• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anomolies at ground zero

Docker said:
You said he deliberately mislead. You can't prove that. What is his motive for that, he's making no money and he lost his job.
Click to expand...

He's quite the glorious figure amongst the CT set, though. You think fame isn't a motive?
 
Docker said:
You said he deliberately mislead. You can't prove that. What is his motive for that, he's making no money and he lost his job.
Click to expand...
Unless you can show that the paper and presentation were not created and promoted by Steven Jones, then, yes, it was deliberate. Perhaps you missed the other examples I included of his deliberate deception. You should really learn to read more carefully before you accuse people of committing libel. You could wind up committing libel yourself!
 
kookbreaker said:
He's quite the glorious figure amongst the CT set, though. You think fame isn't a motive?
Click to expand...
I don't give a damn what his motive is. He lies about the events of 9/11. Docker is arguing that he may have been misled into including deceptive material in his presentations. Um, Docker, his presentation hasn't changed. Is he under some kind of mind control?

ETA: And keep in mind that he's lying in order to claim that horrible crimes have been committed.
 
Docker said:
So now jones is comparable to goebbels?

Incredible. You libeled jones and I pointed it out to him.
Click to expand...

In that you have stated you do not reside in the US, you may not be familiar with US libel laws. Given conversations here on the boards between different peoples in the legal field that I have read, US libel suits are much more difficult to successfully argue than in other countries. You may want to keep that in mind before accusing people of committing libel.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
In that you have stated you do not reside in the US, you may not be familiar with US libel laws. Given conversations here on the boards between different peoples in the legal field that I have read, US libel suits are much more difficult to successfully argue than in other countries. You may want to keep that in mind before accusing people of committing libel.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying that for him, Arkan. The problem is, he's 100% wrong about me misrepresenting Jones' position. He's trying to make excuses for someone who deliberately deceives about the events of 9/11. Sorry, Docker, it's not because he's been deceived by bad Jim Fetzer (thought you had respect for Fetzer?), and it's not because Jones has "only" been doing this since last year. I was able to find out about WTC 7's condition in the first 10 minutes of my looking into it. And distinguished Doctor Jones can't manage that in a year, for his "Scholarly" work, which he presents publicly as accurate?

Give me a break.
 
This thread is moving very fast, so I'll apologise in advance for addressing something from two pages back, but I just didn't want to see it go unchallenged:

Docker said:
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."
Click to expand...

Docker, why are you so dishonest? Do you understand why the firefighters are upset? It has NOTHING to do with explosives or a conspiracy. It has to do with SAFETY in commercial construciton. Did you bother reading the article at all? Here's the same article further down the page (bolding mine).

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what they are saying? They question the structural integrity of the trusses and columns. They are upset because they see this as a good opportunity to learn about what materials could have been used to prevent the full collapse and what materials may have led to the collapse. They see this opportunity has been wasted.

I am currently a DB Admin, but spent many years as a truss designer. I have mentioned in the past (actually, way back in the very first Loose Change Thread) that firefighters HATE trusses. Trusses (both wood and steel) are quick, easy, lightweight and inexpensive - however, due to their physical makeup (less material, more surface area, etc) they fail EXTREMELY rapidly in fire situations, and usually without any warning at all.

Firefighters are a tight and emotional group. When one of their brothers loses his life because of a structural failure, they want to know why it happened. They want to know what cause it. They want to know what the construction industry is doing to prevent these things from happening in the future.

I wouldn't argue that the firefighters have a right to complain about the investigation. But do not steal their quotes as if you and they are fighting the same cause with the same questions. Go ahead and read that article again, and let me know if you think any firefighters think that ANYTHING besides the plane (and resulting fuel/fire/structural failure) brought those towers down.
 
Docker said:
What is his motive for that, he's making no money and he lost his job.
Click to expand...
Steven Jones is on paid leave from BYU. He is still making money.

He has announced his future retirement, which at least in this country isn't described as losing one's job.
 
Docker said:
Have you seen the ridiculous tests done by NIST on the fireproofing? A shotgun fired at a square of steel. How scientific.
Click to expand...

Certainly more scientific than two concrete blocks and chicken wire.

I wouldn't. Where is your evidence that the two air planes turned into shotgun pellets and removed the fireproofing?
Click to expand...

So, you wouldn't test it, but you want proof ? Isn't that slightly contradictory ?

The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.
Click to expand...

That's a lie. Nice way to try and convince people. Or are you just trolling ?

If I need to explain this to you then there really is no hope son.
Click to expand...

Typical response of the guy who doesn't know the answer.

Are you implying that desks burning for 56 minutes could cause global collapse in one of the greatest engineering triumphs in history?
Click to expand...

Nice way to frame the question in order to make it seem ridiculous. I wasn't aware computers and other office equipment were made of desks.

If the plane impacts are relevent they would have collapsed soon after.
Click to expand...

Ah! There we have it. The typical simplistic understanding of reality that my good friends the conspiracy loons keep flaunting. "If the gunshot wound to hit gut was the cause of death why did he die 20 minutes later ?"

I suspect I have far more scientific knowledge than you.
Click to expand...

I suspect an owl has more scientific knowledge than you.

Wrong. NIST claims that both together would not have done it, absent the fireproofing being removed which they have shown no evidence of.
Click to expand...

So... you expect the fireproofing to remain in place after beign hit by a 767 ?

Everybody knows the source I am citing. I am not going to redo your inadequate research for you.
Click to expand...

Here's that typical response again.

78th floor. Ladder 15. "2 isolated pockets of fire"
Click to expand...

And isn't it interesting that the impact point was ABOVE the 78th ?

I agree with NISTs report. I think it's brave of them to admit they don'y know why it collapsed and had to make up evidence.
Click to expand...

Cite ?

Speculating much?

Very scientific analysis, by the way.
Click to expand...

What's yours ?

So I am supposed to listen to a man that lies about the sources he has read?
Click to expand...

How about someone who hasn't read any sources ?
 
Docker said:
By fall I mean [WTC7] came down due to fire etc rather than blasts.
Click to expand...

What blasts ?

I never claimed it did. That is one hypothesis NIST is considering. So until they reach conclusions we cant claim to know what happened.
Click to expand...

Oh. So when WTC1 fell on it it didn't really get damaged so they had to blow it up secretly ? Did they plan this ahead, or did they have to place the explosives WHILE it was burning up ?

Reality check: Governments do bad things
Click to expand...

And that, in and of itself, proves nothing. Again. Typical CTer mindset. If it's possible, it happened. If I don't understand it, it didn't.

Although I welcome their decision to examine blast scenarios.
Click to expand...

And when they conclude that they found no evidence of this, what will you say ?

I think the death of those brave firemen was the saddest part about 9/11.
Click to expand...

The rest of the 3000 dead and their families is, in my opinion, equally sad. Don't you think ?

The official story doesn't know what happened to 7.
Click to expand...

It has a pretty good idea, doesn't it ? Of course, that's also a lie:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time."
Click to expand...

They know the fire caused the collapse, but not the specifics.

Fetzer will destroy him.
Click to expand...

Not with words, he won't.

So now jones is comparable to goebbels?
Click to expand...

Now your reading comprehension is abysmal. I understand why you didn't read the report.
 
I am currently a DB Admin, but spent many years as a truss designer. I have mentioned in the past (actually, way back in the very first Loose Change Thread) that firefighters HATE trusses. Trusses (both wood and steel) are quick, easy, lightweight and inexpensive - however, due to their physical makeup (less material, more surface area, etc) they fail EXTREMELY rapidly in fire situations, and usually without any warning at all.



I was in a training class about building collapse when one of the instructors
remarked that " a truss is perfectly adequate under normal conditions"
then quickly added that a fire in a building is not a normal situation!

FF are taught that they only have a limited amount of time to extinguish a
fire in a structure with truss roof or floor supports. We are told have
20-25 minutes to knock down main body of fire - if can't do it in that time
should pull out ("pull it"???) and fight fire from exterior . After 5 FF in
Hackensack were killed in 1988 at auto dealership fire when truss supported
roof collapsed from fire and weight of parts stored in crawl space above
ceiling - state legislature required all building with truss roof or floors to
clearly mark them as such. Normally find triangle at front near standpipe
connections with F R or F/R indicating what part is supported by truss
 
njslim - Are you a firefighter? If so, my hat's off to you. I met many firefighters when I was a truss designer and it got to the point where I was embaressed to admit what I did for a living. I'm glad that there is legislation in place to help prevent future fatalities due to structure failures from fires.

Hey Docker? Did you abandon this thread, too? (I'm always late to the party!). Care to adress the quote you mined out of the Fire Engineering magazine?
 
VespaGuy said:
njslim - Are you a firefighter? If so, my hat's off to you. I met many firefighters when I was a truss designer and it got to the point where I was embaressed to admit what I did for a living. I'm glad that there is legislation in place to help prevent future fatalities due to structure failures from fires.

Hey Docker? Did you abandon this thread, too? (I'm always late to the party!). Care to adress the quote you mined out of the Fire Engineering magazine?
Click to expand...

How did I mine it? I sourced the entire article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom