Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[Moving On]

There's discussion about it on a firefighters' board here:

http://www.firehall.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1355

post #4 confirms that this is how they do things in Seattle.

I'm assuming Russell's 25% quote is based on a 24 hours on 72 hours off shift system.

Given that it involves being on call, its unlikely that a firefighter would be going to a fire without any sleep. Assuming the shift ran from something like 9am to 9am the next day and the firemean went to bed at 11pm - they'd have to be fighting fires constantly from 11pm to 9am to avoid getting any sleep at all.

Edited to add:



http://www.firehall.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10993&postcount=12

The 24 hour shift is used in many departments.

You are not "on call". You are at a station from 07:30 to 7:30.

Your duty day is as follows:

1) Turn over and sign in to replace the outgoing firefighter.

2) Apparatus and equipment inventory.

3) Station cleaning duties. Then on certain days you have to do brass, glass and grass. Then on a monthly rotation you test hose, strip and wax floors etc.

4) Station breakfast.

5) You are required to do one hour of physical fitness and two hours worth of drills every day.

6) You have battalion training, fire inspections and public relations most of the normal work day. In Seattle the stations are open to free blood pressure checks all day.

7) Then you have a station dinner. You will have a relaxed evening schedule and are allowed to go to bed at 10:00 PM (even though dozing in a recliner may happen sometimes).

8) Then all night you respond to calls if the bell hits. Most of your activity in Seattle is EMS and false alarms. Sometimes you will be awake the whole time but that is rare. The most runs I have ever had in a day was 21. I also had many shifts where we didn't "turn a wheel".

[maccy]

You are not "on call". You are at a station from 07:30 to 7:30.


Sorry, I only meant "on call" in the sense that you are not supposed to be awake for the whole 24 hours - ie that once you go to sleep you'll only be woken up if you're called out to a fire or other incident. I didn't mean to imply that you were at home and/or not doing other work for the whole 24 hour period.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

For what it's worth I believe you were a firefighter in Seattle, but what really interests me is your assessment of the evidence. To that end, can you answer my questions, above?

Many thanks

Matthew

[Gravy]

Russell, why don't you believe all the accounts of the FDNY of the condition of WTC 7?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Russell, if the, as you perceive, personal attacks against you don't bother you, then why are those the only posts to which you reply? Why are you not ignoring those posts and addressing the ones that are directly related to your argument?

[Moving On]

As I said above, I seriously doubt your abilities to interpret the statistics or the raw data but do feel free to try. My partner's primary station is 331 - Toronto Fire Service.

Toronto is a much larger department than Seattle.

They have 2,900 staff. Seattle had 1005 in my last year there.

Toronto looks to have 80 plus stations. Seattle had 33 when I was there.

In 2005 Toronto had 140,516 incidents. Only 7% of those were fire calls - not actual fires. I could not find a number for actual fires versus false alarms.

In 2001 Seattle had 73,677 responses. 1,736 of those were fires. In addition to that Seattle had 6059 false alarms.

You can question my original numbers if you want but that is just foolishness on your part. I specified well involved or fully involved fires. I went to numerous room fires and smaller events. In Seattle you may be at a station that was overstaffed. So every third or fourth shift you go work at another station that needs personnel. On debit days you work at other stations. With shift trades and overtime you will eventually work all over the city to average out the differences in fire events usually based on income brackets.

If you average out the number of fires, the number of shifts and the fact that you work 24 hours in different first-in districts in the size of a city like Seattle the first-in well involved or fully involved structure fires are about 5 per year.

The other thing your ignorance is leading you to foolishly believe is that first-in is all you get. NO. In a full response you have a second and third arriving engine company too. I was on many of those as well. But by the time you get to most of those the initial knock down is finished and I didn't count that.

I have tried to leave most of this rest but since you want to display your lack of knowledge for all to see I will go into more detail for you.

The percentages of fires in metropolitan departs tends to average out and be similar for departments that do both EMS and fires. Fully involved structure fires are the exception and not the rule.

I know it is the nature of attorneys (if you really are one) to win no matter what, but you should just quit while you are behind.

[Moving On]

Translation: Russell cannot provide any names or sources, as usual, and he is peeved that I called him on his alleged facts and evidence that he cannot provide.

You presented yourself as an honest researcher when you first arrived here. That was a lie. You don't like the fact that some here, including me, called you on your lies and that you were unable to support them with anything even remotely resembling facts or evidence.

Oh well. That's your problem. Suck it up, big boy. Around here, you have to either put up or shut up. You have thusfar been unable to do the former and you're apparently unwilling to do the latter.

You really should stop trying to blame others for your own failures.

Again, your true nature is showing.

I have not lied one single time on this forum.

I NEVER have an intent to deceive and have no motive for doing so. I have told the truth 100%.

It is in fact you that resorts to distortions in truth and is highly prone to exaggeration and manipulation.

Where I have been in error, I have learned and corrected myself.

The rest are my opinions and beliefs. Not lies.

You on the other hand have a desperate need to be right no matter what and proceed in spite of the facts.

Your insinuations and false allegations must really impress the courts there huh?

[chipmunk stew]

Toronto is a much larger department than Seattle.

They have 2,900 staff. Seattle had 1005 in my last year there.

Toronto looks to have 80 plus stations. Seattle had 33 when I was there.

In 2005 Toronto had 140,516 incidents. Only 7% of those were fire calls - not actual fires. I could not find a number for actual fires versus false alarms.

In 2001 Seattle had 73,677 responses. 1,736 of those were fires. In addition to that Seattle had 6059 false alarms.

You can question my original numbers if you want but that is just foolishness on your part. I specified well involved or fully involved fires. I went to numerous room fires and smaller events. In Seattle you may be at a station that was overstaffed. So every third or fourth shift you go work at another station that needs personnel. On debit days you work at other stations. With shift trades and overtime you will eventually work all over the city to average out the differences in fire events usually based on income brackets.

If you average out the number of fires, the number of shifts and the fact that you work 24 hours in different first-in districts in the size of a city like Seattle the first-in well involved or fully involved structure fires are about 5 per year.

The other thing your ignorance is leading you to foolishly believe is that first-in is all you get. NO. In a full response you have a second and third arriving engine company too. I was on many of those as well. But by the time you get to most of those the initial knock down is finished and I didn't count that.

I have tried to leave most of this rest but since you want to display your lack of knowledge for all to see I will go into more detail for you.

The percentages of fires in metropolitan departs tends to average out and be similar for departments that do both EMS and fires. Fully involved structure fires are the exception and not the rule.

I know it is the nature of attorneys (if you really are one) to win no matter what, but you should just quit while you are behind.
fine you win who cares now will you re-rail please

[Moving On]

LashL overanalysed this one:



You see, his math is actually perfect. This is, in fact, a testament to the absolutely stellar leadership he has provided to the Seattle Fire Department.

Consider. If the chance of encountering a fire on one of 4 shifts is 25%/33 (for the number of stations) this means that they have consistently reduced the number of fires occuring in Seattle to (on average) one per day, for the entire city. Not only that, but they have nullified all risk-factors so that one fire happens in a purely random distribution patten over the life of time observed in his career.

I demand you stop this criticism immediately, considering that this means in the Seattle area, there are only (on average) 365 fires a year of any kind! That is the lowest rate in the nation and probably the world. I think we should collectively nominate him for an award of some kind. Perhaps we can help him set up a speaking tour to help the other Fire Departments rise to the standards he has helped implement.

That is so uneducated.

Here are the facts: http://www.cityofseattle.net/fire/statistics/nfpaReport_Seattle.htm

I hate dealing with religious fanatics and dogmatic people. ugh!

[chipmunk stew]

That is so uneducated.

Here are the facts: http://www.cityofseattle.net/fire/statistics/nfpaReport_Seattle.htm

I hate dealing with religious fanatics and dogmatic people. ugh!
then why do you do it answer the thread-relevant questions instead

[stateofgrace]

The 24 hour shift is used in many departments.

You are not "on call". You are at a station from 07:30 to 7:30.

Your duty day is as follows:

1) Turn over and sign in to replace the outgoing firefighter.

2) Apparatus and equipment inventory.

3) Station cleaning duties. Then on certain days you have to do brass, glass and grass. Then on a monthly rotation you test hose, strip and wax floors etc.

4) Station breakfast.

5) You are required to do one hour of physical fitness and two hours worth of drills every day.

6) You have battalion training, fire inspections and public relations most of the normal work day. In Seattle the stations are open to free blood pressure checks all day.

7) Then you have a station dinner. You will have a relaxed evening schedule and are allowed to go to bed at 10:00 PM (even though dozing in a recliner may happen sometimes).

8) Then all night you respond to calls if the bell hits. Most of your activity in Seattle is EMS and false alarms. Sometimes you will be awake the whole time but that is rare. The most runs I have ever had in a day was 21. I also had many shifts where we didn't "turn a wheel".

Your stroll down memory lane is totally irrelevant. I could not care less about your history or whether you were a fire fighter.

Please answer the questions that members have put to you or leave the thread.

[W6102LA]

Dodging the hard questions again i see Russ

:)

[Moving On]

Russell, I really couldn't give a fig about your past as a firefighter. Personally, I believe you, but it doesn't make a lick of difference as far as I'm concerned.

I'm purely concerned with your views and arguments about the evidence.

Please answer the following, or explain why it belongs with stupid questions unworthy of response:

Yes - I highly disagree.

Here is a glossary definition of "fully involved".


Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

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


That definition varies from department to department. In Seattle it meant the damn place was fully involved in fire. But even using the glossary definition - WTC 7 was not fully involved and you have no means to demonstrate that it was.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/7.jpg

8 floors just like FEMA said. Floor 12 was even burned out. It was not a contigous fully involved fire that was a 47 story conflagration.

I know it makes you angry to have to face that you are wrong.

[chipmunk stew]

UPDATE:

At least [edit: ten] relevant questions have gone unanswered by Russell Pickering in this thread.
Russell Pickering has instead focused solely on questions about his personal history and responded generally to "JREF tactics".
1) This fully involved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting_terms#F) building burned unchecked for about seven hours. Do you agree or disagree?
edit: answered by RP above.
<snip>
[renumbered]
2) How do you account for the quantity of smoke coming from WTC7, as shown in the photos at this post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2081821&postcount=443 ?

3) How do you account for the testimony gathered in Gravy's paper? Are the witness mistaken? Lying? Is there an equal amount of contradictory testimony regarding the fires in the building? If there is, can you provide links to it?

4) If the building wasn't in danger of collapse from fire and structural damage, why did the FDNY pull men out from a collapse zone around the building, stopping the search for survivors in that area?

5) Do you accept that NIST believes the likely cause of the collapse is fire and structural damage and that there is no evidence of explosives?

6) If the final NIST report concludes that NIST's current hypothesis is correct and also that none of the hypothetical blast scenarios are plausible, will you accept it?

7) Do you currently have an alternative hypothesis that explains how the building was wired to explode, how the explosives survived the fires for so long and how they were finally detonated? If you don't currently have a hypothesis, do you plan to develop one? Do you plan on consulting any demolition extperts or structural engineers in regard to this?


8) Did the named firefighters who related the condition of WTC 7 lie about it?

9) The obvious implication of your posts here is that you think they are lying, and may even be in on it. Is that an accurate summary?

10) Russell, why don't you believe all the accounts of the FDNY of the condition of WTC 7?

11) Russell, if the, as you perceive, personal attacks against you don't bother you, then why are those the only posts to which you reply? Why are you not ignoring those posts and addressing the ones that are directly related to your argument?

[Moving On]

The things you people here will not face amaze me. The bottom right picture is fully involved. You do not even see 1 single floor like that at WTC 7 let alone 47 of them.

Look how nice and neat WTC 7 is all cleaned up with everything around left intact. Don't you wonder why? Don't you wonder why FEMA can not answer it? Don't you wonder why NIST might be 6 years out from explaining it and they are including explosive specialists in the investigation? Don't you wonder why that is the first steel frame structure to collapse primarily from fire as we have it now?

Doesn't it bother you that you are making claims that not even NIST has committed to? You are operating on pure speculation from a personal bias. The government has not even provided the facts yet. It is a 100% anomalous event as of now with no official explanation. Period.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtcdamage.jpg

[chipmunk stew]

Yes - I highly disagree.

Here is a glossary definition of "fully involved".



That definition varies from department to department. In Seattle it meant the damn place was fully involved in fire. But even using the glossary definition - WTC 7 was not fully involved and you have no means to demonstrate that it was.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/7.jpg

8 floors just like FEMA said. Floor 12 was even burned out. It was not a contigous fully involved fire that was a 47 story conflagration.

I know it makes you angry to have to face that you are wrong.

What makes you think I'm angry?
:Dancing_growl:

What am I wrong about? Dozens of FDNY on the ground characterized it as "fully involved". Apparently it met their definition. Neither I, nor anyone here, has claimed that it was a 47 story conflagration.

What about the next part? This building burned unchecked for about seven hours. Do you agree or disagree?

[Moving On]

The obvious implication of your posts here is that you think they are lying, and may even be in on it. Is that an accurate summary?

More simplicity and projection.

The rest of it was not worth a response.

[defaultdotxbe]

More simplicity and projection.

The rest of it was not worth a response.

you make a big deal about you, as a fire fighter, are so very qualified to tell when a building is "fully involved in fire" or not (of course this doesnt change the fact that were not in NY on 9/11/2001 so your observations are still inferior to those of the firefighters on the scene)

either way the implciation is the firefighters are somehow mistaken, given your descriptions, and the fact that NY probably has more fires than seattle and toronto combined, this means simple human error seems unlikely, what other alternatives are there?

what is your explanation, why did FDNY describe WTC7 as fully involved in fire, and why did they expect it to collapse?

[Spins]

Don't you wonder why NIST might be 6 years out from explaining it and they are including explosive specialists in the investigation?
Are they, can you provide proof of this?


Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7
If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including:

An Initiating Event
An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2

A Vertical Progression at the East Side of the Building
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse

A Subsequent Horizontal Progression from the East to the West Side
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure

Disproportionate Global Collapse
Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure

NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.
Why in their current hypothesis do NIST say they have found no evidence of bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition at WTC 7?

[Miss Anthrope]

There is somebody on this thread now that is part of an agency in King County who certified me medically.

I have given them permission to investigate anything about me and share it here.

Ask them.

Your insults of the SFD are based on ignorance.

I can say that Russell was a firefighter in Seattle, this I confirmed. However I'm new here and you should take that with a grain of salt, as I would.

That said, I disagree 100% with Russell's CT Theories.

[Moving On]

you make a big deal about you, as a fire fighter, are so very qualified to tell when a building is "fully involved in fire" or not (of course this doesnt change the fact that were not in NY on 9/11/2001 so your observations are still inferior to those of the firefighters on the scene)

either way the implciation is the firefighters are somehow mistaken, given your descriptions, and the fact that NY probably has more fires than seattle and toronto combined, this means simple human error seems unlikely, what other alternatives are there?

what is your explanation, why did FDNY describe WTC7 as fully involved in fire, and why did they expect it to collapse?

Please go back and see who made a big deal about it. I did not.

Certain members here decided to drastically misrepresent and attack me based on dating a firefighter and feeling that somehow as an attorney they know everything.

I am responding as I will not tolerate the lies and tactics that you people here resort to in an effort to defend your religion.

[chipmunk stew]

Are they, can you provide proof of this?

Why in their current hypothesis do NIST say they have found no evidence of bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition at WTC 7?
They are conducting tests based on various possible blast scenarios:

Hypothetical Blast Analysis Hypothetical Blast Analysis

NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitudeof hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure ofone or more critical elements as a result of blast.

�� Phase I Identify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods. Preliminary section cutting shall be considered. Compare estimated overpressures for each scenario against windowstrength.
�� Phase II For blast scenarios with overpressures that clearly would not have broken windows, the worst case scenario(s) will be analyzed using SHAMRC software to determine overpressures at windows.
�� Phase III If Phase II overpressures did not clearly fail windows, 3 blast scenarios will be selected to determine the sound levels that would be transmitted outside the building through intact windows. Including thermite:


6/06 Completed draft document of evaluation of thermite as a possible blast substance for review


http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

[chipmunk stew]

This building burned unchecked for about seven hours. Do you agree or disagree?
*sigh* Agree or disagree, Russell?

[Spins]

I was aware of the comment in the NIST FAQ, but I hadn't seen their planned Phase I, II, and III analysis before, cheers.


This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
Regarding the recent NIST FAQ, before they mention the planned investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios they specifically state that they have found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition. Also would I be correct in saying that the word hypothetical in this context means...

highly conjectural and not well supported by available evidence

[Belz...]

Look how nice and neat WTC 7 is all cleaned up with everything around left intact.

Intact ? We're not looking at the same picture, then.

Don't you wonder why?

Nope. The building was hit from the side of the street. It's only reasonable to assume that, barring any other damage, it would collapse in that direction, especially since the damage was to lower floors.

[Moving On]

Plain and simple. Like FEMA said, you primarily had a smothered fuel fire on 2-3 floors without significant ventilation (no windows). Diesel puts out copious amounts of smoke in proportion to the actual flame or heat. Go read about diesel.

The smoke poured out of the building and hung on the side just like actual science states, can predict and repeat at will. That is the scientific method. Not Skeptianity!

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg


In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5674684&query_id=0


Watch the following video. It is exactly as described.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KPRpNgcA_Hw

Then take the time to notice there is significant smoke being drawn into the overall smoke from the foreground and bottom left of the video well away from WTC 7.

Just admit that is what you see.

Then watch this video to see the same thing again and explain to me where the 47 story fully involved building is in the picture.

Not ONE floor that can be described as anything like fully involved and not even ONE lick of flame.

Get over it.

The explanation for the building collapsing is not out yet. YOU don't know. The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

You have ZERO evidence to support your claims and it is you that is now operating purely on belief and preference.

Period.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Russell,

WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT ANY DOCUMENTS NEWER THAN THE FEMA PRELIMINARY REPORT!?

[Moving On]

*sigh* Agree or disagree, Russell?

I don't know if it was unchecked or not. I am not familiar with any success reports or not from their original interior operations.

I know it appears certain floors either burned out were extinguished.

Yes fires originated at various locations throughout the building throughout the day. Some appear to be significantly disconnected from each other and the source of the physical damage. I don't know if there was one continuous fire in any given location for 7 hours.

[twinstead]

I don't know if there was one continuous fire in any given location for 7 hours.

Don't you think that in order to come to an objective and rational conclusion about what happened to WTC7 you would want to know that?

[stateofgrace]

The explanation for the building collapsing is not out yet. YOU don't know. The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

You have ZERO evidence to support your claims and it is you that is now operating purely on belief and preference.

Period.

These were posted about four pages back, I have read them have you ?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm)

http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/FOIA/ASTANEH-WTC-0139542finalrpt.pdf (http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/FOIA/ASTANEH-WTC-0139542finalrpt.pdf)

http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html (http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html)

Have you any comment or are you operating on pure belief?

[Spins]

Don't you wonder why NIST might be 6 years out from explaining it and they are including explosive specialists in the investigation?

Awarded contract for assistance with conducting analyses of hypothetical initiating fire scenarios using the ANSYS model and damage/fire scenarios developed at NIST (half to be completed by NIST, half by the contractor)
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf) Page 7


Awarded contract to ARA (with CDI and SGH as subcontractors) foranalysis of hypothetical blast events and assistance with structural analysis of initiating events
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf) Page 15

Russell can you please quote your source next time to avoid confusion! ;)

To answer your question, maybe they are doing so in order to rule out a controlled demolition, this is a properly done investigation after all. For example, in Phase III they are hoping to calculate the sound levels produced by the hypothetical Phase II blast events, obviously in doing so they then know to what extent they should have been picked up by sound or seismic recordings made before the collapse, thus allowing them to definitively rule them out or not.

[chipmunk stew]

I don't know if it was unchecked or not. I am not familiar with any success reports or not from their original interior operations.
Read this:
http://tinyurl.com/zemur
"The Emergency Response Operations"

Excerpt: Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.
• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.
• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.
• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.
At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

I know it appears certain floors either burned out were extinguished.

Yes fires originated at various locations throughout the building throughout the day. Some appear to be significantly disconnected from each other and the source of the physical damage. I don't know if there was one continuous fire in any given location for 7 hours.
Okay. Thanks for making your position clear.
Next question: Many experienced people on the ground feared a collapse, and few were surprised when it did. Agree or disagree?

[Pardalis]

The explanation for the building collapsing is not out yet. YOU don't know. The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

You have ZERO evidence to support your claims and it is you that is now operating purely on belief and preference.

Period.

YOU don't know either.

YOU are operating purely on belief and preference and have no evidence to back any of YOUR claims.

What YOU do is pure speculation, based on YOUR loose interpretation of PICTURES.

Why don't you wait for the NIST final report on WTC7?

They have plenty more evidence than a couple of pictures on the net, I'm sure they'll come up with an intelligent hypothesis on what happened. Do you?

[defaultdotxbe]

Please go back and see who made a big deal about it. I did not.

Certain members here decided to drastically misrepresent and attack me based on dating a firefighter and feeling that somehow as an attorney they know everything.

I am responding as I will not tolerate the lies and tactics that you people here resort to in an effort to defend your religion.

i have 2 very simple questions for you, please do not dodge them or tell me to go back and read 25 pages of this thread

1: do you beleive WTC7 was "fully involved" with fire?

2: if no, why do you think the FDNY described it this way?

[Moving On]

Russell,

WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT ANY DOCUMENTS NEWER THAN THE FEMA PRELIMINARY REPORT!?

I DON'T REFUSE.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/nist1.jpg

HEAVY BLACK SMOKE COMING OUT OF SOUTH FACE GASH; NO FIRE OBSERVED (Sound familiar???)

NO MENTION OF "FULLY INVOLVED".

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/nist2.jpg

FIRES WERE SEEN AT VARIOUS TIMES THROUGHOUT THE DAY

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/nist3.jpg

WHERE IS THE FULL INVOLVEMENT AT 5:20?

Even NIST disagrees with you!

April 2005 - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Do you see what I mean by facts are not enough for you??

[Pardalis]

I don't know if it was unchecked or not. I am not familiar with any success reports or not from their original interior operations.

I know it appears certain floors either burned out were extinguished.

Yes fires originated at various locations throughout the building throughout the day. Some appear to be significantly disconnected from each other and the source of the physical damage. I don't know if there was one continuous fire in any given location for 7 hours.

So basically, you have no idea of what went on that day in that building.

Guess what, professional scientists and engeneers are working on it as we speak. WAIT FOR THEIR FINAL REPORT ALREADY AND STOP SPOUTING YOUR NONESENSE.

[Pardalis]

Russell, in the reports you have read, did you come across any report of people seeing bombs in that building?

[stateofgrace]

Even NIST disagrees with you!


So you now agree with NIST?

So if NIST conclude in the final report that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to the damage and fire you will accept it?

Yes or no?

[Pardalis]

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/nist1.jpg

HEAVY BLACK SMOKE COMING OUT OF SOUTH FACE GASH; NO FIRE OBSERVED (Sound familiar???)


From your own link:

fires seen at floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 20's and 30's


ETA: maybe you haven't seen those, it's written in RED

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...Do you see what I mean by facts are not enough for you??


Excuse me? Link to me one post where a person, other than yourself, claimed that either (1)WTC 7 was fully involved or (2)WTC 7 had to be fully involved in order for fire to contribute to the collapse.

The only times you have referenced NIST is in support of your strawman argument, which has been repeatedly pointed out to you and you have blatantly ignored.

[Moving On]

Okay. Thanks for making your position clear.

Next question: Many experienced people on the ground feared a collapse, and few were surprised when it did. Agree or disagree?

They did not fear that the initial structural damage would cause WTC 7 to collapse. They would not have allowed firefighters inside after search and rescue was complete if they did. To be perfectly honest, if they thought collapse was imminent they would not have sent firefighters inside at all. Cost/benefit analysis. Protect the rescuer is actually rule number one.

The true indication of when they feared collapse is when they actually evacuated the building for good.

Here is an interesting dialogue from the oral histories in relation to the towers:


As I was walking towards the Fire command post, I found Steve Mosiello. I said, Steve, where's the boss? I have to give him a message. He said, well, what's the message? I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.

He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse. His reply was who the f___ told you that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci, Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF


The incident command did not expect the first buildings to collapse. Some mysterious source predicted it. Who was that source? The fact that firefighters were told of the collapse of WTC 7 in the same way mitigated their surprise. Of course they were surprised that 3 steel frame buildings collapsed for the first time in history - one of them not struck by a plane and with a collapse initiation that was not in the area of the physical damage.

[Pardalis]

Why don't you wait for the final report Russell?

[Moving On]

So you now agree with NIST?

So if NIST conclude in the final report that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to the damage and fire you will accept it?

Yes or no?

Silly wabbit.

I will review it and decide then.

[Gravy]

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt." [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

Russell, you've been asked this time and again. Please clearly state why you think Chief Nigro is wrong, and why you think your opinion should carry more weight than the assessments of the experts who were there.

[Moving On]

i have 2 very simple questions for you, please do not dodge them or tell me to go back and read 25 pages of this thread

1: do you beleive WTC7 was "fully involved" with fire?

2: if no, why do you think the FDNY described it this way?

You can see that it was in fact NOT fully involved in fire.

I don't know why NIST has not quoted the firefighters on this.

[Pardalis]

I will review it and decide then.

Why do you say you'll decide then?

[Moving On]

You guys reorganize your strategy based on the facts.

Have a nice day!

[Gravy]

The incident command did not expect the first buildings to collapse. Some mysterious source predicted it. Who was that source? The fact that firefighters were told of the collapse of WTC 7 in the same way mitigated their surprise. Of course they were surprised that 3 steel frame buildings collapsed for the first time in history - one of them not struck by a plane and with a collapse initiation that was not in the area of the physical damage.Why not ask the firefighter you quoted who "John at OEM" was. Why not interview other people who were involved before proclaiming the source "mysterious"?

EMS Division Chief John Peruggia would be a good person to talk to, no?

They were in the process of securing a hydrant and then they said they would move on. At that point I went back into the building. I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction.

Q. They felt that just the one building or both of them?

A. The information we got at that time was that they felt both buildings were significantly damaged, but they felt that the north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

[Pardalis]

You guys reorganize your strategy based on the facts.

Have a nice day!

I'm sure YOU'LL reorganize your strategy once the final report is out. :rolleyes:

[Gravy]

You guys reorganize your strategy based on the facts.

Have a nice day!Running away does answer some questions, Russell, but not the ones we're explicitly asking here.

[stateofgrace]

You guys reorganize your strategy based on the facts.

Have a nice day!

Indeed I will, thanks for taking the time to answer all the questions that were put to you, oh wait...........

[Belz...]

Plain and simple. Like FEMA said, you primarily had a smothered fuel fire on 2-3 floors without significant ventilation (no windows). Diesel puts out copious amounts of smoke in proportion to the actual flame or heat. Go read about diesel.

The smoke poured out of the building and hung on the side just like actual science states, can predict and repeat at will. That is the scientific method. Not Skeptianity!

No one here is claiming that all floors were on fire, Russ. You've been battling a strawman for ages, now, and looking silly for it.

But even if only 8 floors HAD been on fire, it's quite possible that the fires, combined with the severe structural damage, were more than enough to bring the building down.

Heck, the firemen knew it would collapse. So what's the problem ?

[Belz...]

The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

Wasn't it blocking a street ?

[Belz...]

You guys reorganize your strategy based on the facts.

Have a nice day!

Is it YOUR strategy not to respond to other people's points and then act as though they were never brought up ?

[chipmunk stew]

They did not fear that the initial structural damage would cause WTC 7 to collapse. They would not have allowed firefighters inside after search and rescue was complete if they did. To be perfectly honest, if they thought collapse was imminent they would not have sent firefighters inside at all. Cost/benefit analysis. Protect the rescuer is actually rule number one.

The true indication of when they feared collapse is when they actually evacuated the building for good.
I agree. They began to fear collapse after the building had been burning "fully involved" (whatever that means--their words, not mine) "unchecked" (their word, not mine) for some time, and after they observed "bulging" (their word, not mine), observed "leaning" (their word, not mine), and observed "creaking" (their word, not mine).

As for the words I bolded above, I am unaware of any firefighters inside 7 after search and rescue. The dozens of accounts indicate that the crews were performing search and rescue when they were pulled from the collapse zone.

[Trigood]

Plain and simple. Like FEMA said, you primarily had a smothered fuel fire on 2-3 floors without significant ventilation (no windows). Diesel puts out copious amounts of smoke in proportion to the actual flame or heat. Go read about diesel.

The smoke poured out of the building and hung on the side just like actual science states, can predict and repeat at will. That is the scientific method. Not Skeptianity!

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/wtc71.jpg



Watch the following video. It is exactly as described.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KPRpNgcA_Hw

Then take the time to notice there is significant smoke being drawn into the overall smoke from the foreground and bottom left of the video well away from WTC 7.

Just admit that is what you see.

Then watch this video to see the same thing again and explain to me where the 47 story fully involved building is in the picture.

Not ONE floor that can be described as anything like fully involved and not even ONE lick of flame.

Get over it.

The explanation for the building collapsing is not out yet. YOU don't know. The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

You have ZERO evidence to support your claims and it is you that is now operating purely on belief and preference.

Period.
More and more, Russell reminds me of the troofer I was debating on the other forum. His name (or rather, handle) is EugeneAxeman.

Russell's usage of single-sentence paragraphs, like Eugene's, indicates an inability to carry an argument or thought past a one-sentence slogan-like notion.

Russell, like Eugene, also seems fixated on that picture of the smoke coming out of the south face of WTC7, and on trying to deny what that picture clearly says. True, he's picked a different gambit (the "leeward wind tunnel" nonsense, as opposed to Eugene's "collapse debris cloud turning the corner" nonsense). Still the focus on this one picture, and the unwillingness to credit the videos that exist proving him wrong, says volumes aobut his inability (like that of Eugene) to look at evidence and see what it plainly says.

Maybe this just indicates that, in order to argue like a troofer, you have to think alike. Or maybe he and Eugene are just two people who think alike. I'm starting to wonder, however.

Eugene is registered here, but very rarely posts. Odd.

Hey, I'm just asking questions here!

[Trigood]

The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?Wasn't it blocking a street ?
Also, there was a simplicity to that cleanup because there was no pile going down 7 stories underground to worry about. Also, it was highly accessible compared to the WTC1-2 "pile." And I believe one main reason was there were no expected casualties in that area, so deconstruction could proceed with very little concern for possible human remains. Obviously they couldn't assume there would be none; but none were expected, and indeed none were found.

Another example of how a troofer asks a rhetorical question, already "knowing" the answer in his "legendary" mind, while unwilling to look at any of the true facts and evidence.

[LashL]

There is somebody on this thread now that is part of an agency in King County who certified me medically.

I have given them permission to investigate anything about me and share it here.

Ask them.

Your insults of the SFD are based on ignorance.

What makes you think I care about your medical certification? That said, please provide this person's information and I will ask him or her as you have invited me to.

My "insults" of the SFD are not based on ignorance but based on YOUR behaviour and lack of knowledge as displayed here. If you are representative of their best and brightest, they are in serious trouble.

[LashL]

We worked 24 hour shifts.

You are losing it.



When you mentioned four shifts initially in your tortured mathematical post, I mistook that for reference to 8 hour shifts or 10/12s rather than 24s. BFD. That doesn't change the fact that your lack of knowledge of simple and basic firefighting matters is startling for someone who used to be a firefighter.

[LashL]

Really? I'm surprised that's no illegal. Remind me to never need a fireman in the USA. I'd rather not entrust my life to someone who has been awake for an entire day straight.

-Gumboot

They are currently doing 24 hour shifts as a pilot project in Toronto as well. It is not the optimal solution by any stretch of the imagination in my view, for precisely the reason you stated. Firefighters tend to like it, of course, because most of them have other jobs in addition to their firefighting jobs, and there are studies that support it, but personally, I think they are BS.

Even my partner had to agree with me, as much as it pained him to do so, that if he was injured at work and was taken to hospital, he’d rather have a nurse who hadn’t been up for 23 hours already doing his stitches or being tasked with monitoring his care, etc.

More often than not, in a busy station like the one my partner works out of, he gets no sleep at all when he is on shift. Sometimes, he might get an hour or two, but rarely does he get more than that.

[LashL]

]PS - JREF tactics and personal discrediting can not affect me. I know myself and my past better than you do even if you are really an attorney. Do they have a psychological test for the bars there?

Oops, I guess you didn’t edit that out quickly enough before someone quoted you, Russell.

So, you don’t like it when people call you on your nonsense but you think it’s perfectly acceptable for you to keep making wholly unfounded and ridiculous references to me in which you ascribe to me psychological issues, which you have manufactured out of wholecloth. Got it. For the record, I’m among the sanest people on the planet, and your stupid posts suggesting otherwise are really just that – stupid.

[LashL]

Toronto is a much larger department than Seattle.

They have 2,900 staff. Seattle had 1005 in my last year there.

Toronto looks to have 80 plus stations. Seattle had 33 when I was there.

In 2005 Toronto had 140,516 incidents. Only 7% of those were fire calls - not actual fires. I could not find a number for actual fires versus false alarms.

In 2001 Seattle had 73,677 responses. 1,736 of those were fires. In addition to that Seattle had 6059 false alarms.

You can question my original numbers if you want but that is just foolishness on your part.

I will most certainly check your numbers, Russell. That is not “foolishness”. It is in my nature to be accurate and not just take what someone says as gospel without verifying the facts and evidence. You should try it some time.

(Plus, you have repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to compare apples and oranges and I suspect that you are doing so again here.)

BTW, I am well aware that firefighters are called to all manner of events, not just fires. In Toronto, they get dispatched to medical events, elevator rescues, alarm calls, vehicle extrications, and various and sundry other types of events. Nobody has ever suggested that fire departments do nothing but go to fire calls.

I specified well involved or fully involved fires. I went to numerous room fires and smaller events. In Seattle you may be at a station that was overstaffed. So every third or fourth shift you go work at another station that needs personnel. On debit days you work at other stations. With shift trades and overtime you will eventually work all over the city to average out the differences in fire events usually based on income brackets.

As usual, Russell, you change the topic or move the goalposts in order to deflect from the actual issues at hand. The fact that you personally never worked any major fires speaks only to your own lack of knowledge and experience with such fires. You’re assuming a lot if you think that fire events are “usually” based on income brackets. While that may be applicable in Seattle, it is not necessarily true in other cities. For instance, some of the most expensive real estate in all of Canada is located in the downtown core of Toronto, and that is also where the busiest station and the busiest trucks are. Go look up the stats for station 331 which I’ve twice previously directed you to after you inquired about my partner’s station – there you’ll see some serious numbers. While we're on that topic, please tell me what your primary station in Seattle was.

If you average out the number of fires, the number of shifts and the fact that you work 24 hours in different first-in districts in the size of a city like Seattle the first-in well involved or fully involved structure fires are about 5 per year.

Seattle doesn’t have many fires - I don’t dispute that. The fact that it has so few is probably part of the reason why your knowledge and experience appear to be so limited.

The other thing your ignorance is leading you to foolishly believe is that first-in is all you get. NO. In a full response you have a second and third arriving engine company too. I was on many of those as well. But by the time you get to most of those the initial knock down is finished and I didn't count that.

Huh? It’s not ignorance on my part. We were not talking about being first in or being part of a subsequent company. Why you think that I made the assumptions that you are alluding to, I’ve no idea. I am fully aware of the fact that trucks are often cleared from a fire event without even getting to the location, let alone having to actually fully engage in a particular event. You are again spouting nonsense that has nothing to do with the issues at hand and pretending that it is relevant.

I have tried to leave most of this rest but since you want to display your lack of knowledge for all to see I will go into more detail for you.

No, it’s not a lack of knowledge on my part. It’s just more obfuscation and avoiding issues on your part. As usual.

The percentages of fires in metropolitan departs tends to average out and be similar for departments that do both EMS and fires.

Source, please.

Fully involved structure fires are the exception and not the rule.

Nobody has ever said otherwise. Are you suggesting that someone has?

I know it is the nature of attorneys (if you really are one) to win no matter what, but you should just quit while you are behind.

It is the nature of good lawyers, like myself, to be thorough, to consult appropriate sources, to consult appropriate professionals in their respective fields as required, to research matters of fact and law fully, to seek out not only information that supports the client’s position but also information that contradicts the client’s position, and to assess all of it critically. (In fact, I’d go so far as to say that seeking out information that contradicts the client’s position is just as, if not more, important than seeking out information that supports the client’s position.)

If the facts and evidence do not support my client’s position, I advise the client accordingly and make the appropriate recommendations. If the client insists upon pursuing litigation in a matter upon which the facts and the law do not support the client’s position, I get written instructions to proceed despite my recommendations. So, again, you’re wrong – it’s not about “winning no matter what”. It’s about representing a client’s interests to the best of your ability and doing so honourably, professionally and ethically.

In my personal life, I operate much the same way. On any given topic, I like to be thorough, to consult appropriate sources, to consult professionals, to look for information on various sides of a topic that is contentious, and to assess all of it critically in order to come to a conclusion.

It’s not about “winning” – it’s about thinking critically, exploring various dissenting views, assessing the facts and evidence and coming to a reasonable conclusion as a result. You should try it some time.


NOTE TO OTHERS ON THE THREAD: I haven’t yet caught up with all of the posts but I apologize for the fact that some of my posts here have served only to give Russell the opportunity he wanted to ignore all of your legitimate questions that are actually on topic.

[LashL]

Please go back and see who made a big deal about it. I did not.

Certain members here decided to drastically misrepresent and attack me based on dating a firefighter and feeling that somehow as an attorney they know everything.

I am responding as I will not tolerate the lies and tactics that you people here resort to in an effort to defend your religion.

Oh, get over yourself, Russell.

I didn't misrepresent you at all, and I didn't attack you for anything but your own nonsensical tinhat posts and your posts that demonstrated quite clearly that your knowledge of some very basic firefighting matters is grossly lacking. Don't blame others for your own failings.

So, you were a firefighter once upon a time, and not a very knowledgeable or experienced one. That's life.

But don't blame others for pointing out your obvious errors and lack of knowledge of things that an experienced and professional firefighter would know. You can post all day long about scheduling station dinners - that doesn't change a thing that I've written. The fact that you were clueless about fire dampers being HVAC items and not elevator hoistway items, and the fact that you admitted that you took the word of some tinhatter site that claimed otherwise, and the fact that you specifically talked about fire shutters (as opposed to dampers) and claimed or believed that they were installed in elevator hoistways (not a chance) - those are the things that twigged me to the fact that you haven't anywhere near the knowledge or experience that you pretend to have when it comes to firefighting issues.

So, don't shoot the messenger for delivering the message. Blame yourself for making it obvious that you pretended to have expertise that you do not possess. There are vast differences between being a mediocre firefighter/ems guy at a sleepy station in Seattle and actually knowing what the hell you're talking about when you try to delve into areas and issues that apparently never arose (at least not in your experience) at your station in Seattle. You brought this all on yourself by purporting to claim expertise and knowledge that you clearly do not possess. You could (and should) have just said that you didn't know anything about fire dampers or fire shutters instead of pretending otherwise. You could (and should) have just said that you have no meaningful or related experience with high rise fires. You could (and should) have just said that you have no experience with events even remotely approaching those that occurred in New York City on Sept. 11/01.

You could (and should) answer the questions of so many others on this thread who have asked you specific and relevant questions arising out of your tinhat posts which you have ignored.

You could (and should) stop avoiding the questions.

[LashL]

Again, your true nature is showing.

I have not lied one single time on this forum.

I NEVER have an intent to deceive and have no motive for doing so. I have told the truth 100%.

It is in fact you that resorts to distortions in truth and is highly prone to exaggeration and manipulation.

Where I have been in error, I have learned and corrected myself.

The rest are my opinions and beliefs. Not lies.

You on the other hand have a desperate need to be right no matter what and proceed in spite of the facts.

Your insinuations and false allegations must really impress the courts there huh?

Blah blah blah.

You're full of crap, Russell, as is just about everything you wrote in that particular post.

This is just more of your usual avoidance of the actual questions and issues and more of your usual attempts to deflect from the questions and issues by way of nonsensical and unsubstantiated personal attacks. You're so predictable.

I seem to recall you saying in another thread that you are around 45 or 46 years old. About time for you to grow up, dont you think?

[LashL]

Here is a glossary definition of "fully involved".
Quote:
Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossar...fighting_terms

That definition varies from department to department. In Seattle it meant the damn place was fully involved in fire. But even using the glossary definition - WTC 7 was not fully involved and you have no means to demonstrate that it was.

Wow - you offer wikipedia as your primary (and in this case, meaningless) source, and then say that according to the Seattle fire department, fully involved means fully involved. How enlightening.

Here you are, a former firefighter (albeit one lacking in knowledge and experience compared to those whose accounts of events you purport to dismiss out of hand) and you cannot even offer your own definition of the very term that you take issue with when it is used by FDNY members who were on site at the relevant time and location?

You offer up a wikipedia definition - which, by the way, even you must admit is pretty crappy. And then you say that SFD defines "fully involved" as "fully involved in fire". You do see what's wrong with this, don't you?

I find it surprising that as a former firefighter, you couldn't offer a definition of the term that you are taking such issue with.

[LashL]

Again, my apologies to others on this thread for continuing this off topic dialogue with Russell to the extent that it gives him the cover he wants in order to avoid answering your legitimate and on topic queries and posts.

Since I work during the day, I can't always address Russell's numerous nonsensical posts made between the middle of the night and the following afternoon/evening until later. It takes time to catch up on them, thus the numerous responses to his last 18 hours or so of posts made either directly or indirectly to me.

Please forgive the derail and don't let it stop you from pressing him for answers to your questions, which he continues to studiously avoid, as usual.

[Gravy]

I have not lied one single time on this forum.

I NEVER have an intent to deceive and have no motive for doing so. I have told the truth 100%.That's a lie.

For example, you said that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated. That's a lie. See, I just substantiated my claim that you're a liar by providing an example. That's what we do here.

In the Russell Pickering thread I showed other examples of your lying. I'm not talking about mistakes, but about lies.

You're in a bind, Russell, because the only way you can support your absurd claims is by inventing an alternate reality. That's one major difference between the "Truth" movement and the people who call you out on your crap. We don't have to lie.

ETA: To be fair, I should include the possibility that you're delusional and don't understand what you're saying.

[Moving On]

That's a lie.

For example, you said that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated. That's a lie. See, I just substantiated my claim that you're a liar by providing an example. That's what we do here.

In the Russell Pickering thread I showed other examples of your lying. I'm not talking about mistakes, but about lies.

You're in a bind, Russell, because the only way you can support your absurd claims is by inventing an alternate reality. That's one major difference between the "Truth" movement and the people who call you out on your crap. We don't have to lie.

ETA: To be fair, I should include the possibility that you're delusional and don't understand what you're saying.

Did you forget about the search feature or something?

Here is what I said:


Gravy,

I consider at the very least 50% of what you say as unsubstantiated.

It goes into the 90 percentile when you factor in that your foundations, the reports you use, can not be directly substantiated by you.

Russell

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2051011&postcount=1276


Here is the discussion we already had about it:

No retraction is forthcoming.


1) "I consider" is a right and a prerogative.

2) Can you or have you personally substantiated the veracity of the reports you use?

EDIT: You misquoted me too.

"Very well. Present your evidence that most of my writings are unfounded or invalid, or withdraw the claim."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2051366&postcount=1434


That is not a lie. Get over the lie thing. It is not going to work against me.

Have you PERSONALLY substantiated the reports you use for your claims?

[Moving On]

LashL,

You can rant and rave all you want now. Your insinuations about me not being a firefighter have been proved wrong and your attempts to degrade my background and then extrapolate that to the SFD itself are just your personal way of dealing with it.

Your praise of the Montreal fire department in rivalry with little 'ol Seattle is fine too. It is actually a phenomenon of sorts.

All of us used to see that girlfriend that would date a firefighter and unnaturally associate herself with the person who actually had the job and did the work. We used to get a kick out of it. It was cute.

I guess most people had a part of them that wanted to be a firefighter.

Russell

[Gravy]

Did you forget about the search feature or something?

Here is what I said:

Here is the discussion we already had about it:

No retraction is forthcoming.

That is not a lie. Get over the lie thing. It is not going to work against me.

Have you PERSONALLY substantiated the reports you use for your claims?Russell, have you forgotten the rest of the conversation? It went like this: "I consider you a Nazi. I have no obligation to provide proof of that claim. It is your responsibility to prove that you're not a Nazi."

So you believe that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated, but you don't have a shred of evidence to base that belief on? Are you delusional then?

