Russell Pickering and 9/11

Russell Pickering said:
No - I believe a plane hit the Pentagon now.

A plane?

A plane?

Does everyone notice how he doesn't say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Russell's hatred of the government is blinding him to the evidence. As he equates the debunking of 9/11 CTs with being pro-government and he hates the government for the Afghanistan/Iraq wars...well, do the math. It's okay to debunk a 9/11 CT as long as you have an alternate 9/11 CT. If you debunk the CT and leave the 'official story' in its place, you're supporting the mass murderers in the gub'mint.
 
Here's a photo from Steve Spak I helped uncover. Then I sent it to NIST.
While NIST had many photos from Spak, they did not happen too have many of the south side, nor do I believe did they have one of such detail.
(New photos have been uncovered since, I haven't seen those)
Here is the photo, cropped
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
The full photo is at Spaks site
http://www.stevespak.com/spak/slideshows.html
(UNSEEN PHOTOS FROM MY NEGATIVES TAKEN ON 9-11-01)

There will be some changes to this page forthcoming.
The floor numbering is off by a bit on the website.
Also there was more damage to the corner area that NIST has. The center damage is unknown exactly, however I'm guessing 10 stories is a hair high for the center damage. Although Steve has confermed with me that there was more damage on the lower floors that is not visible in his picture. Honestly it's difficult to tell exactly.

Here is a CT article. (They have a good point on the floor numbering)
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/
Yeah, I could see their assessment of the damage to the southwest corner was way off on that diagram that's why I said I wasn't referring to the southwest corner in my last post. I'm sure we'll find out when they complete their investigation, maybe the do have more photos of the south face that show the damage more clearly. As I say though they are very specific in their description of the damage (to the south face), maybe it was taken from the damage assessment made by the fire-fighters on the day.
 
Yeah, I could see their assessment of the damage to the southwest corner was way off on that diagram that's why I said I wasn't referring to the southwest corner in my last post. I'm sure we'll find out when they complete their investigation, maybe the do have more photos of the south face that show the damage more clearly. As I say though they are very specific in their description of the damage (to the south face), maybe it was taken from the damage assessment made by the fire-fighters on the day.

I agree that they state very specific info. I'm sure more info will come up supporting more damage. Especially regarding the elevators cars.
 
Last edited:
I let Bill speak on this one, "No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."
Russell, this has been pointed out to you before. The above quote is from January 2002, before the NIST was given the task of studying the collapses. The NIST study was exactly the kind of study Manning was calling for, and he has not said one thing questioning NIST or ever even hinted that he is unsatisfied w/ their work.

The fact that you brought this up again, after this has been pointed out to you, shows you to be dishonest. First time can be a mistake, second time you get no relief from being branded a liar.

Spin away, Russell...
 
A plane?

A plane?

Does everyone notice how he doesn't say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Russell's hatred of the government is blinding him to the evidence. As he equates the debunking of 9/11 CTs with being pro-government and he hates the government for the Afghanistan/Iraq wars...well, do the math. It's okay to debunk a 9/11 CT as long as you have an alternate 9/11 CT. If you debunk the CT and leave the 'official story' in its place, you're supporting the mass murderers in the gub'mint.

This is the thing.

I personally have never agreed with the Iraq war. I honestly find it appalling from which ever angle you care to look at from. The death toll, the destruction of this country and the absolute fortune it as cost. This is my opinion; I have formed this opinion on the hard facts that have been made available from the media. I really am no supporter of Blair’s stand on this, or Bushes for that matter. Yet because I will not believe that secret death squads inside the US did not plant explosives inside the WTC I somehow support it all. The cter mindset is so simple and it is basically that of what they opposes.

“If you are not with us, you are against us"

this thought is extended to every single opinion you seem to have on any single issue. It is though people are blissfully unaware of everything that is wrong in this world and only the cter with his /her wondrous insight can lead the way.

The NWO that they keep harping on about is simply throwing together as many failing of the US administration they can, packing it all in one box and there you have it. The mindset whereby a US administration so hell bend on the NWO they would knowing engineer 911, carry it out and cover it all up in some sinister George Orwellian style plot.

This plot simply falls apart and has done recently in the mid term elections inside the US. Bush got absolutely hammered, Rumford resigned. The main reason, the war in Iraq. Surely big brother would never have allowed this to happen, they would have made sure the populace was never given the chance to voice this level of discontent. They would have engineered it all to carry on the war and not only that make sure everybody was aware that it was going well and great victories were at hand.

A Government capable of pulling off 911. Planting explosives inside the World Trade centre, shooting down Flight 93, flying a remotely controlled plane into the Pentagon. An evil government doing so to bring about the NWO which involves the deaths of thousands of innocent people, yet they allow themselves to be slaughtered in something as mundane as midterm elections.

It makes no sense to me.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing to me how some folks are completely dumbfounded by the fact one can at the same time dislike Bush and his politics intensely, yet not believe, based on the evidence, that he is guilty of mass murder.

It's almost like we are expected to think he is either a god, or he is an evil mass murderer. Nothing in between,


yes, its funny. I get called a "GWB" lackey on other forums where I help debunk much of the crazed theories when I never vote republican and I dont like GWB.

Oddly, I didn't vote in the last presidential election...
 
A Government capable of pulling off 911. Planting explosives inside the World Trade centre, shooting down Flight 93, flying a remotely controlled plane into the Pentagon. An evil government doing so to bring about the NWO which involves the deaths of thousands of innocent people, yet they allow themselves to be slaughtered in something as mundane as midterm elections.

It makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense to you because you're thinking logically. The CT mindset doesn't think that way. Nancy Pelosi said impeaching Bush was not an option. So what are the CTers thinking? Where was Nancy Pelosi on 9/11?
 
You have to remember you are in the category of only 13% of Americans who don't question it. 86% of us are conscious and not fascist in our position on the government.

If everybody was in the 13% maybe we would have nationalized ID cards by now in addition to the travel police, consolidation of intelligence agencies, the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, "Domestic Survellience", neo con domination of space and the Internet as well as a war on a culture of people that has multiplied the number of actual terrorists by thousands and thousands.

Oh wait..........we do have a national ID card coming in May of 2008.

Blind patriotatism is NOT patriotism. You should read the Constitution.


Alex Jones? Is that you?


ETA: I find it comically disturbing when you implore others to think for themselves while regurgitating this tripe.
 
Last edited:
What other way could they get the American people behind it? Remember they needed emotional support. Not false WMD and a false link of 9/11 and Saddam.
Um, it seemed to work pretty well for them! :rolleyes:

Since they were inventing terrorists, why not make them Iraqi? Would've shortened that whole annoying "Congress must approve" step, doncha think?

Prove their is no infinite being!
And you're [sic] point is, that we can never disprove your CT because one can never prove a negative?

Despite what you seem to think, this does not put you in a secure position, logically.
 
Spins said:
Spins said:
Russell Pickering said:
Collapse and debris zones are set up for any working high rise fire.
True, but many of the fire-fighters on the scene were sure a collapse was imminent...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2078298#post2078298

...gravy has bolded the text, is that not correct in your opinion?
Do you not want to answer this question, if so why?
BUMP, I'm still waiting Russell.
 
Bump for Russell. Many legitimate questions to be answered, truthseeker.
 
Bump for Russell. Many legitimate questions to be answered, truthseeker.

Please refer to NIST who did not quote the firefighters or rely on their reports for what and how many floors of that building were involved in fire or what the nature or cause of the collapse were.

They are the people you need to talk with about that. Just be patient though - hopefully it won't be another five years!

http://www.nist.gov/
 
Here is the basic fallacy of your tactic. You cannot "catch" somebody in a lie that doesn't lie. It is that simple.

I can swear under oath or take a lie detector test at any time about any aspect of my life and have zero stress. I have never once sat here and typed anything with the intent to deceive. Never, not once.

I operate in my own name 100% open to anything. Every factual challenge about myself has been responded to with documentation and the ability for you to verify it.

What I have presented about my beliefs and opinions regarding 9/11 have had many factual errors that have been corrected at various stages, or in the case of my website will be corrected when I get done with this phase of research (which by the way you have helped with immensely and guaranteed that more people will understand 9/11 and the valid questions surrounding it).

I am not going to tit for tat you on misrepresentations you have made (god knows LashL is already a handful enough). I caught you in a major one in regards to Craig Bartmer.

You run around here with your excessive (in my opinion) desire to control people's thought and use very blatant tactics to prevent people from looking at the facts. "Protecting lurkers" as you put it.

Is it that you just don't want people to think for themselves? Are you the thought police?

So, after I present many things here in evidential form, generally just taking quotes from documents you consider valid but have neglected to include in your statements, you have only one thing to resort to. A strategy of personally discrediting me.

That is the force of insinuation and repetition. Liar, liar, liar, dishonest, blah blah blah over and over and over again.

Go for it. You truly only shame yourself in the process and become more obvious every time you do it. I have watched you over time sink to lower and lower levels. That indicates insecurity and a shaky case in my life experience.

By exposing yourself this way you have bolstered my beliefs and ensured that many more people in this world will have a chance to ask questions and find their own answers without your monitoring.

Thank you!
 
You made the same post in this thread. Perhaps you missed my responses.

There you go again. You said that you've been 100% honest here. I pointed out three lies that you've told. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation, agreed? I provided evidence to back my claim that you lie. You have provided no evidence that my sources are bad. Zero.

Is it foolish to call you a Nazi without evidence? Of course it is, even though it may be "just an opinion." It's plain stupid. Likewise, saying that you believe that 90% of what I say is unsubstantiated is plain stupid. It's equivalent to saying that you believe I'm the Tooth Fairy. Who cares? Either you have the evidence to back your claims or you don't. And Russell, over and over and over again you prove that you don't.

Now, show me how I've used "very blatant tactics to prevent people from looking at the facts." Can you show that, or are you just calling me the Tooth Fairy again? I'm going to call you on your b.s. every single time, Russell. Count on it.

For the umpteenth time, Russell, why should we believe you and not the FDNY? You can keep running, but the question isn't going away.

By the way, have you been able to think of a claim that Loose Change gets right, or do you need more time?

Yes, you have lied. I proved it.

Now answer the question I highlighted. Or are you yellow?
 
Please refer to NIST who did not quote the firefighters or rely on their reports for what and how many floors of that building were involved in fire or what the nature or cause of the collapse were.

They are the people you need to talk with about that. Just be patient though - hopefully it won't be another five years!

http://www.nist.gov/
Absolutely false. If you had bothered to read the NIST reports that we've repeatedly linked and quoted for you, you would know that NIST relied heavily on firefighter interviews, and that their report was reviewed by retired FDNY officers with great experience. The report is entirely in agreement with the FDNY accounts of massive damage and huge fires that caused evacuation of the area due to fear of imminent collapse.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor. He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

NIST NCSTAR 1-8, page 111
WTC 7 Interim Report, pages L-17-18

The following information about damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building:
After WTC 2 collapsed:
• Some south face glass panes were broken at lower lobby floors
• Dust covered the lobby areas at Floors 1 and 3
• Power was on in the building and phones were working
• No fires were observed
Reported close to time of WTC 1 collapse:
• East stair experienced an air pressure burst, filled with dust/smoke, lost lights
• West stair filled with dust/smoke, lost lights, swayed at Floors 29 through 30, and a crack was felt (in the dark) on the stairwell wall between Floors 27 through 28 and Floors 29 through 30
• Floors 7 and 8 had no power, air was breathable but not clear
Appendix L
L–18
• Phone lights on Floor 7 were on but could not call out
After WTC 1 collapsed:
• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7
promenade structure at the third floor level
• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18
• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.
• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
the ground
− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white
dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.


Pages L-22-26
Information about fires in other areas of the building was obtained from interviews, and is summarized as follows:

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or
lobby areas
• In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and a signs of a fully
involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.
• Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately
12:15 p.m.
• From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were observed in floors
estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.

Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:
• Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
• Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
• Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the south face

Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
• Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
• Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face
Looking at the east face:
• Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward the north side

Photographs and videos were used with these interview accounts to document fire progression in the
building. The fires seen in photographs and videos are summarized:

Before 2:00 p.m.
• Figures L–22a shows fires that had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.

2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
• Figure L–24a shows fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner. Several photos during this time show fires progressing north.

3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
• Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on Floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and west across the north face.
• Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L–24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
• At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
• The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
• Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
The NIST WTC 7 interim report details visual confirmation of fires on 14 floors in WTC 7.
 
Last edited:
Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
the ground
− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west
Ah so I was correct, their assessment of the damage to the south face was made from the individual accounts of the fire-fighters on the scene.
 
Absolutely false. If you had bothered to read the NIST reports that we've repeatedly linked and quoted for you, you would know that NIST relied heavily on firefighter interviews, and that the report was reviewed by retired FDNY officers with great experience. The report is entirely in agreement with the FDNY accounts of massive damage and huge fires that caused evacuation of the area due to fear of imminent collapse.

The NIST WTC 7 interim report details visual confirmation of fires on 14 floors in WTC 7.
I predict that Russell will ignore this post, or respond to it in a way that completely fails to address the points raised.

Keep on spining Russell!
 
Ho hum.

StoneWT said:
Russell's hatred of the government is blinding him to the evidence. As he equates the debunking of 9/11 CTs with being pro-government and he hates the government for the Afghanistan/Iraq wars...well, do the math. It's okay to debunk a 9/11 CT as long as you have an alternate 9/11 CT. If you debunk the CT and leave the 'official story' in its place, you're supporting the mass murderers in the gub'mint.
 
I predict that Russell will ignore this post, or respond to it in a way that completely fails to address the points raised.

Keep on spining Russell!
OMG, you've made a prediction, cue Carmina Burana by Carl Orff from the Omen!
 
I predict that Russell will ignore this post, or respond to it in a way that completely fails to address the points raised.

Keep on spining Russell!

Please refer to NIST who did not quote the firefighters or rely on their reports for what and how many floors of that building were involved in fire or what the nature or cause of the collapse were.

I predict he'll harp on those not being direct quotes, and completely ignore the parts where they "rely on their reports for what and how many floors of that building were involved in fire or what the nature or cause of the collapse were", even thought that's the biggest part of his allegations, and is really the essential question in regards to the NIST report.
 

Back
Top Bottom