Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Usual Suspect]

The same could be said of you.

But it fits you guys better.

 

[bob_kark]

OOOOO and let's imagine we're Harry Potter.

Do you have a point?

 

[Usual Suspect]

so did you design, manfacture, assemble and program the computer you are using to access this forum?

Of course not silly..... Gravy did that.

 

[R.Mackey]

No. Come on now. The silliest one yet was dodging my first post in favor of building 7.

Not really. Your first post, claiming in a tortured way that Gravy is somehow "disrespecting" all of the victims, is a lie. No further comment is needed.

 

[Usual Suspect]

Do you have a point?

No but your head does.

 

[bob_kark]

No but your head does.

So, just insults?

ETA: I actually had pretty high hopes for debating you in a civil manner when you first began posting here. Why do you feel the need to act like this?

 

[Gravy]

But it fits you guys better.

Here I am, Usual.

Now, tell me what is incorrect in my WTC 7 paper. Let's go. Right now.

Fourth time: Why did you PM me and ask if you could consult with me on 9/11 issues if you have such disrespect for my learning. Specifically what changed your mind?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Of course not silly..... Gravy did that.

you respond, but completely miss the point

is there some reason that only people are not allowed to cite other sources? and what research have you done for yourself?

 

[WildCat]

What I'm curious about now is, wildcat, why these pre-global-collapse floor-collapses did not trigger the pancaking global collapse?

Contributed to the collapse. It stands to reason that some trusses failed before others did. As the floor trusses failed more and more lateral forces were put on the core columns until a critical point was reached, and global collapse (note that neither I nor NIST used the term "pancaking" - that is yours alone Dazed) was initiated. The straw that broke the camels back, as it were.

Where do you get the idea that as soon as one floor fails, they all do? Some floors collapsed from the plane impacts, others failed later. The loads steadily accumulate on the core columns at those floors.

You really should read the NIST Report.

 

[WildCat]

is there some reason that only people are not allowed to cite other sources?

Of course there is, they prove him wrong!

 

[WildCat]

"Some of the explosions were too large to be caused by hairspray" and cited a witness who was "blown back" by an explosion

Does that seem unreasonable?

Yes, it is unreasonable when your witness can't even be placed at the scene.

 

[Gravy]

Catching up...

It was claimed at Ground Zero this year that the truth movement disrespects NYPD and NYFD. This thread was started to show NYPD and NYFD feel disrespect from those that would try to silence the questions. I also mentioned two NYFD in Central Park who shook my hand for wearing an Ivestigate 9/11 shirt.

Third time, Usual: who said that about the NYPD?

Who has tried to silence anyone's questions?

Give us your evidence or retract your claims.

Skeptics wants to accuse CT's of being kooks then they should address all of the implications of 9/11 being used as a pretext for war.

Russell:

1) It's not our fault that the leaders of your movement include kooks like Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, and Jason Bermas. If you don't want to be associated with them, speak out against their absurd claims.

2) We're talking about evidence that the US government, or elements within, are complict in the attacks. No conspiracy theorist has provided any such evidence, correct?

(About Bill Manning) Irrelevant, he witnessed evidence being destroyed.

He did? When?

In the CT mind, someone misinterpreting an official article in a way to support their warrantless conclusions is the same as the official article stating those same conclusions.

Yep. They do it all the time.

Jessica you're wasting your time. Simply by mailing Fox you've done more to prove or disprove something than anyone else here has ever done. They have never and will never look into anything themselves. They will continue to spew the official lie as proof. Gravy himself typed up a 314 pg paper on WTC 7 that has none of his own work in it, just a parrot of what's out there already yet they'll ask you to prove your views with your evidence.

Let's see. It's 106 pages, which you would know if you had bothered to open the document. There is a good deal of my own research throughout the paper, including most of the first 30 pages, which you would know if you had bothered to open the document. The rest is a compilation of information from eyewitnesses and experts who investigated the events. There are more than 15 pages of eyewitness accounts about WTC 7's condition.

And your disagreement is?

The first post was asking about respect and your boy Gravy did the Straw man and went into WTC7.

My reply to the first post:

"Why don't you ask him? Or go to one of the Sunday meetings at St. Mark's Church when he's in attendance?

By the way, why did you ask me by PM if you could be in touch now and then and ask questions, if you don't respect my learning?

Just asking questions and demanding answers."

You expressed an opinion about what Craig Bartmer is thinking. So, Usual, have you contacted him and asked him what he thinks of me?

Did I "do the straw man" in subsequent posts? No, I gave you specific examples of direct disparagement of the FDNY by leaders of the "truth" movement.

People on the eighth floor when the collapse began survived to make a witness statement?

Yes. Perhaps you should take the time to learn rather than always arguing from personal incredulity.

What I'm curious about now is, wildcat, why these pre-global-collapse floor-collapses did not trigger the pancaking global collapse?

The only reports of partial floor collapses I know of are from the 60's in the north tower, but those are unconfirmed. Just because part of a floor collapses, doesn't mean the whole thing must collapse or that it must lead to pancaking.

 

[gumboot]

This thread is insane...

Okay, my turn, bear with me...

I heard it was FEMA told the FDNY. This is the FEMA that arrived in New York the day before for a drill, to be held on 9/11, the day of the largest concentration of drills in history.

Few things to jump on here. First, the evac of WTC7. Nothing to do with FEMA. The evacuation of WTC7 was initiated by reports from the NYPD aviation unit that the exterior columns of WTC1 were bowing inwards, and collapse was imminent.

Unfortunately, due to poor communication between FDNY and NYPD the FDNY guys inside the building never got these reports (it wouldn't have mattered as they never heard FDNY's independent evacuation orders anyway).

WTC7 had no suffered any damage at the time of its evacuation.

Second, FEMA arrived on 9/11 for a drill on 9/12 called Tripod II.

LArgest concentration of drills in history? Indeed. Before we compare 9/11 to any other day, how about you list all these drills. Careful now, because I CAN list them all. If you don't actually know, it'd be wise to retract your statement now.

Even one of the Ground Zero ironworkers said, "You couldn't have paid a demolition company to take 'em down straighter."

If I hired a demolition crew to bring down the two towers and WTC7, and the end result was what we saw in New York, I'd be taking the demolition crew to court in a heart beat. Only someone with CT blinkers on could EVER claim the buildings came even remotely "straight down". This claim is simply laughable.

Here is the interview. Its taken on 9/11 early afternoon I think. The man is an actor.

You can watch just the interview. Its about 30 seconds long.

Now tell me this guy is not an actor.

I don't have much expertise in science but acting is one of my passions. I would bet my life that that man is acting.

It isn't sarcasm, its one of the key body language indicators of a man lying. That interview is taken in a new york street on the afternoon of 911. Fox will confirm it.

An eyewitness would just say "It collapsed" they wouldnt offer reasons

Right, I'm weighing on on the whole interview thing. Heard a lot of speculation. Some of it is amusing.

Bottom line. You can't tell if that interview is fake. Video quality is far too low to determine originating format or sound fidelity. Impossible to determine synch. I have seen the original broadcast of it. Don't recall the image quality, but do recall the guy's voice and statements, so if sound is asynch, it is simply a file error, not a dub (when they added their stupid intro V.O. they may have thrown the sound out of synch).

The only thing for determining authenticity is "performance" of the interviewee. Impossible to do unless you're very familiar with both actors and vox pops. ("vox pop" from latin "vox populi" (voice of the people) is the term for randomly selected on-street interviews).

I'm pretty familiar with both.

Is it a staged vox-pop? Well, it could be. You can't tell. But it's as likely to be genuine. One thing you learn doing vox-pops is people give widely varying "performances". Some people turn to jello and freeze up. Other people look like they've been rehearsing for months. Some look like they rehearsed for months but don't have an acting bone in their body.

I've cut out many a vox-pop because the "performance" of the interviewee was too "fake".

As to lying. You can't tell. Studies have been done on lying in which various professionals who deal with lying (judges, lawyers, police officers, teachers, etc) where told lies and truths by actors. The success rate was no better than random guess work (50%). Only one group consistantly achieved a very high success rate. They were intelligence officers. So what was their secret? They explained it.

The only physical indicator of lying is a thing called the "micro-frown" - it's a split second frown gesture made during the lie. It appears for a moment, and you can only spot it if you're specifically looking for it. Intelligence officers are taught to look for this sign, and ignore anything else.

In this video, resolution is far too low to determine if a micro-frown is evident, thus determining if he is lying is impossible.

As to the man's content... the foundation CT claim seems to be the birth of the "official story" in this man's claims - which it is argued no ordinary person would offer. I totally disagree. Back to doing vox-pops. People are weird. You get them on camera, and they feel they have to explain things. People never just tell you what they saw. They always try to explain WHY that happened. They always speculate on causes they didn't witness. Often they say ridiculous things. Often they are spot on.

This man is no different. We have heard recently from another account that the heat from the WTC fires felt like a furnace, from the ground. If this man was in the vicinity of the WTC at any point, he would have felt that intense heat. No doubt when he saw the towers collapse, the obvious conclusion is the heat of the fires caused the collapse.

This is not an incredible piece of knowledge for a layman. This is basic cognitive reasoning. A child would make the same conclusions, based on evidence. Now, had he talking of sagging trusses and bowing exterior walls, I'd be suspicious. But "mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense" is hardly a detailed scientific conclusion.

Final conclusion. Until other evidence presents itself, this video should be regarded as genuine.

Okay great, this is what I wanted to hear. You're saying that floors were collapsing prior to global catastrophic failure.

So, on the one hand, the tower collapsed so quickly, because when a floor fails, all the top floors crashing down could not be resisted by the lower structure, yet when it comes to accounting for explosions, we have all sorts of floors collapsing independently of the rest of the structure, without triggering catastrophic failure. Is this a reasonable summation of your argument?

Don't be dishonest. Global collapse was not initiated by a floor failure. Global collapse was initiated by the instantaneous failure of the exterior columns across 5 or 6 floors.

Reports from firemen, from the NYPD aviation unit, from photographs, and from people trapped in the buildings all confirm that localised collapses were occuring in the towers some time prior to failure of the exterior columns.

-Gumboot

 

[Usual Suspect]

Robert David Steele has alot to say. Try to debunk the man. Here's three links. Do your research and you'll come up with more.

Steele 1

Steele 2

Steele 3

Put on your Critical Thinker hats and have fun. It's Saturday night time to go out and throw back a few. Maybe I'll grace you later tonight with a beer buzz but I doubt it.

 

[Gravy]

Robert David Steele has alot to say. Try to debunk the man. Here's three links. Do your research and you'll come up with more.

Put on your Critical Thinker hats and have fun. It's Saturday night time to go out and throw back a few. Maybe I'll grace you later tonight with a beer buzz but I doubt it.

You're forgetting that this is a discussion forum, not a link dump. You haven't shown the ability to support your claims yet, but let's see if you can start.

Tell us what, specifically, you think is valid and significant about Steele's claims, and why. That can be a basis for discussion. If you're not willing to participate, and can only change the subject when the questions get tough, then don't bother.

Oh, and for the third time, tell me what is incorrect in my WTC 7 paper. Let's go. What are you afraid of?

And for the fifth time, why did you PM me and ask if you could consult with me on 9/11 issues if you have such disrespect for my learning? Specifically what changed your mind?

 

[PerryLogan]

Don't debate with Usual Suspect. He's had sexual relations with Alex Jones. He told me so himself. Eugh!

 

[twinstead]

That's interesting Gravy, because Usual has been complaining this entire thread how you haven't done any research. Over and over and over again it's how we are just parroting the official 'lie' and not doing research.

What I haven't heard is any case-by-case rebuttal of your paper, or even ONE thing that he specifically believes is a lie or is incorrect.

What we lurkers and semi lurkers would like is that anybody who has a problem with your paper, or any other paper for that matter, discuss the issues they have with it, instead of repeating ad naseum how little research we have done.

Usual Suspect, is that such a hard request?

 

[Bell]

Don't debate with Usual Suspect. He's had sexual relations with Alex Jones. He told me so himself. Eugh!

They all seem to come out of the closet. Just last week, we had Jones' gay lover on these boards

 

[jessicarabbit]

Update...no reply yet from Fox. I will post the email if it appears.

 

[Usual Suspect]

Update...no reply yet from Fox. I will post the email if it appears.

Update..... Gravy didn't even attempt to debunk Steele cause he knows HE CAN'T!!!