing 757 cannot go faster than 330mph at 700ft altitude because air resistance is too "thick" at that speed. Air resistance causes the engines turbines to stop and the airplane starts to shake so hard it will break apart."
Facts seem to agree with me

Liar

I am an ex aircraft technician of 12 years experience in all aircraft systems. I know more than you ansd the stupid software guy you have quoted. They can do those speeds and can crash into buldings. Obviously its not adviseable but i do not think the hijackers cared much.

Lying again, does not look good pal, very poor effort

[Jono]

Found this, could someone who knows this stuff explain to me what it means:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=175931&mesg_id=176559#176559]

While I am no expert, only a man whose plane-mechanic uncle liked to talk for hours about engineering flaws he had found, heh.

The above tidbit is no mystery though, I shouldn't think, it merely asserts stress-related boundaries and measurements for safety.
So, should we sue the hijackers for having flown the planes carelessly and with little concern for the extended safety of the plane?

[Panoply_Prefect]

The above tidbit is no mystery though, I shouldn't think, it merely asserts stress-related boundaries and measurements for safety.
So, should we sue the hijackers for having flown the planes carelessly and with little concern for the extended safety of the plane?

Obviously not. My point was that that scan shows that the safety speed of the aircraft, possibly taken from the flight manual, and that that figure is way above what the software engineer PfT like to quote states. What I dont know is at what altitude. From the same board I quoted:


It says the following information is from the Aircraft Flight Manual for a 767:
Vmo @ MSL - 360 kts / Mmo - 0.86 Mach

That is about 414 mph at Mean Sea Level. Much faster than the 220 mph and 330 mph absolute maximum speed limitations claimed by Joseph Keith.
Im not sure what Mean Sea Level is, but according to Wiki its the same as sea level, which should more or less equal ground level on Manhattan, no?

True or MSL (mean sea level) is the next best measurement to absolute - and in some ways better. MSL tells you how far you are above an imaginary line at sea level. If you then know the elevation of terrain, the next step is to determine how far you are above ground. It also tells you how thin the air is, which determines your physiological response to that altitude. True Altitude (MSL) has been adjusted for local high or low pressure conditions. FL or Flight Level is another related term that is measured in hundreds of feet. At a standard pressure that correlates to 18,000 feet, the flight level is one-eight-zero.

[apathoid]

Joseph Keith, a retired Boeing engineer:

"Boeing 757 cannot go faster than 330mph at 700ft altitude because air resistance is too "thick" at that speed. Air resistance causes the engines turbines to stop and the airplane starts to shake so hard it will break apart."

Facts seem to agree with me


This "fact" is so moronic, it's laughable to people who actually know a thing or two about jet engines. Turbines don't stall or surge, compressors do. Oh and it's lack of intake air which causes these compressor stalls, not too much air. Jets love lots and lots of thick, dense air.

BTW Joseph Keith is a software engineer. You are no less qualified to opine on this topic than he is...

I knew test pilots & engineers at Boeing, and this fact has been verified by them.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99024525c71053c56.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1799)

There are 20,000 Boeing and Airbus aircraft being flown by 200,000 airline pilots. Why haven't they come forward? If the official story is so aboviously a farce from an airline pilots perspective, why does the Airline Pilots Association still have a bounty on Bin Ladens head?

As beachnut would say: "Go get some facts."

[apathoid]

Joseph Keith? The pilots on this forum who've flown Boeing mediums and heavies, such as beachnut (KC-135/707) and B-Man (747) say his claim is sheer nonsense. So does this video. The TAP Airbus is doing 434 mph.

-2787482791697822411


C'mon, just who are you trying to fool Gravy? Those planes are clearly going takeoff/landing speed. Nice try...

[16.5]

RedIbis

"Your paper suggests that the WTC 7 southface gash is consistent with the fuel distribution system. . . . are you ready to admit your error?"

I was kind of hoping old Red Ibis would come in here and explain himself. Oh well, we'll just have to chalk it up to another example of:

"Gravy's paper is not consistent except where it is consistent."

“Gravy did not address the issue, except where he addressed the issue!”

“The buildings were not subject to massive smoke and fires except where they were subject to massive smoke and fires!”

"Gravy did not say he was talking about WTC7 except where he said he was talking about WTC7 (i.e. the title, the index, and the first line of the article itself.)"

[Belz...]

I said a 757 or 767 cannot attain high speeds below a certain height, not that they could not fly. They can fly, they just can't stay stable at high speeds until they reach a certain altitude.

Yeah, but they sure as hell can CRASH at those altitudes, can't they ?

Now you are just lying. please stop it. You are ignorant about aircraft and there are many pilots and technicians who know more that you on this site who say you are wrong.

Uh-oh. Never say things like that when you don't know who you're talking to.

If you keep repeating this mistake then you are lying. There are many videos on youtube of aircraft like these flying at fast speeds at low levels. None of them crashed. The ones on 911 did.

Did... did you just contradict yourself, here ?

"Boeing 757 cannot go faster than 330mph at 700ft altitude because air resistance is too "thick" at that speed. Air resistance causes the engines turbines to stop and the airplane starts to shake so hard it will break apart."
Facts seem to agree with me

You might want to look up that word.

[Jennie C.]

Aye, indeedoe, albeit one repetition short (of "secret") to win the customized NWO coffee-cup.

But who suspects that an NWO operative would live in Ohio?

(and btw, Go Bucks)

[lisabob2]

OK, everyone. This thread is for Xena, Swing, RedIbis, and any other Truther who wants to jump in here.

For the purposes of this thread, we'll assume that I am a fencesitter on all things 9/11. I stand willing to be persuaded on any matter.

What I would like to see is independent confirmation of an error that Mark Roberts has made. That is, I want to see just exactly where he's gone wrong. It's very simple, really; just say "Mark Roberts said X (link), but the truth is actually Y(link)."

I will accept no opinion pieces; I'm a skeptic after all. I want to see verifiable facts. Anything posted will be checked for accuracy and context.

Go to it. I'm waiting.
At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch.
He says this is evidence that those first column pictures were cut by workers.
I would like to point out the obvious.
Just because 1 picture shows a exterior column being cut by a worker, there is nothing in the other pictures to prove that they were cut by same method. As a matter of fact the only thing those pictures show are damaged columns. How they were damaged is questionable. They could have been cut by workers, or possible not. Steven Jones says that simple scientific tests could have proven how the columns were cut, or damaged.

[lisabob2]

So you believe that it was not a pair of air planes that hit the towers?
Where do you get that idea? I am stating a fact that comes from good sources. The 2 plane that hit the towers might have been going slower than 500mph. The estimates of their speeds is that a estimate.

[Mr.Herbert]

lisa... you started a thread....there are many questions there. I suggest you start to answer some of them.

[beachnut]

At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch.
He says this is evidence that those first column pictures were cut by workers.
I would like to point out the obvious.
Just because 1 picture shows a exterior column being cut by a worker, there is nothing in the other pictures to prove that they were cut by same method. As a matter of fact the only thing those pictures show are damaged columns. How they were damaged is questionable. They could have been cut by workers, or possible not. Steven Jones says that simple scientific tests could have proven how the columns were cut, or damaged.
All the cuts Jones had in his paper were cut during clean up. So you are defending liars who make up lies about 9/11 and you have no ability to understand 9/11 and have no clue when people are telling you lies on 9/11. You are short on facts.
Sorry, all the diagonals were cut during clean up. Sad you are just making this up to support liars on 9/11. You are not trying to spread false information. Please bring some facts next time.

[lisabob2]

Liar

I am an ex aircraft technician of 12 years experience in all aircraft systems. I know more than you ansd the stupid software guy you have quoted. They can do those speeds and can crash into buldings. Obviously its not adviseable but i do not think the hijackers cared much.

Lying again, does not look good pal, very poor effort
My brother has been a Boeing aircraft tecnician since 1980. The engineers & test pilots that have verified these facts know quite a bit more than you do about the planes they designed & fly. calling me a liar changes nothing especially the facts

[lisabob2]

Then I guess it's a good thing they ran into some buildings before they shook apart.

Hey Kiddo,crashing airplanes is not that hard.Accept it.Move on.
crashing planes is not hard, but ignoring facts is not scientific is it?

[16.5]

"At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch."

