Torin Wolf

Here is my question, let us say that his claims of welding and demolitions/contracter/hazzardous waste etc...are simultaneous.

That still makes him 18 when he started all this...

How does one, at the age of 18 become a demolition contractor/hazzardous waste expert etc...isn't there SOME education or training or something involved.

It is like me saying I have had 18 years experience in the medical profession.

NOOOO..Wrong!!!

I was in pre-med for 5 years, then med school for 4 years, then residency for 2 years, then in PRACTICE for 7 years.

TAM:)
 
I was a Combat Nurse in the 21st Combat Support Hospital (21st CaSH) in Mosul , Iraq . For those who are familiar with the military, my MOS was 91WM6. I saw combat on multiple occasions (earning the Bronze Star) and returned fire with confirmed kills (earning the V device for Valor). I also earned the Combat Medic Badge for providing medical care during combat conditions.
Click to expand...

While I wouldn't reject that claim outright, I'd wouldn't just accept it without some evidence other than his word. Some medical people do carry weapons for personal protection but it's very unusual for them to use them.

I signed my paperwork to enter the military on 9/11/2000 (tell me someone didn’t have a hand in that!) at the age of 30.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the "tell me someone didn’t have a hand in that!" is supposed to mean. Is he trying to claim that someone involved in the 911 conspiracy had a hand in making him sign a contract on that day?
 
Bob Klase said:
I'm not sure what the "tell me someone didn’t have a hand in that!" is supposed to mean. Is he trying to claim that someone involved in the 911 conspiracy had a hand in making him sign a contract on that day?
Click to expand...

Given he is full blown truther, and given the paranoid mindset, and sense of self-importance that goes with it, I am sure that is what he means...lol

TAM:)
 
"5 years of experience as a certified welder"?

Does he mean 5 years after he recieved certification? Or 5 years including the time it took for him to earn his ticket?

I don't know where he claims this happened, but here in Alberta, Canada, it takes at least 3 or 4 years to complete the welders apprenticeship program and earn your journeyman ticket.

Either he's only been welding on his own without supervision for one or two years, or we can tack on another 9 years for the welding to his improbably long resume.
 
Torin Wolf said:
What was in the readable air samples? “Sampling of bulk materials and dust found generally low levels of asbestos.” Since Torin has worked with hazardous materials for over 12 years specializing in asbestos abatement, he knows quite a bit about the industry. “There is no such thing as a 'low level of asbestos'. Bulk samples, by Federal law, either are (>1%) or are not (<1%) asbestos containing materials.” Bottom line, the EPA failed to perform its duties in regards to 9/11 and actively encouraged people to enter an unsafe area containing hazardous materials.
Click to expand...
The OSHA site he linked to only mentions bulk samples in one paragraph of the standard and that is related to determining if a presumed asbestos containing material meets the definition (greater than 1%). It doesn't relate to personal exposure at all.

Personal exposure limits are defined as:



OSHA said:
Permissible exposure limit (PELS) --​
1910.1001(c)(1)
Time-weighted average limit (TWA). The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight (8)-hour time-weighted average (TWA) as determined by the method prescribed in Appendix A to this section, or by an equivalent method.​
1910.1001(c)(2)
Excursion limit. The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 1.0 fiber per cubic centimeter of air (1 f/cc) as averaged over a sampling period of thirty (30) minutes as determined by the method prescribed in Appendix A to this section, or by an equivalent method.​
Click to expand...


You will notice that exposure limits are stated in "fiber per cubic centimeter of air", not in percentages.​


Also,​
Torin Wolf said:
Before the EPA did the tests, independent tests were done in which the machines that do the air quality testing “were so full of junk that they couldn't be read.” If that is the case, Torin adds, “You must, by law, throw the sample out.”
Click to expand...
He doesn't provide a link for this tidbit, but I'm curious why, if the filters were "so full of junk", the analysis of the sample wouldn't simply indicate the materials being tested for "exceeded X microgram per cubic meter" or "exceeded X fibers per cubic centimeter" (varies depending on the exposure standard for that material).​

It's possible that the test had to be thrown out. I can't research that without knowing what standard he's refering to, but I suspect the samples were not from personal air sampling pumps monitoring individuals. If they were, the Industrial Hygenist would have noticed that the pump(s) were unable to produce the required flow rate and would have increased the pump rate during the hourly pump checks as required in the OSHA Field Operations Manual, or, if the pump couldn't pull past all the "junk", they would have replaced the filter cassette, analyzed all the cassettes taken over 8 hrs. and added the individual results.​

Torin may have done asbestos removal, but a Certified Industrial Hygenist he ain't.​
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
"5 years of experience as a certified welder"?

Does he mean 5 years after he recieved certification? Or 5 years including the time it took for him to earn his ticket?

I don't know where he claims this happened, but here in Alberta, Canada, it takes at least 3 or 4 years to complete the welders apprenticeship program and earn your journeyman ticket.

Either he's only been welding on his own without supervision for one or two years, or we can tack on another 9 years for the welding to his improbably long resume.
Click to expand...

I think "5 years of experience as a certified welder" is quite clearly stating that he held certification for 5 years. If he tries to claim otherwise then this statement is deliberately misleading.
 
T.A.M. said:
5. Age 30-37 - served in Military as a NURSE, but also claims to have KILLED and himself BLED while over there.
Click to expand...
Maybe the killing was euthanasia of an injured soldier or the swatting of a bug and the bleeding was a needle stick :)
 
Ironically, Torin signed his papers to join the army on September 11th, 2000. He knew something was wrong with the official 9/11 story when his army handlers took his squad into a room just in time to watch the buildings collapse. With his demolitions experience, he immediately knew those towers could not have fallen like that without explosives.
Click to expand...

An uncollapsable building! Imagining a similar situation from 1912....

THOMAS ANDREWS: The fires are compromising the floors, we can see the outer columns being pulled in, they're being pulled in and in, there's no stopping it. No matter what we do, the tower will collapse.

J. BRUCE ISMAY (in disbelief): This building can't fall.

THOMAS ANDREWS: It's made of steel, sir, I assure you she can fall, and will, it's a mathematical certainty.
 
RedIbis said:
I am not taking him at his word. I was making an observation that the rapid response to the article on this thread was based on attacking the person, not his claims.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. His claims have been dealt with hundreds of times. Why should we have to repeat ourselves?

If we've dealt with his claims (which we have, in other areas of this forum, on several websites, in research papers), the "ad hominem" card isn't valid. Ad hominem implies two things:

a) Not addressing the person's arguments (which we have).
b) Using personal attacks to try and disprove the person's arguments.

As I have explained, point A is not valid. I haven't seen anyone engaged in point B. No one has said "He didn't do 100 demolitions... therefore he is wrong". We're simply trying to get an idea of his background and his credibility.

Seriously, debunking this stuff is very tiresome these days. I've been doing it extensively for a year now, and it actually saddens and angers me to see the same debunked arguments from back then popping up this far down the track. If someone throws up something original, than I have no issues researching their claim and offering a response. However, if someone offers an argument that can be debunked with a basic Google search of the topic at hand, then I am not going to bother rehashing the arguments I developed and published months ago.

So in summary, no, there are no ad hominem fallacies in this thread. No one is using his exaggerated resume to directly debunk his arguments. It's just a way of determining his credibility. Also, not one of his arguments is original, and all of them have been debunked on a daily basis for the best part of 3 years.
 
The Doc said:
Seriously, debunking this stuff is very tiresome these days. I've been doing it extensively for a year now, and it actually saddens and angers me to see the same debunked arguments from back then popping up this far down the track. If someone throws up something original, than I have no issues researching their claim and offering a response. However, if someone offers an argument that can be debunked with a basic Google search of the topic at hand, then I am not going to bother rehashing the arguments I developed and published months ago.

.
Click to expand...


This is a poor excuse and antithetical to skeptical discussion. Your premise is that since you have "debunked" these arguments, you no longer have to address them and you are then able to "attack the man."

The official story itself is not even complete, yet it is believed to be conclusive. There's a great deal to debate.

There's a lot of mistaking explanations for evidence, here and a desire to end spirited debate.

There's going to be more and intensified questioning since much of the official explanations contradict themselves.

Insults, yelling and screaming, walls of quotes, will not keep a true skeptic, who possesses critical thinking skills to be curious, to ask questions, to not accept every gov't disseminated explanation as conclusive evidence.

I do appreciate your post, Doc, as it is calm, respectful, and I suspect sincere. Unfortunately, you seem to be in the minority.
 
The official story itself is not even complete, yet it is believed to be conclusive. There's a great deal to debate.
Click to expand...

Like what? What has not been beat to death on this forum? Please be specific.
 
RedIbis said:
This is a poor excuse and antithetical to skeptical discussion. Your premise is that since you have "debunked" these arguments, you no longer have to address them and you are then able to "attack the man."

The official story itself is not even complete, yet it is believed to be conclusive. There's a great deal to debate.

There's a lot of mistaking explanations for evidence, here and a desire to end spirited debate.

There's going to be more and intensified questioning since much of the official explanations contradict themselves.

Insults, yelling and screaming, walls of quotes, will not keep a true skeptic, who possesses critical thinking skills to be curious, to ask questions, to not accept every gov't disseminated explanation as conclusive evidence.

I do appreciate your post, Doc, as it is calm, respectful, and I suspect sincere. Unfortunately, you seem to be in the minority.
Click to expand...


The problem is that the number of legitimate debunkers, who dedicate part of their time to debunking this nonsense, are about 100-200 tops. The number of gullible, kool-aid drinking truthers actively promoting this shaite is in the 1000's. As a result, we few on this side, become fatigued with REDEBATING the same tire old diatribe.

Call it a poor excuse it you like, but it is the truth...I personally don't care if you like it or not.

If you are unwilling to find our views via the SEARCH function, than you will have to put up with whatever we decide we want to post here...

TAM:)
 
Have the truthers come up with this theory yet?

Since the US government has alien technology, from the Rosewell crash and numerous others, and cigar-shaped UFOs exist then they know how to make, and fly, cigar-shaped crafts.

It was these cigar-shaped crafts that hit the buildings, with wings hologrammed on.

The US military recruited and trained Atta and the rest of the terrorists, to fly the crafts. Their families were paid well by the US.

The real airliners were sent to the Bermuda triangle and never seen again.

The government knew the towers would collapse due to their unique design. That's why these buildings were chosen. No explosives were used or needed.

The pentagon crash was just a red herring to make it the whole thing look like an attack against the government, instead of by the government.


Have I got it right? Can I start a truther web-site with this one?
 
Sounds as plausible as 99% of the current truther mantra, so I say go for it...

Call it "9/11 Roswell"

TAM;)
 
RedIbis said:
Insults, yelling and screaming, walls of quotes, will not keep a true skeptic, who possesses critical thinking skills to be curious, to ask questions, to not accept every gov't disseminated explanation as conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...
Says the guy who cited David Ray Griffin's latest book, and when challenged by R. Mackey to produce a single significant claim that Griffin got right, could not.

Time to wake up and take a hard look at your behavior, RedIbis. You get nothing right and refuse to learn. What would you call someone who behaves that way?
 
Gravy said:
Says the guy who cited David Ray Griffin's latest book, and when challenged by R. Mackey to produce a single significant claim that Griffin got right, could not.

Time to wake up and take a hard look at your behavior, RedIbis. You get nothing right and refuse to learn. What would you call someone who behaves that way?
Click to expand...

I got into several specific claims, including WPI's findings on the eutectic reaction.

I read Mackey's post.

"1000oC is far below the temperature one would expect from a "thermate cutting charge," or for that matter any form of deliberate demolition whatsoever! It is, however, completely consistent with a raging office building fire with additional diesel fuel tanks."

There are several problems with his point here. 1) The WPI paper does not theorize a thermite reaction. Another problem is that he's not distinguishing between air and steel temp. This suggests that whereas a "raging" office fire might produce brief temps reaching 1000C, this no way suggests that the steel would or did ever reach this temp.

2) Hydrocarbon fires from diesel in a diffuse environment would not burn hot enough to create the eutectic "phenomenon."

These fires weren't even hot enough to break the glass above the fires, we're supposed to believe that they partially "evaporated" the steel. And you guys are the skeptics?

wtc7-fires-close.jpg




And a word of advice, dispense with the hyperbole, it makes you look desperate.
 
RedIbis said:
I got into several specific claims, including WPI's findings on the eutectic reaction.

I read Mackey's post.

"1000oC is far below the temperature one would expect from a "thermate cutting charge," or for that matter any form of deliberate demolition whatsoever! It is, however, completely consistent with a raging office building fire with additional diesel fuel tanks."

There are several problems with his point here. 1) The WPI paper does not theorize a thermite reaction. Another problem is that he's not distinguishing between air and steel temp. This suggests that whereas a "raging" office fire might produce brief temps reaching 1000C, this no way suggests that the steel would or did ever reach this temp.

2) Hydrocarbon fires from diesel in a diffuse environment would not burn hot enough to create the eutectic "phenomenon."

These fires weren't even hot enough to break the glass above the fires, we're supposed to believe that they partially "evaporated" the steel. And you guys are the skeptics?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc7-fires-close.jpg



And a word of advice, dispense with the hyperbole, it makes you look desperate.
Click to expand...


I never quite understand how a fantasist can pretend that a rationalist is getting "desperate." In five years of screaming, your evil movement has produced precisely nothing that supports its silly myths. Every bit of bogus science has been refuted, all the distorted quotes have been corrected, and all the falsehoods have been exposed. We're not the ones showing the flop-sweat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom