PDA

View Full Version : Dylan Avery - Earth-Shattering News Coming Soon (again)


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

DGM
3rd August 2007, 03:43 PM
YOU have the burden of proof when you accuse someone of murder, kidnapping and piracy.

Prove Atta was at Logan airport on the morning of 9/11.

Prove Atta got on Flight 11.

Prove Atta was a hijacker.

Prove Atta had a terrorist background.

Both flight attendents said there were FOUR hijackers on Flight 11.

What evidence do you have that there were FIVE hijackers on Flight 11?
Remember "status quo"? You need to provide the proof to change this. Get it?

defaultdotxbe
3rd August 2007, 03:46 PM
How do you know I didn't get the idea from a DIFFERENT Colin Ferguson?
you could have cleared that up by answering LashL's question

The Colin Ferguson who was convicted of murdering six people and injuring nineteen others on the Long Island Rail Road in Garden City, New York in 1993?

And just because I got the IDEA from Colin Ferguson, doesn't imply that Colin Ferguson used his name in the third person.
but who said he used his name in the third person? who are you demanding the proof from?

Hope that clears things up for you.
no, not really, but i never expected a straight answer anyway

LashL
3rd August 2007, 03:48 PM
Using your name in the third person has nothing to do with murder. Prove the link.

I did not say that there was a link between murder and referring to yourself in the third person. Try reading for comprehension next time.

What is your evidence Colin Ferguson used his name in the third person?

It was you who claimed that you got the idea of referring to yourself in the third person from Colin Ferguson. I asked you if this is the Colin Ferguson from whom you got the idea. You did not elaborate or claim that it was a different Colin Ferguson; instead, you expanded on the Colin Ferguson that I asked you about.

You condemn the murder of 6 people, but condone the murder of 3000 innocent people on 9/11.

I do not "condone the murder of 3000 innocent people on 9/11" and your claim that I do is a lie.

Galileo
3rd August 2007, 03:49 PM
Remember "status quo"? You need to provide the proof to change this. Get it?

Prove I need proof to change this.

Your statement is not status quo.

You need proof of the deeds you attribute to Atta. So far, no one, not Bush, not Cheney, not the FBI, CIA, or 9/11 Commission has proof that Atta was a terrorist.

Galileo
3rd August 2007, 03:52 PM
I did not say that there was a link between murder and referring to yourself in the third person. Try reading for comprehension next time.



It was you who claimed that you got the idea of referring to yourself in the third person from Colin Ferguson. I asked you if this is the Colin Ferguson from whom you got the idea from. You did not elaborate or claim that it was a different Colin Ferguson; instead, you expanded on the Colin Ferguson that I asked you about.



I do not "condone the murder of 3000 innocent people on 9/11" and your claim that I do is a lie.

I'm glad you don't condone the murders of 9/11. Hope we can then both get together and call for a new, true 9/11 investigation.

LashL
3rd August 2007, 03:56 PM
I'm glad you don't condone the murders of 9/11.

You should stop posting such despicable lies about people, then. Further, you should apologize for same.

Hope we can then both get together and call for a new, true 9/11 investigation.

I do not "get together" with people who tell despicable lies.

Galileo
3rd August 2007, 03:59 PM
You should stop posting such despicable lies about people, then. Further, you should apologize for same.



I do not "get together" with people who tell despicable lies.

I'm sorry for the implication.

It was supposed to be an opinion rather than a claim.

It's my fault for bringing up Colin Ferguson in the first place.

I'll try to find that other information you were looking for.

DGM
3rd August 2007, 04:00 PM
Prove I need proof to change this.

Your statement is not status quo.

You need proof of the deeds you attribute to Atta. So far, no one, not Bush, not Cheney, not the FBI, CIA, or 9/11 Commission has proof that Atta was a terrorist.
How do you figure we have to prove anything to you?

Galileo
3rd August 2007, 04:06 PM
How do you figure we have to prove anything to you?

I can read between the lines. There is no proof that Atta was a hijacker.

Now can some one tell me why the alarm system in WTC 7 did not record the collapse of the North Tower?

LashL
3rd August 2007, 04:07 PM
I'm sorry for the implication.

It was supposed to be an opinion rather than a claim.

It's my fault for bringing up Colin Ferguson in the first place.

Your "opinion" that I condone the murder of 3000 innocent people on 9/11 is still dead wrong, and grossly insulting.

twinstead
3rd August 2007, 04:08 PM
Prove I need proof to change this.

Your statement is not status quo.

You need proof of the deeds you attribute to Atta. So far, no one, not Bush, not Cheney, not the FBI, CIA, or 9/11 Commission has proof that Atta was a terrorist.

It is impossible to prove something to somebody who is ideologically motivated to believe something else. Reason, logic, evidence NOTHING will convince you. A mindless ideologue is a mindless ideologue whether he is the most raving red-neck right-wing jingoist, or YOU--the exact opposite side of the same coin.

You 'have it all figured out'. Congratulations.

mortimer
3rd August 2007, 04:14 PM
How do you know there was a fire in the building, if the alarm system did not record it?

Nominated! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2830150#post2830150)

DGM
3rd August 2007, 04:14 PM
I can read between the lines. There is no proof that Atta was a hijacker.

Now can some one tell me why the alarm system in WTC 7 did not record the collapse of the North Tower?
You can believe what you want to believe no one cares. It had already gone off, Remember?

Gravy
3rd August 2007, 04:21 PM
Now can some one tell me why the alarm system in WTC 7 did not record the collapse of the North Tower?Because it had already gone off when the south tower collapsed, as you've been told four times in this thread.

Are you not feeling well, Galileo? You don't seem to have any capacity for retaining or processing information that refutes your beliefs.

Par
3rd August 2007, 04:22 PM
I can read between the lines. There is no proof that Atta was a hijacker.



You now seem to be making completely arbitrary claims. You already know that’s false but you said it anyway. What kind of person does that?

twinstead
3rd August 2007, 04:23 PM
You now seem to be making completely arbitrary claims. You already know that’s false but you said it anyway. What kind of person does that?

A mindless ideologue, who else?

Or, just somebody trolling an internet forum.

jhunter1163
3rd August 2007, 04:41 PM
Six weeks into this thread, the earth remains unshattered.

brodski
3rd August 2007, 04:43 PM
Six weeks into this thread, the earth remains unshattered.

Oh, the earth was shattered but THEY covered it up.

Loss Leader
3rd August 2007, 04:44 PM
Real terrorists, who are members of secret sleeper cells, use fake names.


Your knowledge of how real terror cells operate is ... interesting. I'd like to know more about just who you are and how you amassed this knowledge as well as your known associates and your banking transactions.


The voice of the alleged hijacker, posted on the Washington Post website, sounds like someone with an Israeli accent, and the voice has never been identified as Atta's.


You can hear the difference between an Israeli and Arab accent? How did you gain this expertise? When did you spend time with Israelis and then Saudis?


YOU have the burden of proof when you accuse someone of murder, kidnapping and piracy.


Acually, we don't. He's dead.


Prove Atta was at Logan airport on the morning of 9/11.

Prove Atta got on Flight 11.

Prove Atta was a hijacker.

Prove Atta had a terrorist background.


Prove your mother didn't drink during pregnancy.


Now can some one tell me why the alarm system in WTC 7 did not record the collapse of the North Tower?


I'm confused. Was it a "collapse of the North Tower" alarm? Also, if it was, how do I get one? If the alarm wasn't actually designed to detect the collapse of a nearby building, why should we expect it to go off?

jhunter1163
3rd August 2007, 04:45 PM
Oh, the earth was shattered but THEY covered it up.


And only teh brave warriors for twoof at Prisonplanet have the straight story on the earth's shattering.

Excuse me while I giggle.

twinstead
3rd August 2007, 05:23 PM
And only teh brave warriors for twoof at Prisonplanet have the straight story on the earth's shattering.

Excuse me while I giggle.

Well, excuse me whiiile ah whip this out...

DarkMagician
3rd August 2007, 06:37 PM
I'm confused. Was it a "collapse of the North Tower" alarm? Also, if it was, how do I get one? If the alarm wasn't actually designed to detect the collapse of a nearby building, why should we expect it to go off?

Nah, it's an "Everything's OK" alarm. Sounds every 3 seconds unless something's not okay. Drove the guards mad.

A W Smith
3rd August 2007, 08:27 PM
You prove he was on the plane first, and not back at the strip club tooting it up.
From: Unraveling 9-11 was in the bags -- Newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uslugg274705186apr17,0,6096142.story?page=2&coll=ny-nationalnews-print)
News reports published in late September and early October 2001 described a piece of luggage apparently belonging to Atta that had been discovered at Logan Airport after the attacks.

That piece of luggage was said to contain Arab-language papers amounting to Atta's last will and testament, along with instructions to the other hijackers to prepare themselves physically and spiritually for death. The papers also admonished them: "Check all of your items - your bag, your clothes, knives, your will, your IDs, your passport, your papers. ... Make sure that nobody is following you." Similar papers were also found in the wreckage of another crashed airliner.

Flagg and the former prosecutor, however, said it was the second bag that identified all 19 hijackers.

"That was the one that became the Rosetta stone," Flagg said.

Tracking the hijackers

Luggage left at Portland airport enabled investigators to quickly identify the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta and conspirator Abdulaziz Alomari.

1. Atta and Alomari check out of a Comfort Inn in Portland, Maine at 5:33 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001.

2. 5:45 a.m.: They drive to Portland airport, arriving at about 5:45 a.m., for a scheduled flight to Boston.

3. They board a 6 a.m. commuter flight from Portland to Boston's Logan Airport.

4. Atta and Alomari board American Airlines Flight 11, for an 8 a.m. flight from Boston to Los Angeles.

5. Atta, Alomari and others hijack Flight 11 at 8:14 a.m.; they crash it into the World Trade Center's North Tower at 8:46 a.m.

6. Atta's luggage fails to make it onto Flight 11. The bag, left at Portland, contains evidence that helps investigators identify the hijackers. [CORRECTION: The luggage belonging to 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta was found at Logan Airport in Boston. A graphic yesterday misidentified the location. (A13 NS 4/18/06)]

Foolmewunz
3rd August 2007, 08:50 PM
From: Unraveling 9-11 was in the bags -- Newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uslugg274705186apr17,0,6096142.story?page=2&coll=ny-nationalnews-print)

Oh, Snap! So after we convict Atta's remains for the criminal charges, he could still win a civil suit for the airline not having delivered his baggage?

Gravy
3rd August 2007, 11:13 PM
Oh, Snap! So after we convict Atta's remains for the criminal charges, he could still win a civil suit for the airline not having delivered his baggage?
:dl:

chipmunk stew
4th August 2007, 07:36 AM
Oh, Snap! So after we convict Atta's remains for the criminal charges, he could still win a civil suit for the airline not having delivered his baggage?
BWAHAHAHA!!

Nominated for pith.

Galileo
4th August 2007, 12:36 PM
[QUOTE=Loss Leader;2830238]

Your knowledge of how real terror cells operate is ... interesting. I'd like to know more about just who you are and how you amassed this knowledge as well as your known associates and your banking transactions.

QUOTE]

If I use a fake name in this forum, Atta uses a fake name.

And I'm just an innocent nice guy, not a terrorist.

Galileo
4th August 2007, 12:38 PM
From: Unraveling 9-11 was in the bags -- Newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uslugg274705186apr17,0,6096142.story?page=2&coll=ny-nationalnews-print)

According to Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies', the government identified all 19 hijackers before the government knew all the planes had been hijacked.

Interesting....

Galileo
4th August 2007, 12:40 PM
Because it had already gone off when the south tower collapsed, as you've been told four times in this thread.

Are you not feeling well, Galileo? You don't seem to have any capacity for retaining or processing information that refutes your beliefs.

So you are saying the alarm system is binary and only records an event once?

The alarm system wouldn't tell you where in the building the event occurred?

Who turned it back from test status at 2:27 p.m.?

SpitfireIX
4th August 2007, 12:42 PM
If I use a fake name in this forum, Atta uses a fake name.

And I'm just an innocent nice guy, not a terrorist.


If I Ran the Zoo (a logical fallacy first identified by Jay Windley). "That's not the way I would have done things; therefore, it's suspicious."

defaultdotxbe
4th August 2007, 12:57 PM
If I use a fake name in this forum, Atta uses a fake name.

And I'm just an innocent nice guy, not a terrorist.
isnt that a violation of the membership agreement and a bannable offense?

BTW if use my real name on this forum, atta uses his real name

and in the past 12 hours im guilty of criminal trespassing, littering, loitering, evading arrest and several moving violations (theres probably more in there too)

ETA: also, i dont know about "earth shattering" but my poor redbud tree is showing definate shatterage
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1085746b4da75230cc.jpg

DGM
4th August 2007, 12:59 PM
According to Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies', the government identified all 19 hijackers before the government knew all the planes had been hijacked.

Interesting....
Where is that in the book? What page?

T.A.M.
4th August 2007, 02:00 PM
The fact that Atta's Father identified the person the FBI said was Atta, as his son Mohamed Atta, that was just lies was it GAL...really it was John Smith, who used Atta's name, and had PLASTIC SURGERY to look IDENTICAL to the real MOHAMED ATTA...right?

TAM:)

Regnad Kcin
4th August 2007, 02:17 PM
...And I'm just an innocent nice guy, not a terrorist.You flatter yourself.

Revolutionary91
4th August 2007, 02:23 PM
You flatter yourself.


How so?

T.A.M.
4th August 2007, 02:25 PM
Its a trap Reg...its a trap!!!!

Wait, he knows its a trap.

lol

TAM:)

CptColumbo
4th August 2007, 02:39 PM
Real terrorists, who are members of secret sleeper cells, use fake names.Maybe in spy novels and movies. If you read the history of Middle Eastern terrorism, and many cases of western espionage (Otto Kuhn, and Kim Philby), you'll see that it's common for "sleeper agents" to use their real identities.

Par
4th August 2007, 02:44 PM
The fact that Atta's Father identified the person the FBI said was Atta, as his son Mohamed Atta, that was just lies was it GAL...really it was John Smith, who used Atta's name, and had PLASTIC SURGERY to look IDENTICAL to the real MOHAMED ATTA...right?



John Rosenbaum, more like.

MaGZ
4th August 2007, 03:18 PM
Where is that in the book? What page?

Page 13
The CIA knew there were AQ operatives in the country. They likely knew about all of them, not just three. The CIA asked the Israelis to keep an eye on them when they arrived in the US. (see Israeli Art Students) The Israelis provided initial reports to the CIA and FBI but let the attack proceed.

This explains why the FBI did not want their local agents to investigate Arabs who were taking flying lessons or have access to Moussaoui’s computer. The top people at the FBI did not want the local agents to interfere with the Mossad surveillance of the hijackers.

~enigma~
4th August 2007, 03:49 PM
[quote=Loss Leader;2830238]

Your knowledge of how real terror cells operate is ... interesting. I'd like to know more about just who you are and how you amassed this knowledge as well as your known associates and your banking transactions.

[QUOTE]

If I use a fake name in this forum, Atta uses a fake name.

And I'm just an innocent nice guy, not a terrorist.
Not if....we know you did PDOPE.

A-Train
4th August 2007, 04:09 PM
The fact that Atta's Father identified the person the FBI said was Atta, as his son Mohamed Atta, that was just lies was it GAL...really it was John Smith, who used Atta's name, and had PLASTIC SURGERY to look IDENTICAL to the real MOHAMED ATTA...right?


Why would he have had to look identical to Atta? The airport surveillance videos of the boarding gate for AAL11 have disappeared-- or were never made. Therefore, a person using Atta's identity to board the plane could have looked like anyone.

Or are you suggesting that the ticket agent would have looked at the name, looked at the hijacker, and said,

"Hey, wait a minute, I know Mohammad Atta, and you are no Mohammad Atta...."

T.A.M.
4th August 2007, 04:20 PM
So you are saying that the man who boarded the plane, and then flew it into the WTC, used a fake name, Mohamed Atta, so that someone else would get all the praise in his homeland for the martyrdom, rather than take the credit himself, given the guy that got on the plane died...or are we going to add another layer onto the Cake that poisoned Occam?

TAM:)

Gravy
4th August 2007, 04:22 PM
Why would he have had to look identical to Atta? The airport surveillance videos of the boarding gate for AAL11 have disappeared-- or were never made. Therefore, a person using Atta's identity to board the plane could have looked like anyone.

Or are you suggesting that the ticket agent would have looked at the name, looked at the hijacker, and said,

"Hey, wait a minute, I know Mohammad Atta, and you are no Mohammad Atta...."

http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/20050912/slide_20050912_101.jhtml

I think I know what the "A" in A-Train stands for.

T.A.M.
4th August 2007, 04:27 PM
Now Gravy,

you know A-Train is just gonna say the witness was mistaken, and that the double looked so similar to Atta, that he was fooled.

Then the double, who was really an "operative" got aboard the plane, and instructed the pilot, once airborne, that they were to fly elsewhere, where a drone plane would then rise in place of AA11

TAM:)

~enigma~
4th August 2007, 04:33 PM
a drone plane would then rise in place of AA11
drone is a worker bee....ah damn, we came back to that bumble planes bs :)

chipmunk stew
4th August 2007, 04:45 PM
The fact that the 19 hijackers' movements can be traced up until 'round about September 2001, the fact that those movements place them together involved in activities that suggest planning for the 9/11 attacks, and the fact that none of them have been heard from since, all conspire against the hypothesis that they were working under false identities.

T.A.M.
4th August 2007, 04:55 PM
The fact that the 19 hijackers' (patsies) movements can be traced up until 'round about September 2001, the fact that those movements place them together involved in activities that suggest planning for the 9/11 attacks (goosechase), and the fact that none of them have been heard from since (killed off when their ids were taken), all conspire against the hypothesis that they were working under false identities.

Just thought I would answer (bracketed comments in your post) for the truthers...save us some time...

TAM:)

Foolmewunz
4th August 2007, 06:15 PM
http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/20050912/slide_20050912_101.jhtml

I think I know what the "A" in A-Train stands for.

Every time I see "A-Train", I start humming the old Duke Ellington/Billy Strayhorn classic, "Take the A Train"... Then I remember who A-Train is, and I segue out of jazz indulgence and slip into Henny Youngman mode....

"Take the A-Train. (pregnant pause) Please!"


(ETA: Sorry young 'uns! You may have to google Henny Youngman and Billy Strayhorn - I assume you all know who the Duke was... )

Par
4th August 2007, 06:22 PM
Every time I see "A-Train", I start humming the old Duke Ellington/Billy Strayhorn classic, "Take the A Train"... Then I remember who A-Train is, and I segue out of jazz indulgence and slip into Henny Youngman mode....

"Take the A-Train. (pregnant pause) Please!"


(ETA: Sorry young 'uns! You may have to google Henny Youngman and Billy Strayhorn - I assume you all know who the Duke was... )



I always thought he just meant “a train”; as in “he took a train to London”. I'd assumed he thought of himself as some sort of locomotive but didn’t feel like being overly specific.

Brainache
4th August 2007, 06:39 PM
And doesn't the A-Train take you to Harlem? Not a place I imagine our A-Train would be too comfortable.

A-Train
4th August 2007, 06:48 PM
Now Gravy,

you know A-Train is just gonna say the witness was mistaken, and that the double looked so similar to Atta, that he was fooled.

Then the double, who was really an "operative" got aboard the plane, and instructed the pilot, once airborne, that they were to fly elsewhere, where a drone plane would then rise in place of AA11


For the record, it is very possible that the real Mohammad Atta did board AAL11, having been manipulated there by conspirators who wanted to frame him for the terrorist act. The same is probably true of Satam Suqami, who was undoubtedly on the flight as well.

We know that when Betty Ong reported the seat numbers of the hijackers, Atta's number (9D) was not one of them. She also reported an "injured passenger" in seat 10B, occupied by Suqami.

So even if the real Atta and Suqami were on the flight, there is no evidence they participated in the hijacking, while there is evidence that they were there to play the role of scapegoat-- much in the same way that Lee Harvey Oswald was manipulated into the Texas Book Depository to be the patsy for the assassination of JFK.

Foolmewunz
4th August 2007, 06:52 PM
I always thought he just meant “a train”; as in “he took a train to London”. I'd assumed he thought of himself as some sort of locomotive but didn’t feel like being overly specific.

Maybe he's a New Yorker. The "A Train" is part of the old IND Line. They still use the same name, though. It's what lower Manhattanites used to call "the 8th Avenue Line or 8th Avenue IND". The song's a jazz/big band classic. Duke Ellington used it as his signature song for many years.

chipmunk stew
4th August 2007, 06:55 PM
Just thought I would answer (bracketed comments in your post) for the truthers...save us some time...

TAM:)
You forgot one:
The fact that the 19 hijackers' movements can be traced up until 'round about September 2001, the fact that those movements place them together involved in activities that suggest planning for the 9/11 attacks, and the fact that none of them have been heard from since, all conspire [OMGZ!!! CONSPIRACY!!!] against the hypothesis that they were working under false identities.

chipmunk stew
4th August 2007, 07:05 PM
So even if the real Atta and Suqami were on the flight, there is no evidence they participated in the hijacking, while there is evidence that they were there to play the role of scapegoat...
Their activities prior to 9/11 are solid evidence of premeditation. What evidence do you have that they were "scapegoats"?

Foolmewunz
4th August 2007, 07:07 PM
And doesn't the A-Train take you to Harlem? Not a place I imagine our A-Train would be too comfortable.

Last Derail on "A-Train" trivia, I promise!

If we only had a tour guide here. Bunches of engineer, scientists, doctors,, skeptics, experts, and debunkers, but what this board needs is a tour guide, I say!

Harlem's going through it's second renaissance. When "Take the A-Train" was written Harlem was in its prime. High society, as they referred to the upper crust back then, spent many evenings in the better clubs. It was only in the 60s and later that Harlem became synonymous with "dangerous black ghetto". Even then, I used to take trains through Harlem to the Bronx all the time, and played tennis on my school team on courts waaay up in the depths of the area.

Now, it's becoming a middle class area like the rest of Manhattan. True, it's largely black, still. And equally true, there are still some rough areas. But it's no longer the meanest part of the mean streets.

A-Train
4th August 2007, 07:29 PM
Isn't the song supposed to have lyrics? Why do so many versions have no singing, just instrumental? Do any Duke Ellington versions have singing?

It's a good song.

Thunder
4th August 2007, 07:34 PM
A -Train: other then some one on the flights having some sort of vague israeli connection, is there any other logical explenation for who may have hijacked the planes..other then the 19 arabs?

no.

Redtail
4th August 2007, 07:41 PM
Isn't the song supposed to have lyrics? Why do so many versions have no singing, just instrumental? Do any Duke Ellington versions have singing?

It's a good song.

Yes they do. I had to sing it in a show recently and had to sing part of it while I was playing it on the record player it was Ellington with Ella Fitzgerald. If you can find it I highly recommend it.

T.A.M.
4th August 2007, 07:42 PM
For the record, it is very possible that the real Mohammad Atta did board AAL11, having been manipulated there by conspirators who wanted to frame him for the terrorist act. The same is probably true of Satam Suqami, who was undoubtedly on the flight as well.

We know that when Betty Ong reported the seat numbers of the hijackers, Atta's number (9D) was not one of them. She also reported an "injured passenger" in seat 10B, occupied by Suqami.

So even if the real Atta and Suqami were on the flight, there is no evidence they participated in the hijacking, while there is evidence that they were there to play the role of scapegoat-- much in the same way that Lee Harvey Oswald was manipulated into the Texas Book Depository to be the patsy for the assassination of JFK.


ok, so lets assume the hijackers got aboard the planes, but were simply pawns in it all...then what happened? Who crashed the planes?

TAM:)

A-Train
5th August 2007, 07:12 AM
ok, so lets assume the hijackers got aboard the planes, but were simply pawns in it all...then what happened? Who crashed the planes?

A -Train: other then some one on the flights having some sort of vague israeli connection, is there any other logical explenation for who may have hijacked the planes..other then the 19 arabs? -Parky76Yes. The planes were hijacked by professional agents working for a foreign state who had an interest in framing Arabs for 9/11 so as to draw an enraged America into wars against this foreign state's Muslim enemies. Some of the hijackers on each team were dark-skinned, so as to look like the Arabs whose identities they had assumed; one or two of the other hijackers would have been very clean cut and American-looking, so as to easily gain the trust of the plane's crew and thus gain access to the cockpit.

After commandeering the plane, and perhaps shooting the pilots with the guns we know the hijackers had, they may have flown the planes themselves into their targets; but it is far more likely that the planes were then quickly rigged for remote navigation to be flown to their targets by remote control. The professional agents then, who of course are not known for suicide missions, may very well have exited the planes using parachutes, and may be alive and among us today.

I've discussed this all before on this forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2326173#post2326173

If you go to this post and follow the thread, you will come to another post where I quote former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrar's book where he details how parachuting out of moving airliners is a routine maneuver for SEALS and other elite commando units around the world.

T.A.M.
5th August 2007, 07:27 AM
OMG...ok, end of discussion with you...

You should consider screenwriting...lol

TAM:)

Reheat
5th August 2007, 07:36 AM
The professional agents then, who of course are not known for suicide missions, may very well have exited the planes using parachutes, and may be alive and among us today.

[snip]

If you go to this post and follow the thread, you will come to another post where I quote former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrar's book where he details how parachuting out of moving airliners is a routine maneuver for SEALS and other elite commando units around the world.

Very interesting. I'm curious; which door would they exit on a 757/767. How do they deal with decompression?

Foolmewunz
5th August 2007, 07:56 AM
Yes. The planes were hijacked by professional agents working for a foreign state who had an interest in framing Arabs for 9/11 so as to draw an enraged America into wars against this foreign state's Muslim enemies. Some of the hijackers on each team were dark-skinned, so as to look like the Arabs whose identities they had assumed; one or two of the other hijackers would have been very clean cut and American-looking, so as to easily gain the trust of the plane's crew and thus gain access to the cockpit.

After commandeering the plane, and perhaps shooting the pilots with the guns we know the hijackers had, they may have flown the planes themselves into their targets; but it is far more likely that the planes were then quickly rigged for remote navigation to be flown to their targets by remote control. The professional agents then, who of course are not known for suicide missions, may very well have exited the planes using parachutes, and may be alive and among us today.

I've discussed this all before on this forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2326173#post2326173

If you go to this post and follow the thread, you will come to another post where I quote former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrar's book where he details how parachuting out of moving airliners is a routine maneuver for SEALS and other elite commando units around the world.

What foreign state would that be? Hmmm?
Ghana?
Australia?
Switzerland?
Sri Lanka?

With guns we know they had??? Who's we, and what evidence do "we" have to show that they had guns? (Oh, I know... that's alternate theory #703 - they had cohorts in airport security, the catering crews, and/or among the flight crews.)

So how were these passenger aircraft equipped for jumping? Was there a jump ramp in the washroom? Maybe a roll-down window in the cockpit?

And where'd they jump out of the first flight, by the way? It came down the Hudson River, over a rush hour population of about four million.

twinstead
5th August 2007, 08:13 AM
Ah, let's take a ride on the A-Train to woowooville...

All aaaaboooooooooorrrrrd! toot toot.

chipmunk stew
5th August 2007, 08:35 AM
Yes. The planes were hijacked by professional agents working for a foreign state who had an interest in framing Arabs for 9/11 so as to draw an enraged America into wars against this foreign state's Muslim enemies. Some of the hijackers on each team were dark-skinned, so as to look like the Arabs whose identities they had assumed; one or two of the other hijackers would have been very clean cut and American-looking, so as to easily gain the trust of the plane's crew and thus gain access to the cockpit.
How do you fit the trail of evidence of premeditation into your Innocent Arabs theory?

Dave_46
5th August 2007, 08:35 AM
<snip>
How do you know there was a fire in the building, if the alarm system did not record it?

<snip>

The flames and smoke are a bit of a givaway.

Dave

Viper Daimao
5th August 2007, 08:53 AM
the planes were then quickly rigged for remote navigation to be flown to their targets by remote control.

How do you slowly, much less quickly rig a passenger plane to do this?

A-Train
5th August 2007, 08:55 AM
Very interesting. I'm curious; which door would they exit on a 757/767. How do they deal with decompression?

In the following post, I quote from Pfarrar's book regarding the details of jumping from an airliner. There are numerous doors on the cargo holds on the bottom of a 757/767 that could have been used.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2339966#post2339966

A-Train
5th August 2007, 09:01 AM
How do you fit the trail of evidence of premeditation into your Innocent Arabs theory?

Your problem is that the "evidence of premeditation" is actually the collective actions of a group of individuals whose identities are not known. There were indeed a group of people using various Arab identities running around the US in the months leading to 9/11 that would seem to implicate them as planning the operation-- doing such things as training in flight schools and working out in gyms. The problem is that, just as in the case of the hijackers, we have no idea if these people were Arabs, or professional agents who had simply assumed the stolen identities of Arabs.

A-Train
5th August 2007, 09:12 AM
With guns we know they had??? Who's we, and what evidence do "we" have to show that they had guns? (Oh, I know... that's alternate theory #703 - they had cohorts in airport security, the catering crews, and/or among the flight crews.)

This has all been debated in the thread I mentioned above. Tom Burnett's calls from UAL93 is solid evidence of guns. Then there is the FAA report filed on the day of 9/11 based on Betty Ong's call stating that a passenger had been "shot." Then there is the simple circumstance of the extreme unlikelihood of hijackers being able to overcome eight pilots on four flights using only knives, without any of the crew being able to notify ATC in any way that a hijack was in progress.

The hijackers had guns. You can bet the farm on that.

So how were these passenger aircraft equipped for jumping? Was there a jump ramp in the washroom? Maybe a roll-down window in the cockpit?

Read the quote from Chuck Pfarrar's book I linked to above. Or buy the book. Everything is explained.

And where'd they jump out of the first flight, by the way? It came down the Hudson River, over a rush hour population of about four million.

There is no evidence showing the hijackers still on AAL11 for the last 10-15 minutes of flight. They could have bailed out somewhere in the Hudson valley area.

Regnad Kcin
5th August 2007, 09:14 AM
...So even if the real Atta and Suqami were on the flight, there is no evidence they participated in the hijacking, while there is evidence that they were there to play the role of scapegoat-- much in the same way that Lee Harvey Oswald was manipulated into the Texas Book Depository to be the patsy for the assassination of JFK.Now I see the reasoning behind the A "Train" nom de plume. Like the lonesome sound of the steam whistle blowin': wooooooo.

ETA: Curse you, twinstead!

twinstead
5th August 2007, 09:24 AM
I'm fascinated by A-Train's debate style. With enough imagination and a touch of ideological bias, anything can be made to be a conspiracy, and every challenge to that conspiracy can be explained away.

It's especially interesting how improbable can become likely, and the impossible can become possible, all by just making stuff up.

So it's frustrating to debate people who can unapologetically do that, you say? :rolleyes:

twinstead
5th August 2007, 09:25 AM
ETA: Curse you, twinstead!

Ha. You snooze, you lose ;)

Galileo
5th August 2007, 09:28 AM
Here's a photo of the REAL 'A-Train'!

http://www.artisgilmore.com/

A-Train UNMASKED!

Galileo
5th August 2007, 09:36 AM
Here's a photo of the REAL 'A-Train'!

http://www.artisgilmore.com/

A-Train UNMASKED!

Reheat
5th August 2007, 09:40 AM
In the following post, I quote from Pfarrar's book regarding the details of jumping from an airliner. There are numerous doors on the cargo holds on the bottom of a 757/767 that could have been used.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2339966#post2339966

I see. Well, you haven't explained how a parachutist would get from the passenger compartment into the cargo hold. Nor have you explained how decompression is handled. All I see is general BS about Cooper's jump and the "Navy Seal" saying it could be done, but no explanation of HOW.

I'm just dying to know how the two areas above would be handled. Surely, you've solved that problem?

twinstead
5th August 2007, 09:43 AM
I'm just dying to know how the two areas above would be handled. Surely, you've solved that problem?

Do you really think he couldn't make something up that solves those issues?

Reheat
5th August 2007, 09:55 AM
Do you really think he couldn't make something up that solves those issues?

Ssssshhh! He needs to answer.....

jhunter1163
5th August 2007, 10:00 AM
Here's a photo of the REAL 'A-Train'!

http://www.artisgilmore.com/

A-Train UNMASKED!

Does anyone else think those Afros in the 70's were a bit, ah, overstated?

SpitfireIX
5th August 2007, 10:01 AM
For the record, it is very possible that the real Mohammad Atta did board AAL11, having been manipulated there by conspirators who wanted to frame him for the terrorist act. The same is probably true of Satam Suqami, who was undoubtedly on the flight as well.

We know that when Betty Ong reported the seat numbers of the hijackers, Atta's number (9D) was not one of them. She also reported an "injured passenger" in seat 10B, occupied by Suqami.

So even if the real Atta and Suqami were on the flight, there is no evidence they participated in the hijacking, while there is evidence that they were there to play the role of scapegoat-- much in the same way that Lee Harvey Oswald was manipulated into the Texas Book Depository to be the patsy for the assassination of JFK.


I came across the following post when reserching my response. Firestone answered this for you a few months ago, A-Train, but you conveniently ignore the answer you were given, in the interest of continuing to proclaim the existence of a Zionist conspiracy, the evidence be damned.


It is of course outrageous that you qualify Daniel Lewin as a "victim".
Nothing very original here.

However, as usual, what you consider an indisputable fact turns out to be quite disputable.
First, as you already admitted, Betty Ong didn't name Lewin as being one of the hijackers.

What Ong said is that the hijackers were seated in seats 2A, 2B, 9A and 9B.

The published (not official) flight manifests (see here (http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif) and here (http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_11_passengers.html), once more thanks to Mike from 911myths for saving money for my employer) have the following relevant entries:

2A: Wail M. Alshehri
2B: Waleed M. Alshehri
8D: Mohamed Atta
8G: Abdulaziz Alomari
10B: Satam M.A. Al Suqami

9A: Edmund Glazer
9B: Daniel C Lewin

9D: empty
9G: empty

So, the hijackers should be the Alshehri's, Glazer and Lewin, according to Ong.

Of course, you leave out information that you don't like.

Betty Ong wasn't the only flight attendant giving information about the hijackers. Amy Sweeney (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a820sweeneyphone) too said where some hijackers were seated.
She said 9D, 9G and 10B.

So the hijackers should be two empty seats and Al Suqami according to Sweeney.
Sweeney also reported that the stabbed passenger was in 9B, ie Daniel Lewin.

Of course you totally ignore Sweeney's information.

That Ong and Sweeney don't tell the same thing probably means that the two women were confused. Given the circumstances that is very understandable.

Finally, you use the original FAA-report (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/faa911memoside.jpg) as evidence for the use of a gun on Flight 11. The report states: "... a passenger located in seat 10B shot and killed a passenger in seat 9B at 9:20 a.m. The passenger killed was Daniel Lewin, shot by passenger Satam Al Suqami. "
(Note that the time is wrong.)
So, according to this report, Al Suqami killed Lewin, not the other way around.

Really, A-Train, all you do is cherry pick information, ignoring most facts, and blowing up those that suit you.

Standard CT, saddly ...


See also the attached seating chart for American 11. Also note that Sweeney and Ong were working coach class that day; they undoubtedly got the information about where the hijackers were seated second-hand, increasing the chance of a miscommunication.

Hans
5th August 2007, 10:05 AM
Question for A-Train or the other fine fellows:

What would be the procedure and method to access the cargo hold of a 727 and 737? How is the exit point open? Can it be opened while the aircraft is flying?

A-Train
5th August 2007, 10:37 AM
I came across the following post when reserching my response. Firestone answered this for you a few months ago, A-Train, but you conveniently ignore the answer you were given, in the interest of continuing to proclaim the existence of a Zionist conspiracy, the evidence be damned.

I don't follow you at all. I dealt with all of Firestone's points in the previous thread. Ong did indeed list the seat numbers for Lewin (Sayerat Metkal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayeret_Matkal) veteran), Glazer, and "Wail and Waleed al-Shehhri." Except that the two al-Shehhri brothers were later found alive and well in the Middle East, meaning that their seats were occupied by persons who had assumed their identities.

It is true that Ong's seat numbers differ from Sweeney's. But Sweeney specifically stated that the seat numbers she was giving did not match the seat assignments on the tickets. Ong said no such thing. Furthermore, Sweeney's phone call was not recorded, and was reworked into a transcript with the help of FBI agents-- all of which works against its credibility.

The FAA report does indeed say that Lewin, not Suqami, was the one shot. But what else are they going to conclude? Is some bureaucrat at the FAA really going to write a report saying that an American businessman shot an Arab on AAL11? Of course not. Ong's call reported an "injured passenger" in Suqami's seat (10B). It's ridiculous to conclude from that that Suqami shot Lewin-- but what else can you expect them to say?

SpitfireIX
5th August 2007, 10:40 AM
<snip>

There is no evidence showing the hijackers still on AAL11 for the last 10-15 minutes of flight. They could have bailed out somewhere in the Hudson valley area.


:dl: :dl: :dl:

A-Train, are you honestly so ignorant that you think it's possible to successfully parachute from any jet airliner other that a 727??


beachnut explained this to you in the same thread as Firestone explained the seat-number confusion; why do you persist in embarrassing yourself by repeatedly spouting such absurdities??

SpitfireIX
5th August 2007, 10:43 AM
Question for A-Train or the other fine fellows:

What would be the procedure and method to access the cargo hold of a 727 and 737? How is the exit point open? Can it be opened while the aircraft is flying?


You mean a 757 and a 767, don't you, Hans?

Hans
5th August 2007, 10:52 AM
Yes Spitfire, I meant 757 and 767, getting my sevens mixed up

Minadin
5th August 2007, 11:03 AM
Here's a photo of the REAL 'A-Train'!

http://www.artisgilmore.com/

A-Train UNMASKED!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253246b610ae6370f.jpg

Ouch.

Reheat
5th August 2007, 11:11 AM
There are numerous doors on the cargo holds on the bottom of a 757/767 that could have been used.

Since you obviously are fantasizing, I'll tell you how they bailed out of a 757/767.

They concealed metal saws in their carry on luggage and used those saws to gain access into the cargo compartment where they had previously stored rocket powered cocoons. They knew that it would likely be impossible to open the cargo access doors in flight, so they again used the saws to cut a hole for the rocket powered cocoons to blast their way clear of the slipstream that would have otherwise banged them against the side of the aircraft making their survival questionable.

They would likely have done this after the aircraft was a lower altitude in order to avoid the decompression problem. They had to work very quickly to accomplish this, but had practiced it as a team until it was perfected.

Now, your fantasy is complete! ;)

(For all others, the B-727 is the only commercial airliner that could be safely exited during flight. The exit would be from the rear air stairs!)

Hans
5th August 2007, 11:16 AM
Reheat

Thanks for the information. So there is no access from the flight compartment into the cargo area?

The cargo area access areas cannot be opened in flight?

Reheat
5th August 2007, 11:26 AM
Reheat

Thanks for the information. So there is no access from the flight compartment into the cargo area?

Not one that is large enough for a human body.


The cargo area access areas cannot be opened in flight?

I would not volunteer to try it. :D

I do not believe there is any way to even unlatch them from inside the hold...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2005_March_28/ai_n13490592

Reality Believer
5th August 2007, 11:30 AM
...
(For all others, the B-727 is the only commercial airliner that could be safely exited during flight. The exit would be from the rear air stairs!)

The MD-80 / DC-9 also has ventral stairs, but as far as we know DB Cooper prefers Boeing :)

Hans
5th August 2007, 11:30 AM
That is what I suspected. I noted that A-Train glossed over those important details and that made me think it probably wasn't possible.

A W Smith
5th August 2007, 12:10 PM
For the record, it is very possible that the real Mohammad Atta did board AAL11, having been manipulated there by conspirators who wanted to frame him for the terrorist act. The same is probably true of Satam Suqami, who was undoubtedly on the flight as well.

We know that when Betty Ong reported the seat numbers of the hijackers, Atta's number (9D) was not one of them. She also reported an "injured passenger" in seat 10B, occupied by Suqami.

So even if the real Atta and Suqami were on the flight, there is no evidence they participated in the hijacking, while there is evidence that they were there to play the role of scapegoat-- much in the same way that Lee Harvey Oswald was manipulated into the Texas Book Depository to be the patsy for the assassination of JFK.

it would be difficult if not impossible to pilot the plane from seat 9-D now wouldnt it? I know i know. when they passed out brains you thought they said trains

A-Train
5th August 2007, 12:26 PM
Reheat

Thanks for the information. So there is no access from the flight compartment into the cargo area?

The cargo area access areas cannot be opened in flight?

Keep in mind, Hans, we are not talking about you or I trying to pull this off. What you have to ask yourself is would it be possible for such a maneuver to be pulled off by highly trained professionals, with the backing of a state military and intelligence apparatus, to be able to do this after a great deal of planning and preparation.

Do you really think that the maneuver described by Chuck Pfarrar is doable on a 727, but is somehow completely impossible on 757/767?

By the way, there appear to be numerous potential exit points from a 767:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arff767.pdf

defaultdotxbe
5th August 2007, 12:52 PM
a-train:

would it be possible for a small but determined group of men to gain control of an aircraft in flight?

A W Smith
5th August 2007, 12:56 PM
Keep in mind, Hans, we are not talking about you or I trying to pull this off. What you have to ask yourself is would it be possible for such a maneuver to be pulled off by highly trained professionals, with the backing of a state military and intelligence apparatus, to be able to do this after a great deal of planning and preparation.

Do you really think that the maneuver described by Chuck Pfarrar is doable on a 727, but is somehow completely impossible on 757/767?

By the way, there appear to be numerous potential exit points from a 767:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arff767.pdf

Your conspiracy is involving more and more people now. You are flailing as you are failing. Give up. It is unworkable and impossible to keep such a vast complicated conspiracy secret. Of course in your adolescence it is impossible for you to rationalize this. Over the course of a lifetime you will witness even the smallest of secrets held by the government revealed and heads roll. You will witness the inept in politicians, The military, Law enforcement, the FBI, CIA, and public works strive to find dirt on their peers in an effort to climb just one rung above them. No sane group of power brokers would ever attempt such a plot for what little gain. I can see this as nothing more than a role playing game for adolescents and the immature. An attempt to match wits with adults and professionals in an "it COULD happen" game of charades.

A-Train
5th August 2007, 01:10 PM
Now, your fantasy is complete! ;)

(For all others, the B-727 is the only commercial airliner that could be safely exited during flight. The exit would be from the rear air stairs!)

It's funny, for many frustrating months, I logged on to various forums to suggest the possibility that the 9/11 hijackers had bailed out with parachutes. Over and over I was told, by pilots, mechanics, parachutists, etc., that it is absolutely impossible to bail out of a moving airliner. No way, no how. There's no way out of the plane, I was told. You'd be killed the instant you jumped out, etc. And of course, I was an idiot for even suggesting it...

Then I stumbled upon the above mentioned passage from the book proving that such a maneuver is not only possible, but is a routine procedure for SEALS and other elite commando units.

Now I am being told that yes, it is possible to bail out from some kinds of airliners-- but it is certainly absolutely impossible to do so from the 757s and 767s used on 9/11...

Give it up, you guys. Concede the fact that it is theoretically possible that whoever hijacked the four planes on 9/11 may have successfully bailed out from the planes and lived to tell about it.

Corsair 115
5th August 2007, 01:27 PM
Concede the fact that it is theoretically possible that whoever hijacked the four planes on 9/11 may have successfully bailed out from the planes and lived to tell about it.I think, A-Train, you need to consider the difference between what is theoretically possible and what is possible as a practical matter. All manner of things are theoretically possible. What's possible in a practical and realistic sense is quite another.

Would you trust a procedure which is possible theoretically but has a very low chance of a being possible realistically?

twinstead
5th August 2007, 01:42 PM
The problem, A-Train, is that you seem to think that all something has to be to be true is to be possible.

True and possible can be two different things. What is important is what evidence you have that something happened.

Reheat
5th August 2007, 01:44 PM
Then I stumbled upon the above mentioned passage from the book proving that such a maneuver is not only possible, but is a routine procedure for SEALS and other elite commando units.

No, this PROVES nothing except that the author said what he did and you swallowed it "hook, line, sinker, and rod".


Now I am being told that yes, it is possible to bail out from some kinds of airliners-- but it is certainly absolutely impossible to do so from the 757s and 767s used on 9/11...

Give it up, you guys. Concede the fact that it is theoretically possible that whoever hijacked the four planes on 9/11 may have successfully bailed out from the planes and lived to tell about it.

Yea, just as it is theoretically possible you would admit this is all a POPPYCOCK fantasy and that you would shut your naive adolescent mouth!:boggled:

defaultdotxbe
5th August 2007, 01:45 PM
Then I stumbled upon the above mentioned passage from the book proving that such a maneuver is not only possible, but is a routine procedure for SEALS and other elite commando units.
i dont think id call it routine, the only reference i can find is from the book you quoted, however reading further, into the section you didnt quote, he describes the preparations necessary for such a jump, which required crew to remain on the aircraft to close the tail ramp after jumping (who stayed on flight 11?) also, he specifically mentions the aircraft was a 727, and that they went out the rear staircase (seems a "DB Cooper" operation uses DB Coopers exit, whodathunkit)

so do you have any evidence that it would be possible or feasible to jump from the side hatches in a 767? or is that merely assumption on your part?

A W Smith
5th August 2007, 02:07 PM
A Train. Why not book a flight and try it? Thats it. Roll them dice (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881550000)and give it a go!:rolleyes:

SpitfireIX
5th August 2007, 03:51 PM
In the following post, I quote from Pfarrar's book regarding the details of jumping from an airliner. There are numerous doors on the cargo holds on the bottom of a 757/767 that could have been used.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2339966#post2339966


Here is the chapter (http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=191806) in question. First, Pfarrar states that the SEALS always have the cooperation of the airline they're using (positioning of equipment, preparing access, ignoring oversize carry-ons, etc.). Second, the airliners' holds would have been loaded with standard containers (http://www.skymartworldwide.com/t_help_airfreightcontainerspecs.htm) full of luggage and air freight, making access to the cargo doors impossible even if "they" could get to the lower deck. Finally, if you read the chapter, in the exercise Pfarrar mentions, the aircraft they jump out of is (drumroll) a 727. :rolleyes:

Hans
5th August 2007, 04:03 PM
So A-Train please explain, in detail and with diagrams how a 'team' could after taking over an aircraft (757-767 only) enter into the cargo area, open an access door and leap out. Nothing theoretical, explain EXACTLY how they would do this.

I don't think you've thought this thru.

Unless you are now going to claim that the aircraft were modified prior to 911? Is that the next necessary add-on to keep this idea from self destructing?

Foolmewunz
5th August 2007, 04:24 PM
A-Train,

Do you have anything to say on the topic of this thread. It was resuscitated by Galileo, and loony as he may be, at least he had something to say on the topic of Barry Jennings, DA, & AJ.

I don't want to see mod warnings (hate those interruptions) but I'm curious if you have anything other than your elite commando unit fantasies to discuss.

SpitfireIX
5th August 2007, 04:24 PM
Keep in mind, Hans, we are not talking about you or I trying to pull this off. What you have to ask yourself is would it be possible for such a maneuver to be pulled off by highly trained professionals, with the backing of a state military and intelligence apparatus, to be able to do this after a great deal of planning and preparation.


With no cooperation from the airline, and without the flight attendants' noticing that they'd left the plane. :rolleyes:

Do you really think that the maneuver described by Chuck Pfarrar is doable on a 727, but is somehow completely impossible on 757/767?


As stated, it might not be completely impossible, but it would be extremely risky. More on that following.

By the way, there appear to be numerous potential exit points from a 767:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arff767.pdf


First, N334AA (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N334AA&distinct_entry=true) and N612UA (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N612UA&distinct_entry=true) only had 3 sets of passenger doors, including one set of over-wing emergency exits.

Second, any door one jumps out of is likely to result in a) a collision with either the fuselage, a wing, or a stabilizer; or b) one's being sucked into an engine. The rear cargo door does look like the best bet, but, as noted, "they" wouldn't have been able to get to it because their way would have been blocked by cargo containers. Even then there would still have been substantial risk. And if even one man hits part of the airframe or an engine, not only is he dead (and then you have a body that died of blunt-force trauma wearing a parachute that may well be discovered, plus the collision would be quite likely to seriously damage the aircraft and jeopardize its mission). This chance has to be taken four or five times for each aircraft. Who in his right mind would risk such a plan??

Finally, unless "they" jumped from below 8,000 ft, the cabin would have depressurized, and the flight attendants would have noticed.

Hans
5th August 2007, 05:32 PM
Howdy Spitfire

A-Train is going to have to claim that the aircraft were especially modified prior to 911 to get out of this cul-de-sac.

T.A.M.
5th August 2007, 05:44 PM
I am no pilot, but as a physician, I can tell you that jumping out of a CRUISING Jet Airliner would almost certainly result in severe injury or death...here is why...

The altitude of cruising, 5-6 miles up, would leave you with NO OXYGEN, and exposed to extremely low temperatures. We are not talking sky diving at 10,000 feet from a sesna folks....

TAM:)

Par
5th August 2007, 05:57 PM
Second, any door one jumps out of is likely to result in a) a collision with either the fuselage, a wing, or a stabilizer; or b) one's being sucked into an engine. The rear cargo door does look like the best bet, but, as noted, "they" wouldn't have been able to get to it because their way would have been blocked by cargo containers. Even then there would still have been substantial risk. And if even one man hits part of the airframe or an engine, not only is he dead (and then you have a body that died of blunt-force trauma wearing a parachute that may well be discovered, plus the collision would be quite likely to seriously damage the aircraft and jeopardize its mission). This chance has to be taken four or five times for each aircraft. Who in his right mind would risk such a plan??

Finally, unless "they" jumped from below 8,000 ft, the cabin would have depressurized, and the flight attendants would have noticed.



I hope you realise that all this means is that this “train” fellow will just build a lot of further factors into the conspiracy to account for all these problems. Perhaps he’ll claim they snuck into the plane the day before and carved a little secret airlock door with a Dremel. Perhaps he’ll just claim that they Jewed right through it.

The Doc
5th August 2007, 06:03 PM
Even if you do prove that it is possible to bail from a 757 or a 767 in mid-flight, you then still have to prove that this happened on 9/11. All you've got is pure speculation dude.

SpitfireIX
5th August 2007, 06:03 PM
I am no pilot, but as a physician, I can tell you that jumping out of a CRUISING Jet Airliner would almost certainly result in severe injury or death...here is why...

The altitude of cruising, 5-6 miles up, would leave you with NO OXYGEN, and exposed to extremely low temperatures. We are not talking sky diving at 10,000 feet from a sesna folks....

TAM:)


It can be done with HALO/HAHO equipment, but that would have to either be carried aboard the aircraft somehow or checked as baggage and retrieved from the cargo hold (and charged oxygen cylinders were prohibited items even before September 11, 2001, I believe).

T.A.M.
5th August 2007, 06:16 PM
It can be done with HALO/HAHO equipment, but that would have to either be carried aboard the aircraft somehow or checked as baggage and retrieved from the cargo hold (and charged oxygen cylinders were prohibited items even before September 11, 2001, I believe).

Yes I kind of figured there would be some form of EQUIPMENT that could allow you to survive such...like a space suit...lol, but getting that aboard said plane, and then accessing it...well now that is the stuff of action/adventure movies...

TAM:)

Cl1mh4224rd
5th August 2007, 06:32 PM
Now I am being told that yes, it is possible to bail out from some kinds of airliners-- but it is certainly absolutely impossible to do so from the 757s and 767s used on 9/11...


Earth and Jupiter are both planets. It's possible for humans to breath in Earth-like atmospheres. That doesn't mean it's possible for humans to breath in Jupiter-like atmospheres.

Corsair 115
5th August 2007, 09:56 PM
I am no pilot, but as a physician, I can tell you that jumping out of a CRUISING Jet Airliner would almost certainly result in severe injury or death...here is why...

The altitude of cruising, 5-6 miles up, would leave you with NO OXYGEN, and exposed to extremely low temperatures.There is also the further complication that a passenger jet generally cruises at a speed of 500-550 miles per hour. Jumping out into that kind of wind blast is sure to do some physical damage to the person doing the jumping.

You could slow the jet down before jumping out, but only to a point. I'm not sure what the exact stall speed is of a 757 or 767 at cruising altitude, but I'm sure it'd still be a fairly considerable rate of speed.

boloboffin
5th August 2007, 10:05 PM
I'm not looking through an 18 page thread to see if this has already been posted. Bleh! But I thought you all should see this -- the LC:FC screening on 9/10/07 is now being described by His Dylanness as a "test screening."

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13327

But the faithful get to see the "premiere" of Alex Jones' "Endgame," so no disappointment, right?

Reheat
5th August 2007, 10:16 PM
There is also the further complication that a passenger jet generally cruises at a speed of 500-550 miles per hour. Jumping out into that kind of wind blast is sure to do some physical damage to the person doing the jumping.

You could slow the jet down before jumping out, but only to a point. I'm not sure what the exact stall speed is of a 757 or 767 at cruising altitude, but I'm sure it'd still be a fairly considerable rate of speed.


I'm not sure why we are even discussing this issue seriously any more. It is not just absurd, it's buffoonery! :D

9/11 Chewy Defense
6th August 2007, 05:32 AM
If A-Train is suggesting that the 9/11 Hijackers bailed out of a fairly fast moving plane going 500 mph I would think in my mind of all those Lemmings that would just jump off cliffs and into the water. Only to drown or get eatten by underwater creatures.

So if it did happen then why haven't a few of the passenger planes that were following them notice something drifting into the wind? It would be stupid to jump out of a plane at 500 mph. Jet fighters have ejection seats mounted inside the cockpit and that's the only way to get out in time and safely.

Galileo
7th August 2007, 11:50 AM
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253246b610ae6370f.jpg

Ouch.

When will this forum tackle the REAL issue, the conspiracy to keep Artis 'A-Train" Gilmore OUT of the Basketball Hall-of-Fame.

Artis was a giant, with a giant afro and giant sideburns and had OVER 20,000 REBOUNDS!

This man belongs in the Hall-of-Fame pronto!

Artis and the Hall of Fame
"What the experts are saying about Artis"

BOB VALVANO'S RADIO INTERVIEW WITH ARTIS - CLICK HERE

Subscribe to
Artis' Mailing List

Name:

State / Country:

E-mail Address:

HALL OF FAME?
READ WHY THE EXPERTS SAY YES...
CLICK on the articles listed below and learn why the experts say that Artis Gilmore is long overdue for enshrinement in the Basketball Hall Of Fame.

• HALL OF FAME STILL NEGLECTING A FEW GREATS - ESPN - BY KEN SHOULER

• BEST PRO HOOPSTERS NOT IN THE HALL OF FAME - ESPN PAGE 2

• IT'S TIME FOR THE A-TRAIN TO MAKE A STOP AT THE HALL - BY BRETT BALLANTINI

• ATHLON'S 50 GREATEST NBA PLAYERS

• BASKETBALLREFERENCE.COM - HALL OF FAME MONITOR

• GILMOR STILL WAITING FOR HIS HALL PASS - GENE FRENETTE, THE TIMES-UNION

http://www.artisgilmore.com/Artis_Hall_of_Fame.html

beachnut
7th August 2007, 11:59 AM
When will this forum tackle the REAL issue, the conspiracy to keep Artis 'A-Train" Gilmore OUT of the Basketball Hall-of-Fame.

HALL OF FAME?
READ WHY THE EXPERTS SAY YES...
CLICK on the articles listed below and learn why the experts say that Artis Gilmore is long overdue for enshrinement in the Basketball Hall Of Fame.

• HALL OF FAME STILL NEGLECTING A FEW GREATS - ESPN - BY KEN SHOULER

• IT'S TIME FOR THE A-TRAIN TO MAKE A STOP AT THE HALL - BY BRETT BALLANTINI

• BASKETBALLREFERENCE.COM - HALL OF FAME MONITOR
As expected, no facts on 9/11.

Galileo
7th August 2007, 12:22 PM
As expected, no facts on 9/11.

The Artis Gilmore conspiracy is just the tip of the iceberg!

There is also a conspiracy to keep RON SANTO out of the Baseball Hall-of-Fame!

Santo for Hall
http://www.santoforhall.com/

What's more, there is also a conspiracy keeping Galileo and Origen Adamantius from being canonized into SAINTS of the Holy Catholic Church.

This needs to stop now.

Galileo
8th August 2007, 09:47 AM
Why wasn't the fire alarm, that was turned off at 6:47 a.m., turned back on promptly?

The CIA had an office in WTC 7. Wasn't this a breach of security?

It was reported that no firefighting was attempted in WTC 7 because "it was too dangerous".

Well, now we know why it was too dangerous, there was a huge explosion in the building around 9 a.m., as reported by Barry Jennings a few hours later in TV interviews.

Corsair 115
8th August 2007, 02:10 PM
Well, now we know why it was too dangerous, there was a huge explosion in the building around 9 a.m., as reported by Barry Jennings a few hours later in TV interviews.Really? Can you then explain why none of the many television, newspaper, and radio reporters in the WTC area after the first jet impact did not report such an explosion in Building #7 after it had occurred? At least, I can't recall ever seeing or hearing such a report on that day.

Galileo
8th August 2007, 02:44 PM
Really? Can you then explain why none of the many television, newspaper, and radio reporters in the WTC area after the first jet impact did not report such an explosion in Building #7 after it had occurred? At least, I can't recall ever seeing or hearing such a report on that day.

Barry Jennings reported it right on TV that day.

Par
8th August 2007, 02:53 PM
Well, now we know why it was too dangerous, there was a huge explosion in the building around 9 a.m., as reported by Barry Jennings a few hours later in TV interviews.



Do you have any evidence that that was the reason it was said to be too dangerous?

Galileo
8th August 2007, 03:49 PM
Do you have any evidence that that was the reason it was said to be too dangerous?

Yes, Barry Jennings told the firemen who rescued him about the huge explosion in the building.

Corsair 115
8th August 2007, 04:04 PM
Barry Jennings reported it right on TV that day.And how about all the many other reporters working for other media outlets? How come they couldn't hear this explosion and report on it?

Galileo
8th August 2007, 04:26 PM
And how about all the many other reporters working for other media outlets? How come they couldn't hear this explosion and report on it?

The explosion occurred inside WTC 7 near the east stairwell, 6th floor, too far away from the windows to be seen.

This was at the time the Twin Towers were burning, and hundreds of people were hearing, feeling, and seeing explosions over there.

WTC 7 was being evacuated as well.

Not much attention was being paid to WTC 7 at that time.

Not much attention has been paid to it since, and that includes the 9/11 Commission.

DGM
8th August 2007, 04:34 PM
The explosion occurred inside WTC 7 near the east stairwell, 6th floor, too far away from the windows to be seen.

This was at the time the Twin Towers were burning, and hundreds of people were hearing, feeling, and seeing explosions over there.

WTC 7 was being evacuated as well.

Not much attention was being paid to WTC 7 at that time.

Not much attention has been paid to it since, and that includes the 9/11 Commission.
A member of this forum NDBoston was there in the building at the time and disagrees. Why don't you ask him what he thinks?

Foolmewunz
8th August 2007, 04:41 PM
The explosion occurred inside WTC 7 near the east stairwell, 6th floor, too far away from the windows to be seen.

This was at the time the Twin Towers were burning, and hundreds of people were hearing, feeling, and seeing explosions over there.

WTC 7 was being evacuated as well.

Not much attention was being paid to WTC 7 at that time.

Not much attention has been paid to it since, and that includes the 9/11 Commission.

Argument from incredulity time:
Dude, do you have any idea how many people were on the street at that time looking up at WTC 1? They were not hearing explosions from the twenty floors of the tower, and they certainly would have noticed and reported on any explosion right beside them on Vesey St or W. Broadway. An explosion strong enough to take out stairwells and parts of floors is going to make some major noise. Or were they using the infamous hush-a-bomb technology?
Further, since the news reported any car backfire or errant radio message about trucks being stopped as "breaking news, why didn't those same news media pick up on this".
One confused guy who got his timeline wrong. Can anyone say "Mineta"?:spjimlad:

Galileo
8th August 2007, 04:42 PM
A member of this forum NDBoston was there in the building at the time and disagrees. Why don't you ask him what he thinks?

Barry Jennings was with Mike Hess when the explosion occurred, not NDBoston.

DGM
8th August 2007, 04:48 PM
Barry Jennings was with Mike Hess when the explosion occurred, not NDBoston.
Were they alone in the building at the time?

DGM
8th August 2007, 05:04 PM
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2836841#post2836841

A post you might want to read.

Galileo
8th August 2007, 05:05 PM
Were they alone in the building at the time?

They were together in the east stairwell.

WTC 7 was supposedly evacuated at 9:30.

It is not known to me the exact time of the explosion, but it was before the South Tower collapsed because after the explosion Jennings went back up to the 8th floor and looked out the window and saw the Twin Towers still standing.

Galileo
8th August 2007, 05:14 PM
A post you might want to read.

That posting doesn't doesn't contradict anything that Barry Jennings has said.

It does show that WTC 7 wasn't totally evacuated by 9:30 as the government has claimed.

NDBoston was in a different area of WTC 7 than Jennings, near the south side, based on what he says.

He also indicates that he doesn't know how the explosives in WTC 7 were set.

The critical area of WTC 7 (according to NIST) was not where NDBoston was either. Nobody worked in the core, the offices were around the core. Explosives had to be set in the core, especially the east north east portion of the core.

Barry Jennings is describing an explosion from the core.

DGM
8th August 2007, 05:30 PM
That posting doesn't doesn't contradict anything that Barry Jennings has said.

It does show that WTC 7 wasn't totally evacuated by 9:30 as the government has claimed.

NDBoston was in a different area of WTC 7 than Jennings, near the south side, based on what he says.

He also indicates that he doesn't know how the explosives in WTC 7 were set.

The critical area of WTC 7 (according to NIST) was not where NDBoston was either. Nobody worked in the core, the offices were around the core. Explosives had to be set in the core, especially the east north east portion of the core.

Barry Jennings is describing an explosion from the core.
Try talking to him yourself if you want the answers. Try to send him a PM. That's IF you really want to know what happened and not just support you conclusions.

Corsair 115
8th August 2007, 09:29 PM
The explosion occurred inside WTC 7 near the east stairwell, 6th floor, too far away from the windows to be seen.Then perhaps your initial description should be changed? Because it originally went as follows (note the bolded words):

Well, now we know why it was too dangerous, there was a huge explosion in the building around 9 a.m., as reported by Barry Jennings a few hours later in TV interviews. A "huge explosion" which could not be seen or heard outside the building seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 09:30 AM
Then perhaps your initial description should be changed? Because it originally went as follows (note the bolded words):

A "huge explosion" which could not be seen or heard outside the building seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.

Barry Jennings said it was a huge explosion. It could have killed him as the stairwell below him gave way.

I never said the explosion couldn't be heard from the oustside. I said everyone's attention at the time was on the burning Twin Towers and all the explosions over there.

When Barry Jennings appeared on TV on 9/11, his comments were edited to make it appear as if he were in the Twin Towers, not WTC 7.

You weren't there, Barry Jennings was, and your comments are an insult to 9/11 survivors.

I suggest you go through all his testimony before posting again.

NDBoston
9th August 2007, 09:38 AM
Barry Jennings said it was a huge explosion. It could have killed him as the stairwell below him gave way.

I never said the explosion couldn't be heard from the oustside. I said everyone's attention at the time was on the burning Twin Towers and all the explosions over there.

When Barry Jennings appeared on TV on 9/11, his comments were edited to make it appear as if he were in the Twin Towers, not WTC 7.

You weren't there, Barry Jennings was, and your comments are an insult to 9/11 survivors.

I suggest you go through all his testimony before posting again.

I was in the same stairwell as Jennings and heard no "explosions". There were thousands of people in that building too. Where are all the employees to corrabrate his story?

Should I invite my fellow members of the Global Technology Group on my floor to post in here too? Just because you want this to be true, doesn't mean it is. This is no different than the fantasy Scott Forbes weaved on the "power down" that not one other person backed up in the Towers.

Your comments are insults to the memories of my friends who diedand the people who survived.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 10:43 AM
I was in the same stairwell as Jennings and heard no "explosions". There were thousands of people in that building too. Where are all the employees to corrabrate his story?

Should I invite my fellow members of the Global Technology Group on my floor to post in here too? Just because you want this to be true, doesn't mean it is. This is no different than the fantasy Scott Forbes weaved on the "power down" that not one other person backed up in the Towers.

Your comments are insults to the memories of my friends who diedand the people who survived.

According to your comment posted here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...41#post2836841

You said:

"I felt the debris pounding the building on 9-11"

That means you were near the south face of WTC 7, not in the east stairwell.

If you are going to assert you were in the east stairwell, then you would have to have been 20 or 30 floors up, too far away to hear the explosion that happened below the 6th floor.

Barry Jennings made his statements on TV on the day of 9/11 when his memory was fresh. You are talking about something that happened 6 years ago.

Go ahead, invite your friends from the Global Technology group to post here.

Why don't you show up a map of where your office was?

Foolmewunz
9th August 2007, 10:46 AM
According to your comment posted here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...41#post2836841

You said:

"I felt the debris pounding the building on 9-11"

That means you were near the south face of WTC 7, not in the east stairwell.

If you are going to assert you were in the east stairwell, then you would have to have been 20 or 30 floors up, too far away to hear the explosion that happened below the 6th floor.

Barry Jennings made his statements on TV on the day of 9/11 when his memory was fresh. You are talking about something that happened 6 years ago.

Go ahead, invite your friends from the Global Technology group to post here.

Why don't you show up a map of where your office was?

Link not working. Can you fix?

jhunter1163
9th August 2007, 11:01 AM
According to your comment posted here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...41#post2836841

You said:

"I felt the debris pounding the building on 9-11"

That means you were near the south face of WTC 7, not in the east stairwell.



Why? Wouldn't the vibration from this impact be transmitted through the whole building?



If you are going to assert you were in the east stairwell, then you would have to have been 20 or 30 floors up, too far away to hear the explosion that happened below the 6th floor.

Barry Jennings made his statements on TV on the day of 9/11 when his memory was fresh. You are talking about something that happened 6 years ago.

Go ahead, invite your friends from the Global Technology group to post here.

Why don't you show up a map of where your office was?

Again, why?

NDBoston was THERE, Galileo. What makes his/her testimony any less valid than Jennings'?

Galileo
9th August 2007, 11:03 AM
Link not working. Can you fix?

It is in the DGM post just above.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 11:25 AM
Why? Wouldn't the vibration from this impact be transmitted through the whole building?



Again, why?

NDBoston was THERE, Galileo. What makes his/her testimony any less valid than Jennings'?

We'll wait to hear what NDBoston has to say.

The first thing we need to know is where his/her office was, and then his/her timeline. Then we need to know the history of other statements made by him/her. That's what we have for Barry Jennings.

The only DOCUMENTED major debris, according to NIST, hit near the SW corner between floors 8 and 18. There are othes small areas documented as well.

The SW corner is much closer to the WEST stairwell, rather than the east stairwell, so NDBoston could be mistaken about what stairwell he/she was in.

NDBoston also says; "I was on almost every floor SSB had in my role on a daily basis and never saw any construction work being done."

If so, why was the alarm system turned off and put on TEST status at 6:47 a.m. that day? TEST status is used when construction is going on and they don't wasn't alarms tripped for no reason.

One thing is for certain. The debris damage in the center of the south face does not have photographic proof and involves conflicting testimony.

NIST says "possible" in their report.

But this article says NIST is incorrect.

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

So maybe NDBoston can help clear this up for us.

beachnut
9th August 2007, 11:28 AM
According to your comment posted here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...41#post2836841

You said:

"I felt the debris pounding the building on 9-11"

That means you were near the south face of WTC 7, not in the east stairwell.

If you are going to assert you were in the east stairwell, then you would have to have been 20 or 30 floors up, too far away to hear the explosion that happened below the 6th floor.

Barry Jennings made his statements on TV on the day of 9/11 when his memory was fresh. You are talking about something that happened 6 years ago.

Go ahead, invite your friends from the Global Technology group to post here.

Why don't you show up a map of where your office was?
Why don't you show up with facts?

NDBoston
9th August 2007, 12:31 PM
Everyone all aboard the woo woo train.

Do you expect me to have a CAD drawing with the layout of my floor? Spare me.

You assumed quite a bit. You could hear the planes and the debris hitting from EVERYWHERE on my floor. You could have been in a locked stall in the bathroom and know all hell is breaking loose.

There were no significant construction projects that I can ever recall save the dedication of more conference rooms on a few floors. Do you know what would be involved in wiring a building for demolition? Do you really think that type of work wouldn't be noticed by a workforce packed in like sardines?

Are you claiming that the demolition wiring was done that day? Do you know how uninformed you are in saying that?

YOu want your story to be true, You will ignore all contrary information and believe only that makes your fantasy come true.

I even know Indira Singh. I met her through my involvement through the Object Development Group where she was one of the organizers. A bright woman be it a bit nutty. I wasn't surprised to find out she became a "truther"

Tell mw about what you know besides You Tube?

Galileo
9th August 2007, 01:21 PM
Everyone all aboard the woo woo train.

Do you expect me to have a CAD drawing with the layout of my floor? Spare me.

You assumed quite a bit. You could hear the planes and the debris hitting from EVERYWHERE on my floor. You could have been in a locked stall in the bathroom and know all hell is breaking loose.

There were no significant construction projects that I can ever recall save the dedication of more conference rooms on a few floors. Do you know what would be involved in wiring a building for demolition? Do you really think that type of work wouldn't be noticed by a workforce packed in like sardines?

Are you claiming that the demolition wiring was done that day? Do you know how uninformed you are in saying that?

YOu want your story to be true, You will ignore all contrary information and believe only that makes your fantasy come true.

I even know Indira Singh. I met her through my involvement through the Object Development Group where she was one of the organizers. A bright woman be it a bit nutty. I wasn't surprised to find out she became a "truther"

Tell mw about what you know besides You Tube?

Besides claiming special knowledge, sort of like the Prophet Mohammed or Joseph Smith, you have not added much on this post besides implying that Barry Jennings is a liar.

Barry Jennings has provided a complete account of what he experienced that day. I'll take what he says over unverified statements from an anonymous poster in an Internet forum. If you are going to continue to invoke SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, then PROVE IT by showing us that you know what you are talking about.

Big deal, you heard some debris hit the building. What do you want, a medal?

Why don't you start with what floor you were on, and whether it was the east or west side.

What are you saying, Barry's You Tube interview is fake? Sounds like you may be a bit paranoid.

What you have said so far makes no sense and does not contradict what Jennings has said.

Jennings was in the EAST STAIRWELL, long before the towers fell. NIST says there was no debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell.

Barry Jennings said there was a huge explosion. He never said anybody wired the building. Do you just make things up?

You don't have ANY information that contradicts Barry Jennings.

It's been over 20 pages now and not one iota.

Drudgewire
9th August 2007, 01:50 PM
Big deal, you heard some debris hit the building. What do you want, a medal?
The rest of the CT'ers are at least entertaining. You're just an ass. Never thought I'd use the ignore feature on anyone here but that's the one thing on the planet you're capable of proving me wrong about.

Go screw.

chipmunk stew
9th August 2007, 01:56 PM
NIST says there was no debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell.
:nope: Every time you lie, a kitten dies.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 01:57 PM
The rest of the CT'ers are at least entertaining. You're just an ass. Never thought I'd use the ignore feature on anyone here but that's the one thing on the planet you're capable of proving me wrong about.

Go screw.

Drudgewired;

The debris damage has nothing to do with the explosion Barry Jennings heard and felt.

The explosion occurred at a DIFFERENT TIME in a DIFFERENT PLACE.

NDBoston hasn't even informed us which tower caused the debris damage he/she describes.

I have already told this forum that I don't believe that 9/11 was conspiracy, so I don't why you continue to call me a CTer.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 02:06 PM
:nope: Every time you lie, a kitten dies.

Show me the lie. NIST has a chart that shows were the debris damage was, and none of it was in the east stairwell.


NIST said dust and debris went into the stairwell, but there was no damage.

And this is where NIST altered Barry Jenning's testimony, because Jennings said the explosion was before the towers collapsed and caused the stairwell to give way. NIST altered Jenning's timeline, ommited the damage he described, and ommited the word "explosion".

Gotcha!

beachnut
9th August 2007, 02:09 PM
Drudgewired;

The debris damage has nothing to do with the explosion Barry Jennings heard and felt.

The explosion occurred at a DIFFERENT TIME in a DIFFERENT PLACE.

NDBoston hasn't even informed us which tower caused the debris damage he/she describes.

I have already told this forum that I don't believe that 9/11 was conspiracy, so I don't why you continue to call me a CTer.
You are not paying attention, and you have no conclusions that are supported by facts or reality. Good luck kid.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 02:27 PM
You are not paying attention, and you have no conclusions that are supported by facts or reality. Good luck kid.

Here's some facts:

Location of WTC 7 stairwells: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf (page L-6)

Location of WTC 7 debris damage: (page L-22)

The debris damage is NOT where the east stairwell is.

The debris AND debris damage was from the explosion described by Barry Jennings.

This explosion was before even the South Tower fell.

SpitfireIX
9th August 2007, 03:00 PM
. . . Big deal, you heard some debris hit the building. What do you want, a medal? . . .


Reported.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 03:14 PM
Reported.

Reported to the JREF police?

GlennB
9th August 2007, 03:47 PM
Jennings was in the EAST STAIRWELL, long before the towers fell. NIST says there was no debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell.

NIST said dust and debris went into the stairwell, but there was no damage.



This is bizarre.

No debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell ..... dust and debris went into the stairwell.

That debris must have travelled a long way, yet did no damage whilst travelling, no?

chipmunk stew
9th August 2007, 03:58 PM
Show me the lie. NIST has a chart that shows were the debris damage was, and none of it was in the east stairwell.

Let's review, shall we? I'll make the interesting parts bold.

dude, NIST has a diagram showing where the debris damage to WTC 7 was or might have been.

Neither stairwell was in, or anywhere near an area impacted by possible debris.

Core columns # 74 and # 75 blocked the path to the east stairwell, had any debris decided to head in that direction.

Compare page L-6 with page L-22:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

<snip>

Yes, and they label it as an estimate or approximation. We know it to be inaccurate in that it does not cover the huge gouge seen in images that surfaced later.


<snip>

This is an unfounded assertion. The stairwell lies just to the east of these two columns:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_512246ae8a27306e2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7365) (click to enlarge)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_512246ae8b4c6b09a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7366) (click to enlarge)

We know this estimate to be based on incomplete data. That's why they used the word "possible", not "likely" or "probable".

"Possible" damage means NIST is speculating.

They don't know.

Please stick to verified scientific facts.

... :nope:

DUDE, that's the graphic you've been referencing as evidence against debris damage to the stairwell.

:bike:

And here comes the lie:
NIST says there was no debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_512246ae8b4c6b09a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7366)
:bike:

T.A.M.
9th August 2007, 04:03 PM
Reported to the JREF police?

If you do not like the rules, take it to the forum management section, or look for the exit please.

TAM:)

Galileo
9th August 2007, 04:24 PM
Let's review, shall we? I'll make the interesting parts bold.









And here comes the lie:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_512246ae8b4c6b09a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7366)
:bike:

The possible debris damage is not anyway near enough to the east stairwell to have caused the explosion and damage where Barry Jennings was.

My main point from page 6 stands:

The collapse of the North Tower DID NOT cause the damage and explosion seen, heard, and felt by Jennings.

All you do is nit-pick qualitative words.

Why don't you measure the exact distance so we can get over this?

Be sure to measure the distance of the east stairwell to both the documented debris damage, the NIST speculated debris damage, and the second ring of the speculated debris damage. Don't forget to measure the distance in three dimensions as well.

Not only are you a liar for calling me a liar, but NIST is a liar as well for changing what Jennings said. And the only way you can discount Jennings is to call him a liar because your 'Barry was mixed up' idea from page 2 is completely kaput.

And Jennings is not the only person to report unexplained explosions in the WTC that day.

Willie Rodriguez heard and felt a powerful explosion in the North Tower sub-basement BEFORE any plane hit.

And now we have more breaking news toady of unexplained explosions in the WTC:

9/11 Commission Ignored Firefighter's Account of Explosions Inside WTC
Schroeder's compelling testimony contradicts official story at every turn
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/090807_firefighters_account.htm

Oh, that's right, you don't like Willie Rodriguez or the prisonplanet website.

Well, then tell CNN to interview Schroeder and quit complaining to me!

Galileo
9th August 2007, 04:31 PM
This is bizarre.

No debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell ..... dust and debris went into the stairwell.

That debris must have travelled a long way, yet did no damage whilst travelling, no?

This is not bizarre.

The dust and debris statement in the NIST report comes from Barry Jennings himself.

NIST CHANGED Jenning's statement about an explosion to a story about dust and debris.

The dust and debris mentioned in the NIST report DID NOT originate from the collapse of the North Tower.

jhunter1163
9th August 2007, 04:41 PM
29 days to go until Woo-stock starts... and the earth remains unshattered.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 04:45 PM
29 days to go until Woo-stock starts... and the earth remains unshattered.

This place reminds me a defense lawyer with a bad case or a chess player who's behind; if you can't win on the current facts, complicate the situation.

I have defeated the dragon!

beachnut
9th August 2007, 04:50 PM
This place reminds me a defense lawyer with a bad case or a chess player who's behind; if you can't win on the current facts, complicate the situation.

I have defeated the dragon!
No real facts. So you now declare victory and move on with you fact less opinions on 9/11. Bravo. You ignore evidence presented, and just keep asking questions, do you have the cheat sheet from LCF? They use to have this guide what to do since you have no facts. You got a copy?

T.A.M.
9th August 2007, 04:54 PM
This place reminds me a defense lawyer with a bad case or a chess player who's behind; if you can't win on the current facts, complicate the situation.

I have defeated the dragon!

ok, good, your done then, hmmm...ok, bye then...we'll see you on Larry King next week...tata

TAM:)

chipmunk stew
9th August 2007, 04:57 PM
The possible debris damage is not anyway near enough to the east stairwell to have caused the explosion and damage where Barry Jennings was.
Your continued repetition of this refrain continues to be unfounded.

My main point from page 6 stands:

The collapse of the North Tower DID NOT cause the damage and explosion seen, heard, and felt by Jennings.

All you do is nit-pick qualitative words.

Why don't you measure the exact distance so we can get over this?
Because one cannot measure an exact distance off of a rough estimate.

Be sure to measure the distance of the east stairwell to both the documented debris damage, the NIST speculated debris damage, and the second ring of the speculated debris damage. Don't forget to measure the distance in three dimensions as well.

Not only are you a liar for calling me a liar,
Then show me where "NIST says there was no debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell."
but NIST is a liar as well for changing what Jennings said. And the only way you can discount Jennings is to call him a liar because your 'Barry was mixed up' idea from page 2 is completely kaput.

And Jennings is not the only person to report unexplained explosions in the WTC that day.

Willie Rodriguez heard and felt a powerful explosion in the North Tower sub-basement BEFORE any plane hit.

And now we have more breaking news toady of unexplained explosions in the WTC:

9/11 Commission Ignored Firefighter's Account of Explosions Inside WTC
Schroeder's compelling testimony contradicts official story at every turn
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/090807_firefighters_account.htm

Oh, that's right, you don't like Willie Rodriguez or the prisonplanet website.

Well, then tell CNN to interview Schroeder and quit complaining to me!
This may be "breaking news" to you, but you are years behind the curve on WTC witness accounts.

jhunter1163
9th August 2007, 04:58 PM
Galileo, your evidence has been weighed in the balance and has been found wanting. No one here takes you seriously. In fact, I find it difficult to believe that you take yourself seriously. The OP, oh so many pages ago, referred to Dylan Avery's "earth-shattering" evidence, which was quickly found to be a) rehashed and b) quite a bit less than earth-shattering. Your clinging to a few debunked factoids in the face of a thorough debunking, including a poster WHO WAS IN THE BUILDING THAT DAY, can only be characterized as desperate.

My annoyance is tinged with sadness for one whose life is so empty.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 04:58 PM
No real facts. So you now declare victory and move on with you fact less opinions on 9/11. Bravo. You ignore evidence presented, and just keep asking questions, do you have the cheat sheet from LCF? They use to have this guide what to do since you have no facts. You got a copy?

9/11 Truth: there were two or three small fires in WTC 7

Debunker: no, they were big fires

9/11 Truth: no, they were medium sized fires

Debunker: well, the fires were much bigger than already known

9/11 Truth: no, they were on a little bigger than already known

Debunker: yes, but they weren't medium sized

9/11 Truth: yes they were

Debunker: no, you have no facts

9/11 Truth: yes I do, there were three small fires in WTC 7

Galileo says; "Measure the size of the fires"

jhunter1163
9th August 2007, 05:02 PM
9/11 Truth: there were two or three small fires in WTC 7

Debunker: no, they were big fires

9/11 Truth: no, they were medium sized fires

Debunker: well, the fires were much bigger than already known

9/11 Truth: no, they were on a little bigger than already known

Debunker: yes, but they weren't medium sized

9/11 Truth: yes they were

Debunker: no, you have no facts

9/11 Truth: yes I do, there were three small fires in WTC 7

Galileo says; "Measure the size of the fires"

Debunker: (posts photo showing WTC7 spewing smoke from practically every floor on the south side)

9/11 Truth: There were two or three small fires in WTC7.

Foolmewunz
9th August 2007, 05:06 PM
9/11 Truth: there were two or three small fires in WTC 7

Debunker: no, they were big fires

9/11 Truth: no, they were medium sized fires

Debunker: well, the fires were much bigger than already known

9/11 Truth: no, they were on a little bigger than already known

Debunker: yes, but they weren't medium sized

9/11 Truth: yes they were

Debunker: no, you have no facts

9/11 Truth: yes I do, there were three small fires in WTC 7

Galileo says; "Measure the size of the fires"

Yes, of course, with your Wile Coyote Acme Fire Size Measurement Kit. How do you "measure the size of a fire", oh, mathematics in my genepool guy!

Galileo
9th August 2007, 05:08 PM
Your continued repetition of this refrain continues to be unfounded.


Because one cannot measure an exact distance off of a rough estimate.


Then show me where "NIST says there was no debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell."

This may be "breaking news" to you, but you are years behind the curve on WTC witness accounts.

show me in the NIST report where it says that there was possible debris damage in the east stairwell.

I looked at the two maps, and the area of the stairwell and the area of possible debris damage do not overlap.

"anywhere near" is a relative term.

The possible debris damage barely touched into the south of the core. The stairwell was right next to the north side of the core.

Furthermore, core columns # 74 and # 75 would have blocked any heavy debris heading towards the east stairwell.

WTC 7 was due north of the north tower, but slightly to the east.

So a line draw from the middle of the North Tower to the east stairwell of WTC 7 would pass right through columns # 74 and # 75.

You're toast.

Barry Jenning's said the explosion occurred long before the North Tower collapsed.

CptColumbo
9th August 2007, 05:13 PM
"anywhere near" is a relative term.
[snip]Barry Jenning's said the explosion occurred long before the North Tower collapsed.
..and "explosion" can be a misleading word.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 05:14 PM
Yes, of course, with your Wile Coyote Acme Fire Size Measurement Kit. How do you "measure the size of a fire", oh, mathematics in my genepool guy!

This is starting to remind me of Lincoln Douglas debates.

Remember our good buddy Old Abe and his conspiracy theory?

He won the 1860 election on a conspiracy theory.

He said the south was conspiring to take over the federal government.

Foolmewunz
9th August 2007, 05:16 PM
This is starting to remind me of Lincoln Douglas debates.

Remember our good buddy Old Abe and his conspiracy theory?

He won the 1860 election on a conspiracy theory.

He said the south was conspiring to take over the federal government.

Which he figured out from some cropped photos he found on the Internet.

Dr Adequate
9th August 2007, 05:27 PM
9/11 Truth: there were two or three small fires in WTC 7 Debunker: And yet fires were reported on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22, 29 and 30. So either there were not "two or three" fires, or else each fire was spread over several floors, i.e. they were not "small".

Galileo
9th August 2007, 05:32 PM
..and "explosion" can be a misleading word.

Jennings also said the stairwell gave way and he was left hanging, then he went back up to the 8th floor and saw the Twin Towers still standing.

In this case explosion is not a misleading word, but rather, an accurate descritpion of what happened.

That explosion originated from the critical area in WTC 7 where NIST says a critical failure occurred that brought WTC 7 down.

You forget I am not like others in the 9/11 Truth movement. When I heard about Barry Jennings, instead of just believing everything Alex Jones said about it, I sought out info from opposing views. The JREF forum is the only place I've found where debunkers actually use facts sometimes.

[Notice I haven't said much about Jenning's comment about King Kong stepping on the lobby. That's because I don't know for sure yet what that means. I suspect that will prove to be more damage from the explosion we have been talking about, but I'm not sure yet.]

Remember back on page 2 where the JREF crew was patting themselves on the back?

Well, I have PROVEN that Chipmunk Stew's analysis on page 2 is invalid.

Notice that your great leader Gravy is not backing Chipmunk Stew up on this. I think Gravy has left Chipmunk Stew out to dry.

I demand a TV debate with Gravy and Chipmunk Stew can be the impartial moderator!

CptColumbo
9th August 2007, 05:37 PM
This is starting to remind me of Lincoln Douglas debates.

Remember our good buddy Old Abe and his conspiracy theory?

He won the 1860 election on a conspiracy theory.

He said the south was conspiring to take over the federal government.
Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated in 1858 during their campaign for one of the US Senate seats from Illinois.

If the conspiracy you are refering to is Lincoln not being on the ballot in many sothern states in the 1860 Presidential Election, that is quite correct. Except, that he was elected despite the conspiracy, due in large part to a split in the Democratic Party. Some attribute this split to Douglas's remarks regarding slavery in the 1858 debates.

Also, if you are somehow comparing yourself to either of those men, you are very misguided.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 05:37 PM
Debunker: And yet fires were reported on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22, 29 and 30. So either there were not "two or three" fires, or else each fire was spread over several floors, i.e. they were not "small".

show me the fire photos.

Reports during the hectic events can be in error.

Fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22, 29 and 30 don't cause steel framed buildings to fall down in controlled demolitions at 90% of free fall speed.

You also have not explained how these fires could exist in a building made of steel, concrete, fire-coded office contents, and water sprinklers, but no jet fuel.

PS - You forgot about the HUGE fire on floor five conjectured by NIST.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 05:42 PM
Thought for the day....

Is the explosion described by Barry Jennings a better explanation for the fires seen on the NORTH side of WTC 7, than some flying debris hitting the SOUTH side???

YOU Betcha!

:p

defaultdotxbe
9th August 2007, 05:46 PM
You also have not explained how these fires could exist in a building made of steel, concrete, fire-coded office contents, and water sprinklers, but no jet fuel.
so why do we have water sprinklers is "fire-coded office contents" apparently cant sustain a fire?

you do realize that not every single item in an office (or anywhere) is fireproof, right? and even flame-resistant matericals can burn

Galileo
9th August 2007, 05:46 PM
I met David von Kleist of the Power Hour at last weekend's 9/11 Truth conference.

Von Kleist is a very impressive and sane indivivual, but just won't give up his Pod theory, no matter how much we dabated it.

You guys remind me of von Kleist, you get an idea in your mind and just won't give it up, no matter the facts.

Galileo
9th August 2007, 05:48 PM
so why do we have water sprinklers is "fire-coded office contents" apparently cant sustain a fire?

you do realize that not every single item in an office (or anywhere) is fireproof, right? and even flame-resistant matericals can burn

I said "fire-coded", not "fireproof".

Just more word games.

CptColumbo
9th August 2007, 05:52 PM
I demand a TV debate with Gravy and Chipmunk Stew can be the impartial moderator!
If your posts here are any indication of your debating style, there is no reason for either people to waste any time with you. As with many people in the "twoof" movement I suspect you have never actually participated or seen an actual debate. My advice would be to find a listing for the local debating society, they are usually near colleges, and watch a few or read the Lincoln-Douglas debates (they used a very different style, but are still a good example).

Foolmewunz
9th August 2007, 06:06 PM
Something I missed in Jennings statement:

Saw the towers standing from the 8th floor?

Please check a map of the WTC complex. The eighth floor of WTC 7 (which was built on the street level of Vesey/W. Broadway) would not have afforded a clear view of the towers.

Wouldn't a view from 8 been blocked by WTC 5 and WTC 6, both of which were surely still standing since 1 & 2 were still standing?

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm

WTC 5 was 8 stories - but those stories counted from the WTC Plaza, so it was about two stories taller than "8" in WTC 7. WTC 6 was 9 stories. But it also had its lobby in the plaza, again making it several stories higher than the 8th floor of WTC 7. There would appear to be only a tiny sight line from WTC 7, that MIGHT HAVE had a view of both towers from the 8th floor.

beachnut
9th August 2007, 06:18 PM
9/11 Truth: there were two or three small fires in WTC 7

Debunker: no, they were big fires

9/11 Truth: no, they were medium sized fires

Debunker: well, the fires were much bigger than already known

9/11 Truth: no, they were on a little bigger than already known

Debunker: yes, but they weren't medium sized

9/11 Truth: yes they were

Debunker: no, you have no facts

9/11 Truth: yes I do, there were three small fires in WTC 7

Galileo says; "Measure the size of the fires"
Too bad you loose, I have talked to witnesses a long time ago, the fire in WTC7 was out of control and not being fought. So, the fact is the fire was strong enough to weaken steel. Just like in the Madrid fire, the fire destroyed the steel only sections, they fell, and the fire destroyed the strength of the rest of the building, the only thing saving it from collapse was the concrete core, of which no WTC building had. You must of missed the failures of floors in WTC5 and 6. Madrid fire was fought and stopped on the lower floors.. The Madrid building is gone, destroyed by fire. Darn a high rise destroyed by fire, oops there is one destroyed by fire in Philadelphia PA, and it was out of control but an automatic sprinkler put the fire out before it collapsed; the firemen left because they thought it was going to fall. Oops. You have failed to read much on WTC7, and you have chosen squibs (windows broken in the morning), and silent explosives as your elusive evidence. So far you have no facts.

I will look up some more witnesses you may of missed, but then you are not looking for the truth, you are just here to act truthy.

beachnut
9th August 2007, 06:28 PM
Thought for the day....

Is the explosion described by Barry Jennings a better explanation for the fires seen on the NORTH side of WTC 7, than some flying debris hitting the SOUTH side???

YOU Betcha!

:p
How did Barry survive the blast, how big was it in tons of TNT? How far did it push him, and how long did he bleed from his ears? How many people were blasted to death in the explosion? How big was it in tons of TNT or pounds? Bring some facts mr bet you.

Gravy
9th August 2007, 06:36 PM
show me the fire photos.

Reports during the hectic events can be in error.

Fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22, 29 and 30 don't cause steel framed buildings to fall down in controlled demolitions at 90% of free fall speed.

You also have not explained how these fires could exist in a building made of steel, concrete, fire-coded office contents, and water sprinklers, but no jet fuel.You now contend that unfought fires in office buildings with inoperable sprinklers cannot spread? And in a severely damaged building, no less? Amazing. You really should look into the other buildings that burned on 9/11!

What was the collapse time of WTC 7 from the start of the east mechanical penthouse collapse, Galileo? Surely a man of science can come up with a better answer than "90% of free fall speed?"

Stundied!

A W Smith
9th August 2007, 06:37 PM
Thought for the day....

Is the explosion described by Barry Jennings a better explanation for the fires seen on the NORTH side of WTC 7, than some flying debris hitting the SOUTH side???

YOU Betcha!

:p

yet not a single report or description of a fire in 7 from any other firefighter nor any windows broken from this huge explosion? Galilamo loses
yet again

9/11 Chewy Defense
9th August 2007, 06:40 PM
After the Twin Towers collapsed the water mains were broke & water pressue was at 0. That's the only reason why the FDNY backed off from WTC7 when the fires got out of control. It's something that every firefighter has to go through in training. If a structure is not worth saving or risking your life to save just let it burn itself out or let it collapse. Just focus on saving the other buildings around it if you can.

beachnut
9th August 2007, 06:45 PM
9/11 Truth: there were two or three small fires in WTC 7
Debunker: no, they were big fires
9/11 Truth: no, they were medium sized fires
Debunker: well, the fires were much bigger than already known
9/11 Truth: no, they were on a little bigger than already known
Debunker: yes, but they weren't medium sized
9/11 Truth: yes they were
Debunker: no, you have no facts

9/11 Truth: yes I do, there were three small fires in WTC 7
Galileo says; "Measure the size of the fires"
Someone walked by WTC7 on 9/11. Have you missed all the other stuff?

I walked right by WTC7 on 9/11 at around 2pm. Just looking at it, seeing all of the debris piled up against it, and the inferno it was, was more than enough to tell me and those with me that it was going to collapse.

It was also bulging/buckling at the corners.

NYCEMT86
9th August 2007, 06:51 PM
You also have not explained how these fires could exist in a building made of steel, concrete, fire-coded office contents, and water sprinklers, but no jet fuel.


Fire Coded office contents? Are you serious?

Is paper fire coded? I would like to see that study.

What about carpets, desks, chairs, average office furnishings....and the other ordinary combustibles?


As I am sure you are aware of this, after the two towers came down the FDNY lost water pressure, therefore the sprinklers wouldn't work.

beachnut
9th August 2007, 06:56 PM
9/11 Truth: there were two or three small fires in WTC 7
Debunker: no, they were big fires
9/11 Truth: no, they were medium sized fires
Debunker: well, the fires were much bigger than already known
9/11 Truth: no, they were on a little bigger than already known
Debunker: yes, but they weren't medium sized
9/11 Truth: yes they were
Debunker: no, you have no facts
9/11 Truth: yes I do, there were three small fires in WTC 7
Galileo says; "Measure the size of the fires"That 9/11 truth is ironic. Nice touch for the false information crowd know as 9/11 truth.

More from someone who was there on 9/11. Since you avoid the firemen report here it is.
This is part of what he saw on 9/11, it picks up after he tell of the planes and other things.
I was at the WTC on 9/11.

....
About 15 minutes later, we felt the earth shake. No one knew what was happening. At first we thought another plane had hit the stock exchange, or our building, or something else. So we all evacuated our office and went down the stairs to the lobby. When we got to the lobby, it was dark. You see, 45 Broadway’s lobby is almost all glass, probably 5 stories high, with a waterfall fountain in the middle. It was one of the strangest things I’ve ever seen. The glass was black. I mean 100% totally dark. The only thing I was thinking was “what the hell” and that’s when people started realizing that one of the towers fell. Then occasionally we’d see a shadow up against the glass, a person stuck in the dust. We’d pull them in and clean them up in the fountain.

After a while I decided to go back upstairs to our office. Power in our building was fine, and there was no damage to our building. The lobby was like a refugee center. So I took my team back upstairs. A little while later the dust settled and we could see outside. It was crazy, it looked like a snowstorm had hit. 6-8 inches of grayish white dust everywhere. It was eerie. No one knew what to do. I decided that I was going to stay put and listen to the news.

A little while later the second building came down, and the dust hit and made all of the windows black again. This time it wasn’t so bad since we knew what was happening.

I don’t really remember much of what we did between the time the second tower came down and when a cop finally came in to our office and said we had to evacuate the building since all of downtown was being shutdown, and cleared out. That was around 2:30 IIRC.

All I knew was that I had to somehow get to my wife in Brooklyn. So we started walking up Broadway when a cop told us it was closed and we had to go east. So we went over to Nassau St. When I hit the area near Cedar St, I could start to see the devastation. There was giant beams and junk everywhere. When I hit Fulton St. (I think) I could finally get over to Broadway to see the damage. There was rubble 20 stories high. It’s a sight I can’t even explain. It was a complete disaster. I was in total shock. That’s when I saw WTC7 on fire. I didn’t even notice it at first. There was hot dust and debris raining down, thick smoke billowing overhead. Building 7 wasn’t even a blip on my radar. But then I noticed it. It was on fire like the towering inferno. I mean flames were everywhere. I thought there were flames coming out on all floors, but I guess that’s because of all of the smoke. I kept looking at the building. It had so much debris up against it, and I mean big huge chucks of debris. Without you actually being there, you just can’t get the enormous scale of the disaster. The twisted steel and chunks of concrete were just so huge that my mind couldn’t comprehend it. And these were piled up against the building and sticking out of it at some levels. I can’t stress enough how enormous these beams and debris were. All of the pictures show the pile, but without actually seeing it, it is truly indescribable. WTC7 had granite of marble façade and there were HUGE cracks going up and down the façade too.

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did.

I walked down Fulton to try to get on to the Brooklyn Bridge. Cops told me it was closed, even though there were people walking on it. So I had to then walk uptown to the Manhattan Bridge. There were literally thousands of people walking across the bridge. It looked like refugees. As I was walking over the bridge, we all heard a Jet screaming. This is absolutely the worst part of the whole day for me. Time stopped. No one made a sound. It was the scariest thing I have ever felt. I thought, “It’s another plane, that’s what I’d do if I were a terrorist. Wait until everyone is evacuating and hit the bridges.” I truly thought my life was over. You know how they say your life flashes before your eyes? Well it’s true. I saw every victory and every tragedy I’d ever experienced. And I thought to myself, “well, I’ve had a good life, I only wish I’d have been able to see my child born (my wife was 4.5 months pregnant). Then I saw it was an F-15 and all of a sudden, all was well. I truly felt like I had been given a new life.
So you keep on thinking you have something and ignore other evidence, I think putting all your eggs in one basket is a good idea for you if you want to be on the false side of 9/11. 9/11 truth, is the most ironic "NAZI" style, "1984", name you could have for the junk you guys are trying to sell.

chipmunk stew
10th August 2007, 03:29 AM
show me in the NIST report where it says that there was possible debris damage in the east stairwell.
An honest statement would have been:
"NIST's rough estimate did not show debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell."

This is qualitatively different from your lie:
"NIST says there was no debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell."

I looked at the two maps, and the area of the stairwell and the area of possible debris damage do not overlap.

"anywhere near" is a relative term.

The possible debris damage barely touched into the south of the core. The stairwell was right next to the north side of the core.
You're misinterpreting NIST's use of the word "possible". They're not saying "anything outside this zone is impossible"; they're saying "based on limited, anecdotal information, there may have been debris damage in this zone".

Furthermore, core columns # 74 and # 75 would have blocked any heavy debris heading towards the east stairwell.

WTC 7 was due north of the north tower, but slightly to the east.

So a line draw from the middle of the North Tower to the east stairwell of WTC 7 would pass right through columns # 74 and # 75.
Your conception of the massive scale and chaos of the violence involved is lacking. The collapse was an avalanche of debris. An avalanche doesn't travel along a single narrow line.

ref
10th August 2007, 09:06 AM
Dylan has some kind of fixation with Mark.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13592&view=findpost&p=14369265

Galileo
10th August 2007, 09:11 AM
Something I missed in Jennings statement:

Saw the towers standing from the 8th floor?

Please check a map of the WTC complex. The eighth floor of WTC 7 (which was built on the street level of Vesey/W. Broadway) would not have afforded a clear view of the towers.

Wouldn't a view from 8 been blocked by WTC 5 and WTC 6, both of which were surely still standing since 1 & 2 were still standing?

http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm

WTC 5 was 8 stories - but those stories counted from the WTC Plaza, so it was about two stories taller than "8" in WTC 7. WTC 6 was 9 stories. But it also had its lobby in the plaza, again making it several stories higher than the 8th floor of WTC 7. There would appear to be only a tiny sight line from WTC 7, that MIGHT HAVE had a view of both towers from the 8th floor.

pretty lame.

WTC 7 was across the steet from WTC 5 and WTC 6, and the 8th floor was only a little lower than the tops of these buildings.

right behind wtc 5 and wtc 6 were two 110 story buildings, easy to see, and at a good angle to see as well.

Plus, Barry says he saw both towers from where he was.

keep searching....

beachnut
10th August 2007, 09:14 AM
pretty lame.

WTC 7 was across the steet from WTC 5 and WTC 6, and the 8th floor was only a little lower than the tops of these buildings.

right behind wtc 5 and wtc 6 were two 110 story buildings, easy to see, and at a good angle to see as well.

Plus, Barry says he saw both towers from where he was.

keep searching....
How did Barry survive the blast, it would kill everyone in that sectoin? Hey lame idea man, why did barry not get blown up?

Galileo
10th August 2007, 09:37 AM
An honest statement would have been:
"NIST's rough estimate did not show debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell."

This is qualitatively different from your lie:
"NIST says there was no debris damage anywhere near the east stairwell."


You're misinterpreting NIST's use of the word "possible". They're not saying "anything outside this zone is impossible"; they're saying "based on limited, anecdotal information, there may have been debris damage in this zone".


Your conception of the massive scale and chaos of the violence involved is lacking. The collapse was an avalanche of debris. An avalanche doesn't travel along a single narrow line.

Is is indeed impossible for the debris to get to the east stairwell, based on known facts.

The (thinner) debris from the upper floors of the North Tower had to smash into the (thicker) perimeter columns of the lower floors of WTC 7.

The debris, if any, that came towards the center of the south face was at a sharp downward angle, so after it rammed into the perimeter columns it would have rammed into the concrete slab floors and horizontal columns.

The debris would have been slowed by air resistance after traveling 355 feet horizontally as well, before it hit WTC 7.

Then even though it was moving sharply downward, it had to continue into the core, and get by 2 rows of massive core columns, to get to the east stairwell.

And then it had to somehow create a noise that Barry Jennings thought was an explosion.

In 1610, after Galileo announced that the moon had mountains on it that were 5 miles tall, he was attacked.

The main argument was that the heavenly bodies were perfect as all the philosophers and theologians had taught through the centuries, so the moon could not have mountains.

But Galileo, of course, could see the mountains with his telescope.

So one of his opponents, Colombo, said that indeed there were mountains, but they were underneath a perfect transparent crystal sphere, so the moon's surface was indeed, perfectly round, even though you could see the mountains below the invisible surface.

Galileo, of course, had no proof the perfect invisible surface did not exist.

So he made an offer.

He would grant Colombo that there was indeed a perfect invisible surface over the moon, if Colombo would grant to him that built upon this perfect sphere there were invisible mountains 50 miles tall.

[source - Discoveries And Opinions of Galileo, edited & translated by Stillman Drake, chapter 2]

SO I have a deal for you, Chipmunk.

I will grant you some debris damage, neither seen nor heard by anyone, in areas of WTC 7, in areas where NIST does not have labeled as "possible".

But then for each unit of debris damage I grant to you, you must grant me one pre-Twin Tower collapse explosion not seen or heard by anyone.

Deal?

chipmunk stew
10th August 2007, 11:02 AM
Is is indeed impossible for the debris to get to the east stairwell, based on known facts.

[argument from personal incredulity follows]
You still have no corroboration for Jennings' timeline, and you still have no evidence of intentional explosive detonations. Damage from known events is still the far more parsimonious explanation.

Galileo
10th August 2007, 11:09 AM
How did Barry survive the blast, it would kill everyone in that sectoin? Hey lame idea man, why did barry not get blown up?

Barry is as tough as nails, a fighter, a survivor, that's how he made it through the ordeal. He was lucky enough to be wearing his fireproofed suit that day.

Dude, this has got to be the most stupid question I've ever seen in this forum.

The explosion was below Jennings & Hess, and the stairwell gave way. Jenning's was left hanging and pulled himself back up.

If Jenning's had been one or 2 floors lower, he would have been killed.

Here's a stumper for you:

How did Hitler survive the bomb someone set by his foot in 1944?

chipmunk stew
10th August 2007, 11:11 AM
The explosion was below Jennings & Hess,
That's how he knows it was a bomb...

HyJinX
10th August 2007, 11:13 AM
That's how he knows it was a bomb...

and it was ticking.

A W Smith
10th August 2007, 11:58 AM
Barry is as tough as nails, a fighter, a survivor, that's how he made it through the ordeal. He was lucky enough to be wearing his fireproofed suit that day.

Dude, this has got to be the most stupid question I've ever seen in this forum.

The explosion was below Jennings & Hess, and the stairwell gave way. Jenning's was left hanging and pulled himself back up.

If Jenning's had been one or 2 floors lower, he would have been killed.

Here's a stumper for you:

How did Hitler survive the bomb someone set by his foot in 1944?

the briefcase or satchel the bomb was in was moved when someone sat across from him. It went off to the side of the chair opposite and the heavy table top protected him from fatal injury.

Galileo
10th August 2007, 12:06 PM
You still have no corroboration for Jennings' timeline, and you still have no evidence of intentional explosive detonations. Damage from known events is still the far more parsimonious explanation.

Turning off the fire alarm before a fire happens to break out would be great evidence in an arson trial. Especial;y with no witness to explain who did it and why.

The only major documented debris damage to WTC 7 was in the SW corner, yet fire is seen on floor 7 on the north side fairly near to where an explosion has been reported.

The explosion originates from an area near where NIST says a critical failure of the building occurred.

You guys constantly trot out the "10 story hole" which is contradicted by other photos and testimony, and is not corroberated.

Jenning's testimony is consistent with all other known evidence and he is a person of integrity.

Jonnyclueless
10th August 2007, 12:12 PM
So we're back to the "an explosion can only be a bomb" conjecture again?

And no the SW corner is certainly not the only documented damage, and no the fire on the 7th floor north side was not the only fire seen.

And an explosion in the area of critical failure? NO WAY!!!!! How can that possibly be? You mean at the point that a critical part of the building collapsed there was a loud noise?? What on earth could possible cause a loud explosions in a collapsing building? Anyone? Anyone? It's a mystery...

Galileo
10th August 2007, 12:37 PM
Fire Coded office contents? Are you serious?

Is paper fire coded? I would like to see that study.

What about carpets, desks, chairs, average office furnishings....and the other ordinary combustibles?


As I am sure you are aware of this, after the two towers came down the FDNY lost water pressure, therefore the sprinklers wouldn't work.

I never said paper was covered under fire codes. Most of the paper was blown into the air and never burned.

The office contents had to meet fire codes. So many of the ordinary things found in the offices were fire retardent. The fire codes are put in place to keep fire localized on one floor or in one area. These office fires cannot break through thick concrete walls.

You tell me how debris hitting the south side of the building caused fires on the north side.

The areas where we have photos of fires has no relationship to where the debris hit.

WTC 7 failed because the core columns failed. This is precisely the area of the building that has no flammable material, only steel and concrete.

How did core coulmns 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, and 77 fail? They were in the middle of the core near no fire.

The other 18 core columns were adjacent to the office areas, so in the few areas where there was fire, only one side of the column could have had fire heating it.

You tell me how fire coded office contents can create a fire so hot as to weaken massive steel core columns.

You need to provide evidence for your theories.

beachnut
10th August 2007, 12:51 PM
I never said paper was covered under fire codes. Most of the paper was blown into the air and never burned.

The office contents had to meet fire codes. So many of the ordinary things found in the offices were fire retardent. The fire codes are put in place to keep fire localized on one floor or in one area. These office fires cannot break through thick concrete walls.

You tell me how debris hitting the south side of the building caused fires on the north side.

The areas where we have photos of fires has no relationship to where the debris hit.

WTC 7 failed because the core columns failed. This is precisely the area of the building that has no flammable material, only steel and concrete.

How did core coulmns 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, and 77 fail? They were in the middle of the core near no fire.

The other 18 core columns were adjacent to the office areas, so in the few areas where there was fire, only one side of the column could have had fire heating it.

You tell me how fire coded office contents can create a fire so hot as to weaken massive steel core columns.

You need to provide evidence for your theories.
Wrong, you need to provide proof it did not happen the way it did. Sorry, this stuff is already in the books. You need to prove it did not happen with evidence. You are the one who has to come up with the proof. If you do not have facts to back up your stuff you are not able to prove it. You are wrong again. What is your goal?

beachnut
10th August 2007, 12:56 PM
Barry is as tough as nails, a fighter, a survivor, that's how he made it through the ordeal. He was lucky enough to be wearing his fireproofed suit that day.

Dude, this has got to be the most stupid question I've ever seen in this forum.

The explosion was below Jennings & Hess, and the stairwell gave way. Jenning's was left hanging and pulled himself back up.

If Jenning's had been one or 2 floors lower, he would have been killed.
?
No explosion for Barry, it was damage from the WTC falling. Darn you lost again. A real explosion would have killed Barry; Barry is not dead, so he did not hear a real explosion, he heard parts from WTC towers crashing into the building and doing the damage he was next to. A explosive big enough to blow up the stairwell would kill Barry. An object going 200 mph and crashing into WTC7 did the damage and made a sound like and explosion. Proved because Barry did not suffer blast effects from a large bomb. Barry is alive, there fore no bomb in WTC7, just damage from object from WTC towers. Good job.

No, if Barry was near a bomb and the stairs gave away, he was too close and he would be dead. Sorry, but you are not a bomb expert, and a blast that destroys stairs is a large bomb, and it would kill Barry. But a piece of WTC towers would make a big noise and do the damage seen. I like my worse post in the history of the world, and it makes your posts look really bad. Bomb effects kill if the stairs are falling and giving way. Barry being alive is not good for your fictional bomb theory.

Galileo
10th August 2007, 02:06 PM
GRAVY SAID:

You now contend that unfought fires in office buildings with inoperable sprinklers cannot spread? And in a severely damaged building, no less? Amazing. You really should look into the other buildings that burned on 9/11!

What was the collapse time of WTC 7 from the start of the east mechanical penthouse collapse, Galileo? Surely a man of science can come up with a better answer than "90% of free fall speed?"

Stundied!"

Office fires can spread. Not very easily in WTC 7, though.

However, we have no evidence that the fires started near places struck by debris.

Instead we have evidence of fires starting near places with explosions.

We also have the fire alarms turned off at 6:47 a.m.

Regarding WTC 7....

What does NIST say the time of collapse is, or do I have to get out my inclined plane?

Corsair 115
10th August 2007, 03:33 PM
I never said the explosion couldn't be heard from the oustside.You did, however, say this:

The explosion occurred inside WTC 7 near the east stairwell, 6th floor, too far away from the windows to be seen. So you're saying it couldn't be seen outside, but could be heard outside and everyone was just too distracted to hear a big, booming sound?

CptColumbo
10th August 2007, 03:49 PM
You still have no corroboration for Jennings' timeline, and you still have no evidence of intentional explosive detonations. Damage from known events is still the far more parsimonious explanation.
Are you trying to attribute that quote to me?

Mr. Skinny
10th August 2007, 04:01 PM
(snip)
The office contents had to meet fire codes. So many of the ordinary things found in the offices were fire retardent. The fire codes are put in place to keep fire localized on one floor or in one area. These office fires cannot break through thick concrete walls.

(snip)

You tell me how fire coded office contents can create a fire so hot as to weaken massive steel core columns.

You need to provide evidence for your theories.
Could you perhaps give a short tutorial on fire codes and fire retardant "things".

Also, can you provide a cite for the part I bolded above?

Thanks.

MarcoPolo
10th August 2007, 04:22 PM
I never said paper was covered under fire codes. Most of the paper was blown into the air and never burned.

Just making a mental note of this in case we ever hear the 'passport was found blocks from the towers, why didn't it burn' theory again.

Please continue... nothing to see here...

Jonnyclueless
10th August 2007, 04:34 PM
Just making a mental note of this in case we ever hear the 'passport was found blocks from the towers, why didn't it burn' theory again.

Please continue... nothing to see here...

You all wear blinders. No one stops to ask the serious questions. Like why didn't a seagull take the passport and fly off with it? The answers are there if we just look right in front of us. We're just asking questions...

Galileo
10th August 2007, 04:59 PM
The passport has no legal chain of custody.

Nor is a passport a piece of paper that floats in the air. I'm referring to all the scraps of paper floating in the air.

Nor is this paper full sheets, but damaged partial sheets.

The passport "found" has no damage and is a pamphlet. There are no other reports of pamphlets being found in this manner.

Also, the passport was INSIDE the plane that crashed making a fireball.

The paper found is presumebly from floors lower than where the fires were.

The passport had also been reported stolen.

The 9/11 Commission failed to determine where the passport came from.

You probably still think the passport is legit, but hey, whatever makes you happy.

Some people feel happy waitng for Jesus Christ to make a return.

Gravy
10th August 2007, 05:32 PM
The passport has no legal chain of custody.

Nor is a passport a piece of paper that floats in the air. I'm referring to all the scraps of paper floating in the air.

Nor is this paper full sheets, but damaged partial sheets.

The passport "found" has no damage and is a pamphlet. There are no other reports of pamphlets being found in this manner.

Also, the passport was INSIDE the plane that crashed making a fireball.

The paper found is presumebly from floors lower than where the fires were.

The passport had also been reported stolen.

The 9/11 Commission failed to determine where the passport came from.

You probably still think the passport is legit, but hey, whatever makes you happy.

Some people feel happy waitng for Jesus Christ to make a return.

Are you capable of ever getting anything right?

Many things survived the aircraft impacts: mail, luggage, wallets, seat cushions, seats, life vests, and a huge amount of human flesh and bone. How do you know that Suquami's body wasn't protecting the passport on the way down? A "pamphlet?" Ever try to tear a passport in half? They are made to be tough.

http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

I take it you also deny all of the hijacker identification collected at the crash sites. Everything faked and all the witnesses and investigators are liars or dupes.

Is that how it works in your world, truth seeker?

Gravy
10th August 2007, 07:45 PM
Firefighter John Moribito:
I noticed in the courtyard that there were valises, suitcases, strewn about the courtyard. There were wallets everywhere, broken glass, and then I noticed that there were airplane tickets.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110354.PDF

Foolmewunz
10th August 2007, 08:16 PM
Galileo,
Just a question to think about. What's inside of file cabinets?*
Then the follow up question.... How many file cabinets and desks did you see "floating through the air"?

*No fair asking Max Photon - he'll say the were filled with rust and thermite.

chipmunk stew
10th August 2007, 08:17 PM
Are you trying to attribute that quote to me?
No, it was a subtle jab at Galileo. He referred to "Colombo" in his post.

I can't say anything further because I'm boycotting Trutherism (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89849) for a month.

NYCEMT86
10th August 2007, 08:55 PM
I never said paper was covered under fire codes. Most of the paper was blown into the air and never burned.

You need to prove that all the paper blew out the window and was never burned.


The office contents had to meet fire codes. So many of the ordinary things found in the offices were fire retardent.

The building itself has to meet fire codes, such as fire doors, sprinklers, smoke detectors..ect. Not the contents themselves. If that statement were true, there would be no fires. Now do you know what fire retardant means? I think you were thinking Fire Resistant.

I am going to fill you in on what Fire Resistant means. It will stand up against the temperatures of the fire, but if that fire continues to grow and spread that material begins to break down and it will eventually catch fire. NOTHING IN THE WORLD IS 100% FIRE PROOF. The gear firefighters wear is not even 100% fire proof, the most they will withstand is 1000° after that they start to deteriorate, which will leave a burn mark and that gear is no longer good.



The fire codes are put in place to keep fire localized on one floor or in one area. These office fires cannot break through thick concrete walls.


Well I am going to take a clip from thread I wrote about this:

Type 1/Fire Resistant Construction - Originally developed in the turn of the century when Steel and Concrete become more available for construction. Their resistance to flames became the reason why many major cities switched over to Steel and Concrete, especially after the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. The original idea was that these buildings were going to be completely fire proof, which is not the case. As buildings began to modernize and HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, Air-Conditioning) units where being installed they created voids between floors and walls. Not only were the voids an issue for spreading fire but the shafts themselves created a problem.

Basic Principles of Building Construction (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87911)

You tell me how fire coded office contents can create a fire so hot as to weaken massive steel core columns.


Okay,

You honestly have no idea how a fire operates.

Since the contents aren't fire coded like I said above they could burn. The bad thing about fire is it needs fuel to continue burning, so when it does that its called the "Growth Stage"

Would you like to find out more information on how a fire operates?

Read my thread:

Basic Principles of Fire Behavior (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87587)

Corsair 115
10th August 2007, 09:01 PM
NYCEMT86,

Just a helpful tip you might like. To type the degree symbol ° just hold down the ALT key on your keyboard while typing 0176 on the numberpad.

NYCEMT86
10th August 2007, 09:09 PM
NYCEMT86,

Just a helpful tip you might like. To type the degree symbol ° just hold down the ALT key on your keyboard while typing 0176 on the numberpad.

Thank you :D

Foolmewunz
10th August 2007, 10:50 PM
NYCEMT86,

Just a helpful tip you might like. To type the degree symbol ° just hold down the ALT key on your keyboard while typing 0176 on the numberpad.

Well, I have one of those funky Logitech keyboards and all that did was knock me out of the forums and back to my default home page. Must be one of the additional keys on this thing.

A W Smith
10th August 2007, 11:06 PM
Well, I have one of those funky Logitech keyboards and all that did was knock me out of the forums and back to my default home page. Must be one of the additional keys on this thing.

° ° ° °

hey look its mavis beacon with a temperature!

maybe its the wire thats a problem. :D try wireless keyboards:)
http://www.mic-innovations.com/Details.aspx?id=656&category=Keyboards&sub=

Foolmewunz
10th August 2007, 11:09 PM
° ° ° °

hey look its mavis beacon with a temperature!

maybe its the wire thats a problem. :D try wireless keyboards:)
http://www.mic-innovations.com/Details.aspx?id=656&category=Keyboards&sub=

It is wireless.... I was thinking maybe that was the problem. I'm voting for the international dateline, and the evil Chinese government firewalls (we are in CT, after all).

MG1962
11th August 2007, 02:46 AM
The passport has no legal chain of custody.

Nor is a passport a piece of paper that floats in the air. I'm referring to all the scraps of paper floating in the air.

Nor is this paper full sheets, but damaged partial sheets.

The passport "found" has no damage and is a pamphlet. There are no other reports of pamphlets being found in this manner.

Also, the passport was INSIDE the plane that crashed making a fireball.

The paper found is presumebly from floors lower than where the fires were.

The passport had also been reported stolen.

The 9/11 Commission failed to determine where the passport came from.

You probably still think the passport is legit, but hey, whatever makes you happy.

Some people feel happy waitng for Jesus Christ to make a return.

Then you probably dont believe the story that a CD still in playable condition survived a space craft crash either

Or that WW1 was started because a car driver could not get reverse gear

Galileo
11th August 2007, 09:08 AM
I was referring to Ludovico delle Colombe.

Colombe was a buffoon who formed an organization called the Pigeon League which opposed Galileo, and hence, the Truth.

The JREF forum is a 21st century equivalent of the Pigeon League.

Gravy is a 21st century Colombe.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Ludovico+delle+Colombe+pigeon+league&spell=1

BigAl
11th August 2007, 09:18 AM
Debunker: And yet fires were reported on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22, 29 and 30. So either there were not "two or three" fires, or else each fire was spread over several floors, i.e. they were not "small".

In the Naudet film, the Fire Chief is shown calling the first impact in as three-alarm right from the start, moments after the impact.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

defaultdotxbe
11th August 2007, 09:30 AM
Then you probably dont believe the story that a CD still in playable condition survived a space craft crash either

Or that WW1 was started because a car driver could not get reverse gear
or that volatile explosives planted in the WTC could survive a plane smashing into them and starting huge fires

A W Smith
11th August 2007, 09:37 AM
The passport has no legal chain of custody.




ahh custody. Im glad you brought that up. So what was the legal custody chain of the dust sample jones recovered from an apartment near GZ?

what was the legal custody chain of the troofer Youboob videos that were edited to add sound effects during the collapse and fires at WTC?


sounds like Special Pleading Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)

BigAl
11th August 2007, 09:44 AM
show me the fire photos.

Fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22, 29 and 30 don't cause steel framed buildings to .....

You also have not explained how these fires could exist in a building made of steel, concrete, fire-coded office contents, and water sprinklers, but no jet fuel.

There was thousands of gallons of diesel fuel for the generators.

The Fire code and sprinklers mean only that a fire won't spread to another floor until the fire department gets there. WTC7 survived 6(?) hours of fire with no sprinklers and no firemen.

The architects of the Manhattan data center I managed said the interior walls were specified for 2 hours with sprinklers. In the event of fire, only the floor on flre and the one above it would be evacuated until orders are given by NYFD. Experience with a Park Ave fire shortly afterwords showed that the 2-floor evac plan was slightly optimistic.

This is the URL for a Dec 2001 NYT article that describes the known shortcoming WTC7 and that they were reported well before 9/2001. One of these days I'll chase down the citations from this article.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2uo95x

Galileo
11th August 2007, 11:15 AM
We can all agree that Securacom turned the fire alarm system off in WTC 7 at 6:47 a.m. on September 11, 2001, right?

But we know it wasn't Marvin Bush because he quit his job there in 2000.

Wirt Walker was just a executive with the company so he didn't do it.

MaGZ
11th August 2007, 11:23 AM
Why wasn't the fire alarm, that was turned off at 6:47 a.m., turned back on promptly?

The CIA had an office in WTC 7. Wasn't this a breach of security?

It was reported that no firefighting was attempted in WTC 7 because "it was too dangerous".

Well, now we know why it was too dangerous, there was a huge explosion in the building around 9 a.m., as reported by Barry Jennings a few hours later in TV interviews.

"...around 9 a.m." fits nicely with the missile theory.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73933

MaGZ
11th August 2007, 11:41 AM
A member of this forum NDBoston was there in the building at the time and disagrees. Why don't you ask him what he thinks?

I will.

I would like to ask NDBoston to please tell us what he experienced in WTC 7 starting at 8:45 a.m. that morning.

MaGZ
11th August 2007, 11:46 AM
Barry Jennings was with Mike Hess when the explosion occurred, not NDBoston.

When will Mike Hess step forward and confirm Barry Jennings story?

MaGZ
11th August 2007, 11:53 AM
Then perhaps your initial description should be changed? Because it originally went as follows (note the bolded words):

A "huge explosion" which could not be seen or heard outside the building seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.

The explosion was filmed by Fox News cameraman Jack Taliercio


Other footage showing the missile explosion was taken by Jack Taliercio, a local Fox News cameraman. Taliercio was positioned in the plaza at the base of the North Tower and focused his camera on the burning building directly above him. In his video recording we see the second plane hitting the South Tower followed a few seconds later by an immense explosion on Taliercio's right near the vicinity of World Trade Center 6. WTC 6 was a seven-story building on the north side of WTC 1. The explosion sent debris flying in all directions. This footage was shown without explanation on news programs in the early days after 9/11, but is rarely seen today.

MaGZ
11th August 2007, 11:56 AM
Barry Jennings said it was a huge explosion. It could have killed him as the stairwell below him gave way.

I never said the explosion couldn't be heard from the oustside. I said everyone's attention at the time was on the burning Twin Towers and all the explosions over there.

When Barry Jennings appeared on TV on 9/11, his comments were edited to make it appear as if he were in the Twin Towers, not WTC 7.

You weren't there, Barry Jennings was, and your comments are an insult to 9/11 survivors.

I suggest you go through all his testimony before posting again.

Which TV station did the editing and do you have a video link of the interview?

MaGZ
11th August 2007, 12:05 PM
I was in the same stairwell as Jennings and heard no "explosions". There were thousands of people in that building too. Where are all the employees to corrabrate his story?

Should I invite my fellow members of the Global Technology Group on my floor to post in here too? Just because you want this to be true, doesn't mean it is. This is no different than the fantasy Scott Forbes weaved on the "power down" that not one other person backed up in the Towers.

Your comments are insults to the memories of my friends who diedand the people who survived.

At what time were you in the east stairwell during the evacuation?

Do you know Mr. Jennings? Did you see him in the stairwell?

Yes, please invite all of those you know who were in WTC 7 that day to post on this thread.

A W Smith
11th August 2007, 12:15 PM
The explosion was filmed by Fox News cameraman Jack Taliercio

You have no citations for your quotes. You have no evidence, Your conspiracy wont fly. And your velocipede has two flat tires.

MaGZ
11th August 2007, 12:17 PM
Everyone all aboard the woo woo train.

Do you expect me to have a CAD drawing with the layout of my floor? Spare me.

You assumed quite a bit. You could hear the planes and the debris hitting from EVERYWHERE on my floor. You could have been in a locked stall in the bathroom and know all hell is breaking loose.

There were no significant construction projects that I can ever recall save the dedication of more conference rooms on a few floors. Do you know what would be involved in wiring a building for demolition? Do you really think that type of work wouldn't be noticed by a workforce packed in like sardines?

Are you claiming that the demolition wiring was done that day? Do you know how uninformed you are in saying that?

YOu want your story to be true, You will ignore all contrary information and believe only that makes your fantasy come true.

I even know Indira Singh. I met her through my involvement through the Object Development Group where she was one of the organizers. A bright woman be it a bit nutty. I wasn't surprised to find out she became a "truther"

Tell mw about what you know besides You Tube?



You could hear the planes and the debris hitting from EVERYWHERE on my floor.


NDBoston, is this what you heard when the first plane hit WTC 1?

What floor were you on when this happened and were you on the south side WTC 7?

Did you immediately start to evacuate the building after the first plane hit?

Where were you when the second plane hit?

Alt+F4
11th August 2007, 12:18 PM
NDBoston, is this what you heard when the first plane hit WTC 1?

What floor were you on when this happened and were you on the south side WTC 7?

Did you immediately start to evacuate the building after the first plane hit?

Where were you when the second plane hit?

You forgot the most important question you want to ask him, "Are you a Jew?"

MaGZ
11th August 2007, 12:25 PM
Thought for the day....

Is the explosion described by Barry Jennings a better explanation for the fires seen on the NORTH side of WTC 7, than some flying debris hitting the SOUTH side???

YOU Betcha!

:p

The errant missile that hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor, south side, at 9:03 a.m. is the best explanation for the fires starting in the building.

MaGZ
11th August 2007, 12:29 PM
You forgot the most important question you want to ask him, "Are you a Jew?"

I can usually figure that out without asking. If he wants to clear that up right away, then that’s fine with me.

A W Smith
11th August 2007, 12:33 PM
The errant missile that hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor, south side, at 9:03 a.m. is the best explanation for the fires starting in the building.


Proof by assertion logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion)noted

MaGZ
11th August 2007, 12:40 PM
After the Twin Towers collapsed the water mains were broke & water pressue was at 0. That's the only reason why the FDNY backed off from WTC7 when the fires got out of control. It's something that every firefighter has to go through in training. If a structure is not worth saving or risking your life to save just let it burn itself out or let it collapse. Just focus on saving the other buildings around it if you can.

The FDNY personnel were pulled out of WTC 7 because it was feared it might collapse due to the damage of the southwest corner.

Galileo
11th August 2007, 03:32 PM
perhaps "pull it" is not a demolition term after all, but an arson term.

maybe when he said "pull it" he meant pull the fire alarm.

NYCEMT86
11th August 2007, 03:39 PM
perhaps "pull it" is not a demolition term after all, but an arson term.

maybe when he said "pull it" he meant pull the fire alarm.

Who pulled it?


Any remarks on my response? Like how do you know "most" of the paper blew out the window?

Galileo
11th August 2007, 03:47 PM
Silverstein said "pull it" just before WTC 7 fell, according to the chronology in video America Rebuilds.

When I said 'most', I am talking about most of the paper that was found in the streets wasn't burned. I am not talking about the paper that burned and never got to the streets.

This is not to say that most of the paper wasn't damaged in some way.

Why exactly is this a big deal to you?

You are another word nit picker.

NYCEMT86
11th August 2007, 03:50 PM
nit picker? maybe...just want to know what you are thinking, since I don't have time to read 23 pages to catch up.


But who did Larry Silverstein say that too?

Galileo
11th August 2007, 03:52 PM
"Pull it" is one of the most famous quotes on the internet.

I suggest you type "Pull it" into google.

I am not pulling your leg.

NYCEMT86
11th August 2007, 03:54 PM
I know who he said it, but I want you to say.

FDNY Chief Nigro.


But does that mean the FDNY brought down the WTC 7?

Galileo
11th August 2007, 04:10 PM
"But does that mean the FDNY brought down the WTC 7?"

You'd have to ask Larry Silverstein that question.

Maybe the building was dangerous and they had to take it down before someone was hurt?

Gravy
11th August 2007, 04:19 PM
"But does that mean the FDNY brought down the WTC 7?"

You'd have to ask Larry Silverstein that question.

Maybe the building was dangerous and they had to take it down before someone was hurt?

So all the FDNY Chiefs are liars? You should reconsider that stance.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

NYCEMT86
11th August 2007, 04:21 PM
Maybe the building was dangerous and they had to take it down before someone was hurt?

Take it down? No, I don't know where it says in the Firefighters manual where we bring buildings down where its too dangerous. It does say evacuate the area of civilians and firefighters and make sure everyone is out if building is in danger of collapse.

Chief Nigro was talking about pulling fire ground operations because of the lack of water and the risk the firefighters were in.

"member 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 Silverstein

"On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building."

"...they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too...

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 to pull everybody back."


Source (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html)