9/11 Conspiracy

[Jackinthebox]

No plane hit building 7.

Oh sure, partial collapse makes you laugh, but total collapse makes sense to you.

Why'd you leave out the jets hitting WTC1 and WTC2 and said it was only fire?

No plane hit 7.

 

[Gamolon]

They have been scrubbed from the internet.

Of course they have...

You can read and watch all about his experiences on your own time, with what is still available out there. I am not going to hold your hand and rehash information that you can go and see for yourself.

I've looked into his account extensively and it is full of contradictions and assumptions. You made the claim that his experiences contradict what actually happened and I asked you to provide some of them.

 

[Gamolon]

No plane hit building 7.

Oh sure, partial collapse makes you laugh, but total collapse makes sense to you.

Why'd you leave out the jets hitting WTC1 and WTC2 and said it was only fire?

No plane hit 7.

Why'd you bring up the fire in 1970 when no jets were involved? Or don't you have the guts to admit you're wrong?

 

[Jackinthebox]

They have been scrubbed from the internet.

Of course they have...

You can read and watch all about his experiences on your own time, with what is still available out there. I am not going to hold your hand and rehash information that you can go and see for yourself.

I've looked into his account extensively and it is full of contradictions and assumptions. You made the claim that his experiences contradict what actually happened and I asked you to provide some of them.

This interview corroborates some elements of his account.

 

[Jackinthebox]

No plane hit building 7.

Oh sure, partial collapse makes you laugh, but total collapse makes sense to you.

Why'd you leave out the jets hitting WTC1 and WTC2 and said it was only fire?

No plane hit 7.

Why'd you bring up the fire in 1970 when no jets were involved? Or don't you have the guts to admit you're wrong?

A jet hitting a steel building is like punching a hole in a screen door with a pen. Even if you set it on fire, the screen is not going to fall down.

 

[Gamolon]

They have been scrubbed from the internet.

Of course they have...

You can read and watch all about his experiences on your own time, with what is still available out there. I am not going to hold your hand and rehash information that you can go and see for yourself.

I've looked into his account extensively and it is full of contradictions and assumptions. You made the claim that his experiences contradict what actually happened and I asked you to provide some of them.

This interview corroborates some elements of his account.

And this one does not...

 

[Gamolon]

A jet hitting a steel building is like punching a hole in a screen door with a pen. Even if you set it on fire, the screen is not going to fall down.

You aren't serious are you?

Are you suggesting that the screen mesh is supporting the gravity load of the door above? Are you suggesting that the plane should have pushed the perimeter columns to the side like a pen would when pushed through a screen??

Just... wow...

 

[Gamolon]

A jet hitting a steel building is like punching a hole in a screen door with a pen. Even if you set it on fire, the screen is not going to fall down.

Just for kicks, I would like you to explain how you think the screen of a door is in any way structurally similar to the perimeter columns of WTC1/WTC2.

You making that comparison is laughable.

 

[Capstone]

. . .AS TO NIST they followed all the protocols.

Well, if that's true (and I sincerely doubt it is, particularly where the strangely delayed investigation of the so-called collapse of building 7 was concerned), it doesn't address their eventual concession of a period of gravitational acceleration that was and remains unexplainable in light of their ultimate finding: the fire-induced progressive collapse model. Or maybe you'd like to clarify as to how "follow[ing] all the protocols" exonerates the NIST group of suggesting in effect that the third law of motion apparently didn't apply to the physical materials that composed the bearing walls of building 7.

Of course, as we've learned from men like Kevin Ryan, who was fired in 2004 from his managerial/oversight position at the Environmental Testing Division of Underwriters Laboratories (the company contracted by the NIST group to conduct physical testing on certain WTC construction materials) for asking too many uncomfortable questions about the project's scope and results, because, in his words, "I felt I was trying to protect my company’s reputation, actually; although I was increasingly suspicious that something was going on that was not above board." (from the transcript of an August 2014 interview posted here), the NIST group had similarly ignored and/or twisted any physical evidence that didn't support its unwarranted foregone conclusions WRT the collapses of buildings 1 and 2 as well. For instance, again quoting Ryan from the foregoing link: "What they actually showed in the floor model test that UL helped them with was that, if they put the floor models in the furnace and tested per ASTM E119, the temperature would rise, and after about 45 minutes the sagging would begin, but only about 3 inches of sagging would occur at that temperature. If they let it go farther it would sag a bit more, but not nearly up to the point that they reported in their computer model, (which they ended up resorting to, because these physical tests were not really supporting their predetermined conclusions)." In fact, in at least seven critical respects, the testing conducted by UL flew in the face of the conclusions nonetheless laid-out in the NIST group's initial report.

It's one thing to give the appearance of following protocols, Daws; it's another to actually follow them to wherever the evidence leads.

As for the Popular Mechanics bullshit, which has been refuted on-line ad nauseam over the years and doesn't even comport to certain aspects of the NIST group's "final report", all I will say here is consider the source.

 

[SAYIT]

That's the kind of half-truth that is the "backbone" (and the cancer) of the "Truther" Movement. There are no real comps which could be applied to 9/11 so computer models were created. The option being we would have to rebuild and recreate the attack to really know what happened but when we get down to it, Occam's Razor is your friend. When compared to the official findings of the events of 9/11, the "Truther" stories are downright silly.

Computer models show a controlled demolition.

They claim fire brought down the building. Even though fire have never done that before or since. I was a firefighter. There is no way those few small fires brought down a steel building.

The "official findings" are just a story, with no evidence to support it.

Your "facts" are contradicted by firefighter testimony and you have no idea what those fires looked like, how hot they were and what damage they did. You never explained how you believe those buildings were rigged and how the chaotic fires and structural damage did not destroy the rigging.

Firefighter testimony is that there were only a few small pockets of fire in building 7. I know FFs who were there, I lost a fellow firefighter from my firehouse that day.

It doesn't matter how hot the fires were or what damage they did. Fire does not bring down steel buildings. I don't have to explain how the buildings were rigged to know that fire does not bring down steel buildings.

It's also quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning, considering that, as I said, the fires were minimal.

The fires were not minimal, they raged for hours, and not only it is not "quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning," the alleged charges would had to have been placed in specific locations and there was no way to predict where the fires would be.
Finally, you can't explain "how the buildings were rigged" because all "Truther" attempts to do so have been such embarrassing failures that the Movement has been abandoned by all but the DVD and t-shirt hawkers and the not-too-brights holding brooms.

The fires certainly were minimal, and even if the whole building had been engulfed in flame, it STILL would NOT have collapsed.
How were the buildings rigged? By clandestine operatives posing as construction crews and security personnel...

The fires were not only not minimal, they were chaotic, unfought and burned for hours. No demo explosives could have survived that and no evidence of demo explosives was found. If there were the "clandestine operatives posing as construction crews and security personnel" you claim, surely some would have come forward in the past 13 years.

 

[Jackinthebox]

A jet hitting a steel building is like punching a hole in a screen door with a pen. Even if you set it on fire, the screen is not going to fall down.

Just for kicks, I would like you to explain how you think the screen of a door is in any way structurally similar to the perimeter columns of WTC1/WTC2.

You making that comparison is laughable.

The plane punched a hole in the building, that was it. If it did enough damage to cause structural failure, we would have seen a partial collapse right away.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Computer models show a controlled demolition.

They claim fire brought down the building. Even though fire have never done that before or since. I was a firefighter. There is no way those few small fires brought down a steel building.

The "official findings" are just a story, with no evidence to support it.

Your "facts" are contradicted by firefighter testimony and you have no idea what those fires looked like, how hot they were and what damage they did. You never explained how you believe those buildings were rigged and how the chaotic fires and structural damage did not destroy the rigging.

Firefighter testimony is that there were only a few small pockets of fire in building 7. I know FFs who were there, I lost a fellow firefighter from my firehouse that day.

It doesn't matter how hot the fires were or what damage they did. Fire does not bring down steel buildings. I don't have to explain how the buildings were rigged to know that fire does not bring down steel buildings.

It's also quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning, considering that, as I said, the fires were minimal.

The fires were not minimal, they raged for hours, and not only it is not "quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning," the alleged charges would had to have been placed in specific locations and there was no way to predict where the fires would be.
Finally, you can't explain "how the buildings were rigged" because all "Truther" attempts to do so have been such embarrassing failures that the Movement has been abandoned by all but the DVD and t-shirt hawkers and the not-too-brights holding brooms.

The fires certainly were minimal, and even if the whole building had been engulfed in flame, it STILL would NOT have collapsed.
How were the buildings rigged? By clandestine operatives posing as construction crews and security personnel...

The fires were not only not minimal, they were chaotic, unfought and burned for hours. No demo explosives could have survived that and no evidence of demo explosives was found. If there were the "clandestine operatives posing as construction crews and security personnel" you claim, surely some would have come forward in the past 13 years.

Several people have come forward including a former FBI agent who was investigating suspicious activity by work crews BEFORE 9/11.

The fires were minimal, I know people who were there. Burning for hours has nothing to do with it. The entire building could have been totally involved, and the steel structure would still not collapse.

 

[SAYIT]

AS TO NIST they followed all the protocols.

Well, if that's true (and I sincerely doubt it is, particularly where the strangely delayed investigation of the so-called collapse of building 7 was concerned)...

What do you find to have been strange about the delay in the WTC7 investigation?

 

[Gamolon]

He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.

That's a lie.

Jennings admitted he never SAW any bodies. He assumed.

 

[Jackinthebox]

He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.

That's a lie.

Jennings admitted he never SAW any bodies. He assumed.

Point conceded.

But the firefighters were not telling him to not look down for no reason. I am a firefighter. I know what we say to people and why. I also know people who were there that day, but I am not going to put their name out there and what they saw.

 

[Gamolon]

A jet hitting a steel building is like punching a hole in a screen door with a pen. Even if you set it on fire, the screen is not going to fall down.

Just for kicks, I would like you to explain how you think the screen of a door is in any way structurally similar to the perimeter columns of WTC1/WTC2.

You making that comparison is laughable.

The plane punched a hole in the building, that was it. If it did enough damage to cause structural failure, we would have seen a partial collapse right away.

Then why did you say that the screen still wouldn't collapse even if it was set on fire after the pen was pushed through? You're making a structural stability comparison between a screen and the tower's perimeter facade. Now you're trying to backpedal because you were called out on it? Look at what you wrote. The pen pushes the "wires" making up the screen to the side. The wires of the screen are not supporting a gravity load.

When the jets impacted the building, you weakened the structure as a whole through severed and damaged structural components. The resultant fires weakened the remaining structural components that were already being over-stressed and caused the structure to fail.

 

[Gamolon]

He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.

That's a lie.

Jennings admitted he never SAW any bodies. He assumed.

Point conceded.

But the firefighters were not telling him to not look down for no reason. I am a firefighter. I know what we say to people and why. I also know people who were there that day, but I am not going to put their name out there and what they saw.

So why are there no casualties listed of those killed who worked in WTC7? Why are no relatives or friends of those killed in WTC7 who worked there coming forward to say anything?

You knowing why you say certain things to people means absolutely nothing. The point is, you used Barry as a witness to seeing bodies to try and prove your belief, and that has been proven false, to which you agree.

 

[SAYIT]

Your "facts" are contradicted by firefighter testimony and you have no idea what those fires looked like, how hot they were and what damage they did. You never explained how you believe those buildings were rigged and how the chaotic fires and structural damage did not destroy the rigging.

Firefighter testimony is that there were only a few small pockets of fire in building 7. I know FFs who were there, I lost a fellow firefighter from my firehouse that day.

It doesn't matter how hot the fires were or what damage they did. Fire does not bring down steel buildings. I don't have to explain how the buildings were rigged to know that fire does not bring down steel buildings.

It's also quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning, considering that, as I said, the fires were minimal.

The fires were not minimal, they raged for hours, and not only it is not "quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning," the alleged charges would had to have been placed in specific locations and there was no way to predict where the fires would be.
Finally, you can't explain "how the buildings were rigged" because all "Truther" attempts to do so have been such embarrassing failures that the Movement has been abandoned by all but the DVD and t-shirt hawkers and the not-too-brights holding brooms.

The fires certainly were minimal, and even if the whole building had been engulfed in flame, it STILL would NOT have collapsed.
How were the buildings rigged? By clandestine operatives posing as construction crews and security personnel...

The fires were not only not minimal, they were chaotic, unfought and burned for hours. No demo explosives could have survived that and no evidence of demo explosives was found. If there were the "clandestine operatives posing as construction crews and security personnel" you claim, surely some would have come forward in the past 13 years.

Several people have come forward including a former FBI agent who was investigating suspicious activity by work crews BEFORE 9/11.

The fires were minimal, I know people who were there. Burning for hours has nothing to do with it. The entire building could have been totally involved, and the steel structure would still not collapse.

Obviously your conclusion is incorrect as WTC7 did collapse but the fact remains that no demo rigging could have survived the fires and no evidence of demo explosives was found. Firefighters at the scene said they thought WTC7 was showing signs of imminent collapse so they pulled out:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about..." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) 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 [wouldn't] lose any more people..." - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that "nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there." [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

 

[Jackinthebox]

A jet hitting a steel building is like punching a hole in a screen door with a pen. Even if you set it on fire, the screen is not going to fall down.

Just for kicks, I would like you to explain how you think the screen of a door is in any way structurally similar to the perimeter columns of WTC1/WTC2.

You making that comparison is laughable.

The plane punched a hole in the building, that was it. If it did enough damage to cause structural failure, we would have seen a partial collapse right away.

Then why did you say that the screen still wouldn't collapse even if it was set on fire after the pen was pushed through? You're making a structural stability comparison between a screen and the tower's perimeter facade. Now you're trying to backpedal because you were called out on it? Look at what you wrote. The pen pushes the "wires" making up the screen to the side. The wires of the screen are not supporting a gravity load.

When the jets impacted the building, you weakened the structure as a whole through severed and damaged structural components. The resultant fires weakened the remaining structural components that were already being over-stressed and caused the structure to fail.

Which would have only caused structural failure in the damaged areas.



And pardon me for giving you a on oversimplified explanation in an attempt to dumb it down enough for you to grasp. Yes, I am aware that a screen is not a load bearing structure.

 

[Jackinthebox]

He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.

That's a lie.

Jennings admitted he never SAW any bodies. He assumed.

Point conceded.

But the firefighters were not telling him to not look down for no reason. I am a firefighter. I know what we say to people and why. I also know people who were there that day, but I am not going to put their name out there and what they saw.

So why are there no casualties listed of those killed who worked in WTC7? Why are no relatives or friends of those killed in WTC7 who worked there coming forward to say anything?

You knowing why you say certain things to people means absolutely nothing. The point is, you used Barry as a witness to seeing bodies to try and prove your belief, and that has been proven false, to which you agree.

There are missing people still from that day, ASSUMED lost in the disaster. But since no body was found, it cannot be said for sure if they died, or which building they actually died in.

Besides,. the government can't even tell us who the hijackers even were, so missing people and so forth is really no big surprise since half of the alleged hijackers turned out to still be alive after 9/11.