Why I despise the Truthers [Archive] - Page 2

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 06:59 PM

So say it then.

The fire fighter didn't know what he was talking about.

None of the fire fighters who were killed or hurt because they didn't expect the building to collapse were what...? Not experienced.

I thought it was no surprise to people the building collapsed. Some have even said they were surprised it stood so long. So why didn't any of these fire fighters know? This fire fighter who claimed two lines wasn't a rookie. He was a seasoned pro.

But you all know better. Right?

Say what? That the fire that he did see was on the 78th floor, a few floors below an inferno.

Not Experienced? Never said that, I am sure the fire he did encounter could have been knocked down with 2 lines.

You are completely denying the evidence of the fire that was ABOVE where he was.

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.

BeAChooser

8th August 2007, 07:02 PM

How far do you think that one fireman could see. He could only likely see what was on the floor he was on, and not very far into the WTC, which was, what 215 feet across...and based on what one fireman, on one floor, filled with smoke, says he saw, and could control, you think that represents the entire amount of fire in the building, or reflects the overall state of fire and smoke for the entire impact zone???

His view was more restricted than that! He made the statement when he was trapped INSIDE a stairwell by the fires he needed the two handlines to put out.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 07:02 PM

ThereIsNoConspiracy,

Is it me...or is Zen a broken record with his debates? I swear I have had this exact debate from start to finish with him before.

BeAChooser

8th August 2007, 07:04 PM

First you show photos of the north tower, then you show photos of the south tower at 9:03am.

I didn't do either. I posted a photo of the south tower at 9:55am. And you just ignored it. :D

Drudgewire

8th August 2007, 07:05 PM

His view was more restricted than that! He made the statement when he was trapped INSIDE a stairwell by the fires he needed the two handlines to put out.
Which also happened to be THE CORE of the explosion.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/lolsmilie.gif

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 07:06 PM

His view was more restricted than that! He made the statement when he was trapped INSIDE a stairwell by the fires he needed the two handlines to put out.

I am sure....

This whole line of arguement is identical to the "waving woman at the entrance hole" arguement.

"Well how could de fires be hot enough to melt da steel if she was standin der wavin..Huh? tell me how huh?"

TAM:)

Par

8th August 2007, 07:07 PM

It’s just weird that these people try and deny that there were significant fires in the towers. For one thing, why on Earth would they have gone out?

DGM

8th August 2007, 07:07 PM

ThereIsNoConspiracy,

Is it me...or is Zen a broken record with his debates? I swear I have had this exact debate from start to finish with him before.
We've had all of these debates before! Many times.

Drudgewire

8th August 2007, 07:08 PM

It’s just weird that these people try and deny that there were significant fires in the towers. For one thing, why on Earth would they have gone out?
The sprinkler system. Duh. :rolleyes:

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 07:09 PM

We've had all of these debates before! Many times.

Oh I believe it

Its just in the past 5 months I have excepted something more complex than blatant disregard towards pictorial evidence that clearly states floors and columns.

Par

8th August 2007, 07:11 PM

The sprinkler system. Duh. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah. Heh. They talk about the broken sprinkler system don’t they.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 07:11 PM

I asked Rev or Zen, not sure who...probably both to read my threads on Fire Behavior and Building Construction. The reply I got was "my knowledge of fire behavior is irrelevant" which is kind of ignorant. I mean to better understand something shouldn't you learn about all aspects of it instead of what infowars and prison planet put out?

9/11 Chewy Defense

8th August 2007, 07:12 PM

ThereIsNoConspiracy,

Is it me...or is Zen a broken record with his debates? I swear I have had this exact debate from start to finish with him before.

Actually NYC, he spouted out the same basic crap on YouTube. He's a broken record.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 07:12 PM

Say what? That the fire that he did see was on the 78th floor, a few floors below an inferno.

Not Experienced? Never said that, I am sure the fire he did encounter could have been knocked down with 2 lines.

You are completely denying the evidence of the fire that was ABOVE where he was.

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.
Ok so everyone knew it was going to collapse except the guys who's job it is to know. Even Jerome Hauer from a CBS news station new it would collapse and why before any of the fire fighters, and years before NIST or anyone did any investigation.

ok

9/11 Chewy Defense

8th August 2007, 07:14 PM

http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html

Check out this link from Killtown. Very good pictures on there!

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 07:20 PM

Ok so everyone knew it was going to collapse except the guys who's job it is to know. Even Jerome Hauer from a CBS news station new it would collapse and why before any of the fire fighters, and years before NIST or anyone did any investigation.

ok

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.

I posted it 4 times because maybe it will sink in.

Chief Pfifer even said that the public knew more than the actual firefighters...he would have loved to have a huge TV to see all news footage as it was going on....thats why he kinda built a huge counter-terrorist station with a HUGE TV so he could see that stuff if that happens in the future.

Alt+F4

8th August 2007, 07:22 PM

The firefighter said 2 lines just before 9:59am. Please show a photo from that time.

There are no no photos of my birth, yet I was born.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 07:27 PM

There are no no photos of my birth, yet I was born.

Are we sure about that?

Or...

Were you constructed at the secret NWO Breeding Facility?

WE DEMAND ANSWERS....AND BEER...BECAUSE I AM RUNNING LOW!

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 07:36 PM

It’s just weird that these people try and deny that there were significant fires in the towers. For one thing, why on Earth would they have gone out?
As Frank Gayle, one of the NIST's lead scientists, later pointed out: "Your gut reaction would be [that] the jet fuel is what made the [WTC] fire so very intense. A lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed, it did not, the steel did not melt."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

NCSTAR 1-6, NIST states that “results of both the multi-
workstation experiments and the simulations of the WTC fires showed that the combustibles in a given location, if undisturbed by the aircraft impact, would have been almost fully burned out in about 20 min.”

NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 07:37 PM

There we go.

edit (quoted the wrong post :doh:)

So was this one, and from a far better angle (by the way that image was posted at least twice prior to you doing so.) Are you claiming you can't see large fires in many of the windows on the floors above the 78th one?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1817146ba65c4d4abf.jpg

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 07:38 PM

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.

I posted it 4 times because maybe it will sink in.

Chief Pfifer even said that the public knew more than the actual firefighters...he would have loved to have a huge TV to see all news footage as it was going on....thats why he kinda built a huge counter-terrorist station with a HUGE TV so he could see that stuff if that happens in the future.
HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

CHF

8th August 2007, 07:39 PM

There we go.

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpgfile:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpgfile:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpghttp://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC2Floors_a.jpg

That photo you just posted...see those columns bending inwards?

What's causing that, Rev?

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 07:43 PM

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

Because they were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture.

Because they were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture.

Because they were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture.

Because they were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 07:46 PM

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE KNOW?

I am not totally sure, I don't wasn't in those peoples minds that day. I myself thought there was a possibility of collapse after a huge 757 crashed into it.

Then again here is an idea....now bear with me there might be some words you might not understand...

You could do some research (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research) and email these people and ask them why they thought it was going to collapse before it actually did.

Revolutionary91

8th August 2007, 08:06 PM

That photo you just posted...see those columns bending inwards?

What's causing that, Rev?

The floor trusses pulling them in.

Pardalis

8th August 2007, 08:07 PM

The floor trusses pulling them in.

Wow, one thing you got right! :eye-poppi

ETA:

a) are buildings designed to do that?

b) what happened next do you think?

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 08:24 PM

myself thought there was a possibility of collapse after a huge 757 crashed into it.
Ermmm, *whisper* 767 *whisper*

Flight 77 was a 757.

Pardalis

8th August 2007, 08:30 PM

Well? Rev, are you going to answer me?

Here it is again:

The floor trusses pulling them in.
Wow, one thing you got right! :eye-poppi

ETA:

a) are buildings designed to do that?

b) what happened next do you think?

I think you're onto something.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 08:30 PM

Ermmm, *whisper* 767 *whisper*

Flight 77 was a 757.

Thank you for the correction :o

Revolutionary91

8th August 2007, 08:32 PM

Well? Rev, are you going to answer me?

Here it is again:

I think you're onto something.

You have just asked 2 questions that you know the answer to. Why would you do that?

Pardalis

8th August 2007, 08:33 PM

You have just asked 2 questions that you know the answer to. Why would you do that?

Evasion noted.

I want your answer.

ETA: well?
ETA: well?
ETA: WELL?

pomeroo

8th August 2007, 08:50 PM

The floor trusses pulling them in.

Although you've accidentally uttered a truth, you're on dangerous ground here. Yes, the floor trusses are pulling in the exterior columns, BUT...

EXPLOSIVES CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE PHENOMENON!

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 09:07 PM

Because they were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture.

Because they were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture.

Because they were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture.

Because they were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture.
So there weren't any firefighters that were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture?

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 09:09 PM

As Frank Gayle, one of the NIST's lead scientists, later pointed out: "Your gut reaction would be [that] the jet fuel is what made the [WTC] fire so very intense. A lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed, it did not, the steel did not melt."

And it did not melt. It was weakened by heat. Most of the fuel for the fire was the office materials. Nothing wrong with this statement.

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Care to say where it says that? Because I could not find it in the FEMA Appendix A.

NCSTAR 1-6, NIST states that “results of both the multi-
workstation experiments and the simulations of the WTC fires showed that the combustibles in a given location, if undisturbed by the aircraft impact, would have been almost fully burned out in about 20 min.”

That was on page 280, thanks for referencing that part. :rolleyes: Care to read the part about the fire having made its way around the floor? The entire floor did not start burning all at the same time.

And you might want to note the next bullet point that says the fires were much more intense than in a regualr fire, and how the columns heated in the simulations.

IN short, a classic troofer cherry pick.

NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

And this is true. The Fuel ignited a large portion of conventional fire combustables all at once.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 09:17 PM

So there weren't any firefighters that were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture?

I take it you have never been to the world trade center prior to 9/11? If you stood outside and tried to look up at the base you would have to lay down to look up at it. That was impossible to do because of the debris raining down on them as well as people jumping. Plus I don't know any human who as the ability to zoom in with their eyes on the impact zones. I don't know any firefighter on the fire ground who was watching CNN when this was happening.

Pardalis

8th August 2007, 09:17 PM

WELL? Rev, answer my questions.

Don't you want to understand what happened to those towers or are you satisfied with being an ignorant liar?

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 09:23 PM

And it did not melt. It was weakened by heat. Most of the fuel for the fire was the office materials. Nothing wrong with this statement.

Care to say where it says that? Because I could not find it in the FEMA Appendix A.

That was on page 280, thanks for referencing that part. :rolleyes: Care to read the part about the fire having made its way around the floor? The entire floor did not start burning all at the same time.

And you might want to note the next bullet point that says the fires were much more intense than in a regualr fire, and how the columns heated in the simulations.

IN short, a classic troofer cherry pick.

And this is true. The Fuel ignited a large portion of conventional fire combustables all at once.
I posted the one quote wrong. It's not a quote from FEMA. It read as the following on http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Pardalis

8th August 2007, 09:25 PM

Did a plane slam into the building in 1975 and scraped off the fireproofing? And was the fire fought?

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 09:26 PM

I take it you have never been to the world trade center prior to 9/11? If you stood outside and tried to look up at the base you would have to lay down to look up at it. That was impossible to do because of the debris raining down on them as well as people jumping. Plus I don't know any human who as the ability to zoom in with their eyes on the impact zones. I don't know any firefighter on the fire ground who was watching CNN when this was happening.
wrong.

I was there plenty of times. I worked in Jersey City and use to take the path train from exchange place to under the towers.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 09:28 PM

Did a plane slam into the building in 1975 and scraped off the fireproofing? And was the fire fought?
no one ever proved all the fire proofing came off. Not even NIST when they fired a shotgun at it.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 09:28 PM

but the rest is true am I not correct?

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 09:34 PM

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 09:34 PM

I posted the one quote wrong. It's not a quote from FEMA. It read as the following on http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Q1. What level of redundancy was built into said building in the british tests, and how does this level compare to the WTC?

Q2. Were any (and if so, how many) of the external columns or core columns split/cracked off in the British 8 storey building?

Q3. It says SECONDARY STEEL BEAMS were not protected, but what of the PRIMARY ONES?

Q4. Though no collapse occured, what was the state in terms of bending, buckling etc, of the beams exposed to said temperatures in the British study?

Q5. What was the make up of the floor structures in the british example, and how does this compare to the WTCs?

Q6. How many of the floor assemblys were physically damaged prior to, or during the british experiments? How does this compare to similar damage to the floors of impact in the WTC case?

TAM:)

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 09:36 PM

no one ever proved all the fire proofing came off. Not even NIST when they fired a shotgun at it.

Uh, yes they did. The shotgun pellets had the same approximate energy as the debris from the plane. The debris had much greater surface area, however, and so would have knocked a large amount, if not all of the fireproofing off.

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 09:38 PM

Q1. What level of redundancy was built into said building in the british tests, and how does this level compare to the WTC?

Q2. Were any (and if so, how many) of the external columns or core columns split/cracked off in the British 8 storey building?

Q3. It says SECONDARY STEEL BEAMS were not protected, but what of the PRIMARY ONES?

Q4. Though no collapse occured, what was the state in terms of bending, buckling etc, of the beams exposed to said temperatures in the British study?

TAM:)

There's also the fact that its a system with a maximum of an 8 story load (vs. 30 or so for the towers) and I seriously doubt it had a truss system like the Towers did.

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 09:38 PM

So there weren't any firefighters that were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture?

Yes there were, and the order to evacuate WTC 2 was given, unfortunately not in enough time to do it (it was done about a minute before the building collapsed.) More unfortunately the radio communications (a problem they'd noted back in 1993 and asked the city to fix, and it hadn't been) was so patchy and unreliable that only a few heard the call inside WTC 1. They evacuated and the ones that got out lived (a few that didn't get out did too.) The ones that didn't hear the orders died.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 09:41 PM

but the rest is true am I not correct?
No I find it hard to believe that someone like Jerome Hauer had the whole official version down moments after it happen but hundreds of firefighters had no idea it was going to collapse on them.

It doesn't add up.

Dan Rather: Based on what you know, and I recognize we’re dealing with so few facts, is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings, or would it have required the, sort of, prior positioning of other explosives in the, uh, in the buildings? I mean, what do you think?

Jerome Hauer: No, I, uh, my sense is just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building, uh, that burned, uh, the velocity of that plane, uh, certainly, uh, uh, had an impact on the structure itself, and then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat, uh, probably weakened the structure as well, uh, and I think it, uh, was, uh, simply the, uh, the planes hitting the buildings, and, and causing the collapse.

Dan Rather: What perspective can you give us? I mean, there have been these repeated reports that, well, yes, Osama Bin Laden, but some think he’s been over-emphasized as, as responsible for these kinds of events. I know many intelligence, uh, people at very high levels who say, listen, you can’t have these kinds of attacks without having some state, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, somebody involved. Put that into perspective for us.

Jerome Hauer: Yeah, well I’m not sure I agree that, umm, this is necessarily state-sponsored. Umm, it, as I mentioned earlier, certainly has, umm, the, uh, fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden.

Then that afternoon he knew something else before everyone else...

On September 11, 2001, Jerome Hauer advised the White House to begin taking Cipro, an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax.

Mr. Hauer's advice was not made public. Its value may have been underestimated at the time, but it was clearly demonstrated a week later, when the first anthrax letters appeared, and again three weeks after that, when anthrax appeared in letters to Democratic Senators Daschle and Leahy.

Jerome Hauer also held a job at Kroll who did security for the towers. They access to the WTC complex to do whatever they wanted.

This is all coincidence though right? That’s what I love about you GT’s. Your ability for suspension of disbelief.

9/11 Chewy Defense

8th August 2007, 09:43 PM

Factors: Planes impact damage to outter & inner columns, fires on several floors, time & gravity.

And who says explosives could do all that? I mean really! :rolleyes:

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 09:45 PM

No I find it hard to believe that someone like Jerome Hauer had the whole official version down moments after it happen but hundreds of firefighters had no idea it was going to collapse on them.

It doesn't add up.

Dan Rather: Based on what you know, and I recognize we’re dealing with so few facts, is it possible that just a plane crash could have collapsed these buildings, or would it have required the, sort of, prior positioning of other explosives in the, uh, in the buildings? I mean, what do you think?

Jerome Hauer: No, I, uh, my sense is just the velocity of the plane and the fact that you have a plane filled with fuel hitting that building, uh, that burned, uh, the velocity of that plane, uh, certainly, uh, uh, had an impact on the structure itself, and then the fact that it burned and you had that intense heat, uh, probably weakened the structure as well, uh, and I think it, uh, was, uh, simply the, uh, the planes hitting the buildings, and, and causing the collapse.

Dan Rather: What perspective can you give us? I mean, there have been these repeated reports that, well, yes, Osama Bin Laden, but some think he’s been over-emphasized as, as responsible for these kinds of events. I know many intelligence, uh, people at very high levels who say, listen, you can’t have these kinds of attacks without having some state, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, somebody involved. Put that into perspective for us.

Jerome Hauer: Yeah, well I’m not sure I agree that, umm, this is necessarily state-sponsored. Umm, it, as I mentioned earlier, certainly has, umm, the, uh, fingerprints of somebody like Bin Laden.

Then that afternoon he knew something else before everyone else...

On September 11, 2001, Jerome Hauer advised the White House to begin taking Cipro, an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax.

Mr. Hauer's advice was not made public. Its value may have been underestimated at the time, but it was clearly demonstrated a week later, when the first anthrax letters appeared, and again three weeks after that, when anthrax appeared in letters to Democratic Senators Daschle and Leahy.

Jerome Hauer also held a job at Kroll who did security for the towers. They access to the WTC complex to do whatever they wanted.

This is all coincidence though right? That’s what I love about you GT’s. Your ability for suspension of disbelief.

1. His comments on the collapse sounds like what anyone would say, and translates to roughly...Big plane going fast hit building, causing damage and fire...building came down...how is this evidence of foreknowledge???

2. got a source besides PP or AFP to give us on the last statements about all the CIPRO/ANTHRAX stuff?

TAM:)

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 09:47 PM

Uh, yes they did. The shotgun pellets had the same approximate energy as the debris from the plane. The debris had much greater surface area, however, and so would have knocked a large amount, if not all of the fireproofing off.
So it was airplane wreckage the size of pellets that damaged the interior columns?

The only thing NIST knows is that the temperatures they claim could never have been reached with the fire proofing on. So they assert that it must have come off. They then tried to recreate this but never prove the airplane actually fragmented like shotgun pellets. Just another theory.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 09:48 PM

No I find it hard to believe that someone like Jerome Hauer had the whole official version down moments after it happen but hundreds of firefighters had no idea it was going to collapse on them.

<snip>

As I have posted 5 times and PhantomWolf just made a post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2847781&postcount=297) of this as well...

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 09:50 PM

1. His comments on the collapse sounds like what anyone would say, and translates to roughly...Big plane going fast hit building, causing damage and fire...building came down...how is this evidence of foreknowledge???

2. got a source besides PP or AFP to give us on the last statements about all the CIPRO/ANTHRAX stuff?

TAM:)
White House Mail Machine Has Anthrax

By Sandra Sobieraj
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2001; 8:11 p.m. EDT

At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago. White House officials won't discuss who might be receiving the anthrax-treating antibiotic now.

On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was "a precaution," according to one person directly involved.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 09:53 PM

As I have posted 5 times and PhantomWolf just made a post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2847781&postcount=297) of this as well...

Why didn't the firefighters know? Because they didn't know the exact condition of the impacted floors. Their size up (which is essential to any fire grounds operation) wasn't complete. NYPD aviation radioed to the FDNY Command that the building looked like it was going to collapse. A few minutes it did. Unfortantly that message didn't reach to those who where on the floors above because of the repeaters failing.
There's plenty of footage on YouTube of firefighters with full view of the towers smoking who are very surprised when it starts to collapse and then they run for their lives. None of them had a clue it might collapse.

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 09:54 PM

White House Mail Machine Has Anthrax

By Sandra Sobieraj
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2001; 8:11 p.m. EDT

At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago. White House officials won't discuss who might be receiving the anthrax-treating antibiotic now.

On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was "a precaution," according to one person directly involved.

ok, so after the Pentagon and WTCs were attacked by Terrorists, someone advises White House Staff that evening to take a common antibiotic, used to ward off numerous infections, one of which is anthrax.

And.....

Let me tell you something, if I had concerns of any biological attack, of any kind, I and my family, and all the people I know would take CIPRO...why? because it is one of the most broad spectrum, widely and easily available, mass produced, ORAL antibiotics on the planet. bang for your buck, you can't beat it.

TAM:)

TAM:)

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 09:57 PM

So it was airplane wreckage the size of pellets that damaged the interior columns?

Are you being deliberately dense? That is one oif the most dunderheaded statements I've seen all day, and its been a long day.

You have a certain amount of energy in the overall system of the plane impact. You have a certain amount of that energy remaining when it reached the fireproofing.

That energy is spread over the surface area of the collision, if you were to divide it down to smaller sections, such as square feet, meter, centimeter, millilmeter, you would have a figure such as X energy per square foot, or Y energy per square millimeter, etc.

The shotgun pellets were fired with special loads so that they would have the same amount of energy per surface area as any section of the impact.

The only thing NIST knows is that the temperatures they claim could never have been reached with the fire proofing on.

They know a lot more than that, bucko.

So they assert that it must have come off. They then tried to recreate this but never prove the airplane actually fragmented like shotgun pellets.

How the heck do you derive that?! Do you have no clue about basic kinetic energy calculations? Please, take a basic physics course or something! Or at least READ the report you attack so easily.

Just another theory.

And what engineering or science degree of yours leads you to that conclusion?

Pardalis

8th August 2007, 09:57 PM

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 09:58 PM

There's plenty of footage on YouTube of firefighters with full view of the towers smoking who are very surprised when it starts to collapse and then they run for their lives. None of them had a clue it might collapse.

Thats because they didn't know what the true condition of the impact zone. It wasn't until the NYPD Aviation team told FDNY Command that there were columns bowing and it looked like it was going to collapse that they sent out the evacuation order.

T.A.M.

8th August 2007, 09:59 PM

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 10:00 PM

There's plenty of footage on YouTube of firefighters with full view of the towers smoking who are very surprised when it starts to collapse and then they run for their lives. None of them had a clue it might collapse.

And if you bothered to do a little research you'd find that both the Police Aviation unit, and a structural engineer on the ground at the time sent messages through to the Fire Command Unit that WTC 2 was likely going to collapse, the messages getting there mere minutes before the collapse started, not enough time to get the firemen out, but enough time to have given the evac order. It's also know that the NYPD gave an evac order at the same time and pulled their people back from the buildings. Getting told to pull back/out because there is a chance of collapse, and having the building start to do just that right in front of you are two different things. I'd react the same way as they did, even now.

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 10:02 PM

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf

You think he'll read it? I seriously doubt it.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:03 PM

"ok, so after the Pentagon and WTCs were attacked by Terrorists, someone advises White House Staff that evening to take a common antibiotic, used to ward off numerous infections, one of which is anthrax."

Not just someone. The same person who had the official version for the towers down moments after it happened. The same person who gave John O’Neil his job at the towers who was killed on 9-11. O’Neil was the foremost expert on Bin Laden the US had. He would have known if Bin Laden was really involved or not and would have said so.

Where did that Anthrax come from? Wasn't Stephen Hatfill, at one time considered a suspect?

Who use to work with Steven Hatfill? That’s right…

Jerome Hauer

Pardalis

8th August 2007, 10:05 PM

You think he'll read it? I seriously doubt it.

You're right, if it's not second-hand interpretations from a conspiracy site he will dismiss it. :(

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:07 PM

Cipro is linked with anthrax, because of the threats, not because it is a medicine specifically designed for anthrax.

Look up Ciprofloxacin in any antibiotic guide, and look at what spectrum of bacteria it covers, and see if you can find another type within that book that covers as many different pathogens, in a cheap, easily available, ORAL form...go ahead.

TAM:)
Shutup

White House Mail Machine Has Anthrax

By Sandra Sobieraj
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2001; 8:11 p.m. EDT

At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago. White House officials won't discuss who might be receiving the anthrax-treating antibiotic now.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 10:08 PM

Calls from occupants trapped in the upper floors relayed information via 9-1-1 about conditions. At 9:37, an occupant on the 105th floor of the South tower, reported that floors beneath him "in the 90-something floor" had collapsed.[15] Deteriorating conditions were also reported by the helicopters of the NYPD aviation unit.[16]

* 9:52 a.m. - the NYPD aviation unit reported over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there"

* 9:59 a.m. - they report that the South Tower is coming down.

NYPD helicopters report deteriorating conditions of the North Tower.[16]

* 10:20 a.m. - the NYPD aviation unit reports that the top of the tower might be leaning.

* 10:21 a.m. - they report that the North Tower is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south.

* 10:27 a.m. - the aviation unit reports that the roof is going to come down very shortly.

* 10:28 a.m. - the NYPD reports that the tower is collapsing.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf

Page 91.

NYPD Response
A member of the NYPD Aviation Unit radioed that the South Tower had col-
lapsed immediately after it happened, and further advised that all people in the
WTC complex and nearby areas should be evacuated. At 10:04, NYPD avia-
tion reported that the top 15 stories of the North Tower "were glowing red"
and that they might collapse. At 10:08, a helicopter pilot warned that he did
not believe the North Tower would last much longer.
Immediately after the South Tower collapsed, many NYPD radio frequen-
cies became overwhelmed with transmissions relating to injured, trapped, or
missing officers.As a result, NYPD radio communications became strained on
most channels. Nevertheless, they remained effective enough for the two clos-
est NYPD mobilization points to be moved further from the WTC at 10:06.177
Just like most firefighters, the ESU rescue teams in the North Tower had no
idea that the South Tower had collapsed. However, by 10:00 the ESU officer
running the command post at Church and Vesey ordered the evacuation of all
ESU units from the WTC complex.This officer, who had observed the South
Tower collapse, reported it to ESU units in the North Tower in his evacuation
instruction.
This instruction was clearly heard by the two ESU units already in the
North Tower and the other ESU unit preparing to enter the tower.The ESU
team on the 31st floor found the full collapse of the South Tower so unfath-
omable that they radioed back to the ESU officer at the command post and
asked him to repeat his communication. He reiterated his urgent message.

http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/page/196/9.html#HL

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:08 PM

And if you bothered to do a little research you'd find that both the Police Aviation unit, and a structural engineer on the ground at the time sent messages through to the Fire Command Unit that WTC 2 was likely going to collapse, the messages getting there mere minutes before the collapse started, not enough time to get the firemen out, but enough time to have given the evac order. It's also know that the NYPD gave an evac order at the same time and pulled their people back from the buildings. Getting told to pull back/out because there is a chance of collapse, and having the building start to do just that right in front of you are two different things. I'd react the same way as they did, even now.
They had no clue you can see it.

Corsair 115

8th August 2007, 10:09 PM

Corsair, all knowing oracle, has explained reality once and for all...I think.You can get snarky all you like, it doesn't help your case any. In fact, it's likely to reflect poorly on you.

You are still left with, at a minimum, a poor choice of phrasing which implied your opinion was fact.

Pardalis

8th August 2007, 10:10 PM

Shutup

I see your debating skills are improving by the minute.

beachnut

8th August 2007, 10:10 PM

So it was airplane wreckage the size of pellets that damaged the interior columns?

The only thing NIST knows is that the temperatures they claim could never have been reached with the fire proofing on. So they assert that it must have come off. They then tried to recreate this but never prove the airplane actually fragmented like shotgun pellets. Just another theory.
OMG, then the towers never fell? What happen? What great facts do you have? I can not even prepare for the smoking gun from your posts. Let the facts flow and let us get the baby out of the oven. Come on, post some facts. I expect you forgot about the impact of a big plane, equal in energy to a 2,000 pound bomb, A TWO Thousand pound BOMB? Hold on to your insulation buddy!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg
I think you are right, no insulation was dislodged when the plane ripped off everything in the building. Not the fragile insulation on the bottom of the floors could not have been disturbed, and the wall board, you know the wall board my roommate in college smashed with his bare fist could not of been hurt, not the wallboard on the core steel, no, it takes a drunk roommate with strength to tear up wall board, it is too tough for an aircraft packing 2000 pounds of TNT energy.

You must be right, no insulation was dislodged. You are so smart, where did you go to school? I bet you graduated with Charlie Sheen, right?

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 10:12 PM

They had no clue you can see it.

So you are an expert at knowing exactly what someone knows by observing them on video tape?

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 10:12 PM

I see your debating skills are improving by the minute.

Wait till it gets to the name calling

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:13 PM

LashL

8th August 2007, 10:14 PM

There's plenty of footage on YouTube of firefighters with full view of the towers smoking who are very surprised when it starts to collapse and then they run for their lives. None of them had a clue it might collapse.

Firefighters outside on the ground could not see the full extent of the fires and the damage within. In other words, the sizeup had not been completed. This is because the largest bodies of fire were very high in the buildings and firefighters were not able to reach those areas prior to the collapses.

Responders in the police helicopters, though, who could see the buildings from a very different (and much closer) vantage point, reported on how massive the fires were, reported on the extensive damage that they could see, reported that WTC2 was "glowing red", reported on buckling and leaning, and reported that the towers were in danger of imminent collapse.

Also, a structural engineer from the Buildings Department who was on site warned that the towers were in danger of collapsing early on, by virtue of the structural damage he could see in glimpses when the flow of smoke parted. That warning was imparted to John Peruggia of FDNY, who passed it on to Rich Zarillo with instructions to go immediately to the command post and inform Chief Ganci of the warning. Mr. Zarillo went to the West Street command post and told Chief Ganci's aide, Steve Mosiello. Mosiello repeated the message to Chief Ganci. Seconds later, WTC2 began to collapse.

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 10:15 PM

This is all when it started to collapse no? Why is it they had no time to get out if there? If so many people new so many people wouldn't have died. Because up until a few minutes before no one thought it would ever collapse and no one ever thought it would collapse completely until it did.

So you are now agreeing that they did know that it would collapse a few minutes before it did?

Oh, and niether tower collapsed completely.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 10:17 PM

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:17 PM

OMG, then the towers never fell? What happen? What great facts do you have? I can not even prepare for the smoking gun from your posts. Let the facts flow and let us get the baby out of the oven. Come on, post some facts. I expect you forgot about the impact of a big plane, equal in energy to a 2,000 pound bomb, A TWO Thousand pound BOMB? Hold on to your insulation buddy!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg
I think you are right, no insulation was dislodged when the plane ripped off everything in the building. Not the fragile insulation on the bottom of the floors could not have been disturbed, and the wall board, you know the wall board my roommate in college smashed with his bare fist could not of been hurt, not the wallboard on the core steel, no, it takes a drunk roommate with strength to tear up wall board, it is too tough for an aircraft packing 2000 pounds of TNT energy.

You must be right, no insulation was dislodged. You are so smart, where did you go to school? I bet you graduated with Charlie Sheen, right?
2000 pounds of TNT that fragmented into shotgun pellets? When? After it took out the columns or before?

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 10:19 PM

2000 pounds of TNT that fragmented into shotgun pellets?

:nope:

Somehow I think you are acting this way just to be annoying.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:19 PM

It was minutes before the collapse.

Not until NYPD Aviation radioed FDNY Command it looks like it was going to collapse. They didn't know until the tower started showing signs that they could see from the helicopter they were in.
That's what I said... minutes before isn't predicting much is it. But as soon as it came down everyone knew exactly how and why. But just a half hour before no one could fathom it.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:21 PM

:nope:

Somehow I think you are acting this way just to be annoying.
Now you're catching on.

Can anyone tell me why I have to keep re-logging in?

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 10:21 PM

That's what I said... minutes before isn't predicting much is it. But as soon as it came down everyone knew exactly how and why. But just a half hour before no one could fathom it.

Playing monday morning fire expert comes easy to you, I see.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 10:22 PM

That's what I said... minutes before isn't predicting much is it. But as soon as it came down everyone knew exactly how and why. But just a half hour before no one could fathom it.

Well hindsight is 20/20. They weren't sure how long they had until collapse. They passed the information along as an evacuation.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:22 PM

So you are now agreeing that they did know that it would collapse a few minutes before it did?

Oh, and niether tower collapsed completely.
Evidently not nearly enough of them knew anything. How many fire fighters did it fall on?

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 10:23 PM

That's what I said... minutes before isn't predicting much is it.

No, you were saying they didn't know at all, we were saying they knew about it a few minutes before it happened.

But as soon as it came down everyone knew exactly how and why. But just a half hour before no one could fathom it.

Not at all true, most people thought the steel had melted for the first few days, it was then assumed that the floors collapsed starting a pancake effect, and that lasted until NIST studied the collapse and pointed out that it was caused by the trusses pulling in the exterior columns. That was 4 YEARS later.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 10:24 PM

Evidently not nearly enough of them knew anything. How many fire fighters did it fall on?

Thats because its called chain of command. The information that the FDNY command was getting wasn't the same channel as Fire Ground. The chief gives the orders.

Though there was one company who didn't get the order but still evacuated because they felt something was very wrong.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:25 PM

Evidently not nearly enough of them knew anything. How many fire fighters did it fall on?
I'm just pointing out how other people didn't even wait until the next morning to play Monday morning quarterback but they had the whole down Osama, weakened steel, Anthrax. Knew all of it moments after it happened.

And you guys believe this?

beachnut

8th August 2007, 10:25 PM

Now you're catching on.

Can anyone tell me why I have to keep re-logging in?
Because your insulation was dislodged by aircraft impact.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg
Fire and steel? Fire wins over steel. Why are truthers so challenged by the facts?

LashL

8th August 2007, 10:25 PM

Can anyone tell me why I have to keep re-logging in?

It's a conspiracy.

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 10:28 PM

Evidently not nearly enough of them knew anything. How many fire fighters did it fall on?

I don't have the exact numbers in each tower at hand, though I'm sure someone does. 535 were killed in total and about 11 escaped alive from the ruins of Tower 1. There wasn't any evacuation of Tower 2 because the collapse happened to soon after it was spotted, but many that heard the order did start evacing Tower 1. Others didn't because they didn't hear the call over the radio and didn't know that Tower 2 had collapsed. Capt Jay Jonas and his team heard the call, and headed out but were caught in the collapse of Tower 1, though they survived and managed to crawl their way out of the rubble.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:28 PM

No, you were saying they didn't know at all, we were saying they knew about it a few minutes before it happened.

Not at all true, most people thought the steel had melted for the first few days, it was then assumed that the floors collapsed starting a pancake effect, and that lasted until NIST studied the collapse and pointed out that it was caused by the trusses pulling in the exterior columns. That was 4 YEARS later.
Jerome Hauer didn't need 4 minutes never mind 4 years.

NYCEMT86

8th August 2007, 10:29 PM

Knew all of it moments after it happened.

So are they are in on it as well? Well **** I didn't know the government spread this conspiracy out on a flier and said anyone who wants to help the Government Theory line up and get your 50 dollars.

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 10:31 PM

I'm just pointing out how other people didn't even wait until the next morning to play Monday morning quarterback but they had the whole down Osama,

Osama was the most likely suspect. And a little work by the FBI during the day of 9/11 would have found at least a partial trail, possibly more.

weakened steel,

Steel weakening in heat is a known property. Again, the most likely suspect given the fires that raged.

Anthrax. Knew all of it moments after it happened.

Anthrax came some time after 911, and nobody really had instant answers.

And you guys believe this?

Yeah, its called science, engineering and investigation. You might want to try some sometime.

ZENSMACK89

8th August 2007, 10:34 PM

One more thing about Jerome Hauer before I go to bed.

Rudy Guliani claims in was Hauer's idea to put the Mayors Emergency Bunker in WTC7.

Man that guy is all things 9-11.

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 10:34 PM

I'm just pointing out how other people didn't even wait until the next morning to play Monday morning quarterback but they had the whole down Osama, weakened steel, Anthrax. Knew all of it moments after it happened.

And you guys believe this?

Osama

The News networks were talking OBL pre-collapses, that didn't take a huge stretch of the imagination, especially after the Kenyan Embasy Bombing and the 2000 bombing of the USS Coll. Even so Bush was hell bend on pinning it on Iraq and Saddam for serveral days after 9/11.

weakened steel

Initially they were talking columns melting and failing. That was the most logical explaination. If you are watching a crane lift up a load and all of a sudden the load fails, do you make an assumption that the load was too heavy for the sling and it failed, or do you assume that someone planted a cutting charge on it? Regardless of that, they were wrong. Certainly on the right track, but they were still wrong.

Anthrax

Has nothing to do with the Twin Towers collapsing or 9/11, how about we stay on one topic?

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 10:37 PM

Now you're catching on.

So this is just a game to you. How nice.

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 10:38 PM

Jerome Hauer didn't need 4 minutes never mind 4 years.

So you are claiming that he stated that the exterior columns bowed in caused by the floor trusses sagging due to the heat from the fires weakening the steel, all in less than 4 minutes after WTC 1 collapsed? Please be so good as to provide the evidence of this.

beachnut

8th August 2007, 10:43 PM

I'm just pointing out how other people didn't even wait until the next morning to play Monday morning quarterback but they had the whole down Osama, ...
Anyone who was paying attention in 2001, would suspect OBL after the second impact. I thought he had bought, but I found out he was not that good.

It must only be truthers who are challenged by 9/11 topics. Why are truthers so behind on current events, math, physics, engineering, flying, and practically every singe subject area of 9/11?

CHF

8th August 2007, 10:49 PM

The floor trusses pulling them in.

Very good, Rev!

:bigclap
First accurate statement I've seen from you.

Now....what caused the floor trusses to pull them in? (And no, bombs can't do it).

Regnad Kcin

8th August 2007, 10:54 PM

Yeah I've heard all about how many teams of people it would have taken for how many months with miles of detonator cord to take down the buildings the way it did but then in the next sentence I'm told an airplane did it in less then an hour all on its own.

Yeah that makes sense...Except...each airplane did not "[do] it...on [their] own."

Regnad Kcin

8th August 2007, 10:57 PM

Ok real slow now.

How about a plane crash into the towers and then a little later an explosive device somewhere else in the building, like lower down?

Oh yeah…

How much detonator cord, teams of experts, and months of access to the building were needed in Oklahoma City? The bomb in OK city wasn't even IN the building. It did a pretty good job though didn’t it? Just imagine one of those bombs in the WTC parking garage or in an out of service elevator. How long would it take to set that up? How many teams of people? How much detonator cord? It could be done by a delivery guy who doesn’t even know what’s in the box or the van.I'll guess you have no inkling of how large each of the Twin Towers were.I’m not saying that’s what happened I’m just saying teams of people and detonator cord aren’t the only way to go.Perhaps a tiger did it!

LashL

8th August 2007, 11:01 PM

I don't have the exact numbers in each tower at hand, though I'm sure someone does. 535 were killed in total and about 11 escaped alive from the ruins of Tower 1. There wasn't any evacuation of Tower 2 because the collapse happened to soon after it was spotted, but many that heard the order did start evacing Tower 1. Others didn't because they didn't hear the call over the radio and didn't know that Tower 2 had collapsed. Capt Jay Jonas and his team heard the call, and headed out but were caught in the collapse of Tower 1, though they survived and managed to crawl their way out of the rubble.

There were actually 343 firefighters killed on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center, not 535. I suspect that 535 may well have been a typo on your part, but for accuracy's sake, I thought I'd mention it.

PhantomWolf

8th August 2007, 11:06 PM

suspect that 535 may well have been a typo on your part

Probably more a brian explosion knowing that the first and last number were the same and knowing they were 3, 4, or 5 and not bothering to check. :blush:

Regnad Kcin

8th August 2007, 11:09 PM

kookbreaker

8th August 2007, 11:34 PM

Perhaps a tiger did it!

You and that Tiger theory...you always win the 'Who blew up the WTC, today?' Lightning round. :mad:

EventHorizon

9th August 2007, 12:05 AM

Fire and steel? Fire wins over steel. Why are truthers so challenged by the facts?

Note to self: don't ever play rock, paper, scissors with a truther.

GregoryUrich

9th August 2007, 01:37 AM

Uh, yes they did. The shotgun pellets had the same approximate energy as the debris from the plane. The debris had much greater surface area, however, and so would have knocked a large amount, if not all of the fireproofing off.

The removal of fireproofing in the case of the south side of wtc1 is thoroughly debunked here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2836906#post2836906).

beachnut

9th August 2007, 01:49 AM

The removal of fireproofing in the case of the south side of wtc1 is thoroughly debunked here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2836906#post2836906).
No it is not. Nice try but no cigar. Your velocity error is a common error in math deficient engineers. You messed up MV, you only used V, you are one dimensional thinker, you need to consider M. Then you have to look at the energy. You failed to consider energy and you make up the rest. An impact with the energy of 1300 pounds of TNT is sufficient to remove the wallboard insulation on the core and the very fragile under floor fireproofing spray. You know not the facts on the wallboard or the sprayed fireproofing. Thus, your silly ideas are once again put aside as blind support for the conclusions you have made when you signed the truth petition. You have a pre ordained conclusion, you are not trying to find facts you are just pushing the lies of 9/11 truth.

Gravy

9th August 2007, 02:48 AM

Hello, ZENSMACK. Welcome to the forums.

So there weren't any firefighters that were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture?

You'll find the information you're looking for on this page:

Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected (http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande)

And you'll find many accounts of the expected collapse of building 7 here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

Gravy

9th August 2007, 02:49 AM

The removal of fireproofing in the case of the south side of wtc1 is thoroughly debunked here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2836906#post2836906).:dl:

How's the hunt for the Boeing going, Gregory?

leftysergeant

9th August 2007, 02:56 AM

Nope the images prove he is a liar.

The fireman was in the south tower reporting 2 lines at approx 9:59am. First you show photos of the north tower, then you show photos of the south tower at 9:03am.

Stop checking yourself for polyps and look at the picture in post#245. It is time-stamped 9:58. The fire fighter was on floor 78. On 80, there is a roaring inferno.

Did you look at the picture yet? Click on it to enlarge it. You should, after examining this evidence, understand why three out of three fire fighters, past and present, myself included, think you have a few issues that need to be resolved before you can contribute anything useful to the intellectual life of American society.

Gravy

9th August 2007, 03:04 AM

Did I say a bomb on the plane? Wow YOU really thought that one through.

And why would the bomb have to be in the impact zone? Didn't the plane take care of the impact zone?

Ok real slow now.

How about a plane crash into the towers and then a little later an explosive device somewhere else in the building, like lower down?

"A little later an explosive device...lower down?" You are kidding, right? This is a joke, yes? You can't possibly be serious about that, can you?

World Trade Center, 1993.

1,500 lbs. TNT equivalent

No columns destroyed.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046bad72980928.jpg

Please respond.

Gravy

9th August 2007, 03:18 AM

If anyone has anymore pictures to post around this time frame of the south tower, please post them or the link

Thanks.Chief Orio Palmer made his radio call at 9:52, seven minutes before collapse, from the 78th floor, which was the lowest to be struck by flight 175. These photos were taken at 9:52

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046badb7750979.jpg

leftysergeant

9th August 2007, 03:36 AM

"A little later an explosive device...lower down?" You are kidding, right? This is a joke, yes? You can't possibly be serious about that, can you?

World Trade Center, 1993.

1,500 lbs. TNT equivalent

No columns destroyed.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046bad72980928.jpg

Please respond.

Add to that the fact that one of the reasons that the 93 bomb did so little damage was that it was not attached to any structural elements. It just over-pressurized numerous floors, rather like the Murrah bomb. Now, had they put one in the basement in 2001, and set it so that it did damage the columns, the building would have tipped over.

KoihimeNakamura

9th August 2007, 03:39 AM

You know, I was curious how Hauer could have known about anthrax. Then I looked up his history and position as of 9/11.

In the early 1990s he received a master's degree in emergency medical services from the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and later became a member of the Johns Hopkins Working Group on Civilian Bio Defense. He wrote several articles on possible bio terrorist attacks. On April 10, 1998 Hauer attended a "roundtable on genetic engineering and biological weapons" under President Clinton.

So, yes, he'd have no reason at all to suspect biological attacks. (He also was working for the NIH on Septermber 11th.) [/sarcasm]

Of more interest:

On September 11, 2001, in addition to his job with the NIH, Jerome Hauer was also Managing Director of Kroll Associates, a well-established security firm serving clients in the military and the US government.
....

John O'Neill was given the WTC position by his old friend Jerome Hauer, Managing Director of Kroll.

It's more bad luck than a plan. But, it may be able to explain how Hauer could think it was Osama...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Hauer

mjd1982

9th August 2007, 03:52 AM

Ok, since this is getting side splittingly funny, I will address the 2 joke posts109 and 110 that I did not address earlier, since I did not think they were serious.

I will then ask the herd, for the 6th time, to address the quotes in the video

There was one who claimed "I know an explosion when I hear it" but who didn't actually see it either.

Didnt see what? He was standing next to 7 when it collapsed?

And one woman who thought she might have heard something about the buildings being "brought" down.

ROFL!!!

I believe the exact quote is "The FDNY did use the words 'We're gonna have to bring it down'". LMAO, what a clownish bunch you OTers are

Then lots of old canards like the out-of-context Silverstein quote. Oh and the Russian guy on TV who at first didn't know it was about 9/11 and thus wasn't aware that the building was badly damaged by debris from the Twin Towers.

Lots of old canards, like:

"Keep your eye on that building itll be coming down... We got a building about to blow up...We're walkng back, there's a building about to blow up"

"They said you gotta stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down... so they were holding a line off because they knew somethng was about to happen"

"We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned round, we were shocked to see what looked like a shockwave ripping through the bulding and the windows all busted out...about a second later the bottom floor cavedout and the building followed after tht... we were in shock"

So... all you have are carefully hand-selected quotes of witnesses and experts which are utterly vague and are contradicted by the statements of myriads of other witnesses and experts. And that's assuming the video didn't deliberately misconstrue their statements. Oh, and the argument from incredulity, false claims and inappropriate music thrown in for good measure. Good luck with your revolution.

I just thought I'd leave the rest of your post to make you and your movement look all the more ignorant. Thanks!

mjd1982

9th August 2007, 03:53 AM

The above shows just how deluded you are about people who don't subscribe to your interpretation of The TruthTM mjd.

Bartmer's story has already been dealt with in the following thread and elsewhere:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67361
What about all the other people?

mjd1982

9th August 2007, 03:55 AM

mjd1982

9th August 2007, 03:57 AM

gumboot

9th August 2007, 04:06 AM

Wrong. He did not call them murderers, he said they were paid to keep silent. He later retracted it.

Actually he said they helped demolish the building, then retracted it and downgraded his accusation to saying they were paid to keep silent.

The simple fact of the matter is, if WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, the FDNY have to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. That makes them, at a minimum, party to 2,974 counts of first degree murder.

-Gumboot

danielk

9th August 2007, 04:13 AM

Didnt see what? He was standing next to 7 when it collapsed?

You don't get it do you? He did not say anything about seeing explosive charges go off.

I believe the exact quote is "The FDNY did use the words 'We're gonna have to bring it down'".

Yup, but she didn't express much confidence in what exactly she heard.

"Keep your eye on that building itll be coming down... We got a building about to blow up...We're walkng back, there's a building about to blow up"

And? They knew it was going to come down, just as Silverstein said.

"They said you gotta stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down... so they were holding a line off because they knew somethng was about to happen"

So what is it? "thinking about taking the building down" or "they knew something was about to happen"? You know perfectly well that in light of all the other evidence the latter is the only sensible explanation.

"We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned round, we were shocked to see what looked like a shockwave ripping through the bulding and the windows all busted out...about a second later the bottom floor cavedout and the building followed after tht... we were in shock"

Surprise! Windows bust out because the building comes down. Tell me, mjd1982, would you have expected the windows not to bust out? Don't you think that's kinda silly?

I just thought I'd leave the rest of your post to make you and your movement look all the more ignorant. Thanks!

Dude, you are the one who is ignorant. "Just asking questions" doesn't cut it. Please present a complete theory that explains all of the evidence at least equally well as the official account does. But you probably know perfectly well that this endeavor could only result in reductio ad absurdum, and that's why you're not doing it. Covering up the alleged "noble demolition" of WTC 7 doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And if it wasn't a "noble" demolition then a) the firefighters were in on it, and b) it makes even less sense because there's absolutely no point in bringing down WTC 7 from an evil gubmint perspective.

Don't you realize just how laughable your "theories" are when taken to their logical conclusions? Oh I forgot, you don't even have a theory. You're just asking questions, right? Never mind.

MRC_Hans

9th August 2007, 04:14 AM

I'm only on page 1, so this has probably been beaten to shreds already, but:

Just as I thought. Noone can provide examples of CTs calling NYPD, PAPD and FDNY murderers.

Of course nobody who is within hitting distance of a normal citizen would dare to call them murderers straight out. However, all CTs except LIHOP and the absolute minimal MIHOPs imply that there must be accomplices in those organizations. Thus, they imply that they are murderers.

You can now choose whether to claim only the leaders are involved, making them more vile by murdering their subordinates, or that all are involved.

Hans

cloudshipsrule

9th August 2007, 04:30 AM

Will someone please address the quotes in this video, and tell me why these 1st responders are lying

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...c7+smoking+gun

Seeing the words 'in less than 7 seconds' at the 11 second mark of the film should give you a clue that the video is a joke.

(And I don't mean funny.)

MRC_Hans

9th August 2007, 04:31 AM

Ok, since this is getting side splittingly funny, I will address the 2 joke posts109 and 110 that I did not address earlier, since I did not think they were serious.

Ahh, easy to entertain, you are?

Didnt see what? He was standing next to 7 when it collapsed?

He didn't see the explosion. He specifically states that he heard it. Which word don't you understand?

I believe the exact quote is "The FDNY did use the words 'We're gonna have to bring it down'".

They were going to have to bring it down ... if it hadn't collapsed by itself. What do you think you do with a building that has suffered fatal structural damage and become unsafe? .... Right! Sooner or later you have to bring it down.

"Keep your eye on that building itll be coming down... We got a building about to blow up...We're walkng back, there's a building about to blow up"

"They said you gotta stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down... so they were holding a line off because they knew somethng was about to happen"

Exactly. Lots of people could see that the building was unstable. And?

"We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned round, we were shocked to see what looked like a shockwave ripping through the bulding and the windows all busted out...about a second later the bottom floor cavedout and the building followed after tht... we were in shock"

Well, did you think that the failure of the supporting structure of a 47 storey skyscraber would be noiseless? Tell you what, get your self a nice wooden plank. Prop it up somewhere between two supports (not too high or you might get hurt), walk out on it and jump on it till it breaks. Did it make a noise? You bet it did. Now think of the noise when the plank is the supporting columns of a 47 storey building. Thunderclap may be an understatement.

However,the part of "all the windows busted out" is obviously rather exaggarated. As we can all see from the videos that yuo people love so dearly, relatively few windows burst, even when the collapse was in good progress.

I just thought I'd leave the rest of your post to make you and your movement look all the more ignorant. Thanks!

No need to thank us, but I'd be grateful if you could explain why you think that any of things you quote above point a government conspiracy?

Hans

Gravy

9th August 2007, 04:33 AM

Add to that the fact that one of the reasons that the 93 bomb did so little damage was that it was not attached to any structural elements. It just over-pressurized numerous floors, rather like the Murrah bomb. Now, had they put one in the basement in 2001, and set it so that it did damage the columns, the building would have tipped over.I think you've got this a bit mixed up. Most of the damage you see from the Murrah bomb was caused by the progressive collapse of the floors due to the loss of one key column that the bomb was next to, not due to the blast itself. The towers could have been made to collapse from the bottom with the application of an enormous amount of explosives to most or all of the massive core columns, but I don't think they could have been made to topple. Once a structure like that leans a few degrees, the connections between it's steel elements are going to fail and gravity is going to bring it straight down.

DGM

9th August 2007, 04:36 AM

Just as an aside, I dont deny that there are stupid people in the TM. I come across them quite regularly. You guys complain about them a lot. What this short thread has already illustrated, is that you lot are practically identical, in so many ways. The difference is that you are meant to be the upper crust of OT thought. How sad.
Can't deal with the biggest lie in the video can you. 6.3 second collapse? You are the one that is dishonest here. Why do we put up with your type of ignorance?

Revolutionary91

9th August 2007, 04:37 AM

MJD I understand yourfrustration. Trying to show evidence to the herd is like living the monty python parrot sketch. This is a dead parrot, no it's just sleeping...

Gravy

9th August 2007, 04:38 AM

Of course nobody who is within hitting distance of a normal citizen would dare to call them murderers straight out. Well, Alex Jones says the FDNY is guilty of manslaughter on 9/11. That's close enough for me.

Gravy

9th August 2007, 04:43 AM

What about all the other people?

Please address all these quotes:

Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 fires (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)
Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)
Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc)

Take your time. I look forward to your assessment of WTC 7's condition after reading these accounts.

Since we're keeping track, this is the first time I am making this request.

danielk

9th August 2007, 04:46 AM

MJD I understand yourfrustration. Trying to show evidence to the herd is like living the monty python parrot sketch. This is a dead parrot, no it's just sleeping...

You've got some nerve... I live in Germany, where the herd mentality is that anything goes when it comes to showing the US in a bad light. You joined a movement which plays a single record on repeat and have the nerve to accuse others of herd mentality. Grow up.

NDBoston

9th August 2007, 04:58 AM

MJD I understand yourfrustration. Trying to show evidence to the herd is like living the monty python parrot sketch. This is a dead parrot, no it's just sleeping...

Your whole identity is based on 9-11 being an inside job. The only evidence you're looking for is the one that enhances your role of a mod over on LCF.

Try explaining to me again how WTC7 was wired for CD when I was working there.

Of course you will ignore this post. You're in total denial.

Gravy

9th August 2007, 05:15 AM

Your whole identity is based on 9-11 being an inside job. The only evidence you're looking for is the one that enhances your role of a mod over on LCF.

Try explaining to me again how WTC7 was wired for CD when I was working there.

Of course you will ignore this post. You're in total denial.ThisRemoved15-year-old is a moderator at the Loose Change Forum? Well, that explains a lot. Keep up your high standards, Dylan Avery!

Let's keep the personal insults out of this, please. I've edited to remove the insult to the member in question.

GregoryUrich

9th August 2007, 05:29 AM

:dl:

How's the hunt for the Boeing going, Gregory?

The high-winged one?

SpitfireIX

9th August 2007, 05:34 AM

. . . Though there was one company who didn't get the order but still evacuated because they felt something was very wrong.

Is there a published source for this, NYC? If not, do you know which company?

ref

9th August 2007, 05:38 AM

This 15-year-old is a moderator at the Loose Change Forum? Well, that explains a lot. Keep up your high standards, Dylan Avery!

Rev91 and Sureshot both are moderators there. Along with Dylan, Lin Kuei and IVXX characters.

Rev and Sureshot are both 15 and registered here also. Dylan you would know, I guess :p I don't know anything about Lin Kuei or IVXX.

Drudgewire

9th August 2007, 05:43 AM

MJD I understand yourfrustration. Trying to show evidence to the herd is like living the monty python parrot sketch. This is a dead parrot, no it's just sleeping...
Well, in a way you're right. There are a herd of people here that look at evidence objectively, rather than going in with a theory and changing the facts to fit it.

Mooooooo. :p

twinstead

9th August 2007, 05:54 AM

Just as an aside, I dont deny that there are stupid people in the TM. I come across them quite regularly. You guys complain about them a lot. What this short thread has already illustrated, is that you lot are practically identical, in so many ways. The difference is that you are meant to be the upper crust of OT thought. How sad.

Dude. You are ONE of the 'stupid people in the TM', don't you get it? You exhibit all the arrogance and condensation you attribute to us. You are everything you accuse us of being.

My mother always said beware of people who 'have it all figured out'. She was talking about you.

Now. Address Gravy's quotes he asked you to look at.

BigAl

9th August 2007, 06:01 AM

Dont you just love this Rev? This is the 5th time I'm posting this video, just on this thread!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

ROFL

I want someone to explain to me how each of these apparently clear, unanimous, 100% indicting testimonies, is false. Nothing else!!

Come one sheep! Come on herd! Through the water dip with you!

-------------------------
From April 2002 Firehouse Magazine

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

This is the URL for a Dec. 2001 New York Times story that describes all the known problems with WTC7. It cites articles from before 9/11 that I intent to dig up when I get the time.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2uo95x

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 07:41 AM

Hello, ZENSMACK. Welcome to the forums.

You'll find the information you're looking for on this page:

Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected (http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande)

And you'll find many accounts of the expected collapse of building 7 here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction
I've seen the accounts of when some predicted the building might collapse. I'm pointing out that for the building to collapse on what was it (500 fire firefighters? I think someone claimed?) evidently not enough people whose job it was imagined they would suffer global collapse. But then as soon as they came down people like Jerome Hauer knew exactly why and how it happened. He was dead on with the official line moments after the towers fell. If he could tell that just plane caused the towers to collapse why couldn't more predict it say right after the planes hit?

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 07:46 AM

"A little later an explosive device...lower down?" You are kidding, right? This is a joke, yes? You can't possibly be serious about that, can you?

World Trade Center, 1993.

1,500 lbs. TNT equivalent

No columns destroyed.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046bad72980928.jpg

Please respond.
No I'm not kidding.

This was a response to how the plane alone could cause the towers to fall down but somehow a plane with an added explosive is impossible to bring the tower down. As if the explosive device I guess would somehow help keep the building up?

I'm still waiting for an answer on that one.

I think I also posted where an architect testified that if the van in 93 was parked closer to a column the tower would have toppled.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 07:52 AM

Osama

The News networks were talking OBL pre-collapses, that didn't take a huge stretch of the imagination, especially after the Kenyan Embasy Bombing and the 2000 bombing of the USS Coll. Even so Bush was hell bend on pinning it on Iraq and Saddam for serveral days after 9/11.

weakened steel

Initially they were talking columns melting and failing. That was the most logical explaination. If you are watching a crane lift up a load and all of a sudden the load fails, do you make an assumption that the load was too heavy for the sling and it failed, or do you assume that someone planted a cutting charge on it? Regardless of that, they were wrong. Certainly on the right track, but they were still wrong.

Anthrax

Has nothing to do with the Twin Towers collapsing or 9/11, how about we stay on one topic?
Did you miss where the Cipro was handed out to the White House on 9-11.

How's the FBI coming along on building a case against Osama? Have they updated their Most Wanted profile of him yet?

I think Jerome Hauers predictions on the WTC were pretty dead on as well as his other predictions. He should either get a metal or be hanged.

Regnad Kcin

9th August 2007, 07:59 AM

...If he could tell that just plane caused the towers to collapse why couldn't more predict it say right after the planes hit?"[J]ust [the] plane [sic]" didn't cause the towers to collapse. You'll note that the towers remained standing for a considerable time following each of their hits.

A chain of events, taken together, caused each tower to fail.

Regnad Kcin

9th August 2007, 08:01 AM

No I'm not kidding.

This was a response to how the plane alone could cause the towers to fall down but somehow a plane with an added explosive is impossible to bring the tower down...Once again (for the third time, I believe) the "plane [sic] alone" did not "cause the towers to fall down."

Are you going to acknowledge your error and cease repeating it?

EventHorizon

9th August 2007, 08:05 AM

MJD I understand yourfrustration. Trying to show evidence to the herd is like living the monty python parrot sketch. This is a dead parrot, no it's just sleeping...

Pot, meet kettle.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 08:09 AM

Dude. You are ONE of the 'stupid people in the TM', don't you get it? You exhibit all the arrogance and condensation you attribute to us. You are everything you accuse us of being.

My mother always said beware of people who 'have it all figured out'. She was talking about you.

Now. Address Gravy's quotes he asked you to look at.
Now who really claims to have it all figured out?

Gravy

9th August 2007, 08:10 AM

No I'm not kidding.

This was a response to how the plane alone could cause the towers to fall down but somehow a plane with an added explosive is impossible to bring the tower down. As if the explosive device I guess would somehow help keep the building up?

How big were these devices, Zen, when did they explode, and how do you know these things that no one else in the world does? I expect a coherent, logical reply backed with evidence with your next post, or a retraction for your foolish statement. Be smart, ZEN: I know what the hell I'm talking about and cannot have the wool pulled over my eyes by fools.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046bad72980928.jpg

I think I also posted where an architect testified that if the van in 93 was parked closer to a column the tower would have toppled.Wrong. I strongly suggest you check that quote. Wikipedia is no place for pikers, Zen.

Are you capable of getting anything right? Anything at all?

Belz...

9th August 2007, 08:11 AM

I'll never understand why an inside job theory would have to include first responders in on it. Especially on WTC7.

Depends if you believe in that "pull it" nonsense.

Woah. Seven pages since yesterday ? Thread on steroids...

Gravy

9th August 2007, 08:12 AM

Once again (for the third time, I believe) the "plane [sic] alone" did not "cause the towers to fall down."

Are you going to acknowledge your error and cease repeating it?Quoted for emphasis. By the way, ZEN, how old are you, if you don't mind saying? We've had some real young 'uns around here lately. They act a lot like you.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 08:12 AM

Once again (for the third time, I believe) the "plane [sic] alone" did not "cause the towers to fall down."

Are you going to acknowledge your error and cease repeating it?
I'm sorry. Let me correct myself.

The plane compounded with the exploding soda from the drink cart caused to tower to fall along with some Jet Fuel that burned off mostly outside the building and then the rest about 10 minutes later.

Happy?

Belz...

9th August 2007, 08:14 AM

Why can an airplane do it all on it's own but an airplane coupled with explosive devices is impossible? Is it not a known terrorist tactic to wait until emergency responders show up to set off another device?

It doesn't matter if it's a standard tactic. There is no EVIDENCE of a bomb.

Your question boils down to "why can this meteor destroy a town but people sneaking in to add a nuke at the site post-impact is impossible ?"

sts60

9th August 2007, 08:15 AM

This was a response to how the plane alone could cause the towers to fall down but somehow a plane with an added explosive is impossible to bring the tower down. As if the explosive device I guess would somehow help keep the building up?

I'm still waiting for an answer on that one.

You are attacking a claim not made by anyone here. If the impact of a large, fast-moving, fuel-laden airliner and the resultant damage and fires are enough to bring those towers down, of course that same airliner plus a bomb could do the same thing.

The answer is simply that most of the people here don't think a bomb was used. I personally speculated that antipersonnel secondary devices could have been used, but as already explained I know of no credible evidence for such devices and the "explosion" noises have ready explanations which do not require the presence of a bomb (or bombs). Plus, as leftysergeant pointed out, their use would entail additional complexity and therefore risks to the plotters' success.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 08:17 AM

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 08:20 AM

Quoted for emphasis. By the way, ZEN, how old are you, if you don't mind saying? We've had some real young 'uns around here lately. They act a lot like you.
How old am I?

What is this NBC Dateline?

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 08:21 AM

Quoted for emphasis. By the way, ZEN, how old are you, if you don't mind saying? We've had some real young 'uns around here lately. They act a lot like you.
I gotta get back to work.

Thanks for the welcome.

Later

danielk

9th August 2007, 08:22 AM

How old am I?

Let me guess... either seventeen or eighteen? Tada! I'll drive Sylvia Browne out of business, I'm telling ya.

Gravy

9th August 2007, 08:24 AM

How can a plane do it on its own but a plane coupled with a secondary explosive be impossible to bring the building down?

Now calm down Mr "Rational Expert"

lolYou just did it AGAIN.

Okay, ZEN: tell us what NIST says most probably caused the towers to collapse. What were their conclusions? Prove that you know. Right now.

Edit: he ran away again. I guess he's not going to Chuck E. Cheese with me and the kids later.

Regnad Kcin

9th August 2007, 08:30 AM

I'm sorry. Let me correct myself.

The plane compounded with the exploding soda from the drink cart caused to tower to fall along with some Jet Fuel that burned off mostly outside the building and then the rest about 10 minutes later.

Happy?Don't be an ass.

Again, do you maintain that a "plane alone" brought down each of the Twin Towers? Yes or no.

You are interested in the "truth," correct?

fuelair

9th August 2007, 09:34 AM

It was only in April when I started researching more into the truth movement to better understand what their "evidence" is. As most of you have come to the same conclusion as I have, they are full of [rule8].

What makes me despise the Truthers more is the fact that they call the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD murders. They claim that they were involved with the horrible acts of 9/11.

As a New Yorker and a City Employee I find this sickening. I have friends and family who serve in both the FDNY and NYPD, as most New Yorkers do. You call my friends and my cousins murders it gets personal, especially since they worked against the odds that morning. They did their job with pride and committed themselves to that site months after the attack.

Most of you Truthers will never understand the sacrifice and pain they went through, what their family and friends went through. The FDNY suffered a huge loss, lost over 50% of their most experienced Firefighters. They still haven't fully recovered from that.

I have talked to my co-workers, friends, and cousins who where there that morning and I tell them about this b/s idea that they are murders and 9/11 was an inside job. They called it ************ and said you are all sick for thinking that. Its a slap in the face to them to hear this.

This city takes pride in our Firefighters and Police Officers. You will never understand how hard they work everyday for the Millions of people who work and live here.

We lost over 400 Uniformed Firefighters and Police Officers that day. They did their jobs the best they could and you call them murders, you make me sick. I became an EMT and I am working on becoming a FDNY Firefighter because of the actions of those brave men and women.

I hope you truthers can sleep at night for stepping on the honor and memory that these men and women have about their job.
You might want to go to this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89664 choose other on the poll and put truthers (or troofers, as I did) as the other meant!!:)

beachnut

9th August 2007, 10:11 AM

The high-winged one?
That is a dumb statement. Your whole engineering career is now been trutherised, negated by fiction. You and 9/11 truth make up stuff out of the blue. An engineer can see and understand things, I have to assume your are now a liar with this statement and the rest, and only you know why you are making up stuff. When will you tell us what your real beef is? Next time try facts, logic, and rational thought.

Belz...

9th August 2007, 10:13 AM

What are you talking about? These are guys who supposedly hijacked four planes almost simultaneously but what...? They couldn't park a van by 8:00 am?

The point is, they didn't.

The plane and an explosive device are not enough?

Actually, the plane is enough.

Bombs can't do it but planes... no fuss no muss

Zen, please stop seeing things with hollywood glasses. At 500mph, a plane IS a huge bomb, and no truck bomb would come close.

man that's just sad

Someone points out a fact and you find it sad ? I guess that's why you prefer fantasy.

Was there no hijackings or airport security before 9-11?

How terribly ignorant of you. Did the hijackers carry guns ? No ? So why would they be stopped ?

What the heck took NIST so long to figure it out?

They don't just make up the answer. That's why.

Are you saying the firefighter who claimed he only needed two lines didn't know his job?

How dare you. Next you'll be calling him murderer.

Typical truther. Ignore the post and go right to strawmen and other dodges.

beachnut

9th August 2007, 10:21 AM

This forum most be harder then ground zero for you huh Gravy? It’s harder to shout people down here. LOL

Why don't you get my point correct before you accuse me of not getting anything right?

How can a plane do it on its own but a plane coupled with a secondary explosive be impossible to bring the building down?

Now calm down Mr "Rational Expert"

lol
You are not able to produce facts, you act like a kid, and you are just posting to get a reaction. Your posts are just like the rest of 9/11 truth, fact less, illogical, irrational. If you want to reflect any good attributes of humans, please try posting some facts on 9/11 and stop parroting the BS from 9/11 truth. Can you think for yourself? Do you even read your own posts and see they are void of reason and facts? Where is the proof of explosives? The big bang? Where were they planted? I think after you grow up, have a few physics course, learn that 9/11 truth is full of lies, you may figure it out. Good luck, but please, evidence and facts, not opinions without foundation.

I know you will not, or can not do it, but try presenting facts would be cool instead of making up stuff and spewing opinions you can not back.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 10:22 AM

You just did it AGAIN.

Okay, ZEN: tell us what NIST says most probably caused the towers to collapse. What were their conclusions? Prove that you know. Right now.

Edit: he ran away again. I guess he's not going to Chuck E. Cheese with me and the kids later.
Chucky Cheese? Hold up wait for me!

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Is an explosive device like a car bomb considered “controlled demolition”?

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 10:24 AM

How big were these devices, Zen, when did they explode, and how do you know these things that no one else in the world does? I expect a coherent, logical reply backed with evidence with your next post, or a retraction for your foolish statement. Be smart, ZEN: I know what the hell I'm talking about and cannot have the wool pulled over my eyes by fools.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046bad72980928.jpg

Wrong. I strongly suggest you check that quote. Wikipedia is no place for pikers, Zen.

Are you capable of getting anything right? Anything at all?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2800297.stm
Lessons of first WTC bombing

He added that had things gone according to plan, the 1993 bombing would have caused greater devastation.
Only financial restrictions had prevented the perpetrators from achieving their aim.
"They ran out of money. They didn't have enough gas canisters for the bomb, and some of the low-level members of the conspiracy - the foot soldiers - placed the bomb alongside the wrong support structure."

Here’s another incentive to go with the plane only theory…

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B15FA3D550C708CDDAB0994DC4044 82&fta=y&incamp=archive:article_related

Port Authority Can Be Sued In '93 Attack On Towers
December 3, 2004, Friday
By SABRINA TAVERNISE (NYT); Metropolitan Desk
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Appellate Division of State Supreme Court affirms lower court finding that Port Authority of New York And New Jersey cannot claim immunity from liability for negligence in 1993 World Trade Center bombing because it had been warned by experts of buildings' vulnerability to attack; decision paves way for about 150 cases of personal injury and business interruption against authority…

Belz...

9th August 2007, 10:25 AM

The fire fighter didn't know what he was talking about.

He did. He was on the 78th floor, BELOW the impact point.

Ok so everyone knew it was going to collapse except the guys who's job it is to know.

Would you please stop arguing from incredulity ?

It's difficult to assess the structural integrity of a 110-floor building when you're inside it.

no one ever proved all the fire proofing came off.

Stop being obtuse. A plane crashed into the building. At least SOME of the fireproofing was disloged. And you know why they put that stuff on steel, right ?

So there weren't any firefighters that were looking at it from outside and could see the big picture?

Didn't they order the evacuation of the building ?

No I find it hard to believe that someone like Jerome Hauer had the whole official version down moments after it happen but hundreds of firefighters had no idea it was going to collapse on them.

It doesn't add up.

That's because you're making up this story as you go. The evacuation had been ordered, because they realised it would collapse, but too late.

So it was airplane wreckage the size of pellets that damaged the interior columns?

Ugh. Willfully obtuse.

The only thing NIST knows is that the temperatures they claim could never have been reached with the fire proofing on.

The temperature has nothing to do with the fireproofing.

They then tried to recreate this but never prove the airplane actually fragmented like shotgun pellets. Just another theory.

So what do you think happened ? Did the plane crash into the building and folded up into metal sheets ? Come on.

White House Mail Machine Has Anthrax

Boy, you're all over the place, aren't you ?

beachnut

9th August 2007, 10:28 AM

There, that was quick. Now, to continue this morning's entertainment, I am going ask again, for a 6th time.

Will someone please address the quotes in this video, and tell me why these 1st responders are lying

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun
What a bunch of junk. Even Dan Rather. When you include "pull it", you have crossed over and the whole junk video is easy to see as truther junk. Too bad you have no facts or evidence. A least you have not moved into areas where you need any real education, all you need to do is talk, and this movie is talk. No real conclusions backed by facts.

This is your smoking gun? Sad. Hope this is not your best effort at posting some facts. Wait, 9/11 truth has no facts to support he conclusion or ideas they try to make.

I like the CD where the edited out the sound and made it sound more like 9/11 sounds. Sorry but I watch that CD a long time ago and the sound of RDX is every evident, your video is a fraud, a lie, a 9/11 truth lie. You truthers are too dumb to research this video and see the lies. What a dumb video. Lucky for me you have no facts to support this video lie. Fraud

Belz...

9th August 2007, 10:35 AM

Corsair, all knowing oracle, has explained reality once and for all...I think.

Belief < Reality.

Belz...

9th August 2007, 10:40 AM

Come one sheep! Come on herd! Through the water dip with you!

See ? This is why no one takes you seriously. Not only do you insult people, but you manage, in the same breath, to hint to the assumption that people who disagree with you are automatically evil.

That's a childish way to see things.

I'm heading to bed, but I just gotta say, you my friend, are a legend.

And there you are. You ask people to adress the video. People do. And you laugh at them instead of reading and understanding the answer.

How can you possibly claim to "seek the truth" if your M.O. is just ignoring people ?

I will then ask the herd, for the 6th time, to address the quotes in the video

Maybe this time you'll care to check the answers.

Lots of old canards, like:

"Keep your eye on that building itll be coming down... We got a building about to blow up...We're walkng back, there's a building about to blow up"

"They said you gotta stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down... so they were holding a line off because they knew somethng was about to happen"

"We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned round, we were shocked to see what looked like a shockwave ripping through the bulding and the windows all busted out...about a second later the bottom floor cavedout and the building followed after tht... we were in shock"

Since there is NO evidence of explosives, LOTS of evidence of a 110-storey building crashing into 7, and lots of testimony contradicting them, don't you think it might be more reasonable to think that they misinterpreted the fact that the firefighters told them the building was coming down and instead thought THEY would bring it down ?

I just thought I'd leave the rest of your post to make you and your movement look all the more ignorant.

What movement ? I thought you said we were statu quo defenders ?

Belz...

9th August 2007, 10:44 AM

MJD I understand yourfrustration. Trying to show evidence to the herd

A little advice, Rev: if you want to get anywhere in life, it might be a good idea to assume that people have the opinions they have because they believe in them, not because they're trying to be against you. Otherwise everything'll be a conspiracy soon enough, and you'll cease to function properly, doomed to be dressed in a straightjacket for the rest of your adult life.

And no, I'm not kidding. Straighten up.

Belz...

9th August 2007, 10:46 AM

They had no clue you can see it.

Sorry, cameras don't capture people's thoughts.

2000 pounds of TNT that fragmented into shotgun pellets? When?

Now you're just being stupid.

That's what I said... minutes before isn't predicting much is it. But as soon as it came down everyone knew exactly how and why. But just a half hour before no one could fathom it.

Didn't you read the posts ? Are you impaired ?

And you guys believe this?

No, we don't believe your silly caricature of the events.

Jerome Hauer didn't need 4 minutes never mind 4 years.

And AGAIN you show that you don't understand ANYTHING. They KNEW pretty much WHY it had collapsed, but it took TIME to determine the exact forces and mechanics at work.

Geez.

This forum most be harder then ground zero for you huh Gravy? It’s harder to shout people down here. LOL

Funny you should say that, since what I've seen of Gravy shows he keeps his cool, unlike the fanatic CTers.

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Sounds just about right.

Is an explosive device like a car bomb considered “controlled demolition”?

Not really. It IS, however, considered to be something that leaves evidence.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 11:26 AM

“He did. He was on the 78th floor, BELOW the impact point.”
So it never occurred to him that there might… what? WHAT?

“Would you please stop arguing from incredulity ?It's difficult to assess the structural integrity of a 110-floor building when you're inside it.”
No one who saw this coming could get in touch with how many... 300 Fire fighters in time? But they knew it was coming and knew exactly what happened a moment after the collapse. I know there was trouble with the radios but I also know they weren’t all broken.

“Stop being obtuse. A plane crashed into the building. At least SOME of the fireproofing was disloged. And you know why they put that stuff on steel, right ?”
Some of it? What happened to NIST in their fire test with only some of it removed? Better yet what still didn’t happen after 2 hours with all of it removed?

“Didn't they order the evacuation of the building?”
Evidently not soon enough.

“That's because you're making up this story as you go. The evacuation had been ordered, because they realized it would collapse, but too late.”
I not make anything up. Look up Jerome Hauer.

“Ugh. Willfully obtuse.”
Well tell me then. The plane hits the building and fragments into millions of shotgun sized pellets shearing off the fire proofing. Then what…? It carries on and takes out the support columns? Did NIST have a test and shoot one of the columns with a shotgun also? How scientific.

“The temperature has nothing to do with the fireproofing.”
If you want it to compromise the Steel it has everything to do with it.

“So what do you think happened? Did the plane crash into the building and folded up into metal sheets ? Come on.”
Why don’t you tell me? You’re the one claiming the plane took out the building.

“Boy, you're all over the place, aren't you ?”
The Anthrax article was a reply to someone who asked. Try to follow along.

“Sorry, cameras don't capture people's thoughts.”
Yes but structural Engineers can tell you what happen inside a building from video of outside the building.

“Now you're just being stupid.”
Yes When? Before it hit the columns or after?

“Didn't you read the posts ? Are you impaired ?”
You keep saying they knew but 300 fire fighters obviously didn’t know or have a clue and no one filled them in.

“No, we don't believe your silly caricature of the events.”
Then you don’t believe the official caricature.

“And AGAIN you show that you don't understand ANYTHING. They KNEW pretty much WHY it had collapsed, but it took TIME to determine the exact forces and mechanics at work.” “Geez.”

You said it. Geez

“Funny you should say that, since what I've seen of Gravy shows he keeps his cool, unlike the fanatic CTers.”
Excuse me for being disrespectful to your hero. I’ll try to behave myself.

“Sounds just about right.”
Oh yeah? Then what happened?

“Not really. It IS, however, considered to be something that leaves evidence.”
Aren’t there thousands of people whose remains were never found? Didn’t one firefighter describe the biggest piece he found was a 4 inch piece of telephone keypad?

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 11:28 AM

It's a conspiracy.
I knew it!

Foiled again!

As in my hat.

beachnut

9th August 2007, 11:36 AM

What is that real disjointed junk in the post above mean?, I suspect drugs are involved. IP alert, watch out for the ATF.

Zensmack89 was 12 years old when the WTC fell, he woke up from being a kid and as he goes on 18, his inability to think rationally has given us the post with no real objective. When will zen man gain a rational thought and share it on 9/11 topics?

Beachnut, please remember that your membership agreement calls for civility, and that the CT sub-forum is under a stricter interpretation of the rules at this time.

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 12:28 PM

Is there a published source for this, NYC? If not, do you know which company?

The story was told by Firefighter Tim Marmion, Engine 16

So those were several things that we were thinking about, you know, things that you know scare you but things that I guess it’s better of that you know than not know. So after the building shook and the lights went out, we thought again we might’ve been hit with another plane, a bomb had exploded, or the building we were in was coming down. What it turned out was that the other building was coming down, and that’s what we felt. But being in the inner core of the building and people had asked me did you know that the other building came down, I don’t remember if I knew. I know I couldn’t see it and most people couldn’t, ‘cause you were in the inner core of the building, and it’s a huge building, you know, you guys know how big that building is, so you could be in that building and never see a window or light of day for a month you know. And so for us to actually see it, I don’t know, I don’t remember knowing that it happened. After a little confusion about whether we should go up or go down, we decided to go down. A lieutenant from Engine 1 decided, OK, we’ll go down.

We heard over a handy talky to evacuate, but we weren’t sure if they were talking about us or talking about the civilians. If they were talking about the civilians, civilians are leaving already … civilians know to get out. So they’re not talking about the civilians, they’re talking about us if they’re saying evacuate. They also gave ‘em a red phone. Our communications with our radios don’t work very well in a building of that size. So they gave ‘em a red phone and you can plug it in and kinda have like a hard line down to the lobby where you can speak to the command center. He did that and they told him to evacuate, to get out of the building. So we started down. We started down from 22, it was orderly evacuation, the civilians were at ease, that’s why I believe there weren’t too many people that knew that the other building came down, or if they knew, they must’ve been at ease because we were there.

www.mrbellersneighborhood.com/sec8/WTCMarmion

pomeroo

9th August 2007, 12:39 PM

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 01:06 PM

“He did. He was on the 78th floor, BELOW the impact point.”

So it never occurred to him that there might… what? WHAT?

He might have considered what was above him, the report he was giving was about the condition and fire on the 78th floor. Pictorial evidence that we have posted show fire raging above the 78th floor. For some reason you don't want to accept that?

“Would you please stop arguing from incredulity ?It's difficult to assess the structural integrity of a 110-floor building when you're inside it.”

No one who saw this coming could get in touch with how many... 300 Fire fighters in time? But they knew it was coming and knew exactly what happened a moment after the collapse. I know there was trouble with the radios but I also know they weren’t all broken.

No but it the information received from the NYPD went through the Command Channel then Command gets on the Tactical or Fire Ground Channel to pass that information along to other firefighters. Anyways by the time this information was received and passed by command it was too late, the south tower was already coming down.

“Didn't they order the evacuation of the building?”

Evidently not soon enough.

Hindsight is 20/20, when the NYPD Aviation unit radioed FDNY Command they didn't know how long the building was going to stand...they didn't say "Hey Chief Ganci, get out you have 2 minutes and 30 seconds...." They just reported the condition of the towers and the possibility of collapse.

“Didn't you read the posts ? Are you impaired ?”

You keep saying they knew but 300 fire fighters obviously didn’t know or have a clue and no one filled them in.

They tried to inform them. On a fire ground especially that size you don't know what the other hand is doing, all you know is you were given orders and if you confront anything like victims or building conditions you pass it on. Since nobody reached the impact floor, that information wasn't given by firefighters. The NYPD helicopter next to the building gave that information.

As of today we still have to contact Dispatch to get a hold of the NYPD if we need them. So cross communications is still delayed

fuelair

9th August 2007, 01:14 PM

As long as it impresses their equally dull friends it's kool!

Viper Daimao

9th August 2007, 01:18 PM

Chucky Cheese? Hold up wait for me!
Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Wha? Are you calling gravy a pedophile? Man, thats just...sick.

KoihimeNakamura

9th August 2007, 01:26 PM

ZEN - Are you going to address the post I made about Hauer?

sts60

9th August 2007, 02:17 PM

...How can a plane do it on its own but a plane coupled with a secondary explosive be impossible to bring the building down?...
ZS, as I pointed out here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2849096&postcount=399), nobody is claiming that. If the structural damage and fires (both fuel and building contents) caused by the impact of a large, fuel-laden, fast-moving airliner could bring the building down, said impact plus explosive could of course do the same thing. No one is saying otherwise; the claim opposed to you is that no such explosive devices were present. If you wish to argue for their presence, fire away and present your evidence. But repeating the line quoted above is just beating a straw man.

Regnad Kcin

9th August 2007, 03:38 PM

nicepants

9th August 2007, 03:40 PM

Granting that the kids who are infesting this forum lately are below-average in intelligence, why would any teenager or pre-teen think it's cool to swallow a load of steaming [rule 8]? How can making yourself look like a dunce impress anybody?

Almost all of these young "truther" teens think that they're somehow smarter than their counterparts who do not believe in these conjecture-based conspiracy theories. This makes them feel special...it's ok if they don't fit in with the "sheeple", they're just government shills. I believe this is the source of the elevated level of arrogance so present in their ignorance. Allowing their dearly-held theories to be "debunked" would eliminate their source of self-proclaimed supremacy, and make them just like everybody else.

Much like the child who deliberately ignores logic and reason to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, 9/11 CTers refuse to accept evidence against their theories. This evidence isn't just attacking their theory, it's attacking their "supremacy". Expect to see a similar response from CTers faced with "debunking" as you'll see with a child told Santa Claus doesn't exist. You're not just showing them the truth, you're taking away something that's dear to them. For that, they will resist.

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 03:47 PM

Almost all of these young "truther" teens think that they're somehow smarter than their counterparts who do not believe in these conjecture-based conspiracy theories. This makes them feel special...it's ok if they don't fit in with the "sheeple", they're just government shills. I believe this is the source of the elevated level of arrogance so present in their ignorance. Allowing their dearly-held theories to be "debunked" would eliminate their source of self-proclaimed supremacy, and make them just like everybody else.

Much like the child who deliberately ignores logic and reason to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, 9/11 CTers refuse to accept evidence against their theories. This evidence isn't just attacking their theory, it's attacking their "supremacy". Expect to see a similar response from CTers faced with "debunking" as you'll see with a child told Santa Claus doesn't exist. You're not just showing them the truth, you're taking away something that's dear to them. For that, they will resist.

Wow, I have never looked at it like that. That is probably the best summary I have ever heard.

DGM

9th August 2007, 03:51 PM

Much like the child who deliberately ignores logic and reason to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy,

Hey, watch it there big guy, Your treading on very shaky ground. (I have youngsters near by):D

mjd1982

9th August 2007, 04:03 PM

MJD I understand yourfrustration. Trying to show evidence to the herd is like living the monty python parrot sketch. This is a dead parrot, no it's just sleeping...
Buddy, I'm not joking when I say that I am practically in tears laughin at this page.

I'll be back in the morning...

Unsecured Coins

9th August 2007, 04:11 PM

that's ok, we're laughing at you too, mjd

beachnut

9th August 2007, 04:11 PM

Buddy, I'm not joking when I say that I am practically in tears laughin at this page.

I'll be back in the morning...
Did you figure out the truther video you posted? It is full of junk. Why post such obvious junk? Try to find something better, than sounds like explosions, and "I know what explosives sound like". Or the "pull it", please find a video with out pull it in it.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:13 PM

You know, I was curious how Hauer could have known about anthrax. Then I looked up his history and position as of 9/11.

So, yes, he'd have no reason at all to suspect biological attacks. (He also was working for the NIH on Septermber 11th.) [/sarcasm]

Of more interest:

It's more bad luck than a plan. But, it may be able to explain how Hauer could think it was Osama...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Hauer
I thought I did reply to this. I guess not. Sorry. I think that Hauer either be hung or get a metal. You would need a real investigation first to determine which.

Anyone hear anything about that Anthrax investigation as of late? Gee I wonder why those pesky terrorists would have stopped mailing that Anthrax.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:15 PM

Wow, I have never looked at it like that. That is probably the best summary I have ever heard.
Who's a young truther on here and how would you know? The same way you know 9-11 was an inside job?

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:17 PM

Almost all of these young "truther" teens think that they're somehow smarter than their counterparts who do not believe in these conjecture-based conspiracy theories. This makes them feel special...it's ok if they don't fit in with the "sheeple", they're just government shills. I believe this is the source of the elevated level of arrogance so present in their ignorance. Allowing their dearly-held theories to be "debunked" would eliminate their source of self-proclaimed supremacy, and make them just like everybody else.

Much like the child who deliberately ignores logic and reason to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, 9/11 CTers refuse to accept evidence against their theories. This evidence isn't just attacking their theory, it's attacking their "supremacy". Expect to see a similar response from CTers faced with "debunking" as you'll see with a child told Santa Claus doesn't exist. You're not just showing them the truth, you're taking away something that's dear to them. For that, they will resist.
Much like the blind faith followers of the religious right, this present administration, lies about WMD's, and lies about 9-11.

Open wide and swallow.

T.A.M.

9th August 2007, 04:17 PM

Granting that the kids who are infesting this forum lately are below-average in intelligence, why would any teenager or pre-teen think it's cool to swallow a load of steaming [rule 8]? How can making yourself look like a dunce impress anybody?

I tend to disagree here, on this point...

I think most of our young visiting truther friends are "intellegent" in the sense that they possess a good deal of knowledge, and are able to reproduce it, and within their world view, interpret it.

What I think is lacking is an ability to critically analyze data, eliminating the bias of their world view, and process the information in an unbias fashion.

It is the similar to when we state that S. Jone's work is poor because he is a kook. This is not taking his data and analyzing it critically, free of bias. This is not critical analysis.

However, do not mistake this for someone stating "I do not trust S. Jones work because he is a kook". This has nothing to do with critical analysis of his work, or a lack of it. This is basically stating that the data or science should be scrutinized BECAUSE the author of said data or science may have allowed HIS OWN bias into his work.

I personally may not have the knowledge to honestly and fairly analyze his work critically (or I may, who knows), but I can still express my concern that he may allow his bias against the USG to influence his work...it is opinion, and there for I am entitled to it...lol

T.A.M.

9th August 2007, 04:21 PM

Who's a young truther on here and how would you know? The same way you know 9-11 was an inside job?

For most people, the label of "young truther" is given to someone either because (A) the person has revealed their age directly, or (B) the content, tone, and demeanor within their posts indicate someone who is likely of a young age. It someone is incorrectly deemed a "young truther" based on (B) it may not reflect well on the so labeled, and may be a hint to brush up on tact, civility, and debating techniques.

TAM:)

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 04:21 PM

Who's a young truther on here and how would you know? The same way you know 9-11 was an inside job?

1.)Rev, and he as already said so.

2.)Unlike Santa, The Tooth Fairy, and the "Inside Job" theory....Science is real.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:26 PM

ZS, as I pointed out here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2849096&postcount=399), nobody is claiming that. If the structural damage and fires (both fuel and building contents) caused by the impact of a large, fuel-laden, fast-moving airliner could bring the building down, said impact plus explosive could of course do the same thing. No one is saying otherwise; the claim opposed to you is that no such explosive devices were present. If you wish to argue for their presence, fire away and present your evidence. But repeating the line quoted above is just beating a straw man.
There is no proof that the plane, could and did knock the towers down on its own. There’s just a lack of investigation into anything else including the most obvious.

Unsecured Coins

9th August 2007, 04:28 PM

There is no proof that the plane, could and did knock the towers down on its own. There’s just a lack of investigation into anything else including the most obvious.

nominated

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:28 PM

For most people, the label of "young truther" is given to someone either because (A) the person has revealed their age directly, or (B) the content, tone, and demeanor within their posts indicate someone who is likely of a young age. It someone is incorrectly deemed a "young truther" based on (B) it may not reflect well on the so labeled, and may be a hint to brush up on tact, civility, and debating techniques.

TAM:)
Bare assertions everywhere.

yawn

beachnut

9th August 2007, 04:29 PM

Who's a young truther on here and how would you know? The same way you know 9-11 was an inside job?
You are young, almost 18 is young. Or are you the old ZenSmack1889? They mean act like kids without education. Like all 9/11 truth movement people who act like kids without knowledge or judgment.

Who would not want be young, I just would love to avoid the dumb part.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:31 PM

1.)Rev, and he as already said so.

2.)Unlike Santa, The Tooth Fairy, and the "Inside Job" theory....Science is real.
Science is real. Just not present in any official explanation.

T.A.M.

9th August 2007, 04:32 PM

Bare assertions everywhere.

yawn

of course other posting characteristics could lead one to be labeled in a more derogatory fashion...

TAM:)

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:34 PM

You are young, almost 18 is young. Or are you the old ZenSmack1889? They mean act like kids without education. Like all 9/11 truth movement people who act like kids without knowledge or judgment.

Who would not want be young, I just would love to avoid the dumb part.
Wow your powers of deduction are amazing. Explains a lot.

wrong

I'm pretty sure I left at least a hint on one of my posts here that I'm not 18.

See you don't know everything. What else do you think you might be wrong about?

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 04:35 PM

There is no proof that the plane, could and did knock the towers down on its own. There’s just a lack of investigation into anything else including the most obvious.

Thats like saying the police watched a someone get shot in the head and die...than investigated to see if they were stabbed and poisoned as well?

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:45 PM

Thats like saying the police watched a someone get shot in the head and die...than investigated to see if they were stabbed and poisoned as well?
They don't do autopsies in murders even when they think they know the cause? So if a murderer poisons someone and then throws them in a pool it's not investigated to see if they really drowned?

Here's a little advice for you. Don't ever murder anyone. You'll get caught. For sure.

nicepants

9th August 2007, 04:49 PM

Who's a young truther on here and how would you know? The same way you know 9-11 was an inside job?

How old are you, zen? 17 or 18?

We know how old you are because you're in the NWO database ;-)

nicepants

9th August 2007, 04:50 PM

Here's a little advice for you. Don't ever murder anyone. You'll get caught. For sure.

Something about this statement made me think of OJ Simpson.

Pardalis

9th August 2007, 04:52 PM

How old are you, zen? 17 or 18?

We know how old you are because you're in the NWO database ;-)

Don't go there again. Let's just pretend Zensmack89 is a wise old man (http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/88864571f5f0d59e1.png).

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:52 PM

How old are you, zen? 17 or 18?

We know how old you are because you're in the NWO database ;-)
With a name like nicepants maybe you shouldn't be asking who you think is a young boy their age.

No I don't want any candy.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point. This is the second time you have been reported for implying other posters are pedophiles. Do not do it again.

beachnut

9th August 2007, 04:53 PM

Wow your powers of deduction are amazing. Explains a lot.

wrong

I'm pretty sure I left at least a hint on one of my posts here that I'm not 18.

See you don't know everything. What else do you think you might be wrong about?
I was giving you an excuse for having no facts on 9/11, but if you insist on being of an age where someone should have enough education and judgment to see 9/11 truth as a movement of fraud it is fine by me. I think you should exercise your freedom to post as many false statements on 9/11 as you can. Actually 4th and 5th graders are able to cut through the thin fog you 9/11 truth people post and see the truth. Must be they are free of bias and really have open minds. So the age thing is BS, and you are wise to keep your age a secret, like you do keeping all the facts to support 9/11 ideas an even bigger secret. You have done an outstanding job. When will we see more evidence there are no facts in 9/11 truth camp?

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 04:55 PM

They don't do autopsies in murders even when they think they know the cause? So if a murderer poisons someone and then throws them in a pool it's not investigated to see if they really drowned?

Here's a little advice for you. Don't ever murder anyone. You'll get caught. For sure.

They don't perform autopsies when the cause of death is obvious. The family may request one anyways but usually they don't.

See a drowning isn't that obvious. Why did he drown? Heart Attack? Stroke? Alcohol? Drugs? Was there foul play involved?

But like I said...IF THE POLICE WITNESS SOMEONE BEING SHOT IN THE HEAD AND THEY DIE THEY DON'T PERFORM AN AUTOPSY.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:57 PM

I was giving you an excuse for having no facts on 9/11, but if you insist on being of an age where someone should have enough education and judgment to see 9/11 truth as a movement of fraud it is fine by me. I think you should exercise your freedom to post as many false statements on 9/11 as you can. Actually 4th and 5th graders are able to cut through the thin fog you 9/11 truth people post and see the truth. Must be they are free of bias and really have open minds. So the age thing is BS, and you are wise to keep your age a secret, like you do keeping all the facts to support 9/11 ideas an even bigger secret. You have done an outstanding job. When will we see more evidence there are no facts in 9/11 truth camp?
Yeah. And I guess people are getting younger dumber everyday. Because as far as 9-11 is concerned they're certainly not coming around to your way of thinking.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 04:58 PM

They don't perform autopsies when the cause of death is obvious. The family may request one anyways but usually they don't.

See a drowning isn't that obvious. Why did he drown? Heart Attack? Stroke? Alcohol? Drugs? Was there foul play involved?

But like I said...IF THE POLICE WITNESS SOMEONE BEING SHOT IN THE HEAD AND THEY DIE THEY DON'T PERFORM AN AUTOPSY.
Yeah well some of the families are requesting an autopsie of this investigation into 9-11. Are they getting one?

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 04:58 PM

Yeah. And I guess people are getting younger dumber everyday. Because as far as 9-11 is concerned they're certainly not coming around to your way of thinking.

:dl:

Which Poll are you referring to?

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 05:01 PM

They don't perform autopsies when the cause of death is obvious. The family may request one anyways but usually they don't.

See a drowning isn't that obvious. Why did he drown? Heart Attack? Stroke? Alcohol? Drugs? Was there foul play involved?

But like I said...IF THE POLICE WITNESS SOMEONE BEING SHOT IN THE HEAD AND THEY DIE THEY DON'T PERFORM AN AUTOPSY.
Really. They wouldn't do an autopsy to see how many times he was shot and with what kind of bullets?

Well you got something there as far as JFK goes. The whole world saw that so it was really obvious exactly what happened.

lol

Revolutionary91

9th August 2007, 05:02 PM

nicepants

9th August 2007, 05:04 PM

With a name like nicepants maybe you shouldn't be asking who you think is a young boy their age.

No I don't want any candy.

I think you misunderstand. If you were 17 or 18, that would explain your childish attitude and lack of logic & knowledge. It wasn't an insult, it was just a way to explain your behavior. Think of it like a handicap. The older you are, the less acceptable/expected your current behavior will become. There aren't many people who act the way you do when they get to middle-age...they typically grow out of it in their 20s.

So which is it? 17 or 18?

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 05:05 PM

Really. They wouldn't do an autopsy to see how many times he was shot and with what kind of bullets?

Well you got something there as far as JFK goes. The whole world saw that so it was really obvious exactly what happened.

lol

Thats because they needed to remove the bullets only if the murderer got away.

EMS can determine how many times he was shot by doing a Patient Assessment, which is required...if not you will be charged with negligence.

Still IF EMS misses a bullet, it will be found by the trauma team and surgeons.

With JFK they didn't know who shot him...which is going outside of what I originally said.

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 05:07 PM

ROFL

Rev,

Still ducking my posts on the other threads?

DGM

9th August 2007, 05:09 PM

Buddy, I'm not joking when I say that I am practically in tears laughin at this page.

I'll be back in the morning...
I just wanted to offer my condolences on the stundies this month. I was really pulling for you. Better luck next month, I'm sure you'll come up with some great quotes.

beachnut

9th August 2007, 05:26 PM

Yeah. And I guess people are getting younger dumber everyday. Because as far as 9-11 is concerned they're certainly not coming around to your way of thinking.
Self critiquing are you not? So does this mean you have no real facts and lack the judgment to recognize the lies of the 9/11 truth movement? You truhers are such a small minority. Only 0.00067 percent of all engineers, and the few you have in 9/11 truth make no sense at all. Not one single fact, and you still blindly talk BS about 9/11. I have no way of thinking, I use physics, logic, math, engineering, flying experience, and just plan old fashion research. I expect the 9/11 truth movement people stop using their brains and just join the fact less cult 9/11 truth has become. You have not even presented a single fact on 9/11. Just talk, Griffin is a good example. Look up Griffin's work, read it, it is all hearsay. Not one time does Griffin come up with facts, his entire 9/11 truth work is hearsay. 9/11 truth is a movement of ignorance, proved by the lack of facts.

leftysergeant

9th August 2007, 05:44 PM

2000 pounds of TNT that fragmented into shotgun pellets? When? After it took out the columns or before?

Basicly, when an aluminum structure passes through a steel structure such as the outer walls of the towers, at that speed, it gets reduced to a lot of whirling, razor sharp, jagged frisbees. Whirling knife blades would probably do more damage to the insulation than would shotgun pellets.

Gravy

9th August 2007, 05:58 PM

ZEN, I asked you to tell me why the towers collapsed, according to NIST, because I don't believe you're capable of stating the reasons. You replied with this:

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

That is incorrect. I'm sorry to see that you are incapable of simple honesty. You have severely embarrassed yourself with the adults here. Goodbye.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 06:26 PM

Basicly, when an aluminum structure passes through a steel structure such as the outer walls of the towers, at that speed, it gets reduced to a lot of whirling, razor sharp, jagged frisbees. Whirling knife blades would probably do more damage to the insulation than would shotgun pellets.
Thank You lefty.

Then what happened? To the center of the building that is?

PhantomWolf

9th August 2007, 06:37 PM

Thank You lefty.

Then what happened? To the center of the building that is?

What part of the centre of the building? Except for 47 columns that would have taken up a fraction of the core, most of the centre of the building was air surounded by drywall, even the elevator shafts. In fact one group escaped their elevator by kicking through the shaft wall and breaking into a bathroom.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 06:40 PM

ZEN, I asked you to tell me why the towers collapsed, according to NIST, because I don't believe you're capable of stating the reasons. You replied with this:

That is incorrect. I'm sorry to see that you are incapable of simple honesty. You have severely embarrassed yourself with the adults here. Goodbye.
Oh Almighty Great and Powerful Gravy. I'm truly sorry and unworthy of your rational expertise. I hang my head in shame.

I was naive enough to assume when you wanted the NIST explanation to the collapse that I would be able to find it on the NIST FAQ page which is where I got that explanation from. I’m sorry lied to you. I promise, I’ll never do it again.

Come on big guy. Show me the error of my ways. Teach me the ways of the Shill and the secret knowledge of the gypsum drywall. This silent treatment is killing me.

Are you kidding?

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 06:44 PM

What part of the centre of the building? Except for 47 columns that would have taken up a fraction of the core, most of the centre of the building was air surounded by drywall, even the elevator shafts. In fact one group escaped their elevator by kicking through the shaft wall and breaking into a bathroom.
I guess what I'm getting at is how much of the core was damaged by the plane, how, and what are you referencing for this?

I’ll come back later.

PhantomWolf

9th August 2007, 07:07 PM

leftysergeant

9th August 2007, 07:25 PM

Thank You lefty.

Then what happened? To the center of the building that is?The dry wall probably crumbled to dust, letting air and flame up through the core, causing the columns to become heated unevenly, thus, to expand unevenly. This would, of course lead to a lot of broken welds and rivets. Pretty simple, really.

Gravy

9th August 2007, 07:30 PM

Oh Almighty Great and Powerful Gravy. I'm truly sorry and unworthy of your rational expertise. I hang my head in shame.

I was naive enough to assume when you wanted the NIST explanation to the collapse that I would be able to find it on the NIST FAQ page which is where I got that explanation from. I’m sorry lied to you. I promise, I’ll never do it again.

Come on big guy. Show me the error of my ways. Teach me the ways of the Shill and the secret knowledge of the gypsum drywall. This silent treatment is killing me.

Are you kidding?

Okay, I'll give you one last chance before you go on ignore. Because you have a problem with honesty, you have persisted in misstating the official reasons for the tower collapses. In fact, I do not think you are capable of stating those reasons in your own words. Prove me wrong, then do not misstate NIST's conclusions again.

Go ahead.

Revolutionary91

9th August 2007, 07:33 PM

Zensmack do not allow yourself to be goaded. They want to get you banned and they will queue up to report every breach of the rules in your posts. Just ignore them and report their attacks on you.

9/11 Chewy Defense

9th August 2007, 07:36 PM

Zen will never answer anything you throw at him Gravy. I've done thrown everything I know at him on YouTube & yet he continues to be evasive here.

He'll never learn! :mad:

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 07:38 PM

Zensmack do not allow yourself to be goaded. They want to get you banned and they will queue up to report every breach of the rules in your posts. Just ignore them and report their attacks on you.

Are you going to retract your statement on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2850488&postcount=31) or no?

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 07:40 PM

Zen will never answer anything you throw at him Gravy. I've done thrown everything I know at him on YouTube & yet he continues to be evasive here.

He'll never learn! :mad:

Gravy,

According to Zen, you live in a cardboard box in Central Park. Which is impossible because everyone knows the rent for a nice box in the park is steep. :D

stateofgrace

9th August 2007, 07:43 PM

Zensmack do not allow yourself to be goaded. They want to get you banned and they will queue up to report every breach of the rules in your posts. Just ignore them and report their attacks on you.

That’s the way REV, just ignore them, forget that anybody objects to your totally distorted, naive, child like view of the world and just ignore them.

You want the Ban REV, admit it, you want to be banned form here to go back to LC and declare yourself a martyr, go on Rev, admit it.

Gravy

9th August 2007, 07:59 PM

Zen will never answer anything you throw at him Gravy. I've done thrown everything I know at him on YouTube & yet he continues to be evasive here.

He'll never learn! :mad:Well, for some bizarre reason he's decided that I've been unfair with him, so I thought I'd give him another chance. If he cannot correct himself about such a simple, blatant falsehood, and learn from his mistake, then he doesn't have the emotional maturity to merit our help.

Gravy,
According to Zen, you live in a cardboard box in Central Park.I wish! I live in a milk crate in a J train station, and my diet is a monotony of rat, rat, and rat, with an occasional roach at tea, if I'm lucky.

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 08:06 PM

I wish! I live in a milk crate in a J train station, and my diet is a monotony of rat, rat, and rat, with an occasional roach at tea, if I'm lucky.

Woah we are practically neighbors! I live out of a fresh direct box in a A train station, but I bet you don't get as flooded as much as we do.

LashL

9th August 2007, 08:33 PM

He might have considered what was above him, the report he was giving was about the condition and fire on the 78th floor. Pictorial evidence that we have posted show fire raging above the 78th floor. For some reason you don't want to accept that?

Yes, Chief Palmer did, indeed, consider what was above him, and sent a group of firefighters up to the 79th floor. The 78th and 79th were connected by an escalator, and the fire on 79 was visible from 78. It is unclear whether the firefighters ever made it to the 79th floor because the south tower collapsed mere moments after Chief Palmer's radio transmission from 78. :(

BTW, if I have not formally welcomed you to the sub-forum, NYCEMT86, welcome. Your posts have been a welcome addition. :w2:

NYCEMT86

9th August 2007, 08:36 PM

Yes, Chief Palmer did, indeed, consider what was above him, and sent a group of firefighters up to the 79th floor. The 78th and 79th were connected by an escalator, and the fire on 79 was visible from 78. It is unclear whether the firefighters ever made it to the 79th floor because the south tower collapsed mere moments after Chief Palmer's radio transmission from 78. :(

BTW, if I have not formally welcomed you to the sub-forum, NYCEMT86, welcome. Your posts have been a welcome addition. :w2:

I appreciate the addition information to my post and thank you for the welcome.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 08:47 PM

NIST ran a number of computer models, and I believed that another organisation/University has done simulations since then. Have a look in the NIST report for there stuff, if I recall it was about 10 columns in WTC 1 and 14 or so in WTC 2. As to the how, once the plane was through the exterior colums there was nothing to slow it down till it hit the core columns. Even in a mass of liquid fuel, plane parts and various objects entrained in the fluid, the moving mass was sufficent to break the joints where the core columns were spot welded and bolted together. If you look at the images of WTC 2, you can see that debries was exiting the building via the other side of the buildings previous to ignition of the fuel, so you had the entire mass of the plane, fuel, structure and all the contents, plus all of the debris that had been swept up and added to that mass from the office space itself, slamming into the core columns at speeds of around 100-200 miles per hour. Why wouldn't that do damage?
So where did NIST calculate how much of the plane shattered into a millions of little pellets and how much of it retained enough volume or how you put (mass of liquid fuel, plane parts and various objects entrained in the fluid, the moving mass was sufficient) to cause damage to the core? How could they know? What was the govern to the numbers they put into the computer model? For example did they just keep inputting sag until they reached about 40 inches and collapse initiated? And what did they base those 40 inches on when their physical fire test of over two hours produce only 3 inches?

Some of these questions are rhetorical. Can you tell which ones?

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 08:50 PM

The dry wall probably crumbled to dust, letting air and flame up through the core, causing the columns to become heated unevenly, thus, to expand unevenly. This would, of course lead to a lot of broken welds and rivets. Pretty simple, really.
So Lefty? Are you claiming the columns were mostly damaged by fire as opposed to the plane crash?

Gravy

9th August 2007, 08:50 PM

ZEN, I'm waiting for your answer.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2851663&postcount=474

9/11 Chewy Defense

9th August 2007, 08:54 PM

:D Here's the cardboard box scene!
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/hsc3146l.jpg

EventHorizon

9th August 2007, 08:55 PM

Buddy, I'm not joking when I say that I am practically in tears laughin at this page.

I'll be back in the morning...

It's good that you're able to laugh at yourself.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 09:07 PM

Zensmack do not allow yourself to be goaded. They want to get you banned and they will queue up to report every breach of the rules in your posts. Just ignore them and report their attacks on you.
Why would they want to get me banned? And so quickly? Are they already all out of their scary facts? Well now they really showed me huh? This is a real disappointment anyhow. They've shown me nothing so far. Trying to get me banned is just a copout.

yawn

Gravy

9th August 2007, 09:08 PM

One final time, ZEN. Are you mature enough to do this simple thing?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2851663&postcount=474

9/11 Chewy Defense

9th August 2007, 09:10 PM

Why would they want to get me banned? And so quickly? Are they already all out of their scary facts? Well now they really showed me huh? This is a real disappointment anyhow. They've shown me nothing so far. Trying to get me banned is just a copout.

yawn

You're gonna get banned yourself Zen. You've already had 1 warning so far & the mods are keeping their eye on you. The real disappointment here Zen is that you're just showing your true colors & ignorance.

Face the facts or face the music!

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 09:11 PM

ZEN, I'm waiting for your answer.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2851663&postcount=474
What are you talking about? You asked me about NIST and I quoted their site and then you claimed I was incorrect and a liar.

So ignore me.

Drudgewire

9th August 2007, 09:12 PM

yawn
At least we agree on something.

9/11 Chewy Defense

9th August 2007, 09:14 PM

What are you talking about? You asked me about NIST and I quoted their site and then you claimed I was incorrect and a liar.

So ignore me.

Did anyone see that he posted anything from the NIST report? I'm either blind or I didn't see him post it. :cool:

CHF

9th August 2007, 09:17 PM

Zensmack do not allow yourself to be goaded. They want to get you banned and they will queue up to report every breach of the rules in your posts. Just ignore them and report their attacks on you.

Why doesn't LCF have these sort of safeguards in place, Rev?

We put up with twoofers here but Dylan's playpen bans debunkers. How come?

Gravy

9th August 2007, 09:19 PM

Did anyone see that he posted anything from the NIST report? I'm either blind or I didn't see him post it. :cool:He did, but not their reasons for the collapses, which I have repeatedly said he is incapable of stating in his own words.

He has proven me right. What an epidemic of sad people we've had here lately.

Gravy

9th August 2007, 09:21 PM

Why doesn't LCF have these sort of safeguards in place, Rev?

We put up with twoofers here but Dylan's playpen bans debunkers. How come?
I never broke LCF rules, and was banned twice, while its uber-administrator encouraged my murder. Quite an honest, fearless forum they run there.

ZENSMACK89

9th August 2007, 09:24 PM

He did, but not their reasons for the collapses, which I have repeatedly said he is incapable of stating in his own words.

He has proven me right. What an epidemic of sad people we've had here lately.
Adding a qualifier now? I didn't have any access to any physical evidence so I couldn't perform much of my own investigation. How about you? I didn't thinked you asked me for it in my words I though you asked what NIST gave as an explaination. I then gave you what they say right from their FAQ page. Which you claimed was incorrect.

Is NIST incorrect?

9/11 Chewy Defense

9th August 2007, 09:26 PM

I never broke LCF rules, and was banned twice, while its uber-administrator encouraged my murder. Quite an honest, fearless forum they run there.

We all know it's not nice for someone from that forum to call on murdering you Gravy. I've seen the transcripts & that "JackChit" charactor needs to be in a mental institution or in jail. You know you can get him for communication harassment? And Dylan needs to just quit telling his people where you are all the time. If something happens to you Gravy we'll make sure they go to jail for being accomplices to murder.

We're with ya all the way Gravy! :crowded:

PhantomWolf

9th August 2007, 09:31 PM

So where did NIST calculate how much of the plane shattered into a millions of little pellets and how much of it retained enough volume or how you put (mass of liquid fuel, plane parts and various objects entrained in the fluid, the moving mass was sufficient) to cause damage to the core? How could they know? What was the govern to the numbers they put into the computer model? For example did they just keep inputting sag until they reached about 40 inches and collapse initiated? And what did they base those 40 inches on when their physical fire test of over two hours produce only 3 inches?

Some of these questions are rhetorical. Can you tell which ones?

Why don't you read the report and find out the answers. I'll give you a clue to the second, the first you can find on your own. How much fireproofing did the test have, and what was the test for?