Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Thanks, an answer not in the form of a youtube video.
So I get it. It is obviously nothing strange with pulverized concrete at WTC but some code says that they should have tested for explosives?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Well raymond, I guess nothing is strange about the pulverized concrete, as long as there were explosions there to make the stuff. Normally, buildings that collapse don't pulverize the majority of the concrete in the building.
Take a look at the pictures of the WTC Towers as they begin to collapse. You see lots of pulverized concrete, even before there's any chance of it being created by floors smashing into themselves.
In any case, standard operating procedure says to test for explosives in this case. NIST did not, even with pleading by many. It's a cheap test.
Go figure.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Well raymond, I guess nothing is strange about the pulverized concrete, as long as there were explosions there to make the stuff. Normally, buildings that collapse don't pulverize the majority of the concrete in the building.
So you really think it is strange that a huge building that is collapsing is pulverizing the concrete? Do you have an example of a building with at least 50 floors collapsing without the use of explosives without pulverizing the concrete? What is supposed to happened with the concrete in that case?
Is is possibly that the firemen testing code (or whatever it was) was mainly concerned with smaller buildings when they talked about pulverized concrete and explosives?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Wow, a thorough debunking of Lawyer.
But Lo! it is such a hit piece, I am easily finding errors, slants, character assassination, and the omission of important points that Erik makes.
I will trot out my favorite:
at 3:00 he states "Even on a routine house fire, if we suspect even the slightest use of an accelerant, we test for it."
Yes, where you do not know the cause of the fire, and there is physical evidence of an accelerant. None was found. Well, except for the giant diesel fuel tanks that was contained in 7WTC. But, we know they were there.
BINGO! BUSTED!!! The NIST report specifically states that the diesel fuel tanks were NOT part of the cause for the failure of WTC7. Yet here, they are using them as part of their reasoning for why the building failed.
In other words, they themselves do not believe the NIST report! What a bunch of hypocrites.
Certainly the article points out EVERY small detail that it can, showing how wrong Erik is.
I could go line by line through that "debunking," and show how they take lines out of context (e.g., "At 1:00 he says " I have seen a lot of crime scenes, but I have never seen anything like it in my life." Here, he is talking about the destruction of evidence, but the debunking ignores the context here. Clever, no? No.), they blur the meaning of what Erik is saying, and totally ignore major points that Erik surfaces. Yes, I could go line-by-line, but who wants to read such drivel.
However, I will raise one thing: The point of the Erik's entire speech is that the NIST report is flawed and that there should be an investigation that can subpena people and hold people accountable.
Funny, even though they completely debunk Erik's speech, they completely leave out the most important point that he makes, and that is the reasons NIST gave for not testing for explosives.
At 6:15, Erik states one of the reasons NIST did not test for explosives was because "no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of the video recordings in the collapse of WTC7 or reported by witnesses."
Do you see the lie here? I made it bold in case you missed it.
The debunking article goes nowhere near Erik's remarks about the reasons NIST gave for not testing for explosives. Why? Because these are facts that they can't dispute.
The debunking spends several paragraphs explaining that NFPA is not a law (duh, nobody said it was), but they completely ignore the main point of the entire speech: That NIST did not do a thorough investigation!
So I ask again (because my question was completely side-stepped with the posting of the BS debunking article):
Why do you think it's OK that NIST did not test for explosives?
It is clear that NIST lied in their report when they gave the reasons why they did not test for explosives. Are you OK with them lying about this very important point, and if so why?
You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
I promise, I will do my best to make this my last post here.
Take a look at Eric Lawyer's open letter, it is very telling
(I know it's long, I usually try to not post such long quotes because
they will likely not get read. But this is important, trust me):
Hello my Brothers – I am here to take some heat, respond to the questions, assumptions, and answer any questions anyone may have.
I am not here to name call, make it personal, or “convince” you.
I’m here to raise awareness, and challenge you to remove the emotion and really look at the evidence objectively.
If anybody is interested, you can read my Mayday letter to see how I went "cuckoo cuckoo." http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=300
For years I believed the "official story" and aggressively defended it. I read Popular Mechanics and watched all the specials that went over the cause of collapse. I refused to listen to my Lt., told him he was crazy, and should leave the country. I really didn't listen to any of what I thought were "whack jobs/liberals/9-11 twoofers" until a buddy of mine who is a West Point grad non-emotionally opened my eyes.
Trust me, I know how most of you feel. I was there myself just 1 year ago. I didn’t objectively look at the evidence until March of 2008. And, I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think the survival of our Country and our Constitution depends on us "waking up" and standing up together. You should check out www.Patriotsquestion911.com to see how many high ranking military officers, intelligence officers, etc are saying the same thing. I personally know many of them now, and trust me when I say their Patriotism and loyalty to the U.S.A. is SOLID, as is mine. When we have that many brothers who have been on the inside saying we have “domestic enemies” I take it seriously because I took an oath years ago pledging I would defend the Constitution against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” If you took that Oath, you too should, at the very least, objectively inform yourself.
As far as a "franchise"...no, that is not true. We came up with the name (because of Pilots and Architects for 911 truth). I, and a few other firefighters, built the site and funded it - we did not get ANY money from any political group-nor do I side with any political group now.
As far as "he promotes misinformation like, "Building #7 collapsed with no structural damage and miniscule fire damage. Why aren’t our fellow firefighters asking why?"" – This was a comment by a Battalion Chief in response to my letter– it is not in our posts. And – if you haven’t seen it yet, you should read the NIST final report on the cause of collapse of Tower 7 that came out in 2008. It contradicts what Popular Mechanics had claimed caused collapse. Then compare this to the Beijing Mandarin fire and the Windsor Building and honestly explain why they didn’t have the same complications from “thermal expansion.” And, look at WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 that all stood with even greater fire and debris damage.
As far as "NFPA 921 is not an outline for investigating a terrorism incident" - Is there another National Standards Guideline for building fires due to Terrorism that we are unaware of? Tower 7 was not struck by an aircraft. Plus, if you haven’t read it yet, NFPA 921 does mention terrorism. And, honestly ask yourself why N.I.S.T. refused to test for explosives even though terrorists used explosives in ’93, there was molten steel and concrete, there were 118 first responders who heard explosions, Barry Jennings NYC Housing Authority Emergency Coordinator was blown down by an explosion in WTC 7, there are audio recordings of explosions. Think about it – we would test a house fire for accelerants if we had those types of indicators. Shouldn’t we be even more thorough on the first high rise collapses, that caused the death of so many? Can anybody legitimately explain why a simple test that could have put this all to bed was so aggressively avoided?
As far as “To me the continual conspiracy nonsense serves only to dishonor those that died heros AND innocent victims that day.” My intention is not to dishonor any of our Brothers or civilians who were murdered. I have the utmost respect for them. We have many surviving family members who have sent us letters of support and thanks. And, consider for a moment…what if all these military officers, insiders, and even FBI agents who have spoken out are right….isn’t it a much greater dishonor to allow this to be covered up?
If you’ve read this far – thank you.
Respectfully,
Erik Lawyer
erik@firefightersfor911truth.org |
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
I promise, this will be my last post here.
Take a look at Eric Lawyer's open letter, it is very telling
(I know it's long, I usually try to not post such long quotes because
they will likely not get read. But this is important, trust me):
Telling?
Do you really believe people is going to look at the long youtube videos that you link to but is going to ignore a quote because it might take a couple of minutes to read?
|
|
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
“I already knew the answer, we all do. But for your understanding I gave you a great resource that indeed shows you that concrete doesn't burn and can take extremely high temps. and behaves like a ceramic. It doesn't conduct heat very well, hence its insulation like properties. Concrete is an insulator vs. a conductor. It doesn't conduct heat or electricity well at all because concrete = insulator.”
“Stupid is as stupid does”
A3. It means that although you may be slow, stupidity is based more on your actions than on the speed at which you think.
You still have not told me the mechanical properties under those conditions. Simple answer: two words is all it takes. Did you ever pass a physics test?
WHAT happens and WHY? Do the test in front of your kids that you can not teach. Then get back to me stupid. Make sure you do the test as Group One so the kids learn about their stupid teacher.
Do you even know the unit weight of regular concrete that was used for the buildings or any building; was it a prescribed [prescription] or non-prescribed matrix or other? Give me the properties of the lightweight concrete and what happens to the lightweight under those conditions? Since you said you know the answers and everyone else does.
Gooooooooooooogle it.
Forrest Gump
You gave me a great resource? At least you are a comedian. Still say you and fattrad need to get an act together and do world tours.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
“Stupid is as stupid does”
A3. It means that although you may be slow, stupidity is based more on your actions than on the speed at which you think.
You still have not told me the mechanical properties under those conditions. Simple answer: two words is all it takes. Did you ever pass a physics test?
WHAT happens and WHY? Do the test in front of your kids that you can not teach. Then get back to me stupid. Make sure you do the test as Group One so the kids learn about their stupid teacher.
Do you even know the unit weight of regular concrete that was used for the buildings or any building; was it a prescribed [prescription] or non-prescribed matrix or other? Give me the properties of the lightweight concrete and what happens to the lightweight under those conditions? Since you said you know the answers and everyone else does.
Gooooooooooooogle it.
Forrest Gump
You gave me a great resource? At least you are a comedian. Still say you and fattrad need to get an act together and do world tours.
Lost,
Been busy today. Then I get back and find your poo-poo smeared all over ST here in this thread.
As your own choice of moniker suggests you are "lost" in ad hominem despotism.
Geeeee, how many times did you attempt to put me down in that bile stream of diatribe?
Why should I even have any discourse with you?
Lost, get some professional help. You really need it.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=300
' . . . most debunking sites I usually found name calling and smear tactics. In my own personal experience, as soon as someone needs to resort to name calling and smearing during a debate, they’re not very secure in their “facts”¯ or the “truth.”¯ I found that many of these debunking sites also failed to tackle some of the most compelling evidence.'
|
|
Betelnut
Mountain climber
So. California
|
|
Boys, boys...if a small fraction of your fantasy were true,there would have been hundreds of books written by participants ("I rigged the South Tower"), Oprah interviews, reality shows, action figures, etc.
Your 15 minutes is up.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 7, 2011 - 12:36am PT
|
Hey Poser Betelnut, and Port where's my my fuking plane ticket?
Huh? Huh?
You run your mouth get me my plane ticket.
By the way I got all the goods. The smokin gun sh'it.
The real stuff. Straight from the source.
But you're too stupid and waste all your time googling ......
|
|
elcap-pics
Big Wall climber
Crestline CA
|
|
Funniest post on this ridiculous thread... Klimmer telling someone they need to get professional help!!!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 7, 2011 - 01:15am PT
|
The theists get's help for free.
The atheist has to pay the mental speculator professional.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
Riley, I do hear you. And I respect your views.
I haven't been clear on this, but my mind is not made up on this stuff. That's why I keep pushing for an open and honest investigation.
It seems impossible to me that WTC7 could have fallen the way it did, by office fires. The many eye-witness reports of explosions can't go unexplained.
There is contradicting evidence, sure, and there is overwhelming evidence that the OTC happened close to how the 9-11 Commission described. But there is also obvious cover-ups. On a Huge scale.
Werner is right, searching the internet is not going to provide the answers. Somebody could make a realistic looking video of Bozo the Clown driving an ice cream cart into the Pentagon while serving Popsicles that looked like Marilyn Monroe, and nobody would be the wiser.
It's unimaginable what it would have taken to pull this off as an inside job. I admit that. But the amount of coincidences and oddities in the OCT is also off the chart on the implausible scale.
So I came back for this one post, Riley, because you directed your thoughts to me. Thanks for the reach out.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
steel at 800C loses 90% of its strength.
Not very hard to get that temperature either. Check these little
backyard ovens rated to attain 800C with a few lbs of wood.
http://www.lepanyol.com.au/models.html
A human can bend red hot steel by arm strength alone so imagine thousands of tons of red hot damaged building core you conspiracy theorists.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
It's unimaginable what it would have taken to pull this off as an inside job.
Yeah, nearly every WTC cop, facilities manager, electrician, painter, carpenter, carpet guy, janitor, telcom and network admin, security guard, garbage man, floor polisher, sprinkler guy, window washer, elevator maintenance folk would have to have been in on it and all still be keeping the secret.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
that is a good article. but since it does not support the conspiracy theorists, there is no way they will acknowledge it. they are guilty of ignorance of the highest order. and willfully accuse innocent people of killing fellow americans with no motive other than to have the government start some wars and spend billions on top secret stuff.
these nutjobs do not like being called nutjobs even as they call some courageous americans killers. whacked out is what they are.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
A 14 million dollar NIST investigation, yet they didn't conduct a simple test for explosives, when over a hundred firemen and dozens of citizens reported explosions.
Why did they lie about why they did not do the test?
The Mineta testimony.
The Pentagon building and lack of evidence that a plane hit the facade (no wing/engine marks).
The obvious burying of pre-attack signals.
The hard questions always get glossed over, ignored.
You can try to put the cart before the donkey, and try to figure out who, why. But why not first do a real investigation where all the evidence is taken in and processed. Where every possible avenue is explored.
You simply cannot answer these questions. I've asked many times, and every one of you Believers ignore them.
I know why.
Can anybody legitimately explain why a simple [explosives] test that could have put this all to bed was so aggressively avoided?
-- Erik Lawyer
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 7, 2011 - 12:53pm PT
|
The skeptics are bigger nut cases and whack jobs than any of em .....
|
|
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
Oh! Did I hurt the poor babies’ feelings? So sorry I used STUPID should have used DUMB; as in dumb and dumber.
So concrete behaves like a ceramic? You’d be a great engineer Klimmer.
So you can’t find the answer, so you find another avenue just like your god loving buddy Pat Robertson when his critics say he is a mad man, Pat baby says the same thing he is mis-quoted or it’s the commies/liberals that are after me.
What happened to your Moon project, NASA, contrails, JFK, weather and every conspiracy you are following for the day or thinking of; guess you found this current one now that more people think like you. Ah! So now you have a cause.
I see you mentioned IHOP in one of your writings. Did you have prior knowledge of the Carson City shootings? Did you help him? That is where I see you Klimmer: school teacher typical religious nut [christian], hate for US government, conspiracy buff goes postal. The chemistry/compulsions is frying your brain.
Happy that you are on "a" list and be glad when they put you in isolation to keep from harming anyone.
Find the answer Klimmer. See you can’t.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!