Common Sense

[juryjone]

ive proven a conspiracy!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/defaultdotxbe/WTC3.jpg

ITS SO OBVIOUS!

Dang! I thought I'd covered my tracks so well with a little bit of white-out.

And I would have, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids...

[Gravy]

Aargh. I hate multiple choice.
2C ?

[LashL]

delete - duplicate

[LashL]

delete - duplicate



(or was it?)

[LashL]

ive proven a conspiracy!

<image omitted and sent to the NWO HQ for alteration and eventual destruction>

ITS SO OBVIOUS!

Ruh Roh. Now you've gone and done it, defaultdotxbe! No more NWO paycheques for you!

(and you're off the official winter solstice card mailing list, too)

[Redtail]

And tipping a refrigerator - which is still mostly empty space - still takes a lot of effort. Which again emphasizes - where would that force come from? What could lift one side of the building up enough to "tip over"?

Nothing!




Okay, maybe Superman, but that's it!


And Super Dog.


And Mighty Mouse. But I'm sure that's it.


Except for Hercules.

Um.... Krypto. Left brainer:rolleyes:

[juryjone]

Ooh, wait, I forgot this one:

I guessed you missed my video that showed the towers completely fell in approx. 11 seconds, 14 at the most...but I'm pretty sure that impact at 14 seconds was the upper mass hitting about 3 seconds after the lower floors reached the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKzhlOdB-I

So is this video a Looney Tunes cartoon? Because I imagine the lower floors falling away, followed 3 seconds later by the upper floors. This gives the upper floors plenty of time to do a double take and extend a small sign reading "OH NO!".

[28th Kingdom]

Jury Jone...

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

Don't you think that the upper mass' momentum coupled with inertia and the fact that below it is a rock solid 70+ floors of undamaged building with 47 core columns, floors and steel outer columns... would propel it off to the side of the building (where there is no resistance) instead of down and through a structure which had the ability to support (massive resistance) the weight of the upper mass?

It's not the weight of the upper mass that crushed the lower floors all the way to the ground... it was the energy released by the 50 foot? fall that generated so much force that it smashed through almost 10 floors per second all the way to the ground. Note: And why were all four sides of the build exploding so symmetrically... in such a chaotic event i.e. tilting upper mass, scattered rubble... would the energy be so perfectly distributed throughout the entire collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKzhlOdB-I

Also, if you tried to visualize this growing upper mass, whose increasing size supposedly increased the speed of collapse... you wouldn't come up with a single object i.e. the upper floors melded together with the collapsing lowers floors... wouldn't it be more like the upper mass, and then millions of pieces of individual rubble caused by the collision between the upper mass and the lower floors? You all talk like this increasing mass was the upper floors literally fusing together with the lower floors as the collapse progressed. See: this is why it's important to visualize things... as it helps you understand the relation between your theories and a real world environment.

Also, your illustrations...omit one key component... and that is the 37 non-severed core columns that were still running from the base of the building through the impact floors (that big white gap - BTW did you borrow these pics from the 9/11 commission report) and up to the roof.

How did all of these columns manage to simultaneously break in a split second? How can three (sides) outer columns significantly affect the balance of the core columns in such a short span of time? I can see if the building was hollow... if that were the case, than obviously the three sides failing would of caused the imbalance required for the upper floors to tilt over... but, it all comes back to those core columns... and how they actually failed. This is an event that still doesn't have any logical explanation.

If you are gonna reply... please don't interject some really abstract term like, transferring of loads... which is so broad... that you could use it to explain away almost any event and/or phenomenon.

Yea, the WTC 1 & 2 fell because of the way the upper mass' latent energy penetrated the towers' terminal resistance threshold. Are you that dumb... please go read a book and learn something.

[defaultdotxbe]

Wouldn't you think that the upper mass' momentum coupled with inertia and the fact that below it is a rock solid 70+ floors of undamaged building with 47 core columns, floors and steel outer columns... propel it off to the side of the building (where there is no resistance) instead of down and through a structure which had the ability to support (massive resistance) the weight of the upper mass?

so what lateral force would be propelling it off the side of the building? did god decide to reach down and give it a whack?

[A W Smith]

essentially the towers WERE hollow. The connection between the core and the perimeter was just bar joists and the slab. A very economical and lightweight structure that was very unique. if you were to separate a single bar joist and set it aside a pair of 210LB construction workers could just about dead lift it one at each end. The lighter and more efficient you make the structure the less dead load you have to support, hence less steel again.

you might recall that the Joists were described as "Composite" Do you know what that means?

what it means is the concrete slab poured into and around the knuckles and top chord of the truss acted as a compression member for the truss lessening the requirement for a compression resistant and heavier cross section of steel in the top chord of the truss

[28th Kingdom]

so what lateral force would be propelling it off the side of the building? did god decide to reach down and give it a whack?

I have the same question... what magical lateral force, caused the upper mass (supported by 37 non-severed vertical core columns) to tilt over?

[defaultdotxbe]

I have the same question... what magical lateral force, caused the upper mass (supported by 37 non-severed vertical core columns) to tilt over?
jury's pic showed it pretty good

http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC1.jpg

i just dont see why you expect it to go all the way all of the side

[28th Kingdom]

jury's pic showed it pretty good

http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC1.jpg (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ejerry.jobe/WTC1.jpg)

i just dont see why you expect it to go all the way all of the side

That pics shows it pretty good, yea? Cool... than maybe you can point out the 37 non-severed core columns for me.. because I'm having a hard time finding them.

[Redtail]

That pics shows it pretty good, yea? Cool... than maybe you can point out the 37 non-severed core columns for me.. because I'm having a hard time finding them.

That's ok... I've been having a hard time hearing the "CD Charges" sine the theory came out.

[28th Kingdom]

That's ok... I've been having a hard time hearing the "CD Charges" sine the theory came out.

That's okay... because all of the thousands of first hand accounts (including firefighters and policemen) of hearing explosions going off... has been debunked as exploding cans of hair spray.. the Towers were only a few miles from Jersey, weren't they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

[defaultdotxbe]

That's okay... because all of the thousands of first hand accounts (including firefighters and policemen) of explosions going off... has been debunked as exploding cans of hair spray.. the Towers were only a few miles from Jersey, weren't they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus
so if that was a demo charge going off in WTC7.....why didnt it start to fall at that moment?

piss poor excuse for a demolition if you ask me

[Mashuna]

That pics shows it pretty good, yea? Cool... than maybe you can point out the 37 non-severed core columns for me.. because I'm having a hard time finding them.

please don't interject some really abstract term like, transferring of loads

So once again 28th, you want a simple explaination that covers all the technical details but doesn't introduce any tricky concepts that you don't understand.

I keep wavering between thinking you don't really believe what you write, as you're effectively self-debunking with all your inconsistancies and refusal to accept or acknowledge any of the answers to your questions. Then I read some of your 'logic' and 'calculations' and think that maybe you really do believe everything you say.

I can't decide which is more disturbing.

[28th Kingdom]

so if that was a demo charge going off in WTC7.....why didnt it start to fall at that moment?

piss poor excuse for a demolition if you ask me

You don't know much about CD, do you? Firstly, the Twin Towers weren't CD. They were rigged with explosives... but definitely not in the same way that you setup a CD... I mean, have you ever seen walls explode in a CD... the Twin Towers were rigged completely different than a CD... that's why the people who rigged them... didn't have to know jack about CD. All they had to know was how to rig a building to explode... and I'm sure the MOSSAD knew a little something about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

Notice how things don't start collapsing at the first sounds of explosions.

[defaultdotxbe]

You don't know much about CD, do you? Firstly, the Twin Towers weren't CD. They were rigged with explosives... but definitely not in the same way that you setup a CD... I mean, have you ever seen walls explode in a CD... the Twin Towers were rigged completely different than a CD... that's why the people who rigged the buildings... didn't have to know jack about CD. All they had to know was how to rig a building to explode... and I'm sure the MOSSAD knew a little something about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

Notice how things don't start collapsing at the first sounds of explosions.
notice how the landmark tower has a little bit more than 1 explosion? notice how it begins collapsing after the explosions?

now lets go back to you WTC7 phonebooth vid, we have 1 explosion, and the tower doesnt seem to collapse right afterward (cant be sure becuase the video cuts out, truther ADD i suppose, cant stick with one vid for more than 30 seconds)

[28th Kingdom]

So once again 28th, you want a simple explaination that covers all the technical details but doesn't introduce any tricky concepts that you don't understand.

I keep wavering between thinking you don't really believe what you write, as you're effectively self-debunking with all your inconsistancies and refusal to accept or acknowledge any of the answers to your questions. Then I read some of your 'logic' and 'calculations' and think that maybe you really do believe everything you say.

I can't decide which is more disturbing.

I just want to know... if you have eliminated the possibility of explosions with scientific evidence or with mere speculation i.e. it's impossible to rig inhabited buildings with explosives.

Could speculation accepted as fact... be warping your calculations and/or theories?

[beachnut]

You don't know much about CD, do you? Firstly, the Twin Towers weren't CD. They were rigged with explosives... but definitely not in the same way that you setup a CD... I mean, have you ever seen walls explode in a CD... the Twin Towers were rigged completely different than a CD... that's why the people who rigged them... didn't have to know jack about CD. All they had to know was how to rig a building to explode... and I'm sure the MOSSAD knew a little something about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

Notice how things don't start collapsing at the first sounds of explosions.

This is why you do not understand this!!!

It is called knowledge;

Today, 01:08 AM I didn't say that... they're making this crap up. Last edited by 28th Kingdom : Today at 01:30 AM.

Today, 01:09 AM I was going off of freefall times that someone else came up with. According to this video, freefall for steel beams a certain size would be 4.7 seconds over the distance of 100 meters.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U)

So we divide 100 meters into the height of WTC 2 (415m) We get 4.15.

4.15 X 4.7 = 19.505 seconds.

Today, 01:17 AM I was going off of freefall times that someone else came up with. According to this video, freefall for flat steel beams would be 5.6 seconds over the distance of 100 meters.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U)

So we divide 100 meters into the height of WTC 2 (415m) We get 4.15.

4.15 X 5.6 = 23.24 seconds.

If you understood why you are wrong here you will start to see you are wrong all the time.

Then you go to school and you can be right. School!!!!

[defaultdotxbe]

I just want to know... if you have eliminated the possibility of explosions with scientific evidence or with mere speculation i.e. it's impossible to rig inhabited buildings with explosives.

Could speculation accepted as fact... be warping your calculations and/or theories?
you cant prove a negative, so we can never prove explosives werent in the WTC, but the same holds true for bigfoot and the loch ness monster, you cant prove they dont exist either

in this case, the burden is on you, you have to prove explosives were in the towers, and simply speculating as to the origin of a sound you hear is no more proof than a grainy pic of a submarine with a neck on it

[Minadin]

Could speculation accepted as fact... be warping your calculations and/or theories?

Not mine, I have to understand these things to make a living. You can my explaination here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2241047#post2241047

(You seem to have missed it the first time)

[28th Kingdom]

notice how the landmark tower has a little bit more than 1 explosion? notice how it begins collapsing after the explosions?

now lets go back to you WTC7 phonebooth vid, we have 1 explosion, and the tower doesnt seem to collapse right afterward (cant be sure becuase the video cuts out, truther ADD i suppose, cant stick with one vid for more than 30 seconds)

No, I noticed two explosions... not one - I guess you have limited hearing abilities... and also, do you think the building I linked to would have fallen if only two explosions went off?

Also...notice even in CD videos...how the buildings invariably crumple unevenly. WTC 7 fell so unbelievably symmetrical...it even defies CD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

[defaultdotxbe]

No, I noticed two explosions... not one - I guess you have limited hearing abilities... and also, do you think the building I linked to would have fallen if only two explosions went off?
sounds more like an explosion and an echo to me

so what was the point of this blast? a loud noise to get everyones attention and look all suspicious before the actual demolition?

Also...notice even in CD videos...how the buildings invariably crumple unevenly. WTC 7 fell so unbelievably symmetrical...it even defies CD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A


so your saying it doesnt look like a CD?

i thought the whole of your evidence rested on its visual resemblence to a demolition? better not tell roxdog

[R.Mackey]

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

Don't you think that the upper mass' momentum coupled with inertia and the fact that below it is a rock solid 70+ floors of undamaged building with 47 core columns, floors and steel outer columns... would propel it off to the side of the building (where there is no resistance) instead of down and through a structure which had the ability to support (massive resistance) the weight of the upper mass?

The "path of least resistance" is an incremental thing, with the possible and sometime exception of superfluids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid). At all times the total energy gradient has to be negative. Ordinarily, the trajectory of an object cannot ever actually reach the true path of least resistance. In some cases, that path is not even an attractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor).

Here's a dumb example. Let's say your house is on a small hill, with nothing around it. An 18-wheeler is heading straight for it at high speed. Will the 18-wheeler magically flow around your house, damaging nothing? That's the path of least resistance, right?

Wrong. The "resistance" also includes the energy needed to alter the truck's vector. It's actually harder for it to miss than it is to smack your house. Your insistence that the upper block would somehow slide to the side assumes that it would take no energy at all to slide the block 200 feet so that it could drop.

Guess what: Moving a 50 thousand ton block 200 feet sideways takes lots of energy. This has been explained to you at least ten times, including graphically. Aside from a puppet show, I don't know what else to try.

Yea, the WTC 1 & 2 fell because of the way the upper mass' latent energy penetrated the towers' terminal resistance threshold. Are you that dumb... please go read a book and learn something.
Ah, so the proven liar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2237697#post2237697) and slanderer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2240604#post2240604) claims to be more knowledgeable than us, huh?

Let's test that theory:

I have the same question... what magical lateral force, caused the upper mass (supported by 37 non-severed vertical core columns) to tilt over?

That's okay... because all of the thousands of first hand accounts (including firefighters and policemen) of hearing explosions going off... has been debunked as exploding cans of hair spray.. the Towers were only a few miles from Jersey, weren't they?

So let's suppose your idiotic observation was correct: It was explosives that shoved that 50 thousand ton block 200 feet to the side.

Suppose the block is blasted in a parabolic arc, moving 200 feet aside in roughly one second, but feel free to use whatever time you wish. Also suppose the explosives are 100% efficient in doing this (there's no way in the world they would -- explosives are really, really bad at moving solid objects -- but let's make this as easy as possible).

1. Numerical answer: How much explosives are needed? Show your work.
2. Essay answer: Is there a way to tell whether an explosive this size was detonated?

Let's see what you've got, since you've "read a book" and "learned something." I'll be glad to check your work, since I can calculate this standing on my head.

[28th Kingdom]

sounds more like an explosion and an echo to me

so what was the point of this blast? a loud noise to get everyones attention and look all suspicious before the actual demolition?



so your saying it doesnt look like a CD?

i thought the whole of your evidence rested on its visual resemblence to a demolition? better not tell roxdog

A tall building falling from the sky in seconds (WTC 7) is the part that resembles a CD.... because, we've never seen buildings do this outside of a CD. Not from hurricane damage, or earthquake damage... or plane damage... or fire damage... only from damage caused by planted explosives.

[28th Kingdom]

... explosives are really, really bad at moving solid objects ...

Before I reply to anything... please tell me what the hell you mean by this.

[Minadin]

because, we've never seen buildings do this outside of a CD.


Exactly . . . you have no other point of reference, nothing to base it on, which is why it looks like a CD to you. People who know more than you do about these things disagree with your grossly non-expert opinion; that should tell you something.

[R.Mackey]

Before I reply to anything... please tell me what the hell you mean by this.

Explosives don't move large objects.

I work for NASA. Rockets are not explosives (unless something goes wrong). There's a reason for this.

If you detonate a pile of explosives next to a large object, what happens? The explosive creates a pressure front that washes over the object at supersonic speed. Even assuming the object survives the shock, it won't move much, because there's only a pressure differential for a millisecond or so -- and then the shock is gone, moved past the object. To move something requires energy, in the form of work, which is equal to power times time. The power is there, but not the time. So the explosives never do much work.

Not to mention, the explosive is pushing its energy out in all directions, not focused on the object itself. There are rarely things like pistons unless you build them that way.

[Gravy]

A tall building falling from the sky in seconds (WTC 7) is the part that resembles a CD.... because, we've never seen buildings do this outside of a CD. Not from hurricane damage, or earthquake damage... or plane damage... or fire damage... only from damage caused by planted explosives.
Every event in history had to happen for a first time. Now you have three good examples of what a skyscraper collapse can look like. Consider yourself educated about that, and for Ed's sake stop your constant arguments from personal incredulity.

[defaultdotxbe]

A tall building falling from the sky in seconds (WTC 7) is the part that resembles a CD.... because, we've never seen buildings do this outside of a CD. Not from hurricane damage, or earthquake damage... or plane damage... or fire damage... only from damage caused by planted explosives.
in 1903 no large winged objects had ever flown except for birds

therefore, the wright brothers flyer was a bird

[28th Kingdom]

Exactly . . . you have no other point of reference, nothing to base it on, which is why it looks like a CD to you. People who know more than you do about these things disagree with your grossly non-expert opinion; that should tell you something.

When has this happened and/or been caught on tape? When has a high-rise building completely collapsed to the ground (in seconds) outside of a CD?

On 9/11 - we have video footage of three buildings collapsing to the ground in seconds... from plane/fire/debris damage. Now... this would be the first time in recorded history that high-rise buildings have collapsed in this manner and from this type of damage... so, - what is the probability that all of these (first time) events occurred within hours of each other on the same day and at the same location?

Now... compare that - with the probability of explosives being used... and then tell me which scenario is more likely.

[defaultdotxbe]

When has this happened and/or been caught on tape? When has a high-rise building completely collapsed to the ground (in seconds) outside of a CD?

On 9/11 - we have video footage of three buildings collapsing to the ground in seconds... from plane/fire/debris damage. Now... this would be the first time in recorded history that high-rise buildings have collapsed in this manner and from this type of damage... so, - what is the probability that all of these (first time) events occurred within hours of each other on the same day and at the same location?

Now... compare that - with the probability of explosives being used... and then tell me which scenario is more likely.
in 1957 no object had ever orbited the earth except for the moon

therefore, sputnik was the moon

[28th Kingdom]

Here's a dumb example. Let's say your house is on a small hill, with nothing around it. An 18-wheeler is heading straight for it at high speed. Will the 18-wheeler magically flow around your house, damaging nothing? That's the path of least resistance, right?

No... here's a better example... Say this 18-wheeler plowed full speed into a 4 foot (thick) steel wall... what would happen to the 18 wheeler? It would either stop dead in its tracks...or it would ricochet off to the side (path of least resistance)

[R.Mackey]

When has this happened and/or been caught on tape? When has a high-rise building completely collapsed to the ground (in seconds) outside of a CD?
Let's turn that around, shall we? When's the last time you heard of a high-rise building slowly collapsing -- CD or otherwise?

Can't think of even one, can you?

Now answer my previous question, liar. I explained "what the hell" I was talking about, even though it was even simpler than you.

[babazaroni]

When has this happened and/or been caught on tape? When has a high-rise building completely collapsed to the ground (in seconds) outside of a CD?


When has a real cd happened that did not include the long sequence of explosives going off before the building starts to collapse?

[R.Mackey]

No... here's a better example... Say this 18-wheeler plowed full speed into a 4 foot (thick) steel wall... what would happen to the 18 wheeler? It would either stop dead in its tracks...or it would ricochet off to the side (path of least resistance)

It's a stupid example, except to demonstrate you're so far out of your depth that your ears will pop. There is no way the 18-wheeler will ricochet to the side. It'll deform and come to rest against the wall.

Now stop being coy. You know so much, so tell me how much explosives were necessary, best case. Compute it.

[Minadin]

When has this happened and/or been caught on tape? When has a high-rise building completely collapsed to the ground (in seconds) outside of a CD?

Earlier in this thread you stated that WTC 1 & 2 collapses were not CD. But, even if you don't actually believe that, it doesn't mean it can't happen

On 9/11 - we have video footage of three buildings collapsing to the ground in seconds... from plane/fire/debris damage. Now... this would be the first time in recorded history that high-rise buildings have collapsed in this manner and from this type of damage... so, - what is the probability that all of these (first time) events occurred within hours of each other on the same day and at the same location?

Prior to 9/11, we also had not had large, fuel-loaded jetliners slam into skyscrapers at near-maximum speed, either. On September 11th, we had 2, at the same location, minutes apart. Weird. Doesn't make it impossible.

Now... compare that - with the probability of explosives being used... and then tell me which scenario is more likely.

The problem you are experiencing is that you do not understand why controlled demolitions work. You seem to believe that it is the explosive force of the charges that causes the buildings to collapse. In reality, you're skipping a step (or two), and misplacing your cause. The reason that the buildings collapse in a controlled demolition is that gravity is allowed to do its work, and the buildings fall down. The reason that gravity is allowed to do its work is because the structure is weakened: key supports are removed or unable to function. The demolition charges cause this condition.

Now, it doesn't matter that it's demolition charges that cause that weakening. Anything that produces the same effect will give the same result. With the major force collapsing the building being gravity, the building will fall more or less straight down, because that's the direction that gravity pulls it. Anything else would be unexpected.

[The Doc]

Now... compare that - with the probability of explosives being used... and then tell me which scenario is more likely.

Well.

Consider the probability of hundreds of charges being placed considering:
a) No one claims to have witnessed weird construction work at Tower 7
b) No one claims to have seen said charges
c) All the charges survived the fire

All before the building collapsed.

Now consider the collapse itself:
a) No seismographs detected explosions
b) There are no visible explosions
c) There are no audible explosions

That makes the probability that explosives were used ridiculously low.

[28th Kingdom]

It's a stupid example, except to demonstrate you're so far out of your depth that your ears will pop. There is no way the 18-wheeler will ricochet to the side. It'll deform and come to rest against the wall.

Now stop being coy. You know so much, so tell me how much explosives were necessary, best case. Compute it.

You've never seen a crash test where the car impacts a wall and then ricochets off to the side? Come on...man, don't make me youtube it.

Also... if I can prove that an "inhabited" building can be rigged with explosives, would that be enough to prove that explosives could have been used?

Why must we both project our naivete onto the particulars i.e what type, how much and where, the explosives were used... when we both know that we would only be using pure speculation to answer these questions?

I don't understand... why you think my speculation will ever prove that explosives were used...

You all claim that I need hard facts and evidence to prove my theory... then proceed, to rest your entire case (theory) on details that can only be derived from a guess and/ or speculation. Don't you see the mind-boggling contradictions? :boggled:

[MG1962]

No... here's a better example... Say this 18-wheeler plowed full speed into a 4 foot (thick) steel wall... what would happen to the 18 wheeler? It would either stop dead in its tracks...or it would ricochet off to the side (path of least resistance)

Okay well to know what will happen we need to know more about the truck. Is it a cab/over such as MAN build. Or a long nose such as a Kenworth

Has the truck got a bull bar

Is the trailer loaded or unloaded

What sort of material. Base freight - heavy, low centre of gravity. Or high cubic value.

What sort of trailer. Flat top, tautliner, pantec - other.

Let me know what combination you choose, and can let you know whats going to happen

[Skibum]

Also... if I can prove that an "inhabited" building can be rigged with explosives, would that be enough to prove that explosives could have been used?

It might prove they could have been used, it would fall very short of actually proving they were used. Honestly there is no need to prove that they could have been used anyway, pretty much everyone here would agree that explosives can be used to collapse buildings.


I don't understand... why you think my speculation will ever prove that explosives were used...

I don't think anyone here actually believes that your speculation will prove anything, what will prove something to people here is actual evidence and facts.

[28th Kingdom]

a) No one claims to have witnessed weird construction work at Tower 7

There are workers from the Twin Towers who claim they heard and saw lots of weird activity pre 9/11. (I know... you're talking about WTC 7 and not 1 & 2 - I've really caught on to all of your little deceptive word games) Did all of the companies in these three buildings (WTC 1, 2, 7) have people there 24 hours... or was there a good chunk of time when most of the people had left for the day? Please, no speculation... I need proof.


b) No one claims to have seen said chargesYou can't rig a building to explode without leaving charges in plain view? Are you speculating here?


c) All the charges survived the fireWhat fires... and who says all the charges survived... and why did all the charges need to survive?


a) No seismographs detected explosionsThere was seismic data recorded from 9/11:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010912nytimes

Why do you assume you know what a seismograph would look like after each explosion went off? Have you seen what seismographs look like during a CD? If, so - please link to it...


b) There are no visible explosionsAre you kidding? The entire buildings exploded:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_collapse1.jpg


c) There are no audible explosionsThat is a lie.. there are hundreds if not thousands of video taped first hand accounts from witnesses who claim they heard all kinds of explosives going off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApOt3jdn28A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT95sx-8jOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR8RgEHw6p4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uOFXsfskM

That makes the probability that explosives were used ridiculously low.What makes the probability of explosives being used ridiculously low? Speculation and lies?

[Guile]

@28th Kingdom;

www[dot]liveleak[dot]com/view?i=9cb7b14c58

[NDBoston]

There are workers from the Twin Towers who claim they heard and saw lots of weird activity pre 9/11. (I know... you're talking about WTC 7 and not 1 & 2 - I've really caught on to all of your little deceptive word games) Did all of the companies in these three buildings (WTC 1, 2, 7) have people there 24 hours... or was there a good chunk of time when most of the people had left for the day? Please, no speculation... I need proof.

I worked for Salomon for 3 years up to and including 9-11 at WTC7. There were three floors that had activity 24-7 (all were trading floors).

As well, my job was involving building a new distributed architecture for the trading systems and I had to deal with many departments. I was constantly talking to people on floors 28-44.

I found most floors at a minimum had people working there 6 days a week and many had people there 7 days a week. We were all under large amounts of pressure with deadlines and paid a great deal to do our jobs. People were also packed in like sardines on most floors. How were these explosive devices put in without anyone noticing it?

I never saw any significant construction in my time there. Can you point me to one employee from WTC7 who has a different account than mine? I haven't seen it.

[Paul]

You can't rig a building to explode without leaving charges in plain view? Are you speculating here?Are you saying that groups of people repeatedly crept into the buildings, took them apart, planted thousands of explosive charges and detonators, installed the lines and made them accessible to the next floor, repaired any cosmetic damage and then left without once being noticed?

[Paul]

Are you kidding? The entire buildings explodedNo, the buildings collapsed.

[Mancman]

A tall building falling from the sky in seconds (WTC 7) is the part that resembles a CD.... because, we've never seen buildings do this outside of a CD. Not from hurricane damage, or earthquake damage... or plane damage... or fire damage... only from damage caused by planted explosives.

You never posted your calculations showing how long WTC7 should have taken to collapse. Please do so.

[28th Kingdom]

I have stated why so many people compare the collapses of WTC 1, 2, 7 to controlled demolitions... and that is because the only other time in history where we have seen images of tall buildings falling/crumbling to the ground in seconds is during a CD. I have also stated that I don't think WTC 1, 2 or 7 were CD... but rather another type of "demolition." Make no mistake... they were demolitions, just not controlled demolitions by exact definition.

Now... people try to debunk the Silverstein...quote, of pulling WTC 7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

By saying that he was referring to the firefighter effort in WTC 7. (Even though reports show that the firefighters had already left WTC 7 earlier in the day... maybe because - gee, let's see... the other two buildings had already crumbled to the ground. Do you really think any firefighters stayed in WTC 7 after WTC 1 & 2 fell)

And, also by claiming that... "pull" or "pulling" isn't a term used in CD. Well... fair enough... but these three demolitions weren't CD, so that's not a completely accurate application of facts.

"Pulling," although, not commonly used when referring to a CD... is a widely recognized term used by demolition crews.

"(4) "demolition" means the act of pulling down, destroying, removing, or razing a building or structure, in whole or in part (including the demolition of exterior walls or roof), or commencing such work with the intent of completing the same, all as determined by the building commissioner; provided, however, that the term "demolition" shall not include the ordinary maintenance or repair or an addition to any building or structure."

http://www.umass.edu/masscptc/bylaws/Demolition%20Delay%202%20Chat.html

And, if you want real-world evidence of this term in use... than look no further than a demolition crew at ground zero, who says "Pull" in reference to demolishing WTC 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDcXm7bc24

Some claim... that, 'pull it' is a term used by firefighters to signal the evacuation of a building. I have heard some firefighters say that this term originated many many years ago... and that, most of today's firefighters no longer use it.

I have also seen people make a point about - how would Silverstein know old firefighter terminology... and someone replied, he probably didn't... he was quoting the Fire Department Commander. But... that's not true, because Silverstein's exact words are:

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

[westprog]

What is the probability that all of these (first time) events occurred within hours of each other on the same day and at the same location?

Now... compare that - with the probability of explosives being used... and then tell me which scenario is more likely.

He's right. It was certainly an amazing coincidence that both towers got hit by planes on the same day. It's almost as if someone planned it.

[stateofgrace]

I have stated why so many people compare the collapses of WTC 1, 2, 7 to Controlled Demolitions... and that is because the only other time in history where we have seen images of tall buildings falling/crumbling to the ground in seconds is during a CD. I have also stated that I don't think WTC 1, 2 or 7 were CD... but rather another type of "demolition." Make no mistake... they were demolitions, just not controlled demolitions by exact definition.

Now... people try to debunk the Silverstein...quote, of pulling WTC 7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

By saying that he was referring to the firefighter effort in WTC 7. (Even though reports show that the firefighters had already left WTC 7 earlier in the day... maybe because - gee, let's see... the other two buildings had already crumbled to the ground. Do you really think any firefighters stayed in WTC 7 after WTC 1 & 2 fell)

And, also by claiming that... "pull" or "pulling" isn't a term used in CD. Well... fair enough... but these three demolitions weren't CD, so that's not a completely accurate comparison.

"Pulling," although, not commonly used when referring to a CD... is a word used when referring to demolitions.

"(4) "demolition" means the act of pulling down, destroying, removing, or razing a building or structure, in whole or in part (including the demolition of exterior walls or roof), or commencing such work with the intent of completing the same, all as determined by the building commissioner; provided, however, that the term "demolition" shall not include the ordinary maintenance or repair or an addition to any building or structure."

http://www.umass.edu/masscptc/bylaws/Demolition%20Delay%202%20Chat.html

And, if you want real-world evidence of this word in use... than look no further than a demolition crew at ground zero, who uses this term in reference to demolishing WTC 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDcXm7bc24

Some claim... that, 'pull it' is a term used by firefighters to evacuate a building. I have heard some firefighters say that this is a term which originated many many years ago... and that, most of today's firefighters no longer use it.

I have seen people make a point about how Silverstein would know old firefighter terminology... and someone replied, he probably didn't... he was quoting the Fire Department Commander. But... that's not true, because Silverstein's exact words are:

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Read, just for once in your life read something other than CT BS.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

[Firestone]

:words:

'pull it'

:words:I love it when CTist come with the "pull it" argument.
You really have to be short of good arguments to come up with this silly self-debunking thing.

No wonder that 28th Kingdom does it! :)

[Paul]

"Pulling," although, not commonly used when referring to a CD... is a widely recognized term used by demolition crews.

"(4) "demolition" means the act of pulling down...Seriously, is that the best you can do; a quote from a bylaw that happens to include the word pulling?

[Horatius]

Um.... Krypto. Left brainer:rolleyes:

Yes, that's "Krypto the Super Dog". Excuse me for using his proper title, rather than being overly familiar, by using his name. Some of us prefer to maintain decorum!

I mean, you wouldn't expect me to call Superman "Kal-El", or even just "Kal", would you? Miss Manners would faint!

[28th Kingdom]

Seriously, is that the best you can do; a quote from a bylaw that happens to include the word pulling?

I guess you missed this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDcXm7bc24

[28th Kingdom]

So now... I would like all of you great scientific minds to give me the probability of what Silverstein meant by his quote to, "pull it," in reference to WTC 7. Is it more likely that Silverstein was improperly using archaic firefighter terminology to refer to removing firefighters who weren't even in WTC 7... or is it more likely that Silverstein was using a very common and modern demolition term that refers to bringing down a building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

Please, also view this video before you reply:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A

[The Doc]

I guess you missed this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDcXm7bc24

Woah you really did miss the basics didn't you?

So how was building 6 actually brought down? Explosives? NO.

Building 6 was literally pulled down with cables. So yes, building 6 was actually pulled over. Are you going to tell me WTC7 was cabled up now?

[H'ethetheth]

No... here's a better example... Say this 18-wheeler plowed full speed into a 4 foot (thick) steel wall... what would happen to the 18 wheeler? It would either stop dead in its tracks...or it would ricochet off to the side (path of least resistance)No, here's a better example: Say this boeing 757 plowed into two 757's standing behind one-another in front of a 4 foot thick steel wall.
Everything will eventually stop dead in it's tracks, just like the towers did, but after the impact it wil be mostly a pile of 757 debris stacked against the wall.

The important resemblance being that two similar things, consisting mostly of air and designed to be relatively lightweight, collide. Both are relatively weak structures: They can't take much more than they do every day. They will just crumble when they collide and move on together.

The important difference is that the tops of the WTC towers were being pulled along all the way by gravity.

[The Doc]

So now... I would like all of you great scientific minds to give me the probability of what Silverstein meant by his quote to, "pull it," in reference to WTC 7. Is it more likely that Silverstein was improperly using archaic firefighter terminology to refer to removing firefighters who weren't even in WTC 7...


"Pull" is not exclusive to firemen. It is also used by the military in the context of "abort".

Firefighters may not have been in building 7 but they were in close proximity up until the collapse according to the NIST.


or is it more likely that Silverstein was using a very common and modern demolition term that refers to bringing down a building

"Pull" is only used in demolition terms to describe pulling a building down with cables.

[The Doc]

No... here's a better example... Say this 18-wheeler plowed full speed into a 4 foot (thick) steel wall... what would happen to the 18 wheeler? It would either stop dead in its tracks...or it would ricochet off to the side (path of least resistance)

You ever seen a crash-test video? Guess not...

I'm sure if said 18 wheeler was going at 550 mph it wouldn't just ricochet off to the site.

[28th Kingdom]

"Pull" is not exclusive to firemen. It is also used by the military in the context of "abort".

Firefighters may not have been in building 7 but they were in close proximity up until the collapse according to the NIST.



"Pull" is only used in demolition terms to describe pulling a building down with cables.

Why are you avoiding all of the great points I made in response to your post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2244827#post2244827

Please... you all accuse me of running away... now, face the facts, sister.

[uk_dave]

Silverstein's "pull it" quote has no place on this thread, which is about common sense versus reality.....

...or 28th Kingdom versus TRUTH

[stateofgrace]

So now... I would like all of you great scientific minds to give me the probability of what Silverstein meant by his quote to, "pull it," in reference to WTC 7. Is it more likely that Silverstein was improperly using archaic firefighter terminology to refer to removing firefighters who weren't even in WTC 7... or is it more likely that Silverstein was using a very common and modern demolition term that refers to bringing down a building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

Please, also view this video before you reply:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A

You did not read did you ? I will quote for you, apologies for the long post.


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

In another interview, Chief Nigro says,

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely. http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/%20Nigro_Daniel.txt)


And more from the firefighters.


7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110469.PDF

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 


Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 


Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had topull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. –Deputy Chief Peter Haydenhttp://tinyurl.com/zwtrs

There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.
Q. It was on fire, correct, Captain?
A. Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way. –Captain Ray Goldbach
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110150.PDF

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. 
– Capt. Chris Boylehttp://tinyurl.com/e7bzp (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html)

Someone gave a Mayday. I guess it was someone trapped under one of the pedestrian bridges. We started to go under there to look. One of the Chiefs pulled us out of there. He said don't go under there. ..We searched that building and then we started making another move in and we got pulledout again, because I guess the Chiefs were getting more in control of the situation. They pulled everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped. –Firefighter Todd Fredrickson http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110403.PDF

When the third building came down that's where we were (StuyvesantHigh School). We were actually -- they pulled us all back. Actually they pulled us all the way back that far at the point because they didn't want any -- they didn't want us anywhere near it. Everyone was just running around. When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back.

They pulled us all back at that time, almost an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe. They wouldn't let anyone next to I guess the two piles, we would call them, where one and two was. We stood back. We waited. –EMT Joseph Fortishttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110200.PDF

After that they decided to pull everybody out and I know -- what building was it? Building 5, I believe [sic], the other tall building there, the third building that came down, they were evacuating people. So everyone just pushed up West Street all the way up towards the high school there. I forget the name of the high school. –Firefighter Brian Russohttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110450.PDF

Then approximately I guess maybe two hours before number 7 came down, we went into Ground Zero and helped dig around and was there when they located Chief Feehan and one of the chiefs pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down. –Firefighter Kevin Quinn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110339.PDF

So then they aborted us from setting up the tower ladder because they were worried about now Seven coming down. So then they pulled us away. This is where I kind of start remembering a lot.

We came around, I think we took Murray Street down the west side, and we stopped the rig and pulled over to the side and we all got out of the rig. We were standing, waiting for Seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.

During that time a couple of the members felt like we were being useless just standing around. We wanted to do something. So we started trying to walk down, trying to get into the pile. We kept on being turned around from chiefs, because they didn't want us near Seven.

As we were walking, we had to actually get a little closer to Seven. So we turned and looked at Seven, and that's when all the marble siding started popping off the side because it was starting to go down.

We worked our way putting out the car fires, which I don't know if there was ammunition, because there was a lot of cop cars, but there was explosions. Tires were exploding. There had to be about 15 or 20 car fires. We put them out as we worked our way down. –Firefighter Thomas Donato http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110471.PDF

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there -- this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down. That's when they let the guys go on. I just remember we started searching around all the rigs. –Firefighter Richard Banaciski
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110253.PDF

Then we were instructed to search through two or three buildings to make sure they were stable, and then they pulled everybody out because of the pink building. Was it 7 World Trade, that was going?
Q: Right. –Firefighter Adrienne Walsh
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110353.PDF

We operated until they finally started pullingpeople back. ...They pulled us back, I think it was like probably between 4 and 6, because of Seven. Seven was the concern at the time. –Firefighter Fred Marsilla http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

They put another engine company in there which augmented us. And the stream was even good enough to almost reach Tower 7. And then what happened was, we heard this rumbling sound and my father pulled us all back and then with that Tower 7 came down. –Firefighter Peter Blaichhttp://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/blaich.html

These firefighters mention being withdrawn from a different part of the WTC site because other buildings were believed to be in danger of collapse:
So we were in there just for a few minutes maybe and the chiefs pulled us out. They told us we had to get out, so we got out, and then later on we went back in again, and they pulled us out once more, and that was it. –Firefighter Peter Giammarinohttp://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110436.PDF

We proceeded to go back one block to that post then slowly but surely every two minutes or so
when we started to regroup we were pulledback further and further and further until we were behind – until we were past Stuyvesant High School –Firefighter Dean Beltrami http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110359.PDF



READ 28th, READ.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc)

[Belz...]

Don't you think that the upper mass' momentum coupled with inertia and the fact that below it is a rock solid 70+ floors of undamaged building with 47 core columns, floors and steel outer columns... would propel it off to the side of the building (where there is no resistance) instead of down and through a structure which had the ability to support (massive resistance) the weight of the upper mass?

Er... no. Ask an engineer. Or a physician. Or a grade-school kid.

That's okay... because all of the thousands of first hand accounts (including firefighters and policemen) of hearing explosions going off... has been debunked as exploding cans of hair spray.. the Towers were only a few miles from Jersey, weren't they?

You DO know that a lot of things can explode in a fire and NOT be C4, right ?

[H'ethetheth]

Er... no. Ask an engineer. Or a physician. Or a grade-school kid.I like that order. :D












Yes, I'm an engineer.

[28th Kingdom]

Silverstein's "pull it" quote has no place on this thread, which is about common sense versus reality.....

...or 28th Kingdom versus TRUTH

Yes, it does... I am using common sense evidence to prove the Official Story to be false... now face the FACTS! Please... stop avoiding all of the pearls I have been casting before you... and start debunking them... otherwise, you concede defeat.

[28th Kingdom]

Er... no. Ask an engineer. Or a physician. Or a grade-school kid.

Hahahahahaha... No emphasis necessary.

[westprog]

Please... stop avoiding all of the pearls I have been casting before you... and start debunking them... otherwise, you concede defeat.

I'd be interested who thinks 28K is for real. Some of this stuff is too good to be true.

[Firestone]

Yes, it does... I am using common sense evidence to prove the Official Story to be false... now face the FACTS! Please... stop avoiding all of the pearls I have been casting before you... and start debunking them... otherwise, you concede defeat.You have already been utterly defeated on this forum, dear. :)

By lying, by accusing without evidence, by showing an incredible lack of understanding of ... well of everything really.
By putting half the forum on ignore, and by in fact ignoring the rest of the forum as well.

Even for a 9/11-CTist you have performed poorly, and that says it all. :p

[H'ethetheth]

I'd be interested who thinks 28K is for real. Some of this stuff is too good to be true.As I stated earlier in this thread, Im undecided. His silliness seems surreal but is consistent with his inflated ego.

[JimBenArm]

Every event in history had to happen for a first time. Now you have three good examples of what a skyscraper collapse can look like. Consider yourself educated about that, and for Ed's sake stop your constant arguments from personal incredulity.

But he finds everything incredulous!

[The Doc]

Haha!

I'm not avoiding anything buddy. Unlike you, I think over and research my responses before I post.

The Irony of YOUR post is that you failed to answer my questions and demand me to answer yours. Nice.

There are workers from the Twin Towers who claim they heard and saw lots of weird activity pre 9/11. (I know... you're talking about WTC 7 and not 1 & 2 - I've really caught on to all of your little deceptive word games) Did all of the companies in these three buildings (WTC 1, 2, 7) have people there 24 hours... or was there a good chunk of time when most of the people had left for the day? Please, no speculation... I need proof.


Caught onto my games? That's hilarious. Especially considering it was you that changed the subject to WTC7.

There are a couple of workers who described construction work. Those are the likes of William Rodriguez and Scott Forbes. There were thousands of people in those buildings at 2 report unusual activity?

William reported construction work on the 34th floor and a power down.

Scott reported dust and the power down plus work on the 98th floor but also claimed it was entirely empty.

So that's 2/50,000 that saw unusual activity which, in reality, was only unusual to them.

The amount of 'unusual activity' that would need to occur to set up a controlled demolition that involves a 'demolition wave' that manages to bring down 110 stories is way too much to keep secret.

They would have to hide everything. That includes during setup and after setup.

There was no where near enough time in this 26 hour power down to setup a controlled demolition.

As for 'shifting workers' and placing charges when they aren't at work... that's just ridiculous. You would then have to deal with:

* Tower security
* Bomb sniffing dogs (Not ALL were removed)
* Security Cameras
* Keeping workers mouths shut (demolition placers)

And a whole lot more.

No one reported unusual activity lasting long enough to set up and hide a controlled demolition.


What fires... and who says all the charges survived... and why did all the charges need to survive?Well there's these fires:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/b7_east_fire2.jpg

And the fires that caused all this smoke:

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg
Detonation cord is used in controlled demolitions. It burns at thousands of feet per second.

If some of this cord had ignited - the whole thing would have gone up.

Another reason charges would have to had survived the fire is because they would need to go off simultaneously to bring the building down in a controlled fashion. If they went off randomly the building would have failed in certain areas faster then others and caused all sorts of problems.

WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed from the impact point. If there were charges here - they would have been prematurely by the plane impact and subsequent fireball causing the building to collapse the second the plane exploded. That wouldn't have looked good would it?
There was seismic data recorded from 9/11:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/010912nytimes

Why do you assume you know what a seismograph would look like after each explosion went off? Have you seen what seismographs look like during a CD? If, so - please link to it...There was seismic data recorded on 9/11. Thanks for pointing that out because it shows no indication of a controlled demolition.

You should read what Popular Mechanics has to say about the seismographs:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

Are you kidding? The entire buildings exploded:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_collapse1.jpgThe burden of proof is on you. I am saying that there is no evidence visually that explosive devices are going off.

You must prove to me that what we can see in your picture cannot be caused by the effects of a progressive collapse and that they are caused by explosive devices. You haven't done that.

Again, refer to the points I made at the top of this post.

The amount of time and manpower that would be required to cause that effect would need THOUSANDS of explosives to the point of one on each column! That could not go unnoticed leading up to 9/11 and would require an enormous amount of manpower and there for complacency!

No one has claimed to have worked on the 9/11 demolition operation and no one has reported seeing placed charges, altered structural features such as exposed columns etc.
That is a lie.. there are hundreds if not thousands of video taped first hand accounts from witnesses who claim they heard all kinds of explosives going off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApOt3jdn28A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT95sx-8jOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR8RgEHw6p4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uOFXsfskMYou have no proof that these people who heard things that sounded "like an explosion" are explosions let alone explosive devices.

No one claims that "I saw a bomb go off" or "I saw an explosive charge". Not one person. Some people say "It sounded like a bomb" but none have said "I saw a bomb"

Read these:
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html#Firefighters%20hear%20explosions

And by that I mean actually read them.


What makes the probability of explosives being used ridiculously low? Speculation and lies?Facts.

Please... you all accuse me of running away... now, face the facts, sister.Wow, you must get all the ladies. Please! Don't tough talk me any more!

Read what I posted. Actually READ IT.

[JonnyFive]

28th Kingdom, would you please provide evidence that explosives were actually planted in the towers?

-Show how much explosive material and det cord would be required for the demolition, according to your detailed calculations which I'm sure you'll show us.

-Provide evidence that those materials were covertly placed in the towers. You have already been shown that a number of companies had employees present 24/7 in the towers, so please explain how the planting of the explosives was hidden from them.

-Explain why no one noticed the massive amounts of explosives and det cord on the structural supports.

-Explain, with calculations, why you think the top of the tower should have tilted over to the side and toppled off, as you seem to believe it should have if explosives were not used, as you claim.

Stop claiming to use "common sense" and provide real evidence for a change.

[The Doc]

I will be away from my computer for a few hours.

So don't think I am ignoring your response 28th. I eagerly await it.

You've been called out. It's time to put up or shut up.

[The Doc]

Oh!

Don't forget that firefighters reported these fires too:


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

[aggle-rithm]

If you understood why you are wrong here you will start to see you are wrong all the time.

Then you go to school and you can be right. School!!!!


Perhaps tuition is a problem. Should we take up a collection?

[aggle-rithm]

you cant prove a negative, so we can never prove explosives werent in the WTC, but the same holds true for bigfoot and the loch ness monster, you cant prove they dont exist either



...or weren't in the twin towers on 9/11!

[Tirdun]

So now... I would like all of you great scientific minds to give me the probability of what Silverstein meant by his quote to, "pull it," in reference to WTC 7. Is it more likely that Silverstein was improperly using archaic firefighter terminology to refer to removing firefighters who weren't even in WTC 7... or is it more likely that Silverstein was using a very common and modern demolition term that refers to bringing down a building?

Seen the stupid video, thanks.

You are suggesting that Larry Silverstein, Lawyer and Real Estate mogul is:
A) Well versed in the terminology of building demolition crews?
B) Dumb enough to reveal that the building was destroyed intentionally during an interview, knowing that there was certainly going to be an insurance investigation?
C) Knowledgeable about a plot to smash buildings with planes and space beam weapons and then chose to set off a controlled demolition

To undercut the standard CT nonsense:
A) Pull it = Firefighter lingo for "get the [8] out", not demolition lingo for blow it up. I don't know any demo crews, but I do know firefighters.
B) The quote wasn't some slip, he very deliberately says the line. Further, he stated later that he knew full well what it meant in Firefighting Terms as he was discussing the potential for more loss of life.
C) ?!?

Your posts reveal one of two possibilities.
1- You are a troll throwing out every bit of nonsense that you can lay finger on just to rile up the board. This wins you an ignore.
2- You are a CT diehard zealot who has blinders on to any possibility that the OT is correct in the slightest detail. You would argue that the events happened on September 12th if you possibly could. This wins you an ignore.

[JonnyFive]

...or weren't in the twin towers on 9/11!

Are you saying that bigfoot planted the explosives that destroyed the towers?

[twinstead]

Are you saying that bigfoot planted the explosives that destroyed the towers?

SHHHHHHHHHH!

[aggle-rithm]

Are you saying that bigfoot planted the explosives that destroyed the towers?

No, not at all!

Bigfoot was the lookout. Nessie planted the explosives.

I'm just saying we can't rule it out, that's all.

[aggle-rithm]

Yes, it does... I am using common sense evidence to prove the Official Story to be false... now face the FACTS! Please... stop avoiding all of the pearls I have been casting before you... and start debunking them... otherwise, you concede defeat.

Once again, 28K, with his massive intellect and brain the size of a planet, has demonstrated that he has TOTALLY failed to grasp the point of this thread...that common sense cannot be used to analyze issues this technical and this complex.

[maccy]

Yes, it does... I am using common sense evidence to prove the Official Story to be false... now face the FACTS! Please... stop avoiding all of the pearls I have been casting before you... and start debunking them... otherwise, you concede defeat.

None shall pass!

XgQx-ZYwHyA

[28th Kingdom]

A) Pull it = Firefighter lingo for "get the [8] out", not demolition lingo for blow it up. I don't know any demo crews, but I do know firefighters.

Okay... cool, so what is: This building is about to blow up... lingo for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

[JonnyFive]

Once again, 28K, with his massive intellect and brain the size of a planet, has demonstrated that he has TOTALLY failed to grasp the point of this thread...that common sense cannot be used to analyze issues this technical and this complex.

I think he illustrated that point rather well, as a matter of fact.

[mist]

Hmm, I was wondering, how about if the charges were activated by timers? Or exploded by some kind of radio signal? In that case the explosives could have been hidden as single units without detenation cable needing to be present.

I'm guessing such a system would not be accurate enough (not all charges would go at exactly the same time or at all), and this would cause the building to collapse incorrectly.

[babazaroni]

Okay... cool, so what is: This building is about to blow up... lingo for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

When the "pull it" phrase was used, the safety evacuation was the immediate response. The collapse happened hours later.

In addition to the talk of human life in the previous sentence, and the undisputed use by firemen in relation to getting people out of dangerous areas, this points towards the word referencing safety, not destruction.

The only time 'pull' is used in demolition, is for cable demolition.

[MortFurd]

No, not at all!

Bigfoot was the lookout. Nessie planted the explosives.

I'm just saying we can't rule it out, that's all.
Ah, but we can infer evidence against bigfoot and nessie.

1. Bigfoot stinks, and stinks so badly that most "sightings" are more like "smellings." See here. There were no reports of horrid stenches during the days before September 11, 2001 in the WTC. We can therefore conclude that a) Bigfoot was not present or b) Bigfoot has finally discovered Ban roll-on and bath tubs. I tend towards (a,) as the roll-on would have to be applied over all of bigfoot's body - which would be cost prohibitive for a woods creature with no known income.

2. Nessie is by all accounts an aquatic creature, and quite large. Assuming Nessie to be a lung breather (a supposition supported by its demonstrated need to come to the surface of Loch Ness,) it would have been capable of surviving without a water tank. However, it would likely have been incapacitated and immobile. Nessie is an aquatic animal, and thus swims. With no water it cannot swim. Greenpeace invariably shows up to aid stranded aquatic animals by keeping their skin wet and transporting them back to their natural habitat. There are no reports of Greenpeace activity on or prior to September 11, 2001 at the WTC. We can therefore conclude that a) Nessie was not present and so did not plant the explosives or b) the news agencies were all in on the conspiracy and supressed reports of Greenpeace transporting Nessie back to Scottland. I tend towards (a,) as Greenpeace would surely have raised a ruckus if one of its publicity seeking actions didn't receive any attention from the media.


BTW:
Given the reported stench in New York over the last couple of days, I wonder why the CTs haven't begun asking what the covert bigfoot agents have been doing.

[chipmunk stew]

Perhaps tuition is a problem. Should we take up a collection?
Nah. Who needs tuition when you've got intuition?

[maccy]

Hmm, I was wondering, how about if the charges were activated by timers? Or exploded by some kind of radio signal? In that case the explosives could have been hidden as single units without detenation cable needing to be present.

I'm guessing such a system would not be accurate enough (not all charges would go at exactly the same time or at all), and this would cause the building to collapse incorrectly.

If it's timers how do you set them so that the collapse proceeds from the impact point downwards? What happens if the plane doesn't make it?

Also, assuming it would take months and thousands of charges to prepare the buildings (which are larger than any building that has been brought down with explosives) and secrecy meant that you would be working at night and covering your tracks (ie seamlessly repairing the damage you did in order to place the charges). How do you know how long it's going to take to finish the job? How to you set the timer on each charge so that they'll go off in perfect sequence?

The problem with radio controlled detonation is that they could be set off accidentally by other radio wave sources. This is why demolition companies wire buildings. Again, the size of the towers and the difficulty of working secretly in them would mean that the window this could occur in would be pretty big.

There's plenty of stuff about how stupid the CT hypotheses are. I like this:

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth2.html

[JonnyFive]

If it's timers how do you set them so that the collapse proceeds from the impact point downwards? What happens if the plane doesn't make it?

Also, assuming it would take months and thousands of charges to prepare the buildings (which are larger than any building that has been brought down with explosives) and secrecy meant that you would be working at night and covering your tracks (ie seamlessly repairing the damage you did in order to place the charges). How do you know how long it's going to take to finish the job? How to you set the timer on each charge so that they'll go off in perfect sequence?

The problem with radio controlled detonation is that they could be set off accidentally by other radio wave sources. This is why demolition companies wire buildings. Again, the size of the towers and the difficulty of working secretly in them would mean that the window this could occur in would be pretty big.

There's plenty of stuff about how stupid the CT hypotheses are. I like this:

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth2.html

Not only all that, but it still doesn't reduce the amount of actual explosives required one bit, and that would take some doing to install covertly.

[MortFurd]

Hmm, I was wondering, how about if the charges were activated by timers? Or exploded by some kind of radio signal? In that case the explosives could have been hidden as single units without detenation cable needing to be present.

I'm guessing such a system would not be accurate enough (not all charges would go at exactly the same time or at all), and this would cause the building to collapse incorrectly.
If you use radio signals, you've got to power the receivers. You'll also want some kind of command decoder, rather than just detecting a carrier. If you just wanted to detect a carrier, you could get away with a passive receiver - crystal radio style - but that could go off because of random RF noise.

How long in advance do you suppose the charges and radio controls would have been planted? Would they have been powered by battery, or would they have tried to tap into the AC power in the building? If batteries, then you've got a time limit. If AC, then you've got the same problem as with the detonation cord - namely, hiding the cables.

Either case presents some major problems.

And, again, the crashes would have destroyed most if not all of the charge in the vicinity of the crash sites - possibly by setting them off.

If the charges were destroyed without exploding them, then there wouldn't have been enough of them around an hour later to initiate the collapse.

If the charges went off because of the crash, then the collapse should have started immediately rather than an hour later.

Far simpler to supposed that the crashes and the fires caused a delayed collapse than to try to explain away all of the inconsistencies when supposing that it was a controlled demolition.

[mist]

Thank you for your responses.

Yes indeed, powering the radio receivers would be a major problem. Furthermore possibly prone to transmittion problems (exploding too late/too soon).

About using timers. I believe it would be possible to sychronize the timers before hand, before planting the first one. If you set them to some far point ahead of time you could be sure they were installed before that time, although of course the risk of getting caught before that time would increase. It would indeed become impossible to stop the countdown, but it might be easier to hide the explosives.

I agree that in any case it is almost impossible (unnecessary and ludacrous) that the building was planted with explosives, I was just wondering if there are other (better) ways than detonation cord that could have been used if it was.

BTW: It might also link the 1993 bomb attack, if the explosives were already planted a decade in advance and one of the explosive timers malfunctioned. Although I don't think anyone would actually believe this theory. :)

[Tirdun]

Okay... cool, so what is: This building is about to blow up... lingo for?

So every firefighter in NYC was in on the conspiracy and willing to blab about it to a CNN reporter moments before their nefarious scheme was launched? What tight, unrivaled security your NWO has in place.

You want me to defend a cautionary expression made by a firefighter in the street who has just been ordered to clear the area because a 47 story building with massive structural damage is clearly going to fall over and possibly hurt/kill even more people? On a day when thousands are already dead and dozens of his fellow firefighters have already DIED? Why should he, as a member of this dark conspiracy with the blood of ~3000 people on his hands give a rats tail about whoever is left in or around WTC7? Why would he even be in on the conspiracy in the first place?

There is no scenario in which his actions and motives make sense within your conspiracy.

[juryjone]

Jury Jone...

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

Don't you think that the upper mass' momentum coupled with inertia and the fact that below it is a rock solid 70+ floors of undamaged building with 47 core columns, floors and steel outer columns... would propel it off to the side of the building (where there is no resistance) instead of down and through a structure which had the ability to support (massive resistance) the weight of the upper mass?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, sorry... wait a minute...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

Wait...seriously...

HAHAHAHA!

OK, let me ask you...

Was the WTC solid inside? Someone once told me that children, before they learn about anatomy, are convinced that humans are solid inside, like a potato. Was the WTC a potato? Was it a tree? If not, please don't talk about "rock solid 70+ floors of undamaged building".

Secondly, what makes you think the core was undamaged? In my very simplified picture, I did not include the core columns. Do you have any idea why? Hmmm? It's because, if they did not fail, there would be no tilt. You'd have the outside intact on one side, and the core intact, and that would be enough to keep the upper mass from tilting. Are you familiar with the term "fulcrum"? If not, then perhaps you should return to third grade.

It's not the weight of the upper mass that crushed the lower floors all the way to the ground... it was the energy released by the 50 foot? fall that generated so much force that it smashed through almost 10 floors per second all the way to the ground. Note: And why were all four sides of the build exploding so symmetrically... in such a chaotic event i.e. tilting upper mass, scattered rubble... would the energy be so perfectly distributed throughout the entire collapse?

Perhaps it was the asteroid that would hammer the WTC into the ground like a nail.

Also, if you tried to visualize this growing upper mass, whose increasing size supposedly increased the speed of collapse... you wouldn't come up with a single object i.e. the upper floors melded together with the collapsing lowers floors... wouldn't it be more like the upper mass, and then millions of pieces of individual rubble caused by the collision between the upper mass and the lower floors? You all talk like this increasing mass was the upper floors literally fusing together with the lower floors as the collapse progressed. See: this is why it's important to visualize things... as it helps you understand the relation between your theories and a real world environment.

Once again, you seem to think that a pound of steel and a pound of talcum powder provide different amounts of kinetic force as it lands on the lower floors. A pound is a pound is a pound, and 100 thousand tons is 100 thousand tons, regardless of whether it's intact or not.

Also, your illustrations...omit one key component... and that is the 37 non-severed core columns that were still running from the base of the building through the impact floors (that big white gap - BTW did you borrow these pics from the 9/11 commission report) and up to the roof.

How did all of these columns manage to simultaneously break in a split second? How can three (sides) outer columns significantly affect the balance of the core columns in such a short span of time? I can see if the building was hollow... if that were the case, than obviously the three sides failing would of caused the imbalance required for the upper floors to tilt over... but, it all comes back to those core columns... and how they actually failed. This is an event that still doesn't have any logical explanation.

If you are gonna reply... please don't interject some really abstract term like, transferring of loads... which is so broad... that you could use it to explain away almost any event and/or phenomenon.

Yea, the WTC 1 & 2 fell because of the way the upper mass' latent energy penetrated the towers' terminal resistance threshold. Are you that dumb... please go read a book and learn something.

:big: Man, you crack me up.


Oh, by the way, how about addressing how the upper mass was suspended in the air for three seconds before following the lower floors to the ground.

Sorry I'm not on the 'net at the same time you are. I have to catch up on these things after the fact.

[Horatius]

About using timers. I believe it would be possible to sychronize the timers before hand, before planting the first one. If you set them to some far point ahead of time you could be sure they were installed before that time, although of course the risk of getting caught before that time would increase. It would indeed become impossible to stop the countdown, but it might be easier to hide the explosives.


Even if they were synchronized at first, you're expect some drift in their timings, as even good quality clocks are not perfect. If this time was set far enough in advance to guarantee you time to plant all the devices, the cumulative error could be large enough to muck up your demolition plan. As well, with the thousands of individual timers needed, you'd expect a certain number to simply break down, just with random malfunctions, which also buggers things up. There's a reason real CD guys do multple checks of their equipment, right up to the Big Day.





BTW: It might also link the 1993 bomb attack, if the explosives were already planted a decade in advance and one of the explosive timers malfunctioned. Although I don't think anyone would actually believe this theory. :)

Well, it is nice to be able to tie all the conspiracies into one neat package, but with a ten-year lead time, we're getting dangerously close to Christophera territory, and I don't think any of us wants that :).

[Horatius]

Are you familiar with the term "fulcrum"? If not, then perhaps you should return to third grade.



...and play on the teeter-totter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesaw) until you understand it.

Play-time isn't just fun and exercise, you know. It's part of how you learn about how the real world works.

[mist]

Hmm yes indeed Horatius, the reliability with timers might be the limiting factor.

Thanks for your response. :)

[JimBenArm]

...and play on the teeter-totter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesaw) until you understand it.

Play-time isn't just fun and exercise, you know. It's part of how you learn about how the real world works.

He tried, but it's hard when you're the only one on it.

When he was a kid (you know, last week) they had to tie a pork chop around his neck to get the dog to play with him.

He never had any friends. His parents would rub it in, too. They'd only buy him one walkie-talkie for Christmas. Poor fellow!

[JonnyFive]

...and play on the teeter-totter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesaw) until you understand it.

Play-time isn't just fun and exercise, you know. It's part of how you learn about how the real world works.

Would you say that your seesaw analogy removes any need for calculations? ;)

[Horatius]

Would you say that your seesaw analogy removes any need for calculations? ;)

Oh, absolutely! That's the epitome of science, don't you know :)

[Horatius]

Hmm yes indeed Horatius, the reliability with timers might be the limiting factor.

Thanks for your response. :)

Hey, we live to serve :)

[JonnyFive]

Oh, absolutely! That's the epitome of science, don't you know :)

We're in agreement, then: the World Trade Center was made of potato, and was brought down by a particularly hungry Godzilla.

Everything else is the result of the hyponosis.

[JimBenArm]

We're in agreement, then: the World Trade Center was made of potato, and was brought down by a particularly hungry Godzilla.

Everything else is the result of the hyponosis.
Did he turn them into a pile of french fries, with his radioactive breath?

[Horatius]

He tried, but it's hard when you're the only one on it.

When he was a kid (you know, last week) they had to tie a pork chop around his neck to get the dog to play with him.

He never had any friends. His parents would rub it in, too. They'd only buy him one walkie-talkie for Christmas. Poor fellow!

That would explain so much. I think the only person I ever knew in real life who combined 28th-levels of ignorance and arrogance was that one kid no one else ever liked or hung out with.

I think you're onto something here.

[Horatius]

We're in agreement, then: the World Trade Center was made of potato, and was brought down by a particularly hungry Godzilla.

Everything else is the result of the hyponosis.

It's Scientific!

[JonnyFive]

Did he turn them into a pile of french fries, with his radioactive breath?

That would explain the fire. It must be true.

It's Scientific!

I prefer the more technical terms "sciency" or perhaps "all science-like".

[Tirdun]

There's plenty of stuff about how stupid the CT hypotheses are. I like this:

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth2.html

Pretty funny, my favorite quote:
Covering (the 9/11 conspiracy) up after the fact would be like trying to keep the atomic bomb a secret after Hiroshima.

[Horatius]

I prefer the more technical terms "sciency" or perhaps "all science-like".

Well, you're the Scientician!

[Pardalis]

To quote a great thinker:

The world isn't black and white. Science is, but discourse is not. And there are so many grey areas that science will never account for. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

:hypnotize

[chipmunk stew]

Well, you're the Scientician!
Is that like a cut-rate Scientologist?

[Horatius]

Is that like a cut-rate Scientologist?

Scientician (http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/2005/10/scientician_of_.html)

I hate having to explain a joke....

http://www.anvari.org/fortune/The_Simpsons/21522.html

[uk_dave]

SOOOOOOOOOOO how about some examples of counter intuiti..... oh never mind....

[eeyore1954]

[28th Kingdom;2245055]So now... I would like all of you great scientific minds to give me the probability of what Silverstein meant by his quote to, "pull it," in reference to WTC 7. Is it more likely that Silverstein was improperly using archaic firefighter terminology to refer to removing firefighters who weren't even in WTC 7... or is it more likely that Silverstein was using a very common and modern demolition term that refers to bringing down a building?

When you are right 28th Kingdom you are right. He obviously meant to attach a bunch of cables and pull down WTC 7. Watching the video made it very clear to me.

[eeyore1954]

Okay... cool, so what is: This building is about to blow up... lingo for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

Is it your contention that this firefighter was told of the great scheme and asked to tell the people to move away because the building was going to be blown up. Wouldn't it have been better to not broadcast the idea that the demolition was being done.

Or is it more likely that he used the term because in his harried day it was the phrase that came to mind when he was warning people about the impending collapse.

[JonnyFive]

Well, you're the Scientician!

I am. I got my credentials from the college right next door to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, as a matter of fact.

I've got a BS in Scientarianism with a minor in Scientometry.

[Magic 8 Ball]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey:

My personal favorite, as one versed in statistics and probability, is the Monty Hall Problem.

Common sense would dictate that the odds are 50/50, since how can the doors know whether or not you changed your mind? Nonetheless, play it by the rules of common sense, and you'll probably go home with a new Pet Goat.


The Monty Hall paradox is nothing more than misdirection. Your odds of picking a car are always one in two, never one in three. Your first guess is free, because Monty will always reveal a wrong door (a door with goats behind it). This guess is irrelevant in determining odds. There are no consequences when you make your first guess (of one in three) and no mistake is ever revealed (because he doesn't reveal you decision). Switching your answer, when Monty asks if you want to switch, is when you actually make a decision. Here you have a one in two chance and there are consequences for making the wrong decision (no car). The reason for this misdirection is to add suspense to the show. I wouldn't consider the Monty Hall problem a paradox, but rather a form of misdirection.

[bonavada]

Now, I can't animate, but I wanted to help 28 with a graphical representation of what the official line is versus what he seems to be thinking.

spielberg i'm not but i thought i'd have a go ;-]

ETA i took the animated gif off here. i think it was slowing down the page loading don't want to incur the wrath of the mightymod

EBn4vDoBuqU


BV

[ZouPrime]

The Monty Hall paradox is nothing more than misdirection. Your odds of picking a car are always one in two, never one in three. Your first guess is free, because Monty will always reveal a wrong door (a door with goats behind it). This guess is irrelevant in determining odds. There are no consequences when you make your first guess (of one in three) and no mistake is ever revealed (because he doesn't reveal you decision). Switching your answer, when Monty asks if you want to switch, is when you actually make a decision. Here you have a one in two chance and there are consequences for making the wrong decision (no car). The reason for this misdirection is to add suspense to the show. I wouldn't consider the Monty Hall problem a paradox, but rather a form of misdirection.

The Mounty Hall problem is a classic thread killer, and I don't think it is wise to discuss it here. Suffice to say that your analysis is wrong; Monty action in the process are very important and cannot be ignored. There's an excellent wikipedia page on the subject:

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

If you still don't agree with the result and really feel the need to discuss the issue further, you can always start a new thread in the puzzle section of this board.

[JonnyFive]

The Monty Hall paradox is nothing more than misdirection. Your odds of picking a car are always one in two, never one in three. Your first guess is free, because Monty will always reveal a wrong door (a door with goats behind it). This guess is irrelevant in determining odds. There are no consequences when you make your first guess (of one in three) and no mistake is ever revealed (because he doesn't reveal you decision). Switching your answer, when Monty asks if you want to switch, is when you actually make a decision. Here you have a one in two chance and there are consequences for making the wrong decision (no car). The reason for this misdirection is to add suspense to the show. I wouldn't consider the Monty Hall problem a paradox, but rather a form of misdirection.

Actually, experimentation will confirm the classic solution to the problem. If you have any programming skill, try writing a simple program to randomly choose a "car" door, randomly choose an "opened" door, and randomly choose a "selected" door. Have the program check to make sure it doesn't open the "car" door, then tally the results from 100 guesses always switching, and 100 always not switching.

If not, just play a mock-up game with a friend and keep score. Do it twenty times or so each way to get a decent number of results.

You will find that approximately 1/3 of the time without switching, and 2/3 of the time with switching you will get a car, which is exactly what is predicted through probability theory.

There are a number of ways of figuring the problem. Probably (haw haw) the simplest way is to draw out a diagram of possible results. As I said, experimentation will confirm the theory.

If Monty is unaware of the location of the car and chooses a door totally at random, then you will indeed have a 50% chance either way. This is because 1/3 of the time, the game will end early when Monty reveals the car door by mistake.

It has nothing to do with misdirection, and everything to do with probability. Remember, it only works out this way if Monty is aware of the contents of the three doors, and offers the switch every time (there are variations where he offers the switch only when you've selected a goat or a car, in which case the probability of winning through switching would be 1 and 0 respectively).

[aggle-rithm]

I am. I got my credentials from the college right next door to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, as a matter of fact.

I've got a BS in Scientarianism with a minor in Scientometry.

Scientastic!

[chipmunk stew]

spielberg i'm not but i thought i'd have a go ;-]

(please wait. large animated gif)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/874845a5376380a72.gif


BV
:dl:

Classic!

This and juryjone's post (among others) make me think we ought to have a non-verbal communication award.

[Trifikas]

Okay... cool, so what is: This building is about to blow up... lingo for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

uhm...perhaps the fact that there were X-thousand gallon tanks of Fuel in a building that was ON FIRE might have concerned the man a tad?

[ktesibios]

spielberg i'm not but i thought i'd have a go ;-]

ETA i took the animated gif off here. i think it was slowing down the page loading don't want to incur the wrath of the mightymod

EBn4vDoBuqU


BV

Positively Pythonesque! :clap:

[CurtC]

I hate having to explain a joke...Hey, I got it. That's shortly after Troy explains to a kid who expressed horror at the idea of going to a place called a "killing floor":

"Don't let the name throw you, Jimmy. It's not really a floor, it's more of a steel grating that allows material to sluice through so it can be collected and exported."

[Magic 8 Ball]

Actually, experimentation will confirm the classic solution to the problem. If you have any programming skill, try writing a simple program to randomly choose a "car" door, randomly choose an "opened" door, and randomly choose a "selected" door. Have the program check to make sure it doesn't open the "car" door, then tally the results from 100 guesses always switching, and 100 always not switching.

If not, just play a mock-up game with a friend and keep score. Do it twenty times or so each way to get a decent number of results.

You will find that approximately 1/3 of the time without switching, and 2/3 of the time with switching you will get a car, which is exactly what is predicted through probability theory.

There are a number of ways of figuring the problem. Probably (haw haw) the simplest way is to draw out a diagram of possible results. As I said, experimentation will confirm the theory.

If Monty is unaware of the location of the car and chooses a door totally at random, then you will indeed have a 50% chance either way. This is because 1/3 of the time, the game will end early when Monty reveals the car door by mistake.

It has nothing to do with misdirection, and everything to do with probability. Remember, it only works out this way if Monty is aware of the contents of the three doors, and offers the switch every time (there are variations where he offers the switch only when you've selected a goat or a car, in which case the probability of winning through switching would be 1 and 0 respectively).

From Wikipedia: "Once the host has opened a door, the car must be behind one of the two remaining doors."
Wouldn't this statement mean that the first pick is irrelevant. Think of a roulette wheel with an electornic sign displaying the last 20 numbers that popped up. Those last numbers are still irrelvant in determinbing the next number the ball lands on. However, I do see your point mathematically. Monty has eliminated a wrong answer, thus increasing your odds if you make a switch. The assumption is that you will pick the wrong door the first time since it is one in three. I'll try your suggested experiment. Thanks.

[defaultdotxbe]

Scientician (http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/2005/10/scientician_of_.html)

I hate having to explain a joke....

http://www.anvari.org/fortune/The_Simpsons/21522.html
According to The Simpsons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made-up_words_in_The_Simpsons#Scientician), a "scientician" is "a scientist with questionable credentials who publicly supports spurious hypotheses."

i dont think that definition really fits the portrayal in the show though

Troy: Just ask this scientician.
Scientician: [Looking up from a microscope.] Uhhh...
Troy: He'll tell you that, in nature, one creature invariably
eats another creature to survive.

seems the scientician doesnt support the hypothesis at all and mr mcclure is just putting words in his mouth, lol

[Trifikas]

From Wikipedia: "Once the host has opened a door, the car must be behind one of the two remaining doors."
Wouldn't this statement mean that the first pick is irrelevant. Think of a roulette wheel with an electornic sign displaying the last 20 numbers that popped up. Those last numbers are still irrelvant in determinbing the next number the ball lands on. However, I do see your point mathematically. Monty has eliminated a wrong answer, thus increasing your odds if you make a switch. The assumption is that you will pick the wrong door the first time since it is one in three. I'll try your suggested experiment. Thanks.

There's a big ol' thread in the puzzle section, so let's not bog this down here, but the gist of it is the opening of the door doesn't give you any new information. There was going to be a goat behind at least one of the non-chosen doors. Essentially, The question is, do you want to stick with the door you choose initially, or switch to BOTH other doors.

The question I want to know, is, how many contestants actually left the studio with a goat...

[DavidJames]

The question I want to know, is, how many contestants actually left the studio with a goat...and weren't disappointed :D

[chipmunk stew]

From Wikipedia: "Once the host has opened a door, the car must be behind one of the two remaining doors."
Wouldn't this statement mean that the first pick is irrelevant.
The first pick is quite relevant.
If your first pick is the car, Monty can eliminate either the first goat or the second goat. (If you switch, you lose. If you stay, you win.)
If your first pick is the first goat, Monty MUST eliminate the second goat. (If you switch, you win. If you stay, you lose.)
If your first pick is the second goat, Monty MUST eliminate the first goat. (If you switch, you win. If you stay, you lose.)

So if you switch, you have a 2/3 chance of winning, and if you stay, you have a 2/3 chance of losing.

Think of a roulette wheel with an electornic sign displaying the last 20 numbers that popped up. Those last numbers are still irrelvant in determinbing the next number the ball lands on. However, I do see your point mathematically. Monty has eliminated a wrong answer, thus increasing your odds if you make a switch. The assumption is that you will pick the wrong door the first time since it is one in three. I'll try your suggested experiment. Thanks.

[juryjone]

spielberg i'm not but i thought i'd have a go ;-]

ETA i took the animated gif off here. i think it was slowing down the page loading don't want to incur the wrath of the mightymod

EBn4vDoBuqU


BV

Brilliant! I love how God had to nudge it twice, cause he couldn't get it right the first time.

[Minadin]

I do the monty hall problem as a card trick with a king and 2 3's, just to prove it to people.

It defies common sense because people are trying to pick the car / king. Once they are shown the goat / 3 that they did not choose, it reinforces their belief that they might have picked the prize.

Once the problem is explained / demonstrated to people, and they understand that 1) they have a better chance of picking the goat / 3, and 2) that if they pick the goat / 3 and they switch, they will win, they see that they only have a 33% chance of losing by picking the king / car first. They tend to want to switch, then.

[JonnyFive]

I do the monty hall problem as a card trick with a king and 2 3's, just to prove it to people.

That's the simplest way to do it.

[Regnad Kcin]

...There is absolutely no proof that the towers could have fell the way they did from the damage that was done. The speed at which the buildings fell defies the laws of physics... and that is a fact. It really is that simple.

Common sense tells us... given the knowledge of free falls speeds... that these towers could not have collapsed as fast as they did without a synthetic catalyst like explosives.

Otherwise... you're saying that this marvel in structure engineering and design, provided virtually no resistance to the falling upper mass. You're basically saying this steel structured building provided no more resistance than if it were made of cardboard...It is so painful to read this stuff. Like a daily peek at a "Garfield" comic strip.

[Regnad Kcin]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability, common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11. We certainly don't throw our hands up in the air and go... 8474 happens man. Planes hit buildings... and now we have three magical collapses... and new laws of physics to document...Gravy? Is this you putting one over on us?

[Redtail]

That is a lie.. there are hundreds if not thousands of video taped first hand accounts from witnesses who claim they heard all kinds of explosives going off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApOt3jdn28A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT95sx-8jOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR8RgEHw6p4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uOFXsfskM

Odd that all of that audio recording equipment in the area that day, no one picked up anything that sounded like this actual CD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-WvQbFMIWU

Why do you think that is?

[Regnad Kcin]

The events of 9/11 include more than the collapses... it's the motive, the opportunity, the admitted evidence we have from the Bush administration about facts surrounding 9/11... the documented history of Israel framing Arab Muslims as terrorists... that is the big picture of 9/11. The fact that explosives were used is the big picture... the exact details of how they were used is not.

Of course, your left-brain hates the big picture... you prefer the myopic metaphysical world of speculative details... where you hold complete dominion over all the facts.I love it when Garfield eats a whole plate of lasagna! Now that's comedy genius. A cat...eating lasagna! Oh, my sides, my sides!

[CHF]

Okay... cool, so what is: This building is about to blow up... lingo for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

Still waiting to hear those demo charges going off.

They sure were quiet considering how these things usually sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yK9XLRb1u8

[chipmunk stew]

It is so painful to read this stuff. Like a daily peek at a "Garfield" comic strip.
:drinkspit:

[chipmunk stew]

I love it when Garfield eats a whole plate of lasagna! Now that's comedy genius. A cat...eating lasagna! Oh, my sides, my sides!
:dl:

[28th Kingdom]

So every firefighter in NYC was in on the conspiracy and willing to blab about it to a CNN reporter moments before their nefarious scheme was launched? What tight, unrivaled security your NWO has in place.

You want me to defend a cautionary expression made by a firefighter in the street who has just been ordered to clear the area because a 47 story building with massive structural damage is clearly going to fall over and possibly hurt/kill even more people? On a day when thousands are already dead and dozens of his fellow firefighters have already DIED? Why should he, as a member of this dark conspiracy with the blood of ~3000 people on his hands give a rats tail about whoever is left in or around WTC7? Why would he even be in on the conspiracy in the first place?

There is no scenario in which his actions and motives make sense within your conspiracy.

No... you need to defend all three of the rescue workers who said the building was going to blow up... and the other one who proclaimed that the building was about to come down. Now you tell me... how do you predict when a building is gonna come down without knowing it is being blown up? And, then defend these two firefighters who say, "There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out" and "We got a secondary device in the building"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMABQHSS40

Also... these rescue workers were not apart of the 9/11 plot and did not cover it up. Read my other posts where I explain this...

[CHF]

how do you predict when a building is gonna come down without knowing it is being blown up?

WTC7 was leaning over for crying out loud! Of course they knew it would collapse soon.

And it's not like they said "It'll come down in 5, 4, 3...."

[CHF]

28th

Track down that firefighter and ask how he knew "there was a bomb."

Then explain to me why the "bomb" was so quiet.

[HeyLeroy]

Can someone not on 28th's iggy list ask him to post an update?

[defaultdotxbe]

No... you need to defend all three of the rescue workers who said the building was going to blow up... and the other one who proclaimed that the building was about to come down. Now you tell me... how do you predict when a building is gonna come down without knowing it is being blown up? And, then defend these two firefighters who say, "There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out" and "We got a secondary device in the building"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMABQHSS40

Also... these rescue workers were not apart of the 9/11 plot and did not cover it up. Read my other posts where I explain this...
so they werent part of the plot...but they knew there were bombs in the building, and they arent covering up...but they dont talk about the bombs in the building

what was that word again? doublethink?

[28th Kingdom]

so they werent part of the plot...but they knew there were bombs in the building, and they arent covering up...but they dont talk about the bombs in the building

what was that word again? doublethink?

Hey you 3837383 38383746... you think on 9/11 - with the knowledge of terrorists attacks... that these rescue workers.. when told there were bombs in the building... should have been like - damn INSIDE JOB!

These workers probably never even thought twice about those events... they were told to evacuate the area... and they simply did their jobs - like heros... not terrorists.

P.S. People in the truth movement can't even get any mainstream media to show the video of WTC 7 collapsing (minus one time) ... but you think they would have a firefighter on who claims he was told bombs were in WTC 7 building? The media wouldn't... for one - because they only have these "CTist" on, to teach the public how they should be viewed (character assassination) i.e. crazies on the fringe of society - you really think they would want to paint one of the 9/11 heros like that? No, they wouldn't... thus they would never have one on that claimed the official story is a lie.

[volatile]

Didn't you just say that the firefighter said there was a bomb... and now you're saying that he didn't know there was one?

You can't have your cake and eat it, mate.

And, then defend these two firefighters who say, "There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out" and "We got a secondary device in the building"




These workers probably never even thought twice about those events... they were told to evacuate the area...

[JimBenArm]

Hey you 3837383 38383746... you think on 9/11 - with the knowledge of terrorists attacks... that these rescue workers.. when told there were bombs in the building... should have been like - damn INSIDE JOB!

These workers probably never even thought twice about those events... they were told to evacuate the area... and they simply did their jobs - like heros... not terrorists.
Can someone please explain the numbers that this idiot keeps putting in his posts? I know it's substituting for profanity, but I don't get it, other than that.

Please excuse my fogey-ism!

[HeyLeroy]

so they werent part of the plot...but they knew there were bombs in the building, and they arent covering up...but they dont talk about the bombs in the building

what was that word again? doublethink?
Encephalopathy? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2243525&postcount=62)

[Redtail]

Hey you 3837383 38383746... you think on 9/11 - with the knowledge of terrorists attacks... that these rescue workers.. when told there were bombs in the building... should have been like - damn INSIDE JOB!

These workers probably never even thought twice about those events... they were told to evacuate the area... and they simply did their jobs - like heros... not terrorists.

P.S. People in the truth movement can't even get any mainstream media to show the video of WTC 7 collapsing (minus one time) ... but you think they would have a firefighter on who claims he was told bombs were in WTC 7 building? The media wouldn't... for one - because they only have these "CTist" on, to show the public how they should be viewed (character assassination) i.e. crazies on the fringe of society - you really think they would want to paint one of the 9/11 heros like that? No, they wouldn't... thus they would never have one on that claimed the official story is a lie.

So if you went up to any of these firefighters today would they say "Yep there was a bomb in the building"?

Aslo if there were bombs why were they so quiet? A couple of videos showing CD's have been posted with the sound of the charges going off and for some reason there are no sounds of charges going off at the WTC.

[defaultdotxbe]

Hey you 3837383 38383746... you think on 9/11 - with the knowledge of terrorists attacks... that these rescue workers.. when told there were bombs in the building... should have been like - damn INSIDE JOB!

These workers probably never even thought twice about those events... they were told to evacuate the area... and they simply did their jobs - like heros... not terrorists.

P.S. People in the truth movement can't even get any mainstream media to show the video of WTC 7 collapsing (minus one time) ... but you think they would have a firefighter on who claims he was told bombs were in WTC 7 building? The media wouldn't... for one - because they only have these "CTist" on, to teach the public how they should be viewed (character assassination) i.e. crazies on the fringe of society - you really think they would want to paint one of the 9/11 heros like that? No, they wouldn't... thus they would never have one on that claimed the official story is a lie.
and after 9/11 when the reports said there were no bombs they all said "wait a minute, yes their were, we all knew about them and heard them. we should start a organization to get to the bottom of this"

oh wait, no they didnt...

[28th Kingdom]

Didn't you just say that the firefighter said there was a bomb... and now you're saying that he didn't know there was one?

You can't have your cake and eat it, mate.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?

I'm biting my tongue on this one... the firefighters were obviously told by their superiors that bombs were in WTC 7... OKAY? You with me so far? NOW... how does that mean they knew about the plot of 9/11? They were simply taking orders and doing their job.

Erf9iuehfnpnfgpareu god, still biting tongue... stupidity is such a pet peeve of mine. Lord... throw me a line... pleasssssssssssssssssssse!

[volatile]

P.S. People in the truth movement can't even get any mainstream media to show the video of WTC 7 collapsing (minus one time) ... but you think they would have a firefighter on who claims he was told bombs were in WTC 7 building? The media wouldn't... for one - because they only have these "CTist" on, to teach the public how they should be viewed (character assassination) i.e. crazies on the fringe of society - you really think they would want to paint one of the 9/11 heros like that? No, they wouldn't... thus they would never have one on that claimed the official story is a lie.

You saying the BBC, or TF1 in France, or Al-Jazeera wouldn't run an interview? That The Guardian, or the Independent, or Le Monde, or any of the major newspapers in China or India or Pakistan wouldn't run that interview?

Hell, you don't even need a major news corp. You think this fire-fighter, with first hand knowledge of bombs in WTC7, wouldn't even make a freaking You-Tube video?!

[CHF]

People in the truth movement can't even get any mainstream media to show the video of WTC 7 collapsing

And if the media shows it let's hope they turn the volume way up so we can all hear those deafening bombs going off.

Then they should show a REAL demolition so viewers can see and hear the difference.

[CHF]

the firefighters were obviously told by their superiors that bombs were in WTC 7... OKAY? You with me so far? NOW... how does that mean they knew about the plot of 9/11? They were simply taking orders and doing their job.

So they KNEW there were bombs in WTC7 but they can't connect that to a demolition plot?

Good lord!

[volatile]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?

I'm biting my tongue on this one... the firefighters were obviously told by their superiors that bombs were in WTC 7... OKAY? You with me so far? NOW... how does that mean they knew about the plot of 9/11? They were simply taking orders and doing their job.

Erf9iuehfnpnfgpareu god, still biting tongue... stupidity is such a pet peeve of mine. Lord... throw me a line... pleasssssssssssssssssssse!

Let me get this straight, as obviously I'm too stupid to understand the logic of your argument (I'm working on a PhD, so please don't tell my supervisor your superior intellect floored me, else I'll get failed!),

1) There were bombs in WTC7
2) Firefighters saw and / or were told there were bombs
3) They accepted this, without questioning it
4) Once the "official story" came out, that there weren't any bombs, not one of those firefighters, in the intervening 5 years, has mentioned this to anyone?
5) Furthermore, despite not telling anyone, they're not "in on it".

Is that what you're saying?

Excuse me, I'm stupid.

[CHF]

28th....what kind of bomb do you think was in WTC7?

I'm trying to figure out what kind of bomb could bring down a building and not make a sound.

Any ideas?

[The Almond]

I'm biting my tongue on this one... the firefighters were obviously told by their superiors that bombs were in WTC 7... OKAY? You with me so far? NOW... how does that mean they knew about the plot of 9/11? They were simply taking orders and doing their job.

So, if I may paraphrase, you're accusing the firefighters of complicity in 9/11. They have evidence, but they've refused to talk about it.

[HeyLeroy]

(snip) the firefighters were obviously told by their superiors that bombs were in WTC 7... OKAY? (snip)


Who are these shadowy superiors?

[28th Kingdom]

and after 9/11 when the reports said there were no bombs they all said "wait a minute, yes their were, we all knew about them and heard them. we should start a organization to get to the bottom of this"

oh wait, no they didnt...

Oh wait... you don't live in the real world... you live in a virtual world of speculation. I live in the real world, where I only use REAL physical evidence i.e. VIDEO FOOTAGE OF FIREFIGHTERS SAYING BOMBS WERE IN THE WTC 7 - to piece my case together.... you on the other hand... use myopic reasoning... generated from naive beliefs and limited imagination - to form your theories.

[Arus808]

and of course, of the firefighters who have survived, and many whom retired since 9/11, not one .. .NOT one single one of them have "outed" that their superiors told them to keep quiet about.

Sorry, but I dont think that the measley pension they get is enough for them to keep quiet about it.

[volatile]

Oh wait... you don't live in the real world... you live in a virtual world of speculation. I live in the real world, where I only use REAL physical evidence i.e. VIDEO FOOTAGE OF FIREFIGHTERS SAYING BOMBS WERE IN THE WTC 7 - to piece my case together.... you on the other hand... use myopic reasoning... generated from naive beliefs and limited imagination - to form your theories.

For the nth time...

http://911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html

These accounts were from the immediate aftermath. Has any firefighter (on YouTube or elsewhere) said since then that they saw, or were told, there were bombs? Have they?

If not, why not?

[28th Kingdom]

I apologize guys... but, I have to put some more of you on ignore... because I will be suspended or banned... if I have to continue reading this mindless drivel. I mean really... this level of willful ignorance is sinful.

[HeyLeroy]

28th....what kind of bomb do you think was in WTC7?

I'm trying to figure out what kind of bomb could bring down a building and not make a sound.

Any ideas?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/619745a581c46ea10.jpg

[Arus808]

I apologize guys... but, I have to put some more of you on ignore... because I will be suspended or banned... if I have to continue reading this mindless drivel. I mean really... this level of willful ignorance is sinful.


you are nothing more than a troll and sooner people realize this, that you are not here to debate, but to admonish, the sooner that they will stop replying to you.

[volatile]

Yay! Do I get to be on ignore now too? Before you even helped me get over my stupidity?

How am I gonna get my PhD now?


----

I think eventually he'll have every single member of the forums on ignore at this rate, and will just be posting to himself!

[CHF]

I apologize guys... but, I have to put some more of you on ignore... because I will be suspended or banned... if I have to continue reading this mindless drivel. I mean really... this level of willful ignorance is sinful.

28th: What kind of bomb was in WTC7? Why no sound?

Enlighten me, oh wise one.

[Arus808]

you know what gets me, is that if everything was left to "common sense" then why do Doctors/engineers/lawyers/judges/put your profession in this space all spend $$$$ to go to school, then XXXX amount of time in hands on experience which is more $$$ spent, when all people have to do is hire Joe Schmoe and his "common" sense to do that job?

someone who isn't ignored by 28IQ, ask him if he's willing to see someone about heart bypass surgery by Joe Schmoe and have him perform it (by use of "common sense") or would he go to someone specialized in Heart bypass surgery to have them perform it.

[defaultdotxbe]

Oh wait... you don't live in the real world... you live in a virtual world of speculation. I live in the real world, where I only use REAL physical evidence i.e. VIDEO FOOTAGE OF FIREFIGHTERS SAYING BOMBS WERE IN THE WTC 7 - to piece my case together.... you on the other hand... use myopic reasoning... generated from naive beliefs and limited imagination - to form your theories.
maybe its just in my virtual world, but i think over 5 years have passed since that video was taken, and in that time the official story has stated no bombs were in WTC7, and i dont think that firefighter has made any public case to make it known that there were bombs

why is this? what does he have to hide?

the firefighters were obviously told by their superiors that bombs were in WTC 7... OKAY? You with me so far? NOW... how does that mean they knew about the plot of 9/11? They were simply taking orders and doing their job.
so how did the firefighters superiors (who are also firefighters BTW) know there were bombs? at some point someone must have firsthand knowledge of explosive devices, and since they havent mentioned in the 5 years since i woudl say they have some explaining to do

[LashL]

spielberg i'm not but i thought i'd have a go ;-]

ETA i took the animated gif off here. i think it was slowing down the page loading don't want to incur the wrath of the mightymod

EBn4vDoBuqU


BV

Bonavada, that is hilarious! I first saw your post while at work this afternoon (shhhh!) but could not view the video from work, and was looking forward to seeing it tonight from home. It was well worth the wait ~ good work!!

[HeyLeroy]

(snip) I only use REAL physical evidence i.e. VIDEO FOOTAGE OF FIREFIGHTERS SAYING BOMBS WERE IN THE WTC 7 (snip)
I only use REAL physical evidence to make up my wild-ass speculations:
(snip)

I'm biting my tongue on this one... the firefighters were obviously told by their superiors that bombs were in WTC 7... OKAY? You with me so far? NOW... how does that mean they knew about the plot of 9/11? They were simply taking orders and doing their job.

[Redtail]

Oh wait... you don't live in the real world... you live in a virtual world of speculation. I live in the real world, where I only use REAL physical evidence i.e. VIDEO FOOTAGE OF FIREFIGHTERS SAYING BOMBS WERE IN THE WTC 7 - to piece my case together.... you on the other hand... use myopic reasoning... generated from naive beliefs and limited imagination - to form your theories.

Yet you don't use any video footage that has the sound of the charges going off. Why?

[JimBenArm]

I apologize guys... this level of willful ignorance is sinful.

Yet you continue to do it.

[Tirdun]

28th Kingdom, You are a troll.

Your slander of FDNY is intolerable and disgusting.
You've labeled them graverobbers and murderers and have posted nonsense as evidence.

Good bye.

User CP -> Buddy / Ignore Lists -> Lower Textbox -> 28th Kingdom -> Save List

[28th Kingdom]

so how did the firefighters superiors (who are also firefighters BTW) know there were bombs? at some point someone must have firsthand knowledge of explosive devices, and since they havent mentioned in the 5 years since i woudl say they have some explaining to do

Maybe the superiors were told of the bombs by the Fire Department Commander...who spoke to the owner of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

Maybe... you are naive and don't know how the media suppresses information.... or how basic human psychology works. Why hasn't the firefighters talked? Maybe they haven't pieced it together... maybe they fear being ridiculed and losing their jobs... you do realize that it's legal for you to be arrested simply for speaking out against the official story, right?

Oh... please, don't argue that point - you're al Qaeda if you claim the government is behind 9/11 - it's all written in the acts and handbooks. Remember, Bush clearly told us...

"You're either with us... or you're with the terrorists."

Pretty strong words.. don't you think? The laws are starting to reflect this statement wherein.. any public descent from government policy/action is now being viewed and treated as terroristic threats.

But... not to worry... you'll have your martial law soon enough... where they can arrest you on the streets without reason... detain you indefinitely (forever) or proceed to execute you without justification.

Good Times.

[Redtail]

Maybe the superiors were told of the bombs by the Fire Department Commander...who spoke to the owner of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

Maybe... you are naive and don't know how the media suppresses information.... or how basic human psychology works. Why hasn't the firefighters talked? Maybe they haven't pieced it together... maybe they fear being ridiculed and losing their jobs... you do realize that it's legal for you to be arrested simply for speaking out against the official story, right?

Oh... please, don't argue that point - you're al Qaeda if you claim the government is behind 9/11 - it's all written in the acts and handbooks. Remember, Bush clearly told us...

"You're either with us... or you're with the terrorists."

Pretty strong words.. don't you think? The laws are starting to reflect this statement wherein.. any public descent from government policy/action is now being viewed and treated as terroristic threats.

But... not to worry... you'll have your martial law soon enough... where they can arrest you on the streets without reason... detain you indefinitely (forever) then proceed to execute you without justification.

Good Times.

Really? How many were arrested during the 9/11 truther "Boston Tea Party"? When has Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Dylan Avery been arrested?

BTW: You seem reluctant to address the issue of why none of the audio equipment picked up the sounds of the "explosives".

[defaultdotxbe]

Maybe the superiors were told of the bombs by the Fire Department Commander...who spoke to the owner of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
larry says the fire department commander (and presumably others within the fire department) made the decision to "pull"

so who was involved again?

Maybe they haven't pieced it together...
"they told me bombs...then they say no bombs"

yeah, that could take a while to work out

maybe they fear being ridiculed and losing their jobs...
after 9/11 i dont think a new york firefighter could have been ridiculed for anything

you do realize that it's legal for you to be arrested simply for speaking out against the official story, right?
and thats why you, dylan avery, alex jones, steven jones, james fetzer, judy wood and every other member of the truth movement are behind bars, right?

however, you CAN have a civil suit filed against you for libel (that being your implied accusation of larry silverstein of terrorism and insurance fraud)

[stateofgrace]

Maybe the superiors were told of the bombs by the Fire Department Commander...who spoke to the owner of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

Maybe... you are naive and don't know how the media suppresses information.... or how basic human psychology works. Why hasn't the firefighters talked? Maybe they haven't pieced it together... maybe they fear being ridiculed and losing their jobs... you do realize that it's legal for you to be arrested simply for speaking out against the official story, right?

.

I apologies to all for this.

You are a pathetic disgusting obscene paranoid idiot who is accusing the FDNY and those who tried to help of being involved in covering up mass murder.

You make me sick. You are absolute scum of the earth.

[JimBenArm]

Really? How many were arrested during the 9/11 truther "Boston Tea Party"? When has Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Dylan Avery been arrested?

BTW: You seem reluctant to address the issue of why none of the audio equipment picked up the sounds of the "explosives".

You know, he really seems to think it would be us that would get locked up, instead of him, if all these dire things were to happen.

But logic (and truth) are foreign concepts to him.

[twinstead]

Maybe the superiors were told of the bombs by the Fire Department Commander...who spoke to the owner of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

Maybe... you are naive and don't know how the media suppresses information.... or how basic human psychology works. Why hasn't the firefighters talked? Maybe they haven't pieced it together... maybe they fear being ridiculed and losing their jobs... you do realize that it's legal for you to be arrested simply for speaking out against the official story, right?

Oh... please, don't argue that point - you're al Qaeda if you claim the government is behind 9/11 - it's all written in the acts and handbooks. Remember, Bush clearly told us...

"You're either with us... or you're with the terrorists."

Pretty strong words.. don't you think? The laws are starting to reflect this statement wherein.. any public descent from government policy/action is now being viewed and treated as terroristic threats.

But... not to worry... you'll have your martial law soon enough... where they can arrest you on the streets without reason... detain you indefinitely (forever) or proceed to execute you without justification.

Good Times.

BS. You are basically saying that for fear of a job, or fear of being arrested, EVERYBODY involved in the 'plot' refuses to come clean about the murder of 3000 people by their government. In the case of firemen, their brothers.

You are calling everybody who might even have a hint of REAL evidence (you know, like the kind you DON'T have) cowards. You are implying that nobody would ever put themselves in danger to uncover a plot so heinous. A plot to murder of 3000 innocent civilians.

Disgusting!

I say NO WAY. I say you are so totally wrong in your assessment of 'basic human psychology' as to be ludicrous.

You have a dim view of humanity, and a cynical, unrealistic, and ideologically biased view of the world. You are basically a disgusting low life.

And I don't care if you have me on ignore and never see this, people need to know how vile you really are.

[LashL]

No... you need to defend all three of the rescue workers who said the building was going to blow up... and the other one who proclaimed that the building was about to come down. Now you tell me... how do you predict when a building is gonna come down without knowing it is being blown up? And, then defend these two firefighters who say, "There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out" and "We got a secondary device in the building"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMABQHSS40

Also... these rescue workers were not apart of the 9/11 plot and did not cover it up. Read my other posts where I explain this...

Hate to break it to you, 28th, but that video is not in relation to building 7. It's in relation to a school where the firefighters had set up a temporary center. Called something like Stuyvesant (sp) and not at the World Trade Center complex at all.

Sheesh.

Edit to add: oh, and it was because of a false report of a bomb in the school. There was none found and the school did not collapse.

[The Almond]

Maybe... you are naive and don't know how the media suppresses information....

I know how Dylan Avery and the Loose Changers supress information. They quote mine, disregard contrary evidence, fabricate, lie, obfusticate, imply and resort to ad homenim attacks when presented with facts. They're also fans of banning opposing viewpoints. I suppose it's a lot like putting people on ignore when you can't respond to their posts with facts, logic and insight.

or how basic human psychology works.
Since when did you become educated on basic human psychology? Or are you a self-declared googlexpert?

Why hasn't the firefighters talked? Maybe they haven't pieced it together...
So you're accusing them of being stupid.

maybe they fear being ridiculed and losing their jobs...
Now you're accusing them of being money grubbing cowards. Do you place your job above the virtues of truth, justice and reason? Why should you expect them to?

you do realize that it's legal for you to be arrested simply for speaking out against the official story, right?
Dylan Avery, Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood. Why haven't they been arrested yet? Or are you going to conceed that this is a blatantly false statement?

Oh... please, don't argue that point - you're al Qaeda if you claim the government is behind 9/11 - it's all written in the acts and handbooks. Remember, Bush clearly told us...
Al Qaeda? You mean the innocent/imaginary group that the Bush Administration is framing for the 9/11 attacks? How could it possibly be bad to be declared innocent of all charges? Or do you not really believe the things you type?

But... not to worry... you'll have your martial law soon enough... where they can arrest you on the streets without reason... detain you indefinitely (forever) or proceed to execute you without justification.
Paranoia. Or do you have a little crystal ball that allows you to predict the future?

[ConspiRaider]

But... not to worry... you'll have your martial law soon enough... where they can arrest you on the streets without reason... detain you indefinitely (forever) or proceed to execute you without justification.

Good Times.
Not really worried. I mean things are outta hand someone's gotta do sumpin. And the gubmint is Big and Strong, both.

Do you know if they like give you a choice of being detained (forever) or executed without justification? I'm probably gonna come down on the side of detained (forever). Like I never saw all the episodes of X-files and I heard they got reruns of all of them in SuperMax TV? Got some catchin' up to do...

[CHF]

you do realize that it's legal for you to be arrested simply for speaking out against the official story, right?

Poor Dylan Avery....rotting in jail simply for speaking his mind. And Alex Jones - he was executed, right?

In fact, I myself disagree with the government story - the part where "they hate us because of our freedoms."

I guess I'd better watch my back, huh?

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, I'm still waiting to hear those 9/11 demo charges goin off.

[defaultdotxbe]

maybe they fear being ridiculed and losing their jobs...
oh yeah, forgot this part

afraid of losing their jobs? firefighters risk their LIVES every single day, why would they be afraid of losing their jobs to uncover the truth about the murder of 300 of their brothers?

[volatile]

Maybe the superiors were told of the bombs by the Fire Department Commander...who spoke to the owner of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A



http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html



Maybe... you are naive and don't know how the media suppresses information....Did you hear about when Fox news tried to supress a journalistic story about safety issues connected to Monstanto BGH in milk? The journalists resigned, made a huge stink, and took Fox to court.

Did you hear about the BSE crisis in the UK? The government tried to covered up certain details, but were found out.

Did you hear about the sinking of the rainbow warrior? The French government were found out.

Did you hear about Watergate? Nixon got impeached.

Did you hear about Mordechai Vanunu, who leaked Israel's nuclear secrets to the UK as a matter of conscience?

All conspiracies, all blown apart by honest testimony or decent investigation. Vanunu's case shows that even a mighty government can be exposed by a single whistleblower. Ditto the Nixo administration and Deep Throat.

How did your huge conspiracy survive 5 years without a single crack?

[Alt+F4]

. the firefighters were obviously told by their superiors that bombs were in WTC 7... OKAY? You with me so far? NOW... how does that mean they knew about the plot of 9/11? They were simply taking orders and doing their job.

AND who were they taking their orders from? Their FDNY superiors, of course! So your are still saying the FDNY was in on it, but now your implicating FDNY brass rather then the rank and file firefighters.

AND don't bother saying that the FDNY firefighters were getting their orders from anyone other than their FDNY superiors, it doesn't work that way.

AND, I'm not getting my information from some lame video, I'm from an FDNY family.

[28th Kingdom]

and thats why you, dylan avery, alex jones, steven jones, james fetzer, judy wood and every other member of the truth movement are behind bars, right?

How predictable is that?

however, you CAN have a civil suit filed against you for libel (that being your implied accusation of larry silverstein of terrorism and insurance fraud)Now... I'm gonna use your words against you... Why do you think no one has sued Alex Jones for libel and/or slander? I mean have you heard the unambiguous claims he has made not only against organizations but specific individuals? Do you know how easy it would be for these powerful persons/entities to file a lawsuit against Alex Jones? At the very least they could make his life a living hell by tying him up in court...and swamping him in debt with legal fees, so why hasn't anyone done this?

I MEAN HAVE YOU HEARD SOME OF THE THINGS ALEX JONES HAS SAID? The CIA imports most of the drugs into the country... DynCorp, Halliburton and the UN run child prostitution rings... hmmm, maybe there is some truth to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Sex_slavery

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070106/ap_on_re_eu/un_sex_abuse

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/race_relations/july-dec96/cia_11-18.html

[aggle-rithm]

I apologize guys... but, I have to put some more of you on ignore... because I will be suspended or banned... if I have to continue reading this mindless drivel. I mean really... this level of willful ignorance is sinful.

Way to dominate, 28Virgins.

[Redtail]

How predictable is that?

Now... I'm gonna use your words against you... Why do you think no one has sued Alex Jones for libel and/or slander? I mean have you heard the unambiguous claims he has made not only against organizations but specific individuals? Do you know how easy it would be for these powerful persons/entities to file a lawsuit against Alex Jones? At the very least they could make his life a living hell by tying him up in court...and swamping him in debt with legal fees, so why hasn't anyone done this?

I MEAN HAVE YOU HEARD SOME OF THE THINGS ALEX JONES HAS SAID? The CIA imports most of the drugs into the country... DynCorp, Halliburton and the UN run child prostitution rings... hmmm, maybe there is some truth to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Sex_slavery

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070106/ap_on_re_eu/un_sex_abuse

So they can't sue him because he's telling the truth but when people tell the truth they get arrested for it, but he's never been arrested for it yet the firefighters are scared of getting fired or arrested?

[defaultdotxbe]

How predictable is that?
so you have no response? if you can be arrested for speaking out against the official story why have they not been arrested?


Now... I'm gonna use your words against you... Why do you think no one has sued Alex Jones for libel and/or slander? I mean have you heard the unambiguous claims he has made not only against organizations but specific individuals? Do you know how easy it would be for these powerful persons/entities to file a lawsuit against Alex Jones? At the very least they could make his life a living hell by tying him up in court...and swamping him in debt with legal fees, so why hasn't anyone done this?

I MEAN HAVE YOU HEARD SOME OF THE THINGS ALEX JONES HAS SAID? The CIA imports most of the drugs into the country... DynCorp, Halliburton and the UN run child prostitution rings... hmmm, maybe there is some truth to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Sex_slavery

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070106/ap_on_re_eu/un_sex_abuse

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/race_relations/july-dec96/cia_11-18.html

same reason i dont sue the bum at the randolph st station for calling me the antichrist, its not the worth the effort

i didnt say you would be sued, just that you can be, is this the same point your making with the arrest thing? it just seems to me that the government might have a more vested interested in getting these rabble rousers out of the public eye, than larry silverstein has in hassling nuts on on the internet

[twinstead]

Mindless drivel. LOL talk about projecting....

[beachnut]

How predictable is that?

Now... I'm gonna use your words against you... Why do you think no one has sued Alex Jones for libel and/or slander? I mean have you heard the unambiguous claims he has made not only against organizations but specific individuals? Do you know how easy it would be for these powerful persons/entities to file a lawsuit against Alex Jones? At the very least they could make his life a living hell by tying him up in court...and swamping him in debt with legal fees, so why hasn't anyone done this?

I MEAN HAVE YOU HEARD SOME OF THE THINGS ALEX JONES HAS SAID? The CIA imports most of the drugs into the country... DynCorp, Halliburton and the UN run child prostitution rings... hmmm, maybe there is some truth to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Sex_slavery

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070106/ap_on_re_eu/un_sex_abuse

pdoh as soon as you go to Alex Jones you are turning in your new identity.

Not sure but I think the government can not make civil suits so you can slam the CIA all you want, just wait till you need some help on your vaction to Europe when you end up in one of you mindless schizoid theories.
Are you a schizoid or what?

Common Sense - Alex Jones - 28k must be a physics expert - what are you smoking?

[beachnut]

Alex Jones does not have enough money, plus he never really says anything. Ever! (have to check with Perry, ?)

[The Almond]

How predictable is that?

Now... I'm gonna use your words against you... Why do you think no one has sued Alex Jones for libel and/or slander? I mean have you heard the unambiguous claims he has made not only against organizations but specific individuals? Do you know how easy it would be for these powerful persons/entities to file a lawsuit against Alex Jones? At the very least they could make his life a living hell by tying him up in court...and swamping him in debt with legal fees, so why hasn't anyone done this?


Because it would give an egotistical whack job like Jones more exposure than he deserves.

And no, we can't use the fact that he hasn't been sued as proof for the veracity of his claims. There are far better ways of establishing truth, and Jones doesn't bother with them.

[28th Kingdom]

AND who were they taking their orders from? Their FDNY superiors, of course! So your are still saying the FDNY was in on it, but now your implicating FDNY brass rather then the rank and file firefighters.

AND don't bother saying that the FDNY firefighters were getting their orders from anyone other than their FDNY superiors, it doesn't work that way.

AND, I'm not getting my information from some lame video, I'm from an FDNY family.

Please, have your family watch 9/11 Press for Truth, and other 9/11 documentaries. I implore you... you can help save the world. And, please tell your FDNY family members, that I admire them... and God Bless.

[beachnut]

Please, have your family watch 9/11 Press for Truth, and other 9/11 documentaries. I implore you... you can help save the world. And, please tell your FDNY family members, that I admire them... and God Bless.

Sure some lies will help a lot. Are you a total disrespectful person?

Your ability to see truth is about as good as good as your ability to understand physics.

[stateofgrace]

Please, have your family watch 9/11 Press for Truth, and other 9/11 documentaries. I implore you... you can help save the world. And, please tell your FDNY family members, that I admire them... and God Bless.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?

I'm biting my tongue on this one... the firefighters were obviously told by their superiors that bombs were in WTC 7... OKAY? You with me so far? NOW... how does that mean they knew about the plot of 9/11? They were simply taking orders and doing their job.

Erf9iuehfnpnfgpareu god, still biting tongue... stupidity is such a pet peeve of mine. Lord... throw me a line... pleasssssssssssssssssssse!

Maybe the superiors were told of the bombs by the Fire Department Commander...who spoke to the owner of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

Maybe... you are naive and don't know how the media suppresses information.... or how basic human psychology works. Why hasn't the firefighters talked? Maybe they haven't pieced it together... maybe they fear being ridiculed and losing their jobs... you do realize that it's legal for you to be arrested simply for speaking out against the official story, right?

Good Times.

Whatever you say, Mr Twoothy.

[babazaroni]

How predictable is that?

Now... I'm gonna use your words against you... Why do you think no one has sued Alex Jones for libel and/or slander? I mean have you heard the unambiguous claims he has made not only against organizations but specific individuals? Do you know how easy it would be for these powerful persons/entities to file a lawsuit against Alex Jones? At the very least they could make his life a living hell by tying him up in court...and swamping him in debt with legal fees, so why hasn't anyone done this?

I MEAN HAVE YOU HEARD SOME OF THE THINGS ALEX JONES HAS SAID? The CIA imports most of the drugs into the country... DynCorp, Halliburton and the UN run child prostitution rings... hmmm, maybe there is some truth to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Sex_slavery

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070106/ap_on_re_eu/un_sex_abuse

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/race_relations/july-dec96/cia_11-18.html


Reasonable question.

I don't think any of his targets are worried about his rants.

They are just so absurd. Why give him any publicity at all?

I'm sure the lawyers here can give a better response than myself.

[Alt+F4]

Please, have your family watch 9/11 Press for Truth, and other 9/11 documentaries. I implore you... you can help save the world. And, please tell your FDNY family members, that I admire them... and God Bless.

Well thank you for the kind thought, but we already know the truth - 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes. Two they crashed into WTC 1 & 2, the third they crashed into the Penatgon and the fourth crashed in PA due to the efforts of the hijacking victims.

As for saving the world, well I'm just a poorly paid government worker, a teacher. I do however warn my students on a daily basis, that when on the Internet, not to fall for bad science, assumptions, secondary sources, rumors and outright lies. In other words, they won't fall for CT crap.

I also tell the boys not to accept IMs from members of Congress.

[28th Kingdom]

oh yeah, forgot this part

afraid of losing their jobs? firefighters risk their LIVES every single day, why would they be afraid of losing their jobs to uncover the truth about the murder of 300 of their brothers?

Lemme ask you something... do you think brain surgeons care about people? Do you think brain surgeons like to see people with head injuries? Are brain surgeons good people? Do you think if brain surgeons had the power to prevent all future brain/head injuries from happening - with a snap of the fingers... that they would do it, even if it means they would be out of a career that they have devoted over 10 years of schooling to? Even if losing their career means... losing their home/family(wife,kids)/possessions, because they can no longer afford to (payfor/support) them? So, if brain surgeons wouldn't stop people from getting brain injuries... does that mean they (brain surgeons) like seeing people suffer just for their own greedy benefit? Does that mean that brain surgeons are these dark figures who get off by preying on others' misfortunes?

What about law enforcement... these are good people, right? They want to fight crime and protect people, right? They want to do away with the bad guys, right? They don't like seeing people get victimized or hurt just so they can collect a paycheck, right? If they had the ability to snap their fingers and eliminate all future crime, they would certainly do it, right? I would hope so... otherwise, that means they actually like seeing people get hurt and abused... that would mean that these so-called good guys, actually want crime to persist just so they can collect a paycheck.

Psychology is complex... and you don't understand the first thing about it.

[LashL]

I hate to have to repeat myself but you really should pay attention to this, 28th.

The video that you keep citing in which the firefighter is heard to say "there's a bomb in the building, start clearing out" is not in relation to building 7. It's in relation to Stuyvesant High School where emergency services had set up a temporary staging area.

Repeat: it was NOT at the World Trade Center complex at all. You sure base an awful lot of breathtakingly disgusting and false accusations against innocent people on paltry to non-existent research skills.

[defaultdotxbe]

Lemme ask you something... do you think brain surgeons care about people? Do you think brain surgeons like to see people with head injuries? Are brain surgeons good people? Do you think if brain surgeons had the power to prevent all future brain/head injuries from happening - with a snap of the fingers... that they would do it, even if it means they would be out of a career that they have devoted over 10 years of schooling to? Even if losing their career means... losing their home/family(wife,kids)/possessions, because they can no longer afford to (payfor/support) them? So, if brain surgeons wouldn't stop people from getting brain injuries... does that mean they (brain surgeons) like seeing people suffer just for their own greedy benefit? Does that mean that brain surgeons are these dark figures who get off by preying on others' misfortunes?

What about law enforcement... these are good people, right? They want to fight crime and protect people, right? They want to do away with the bad guys, right? They don't like seeing people get victimized or hurt just so they can collect a paycheck, right? If they had the ability to snap their fingers and eliminate all future crime, they would certainly do it, right? I would hope so... otherwise, that means they actually like seeing people get hurt and abused... that would mean that these so-called good guys, actually want crime to persist just so they can collect a paycheck.

Psychology is complex... and you don't understand the first thing about it.
its clear youve never known a firefighter

do yourself a favor, go down to the local fire station and meet the people there, hang out, talk to them, get to know them, then come back here and tell us if you still think they would keep quiet about the murder of 300 other firemen

[beachnut]

Lemme ask you something... do you think brain surgeons care about people? Do you think brain surgeons like to see people with head injuries? Are brain surgeons good people? Do you think if brain surgeons had the power to prevent all future brain/head injuries from happening - with a snap of the fingers... that they would do it, even if it means they would be out of a career that they have devoted over 10 years of schooling to? Even if losing their career means... losing their home/family(wife,kids)/possessions, because they can no longer afford to (payfor/support) them? So, if brain surgeons wouldn't stop people from getting brain injuries... does that mean they (brain surgeons) like seeing people suffer just for their own greedy benefit? Does that mean that brain surgeons are these dark figures who get off by preying on others' misfortunes?

What about law enforcement... these are good people, right? They want to fight crime and protect people, right? They want to do away with the bad guys, right? They don't like seeing people get victimized or hurt just so they can collect a paycheck, right? If they had the ability to snap their fingers and eliminate all future crime, they would certainly do it, right? I would hope so... otherwise, that means they actually like seeing people get hurt and abused... that would mean that these so-called good guys, actually want crime to persist just so they can collect a paycheck.

Psychology is complex... and you don't understand the first thing about it.

Common sense? Have you found the other half of your brain yet? You need some serious help. HI @*th

[Alt+F4]

The video that you keep citing in which the firefighter is heard to say "there's a bomb in the building, start clearing out" is not in relation to building 7. It's in relation to Stuyvesant High School where emergency services had set up a temporary staging area.

Very true Lash. I know a teacher there who told me they were warned of a bomb in the building during the evacuation.

[28th Kingdom]

I hate to have to repeat myself but you really should pay attention to this, 28th.

The video that you keep citing in which the firefighter is heard to say "there's a bomb in the building, start clearing out" is not in relation to building 7. It's in relation to Stuyvesant High School where emergency services had set up a temporary staging area.

Repeat: it was NOT at the World Trade Center complex at all. You sure base an awful lot of woo on paltry to non-existent research skills.

You are a liar and a gatekeeper. Those firefighters saying, move back that building is about to blow up...or it's blowin... or it's about to blow up....or that building will be coming soon...is NOT ABOUT A SCHOOL. NEITHER IS THE VIDEO...where the firefighter says to clear out there is a bomb in the building... OR WHERE ANOTHER ONE SAYS... there are secondary devices in the building. SECONDARY TO WHAT? HUH? SECONDARY TO WHAT?

You have been exposed as a fraud... - now... be gone from my sight you tyrant.

[WildCat]

Psychology is complex... and you don't understand the first thing about it.
It's actually quite simple. What you're doing is projection. Troofers who've devoted 1, 2 , 5 years of their lives to 9/11 conspiracies can't ever come to grips w/ the fact that there is zero evidence for it, and boatloads for the accepted version of events. So they do things like... ignore evidence when it is presented to them.

Speaking of ignore, how long is your list now troofer?

[The Doc]

28th Kingdom

I responded to your posts. 3rd post down on page 34 of this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2245207#post2245207

You asked me to "face the facts sister" and then demanded I respond.

I did. So expect a response from you.

Why haven't you responded to my post?

[LashL]

You are a liar and a gatekeeper. Those firefighters saying, move back that building is about to blow up...or it's blowin... or it's about to blow up....or that building will be coming soon...is NOT ABOUT A SCHOOL. NEITHER IS THE VIDEO...where the firefighter says to clear out there is a bomb in the building... OR WHERE ANOTHER ONE SAYS... there are secondary devices in the building. SECONDARY TO WHAT? HUH? SECONDARY TO WHAT?

You have been exposed as a fraud... - now... be gone from my sight you tyrant.

I don't lie, 28th. You, on the other hand, are a notorious and proven liar, and you can't even blame that on your poor reading comprehension skills. You can see the school in the video that you cited in your post and that I also linked to in my response, for crying out loud.

It's right here in YOUR post which I replied to:

No... you need to defend all three of the rescue workers who said the building was going to blow up... and the other one who proclaimed that the building was about to come down. Now you tell me... how do you predict when a building is gonna come down without knowing it is being blown up? And, then defend these two firefighters who say, "There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out" and "We got a secondary device in the building"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMABQHSS40


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2247154&postcount=1392

Or are you going to go back and edit it and claim that you didn't write it?

