Ghosts of the Firemen

[pomeroo]

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

Ronald Weick needs to answer these 6 points


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

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

» edit | reply | 0 points
New Evidentiary Reasoning.


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

Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 12:12am.


» reply | 0 points

[Pardalis]

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

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

[Anti-sophist]

I want to play, too

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL.

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

Quote:

Jones paper was peer reviewed.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

...why did building 7 collapse?

It was hit by a skyscraper, for one.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

[babazaroni]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

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

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

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

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

[28th Kingdom]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

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

Quote:

NIST explained the collapse thusly: The impact of the planes severed external columns and core columns. The impact dislodged fireproofing--had the fireproofing remained intact, the buildings would not have fallen. Uneven heating weakened the core columns, causing them to exert an inward pull on the floor trusses, which, in turn, tugged the external columns inward. Many photos of the Twin Towers clearly show this inward bowing, demonstrating the correctness of the NIST's conclusions. Eventually, the trusses gave way and a global collapse ensued.

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

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

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

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

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

[babazaroni]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

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

You are kidding right? Far more mass hit WTC 7 then the mass of the aircraft that hit the towers. Many times more mass.

See page 75 for a picture of WTC 7 being struck by debris

[Pardalis]

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

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

[babazaroni]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

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

He's already addressed that as an optical illusion.

[defaultdotxbe]

Quote:

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

No plane impacts on WTC 7. I don't care how bad the damage was, it couldn't have been worse than what the plane impacts did to the WTCs

if the WTC7 was the same exact building constructed with the same exact design in the same manner at WTC1+2 you might have something there

so much for you seeing the big picture

[babazaroni]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

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

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

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

Do you see how AJ reasons?

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

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

Get to it.

[28th Kingdom]

Originally Posted by babazaroni

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

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

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...53307321536024

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

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

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

[Pardalis]

That explains alot.

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...53307321536024

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

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

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

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

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

[babazaroni]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

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

That is quite ridiculus. You should know better.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

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

[Pardalis]

And you get your psychology knowledge from the band Tool?

[Kage]

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

[The Doc]

Originally Posted by babazaroni

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

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

I have something in mind

I'll get back to you on this

[The Doc]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...53307321536024

http://thedoc911.blogspot.com/2006/1...-what-now.html

Enjoy.

[The Doc]

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

I had to do it...

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

-Gumboot

[MG1962]

Quote:

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

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

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by doctorfungi

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

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

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

[PerryLogan]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...53307321536024

Point of order!

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

(If you're unfamiliar with Alex Jones, take a gander at some of his astonishing beliefs. It's a real mind-blower.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[maccy]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

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

There's a reference of "dripping steel" in a newspaper interview with a firefighter called Joe "Toolie" O'Toole. The interview was published in the Philadelphia Enquirer in May 2002. There's a reliable (ie from a non-CT site) copy of the article here.

I think it is this that the Truthers are citing as proof that there was molten steel and so there had to be thermite. I see plenty of problems with this, however, this is what I posted in another thread about this:

Originally Posted by maccy

Here's the relevant quote again:

Quote:

Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.

source*: http://www.fallenbrothers.com/commun...ead.php?p=2948

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

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

As far as the dripping is concerned, we've already established that the girder wasn't liquid so it's possible that the dripping was another metal (copper or aluminium perhaps) or even molten glass dripping off the steel as it was lifted out of the rubble. Also it is possible that the surface of part of the steel steel was hot enough to be partially melted (there's no reason to assume even heating like is a steel mill), possibly because its melting point was lowered due to a reaction with another substance, such as sulfur:

Quote:

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.

From an analysis of a steel beam from WTC7 here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html

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

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


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

[Architect]

Quote:

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

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


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

[maccy]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

Originally Posted by Architect

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


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

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

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

[babazaroni]

Originally Posted by doctorfungi

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

I had to do it...
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5...ponsloldw3.jpg

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

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by maccy

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

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

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

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

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

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

[babazaroni]

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

If it were true:

GAME OVER.

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

Bush would be hounded by reporters.

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

Shows how utterly clueless AJ's target audience is.

[jhunter1163]

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

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

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

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

[pomeroo]

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

[pomeroo]

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

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

[28th Kingdom]

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

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

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

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

[maccy]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://deesillustration.com/

and a large gallery of what he calls satire here:

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

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

[28th Kingdom]

Originally Posted by babazaroni

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

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

[Firestone]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

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

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

This is what NIST said:

Quote:

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

(bolding mine)

[maccy]

Originally Posted by 28th Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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