Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[WildCat]

Well Russell?? Have you read it?? Have you?? Though none of the research in it is his own he is very pround of it and even has it in his sig. The only way you can choose to live in fantasy land Russell is to believe Gravy's WTC 7 paper contains any of his own evidence.

Just stopped in to say Hi to Russ and Jess. What up guys

Will you run away like a sissy again if I again ask you to provide Steele's evidence that 9/11 was a gov't conspiracy?

 

[Gravy]

By the way gravy I read your paper on wtc7, here is a breif summation of it:

Some CT leaders are liars.
Some firemen saw damage on 7 and were told to withdraw.

What is this paper meant to prove? It is well writtn but provides no indication of the collapse mechanism.

No, Jessica, it is NIST's job to study the collapse mechanism. You obviously didn't read the paper carefully.

So your summary of all the pages of eyewitness accounts is ""Some firemen saw damage on 7 and were told to withdraw?" Remarkable.

How about the fires, Jessica? Please summarize what the experts said about that.

Do you have ANY reason do doubt this? If so, present your reasons.

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt. [Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

In another interview, Chief Nigro says,

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [Of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely. http://tinyurl.com/g8c6y

 

[Moving On]

No reports of secondary devices at the WTC. A typical SD would have been a car bomb blowing up people on the ground. You are not using the term properly; which is indicative of your standard research pattern of your web site.

I thought you read these?

Timothy Burke -- [SIZE=-1]Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202][/SIZE] Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Timothy Julian -- [SIZE=-1]Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118][/SIZE] We came out from 90 West, made a left, headed east, and right when we got to the corner of Washington and Albany, that's when I heard the building collapse.
First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device.


Art Lakiotes -- [SIZE=-1]Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Safety Command][/SIZE] Tower one now comes down. Same thing but this time some of us take off straight down West Street, because we realized later on, subconsciously we wanted to be near buildings. We all thought it was secondary explosives or more planes or whatever.

Janice Olszewski -- [SIZE=-1]Captain (E.M.S.)[/SIZE] I thought more could be happening down there. I didn't know if it was an explosion. I didn't know it was a collapse at that point. I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane exploding, whatever.

Jay Swithers -- [SIZE=-1]Captain (E.M.S.)[/SIZE] At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

Why would the Bloomberg administration try and block NIST and the 9/11 Commision from these?

It is time for you to answer or provide documentation and not just accusation.

 

[R.Mackey]

Accuse all you want.



I wonder why they would refuse them to NIST and the 9/11 Commisssion? Afraid the eyewitness testimony might conflict with their "investigation"?

I will.

You "wonder" because you haven't even read your own link.

The link describes the City of New York refusing to release records, not the US Government. In fact, the Government ordered the City to release them -- hardly "supression." It describes the records being withheld from the public, not the NIST or 9-11 Commission:

The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records.

It also says the City resisted requests for the 9-11 Commission, but that it relented:

The city also initially refused access to the records to investigators from both the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, but relented when legal action was threatened.

All emphases mine, of course.

Russell, you have now graduated from deception by ommission to blatant fabrication. I'm rapidly losing what little respect I had for your powers of investigation. I expect a prompt retraction.

 

[TjW]

Could I remind people at this point that NIST haven't studied anything after the collapse started. So the idea that the collapse could be total from gravity alone is pure conjecture. Russells theory holds far more water.

Umm... no.
Although the actual collapse is far too chaotic to usefully model with the existing information, there are other techniques that can be used.
One is to estimate upper limits on how much energy the structure can absorb without failing.
Once the upper collapsing structure is coupling that much energy into the lower structure (probably should be "power", since I suspect the amount of time over which it is coupled has an effect) , detailed analysis is not really required. It's above the maximum limits; it's going to fail.
The "initiating event" is the event that causes this point to be reached.

 

[Moving On]

I've linked to this before for your benefit, but I don't think it sank in. Of the first responders who described the sound of "bombs" or "secondary devices," all were describing the sound of the collapses, although half of them didn't know that at the time, and only 7 actually saw all or part of a collapse: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1

Of all the first responders who described the collapses, 87% did not mention them sounding or looking like explosions.

When you cite quotes, it's important to keep them in context. Do you agree, Russell?

I know you like to try and reexplain for them what witnesses said they saw.

Did Mr. Rodriguize respond to your efforts to tell him what he actually experienced?

Initial impression is important. Do you know where the other firefighters were located that didn't mention these things? Were they in the same proximity as the ones who did?

Context is important.

Why don't you guys respond to evidence?

Why haven't you all brought up all of the documnetation I am finding before in your "fair" investigation?

 

[Gravy]

I gave my calculation. Keep saying it isn't true doesn't nake it untrue.

Your calculations about the kinetic energy of the aircraft, as designed for and as experienced. Please show them now or retract your claim.

Is any of this sinking in, Jessica?

 

[WildCat]

Umm... no.
Although the actual collapse is far too chaotic to usefully model with the existing information, there are other techniques that can be used.
One is to estimate upper limits on how much energy the structure can absorb without failing.
Once the upper collapsing structure is coupling that much energy into the lower structure (probably should be "power", since I suspect the amount of time over which it is coupled has an effect) , detailed analysis is not really required. It's above the maximum limits; it's going to fail.
The "initiating event" is the event that causes this point to be reached.

That's way too complicated for Jessica's pretty little head to comprehend. I suggest an animated cartoon, starring talking bunny rabbits and such, to explain it to her.

 

[jessicarabbit]

I've linked to this before for your benefit, but I don't think it sank in. Of the first responders who described the sound of "bombs" or "secondary devices," all were describing the sound of the collapses, although half of them didn't know that at the time, and only 7 actually saw all or part of a collapse: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1

Of all the first responders who described the collapses, 87% did not mention them sounding or looking like explosions.

When you cite quotes, it's important to keep them in context. Do you agree, Russell?

Only 7 saw the collapse?

Your paper has pictures of lots of fireman looking up wating for the collapse. How could only 7 see it?

 

[Moving On]

I will.

You "wonder" because you haven't even read your own link.

The link describes the City of New York refusing to release records, not the US Government. In fact, the Government ordered the City to release them -- hardly "supression." It describes the records being withheld from the public, not the NIST or 9-11 Commission:



It also says the City resisted requests for the 9-11 Commission, but that it relented:



All emphases mine, of course.

Russell, you have now graduated from deception by ommission to blatant fabrication. I'm rapidly losing what little respect I had for your powers of investigation. I expect a prompt retraction.

R. Mackey - Let's expedite time here. I have no respect for your tactics or strategies right now. The NYC government is the one who suppressed them intitially. WHY?

"Early in his administration, Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta refused to release the oral histories because he said he had been advised by federal prosecutors that their publication might impede the prosecution of Mr. Moussaoui.

Mr. Scoppetta later found little support from federal prosecutors, judges, or defense lawyers for the position that Mr. Moussaoui's right to a fair trial would be hampered by publishing the recollections of firefighters or paramedics."

You have been proven to be wrong by documentaion twice now. It is not me who is operating as a cover up artist!!!!!

 

[Gravy]

Please go back and quote that in the full context of the original dialogue that was taking place. I have been taught recently that is important.

It was a theoretical retort to a similar statement.

False. It was a specific claim. Here it is again:

It's not possible for 3 steel frame buildings to have non symmetrical damage and fall symmetrically straight down on the same day within 3 blocks of each other with fire as a primary cause for the first time in history.

It's mutually exclusive with physics and probability.

I do not have the ability to carry out any equations to prove my theory.

Thank you. It only took me six times to get that out of you.

I don't expect to see you making that claim again.

See how it works? Make a claim, present your evidence. Why is this so difficult for you people to understand? You're posting on a forum for critical thinkers, not credophiles.

 

[WildCat]

I thought you read these?

Timothy Burke -- [SIZE=-1]Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202][/SIZE] Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Timothy Julian -- [SIZE=-1]Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118][/SIZE] We came out from 90 West, made a left, headed east, and right when we got to the corner of Washington and Albany, that's when I heard the building collapse.
First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device.


Art Lakiotes -- [SIZE=-1]Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Safety Command][/SIZE] Tower one now comes down. Same thing but this time some of us take off straight down West Street, because we realized later on, subconsciously we wanted to be near buildings. We all thought it was secondary explosives or more planes or whatever.

Janice Olszewski -- [SIZE=-1]Captain (E.M.S.)[/SIZE] I thought more could be happening down there. I didn't know if it was an explosion. I didn't know it was a collapse at that point. I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane exploding, whatever.

Jay Swithers -- [SIZE=-1]Captain (E.M.S.)[/SIZE] At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

Why would the Bloomberg administration try and block NIST and the 9/11 Commision from these?

It is time for you to answer or provide documentation and not just accusation.

Answer what? None of those people today think that they heard bombs going off, do they? Does Lakiotes think a 3rd plane (or "whatever") hit? In your quote, Olszewski acknowledges that what she heard was the collapse, and not an explosion.

You're cherry-picking quotes and bolding parts of them to change the entire meaning of the quote Russell. That is called fitting the facts to support your theory, and a sure way to derive the wrong conclusion.

 

[beachnut]

I thought you read these?


Why would the Bloomberg administration try and block NIST and the 9/11 Commision from these?

It is time for you to answer or provide documentation and not just accusation.

Me did read your witnesses perceptions, however it is not proof. Darn, I can produce a list of people, as can you that will say, it sounded like an explosion but it was the building failing. But you seem to want to take these statements and without asking them to clarify, you want to use them as proof. Sorry you have missed the boat.

Gee, just use Dan Rather, he said it looked like CD, there, go back to your web site of shallow research and be happy! You can mislead the other lemmings out there and start your witch hunt..

NO, it is time for proof of secondary devices, you know proof, ;you have hearsay, and it is not even hearsay since you are taking it out of context.

NOT one of these guys is under oath, and asked the question, do you think there were secondary explosives used on 9/11.

That would still be opinions.

So now your job, not my job, is too supply proof of secondary explosives on 9/11.

Proof, like wrappers, parts, big blast that killed people on the street?

Proof. Not talk, not sounded like, but proof.

Since there is no proof of secondary devices used on 9/11, I have to assume there were none.

What proof do you have that is not witness statements on the street?

We have heard from eye witnesses that day that have refuted this. Why do you ignore them?

 

[WildCat]

R. Mackey - Let's expedite time here. I have no respect for your tactics or strategies right now. The NYC government is the one who suppressed them intitially. WHY?

I asked you before if you thought that all 535 members of congress were in on it (the ones who wrote the law disallowing the NIST findings or personnell to be used in civil hearings) and you didn't respond. Above I asked you if the Bloomberg admin was in on it also, and you didn't respond. Please be clear, are you accusing the NYC gov't of being in on your 9/11 conspiracy? Because it sure seems like you are...

You have been proven to be wrong by documentaion twice now. It is not me who is operating as a cover up artist!!!!!

See my post prior to this one. You're deliberately changing the meaning of some quotes to support your theory, this is hardly documentation.

 

[beachnut]

okay proof I need to proof my post, back to school

 

[jessicarabbit]

Your calculations about the kinetic energy of the aircraft, as designed for and as experienced. Please show them now or retract your claim.

Is any of this sinking in, Jessica?

707 weight 152727kg

767 weight 156489kg

[SIZE=+1]1 mph = 0.44704 meters per second[/SIZE]

expected KE= 0.5 x 152727 x 268.224 squared = 5493904362 Joules

actual KE= 0.5 x 156489 x 214.579 squared = 3602704636 Joules

 

[Moving On]

If that wasn't enough for you - how about this?

"Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/n...45bfd8ba497f9a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

So the Feds are still supporting the suppression of some of this information.
Geez if they released the quotes about the subjective experience of secondary devices by the firefighters, I can't imagine what might be withheld.

 

[R.Mackey]

R. Mackey - Let's expedite time here. I have no respect for your tactics or strategies right now. The NYC government is the one who suppressed them intitially. WHY?

Russell: You said -- in this post -- that the "USG," or United States Government, suppressed the reports of 40 firefighters. That was a lie. NYC is not the same, those records were provided to NIST and 9-11 Commission (contrary to what you said here), and the United States Government, specifically the judiciary, was instrumental in releasing the records to the public.

You don't have a ruddy leg to stand on!

So now you ask a new question: "Why would NYC initially refuse to release their records?"

And you give me the answer in the same post:

"Early in his administration, Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta refused to release the oral histories because he said he had been advised by federal prosecutors that their publication might impede the prosecution of Mr. Moussaoui.

Mr. Scoppetta later found little support from federal prosecutors, judges, or defense lawyers for the position that Mr. Moussaoui's right to a fair trial would be hampered by publishing the recollections of firefighters or paramedics."

In other words, they initially refused in order to avoid interfering with a future trial, based on counsel.

Makes perfect sense to me. Apparently their early counsel was overly protective, and was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Everything runs as it should.

You have been proven to be wrong by documentaion twice now. It is not me who is operating as a cover up artist!!!!!

I've been proven wrong of nothing. You said the US Government suppressed those reports until 2005. You lied.

Your further suggesting I am a "cover-up" artist is nothing more than a cheap shot. My respect for you has just hit zero.

 

[WildCat]

If that wasn't enough for you - how about this?

Is the NY Court of Appeals in on the conspiracy also Russell? Just today you have accused:

All 535 members of Congress.
The Bloomberg admin.
The gov't of NYC.
The NY Court of Appeals.

I haven't read thoroughly enough to know if you think Fire Chief Nigro was in on it, or Silverstein (who apparently gives orders to Nigro).

So much for a small number of people aided by departmentalization in the military, huh?

 

[Moving On]

False. It was a specific claim. Here it is again:





Thank you. It only took me six times to get that out of you.

I don't expect to see you making that claim again.

See how it works? Make a claim, present your evidence. Why is this so difficult for you people to understand? You're posting on a forum for critical thinkers, not credophiles.

Please present your evidence that 9/11 was not a conspiracy.

Either MIHOP or LIHOP in detail.

Otherwise cease from referring to people who consider it as a possibility in derogatory terms.