Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[Edx]

Don't be deliberately stupid. Youare well aware that nobody is talking about he whole fire department having been in on it. Some senior FDNY people and some of their more juinior accomlicles certainly were. The rest did an exeemplary job.

Dont be deliberately obtuse. You are well aware that the entire department would have to be in on it for them to coverup a WTC7 demolition and lie to everyone about it.

[Edx]

I have videos of buildings on fire at ground zero being hosed down. Let's face it anyway- when the initial small fires were spotted a few teams of firemen could have easily put them out simply by using a trucked in supply of fire extinguishers.

Your excuses sound more ridiculous all the time.

And you base this on what? Do you have firefighting experience? Why do none of the firemen act surprised that building 7's fire couldnt be put out, that it was going to collase and how it collapsed?

Yes, you do indeed implicate the entire FDNY.

[T.A.M.]

Don't be deliberately stupid. You are well aware that nobody is talking about he whole fire department having been in on it. Some senior FDNY people and some of their more juinior accomlicles certainly were. The rest did an exeemplary job.

yes, and like the rest of the TM, you will sit behind the computer and claim that some non-descript, no name given, "senior FDNY people" and their "juinior accomlicles" were in on it.

Easy to say when you don't know (through ignorance) or don't care to know (through purposeful obfuscation) who these alleged perpetrators were.

Be a man bill, name names. At least Tony had the balls to name Nigro.

TAM:)

[tfk]

Tony,

Why do you desperately grasp at such ludicrous straws?


Distant hydrants would not have been affected


What diameter are the mains, Tony?
What diameter are the hoses, Tony?
What diameter are the restrictor orifices to get the flow velocity needed to get to, say, the 10th floor.
How many fire hoses were running simultaneously, Tony?

Do a simple fluids analysis, Tony.

Or listen to the firefighters saying "There was no water."

Stupid statement, Tony.


and the city of New York had several fireboats.


They used a couple.

Quick, Tony. What kind of fires are fire boats usually charged with fighting?

LAND based fires?
Or fires on the water, where they can float up within distance of their water cannons?

Quick, Tony. You're in charge. That fire crew wants to hook their line up to the FDNY's hoses.
You know, they found the fittings to do so. I'm damned impressed.
Then they started pumping.

How long was the line from the river to WTC7, Tony? 200' ? I don't think so. 400'? 1000'?
HOW MANY of these long strings of hoses do you think that they should have run? 2? 10? 100?
How many fire boats did they have to supply those strings, Tony? 2? 10? 100?
Where do they get that much hose, Tony?

WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO to indulge this back-breaking, exhausting effort if you know that you need 50 hoses to have a PRAYER of knocking down the fires on the lower stories, but you know that the most you're gonna get is 3?

And now, you look at the results of the hose that they DID run.
How high up the buildings did it reach, Tony? 4th floor? 8th floor? 10th floor?

How high was the building, Tony? 47 stories.

WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO to indulge this back-breaking, exhausting effort if the top 37 stories of the building are still burning and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it?


Firefighters routinely run lines from distances when necessary.


What distance, Tony?
100'? Yep
200'? Yep
500'? Getting tough.
1000'? Doubt it.

How far do you have to go to get any meaningful water pressure? 1 mile? 5 miles? 10 miles?
How much water comes out of your [6"?, 8"?) diameter hose when you're trying to shoot it (10 stories? 20 stories? 47 stories?) in the air.


Sorry but the water mains in the area were broken by the tower collapses excuse doesn't hack it.


Sorry, Tony. This is the latest of your lame, shoot from the hip, unanalyzed "feelings".


Tom

[bill smith]

Dont be deliberately obtuse. You are well aware that the entire department would have to be in on it for them to coverup a WTC7 demolition and lie to everyone about it.

Most of the others may not have been aware of what was going on and for those who suspected I think there would have been extemely brutal coercion at play.

I have proof that at least a few of the FDNY knew that the buildings were primed for demolition. Those few vindicate everytng I am saying.

[Edx]

Most of the others may not have been aware of what was going on and for those who suspected I think there would have been extemely brutal coercion at play.

So they are lying, jesus what is wrong with you?

That means they are in on the coverup.

I have proof that at least a few of the FDNY knew that the buildings were primed for deemolition. Those few vindicate everytng I am saying.

Well go then, we've been waiting years for that.

[T.A.M.]

Most of the others may not have been aware of what was going on and for those who suspected I think there would have been extemely brutal coercion at play.

I have proof that at least a few of the FDNY knew that the buildings were primed for deemolition. Those few vindicate everytng I am saying.

please show us this proof. This should be good.

TAM:)

[bill smith]

yes, and like the rest of the TM, you will sit behind the computer and claim that some non-descript, no name given, "senior FDNY people" and their "juinior accomlicles" were in on it.

Easy to say when you don't know (through ignorance) or don't care to know (through purposeful obfuscation) who these alleged perpetrators were.

Be a man bill, name names. At least Tony had the balls to name Nigro.

TAM:)

Nigro will do for starters. I too would like him to be closely questioned under oath at the earlist opportunity.

[bill smith]

please show us this proof. This should be good.

TAM:)

I'm looking for the link. I will find it in due course. Exciting isn't it ? lol

[cyclonic]

Most of the others may not have been aware of what was going on and for those who suspected I think there would have been extemely brutal coercion at play.

I have proof that at least a few of the FDNY knew that the buildings were primed for deemolition. Those few vindicate everytng I am saying.

Well you going to show us this "proof" or whistle dixie?

[Edx]

I'm looking for the link. I will find it in due course. Exciting isn't it ? lol

It will be funny when we see your standards of proof, again.

[T.A.M.]

I'm looking for the link. I will find it in due course. Exciting isn't it ? lol

no problem. Don't forget now, we are looking for "Proof" not "opinion" not "speculation" not "coincidence".

Thanks

TAM:)

[tfk]

The non-detail attempts by others here to say the fireboats were small or that the pressure would not be great enough to run hoses from a distance are a joke.


No, Tony. Your completely amateurish critique of the firefighters' efforts is a joke.

The fact that you make all these assertions with precisely ZERO "detail" provided is a joke.

Your (not "Monday Morning"...) Next Decade Quaterbacking is a joke.

You teetering on the brink of turning yourself into a joke.


Tom

[bill smith]

So they are lying, jesus what is wrong with you?

That means they are in on the coverup.



Well go then, we've been waiting years for that.

Suppose your family was threatened ? Would you talk ? Do you think that if people would murder 3,000 they would flinch from murdering a few more.

[Edx]

Suppose your family was threatened ? Would you talk ? Do you think that if people would murder 3,000 they would flinch from murdering a few more.

Just so we are clear, you are saying that the FDNY are in on it that you denied before.

Secondly, as people keep telling you all of them have to be lying both on the day and afterwards. Theres not a single hint that any of them had a problem with the way they fought the fires, the extent of the fires, the damage to WTC7, that they knew it was coming down or how it came down.

The only reason you have to say they are lying is because they prove the truthers are lying.

[bardamu]

It would look, and just as importantly, sound, like this:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Note you do not see any deformation until the building is actually collapsing. Also note the very loud explosions, heard even though there are helicopters hovering nearby.

Have you learned anything from this video of an actual, real controlled demolition bardamu?

The implication is that without the loud bangs and the flashes, this could only be a random progressive collapse. NIST could easily demonstrate this using simulations based on the observation that the structure actually did collapse. All they'd need to do is assume that the interior was collapsing progressively for an unknown number of seconds immediately before the collapse, unobservable from the exterior.

On the other hand, the team that demolished this building had no obvious reason to want to keep the noise levels to a minimum or avoid flashes.


Huh? In your estimation? What the hell does that mean? In what possible way are you qualified to make an estimation on how fast, or IF even, the building should have fallen?

Yea. An "edumacated" estimation. Like my math teacher always used to say, can you show your work?

I was asked for my estimation and I gave it. Don't ask for things you don't want!


Pathetic dodge. You think 12 seconds is 'ridiculously fast', so what would be reasonable? The 'building shouldn't have collapsed' is not an answer to this question.

The question itself is illogical. It's like asking: "How long would it take a cat to swim across the Atlantic Ocean?". It's what's known as a conundrum.



Ok then. End of discussion. You're not offering any alternative engineering-based hypothesis, as expected.

Debunkers will waffle forever about humongous amounts of energy crashing into weakened structures that can't possibly take the strain. When the conversation turns to the finer details of how that energy could have been transferred from one body to another, the posts become noticeably shorter and eventually the discussion draws to a close.


WnYBX6QT0R4

Dont worry Tony, just another one of your lying firefighters!

Another one to add to the list.

[TruthersLie]

The implication is that without the loud bangs and the flashes, this could only be a random progressive collapse. NIST could easily demonstrate this using simulations based on the observation that the structure actually did collapse. All they'd need to do is assume that the interior was collapsing progressively for an unknown number of seconds immediately before the collapse, unobservable from the exterior.

On the other hand, the team that demolished this building had no obvious reason to want to keep the noise levels to a minimum or avoid flashes.


again your ignorance is showing.

Please provide me with a simple easy explosive (or any other method) which can cut through the steel beams silently.

It should be easy.

Still waiting on that.

P.s. yes you can try to minimize the sound from the explosives that re necessary. You can set up sound baffleing and other things. But again and again PEOPLE WOULD NOTICE large groups of men walking around your office building with sandbags or noise baffles...

of course you would notice people drilling holes and wiring up explosives.

argument from ignorance rejected.

[alienentity]

Wow. Just came back to this thread to witness Tony Szamboti devolving into an average truther, having being defeated at his 'A' game, the missing jolt theory.
Having now abandoned any pretense of sound engineering to back up his conspiracy beliefs, Tony is now letting his delusions run free for all to see.

Remember the tilt Tony, and how you denied it happened right away, because you knew that it destroyed your argument? Remember how you ran away from WTC2 because it automatically destroyed your argument?

I don't blame you for evading those realities, because they threaten your worldview and scare you. So go play amongst the other truthers, and abandon the adult world. If you accuse FDNY of being part of mass murder, we understand - you are delusional, pure and simple.

Bardamu, the idea of irreducible delusion is not a smear, it is a theory, as elucidated by Mr. Mackey. You would do well to read his words. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389)

[tfk]

And you guys have let bill draw you into his bullshyte again...

When are you ever gonna learn.

He doesn't play the same game you play.
He doesn't care about logic.
He doesn't care about correct & incorrect.
He doesn't care that you PROVE him to be a moron.

HE ... DOES ... NOT ... CARE.

Every time you answer him, even when you demolish his bs argument, he considers it a victory.

If you can't exercise the self-restraint, I highly recommend the ignore button.

He WILL get more & more desperate.
He WILL start to say more & more ludicrous things. (Yeah, even more so than now.)
He WILL show his true agenda.

He has been at this, EVERY SINGLE DAY of the week for about 3 years now.

Don't you get it?


Tom.

PS. The cherry on top is that, if you really, truly, simply ignore him, it WILL drive him bat-guano crazy. I dare you to try it.

It is the one & only path to ending his ability to pull every single conversation here down to a 3rd grade level.

WHICH IS PRECISELY HIS INTENT...!!!

And you guys LET HIM do it.

[bill smith]

Just so we are clear, you are saying that the FDNY are in on it that you denied before.

Secondly, as people keep telling you all of them have to be lying both on the day and afterwards. Theres not a single hint that any of them had a problem with the way they fought the fires, the extent of the fires, the damage to WTC7, that they knew it was coming down or how it came down.

The only reason you have to say they are lying is because they prove the truthers are lying.

Repeat after me. ' I am saying that a small portion of the FDNY were involved in what happened on 9/11 '

Can you do that ? lol

PS. Do you really want me to put up the sworn statements of hundreds of firefighters testifying to heavy explosions that they thought were connected with bringing the buildings down. I bet you don't and readers should note that. The stuff I have is very convincing and I will post it when EDX here aks me to. But will he ? Does he want you to read it ? and watch the videos ? Eh ? Edx ?

[Edx]

The implication is that without the loud bangs and the flashes, this could only be a random progressive collapse. NIST could easily demonstrate this using simulations based on the observation that the structure actually did collapse. All they'd need to do is assume that the interior was collapsing progressively for an unknown number of seconds immediately before the collapse, unobservable from the exterior.

No they wouldnt since theres no evidence of that, whereas with Building 7 we can see the interior is clearly collapsing inside.

What are the characteristics of an explosive demoltion bardamu? LOUD BANGS, since there are no loud bangs whatsoever in any WTC7 video we can tell that it couldnt have been explosives.

Had the situation with this building been like that on 911 with WTC7 we would have reason to think it collapsed from fire as well.

On the other hand, the team that demolished this building had no obvious reason to want to keep the noise levels to a minimum or avoid flashes.

You dont understand the way sound works.

It is physically impossible to make a silent explosive.


You are also ignoring all the "expert" truthers saying that WTC7 fits a classic demolition perfectly, yet when its pointed out it doesnt look like one they start making excuses like you are. No loud bangs? Silent explosives. No flashes? They covered up the flashes. etc.


Debunkers will waffle forever about humongous amounts of energy crashing into weakened structures that can't possibly take the strain. When the conversation turns to the finer details of how that energy could have been transferred from one body to another, the posts become noticeably shorter and eventually the discussion draws to a close.

Please, be more vague.


Another one to add to the list.

The list of all the FDNY apparently, you truthers are such a fine bunch. Why dont you go picket the FDNY and accuse them all of covering up the conspiracy? But you wont because you want to pretend you are on their side.

[Edx]

Repeat after me. ' I am saying that a small portion of the FDNY were involved in what happened on 9/11 '

Can you do that ? lol

So only a small portion are involved with the coverup yet all of them are lying to coverup the conspiracy.

How can you not see a contradiction?

If they are lying they are involved in a coverup.

[alienentity]

On the other hand, the team that demolished this building had no obvious reason to want to keep the noise levels to a minimum or avoid flashes.


Could you please provide a link to an explosive demolition which uses the silent explosives your hypothesis requires? Or are you just talking out of your butt?

You can make stuff up if you like, but please recognize that it is as real as a cat swimming across the Atlantic.

I'll give you another, more concrete analogy to your type of logic: We have rocket technology, we have the capability to survive in space for extended periods of time.
We have the theoretical means to travel to other planets in the solar system, therefore....... the Space Truther Movement declares we must have already done so and secretly have colonized Mars.
Anyone who denies this is part of a vast conspiracy to hide the facts from the general public.
Photos from Mars prove nothing since NASA is a government agency and therefore is being muzzled into silence. Whistleblowers are not appearing because their families are threatened, or they are quietly disposed of.

Please join the Space Truther Movement, and buy our new DVD from Architects and Engineers for Space Truth, featuring Gichard Rage.:D


ETA: note that my theory is more plausible, since silent explosives do not exist, but space travel does. Them the facts.

[alienentity]

So only a small portion are involved with the coverup yet all of them are lying to coverup the conspiracy.

How can you not see a contradiction?

If they are lying they are involved in a coverup.

Why can't trolls just play nice? Oh, because they're trolls. Duh.

[T.A.M.]

still waiting for that link to the "proof" that some of the FDNY members were in on the collapse of WTC7.

TAM:)

[Bluesky]

I have no problem naming names. I want fire chief Daniel Nigro deposed under oath and asked the types of questions I am bringing up here.

So you reckon that the guy in charge of the FDNY on 9/11, after his immediate boss had been killed in the collapse of the towers, was part of the conspiracy to kill thousands including 343 fire fighters in his staff.

And despite all the interviews and statements that he has given, you think that he will change his story when he is questioned under oath.

You guys are a sick.

[alienentity]

And you guys have let bill draw you into his bullshyte again...

When are you ever gonna learn.

He doesn't play the same game you play.
He doesn't care about logic.
He doesn't care about correct & incorrect.
He doesn't care that you PROVE him to be a moron.

HE ... DOES ... NOT ... CARE.

Every time you answer him, even when you demolish his bs argument, he considers it a victory.

If you can't exercise the self-restraint, I highly recommend the ignore button.

He WILL get more & more desperate.
He WILL start to say more & more ludicrous things. (Yeah, even more so than now.)
He WILL show his true agenda.

He has been at this, EVERY SINGLE DAY of the week for about 3 years now.

Don't you get it?


Tom.

PS. The cherry on top is that, if you really, truly, simply ignore him, it WILL drive him bat-guano crazy. I dare you to try it.

It is the one & only path to ending his ability to pull every single conversation here down to a 3rd grade level.

WHICH IS PRECISELY HIS INTENT...!!!

And you guys LET HIM do it.

Seconded. Hear hear.

[Mangoose]

In case it wasn't clear to others, the image I posted above is indeed of 90 West Street.

[TjW]

I have videos of buildings on fire at ground zero being hosed down. Let's face it anyway- when the initial small fires were spotted a few teams of firemen could have easily put them out simply by using a trucked in supply of fire extinguishers.

Your excuses sound more ridiculous all the time.

I think you're on to something here, bill. As we all know, hundreds of warehouses, only minutes away from Manhattan, maintain trucks pre-loaded with fire extinguishers and kept on hand for just such an emergency.

[alienentity]

So you reckon that the guy in charge of the FDNY on 9/11, after his immediate boss had been killed in the collapse of the towers, was part of the conspiracy to kill thousands including 343 fire fighters in his staff.

And despite all the interviews and statements that he has given, you think that he will change his story when he is questioned under oath.

You guys are a sick.

I bet if he were tortured a bit, he'd confess. They all deserve a bit of torture, those conspirators, don't they? After what they done.

[bill smith]

And you guys have let bill draw you into his bullshyte again...

When are you ever gonna learn.

He doesn't play the same game you play.
He doesn't care about logic.
He doesn't care about correct & incorrect.
He doesn't care that you PROVE him to be a moron.

HE ... DOES ... NOT ... CARE.

Every time you answer him, even when you demolish his bs argument, he considers it a victory.

If you can't exercise the self-restraint, I highly recommend the ignore button.

He WILL get more & more desperate.
He WILL start to say more & more ludicrous things. (Yeah, even more so than now.)
He WILL show his true agenda.

He has been at this, EVERY SINGLE DAY of the week for about 3 years now.

Don't you get it?


Tom.

PS. The cherry on top is that, if you really, truly, simply ignore him, it WILL drive him bat-guano crazy. I dare you to try it.

It is the one & only path to ending his ability to pull every single conversation here down to a 3rd grade level.

WHICH IS PRECISELY HIS INTENT...!!!

And you guys LET HIM do it.

Really T ? Have you ever known me to grow desperate before ? Please provide a lnk from your massive compendium if you can prove it. Otherwise...?

I suggest that your call for people to ignore me displays the real desperation around here. You are not the first as readers may be aware. I think there may be other callers even on this page.

[bill smith]

I think you're on to something here, bill. As we all know, hundreds of warehouses, only minutes away from Manhattan, maintain trucks pre-loaded with fire extinguishers and kept on hand for just such an emergency.

I think there were possibly thousands of skyscrapers just full of them a stone's throw away from ground zero. What do you think ? Could that be ?

[bill smith]

So only a small portion are involved with the coverup yet all of them are lying to coverup the conspiracy.

How can you not see a contradiction?

If they are lying they are involved in a coverup.

Now that you have got the first part let's work on the second part.

Most of the ordinary direfighters would have just done their jobs and been aware of nothing to do with an inside job. As simple as that. Any of the few who were in the know or suspected and posed any risk of spillng the beans would have been threatened, and their families threatened in he most extreme way imaginable. Now I think you may see that the coverup of the complicity of a number of FDNY members was not particularly difficult even up to this day.

[tfk]

MUUUUCH better.

See how nice this is?

Quiet. Sane.

AAAhhhhhhhh...

Say, does anybody have any George Winston that they could put on...?

You guys learn quick.

:)


Tom

PS. Now, how about someone get back to discussing the Hardfire debate. Or has that one pretty much petered out for the moment?

[Mangoose]

I bet if he were tortured a bit, he'd confess. They all deserve a bit of torture, those conspirators, don't they? After what they done.


It is educational, if not scary, to see the scapegoating process at work.

[Edx]

Now I think you may see that the coverup of the complicity of a number of FDNY members was not particularly difficult even to this day.

I think you are lying again since you have ignored everything I said. Well done.

[bill smith]

MUUUUCH better.

See how nice this is?

Quiet. Sane.

AAAhhhhhhhh...

Say, does anybody have any George Winston that they could put on...?

You guys learn quick.

:)


Tom

PS. Now, how about someone get back to discussing the Hardfire debate. Or has that one pretty much petered out for the moment?

I guess you must be the head honcho around here T. ? These guys need a bit of guidance.

[bill smith]

I think you are lying again since you have ignored everything I said. Well done.

Are yoou asking me to post the firemen's statements ? And the video study of the 118 firemen who witnessed explosions ?

[Tony Szamboti]

Wow. Just came back to this thread to witness Tony Szamboti devolving into an average truther, having being defeated at his 'A' game, the missing jolt theory.
Having now abandoned any pretense of sound engineering to back up his conspiracy beliefs, Tony is now letting his delusions run free for all to see.

Remember the tilt Tony, and how you denied it happened right away, because you knew that it destroyed your argument? Remember how you ran away from WTC2 because it automatically destroyed your argument?

I don't blame you for evading those realities, because they threaten your worldview and scare you. So go play amongst the other truthers, and abandon the adult world. If you accuse FDNY of being part of mass murder, we understand - you are delusional, pure and simple.

Bardamu, the idea of irreducible delusion is not a smear, it is a theory, as elucidated by Mr. Mackey. You would do well to read his words. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389)

I don't see how you can say asking why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 is anything but a legitimate question. I would have brought it up in the debate if Ron and Ryan had been willing to discuss WTC 7 further than the couple of times I mentioned something about it.

If you actually read what I said you would realize that I do not think any member of the FDNY had to be in on any conspiracy and that it could have been done by simply manipulating Daniel Nigro. I would also be asking severe questions of those in the Giulliani administration who put the word out that WTC 7 was lost at 12:30 PM. What basis was there for that?

You seem to want to call people delusional simply because what they say doesn't fit with your actual delusion. Talk facts not nonsense.

[beachnut]

Are yoou asking ne to post the firemen's statements ? And the video study of the 118 firemen who witnessed explosions ?
Your ignorance knows no bounds on 911 (but you are as good as Tony on engineering issues). Many of the explosions were bodies hitting the ground. You are sick and the most shallow researcher who posts lies and delusional junk. You have not changed or tried to gain knowledge.

The ignore button is not enough

[Tony Szamboti]

Exactly. Hence my comment about Tony's suggestion that there were distant fire hydrants that could have been used. Well how distant? I mean if they were over in New Jersey...as an extreme example.

TAM:)

There is a reason they make pumper trucks.

It can be shown in a sound way that there would have been no problem bringing water to WTC 7 from the fireboats or hydrants from 1 or even 2 miles away and sending it with sufficient pressure to the 20th floor. The fireboats were only a few hundred yards away and had massive pumps on them which probably wouldn't even require augmentation. If there was a need, firetruck pumpers could be employed to compensate for any pressure loss due to distance. The same would go for using water from distant hydrants.

[carlitos]

If you actually read what I said you would realize that I do not think any member of the FDNY had to be in on any conspiracy and that it could have been done by simply manipulating Daniel Nigro.
Using the passive voice and avoiding a subject when making these accusations is despicable. Unless you have proof that SOMEONE "manipulated" Daniel Nigro, shut your mouth and go away.

[bill smith]

Your ignorance knows no bounds on 911 (but you are as good as Tony on engineering issues). Many of the explosions were bodies hitting the ground. You are sick and the most shallow researcher who posts lies and delusional junk. You have not changed or tried to gain knowledge.

The ignore button is not enough

Maybe if you try jumping up and down on it a few times....

[Edx]

Are yoou asking me to post the firemen's statements ? And the video study of the 118 firemen who witnessed explosions ?

We already know of those quote mines, Bill.

But we are talking about WTC7, remember?

1. How many had a problem with the idea that Building 7 would collapse?
2. How many said they should have been able to have fought the fires?
3. How many said they heard explosions?
4. How many said there were only a few insolated pockets of fire?
5. How many said they had a problem with how Building 7 collapsed?

Zero. But you know that already.

[DGM]

There is a reason they make pumper trucks.

I can show in a sound way that there would have been no problem bringing water to WTC 7 from the fireboats or hydrants from 1 mile away and sending it with sufficient pressure to the 20th floor.
Why WTC7 and not 90 W or the Verizon building or World financial? What's so special about WTC 7? Please don't say it had to be destroyed to get rid of evidence, a paper shredder can do that. Really, has anyone ever come up with a logical reason to risk more lives to save this building?

[Edx]

I don't see how you can say asking why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 is anything but a legitimate question. .

Well why dont you actually ask the FDNY instead of insinuating on message boards and asking leading rhetorical questions over at AE911truth?

[Tony Szamboti]

Why WTC7 and not 90 W or the Verizon building or World financial? What's so special about WTC 7? Please don't say it had to destroyed to get rid of evidence, a paper shredder can do that. Really, has anyone ever come up with a logical reason to risk more lives to save this building?

Are you actually claiming that somebody could have gotten rid of the Enron California electricity scam files in the SEC offices of WTC 7 by using a paper shredder?

[Tony Szamboti]

Well why dont you actually ask the FDNY instead of insinuating on message boards and asking leading rhetorical questions over at AE911truth?

The AE911truth petition, which I am a signatory of, is asking for a new investigation with subpoena power to depose a number of people who were involved in the events of Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC. Chief Daniel Nigro, elevator maintenance and security co. employees from the towers, Giulliani administration officials, and Larry Silverstein would be among those who should be put under oath.

A lot of these unanswered questions could be answered that way.

I can't depose anyone and put them under oath and it is silly to even suggest that I go asking these questions of these people myself.

[Edx]

Are you actually claiming that somebody could have gotten rid of the Enron California electricity scam files in the SEC offices of WTC 7 by using a paper shredder?

The papper shredder example is just to say that coming up with a massive conspiracy to demonlish your building, pay off or scare firefighters into lying about it, invent super secret silent explosives, pay off clean up crews etc etc etc... all to destroy some documents...is ridiculous.

[bill smith]

We already know of those quote mines, Bill.

But we are talking about WTC7, remember?

1. How many had a problem with the idea that Building 7 would collapse?
2. How many said they should have been able to have fought the fires?
3. How many said they heard explosions?
4. How many said there were only a few insolated pockets of fire?
5. How many said they had a problem with how Building 7 collapsed?

Zero. But you know that already.

I will expeect you to have an answer to this. I say that we have seen almost nothing of the firemen who were at ground zero on 9/11. The only info we really get is from he Fealgood Foundation is about how they are dying like flies
from diseases caused by the comtsaminents at ground zero that the government ordered the EPA to deny.

So tell me why the public we have seen so litle of the firemen ?

[A W Smith]

Are you actually claiming that somebody could have gotten rid of the Enron California electricity scam files in the SEC offices of WTC 7 by using a paper shredder?


debunked

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/motive:todestroysecuritiesandexchangecom

[Edx]

The AE911truth petition, which I am a signatory of, is asking for a new investigation with subpoena power to depose a number of people who were involved in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. A lot of these questions could be answered that way.

I can't depose anyone and put them under oath and it is silly to even suggest that I go asking these questions of these people myself.

Tony, why do you need a subpoena to ask the FDNY why they couldnt fight the fires?

This isnt about you not believing them, you've shown repeatedly that you dont know why they say they couldnt fight the fires.

So just ask them! Whats so hard about that!

[DGM]

Are you actually claiming that somebody could have gotten rid of the Enron California electricity scam files in the SEC offices of WTC 7 by using a paper shredder?
Are you saying the most effective way would be to collapse the building? BTW, how did that work out for them?

[Edx]

I will expeect you to have an answer to this. I say that we have seen almost nothing of the firemen who were at ground zero on 9/11. The only info we really get is from he Fealgood Foundation is about how they are dying like flies
from diseases caused by the comtsaminents at ground zero that the government ordered the EPA to deny.

So tell me why the public we have seen so litle of the firemen ?

1. So all the interviews we have of firefighters on 911 are... not enough for you?

2. None of them have come out saying they think there is anything suspicious about Building 7. But then you think they are all in on the coverup and lying, so they wouldnt in your world.

We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe what you are saying.

[Tony Szamboti]

The papper shredder example is just to say that coming up with a massive conspiracy to demonlish your building, pay off or scare firefighters into lying about it, invent super secret silent explosives, pay off clean up crews etc etc etc... all to destroy some documents...is ridiculous.

It is ludicrous to even suggest that a paper shredder could be used to eliminate a case such as the Enron California electricity swindle of 2001.

I don't think any member of the FDNY had to be in on anything. I already said it could be as simple as the manipulation of Chief Daniel Nigro.

[bill smith]

1. So all the interviews we have of firefighters on 911 are... not enough for you?

2. None of them have come out saying they think there is anything suspicious about Building 7. But then you think they are all in on the coverup and lying, so they wouldnt in your world.

We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe what you are saying.

Of course it's not enough. They were the heroes of the day and the whole world wants to ask them lots and lots of questions. So were they shy or something or were they under heavy intimidation to stay away from interviews. I know--do you ?

[A W Smith]

Are you saying the most effective way would be to collapse the building? BTW, how did that work out for them?

Of course its better to spread them all over the streets of lower Manhattan than to shred them.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Ground_Zero_Streets_19.jpg

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you saying the most effective way would be to collapse the building? BTW, how did that work out for them?

The Enron California electricity swindle case did go down with WTC 7. Are you saying it didn't?

[A W Smith]

The Enron California electricity swindle case did go down with WTC 7. Are you saying it didn't?

http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enron.htm#enron_enforce

[bill smith]

1. So all the interviews we have of firefighters on 911 are... not enough for you?

2. None of them have come out saying they think there is anything suspicious about Building 7. But then you think they are all in on the coverup and lying, so they wouldnt in your world.

We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe what you are saying.

Tut tut Edx...I see that you are back saying that the Movement for Truth is accusing all the firefighters of being complicit in 9/11 instead of the small fraction we do claim.. Can you really be that sad ? The readers are disgusted and can now see how debunkers routinely behave.

[DGM]

The Enron California electricity swindle case did go down with WTC 7. Are you saying it didn't?
I've yet to see any credible evidence that it was a factor, yes.

[Edx]

It is ludicrous to even suggest that a paper shredder could be used to eliminate a case such as the Enron California electricity swindle of 2001.

So they did what I said to demolish their building, wow.

I don't think any member of the FDNY had to be in on anything. I already said it could be as simple as the manipulation of Chief Daniel Nigro.

But the problem Tony is that if that were true why dont we have any dissenting opinions from any of them?

And the ones that do talk about 7 say...

- it had heavy uncontrollable fires
- the fires couldnt be fought
- that it was heavily damaged
- that they expected it was going to collapse
- that they made a collapse zone
- that they waited around for it to happen
- none of them even imply they had a problem with how it collapsed

So no dissenters and dozens and dozens directly talking about it that say the same thing as Nigro.

You see you cant say the things you do about Building 7 and Nigro and not implicate the rest of the FDNY.

[Edx]

Tut tut Edx...I see that you are back saying that the Movement for Truth is accusing all the firefighters of being complicit in 9/11 instead of the small fraction we do claim.. Can you really be that sad ? The readers are disgusted and can now see how debunkers routinely behave.

Tut Tut to you Bill, you already told me it was all the firefighters since you said their families were threatened so they cant tell the truth.

:rolleyes:

[A W Smith]

The Enron California electricity swindle case did go down with WTC 7. Are you saying it didn't?


it went down when ken lay died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

Enron eventually went bankrupt, and signed a US$1.52 billion settlement with a group of California agencies and private utilities on July 16, 2005. However, due to its other bankruptcy obligations, only US$202 million of this was expected to be paid. Ken Lay was convicted of multiple criminal charges unrelated to the California energy crisis on May 25, 2006, but he died due to a massive heart attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myocardial_infarction) on July 5 of that year before he could be sentenced. Because Lay died while his case was on federal appeal, his record was expunged and his family was allowed to retain all its property.

[Edx]

Of course it's not enough. They were the heroes of the day and the whole world wants to ask them lots and lots of questions. So were they shy or something or were they under heavy intimidation to stay away from interviews. I know--do you ?

Just how many interviews do you think there are? Theres LOADS of interviews.

But according to you they are sitting back and not saying anthing, which means an interview wouldnt solve anything and you would just go back to saying they are too afraid to tell the truth.

[tfk]

There is a reason they make pumper trucks.

It can be shown in a sound way that there would have been no problem bringing water to WTC 7 from the fireboats or hydrants from 1 or even 2 miles away and sending it with sufficient pressure to the 20th floor. The fireboats were only a few hundred yards away and had massive pumps on them which probably wouldn't even require augmentation. If there was a need, firetruck pumpers could be employed to compensate for any pressure loss due to distance. The same would go for using water from distant hydrants.

Well, Tony.

Why don't you write up the plan to do that.

Be sure to list all the equipment necessary, figure out where it is, make sure you send teams out to check the water pressure at 1, 2, 5 & 10 miles away. Because you don't want to do all that work & have squat to show for it.

[I did hear a story about a woman who couldn't fill her swimming pool miles away because of the low pressure. But that's just apocryphal. You can't afford to use guess work.]

Oh, yeah. We need that plan NOW, Tony. Right the f'k NOW! Because these buildings are falling down around us. There are thousands of people dead and injured. And a significant percentage of your fire department is dead. And all the rest of them are exhausted.

But, you get working on that plan, Tony.

And come back & tell us why YOU weren't able to bring in enough water to save the day.

You're really starting to piss me off.

Have you ever worked in the field? Have you ever had to make due without the right equipment, without the right tools, without the manpower you needed? With no time & no room for error?

Have you ever had to make a decision as to what or (God forbid) who you could save & what or who you could not?

Have you ever had some two-bit PUNK come along afterward and, from the snuggly warmth of abject ignorance, start to lecture you on what you did wrong?? What you SHOULD have done. And what HE would have done. (If he'd ever gotten his lard ass out from in front of a TV and done something useful with his life.)

Have you ever had to resist the urge to reach across a table & squeeze the two-bit punk's head like a zit, Tony?

This really is a despicable line of conversation for you. You may want to go back & re-think it.

And if you still think that it's appropriate, I suggest that you bring it where it'll do some real good: a firefighter's bar in the Bronx.

Let me know how that goes, OK?

Tom

[bill smith]

I've yet to see any credible evidence that it was a factor, yes.

t's worth noting the scale of the Enron California electricity swindle that was partially covered up by the destruction of so many original documents held in WTC7 on 9/11..

Sixy-Seven thousand million dollars.

PS.
The Worldcom investigaion among others was compromised too.

[bill smith]

Just how many interviews do you think there are? Theres LOADS of interviews.

But according to you they are sitting back and not saying anthing, which means an interview wouldnt solve anything and you would just go back to saying they are too afraid to tell the truth.

THere are none so blind as those who will not see. No matter. That is par for the course here in the heart of Shilldom...the jref.

[Edx]

THere are none so blind as those who will not see. No matter. That is par for the course here in the heart of Shilldom...the jref.

You've yet to show me or anyone else anything except your blind insinuations.

Give me a reason to suspect the firefighters are too scared to tell the truth! A Reason!

[T.A.M.]

Are you actually claiming that somebody could have gotten rid of the Enron California electricity scam files in the SEC offices of WTC 7 by using a paper shredder?

Well files come in 2 versions...paper and electronic. A magnet or software can destroy one kind, a paper shredder the other. Neither require BUILDING DEMOLITION. However, if that is what you are suggesting, I would like to nominate such a thought for stundie.

TAM:)

[DGM]

t's worth noting the scale of the Enron California electricity swindle that was partially covered up by the destruction of so many original documents held in WTC7 on 9/11..

Sixy-Seven thousand million dollars.

PS.
The Worldcom investigaion among others was compromised too.
No it wasn't. I'd ask you to back up your statement but I don't want to watch another idiotic Youtube video produced by clueless morons.

[T.A.M.]

The AE911truth petition, which I am a signatory of, is asking for a new investigation with subpoena power to depose a number of people who were involved in the events of Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC. Chief Daniel Nigro, elevator maintenance and security co. employees from the towers, Giulliani administration officials, and Larry Silverstein would be among those who should be put under oath.

A lot of these unanswered questions could be answered that way.

I can't depose anyone and put them under oath and it is silly to even suggest that I go asking these questions of these people myself.

That is *********** insane. Do you really think that anyone willing to assist, or even turn a blind eye to the intentional demolition of those buildings is gonna suddenly sing because they are under oath...yah, right.

[T.A.M.]

It is ludicrous to even suggest that a paper shredder could be used to eliminate a case such as the Enron California electricity swindle of 2001.

I don't think any member of the FDNY had to be in on anything. I already said it could be as simple as the manipulation of Chief Daniel Nigro.

So we should look forward to other demolitions, according to you the way to eliminate Corporation scandal files, every time such an issue comes up?

Laughable.

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

Well files come in 2 versions...paper and electronic. A magnet or software can destroy one kind, a paper shredder the other. Neither require BUILDING DEMOLITION. However, if that is what you are suggesting, I would like to nominate such a thought for stundie.

TAM:)

Nominate whatever you want but the fact remains that the Enron California electricity swindle case was very paper intensive and never went anywhere after WTC 7 went down.

Somebody else here said it went down when Ken Lay died. That is not true. There would have been a lot more people involved in the California swindle than just Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. Those two got indicted for other crimes which were exposed due to Enron's bankruptcy later on and had nothing to do with the California energy swindle.

[Tony Szamboti]

So we should look forward to other demolitions, according to you the way to eliminate Corporation scandal files, every time such an issue comes up?

Laughable.

TAM:)

You are simply arguing from incredulity and thus have no business calling anything laughable.

[GlennB]

...

Oh, yeah. We need that plan NOW, Tony. Right the f'k NOW! Because these buildings are falling down around us. There are thousands of people dead and injured. And a significant percentage of your fire department is dead. And all the rest of them are exhausted.

But, you get working on that plan, Tony.

And come back & tell us why YOU weren't able to bring in enough water to save the day.

You're really starting to piss me off.

...



I was going to ramble on about the crazy logistics of pumping water from The Hudson and driving it over to WTC7 in trucks around a totally devastated Lower Manhattan, but you put it much better.

[beachnut]

Nominate whatever you want but the fact remains that the Enron California electricity swindle case was very paper intensive and never went anywhere after WTC 7 went down.

Somebody else here said it went down when Ken Lay died. That is not true. There would have been a lot more people involved in the California swindle than just Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. Those two got indicted for other crimes which were exposed due to Enron's bankruptcy later on and had nothing to do with the California energy swindle.
Sad to see your political bias and paranoid conspiracy fantasies form your delusional real-cd-deal. If you put engineering first you would not be pushing failed moronic CD tripe.

[bill smith]

You've yet to show me or anyone else anything except your blind insinuations.

Give me a reason to suspect the firefighters are too scared to tell the truth! A Reason!

Well obviously the best thing to do now is show the acientific study of the sworn statements of 503 firemen on 9/11. 118 of them ( a massive proportion) described explosions- for instance '' Ypu know when you see controlled demolition ?- that pop-pop-pop-pop-pop sound ? Well that's what I thought I heard ''

They thought that these explosions were involved in what had brought down the buildings. What more do you need to know ?

Now it will be totally obvious to you that lots of people badly want to talk to these firefighters . So what do you think ? Are they scared to talk ? I guess they are . Enjoy the scientific study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

[bill smith]

I was going to ramble on about the crazy logistics of pumping water from The Hudson and driving it over to WTC7 in trucks around a totally devastated Lower Manhattan, but you put it much better.

No problem Glenn. You just connect a few lines of fire tucks from the river and pump from truck to truck right up to the fire. Got a problem with that ? The trucks had nothing else to do evidently.

[Tony Szamboti]

I was going to ramble on about the crazy logistics of pumping water from The Hudson and driving it over to WTC7 in trucks around a totally devastated Lower Manhattan, but you put it much better.

What are you even saying here? There is no need to drive it. That is why they make long lengths of hoses.

[DGM]

What are you even saying here? There is no need to drive it. That is why they make long lengths of hoses.
Tony, You still haven't made your case for why that building and not any one of the many in the area or the search and rescue efforts. Why would WTC 7 warrant this precious water over anything else?

(just doing my job ;))

[Grizzly Bear]

Well files come in 2 versions...paper and electronic. A magnet or software can destroy one kind, a paper shredder the other. Neither require BUILDING DEMOLITION. However, if that is what you are suggesting, I would like to nominate such a thought for stundie.

TAM:)

Even burning the damn building completely would have been easier than a full out demolition... the collapse could have just been a bonus result of the fire if they really wanted to get rid of incriminating documents that badly... :\

I don't see how you can say asking why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 is anything but a legitimate question. I would have brought it up in the debate if Ron and Ryan had been willing to discuss WTC 7 further than the couple of times I mentioned something about it.
There are plenty of reasons not to endanger more lives in a building which the structural integrity is in serious question if you seriously want to have reservations about the water supplies being destroyed.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, You still haven't made your case for why that building and not any one of the many in the area or the search and rescue efforts. Why would WTC 7 warrant this precious water over anything else?

(just doing my job ;))

Because this isn't even an intelligently asked question. You aren't saying what the resources were and what other buildings needed water for fires.

[tfk]

What are you even saying here? There is no need to drive it. That is why they make long lengths of hoses.

You don't know wtf you are talking about.

Yeah, you have this ONE *********** question correct. Congratulation, "engineer". They can pump a *********** tiny amount of water (perhaps 1% of what was needed) thru tiny *********** hoses.

The building was doomed anyway. They KNEW it. Because they are professionals & you are a *********** amateur who gets off on second guessing the people who actually DID SOMETHING that day.

They can NOT get it to the upper floors of a sky-scraper. Without it getting to the upper floors, the ONLY thing that hosing down the lower floors did was to guarantee that several hundred more firefighters would have gotten killed when it collapsed. Congrats, again. "Engineer".

They were in danger of CAUSING collapse by water-logging floors. They were in danger of drowning victims. There were OTHER tasks that might have actually, you know, made a difference.

But this is a democracy.

Go ask your moronic questions....

[dc1971]

Many of you know of Hardfire and the series, hosted by Ron Wieck (formerly known here as pomeroo), that examines the Truth Movement and its theories. I spoke with Ron again today, and he informed me that Tony Szamboti and David Chandler were interested in appearing and discussing their theories with me. So we're on, taping date and release to be announced when available.

Apparently this is not a direct response to my previous shows (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137438) on Hardfire, which is a pity -- absolutely no one took me up on my Hardfire Modeling Challenge (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:911physics_big.ppt) -- but, so far as I can tell, the debate is open to a wide range of topics but focusing on the World Trade Center and the NIST investigations thereof.

I have in the past given both Tony and David my feedback (see here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4350623#post4350623) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4227562#post4227562), along with followups in the respective threads). In fact, after the latest exchange (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4850740#post4850740) with Tony, I had not expected him to surface again. However, leaving the past in the past, they have both had quite some time to think about my concerns as well as those of others, so I am hopeful that they can provide a thoughtful response in this format.

To avoid sandbagging the debate, I will avoid engaging in discussion with them on their own personal theories until taping is completed. In the meantime, I encourage respectful discussion here of other viewpoints both pro and con their positions and mine, and if there are suggestions for the show (questions, related material, anyone else wants to participate, whatever) that's welcome too. I make no promises but I'll do the best I can.

Those of you who enjoy highjacking threads (I'm looking at you, Heiwa), don't bother, you're already on Ignore and you will be reported on sight. Let's keep this clean, I always say, and this time maybe I'll get my wish. Thanks.

I watched your previous showing on Hardfire. I got some good information from that program. Thank you for your insight.

DC

[bill smith]

Because this isn't even an intelligently asked question. You aren't saying what the resources were and what other buildings needed water for fires.

This building in the clip with fires far far larger than anything seen in WTC7 had a water supply for the FDNY. In fact though the building had very light steel being only 8 floors or so it did not fall down at all. Compare this to the massive heavy-duty WTC7 with a few small fires. There is ZERO to compare. Yet WTC7 fell like a Victorian Heroine swooning. No way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ

[DGM]

Because this isn't even an intelligently asked question. You aren't saying what the resources were and what other buildings needed water for fires.
Nether are you. Your saying that water could have been supplied despite the fact the FDNY said they were doing everything they could. Your the one saying they could have done better. OK, Monday morning QB. Show us how.

ETA; And while your at it, try to make a compelling case for WTC7 over anything else.

[Edx]

Well obviously the best thing to do now is show the acientific study of the sworn statements of 503 firemen on 9/11. 118 of them ( a massive proportion) described explosions- for instance '' Ypu know when you see controlled demolition ?- that pop-pop-pop-pop-pop sound ? Well that's what I thought I heard ''

They thought that these explosions were involved in what had brought down the buildings. What more do you need to know ?

Now it will be totally obvious to you that lots of people badly want to talk to these firefighters . So what do you think ? Are they scared to talk ? I guess they are . Enjoy the scientific study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

Even if you didnt quote mine those firemen about WTC1+2... we are talking about BUILDING 7.

But thanks for pointing out your contradiction, firemen talk about explosion sounds with WTC1+2, but they are lying when they dont talk about WTC7?

So they are lying about one but not the other? Yeeaaa ok Bill....

[Edx]

WTC7 with a few small fires.

Ergo all the firefighters are lying... around and around we go. :rolleyes:

[bill smith]

Even if you didnt quote mine those firemen about WTC1+2... we are talking about BUILDING 7.

But thanks for pointing out your contradiction, firemen talk about explosion sounds with WTC1+2, but they are lying when they dont talk about WTC7?

So they are lying about one but not the other? Yeeaaa ok Bill....

Well Edx,,,,it's what the outside readers think that counts really. I think I know what they are picking up from you. That's a good thing in my opinion..

[Edx]

Well Edx,,,,it's what the outside readers think that counts really. I think I know what they are picking up from you. That's a good thing in my opinion..

So you explain to me why the firefighters are too scared to tell the truth about WTC7 yet have no problem saying they heard explosions with WTC1 and 2.

Please do tell me how that makes sense to you.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This building in the clip with fires far far larger than anything seen in WTC7 had a water supply for the FDNY. In fact though the building had very light steel being only 8 floors or so it did not fall down at all. Compare this to the massive heavy-duty WTC7 with a few small fires. There is ZERO to compare. Yet WTC7 fell like a Victorian Heroine swooning. No way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ

You forget Billy, the WTC7 design was different. No concrete encased steel!

[DGM]

Well Edx,,,,it's what the outside readers think that counts really. I think I know what they are picking up from you. That's a good thing in my opinion..
Proving one more time your reading comprehension is as good as your writing skills.:o

[Mr. Skinny]

Well, Tony.

Why don't you write up the plan to do that.

Be sure to list all the equipment necessary, figure out where it is, make sure you send teams out to check the water pressure at 1, 2, 5 & 10 miles away. Because you don't want to do all that work & have squat to show for it.

[I did hear a story about a woman who couldn't fill her swimming pool miles away because of the low pressure. But that's just apocryphal. You can't afford to use guess work.]

Oh, yeah. We need that plan NOW, Tony. Right the f'k NOW! Because these buildings are falling down around us. There are thousands of people dead and injured. And a significant percentage of your fire department is dead. And all the rest of them are exhausted.

But, you get working on that plan, Tony.

And come back & tell us why YOU weren't able to bring in enough water to save the day.

You're really starting to piss me off.

Have you ever worked in the field? Have you ever had to make due without the right equipment, without the right tools, without the manpower you needed? With no time & no room for error?

Have you ever had to make a decision as to what or (God forbid) who you could save & what or who you could not?

Have you ever had some two-bit PUNK come along afterward and, from the snuggly warmth of abject ignorance, start to lecture you on what you did wrong?? What you SHOULD have done. And what HE would have done. (If he'd ever gotten his lard ass out from in front of a TV and done something useful with his life.)

Have you ever had to resist the urge to reach across a table & squeeze the two-bit punk's head like a zit, Tony?

This really is a despicable line of conversation for you. You may want to go back & re-think it.

And if you still think that it's appropriate, I suggest that you bring it where it'll do some real good: a firefighter's bar in the Bronx.

Let me know how that goes, OK?

Tom
I'd also like Tony to specifiy which underground isolation valves he'd have to have shut on the NY City water grid in order to insure that there was sufficient supply to hydrants many miles away.

After all, if large underground mains were collapsed in a crossfed grid system, the pressure and flow would drop everywhere in the area until the breaks were isolated.

[bill smith]

Even if you didnt quote mine those firemen about WTC1+2... we are talking about BUILDING 7.

But thanks for pointing out your contradiction, firemen talk about explosion sounds with WTC1+2, but they are lying when they dont talk about WTC7?

So they are lying about one but not the other? Yeeaaa ok Bill....

Here's a bunch of FDNY reports, Do you believe them ? if you cannot show what they say they are seeing and reporting here I submit that what they are saying is not true. So prove to me here and now that they are not lying. If you cannot show that I think that we can safely say that they were LYING.

' "The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild" - Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors"
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down" –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

"I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke" - FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories"
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers ''

[Edx]

Here's a bunch of FDNY reports, Do you believe them ? if you cannot show what they say they are seeing and reporting here I submit that what they are saying is not true. So prove to me here and now that they are not lying. If you cannot show that I think that we can safeely say that they were LYING.


All the FDNY firefighters are lying, I get it, that is what you think.

Just stop denying it! :rolleyes:

You also havent explained why they would lie about WTC7 but tell the truth with WTC1+2, care to try?


ps: we have video of massive amounts of smoke pouring out of every floor of WTC7. Why do truthers not show those videos but show only a picture taken far away from the North side?

[bill smith]

All the FDNY firefighters are lying, I get it, that is what you think.

So stop denying it! :rolleyes:


ps: we have video of massive amounts of smoke pouring out of every floor of WTC7. Why do truthers not show those videos but show only a picture taken far away from the North side?

Jeez are yu going to keep saying that we say that all the FDNY were involved in 9/11 . Pretty sad readers, eh ? Are you picking anything up from Edx ? Is he throbbing with guilt ? lol

You have signally failed to provide proof that the building was fully involved in fire as reprted by a lot of fireman. herefore they are lying. This is not up for discussion. No photos- no fire on all 47 floors.

[Tony Szamboti]

I'd also like Tony to specifiy which underground isolation valves he'd have to have shut on the NY City water grid in order to insure that there was sufficient supply to hydrants many miles away.

After all, if large underground mains were collapsed in a crossfed grid system, the pressure and flow would drop everywhere in the area until the breaks were isolated.


It wouldn't be hard to know the approximate location of the breaks so how long would it take for the Water Dept. to shut down water to the WTC area?

[BigAl]

So tell me why the public we have seen so litle of the firemen ?

Don't live in NYC, do you?

[Edx]

Jeez are yu going to keep saying that we say that all the FDNY were involved in 9/11 . Pretty sad readers, eh ? Are you picking anything up from Edx ? Is he throbbing with guilt ? lol

Good lord, why cant you see this? :confused:

Firefighters that have commented on Building 7 had no problem with the idea that it would collapse.

Firefighters that have not commented on Building 7 or have not been interviewed have not come forward all these years later.

The first group you say are lying and the second bunch are lying by ommission.

That means all the firefighters are in on the coverup.

You have signally failed to provide proof that the building was fully involved in fire as reprted by a lot of fireman. herefore they are lying. This is not up for discussion. No photos- no fire on all 47 floors.

And you have not explained why firefighters would lie about WTC7 yet not lie about WTC1+2.

You have not explained why the videos show massive amounts of smoke coming out of every floor of the WTC7, if thats not coming from the fires.

[DGM]

Jeez are yu going to keep saying that we say that all the FDNY were involved in 9/11 . Pretty sad readers, eh ? Are you picking anything up from Edx ? Is he throbbing with guilt ? lol

You have signally failed to provide proof that the building was fully involved in fire as reprted by a lot of fireman. herefore they are lying. This is not up for discussion. No photos- no fire on all 47 floors.
Bill, What readers are picking up is, your illiterate. Try reading your posts and for once use spell check.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Jeez are yu going to keep saying that we say that all the FDNY were involved in 9/11 . Pretty sad readers, eh ? Are you picking anything up from Edx ? Is he throbbing with guilt ? lol

You have signally failed to provide proof that the building was fully involved in fire as reprted by a lot of fireman. herefore they are lying. This is not up for discussion. No photos- no fire on all 47 floors.

Billy,

I hate to break it to you but WTC7 was brought down by fire. Where there's smoke there's fire!

Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

Just because people say it was "fully involved" doesn't mean that all 47 floors were involved.

When a firefighter says that there's a fully involved fire, that suckers rippin' & roarin'.

Since you're not a firefighter, you will never understand.

[BigAl]

There is a reason they make pumper trucks.



Much of the equipment was destroyed in the collapse of WTC1 and 2.

I have no reason to believe that the riser pipes system in WTC7 was capable of carrying enough water to fight fires on all floors at once. Building codes plan on fire being contained on one floor with sprinklers and fireproofing preventing it from spreading.

[Tony Szamboti]

Jeez are yu going to keep saying that we say that all the FDNY were involved in 9/11 . Pretty sad readers, eh ? Are you picking anything up from Edx ? Is he throbbing with guilt ? lol

You have signally failed to provide proof that the building was fully involved in fire as reprted by a lot of fireman. herefore they are lying. This is not up for discussion. No photos- no fire on all 47 floors.

Bill, what it seems we have here are a bunch of individuals who will apparently say anything to continue to support the present official story, in spite of evidence showing the fires weren't fought intentionally and that the whole scenario with WTC 7 was a rig job and made to happen.

Most of the official story supporters I have encountered here at JREF have all the symptoms of Ryan Mackey's Irreducible Delusion. They simply cannot contemplate, under any circumstances, that the three building collapses were finally a result of anything but fires.

It is interesting how much attention was drawn to this thread when it was brought up that the fires in WTC 7 could have easily been fought with available equipment and the firefighting contingency design of the building.

[Edx]

Just because people say it was "fully involved" doesn't mean that all 47 floors were involved.

When a firefighter says that there's a fully involved fire, that suckers rippin' & roarin'.

Since you're not a firefighter, you will never understand.

Some of them do say all floors to be fair, but then Bill thinks everyone is lying.

[Tony Szamboti]

Much of the equipment was destroyed in the collapse of WTC1 and 2.

I have no reason to believe that the riser pipes system in WTC7 was capable of carrying enough water to fight fires on all floors at once. Building codes plan on fire being contained on one floor with sprinklers and fireproofing preventing it from spreading.

You are merely making unsupported assertions here. Where are the details?

[bill smith]

Good lord, why cant you see this? :confused:

Firefighters that have commented on Building 7 had no problem with the idea that it would collapse.

Firefighters that have not or have no been interviewed have not come forward.

The first group you say are lying and the second bunch are lying by ommission.

That means all the firefighters are in on the coverup.



And you have not explained why firefighters would lie about WTC7 yet not lie about WTC1+2.

You have not explained why the videos show massive amounts of smoke coming out of every floor of the WTC7.

Don't convince me Edx- convince the readers. They woold like to see the proof of all these interviews many hundreds of direman have given over an 8 year period. Did you find an interview aith the pop-pop-pop fireman ? I'd sure like to talk to him for a little while. I'm sure many people would.

I am not interested in smoke. neither were the firemen. They only spoke of fire. They never mentioned smoke.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bill, apparently what we have here are a bunch of rabid NIST report supporters who will do anything to continue to support the present official story, in spite of evidence showing the fires weren't fought intentionally and that the whole scenario with WTC 7 was a rig job and made to happen.

Most of the official story supporters I have encountered here at JREF have all the symptoms of Ryan Mackey's Irreducible Delusion or worse.

Tony,

You're not a Controlled Demolitions expert or a firefighter. You have no credentials for both.

So what you have to say is complete hearsay.

If you have any delusions that I'm B. Blanchard, you're still wrong!

Some of them do say all floors to be fair, but then Bill thinks everyone is lying.

I agree 100% with ya Ed!

[DGM]

Much of the equipment was destroyed in the collapse of WTC1 and 2.

I have no reason to believe that the riser pipes system in WTC7 was capable of carrying enough water to fight fires on all floors at once. Building codes plan on fire being contained on one floor with sprinklers and fireproofing preventing it from spreading.
Not to mention the fact it would all have to be done by hand. If you look at the pictures of the site (that's huge by the way) your not going to be able to drive fire trucks though dragging hose.

[BigAl]

Don't convince me Edx- convince the readers. They woold like to see the proof of all these interviews many hundreds of direman have given over an 8 year period. Did you find an interview aith the pop-pop-pop fireman ? I'd sure like to talk to him for a little while. I'm sure many people would.



Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

He doesn't think it was man-made demolition.

[DGM]

Bill, what it seems we have here are a bunch of individuals who will apparently say anything to continue to support the present official story, in spite of evidence showing the fires weren't fought intentionally and that the whole scenario with WTC 7 was a rig job and made to happen.

Most of the official story supporters I have encountered here at JREF have all the symptoms of Ryan Mackey's Irreducible Delusion.
Don't forget, collect our pay check. After all JREF is the front lines in the war to suppress the "truth".:D

[bill smith]

Some of them do say all floors to be fair, but then Bill thinks everyone is lying.

Well any atentive reader will know that you are lyng in your teeth.

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories"

[BigAl]

You are merely making unsupported assertions here. Where are the details?

I know NYC building codes for this topic and I know that architects design to code. They don't plan for multiple fires.

[Edx]

Don't convince me Edx- convince the readers.

Who the hell are you talking about?! You seriously sound like a mental patient.

They woold like to see the proof of all these interviews many hundreds of direman have given over an 8 year period. Did you find an interview aith the pop-pop-pop fireman ? I'd sure like to talk to him for a little while. I'm sure many people would.


So you think the pop pop pop guy wasnt lying... but is lying by not coming forward and telling everyone about it, or Building 7.

Everyone of them is in on it, all of them are lying. But some of them are telling the truth about WTC1+2 but lying about 7. wooooooo how does that make sense to you....

And even if he was interviewed (I would like to know if he was as well) you would just say that he is too scared to tell the truth if he didnt say what you wanted him to say. Wouldnt you? He's apparently too scared to come forward all these years why would he admit it all if he was interviewed?

I am not interested in smoke. neither were the firemen. They only spoke of fire. They never mentioned smoke.

:jaw-dropp

That.Is.Hilarious.

<insert laughing dog here>

Where do you think smoke comes from?

[triforcharity]

Distant hydrants would not have been affected and the city of New York had several fireboats. Firefighters routinely run lines from distances when necessary.

Sorry but the water mains in the area were broken by the tower collapses excuse doesn't hack it.

You see Tony, the problem was when the first tower collapsed, it took out alot of trucks, same with the second. Now, where do you think all of our hose is stored?? Yepo, on the trucks.

Secondly, we had a bunch of hoses stretched out when the towers collapsed. Now, I don't know about your knowledge of physics, but when 1000 pound beams and parts of buildings hit a firehose, they typically don't work too well after that. Either from being pinched, or from being severed.

Now, last lesson of the day. Where do you think the water comes from that comes out of the hydrants?? hint: Not a unicorn.

When you have a lack of hoses, and a lack of trucks, and a lack of water, how else do you think we would be able to put water on the fire?? We don't use buckets anymore.

[T.A.M.]

You are simply arguing from incredulity and thus have no business calling anything laughable.

I am not arguing anything. You are making the proposition that WTC7 was intentionally demolished on 9/11 through controlled demolition, for the purpose of eliminating documents concerning the Enron Scandal.

This is a freaking ridiculous, and yes LAUGHABLE proposition, so I am making fun of it by suggesting that if what you suggest is true, then we should look for other demolitions when ever a scandal like Enron breaks.

TAM:)

[triforcharity]

Isn't pressure inversely proportional to distance?

TAM;)

Yes. The more distance you stretch something without a pumper, the less water you get.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Well any atentive reader will know that you are lyng in your teeth.

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories"

And since I'm a certified firefighter Bill, I say that you're full of ****!

He's not lying, the FDNY isn't lying! You have no reading comprehention!

This is what fully involved fires look like Bill:

[Tony Szamboti]

You see Tony, the problem was when the first tower collapsed, it took out alot of trucks, same with the second. Now, where do you think all of our hose is stored?? Yepo, on the trucks.

Secondly, we had a bunch of hoses stretched out when the towers collapsed. Now, I don't know about your knowledge of physics, but when 1000 pound beams and parts of buildings hit a firehose, they typically don't work too well after that. Either from being pinched, or from being severed.

Now, last lesson of the day. Where do you think the water comes from that comes out of the hydrants?? hint: Not a unicorn.

When you have a lack of hoses, and a lack of trucks, and a lack of water, how else do you think we would be able to put water on the fire?? We don't use buckets anymore.

NYC is a big place. How much of the total FDNY equipment was destroyed by the tower collapses?

[bill smith]

Bill, what it seems we have here are a bunch of individuals who will apparently say anything to continue to support the present official story, in spite of evidence showing the fires weren't fought intentionally and that the whole scenario with WTC 7 was a rig job and made to happen.

Most of the official story supporters I have encountered here at JREF have all the symptoms of Ryan Mackey's Irreducible Delusion. They simply cannot contemplate, under any circumstances, that the three building collapses were finally a result of anything but fires.

Will not is more like it Tony. Don't be fooled- some of these are not stupid guys ad they know the score exactly as we do. EG 9/11 was an inside job. It's still a job of another kind for them in my opinion.

The others are what I call 'Mackeyites'. Where would any cult leader be without his followers.

[T.A.M.]

You got me Bill. I am 100% Canadian Cointelpro.

TAM;)

[Tony Szamboti]

I am not arguing anything. You are making the proposition that WTC7 was intentionally demolished on 9/11 through controlled demolition, for the purpose of eliminating documents concerning the Enron Scandal.

This is a freaking ridiculous, and yes LAUGHABLE proposition, so I am making fun of it by suggesting that if what you suggest is true, then we should look for other demolitions when ever a scandal like Enron breaks.

TAM:)

So I would imagine you probably think it is ridiculous to say Enron had a big hand in the California electrical energy crisis fraud of early 2001.

[bill smith]

And since I'm a certified firefighter Bill, I say that you're full of ****!

He's not lying, the FDNY isn't lying! You have no reading comprehention!

This is what fully involved fires look like Bill:

Haw Haw Haw.....Similar to WTC7 isn't it- NOT ?

[T.A.M.]

So I would imagine you probably think it is ridiculous to say Enron had a big hand in the California electrical energy crisis fraud of early 2001.

Did I say that. I have not even looked into the minutia, or the arguments over the scandal. That is not the point and you know it. Why the diversion?

Come on you are an engineer for christ's sake, you have to have half a brain in that skull of yours...

REALLY, destroy a 47 storey building to get rid of documents???? I don't care if they had 30 tonnes of the stuff...destroy the building?

Is this the best reason the TM can come up with for the alleged destruction of WTC7?

TAM:)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Will not is more like it Tony. Don't be fooled- some of these are not stupid guys ad they know the score exactly as we do. EG 9/11 was an inside job. It's still a job of another kind for them in my opinion.

The others are what I call 'Mackeyites'. Where would any cult leader be without his followers.

Billy, in over 8 years NONE of you Truthers have any evidence that 9/11's an "inside job".

In those 8 yrs all you guys do is bitch, moan, complain, fight with people, call them names when you're trapped like a rat in a sinking ship, twist quotes around, add in words to sentences or quotes, edit explosive sounds to original documented videos, ect.

[bill smith]

You got me Bill. I am 100% Canadian Cointelpro.

TAM;)

I'd say you are covered in this Canadian clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Haw Haw Haw.....Similar to WTC7 isn't it- NOT ?

Billy,

Not! Different designs in their structures. You know nothing!

[R.Mackey]

Holy crap.

I go off to the range for four hours, and come back to four pages of Tony arguing that FDNY was in on the plot, in which they exchange a few hundred of their own lives to let Enron off the hook (which didn't even happen).

Let me just say, without naming names, that it is getting increasingly difficult to find a Truther that isn't a broad-spectrum lunatic.

[BigAl]

NYC is a big place. How much of the total FDNY equipment was destroyed by the tower collapses?

What firemen are we going to send into a building that is about to collapse and has no elevators carrying hand hoses to fight one of the largest office fires that ever happened?

[triforcharity]

I'm looking for the link. I will find it in due course. Exciting isn't it ? lol

Here you go Billy.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110154.PDF

[DGM]

Holy crap.

I go off to the range for four hours, and come back to four pages of Tony arguing that FDNY was in on the plot, in which they exchange a few hundred of their own lives to let Enron off the hook (which didn't even happen).

Let me just say, without naming names, that it is getting increasingly difficult to find a Truther that isn't a broad-spectrum lunatic.
The "truth" movement has gotten a little "special" lately. But it's our fault for mudding the water.:D

[Edx]

Here you go Billy.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110154.PDF

Btw Tri do we know who the "pop pop pop" group of firefighters were? I'd like to see the interviews of them so Bill will have to find something else to moan about.

[triforcharity]

Repeat after me. ' I am saying that a small portion of the FDNY were involved in what happened on 9/11 '

Can you do that ? lol

PS. Do you really want me to put up the sworn statements of hundreds of firefighters testifying to heavy explosions that they thought were connected with bringing the buildings down. I bet you don't and readers should note that. The stuff I have is very convincing and I will post it when EDX here aks me to. But will he ? Does he want you to read it ? and watch the videos ? Eh ? Edx ?

Please do, and I can easily show you how they were datamined and quotemined and taken out of context.

Just do it in another thread.

[triforcharity]

I think there were possibly thousands of skyscrapers just full of them a stone's throw away from ground zero. What do you think ? Could that be ?

What happenes if they need them in another building??

[Mr.Herbert]

Bill, what it seems we have here are a bunch of individuals who will apparently say anything to continue to support the present official story, in spite of evidence showing the fires weren't fought intentionally and that the whole scenario with WTC 7 was a rig job and made to happen.

Most of the official story supporters I have encountered here at JREF have all the symptoms of Ryan Mackey's Irreducible Delusion. They simply cannot contemplate, under any circumstances, that the three building collapses were finally a result of anything but fires.

It is interesting how much attention was drawn to this thread when it was brought up that the fires in WTC 7 could have easily been fought with available equipment and the firefighting contingency design of the building.

Tony,

The crap scented spew in this thread from you is repulsive. I will be traveling to NYC tomorrow evening for a Monday meeting. Coincidentally, I will be in Lower Manhattan for this. If you have any conneries, why don't we meet me for coffee and then take a walk to one of the ladder companies down there and you can ask them why they didn't fight the fires. Explain to them how they intentionally failed to fight these fires. Will you? You spineless douche.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bill doesn't know how fire can spread on 1 floor.

Take a look Bill, the 12th floor fire spreading from 1 small area to a much larger area:

3DXu1pbMjIw

WTC7 was an office building with combustible items in it. You Truthers really don't understand the nature of fire.

[Tony Szamboti]

Holy crap.

I go off to the range for four hours, and come back to four pages of Tony arguing that FDNY was in on the plot, in which they exchange a few hundred of their own lives to let Enron off the hook (which didn't even happen).

Let me just say, without naming names, that it is getting increasingly difficult to find a Truther that isn't a broad-spectrum lunatic.

It looks like you jumped the gun here. If you actually read what I said you would see that I do not believe the FDNY was in on the plot and that the only thing the real plotters needed to do concerning WTC 7 was to manipulate the fire chief. It isn't hard to imagine something said to him like "there has been so much loss of life maybe the best thing to do is let it burn and pull everybody away from it".

I do believe Rudy Giulliani was in on the plot and that it would not be hard for him and his accomplices to manipulate Chief Daniel Nigro.

Let us also not forget that Rudy built his Emergency Command center on the 23rd floor of WTC 7 over the objections of both the FDNY and NYPD.

Giulliani's office said WTC 7 was lost at about 12:30 PM. What basis did they have for that?

Your ad hominem comments are not becoming of an engineer Ryan.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It looks like you jumped the gun here. If you actually read what I said you would see that I do not believe the FDNY was in on the plot and that the only thing the real plotters needed to do was to manipulate the fire chief.

I do believe Rudy Giulliani was in on the plot and that it would not be hard for him and his accomplices to manipulate Chief Daniel Nigro.

Giulliani's office said WTC 7 was lost at about 12:30 PM. What basis did they have for that?

Your ad hominem comments are not becoming of an engineer Ryan.

Tony,

Noone can "manipulate" a fire chief. Not even other firefighters!

What basis did they have for that?

The FDNY trying to clear people away from the building. You weren't there so why do you insist on assumptions of your own delusional mind?

[R.Mackey]

It looks like you jumped the gun here. If you actually read what I said you would see that I do not believe the FDNY was in on the plot and that the only thing the real plotters needed to do was to manipulate the fire chief. It isn't hard to imagine something said to him like "there has been so much loss of life maybe the best thing to do is let it burn and pull everybody away from it".

Ah. You believe in hypnosis, I guess.

Because you're forgetting that Chief Nigro said, unequivocally, that he made the call. And why he made the call. So, either "in on it," or you're just making up more crap, as usual. Guess which one I'm betting on?

I do believe Rudy Giulliani was in on the plot and that it would not be hard for him and his accomplices to manipulate Chief Daniel Nigro.

And to this day he denies it. Maybe you just don't know anything about firefighting? Is that too hard for you to comprehend? We've already established that you can look at a video showing a tilting structure and shout that it isn't tilting, so you're not exactly hard to fool, you know.

Giulliani's office said WTC 7 was lost at about 12:30 PM. What basis did they have for that?

That was when Chief Nigro made the call. It was based on audible and visible signs of structural deterioration, and lack of resources. Duh.

Your ad hominem comments are not becoming of an engineer Ryan.

Says the guy accusing Chief Nigro, Mayor Giuliani, and who knows who else of mass murder on the basis of his own incompetence. I stand by my assessment.

[BigAl]

Giulliani's office said WTC 7 was lost at about 12:30 PM. What basis did they have for that?


Got a citation for that claim?

By noon there were lots of structural engineers on-site.

Source: 9 Months at Ground Zero.

[Edx]

the only thing the real plotters needed to do concerning WTC 7 was to manipulate the fire chief..

So all the firefighters that had no problem with it coming down and the ones who stayed quiet are what ...Tony?

Why wont you reply to that!

[twinstead]

Says the guy accusing Chief Nigro, Mayor Giuliani, and who knows who else of mass murder on the basis of his own incompetence. I stand by my assessment.

This needs to be said again.

[Tony Szamboti]

Ah. You believe in hypnosis, I guess.

Because you're forgetting that Chief Nigro said, unequivocally, that he made the call. And why he made the call. So, either "in on it," or you're just making up more crap, as usual. Guess which one I'm betting on?



And to this day he denies it. Maybe you just don't know anything about firefighting? Is that too hard for you to comprehend? We've already established that you can look at a video showing a tilting structure and shout that it isn't tilting, so you're not exactly hard to fool, you know.



That was when Chief Nigro made the call. It was based on audible and visible signs of structural deterioration, and lack of resources. Duh.



Says the guy accusing Chief Nigro, Mayor Giuliani, and who knows who else of mass murder on the basis of his own incompetence. I stand by my assessment.

You have no proof that Nigro was not influenced in his decision.

I have not said anything about Chief Nigro being in on a plot and it is obvious in my comments. Here again you are trying to put words in my mouth. Why would you do that? I have said that I believe Rudy Giulliani was involved in a plot and I stand by that assessment. This is the guy who said "we were told the towers were going to collapse and then they did collapse", but won't tell anyone who told him that and how they would have known that. Giulliani needs to be investigated and questioned under oath also.

As far as any tilt prior to vertical drop is concerned, it is absolutely impossible to see in the video I showed. You were obviously making things up there by pretending to see it. You weren't very convincing.

I have told you that we will be doing a precise analysis of the tilt with several videos and one thing I can say unequivocally right now is that it did not tilt 8 degrees or anywhere near that prior to the entire upper section dropping several stories. Your statement that it tilted 8 degrees before it descended is nonsense and you can be forgiven if you were just touting the NIST line in the debate, but as an engineer you should be scrutinizing it now that you have been alerted to the fact that it is not an accurate assessment.

[WildCat]

That is *********** insane. Do you really think that anyone willing to assist, or even turn a blind eye to the intentional demolition of those buildings is gonna suddenly sing because they are under oath...yah, right.
But T.A.M., if they commit perjury to cover up the murders they could go to jail for a year or so! They'd have no choice but to admit to a death penalty offense...


Apparently that makes sense in Trutherville.

[Edx]

but as an engineer you should be scrutinizing it now that you have been alerted to the fact that it is not an accurate assessment.

So when will you and Gage be posting a retraction of your explosive demolition indicators?

Like puffs of air, large dust cloud, material ejection....

You know, since we can see this in buildings that collapse without explosives.

[GlennB]

You have no proof that Nigro was not influenced in his decision.


Scary :eek:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You have no proof that Nigro was not influenced in his decision.

Tony,

Please read what Chief Nigro said about what you're assuming:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2990758&postcount=1

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Tony,

I find it funny that you've just been proven wrong that Nigro was "influenced" in anyway other than what your lying eyes are telling you.

[T.A.M.]

But T.A.M., if they commit perjury to cover up the murders they could go to jail for a year or so! They'd have no choice but to admit to a death penalty offense...


Apparently that makes sense in Trutherville.

It is some amazing nonsense, that truther logic.

TAM:)

[Toke]

On my one week smoke divers course the fire fighter started the practical part by showing us the pumps and assuring us that the water supply was very reliable. (the water for the training centre was recycled)

We wondered a bit, but assumed that it is a concern fire fighters take very seriously, in my cluelessness I took water for granted.

I have no problem with a lack of people, equipment, and water leading to prioritising of fires to fight.
Second guessing the efforts could lead to better disaster efforts if done with enough skill and knowledge.
I believe the fire department have done that better than truthers.;)

[T.A.M.]

Logic: If elements of the USG and other institutions orchestrated the murder of 3000 Americans, they are not going to suddenly confess to anything SIMPLY because they are under oath.

Truther Logic: IF we can just get the bad guys subpoenaed, we can make them confess through tough cross examination UNDER OATH.

Logic: People with the same names as the hijackers turned up in parts of the world after 9/11 due to investigations by the FBI and CIA, and as a result of those same people wanting to clear their names.

Truther Logic: The hijackers are still alive.

Logic: Numerous people heard sounds that they described as explosions because they were in proximity to two 110 storey buildings that were hit by aircraft, burning on multiple floors, and had tremendous damage done to them. This is to be expected as many things can cause loud noises that would be described as explosions.

Truther Logic: Their testimony is evidence of explosives.


I mean the list goes on....

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Please read what Chief Nigro said about what you're assuming:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2990758&postcount=1



Tony,

I find it funny that you've just been proven wrong that Nigro was "influenced" in anyway other than what your lying eyes are telling you.

I find it amazing that there was no attempt to hook up lines to the siamese fittings on the building and Nigro doesn't address that here. I also do not understand his surety that the building was in danger of collapse other than that they were gun shy because of the towers. This is why I am wondering if he was influenced. It wouldn't have to be the mayor or the owner. A structural engineer sent by the plotters could have told him that the building was in danger and Nigro's comments would still be the truth.

This is why Nigro needs to be questioned about the entire affair under oath. If he can say he made the structural assessment himself without any influence whatsoever then maybe I could believe it. He has not said that here.

[Tony Szamboti]

Logic: If elements of the USG and other institutions orchestrated the murder of 3000 Americans, they are not going to suddenly confess to anything SIMPLY because they are under oath.

Truther Logic: IF we can just get the bad guys subpoenaed, we can make them confess through tough cross examination UNDER OATH.

Logic: People with the same names as the hijackers turned up in parts of the world after 9/11 due to investigations by the FBI and CIA, and as a result of those same people wanting to clear their names.

Truther Logic: The hijackers are still alive.

Logic: Numerous people heard sounds that they described as explosions because they were in proximity to two 110 storey buildings that were hit by aircraft, burning on multiple floors, and had tremendous damage done to them. This is to be expected as many things can cause loud noises that would be described as explosions.

Truther Logic: Their testimony is evidence of explosives.


I mean the list goes on....

TAM:)

Who thinks people involved would confess? You are obviously being dramatic as you don't have a good argument.

When several people in a conspiracy are questioned separately they usually don't admit to it. The problem for them becomes keeping their stories straight when asked pointed questions they might not expect. That is how many plots are successfully prosecuted. A confession is not necessary for a conviction to occur and often times conspirators never confess even with overwhelming evidence against them.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I find it amazing that there was no attempt to hook up lines to the siamese fittings on the building and Nigro doesn't address that here. I also do not understand his surety that the building was in danger of collapse other than that they were gun shy because of the towers. This is why I am wondering if he was influenced. It wouldn't have to be the mayor or the owner. A structural engineer could have faslely told him that the building was in danger and Nigro's comments would still be the truth.

This is why Nigro needs to be questioned about the entire affair under oath. If he can say he made the structural assessment himself without any influence whatsoever then maybe I could believe it. He has not said that here.

Tony,

Questioning Nigro for the busted water mains, when the Towers collapsed, is hardly going to do anything to help prove what you say.

Are you going to take him to court over busted water mains?

[AZCat]

Holy crap.

I go off to the range for four hours, and come back to four pages of Tony arguing that FDNY was in on the plot, in which they exchange a few hundred of their own lives to let Enron off the hook (which didn't even happen).

Let me just say, without naming names, that it is getting increasingly difficult to find a Truther that isn't a broad-spectrum lunatic.

This is why engaging truthers in discussion always ends in a downward spiral. Tony may be an engineer, but he sacrificed any engineering approach to the issue once his pet theories were endangered and began dragging out the serious "woo" arguments. What's next? Implicating Silverstein because he's a jew?

[AZCat]

I find it amazing that there was no attempt to hook up lines to the siamese fittings on the building and Nigro doesn't address that here. I also do not understand his surety that the building was in danger of collapse other than that they were gun shy because of the towers. This is why I am wondering if he was influenced. It wouldn't have to be the mayor or the owner. A structural engineer sent by the plotters could have told him that the building was in danger and Nigro's comments would still be the truth.

This is why Nigro needs to be questioned about the entire affair under oath. If he can say he made the structural assessment himself without any influence whatsoever then maybe I could believe it. He has not said that here.

Tony, have you ever designed fire systems for buildings?

[Tony Szamboti]

This is why engaging truthers in discussion always ends in a downward spiral. Tony may be an engineer, but he sacrificed any engineering approach to the issue once his pet theories were endangered and began dragging out the serious "woo" arguments. What's next? Implicating Silverstein because he's a jew?

Can't you argue the details? You seem to be capable of nothing but ad hominem.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Questioning Nigro for the busted water mains, when the Towers collapsed, is hardly going to do anything to help prove what you say.

Are you going to take him to court over busted water mains?

He should be questioned about why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 when there were other resources (fireboats, distant hydrants, pumper trucks, siamese fittings on the building, etc.) besides the water mains to do so and given his statement expressing his concern about the structural integrity of the building he should be questioned as to how he arrived at that assessment.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

He should be questioned about why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 when there were other resources (fireboats, distant hydrants, pumper trucks, siamese fittings on the building, etc.) besides the water mains to do so and given his statement expressing his concern about the structural integrity of the building he should be questioned as to how he arrived at that assessment.

Tony,

Listen to what Chief Daniel Nigro says about WTC7:

kMr3ZSL6l-4

Tony,

Why don't you contact Nigro by phone or e-mail and ask him that? Unless you're chicken!

[R.Mackey]

You have no proof that Nigro was not influenced in his decision.

Shifting burden of proof

I have not said anything about Chief Nigro being in on a plot

Weasel words

and it is obvious in my comments. Here again you are trying to put words in my mouth. Why would you do that?

Personalizing the argument

I have said that I believe Rudy Giulliani was involved in a plot and I stand by that assessment.

No logical fallacy, but totally insane

This is the guy who said "we were told the towers were going to collapse and then they did collapse", but won't tell anyone who told him that and how they would have known that. Giulliani needs to be investigated and questioned under oath also.

Argument to incredulity

As far as any tilt prior to vertical drop is concerned, it is absolutely impossible to see in the video I showed.

Bare assertion fallacy, also ignores the much better photograph that I brought, and the wealth of better videos in this thread

You were obviously making things up there by pretending to see it. You weren't very convincing.

Personalizing the argument

I have told you that we will be doing a precise analysis of the tilt with several videos and one thing I can say unequivocally right now is that it did not tilt 8 degrees or anywhere near that prior to the entire upper section dropping several stories.

Begging the question

Your statement that it tilted 8 degrees before it descended is nonsense and you can be forgiven if you were just touting the NIST line in the debate, but as an engineer you should be scrutinizing it now that you have been alerted to the fact that it is not an accurate assessment.

Bare assertion fallacy

Regarding your latest nonsense, I'm just going to leave you for the sharks. You've said nothing that requires my expertise to refute, and nothing that deserves any attention.

[johnny karate]

He should be questioned about why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 when there were other resources (fireboats, distant hydrants, pumper trucks, siamese fittings on the building, etc.) besides the water mains to do so and given his statement expressing his concern about the structural integrity of the building he should be questioned as to how he arrived at that assessment.

On a day of such tragedy and loss, are you actually questioning a fire commander's sensible decision to err on the side of caution and not risk more lives fighting a fire in an empty building?

The mind boggles.

[UNLoVedRebel]

On a day of such tragedy and loss, are you actually questioning a fire commander's sensible decision to err on the side of caution and not risk more lives fighting a fire in an empty building?

The mind boggles.

And it's just his beloved WTC 7 he wants to talks about. Why not ask why Chief Nigro didn't abandon rescue operations to prevent the collapse of WTC 5?

[T.A.M.]

Who thinks people involved would confess? You are obviously being dramatic as you don't have a good argument.

When several people in a conspiracy are questioned separately they usually don't admit to it. The problem for them becomes keeping their stories straight when asked pointed questions they might not expect. That is how many plots are successfully prosecuted. A confession is not necessary for a conviction to occur and often times conspirators never confess even with overwhelming evidence against them.

You are obviously putting words into my mouth because you are reading too much into my intent...

What does under oath have to do with having them testify and/or be questioned separately? The two are not mutually exclusive. Once again, another truther paradox...the evildoers are intelligent and powerful enough to carry out the largest, most complex cover up in world history, but too stupid or crappy at it to survive a cross examination when separated.

TAM:)

[BigAl]

He should be questioned about why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 when there were other resources (fireboats, distant hydrants, pumper trucks, siamese fittings on the building, etc.) besides the water mains to do so and given his statement expressing his concern about the structural integrity of the building he should be questioned as to how he arrived at that assessment.

After 10:30, the FDNY commander saw much of his equipment destroyed and an unknown number of his men killed and yet another building, WTC7 damaged and on fire. For a while, at least, he was a commander without an army.

WTC7 was built to post-1938 fire codes. That means that with an hour or two of uncontrolled fire, the structure was toast. The time, an hour, hours?, needed to bring out-of-borough equipment in and get it delivering water would put WTC7 closer to the point of collapse. The streets of lower Manhattan were impassible where the in-line pumpers would have to be located.


In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Source: http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground Zero]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Listen to what Chief Daniel Nigro says about WTC7:

kMr3ZSL6l-4

Tony,

Why don't you contact Nigro by phone or e-mail and ask him that? Unless you're chicken!

This looks like a take from BBC's The Third Tower. Nigro doesn't answer the types of questions I think need to be asked of him here. I do not believe he was involved in any conspiracy, but his comments here do not rule out influence as to whether the building's structural integrity was at risk.

The other thing that is interesting is that he orders the collapse zone drawback at 3:00 PM. Why weren't the fires fought in WTC 7 earlier?

I also thought it was interesting at 6:50 into the clip to see a fire hydrant with water in it being used by firemen to rinse off and cool down. They don't say exactly where it was located though.

[Tony Szamboti]

Shifting burden of proof



Weasel words



Personalizing the argument



No logical fallacy, but totally insane



Argument to incredulity



Bare assertion fallacy, also ignores the much better photograph that I brought, and the wealth of better videos in this thread



Personalizing the argument



Begging the question



Bare assertion fallacy

Regarding your latest nonsense, I'm just going to leave you for the sharks. You've said nothing that requires my expertise to refute, and nothing that deserves any attention.

I would rather stick to the science with you Ryan and you shouldn't worry, as you will have your hands full trying to maintain your natural collapse delusion and explain the lack of a jolt and rapidness of the collapse of the first several stories of WTC 1, when your tilt argument is completely shredded before long.

[T.A.M.]

shredded by who? DRG? The Theologian seems to be the best you have on rebutting issues concerning WTC7...lol

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

Promises, promises.

Nobody else cares about your theory, Tony. Not even other Truthers back you up on it. Your "missing jolt" is your own personal analogue of "North of CITGO" or "Pinocchio's Nose."

[BigAl]

The other thing that is interesting is that he orders the collapse zone drawback at 3:00 PM. Why weren't the fires fought in WTC 7 earlier?


If for no other reason than because there was no water with which to fight the fire.

Maybe the pullback was because they were watching the trend on the bulge.

FDNY Chief Haydem explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to collapse as early as 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

[Tony Szamboti]

Promises, promises.

Nobody else cares about your theory, Tony. Not even other Truthers back you up on it. Your "missing jolt" is your own personal analogue of "North of CITGO" or "Pinocchio's Nose."

Hardly, there has been a lot of activity about it on various forums and most believe it is a serious problem for the present official story. You can't judge by this forum if that is what you are doing.

I think your "the tilt explains it all" theory is completely ridiculous and like I said will show definitively that it is.

[Tony Szamboti]

If for no other reason than because there was no water with which to fight the fire.

Maybe the pullback was because they were watching the trend on the bulge.

Can you explain how large this purported bulge was and how it would affect the overall structural integrity of this huge building?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Hardly, there has been a lot of activity about it on various forums and most believe it is a serious problem for the present official story.
We're looking for activity about your "missing jolt" theory in the scientific community. If you want to measure popularity by Internet fora, your "missing jolt" theory is considerably less popular than the flat earth theory-- which currently has over 500,000 posts on its forum (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/).

[R.Mackey]

Hardly, there has been a lot of activity about it on various forums and most believe it is a serious problem for the present official story. You can't judge by this forum if that is what you are doing.

Oh, I'm not. I did see it mentioned at Gregory Urich's place, for instance, and thoroughly repudiated by everyone but Heiwa the no-planer... :D

"Most," huh. I note you didn't specify who does take it seriously. Gee, I wonder why.

[Mr.Herbert]

Can you explain how large this purported bulge was

I see something caught your interest.;)

[DavidJames]

Hardly, there has been a lot of activity about it on various forums and most believe it is a serious problem for the present official story. You can't judge by this forum if that is what you are doing.I won't judge by this forum. I'll judge by the engineer papers, none. I'll judge by the engineering articles published in industry publications, none. I'll judge by the list of engineers crying to industry organizations, none. I'll judge by anyone doing anything other then typing on CT forums, nothing.

Why do you do this? Why don't you actually do something honest?

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh, I'm not. I did see it mentioned at Gregory Urich's place, for instance, and thoroughly repudiated by everyone but Heiwa the no-planer... :D

"Most," huh. I note you didn't specify who does take it seriously. Gee, I wonder why.

They couldn't repudiate it, and they did try. You aren't being truthful here. Your boy OWE tried like hell but fell on his face.

There was no dynamic load in the collapse of WTC 1 and I have shown that unequivocally. It is beyond doubt and you have been forced to admit there was no jolt or dynamic load.

I would also remind you that I told you I would show that there was no dynamic load a couple of years ago and you scoffed at what I said then. When I did it you were forced to agree that there is no jolt or dynamic load and shifted to a Bazant's analysis is a limiting case argument. I guess I will have to show you in no uncertain terms that your "the tilt explains it all" notion is all wet also.

Adios Ryan, I have work to do and would like to say this thread has served it's purposes for me.

We can start a new one when I have finished my work on why the tilt does not obviate the need for a jolt in a natural collapse propagation or explain the rapidness of the collapses of the first several stories in WTC 1.

[alienentity]

Tony, you've sunk to a new low. Instead of taking a couple of steps back from your conspiracy obsession (of course you can't, or won't, because of your obsession), you're following the unfortunate course of redoubling your commitment to it and your central delusion.
You can't accept that Nigro was competent, even though you have no real evidence to show otherwise.
You can't accept that WTC7 could have fallen due to fires, even though you lack the evidence to show otherwise (engineering model?).

Your deep need to believe that your government was in on it, and directing the attacks, the imagined demolitions, requires you to also include FDNY and the Mayor's office in your conspiracy to one degree or another.

However

If you step back from your personal need, your ego's investment, as it were, and simply accept that YOU MAY BE COMPLETELY WRONG, all of the other things fall away into nothing.

Nigro becomes just another victim of the circumstances, making difficult decisions after losing hundreds of his brothers, including his superiors. You could even allow yourself to feel some compassion for the man, instead of suggesting that he be dragged before some kind of inquisition to atone for his part in your imaginary plot.

Leave the man alone, and deal with your stuff on your own, Tony. You're not mentally healthy, and you're saying and writing things that are truly appalling.

Your need to scapegoat others is a sickness, it's not a virtue. I suspect you may have crossed the Rubicon into the land of madness.

As of this moment, I am putting you on ignore, and will not read your comments. They don't deserve further attention.

ETA: Don't forget that Tony has officially run away from the obvious tilt of WTC2 and is trying to 'prove' something (if that's the correct word for what he's attempting) with WTC1, since it tilted less. But while he tries to run from reality, it hasn't gone anywhere! It's still there for everybody to see.

(In case some of you have missed the implications of the difference between the two towers, WTC2 easily meets and exceeds the criteria set forth by Tony himself NOT to display a jolt, so it is therefore allowed to collapse without explosives. Tony is going to try to quibble about a slight difference 'proving' that explosives somehow erased the expected jolt in WTC1. It's obviously an extremely weak argument, because WTC2 is stronger evidence the other way! But count on him to try anyway....and fail.)

[R.Mackey]

They couldn't repudiate it, and they did try. You aren't being truthful here. Your boy OWE tried like hell but fell on his face.

"My boy..?" Dr. Benson also told you it was crap. So did Gregory. So did Dr. Greening. So did others. Did they "fall on their face?"

Let me be more specific, since you're not playing with a full deck here. You are a prominent member of AE911T, as has been mentioned here a few times. Yet I haven't seen Richard Gage use your argument -- and he believes in all kinds of stupidity. Why is that?


Everything else you wrote is utter babble. There can indeed be dynamic loading -- but little ones, individual failures that happen so quickly there's no discernible net deceleration. Oh, right, you don't understand vector addition, either, as Dave Rogers has demonstrated repeatedly.

The denial is strong with this one.

[T.A.M.]

An engineer not understanding vector addition is akin to a Doctor not understanding human physiology....oih!

TAM:)

[BigAl]

Can you explain how large this purported bulge was and how it would affect the overall structural integrity of this huge building?

Tri saw the bulge. Ask him.

Are you really an engineer? I have physics and a bit of what would now be called finite element analysis and I've worked on scaffolding. As I understand it, out-of plumb puts an structure at serious risk.

FDNY deals with the collapse of smaller buildings on a regular basis. If Chief Hayden and the people that advised him say the building was due to come down, who am I to second guess them when in fact, they were right.

Hayden, of course knew that WTC7 was on massive fire.

I'm reading Hayden's deposition. On page three he mentions that FDNY has a collapse unit (no surprise) and it was on the scene.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110139.PDF

Page 3: "We brought collapse units and additional units over"

[newton3376]

Tony,

Listen to what Chief Daniel Nigro says about WTC7:

kMr3ZSL6l-4

Tony,

Why don't you contact Nigro by phone or e-mail and ask him that? Unless you're chicken!

This is a point that needs repeating...

Why don't truthers just pick up the damn phone and CALL SOMEONE or SEND THEM AN EMAIL?

Always good to go directly to the source instead of just investigoogling.

[alienentity]

To add another parting shot, I'll respond to two things Tony wrote today:

'A lot of these unanswered questions could be answered that way.' They have been answered. You're not listening.


Most of the official story supporters I have encountered here at JREF have all the symptoms of Ryan Mackey's Irreducible Delusion. They simply cannot contemplate, under any circumstances, that the three building collapses were finally a result of anything but fires.
False. The evidence just isn't there, so we go with the stronger hypothesis. If this were not so, most of us would probably agree with you. I know I would.

It is interesting how much attention was drawn to this thread when it was brought up that the fires in WTC 7 could have easily been fought with available equipment and the firefighting contingency design of the building.
Yes, because it is such an egregious fallacy, and very offensive to most of us. Your attempts to slander FDNY were duly noted.....and rejected as empty slander.

[newton3376]

Oh, right, you don't understand vector addition, either, as Dave Rogers has demonstrated repeatedly.

The denial is strong with this one.

Please please tell me this isn't true.....

[bardamu]

Bardamu, the idea of irreducible delusion is not a smear, it is a theory, as elucidated by Mr. Mackey. You would do well to read his words. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389)


Recognizing and Classifying Irreducible Delusion



Refusal to change the belief at any cost, leading to increasingly improbable excuses;


eg. from 'no core in towers' to 'fire melts steel core', from 'fire melts steel core' to 'fire weakens steel core', from 'pancake collapse' to 'rubble crush-front', from 'diesel tank fires' to 'normal office fires'



Demands for a disproof, rather than providing any evidence;


eg. prove columns weren't buckling inside of building, prove rubble wasn't crushing core columns behind dust cloud, prove girders weren't knocked hundreds of feet sideways by other girders, prove Giuliani wasn't lying about being told of collapses, prove firefighters weren't lying about explosions



Dogged avoidance of direct discussion, either through distraction or total refusal to give debate;


eg. videos don't count because we have thousands of eyewitnesses, physics don't count because we have thousands of eyewitnesses, logic doesn't count because we have thousands of eyewitnesses, your eyewitnesses don't count because they contradict our eyewitneses



Dropping discussion of the belief altogether, in seeming acquiescence of superior logic, only to bring it up again unchanged at a later date.


eg. google con edison substation, fully-laden planes hit the towers, diesel burns like crazy, jet fuel burns like crazy

[R.Mackey]

Please please tell me this isn't true.....

Of course it's true. Read here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4657997#post4657997), and watch it bounce off at free-fall speed.

[bill smith]

What happenes if they need them in another building??

You mean trouble with the unions ?

[bardamu]

No they wouldnt since theres no evidence of that, whereas with Building 7 we can see the interior is clearly collapsing inside.

Only you can see it, because you were born with the ability to see through walls. Even NIST say it's not observable.



What are the characteristics of an explosive demoltion bardamu? LOUD BANGS, since there are no loud bangs whatsoever in any WTC7 video we can tell that it couldnt have been explosives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

Testimony of firefighters from first responder documents.

"it was like a bomb went off, we thought we were dead, the whole building shook"
"it was like an earthquake, a giant, giant explosion...my ears were, like, deaf"
"there was a heavy duty explosion"
"it was as if they had detonated it"
"I saw flash, flash, flash...you know like when they demolish a building"
"there was this orange and red flash coming out...popping all around the building, and that building had started to explode"



Professor Graeme McQueen, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario:

The controlled demolition hypothesis is much stronger than the other hypotheses. Those who have suggested that this is an inside job have a much stronger case than those who are trying to support the official narrative of the 19 hijackers.




You are also ignoring all the "expert" truthers saying that WTC7 fits a classic demolition perfectly, yet when its pointed out it doesnt look like one they start making excuses like you are. No loud bangs? Silent explosives. No flashes? They covered up the flashes. etc.

At least one demolition expert has no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 was demolished by "a team of experts". I have no reason to believe he's unqualified, dishonest or deluded



Had the situation with this building been like that on 911 with WTC7 we would have reason to think it collapsed from fire as well.

Why do demolition teams go to all the trouble of wiring a building for demolition when they could just throw a match in?



Please, be more vague.

Debunkers go quiet when it's pointed out to them that their beliefs are based on assumptions, not observations.



The list of all the FDNY apparently, you truthers are such a fine bunch. Why dont you go picket the FDNY and accuse them all of covering up the conspiracy? But you wont because you want to pretend you are on their side.

The list includes counter-terrorism experts who were on TV, fake eyewitnesses, cameramen, officials and debunkers. It appears that a few Fire Department officials were among the fake eyewitnesses, but the debunkers want people to believe that truthers are accusing all firefighters.

[Edx]

You are obviously putting words into my mouth because you are reading too much into my intent...

What does under oath have to do with having them testify and/or be questioned separately? The two are not mutually exclusive. Once again, another truther paradox...the evildoers are intelligent and powerful enough to carry out the largest, most complex cover up in world history, but too stupid or crappy at it to survive a cross examination when separated.

TAM:)

Exactly, that is exactly what truthers think.

[Grizzly Bear]

Testimony of firefighters from first responder documents.
Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile) literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor)



Professor Graeme McQueen, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario:
Study fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

At least one demolition expert has no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 was demolished by "a team of experts". I have no reason to believe he's unqualified, dishonest or deluded

Do it twice for good measure (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

That is all. Done with you.

[bill smith]

On a day of such tragedy and loss, are you actually questioning a fire commander's sensible decision to err on the side of caution and not risk more lives fighting a fire in an empty building?

The mind boggles.

Hey Johnny can I slightly change the words in the banner you carry for me ?

[bardamu]

Here's a bunch of FDNY reports, Do you believe them ? if you cannot show what they say they are seeing and reporting here I submit that what they are saying is not true. So prove to me here and now that they are not lying. If you cannot show that I think that we can safely say that they were LYING.

' "The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild" - Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors"
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down" –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

"I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke" - FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories"
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers ''

Six more for the list.



And you have not explained why firefighters would lie about WTC7 yet not lie about WTC1+2.

Why would they lie about 1 & 2 but tell the honest truth about 7? The firefighters had been pulled from WTC7, so they wouldn't know first hand what was going on.



It is interesting how much attention was drawn to this thread when it was brought up that the fires in WTC 7 could have easily been fought with available equipment and the firefighting contingency design of the building.

There's a panicky feel to this thread today. Edx is in headless-chicken mode.


Tony,

You're not a Controlled Demolitions expert or a firefighter. You have no credentials for both.


Danny Jowenko is a controllled demolition expert and he says it was a "hired job".


Please do, and I can easily show you how they were datamined and quotemined and taken out of context.

Just do it in another thread.

Yeah, they believed the 118 firemen who said there were explosions rather than the 10 who said the towers pancaked.


Bill doesn't know how fire can spread on 1 floor.

Take a look Bill, the 12th floor fire spreading from 1 small area to a much larger area:

3DXu1pbMjIw

WTC7 was an office building with combustible items in it. You Truthers really don't understand the nature of fire.

We understand the nature of NIST's imagination.

[BigAl]

Only you can see it, because you were born with the ability to see through walls. Even NIST say it's not observable.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

Testimony of firefighters from first responder documents.


"Explosion" is a good word for loud noise. There were lots of loud noises at WTC on 9/11.

There were no noises loud enough or timed to be consistent with man-made demolition.

None of the firemen describe man-made demolition. We know this by reading their entire statements instead of cherrypicking quotes and then looking at where and when they heard the noise.

A loud noise way before or after a collapse has nothing to do with man-made demolition. That's what most of them heard.

[Edx]

Only you can see it, because you were born with the ability to see through walls. Even NIST say it's not observable.

You can see the east penthouse collapse INTO the building, just what do you think held that up? Fairy dust?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

Testimony of firefighters from first responder documents.

All these are out of context anyway but guess what.... THIS IS NOT ABOUT BUILDING 7.



Professor Graeme McQueen, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario:

And AE911 Truth have some "experts" that think the towers were demolished by space beams, that there were no planes and believe that the towers fell faster than free fall. I really dont care what their moronic opinions are, unless they back them up with reason.

You are also ignoring all the "expert" truthers saying that WTC7 fits a classic demolition perfectly, yet when its pointed out it doesnt look like one they start making excuses like you are. No loud bangs? Silent explosives. No flashes? They covered up the flashes. etc. At least one demolition expert has no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 was demolished by "a team of experts". I have no reason to believe he's unqualified, dishonest or deluded

Jowenko was shown a video without sound and not told any details about the building or events that day, he also says WTC1+2 could not have been demolitions. But of course like everything else you cherry pick your data.

Had the situation with this building been like that on 911 with WTC7 we would have reason to think it collapsed from fire as well.

Why do demolition teams go to all the trouble of wiring a building for demolition when they could just throw a match in?

If you're suggesting that no one would think that the building could pancake collapse why did all the firefighters think it was going to with no dissenting opinions anywhere? Why did structual engineers 10 years before 911 think One Meridian Plaza was at risk of a pancake collapse?


Debunkers go quiet when it's pointed out to them that their beliefs are based on assumptions, not observations.


Truthers hear things that arent there like explosions, squibs, flashes... but also deny the building was heavily damaged and had heavy fires on many floors. Who's ignoring observations?

The list includes counter-terrorism experts who were on TV, fake eyewitnesses, cameramen, officials and debunkers. It appears that a few Fire Department officials were among the fake eyewitnesses, but the debunkers want people to believe that truthers are accusing all firefighters.

Why do you say a few FDNY?

ALL of them would have to be in on it, why cant you, Bill and Tony just admit it?

If they are keeping quiet that means they are lying. nevertheless we still have dozens and dozens that are recorded saying specificailly they had no problem with 7's collapse.

[bardamu]

That is *********** insane. Do you really think that anyone willing to assist, or even turn a blind eye to the intentional demolition of those buildings is gonna suddenly sing because they are under oath...yah, right.

The ones that are being leaned on might feel more inclined to blow the whistle if they had the protection of the law.


Could you please provide a link to an explosive demolition which uses the silent explosives your hypothesis requires? Or are you just talking out of your butt?

Watch this at 7 minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg


It is educational, if not scary, to see the scapegoating process at work.

You saw the scapegoating process on 9/11. What you're witnessing here is the de-scapegoating process.


You don't know wtf you are talking about.

Yeah, you have this ONE *********** question correct. Congratulation, "engineer". They can pump a *********** tiny amount of water (perhaps 1% of what was needed) thru tiny *********** hoses.

The building was doomed anyway. They KNEW it. Because they are professionals & you are a *********** amateur who gets off on second guessing the people who actually DID SOMETHING that day.

They can NOT get it to the upper floors of a sky-scraper. Without it getting to the upper floors, the ONLY thing that hosing down the lower floors did was to guarantee that several hundred more firefighters would have gotten killed when it collapsed. Congrats, again. "Engineer".

They were in danger of CAUSING collapse by water-logging floors. They were in danger of drowning victims. There were OTHER tasks that might have actually, you know, made a difference.

But this is a democracy.

Go ask your moronic questions....

Mackey humiliates himself one day, then the next day everybody wants to get in on the act.


Using the passive voice and avoiding a subject when making these accusations is despicable. Unless you have proof that SOMEONE "manipulated" Daniel Nigro, shut your mouth and go away.

You seem to believe that honouring the dead means sheltering their murderers. I hope your grandchildren are proud of you.



Have you ever had some two-bit PUNK come along afterward and, from the snuggly warmth of abject ignorance, start to lecture you on what you did wrong?? What you SHOULD have done. And what HE would have done. (If he'd ever gotten his lard ass out from in front of a TV and done something useful with his life.)

Have you ever had to resist the urge to reach across a table & squeeze the two-bit punk's head like a zit, Tony?

This really is a despicable line of conversation for you. You may want to go back & re-think it.

And if you still think that it's appropriate, I suggest that you bring it where it'll do some real good: a firefighter's bar in the Bronx.

Let me know how that goes, OK?

Tom

An overdramatic appeal to the emotions.

[Grizzly Bear]

And the repetition thereby continues with a guy who is going to regurgitate it over and over and over.... (infinity).

[Edx]

And you have not explained why firefighters would lie about WTC7 yet not lie about WTC1+2.

Why would they lie about 1 & 2 but tell the honest truth about 7? .

Im not saying they lied about 1 and 2, you are.

Im saying hypothetically if they were telling the truth about WTC1+2 which is what you believe, why are you saying they are too scared to tell the truth about WTC7?

The firefighters had been pulled from WTC7, so they wouldn't know first hand what was going on

They werent pulled that quickly, also interesting choice of words haha. They did know what was going on, you can tell from the reading their interviews. Have you tried doing that? I bet you like just reading the quote-mined versions truthers show you.


There's a panicky feel to this thread today. .

I call it playing with the "special" people.


Yeah, they believed the 118 firemen who said there were explosions rather than the 10 who said the towers pancaked.

They heard explosion sounds in the Windsor building fire in Madrid as well, are you going to say that means there were bombs in that building?

Of course not because explosion doesnt mean bomb, if we look at video footage we have no demolition explosion sounds just a slow progressive rumble.

[BigAl]

The ones that are being leaned on might feel more inclined to blow the whistle if they had the protection of the law.




Watch this at 7 minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg


Fake explosion noises! Oh My!

Were these noises real, they would be on every one of the many video cameras in use close to WTC even if the cameras were not pointed at that tower.

The book Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend describes the number of cameras in operation at WTC.


There would also be explosions that preceded the visible beginning of the collapse. That's how demolition of huge buildings works.

[bill smith]

eg. from 'no core in towers' to 'fire melts steel core', from 'fire melts steel core' to 'fire weakens steel core', from 'pancake collapse' to 'rubble crush-front', from 'diesel tank fires' to 'normal office fires'




eg. prove columns weren't buckling inside of building, prove rubble wasn't crushing core columns behind dust cloud, prove girders weren't knocked hundreds of feet sideways by other girders, prove Giuliani wasn't lying about being told of collapses, prove firefighters weren't lying about explosions




eg. videos don't count because we have thousands of eyewitnesses, physics don't count because we have thousands of eyewitnesses, logic doesn't count because we have thousands of eyewitnesses, your eyewitnesses don't count because they contradict our eyewitneses




eg. google con edison substation, fully-laden planes hit the towers, diesel burns like crazy, jet fuel burns like crazy

See highlight

[Edx]

Watch this at 7 minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg




:rolleyes:


That was proved to be fake, just like Sophia from 911 Mysteries added in explosion sounds calling them "sound design"

I wonder if you're going to be like Bill and insist its real anyway because it suits your beliefs.

[bill smith]

Fake explosion noises! Oh My!

Were these noises real, they would be on every one of the many video cameras in use close to WTC even if the cameras were not pointed at that tower.

The book Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend describes the number of cameras in operation at WTC.


There would also be explosions that preceded the visible beginning of the collapse. That's how demolition of huge buildings works.

Al. Shape up Soldier. You are of no use to he NWO if you panic like ths..

[Mr. Skinny]

It wouldn't be hard to know the approximate location of the breaks so how long would it take for the Water Dept. to shut down water to the WTC area?
One to two hours, I'd guess...on a good day. Considering the destruction around the WTC, it might have been difficult to get a water department truck into the area.

Anyhow, I think your idea that the fires could have been fought by pumping water from thousands of feet away is just silly, given the situation, resources available, etc.

And BTW, you don't think a siamese connection on a building is a water supply, do you?

[Edx]

Al. Shape up Soldier. You are of no use to he NWO if you panic like ths..

ahaha, my my you are so delusional. I give up with you

[WildCat]

I find it amazing that there was no attempt to hook up lines to the siamese fittings on the building and Nigro doesn't address that here. I also do not understand his surety that the building was in danger of collapse other than that they were gun shy because of the towers. This is why I am wondering if he was influenced. It wouldn't have to be the mayor or the owner. A structural engineer sent by the plotters could have told him that the building was in danger and Nigro's comments would still be the truth.

This is why Nigro needs to be questioned about the entire affair under oath. If he can say he made the structural assessment himself without any influence whatsoever then maybe I could believe it. He has not said that here.
So Tony, are you going to go next to a 47 story building already damaged beyond repair, which is already leaning/bulging, which has already been fully evacuated, in order to hook up hoses which don't have a prayer of delivering enough water to fight the fires? Oh, and then go inside said building? When there are other buildings in the area which do have a chance of being saved, with little risk of losing more lives in the process?

You really need to use whatever mass you have between your ears, and stop the fanatical delusional rantings.

[Edx]

@Tony

The firefighters talk of WTC7 leaning, bulging, groaning, creaking and that things were crackling and falling and that it had a massive gash to the south side

Like Wildcat said, why would they risk trying to fight a fire in a buidling as unstable as they realised Building 7 was?

Thats why they made the collapse zone in the first place, and its a good thing too since if they hadnt firefighters would have died when it collapsed onto them.

[WildCat]

I would rather stick to the science with you Ryan
You'd first have to introduce some science before you can stick to it.

Since you can't even admit what everyone can see for themselves, that the building had a definite tilt, I won't be holding my breath. 9/11 conspiracy theories are a religion to you, and no facts can change your mind.

[tsig]

The Enron California electricity swindle case did go down with WTC 7. Are you saying it didn't?

3000 killed just to cover up a swindle?

[beachnut]

3000 killed just to cover up a swindle?When you can't do engineering, you make up wild ideas.

[bill smith]

When you can't do engineering, you make up wild ideas.
tsig thinks nobody notices.

[tsig]

I have told you that we will be doing a precise analysis of the tilt with several videos and one thing I can say unequivocally right now is that it did not tilt 8 degrees or anywhere near that prior to the entire upper section dropping several stories. Your statement that it tilted 8 degrees before it descended is nonsense and you can be forgiven if you were just touting the NIST line in the debate, but as an engineer you should be scrutinizing it now that you have been alerted to the fact that it is not an accurate assessment.

You say it did not tilt before you do the analysis.

[twinstead]

You say it did not tilt before you do the analysis.

How dare you suggest that Tony is guilty of predisposition. That would mean his method is flawed. Now that just CAN'T be!

[triforcharity]

I don't see how you can say asking why the fires weren't fought in WTC 7 is anything but a legitimate question. I would have brought it up in the debate if Ron and Ryan had been willing to discuss WTC 7 further than the couple of times I mentioned something about it.

If you actually read what I said you would realize that I do not think any member of the FDNY had to be in on any conspiracy and that it could have been done by simply manipulating Daniel Nigro. I would also be asking severe questions of those in the Giulliani administration who put the word out that WTC 7 was lost at 12:30 PM. What basis was there for that?

You seem to want to call people delusional simply because what they say doesn't fit with your actual delusion. Talk facts not nonsense.

Well, considering the fact that we had no water, no way of fighting the blaze, and knew of it's construction, why would there be any suprise in that?
Hell, I saw that building around 3 ish, and I knew it was coming down, and I had been on the other side of the complex all day long.

Why is it such a hard concept from some people to grasp that firefighters know what happenes when you combine Fire+Steel framed buildings+no water= bad things?? Why is that so hard to understand Tony??

We know what fire is capable of doing. Many of us have a BS in fire science. All have at LEAST an AS, some have Masters' degrees.

[triforcharity]

I will expeect you to have an answer to this. I say that we have seen almost nothing of the firemen who were at ground zero on 9/11. The only info we really get is from he Fealgood Foundation is about how they are dying like flies
from diseases caused by the comtsaminents at ground zero that the government ordered the EPA to deny.

So tell me why the public we have seen so litle of the firemen ?

Try contacting the FDNY. They would have to release any information that you ask for, short of things covered under HIPPA, and confidential stuff, like address, telephone numbers, and SSN.

Also, the FDNY is not hard to find. Go to NYC, that is where you will find them.

[Edx]

Hell, I saw that building around 3 ish, and I knew it was coming down, and I had been on the other side of the complex all day long.

Why is it such a hard concept from some people to grasp that firefighters know what happenes when you combine Fire+Steel framed buildings+no water= bad things?? Why is that so hard to understand Tony?? .

Dude, you need to understand.

You are too scared to tell the truth that is why you are your fellow firefighters are lying. You need to have faith in what Bill and Tony tell you you feel.

;)

[triforcharity]

No problem Glenn. You just connect a few lines of fire tucks from the river and pump from truck to truck right up to the fire. Got a problem with that ? The trucks had nothing else to do evidently.

Well, except for the fact that by that time, we had already lost a bunch of trucks, and what trucks we did have were moving people and equipment. Including saws, jacks, airbags, air tanks, etc. etc. etc.

Stop trying to act like you know the first damn thing about firefighing operations. Because it is plainly obvious that you don't know the first damn thing about how it works in real life.

[tfk]

There was no dynamic load in the collapse of WTC 1 and I have shown that unequivocally. It is beyond doubt and you have been forced to admit there was no jolt or dynamic load.



During WW II, the Yorktown class aircraft carrier (Yorktown, Hornet & (yes) Enterprise) weighed in at 20,000 tons (standard load), 26,000 tons full load.

When the upper portion of the building fell, you had the equivalent of the USS Hornet, WITH the USS Enterprise on top of her, that fell at least 12 feet onto the top of a building whose upper three floors were already MASSIVELY compromised.

And you SIMULTANEOUSLY claim that:

1) there will result no "dynamic load"
and
2) you are a mechanical engineer???


Tom

[A W Smith]

No, the reality is that this debate is not over as you have not proven your contentions that the tilt obviates the need for a jolt to cause collapse propagation and that it explains the rapidness of the collapse. I will be doing precise measurements of the tilt and vertical drop magnitudes and timing and an analysis based on these measurements, which the NIST should have done. I suggest you do the same.



Adios Ryan, I have work to do and would like to say this thread has served it's purposes for me.

We can start a new one when I have finished my work on why the tilt does not obviate the need for a jolt in a natural collapse propagation or explain the rapidness of the collapses of the first several stories in WTC 1.

You now admit there was a tilt. So your next "work" is to show why this tilt does not obviate the need for a jolt? Good luck with that, fool.

:dl:

[triforcharity]

This building in the clip with fires far far larger than anything seen in WTC7 had a water supply for the FDNY. In fact though the building had very light steel being only 8 floors or so it did not fall down at all. Compare this to the massive heavy-duty WTC7 with a few small fires. There is ZERO to compare. Yet WTC7 fell like a Victorian Heroine swooning. No way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ

Anything that YOU saw anyway.

Also, I am not sure exactly what building that is, but I would guess the reason it DIDN'T collapse, is because they SPRAYED WATER ON IT!!

Can you provide the name of that building?

[triforcharity]

NYC is a big place. How much of the total FDNY equipment was destroyed by the tower collapses?

Here is a list of them.

UNIT REGISTRY NUMBER

ENGINE 1 SP98021
ENGINE 6 SP9401H
ENGINE 7 SP00017
ENGINE 10 SP9402H
ENGINE 15 SP9703
ENGINE 21 SP9709
ENGINE 28 SP00030
ENGINE 34 SP9404H
ENGINE 55 SP9374
ENGINE 65 SP9405H
ENGINE 76 SP98032
ENGINE 202 SP00029
ENGINE 204 SP9723
SQUAD 1 SP98014
SQUAD 18 SP00035
SPARE ENGINE 210 MP8819
SPARE SQUAD 252 SP9602
SPARE ENGINE 4 MP8912
LADDER 1 ST99007
LADDER 3 SL9413
LADDER 4 SL01002
LADDER 5 SL00002
LADDER 6 SL00003
LADDER 8 SL8904
LADDER 9 ST99006
LADDER10 SL9406
LADDER 11 SL9411
LADDER 18 ST99001
LADDER 20 SL99013
LADDER 101 SL99012
LADDER 105 ST9402
LADDER 113 SL99008
LADDER 132 SL9403
RAC 3 SPARE GM9166
RESCUE 1 SR9601
RESCUE 2 SR9602
TAC 1 IM98002
TRV 1 IM9101
HIGH RISE 1 MH9705
HIGH RISE 2 MH9706
HAZ MAT TECH UNIT RESCUE 5 GM98009
HAZ MAT TECH UNIT RESCUE 252 GM98006
HAZ MAT TECH UNIT RESCUE 18 GM98005
MASK SERVICE UNIT 4 IH9704
DIVISIONS 1, 3 & 11
BATTALION CARS 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 46, 48, SAFETY & SOC
35 OTHER ASSORTED VEHICLES & AMBULANCES


Now, in total 200 pieces of equipment were sent or there after the collapse, which is half of the department. Now, a total of 93 trucks were destroyed that day. So, based on rough estimates, about 25% of the departments available vehicles.

Now, here is where the uneducated seem to get lost. We can't just start taaking engines from all over the 5 buroughs. What happens if something go wrong in another area? Now, they may have a 30 minute travel time to get to a fire.... OH **** they ain't got any hose now!!

See my point Tony?

[triforcharity]

Btw Tri do we know who the "pop pop pop" group of firefighters were? I'd like to see the interviews of them so Bill will have to find something else to moan about.

Is he talking about the ones in the Naudet video?? If he is, I will find their names. I don't remember who they are off the top of my head.

Maybe someone else knows?

[triforcharity]

I find it amazing that there was no attempt to hook up lines to the siamese fittings on the building and Nigro doesn't address that here. I also do not understand his surety that the building was in danger of collapse other than that they were gun shy because of the towers. This is why I am wondering if he was influenced. It wouldn't have to be the mayor or the owner. A structural engineer sent by the plotters could have told him that the building was in danger and Nigro's comments would still be the truth.

This is why Nigro needs to be questioned about the entire affair under oath. If he can say he made the structural assessment himself without any influence whatsoever then maybe I could believe it. He has not said that here.

Um, Tony, lets think about this for a minute.


Ready?

I saw the building, I am not an engineer, and I knew it would collapse.

I was not new, but not a seasoned firefighter. Not like Nigro.

Now, how could I have known, but not others??

[triforcharity]

You mean trouble with the unions ?

Don't be obtuse.

I mean, and I will go slow for you.

What happens if they need the extinguishers in another building??????????

[triforcharity]

Dude, you need to understand.

You are too scared to tell the truth that is why you are your fellow firefighters are lying. You need to have faith in what Bill and Tony tell you you feel.

;)

But yet, I can rush into a burning building for complete strangers with no second thoughts......

Amazing isn't it??

I will freely put my life at risk, but GOD FORBID I "loose my job"......

[TruthersLie]

This looks like a take from BBC's The Third Tower. Nigro doesn't answer the types of questions I think need to be asked of him here. I do not believe he was involved in any conspiracy, but his comments here do not rule out influence as to whether the building's structural integrity was at risk.


Tony.

You just said one man didn't order the siamese valves used on wtc7. You just said that it would only take one man to be involved in the plot from the FDNY.

YOU JUST SAID IT.

Now you realize how insane it sounds and are dodging around about it? Really?

So you are claiming that Daniel Negro was involved in this "plot" of yours. You should man up. Make the claim. Since you already did.

[TruthersLie]

If you actually read what I said you would realize that I do not think any member of the FDNY had to be in on any conspiracy and that it could have been done by simply manipulating Daniel Nigro. I would also be asking severe questions of those in the Giulliani administration who put the word out that WTC 7 was lost at 12:30 PM. What basis was there for that?

You seem to want to call people delusional simply because what they say doesn't fit with your actual delusion. Talk facts not nonsense.

So Daniel Negro was in on it (or forced into it) and we have Giulliani also in on it.

Now Tony in the real world, why oh why would they state that wtc7 would collapse at 1230? Can you think of a single reason?

Maybe because 2 110 story buildings had just collapsed and killed up to 30,000 people (that was what was mentioned on our news coverage in Phoenix Arizona). That they had several hundred (up to 500) missing firemen and they were trying to rescue who they could?

Could it be that no fires were fought aggressively because command and control of the FDNY was in a shambles after having almost 400 firemen buried alive and crushed to death?

Could it be that after watching the collapse of the twin towers and seeing the fires, smoke and damage on wtc7 they decided to pull back and not lose anyone else?

Nah... it is so much easier to implicate Daniel Negro and call Rudy (and his boys) EVIL.

Yup...that makes so much more sense.

[TruthersLie]

Bill, what it seems we have here are a bunch of individuals who will apparently say anything to continue to support the present official story, in spite of evidence showing the fires weren't fought intentionally and that the whole scenario with WTC 7 was a rig job and made to happen.

Most of the official story supporters I have encountered here at JREF have all the symptoms of Ryan Mackey's Irreducible Delusion. They simply cannot contemplate, under any circumstances, that the three building collapses were finally a result of anything but fires.

It is interesting how much attention was drawn to this thread when it was brought up that the fires in WTC 7 could have easily been fought with available equipment and the firefighting contingency design of the building.

YOu see tony. That is the funny part.

The vast majority of us can imagine demolishing 3 buildings. We can figure out how to do it effectively and have it done. The problem is the fact that your IGNORANCE is showing every time you talk about **** that you don't know about.

To demolish a building with CD/nanothermite <snicker>/verinage technique is rather noticable. It is rather obtrusive. It is rather obvious. You cannot get around it.

yet we are supposed to believe this was all set up with NO ONE complaining about it, and with NOT ONE LEAK EVER about doing it.

You see in the real world, people complain and people feel guilty.

In the real world we don't need to do mental gymnastics to try to explain the collapse of the towers because... well two fricking huge jets were flown into them at 500 mph, and for wtc7, it was hit by debris and had raging fires.

dur.

[TruthersLie]

You see Tony, the problem was when the first tower collapsed, it took out alot of trucks, same with the second. Now, where do you think all of our hose is stored?? Yepo, on the trucks.

Secondly, we had a bunch of hoses stretched out when the towers collapsed. Now, I don't know about your knowledge of physics, but when 1000 pound beams and parts of buildings hit a firehose, they typically don't work too well after that. Either from being pinched, or from being severed.

Now, last lesson of the day. Where do you think the water comes from that comes out of the hydrants?? hint: Not a unicorn.

When you have a lack of hoses, and a lack of trucks, and a lack of water, how else do you think we would be able to put water on the fire?? We don't use buckets anymore.

Tri that is not fair.

You guys wear those helmets...
and I'm sure a lot of you needed to Pee.
f5RhA8IhNjw

inside jobby job!!!!1!!!

[TruthersLie]

You are simply arguing from incredulity and thus have no business calling anything laughable.

And yet you on the other hand are arguing that wtc7 was brought down in order to cover up enron....

hey pot.... it is the kettle.

[TruthersLie]

NYC is a big place. How much of the total FDNY equipment was destroyed by the tower collapses?

argument from ignorance?

Why don't we say a **** load?

Do you think firefighters carry around extra firetrucks in their back pockets?

[ElMondoHummus]

Speed of progression of column failure may not be relevant to a strict definition of a progressive collapse, but it's very relevant to an analysis of the WTC collapses. If the perimeter of the roof falls as one, all the perimeter columns must have failed together. We've seen videos of progressive collapses and videos of controlled demolitions, and only the controlled demolitions show the roof edge drop without completely breaking apart. In fact, even standard controlled demolitions seem to cause more initial destruction to the roof line than we see in the videos of the WTC7 collapse.


First of all, you need to establish that the speed of WTC 7's collapse indicates intentional demolitions, and not a single one of you fantasy spinners to date has been able to do that. Hell, you don't even do it here, and that's after you explicitly mention it. If you understood that the core descending pulling the floors along caused the perimeter columns to buckle, then you'd understand why the collapse looked the way it did. It looked that way because the roof and upper floors were intact above the area of column buckling. And it started to come apart as it fell; watch videos of the "kink" that develops in the roofline.

You don't need demolitions to explain what you see; what you need is to understand the sequence of events occurring within the tower.


Are we talking about the same core, or even the same building?


You tell me which of the buildings you're referring to. This is what you said:

When the amorphous rubble falls onto the top floors of the lower section, you want the connections between the floor trusses and the perimeter columns to shear, hurling columns for hundreds of feet, while the connections between the same floor trusses and the core beams hold firmly enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core.

Normally, when people are discussing floor truss seats on perimeter columns shearing, they're discussing the main towers, which is why I posted what I did. Added to that is your mention of columns being hurled "for hundreds of feet", which didn't happen in any case; being lever armed from an upper floor of a 110 story tower to land in around the 20th floor of a building across the street is not the same thing as being "hurled" by explosives. However, it is something that you conspiracy peddlers tend to only bring up in conjunction with the main towers, not WTC 7.

But if you're discussing 7 World Trade's failure modes, then, you need to state it, and not confuse matters by citing events associated with the main towers. Truss 2 in 7 World Trade did indeed fail at their column-truss connections, but if I recall correctly, it was a core column connection, not a perimeter one. Most of the column failure modes noted to have been significant in 7 World Trade's collapse were buckling.

In sum, you tell me which building you're referring to. Regardless, if you're talking about the main towers, the act of the floor trusses being forcibly sheared from their seats could on it's own be enough to at least buckle columns, if not shear them from each other. Being hit eccentrically by falling debris is something else that can cause them to come apart at their connection points. But even if somehow the seats failed and the trusses sheared away without pulling the columns off axis (an impossible situation, as far as I can tell), and no debris impacted the columns off axis (a ridiculous proposition), the columns could indeed not stand on their own, not for any reasonable vertical height at least. The few columns standing at the end of the collapse proves this; you see most of them slowly collapse while the dust is settling, and only a very small number remained upright. And they weren't all that tall, not relative to the height of the building.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg


Note, too, in the image you linked that the vertical box column is indeed laying nearly on it's side, which validates my argument that the columns could not stand on their own.


Even if the beams could be smashed away from the columns, the columns might topple over eventually, but I've yet to see a plausible reason for them to completely fall apart as the collapse is progressing.


You have no basis for this belief. The whole design of the towers is a testament to the fact that the columns could not stand on their own. Once again, they provided vertical support only; it took the entire structure, core and perimeter columns laterally supported by the floors, to stand. Leave out the lateral supports, they can not stand. How are they supposed to? Compare how slender they are relative to the building's height. That by itself, without all the other information available, should tell you why they couldn't.


One thing we all have in common here is we know the buildings were demolished. Some of us want to expose it, others want to cover it up.


Assertions are not proof. The evidence that exists rules out intentional demolitions.


Working out the energy totals in the whole system is an excellent way to avoid doing a meaningful analysis. Without a plausible mechanism to transfer the energy of the falling rubble onto the load-bearing structure below, there's no global collapse.


Without a plausible mechanism to transfer the energy of the falling rubble onto the load bearing structure below? One exists. It's called "impact". Duh. Rubble impacts floors; trusses shear off from seats, collapse continues. Perimeter and core columns are no longer tied to each other, floors are falling. What keeps the columns standing at that point? Especially in the light of the forces severing the floors and the debris hitting the columns off their vertical axis?


Each lower core beam had to be hit by something from above to shear at least one of its connections with the columns. If the upper floor beams lifted off the seats easily, they could only hit the beams below with their own energy, not the combined energy of the whole upper block.


What in God's name are you referring to here? If you're talking the Main Towers, the beams were the columns. All the vertical elements were columns; all the horizontal elements were floor trusses and assemblies. And rubble did impact those floors and severed them from the columns, the force of which could have easily caused the vertical columns to separate from each other at their connection points. Furthermore, you're serving word salad again: Most of the energy was spent against the floor truss to column connections; you don't need to defeat the strength of the columns to cause the main towers to collapse; all you need to do is slam out the elements tying the core and perimeter columns together. There was more than enough mass to do that had it landed on the floors gently, let alone at the accelerating rate it was falling at.

If you're talking about tower 7, you're miles away from the collapse progression in your description. The loss of column 79 set into action a series of floor failures which removed lateral support for interior columns, which then buckled and caused exterior columns to fail. Debris impacting was only part of the story, and only in the case of trusses 1 and 2 were significant in causing truss-column connection failure. So once again: You tell me which building you're referring to. Your generic, superficial description suggests the main towers, but you're the one being neither specific nor clear.

And: The "upper beams" lifted off their seats easily? That describes none of the collapses. In the main towers, the trusses were torn from their column seatings, which is expected when such an overload occurs; they're not expected to handle 10+ stories of weight, that wasn't the column-to-truss seat's job, that was the duty of the columns themselves. If you're talking WTC 7... well, for the umpteenth, your description does not apply to it. The initial failure there was a column failure causing sympathetic floor failures (they descended) causing column buckling.


Imagine WTC7 was brought down by a two-stage controlled demolition where one column is taken out first, then 7 seconds later, the remaining 80 columns are removed. The interior columns are removed slightly before the perimeter ones, so that the sides will fold inward to minimize damage to neighbouring buildings. In what way would the collapse mechanism of such a controlled demolition be visibly different from what we see in the videos from 9/11. I'm talking about the sequence and rate of column failures, not periphery characteristics, such as flashes and expulsions.

In that imaginary scenario, I imaging that it would indeed "look" somewhat similar. So what? What's that supposed to prove? Superficial similarities in appearance do not narrow down the possibilities to explosives only, and on top of that, such a scenario would certainly not sound similar. Furthermore, in the case of explosives demolitions, you wouldn't be lacking characteristic blast effects on neighboring buildings, nor barotraumatic effects on rescuers and victims nearby.

------

Look, you need to step back and actually study the collapses. Ignoring your need to inject explosives into the discussion, you are most definitely not discussing the failure modes that occurred in any of the collapses. You do not properly describe the structural elements of either the main towers or WTC 7, nor do you properly recite the series of failures that occurred in either case. You do not even have the level of knowledge regarding the collapses that RedIbis or Christophera had, and your arguments suffer because of it. Study what happened. Study the failure modes. You're way behind in your level of knowledge, and your continued desire to insist on explosives use does not rescue your argument, not when you don't even describe non-controversial aspects of the collapse properly. Study first, then come back here and make your arguments.

[TruthersLie]

It looks like you jumped the gun here. If you actually read what I said you would see that I do not believe the FDNY was in on the plot and that the only thing the real plotters needed to do concerning WTC 7 was to manipulate the fire chief. It isn't hard to imagine something said to him like "there has been so much loss of life maybe the best thing to do is let it burn and pull everybody away from it".

I do believe Rudy Giulliani was in on the plot and that it would not be hard for him and his accomplices to manipulate Chief Daniel Nigro.

Let us also not forget that Rudy built his Emergency Command center on the 23rd floor of WTC 7 over the objections of both the FDNY and NYPD.

Giulliani's office said WTC 7 was lost at about 12:30 PM. What basis did they have for that?

Your ad hominem comments are not becoming of an engineer Ryan.

Hey pot... it is the kettle calling.... something about being black. Go figure.

No instead of ad hom, you are accusing individuals of murder and conspiracy to commit murder of 3,000 people. WITH NO PROOF.

[Mancman]

Watch this at 7 minutes in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg



Fake audio, real one is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc

Could you fail any harder?

[TruthersLie]

You have no proof that Nigro was not influenced in his decision.

I have not said anything about Chief Nigro being in on a plot and it is obvious in my comments. Here again you are trying to put words in my mouth. Why would you do that? I have said that I believe Rudy Giulliani was involved in a plot and I stand by that assessment. This is the guy who said "we were told the towers were going to collapse and then they did collapse", but won't tell anyone who told him that and how they would have known that. Giulliani needs to be investigated and questioned under oath also.

Hey tony.

I told my wife about 30 minutes before the towers were going to collapse that they would.

I also told her at noon that it looked like wtc7 was going to collapse and I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

I must be in on it.

or maybe, just maybe I have a working brain and some experience which can point it out.

na... must be the first one.


As far as any tilt prior to vertical drop is concerned, it is absolutely impossible to see in the video I showed. You were obviously making things up there by pretending to see it. You weren't very convincing.


Man you really are sticking with that sinking ship. The key for you is that highlighted portion right? In YOUR video YOU can't see it. So you ignore all of the other video evidence which has been handed to you on a silver platter. Nice job. Please remind me of what you have "engineered" so I never use it.

[triforcharity]

argument from ignorance?

Why don't we say a **** load?

Do you think firefighters carry around extra firetrucks in their back pockets?

Well, we do have big pockets!!

I estimate that about 25% of the city's firetrucks were destroyed that day.

Now, to some, 25% might not seem like alot, but if you look at the list of WHAT they were, you will notice some pretty important trucks that were lost.

http://www.alf700.com/apparatus%20destroyed%209-11.htm

Some of the most specialized, and most important, were :

Tactical Support Unit 1
Mask Unit 4 (Refill station and SCBA supply house on wheels)
Sat 1 (Communications)

Including 3 HazMat trucks.

This put FDNY in a hurting condition, that is for damn sure.

[TruthersLie]

I love ignorant twoofs who data mine.

Testimony of firefighters from first responder documents.


You really should try to go and READ for COMPREHENSION those datamined quotes you are trying to use. NOT ONE believe it was CD.

Of course there were like 40 or so of them that said something like
"it sounded just like a runaway train" so does that mean trains were involved? go back and READ FOR COMPREHENSION.


At least one demolition expert has no doubt whatsoever that WTC7 was demolished by "a team of experts". I have no reason to believe he's unqualified, dishonest or deluded


Ah yes. Danny J. I'm glad you believe that is is not unqualified, dishonest or deluded. What does he say about wtc1 and 2?

i'm more than willing to accept ALL of his statements. Why aren't you? AGain, what does he say about wtc 1 and 2?

Didn't you just say he isn't unqualified not dishonest and isn't deluded?


Why do demolition teams go to all the trouble of wiring a building for demolition when they could just throw a match in?


Argument from ignorance and incredulity noted and rejected.
Now why would they actually do CD?

Lets see.
1. fires burn things, which cause other fires.
2. fires burn things which releases toxic smoke
3. buildings which collapse from fire are unpredictable and dangerous.
4. Nothing guarantees that a building that is allowed to burn will collapse.

Now why would they not just "throw a match in?" DUR.

Now if you want to be more accurate, Why don't they slam a hundred ton metal bullet into it and let it burn, OR why don't they drop thousands of tons of debris on the side of it and let it burn... at least that is a more accurate reflection of what happened.

But I think it is like your not understanding momentum...


Debunkers go quiet when it's pointed out to them that their beliefs are based on assumptions, not observations.


Not at all. I fully accept that many of NISTs claims are basd on data that is from both observatin and their assumptions based on the observations..

Except that when someone with the relevant degrees and TONS of experience tells me they are making a claim, I listen to them.

When I have a head ache, I go see my Dr. If it continues I go to a neurologist. I don't go to a plumber. My neurologist then can make an assumption based on the observations about what my issue is.

NIST (and others who are structural engineers and qualified) has made their diagnosis. Please provide me with another qualified second opinion. I'll take any peer reviewed engineering journal from anywhere in the world which says NIST is wrong. Please provide JUST ONE.

[triforcharity]

Plus, not to mention, just throwing a match in an empty building, with no contents, might not get very hot.

Secondly, most buildings have concrete cores, and would most likely NOT collapse.

Ie: Mandarin Fire or the CCTY Fire in Asia.

[newton3376]

Of course it's true. Read here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4657997#post4657997), and watch it bounce off at free-fall speed.

I just read that post.....I honestly don't know what to say.

For the love of Zeus....

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This looks like a take from BBC's The Third Tower. Nigro doesn't answer the types of questions I think need to be asked of him here. I do not believe he was involved in any conspiracy, but his comments here do not rule out influence as to whether the building's structural integrity was at risk.

The other thing that is interesting is that he orders the collapse zone drawback at 3:00 PM. Why weren't the fires fought in WTC 7 earlier?

I also thought it was interesting at 6:50 into the clip to see a fire hydrant with water in it being used by firemen to rinse off and cool down. They don't say exactly where it was located though.

Tony,

Do you have Controlled Demolition or Firefighting credentials?

If not, why bother?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Danny Jowenko is a controllled demolition expert and he says it was a "hired job".

Danny Jowenko never mentioned hearing about explosive sounds coming from ANY video that he watched or listened too.

Why is that?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

We understand the nature of NIST's imagination.

Bard,

You're not a firefighter, you don't have any credentials to prove what you say about fire protection in steel high rise buildings.

Read NISTs Chapter 9 about fire protection recommendations instead of shooting your damn mouth off like an idiot.

[bardamu]

This is why engaging truthers in discussion always ends in a downward spiral. Tony may be an engineer, but he sacrificed any engineering approach to the issue once his pet theories were endangered and began dragging out the serious "woo" arguments. What's next? Implicating Silverstein because he's a jew?

End of debate. A jewish property developer is implicated in a fraud so it can't have happened.


You are obviously putting words into my mouth because you are reading too much into my intent...

What does under oath have to do with having them testify and/or be questioned separately? The two are not mutually exclusive. Once again, another truther paradox...the evildoers are intelligent and powerful enough to carry out the largest, most complex cover up in world history, but too stupid or crappy at it to survive a cross examination when separated.


You are consistently pathetic. Most people would expect a judge to question a bunch of suspected conspirators separately, unless of course they are the President and Vice President. While the conspirators may be intelligent and powerful at the top level, the lower level operatives could never hope to survive a cross examination.



If you step back from your personal need, your ego's investment, as it were, and simply accept that YOU MAY BE COMPLETELY WRONG, all of the other things fall away into nothing.

Tony, if you can accept that that a series of events with odds of trillions to one against could have happened by chance, you may be completely wrong.


Please do, and I can easily show you how they were datamined and quotemined and taken out of context.


Yeah, they heard the pop pop pops at a fireworks display the week before.


Tony,

The crap scented spew in this thread from you is repulsive. I will be traveling to NYC tomorrow evening for a Monday meeting. Coincidentally, I will be in Lower Manhattan for this. If you have any conneries, why don't we meet me for coffee and then take a walk to one of the ladder companies down there and you can ask them why they didn't fight the fires. Explain to them how they intentionally failed to fight these fires. Will you? You spineless douche.

While you're there you can call in on the 9/11 widows and tell them why you think there are no questions to be answered and why you think the government has been completely open about all the issues. If you haven't got the stomach to go on your own, you could always take Henry Kissenger along.


Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simile) literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor)

Simile: "It was as if they had detonated a building" = there was a gust of wind.

Metaphor: "Then there was a heavy-duty explosion" = there was another gust of wind.



Study fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

That particular authority found that the testimony of 118 firefighters supports the controlled demolition hypothesis, whereas the testimony of only 10 firefighters supports the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. You can ignore those findings on the basis that I quoted the source of the research.

[BigAl]

End of debate. A jewish property developer is implicated in a fraud so it can't have happened.

Noted.


You are consistently pathetic. Most people would expect a judge to question a bunch of suspected conspirators separately, unless of course they are the President and Vice President. While the conspirators may be intelligent and powerful at the top level, the lower level operatives could never hope to survive a cross examination.



Judges don't question qitnessis in the US legal system. Where are you from?


Tony, if you can accept that that a series of events with odds of trillions to one against could have happened by chance, you may be completely wrong.


You are as ignorant of probability and statistics as you are about US law and the details of what happened on 9/11.

[Mr.Herbert]

While you're there you can call in on the 9/11 widows and tell them why you think there are no questions to be answered and why you think the government has been completely open about all the issues. If you haven't got the stomach to go on your own, you could always take Henry Kissenger along.


Let's start with the firefighters first. You can actually come with us tomorrow. I will have my camera ready when you repeat this statement to them:
The Fire Department sacrificed their own.

I will be clicking away as you and Tony get your asses kicked into next week. In reality, you are probably even a bigger coward than Tony Z.

[A W Smith]

This is what the truth movement has come down to? Now all that's left is the scumbag no planers? regurgitating stuff thats been debunked in 07?

[triforcharity]

Simile: "It was as if they had detonated a building" = there was a gust of wind.

Metaphor: "Then there was a heavy-duty explosion" = there was another gust of wind.


AS IF Which means "It looked like it did, but in fact it did not."

Now, please post the exact quote, with the name of the firefighter who said it, and I will show you the rest of the quote where it goes into more detail as to what really happened.




That particular authority found that the testimony of 118 firefighters supports the controlled demolition hypothesis, whereas the testimony of only 10 firefighters supports the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. You can ignore those findings on the basis that I quoted the source of the research.

"authority" Yeah, that is funny.

10 firefighters?? Not even close.

I didn't see the source. But, I did show you the complete testimony of all of the interviewers.
Now, I din't know if you saw it, but here it is again, just in case you missed it.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

[TruthersLie]

End of debate. A jewish property developer is implicated in a fraud so it can't have happened.


Please... I'm begging you. Provide proof of any fraud. The insurance companies paid out. Insurance companies realllllly don't like paying out. If there was even a hint of fraud, they wouldn't have.

Oh wait... they must be in on it too... And the conspiracy grows and grows and grows.


You are consistently pathetic. Most people would expect a judge to question a bunch of suspected conspirators separately, unless of course they are the President and Vice President.

Typical twoof tactic... dodge dodge dodge and shift shift shift. Good try, you might just want to look up the history of presidents speaking to investigations. Nothing is wrong with what GWB and DC did. Your ignorance is showing yet again.


While the conspirators may be intelligent and powerful at the top level, the lower level operatives could never hope to survive a cross examination.


Not possible. I mean if the conspirators were "intelligent" they would never use the rube goldberg conspiracy machine. There were LOTS of other ways to attack, kill more people in more horrific ways with lots fewer people being involved which would point to Iraq (and give a clear path to invade)

Tony, if you can accept that that a series of events with odds of trillions to one against could have happened by chance, you may be completely wrong.


Please compute the probabilities since you are claiming random crap. I'd love to see it.

again I await your mathematical proof. please provide it or admit you are talking out of your ass.


While you're there you can call in on the 9/11 widows and tell them why you think there are no questions to be answered and why you think the government has been completely open about all the issues. If you haven't got the stomach to go on your own, you could always take Henry Kissenger along.


Appeal to emotion. Rejected. Try again. which 9/11 widows? Oh the Jersey girls? Or other ones?


Simile: "It was as if they had detonated a building" = there was a gust of wind.

Metaphor: "Then there was a heavy-duty explosion" = there was another gust of wind.


again you should go and READ the full quotations. I know you can't. But if you want I can help you sign up for a READING FOR COMPREHENSION class my wife offers. Pm me and I'll see if we can sign you up. Be aware the vast majority of the students are from the middle east and ESL speakers. I'm sure you can catch up to their reading comprehension levels if you work hard though.


That particular authority found that the testimony of 118 firefighters supports the controlled demolition hypothesis, whereas the testimony of only 10 firefighters supports the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. You can ignore those findings on the basis that I quoted the source of the research.
Truther LIE. Please go back and READ the FULL testimony. Not one supports controlled demolition hypothesis. Datamined quotes are ********.

try to not step on your dick so much... it has to hurt.

[triforcharity]

I even linked to the full testamony.

I wonder if he will actually read it.

10-1 says no.

[T.A.M.]

I love it when a no-planer calls me pathetic. There should be a badge given for such an honor.

TAM:)

[AZCat]

Can't you argue the details? You seem to be capable of nothing but ad hominem.

There's no point in arguing the details with you when you can't even get the basic concepts right.

Are you going to answer my other question? Have you ever designed a fire protection system for a building?

[AZCat]

I just read that post.....I honestly don't know what to say.

For the love of Zeus....

Exactly. Dave Rogers isn't the first person to have pointed this out to Tony. This is why discussing the details with him is pointless, because he doesn't even understand the basics.

[AZCat]

End of debate. A jewish property developer is implicated in a fraud so it can't have happened.

Nice attempt at misdirection, except you failed.

[triforcharity]

Hey Tony,

Care to address any of my questions/comments I posted in the past 2-3 pages?