• 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.

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

1337m4n said:
How does that dispute the "imminency" [sic] of the collapse?
Click to expand...

"[sic]" [sic]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
im·mi·nence /ˈɪmənəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-uh-nuhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Also, im·mi·nen·cy. the state or condition of being imminent or impending: the imminence of war.
 
I would have said "the imminent nature of the collapse" but heck, that's just me.
 
RedIbis; the fact that you are quick to jump in and defend your English language usage rather than clearly state your position, or answer a simple question leaves what credibility you had in tatters.

Does this mean you are unwilling to definitively state what you believe happened as you are worried you will not be able to defend or back up your opinion?
 
RedIbis said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

What is your reasoning behind "Who the warning came from" and how it was a factor in the "imminency" of the collapse?

Whether it was the OEM, or the Chief of the FDNY, how does this influence how dire the warning of the collapse was??

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

ok, that is an honest, well defined statement.

Now, with the above on the record, and also in this thread, your admission that you do not believe that Diesel Fuel and Debris Damage caused the collapse, do you think that someone planned a demolition of WTC7, and had it carried out? If so, how do you figure these higher ups in OEM and/or the FDNY played a role?

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
What is your reasoning behind "Who the warning came from" and how it was a factor in the "imminency" of the collapse?

Whether it was the OEM, or the Chief of the FDNY, how does this influence how dire the warning of the collapse was??

TAM:)
Click to expand...


Yes, seconded: How does the fact that the warning "came from above" dispute the "imminency" of the collapse?

Here's one possible scenario: Firefighter sees damage, asesses probability of collapse, reports to commander. Commander listens, agrees with the description of the problem, then passes the word both up through the chain of command and down to his subordinates to keep them informed. The nature of trust amongst resuce personnel lead all to accept the conclusion, even though some may have not witnessed the specific problem that generated it to begin with.

I'm not sure you can argue that top-down assessments contraindicates imminency, since you can argue the opposite with equal force.

ETA: Whoops! TAM squeezed in another post while I was composing. I'll shut up and wait for the response.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
"[sic]" [sic]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
im·mi·nence /ˈɪmənəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-uh-nuhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Also, im·mi·nen·cy. the state or condition of being imminent or impending: the imminence of war.
Click to expand...

:footinmou:footinmou:footinmou:footinmou:footinmou:footinmou

Got me there, I suppose.

But in my defense, FireFox's automated spellchecker doesn't seem to think it's a word. Blame Mozilla.

Now how 'bout answering that question?
 
Last edited:
I am still perplexed as to what the "imminency" of anything has to do with... well, anything. I thought it was pretty well established that all major efforts at WTC7 had ended and the perimeter was established by 2:30, and the building collapsed 3 hours later.

But what the hell does that have to do with anything in the OP? Does RedIbis have some testimony or anything that the Fire Fighters on the ground disputed the assessment? Of course not.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
of course you didn't because apparently you didn't read the paper. The author specifically points out the error.

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?

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


Why in your opinion is that not important?
Click to expand...


Do you happen to know of a conspiracy liar with the stones to appear on an edition of 'Hardfire' devoted to the collapse of WTC 7? The BBC is interested in using footage from the debate in a new documentary.

Yoo-hoo, Mark! Please answer your mail.
 
16.5 said:
I am still perplexed as to what the "imminency" of anything has to do with... well, anything. I thought it was pretty well established that all major efforts at WTC7 had ended and the perimeter was established by 2:30, and the building collapsed 3 hours later.

But what the hell does that have to do with anything in the OP? Does RedIbis have some testimony or anything that the Fire Fighters on the ground disputed the assessment? Of course not.
Click to expand...

See the thread in which he accuses Gen Myers (acting chair JCS at the time). You'll see a continued method: to accuse, without real evidence, characters whom no one else has even thought to accuse of being In On It (or at least criminally negligent).

I would say it's a way to keep the "inside job" pot simmering without saying anything that is immediately debunkable -- not debunkable because it is so senseless or far off base that there is nothing really to say to it.

A futile method.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
RedIbis;

Does this mean you are unwilling to definitively state what you believe happened as you are worried you will not be able to defend or back up your opinion?
Click to expand...

He will not because he knows:

- His own theory has vastly more "holes" than the collapse-caused-by-fire theory and expressing his theory thusly will make it plainly obvious that he is, quite obviously, a truther.
 
Pardalis said:
Just answer the damn question already.

With all available testimonies, what do you think happened to WTC 7?
Click to expand...
Considering his inability to defend his Myers claim (and how sad he looked dancing around afterwards) I doubt you will get him to step to far away from asking questions stance.
 
T.A.M. said:
ok, that is an honest, well defined statement.

Now, with the above on the record, and also in this thread, your admission that you do not believe that Diesel Fuel and Debris Damage caused the collapse, do you think that someone planned a demolition of WTC7, and had it carried out? If so, how do you figure these higher ups in OEM and/or the FDNY played a role?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I see that the strategy here is question until you get me to accuse someone of something. Reporting and accusing are entirely different, but this is lost here for some reason.

I do not figure or speculate any role that anyone played. I merely posted the quote of a fire capt who stated that the word was coming down from the OEM. This corroborates the accounts of many other firefighters.

As for what actually caused WTC 7's collapse? I'm just as curious as anyone else. First I read the Commission Report, no mention, then I read FEMA, we know what they concluded, now I'm waiting on NIST, just like everyone else.

Let's just not pretend that there is any conclusive theory about its collapse. As of now controlled demolition is equally justifiable to diesel fuel, office fire or fire combined with debris damage.
 
RedIbis said:
Let's just not pretend that there is any conclusive theory about its collapse. As of now controlled demolition is equally justifiable to diesel fuel, office fire or fire combined with debris damage.
Click to expand...

Could you explain this justification of controlled demolition?
 
RedIbis said:
As of now controlled demolition is equally justifiable to diesel fuel, office fire or fire combined with debris damage.
Click to expand...
I don't want to leave out any other representatives from your team, so we should include space/energy beams.

I'm kidding of course, your comment above is about as disingenuous as one can get. If it came from someone else I'd say ignorant but I know you're not ignorant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom