Ghosts of the Firemen

[TheGrunion]

Why do we always reference scientific laws from the past? So on 9/11 the world just turned up side down... and history was out the window... and scientific laws that we have used for hundreds of years are suddenly debatable and in question... don't you see what you're doing friend?

No, not anything is possible, because planes hit buildings... it doesn't warp the universal laws of nature.

So you acknowledge that the planes hit WTC 1 & 2.

Do you have any evidence of explosives? If not, I believe that you just debunked yourself yet again.

I'm not your friend.

 

[Bell]

Why do we always reference scientific laws from the past?

Why do deniers always reference goverment plans and actions from the past? (ie Northwoods, false flag etc)

So on 9/11 the world just turned up side down... and history was out the window... and scientific laws that we have used for hundreds of years are suddenly debatable and in question... don't you see what you're doing friend?

What scientific laws? What. Scientific. Laws?

No, not anything is possible, because planes hit buildings... it doesn't warp the universal laws of nature.

But appearantly it warps your brain. The halve you ARE using, that is.

 

[28th Kingdom]

suffice to say, buildings collapse for several reason that isn't due to CD.
some collapse due to earthquakes
some collapse due to faulty engineering.
some collapse due to fire (and fire alone).

high rise buildigns DO collapse. we had three of them already prove that. (emphasis added)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2233940&postcount=89

What did Arus say that proved my statements false? They said buildings collapse. Well, gee... who doesn't know that. Did they say high-rise buildings collapse due to earthquakes, faulty engineering or fire? No... they said buildings - as in one or two story buildings or houses or something similar in size. High-rise structures are a completely different thing... and that's why they even separated buildings from high-rise buildings in their post.

 

[fuelair]

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.

Go back to school, take some science courses - and some in spelling and grammar would not be amiss. Analyze your writings, try to forgive yourself for your colossal ignorance. Come back, apologize to the survivors, the people you maligned and the people you misled and regain a real life. Get some help.

 

[beachnut]

What is this?

It's not because you haven't seen a building collapse that wasn't because of a controlled demolition that buildings can't collapse for other reasons.

Then where are your reports of high-rise buildings...collapsing to the ground for any other reason than explosives? We've had many other high-rise buildings with huge fires... other high-rise buildings that were hit by planes.... high-rise buildings that were severely damaged in hurricanes or from earthquakes... but, still no other high-rise buildings falling to the ground in seconds from something other than explosives.

So, why should we take this leap of faith and say that on 9/11 it (high-rise buildings collapsing to the ground without explosives) not only happened once... or twice... but three times? All three buildings with different degrees (and types) of damage, yet all falling magically to the ground (in seconds) unlike anything we have ever seen before.

You don't have to agree with the PET, to say... that given the odds... planted explosives are more than likely the cause of the collapses... simply based upon the information we knew before 9/11 about the history of these types of tall structures.

Fires have destroyed high-rise buildings; Philadelphia, fire destoryed building, it is gone. Windsor building in Spain, building is gone; the steel only sections fell in an explosive manner. Both buildings destroyed just by fire! No planes, no bombs, just fire.

Destroyed counts. Oops, WTC7 damaged by debris, fire raged all day, building fell.

Not the other buildings did no fall completely because they were fought! and the fires were put out. WTC fires in 1,2, 7 were not fought.

Fires in WTC 5/6 were fought, but floors failed, steel failed, you can find it but you will not. Steel is ruined by fire, steel fails in fires. Go ask a real fireman who understands why firemen are always being killed by falling buildings, steel and wood.

You still have no facts or proof. No one expects you to grow up soon. Good luck ignoreboy.

 

[beachnut]

Since many are on ignore-boy list of honor; he will never see that his disrespectful no fact rant has some replies.

It must look like the world is empty of facts to 28th; he will never see anything.

Wonder if he understands the fires in WTC1 and 2 had giant holes all over feeding the fire with air. Why does he have problems with the fireproofing being blasted off in the giant impacts of the jets. I wonder if he knows the core was only protected by two pieces of wall board; the same wallboard my roommate in college liked to poke his fist through. The wall board in my house is not as thick but it is just as fragile, it breaks with impact, and I think the impact equal to a TON of TNT would displace some fireproofing.

He is looking for a bomb? The aircraft impact was equal to more explosives than normal CD jobs use for large buildings.

Find a life 28th. Why are you so devoid of facts and real information on 9/11. Do you really use Alex Jones as your guiding light?

 

[beachnut]

Hi 28th, you said we were all on ignore. Are you telling lies?

So what new facts have you proving anything you have said about 9/11?

Are you a Alex Jones follower?

 

[beachnut]

When you use "pull it"; you prove you are not using facts.

Facts young man will set you free.

Like truth; knowledge will set you free. 28th there is a cure for terminal stupidity.

 

[beachnut]

Why do we always reference scientific laws from the past?

Only idiot CTers who say laws of physics were broken on 9/11 reference laws and say real dumb things about 9/11. (the dumbest things come from Cter mouths)

The fact is the WTC fell due to impact damage and fires. You have hitched your wagon to biased political liars, some making money selling lies. You have messed up and now continue to move from lie to lie trying to say something about 9/11.

What are you trying to say? Why are you devoid of facts? Why? These are simple questions you could answer; please try to.

 

[Bell]

Only idiot CTers who say laws of physics were broken on 9/11 reference laws and say real dumb things about 9/11. (the dumbest things come from Cter mouths)

The fact is the WTC fell due to impact damage and fires. You have hitched your wagon to biased political liars, some making money selling lies. You have messed up and now continue to move from lie to lie trying to say something about 9/11.

What are you trying to say? Why are you devoid of facts? Why? These are simple questions you could answer; please try to.

*ignore*

 

[beachnut]

I was wondering if 28th could post his schools by name so we can see who, why, when, and how they failed to prepare 28th to think logically and with knowledge.

 

[Babylon Sister]

So predictable... maybe you don't realize, that everyone keeps saying they don't have to present evidence for their theory... the burden of proof is on us. That, or they point to the NIST as scientific proof and evidence... when the NIST is just a piece of paper with a theory written on it. How is a theory scientific evidence?

How does proving that fire can sag trusses (which NIST failed to do in all of their real experiments) provide scientific evidence, that is what happened on 9/11?

I can prove explosives can blow up walls... and take down steel-structured high-rises... so don't I have just as much evidence as NIST?

Bolding mine.

28thK, do you know that in science a theory is NOT a guess?? It's a well substantiated explination of the available evidence.

(I really should put this guy on ignore. I already have a sore throat from this dam*ed cold and shouting at the monitor is not helping.)

 

[beachnut]

So predictable... maybe you don't realize, that everyone keeps saying they don't have to present evidence for their theory... the burden of proof is on us. That, or they point to the NIST as scientific proof and evidence... when the NIST is just a piece of paper with a theory written on it. How is a theory scientific evidence?

How does proving that fire can sag trusses (which NIST failed to do in all of their real experiments) provide scientific evidence, that is what happened on 9/11?

I can prove explosives can blow up walls... and take down steel-structured high-rises... so don't I have just as much evidence as NIST?

You did not read all of NIST. You failed to understand NIST. You failed to really grasp the experiment and the purpose of it. Who is feeding you these half truth lies?

Who is your leader of mindless talk and falsehoods? Where did you get thie tripe from?

Please list the college you went to so I can make sure my kids do not attend the same.

 

[A W Smith]

add NIST to his ignore list..

 

[beachnut]

I can prove explosives can blow up walls... and take down steel-structured high-rises... so don't I have just as much evidence as NIST?

I can prove a laser weapon can destroy a missile; but it is not evidence it could do anything to the WTC.

You would have evidence if you had the sounds of explosives! But the only sounds are the building collapsing.

You would have evidence if you had the remains of explosives! But the only remains are the building.

You would have evidence if you had the puffs of explosives! But the only puffs are the building collapsing and accelerating air out the windows.

You would have evidence if you had proof so people placing explosives! But no one has come forward to tell of anyone placing them in the building.

NIST has proof of fires, proof of aircraft impact, proof of fire damage all over the WTC complex. You have zero facts, NIST has thousands of facts.

You seem to be short on facts; NIST has a full hand of facts.

You are lacking logical thought to reason and think. Try again after you get some experience and more knowledge.

 

[babazaroni]

BECAUSE HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS DON'T JUST COLLAPSE... THAT'S WHY CD ARE THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE FOR HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS COLLAPSING! GET IT!

You seem to have this notion that all skycrapers are the same. One (Empire State Building) gets hit by a low-speed prop plane low on fuel so they all must behave like that. It's just common sense right. Who needs to dig any deeper.

Well now we know one design type of skyscraper that can collapse without explosives.

Never before has a high-speed jet aircraft with 10,000 gallons of fuel struck a tube-in-tube design skyscraper that uses lightweight floor trusses as a key structural element.

Never before has a fire burned unfought in a tube-in-tube design skyscraper that uses lightweight floor trusses as a key structural element.

Skycrapers of this design will never be built again.

 

[T.A.M.]

28th:

I can guarantee that they are not going to say bombs were involved in the collapse of WTC7.

AJ, the fraud, makes his assertion of what he thinks NIST will say based on the statement they made, I believe in their FAQ, that states they are ENTERTAINING the investigation of whether there is evidence that "Blast Events" were involved in the collapse of WTC7. We have known about this for months. I can tell you that is his only source on this point.

Prove me wrong.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Ron:

In case i missed it, who is the Col. Jenny Sparks? She claims she tried to sign in over here at JREF but had her acount cancelled twice before she could post. She now has the arrogance to think it has to do with her reputation as a "truther" claiming it might be related to her new site/blog.

I have a feeling it is more likely due to her not wanting to give a valid email address and confirm her joining the site.

Still, love to see her come over here, given how arrogant/confident she sounds.

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

Col. Jenny of the Rat Patrol

TAM, here are the relevant posts:



» reply | -6 points
Nothing New

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]
BTW, you're lying. I'm not attempting to post the despicable picture on any site. I intend to show it to firefighters at various firehouses.
I don't believe that you were prevented from posting at JREF.


Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 12:11am.

» reply | 1 point
You're right, Ronnie, I


You're right, Ronnie, I should show everyone the emails from Lisa Simpson:
>>>From : JREF Forum
Sent : 03 January 2007 02:47:15
To : [REDACTED]
Subject : Account removed at JREF Forum!
Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox
Dear Jenny Sparks,
*Automated response*
Unfortunately we couldn’t complete your registration at the JREF Forum. The
most likely reason is that some required information wasn’t entered during the
registration process (First name, Last name, Country and State if in the USA).
Please either try again to register or drop me an email and I will do my best to
sort out any problems you may be experiencing.
Regards
Lisa Simpson
lisa_simpson@randi.org<<<
And again:
>>>From : JREF Forum
Sent : 03 January 2007 14:17:56
To : [REDACTED]
Subject : Account removed at JREF Forum!
Go to previous message | Go to next message | Delete | Inbox
Dear Jenny Sparks,
*Automated response*
Unfortunately we couldn’t complete your registration at the JREF Forum. The
most likely reason is that some required information wasn’t entered during the
registration process (First name, Last name, Country and State if in the USA).
Please either try again to register or drop me an email and I will do my best to
sort out any problems you may be experiencing.
Regards
Lisa Simpson
lisa_simpson@randi.org<<<
..later on the same day. So, now you believe me, pom-pomeroo, let's have no gratuitous name calling--I KNOW Lisa wouldn't approve, Ronnie.
As for your plan to take the picture on tour, I stand corrected. Perhaps that was another JREF post in the same thread I was thinking about. I appologize if that mischaracterization upset you. But there is no need for name calling, now is there Ronnie? I should say, the artist will probably be grateful for the exposure!
Try not to work too hard, pom-pomeroo, and you'll avoid these unpleasant conversational slips!
Hugs and kisses!
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Submitted by Col. Jenny Sparks on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 1:05am.



» edit | reply | -1 points
Unpleasant Logical Slips


Let me see, now:
I explained that you were lying--that almost certainly you were not being "prevented" from joining JREF.
YOU post e-mails demonstrating that you were lying--that almost certainly you were not being "prevented" from joining JREF.
Your audience here is rooting very hard for you, but they are shaking their heads and re-reading your post. They are saying, "Huh?"
It would be impossible, of course, for you to contact Lisa Simpson and ask her to resolve the difficulties you've experienced, assuming that they are real and not deliberately contrived by you.
Why would it be impossible?
Your nose is growing longer, Jenny.

Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 3:11pm.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

wonder if she knows what "automated response" means, lol

i had my account rejected a few times because i dont like giving out my name (i just do initial) so it rejected me for not putting a full name