Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

realitybites said:
I can't be sure, but I'm guessing it had something to do with the fact people were a little preoccupied at the time and really weren't thinking about what they could do in that moment to ease the minds of conspiracy theorists 5 years down the road.
Click to expand...

They were also short-handed as it was.

It would also be very dangerous to get that shot, and the FDNY and/or NYPD probably (IMO) deemed that the benefits of getting a multi-angle video of the collapse, did not make up for the possibility of losing more personel.
 
Russell Pickering said:
"Science" at its best!

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Click to expand...

He must of seen your web site! Russell why do you dismiss conclusions based on knowing you?

"
Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way."

You do this by making up false ideas!!! Like how did they find atltitude without the transponder? You failed to look it up! You whole reasoning is like this.

You have to give a break and ask, on what point.

yet you will ignore points, and your web site continues as you try to pin it on PNAC

good luck
 
docker had the most post on a thread, the rabbit is just like docker

I better not tell anyone

but this thread was about a guy who likes to talk CT, little else

should be closed, soon we will all be learning with Russell, I need it but most of the posters do not need training on research, as Russell and I do.

So this poor guy is going to die, and he has adopted the CT story book.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Ive seen many people all at the same site tell me they saw a ufo. I dont believe in ufos. Many people seeing damage does not mean it collapsed due to damage.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're twisting things around. Why can't you use the same skepticism with the accounts of people hearing explosions?

Your mind is like a pretzel.

:boggled:
 
beachnut said:
<snip>
You do this by making up false ideas!!! Like how did they find atltitude without the transponder? You failed to look it up! You whole reasoning is like this.
Click to expand...

"Primary radar works best with large all-metal aircraft, but not so well on small, composite aircraft. Its range is also limited by terrain and rain or snow and also detects unwanted objects such as automobiles, hills and trees. Furthermore it cannot estimate the altitude of an aircraft. Secondary radar overcomes these limitations but it depends on a transponder in the aircraft to respond to interrogations from the ground station to make the plane more visible and to report the aircraft's altitude."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_code

When I wrote that I did look it up.

Since then, the radar study on the flights has come out.

radar1.jpg


radar1a.jpg


So specially configured radar can estimate the altitude?

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_ Data_ Study_all _aircraft.pdf

(All NTSB reports http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm)

It is a moot point now since we have FDR altitude data and when I update my site which I have added a disclaimer to based on suggestions from people here.

Russell
 
Russell, ready to do some investigating?

Let's start with controlled demolition companies. Which one do you think was paid off to rig the WTC towers?
 
LashL,

The only influence I was under was exasperation with endless circles of rhetoric.

I quit arguing over the interview context subject and took it to the bottom line.

For future reference if you ever see me posting here - I am not drinking. I don't do that.

You and others here have criticised the interview and Dylan's style. As far as I know only one of us here has conducted several witness interviews with Dylan in person. Dylan rarely said a word and let others including me do the questions. He does not manipulate the witness story. There is a point where Dylan keeps the camera running after the main body of an interview and the situation becomes more of an open conversation. That might be what the dissolves in that are. I trust his editing sense as I have seen the interview live and the final preview result for the film.

Many of your observations about me tend to be incorrect and this I am in a position to say since I have been hanging out with myself for 45 years now.

Russell
 
Well of course it need not be a civilian demolition company..... it could be army

ahem

Maybe even 'fema martial law'

ahem

:scared:
 
So Russell? Ready to do some digging?

What companies are most likely to have rigged the Twin Towers and WTC7?

Let's start with them and work our way up to the government. I'm pretty sure we won't find direct evidence of USG involvement in the actual controlled demolition of the towers, I wouldn't think the government would be that stupid.

Are you with me on this?
 
The explosives were placed within the concrete at the construction
works. Secretly within the nightshifts of the "explosivesplacers".
And the explosive-devices did have a remote mechanism. So we
don´t need any demolition-companies at all, right? :confused:
 
Oliver said:
The explosives were placed within the concrete at the construction
works. Secretly within the nightshifts of the "explosivesplacers".
And the explosive-devices did have a remote mechanism. So we
don´t need any demolition-companies at all, right? :confused:
Click to expand...

Oh no! Christophera finally go to you?

:eek:
 
I just became aware of an interesting comment from Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission regarding WTC 7.

Somebody here had speculated on why WTC 7 wasn't mentioned in the report. I can't find the post in search but as I remember it was suggested that it may not of been looked into since it was peripheral to the actual attacks.

Now we know it was looked into and intentionally left out.

"Later, without provocation, Hamilton brings up Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper located next to the World Trade Center that caught fire when the towers fell. It housed offices of government agencies, including the Defense Department, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the IRS and the CIA. Its oddly neat collapse — straight down, as if dropping into a hole that suddenly opened in the ground — has led some to argue that it was a controlled demolition intended to bury the secrets of the government's involvement in the terrorist attacks.

'We consulted with expert architects," says Hamilton. "You simply cannot answer every question about why Building 7 collapsed.'"

So they even consulted with architects and then decided to make no mention of its collapse?

http://www.freetimes.com/story/681
 
Russell,

Could that be why NIST is tasked with investigating it?

Once the official report is presented it will have to answer precisely how the collpase of WTC7 was initiated and to do that they need to model it, investigate the damage and fire and then explain the mechanism for collapse.
 
Pardalis said:
My emphasis.
Click to expand...

"As part of the act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages ....."

As part of the act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages.......

Emphasis mine!

1 -- used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea> <sink or swim>, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>, or approximation or uncertainty <in five or six days>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom