NY's Finest Tour Guide Pokes Major Holes in the CD Theory

More on Mark Roberts, "NY's Finest Tour Guide"

Tony writes on Nov 5th, 2007 7:51pm
Comment 11

I agree with Mensa0217, Roberts is just a jealous DH. Go to his hangout at the Jref forums and do a search between his name and the name of redibiss and Swing dangler and see how they unmask him as a liar. His followers at the jref claims that he is the expert, ultimate expert on 9/11.
wweek.com...

mensa0217 writes on Nov 5th, 2007 7:17pm
Comment 10 | Respond

William was a hero on 9/11 and is a hero now. This article obviously biased using the same thing Rodriguez has attacked, hint to the writer, you are quoting Wikipedia! the same thing Rodriguez attacked just a day ago on Radio. Do a test go to Wiki and see that is even locked on his biography as a character assasination.

Mark Roberts? a jealous wannabe who ridesw on Rodriguez's shadow to get recognition? It must be crazy for him (Roberts) that everytime he tries to hurt Rodriguez, William turns around and becomes MORE recognized and gets more invitations from all over the world. In his desperation, Roberts tries to accuse William of being an antisemite when it has been Rodriguez, the person unmasking these people in the movement. Shame on ADL Roberts! Roberts should try a different approach...
wweek.com...

[edit on 17-11-2007 by GreenFloyd]

What a bad video Not a single bit inside that disproves the CD case

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by Griff

 

in all fairness though, would you agree that there is just a "little" difference between cutting a chunk of rebar and cutting through 2"+ thick column that measures several feet in perimeter?

In all fairness yes. But, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to extrapolate that into something that could do the job IMO. That is not a jab at you or your imagination.

but, the flipside to that is, while someones done a video showing thermite cutting horizontally through rebar, has anyone done a similar experiment using a structural column? that would be interesting to me.

I think I might start a little project to dispell this one way or the other. I'm surprised Dr. Jones hasn't done this yet.

is it so far fetched to look at the eyewitness reports of "explosions" on 911 and consider it as a possibility that the people there did NOT hear bombs, but simply heard loud noises?

It's not far fetched at all and I never said it was.

Let me ask.

We had plenty of reports of explosions. Why didn't they at least do some investigating during their "investigation" to make sure that there were no bombs? One would think a thorough investigation (especially in leu of plenty of reports of bombs, explosions etc.) would have checked....just in case?

cuz outside the building demo business, military or bomb squad...how many avg people, or even above avg people that are in law enforcement and Fire services have a real live basis for comparison?

Well, I'm quite sure firemen hear electrical explosions all the time and would have a pretty good basis. No?

Griff, i honestly hope you dont feel like im picking on you or trying to start anything. i just know that if i discuss points that you raise i can count on a mature discussion, so thanks

I would never think that. I like the fact that we don't agree but are mature enough to discuss our thoughts without having to worry about getting blasted. Cheers my friend.

Originally posted by Lokey13
Um didn't the president already admit to the people that explosives were used? I remember seeing a thread about that, anyone know if thats right or not? Cause if it is delete this thread.

He was speaking of "other" operations than 9/11. If you read the actual transcript, it is plain as day that he wasn't speaking about 9/11. But, for some reason, the "truth" community is still paroting that. Makes one wonder.

Originally posted by Calcas
And, he normally posts at the JREF forum under the name "Gravy." Feel free to come on over and debate anything related to 9-11 there with the best 9-11 debunkers anywhere. I dare you.

forums.randi.org...

No thanks. It's too vitriolic over there.

vitriolic - harsh or corrosive in tone;

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Originally posted by Griff

In all fairness yes. But, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to extrapolate that into something that could do the job IMO. That is not a jab at you or your imagination.

heh, my imagination is at times too vivid, which is why while i could envision thermite/mate cutting a column, id rather see it to know.

I think I might start a little project to dispell this one way or the other. I'm surprised Dr. Jones hasn't done this yet.

if you have the resources to set up this little experiment, then by ALL means. sadly all i can offer is encouragement. but it would be one way to separate the open minded from the "faithful" becuase even the skeptics would have to admit then it was at the very least "plausible" though the flip side is that even if it didnt work there would be those that would cry "well, the govt has more resources than you do so this doenst prove it COULDNT happen..."
oh, and you know what i think of jone's methods. maybe its the lack of sleep but it wouldnt suprise me at all to find that jones HAS done this experiment but it didnt produce the desired result so he just didnt tell anyone. not saying he did, just that it wouldnt suprise me. but thats just me.

It's not far fetched at all and I never said it was.

no, you didnt and i do apologize if i implied you had.

Let me ask.

We had plenty of reports of explosions. Why didn't they at least do some investigating during their "investigation" to make sure that there were no bombs? One would think a thorough investigation (especially in leu of plenty of reports of bombs, explosions etc.) would have checked....just in case?

ya know, thats a great point and one ive never fully understood myself. but in my own defense, ive never said i bought the official story 100%, just that given all the possible options, it seems the most likely to me based on my own knowledge and experience.

