You have your head stuck so firmly in the sand you see nothing at all.
Here is a picture of WTC7 with smoke coming from many floors. It was so well ablaze that the firefighters abandoned it, but of course it suits the Truthshirkers to pretend it was just a couple of rooms burning.
It appears to be the North Tower surrounded by the dust clouds of the collapsed South Tower, but what seems very odd is the light shining through the dust clouds on the right, as though there was a huge fire behind. Can you explain that?
That response says it all to me...
Really? So what do you think the picture shows?
It shows that, somewhere in your imagination, you create a "fireball" in order to completely ignore the dust clouds up one side of the tower which we know 100% had no fires. Yet you are proclaiming quite the opposite for WTC7. In neither instance do we see raging fires.
I am amazed I had to spell it out and that you are getting so desperate!
I am not in the slightest bit desperate, but you, like so many troofers, seem to have trouble with English comprehension. I said "It appears to be the North Tower surrounded by the dust clouds of the collapsed South Tower..." which is not ignoring the dust clouds!
Look at your picture, the dust clouds are white, the smoke is black, even you can tell the difference. Nevertheless, it is an odd picture because of the unexplained orange light on the right hand side that you do not want to talk about.
Look at the WTC7 picture, the smoke is black, it is not dust.
It is a picture that confirms what the firemen said, WTC7 was on fire on most floors. If you want to argue about that, explain this video:
............. my suggestion that because the 9/11 Commission, by implication, suggests that Bush lied about 9/11, we need a new enquiry.
So your position is that although the 9/11 Commission concluded there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq, and Bush later accepted that there was no such link, because at one time he said he thought there might be a link, there should be a new investigation. That is a position that makes no sense at all unless you believe that there might, after all, be a link. Why do you think that?
You have your head stuck so firmly in the sand you see nothing at all.
Here is a picture of WTC7 with smoke coming from many floors. It was so well ablaze that the firefighters abandoned it, but of course it suits the Truthshirkers to pretend it was just a couple of rooms burning.
It appears to be the North Tower surrounded by the dust clouds of the collapsed South Tower, but what seems very odd is the light shining through the dust clouds on the right, as though there was a huge fire behind. Can you explain that?
That response says it all to me...
Really? So what do you think the picture shows?
It shows that, somewhere in your imagination, you create a "fireball" in order to completely ignore the dust clouds up one side of the tower which we know 100% had no fires. Yet you are proclaiming quite the opposite for WTC7. In neither instance do we see raging fires.
I am amazed I had to spell it out and that you are getting so desperate!
I am not in the slightest bit desperate, but you, like so many troofers, seem to have trouble with English comprehension. I said "It appears to be the North Tower surrounded by the dust clouds of the collapsed South Tower..." which is not ignoring the dust clouds!
Look at your picture, the dust clouds are white, the smoke is black, even you can tell the difference. Nevertheless, it is an odd picture because of the unexplained orange light on the right hand side that you do not want to talk about.
Look at the WTC7 picture, the smoke is black, it is not dust.
It is a picture that confirms what the firemen said, WTC7 was on fire on most floors. If you want to argue about that, explain this video:
It is about time you troofers accepted the truth, and stopped calling the firemen liars.
It was you and your sidekick pepik, calling firemen truthers liars the other day, why your sudden about turn?
are those the best photos of the raging fires? i see lots of dust, a bit of smoke and a very small fire.
the photo is excellent for showing the scale of the tiny fire in relation to the the towers enormous size. Usually you see a super close up of a tiny fire on a floor or two.
The fire in wtc7 is even smaller than that, and we are supposed to believe that colapsed into its own footprint at near freefall speed too? hello cuckoo, cuckoo.
Thats about as believeable as De Menezes sprinting barriers in his thick coat with wires protruding from it.
Look at the size of the building, and look at the size of the fire.
It was you and your sidekick pepik, calling firemen truthers liars the other day, why your sudden about turn?
are those the best photos of the raging fires? i see lots of dust, a bit of smoke and a very small fire.
the photo is excellent for showing the scale of the tiny fire in relation to the the towers enormous size. Usually you see a super close up of a tiny fire on a floor or two.
The fire in wtc7 is even smaller than that, and we are supposed to believe that colapsed into its own footprint at near freefall speed too? hello cuckoo, cuckoo.
Thats about as believeable as De Menezes sprinting barriers in his thick coat with wires protruding from it.
Look at the size of the building, and look at the size of the fire.
Neither pepik nor I have ever called the firemen liars.
However, I have no hesitation in calling you a liar, your entire approach to the subject is mendacious, you make Bliar look like an honest man.
It was you and your sidekick pepik, calling firemen truthers liars the other day, why your sudden about turn?
are those the best photos of the raging fires? i see lots of dust, a bit of smoke and a very small fire.
the photo is excellent for showing the scale of the tiny fire in relation to the the towers enormous size. Usually you see a super close up of a tiny fire on a floor or two.
The fire in wtc7 is even smaller than that, and we are supposed to believe that colapsed into its own footprint at near freefall speed too? hello cuckoo, cuckoo.
Thats about as believeable as De Menezes sprinting barriers in his thick coat with wires protruding from it.
Look at the size of the building, and look at the size of the fire.
Neither pepik nor I have ever called the firemen liars.
However, I have no hesitation in calling you a liar, your entire approach to the subject is mendacious, you make Bliar look like an honest man.
so when you and your sidekick peppy says ''all truthers are liars'', that excludes all the firemen who want truth does it? funny how your selective memory syndrome kicks in again.
No, WTC7 was badly damaged when one of the world's tallest buildings fell on top of it and then burnt unattended for seven hours with diesel circulating inside, did no one tell you? Why should anyone bother to blow up a building the world had never heard of, if two of the most famous landmarks of NY had already come down? That's the unanswered question about WTC7, and the best any troofer has come up with is to get rid of embarassing papers, as if shredders did not exist!
Diesel circulating inside? Even you must admit that is a bizarre statement to make, sounds like it was walking the corridors looking for a fire.
Why should they bother? Does it matter? Does it not only have to look like a demolition but there has to be a reason for it to count? If I assault you, will I escape a conviction if they can't think of a reason why I would do it?
The question I have is how come an obviously intelligent person like yourself feels the need to buy into all the rather feeble reasoning for WTC7 to fall? Surely your questioning mind that knows about building contstruction would say "damn that is impossible, all the support would have to simultaneously disappear for a building to collapse like that - hell I know for a fact that certain parts of the building weren't damaged at all, why would those support columns not resist?"
Why do you believe that body parts were identified at the Pentagon but choose to ignore the FDR which shows that Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon? Wouldn't you feel comforted if the NTSB actually investigated this and explained it?
The diesel was circulating in fuel pipes to the emergency generating sets, not the corridors, what, if any, part it played is not yet established.
I note that you do not think motive is relevant to investigation of a possible crime, but I fear few investigators would agree with you. If you are being prosecuted for assault, it is very likely that the prosecution will suggest a motive, and if you can show you had no motive, your protestations of innocence might be better believed.
NIST has not yet finished its investigation of WTC7, a building of unusual construction because of the ConEd power station it was built over, so I think it premature to decide that the reasoning is feeble! It was WTC7 that got me interested in the whole subject, because its collapse did look so like a controlled demolition. I came on to this site to try to find more, and found absolutely nothing to support that idea, on the contrary, for instance, the firemen said they could see that the building was becoming unstable long in advance of its eventual collapse. The evidence offered that it was a CD was bizarre, particularly the Silverstein "pull it" comment. I came to the conclusion that people who were prepared to take that remark so out of its context could have no interest in the truth.
Faced with a conflict between between Snowygrouch saying the FDR shows that Flight 77 flew over the top of the Pentagon and all the other evidence and witnesses that it did not, I have little hesitation in concluding that there is some error in the FDR evidence. Why would I think that 100 pathologists and the NTSB staff would agree to cover up evidence of a monstrous crime? Continually widening the circle of those allegedly involved in a conspiracy in order to explain away evidence against it is one of the most noticable traits of conspiracists, and one that counts heavily against the believability of their claims.
Re: Motive - It was yourself who wanted us to tell you why something took place to help you to believe that it actually took place. It would of course require investigation of what took place (which hasn't happened) before you could come up with a suspect and then of course a motive. Elephant in the living room scenario again - you do not need to know why the elephant is there to investigate how it got there.
On Flight 77, where did 100 pathologists come into it? Are you saying 10o of them verified for themselves the body parts in the Pentagon? Are you aware of any investigation of the NTSB of the FDR? Why don't they reveal their findings as Snowygrouch and Pilots for Truth have done? NTSB released the FDR data - If the analysis of it is wrong, then why don't they point it out to the world. In any other plane crash, a full analysis would be done and the details released of why the plane crashed. Why do you think it hasn't happened in this case? Smacks of a cover-up don't you think? What are they covering up?
On Building Seven I do believe that it was unstable by late in the afternoon - I have no reason to disbelieve the fire-fighters. In the same way I don't disbelieve them when they talk of explosions in the towers. But given what we know of controlled demolition, detonations would have to take place before the main demolition so that doesn't disprove a demolition. Because as you and I know, random damage cannot cause a top down collapse like that ...... and fire can't do it either.
I have a question for you now this forum is livening up again. When WTC2 collapses, the top 25 stories tilt at a significant angle.
Yes or No?
If you say no, I will of course point out a photo which shows it so we will assume it is yes for now. What puzzles me is how the side of the tower furthest away from the tilt was pulverised at all. All of the weight was moving in one direction, there is no force that can stop such momentum so how did the whole tower come straight down? Maybe I am not explaining it well, but I am sure you can work it out. And a supplementary for 10, what caused the bang, bang, bang noise as heard in at least one audio and reported by the firemen who always, as we know, tell the truth.
It was you and your sidekick pepik, calling firemen truthers liars the other day, why your sudden about turn?
are those the best photos of the raging fires? i see lots of dust, a bit of smoke and a very small fire.
the photo is excellent for showing the scale of the tiny fire in relation to the the towers enormous size. Usually you see a super close up of a tiny fire on a floor or two.
The fire in wtc7 is even smaller than that, and we are supposed to believe that colapsed into its own footprint at near freefall speed too? hello cuckoo, cuckoo.
Thats about as believeable as De Menezes sprinting barriers in his thick coat with wires protruding from it.
Look at the size of the building, and look at the size of the fire.
Neither pepik nor I have ever called the firemen liars.
However, I have no hesitation in calling you a liar, your entire approach to the subject is mendacious, you make Bliar look like an honest man.
so when you and your sidekick peppy says ''all truthers are liars'', that excludes all the firemen who want truth does it? funny how your selective memory syndrome kicks in again.
Wanting the truth is very different from being a troofer, like yourself. Troofers simply strive by any convenient lie, misrepresentation or pseudo-science to reinforce their cult beliefs about 9/11, as you do. Troofers do not like truth, it interferes with their beliefs.
Not all who think 9/11 was an inside job are troofers, there are some who post here who have regard for evidence and logic, but they tend to be drowned out by the mindless mob of people like you.
No, WTC7 was badly damaged when one of the world's tallest buildings fell on top of it and then burnt unattended for seven hours with diesel circulating inside, did no one tell you? Why should anyone bother to blow up a building the world had never heard of, if two of the most famous landmarks of NY had already come down? That's the unanswered question about WTC7, and the best any troofer has come up with is to get rid of embarassing papers, as if shredders did not exist!
Diesel circulating inside? Even you must admit that is a bizarre statement to make, sounds like it was walking the corridors looking for a fire.
Why should they bother? Does it matter? Does it not only have to look like a demolition but there has to be a reason for it to count? If I assault you, will I escape a conviction if they can't think of a reason why I would do it?
The question I have is how come an obviously intelligent person like yourself feels the need to buy into all the rather feeble reasoning for WTC7 to fall? Surely your questioning mind that knows about building contstruction would say "damn that is impossible, all the support would have to simultaneously disappear for a building to collapse like that - hell I know for a fact that certain parts of the building weren't damaged at all, why would those support columns not resist?"
Why do you believe that body parts were identified at the Pentagon but choose to ignore the FDR which shows that Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon? Wouldn't you feel comforted if the NTSB actually investigated this and explained it?
The diesel was circulating in fuel pipes to the emergency generating sets, not the corridors, what, if any, part it played is not yet established.
I note that you do not think motive is relevant to investigation of a possible crime, but I fear few investigators would agree with you. If you are being prosecuted for assault, it is very likely that the prosecution will suggest a motive, and if you can show you had no motive, your protestations of innocence might be better believed.
NIST has not yet finished its investigation of WTC7, a building of unusual construction because of the ConEd power station it was built over, so I think it premature to decide that the reasoning is feeble! It was WTC7 that got me interested in the whole subject, because its collapse did look so like a controlled demolition. I came on to this site to try to find more, and found absolutely nothing to support that idea, on the contrary, for instance, the firemen said they could see that the building was becoming unstable long in advance of its eventual collapse. The evidence offered that it was a CD was bizarre, particularly the Silverstein "pull it" comment. I came to the conclusion that people who were prepared to take that remark so out of its context could have no interest in the truth.
Faced with a conflict between between Snowygrouch saying the FDR shows that Flight 77 flew over the top of the Pentagon and all the other evidence and witnesses that it did not, I have little hesitation in concluding that there is some error in the FDR evidence. Why would I think that 100 pathologists and the NTSB staff would agree to cover up evidence of a monstrous crime? Continually widening the circle of those allegedly involved in a conspiracy in order to explain away evidence against it is one of the most noticable traits of conspiracists, and one that counts heavily against the believability of their claims.
Re: Motive - It was yourself who wanted us to tell you why something took place to help you to believe that it actually took place. It would of course require investigation of what took place (which hasn't happened) before you could come up with a suspect and then of course a motive. Elephant in the living room scenario again - you do not need to know why the elephant is there to investigate how it got there.
On Flight 77, where did 100 pathologists come into it? Are you saying 10o of them verified for themselves the body parts in the Pentagon? Are you aware of any investigation of the NTSB of the FDR? Why don't they reveal their findings as Snowygrouch and Pilots for Truth have done? NTSB released the FDR data - If the analysis of it is wrong, then why don't they point it out to the world. In any other plane crash, a full analysis would be done and the details released of why the plane crashed. Why do you think it hasn't happened in this case? Smacks of a cover-up don't you think? What are they covering up?
On Building Seven I do believe that it was unstable by late in the afternoon - I have no reason to disbelieve the fire-fighters. In the same way I don't disbelieve them when they talk of explosions in the towers. But given what we know of controlled demolition, detonations would have to take place before the main demolition so that doesn't disprove a demolition. Because as you and I know, random damage cannot cause a top down collapse like that ...... and fire can't do it either.
I have a question for you now this forum is livening up again. When WTC2 collapses, the top 25 stories tilt at a significant angle.
Yes or No?
If you say no, I will of course point out a photo which shows it so we will assume it is yes for now. What puzzles me is how the side of the tower furthest away from the tilt was pulverised at all. All of the weight was moving in one direction, there is no force that can stop such momentum so how did the whole tower come straight down? Maybe I am not explaining it well, but I am sure you can work it out. And a supplementary for 10, what caused the bang, bang, bang noise as heard in at least one audio and reported by the firemen who always, as we know, tell the truth.
Re: Motive - It was yourself who wanted us to tell you why something took place to help you to believe that it actually took place. It would of course require investigation of what took place (which hasn't happened) before you could come up with a suspect and then of course a motive. Elephant in the living room scenario again - you do not need to know why the elephant is there to investigate how it got there.
You suspect that WTC7 collapsed through CD, I suspect it collapsed through damage and/or fire. Pending completion of the investigation by NIST, we do not know which of us is correct, but support for the idea that it was CD must be lessened if no sustainable motive can be suggested. Of course that would not prove that it was not CD, but it would make it less likely. If you hear crashing from the sitting you may suspect a number of reasons, including an elephant, before you find out. However, if there is no reason for an elephant to be there, you might find it a less likely suspect than the cat.
On Flight 77, where did 100 pathologists come into it? Are you saying 10o of them verified for themselves the body parts in the Pentagon?
What they say is "During the hours immediately following the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the acting Armed Forces Medical Examiner, Abubkr Marzouk, Col, USAF, MC, began working with FBI and local Virginia law enforcement officials to create an effective plan for first recovering and then identifying the victims. At the same time, personnel from the Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner (OAFME) positioned and staged equipment to begin operations at Dover. Bruce Ensign, LCDR, MC, USN, served as AFIP’s team leader at the site. "We immediately called in regional medical examiners from as far away as San Diego to participate," he said. A total of 12 forensic pathologists, assisted by two AFIP staff pathologists, headed the OAFME investigation team."
If you want to know more, Google "Pentagon pathologists" for a number of articles on the subject, one of which stated that the total number of those involved from the AFIP was 100.
Are you aware of any investigation of the NTSB of the FDR? Why don't they reveal their findings as Snowygrouch and Pilots for Truth have done? NTSB released the FDR data - If the analysis of it is wrong, then why don't they point it out to the world. In any other plane crash, a full analysis would be done and the details released of why the plane crashed. Why do you think it hasn't happened in this case? Smacks of a cover-up don't you think? What are they covering up?
To quote the NTSB on their investigative process:
"Investigations Involving Criminal Activity
In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support.
One example would be the crash of a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight in San Luis Obispo, California on December 7, 1987. All 43 persons aboard died in the crash of the Bae-146. Because of information conveyed over the radio by the flight crew shortly before the crash, the FBI instituted its own investigation, parallel to the Safety Board's investigation, to determine if a crime had been committed. Within days, it was learned that a former employee of the airline had boarded the plane with a gun and, while the plane was in cruise flight, had shot the flight crew, causing the aircraft to crash. When that was made evident, the FBI assumed control of the investigation.
More recently, on September 11, 2001, the crashes of all four airliners were obviously the result of criminal actions and the Justice Department assumed control of the investigations. The NTSB provided requested technical support.
As the result of recent legislation, the NTSB will surrender lead status on a transportation accident only if the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Safety Board, notifies the Board that circumstances reasonably indicate that the accident may have been caused by an intentional criminal act."
And no, I do not think yet another agency and all its employees are covering up a massive murder of US citizens - I find that unlikely.
The FDR data was released under a FOIA request, and like all government agencies, the NTSB is not getting drawn into discussions about FOIA information.
On Building Seven I do believe that it was unstable by late in the afternoon - I have no reason to disbelieve the fire-fighters. In the same way I don't disbelieve them when they talk of explosions in the towers. But given what we know of controlled demolition, detonations would have to take place before the main demolition so that doesn't disprove a demolition. Because as you and I know, random damage cannot cause a top down collapse like that ...... and fire can't do it either.
If you believe WTC7 became unstable through fires, and the firemen feared its collapse, it is surely not very difficult for you to believe that it did eventually collapse? Certainly there were explosions in the towers, but that provides no evidence for CD because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, in a fire there are many causes of explosions. The independent engineers who examined the steel found no evidence to indicate CD. It is no use saying that we know random damage cannot cause such collapse, and nor can fires, when far better qualified people than us accept that the combination of damage and fires did cause the collapse of the towers.
I have a question for you now this forum is livening up again. When WTC2 collapses, the top 25 stories tilt at a significant angle.
Yes or No?
If you say no, I will of course point out a photo which shows it so we will assume it is yes for now. What puzzles me is how the side of the tower furthest away from the tilt was pulverised at all. All of the weight was moving in one direction, there is no force that can stop such momentum so how did the whole tower come straight down? Maybe I am not explaining it well, but I am sure you can work it out. And a supplementary for 10, what caused the bang, bang, bang noise as heard in at least one audio and reported by the firemen who always, as we know, tell the truth.
Yes, certainly the top section tilted as it fell, but it was still mostly over the bottom section and falling on it. As the bottom section was crushed from the top, the top section falling on it must have been crushed from the bottom upwards. The very top of the top section, leaning furthest out in the photo, and no doubt continuing to move further out from momentum, as you say, I would think fell well clear of the tower. Photos show debris spread widely around the towers, all the other buildings in the complex and surrounding it were severely damaged, so debris was clearly travelling a considerable horizontal distance. Part of the top of the tower might even have fallen intact, we cannot tell, since it disappeared into the dust.
The bang, bang, bang noise might have been successive explosions, but as we have discussed this does not indicate CD, or successive internal collapses, such as floors giving way. The photos of the towers just before they collapsed do show that a number of floors did collapse, so that is perhaps the most likely explanation.
Not all who think 9/11 was an inside job are troofers, there are some who post here who have regard for evidence and logic, but they tend to be drowned out by the mindless mob of people like you.
I would still argue that those who really have their heads stuck in the sand are not muslims but all the defenders of the official truth with regards 9/11 and J7.
Now not all of these defenders are disinterested in evidence and logic but they tend to be drowned out by what appears to be a mindless mob who sound remarkably similar to you.
Given that you find the vast majority of people who post here to be part of a mindless cult and I find arguing with you equally mindless, it begs the question, why bother?
Not all who think 9/11 was an inside job are troofers, there are some who post here who have regard for evidence and logic, but they tend to be drowned out by the mindless mob of people like you.
I would still argue that those who really have their heads stuck in the sand are not muslims but all the defenders of the official truth with regards 9/11 and J7.
Now not all of these defenders are disinterested in evidence and logic but they tend to be drowned out by what appears to be a mindless mob who sound remarkably similar to you.
Given that you find the vast majority of people who post here to be part of a mindless cult and I find arguing with you equally mindless, it begs the question, why bother?
Bye
Because sometimes, just sometimes, one can have a sensible discussion with reasonable people. As an, example, just glance at the exchange between KP50 and myself in the post immediately before yours. To my mind, that sort of discussion is worthwhile, while the name calling of Long Tooth and the silly point-scoring of Mark Gobell is not, what do you think?
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1850 Location: Currently Andover
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:51 pm Post subject:
I like to think that yellow behind the dust that you refer to as a fireball I would refer to as sunlight. I have looked directly at the sun behind thick cloud on quite a few occasions and that picture doesn't seem too different. It was a cloudless day with bright sunshine. The sun was on the south side that morning.
Anyway, I haven't heard of any witnesses saying they saw a fireball the size that you are implying in the picture. _________________ Currently working on a new website
I like to think that yellow behind the dust that you refer to as a fireball I would refer to as sunlight. I have looked directly at the sun behind thick cloud on quite a few occasions and that picture doesn't seem too different. It was a cloudless day with bright sunshine. The sun was on the south side that morning.
Anyway, I haven't heard of any witnesses saying they saw a fireball the size that you are implying in the picture.
I do not think it was a fireball, but I do not think it was the sun shining through either, since it was a shot taken from the air, looking down on that dust cloud. If it was reflected light, you would expect it to be white, not that yellow/orange colour. I am genuinely mystified about it.
Have you looked at the two videos which show the smoke coming out of WTC7?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum