ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd October 2013, 11:34 AM   #121
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
sonofgloin:

What no rebuttal on the insurance/lease deal? Can I assume you read the "06" agreement and now retract what you said about the insurance money?

PANYNJ really does hold all the purse strings.
Of course not, a lot of truthers stop responding once presented with actual facts that stand in opposition to the fantasy world they created or bought into.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 11:39 AM   #122
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,586
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Dastardly brilliant are these neo-cons. Rumsfeld made sure he was actually in a building that was attacked which just goes to show he knew exactly which offices would be hit. G W Bush makes sure he is 1300 miles away (thx carlitos) which just shows he knew exactly what office structure in NYC was going to be hit right?
I really don't understand this thing about G W Bush staying put when all this was going down. There is no way in hell the Secret Service was going to let him go anywhere until they were positive it was safe to do so. You would think "truthers", being as paranoid as thy are, would understand the concept of "flushing someone out". Bush wasn't leaving that school until the Secret Service checked and double checked the route to AirForce One.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 3rd October 2013 at 11:43 AM. Reason: correct auto correct
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 11:53 AM   #123
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,586
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Of course not, a lot of truthers stop responding once presented with actual facts that stand in opposition to the fantasy world they created or bought into.
If he was the least bit interested in the truth about this all he needs to do is ask. I spent a bit of time reserching this when I had to counter the claim from another member that "Larry made out like a bandit" (you might remember the exchange).

I'm done spoon feeding them. If they want to know, ask for the information. Don't tell me to "debunk" their belief.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 12:18 PM   #124
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post

JS I will give you two unfathomable examples from the public record that Joe can comprehend that should have you asking why such acceptance of the official “story” when there was no investigation whatsoever.
Why did the National Institute of Standards and Technology not test for explosive compound residue in steel samples, only noting that similar compounds would have been present during construction of the towers. This seemed like an odd call, almost negligence given compounds degrade.
Then in 2006 NIST were given smples of dust (supposedly from the WTC) that had thermite compound residue, and they quite rightly rejected them as their pedigree was not assured. NIST was immediately petitioned to conduct its own studies using its own known "chain of custody" dust samples, but NIST refused.

.
Call me paranoid if you like, but you could be on to something here. I get the feeling NIST have read you post and closed down their website.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 12:39 PM   #125
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Dastardly brilliant are these neo-cons. Rumsfeld made sure he was actually in a building that was attacked which just goes to show he knew exactly which offices would be hit. G W Bush makes sure he is 1300 miles away (thx carlitos) which just shows he knew exactly what office structure in NYC was going to be hit right?
And watching AA11 crash into WTC1 on television. Bush said so himself!
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 01:05 PM   #126
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
 
CptColumbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lots of places
Posts: 9,215
I've taken almost a year off from reading threads in this forum, because nothing new was being said and I see it's still true. See you in another year.
__________________
I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office"
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling
CptColumbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 01:13 PM   #127
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Bell View Post
And watching AA11 crash into WTC1 on television. Bush said so himself!
Well, one must consider the source. I suppose that all other Bushisms such as OB-GYNs not being able to love their patients are all part of the plan to pretend he was actually an idiot in public speechifying.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 01:15 PM   #128
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
If he was the least bit interested in the truth about this all he needs to do is ask. I spent a bit of time reserching this when I had to counter the claim from another member that "Larry made out like a bandit" (you might remember the exchange).

I'm done spoon feeding them. If they want to know, ask for the information. Don't tell me to "debunk" their belief.
I remember the exchange, did not recall that it was you who laid out the facts though, sorry and thanks.

It is, of course part of my above reasons for laughing at SoG
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 02:20 PM   #129
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,108
Originally Posted by CptColumbo View Post
I've taken almost a year off from reading threads in this forum, because nothing new was being said and I see it's still true. See you in another year.
What do you expect? There is nothing new to discuss. Trutherdom is nearly a virtual ghost town now. We're basically Gone but Not Forgotten hobbyists now, exploring the ruins.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 02:39 PM   #130
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Exploring the ruins,, I like that.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 04:26 PM   #131
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
What do you expect? There is nothing new to discuss. Trutherdom is nearly a virtual ghost town now. We're basically Gone but Not Forgotten hobbyists now, exploring the ruins.
Ruins will be Follies. Do they have Follies in the States?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folly
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 07:30 PM   #132
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Ruins will be Follies. Do they have Follies in the States?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folly
I think the Watts Towers could probably qualify for that definition.

Or maybe the Winchester Mystery House.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2013, 08:43 PM   #133
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,108
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
I think the Watts Towers could probably qualify for that definition.

Or maybe the Winchester Mystery House.
I don't think the Winchester house qualifies. I believe from what I real that follies aren't built with a useful, versus decorative, purpose.

