Anomolies at ground zero

[stateofgrace]

No, but then again i'm not conducting an investigation and presenting conclusions before NIST has.

Yet you are quite happy to dismmiss the NIST final report into the collapse of the Towers?

[firecoins]

Please stop side stepping. Gravy is writing papers saying 7 fell due to damage and fire, even though he is not an engineer and NIST have not concluded their inquiry.
they have on buildings 1 & 2. Only 7 is stull under investigation. Gravy is using the info from the report on 1 & 2 which says damage and fire.

[Gravy]

Please stop side stepping. Gravy is writing papers saying 7 fell due to damage and fireProve it.

[Pardalis]

Name one person I have accused.

You're saying that WTC7 was brought down by explosives right? PEOPLE must have done that, right?

[Docker]

You even lie about lying. Pathetic.

Your OKC thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67011)awaits, Docker. Have at it, with all your evidence.

Answer my question gravy. Why are you writing papers saying 7 fell due to fire and damage, and telling people this, when NIST have not concluded their final report on it?

I await an answer

[defaultdotxbe]

Please stop side stepping. Gravy is writing papers saying 7 fell due to damage and fire, even though he is not an engineer and NIST have not concluded their inquiry.
does it matter? does gravy ever claim to be a structural engineer? is there some problem with looking at evidence and drawing conclusions? if a structural engineer came along and said gravy was wrong, do you think gravy woudl clal the engineer a liar?

[Docker]

Prove it.

Prove it? The paper is linked in your signature.

[stateofgrace]

I have written no papers nor have I reached conclusions. I'm doing what gravy should be doing. Waiting for the experts to conclude.

Like the final report into the Towers, which you have dismissed?

[Docker]

does it matter? does gravy ever claim to be a structural engineer? is there some problem with looking at evidence and drawing conclusions? if a structural engineer came along and said gravy was wrong, do you think gravy woudl clal the engineer a liar?

Gravy has no right to pre-empt a scientific investigation and present those findings as fact. He is not a scientist (as far as I know)

[Gravy]

I have written no papers nor have I reached conclusions. I'm doing what gravy should be doing. Waiting for the experts to conclude.Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb.Another lie? This is wild, wild stuff! Are you a pathological liar, Docker? What is going on?

[Gravy]

Gravy has no right to pre-empt a scientific investigation and present those findings as fact.Prove your claims, liar.

[defaultdotxbe]

Gravy has no right to pre-empt a scientific investigation and present those findings as fact. He is not a scientist (as far as I know)
does he present his conclusions as fact?

[Docker]

You're saying that WTC7 was brought down by explosives right? PEOPLE must have done that, right?

Name a person I have accused. Give me their name. I am waiting.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I have written no papers nor have I reached conclusions. I'm doing what gravy should be doing. Waiting for the experts to conclude.

No, you are posting vague accusations on a message board. You lack of application of scientific process, and transparency of actions speak very loudly of your intent.

[Gravy]

Prove it? The paper is linked in your signature.You would benefit from reading it.

[Docker]

Prove your claims, liar.

The paper is in you sig. I am not quoting a paper you wrote.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Gravy has no right to pre-empt a scientific investigation and present those findings as fact. He is not a scientist (as far as I know)

He is preempting nothing

Main Entry: pre·empt
Pronunciation: prE-'em(p)t
Function: verb
Etymology: back-formation from preemption
transitive verb
1 : to acquire (as land) by preemption
2 : to seize upon to the exclusion of others : take for oneself <the movement was then preempted by a lunatic fringe>
3 : to replace with something considered to be of greater value or priority : take precedence over <the program did not appear, having been preempted by a baseball game -- Robert MacNeil>
4 : to gain a commanding or preeminent place in
5 : to prevent from happening or taking place : FORESTALL, PRECLUDE

[Pardalis]

Name a person I have accused. Give me their name. I am waiting.

Then what exactly are you saying about WTC7?

What happened to WTC7 ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Name a person I have accused. Give me their name. I am waiting.

You are accusing unnamed parties. Not unlike a "John Doe" lawsuit, whereby the defendant's name is not known until warrants are executed, etc. Don't play the martyr, no one is buying it.

[Docker]

You would benefit from reading it.

I have. Its a scurrilous piece, libelling Steven Jones for a start.

[Docker]

You are accusing unnamed parties. Not unlike a "John Doe" lawsuit, whereby the defendant's name is not known until warrants are executed, etc. Don't play the martyr, no one is buying it.

So I am not accusing people. Glad we got that cleared up.

Please stop misrepresenting me.

[Gravy]

The paper is in you sig. I am not quoting a paper you wrote.Okay, so that's three lies on two pages.

Remember this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2031320&postcount=162), from last night?
I refuse to even discuss eyewitness accounts with people that just cherry pick the ones that support them.Remember me asking you again and again for your quotes that contradict mine, and you failing to produce them?

That's because you lied.

So what's going on, Docker? Why can't, or why won't, you stop lying?

[defaultdotxbe]

So I am not accusing people. Glad we got that cleared up.

Please stop misrepresenting me.
unnamed parties are people too!

dont make me start a human rights group

[Pardalis]

Whats happened to WTC7 according to you Docker?

[Gravy]

So I am not accusing people. Glad we got that cleared up.

Please stop misrepresenting me.Then you agree that Chief Daniel Nigro was telling the truth about building 7 and about his order to withdraw from it?

[Docker]

Whats happened to WTC7 according to you Docker?

I don't know. Thats why i'm waiting for the final report. Although I welcome their decision to examine blast scenarios.

[Docker]

Then you agree that Chief Daniel Nigro was telling the truth about building 7 and about his order to withdraw from it?

Yes I see no reason for him to lie, but that doesn't prove blasts weren't involved.

Why did you claim Jones is "deliberately" misrepresenting the events of 9/11? You can't know this. Prove it or it's libel.

[Gravy]

I don't know. Thats why i'm waiting for the final report. Although I welcome their decision to examine blast scenarios.The NIST port isn't about Nigro's statement. I ask you again: do you agree that he was telling the truth?

[Docker]

The NIST port isn't about Nigro's statement. I ask you again: do you agree that he was telling the truth?

Yes I agree, I don't think any fireman would be involved in blowing up buildings. I think the death of those brave firemen was the saddest part about 9/11.

[Pardalis]

I don't know. Thats why i'm waiting for the final report. Although I welcome their decision to examine blast scenarios.

So what was this about?:

Unexploded devices were removed.

[Gravy]

Why did you claim Jones is "deliberately" misrepresenting the events of 9/11? You can't know this. Prove it or it's libel.

“See, guys, this is all ‘straw man.’ We never said the firemen were involved. He just claimed we said it. He’s a liar! That’s what liars do. They build straw men.”

“Just like you heard it: he claimed we blamed the firemen. We never said that. He just made it up.”

“He blamed us for saying the firefighters were in on it.”

“He’s claiming I blame firefighters. ...And none of it’s true.”

“He set the subject, he made up that we blame the firefighters.”
Alex Jones’ PrisonPlanet.com: Silverstein, FDNY Decided to “Pull WTC 7”

Alex Jones' infowars.com: “World Trade Center 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY And Others”

[Docker]

Gravy how dare you say that Jones deliberately misled when he produced the slide showing building 7?

[Docker]

Alex Jones’ PrisonPlanet.com: Silverstein, FDNY Decided to “Pull WTC 7”

Alex Jones' infowars.com: “World Trade Center 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY And Others”

I agree, Jones is wrong to even mention the FDNY.

[Gravy]

Yes I agree, I don't think any fireman would be involved in blowing up buildings. I think the death of those brave firemen was the saddest part about 9/11.
Maybe Alex Jones isn't the guy you want as your avatar, then, even in jest.

[Docker]

I am not a fan of Alex Jones so your giving this to the wrong person.

[defaultdotxbe]

Gravy how dare you say that Jones deliberately misled when he produced the slide showing building 7?
didnt you just get done calling gravy a liar for commenting on WTC7 before the NIST report was completed? so what does that make jones?

[Gravy]

Gravy how dare you say that Jones deliberately misled when he produced the slide showing building 7?Steven Jones deliberately misled about building 7 several times. Which slide do you mean: the one where he said the photo was taken from near the north tower in the afternoon, or the one from the north side that represented 7's "small fires?"

[Docker]

Maybe Alex Jones isn't the guy you want as your avatar, then, even in jest.

It isn't jest. I have explained why I picked the avatar. I will not be dictated to by you who my avatar should be.

[Pardalis]

Docker, you claimed "unexploded devices were removed" from WTC7.

Who did this?

[Docker]

Steven Jones deliberately misled about building 7 several times. Which slide do you mean?

The slide where he shows 7 earlier in the day with little smoke. He gave that lecture a while ago, you cannot say it was deliberate.

[Docker]

Docker, you claimed "unexploded devices were removed" from WTC7.

Who did this?
Pay attention. I said OKC had unexploded devices.

Please stop misrepresenting me.

[Docker]

Right pardalis what is your game?

[Pardalis]

Pay attention. I said OKC had unexploded devices.

Please stop misrepresenting me.

Ah, sorry about that, honest mistake.

[Gravy]

The slide where he shows 7 earlier in the day with little smoke. He gave that lecture a while ago, you cannot say it was deliberate.You're saying that in his 2006 presentation he ACCIDENTALLY used that photo, rather than any of the photos or videos I presented? Is that what you're saying, Docker? That scientist Jones accidentally used the photo and talked about it?

And here is my description of that photo, from page 86-87 of my paper:

The title of the slide is "WTC 7 on the Afternoon of 9/11/01"

In his February, 2006 presentation at Utah Valley State College, Dr. Jones spends a good deal of time discussing WTC 7’s condition and playing videos of its collapse. Here’s a slide he uses as an overview. Keep two things in mind here: Jones is a scientist who surely must know how the scientific method works, and Jones presents this as being representative of WTC 7’s condition: [Slide]

Above the photo it says, “Not much smoke or visible damage.” First, this photo was not taken in the afternoon from the area of WTC 1, as Jones claims. It was taken in the morning, shortly after the towers collapsed, from Church Street at the southeast corner of the site, as far from WTC 1 as it’s possible to be and still be in view of the site.

How can we tell it’s a morning shot? The sun is strong on WTC 7’s east face, and the south face is in shadow. Debris from tower 2 is at left, WTC 4 is at center, and WTC 5 is at right. Why does this anger me? Because, as we read in the eyewitness accounts, the fires in WTC 7 did not spread extensively until the afternoon. Steven Jones deliberately chose a photo that was taken before WTC 7 was heavily involved with fire.He's a disgrace, and so is your behavior here, Docker. Why are you doing this?

[Docker]

You're saying that in his 2006 presentation he ACCIDENTALLY used that photo, rather than any of the photos or videos I presented? Is that what you're saying, Docker? That scientist Jones accidentally used the photo and talked about it?

And here is my description of that photo, from page 86-87 of my paper:


He's a disgrace, and so is your behavior here, Docker. Why are you doing this?

He may have been misled. He only got into 9/11 last year. You cant say it was deliberate without proof.

[Jedi_Master]

Howdy folks...

Just a question...

Does anyone know when those bottom two pictures of the police crusier were taken ?

Because in the bottom picture, in the background it looks like the towers and building 7 are still standing...

[firecoins]

Why did you claim Jones is "deliberately" misrepresenting the events of 9/11? You can't know this. Prove it or it's libel.

Yes we can prove it! And no it isn't Libel! Jones has a career of Libel!

[gumboot]

Howdy folks...

Just a question...

Does anyone know when those bottom two pictures of the police crusier were taken ?

Because in the bottom picture, in the background it looks like the towers and building 7 are still standing...


Some of the NYC natives seem to think the photos were taken well away from the WTC site, and suggested the vehicle had been moved there some time after the event.

And welcome to the forums. :)

-Gumboot

[firecoins]

Howdy folks...

Just a question...

Does anyone know when those bottom two pictures of the police crusier were taken ?

Because in the bottom picture, in the background it looks like the towers and building 7 are still standing...
you obviously haven't read the thread. The police cruiser is next to the East River under the FDR highway overpass no where near the WTC site. Your looking across the East River into Queens or Brooklyn. You do not see the twin towers in either curiser picture.

[firecoins]

Some of the NYC natives seem to think the photos were taken well away from the WTC site, and suggested the vehicle had been moved there some time after the event.

And welcome to the forums. :)

-Gumboot
That assumes that the picture is related to 9/11 and that is debatable. There is no date, us NY natives know it ain't at ground zero and we dont know if it was moved to this location from ground zero or it burned in an unrelated event.

[Docker]

Yes we can prove it! And no it isn't Libel! Jones has a career of Libel!

Please present this proof.

[firecoins]

Please present this proof.
The NIST report om WTC 1 and 2 and the 9/11 commission both dispute everything Jones says and are admissable in court as they were written under the laws of perjury.

[Docker]

The NIST report om WTC 1 and 2 and the 9/11 commission both dispute everything Jones says and are admissable in court as they were written under the laws of perjury.

Please present proof that Jones deliberately misled anyone. I'm still waiting

[firecoins]

Please present proof that Jones deliberately misled anyone. I'm still waiting
Well since the The 9/11 commission and NIST reports are considered the offical report and Jones is deliberatly saying different from this. By reason of deduction, he is committing libel. He is blaming everyone but the 9/11 perps.

[gumboot]

Please present proof that Jones deliberately misled anyone. I'm still waiting


Because no one could be stupid enough to ACTUALLY believe what he is claiming. Therefore he must know he is lying. ;)

-Gumboot

[Docker]

Well since the The 9/11 commission and NIST reports are considered the offical report and Jones is deliberatly saying different from this. By reason of deduction, he is committing libel. He is blaming everyone but the 9/11 perps.

He has never blamed anyone. It is not libel to disagree with a report.

Yet again I ask for your proof that he deliberately misled by his choice of building 7 picture.

[Jedi_Master]

you obviously haven't read the thread. The police cruiser is next to the East River under the FDR highway overpass no where near the WTC site. Your looking across the East River into Queens or Brooklyn. You do not see the twin towers in either curiser picture.

OOps...

I'll back out now...

Carry on...

[Docker]

I'm going to send gravy;s paper to Jones, just make sure he knows what is being said about him.

[Oliver]

I'm going to send gravy;s paper to Jones, just make sure he knows what is being said about him.

Please send him my Jellypictures, too. I guess it will open his mind. :)

[Pardalis]

Should we talk to M. Silverstein as well about what the truthers are saying about him?

[Docker]

Should we talk to M. Silverstein as well about what the truthers are saying about him?

Do what you like, I have never libeled Silverstein. I'm sure he knows, but go ahead and tell him.

[RandFan]

Do what you like, I have never libeled Silverstein. I'm sure he knows, but go ahead and tell him.Please let Alex Jones know that in my opinion he's intellectually dishonest and a prick.

[Docker]

Please let Alex Jones know that in my opinion he's intellectually dishonest and a prick.

I agree with you. But you haven't published it.

[Pardalis]

So to summarize, you think that maybe WTC7 was brought down by explosives, but you also don't dismiss the official story, Docker?

[Docker]

So to summarize, you think that maybe WTC7 was brought down by explosives, but you also don't dismiss the official story, Docker?

The official story doesn't know what happened to 7.

[RandFan]

I agree with you. But you haven't published it.How is my making a public statement on an internet forum that Gravy making a statement in a word doc?

ETA: I was really looking for the fame of being sued by Jones.

[Pardalis]

The official story doesn't know what happened to 7.

But is it a relatively good hypothesis?

[Docker]

How is my making a public statement on an internet forum that Gravy making a statement in a word doc?

ETA: I was really looking for the fame of being sued by Jones.

Why do you dislike jones?

[Pardalis]

Docker, do you agree that the collapse of WTC7 due to structural damage and fire is a relatively good hypothesis?

[Docker]

Docker, do you agree that the collapse of WTC7 due to structural damage and fire is a relatively good hypothesis?

No, because FEMA themselves stated that that hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurence"

[Pardalis]

No, because FEMA themselves stated that that hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurence"

Care to show me the exact quote?

ETA: nevermind I got it:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.(Chapter 5, pg 31.)

[defaultdotxbe]

No, because FEMA themselves stated that that hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurence"
they also describe that as their best hypothesis, what does that say about the notion of explosives?

[Docker]

Care to show me the exact quote?

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. "

[Docker]

they also describe that as their best hypothesis, what does that say about the notion of explosives?

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

[Pardalis]

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

Where?

Funny that you left out this part:

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors.

[defaultdotxbe]

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.
arent allowed? thats the dumbest thing youve said today, although its only 1am

except they ARE considering explosives as a hypothesis, remember we discussed it already in this thread?

[Pardalis]

did you read any of this Docker?

www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[Pardalis]

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

Where does it say that in the report?

www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[Pardalis]

BTW Docker, I've found the thread where the Danny Jowenko was discussed.

Have a good read.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884

[Docker]

arent allowed? thats the dumbest thing youve said today, although its only 1am

except they ARE considering explosives as a hypothesis, remember we discussed it already in this thread?
No NIST are considering explosives. Please pay attention.

[Docker]

BTW Docker, I've found the thread where the Danny Jowenko was discussed.

Have a good read.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884

Interesting to see that you lot rush to silence any one brave enough to come forward.

[Pardalis]

Interesting to see that you lot rush to silence any one brave enough to come forward.

Wow, you read fast! Just read the thread. You might learn a few things.

Oh, and where does it say here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884) that the investigators weren't allowed to investigate explosives?

[Docker]

Wow, you read fast! Just read the thread. You might learn a few things.

Oh, and where does it say here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884) that the investigators weren't allowed to investigate explosives?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me now?

You said "what does that say about explosives"

I'm not claiming the report says it.

[Pardalis]

Maybe you could enlighten me.

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

What does that mean?

[Docker]

Maybe you could enlighten me.



What does that mean?

Exactly what it says.

[Pardalis]

What does the "IT" refer to?

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

[defaultdotxbe]

What does the "IT" refer to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Wrinkle_in_Time#Synopsis ??

[Docker]

Heres what Fire Engineering said about the FEMA investigation:

"half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

[Docker]

What does the "IT" refer to?
It was the response to your "what"

You said what does that say about explosives.

[Pardalis]

Stop stalling please.

No, because FEMA themselves stated that that hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurence"

they also describe that as their best hypothesis, what does that say about the notion of explosives?

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

What did you mean exactly?

[Docker]

Stop stalling please.







What did you mean exactly?]

Look at my Fire Engineering quote above. That is what I mean.

[Pardalis]

Heres what Fire Engineering said about the FEMA investigation:

"half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

Who is that quote from?

[Docker]

Who is that quote from?

The Editor of Fire Engineering. Incidentally that magazine is the most respected and longest established magazine of it's kind.

[Pardalis]

Name, link?

ETA: no wonder you have almost 500 posts, you're dragging a fairly easy answer for so long...

[Docker]

Name, link?

Bill Manning

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

[Pardalis]

Bill Manning

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

Finally. I'll look at it tomorrow.

[Docker]

Finally. I'll look at it tomorrow.

You mean you refute the 9/11 CTs yet you haven't even seen this?

[Pardalis]

First off, this is from January 2002.

Also, there's nothing here that says anything about the hypothesis of explosives.

[Docker]

First off, this is from January 2002.

Also, there's nothing here that says anything about the hypothesis of explosives.

Yes thats when FEMA did its investigation while the evidence was being destroyed. I never said it mentions explosives but it suggests FEMA had been commandeered by political forces

[Pardalis]

I never said it mentions explosives but it suggests FEMA had been commandeered by political forces

So basically that was bull?:

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

ETA: But thanks for the link to Fire Engeneering, I shall read more about what they say about 9/11. Apparently, they have a podcast about it.

[gumboot]

Yes thats when FEMA did its investigation while the evidence was being destroyed. I never said it mentions explosives but it suggests FEMA had been commandeered by political forces


FEMA's "investigation" was a nine day assessment of the damage to buildings on and around the WTC site.

I really don't understand what you're getting so excited about.

P.S.... "while the evidence was being destroyed"? Please stop lying. It's getting a bit silly.

-Gumboot

[Skibum]

I never said it mentions explosives but it suggests FEMA had been commandeered by political forces

Imagine that a government agency being commandeered by political forces.

[Pardalis]

So, Dorker, your claim that FEMA was not allowed to investigate explosives is baseless.

Pathetic.

[Docker]

So, Dorker, your claim that FEMA was not allowed to investigate explosives is baseless.

Pathetic.

I never claimed that.

Right, you have misrepresented me once too often. It's time to use the old ignore button methinks

[Gravy]

He may have been misled. He only got into 9/11 last year. You cant say it was deliberate without proof.
:dl:

I only "got into" 9/11 this year. Please explain how Steven E. Jones may have been misled about the photos he used, the text he wrote, and the presentation he gave.

I'm very eager to hear your explanation of the forces at work.

[Docker]

:dl:

I only "got into" 9/11 this year. Please explain how Steven E. Jones may have been misled about the photos he used, the text he wrote, and the presentation he gave.

I'm very eager to hear your explanation of the forces at work.

I said last year. Why are you misrepresenting me again?

Also may I ask why you have not approached Jones with your concerns? Or do you just berate people on the sly?

[Skibum]

I said last year. Why are you misrepresenting me again?

Also may I ask why you have not approached Jones with your concerns? Or do you just berate people on the sly?

You don't know Gravy very well do you.
He has absolutely no problems taking those fools head on.

IIRC he has a face to face debate scheduled with Prof Fetzer.

[Docker]

You don't know Gravy very well do you.
He has absolutely no problems taking those fools head on.

IIRC he has a face to face debate scheduled with Prof Fetzer.

Fetzer will destroy him.

[Gravy]

I said last year. Why are you misrepresenting me again?

Also may I ask why you have not approached Jones with your concerns? Or do you just berate people on the sly?
Misrepresenting? Can you read?
Jones "got into" 9/11 last year, therefore, he may be misled? :eek: :jaw-dropp

I said I "got into" 9/11 this year. Therefore...:confused:

Your logic is breathtaking. Out of curiosity, are you actually old enough to be posting here?

I haven't approached Jones with my concerns? Really, genius? That's funny, someone with my name must be using my email address!

What a maroon.

[Skibum]

Fetzer will destroy him.

If destroy means, "won't allow him to get a word in edgewise due to psychotic rants and continuous topic changes" you might be correct.

[Gravy]

Fetzer will destroy him.No, no carry-on luggage will be allowed at the debate.

[Docker]

If destroy means, "won't allow him to get a word in edgewise due to psychotic rants and continuous topic changes" you might be correct.


I was thinking more about the lecturer in critical thinking taking gravy's weak arguments apart.

Will it be filmed?

[Gravy]

Second time: Please explain how Steven E. Jones may have been misled about the photos he used, the text he wrote, and the presentation he gave.

I'm very eager to hear your explanation of the forces at work.

[Docker]

No, no carry-on luggage will be allowed at the debate.

Fetzer won't need luggage, his concise arguments, honed by an experienced academic mind, will render you speechless.

Will you you the tactic you tried in the OKC thread? Set a little quiz for him and see what happens. He's a former marine so i'd be careful.

By the way, do you ever plan to refute the evidence I have provided?

[Docker]

Second time: Please explain how Steven E. Jones may have been misled about the photos he used, the text he wrote, and the presentation he gave.

I'm very eager to hear your explanation of the forces at work.

Maybe our friend Fetzer told him the pic was from the afternoon. Bear in mind that Jones was a practising professor at the time, he may not have had time to check those details.

You have libeled him.

[Mancman]

Fetzer won't need luggage, his concise arguments, honed by an experienced academic mind, will render you speechless.



I'm now convinced you're a comedy act.

[Skibum]

Maybe our friend Fetzer told him the pic was from the afternoon. Bear in mind that Jones was a practising professor at the time, he may not have had time to check those details.

You have libeled him.

That is funny, the man wrote "academic" papers which he claims are peer reviewed, I would certainly hope he fact checked.

[Docker]

That is funny, the man wrote "academic" papers which he claims are peer reviewed, I would certainly hope he fact checked.

It's not always easy to verify the time of a photo though, especially from such a confusing event as 911 where tens of thousands of photos were taken.

[Docker]

Steve Jones appears to be a very personable man. I don't see his motive for deliberately misleading. I mean he lost his job because of his 9/11 work, he is'nt making profit and he hasn't even made accusations about perpetrators.

Whats his motive?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I was thinking more about the lecturer in critical thinking taking gravy's weak arguments apart.

Am I the only one who finds the above sentence vaguely familiar? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2022335&postcount=55)

[Garb]

I never claimed that.

Right, you have misrepresented me once too often. It's time to use the old ignore button methinks

I really hope you don't play poker.

[Docker]

I really hope you don't play poker.

Why?

[Docker]

Am I the only one who finds the above sentence vaguely familiar? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2022335&postcount=55)

Who am I this time? I have been every member of the truth movement except Jusy Wood, in two days of being here.

[kookbreaker]

Fetzer will destroy him.

Krusty is coming.

[kookbreaker]

Who am I this time? I have been every member of the truth movement except Jusy Wood, in two days of being here.

Its pretty well established that you are pdhoerty by this point. You use the same arguements and phrases. It took a little while, but you kooks always shine through eventually.

[firecoins]

I'll give you a final chance to prove that you're not a liar. I asked you for evidence to back these claims. Produce it.
I am still waiting on his education.

[firecoins]

Talking of research, youv' got a 10,000 page report to read. Get busy.
have you read it?

[firecoins]

Who am I this time? I have been every member of the truth movement except Jusy Wood, in two days of being here.
you refuse to give your backround out of fear of being called a liar.

[Docker]

you refuse to give your backround out of fear of being called a liar.

Not fear. I just can't be bothered with the constant posts of "your lying about your education". Waste of time.

[Docker]

Its pretty well established that you are pdhoerty by this point. You use the same arguements and phrases. It took a little while, but you kooks always shine through eventually.

Am I? Thanks for telling who I am. Please give me your email address in case I ever suffer from total amnesia again.

[kookbreaker]

Am I? Thanks for telling who I am. Please give me your email address in case I ever suffer from total amnesia again.


Sorry bub, but when both of you tell the same exact lie by claiming that other folks lied about the WTC core, and both of you react the same way to eveidence to the contrary it kinda sticks out. I know you 911 cranks are remarkably unoriginal, but this is like a kook fingerprint. Sword merely pointed out another example.

[Docker]

Sorry bub, but when both of you tell the same exact lie by claiming that other folks lied about the WTC core, and both of you react the same way to eveidence to the contrary it kinda sticks out. I know you 911 cranks are remarkably unoriginal, but this is like a kook fingerprint. Sword merely pointed out another example.

Would you care to prove your assertion? If not please withdraw it. Thanks.

[Gravy]

Fetzer won't need luggage, his concise arguments, honed by an experienced academic mind, will render you speechless.
I admit it's hard to not be left speechless by Jim Fetzer's arguments.

"Scholar for Truth" Jim Fetzer, radio interview with Alan Colmes, June, 2006.

Colmes: Alright, alright, Joe you’re claiming your uncle was on the plane, your uncle died on Flight 93?

Joe: On the plane, and was talking to my aunt during the hijacking.

Fetzer: Oh really!

Joe: I guess my uncle is a liar.

Fetzer: On a cell phone? That’s incredible because you can’t make those cell phones! We have a professor of computer science who’s flying all over the country with different cell phones. He tries...

Joe: Oh God!

Fetzer: At altitudes above 2000 feet, at speeds above 230 it is almost impossible to make the connections. The relays…

Joe: Yo Einstein! Have you ever been on a plane, there is a phone on the back of every seat there!

****

Colmes: What specifically are you saying Dick Cheney did, what was his level of involvement in this? Was he part of planning an attack on the United States?

Fetzer: I have no doubt of that. It’s the only hypothesis that makes any sense. Okay, you’ve got people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Meyers, Larry Silverstein, Mayor Giuliani—you’ve gotta look at each of their roles. Larry Silverstein, in New York, actually directed the World Trade Center Number 7 be pulled, meaning brought down by controlled demolition.

Colmes: Wasn’t he the landlord? Why would he want that to happen?

Fetzer: Well, it’s recorded. He admitted it in an interview that he had it pulled. Now, just to make an obvious point, Alan, it can’t have been pulled unless there were prepositioned explosives in World Trade Center 7—

Colmes: What would be Larry Silverstein’s interest in destroying his own building?

Fetzer: He had insured it for $3.5 billion against a terrorist attack six weeks previous.

Colmes: So he’s in on this?

Fetzer: Absolutely.

Colmes: Cheney’s in on this.

Fetzer: Absolutely.

Colmes: Is President Bush in on it?

Fetzer: Well, it’s hard to say with President Bush, the guy’s a bit of a dim bulb, you don’t want him to know too much, he’s liable to let it spill out, so I think Bush is more manipulated than he is—he might, you know, wind up in the role of an unindicted co-conspirator, but Alan, listen, you’ve gotta understand, I can prove all of these things, it’s the only hypothesis that makes any sense and in many cases we have direct evidence, we have Silverstein’s admission that he directed that the building be pulled. That was at 5:20 in the afternoon, it had been hit by no aircraft, it had only very modest fires, that was an extremely robustly built building—

****

Colmes: Are you saying there were not passengers on those planes?

Fetzer: None of those hijackers were named on any passenger manifest. None of them was the subject of any autopsy. Five, six or seven have turned up alive and well, living in the Middle East.

Colmes: Now you’re talking about the hijackers, but the passengers there were actual passengers on those planes, right?

Fetzer: Well, there were passengers somewhere, but whether there were actual passengers on the planes as they were impacting the building is an interesting question.

Colmes: I don’t know the answer to that question, but what I’m trying to—my job is to ask the questions, you’re going to answer them—but my point is that there were civilians, Americans who were on those flights, right?

Fetzer: Well, there were some, but the whole business about how many were paid and that whole sort of thing or compensation—

Colmes: What do you mean, paid?

Fetzer: Alan it’s very spotty.

***

Colmes: Are you suggesting Barbara Olson’s not dead?

Fetzer: There have been reports, that I haven’t been able to verify, that she was arrested in Europe, her husband is now retired and he has moved to Europe. You figure it out.

****

Fetzer: We established objectively and scientifically that the buildings came down by controlled demolition, for example. The 9-11 Commission for example, was so blown away by Building 7 they don’t even mention it in their report.

[Gravy]

Maybe our friend Fetzer told him the pic was from the afternoon. Bear in mind that Jones was a practising professor at the time, he may not have had time to check those details.

You have libeled him.
I libeled the academic fraud by pointing out his academic fraud!
Want some more libel, Docker? "Hey, Goebbels: you suck!"

[twinstead]

Ah. Fetzer. My hero :rolleyes:

[CurtC]

I was joking
Can you indicate for us which crazy ***** you post is a joke, and which crazy ***** is serious? It looks to me as if all your posts could be a big joke.

[kookbreaker]

Would you care to prove your assertion?

Why not, I already did. Read post #287, be sure to read your own comments for context and evidence that you are repeating yourself:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66977&page=8&


If not please withdraw it.


No. I won't be doing that.


Thanks.

You're Welcome.

[Docker]

I libeled the academic fraud by pointing out his academic fraud!
Want some more libel, Docker? "Hey, Goebbels: you suck!"

So now jones is comparable to goebbels?

Incredible. You libeled jones and I pointed it out to him.

[Gravy]

So now jones is comparable to goebbels?

Incredible. You libeled jones and I pointed it out to him.

Jones is comparable to Goebbels? How?

Now, please point out my libelous statement. Or you would be libeling me, wouldn't you! Horrors!

[Docker]

Jones is comparable to Goebbels? How?

Now, please point out my libelous statement.

You said he deliberately mislead. You can't prove that. What is his motive for that, he's making no money and he lost his job.

[kookbreaker]

You said he deliberately mislead. You can't prove that. What is his motive for that, he's making no money and he lost his job.

He's quite the glorious figure amongst the CT set, though. You think fame isn't a motive?

[Gravy]

You said he deliberately mislead. You can't prove that. What is his motive for that, he's making no money and he lost his job.Unless you can show that the paper and presentation were not created and promoted by Steven Jones, then, yes, it was deliberate. Perhaps you missed the other examples I included of his deliberate deception. You should really learn to read more carefully before you accuse people of committing libel. You could wind up committing libel yourself!

[Gravy]

He's quite the glorious figure amongst the CT set, though. You think fame isn't a motive?I don't give a damn what his motive is. He lies about the events of 9/11. Docker is arguing that he may have been misled into including deceptive material in his presentations. Um, Docker, his presentation hasn't changed. Is he under some kind of mind control?

ETA: And keep in mind that he's lying in order to claim that horrible crimes have been committed.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So now jones is comparable to goebbels?

Incredible. You libeled jones and I pointed it out to him.

In that you have stated you do not reside in the US, you may not be familiar with US libel laws. Given conversations here on the boards between different peoples in the legal field that I have read, US libel suits are much more difficult to successfully argue than in other countries. You may want to keep that in mind before accusing people of committing libel.

[Gravy]

In that you have stated you do not reside in the US, you may not be familiar with US libel laws. Given conversations here on the boards between different peoples in the legal field that I have read, US libel suits are much more difficult to successfully argue than in other countries. You may want to keep that in mind before accusing people of committing libel.Thanks for clarifying that for him, Arkan. The problem is, he's 100% wrong about me misrepresenting Jones' position. He's trying to make excuses for someone who deliberately deceives about the events of 9/11. Sorry, Docker, it's not because he's been deceived by bad Jim Fetzer (thought you had respect for Fetzer?), and it's not because Jones has "only" been doing this since last year. I was able to find out about WTC 7's condition in the first 10 minutes of my looking into it. And distinguished Doctor Jones can't manage that in a year, for his "Scholarly" work, which he presents publicly as accurate?

Give me a break.

[VespaGuy]

This thread is moving very fast, so I'll apologise in advance for addressing something from two pages back, but I just didn't want to see it go unchallenged:

Heres what Fire Engineering said about the FEMA investigation:

"half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

Docker, why are you so dishonest? Do you understand why the firefighters are upset? It has NOTHING to do with explosives or a conspiracy. It has to do with SAFETY in commercial construciton. Did you bother reading the article at all? Here's the same article further down the page (bolding mine).

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

Do you understand what they are saying? They question the structural integrity of the trusses and columns. They are upset because they see this as a good opportunity to learn about what materials could have been used to prevent the full collapse and what materials may have led to the collapse. They see this opportunity has been wasted.

I am currently a DB Admin, but spent many years as a truss designer. I have mentioned in the past (actually, way back in the very first Loose Change Thread) that firefighters HATE trusses. Trusses (both wood and steel) are quick, easy, lightweight and inexpensive - however, due to their physical makeup (less material, more surface area, etc) they fail EXTREMELY rapidly in fire situations, and usually without any warning at all.

Firefighters are a tight and emotional group. When one of their brothers loses his life because of a structural failure, they want to know why it happened. They want to know what cause it. They want to know what the construction industry is doing to prevent these things from happening in the future.

I wouldn't argue that the firefighters have a right to complain about the investigation. But do not steal their quotes as if you and they are fighting the same cause with the same questions. Go ahead and read that article again, and let me know if you think any firefighters think that ANYTHING besides the plane (and resulting fuel/fire/structural failure) brought those towers down.

[Pardalis]

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

I never said it mentions explosives but it suggests FEMA had been commandeered by political forces

So, Dorker, your claim that FEMA was not allowed to investigate explosives is baseless.

I never claimed that.

Yeah right...

:rolleyes:

[CurtC]

What is his motive for that, he's making no money and he lost his job.
Steven Jones is on paid leave from BYU. He is still making money.

He has announced his future retirement, which at least in this country isn't described as losing one's job.

[RandFan]

Why do you dislike jones?Because he's intellectually dishonest and he's a prick.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do we have sufficient cause to report Docker to the mods as a Pd'oh sock puppet?

[Belz...]

Have you seen the ridiculous tests done by NIST on the fireproofing? A shotgun fired at a square of steel. How scientific.

Certainly more scientific than two concrete blocks and chicken wire.

I wouldn't. Where is your evidence that the two air planes turned into shotgun pellets and removed the fireproofing?

So, you wouldn't test it, but you want proof ? Isn't that slightly contradictory ?

The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.

That's a lie. Nice way to try and convince people. Or are you just trolling ?

If I need to explain this to you then there really is no hope son.

Typical response of the guy who doesn't know the answer.

Are you implying that desks burning for 56 minutes could cause global collapse in one of the greatest engineering triumphs in history?

Nice way to frame the question in order to make it seem ridiculous. I wasn't aware computers and other office equipment were made of desks.

If the plane impacts are relevent they would have collapsed soon after.

Ah! There we have it. The typical simplistic understanding of reality that my good friends the conspiracy loons keep flaunting. "If the gunshot wound to hit gut was the cause of death why did he die 20 minutes later ?"

I suspect I have far more scientific knowledge than you.

I suspect an owl has more scientific knowledge than you.

Wrong. NIST claims that both together would not have done it, absent the fireproofing being removed which they have shown no evidence of.

So... you expect the fireproofing to remain in place after beign hit by a 767 ?

Everybody knows the source I am citing. I am not going to redo your inadequate research for you.

Here's that typical response again.

78th floor. Ladder 15. "2 isolated pockets of fire"

And isn't it interesting that the impact point was ABOVE the 78th ?

I agree with NISTs report. I think it's brave of them to admit they don'y know why it collapsed and had to make up evidence.

Cite ?

Speculating much?

Very scientific analysis, by the way.

What's yours ?

So I am supposed to listen to a man that lies about the sources he has read?

How about someone who hasn't read any sources ?

[Belz...]

By fall I mean [WTC7] came down due to fire etc rather than blasts.

What blasts ?

I never claimed it did. That is one hypothesis NIST is considering. So until they reach conclusions we cant claim to know what happened.

Oh. So when WTC1 fell on it it didn't really get damaged so they had to blow it up secretly ? Did they plan this ahead, or did they have to place the explosives WHILE it was burning up ?

Reality check: Governments do bad things

And that, in and of itself, proves nothing. Again. Typical CTer mindset. If it's possible, it happened. If I don't understand it, it didn't.

Although I welcome their decision to examine blast scenarios.

And when they conclude that they found no evidence of this, what will you say ?

I think the death of those brave firemen was the saddest part about 9/11.

The rest of the 3000 dead and their families is, in my opinion, equally sad. Don't you think ?

The official story doesn't know what happened to 7.

It has a pretty good idea, doesn't it ? Of course, that's also a lie:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."

They know the fire caused the collapse, but not the specifics.

Fetzer will destroy him.

Not with words, he won't.

So now jones is comparable to goebbels?

Now your reading comprehension is abysmal. I understand why you didn't read the report.

[njslim]

I am currently a DB Admin, but spent many years as a truss designer. I have mentioned in the past (actually, way back in the very first Loose Change Thread) that firefighters HATE trusses. Trusses (both wood and steel) are quick, easy, lightweight and inexpensive - however, due to their physical makeup (less material, more surface area, etc) they fail EXTREMELY rapidly in fire situations, and usually without any warning at all.



I was in a training class about building collapse when one of the instructors
remarked that " a truss is perfectly adequate under normal conditions"
then quickly added that a fire in a building is not a normal situation!

FF are taught that they only have a limited amount of time to extinguish a
fire in a structure with truss roof or floor supports. We are told have
20-25 minutes to knock down main body of fire - if can't do it in that time
should pull out ("pull it"???) and fight fire from exterior . After 5 FF in
Hackensack were killed in 1988 at auto dealership fire when truss supported
roof collapsed from fire and weight of parts stored in crawl space above
ceiling - state legislature required all building with truss roof or floors to
clearly mark them as such. Normally find triangle at front near standpipe
connections with F R or F/R indicating what part is supported by truss

[Garb]

Why?

Your tell is the size of Alaska...

[VespaGuy]

njslim - Are you a firefighter? If so, my hat's off to you. I met many firefighters when I was a truss designer and it got to the point where I was embaressed to admit what I did for a living. I'm glad that there is legislation in place to help prevent future fatalities due to structure failures from fires.

Hey Docker? Did you abandon this thread, too? (I'm always late to the party!). Care to adress the quote you mined out of the Fire Engineering magazine?

[Docker]

Your tell is the size of Alaska...

My tell? I do not know of such a noun.

[Docker]

Do we have sufficient cause to report Docker to the mods as a Pd'oh sock puppet?

How can I be a sock puppet of someone who isn't here?

[Docker]

njslim - Are you a firefighter? If so, my hat's off to you. I met many firefighters when I was a truss designer and it got to the point where I was embaressed to admit what I did for a living. I'm glad that there is legislation in place to help prevent future fatalities due to structure failures from fires.

Hey Docker? Did you abandon this thread, too? (I'm always late to the party!). Care to adress the quote you mined out of the Fire Engineering magazine?

How did I mine it? I sourced the entire article.

[Bell]

How can I be a sock puppet of someone who isn't here?

I don't know. How?

[Garb]

My tell? I do not know of such a noun.

Poker term. Tell is giving away strategy or a secret you are giving away by consistent moves.

[Docker]

Poker term. Tell is giving away strategy or a secret you are giving away by consistent moves.

Oh right. Well I dont play.

[Garb]

Oh right. Well I dont play.

Which, like I said, is good.

[eeyore1954]

How did I mine it? I sourced the entire article.

Because you took a portion of what was said and implied it meant something different than what it meant in it's complete context. the whole article may have been sourced but do you claim yopu didn't just show the portion you did to mislead?

[Pardalis]

How did I mine it? I sourced the entire article.

A quick recap buddy boy:

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

What did you mean exactly?

Look at my Fire Engineering quote above. That is what I mean.

First off, this is from January 2002.

Also, there's nothing here that says anything about the hypothesis of explosives.

Yes thats when FEMA did its investigation while the evidence was being destroyed. I never said it mentions explosives but it suggests FEMA had been commandeered by political forces

So, Dorker, your claim that FEMA was not allowed to investigate explosives is baseless.

Pathetic.

I never claimed that.

Right, you have misrepresented me once too often. It's time to use the old ignore button methinks

Hey Docker? Did you abandon this thread, too? (I'm always late to the party!). Care to adress the quote you mined out of the Fire Engineering magazine?

How did I mine it? I sourced the entire article.

WTF Dorker? Are you a liar?

I ask you again:

WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU WROTE THIS:

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

The article that you linked says nothing about FEMA not being allowed to investigate explosives, nothing about exposives.

SO WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM?

[VespaGuy]

How did I mine it? I sourced the entire article.

I know you sourced the article. It's just that you haven't read it. (If you had read it, you'd realize that the quote that you extracted does not have anything to do with the claim you are making)

[njslim]

VESPAGUY

Yes I am a fire fighter - belong to volunteer department in NJ. Many of our
members are career personnel in Paterson. On Sept 11 spent most of
that day and night in firehouse on standby to go to NY and covering for
Paterson who had day shift at WTC fighting fires.

[luvhumility]

how does docker get all this energy? Thats what I want to know!!!
sometimes I think he's actually a computer...meant to stir up DLL issues... the behavior is similar...

lol

lh

[LashL]

My tell? I do not know of such a noun.

It is, in fact, used as a noun in certain circles, and you've already been pointed to one such instance above.

But that's not the only context in which "tell" is used as a noun.

It is also part of the lingo for those of us who are trained and well versed in detecting lies and liars.

And, not surprisingly, in this particular usage, your tell is still the size of Alaska.

[MaGZ]

Has anyone explained the mysterious burns of these cars? Some are "fused" and welded. In., one case the front half is burned and the back untouched.

"WMD at the WTC" claims its proof of thermonuclear devices, but I hasten to add I dont agree with that.

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image8.jpg

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image9.jpg
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image11.jpg







Pictures from Judy Woods new paper: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html

The first photo is from the open parking area northwest of the WTC complex where the second missile hit. This photo is from the DVD "WTC the first 24 hours". In the DVD the cameraman films the burnt vehicles and pans back to the WTC site where we see WTC 6 on fire. The photo was taken in the afternoon before WTC 7 was pulled. The cameraman seems to be asking "How the hell could this have happened being hundreds of yards away from the WTC complex."

Take a look at the closeup view of the burnt vehicle in the NOAA ground zero photo. Again the parking area is northwest of the WTC complex. Please note the black missile crater in the photo.

[uk_dave]

My head just exploded.

Again.

[MaGZ]

Massive skyscrapers fall and unleash holy hell on the ground. Counter -intuitive outcomes are to be expected. I'd like to see a map showing where these cars were in relation to the buildings.
Take a look at the NOAA map.

[MaGZ]

Here is another view of the missile strike in the parking lot northwest of the WTC complex.

The burning flame is where the missile hit.

The WTC complex would be out of view on the left.

This is what you call EVIDENCE.

http://img431.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00105gh0.jpg

[MaGZ]

This image gives you the perspective of the parking area in relationship to the WTC complex. Please note WTC 7 is still standing.

http://img431.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00054df9.jpg

[T.A.M.]

Bigger question:

Does anyone besides the truth movment give a shaite about how the cars came to be as such...really?

TAM;)

[jhunter1163]

Have you considered any other possible cause for the parking lot fires, say, flaming debris from an airliner raining down on the lot, or perhaps flaming debris from the towers raining down on the lot?

[Burrell]

No, we don't care about the cars.

Now if people were paid off, what have they done with the money? Would they have spent some of it by now, after five years? If so the Truth Movement could prove its claims by finding the people that have lifestyles far in excess of their incomes (because something as grand an event as those of September the 11th 2001 would not be given to the lowest bidder) but instead we are compelled to go looking at the same two burnt out cars and being asked to believe that this is evidence of a conspiracy to hide the truth.

Find the people who were paid lots of money to do what has been suggested, then you will find your truth, should it exist.

[Pardalis]

Wow, some of these Twoofers are a special breed of odd little people aren't they? At one point in their delusion, they each get stuck in their own little personal theory like in a whirlpool.

We have geggy with his "frontal lobe" theory.
We have Christophera with his "concrete core",
We have Christopher 7 with his "no 10 storey hole in WTC7"
And now MaGZ with his "missile" striking the WTC 7 building.

:hypnotize

[A W Smith]

was a thermonuclear Pigeon.

[Gravy]

MaGZ, I've suggested this before, and since you're dredging up old threads I'll suggest it again:

Watch the video "September 11, 2001: What We Saw." It shows WTC 7 in the same frame as the towers when the south tower is hit. After that, there are clear views of the parking lot where you say a missile struck.

There is no missile.
There is no smoke coming from WTC 7.
There is no huge cloud of smoke in front of WTC 7 at 9:04.
There is no crater or fire in the parking lot.

These things exist only in your imagination.

If you don't want to watch the video, then please don't bring this subject up again.

[gumboot]

he cameraman seems to be asking "How the hell could this have happened being hundreds of yards away from the WTC complex."


Yay, someone else who speaks cameranese!

WS CU MS pan left crane up 2S MS ECU zoom in?

-Gumboot

[parky76]

I love it!!.. mini-nukes, airplane holograms, zionist conspiracies.....you guys really are entertaining. now i know why i like the truth movemant..its pure comic relief.

[burnvictim77]

You claim that building 7 fell. It is still under investigation so you cannoy claim this. You have also endorsed claims that Rodriguez testimony has changed. Totally unsubstantiated.

Man - talk about coincidences. I was just in WTC 7 yesterday, with Rodgriguez.

[EternalSceptic]

A _thermonuclear bomb_ ???? Has this guy even the slightest idea what would have been left over from the whole town after the explosion of a _thermonulear bomb_?

[Horatius]

A _thermonuclear bomb_ ???? Has this guy even the slightest idea what would have been left over from the whole town after the explosion of a _thermonulear bomb_?

I think it's safe to say, he doesn't.

[Kiwiwriter]

Having been stomped and battered in the other threads, MaGZ searches for another old thread he can dredge up, in order to spout his anti-Semitism, and comes up with this one!

Hey, MaGZ, you STILL haven't answered our questions about your views on Jews, Nazis, Hitler, and the Holocaust.

Tell us again about how the Mossad did this.

You can run, but you can't hide. :D

[MaGZ]

MaGZ, I've suggested this before, and since you're dredging up old threads I'll suggest it again:

Watch the video "September 11, 2001: What We Saw." It shows WTC 7 in the same frame as the towers when the south tower is hit. After that, there are clear views of the parking lot where you say a missile struck.

There is no missile.
There is no smoke coming from WTC 7.
There is no huge cloud of smoke in front of WTC 7 at 9:04.
There is no crater or fire in the parking lot.

These things exist only in your imagination.

If you don't want to watch the video, then please don't bring this subject up again.

I reviewed the CBS DVD "What We Saw."

There is no view of the parking area northwest of the WTC complex where the second missile struck.

Brant Gumbel was talking with Theresa Renaud "live" as the second plane hit WTC 2. There seems to be some editing of the film during her conversation. Later Gumbel replays the tape showing the crash of the second plane into WTC 2. As usual, the footage ends after 3 or 4 seconds after impact. If these news footage were allowed to continue after the plane’s impact then the white cloud of smoke from the missile hit on WTC 7 would have been seen.

Major media ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN has this footage. They always edit and cut it short so the white cloud is never seen.

[Gravy]

I reviewed the CBS DVD "What We Saw."

There is no view of the parking area northwest of the WTC complex where the second missile struck.
Had you viewed the video that I twice asked you to view, you wouldn't still be making a fool of yourself. (http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/)

[LashL]

Had you viewed the video that I twice asked you to view, you wouldn't still be making a fool of yourself. (http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/)

Actually, yes, yes he would.

Because even if he views it, or if he has viewed it, he will just continue to ignore the facts and evidence as he's been doing all along, and he will continue to make a fool of himself as he wraps himself in the warm comfort of his wilful ignorance and throws himself upon the altar of the painfully misguided and deliberately deluded "twoof movement".

[MaGZ]

Here is a link showing CBS video of the second plane hitting WTC 2. On the right you see smoke (second white cloud) from the second missile hit that exploded in the open parking area.

The first white cloud in the upper frame is from the missile that hit WTC 7.

Apparently the first missile to hit was in the parking area, then a few seconds later the other missile hit WTC 7.

Any questions?

http://911studies.com/911photostudies117a.htm

[JimBenArm]

Here is a link showing CBS video of the second plane hitting WTC 2. On the right you see smoke (second white cloud) from the second missile hit that exploded in the open parking area.

The first white cloud in the upper frame is from the missile that hit WTC 7.

Apparently the first missile to hit was in the parking area, then a few seconds later the other missile hit WTC 7.

Any questions?

http://911studies.com/911photostudies117a.htm
Yes. Are you stupid or brain-damaged?

[mailman]

A _thermonuclear bomb_ ???? Has this guy even the slightest idea what would have been left over from the whole town after the explosion of a _thermonulear bomb_?

I love it when cultists bring this theory up! :D

Its like, wow, them evil doers used not one, but TWO nuclear devices...and Im going "so has anyone been down to Ground zero with a gieger counter?". Then the cutlists get all sh1tty with me and accuse me of being a shill/joooooo/traitor etc.

Then I go on about if them evil joooooooooooos did develope these super secret clean nukes...why arent they detonating all over Tehran? :D

Mailman

[gumboot]

I love it when cultists bring this theory up! :D

Its like, wow, them evil doers used not one, but TWO nuclear devices...and Im going "so has anyone been down to Ground zero with a gieger counter?". Then the cutlists get all sh1tty with me and accuse me of being a shill/joooooo/traitor etc.

Then I go on about if them evil joooooooooooos did develope these super secret clean nukes...why arent they detonating all over Tehran? :D

Mailman



Iran doesn't exist. It's a Joo conspiracy created to stop us looking too closely at that region of the world. It's actually an enormous marshalling yard where the titanic legions of the UN are massing for their war of world domination.

Remember that scene from "The Two Towers" where Saruman is talking to his legions of Orcs? Just like that, only with helicopters.

-Gumboot

[firecoins]

Didn't the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man destroy the Twin Towers? I say white smoke clouds and thought that was him?

[gumboot]

Didn't the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man destroy the Twin Towers? I say white smoke clouds and thought that was him?


That's just a deception created by Hollywood to hide you from the Troof.

-Gumboot

[MaGZ]

Photos of burning cars in the open parking lot northwest of the Twin Towers can be found in this thread.

[aggle-rithm]

Photos of burning cars in the open parking lot northwest of the Twin Towers can be found in this thread.

True, but other threads don't have you posting in them. You have to take all these things into account when choosing a thread.

[PhantomWolf]

It wasn't nukes, the Twin Towers were abducted by aliens. All the evidence of this will be avalible in my new videa and book, yours to own for just $39.99 + pp*


*pp is just a low $599, offer not available in some solar systems.



P.S. For those that don't realise it, the above post was entirely tongue in cheek, and if you don't believe that... Did you know that the Auckland Harbour Bridge is going to be sold off to tender as scrap. I can get you a really good deal on it.....

[firecoins]

I could have sworn a large gorilla, possibly big foot, climbed up the twin towers and brought them to save his blond girlfriend. It was beaty that killed the towers.

[aggle-rithm]

A _thermonuclear bomb_ ???? Has this guy even the slightest idea what would have been left over from the whole town after the explosion of a _thermonulear bomb_?

The fact that a thermonuclear device uses an A-bomb as a DETONATOR brings to mind the word "overkill".

But "thermonuclear" sounds totally cool.