Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

Gravy said:
Is this serious enough?



Sixth request, Russell: please provide your calculations that show that the "official version" must be false. If you cannot, just say so. This is about the truth, right?

You make a deadly serious claim, Russell. Show your calculations or retract it. Think of the truth.
Click to expand...

Please go back and quote that in the full context of the original dialogue that was taking place. I have been taught recently that is important.

It was a theoretical retort to a similar statement.

Your demands carry ZERO authority with me.

I do not have the ability to carry out any equations to prove my theory.

This is equivalent to a massive team of engineers unable to carry out an equation that is comprehensive on WTC 7 after 5 years (except for all of the degrees, experience, computer resources and huge budget, of course!)
 
Gravy said:
Astonishing.

Okay, Jessica, produce your evidence. I can't wait for this.

Is any of this sinking in, Jessica? Still content to be the mole in Whack-a-Mole, while providing ZERO evidence for your absurd claims?

Jessica, why are you behaving this way? Just having fun?
Click to expand...

I gave my calculation. Keep saying it isn't true doesn't nake it untrue.
 
uk_dave said:
WHY? A plane was flown at high speed into the building!!

Why on earth would anyone say "OK guys, be real careful with that steel your moving there to see if any survivors can be found, because there might be trace elements or scarring which indicate explosives were used"??

WHY?
Plane hits building
Plane destroys several structural column
Parts of plane also destroy fireproofing to indeterminate number of structural members
Fires are started within the building in a number of locations

Building is designed to withstand impact from smaller, slow moving, virtually empty of fuel passenger jet.

9/11 attack exceeds design parameters.

Why should they look for explosives?
Click to expand...

Secondary devices - do you need me to repost that data?
 
jessicarabbit said:
I gave my calculation. Keep saying it isn't true doesn't nake it untrue.
Click to expand...

where are they, I think the only calculation you did is based on the following ---you think Larry Silverstein helped so he could get the insurance.

or do you have real calculations

everyone waits for your calcualtion
 
By the way gravy I read your paper on wtc7, here is a breif summation of it:

Some CT leaders are liars.
Some firemen saw damage on 7 and were told to withdraw.

What is this paper meant to prove? It is well writtn but provides no indication of the collapse mechanism.
 
Russell Pickering said:
gumboot said:
It is only logical for the conspirators to use CD if they had some sort of personal hatred of NYC emergency personnel and wanted to kill a whole bunch of them.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

What are secondary explosive devices?

Secondary explosive devices are bombs placed at the scene of an ongoing emergency response that are intended to cause casualties among responders. Secondary explosive devices are designed to explode after a primary explosion or other major emergency response event has attracted large numbers of responders to the scene to inflict additional injury, damage, and fear.


http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/emergencypreparedness/guides/secondary.html
Click to expand...

Surviving the Secondary Device - the Rules Have Changed

Produced in partnership with the Georgia Emergency Management Agency, this video is designed to assist public safety officials in making informed decisions concerning the real potential of secondary explosive devices. These devices, which detonate after the initial explosion, target blast survivors, other individuals who converge on the scene, and, more often, responding public safety personnel. The possibility of secondary devices require that public safety officials not only look at how to protect the lives our citizens, but how to protect the responders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/video.htm
Click to expand...

It is a well known tactic.
Click to expand...

Here it is again.
 
jessicarabbit said:
I tried but you tactic is just to refute the reliability of each number.
Click to expand...

please let us see your calculation before you go over 250 posts the most of all of us even me, the new guy

Docker could not show his work, are you Docker

please let us see your numbers

by the way WTC was on fire, and fires do cause buildings to fall all over the world
 
Gravy said:
Jessica, why are you behaving this way? Just having fun?
Click to expand...

Why are motives for being in a conspiracy theory forum being questioned?

I could also ask why people who hate conspiracy theories spend all their time in a forum discussing them.
 
beachnut said:
please let us see your calculation before you go over 250 posts the most of all of us even me, the new guy

Docker could not show his work, are you Docker

please let us see your numbers

by the way WTC was on fire, and fires do cause buildings to fall all over the world
Click to expand...

This is bordering on harassment from you now beachnut. Could you leave me alone please? Just a polite request.
 
Russell Pickering said:
I took the time to detail this once, but go read this here. About 40 firefighters experiencing explosions. This was supressed by the USG until August 2005.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
Click to expand...

I've linked to this before for your benefit, but I don't think it sank in. Of the first responders who described the sound of "bombs" or "secondary devices," all were describing the sound of the collapses, although half of them didn't know that at the time, and only 7 actually saw all or part of a collapse: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1

Of all the first responders who described the collapses, 87% did not mention them sounding or looking like explosions.

When you cite quotes, it's important to keep them in context. Do you agree, Russell?
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
I read it. This is not evidence of explosives. Further, I don't believe you when you say this was "supressed" by the United States Government -- now you have yet anothert thing to back up.

Not only have you still not provided evidence of explosives, you are now being deceptive. Dirty pool, Russell.
Click to expand...

Accuse all you want.

"Faced with a court order and unyielding demands from the families of victims, the city of New York today opened part of its archive of records from Sept. 11, releasing a digital avalanche of oral histories, dispatch tapes, and phone logs so vast that they took up 23 compact discs.

The New York Times sought the records under the freedom of information law in February 2002, but the Bloomberg administration refused to make them public and the newspaper sued the city. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records.

<snip> The city also initially refused access to the records to investigators from both the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, but relented when legal action was threatened. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/n...99200&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

I wonder why they would refuse them to NIST and the 9/11 Commisssion? Afraid the eyewitness testimony might conflict with their "investigation"?
 
jessicarabbit said:
This is bordering on harassment from you now beachnut. Could you leave me alone please? Just a polite request.
Click to expand...

please show us all your calculations?

Please, Alex Jones would show us. I can show you calculations for energy involved for the impacts, fuel energy, and potential energy involved in the gravity collapse of the towers.

WTC7 burned all day and fell down, WTC6 I think it burned all day and was gutted. Bet with just a little help WTC6 or was it 5, would fall.

There was this building in Philadelphia it burned but was put out but the top was too weak to use. The building is gone.

Please show us your calculations and prove to us you have them
 
Russell Pickering said:
I wonder why they would refuse them to NIST and the 9/11 Commisssion? Afraid the eyewitness testimony might conflict with their "investigation"?
Click to expand...
And of the 15 GB of data released, how much conflicted w/ the results of the investigation?

And btw, the Bloomberg admin. is now in on the conspiracy also? My, how it keeps growing!
 
Gravy said:
Have you read my paper on WTC 7 yet, Russell, or do you choose to live in a fantasy land?
Click to expand...


Well Russell?? Have you read it?? Have you?? Though none of the research in it is his own he is very pround of it and even has it in his sig. The only way you can choose to live in fantasy land Russell is to believe Gravy's WTC 7 paper contains any of his own evidence.

Just stopped in to say Hi to Russ and Jess. What up guys :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom