Dylan Avery - Earth-Shattering News Coming Soon (again)

[Galileo]

No, I'm not saying the FDNY are liars. What gives you that idea?

The military lied about

[NYCEMT86]

"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?

Maybe the quoted statement above would give us an idea.

You brought up the "Pull it" quote as proof of CD or Larry Silverstein bringing down the WTC. That was a conversation between Silverstein and FDNY Chief Nigro.

Therefore you are implying the FDNY was involved.

[Galileo]

Not sure where you got the idea that the FDNY are liars. I don't agree with that.

[Redtail]

No, I'm not saying the FDNY are liars. What gives you that idea?

The military lied about

Lied about what?

[Jonnyclueless]

Not sure where you got the idea that the FDNY are liars. I don't agree with that.

You implied that because he said "pull it" on the radio that he was involved in demoing the building. He was talking to the FDNY. Thus accusing the FDNY of being involved and lying. Pretty simple to understand.

I understand that most people claiming that he was involved because of that quote don't really think much past the quote or bother to put any of the pieces together. This is what causes the problem. Unfortunately for people making this claim, the rest of us do.

If you're saying Larry called for the building to be pulled when he was talking to the FDNY, then you are claiming they were in on it. The FDNY says it most certainly wasn't. And thus for based on your claim, they are then lying.

Sow which is it? Are the FDNY lying, or was Larry simply not asking them to demo the building?

[Galileo]

Pat Tillman

[NYCEMT86]

"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?

Again...

You said "Maybe the building was dangerous and they had to take it down before someone was hurt?"

Well Chief Nigro never said that they brought the building down, so even implying that statement above would mean that the FDNY lied about their role in the WTC 7.


Using the "Pull it" quote period implies that the FDNY was involved because the whole conversation was between the FDNY and Silverstein.

[Galileo]

They might have been mixed up. It was a hectic day.

[NYCEMT86]

They might have been mixed up. It was a hectic day.

Who was mixed up?

[Galileo]

Not "Who".

They was mixed up.

[GT/CS]

This has all the signs of turning into a "Who's on First" joke.

[NYCEMT86]

Not "Who".

They was mixed up.

But he didn't make that statement until a year later.


So what could "pull it" mean?


"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. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then."

[Redtail]

What does Pat Tillman have to do with WTC 7?


Not "Who".

They was mixed up.

Who's "they"?

[Slayhamlet]

Pat Tillman

Thanks for that non sequitur. Are you trying to contend with Malcolm Kirkman for the position of being the most scatter-brained examplar of twoofer logic?

[NYCEMT86]

What does Pat Tillman have to do with WTC 7?




Who's "they"?

He thinks that when Silverstein "They" he wasn't talking about the FDNY but the CD company.......though that would take the full quote out of context and its his attempt to not blame the FDNY in any way

[Slayhamlet]

He thinks that when Silverstein "They" he wasn't talking about the FDNY but the CD company.......though that would take the full quote out of context and its his attempt to not blame the FDNY in any way

Oh, well in that case Galileo's "point" (if you could call it that) is 100% rubbish. The day Silverstein was interviewed by PBS and made the statement in question was not a "hectic day".

The level of disconnect these twoofers have from reality is really quite staggering.

[tsig]

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?

Where were you when this happened and were you in the vicinity?

Did you immediately evacuate and did you have paper or use your finger?

Where were you when the second plane it??

You seem to know a lot about how it happened.

Is this a reverse black-op?

[tsig]

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.

I'm from the farm so i thought pullit was a young female chicken.

Or the other thing.

[Redtail]

He thinks that when Silverstein "They" he wasn't talking about the FDNY but the CD company.......though that would take the full quote out of context and its his attempt to not blame the FDNY in any way

Sweet Enola Gay.

[Dog Town]

The level of disconnect these twoofers have from reality is really quite staggering.

You ain't just whistling Dixie!

[funk de fino]

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.


what type of missile?

[Jonnyclueless]

Pat Tillman

Banana Hamock

[LashL]

what type of missile?

I just wanted to comment on what a great user name you came up with, funk de fino ;)


...now, back to your regularly scheduled debunking.

[SpitfireIX]

I just wanted to comment on what a great user name you came up with, funk de fino ;)


...now, back to your regularly scheduled debunking.



Okay, how about letting everyone else in on the joke?


(Translation: I couldn't come up with an obvious answer by Googling. :) )

[TjW]

Okay, how about letting everyone else in on the joke?


(Translation: I couldn't come up with an obvious answer by Googling. :) )

Ah. I think funk de fino is Native American, from both the Ignorant Tribe (Damfinos), and the famous Lost Tribe (the Fugawi).

[Galileo]

How come no one here is going to tell me who turned the fire alarm off in WTC 7 at 6:47 a.m.?

When someone turns off a fire alarm shortly before a fire allegedly destroys a building, normally that is treated as arson by investigators.

Who "pulled" the fire alarm?

[Par]

When someone turns off a fire alarm shortly before a fire allegedly destroys a building, normally that is treated as arson by investigators.



Not if those investigators already know the cause of the fire.

[Galileo]

Not if those investigators already know the cause of the fire.

What cause have investigators found for the fire seen in the 7th floor window on the north side of the building?

[Galileo]

What happened to WTC 7 Eyewitness NDBoston?

Is NDBoston also an Eyewitness to Jesus?

Di you guys see a dude that believes in creationisn just got 2nd in the Iowa Straw poll? [Huchabee]

No wonder IOWA stands for i Owe the World an Apology.

[dudalb]

Just when you think that Galileo could not get any sillier,he does.
Let's insult a whole state. That is gonna win you supporters.
Creationism it total nonsense,but it's supporters are monuments of logic and reason compared to the 9/11 CT Kooks.

[CHF]

Oh dear...another truther stuck in the FDNY-WTC7-"pull it" jam.

"Pull" = blow up, but the FDNY is totally innocent?

Doesn't work, Galileo.

[NDBoston]

What happened to WTC 7 Eyewitness NDBoston?

Is NDBoston also an Eyewitness to Jesus?

Di you guys see a dude that believes in creationisn just got 2nd in the Iowa Straw poll? [Huchabee]

No wonder IOWA stands for i Owe the World an Apology.


I'm sorry what I experienced wrecks your wacky theories. You're no different than the "truthers" down at Ground Zero who called me a CIA operative when I stared asking questions.

Welcome to ignore.

[twinstead]

Just when you think that Galileo could not get any sillier,he does.
Let's insult a whole state. That is gonna win you supporters.
Creationism it total nonsense,but it's supporters are monuments of logic and reason compared to the 9/11 CT Kooks.

Actually even many 9/11 kooks are monuments of logic and reason compared to Galileo

[SpitfireIX]

Ah. I think funk de fino is Native American, from both the Ignorant Tribe (Damfinos), and the famous Lost Tribe (the Fugawi).


:idea: Ah, thank you. I'd heard of the Damfinos, but not the Fugawi. This makes much more sense now. :D

[Foolmewunz]

What happened to WTC 7 Eyewitness NDBoston?

Is NDBoston also an Eyewitness to Jesus?

Di you guys see a dude that believes in creationisn just got 2nd in the Iowa Straw poll? [Huchabee]

No wonder IOWA stands for i Owe the World an Apology.


I think we're now witnessing Galileo meltdown.

[Galileo]

I'm sorry what I experienced wrecks your wacky theories. You're no different than the "truthers" down at Ground Zero who called me a CIA operative when I stared asking questions.

Welcome to ignore.

You make no sense, which is par for the course for the falsers.

Nothing you say contradicts Barry Jennings testimony.

Yet you imply he is a liar, which is pretty lame of you.

YOU have the wacky idea that an office fire can make a giant steel framed building fall in a controlled demolition in 6.6 seconds. The office fire wasn't even visible when the building fell.

You haven't told me, despite all your inside information, who turned off the WTC fire alarm.

There is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for WTC7; it was a controlled demolition.

Only your insane POLITICAL views blind you to basic science.

You never explain how WTC 7 fell. Neither does Gravy. Neither has NIST.

NIST just puts out press releases every month claiming they have no evidence for explosives, yet they say in the same press release they are investigating "hypothetical blast events".

How can a hypothetical event cause a building to fall? Only ACTUAL events can.

You never explain why debris hitting the south side of the building caused fires on the north side of the building.

You ignore well documented explosions in the building.

I don't care if you work for the CIA or not. It doesn't matter to me.

Frankly, the expalnations I see on this site for the WTC 7 evidence is flat out nuts, no wonder 2/3 of the world think you are all a bunch of fruitcakes.

Let's here some science.

Tell, me, what DID cause the explosion that Barry Jennings heard and felt?

I can see it now.... In a couple years NIST will confirm what I already know, the WTC 7 was controlled demolition.

Then the JREFers will accuse NIST of being Truthers!

[Galileo]

I think we're now witnessing Galileo meltdown.

No it's a Galileo controlled demolition.

But you don't believe in controlled demolitions, so it must be a meltdown.

[Par]

What cause have investigators found for the fire seen in the 7th floor window on the north side of the building?



The same cause for the other fires in the building, I suppose. (Incidentally, are you now claiming that someone surreptitiously entered a burning building and set it on fire again?)

[Drudgewire]

Welcome to ignore.
I keep forgetting he's on mine (only person there, btw) when I come into this thread... it's funny looking at half the posts in it being nothing but a little line. :)

[Foolmewunz]

You make no sense, which is par for the course for the falsers.

Nothing you say contradicts Barry Jennings testimony.

Yet you imply he is a liar, which is pretty lame of you.

YOU have the wacky idea that an office fire can make a giant steel framed building fall in a controlled demolition in 6.6 seconds. The office fire wasn't even visible when the building fell.

You haven't told me, despite all your inside information, who turned off the WTC fire alarm.

There is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for WTC7; it was a controlled demolition.

Only your insane POLITICAL views blind you to basic science.

You never explain how WTC 7 fell. Neither does Gravy. Neither has NIST.

NIST just puts out press releases every month claiming they have no evidence for explosives, yet they say in the same press release they are investigating "hypothetical blast events".

How can a hypothetical event cause a building to fall? Only ACTUAL events can.

You never explain why debris hitting the south side of the building caused fires on the north side of the building.

You ignore well documented explosions in the building.

I don't care if you work for the CIA or not. It doesn't matter to me.

Frankly, the expalnations I see on this site for the WTC 7 evidence is flat out nuts, no wonder 2/3 of the world think you are all a bunch of fruitcakes.

Let's here some science.

Tell, me, what DID cause the explosion that Barry Jennings heard and felt?

I can see it now.... In a couple years NIST will confirm what I already know, the WTC 7 was controlled demolition.

Then the JREFers will accuse NIST of being Truthers!

It's a wonderful day in the neigborhood....

Hi, would you like to be my friend? Can we say "Mineta", boys and girls?

If one witness (or two or three) has a confused timeline and contradicts the testimony and evidence of dozens, if not hundreds, of other witnesses, why do troofers insist on taking that one statement and run around screaming and waving it over their heads as "proof".

You haven't even got Jennings' interview to go by. You have DA and AJ reporting on the interview. In fact, they haven't even indicate whether they have a separate interview (someone can correct me if this is wrong) or if they've just spliced together bits from his previous statements.

For twenty bucks a head, we can all go down on 9/10 and see the almost nearly complete preview version of LCFC and see what they've got. Or we can wait until the day after when DA's devoted fans will post it on the web. Either way, I'm betting we have a cut-n-paste job with thrashing hiphop music and an incredulous announcer saying, "But.... (dum de dum dum) Is that what REALLY happened?"

[Galileo]

The same cause for the other fires in the building, I suppose. (Incidentally, are you now claiming that someone surreptitiously entered a burning building and set it on fire again?)

Someone surreptitiously entered a burning building and turned off the off the alarm.

There is no explanation for the fires in WTC 7, besides the huge explosion reported by Barry Jennings.

[JimBenArm]

Someone surreptitiously entered a burning building and turned off the off the alarm.

There is no explanation for the fires in WTC 7, besides the huge explosion reported by Barry Jennings.
Well, of course there isn't! Having a huge burning building fall on it would hardly cause anything to happen!

[Galileo]

Well, of course there isn't! Having a huge burning building fall on it would hardly cause anything to happen!

Show me the huge fire. I can't see ANY fires in ANY of the several the collapse videos.

You are speculating.

The 9/11 Truth movement uses EVIDENCE.

[JimBenArm]

Show me the huge fire. I can't see ANY fires in ANY of the several the collapse videos.

You are speculating.

The 9/11 Truth movement uses EVIDENCE.
You're right. No fire here...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1279346c1125385747.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7691)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1279346c11253afaec.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7692)

[Galileo]

You're right. No fire here...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1279346c1125385747.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7691)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1279346c11253afaec.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7692)

This thread is about WTC 7.

Please get with the system.

[TjW]

Someone surreptitiously entered a burning building and turned off the off the alarm.

Probably not. When I was in the business, "going on test" was something that happened in the communications center, not at the alarm itself. In fact, the fire alarms I'm aware of can't be turned off. You could kill the power and disconnect the backup battery, I suppose. A number of commercial systems have battery backup for 96 hours.
You can run a test from the alarm panel, of course, which forces communication with the comm center, but that doesn't put it "on test".

The way it generally works is that the alarm signal goes to a communication center (usually over the dial-up network). The received signal goes to a computer system, which displays the alarm to one of the human operators, who then does the appropriate thing -- call the police, fire station, or whatever seems appropriate.

False alarms are a big problem for the alarm industry, and there's an escalating series of fines for reporting them, followed in the last case by authorities refusing to respond at all.
So if a system is falsing, or repeatedly calling to report new sensors in alarm or trouble condition, after the alarm has already been handled, the operator might put it on test. This doesn't keep it from alarming, or calling in, but the calls just get logged to disk, and the operator doesn't have to keep handling something that's already been handled.

If you're going to posit a conspiracy to commit arson in order to destroy WTC 7, the person in charge of putting the fire alarm on test was not very effective; the fire department was already there, or on its way.
The effective person in such a conspiracy would be the one who managed to make sure the water mains weren't working. Without adequate water to fight the fire, it didn't matter if the FD arrived on time or not.


There is no explanation for the fires in WTC 7, besides the huge explosion reported by Barry Jennings.

Of course, given that there were fires in WTC 7, regardless of whether or not you are happy with your understanding of their origin, there are lots of things that could cause explosions. The large number of transformers in the substation the building was built over, for example.

[JimBenArm]

Here, let me clarify it for you, since it's obvious you don't read for comprehension.
You said there was nothing that could have caused the fires in WTC7 except for arson.
I told you about WTC 1 & 2 falling on them, while ablaze.
You said there was no evidence of them being on fire.
I showed you evidence of them being on fire.
You said I was not "with the system".
I just showed you the problem with that statement.
There. All caught up now? Good.
I'll try not to bother you any more now, since it's obvious facts upset you.
Goodbye.

[A-Train]

You make no sense, which is par for the course for the falsers.

Nothing you say contradicts Barry Jennings testimony.

Yet you imply he is a liar, which is pretty lame of you.

YOU have the wacky idea that an office fire can make a giant steel framed building fall in a controlled demolition in 6.6 seconds. The office fire wasn't even visible when the building fell.

You haven't told me, despite all your inside information, who turned off the WTC fire alarm.

There is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for WTC7; it was a controlled demolition.

Only your insane POLITICAL views blind you to basic science.

You never explain how WTC 7 fell. Neither does Gravy. Neither has NIST.

