The NYPD lied.

reply to post by GenRadek


You forgot computer simulated victims. That's one of his favorites.

reply to post by hooper


And then you're right back at calculating how all that concrete can be turned to dust simultaneously, you can see it takes heavy equipment some effort to break it up, why don't they just dump another slab on the one below it from about 12 feet? They'll both turn to dust then, right?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by GenRadek

 

THAT'S A BIG FREAKING MISTAKE!

WHAT OTHER MISTAKES DID THEY MAKE?

Office fires can melt steel and concrete, and jets can slice through steel buildings. Stuff happens, people make mistakes. Sheesh, you guys!

No its not. Mislabeling a card in a museum is not as comparable to forgetting to pass along sensitive intelligence regarding terrorist activities in our country.

Again, why are you repeating the erroneous BS that office fires melted steel? Why are you doing this? Lying? Or is it something else, but I will not mention due to T&C.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by GenRadek

 

You forgot computer simulated victims. That's one of his favorites.

Please stick to the topic. Further attempts at diverting the conversation will not be tolerated.

Why would ANYONE, especially the police fabricate a story like concrete melted, and then construct a MUSEUM EXHIBIT (which will be toured by schoolchildren) unless they were trying to send a message that concrete did indeed melt?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by hooper

 

And then you're right back at calculating how all that concrete can be turned to dust simultaneously, you can see it takes heavy equipment some effort to break it up, why don't they just dump another slab on the one below it from about 12 feet? They'll both turn to dust then, right?

I am not really sure what you mean (suprise, suprise, suprise) but I have never said and no one has ever said that all the concrete in the building turned to dust instantly. You really should read the post. Also, in construction and demolition they often do pick and drop one piece of concrete on another in order to break them up. Quick, cheap and easy.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by GenRadek

 

You forgot computer simulated victims. That's one of his favorites.

Please stick to the topic. Further attempts at diverting the conversation will not be tolerated.

Why would ANYONE, especially the police fabricate a story like concrete melted, and then construct a MUSEUM EXHIBIT (which will be toured by schoolchildren) unless they were trying to send a message that concrete did indeed melt?

Want to know how to fix this really quick?

Cal them and tell them they made a mistake:

www.nycpm.org...

Here is the contact information and ask them why they went with that.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by hooper

 

And then you're right back at calculating how all that concrete can be turned to dust simultaneously, you can see it takes heavy equipment some effort to break it up, why don't they just dump another slab on the one below it from about 12 feet? They'll both turn to dust then, right?

I am not really sure what you mean (suprise, suprise, suprise) but I have never said and no one has ever said that all the concrete in the building turned to dust instantly. You really should read the post. Also, in construction and demolition they often do pick and drop one piece of concrete on another in order to break them up. Quick, cheap and easy.

You know exactly what I meant. The concrete breaks, and dust emits from the break, but it never "turns to dust" as seen on TV.

And yes, the dust emits IMMEDIATELY, and it can even be seen in the impact explosions...kind of strange for an air-fuel explosion to be dustifying concrete, but then aluminum wings can slice steel, and burning office furniture can melt concrete.

You jokers like to brandish calculations like a weapon, now calculate how much energy would be needed to turn all that concrete to dust within a couple seconds...just the top 30 floors will do.

reply to post by septic

You know exactly what I meant. The concrete breaks, and dust emits from the break, but it never "turns to dust" as seen on TV.

No. Nobody knows what you can possibly mean with that sentence. Dust comes from broken concrete yet the concrete doesn't create dust?????????

And yes, the dust emits IMMEDIATELY, and it can even be seen in the impact explosions...kind of strange for an air-fuel explosion to be dustifying concrete, but then aluminum wings can slice steel, and burning office furniture can melt concrete.

OK, you are really, really mixed up here. Do you have a list somewhere of what can't slice what for future reference? Can steel slice glass? Can glass slice concrete? Can concrete slice iron? Can ice slice steel? Where is this list? Also, please provide the list of things that can and cannot melt.

You jokers like to brandish calculations like a weapon, now calculate how much energy would be needed to turn all that concrete to dust within a couple seconds...just the top 30 floors will do.

Why don't you do the calculation - you are the only person insisting that all the concrete turned to dust.

reply to post by hooper

Why don't you do the calculation - you are the only person insisting that all the concrete turned to dust.

The mind boggles.

Lets get back to the topic at hand. Since the police lied about the fires being so intense they melted concrete, what else do you think they lied about?

And how about the FDNY? Since the police have no qualms with fabricating evidence, what about the FDNY? Should their testimony be taken with the same grain of salt?

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by GenRadek

 

You forgot computer simulated victims. That's one of his favorites.

Please stick to the topic. Further attempts at diverting the conversation will not be tolerated.

Why would ANYONE, especially the police fabricate a story like concrete melted, and then construct a MUSEUM EXHIBIT (which will be toured by schoolchildren) unless they were trying to send a message that concrete did indeed melt?

Want to know how to fix this really quick?

Cal them and tell them they made a mistake:

www.nycpm.org...

Here is the contact information and ask them why they went with that.

That's a fine idea, thanks for the suggestion. Do you think they'll tell me their intent was to make Americans believe there were "really hot fires" when in fact there weren't any, as there aren't with most controlled demolitions?

We'll see. I'll post the results on this thread after the holidays.

reply to post by septic

The mind boggles.

I'll bet yours does.

Lets get back to the topic at hand. Since the police lied about the fires being so intense they melted concrete, what else do you think they lied about?

Proved they lied.

And how about the FDNY? Since the police have no qualms with fabricating evidence, what about the FDNY? Should their testimony be taken with the same grain of salt?

Prove anyone fabricated evidence.

All fails on your part.

Merry Christmas.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic

 

The mind boggles.

I'll bet yours does.

Lets get back to the topic at hand. Since the police lied about the fires being so intense they melted concrete, what else do you think they lied about?

Proved they lied.

And how about the FDNY? Since the police have no qualms with fabricating evidence, what about the FDNY? Should their testimony be taken with the same grain of salt?

Prove anyone fabricated evidence.

All fails on your part.

Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you too, but it is really quite simple, either they lied, or they are incompetent. Either way, their testimony is worthless, as is their evidence. In a courtroom, ALL their evidence would immediately become suspect.

Originally posted by septic

That's a fine idea, thanks for the suggestion. Do you think they'll tell me their intent was to make Americans believe there were "really hot fires" when in fact there weren't any, as there aren't with most controlled demolitions?

We'll see. I'll post the results on this thread after the holidays.

There.... weren't any hot fires........ there on 9/11 or after?

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by septic

That's a fine idea, thanks for the suggestion. Do you think they'll tell me their intent was to make Americans believe there were "really hot fires" when in fact there weren't any, as there aren't with most controlled demolitions?

We'll see. I'll post the results on this thread after the holidays.

There.... weren't any hot fires........ there on 9/11 or after?

Well, I don't know...would you trust the word of someone who claimed "fires were so intense the concrete melted"?

reply to post by GenRadek

No its not. Mislabeling a card in a museum is not as comparable to forgetting to pass along sensitive intelligence regarding terrorist activities in our country.

Again, why are you repeating the erroneous BS that office fires melted steel? Why are you doing this? Lying? Or is it something else, but I will not mention due to T&C.

I'm not sure what you mean about this erroneous BS about office fires melting steel, and I for one would like a straight answer from any one of you.

Did not the police claim the fires were so intense they melted concrete like "lava"?

Answer that and we'll get to the steel part, but you're always welcome to read the thread to find out for yourself.

reply to post by septic

In a courtroom, ALL their evidence would immediately become suspect.

And your wouldn't???
As far as I know Youtube isn't allowed in court.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by septic

 

In a courtroom, ALL their evidence would immediately become suspect.

And your wouldn't???
As far as I know Youtube isn't allowed in court.

Hey, did you hear? The police have a museum exhibit wherein they state the fires were so intense they melted concrete like "lava". If they'd get that wrong (to put it kindly), what else did they get wrong?

Speaking of getting things wrong, what about the FDNY?

The 18 firemen interviewed in the Naudet DVD :

Battalion One :
1. Chief William Blaich (Commander);
2. Chief Joseph Pfeifer;
3. Ed Fahey, aide to Pfeifer.

Ladder Company One, Duane Street :
4. Captain Ron Schmutzler;
5. Lieutenant Gary Lajiness;
6. Lieutenant Bill Walsh;
7. Nick Borrillo;
8. Jamal Braithwaite;
9. John McConnachie;
10. Chris Mullin;
11. John O'Neill;
12. Steve Olsen;
13. Steve Rogers.
[also included James Hanlon, the interviewer, not shown, and probationary Tony Benetatos]
Engine Company Seven, Duane Street :
14. Captain Dennis Tardio;
15. Joe Casaliggi;
16. Tom Spinard;
17. Damian Van Cleaf;
18. Pat Zoda.

It would obviously be very strange if the Flight 11 shot was fake, but the rest of the Naudet film, showing how events unfolded from then on, was a perfectly authentic documentary. That, to put it mildly, is not the case. The film is absolutely littered with scenes almost as bizarre as Flight 11. Some are not too difficult to figure out, some have a significance that escapes me, but all of them raise serious questions about the truthfulness of the film and the people in it. My article concentrates on the plane shot because it is by far the most important example of fraud, but many, many others can be pointed out, only some of which are included here. When the film was shown on British TV in September 2002, many reviewers commented on how dishonest and tasteless it was to have a subplot about the brothers thinking the other one was dead, or everyone thinking Benetatos was — as if an event like 9/11 needed to be embellished. It never seemed to occur to them the reason for these things was that the entire film was fake : not in the sense that its images had been tampered with (although some may have been — see Appendix 4), but that its whole premise was a lie — that these people found themselves caught up in things they never dreamed could happen. That claim is made so often in the film it should sound false to any sensible person, but most write it off as just poor scriptwriting — stating the obvious. This, however, is not a case of a failure of creativity or vocabulary. It is a case of "protesting too much" — of overdoing alleged innocence, when it shouldn't even be in question. We never saw it coming ... Not in a million years did I think those buildings would collapse ... If only we'd known ... Who'd have thought it ? ... We were so young and naive back then ... Time and again, the same message : they didn't know. I say the following examples point towards a very different message : yes they did.

Source

So if the FDNY lied, and the NYPD lied, who told the truth? The media?

Floor truss at WTC



Video slide show

www.youtube.com...

Diagrams of floor truss

www.fema.gov...

Originally posted by thedman
Floor truss at WTC



Video slide show

www.youtube.com...

Diagrams of floor truss

www.fema.gov...

Photograph of i-beams:



Photograph of trusses:

Click here to learn more about this warning.