It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 20
34
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
Not since before or after 9/11 has any steel structured building succumbed to fire by collapsing.

AND That's a fact !


Kader Toy Factory
Sight and Sound Theature
Sofa Store in Charleston SC

All collapsed from fire, all steel-framed.

OOPS!!

There you go! Get to researching!




posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Jayden? He hosts a forum which has posted some of the information, but he's certainly not the only one.
Besides, I don't care if the information comes from Tinkerbell. If it's true it's true, and if it's not it's not. Have you tried to verify the claims?


Yes, I took a spreadsheet from the FDNY LODD page, which lists ALL of the firefighters killed for any given decade, filtered out all the ones not on 9/11, and kept the rest.

I then numbered all of them.

Guess what?

343. Jst as FDNY and I (And MANY other sites) claim.

So, if he's WRONG on that, what ELSE is he wrong about?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451

Jayden? He hosts a forum which has posted some of the information, but he's certainly not the only one.
Besides, I don't care if the information comes from Tinkerbell. If it's true it's true, and if it's not it's not. Have you tried to verify the claims?


Yes, I took a spreadsheet from the FDNY LODD page, which lists ALL of the firefighters killed for any given decade, filtered out all the ones not on 9/11, and kept the rest.

I then numbered all of them.

Guess what?

343. Jst as FDNY and I (And MANY other sites) claim.

So, if he's WRONG on that, what ELSE is he wrong about?



I don't know, have you checked? I've been wrong before, have you? How 'bout the government experts? Ever wrong?

CNN? Wolfgang Stael, Tina Cart or Robert Clark? Were they wrong?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
-- Dude, you are hilarious. We have done a lot in this infowar. In fact I'm doing something right now, exposing your weak arguments.


I mean, in real life. You know, indictments, laws, etc. etc. etc.

Anything?

Oh, that's right. It's all about information right now. When does the next step start?


Originally posted by Game_Over

-- No, the conflict of interest is the fact that those who were involved in committing the crime were the same ones involved in investigating the crime. Take the three words and say them outloud...conflict...of..interest. Do you know what this means? It means the interests of those performing the commission report are conflicted because the outcome directly incriminates them. So can you see now that it's not about what was or wasn't damaged? Do you understand that you do not get an accurate investigation with such a striking conflict of
interest?


Wow. How cool! Hey, can you name that logical fallacy?

I will give you a hint. It has the word assuming.



Originally posted by Game_Over

--no thanks. You go start a new thread on the 9-11 omission report. I'll talk about every and all subjects about 9-11 right here.


Well, it would be off-topic, so I am done talking about it.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Please explain in your own words how the MIT paper arrived at their figures for their model. Let we laymen know you understand their modeling parameters.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)


I understand their modeling just fine. Maybe you should read it? When do you plan on submitting a discussion to the authors?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
I don't know, have you checked?


Why would I check other things, when he cannot count to 343 properly?


Originally posted by Yankee451

I've been wrong before, have you?


Sure. Everyone has. To claim otherwise, is a lie.

However, when counting individual names, and adding them all together, I've never had a problem with that.

Especially if someone gives me the list.


Originally posted by Yankee451

How 'bout the government experts? Ever wrong?


Sure.


Originally posted by Yankee451
CNN? Wolfgang Stael, Tina Cart or Robert Clark? Were they wrong?


About? I am sure they have. Media is not exactly known for their accuracy.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451
I don't know, have you checked?


Why would I check other things, when he cannot count to 343 properly?


Originally posted by Yankee451

I've been wrong before, have you?


Sure. Everyone has. To claim otherwise, is a lie.

However, when counting individual names, and adding them all together, I've never had a problem with that.

Especially if someone gives me the list.


Originally posted by Yankee451

How 'bout the government experts? Ever wrong?


Sure.


Originally posted by Yankee451
CNN? Wolfgang Stael, Tina Cart or Robert Clark? Were they wrong?


About? I am sure they have. Media is not exactly known for their accuracy.


It is not Jayhan's claim, and Phil's grammar and spelling aren't great either, so what's your point? Errors happen. Besides, I'm talking about fraudulent photographs. It is his forum, not his claim, and it is the claim I'm paying attention to, not the messenger.

Here's another link if letsroll is too offensive.

killtown.blogspot.com...

Media are not exactly known for their accuracy? That's a pretty powerful argument, you sure you don't want to rethink that or point to a bird or a plane, or tell me your mother's calling, or something?

Media are ALL you guys have for proof, but when I use their own work to show blatant FRAUD, you poo poo it?

Man, I can smell what you're shoveling from here.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Please explain in your own words how the MIT paper arrived at their figures for their model. Let we laymen know you understand their modeling parameters.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)


I understand their modeling just fine. Maybe you should read it? When do you plan on submitting a discussion to the authors?



I have read it, and I've posted my comments about it. As usual you behave like a petulant child instead of displaying the intellectual honesty of a grown up. I am asking you to show me in your own words that you read it and understand it, because I don't think you did. You don't need to explain the math...just their methods of creating the parameters of the test.

Is their report an estimate on what happened, or is it an estimate on how a plane could have caused the damage?

How did they estimate the starting figures for their wing model?

Stuff like that...in your own words, off the top of your head.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 

"Scooped is what they are using to compare it. Scooped is a similie. Meaning someone didn't LITERALLY scoop a portion of the building out with a backhoe. It LOOKED LIKE someone did."
-- I have seen a few pictures of this "scooped" out area, particularly this one, which clearly indicates that the photo has been altered.
i47.photobucket.com...
However I would love to see photos of the scooped out section you mention. It does seem odd that the asymmetric scoop would still allow wtc 7 to fall symmetrically. Perhaps you can ask the wizards at MIT for their opinion.

Originally posted by Game_Over
The diesel generators did not contribute to the collapse.

Correct. Nobody still claims it did.
--Are you sure? I heard it used as a possible contributing factor on this very thread. Regardless, NIST did initially state that the diesel generators were a major contributing factor in the collapse of wtc7. The trusters argued this as well until NIST told them what to think again.

Originally posted by Game_Over
The debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not contribute to the collapse.

"Correct. Not directly, but indirectly, yes."
-- Talk about having it both ways.

Originally posted by Game_Over
The fires did not contribute to the collapse.

"Ok, why didn't they? Please show your math and list any assumptions."
-- I don't need to show you math. Do your own homework. As if you independently verified the math NIST used!? What a farce this has become. The fires did not contribute to the collapse because they were small and their fuel source was minimal. In fact, that building could have burned for days and not fallen...just like hundreds of other buildings do.


Originally posted by Game_Over
They knew the building was coming down that day early on.
Correct.

Originally posted by Game_Over
How did they know?

"Firefighters tend to know when a building is unsafe. They can tell when a building is in danger of collapse. It's firefighting 101, right after "put the wet stuff on the hot stuff"
-- So then why do firefighters still die when buildings collapse on them during firefights? Shouldn't they "tend" to know when a building is unsafe? I mean, this is firefighting 101, right? No, in fact the firefighters were told the building would fall, just like the BBC...or did Jane Stanley take firefighting 101 too.


"And yet, truthers still haven't figured it out either. Thermite/thermate, explosives, combination of both, etc. etc. etc."
-- We haven't figured out how they demolished those three buildings that day. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that it happened.

What is it about us laymen calling out liars hiding behind science that bothers you so much?

"Maybe they are wrong, and you, a layman on the internet, is right?"
-- Truth hurts.

"Maybe you should submit a discussion to their paper too!! LOL!! "
--I'd rather not waste my time. I don't need daddy to tell me it's okay to believe something because it's been published and peer reviewed. In fact I would rather believe something that isn't reviewed by peers at all but rather by those who seek to rip it apart to get the truth.





edit on 16-3-2011 by Game_Over because: misspelled a word



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


"And when I say discuss the facts I think it is important to consider what Barry Jennings had to say in relation to other known circumstances and not insist that every word he spoke must be gospel like some old-time bible basher with the Old Testament."
--I don't accept it as gospel. But just to be clear, you want "evidence". I give you "evidence". You refute that very "evidence". No need to be shy about it...you have been served.

"While they were up on the 23rd floor a very important time point can be established. They went up in an elevator but, when they came to want to leave, the power was out and they could not go down the same way."

-- So where are you getting this uber important part of your fantasy from. Where did it say the power was out when they decided to take the stairwell. Mr. Jennings never stated this. In fact, you need this to be true in order to attach it to your time the power was cut. Go ahead and reread his testimony. Nowhere does he claim that the power was out.

"So they were definitely on the 23rd floor at that time."
Actually the only thing that puts them on the 23rd floor still at 0959 is your claim that the power was out when they decided to leave the building. I am not claiming he didn't say this, but I have not read that account. I tried to search for it but couldn't find it.

"This immediately proves that Barry Jennings is mistaken about the South Tower collapsing later because the evidence is clear that it happened while he was on the 23rd floor."
-- No, it only proves that your argument is weak and is reliant on a claim which is untrue.

"Given the time we know they must have been on the 23rd floor plus time looking around, making calls, checking out the elevator, finding the stairwell, and descending 17 floors it seems inescapable that they were trapped by the collapse of the North Tower at 10.28 which is known to have damaged WTC 7."
--Dude, Barry Jennings arrived at work shortly after 0900. He had been on his way to work when he heard about a small cessna hitting one of the towers. It did not take ONE AND A HALF HOURS to do what you are describing. Just read your statements. Think about it. "time looking around" "making calls" "checking out the elevator" go ahead time it out yourself. Use your brain.

"When they are trapped; according to Barry Jennings testimony, he breaks out windows and can look into the street. He sees cars and buses on fire but later maintains this is before either tower collapsed. Clearly he is mistaken here because there are no reports of cars and buses burning around WTC 7 before the collapse of either tower."
-- No reports? I hate to inform you buddy but Barry Jennings is reporting as an eye witness that there were indeed cars and buses on fire. His eye witness account on-camera is a report...just not one that supports your fantasy.

"Barry Jennings never claimed to see either tower collapse and he seems to infer the collapses from the actions of firefighters in the street."
I suggest that Barry Jennings is in fact a good witness for the OS , certainly nothing to kill him over years later, but he is not reliable on the times of the collapses of the Towers which he did not see."

-- Again its best if the man speaks for himself on this matter:
Barry Jennings sates:

Dylan Avery: "You're still in the building. Are you trapped on the 6th floor when the buildings came down?"

Barry Jennings: "Yes, yes."

Dylan Avery: "So it's safe to say that that explosion on the 6th floor definitely happened before either tower fell?"

Barry Jennings: "It definitely happened before either tower fell and I'll tell you why.."

[interrupted by Dylan to allow for [helicopter?] noise to pass]

Dylan Avery: "Barry I'm sorry could you just wait for that chopper because this is vital!
Because the whole Official Story, the whole reason that Building 7 collapsed allegedly, was because the North Tower fell onto it and caused damage.
And what people are going to say, is they're going to say "Barry was hit by debris from the North Tower."

Barry Jennings: "No. What happened was - when we made it back to the 8th floor, --- as I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing because I looked -- [he points] Two [pauses] I look one way, look the other way -- now there's nothing there.
When I got to the 6th floor there was an explosion that forced us back to the 8th floor.
Both buildings were still standing.
Keep in mind, I told you the fire department came..and ran.
They came twice.
Why?
Because building tower 1 fell and then tower 2 fell.
And then when they came back, they came back, they came back all concerned like to get me the hell out of there.
And, and they did.
And we got out of there..
I got into the building a little before nine, a little after nine..
I didn't get out of there until like 1 PM."

Let us hear what you have to say about these very clear and true statements regarding Barry Jennings clearly stating that the explosions inside wtc 7 occured BEFORE the towers collapsed.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Game_Over
 


It's not difficult to confirm that the power went out. Michael Hess said this to a reporter soon after he and Barry Jennings were rescued. " I was up in the emergency management center on the twenty-third floor, and when all the power went out in the building, uh, another gentleman and I walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion and we were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke all around us, for about an hour and a half. "

If the power was still on and the elevators working why, having decided to get out as soon as possible, did Michael Hess scout out the stairwell so that he and Barry Jennings could begin descending many flights on foot ?

According to Con-Ed they cut off the power at 0959 when the South Tower fell which you should be able to easily verify.

It doesn't make any sense for Barry Jennings to break out windows when trapped and say he could see burning cars and buses in the street if this was before the collapse of the Towers. What caused these burning vehicles if it was pre-collapse ? For some reason Barry Jennings just got it into his head that this was before the collapse of either tower but we have already seen that he must have still been on the 23rd floor when the South Tower went down.

Barry Jennings never saw either tower collapse and didn't claim that he did. He drew an inference for some reason from the actions of firefighters in the street. He said " When they started running the first tower started coming down. I HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT."

A careful consideration of the times makes it clear that it is virtually certain that Hess and Jennings would have been descending the stairs when the North Tower collapsed at 10.28 throwing debris onto WTC 7. If there was a seperate and distinct explosion at WTC 7 which caused severe damage before the collapse of either tower can you direct me to any witnesses ? And what was the purpose of such an explosion some 7 hours before collapse ?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I cant believe people still think 9/11 was because of cavemens terrorists
Obama .. err i mean Osama was a CIA operative
traitor to the entire muslim nation

how could one group like that named Alqueada that mean THE TOILET
was able to make the biggest attack on the united state
hijacking an airplane with only little knifes

EVERYTHING IS FISHY ABOUT THE 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY
doest take much brain to see it was a huge cover up
made by mossad and some rogue CIA operatives

no mention of the white van with mossad people that were arrested on that day but release (federal orders)
they had explosive residu and were near a bridge fleing out
what about the 5 dancing israelis ... celebrating the mass murder ...

who this attack advantage the most ? Israel
guess whos running the congress ? 3/4 are zionist
guess whos running all the major american MSM ?
guess whos running all the hollywood production compagny ?

do you think muslim were advantaged making this attack
so they brother in the ME can die in a full air assault retaliation

damn people need to WAKE THE HELL UP
the entire official version .. it make me wanna


once we think with our brain .. doesnt take much to see THE TRUTH
the truth always prevail .. one day you will see the 9/11 truthers were correct on everything

i like jew in general .. like any nationality .. but zionism are a extremist group by far more evil than alqueada itself
edit on 3/16/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/16/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by FDNY343
 

"Scooped is what they are using to compare it. Scooped is a similie. Meaning someone didn't LITERALLY scoop a portion of the building out with a backhoe. It LOOKED LIKE someone did."
-- I have seen a few pictures of this "scooped" out area, particularly this one, which clearly indicates that the photo has been altered.
i47.photobucket.com...
However I would love to see photos of the scooped out section you mention. It does seem odd that the asymmetric scoop would still allow wtc 7 to fall symmetrically. Perhaps you can ask the wizards at MIT for their opinion.


Just so you know, that's the wrong damage. That was a part of the damage (that wasn't photoshopped lol) which was on the corner of the building. The damage described and documented by firefighters was in the center of the South side. It was a serious bit of damage. There was also a chunk knocked off right near the roof that there actually is a picture of. If you want me to, I could probably locate that pretty easy, but I assume that you will want to do it yourself since you hate doing "other people's homework." It would be against your values for me to post sources for my information while I type.

Edit: and just so you aren't confused as I expect you to be, the chunk near the roof is not the same part of damage as the central lower damage that was reportedly 20 stories high. Remember that, ok?
edit on 16-3-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


Would like to see a link to depleted uranium being used in counterweight?

Steel buildings are not fireproof thats why fireproof coatings are used to protect them!

Your comment re steel buildings and fire collapse is NOT A FACT as you have been told !

Also sometimes timber peforms better in a fire than steel!



Link

www.softwood.org...

Some info from that page


"When exposed to fire wood retains its strength for a longer period of time than metal. Unprotected metals quickly lose their strength and collapse suddenly, often with little warning. In contrast, wood loses strength slowly and only as material is lost through surface charring.


From the same page more data re fire temps!!!


Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."


Something for Yanke451,Game-Over,ANOK,Ben81 TO CHEW ON!



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

Even if there was a collapse, it would have been a localized collapse. It would not have "pancaked" all the way down the entire building.

And if it was merely a collapse, why was all of the concrete in the towers pulverized into a fine dust? A collapse does not pulverize. At most the concrete would have broken into chunks.

Go get yourself a job at the CIA or something.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by finalword
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

Even if there was a collapse, it would have been a localized collapse. It would not have "pancaked" all the way down the entire building.

And if it was merely a collapse, why was all of the concrete in the towers pulverized into a fine dust? A collapse does not pulverize. At most the concrete would have broken into chunks.

Go get yourself a job at the CIA or something.


But see, what I have to wonder is how you know this would be the case? Also, all the concrete didn't get pulverized into a fine dust, while a collapse such as the WTC does, in fact, pulverize a lot. It's called a lot of force rather than a no-resistance fall to the ground. It just happened quickly in a fashion that has never been replicated. No one has ever dropped the top of a skyscraper onto itself except in the case of certain concrete buildings, because they can be assured to keep their destruction within themselves. Steel acts uncontrollably, if the trade centers are anything to go by.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

Pulverizing concrete requires significantly more energy than simply having it break into chunks.

911research.wtc7.net...


Molten Steel
www.youtube.com...
edit on 16-3-2011 by finalword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
It is not Jayhan's claim, and Phil's grammar and spelling aren't great either, so what's your point?


The man has a hard time with simple addition. Why should I take him seriously, when it's a simple matter of 1....2......3.....4.....5....etc.

If he is wrong about the number of firefighters killed, what else is he wrong about?



Originally posted by Yankee451

Errors happen. Besides, I'm talking about fraudulent photographs.


Ok, well, when he can clear up the counting issue, I MAY take the time to look at any of his other claims. Untill then, his credibility is shot.


Originally posted by Yankee451
It is his forum, not his claim, and it is the claim I'm paying attention to, not the messenger.


I wouldn't care if it was the President of Harvard. If he can't figure out 1....2....3.....4.....5.... what is the use in paying attention to anything else he claims?

Wait, so now you're saying it's someone elses claim that photos were faked?

Wonderful. Who is that?


Originally posted by Yankee451
Here's another link if letsroll is too offensive.
killtown.blogspot.com...


Killtown's site? Oh jeez, now you're grasping at straws. Killtown is a damn fool. Banned from most 9/11 Truth websites for his wild antics, and general absurdity. You sure you wanna hitch your wagon to his train?


Originally posted by Yankee451
Media are not exactly known for their accuracy? That's a pretty powerful argument, you sure you don't want to rethink that or point to a bird or a plane, or tell me your mother's calling, or something?

Media are ALL you guys have for proof, but when I use their own work to show blatant FRAUD, you poo poo it?


First off, leave my mother out of this. I don't bring your mother into this, so don't do it to me.

No, media on that day is not known for their accuracy. I will stand by that statement. It also is not all we have either.

We have plenty of other sources for information. FBI, ATF, NIST, FEMA, FAA, ATC, FDNY, NYPD, known eyewitneeses that people have spoken to directly, etc.



Originally posted by Yankee451
Man, I can smell what you're shoveling from here.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
-- I have seen a few pictures of this "scooped" out area, particularly this one, which clearly indicates that the photo has been altered.
i47.photobucket.com...


So, two pictures, taken at two different angles, show different perspectives of the building, and you believe they are faked!?!? Awesome!!

The 7WTC collapse videos that "truthers" love to post as evidence of something, do not show the collapse of the Eastern Mechanical Penthouse. Does it mean that one video that DOES show it is faked? No, of course not. It means that it has been edited out. In this case, it means that two different pictures will show two diferent perspectives of a building.



Originally posted by Game_Over
However I would love to see photos of the scooped out section you mention.


THat is the one's that I have seen. IIRC, there are others, but don't know of their current location. Sorry.


Originally posted by Game_Over
It does seem odd that the asymmetric scoop would still allow wtc 7 to fall symmetrically. Perhaps you can ask the wizards at MIT for their opinion.


Well, considering it didn't fall symmetrically, we are working from a failed premise. Can you name the logical fallacy?



Originally posted by Game_Over
--Are you sure? I heard it used as a possible contributing factor on this very thread.


Yes, you are the first person to write the word diesel in this very thread. Unless they use different terminology, then you need to post it to back up your claim.



Originally posted by Game_Over
Regardless, NIST did initially state that the diesel generators were a major contributing factor in the collapse of wtc7. The trusters argued this as well until NIST told them what to think again.


No, that was FEMA's initial hypothesis. That was many people initial hypothesis. However, once NIST showed that it had very little effect on the building fire, it was dismissed.


Originally posted by Game_Over
-- Talk about having it both ways.


Well, if the building HADN'T collapsed on 7wtc, igniting fires within the building, I doubt it would have burned.


Originally posted by Game_Over
-- I don't need to show you math. Do your own homework. As if you independently verified the math NIST used!?


Yes, a few times. I studied it extensively, and came to the same conclusions. However, IMO, they UNDERestimate the fuel loading, and UNDERestimate the times and temperatures. HOWEVER, they still have shown that even with the lower estimates, it still collapses.

And yes, YOU do need to back it up. YOU made the claim. Just as Yankee keeps telling me, please back up your claim.


Originally posted by Game_Over
What a farce this has become. The fires did not contribute to the collapse because they were small and their fuel source was minimal.


Small compared to what? Fuel source was minimal? WTF? How do you come to that conclusion?


Originally posted by Game_Over
In fact, that building could have burned for days and not fallen...just like hundreds of other buildings do.


Hundreds of buildings that are completly steel framed, have no firefighting capabilities whatsoever, either from Automatic Sprinklers or firefighters, and used SFRM with no concrete reinforcement whatsoever?

Where?


Originally posted by Game_Over
-- So then why do firefighters still die when buildings collapse on them during firefights?


Because we're not psychic. Sometimes there are hidden dangers that we are not aware of. (overloading of trusses, poor design, unforseen circumstances, etc.

Firefighters are not God. Sometimes **** happens.



Originally posted by Game_Over
Shouldn't they "tend" to know when a building is unsafe? I mean, this is firefighting 101, right? No, in fact the firefighters were told the building would fall, just like the BBC...or did Jane Stanley take firefighting 101 too.



Who were they told by? When were they told? Oh, that's right. They were told by higher ups in the department and by the engineers that were on the scene. We tend to listen when the Chief speaks. He's been around the block a time or two.

Yes, we do tend to know when a building is unsafe. That is why many buildings that have suffered a collapse haven't killed more firefighters. I have been pulled from 2 buildings in the past 2 years before it collapsed.

Imagine that.



Originally posted by Game_Over
-- We haven't figured out how they demolished those three buildings that day. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that it happened.


Right.....ok.....


Originally posted by Game_Over
What is it about us laymen calling out liars hiding behind science that bothers you so much?


Because you have YET to post any kind of fact, and instead are arguing from personal beliefs, among other reasons why I generally hate truthers.



Originally posted by Game_Over
-- Truth hurts.


Yeah, I think that I will listen to the guys at MIT et al. that have studied it WAY more than any truther has, over some anonymous guy on the web.



Originally posted by Game_Over
--I'd rather not waste my time. I don't need daddy to tell me it's okay to believe something because it's been published and peer reviewed. In fact I would rather believe something that isn't reviewed by peers at all but rather by those who seek to rip it apart to get the truth.


No, you're right. You don't need someone else to tell you what to believe. But it would give the TM as a whole alot more credibility.



new topics




 
34
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join