Ghosts of the Firemen

Firestone said:
This is what NIST said:
NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
(bolding mine)
Click to expand...

No wait... let me bold for a minute:

NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Okay... maybe this is similar to, "NIST also is considering whether hypothetical trusses sagging could have played a role in initiating the collapse," since it's only a theory... with no physical or scientific evidence.

It doesn't matter if you all say fires can make trusses sag... I can say explosives can make walls explode... and I have video footage of walls exploding... does that mean it's not a theory and a proven fact?

Just using yer own dementia against you.
 
Last edited:
maccy said:
Hooray! I'm on ignore! More cowardice from 28th!

If he could read this, he could respond to me pointing out that NIST only considering hypothetical blast scenarios for WTC7 to demonstrate what would have happened to the building in these hypothetical cases. By showing that the building did not behave in the way indicated by the blast hypotheses they will provide evidence that controlled demolition did not occur. In other words, they're doing it in an effort it get idiots like Alex Jones and 28th Kingdom to shut up.

Even if he could read this, I'm sure 28th wouldn't respond on this point - it's too challenging.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, maccy! I'm still working on getting on the list :(

 
28th Kingdom said:
Didn't I say Alex said NIST thinks bombs may have been used? It is in reference to WTC 7... and the fact that NIST is now considering explosives into their investigation. YES, that MEANS they think bombs may have been used.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait wait --

Before NIST said there was no evidence of explosives. You guys went totally ape, like that was a surprise, and said "NIST needs to investigate ALL hypotheses!!"

Now NIST is considering a hypothetical explosives scenario, and now you're going totally ape again, apparently unable to moderate your metabolism, saying "See?? Even NIST admits explosives were possible!!"

Boy, are you stupid.

The reason NIST is evaluating explosives, the real reason, has nothing to do with what we saw on Sept. 11th. As NIST already said, there is no evidence whatsoever for explosives anywhere in any of the buildings damaged or destroyed.

The reason NIST is doing this is because they are examining structural code in light of what happened -- and attempting to quantify what could happen, should someone try to blow up a building in the future. We saw bigger buildings collapse than ever before, and we've learned things that are only really available through experiment -- an experiment that was too costly and risky to conduct. We have new experience. NIST is now accepting that building bombings are something that terrorists might do in the future, and therefore trying to apply our new experience in that direction.

Perfectly reasonable, wouldn't you agree?
 
Surely if WTC7 was CD then NIST wouldn't have been honest as said (I paraphrase) "phew, toughie, not quite so sure about this one"?

Or is that too obvious for the Troofers?
 
28th Kingdom said:
:words:

Okay... maybe this is similar to, "hypothetical trusses sagging could have played a role in initiating the collapse," since it's only a theory... with no physical or scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
The physical and scientific evidence is overwhelming. You simply put it on ignore. :)

28th Kingdom said:
It doesn't matter if you all say fires can make trusses sag... I can say explosives can make walls explode... and I have video footage of walls exploding... does that mean it's not a theory and a proven fact?
Click to expand...
There is zero evidence for explosives. It's as simple as that, you know.

28th Kingdom said:
Just using yer own dementia against you.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem posts are never a good sign, dear 28th Kingdom. :)
 
Can I Get Some Help, Guys?

I posted the following on 911blogger.com:

Invitation to Jon Gold
[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]

Jon, A few of us are going to visit firehouses with "Ghosts of the Firemen." We intend to preserve their reactions on video. I invite you to accompany us in a joint Rationalist-and-Fantasist project. You can explain why you promote your pernicious myths and we will record the level of support you have won.
Do we have a deal?
 
R. Mackey, I have talked with Mike Newman of NIST several times. Everything you wrote in your post is correct.
 
Firestone said:
The physical and scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Click to expand...

Really, just give me a couple pieces of evidence that prove the trusses actually sagged. What proof do you have besides conjecture and theory? Please, indulge me. I want physical and scientific evidence.

There is zero evidence for explosives. It's as simple as that, you know.
Click to expand...
Tell me what would be considered evidence of explosives. Please, I want to know... so that I can go get it for you.

Are you going to address these points, or will you decide to make a joke, and avoid them... you know... given the fact that I have effectively trapped you under a steaming pile of yer own B.S.
 
28th Kingdom " Side Note: Maccy, yer on ignore... I don't put up with tyranny... isn't that obvious by now?"

28k you don't just put up with Tyranny you fantasize about it. Nothing gets you hotter than imagining hiding out from FEMA death squads with your band of rebels - suddenly you're an outsider and somehow significant. Even though you benefit from freedoms that people entirely unlike you have fought to achieve and preserve, you prefer to roll over in front of things like the Patriot Act, inflate them into a private masturbatory dictatorship and auto-erotically whine about them on internet message boards. You'll claim that you're taking the high-road with your conspiracy delusions while all those schmucks in the ACLU are idiots for actually engaging in the political process and attempting to address the serious issues of personal liberty versus collective security. In reality, you want to feel persecuted: so you'll never get involved in a campaign that might achieve something - especially as the ideals of a campaign are always tempered by the reality of the world and so real political activists have to accept failure and still keep fighting. Only unrealised fantasies remain unsullied - but they are the ultimate failure because they also remain unfulfilled. Luckily, not everybody is as spineless and solipsistic as you, and so liberty remains largely intact and vigourously fought for always, requiring you to fantasize all the harder. I suppose this is the only way you can preserve your self-importance; you'd be happier if you let the ego go, I should think, but I doubt you'll ever realise this.

LashL: feel free to quote this for 28th's benefit and to elaborate on its themes, if that doesn't get you ignored I'm not sure what will. Suggested insult: lickspittle.
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
Really, just give me a couple pieces of evidence that prove the trusses actually sagged. What proof do you have besides conjecture and theory? Please, indulge me. I want physical and scientific evidence.
Click to expand...


No you don't. You can't handle the truth! You put the truth on ignore!!


You're a fraud and coward.
 
28th Kingdom said:
They're (NIST) gonna say explosives were used... and then yer minds will proceed to implode on themselves.
Click to expand...

Is that right? But wait, I thought NIST was in on all this? Or is that just another contradicting claim made by the CTs?
 
Very well put Maccy. You hit it right on the money. Even though he abuses the right to free speech that so many people have fought and died for, I will still go to whatever part of the world to defend his right to say such ridiculous things. You are lucky 28th, go to North Korea and accuse their government of conspiracies. See how long your head stays attached to your neck.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Tell me what would be considered evidence of explosives. Please, I want to know... so that I can go get it for you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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...
 
28th Kingdom said:
Really, just give me a couple pieces of evidence that prove the trusses actually sagged. What proof do you have besides conjecture and theory? Please, indulge me. I want physical and scientific evidence.
Click to expand...
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).

28th Kingdom said:
Tell me what would be considered evidence of explosives. Please, I want to know... so that I can go get it for you.
Click to expand...
I've been told that explosives leave traces that the forensic scientists can detect. I also believe that explosives would leave traces in the dust.
Explosives also make some noise, I think.
The hypothetical therm?te cutters should also leave traces.

Now go and find the evidence, will you?

ETA: see what A W Smith wrote.

28th Kingdom said:
Are you going to address these points, or will you decide to make a joke, and avoid them... you know... given the fact that I have effectively trapped you under a steaming pile of yer own B.S.
Click to expand...
:)

You've fled from each and every thread where you were confronted with questions.
You've posted many claims, made outrageous accusations, mocked victims. When will you prove your claims, retract your baseless accusations and apologize for making fun of Mark Bingham?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom