Wtc 7

[Miragememories]

Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.

That's what apologists do papasmurf.

If Official Story bigotry is what you are into, than this is
the central headquarters.

If you want a serious open minded discussion, I suggest you try here;
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

MM

[~enigma~]

If you want a serious open minded discussion, I suggest you try here;
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

Yes...please go there. Their minds are so open their brains fell out but you'll be safe since you apparently have no brain.

[Jonnyclueless]

That's what apologists do papasmurf.

If Official Story bigotry is what you are into, than this is
the central headquarters.

If you want a serious open minded discussion, I suggest you try here;
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

MM

By open minded he means quote mining and using conjecture to replace hard evidence and using youtube videos made by teens to reject real experts. By open minded he means replacing scientific method with speculation and hearsay. If that's what you're looking for than yes, those cult tabloid boards are a perfect fit.

:dl:

[Jonnyclueless]

Keep apologizing for the lies and deceit of the Bush administration, that will get this country far.

There is no reason not to mention the third building at all. No reason. They want to pretend like it never happened. They stopped talking about it, they stopped showing it on the news, they never explained it.

And they left out prom night too! How could they overlook that? What possible reason could they have for not covering the prom? There's absolutely no reason for it at all.

Oh and BTW, if they stopped showing it on the news, how come I see it on TV just about every week? And ya know, they stopped showing the JFK assassination on the news too. Guess that proves it's an inside job eh? In fact I guess anything that isn't constantly repeated every day on the news must be an inside job. How can we not have every news event in history re-covered every night throughout the rest of time? What's with this "new" stuff being aired??

[funk de fino]

That's what apologists do papasmurf.

If Official Story bigotry is what you are into, than this is
the central headquarters.

If you want a serious open minded discussion, I suggest you try here;
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

MM

Well, did they mention the Marriot, Building 5 or 6 or any others damaged or collapsing on that day as has been asked?

Why should they mention WTC7?

Your only hope is that you keep convincing yourself that everyone here is a Bush lover and this is what keeps us believing what you think is lies. If you actually start to realise that the majority here have no love for Mr Bush and also are not even american you will see that you have one less arrow in your ad hom sling and one less comfort blanket.

You've been duped by some very stupid ignorant liars. Are people who lie like papasmurf what you want to be involved in your TM?

[alienentity]

Ok friends, here's a little levity for you: My latest video, Episode 1 of the 9-11 Looney Conspiracy Theories Show, wrapped in another 'Trojan Horse' title 'WTC7 Jones Finally Admits No Freefall!!' (Another poke at David Chandler....of course!)

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NJV-G496T4

[UNLoVedRebel]

:bump2 for anyone who may have missed alienentity's new vid. Check it out.

And thanks alienentity.

[roundhead]

"Gradually crippling" is inconsistent with your claims that the structure all failed simultaneously. Therefore, according to you, this scenario should also result in a highly asymmetric collapse.

This is false. Building collapses of this magnitude are expected to be total, and rapid, without exception. See Appendix B of my whitepaper (http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey); see also comments in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3629800) (I think around Page 8) where I answer several questions regarding the evolution and failure of WTC 7.

ETA: I was way off -- the WTC 7 specific part of that discussion begins on Page 14, with my first response of interest at Post #539.

No they arent....

Otherwise why would trained and experienced firefighters be way up in a building and got caught(and died)fighting smallish fires.
If they had even a small inkling the building was going to come down, they would never had gone up there.......(WTC)

[jaydeehess]

No they arent....

Otherwise why would trained and experienced firefighters be way up in a building and got caught(and died)fighting smallish fires.
If they had even a small inkling the building was going to come down, they would never had gone up there.......(WTC)

A firefighters first job is to go in and fight the fire. That is what they did with the towers. There were problems from the start though. First was the size of the buildings and the task of getting equipment and manpower up to the fire floors. Next was the lack of water, so the immediate job then is to try to get water. Compounding this is the fact that these were multi-level fires that were all large scale fires and all started at the same time with a massive amount of accellerant. (a situation rarely, if ever experienced before anywhere) then there was the communications problems, firefighters were reporting conditions but there was a muddle in trying to get all that info to the people who needed to know. A FF can report a local floor failure but if the central communications cannot make sure that multiple reports of such events are getting to the Commanders then neither the individual FF's or the Commanders will be aware that things are goig very badly. In fact the Police Command ordered all of their officers out of the building and some fire commanders did the same. Others though never got the word even though others from their own station did and some commanders never got the word from the Police that the structure was failing. furthermore some FF's refused orders to evacuate.

In the case of the north tower though, with the obvious possiblity of similar collapse FF's did evacuate. Fire fighters did not need their Commanders to say that the building 'could' collapse, that much was patently obvious, and thus they would be on their toes waiting to hear an evac order one would expect. Still, fire fighters are known for bravery and drive to assist others in such situations. IIRC there were instances of FF's staying with disabled persons or others who were slower moving and in need of assistance rather than evacuate themselves as quickly as possible.


In WTC 7, with the building already evacuated of civilians, with the knowledge that there was little in the way of FF'ting that could be done all FF's were ordered out and all left. The building was watched closely, measurements were done that indicated that the structure was unstable and a collapse zone perimeter was set up in case it too collapsed. A prudent step to take in hindsight.

ETA: removed comment that may well have been removed by the mods anyway

[A W Smith]

No they arent....

Otherwise why would trained and experienced firefighters be way up in a building and got caught(and died)fighting smallish fires.
If they had even a small inkling the building was going to come down, they would never had gone up there.......(WTC)
Fires in building seven were not fought. Nor did any firefighters die in building seven.

[twinstead]

ETA: removed comment that may well have been removed by the mods anyway

Oh yea...if I had a dollar for every time I did that...

[Sabrina]

Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

Wow, this one's old. *LOL*

[JimBenArm]

Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

Wow, this one's old. *LOL*
Hey!

Oh, you meant the thread.

All righty then...

[jaydeehess]

Hey!

Oh, you meant the thread.

All righty then...

I had the same short lived sense of umbrage.:D

[roundhead]

Fires in building seven were not fought. Nor did any firefighters die in building seven.

I said Wtc..you must have missed that.

[Disbelief]

I said Wtc..you must have missed that.

The thread title is wtc7...you must have missed that.

[roundhead]

You read that wrong, you failed to grasp the meaning and have made up a lie. The part did not say collapse was highly improbable, try again. Try quoting things right! You may learn how to understand what the quote really means is not what you think it is.

Changing meaning is not good.

Fire it destroys steel strength, see, and this fire was fought, WTC7 WAS NOT FOUGHT.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
Fire makes steel fail, quickly. This fire was fought! But…



What was different in WTC7.


Lack of knowledge, false information, and lies are the standard characteristics of 9/11 truth. I expect people would study 9/11 before picking the losing side.



That was after 11 hours, and even then, they stated that the FIRE DAMAGED floors MIGHT PANCAKE. Sounds resonable to me.
What happened in WTC7 bears no resemblance to that scenario.

The whole building fell like a house of cards, not a pancaking of the fire damaged floors.
In WTC 7, its as if the lower floors all ceased to exist at exactly the same time.

Thanks for posting something sensible, which has zero to do with the unsensable out and out collapse of WTC 7.

[Mince]

Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

Wow, this one's old. *LOL*

In the future, maybe we can start a new thread and link to the old one. It's a bit awkward continuing a thread almost a year later. The OP hasn't even posted since last July.

[Grizzly Bear]

That was after 11 hours, and even then, they stated that the FIRE DAMAGED floors MIGHT PANCAKE. Sounds resonable to me.
What happened in WTC7 bears no resemblance to that scenario.

The whole building fell like a house of cards, not a pancaking of the fire damaged floors.
In WTC 7, its as if the lower floors all ceased to exist at exactly the same time.
Thanks for posting something sensible, which has zero to do with the unsensable out and out collapse of WTC 7.

Of course anyone who has seen the full collapse progression and not selected sections would know that this is not the case. And there's no reason to expect the collapse to have progressed in the same fashion as the twin towers or prior examples because of both its design and circumstances. The initiation mechanisms between WTC 7 and the twin towers were different and therefore the collapse as expected progressed differently. It's not rocket science. What you describe as completely "insensible out and out" was a progressive collapse. Whether this was a "first" to result in a total catastrophic failure or not makes no difference, the general principal is the same, structural failure isn't new...

*Exits necromantic thread*

[Gravy]

That was after 11 hours, and even then, they stated that the FIRE DAMAGED floors MIGHT PANCAKE. Sounds resonable to me.
What happened in WTC7 bears no resemblance to that scenario.

The whole building fell like a house of cards, not a pancaking of the fire damaged floors.
In WTC 7, its as if the lower floors all ceased to exist at exactly the same time.

Thanks for posting something sensible, which has zero to do with the unsensable out and out collapse of WTC 7.You have yet to demonstrate that you've read the NIST report on WTC 7, much less understood it.

[roundhead]

You have yet to demonstrate that you've read the NIST report on WTC 7, much less understood it.

I have read their lame excuses to try and justify the demolition of the building as fire induced. They fail at that horribly.

[Mince]

I have read their lame excuses to try and justify the demolition of the building as fire induced. They fail at that horribly.

I sense your keen understanding of physics, building collapse and building performance allows you to make this statement.

But I'm a "show, don't tell" kind a guy. Could you please offer a technical treatise on why "their" "excuses" were "lame" and why "[T]hey fail at that horribly[.]"? Don't spare the deep technical language, mathematical and physical principles or complex formulas and calculations. I can handle it.

Thanks in advance.

[DavidJames]

I have read their lame excuses to try and justify the demolition of the building as fire induced. They fail at that horribly.NVM - Mince put it better then me. I look forward, roundhead, to your analysis.

[roundhead]

I sense your keen understanding of physics, building collapse and building performance allows you to make this statement.

But I'm a "show, don't tell" guy. Could you please offer a technical treatise on why "their" "excuses" were "lame" and why "[T]hey fail at that horribly[.]"? Don't spare the deep technical language, mathematical and physical principles or complex formulas and calculations. I can handle it.

Thanks in advance.

Christopher 7 has done an excellent job of pointing out the idiocy of the OCT regarding building 7, i suggest you read some of his posts regarding the matter and gain an education. He does an excellent jopb of pointing out all the lies, deceit, and rubbish the report poses.

[Mince]

Christopher 7 has done an excellent job of pointing out the idiocy of the OCT regarding building 7, i suggest you read some of his posts regarding the matter and gain an education. He does an excellent jopb of pointing out all the lies, deceit, and rubbish the report poses.

In other words, you don't know.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions.

And for the record, I have read at least most of what C7 has published and all of it is conjecture and uneducated speculation based on other peoples conjecture and speculation.

Gain an education? Hehe. Good one.

[DavidJames]

Christopher 7 has done an excellent job of pointing out the idiocy of the OCT regarding building 7, i suggest you read some of his posts regarding the matter and gain an education. He does an excellent jopb of pointing out all the lies, deceit, and rubbish the report poses.Since you are simply parroting work by Chris, maybe you give him appropriate credit and not pretend you are the one doing the "thinking", as you do here:I have read their lame excuses to try and justify the demolition of the building as fire induced. They fail at that horribly.

[bill smith]

'Now we find out that WTC7 was designed and constructed with a very unusual technique to insure complete structural integrity even if whole floors were removed. It was one of the most structurally redundant buildings ever built in the history of steel structures.'
http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm The Strength of WTC7

[A W Smith]

'Now we find out that WTC7 was designed and constructed with a very unusual technique to insure complete structural integrity even if whole floors were removed. It was one of the most structurally redundant buildings ever built in the history of steel structures.'
http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm The Strength of WTC7

old news
Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation,'' said John D. Spassoff, a district manager of Silverstein Properties.

[bill smith]

old news

An oldie but a goodie.lol

http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm Repost

[beachnut]

An oldie but a goodie.lol

http://tyrannyalert.com/wtc7solution.htm Repost
Fire destroys steel and 911Truth is delusional. That is old stuff.
Why do you lack evidence to support your 911Truth delusions?

[Disbelief]

I have read their lame excuses to try and justify the demolition of the building as fire induced. They fail at that horribly.

So, when did the perpetrators place the charges - before or after the collapse of the towers?

[bill smith]

If WTC7 WAS actually pre-rigged with explosives/incendiaries, does that tell us anything significant apart from the Twin Towers and WTC7 having something else in common other than the unexpected collapses ?. No ?. Well what did they have that was different ? The outstanding difference has to be that Seven was not hit by a plane.
Suppose you square the circle by speculating that WTC7 was SUPPOSED to have been hit by a plane but that it didn't happen for some reason. ?

[beachnut]

If WTC7 WAS actually pre-rigged with explosives/incendiaries, does that tell us anything significant apart from the Twin Towers and WTC7 having something else in common other than the unexpected collapses ?. No ?. Well what do they have that is different ? The outstanding difference has to be that Seven was not hit by a plane.
Suppose you square te circle by speculating that WTC7 was SUPPOSED to have been hit by a plane but that it didn't happen for some reason. ?
That sure is a dumb statement. You don’t understand 911 so you make up delusions about it. Why do you want to apologize for terrorist by making up lies?
The big difference is WTC7 burned for how long? With you vast lack of research and knowledge, an un-fought office building fire does what? Destroys the building. On 911 WTC7 fire systems had no water to fight the fire, the firemen had suffered many deaths, and they did not fight the fire in WTC7. Many building have been destroyed by fire, you choose to support the idiotic ideas of 911Truth instead of learning about structures, fires, and steel; you ignore evidence and skip finding knowledge. Good luck with your delusions as you disrespect everyone who died on 911 by making excuses for terrorists with not a single piece of evidence or from a position of knowledge. And you blame other people for the work of terrorist; you blame people you can’t name for what terrorists did. Good for you! You were the target of terrorist and now you gladly apologize for them.

No blast effect, no thermite products, no real clue from 911Truth with zero evidence a bleak future for the kool-aid drinking 911Truth believers.

Why do you lack evidence?

There comes a time when your apologizes for terrorist become betrayal – now.

[bill smith]

That sure is a dumb statement. You don’t understand 911 so you make up delusions about it. Why do you want to apologize for terrorist by making up lies?
The big difference is WTC7 burned for how long? With you vast lack of research and knowledge, an un-fought office building fire does what? Destroys the building. On 911 WTC7 fire systems had no water to fight the fire, the firemen had suffered many deaths, and they did not fight the fire in WTC7. Many building have been destroyed by fire, you choose to support the idiotic ideas of 911Truth instead of learning about structures, fires, and steel; you ignore evidence and skip finding knowledge. Good luck with your delusions as you disrespect everyone who died on 911 by making excuses for terrorists with not a single piece of evidence or from a position of knowledge. And you blame other people for the work of terrorist; you blame people you can’t name for what terrorists did. Good for you! You were the target of terrorist and now you gladly apologize for them.

No blast effect, no thermite products, no real clue from 911Truth with zero evidence a bleak future for the kool-aid drinking 911Truth believers.

Why do you lack evidence?

There comes a time when your apologizes for terrorist become betrayal – now.


There are some bits and pieces that support the notion of a third plane in New York on 9/11. Even the fact that the EOM in WTC7 was empty of people but had still steaming coffee and half-eaten sandwiches on the desks when Barry Jennings got there around 9 am may mean that the occupants rushed away thinking that the second plane was about to hit WTC7 nstead of the second Tower. People usually finish their coffee or sandwich even if they are in a hurry. This sounds more like a panic evcuation.

[tsig]

There are some bits and pieces that support the notion of a third plane in New York on 9/11. Even the fact that the EOM in WTC7 was empty of people but had still steaming coffee and half-eaten sandwiches on the desks when Barry Jennings got there around 9 am may mean that the occupants rushed away thinking that the second plane was about to hit WTC7 nstead of thee second Tower. People usually finish their coffee or sandwich even if they are in a hurry. This sounds more like a panic evcuation.

So some stale sandwiches and leftover coffee and we're off to the races reading peoples minds and understanding their motivations.

Do you do tea leafs too?

[bill smith]

So some stale sandwiches and leftover coffee and we're off to the races reading peoples minds and understanding their motivations.

Do you do tea leafs too?

No....the coffee and sandwiches were still fresh. Why would you say that they were stale ? What a peculiar thing to say. Coffee that still has steam coming off it is hot and fresh, so we can assume that the half-eaten sandwiches were just as fresh. Even if omebody has to run for a train or something they will usually finish their andwich on the hoof, but maybe not if they thought they were running for their life to escape a plane they had been told was about to crash into the building.

[johnny karate]

No they arent....

Otherwise why would trained and experienced firefighters be way up in a building and got caught(and died)fighting smallish fires.
If they had even a small inkling the building was going to come down, they would never had gone up there.......(WTC)

Interesting the roundhead acknowledges firefighter training and experience when it suits his argument, but will reject the fact that not a single firefighter on the scene at WTC7 supports the position that anything other than fire or damage caused that building to collapse.

I guess at WTC7 all that training and experience went out the window.

But then again, roundhead has characterized the FDNY as a bunch of cowards (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4413684&postcount=164), so I'm not sure how much credence we should give his opinions on firefighters.

[funk de fino]

No....the coffee and sandwiches were still fresh. Why would you say that they were stale ? What a peculiar thing to say. Coffee that still has steam coming off it hot and fresh, so we can asume that the half-eaten sandwiches were just as fresh. Even if omebody has to run for a train or something they will usually finish their andwich on the hoof, but maybe not if they thought they were running for their life to escape a plane they had been told was about to crash into the building.

There were warnings more planes were in the air. Proves nothing though.

[bill smith]

There were warnings more planes were in the air. Proves nothing though.

I didn't say it did. Speculation....remember ? But just think how neat it could all have been ? Three buildings , three planes and no messing about like being unexpectedly forced nto perfrming a controlled demolition of WTC7....and making such a mess of it that it's still likely to hang the perpetrators of 9/11.

[bill smith]

This video opens with a smoke generator that was caught on video in WTC2 I believe. The video moves on through all three collapses ending with the demise of WTC7. Note that when Seven collapses a crack appears momentarily on the North face running vertically for many floors. This looks exactly as if a portion of the support structure inside did not fall away or burn through quite quickly enough causing the crack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY all 3 buildings

[BigAl]

I didn't say it did. Speculation....remember ? But just think how neat it could all have been ? Three buildings , three planes and no messing about like being unexpectedly forced nto perfrming a controlled demolition of WTC7....and making such a mess of it that it's still likely to hang the perpetrators of 9/11.
There is speculation informed by facts and science. Then there is stupid, baseless, made-up sh*t. Guess which category your rants fall all into.

[tsig]

No....the coffee and sandwiches were still fresh. Why would you say that they were stale ? What a peculiar thing to say. Coffee that still has steam coming off it is hot and fresh, so we can assume that the half-eaten sandwiches were just as fresh. Even if omebody has to run for a train or something they will usually finish their andwich on the hoof, but maybe not if they thought they were running for their life to escape a plane they had been told was about to crash into the building.

I find it odd that you can tell their motivation by the food they left behind.

Who told them the plane was coming? Has anyone ever said they were told a plane was coming?

You are building sand castles without sand.

[A W Smith]

Sometimes when I leave the house I forget to grab my coffee travel mug and leave it on the top of the newell post of the stairs. This alarms my wife when she gets home because clearly that must mean theres a plane gonna hit my house while im hiding at work.

[tfk]

I am not sure if you guys caught this obscure comment, but...


This video opens with a smoke generator that was caught on video in WTC2 I believe. The video moves on through all three collapses ending with the demise of WTC7.
<snip>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY all 3 buildings


... billy really believes that some nefarious person actually moved smoke generating machines into various locations. Especially into WTC7.

This is all self-evident to him. Somehow. And backed up with all the rigor & objective evidence that was demonstrated in his "If WTC7 was pre-rigged with explosives ..." question.

He's ever so insightful ...

tom

[twinstead]

bill smith are you for real? I suspect you're actually on our side on this issue. Nobody could do a better job of making the truth movement look like idiots. In fact, I think you're Harry from accounting down the hallway from my office here at NWO towers. Harry? Is that you? If it is just poke your head above your cubicle. You're BRILLIANT!

[funk de fino]

I didn't say it did. Speculation....remember ? But just think how neat it could all have been ? Three buildings , three planes and no messing about like being unexpectedly forced nto perfrming a controlled demolition of WTC7....and making such a mess of it that it's still likely to hang the perpetrators of 9/11.

Speculate away, its all you've got. Sucks eh?

[funk de fino]

This video opens with a smoke generator that was caught on video in WTC2 I believe. The video moves on through all three collapses ending with the demise of WTC7. Note that when Seven collapses a crack appears momentarily on the North face running vertically for many floors. This looks exactly as if a portion of the support structure inside did not fall away or burn through quite quickly enough causing the crack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY all 3 buildings


Not a smoke generator, get real.

Also some very good footage of the core still standing in the second collapse (about 2:38). yet another nail in the CD fantasy. Well done for posting that Bill.

ETA The crack in WTC7 is the windows popping out.

[bill smith]

I am not sure if you guys caught this obscure comment, but...



... billy really believes that some nefarious person actually moved smoke generating machines into various locations. Especially into WTC7.

This is all self-evident to him. Somehow. And backed up with all the rigor & objective evidence that was demonstrated in his "If WTC7 was pre-rigged with explosives ..." question.

He's ever so insightful ...

tom

Hello there

Remember elsewhere that you said that he smoke did not come from either a smoke generator or from a burst pipe ? I've forgotten the reason that you DID give so would you mind explaining again where the smoke was coming from ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY All three Towers

[DGM]

bill smith are you for real? I suspect you're actually on our side on this issue. Nobody could do a better job of making the truth movement look like idiots. In fact, I think you're Harry from accounting down the hallway from my office here at NWO towers. Harry? Is that you? If it is just poke your head above your cubicle. You're BRILLIANT!
I agree with you! He expects us to forget that there was a 6 storey complex underground that would funnel smoke all kinds of places. This one has to be a "dis-creditor".

[BigAl]

Hello there

Remember elsewhere that you said that he smoke did not come from either a smoke generator or from a burst pipe ? I've forgotten the reason that you DID give so would you mind explaining again where the smoke was coming from ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY All three Towers

Buildings full of smoke and dust collapsed.

Nobody heard any man-made demolition.

None of the smoke appeared until after a collapse commenced. That's not how man-made demolition works.

[beachnut]

I am a citizen exploring claims contrary to the mainstream ones regarding the event of 9/11 - although most I find serious fault with. Today, a professor stated during a discussion on the matter that WTC 7 was "imploded" and that Silverstein had made a statement to the media compounding this fact. The conversation then turned: since it takes a "long time" to rig a building for demolishing, the "devices" had to be put in place in advance... perhaps during the time the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the WTC complex...Also, the prof. said that various media had reported the collapse of WTC 7 before the collapse occurred...

Now, those are the points the prof. raised. It is my understanding, though, that WTC 7 collapsed due to extensive damage following the collapse of the other two main towers...and that the bomb sniffing dogs had been on site earlier due to unrelated threats that had been phoned in...apparently the threats stopped and so the dogs were pulled out..but I don't remember where I read this...and I want to go back to class with facts and sources(which he did not have with him).

So, I've decided to reach out for some input, if I might. The OP; asked for information, not more woo.

It turns out morons made up the implosion ideas based on ignorance, hearsay, lies and delusions.

Those who lack knowledge and fail to try to improve their lot make up lies, believe in delusions and can’t believe fire destroys building.

[alienentity]

Sorry, must redo calcs then repost.

MF

[Gravy]

Inneresting, alienentity. I don't have the video capability to test this.

Looks like the standard height of the upper floors was 12'9", except for the belt truss floors. I don't know about the mechanical floors at the top though. See page 21 here:
John Salvarinas: "Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects" (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Salvarinas-1986.pdf) (PDF)

[Sabrina]

I just have one question.

Why is the zombie thread still going? ;) *runs away from the zombie thread*

(forgive me; I desperately need some humor in my life right now due to family issues and I'm trying to find it wherever I can; carry on.)

[Gravy]

Sabrina! Nice to see you. Hope the family stuff works out OK. We'll be here, waiting for zombies to show.

[twinstead]

(forgive me; I desperately need some humor in my life right now due to family issues and I'm trying to find it wherever I can; carry on.)

Carrying on in the face of family issues ROCKS!

[alienentity]

Inneresting, alienentity. I don't have the video capability to test this.

Looks like the standard height of the upper floors was 12'9", except for the belt truss floors. I don't know about the mechanical floors at the top though. See page 21 here:
John Salvarinas: "Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects" (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Salvarinas-1986.pdf) (PDF)

thx, I also had forgotten part of the calc anyway, so my timing was wrong.
My apologies.

But in any case I obviously calculated too great a distance for the drop. It was less - I will have to find more accurate info.

[tfk]

Hello there

Remember elsewhere that you said that he smoke did not come from either a smoke generator or from a burst pipe ? I've forgotten the reason that you DID give so would you mind explaining again where the smoke was coming from ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY All three Towers
Fires.

[bill smith]

Fires.

Hello again,

What do you think was pushing the smoke out the window in such a steady stream ?

[twinstead]

I say it must have been smoke machines. It's the only explanation :boggled:

[johnny karate]

bill, what role do you think the FDNY played in your "smoke generator" scenario?

[bill smith]

bill, what role do you think the FDNY played in your "smoke generator" scenario?

I'm afraid I don't know.

[DavidJames]

I say it must have been smoke machines. It's the only explanation :boggled:Another example of why it makes no sense to try and make parodies of 9/11 CT's. There simply is no need, they are themselves, parodies.

[dudalb]

Sabrina! Nice to see you. Hope the family stuff works out OK. We'll be here, waiting for zombies to show.

When they do, remember to aim for the head.

[T.A.M.]

Hello again,

What do you think was pushing the smoke out the window in such a steady stream ?

cross draft.

TAM:)

[johnny karate]

I'm afraid I don't know.

I'll rephrase. There are no reports from anyone in the FDNY claiming they witnessed "smoke generators". Don't you therefore find it fatal to any theory involving "smoke generators" that hundreds of fire professionals failed to notice their use taking place right in front of them? If not, why?

[alienentity]

Hi all,

I'm still doing research on the collapse for my next video. Read through the rest of the NIST report etc...

Out of curiosity I checked into the Landmark building demolition in Texas. Here's a bit of background:

At 380 feet (116 metres) tall this was the tallest building to be demolished in Texas and the 15th tallest building in the United States to be demolished at that time.
- The Landmark Tower was imploded on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 7:42 am.

Ok, I got a copy of the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
Loaded it into Final Cut Pro, and proceeded to find the start of collapse - I chose the big explosions at the base (hey, the flashes are so easy to see, very convenient) preceding the collapse (T=0), following it as far as I could see things still dropping. There's a lot of dust obscuring the final moments. My final estimate is T=7 - 8 seconds

Freefall for 116 metres is 4.86 sec
Observed collapse was in the 7sec range.

a=4.73 m/s2 for the overall collapse. About 50% the rate of freefall.

So it isn't clear at all from this evidence that freefall collapse is proof of controlled demolition.
In fact it's exceedingly unclear to me how one could engineer 7 floors of WTC7 to simultaneously collapse without requiring large and very noticeable demolition charges. Since there is no evidence of such charges going off, logic dictates that the mechanism was something along the lines that NIST postulates.

Thermite also fails completely to explain a simultaneous global collapse, since it couldn't conceivably have acted in such an instantaneous fashion applied to PART of an already ongoing collapse.

Note: in both the WTC7 and WTC 1 and 2 cases global collapse - at whatever speed you like - was already underway without requiring explosives. As Leslie Robertson (head SE of the towers) pointed out, once the upper block of floors was falling, nothing could have stopped the towers from collapsing.
With WTC7, once column 79 failed, exposing Truss 1 to the impact of 30+ floors of collapsing debris, it would have taken a miracle to stop the rest of the E-W failure of trusses and columns. Perhaps the best-case scenario might have been the survival of Truss 3, holding up 1/4 of the building.
Is it surprising that the whole building went down given the events? No. Very, very unusual and rare, but then 9-11 was an extremely rare event, unlikely to happen again.

However, to the skeptical, non-paranoid mind, a rare occurrence is not proof of a government plot. Those who wish to blame George W. Bush ( a surprisingly incompetent leader, if you'll excuse my judgement) forget that he had been in office less than 8 months when the attacks occurred. Considering the immense effort to plan and execute an enormous conspiracy as the 'Truthers' allege, it would be equally necessary for the Clinton administration to have initiated the efforts - how else? Even the development and testing of special silent explosives, and nano-thermite horizontal cutting devices would surely have required multi-year efforts.

Why isn't Bill Clinton being vilified for this alleged war crime? He's as guilty as Bush is.

:chihuahua

[bill smith]

I'll rephrase. There are no reports from anyone in the FDNY claiming they witnessed "smoke generators". Don't you therefore find it fatal to any theory involving "smoke generators" that hundreds of fire professionals failed to notice their use taking place right in front of them? If not, why?

I can only speak to the evidence of my own eyes which tell me i am looking at a mechanical smoke generator. I can't speak for what the firefighters and others might or might not have seen Johnny.

[T.A.M.]

come on? are we seriously, discussing "smoke generators"?

really?

on that note, I am out of this thread, until it lands somewhere near reality.

TAM

[johnny karate]

I can only speak to the evidence of my own eyes which tell me i am looking at a mechanical smoke generator. I can't speak for what the firefighters and others might or might not have seen Johnny.

This supposed "evidence" does not exist in a vacuum. What about the eyes of hundreds of fire professionals experienced in observing smoke dynamics who were in position to see this phenomena firsthand? None of them corroborate your theory. Why do you feel your after the fact, layperson's opinion trumps theirs?

[bill smith]

This supposed "evidence" does not exist in a vacuum. What about the eyes of hundreds of fire professionals experienced in observing smoke dynamics who were in position to see this phenomena firsthand? None of them corroborate your theory. Why do you feel your after the fact, layperson's opinion trumps theirs?As I said, it looks like a smoke generator to me Johnny. It does not resemble smoke being blown out of a broken window which is the prevailing theory in certain quarters I believe. For me my own eyes are what I go by. Don't you think it looks like a smoke generator ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

[twinstead]

LOL

"what it looks like" and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee, bill. So. What exactly do YOU expect to have seen then if there weren't your delightfully loony 'smoke generators'?

[johnny karate]

As I said, it looks like a smoke generator to me Johnny. It does not resemble smoke being blown out of a broken window which is the prevailing theory in certain quarters I believe. For me my own eyes are what I go by. Don't you think it looks like a smoke generator ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

No. And my opinion is corroborated by every single firefighter who was on the scene. Again, why do feel your opinion trumps theirs?

[bill smith]

No. And my opinion is corroborated by every single firefighter who was on the scene. Again, why do feel your opinion trumps theirs?

They saw what they saw and I see what I see Johnny. That's a smoke generator, no error. It seems obvious to me that that smoke is being mechanically pumped out like the smoke from a locomotive. Just a bit faster but in the same pulsed, rolling way. Smoke that being blown out does not look like that. It's only another minor observation but quite n interesting one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

[johnny karate]

They saw what they saw and I see what I see Johnny. That's a smoke generator, no error. It seems obvious to me that that smoke is being mechanically pumped out like the smoke from a locomotive. Just a bit faster but in the same pulsed, rolling way. Smoke that being blown out does not look like that. It's only another minor observation but quite n interesting one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

You're not answering my question: Why do you feel your opinion trumps that of trained professionals who were on the scene?

[bill smith]

You're not answering my question: Why do you feel your opinion trumps that of trained professionals who were on the scene?

My eyes tell me what I see. Their silence on the matter does not trump this visual evidence.

[johnny karate]

My eyes tell me what I see. Their silence on the matter does not trump this visual evidence.

Are you suggesting their silence is meaningful?

[bill smith]

Are you suggesting their silence is meaningful?

I'm afraid I couldn't say Johnny.

[Arus808]

nice dodge.

[johnny karate]

I'm afraid I couldn't say Johnny.

Which means you have your doubts. What reason do you have to suspect the FDNY would keep silent about something like this?

[bill smith]

Which means you have your doubts. What reason do you have to suspect the FDNY would keep silent about something like this?

No....really....I couldn't say. Not on this particular aspect of 9/11 anyway. Though I do have my doubts about the fireman who said that '' WTC7 was fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors''. I felt that he might have been exaggerating a little.

[beachnut]

I'm afraid I don't know.
The sum total of all the evidence from 911Truth is revealed. zero

[twinstead]

You certainly can believe whatever you want, bill. Smoke generators it is then, if that's what it looks like to you. Stay true to yourself, that's what I always say.

Smoke generators ROCK!

[bill smith]

You certainly can believe whatever you want, bill. Smoke generators it is then, if that's what it looks like to you. Stay true to yourself, that's what I always say.

Smoke generators ROCK!

Perhaps someday soon a Truther will make a 9/11 presentation on coast-to-coast television. He could do well to finish with that clip asking poeple to call in giving their opinion on what it might be. A kind of 9/11-interactive thing. That sort of approach gets people involved . Not a bad idea. Pass it on please.

[johnny karate]

No....really....I couldn't say. Not on this particular aspect of 9/11 anyway.


Right. Which means you have your doubts. I merely asked for your opinion, not for you to make a definitive statement of fact (something you seem to have no compunction doing with regards to smoke generators, it seems). Your hesitancy to do so indicates you are suspicious of the FDNY silence on this issue. I want to know why.

Though I do have my doubts about the fireman who said that '' WTC7 was fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors''. I felt that he might have been exaggerating a little.

So we've established that you think the FDNY have been untruthful in their depiction of the events of 9/11. Again, what basis do you have to believe the FDNY is lying or keeping silent about what they experienced on 9/11?

[T.A.M.]

so if it looks like smoke from a smoke generator, then IT MUST BE so.

Where is the picture they use to bring out of that animal that looked like one thing, but was actually another?

TAM:)

[Thunder]

They saw what they saw and I see what I see Johnny. That's a smoke generator, no error. It seems obvious to me that that smoke is being mechanically pumped out like the smoke from a locomotive.

Will someone please corroborate for me that this guy actually says:

"smoke generator"

I just wanted to make sure cause my eyes are not 20/20.


...Now I'm sure. Totally sure. 9-11 truth is dead. "Smoke Generator" just convinced me of this.

[A W Smith]

As I said, it looks like a smoke generator to me Johnny. It does not resemble smoke being blown out of a broken window which is the prevailing theory in certain quarters I believe. For me my own eyes are what I go by. Don't you think it looks like a smoke generator ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY


Theres a large hole in the side of the tower where the plane entered. very little smoke is exiting it. This means there is air entering it. Bill when you sit in front of a fireplace do you wonder why smoke comes out the top of the chimney and not out the fireplace?

[DavidJames]

...when you sit in front of a fireplace do you wonder why smoke comes out the top of the chimney and not out the fireplace?Because the smoke generator is pointing up?

[bill smith]

Right. Which means you have your doubts. I merely asked for your opinion, not for you to make a definitive statement of fact (something you seem to have no compunction doing with regards to smoke generators, it seems). Your hesitancy to do so indicates you are suspicious of the FDNY silence on this issue. I want to know why.



So we've established that you think the FDNY have been untruthful in their depiction of the events of 9/11. Again, what basis do you have to believe the FDNY is lying or keeping silent about what they experienced on 9/11?

I think the FDNY did a fine job on 9/11. In addition to their tremendous sacrifices I esoecially appreciated the 12,000 pages of sworn testimony they gave in the days and weeks after the events. Some of them, like the 'all 47 floors' guy made statements that are hard to reconcile with the visual reecord but that's not proof of anything. He may have been just exaggerating or mistaken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

[Redtail]

They saw what they saw and I see what I see Johnny. That's a smoke generator, no error. It seems obvious to me that that smoke is being mechanically pumped out like the smoke from a locomotive. Just a bit faster but in the same pulsed, rolling way. Smoke that being blown out does not look like that. It's only another minor observation but quite n interesting one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY
No it doesn't. I've worked with many smoke generators, in about 15 year of acting/tech theatre and none of them look like that. (unless you're basing this argumnt soley on the fact that "smoke" is being pushed out.)

[bill smith]

No it doesn't. I've worked with many smoke generators, in about 15 year of acting/tech theatre and none of them look like that. (unless you're basing this argumnt soley on the fact that "smoke" is being pushed out.)

Smoke generators at outdoor rock concerts produce smoke that looks exactly like this. I don't think that many people who see this clip will have many doubts about what they are seeing. I may be wrong but I would love to test it on public broadcast TV with a call-in afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

[Dave Rogers]

In a vain attempt to prompt some rationality, bill smith, can you show a few videos of real smoke from buildings that were genuinely on fire, then explain exactly how and why they look different to WTC7? Or is that too much like intelligent analysis for your tastes?

Dave

[bill smith]

In a vain attempt to prompt some rationality, bill smith, can you show a few videos of real smoke from buildings that were genuinely on fire, then explain exactly how and why they look different to WTC7? Or is that too much like intelligent analysis for your tastes?

Dave

Real fires often appear to produce less smoke than you might expect. Have a look at this video of WTC5 blazing (and incidentally take note that it did not collapse unlike WTC7 which apparently did from much,much smaller fires).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ WTC5

[beachnut]

Real fires often appear to produce less smoke than you might expect. Have a look at this video of WTC5 blazing (and incidentally take note that it did not collapse unlike WTC7 which apparently did from much,much smaller fires).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ WTC5

WTC5 and 6 had collapses internally due to fire, you are so funny as you lack knowledge and make up cute idiotic statements. BTW, did anyone put water on WTC5?

Do you want to see the internal failures of steel in WTC5 or 6? Are you really this ignorant on fires?
You need to step it up, your apologies for terrorist are weak.


Oops, they save the building by putting water on it; darn you posted a video of firemen fighting WTC5 fire. Not real smart to debunk your own stupid ideas with your own post.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/124474550e45019258.jpg
Yeppers, WTC5 is ready to be used right now!!! Wowzer, no fire damage there! Good job expert 911Truth man. Great work. Better sign up for your Pulitzer Prize.

I guess you are not familiar with any of the 10,000 pages of NIST. Sad. Knowledge would save you from displaying piles of ignorance.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3.jpg
Wow, that is a small fire in WTC7, you are right again, you are totally knowledge free on 911. Did you know the firemen knew WTC7 could fall and hour or two before it fell all due to un-fought fires which is always a danger and many times firemen have abandoned fire fighting efforts due to possible collapse. Darn, the things you could learn if you wanted to try stop apologizing for terrorists and think for yourself instead of googling your way through ignorance on 911.

[dtugg]

Smoke generators in WTC7. LOL. I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you very much for the laugh, bill.

(Just to be clear, I am laughing in your face bill)

[bill smith]

Smoke generators in WTC7. LOL. I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you very much for the laugh, bill.

(Just to be clear, I am laughing in your face bill)

I'm glad you are enjoying the show. I hope you brushed your teeth if you are going to laugh in my face.

[Dave Rogers]

Real fires often appear to produce less smoke than you might expect. Have a look at this video of WTC5 blazing (and incidentally take note that it did not collapse unlike WTC7 which apparently did from much,much smaller fires).

Could you make a special effort, and come up with a line of argument that doesn't involve lying? The idea that less smoke comes from a smaller building on fire (despite the fact that other conspiracy theorists have argued that all the smoke came from WTC5) is completely irrelevant to your original suggestion that it was the dynamics of the smoke, not the amount, that was suspicious.

It's painfully obvious that your approach to 9/11 is to start by picking a phenomenon at random, claim it's suspect, then invent a flimsy rationalisation for that belief. When someone questions that rationalisation, you simply invent a different one. Nobody's fooled by it.

Dave

[tsig]

They saw what they saw and I see what I see Johnny. That's a smoke generator, no error. It seems obvious to me that that smoke is being mechanically pumped out like the smoke from a locomotive. Just a bit faster but in the same pulsed, rolling way. Smoke that being blown out does not look like that. It's only another minor observation but quite n interesting one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

So now you can just look at smoke and tell what made it? How long have you had this talent?

I'm sure that your untrained eye looking at a video many years after the event is better that all the professionals who were there actually experiencing it.:rolleyes:

[bill smith]

Could you make a special effort, and come up with a line of argument that doesn't involve lying? The idea that less smoke comes from a smaller building on fire (despite the fact that other conspiracy theorists have argued that all the smoke came from WTC5) is completely irrelevant to your original suggestion that it was the dynamics of the smoke, not the amount, that was suspicious.

It's painfully obvious that your approach to 9/11 is to start by picking a phenomenon at random, claim it's suspect, then invent a flimsy rationalisation for that belief. When someone questions that rationalisation, you simply invent a different one. Nobody's fooled by it.



Dave

I note that you excised my link to the raging inferno in WTC5 and can only conclude that you do not like the comparison with the much,much smaller fires in WTC7 which NIST say caused it to totally collapse despite it being one of the strongest steel structures ever constructed in the World history of such buidings. I repost the link to WTC5 for completeness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ WTC5

The rest of your post is rambling and indecisive so I will lay out the framework for why I think smoke generators may have been used in WTC7 to create the illusion that 'where there is smoke there must be fire'.

Ifyou look at the video of WTC5 burning you will note that the heavy smoke is not apparent in the areas where there is serious fire.It appears to be rising away from where the raging inferno ends near the top of the buiidng.
In WTC7 the heavy smoke begins more or less at ground level, indicating that there was no raging inforno inside (otherewise we would have seen roaring flames and no smoke inthe area of fire, as can be seen in the WTC5 video). Considering that the fires were supposedly started by rubble from the North Tower we can easonably assume that the fires were right inside the South Wall where the smoke was coming from. So you see where I am going ? Small fires producing a mountain of smoke can only mean one thing--smoke generators like the one n the video I showed earlier.

[tsig]

Smoke generators at outdoor rock concerts produce smoke that looks exactly like this. I don't think that many people who see this clip will have many doubts about what they are seeing. I may be wrong but I would love to test it on public broadcast TV with a call-in afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY


I see your problem. Too much Smoke at rock concerts.

[tsig]

I note that you excised my link to the raging inferno in WTC5 and can only conclude that you do not like the comparion with the much,much smaller fires in WTC7 which NIST say caused it to totally collapse despite it being one of the strongest steel structures ever constructed in the World history of cuch buidings. I repost the link to WTC5 for completeness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ WTC5

The rest of your post is rambling and indecisive so I will lay out the framework for why I think smoke generators may have been used in WTC7 to create the illusion that 'where there is smoke there must be fire'.

Ifyou look at the video of WTC5 burning you will note that the heavy smoke is not apparent in the areas where there is serious fire.It appears to be rising away from where the raging inferno ends near the top of the buiidng.
In WTC7 the heavy smoke begins more or less at ground level, indicating that there was no raging inforno inside (otherewise we would have seen roaring flames and no smoke inthe area of fire, as can be seen in the WTC5 video). Considering that the fires were supposedly started by rubble from the North Towr we can easonably assume that the fires were right inside the South Wall where the smoke was coming from. So you see where I am going ? Small fires producing a mountain of smoke can only mean one thing--smoke generators like the one n the video I showed earlier.

So roaring fires do not produce smoke only smoke generators do that.

Bill have you ever heard" Where there's smoke there's fire" or is that just an old wives tale?

[twinstead]

bill do you HONESTLY think that smoke generators are the only explanation for the smoke in the WTC fires? I'm serious, because do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?

ETA: I just had a thought. I can picture workmen carrying large boxes and distributing them around the WTC. When asked what they were, muttering "uhhhh....brand new copy machines sir. Nothing to see here. Move along..."

[bill smith]

bill do you HONESTLY think that smoke generators are the only explanation for the smoke in the WTC fires? I'm serious, because do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?

ETA: I just had a thought. I can picture workmen carrying large boxes and distributing them around the WTC. When asked what they were, muttering "uhhhh....brand new copy machines sir. Nothing to see here. Move along..."

Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.

BBL

[Gravy]

bill do you HONESTLY think that smoke generators are the only explanation for the smoke in the WTC fires? I'm serious, because do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?Something in his behavior has given you the expectation of an honest answer? I pronounce you the most optimistic person in the universe! :D

Nothing to see here but dead horses.

[GStan]

Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.

BBL

How did you calculate this? Please show your work.

[beachnut]

Why is 911Truth full of delusions of thermite?

There comes a time when your silence becomes betrayal
The time has come when your lack of knowledge on 911 betrays you
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/124474550e45019258.jpg
WTC5 destroyed by fire. How ironic. The same happened to WTC7.

Only a few fringe people fail to comprehend WTC7 failed due to fire. Knowledge is the key; 911Truth lost their key.

[Dave Rogers]

Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.

You're using the behaviour of the smoke to determine the intensity of the fires, then claiming that the behaviour of the smoke from WTC7 is inconsistent with the size of the fires that you've just deduced from it. That's not circular logic, it's Moebius logic.

The possibility, of course, that you've chosen to ignore is that there were very large fires inside WTC7 - which was, after all, a very large building - but that most of them were not close to the exterior walls at the time your video was recorded. The reason that you've chosen to ignore that possibility is that it's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the behaviour of the smoke, is consistent with the fire modelling results published in the NIST report, and doesn't carry the faintest suggestion of anything underhand going on with WTC7.

Oh, and "rambling and indecisive"? There's nothing indecisive about pointing out that you're lying, and there's nothing rambling about pointing out that you're changing your lie whenever it suits you.

Dave

[twinstead]

I pronounce you the most optimistic person in the universe!

Well, either that or a master of the rhetorical question ;)

[twinstead]

How did you calculate this? Please show your work.

He has his eyes, dude. He has his eyes. He don't need no stinkin' calculations!

[EnJaySee]

I personally like the one where they claim the planes should've bounced off the buildings better. But smoke generators is definitely up there.

Once again, I'm impressed with the level of research shown to back up claims "I watched the video a hunnerd times, I don't need to do no stinkin' maths".

[johnny karate]

I think the FDNY did a fine job on 9/11. In addition to their tremendous sacrifices I esoecially appreciated the 12,000 pages of sworn testimony they gave in the days and weeks after the events.

None of which mentions smoke generators. A point you keep blatantly avoiding.

Some of them, like the 'all 47 floors' guy made statements that are hard to reconcile with the visual reecord but that's not proof of anything. He may have been just exaggerating or mistaken.

More than one firefighter made a similar claim (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires). Are they all "exaggerating or mistaken"?

Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.

The testimony linked about contradicts this statement.

bill, you're on record claiming the FDNY's account of 9/11 cannot be trusted, and you've made some very strong implications that they are perhaps keeping silent about certain suspicious aspects of it.

I'll ask you again the question you keep avoiding: What reason do you have to think the FDNY might be untruthful, or conspicuously silent, regarding what they experienced on 9/11?

[bill smith]

None of which mentions smoke generators. A point you keep blatantly avoiding.



More than one firefighter made a similar claim (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires). Are they all "exaggerating or mistaken"?



The testimony linked about contradicts this statement.

bill, you're on record claiming the FDNY's account of 9/11 cannot be trusted, and you've made some very strong implications that they are perhaps keeping silent about certain suspicious aspects of it.

I'll ask you again the question you keep avoiding: What reason do you have to think the FDNY might be untruthful, or conspicuously silent, regarding what they experienced on 9/11?

If the firefighters did not mention the smoke generators perhaps they did not see them. DO I see one though, in the opening scene of the attached video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

Where am I on record saying that the FDNY's acccount cannot be trusted ? In our exchanges I have not used the phrase ''conspicuously silent' nor the word 'untruthful'. Are you sure you have the right poster ?

[twinstead]

That would have really sucked if the perps manged to put the [delightfully loony] smoke generators on the wrong floor. Seriously, how stupid would it have looked if smoke was billowing out of the building 20 floors below the plane impacts?

I have to hand it to those NOW work crews and planners.

[twinstead]

Yea, I think I'm done with smoke generators.

For future reference, will people like bill be referred to as no-smokers, or non-smokers?

[GStan]

That would have really sucked if the perps manged to put the [delightfully loony] smoke generators on the wrong floor. Seriously, how stupid would it have looked if smoke was billowing out of the building 20 floors below the plane impacts?


Pretty damn stupid. But still not even close to the stupidity of truther arguments.

[johnny karate]

If the firefighters did not mention the smoke generators perhaps they did not see them. DO I see one though, in the opening scene of the attached video.

Evidence based on what one person claims to see in a video that hundreds of eyewitnesses failed to discern is less than compelling.

Where am I on record saying that the FDNY's acccount cannot be trusted ? In our exchanges I have not used the phrase ''conspicuously silent' nor the word 'untruthful'. Are you sure you have the right poster ?

Words you've used in regards to FDNY testimony:

doubt
1. To be undecided or skeptical about.
2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust.
3. To regard as unlikely.

exaggerate
1. to regard or represent as greater than is true.
2. to make greater or more noticeable.

So I'll ask again:
What reason do you have to be distrustful of the testimony of the FDNY in regards to their experiences on 9/11?

[Arus808]

what's with all the youtube references by Bob? could he actually point to WRITTEN documentation instead of looking at low grade, low res, highly pixelated and cobbled together Youtube videos?

[bill smith]

Evidence based on what one person claims to see in a video that hundreds of eyewitnesses failed to discern is less than compelling.



Words you've used in regards to FDNY testimony:

doubt
1. To be undecided or skeptical about.
2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust.
3. To regard as unlikely.

exaggerate
1. to regard or represent as greater than is true.
2. to make greater or more noticeable.

So I'll ask again:
What reason do you have to be distrustful of the testimony of the FDNY in regards to their experiences on 9/11?

To say that I am skeptical of the account of one or more firemen who said 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors '' is not surprising in that this statement deviates markedly from the visual record. To say therefore that the firemen were exaggerating or were mistaken is perfectly reasonable in this context and in no way implies distrust.

[jaydeehess]

Where am I on record saying that the FDNY's acccount cannot be trusted ? In our exchanges I have not used the phrase ''conspicuously silent' nor the word 'untruthful'. Are you sure you have the right poster ?

Pure semantics!
You claim there were smoke generators and when it is pointed out that no FF mentions such devices you say that they may not have seen them. That brands their accounts untrustworthy whether you are accusing them of deliberatly lieing or of simply being mistaken.

In fact you distrust the FF accounts of major fires in WTC 7, you distrust the FF accounts that the building was in danger of collapsing and you distrust the FF accounts that do not include your contention that there was more smoke than should have been generated by the fires. In short you are discounting the FF accounts pretty much in their entireity and accepting only the minor, obvious point that there was fire in the building.

Thus by your own words you have demonstrated, though not actually come out and been honest about stating it directly, that you find the statements made by the FF's to be suspect, untrustworthy and lacking of mention of aspects that you believe are obvious.

[twinstead]

To say that I am skeptical of the account of one or more firemen who said 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors '' is not surprising in that this statement deviates markedly from the visual record. To say the firemen were exaggerating or were mistaken is perfectly reasonable in this context and in no way implies distrust.

Well, then I have to assure you that even though your observations are incredibly divorced from reality, suggesting that YOU are exaggerating or are mistaken is perfectly reasonable, and in no way implies distrust.

[johnny karate]

To say that I am skeptical of the account of one or more firemen who said 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors '' is not surprising in that this statement deviates markedly from the visual record. To say that the firemen were exaggerating or were mistaken is perfectly reasonable in this context and in no way implies distrust.

Multiple firefighters made statements that describe WTC7 as fully involved in fire. I provided you with a link proving this. If you do not trust this statement from one firefighter, then you must not trust it from any of the others.

You claim the visual evidence does not match FDNY testimony. Instead of coming to the conlusion that the video evidence is incomplete, you have instead called into question the veracity of the FDNY's testimony. I would like to know why.

What reason do you have to mistrust the testimony of the FDNY regarding their experiences on 9/11?

[bill smith]

Multiple firefighters made statements that describe WTC7 as fully involved in fire. I provided you with a link proving this. If you do not trust this statement from one firefighter, then you must not trust it from any of the others.

You claim the visual evidence does not match FDNY testimony. Instead of coming to the conlusion that the video evidence is incomplete, you have instead called into question the veracity of the FDNY's testimony. I would like to know why.

What reason do you have to mistrust the testimony of the FDNY regarding their experiences on 9/11?

I am not willing to go round and round on this subject. You had a problem with what I said and I demonstrated that you were making inaccurate assumptions that were not not borne out by my written words. Now you wish to broaden the argument into an area that I am not willing to explore at this time.

[johnny karate]

I am not willing to go round and round on this subject. You had a problem with what I said and I demonstrated that you were making inaccurate assumptions that were not not extracted from my written words. Now you wish to broaden the argument into an area that I am not willing to explore at this time.

Your intellectual cowardice is noted.

However, this does not change what you've already stated. You've accused the FDNY of giving doubtful and exaggerated testimony, yet refuse to explain your reasons for believing this, and are now tucking tail and running away.

Your completey irrational distrust of FDNY testimony coupled with your hesitancy to explain why you distrust it can only lead one to the conclusion that you suspect FDNY of some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, yet lack the courage to admit it.

[bill smith]

Your intellectual cowardice is noted.

However, this does not change what you've already stated. You've accused the FDNY of giving doubtful and exaggerated testimony, yet refuse to explain your reasons for believing this, and are now tucking tail and running away.

Your completey irrational distrust of FDNY testimony coupled with your hesitancy to explain why you distrust it can only lead one to the conclusion that you suspect FDNY of some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, yet lack the courage to admit it.

It's never very satisfying to have to attribute words and motives to people when you can't actually back it up with their own words is it ? But I suppose if that's all you've got what else can you do ? lol.

[tfk]

Hello again,

What do you think was pushing the smoke out the window in such a steady stream ?
Convection.

[dtugg]

Convection.

Hey! Don't confuse him with big scientificy sounding words!

[bill smith]

Convection.

Hello there..


Uncharacteristically monosyllabic ? Cat got your tongue ? lol

[GStan]

Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.

BBL

Ahem.

Bill, again, how did you calculate this? Please show your work.

(Perhaps you thought Twinstead's acknowledgement that "your eyes" told you would be sufficient. It's not.)

[johnny karate]

It's never very satisfying to have to attribute words and motives to people when you can't actually back it up with their own words is it ? But I suppose if that's all you've got what else can you do ? lol.

When dealing with intellectual cowards who refuses to answer questions they find uncomfortable or inconvenient, one manages as best they can.

You characterized FDNY testimony as doubtful and exaggerated. I'd be happy to quote you doing so. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by pretending you didn't.

[bill smith]

When dealing with intellectual cowards who refuses to answer questions they find uncomfortable or inconvenient, one manages as best they can.

You characterized FDNY testimony as doubtful and exaggerated. I'd be happy to quote you doing so. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by pretending you didn't.

Do please quote me (in context please) I want to compare what I said to what YOU said I said.

[Sunstealer]

Smoke generators, for when fire just isn't enough! Bill you either need glasses or Psychiatric help. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously with such a preposterous idea that you aren't willing to back up?

[johnny karate]

Do please quote me (in context please) I want to compare what I said to what YOU said I said.


Certainly:
No....really....I couldn't say. Not on this particular aspect of 9/11 anyway. Though I do have my doubts about the fireman who said that '' WTC7 was fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors''. I felt that he might have been exaggerating a little.


Several firefighters made similar claims. Therefore, you must have your "doubts" about their testimony as well, and assume they were "exaggerating".

Do you need me to again provide the definitions for the words "doubt" and "exaggerate", or are you able to determine on your own that they are synonymous with "distrust" and "falsify"?

[Arus808]

seeing as "smoke" generators dont really produce "smoke" , bill may want to brush up on what actually those generators actually produce.

and the "size" of the generator needed to produce the type of REAL smoke, would be on the order of several industrial size refrigerator sized units. Now, tell me, of the 1000 or so people who worked in WTC 7, no one noticed these huge "mystery" machine like items being installed on their floors over the weeks prior to 9/11 or does BILL really think they were all being installed on 9/11 while the building was on fire?

this is as preposterous as the "demolition" theory for WTC 7

ETA:
website:
http://www.smokemachines.net/full-smoke-machine-listing.shtml

The site is the "biggest" supplier of smoke machines, and I dont see anything listed that would be needed to create the type of "effect" as seen on 9/11. Most of them are VERY small units (mostly portable, can be carried by hand).

you'd need thousands of such units in order to create the magnitude of smoke seen on 9/11.

Most units are water based and oil based, some are dry ice.

some units are self-made (there are instructions to building one of your own), but again, they would leave behind EVIDENCE, as seen of this type of smoke generator, used for a MOVIE SET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smoke_Machine.jpg

Again, even at this size, you'd need at least a few hundred to create the type of effect seen on 9/11 and last over 7 hours.

[Wolrab]

Smoke generators at outdoor rock concerts produce smoke that looks exactly like this. I don't think that many people who see this clip will have many doubts about what they are seeing. I may be wrong but I would love to test it on public broadcast TV with a call-in afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

www.roadies4truth.com

[bill smith]

Certainly:



Several firefighters made similar claims. Therefore, you must have your "doubts" about their testimony as well, and assume they were "exaggerating".

Do you need me to again provide the definitions for the words "doubt" and "exaggerate", or are you able to determine on your own that they are synonymous with "distrust" and "falsify"?

I thought that to be very understated and reasonable and in no way an indictment of the fireman involved. The video record and most of the anecdotal reporting shows relatively little fire in WTC7 at any point. So when he says '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' I said he was either exaggerating or mistaken. I was absolutely correct in doing so. So you can either agree with me (with the implied apology) or you can agree with the fireman that '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ''.

[johnny karate]

I thought that to be very understated and reasonable and in no way an indictment of the fireman involved. The video record and most of the anecdotal reporting shows relatively little fire in WTC7 at any point. So when he says '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' I said he was either exaggerating or mistaken. I was absolutely correct in doing so. So you can either agree with me (with the implied apology) or you can agree with the fireman that '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ''.

Point 1: More than one firefighter made claims of WTC7 being fully involved. Do I believe them over you? Absolutely. For many obvious reasons.

Point 2: The issue was whether or not you characterized FDNY testimony as untrustworthy. You did, and I proved it. It doesn't matter how "understated" it was, you are effectively calling these firefighters liars.

[GlennB]

I think bill is having a little joke ;)

[tfk]

bill,

Hello there..
Uncharacteristically monosyllabic ? Cat got your tongue ? lol


Just enjoying you sway everyone over to your side due to your compelling arguments and unassailable hard evidence.

Once we've wrapped up "smoke generators", perhaps we can move on to:

1. Silent explosives
2. Your stated conviction that Les Robertson was convinced that jet planes would bounce off of the building, and that this is why he did not consider the consequences of fuel and fires.
3. The molecular disruption of the walls that was necessary to get the plane thru them.
4. Frank de Martini's structural screen netting.
5. The hundreds of government shills that were pre-planted on the streets of NYC to begin crafting the official CT immediately.
6. Your stated conclusion that ae911 completely debunked the NIST WTC7 reports within hours of its release.
7. Your conclusion that the interruption of the TV signals when the plane hit the South Tower was evidence of the signal being manipulated.
8. Your stated conclusion that the gubbamint broke into the house of one of the passenger's next of kin, planted her personal documents, used voice morphing technology to send that information, for who knows what reason.

All backed up by your incredible, Sherlock Holmesian powers, that somehow left you, seven years after an event that you discuss for many hours per day, unable to find WTC7 on a map. And had you adamantly insisting that WTC7 was really the Winter Gardens.

Or did you prefer me "monosyllabic".

tom

[bill smith]

Point 1: More than one firefighter made claims of WTC7 being fully involved. Do I believe them over you? Absolutely. For many obvious reasons.

Point 2: The issue was whether or not you characterized FDNY testimony as untrustworthy. You did, and I proved it. It doesn't matter how "understated" it was, you are effectively calling these firefighters liars.

1.So then I can take it that Johnny Karate states that he is in full agreement with the fireman that ' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire,from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ' I'll start a file. You never know when information like that might be important. Please advise by return If this is not so.

2. Exaggerating or being mistaken are not felonies or misdemeanours. They are simle human failings or weaknesses. Suggesting that someone is exaggerating or is mistaken is therefore only a simle criticism and has nothing to do with lying.

[tfk]

I think bill is having a little joke ;)
Glenn,

Bill is a little joke.

You misunderstand him if you think that he cares about being wrong. Or being embarrassed.

Some of us that have crossed swords with him for quite a while know that all of the issues that I list above - and far more - are part of his standard repertoire.

He will, after being drubbed soundly, return in a few months and happily bring "smoke generators" back into any discussion. And he will then claim that "all you hot shots at JREF were unable to disprove his smoke generator theory" and that "he really whipped your collective butts in the argument".

We are at a loss as to how someone could be so resolutely senseless. And immune to the embarrassment of making a humiliating spectacle of himself in public.

The only speculations that we've been able to come up with is that
a) this is the only opportunity that this high school drop-out has to poke at engineers & scientists. And imagine that he's whippin' em good.
b) he's moving 9-11 merchandise.

Nothing else makes much sense.

tom

[bill smith]

bill,



Just enjoying you sway everyone over to your side due to your compelling arguments and unassailable hard evidence.

Once we've wrapped up "smoke generators", perhaps we can move on to:

1. Silent explosives
2. Your stated conviction that Les Robertson was convinced that jet planes would bounce off of the building, and that this is why he did not consider the consequences of fuel and fires.
3. The molecular disruption of the walls that was necessary to get the plane thru them.
4. Frank de Martini's structural screen netting.
5. The hundreds of government shills that were pre-planted on the streets of NYC to begin crafting the official CT immediately.
6. Your stated conclusion that ae911 completely debunked the NIST WTC7 reports within hours of its release.
7. Your conclusion that the interruption of the TV signals when the plane hit the South Tower was evidence of the signal being manipulated.
8. Your stated conclusion that the gubbamint broke into the house of one of the passenger's next of kin, planted her personal documents, used voice morphing technology to send that information, for who knows what reason.

All backed up by your incredible, Sherlock Holmesian powers, that somehow left you, seven years after an event that you discuss for many hours per day, unable to find WTC7 on a map. And had you adamantly insisting that WTC7 was really the Winter Gardens.

Or did you prefer me "monosyllabic".


tom

Hello hello

This length of post is fine, but not the book-length ones please. Less is more. I told you many times.
Some interesing topics there. But not all of them are mine.

[jaydeehess]

Hello there..


Uncharacteristically monosyllabic ? Cat got your tongue ? lol

con/vec/tion 3 syllables

Ahem.

Bill, again, how did you calculate this? Please show your work.

(Perhaps you thought Twinstead's acknowledgement that "your eyes" told you would be sufficient. It's not.)

You asked the question what would be creating the smoke pouring out of the broken windows. The short answer is convection, which is a large step more in explanation than your contention that there just has to be a smoke generator (other than the actual offices fires).
Will you now tell us how it is that you determine that there is too much smoke for the fires that were occuring in WTC 7. As said above, if your calculation is a strictly "my eyes are telling me this" then just say so.

I thought that to be very understated and reasonable and in no way an indictment of the fireman involved. The video record and most of the anecdotal reporting shows relatively little fire in WTC7 at any point. So when he says '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' I said he was either exaggerating or mistaken. I was absolutely correct in doing so. So you can either agree with me (with the implied apology) or you can agree with the fireman that '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ''.

The record of what fires were burning is well docuemented in the WTC 7 report. Have you bothered to read it?
Each of the several fires burning in WTC 7 would have been considered major fires in and of themselves and the fires in the vicinity of the initial failure were the largest of those.

In fact you distrust the FF accounts of major fires in WTC 7, you distrust the FF accounts that the building was in danger of collapsing and you distrust the FF accounts that do not include your contention that there was more smoke than should have been generated by the fires. In short you are discounting the FF accounts pretty much in their entireity and accepting only the minor, obvious point that there was fire in the building.

Thus by your own words you have demonstrated, though not actually come out and been honest about stating it directly, that you find the statements made by the FF's to be suspect, untrustworthy and lacking of mention of aspects that you believe are obvious.

[tfk]

<snip>
2. Exaggerating or being mistaken are not felonies or misdemeanours. They are simle human failings or weaknesses. Suggesting that someone is exaggerating or is mistaken is therefore only a simle criticism and has nothing to do with lying.

bill,

Ahh, that would be like suggesting that Barry Jennings & Willie Rodriguez were simply mistaken ...

Something that you were completely unwilling to distinguish from accusations of lying when others (including me) made them.

Since it didn't fit your immediate agenda at that time.

tk

[johnny karate]

1.So then I can take it that Johnny Karate states that he is in full agreement with the firemen that ' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire,from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ' I'll start a file. You never know when information like that might be important. Please advise by return If this is not so.

Fixed that for you.

2. Exaggerating or being mistaken are not felonies or misdemeanours. They are simle human failings or weaknesses. Suggesting that someone is exaggerating or is mistaken is therefore only a simle criticism and has nothing to do with lying.

Exaggerating has everything to with lying, as an exaggeration is a lie. I'd be happy to give you the definition of the word again.

You want to claim the words of these firefighters are untrue, without claiming the firefighters are being untruthful. This is called cognitive dissonance, a trait shared by most Truthers.

[bill smith]

con/vec/tion 3 syllables



You asked the question what would be creating the smoke pouring out of the broken windows. The short answer is convection, which is a large step more in explanation than your contention that there just has to be a smoke generator (other than the actual offices fires).
Will you now tell us how it is that you determine that there is too much smoke for the fires that were occuring in WTC 7. As said above, if your calculation is a strictly "my eyes are telling me this" then just say so.



The record of what fires were burning is well docuemented in the WTC 7 report. Have you bothered to read it?
Each of the several fires burning in WTC 7 would have been considered major fires in and of themselves and the fires in the vicinity of the initial failure were the largest of those.

On the syllables; I was using literary licence. You were being narrowly literal.

On the smoke generator; This is unprovable and is only a curiousity in debating terms.. It's main use to the Truth Community will be televisual. Allow the TV audience to watch the clip and answer multiple choice questions. 1.Is this smoke being blown out of a window ? 2. Is this a smoke-generator ?

On NIST. I use NIST for occasional reference, but since David Chandler busted them on the free-fall thing I don't trust one single word they say.

Always emember that the starting point of science is observation. Everything else comes after that.

[A W Smith]

Always emember that the starting point of science is observation. Everything else comes after that.

I saw three buildings come down that day because of aircraft impacts to two of them causing structural damage and fires that resulted in collateral damage to adjacent buildings.

prove me wrong mister science.

[bill smith]

Fixed that for you.



Exaggerating has everything to with lying, as an exaggeration is a lie. I'd be happy to give you the definition of the word again.

You want to claim the words of these firefighters are untrue, without claiming the firefighters are being untruthful. This is called cognitive dissonance, a trait shared by most Truthers.

Consent by silence. I will generate the file.

I claim the the fireman overtated he case as he evidently did. I also suggested that he might have made a mistake. This is obviously a fair and reasonable criticism and not an accusation of him being a liar.

I have a feeling that Shills know much more CD than Truthers do.

[dudalb]

Smoke generators in WTC7. LOL. I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you very much for the laugh, bill.

(Just to be clear, I am laughing in your face bill)

I have a better response to the Smoke Generators in WTC7 crapola.



:dl::dl: :dl:

[bill smith]

I have a better response to the Smoke Generators in WTC7 crapola.



:dl::dl: :dl:

Don't forget to brush your teeth next time.lol

[DavidJames]

I claim the the fireman overtated he case as he evidently did. I also suggested that he might have made a mistake. This is obviously a fair and reasonable criticism and not an accusation of him being a liar. How many have you contacted to tell them they have over stated or were mistaken?

[johnny karate]

I claim the the fireman overtated he case as he evidently did.

No, you didn't. You said you doubted his statement because you suspected he was exaggerating:
No....really....I couldn't say. Not on this particular aspect of 9/11 anyway. Though I do have my doubts about the fireman who said that '' WTC7 was fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors''. I felt that he might have been exaggerating a little.



I also suggested that he might have made a mistake.

No, you didn't:
No....really....I couldn't say. Not on this particular aspect of 9/11 anyway. Though I do have my doubts about the fireman who said that '' WTC7 was fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors''. I felt that he might have been exaggerating a little.


You added the back-pedaling "mistaken" addendum only after I pointed out to you what a colossally stupid thing you said.

And then there's the preposterous notion that several professional firefighters would be "mistaken" about the scope of the fires burning in the building directly in front of them. On top of failing to notice a giant mechanical smoke generator. Exactly how stupid do you think the FDNY is?

This is obviously a fair and reasonable criticism and not an accusation of him being a liar.

Yes, it is. An exaggeration is a lie. You accused him of exaggerating (and by association, every other firefighter making similar claims). Therefore you accused him of lying.

[bill smith]

No, you didn't. You said you doubted his statement because you suspected he was exaggerating:






No, you didn't:



You added the back-pedaling "mistaken" addendum only after I pointed out to you what a colossally stupid thing you said.

And then there's the preposterous notion that several professional firefighters would be "mistaken" about the scope of the fires burning in the building directly in front of them. On top of failing to notice a giant mechanical smoke generator. Exactly how stupid do you think the FDNY is?



Yes, it is. An exaggeration is a lie. You accused him of exaggerating (and by association, every other firefighter making similar claims). Therefore you accused him of lying.

This is becoming childish now so I plan to disengage shortly. I would just point out that either the video record and everal hundred observers are wrong about the scale of the fires or the firemen are overstating the case. Take your pick.

[Arus808]

False dilemma. Only two options? bob, dont resort to logical fallacies

[Homeland Insurgency]

No, you didn't. You said you doubted his statement because you suspected he was exaggerating:






No, you didn't:



You added the back-pedaling "mistaken" addendum only after I pointed out to you what a colossally stupid thing you said.

And then there's the preposterous notion that several professional firefighters would be "mistaken" about the scope of the fires burning in the building directly in front of them. On top of failing to notice a giant mechanical smoke generator. Exactly how stupid do you think the FDNY is?



Yes, it is. An exaggeration is a lie. You accused him of exaggerating (and by association, every other firefighter making similar claims). Therefore you accused him of lying.

Wow!

Why didn't you get this excited when Gage debating Roberts asked if the FDNY was qualified as to what they witnessed regarding molten steel and Gravy responded...

“No not at all”

I also don't ever remember you jumping in to defend the firefighter who heroically climbed the WTC stairs to radio back that they could knock out the fire with two lines.

Did he not know his job either?

Try not to be all over the place johnny.

[alienentity]

Hi boys and girls..and others.

Just uploaded a new video titled 'Controlled Demolition and Freefall: WTC7' It's a case study of the Landmark Tower demo in Texas, compared to the WTC7 collapse.

If my math isn't wrong (it could be I suppose) the Landmark building fell at no faster than about 50% of freefall overall. I don't have the fancy software to do point-to-point acceleration calcs and find out whether there was any period of freefall within the collapse or not.
Anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtG_0B4ypkg

[bill smith]

Wow!

Why didn't you get this excited when Gage debating Roberts asked if the FDNY was qualified as to what they witnessed regarding molten steel and Gravy responded...

“No not at all”

I also don't ever remember you jumping in to defend the firefighter who heroically climbed the WTC stairs to radio back that they could knock out the fire with two lines.

Did he not know his job either?

Try not to be all over the place johnny.

It seems to be mainly the firefighters who said 'WTC7 was fully engaged in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' that Johnny wants to defend and vindicate. Ithink the heroes in the attached clip deserve a mention too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

[Homeland Insurgency]

It seems to be mainly the firefighters who said 'WTC7 was fully engaged in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' that Johnny wants to defend and vindicate. Ithink the heroes in the attached clip deserve a mention too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

All these debunkers are very selective about witness accounts. When you rub their nose in a witness account that goes against everything they are trying to sell they will dismiss the witness as crazy or proceed to assert what the witness really meant. It doesn't matter if the witness is a first responder hero or a civilian 9/11 hero. The debunker will first ask if the hero has followed up on his account and if they have not then it's supposed to be assumed that they changed their mind. If the hero does follow up and stick to their story then the hero needs to be attacked over and over again with a smear campaign. Gravy seems to have made a career of this.

And around here Gravy is the hero. That should tell you something.

[twinstead]

So. HI. Do YOU think smoke generators were used in the WTC?

[funk de fino]

I also don't ever remember you jumping in to defend the firefighter who heroically climbed the WTC stairs to radio back that they could knock out the fire with two lines..

This just proves what an ignoramus you are.

[A W Smith]

All these debunkers are very selective about witness accounts. When you rub their nose in a witness account that goes against everything they are trying to sell they will dismiss the witness as crazy or proceed to assert what the witness really meant. It doesn't matter if the witness is a first responder hero or a civilian 9/11 hero. The debunker will first ask if the hero has followed up on his account and if they have not then it's supposed to be assumed that they changed their mind. If the hero does follow up and stick to their story then the hero needs to be attacked over and over again with a smear campaign. Gravy seems to have made a career of this.

And around here Gravy is the hero. That should tell you something.

except the fact that we rub your nose in the physical evidence that contradicts testimony of what some think they saw. like the north tower collapsing before the south. Do you really want to go there HI?

No, I didn't think so.

[bill smith]

All these debunkers are very selective about witness accounts. When you rub their nose in a witness account that goes against everything they are trying to sell they will dismiss the witness as crazy or proceed to assert what the witness really meant. It doesn't matter if the witness is a first responder hero or a civilian 9/11 hero. The debunker will first ask if the hero has followed up on his account and if they have not then it's supposed to be assumed that they changed their mind. If the hero does follow up and stick to their story then the hero needs to be attacked over and over again with a smear campaign. Gravy seems to have made a career of this.

And around here Gravy is the hero. That should tell you something.

Fortunately I'm on his ignore list so he doesn't really know what I'm saying most of the time. Thank God...otherwise he would slaughter me.
I'm well used to he smear tactic and can see it coming a mile off. It's great to know that I'm not the only Truther here. I thought it was Shill-Central here. Wall-to-wall.

[RedIbis]

Fortunately I'm on his ignore list so he doesn't really know what I'm saying most of the time. Thank God...otherwise he would slaughter me.
I'm well used to he smear tactic and can see it coming a mile off. It's great to know that I'm not the only Truther here. I thought it was Shill-Central here. Wall-to-wall.

Take it as a badge of honor. Gravy will only address illiterate twoofies and those who agree with him. Everyone else goes on ignore. I doubt there's anyone on jref who has more people on ignore than he does.

[tfk]

bill,

This is becoming childish now so I plan to disengage shortly. I would just point out that either the video record and everal hundred observers are wrong about the scale of the fires or the firemen are overstating the case. Take your pick.


"This is becoming childish now ..."???

Nah, billy. This became childish about a year ago when you first brought up your pet theory of "smoke generators".

It became hilarious when you recently attempted to defend it.

tk

[bill smith]

Take it as a badge of honor. Gravy will only address illiterate twoofies and those who agree with him. Everyone else goes on ignore. I doubt there's anyone on jref who has more people on ignore than he does.

Thanks for the heads-up.

[bill smith]

bill,



"This is becoming childish now ..."???

Nah, billy. This became childish about a year ago when you first brought up your pet theory of "smoke generators".

It became hilarious when you recently attempted to defend it.

tk

The smoke generator is not really good debating material Teddy. It's more useful in a television presentation as you may have read further back.

[A W Smith]

bill,



"This is becoming childish now ..."???

Nah, billy. This became childish about a year ago when you first brought up your pet theory of "smoke generators".

It became hilarious when you recently attempted to defend it.

tk


Holy #### thats bills year old theory?

:dl:

[twinstead]

Now this is becoming surreal. HI are you REALLY defending somebody who thinks smoke generators were used in the WTC?

Give me an effen break!

[bill smith]

Now this is becoming surreal. HI are you REALLY defending somebody who thinks smoke generators were used in the WTC?

Give me an effen break!

I'm sure you've heard of 'the thin end of the wedge' Twin. Well they don't come much thinner than you.

[tfk]

Holy #### thats bills year old theory?

:dl:
One of many.

Check out the rest of this list here. More of bill's unique genius.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4525947#post4525947

tom

[bill smith]

One of many.

Check out the rest of this list here. More of bill's unique genius.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4525947#post4525947

tom
It all helps to keep life challenging and interesting Teddy.

[twinstead]

I'm sure you've heard of 'the thin end of the wedge' Twin. Well they don't come much thinner than you.

Well, if that means that birds of a feather flock together, then yea. Otherwise...:confused:

[Homeland Insurgency]

Now this is becoming surreal. HI are you REALLY defending somebody who thinks smoke generators were used in the WTC?

Give me an effen break!

Sure I'll defend him and his right to believe what he wants. He can present his evidence and if there is nothing to it then it can't go far.

But that wasn't what I was doing was it? Defending a smoke machine? I remember we would use one of those in our stage show in my Metal days. The big metal barrel with the dry ice? It made the air so dry it was hard for me to sing backup I remember. Maybe that was the plan? Maybe the crew didn't want every stray dog for miles around to crash the door... oh never mind I digress. I was having a flashback.

What I was pointing out was the debunker tactic of claiming truthers are always smearing the 9/11 heroes when in reality your number one hero right here has made a career of smearing and dismissing 9/11 heroes.

Did you miss that?

[bill smith]

Well, if that means that birds of a feather flock together, then yea. Otherwise...:confused:
I'm sorry...that remark was uncalled for. I just saw you trying to drive a wedge between Truthers. I was probably wrong.

[tfk]

bill,

The smoke generator is not really good debating material Teddy.


Getting your head handing to you gave you that clue, did it?


It's more useful in a television presentation as you may have read further back.

"... more useful ..."

The Twoofer definition of truth: "Whatever stupidity is most useful to the moment."

The Twoofer definition of authority: "TV & YouTube".

Gotcha.

[bill smith]

bill,



Getting your head handing to you gave you that clue, did it?



"... more useful ..."

The Twoofer definition of truth: "Whatever stupidity is most useful to the moment."

The Twoofer definition of authority: "TV & YouTube".

Gotcha.

I never felt exercised in that argument or a moment Teddy. Even though it's a minor point as I said. It COULD become a truly major mover and shaker under the right circumstances though. But that's for later....

[A W Smith]

It all helps to keep life challenging and interesting Teddy.


I think you have made it clear to all, that yes. You lead a challenged life. Good luck with your problems.

[T.A.M.]

what ever happened to Bob the Analyst? He kind of came here, spittled all over the forum for a few pages, then up and left.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

I was having a flashback.



You still are.

[bill smith]

night all

[johnny karate]

This is becoming childish now so I plan to disengage shortly. I would just point out that either the video record and everal hundred observers are wrong about the scale of the fires or the firemen are overstating the case. Take your pick.

The video record is by no means complete. Your assertion that because there is no photographic evidence, it must not have occurred is asinine on its face.

Please present the quotes of eyewitnesses who contradict what the FDNY reported about the fires in WTC7.

"Exaggerate", "overstate"... in the end you're still calling the FDNY liars.

[TexasJack]

Sure I'll defend him and his right to believe what he wants. He can present his evidence and if there is nothing to it then it can't go far.
Finally, something sensible from you. So tell me, how far has the evidence you or any other truther presented progressed? That's right, 8 years of nowheresville.

[Sunstealer]

what ever happened to Bob the Analyst? He kind of came here, spittled all over the forum for a few pages, then up and left.

TAM:)I think the nurses took away his internet privileges.

[johnny karate]

Wow!

Why didn't you get this excited when Gage debating Roberts asked if the FDNY was qualified as to what they witnessed regarding molten steel and Gravy responded...

“No not at all”

Since when are firefighters qualified to visually recognize the chemical composition of molten metal? Since when is anyone qualified to do that?

I also don't ever remember you jumping in to defend the firefighter who heroically climbed the WTC stairs to radio back that they could knock out the fire with two lines.

Did he not know his job either?

I'm sure in no way are you misconstruing, taking out of context, or cherry-picking what this firefighter said.

[johnny karate]

It seems to be mainly the firefighters who said 'WTC7 was fully engaged in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' that Johnny wants to defend and vindicate. Ithink the heroes in the attached clip deserve a mention too.

It sure does, as not a single one of the firefighters in that clip have expressed a belief in experiencing bombs, controlled demolitions, or suspicions of an inside job. However, I'm not sure how it helps your case to present testimony of even more people who disagree with you.

[tfk]

Guys,

You should know that you've been spanked, excuse me, "put thru your paces", by billy in this whole "smoke generation" debate.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post88136

But Teddy....everybody knows that jref is a forum of wall-to-wall Shills (with a very ocasional Truther) I am not expecting converts but I do quite enjoy putting them through their paces here and there. I will choose my moments. I reckon I'll see this post again on jref shortly, eh ? lol


Bill's victory dances are predictable as the tide. Of course, some may consider the referee to be just a touch shy of objective.

tom

[tfk]

TAM,

what ever happened to Bob the Analyst? He kind of came here, spittled all over the forum for a few pages, then up and left.
TAM

I strongly suspect that Bob's still here & posting. He was billy's "lightening rod". Now that billy's sure that he can take the heat with his usual bluff & bluster, Bob's not necessary.

He'll show up periodically, I expect...

tom

[A W Smith]

Guys,

You should know that you've been spanked, excuse me, "put thru your paces", by billy in this whole "smoke generation" debate.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post88136


Bill's victory dances are predictable as the tide. Of course, some may consider the referee to be just a touch shy of objective.

tom


Sounds like yer friend there was masturbating in the stall of a public restroom till the janitor woke him up, then he went to his tree fort that night to tell all his buddies how he seduced..... Morgan Fairchild!! Yeah! Thats the ticket!!

[jaydeehess]

On the syllables; I was using literary licence. You were being narrowly literal.
I see, a rather obtuse use of literary license.

On the smoke generator; This is unprovable and is only a curiousity in debating terms.. It's main use to the Truth Community will be televisual. Allow the TV audience to watch the clip and answer multiple choice questions. 1.Is this smoke being blown out of a window ? 2. Is this a smoke-generator ?

Given absolutly no evidence that such devices were in fact in the building nor even a description of a device that would do what is claimed they were doing, the contention is pure, unadulerated, unsubstantiated supposition based on nothing more substantial than, well,, smoke.

On NIST. I use NIST for occasional reference, but since David Chandler busted them on the free-fall thing I don't trust one single word they say.
Actually the collapse took at least 16 seconds so you are correct, there was no free fall collapse. However, that is yet another topic.

I was not refering to any conclusions or mechanisms of collapse. I was refering solely to the description of the fires in the building which NIST compiled directly from the video, still photography and eyewitness statement records. How is that description in error as it does not match your contention of the same fires? Please be as specific as you can be.

Always emember that the starting point of science is observation. Everything else comes after that.

Indeed, and the NIST report contains a great deal of observation. It also contains primary research and comparison. I have yet to see as comprehensive compilation of observation concerning WTC 7's impact damage and offices fires in any other report, including anything by ae911.

The video and photographic records used by NIST are available for a reasonable price, I am sure that a few dozen architects and engineers could scrap together the funds to obtain them. Have they done so?

[jaydeehess]

Wow!
I also don't ever remember you jumping in to defend the firefighter who heroically climbed the WTC stairs to radio back that they could knock out the fire with two lines.

Did he not know his job either?
.


9:52 a.m.please note that this is 7 minutes prior to the south tower collapsing

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha." "Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."
Battalion Seven Chief:

"Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."


No one has ever doubted the veracity of the FF's words HI.
That FF was on the 78th floor of the south tower. That is the very lowest floor which was on fire in either building. It was also the floor with the least floorspace on fire. So of at least half a dozen floors involved in the initial fires you have ONE report from a FF on the first fire floor reached in which he states that the fires on that ONE floor could be doused with a few lines. You do not bother to investigate whether or not he would have had water to supply those two lines. You do not bother to wonder about the fires on floors higher up nor do you consider that in order to get to higher floors they would have to first quench the fires on the 78th, nor do you consider whether or not it would be physically possible to get to all the floors involved with fire.
You do not consider the fact that this is the sole report from any fire floor in either structure.

So, while I accept his assessment that two lines could get the fires on the 78th floor of the south tower under control this says nothing at all about the fires on the 5 higher floors also on fire, it says nothing about whether or not he ever got a functioning line and it certainly does not suggest that he could have gotten the fire under control in the 7 minutes he had left to live when he made that report.

johnny karate writes;
I'm sure in no way are you misconstruing, taking out of context, or cherry-picking what this firefighter said

How very incorrect your statement is jk.:D

One wonders how HI can be either so ill informed or lieing through his teeth and still sleep at night.

[jaydeehess]

I never felt exercised in that argument or a moment Teddy. Even though it's a minor point as I said. It COULD become a truly major mover and shaker under the right circumstances though. But that's for later....

Exactly what circumstances would make your unsubstantiated contention of smoke generators more probable?

[johnny karate]

Exactly what circumstances would make your unsubstantiated contention of smoke generators more probable?

He thinks if the clip of this supposed "smoke generator" is shown on television, a national poll could be taken to determine "the truth".

Of course, no firefighters will be allowed in this poll due to their propensity to "exaggerate". Not to mention the fact that hundreds of them failed to see it for what it was when it was right in front of them, so I doubt they'd be able to figure it out by watching a video.

[Arus808]

What bill needs to do is provide evidence. otherwise its just wishy washy speculation on his part, and should be ignored for his ignorant comments

[Disbelief]

Take it as a badge of honor. Gravy will only address illiterate twoofies and those who agree with him. Everyone else goes on ignore. I doubt there's anyone on jref who has more people on ignore than he does.

Yes Red, it has nothing to do with the lying, dodging of direct questions and overweening arrogance displayed by the TM.

[bill smith]

Hi Gramps. I think it's a great and timely move on Heiwa's part. He better draw up the parameters and terms with great care though for his own protection. He cannot lose the money if he gets this right and he can get the interest of every engineer in the World.....and he has the professional credibility to give this thing real teeth. We will have to wait nd see if he really means this or not. I hope so.

Keep the faith Gramps.

[Dave Rogers]

He cannot lose the money if he gets this right

So far, his approach to not losing the money has been to redraft the terms or change the structure every time he looks like losing. Not exactly the sort of behaviour that inspires confidence.

and he can get the interest of every engineer in the World.....and he has the professional credibility to give this thing real teeth.

:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:

That's worth at least five. Tell me, bill smith, what colour is the sky on your planet?

Dave

[twinstead]

Oh good lord. He's talking about HEIWA, isn't he? For once twinstead is speechless

[dtugg]

Heiwa? Professional credibility? You are trying to be funny, aren't you bill? Well, it worked, I laughed out loud.

[GlennB]

1,000,000 dollar challenge


I think it's a great and timely move on Heiwa's part. He better draw up the parameters and terms with great care though for his own protection. He cannot lose the money if he gets this right and he can get the interest of every engineer in the World.....

Heiwa is carefully refining the "terms and conditions" of his challenge post-by-post. He has no clue what they should be or how they will end up. I foresee the need for a 400m tall steel-framed building as being the final requirement.

and he has the professional credibility to give this thing real teeth. We will have to wait nd see if he really means this or not. I hope so.



No he hasn't. I contacted one of the naval magazines mentioned in his CV, one of those where supposedly he has had "many articles published". He had precisely one proper article published some years back (before the journal went to electronic storage) but all subsequent submissions by Bjorkman have been rejected as "libelous". At the website you'll find one absurd entry (which is forum like - I imagine they have one for subscribers) by Bjorkman which receives short-shrift from a professional.

And if you want sources you'll have to do your own digging. Not difficult.

[bill smith]

So far, his approach to not losing the money has been to redraft the terms or change the structure every time he looks like losing. Not exactly the sort of behaviour that inspires confidence.



:dl::dl::dl::dl::dl:

That's worth at least five. Tell me, bill smith, what colour is the sky on your planet?

Dave

Spring is in the air Dave. How long has Heiwa been making this offer then ? I see wonderful and global potential in this. For one million Heiwa can be as famous as Brunel. The most globally known engineer for centuries. Immortality beckons and a great evil exposed.

[dtugg]

Spring is in the air Dave. How long has Heiwa been making this offer then ? I see wonderful and global potential in this. For one million Heiwa can be as famous as Brunel. The most globally known engineer for centuries. Immortality beckons and a great evil exposed.

OK, you are definitely messing with us. There is no way you can actually be serious about this. Right? Well, I kind of hope you are serious because it is funnier for me that way.

[dtugg]

No he hasn't. I contacted one of the naval magazines mentioned in his CV, one of those where supposedly he has had "many articles published". He had precisely one proper article published some years back (before the journal went to electronic storage) but all subsequent submissions by Bjorkman have been rejected as "libelous". At the website you'll find one absurd entry (which is forum like - I imagine they have one for subscribers) by Bjorkman which receives short-shrift from a professional.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I didn't know that, not that I'm surprised. Heiwa recently submitted an article to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. I emailed the editor about all of his "Heiwa type experiments" and such. Heiwa still told me that he has a 100% chance of getting published. I wonder how that will turn out. :rolleyes:

[jaydeehess]

I have not been following the Heeiwa threads. How is his $1M challenge backed up? Does he have a bond in that amount secured by, or held in trust by, a third party?

I mean, I can say I will give someone a $mill if they can do this or that but I do not have a $mill.

[bill smith]

1,000,000 dollar challenge



Heiwa is carefully refining the "terms and conditions" of his challenge post-by-post. He has no clue what they should be or how they will end up. I foresee the need for a 400m tall steel-framed building as being the final requirement.



No he hasn't. I contacted one of the naval magazines mentioned in his CV, one of those where supposedly he has had "many articles published". He had precisely one proper article published some years back (before the journal went to electronic storage) but all subsequent submissions by Bjorkman have been rejected as "libelous". At the website you'll find one absurd entry (which is forum like - I imagine they have one for subscribers) by Bjorkman which receives short-shrift from a professional.

And if you want sources you'll have to do your own digging. Not difficult.

I wonder iwho the magazine thought was being libelled ? Let me think.......Could it have been the American Government by any chance ? Maybe the magazine was afraid to ruffle any American feathers ? Obviously they like Heiwa's articles in the normal course of events having previously published his fine work.
Luckily I think the world is moving into a feather-ruffling phase these days and we will have to see what comes out of it.

[Dave Rogers]

How long has Heiwa been making this offer then ?

Two days, and he's changed the terms of the offer retrospectively four times since then.

I see wonderful and global potential in this. For one million Heiwa can be as famous as Brunel. The most globally known engineer for centuries. Immortality beckons and a great evil exposed.

I'm tempted to bet you $1,000,000 that this never happens, but I'm not a liar and a cheat so I won't pretend to offer money I don't have. Instead, I think I'll just bet you a Stundie nomination against a public apology. If, in one year from the time and date of this post, Heiwa can reasonably be described as "the most globally known engineer for centuries" on the basis of his dishonest and near-fraudulent offer of $1M which he clearly has no intention of honouring, I will post any apology you care to draft for the fact that I've nominated the above post for the Stundie awards.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

I have not been following the Heeiwa threads. How is his $1M challenge backed up?

By his ongoing revision of the terms to exclude any successful entries.

Dave

[bill smith]

Two days, and he's changed the terms of the offer retrospectively four times since then.



I'm tempted to bet you $1,000,000 that this never happens, but I'm not a liar and a cheat so I won't pretend to offer money I don't have. Instead, I think I'll just bet you a Stundie nomination against a public apology. If, in one year from the time and date of this post, Heiwa can reasonably be described as "the most globally known engineer for centuries" on the basis of his dishonest and near-fraudulent offer of $1M which he clearly has no intention of honouring, I will post any apology you care to draft for the fact that I've nominated the above post for the Stundie awards.

Dave

Let's wait until the hard text of the challenge is presented (which might take a little time to get exactly right). If Heiwa gets this up and running the internet will be agog with this in days. In weeks the mainstream media will have to pick up on the story whether they like it or not. We are talking viral. 9/11 goes interactive.

This new approach will reach the parts the old approach did not reach. Every engineer's cafe in the world will have huddles of engineers in conclave. If neccessary the Truth Movement will do a fundraiser to raise the one million for this or for the many other possible challenges that I can foresee being designed.

[johnny karate]

I wonder how stupid RedIbis is feeling right now for defending this guy.

[dtugg]

bill, people like you are the reason that it is often impossible for people to tell what twoofers say from a parody. I mean, what you write definitely looks like parody, but since you are a twoofer, you could be serious. And like I said before, I hope it is the latter, just for the lulz.

[Disbelief]

I wonder how stupid RedIbis is feeling right now for defending this guy.

Now, this is just blatant speculation. When has Red shown anything that would make you think that he can feel shame or stupidity?

[bill smith]

bill, people like you are the reason that it is often impossible for people to tell what twoofers say from a parody. I mean, what you write definitely looks like parody, but since you are a twoofer, you could be serious. And like I said before, I hope it is the former, just for the lulz.

I'm sure you'll work it out eventually. lol

[Dave Rogers]

Let's wait until the hard text of the challenge is presented (which might take a little time to get exactly right). If Heiwa gets this up and running the internet will be agog with this in days. In weeks the mainstream media will have to pick up on the story whether they like it or not. We are talking viral. 9/11 goes interactive.

This new approach will reach the parts the old approach did not reach. Every engineer's cafe in the world will have huddles of engineers in conclave. If neccessary the Truth Movement will do a fundraiser to raise the one million for this or for the many other possible challenges that I can foresee being designed.

Please, please, bill smith, never fall into the standard truther pattern of abuse, violations of the membership agreement, suspension, abusive PMs to the moderators and eventual banning, to return to us only sporadically as each sockpuppet blazes briefly through the heavens of JREF before the ban-hammer repeatedly descends. Stay here and continue to entertain us with your bizarre and otherworldly views, not least the hilarious suggestion that the entire truth movement is capable of collectively raising a million dollars.

Dave

[TexasJack]

Stay here and continue to entertain us with your bizarre and otherworldly views, not least the hilarious suggestion that the entire truth movement is capable of collectively raising a million dollars.

Dave

I'll have to tell you, that is one of the funnier things spouted by a truther I have a read here, and that's saying something.

[GlennB]

bill, people like you are the reason that it is often impossible for people to tell what twoofers say from a parody. I mean, what you write definitely looks like parody, but since you are a twoofer, you could be serious. And like I said before, I hope it is the former, just for the lulz.

:)

dtugg -- I've long held the (maybe) paranoid CTist belief that a lot of 9/11 CTists are actually undergrad psychology students, just testing the limits of patience of an anonymous audience in the face of outrageous stupidity ;) I suspect a thesis or two might get published one day.

bill would be a candidate.
The likes of Heiwa definitely not, he's put in too much effort with websites and books and all. Ditto the CIT crew. Chris7 would have to be an entire team of people copying+pasting the same dross for 16 hrs a day, but that could make sense research-wise. Maybe a PhD in the "reaction to stupid" in that particular case?

My claim to the Randi $1M ... bill will now 'fess up and say "yeah, you got me".

[dtugg]

:)

dtugg -- I've long held the (maybe) paranoid CTist belief that a lot of 9/11 CTists are actually undergrad psychology students, just testing the limits of patience of an anonymous audience in the face of outrageous stupidity ;) I suspect a thesis or two might get published one day.

bill would be a candidate.
The likes of Heiwa definitely not, he's put in too much effort with websites and books and all. Ditto the CIT crew. Chris7 would have to be an entire team of people copying+pasting the same dross for 16 hrs a day, but that could make sense research-wise. Maybe a PhD in the "reaction to stupid" in that particular case?

My claim to the Randi $1M ... bill will now 'fess up and say "yeah, you got me".


Could be.



And to clarify, I meant to say that I hope he is the latter (serious), not former, (parody). It's much funnier that way.

[bill smith]

Please, please, bill smith, never fall into the standard truther pattern of abuse, violations of the membership agreement, suspension, abusive PMs to the moderators and eventual banning, to return to us only sporadically as each sockpuppet blazes briefly through the heavens of JREF before the ban-hammer repeatedly descends. Stay here and continue to entertain us with your bizarre and otherworldly views, not least the hilarious suggestion that the entire truth movement is capable of collectively raising a million dollars.

Dave

Well of course Dave,just as Heiwa I do not believe the million is in any danger. No engineer is going to prove that the top 13 floors (part C) of a 110 storey skyscraper crushed the bottom and stronger 97 floors (part A) right down to ground level solely by the power of a 20-inch subsidence of part C onto part A and with only the aid of the power of gravity. Many will try, and many will for the first time realise just how impossible it is.
This must smash the official story at a single stroke. Whatever happens it will open 9/11 up like a clam and as you know we have a lot of very interesting facts,stories and videos to pass on.

Be happy Dave. We both have the same objective don't we ? Let the Truth shine out

[GlennB]

...... No engineer is going to prove that the top 13 floors (part C) of a 110 storey skyscraper crushed the bottom and stronger 97 floors (part A) right down to ground level solely by the power of a 20-inch subsidence of part C onto part A and with only the aid of the power of gravity. Many will try, and many will for the first time realise just how impossible it is....

Funnily enough, truther/engineer Gordon Ross thought he'd proved it impossible. Even using a view of collapse mechanism most favourable to collapse arrest (like Bazant and others), he thought he'd proved a Heiwa-esque "bounce" *. Turned out he got his maths wrong and had to recant.

When last heard of he was in the Chris7 camp, proposing an inexplicably bizarre mix of thermate and silent explosives to maintain his <cough> 'engineering credibility'.

* Argument from incredulity warning .... the concept of a WTC "catch+bounce" is the single most preposterous concept I've heard of in this area of discussion.

[bill smith]

Funnily enough, truther/engineer Gordon Ross thought he'd proved it impossible. Even using a view of collapse mechanism most favourable to collapse arrest (like Bazant and others), he thought he'd proved a Heiwa-esque "bounce" *. Turned out he got his maths wrong and had to recant.

When last heard of he was in the Chris7 camp, proposing an inexplicably bizarre mix of thermate and silent explosives to maintain his <cough> 'engineering credibility'.

* Argument from incredulity warning .... the concept of a WTC "catch+bounce" is the single most preposterous concept I've heard of in this area of discussion.

Even Bazant will have an opportunity to win the million dollars. It will be interesting to watch him defend his theory while Heiwa rips him a new one. you don't think he won't come do you ? That would be soo disappointing.

Imagine--Milllions of eyes around the world following the calculations and checking them for veracity almost in real time. A cagefight to the death of the Truth and the Official Story. Give me a thousand on Heiwa.

[DavidJames]

Even Bazant will have an opportunity to win the million dollars. It will be interesting to watch him defend his theory while Heiwa rips him a new one. you don't think he won't come do you ? That would be soo disappointing.

Imagine--Milllions of eyes around the world following the calculations and checking them for veracity almost in real time. A cagefight to the death of the Truth and the Official Story. Give me a thousand on Heiwa.Sorry to give you the news Bill, but outside of a few Internet forums, you guys and your fantasy's don't exist. No one cares about you, people think you are a joke.

No news coverage of your fantasy
No trade groups support your fantasy
No legal proceedings support your fantasy
Log off the Internet and poof, you're gone

Intelligent people, those with the education and practical experience, those who actually know what the **** they are talking about don't engage you losers for the same reasons professional sports teams don't play games against 8 year olds.

You, and those like you, are the 8 year olds.

[alienentity]

They saw what they saw and I see what I see Johnny. That's a smoke generator, no error. It seems obvious to me that that smoke is being mechanically pumped out like the smoke from a locomotive. Just a bit faster but in the same pulsed, rolling way. Smoke that being blown out does not look like that. It's only another minor observation but quite n interesting one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

Forgive me for jumping into the conversation, but isn't the main hypothesis that 'pressure pulses associated with structural changes
(e.g. a partial floor collapse)' were probably responsible?

I don't recall any reports of loud explosions and shockwaves coinciding with the smoke pulses - which would have indicated cutting charges perhaps.

[GlennB]

Give me a thousand on Heiwa.

You're no gambler then. You didn't ask what the proposition was, nor what the odds were.

[T.A.M.]

a thousand on Heiwa, eh?

Did I mention I have some land to sell in Florida, and a friend who is a Nigerian prince looking to immigrate?

TAM;)

[tfk]

This is SOOOO cool...

billy is spreading Heiwa's $1 million dollar challenge all over the place.

Along with cherries like this one:

"Heiwa on the jref who is one of the world's foremost engineers has put his money where his mouth is and made a startling offer."

Complete with links to the challenge:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4520603#post4520603

Billy concludes with the following:
"With careful management and a little publicity this could go viral. One million dollars would attract a lot of engineers and a lot of interest and attention. 9/11 is going interactive."

Anders, I think that billy wants to be your PR guy.

BTW, billy...

I think it's a great and timely move on Heiwa's part.


"... timely ..." Seven and a half years later?? Timely??


He cannot lose the money if he gets this right ...


Well, heck bill. Since your technical expertise has allowed you to do this calculation in your head, and you've informed us of the outcome, it hardly seems necessary to run any experiments or simulations.

But, wait one minute. We do have one reference point.

You have claimed, ad nauseum, that WTC7 would not, could not, possibly collapse simply from fires. And then a couple hundred PhD's & Pro Engineers got together with a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of FEA statics & dynamics & fire simulation software, several hundred thousand dollars worth of supercomputer time, spent a couple years getting all the dimensions, materials, constraints, loading, etc just right, and then spent about 6 months crunching numbers to get ONE solution representing about 10 seconds of real time (at a calculation rate of several hundred billion calculations per second).

And, guess what, bill. Their answer was the direct opposite of yours.

Oh yeah, I forgot one other important data point. You have shown that you are incapable of calculating simple geometrical areas and volumes. And you've shown that you can not convert from the volume to the weight of a part, given the density.

So, let me think for a minute as to whose analysis I should support...


He better draw up the parameters and terms with great care though for his own protection.


Well, billy, in order that Anders get legal support that is just as qualified as his technical support, I recommend that you act as his legal counsel as well.


and he can get the interest of every engineer in the World.....


In our secret little coffee klatches, no doubt...


and he has the professional credibility to give this thing real teeth.


... in your technically expert opinion, of course.

Biggest laugh of the weak. There has got to be some pop-cultural metaphor for this farce. "Blind judging the blind" ?? "Dumber & Dumberer"??


We will have to wait nd see if he really means this or not. I hope so.


So do I.
___

And the consequence of all of Billy's attention...?

And Heiwa's gotta be soiling his pants.

If billy stops this nonsense today, we'll know that Anders sent an Emergency Message to billy to cut the crap.

As I said at the beginning, "This is SOOOOO cool...!"

tk

[beachnut]

Time for a sig change.
“There comes a time when your silence becomes betrayal “

Balsamo the truthNAZI at p4t uses a similar statement. The fringe 911Truth cult are hypocrites with their support the terrorists by apologizing for them with hearsay, lies and fantasy; then promising the gallows for those who oppose their failed thoughts.

But the better statement and advice for Balsamo and those posting delusions would be…


It's better to remain silent than post delusions and let everyone know your complete ignorance on 911.

[tsig]

Let's wait until the hard text of the challenge is presented (which might take a little time to get exactly right). If Heiwa gets this up and running the internet will be agog with this in days. In weeks the mainstream media will have to pick up on the story whether they like it or not. We are talking viral. 9/11 goes interactive.

This new approach will reach the parts the old approach did not reach. Every engineer's cafe in the world will have huddles of engineers in conclave. If neccessary the Truth Movement will do a fundraiser to raise the one million for this or for the many other possible challenges that I can foresee being designed.

You might want to raise the million before you offer it.

[tsig]

Even Bazant will have an opportunity to win the million dollars. It will be interesting to watch him defend his theory while Heiwa rips him a new one. you don't think he won't come do you ? That would be soo disappointing.

Imagine--Milllions of eyes around the world following the calculations and checking them for veracity almost in real time. A cagefight to the death of the Truth and the Official Story. Give me a thousand on Heiwa.

"Milllions of eyes" makes me think of a GEICO commercial.

The brains attached to those eyes have already done the calculations and are too busy to pay attention to fringeys.

[Sunstealer]

Wow and I thought the nonsense couldn't get more nonsensical. The truth movement just keeps on giving.........me huge laughs.

Imagine having some numpty champion you as one of the greatest <insert your profession here> and touting you all over the intertubes linking to some petty argument and a fictitious $1 million. The horror, oh the horror.

[bill smith]

a thousand on Heiwa, eh?

Did I mention I have some land to sell in Florida, and a friend who is a Nigerian prince looking to immigrate?

TAM;)

I knew a guy who sold some land in England. After he started his new life in America he kept getting calls and letters from the purchasers. Something about 'the tide coming in' He never got to the bottom of it.

[jaydeehess]

Let's wait until the hard text of the challenge is presented (which might take a little time to get exactly right). If Heiwa gets this up and running the internet will be agog with this in days. In weeks the mainstream media will have to pick up on the story whether they like it or not. We are talking viral. 9/11 goes interactive.

This new approach will reach the parts the old approach did not reach. Every engineer's cafe in the world will have huddles of engineers in conclave. If neccessary the Truth Movement will do a fundraiser to raise the one million for this or for the many other possible challenges that I can foresee being designed.


Therein lies the main problem with this 'challenge. So far it is nothing more that hot air. Heiwa has been asked to prove the money exists and has ignored the question. this strongly suggets that he does not have it and was merely trying to be cutsie knowing that Randi offers the same amount to prove a paranormal power. You are buying into Heiwa's sarcastic offer.

Now you also want to pass the hat among the 911TM to raise not only one award but suggest raising enough for " many other possible challenges ". I believe I asked you if ae911 bothered to purcahse the use of the video and photographic record that NIST used for the WTC 7 report. Did they or did they not? If not then why cannot a group of professionals raise that small amount, and how can they challenge the observations that NIST made without that record?

He better draw up the parameters and terms with great care though for his own protection.
The parameters and terms are on their way to being nothing less than the construction of a full sized replica of the towers.

He better have the money in place to back his mouth if he does get takers.

[jaydeehess]

I knew a guy who sold some land in England. After he started his new life in America he kept getting calls and letters from the purchasers. Something about 'the tide coming in' He never got to the bottom of it.

As Sunstealer said, the $million that Heiwa is putting up is fictitious putting him in the same company as the 'guy' you knew.

[johnny karate]

As Sunstealer said, the $million that Heiwa is putting up is fictitious putting him in the same company as the 'guy' you knew.

I hear Heiwa has 67 Monopoly games in his basement, so there might be something to it after all...

[GlennB]

Funnily enough, truther/engineer Gordon Ross thought he'd proved it impossible. Even using a view of collapse mechanism most favourable to collapse arrest (like Bazant and others), he thought he'd proved a Heiwa-esque "bounce" *. Turned out he got his maths wrong and had to recant.


While I was absolutely certain that the plane passed North of Citgo .. er, I mean ... that I had read of Ross's correction to his erroneous calculations, I cannot find any such reference. In all fairness this claim of Ross correcting/withdrawing his calculations would appear to be wrong and is hereby withdrawn.

[jaydeehess]

Several others corrected Ross's calcs and IIRC he agreed with some of them. Whether or not he then posted new , corrected calcs I cannot say.

[HeyLeroy]

Wow.

I just read through this entire thread in one sitting.

Smoke machines.

Wow.

[Ivan Kminek]

Hi, JREF:o)
First of all, sorry for my funny English, I am posting this from the distant Czech Republic. I am a polymer chemist, working in Czech Academy of Sciences, and for the last two years, I have been trying to become something like a „little old Czech 9/11 debunker“. This year, I wrote two articles in Czech on these matters on my blog. (As a newcomer, I can not link it here, but one article is rather general and second one is my attempt to summarize a current status quo of the “nanothermite case”). Now, I would like to write some (quite simple) text on WTC7 issue, which seems to be the most controversial one. Well, plain common sense tells me that no evil conspirators in the world could use the impacts of just two planes for cover-up of “top secret” demolishing of three WTC skyscrapers, but the collapse of WTC7 was indeed a strange event anyway.
Quite naturally, I am using JREF forums as one of the most important source of information. In some cases, however, it is not easy to find relevant information even here, not only because there are too many threads here with so many contributions:o) This is why I am so bold to put some questions for you.
1) Façade question. Since the upper parts of façade (curtain wall) of WTC7 were in fact the only visible objects in any video or picture before/during collapse (not counting penthouses), it is important for me to know: what was the exact construction/structure of the curtain wall? How was it connected to the perimeter columns (?) and/or floors/ceilings and were these joints so weak that they could be ripped off/disconnected during buckling/deformations of the inner structures? I can see large parts of the façade in many pictures of debris, which indicates that this curtain wall itself possessed a quite high “integrity”/coherence. Even so, was it “coherent” enough to slip down as one almost intact “plate” during the collapse (again, I am talking about its upper visible parts)? And could this slipping of the façade be to some extent independent on the progressive collapse of the inner constructions? I do understand why NIST report did not include WTC7 façade to its calculations/simulations. But this fine institution still had to add some info on curtain wall in some addendum or so.
2) Displacement scaling question. Many truthers (including Czech ones) are still in the position that NIST pictures like Fig. 4-43 are… well, at least highly unrealistic. I personally thought that they had to be highly magnified in the x- and y-axis scale just to be illustrative enough. I was therefore surprised when I found in one of the threads here that Steven Cauffman from NIST denied any scaling/normalization of such pictures. If I understood well, Ryan Mackey (and others) still insists that there is some scaling/exaggeration in drawings/graphs themselves, but the real deformations must be derived from the colors and color plots included in the pictures. Is this right? And – if yes – why these color plots are not included in pictures like 12-69, which show similar patterns of “crazily dancing houses”? (In this matter, I have just probably overlooked something, sorry in advance…)
3) Column 79 issue. To be honest, I have not read the whole NIST report, this is simply too much for me. My questions in this matter will be therefore rather trivial. When I saw the horizontal projection of WTC7 for the first time, it surprised me that column 79 (and perhaps column 80 as well) supported considerably larger part of the building than other inner columns. Was there really something as a crucial design error in this respect? If yes, how could be this error overlooked? Why this apparently critical column was not fortified somehow? Anyway, concerning NIST report, are there some evaluations of the forces/overloads to which was this column exposed after adjacent floor deformations and connection failures, and were these forces able to buckle this column so quickly? (Perhaps this question is rather stupid and can not be answered easily - or at all, sorry in advance).
So far for now:o) I will appreciate your answers or links, since I would like to write my article about WTC7 well before the 10th anniversary of September attacks.
Regards from summer Prague, Ivan Kmínek:o)

[bill smith]

Welcome to the jref Ivan. I am sure that the engineers and architects on this forum will be more than happy to give you all these details. Column 79 was only 300 tons or so. Probably not enough to resist the fires.

[Oystein]

Hi Ivan,

welcome to the JREF forum! No worries, your English is fine enough. We come from many countries in the world, and many here are not native speakers.

You can't post proper URLs yet, but you can still post the link if you just leave away the http and www in front and maybe exchange the dot for top level domain for something else (for example write "(dot)com" instead of ".com"). That would not be considered a violation of the Membership agreement. The rule is there to prevent spam bots from spamming links. Since you are a real human, you can go ahead and write links to on-topic sites.


Sorry I can't really answer the engineering questions, but would be very interested to look at your blog! I hope google-translate will be my friend...

Concerning the nano-thermite issue, I have written some "notes to myself" in a blog:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/
Probably nothing new there for you.
Maybe I could link your blog?
Thanks!

[Ivan Kminek]

Thanks, Bill Smith:o) You meant that whole column 79 weighed 300 tons? This figure itself does not give me any idea about its behavior/resistance during fires...

[Ivan Kminek]

Thanks, Oystein:o) You can find my blog here kminek(dot)bigbloger.lidovky(dot)cz, but do not expect so much, I am just a beginner and inside job 9/11 is just my "little hobby". Of course I know your blog, and I even made one contribution there (but, strangely, it did not appear there). I also mentioned your article on "nanothermite" and "chip (e)" (based on Sunstealer's findings) in my own article on nanothermite:o) Although it is rather off-topic here, I would like to ask you here again: Mostly thanks to Sunstealer, it is quite clear now that the chip (e) was a particle of WTC primer paint. But what about chips (a) to (d), are there some new ideas about their origin? Are there some hints that layered (perhaps even originally red?) materials consisted mostly of iron, aluminium, silicon, oxygen and carbon were used in a great amounts in WTC? (But we should perhaps move this OT to other, more on-topic forum)

[Oystein]

Thanks, Oystein:o) You can find my blog here kminek(dot)bigbloger.lidovky(dot)cz,

Thank you!

but do not expect so much, I am just a beginner and inside job 9/11 is just my "little hobby".

Same here ;)

Of course I know your blog, and I even made one contribution there (but, strangely, it did not appear there).

Oh! You did? Yes, you did! I never noticed! :o
It does appear there, doesn't it?
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html#comments

I also mentioned your article on "nanothermite" and "chip (e)" (based on Sunstealer's findings) in my own article on nanothermite:o) Although it is rather off-topic here, I would like to ask you here again: Mostly thanks to Sunstealer, it is quite clear now that the chip (e) was a particle of WTC primer paint. But what about chips (a) to (d), are there some new ideas about their origin? Are there some hints that layered (perhaps even originally red?) materials consisted mostly of iron, aluminium, silicon, oxygen and carbon were used in a great amounts in WTC? (But we should perhaps move this OT to other, more on-topic forum)

I agree, this should be discussed elsewhere. I'll open a new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=214739)!


ETA (Edited To Add):
Thanks, Bill Smith:o) You meant that whole column 79 weighed 300 tons? This figure itself does not give me any idea about its behavior/resistance during fires...
Beware of Bill. He spoke sarcastically. Note his strawman when he suggests that column 79 failed because it was itself heated by fire and thus damaged. Of course we all know that NIST's theory is quite different and does not depend on the temperature that column 79 reached.
Bill is one of the most extreme truthers here. Beware!

[Ivan Kminek]

To Oystein (it seems that I should read some basic advices how to contribute and reply here:o) So open a new thread. I am not sure that these four poor old red chips (moreover completely burned) of not really well established origin still deserve such attention... but they still serve as "final scientific proof of CD" for millions of truthers:o)

[Clayton Moore]

There were fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28.

How did the penthouse collapse?

[DGM]

There were fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28.

How did the penthouse collapse?
Was the penthouse floating in mid-air or was it supported by a building. You really don't even think before posting, do you?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There were fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28.

How did the penthouse collapse?


Floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28 were under the penthouse.

Did you fail "Sesame Street" when you were a kid, Clayton?

[Clayton Moore]

Floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28 were under the penthouse.

Did you fail "Sesame Street" when you were a kid, Clayton?

Never watched it.

Wasn't the penthouse at the top near the 47th floor?

How could part of the penthouse collapse if the highest fire was on the 28th floor?

[TheRedWorm]

I know you probably don't believe a word you post, but:

What happens to the top of a house of cards when you remove the middle section?

[Animal]

Welcome to the jref Ivan. I am sure that the engineers and architects on this forum will be more than happy to give you all these details. Column 79 was only 300 tons or so. Probably not enough to resist the fires.

Those that are not willfully ignorant nor terminally stupid know that weight alone has little to do with the load carrying capacity of structural member

[000063]

Never watched it.That explains a lot.

Wasn't the penthouse at the top near the 47th floor?Yep.

How could part of the penthouse collapse if the highest fire was on the 28th floor?Because the floors...underneath the penthouse...collapsed.

[leftysergeant]

Because the floors...underneath the penthouse...collapsed.It looks more like the columns under it buckled.

[HannibalGroup]

There were fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28.

How did the penthouse collapse?

Down. It collapsed down.