Great Richard Gage interview according to JREF

reply to post by Six Sigma

Care to answer my question?

Do you mean this question?

So, tell me, wise truther; How do you think Larry approached Bush on getting in on the whole 9/11 inside job??

I was going to ask you why you think I should answer a question that you came up with while hallucinating.

This might help.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

Care to answer my question?

Do you mean this question?

So, tell me, wise truther; How do you think Larry approached Bush on getting in on the whole 9/11 inside job??

I was going to ask you why you think I should answer a question that you came up with while hallucinating.

This might help.

Evasion noted....This is where it gets tricky for truthers. When forced to actually think, some (like you) start to realize that it's not as simple as shouting "Inside Job". The less intelligent truthers come up with crazy fables that the SyFy channel wouldn't be interested in.

So, if it all possible, instead of pointing me to a magic mushroom site, perhaps you could thrill me with a story on how Larry got involved with 9/11.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

Care to answer my question?

Do you mean this question?

So, tell me, wise truther; How do you think Larry approached Bush on getting in on the whole 9/11 inside job??

I was going to ask you why you think I should answer a question that you came up with while hallucinating.

This might help.

Evasion noted....This is where it gets tricky for truthers. When forced to actually think, some (like you) start to realize that it's not as simple as shouting "Inside Job". The less intelligent truthers come up with crazy fables that the SyFy channel wouldn't be interested in.

So, if it all possible, instead of pointing me to a magic mushroom site, perhaps you could thrill me with a story on how Larry got involved with 9/11.

But I never said Larry was involved in the first place. So how would I know that?

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


I think your leaving out information was quite appropriate. Just as the shotgun and stupid false precision was appropriate to the idiocy of the NIST. The entire blowing off of fire protection is irrelevant.

psik

I didn't leave anything out. When asked for sources, I provided them. Again, for the discussion we were having, it was irrelevant.

I believe some members of NIST agree with you about the "blowing off" part. They feel the layer of fire protection was too thin.

When you first posted the numbers with 3 digits of precision you left out the +/- error factors which demonstrate that the degree of precision specified was STUPID.

psik

Originally posted by maxella1


But I never said Larry was involved in the first place. So how would I know that?

what did you mean by this:

I'm not saying that the cost of removing it was somehow Silversteins motive, but I'm sure he didn't mind that little side effect of 9/11.

and this....

Truther; But Larry Silverstein said they made a decision to pull it, and they watched the building collapse.

Debunker: Pull it means to pull a building with cables, are you saying WTC 7 was pulled with cables?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, I could be wrong, but do you or do you not think Larry Silverstein was in on it?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

When you first posted the numbers with 3 digits of precision you left out the +/- error factors which demonstrate that the degree of precision specified was STUPID.

Actually, the NTSB calculated the speed at impact for Flight 11, based on radar data, at approx. 430 knots groundspeed which converts to 495 mph and the speed at impact for Flight 175 as approx. 510 which converts to 587 mph. The MPH is rounded up. So there. The NTSB provided an approx speed at impact in knots, and when you convert you don't approximate again, you give the actual product of the conversion.

reply to post by Six Sigma


Is it really that hard to understand what I meant by "I'm not saying that the cost of removing it was somehow Silversteins motive, but I'm sure he didn't mind that little side effect of 9/11. " ?

Let me try to put it another way....

I'm not saying that the cost of removing it was somehow Silversteins motive.

Truther; But Larry Silverstein said they made a decision to pull it, and they watched the building collapse. Debunker: Pull it means to pull a building with cables, are you saying WTC 7 was pulled with cables?

That is what he said right?

Now, I could be wrong, but do you or do you not think Larry Silverstein was in on it?

I find it hard to believe that by "decision to pull it" he actually meant pulling out the firefighters. But that's just my opinion I have no proof one way or the other.

As far as being "in on it" I have no idea.

Originally posted by maxella1


As far as being "in on it" I have no idea.

That's all I need to know. - Thank you.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by maxella1


As far as being "in on it" I have no idea.

That's all I need to know. - Thank you.

You're welcome

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

When you first posted the numbers with 3 digits of precision you left out the +/- error factors which demonstrate that the degree of precision specified was STUPID.

Actually, the NTSB calculated the speed at impact for Flight 11, based on radar data, at approx. 430 knots groundspeed which converts to 495 mph and the speed at impact for Flight 175 as approx. 510 which converts to 587 mph. The MPH is rounded up. So there. The NTSB provided an approx speed at impact in knots, and when you convert you don't approximate again, you give the actual product of the conversion.

I wasn't talking about the speed. I was talking about the supposed precision of the data.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I wasn't talking about the speed. I was talking about the supposed precision of the data.

And I explained to you that the NTSB provided the approximate speed from radar data in knots, groundspeed and IF you were to convert that to MPH, the conversion product is relayed in greater precision because its the product of a mathematical formula, not a direct observation. You don't approximate the approximation. Its like averaging an average.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

Is it really that hard to understand what I meant by "I'm not saying that the cost of removing it was somehow Silversteins motive, but I'm sure he didn't mind that little side effect of 9/11. " ?

Let me try to put it another way....

I'm not saying that the cost of removing it was somehow Silversteins motive.

Truther; But Larry Silverstein said they made a decision to pull it, and they watched the building collapse. Debunker: Pull it means to pull a building with cables, are you saying WTC 7 was pulled with cables?

That is what he said right?

Now, I could be wrong, but do you or do you not think Larry Silverstein was in on it?

I find it hard to believe that by "decision to pull it" he actually meant pulling out the firefighters. But that's just my opinion I have no proof one way or the other.

As far as being "in on it" I have no idea.

Larry Silverstein had no authority to control firemen, so why would a fire commander take orders from Larry to pull men out?

Who was this mysterious fire commander, why was he calling Larry, does he always call building owners every time he wants to get his men out?!

Isn't it the fire commander's job to be in charge of his own men?

Why would he say pull it if no one was actually in the building?

The area was cordened off, so when Larry said: 'we have already had a terrible loss of life' why would anyone's lives be at risk, surely leaving a building to burn until it all catched fire would have been more of a hazard?

Why did he not say pull them, 'it' does not refer to people.

Can any debunker give another official example of anyone saying 'pull it' in reference to pulling men away from hosing a building with water? After all, that is what they were doing.

Pull it was used when they brought WTC6 down with cables, and WTC7 fell like a controlled demolition, and no steel framed building had ever collpased due to fire alone before 9/11.

Going off all these facts, and the fact NIST deliberately did not test for explosives, even though Barry Jennings said there was an explosion underneath him before the towers collapsed, means all the evidence is stacked towards it being brought down by explosives.

If you add in Craig Bartmer's video interview saying WTC7 was not that badly on fire or was not that badly damages, then there is more evidence for explosives than there is fire! Debunkers are just very simple beings!

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I wasn't talking about the speed. I was talking about the supposed precision of the data.

And I explained to you that the NTSB provided the approximate speed from radar data in knots, groundspeed and IF you were to convert that to MPH, the conversion product is relayed in greater precision because its the product of a mathematical formula, not a direct observation. You don't approximate the approximation. Its like averaging an average.

By precision of data I was referring to the +/- business that the NIST was using regardless of where it came from.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

By precision of data I was referring to the +/- business that the NIST was using regardless of where it came from.

And they got it from the NTSB who reduced it from the ground radar data. Hence, the approximation. The NTSB stated the speed in knots, groundspeed. Convert that to MPH and you have your data. Don't know why you have a problem with this. The FDR's from those flights were not recovered, ergo only record is the ground radar.

reply to post by Six Sigma

No, they weren't. Do your research, Truther

now you might say well it was stopped because it says the spraying was stopped...but they did not start spraying both towers at the same time...they would work their way through the buildings as work progress...so just saying they stopped at approx 30 floor up is a complete faux pas.

Why Was So Much Asbestos Released During 9/11?

The World Trade Center (WTC) North Tower construction was completed in 1970 and the South Tower in 1972. These New York City buildings occupied 16 acres in lower Manhattan. WTC construction began before the worldwide concern about asbestos we have today. The lower floors of the WTC towers contained high amounts of asbestos insulation. Asbestos use in the Twin Towers was estimated at 100 to 1,000 tons.

The steel beams and columns in the WTC were sprayed with asbestos for insulation and fireproofing. In the middle of the spraying project, the New York City Council banned the spraying, halting the project. Abatement of some areas occurred, but this was several years after tons of asbestos material had already been applied

Silly Falser

In April 1970, the New York City Department of Air Resources ordered contractors building the World Trade Center to stop the spraying of asbestos as an insulating material.

so why stop the spraying of asbestos if it wasn't even used.......Silly Falser

Although there was an official record of 400 tonnes of Asbestos used in the construction of just the Twin Towers at the World Trade, there are suggestions that there was were still 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of asbestos still remaining within the fireproofing, paneling and insulation in the construction of the World Trade Centre and the surrounding buildings that collapsed releasing the toxic cocktail of dust.

www.globalethix.com...]do your research silly falser

Why are you so desperate to lie....Is this something you feel a need to do...over and over and over you spread falsehoods...and then call people silly truthers....

the official records show 400tons used...but i guess it makes no difference does it....because even when it gets looked into you seem to have some derogatory remark about truthers.

Then you put this JOHN guy into a different category...i remember first run in with him ...and he had the audacity to say"Do you know who i am"...like it makes one bit of difference...I could not care if he was Steven Hawkings himself if his is spewing crud....It's still crud no matter whose mouth it is coming from.

Soon as one puts their self indulgent Ego ahead of looking into things they no longer are focussed on the issue at hand.

So now...was there ...or was there not Asbestos in the buildings....keeping in mind...that from the 50's through the 60's Asbestos was WIDELY used in all aspects of the building industry.

Also why would there be a concern for Asbestos regarding the first responders.

but this is not enough for you a presume....so here....

Asbestos, an organically occurring and fibrous mineral, has been used in myriad construction applications, especially fireproofing and insulation applications. The initial estimates for the construction of the Twin Towers, which were built between 1966-1971, called for 5,000 tons of asbestos to be used as fireproofing materials. As the hazards and health risks of asbestos began to be understood, however, the builders of the Twin Towers ceased using asbestos-containing insulation. At that point they had completed 64 stories of the 110-story skyscrapers. Some of the asbestos material was abated from the site, but at the time of the 9/11 attacks, it is estimated that 2,000 tons of asbestos remained within the buildings

MORE STUFF

now not one of this is from a silly truther site as you seem to like to use that as a basis for faulty research....(which does not go hand in hand)....this is from people lookng at the effects of the asbestos on people in and around the area of the towers.

So how about you go do some research...Silly falser.

now time frame...which is interesting.....more lies from the OS about the asbestos.

In 1971 New York City banned the use of asbestos in spray fireproofing. At that time, asbestos insulating material had only been sprayed up to the 64th floor of the World Trade Centre towers. Other materials were used in place of asbestos but some critics maintained that such materials would not provide insulation. One such critic was Herbert Levine, who had invented spray fireproofing in the late 1940’s. His combination of asbestos with mineral wool enabled the construction of large steel framed buildings. Previously such buildings, such as the Empire State Building, had to have their steel frames insulated with concrete, a much more expensive and difficult process. Levine repeatedly had predicted that "if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down."

interesting

so this order apparently comes in about april 1970...i believe it was about 1972 when was banned ....now this is strange is it not.....cause were they spraying the buildings after occupation.

Considering the North tower opened in DEC 1970....and the south tower in Jan 1972.

But i guess that is normal...stop the spraying after the tower already opened...April would have been nearing completion....Silly Falser.

reply to post by plube

.....cause were they spraying the buildings after occupation.

Huh? Where are you getting this from? It doesn't matter. The original assertion by the conspiracist that the buildings were "full of asbestos" is demonstrably false. Trying to prove that they installed ACM in the towers does not prove the towers were FULL of ACM.

Try again.

Click here to learn more about this warning.