Ghosts of the Firemen

A W Smith said:
Detonation hardware.
det cord or, surviving components of the radio receivers for the charges.
chemical residue adjacent to the cuts on the steel.
NOT slag which is just torch residue.
An acceptable "rigging" time line and charge count.
multiple symmetrical floor by floor display of what you call "squibs",
not just random puffs stories below.
witness to the detonation "trigger man" or the trigger man them self.
Click to expand...

Wait... where's the evidence that trusses sagged... You got to be fair... please name those too, and then I will actually be impressed for the first time.
 
Oh, someone's getting narky! :D

28th Kingdom said:
Yea... someone go rain on Architect's parade, by telling him it doesn't matter if fire can make trusses sag... it's such a moot point. So, will this guy shut up now? I can say... explosives can make walls go bangy... so how do you have any more proof than me?

I don't know if fires can make trusses sag... maybe they can - I don't think I have ever denied that... or even addressed it... given that fact that it's besides the point.
Click to expand...

Because you don't have any proof. :confused:

Anyway YOU were the one that said the trusses couldn't make the trusses fail. Am I to assume that you now conceed that you were wrong?


Question: Where are NIST's calculations that show how the connections holding the trusses to the outer columns were strong enough to bow those huge steel columns without breaking? Certainly the trusses wouldn't break away from the outer columns before bowing these massive pieces of steel. Certainly not...
Click to expand...

Does your understanding of structures know no beginning?

How do you explain the photgraphs of the deflection then?


Fraud. Coward!
 
pomeroo said:
Hey, 28IQ, some of us missed your explanation of how the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy was able to place their explosives so precisely. I mean, the EXACT floors hit by the planes?! Tell us again why the collapses began at the impact floors.
Click to expand...

Dude, I've already addressed this... explosives could have been on every floor...notice that the walls started exploding right below the impact floors.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

You cut the core columns first...which would make the upper mass come falling down... then you initiate the downward sequence of explosives... starting right below the impact floors.

It's the ole Bingo Bango... oldest trick in the book - they stole it from the Egyptians, man.
 
OK 28 you never answered this. how many charges per floor then? how many ounces or pounds per charge? a time line for planting charges in a building with 97% occupancy. and don't even go there with the bogus claim that Tennant's were leap frogged around the operation. That wont work. offices have infrastructure that they are unwilling to uproot simply to move to another floor. The only time that would occur would be end of lease up sizing or downsizing. They wont move on lease renewal. Too costly.
 
Firestone said:
You've been given the evidence many times in a number of threads. You put the people who gave the evidence on Ignore because you didn't like it.
Maybe you should go back to the threads you fled from and start addressing the evidence (and prove your own claims).
Click to expand...

So predictable... maybe you don't realize, that everyone keeps saying they don't have to present evidence for their theory... the burden of proof is on us. That, or they point to the NIST as scientific proof and evidence... when the NIST is just a piece of paper with a theory written on it. How is a theory scientific evidence?

How does proving that fire can sag trusses (which NIST failed to do in all of their real experiments) provide scientific evidence, that is what happened on 9/11?

I can prove explosives can blow up walls... and take down steel-structured high-rises... so don't I have just as much evidence as NIST?
 
Hey, 28IQ, You addressed it with utter gibberish. Can you possibly be as stupid as you sound? How do you manage to feed yourself or cross a street without getting killed?

Explosives on EVERY floor? Yeah, that'll fly. Cut the core columns? In other words, make it appear as though a plane crashed into the building.

Now, that's brilliant! The Impossibly Vast Conspiracy should have thought of that and saved the Boeing Corporation a couple of their aircraft.

You are a hopeless fool.
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
OK 28 you never answered this. how manyhow many ounces or pounds per charge? a time line for planting charges in a building with 97% occupancy. and don't even go there with the bogus claim that Tennant's were leap frogged around the operation. That wont work. offices have infrastructure that they are unwilling to uproot simply to move to another floor. The only time that would occur would be end of lease up sizing or downsizing. They wont move on lease renewal. Too costly. Is this scientific fact or speculation? 28IQ
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on reducing the debate down into a game of speculation? What are you gonna do with the information I give you? If I say 3,000 pounds of explosives were needed... what does that do for you? Are you saying that explosives couldn't have brought down the towers? Are you saying that there aren't enough explosives in the world to bring down the towers?

Or do you intend to debunk by speculation i.e. well, you couldn't get that many explosives in the buildings without someone noticing. Of, course not... because people are constantly looking for explosives... I mean, I know I do it almost everyday... if only I had some x-ray vision so that I could see through trucks and walls... than maybe I would have more success.

Read this, and maybe you will understand what you're trying to do:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2231931#post2231931
 
28th Kingdom said:
Dude, I've already addressed this... explosives could have been on every floor...notice that the walls started exploding right below the impact floors.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

You cut the core columns first...which would make the upper mass come falling down... then you initiate the downward sequence of explosives... starting right below the impact floors.

It's the ole Bingo Bango... oldest trick in the book - they stole it from the Egyptians, man.
Click to expand...

You have to be the least factual person on the planet.

You start with thermite, now you have explosives set on each floor.

What will be next?
 
you can speculate all you want 28th. evidence doesnt' support any speculation you have.

You make a claim, you must prove it. So please provide evidence that explosives were found.
 
28th Kingdom said:
YES THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS... if they didn't think bombs may have been used THAN THEY WOULDN'T investigate it.

It doesn't mean they believe bombs were used... THEY ARE SAYING they think it's possible that bombs may have been used.
Click to expand...

This is part of the problem with writing things as government employees/contractors. We're required to be polite. His entire argument is made possible because NIST isn't allowed to come out and say, "We're really only doing this so we can make a bunch of idiots finally shut the hell up about 9/11 "CD" nonsense, so piss off wankers".

Really, we need to pass a law to let them say things like that.......

28th Kingdom said:
Side Note: Maccy, yer on ignore... I don't put up with tyranny... isn't that obvious by now?
Click to expand...

When did quoting other people on a message board become "tyranny"? People who lived under the Nazis would laugh in his face, if they saw that. Anyone know any such people, who would be willing to post here?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Why do you insist on reducing the debate down into a game of speculation? What are you gonna do with the information I give you? If I say 3,000 pounds of explosives were needed... what does that do for you? Are you saying that explosives couldn't have brought down the towers? Are you saying that there aren't enough explosives in the world to bring down the towers?

Or do you intend to debunk by speculation i.e. well, you couldn't get that many explosives in the buildings without someone noticing. Of, course not... because people are constantly looking for explosives... I mean, I know I do it almost everyday... if only I had some x-ray vision so that I could see through trucks and walls... than maybe I would have more success.

Read this, and maybe you will understand what you're trying to do:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2231931#post2231931
Click to expand...

You have no clue so you start talking about left and right brain.

Your double think died, your thermited died.

Too bad you CT guys have not found any facts.
 
And the bomb sniffing dogs that were in the building weeks previous to 911 didn't catch a single ounce of explosive? Did they have nose plugs and their jaws wired shut? it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to covertly plant any amount of explosives in such a building that could bring it down without Tennant or security detection IMPOSSIBLE!! it is YOU who are wildly speculating. You suffer from a learning disability called Right Brain syndrome. aside from your delusional wild speculation you are completely absent of hard evidence. PROVE it. Let me tell you ignoring dozens of members here does not help your case at all and reveals you as a fool.
 
28th Kingdom said:
You are right about that... NIST claimed the buildings wouldn't have collapsed from the impact damage and/or the ensuing fires without the dislodged fireproofing from the plane impacts.

No plane impacts on WTC 7. I don't care how bad the damage was, it couldn't have been worse than what the plane impacts did to the WTCs, especially since I haven't seen one straight on clear shot of any major damage to WTC 7 - you'd think that with the world's media recording every square inch of that scene, that we'd be able to find lots of great photographs and/or video footage of this massive 10 story hole.

Also... it doesn't matter how big the fires were in WTC 7, cus all of the fireproofing couldn't have been dislodged from falling debris on the outside of the building. Which means... that NIST is screwed on this one.

They're (NIST) gonna say explosives were used... and then yer minds will proceed to implode on themselves.

P.S. I was listening to Alex Jones' radio show the other day and he says that NIST is now saying they think bombs may have been used. He wouldn't say that without a source. I mean, it would be really easy to prove him wrong, since his claim is pretty direct and unambiguous. You guys/gals might want to check around and see if anyone from NIST said something like this recently.
Click to expand...

Finally; you are an Alex Jones clone. You are an Alex Jones liar guy.

Alex Jones said it, means it is junk.

Dolt, fire can still make buildings fall, but when the fireproofing is blown off, the building fails sooner.

But with tons of fuel in WTC7 and burning all day, it finally failed.

Parts of WTC5/6 fell due to fire. You must try harder to research 9/11 and other subjects.

Based on all your statements and posts, you are just a dolt talking about junk and passing on lies. You are short on facts.
 
pomeroo said:
Hey, 28IQ, You addressed it with utter gibberish. Can you possibly be as stupid as you sound? How do you manage to feed yourself or cross a street without getting killed?

Explosives on EVERY floor? Yeah, that'll fly. Cut the core columns? In other words, make it appear as though a plane crashed into the building.
Click to expand...

Make it appear as though a plane crashed into the building. What does that mean? Where did I say that? Where did I say that a plane didn't hit the building? Why can't explosives be on every floor? Why can't core columns be cut?

Also... do you think they wanted it to look like a controlled demolition? People only reference a CD, because that is the closet thing to what happened on 9/11 i.e. explosives being used to bring down tall buildings. When Peter Jennings... says that it looked like a controlled demolition.... well that's because the only other time we have seen images like this (tall buildings collapsing to the ground) is when an old building is CD.

These buildings weren't CD... they were demolished, but in a very crafty way... that made it look like the buildings collapsed due to the plane impact. Obviously, they couldn't have just pulled the bottom floors first, because that would look too suspicious.

That's what makes WTC 7 so compelling... because they did pull it more like a traditional CD, where all the floors fell together.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Or do you intend to debunk by speculation i.e. well, you couldn't get that many explosives in the buildings without someone noticing. Of, course not... because people are constantly looking for explosives... I mean, I know I do it almost everyday... if only I had some x-ray vision so that I could see through trucks and walls... than maybe I would have more success.
Click to expand...

If by "people" we allow for police and security teams with bomb-sniffing dogs, then yes, there were a lot of people there specifically looking for explosives. No speculation, pure fact.

And while other people might not notice bombs, they would notice new construction, new paint, new wallpaper, moved furniture, and new carpets. Unless you have some sort of Star Trek Phase Device that can make things pass through walls......
 
28th Kingdom said:
Why can't explosives be on every floor? Why can't core columns be cut?
Click to expand...

Please explain how this could be done, in three working office buildings, simultaneously, covertly.

Also... do you think they wanted it to look like a controlled demolition? People only reference a CD, because that is the closet thing to what happened on 9/11 i.e. explosives being used to bring down tall buildings. When Peter Jennings... says that it looked like a controlled demolition.... well that's because the only other time we have seen images like this (tall buildings collapsing to the ground) is when an old building is CD.
Click to expand...

Did you ever see a building collapse before that wasn't a controlled demolition? People's referrence for buildings falling down all are based on the footage of controlled demolitions.

These buildings weren't CD... they were demolished, but in a very crafty way...
Click to expand...

Idiocy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom