IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

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


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.
Tags controlled demolition , wtc 7

Reply
Old 17th March 2009, 04:57 AM   #361
EnJaySee
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 47
I personally like the one where they claim the planes should've bounced off the buildings better. But smoke generators is definitely up there.

Once again, I'm impressed with the level of research shown to back up claims "I watched the video a hunnerd times, I don't need to do no stinkin' maths".
EnJaySee 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 17th March 2009, 07:09 AM   #362
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I think the FDNY did a fine job on 9/11. In addition to their tremendous sacrifices I esoecially appreciated the 12,000 pages of sworn testimony they gave in the days and weeks after the events.
None of which mentions smoke generators. A point you keep blatantly avoiding.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Some of them, like the 'all 47 floors' guy made statements that are hard to reconcile with the visual reecord but that's not proof of anything. He may have been just exaggerating or mistaken.
More than one firefighter made a similar claim. Are they all "exaggerating or mistaken"?

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.
The testimony linked about contradicts this statement.

bill, you're on record claiming the FDNY's account of 9/11 cannot be trusted, and you've made some very strong implications that they are perhaps keeping silent about certain suspicious aspects of it.

I'll ask you again the question you keep avoiding: What reason do you have to think the FDNY might be untruthful, or conspicuously silent, regarding what they experienced on 9/11?
johnny karate 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 17th March 2009, 08:27 AM   #363
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
None of which mentions smoke generators. A point you keep blatantly avoiding.



More than one firefighter made a similar claim. Are they all "exaggerating or mistaken"?



The testimony linked about contradicts this statement.

bill, you're on record claiming the FDNY's account of 9/11 cannot be trusted, and you've made some very strong implications that they are perhaps keeping silent about certain suspicious aspects of it.

I'll ask you again the question you keep avoiding: What reason do you have to think the FDNY might be untruthful, or conspicuously silent, regarding what they experienced on 9/11?
If the firefighters did not mention the smoke generators perhaps they did not see them. DO I see one though, in the opening scene of the attached video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

Where am I on record saying that the FDNY's acccount cannot be trusted ? In our exchanges I have not used the phrase ''conspicuously silent' nor the word 'untruthful'. Are you sure you have the right poster ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 08:30 AM   #364
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
That would have really sucked if the perps manged to put the [delightfully loony] smoke generators on the wrong floor. Seriously, how stupid would it have looked if smoke was billowing out of the building 20 floors below the plane impacts?

I have to hand it to those NOW work crews and planners.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 17th March 2009, 08:36 AM   #365
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Yea, I think I'm done with smoke generators.

For future reference, will people like bill be referred to as no-smokers, or non-smokers?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 17th March 2009, 08:41 AM   #366
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
That would have really sucked if the perps manged to put the [delightfully loony] smoke generators on the wrong floor. Seriously, how stupid would it have looked if smoke was billowing out of the building 20 floors below the plane impacts?
Pretty damn stupid. But still not even close to the stupidity of truther arguments.
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
GStan 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 17th March 2009, 09:42 AM   #367
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
If the firefighters did not mention the smoke generators perhaps they did not see them. DO I see one though, in the opening scene of the attached video.
Evidence based on what one person claims to see in a video that hundreds of eyewitnesses failed to discern is less than compelling.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Where am I on record saying that the FDNY's acccount cannot be trusted ? In our exchanges I have not used the phrase ''conspicuously silent' nor the word 'untruthful'. Are you sure you have the right poster ?
Words you've used in regards to FDNY testimony:

doubt
1. To be undecided or skeptical about.
2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust.
3. To regard as unlikely.

exaggerate
1. to regard or represent as greater than is true.
2. to make greater or more noticeable.

So I'll ask again:
What reason do you have to be distrustful of the testimony of the FDNY in regards to their experiences on 9/11?
johnny karate 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 17th March 2009, 09:55 AM   #368
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
what's with all the youtube references by Bob? could he actually point to WRITTEN documentation instead of looking at low grade, low res, highly pixelated and cobbled together Youtube videos?
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 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 17th March 2009, 10:29 AM   #369
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Evidence based on what one person claims to see in a video that hundreds of eyewitnesses failed to discern is less than compelling.



Words you've used in regards to FDNY testimony:

doubt
1. To be undecided or skeptical about.
2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust.
3. To regard as unlikely.

exaggerate
1. to regard or represent as greater than is true.
2. to make greater or more noticeable.

So I'll ask again:
What reason do you have to be distrustful of the testimony of the FDNY in regards to their experiences on 9/11?
To say that I am skeptical of the account of one or more firemen who said 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors '' is not surprising in that this statement deviates markedly from the visual record. To say therefore that the firemen were exaggerating or were mistaken is perfectly reasonable in this context and in no way implies distrust.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 17th March 2009 at 11:00 AM. Reason: correction
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 10:32 AM   #370
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Where am I on record saying that the FDNY's acccount cannot be trusted ? In our exchanges I have not used the phrase ''conspicuously silent' nor the word 'untruthful'. Are you sure you have the right poster ?
Pure semantics!
You claim there were smoke generators and when it is pointed out that no FF mentions such devices you say that they may not have seen them. That brands their accounts untrustworthy whether you are accusing them of deliberatly lieing or of simply being mistaken.

In fact you distrust the FF accounts of major fires in WTC 7, you distrust the FF accounts that the building was in danger of collapsing and you distrust the FF accounts that do not include your contention that there was more smoke than should have been generated by the fires. In short you are discounting the FF accounts pretty much in their entireity and accepting only the minor, obvious point that there was fire in the building.

Thus by your own words you have demonstrated, though not actually come out and been honest about stating it directly, that you find the statements made by the FF's to be suspect, untrustworthy and lacking of mention of aspects that you believe are obvious.
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 17th March 2009, 10:35 AM   #371
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
To say that I am skeptical of the account of one or more firemen who said 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors '' is not surprising in that this statement deviates markedly from the visual record. To say the firemen were exaggerating or were mistaken is perfectly reasonable in this context and in no way implies distrust.
Well, then I have to assure you that even though your observations are incredibly divorced from reality, suggesting that YOU are exaggerating or are mistaken is perfectly reasonable, and in no way implies distrust.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 17th March 2009, 11:01 AM   #372
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
To say that I am skeptical of the account of one or more firemen who said 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors '' is not surprising in that this statement deviates markedly from the visual record. To say that the firemen were exaggerating or were mistaken is perfectly reasonable in this context and in no way implies distrust.
Multiple firefighters made statements that describe WTC7 as fully involved in fire. I provided you with a link proving this. If you do not trust this statement from one firefighter, then you must not trust it from any of the others.

You claim the visual evidence does not match FDNY testimony. Instead of coming to the conlusion that the video evidence is incomplete, you have instead called into question the veracity of the FDNY's testimony. I would like to know why.

What reason do you have to mistrust the testimony of the FDNY regarding their experiences on 9/11?
johnny karate 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 17th March 2009, 11:13 AM   #373
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Multiple firefighters made statements that describe WTC7 as fully involved in fire. I provided you with a link proving this. If you do not trust this statement from one firefighter, then you must not trust it from any of the others.

You claim the visual evidence does not match FDNY testimony. Instead of coming to the conlusion that the video evidence is incomplete, you have instead called into question the veracity of the FDNY's testimony. I would like to know why.

What reason do you have to mistrust the testimony of the FDNY regarding their experiences on 9/11?
I am not willing to go round and round on this subject. You had a problem with what I said and I demonstrated that you were making inaccurate assumptions that were not not borne out by my written words. Now you wish to broaden the argument into an area that I am not willing to explore at this time.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 17th March 2009 at 12:51 PM. Reason: correction
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 11:43 AM   #374
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I am not willing to go round and round on this subject. You had a problem with what I said and I demonstrated that you were making inaccurate assumptions that were not not extracted from my written words. Now you wish to broaden the argument into an area that I am not willing to explore at this time.
Your intellectual cowardice is noted.

However, this does not change what you've already stated. You've accused the FDNY of giving doubtful and exaggerated testimony, yet refuse to explain your reasons for believing this, and are now tucking tail and running away.

Your completey irrational distrust of FDNY testimony coupled with your hesitancy to explain why you distrust it can only lead one to the conclusion that you suspect FDNY of some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, yet lack the courage to admit it.
johnny karate 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 17th March 2009, 12:45 PM   #375
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Your intellectual cowardice is noted.

However, this does not change what you've already stated. You've accused the FDNY of giving doubtful and exaggerated testimony, yet refuse to explain your reasons for believing this, and are now tucking tail and running away.

Your completey irrational distrust of FDNY testimony coupled with your hesitancy to explain why you distrust it can only lead one to the conclusion that you suspect FDNY of some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, yet lack the courage to admit it.
It's never very satisfying to have to attribute words and motives to people when you can't actually back it up with their own words is it ? But I suppose if that's all you've got what else can you do ? lol.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 17th March 2009 at 12:59 PM. Reason: correction
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 01:10 PM   #376
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Hello again,

What do you think was pushing the smoke out the window in such a steady stream ?
Convection.
tfk 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 17th March 2009, 01:16 PM   #377
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Convection.
Hey! Don't confuse him with big scientificy sounding words!
dtugg 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 17th March 2009, 01:17 PM   #378
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Convection.
Hello there..


Uncharacteristically monosyllabic ? Cat got your tongue ? lol
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 01:21 PM   #379
GStan
Graduate Poster
 
GStan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.

BBL
Ahem.

Bill, again, how did you calculate this? Please show your work.

(Perhaps you thought Twinstead's acknowledgement that "your eyes" told you would be sufficient. It's not.)
__________________
On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling
GStan 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 17th March 2009, 01:48 PM   #380
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
It's never very satisfying to have to attribute words and motives to people when you can't actually back it up with their own words is it ? But I suppose if that's all you've got what else can you do ? lol.
When dealing with intellectual cowards who refuses to answer questions they find uncomfortable or inconvenient, one manages as best they can.

You characterized FDNY testimony as doubtful and exaggerated. I'd be happy to quote you doing so. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by pretending you didn't.
johnny karate 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 17th March 2009, 01:51 PM   #381
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
When dealing with intellectual cowards who refuses to answer questions they find uncomfortable or inconvenient, one manages as best they can.

You characterized FDNY testimony as doubtful and exaggerated. I'd be happy to quote you doing so. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by pretending you didn't.
Do please quote me (in context please) I want to compare what I said to what YOU said I said.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 02:02 PM   #382
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Smoke generators, for when fire just isn't enough! Bill you either need glasses or Psychiatric help. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously with such a preposterous idea that you aren't willing to back up?
Sunstealer 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 17th March 2009, 02:03 PM   #383
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Do please quote me (in context please) I want to compare what I said to what YOU said I said.

Certainly:
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
No....really....I couldn't say. Not on this particular aspect of 9/11 anyway. Though I do have my doubts about the fireman who said that '' WTC7 was fully involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors''. I felt that he might have been exaggerating a little.

Several firefighters made similar claims. Therefore, you must have your "doubts" about their testimony as well, and assume they were "exaggerating".

Do you need me to again provide the definitions for the words "doubt" and "exaggerate", or are you able to determine on your own that they are synonymous with "distrust" and "falsify"?
johnny karate 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 17th March 2009, 02:05 PM   #384
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
seeing as "smoke" generators dont really produce "smoke" , bill may want to brush up on what actually those generators actually produce.

and the "size" of the generator needed to produce the type of REAL smoke, would be on the order of several industrial size refrigerator sized units. Now, tell me, of the 1000 or so people who worked in WTC 7, no one noticed these huge "mystery" machine like items being installed on their floors over the weeks prior to 9/11 or does BILL really think they were all being installed on 9/11 while the building was on fire?

this is as preposterous as the "demolition" theory for WTC 7

ETA:
website:
http://www.smokemachines.net/full-sm...-listing.shtml

The site is the "biggest" supplier of smoke machines, and I dont see anything listed that would be needed to create the type of "effect" as seen on 9/11. Most of them are VERY small units (mostly portable, can be carried by hand).

you'd need thousands of such units in order to create the magnitude of smoke seen on 9/11.

Most units are water based and oil based, some are dry ice.

some units are self-made (there are instructions to building one of your own), but again, they would leave behind EVIDENCE, as seen of this type of smoke generator, used for a MOVIE SET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smoke_Machine.jpg

Again, even at this size, you'd need at least a few hundred to create the type of effect seen on 9/11 and last over 7 hours.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

Last edited by Arus808; 17th March 2009 at 02:11 PM.
Arus808 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 17th March 2009, 02:17 PM   #385
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,838
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Smoke generators at outdoor rock concerts produce smoke that looks exactly like this. I don't think that many people who see this clip will have many doubts about what they are seeing. I may be wrong but I would love to test it on public broadcast TV with a call-in afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY
www.roadies4truth.com
Wolrab 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 17th March 2009, 02:21 PM   #386
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Certainly:



Several firefighters made similar claims. Therefore, you must have your "doubts" about their testimony as well, and assume they were "exaggerating".

Do you need me to again provide the definitions for the words "doubt" and "exaggerate", or are you able to determine on your own that they are synonymous with "distrust" and "falsify"?
I thought that to be very understated and reasonable and in no way an indictment of the fireman involved. The video record and most of the anecdotal reporting shows relatively little fire in WTC7 at any point. So when he says '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' I said he was either exaggerating or mistaken. I was absolutely correct in doing so. So you can either agree with me (with the implied apology) or you can agree with the fireman that '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ''.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 17th March 2009 at 02:22 PM. Reason: spelling
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 03:01 PM   #387
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I thought that to be very understated and reasonable and in no way an indictment of the fireman involved. The video record and most of the anecdotal reporting shows relatively little fire in WTC7 at any point. So when he says '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' I said he was either exaggerating or mistaken. I was absolutely correct in doing so. So you can either agree with me (with the implied apology) or you can agree with the fireman that '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ''.
Point 1: More than one firefighter made claims of WTC7 being fully involved. Do I believe them over you? Absolutely. For many obvious reasons.

Point 2: The issue was whether or not you characterized FDNY testimony as untrustworthy. You did, and I proved it. It doesn't matter how "understated" it was, you are effectively calling these firefighters liars.
johnny karate 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 17th March 2009, 03:03 PM   #388
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
I think bill is having a little joke
GlennB 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 17th March 2009, 03:18 PM   #389
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
bill,

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Hello there..
Uncharacteristically monosyllabic ? Cat got your tongue ? lol
Just enjoying you sway everyone over to your side due to your compelling arguments and unassailable hard evidence.

Once we've wrapped up "smoke generators", perhaps we can move on to:

1. Silent explosives
2. Your stated conviction that Les Robertson was convinced that jet planes would bounce off of the building, and that this is why he did not consider the consequences of fuel and fires.
3. The molecular disruption of the walls that was necessary to get the plane thru them.
4. Frank de Martini's structural screen netting.
5. The hundreds of government shills that were pre-planted on the streets of NYC to begin crafting the official CT immediately.
6. Your stated conclusion that ae911 completely debunked the NIST WTC7 reports within hours of its release.
7. Your conclusion that the interruption of the TV signals when the plane hit the South Tower was evidence of the signal being manipulated.
8. Your stated conclusion that the gubbamint broke into the house of one of the passenger's next of kin, planted her personal documents, used voice morphing technology to send that information, for who knows what reason.

All backed up by your incredible, Sherlock Holmesian powers, that somehow left you, seven years after an event that you discuss for many hours per day, unable to find WTC7 on a map. And had you adamantly insisting that WTC7 was really the Winter Gardens.

Or did you prefer me "monosyllabic".

tom
tfk 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 17th March 2009, 03:22 PM   #390
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Point 1: More than one firefighter made claims of WTC7 being fully involved. Do I believe them over you? Absolutely. For many obvious reasons.

Point 2: The issue was whether or not you characterized FDNY testimony as untrustworthy. You did, and I proved it. It doesn't matter how "understated" it was, you are effectively calling these firefighters liars.
1.So then I can take it that Johnny Karate states that he is in full agreement with the fireman that ' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire,from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ' I'll start a file. You never know when information like that might be important. Please advise by return If this is not so.

2. Exaggerating or being mistaken are not felonies or misdemeanours. They are simle human failings or weaknesses. Suggesting that someone is exaggerating or is mistaken is therefore only a simle criticism and has nothing to do with lying.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 03:30 PM   #391
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I think bill is having a little joke
Glenn,

Bill is a little joke.

You misunderstand him if you think that he cares about being wrong. Or being embarrassed.

Some of us that have crossed swords with him for quite a while know that all of the issues that I list above - and far more - are part of his standard repertoire.

He will, after being drubbed soundly, return in a few months and happily bring "smoke generators" back into any discussion. And he will then claim that "all you hot shots at JREF were unable to disprove his smoke generator theory" and that "he really whipped your collective butts in the argument".

We are at a loss as to how someone could be so resolutely senseless. And immune to the embarrassment of making a humiliating spectacle of himself in public.

The only speculations that we've been able to come up with is that
a) this is the only opportunity that this high school drop-out has to poke at engineers & scientists. And imagine that he's whippin' em good.
b) he's moving 9-11 merchandise.

Nothing else makes much sense.

tom
tfk 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 17th March 2009, 03:35 PM   #392
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
bill,



Just enjoying you sway everyone over to your side due to your compelling arguments and unassailable hard evidence.

Once we've wrapped up "smoke generators", perhaps we can move on to:

1. Silent explosives
2. Your stated conviction that Les Robertson was convinced that jet planes would bounce off of the building, and that this is why he did not consider the consequences of fuel and fires.
3. The molecular disruption of the walls that was necessary to get the plane thru them.
4. Frank de Martini's structural screen netting.
5. The hundreds of government shills that were pre-planted on the streets of NYC to begin crafting the official CT immediately.
6. Your stated conclusion that ae911 completely debunked the NIST WTC7 reports within hours of its release.
7. Your conclusion that the interruption of the TV signals when the plane hit the South Tower was evidence of the signal being manipulated.
8. Your stated conclusion that the gubbamint broke into the house of one of the passenger's next of kin, planted her personal documents, used voice morphing technology to send that information, for who knows what reason.

All backed up by your incredible, Sherlock Holmesian powers, that somehow left you, seven years after an event that you discuss for many hours per day, unable to find WTC7 on a map. And had you adamantly insisting that WTC7 was really the Winter Gardens.

Or did you prefer me "monosyllabic".


tom
Hello hello

This length of post is fine, but not the book-length ones please. Less is more. I told you many times.
Some interesing topics there. But not all of them are mine.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 17th March 2009 at 03:43 PM. Reason: spelling
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 03:37 PM   #393
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Hello there..


Uncharacteristically monosyllabic ? Cat got your tongue ? lol
con/vec/tion 3 syllables

Originally Posted by GStan View Post
Ahem.

Bill, again, how did you calculate this? Please show your work.

(Perhaps you thought Twinstead's acknowledgement that "your eyes" told you would be sufficient. It's not.)
You asked the question what would be creating the smoke pouring out of the broken windows. The short answer is convection, which is a large step more in explanation than your contention that there just has to be a smoke generator (other than the actual offices fires).
Will you now tell us how it is that you determine that there is too much smoke for the fires that were occuring in WTC 7. As said above, if your calculation is a strictly "my eyes are telling me this" then just say so.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I thought that to be very understated and reasonable and in no way an indictment of the fireman involved. The video record and most of the anecdotal reporting shows relatively little fire in WTC7 at any point. So when he says '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors' I said he was either exaggerating or mistaken. I was absolutely correct in doing so. So you can either agree with me (with the implied apology) or you can agree with the fireman that '' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ''.
The record of what fires were burning is well docuemented in the WTC 7 report. Have you bothered to read it?
Each of the several fires burning in WTC 7 would have been considered major fires in and of themselves and the fires in the vicinity of the initial failure were the largest of those.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
In fact you distrust the FF accounts of major fires in WTC 7, you distrust the FF accounts that the building was in danger of collapsing and you distrust the FF accounts that do not include your contention that there was more smoke than should have been generated by the fires. In short you are discounting the FF accounts pretty much in their entireity and accepting only the minor, obvious point that there was fire in the building.

Thus by your own words you have demonstrated, though not actually come out and been honest about stating it directly, that you find the statements made by the FF's to be suspect, untrustworthy and lacking of mention of aspects that you believe are obvious.
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 17th March 2009, 03:37 PM   #394
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
<snip>
2. Exaggerating or being mistaken are not felonies or misdemeanours. They are simle human failings or weaknesses. Suggesting that someone is exaggerating or is mistaken is therefore only a simle criticism and has nothing to do with lying.
bill,

Ahh, that would be like suggesting that Barry Jennings & Willie Rodriguez were simply mistaken ...

Something that you were completely unwilling to distinguish from accusations of lying when others (including me) made them.

Since it didn't fit your immediate agenda at that time.

tk
tfk 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 17th March 2009, 03:58 PM   #395
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
1.So then I can take it that Johnny Karate states that he is in full agreement with the firemen that ' WTC7 was FULLY involved in fire,from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors ' I'll start a file. You never know when information like that might be important. Please advise by return If this is not so.
Fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
2. Exaggerating or being mistaken are not felonies or misdemeanours. They are simle human failings or weaknesses. Suggesting that someone is exaggerating or is mistaken is therefore only a simle criticism and has nothing to do with lying.
Exaggerating has everything to with lying, as an exaggeration is a lie. I'd be happy to give you the definition of the word again.

You want to claim the words of these firefighters are untrue, without claiming the firefighters are being untruthful. This is called cognitive dissonance, a trait shared by most Truthers.
johnny karate 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 17th March 2009, 04:05 PM   #396
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
con/vec/tion 3 syllables



You asked the question what would be creating the smoke pouring out of the broken windows. The short answer is convection, which is a large step more in explanation than your contention that there just has to be a smoke generator (other than the actual offices fires).
Will you now tell us how it is that you determine that there is too much smoke for the fires that were occuring in WTC 7. As said above, if your calculation is a strictly "my eyes are telling me this" then just say so.



The record of what fires were burning is well docuemented in the WTC 7 report. Have you bothered to read it?
Each of the several fires burning in WTC 7 would have been considered major fires in and of themselves and the fires in the vicinity of the initial failure were the largest of those.
On the syllables; I was using literary licence. You were being narrowly literal.

On the smoke generator; This is unprovable and is only a curiousity in debating terms.. It's main use to the Truth Community will be televisual. Allow the TV audience to watch the clip and answer multiple choice questions. 1.Is this smoke being blown out of a window ? 2. Is this a smoke-generator ?

On NIST. I use NIST for occasional reference, but since David Chandler busted them on the free-fall thing I don't trust one single word they say.

Always emember that the starting point of science is observation. Everything else comes after that.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 17th March 2009 at 04:08 PM. Reason: spelling
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 04:15 PM   #397
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post

Always emember that the starting point of science is observation. Everything else comes after that.
I saw three buildings come down that day because of aircraft impacts to two of them causing structural damage and fires that resulted in collateral damage to adjacent buildings.

prove me wrong mister science.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith 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 17th March 2009, 04:18 PM   #398
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Fixed that for you.



Exaggerating has everything to with lying, as an exaggeration is a lie. I'd be happy to give you the definition of the word again.

You want to claim the words of these firefighters are untrue, without claiming the firefighters are being untruthful. This is called cognitive dissonance, a trait shared by most Truthers.
Consent by silence. I will generate the file.

I claim the the fireman overtated he case as he evidently did. I also suggested that he might have made a mistake. This is obviously a fair and reasonable criticism and not an accusation of him being a liar.

I have a feeling that Shills know much more CD than Truthers do.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 17th March 2009 at 04:37 PM. Reason: spelling
bill smith 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 17th March 2009, 04:30 PM   #399
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Smoke generators in WTC7. LOL. I don't think I've heard that one before. Thank you very much for the laugh, bill.

(Just to be clear, I am laughing in your face bill)
I have a better response to the Smoke Generators in WTC7 crapola.




Last edited by dudalb; 17th March 2009 at 04:32 PM.
dudalb 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 17th March 2009, 04:34 PM   #400
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I have a better response to the Smoke Generators in WTC7 crapola.



Don't forget to brush your teeth next time.lol
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 17th March 2009 at 04:34 PM. Reason: spelling
bill smith 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

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 09:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.