• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Care to Comment

triforcharity said:
Stop. Just Stop. The firefighters in WTC 1&2 had problems with radios inside the tower for years. So, a repeater was added at some point. This repeater was basically, useless. The reason for the firefighters not have adequate communication means was not from "fuel conflagration". It was becase they had ****** radios, and a top brass that were lazy.

The other problem with communications was the fact that there were too many systems in use, and they did not communicate with each other. Some firefighters used one system, while others used another.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-27-talk-usat_x.htm
http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_rescueplan.html


Here is the most important, starting on page 5
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/mck_report/fire_operations_response.pdf

Now, STFU, as you know nothing about the radio problems on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Let me confirm what Tri has written. The radios were a scandal waiting to break and IMO, people should have been convicted for the purchasing decisions.
 
BigAl said:
Let me confirm what Tri has written. The radios were a scandal waiting to break and IMO, people should have been convicted for the purchasing decisions.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more. Even to this day, there are still problems with the communication systems that major fire departments use.

Firefighters died because of ****** radios. One of the reasons I hated Guilliani.
 
TexasJack said:
What, is this guy on tour?


Is it just me, or are the loons getting loonier?
Click to expand...

No, we used to get some that tried to make a rational argument but lately they just want to say "You're wrong Na, Na, Na". followed by "You're dumb, I win, Na, Na, Na".

Maybe they're all that's left.
 
London Firefighters have the same problems in the Tube system (underground railway)
It was supposed to have been sorted after the Kings Cross Escalator fires buth ey were still having problems on 7/7.
transport For London (as London Transport is now called) seem to be able to find the funding to install mobile phone equipment to allow passengers to use their phones though.
Seems the bombers will be able to set them off remotely next time.
 
Miragememories said:
And you with your repetitious responses are nothing more than a one trick pony.

MM
Click to expand...
Got something new from your pile of lies and delusions on 911? No, you failed to find the ignore button because all you can do is post empty replies. My post is a fact, he is gullible and you failed to provide evidence or comment to the contrary. Do you support the insane claims made by Wayne Anderson? Prove they apply to 911. You failed to try.

I take it, this is your best effort to support the idiot video from the OP. Well done! With your vast amount of "incriminating evidence" it is cool to see it fall short of being a reality.

You have the CD claim (your failed zero trick pony), why can't you spread some of same idiotic junk science used to form your CD delusion on this topic and fake some support for the wild and stupid claims made in the subject video. That vast pile of "incriminating evidence" you got; is it slowing down the process?

The video is complete nonsense; care to comment? Are his models signs of mental illness, insanity, or an inability to practically apply physics and structural engineering principles?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
The video is complete nonsense; care to comment? Are his models signs of mental illness, insanity, or an inability to practically apply physics and structural engineering principles?
Click to expand...

I have to go with batcrap crazy on this one.
 
TexasJack said:
What, is this guy on tour?


Is it just me, or are the loons getting loonier?
Click to expand...

I think so,the less insane truthers have seen the error of their ways over the years,leaving only the hard-line fruitcakes now.
 
achimspok said:
I think it was a set up to look like an undisputable victim.

Remember, Mineta started at "50 miles out". According to the FDR it refers to 9:27am and well before O'Brien saw the reappeared plane. She first saw it about 16 miles out and it came closer 1 mile in about 8 seconds.
So what information had Cheney during the flight through the alleged radar hole?
I think these radar holes are a myth as well.
[qimg]http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/3405/radarcoverage.gif[/qimg]
This is the alleged "hole" at an altitude of 5000ft. In other words, at 10000ft these circles have the double radius.


Ranke is a liar. Lloyd England is a nice old cab driver. He drove down the road. He was in front of the plane. He had 2 seconds to see it and less time to hear it. Suddenly a lamp pole came through his windshield. For the next seconds he had to stop the car somehow.
Some years later Craig Ranke comes along and shows the cabbie an aerial view with the wrong drawing of the "flyover" path and Lloyd should show his position. The only thing Lloyd knew for sure - he was right below the plane and close to the Pentagon. So he saw Ranke's false path and pointed with the finger right below it. ...instead of confronting Lloyd with the possibilities, Ranke constructed a cabbie conspiracy. Here are some links where I wrote about that topic.
achimspok's Pentagon Northern Approach?
Sgt. William Lagasse - Pentagon witness?
Pilots for Truth paper "The North Approach, Technical Supplement to "9/11: The North Flight Path"
Comparison of the CIT "Northern Approach" to some "North of VDOT" approach.
Click to expand...

I was most interested in when Lloyd England was taped when he didn't know he was being recorded. It seems plainly obvious that he is admitting that the Pentagon was a set up and that he is just a 'small man' that has no say in these big affairs,

http://911blogger.com/node/20035

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho&feature=player_embedded#! lloyd England
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I was most interested in when Lloyd England was taped when he didn't know he was being recorded. It seems plainly obvious that he is admitting that the Pentagon was a set up and that he is just a 'small man'that has no say in these big affairs,
Click to expand...

Holy bat guano! This should be an all time STUDIE! But it's BS. The best part is, he/she claims to "believe" this!:rolleyes:






PS
Howz morn?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I was most interested in when Lloyd England was taped when he didn't know he was being recorded. It seems plainly obvious that he is admitting that the Pentagon was a set up and that he is just a 'small man' that has no say in these big affairs,

http://911blogger.com/node/20035

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho&feature=player_embedded#! lloyd England
Click to expand...

I'm quite surprised that Craig Rankie says at the end of the video 'While Lloyd England does not admit outright...''. I still think that there could be enough there to interest a judge or maybe consider a civil action.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I'm quite surprised that Craig Rankie says at the end of the video 'While Lloyd England does not admit outright...''. I still think that there could be enough there to interest a judge or maybe consider a civil action.
Click to expand...

The doofus in the video keeps insisting that a photo of a cab in the area Lloyd's, but it does not look like it is in the same area where his (stopped) cab is seen with a hole in the windshield MUCH earlier. The photo that is clearly of Lloyd's cab is clearly taken before the collapse, whereas the cab that the twoofer poionts out is seen against a background of a COLLAPSED Pentagon.


Lloyd is just upset that his humdrum life is being turned upside down by people who want to drag him into an argument that goes way over his head and gives him noteriety that he does not want.

The CIT twoofers just don't understand people.
 
leftysergeant said:
The doofus in the video keeps insisting that a photo of a cab in the area Lloyd's, but it does not look like it is in the same area where his (stopped) cab is seen with a hole in the windshield MUCH earlier. The photo that is clearly of Lloyd's cab is clearly taken before the collapse, whereas the cab that the twoofer poionts out is seen against a background of a COLLAPSED Pentagon.


Lloyd is just upset that his humdrum life is being turned upside down by people who want to drag him into an argument that goes way over his head and gives him noteriety that he does not want.

The CIT twoofers just don't understand people.
Click to expand...

Well People can listen to the video themselves. All I care about is that Lloyd absolutely confirms that the Pentagon was a set-up as I deduced long ago. He was beautifully clear about that too. Enough to go to a judge for my money, though perhaps not in America.
 
bill smith said:
Well People can listen to the video themselves. All I care about is that Lloyd absolutely confirms that the Pentagon was a set-up as I deduced long ago. He was beautifully clear about that too. Enough to go to a judge for my money, though perhaps not in America.
Click to expand...
It certainly was a "set-up. KSM confirmed it was the target all along.


:rolleyes:
 
R.Mackey said:
That's actually a pretty good summary. :)

Kind of strange that so many of them, with their variety of source confusions, wind up behaving the same.
Click to expand...
Extract from a short exchange I had with Ryan Mackey some time ago about the WTC7 collapse ;

Miragememories said:
"Now that is truly incredible.

You are in effect saying that we have a building inside a building.

That, even though the two are firmly connected to each other, it's supposedly credible that the inside structure underwent 7 seconds of collapse without visibly pulling in any of the the connected exterior walls.

And you are an engineer?"
Click to expand...
Ryan Mackey said:
"Yes, to all three questions. NCSTAR1A describes the structure's design and its anticipated response, and their hypothesis is consistent with my expectations and my statement. Furthermore, you have yet to provide any evidence that the above is wrong. Yet, curiously, you still seem to disagree."
Click to expand...
bolding is mine

Another classic example of blind obedience to the NIST doctrine.

MM
 
 
leftysergeant said:
The walls moved and people sustained blunt-force trauma from being hit with pieces of the walls. Some people were burned. Their clothes were on fire in some cases.
Click to expand...
...and you found no surviver on B2 or B3. So we simply don't know if they had a trauma or were blown into pieces. Maybe the second including total incinerating because the pieces were not found or described or identified.

leftysergeant said:
Get a freaking clue how bombs work.
Click to expand...
I was trained to blow up bridges in the army. What do you know about bombs?

leftysergeant said:
They DO NOT, under any circumstances, coat people with a Class B fuel and set them on fire.
Click to expand...
They DO NOT, under any circumstances, coat people with a Class B fuel and forget the little trees. So nobody and nothing was coated. A badly burnt woman from the lobby was burnt without seeing any fire.

leftysergeant said:
If you are close enough to be burned by HE, you are close enough to become a meat smoothie. That freaking simple.
Click to expand...
And if you eat mushrooms you can poison yourself. That freaking simple but irrelevant.

leftysergeant said:
The injuries and structural damage done in the basement totally resembles that done by a phenomenon known to fire fighters as a "back-draft" in which hot gases, deprived of oxygen, collect in a confined space until oxygen is introduced, at which time it goes BOOM!
Click to expand...
That BOOM occurred within seconds after the impact below the cabins in the shafts. Without a proper answer how you get the fuel below the cabins your "back-draft" is irrelevant too.

leftysergeant said:
This is consistant with an ANFO bomb several floors down or a backdraft in the lobby.[/CODE]
It's consistent with almost all bombs several floors down.

leftysergeant said:
Note that the glass is not spread out greatly, indicating that the over-pressurization was not very great, unless some clean-up had already occurred before this shot was taken, in which case it is worthless for forensic purposes.
Click to expand...
No clean up but snow. The glass is the result of a bomb even if you know a lot of things that could damage a window. Therefore, the damage in the lobby on 9/11 is perfectly consistent with a bomb several floors down. And the trees in the lobby had never seen any spry of fuel. That's the way it is.

leftysergeant said:
Please note the amount of soot on the exterior of the building.
Click to expand...
There is none.
leftysergeant said:
This is an indication that it was taken some time after the event because there was once a great deal of smoke exiting from this area, but not when the photo was taken. I doubt that this picture has the slightest value in this discussion.
Click to expand...
This is indicating that you suffer some hallucination - some psychosomatically seeing things. Once again, the image was taken in 1993 and is 100% consistent with a bomb even if you see white elephants climbing up the wall.
leftysergeant said:
It is a little unclear what you are saying here.
Click to expand...
ditto
leftysergeant said:
The fuel would just go around elevator cars.
Click to expand...
...after it reached the cars first. The fuel would wash the cars but have to reach a proper air fuel ratio below the car (2 floors left below B1)
When the fuel explodes below the cabin it will badly burn and/or incinerate the people in the cabin before it will blow out the north west window in the lobby and above the cabin.

Doesn't take much more than a moronic IQ to figure that out.
q.e.d.
Click to expand...
 
beachnut said:
that which was to be demonstrated = proved you have idiotic delusions about 911 based on ignorance and fantasy

Your youtube videos are bad science; what is your degree in?

F.A.I.L.
Click to expand...
you totally failed about airplane speeds claiming to be a pilot.
q.e.d.

Edited. Do not change another member's user name in order to insult.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom