JONES Religious Studies Prof Takes on Ryan Mackey and Mark Roberts... Poorly

[Pardalis]

Did any of the firemen report any suspicious activities, like unauthorized personnel and demolition crews going inside the burning building?

 

[RedIbis]

Did any of the firemen report any suspicious activities, like unauthorized personnel and demolition crews going inside the burning building?

Why would there be demo crews and unauthorized personnel going inside WTC 7 on 9/11? That's a silly premise to have to address.

 

[Pardalis]

Why would there be demo crews and unauthorized personnel going inside WTC 7 on 9/11? That's a silly premise to have to address.

Aren't you a supporter of the theory that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition?

 

[RedIbis]

Aren't you a supporter of the theory that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition?

It would be more accurate to say that I reject the collapse of WTC 7 as due to diesel fuel or office fire.

 

[Pardalis]

It would be more accurate to say that I reject the collapse of WTC 7 as due to diesel fuel or office fire.

If you take into account all the available testimonies, what do you think happened to WTC 7?

 

[RedIbis]

If you take into account all the available testimonies, what do you think happened to WTC 7?

I think that at some time earlier in the day, word began to hit the streets from high level members of the FDNY and OEM that WTC 7 was going to collapse. Many firefighters on the scene received the word and reported being warned of its collapse, they cleared the area and then it collapsed.

 

[Pardalis]

I think that at some time earlier in the day, word began to hit the streets from high level members of the FDNY and OEM that WTC 7 was going to collapse. Many firefighters on the scene received the word and reported being warned of its collapse, they cleared the area and then it collapsed.

Afraid to answer my question?

A liar and a coward...

 

[twinstead]

If you take into account all the available testimonies, what do you think happened to WTC 7?

The only explanation that takes into account ALL available evidence is the one he, in one fell swoop of personal incredulity, rejects in stark contrast to the world's structural engineering and demolitions community.

I know it's not a big deal to him, but to me it would be quite the dilemma, and the reason why he has presented no viable alternate scenario to this point.

 

[RedIbis]

Afraid to answer my question?

A liar and a coward...

When in doubt hurl insults, I see.

Care to be specific and show me where I lied. Or are you following the lead of the high exalted Gravy and just randomly screaming "liar, liar" like a child?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Where? I didn't see any pointing out of errors of Mackey's paper. All I saw was a bunch of accusing the FDNY of being incompetent and/or in on it without proof.

of course you didn't because apparently you didn't read the paper. The author specifically points out the error.

Gravy-
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94103

This account of course conflicts and contradicts Silverstein's office press statement as well as his own statements. Is that typical of debunkers? To ignore conflicting accounts?

twinstead -The only explanation that takes into account ALL available evidence is the one he, in one fell swoop of personal incredulity, rejects in stark contrast to the world's structural engineering and demolitions community.

Can you source the the world's stuctural engineering and demolition community's position on WTC 7? If not I understand why. Thanks!

T.A.M.Gravy;I agree that from the rational perspective, the "who" wrt assessment of building stability (or lack there of) and subsequent prediction of impending collapse, is not overly important.

Why in your opinion is that not important?

 

[The Big Dog]

Swing:

"This account of course conflicts and contradicts Silverstein's office press statement as well as his own statements. Is that typical of debunkers? To ignore conflicting accounts?"

You brought this up in the "Gravy made an error" thread, you were well and fully debunked, repeatedly. You wisely abandoned that thread. Kindly do not bring up your completely debunked theories in this thread, as Silverstein is completely off topic.

Thanks!

/Ugh, please do not subject us to Swing's gross misinterpretation of the word "consulting" in Nigro's statement again.

 

[SDC]

It would be more accurate to say that I reject the collapse of WTC 7 as due to diesel fuel or office fire.

Then clearly you regard it as a case of controlled demolition. Many of us have read your postings and we are entitled to make this inference. You may (or may not) say, "I didn't say that." But again, the thrust of your statements is clear enough.

There. I said it for you. Don't you feel better now that the cat is out of the bag, the frost is on the pumpkin, and the Jig is Up?

 

[The Big Dog]

The point is that the firefighters more often than not did not come up with this conclusion on their own. The word was passed down from the higher ups, thus disputing the imminency of the collapse.

If this subtle but important difference is not recognized, trust me, I won't harp on it. I've tried about six ways to explain it so far.

Well, you can explain that 60 ways, and it is never going to make sense. Lets get down to brass tacks: how many of the professional fire fighters, and others, on the scene disputed now or then that WTC7 was going to collapse?

Here is a real world example: yesterday one of my partners advised us that after talking to our CT (Computer/Technolgy) department, end users, and the finance people he had concluded that an upgraded technology we were considering was not suitable or cost effective.

So using your reasoning we should conclude that my partner had some sort of inside knowledge and wanted for his own reasons to torpedo the project?

This despite the fact that almost all the end users and certainly the CT department had their own experience with the technology and certainly their own opinions about it, and when told about it, not one of them disagreed?

Nigro collected the information, made the decision on what he knew, and from that day to this, not a single FDNY employee has challenged that assessment. And you people think that this is evidence of CD? Ridiculous.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here is a real world example: yesterday one of my partners advised us that after talking to our CT department, end users, and the finance people he had concluded that an upgraded technology we were considering was not suitable or cost effective.

You have a Conspiracy Theories department? No wonder your partner's an NWO shill.

Dave

 

[1337m4n]

Incorrect, as far as my perspective is concerned. I can't speak for the ignominious "truthers".

The point is that the firefighters more often than not did not come up with this conclusion on their own. The word was passed down from the higher ups, thus disputing the imminency of the collapse.

How does that dispute the "imminency" [sic] of the collapse?

 

[1337m4n]

It would be more accurate to say that I reject the collapse of WTC 7 as due to diesel fuel or office fire.

So you're saying that it was destroyed neither by fire NOR by conspiracy?

What destroyed it then? Bigfoot?

 

[1337m4n]

I think that at some time earlier in the day, word began to hit the streets from high level members of the FDNY and OEM that WTC 7 was going to collapse. Many firefighters on the scene received the word and reported being warned of its collapse, they cleared the area and then it collapsed.

 

[CHF]

I think that at some time earlier in the day, word began to hit the streets from high level members of the FDNY and OEM that WTC 7 was going to collapse. Many firefighters on the scene received the word and reported being warned of its collapse, they cleared the area and then it collapsed.

The question was "what do you think happened to WTC7?" not "who do you think said WTC7 would collapse?"

And you still haven't answered my question, Red. Assuming word was spread by the OEM....what does that prove?

 

[1337m4n]

The author specifically points out the error.

No...not really.

This account of course conflicts and contradicts Silverstein's office press statement as well as his own statements.

Again, no. I don't know where you're getting this from, but nothing Silverstein said contradicts what Nigro said, and even if it did, then you're basically admitting Nigro was in on it.

Is that what you're saying Swing? Was Nigro in on it? Do you have any evidence to back up this accusation?

Can you source the the world's stuctural engineering and demolition community's position on WTC 7? If not I understand why. Thanks!

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Does the "Truth" movement have anything that even remotely compares?

 

[CHF]

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Does the "Truth" movement have anything that even remotely compares?

Yes, they have Danny Jowenko saying WTC7 was a demolition based on a video clip with no sound.