Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[RedIbis]

No, I was not in the building, but I do know that people had searched the building to verify that it was empty. That is a firefighing operation.

"Firefighting was not started in the building" is a quote from NIST you are going to have to live with. If you have an argument with this, it's with NIST not me.

 

[johnny karate]

Obviously there is a misapprehension to clear up when someone says this...

Shocking that you wouldn't address this mistake.

Within the context of the discussion, it was clear what DGM meant.

Now, if you're through correcting grammatical errors, care to tell us what lie it was that Silverstein told?

 

[triforcharity]

I didn't say that Red. If you look back, you will see that I agreed with you.

I agree that we did not put the wet stuff on the hot stuff. But, you seem to be under the impression that we were not in the area at all. Which, is absolutely false. When Nigro said that he pulled them back, who do you think that he was talking about?

 

[RedIbis]

I didn't say that Red. If you look back, you will see that I agreed with you.

I agree that we did not put the wet stuff on the hot stuff. But, you seem to be under the impression that we were not in the area at all.

Who the hell said that??

 

[johnny karate]

So we all agree there were firefighters in the vicinity of WTC7?

Good. Let's move on.

Red, what lie did Silverstein tell?

 

[DGM]

Shocking that you wouldn't address this mistake.

Not really considering "firefighting efforts" can encompass a large array of activities.

So is this all about semantics or do you usually say someones "lying through their dentures" with no evidence at all?

Remember NIST did not say "firefighting efforts".

 

[A W Smith]

Dont bother even thinking of fighting the fire at this point, pull back

perhaps Larry was suggesting the FDNY could stop collecting 8ll Smith's fire extinguishers from all the surrounding buildings now.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

[derail]I just noticed is that Picasso's Guernica in Red's avatar?[/derail]

 

[BasqueArch]

[derail]I just noticed is that Picasso's Guernica in Red's avatar?[/derail]

Yes. The painting depicts the murder and suffering of civilians by the Nazi terrorists bombing of the Basque town of Guernica in the 30s.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

Disgusting debasement of a painting meant to defend the innocent.

 

[carlitos]

I'm just skimming, but is he ever going to say what Silverstein "lied" about?

 

[triforcharity]

Doubtfull.

I have even had an exchange of PM's with him.

He claims that there are discrepencies in my accounts that don't fit with the known events of 9/11. I have asked him to point them out, and he rambles on about this and that, never actually making much sense.

 

[RedIbis]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

Seriously, shut the hell up with that nonsense. If you think I'm a "traitor" which is a very actionable offense, contact the mods who have my personal info, and then you can contact the appropriate authorities.

Otherwise, keep that childish crap out of these discussions.

 

[RedIbis]

Doubtfull.

I have even had an exchange of PM's with him.

He claims that there are discrepencies in my accounts that don't fit with the known events of 9/11. I have asked him to point them out, and he rambles on about this and that, never actually making much sense.

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.

 

[johnny karate]

Now that RedIbis has done his scolding and gotten all that righteous indignation out of his system, maybe he'd be willing to get back on topic.

Red, what lie did Silverstein tell?

 

[funk de fino]

A proven liar tries to claim Silverstein is a liar and uses a lie to try and back up his claims.

Doesn't get any better than that!! The guy has a brass neck.

 

[tfk]

Now Basque,

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

Red has the right to speak his mind on this issue.

And he is, by the legal definition of the term, not a traitor for saying anything whatsoever. No matter how heinous.

Seriously, shut the hell up with that nonsense. If you think I'm a "traitor" which is a very actionable offense, contact the mods who have my personal info, and then you can contact the appropriate authorities.

Now Red,

Basque has just as much right to speak his mind regarding HIS interpretation of your loyalty to this country.

Why is it that you guys (truthers) are ever-so-cognizant of your own right to free speech, but seem to suffer a raging and selective case of amnesia when it comes to everyone else's right to free speech?

In every rational society, there are consequences to the things that you do AND SAY.

In our enlightened society, we do not include incarceration for saying anything. That does NOT mean that the constitution has banned all consequences. That does not mean that the right to free speech immunizes you from the emotional & rational backlash that may result from the things that you say.

If someone says something massively stupid, other members of a rational society should respond vehemently. They are - in an ideal world - OBLIGATED to respond vehemently. Otherwise, how is society ever going to weed out the stupid.

Now, thoughtful people will speak out against the stupid THING that was said. Not the stupid person who said it. After all, there are lots of reasons that someone might say something stupid. Usually "youth & hormones" play a sizable role. For the folk operating under the influence of those particular drugs, a certain amount of forbearance is appropriate. (We've all been there. Most have grown out of it.)

But what is a reasonable society supposed to do with someone who says something really stupid, has the specific reason that it is stupid explained to him 5x, 10x, 100x. And yet continues to say the same stupid thing over & over & over. Fer crissakes, Red, there are impressionable CHILDREN around...

We HAVE to set a good example for them. And, as we all agree, incarceration is not appropriate for "speaking stupid".

Our only choice is "pointing fingers & laughing". And "exercising our 1st Amendment right to speak our mind regarding the stupid". AND exercising our 1st Amendment right to speak our minds about the motives of the 'speaker of the stupid'.

You see, all topics are protected under the 1st amendment. Including that 2nd one in the previous paragraph.

And I think that I'll exercise my rights right now.

I agree with Basque. I think that you're a traitor too. Not, of course, in the legal sense. (While some might reasonably argue that your comments meet the requirements of "giving solace & comfort to the enemy", if that phrase is even in any statute, I wouldn't agree with it.)

But the common usage definition of terms is VASTLY more important than the "legal definition". Everywhere but in a court room.

And, while I would not use that term for anyone, of any age, that was coming to these issues for the first time, who was really unsure of the issues, I have run out of patience & excuses for people like you. Who have been at this for years. Who have seen one issue after another, after another rise up like some monster, only to have the issue evaporate under the slightest scrutiny.

And who continue to publish demonstrated lies.

Accusatorial lies of murder, treason & collusion with zero basis. Other than their "feelings".

Against the police. Against the fire fighters. Against the 1st responders. Against the engineers & scientists at NIST. Against the industry & academic engineers who contributed to NIST and the couple hundred other reports that support NIST. Against the military. Against the FBI/CIA/NSA, etc. etc. etc. Against the government. And against their fellow citizens.

Because, guess what, Red, all of those people are "the US". And so are the dissenters and the truthers.

There are lots of people living in the US who hate the US, Red. That's nothing new. They are not attempting to fix anything with their screeds. They are simply venting their angst, frustration and ... (100 other reasons).

The Young&Stupid will mostly grow out of it. I don't consider them to traitors.
The ones that don't grow out of it? The ones that continue to spout baseless lies against all those other honorable US citizens?

Yeah, I consider them to be traitors to the US.

In the non-legal definition of the word, of course.

Now, if you think my expression of my opinion on that matter is "actionable", have your lawyer get in touch with me thru a JREF pm.

Otherwise, keep that childish crap out of these discussions.

"Childish crap" like the accusations against all those people mentioned above?


Tom

 

[DavidJames]

tfk:

The only real issue I have with your post is you don't appear to consider the persons mental health. I suppose you could say they could be "charged" as traitors but the "sentence" could consider their mental health. In which case I'm cool. In Red's case, I really don't think he understands the implications of his words. As for why, I'm not a psychologist.

Otherwise nice post and it reflects a lot of my feelings as well.

 

[tfk]

Hey Dave,

Yeah, there's a lot of detail that you miss when you paint with a 3' wide brush.

I agree that there are also folks for whom things just didn't wire up quite right. To me, the utterly astonishing thing is that brains wire up, well, at least functional if not "right", as often as they do.

Happy New Year to you & yours.


Tom

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I tend to agree that if somebody's trying to tell me they think something is wrong, they should at least explain what they think is wrong. Otherwise the exchange goes absolutely nowhere. I assume RI believes us all to be clairvoyants concerning what 'lies' Silverstein pushed... If only the world were so simple that we could read the minds of vague people...

Not exactly meant to be offensive for singling the guy out, but seriously people with that methodology of discussion seem to think people can automatically guess things, and then they complain when they think they were misunderstood. :\

 

[Orphia Nay]

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

After he'd posted this:

Don't see anything there about the central core. Only the sagging of floor trusses and the bowing of the external columns.
So the central core had no bearing on the behavior of the building during the fall?

ETA: If the core connections failed so utterly, how did the fall of the building result in pulling down the entire core?
If the CONNECTIONS were where the floors support to the core failed, then how did the falling floors pull the core to the ground?

And if the connections DIDN'T fail, why no 'toppling' effect, caused by the torque of the floors pulling at the core. There would be some twisting unless the weight of each floor was identical. This would be hard to argue given the extent of damage on the impacted floors.

Does the NIST say the the fall was so perfectly symmetrical that no torque was present?

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:

Is there one about what happened to the core during this part of the event?

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.