Russell Pickering and 9/11 [Archive]

Spins

8th November 2006, 08:52 AM

This article gives you some idea why he became interested in 9/11...

When the Sept. 11 terror attacks occurred, Russell Pickering was working as a professional firefighter in Seattle.

Especially because of his profession, he was deeply affected.

"The loss of firefighters and police was significant to me because of what I did," he recalled.

His initial interest devolved into probing questions and eventually frustration that the federal government seemed unwilling to provide answers. From a network of contacts and information, Pickering has created a Web site about the attack on the Pentagon, http://www.pentagonresearch.com.

People should look at the evidence there and make up their own minds, he says.

"I don't make any conclusions," Pickering adds. "I have no partisan interest in this."

His curiosity was piqued when friends who served on Seattle's urban search and rescue team returned from a Sept. 11 assignment in New York City, bringing questions about what they'd seen. They wondered why World Trade Center building 7 had seemingly collapsed for no reason.

Another factor was an article in the 105-year-old Fire Engineering magazine in which the editor expressed outrage that debris was removed without investigating why the buildings had collapsed. The writer also questioned the handling of the investigation.

Also puzzling Pickering were reports by NYC firefighters about secondary explosions in the two towers. When 9-1-1 transcripts were released in 2005 they contained accounts of those explosions.

The evidence gave credibility to the questioners who continued their probe. And it provided additional incentive for Pickering to question the events of Sept. 11.

"I feel it's my patriotic duty to look into it and find out what we're not being told," he says. "We all have a right to know what happened."

He served in the Air Force for six years and is respectful of the military.

In his examination of photographs from the attack on the Pentagon, Pickering says he's found only a few images showing parts of the aircraft. Further, the FBI refuses to release evidence of aircraft debris and barred the National Transportation and Safety Board from investigating the scene.

The FBI also has 85 videos it refuses to release. One of Pickering's research partners filed a Freedom of Information Act request for them. He says the agency at first denied the existence of the videos and then, on appeal, admitted to having 85.

The videos come from civilian, business and security cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon, says Pickering, who wonders why the agency won’t share the information.

"There is no justification for not releasing it," he says, adding that anyone can go to the Pentagon's Web site and get all the details about the building. "There's absolutely no security issue whatsoever."

Questions about the plane persist, such as why the official passenger manifest contained neither Arab names nor names that aren't accounted for, Pickering says. Further, the government has no positive identification of the five hijackers and barred involvement by the Virginia medical examiner.

Also barred from the site were members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, who based their subsequent report on indirect examinations, he adds.

Pickering is further puzzled by the history of the terrorist-pilot, who was denied access to a Cessna 172 three weeks before Sept. 11. Since the denial was based on his inadequate English and piloting skills, Pickering wonders how he could fly a jumbo jet.

"There may be answers for these things, but the government hasn't put forth a single piece of evidence," Pickering says. "I don’t think we were told the whole truth.

"As an American citizen, I'm entitled to answers."

His quest has become a "personal passion," says Pickering, who moved to Cody four years ago and spent more than a year researching before launching his Web site. That site now is getting more than 15,000 hits a month, he adds.

"It's a duty to pursue this until answers are provided," he says.

His sources include interviews with fire officials from the scene, an individual with a nine-minute video of the incident and other eyewitnesses. He’s also studied photographs and videos, searched the Internet and submitted FOIA requests.

"Whenever possible, I've gone to the source," Pickering says.

He's also consulting on a movie, "Loose Change 2nd Edition." The movie is promoted at http://www.loosechange911.com as showing a "direct connection between the attacks of Sept. 11 and the U.S. governoment."

Pickering's resolve was recently buoyed by wide interest in an Internet radio show in which he participated. Along with tens of thousands of Internet viewers, he says 30 federal agencies and military-industrial companies logged into the program.

"If we didn't have something important, they wouldn't be interested," Pickering says.

He claims there are 4 documented errors on the Popular Mechanics website, I'll let everyone count how many there are above!

Hello from Cody, Wyoming. I moved here in January of 2002 from Seattle. I had worked for 11 years in emergency medicine with the most recent 8 years being for the Seattle Fire Department. I enjoyed my career as a firefighter and also felt the need for a change. I was mysteriously drawn to Cody and followed my heart here.

I began photography in 1983 at the University of Hawaii while in the Air Force. Throughout the years I've written, drawn, and photographed for my own enjoyment. I love life and most of all, people. To portray people in story and image is my pleasure.

http://www.russellpickering.net/about.htm (http://www.russellpickering.net/about.htm)

Some nice photography by the way!

Oliver

8th November 2006, 09:04 AM

So we are starting witch-hunts in here, too? Or is it
a conspiracy that you post this one in here?

Moving On

8th November 2006, 09:10 AM

Spins,

Factor in the date of that article when you calculate my "errors".

Then please address each error that is left individually and I will respond to them.

Thank you,
Russell

Spins

8th November 2006, 09:13 AM

So we are starting witch-hunts in here, too? Or is it
a conspiracy that you post this one in here?
It's no witch-hunt, as I said "This article gives you some idea why he became interested in 9/11", I got the article from here (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060420080018985).

If he doesn't want people to know about his interest in the subject he shouldn't put it on the web. As he stated...

His quest has become a "personal passion," says Pickering, who moved to Cody four years ago and spent more than a year researching before launching his Web site.

Gravy

8th November 2006, 09:16 AM

"Whenever possible, I've gone to the source," Pickering says.I guess that was impossible in the case of the FDNY and WTC 7, huh, Russell? Couldn't locate any of those expert witnesses before accusing them of being wrong, "researcher?"

Spins

8th November 2006, 09:25 AM

Spins,

Factor in the date of that article when you calculate my "errors".

Then please address each error that is left individually and I will respond to them.

Thank you,
RussellDo you still believe no plane hit the Pentagon, or did you, as more evidence became available, change your mind?

Gravy

8th November 2006, 09:25 AM

Spins,
Factor in the date of that article when you calculate my "errors".
According to the site (http://www.codyenterprise.com/articles/2006/04/21/news/news1.txt), the date of the article is April 21, 2006.

Care to explain how that excuses any of your enormous errors of omission and commission?

DavidJames

8th November 2006, 09:33 AM

I thought this quote was funny, not in a HA HA way.
"I don't make any conclusions," Pickering adds. "I have no partisan interest in this."

Moving On

8th November 2006, 09:34 AM

According to the site (http://www.codyenterprise.com/articles/2006/04/21/news/news1.txt), the date of the article is April 21, 2006.

Care to explain how that excuses any of your enormous errors of omission and commission?

That was before any of the videos etc. had been released.

Go ahead and make a list.

(I actually feel sorry for you sometimes.)

Moving On

8th November 2006, 09:36 AM

Do you still believe no plane hit the Pentagon, or did you, as more evidence became available, change your mind?

No - I believe a plane hit the Pentagon now. That has to do with videos released, NTSB data released, new photos acquired, a trip to DC and new damage discovered in the flight path since that article.

Moving On

8th November 2006, 09:53 AM

Gravy,

You should read the online responses to that article. Not ONE negative.

The editor also called me down to the paper to hand deliver a stack of letters from this small conservative town as well. Not ONE negative.

I'll just cite one since this woman's daughter was right there.

Russell Rickering is a true hero. His sincere need to understand mirrors my own. I live in NYC and my daughter was near building 7 as it collapsed. I can still hear my voice yelling over her cell, "Turn around and get away from there." The question I have - where was NORAD???? Too many people excuse Bush saying it was a tragedy etc. etc. We need a man in the White House who really LOVES America, like Truman, and can think beyond his pocketbook. 9/11 gave Bush a chance to line his friends pocketbooks with bucks. Until all Americans wake up and demand truth we will suffer this injustice done to innocent people. Thank you for supporting Pickering. Peace, Janelle Barabash
Sunday, Apr 30, 2006 (06:04:52 am MDT)

http://www.codyenterprise.com/guestbook/

You have to remember you are in the category of only 13% of Americans who don't question it. 86% of us are conscious and not fascist in our position on the government.

If everybody was in the 13% maybe we would have nationalized ID cards by now in addition to the travel police, consolidation of intelligence agencies, the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, "Domestic Survellience", neo con domination of space and the Internet as well as a war on a culture of people that has multiplied the number of actual terrorists by thousands and thousands.

Oh wait..........we do have a national ID card coming in May of 2008.

Blind patriotatism is NOT patriotism. You should read the Constitution.

Spins

8th November 2006, 09:54 AM

Most of the errors in that article are related to the Pentagon, such as the passenger manifest etc, but you don't believe in the no plane theory anymore so there is no point in asking you to explain them.

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th November 2006, 10:02 AM

Spins

8th November 2006, 10:12 AM

If you were wrong about the Pentagon, based on limited evidence, why are you so sure the WTC 7 collapse wasn't caused by structural damage sustained as WTC 1 collapsed and the subsequent fires, also based on limited evidence?

It's a pity we don't have a photograph of the damage to the south face, labeled here as "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris"...

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wtc7.jpg

...taken from the current NIST working hypothesis for the collapse.

Moving On

8th November 2006, 10:12 AM

Argumentum ad numerum and slipperly slope fallacy.

The names of the arguments are directly related to the truth content.

I have to brush up on my rhetoric.

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th November 2006, 10:17 AM

The names of the arguments are directly related to the truth content.

I have to brush up on my rhetoric.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

You're appealing to numbers. That is a logical fallacy.

defaultdotxbe

8th November 2006, 10:28 AM

You have to remember you are in the category of only 13% of Americans who don't question it. 86% of us are conscious and not fascist in our position on the government.
you say that as if everyone other then yourself is in the 13%, personally i suspect if a similar poll were conducted on JREF (or any intellectual/scientific forum) youd get a number even higher than 86%

Blind patriotatism is NOT patriotism. You should read the Constitution.
agreed, and you should try opening your eyes

Horatius

8th November 2006, 10:49 AM

I'll just cite one since this woman's daughter was right there.

...

You have to remember you are in the category of only 13% of Americans who don't question it. 86% of us are conscious and not fascist in our position on the government.

Yeah, except where in that does she express suport for any of your MIHOP ideas? Expressing support for questioning the government does not equal agreeing with you on everything.

Russell Rickering is a true hero. His sincere need to understand mirrors my own. I live in NYC and my daughter was near building 7 as it collapsed. I can still hear my voice yelling over her cell, "Turn around and get away from there."

So we have a mother being concerned for her daughter, because buildings were falling down all around her. Nothing unusual about that, my own mother phoned me that day, just because I work in a tall building. It's what mothers do.

The question I have - where was NORAD????

A good question, that arises because most people didn't know how NORAD was set up at that time. Go ahead and ask why they didn't re-think air defence plans after the end of the Cold War, but don't act like that proves some huge plot.

Too many people excuse Bush saying it was a tragedy etc. etc. We need a man in the White House who really LOVES America, like Truman, and can think beyond his pocketbook. 9/11 gave Bush a chance to line his friends pocketbooks with bucks.

Is there anyone here who doesn't agree that GWB is taking advantage of the situation? Clearly he is, but that's just opportunism, no different than anything else politicians do. They see where the crowd is going, and get out in front so it looks like they're leading. It's what they do.

And there's a lot of people here who will tell you to go ahead and rake Bush over the coals for this, take a look at Perry Logan's website for one. Just make sure you're doing it for the right reasons.

So once again, I ask you CTists: Stop wasting all this time and effort on make-believe BS, and try making actual changes in how things are run. You just had another election that came down to a coin flip. If you had been working against GWB's real outrages all this time, maybe the results would have been more definative.

Moving On

8th November 2006, 10:55 AM

Yeah, except where in that does she express suport for any of your MIHOP ideas? Expressing support for questioning the government does not equal agreeing with you on everything.

So we have a mother being concerned for her daughter, because buildings were falling down all around her. Nothing unusual about that, my own mother phoned me that day, just because I work in a tall building. It's what mothers do.

A good question, that arises because most people didn't know how NORAD was set up at that time. Go ahead and ask why they didn't re-think air defence plans after the end of the Cold War, but don't act like that proves some huge plot.

Is there anyone here who doesn't agree that GWB is taking advantage of the situation? Clearly he is, but that's just opportunism, no different than anything else politicians do. They see where the crowd is going, and get out in front so it looks like they're leading. It's what they do.

And there's a lot of people here who will tell you to go ahead and rake Bush over the coals for this, take a look at Perry Logan's website for one. Just make sure you're doing it for the right reasons.

So once again, I ask you CTists: Stop wasting all this time and effort on make-believe BS, and try making actual changes in how things are run. You just had another election that came down to a coin flip. If you had been working against GWB's real outrages all this time, maybe the results would have been more definative.

Great debunking of that woman!!!

defaultdotxbe

8th November 2006, 10:57 AM

Great debunking of that woman!!!
its not a debunking, shes the not the one spouting the bunk

Moving On

8th November 2006, 10:58 AM

you say that as if everyone other then yourself is in the 13%, personally i suspect if a similar poll were conducted on JREF (or any intellectual/scientific forum) youd get a number even higher than 86%

agreed, and you should try opening your eyes

Yes - that is my problem, I don't examine things.

Thank you - I have been seeking that insight for 45 years and you just turned the lights on.

I believe in reciprocity and would also like to help you.

Read something besides Gravy's work and even if you only do that, read the actual reports he links to!

twinstead

8th November 2006, 10:59 AM

Horatius

8th November 2006, 10:59 AM

Great debunking of that woman!!!

So nice to see you can completely miss the point.

defaultdotxbe

8th November 2006, 11:00 AM

Read something besides Gravy's work and even if you do that only, read the actual reports he links to!
your about as psychic as sylvia browne

actually i havent read anything of gravys except for his LC guide, although i read most of the reports even before he wrote his stuff

twinstead

8th November 2006, 11:01 AM

Yes - that is my problem, I don't examine things.

Thank you - I have been seeking that insight for 45 years and you just turned the lights on.

I believe in reciprocity and would also like to help you.

Read something besides Gravy's work and even if you do that only, read the actual reports he links to!

The same goes for you. You assume that anybody who doesn't belive that 911 was an inside job doesn't examine things. Can it be possible for two people of the same intelligence to examine the same thing but come to different conclusions?

And if so, what does that mean about what the REAL truth is?

Moving On

8th November 2006, 11:02 AM

It's amazing to me how some folks are completely dumbfounded by the fact one can at the same time dislike Bush and his politics intensely, yet not believe, based on the evidence, that he is guilty of mass murder.

It's almost like we are expected to think he is either a god, or he is an evil mass murderer. Nothing in between,

If you know the pretense for invading a country is false, and you have estimates on troop deaths in advance, and you do it anyway and the people die..........

Bronze Dog

8th November 2006, 11:07 AM

Moving On

8th November 2006, 11:08 AM

The same goes for you. You assume that anybody who doesn't belive that 911 was an inside job doesn't examine things. Can it be possible for two people of the same intelligence to examine the same thing but come to different conclusions?

And if so, what does that mean about what the REAL truth is?

Misunderstanding.

In that 86% are probably people who fit the category of "JREFer". That pole was based on degrees of doubt. Not 9/11 conspiracy "believers" versus non believers.

I know people here examine it.

I was more referring to the extremists like Gravy.

Polar opposites are always interesting. The fanatics here are exactly like the conspiracy fanatics - except totally different.

The essence that they share is intolerance, unjustified belief and social identification limiting their ability to think clearly.

Spins

8th November 2006, 11:09 AM

Russell Rickering is a true hero. His sincere need to understand mirrors my own. I live in NYC and my daughter was near building 7 as it collapsed. I can still hear my voice yelling over her cell, "Turn around and get away from there."

Also the reason she wasn't hurt by the collapse and was in no danger (something her mother wouldn't have known and probably still doesn't) is the fact that the FDNY had created a collapse zone around the building several hours beforehand, why? Becasue the building was showing telltale signs of imminent collapse, isn't that correct Russell?

beachnut

8th November 2006, 11:10 AM

Is Russell in on the money side of LC now?

Russell at least has the most patriotic cover, vs Dylan's fictional film start turned to fraud against those who say they are searching for facts and asking questions, the betrayed truth movement.

My question; Is Russell in on the CT of LC? Or is Russell being used by LC?

My questions are based on the fact LC is a CT using a fictional film to make money off of people like Russell.

Tell me who has not looked forward to hearing Russell Pickering discussing his primary views published recently like; "We should focus on the irrefutable evidence like the demolition of WTC7, the free-fall speed of the towers, Norad, PNAC etc., in other words, things that are WELL documented"

I have looked forward to his well documented evidence. His web site is a disappointment, filled with misleading statements to support his elusive conclusions.

Horatius

8th November 2006, 11:12 AM

If you know the pretense for invading a country is false, and you have estimates on troop deaths in advance, and you do it anyway and the people die..........

So why don't you spend your time arguing about this? Why didn't you get out and campaign against him in any of the last few elections?

The fact is, a lot of people don't know that the pretense for war was false or misleading, and a lot of other people who do know supported the war for their own reasons. Why don't you work on educating the former and trying to convert the latter?

Again, why waste time on this MIHOP/LIHOP BS when there are real issues you could be working on?

Moving On

8th November 2006, 11:12 AM

Bush is evil. But he's not evil enough to pull off a 9/11 conspiracy. And even if he was sufficiently evil, there's no one on Earth smart enough to fake it and yet stupid enough to fake it in the way CTists like to make up. Why use energy weapons, mini-nukes, etcetera, when you can *gasp* do the same thing by hiring fake terrorists and telling them to hijack a plane. Much less administrative work and fewer things that could go wrong.

Is a surgeon evil to the 10,000 cells he sacrifices to save several billion?

The ideology of the PNAC is to save the whole world. They believe without a doubt that what they are doing is good and that the end justifies the means.

There was NO other way for them to have justified their Middle East policy in order to save the world. They had to have the American public behind them. Read Operation Northwoods (just a plan I know).

The greatest amount of good, for the most amount of people, for the longest period of time is not something that finite beings should decide!!

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th November 2006, 11:15 AM

This tangent is best suited to the Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=6) subforum.

Gravy

8th November 2006, 11:17 AM

That was before any of the videos etc. had been released.

Go ahead and make a list.

(I actually feel sorry for you sometimes.)Very well.

"I don't make any conclusions," Pickering adds. "I have no partisan interest in this."False. You certainly do make conclusions, many of which are demonstrably wrong. The ability to make informed conclusions is not related to "partisan interest."

His curiosity was piqued when friends who served on Seattle's urban search and rescue team returned from a Sept. 11 assignment in New York City, bringing questions about what they'd seen. They wondered why World Trade Center building 7 had seemingly collapsed for no reason.Were any of those people there to see WTC 7 damaged and burning?

Another factor was an article in the 105-year-old Fire Engineering magazine in which the editor expressed outrage that debris was removed without investigating why the buildings had collapsed. The writer also questioned the handling of the investigation.Bill Manning has never supported CT claims. His complaints were only related to the fire safety of tall buildings.

Also puzzling Pickering were reports by NYC firefighters about secondary explosions in the two towers. When 9-1-1 transcripts were released in 2005 they contained accounts of those explosions.And had you done what I have done, you could have read and taken notes about those accounts, put them into context, and learned about what the firefighters were describing.

The evidence gave credibility to the questioners who continued their probe.False. The CTs have shown no evidence that lends credibility to the claim that the USG was involved in planning or executing the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

In his examination of photographs from the attack on the Pentagon, Pickering says he's found only a few images showing parts of the aircraft.Remember, this interview was in April of 2006. I wrote my guide to Loose Change – a movie that Russell boasts of contributing to – then. Dozens and dozens of photographs of flight 77 parts were available.
Further, the FBI refuses to release evidence of aircraft debris and barred the National Transportation and Safety Board from investigating the scene.False. As required by law, the FBI was the lead investigating body into the crashes. The NTSB was also involved, and did the crucial analysis of the "black boxes."

The FBI also has 85 videos it refuses to release. One of Pickering's research partners filed a Freedom of Information Act request for them. He says the agency at first denied the existence of the videos and then, on appeal, admitted to having 85.And in what way does the lack of access to videos preclude you from knowing what happened to flight 77?

The videos come from civilian, business and security cameras in the vicinity of the Pentagon, says Pickering, who wonders why the agency won’t share the information.

"There is no justification for not releasing it," he says, adding that anyone can go to the Pentagon's Web site and get all the details about the building. "There's absolutely no security issue whatsoever."As we know, when proper procedures are followed, the FBI has released some videos. This can take time.

Questions about the plane persist, such as why the official passenger manifest contained neither Arab names nor names that aren't accounted for, Pickering says. False. The flight manifests contained the names of all 19 hijackers.

Further, the government has no positive identification of the five hijackersFalse. The government has overwhelming evidence of the identity of the hijackers. And Russell failed to mention that the remains of two brothers were identified by DNA at the Pentagon, and that the only brothers to die there that day were listed as hijackers on flight 77.

and barred involvement by the Virginia medical examiner.False. They turned down the VME's offer of involvement, because the DOD's pathologists and facilities were orders of magnitude more capable of dealing with mass casualty incidents than were the state of Virginia's.

Also barred from the site were members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, who based their subsequent report on indirect examinations, he adds.False. This has been discussed with Russell in another thread.

"There may be answers for these things, but the government hasn't put forth a single piece of evidence," Pickering says. Pathetically and blatantly false. The 9/11 Commission report? The NIST report on WTC 1 & 2? The ASCE report on the Pentagon? No evidence there?
"As an American citizen, I'm entitled to answers."That depends on the questions you ask and who and how you're asking. And ignoring answers based on solid evidence is a bad idea.

"Whenever possible, I've gone to the source," Pickering says.False. And you often made unsubstantiated claims without addressing the contradictory evidence that was staring you in the face, as you do here.
He's also consulting on a movie, "Loose Change 2nd Edition." The movie is promoted at http://www.loosechange911.com (http://www.loosechange911.com/) as showing a "direct connection between the attacks of Sept. 11 and the U.S. governoment."The movie that gets every claim wrong.

Pickering's resolve was recently buoyed by wide interest in an Internet radio show in which he participated. Along with tens of thousands of Internet viewers, he says 30 federal agencies and military-industrial companies logged into the program.

"If we didn't have something important, they wouldn't be interested," Pickering says.Your claims are not validated because some individuals at large organizations tuned into an netcast. That fallacy has been explained to you above.

Now, would you like to explain why the April, 2006 date of that article excuses your errors?

Spins

8th November 2006, 11:17 AM

Russell why are you so sure the WTC 7 collapse wasn't caused by the damage sustained during the collapse of WTC 1 and the susequent fire, based on the limited evidence you have collected?

NIST have been investigating the collapse for some time now and have found (in their words) no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition. Are you saying they are lying? Remember NIST have access to all the evidence available, a lot of which hasn't been released. They are very specific about the damage to the south face shown in the diagram below...

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wtc7.jpg

• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

...doesn't common sense dictate they have photos of the damage because they are very specific in their description? If not are they lying?

Horatius

8th November 2006, 11:19 AM

The ideology of the PNAC is to save the whole world. They believe without a doubt that what they are doing is good and that the end justifies the means.

There was NO other way for them to have justified their Middle East policy in order to save the world. They had to have the American public behind them.

And that's why they seized the opportunity that a bunch of terrorists handed them that day. That's why they made up the WMD excuses. That's why they talk about Iraquis welcoming the troops with flowers.

Taking advantage of the currents of history doesn't mean that they're causing the currents. It just means they always have their eyes on the main chance, and don't hesitate to take a leap when the time comes.

milesalpha

8th November 2006, 11:20 AM

In a historical sense, there is absolutely nothing unusual about the Bush administration's actions. To think that government acts out of anything but perceived self-interest is silly.

Bronze Dog

8th November 2006, 11:22 AM

Is a surgeon evil to the 10,000 cells he sacrifices to save several billion?

The ideology of the PNAC is to save the whole world. They believe without a doubt that what they are doing is good and that the end justifies the means.

There was NO other way for them to have justified their Middle East policy in order to save the world. They had to have the American public behind them. Read Operation Northwoods (just a plan I know).

The greatest amount of good, for the most amount of people, for the longest period of time is not something that finite beings should decide!!

Boy, did you miss the point. The big problem with all the conspiracies: They're too complicated. A good conspiracy involves as few people as possible. A controlled demolition, or tropical lazor beams from space, etcetera, would involve far too many people, and would probably be leaked long before it got underway.

Besides, there are easier ways to justify a mideast attack/invasion/occupation/whatever than to kill a bunch of Americans. 9/11 just greased the wheels slightly.

Of course, the above is working backwards. Bush would have gone to Iraq if the attack was real or an inside job. With identical results, always favor the simpler hypothesis.

Moving On

8th November 2006, 11:23 AM

Also the reason she wasn't hurt by the collapse and was in no danger (something her mother wouldn't have known and probably still doesn't) is the fact that the FDNY had created a collapse zone around the building several hours beforehand, why? Becasue the building was showing telltale signs of imminent collapse, isn't that correct Russell?

Collapse and debris zones are set up for any working high rise fire.

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th November 2006, 11:23 AM

Boy, did you miss the point. The big problem with all the conspiracies: They're too complicated. A good conspiracy involves as few people as possible. A controlled demolition, or tropical lazor beams from space, etcetera, would involve far too many people, and would probably be leaked long before it got underway.

Besides, there are easier ways to justify a mideast attack/invasion/occupation/whatever than to kill a bunch of Americans. 9/11 just greased the wheels slightly.

Of course, the above is working backwards. Bush would have gone to Iraq if the attack was real or an inside job. With identical results, always favor the simpler hypothesis.

It was a good example of post hoc, ergo prompter hoc though wasn't it?

Moving On

8th November 2006, 11:26 AM

Moving On

8th November 2006, 11:27 AM

So why don't you spend your time arguing about this? Why didn't you get out and campaign against him in any of the last few elections?

The fact is, a lot of people don't know that the pretense for war was false or misleading, and a lot of other people who do know supported the war for their own reasons. Why don't you work on educating the former and trying to convert the latter?

Again, why waste time on this MIHOP/LIHOP BS when there are real issues you could be working on?

I am not into politics.

This is the real issue that is being used to eviserate our Constitution.

Pardalis

8th November 2006, 11:33 AM

I am not into politics.

This is the real issue that is being used to eviserate our Constitution.

:D

Who said the CTists can't be sarcastic?

Peephole

8th November 2006, 11:36 AM

Oh wait..........we do have a national ID card coming in May of 2008.

Why are you CT's so afraid of ID cards?

beachnut

8th November 2006, 11:37 AM

Misunderstanding.

I know people here examine it.

I was more referring to the extremists like Gravy.

.

If you are Russell P, and your web site still misleads; you are the extremist.

Errors still stand on your web site. Are you an extremist?

Would the best research available be the right thing to do for the heroes of 9/11? Why not try harder? Why not do the right thing and try to stop misleading others. Stop being the extremist you accuse others of being.

Spins

8th November 2006, 11:45 AM

Horatius

8th November 2006, 12:08 PM

I am not into politics.

This is the real issue that is being used to eviserate our Constitution.

:D

Who said the CTists can't be sarcastic?

Was that sarcastic? I'm so deep into headache land here I'm losing track.

And just in case it wasn't let me make it clear: Get Into Politics.

Belz...

8th November 2006, 12:14 PM

Is a surgeon evil to the 10,000 cells he sacrifices to save several billion?

Okay, that was weird.

The ideology of the PNAC is to save the whole world. They believe without a doubt that what they are doing is good and that the end justifies the means.

Oh. And you know this, because ?

There was NO other way for them to have justified their Middle East policy in order to save the world.

Oh, yes. There was. There was many.

They had to have the American public behind them. Read Operation Northwoods (just a plan I know).

I believe that particular plan called for NO casualties.

The greatest amount of good, for the most amount of people, for the longest period of time is not something that finite beings should decide!!

There is no infinite beign, so we'll just have to take care of it ourselves.

Moving On

8th November 2006, 12:27 PM

False. You certainly do make conclusions, many of which are demonstrably wrong. The ability to make informed conclusions is not related to "partisan interest."

Could you remind me of a definitive statement or a conclusion I have pronounced. My mind is fuzzy from reading your long post. And try to keep it shorter OK?

Were any of those people there to see WTC 7 damaged and burning?

No but they are collapse experts and worked side by side with FDNY who told them of the rumors.

Bill Manning has never supported CT claims. His complaints were only related to the fire safety of tall buildings.

I let Bill speak on this one, "No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

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

And had you done what I have done, you could have read and taken notes about those accounts, put them into context, and learned about what the firefighters were describing.

I'm guessing I have a little more firefighter training than you on this one. Secondary devices are part of that training. Thank you for your time though.

False. The CTs have shown no evidence that lends credibility to the claim that the USG was involved in planning or executing the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Read this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2052384&postcount=78

Remember, this interview was in April of 2006. I wrote my guide to Loose Change – a movie that Russell boasts of contributing to – then. Dozens and dozens of photographs of flight 77 parts were available.

DOZENS and dozens. I have a photo of every individual piece on my site that I am aware of. Perhaps you could enlighten me. You should read more!

False. As required by law, the FBI was the lead investigating body into the crashes. The NTSB was also involved, and did the crucial analysis of the "black boxes."

The data was confiscated right away in regards to the CVR.

"Ordinarily, that would have been just the start of Cushman's association with the device, but this time, it was the end. The events of Sept. 11 had already been classified as criminal acts, rather than accidents, so the FBI, which has its own forensic audio lab, took charge of the box and its data."

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/hear.html

And in what way does the lack of access to videos preclude you from knowing what happened to flight 77?

In the same way having your TV turned off precludes you from watching the X Files.

As we know, when proper procedures are followed, the FBI has released some videos. This can take time.

I can get a DVD in 5 minutes at Video world. 5 years is sufficient. Read this thread. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68164

False. The flight manifests contained the names of all 19 hijackers.

Please contact Wikipedia and have them correct this.

"On September 11, 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11), Hani Hanjour boarded American Airlines Flight 77 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77) at 7:50am, though it is still disputed whether or not he had a ticket for the flight, or appeared on any manifest."

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

False. The government has overwhelming evidence of the identity of the hijackers. And Russell failed to mention that the remains of two brothers were identified by DNA at the Pentagon, and that the only brothers to die there that day were listed as hijackers on flight 77.

They did match two brothers. They still have no positive identification of the remains matched to any name specifically. Read this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2045975&postcount=12

False. They turned down the VME's offer of involvement, because the DOD's pathologists and facilities were orders of magnitude more capable of dealing with mass casualty incidents than were the state of Virginia's.

“On the afternoon of September 11, Dr. Marcella Fierro, the Virginia Chief Medical Examiner, met with ASAC Blecksmith and asserted the responsibility of her office regarding the autopsies of victims of the terrorist attack. The FBI felt strongly that the Armed Forces Institute of pathology (AFIP), with which the FBI has long-standing working relations, should perform the autopsies. Dr. Fierro requested and received a letter from Attorney General Ashcroft transferring responsibility for the medical examinations to the FBI.

She informed them that Virginia forensic laboratory and mortuary resources were prepared to go to work in support of the response. The FBI and DOD officials declined the offer, preferring to conduct forensic and mortuary activities at DOD facilities."

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Fire/edu/about/docs/after_report.pdf

"Also barred from the site were members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, who based their subsequent report on indirect examinations, he adds." - False. This has been discussed with Russell in another thread.

"The volume of information concerning the aircraft crash into the Pentagon on September 11 is rather limited. Through the cooperation of transportation, law enforcement, and news organizations the BPS team was able to collect the essential data for the purpose of this study." (page 12)

"Controlled access to the site was granted to the full team after rescue and recovery operations were complete. On October 4, 2001, the Pentagon team, together with John Durrant, the executive director of ASCE’s institutes, and W. Gene Corley, the BPS team leader at the World Trade Center, inspected the interior and exterior of the damaged area of the Pentagon for approximately four hours.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

“There may be answers for these things, but the government hasn't put forth a single piece of evidence,” Pickering says. “I don't think we were told the whole truth." - Pathetically and blatantly false. The 9/11 Commission report? The NIST report on WTC 1 & 2? The ASCE report on the Pentagon? No evidence there?

Please try to refrain from quoting me out of context as you do the reports etc. for your articles. Read the paragraph prior to that.

"Pickering is further puzzled by the history of the terrorist-pilot, who was denied access to a Cessna 172 three weeks before Sept. 11. Since the denial was based on his inadequate English and piloting skills, Pickering wonders how he could fly a jumbo jet.

http://www.codyenterprise.com/articles/2006/04/21/news/news1.txt

This is what I was referring to:

"The Washington Post will note that since Hanjour’s pilot skills were so bad, how he was ever able to get a license “remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss.” [Washington Post, 10/15/2001 (http://forums.randi.org/); CBS News, 5/10/2002 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml)]"

"As an American citizen, I'm entitled to answers." - That depends on the questions you ask and who and how you're asking. And ignoring answers based on solid evidence is a bad idea.

I can and will ask anything of anyone at anytime. Which branch of the service were you in?

"Whenever possible, I've gone to the source," Pickering says. -
False. And you often made unsubstantiated claims without addressing the contradictory evidence that was staring you in the face, as you do here.

Gravy - that is just wrong. I have done more in person investigation of the pentagon than almost anybody. Can you post some of your personal interviews with the firefighters you quote please?

The movie that gets every claim wrong.

Every claim? Please try to refrain from exaggeration.

".....he says 30 federal agencies and military-industrial companies logged into the program." - Your claims are not validated because some individuals at large organizations tuned into an netcast. That fallacy has been explained to you above.

You saw the logs? How? They were very specific from a server that far exceeds normal logs for websites. Please try and only speak of that which you know and your posts will be significantly shorter.

Now, would you like to explain why the April, 2006 date of that article excuses your errors?[/quote]

It really is not very effective for you to try and function in your current emotional state. Go take that walk I suggested and come back prepared.

Moving On

8th November 2006, 12:35 PM

Why are you CT's so afraid of ID cards?

The REAL ID Act was passed in May, 2005. You won't be able to drive, fly, open a bank account, collect Social Security, or go into certain federal buildings without one. The bill was passed quietly wrapped in an emergency spending bill for the Iraq war. It has to have a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on. That reminds me - when did the United States of America become the "Homeland"?

Read more about the REAL ID Act.

http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-5697111.html?tag=st.util.print

"“An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

Who said that?

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th November 2006, 12:37 PM

I let Bill speak on this one, "No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Artic...ICLE_ID=131225
More cherry-picking.
Quote in context:

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Moving On

8th November 2006, 12:37 PM

If you are Russell P, and your web site still misleads; you are the extremist.

Errors still stand on your web site. Are you an extremist?

Would the best research available be the right thing to do for the heroes of 9/11? Why not try harder? Why not do the right thing and try to stop misleading others. Stop being the extremist you accuse others of being.

Russell = Extremist

You must upgrade you tactics after people acclimate to them!!!

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th November 2006, 12:40 PM

The data was confiscated right away in regards to the CVR.

"Ordinarily, that would have been just the start of Cushman's association with the device, but this time, it was the end. The events of Sept. 11 had already been classified as criminal acts, rather than accidents, so the FBI, which has its own forensic audio lab, took charge of the box and its data."

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ring/hear.html
Context matters Russell.

...
Ordinarily, that would have been just the start of Cushman's association with the device, but this time, it was the end. The events of Sept. 11 had already been classified as criminal acts, rather than accidents, so the FBI, which has its own forensic audio lab, took charge of the box and its data.

That's also why Cushman can't say much more about her role in that investigation, or about the work she did on the recorders recovered from Flight 93, which plowed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers apparently thwarted another hijacking. Like the Pentagon CVR, the black box from that plane came to NTSB only for the extraction of its data before being turned over to the FBI. The recorders from the two planes that struck the World Trade Center have yet to be found.

Incidents and Accidents
The air disasters of Sept. 11 were anomalies. Ordinarily, the cause of a crash or other aviation incident remains at least something of a mystery until the NTSB conducts its investigation. And for most of the 4,000 aviation incidents and accidents the agency investigates in a typical year, the mystery can be solved without consulting the CVR. "The investigator in charge determines whether it's necessary to download the information," Cushman says. "If you have a good pilot interview and it's obvious what happened, you might not need to."
...

Moving On

8th November 2006, 12:44 PM

Okay, that was weird.

Oh. And you know this, because ?

Oh, yes. There was. There was many.

I believe that particular plan called for NO casualties.

There is no infinite beign, so we'll just have to take care of it ourselves.

Read this post on the PNAC: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2052384&postcount=78

What other way could they get the American people behind it? Remember they needed emotional support. Not false WMD and a false link of 9/11 and Saddam.

Operation Northwoods did involve casualties.

Read this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2010653&postcount=103

Prove their is no infinite being!

Pardalis

8th November 2006, 12:48 PM

Prove their is no infinite being!

Here lies the entire problem.

beachnut

8th November 2006, 12:52 PM

When will your web site be updated and the misleading stuff be taken out or explained. Like radar altitude from primary targets.

When? Date? Time?

Why are you associated with the fictional film makers of LC who are pulling a CT on the truth movement?

Mark Jackson, reporter for the Maryland Bee, found a friend who had a mp3 of an NSA tape,,, Dylan was laughing at the lemmings who follow them! (my introduction to my screen play for Oliver Stone on how real dumb kids pull off a simple CT and make money telling lies and misleading real dumb people)

Russell you are in the screen play. You are the busy body building a web site with neat misleading quotes and information. You are wined and dined out of town by the LC guys, yet you become the idealist, not too smart, but true to your ideas, you are mislead to the edge.

Moving On

8th November 2006, 12:52 PM

Context matters Russell.

Arkan,

None of what you posted changed anything.

Please try not to post such long things when it isn't required.

It just keeps people form being able to concentrate on the important stuff.

Russell

Bronze Dog

8th November 2006, 12:54 PM

Prove their is no infinite being!

Ye olde shifting burden of proof.

Childlike Empress

8th November 2006, 12:55 PM

You must upgrade you tactics after people acclimate to them!!!

That's my impression, too.

Arkan_Wolfshade

8th November 2006, 12:56 PM

Arkan,

None of what you posted changed anything.

Please try not to post such long things when it isn't required.

It just keeps people form being able to concentrate on the important stuff.

Russell

Too bad. Science doesn't work in "sound bite" quanta. Real science takes effort to understand, and even people like Sagan (who could make it understandable by the masses) had to use books and mini-series to explain the concepts. If you think that the additional information is not relevant, then explain why.

defaultdotxbe

8th November 2006, 12:57 PM

The REAL ID Act was passed in May, 2005. You won't be able to drive, fly, open a bank account, collect Social Security, or go into certain federal buildings without one.
thats been around for decades, their called "drivers licenses" (cant buy liquor or cigarettes without one either)

just now they are making them national instead of state-based, personally ive wanted them to do it for a long time (since i worked in retail) it will make it much easier to spot forgeries when you have 1 design for the whole country

It has to have a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on.
you mean like the barcode thats been on my state ID for 10 years?

seriously, whats so sinister about that part?

Kent1

8th November 2006, 01:01 PM

Russell why are you so sure the WTC 7 collapse wasn't caused by the damage sustained during the collapse of WTC 1 and the susequent fire, based on the limited evidence you have collected?

NIST have been investigating the collapse for some time now and have found (in their words) no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition. Are you saying they are lying? Remember NIST have access to all the evidence available, a lot of which hasn't been released. They are very specific about the damage to the south face shown in the diagram below...

http://www.mugen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wtc7.jpg

...doesn't common sense dictate they have photos of the damage because they are very specific in their description? If not are they lying?

When NIST put out that diagram they did not have access to very many photos of the south side. Since that time they have recieved various photos,(from myself) and others which will adjust the previous damage estimate.

Pardalis

8th November 2006, 01:03 PM

So Russell, let's assume you are correct and the WTC buildings were prerigged with explosives.

So what's next?

Are you going to investigate controlled demolition companies?

What is the next step in your investigation?

Crungy

8th November 2006, 01:12 PM

Bill Manning has never supported CT claims. His complaints were only related to the fire safety of tall buildings.

I let Bill speak on this one, "No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

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

Nice example of quote mining. You're one intellectually dishonest "researcher"! Bill is pissed off that the investigation was politically expediated before the experts could ascertain the unique causes and complex chain of events that brought the tower down. After each large or unique disaster, Fire engineers, as are most professionals in the design profession demand a thorough investigation into the conditions which lead to the tragedy. These involve research not only into building design, but also building codes.

Bill Manning's article continues below. Clearly, Bill does not invoke the possible use controlled demolition. Clearly, Russell has no interest in disclosing Mr. Manning's true grudge with the official investigation. Typical CT tactic. Shame on you Russ!

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

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

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

Kent1

8th November 2006, 01:25 PM

Thanks for pointing out the error at Wikipedia.
I corrected the information about Hani Hanjour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour#The_attack

He's on the flight manifest
http://www.911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html
Also see some ticket info
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_reconstruction.htm

Horatius

8th November 2006, 01:25 PM

None of what you posted changed anything.

Please try not to post such long things when it isn't required.

It just keeps people form being able to concentrate on the important stuff.

Russell

And that right there is either a flat out lie or the most ignorant thing I've seen today. Like he said, context matters.

The bit you quoted:

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

could be asserted as support for any CT theory. I could assert that he's voicing support for my theory that invisible pixies with sledgehammers brought down the WTC*. It's only when you include the earlier paragraphs that you understand what he's really complaining about:

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

He's not complaining that the destruction of evidence is aiding in a cover-up of some Government Plot, he's concerned that FEMA doesn't know how to conduct a through investigation of the collapse, with an eye towards improving building codes and safety standards. Which, you will note, was then done by NIST, so no harm no foul.

Context does matter. What doesn't matter is many times you deny this.

*stupid pixies......

Moving On

8th November 2006, 01:31 PM

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

Nice example of quote mining. Shame on you Russ!

NO - shame on you.

Let me rebold your quote.

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

Kent1

8th November 2006, 01:36 PM

Pardalis

8th November 2006, 01:37 PM

Is there a more recent quote from Bill Manning concerning this topic?

Has anyone tried to get in touch with him to find out what he thinks now of the NIST report?

Kent1

8th November 2006, 01:43 PM

Is there a more recent quote from Bill Manning concerning this topic?

Has anyone tried to get in touch with him to find out what he thinks now of the NIST report?

I'll just post some of the link I posted from before

Subsequent Fire Engineering articles shed some light on the magazines position. They ran a detailed report later supporting the “fire-induced” claim http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf, for instance. And In 2003 they produced an article suggesting that the collapse was in part due to overly-relaxed building codes.
Also see link above. I think its clear he doesn't believe in CD. But hey what the CT'ers should of done in the first place is simply ask the guy.

Spins

8th November 2006, 01:49 PM

Collapse and debris zones are set up for any working high rise fire.

True, but many of the fire-fighters on the scene were sure a collapse was imminent...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2078298#post2078298

...gravy has bolded the text, is that not correct in your opinion?Do you not want to answer this question, if so why?

Also I think it's worth pointing out that some (maybe all) of the fire-fighters were told not to go near the building and no attempt was made to extinguish the fires because of the high probability of a collapse.

VespaGuy

8th November 2006, 01:49 PM

Gravy

8th November 2006, 01:52 PM

Could you remind me of a definitive statement or a conclusion I have pronounced.Just a sample, from the article:

"There is no justification for not releasing it," he says, adding that anyone can go to the Pentagon's Web site and get all the details about the building. "There's absolutely no security issue whatsoever."

"There may be answers for these things, but the government hasn't put forth a single piece of evidence," Pickering says.

My mind is fuzzy from reading your long post. And try to keep it shorter OK?You also said that my post of the FDNY quotes was "long and distracting." I'll ask you outright: do you have a medical problem that prevents you from paying attention?

No but they are collapse experts and worked side by side with FDNY who told them of the rumors.People who weren't there passed on rumors from unnamed sources. Got it.

I let Bill speak on this one, "No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."I repeat: Bill Manning has never supported CT claims. His concerns were related only to the fire safety of tall buildings.

Why do you CTs insist on only including part of the story – and then usually only the earliest part of the story? Don't you know that Manning's frustration with the "superficial" FEMA investigation was assuaged when NIST took over? You should. Read his subsequent editorials.

I'm guessing I have a little more firefighter training than you on this one. Secondary devices are part of that training. Thank you for your time though.Then why did you get everything wrong when you attempted to tell us what the FDNY did at the World Trade Center? Sometimes it's better to research than to guess, Russell.

DOZENS and dozens. I have a photo of every individual piece on my site that I am aware of. Perhaps you could enlighten me. You should read more!You have a website devoted to investigating the Pentagon attack but you haven't seen dozens of photos of flight 77 debris? Please tell us that you're joking.

The data was confiscated right away in regards to the CVR.

"Ordinarily, that would have been just the start of Cushman's association with the device, but this time, it was the end. The events of Sept. 11 had already been classified as criminal acts, rather than accidents, so the FBI, which has its own forensic audio lab, took charge of the box and its data." Quote mine much? You said the NTSB "barred the National Transportation and Safety Board from investigating the scene." The site you just linked to shows that to be a lie:

"Over the next few days, working the 3 p.m. to morning shift, she and several other NTSB experts struggled to separate airplane parts from office parts. Early on the morning of Sept.14, while Cushman was at the site, the cockpit voice recorder, or CVR, was found. It was quickly transported across the Potomac to the NTSB lab in Washington, D.C., where Cushman works with three other analysts, and its data was downloaded.

Ordinarily, that would have been just the start of Cushman's association with the device, but this time, it was the end. The events of Sept. 11 had already been classified as criminal acts, rather than accidents, so the FBI, which has its own forensic audio lab, took charge of the box and its data."

In the same way having your TV turned off precludes you from watching the X Files.You'll need to do better than that. I asked you how the lack of access to videos precludes you from finding out what happened to flight 77. Is it your contention that videos are the only way we know of plane crashes? This is a serious question. Please respond.

I can get a DVD in 5 minutes at Video world. 5 years is sufficient. Read this thread. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68164No, you cannot get videos of evidence gathered by the FBI in criminal cases at Video World, unless that evidence has gone through the proper clearance procedures for legal release or been released illegally. What is 5 years "sufficient" for? Do you expect a package to arrive at your door each month with copies of all the evidence it has collected in criminal investigations in the past 30 days? That's not how it works, Russell.

Please contact Wikipedia and have them correct this.

"On September 11, 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11), Hani Hanjour boarded American Airlines Flight 77 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77) at 7:50am, though it is still disputed whether or not he had a ticket for the flight, or appeared on any manifest."So your statement that "he official passenger manifest contained neither Arab names nor names that aren't accounted for" is based on a Wikipedia article about a disputed piece of information about one hijacker? Nice research, Russell. Top notch. Since you obviously hadn't seen the manifests, you should have refrained from making such a foolish statement about them. Trying to defend that mistake by referring to a Wikipedia article is plain stupid.

They did match two brothers. They still have no positive identification of the remains matched to any name specifically. Read this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2045975&postcount=12There is overwhelming evidence that the hijackers were who the official reports say they were, including DNA evidence. You have no evidence that says otherwise. Where does that leave your claim, Russell?

“On the afternoon of September 11, Dr. Marcella Fierro, the Virginia Chief Medical Examiner, met with ASAC Blecksmith and asserted the responsibility of her office regarding the autopsies of victims of the terrorist attack. The FBI felt strongly that the Armed Forces Institute of pathology (AFIP), with which the FBI has long-standing working relations, should perform the autopsies. Dr. Fierro requested and received a letter from Attorney General Ashcroft transferring responsibility for the medical examinations to the FBI.

She informed them that Virginia forensic laboratory and mortuary resources were prepared to go to work in support of the response. The FBI and DOD officials declined the offer, preferring to conduct forensic and mortuary activities at DOD facilities."Exactly right. Your insinuation that the government did something wrong when it "barred involvement by the Virginia medical examiner" is baseless. The VME wasn't needed. Dr. Fierro asked for a letter to that effect, which is proper procedure in any such jurisdictional issue. Had you read one paragraph further, you would know why that was a good decision, and you would have seen praise expressed for how the DOD cooperated with local agencies, as told by the locals, not the gubmint:

"The FBI has extensive experience in, and is responsible for, collecting evidence and investigating terrorist acts. It also has extensive experience in crime scene mortuary operations. Under the leadership of FBI Special Agent Tara Bloesch, a temporary morgue was established in the loading dock area of the North Parking Lot. Remains were photographed, labeled, and prepared for transport to Dover Air Force Base (AFB) in Delaware for forensic testing, identification, and processing for burial.

The DoD, a major Arlington County constituent, was the target of the terrorist attack. Understandably, it might have followed its military instincts to seize control of the battle and protect its people and property. Instead, the MDW fully cooperated with the ACFD Incident Command and provided valuable resources. This contributed significantly to the positive outcome of the incident response described throughout this report."

"The volume of information concerning the aircraft crash into the Pentagon on September 11 is rather limited. Through the cooperation of transportation, law enforcement, and news organizations the BPS team was able to collect the essential data for the purpose of this study." (page 12)

"Controlled access to the site was granted to the full team after rescue and recovery operations were complete. On October 4, 2001, the Pentagon team, together with John Durrant, the executive director of ASCE’s institutes, and W. Gene Corley, the BPS team leader at the World Trade Center, inspected the interior and exterior of the damaged area of the Pentagon for approximately four hours. And you said they were barred from the site! Russell, once again your own sources show you to be lying!

Please try to refrain from quoting me out of context as you do the reports etc. for your articles. Read the paragraph prior to that.

"Pickering is further puzzled by the history of the terrorist-pilot, who was denied access to a Cessna 172 three weeks before Sept. 11. Since the denial was based on his inadequate English and piloting skills, Pickering wonders how he could fly a jumbo jet.I didn't quote you out of context at all. You said "There may be answers for these things, but the government hasn't put forth a single piece of evidence," and you said that after the 9/11 Commission report had been published!

I can and will ask anything of anyone at anytime.Fine, but don't expect answers if your questions aren't relevant, valid, able to be answered, or if they're not asked of the right people. Get it?

Gravy - that is just wrong. I have done more in person investigation of the pentagon than almost anybody. Name the eyewitnesses to the crash that you had interviewed as of the date of that article.

Can you post some of your personal interviews with the firefighters you quote please? You really don't know how to pay attention, do you? You're the one who doesn't believe the firefighters, so you're the one who needs to interview them. Is there anything about that that's unclear, ex-firefighter Pickering?

Every claim? Please try to refrain from exaggeration.I challenge you to name a substantive claim that Loose Change 2nd Edition got right.

You saw the logs? How? They were very specific from a server that far exceeds normal logs for websites. Please try and only speak of that which you know and your posts will be significantly shorter.I repeat: your claims are not validated because some individuals at large organizations tuned into an netcast. That fallacy has been explained to you above.

It really is not very effective for you to try and function in your current emotional state. Go take that walk I suggested and come back prepared.I'm functioning quite well. Third time: would you like to explain why the April, 2006 date of that article excuses your errors?

Spins

8th November 2006, 01:54 PM

When NIST put out that diagram they did not have access to very many photos of the south side. Since that time they have recieved various photos,(from myself) and others which will adjust the previous damage estimate.
Thanks for pointing that out. Just out of interest were NIST wrong in there assessment of the damage to the south face (not the southwest corner)?

• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

The seem very specific in their description above?

Crungy

8th November 2006, 01:58 PM

NO - shame on you.

Let me rebold your quote.

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

Regarding your response, I'm speechless. Where is that head bashing emoticon when you need it?

The respected members of the fire protection engineering community have a theory based on the events of that day. Being hyper anal engineering geeks, such as myself, I am sure that they would like to analyse every piece of material from the crash and spend unlimited time and resources in doing so. Nothing wrong with that, expect at times this may be impractical. The argument between the geeks and the suits is what defines practical.

You quote Bill Manning to imply that he supports or believes that controlled demolition was involved in bringing down the towers. Please provide me with a direct quote where Bill states this, and not a "Our best and brightest minds have a theory why the towers fell, but because we don't have the required amount of data to prove our theory with 100% accuracy therefore the towers fell because of explosives" BS that you are hawking.

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

negativ

8th November 2006, 02:00 PM

It's almost like we are expected to think he is either a god, or he is an evil mass murderer.

Maybe he's both! (http://www.jpaarons.net/dubbings/UserFiles/Image/Cthulu.png)

Or maybe he's just really into Iron Maiden and/or Dio and/or Black Sabbath and/or Spinal Tap. (http://www.whatsnextblog.com/archives/Hook_em_horns.jpg)

:confused:

Crungy

8th November 2006, 02:05 PM

Maybe he's both! (http://www.jpaarons.net/dubbings/UserFiles/Image/Cthulu.png)

Or maybe he's just really into Iron Maiden and/or Dio and/or Black Sabbath and/or Spinal Tap. (http://www.whatsnextblog.com/archives/Hook_em_horns.jpg)

:confused:

Heaven & Hell – Dio, Iommi, Butler, Ward: Official Announcement
The highly anticipated reunion of Ronnie James Dio, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler, and Bill Ward appears to be shaping up and taking a new form. After various promoters have approached their respective management; the guys have started taking all of this very seriously, as they have wanted to reunite for some time now. It looks as if the new shape may be that of Heaven and Hell - that's the moniker that the band is likely to use on their new venture.
If all goes well, Heaven and Hell should be hitting the road in early 2007.

\m/ 0 \m/

Kent1

8th November 2006, 02:22 PM

Thanks for pointing that out. Just out of interest were NIST wrong in there assessment of the damage to the south face (not the southwest corner)?

The seem very specific in their description above?
Here's a photo from Steve Spak I helped uncover. Then I sent it to NIST.
While NIST had many photos from Spak, they did not happen too have many of the south side, nor do I believe did they have one of such detail.
(New photos have been uncovered since, I haven't seen those)
Here is the photo, cropped
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
The full photo is at Spaks site
http://www.stevespak.com/spak/slideshows.html
(UNSEEN PHOTOS FROM MY NEGATIVES TAKEN ON 9-11-01)

There will be some changes to this page forthcoming.
The floor numbering is off by a bit on the website.
Also there was more damage to the corner area that NIST has. The center damage is unknown exactly, however I'm guessing 10 stories is a hair high for the center damage. Although Steve has confermed with me that there was more damage on the lower floors that is not visible in his picture. Honestly it's difficult to tell exactly.

Here is a CT article. (They have a good point on the floor numbering)
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

DavidJames

8th November 2006, 02:30 PM

The REAL ID Act was passed in May, 2005. You won't be able to drive, fly, open a bank account, collect Social Security, or go into certain federal buildings without one. The bill was passed quietly wrapped in an emergency spending bill for the Iraq war. It has to have a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on. That reminds me - when did the United States of America become the "Homeland"? I need a drivers license or SS card for those now, no big deal.

Housefly

8th November 2006, 02:48 PM

Collapse and debris zones are set up for any working high rise fire.Why is that Russell? Since it is impossible for a high rise building to collapse due to fire, why do they set up collapse zones when a high rise is on fire, Russell?

StoneWT

8th November 2006, 02:50 PM

No - I believe a plane hit the Pentagon now.

A plane?

A plane?

Does everyone notice how he doesn't say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Russell's hatred of the government is blinding him to the evidence. As he equates the debunking of 9/11 CTs with being pro-government and he hates the government for the Afghanistan/Iraq wars...well, do the math. It's okay to debunk a 9/11 CT as long as you have an alternate 9/11 CT. If you debunk the CT and leave the 'official story' in its place, you're supporting the mass murderers in the gub'mint.

Spins

8th November 2006, 02:54 PM

Here's a photo from Steve Spak I helped uncover. Then I sent it to NIST.
While NIST had many photos from Spak, they did not happen too have many of the south side, nor do I believe did they have one of such detail.
(New photos have been uncovered since, I haven't seen those)
Here is the photo, cropped
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
The full photo is at Spaks site
http://www.stevespak.com/spak/slideshows.html
(UNSEEN PHOTOS FROM MY NEGATIVES TAKEN ON 9-11-01)

There will be some changes to this page forthcoming.
The floor numbering is off by a bit on the website.
Also there was more damage to the corner area that NIST has. The center damage is unknown exactly, however I'm guessing 10 stories is a hair high for the center damage. Although Steve has confermed with me that there was more damage on the lower floors that is not visible in his picture. Honestly it's difficult to tell exactly.

Here is a CT article. (They have a good point on the floor numbering)
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/
Yeah, I could see their assessment of the damage to the southwest corner was way off on that diagram that's why I said I wasn't referring to the southwest corner in my last post. I'm sure we'll find out when they complete their investigation, maybe the do have more photos of the south face that show the damage more clearly. As I say though they are very specific in their description of the damage (to the south face), maybe it was taken from the damage assessment made by the fire-fighters on the day.

Kent1

8th November 2006, 03:27 PM

Yeah, I could see their assessment of the damage to the southwest corner was way off on that diagram that's why I said I wasn't referring to the southwest corner in my last post. I'm sure we'll find out when they complete their investigation, maybe the do have more photos of the south face that show the damage more clearly. As I say though they are very specific in their description of the damage (to the south face), maybe it was taken from the damage assessment made by the fire-fighters on the day.

I agree that they state very specific info. I'm sure more info will come up supporting more damage. Especially regarding the elevators cars.

WildCat

8th November 2006, 03:43 PM

stateofgrace

8th November 2006, 03:44 PM

A plane?

A plane?

Does everyone notice how he doesn't say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Russell's hatred of the government is blinding him to the evidence. As he equates the debunking of 9/11 CTs with being pro-government and he hates the government for the Afghanistan/Iraq wars...well, do the math. It's okay to debunk a 9/11 CT as long as you have an alternate 9/11 CT. If you debunk the CT and leave the 'official story' in its place, you're supporting the mass murderers in the gub'mint.

This is the thing.

I personally have never agreed with the Iraq war. I honestly find it appalling from which ever angle you care to look at from. The death toll, the destruction of this country and the absolute fortune it as cost. This is my opinion; I have formed this opinion on the hard facts that have been made available from the media. I really am no supporter of Blair’s stand on this, or Bushes for that matter. Yet because I will not believe that secret death squads inside the US did not plant explosives inside the WTC I somehow support it all. The cter mindset is so simple and it is basically that of what they opposes.

“If you are not with us, you are against us"

this thought is extended to every single opinion you seem to have on any single issue. It is though people are blissfully unaware of everything that is wrong in this world and only the cter with his /her wondrous insight can lead the way.

The NWO that they keep harping on about is simply throwing together as many failing of the US administration they can, packing it all in one box and there you have it. The mindset whereby a US administration so hell bend on the NWO they would knowing engineer 911, carry it out and cover it all up in some sinister George Orwellian style plot.

This plot simply falls apart and has done recently in the mid term elections inside the US. Bush got absolutely hammered, Rumford resigned. The main reason, the war in Iraq. Surely big brother would never have allowed this to happen, they would have made sure the populace was never given the chance to voice this level of discontent. They would have engineered it all to carry on the war and not only that make sure everybody was aware that it was going well and great victories were at hand.

A Government capable of pulling off 911. Planting explosives inside the World Trade centre, shooting down Flight 93, flying a remotely controlled plane into the Pentagon. An evil government doing so to bring about the NWO which involves the deaths of thousands of innocent people, yet they allow themselves to be slaughtered in something as mundane as midterm elections.

It makes no sense to me.

Arus808

8th November 2006, 04:49 PM

It's amazing to me how some folks are completely dumbfounded by the fact one can at the same time dislike Bush and his politics intensely, yet not believe, based on the evidence, that he is guilty of mass murder.

It's almost like we are expected to think he is either a god, or he is an evil mass murderer. Nothing in between,

yes, its funny. I get called a "GWB" lackey on other forums where I help debunk much of the crazed theories when I never vote republican and I dont like GWB.

Oddly, I didn't vote in the last presidential election...

Alt+F4

8th November 2006, 04:55 PM

A Government capable of pulling off 911. Planting explosives inside the World Trade centre, shooting down Flight 93, flying a remotely controlled plane into the Pentagon. An evil government doing so to bring about the NWO which involves the deaths of thousands of innocent people, yet they allow themselves to be slaughtered in something as mundane as midterm elections.

It makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense to you because you're thinking logically. The CT mindset doesn't think that way. Nancy Pelosi said impeaching Bush was not an option. So what are the CTers thinking? Where was Nancy Pelosi on 9/11?

Mince

8th November 2006, 09:17 PM

You have to remember you are in the category of only 13% of Americans who don't question it. 86% of us are conscious and not fascist in our position on the government.

If everybody was in the 13% maybe we would have nationalized ID cards by now in addition to the travel police, consolidation of intelligence agencies, the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, "Domestic Survellience", neo con domination of space and the Internet as well as a war on a culture of people that has multiplied the number of actual terrorists by thousands and thousands.

Oh wait..........we do have a national ID card coming in May of 2008.

Blind patriotatism is NOT patriotism. You should read the Constitution.

Alex Jones? Is that you?

ETA: I find it comically disturbing when you implore others to think for themselves while regurgitating this tripe.

