Ghosts of the Firemen [Archive]

pomeroo

5th January 2007, 10:18 PM

Gold's site, 911blogger.com, has a new thread entitled "Ghosts of the Firemen." Spectral images of firefighters haunting Bush ignore the reality that the heroes of 9/11 despise the conspiracy liars. Here is an exchange with a loon who uses REAL SCIENCE to batter poor lil' me:

Ronald Weick needs to answer these 6 points (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5425#comment-105511)

1. evaporated steel was reported in the new york times by Thomas Barnett, its in jones paper.
2. Wille rodriguiez and at least 20 others heard a big explosion in the basement BEFORE the plane impact.
3. Molten dripping steel, i love the way you dodged that. FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL. Please explain. Jones paper was peer reviewed.
4. Since NIST in there recently released FAQ says its basically a pile driver theory , how does the alleged pile driver turn to dust in midair, how can it crush the building if it turns into dust in midair? i love the way you ignored that.
5. Since no fire has ever caused a building to collapse, why did building 7 collapse? How did all the core and perimeter columns fail at the same time? Its going to be a tough one to answer BC even nist cant answer it. DR. Sunder from NIST in mar 2006.
NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
6. Plenty of experts agree with the CD theory. Two swiss structural engineers and an explosives expert jowenko say building 7 was a CD. Charles Pegelow a structural engineer agrees with the CD theory. Stephen jones a phd in Physics.............many more do, read the comment on Jones paper, structural engineers, civil engineers and a professor of Physics from MIT AGREE with him. THEY DO SO AND LEAVE ONLY THEIR FIRST NAMES BC OF PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO RIDICULE AN OPEN AND HONEST DEBATE. THERE WAS ONLY ONE GALILEO, LUCKILY MORE AND MORE EXPERTS ARE WAKING UP DESPITE THE RISKS TO THEIR CAREERS AND LIVES.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 01/05/2007 - 11:43pm.

» edit (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/edit/105524) | reply (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/reply/5425/105524) | 0 points
New Evidentiary Reasoning. (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5425#comment-105524)

Great job, anonymous! You are the first conspiracy liar to present actual evidence. There are, however, a few minor problems.
1) Nobody has the slightest idea of what "evaporated steel" is supposed mean. Possibly you meant, evaporated milk.
2) There were no explosions in the basement , or anywhere else, before the plane impact. The seismic data gathered by the Lamont-Doherty laboratories are very clear on this point.
3) Fire melts steel if it's hot enough. The fires at the WTC were not hot enough. Nobody thinks that the steel melted. When the fireproofing was dislodged, pockets of heat were trapped, and the core beams were weakened (not melted).
No, Steven Jones has submitted nothing for peer-review. He publishes in journals run by like-minded cranks. Try to understand that this assertion is not a matter of opinion. An article is either peer-reviewed or it is not. Jones's nonsense is not.
4) This question is a classic. If you're six years old, you're precocious. If you're over twelve, you have a problem. NIST explained the collapse thusly: The impact of the planes severed external columns and core columns. The impact dislodged fireproofing--had the fireproofing remained intact, the buildings would not have fallen. Uneven heating weakened the core columns, causing them to exert an inward pull on the floor trusses, which, in turn, tugged the external columns inward. Many photos of the Twin Towers clearly show this inward bowing, demonstrating the correctness of the NIST's conclusions. Eventually, the trusses gave way and a global collapse ensued.
You have the fantastic notion that the mass of the falling debris somehow vanished. No steel turned to dust.
5) Fires have caused steel buildings to collapse, but what's the difference? You will reject the NIST report on building 7 when it appears. The analysis will be inconvenient to your politics.
6) No structural engineers or demolition experts think that the collapses of the Twin Towers look anything like controlled demolition. Pegelow works on oil rigs. The three Europeans who were taken in by fantasist propaganda photos showing an undamaged WTC 7 have clammed up since receiving accurate information. What will they say when NIST releases its report? We'll have to wait and see.
No experts are "waking up" to the nonsensical, baseless fabrications of the conspiracy liars, except to refute them in the name of science.

Submitted by Ronald Wieck (http://www.911blogger.com/user/537) on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 12:12am.

» reply (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/reply/5425/105518) | 0 points

Pardalis

5th January 2007, 10:31 PM

How to profit from 9/11, from the "artist" who made the picture on 9/11 blogger:

http://www.cafepress.com/dees2shop/2067572

Anti-sophist

5th January 2007, 10:36 PM

I want to play, too

1. evaporated steel was reported in the new york times by Thomas Barnett, its in jones paper.

Steel boils at 5500 degrees farenheit. Well beyond the temperature of thermite. I'd love to see how evaporated steel fits into your "theory". In other words, this is ridiculous. There was no evaporated steel.

3. Molten dripping steel, i love the way you dodged that.

There is no evidence of molten dripping steel. None. Zero. Molten metal, yes (Aluminum mixed with oxides), steel, no.

FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL.

Not that it matters, because it's irrelevant to the events of 9/11, but this is provably false.

Jones paper was peer reviewed.

Not in the scientific sense of the word, it wasn't. Being "peer reviewed" doesn't mean "reviewed by some people you think are peers".

4. Since NIST in there recently released FAQ says its basically a pile driver theory , how does the alleged pile driver turn to dust in midair, how can it crush the building if it turns into dust in midair? i love the way you ignored that.

You should try reading the report instead of trying to summerize a 12,000 page document with a bad analogy, and then using the analogy to draw bad conclusions.

5. Since no fire has ever caused a building to collapse...

Provably false. Buildings collapse due to fire all the time.

...why did building 7 collapse?

It was hit by a skyscraper, for one.

How did all the core and perimeter columns fail at the same time?

They didn't. Rapid cascading failure is one mechanism to explain it.

Its going to be a tough one to answer BC even nist cant answer it. DR. Sunder from NIST in mar 2006.

And yet they are releasing their report some time this year. Whoops. Looks like you are still using the 2002 conspiracy theorist playbook.

6. Plenty of experts agree with the CD theory. Two swiss structural engineers and an explosives expert jowenko say building 7 was a CD. Charles Pegelow a structural engineer agrees with the CD theory. Stephen jones a phd in Physics.............many more do, read the comment on Jones paper, structural engineers, civil engineers and a professor of Physics from MIT AGREE with him.

Even if I give you all of them (and I don't, because your claim that an MIT professor of physics agrees is a complete and total lie), it's still 100,000+ versus 5.

Doesn't Jowenko think your WTC1 + 2 CD theory is ridiculous? Do you believe him? Or do you only believe him about WTC7? Why do you only choose to believe half of his statement?

babazaroni

5th January 2007, 10:45 PM

How to profit from 9/11, from the "artist" who made the picture on 9/11 blogger:

http://www.cafepress.com/dees2shop/2067572

That image has been very effective, but is classic propaganda. I've seen it posted as evidence in non-9/11 forums and people love it.

Wonder if a counter image can be created. One that appeals to logic instead of emotion.

28th Kingdom

5th January 2007, 10:49 PM

Since no fire has ever caused a building to collapse, why did building 7 collapse? How did all the core and perimeter columns fail at the same time? Its going to be a tough one to answer BC even nist cant answer it. DR. Sunder from NIST in mar 2006.
NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."

NIST explained the collapse thusly: The impact of the planes severed external columns and core columns. The impact dislodged fireproofing--had the fireproofing remained intact, the buildings would not have fallen. Uneven heating weakened the core columns, causing them to exert an inward pull on the floor trusses, which, in turn, tugged the external columns inward. Many photos of the Twin Towers clearly show this inward bowing, demonstrating the correctness of the NIST's conclusions. Eventually, the trusses gave way and a global collapse ensued.You are right about that... NIST claimed the buildings wouldn't have collapsed from the impact damage and/or the ensuing fires without the dislodged fireproofing from the plane impacts.

No plane impacts on WTC 7. I don't care how bad the damage was, it couldn't have been worse than what the plane impacts did to the WTCs, especially since I haven't seen one straight on clear shot of any major damage to WTC 7 - you'd think that with the world's media recording every square inch of that scene, that we'd be able to find lots of great photographs and/or video footage of this massive 10 story hole.

Also... it doesn't matter how big the fires were in WTC 7, cus all of the fireproofing couldn't have been dislodged from falling debris on the outside of the building. Which means... that NIST is screwed on this one.

They're (NIST) gonna say explosives were used... and then yer minds will proceed to implode on themselves.

P.S. I was listening to Alex Jones' radio show the other day and he says that NIST is now saying they think bombs may have been used. He wouldn't say that without a source. I mean, it would be really easy to prove him wrong, since his claim is pretty direct and unambiguous. You guys/gals might want to check around and see if anyone from NIST said something like this recently.

babazaroni

5th January 2007, 10:52 PM

Pardalis

5th January 2007, 10:53 PM

Controlled demolition charges cause the inward bowing? Explain that one to me 28th, you seem such a connaisseur in the matter.