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2080103&postcount=73) I point out three lies of yours. You cannot support your absurd claims without lying. I hope you'll think long and hard about your behavior.

[Moving On]

Russell, have you forgotten the rest of the conversation? It went like this: "I consider you a Nazi. I have no obligation to provide proof of that claim. It is your responsibility to prove that you're not a Nazi."

So you believe that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated, but you don't have a shred of evidence to base that belief on? Are you delusional then?

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2080103&postcount=73) I point out three lies of yours. You cannot support your absurd claims without lying. I hope you'll think long and hard about your behavior.

The Nazi thing is great! Good one. I think originally you said neo Nazi but you are not very good at quotes and tend to be selective. Anyway........

There is no lie there. Here is the basic fallacy of your tactic. You cannot "catch" somebody in a lie that doesn't lie. It is that simple.

I can swear under oath or take a lie detector test at any time about any aspect of my life and have zero stress. I have never once sat here and typed anything with the intent to deceive. Never, not once.

I operate in my own name 100% open to anything. Every factual challenge about myself has been responded to with documentation and the ability for you to verify it.

What I have presented about my beliefs and opinions regarding 9/11 have had many factual errors that have been corrected at various stages, or in the case of my website will be corrected when I get done with this phase of research (which by the way you have helped with immensely and guaranteed that more people will understand 9/11 and the valid questions surrounding it).

I am not going to tit for tat you on misrepresentations you have made (god knows LashL is already a handful enough). I caught you in a major one in regards to Craig Bartmer.

You run around here with your excessive (in my opinion) desire to control people's thought and use very blatant tactics to prevent people from looking at the facts. "Protecting lurkers" as you put it.

Is it that you just don't want people to think for themselves? Are you the thought police?

So, after I present many things here in evidential form, generally just taking quotes from documents you consider valid but have neglected to include in your statements, you have only one thing to resort to. A strategy of personally discrediting me.

That is the force of insinuation and repetition. Liar, liar, liar, dishonest, blah blah blah over and over and over again.

Go for it. You truly only shame yourself in the process and become more obvious every time you do it. I have watched you over time sink to lower and lower levels. That indicates insecurity and a shaky case in my life experience.

By exposing yourself this way you have bolstered my beliefs and ensured that many more people in this world will have a chance to ask questions and find their own answers without your monitoring.

Thank you!

[Horatius]

"It's not a lie if you believe it."

-George Costanza

[Gravy]

You run around here with your excessive (in my opinion) desire to control people's thought and use very blatant tactics to prevent people from looking at the facts. "Protecting lurkers" as you put it.

Is it that you just don't want people to think for themselves? Are you the thought police?

So, after I present many things here in evidential form, generally just taking quotes from documents you consider valid but have neglected to include in your statements, you have only one thing to resort to. A strategy of personally discrediting me.There you go again. You said that you've been 100% honest here. I pointed out three lies that you've told. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation, agreed? I provided evidence to back my claim that you lie. You have provided no evidence that my sources are bad. Zero.

Is it foolish to call you a Nazi without evidence? Of course it is, even though it may be "just an opinion." It's plain stupid. Likewise, saying that you believe that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated is plain stupid. It's equivalent to saying that you believe I'm the Tooth Fairy. Who cares? Either you have the evidence to back your claims or you don't. And Russell, over and over and over again you prove that you don't.

Now, show me how I've used "very blatant tactics to prevent people from looking at the facts." Can you show that, or are you just calling me the Tooth Fairy again? I'm going to call you on your b.s. every single time, Russell. Count on it.

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt." Fire Engineering, 10/2002For the umpteenth time, Russell, why should we believe you and not the FDNY? You can keep running, but the question isn't going away.

By the way, have you been able to think of a claim that Loose Change gets right, or do you need more time?

[Moving On]

Gravy,

I haven't told one lie let alone three.

PLEASE try and find a new angle. I beg you.

You are free to believe whoever you wish.

The towers were predicted to collapse too and announced by Gullianai before hand.

There were lots of predictions made that day! Oddly most of them came true.

Russell

[Gravy]

Yes, you have lied. I proved it.

Now answer the question I highlighted. Or are you yellow?

[Spins]

Gravy,

I haven't told one lie let alone three.

PLEASE try and find a new angle. I beg you.

You are free to believe whoever you wish.

The towers were predicted to collapse too and announced by Gullianai before hand.

There were lots of predictions made that day! Oddly most of them came true.

Russell
So, people make predictions all the time but you only remember the ones that come true. Just because one of them was "announced by Gullianai" (as you put it) makes absolutely no difference.

For example, here's a prediction made by Stanley Praimnath to Brian Clark, both WTC South Tower survivors that made it out from above the impact zone...


NARRATOR: Seven minutes later Brian Clark and Stanley Praimnath had made it down the South Tower and were four blocks away. They stopped and looked round.

BRIAN CLARK: And Stanley said to me, he said "You know I think those, those buildings could go over," and I said "There's no way," I said "Those are steel structures." I said "That's furniture and paper and carpeting and draperies and things like that that are burning."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

Also I'm still waiting for this prediction made by Alex Jones...

I fully expect one more 'event' this year to impact theUnited States. My gut feeling is that it will be an earthquake >7.7 in magnitude with insured losses to exceed $25 billion. That number should have been less but presently real estate is far overvalued.http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/weather_mod_katrina_tsunami_called_katrina.htm (http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/weather_mod_katrina_tsunami_called_katrina.htm)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Russell, if the, as you perceive, personal attacks against you don't bother you, then why are those the only posts to which you reply? Why are you not ignoring those posts and addressing the ones that are directly related to your argument?

??

[WildCat]

??
Because it's easier to throw a hissy fit and run away than it is to address facts that directly contradict the premise that has been his whole purpose in life the last several years.

[Pardalis]

The towers were predicted to collapse too and announced by Gullianai before hand.

There were lots of predictions made that day! Oddly most of them came true.

Russell

Are you accusing Rudy Giuliani of something?

Could they just have been right?

[WildCat]

Are you accusing Rudy Giuliani of something?

Could they just have been right?
The firefighters, Giuliani, Bloomberg, apparently just about everyone in NYC on 9/11 was in on it.

[Moving On]

??

Because propaganda is like that.

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

Probably most don't have the time to pick through all the nonsense and realize the weaknesses and nuance of his position as well as that of you his supporters.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.

[Kent1]

The firefighters, Giuliani, Bloomberg, apparently just about everyone in NYC on 9/11 was in on it.

Anytime someone has something that strongly refutes the CT'ers they tend to become "in on it". It doesn't matter whether its deep undercover skaters, taxi drivers, ticket agents, baggage checkers, firefighters, FEMA employees, NIST employees, University Professors, Structual Engineers, ARUP, demolition companies, etc etc....

Basicly most all MIHOP'ers subscribe to many of the following being a part of the conspiracy. Even Russell seems to believe in some of this....also including a VAST amount of "faked" information: faked flight manifests, fake FAA audio tapes, fake security video tapes, fake phone calls, fake hijacker confession tapes, a fake wedding tape, fake Osama tapes (video and audio), planted evidance, fake testimonies (Ticket agents, baggage checkers etc etc) fake people on the internet......

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Russell...and I gladly retrack some of my comments.

[Garb]

Because propaganda is like that.

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

Probably most don't have the time to pick through all the nonsense and realize the weaknesses and nuance of his position as well as that of you his supporters.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.

What [rule8]ing evidence have you provided Russel? Cause I have not been able to find a single point you have made that wasn't proved false.

[stateofgrace]

Because propaganda is like that.

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

Probably most don't have the time to pick through all the nonsense and realize the weaknesses and nuance of his position as well as that of you his supporters.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.

Is that what you think this is all about?

Everybody here is so afraid of the truth so we wish to bury it all and protect people from evil?

Honestly,is this for real? You are making out that there is some mass conspiracy going on right here on this board to bury the truth?

Well I tell you what pal why you don’t tell us the truth. Why don't you right now tell us what truly happened on 911.

Include these in a brief summary.

The TwinTowers.
The Pentagon.
Flight 93.
WTC 7.
Al Quada.
Bin Laden.
The US Government.
The Iraq war.

I will give you an example of a summary of events.

Four planes were hijacked by members of Al Quada. Two hit the Twin Towers which both suffered massive structural damage, burnt and fell down due to the damage.WTC 7 was hit by falling debris , caught fire and fell down,NIST are investigating the exact cause of the collpase.Flight 77 was flown at high speed into the Pentagon. Flight 93 came down after the passengers fought back. This operation was an Al Quada operation called the "plane operation" that was authorised by Bin Laden in 1998.The US Government years later foolishly invaded Iraq, who were not involved in 911. They said Iraq had WMD but it was later found out they didn't.

Now Russ, chum don't cherry pick my summary offer up your own.

ETA. Tell you what pal; I will make it easier for you.

Start your summary off with the following.

“Although not proven yet here is what I think may have happened on 911....................!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Because propaganda is like that.

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

Probably most don't have the time to pick through all the nonsense and realize the weaknesses and nuance of his position as well as that of you his supporters.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.

Do you honestly believe this drek you're spewing?

[chipmunk stew]

Next question: Many experienced people on the ground feared a collapse, and few were surprised when it did. Agree or disagree?
*sigh* Agree or disagree, Russell?

[Trigood]

Gravy,

I haven't told one lie let alone three.

PLEASE try and find a new angle. I beg you.

You are free to believe whoever you wish.

The towers were predicted to collapse too and announced by Gullianai before hand.

There were lots of predictions made that day! Oddly most of them came true.

Russell
Actually, the great majority of "experts" that day did not predict the collapses of the WTC towers.

If they had, do you think that 343 firefighters and however-many policemen would have died in the towers, Russell?

Do your thought processes have any connection to reality, Russell?

[Trigood]

Because propaganda is like that.

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

Probably most don't have the time to pick through all the nonsense and realize the weaknesses and nuance of his position as well as that of you his supporters.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.
Then why don't you deal with the real issues, and stop trying to defend yourself as a reasoner, firefighter, or whatever?

Aren't those really meta-issues?

And why haven't you answered Gravy's question:

"For the umpteenth time, Russell, why should we believe you and not the FDNY?"

[Trigood]

Someone here posted a great question for Russell. I am going to paraphrase it below. If whoever posted it the first time could jump in and post their version (which I'm sure was better than mine), please do so!

Russell: Since all reports and testimonies indicate that the FDNY strongly suspected that Building 7 was going to collapse hours beforehand, and as a result created a collapse zone around the building by 3 pm on 9/11/01, what is your explanation for these facts that jives with your (apparent) theory of controlled demolition of Building 7?

In other words, you are claiming that Building 7 did not look like it was about to collapse, and indeed was not about to collapse, at 3 pm on 9/11/01.

Apart from the fact that you are claiming firefighters lied about that right and left (which we'll ignore for the time being; hey, maybe they were all PTSD'd out and didn't know what they were seeing), let's deal with another major issue here:

How do you explain the decision of Chief Nigro and the FDNY to act as if Building 7 was about to collapse?

A) The FDNY was in on the demoltion plot.

B) Someone who was in on the plot instructed Chief Nigro to create the safe zone, and Chief Nigro obeyed him. (If you choose B, you must give some indication of who gave the order and why Nigro obeyed this order. Hint: Being paid off is not a sufficient answer, and is probably actionable by Chief Nigro anyway, so I'd avoid it if I were you.)

A) or B), Russell. Which is it? I can think of no other options. (If you think of one, go for it.)

[maccy]

Hi Trigood,

I think it was me you were referring to. My questions are below, although I think you've done a pretty good job of reiterating question 3.

Incidentally, I did send Russell a PM asking him to answer these questions as I thought he was getting bogged down in personal arguments and not presenting the facts of his case. He seems (to me, anyway) to imply them without being explicit; or they get buried in dismissive replies to people he has lost patience with.

Russell, did say he would address my questions "eventually" so I'm hoping he will. I think he has partially answered some of the questions but, as I said above, they are more like asides in increasingly emotional and bad tempered posts so I think it would be helpful if he could reiterate his position here - if only for clarity.

On this and other threads Russell seems concerned that Gravy if distorting the truth of the issue and browbeating people with his apparent authority. I think answering the questions below would be a great way for Russell to concisely and clearly put his side of the story across - and I would hope he will help his argument by sticking to the facts of the issue and outlining his interpretation of the facts as calmly as possible.

Maybe he then could go to point us points in Gravy's WTC7 paper which he feels are misleading and explaing why. Links to misleading posts by Gravy (or others) would also help.

To be honest, Russell, you're coming across to me at the moment as somebody who's lost the argument and is throwing their rattle out of the pram in order to distract us from this. This seems to be an excellemnt opportunity to change that perception (both for me and others viewing the thread).

Anyway, here are the questions once again:

Russell,

I've been following this thread for some time and I'm losing track of the parts of your argument that are concerned with the evidence.

Putting aside your feelings about the behaviour of some of the posters here and any issues of your status as a former firefighter, could you please answer the following questions?

1. How do you account for the quantity of smoke coming from WTC7, as shown in the photos at this post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2081821&postcount=443 ?

2. How do you account for the testimony gathered in Gravy's paper? Are the witness mistaken? Lying? Is there an equal amount of contradictory testimony regarding the fires in the building? If there is, can you provide links to it?

3. If the building wasn't in danger of collapse from fire and structural damage, why did the FDNY pull men out from a collapse zone around the building, stopping the search for survivors in that area?

4. Do you accept that NIST believes the likely cause of the collapse is fire and structural damage and that there is no evidence of explosives?

5. If the final NIST report concludes that NIST's current hypothesis is correct and also that none of the hypothetical blast scenarios are plausible, will you accept it?

6. Do you currently have an alternative hypothesis that explains how the building was wired to explode, how the explosives survived the fires for so long and how they were finally detonated? If you don't currently have a hypothesis, do you plan to develop one? Do you plan on consulting any demolition extperts or structural engineers in regard to this?

If you feel you've already answered these questions, would you mind repeating yourself? I've not seen anything really clear in the thread so far (it is getting long).

Thanks

Matthew

[Alt+F4]

Can you quit using firefighters to hide behind? You know nothing of the profession and it looks silly.

Have you interviewed any of them personally?

Well I can't speak for Gravy, but yeah I have personally spoken to my brother-in-law, FDNY, who was there. WTC7 was leaning by about 3pm due to FIRE and DEBRIS damage. No one was surprised when it collapsed. The emphasis that evening was for looking for survivors at ground zero.

[LashL]

LashL,

You can rant and rave all you want now. Your insinuations about me not being a firefighter have been proved wrong and your attempts to degrade my background and then extrapolate that to the SFD itself are just your personal way of dealing with it.

I've never "ranted" or "raved" about anything here. What's with your strange characterizations of other people's posts? Can you not just respond to them calmly and accurately instead of always trying to frame them in a different light? Can you not just actually address the facts and questions raised instead of going off on tangents that do not even come close to legitimate responses?

If you had read my posts carefully, you'd see that I actually said that I believed you were a firefighter - then, based on further information, I said that I wondered whether your work with the Seattle fire department was EMS work because you exhibited so little knowledge of FIRE issues - even about simple things that any firefighter should know. You subsequently said that you've never been at a fully involved fire - even more reason to think that you were utilized for your EMS skills rather than any firefighting skills you might have. Etc. etc. Seattle has an integrated EMS/firefighting force - even more reason to think that you were utilized on the EMS side rather than the firefighting side. Given your short tenure there, and your obvious lack of knowledge and experience, well, it is not an unreasonable conclusion.

Your praise of the Montreal fire department in rivalry with little 'ol Seattle is fine too. It is actually a phenomenon of sorts.


I have never once mentioned the Montreal fire department. I have no knowledge of the Montreal fire department and have never claimed to, but I doubt that they'd feel any sense of "rivalry" with the Seattle fire department.

Once again, you're just making things up.

All of us used to see that girlfriend that would date a firefighter and unnaturally associate herself with the person who actually had the job and did the work. We used to get a kick out of it. It was cute.


Huh? Again, what are you on about? If you can't address the substance of my posts, perhaps you should stop trying to disparage me while you continue to get every single thing wrong.

I guess most people had a part of them that wanted to be a firefighter.


I sincerely doubt that. I've certainly never wanted to be a firefighter and I suspect that the vast majority of the population never wanted to be, either. And what exactly does that have to do with anything on this thread? You appear to have a tendency to go off on tangents that have no basis in fact or reality whenever you want to avoid addressing facts or answering questions. You seem to be doing that a lot recently.

Why don't you try responding to the facts and questions posed instead of making things up and going off on unrelated tangents for a change?

You could start with these that maccy has been asking you for quite some time now, but which you keep avoiding:

1. How do you account for the quantity of smoke coming from WTC7, as shown in the photos at this post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=443 ?

2. How do you account for the testimony gathered in Gravy's paper? Are the witness mistaken? Lying? Is there an equal amount of contradictory testimony regarding the fires in the building? If there is, can you provide links to it?

3. If the building wasn't in danger of collapse from fire and structural damage, why did the FDNY pull men out from a collapse zone around the building, stopping the search for survivors in that area?

4. Do you accept that NIST believes the likely cause of the collapse is fire and structural damage and that there is no evidence of explosives?

5. If the final NIST report concludes that NIST's current hypothesis is correct and also that none of the hypothetical blast scenarios are plausible, will you accept it?

6. Do you currently have an alternative hypothesis that explains how the building was wired to explode, how the explosives survived the fires for so long and how they were finally detonated? If you don't currently have a hypothesis, do you plan to develop one? Do you plan on consulting any demolition extperts or structural engineers in regard to this?

[LashL]

Because it's easier to throw a hissy fit and run away than it is to address facts that directly contradict the premise that has been his whole purpose in life the last several years.

Nailed it in one!

[LashL]

<snip>He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".


You have not presented any evidence at all, Russell, so it's rather silly to claim that someone is trying "bury" something that doesn't exist, and even sillier to claim that someone is trying to "protect" people from you, and even sillier yet for you to think that anyone envisions you as the embodiment of "evil".

[Belz...]

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

Even the non-americans, here ?

NOTE: Russel will not answer this question. NO CTer to which I've asked this question has EVER done anything but ignore it. It seems it's better for their sake to believe that everyone here is an american that supports his evil government.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

<giggles> That's gold, man. GOLD.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.

This, I agree with.

[Belz...]

All of us used to see that girlfriend that would date a firefighter and unnaturally associate herself with the person who actually had the job and did the work. We used to get a kick out of it. It was cute.

I guess most people had a part of them that wanted to be a firefighter.

What in the blue HELL are you talking about ?

[jhunter1163]

I think he's accusing Lash of being a firefighter groupie.

[LashL]

I think he's accusing Lash of being a firefighter groupie.

Yes, I'm sure that is what he is insinuating but he lacks the courage of his convictions to say it directly.

Of course, his insinuation is dead wrong, as usual.

My partner would find Russell's insinuation particularly obnoxious as we have had many, many discussions about the fact that I'd have preferred that he never joined the fire service, and about the fact that if I had my druthers, he would go back to his previous career.

My partner would also find Russell's insinuation particularly ridiculous because of the fact that it took him a long time to talk me into the first date as I was not at all interested in dating someone who was a firefighter. He eventually convinced me but he had to do so despite being a firefighter, and it was a long and arduous process.

Thus, Russell's insinuation is laughable, as well as ignorant, misguided, uninformed, pathetic, altogether lame, and dead wrong.




(P.S. I almost feel sorry for Russell, being reduced as he is to presenting nothing but dead wrong, pathetic, wrongheaded, lame, ignorant, uninformed and misguided personal attacks after he realized that he cannot refute the facts and evidence on any substantive issue here.




I said "almost".)

[tsig]

You're killing me here.

In 8 years I probably had around 30-40 fully involved structures of ordinary and wood frame construction. I never had an involved high rise fire as they are rare.

The audacity it takes to make the silly claims you are making with no knowledge is entertaining.

I finally watched those WTC 7 videos. They are great. They show the wind tunnel effect much better than the stills. Also, when the smoke periodically clears you see absolutely ZERO flame. There were fires down low like FEMA said and that was it.

The other fires on the other floors either burned out or were extinguished by efforts earlier in the day. The fact they were out is proof that it was not a fully involved structure.

You guys will just have to PROVE it was. The burden is on you.

The firefighter testimony is just as important as the testimony of explosions and possible secondary devices at the towers. You should be fair and listen to it all.

I will check back in a couple of days to see if there is anything new.

Russell


Hi Russel, remeber me

I checked your reference as a firefighter and as i am sure you know they do not give out personel data to random callers.

[hellaeon]

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers.


Goodaye Russell, as a casual observer of your many discussions and your reported reputation amongst the truth movement, im hoping you can answer the simple questions in the thread as of now rather then engage in trying to get your post count up. Just remember you dont have to press the submit button.

Cheers

[hellaeon]

The firefighter testimony is just as important as the testimony of explosions and possible secondary devices at the towers. You should be fair and listen to it all.


to no one in particular, perhaps other casual observers though :

This is a grey area because if the physical evidence does not fit the testimony, the testimony is invalid. If I witnessed a murder with an axe but the guy was found with a knife wound and the guy who did it had a knife on him with DNA matched blood and the wound imprint or whatever the technical term is matched the blade I guess they should listen to me jump up and down "IT WAS AN AXE!!!"

[uk_dave]

Or it's like being expected to believe that there was a third plane which hit the towers because as was shown in the naudet documentary a port authority employee states that they have received a warning that a third plane was on it's way in.

By this logic we should be able to claim that the actual collapse of at least one tower was due to this third plane which someone, somewhere reported as being on it's way.

People make mistakes and comments get mis-heard, distorted and mis-reported in the chaos of the incident. But many hours after the attack, when things have started to settle down and rational thought processes are possible once again, the testimony of eyewitnesses regarding the condition of a damaged structure which they might be expected to have to enter is much more reliable than the altered perception of eyewitnesses caught up in the adrenaline rush of an attack in progress and perceiving bangs and crashes as 'explosions' or running with misheard or misunderstood rumours about secondary devices.

[Bell]

Maybe Russell can explain what 'a terrible loss of life' has to do with 'blowing up a building'? They blew it up and thus prevented further casualties... how exactly?

[aggle-rithm]

People make mistakes and comments get mis-heard, distorted and mis-reported in the chaos of the incident. But many hours after the attack, when things have started to settle down and rational thought processes are possible once again, the testimony of eyewitnesses regarding the condition of a damaged structure which they might be expected to have to enter is much more reliable than the altered perception of eyewitnesses caught up in the adrenaline rush of an attack in progress and perceiving bangs and crashes as 'explosions' or running with misheard or misunderstood rumours about secondary devices.

This is especially true when you consider the fact that a lot of people didn't know what had happened at first. All they knew was that there was a big bang, then a fire. Explosives had gone off in the WTC before, so a lot of people assumed that's what had happened again. With that in mind, they would have interpreted everything they experienced as being consistent with their belief that there were bombs going off.

This sort of thing isn't confined to 9/11, either. When Reagan was shot back in the early 80's, they announced on the news that press secretary James Brady was dead. In fact, he ended up outliving Reagan himself.

[aggle-rithm]

Maybe Russell can explain what 'a terrible loss of life' has to do with 'blowing up a building'? They blew it up and thus prevented further casualties... how exactly?

"There's a terrible loss of life anyway, what the hell, let's BLOW THIS SUCKER UP!"

[Horatius]

"There's a terrible loss of life anyway, what the hell, let's BLOW THIS SUCKER UP!"

Well, they are Americans, right? Isn't this how you guys react to most things?

[rwguinn]

Well, they are Americans, right? Isn't this how you guys react to most things?
Nope--
That's the Brittish approach.
I know, because I watched many episodes of the documentary "Monty Python's Flying Circus"

[maccy]

I don't think Russell's going to visit again, he hasn't logged on since the 11th and the last thread he started at Loose Change indicates that he doesn't like what he sees as disruptive and rude JREFers

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=686&hl=

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't think Russell's going to visit again, he hasn't logged on since the 11th and the last thread he started at Loose Change indicates that he doesn't like what he's sees and disruptive and runde JREFers

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=686&hl=

@Russell: Cry more nubsauce.

[uk_dave]

"The Loose Change Forums are a place for intelligent, respectful exchange of ideas, regardless of opinion. If you cannot comprehend that sentence, then this is not the place for you."

That made I laugh! :D :D :D

[hellaeon]

Uh... no great loss. The great guru of the movement cant convince people to disregard scientific facts and appeal to ignorance to prove 9/11 was committed by the government. Whats new. I think this forum needs a 'ignore retards' feature....

* letting of steam *

Cheers

[MG1962]

Hmmm - and the fire was in the Enigma Business Park.... Who the hell calls anything that?????

[LashL]

@Russell: Cry more nubsauce.

Indeed.

*sniff*
Poor Russell, when he found that he could not support his bald assertions with facts and evidence as is required here, and when he found that spouting "gut feelings" and "beliefs" just doesn't cut it here, he had to slink away with his tail between his legs. Poor thing.
*sniff*

[uk_dave]

9/11 TRUTH MEMBERS:

A new forum exclusively for 9/11 truth supporters has been created. It is called the "Ready Room". You can PM me for the password and then PM it to people you know to be solid members here.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...hp?showforum=27

The rules in that forum are posted there and are inflexible. ANY anti-9/11 truth posts there will be met with one direct warning and then suspension for a period of time from Loose Change forums in general.

Respect this space.

Russell

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=801


awwww that's nice...secret passwords...next it'll be secret handshakes....

...OMG are THEY the NWO plotting in secret?? :jaw-dropp

[PerryLogan]

No, silly. The NWO plans everything out in the open--but only angry white guys with IQ's in the mid-80's can see it.

By the way, I think the password for that site is DUMBF*CK.

[stateofgrace]

9/11 TRUTH MEMBERS:

A new forum exclusively for 9/11 truth supporters has been created. It is called the "Ready Room". You can PM me for the password and then PM it to people you know to be solid members here.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...p?showforum=27 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...hp?showforum=27)

The rules in that forum are posted there and are inflexible. ANY anti-9/11 truth posts there will be met with one direct warning and then suspension for a period of time from Loose Change forums in general.

Respect this space.

Russell


Translation.

Every one of our theories has been absolutely decimated everywhere else and most normal people now openly laugh at us. In response I have made a secret little room which I will over see and decide who enters it.

In this secret little room we can all chat openly about how well our campaign is going and how everybody is waking up. Everybody will agree with you no matter how crazy your ideas are because our secret little room will be full of people who have lots and lots of crazy ideas.

Nobody will ever see your crazy ideas and we can even pretend we are actually being rational and reasonable.

So come on, welcome to the all new secret room, only loonies allowed.

Russell.

[WildCat]

Hmmm - and the fire was in the Enigma Business Park.... Who the hell calls anything that?????
It's a mystery.

[chipmunk stew]

9/11 TRUTH MEMBERS:

A new forum exclusively for 9/11 truth supporters has been created. It is called the "Ready Room". You can PM me for the password and then PM it to people you know to be solid members here.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...p?showforum=27 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...hp?showforum=27)

The rules in that forum are posted there and are inflexible. ANY anti-9/11 truth posts there will be met with one direct warning and then suspension for a period of time from Loose Change forums in general.

Respect this space.

Russell
I have obtained the password via my deep cover sock. PM me for details.

[aggle-rithm]

Translation.

Every one of our theories has been absolutely decimated everywhere else and most normal people now openly laugh at us. In response I have made a secret little room which I will over see and decide who enters it.

In this secret little room we can all chat openly about how well our campaign is going and how everybody is waking up. Everybody will agree with you no matter how crazy your ideas are because our secret little room will be full of people who have lots and lots of crazy ideas.

Nobody will ever see your crazy ideas and we can even pretend we are actually being rational and reasonable.

So come on, welcome to the all new secret room, only loonies allowed.

Russell.


It's getting more and more difficult to maintain a fantasy these days...

[Belz...]

Wow.

They are either:

A) So convinced of their ideas that they see any dissenting view as part of the conspiracy. Ergo, not worth their time.

or

B) So aware that their theory is bunk that they need to isolate themselves from the outside world in order to maintain their fantasy-world.

[uk_dave]

ANY anti-9/11 truth posts there will be met with one direct warning and then suspension for a period of time from Loose Change forums in general.


Dalek Voice: "Dissent is not allowed. Exterminate....Exterminate! EXTERMINATE!"

[Spins]

ANY anti-9/11 truth posts there will be met with one direct warning and then suspension for a period of time from Loose Change forums in general.What can I say, I'm glad I don't live in a society run by the 9/11 truth movement. You either agree with all they say, or you are "part of the problem", and they have the balls to moan about the Gov. "taking away their freedoms". They live in a society that gives people the right to "freedom of speech", just because they have this right though doesn't mean we should believe in their paranoid, delusional, tin-foil covered theories.

The 9/11 truth movement is becoming just as doctrinaire as a cult. This kind of attitude to dissension is common as well. I was told that during the C-Span program a couple of months ago two people from the floor tried to ask simple questions such as "what happened to the four planes?", and were basically cut off by the moderator and given a speech about George Bush but no answer to their questions.

Pathetic!

[Belz...]

Dalek Voice: "Dissent is not allowed. Exterminate....Exterminate! EXTERMINATE!"

It always comes back to the Daleks with those British!

[Timble]

It always comes back to the Daleks with those British!

You can't blame the WTC on the Daleks, although it's only slightly less likely than the Star Wars Death Ray scenario.

[Spins]

You can't blame the WTC on the Daleks, although it's only slightly less likely than the Star Wars Death Ray scenario.The daleks in the new series of Doctor Who could fly, this makes the dalek scenario more plausible than the beam weapon imo.

"EX-TER-MIN-ATE!"

[maccy]

The daleks in the new series of Doctor Who could fly, this makes the dalek scenario more plausible than the beam weapon imo.

"EX-TER-MIN-ATE!"

And there is evidence of suspicious Dalek activity in New York.

In The Chase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_%28Doctor_Who%29), a 1965 serial from the William Hartnell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hartnell)-era of Doctor Who (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who), the Doctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_%28Doctor_Who%29), Barbara Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Wright_%28Doctor_Who%29), Ian Chesterton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Chesterton) and Vicki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki), fleeing through time and space with a group of Daleks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalek) in hot pursuit, arrive in their TARDIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS) time machine on the Observation Deck of the Empire State Building (thus avoiding the long lines). They leave shortly after arriving and shortly before the pursuing Daleks' time machine materializes. The Daleks, ignoring the view, also leave almost immediately.

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

[uk_dave]

Soooooo....Russell Pickering IS Davros?
:eye-poppi

[gumboot]

Actually, the great majority of "experts" that day did not predict the collapses of the WTC towers.

If they had, do you think that 343 firefighters and however-many policemen would have died in the towers, Russell?

Do your thought processes have any connection to reality, Russell?


To be fair, it was known in advance that the towers were going to collapse, hence why the Mayor and others were evacuated from WTC7. However it was hardly a "prediction". The NYPD Aviation Unit saw visible evidence of imminent collapse, and reported it. Simple as that.

Likewise, the Fire Chiefs who ordered an immediate evacuation did so based on actually visible evidence of imminent collapse, not from a "prediction".

There were indeed some structural engineers who say as soon as they saw the fires they knew the buildings were going to collapse - and even tried to get hold of the FDNY to warn them. I suppose technically that's a prediction, though again, really they're responding to actual visible evidence.

-Gumboot

[jhunter1163]

Translation.


In this secret little room we can all chat openly about how well our campaign is going and how everybody is waking up. Everybody will agree with you no matter how crazy your ideas are because our secret little room will be full of people who have lots and lots of crazy ideas.



This little room should be called Circle of JAQ.

[twinstead]

This little room should be called Circle of JAQ.

LOL I'm not going to touch that one

[einsteen]

Does anyone know the collapse time of this building ?

[Garb]

Does anyone know the collapse time of this building ?

Probably not much to measure, since the building wouldn't tkae very long to collapse.

Either way, that wouldn't be much of an indicator of what we would expect the WTC to do.

[gumboot]

Does anyone know the collapse time of this building ?


What building?

-Gumboot

[einsteen]

the building which is the reason this thread has been made.

[gumboot]

the building which is the reason this thread has been made.


Oh right. I thought maybe you meant the one the Daleks destroyed.

Why is the collapse time relevant?

-Gumboot

[chipmunk stew]

Does anyone know the collapse time of this building ?
If I understand the sites I've read, it collapsed in near free-fall time.

[Bell]

If I understand the sites I've read, it collapsed in near free-fall time.

Then you didn't understand right. It was faster than freefall. Little rockets on the debris, you know?

[uk_dave]

Everyone knows that toilet paper runs out faster than free fall speed.

Especially if you spin the roll really fast :D

(It's just a hobby)

[Trigood]

9/11 TRUTH MEMBERS:

A new forum exclusively for 9/11 truth supporters has been created. It is called the "Ready Room". You can PM me for the password and then PM it to people you know to be solid members here.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...p?showforum=27 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...hp?showforum=27)Is that similar to the "Romper Room"? :bgrin:

[hellaeon]

9/11 TRUTH MEMBERS:

A new forum exclusively for 9/11 truth supporters has been created. It is called the "Ready Room". You can PM me for the password and then PM it to people you know to be solid members here.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...p?showforum=27

The rules in that forum are posted there and are inflexible. ANY anti-9/11 truth posts there will be met with one direct warning and then suspension for a period of time from Loose Change forums in general.

Respect this space.

Russell

Wow. A new low. Seems mr Scientist and Researcher really is far removed from such things as science and research. What a friggin try hard. Russell, if you want to learn go get an education. Your research is far from acceptable.

This guy is a joke. Secret password to a room where we all agree. What a bunch of immature morons. I cant believe he posts such tripe.

[LashL]

I cant believe he posts such tripe.

I can.

;)

[LashL]

Poor Russell.

He couldn't stand being challenged here and he couldn't stand being unable to respond meaningfully or at all, and his only recourse is to create a Sooper Sekrit Romper Room for Troofers at the post-meltdown LC forum. Oh, how the "mighty" have fallen.

[Trigood]

Actually, the great majority of "experts" that day did not predict the collapses of the WTC towers.

If they had, do you think that 343 firefighters and however-many policemen would have died in the towers, Russell?

Do your thought processes have any connection to reality, Russell?To be fair, it was known in advance that the towers were going to collapse, hence why the Mayor and others were evacuated from WTC7. However it was hardly a "prediction". The NYPD Aviation Unit saw visible evidence of imminent collapse, and reported it. Simple as that.

Likewise, the Fire Chiefs who ordered an immediate evacuation did so based on actually visible evidence of imminent collapse, not from a "prediction".

There were indeed some structural engineers who say as soon as they saw the fires they knew the buildings were going to collapse - and even tried to get hold of the FDNY to warn them. I suppose technically that's a prediction, though again, really they're responding to actual visible evidence.

-Gumboot
Gumboot,

You must have read the dreck of Pickering to which I was responding? i.e.:

The towers were predicted to collapse too and announced by Gullianai before hand.

There were lots of predictions made that day! Oddly most of them came true.You will note that I did not say "nobody knew they were going to collapse," so why are you responding as if I did? Note that I said, "The great majority of 'experts' that day did not predict the collapses." What you've said hardly contradicts that. Of course, I am aware that some knew in advance (although your passive construction is hardly all that illuminating: "it was known in advance" -- by whom? how soon?). In fact, you go on to corroborate what I'm saying by talking about how little "prediction" was taking place that day.

Pickering was the one who used the word "prediction" so loosely and irresponsibly. In spite of that, I am aware of isolated pockets of knowledge of imminent collapse among first responders which, however, did not make it to the radios of most of the firemen, especially in the north tower.

Pickering was implying that everyone in charge, especially Giuliani, knew they would collapse, which is far from the truth. Perhaps at a certain point Giuliani knew. Certainly after the south tower collapsed, he was "in the loop" with the police and they knew the second one was probably going to collapse as well. But Russell was using that one specific instance to imply that the general prediction among all first responders was that there was going to be a collapse.

I was merely emphasizing the fact that it's ridiculous to assume that the great majority of the first responders that day expected the towers to collapse. Otherwise, many more would have gotten out in time to survive.

It's true that certain very knowledgable experts thought they might collapse after seeing the planes hit, but most had no way of conveying that knowledge to anyone on the ground (I am thinking specifically of Mark Loizeaux of CDI, who wasn't able to get thru on the phones to New York, as you imply).

Also, as the tragedy unfolded, as described in 102 Minutes, the helicopter cops could clearly see that the collapse was imminent (they even warned ahead of time of the first collapse). They got word to their folks and got most of the policemen out, esp. of the second collapse zone. I assume you know that one of the great tragedies of the day was that the police/firefighter communications interoperability was not there to get the warning in to the firefighters, hence 100+ firefighters died unnecessarily in the north tower. They had tried to gain interoperability thru buying new radios (I think they were Motorolas), but as 102 Minutes so poignantly explains, the radios that interoperated were rejected for various reasons and were sitting unused back in station houses or in trunks of cars. In addition, the repeaters in the WTC towers either (1) did not work, or (2) were abandoned because the FDNY couldn't get them to work. It was all so tragic and unnecessary. The terrible thing is, I have no idea if these problems have been fixed or not.

Gumboot, although I agree with your facts, I take issue with how you presented them as if in response to my post, which I stand by. I'd appreciate it next time if you would respond directly to Pickering instead of to me, when it is Pickering with whom you disagree. Sorry if I sound a little testy, but I guess I'm feeling that way, a little. *sniff* :eek:

ETA: One very obvious fact that is usually ignored by the CTs is that hardly any of the first responders even knew the south tower had even collapsed, because it was impossible to see that it was missing in all that smoke. All they knew was that something had blown up, or that some part of one of the towers had collapsed, or that another plane had hit, or whatever -- something bad had happened. I think to a lot of the firefighters, especially those who'd lived thru the '93 bombing and seen the towers survive, it was unthinkable that the towers could or would collapse. Of course, everything that happened that day was unthinkable. But I still believe that the majority of the firefighters in the north tower did not realize that the south tower had collapsed. That is my belief, after reading 102 Minutes and lots of other stuff. So clearly, Russell is off his head on this one.

[gumboot]

Gumboot,

You must have read the dreck of Pickering to which I was responding? i.e.:

You will note that I did not say "nobody knew they were going to collapse," so why are you responding as if I did? Note that I said, "The great majority of 'experts' that day did not predict the collapses." What you've said hardly contradicts that. Of course, I am aware that some knew in advance (although your passive construction is hardly all that illuminating: "it was known in advance" -- by whom? how soon?). In fact, you go on to corroborate what I'm saying by talking about how little "prediction" was taking place that day.


Woah! Hold on there a moment.

For starters, I explain the "whom" later in my post. The "it was known in advance" was merely an introduction.

Secondly, I was responding to both of you. First off, in your post:

Actually, the great majority of "experts" that day did not predict the collapses of the WTC towers.

If they had, do you think that 343 firefighters and however-many policemen would have died in the towers, Russell?

In this you imply the fact that first responders remained inside is evidence that experts did not know a collapse was imminent. However, as you yourself later state, the people managing those first responders DID know a collapse was imminent, they simply could not contact the firemen. Indeed, FDNY chiefs gave evacuation orders SEVERAL times - this is the sole reason that none of those from the firehouse featured in the Naudet documentary were killed on 9/11 - they heard the evac calls.

I certainly am aware that the tragedy of the FDNY was primarily a result of the transponder not being employed because it was (incorrectly) concluded that it was not working (the brand of walkie-talkie is irrelevant as there aren't any that can penetrate 50+ floors of a skyscraper on their own, and communication between NYPD and FDNY is irrelevant because FDNY couldn't even hear their OWN evac order anyway).

I was not so much refuting your position, merely clarifying that the death of so many first responders was not in itself evidence that there was no advance warning.

The meat of my post, however, was directed at Russell.

It is a common argument amongst CTers, that the Major must have had some advanced insider knowledge of a CD because WTC7 was evacuated so early. I was merely point out that this evacuation was a direct result of specific information communicated to the command bunker via the NYPD Aviation Unit. Thus, although the Mayor DID know in advance, and WTC7 WAS evacuated in advance, it was in response to a perfectly mundane awareness of WTC1's collapse, not some nefarious insider knowledge of WTC1, 2, or 7's imminent demolition.

In essense, Trigood, we are on completely the same page.

-Gumboot

[aggle-rithm]

It is a common argument amongst CTers, that the Major must have had some advanced insider knowledge of a CD because WTC7 was evacuated so early. I was merely point out that this evacuation was a direct result of specific information communicated to the command bunker via the NYPD Aviation Unit.

If it were me, personally, I wouldn't need any insider knowledge or specific information. If I were in a building where an airliner had just crashed a block away and a thousand feet overhead, there would soon be a whole lot of gone between me and that building.

[Belz...]

If it were me, personally, I wouldn't need any insider knowledge or specific information. If I were in a building where an airliner had just crashed a block away and a thousand feet overhead, there would soon be a whole lot of gone between me and that building.

Shill. ;)

[CurtC]

This little room should be called Circle of JAQ.How about just "Circle JAQ"?

[jhunter1163]

How about just "Circle JAQ"?


I didn't want to be quite so direct, but that IS pretty much calling a spade a spade.

[LashL]

Back in November, you quoted some statistics about the Toronto Fire Service and the Seattle FD and said "you can question my original numbers if you want but that is just foolishness on your part" and I said that I would, indeed, check your numbers, that it is not "foolishness" to do so, and that it is in my nature to be accurate and not just accept what someone says without verifying the facts and evidence.

I have been busy and not able to post much recently, but threads have a long life here, and now that I've been able to find some time, and now that I see you're back here on other threads, it seems an appropriate time to post the results of my review of your numbers.

It turns out that I was quite correct to question your numbers. They are, in fact, wrong, misleading, and poorly researched.

Here are the relevant portions of your post:


In 2005 Toronto had 140,516 incidents. Only 7% of those were fire calls - not actual fires. I could not find a number for actual fires versus false alarms.

You must not have looked very hard. In 2005, Toronto did indeed have 140,516 incidents. Of those, 9,362 were actual fires (structures but not including vehicle fires). They also had 29,063 false alarms. In addition, there were 11,436 vehicle incidents, including fires, although not all vehicle incidents would necessarily involve fires, some would be extrications etc., but the numbers are not broken out suffiicently to determine how many of the vehicle incidents involved fires.

In 2001 Seattle had 73,677 responses. 1,736 of those were fires. In addition to that Seattle had 6059 false alarms.


Yes, those statistics are accurate as far as they go. The fires included 481 structural fires, 424 vehicle fires, 614 rubbish, dumpster, brush, etc., and the rest were "others". Of those 1,736 fires in 2001, Seattle had 5 "major" fires, which they define as fires causing over $1 million in property damage or resulting in fatalities. Fortunately, there were no fire fatalities that year.

Of Seattle's 73,677 incidents, nearly 80% (57,231) were Rescue/EMS calls, which is not surprising in light of the integrated EMS system in place there. Another 7,609 calls were "lock outs, animal rescues, etc."

Of Toronto's 140,516 incidents, only 53% (74,956) were Rescue/Medical calls, which is also not surprising in light of the fact that Toronto does not have the same kind of integrated EMS system in place. Toronto has other agencies in place for the hundreds of thousands of medical calls received annually, including, but not limited to, these folks:

http://www.toronto.ca/ems/
http://www.toronto.ca/ems/overview/statistics.htm

So, you see, you were wrong about the number of actual fires vs. fire calls in Toronto; your research was poor in that you could not find the number of false alarms; and the rest of your post was nonsense, and has previously been responded to above, and which is linked below.

The other thing your ignorance is leading you to foolishly believe is that first-in is all you get. NO. In a full response you have a second and third arriving engine company too. I was on many of those as well. But by the time you get to most of those the initial knock down is finished and I didn't count that.
This part was already answered previously. You were wrong on that, too.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2087405&postcount=561

I have tried to leave most of this rest but since you want to display your lack of knowledge for all to see I will go into more detail for you.


This part was already answered previously. You were wrong on that, too.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2087405&postcount=561

And you have failed to answer the legitimate questions posed to you, not only in my posts, but throughout the thread by others who are actually on topic, perhaps now that you're back arguing about the Pentagon and the cab driver, you can take a moment to respond to the numerous questions you left unanswered here.

[LashL]

In case it wasn't obvious enough for people like Russell, my post #648 was directed to Russell Pickering.

I realized, after the fact, that I did not specifically refer to him by name or point out that it was his shoddy research I was referring to in my prior post.

While I am confident that anyone reading this thread knows that I was referring to Russell and his prior post, and while I am confident that Russell knows that as well, and while I am confident that he has seen my post above and has chosen not to respond to it, I thought I should at least clairify this on the record so that he cannot later use my inadvertent failure to explicitly name him in that post as part of his next copout routine.

That is all.