9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

No there's evidence that firemen heard "explosions", there's plenty of evidence for plausible explainations for these explosions, you just have decided that "explosions" = "explosives"

Everything that detective-boy was referring to that he considers would have justified a full investigation into nature of the explosions was present and that was the point I was making to him. Indeed, many specific references to 'bombs going off'.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Everything that detective-boy was referring to that he considers would have justified a full investigation into nature of the explosions was present and that was the point I was making to him. Indeed, many specific references to 'bombs going off'.

From people who don't have a clue about what a bomb sounds like. Nor do they mention the thousands of explosions required to do anything.

Most of them wouldn't know the difference between a fire extinquisher cooking off and a grenade.

 

[pocketscience]

I find it fascintating that you are a "structural engineer" yet refuse to even attempt to dip your toe into any kind of actual technical argument over why you give the CTers any credence.

May I refer you to post 113 which you've carefully chosen to ignore:

I'd be glad to PM with you on the technical side of things, as I would with anyone.
If I get entwined in a technical debate, I'll have to give examples of my work and it'll become very obvious who I work for and I don't want that broadcast on U75 for various reasons. I hope you appreciate that.

Actually scrap that! When I say:"as I would with anyone" - that doesn't include you!

Can I ask why would be a tell tail sign that explosives had been used?

See post 146 from BobTheLost.

Yep, visual evidence of cutting charges is pretty hard to miss. It doesn't cut so much as tear and you get a lot of deformation from the explosive charge that propells the metal slug. So the flange of the girder is deformed below and above the cut, as well as a very ragged tear through the metal, very different to shearing or other modes of failure.

There is a picture of a metal girder from the site that was supposedly cut using cutting charges, but it's far too neat to be HE and the angle is wrong, you have to cut at 90 degrees to the surface otherwise you lose nearly all your energy to the air. I don't think it was Jazzz that found it but it's around on one 911 CT site or another and it annoys me.

Which "people" would be occupied with this?

Sorry mate but I just don't have the time to spell everything out two times somestimes three and in one case with you four times.

Follow this link and download this article for a comprehensive explaination into how WTC7 fell.

ok

Oh and there's no "e" in argument, fuckwit.

Well if you want to play NITpicking, I think you'll find there is an e in argument.

As for Fuckwit!

Ahh, there we go. Back to a good old basic insult.

I was getting worried earlier that you fancied me. What was all that Woooing about?

Wooo Wooo

 

[pocketscience]

No there's evidence that firemen heard "explosions", there's plenty of evidence for plausible explainations for these explosions, you just have decided that "explosions" = "explosives"

What, in the NIST/FEMA roports?

 

[detective-boy]

Everything that detective-boy was referring to that he considers would have justified a full investigation into nature of the explosions was present and that was the point I was making to him. Indeed, many specific references to 'bombs going off'.

I would expect an investigator to consider any such witness accounts. But not, as you appear to do, take them literally.

I have seen many witness statements relating to road traffic collisions, or incidents on building sites, etc., which refer to things like "There was a really huge bang. It was like a bomb had gone off". I didn't go looking for traces of explosives because investigation of the account revealed that they didn't actually have any evidence of a "bomb going off", nor did they actually mean to imply that.

 

[8den]

May I refer you to post 113 which you've carefully chosen to ignore:



Actually scrap that! When I say:"as I would with anyone" - that doesn't include you!

According to a pm I recieved from the architect, thats a lie, he's pm'd you about the technical details.

See post 146 from BobTheLost.

As a structural engineer you'd know that thermite has never been used as demolitions tool before right?

Sorry mate but I just don't have the time to spell everything out two times somestimes three and in one case with you four times.

um er what?

You said

I mean, It'd be a great way to pre occupy all the people "after the truth" to send them over to a 200,000t pile of steel and inspect it for any tell tale signs. Sadly it's all in the beijing olympic village now hidden behind plasterboard.

I asked you to clarify which people would be occupied pouring over ever peace of metal?

Well if you want to play NITpicking, I think you'll find there is an e in argument.

You started the nitpicking when you chose to ignore the thrust of the point about the Ken Starr investigation and focus on spelling.

As for Fuckwit!

Ahh, there we go. Back to a good old basic insult.

It does stand to reason, I mean you claim to be a structural engineer yet you refuse to even attempt to dip your toe into the physics of the collapse and instead bog down in the

Now, thinking completely outside the box as far a technical issues go

You claim to be a structural engineer yet you've given no evidence that you started thinking in the box (using your specialised area of expertise) before listening to all the conspiracy theorists.

I was getting worried earlier that you fancied me. What was all that Woooing about?

Wooo Wooo

WooWoo is a nickname for conspiracy theorists. Which you are one of.

 

[8den]

What, in the NIST/FEMA roports?

Are you claiming there aren't things in a 110 story building that aren't going to explode when interacting with gallons of jet fuel?

Everything that detective-boy was referring to that he considers would have justified a full investigation into nature of the explosions was present and that was the point I was making to him. Indeed, many specific references to 'bombs going off'.

Quote mining Jazzz?

People have said they heard explosions that sounded like bombs going off, they havent said that bombs went off.

 

[Jazzz]

From people who don't have a clue about what a bomb sounds like. Nor do they mention the thousands of explosions required to do anything.

Most of them wouldn't know the difference between a fire extinquisher cooking off and a grenade.

Reports of bombs from firemen - people who are certainly familiar with fire extinguishers 'cooking off' - should certainly have been taken seriously. But if the point of investigation is only to investigate the conclusion you have already reached, well yes don't bother.

 

[pocketscience]

According to a pm I recieved from the architect, thats a lie, he's pm'd you about the technical details.

Here you go again accusing me of being a liar. I haven't recieved any PMs!
And if the Architect and yourself are so chummy that your both PMing each other, I think I'll choose to ignore any that do arrive from him thankyou.

As a structural engineer you'd know that thermite has never been used as demolitions tool before right?

Wrong. As a Structural Engineer I have absolutly nothing to do with demolition or explosives.

You started the nitpicking when you chose to ignore the thrust of the point about the Ken Starr investigation and focus on spelling.

No, you started Nitpicking by questioning my profession and thus insinuating that I'm a liar.

You claim to be a structural engineer yet you've given no evidence that you started thinking in the box (using your specialised area of expertise) before listening to all the conspiracy theorists.

Jesus wept.

WooWoo is a nickname for conspiracy theorists. Which you are one of.

ok, so be it.
But so are you!

 

[Jazzz]

Are you claiming there aren't things in a 110 story building that aren't going to explode when interacting with gallons of jet fuel?



Quote mining Jazzz?

People have said they heard explosions that sounded like bombs going off, they havent said that bombs went off.

Well 'sounds like' bombs going off is quite good enough for my purpose. But here's a quote

"On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building." Louie Cacchioli

 

[Jazzz]

Plenty of reports of explosions can be found here

""Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off." NBC news broadcast

This is

 

[Jazzz]

Perhaps BTL could advise if that's a fire extinguisher cooking off, of course I wouldn't know the difference...

 

[8den]

Here you go again accusing me of being a liar. I haven't recieved any PMs!
And if the Architect and yourself are so chummy that your both PMing each other, I think I'll choose to ignore any that do arrive from him thankyou.

Ah the perfect get out clause.

Wrong. As a Structural Engineer I have absolutly nothing to do with demolition or explosives.

No but you understand things like loads and building stress, and so forth, so if you know how to build something, you know it's strong and weak points.

No, you started Nitpicking by questioning my profession and thus insinuating that I'm a liar.

I'm not insinuating I'm out and out calling you a liar.

Jesus wept.

Ad homien. You failed to demostrate a wit of techincal knowledge. Just dropped a couple of phrases and terminology into the conversation.

ok, so be it.
But so are you!

Really? why?

Well 'sounds like' bombs going off is quite good enough for my purpose. But here's a quote

"On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building." Louie Cacchioli

Wow a quote taken from a fireman the day after the collaspe, there's no chance he wasn't aware of the situation, was suffering from PTS, is there? No. The direct quote of a confused fireman in the hours after the collaspe is enough proof.

 

[pocketscience]

You know 8den, you're making my point perfectly clear here.

You refuse to believe me about my profession just like any conspra-soandso doesn't choose to belive any claims that don't fit into their own argument.
If I uploaded certificates you'd claim they'd been forged just like it was earlier claimed that Rodriguez was an impostor.

For the 5th time I have never said that I believe there was a CD that day. All I've said is that I won't rule it out. I doubt if there were - but I won't rule it out. Simple.

Yet you (and it appears in collusion with the Architect) are trying your hardest to convince me to one way of thinking. Like keeping an open mind is some great crime.
You behave exactly the same as the posters you insult in your immature way.
Well here's to holding a mirror to your face!


E2a - just seen your post!
Please believe me - I have no PMs. I doubt you will.
I have not recieved any PMs since joining this forum!

You are a lunatic!

 

[8den]

You know 8den, you're making my point perfectly clear here.

You refuse to believe me about my profession just like any conspra-soandso doesn't choose to belive any claims that don't fit into their own argument.
If I uploaded certificates you'd claim they'd been forged just like it was earlier claimed that Rodriguez was an impostor.

Thats an assumption, I've seen no evidence that you are a structural engineer on this thread, you don't seem willing to apply the knowledge you claim to have.

You claim to have pm'd editor with this evidence? Editor did you recieve this pm?

For the 5th time I have never said that I believe there was a CD that day. All I've said is that I won't rule it out. I doubt if there were - but I won't rule it out. Simple.

Yet you (and it appears in collusion with the Architect) are trying your hardest to convince me to one way of thinking. Like keeping an open mind is some great crime.

There's a wealth of evidence to convince you about the events of the day. I've linked to a document that explains simply, the WTC7.

It's all very well claiming you're keeping an open mind, but your refusal to examine the evidence is mindboggling considering your alledged technical ability.

You behave exactly the same as the posters you insult in your imature way.
Well here's to holding a mirror to your face!

Ad homien.

 

[pocketscience]

Thats an assumption, I've seen no evidence that you are a structural engineer on this thread, you don't seem willing to apply the knowledge you claim to have.

You claim to have pm'd editor with this evidence? Editor did you recieve this pm?



There's a wealth of evidence to convince you about the events of the day. I've linked to a document that explains simply, the WTC7.

It's all very well claiming you're keeping an open mind, but your refusal to examine the evidence is mindboggling considering your alledged technical ability.



Ad homien.

While you're at it editor please tell this fanatical lunatic that I haven't recieved a PM from "TheArchitect" if thats posible. Thanks.

 

[Jazzz]

Wow a quote taken from a fireman the day after the collaspe, there's no chance he wasn't aware of the situation, was suffering from PTS, is there? No. The direct quote of a confused fireman in the hours after the collaspe is enough proof.

Gosh - so to have the necessary reports of explosions etc. which would make it worth * investigating * if there were explosives present, we can't just have reports of explosions from eyewitnesses, we need more than reports of explosions from firemen, we need reports of bombs themselves from firemen, but hey! They have to be reports of someone who definitely couldn't be suffering from trauma - which of course would rule out anyone in the WTC that day. Hurrah!

 

[TheArchitect]

and it appears in collusion with the Architect

Hey, unfair! All I've done - its there for all to see - is ask where you have a problem with the NIST findings. I haven't even been debating or discussing any of your views.

 

[pocketscience]

Hey, unfair! All I've done - its there for all to see - is ask where you have a problem with the NIST findings. I haven't even been debating or discussing any of your views.

Did you PM me?

 

[pocketscience]

Hey, unfair! All I've done - its there for all to see - is ask where you have a problem with the NIST findings. I haven't even been debating or discussing any of your views.

And whats all this about if All you've done - its there for all to see ?

According to a pm I recieved from the architect, thats a lie, he's pm'd you about the technical details.

 

[TheArchitect]

I have a two welcome PMs from 8den, and that's about it.

And whats all this about if All you've done - its there for all to see

You've lost me. All I was pointing out was that I hadn't particularly engaged you (or anyone else) in debate, merely been asking where you had problems with the NIST account - and these messages are there for anyone to see! You and I haven't PMed each other.

 

[pocketscience]

I have a two welcome PMs from 8den, and that's about it.



You've lost me. All I was pointing out was that I hadn't particularly engaged you (or anyone else) in debate, merely been asking where you had problems with the NIST account - and these messages are there for anyone to see!

Well I appologise to you if you have not PMd 8den, as he as claimed, saying that you'd PM'd me. I have recieved no such PM.
Seeing as on the basis of this claim, he's throwing around slander that I'm a liar, I'm sure you'll appreciate my curiosity.

 

[8den]

Gosh - so to have the necessary reports of explosions etc. which would make it worth * investigating * if there were explosives present, we can't just have reports of explosions from eyewitnesses, we need more than reports of explosions from firemen, we need reports of bombs themselves from firemen, but hey! They have to be reports of someone who definitely couldn't be suffering from trauma - which of course would rule out anyone in the WTC that day. Hurrah!

You've reports of explosions, you've no evidence that these explosions were caused by explosive charges and you're ignoring the fact that these explosions could have resulted by something else.

Pocketscience, I misread a pm from the architect, thats the confusion about pmings, but please feel free to tell me or pm me proof of your qualifications.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Perhaps BTL could advise if that's a fire extinguisher cooking off, of course I wouldn't know the difference...

I don't know is the short version.

The difference is in the "sharpness" of the explosion, WMA isn't ideal for recording it, but petrol is a relativly low explosive, which will give it a more booming noise compared to HE which will be a more crack like noise. I'd say that it doesn't sound like HE, but that's more guess than anything else.

If anyone can find footage of a gas cylinder cooking off i'd be interested to compare the two. It does sound louder than i'd expect a Co2 cylinder to, but not godawful noise like three or four cutting charges going off.

E2A: I do find your comment about not bothering to research quite amusing, dear god in heaven don't make jazzz check a source!

 

[8den]

Well I appologise to you if you have not PMd 8den, as he as claimed, saying that you'd PM'd me. I have recieved no such PM.
Seeing as on the basis of this claim, he's throwing around slander that I'm a liar, I'm sure you'll appreciate my curiosity.

Slander is verbal libel, seeing as I'm typing this I'm not libelling anyone.

Seeing as you've failed to publically prove that you are a structural engineer by demostrating your knowledge, or by providing evidence of your qualifications, while at the same time, dancing around any form of technical debate I feel happy to call you liar.

But hey, prove me wrong, and I will apologise.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Like keeping an open mind is some great crime.

Not speaking about you, but there is a point at which an open mind transitions into gullibility and/or the inability to consider probabilities and likelyhoods, that's what gets up my nose.

 

[pocketscience]

Pocketscience, I misread a pm from the architect, thats the confusion about pmings, but please feel free to tell me or pm me proof of your qualifications.

Yes, you seem very confused. Have you considered that the subject in hand may be slightly confusing you too.

I suppose I'm only half a liar now. Or was I a double liar before?

I guess an apology would too much to expect from you.

 

[TheArchitect]

Lads - all and sundry - calm down, eh?

 

[pocketscience]

Not speaking about you, but there is a point at which an open mind transitions into gullibility and/or the inability to consider probabilities and likelyhoods, that's what gets up my nose.

Appreciated. My open minded stance, as I've already said, is from outside the "technical" box and draws somewhat on the callous nature of the political domain.
I'm not trying to convince anybody in joining me in my stance, merely pointing out that there is no absolute conclusive evidence of CDs either way. We're all going on theories.

 

[pocketscience]

Lads - all and sundry - calm down, eh?

I'm sorry, but I don't like being called a liar.

I've tried to hold a respectful debate here while having all sorts of insults thrown at me. The claims of being a liar is the last straw.