A W Smith

5th January 2007, 11:02 PM

You are right about that... NIST claimed the buildings wouldn't have collapsed from the impact damage and/or the ensuing fires without the dislodged fireproofing from the plane impacts.

No plane impacts on WTC 7. I don't care how bad the damage was, it couldn't have been worse than what the plane impacts did to the WTCs, especially since I haven't seen one straight on clear shot of any major damage to WTC 7 - you'd think that with the world's media recording every square inch of that scene, that we'd be able to find lots of great photographs and/or video footage of this massive 10 story hole.

Also... it doesn't matter how big the fires were in WTC 7, cus all of the fireproofing couldn't have been dislodged from falling debris on the outside of the building. Which means... that NIST is screwed on this one.

They're gonna say explosives were used... and then yer minds will proceed to implode on themselves.

__________________
When I die.. I shall swim with the pigs. And, when I die to the pigs.. what I shall become - you cannot imagine

how could the damage to #7 be not as bad when debris from the towers fell through it? which is heavier? aluminum plane fuselage or steel and concrete? Also theres a study I believe from the UK that says that even with fireproofing collapse was a strong probability. Do you even have a clue what a fire rating is? if an assembly has a two hour fire rating what does that mean?

babazaroni

5th January 2007, 11:08 PM

Controlled demolition charges cause the inward bowing? Explain that one to me 28th, you seem such a connaisseur in the matter.

He's already addressed that as an optical illusion. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2185532#post2185532%27)

defaultdotxbe

5th January 2007, 11:10 PM

babazaroni

5th January 2007, 11:14 PM

P.S. I was listening to Alex Jones' radio show the other day and he says that NIST is now saying they think bombs may have been used. He wouldn't say that without a source. I mean, it would be really easy to prove him wrong, since his claim is pretty direct and unambiguous. You guys/gals might want to check around and see if anyone from NIST said something like this recently.

Alex Jones. You are quoting Alex Jones? Have you seen some of the things he claims?

Like Jacques Cousteau wanted to eliminate 80 percent of the worlds population.

The NIST says they are investigating all possibilities regarding WTC 7 including explosives. Now AJ reads explosives and jumps to the conclusion that the NIST is saying there were bombs.

Do you see how AJ reasons?

You are quite right he is direct and unambiguous. He's also wrong and you suck it up.

Don't you want to be the first to post a source that shows the NIST says it was bombs?

Get to it.

28th Kingdom

5th January 2007, 11:34 PM

Alex Jones. You are quoting Alex Jones? Have you seen some of the things he claims?

Like Jacques Cousteau wanted to eliminate 80 percent of the worlds population.

Yea, the same Alex Jones who forecasted the events of 9/11:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8184253307321536024

And, the same Alex Jones who predicted the anthrax outbreak, on his 9/11 broadcast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBHryBQ4K-Y

I certainly don't take everything he says as gospel, but I do think he's pretty well informed when it comes to things like geopolitics.

Pardalis

5th January 2007, 11:35 PM

That explains alot.

Anti-sophist

5th January 2007, 11:36 PM

Yea, the same Alex Jones who forecasted the events of 9/11:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8184253307321536024

And, the same Alex Jones who predicted the anthrax outbreak, on his 9/11 broadcast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBHryBQ4K-Y

I certainly don't take everything he says as gospel, but I do think he's pretty well informed when it comes to things like geopolitics.

Yea, the same Alex Jones who predicted we'd roll out Osama for the 2004 elections? That one?

You don't get make 10,000 ridiculously vague predictions, get a few sort of right, and then pretend to be a prophet. Not unless you are Nostradamus, anyway.

babazaroni

5th January 2007, 11:38 PM

I certainly don't take everything he says as gospel, but I do think he's pretty well informed when it comes to things like geopolitics.

Then it should be pretty easy for you to find where the NIST says there were bombs.

That is quite ridiculus. You should know better.

Arkan_Wolfshade

5th January 2007, 11:40 PM

<snip>
I certainly don't take everything he says as gospel, but I do think he's pretty well informed when it comes to things like geopolitics.

And I suppose you turn to David Icke for all your herpetology questions too?

Pardalis

5th January 2007, 11:41 PM

And you get your psychology knowledge from the band Tool?

Kage

5th January 2007, 11:49 PM

Common sense would say that having parts of a skyscraper falling on it had something to do with WTC7's collapse, but I tend to leave such analysis to the structural engineers.

Did you just say that the planes brought down WT1 and WTC2? I think that you did!

You are right about that... NIST claimed the buildings wouldn't have collapsed from the impact damage and/or the ensuing fires without the dislodged fireproofing from the plane impacts.

Nice to know that we are done with the CD nonesense. You can't use NIST and then say NIST doesn't make any sense.

Also, how did they manage to keep the explosives from burning while the building is on fire?

The Doc

5th January 2007, 11:52 PM

That image has been very effective, but is classic propaganda. I've seen it posted as evidence in non-9/11 forums and people love it.

Wonder if a counter image can be created. One that appeals to logic instead of emotion.

I have something in mind :)

I'll get back to you on this

The Doc

5th January 2007, 11:55 PM

Yea, the same Alex Jones who forecasted the events of 9/11:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8184253307321536024

http://thedoc911.blogspot.com/2006/11/alex-jones-predicted-what-now.html

Enjoy.

The Doc

6th January 2007, 12:11 AM

Sorry to hijack the thread - but this is related to the post about the tshirt.

I had to do it...
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5707/beamweaponsloldw3.jpg

gumboot

6th January 2007, 02:08 AM

P.S. I was listening to Alex Jones' radio show the other day and he says that NIST is now saying they think bombs may have been used. He wouldn't say that without a source.

:dl:

-Gumboot

MG1962

6th January 2007, 02:16 AM

Quote:
Jones paper was peer reviewed.
Not in the scientific sense of the word, it wasn't. Being "peer reviewed" doesn't mean "reviewed by some people you think are peers".

Well the biggest problem is Jones gives no values for his calcuation. I might not understand the maths - but spotting the difference in the values (Load weights etc) Is the eaiser way for the lay man to understand the thinking

quixotecoyote

6th January 2007, 02:17 AM

Sorry to hijack the thread - but this is related to the post about the tshirt.

I had to do it...
<image snipped>

I like the text, but now it doesn't contrast with the people laughing.

PerryLogan

6th January 2007, 04:48 AM

Yea, the same Alex Jones who forecasted the events of 9/11:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8184253307321536024

Point of order!

Alex Jones did not predict 9/11. This claim is as false as Alex's other weird statements.

(If you're unfamiliar with Alex Jones, take a gander at some of his astonishing beliefs (http://perrylogan.org/AlexBleef.html). It's a real mind-blower.)

The truth is, Jones makes no prediction of anything whatsoever on his July 25, 2001 show.

He says, "Call the White House and tell them that, if there's any terrorism, we'll know it was you."

Note the conditional phrase "IF there's any terrorism." Jones is not making a prediction of anything, nor does he do so anywhere on the tape.

When Perry says "if I could have a date with J-Lo," he is not predicting that he will have a date with J-Lo. He's just daydreaming. A conditional phrase makes no statement about reality.

Alex makes lots of predictions, but he has never successfully predicted anything. He said Saddam Hussein had been taken to Cuba. He said the Administration was going to "roll [Osama] bin Laden out on ice" before the 2004 election. He said we were all going to be implanted with microchips, herded into "compact cities," force-vaccinated, and killed. He said there would be martial law. He said there would be a draft. He said money was being phased out. He said there would be foreign troops in the streets, etc., etc., etc.

Alex has been predicting more big domestic terror attacks ever since 9/11. That's six straight years of wrong predictions!

Here are more of Alex's incorrect prognostications:
http://perrylogan.org/Bogus%20Predictions.html

Alex's belief that he can predict the future is a common CT delusion. As you've probably noticed, conspiracy folks make predictions all the time--and never notice that they're wrong.

maccy

6th January 2007, 05:38 AM

There is no evidence of molten dripping steel. None. Zero. Molten metal, yes (Aluminum mixed with oxides), steel, no.

There's a reference of "dripping steel" in a newspaper interview with a firefighter called Joe "Toolie" O'Toole. The interview was published in the Philadelphia Enquirer in May 2002. There's a reliable (ie from a non-CT site) copy of the article here (http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948).

I think it is this that the Truthers are citing as proof that there was molten steel and so there had to be thermite. I see plenty of problems with this, however, this is what I posted in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71723) about this:

Here's the relevant quote again:
Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.
source*: http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948

The first thing to note is that the beam is intact and solid enough to be pulled out of a pit by a crane (I suspect that crane may mean digger here - or at least something with jaws to clamp the girder). So the girder was hot but it wasn't liquid. If thermite was involved, how would it heat a girder evenly? Thermite gets very hot, but it tends to burn through metals before having much of a chance to conduct its heat into them. Likewise because the thermite reaction is over so quickly it's hardly sustained heat anyway.

The next thing to notice is this happened in February 2002 which is around 5 months after the buildings collapsed. Now a thermite reaction will release all its heat energy in a few seconds, so you're going to need some pretty efficient insulation to trap that heat for 5 months, especially when you consider that the thermite starts burning in a big airy building, according to the demolition hypothesis. So if the rubble pile can trap the heat from the dying seconds of a thermite reaction, isn't it equally plausible that it would contain pockets of instense heat resulting from smouldering hydrocarbon fires?

As far as the dripping is concerned, we've already established that the girder wasn't liquid so it's possible that the dripping was another metal (copper or aluminium perhaps) or even molten glass dripping off the steel as it was lifted out of the rubble. Also it is possible that the surface of part of the steel steel was hot enough to be partially melted (there's no reason to assume even heating like is a steel mill), possibly because its melting point was lowered due to a reaction with another substance, such as sulfur:
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.
From an analysis of a steel beam from WTC7 here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Whatever the reason for the "dripping steel" really is (and, to be honest I think we can only guess) I think thermite/thermate ranks as one of the least likely explanations.

Edited to Add: In the absence of a verified transcript or an audio recording of what Mr O'Toole said we shouldn't assume that his words have been accurately reported. Many people who have been interviewed by newspapers can vouch for the inaccuracies that can creep into journalism. Even if Mr O'Neil is being reported accurately, we cannot necessarily trust his perception of the event - although it is interesting to note that he doesn't mention the girder as being suspicious or unexpected.

*I think it's worth reading the whole of this article to be reminded of how terrible that day and its aftermath were.

Architect

6th January 2007, 08:08 AM

You are right about that... NIST claimed the buildings wouldn't have collapsed from the impact damage and/or the ensuing fires without the dislodged fireproofing from the plane impacts.

Aye, but both Edinburgh University and OveArup say that it would have collpsed anyway and have produced highly detailed technical cases to support their hypothesis...

....THAT YOU REFUSE TO RESPOND TO, YOU FRAUD!

maccy

6th January 2007, 08:15 AM

You are right about that... NIST claimed the buildings wouldn't have collapsed from the impact damage and/or the ensuing fires without the dislodged fireproofing from the plane impacts.

Aye, but both Edinburgh University and OveArup say that it would have collpsed anyway and have produced highly detailed technical cases to support their hypothesis...

....THAT YOU REFUSE TO RESPOND TO, YOU FRAUD!

Quoted because I want to remind 28th Kingdom of his cowardice both in refusing to respond to this point and in putting so many people on his ignore list.

28th - the world doesn't believe your story, how are you going to convince it when you are such a coward?

babazaroni

6th January 2007, 08:39 AM

Sorry to hijack the thread - but this is related to the post about the tshirt.

I had to do it...
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5707/beamweaponsloldw3.jpg

Thats better. Took me a while to see the beam weapons phrase.

Horatius

6th January 2007, 09:01 AM

Quoted because I want to remind 28th Kingdom of his cowardice both in refusing to respond to this point and in putting so many people on his ignore list.

28th - the world doesn't believe your story, how are you going to convince it when you are such a coward?

Ah, but the sheer, unprecedented depths of his cowardice are sure to inspire awe in all who read his work!

Never before has such a coward been quite so craven! Not only to ignore posts the old fashioned way, but to employ the latest in technology to ignore posters! And not only does he ignore posts and posters, he ignore entire lines of argument, regardless of the source!

And he does it all over an anonymous channel of communication!

Truly his poltroonery has never before been matched. Such commitment to pusillanimity must surely convince a few other faint-hearted yellow-bellies!

babazaroni

6th January 2007, 09:27 AM

Just musing on how anyone (even a CT'er) could believe Alex Jones when he claims the NIST says there were bombs in WTC 7.

If it were true:

GAME OVER.

CNN, FOX, BBC would have it on their front pages.

Bush would be hounded by reporters.

I would be in shock, same as when I saw the planes hit.

Shows how utterly clueless AJ's target audience is.

jhunter1163

6th January 2007, 01:30 PM

Did he personally wet himself at the battle of Baden Hill?

Horatius

6th January 2007, 01:44 PM

Did he personally wet himself at the battle of Baden Hill?

No, but as Sir Robin (The not-quite-so brave as Sir Lancelot) slew the vicious chicken of Bristol, he's still better than 28th.

pomeroo

6th January 2007, 02:50 PM

Well, I know that Mike Newman of NIST says flatly that bombs DIDN'T cause the collapse. But, then, Newman is merely a scientist; Jones is a genuine liar. We have to go with Jonesy, right 28IQ?

pomeroo

6th January 2007, 02:55 PM

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 03:02 PM

Didn't I say Alex said NIST thinks bombs may have been used? It is in reference to WTC 7... and the fact that NIST is now considering explosives into their investigation. YES, that MEANS they think bombs may have been used.

YES THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS... if they didn't think bombs may have been used THAN THEY WOULDN'T investigate it.

It doesn't mean they believe bombs were used... THEY ARE SAYING they think it's possible that bombs may have been used.

Side Note: Maccy, yer on ignore... I don't put up with tyranny... isn't that obvious by now?

maccy

6th January 2007, 03:03 PM

I think that the vile picture appearing on 911blogger.com, "Ghosts of the Firemen," should be shown to some firemen and their reactions preserved on video. Would anyone care to help with this project? Gravy?

Jon Gold is attempting to ingratiate his band of cretins with first responders. His efforts need to be exposed.

I was thinking of trying to find an appropriate way of posting a link to that entry here:

http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/index.php

and encouraging the posters of that community to make their feelings known on 911blogger.com

The "artist" that created this has a website here:

http://deesillustration.com/

and a large gallery of what he calls satire here:

http://www.dees2.com/sat1.html

although you will only laugh at its stupidity, unless you are too busy feeling ill.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 03:04 PM

Alex Jones when he claims the NIST says there were bombs in WTC 7.

Time is running out on you cowboy... hope is fading fast.

Firestone

6th January 2007, 03:06 PM

Didn't I say Alex said NIST thinks bombs may have been used? It is in reference to WTC 7... and the fact that NIST is now considering explosives into their investigation. YES, that MEANS they think bombs may have been used.

YES THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS... if they didn't think bombs may have been used THAN THEY WOULDN'T investigate it.

It doesn't mean they believe bombs were used... THEY ARE SAYING they think it's possible that bombs may have been used.:rolleyes:
This is what NIST (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) said:

NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.(bolding mine)

maccy

6th January 2007, 03:11 PM

Architect

6th January 2007, 03:14 PM

Time is running out on you cowboy... hope is fading fast.

Says the man (hah) who runs away from technical arguments and puts everyone on Ignore.

Eejit.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 03:18 PM

This is what NIST (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) said:
NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
(bolding mine)

No wait... let me bold for a minute:

NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Okay... maybe this is similar to, "NIST also is considering whether hypothetical trusses sagging could have played a role in initiating the collapse," since it's only a theory... with no physical or scientific evidence.

It doesn't matter if you all say fires can make trusses sag... I can say explosives can make walls explode... and I have video footage of walls exploding... does that mean it's not a theory and a proven fact?

Just using yer own dementia against you.

Architect

6th January 2007, 03:20 PM

You're a fraud and a coward.

LashL

6th January 2007, 03:22 PM

Hooray! I'm on ignore! More cowardice from 28th!

If he could read this, he could respond to me pointing out that NIST only considering hypothetical blast scenarios for WTC7 to demonstrate what would have happened to the building in these hypothetical cases. By showing that the building did not behave in the way indicated by the blast hypotheses they will provide evidence that controlled demolition did not occur. In other words, they're doing it in an effort it get idiots like Alex Jones and 28th Kingdom to shut up.

Even if he could read this, I'm sure 28th wouldn't respond on this point - it's too challenging.

Congratulations, maccy! I'm still working on getting on the list :(

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1110345a013a123335.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3506)

LashL

6th January 2007, 03:23 PM

Says the man (hah) who runs away from technical arguments and puts everyone on Ignore.

Eejit.

Copying this for you so that 28th can see it.

R.Mackey

6th January 2007, 03:27 PM

Didn't I say Alex said NIST thinks bombs may have been used? It is in reference to WTC 7... and the fact that NIST is now considering explosives into their investigation. YES, that MEANS they think bombs may have been used.
Wait, wait wait --

Before NIST said there was no evidence of explosives. You guys went totally ape, like that was a surprise, and said "NIST needs to investigate ALL hypotheses!!"

Now NIST is considering a hypothetical explosives scenario, and now you're going totally ape again, apparently unable to moderate your metabolism, saying "See?? Even NIST admits explosives were possible!!"

Boy, are you stupid.

The reason NIST is evaluating explosives, the real reason, has nothing to do with what we saw on Sept. 11th. As NIST already said, there is no evidence whatsoever for explosives anywhere in any of the buildings damaged or destroyed.

The reason NIST is doing this is because they are examining structural code in light of what happened -- and attempting to quantify what could happen, should someone try to blow up a building in the future. We saw bigger buildings collapse than ever before, and we've learned things that are only really available through experiment -- an experiment that was too costly and risky to conduct. We have new experience. NIST is now accepting that building bombings are something that terrorists might do in the future, and therefore trying to apply our new experience in that direction.

Perfectly reasonable, wouldn't you agree?

Architect

6th January 2007, 03:28 PM

Lash

Cheers mate

Architect

6th January 2007, 03:29 PM

Surely if WTC7 was CD then NIST wouldn't have been honest as said (I paraphrase) "phew, toughie, not quite so sure about this one"?

Or is that too obvious for the Troofers?

Firestone

6th January 2007, 03:31 PM

:words:

Okay... maybe this is similar to, "hypothetical trusses sagging could have played a role in initiating the collapse," since it's only a theory... with no physical or scientific evidence.The physical and scientific evidence is overwhelming. You simply put it on ignore. :)

It doesn't matter if you all say fires can make trusses sag... I can say explosives can make walls explode... and I have video footage of walls exploding... does that mean it's not a theory and a proven fact?There is zero evidence for explosives. It's as simple as that, you know.

Just using yer own dementia against you.Ad hominem posts are never a good sign, dear 28th Kingdom. :)

pomeroo

6th January 2007, 03:39 PM

I posted the following on 911blogger.com:

Invitation to Jon Gold
[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment (javascript:dztoggle('comment_collapse_105692'))]

Jon, A few of us are going to visit firehouses with "Ghosts of the Firemen." We intend to preserve their reactions on video. I invite you to accompany us in a joint Rationalist-and-Fantasist project. You can explain why you promote your pernicious myths and we will record the level of support you have won.
Do we have a deal?

pomeroo

6th January 2007, 03:40 PM

R. Mackey, I have talked with Mike Newman of NIST several times. Everything you wrote in your post is correct.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 03:41 PM

The physical and scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Really, just give me a couple pieces of evidence that prove the trusses actually sagged. What proof do you have besides conjecture and theory? Please, indulge me. I want physical and scientific evidence.

There is zero evidence for explosives. It's as simple as that, you know.Tell me what would be considered evidence of explosives. Please, I want to know... so that I can go get it for you.

Are you going to address these points, or will you decide to make a joke, and avoid them... you know... given the fact that I have effectively trapped you under a steaming pile of yer own B.S.

maccy

6th January 2007, 03:43 PM

28th Kingdom " Side Note: Maccy, yer on ignore... I don't put up with tyranny... isn't that obvious by now?"

28k you don't just put up with Tyranny you fantasize about it. Nothing gets you hotter than imagining hiding out from FEMA death squads with your band of rebels - suddenly you're an outsider and somehow significant. Even though you benefit from freedoms that people entirely unlike you have fought to achieve and preserve, you prefer to roll over in front of things like the Patriot Act, inflate them into a private masturbatory dictatorship and auto-erotically whine about them on internet message boards. You'll claim that you're taking the high-road with your conspiracy delusions while all those schmucks in the ACLU are idiots for actually engaging in the political process and attempting to address the serious issues of personal liberty versus collective security. In reality, you want to feel persecuted: so you'll never get involved in a campaign that might achieve something - especially as the ideals of a campaign are always tempered by the reality of the world and so real political activists have to accept failure and still keep fighting. Only unrealised fantasies remain unsullied - but they are the ultimate failure because they also remain unfulfilled. Luckily, not everybody is as spineless and solipsistic as you, and so liberty remains largely intact and vigourously fought for always, requiring you to fantasize all the harder. I suppose this is the only way you can preserve your self-importance; you'd be happier if you let the ego go, I should think, but I doubt you'll ever realise this.

LashL: feel free to quote this for 28th's benefit and to elaborate on its themes, if that doesn't get you ignored I'm not sure what will. Suggested insult: lickspittle.

Architect

6th January 2007, 03:44 PM

Quad4_72

6th January 2007, 03:52 PM

They're (NIST) gonna say explosives were used... and then yer minds will proceed to implode on themselves.

Is that right? But wait, I thought NIST was in on all this? Or is that just another contradicting claim made by the CTs?

Quad4_72

6th January 2007, 03:56 PM

Very well put Maccy. You hit it right on the money. Even though he abuses the right to free speech that so many people have fought and died for, I will still go to whatever part of the world to defend his right to say such ridiculous things. You are lucky 28th, go to North Korea and accuse their government of conspiracies. See how long your head stays attached to your neck.

A W Smith

6th January 2007, 04:00 PM

Tell me what would be considered evidence of explosives. Please, I want to know... so that I can go get it for you.

Detonation hardware.
det cord or,
surviving components of the radio receivers for the charges.
chemical residue adjacent to the cuts on the steel.
NOT slag which is just torch residue.
An acceptable "rigging" time line and charge count.
multiple symmetrical floor by floor display of what you call "squibs",
not just random puffs stories below.
witness to the detonation "trigger man" or the trigger man them self.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 04:01 PM

Yea... someone go rain on Architect's parade, by telling him it doesn't matter if fire can make trusses sag... it's such a moot point. So, will this guy shut up now? I can say... explosives can make walls go bangy... so how do you have any more proof than me?

I don't know if fires can make trusses sag... maybe they can - I don't think I have ever denied that... or even addressed it... given that fact that it's besides the point.

Question: Where are NIST's calculations that show how the connections holding the trusses to the outer columns were strong enough to bow those huge steel columns without breaking? Certainly the trusses wouldn't break away from the outer columns before bowing these massive pieces of steel. Certainly not...

Firestone

6th January 2007, 04:01 PM

Really, just give me a couple pieces of evidence that prove the trusses actually sagged. What proof do you have besides conjecture and theory? Please, indulge me. I want physical and scientific evidence.You've been given the evidence many times in a number of threads. You put the people who gave the evidence on Ignore because you didn't like it.
Maybe you should go back to the threads you fled from and start addressing the evidence (and prove your own claims).

Tell me what would be considered evidence of explosives. Please, I want to know... so that I can go get it for you.I've been told that explosives leave traces that the forensic scientists can detect. I also believe that explosives would leave traces in the dust.
Explosives also make some noise, I think.
The hypothetical therm?te cutters should also leave traces.

Now go and find the evidence, will you?

ETA: see what A W Smith (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=13360) wrote.

Are you going to address these points, or will you decide to make a joke, and avoid them... you know... given the fact that I have effectively trapped you under a steaming pile of yer own B.S.:)

You've fled from each and every thread where you were confronted with questions.
You've posted many claims, made outrageous accusations, mocked victims. When will you prove your claims, retract your baseless accusations and apologize for making fun of Mark Bingham?

pomeroo

6th January 2007, 04:04 PM

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 04:05 PM

Detonation hardware.
det cord or, surviving components of the radio receivers for the charges.
chemical residue adjacent to the cuts on the steel.
NOT slag which is just torch residue.
An acceptable "rigging" time line and charge count.
multiple symmetrical floor by floor display of what you call "squibs",
not just random puffs stories below.
witness to the detonation "trigger man" or the trigger man them self.

Wait... where's the evidence that trusses sagged... You got to be fair... please name those too, and then I will actually be impressed for the first time.

Architect

6th January 2007, 04:06 PM

Oh, someone's getting narky! :D

Yea... someone go rain on Architect's parade, by telling him it doesn't matter if fire can make trusses sag... it's such a moot point. So, will this guy shut up now? I can say... explosives can make walls go bangy... so how do you have any more proof than me?

I don't know if fires can make trusses sag... maybe they can - I don't think I have ever denied that... or even addressed it... given that fact that it's besides the point.

Because you don't have any proof. :confused:

Anyway YOU were the one that said the trusses couldn't make the trusses fail. Am I to assume that you now conceed that you were wrong?

Question: Where are NIST's calculations that show how the connections holding the trusses to the outer columns were strong enough to bow those huge steel columns without breaking? Certainly the trusses wouldn't break away from the outer columns before bowing these massive pieces of steel. Certainly not...

Does your understanding of structures know no beginning?

How do you explain the photgraphs of the deflection then?

Fraud. Coward!

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 04:11 PM

Hey, 28IQ, some of us missed your explanation of how the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy was able to place their explosives so precisely. I mean, the EXACT floors hit by the planes?! Tell us again why the collapses began at the impact floors.

Dude, I've already addressed this... explosives could have been on every floor...notice that the walls started exploding right below the impact floors.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

You cut the core columns first...which would make the upper mass come falling down... then you initiate the downward sequence of explosives... starting right below the impact floors.

It's the ole Bingo Bango... oldest trick in the book - they stole it from the Egyptians, man.

A W Smith

6th January 2007, 04:20 PM

OK 28 you never answered this. how many charges per floor then? how many ounces or pounds per charge? a time line for planting charges in a building with 97% occupancy. and don't even go there with the bogus claim that Tennant's were leap frogged around the operation. That wont work. offices have infrastructure that they are unwilling to uproot simply to move to another floor. The only time that would occur would be end of lease up sizing or downsizing. They wont move on lease renewal. Too costly.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 04:23 PM

You've been given the evidence many times in a number of threads. You put the people who gave the evidence on Ignore because you didn't like it.
Maybe you should go back to the threads you fled from and start addressing the evidence (and prove your own claims).

So predictable... maybe you don't realize, that everyone keeps saying they don't have to present evidence for their theory... the burden of proof is on us. That, or they point to the NIST as scientific proof and evidence... when the NIST is just a piece of paper with a theory written on it. How is a theory scientific evidence?

How does proving that fire can sag trusses (which NIST failed to do in all of their real experiments) provide scientific evidence, that is what happened on 9/11?

I can prove explosives can blow up walls... and take down steel-structured high-rises... so don't I have just as much evidence as NIST?

pomeroo

6th January 2007, 04:27 PM

Firestone

6th January 2007, 04:28 PM

:words:

I can prove explosives can blow up walls... and take down steel-structured high-rises... so don't I have just as much evidence as NIST?Nope, because there is zero evidence for explosives.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 04:38 PM

OK 28 you never answered this. how manyhow many ounces or pounds per charge? a time line for planting charges in a building with 97% occupancy. and don't even go there with the bogus claim that Tennant's were leap frogged around the operation. That wont work. offices have infrastructure that they are unwilling to uproot simply to move to another floor. The only time that would occur would be end of lease up sizing or downsizing. They wont move on lease renewal. Too costly. Is this scientific fact or speculation? 28IQ

Why do you insist on reducing the debate down into a game of speculation? What are you gonna do with the information I give you? If I say 3,000 pounds of explosives were needed... what does that do for you? Are you saying that explosives couldn't have brought down the towers? Are you saying that there aren't enough explosives in the world to bring down the towers?

Or do you intend to debunk by speculation i.e. well, you couldn't get that many explosives in the buildings without someone noticing. Of, course not... because people are constantly looking for explosives... I mean, I know I do it almost everyday... if only I had some x-ray vision so that I could see through trucks and walls... than maybe I would have more success.

Read this, and maybe you will understand what you're trying to do:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2231931#post2231931

beachnut

6th January 2007, 04:42 PM

Dude, I've already addressed this... explosives could have been on every floor...notice that the walls started exploding right below the impact floors.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

You cut the core columns first...which would make the upper mass come falling down... then you initiate the downward sequence of explosives... starting right below the impact floors.

It's the ole Bingo Bango... oldest trick in the book - they stole it from the Egyptians, man.

You have to be the least factual person on the planet.

You start with thermite, now you have explosives set on each floor.

What will be next?

Arus808

6th January 2007, 04:43 PM

you can speculate all you want 28th. evidence doesnt' support any speculation you have.

You make a claim, you must prove it. So please provide evidence that explosives were found.

Horatius

6th January 2007, 04:43 PM

YES THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS... if they didn't think bombs may have been used THAN THEY WOULDN'T investigate it.

It doesn't mean they believe bombs were used... THEY ARE SAYING they think it's possible that bombs may have been used.

This is part of the problem with writing things as government employees/contractors. We're required to be polite. His entire argument is made possible because NIST isn't allowed to come out and say, "We're really only doing this so we can make a bunch of idiots finally shut the hell up about 9/11 "CD" nonsense, so piss off wankers".

Really, we need to pass a law to let them say things like that.......

Side Note: Maccy, yer on ignore... I don't put up with tyranny... isn't that obvious by now?

When did quoting other people on a message board become "tyranny"? People who lived under the Nazis would laugh in his face, if they saw that. Anyone know any such people, who would be willing to post here?

beachnut

6th January 2007, 04:44 PM

Why do you insist on reducing the debate down into a game of speculation? What are you gonna do with the information I give you? If I say 3,000 pounds of explosives were needed... what does that do for you? Are you saying that explosives couldn't have brought down the towers? Are you saying that there aren't enough explosives in the world to bring down the towers?

Or do you intend to debunk by speculation i.e. well, you couldn't get that many explosives in the buildings without someone noticing. Of, course not... because people are constantly looking for explosives... I mean, I know I do it almost everyday... if only I had some x-ray vision so that I could see through trucks and walls... than maybe I would have more success.

Read this, and maybe you will understand what you're trying to do:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2231931#post2231931

You have no clue so you start talking about left and right brain.

Your double think died, your thermited died.

Too bad you CT guys have not found any facts.

Horatius

6th January 2007, 04:46 PM

Tell me what would be considered evidence of explosives. Please, I want to know... so that I can go get it for you.

.

There he goes again, pretending we haven't answered this question multiple times.
(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2219927#post2219927)

Pardalis

6th January 2007, 04:48 PM

It's the ole Bingo Bango... oldest trick in the book - they stole it from the Egyptians, man.

What on Earth are you talking about?

A W Smith

6th January 2007, 04:50 PM

beachnut

6th January 2007, 04:52 PM

You are right about that... NIST claimed the buildings wouldn't have collapsed from the impact damage and/or the ensuing fires without the dislodged fireproofing from the plane impacts.

No plane impacts on WTC 7. I don't care how bad the damage was, it couldn't have been worse than what the plane impacts did to the WTCs, especially since I haven't seen one straight on clear shot of any major damage to WTC 7 - you'd think that with the world's media recording every square inch of that scene, that we'd be able to find lots of great photographs and/or video footage of this massive 10 story hole.

Also... it doesn't matter how big the fires were in WTC 7, cus all of the fireproofing couldn't have been dislodged from falling debris on the outside of the building. Which means... that NIST is screwed on this one.

They're (NIST) gonna say explosives were used... and then yer minds will proceed to implode on themselves.

P.S. I was listening to Alex Jones' radio show the other day and he says that NIST is now saying they think bombs may have been used. He wouldn't say that without a source. I mean, it would be really easy to prove him wrong, since his claim is pretty direct and unambiguous. You guys/gals might want to check around and see if anyone from NIST said something like this recently.

Finally; you are an Alex Jones clone. You are an Alex Jones liar guy.

Alex Jones said it, means it is junk.

Dolt, fire can still make buildings fall, but when the fireproofing is blown off, the building fails sooner.

But with tons of fuel in WTC7 and burning all day, it finally failed.

Parts of WTC5/6 fell due to fire. You must try harder to research 9/11 and other subjects.

Based on all your statements and posts, you are just a dolt talking about junk and passing on lies. You are short on facts.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 04:52 PM

Hey, 28IQ, You addressed it with utter gibberish. Can you possibly be as stupid as you sound? How do you manage to feed yourself or cross a street without getting killed?

Explosives on EVERY floor? Yeah, that'll fly. Cut the core columns? In other words, make it appear as though a plane crashed into the building.

Make it appear as though a plane crashed into the building. What does that mean? Where did I say that? Where did I say that a plane didn't hit the building? Why can't explosives be on every floor? Why can't core columns be cut?

Also... do you think they wanted it to look like a controlled demolition? People only reference a CD, because that is the closet thing to what happened on 9/11 i.e. explosives being used to bring down tall buildings. When Peter Jennings... says that it looked like a controlled demolition.... well that's because the only other time we have seen images like this (tall buildings collapsing to the ground) is when an old building is CD.

These buildings weren't CD... they were demolished, but in a very crafty way... that made it look like the buildings collapsed due to the plane impact. Obviously, they couldn't have just pulled the bottom floors first, because that would look too suspicious.

That's what makes WTC 7 so compelling... because they did pull it more like a traditional CD, where all the floors fell together.

Horatius

6th January 2007, 04:55 PM

Or do you intend to debunk by speculation i.e. well, you couldn't get that many explosives in the buildings without someone noticing. Of, course not... because people are constantly looking for explosives... I mean, I know I do it almost everyday... if only I had some x-ray vision so that I could see through trucks and walls... than maybe I would have more success.

If by "people" we allow for police and security teams with bomb-sniffing dogs, then yes, there were a lot of people there specifically looking for explosives. No speculation, pure fact.

And while other people might not notice bombs, they would notice new construction, new paint, new wallpaper, moved furniture, and new carpets. Unless you have some sort of Star Trek Phase Device that can make things pass through walls......

Pardalis

6th January 2007, 04:56 PM

Why can't explosives be on every floor? Why can't core columns be cut?

Please explain how this could be done, in three working office buildings, simultaneously, covertly.

Also... do you think they wanted it to look like a controlled demolition? People only reference a CD, because that is the closet thing to what happened on 9/11 i.e. explosives being used to bring down tall buildings. When Peter Jennings... says that it looked like a controlled demolition.... well that's because the only other time we have seen images like this (tall buildings collapsing to the ground) is when an old building is CD.

Did you ever see a building collapse before that wasn't a controlled demolition? People's referrence for buildings falling down all are based on the footage of controlled demolitions.

These buildings weren't CD... they were demolished, but in a very crafty way...

Idiocy.

TheGrunion

6th January 2007, 05:01 PM

Why can't explosives be on every floor?

There is zero evidence that explosives were on any floor.

Horatius

6th January 2007, 05:02 PM

Also... do you think they wanted it to look like a controlled demolition?

That's what makes WTC 7 so compelling... because they did pull it more like a traditional CD, where all the floors fell together.

People only reference a CD, because that is the closet thing to what happened on 9/11 i.e. explosives being used to bring down tall buildings. When Peter Jennings... says that it looked like a controlled demolition.... well that's because the only other time we have seen images like this (tall buildings collapsing to the ground) is when an old building is CD.

These buildings weren't CD... they were demolished, but in a very crafty way

Damn, he just mousepawed himself again. Three times in one post! A new Forum Record!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/949045971fa0b9755.jpg

Do you think he even realizes that he contradicts himself in one part, and then uses arguments that work against his thesis just as well as they work for it in the other two?

No, I thought not.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 05:07 PM

And the bomb sniffing dogs that were in the building weeks previous to 911 didn't catch a single ounce of explosive? Did they have nose plugs and their jaws wired shut? it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to covertly plant any amount of explosives in such a building that could bring it down without Tennant or security detection IMPOSSIBLE!! it is YOU who are wildly speculating. You suffer from a learning disability called Right Brain syndrome (http://209.51.172.19/forums/neuro/messages/31839.html). aside from your delusional wild speculation you are completely absent of hard evidence. PROVE it. Let me tell you ignoring dozens of members here does not help your case at all and reveals you as a fool.

FINALLY... someone got caught in one of my traps... You perfectly illustrated the point I was making in this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2231931#post2231931

You are debunking with pure speculation. How does one even prove whether or not they could have brought (the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers) into the buildings without people noticing? Tell me, how I would prove (without using speculation) that it's possible to get these explosives in the buildings unnoticed.

Honestly, you just want to drag the debate down into a place, where only speculation can provide answers... in a place like this, you will always be able to "debunk" things... for the only thing required is speculation - which is at your sole discretion.

pomeroo

6th January 2007, 05:08 PM

28IQ, Stop slipping in your stupid lie about "pulling" bottom floors. No demolition expert anywhere thinks that "pulling" means blow up the building. Cut the crap. You frauds have been completely exposed on this falsehood.

You are an ignoramus who uses bogus jargon to attempt to con people who actually know something about the subject.

Pull this.

Pardalis

6th January 2007, 05:09 PM

How does one even prove whether or not they could have brought (the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers) into the buildings without people noticing? Tell me, how I would prove (without using speculation) that it's possible to get these explosives in the buildings unnoticed.

Then your entire CD theory is BUNK !

You show us how you came to this conclusion that explosives were used, WITH EVIDENCE, please.

Bell

6th January 2007, 05:11 PM

FINALLY... someone got caught in one of my traps... You perfectly illustrated the point I was making in this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2231931#post2231931

You are debunking with pure speculation. How does one even prove whether or not they could have brought (the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers) into the buildings without people noticing? Tell me, how I would prove (without using speculation) that it's possible to get these explosives in the buildings unnoticed.

Honestly, you just want to drag the debate down into a place, where only speculation can provide answers... in a place like this, you will always be able to "debunk" things... for the only thing required is speculation - which is at your sole discretion.

The problem here is that we DO have evidence. Evidence of nobody noticing such a big operation going on right under their noses, right under their feet. On the other hand, you have nothing, zip, nada as to prove such a big operation WAS carried out.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 05:13 PM

Did you ever see a building collapse before that wasn't a controlled demolition? People's reference for buildings falling down all are based on the footage of controlled demolitions. (emphasis added)

Thank you... Thank you... Thank you - no, I haven't ever seen a building completely collapse, that wasn't a controlled demolition. No, I haven't ever seen a high-rise building collapse that wasn't brought down by explosives - Pre 9/11 or AFTER 9/11.

BECAUSE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DON'T JUST COLLAPSE... THAT'S WHY CD ARE THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING! GET IT!

Bell

6th January 2007, 05:14 PM

Thank you... Thank you... Thank you - no, I haven't ever seen a building completely collapse, that wasn't a controlled demolition. No, I haven't ever seen a high-rise building collapse that wasn't brought down by explosives - Pre 9/11 or AFTER 9/11.

BECAUSE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DON'T JUST COLLAPSE... THAT'S WHY CD ARE THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING! GET IT!

AND IF I USE ALL CAPS, MY THEORY MUST BE TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pardalis

6th January 2007, 05:15 PM

Thank you... Thank you... Thank you - no, I haven't ever seen a building completely collapse, that wasn't a controlled demolition. No, I haven't ever seen a high-rise building collapse that wasn't brought down by explosives - Pre 9/11 or AFTER 9/11.

BECAUSE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DON'T JUST COLLAPSE... THAT'S WHY CD ARE THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING! GET IT!

Pure and unadulterated idiocy.

It's not because you haven't seen a building collapse that wasn't because of a controlled demolition that buildings can't collapse for other reasons.

9/11 was a unique event.

You've just debunked your own Peter Jennings argument about CD.

Arus808

6th January 2007, 05:15 PM

MG1962

6th January 2007, 05:20 PM

BECAUSE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DON'T JUST COLLAPSE... THAT'S WHY CD ARE THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING! GET IT!

Whats the tallest building brought down by controlled demolition?

LashL

6th January 2007, 05:21 PM

stateofgrace

6th January 2007, 05:27 PM

These buildings weren't CD... they were demolished, but in a very crafty way... that made it look like the buildings collapsed due to the plane impact. Obviously, they couldn't have just pulled the bottom floors first, because that would look too suspicious.

But they didn't fool you, hey?

This is so stupid I feel compelled to add it to my signature, thank you 28th.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 05:30 PM

Pure and unadulterated idiocy.

It's not because you haven't seen a building collapse that wasn't because of a controlled demolition that buildings can't collapse for other reasons.

9/11 was a unique event.

You've just debunked your own Peter Jennings argument about CD.

What is this?

It's not because you haven't seen a building collapse that wasn't because of a controlled demolition that buildings can't collapse for other reasons.

Then where are your reports of high-rise buildings...collapsing to the ground for any other reason than explosives? We've had many other high-rise buildings with huge fires... other high-rise buildings that were hit by planes.... high-rise buildings that were severely damaged in hurricanes or from earthquakes... but, still no other high-rise buildings falling to the ground in seconds from something other than explosives.

So, why should we take this leap of faith and say that on 9/11 it (high-rise buildings collapsing to the ground without explosives) not only happened once... or twice... but three times? All three buildings with different degrees (and types) of damage, yet all falling magically to the ground (in seconds) unlike anything we have ever seen before.

You don't have to agree with the PET, to say... that given the odds... planted explosives are more than likely the cause of the collapses... simply based upon the information we knew before 9/11 about the history of these types of tall structures.

Pardalis

6th January 2007, 05:32 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2233940&postcount=89

twinstead

6th January 2007, 05:33 PM

Ok, must decloak.

28th Kingdom you are an idiot.

cloak back on.

Please be kind to me mods.

I will be kind to you, if you play nice. Please don't use insults.

pomeroo

6th January 2007, 05:35 PM

Check out the entire "Ghosts of the Firemen" thread on 911bloggers.com.

This one's a pip!

TheGrunion

6th January 2007, 05:36 PM

You don't have to agree with the PET, but that doesn't mean you can't say... that given the odds... planted explosives are more than likely the cause of the collapses... simply based upon the information we knew before 9/11 about the history of these types of tall structures.

Why are you focused on "information we knew before 9/11"?

What about the information we know about the events of 9/11? How do you account for this information?

Hmm, where have I seen a posting style that utilizes ... frequently before?

A W Smith

6th January 2007, 05:43 PM

FINALLY... someone got caught in one of my traps... You perfectly illustrated the point I was making in this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2231931#post2231931

You are debunking with pure speculation. How does one even prove whether or not they could have brought (the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers) into the buildings without people noticing? Tell me, how I would prove (without using speculation) that it's possible to get these explosives in the buildings unnoticed.

Honestly, you just want to drag the debate down into a place, where only speculation can provide answers... in a place like this, you will always be able to "debunk" things... for the only thing required is speculation - which is at your sole discretion.

Nope you side stepped the question. Nice dance routine you have there but it wont work here. I have succeeded in "dragging the argument" to a place where your scenario falls on its face. Not that I needed to because you cannot prove any of your other points elsewhere. You are caught in a trap where you cannot even speculate on the plausibility of a CD setup. even Judy Wood idiot that she is realized the impossibility of CD which is why they went to a star wars space ray.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 05:44 PM

Why are you focused on "information we knew before 9/11"?

What about the information we know about the events of 9/11? How do you account for this information?

Hmm, where have I seen a posting style that utilizes ... frequently before?

Why do we always reference scientific laws from the past? So on 9/11 the world just turned up side down... and history was out the window... and scientific laws that we have used for hundreds of years are suddenly debatable and in question... don't you see what you're doing friend?

No, not anything is possible, because planes hit buildings... it doesn't warp the universal laws of nature.

Pardalis

6th January 2007, 05:46 PM

...

TheGrunion

6th January 2007, 05:52 PM

Why do we always reference scientific laws from the past? So on 9/11 the world just turned up side down... and history was out the window... and scientific laws that we have used for hundreds of years are suddenly debatable and in question... don't you see what you're doing friend?

No, not anything is possible, because planes hit buildings... it doesn't warp the universal laws of nature.

So you acknowledge that the planes hit WTC 1 & 2.

Do you have any evidence of explosives? If not, I believe that you just debunked yourself yet again.

I'm not your friend.

Bell

6th January 2007, 05:55 PM

Why do we always reference scientific laws from the past?

Why do deniers always reference goverment plans and actions from the past? (ie Northwoods, false flag etc)

So on 9/11 the world just turned up side down... and history was out the window... and scientific laws that we have used for hundreds of years are suddenly debatable and in question... don't you see what you're doing friend?

What scientific laws? What. Scientific. Laws?

No, not anything is possible, because planes hit buildings... it doesn't warp the universal laws of nature.

But appearantly it warps your brain. The halve you ARE using, that is.

28th Kingdom

6th January 2007, 06:04 PM

suffice to say, buildings collapse for several reason that isn't due to CD.
some collapse due to earthquakes
some collapse due to faulty engineering.
some collapse due to fire (and fire alone).

high rise buildigns DO collapse. we had three of them already prove that. (emphasis added)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2233940&postcount=89

What did Arus say that proved my statements false? They said buildings collapse. Well, gee... who doesn't know that. Did they say high-rise buildings collapse due to earthquakes, faulty engineering or fire? No... they said buildings - as in one or two story buildings or houses or something similar in size. High-rise structures are a completely different thing... and that's why they even separated buildings from high-rise buildings in their post.

fuelair

6th January 2007, 06:05 PM

You are right about that... NIST claimed the buildings wouldn't have collapsed from the impact damage and/or the ensuing fires without the dislodged fireproofing from the plane impacts.

No plane impacts on WTC 7. I don't care how bad the damage was, it couldn't have been worse than what the plane impacts did to the WTCs, especially since I haven't seen one straight on clear shot of any major damage to WTC 7 - you'd think that with the world's media recording every square inch of that scene, that we'd be able to find lots of great photographs and/or video footage of this massive 10 story hole.

Also... it doesn't matter how big the fires were in WTC 7, cus all of the fireproofing couldn't have been dislodged from falling debris on the outside of the building. Which means... that NIST is screwed on this one.

They're (NIST) gonna say explosives were used... and then yer minds will proceed to implode on themselves.

P.S. I was listening to Alex Jones' radio show the other day and he says that NIST is now saying they think bombs may have been used. He wouldn't say that without a source. I mean, it would be really easy to prove him wrong, since his claim is pretty direct and unambiguous. You guys/gals might want to check around and see if anyone from NIST said something like this recently.

Go back to school, take some science courses - and some in spelling and grammar would not be amiss. Analyze your writings, try to forgive yourself for your colossal ignorance. Come back, apologize to the survivors, the people you maligned and the people you misled and regain a real life. Get some help.

beachnut

6th January 2007, 06:07 PM

What is this?

It's not because you haven't seen a building collapse that wasn't because of a controlled demolition that buildings can't collapse for other reasons.

Then where are your reports of high-rise buildings...collapsing to the ground for any other reason than explosives? We've had many other high-rise buildings with huge fires... other high-rise buildings that were hit by planes.... high-rise buildings that were severely damaged in hurricanes or from earthquakes... but, still no other high-rise buildings falling to the ground in seconds from something other than explosives.

So, why should we take this leap of faith and say that on 9/11 it (high-rise buildings collapsing to the ground without explosives) not only happened once... or twice... but three times? All three buildings with different degrees (and types) of damage, yet all falling magically to the ground (in seconds) unlike anything we have ever seen before.

You don't have to agree with the PET, to say... that given the odds... planted explosives are more than likely the cause of the collapses... simply based upon the information we knew before 9/11 about the history of these types of tall structures.

Fires have destroyed high-rise buildings; Philadelphia, fire destoryed building, it is gone. Windsor building in Spain, building is gone; the steel only sections fell in an explosive manner. Both buildings destroyed just by fire! No planes, no bombs, just fire.

Destroyed counts. Oops, WTC7 damaged by debris, fire raged all day, building fell.

Not the other buildings did no fall completely because they were fought! and the fires were put out. WTC fires in 1,2, 7 were not fought.

Fires in WTC 5/6 were fought, but floors failed, steel failed, you can find it but you will not. Steel is ruined by fire, steel fails in fires. Go ask a real fireman who understands why firemen are always being killed by falling buildings, steel and wood.

You still have no facts or proof. No one expects you to grow up soon. Good luck ignoreboy.

beachnut

6th January 2007, 06:18 PM

Since many are on ignore-boy list of honor; he will never see that his disrespectful no fact rant has some replies.

It must look like the world is empty of facts to 28th; he will never see anything.

Wonder if he understands the fires in WTC1 and 2 had giant holes all over feeding the fire with air. Why does he have problems with the fireproofing being blasted off in the giant impacts of the jets. I wonder if he knows the core was only protected by two pieces of wall board; the same wallboard my roommate in college liked to poke his fist through. The wall board in my house is not as thick but it is just as fragile, it breaks with impact, and I think the impact equal to a TON of TNT would displace some fireproofing.

He is looking for a bomb? The aircraft impact was equal to more explosives than normal CD jobs use for large buildings.

Find a life 28th. Why are you so devoid of facts and real information on 9/11. Do you really use Alex Jones as your guiding light?

beachnut

6th January 2007, 06:21 PM

Hi 28th, you said we were all on ignore. Are you telling lies?

So what new facts have you proving anything you have said about 9/11?

Are you a Alex Jones follower?

beachnut

6th January 2007, 06:24 PM

When you use "pull it"; you prove you are not using facts.

Facts young man will set you free.

Like truth; knowledge will set you free. 28th there is a cure for terminal stupidity.

beachnut

6th January 2007, 06:32 PM

Why do we always reference scientific laws from the past?

Only idiot CTers who say laws of physics were broken on 9/11 reference laws and say real dumb things about 9/11. (the dumbest things come from Cter mouths)

The fact is the WTC fell due to impact damage and fires. You have hitched your wagon to biased political liars, some making money selling lies. You have messed up and now continue to move from lie to lie trying to say something about 9/11.

What are you trying to say? Why are you devoid of facts? Why? These are simple questions you could answer; please try to.

Bell

6th January 2007, 06:36 PM

Only idiot CTers who say laws of physics were broken on 9/11 reference laws and say real dumb things about 9/11. (the dumbest things come from Cter mouths)

The fact is the WTC fell due to impact damage and fires. You have hitched your wagon to biased political liars, some making money selling lies. You have messed up and now continue to move from lie to lie trying to say something about 9/11.

What are you trying to say? Why are you devoid of facts? Why? These are simple questions you could answer; please try to.

*ignore*

beachnut

6th January 2007, 06:49 PM

I was wondering if 28th could post his schools by name so we can see who, why, when, and how they failed to prepare 28th to think logically and with knowledge.

Babylon Sister

6th January 2007, 06:50 PM

So predictable... maybe you don't realize, that everyone keeps saying they don't have to present evidence for their theory... the burden of proof is on us. That, or they point to the NIST as scientific proof and evidence... when the NIST is just a piece of paper with a theory written on it. How is a theory scientific evidence?

How does proving that fire can sag trusses (which NIST failed to do in all of their real experiments) provide scientific evidence, that is what happened on 9/11?

I can prove explosives can blow up walls... and take down steel-structured high-rises... so don't I have just as much evidence as NIST?

Bolding mine.

28thK, do you know that in science a theory is NOT a guess?? It's a well substantiated explination of the available evidence.

(I really should put this guy on ignore. I already have a sore throat from this dam*ed cold and shouting at the monitor is not helping.)

beachnut

6th January 2007, 06:55 PM

So predictable... maybe you don't realize, that everyone keeps saying they don't have to present evidence for their theory... the burden of proof is on us. That, or they point to the NIST as scientific proof and evidence... when the NIST is just a piece of paper with a theory written on it. How is a theory scientific evidence?

How does proving that fire can sag trusses (which NIST failed to do in all of their real experiments) provide scientific evidence, that is what happened on 9/11?

I can prove explosives can blow up walls... and take down steel-structured high-rises... so don't I have just as much evidence as NIST?

You did not read all of NIST. You failed to understand NIST. You failed to really grasp the experiment and the purpose of it. Who is feeding you these half truth lies?

Who is your leader of mindless talk and falsehoods? Where did you get thie tripe from?

Please list the college you went to so I can make sure my kids do not attend the same.

A W Smith

6th January 2007, 07:02 PM

add NIST to his ignore list..

beachnut

6th January 2007, 07:08 PM

I can prove explosives can blow up walls... and take down steel-structured high-rises... so don't I have just as much evidence as NIST?

I can prove a laser weapon can destroy a missile; but it is not evidence it could do anything to the WTC.

You would have evidence if you had the sounds of explosives! But the only sounds are the building collapsing.

You would have evidence if you had the remains of explosives! But the only remains are the building.

You would have evidence if you had the puffs of explosives! But the only puffs are the building collapsing and accelerating air out the windows.

You would have evidence if you had proof so people placing explosives! But no one has come forward to tell of anyone placing them in the building.

NIST has proof of fires, proof of aircraft impact, proof of fire damage all over the WTC complex. You have zero facts, NIST has thousands of facts.

You seem to be short on facts; NIST has a full hand of facts.

You are lacking logical thought to reason and think. Try again after you get some experience and more knowledge.

babazaroni

6th January 2007, 07:43 PM

BECAUSE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DON'T JUST COLLAPSE... THAT'S WHY CD ARE THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING! GET IT!

You seem to have this notion that all skycrapers are the same. One (Empire State Building) gets hit by a low-speed prop plane low on fuel so they all must behave like that. It's just common sense right. Who needs to dig any deeper.

Well now we know one design type of skyscraper that can collapse without explosives.

Never before has a high-speed jet aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel struck a tube-in-tube design skyscraper that uses lightweight floor trusses as a key structural element.

Never before has a fire burned unfought in a tube-in-tube design skyscraper that uses lightweight floor trusses as a key structural element.

Skycrapers of this design will never be built again.

T.A.M.

6th January 2007, 07:51 PM

28th:

I can guarantee that they are not going to say bombs were involved in the collapse of WTC7.

AJ, the fraud, makes his assertion of what he thinks NIST will say based on the statement they made, I believe in their FAQ, that states they are ENTERTAINING the investigation of whether there is evidence that "Blast Events" were involved in the collapse of WTC7. We have known about this for months. I can tell you that is his only source on this point.

Prove me wrong.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

7th January 2007, 05:57 PM

Ron:

In case i missed it, who is the Col. Jenny Sparks? She claims she tried to sign in over here at JREF but had her acount cancelled twice before she could post. She now has the arrogance to think it has to do with her reputation as a "truther" claiming it might be related to her new site/blog.

I have a feeling it is more likely due to her not wanting to give a valid email address and confirm her joining the site.

Still, love to see her come over here, given how arrogant/confident she sounds.

TAM:)

pomeroo

7th January 2007, 06:31 PM

TAM, here are the relevant posts:

» reply (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/reply/5425/105874) | -6 points
Nothing New (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5425#comment-105874)

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment (http://javascript<b></b>:dztoggle('comment_collapse_105874'))]
BTW, you're lying. I'm not attempting to post the despicable picture on any site. I intend to show it to firefighters at various firehouses.
I don't believe that you were prevented from posting at JREF.

Submitted by Ronald Wieck (http://www.911blogger.com/user/537) on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 12:11am.

» reply (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/reply/5425/105885) | 1 point
You're right, Ronnie, I (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5425#comment-105885)

You're right, Ronnie, I should show everyone the emails from Lisa Simpson:
>>>From : JREF Forum
Sent : 03 January 2007 02:47:15
To : [REDACTED]
Subject : Account removed at JREF Forum!
Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox
Dear Jenny Sparks,
*Automated response*
Unfortunately we couldnâ€™t complete your registration at the JREF Forum. The
most likely reason is that some required information wasnâ€™t entered during the
registration process (First name, Last name, Country and State if in the USA).
Please either try again to register or drop me an email and I will do my best to
sort out any problems you may be experiencing.
Regards
Lisa Simpson
lisa_simpson@randi.org<<<
And again:
>>>From : JREF Forum
Sent : 03 January 2007 14:17:56
To : [REDACTED]
Subject : Account removed at JREF Forum!
Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox
Dear Jenny Sparks,
*Automated response*
Unfortunately we couldnâ€™t complete your registration at the JREF Forum. The
most likely reason is that some required information wasnâ€™t entered during the
registration process (First name, Last name, Country and State if in the USA).
Please either try again to register or drop me an email and I will do my best to
sort out any problems you may be experiencing.
Regards
Lisa Simpson
lisa_simpson@randi.org<<<
..later on the same day. So, now you believe me, pom-pomeroo, let's have no gratuitous name calling--I KNOW Lisa wouldn't approve, Ronnie.
As for your plan to take the picture on tour, I stand corrected. Perhaps that was another JREF post in the same thread I was thinking about. I appologize if that mischaracterization upset you. But there is no need for name calling, now is there Ronnie? I should say, the artist will probably be grateful for the exposure!
Try not to work too hard, pom-pomeroo, and you'll avoid these unpleasant conversational slips!
Hugs and kisses!
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Submitted by Col. Jenny Sparks (http://www.911blogger.com/user/972) on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 1:05am.

» edit (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/edit/106047) | reply (http://www.911blogger.com/comment/reply/5425/106047) | -1 points
Unpleasant Logical Slips (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5425#comment-106047)

Let me see, now:
I explained that you were lying--that almost certainly you were not being "prevented" from joining JREF.
YOU post e-mails demonstrating that you were lying--that almost certainly you were not being "prevented" from joining JREF.
Your audience here is rooting very hard for you, but they are shaking their heads and re-reading your post. They are saying, "Huh?"
It would be impossible, of course, for you to contact Lisa Simpson and ask her to resolve the difficulties you've experienced, assuming that they are real and not deliberately contrived by you.
Why would it be impossible?
Your nose is growing longer, Jenny.

Submitted by Ronald Wieck (http://www.911blogger.com/user/537) on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 3:11pm.

:rolleyes:

defaultdotxbe

7th January 2007, 06:34 PM

wonder if she knows what "automated response" means, lol

i had my account rejected a few times because i dont like giving out my name (i just do initial) so it rejected me for not putting a full name

LashL

7th January 2007, 07:31 PM

"Col. Jenny Sparks" is obviously a liar, and a lazy one at that.

Arus808

7th January 2007, 07:36 PM

Let me see, now:
I explained that you were lying--that almost certainly you were not being "prevented" from joining JREF.
YOU post e-mails demonstrating that you were lying--that almost certainly you were not being "prevented" from joining JREF.
Your audience here is rooting very hard for you, but they are shaking their heads and re-reading your post. They are saying, "Huh?"
It would be impossible, of course, for you to contact Lisa Simpson and ask her to resolve the difficulties you've experienced, assuming that they are real and not deliberately contrived by you.
Why would it be impossible?
Your nose is growing longer, Jenny.

Submitted by Ronald Wieck (http://www.911blogger.com/user/537) on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 3:11pm.

:rolleyes:

I got those same messages when i was uing free email services (hotmail, gmail, yahoo) to try and register.

Boy, she really doesn't understand what automated response is.
tell her to register with a REAL email address. The only "prevention" going on is that she is using an email address that is not accepted here.
whoopdeedoo.