View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 debate on C2C I consulted on for Richard Gage

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 15 Jul 2010, 07:19

Edx wrote:Therefore firefighters are liars. :roll:
hahahahahahahaha!! This is a truly pathetic smear attempt and it stinks of pure desperation......lol

How do you jump to the conclusion that I think the firefighters are liars?? lol Couldn't they be mistaken like all those witnesses who heard explosions but were mistaken and heard other things, but definitely not an explosion??

I've seen lots of images of the WTC taken through out the day and there if fire on a few floors and in some case were only visible on 1 or 2 sides of the buildings.

That's why you can't find a photo and use the firemans quotes and if anyone disagrees, Edx labels them as liars!! lol
Edx wrote:Oh you want to pretend no firefighters mentioned fire? :lol:
And an in even more desperate attempt you are now taking a quote I made about a specific quote you posted in which the fire fighter doesn't mention anything about the fires:-
Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured.

–FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers

And applying my comment:-
Concerned about the collapse, no mention of fires here!!

To all the quotes you posted where they do mention fires. lol

Sorry debunker, but your smear tactics won't work and will only back fire. (pardon the pun!) lol

Edx wrote:Here's a whole bunch of quotes that talk about fire and damage. I wonder where the goal posts will be moved to now and btw these arent exhastive and you will find no dissenting opinions from any of them anywhere about this either on or after 911.


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse 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 wouldnít lose any more people."
- Fire Department Commander - Daniel Nigro
It had fires very heavy fires, but not on that many floors as the photos of shows us.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/galle ... ouvers.jpg - Taken about 2:30pm East Side
http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/galle ... _n7&12.jpg - Taken about 3:00pm North Side
http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/galle ... _n8&13.jpg - Taken at 4:48pm East End Side.

Edx wrote:"...Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block."
-Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
Well that doesn't match the visual evidence, maybe he is mistaken because we can see from the photo above at 4:48 that not all the first seven floors were on fire.
Edx wrote:"..Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. "
FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
What was in disarray?? How does this support your case exactly?? lol
Edx wrote:"At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. ... Later on in the day it was getting close that they were more concerned about seven coming down we had no idea what was going on on the east side we were all on our side on the west side it was pretty clear the wind was blowing from west to east believe remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down they kept backing us up vesey almost like full block they were concerned about seven coming down and they kept changing us establishing collapse massa 18 zone and backing us up.
Firefighter Vincent Massa
According to him WTC 7 was going heavy?? That is not really descriptive is it? Again, I do not see how this quote supports your case.
Edx wrote:"Well, they said that's fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there." I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved
- Lieutenant James Mcglynn
Fully involved? If the WTC was fully involved as to mean the entire building then there would be a burned out carcass of the WTC 7 before it collapsed, but the majority of the building looked fine and wasn't on fire. So maybe you are taking his description to suit your own needs as opposed to taking into context with the photo evidence that there were some intense fires, but only on a few floors.

Does that make him a liar?? No! Does that make me think he is a liar? No! Does that make him mistaken?? Possibly because there is no evidence to support what you have taken the quote to mean.
Edx wrote:"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too... There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

The famous hole that had to be 20 stories tall, yet not a single photo of it. Maybe there was a hole but maybe he got the numbers wrong.

Does that make him a liar?? No! Does that make me think he is a liar? No! Does that make him mistaken?? Possibly but there may have been a 20 storey hole or a smaller one but I've not seen any quotes from anyone else supporting this.
Edx wrote:"There was an engine company... right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street."
Capt. Chris Boyle
So the fire wasn't being fought......Yeah we've been through that already. lol
Edx wrote:The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing."
FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
So now you have gone from talking about the fires to the collapse now?? lol
Edx wrote:I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
- Nick Visconti
Again, you are moving the goal posts. This guy didn't think it was coming down, he was told it was.

See the difference?
Edx wrote:"7 World Trade Center? I couldn’t even watch that. I said that’s enough. I refused to watch that. I took R-and-R. I said you guys can watch that one "
Battalion Chief Frank Vallebuona
Nothing about the fires, he's just telling people to watch that building.
Edx wrote:"...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
- Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
So they saw a huge bugle and thought it was coming down, turns out they were right.
Edx wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4

As a general summary they talk of it bulging, leaning, groaning and creaking and reports of things crackling, and falling. They describe it being heavily damaged and many described the vast damage to the south side such as Chris Boyle for example describing how he was standing right next to it where he saw a huge gaping hole about 1/3 the size of the building. He certainly not the only one to describe such huge damage. They talk about uncontainable fully involved raging fires and they say they all believed it would collapse or was in danger of collapse and that they knew that hours before it actually did.
So some people sussed it was going to collapse and they were right.

Your point being what exactly?? We were talking about the fires and you have somehow included the collapse to try and validate your weak out of context quotes to support heavy fire which we can clearly see from the photos isn't exactly true.

Some people thought it was going to collapse and it did.
Edx wrote:Some recent released photos of WTC7's fire's, show's more than some of the pictures in the past.
http://img651.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=01fdny181908.jpg
Shows photos with lots of smoke and we can see a couple of floors on fire but doesn't show us fire anywhere else.
Edx wrote:And btw you call this just smoke, but smoke has to come from somewhere and if you watch the videos you can see it POORING out of WTC7.
Yeah, I call this smoke unless there is some techinical term for it that I'm not aware off.
Edx wrote:Anyway the main point is that you are calling these firefighters liars if you disagree.
No, the main point is your piss poor attempt and a logical fallacy that if I disagree with the firefighters, then that must mean I'm calling them liars.

So when I quoted the firemen who talked about watching the collapses and thinking they looked like they were demolished because of the poch-poch/boom-boom BOTH you and ProfWag disagreed. Then by you own damn stupid logic......

YOU MUST BE CALLING THOSE FIREMEN LIARS TOO?? Right??!! hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Nice try at projecting your vomit on to me, but you missed and it's landed on your feet and back splash your face mate. lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17






Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 15 Jul 2010, 08:13

Chemist,

Gage has been told all this before, even one of his own Gregory Ulrich wrote an open letter to him telling him he was wrong, and then left AE911.

I've argued with Winston on the Zeitgeist Movement many times and he has seen many debates I've had with others there. He doesnt care if he is wrong, when I shown him he'll disappear for several weeks then come back and post the same stuff as if he hasn't been told any different.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 15 Jul 2010, 08:18

Scepcop wrote: Thermite residue,


They have been claiming that for years, in earlier incarnations Jones had to quote-mine an official report to try and make it sound like element in the dust were unexpected when it was. Jones is lying to you.

molten metal,


Also in Building 6, was Building 6 a demolition?

10 characteristics, etc


Most of which are disproved by Verinage straight away.

You won even debate me on these points Winston, how can you possible advise Gage about anytyhing? Or maybe thats what you are advising him, just ignore people.

. That is scientific hard evidence.


:lol:

Fires cannot explain the collapse of WTC7. We've already been over that.


Who is we?

If such were possible, then the demolition company would be out of business. I could just spend a few hours starting a fire instead of rigging explosives for months.


Really not been paying attention to the debate here have you?

If that were true why dont demolition companies set houses on fire to demolish them Winston?
Last edited by Edx on 15 Jul 2010, 08:24, edited 1 time in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Chemist » 15 Jul 2010, 08:22

Edx,
I understand completely. I've been arguing and debating with these people for years.

But, I still want to give some advice. If they expect to perform well in the debate, there are some things they need to address. They'll continue to be a laughing stock if they don't.

There are still some questions that I asked Winston back in 2009 that he hasn't answered. For the record, I'm asking them again.

There's a part of me that thinks they don't realize how flimsy their case is.
Chemist
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jul 2010, 05:13

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 15 Jul 2010, 08:24

stundie wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Do you mean like this one?

No, I meant like this one.
Image


Was it concrete reinforced Stundie?

I think you'll find it was! :roll:


ProfWag wrote:Yes, and it's a pretty good excuse.
No it's not mate.

The fires in the other were bigger in comparison to the size of the buildings and burned for longer even though the fires were being fought.


Were they steel frame buildings? No, it was a concrete reinforced steel buildings.


ProfWag wrote:Sorry, this is either ignorance or a lie.
Considering you claim to be a professor, this OFSTED inspector is disappointed in you.

The only person lying or ignorant is you Professor. Let me explain........

You quoted this..
ProfWag wrote:Here is the NTSB's report on WTC7:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
Please refer to page 45 of this report which states (after some math): "...Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time."
Do you know what you are talking about here?? lol

For a start, the upper 18 stories are not the entire building, just a 18 stories. lol

So the analysis that show the 40% longer descent time was.........Stage 1.

During stage 2, it fell at........free fall speeds.


What they said right after that was "This is consistent with....". But I know you are mining quotes again, truthers love that. But I think a more critical question for me to ask you is why it was only 2.25 seconds of free fall? According to you that is too much. Therefore if we assume it was explosives (the quiet kind of course) then how did it manage to continue to collapse? According to you when it hit resistance the lower floors should have stopped the collapse of the upper floors. Why didn't that happen Stundie?
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 15 Jul 2010, 08:26

Chemist wrote:
There are still some questions that I asked Winston back in 2009 that he hasn't answered. For the record, I'm asking them again.


He won't I can't even remember how many questions Winston has ignored from me

There's a part of me that thinks they don't realize how flimsy their case is.


I know they don't. But for some reason total lack of mainstream science supporting them doesn't matter, they are the crusaders for truth! :lol:
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby really? » 15 Jul 2010, 09:06

Why is it only the fringe people that support this. You'd think that all six network tv news Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC plus all other US news agencies would report on this if there was anything to it. Why not ? Let- me- guess; it's because they are all part of the conspiracy. I find the Truther conspiracy repugnant.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 15 Jul 2010, 09:23

Edx wrote:Get it right Stundie, YOU'RE calling them liars, not ProfWag

Aside from 1 single firefighter, John Schroeder, who had post traumatic stress and doesnt even know that the South tower fell first, no FDNY firefighter believes the nonsense you claim they do.
Have you asked every single FDNY firefighter?? lol Of course you haven't, because most of them have never said what they believe on way or another.

So because they have never spoke out in support of the conspiracy, then that must mean they support the otherside. What a docile argument and a poor appeal to authority which you do not have.
Edx wrote:You dont even care about contacting them to ask them if they sustained any blast injuries or if they really believe there were bombs in the towers.
Because I'm not really interested in the towers collapse and I live in Britain.

And there was plenty of people and new reports to support the fact that people thought bombs were going off, so I do not need to contact the firefighter.
Edx wrote:You dont even care that none of them back up a single thing you claim about WTC7 and dozens and dozens say the opposite with no dissenting opinions from any of them in nearly a decade.
And again, you have no argument or point, where are the dozens who say it was not a demolition other than one fire chief??
Edx wrote:I dont see any truthers attacking the FDNY and asking why they dont tell the truth about Building 7.
Why should they?? Why would firefighters know the truth about WTC 7??
Edx wrote:Didn't look very hard, did you? :roll: I even gave you a link that told you:

"The building has three enclosed stairways of concrete masonry construction.... The elevator shafts
are constructed of concrete and masonry and extend from the first floor or lower levels to the
highest floor served by the individual elevator banks.... under
severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assembliesin many
places
"
Oh please, that is not concrete reinforced. lol

Its a steel framed building just like the WTC and has a concrete floor.

Hence from the link you posted:- "The building frame is structural steel with concrete floors poured over metal decks."

So it's not like the Madrid Towers whose frame is Steel Reinforced Concrete.
Edx wrote:Concrete reinforced.Concrete reinforced.Concrete reinforced.Concrete reinforced.Concrete reinforced. :roll:
Not all the building are concrete reinforced! lol

Unless you think because a steel frame as concrete poured over metal deck is concrete reinforced?? hahahahaha!!
Edx wrote:So why did they say it might "PANCAKE COLLAPSE" if its impossible for such a building to collapse from fire like you claim?
Now where did I say it was impossible?? lol Oh that's right I didn't. Infact I think I stated that fires could make a building collapse, so you are misunderstanding and mis representing my position to make it look like you have a point.

The reason they thought it might pancake collapse is probably because of the intense fires they fight after 11 hours might cause the building to collapse.

But it didn't did it??
Edx wrote:Could it be that structural engineers have understood progressive collapses has been an issue for a long time?
Well the NIST had a workshop about progressive collapses on 10th Sept 2001.

Edx wrote:The long span floor trusses was the key reason why WTC7 collapsed, but I know you dont care about that so lets move on.
You are moving away from the official story, it was a single column not floor trusses which was the key.

You sound more like a conspiracy theorist now. lol

Edx wrote:You really need to learn what it means for a building to be concrete reinforced. Its the concrete that makes the structure stronger, all you do is give examples of buildings that have been steel reinforced with concrete which is well known to hold up the best in fires.
Sorry Edx, but pouring concrete on the floors doesn't reinforce the frame of the building, just the floor. Hence as the link you posted says.. "The building frame is structural steel with concrete floors poured over metal decks"

Here's an interesting quote I found about UK Building Codes and its relationship to the Twin Towers.
Edx wrote:"The World Trade Center could not have been built in the United Kingdom," insists Ed Galea director of the Fire Safety Engineering Group at the University of Greenwich in London. "The number of the staircases would have been insufficient. The nature of those staircases would not have met our requirements. We would have required concrete. You would have also needed lobbies on each floor to protect staircases from smoke. Also, the connections between the floor joists and upright columns would've been much more robust. It's all part of the U.K. building code." It's unlikely that the WTC could have been constructed in Japan either. "Buildings one hundred meters or higher are framed in reinforced concrete rather than steel," Tokyo structural engineer Masahiko Fukasawa says.

- Skyscraper Safety - "Shortcuts to Safety"[/quote]It couldn't be built in Britain today because of strict firecodes, but it might have been OK back in the sixties.
Edx wrote:The concrete held up because it was concrete and the steel structure that was not reinforced collapsed. That is what I have been telling you. Concrete holds up better that steel. Steel does not perform well in fires.
I know this but the point was that this building wasn't designed to arrest a collapse and did.
Edx wrote:You can't use any of them as examples of steel frame structures that didn't collapse when they are reinforced with concrete and in the Windsor tower had a concrete core and the steel that wasn't reinforced actually DID collapse. its misrepresenting the design of the towers by leaving out the fact that concrete is a much more fire resilient building material and that the WTC towers had no load bearing concrete whatsoever.
Not all the towers were reinforced with concrete. You seem to be under the illusion that because they have concrete floor then they are reinforced.

If that's the case then the WTC had concrete floors, does that mean they were steel reinforced concrete building too?? lol
Edx wrote:I asked you why verinage collapses are also "near free fall speeds" and of you ignored it, presumably you agree there was resistance there as well.
Because when the support is removed there is no resistance and when the two blocks collide, there is an equal and opposite force working on both objects which destroyed them.
Edx wrote:Why not? That's exactly what we see, especially in the last example of that video. How many floors would you say is crushing the rest of the building in that example? Please do count it for us.
I did this earlier but it could have been in the post I lost.

Floors 1-6 are the lower portions, floor 7 & 8 have been preweakened for initiation and floors 9-14 are the upper portions.
Edx wrote:You guys imply that steel is indestructible by your arguments, the same way that by extension the firefighters have to be lying if what you say is true but you dont want to admit you believe they are lying as its bad PR.
No, you are implying it to distort my position in the hope you have a point...lol

So please tell me where I have claimed steel is indestructible otherwise, oh thats right, I didn't. Rather than admitting your point was a strawman, you continue onwards in your charade without an ounce of shame.

All this tell us that it's obvious you are having a fight with an imaginary foe.

And your logical fallacy about the firefighters has nothing to do with bad PR. Even if I thought one firefighter was lying or a few of them, does that mean I think the whole of the FDNY were lying?? Only in your world would that be a yes!! lol
Edx wrote:And yet you ignore it, you guys always ignore it.
But I just addressed it. lol
Edx wrote:This is the floor system you are talking that you believe can resist a weight that is relevant to this discussion.

Image
And here you are with your next wurzel for me to burn down with my mighty matches.

Where did I say that the floor system can resist a weight?? Oh that's right I did. I just corrected you and explained that the floors did hold some of the load.

And yes it is irrelevant to the discussion but you brought this man of straw and then proceed to tell me it's irrelevant....is frankly....irrelevant.

But highlights your mindset in that you think you are debating me but debating voices in your head it would appear!! lol
Edx wrote:We do have a coherent theory, but of course you dont accept that because you are incompetent so lets turn it around. Since Gage doesnt have a coherent theory - at all - then are we logically allowed to speculate about space beams or mini nukes or no planes?
So what is this coherent theory?? lol

Don't do the debunker thing and tell me to read the NIST report because we are both aware, the NIST deals with the initiation of the collapse, not the collapse itself. There science is....it was inevitable...just a simple statement that somehow has become fact with you guys.
Edx wrote:1. VERY VERY DANGEROUS especially with high rises.
Well I like danger and I'm sure it's not as dangerous as explosives.
Edx wrote:2. Not all buildings will work as I've already explained.
Just ones that are plane damaged or suffer from damage from said plane damaged ones?? lol
Edx wrote:It would also be cheaper to set a house on fire to demolish it than to get construction equipment in and knock it/tare it down, but they don't do this because its dangerous.
And probably quicker to tear it down. lol
Edx wrote:But that is just a house that only has a few floors at most, we're talking about large high rises in populated areas. That multiples the danger to absurd levels. Controlled demolitions HAVE to be "controlled", that's why they don't use it.
I know why they don't use it.
Edx wrote:Apparently this is too difficult for you to grasp.
No, I'm sure I explained why they don't do it, it's not the danger, it's a shit method.
Edx wrote:That's what happened with WTC1 and 2 didn't it?
Well that's assuming that it was plane and fire damage which I'm inclined not to believe.
Edx wrote:Or do you somehow deny that happened?
No, it happened. Although I can't understand why a fire would start flinging debris all over the place in a collapse.
Edx wrote:Imagine if those verinage collapses were 100 stories high the debris that was being pushed out the collapse front would have a LOT further to travel and if it was a larger building (such as a size of a city block) this means a lot of heavy material is going to be falling down on a wise radius.
Imagine if they set fire to the collapse in the video. It would be even more dangerous and send debris flying out even further according to your logic.
Edx wrote:I gave you the example of a car being attached to another car with one of them being pushed off a cliff.
But one of those cars has to be falling at free fall speeds to pull the other car.
Edx wrote:For a moment the second car would accelerate faster than free fall before levelling out because it is being pulled by the second one.
It might accelerate faster than free fall, but we are not talking about accelerating at free fall speeds in the towers, we are talking about it collapsing at free fall speeds. Or in your example travelling off the cliff at free fall speeds.
Edx wrote: I dont understand why you dont get that.
I don't get it because you are talking about acceleration. The WTC 7 didn't accelerate faster than free fall and therefore your point is totally irrelevant.
Edx wrote: The internal collapses in 7 which we cant see fall is pulling down on the external facade faster than it would fall on its own, very quickly it hits more resistance. The collapse of 7 shows significant resistance.
But it doesn't! See the NIST report about Stage 2 - free fall speeds for 8 stories.
Edx wrote:Congratulations, now you know another reason why fire is not a effective method for demolition.
But you don't seem to understand because it would appear that you agree it is ineffective as I suggest, while at the same time believing it is effective as it took down 3 buildings and one of them at free fall speeds!! hahahahahahahaha!!

You are still in the twoofer twap. lol
Edx wrote:I love it when you debunk yourself. I should go nominate you for your own stundie award on the JREF again.
How have I debunked myself?? I never said it wasn't dangerous??

Go ahead and find the quote. lol
Edx wrote: How did you get to "gradually collapse"?
Because the loads don't give away all at once, at the same time unless its a demolition of course! lol
Edx wrote:If the load bearing connections are gone and the upper block is falling on the floor system what is going to happen?
Depends on where the failure is in the upper block doesn't it.

If the first failure happens on the 2nd floor from top floor, do you think the single floor will destroy all floors which at the time would still have some structual integrity until the next failure happens.
Edx wrote:Go look at the verinage collapses again to refresh your memory.
Don't need to, the failure happens on 2 floor in the middle and that free fall created enough energy between the 2 block which were similar in mass and it collapsed.
Edx wrote:I like how you started talking about houses then started talking about steel frame high rises. You said that a house will collapse from fire, therefore by your logic its cheaper to use fire when demolition companies destroy them. So then, why dont they use that?
Because its a shit method for demolition houses and highrise buildings.
Edx wrote:So then, you must accept that demolition companies should be using fire to demolish houses, right?
Not at all. lol

Such a leap in logic!! lol

Edx wrote:No since you want your low order explosives (the ones that deflagrate) to help you explain heavy steel flinging and buildings being "pulverised".
No I don't!! lol Because low order explosives don't fling heavy steel.

One that go boom, boom, boom do though.

Oh and fire does as well now. lol
Edx wrote:No, that's the point.
Yes that is the point, you are asking where at the people with ruptured ear drums? I do not know if there was or wasn't. So I'm asking you if you know or are you assuming you know there was no people with ruptured ear drums?

Don't wiggle out of it, you brought it up?? lol
Edx wrote:
I'm not aware of the medical records of the people who were injured at the WTC to answer it one way or another, but even if no one reporting ruptured ear drums.


First of all truthers so so damn lazy and here is another example of why. You say you dont know about the medical reports and yet you have peoples names and identities for years.
If I didn't know any better, I would say that is a bit of a rant. lol

Are there medical records?? Seeing here in britain we have doctor and patient confidentiality, so I'm not sure if there are released.

And so what if twoofers have peoples names and identities, doesn't mean they have access to their medical records does it?
Edx wrote:You guys claim Barry Jennings experienced a massive explosion from a bomb in WTC7 and yet even though he did an interview afterwards with his hearing apparently intact no truther has ever tried to contact these guys to find out if they had any blast injuries.
I seem to remember that is what Dylan Avery did and he was accused of pestering him.

Its a rapid assesment of the type of injuries and it only talks about the percentage that came in for the common types of injuries.

And just because it doesn't state the people who came in with ruptured ear drums (if there were any of course!) then that doesn't mean nobody suffered from it.

In this table it says "excludes unspecified injuries or illnesses"
Edx wrote:
For compairison here's detailed abstracts on injuries reported in a real bombing.
Injury patterns from major urban terrorist bombings in trains: the Madrid experience.

Casualties treated at the closest hospital in the Madrid, March 11, terrorist bombings.

Notice that we have large numbers of cases of ruptured ear drums (tympanic perforation) and blast lung where we know there was bombs and NONE with the WTC victims.
That is because a large number of people were close in relation to the bomb.

I've already pointed this out to you before, the reason why no one is likely to have suffered these injuries is probably because no on was close enough to it.
Edx wrote:Also, in May of this year 9,000 first responders sued 90 agencies for injuries. Can you guess if there was any explosive related injuries? No truther's touched it of course, in the same way that they don't care about contacting any of these people to ask what their injuries are.
This explosive injury is nothing more than a pathetic argument you have created to keep you believing. lol
Edx wrote:1. People could have heard an explosion sound and the building rocked which made them fall over. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess experienced the collapse of the towers while he was inside Building 7 for example, but he didn't experience a bomb. Its why my other example I gave you before said someone thought he experienced a bomb but that later realised it was the South tower collapsing.
Yeah but some can't be explained, read Arturro Griffiths account, he remembers 3 different explosions.

And there is a recording of a firefigther at GZ who is speaking with his command centre who says there are explosions going off in the building and that people are covered in dust from it, unfortunately I do not think this firefighter made it out. I'll see if I can find it because no doubt you will think I'm lying or something. lol
Edx wrote:2. If the bomb was strong enough to throw them around, it will be strong enough to rip their ear drums.
Well you'll have to provide evidence for that claim.
Edx wrote:3. If the bomb was too weak to rupture ear drums then it was definitely too weak to take out any critical parts of the building. ie. useless.
But nobody thinks it was weak that it couldn't take out parts of the buildings.....Other than you. lol
Edx wrote:We've been over this. Both you and he have said exactly this.
Where have I said that thermite can knock steel and people about? lol

Edx wrote:Pieces of collapsing sky scraper will probably wobble a building a little bit I would have thought.
But the fires wouldn't then??
Edx wrote:1. Like I asked you the last time you said this is for you to tell me just how much thermite was used to cut that steel and what the radio of device is to the steel they used.
I don't have to tell you sod all because I do not know, but what I do not is that there is a thermite device which cuts steel, proving your premise that it can't cut steel or be used as an explosive in untrue.

Regardless of whether I know how much is used or not. lol
Edx wrote:Its a very thin piece with a huge device attached to it .
Its still steel and maybe the device is the trigger. Who knows and maybe it could be made smaller not that it matter because it cuts steel.
Edx wrote: In the real world it would be completely impractical to use such a method which is why demolition companies don't and why no truther has been able to show that thermite, thermate or nano thermite can do anythng relevant to the steel.
But I'm supposedly a twoofer and I've just shown you how it could have been used. lol
Edx wrote:Remember when Steven Jones said that if you painted on nano thermite onto steel it turns into a "high explosive"?
Not really, but I don't hang on to Steven Jones every word unlike someone else I could mention?? lol
Edx wrote:What a laugh riot that was when Ventura then played video of nano thermite painted on steel which was set on fire and nothing exploded, poor Steven, unintentionally disproven by a knucklehead like Ventura.
??
Edx wrote:2. That wouldnt be able to throw steel around, sorry.
Thermite wouldn't throw the steel around, explosives would do that. lol
Edx wrote:You feign ignorance of my point even though Ive explained it many times.
Its you that is ignorant and cherry pickingn and taking quotes in your little video completely out of context. lol
Edx wrote:Gage says explosives threw heavy material away from the building, pulverised it and so on. He is describing a high order explosives that creates a blast wave to rip through infrastructure.
Thats because this is what explosives do.
Edx wrote:Thermite doesn't explode it deflagrates, it can melt stuff but it doesn't explode.
It can be used as the video shows but I do not think Gage thinks that thermite did explode.
Edx wrote: If thermite could explode with enough power to fling heavy steel around therefore it would still be just as loud.
Maybe so, I couldn't tell you but I would think so too.
Edx wrote:Gage thinks that thermite makes it quieter in order to explain why we dont hear explosive detonations when the building collapsed.
No gage thinks it was used in conjunction with explosives to assist in the collapse.
Edx wrote:I'lll tell you then. Its clearly a small, thin piece of steel.
It is still steel.
Edx wrote:I didnt say thermite couldn't cut steel I said it couldnt cut steel beams the way truther say it can.
But potentially it could and nothing you have said changes that fact. Just because twoofer haven't sussed the method, doesn't mean it can't be done.
Edx wrote:Please explain why no one found such enormous devices like this in the rubble pile or how they were able to install such enormous devices with no one looking?
Because nobody looked for explosive devices. Remember they shipped of 80% of the steel before anyone got to look at it.
Edx wrote:Also, you have the issue of it needing to be even larger than this because with the devise you are taking about here the thermite doesn't need to just get through half an inch of steel it needs to get through something as large as a core column which would mean the thermite would have to remain in contact long enough to do any damage.
I'm not saying this device was used, I'm showing you this as a possibility.
Edx wrote:This is what Im saying, truthers simply cannot show this is possible and why people like Steven Jones have gone from saying they used painted on nano thermite to it just being matches or fuses for lighting traiditonal explosives like C4.
Just like debunkers can't explain the collapses without resorting to models which don't match the physical evidence and ignores things which contradict it. lol
Edx wrote:Its not possible to do a demolition in this way, thats the point.
But it is, it cuts steel so theoretically it is possible. Regardless of whether it is practical or not.
Edx wrote:How?
By mixing other chemicals to it.
Edx wrote:You still have the problem with the fact that thermite doesn't work well cutting horizontally through steel, if you have a lot surrounding it it still does little more than warm it, they did that experiment as well.
Well it might not work well but as I said, maybe it didn't cut the steel but just heat weaken it as it does more than warm it, it melts steel.
Edx wrote:The ONLY reason the devise in your experiment works is that the device is large enough to propel sufficient amounts of thermite onto a thin piece of steel so that it can cut it.
I don't think than device is thermite, I think there is a trigger mechanism there too.
Edx wrote:In a real world demolition such device would have to multiple times bigger based on the size of the steel column it was trying to cut. Saying such a device is impractical is being nice, its impossible to have the same device scaled up.
[/quote]I'm sorry but I'm sure some clever bod could reduce the size and change the compound to make it more reactive.

How they would do it, I do not know, but it's not as impossible as you seem to believe.
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 15 Jul 2010, 10:15

Edx wrote:
stundie wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Do you mean like this one?

No, I meant like this one.
Image


Was it concrete reinforced Stundie?

I think you'll find it was! :roll:
Err...I think you'll find I ask your ProfWag of a photo of WTC 7 with these raging infernos.
He posted a pic with no visible fire and lots of smoke an taken from the other side of the river miles away.
I said this doesn't show any fire.
He says will this one do.
I said no, I was thinking more the FIRE on the one I posted. In other words a building on FIRE....regardless of it's construction.

So not only has ProfWag failed to show evidence of the WTC 7 fires, which you claim were raging when infact there was a few floors on fire. lol

And you failed in defending your mate by pointing out that it was not a steel framed when that wasn't the point of me posting it. lol

If you want I'll change it to a steel structure if you like not that it makes any difference. lol

Edx wrote:What they said right after that was "This is consistent with....". But I know you are mining quotes again,
Is this your attempt at irony?? lol

I see you are avoiding the free fall speeds that the NIST admit happened even if they are consistent with their structural analysis model. The problem that you and the NIST have got is that you can't explain it.
Edx wrote:truthers love that.
What showing debunkers the depths, lengths and desperation they will goto avoid addressing an issue. Oh I love it.

And although you won't believe me, I'm not a truther. lol
Edx wrote:But I think a more critical question for me to ask you is why it was only 2.25 seconds of free fall?
Because it accelerated to free falls speeds 40% slower, meaning that it accelerated to free fall speeds 40% slower than if you dropped an object from the top, meaning that the resistance only manage to slow it down by 40%. Then reached free fall speeds for 2.25 seconds meaning that at this point there is no resistance within WTC 7 and then gained some resistance and collapse at speed near free fall.

Thats why.....Duh!! lol
Edx wrote:According to you that is too much.
Its not too much, it shouldn't be there. The only way to obtain free fall speeds is by removing all the support from the structure and the only to achieve that is by demoltion, Either explosives or verinage.

Unless you can show me a high rise or eveb a multi-story building collapsing to the ground at free fall speeds that was not demolished.
Edx wrote:Therefore if we assume it was explosives (the quiet kind of course) then how did it manage to continue to collapse?
Who said they were silent?? Oh thats right you keep projecting that position on me when I've never argued it was silent. lol

Here is a loud bang 6 second into the video, you'll hear someone saying the building gonna blow up not long before WTC 7 collapses.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&NR=1[/youtube]
Naturally you'll say it is something else but of course, if you have no source, then you can't rule out it was an explosive and you fail in your argument that I thought they were silent. lol
Edx wrote:According to you when it hit resistance the lower floors should have stopped the collapse of the upper floors.
Well that is usually what happens when you have 2 objects that collide, the top part doesn't collapse at free fall unless there is no resistance.
Edx wrote:Why didn't that happen Stundie?
Probably because it was a demolition as I suspect.

However, I'm still waiting for your fire induced, one column collapse theory that somehow explains how a 47 storey structure loses it's entire support for 2.25 seconds??

Any ideas?? lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 15 Jul 2010, 10:31

really? wrote:Why is it only the fringe people that support this. You'd think that all six network tv news Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC plus all other US news agencies would report on this if there was anything to it. Why not ? Let- me- guess; it's because they are all part of the conspiracy. I find the Truther conspiracy repugnant.
Well it's a great idea then to spend time on a forum with people who views which you think are repugnant isn't it?? :lol: lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 15 Jul 2010, 10:37

stundie wrote:They painted an area on one side of the beam and did you see the reaction?? Much hotter and more violent than jet fuel or office furniture.


It didnt explode like Steven Jones said it would, why is that? He said it was a high explosive.

And office fires are well known to get up to steel weakening temperatures, its amazing you are apparently denying that.

Maybe they should have painted the entire beam instead of a small area.


There's always an excuse. How was this meant to happen horizontally? Nano thermite isn't this amazing substance you guys make it out to be. Just because its got "nano" in front of it doesn't mean you can ascribe characteristics to it that it doesn't have and never did.

stundie wrote:
Edx wrote:Therefore firefighters are liars. :roll:
hahahahahahahaha!! This is a truly pathetic smear attempt and it stinks of pure desperation......lol

How do you jump to the conclusion that I think the firefighters are liars?? lol Couldn't they be mistaken like all those witnesses who heard explosions but were mistaken and heard other things, but definitely not an explosion??


:roll:

Anyone can misunderstand where a sound came from and people have a tendency to call any loud sound an "explosion", but you cant misunderstand seeing huge chunks taken out of a building and a building on fire. Buildings on fire and what it looks like and how stable they are is their job. That's what they are trained to do. They are fire experts.

But hey, why dont you go tell them that the evidence shows they were "mistaken" and that there were only a few minor fires on a few floors and see what reaction you get. Oh wait, truthers dont want to do that? I am shocked I tell you, shocked! :o

I've seen lots of images of the WTC taken through out the day and there if fire on a few floors and in some case were only visible on 1 or 2 sides of the buildings.


What you can see is a lot of thick smoke pouring rapidly out the building. Firefighters know what that look like and what it means, you act like all of them were "mistaken" as if they are common people not trained to know what a large fire looks like. :roll:

You are right though, you aren't necessarily saying they are liars I do apologise, there IS another option.

They are all just too incompetent to know what large fires look like, too incompetent to have any idea what they are talking about. Literally everything they said about the unstable state of 7 was wrong according to you and this means they were all too incompetent to know what truther's like you know. But not just the firefighters like the ones I listed here that mentioned it, not one of them had any dissenting opinions about the state of 7, not in nearly 10 years! None said anything different to the idea that it was heavily damaged, that it would collapse, that it had large heavy fires in many floors. None even say they were at all surprised it collapsed even afterwards, even after truthers have been running around saying it is obvious just by looking at it. Dont you think firefighters care about their dead "brothers" that day to look into the "truth"? Why is it none of come out in support and said it did look strange at the time or that it didnt really have major fires? Again, I dare you to go find some NYC firefighters and put this theory of yours to them and tell them how competent you think they were.


Edx wrote:Oh you want to pretend no firefighters mentioned fire? :lol:
And an in even more desperate attempt you are now taking a quote I made about a specific quote you posted in which the fire fighter doesn't mention anything about the fires:-


Actually you replied to each one of ProfWag's quotes saying they didnt mention fires, as if to say that firefighters didn't really see large fires. Who cares if ProfWags quotes didnt have specific mentions of large fires? (even though some of them did) Did you know all along that the firefighters say that there were heavy uncontrollable fires on many floors? Because either you were being difficult on purpose or you were implying that they didnt really say there were large fires because you didn't believe they did, which is exactly what I said. There can't really be any other option here. I simply chose the option that suggested you werent being intentionally difficult, I do apologise. I see I shouldnt have given you so much credit.

Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured.

–FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers


And applying my comment:-
Concerned about the collapse, no mention of fires here!!


Case in point.... Why would you need to say "no mention of fires here!!". Whats that got to do with anything?

The only reason you'd say that is if you think firefighters didnt really say there were large fires or if you were being difficult just because ProfWag didnt choose those specific quotes. And I think being concerned about a collapse of a building from fire when truthers claim no one would ever think such a thing would happen is interesting enough.



Edx wrote:Here's a whole bunch of quotes that talk about fire and damage. I wonder where the goal posts will be moved to now and btw these arent exhastive and you will find no dissenting opinions from any of them anywhere about this either on or after 911.



It had fires very heavy fires, but not on that many floors as the photos of shows us.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/galle ... ouvers.jpg - Taken about 2:30pm East Side
http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/galle ... _n7&12.jpg - Taken about 3:00pm North Side
http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/galle ... _n8&13.jpg - Taken at 4:48pm East End Side.


(note: you quote pictures from ae911 yet they say there were small minor fires, they never admit to heavy fires)


No you see these pictures are dishonest.I gave you some pictures which show a lot more fires than that yet you choose to cherry pick these ones. You've also been shown the videos of huge amounts of thick smoke pouring out of the building. But you people use these specific pictures because you want to misrepresent the condition of WTC7 to others.

And whats more I will also point out that if you think your pictures are representative of the fires in WTC7, then you think firefighters looking at this are too incompetent to realise these are small fires, not only that when all these incompetent firefighters are around saying theres huge fires and it will probably collapse none of them has come out and said it didnt look that bad to them and it seemed unlikely to collapse. None of them, no firefighters ,anywhere on 911 agree with your claims about Building 7. None of them. They were there and plenty specifically contradict you and none of them support you.

Well that doesn't match the visual evidence, maybe he is mistaken because we can see from the photo above at 4:48 that not all the first seven floors were on fire.


As Capt. Chris Boyle said the south side is the side with all the damage.

"north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors"
- Capt. Chris Boyle


So then you show pictures of the north and east side and say there were small fires in the whole building, even though the firefighters arent saying thats where the fires where. :roll:

You do know that since its pushed all the way through the building and coming out the north side that this is an entire block of fires, right? Why not try listening to the experts in fire rather than suggesting they are all incompetents? They assessed the building and decided it would probably collapse so they moved all of them back. You're saying they're too incompetent to question any of it. not just at the time but nearly 10 years later and still counting!


Edx wrote:"..Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. "
FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
What was in disarray?? How does this support your case exactly?? lol


What was in disarry? Building 7 - was in disarray, obviously. You know, heavy fires on multiple floors they couldnt flight allowed to burn for hours and hours, that it was leaning, bulging, groaning, things cracking and falling. I'd say that's a building that is in "disarray". :roll: You are really something...

According to him WTC 7 was going heavy?? That is not really descriptive is it? Again, I do not see how this quote supports your case.


It is quite descriptive actually, he is talking about the fires... being heavy... and continuous....which is what we see in the videos of all the thick smoke (from all the fires) pouring continuously from the South side. But I like how you ignore the fact that he also says "Everybody was expecting that to come down". Why would he think that? Guess he is just too incompetent and thinks every building with a small fire is going to collapse.


Edx wrote:"Well, they said that's fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there." I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved
- Lieutenant James Mcglynn


Fully involved? If the WTC was fully involved as to mean the entire building then there would be a burned out carcass of the WTC 7 before it collapsed, but the majority of the building looked fine and wasn't on fire. So maybe you are taking his description to suit your own needs as opposed to taking into context with the photo evidence that there were some intense fires, but only on a few floors.


How do you know what the South side looked like from the ground up close from where they would be standing? Why are you saying its more reasonable that the entire FDNY department involved is that incompetent rather than you just being mistaken? Why hasnt the truth movement made any attempt to contact any of these firefighetrs to ask them about Building 7? Too scared of being punched in the face I would guess.


Edx wrote:"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too... There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

The famous hole that had to be 20 stories tall, yet not a single photo of it. Maybe there was a hole but maybe he got the numbers wrong.


Image

High Def version here.

FEMA had used another picture of this hole in their report and truthers said it was fake (of course). This is another picture taken at the same time that shows the same hole that was recently released along with various other pictures that day

You can also see some video of south side damage here:


You can clearly see that there is a chunk missing even if much of it is obscured by smoke.

Does that make him a liar?? No!


Ha! Yes, it does I think.... In this case it stretches credulity even in your extreme case even metal gymnastics can't get past to believe that an expert (he is also not just a firefighter but a Captain) in fire and building safety can look at it and say there's a hole 20 stories tall and just be incompetent. I mean, that would mean he is just stupid.


I've not seen any quotes from anyone else supporting this.


LOL you even quote one of them in your own post!

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven,which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing."
FDNY Chief Frank Fellini




Edx wrote:The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing."
FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
So now you have gone from talking about the fires to the collapse now?? lol


My god you have a bad memory... why was I talking about damage as well as fire? Hmm, Lets see what I preceded these quotes by saying

"Here's a whole bunch of quotes that talk about fire and damage" ... remember? :roll:

And let me refresh your memory. Truthers claim small minor fires. Truthers claim minor damage. Truthers claim no one would imagine that WTC7 would collapse.

The quote from Chief Fellini here says that Building 7 was a "major concern" on the day. Why does he think that? Because it had taken major damage from the collapse of the North tower. What does that mean? He tells you. It had steel ripped out across its façade. He also says they("we") were concerned that it was going to collapse. Why would he think that? He says it was because of the FIRES and MISSING STEEL. So, if it wasnt that damaged, why would he think missing steel would be an issue? If fires dont bring down steel buildings and they were only minor anyway, why would he think that would be a problem for the structural integrity of the building? Is he incompetent or lying...? You pick, because there are no other options at this point.

This quote is just one of many that contradicts all 3 of those truther claims about Building 7, but you hand wave it - amazing!



Edx wrote:I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
- Nick Visconti


Again, you are moving the goal posts. This guy didn't think it was coming down, he was told it was.


What do you mean "again"? From the goal post moving master that's quite and ironic accusation.

Visconti didnt say he didnt think it was coming down, dont put words in his mouth. You do like to ignore the fact that there were no dissenting opinions for over 9 years and no one hint that any of them didnt agree with any of this.

I also gave plenty of quotes from firefighters that said first hand they thought that it was going to collapse along with others, not that they were "told", but now you claim Im moving goal posts? Hilarious!

Its funny though I didn't actually highlight that sentence, so I notice how this time choose to read the entire quote and cherry pick that one line and ignore the relevant part I was bolding for a reason. The part I bolded says "At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke". Even funnier you just got down telling me I wasn't focusing on quotes about fire then I give you one and you ignore it. :)

Also... could it be that "Frank" that he talked about is Chief Frank Fellini we just looked at? Because Fellini, as we have just seen, told us why they thought it was going to collapse and it because of the FIRE and MISSING STEEL. Are you suggesting Chief Fellini was in on it? Why dont you contact Mr Visconti and the rest that you think were told them all this misinformation that apparently believed without question and ask them who it was, so you can get to the bottom of who in the FDNY was in on it? Oh... you wont do that? Oh... no truther has even tried to? I am again, totally shocked...


Edx wrote:"...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
- Deputy Chief Peter Hayden


So they saw a huge bugle and thought it was coming down, turns out they were right.



....WOW

So you're saying he knew there were explosives in it... or that he was incompetent, right? Why else would he think it would collapse?

I thought steel frame buildings dont collapse? I thought there was only minor damage 7? I thought there were only minor fires? Why would he think 7 would collapse before it did unless he knew it had explosives in it, or if he is so incompetent that he thinks every building with a few minor fires is probably going to collapse?

This is great stuff though, watching you dance around these.


Edx wrote:




So some people sussed it was going to collapse and they were right.

Your point being what exactly??


:lol: Hmm, I don't know maybe because truthers like you and Gage claim that no one should have imagined that a steel frame building could have collapsed from fire. How did anyone "suss" it, especially fire experts like all these experienced FDNY firefighters with not a whiff of surprise from any of them?

People like Gage or Jim Hoffman will say the BBC "reported it before it happened"! How did they know! They will say... Remember? This principle that no one would think it would collapse is the basis for that claim. And now I show you firefighters that said they knew it was going to collapse because of fire and you say "whats your point?" You are hilarious, Stundie. You really have earned your reputation!


We were talking about the fires and you have somehow included the collapse to try and validate your weak out of context quotes to support heavy fire which we can clearly see from the photos isn't exactly true.



I've shown you quotes from firefighters that talk of heavy fire, heavy damage and that they were sure it was going to collapse. If a firefighter thinks a building is going to collapse, that means they think the damage is so severe the structural integrity can no longer hold and yet you tell me that this is somehow irrelevant to point out?! hah!


Some people thought it was going to collapse and it did.


Experts in firefighting said this and according to you apparently are wrong about its large fires and major damage, presumably because they are too incompetent or lying. You don't like me saying they were lying, so that leaves incompetence. Mass incompetence actually so it would be more like mass delusion.

You guys cant claim that WTC7 was totally unpredictable as a collapse from fire when all these experts in fire predicted it. How did they know it would collapse? Why don't you care why they might think that?

So when I quoted the firemen who talked about watching the collapses and thinking they looked like they were demolished because of the poch-poch/boom-boom BOTH you and ProfWag disagreed. Then by you own damn stupid logic......

YOU MUST BE CALLING THOSE FIREMEN LIARS TOO?? Right??!! hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!


Do the firefighters actually believe they heard explosives or did they just describe the collapse of pancaking floors because the only real time people see pancaking collapsing buildings is in an explosive demolition? But you dont know, you dont care. It sounds goo,d so you dont want to check it will spoil all the fun.

The thing to understand is that explosive demolition is VERY VERY VERY LOUD. But thats just cutting columns, not flinging steel around. For that you need REALLY intense explosives. We didnt hear these explosive detonations, not even like you'd find at a normal demolition, why not? Multiple cameras from multiple angles and positions recorded no detonations when this is meant to be happening.

So logic says these firefighters were probably describing collapsing floors, because if you look at verinage that is also exactly how they look and there's no explosives there either.
Last edited by Edx on 16 Jul 2010, 21:15, edited 2 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 15 Jul 2010, 14:27

stundie wrote:
Edx wrote:Get it right Stundie, YOU'RE calling them liars, not ProfWag

Aside from 1 single firefighter, John Schroeder, who had post traumatic stress and doesnt even know that the South tower fell first, no FDNY firefighter believes the nonsense you claim they do.
Have you asked every single FDNY firefighter?? lol Of course you haven't, because most of them have never said what they believe on way or another.


Apparently you are suggesting that 911 Truth NYC are THAT incompetent that they failed to find all these firefighters that you think believe in explosives... whatever Stundie

So because they have never spoke out in support of the conspiracy, then that must mean they support the otherside. What a docile argument and a poor appeal to authority which you do not have.


I love how complete and total lack of evidence somehow becomes evidence to you.

And I like how you now act like you have a problem with appeals to authority all of a sudden . :lol:



Edx wrote:You dont even care about contacting them to ask them if they sustained any blast injuries or if they really believe there were bombs in the towers.
Because I'm not really interested in the towers collapse and I live in Britain.


There is always email and phone calls, there is also the fact that none of your truther "experts" have done or tried to either.

And what on earth are you talking about "not really interested in the towers collapse", :lol: then why the hell do you argue about it so much on the net? You aren't fooling anyone, obviously its very important to you, evidence just isnt that important to you which is why when I suggest how to obtain some more solid arguments you decide its not really that interesting to you. You really are a laugh riot of a truther!

And there was plenty of people and new reports to support the fact that people thought bombs were going off, so I do not need to contact the firefighter.


Come on now, previously you claimed that no one that said explosion didnt mean bomb, that no one said they were misquoted and that no one was quoted out of context and that no one realised later what it was. I don't dare ask for specifics of your new stance or else I might see where you've decided to move your goal posts to now.


Edx wrote:You dont even care that none of them back up a single thing you claim about WTC7 and dozens and dozens say the opposite with no dissenting opinions from any of them in nearly a decade.
And again, you have no argument or point, where are the dozens who say it was not a demolition other than one fire chief??


UH... you expect all of the FDNY firefighters to specifically state that it was not a demolition until you accept this? hah!You are seriously reaching for excuses here... Before it collapsed they said everyone knew it was going to collapse because of fire and structural damage, BEFORE it collapsed. There is not a whiff of surprise from any of them and with truthers running around for over 9 years at ground zero saying it was obviously a demolition just by looking at it, why hasn't any of them came out and said they agree with any of your points? Once again we have dozens and dozens of firefighters that specifically refute claims from truthers about Building 7 while we have absolutely none of them backing up a single claim any truther has ever made about 7.

Edx wrote:I dont see any truthers attacking the FDNY and asking why they dont tell the truth about Building 7.
Why should they?? Why would firefighters know the truth about WTC 7??


Oh puleeze. :roll: You might as well give up and stop posting. Truthers fall over each other to post any quote they can find where a firefighter might say the words "explosion" or "bomb" but here, when the fact is firefighters dont actually back up anything truthers say, you act like truthers dont really care about what the firefighters think and say that firefighters wont care about the truth. The FDNY think of themselves as a family, thats why they refer to their fellow firefighters as "brothers". Why should they care? I'd love it if you went and told these firefighters this stuff to their faces.






Edx wrote:Didn't look very hard, did you? :roll: I even gave you a link that told you:

"The building has three enclosed stairways of concrete masonry construction.... The elevator shafts
are constructed of concrete and masonry and extend from the first floor or lower levels to the
highest floor served by the individual elevator banks.... under
severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assembliesin many
places
"
Oh please, that is not concrete reinforced. lol


Yes it is it even says it is. :lol:

" ...reinforced concrete floor assemblies...
...enclosed stairways of concrete masonry...
...elevator shafts are constructed of concrete and masonry ...


Its a steel framed building just like the WTC and has a concrete floor.


You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
Hence from the link you posted:- "The building frame is structural steel with concrete floors poured over metal decks."


It also says...

The building has three enclosed stairways of concrete masonry construction.... The elevator shafts
are constructed of concrete and masonry and extend from the first floor or lower levels to the
highest floor served by the individual elevator banks.... under
severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many
places
"

The WTC did not have any of that. :roll:


Concrete makes a big difference:

The closer a building is planned to a densely populated area, the more stringent the fire codes, and building permitting requirements become. In some cases steel buildings can not be used in certain areas for this reason. Other times, fire codes may require steel buildings to be built further apart than concrete structures, requiring a larger plot of land for the project.
- Steel vs Concrete


Why do you think that steel buildings especially are considered a risk in fire?

Concrete is a poor conductor and holds the highest fire resistance classification

"Concrete and its mineral constituents enjoy the highest fire resistance classification (class A1) under EN 13501-1. This excellent fire performance is due in the main to concrete's constituent materials (i.e. cement and aggregates) which, when chemically combined, form a material that is essentially inert and has poor thermal conductivity."
- Sustainable Concrete



So it's not like the Madrid Towers whose frame is Steel Reinforced Concrete.


It still has significant steel reinforced concrete structural elements that you completely ignnore. It even says it is reinforced. How on earth can you compare that to a building that only had non load bearing 4-inch thick concrete layed on top of this floor assembly?


Edx wrote:Concrete reinforced.Concrete reinforced.Concrete reinforced.Concrete reinforced.Concrete reinforced. :roll:
Not all the building are concrete reinforced! lol


So let me get this straight, you think that unless the entire building was reinforced with concrete its comparable to a building with zero concrete reinforcement? Wow, what it must be like to live in your head.


Unless you think because a steel frame as concrete poured over metal deck is concrete reinforced?? hahahahaha!!



Yes I do you ignorant twit, that's the words THEY use. :roll:

The WTC collapses are said to have happened because the floor trusses sagged and pulled in on the perimeter columns. Ignore the fact that these buildings you compare were not in this tube in a tube design, One Meridian Plaza had concrete reinforced floor assemblies. That is of critical importance.

The stairs and elevator shafts were also constructed of concrete, this also helped. Truthers seem to think thermal expansion is something new, really really stupid, but it happened here as well. Luckily the concrete was there.

"A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist
through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on
the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel
framing behind it.
After the fire, there was evident significant structural"

Analyis of the fire in One Meridian Plaza








Infact I think I stated that fires could make a building collapse, so you are misunderstanding and mis representing my position to make it look like you have a point.


Oh, NOW you say they can? Strange that Gage doesnt think so, he also talks like you... see below.

The reason they thought it might pancake collapse is probably because of the intense fires they fight after 11 hours might cause the building to collapse.


Oh that's funny because I distinctly remember you saying things like this...

The building couldn't have collapse without explosives, but your position is that it could, so even if the position of truther is only one explosive was needed, then how is he wrong when you agree that none were EVER needed??


I really like this one:

...What you are doing is trying to pass off the excuse that as the joke states, if you believe that fire can demolish an entire building then it would be employed as a method to demolish buildings. Maybe they might have to get the wrecking ball out and weaken the building a little because after all, it not just fires with the WTC, it's plane damage and fire. It certainly would be quicker and cheaper than rigging a entire building, especially using the time consuming old tech way of running wires through the building.


And then there's this:

Was it the fires? Well other buildings burned for much longer and was more intense, so maybe it was the fires but considering that even the concrete steel building only partially collapsed, then it's look highly unlikey.


Because with that last one you say "even the concrete steel building" as if the addition of concrete makes it less stable. :roll:


Edx wrote:The long span floor trusses was the key reason why WTC7 collapsed, but I know you dont care about that so lets move on.
You are moving away from the official story, it was a single column not floor trusses which was the key.



Oh dear oh dear... :roll:

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as ffloor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

...

Q:What improvements to building safety have been recommended as a result of the WTC 7 investigation?

What improvements to building safety have been recommended as a result of the WTC 7 investigation?

NIST has made one new recommendation and reiterated 12 recommendations from the investigation of the WTC towers.

The new recommendation involves explicitly evaluating buildings to ensure the adequate fire safety performance of the structural system. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics:

* long-span floor systems
* connections not designed for thermal effects
* floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and

...

Q:Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would you retrofit a building to prevent this problem?

A: While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.


http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/fact ... 082108.cfm

You sound more like a conspiracy theorist now. lol


You sound even more ignorant than before now. lol

Here's an interesting quote I found about UK Building Codes and its relationship to the Twin Towers.
"The World Trade Center could not have been built in the United Kingdom," insists Ed Galea director of the Fire Safety Engineering Group at the University of Greenwich in London. "The number of the staircases would have been insufficient. The nature of those staircases would not have met our requirements. We would have required concrete. You would have also needed lobbies on each floor to protect staircases from smoke. Also, the connections between the floor joists and upright columns would've been much more robust. It's all part of the U.K. building code." It's unlikely that the WTC could have been constructed in Japan either. "Buildings one hundred meters or higher are framed in reinforced concrete rather than steel," Tokyo structural engineer Masahiko Fukasawa says.
- Skyscraper Safety - "Shortcuts to Safety"
It couldn't be built in Britain today because of strict firecodes, but it might have been OK back in the sixties.


The sixties... is that meant to be a joke? I really can see why the JREF actually have a stupidity award named after you, its ridiculous.


Edx wrote:The concrete held up because it was concrete and the steel structure that was not reinforced collapsed. That is what I have been telling you. Concrete holds up better that steel. Steel does not perform well in fires.
I know this but the point was that this building wasn't designed to arrest a collapse and did.


No you clearly dont understand this because you keep thinking concrete reinforced buildings are comparable to buildings that didnt even have any concrete at all except 4 inch thick flooring and you say things like.... "even the concrete steel building only partially collapsed, ". The concrete steel building you're referring to (Windsor) would have held up best of all because of how much concrete reinforcement it had! It was the floors that werent reinforced that collapsed.


Edx wrote:You can't use any of them as examples of steel frame structures that didn't collapse when they are reinforced with concrete and in the Windsor tower had a concrete core and the steel that wasn't reinforced actually DID collapse. its misrepresenting the design of the towers by leaving out the fact that concrete is a much more fire resilient building material and that the WTC towers had no load bearing concrete whatsoever.
Not all the towers were reinforced with concrete. You seem to be under the illusion that because they have concrete floor then they are reinforced.


Yes they were, I showed you the reports that even says they were and you still cant understand that they were.



If that's the case then the WTC had concrete floors, does that mean they were steel reinforced concrete building too?? lol


One Meridian says the floor assemblies were reinforced with concrete, is that what the WTC floors were? No. :roll:

Edx wrote:I asked you why verinage collapses are also "near free fall speeds" and of you ignored it, presumably you agree there was resistance there as well.
Because when the support is removed there is no resistance and when the two blocks collide, there is an equal and opposite force working on both objects which destroyed them.


I was confused with this answer for a good while until I realised you think the only reason it destroyed it was because the top is the same ratio as the bottom. Again, that is not true. You are taking the first example and ignoring all the others especially the last one!!



Edx wrote:Why not? That's exactly what we see, especially in the last example of that video. How many floors would you say is crushing the rest of the building in that example? Please do count it for us.
I did this earlier but it could have been in the post I lost.


Ill tell you.

Its roughly 3 or 4 floors destroying roughly 12 beneath it with ease.


Floors 1-6 are the lower portions, floor 7 & 8 have been preweakened for initiation and floors 9-14 are the upper portions.



The floors werent pre-weakend, I already showed you how it works, stop making things up. Also, your numbers are totally off. See above.


Edx wrote:You guys imply that steel is indestructible by your arguments, the same way that by extension the firefighters have to be lying if what you say is true but you dont want to admit you believe they are lying as its bad PR.
No, you are implying it to distort my position in the hope you have a point...lol


No, you say things that the firefighters are saying are not true. So either its lies or mass FDNY incompetence.

So please tell me where I have claimed steel is indestructible otherwise, oh thats right, I didn't. Rather than admitting your point was a strawman,


I said you IMPLY it is, read my words. I know you have a problem with that. If you say that steel frame high rises can only collapse with explosives, if you say the only way the top part of a building can crush the rest of it is if the top block is at least the same weight as the bottom, that you believe steel to be a more fire resilient material than concrete, that you think steel buildings can burn for hours and hours and hours and hours and not collapse (hence all your examples earlier), shows that you think steel is practically indestructible in my opinion, yes.

you continue onwards in your charade without an ounce of shame.


You are just an ocean of irony and projection, you really are. :roll:

And your logical fallacy about the firefighters has nothing to do with bad PR. Even if I thought one firefighter was lying or a few of them, does that mean I think the whole of the FDNY were lying?? Only in your world would that be a yes!! lol


Refer to my previous post about firefighters.

Edx wrote:And yet you ignore it, you guys always ignore it.
But I just addressed it. lol


No you didnt, stop lying or remember what you wrote.

Edx wrote:This is the floor system you are talking that you believe can resist a weight that is relevant to this discussion.

Image
And here you are with your next wurzel for me to burn down with my mighty matches.

Where did I say that the floor system can resist a weight?? Oh that's right I did. I just corrected you and explained that the floors did hold some of the load.


Good job disproving yourself again. :roll:

And yes it is irrelevant to the discussion but you brought this man of straw and then proceed to tell me it's irrelevant....is frankly....irrelevant.


Yes it is relevant because the floors cant hold the weight of the upper block. If the upper block falls on it, its going to smash through it then when it hits the next floor, what do you think will happen to that floor? Thats right, its going to smash through too because its not designed to hold that weight. Buildings do not respond to this kind of pressures as if they were solid objects like you act like they do.

Edx wrote:We do have a coherent theory, but of course you dont accept that because you are incompetent so lets turn it around. Since Gage doesnt have a coherent theory - at all - then are we logically allowed to speculate about space beams or mini nukes or no planes?
So what is this coherent theory?? lol

Don't do the debunker thing and tell me to read the NIST report because we are both aware, the NIST deals with the initiation of the collapse, not the collapse itself. There science is....it was inevitable...just a simple statement that somehow has become fact with you guys.


Way to miss the point... We're debating your incompetent understanding of that issue this whole time , I'm addressing your logic. Lets say NISTs theories dont make sense for the sake of argument, well we also know Gage's explosives theory make no sense at all as I have been explaining. Therefore according to your logic then are we logically allowed to speculate about space beams or mini nukes or no planes?


Edx wrote:1. VERY VERY DANGEROUS especially with high rises.
Well I like danger and I'm sure it's not as dangerous as explosives.


:roll: No comment, its just too stupid to comment on. Go ask a real demolitions expert.

Edx wrote:Apparently this is too difficult for you to grasp.
No, I'm sure I explained why they don't do it, it's not the danger, it's a shit method.


Here you go debunking yourself again :roll: If you admit here "its a shit method" for demolishing a house then its a shit method for demolishing high rises and like I said its also a lot more dangerous as fire is uncontrolled.


Edx wrote:Or do you somehow deny that happened?
No, it happened. Although I can't understand why a fire would start flinging debris all over the place in a collapse.


God you're stupid. No one said it was fire that did that, material was "ejected" for the same reason material is "ejected" in verinage collapses. It just has farther to travel in the WTC's case.


Edx wrote:Imagine if those verinage collapses were 100 stories high the debris that was being pushed out the collapse front would have a LOT further to travel and if it was a larger building (such as a size of a city block) this means a lot of heavy material is going to be falling down on a wise radius.
Imagine if they set fire to the collapse in the video. It would be even more dangerous and send debris flying out even further according to your logic.


UH..., no,.... :lol: God you're ridiculous. If you look at the trajectory of the material being ejected in verinage its the same trajectory we observe in the WTC collapses. The towers were just a lot bigger, the debris has further to travel, and chunks of perimeter columns at the sides were ripped off by the falling upper block, that is the only difference.


Edx wrote:I gave you the example of a car being attached to another car with one of them being pushed off a cliff.
But one of those cars has to be falling at free fall speeds to pull the other car.


You know I think the reason you dont get it is that you really cant imagine these buildings as anything other than solid objects.

Im pretty tired wasting my time with you, and frankly anyone still undecided reading this is hopeless.




Edx wrote:Congratulations, now you know another reason why fire is not a effective method for demolition.
But you don't seem to understand because it would appear that you agree it is ineffective as I suggest, while at the same time believing it is effective as it took down 3 buildings and one of them at free fall speeds!! hahahahahahahaha!!


I dont see massive destruction and death as a very effective method. :roll:






Edx wrote: How did you get to "gradually collapse"?
Because the loads don't give away all at once, at the same time unless its a demolition of course! lol


Look at what happend with the WTC's case, the floor trusses sagged and pulled in on perimeter columns. This caused the top block to tip and fall onto the floor below and therefore collapse continued. So yes, it did give away all at once.

Edx wrote:If the load bearing connections are gone and the upper block is falling on the floor system what is going to happen?
Depends on where the failure is in the upper block doesn't it.


Not according to you it isn't, you think the upper block can never destroy the bottom block unless its the same size as it.



If the first failure happens on the 2nd floor from top floor, do you think the single floor will destroy all floors which at the time would still have some structual integrity until the next failure happens.


If it is heavy enough to hit the floor below and destroy it its going to keep going, the floors arent designed to hold weight and the load bearing connections are no longer connected.

Edx wrote:Go look at the verinage collapses again to refresh your memory.
Don't need to, the failure happens on 2 floor in the middle and that free fall created enough energy between the 2 block which were similar in mass and it collapsed.


No it didnt, you didnt even watch the video, did you? :roll:


Edx wrote:I like how you started talking about houses then started talking about steel frame high rises. You said that a house will collapse from fire, therefore by your logic its cheaper to use fire when demolition companies destroy them. So then, why dont they use that?
Because its a shit method for demolition houses and highrise buildings.


But you said it was a great method if you could collapse highrises with fire, therefore demolishing houses with fire must be too.


Edx wrote:So then, you must accept that demolition companies should be using fire to demolish houses, right?
Not at all. lol

Such a leap in logic!! lol


You're the one thats leaping from one foot to the next.

Edx wrote:No since you want your low order explosives (the ones that deflagrate) to help you explain heavy steel flinging and buildings being "pulverised".
No I don't!! lol Because low order explosives don't fling heavy steel.


I - know - i - am- telling - YOU - that.
One that go boom, boom, boom do though.


Oh yes you mean the ones you dont hear on any videos anywhere on 911 of the collapses but are easily picked up in any other explosive demolition :roll:

Oh and fire does as well now. lol


I'd call this a strawman, but you'd probably claim you did it to make some point.

Edx wrote:No, that's the point.
Yes that is the point, you are asking where at the people with ruptured ear drums? I do not know if there was or wasn't. So I'm asking you if you know or are you assuming you know there was no people with ruptured ear drums?

Don't wiggle out of it, you brought it up?? lol


There wasn't, thats what Im saying and the people you claim experienced a bomb didnt either, I like how you're trying to turn this into my problem. :lol:

Seeing here in britain we have doctor and patient confidentiality, so I'm not sure if there are released.


So apparently you think there's no reports on the injuries peopled sustaind on 911 despite the fact that I gave you just that in the very post you are replying to. You're a joke. I think you're just trying to wind me up now.


And so what if twoofers have peoples names and identities, doesn't mean they have access to their medical records does it?


But they can ask them, cant they? :roll:

Edx wrote:You guys claim Barry Jennings experienced a massive explosion from a bomb in WTC7 and yet even though he did an interview afterwards with his hearing apparently intact no truther has ever tried to contact these guys to find out if they had any blast injuries.
I seem to remember that is what Dylan Avery did and he was accused of pestering him.


SO why didnt Avery ask him that? Dont ask questions you dont want the answers to I guess.

Its a rapid assesment of the type of injuries and it only talks about the percentage that came in for the common types of injuries.

And just because it doesn't state the people who came in with ruptured ear drums (if there were any of course!) then that doesn't mean nobody suffered from it.


Again, complete and utter lack of evidence becomes evidence!!! :lol:

In this table it says "excludes unspecified injuries or illnesses"


Blast injuries are not unspecific, theres no reason for people to have explosive related injuries.


Ed wrote:Notice that we have large numbers of cases of ruptured ear drums (tympanic perforation) and blast lung where we know there was bombs and NONE with the WTC victims.
That is because a large number of people were close in relation to the bomb.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh I love it. I love it. Yes, being close to a bomb will cause blast injuries, that's what Ive been telling you... *facepalm*

I've already pointed this out to you before, the reason why no one is likely to have suffered these injuries is probably because no on was close enough to it.


.... but they can be thrown around by one? Amazing! All these bombs going off all over the place and throwing people around and not a single person with blast injuries and no truther evebn cares enough to ask or try and find out.



Edx wrote:Also, in May of this year 9,000 first responders sued 90 agencies for injuries. Can you guess if there was any explosive related injuries? No truther's touched it of course, in the same way that they don't care about contacting any of these people to ask what their injuries are.
This explosive injury is nothing more than a pathetic argument you have created to keep you believing. lol


Yes, it sure is pathetic to expect that people which were caught in an explosive blast to have sustained injuries consistent with explosives. :roll:


Edx wrote:1. People could have heard an explosion sound and the building rocked which made them fall over. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess experienced the collapse of the towers while he was inside Building 7 for example, but he didn't experience a bomb. Its why my other example I gave you before said someone thought he experienced a bomb but that later realised it was the South tower collapsing.
Yeah but some can't be explained, read Arturro Griffiths account, he remembers 3 different explosions.


He experienced a fire ball, again, fire is not consistent with high explosives. :roll:



And there is a recording of a firefigther at GZ who is speaking with his command centre who says there are explosions going off in the building and that people are covered in dust from it, unfortunately I do not think this firefighter made it out. I'll see if I can find it because no doubt you will think I'm lying or something. lol


I know you are lying about lots of things, this would just be another.

Edx wrote:2. If the bomb was strong enough to throw them around, it will be strong enough to rip their ear drums.
Well you'll have to provide evidence for that claim.


I cant believe I have to spoon-feed you basic education on explosives. Just what do you think happens when a bomb goes off? What is it that destroys things? Seriously go do some research on how explosives work.


Edx wrote:3. If the bomb was too weak to rupture ear drums then it was definitely too weak to take out any critical parts of the building. ie. useless.
But nobody thinks it was weak that it couldn't take out parts of the buildings.....Other than you. lol


Great so this was an intense explosive that burns peoples skin off and causes fire balls and doesnt cause anyone blast injuries anywhere, but can destroy heavy steel. Good one.


Edx wrote:We've been over this. Both you and he have said exactly this.
Where have I said that thermite can knock steel and people about? lol


You said that it could help make it quieter when explosives were flinging steel around.



Edx wrote: If explosives were used to fling steel around or "pulverise" the building then nano thermite does not help one bit.

It helps in that it might make it look like less of a demolition and help the buildings demise.



Ed wrote:If you want to explain the absence of explosive detonations you're going to have to drop this all talk of characteristics of explosive demolition.


Why exactly?? Because in your head, you can't grasp the concept possibility that both shape charges or thermite or any other explosive device could have been used?


As I said the last time: If they used a ratio of 90% thermite to 10% explosives then it may be quieter, but there will be no shockwave capable of flinging steel around, and no shockwave = no explosion sound. Thermite doesn't explode you see. But here's the thing, if thermite really did explode and create a shockwave capable of flinging steel around, then that too would be loud. The shockwave is the sound you hear when an explosion goes off. So no shockwave = no steel flinging.

So okay, lets say someone used thermite and a shape charge but used much smaller amount of actual explosive so that it would be quieter. Well then no steel could be flung anywhere, it doesn't matter how much thermite you use as well. Is this simple enough for you?

Edx wrote:1. Like I asked you the last time you said this is for you to tell me just how much thermite was used to cut that steel and what the radio of device is to the steel they used.
I don't have to tell you sod all because I do not know, but what I do not is that there is a thermite device which cuts steel, proving your premise that it can't cut steel or be used as an explosive in untrue.


No there is not, you really have no idea what you are talking about




Edx wrote:Its a very thin piece with a huge device attached to it .
Its still steel and maybe the device is the trigger. Who knows and maybe it could be made smaller not that it matter because it cuts steel.



Imagine a twig, you can easily take a knife and quickly cut it in two in one swipe, but if that twig is scaled up to the width of 5 people for example, you'd have to scale up the force along with the knife. SCALE IS A BITCH

The thermite requires constant contact, how do you think that will happen? It cant, this experiment is fail. Remember Truth Burn? Jones tried to cut the columns of the sign with thermite but it didnt work so they set some on fire underneath it. Was lol.


Edx wrote: In the real world it would be completely impractical to use such a method which is why demolition companies don't and why no truther has been able to show that thermite, thermate or nano thermite can do anythng relevant to the steel.
But I'm supposedly a twoofer and I've just shown you how it could have been used. lol


No you haven't, it cant be scaled up. It just wouldnt work. Youh ave no idea why because you're so damn clueless and refuse to learn

Edx wrote:Remember when Steven Jones said that if you painted on nano thermite onto steel it turns into a "high explosive"?
Not really, but I don't hang on to Steven Jones every word unlike someone else I could mention?? lol

Edx wrote:What a laugh riot that was when Ventura then played video of nano thermite painted on steel which was set on fire and nothing exploded, poor Steven, unintentionally disproven by a knucklehead like Ventura.
??


I do wonder why you insist on replying to every single sentence and then not even write anything of relavance..

Edx wrote:2. That wouldnt be able to throw steel around, sorry.
Thermite wouldn't throw the steel around, explosives would do that. lol


But not hurt anyone and not create loud explosive detonations that can be picked up on video.. :roll:


Edx wrote:You feign ignorance of my point even though Ive explained it many times.
Its you that is ignorant and cherry pickingn and taking quotes in your little video completely out of context. lol


They aren't cherry picking, but lets see how you justify it this time...

Edx wrote:Gage says explosives threw heavy material away from the building, pulverised it and so on. He is describing a high order explosives that creates a blast wave to rip through infrastructure.
Thats because this is what explosives do.


And therefore very loud, yes....

Edx wrote:Thermite doesn't explode it deflagrates, it can melt stuff but it doesn't explode.
It can be used as the video shows but I do not think Gage thinks that thermite did explode.


... for the nth time......If thermite explodes and is flinging steel around then its just as loud. :roll: if it isn't exploding, thermite cant make steel flinging less loud.

See just like Gage, you have no idea how explosives and sound work. Im not cherry picking anything, you're just ignorant as Gage.


Edx wrote: If thermite could explode with enough power to fling heavy steel around therefore it would still be just as loud.
Maybe so, I couldn't tell you but I would think so too.



So you understand Gage is wrong, good. I'll bet you forget you just admitted this later.


Edx wrote:Gage thinks that thermite makes it quieter in order to explain why we dont hear explosive detonations when the building collapsed.
No gage thinks it was used in conjunction with explosives to assist in the collapse.


Yes Stundie.... I get that. ... What you dont seem to get is that Gage is saying that there were intense explosives that ripped steel away from the towers and flung it around, when someone says thats going to be loud and no cameras picked up such blasts from such high explosives, Gage says thats because they used thermite because it is QUIET. My point is: Thermite does not make that effect quiet.


Edx wrote:I'lll tell you then. Its clearly a small, thin piece of steel.
It is still steel.


A twig is also a piece of wood and I can easily slice a twig in two in one go, but if I scale up a knife for a proper tree I will need many times the force as that as to be scaled up as well to slice through it in one go. That is your problem. S-C-A-L-E. I know you wont get it.


Because nobody looked for explosive devices. Remember they shipped of 80% of the steel before anyone got to look at it.


You already know that is a lie as Ive already explained it to you. They did look at it, for weeks, they just didnt save all of it. :roll: You also wouldnt have to" look", it would be everywhere these huge things, they couldnt be missed.

Edx wrote:Also, you have the issue of it needing to be even larger than this because with the devise you are taking about here the thermite doesn't need to just get through half an inch of steel it needs to get through something as large as a core column which would mean the thermite would have to remain in contact long enough to do any damage.
I'm not saying this device was used, I'm showing you this as a possibility.


Its not though, because of the scale issue. You dont care about such boring practical issues like this though.


Edx wrote:This is what Im saying, truthers simply cannot show this is possible and why people like Steven Jones have gone from saying they used painted on nano thermite to it just being matches or fuses for lighting traiditonal explosives like C4.
Just like debunkers can't explain the collapses without resorting to models which don't match the physical evidence and ignores things which contradict it. lol


We already know your belief on the official explanation, so this is just your way of dodging the embarrassing issue of how incompetent your experts are that dont understand anything about the subjects that they speak about, though in Jones' case I expect he is just lying.


Edx wrote:How?
By mixing other chemicals to it.


I'd ask you what chemicals but I know there's no point, you're a truther you can make up whatever you like and its good enough for you.

Edx wrote:You still have the problem with the fact that thermite doesn't work well cutting horizontally through steel, if you have a lot surrounding it it still does little more than warm it, they did that experiment as well.
Well it might not work well but as I said, maybe it didn't cut the steel but just heat weaken it as it does more than warm it, it melts steel.


It wont work at all, sorry. No truther has been able to show that this method would ever work in the way they say it would work. And a thin piece of steel with an enormous thing stuck to the side is not evidence, if it is its fail because of scale.

Edx wrote:In a real world demolition such device would have to multiple times bigger based on the size of the steel column it was trying to cut. Saying such a device is impractical is being nice, its impossible to have the same device scaled up.
I'm sorry but I'm sure some clever bod could reduce the size and change the compound to make it more reactive.


Again, no they couldnt because you would have to scale up the power of thermite as well as everything else and you cant do that. You can imagine that nano thermite is some amazing substance but it isnt.

I am certain you're just trying to wind me up now so anyone still undecided is hopeless anyway. There's more than enough proof you're insane, incompetent or just lying in this thread that any rational lurker will see it clearly .
Last edited by Edx on 16 Jul 2010, 21:38, edited 5 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 15 Jul 2010, 18:43

The bottom line is that it is crystal clear how the buildings fell. There is simply no other evidence presented that contradicts weakened structures collapsing. The videos and testimony of the buildings burning is extremely clear. As Edx suggested, anyone who claims otherwise is not looking at the evidence objectively. I don't blame people for not trusting the US government. Hell I don't. But from the testimony of the terrorists themselves, to the videos, to the firemen, to the lack of any other evidence, to suggest it was anything other than jihad against America is just plain ridiculous.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby really? » 15 Jul 2010, 21:08

ProfWag wrote:The bottom line is that it is crystal clear how the buildings fell. There is simply no other evidence presented that contradicts weakened structures collapsing. The videos and testimony of the buildings burning is extremely clear. As Edx suggested, anyone who claims otherwise is not looking at the evidence objectively. I don't blame people for not trusting the US government. Hell I don't. But from the testimony of the terrorists themselves, to the videos, to the firemen, to the lack of any other evidence,
to suggest it was anything other than jihad against America is just plain ridiculous.


to suggest it was anything other than jihad against America is just plain ridiculous.

And still repugnant
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 15 Jul 2010, 22:00

really? wrote:
ProfWag wrote:The bottom line is that it is crystal clear how the buildings fell. There is simply no other evidence presented that contradicts weakened structures collapsing. The videos and testimony of the buildings burning is extremely clear. As Edx suggested, anyone who claims otherwise is not looking at the evidence objectively. I don't blame people for not trusting the US government. Hell I don't. But from the testimony of the terrorists themselves, to the videos, to the firemen, to the lack of any other evidence,
to suggest it was anything other than jihad against America is just plain ridiculous.


to suggest it was anything other than jihad against America is just plain ridiculous.

And still repugnant

Yes, that also.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

cron