Jump to content

AF FIGHTER PILOT COMES OUT FOR 9/11


Recommended Posts

Guest Steve
Posted

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:47:47 -0400, Defendario

<Defendario@netscape.com> wrote:

>Ned Flanders wrote:

>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message

>> news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com...

>>

>> <chomp>

>>

>>>> Cite for the steel guy.

>>

>>

>> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>

>I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening.

>

>> I understand that his company were responsible for

>> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>> not the case for WTC 7.

>

>The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building

>was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers.

>

>No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise.

 

No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious.

>> However building regulations require

>> the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the

>> same or similar high tensile structural steel.

>>

>

>Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain

>credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and

>fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to

>mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the

>building, nearly a block away.

>

>Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor

>William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was

>shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may.

>

>9/11 = INSIDE JOB

>

 

inside your head, maybe.....

  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Steve
Posted

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders"

<iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

>

>"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message

>news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net...

>

>

> <chomp>

>

>

>> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>>

>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening.

>>

>> > I understand that his company were responsible for

>> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>> > not the case for WTC 7.

>>

>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building

>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers.

>>

>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise.

>

>

>There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers.

>Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel.

 

<LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough....

 

>> > However building regulations require

>> > the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the

>> > same or similar high tensile structural steel.

>> >

>>

>> Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain

>> credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and

>> fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to

>> mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the

>> building, nearly a block away.

>>

>> Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor

>> William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was

>> shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may.

>>

>> 9/11 = INSIDE JOB

>

>Well said.

>

Guest Steve
Posted

On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 14:06:34 +1000, "Ned Flanders"

<iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

><cut n paste from http://wtc7.net/ >

>

 

> and why has the media

>remained silent?

 

It as to do with not wanting to look like a bunch of idiots...

Guest Al Dykes
Posted

In article <wlYRh.1892$SK3.856@trnddc03>,

David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>

>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message...

>

>> >They frequently leave out parts that make it clear that the

>> >guy/gal's use of "explosion", etc was followed by text that makes it

>> >clear that it was just 500,000 tons of stuff falling around him.

>

>Wow... is this ever a shill, bullsh t, assertion.

 

I note that you never say that any of my examples are false.

 

You deleted the documented examples i dug up. Thank you for giving me

an excuse to post them again so even more of the lurkers can see what

bullshit the truth movement is.

 

Always check Truthie quotes for NY firemem in the official

transcripts. The Truthies have a habit of deleating firemem s words

that show their claims are lies.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

 

 

Always ask Truthies for citations to undedited source material. Be

suspect of any specific claim until the citation can be verified.

 

There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement"

committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly

repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap.

 

There is zero effort by the Truthies to fact check and correct their

own material. The worst are the alleged "peer reviewed" sites. They

contain fraudlent quotes by NYFD/EMS personel that can be shown to

differ from the public record. One of the steps in peer review is

fact checking.

 

Examples;

 

From many Truthy site; http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

 

It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on

certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."

- NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera

 

The Truthies edited Rivera's text to make it clear what he saw. Here it is.

 

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN

A: THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE

Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE

A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE.

AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL

DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN

FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP

POP THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT

IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE

THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWN

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO

A: RUN MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAN INTO THE

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF

 

 

If you think the NYT site lies, I can put you in touch with Rivera'a

union rep and you can accuse him of saying things he didn't say,

maybe to his face.

 

Here is the page of official testimony for about 500 first responders.

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

 

You can check lots of trythy quotes here, and if the Truty site says

something different, it's not impossible to contact any of them and

verify quote.

 

I first came across these fraud edited NYFD quotes on Jones' "peer

reviewed" 911 site. (there are more misleadingly edited quotes

there). One task of peer review is fact checking. It's clear that the

site is bullshit.

 

 

That's enough of the fine people in NYFD and EMS. Here are more;

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Many sites have quotes similar to this;

 

Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic

controllers thought Flight 77 was a military plane based on

its maneuverability;

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html

 

but it leaves out the end of the statement,

"... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

 

My point isn't that the quote is goldplate accurate,

it's that the Truthies have edited pertenant info out,

not told us, and not given URLs to sources.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller,

as seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash;

over the next several weeks Miller goes on to identify 12

passengers "using mostly dental records."[31]

 

http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

There are quotes like thisinterview of chief flight instructor Marcel

Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills

when he took

 

Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite,

meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said,

they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed

that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee

said. "He could not fly at all.

 

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

 

It fails to clarify Bernard's expert opinion on Hanjour's ability to

hit the Pentagon. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that

[hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a

building and hit it."

 

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html

 

-------------------------

 

 

 

http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

 

 

---------

 

My favorite example of how these conspiracy theorists such as the guys

behind Loose Change selectively edit information in order to get the

desired conclusion is the CNN interview with the guy outside the

Pentagon right after the plane hit. The guy said (and I'm

paraphrasing) "It was a red and blue plane, clearly a United Jet, and

it crashed into the side of the Pentagon. It looked like a missile

when it was coming toward the building and there was a giant explosion

when I saw the plane hit the building." The conspiracy theorists edit

out everything except for "It looked like a missile" and use that as

absolute proof that a missile and not a plane hit the Pentagon.

 

-----------

 

 

I've been asking for months about where this 35 seconds of video came

from. I'd like to know what the Truthies edited out, given the above.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287

 

-----------

 

 

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Guest Al Dykes
Posted

In article <46186048$0$22073$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,

Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

>

>"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message

>news:86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>

>

>

>> And the guy who got fired ?

>> Who was he ?

>

>

>Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>I understand that his company were responsible for

>certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>not the case for WTC 7.

>However building regulations require

>the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the

>same or similar high tensile structural steel.

>

 

 

OK. I remember. He said the fact that UL didn't "certify" the steel

at WTC and that this was in some way part of the conspiracy.

 

The fact is that UL doesn't certify any steel.

 

As an employee of a subsidiary of UL, he was fired for what sounds to

me like a legit reason; making public errouneous statements about his

employeer.

 

 

 

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Guest Al Dykes
Posted

In article <46182343$0$22073$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,

Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

>

>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message

>news:ev86jm$326$1@panix5.panix.com...

>

><snip>

>

>> That's a fine sentiment, but start from the fact, true so far, that

>> there is nobody in the world with appropriate expertise that says that

>> explosives/thermite/thermate explain who WTC1/2/7 collapsed and that a

>> 757 hit the Pentagon.

>>

>> Feel free to indict and impeach the Bush administration for their lies

>> and war, but base the case on what they did, and the public record,

>> not bullshit.

>

>Agreed.

>But there are way too many anomalies concerning 9/11 to ignore.

>Please feel free to dismiss them all, and believe whatever you want.

 

 

name some of these "anomalies.

 

 

 

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists

A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

 

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who

are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep",

patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

 

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no

matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what

they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even

if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time,

when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.)

Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go

on and on at enormous length.

 

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise

their determination to the principle of questioning everything,

they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics

about the claims that they make.

 

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui

bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the

importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's

"once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however

unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is

that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any

responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you

simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account

can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your

choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is

therefore the truth.

 

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the

principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the

small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed

by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in

any alternative account.

 

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have

no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the

respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by

anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand

that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual

enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do

this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the

sceptics for apparently lacking same.

 

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy

theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be

without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any

of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking

(see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their

claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather

than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

 

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed

to declare the "official" account totally discredited without

having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them

to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small

inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered

questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure

from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to

declare the "official" account clearly and definitively

discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to

prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they

even definitely exist.

 

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their

claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the

Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to

try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded

some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to

reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always

far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies

with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something

might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it

anything other than extremely unlikely.

 

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the

body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are

producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions

which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because

the most important thing about these people is that they are

people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good

theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad

evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And

for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when

they ask the same question.

 

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over

again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac,

then at very least, a bore.

 

 

 

 

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide

 

1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial

evidence; Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as

opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant

forensic evidence.

 

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or

emotional impact; Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has

near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that

may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

 

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral

actions; Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors

and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and

designed by immoral individuals.

 

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual

conspirators; Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the

existence of powerful individual conspirators from the

'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a

person.

 

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators; May

require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant

resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological

insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

 

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive

reasoning; Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much

confidence as deductive ones.

 

7. Appeals to 'common sense'; Common sense steps substitute for the

more robust, academically respectable methodologies available

for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

 

8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;

Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable

among the key steps of the argument.

 

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and

generally lacking peer review; Story originates with a person

who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys

popularity among persons who lack critical (especially

technical) knowledge.

 

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of

relevant science; At least some of the story's believers believe

it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific

facts.

 

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities; Academics and

professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too

frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority

in disproving.

 

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated

through elaborate new twists in the narrative;

 

When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the

conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to

discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part

of the conspiracy.'

 

 

 

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Guest Tankfixer
Posted

In article <2RYRh.644$vo2.352@trnddc01>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled

>

> "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> ...

>

> > Hey, learn how to read headers and get the quotes right.

>

>

> Sorry Steve... I don't see a number of people's posts due to

> the filtering of brain-dead shill. I was responding to Dykes via

> your quote of him, and I cut the wrong attribution... my bad.

 

Kind of dishonest of you to filter someone and then try to respond to

them.

 

 

 

--

Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a

diet of static text and

cascading "threads."

Guest Tankfixer
Posted

In article <wlYRh.1892$SK3.856@trnddc03>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm

mumbled

>

> 110 stories.... 11 seconds.

>

 

Yup, them particle accelerators we shot at them from orbit sure worked..

 

 

--

Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a

diet of static text and

cascading "threads."

Guest Tankfixer
Posted

In article <46186048$0$22073$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,

iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled

>

> "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message

> news:86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>

>

>

> > And the guy who got fired ?

> > Who was he ?

>

>

> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

> I understand that his company were responsible for

> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

> not the case for WTC 7.

> However building regulations require

> the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the

> same or similar high tensile structural steel.

 

 

Looks like someone who attempted to speak for his employer when no

authorised and got fired for it.

 

 

--

Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a

diet of static text and

cascading "threads."

Guest Al Dykes
Posted

In article <57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net>,

Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote:

>Ned Flanders wrote:

>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message

>> news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com...

>>

>> <chomp>

>>

>>>> Cite for the steel guy.

>>

>>

>> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>

>I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening.

>

>> I understand that his company were responsible for

>> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>> not the case for WTC 7.

>

>The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building

>was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers.

>

>No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise.

 

"No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious

demise."

 

Bullshit.

 

The fires weren't "small". There were major. NYFD couldn't fight them

becuase there was no water in the fire hydrant systemn, most of NYFD's

trucks were destroyed, and a couple hundred firemen were dead.

 

It's funny that Trtuthie videos never show the south side of WTC7,

which was on fire, big-time. Here's one:

 

 

The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene that day, Peter Hayden, repeatedly

used the term "pull" when talking about "pulling everybody back" and

to pull the firefighters from the building.

 

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Note

 

he also says that the building was severely damaged and eveloped a

"large body of fire". He further states that they knew around 2pm that

it was going to collapse, which is hours before it fell.

 

In terms of demolition, "pull" involves attaching cables to the building

and literally pulling it down with heavy equipment. It's what they did

with the remains of building 6 days after the attack. It's nowhere near

what happened with building 7 on the day of the attack.

 

All evidence points to the fact that WTC 7 was not a controlled

demolition, but simply another victim of severe structural damage and

fire, just like the towers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Guest Al Dykes
Posted

In article <46186757$0$16554$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,

Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

>

>"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message

>news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net...

>

>

> <chomp>

>

>

>> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>>

>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening.

>>

>> > I understand that his company were responsible for

>> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>> > not the case for WTC 7.

>>

>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building

>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers.

>>

>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise.

>

>

>There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers.

>Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel.

>

>

>> > However building regulations require

>> > the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the

>> > same or similar high tensile structural steel.

>> >

>>

>> Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain

>> credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and

>> fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to

>> mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the

>> building, nearly a block away.

>>

>> Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor

>> William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was

>> shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may.

>>

>> 9/11 = INSIDE JOB

>

>Well said.

>

>

 

 

 

The fires weren't "small". There were major. NYFD couldn't fight them

becuase there was no water in the hydrant systemn, most of NYFD's

trucks were destroyed, and a couple hundred firemen were dead.

 

It's funny that Trtuthie videos never show the south side of WTC7,

which was on fire, big-time. Here's one:

 

 

 

 

The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene that day, Peter Hayden, repeatedly

used the term "pull" when talking about "pulling everybody back" and

to pull the firefighters from the building.

 

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Note

 

he also says that the building was severely damaged and eveloped a

"large body of fire". He further states that they knew around 2pm that

it was going to collapse, which is hours before it fell.

 

In terms of demolition, "pull" involves attaching cables to the building

and literally pulling it down with heavy equipment. It's what they did

with the remains of building 6 days after the attack. It's nowhere near

what happened with building 7 on the day of the attack.

 

All evidence points to the fact that WTC 7 was not a controlled

demolition, but simply another victim of severe structural damage and

fire, just like the towers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Guest Al Dykes
Posted

In article <46186911$0$5745$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,

Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

><cut n paste from http://wtc7.net/ >

>

>Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11,

>2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building,

>but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

 

"the governemt" never said anything. Lots of people speaking for lots

of agencies have. NIST and professional engineering publications. See

links, below for a few.

 

You are welcome to comment on these claims. You are NOT welcome to

deny that they exist.

 

It's typical of the "Truth Movement" to lie by trying to believe that

there is no public record for the events of 9/11. If they were honest,

they's point to the public record and show how it's wrong or

incomplete. No. They claim, a million times, that there is no public

record.

> The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the

>crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in

>May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

 

Cite something that supprts that claim that is NOT on a Truthie

website. please.

>

>Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most

>mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media

>remained silent?

 

Becuase there was nearly a half a million tons of the stuff and the

vast majority was not interesting. They kepts lots of bits for later

analysis; See

 

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2873.html

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC%20Response%20Presentation%2011122002%20text.pdf

 

Steel was inspected as it was being shipped out, as mentioned

in this clip;

 

"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil

Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New

York (SEONY).who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the

salvage yards

 

(Item 13 from http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

 

 

Other links

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recoverhttp://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#metal

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#micro

 

 

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

 

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

 

 

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Guest Al Dykes
Posted

In article <e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com>,

Steve <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders"

><iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message

>>news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net...

>>

>>

>> <chomp>

>>

>>

>>> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>>>

>>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening.

>>>

>>> > I understand that his company were responsible for

>>> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>>> > not the case for WTC 7.

>>>

>>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building

>>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers.

>>>

>>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise.

>>

>>

>>There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers.

>>Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel.

>

><LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough....

>

 

And expand (about 6 inches per 100 ft @ 500C) which puts tremendous

stress on the rest ofteh structure.

 

The sustained heat (6 hours) also cooks the strenght out of any

concrete.

>

 

The fires weren't "small". There were major. NYFD couldn't fight them

becuase there was no water in the fire hydrant systemn, most of NYFD's

trucks were destroyed, and a couple hundred firemen were dead.

 

It's funny that Trtuthie videos never show the south side of WTC7,

which was on fire, big-time. Here's one:

 

 

 

The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene that day, Peter Hayden, repeatedly

used the term "pull" when talking about "pulling everybody back" and

to pull the firefighters from the building.

 

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Note

 

he also says that the building was severely damaged and eveloped a

"large body of fire". He further states that they knew around 2pm that

it was going to collapse, which is hours before it fell.

 

In terms of demolition, "pull" involves attaching cables to the building

and literally pulling it down with heavy equipment. It's what they did

with the remains of building 6 days after the attack. It's nowhere near

what happened with building 7 on the day of the attack.

 

All evidence points to the fact that WTC 7 was not a controlled

demolition, but simply another victim of severe structural damage and

fire, just like the towers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Guest Al Dykes
Posted

In article <57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net>,

Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote:

>Ned Flanders wrote:

>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message

>> news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com...

>>

>> <chomp>

>>

>>>> Cite for the steel guy.

>>

>>

>> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>

>I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening.

 

 

Did he tell you that he was fired for Making Shit Up,

in public about his employer?

>

>> I understand that his company were responsible for

>> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>> not the case for WTC 7.

>

 

 

Well, you are missunderstood. UL doesn't set standards for

steel. ASTM does.

 

http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art23.htm

 

 

Sorry to puncture your belief system.

 

 

 

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Guest Tankfixer
Posted

In article <evb2sh$m3i$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled

> In article <e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com>,

> Steve <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote:

> >On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders"

> ><iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

> >

> >>

> >>"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message

> >>news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net...

> >>

> >>

> >> <chomp>

> >>

> >>

> >>> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

> >>>

> >>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening.

> >>>

> >>> > I understand that his company were responsible for

> >>> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

> >>> > not the case for WTC 7.

> >>>

> >>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building

> >>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers.

> >>>

> >>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise.

> >>

> >>

> >>There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers.

> >>Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel.

> >

> ><LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough....

> >

>

> And expand (about 6 inches per 100 ft @ 500C) which puts tremendous

> stress on the rest ofteh structure.

 

I would suggest the failure point was not the beams but the bolts hlding

them together...

 

 

--

Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a

diet of static text and

cascading "threads."

Guest Al Dykes
Posted

In article <PV9Sh.135664$_73.88991@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,

Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote:

>In article <evb2sh$m3i$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled

>> In article <e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com>,

>> Steve <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote:

>> >On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders"

>> ><iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

>> >

>> >>

>> >>"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message

>> >>news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net...

>> >>

>> >>

>> >> <chomp>

>> >>

>> >>

>> >>> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>> >>>

>> >>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening.

>> >>>

>> >>> > I understand that his company were responsible for

>> >>> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>> >>> > not the case for WTC 7.

>> >>>

>> >>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building

>> >>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers.

>> >>>

>> >>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise.

>> >>

>> >>

>> >>There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers.

>> >>Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel.

>> >

>> ><LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough....

>> >

>>

>> And expand (about 6 inches per 100 ft @ 500C) which puts tremendous

>> stress on the rest ofteh structure.

>

>I would suggest the failure point was not the beams but the bolts hlding

>them together...

>

 

IOW, the joints. I've made reference to joint failure in several

places and NIST pubs have pictures of same for WTC1/2.

 

You are correct that it is the bolt that fails, and it is LOUD when

that happens. I used to hang out in a metalurgy lab where they did

tensile strenght tests to descruction. Same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Guest Defendario
Posted

Steve wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:47:47 -0400, Defendario

> <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote:

>

>> Ned Flanders wrote:

>>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message

>>> news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com...

>>>

>>> <chomp>

>>>

>>>>> Cite for the steel guy.

>>>

>>> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening.

>>

>>> I understand that his company were responsible for

>>> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>>> not the case for WTC 7.

>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building

>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers.

>>

>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise.

>

> No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious.

>

 

Your ad hom bomb is ignored, shill.

>>> However building regulations require

>>> the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the

>>> same or similar high tensile structural steel.

>>>

>> Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain

>> credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and

>> fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to

>> mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the

>> building, nearly a block away.

>>

>> Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor

>> William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was

>> shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may.

>>

>> 9/11 = INSIDE JOB

>>

>

> inside your head, maybe.....

>

 

IOW, you have nothing.

 

PLONK

Guest Steve
Posted

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:00:17 -0400, Defendario

<Defendario@netscape.com> wrote:

>Steve wrote:

>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:47:47 -0400, Defendario

>> <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote:

>>

>>> Ned Flanders wrote:

>>>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com...

>>>>

>>>> <chomp>

>>>>

>>>>>> Cite for the steel guy.

>>>>

>>>> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

>>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening.

>>>

>>>> I understand that his company were responsible for

>>>> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

>>>> not the case for WTC 7.

>>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building

>>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers.

>>>

>>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise.

>>

>> No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious.

>>

>

>Your ad hom bomb is ignored, shill.

 

hey, that's cool.. I hope you don't mind, but I'm still laughing

over your use of the word,"mysterious." I do understand, however,

how things that appear quite ordinary to us normal people can appear

pretty mysterious to people like yourself.

>>>> However building regulations require

>>>> the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the

>>>> same or similar high tensile structural steel.

>>>>

>>> Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain

>>> credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and

>>> fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to

>>> mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the

>>> building, nearly a block away.

>>>

>>> Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor

>>> William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was

>>> shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may.

>>>

>>> 9/11 = INSIDE JOB

>>>

>>

>> inside your head, maybe.....

>>

>

>IOW, you have nothing.

 

Irony anyone?

> PLONK

>

 

<LOL> ...and with that, the loon thrust his head even deeper into

it's own ass.

Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\)
Posted

"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders"

> <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

> >

> >There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers.

> >Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel.

> <LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough....

 

That sort of seems to reflect the issue here, now doesn't it Steve?

If there had been some "bending" and toppling, and a few sections

of the undamaged structural grade steel remaining erect, we probably

wouldn't be having this conversation.

Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\)
Posted

"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> sputtered forth in message...

> No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/researchers-questioning-the-official-account-of-9-11

 

 

I think the issue is the number of people who apparently don't have

enough brains to see that it was not only suspicious, but intentional.

Guest Steve
Posted

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:22:47 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"

<findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>

>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com...

>

>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders"

>> <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote:

>> >

>> >There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers.

>> >Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel.

>

>> <LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough....

>

>That sort of seems to reflect the issue here, now doesn't it Steve?

>If there had been some "bending" and toppling, and a few sections

>of the undamaged structural grade steel remaining erect, we probably

>wouldn't be having this conversation.

>

>

 

Bending of structural steel in a building can bring it down, you silly

jackass.

Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\)
Posted

"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:964j13ll3f62hc1pj2db25lhgebnkko2b0@4ax.com...

> <LOL> ...and with that, the loon thrust his head even deeper into

> it's own ass.

 

 

Unless you offer something besides personal attacks and insults,

you're short lived on these lists. No one has the time to deal with

the children who are too inexperienced to use their brains.

 

 

 

 

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in

the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

-- James Madison

Guest Steve
Posted

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:25:08 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"

<findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>

>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> sputtered forth in message...

>

>> No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious.

>

>

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11

>

>http://www.answers.com/topic/researchers-questioning-the-official-account-of-9-11

>

>

>I think the issue is the number of people who apparently don't have

>enough brains to see that it was not only suspicious, but intentional.

>

 

 

I think the issue is that a few of you loons have silly fantasies....

 

 

BTW, Wikipedia isn't a good source...any loon can edit it....

Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\)
Posted

"Ned Flanders" <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote in message news:46186048$0$22073$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

>

> "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message

> news:86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>

>

>

> > And the guy who got fired ?

> > Who was he ?

>

>

> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to.

> I understand that his company were responsible for

> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly

> not the case for WTC 7.

> However building regulations require

> the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the

> same or similar high tensile structural steel.

 

 

I am aghast that there are apparently adults living in this word

who not only do not understand structural grade steel alloys,

but some even think that they can burn or bend at the behest

of a little kerosene and office furniture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eliminating the Impossible:

 

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_sheila_s_060329_9_2f11____eliminating_.htm

Guest Steve
Posted

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:28:09 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"

<findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:

>

>"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:964j13ll3f62hc1pj2db25lhgebnkko2b0@4ax.com...

>

>> <LOL> ...and with that, the loon thrust his head even deeper into

>> it's own ass.

>

>

>Unless you offer something besides personal attacks and insults,

>you're short lived on these lists.

 

<ROTLMAO> I've been around laughing at you loons for a very long

time....

> No one has the time to deal with

>the children who are too inexperienced to use their brains.

>

 

 

Unless you offer something besides loony fantasies and unsupported,

illogical rhetoric, you're going to get laughed at....

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...