Also, I believe the remains of the Truth movement doesn't qualify, since AE911 serves a very utilitarian purpose: to fleece the gullible.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 12:30 AM   #134
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Travis>> Why would they not? The school was a secure place. Better to keep him in the place you already have secure than to rush him out of there with no clear plan on what to do next.<<

Travis that is not a sound observation. The secret service knew planes were flown to targets....why not target the school, it was public knowledge that he would be there....they targeted the pentagon, which like the school is a ground level target.

Travis>> And it was the first steel framed highrise to have an unfought, out of control fire in it. So would we not expect unusual results from an unusual situation?<<

High rise fires burn at around 1000 degrees Celsius. The integrity of structural steel disappears at 1500 degrees Celsius.

Daffyd>> What should have happened? The president and the secret service running around like headless chickens? Could you quote the apposite rule from the rule book?<<

The rule book Dafffyd....it is in the book of common sense. The secret service advises Bush of the first strike at 9.02, they advise him of the second five minutes later....then left him at the school for a further half an hour...don’t be obtuse Daffyd.
J
ack>> Regarding Secret Service behaviour which "ain't in the rule book", am I wrong to imagine the US Secret Service are not so foolish as actually to publish their "rulebook" for protecting the president and that this is no more than an expression of personal incredulity?<<

Jack there is an unwritten obligation to act if you are employed in a vocation that has a “duty of care” caveat in the job specification. Just as a parent initiates their “duty of care” to remove a child from harm’s way, so does the secret service....but they didn’t ....join Daffyd in the obtuse corner.

Mark>> If these firefighters being interviewed in your video were in the South Tower lobby AND there were explosions (of whatever kind)<<

I said nothing about which tower the boys were in. The video was in response to your assertion that all the fire-fighters are signed off on the official tale. Re your contentions about the explosions not being explosions....it’s the same as pull it, you overlook the obvious because it does not suit your tale. I will quote the last fire fighters comment:
“PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND, THERE MAY BE MORE, ANY ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS COULD BLOW UP, THIS AINT DONE YET”

Four of the finest on the scene and they talk about secondary explosions.....witnesses with experience of explosions....and they believe there were bombs....and you deflect the testimony with bleatings about the Marriot Hotel.

DGM>>What no rebuttal on the insurance/lease deal? Can I assume you read the "06" agreement and now retract what you said about the insurance money?
PANYNJ really does hold all the purse strings.<<

I think we are at crossed purposes. I said that Larry, as lease holder insured his buildings and the insurance payout went to him.
What you are discussing is this later separate action:
“In March 2007 Silverstein appeared at a rally of construction workers and public officials outside of an insurance industry conference to highlight what he describes as the failures of insurers Allianz & Royal and Sun Alliance to pay $800 million in claims related to the attacks. Insurers cite an agreement to split payments between Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority as a cause for concern.
In July 2006, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit against some of its insurers, for refusing to waive requirements of the insurance contracts that Silverstein claimed were necessary to allow renegotiation of the original July 2001 World Trade Center leases. This litigation, was settled together with the federal lawsuits and appraisal, mentioned in the prior paragraph, in a series of settlements announced on May 23, 2007.[26][27][28][29] Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority, for the World Trade Center complex, requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.[30] He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.[25]
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 12:55 AM   #135
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,128
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Travis>> Why would they not? The school was a secure place. Better to keep him in the place you already have secure than to rush him out of there with no clear plan on what to do next.<<

Travis that is not a sound observation. The secret service knew planes were flown to targets....why not target the school, it was public knowledge that he would be there....they targeted the pentagon, which like the school is a ground level target.
Unlike the school the pentagon is a huge building with a radio navigation beacon nearby.
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 04:29 AM   #136
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Mark>> If these firefighters being interviewed in your video were in the South Tower lobby AND there were explosions (of whatever kind)<<

I said nothing about which tower the boys were in. The video was in response to your assertion that all the fire-fighters are signed off on the official tale. Re your contentions about the explosions not being explosions....it’s the same as pull it, you overlook the obvious because it does not suit your tale. I will quote the last fire fighters comment:
“PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND, THERE MAY BE MORE, ANY ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS COULD BLOW UP, THIS AINT DONE YET”

Four of the finest on the scene and they talk about secondary explosions.....witnesses with experience of explosions....and they believe there were bombs....and you deflect the testimony with bleatings about the Marriot Hotel.
Why are you making an assertion these men are "not signed off on the offical tale" or that anything they said supports your particular brand of reality-distortion. You continue to miss the point, much like you don't undertand why "pull it" refers to firefighters not buildings and the FDNY is not now and never has been in the building demo business. These men were in no position to actually witness explosions or bombs, hence their comments that they were LIKE explosions or like bombs. They mistook the collapse of the South Tower for an explosion.

Lots of things can be like explosions that are not bombs. I once had a car tire blow up in my face (I was deaf for about 10 minutes afterward) - I describe that as an "explosion" but it certainly was not a bomb. All you have provided AGAIN are witness statements that are at best ambiguous and open to interpretation. Where is your physical evidence? Where is your prima facie case? How does this explain EVERYTHING we know that happened on 9/11? You have to do that to make this work and you don't even try.

Tell you what, why don't you go talk to these men yourself? We know their names, know exactly who they are. Find out for yourself if they really mean "bombs" rather than the more generic "explosions" which can mean many things. Find out if they are Truthers who believe 343 of their brothers were killed by bombs or not or if they will want to punch you in the face for taking their comments completely out of context to suit your dogma.

Or at the very least partake of the more extensive formal interviews with these men that are available, such as this these:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110443.PDF
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110444.PDF

Quote:
Q. When either tower came down, did you have any advanced warning?

A. (James Duffy) Oh, no. I didn't know what it was when we were inside. I didn't know the building had collapsed, actually. I thought it was a bomb. I thought a bomb had gone off. That's why I really didn't know until after.
You need to go deeper than Youtube videos my friend or you will always fail.

Now please, if we can get back to it - explain how Larry Silverstein engineered the attack on the Pentagon and the hijacking and crashing of Flight 93 as part of his alleged insurance scam. And don't dodge this question agian like you have before. If you want to run with the insurance scam angle you have to be able to describe how that explains ALL of the attacks that day.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 4th October 2013 at 05:26 AM.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 05:33 AM   #137
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,951
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
Unlike the school the pentagon is a huge building with a radio navigation beacon nearby.
It's quite illuminating to look at both locations on, say, Google maps Satellite view, and turn all the labels off.

Somewhere in this picture is an elementary school:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=27.3...hl=en&t=h&z=15

Somewhere in this picture, set well apart from other structures, is one of the largest and most distinctive buildings in the world:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.8...hl=en&t=h&z=15

The startling similarity between these potential targets has helpfully been pointed out to us: both buildings are in fact situated on the ground.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 07:07 AM   #138
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,366
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Travis>> Why would they not? The school was a secure place. Better to keep him in the place you already have secure than to rush him out of there with no clear plan on what to do next.<<

Travis that is not a sound observation. The secret service knew planes were flown to targets....why not target the school, it was public knowledge that he would be there....they targeted the pentagon, which like the school is a ground level target.
Ah, but the Pentagon is a very easy target to spot. Everyone knows where it is and exactly what it looks like. Despite that the hijackers still almost missed it!

A tiny run of the mill elementary school? Good luck.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Travis>> And it was the first steel framed highrise to have an unfought, out of control fire in it. So would we not expect unusual results from an unusual situation?<<

High rise fires burn at around 1000 degrees Celsius. The integrity of structural steel disappears at 1500 degrees Celsius.
Incorrect. Steel loses integrity at lower temperatures than that. And office fires are quite capable of this. Read into the fire at the Library tower in LA for a good example of why steel skyscrapers need copious fire insulation.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 08:52 AM   #139
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Travis that is not a sound observation. The secret service knew planes were flown to targets....why not target the school, it was public knowledge that he would be there....they targeted the pentagon, which like the school is a ground level target.
Not actually. The Pentagon and WTC were gigantic targets, easily visible from the air at 500 mph. The school not so much. Not to mention, a top concern of the SS would be not to drive the President from a somewhat secure location (school) to an unsecured location via an unsecure route (ambush).

Quote:
High rise fires burn at around 1000 degrees Celsius. The integrity of structural steel disappears at 1500 degrees Celsius.
They soften and sag at a much lower temp, especially under load and not to mention all the jet fuel.

Quote:
The rule book Dafffyd....it is in the book of common sense. The secret service advises Bush of the first strike at 9.02, they advise him of the second five minutes later....then left him at the school for a further half an hour...don’t be obtuse Daffyd.
As mentioned, the rule book would seek to avoid being channelized into an unsecure route and possible ambush.

Quote:
Jack there is an unwritten obligation to act if you are employed in a vocation that has a “duty of care” caveat in the job specification. Just as a parent initiates their “duty of care” to remove a child from harm’s way, so does the secret service....but they didn’t ....join Daffyd in the obtuse corner.
Likewise, don't pretend your superficial Hollywood based understanding gives you insight into the situation.

Quote:
Re your contentions about the explosions not being explosions....it’s the same as pull it, you overlook the obvious because it does not suit your tale. I will quote the last fire fighters comment:
“PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND, THERE MAY BE MORE, ANY ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS COULD BLOW UP, THIS AINT DONE YET”
Why does every Truther cherry pick off the cuff comments made during a chaotic event as "evidence" of something? That someone might use "explosion" or "blowing up" as a descriptive term for a crashing burning skyscraper coming down isn't the least bit shocking. Nor is "pull" a demolitions term anywhere other than in Truther fantasy literature.

Quote:
Four of the finest on the scene and they talk about secondary explosions.....witnesses with experience of explosions....and they believe there were bombs....
Again, cherry picking off the cuff comments to suit your POV.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 09:12 AM   #140
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
It's quite illuminating to look at both locations on, say, Google maps Satellite view, and turn all the labels off.

Somewhere in this picture is an elementary school:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=27.3...hl=en&t=h&z=15

Somewhere in this picture, set well apart from other structures, is one of the largest and most distinctive buildings in the world:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.8...hl=en&t=h&z=15

The startling similarity between these potential targets has helpfully been pointed out to us: both buildings are in fact situated on the ground.
I was going to set out to do exactly this^^^

The idea that a single story elementary school is equivalent to one of the largest office structures in the USA is so utterly ridiculous.
The later also lies alongside a major waterway, is surrounded by open areas and parking lots and is very close to a major airport.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 10:16 AM   #141
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 16,179
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post

Why does every Truther cherry pick off the cuff comments made during a chaotic event as "evidence" of something? That someone might use "explosion" or "blowing up" as a descriptive term for a crashing burning skyscraper coming down isn't the least bit shocking. Nor is "pull" a demolitions term anywhere other than in Truther fantasy literature.


Again, cherry picking off the cuff comments to suit your POV.
I always wonder this as well. It's not as if people can't get the full transcripts or recordings. Also their identities are know, why not ask them directly what they think?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 10:53 AM   #142
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,586
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
I think we are at crossed purposes. I said that Larry, as lease holder insured his buildings and the insurance payout went to him.
You are partially right. WTC 7 was his building but the towers were not. He leased them. Leasing is not buying. At the end of the lease you have to give them back in reasonable good repair. He was required by the terms of the lease (PANYNJ being the payee) to insure them for much more than he wanted due to the risk they might be targets of terrorist attack. PANYNJ made him carry so much insurance, this is something he has to pay for. He was required to return their asset (the towers) no matter what. The "06" agreement ment he no longer had to pay for the replacement of the towers but, he could also no longer collect any reimbursement from them. In short, he signed back over everything including the insurance money.

I would have thought a person (like yourself) that has researched this would know this. If you ask nice, I'll include a link to the full text of the agreement and the lease details.
Quote:
What you are discussing is this later separate action:
“In March 2007 Silverstein appeared at a rally of construction workers and public officials outside of an insurance industry conference to highlight what he describes as the failures of insurers Allianz & Royal and Sun Alliance to pay $800 million in claims related to the attacks. Insurers cite an agreement to split payments between Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority as a cause for concern.
In July 2006, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit against some of its insurers, for refusing to waive requirements of the insurance contracts that Silverstein claimed were necessary to allow renegotiation of the original July 2001 World Trade Center leases. This litigation, was settled together with the federal lawsuits and appraisal, mentioned in the prior paragraph, in a series of settlements announced on May 23, 2007.[26][27][28][29] Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority, for the World Trade Center complex, requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.[30] He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.[25]
Nothing you quoted supports what you are claiming. All I can figure is you haven't read the whole articles or you don't understand what you are reading.

If you ask nice, I can explain. Don't ask me to prove your silly belief wrong. Anyone reading them can see that for themselves.

Who's telling you what to believe (what web sites)?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 01:12 PM   #143
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
It's quite illuminating to look at both locations on, say, Google maps Satellite view, and turn all the labels off.

Somewhere in this picture is an elementary school:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=27.3...hl=en&t=h&z=15
I think I see it and one thing is evident. The Tree tops overhang one part of the building. Trees might get to 40 feet high or so. Therefore the roof is below that height.
The Pentagon is 77 feet tall, approx double the height of the school.

The school is about 200 feet long and 100 feet wide.
One wall of the Pentagon is about 800 feet long and due to its pentagonal shape, it presents a 1400 foot wide target.

Then there is this fact:
https://pentagontours.osd.mil/facts.jsp
Quote:
the Pentagon is one of the world's largest office buildings. It is twice the size of the Merchandise Mart in Chicago, and has three times the floor space of the Empire State Building in New York.
Yeah... almost the same

Last edited by jaydeehess; 4th October 2013 at 01:33 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 01:54 PM   #144
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,108
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I think I see it and one thing is evident. The Tree tops overhang one part of the building. Trees might get to 40 feet high or so. Therefore the roof is below that height.
The Pentagon is 77 feet tall, approx double the height of the school.

The school is about 200 feet long and 100 feet wide.
One wall of the Pentagon is about 800 feet long and due to its pentagonal shape, it presents a 1400 foot wide target.

Then there is this fact:
https://pentagontours.osd.mil/facts.jsp


Yeah... almost the same
The whole thing is goofy. Like a bunch of terrorists are gonna send 767s all over the country hunting down the POTUS. Of course he was safest where he was.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 02:01 PM   #145
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,923
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Travis that is not a sound observation. The secret service knew planes were flown to targets....why not target the school, it was public knowledge that he would be there....they targeted the pentagon, which like the school is a ground level target.
The Pentagon is a ground target, 70 feet high? Was the school 70 feet high? The idiot pilot on 77 almost hit the highway, missed it by 20 feet; the idiot pilot would have to fly through trees to hit the other school? Or what?
How would a nut find a small target like a school flying at 500 mph?
Why move the president?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
High rise fires burn at around 1000 degrees Celsius. The integrity of structural steel disappears at 1500 degrees Celsius.
Oh? This is why 911 truth messes up, they don't speak facts, they make it up as they go.

What is cool, 911 truth nuts debunk 911 truth nuts - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...res/steel.html

At temperatures above 800° C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Means the office fires destroy the strength of steel before your 1000C office fires, and the 1500C BS you added due to... what?

Steel fails in fire, 911 truth lies about fires. There are no 24 hard facts.


Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
The rule book Dafffyd....it is in the book of common sense. The secret service advises Bush of the first strike at 9.02, they advise him of the second five minutes later....then left him at the school for a further half an hour...don’t be obtuse Daffyd.
Common sense? You don't have the rule book.

Looks like it would be easy to get the president to move without checking things out first if you ran the SS. Run from a secure location, to an ambush in minutes. You would be fired...

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
I said nothing about which tower the boys were in. The video was in response to your assertion that all the fire-fighters are signed off on the official tale. Re your contentions about the explosions not being explosions....it’s the same as pull it, you overlook the obvious because it does not suit your tale. I will quote the last fire fighters comment:
“PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND, THERE MAY BE MORE, ANY ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS COULD BLOW UP, THIS AINT DONE YET”
Four of the finest on the scene and they talk about secondary explosions.....witnesses with experience of explosions....and they believe there were bombs....and you deflect the testimony with bleatings about the Marriot Hotel. [/quote]
There were no explosives. So? People believe in Bigfoot, with the exact same evidence; talk. Talk is not proof. 911 truth followers, the smart ones leave 911 truth behind when they realize they can think for themselves.

Are you defending the "hard facts"?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 02:34 PM   #146
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
77 feet high beach
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 02:54 PM   #147
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
At temperatures above 800° C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. Means the office fires destroy the strength of steel before your 1000C office fires, and the 1500C BS you added due to... what?
Give them time and steel won't "melt" until it reaches 15,000,000,000 degrees kelvin.

Of course it gets quite soft by 800° C.

__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 03:06 PM   #148
911KookDetector
Thinker
 
911KookDetector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 235
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Give them time and steel won't "melt" until it reaches 15,000,000,000 degrees kelvin.

Of course it gets quite soft by 800° C.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4cf76aae76.jpg
I never really got the whole molten steel thing from Truthers. Since when do controlled demolitions leave behind pools of molten metal, let alone pools of liquified steel? Is that how the nanothermite drivel came about?
911KookDetector is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 03:16 PM   #149
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,923
Originally Posted by 911KookDetector View Post
I never really got the whole molten steel thing from Truthers. Since when do controlled demolitions leave behind pools of molten metal, let alone pools of liquified steel? Is that how the nanothermite drivel came about?


The thermite came from a fantasy Jones made up. Four years after 911. I think he was upset with the "wars", so he made up a lie.

Quote:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://tinyurl.com/7drxn

WTC collapses due to controlled demolition
Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:
...
6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.
...

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

This article was posted on 9.16.05
Jones made it up.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 03:43 PM   #150
911KookDetector
Thinker
 
911KookDetector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 235
Jones made it up.[/quote]

Yup. All of the AE911Twoofers have an anti-War/ Bush agenda, just like Jones does. And Truthers fail to objectively research anything, so long as it goes along with their theories, so Jones et al know they can get away with proposing such garbage. That's how they got away with testing 4 imaginary dust samples in a phony laboratory in a guy's garage, publishing those claims in a junk journal and fraudulently printing their bogus paper without the knowledge of the Chief Editor.

I know for a fact that nanothermite wasn't even being produced until 2002, and at that point at an unbelievably slow rate. I remember a debunker on Youtube telling me around 80 grams per week. And I know that Niels Harrit says that at least 100 tons of the stuff would be needed. Am I missing something here?

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf

Last edited by 911KookDetector; 4th October 2013 at 03:46 PM.
911KookDetector is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 04:42 PM   #151
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,431
A railroad coal car filled with thermite.

Yeah, I can see how they got that in unnoticed.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 04:45 PM   #152
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,108
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
A railroad coal car filled with thermite.

Yeah, I can see how they got that in unnoticed.
Not to mention the massive casing it needs, like the only time they ever used thermite in a building demolition - one of the the Chicago World's Fair Sky-ride Towers.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 05:10 PM   #153
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
delete

Last edited by Animal; 4th October 2013 at 05:11 PM.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 05:14 PM   #154
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Ah, but the Pentagon is a very easy target to spot. Everyone knows where it is and exactly what it looks like. Despite that the hijackers still almost missed it!

A tiny run of the mill elementary school? Good luck.
Exactly

The pentagon from 19,000


Booker Elementary from 19,000 ft
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 06:36 PM   #155
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Travis>>Incorrect. Steel loses integrity at lower temperatures than that. And office fires are quite capable of this. Read into the fire at the Library tower in LA for a good example of why steel skyscrapers need copious fire insulation.<<

Travis my china plate....did the building you allude to fall to it’s basement....probably not seeing WTC 7 was the first and last....so far....but who knows what the administration has in mind.

Robrob>> Not actually. The Pentagon and WTC were gigantic targets, easily visible from the air at 500 mph.<<

Rob I have a navman in my car, I don’t know how big you place of abode is....but if I type the address in the navman will take me to your door. Same in the air, type in the co ordinates and go.

Robrob>> They soften and sag at a much lower temp, especially under load and not to mention all the jet fuel.<<

Rob, it is simple sport, your utterances have no factual precedent. Look up skyscraper fires.....so many have burnt for longer and on vastly more floors and some in South America burned for days and none fell..and certainly none to the basement....in their own footprint to boot. About “jet fuels”....it is Kerosene Rob with additives....not bloody phosphorus.

Robrob>> As mentioned, the rule book would seek to avoid being channelized into an unsecure route and possible ambush.<<

Don’t be ridiculous Rob. With some understanding I can tell you that if they are burning the nests you take flight. The secret service see all such events as a direct physical threat to the president....two planes into “monuments to modern America” and the service let him sit there for 30 minutes....rubbish....the whole lot was staged.

Likewise, don't pretend your superficial Hollywood based understanding gives you insight into the situation.<<

Robrob>> As I said, I have some understanding apart from google and youtube.

Robrob>> Why does every Truther cherry pick off the cuff comments made during a chaotic event as "evidence" of something? That someone might use "explosion" or "blowing up" as a descriptive term for a crashing burning skyscraper coming down isn't the least bit shocking. Nor is "pull" a demolitions term anywhere other than in Truther fantasy literature.

I wish you had some understanding. Believe it or not even the simplest soul who remonstrate with an interlocutor employ the basic tenets of English. An example.

I am going to pull IT down.
Iam going to pull THEM out.
Now let’s abbreviate them......
PULL IT
PULL THEM
Even children get nouns and pronouns right.

Robrob>> Again, cherry picking off the cuff comments to suit your POV.<<

What can I tell you sport, I offer a genuine video of 4 fire fighters on the spot who say there are explosions....the last says ““PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND, THERE MAY BE MORE, ANY ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS COULD BLOW UP, THIS AINT DONE YET”

Your hopeless Bob, bloody hopeless, god love ya.

Mark>> Lots of things can be like explosions that are not bombs. I once had a car tire blow up in my face (I was deaf for about 10 minutes afterward) - I describe that as an "explosion" but it certainly was not a bomb.<<

Mark the tyre blow out gotta be bad....but it means nothing in terms of perspective....you had a single event as your experience base. From a previous life if I am in range I know the aural difference between a percussion explosion and a bang. I know the difference between a charge and an explosion of contained flammables....So I am absolutely positive that the fire fighters do. Again:
PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND, THERE MAY BE MORE, ANY ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS COULD BLOW UP, THIS AINT DONE YET”
Mark he is talking about buildings that were not on fire, the “may be more” he is alluding to are charges. It is obvious to anyone who knows....

Mark>> Tell you what, why don't you go talk to these men yourself? We know their names, know exactly who they are.<<

That is ludicrous and to what end given we have their real time testimony. They are talking about explosions after the planes hit and before the first tower came down.

Mark>> Now please, if we can get back to it - explain how Larry Silverstein engineered the attack on the Pentagon and the hijacking and crashing of Flight 93 as part of his alleged insurance scam. And don't dodge this question again like you have before.<<

Cmon Mark no force feeding me words, I never said anything close to that, nor did I say he “did it” for the insurance. From my first post to my last I said nothing like that, no ******** please.I have also mentioned Larry’s partner Frank Lowy and you have made no utterance regarding that. He is an interesting man with relevant affiliations.

Mod WarningDo not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.
Posted By:Lisa Simpson

Last edited by Lisa Simpson; 5th October 2013 at 10:32 AM.
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 08:07 PM   #156
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,923
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
... Travis my china plate....did the building you allude to fall to it’s basement....probably not seeing WTC 7 was the first and last....so far....but who knows what the administration has in mind. ...
? Many high rises have been totaled by fire. Are you saying the WTC fires were not big enough, hot enough. There was more heat from the fires, just the office fires than 2,600 TONS of thermite has. More heat then the delusion of 911 truth. Hard facts make 911 truth "hard facts" idiotic delusions.

One Meridian Plaza, totaled by fire.
Windsor in Spain, totaled by fire.
These fires were fought, and they failed to save the buildings.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Rob I have a navman in my car, I don’t know how big you place of abode is....but if I type the address in the navman will take me to your door. Same in the air, type in the co ordinates and go.
...
LOL, go ahead get a 767 and your GPS and try to hit a school. The 4 worse pilots in the world, so bad they all crashed on 911 are after the president? Have you flown a large jet, or any jet at 300 knots on the deck and identified any targets the size of the school? Have you? No.

They hit large buildings, they were not very good, they need large targets that stick up 77 to 1300 feet. How tall was the school?

Why would UBL target a school? Did you read his interviews? No? Why not?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Rob, it is simple sport, your utterances have no factual precedent. Look up skyscraper fires.....so many have burnt for longer and on vastly more floors and some in South America burned for days and none fell..and certainly none to the basement....in their own footprint to boot. About “jet fuels”....it is Kerosene Rob with additives....not bloody phosphorus. ...
Bringing up the Jet fuel, with only 630 TONS of thermite in heat energy is trivial compared to the office fires equal to more heat in 2,600 TONS of thermite. Did you do the math? No? Why not?

Office fires have destroyed many buildings.
Windsor, and One Meridian Plaza, totaled by fire.


How did fires sag steel? How did you get the temperatures wrong?
The hard fact is fire destroys the strength of steel quickly. Here we have a high rise totaled by fire, and the fire was fought. WTC 1, 2, 7 and more were totaled by fire on 911; the same as most buildings where fires are not fought.
Why do 911 truthers not know about steel? Ignorance or gullibility?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Don’t be ridiculous Rob. With some understanding I can tell you that if they are burning the nests you take flight. The secret service see all such events as a direct physical threat to the president....two planes into “monuments to modern America” and the service let him sit there for 30 minutes....rubbish....the whole lot was staged. ...
Hitting the WTC? An attack on the President? Where was his office in the WTC?
Where did you hide on 911?

I
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
wish you had some understanding. Believe it or not even the simplest soul who remonstrate with an interlocutor employ the basic tenets of English. An example.

I am going to pull IT down.
Iam going to pull THEM out.
Now let’s abbreviate them......
PULL IT
PULL THEM
Even children get nouns and pronouns right.
...
They pulled the fire support. To say otherwise is a lie, or best an idiotic fantasy.


Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Mark the tyre blow out gotta be bad....but it means nothing in terms of perspective....you had a single event as your experience base. From a previous life if I am in range I know the aural difference between a percussion explosion and a bang. I know the difference between a charge and an explosion of contained flammables....So I am absolutely positive that the fire fighters do. Again:
PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND, THERE MAY BE MORE, ANY ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS COULD BLOW UP, THIS AINT DONE YET”
Mark he is talking about buildings that were not on fire, the “may be more” he is alluding to are charges. It is obvious to anyone who knows....
...
- seriously, you are using quote-mined nonsense from 911 truth to support nothing?
No, the firemen don't know what caused the sound. Wait, they do, if you go past the quote-mining lies.

Quote:
Following are 16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises well before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Oops, you got the evidence... it was ...
People jumping to their death due to fire.

OOPS, they do... never-mind. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

You should have talked to the firemen before spreading woo.
Until you ask each fire person what is, you got nothing but quote-mining nonsense.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
That is ludicrous and to what end given we have their real time testimony. They are talking about explosions after the planes hit and before the first tower came down. ...
There were no explosives, what is your point? Are you trying to prove witnesses are unable to figure out what caused the sounds? You failed to back up the quote-mining with facts, hard facts.
How many witnesses saw explosives go off? How many were killed by explosives? Zero. oops

Are you trying to support some of the 24 lies made by 911 truth? or what?

Last edited by beachnut; 4th October 2013 at 08:10 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 08:51 PM   #157
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Please learn to use the quote function. It will make answering your questions far less painful.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Robrob>> Not actually. The Pentagon and WTC were gigantic targets, easily visible from the air at 500 mph.<<

Rob I have a navman in my car, I don’t know how big you place of abode is....but if I type the address in the navman will take me to your door. Same in the air, type in the co ordinates and go.
You had a "navman" in 2001?

Quote:
Robrob>> They soften and sag at a much lower temp, especially under load and not to mention all the jet fuel.<<

Rob, it is simple sport, your utterances have no factual precedent. Look up skyscraper fires.....so many have burnt for longer and on vastly more floors and some in South America burned for days and none fell..and certainly none to the basement....in their own footprint to boot. About “jet fuels”....it is Kerosene Rob with additives....not bloody phosphorus.
Please cite the buildings. Then feel free to elaborate on how they were constructed in comparison to the WTC.

Quote:
Robrob>> As mentioned, the rule book would seek to avoid being channelized into an unsecure route and possible ambush.<<

Don’t be ridiculous Rob. With some understanding I can tell you that if they are burning the nests you take flight. The secret service see all such events as a direct physical threat to the president....two planes into “monuments to modern America” and the service let him sit there for 30 minutes....rubbish....the whole lot was staged.
As has already been explained to you by several people, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:
Robrob>> Likewise, don't pretend your superficial Hollywood based understanding gives you insight into the situation.<<

As I said, I have some understanding apart from google and youtube.
If you did you wouldn't be presenting fantasy as fact.

Quote:
Robrob>> Why does every Truther cherry pick off the cuff comments made during a chaotic event as "evidence" of something? That someone might use "explosion" or "blowing up" as a descriptive term for a crashing burning skyscraper coming down isn't the least bit shocking. Nor is "pull" a demolitions term anywhere other than in Truther fantasy literature.<<

I wish you had some understanding. Believe it or not even the simplest soul who remonstrate with an interlocutor employ the basic tenets of English. An example.

I am going to pull IT down.
Iam going to pull THEM out.
Now let’s abbreviate them......
PULL IT
PULL THEM
Even children get nouns and pronouns right.
People regularly mangle sentences in an even moderately stressful moment. Your comment reveals a peculiar lack of understanding.

Quote:
Robrob>> Again, cherry picking off the cuff comments to suit your POV.<<

What can I tell you sport, I offer a genuine video of 4 fire fighters on the spot who say there are explosions....the last says ““PEOPLE DON’T UNDERSTAND, THERE MAY BE MORE, ANY ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS COULD BLOW UP, THIS AINT DONE YET”

Your hopeless Bob, bloody hopeless, god love ya.
Again, you cherry picked a random comment made by four out of how many firefighters? Are you familiar with the concept of "Confirmation Bias?"

Quote:
From a previous life if I am in range I know the aural difference between a percussion explosion and a bang. I know the difference between a charge and an explosion of contained flammables....So I am absolutely positive that the fire fighters do.
Regardless, you are still cherry picking a random comment from one out of many firefighters.

Quote:
Mark>> Tell you what, why don't you go talk to these men yourself? We know their names, know exactly who they are.<<

That is ludicrous and to what end given we have their real time testimony. They are talking about explosions after the planes hit and before the first tower came down.
Why would it be "ludicrous" to talk to the people you are quoting as evidence?
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 11:32 PM   #158
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Please learn to use the quote function. It will make answering your questions far less painful.
Ok Bob....
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2013, 11:59 PM   #159
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,483
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAyh23l1mx4
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 12:56 AM   #160
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
? Many high rises have been totaled by fire. Are you saying the WTC fires were not big enough, hot enough. There was more heat from the fires, just the office fires than 2,600 TONS of thermite has. More heat then the delusion of 911 truth. Hard facts make 911 truth "hard facts" idiotic delusions.
So you consider yourself a wordsmith BN, what is "totaled by fire?" If it it structurally fall down to basement level in its own footprint then we have a comparison....if not we have a singular exception given Bld 7 is the only fire ravaged steel framed high rise to do it.

Quote:
Have you flown a large jet, or any jet at 300 knots on the deck and identified any targets the size of the school? Have you? No.
Absolutely not

Quote:
Why would UBL target a school? Did you read his interviews? No? Why not?
I have never heard any of the Bin Laden’s throw their hands up to 911....you do some reading. BN, regardless of the form of the threat the ss had the president at an unsecure location for 30 minutes after two strikes against America. For all the ss knew a helicopter with a charge on board could be minutes away from the publicized school photo op. Tiger your assertions are ridiculous...safe at the school indeed....

Quote:
Bringing up the Jet fuel, with only 630 TONS of thermite in heat energy is trivial compared to the office fires equal to more heat in 2,600 TONS of thermite. Did you do the math? No? Why not?

Forget about you "paper assertions" tiger in 1996 the British Building Research Establishment and British Steel performed a series of six experiments to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C in three of the tests no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments. I said in my initial posts, the number of "firsts" that had materialize to allow 911 to unfold as it did is is astounding, unbelievable in fact.

Quote:

Why do 911 truthers not know about steel? Ignorance or gullibility?

Sceptic captain, not truther.
Quote:

To say otherwise is a lie, or best an idiotic fantasy.
Thanks for that champ.

Quote:
There were no explosives, what is your point? Are you trying to prove witnesses are unable to figure out what caused the sounds? You failed to back up the quote-mining with facts, hard facts.
How many witnesses saw explosives go off? How many were killed by explosives? Zero. oops
Deny this sport.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH1Xdcssw4A


Quote:

Are you trying to support some of the 24 lies made by 911 truth? or what
I'm sceptical....

Ape old bean, what is that pathetic attempt at wit....practice with stationery targets first, then move on.

Last edited by sonofgloin; 5th October 2013 at 01:02 AM.
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.