9/11 Conspiracy

[SAYIT]

Wow. You've been claiming that the fires were minor, that no fire or rescue peeps entered WTC7 on 9/11 and that there wasn't significant damage to the structure, all of which is directly contradicted by statements from professionals who were there, witnessing the events and making the decisions. Furthermore, it was FDNY Chief Nigro who stated he "pulled" everyone out at 3:30 pm but only an arrogant, desperately shrill CT would claim to know better. The only problem with Nigro's account is that it tips your silly little house of 9/11 CT cards. Tough titties.

I didn't say no one went in. I said there was no interior attack. The last rescue effort was in the morning, long before EXTERIOR ops were told to evacuate the area that afternoon.

The fires and damage were indeed RELATIVELY minor. Yes, there was open fire and serious damage, but in comparison to other buildings, there was far less damage.

There is no contradiction.

There's not only a contradiction between your account and that of the professionals who were there witnessing the events and fighting the fires, there's a contradiction in your own claim that "The fires and damage were indeed RELATIVELY minor. Yes, there was open fire and serious damage."
So which was it ... "minor ... fires and damage" or "open fire and serious damage?"

You do understand the concept of relativity? A bonfire might look like a big fire, but compared to a house burning down it's not. You are struggling hard to pin me on a contradiction that I never made. There was no one in building 7 fighting fires. There was a brief rescue operation in the morning to get Barry Jennings and the guy he was with. That was it. There was no interior attack operation to fight fire.

I've seen your pompous routine here from others. You make bogus claims like the "fires and damage were indeed RELATIVELY minor" and then spin or backpedal when they are challenged. There's nothing new or unique about you or your unfounded beliefs.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Wow. You've been claiming that the fires were minor, that no fire or rescue peeps entered WTC7 on 9/11 and that there wasn't significant damage to the structure, all of which is directly contradicted by statements from professionals who were there, witnessing the events and making the decisions. Furthermore, it was FDNY Chief Nigro who stated he "pulled" everyone out at 3:30 pm but only an arrogant, desperately shrill CT would claim to know better. The only problem with Nigro's account is that it tips your silly little house of 9/11 CT cards. Tough titties.

I didn't say no one went in. I said there was no interior attack. The last rescue effort was in the morning, long before EXTERIOR ops were told to evacuate the area that afternoon.

The fires and damage were indeed RELATIVELY minor. Yes, there was open fire and serious damage, but in comparison to other buildings, there was far less damage.

There is no contradiction.

There's not only a contradiction between your account and that of the professionals who were there witnessing the events and fighting the fires, there's a contradiction in your own claim that "The fires and damage were indeed RELATIVELY minor. Yes, there was open fire and serious damage."
So which was it ... "minor ... fires and damage" or "open fire and serious damage?"

You do understand the concept of relativity? A bonfire might look like a big fire, but compared to a house burning down it's not. You are struggling hard to pin me on a contradiction that I never made. There was no one in building 7 fighting fires. There was a brief rescue operation in the morning to get Barry Jennings and the guy he was with. That was it. There was no interior attack operation to fight fire.

I've seen your pompous routine here from others. You make bogus claims like the "fires and damage were indeed RELATIVELY minor" and then spin or backpedal when they are challenged. There's nothing new or unique about you or your unfounded beliefs.

Still waiting on that physical evidence there buddy.

 

[SAYIT]

You have no facts. NIST even admits that themselves.

NIST never admitting having "no facts." That's just you adding to your prodigious pile of lies.

The Pop Mech report says they tossed all the evidence, basically because they didn't think they would need it since there was allegedly no loss of life in 7.

You basically just acknowledged that you are full of crap.
At no time did the NIST admit - as you falsely clamed - that they had "no facts." Not surprisingly, you see no problem with your continual need to lie but we both know it is necessary to maintain your silly little 9/11 CT house of cards.
By any chance are you a disinformationalist trying to discredt the "Truther" Movement?

Fine, you go ahead and show me the physical evidence that NIST provided then.

Like most people I can see its imperfect and incomplete nature but there is nothing in the NIST report you will accept as it interferes with your agenda-driven conclusions. When compared to the lunacy that was the "Truther" Movement (PBUI), the official conclusions are the only plausible explanation. I think it would be of greater value to spell out exactly what is your agenda. Given you eagerness to lie about 9/11, I suspect it might be very interesting.

 

[Jackinthebox]

You have no facts. NIST even admits that themselves.

NIST never admitting having "no facts." That's just you adding to your prodigious pile of lies.

The Pop Mech report says they tossed all the evidence, basically because they didn't think they would need it since there was allegedly no loss of life in 7.

You basically just acknowledged that you are full of crap.
At no time did the NIST admit - as you falsely clamed - that they had "no facts." Not surprisingly, you see no problem with your continual need to lie but we both know it is necessary to maintain your silly little 9/11 CT house of cards.
By any chance are you a disinformationalist trying to discredt the "Truther" Movement?

Fine, you go ahead and show me the physical evidence that NIST provided then.

Like most people I can see its imperfect and incomplete nature but there is nothing in the NIST report you will accept as it interferes with your agenda-driven conclusions. When compared to the lunacy that was the "Truther" Movement (PBUI), the official conclusions are the only plausible explanation. I think it would be of greater value to spell out exactly what is your agenda. Given you eagerness to lie about 9/11, I suspect it might be very interesting.

Yup, still waiting on that proof there buddy.

 

[SAYIT]

NIST never admitting having "no facts." That's just you adding to your prodigious pile of lies.

The Pop Mech report says they tossed all the evidence, basically because they didn't think they would need it since there was allegedly no loss of life in 7.

You basically just acknowledged that you are full of crap.
At no time did the NIST admit - as you falsely clamed - that they had "no facts." Not surprisingly, you see no problem with your continual need to lie but we both know it is necessary to maintain your silly little 9/11 CT house of cards.
By any chance are you a disinformationalist trying to discredt the "Truther" Movement?

Fine, you go ahead and show me the physical evidence that NIST provided then.

Like most people I can see its imperfect and incomplete nature but there is nothing in the NIST report you will accept as it interferes with your agenda-driven conclusions. When compared to the lunacy that was the "Truther" Movement (PBUI), the official conclusions are the only plausible explanation. I think it would be of greater value to spell out exactly what is your agenda. Given you eagerness to lie about 9/11, I suspect it might be very interesting.

Yup, still waiting on that proof there buddy.

Proof of what, Princess?

 

[Jackinthebox]

The Pop Mech report says they tossed all the evidence, basically because they didn't think they would need it since there was allegedly no loss of life in 7.

You basically just acknowledged that you are full of crap.
At no time did the NIST admit - as you falsely clamed - that they had "no facts." Not surprisingly, you see no problem with your continual need to lie but we both know it is necessary to maintain your silly little 9/11 CT house of cards.
By any chance are you a disinformationalist trying to discredt the "Truther" Movement?

Fine, you go ahead and show me the physical evidence that NIST provided then.

Like most people I can see its imperfect and incomplete nature but there is nothing in the NIST report you will accept as it interferes with your agenda-driven conclusions. When compared to the lunacy that was the "Truther" Movement (PBUI), the official conclusions are the only plausible explanation. I think it would be of greater value to spell out exactly what is your agenda. Given you eagerness to lie about 9/11, I suspect it might be very interesting.

Yup, still waiting on that proof there buddy.

Proof of what, Princess?

Show me the physical evidence that fire brought down Tower 7.

 

[candycorn]

Explained 10,000 times...

The plane crash damaged the fire proofing on the metal inside the building. The fires weakened the metal. The buildings collapsed where they were supposed to have.

As for WTC7, the seismic events of two plane crashes and two building collapses set off the damage that consumed WTC7.

NIST says that is not true. They say fire was the only reason the building collapsed. They even ruled out some stuff underground and other factors. They pin it exclusively on fire damage, which is utter nonsense. Any firefighter can tell you that much.

The building (#7) was creeking before the collapse as a result of the concussion of the events earlier.

Fire proofing? There was no fireproofing even in place at all during the 1970's fire in Tower 1 which burned larger and longer than on 9/11.

Is this the fire you're talking about?

On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours.[60] Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment.Fireproofing protected the steel[61] and there was no structural damage to the tower.[60] In addition to damage caused by the fire on the 9th–14th floors, water from the extinguishing of the fires damaged a few floors below. At that time, the World Trade Center had no fire sprinkler systems.[60]

Looks like fireproofing was there.

 

[candycorn]

Computer model:

I thought you said you did your own research? Can we assume your name is David Chandler?

And that video was included in my research. Next.

So you're lying when you say you do your own research. Next.

 

[SAYIT]

You have no facts. NIST even admits that themselves.

NIST never admitting having "no facts." That's just you adding to your prodigious pile of lies.

The Pop Mech report says they tossed all the evidence, basically because they didn't think they would need it since there was allegedly no loss of life in 7.

You basically just acknowledged that you are full of crap.
At no time did the NIST admit - as you falsely clamed - that they had "no facts." Not surprisingly, you see no problem with your continual need to lie but we both know it is necessary to maintain your silly little 9/11 CT house of cards.
By any chance are you a disinformationalist trying to discredt the "Truther" Movement?

Fine, you go ahead and show me the physical evidence that NIST provided then.

Like most people I can see its imperfect and incomplete nature but there is nothing in the NIST report you will accept as it interferes with your agenda-driven conclusions. When compared to the lunacy that was the "Truther" Movement (PBUI), the official conclusions are the only plausible explanation. I think it would be of greater value to spell out exactly what is your agenda. Given you eagerness to lie about 9/11, I suspect it might be very interesting.

Sill waiting for you to explain your agenda, buddy.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Explained 10,000 times...

The plane crash damaged the fire proofing on the metal inside the building. The fires weakened the metal. The buildings collapsed where they were supposed to have.

As for WTC7, the seismic events of two plane crashes and two building collapses set off the damage that consumed WTC7.

NIST says that is not true. They say fire was the only reason the building collapsed. They even ruled out some stuff underground and other factors. They pin it exclusively on fire damage, which is utter nonsense. Any firefighter can tell you that much.

The building (#7) was creeking before the collapse as a result of the concussion of the events earlier.

Fire proofing? There was no fireproofing even in place at all during the 1970's fire in Tower 1 which burned larger and longer than on 9/11.

Is this the fire you're talking about?

On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours.[60] Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment.Fireproofing protected the steel[61] and there was no structural damage to the tower.[60] In addition to damage caused by the fire on the 9th–14th floors, water from the extinguishing of the fires damaged a few floors below. At that time, the World Trade Center had no fire sprinkler systems.[60]

Looks like fireproofing was there.

It wasn't the same material. But you're right. I was thinking of the sprinkler system when I said that.

A lot of buildings were "creaking" and popping that day, but didn't fall down in a nice neat little pile.

 

[Jackinthebox]

NIST never admitting having "no facts." That's just you adding to your prodigious pile of lies.

The Pop Mech report says they tossed all the evidence, basically because they didn't think they would need it since there was allegedly no loss of life in 7.

You basically just acknowledged that you are full of crap.
At no time did the NIST admit - as you falsely clamed - that they had "no facts." Not surprisingly, you see no problem with your continual need to lie but we both know it is necessary to maintain your silly little 9/11 CT house of cards.
By any chance are you a disinformationalist trying to discredt the "Truther" Movement?

Fine, you go ahead and show me the physical evidence that NIST provided then.

Like most people I can see its imperfect and incomplete nature but there is nothing in the NIST report you will accept as it interferes with your agenda-driven conclusions. When compared to the lunacy that was the "Truther" Movement (PBUI), the official conclusions are the only plausible explanation. I think it would be of greater value to spell out exactly what is your agenda. Given you eagerness to lie about 9/11, I suspect it might be very interesting.

Sill waiting for you to explain your agenda, buddy.

No agenda here. Just looking for answers, or something I haven't already seen.

 

[candycorn]

Explained 10,000 times...

The plane crash damaged the fire proofing on the metal inside the building. The fires weakened the metal. The buildings collapsed where they were supposed to have.

As for WTC7, the seismic events of two plane crashes and two building collapses set off the damage that consumed WTC7.

NIST says that is not true. They say fire was the only reason the building collapsed. They even ruled out some stuff underground and other factors. They pin it exclusively on fire damage, which is utter nonsense. Any firefighter can tell you that much.

The building (#7) was creeking before the collapse as a result of the concussion of the events earlier.

Fire proofing? There was no fireproofing even in place at all during the 1970's fire in Tower 1 which burned larger and longer than on 9/11.

Is this the fire you're talking about?

On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours.[60] Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment.Fireproofing protected the steel[61] and there was no structural damage to the tower.[60] In addition to damage caused by the fire on the 9th–14th floors, water from the extinguishing of the fires damaged a few floors below. At that time, the World Trade Center had no fire sprinkler systems.[60]

Looks like fireproofing was there.

It wasn't the same material. But you're right. I was thinking of the sprinkler system when I said that.

A lot of buildings were "creaking" and popping that day, but didn't fall down in a nice neat little pile.

They were not hit by debris from WTC 1 & 2 unless they were as close as WTC7 was. And WTC 7 didn't fall into a "nice neat little" anything.

 

[candycorn]

The Pop Mech report says they tossed all the evidence, basically because they didn't think they would need it since there was allegedly no loss of life in 7.

You basically just acknowledged that you are full of crap.
At no time did the NIST admit - as you falsely clamed - that they had "no facts." Not surprisingly, you see no problem with your continual need to lie but we both know it is necessary to maintain your silly little 9/11 CT house of cards.
By any chance are you a disinformationalist trying to discredt the "Truther" Movement?

Fine, you go ahead and show me the physical evidence that NIST provided then.

Like most people I can see its imperfect and incomplete nature but there is nothing in the NIST report you will accept as it interferes with your agenda-driven conclusions. When compared to the lunacy that was the "Truther" Movement (PBUI), the official conclusions are the only plausible explanation. I think it would be of greater value to spell out exactly what is your agenda. Given you eagerness to lie about 9/11, I suspect it might be very interesting.

Sill waiting for you to explain your agenda, buddy.

No agenda here. Just looking for answers, or something I haven't already seen.

Sure...

 

[Jackinthebox]

Explained 10,000 times...

The plane crash damaged the fire proofing on the metal inside the building. The fires weakened the metal. The buildings collapsed where they were supposed to have.

As for WTC7, the seismic events of two plane crashes and two building collapses set off the damage that consumed WTC7.

NIST says that is not true. They say fire was the only reason the building collapsed. They even ruled out some stuff underground and other factors. They pin it exclusively on fire damage, which is utter nonsense. Any firefighter can tell you that much.

The building (#7) was creeking before the collapse as a result of the concussion of the events earlier.

Fire proofing? There was no fireproofing even in place at all during the 1970's fire in Tower 1 which burned larger and longer than on 9/11.

Is this the fire you're talking about?

On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours.[60] Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment.Fireproofing protected the steel[61] and there was no structural damage to the tower.[60] In addition to damage caused by the fire on the 9th–14th floors, water from the extinguishing of the fires damaged a few floors below. At that time, the World Trade Center had no fire sprinkler systems.[60]

Looks like fireproofing was there.

It wasn't the same material. But you're right. I was thinking of the sprinkler system when I said that.

A lot of buildings were "creaking" and popping that day, but didn't fall down in a nice neat little pile.

They were not hit by debris from WTC 1 & 2 unless they were as close as WTC7 was. And WTC 7 didn't fall into a "nice neat little" anything.

WTC 7 wasn't even a part of the WTC proper. It was on a different block. There were a lot of building that were closer and suffered a LOT more damage.

WTC 3:

Nice neat pile:

 

[Jackinthebox]

It took ten years and $100 million as well as the lives of two more firefighters to finally bring down the Deutsche Bank too

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

An office fire did this to a 47 story building- over 40,000 tons of structural steel. OK

 

[Gamolon]

What do you know about credibility, you're a member of 'We Are Criminal Clowns'

You care nothing about the truth, you question nothing about the OCT which is full of holes,

That's hysterical coming from you!

Weren't you the one blathering on about the jet engine and where it landed and how impossible that was? Weren't you using that as part of your reasoning to try and show that everything is a conspiracy? Until you were shown that story was based on incorrect information, you believed every word of it.

What questions did YOU ask about that particular piece of information to find the truth? You KNEW something was not right, but just ran with the "it was probably planted" garbage.

You're a hypocrite.

 

[Gamolon]

An office fire did this to a 47 story building- over 40,000 tons of structural steel. OK

No, fire initiated the collapse and the resultant loads applied to the rest of the structure as a result of the gravity driven collapse did that to 40,000 tons of steel.

Get your stories straight.

 

[irosie91]

The Pop Mech report says they tossed all the evidence, basically because they didn't think they would need it since there was allegedly no loss of life in 7.

You basically just acknowledged that you are full of crap.
At no time did the NIST admit - as you falsely clamed - that they had "no facts." Not surprisingly, you see no problem with your continual need to lie but we both know it is necessary to maintain your silly little 9/11 CT house of cards.
By any chance are you a disinformationalist trying to discredt the "Truther" Movement?

Fine, you go ahead and show me the physical evidence that NIST provided then.

Like most people I can see its imperfect and incomplete nature but there is nothing in the NIST report you will accept as it interferes with your agenda-driven conclusions. When compared to the lunacy that was the "Truther" Movement (PBUI), the official conclusions are the only plausible explanation. I think it would be of greater value to spell out exactly what is your agenda. Given you eagerness to lie about 9/11, I suspect it might be very interesting.

Sill waiting for you to explain your agenda, buddy.

No agenda here. Just looking for answers, or something I haven't already seen.

regarding the WTC------the agendas and libels emerged long
before the towers collapsed. -----I suspect any rumor or libel
that seems PRE-COOKED

 

[Gamolon]

Rescue efforts ended with Barry Jennings, that morning, just after the first tower collapsed.

More bogus information! You cry that there are so many holes in the "Official Story" yet you continue to present bogus information. What a joke. Why aren't you vehemently denouncing those who provide the information that you are finding to be complete garbage like you are the "Official Story"?

Barry Jennings was rescued around 12:15 in the afternoon. He was trapped inside WTC7 well after BOTH towers had fallen. Where are you getting he was rescued just after the first tower collapsed?

Do any of you actually research the information you use to come to the conclusion that the "Official Story" is false? It sure doesn't look like it based on the couple of threads I've been involved in.