Uhh, ya got a link?

[DGM]

Where do you get that idea? I am stating a fact that comes from good sources. The 2 plane that hit the towers might have been going slower than 500mph. The estimates of their speeds is that a estimate.
Why are you saying this. Even you can confirm the speeds. Have you seen a video yet of the impacts?

ETA Your research is really bad. 911 myths is not done by Mark Roberts.

[lisabob2]

Yes, you've said that, but when asked for the source or sources for such information you reply with the rather vague:

Surely you can either a) list the names of these individuals and the specific statements they agree with in regards to the physical capabilities of the aircraft, or b) list the specific capabilities of the aircraft as stated in any publically available official documentation.

I could just as easily say I knew some test pilots and engineers at Boeing who emphatically disagree with your claim. Who should readers believe, me or you, without some sort of additional verification?
do you really think my friends want to me to give their names over the internet? why when there is plenty of info easily available online I posted some evidence in other post. The retired Boeing engineer who help designed the planes for 1

[GStan]

At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch.
He says this is evidence that those first column pictures were cut by workers.
I would like to point out the obvious.
Just because 1 picture shows a exterior column being cut by a worker, there is nothing in the other pictures to prove that they were cut by same method. As a matter of fact the only thing those pictures show are damaged columns. How they were damaged is questionable. They could have been cut by workers, or possible not. Steven Jones says that simple scientific tests could have proven how the columns were cut, or damaged.

my bolding

Precisely correct, the picture does not prove they were all cut that way, however, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they were cut in any other way. Jones assertion that tests 'could have been done' is not evidence that they were cut in another way. Just an irrelevant observation that fits his predetermined conclusions. Given that the only photo evidence showing how they may have been cut is the photo of the man cutting one with a torch, it is reasonable to assume that they were all cut with a torch. Upon the identification of new evidence, that assumption may ultimately prove to be incorrect, however, until such evidence is discovered, the most plausible explanation is that the columns were cut with torches. (They even had a non-sinister motive for cutting them, if you can believe that!?)

[beachnut]

My brother has been a Boeing aircraft tecnician since 1980. The engineers & test pilots that have verified these facts know quite a bit more than you do about the planes they designed & fly. calling me a liar changes nothing especially the facts
You are just plan wrong. I am a pilot and have flown my plane faster than it is allowed, I am still here. It is sad you are so wrong on all the facts so far, maybe you can find a subject you are actually trained in, instead of using hearsay crap.

The fact is, yes the planes on 9/11 were over speed for a 10 to 20 seconds and they hit buildings and the ground. I doubt you can even give the speeds and the limits of the planes. Sad you have a little knowledge and can not apply it with accuracy or properly.

If your experts verified a 767/757 can not do what they did on 9/11, then your experts are WRONG! Funny, your experts are wrong on something even you saw done! Besides the facts I flew Boeing jets, and have over speed them a little, a fellow pilot a little more and he lost some parts from his jet, but gee, the jets worked. I like Boeing, they work even better than the limits say! You are wrong on this point too, I think you have a perfect record so far bringing hearsay to a factual thread.

Here is how it works, I actually went a little faster than top speed, that makes this not hearsay for me. Your stuff was from others, and that is hearsay. The real limits on the jet are not cut and dry numbers, but limits based on criteria. I would even have to study them and look up the reasons. So unless you bring a bunch of stuff, which will prove you wrong if you do, then your hearsay junk is BS.

[lisabob2]

This "fact" is so moronic, it's laughable to people who actually know a thing or two about jet engines. Turbines don't stall or surge, compressors do. Oh and it's lack of intake air which causes these compressor stalls, not too much air. Jets love lots and lots of thick, dense air.

BTW Joseph Keith is a software engineer. You are no less qualified to opine on this topic than he is...



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99024525c71053c56.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1799)

There are 20,000 Boeing and Airbus aircraft being flown by 200,000 airline pilots. Why haven't they come forward? If the official story is so aboviously a farce from an airline pilots perspective, why does the Airline Pilots Association still have a bounty on Bin Ladens head?

As beachnut would say: "Go get some facts."
look up pilotsfor911truth.org for plenty of pilots that have come forward.
What was that question again?

[beachnut]

look up pilotsfor911truth.org for plenty of pilots that have come forward.
What was that question again?
I like p4t John Lear and his aliens among us. Good job, nut cases and nut case ideas on 9/11 I give you, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

This almost proves you have not facts and evidence and just love hearsay junk on 9/11. So you lied you do not know engineers at Boeing, you have no names because you have no engineers, aero engineers, who talked to at Boeing you have the made up stuff of p4t.

P4t have no rational ideas on 9/11. You are pre-debunked when you mention p4t.

[lisabob2]

You are just plan wrong. I am a pilot and have flown my plane faster than it is allowed, I am still here. It is sad you are so wrong on all the facts so far, maybe you can find a subject you are actually trained in, instead of using hearsay crap.

The fact is, yes the planes on 9/11 were over speed for a 10 to 20 seconds and they hit buildings and the ground. I doubt you can even give the speeds and the limits of the planes. Sad you have a little knowledge and can not apply it with accuracy or properly.

If your experts verified a 767/757 can not do what they did on 9/11, then your experts are WRONG! Funny, your experts are wrong on something even you saw done! Besides the facts I flew Boeing jets, and have over speed them a little, a fellow pilot a little more and he lost some parts from his jet, but gee, the jets worked. I like Boeing, they work even better than the limits say! You are wrong on this point too, I think you have a perfect record so far bringing hearsay to a factual thread.

Here is how it works, I actually went a little faster than top speed, that makes this not hearsay for me. Your stuff was from others, and that is hearsay. The real limits on the jet are not cut and dry numbers, but limits based on criteria. I would even have to study them and look up the reasons. So unless you bring a bunch of stuff, which will prove you wrong if you do, then your hearsay junk is BS.
How can you prove they are wrong? the speeds of the planes that hit the towers were ESTIMATES. How fast does 300mph look as compared to 500mph? flying a plane is not flying a Boeing 767 or 757 is it? As a pilot you know the differences.
Sorry just saying what you have done flying proves nothing.
Maybe post something that disproves what the Boeing test pilots or Engineers have to say on this subject.

[Jono]

How can you prove they are wrong? the speeds of the planes that hit the towers were ESTIMATES. How fast does 300mph look as compared to 500mph? flying a plane is not flying a Boeing 767 or 757 is it? As a pilot you know the differences.
Sorry just saying what you have done flying proves nothing.
Maybe post something that disproves what the Boeing test pilots or Engineers have to say on this subject.

All the Boeing pilots and Engineers thereof would resound what has been said here, save for those who've made claims about the matter which has already been addressed by equally and notably more competent people.

So far I've heard one, perhaps two even who've even said anything remotely close to be in disagreement with the established aeordynamic event.

[beachnut]

How can you prove they are wrong? the speeds of the planes that hit the towers were ESTIMATES. How fast does 300mph look as compared to 500mph? flying a plane is not flying a Boeing 767 or 757 is it? As a pilot you know the differences.
Sorry just saying what you have done flying proves nothing.
Maybe post something that disproves what the Boeing test pilots or Engineers have to say on this subject.Oh, and you just say things that proves even less; I have done, you have talked. Let me see, which is real? You never really said what your experts said, you said they supported you, I say they are not real experts.

You like science. Using science, and cheating, I found the speeds on 9/11 to be 470mph for 11, 590mph for 175, about 600mph for 93, and over 473 KIAS for 77. You can use science to figure out the speeds. I used the same methods we did in physics. Why are you not prepared with facts?


My Boeing jet was in the 300,000 pound class, and I have type rating in a Boeing 707/720. I would say my plane was comparable, yet the 757/767 is easier to fly and could be stronger with the new wing design and more capable to fly faster maybe. Yes, I am an engineer too, I fly heavy jets, I am qualified to say the planes on 9/11 can, and did go faster than maximums for normal flight. Normal flight! Wake up! I do know Boeing engineers who I have worked with on aircraft accidents, and 9/11 is too simple to bother them with your lies and the lies of 9/11 truth since you are wrong.

You have zero Boeing aero engineers on your side who are up on the 757/767. Your p4t are a joke. Roll out the engineers you have from Boeing, not the stupid phone calls to the front desk!

So list your experts and let me try to check on them through channels in the Air Force to see if they really support you and 9/11 truth failed ideas. You see, then I can tell you they are clerks and just answer the phone when we check with Boeing.

[Corsair 115]

do you really think my friends want to me to give their names over the internet? why when there is plenty of info easily available online I posted some evidence in other post.And there is much evidence which contradicts your claim. That is why additional verification for your claim is necessary. Just saying "I knew some guys who said..." without any further support is right up there with saying, "I once caught a fish this big."

Also, why would it be an issue for someone to state on the record their technical knowledge?

It is worth noting there is a difference between the maximum safe operating speed and the maximum speed physically possible.

[GStan]

How can you prove they are wrong? the speeds of the planes that hit the towers were ESTIMATES. How fast does 300mph look as compared to 500mph? flying a plane is not flying a Boeing 767 or 757 is it? As a pilot you know the differences.
Sorry just saying what you have done flying proves nothing.
Maybe post something that disproves what the Boeing test pilots or Engineers have to say on this subject.

If you believe that the speeds are estimated by just their 'look', you are in way over your head. Within a few MPH, you only need access to some videos of the flights, a stopwatch, some reasonably accurate measurements of the plane dimensions and Manhattan skyline dimensions, and in which direction the plane is flying in relation to the vantage point of the video. There is no way the estimates are off by 200mph. You couldn't put that kind of mistake past a group of High School geometry students, let alone the entire country.

[lisabob2]

my bolding

Precisely correct, the picture does not prove they were all cut that way, however, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they were cut in any other way. Jones assertion that tests 'could have been done' is not evidence that they were cut in another way. Just an irrelevant observation that fits his predetermined conclusions. Given that the only photo evidence showing how they may have been cut is the photo of the man cutting one with a torch, it is reasonable to assume that they were all cut with a torch. Upon the identification of new evidence, that assumption may ultimately prove to be incorrect, however, until such evidence is discovered, the most plausible explanation is that the columns were cut with torches. (They even had a non-sinister motive for cutting them, if you can believe that!?)
Jones said that test could help prove what cut the columns, he did make some observations on what he thought but he did say more test were needed to confirm cause of the columns cuts.

[Arus808]

are you really that ignorant?

Speeds can be estimate pretty close to accurate based on the distance traveled and the time it took to cover that distance.

The investigators HAD SEVERAL objects to use to determine this speed in the various videos filmed of the two crashes.


Estimates? Yes. BUT VERY close estimates.

Have you bothered to take an algebra 2 class?

And Gravy Posted several vdieso showing 757 and 767 planes flying LOW at over 300 mph and doing just fine.

Sorry, but YOU have again proved that you dont know what you are talking about.

[DGM]

Jones said that test could help prove what cut the columns, he did make some observations on what he thought but he did say more test were needed to confirm cause of the columns cuts.
More tests are not needed. All he would have to do is contact the company that was working there. If he really wanted (he doesn't) to know he could have the guys name that made the cut. It's called research.

[X]

Oh and it's lack of intake air which causes these compressor stalls, not too much air. Jets love lots and lots of thick, dense air.

I must admit I laughed out loud when I saw the original quote.
But just a quick clarification:

Saying compressor stalls are caused by "lack of intake air" is rather imprecise.
It's caused by poor airflow generating stall conditions around the airfoils (blades to you laymen) of the compressor. It can be caused by several things.

From the Wikipedia article on Compressor Stalls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressor_stall), which is fairly accurate (and accessible) (numbers added by me):
The following factors can induce compressor stall:
* Engine thrust too high for the operating altitude ...(1)
* Engine operation outside specified design parameters ...(2)
* Turbulent or disrupted airflow to the engine intake ...(3)
* Contaminated or damaged engine components (such as damaged or wrongly positioned guide vanes) ...(4)
* Abrupt increases in engine thrust ...(5)
* Use of reverse thrust at insufficient forward speed, resulting in reingestion of turbulent airflow ...(6)

Of these,1, 3 and 5 can easily fall under the umbrella of "lack of intake air".
4 and 6 could also fit under there, with a little effort.
And 2 is up for grabs, depending on your definition of "outside design parameters".

But my basic point is that compressor stalls are just what they say they are, stalling of airflow on the compressor. Normally, propagating stalls.
Just to further expand on what you said. ;)

I now return you to your regularly scheduled derailment thread, already in progress...

[Gravy]

Yo, lisabob2!

For the final time: 911myths.com is not my website.

[T.A.M.]

look up pilotsfor911truth.org for plenty of pilots that have come forward.
What was that question again?

That kind of says it all...

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch.
He says this is evidence that those first column pictures were cut by workers.
I would like to point out the obvious.
Just because 1 picture shows a exterior column being cut by a worker, there is nothing in the other pictures to prove that they were cut by same method. As a matter of fact the only thing those pictures show are damaged columns. How they were damaged is questionable. They could have been cut by workers, or possible not. Steven Jones says that simple scientific tests could have proven how the columns were cut, or damaged.

have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? if not, look it up, and apply it here.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? if not, look it up, and apply it here.

TAM:)Also, as with everything else, s/he's just plain wrong. There's plenty in the photos that tells us how the columns were cut and why they weren't cut with thermite/thermate.

Please don't feed the troll, people. This one ain't gonna be snapping out of it.

[JimBenArm]

Yo, lisabob2!

For the final time: 911myths.com is not my website.

You mean you're not behind every bit of disinfo we put out? I'm flabbergasted!

[Belz...]

My brother has been a Boeing aircraft tecnician since 1980.

Can we please stop trading professional experience of lack thereof ? The facts are in: the planes went at those speeds. Many, many professionals in the field confirm this. Just because a few of them say otherwise does not mean that the majority is automatically wrong.

do you really think my friends want to me to give their names over the internet?

Why not ? What are they afraid of ?

How can you prove they are wrong? the speeds of the planes that hit the towers were ESTIMATES. How fast does 300mph look as compared to 500mph?

A little more than half.

Sorry just saying what you have done flying proves nothing.

Just saying you have a technician brother proves nothing, either. That's why I'd prefer you show us actual evidence.

Just because 1 picture shows a exterior column being cut by a worker, there is nothing in the other pictures to prove that they were cut by same method.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with how science works before saying something like this.

1) There is no evidence of explosives
2) There is evidence of at least some cutting by the mop-up crew.

Therefore, it is very reasonable to assume that the REST of the columns were cut by the crew as well. No ?

[jhunter1163]

Ah, trotting out the ol' "757s/767s can't fly that fast" argument.

They build them well in Everett, I assure you. Commercial airliners can fly faster than V(ne); the designers don't WANT you to exceed that speed, because bad things happen to the airframe and control surfaces if you exceed it for any length of time. Beachnut will correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that a 757 or 767 could be flown supersonic under the right conditions. This would be extremely dangerous, and I sure wouldn't want to be on that plane, but it's probably possible.

It's a safety issue; of course, safety was a very low priority of the hijackers on 9/11.

ETA: On further investigoogling, it appears that in the EgyptAir crash, a 757 came very close to Mach 1 (if not exceeding it) without breaking up; however, there were nasty effects to the control surfaces.

http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-48087.html

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

My brother has been a Boeing aircraft tecnician since 1980.
Let me know when you bring him over so we can ask him questions because...

The engineers & test pilots that have verified these facts know quite a bit more than you do about the planes they designed & fly.
Obviously he might know quite a bit more than you do.
calling me a liar changes nothing especially the facts
LIAR! Calling you otherwise hardly changes anything inside your brain.

[LashL]

So...any factual errors by Mark Roberts identified yet?

[pomeroo]

So...any factual errors by Mark Roberts identified yet?



Number of factual errors made by Mark Roberts: 0

Number of eyewitnesses to Lyte Trip's Pentagon "flyover": 0

Number of serious journals to which Steven Jones has
submitted his work for peer-review: 0

Number of architects and engineers who believe that
the Towers had concrete cores: 0

Number of demolition experts who believe that
explosives were used in the Twin Towers on 9/11: 0

Number of real reporters who found a big story in
Norman Mineta's testimony: 0


Gee, you guys produced all this in only six years? Those evil perps must be trembling in their boots.

[Jono]

Gee, you guys produced all this in only six years? Those evil perps must be trembling in their boots.

Yes, you see this is the essential result of the cerebral manifestation of truther-logic. It will get you close to concocting a Star-Trek manuscript or perhaps a remake of Blade Runner with an Orwellian twist and an added shreek "t'was da jooz and neo-cons" as background noise.

[GT/CS]

Number of factual errors made by Mark Roberts: 0

Number of eyewitnesses to Lyte Trip's Pentagon "flyover": 0

Number of serious journals to which Steven Jones has
submitted his work for peer-review: 0

Number of architects and engineers who believe that
the Towers had concrete cores: 0

Number of demolition experts who believe that
explosives were used in the Twin Towers on 9/11: 0

Number of real reporters who found a big story in
Norman Mineta's testimony: 0


Gee, you guys produced all this in only six years? Those evil perps must be trembling in their boots.

Who would agree to peer review a Steven Jones journal???

[T.A.M.]

Who would agree to peer review a Steven Jones journal???

these guys maybe...

http://www.dccomics.com/mad/

TAM;)

[Jennie C.]

Yes, you see this is the essential result of the cerebral manifestation of truther-logic. It will get you close to concocting a Star-Trek manuscript or perhaps a remake of Blade Runner with an Orwellian twist and an added shreek "t'was da jooz and neo-cons" as background noise.

Excuse me? Blade Runner, feh! Orwell, jooz and neo-cons aside. But let's leave Star Trek out of this. It's real. ( oh where is the star-trek-is-real-type smiley....durn)

(trekkietothecore :)

[Jennie C.]

Number of architects and engineers who believe that the Towers had concrete cores: 0

No matter how much I love your otter, and make no mistake, I LOVE your otter, please no c-expletive cores!! That will haunt me all my days.

[pomeroo]

No matter how much I love your otter, and make no mistake, I LOVE your otter, please no c-expletive cores!! That will haunt me all my days.



And my otter loves you. Just don't even think of calling him a weasel.

[X]

Albino Muskrat?

:duck:

[uk_dave]

Number of factual errors made by Mark Roberts: 0

Number of eyewitnesses to Lyte Trip's Pentagon "flyover": 0

Number of serious journals to which Steven Jones has
submitted his work for peer-review: 0

Number of architects and engineers who believe that
the Towers had concrete cores: 0

Number of demolition experts who believe that
explosives were used in the Twin Towers on 9/11: 0

Number of real reporters who found a big story in
Norman Mineta's testimony: 0


Gee, you guys produced all this in only six years? Those evil perps must be trembling in their boots.

I do sometimes find myself idly wondering just what would happen if real evidence did come to light which suggested 9-11 was an inside job. The incompetent 'truth' movement would be brushed aside by real investigators doing real investigations.

Kinda funny (well for 5:00am the morning after the night before, it is......:wink8: )

[pomeroo]

I do sometimes find myself idly wondering just what would happen if real evidence did come to light which suggested 9-11 was an inside job. The incompetent 'truth' movement would be brushed aside by real investigators doing real investigations.

Kinda funny (well for 5:00am the morning after the night before, it is......:wink8: )



This is a great point! If a genuine anomaly surfaced, the media would be all over it. Imagine--Mineta calmly states that Cheney alluded to orders allowing a hijacked plane to crash into a government building and NOT A SINGLE REPORTER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD SMELLS A STORY.

Morons--hopeless morons.

[pomeroo]

;3286332']Albino Muskrat?

:duck:


You're kidding, right? You're just kidding around, right?! RIGHT?!?!

[LashL]

No matter how much I love your otter, and make no mistake, I LOVE your otter, please no c-expletive cores!! That will haunt me all my days.

Oh, yeah, that brings back memories... bad ones!

Actually, I remember that you were bound and determined to get through the entirety of that train wreck of a thread and was impressed by your tenacity. Similarly, I remember that you made your way steadfastly through the LC sticky threads as well. Kudos to you, then and now. :)

[jhunter1163]

Oh, yeah, that brings back memories... bad ones!

Actually, I remember that you were bound and determined to get through the entirety of that train wreck of a thread and was impressed by your tenacity. Similarly, I remember that you made your way steadfastly through the LC sticky threads as well. Kudos to you, then and now. :)

There ought to be a medal for that. Or maybe Belz could come up with an award...

[lisabob2]

All the cuts Jones had in his paper were cut during clean up. So you are defending liars who make up lies about 9/11 and you have no ability to understand 9/11 and have no clue when people are telling you lies on 9/11. You are short on facts.
Sorry, all the diagonals were cut during clean up. Sad you are just making this up to support liars on 9/11. You are not trying to spread false information. Please bring some facts next time.
there is no proof that the"cuts" that Jones showed in his paper were made during clean up, just opinions. He does not use them as proof only as more reasons for more scientific tests.

[lisabob2]

Yeah, but they sure as hell can CRASH at those altitudes, can't they ?



Uh-oh. Never say things like that when you don't know who you're talking to.



Did... did you just contradict yourself, here ?



You might want to look up that word.
You are mixing up my words with others who have responded to me.

[lisabob2]

"At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch."

Uhh, ya got a link?
look at 911myths.com

[TheRedWorm]

Found any factual errors yet, Lisa?

[twinstead]

there is no proof that the"cuts" that Jones showed in his paper were made during clean up, just opinions. He does not use them as proof only as more reasons for more scientific tests.

What is your definition of proof? Any rational person would conclude that an image of a similar cut shown to be made by a welder, but doesn't happen to show a welder actually making the cut, was also made by welders during the clean up because there a many pictures of welders making those same cuts on other columns.

Jones uses the pictures as part of his 'body of evidence'. If indeed it can be shown that the pictures aren't what he characterizes them to be, then perhaps you should be looking at other parts of his 'body of evidence' that may not be what he says they are.

Maybe, when all is said and done, this overwhelming evidence Jones says he has is just a bunch of crap. What a concept.

[A W Smith]

there is no proof that the"cuts" that Jones showed in his paper were made during clean up, just opinions. He does not use them as proof only as more reasons for more scientific tests.


Sure there is proof. The collapse was from the top down
Quod erat demonstrandum, they were cut during the cleanup

[beachnut]

there is no proof that the"cuts" that Jones showed in his paper were made during clean up, just opinions. He does not use them as proof only as more reasons for more scientific tests.
He has said the cuts were made by thermite during 9/11, he is a liar. They are cuts made during clean up. Now you are a liar for not presenting real facts to make my claim false. Since Jones made up his thermite 4 years after 9/11, he is a liar about 9/11 conclusions he has made and tries to make. He keeps changing his story, and he has fooled you. Why are you so easy to fool?

You can not prove the cuts were not made during clean up. Why?

[Pookster]

look at 911myths.com

A quote from a favorite movie ...

"Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly. Think!"


Yo, lisabob2!

For the final time: 911myths.com is not my website.

[DGM]

there is no proof that the"cuts" that Jones showed in his paper were made during clean up, just opinions. He does not use them as proof only as more reasons for more scientific tests.
Sure there's proof. The iron worker that made the cut. A real "truth" seeker/researcher would talk to him. Why is it that you or Jones has not. I know why Jones didn't but why not you?

[Belz...]

there is no proof that the"cuts" that Jones showed in his paper were made during clean up, just opinions.

Well, yes, there is. A lot of them were cut that way. It stands to reason that those in the photographs are part of them. Or can you show evidence that someone on-site spotted 'cuts' that WEREN'T made by the clean-up crew ?

You are mixing up my words with others who have responded to me.

No, I haven't. You're not veyr good at this, are you ?

[Jennie C.]

There ought to be a medal for that. Or maybe Belz could come up with an award...

Shucks, folks, I'm speechless ... :blush:

(that said, as an aside to pomeroo, i would NEVER confuse a sea otter with a muskrat. in both california and alaska, which is where i've seen them, they are too cute)

[Quad4_72]

Hmmm. 1,218 posts and not a single factual error yet? What has everyone been up to?

[X]

You're kidding, right? You're just kidding around, right?! RIGHT?!?!

Hey, I'm just asking questions here...

:whistling

Seriously, the answer depends on whtehr or not you know where I live.

[JimBenArm]

Hmmm. 1,218 posts and not a single factual error yet? What has everyone been up to?
It's a Stundie mine. Don't tell anyone, okay?