Trigood

9th November 2006, 06:21 AM

What other way could they get the American people behind it? Remember they needed emotional support. Not false WMD and a false link of 9/11 and Saddam.
Um, it seemed to work pretty well for them! :rolleyes:

Since they were inventing terrorists, why not make them Iraqi? Would've shortened that whole annoying "Congress must approve" step, doncha think?

Prove their is no infinite being!
And you're [sic] point is, that we can never disprove your CT because one can never prove a negative?

Despite what you seem to think, this does not put you in a secure position, logically.

Spins

10th November 2006, 06:50 AM

Gravy

11th November 2006, 05:26 AM

Bump for Russell. Many legitimate questions to be answered, truthseeker.

Moving On

11th November 2006, 05:30 AM

Bump for Russell. Many legitimate questions to be answered, truthseeker.

Please refer to NIST who did not quote the firefighters or rely on their reports for what and how many floors of that building were involved in fire or what the nature or cause of the collapse were.

They are the people you need to talk with about that. Just be patient though - hopefully it won't be another five years!

http://www.nist.gov/

Moving On

11th November 2006, 05:31 AM

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!

Gravy

11th November 2006, 05:36 AM

You made the same post in this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67656&page=12)Perhaps you missed my responses.

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.

For 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?

Yes, you have lied. I proved it.

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

Gravy

11th November 2006, 05:58 AM

Please refer to NIST who did not quote the firefighters or rely on their reports for what and how many floors of that building were involved in fire or what the nature or cause of the collapse were.

They are the people you need to talk with about that. Just be patient though - hopefully it won't be another five years!

http://www.nist.gov/Absolutely false. If you had bothered to read the NIST reports that we've repeatedly linked and quoted for you, you would know that NIST relied heavily on firefighter interviews, and that their report was reviewed by retired FDNY officers with great experience. The report is entirely in agreement with the FDNY accounts of massive damage and huge fires that caused evacuation of the area due to fear of imminent collapse.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor. He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• 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.

NIST NCSTAR 1-8, page 111WTC 7 Interim Report, pages L-17-18

The following information about damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building:
After WTC 2 collapsed:
• Some south face glass panes were broken at lower lobby floors
• Dust covered the lobby areas at Floors 1 and 3
• Power was on in the building and phones were working
• No fires were observed
Reported close to time of WTC 1 collapse:
• East stair experienced an air pressure burst, filled with dust/smoke, lost lights
• West stair filled with dust/smoke, lost lights, swayed at Floors 29 through 30, and a crack was felt (in the dark) on the stairwell wall between Floors 27 through 28 and Floors 29 through 30
• Floors 7 and 8 had no power, air was breathable but not clear
Appendix L
L–18
• Phone lights on Floor 7 were on but could not call out
After WTC 1 collapsed:
• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7
promenade structure at the third floor level
• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18
• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.
• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
the ground
− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white
dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.

Pages L-22-26
Information about fires in other areas of the building was obtained from interviews, and is summarized as follows:

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or
lobby areas
• In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and a signs of a fully
involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.
• Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately
12:15 p.m.
• From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were observed in floors
estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.

Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:
• Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
• Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
• Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the south face

Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
• Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
• Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face
Looking at the east face:
• Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward the north side

Photographs and videos were used with these interview accounts to document fire progression in the
building. The fires seen in photographs and videos are summarized:

Before 2:00 p.m.
• Figures L–22a shows fires that had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.

2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
• Figure L–24a shows fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner. Several photos during this time show fires progressing north.

3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
• Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on Floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and west across the north face.
• Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L–24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
• At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
• The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
• Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.The NIST WTC 7 interim report details visual confirmation of fires on 14 floors in WTC 7.

Spins

11th November 2006, 06:48 AM

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
the ground
− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the westAh so I was correct, their assessment of the damage to the south face was made from the individual accounts of the fire-fighters on the scene.

WildCat

11th November 2006, 07:00 AM

Absolutely false. If you had bothered to read the NIST reports that we've repeatedly linked and quoted for you, you would know that NIST relied heavily on firefighter interviews, and that the report was reviewed by retired FDNY officers with great experience. The report is entirely in agreement with the FDNY accounts of massive damage and huge fires that caused evacuation of the area due to fear of imminent collapse.

The NIST WTC 7 interim report details visual confirmation of fires on 14 floors in WTC 7.
I predict that Russell will ignore this post, or respond to it in a way that completely fails to address the points raised.

Keep on spining Russell!

StoneWT

11th November 2006, 08:55 AM

Ho hum.

Russell's hatred of the government is blinding him to the evidence. As he equates the debunking of 9/11 CTs with being pro-government and he hates the government for the Afghanistan/Iraq wars...well, do the math. It's okay to debunk a 9/11 CT as long as you have an alternate 9/11 CT. If you debunk the CT and leave the 'official story' in its place, you're supporting the mass murderers in the gub'mint.

Spins

11th November 2006, 09:05 AM

I predict that Russell will ignore this post, or respond to it in a way that completely fails to address the points raised.

Keep on spining Russell!
OMG, you've made a prediction, cue Carmina Burana by Carl Orff from the Omen!

Horatius

11th November 2006, 09:19 AM

I predict that Russell will ignore this post, or respond to it in a way that completely fails to address the points raised.

Keep on spining Russell!

Please refer to NIST who did not quote the firefighters or rely on their reports for what and how many floors of that building were involved in fire or what the nature or cause of the collapse were.

I predict he'll harp on those not being direct quotes, and completely ignore the parts where they "rely on their reports for what and how many floors of that building were involved in fire or what the nature or cause of the collapse were", even thought that's the biggest part of his allegations, and is really the essential question in regards to the NIST report.

T.A.M.

11th November 2006, 11:44 AM

twinstead

12th November 2006, 05:35 PM

I'm not sure how Russell deals with the fact that one group of people making direct observations of WTC on 911 and who testify that it was in imminent danger of collapse, and by the way constitute a direct refutation of his views of that day, are members of his own profession.

He is faced with either calling his beliefs into question, or accusing those whom he respects of complicity or stupidity.

Quite the dilemma, if I do say so myself.

LashL

12th November 2006, 06:08 PM

Bumping for Russell so that he doesn't miss/ignore this query from Housefly.

Collapse and debris zones are set up for any working high rise fire.

Why is that Russell? Since it is impossible for a high rise building to collapse due to fire, why do they set up collapse zones when a high rise is on fire, Russell?

LashL

12th November 2006, 06:46 PM

I actually see this recent change of events as a new set of actions from the wiley CT crowd. If you recall they had a convo over at LC where they determined that "Gravy" was supposedly the only thing holding all of us together, and that without him, none of us could function as debunkers etc...

Now, all of a sudden, Russ has "changed" his tactics, and like PD and others had suggested, they are going after the person they percieve as our "ring leader" to try and discredit him.

Unfortunately, for them, Mark relies on facts, printed articles, real expert opinions, and witness testimony, so to discredit him will be a monumental, if not impossible task.

a shame they have resorted to attacking the messenger...but not unexpected.

TAM

In my opinion, it isn't a change on Russell's part so much as it is that he initially concealed the depth of his delusional tinhat beliefs, and once he demonstrated by his posts here that there is very little difference between him and the looniest of CTers, he simply reverted to the usual CT form of "debate", which is to obfuscate, move goalposts, change the subject, avoid answering legitimate questions, attack the messenger when you can't attack the message, cherry pick, quote mine, feign indignance, rely upon shoddy research, etc.

In other words, I agree with you that this is a change in tactics on Russell's part here, but I think that he is firmly cut from the same old CT cloth and has always engaged in many of the same disingenuous and dishonest methods as outlined above; he merely tried for a while not to appear quite as deluded as most of the other CTers, and for a while did not utilize some of those methods overtly - at least not on this site, although his own website certainly shows that he has been utilizing many of them for quite some time.

That said, I think you are right about the timing and impetus of Russell's new favourite pastime of posturing in a manner that he probably believes gives him credence with tinhatters watching his lame attempts to take on Gravy, (although I suspect that deep down, he realizes that anyone with half a brain or more who reads these threads recognizes how lame his attempts are, and recognizes that he hasn't made even the slightest dent in Gravy's facts, evidence, research, presentations, etc.)

Once he realized that, around here, people expect facts and evidence instead of tired, old, long-debunked nonsense, he found himself with no other recourse but to revert to other methods of attack, and it appears that he then just jumped on the latest tinhat bandwagon with his LC pals like Doherty and his various sockpuppets who advocated trying to discredit Gravy.

Unfortunately for Russell and the LC crew, they are grossly ill-equipped for the task.

Also, unfortunately for the tinhatters, they do not realize that critical thinkers do not rely upon "ringleaders" in order to draw reasonable conclusions about the true state of affairs. While we certainly appreciate and admire the extensive work and research done by Gravy and others, we are not blind followers of anyone. Unlike CTers.

Also unlike CTers, we insist upon facts and evidence, and we assess the facts and evidence presented, no matter who they are presented by.