You are now changing your tune because you are referring to an entirely different video, LIAR.

[The Doc]

I have a feeling he has me on ignore :)

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't lie, 28th. You, on the other hand, are a notorious and proven liar, and you can't even blame that on your poor reading comprehension skills. You can see the school in the video that you cited in your post and that I also linked to in my response, for crying out loud.

It's right here in YOUR post which I replied to:



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2247154&postcount=1392

Or are you going to go back and edit it and claim that you didn't write it?

You are now changing your tune because you are referring to an entirely different video, LIAR.
if you watch the video the off-camera voice doesn say there is a secondary device in the buidling, he says there is a report of a secondary device in the area

i wouldnt chalk this up to dishonesty on 28ths part though, he probably read on some other forum from some other CTer and simply repeated what they said without bothering to check the video himself

[Myriad]

Lemme ask you something... do you think brain surgeons care about people? Do you think brain surgeons like to see people with head injuries? Are brain surgeons good people? Do you think if brain surgeons had the power to prevent all future brain/head injuries from happening - with a snap of the fingers... that they would do it, even if it means they would be out of a career that they have devoted over 10 years of schooling to?

Of course they would. In a heartbeat. Every day they have to see the consequences of all the brain injuries and diseases they can't fix. Some of them would give up more than that.

Even if losing their career means... losing their home/family(wife,kids)/possessions, because they can no longer afford to (payfor/support) them?

Of course. They can get other work. And that big number "2" at the beginning of the year means wake up, it's the third millennium, you don't lose your family because of a pay cut, unless they were only around for the money, in which case good riddance.

So, if brain surgeons wouldn't stop people from getting brain injuries...

Wait, are you saying they wouldn't? That they'd let people, people they talk to face to face every day, die horribly and live with crippling injuries in order to save their jobs?

Oh you poor poor guy. What kind of people have you been stuck living with all your life, to think things like that?

Find a new bar to go to, one where the people who you buy rounds for don't insult you behind your back and then find ways of letting you know they did it. Find a new job, where your co-workers don't blackmail you into doing their scutwork and then piss in your lunch pail. Tell that family of yours who would leave you the moment you had to switch to a lower-paying job that slavery's been abolished and they can look for another meal ticket. Get the hell out of whatever benighted hellhole you're in, pronto, and find some better people. They're out there.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[The Almond]

You are a liar and a gatekeeper.

So, that's it? The best you can do is say, "I know you are, but what am I?"

You have been exposed as a fraud... - now... be gone from my sight you tyrant.
Do you think you'll ever re-read this stuff and say, "Man, how could I have typed THAT?!?"

[Gravy]

You are a liar and a gatekeeper. Those firefighters saying, move back that building is about to blow up...or it's blowin... or it's about to blow up....or that building will be coming soon...is NOT ABOUT A SCHOOL. NEITHER IS THE VIDEO...where the firefighter says to clear out there is a bomb in the building... OR WHERE ANOTHER ONE SAYS... there are secondary devices in the building. SECONDARY TO WHAT? HUH? SECONDARY TO WHAT?

You have been exposed as a fraud... - now... be gone from my sight you tyrant.There were several bomb scares and gas leak warnings in that area after the tower collapses. How do you know he's not referring to one of those? How do you know he's not simply using a colloquial expression?

Answer, you don't. You'd rather ignore the obvious, rational explanations in order to claim that the FDNY was in on it. That's despicable.

Your posts continue to be a blight on this forum.

[The Doc]

Brain surgeons are also qualified surgeons in other fields. You can't be a brain surgeon without having a degree that would qualify you for a lot of other medical work. There are other jobs they could enter. Your analogy, 28th, is pretty simplistic and... well, just horrible.

It's the same with firefighters. They wouldn't just keep quiet to save that one job. They could avenge the death of 343 of their brothers. I would lose any job I had for that. If I knew that the buildings were brought down in controlled demolition I wouldn't keep quiet no matter how important my job was.

[Gravy]

Lemme ask you something... do you think brain surgeons care about people? Do you think brain surgeons like to see people with head injuries? Are brain surgeons good people? Do you think if brain surgeons had the power to prevent all future brain/head injuries from happening - with a snap of the fingers... that they would do it, even if it means they would be out of a career that they have devoted over 10 years of schooling to? Even if losing their career means... losing their home/family(wife,kids)/possessions, because they can no longer afford to (payfor/support) them? So, if brain surgeons wouldn't stop people from getting brain injuries... does that mean they (brain surgeons) like seeing people suffer just for their own greedy benefit? Does that mean that brain surgeons are these dark figures who get off by preying on others' misfortunes? Nominated for most idiotic logical fallacy, ever.

[Matthew Best]

Nominated for most idiotic logical fallacy, ever.

I feel sure he can beat that, just give him time.

[JimBenArm]

I feel sure he can beat that, just give him time.
Oh, he will. He is easily the most dain bramaged person I've run across.

[28th Kingdom]

I quit.

[Gravy]

I quit.Well, there's hope for you yet. You made one wise decision. That's something to build on.

[JimBenArm]

I quit.
You can't quit. You're fired!

[HyJinX]

I quit.


Really? Promise? Have you seen the light my friend?

[CHF]

I quit.

Praise Jesus!

[WildCat]

I quit.

A man's got to know his limitations.

[stateofgrace]

I quit.


:yahoo :yahoo :wave1 :yahoo :yahoo

[JimBenArm]

So 28th, was it something we said? Tell us, so we can be sure to keep repeating it!

[LashL]

if you watch the video the off-camera voice doesn say there is a secondary device in the buidling, he says there is a report of a secondary device in the area

i wouldnt chalk this up to dishonesty on 28ths part though, he probably read on some other forum from some other CTer and simply repeated what they said without bothering to check the video himself

I realize that, defaultdotxbe. But that video is about the Stuyvesant High School and NOT about building 7, as 28th has claimed repeatedly. He was specifically referring to the "there's a bomb in the building" quote and it was the high school they were talking about.

I respectfully disagree with you about not chalking it up to his dishonesty. Reading it on another forum and repeating it without bothering to check it himself, and then calling me a "liar and a gatekeeper" when his error is pointed out to him instead of trying to check it out himself makes him dishonest all by itself. As is his then changing his story in response to my post and trying to pretend that he was talking about a different video (which was, in fact, at building 7 when the firefighter says the building is about to "blow up". Both are acts of dishonesty, in my opinion.

Edit to add: normally, I would not ascribe to malice something that can be easily explained by stupidity (and there has been ample evidence of the latter in his case) but having seen far too many of his denigrating posts, I believe that malice fits in this case.

Edit to further add: I quit.

Oh, too late.

[JimBenArm]

I realize that, defaultdotxbe. But that video is about the Stuyvesant High School and NOT about building 7, as 28th has claimed repeatedly. He was specifically referring to the "there's a bomb in the building" quote and it was the high school they were talking about.

I disagree with you about not chalking it up to his dishonesty. Reading it on another forum and repeating it without bothering to check it himself, and then calling me a "liar and a gatekeeper" when his error is pointed out to him instead of trying to check it out himself makes him dishonest all by itself. As is his then changing his story in response to my post and trying to pretend that he was talking about a different video (which was, in fact, at building 7 when the firefighter says the building is about to "blow up". Both are acts of dishonesty, in my opinion.

I've heard someone say he's a liar. Oh, yeah, that was me, along with a few others.

[defaultdotxbe]

I realize that, defaultdotxbe. But that video is about the Stuyvesant High School and NOT about building 7, as 28th has claimed repeatedly. He was specifically referring to the "there's a bomb in the building" quote and it was the high school they were talking about.

I respectfully disagree with you about not chalking it up to his dishonesty. Reading it on another forum and repeating it without bothering to check it himself, and then calling me a "liar and a gatekeeper" when his error is pointed out to him instead of trying to check it out himself makes him dishonest all by itself. As is his then changing his story in response to my post and trying to pretend that he was talking about a different video (which was, in fact, at building 7 when the firefighter says the building is about to "blow up". Both are acts of dishonesty, in my opinion.

Edit to add: normally, I would not ascribe to malice something that can be easily explained by stupidity (and there has been ample evidence of the latter in his case) but having seen far too many of his denigrating posts, I believe that malice fits in this case.
well hes definately proved hes dishonest, but i still put this one more toward the stupid/lazy research end of the spectrum, lol (although liek most things its a little from column A a little from column B)

[ConspiRaider]

So 28th, was it something we said? Tell us, so we can be sure to keep repeating it!
Jim, we got CBS, we got BCS. Now BSC majestically enters the acronyminous lexicon of American literature.

It was Post # 1452, this thread, penned by 28IQ himself. The famed BSC post (Brain Surgeon Cop) attained such a deep (and I mean DEEP) level of harmonic resonance that Twoofer Talking Dolls are already being programmed with its mind-shrinking declaration.

28IQ did a Jim Brown on us. Retired at the height of his career, secure in the knowledge that his record could never be broken.

Whilst we, dazzled and dazed, desperately grasp for that semblance of mere normalcy that is grudgingly afforded by the mundane yardsticks of our meager expectations.

And turn slowly to the onlooking Sages of Weal Twoof still out there in throngs, timidly point to an exultant but eager combatant, then exclaim:

YOU! GET YOUR LOUSY TWOOFER BUTT IN HERE AND START YAPPING! WE AIN'T GOT ALL DAY! LEAVE YOUR IQ IN THAT LITTLE TRAY OUTSIDE THE ROOM, SIDDOWN AND BEGIN YOUR BABBLING!

[JimBenArm]

Jim, we got CBS, we got BCS. Now BSC majestically enters the acronyminous lexicon of American literature.

It was Post # 1452, this thread, penned by 28IQ himself. The famed BSC post (Brain Surgeon Cop) attained such a deep (and I mean DEEP) level of harmonic resonance that Twoofer Talking Dolls are already being programmed with its mind-shrinking declaration.

28IQ did a Jim Brown on us. Retired at the height of his career, secure in the knowledge that his record could never be broken.

Whilst we, dazzled and dazed, desperately grasp for that semblance of mere normalcy that is grudgingly afforded by the mundane yardsticks of our meager expectations.

And turn slowly to the onlooking Sages of Weal Twoof still out there in throngs, timidly point to an exultant but eager combatant, then exclaim:

YOU! GET YOUR LOUSY TWOOFER BUTT IN HERE AND START YAPPING! WE AIN'T GOT ALL DAY! LEAVE YOUR IQ IN THAT LITTLE TRAY OUTSIDE THE ROOM, SIDDOWN AND BEGIN YOUR BABBLING!

Say it brother! Can I get an AMEN?

[LashL]

Say it brother! Can I get an AMEN?

Why, yes. Yes, you can.

AMEN!

[Mr.D]

I quit.

I have a feeling he'll be back. Troll.

[Horatius]

well hes definately proved hes dishonest, but i still put this one more toward the stupid/lazy research end of the spectrum, lol (although liek most things its a little from column A a little from column B)

Then there's the interesting question. How many times do you have to post a lazy inaccuate post, have it debunked, and then refuse to acknowledge your error, before doing it all over again counts as dishonesty?

If so many of my arguments had been shown to be flawed, I think at some point I'd get a bit gun-shy about posting a new argument, and do a bit more research, just to be sure I wasn't making another mistake.

When you know you're prone to error, isn't refusing to do error checking fundamentally dishonest?

[defaultdotxbe]

Then there's the interesting question. How many times do you have to post a lazy inaccuate post, have it debunked, and then refuse to acknowledge your error, before doing it all over again counts as dishonesty?

If so many of my arguments had been shown to be flawed, I think at some point I'd get a bit gun-shy about posting a new argument, and do a bit more research, just to be sure I wasn't making another mistake.

When you know you're prone to error, isn't refusing to do error checking fundamentally dishonest?
didnt someone define psychosis as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? lol

[Paul]

How many times do you have to post a lazy inaccuate post, have it debunked, and then refuse to acknowledge your error, before doing it all over again counts as dishonesty?In 28th's case we have help from the liar's mouth: Although we know he is a liar, he claims to be smarter that all of us and, therefore, he could not be making these posts accidentally and must de facto be a malicious, dishonest troll.

[Minadin]

I don't know any brain surgeons, but they eye surgeons (arguably comparable level of skill / pay) I have as clients would cure all eye ailments ever, past and future, to put themselves out of work, forever, with a snap of their fingers, if they could.

They're smart guys and skilled with a knife, though, and I have no doubt that they would be calling me up to redesign their offices and surgery centers for other specialties before long.

[defaultdotxbe]

on the other hand i know a fireman who also describes himself as a pyromaniac

when someone says thats a contradiction he says "no its not, its job security"

but then hes like all firemen i know and would gladly put himself out of a job for the sake of his fellow firefighters (hell, he risks his life for them quite often)

[CurtC]

Do you think if brain surgeons had the power to prevent all future brain/head injuries from happening - with a snap of the fingers... that they would do it, even if it means they would be out of a career that they have devoted over 10 years of schooling to?Absolutely. Pretty much every brain surgeon in the world, if he could simply snap his fingers and magically prevent further head injuries from ever happening again, would do so in a heartbeat.

Please, have your family watch 9/11 Press for Truth, and other 9/11 documentaries. I implore you... you can help save the world. And, please tell your FDNY family members, that I admire them... and God Bless."Please, tell them that I admire them, although every one of them has the information that could bring to justice the real perpetrators of the murder of 3000 fellow citizens, and 300 brother firefighters, and they're simply keeping quiet to protect their jobs, but tell them that's what I admire in people!"

28K, your posting this stuff tells everyone that you're the kind of person who would keep quiet about a murder to simply save yourself a little trouble. Maybe you think that's OK because of this "God" thing you seem to have faith in, but around here, we think behavior like that is about as despicable as a person can get.

[defaultdotxbe]

28K, your posting this stuff tells everyone that you're the kind of person who would keep quiet about a murder to simply save yourself a little trouble.
isnt that also a felony? i seem to remember hearing that such a person could be tried as an accessory ot the murder

[The Doc]

I love this :)

28th demands I respond to his post that criticized my post. I slaughtered him in my response.

His response to my response (and all the other excellent JREF posters):

I quit.

Haleilujah!

You've taken the first step. The second one is to say - "I was wrong"

I keenly await the day you take that step and become the first person in the 9/11 truth movement to say those words.

[uk_dave]

Nominated for most idiotic logical fallacy, ever.

One has to wonder if perhaps the LIAR known as 28Kingdom has had a bad experience with brain surgeons.

Not that he would tell the TRUTH about it anyway.

[chipmunk stew]

I quit.
Really? This is coming from a LIAR, so it might be a LIE. You wouldn't be LYING, would you, 28th?

[JonnyFive]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? WHAT?

I'm so glad you're capable of carrying on a rational and intelligent discussion without resorting to child-like tantrums. Oh, wait a minute, there you go again.

Oh wait... you don't live in the real world... you live in a virtual world of speculation. I live in the real world, where I only use REAL physical evidence i.e. VIDEO FOOTAGE OF FIREFIGHTERS SAYING BOMBS WERE IN THE WTC 7 - to piece my case together.... you on the other hand... use myopic reasoning... generated from naive beliefs and limited imagination - to form your theories.

A video of a firefighter saying they thought there were bombs in the building, or that they heard explosions is not physical evidence of an explosive device in the building. Firefighters are not all-knowing, and the environment of 9/11 wasn't exactly a calm one given to careful reflection. You need to find something better than that, or else it's no better than you or I saying "there were explosions, it's common sense!" That is to say, it's useless without real evidence.

I apologize guys... but, I have to put some more of you on ignore... because I will be suspended or banned... if I have to continue reading this mindless drivel. I mean really... this level of willful ignorance is sinful.

You act like such a coward. You can't even debate us, you just have to stick us on ignore. Care to post an updated list. But I suppose I'm on it now, so you probably won't see this.

I quit.

Yeah, sure, whatever. Again, acting like a coward. You can't man up and post any evidence, you just go running off.


A man's got to know his limitations.


Praise Clint Eastwood!

[aggle-rithm]

I quit.

But...he was dominating us all...!

[twinstead]

I don't mind those with differing world views and beliefs than I.

It's when they get arrogant about it is when the blood pressure goes up.

[aggle-rithm]

didnt someone define psychosis as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? lol

My wife and I learned that line in a seminar we went to. Sometime later, I was trying to fix my computer, and getting frustrated. I kept trying to do the same thing again and again, and failing each time. My wife said, self-righteously, "What's the definition of insanity?"

I replied, "Spouting psychobabble at your husband when he's pissed off."

End of discussion.

[JonnyFive]

I replied, "Spouting psychobabble at your husband when he's pissed off."

You must have a very comfortable couch, then. :)

[aggle-rithm]

I don't mind those with differing world views and beliefs than I.

It's when they get arrogant about it is when the blood pressure goes up.

I think the problem is that people who present solid, compelling arguments often come across as being arrogant. And, of course, sometimes they are. Justifiably so, perhaps.

28CranialHoles and his ilk probably think that if they duplicate the arrogance, they duplicate the solid, compelling arguments.

It makes logical sense, in a troofer kind of way.