Wtc 7

[bill smith]

When dealing with intellectual cowards who refuses to answer questions they find uncomfortable or inconvenient, one manages as best they can.

You characterized FDNY testimony as doubtful and exaggerated. I'd be happy to quote you doing so. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by pretending you didn't.

Do please quote me (in context please) I want to compare what I said to what YOU said I said.

 

[Sunstealer]

Smoke generators, for when fire just isn't enough! Bill you either need glasses or Psychiatric help. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously with such a preposterous idea that you aren't willing to back up?

 

[johnny karate]

Do please quote me (in context please) I want to compare what I said to what YOU said I said.

Certainly:

No....really....I couldn't say. Not on this particular aspect of 9/11 anyway. Though I do have my doubts about the fireman who said that '' WTC7 was fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors''. I felt that he might have been exaggerating a little.

Several firefighters made similar claims. Therefore, you must have your "doubts" about their testimony as well, and assume they were "exaggerating".

Do you need me to again provide the definitions for the words "doubt" and "exaggerate", or are you able to determine on your own that they are synonymous with "distrust" and "falsify"?

 

[Arus808]

seeing as "smoke" generators dont really produce "smoke" , bill may want to brush up on what actually those generators actually produce.

and the "size" of the generator needed to produce the type of REAL smoke, would be on the order of several industrial size refrigerator sized units. Now, tell me, of the 1000 or so people who worked in WTC 7, no one noticed these huge "mystery" machine like items being installed on their floors over the weeks prior to 9/11 or does BILL really think they were all being installed on 9/11 while the building was on fire?

this is as preposterous as the "demolition" theory for WTC 7

ETA:
website:
http://www.smokemachines.net/full-smoke-machine-listing.shtml

The site is the "biggest" supplier of smoke machines, and I dont see anything listed that would be needed to create the type of "effect" as seen on 9/11. Most of them are VERY small units (mostly portable, can be carried by hand).

you'd need thousands of such units in order to create the magnitude of smoke seen on 9/11.

Most units are water based and oil based, some are dry ice.

some units are self-made (there are instructions to building one of your own), but again, they would leave behind EVIDENCE, as seen of this type of smoke generator, used for a MOVIE SET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smoke_Machine.jpg

Again, even at this size, you'd need at least a few hundred to create the type of effect seen on 9/11 and last over 7 hours.

 

[Wolrab]

Smoke generators at outdoor rock concerts produce smoke that looks exactly like this. I don't think that many people who see this clip will have many doubts about what they are seeing. I may be wrong but I would love to test it on public broadcast TV with a call-in afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

www.roadies4truth.com

 

[bill smith]

Certainly:



Several firefighters made similar claims. Therefore, you must have your "doubts" about their testimony as well, and assume they were "exaggerating".

Do you need me to again provide the definitions for the words "doubt" and "exaggerate", or are you able to determine on your own that they are synonymous with "distrust" and "falsify"?

I thought that to be very understated and reasonable and in no way an indictment of the fireman involved. The video record and most of the anecdotal reporting shows relatively little fire in WTC7 at any point. So when he says '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' I said he was either exaggerating or mistaken. I was absolutely correct in doing so. So you can either agree with me (with the implied apology) or you can agree with the fireman that '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ''.

 

[johnny karate]

I thought that to be very understated and reasonable and in no way an indictment of the fireman involved. The video record and most of the anecdotal reporting shows relatively little fire in WTC7 at any point. So when he says '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' I said he was either exaggerating or mistaken. I was absolutely correct in doing so. So you can either agree with me (with the implied apology) or you can agree with the fireman that '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ''.

Point 1: More than one firefighter made claims of WTC7 being fully involved. Do I believe them over you? Absolutely. For many obvious reasons.

Point 2: The issue was whether or not you characterized FDNY testimony as untrustworthy. You did, and I proved it. It doesn't matter how "understated" it was, you are effectively calling these firefighters liars.

 

[GlennB]

I think bill is having a little joke

 

[tfk]

bill,

Hello there..
Uncharacteristically monosyllabic ? Cat got your tongue ? lol

Just enjoying you sway everyone over to your side due to your compelling arguments and unassailable hard evidence.

Once we've wrapped up "smoke generators", perhaps we can move on to:

1. Silent explosives
2. Your stated conviction that Les Robertson was convinced that jet planes would bounce off of the building, and that this is why he did not consider the consequences of fuel and fires.
3. The molecular disruption of the walls that was necessary to get the plane thru them.
4. Frank de Martini's structural screen netting.
5. The hundreds of government shills that were pre-planted on the streets of NYC to begin crafting the official CT immediately.
6. Your stated conclusion that ae911 completely debunked the NIST WTC7 reports within hours of its release.
7. Your conclusion that the interruption of the TV signals when the plane hit the South Tower was evidence of the signal being manipulated.
8. Your stated conclusion that the gubbamint broke into the house of one of the passenger's next of kin, planted her personal documents, used voice morphing technology to send that information, for who knows what reason.

All backed up by your incredible, Sherlock Holmesian powers, that somehow left you, seven years after an event that you discuss for many hours per day, unable to find WTC7 on a map. And had you adamantly insisting that WTC7 was really the Winter Gardens.

Or did you prefer me "monosyllabic".

tom

 

[bill smith]

Point 1: More than one firefighter made claims of WTC7 being fully involved. Do I believe them over you? Absolutely. For many obvious reasons.

Point 2: The issue was whether or not you characterized FDNY testimony as untrustworthy. You did, and I proved it. It doesn't matter how "understated" it was, you are effectively calling these firefighters liars.

1.So then I can take it that Johnny Karate states that he is in full agreement with the fireman that ' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire,from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ' I'll start a file. You never know when information like that might be important. Please advise by return If this is not so.

2. Exaggerating or being mistaken are not felonies or misdemeanours. They are simle human failings or weaknesses. Suggesting that someone is exaggerating or is mistaken is therefore only a simle criticism and has nothing to do with lying.

 

[tfk]

I think bill is having a little joke

Glenn,

Bill is a little joke.

You misunderstand him if you think that he cares about being wrong. Or being embarrassed.

Some of us that have crossed swords with him for quite a while know that all of the issues that I list above - and far more - are part of his standard repertoire.

He will, after being drubbed soundly, return in a few months and happily bring "smoke generators" back into any discussion. And he will then claim that "all you hot shots at JREF were unable to disprove his smoke generator theory" and that "he really whipped your collective butts in the argument".

We are at a loss as to how someone could be so resolutely senseless. And immune to the embarrassment of making a humiliating spectacle of himself in public.

The only speculations that we've been able to come up with is that
a) this is the only opportunity that this high school drop-out has to poke at engineers & scientists. And imagine that he's whippin' em good.
b) he's moving 9-11 merchandise.

Nothing else makes much sense.

tom

 

[bill smith]

bill,



Just enjoying you sway everyone over to your side due to your compelling arguments and unassailable hard evidence.

Once we've wrapped up "smoke generators", perhaps we can move on to:

1. Silent explosives
2. Your stated conviction that Les Robertson was convinced that jet planes would bounce off of the building, and that this is why he did not consider the consequences of fuel and fires.
3. The molecular disruption of the walls that was necessary to get the plane thru them.
4. Frank de Martini's structural screen netting.
5. The hundreds of government shills that were pre-planted on the streets of NYC to begin crafting the official CT immediately.
6. Your stated conclusion that ae911 completely debunked the NIST WTC7 reports within hours of its release.
7. Your conclusion that the interruption of the TV signals when the plane hit the South Tower was evidence of the signal being manipulated.
8. Your stated conclusion that the gubbamint broke into the house of one of the passenger's next of kin, planted her personal documents, used voice morphing technology to send that information, for who knows what reason.

All backed up by your incredible, Sherlock Holmesian powers, that somehow left you, seven years after an event that you discuss for many hours per day, unable to find WTC7 on a map. And had you adamantly insisting that WTC7 was really the Winter Gardens.

Or did you prefer me "monosyllabic".


tom

Hello hello

This length of post is fine, but not the book-length ones please. Less is more. I told you many times.
Some interesing topics there. But not all of them are mine.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hello there..


Uncharacteristically monosyllabic ? Cat got your tongue ? lol

con/vec/tion 3 syllables

Ahem.

Bill, again, how did you calculate this? Please show your work.

(Perhaps you thought Twinstead's acknowledgement that "your eyes" told you would be sufficient. It's not.)

You asked the question what would be creating the smoke pouring out of the broken windows. The short answer is convection, which is a large step more in explanation than your contention that there just has to be a smoke generator (other than the actual offices fires).
Will you now tell us how it is that you determine that there is too much smoke for the fires that were occuring in WTC 7. As said above, if your calculation is a strictly "my eyes are telling me this" then just say so.

I thought that to be very understated and reasonable and in no way an indictment of the fireman involved. The video record and most of the anecdotal reporting shows relatively little fire in WTC7 at any point. So when he says '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' I said he was either exaggerating or mistaken. I was absolutely correct in doing so. So you can either agree with me (with the implied apology) or you can agree with the fireman that '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ''.

The record of what fires were burning is well docuemented in the WTC 7 report. Have you bothered to read it?
Each of the several fires burning in WTC 7 would have been considered major fires in and of themselves and the fires in the vicinity of the initial failure were the largest of those.

In fact you distrust the FF accounts of major fires in WTC 7, you distrust the FF accounts that the building was in danger of collapsing and you distrust the FF accounts that do not include your contention that there was more smoke than should have been generated by the fires. In short you are discounting the FF accounts pretty much in their entireity and accepting only the minor, obvious point that there was fire in the building.

Thus by your own words you have demonstrated, though not actually come out and been honest about stating it directly, that you find the statements made by the FF's to be suspect, untrustworthy and lacking of mention of aspects that you believe are obvious.

 

[tfk]

<snip>
2. Exaggerating or being mistaken are not felonies or misdemeanours. They are simle human failings or weaknesses. Suggesting that someone is exaggerating or is mistaken is therefore only a simle criticism and has nothing to do with lying.

bill,

Ahh, that would be like suggesting that Barry Jennings & Willie Rodriguez were simply mistaken ...

Something that you were completely unwilling to distinguish from accusations of lying when others (including me) made them.

Since it didn't fit your immediate agenda at that time.

tk

 

[johnny karate]

1.So then I can take it that Johnny Karate states that he is in full agreement with the firemen that ' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire,from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ' I'll start a file. You never know when information like that might be important. Please advise by return If this is not so.

Fixed that for you.

2. Exaggerating or being mistaken are not felonies or misdemeanours. They are simle human failings or weaknesses. Suggesting that someone is exaggerating or is mistaken is therefore only a simle criticism and has nothing to do with lying.

Exaggerating has everything to with lying, as an exaggeration is a lie. I'd be happy to give you the definition of the word again.

You want to claim the words of these firefighters are untrue, without claiming the firefighters are being untruthful. This is called cognitive dissonance, a trait shared by most Truthers.

 

[bill smith]

con/vec/tion 3 syllables



You asked the question what would be creating the smoke pouring out of the broken windows. The short answer is convection, which is a large step more in explanation than your contention that there just has to be a smoke generator (other than the actual offices fires).
Will you now tell us how it is that you determine that there is too much smoke for the fires that were occuring in WTC 7. As said above, if your calculation is a strictly "my eyes are telling me this" then just say so.



The record of what fires were burning is well docuemented in the WTC 7 report. Have you bothered to read it?
Each of the several fires burning in WTC 7 would have been considered major fires in and of themselves and the fires in the vicinity of the initial failure were the largest of those.

On the syllables; I was using literary licence. You were being narrowly literal.

On the smoke generator; This is unprovable and is only a curiousity in debating terms.. It's main use to the Truth Community will be televisual. Allow the TV audience to watch the clip and answer multiple choice questions. 1.Is this smoke being blown out of a window ? 2. Is this a smoke-generator ?

On NIST. I use NIST for occasional reference, but since David Chandler busted them on the free-fall thing I don't trust one single word they say.

Always emember that the starting point of science is observation. Everything else comes after that.

 

[A W Smith]

Always emember that the starting point of science is observation. Everything else comes after that.

I saw three buildings come down that day because of aircraft impacts to two of them causing structural damage and fires that resulted in collateral damage to adjacent buildings.

prove me wrong mister science.

 

[bill smith]

Fixed that for you.



Exaggerating has everything to with lying, as an exaggeration is a lie. I'd be happy to give you the definition of the word again.

You want to claim the words of these firefighters are untrue, without claiming the firefighters are being untruthful. This is called cognitive dissonance, a trait shared by most Truthers.

Consent by silence. I will generate the file.

I claim the the fireman overtated he case as he evidently did. I also suggested that he might have made a mistake. This is obviously a fair and reasonable criticism and not an accusation of him being a liar.

I have a feeling that Shills know much more CD than Truthers do.

 

[dudalb]

Smoke generators in WTC7. LOL. I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you very much for the laugh, bill.

(Just to be clear, I am laughing in your face bill)

I have a better response to the Smoke Generators in WTC7 crapola.

 

[bill smith]

I have a better response to the Smoke Generators in WTC7 crapola.

Don't forget to brush your teeth next time.lol