Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[Kent1]

The firefighters, Giuliani, Bloomberg, apparently just about everyone in NYC on 9/11 was in on it.

Anytime someone has something that strongly refutes the CT'ers they tend to become "in on it". It doesn't matter whether its deep undercover skaters, taxi drivers, ticket agents, baggage checkers, firefighters, FEMA employees, NIST employees, University Professors, Structual Engineers, ARUP, demolition companies, etc etc....

Basicly most all MIHOP'ers subscribe to many of the following being a part of the conspiracy. Even Russell seems to believe in some of this....also including a VAST amount of "faked" information: faked flight manifests, fake FAA audio tapes, fake security video tapes, fake phone calls, fake hijacker confession tapes, a fake wedding tape, fake Osama tapes (video and audio), planted evidance, fake testimonies (Ticket agents, baggage checkers etc etc) fake people on the internet......

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Russell...and I gladly retrack some of my comments.

 

[Garb]

Because propaganda is like that.

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

Probably most don't have the time to pick through all the nonsense and realize the weaknesses and nuance of his position as well as that of you his supporters.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.

What [rule8]ing evidence have you provided Russel? Cause I have not been able to find a single point you have made that wasn't proved false.

 

[stateofgrace]

Because propaganda is like that.

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

Probably most don't have the time to pick through all the nonsense and realize the weaknesses and nuance of his position as well as that of you his supporters.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.

Is that what you think this is all about?

Everybody here is so afraid of the truth so we wish to bury it all and protect people from evil?

Honestly,is this for real? You are making out that there is some mass conspiracy going on right here on this board to bury the truth?

Well I tell you what pal why you don’t tell us the truth. Why don't you right now tell us what truly happened on 911.

Include these in a brief summary.

The TwinTowers.
The Pentagon.
Flight 93.
WTC 7.
Al Quada.
Bin Laden.
The US Government.
The Iraq war.

I will give you an example of a summary of events.

Four planes were hijacked by members of Al Quada. Two hit the Twin Towers which both suffered massive structural damage, burnt and fell down due to the damage.WTC 7 was hit by falling debris , caught fire and fell down,NIST are investigating the exact cause of the collpase.Flight 77 was flown at high speed into the Pentagon. Flight 93 came down after the passengers fought back. This operation was an Al Quada operation called the "plane operation" that was authorised by Bin Laden in 1998.The US Government years later foolishly invaded Iraq, who were not involved in 911. They said Iraq had WMD but it was later found out they didn't.

Now Russ, chum don't cherry pick my summary offer up your own.

ETA. Tell you what pal; I will make it easier for you.

Start your summary off with the following.

“Although not proven yet here is what I think may have happened on 911....................!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Because propaganda is like that.

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

Probably most don't have the time to pick through all the nonsense and realize the weaknesses and nuance of his position as well as that of you his supporters.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.

Do you honestly believe this drek you're spewing?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Next question: Many experienced people on the ground feared a collapse, and few were surprised when it did. Agree or disagree?

*sigh* Agree or disagree, Russell?

 

[Trigood]

Gravy,

I haven't told one lie let alone three.

PLEASE try and find a new angle. I beg you.

You are free to believe whoever you wish.

The towers were predicted to collapse too and announced by Gullianai before hand.

There were lots of predictions made that day! Oddly most of them came true.

Russell

Actually, the great majority of "experts" that day did not predict the collapses of the WTC towers.

If they had, do you think that 343 firefighters and however-many policemen would have died in the towers, Russell?

Do your thought processes have any connection to reality, Russell?

 

[Trigood]

Because propaganda is like that.

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

Probably most don't have the time to pick through all the nonsense and realize the weaknesses and nuance of his position as well as that of you his supporters.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.

Then why don't you deal with the real issues, and stop trying to defend yourself as a reasoner, firefighter, or whatever?

Aren't those really meta-issues?

And why haven't you answered Gravy's question:

"For the umpteenth time, Russell, why should we believe you and not the FDNY?"

 

[Trigood]

Someone here posted a great question for Russell. I am going to paraphrase it below. If whoever posted it the first time could jump in and post their version (which I'm sure was better than mine), please do so!

Russell: Since all reports and testimonies indicate that the FDNY strongly suspected that Building 7 was going to collapse hours beforehand, and as a result created a collapse zone around the building by 3 pm on 9/11/01, what is your explanation for these facts that jives with your (apparent) theory of controlled demolition of Building 7?

In other words, you are claiming that Building 7 did not look like it was about to collapse, and indeed was not about to collapse, at 3 pm on 9/11/01.

Apart from the fact that you are claiming firefighters lied about that right and left (which we'll ignore for the time being; hey, maybe they were all PTSD'd out and didn't know what they were seeing), let's deal with another major issue here:

How do you explain the decision of Chief Nigro and the FDNY to act as if Building 7 was about to collapse?

A) The FDNY was in on the demoltion plot.

B) Someone who was in on the plot instructed Chief Nigro to create the safe zone, and Chief Nigro obeyed him. (If you choose B, you must give some indication of who gave the order and why Nigro obeyed this order. Hint: Being paid off is not a sufficient answer, and is probably actionable by Chief Nigro anyway, so I'd avoid it if I were you.)

A) or B), Russell. Which is it? I can think of no other options. (If you think of one, go for it.)

 

[maccy]

Hi Trigood,

I think it was me you were referring to. My questions are below, although I think you've done a pretty good job of reiterating question 3.

Incidentally, I did send Russell a PM asking him to answer these questions as I thought he was getting bogged down in personal arguments and not presenting the facts of his case. He seems (to me, anyway) to imply them without being explicit; or they get buried in dismissive replies to people he has lost patience with.

Russell, did say he would address my questions "eventually" so I'm hoping he will. I think he has partially answered some of the questions but, as I said above, they are more like asides in increasingly emotional and bad tempered posts so I think it would be helpful if he could reiterate his position here - if only for clarity.

On this and other threads Russell seems concerned that Gravy if distorting the truth of the issue and browbeating people with his apparent authority. I think answering the questions below would be a great way for Russell to concisely and clearly put his side of the story across - and I would hope he will help his argument by sticking to the facts of the issue and outlining his interpretation of the facts as calmly as possible.

Maybe he then could go to point us points in Gravy's WTC7 paper which he feels are misleading and explaing why. Links to misleading posts by Gravy (or others) would also help.

To be honest, Russell, you're coming across to me at the moment as somebody who's lost the argument and is throwing their rattle out of the pram in order to distract us from this. This seems to be an excellemnt opportunity to change that perception (both for me and others viewing the thread).

Anyway, here are the questions once again:

Russell,

I've been following this thread for some time and I'm losing track of the parts of your argument that are concerned with the evidence.

Putting aside your feelings about the behaviour of some of the posters here and any issues of your status as a former firefighter, could you please answer the following questions?

1. How do you account for the quantity of smoke coming from WTC7, as shown in the photos at this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2081821&postcount=443 ?

2. How do you account for the testimony gathered in Gravy's paper? Are the witness mistaken? Lying? Is there an equal amount of contradictory testimony regarding the fires in the building? If there is, can you provide links to it?

3. If the building wasn't in danger of collapse from fire and structural damage, why did the FDNY pull men out from a collapse zone around the building, stopping the search for survivors in that area?

4. Do you accept that NIST believes the likely cause of the collapse is fire and structural damage and that there is no evidence of explosives?

5. If the final NIST report concludes that NIST's current hypothesis is correct and also that none of the hypothetical blast scenarios are plausible, will you accept it?

6. Do you currently have an alternative hypothesis that explains how the building was wired to explode, how the explosives survived the fires for so long and how they were finally detonated? If you don't currently have a hypothesis, do you plan to develop one? Do you plan on consulting any demolition extperts or structural engineers in regard to this?

If you feel you've already answered these questions, would you mind repeating yourself? I've not seen anything really clear in the thread so far (it is getting long).

Thanks

Matthew

 

[Alt+F4]

Can you quit using firefighters to hide behind? You know nothing of the profession and it looks silly.

Have you interviewed any of them personally?

Well I can't speak for Gravy, but yeah I have personally spoken to my brother-in-law, FDNY, who was there. WTC7 was leaning by about 3pm due to FIRE and DEBRIS damage. No one was surprised when it collapsed. The emphasis that evening was for looking for survivors at ground zero.

 

[LashL]

LashL,

You can rant and rave all you want now. Your insinuations about me not being a firefighter have been proved wrong and your attempts to degrade my background and then extrapolate that to the SFD itself are just your personal way of dealing with it.

I've never "ranted" or "raved" about anything here. What's with your strange characterizations of other people's posts? Can you not just respond to them calmly and accurately instead of always trying to frame them in a different light? Can you not just actually address the facts and questions raised instead of going off on tangents that do not even come close to legitimate responses?

If you had read my posts carefully, you'd see that I actually said that I believed you were a firefighter - then, based on further information, I said that I wondered whether your work with the Seattle fire department was EMS work because you exhibited so little knowledge of FIRE issues - even about simple things that any firefighter should know. You subsequently said that you've never been at a fully involved fire - even more reason to think that you were utilized for your EMS skills rather than any firefighting skills you might have. Etc. etc. Seattle has an integrated EMS/firefighting force - even more reason to think that you were utilized on the EMS side rather than the firefighting side. Given your short tenure there, and your obvious lack of knowledge and experience, well, it is not an unreasonable conclusion.

Your praise of the Montreal fire department in rivalry with little 'ol Seattle is fine too. It is actually a phenomenon of sorts.

I have never once mentioned the Montreal fire department. I have no knowledge of the Montreal fire department and have never claimed to, but I doubt that they'd feel any sense of "rivalry" with the Seattle fire department.

Once again, you're just making things up.

All of us used to see that girlfriend that would date a firefighter and unnaturally associate herself with the person who actually had the job and did the work. We used to get a kick out of it. It was cute.

Huh? Again, what are you on about? If you can't address the substance of my posts, perhaps you should stop trying to disparage me while you continue to get every single thing wrong.

I guess most people had a part of them that wanted to be a firefighter.

I sincerely doubt that. I've certainly never wanted to be a firefighter and I suspect that the vast majority of the population never wanted to be, either. And what exactly does that have to do with anything on this thread? You appear to have a tendency to go off on tangents that have no basis in fact or reality whenever you want to avoid addressing facts or answering questions. You seem to be doing that a lot recently.

Why don't you try responding to the facts and questions posed instead of making things up and going off on unrelated tangents for a change?

You could start with these that maccy has been asking you for quite some time now, but which you keep avoiding:

1. How do you account for the quantity of smoke coming from WTC7, as shown in the photos at this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=443 ?

2. How do you account for the testimony gathered in Gravy's paper? Are the witness mistaken? Lying? Is there an equal amount of contradictory testimony regarding the fires in the building? If there is, can you provide links to it?

3. If the building wasn't in danger of collapse from fire and structural damage, why did the FDNY pull men out from a collapse zone around the building, stopping the search for survivors in that area?

4. Do you accept that NIST believes the likely cause of the collapse is fire and structural damage and that there is no evidence of explosives?

5. If the final NIST report concludes that NIST's current hypothesis is correct and also that none of the hypothetical blast scenarios are plausible, will you accept it?

6. Do you currently have an alternative hypothesis that explains how the building was wired to explode, how the explosives survived the fires for so long and how they were finally detonated? If you don't currently have a hypothesis, do you plan to develop one? Do you plan on consulting any demolition extperts or structural engineers in regard to this?

 

[LashL]

Because it's easier to throw a hissy fit and run away than it is to address facts that directly contradict the premise that has been his whole purpose in life the last several years.

Nailed it in one!

 

[LashL]

<snip>He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

You have not presented any evidence at all, Russell, so it's rather silly to claim that someone is trying "bury" something that doesn't exist, and even sillier to claim that someone is trying to "protect" people from you, and even sillier yet for you to think that anyone envisions you as the embodiment of "evil".

 

[Belz...]

Gravy is not doing this for the little cult here that already supports government incompetency and cover up for 9/11.

Even the non-americans, here ?

NOTE: Russel will not answer this question. NO CTer to which I've asked this question has EVER done anything but ignore it. It seems it's better for their sake to believe that everyone here is an american that supports his evil government.

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers. He feels an obligation to protect them from "evil".

<giggles> That's gold, man. GOLD.

You have to counter propaganda with reason in the present tense. Otherwise it takes hold.

This, I agree with.

 

[Belz...]

All of us used to see that girlfriend that would date a firefighter and unnaturally associate herself with the person who actually had the job and did the work. We used to get a kick out of it. It was cute.

I guess most people had a part of them that wanted to be a firefighter.

What in the blue HELL are you talking about ?

 

[jhunter1163]

I think he's accusing Lash of being a firefighter groupie.

 

[LashL]

I think he's accusing Lash of being a firefighter groupie.

Yes, I'm sure that is what he is insinuating but he lacks the courage of his convictions to say it directly.

Of course, his insinuation is dead wrong, as usual.

My partner would find Russell's insinuation particularly obnoxious as we have had many, many discussions about the fact that I'd have preferred that he never joined the fire service, and about the fact that if I had my druthers, he would go back to his previous career.

My partner would also find Russell's insinuation particularly ridiculous because of the fact that it took him a long time to talk me into the first date as I was not at all interested in dating someone who was a firefighter. He eventually convinced me but he had to do so despite being a firefighter, and it was a long and arduous process.

Thus, Russell's insinuation is laughable, as well as ignorant, misguided, uninformed, pathetic, altogether lame, and dead wrong.




(P.S. I almost feel sorry for Russell, being reduced as he is to presenting nothing but dead wrong, pathetic, wrongheaded, lame, ignorant, uninformed and misguided personal attacks after he realized that he cannot refute the facts and evidence on any substantive issue here.




I said "almost".)

 

[tsig]

You're killing me here.

In 8 years I probably had around 30-40 fully involved structures of ordinary and wood frame construction. I never had an involved high rise fire as they are rare.

The audacity it takes to make the silly claims you are making with no knowledge is entertaining.

I finally watched those WTC 7 videos. They are great. They show the wind tunnel effect much better than the stills. Also, when the smoke periodically clears you see absolutely ZERO flame. There were fires down low like FEMA said and that was it.

The other fires on the other floors either burned out or were extinguished by efforts earlier in the day. The fact they were out is proof that it was not a fully involved structure.

You guys will just have to PROVE it was. The burden is on you.

The firefighter testimony is just as important as the testimony of explosions and possible secondary devices at the towers. You should be fair and listen to it all.

I will check back in a couple of days to see if there is anything new.

Russell

Hi Russel, remeber me

I checked your reference as a firefighter and as i am sure you know they do not give out personel data to random callers.

 

[hellaeon]

He does it to bury the many evidences I do present for the casual readers.

Goodaye Russell, as a casual observer of your many discussions and your reported reputation amongst the truth movement, im hoping you can answer the simple questions in the thread as of now rather then engage in trying to get your post count up. Just remember you dont have to press the submit button.

Cheers

 

[hellaeon]

The firefighter testimony is just as important as the testimony of explosions and possible secondary devices at the towers. You should be fair and listen to it all.

to no one in particular, perhaps other casual observers though :

This is a grey area because if the physical evidence does not fit the testimony, the testimony is invalid. If I witnessed a murder with an axe but the guy was found with a knife wound and the guy who did it had a knife on him with DNA matched blood and the wound imprint or whatever the technical term is matched the blade I guess they should listen to me jump up and down "IT WAS AN AXE!!!"