Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[DGM]

If you noticed that link is wikipedia. Hardly a "truther" website.

Next I'm not sure why you say that about fire fighters in building 7. You are aware there's a whole group called firefighters for 9/11 truth right?

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

I see they have a petition. When are they going to submit it?

 

[DC]

If you noticed that link is wikipedia. Hardly a "truther" website.

Next I'm not sure why you say that about fire fighters in building 7. You are aware there's a whole group called firefighters for 9/11 truth right?

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

WOW a whole group, amazing, how many are they?

 

[TexasJack]

I hate to break it to him, but the FDNY and other firefighters think those guys are nuts. Here is a sample:

Truth be told the only firefighters that I give a damn about what they have to say about 9-11 is the ones that were there. In my mind the FDNY guys have said what they have to say about it and that is good enough for me.

To me the continual conspiracy nonsense serves only to dishonor those that died heros AND innocent victims that day. That a firefighter is responsible for another conspiracy website is simply despicable to me.

Absolutely agree. I have challenged these whacks to contact FDNY firefighters about what happened that day. The typical reply is a youtube vid where a NY fireman is saying, "It was like a huge explosion when the tower went down."

LIKE an explosion, knothead, LIKE an explosion. He is NOT saying it WAS an explosion that brought those buildings down.

I just hurt myself. I fell off the chair laughing. This friggin' moron is lecturing ME about NFPA 921. ME!

You may not be hear to name call and insult, but I am. You are a loser, pal. I challenge you to walk into anyf firehouse in NYC and spew this nonsense. Just make sure that you leave good info as to what you want done with your remains (not a threat, but a prediction).

And, just so I fit into your little model, here...I was standing with several hundred other fire fighters outside Manhattan Community College when 7 fell. I watched it, heard it, smelled it and saw it fall. You are 100% completely, totally positvely wrong on every single count.

http://www.firehouse.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107457

 

[tmd2_1]

Please, do yourself a favour and pay attention. Its certainly true that this forum is hostile to truthers and any truthers coming here is going to get a beating, but you don't make it easy on yourself intentionally acting like a stubborn idiot with a learning difficulty just to piss everyone off.

No one says he didn't say those words, only that he didn't mean what truthers claim he meant.

As I said before, Lee Hamilton was talking initially about getting enough time and money. He said that that they needed more and they got more, but it took them a while to get it



How many of them in that group are NYC firefighters that were there on 911? What percentage of firefighters is there compared to the rest in the US, or the World?

Once again, please pay attention:

We have dozens and dozens and dozens of firefighters that were there on 911 that have spoken about WTC7 and they report Building 7 had huge unfought fires, major damage to its south face, that it was leaning, creaking, bulging, groaning and things were cracking and falling and they say that they all knew it would going to collapse hours before it did.


THERE IS A REASON NO TRUTHER WILL QUOTE A FIREFIGHTER ON 911 ABOUT BUILDING 7.


Quite importantly, there have been no dissenting opinions expressed by any firefighters to these facts in nearly 10 years. Absolutely no 911 firefighters have ever said there were small fires, that the damage wasn't that bad, that they disagreed with the decisions made about the buildings state from their higherups or that they disagreed that the building would probably collapse.

Therefore if you continue to claim that "prior knowledge" of WTC7's collapse proves the BBC must be in on it then you just implicated the FDNY firefighters in a massive coverup to suppress the "truth" of WTC7. There is no other explanation for it.

This is what i explained before, like with Boeing which you initially claimed had nothing to do with the conspiracy a few pages later and you had managed to implicate them in covering up a "pod" on the underside of the planes. You so casucally implicate hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands and more people you don't even realise you do it. You still don't know just how ridiculous it is to rationalise away how insignificant and fringe your little group is in the scientific and engineering community without making everyone else idiots or in on it.

There's only one way to take quotes like this "John Farmer, Jr., senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public." Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."

In regards to the fire fighters here's a whole bunch of them. http://www.bcrevolution.ca/wtc_7.htm

Let's look at just one Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain"

Now it would seem you are using a very common tactic of accusing me of accusing the whole FDNY. Very far from it. I would like to know where these appraisals come from. Fireman could have been told these things by some other group. This is something everyone "knew" was going to come down yet NIST was initially stumped, then when they released their report hid most of the data the model is based on.

 

[Oystein]

There's only one way to take quotes like this "John Farmer, Jr., senior counsel to the Commission stated ...

Who committed 9/11, according to John Farmer's informed opinion, and how?

(Hint: John Farmer strongly believes that Al Qaeda did it by hijacking and crashing four planes)

...
Let's look at just one Fire Chief Daniel Nigro: "The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain"

Now it would seem you are using a very common tactic of accusing me of accusing the whole FDNY. Very far from it. I would like to know where these appraisals come from. Fireman could have been told these things by some other group. This is something everyone "knew" was going to come down yet NIST was initially stumped, then when they released their report hid most of the data the model is based on.

You speculate again. Daniel Nigro's statement is crystal clear: The FDNY made a competent, professional determination of the state of WTC7. As it turns out, that determination was spot-on.

Are you saying Fire Chief Daniel Nigro didn't know who of his men he could trust? What do you base your speculation on?

 

[Oystein]

If you noticed that link is wikipedia. Hardly a "truther" website.

Next I'm not sure why you say that about fire fighters in building 7. You are aware there's a whole group called firefighters for 9/11 truth right?

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Strangely, not a single firefighter who did duty on Ground Zero signed that petition.

This reminds me of AE911T's petition, which not a single practicing civil or structural engineer from the entire state of New York has signed.

Seems like those best qualified and closest to assess the full facts do not fall for woo on the fringe of their professions.

 

[TJM]

Never read looming tower.

9/11 commission was set up to fail, as a few members have said. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#cite_note-17

Wow, if only there were other investigations into the attacks being conducted by other agencies...

NIST report is best summed up by this exchange.

ABEL: ... what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?

NEWMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?
NEWMAN: If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time....

If explosives were used, it'd be apparent. Hush-a-booms in 3..2..

Most of the Gravy sites debunking has a plausible explanation (though in some cases that's stretching it) but just because something is plausible, doesn't mean it happened that way. For example WTC 7 early reporting. By in large the "debunking" is something like there was a lot of confusion, everyone knew it was going to come down, it was just a mistake. But if you look at it logically, it doesn't make a lot of sense. First it's hard to get something like that wrong, it either fell or it didn't.

Never heard of a communications breakdown? There's a reason why the term exists. Want an example?

In 1944, USN Admiral William Halsey proposed detaching his battleships from the main body of his fleet to guard against a Japanese surface force in the area. When this proposal ran through the chain of command, it somehow became accepted that this is what Halsey had done, not what he proposed to do. See Battle of Leyte Gulf.

If everyone knew it was going to collapse, why was NIST initially stumped? Then it took 7 years to release anything. When they do the numbers are hidden.

The firemen knew the building was going to collapse. The fire, the leaning and creaking was probably a huge clue. NIST's task was determine the collapse mechanism, or simply put: Why? Do you understand the difference? I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong, but NIST didn't begin a full investigation into WTC7 until the investigation into the towers was complete, and they didn't release their data due to concerns for public safety.

 

[tmd2_1]

Who committed 9/11, according to John Farmer's informed opinion, and how?

(Hint: John Farmer strongly believes that Al Qaeda did it by hijacking and crashing four planes)



You speculate again. Daniel Nigro's statement is crystal clear: The FDNY made a competent, professional determination of the state of WTC7. As it turns out, that determination was spot-on.

Are you saying Fire Chief Daniel Nigro didn't know who of his men he could trust? What do you base your speculation on?

All I want to know is who specifically made the appraisal WTC 7 was going to come down and why. They should have talked to NIST, because as you know NIST was "stumped" for a while on this.

 

[tmd2_1]

Strangely, not a single firefighter who did duty on Ground Zero signed that petition.

This reminds me of AE911T's petition, which not a single practicing civil or structural engineer from the entire state of New York has signed.

Seems like those best qualified and closest to assess the full facts do not fall for woo on the fringe of their professions.

You should write them (firefighters for truth) and see how they feel about this.

As far as AE for truth. An engineer from Albany NY is no more qualified than an engineer from Dallas Texas (or where ever) So I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

[triforcharity]

If you noticed that link is wikipedia. Hardly a "truther" website.

Hardly a reliable website to say the least, considering I can go in and change it whenever I feel the need to.

Next I'm not sure why you say that about fire fighters in building 7. You are aware there's a whole group called firefighters for 9/11 truth right?

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Yep, and not one of them are from FDNY that were there that day.

Why might that be TMD?

 

[triforcharity]

Now it would seem you are using a very common tactic of accusing me of accusing the whole FDNY. Very far from it. I would like to know where these appraisals come from.

Engineers and the like that were there. FDNY has plenty of engineers available at their disposal.

Fireman could have been told these things by some other group.

Yeah, like engineers and senior firefighters......

This is something everyone "knew" was going to come down yet NIST was initially stumped,

Well, not really. NIST knew it came down due to fire. So did FDNY. FDNY may not have known exactly which column would fail first, or that the penthouse would collapse after that, but it really matters not one iota.

Christopher7 made this same arguement. It fails too.

then when they released their report hid most of the data the model is based on.

No, but hey, it's just another one of your many lies.

 

[TJM]

All I want to know is who specifically made the appraisal WTC 7 was going to come down and why.

Here. Knock yourself out.

They should have talked to NIST, because as you know NIST was "stumped" for a while on this.

Really.

The NIST investigation team initially worked simultaneously on both the WTC towers and WTC 7 collapses. In June 2004, the team shifted to full-time study of the towers to develop needed simulation methods and other research tools and to expedite completion of the WTC towers report. Work resumed on the WTC 7 study in October 2005.The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.cfm

Doesn't sound like they were "stumped" at all.

 

[Sabretooth]

Cole did zero experiments.

He did a stunt.

He appears to not know the meaning of the word "experiment".

Let's see if you do.

Do you think that his "experiment's" duration matched the duration of the GZ fires?

Do you believe that the materials & conditions at the bottom of his pile of wood matched those at the bottom of the rubble pile?

Let's offer a simple test, shall we. Do you think that Cole's local fire department could have put out his fire if they dumped a couple million gallons of water on it? For a point of comparison, the FDNY could not put out the GZ fires by doing the same.

Still think he "ran an experiment"?

Let me know when he publishes his methods & results in JOM.

A bit of warning: they don't publish stunts.

Till Cole publishes, it doesn't exist.

Not to mention that Cole's video debunks itself.

Hey, tmd, how many flashes, like this picture below, did you see before the towers and 7 came down.

I'll wait while you get me a figure.

 

[Animal]

As far as AE for truth. An engineer from Albany NY is no more qualified than an engineer from Dallas Texas (or where ever) So I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

A ridiculously false statement.
Passing a state sanctioned test only means someone has met the minimum standards required by law.

In troofer world, a dermatologist is just was qualified to perform brain surgery as a neurologist is.

 

[jaydeehess]

You act like they didn't look at pictures. I'm sure they did.

There is no mention at all of any pictures other than the ones of the 911 plane. NONE.
One cannot therefore conclude that 'well they must have looked at other 767s' since that is simply not among the information offered.

I look at it and I see something strange.

I very much do not agree. I see nothing out of the ordinary for a 767.

It only appears on one side. The fairings are on both.

You are only seeing the side that is in the light of the rising sun. The other is in shadow, the picture is grainy having been blown up from a long shot photo. That is why you don't see the other fairing and why the one seems so prominant.

In this picture, despite good light on both sides of the a/c its the far faring(starboard) which is most prominent in the picture. Because the angle has it against the backdrop of the dark underside of the starboard wing and clear sky, whereas the port side is against the rest of the fuselage and the same colour as the fuselage. In the 911 photo much the same occurs, AND the light is more severe on one side AND the blown up image is grainy.

They weren't sure after their own analysis and asked the best source for clarification.

They were asking typical conspiracy fringe questions. I do not blame Boeing for not replying.

They got a puzzling answer so they ran with it. Seems good to me.

However, its patently obvious by looking at multiple photos of other 767s that this is the faring.
If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, paddles about in the water and has a translucent green head, and several bird watching books show pictures that would have it as a male mallard duck, then its extremely, highly probable that it is a male mallard duck. Why would there be a need to contact a zoologist for his opinion?
What answer would you get if you contacted a zoologist and asked " The green colour looks off to me. Is this a male mallard duck or something masquerading as a male mallard duck?"

 

[jaydeehess]

You should write them (firefighters for truth) and see how they feel about this.

Frankly I'm fine with it. If you want to know why no NYFD 911 responders signed it perhaps you should ask them.

As far as AE for truth. An engineer from Albany NY is no more qualified than an engineer from Dallas Texas (or where ever) So I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Good point. How many engineers who were in Manhattan on that day signed the petition?

Now bill smith has said that once all the data is given to engineers, specifically from Gage, that they come around to understanding that the 911 destruction was caused by something other than just 4 hijacked airliners.
OTOH, many 911 conspiracists have stated many times that it patently obvious to anyone watching the video of the collapses that these were de,olitions and not impact or fire caused collapses.
If bill smith is correct then that might explain the relative pacity of actual engineers who believe as you do.
However if it is patently obvious then you have a problem since these collapses are some of the most repeated videos of the last decade and surely engineers around the world and certainly American engineers have pretty much all seen the collapses.

Also, if it is the former and only after careful study of all the data is it possible to discern that these were demolitions then the supposed architects of this conspiracy certainly did a good job of making something happen that most engineers did not question. That would then require absolute concrete evidence of demolitions yet , there is none.

No one has demonstrated how 'super-thermite' operates. Does it , as most explosives do, create a very large bang due to rapidly expanding gases?

No one has demostrated how any form of thermite could supply heat to an underground fire for weeks on end.

No one has managed to explain why, if the underground fires were caused by 'leftover' thermite, that this thermite was exclusively below the grade of the debris pile.

No one has done a study comparable in scope and technical detail as that done by NIST, in which thermite or explosives of any type are used to mimic what was observed to have occured,

 

[tmd2_1]

There is no mention at all of any pictures other than the ones of the 911 plane. NONE.
One cannot therefore conclude that 'well they must have looked at other 767s' since that is simply not among the information offered.
I very much do not agree. I see nothing out of the ordinary for a 767.


You are only seeing the side that is in the light of the rising sun. The other is in shadow, the picture is grainy having been blown up from a long shot photo. That is why you don't see the other fairing and why the one seems so prominant.

[qimg]http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/1/6764/z6764971X,Boeing-767-LOT-u.jpg[/qimg]
In this picture, despite good light on both sides of the a/c its the far faring(starboard) which is most prominent in the picture. Because the angle has it against the backdrop of the dark underside of the starboard wing and clear sky, whereas the port side is against the rest of the fuselage and the same colour as the fuselage. In the 911 photo much the same occurs, AND the light is more severe on one side AND the blown up image is grainy.

They were asking typical conspiracy fringe questions. I do not blame Boeing for not replying.

However, its patently obvious by looking at multiple photos of other 767s that this is the faring.
If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, paddles about in the water and has a translucent green head, and several bird watching books show pictures that would have it as a male mallard duck, then its extremely, highly probable that it is a male mallard duck. Why would there be a need to contact a zoologist for his opinion?
What answer would you get if you contacted a zoologist and asked " The green colour looks off to me. Is this a male mallard duck or something masquerading as a male mallard duck?"

Ok first of all it seems like Boeing was working with them for 10 days, and there comment was (paraphrasing) for national security concerns we can't tell you. Seems like there is something there to "tell" I find it hard to believe they couldn't just say it was a fairing. But I commend them for not taking the easy way out.

Before I actually talk about the POD, I want to make a few things clear. I am not saying there is a POD. Simply saying I won't say there isn't a POD. Next this isn't to address how it may have gotten there. There are several ways i can think of but it is all speculation so I would rather not go into it.


I guess the first thing to address is what the device might actually look like. If you go here you will find a picture of it. Looks like what could be the pod in the picture. http://www.nogw.com/articles/zakheim_911_conspiracy.html Incidentally it is very hard to find a picture of one of those devices.

Next when looking at photos of the impact to the south tower you see that POD appear to push in concrete. As seen in the picture.

Next if you look at NIST's impact scar diagram you will notice a hole where the POD would be, this is noticed by the lack of symmetry. One other thing to notice is the left or Port side engine (in the impact diagram) seems to be tilted slightly to the left, again causing a lack of symmetry. Could this be to compensate for the added weight of the POD? Now I know the plane was in a bank and this could explain some of it.

Does this "prove" anything. No. But I certainly won't say there is no POD.

 

[tmd2_1]

Frankly I'm fine with it. If you want to know why no NYFD 911 responders signed it perhaps you should ask them.



Good point. How many engineers who were in Manhattan on that day signed the petition?

Now bill smith has said that once all the data is given to engineers, specifically from Gage, that they come around to understanding that the 911 destruction was caused by something other than just 4 hijacked airliners.
OTOH, many 911 conspiracists have stated many times that it patently obvious to anyone watching the video of the collapses that these were de,olitions and not impact or fire caused collapses.
If bill smith is correct then that might explain the relative pacity of actual engineers who believe as you do.
However if it is patently obvious then you have a problem since these collapses are some of the most repeated videos of the last decade and surely engineers around the world and certainly American engineers have pretty much all seen the collapses.

Also, if it is the former and only after careful study of all the data is it possible to discern that these were demolitions then the supposed architects of this conspiracy certainly did a good job of making something happen that most engineers did not question. That would then require absolute concrete evidence of demolitions yet , there is none.

No one has demonstrated how 'super-thermite' operates. Does it , as most explosives do, create a very large bang due to rapidly expanding gases?

No one has demostrated how any form of thermite could supply heat to an underground fire for weeks on end.

No one has managed to explain why, if the underground fires were caused by 'leftover' thermite, that this thermite was exclusively below the grade of the debris pile.

No one has done a study comparable in scope and technical detail as that done by NIST, in which thermite or explosives of any type are used to mimic what was observed to have occured,

I would say...buildings 1 and 2 do not look like classic CD. While I believe the evidence is there for it and they probably are....I would say just by seeing it you would not necessarily think it is CD, but some might. As I did when I began really looking at this stuff. As for WTC 7 I 100% disagree with you it looks just like a CD. In fact every person I show it to, because at least 80% of people do not know about it, have questions about it. They usually look stunned, and say are you sure it was the same day? Did they have that planned? Now I won't say these people become "truthers" but they have questions. Many more so than they did before they saw it.

As to what has thermate shown it can do or not. To my knowledge no one has shown it can't do those things either. Besides with the fires remaining hot, didn't all I hear you guys say is that landfill fires are hard to put out, they burn for a while etc etc. Would it matter how it started wouldn't it keep burning? I mean this is according to you guys, in less I grossly mis-understood you.

 

[Dash80]

Ah the POD. Have you noticed the small green aliens standing in the hole you claim this POD made. Can you see them pointing and laughing at you? I honestly can't understand why you can't see the things that are so obvious, wake up and see the truth!

 

[WildCat]

Ok first of all it seems like Boeing was working with them for 10 days, and there comment was (paraphrasing) for national security concerns we can't tell you.

So Boeing is still in on it and not in on it at the same time?