Unanswered, you can go no further

[n0spam4me]

also, I did look up the Fred Marsilla interview and yes he sez 15 stories up or more, however, where are the pix, if the rubble pile was really that tall, why wasn't it photographed?

The Fred Marsilla interview was in regards to WTC 1 and 2. Not WTC 7. Which you'd actually know if you're read the interview. Here's the interview in its entirity:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

Educate yourself.

So sorry about the shift of reference here, I was referring to the whole ground zero rubble pile when I posted that and I'd be VERY interested to know if anybody has any photographic evidence of a ground zero rubble pile taller than 4 stories. Please post it if you have it.

 

[Skylar]

also, I did look up the Fred Marsilla interview and yes he sez 15 stories up or more, however, where are the pix, if the rubble pile was really that tall, why wasn't it photographed?

The Fred Marsilla interview was in regards to WTC 1 and 2. Not WTC 7. Which you'd actually know if you're read the interview. Here's the interview in its entirity:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

Educate yourself.

So sorry about the shift of reference here, I was referring to the whole ground zero rubble pile when I posted that and I'd be VERY interested to know if anybody has any photographic evidence of a ground zero rubble pile taller than 4 stories. Please post it if you have it.

You've clearly forgotten the context of your introduction to Fred Marsilla's eye witness testimony. I'll refresh your memory:

'

'

There is the facts to be considered here and that is for both towers & 7 to have "collapsed" right down to street level, is rather improbable.

Um, the debris field at each tower was 9 stories high. I don't now about you, but I've never considered 9 stories up to be 'street level'.

Please document 9 story high rubble pile at Ground Zero.

Right after you document that it was at 'ground level'. Either we both have to document our statements, or neither of us do. As it stands, I've offered as much to back my claims as you've offered to back yours.

And as you've already acknowledged, Fred Marsilla's eye witness account explicitly refutes your claim that the building 'collapsed right down to street level'. Indicating instead that the debris field was as high as 15 stories.

So, we have 3 problems:

1) Why are you offering us a claim regarding the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2 for which you have no evidence to support?

2) Why are you ignoring eye witness accounts that explicitly refute your baseless allegations regarding the collapse of WTC 1 and 2?

3) Why are you now trying to change the topic when the lack of evidence of your position and the existence of evidence refuting your position has been offered?

A person who genuinely 'questions everything' wouldn't do any of the above. You've done all three. Why?

 

[n0spam4me]

also, I did look up the Fred Marsilla interview and yes he sez 15 stories up or more, however, where are the pix, if the rubble pile was really that tall, why wasn't it photographed?

The Fred Marsilla interview was in regards to WTC 1 and 2. Not WTC 7. Which you'd actually know if you're read the interview. Here's the interview in its entirity:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

Educate yourself.

So sorry about the shift of reference here, I was referring to the whole ground zero rubble pile when I posted that and I'd be VERY interested to know if anybody has any photographic evidence of a ground zero rubble pile taller than 4 stories. Please post it if you have it.

You've clearly forgotten the context of your introduction to Fred Marsilla's eye witness testimony. I'll refresh your memory:

'

'

There is the facts to be considered here and that is for both towers & 7 to have "collapsed" right down to street level, is rather improbable.

Um, the debris field at each tower was 9 stories high. I don't now about you, but I've never considered 9 stories up to be 'street level'.

Please document 9 story high rubble pile at Ground Zero.

Right after you document that it was at 'ground level'. Either we both have to document our statements, or neither of us do. As it stands, I've offered as much to back my claims as you've offered to back yours.

And as you've already acknowledged, Fred Marsilla's eye witness account explicitly refutes your claim that the building 'collapsed right down to street level'. Indicating instead that the debris field was as high as 15 stories.

So, we have 3 problems:

1) Why are you offering us a claim regarding the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2 for which you have no evidence to support?

2) Why are you ignoring eye witness accounts that explicitly refute your baseless allegations regarding the collapse of WTC 1 and 2?

3) Why are you now trying to change the topic when the lack of evidence of your position and the existence of evidence refuting your position has been offered?

A person who genuinely 'questions everything' wouldn't do any of the above. You've done all three. Why?

on the subject of testimony, .... that is all fine and dandy if it can be supported by photographic evidence, WHY are there no pix of ground zero showing that 15 story tall rubble pile?
again, 9/11/2001 is the most poorly documented disaster in all history!

 

[Skylar]

also, I did look up the Fred Marsilla interview and yes he sez 15 stories up or more, however, where are the pix, if the rubble pile was really that tall, why wasn't it photographed?

The Fred Marsilla interview was in regards to WTC 1 and 2. Not WTC 7. Which you'd actually know if you're read the interview. Here's the interview in its entirity:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

Educate yourself.

So sorry about the shift of reference here, I was referring to the whole ground zero rubble pile when I posted that and I'd be VERY interested to know if anybody has any photographic evidence of a ground zero rubble pile taller than 4 stories. Please post it if you have it.

You've clearly forgotten the context of your introduction to Fred Marsilla's eye witness testimony. I'll refresh your memory:

'

'

There is the facts to be considered here and that is for both towers & 7 to have "collapsed" right down to street level, is rather improbable.

Um, the debris field at each tower was 9 stories high. I don't now about you, but I've never considered 9 stories up to be 'street level'.

Please document 9 story high rubble pile at Ground Zero.

Right after you document that it was at 'ground level'. Either we both have to document our statements, or neither of us do. As it stands, I've offered as much to back my claims as you've offered to back yours.

And as you've already acknowledged, Fred Marsilla's eye witness account explicitly refutes your claim that the building 'collapsed right down to street level'. Indicating instead that the debris field was as high as 15 stories.

So, we have 3 problems:

1) Why are you offering us a claim regarding the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2 for which you have no evidence to support?

2) Why are you ignoring eye witness accounts that explicitly refute your baseless allegations regarding the collapse of WTC 1 and 2?

3) Why are you now trying to change the topic when the lack of evidence of your position and the existence of evidence refuting your position has been offered?

A person who genuinely 'questions everything' wouldn't do any of the above. You've done all three. Why?

on the subject of testimony, .... that is all fine and dandy if it can be supported by photographic evidence, WHY are there no pix of ground zero showing that 15 story tall rubble pile?
again, 9/11/2001 is the most poorly documented disaster in all history!

So no answer why you're offering us a conspiracy for which you have no evidence to support.

Nor any rational reason why you would ignore Fred Marsilla, who was an eye witness and climbed the massive piles of debris you insist never existed.

And no excuse for why you're scrambling away from your own claims now that the stark lack of evidence supporting them and the credible evidence refuting them has been revealed?

I didn't think so. Your conspiracy doesn't work being ludicrously complicated and factually baseless. And you've provided no credible reason why any rational person would ignore the evidence that refutes you.

Try again.

 

[n0spam4me]

Please note that the world has been spoon-fed a story about airliners hijacked and then crashed into buildings and then three skyscrapers "collapsing" in the manner and at the speed that they did, and nobody is questioning this ( & the ones who do, are labeled nut-cases....)
Question EVERYTHING!
where are we going & why are we in this handbasket?

 

[PredFan]

Ok, first let's get straight what you are saying. I have a few questions:

1. Do you deny that two jet planes hit the towers?
2. Was #7 in use before 9/11 or was it empty.
3. Do you believe that the two towers (not just #7) were also brought down by controlled demolition?

1. No
2. Yes, In use
3. Yes controlled demolition.

the chances of a controlled demolition being set up in NYC in one of the busiest areas of the country without anyone noticing is pretty much zero.

Funny isn't it? They spend so much time trying to convince us that we are being told a lie, but their beliefs are far more ridiculous, and far more unproven than the official version that they are fighting against.

 

[PredFan]

Ok, first let's get straight what you are saying. I have a few questions:

1. Do you deny that two jet planes hit the towers?
2. Was #7 in use before 9/11 or was it empty.
3. Do you believe that the two towers (not just #7) were also brought down by controlled demolition?

1. No
2. Yes, In use
3. Yes controlled demolition.

the chances of a controlled demolition being set up in NYC in one of the busiest areas of the country without anyone noticing is pretty much zero.

But the chances are still greater than the impossible happening and as I've pointed out repeatedly here, it is impossible for fire to have caused the collapse of B7.
"When you remove the impossible what remains no matter how improbable MUST be the truth".

It is quite obvious that it is not impossible because it in fact happened. It wasn't the fires alone, it was damage and shock from the other towers. We can in fact eliminate the impossible, start with the impossibility of a demolition team rigging a building to go down without anyone who works there noticing.

 

[n0spam4me]

"their beliefs are far more ridiculous" in somebodies opinion.

The belief that airliners were hijacked on that day is based on VERY thin "evidence" .....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We can in fact eliminate the impossible, start with the impossibility of a demolition team rigging a building to go down without anyone who works there noticing."

Personal incredulity anyone? .......

 

[PredFan]

"their beliefs are far more ridiculous" in somebodies opinion.

The belief that airliners were hijacked on that day is based on VERY thin "evidence" .....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We can in fact eliminate the impossible, start with the impossibility of a demolition team rigging a building to go down without anyone who works there noticing."

Personal incredulity anyone? .......

Try using logic, reason, and facts. If you have two functioning brain cells to rub together, you can easily come to the realization that rigging the buildings to go down without anyone noticing, is impossible.

 

[Skylar]

"their beliefs are far more ridiculous" in somebodies opinion.

The belief that airliners were hijacked on that day is based on VERY thin "evidence" .....

That's your personal opinion. Backed by absolutely nothing.

The pictures of the debris of the planes at the crash sites is very compelling evidence. You ignore every such photograph, regardless of source. Without exception. Even those submitted as evidence in court by the Department of Justice.

The eyewitness accounts of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, WTC 1 and WTC 2 are compelling evidence. You ignore them all.

The bodies of the passengers of flight 93 and flight 77 being pulled from their respective crash sites is compelling evidence. Even one would be amazingly compelling. And in the case of flight 77, they matched every single passenger. You ignore it all.

The black boxes from Flight 93 and Flight 77 being pulled from their respective crash sites is amazingly compelling evidence. You ignore them all.

You seem to be mistaking your willful ignorance of all evidence that contradicts you with a lack of contrary evidence. And of course, you have nothing to back up your conspiracy narrative. Zilch, nada, zip.

 

[Skylar]

"their beliefs are far more ridiculous" in somebodies opinion.

The belief that airliners were hijacked on that day is based on VERY thin "evidence" .....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We can in fact eliminate the impossible, start with the impossibility of a demolition team rigging a building to go down without anyone who works there noticing."

Personal incredulity anyone? .......

Try using logic, reason, and facts. If you have two functioning brain cells to rub together, you can easily come to the realization that rigging the buildings to go down without anyone noticing, is impossible.

Oh, its far worse than you think. Actual controlled demolition is bottom to top. Where the base of the building is knocked down and all the floors above it fall at the same rate. But that's so not how the WTC 1 and 2 fell.

The towers fell top to bottom, with the collapse initiating at the point of impact with the planes and proceeding, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground. Exactly opposite of controlled demolition. Meaning that every single floor from the impact site to the ground, would have had to been 'demolished' individually. With 47 core columns and roughly 250 outer panels....and 90 stories and 79 stories respectively in each tower to the ground....

.....that's roughly 50,000 individual charges. Plus all the apparatus of explosives.

And they were installed in perfect secrecy with no one noticing any of them? Um, no. The bomb theory is just an awful, awful explanation for the collapse of the Towers. And contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

 

[n0spam4me]

"Try using logic, reason, and facts. If you have two functioning brain cells to rub together, you can easily come to the realization that rigging the buildings to go down without anyone noticing, is impossible."

Have you ever worked in the land of cubicles?
say some trades people arrive to work on the plumbing, or anything at all about the building and the higher ups instruct the minions to give the trades people all the space they require, are YOU going to go and ask the workers if they are installing explosives? or are you going to attend to your own work?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Oh, its far worse than you think. Actual controlled demolition is bottom to top. Where the base of the building is knocked down and all the floors above it fall at the same rate. But that's so not how the WTC 1 and 2 fell."

Ever hear of a controlled demolition designed for high-rise building?
it starts at or near the top to minimize the risk of the tall building falling over and damaging adjacent structures.

Also, I most strongly recommend that people look at the video of WTC1, 2 & 7 "collapsing" and observe the speed & manner of "collapse" can U say UNNATURAL ACT?

Can anyone engineer a model that is a free standing structure that has the same width to height ratio as the towers and then cause it to "collapse" in the manner that the towers did, without using explosives?

 

[Skylar]

"Try using logic, reason, and facts. If you have two functioning brain cells to rub together, you can easily come to the realization that rigging the buildings to go down without anyone noticing, is impossible."

Have you ever worked in the land of cubicles?
say some trades people arrive to work on the plumbing, or anything at all about the building and the higher ups instruct the minions to give the trades people all the space they require, are YOU going to go and ask the workers if they are installing explosives? or are you going to attend to your own work?

What workers installed explosives? Can you provide any documentation of such an installation? Any evidence of it?

Or is your imagination the extent of your argument?

And of course the buildings weren't museums. They were regularly used, inspected, maintained, remodeled. And the disovery of ONE bomb, one inch of det cord, one timer, any apparatus of explosive would have resulted in a massive search of the entire building. And your conspiracy requires 10s of thousands of them.

Yet there was nothing.

And of course, the Port Authority Bomb Squad went through he WTC plaza only a week before its collapse and found zero bombs. Neither they nor their bomb sniffing dogs did. WTC security had conducted extensive sweeps of the plaza, working 12 hour shifts looking for bombs in response to phone threats.

They never found anything.

Nor were there any girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. Nor was there any apparatus of explosives found after the collapse. Nor was there any residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC. Nor would any system of explosives handled being on fire....detonators would have detonated, wires would have been ruined, timers and receivers reduced to bubbling pools of plastic. And there were many fires across the WTC. Including where the planes impacted and the collapse initiated.

How do you explain these overlapping, enormous and theory killing holes in your bomb theory? You can't. You just ignore them and pretend none exist.

Alas, you've never been able to convince *us* to ignore them. Which is why you fail.

 

[n0spam4me]

"And of course, the Port Authority Bomb Squad went through he WTC plaza only a week before its collapse and found zero bombs. Neither they nor their bomb sniffing dogs did. WTC security had conducted extensive sweeps of the plaza, working 12 hour shifts looking for bombs in response to phone threats."

Link Please ...

 

[Skylar]

"And of course, the Port Authority Bomb Squad went through he WTC plaza only a week before its collapse and found zero bombs. Neither they nor their bomb sniffing dogs did. WTC security had conducted extensive sweeps of the plaza, working 12 hour shifts looking for bombs in response to phone threats."

Link Please ...

Right after you provide links affirming that the WTC 1 and 2 collapsed to 'street level', that there was C4 at the WTC plaza, that there was a single bomb, inch or blasting wire or apparatus of explosive ever found. Before, during or after the collapse.

Provide those links and I'll be happy to provide you with links to Police Officer David Lim of the Port Authority Bomb Squad and Explosive Detection Dog handler affirming that the WTC plaza was searched as late as 1 week before the collapse. And I'll even throw in the account of Daria Coard, a guard at the WTC plaza who had been working 12 hour shifts for the two weeks leading up to the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2 in response to phone threats.

But demanding I provide links while you can't back up any of your silly nonsense is yet another failure of your own standards.

 

[n0spam4me]

"silly nonsense" ..... Your attitude is showing ......

 

[Skylar]

"silly nonsense" ..... Your attitude is showing ......

I've simply done the research that you refuse to do. And have listed the reasons why your bomb theory is a virtual impossibility. You can't resolve any of the conspiracy killing holes in your claims.....and bizarrely pretend that none of the crippling inconsistencies in your conspiracy exist.

Your pretending is most definitely silly. And nonsense. Especially when you claim to 'question everything'. But refuse to question or even think too hard about your own failed conspiracy.

Try again.

 

[PredFan]

"their beliefs are far more ridiculous" in somebodies opinion.

The belief that airliners were hijacked on that day is based on VERY thin "evidence" .....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We can in fact eliminate the impossible, start with the impossibility of a demolition team rigging a building to go down without anyone who works there noticing."

Personal incredulity anyone? .......

Try using logic, reason, and facts. If you have two functioning brain cells to rub together, you can easily come to the realization that rigging the buildings to go down without anyone noticing, is impossible.

Oh, its far worse than you think. Actual controlled demolition is bottom to top. Where the base of the building is knocked down and all the floors above it fall at the same rate. But that's so not how the WTC 1 and 2 fell.

The towers fell top to bottom, with the collapse initiating at the point of impact with the planes and proceeding, one floor at a time, all the way to the ground. Exactly opposite of controlled demolition. Meaning that every single floor from the impact site to the ground, would have had to been 'demolished' individually. With 47 core columns and roughly 250 outer panels....and 90 stories and 79 stories respectively in each tower to the ground....

.....that's roughly 50,000 individual charges. Plus all the apparatus of explosives.

And they were installed in perfect secrecy with no one noticing any of them? Um, no. The bomb theory is just an awful, awful explanation for the collapse of the Towers. And contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

And all done in total secrecy. Talk about impossibilities!

 

[PredFan]

"Try using logic, reason, and facts. If you have two functioning brain cells to rub together, you can easily come to the realization that rigging the buildings to go down without anyone noticing, is impossible."

Have you ever worked in the land of cubicles?
say some trades people arrive to work on the plumbing, or anything at all about the building and the higher ups instruct the minions to give the trades people all the space they require, are YOU going to go and ask the workers if they are installing explosives? or are you going to attend to your own work?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Oh, its far worse than you think. Actual controlled demolition is bottom to top. Where the base of the building is knocked down and all the floors above it fall at the same rate. But that's so not how the WTC 1 and 2 fell."

Ever hear of a controlled demolition designed for high-rise building?
it starts at or near the top to minimize the risk of the tall building falling over and damaging adjacent structures.

Also, I most strongly recommend that people look at the video of WTC1, 2 & 7 "collapsing" and observe the speed & manner of "collapse" can U say UNNATURAL ACT?

Can anyone engineer a model that is a free standing structure that has the same width to height ratio as the towers and then cause it to "collapse" in the manner that the towers did, without using explosives?

I don't have to, it happened on 9-11. We saw it.

 

[n0spam4me]

"I don't have to, it happened on 9-11. We saw it."

The real question is: did what you saw, happen with or without help from some other source of energy?