Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Usual Suspect]

I see. Okay, Russell, I consider you to be a neo-Nazi, with 94.5% certainty. I don't have to back that up, because my beliefs don't need to have a basis in reason or fact, and I shouldn't expect anyone on a skeptic's forum to ask me to back up my outrageous claims.

Russell, you have provided no evidence that you aren't a neo-Nazi. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll be posting in other threads.

Takes a Nazi to know a Nazi now doesn't Gravy??

OOOOO he'll be posting in other threads

 

[beachnut]

why is the rabbit post like Docker, tanget post and never answer questions

this mean the original video guy is a CT set up

 

[LashL]

I din't perceive it as a dig.

I was (attempting) being funny.

I thought that might be the case, but wasn't entirely sure, thus my clarification.

Also, I've now read the relevant Act discussed earlier. It's called the National Construction Safety Team Act, and it was passed into law in October 2002.

The words quoted earlier do not actually appear in the Act, but rather in the part of the U.S. Code that governs NIST investigations. I've just been reading the appropriate sections and will elaborate shortly.

 

[R.Mackey]

If it isn't a matter of sides why has R Mackey started a thread declaring victory in the war against CTs?

Read the study by those 60 scientists (including 20 Nobel Laureates) and then tell me the investigation can be trusted.

I explained it in my thread.

The basic reason is that, no matter who it is, all of those who "question" repeat the same nonsense over and over again. Neither you, Usual Suspect, nor even Russell Pickering have brought anything new to the table. We ask to see your math, and you make up a bunch of random probabilities. We ask you for evidence, and you claim it was all destroyed or that it's NIST's fault that we don't have it. We ask you to source your assertions, and you present links that you don't even understand.

I keep hoping that the lot of you have merely misunderstood someone else's, more coherently sourced theory, and that the origin of all of this isn't mere paranoia. However, I have no evidence for that.

You can help. Please bring solid evidence, or point me to someone who can. Thanks!

 

[Moving On]

I see. Okay, Russell, I consider you to be a neo-Nazi, with 94.5% certainty. I don't have to back that up, because my beliefs don't need to have a basis in reason or fact, and I shouldn't expect anyone on a skeptic's forum to ask me to back up my outrageous claims.

Russell, you have provided no evidence that you aren't a neo-Nazi. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll be posting in other threads.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play as part of a deliberate cover up.

Sometimes used in conjunction with number 5.

 

[Usual Suspect]

Did you read the study by the nobel laureate scientists gravy? I would be interested to hear your response.

Was it link dumped cause if so you know he didn't read it. That's how he dodges what proves him wrong. Be back to annoy again later.

 

[Moving On]

I explained it in my thread.

The basic reason is that, no matter who it is, all of those who "question" repeat the same nonsense over and over again. Neither you, Usual Suspect, nor even Russell Pickering have brought anything new to the table. We ask to see your math, and you make up a bunch of random probabilities. We ask you for evidence, and you claim it was all destroyed or that it's NIST's fault that we don't have it. We ask you to source your assertions, and you present links that you don't even understand.

I keep hoping that the lot of you have merely misunderstood someone else's, more coherently sourced theory, and that the origin of all of this isn't mere paranoia. However, I have no evidence for that.

You can help. Please bring solid evidence, or point me to someone who can. Thanks!

A fact does not have to be new to be true.

Example: The earth is basically round.

 

[R.Mackey]

A fact does not have to be new to be true.

Example: The earth is basically round.

No argument here. Not sure what you're getting at.

By the way, have you decided to retract your claim that the US Government suppressed 40 FDNY members' statements until 2005 yet? Or are you still denying that you lied?

 

[delphi_ote]

If you would like to show a true calculation I would be happy to view, then correct, it for you

That's not how it works. You made a claim. Back it up with something or retract it.

 

[VespaGuy]

Actually I did forget about you.

Sure you did. But now that I'm back and you've acknowledged my post, are you willing to admit that you are mistaken?

You do your philosophy pretzel and I'll keep looking for truth - OK?

Evasion noted. Thanks for the laughs Russell. You're a hoot.

 

[beachnut]

Sigh.

Jessica's Calculation


Beachnut's Calculation


Neither of you have sourced your figures, so these are worthless.

here are more of my sources, it takes time to look up the stuff stored on the old machine

sorry i have only internet sourced letters and informtion,

Leslie E. Robertson, , said:
"The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the
impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version
of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of
competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the
impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers,
but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps
thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced
collapse." http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html


Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all
of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors
perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The
structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others.
The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very
much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing
707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of
the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner
reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable
happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the
fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Leslie E. Robertson, , said: more on design for jet impact –
" The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear
industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It
was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK
or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects
of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that
circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to
control the effects of such fires."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

180 m.p.h.
Speed at which a Boeing 707 could hit the towers but still not destroy them, under the official engineering plan

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020909/anumbers.html


the rest of what i said on the previous post was correct as I can find

 

[Dazed]

Still waiting for Wildcat's evidence that the explosions reported by eyewitnesses were in fact caused by "floors collapsing throughout the building prior to the catastrophic global collapse."

 

[WildCat]

Still waiting for Wildcat's evidence that the explosions reported by eyewitnesses were in fact caused by "floors collapsing throughout the building prior to the catastrophic global collapse."

You mean your "eyewitness" who you can't even place at the scene?

 

[Mince]

Still waiting for Wildcat's evidence that the explosions reported by eyewitnesses were in fact caused by "floors collapsing throughout the building prior to the catastrophic global collapse."

And I'm still waiting for evidence that the explosions eyewitnesses heard were from explosives. Any idea where this evidence can be found? A link or two will do.

 

[Usual Suspect]

Still waiting for Wildcat's evidence that the explosions reported by eyewitnesses were in fact caused by "floors collapsing throughout the building prior to the catastrophic global collapse."

Don't you know Dazed...... Wildcat had already heard "floors collapsing throughout the building prior to the catastrophic global collapse" but of course. And we have NYPD and NYFD who appearnetly wouldn't know the sound of an explosion better then all the brainchilds here.

 

[Usual Suspect]

You mean your "eyewitness" who you can't even place at the scene?

Great dodge.

Hey where's Mr. Groovy Gravy Grave Roberts?? Posting in other threads?? But failing to debunk Steele is he??

Be back to annoy later.

 

[WildCat]

And we have NYPD and NYFD who appearnetly wouldn't know the sound of an explosion better then all the brainchilds here.

You do? Who are the NYPD and FDNY personnell who believe they heard explosions caused by bombs?

 

[stateofgrace]

Takes a Nazi to know a Nazi now doesn't Gravy??

OOOOO he'll be posting in other threads

Oh dear US so you have you resorted to such insults?

Are you now comparing those that don't subscribe to your nonsense as Nazi's?

What you do you think should happen to the majority of sane people who don't subscribe to your nonsense? eliminated?

Tut, tut.

 

[Moving On]

No argument here. Not sure what you're getting at.

By the way, have you decided to retract your claim that the US Government suppressed 40 FDNY members' statements until 2005 yet? Or are you still denying that you lied?

Oh - I thought you read the follow up. First of all, the original suppression was claimed to have been under the advice of federal authorities.

Then I found 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 there are still records not released.

Is this court federal?

Also, even though it was the Bloomberg administration that was responsible for the suppression, I really do consider all government USG.

Lying is a VERY harsh word for possible inaccurate description by your technical standards. Lying requires intent to deceive. This was not the case.

But keep up the accusations and maybe it will work with somebody. OK?

 

[Bell]

Great dodge.

Hey where's Mr. Groovy Gravy Grave Roberts?? Posting in other threads?? But failing to debunk Steele is he??

Be back to annoy later.

Bolding mine.

Only true thing you ever said, Alex.