Well, I'm quite sure firemen hear electrical explosions all the time and would have a pretty good basis. No?

oh most certainly. ive never discounted that people heard "explosions" just that nothing ive been able to find lead me to believe that those explosions were from high explosive devices. and if a fireman says he heard "what sounded like a transformer blowing" id accept that it was a transformer blowing. but if a fireman heard the sound of a building letting go above him and he told people "i heard this sound like steel weld joints breaking" people would look at him with blank stares where if he said " i heard this sound, like an explosion" they'd know it was a really loud booming sound, but then sadly most of these people would then assume the fireman was saying there was a bomb in the building.

did that make any sense or do i really need to go get some sleep finally?

I would never think that. I like the fact that we don't agree but are mature enough to discuss our thoughts without having to worry about getting blasted. Cheers my friend.

cool, couldnt agree more.

Originally posted by Soloist
It is clear as a bell, you cannot have one without the other, a plane hit which caused the fires, period.

The planes may have caused the fire, but there is too much evidence that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.

Please do a little research before posting.

Originally posted by bovarcher
You have obviously not read or studied the NIST report. The report describes in detail the effect the impact of the planes had on the collapse of the building, the exact opposite of your above proclamation.

And you have not read or studied all the reports. There is a lot more evidence in the reports that the buildings withstood the impacts of the planes.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Just one question. Is the guy who made the original film saying that explosives are not used in building demolitions?

I don't get his points. I guess I'm just as dumb as all those dumb confused firefighters, media folks, policemen, first responders, and actual WTC survivors who heard and felt explosives.

The perps must really fear this "confused" firefighter that the film is addressed to. Nothing puts fear into the heart of a perp like an obviously honest person. Except maybe an honest person with not enough so called "brains" to be baffled by BS.


[edit on 17-11-2007 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by Griff


Griff..they were not looking to take EVERY piece of steel away. Only pieces that were NEAR the impact areas.

Originally posted by Damocles
heh, my imagination is at times too vivid, which is why while i could envision thermite/mate cutting a column, id rather see it to know.

I was thinking. What if they didn't cut the columns with thermite but the beams giving horizontal support to the columns? Then just using Euler's buckling to get things going?

I think I heard that the loss of 5 floors would be enough to buckle the columns and start the failure.

Just another possibility IMO.

if you have the resources to set up this little experiment, then by ALL means. sadly all i can offer is encouragement. but it would be one way to separate the open minded from the "faithful" becuase even the skeptics would have to admit then it was at the very least "plausible" though the flip side is that even if it didnt work there would be those that would cry "well, the govt has more resources than you do so this doenst prove it COULDNT happen..."

Agreed totally. I basically want to see if it's plausible myself. I couldn't care less what others think. Except you and a few others of course.

oh, and you know what i think of jone's methods. maybe its the lack of sleep but it wouldnt suprise me at all to find that jones HAS done this experiment but it didnt produce the desired result so he just didnt tell anyone. not saying he did, just that it wouldnt suprise me. but thats just me.

I tend to agree with this.

ya know, thats a great point and one ive never fully understood myself. but in my own defense, ive never said i bought the official story 100%, just that given all the possible options, it seems the most likely to me based on my own knowledge and experience.

Sorry if it was I that implied you did buy the official story 100%. I know you don't. I don't either, but that does not mean I buy the CT's 100% either.

Both sides are guilty of lies, misinformation and half truths IMO.

oh most certainly. ive never discounted that people heard "explosions" just that nothing ive been able to find lead me to believe that those explosions were from high explosive devices.

I take your word on this knowing your experience.

and if a fireman says he heard "what sounded like a transformer blowing" id accept that it was a transformer blowing. but if a fireman heard the sound of a building letting go above him and he told people "i heard this sound like steel weld joints breaking" people would look at him with blank stares where if he said " i heard this sound, like an explosion" they'd know it was a really loud booming sound, but then sadly most of these people would then assume the fireman was saying there was a bomb in the building.

I totally understand your point and agree with you.

did that make any sense or do i really need to go get some sleep finally?

Sleep? What's that? It made perfect sense to me.

[edit on 11/17/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/17/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 11/17/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Griff..they were not looking to take EVERY piece of steel away. Only pieces that were NEAR the impact areas.

Still isn't enough evidence to me for a thorough investigation. But, that's just my opinion.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense in their head knows that there could never be a symetrical to-the-ground collapse from that height without explosive assistance.

As soon as the top portion of each tower leaned one millimeter (and they leaned a lot more than that) an asymetricality was introduced that would progressively shear the collapsing zone away from the zone below and halt the collapse at some point far above ground level.

Originally posted by Griff
I think I heard that the loss of 5 floors would be enough to buckle the columns and start the failure.

Just another possibility IMO.

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
[email protected]
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

At room temperature, global instability of the intact tower occurs when five floors are removed from the tower model. At column temperatures of 600ºC, the removal of four floors induces global instability.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Anyone with an ounce of common sense in their head knows that there could never be a symetrical to-the-ground collapse from that height without explosive assistance.

then i guess im just ignorant. eh, ive been worse things in life i suppose.

but, if i may ask, why is it that no one has put forth a scenario for a CD that fits the observed events? from a technical standpoint that is. cuz ive hypothesised many times on how to bring the towers down not doing anything real fancy, just straight steel cutting demo and i cant make it fit what we observed and still be covert. though admittedly im plagued by the same problem griff is in that i cant get my hands on verified bluprints of the building. closest ive gotten is the "leaked" ones and unless they're verified they're worthless. but even using those, the HE yeild is still pretty high to stay covert.

so while i may not have any "common sense" i do know how to blow things up, and i just dont see it. i could of course be wrong, but no ones been able to show me where yet. and ive posted my math...can anyone claiming the falls "violate the laws of physics" say the same?

As soon as the top portion of each tower leaned one millimeter (and they leaned a lot more than that) an asymetricality was introduced that would progressively shear the collapsing zone away from the zone below and halt the collapse at some point far above ground level.

would you care to share your math on this one? sorry but that claim cant fall into "its just common sense" clause, thats a pretty specific claim that if it was common sense, well, im not sure the truth movement would be in the minority...

i mean, when i posted why i specifically dont see a CD i included the math to support it based on best available data, why should i be the only one?

reply to post by ipsedixit


ipsedixit.... You and many others say this over and over. Where is your proof? Where is your paper that shows your findings. Fact is AGAIN... 99.9999% of ALL engineers WORLD WIDE agree with the Official story, and to date, not one against the official story have proven otherwise.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit



Mirage... please point out where this video shows any claim about steel melting. Your post is not accurate. Please look a little deeper

reply to post by Damocles


Look, I'll be perfectly frank with you. I can't supply the math for this because I'm not a person with either the training or the data to do that.

Keep in mind that any, and I mean any, mathematical model no matter what theory it supports is going to be hypothetical. There will be assumptions involved. If science were to gift us with a large series of repeatable collapses of WTC style buildings induced by airliner collisions, that would only constitue support of such a collapse as "possible", not "certain" or even "plausible".

Continuing in the perfectly frank mode, I sincerely doubt that showing the math or explaining the laws of physics or even a televised confession by that murderous imbecile in the White House would have the slightest effect. There are people who will pay for Jesus's image on a hotcake.

The business about the "unavailable" blueprints interests me though. Are they unavailable in the same way that the Pentagon security videos are unavailable?



[edit on 17-11-2007 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by Griff


I was hoping you'd take the bait......

I really have to question the validity of your video. Any others that I've seen take MUCH longer to cut through steel. Like this one - a video of it cutting through 1/2" steel takes 6-7 seconds, and that's cutting straight down, where it is more efficent at its' job.



You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Here's a link to a study done by a Swedish arms maker.

www.itep.ws...

They're making thermite canisters to disarm ied's, unexploded ordinance, etc. They can only cut small holes, typically 20mm or so on the outside, with the inner edge of the hole about 10mm. And that's using what they call their "large Lance". The body of the Lance appears to be 120mm in width and 250mm in length, when compared to a 155mm shell. And it cuts a 20mm hole in steel that appears to be thinner than what the core steel would have been. So it would have needed to be even longer to allow for a longer burn time, say 800mm. That means that there would have had to be a ring of these thing, presumably hidden by a box and painted, etc to blend in with the surrounding walls, that would have to be around 3 ft high. All the way around each and every core column. And still go unnoticed. And still only would cut around 10% of the column.

The idea of thermite being used is preposterous.......

What if the planes themselves were carrying it? I mean when I look at the Shanksville crash of flight 93, it seems to me that the Plane was shot down. But the small debris size and how it was stretched over such a large area makes me wonder. But then what if the plane was carrying a payload that when ignited would cause immense damage?

Then look at the Pentagon, I believe a Plane struck the Pentagon but again I would expect to see the entrance holes of the engines or the verticle stablizer remains as they are made of very strong material.

What I am trying to say is that in each case their seems to be an anamoloy of some sort and the consistent pattern seems to be the planes.

So I conjecture *IF*(not just jet fuel) something on the PLANES themselves would have caused something in the strike against the Towers.

This might explain also the pools of molten steel observed by a number of eyewitnesses.

Keep in mind one thing here.

In each case of the Collapses of the Steel structures that day. PEOPLE knew in advance.

The mayor was told the Towers were going to collapse.
The BBC had reports that Building 7 had already collapsed.
There is a video tape where a emergency worker actually says Building 7 is about to collapse.

3 structures not only fell, but their demise was known in advance. To me this is odd.


So is there a possible scenario of the Planes carrying something that could cause damage and heat beyond what we would expect>?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
and of all the firefighters, police officers, medical workers and family members directly effected by the tragedy, not one of them has ever challenged the official story,

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!