• 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.

Ed Moving On is coming.

My but he's polite, though!

That seems to be the only thing we have going, here. All the same old quote-mining, opinions, "seems to me's", .... ad infinitum.

If civility is the only thing we're achieving, and Russ threatens to leave every time anyone gets frustrated and lets slip a wee flame, then maybe this ought to be moved to the Miss Manners site.

I agree with the poster who said this is rather disappointing. Rather than evidence, we're getting quotes about quotes, and even those are often taken out of context. IMHO, this is boiling down to P.Dodiddy's argument that he has his opinion and you can't argue with it and no evidence is going to convince him.

To stay with the current train of thought - WTC 7 and "Pull It".....All of Russ's evidence on Silverstein really amounts to "Well it seems to me...". How many more kilograms of documentation (well, bits and bytes) is Gravy going to have to provide? I don't think there's a limit, frankly, 'cuz Mr. Pickering will simply be able to counter, "Yes, Gravy, I see the point in your 97th, 98th, and 99th documents, but I just think it's not logical in my opinion." No amount of evidence is going to counter opinion.

Further, that opinion is so entrenched, that it's not movable. It's like convincing me that Ben & Jerry's Cherries Garcia tastes better than Hagen Dazs coffee ice cream. You can't do it. I prefer the HD coffee.
 
Last edited:
Taunting and proclaiming disappointment is objective? One more time for those who are too busy to read and research this thread - those attempts at manipulation have ZERO impact on me and only serve to degrade the rational attempts to discuss this.

While I am reading the materials requested of me and studying, watch this film.

It is 1:09 long. I won't ask you to watch the whole thing since I imagine it would be uncomfortable for some of you. The quotes from the NIST report in particular.

But if you just go to about minute 45 and watch the WTC7 part it may contribute to a civil conversation when we get back around to that.

Two points:

1) It appears the collapse of building 7 didn't begin in the actual area of the structural damage?
2) The refusal to show building 7 clips in MSM as a general rule also caught my attention.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782&q=wtc7&hl=en

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
Taunting and proclaiming disappointment is objective? One more time for those who are too busy to read and research this thread - those attempts at manipulation have ZERO impact on me and only serve to degrade the rational attempts to discuss this.

While I am reading the materials requested of me and studying, watch this film.

It is 1:09 long. I won't ask you to watch the whole thing since I imagine it would be uncomfortable for some of you. The quotes from the NIST report in particular.

But if you just go to about minute 45 and watch the WTC7 part it may contribute to a civil conversation when we get back around to that.

Two points:

1) It appears the collapse of building 7 didn't begin in the actual area of the structural damage?
2) The refusal to show building 7 clips in MSM as a general rule also caught my attention.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782&q=wtc7&hl=en

Russell
Click to expand...

I've watched most of the video. Its just the same info repackaged with little to zero new research that I could find.


1) Correct. You might want to research why. I would also suggest you research Steven Jones FEMA quotes. (And his 2 papers for that matter.) Start e-mailing his sources. Read his news links. See what they say. Do some fact checking. Read the NIST reports.

Also watch the video again. Especially the part about the "pancake collapse" and the trusses not failing in NIST tests. Then read what NIST says about collapse inititation.
I hope you can do some basic research to find why this video is so poorly researched. I would also suggest e-mailing Barnett from FEMA.

Best Scott
 
Last edited:
And your point, Russell?
We're going to wait six hours and then you're going to say, yet again, "Well, it seems to me that it looks like CD"?

How's that? The other buildings shown in legitimate CD actually fall differently (one part goes down well ahead of the others, which also go in sections). WTC 7 doesn't look the same at all.

Not that the building falling more uniformly necessarily means anything. I don't pretend to have the answer to this. But it certainly seems to me that it was brought down by structural damage from the debris of WTC 1 and the fire that was burning inside for over seven hours.

Why is your "sems to me" more valid than mine? Because you can run videos? Your "evidence" is from CT sites, conspiracy blogs, and conspiracy press.

And we've seen it all before. Over and over. The smoking gun has not been forthcoming, not after the first scam artists and nutbars (Delmar Mike Vreeland comes to mind) nor after two versions of Loose Change and all the "Scholars" you can come up with.

But, at least it's a civil discussion.
 
OK. It seems like there is a logical fallacy here. It is that repetition is some indication of inaccuracy.

I have seen gravity discussed many, many, many times over in my life but every time I drop something it hits the ground.

So far my attempts to ignore it hasn't changed that fact.
 
Russell Pickering said:
OK. It seems like there is a logical fallacy here. It is that repetition is some indication of inaccuracy.

I have seen gravity discussed many, many, many times over in my life but every time I drop something it hits the ground.

So far my attempts to ignore it hasn't changed that fact.
Click to expand...


Yeah but you can continue trying to jump a tall building in a single bound as many times as you like and you're still gonna fail.

Unless you're superman....of course.
 
Foolmewunz,

Why is your "sems to me" more valid than mine?
Click to expand...

It absolutely is not. I don't know if you have followed this whole thread but I have stated several times that all I hope to achieve here is the mutual consent that neither the CT or the skeptic is dealing with irrefutable proof of any kind and therefore should not pretend to be.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
Foolmewunz,



It absolutely is not. I don't know if you have followed this whole thread but I have stated several times that all I hope to achieve here is the mutual consent that neither the CT or the skeptic is dealing with irrefutable proof of any kind and therefore should not pretend to be.

Russell
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there is any such thing as "irrefutable proof". There is evidence, but any evidence can be superceded by better evidence.

The evidence supporting the official version is much stronger than the evidence (if that is the correct word) supporting the conspiracy theory.

You may detect a bit of cynicism in my words, and that is there for a reason. I am as skeptical of the CT as I am of Sylvia Browne having psychic powers.

There is a saying: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Claiming that the U.S. government was behind 9/11 is most definitely an extraordinary claim. The evidence required to support such an idea goes well beyond quotes, and lines drawn on a picture.

I ask you, Russell, what would it take for you to accept the official version?

I ask myself what it would take for me to accept the CT version, and that is a hard question. A confession from the U.S. government would probably convince me, as long as I had no doubts about its veracity. Apart from that, I am not sure.

I just find this whole CT thing to be very odd. But that's just my opinion.
 
Kent,

1) Correct. You might want to research why. I would also suggest you research Steven Jones FEMA quotes. (And his 2 papers for that matter.) Start e-mailing his sources. Read his news links. See what they say. Do some fact checking. Read the NIST reports.
Click to expand...

Some of that professor level stuff just confounds me. I can refer to my firefighter experience though in some basic matters.

Like this for example. If you have a relatively small amount of fire 800 feet up in a building and then the building collapses extinguishing and breaking up the burning material in the fall ejecting it outward in all directions on the way down, and then you have 70 some stories worth of structural debris in between the basement and the debris that had been on fire, I do have to wonder how that could possibly have extended itself into the sub levels of the building and resulted in molten metal burning for weeks.

I did think about the whole fuel theory too. I guess we would have to know how much fuel was consumed in the impact. Then we would have to try and figure out how any portion of it remained pooled up enough to run down the center shaft. Also, if you were to try and create a continuous stream of fluid from the impact floors to the sub levels how many gallons would that take? If it caught fire then it would consume itself on the way down and would require more than our initial formula.

So we really would in my opinion have to have a pretty good amount of fuel that remained pooled and wasn't ignited or vaporized that found its way to the center shaft. Then my next question is would it have been able to flow past the fire shutters there? But if we were to forget all of that and just somehow imagine enough fuel from the aircraft did remain pooled and was in fact able to create an approximately 800 foot stream of fire trail to the basement, what did it ignite and why in all of the ground level video do we not see smoke or evidence of a basement fire in the lobby? And this happened twice??

I think it was in the movie I linked for the WTC7 section too that somebody was talking about the heat in the dust cloud chasing them down the street. I believe I have heard that a couple of times now. So I am trying to figure out now if you had a fire 800 feet up, and the building collapses and extinguishes the fires (which you can see in the footage) and the burning materials are broken up and ejected evenly outward on all four sides, where did the heat come from?

I mean all of the original heat was obviously rising - right? So all of the air in the building below the impact would be normal temperature - right? All of the materials in the building, the concrete and the steel would also be at near ambient temperature or maybe even a little cooler if the building was air conditioned - right? Obviously all of the air around the building would be whatever temperature it was that day. You can see when the building falls the air currents appear to draw some air down but mostly no matter what, all the air being pushed around is not heated by anything. It is just whatever temperature it was. Where did the heat come from?

It wasn't heat from the relatively small fires that had fallen 800 feet and been extinguished was it?

Explosives generate heat though.

But I only have a GED so I don't get to write papers and stuff.

Russell
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
Foolmewunz,



It absolutely is not. I don't know if you have followed this whole thread but I have stated several times that all I hope to achieve here is the mutual consent that neither the CT or the skeptic is dealing with irrefutable proof of any kind and therefore should not pretend to be.

Russell
Click to expand...

You will never get that. I know why the buildings fell down.
 
Garnos,

Understood and agreed.

I was a professional firefighter on 9/11. Many of those killed were my IAFF brothers. I wanted to blow everything up east of NY. I probably would have ripped the head off of somebody saying the things I believe now back then.

At that point I would have told you nothing will ever change my thinking. I read for a year or more and went through a painful conversion.

I would say now that nothing would take me back to the official story. But you never know and that is why I always try to stay current on this topic.

I went from being a no plane theorist at the Pentagon to now being a "government agent" for essentially piecing together the evidence that makes it hard to believe there wasn't one.

Life is a wild ride sometimes.

Russell
 
That's just it though Russell, all the evidence supports the "official" version.
There is absolutely no evidence for the CT version (beyond a bit of arse covering by desk jockeys), unless you want to believe people like Killtown, JDX and Alex Jones.
 
To Russell

I don't pretent to be a scientist but I do bring a first hand account to the table.

As many know on here, I worked for Salomon Smith Barney (Salomon first before the merger) for three years up until and including 9-11.

I worked for a group that was developing a global technology architecture for the firm that forced me to meet with many department heads on a daily basis. In other words, I was on most of our floors (28-44) and working 7 days week.

The fact is we were like sardines in that building even before the merger and it got worse after. They packed people in on all the floors. Two of the floors were also trading floors that required 24/7 coverage.

Here's the thing Ruseell. I NEVER saw anything that would be construed as a major constructon project in my time there. I would have noticed it since it would have been a major disruption on any of our floors. I always saw people on my floor whenever I was there. Be it a Monday or a Sunday, early or late. People were commonly working 80-90 hours a week. This was on all floors.

Here's my question. How the hell did they wire my building? Desks were back to back to each other, people working all the time and they are going to wire a building that would take 6-9 months (at least) to do without anyone noticing? Do you know what's involved in doing that?

Where are the interviews with all the SSB people from Dylan Avery or Steven Jones? We are anxious to talk. I think everyone on this board knows the answer. It won't help film or book sales.
 
Brainache said:
That's just it though Russell, all the evidence supports the "official" version.
There is absolutely no evidence for the CT version (beyond a bit of arse covering by desk jockeys), unless you want to believe people like Killtown, JDX and Alex Jones.
Click to expand...

Well then take a shot at explaining the fire extension to the basement and the heat in the dust cloud for us (above post).
 
Russell Pickering said:
Well then take a shot at explaining the fire extension to the basement and the heat in the dust cloud for us (above post).
Click to expand...

OK, I'm no engineer or Fire fighter, so make of this what you will:

When those jets crashed into the buildings they were shredded and the 10000 gallons or so of fuel they contained went everywhere. That includes pouring down the elevator shafts while it was burning. I presume there were elevators in the basement. Also there were a lot of cars in the basement carpark (I think).

Don't know much about heat in the dust cloud except that ashes from an office fire tend to be pretty hot.

I don't believe that the act of collapsing would have extinguished the fires. Obviously it didn't because they burned for months during the clean up. There was a six or seven storey high pile of wreckage insulating the fires which would have built up some pretty extreme heat.

I'm not going to supply thousands of links or documentation to back up my position, because they are all provided elsewhere on this forum.
 
NDBoston said:
I don't pretent to be a scientist but I do bring a first hand account to the table.

As many know on here, I worked for Salomon Smith Barney (Salomon first before the merger) for three years up until and including 9-11.

I worked for a group that was developing a global technology architecture for the firm that forced me to meet with many department heads on a daily basis. In other words, I was on most of our floors (28-44) and working 7 days week.

The fact is we were like sardines in that building even before the merger and it got worse after. They packed people in on all the floors. Two of the floors were also trading floors that required 24/7 coverage.

Here's the thing Ruseell. I NEVER saw anything that would be construed as a major constructon project in my time there. I would have noticed it since it would have been a major disruption on any of our floors. I always saw people on my floor whenever I was there. Be it a Monday or a Sunday, early or late. People were commonly working 80-90 hours a week. This was on all floors.

Here's my question. How the hell did they wire my building? Desks were back to back to each other, people working all the time and they are going to wire a building that would take 6-9 months (at least) to do without anyone noticing? Do you know what's involved in doing that?

Where are the interviews with all the SSB people from Dylan Avery or Steven Jones? We are anxious to talk. I think everyone on this board knows the answer. It won't help film or book sales.
Click to expand...

ND,

First of all I am sorry for what you have been through and respect that very much. I have no idea the mechanism. In the film I linked above they actually did address that fairly well and had some occupant testimony. I have wondered the same thing myself. It was towards the end of the film and answered some of my questions.

Now I will also ask your respect in a matter. Dylan is a very good friend of mine. I know his honesty level and the intentions he has fairly well. I spent several days with him in DC investigating the Pentagon. He is remaking many things based on that and will fairly represent what he learned. He is not after money as a primary goal. Yes - he wants to be a successful filmmaker but I assure you he exists on a plane much higher than that. He also sat right with me and listened to me bargain with Rumsfeld's personal historian. She wanted some of my materials and I offered to trade her right then for one uncompressed original analogue frame of the plane from the security video. I even asked her to take the offer to Rumsfeld with my name address and phone number. Dylan also listened to me negotiate with the NTSB for data proving the evidence of the plane. I told them it would go in a film and squash the conspiracy theories. Denied again.

I can assure you Dylan would have put all of that in the film no matter what the effect was on "ticket sales" and much of the new stuff may surprise you. Think of how you feel if a friend is bashed (and I'm not saying you were doing that) in your company. Dylan is a friend and I regard him highly.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
Like this for example. If you have a relatively small amount of fire 800 feet up in a building...
Click to expand...
How about this for example?


8790452f5ca811682.jpg



Please explain your comment, Russell.
​
 
Last edited:
Brainache,

I don't believe that the act of collapsing would have extinguished the fires. Obviously it didn't because they burned for months during the clean up.
Click to expand...

You can see the leap there.

You can also watch the collapse and the fire does not survive. Look at those forces. That burning material was snuffed and ejected for 800 feet.

Fire doesn't just run down an elevator shaft with fire shutters and hit the bottom and trickle across the garage floor igniting a car. Sorry. Where was the evidence at the street level or the lobby of a basement fire? Did firefighters report fires in the basement? No. They and others reported explosions in the sub levels.

Russell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom