• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wtc 7

bill smith said:
I claim the the fireman overtated he case as he evidently did. I also suggested that he might have made a mistake. This is obviously a fair and reasonable criticism and not an accusation of him being a liar.
Click to expand...
How many have you contacted to tell them they have over stated or were mistaken?
 
bill smith said:
I claim the the fireman overtated he case as he evidently did.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. You said you doubted his statement because you suspected he was exaggerating:
bill smith said:
No....really....I couldn't say. Not on this particular aspect of 9/11 anyway. Though I do have my doubts about the fireman who said that '' WTC7 was fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors''. I felt that he might have been exaggerating a little.
Click to expand...



bill smith said:
I also suggested that he might have made a mistake.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't:
bill smith said:
No....really....I couldn't say. Not on this particular aspect of 9/11 anyway. Though I do have my doubts about the fireman who said that '' WTC7 was fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors''. I felt that he might have been exaggerating a little.
Click to expand...


You added the back-pedaling "mistaken" addendum only after I pointed out to you what a colossally stupid thing you said.

And then there's the preposterous notion that several professional firefighters would be "mistaken" about the scope of the fires burning in the building directly in front of them. On top of failing to notice a giant mechanical smoke generator. Exactly how stupid do you think the FDNY is?

bill smith said:
This is obviously a fair and reasonable criticism and not an accusation of him being a liar.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. An exaggeration is a lie. You accused him of exaggerating (and by association, every other firefighter making similar claims). Therefore you accused him of lying.
 
johnny karate said:
No, you didn't. You said you doubted his statement because you suspected he was exaggerating:






No, you didn't:



You added the back-pedaling "mistaken" addendum only after I pointed out to you what a colossally stupid thing you said.

And then there's the preposterous notion that several professional firefighters would be "mistaken" about the scope of the fires burning in the building directly in front of them. On top of failing to notice a giant mechanical smoke generator. Exactly how stupid do you think the FDNY is?



Yes, it is. An exaggeration is a lie. You accused him of exaggerating (and by association, every other firefighter making similar claims). Therefore you accused him of lying.
Click to expand...

This is becoming childish now so I plan to disengage shortly. I would just point out that either the video record and everal hundred observers are wrong about the scale of the fires or the firemen are overstating the case. Take your pick.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
No, you didn't. You said you doubted his statement because you suspected he was exaggerating:






No, you didn't:



You added the back-pedaling "mistaken" addendum only after I pointed out to you what a colossally stupid thing you said.

And then there's the preposterous notion that several professional firefighters would be "mistaken" about the scope of the fires burning in the building directly in front of them. On top of failing to notice a giant mechanical smoke generator. Exactly how stupid do you think the FDNY is?



Yes, it is. An exaggeration is a lie. You accused him of exaggerating (and by association, every other firefighter making similar claims). Therefore you accused him of lying.
Click to expand...

Wow!

Why didn't you get this excited when Gage debating Roberts asked if the FDNY was qualified as to what they witnessed regarding molten steel and Gravy responded...

“No not at all”

I also don't ever remember you jumping in to defend the firefighter who heroically climbed the WTC stairs to radio back that they could knock out the fire with two lines.

Did he not know his job either?

Try not to be all over the place johnny.
 
Hi boys and girls..and others.

Just uploaded a new video titled 'Controlled Demolition and Freefall: WTC7' It's a case study of the Landmark Tower demo in Texas, compared to the WTC7 collapse.

If my math isn't wrong (it could be I suppose) the Landmark building fell at no faster than about 50% of freefall overall. I don't have the fancy software to do point-to-point acceleration calcs and find out whether there was any period of freefall within the collapse or not.
Anyone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtG_0B4ypkg
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Wow!

Why didn't you get this excited when Gage debating Roberts asked if the FDNY was qualified as to what they witnessed regarding molten steel and Gravy responded...

“No not at all”

I also don't ever remember you jumping in to defend the firefighter who heroically climbed the WTC stairs to radio back that they could knock out the fire with two lines.

Did he not know his job either?

Try not to be all over the place johnny.
Click to expand...

It seems to be mainly the firefighters who said 'WTC7 was fully engaged in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' that Johnny wants to defend and vindicate. Ithink the heroes in the attached clip deserve a mention too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study
 
bill smith said:
It seems to be mainly the firefighters who said 'WTC7 was fully engaged in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' that Johnny wants to defend and vindicate. Ithink the heroes in the attached clip deserve a mention too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study
Click to expand...

All these debunkers are very selective about witness accounts. When you rub their nose in a witness account that goes against everything they are trying to sell they will dismiss the witness as crazy or proceed to assert what the witness really meant. It doesn't matter if the witness is a first responder hero or a civilian 9/11 hero. The debunker will first ask if the hero has followed up on his account and if they have not then it's supposed to be assumed that they changed their mind. If the hero does follow up and stick to their story then the hero needs to be attacked over and over again with a smear campaign. Gravy seems to have made a career of this.

And around here Gravy is the hero. That should tell you something.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
All these debunkers are very selective about witness accounts. When you rub their nose in a witness account that goes against everything they are trying to sell they will dismiss the witness as crazy or proceed to assert what the witness really meant. It doesn't matter if the witness is a first responder hero or a civilian 9/11 hero. The debunker will first ask if the hero has followed up on his account and if they have not then it's supposed to be assumed that they changed their mind. If the hero does follow up and stick to their story then the hero needs to be attacked over and over again with a smear campaign. Gravy seems to have made a career of this.

And around here Gravy is the hero. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

except the fact that we rub your nose in the physical evidence that contradicts testimony of what some think they saw. like the north tower collapsing before the south. Do you really want to go there HI?

No, I didn't think so.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
All these debunkers are very selective about witness accounts. When you rub their nose in a witness account that goes against everything they are trying to sell they will dismiss the witness as crazy or proceed to assert what the witness really meant. It doesn't matter if the witness is a first responder hero or a civilian 9/11 hero. The debunker will first ask if the hero has followed up on his account and if they have not then it's supposed to be assumed that they changed their mind. If the hero does follow up and stick to their story then the hero needs to be attacked over and over again with a smear campaign. Gravy seems to have made a career of this.

And around here Gravy is the hero. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

Fortunately I'm on his ignore list so he doesn't really know what I'm saying most of the time. Thank God...otherwise he would slaughter me.
I'm well used to he smear tactic and can see it coming a mile off. It's great to know that I'm not the only Truther here. I thought it was Shill-Central here. Wall-to-wall.
 
bill smith said:
Fortunately I'm on his ignore list so he doesn't really know what I'm saying most of the time. Thank God...otherwise he would slaughter me.
I'm well used to he smear tactic and can see it coming a mile off. It's great to know that I'm not the only Truther here. I thought it was Shill-Central here. Wall-to-wall.
Click to expand...

Take it as a badge of honor. Gravy will only address illiterate twoofies and those who agree with him. Everyone else goes on ignore. I doubt there's anyone on jref who has more people on ignore than he does.
 
bill,

bill smith said:
This is becoming childish now so I plan to disengage shortly. I would just point out that either the video record and everal hundred observers are wrong about the scale of the fires or the firemen are overstating the case. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

"This is becoming childish now ..."???

Nah, billy. This became childish about a year ago when you first brought up your pet theory of "smoke generators".

It became hilarious when you recently attempted to defend it.

tk
 
RedIbis said:
Take it as a badge of honor. Gravy will only address illiterate twoofies and those who agree with him. Everyone else goes on ignore. I doubt there's anyone on jref who has more people on ignore than he does.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads-up.
 
tfk said:
bill,



"This is becoming childish now ..."???

Nah, billy. This became childish about a year ago when you first brought up your pet theory of "smoke generators".

It became hilarious when you recently attempted to defend it.

tk
Click to expand...

The smoke generator is not really good debating material Teddy. It's more useful in a television presentation as you may have read further back.
 
Last edited:
what a maroon

tfk said:
bill,



"This is becoming childish now ..."???

Nah, billy. This became childish about a year ago when you first brought up your pet theory of "smoke generators".

It became hilarious when you recently attempted to defend it.

tk
Click to expand...


Holy #### thats bills year old theory?

:dl:
 
Now this is becoming surreal. HI are you REALLY defending somebody who thinks smoke generators were used in the WTC?

Give me an effen break!
 
twinstead said:
Now this is becoming surreal. HI are you REALLY defending somebody who thinks smoke generators were used in the WTC?

Give me an effen break!
Click to expand...

I'm sure you've heard of 'the thin end of the wedge' Twin. Well they don't come much thinner than you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom