Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[triforcharity]

7WTC didn't burn down, it collapsed. Derpa.

BTW, a simple Google search will give you the name of the firefighters McQueen used for his quotemine project.

PS, here is another fully involved reference.
http://www.eastglenvillefd.com/_mgxroot/page_10845.html

And another
http://www.walco-es.org/FF Terminology.htm

All use the same exact definition.

 

[RedIbis]

7WTC didn't burn down, it collapsed. Derpa.

BTW, a simple Google search will give you the name of the firefighters McQueen used for his quotemine project.

PS, here is another fully involved reference.
http://www.eastglenvillefd.com/_mgxroot/page_10845.html

And another
http://www.walco-es.org/FF Terminology.htm

All use the same exact definition.

Do you think 50% or more of WTC 7 was on fire at any one time?

 

[beachnut]

Do you think 50% or more of WTC 7 was on fire at any one time?

Do you?

 

[bill smith]

Once again you have messed up.

You have no clue what fully involved means, and no idea what fire does.

Fully involved does not mean minor; it means what it means and you fail to understand 911 given all the answers, and 9 years to check it out.

Apologize to the firemen. Stop exposing your ignorance. (You have no idea how bad you have messed up; lucky for you all your claims are delusions or the MIB would have vaporized you with a beam weapon long ago)

So if as you say 'fully involved in fire; does not mean a minor fire then it must mean a large or massive fire ?: No ?

 

[triforcharity]

Do you think 50% or more of WTC 7 was on fire at any one time?

No, but did you see the qualifier in that statement? It would be "usually". Did you also notice that each and every one of them say the exact same thing?? I surely did.

 

[triforcharity]

So if as you say 'fully involved in fire; does not mean a minor fire then it must mean a large or massive fire ?: No ?

Yes, it would mean large or massive. Multiple floors on fire would certainly qualify as large or massive.

 

[BigAl]

Do you think 50% or more of WTC 7 was on fire at any one time?

So what?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm dead serious, bill. If there was ever anything you could easily check out and verify, this is it.

In the experiences I've had in talking to him, verification means "let's see what quote I can mine next". And true to form, he ignored the question I asked him days ago. Redibis deserves some credit for acknowledging it at least, even if I totally disagree with his answer.

 

[bill smith]

Ach...it's like shooting fish in a barrel these days..Night all.

 

[BigAl]

Beachnut's definition in no way ameliorates my position. The definition largely conforms to my own definition.The take away message of today is that firemen are no longer immune from criticism. They are no longer saints. They are just professionals who unfortunately suffered heavy losses on 9/11.

I guess Bill the troll felt he wasn't getting the attention and decided to troll with bigger bait.

 

[Sabretooth]

Tell that to the fireman who reported it..

What the **** is that suppose to mean?

 

[bill smith]

Yes, it would mean large or massive. Multiple floors on fire would certainly qualify as large or massive.

You mean fire roaring out all of the windows as in 'all 47 floors,from ground to ceiling' or something like that but just not visible ?

 

[bill smith]

I guess Bill the troll felt he wasn't getting the attention and decided to troll with bigger bait.

I only caught tiddlers though...

 

[Sabretooth]

Ach...it's like shooting fish in a barrel these days..Night all.

Try using thermite. I hear it works miracles.

 

[Sabretooth]

So if as you say 'fully involved in fire; does not mean a minor fire then it must mean a large or massive fire ?: No ?

Go here:

http://www.ecfwire.com

There are plenty of examples of fire and communications. Listen to some of the radio calls. Listen to the terminology. Look at the pics and videos. Learn something instead of being ignorant.

 

[RedIbis]

Do you?

No, and neither does NIST.

 

[beachnut]

No, and neither does NIST.

Good for you and NIST.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

People talking about nonsensically contextless percentages is supposed to accomplish what exactly? I must have missed the memo.

 

[Bell]

It is time to call a spade a spade. No more pussyfooting around the firefighters,If they lied then I will say they LIED. You debunkers will employ your usual rubbish cheap trick of saying that I mean ALL 9/11 firefighters when I have made clear that I mean a specific few. But I have long ago learned not to expect more here on the jref 9/11 subforum.

Knock yourselves out.

And still you haven't proven the firefighters lied (go figure )

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A Canadian 9/11 truth site is stating that JREFies are too frightened to debate the science behind their challenge that states that the official 9/11 story violates the laws of physics.

We already know it's your personal challenge, so why hide behind the phrase "a Canadian 9/11 truth site"? Are you so devoid of integrity that you can't take ownership of your own challenge?