Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[DGM]

I'm debating some truthers at another forum, and one seems to be quite rational (for a truther ).

After he'd posted this:




I then posted this video showing the top of the south tower toppling at an angle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Mhhvl7vWk

He thanked me for that with a smile, but now says:



I don't think he wants actual video of the core from inside the building, but is there a video that explains what he's after?

Thanks in advance,

Orph.

I'm really not aware of any videos to show what he seems to want. You may point out the ones that show a large part of the core standing after the perimeter was long since gone.

He is on to something with this statement;

So the central core had no bearing on the behavior of the building during the fall?

Short answer is, yes. Once he understands how the core was braced from buckling (by the floor system in concert with the parameter columns) he will understand the core could not support itself.

 

[beachnut]

It's probably not against the rules, but it's very poor form to be discussing PMs you invited me to make in the forum.

You guys aren't exactly starting off the New Year with any more maturity than the last.

(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
Maturity? Irony...

19 terrorists did 911 and the best you have is a super-nano-mature quibble about pull it. kool

Another year and the truth movement remains a moronic collection of failed ideas based on hearsay, lies, false information and junk science.

Which failed idea will have new life in the zombie world of delusional concepts? Nukes, pods, flyover, thermite, or some new delusional idea?

 

[LashL]

I tend to believe Nigro over Silverstein, especially considering the following:
1) Nigro said it was his decision alone
2) He says he didn't speak with Silverstein, and why would he have to to make that decision?

and most obviously,
3) Firefighting was never started in WTC 7 so what was there to pull?

There are several problems with this, RedIbis.
1) Mr. Silverstein never said that he spoke with Mr. Nigro.
2) Mr. Nigro said quite clearly that he did not speak to Mr. Silverstein.
3) You assume far too much and research far too little.
4) There were various "fire commanders" within the FDNY at the relevant time, including (but not limited to) battalion commanders, division commanders, incident commanders, tour commanders and citywide tour commanders.
5) Firefighters do a lot more than just put water on fires, but those other activities are still firefighting activities. In fact, the vast majority of what firefighters do involves things other than putting water on fires.

So, are you going to tell us what Mr. Silverstein "lied through his dentures" about or aren't you? If yes, please be specific. If no, then just admit that you were mistaken when you made that claim, and move on.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm really not aware of any videos to show what he seems to want. You may point out the ones that show a large part of the core standing after the perimeter was long since gone.

He is on to something with this statement;


Short answer is, yes. Once he understands how the core was braced from buckling (by the floor system in concert with the parameter columns) he will understand the core could not support itself.

Thanks, DGM.

In other news, I just saw on 9/11 Blogger a link to a Money Bomb for AE911Truth.

http://world911truth.org/money-bomb-for-ae911truth/

Looks like Dicky G will only be speaking once this year!

 

[DGM]

Thanks, DGM.

In other news, I just saw on 9/11 Blogger a link to a Money Bomb for AE911Truth.

http://world911truth.org/money-bomb-for-ae911truth/

Looks like Dicky G will only be speaking once this year!

Your welcome!

You might also suggest he actually reads the report that he seems to be questioning. Analyzing the collapse of a building is pointless if you don't know what made it stand up in the first place (he clearly does not).

Happy New Year!!

 

[Orphia Nay]

Your welcome!

You might also suggest he actually reads the report that he seems to be questioning. Analyzing the collapse of a building is pointless if you don't know what made it stand up in the first place (he clearly does not).

Happy New Year!!

Good point! Happy New Year to you, too!

 

[Algebra34]

There are several problems with this, RedIbis.
1) Mr. Silverstein never said that he spoke with Mr. Nigro.
2) Mr. Nigro said quite clearly that he did not speak to Mr. Silverstein.

Look at this redibis. The lawyer is weighing in. Good job.

They never spoke to each other Nigro and Silverstein. Right?

This is the supposed debunking.

The fact that they claim two different things means that you need to prove who is the liar. Don't you luv it!!! lol

sigh... 9/11 debunking. Ain't it hilarious?

Keep it up redibus. I enjoy it.

Happy New Year! Another year that still needs 9/11 debunking is here. I am glad.

 

[TokenMac]

Look at this redibis. The lawyer is weighing in. Good job.

They never spoke to each other Nigro and Silverstein. Right?

This is the supposed debunking.

The fact that they claim two different things means that you need to prove who is the liar. Don't you luv it!!! lol

sigh... 9/11 debunking. Ain't it hilarious?

Keep it up redibus. I enjoy it.

Happy New Year! Another year that still needs 9/11 debunking is here. I am glad.

What two different things do they claim?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Look at this redibis. The lawyer is weighing in. Good job.

They never spoke to each other Nigro and Silverstein. Right?

Yes, on 9/11/01, concerning WTC 7's firefighting efforts or the lack thereof, Silverstein and Nigro didn't discuss anything. Silverstein never identified who it was that he spoke to. He used the nebulous description of "Commander". There was more than one commander at the scene. Nigro was responsible for managing all of the operations going on that day. Firefighting, SAR, EMS and everything else. Sub-commanders were delegated to more specific tasks, I'm sure that there was at least one commander tasked to WTC7 and that he was the one Silverstein spoke to. I'm also willing to bet that the commander that Silverstein spoke to advised Nigro on the situation and recommended that no further efforts be made other than letting nature take its course.

This is the supposed debunking.

The fact that they claim two different things means that you need to prove who is the liar. Don't you luv it!!! lol

There is no inconsistancy. Silverstein said he spoke to a FDNY commander without identifying him by name. Nigro said it wasn't him. There was more than one FDNY commander at the scene. Logic suggests that he spoke to someone else other than Nigro, who was lower in the chain of command.

sigh... 9/11 debunking. Ain't it hilarious?

What's hilarious is the truthers utter failure to comprehend simple things.

Keep it up redibus. I enjoy it.

Happy New Year! Another year that still needs 9/11 debunking is here. I am glad.

And a Happy New Year to you too.

 

[Gaspode]

Remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[RedIbis]

There are several problems with this, RedIbis.
1) Mr. Silverstein never said that he spoke with Mr. Nigro.
2) Mr. Nigro said quite clearly that he did not speak to Mr. Silverstein.
3) You assume far too much and research far too little.
4) There were various "fire commanders" within the FDNY at the relevant time, including (but not limited to) battalion commanders, division commanders, incident commanders, tour commanders and citywide tour commanders.
5) Firefighters do a lot more than just put water on fires, but those other activities are still firefighting activities. In fact, the vast majority of what firefighters do involves things other than putting water on fires.

So, are you going to tell us what Mr. Silverstein "lied through his dentures" about or aren't you? If yes, please be specific. If no, then just admit that you were mistaken when you made that claim, and move on.

1) Correct. He's never said with whom he spoke.
2) That point has been well established.
3) What assumption am I making? Since you are such a researcher extraordinaire, tell me where I got the phrase "firefighting was not started in the building".
4) There were various commanders on the scene but Nigro himself said that the decision to pull ffs back to the evacuation zone was his alone. So who is not telling the truth? Nigro? Silverstein or the commander Larry spoke with?

What's funny about this recent resurrection of the "pull it" corpse is that I didn't start it and I never said any of this is what I considered Larry's lie.

Now this is a flat out lie.

 

[DGM]

Now this is a flat out lie.

“The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed on Sept. 11 when the antenna from the World Trade Center’s North Tower fell and “cut through the façade” of Building 7, rupturing fuel lines leading to storage tanks used by New York City’s emergency services, Silverstein said.”

So he couldn't have been mistaken like you claim David Ray Griffin was so many times?

No double standard there.

 

[RedIbis]

So he couldn't have been mistaken like you claim David Ray Griffin was so many times?

No double standard there.

The only differences being that DRG is not the owner of the bldg and DRG is not making this blatantly false claim.

 

[DGM]

The only differences being that DRG is not the owner of the bldg and DRG is not making this blatantly false claim.

We won't get it to all of DRG blatantly false claims (again). Just because he owns the building doesn't follow that he would know every detail of what happened.

So do you have proof this is a lie on his part or is it just another "feeling"?

 

[triforcharity]

Also, when was that quote taken?? Most likely within a few days of 9/11 would be my guess.

 

[TruthersLie]

1) Correct. He's never said with whom he spoke.
2) That point has been well established.
3) What assumption am I making? Since you are such a researcher extraordinaire, tell me where I got the phrase "firefighting was not started in the building".
4) There were various commanders on the scene but Nigro himself said that the decision to pull ffs back to the evacuation zone was his alone. So who is not telling the truth? Nigro? Silverstein or the commander Larry spoke with?

What's funny about this recent resurrection of the "pull it" corpse is that I didn't start it and I never said any of this is what I considered Larry's lie.

Now this is a flat out lie.

Please source that quote from Apollo20 (greening). He lists an article by

In an article by Dan Levy and Brian Sullivan we read:

“The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed on Sept. 11 when the antenna from the World Trade Center’s North Tower fell and “cut through the façade” of Building 7, rupturing fuel lines leading to storage tanks used by New York City’s emergency services, Silverstein said.”

Yet a simple google search doesn't find ANYTHING with this quote, except for apollo20's own post on it. There is no sourcing of this that I can find.

Please provide a source for this quotation and a date and time.

ETA: I have found the source.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601206&sid=ab48ETlo5Qzk&refer=realestate

Here is the full quote

The original 7 World Trade collapsed on Sept. 11 when the antenna from the World Trade Center's North Tower fell and ``cut through the façade'' of Building 7, rupturing fuel lines leading to storage tanks used by New York City's emergency services, Silverstein said.

``The cut fuel lines started a fire that started to burn around 9 a.m. and burned until 5 or 5:30 p.m.,'' when the building collapsed, Silverstein said.

The new 7 World Trade was built with security and safety systems that makes it ``literally impregnable,'' he said. It has a two-foot-thick reinforced concrete core, better fireproofing and two emergency staircases that split into four in the lobby.

It was stated on april 25, 2007.

Now that is funny... This was before the draft of the NIST report whihc clarified and showed that it was not dissel fuel fires. So he went with the FEMA hypothesis.

wow... that lying bastard. Shucks... next he will be sacrificing babies.

 

[triforcharity]

I stand corrected. I figured it would have been MUCH sooner than that.

 

[TruthersLie]

I stand corrected. I figured it would have been MUCH sooner than that.

And yet it was well BEFORE the nist report was released.

So he went with the FEMA analysis of ruptured diesel lines, and diesel fed fires... So what?

As opposed to Red's hero DRG who has consistently lied out of his ass...

So that is Silversteins "lie?"

Really REd? Massive swing for the fences and a massive miss.

ETA: What would have been EVEN MORE AMAZING is if he had said on April 25 2007 that it collapsed due to thermal expansion... Then he could have won the $1M from Randi...

 

[RedIbis]

Also, when was that quote taken?? Most likely within a few days of 9/11 would be my guess.

2007. More importantly, it's not just that Larry was suggesting that the fire was fed by diesel, a preposterous hypothesis, but one widely perpetuated. The idea that the antenna sliced through the building is even more ridiculous. Yes, since he was the owner, and so closely consulted, he knew very well it wasn't the antenna. But like his botched PBS interview, he's merely throwing up a smokescreen, lying if you will, to distract from what really brought the bldg down.

 

[TruthersLie]

2007. More importantly, it's not just that Larry was suggesting that the fire was fed by diesel, a preposterous hypothesis, but one widely perpetuated. The idea that the antenna sliced through the building is even more ridiculous. Yes, since he was the owner, and so closely consulted, he knew very well it wasn't the antenna. But like his botched PBS interview, he's merely throwing up a smokescreen, lying if you will, to distract from what really brought the bldg down.

"lying if you will"

as opposed to repeating what FEMA said...

But if he is lying, then so to is your hero DRG (actually DRG is really lying) whereas silverstein is repeating what FEMA said WELL before the NIST report was issued.

accusation from ignorance duly noted.