NIST just puts out press releases every month claiming they have no evidence for explosives, yet they say in the same press release they are investigating "hypothetical blast events".

How can a hypothetical event cause a building to fall? Only ACTUAL events can.

You never explain why debris hitting the south side of the building caused fires on the north side of the building.

You ignore well documented explosions in the building.

I don't care if you work for the CIA or not. It doesn't matter to me.

Frankly, the expalnations I see on this site for the WTC 7 evidence is flat out nuts, no wonder 2/3 of the world think you are all a bunch of fruitcakes.

Let's here some science.

Tell, me, what DID cause the explosion that Barry Jennings heard and felt?

I can see it now.... In a couple years NIST will confirm what I already know, the WTC 7 was controlled demolition.

Then the JREFers will accuse NIST of being Truthers!

Awesome post. A resounding slam dunk. "Falsers"-- what a great term!

Where is Gravy? Hiding somewhere? Now I understand why he will not answer Galileo's challenge to debate him.

[funk de fino]

Barrys statement that was played on AJ show contradicts the statements that no-one could see the explosion as claimed by truthers, the same ones who say this explosion that apparently blew out the staircase did not break any windows so no-one outside seen it or heard it.

In this statement he says he was hauled out a hole in the wall by the responders and the lobby was destroyed. If this is so and it was before the collapse of the towers then the responders would have seen this damage prior to the tower collapse. The damage and holes in the walls was not there prior to collapse of tower therefore Barry was mistaken in his timing and the explosion he felt was the damage from the tower.

See WTC collpase thread where christopher7 is struggling to come to terms with Barry's apparent contradictions

[Gravy]

Let's here some science.Hear, hear!

Tell, me, what DID cause the explosion that Barry Jennings heard and felt?The collapse of building 1, silly. How many times do you need to be told? Let me know and I'll post the same thing that many times, thus saving you of trouble of repeating yourself, and we'll be all done. Okey-dokey?

At 9:59 a.m., WTC 2 collapsed, and debris from the collapse struck the south face of WTC 7. At 10:28 a.m., WTC 1 collapsed and a significant amount of damage was done to WTC 7. A large amount of debris crashed through the front center of the building from approximately the 10th floor down to ground level, and debris ripped a part of the southwest corner off from approximately the 8th floor up to the 18th floor. The collapse of WTC 1 also appears to be responsible for starting fires inside of WTC 7. With the collapse of the two towers, a New York City employee and a WTC 7 building staff person became trapped inside of WTC 7. The two had gone to the OEM center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help. Firefighters on the ground saw them and went up the stairs. In addition, a security officer for one of the businesses in the building was also was trapped on the 7th floor by the smoke in the stairway. As the firefighters went up, they vented the stairway and cleared some of the smoke. They first met the security officer on the 7th floor and firefighters escorted him down the stairs. Other firefighters from the group continued up the stairs, shined their flashlight through the staircase smoke and called out. The two trapped men on the 8 floor saw the flashlight beam and heard the firefighters calling and went down the stairway. The firefighters took the men outside and directed them away from the building. NIST NCSTAR 1-81 p.109-110

[Alt+F4]

Show me the huge fire. I can't see ANY fires in ANY of the several the collapse videos.

You are speculating.

The 9/11 Truth movement uses EVIDENCE.

Are you saying that if there isn't a video of an event then it didn't happen? There is no photographic evidence of my birth, but yet here I am, alive.

[Galileo]

Are you saying that if there isn't a video of an event then it didn't happen? There is no photographic evidence of my birth, but yet here I am, alive.

No, I'm not saying that. You are saying that.

[HyJinX]

The 9/11 Truth movement uses EVIDENCE.

Really? Can you explain what evidence your movement has?

[Galileo]

Here, let me clarify it for you, since it's obvious you don't read for comprehension.
You said there was nothing that could have caused the fires in WTC7 except for arson.
I told you about WTC 1 & 2 falling on them, while ablaze.
You said there was no evidence of them being on fire.
I showed you evidence of them being on fire.
You said I was not "with the system".
I just showed you the problem with that statement.
There. All caught up now? Good.
I'll try not to bother you any more now, since it's obvious facts upset you.
Goodbye.

Let clarify Jim BEnArM;

There wer no flames coming out of WTC 7 when it fell.

The smoke was from the fires in WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6, and ground zero.

Aloha.

[Par]

Someone surreptitiously entered a burning building and turned off the off the alarm. There is no explanation for the fires in WTC 7, besides the huge explosion reported by Barry Jennings.
Show me the huge fire. I can't see ANY fires in ANY of the several the collapse videos.



So, you believe that World Trade Center 7 caught fire due to an explosion, but you don’t actually believe it was on fire at all.

[Galileo]

Hear, hear!

The collapse of building 1, silly. How many times do you need to be told? Let me know and I'll post the same thing that many times, thus saving you of trouble of repeating yourself, and we'll be all done. Okey-dokey?

We've already covered this.

The NIST diagrams prove there was no debris damage in the east stairwell.

NIST has altered what Barry Jennings said on TV on 9/11, and what he said on camera to Dylan Avery.

The damage in the east stariwell was caused by an explosion that preceded the collapse of either Twin Tower.

This explosion also caused the fire seen in the window on the 7th floor on the north side of the building.

[HyJinX]

Still waiting for that list of "evidence" Galileo...can you please provide?

[afinemadness]

Let clarify Jim BEnArM;

There wer no flames coming out of WTC 7 when it fell.

The smoke was from the fires in WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6, and ground zero.

Aloha.

I find it amazing that building 7 is the only completely fireproof building ever built. With every building around it on fire and even you agreeing that part of building one fell on it there was no fire. quick find out the construction of the building and get it out to everyone there will never again be a death in a high rise fire.

[fitzgibbon]

Still waiting for that list of "evidence" Galileo...can you please provide?

Silence. How odd. Not like THAT sort of thing ever happens when a "truther" is called down. What is it about the education system that's failed to imbue these kids with even a basic understanding of physics?

[T.A.M.]

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire1.jpg
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/911%20Cover-up/wtc7_fire-911.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire2.jpg

TAM:)

[HyJinX]

Silence. How odd. Not like THAT sort of thing ever happens when a "truther" is called down. What is it about the education system that's failed to imbue these kids with even a basic understanding of physics?

Well...I, for one, believe that people like Galileo live by the mantra "books are for pussies, you tube rocks!". Not much ya can do about it until they grow up.

[T.A.M.]

http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/7wtc.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7firesnorthface.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7fireseastface.jpg
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/wtc7_fire.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9606/wtc7nbc00001az0.jpg
TAM:)

[JimBenArm]

Let clarify Jim BEnArM;

There wer no flames coming out of WTC 7 when it fell.

The smoke was from the fires in WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6, and ground zero.

Aloha.
Jim Beam. Ha Ha.
Reported.

[Drudgewire]

Jim Beam. Ha Ha.
Oh why isn't it 5:00 yet? http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/alcoholic.gif

[Foolmewunz]

Time to tack again, Galileo. This path isn't working, so you need to get upwind and pick a new one.

1. Click on the links that TAM provided.

Hint: The fires would be the orange-yellow things leaping out of the windows.

2. Back off this theme, you're making a fool of yourself.

3. Change topics.

Thanks for your continued support.

[Galileo]

OH YES! This IS evidence for explosives. Evidence as explosive as the bombs that took down WTC 7.

NIST is now exploring "hypothetical blast events" for WTC 7.

But if we have a witness, it is no longer hypothetical anymore.

And NIST has scientists who are proving that WTC 7 failed where the explosion occurred.

That, my friends, is plenty of evidence for conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt, in any court of law.

There is a limit to how much politicians can manipulate science. The Bush administration pushed it to the max.

But the end is near. The word is out.

The NIST scientists DIDN'T EVEN KNOW that Barry Jenning's testimony had been altered. BUT THEY KNOW NOW!

Thanks to the power of the Internet and 9/11 Truth.

The cat is out of the bag! The last vestiges of denial dwell in deep crevices of JREF denial forums, soon to be their own isolated reality, like blind cave-fish 200 feet under the surface of the earth.

* Jennings has A-1 credibility

* Jennings described a powerful explosion in WTC 7 BEFORE the South Tower fell.

* The north stairwell he was in, WASN'T HIT BY TWIN TOWER DEBRIS.

and

* The explosion caused a CRITICAL FAILURE that brought WTC 7 to it's knees.

No, my friends, WTC 7 didn't fall like a house of cards.

But the Official Conspiracy Theory is about to implode like a house of cards.

Farewell. And good luck. You'll need it.

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

by Alan Miller Page 1 of 3 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com





James Quintiere, Ph.D.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.



Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

[slyjoe]

Galileo: Did you read the entire article? Quintiere makes it clear there were no explosives. Good job debunking yourself.

Typical cherry-picking and quote mining. Pretty pathetic way to debate.

[stateofgrace]

I take it you read it all Galileo?


Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”


Opps beaten to it.Sorry carry on.

[cloudshipsrule]

Galileo,

Thanks for posting a link to an informative article. Dr. Quintiere seems sincere, and I'm all for investigating whether there was sufficient fire-proofing on the load-bearing members. It's also great to hear the following:

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”




Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

[Galileo]

I take it you read it all Galileo?



Opps beaten to it.Sorry carry on.

he said he wasn't a "supporter", he never said he didn't believe the obvious controlled demolitions.

A supporter is someone who gives financial assistance or does activism in favor of a cause.

He has sent no money to controlled demolition advocates, to my knowledge, nor has he made speeches in favor of the demolition hypothesis.

It's sort of like someone who votes for Ron Paul, but does not send him money or do activism for him.

Please be careful to read things more carefully in the future, and we can avoid these mishaps.

[cloudshipsrule]

he said he wasn't a "supporter", he never said he didn't believe the obvious controlled demolitions.

A supporter is someone who gives financial assistance or does activism in favor of a cause.

Wow. That is GAY.

[NYCEMT86]

he said he wasn't a "supporter", he never said he didn't believe the obvious controlled demolitions.

A supporter is someone who gives financial assistance or does activism in favor of a cause.

He has sent no money to controlled demolition advocates, to my knowledge, nor has he made speeches in favor of the demolition hypothesis.

It's sort of like someone who votes for Ron Paul, but does not send him money or do activism for him.

Please be careful to read things more carefully in the future, and we can avoid these mishaps.

STUNDIE!

[A W Smith]

he said he wasn't a "supporter", he never said he didn't believe the obvious controlled demolitions.

A supporter is someone who gives financial assistance or does activism in favor of a cause.

He has sent no money to controlled demolition advocates, to my knowledge, nor has he made speeches in favor of the demolition hypothesis.

It's sort of like someone who votes for Ron Paul, but does not send him money or do activism for him.

Please be careful to read things more carefully in the future, and we can avoid these mishaps.


Nice try
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supporter



A person who supports, promotes (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/promote), advocates (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate) or champions (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/champion) a cause (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cause) or movement (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/movement); an adherent (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adherent).

[slyjoe]

he said he wasn't a "supporter", he never said he didn't believe the obvious controlled demolitions.

A supporter is someone who gives financial assistance or does activism in favor of a cause.

He has sent no money to controlled demolition advocates, to my knowledge, nor has he made speeches in favor of the demolition hypothesis.

It's sort of like someone who votes for Ron Paul, but does not send him money or do activism for him.

Please be careful to read things more carefully in the future, and we can avoid these mishaps.


This has to be one of the most ignorant pieces of drivel I have ever seen.

Do you actually believe what you write?

[cloudshipsrule]

We'll soon know Galileo, because I just emailed Dr. Quintiere and directly asked him his opinion. Here's hoping he replies with candor.

[scissorhands]

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

He seems to be saying that NIST is being too conservative in its analysis of the effect of fire on the trusses.
He seems to be saying that they would deform sufficiently for collapse with the fireproofing intact.
He seems to be saying that the fireproofing may have been substandard?
How does that help your argument that the fire was insignificant "Galileo"?

[stateofgrace]

I just read this in the stundies; I couldn't believe it and had to check it out.

Wow, just :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp wow.

[slyjoe]

Your sig covers another of Galileo's missives that made my jaw drop and go WOW. This one too. You may need more sig space, SofG.

[stateofgrace]

The way Galileo is going, I think everybody is going to need bigger sig space.

(Only ribbing you Galileo, please carry on and thanks for the informative article).

[dudalb]

The FAQ for this site seem to be down,so could somebody give me a definition/explanation of the term Stundie?
I am not so stupid as not to get it is an award for an outrageously stupid statement,but details Please?

[Galileo]

Nice try
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supporter

"Quote:
A person who supports, promotes, advocates or champions a cause or movement; an adherent."

ADHERENT is the last, most obscure sense of the word 'supporter'.

He was using it in the 1st four most common senses.

Do not assume, because you know what happens when you assume.

[JimBenArm]

The FAQ for this site seem to be down,so could somebody give me a definition/explanation of the term Stundie?
I am not so stupid as not to get it is an award for an outrageously stupid statement,but details Please?
Stundie is a twoofer with an unbelievable grasp of how things work. In other words, even for a twoofer, he's stupid. His lack of intellect is only exceeded by his enormous ego, and he will make the most outlandish statements. Hence, when we decided to come up with this award, we felt it was only fitting it be named for him, in honor of his accomplishments.

[johnny karate]

We should double-check with Galileo. He seems to be good at defining words. ;)

[johnny karate]

"Quote:
A person who supports, promotes, advocates or champions a cause or movement; an adherent."

ADHERENT is the last, most obscure sense of the word 'supporter'.

He was using it in the 1st four most common senses.

Do not assume, because you know what happens when you assume.

He makes a good point. That being said, I am not a supporter of the notion that Galileo is an idiot.

[Foolmewunz]

Time to tack again, Galileo. This path isn't working, so you need to get upwind and pick a new one.

1. Click on the links that TAM provided.

Hint: The fires would be the orange-yellow things leaping out of the windows.

2. Back off this theme, you're making a fool of yourself.

3. Change topics.

Thanks for your continued support.

Ah, I see Galileo chose door number 3. (Isn't that the one with the goat behind it, generally?):spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad:

[Galileo]

Ah, I see Galileo chose door number 3. (Isn't that the one with the goat behind it, generally?):spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad:

Incorrect Foolmethrice.

I DID NOT change the subject, but instead responded to a posting already posted by distinguished JREF Poster Mr. Galilei.

YOU are the one changing the subject, to the subject of changing the subject, which is a subject not mentioned by anyone else in this forum!

[Galileo]

The History Channel program last night FAILED to debunk the testimony of Barry Jennings, which is more evidence that what Jennings said is TRUE!

[Unsecured Coins]

they didn't debunk beam weapons either. JUDY was RIGHT!! oh noes!!

[defaultdotxbe]

they didn't debunk beam weapons either. JUDY was RIGHT!! oh noes!!
no, they didnt debunk interdimensional lizard men, so david icke is right :P

[Par]

The History Channel program last night FAILED to debunk the testimony of Barry Jennings, which is more evidence that what Jennings said is TRUE!


Argumentum ad logicam fallacy.

[Galileo]

no, they didnt debunk interdimensional lizard men, so david icke is right :P

I didn't say 'proof', I said 'evidence'.

[Galileo]

Argumentum ad logicam fallacy.

not in POLITICAL DISCOURSE!

[defaultdotxbe]

I didn't say 'proof', I said 'evidence'.
so then the HC peice is evidence for reptilian humanoids and spaceborne superlasers, same difference

[Par]

no, they didnt debunk interdimensional lizard men, so david icke is right :P
I didn't say 'proof', I said 'evidence'.

It’s neither proof nor evidence.

Argumentum ad logicam fallacy.
not in POLITICAL DISCOURSE!

Your response is meaningless.

[Foolmewunz]

Incorrect Foolmethrice.

I DID NOT change the subject, but instead responded to a posting already posted by distinguished JREF Poster Mr. Galilei.

YOU are the one changing the subject, to the subject of changing the subject, which is a subject not mentioned by anyone else in this forum!

"Foolmethrice"!!! Ho ha ho!! Whoa!! Good one, dude! "Thrice", man! Not "once".... not even "twice"... but THRICE!!!! Damn, that's clever! I'll bet you had the kids over at the Children's Crusade spitting milk out of their noses, right!

So ya didn't change the subject but changed the subject to a subject that was already a change of subject previously posted by a poster as a new change of subject about a change of subjects. 'Kay, I'm with you man. Just step away from the keyboard. Slowly. No one will get hurt.

[funk de fino]

The History Channel program last night FAILED to debunk the testimony of Barry Jennings, which is more evidence that what Jennings said is TRUE!

barry jennings has just debunked himself

see the "10 storey hole in WTC7" thread on this forum

even C7 has distanced himself from some of barry's claims

an interview played on Alex Jones show contradicts what he said on 911

[Galileo]

JUST SMOKING COFFEE, OR ANOTHER SMOKING GUN???

"I saw coffee that was on the desks still, the smoke was still coming off the coffee."

(Barry Jennings)
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=67

Many of the 9/11 Falsers like to claim WTC 7 was on fire before it fell.

What they don't want you to know about is the smoking coffee spotted by Barry Jennings. The smoke from the hot coffee is the source of the smoke seen coming from WTC 7, NOT a fire.

And I think we can safely assume that there were other coffee drinkers in WTC 7 besides those on the 23rd floor.

In addition, smoke from the burning WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5, and WTC 6, as well as smoke from ground zero also contributed to the WTC 7 smoke illusion.

[Galileo]

barry jennings has just debunked himself

see the "10 storey hole in WTC7" thread on this forum

even C7 has distanced himself from some of barry's claims

an interview played on Alex Jones show contradicts what he said on 911

the alleged "10 storey hole" was not anywhere near the east stairwell.

What you have just posted makes absolutely no sense.

[GlennB]

....

In addition, smoke from the burning WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5, and WTC 6, as well as smoke from ground zero also contributed to the WTC 7 smoke illusion.

Illusion? Really?

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7smokemajor.jpg

[roger]

Ya, okay, that looks like a bit of coffee steam to me.

[Lurker]

Illusion? Really?

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7smokemajor.jpg


That's a lot of coffee! Must be grande triple espressos! :)

Lurker

[twinstead]

Well, the exorbitant price of coffee at Starbucks aside, I'd pay good money for that cup of coffee!

[twinstead]

It's amazing though how many people at the scene that day were fooled by the illusion of smoke pouring out of the building.

[Lurker]

This coffee scenario will have me giggling all day. Love it!

Lurker

[Lurker]

It's amazing though how many people at the scene that day were fooled by the illusion of smoke pouring out of the building.


Aw, they're just coffee haters!

Lurker

[Galileo]

That's a lot of coffee! Must be grande triple espressos! :)

Lurker

It is brazillion dark roast coffee, and a brazillion is A LOT of coffee.

The rest of the smoke in that photo is from WTC 5.

[Lurker]

You know, a lot of people at my office drink coffee. I'm going to go outside and see if there is any billowing smoke from all that java.

Lurker

[twinstead]

The rest of the smoke in that photo is from WTC 5.

But a huge amount of smoke coming from the WTC7, just like in the image, is corroborated from eye witnesses at the scene.

All you are doing is assuming it is WTC5 because...well...because you pretty much have to perform these leaps in order for your theory to remain intact.

[Galileo]

Ya, okay, that looks like a bit of coffee steam to me.

Barry Jennings said it was coffee SMOKE, not coffee steam.

Nice try.

[defaultdotxbe]

Barry Jennings said was coffee SMOKE, not coffee steam.

Nice try.
so under what conditions does coffee smoke? did it start hanging out with the wrong crowd in high school?

[funk de fino]

the alleged "10 storey hole" was not anywhere near the east stairwell.

What you have just posted makes absolutely no sense.

read the tread, it is not just about the 10 storey hole

it has barrys latest interview which contradicts his initial testimony

therefore he debunked himself and is no longer reliable as a witness

what you posted just shows you do not read threads when people try to point out relevant info to you

[Galileo]

But a huge amount of smoke coming from the WTC7, just like in the image, is corroborated from eye witnesses at the scene.

All you are doing is assuming it is WTC5 because...well...because you pretty much have to perform these leaps in order for your theory to remain intact.

from the NIST progress report: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf

page L-22;

"...signs of a fully involved fore on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22."

This "fire" was none other than the smoking coffee described by Barry Jennings.

In the confusion that day, whoever was on Floor 22 mistook an imagined fire for what was really several cups of hot smoking brazillion dark roast coffee.

[TheRedWorm]

Tell me, how much smoke does your average burning cup of coffee produce?

[Galileo]

read the tread, it is not just about the 10 storey hole

it has barrys latest interview which contradicts his initial testimony

therefore he debunked himself and is no longer reliable as a witness

what you posted just shows you do not read threads when people try to point out relevant info to you

I have not been involved in that thread, so please post a pertinant link.

[rwguinn]

so under what conditions does coffee smoke? did it start hanging out with the wrong crowd in high school?
You owe me a keyboard. :dl:

[Galileo]

Tell me, how much smoke does your average burning cup of coffee produce?

are you talking about Starbucks dark roast coffee, or Mawell decaf?

[defaultdotxbe]

are you talking about Starbucks dark roast coffee, or Mawell decaf?
has anyone called 911 thinking a starbucks was on fire when it was just the coffee?

[TheRedWorm]

are you talking about Starbucks dark roast coffee, or Mawell decaf?


You really don't care, do you?

[Galileo]

You owe me a keyboard. :dl:

that is another possible cause of the observed smoke.

Because of the New York smoking ban, there was hundreds of people outside WTC 7 smoking Marlboro reds and Camal Filters.

Since they were outside, the windows were not able to block the smoke which flew up into the air and was sighted on many cameras.

Smoking bans are a violation of civil liberties and bad for the economy.

[roger]

It is brazillion dark roast coffee, and a brazillion is A LOT of coffee.:) Okay, that is pretty funny. The rest of the trolling, not so much, but this got a chuckle.

[Galileo]

You really don't care, do you?

From what I understand, Starbucks dark roast coffee produces black billowing smoke, while Maxwell decaf produces white smoke that is often confused with smoke produced by thermite reactions.

I really do care.

And the federal government cares about all of us, as well.

[defaultdotxbe]

anyone else think galileo needs a refresher on the first rule of holes?

[slyjoe]

...
Because of the New York smoking ban, there was hundreds of people outside WTC 7 smoking Marlboro reds and Camal Filters.

Since they were outside, the windows were not able to block the smoke which flew up into the air and was sighted on many cameras.

Smoking bans are a violation of civil liberties and bad for the economy.

So how do you feel about time travel? When was the smoking ban enacted?

[TheRedWorm]

From what I understand, Starbucks dark roast coffee produces black billowing smoke, while Maxwell decaf produces white smoke that is often confused with smoke produced by thermite reactions.

I really do care.

And the federal government cares about all of us, as well.


Can I take this as an admission that you either don't believe what you profess, or that you are simply what is known on the internet as a troll? Or is there a third option that you would like to suggest?

[defaultdotxbe]

im starting to think galileo is confusing brewing coffee with roasting the beans

http://www.diedrich.com/layoutgraphics/HistoryPhotos/Roasted!.jpg

which leads me to beleive hes never seen a coffee maker in his life

[Galileo]

Can I take this as an admission that you either don't believe what you profess, or that you are simply what is known on the internet as a troll? Or is there a third option that you would like to suggest?

