Anomolies at ground zero

[Docker]

BTW Docker, I've found the thread where the Danny Jowenko was discussed.

Have a good read.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63884

Interesting to see that you lot rush to silence any one brave enough to come forward.

 

[Pardalis]

Interesting to see that you lot rush to silence any one brave enough to come forward.

Wow, you read fast! Just read the thread. You might learn a few things.

Oh, and where does it say here that the investigators weren't allowed to investigate explosives?

 

[Docker]

Wow, you read fast! Just read the thread. You might learn a few things.

Oh, and where does it say here that the investigators weren't allowed to investigate explosives?

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me now?

You said "what does that say about explosives"

I'm not claiming the report says it.

 

[Pardalis]

Maybe you could enlighten me.

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

What does that mean?

 

[Docker]

Maybe you could enlighten me.



What does that mean?

Exactly what it says.

 

[Pardalis]

What does the "IT" refer to?

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

What does the "IT" refer to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Wrinkle_in_Time#Synopsis ??

 

[Docker]

Heres what Fire Engineering said about the FEMA investigation:

"half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

 

[Docker]

What does the "IT" refer to?

It was the response to your "what"

You said what does that say about explosives.

 

[Pardalis]

Stop stalling please.

No, because FEMA themselves stated that that hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurence"

they also describe that as their best hypothesis, what does that say about the notion of explosives?

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

What did you mean exactly?

 

[Docker]

Stop stalling please.







What did you mean exactly?

]

Look at my Fire Engineering quote above. That is what I mean.

 

[Pardalis]

Heres what Fire Engineering said about the FEMA investigation:

"half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

Who is that quote from?

 

[Docker]

Who is that quote from?

The Editor of Fire Engineering. Incidentally that magazine is the most respected and longest established magazine of it's kind.

 

[Pardalis]

Name, link?

ETA: no wonder you have almost 500 posts, you're dragging a fairly easy answer for so long...

 

[Docker]

Name, link?

Bill Manning

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

 

[Pardalis]

Bill Manning

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...n=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

Finally. I'll look at it tomorrow.

 

[Docker]

Finally. I'll look at it tomorrow.

You mean you refute the 9/11 CTs yet you haven't even seen this?

 

[Pardalis]

First off, this is from January 2002.

Also, there's nothing here that says anything about the hypothesis of explosives.

 

[Docker]

First off, this is from January 2002.

Also, there's nothing here that says anything about the hypothesis of explosives.

Yes thats when FEMA did its investigation while the evidence was being destroyed. I never said it mentions explosives but it suggests FEMA had been commandeered by political forces

 

[Pardalis]

I never said it mentions explosives but it suggests FEMA had been commandeered by political forces

So basically that was bull?:

It says that maybe they aren't allowed to investigate explosives.

ETA: But thanks for the link to Fire Engeneering, I shall read more about what they say about 9/11. Apparently, they have a podcast about it.