• 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

lisabob2 said:
Macqueen points out obvious flaws in logic in Mackey's paper or just plain mistakes:

Mackey, "• Fires were considered a threat to the building’s structural integrity"

Macqueen,"This is incorrect. In the 60
cases of collapse warning, the great majority of FDNY members do not report that they
thought fire was a threat to the building’s structural integrity."

Seems Mackey is drawing conclusions based on something other than the firefighters words.
Macqueen, "That most FDNY members seem to have accepted both the collapse warnings and
the collapses themselves with few questions appears to be true and deserves to be
discussed. But Mackey overstates his case and thereby weakens it.
As will be clear by now, my research refutes the claim that the FDNY witnesses
as a body perceived with their own eyes that Seven was severely damaged and on that
basis concluded that it was at risk of total collapse. My research shows that the great
majority of witnesses accepted that Seven was going to collapse because they were told
that it was going to collapse."

Which is different than majority of firefighters making observations and concluding that damage is so bad the building will collapse. How & why did Mackey jump to this conclusion?
Click to expand...



How many of those firefighters give ANY reason for the building falling down? How many of them were asked?

People don't usually state self-evident things.
 
Last edited:
Board invaded by "peer reviewers?"

Some of the commentary in this thread just defies belief.

Here's a hint, people: Science is not like sports. There is no glory in backing a perennial underdog, and nobody will call you a "Fair Weather Scientist" by dropping a losing theory.

That losing theory is, of course, that the FDNY was "in on it." But there really is no other alternative, other than to admit you're totally wrong.

Mr. McQueen, reading my paper, seems to agree with my logical analysis. Reprinted from my whitepaper, the choices are:

Ryan Mackey said:
1. Accept that the FDNY was part of the plot to destroy WTC 7.

2. Accept that the FDNY knew of the plot, but did nothing to stop it, and to this day refuses to talk about it.

3. Propose that someone “in the know” tricked a high-ranking member of the FDNY into thinking that it would collapse, and:
a. This duped individual convinced many more firefighters that it would collapse;
b. Those so informed believed it would collapse;
c. Not a single FDNY member expressed doubts about what they were told, based on their own experience and the actual condition of WTC 7; and
d. The structure burned and showed unmistakable signs of weakening anyway.​
Click to expand...

Mr. McQueen seems to choose Option 3.

But as I explain in my whitepaper, and again here, there's a problem with Option 3. Well, a bunch of problems, but one enormous problem: Even if we assume just about all the firefighters were robots, believing whatever they were told, never once even bothering to look at WTC 7 on their own, we still have a few members of the FDNY who stick to their guns. Here's two, repeated in my whitepaper, so surely Mr. McQueen has seen them:

ibid said:
Fire Captain Chris Boyle: Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned. Source

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden: Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. Source
Click to expand...

See the problem?

These men aren't just agreeing that WTC 7 was in trouble. They're expressing their own feelings about it, and even explaining why. Hayden was not merely "told" about the structural deformation, he saw it and even quantified it. Personally.

So either these guys are "in on it," they're lying outright in the above quotes (i.e., "in on it"), or Mr. McQueen is dead wrong. And so are the sycophants in this thread.

RANT! This is of no technical interest whatsoever, but I must vent: Every time I see "Graeme McQueen" I get this image of a twisted, transporter-malfunction, evil hybrid of Graeme Edge and Steve McQueen. All that potential coolness, lost forever into the void of the Truth Movement. Alas.



Anyway, to recap the commentary here:

Mr. McQueen's "rebuttal" is somewhat circular. It also involves false dilemma, viz. it assumes a firefighter could only either be told or reach his own conclusion, and not a mixture of the two. Some readers caught this:

SDC said:
How does being told something by bosses or colleagues invalidate that something? Speaking as a historian -- yeah, published, all that jazz -- it doesn't.

Legally, I couldn't say.

In a sense, you are arguing a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

This is really the key point, and I think the opposition either missed it or hid from it. If I was a firefighter, I would expect to have been told that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. Firefighters are not a rag-tag collection of freelance, independent operators who make their own decisions. It's a dangerous job and it requires teamwork. Teamwork requires communication, even of things that should be obvious.

What's missing, both in Mr. McQueen's analysis, and in the credulous opposition here, is any evidence at all that firefighters disagreed with what they were told.

Go ahead, show me a firefighter that said, "Oh, yeah, our battalion chief said that WTC 7 could fall, but I thought he was nuts. It didn't look too bad. I don't know why we just stood around for five hours watching it burn." There are no such accounts, no matter what kind of special pleading you employ. You can attempt to cast doubt on a statement here or there, but you cannot throw out all of it, and unless you do, whatever remains supports my position.

Special Pleading is the most prevalent logical error in McQueen's whitepaper. It contains many pages of chiseling, why some accounts should be thrown out because they "might have been told," others on arbitrarily set standards of conviction and accuracy. At the end of this, there are still a few accounts that cannot be explained away, upon which Mr. McQueen throws them out too, just because there are only seven of them. That's seven that he couldn't find even the stupidest excuse for.

So... What about those seven? Are they in on it? Mr. McQueen seems to imply that they are, but as usual, lacks the courage to make any hypothesis.

RedIbis said:
That's the million dollar question. There are quotes in the oral histories that the OEM passed on the word.
Click to expand...

This doesn't cause a problem for my paper. The OEM was in WTC 7, correct? And those inside were allegedly trying to help coordinate emergency operations? Well, being inside the crippled structure, forced to evacuate by damage and fires, one can easily imagine that they would have some strong first-hand opinions on its condition and would have told anyone they could find. The error is assuming that this is the only reason the FDNY had to believe WTC 7 would fall. The above quotes prove that this is wrong -- either the firefighters are lying, or they had additional evidence.

RedIbis said:
I'm a bit surprised that you would resort to such obvious derailment. This thread is about a paper refuting Gravy and Mackey's specious conclusions that the FDNY knew WTC 7 would collapse.
Click to expand...

Since Red Ibis has remarked on the thoroughness of his proofreading -- and I see no reason to doubt this -- the word "specious" above is probably not a mistake.

What is "specious" about taking a FDNY captain and deputy chief at their words? Particularly as no counterexamples exist, anywhere in the FDNY hierarchy? Your explanation, please.

lisabob2 said:
Macqueen points out obvious flaws in logic in Mackey's paper or just plain mistakes:

Mackey, "• Fires were considered a threat to the building’s structural integrity"

Macqueen,"This is incorrect. In the 60 cases of collapse warning, the great majority of FDNY members do not report that they thought fire was a threat to the building’s structural integrity."
Click to expand...

While we're talking about "flaws in logic," I should point out that the great majority of FDNY members also did not remark that the sky is blue, that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that New York City is not part of France. This does not mean that the majority of the FDNY spends their evenings with Bordeaux and Brie, under a green sky, in a pre-Copernican universe.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Particularly if one doesn't even look for evidence. And especially if one makes any excuse imaginable to throw out evidence. Mr. McQueen is guilty of all three, and lisadob2 is right there cheering him on.

Again, either explain to me whether Hayden and Boyle, not to mention Nigro, are lying. Explain that you are comfortable going on record stating that these men, heroes of New York, are actually complicit in the murders of dozens of their friends and colleagues -- or whether, just maybe, it's possible that you just don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

Put up or shut up, Truth Movement.
 
Last edited:
Well, 'truth' movement?

Are you prepared to admit the error of your..... oh nevermind. Silly question. Of course you're not.

You ('truthers') are so desperate for something to cling to that you actually are prepared to prostitute your ability to think for yourselves to a bunch of self publicists who in turn are so desperate for attention that they will suspend normal rational thought in order to spin someone else's words to suit their world view.

And yet there was a very simple way for the 'truthers' to confirm their beliefs: GO TALK TO THE BLOODY FIREFIGHTERS THEMSELVES!

'Truther' : "Say Mr Firefighter, you was at WTC7 on 9-11, right?"
FF : "Yup"
'Truther' : "So weren't you, like, totally surprised when it collapsed?"
FF : "Nope"
'Truther' : "I mean you was told it was going to be demolished right?"
FF : "Nope"
'Truther' : "Awww c'mon, man, you didn't know it would collapse yourself did you?"
FF : "Yup"
'Truther' : "Yeah right. What about the countdown? You heard that, right?"
FF : "Nope"
'Truther' : "But you know Silverstein told the FDNY to pull it?"
FF : "Nope"
'Truther' : "OK well now you know about the countdown and the 'pull it' you must believe it was brought down on purpose?"
FF : "Nope"
'Truther' : " You're nothing but a government shill. Guilty of manslaughter at the least. A mindless drone. Traitor."
FF : "..........."
'Truther' : "OWWWWWWW OOOWWWWWWW that hurts!!!"
FF : "Yup"
 
Open Blinded said:
Why don't you address your mistake? Or you could use your tired response of claiming strawman, even though your own words are quoted not my interpretation of your words.
Click to expand...

this RED-COWARD will never admit it's mistakes!
IT runs away with it's tails between it's legs from threads.
the naming names thread proved too difficult for IT to handle and IT will also run away from this thread as well.
(just see IT making it happen...)
 
RedIbis said:
What I think is that you need to understand the difference between it's = it is and its= singular possessive.
Click to expand...

again with the grammar policing...

well given someone was referring to you as it, I guess a tit for tat so to speak, is in order.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
again with the grammar policing...

well given someone was referring to you as it, I guess a tit for tat so to speak, is in order.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Grammar is the least of the guy's problems. Do you not see his posts as strange and manic?
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thinking that diesel fuel/uncontrolled fires and pieces of debris didn't cause the collapse of WTC 7 is just as silly. Your just idiotically ignoring another building. Another building that proves that the whole truth moment's permise is stupid. We have pictures of what happened to steel beams in uncontrolled fires and quite frankly it isn't pretty.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
More importantly, there has been far too much deception and not enough disclosure of evidence for anyone, especially skeptics, to definitively state what they think caused the collapse of the towers and the collapse of 7.
Click to expand...
Basically on 9/11 four commercial airliners were hijacked by nineteen radical Islamist terrorists, two of which (Flight 11 and Flight 175) were flown into the WTC.

The planes severely damaged the structure at the impact zone, dislodging significant amounts of fireproofing (which was possibly substandard to begin with), and widely dispersing jet fuel over multiple floors. The subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each tower, the collapse of WTC 1 causing extensive damage to WTC 7.

Between 12:30 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. several assessments were made about condition of WTC 7 and the FDNY's ability to deal with the worsening situation. The building had sustained a significant amount of damage during the collapse of WTC 1 and they were not sure about its structural integrity. They also lacked the resources to fight the fires which could be seen on at least six floors, any one of which would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations. At approximately 2:30 p.m. the FDNY officers in charge decided to completely abandon WTC 7 and terminate the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and the WTC 1 rubble pile. At approximately 5:20 p.m. the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

So in conclusion it was a direct result of two hijacked commercial airliners being flown into the WTC, did that help at all?
 
Last edited:
What about the evidence that Gen Myers, the OEM, the upper reaches of the FDNY, the elevator service companies, and the Vienna Boys Choir were in on the plot? Hah? How about them apples?
 
One very important question:

What could POSSIBLY have caused WTC7 to collapse if not damage from falling debris or extensive fires?

Sooner or later you've got to admit that controlled demolition is the only other remotely plausible possibility, and that this would take a great deal of evidence to prove which, frankly, no one has ever provided (even in the thread I created dedicated specifically to the question of what evidence there is).
 
RedIbis said:
No thanks, I'm sure there's irrationality on both sides of the debate.
Click to expand...
You think you are rational, but you have no facts; thus, you be irrational on your 9/11 ideas. Zero facts you have, like Jones' nut case idea thermite, 9/11 truth has zero credulity except with people who have no knowledge. You support a fact less group of liars and misinformation experts with no conclusions or rational ideas on 9/11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom