Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Regnad Kcin]

What hits me is that with the fact that the buildings were hit at different heights and angles, had different patterns of explosions and fuel distribution, that they just looked damn identical visually.

Well except for the top of the one leaning so far out and then the rest of it underneath still falling.

It is an amazing fact that they looked identical.

Except they weren't "identical," now were they?

 

[Pardalis]

So Russell, care to explain how you got convinced the WTC towers looked like controlled demolitions since you said yourself they were not "conventional" controlled demolitions?

Please explain.

 

[apathoid]

So Russell, care to explain how you got convinced the WTC towers looked like controlled demolitions since you said yourself they were not "conventional" controlled demolitions?

Please explain.

Even Jowenko said the Towers collapses looked nothing like a CD...

Originally, the argument was that the collapses looked exactly like a CD, hence they were. Now they dont look like a conventional CD anymore, but thats ok because the government would rig them unconventionally anyways(WTC7 notwithstanding). Well, if the CD wasnt conventional - how can you tell its a CD?

 

[Pardalis]

Since Russell doesn't seem to respond, here is what he posted earlier:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2052120#post2052120

The destruction of each of the Twin Towers differs from a conventional demolition in several respects:

* The destruction proceeded from the top down rather than from the bottom up.
* The time to complete destruction was about 50% longer than free-fall time.
* The destruction was hidden behind a descending mushrooming cloud of pulverized materials and metal pieces.
* The rubble pile was spread out, the vast majority of the fallout lying outside the towers' footprints.
* The destruction produced a cloud of dust that continued to grow after the last piece of steel hit the ground, when it was already twice the volume of the building.

If the destruction of Building 7 is explainable as a conventional demolition, then perhaps the different features of the Twin Towers' destruction are explainable as modified controlled demolitions, in which far greater quantities of explosives are used, and the charges are set off in a top-down instead of bottom-up sequence in order to simulate "progressive collapse" from the crash zones.

And this is from 911research...

Wow.

So Russell, it looks nothing like a regular controlled demolition? So how are you able to determine it was a controlled implosion to begin with?

Has there been any attempt at this type of controlled demolition before?

How are you able to determine this? Have you contacted controlled demolition companies to know if this type of "unconventional" CD is even possible?

If you want us to investigate this, then i suggest you get this discrepency fixed before we continue.

 

[Kent1]

Predictibility makes me sleepy. I am going to take a nap.

I might of missed something, but what's the meaning of your sig line Russell?


"Can NIST’s findings be used in court?
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"
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm

 

[Pardalis]

A recap.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Can NIST’s findings be used in court?[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]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[/SIZE][/FONT]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm

Good night!

"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 ....."

My emphasis.

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>

Maybe it's because I'm a francophone, but this is how I understand what it means:

"no part of any report resulting from investigations can:

a) be admitted as evidence

or

b) used (more general)

in any:

a) suit

or

b) action

for damages"

All options proposed seem to be about legal actions concerning damages.

You say tomato I say tomato.

Spin it as you wish. I see it this way.

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.

Go figure...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

WTF? What is it with gov't documents not making use of semicolons? It should read
"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"

 

[delphi_ote]

WTF? What is it with gov't documents not making use of semicolons? It should read
"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"

I read it this way:
"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."

 

[WildCat]

I read it this way:

Russell reads it as:
"We here at NIST are conducting this sham investigation to cover up the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. And there's nothing you can do about it! Waaahahahahahaah!"

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I like this Wkipedia article on evidence.

"The most immediate form of evidence available to an individual is the observations of that person's own senses."

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

It may be the "most immediate form," but it can be notoriously unreliable.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I answered the questions Gravy put before me.

Nope. From post # 730:

You've repeatedly been asked to raise an important point of Steele's for further discussion, and you've been unable to do so. You've given us zero reason to believe there is anything at all worth discussing, or that you understand the material that you linked to.

Likewise, I've repeatedly asked you who made the claims about the NYPD that your OP is based on. You had no answer. I've also repeatedly asked you how you know what Craig Bartner thinks about me or the JREF. You've had no answer.

Liars who can't form coherent arguments, backed by evidence, to advance their claims, aren't worth dealing with in any way. I've asked you again and again to present your case. You will not. I won't be wasting any more time replying to you. I hope you grow up soon.

He has since decided to keep ignoring Craig and Steele

I, too, hope you grow up soon. Sometime before the next appearance of Halley's Comet would be marvy.

 

[Housefly]

perhaps the different features of the Twin Towers' destruction are explainable as modified controlled demolitions, in which far greater quantities of explosives are used

Far greater quantities?? The only time I've even considered giving the CD theory the time of day is when presented with the idea that far fewer explosives were used than you'd find in a normal demolition. And you're suggesting more? Or rather, you're linking to a web page which suggests more. More demolition charges that someone has to have noticed gone missing. More charges and people to plant the charges smuggled into the twin towers past security after everyone had gone home for the day. More time to analyse the structure, plant explosives, tear down and rebuild walls to hide the explosives behind, coat the explosives in special smell so the bomb-sniffing dogs that were in the building every now and then wouldn't detect them. And that's a standard demolition. You're suggesting that they tried a type of demolition that has never been tried before. So they'd have to be even more careful and spend even longer planning it.

I mean, eventually you're getting to the point where Bush must have started putting this plan into action some time in the early nineties.

And why was WTC7 a standard CD? Why didn't they try their radical new top-down idea on that as well?

I'm not clever Russell, so there's probably a few things there that can be torn apart, easy as winking. But here's a question even a dunce like me can ask and understand the answer to:

Would you have come to the conclusion that the WTC collapses were controlled demolition if the conspiracy theory which alleges that they were a controlled demolition had never existed?

Ask yourself that question. And answer yourself honestly.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

So at least now we agree CD is logical.

I guess we only have to discuss the details now.

Nope, "we" don't. To both statements.

 

[Kent1]

".....just a little bit after 5:00 - walked around it - saw a hole - I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down though - there was definitely fire in the building - I didn't hear any creaking - I didn't hear any indication it was gonna come down - the thing started peeling in on itself - the whole time you were hearing, "thum, thum, thum, thum, thum" - I think I know the sound of an explosion when I hear it."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2479540022152730536&q=Craig+Bartmer&hl=en

10:45 - 12:18

I thought I would just sum up a few things
1. "I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down" I agree with this statement, I don't believe the hole wasn't big enough alone to knock down the building. As a side note many firefighters on the scene clearly stated concerns of a falling building. Why does Craig disgard this?
2. "There definitely was fire in the building" Good.... in fact I believe very intensive fire as seen from a (probable) steel beam on figure 10.
http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/FOIA/ASTANEH-WTC-0139542finalrpt.pdf
3. "I didn't hear any creaking"
Well there are two sources that disagree.

James Mcglynn:
Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

Captain Chris Boyle
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

4. "I didn't hear any indication it was gonna come down"
If refering to the creaking sound then see 3. If refering to warnings of collapse, this has been strongly refuted by numerous sources. (If someone is really interested to read them, I'd start with Gravys paper)

5."the thing started peeling in on itself - the whole time you were hearing, "thum, thum, thum, thum, thum" - I think I know the sound of an explosion when I hear it."
Clearly falling floors make sounds when falling. I would certainly expect a thum, thum, thum sound, but we have little testimony or audio supporting demolition type explosions occuring during the collapse.

 

[Pardalis]

Bump for Russell.

Please Russell, explain how the WTC towers were brought down by "unconventional" controlled demolitions.

How does that work?

 

[Belz...]

A recap.


Go figure...

I think you got it right, Pardalis.

 

[pomeroo]

I couldn't resist bumping this fascinating thread from 2006. Gee, the twoofers have learned so much since then.

 

[theauthor]

I couldn't resist bumping this fascinating thread from 2006. Gee, the twoofers have learned so much since then.

Thanks for bumping it, i wasn't sure if Bartmer had been discussed before.

I'm only a few pages in but I can't see much more than ad hominem attacks on Bartmer, saying he is bitter and suffering from PTSD etc.

 

[pomeroo]

Thanks for bumping it, i wasn't sure if Bartmer had been discussed before.

I'm only a few pages in but I can't see much more than ad hominem attacks on Bartmer, saying he is bitter and suffering from PTSD etc.

After we've acknowledged that Bartmer is ill and confused, what more can we add? He says he heard sounds of things exploding. Things were exploding: things always explode in office fires. Where do you go from there?

There were no explosives in WTC 7 or anywhere else in the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. There is a reason why demolition experts reject the lies of the fantasy movement.

 

[gumboot]

Zombie Thread