I really don't believe you are a red worm.

Maybe a CIA mole, though.

[TheRedWorm]

So, troll, then?

[Galileo]

im starting to think galileo is confusing brewing coffee with roasting the beans

http://www.diedrich.com/layoutgraphics/HistoryPhotos/Roasted!.jpg

which leads me to beleive hes never seen a coffee maker in his life

maybe the CIA had a secret coffee bean roaster stored on Floor 5, near the diesel tank?

possibly the CIA was running black market coffee beans from Brazil, just like they used to run cocaine from Colombia?

A beans for arms scandal.

[Lurker]

are you talking about Starbucks dark roast coffee, or Mawell decaf?

I think scientific studies need to be performed to determine the volume and density of smoke emitted from various brands of coffees. Only then can we divine which coffee company was responsible for the smoke coverup of WTC7.

Lurker

ETA: I don't knwo Galileo's posting history but I'm placing bets on Loki troll.

[Galileo]

I think scientific studies need to be performed to determine the volume and density of smoke emitted from various brands of coffees. Only then can we divine which coffee company was responsible for the smoke coverup of WTC7.

Lurker

ETA: I don't knwo Galileo's posting history but I'm placing bets on Loki troll.

If you were really a lurker, you wouldn't be posting.

I'll bet that it was a violation of the NYC fire codes to put a coffee bean roaster right next to a diesel tank.

[beachnut]

The History Channel program last night FAILED to debunk the testimony of Barry Jennings, which is more evidence that what Jennings said is TRUE!
Yes just like the north of the CITGO station lies. I think you are on to something; they only interviewed the nut cases who think they are telling the truth, not the ones that know they are telling lies or the objects of cherry picking to make up lies.

OMG, you are close to being on the OP. Yet, Barry is alive, if he witnesses a blast from an explosive that made the stairwell break below his feet, he would be dead. Instead some debris crashed into WTC7 and broke the stairwell with an impact. Barry lives to say he heard a big crash, he must of used the word explosion. If he says otherwise, as in he experienced explosives, he is a liar or just mistaken since he is alive and suffered no blast damage.

The irony of your post is Dylan has made a claim this is the evidence to shake the foundation of some "official" story, and you are one of the only people in the world who agree with Dylan the researched challenged guru of the FICTIONAL movie Loose Change, enjoyed my many who are also researched challenged.

[Par]

I don't knwo Galileo's posting history but I'm placing bets on Loki troll.



He started out by making serious posts, but was quickly shown to be decisively wrong on just about every point he raised. Since then he’s been trolling. I think it’s an attempt to save face by pretending that he was being frivolous the whole time.

[Pardalis]

I have no idea what this thread is about anymore.

[Deus Ex Machina]

From what I understand, Starbucks dark roast coffee produces black billowing smoke, while Maxwell decaf produces white smoke that is often confused with smoke produced by thermite reactions.


Ah, that would explain the confusion when they elect new Popes.

[Molinaro]

I have no idea what this thread is about anymore.

I just started reading this thread from the start. I got to page 15, then skipped to 'last page' to see how it was going.

Now, can I safely assume that I don't realy need to go back and read the parts I skipped?

[JimBenArm]

I just started reading this thread from the start. I got to page 15, then skipped to 'last page' to see how it was going.

Now, can I safely assume that I don't realy need to go back and read the parts I skipped?
Not unless you're in need of sleep.

[dudalb]

The latest Earth Shattering News is that LC:FC will not be shown at the Toronto Film Festival.
Another broken promise by Dylan.

[Galileo]

I just started reading this thread from the start. I got to page 15, then skipped to 'last page' to see how it was going.

Now, can I safely assume that I don't realy need to go back and read the parts I skipped?

please keep reading, the really good stuff starts on page 16.

[Galileo]

He started out by making serious posts, but was quickly shown to be decisively wrong on just about every point he raised. Since then he’s been trolling. I think it’s an attempt to save face by pretending that he was being frivolous the whole time.

That is false.

My original posting on page 6 has stood the test of time, withstanding the best that the JREF falsers could muster.

Chipmunk Stew was turned away with the bute force of my precise logic, and nay not be back until the JFK files are released, and Gravy appears to be in hibernation.

[CptColumbo]

That is false.

My original posting on page 6 has stood the test of time, withstanding the best that the JREF falsers could muster.

Chipmunk Stew was turned away with the bute force of my precise logic, and nay not be back until the JFK files are released, and Gravy appears to be in hibernation.It's exactly the cognitive dissonance you expressed in the above posts that causes people to turn away from you and regard you as a joke. It illustrates that any attempt to bring you into the realm of reality is a fruitless one, and those with better things to do see no reason to waste anymore of their precious time on a close-minded immature child. Who, in the end, has no intention of thinking for his/her self or research independantly from what they can access on the internet, and is happy linking to articles written by others and debunked several times over rather than do their own work.

[Regnad Kcin]

My original posting on page 6 has stood the test of time, withstanding the best that the JREF falsers could muster...Taking a peek...

...I call on NIST scientists to recognize that the fires in WTC 7 were started intentionally and the collapse of the building was an obvious controlled demolition.I have ten bucks that says "NIST scientists" will not be returning your call.

[Galileo]

Taking a peek...

I have ten bucks that says "NIST scientists" will not be returning your call.

You two pages late and $10 short:

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

by Alan Miller Page 1 of 3 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

James Quintiere, Ph.D.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Please go back to page 27 and read 'Galileostrawdamus'.

:cool:

[Regnad Kcin]

You two pages late and $10 short:

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

by Alan Miller...Can you point out to me where the former chief, in your words, "recognize[s] that the fires in WTC 7 were started intentionally and the collapse of the building was an obvious controlled demolition?"

Many thanks in advance!

Yer pal,

RK

[twinstead]

For Christ's sake Galileo these people DO NOT support your inside job theory.

You're using their non-conspiracy questions to support a conclusion that has NOTHING to do with their issues.

That is not only dishonest, but not too bright. It makes you and people in your movement look like idiots.

How do you expect to be taken seriously?

[TheRedWorm]

He doesn't expect to be taken seriously. He only expects to rile people up, so he can laugh at them.

[twinstead]

He doesn't expect to be taken seriously. He only expects to rile people up, so he can laugh at them.

I know, I know. He's just some kid trolling a skeptics message board. It's good to keep that in mind so as to not get the old blood pressure up.

[TheRedWorm]

Yeah, I don't like to dismiss anyone as a troll, but when I gave him an option to tell me that he was just cracking a joke, and that I was taking this his coffee comment way to seriously, he just replied with a flippant remark. BTW, I've always loved your avatar.

[twinstead]

BTW, I've always loved your avatar.

Thanks. I prefer that happy glass.

[TheRedWorm]

Don't we all :alc:

[Dumb All Over]

Maybe I can help to get this thread back on track.

I just read this post by Dylan Avery at LC forum:
Yes, Friday and Saturday got cancelled ... it was a logistical nightmare...

Plan on being there for Sunday and Monday's events ... you don't want to miss either.
link (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13327&st=100)
Dylan promised them five days of troofer bliss. Now it's been cut back to three. I'm so glad I didn't make my reservations for the first two days.

[WildCat]

"logistical nightmare" meaning "we don't have the audience to pay for a room at Friday and Saturday rates, but have just enough suckers people to get a room on the cheap nights".

[Foolmewunz]

"logistical nightmare" meaning "we don't have the audience to pay for a room at Friday and Saturday rates, but have just enough suckers people to get a room on the cheap nights".

Hey, Dylan.... I'm a forty year professional in Logistics. Lemme help...

Ya gets in your car.
Ya take a left at the Shell Station.
Go two lights and take a right at the Blockbuster Video.
Take the on ramp for Route 88 East.
Route 88 to 87 (New York Throughway).
87 Southbound.
You'll recognize it when you get there, it's the big city with all the lights.

(Glad to have been able to provide the service. I surely want to see all the Truth hitting the streets of my former home town, and wouldn't want you to miss for the simple lack of directions.)

[CptColumbo]

Hey, Dylan.... I'm a forty year professional in Logistics. Lemme help...

Ya gets in your car.
Ya take a left at the Shell Station.
Go two lights and take a right at the Blockbuster Video.
Take the on ramp for Route 88 East.
Route 88 to 87 (New York Throughway).
87 Southbound.
You'll recognize it when you get there, it's the big city with all the lights.

(Glad to have been able to provide the service. I surely want to see all the Truth hitting the streets of my former home town, and wouldn't want you to miss for the simple lack of directions.)Great, now I'm in Des Moines. Or is that what you want? You sly boots.

[Galileo]

Maybe I can help to get this thread back on track.

I just read this post by Dylan Avery at LC forum:

link (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13327&st=100)
Dylan promised them five days of troofer bliss. Now it's been cut back to three. I'm so glad I didn't make my reservations for the first two days.

OK, all you 9/11 falsers, why didn't the collapsing SOUTH TOWER, start fires in the NORTH TOWER?

It was pummeled by debris at close range.

Face it, WTC 7 was arson.

[defaultdotxbe]

OK, all you 9/11 falsers, why didn't the collapsing SOUTH TOWER, start fires in the NORTH TOWER?

It was pummeled by debris at close range.

Face it, WTC 7 was arson.
well thats about as non as sequitors come

and as for the south tower starting fires in the north, it probably did, but no one bothered to report them because everyone already knew the place on fire, and they all wanted to get out

[Dumb All Over]

well thats about as non as sequitors come


Yep. What the heck does this have to do with this thread? Galileo, care to respond?

[Galileo]

Yep. What the heck does this have to do with this thread? Galileo, care to respond?

I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is?

We got people yelping this and that about WTC 7, people are all over the place.

Meanwhile, millions of normal people are watching the controlled demolition of WTC 7 on the Internet, from several angles.

It doesn't matter what the armchair experts here yap about, that doesn't change reality.

While you guys continue to banter, the controlled demolition of WTC 7 ROLLS ON!

[TheRedWorm]

While you guys continue to banter, the controlled demolition of WTC 7 ROLLS ON!


They are still demolitioning WTC7? :eek:

[T.A.M.]

Nor does it matter what the moron truthers yap on about, as they can make ten million people watch the collapse of WTC7...IT WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE...

NOVEMBER 2008 - DEMS win...DEATH OF THE TRUTH MOVEMENT...Bubye!!!

TAM;)

[Par]

I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is?

We got people yelping this and that about WTC 7, people are all over the place.

Meanwhile, millions of normal people are watching the controlled demolition of WTC 7 on the Internet, from several angles.

It doesn't matter what the armchair experts here yap about, that doesn't change reality.

While you guys continue to banter, the controlled demolition of WTC 7 ROLLS ON!



Begging the question fallacy.

[Galileo]

Begging the question fallacy.

Not a fallacy, not begging the question.

There is no question.

I saw it. Millions of other eyewitnesses saw it.

You may have seen the Loch Ness Monster, the Virgin Mary, and Santa Claus.

I saw a controlled demolition.

End of story.

[dudalb]

Not a fallacy, not begging the question.

There is no question.

I saw it. Millions of other eyewitnesses saw it.

You may have seen the Loch Ness Monster, the Virgin Mary, and Santa Claus.

I saw a controlled demolition.

End of story.

God,you would have been kicked off my High School Debating Team with an argument like that.

[twinstead]

Meanwhile, millions of normal people are watching the controlled demolition of WTC 7 on the Internet, from several angles.

Reason Circularly much?


It doesn't matter what the armchair experts here yap about, that doesn't change reality.

Ah, what doesn't matter is what you armchair investigators yap about some fantasy inside job, that doesn't change reality


While you guys continue to banter, the controlled demolition of WTC 7 ROLLS ON!

The only thing ROLLING ON is reality. And your irrelevance. Meanwhile, REAL experts are getting on with changing building codes and designing buildings better. You know, real life stuff.

You wouldn't understand.

[A W Smith]

Not a fallacy, not begging the question.

There is no question.

I saw it. Millions of other eyewitnesses saw it.

You may have seen the Loch Ness Monster, the Virgin Mary, and Santa Claus.

I saw a controlled demolition.

End of story.


argument from very ignorance fallacy then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

[twinstead]

God,you would have been kicked off my High School Debating Team with an argument like that.

Sadly, he thinks he's making some kind of point, when where he really belongs is on some conspiracy forum preaching to the choir.

[Digest]

Dylan promised them five days of troofer bliss. Now it's been cut back to three. I'm so glad I didn't make my reservations for the first two days.

Ok so this GROUND BREAKING event that was supposed to be mother of all truth movements - with the great leaders of the Truth Movement including (in their own words) Grand InfoWarrior Alex Jones (catchy name huh - no ego there...) This was going to change the world...this was going to scare the NWO into submission and open everyones eyes...

But due to logistics its been cut back??? :boggled: seriously??? :covereyes

And on their forums no one even bats a eyes they are all like ahh sweet !!thats great !!! blah blah blah. No one even bothers to say umm wait a minute why are we cutting back?

Ill tell you why - Money - yes the real reason I truely believe the Majority of these Truthers are in the business of fearmongering- its good business. see others such as Jerry Falwell and ilk. Basically no one even their troopers care enough to actually get up and support their weak cause because well that takes conviction and a true belief that what you are standing for is right. Do you think those students in Tienamen (sp) square had trouble getting a group together? I doubt it - much like I said before - sometimes i truely wish there was a shadow government and it came to these fools doors - I am willing to wager 98% of them would thouroughly wet themselves and bow down to the NWO in seconds.

[Slayhamlet]

Not a fallacy, not begging the question.

There is no question.

I saw it. Millions of other eyewitnesses saw it.

You may have seen the Loch Ness Monster, the Virgin Mary, and Santa Claus.

I saw a controlled demolition.

End of story.

Much like sightings of the Loch Ness Monster, the Virgin Mary, and Santa Claus, your uninformed opinion is not based in reality. End of story.

[Par]

Not a fallacy, not begging the question. There is no question... I saw a controlled demolition.



Evidently, you don’t know what “begging the question” means.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is?

We got people yelping this and that about WTC 7, people are all over the place.

Meanwhile, millions of normal people are watching the controlled demolition of WTC 7 on the Internet, from several angles.

It doesn't matter what the armchair experts here yap about, that doesn't change reality.

While you guys continue to banter, the controlled demolition of WTC 7 ROLLS ON!

Galileo,
This thread was at rest. I brought up his earth-shattering news. We had it, and roasted and toasted it, and were all anxiously awaiting the pending release of Final Cut to see the interview in its spliced entirety, and someone (Hmmm? Who could that have been?) revived the thread.

And now that someone complains about the thread going no where?

The point of the thread is that the interview of one witness with a bad wrist watch does not prove a thing. And that since said witness seems to be doing a Willy (changing the story as he gets attention from different sides), THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.

If you want to go contribute (I use the term in its loosest sense) to any of the various WTC7 threads, feel free. Meh? I'm curious to see the outcome of a full analysis of the Jennings interview, and to see Dylan handed his hat again for yet another red herring on "breaking news".

[Digest]

this is more on track with the original thread but i found these funny snippets on LCF:

When will LC:FC be released and where will it be available?

I would say we all are on a need to know basics, and we don't need to know until it's the right time. Dylan has to be stunk between a rock and a hard place about releasing the video. If you tell everybody when. than you chance it being sabotage or W pulling another major incident just to pull the attention from it's release. I'm just going to lay back and see how it plays out. ;)

so Bush might pull another 9/11 to stop dylan from getting attention? are you serious???:boggled:

someone else with the same belief..

Actually I would expect film promotion to start soon ... :)
I hope there are few copies secured in different parts of the world … just in case our friend, Mr. president or his vice had some brilliant idea about it <_<

yes they seriously think the Government is planning a attack to draw attention away from LC:FC

They really expect it to have mass media commercials:

That reminds me. WHen will we expect to see promotions for LC:FC on the TV? I'd figure maybe a week before the release.

Yea, I was in the movies watchin Die Hard ( amazing ****, you should see that, some truth refrences too) and the previews sucked and I was thinking when the FC trailers will be up. I just can't wait till I see a LC preview at the movies, i would just go crazY!!!!!!!!!!!
(lol i had to bold the funny part in that one....)

Well we got a trailer released on the internet. I doubt there will really be any commercials or theater advertising of it until it's out.


of course theres this fun letter that just went out --- i guess the 9/11/07 Truth Movement Special version really will be a "rough cut" considering they want money to finish the movie as of 8/25/07

Dear Loose Change Supporter,

We appreciate all the support you've given us over the past 2 years, and we're hoping we can lean on you again. We are well into creating Loose Change, Final Cut and have found the costs in shooting interviews and editing to be higher than we anticipated. We are planning to complete the film in the very near future, but we need to raise a bit more money to get it just right.

We are reaching out to you for a donation. Anything you give goes towards getting the Final Cut finished and spreading the word further. Please visit our donations page now and give anything you can – even as little as $5.

We will ship one free copy of Loose Change, Final Cut, from the first pressing of DVDs, to anyone that donates more than $100.00. Anyone donating $250 and over will receive a limited edition autographed version of Final Cut. We expect the Final Cut to sell out its initial pressing quickly, and this is one way to assure that you’ll get yours.

Rest assured that none of us are driving around in a new Mercedes – all of your support goes to spreading the truth. Once again we appreciate all you do for us and for believing in the truth!

Thanks,
The LC Crew
--
If you do not want to receive any more newsletters, this link

To update your preferences and to unsubscribe visit this link

powered by phplist v 2.10.2, © tincan ltd


but then Dylan realizing the hole he has dug trys to find a ladder...
Dylan Avery @ LCF: Hell, even I don't know when the movie's coming out. Just enjoy the screening in NYC. :D

but of course his LC Cultists cant be swayed:

MEaning, if it hits the theaters in the U.S., it will be a blitz that no one saw coming... and the jrefers hopefully won't be able to stop it by complaining to their mommies.

There go my ears again...
I'm 99% sure it's still going to be in theaters.


of course this is my favorite...
Less than 2 months away now for LCFC!!!!!
I can hardly contain myself these days.
Glad it won't be out until after The Simpsons movie though!

[~enigma~]

this is more on track with the original thread but i found these funny snippets on LCF:

When will LC:FC be released and where will it be available?



so Bush might pull another 9/11 to stop dylan from getting attention? are you serious???:boggled:

someone else with the same belief..



yes they seriously think the Government is planning a attack to draw attention away from LC:FC

They really expect it to have mass media commercials:




(lol i had to bold the funny part in that one....)




of course theres this fun letter that just went out --- i guess the 9/11/07 Truth Movement Special version really will be a "rough cut" considering they want money to finish the movie as of 8/25/07




but then Dylan realizing the hole he has dug trys to find a ladder...


but of course his LC Cultists cant be swayed:






of course this is my favorite...
You had to let out the secret? Dylan is between a rock and a hard place and look at my location...keep it on the QT please :)

[Dave Rogers]

You may have seen the Loch Ness Monster, the Virgin Mary, and Santa Claus.

I saw a controlled demolition.

End of story.

For its concise and accurate summation of the plausibility of the truth movement's arguments, I think that deserves a Stundie nomination.

Dave

[Cuddles]

Meanwhile, millions of normal people are watching... on the Internet,

It doesn't matter what the armchair experts... yap about, that doesn't change reality.

"Irony" does not mean "a bit like iron".

[Jonnyclueless]

Not a fallacy, not begging the question.

There is no question.

I saw it. Millions of other eyewitnesses saw it.

You may have seen the Loch Ness Monster, the Virgin Mary, and Santa Claus.

I saw a controlled demolition.

End of story.

So what do we do about the billions of people who saw a collapse from fire and structural damage?

Tell us ol' Gal, what is your expertise in demolition work?

[defaultdotxbe]

You may have seen the Loch Ness Monster, the Virgin Mary, and Santa Claus.

I saw a controlled demolition.
the loch ness monster is toy submarine and some modeling clay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster#The_.27Surgeon.27s_Photo.27), the virgin mary is a rusty stain on the wall (http://www.nbc5.com/news/4388177/detail.html), santa claus is your father (http://www.oldielyrics.com/christmas/i_saw_mommy_kissing_santa_claus.html), and the controlled demolition was a structural collapse due to fire and impact damage (http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm)

[~enigma~]

the loch ness monster is toy submarine and some modeling clay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster#The_.27Surgeon.27s_Photo.27), That was a scary thought. I read that as Nessie was Troy :)

[Foolmewunz]

Love that first snippet... can you identify the poster on LCF ('cuz I'm a lazy bugger).

A need to know basics..... HELL YES!!

Dylan is stunk between a rock, etc... OH, BE STILL, MY HEART!

[VespaGuy]

Dear Loose Change Supporter,

We appreciate all the support you've given us over the past 2 years, and we're hoping we can lean on you again. We are well into creating Loose Change, Final Cut and have found the costs in shooting interviews and editing to be higher than we anticipated. We are planning to complete the film in the very near future, but we need to raise a bit more money to get it just right.

We are reaching out to you for a donation. Anything you give goes towards getting the Final Cut finished and spreading the word further. Please visit our donations page now and give anything you can – even as little as $5.

We will ship one free copy of Loose Change, Final Cut, from the first pressing of DVDs, to anyone that donates more than $100.00. Anyone donating $250 and over will receive a limited edition autographed version of Final Cut. We expect the Final Cut to sell out its initial pressing quickly, and this is one way to assure that you’ll get yours.

Rest assured that none of us are driving around in a new Mercedes – all of your support goes to spreading the truth. Once again we appreciate all you do for us and for believing in the truth!

Thanks,
The LC Crew

Makes me wonder... do the three amigos still have their ATVs and any other toys they bought with their LC money? I wonder if getting the truth out is more important to them than their toys? Have they sold them to raise the money for this important film, or did they "lean on" their cult for money first?

[chipmunk stew]

Chipmunk Stew was turned away with the bute force of my precise logic.
:warning1 No one likes a liar, dude. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89849)

[Dumb All Over]

The latest from LC forum--
QUOTE (Revolutionary91 @ Aug 24 2007, 03:50 AM)
Does anyone know if LCFC is still going to be in theaters? Sinec I may not make it to NY I still want to see the Final Cut but with the crew asking for donations and rumors going around that Cuban backed out...I need to know.
Dylan's reply:
Everyone's waiting on a rough cut before they make any kind of decision about the project.

In the meantime, we're strapped for cash trying to finish this movie and get ready for 9/11/2007.

I hope that clears things up somewhat. :)
Clear as mud, Dylan.
link (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14375)

[Digest]

the loch ness monster is toy submarine and some modeling clay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster#The_.27Surgeon.27s_Photo.27), the virgin mary is a rusty stain on the wall (http://www.nbc5.com/news/4388177/detail.html), santa claus is your father (http://www.oldielyrics.com/christmas/i_saw_mommy_kissing_santa_claus.html), and the controlled demolition was a structural collapse due to fire and impact damage (http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm)

can you provide a non-biased news source that Santa Claus is indeed my father. Till you do I believe my experts that he is a super stealth ninja pedophile who molests small children then leaves toys out of guilt