Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
JREF'ers still have no proof of the raging inferno; They always ask for hard evidence unless
Topic Started: May 7 2008, 03:57 AM (4,188 Views)
einsteen
Member Avatar

..unless it is the official BS nonsense

I left the forum some time ago, but sometimes I have to read some parts and some of those fools make me smile

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113015&page=6
Edited by einsteen, May 7 2008, 03:58 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Headspin
Member Avatar

why give that site publicity, they only exist to feed off the truth movement. they are parasitic nihilists.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nihilist
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

how nice of them to dedicate a thread for me.

i recommend NIST hire the JREF since NIST still can't explain the collapse.....lol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
einsteen
Member Avatar

I signed up a long time ago because all google hits went to that site (and physorg), but you're right HeadSpin, that attention is not needed, but they do the same thing about truther forums. But a lot of people over there are dominant in the debunking world, they raise debunking sites etc, there are also a couple of good OCT'ers out there but you can count them on one hand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Justice4All

JREF'rs are a sad group of minions. Are they government shills? Or lost souls brainwashed into complete denial of the truth?

WTC7 was a Las Vegas style controlled demolition. End of story.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Justice4All
May 7 2008, 09:26 PM
JREF'rs are a sad group of minions. Are they government shills? Or lost souls brainwashed into complete denial of the truth?
They are EXACTLY what they claim we are. :|

Think about that....

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Citizen Pawn
Member Avatar

JREF will NEVER have photos of that supposed 'raging inferno'. Because the photo evidence DOESN'T EXIST. And if it does, it's in a photoshop file on one of their computers....period.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sevon

Wasn't it the firefighters who claimed that there were severe fires in WTC7? Were they lying or did they just not know what they were talking about?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Don't you call the ones who say explosions were going off liars?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sevon

Domenick DiMaggio CIT
May 8 2008, 10:21 AM
Don't you call the ones who say explosions were going off liars?
No.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Headspin
Member Avatar

what about the firefighters who state they saw "molten steel", "like lava","rivers of molten steel", "like you were in a foundry", "like a volcano" .

Were they lying or did they just not know what they were talking about?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sevon

Headspin
May 8 2008, 10:44 AM
what about the firefighters who state they saw "molten steel", "like lava","rivers of molten steel", "like you were in a foundry", "like a volcano" .

Were they lying or did they just not know what they were talking about?
Firefighters are trained experts in firefighting, not in the identification of molten metals. When they're discussing fire, I expect them to know what they're talking about.
Edited by sevon, May 8 2008, 10:51 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Headspin
Member Avatar

sevon
May 8 2008, 10:50 AM
Headspin
May 8 2008, 10:44 AM
what about the firefighters who state they saw "molten steel", "like lava","rivers of molten steel", "like you were in a foundry", "like a volcano" .

Were they lying or did they just not know what they were talking about?
Firefighters are trained experts in firefighting, not in the identification of molten metals. When they're discussing fire, I expect them to know what they're talking about.
so you're saying they have no experience of dealing with molten metals in their job then?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sevon

Headspin
May 8 2008, 11:31 AM
sevon
May 8 2008, 10:50 AM
Headspin
May 8 2008, 10:44 AM
what about the firefighters who state they saw "molten steel", "like lava","rivers of molten steel", "like you were in a foundry", "like a volcano" .

Were they lying or did they just not know what they were talking about?
Firefighters are trained experts in firefighting, not in the identification of molten metals. When they're discussing fire, I expect them to know what they're talking about.
so you're saying they have no experience of dealing with molten metals in their job then?
They may occasionally encounter molten metals as part of their job, but their primary training and experience is fires and fire-fighting, not molten metal identification.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

1 word - Magnesium.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Citizen Pawn
Member Avatar

sevon
May 8 2008, 09:47 AM
Wasn't it the firefighters who claimed that there were severe fires in WTC7? Were they lying or did they just not know what they were talking about?
I'm not claiming firefighters lied. I'm claiming that there is no photographic evidence that supports their assertion. Aren't 'you guys' big fans of the "well people make mistakes reporting what they see all the time" mantra?

There was no 'raging inferno'.

And yes, aren't you the same people that won't give any credit to witnesses on the ground for seeing things that contradict the WTC 7 story? If you take firefighters worrds so literally, how come you won't question the 'molten' lava they described, or explosions, or "hey get outa here, there's bombs going off in that building, you gotta get outa here man!".

We can play tit for tat all day on this. I can call your cherry pick and raise you a cherry pick for all the chips all day.


There was no raging inferno.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Citizen Pawn
Member Avatar

sevon
May 8 2008, 12:07 PM
Headspin
May 8 2008, 11:31 AM
sevon
May 8 2008, 10:50 AM
Headspin
May 8 2008, 10:44 AM
what about the firefighters who state they saw "molten steel", "like lava","rivers of molten steel", "like you were in a foundry", "like a volcano" .

Were they lying or did they just not know what they were talking about?
Firefighters are trained experts in firefighting, not in the identification of molten metals. When they're discussing fire, I expect them to know what they're talking about.
so you're saying they have no experience of dealing with molten metals in their job then?
They may occasionally encounter molten metals as part of their job, but their primary training and experience is fires and fire-fighting, not molten metal identification.
Yeah, forget what they saw, forget the fact that there is a historical record of more than one person who deals with fire everyday, claiming they saw molten ANYTHING. Yep, brush all that aside because "They're not experts trained in identifying molten metal".

That 'logic' is unbelievable and unattainable, and you know it. That would be equivalent to saying that the only credible witness to such an event would have to be someone on the level of an alchemist, physicist, demolition expert, or metallurgist...on the scene that day. And all others are moot and irrelevant.

Serve a purpose don't they? These fantastic goalposts and litmus tests?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SPreston
Member Avatar
Patriotic American
Citizen Pawn
 
Yeah, forget what they saw, forget the fact that there is a historical record of more than one person who deals with fire everyday, claiming they saw molten ANYTHING. Yep, brush all that aside because "They're not experts trained in identifying molten metal".

That 'logic' is unbelievable and unattainable, and you know it. That would be equivalent to saying that the only credible witness to such an event would have to be someone on the level of an alchemist, physicist, demolition expert, or metallurgist...on the scene that day. And all others are moot and irrelevant.

Serve a purpose don't they? These fantastic goalposts and litmus tests?

Fanatical government loyalists are very good at moving goal posts and rewriting the official fantasy.

The Government Loyalist Debating Team
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DoYouEverWonder

sevon
May 8 2008, 09:47 AM
Wasn't it the firefighters who claimed that there were severe fires in WTC7? Were they lying or did they just not know what they were talking about?
How many firefighters knew the layout of the WTC and which building was which number before 9/11? There were raging fires in WTC 5 & 6. Maybe that is what they saw and not knowing one building from another misspoke or were misinformed?

There is visual evidence for one raging fire on one floor in WTC 7. That raging fire was burning itself out and there is no evidence that it jumped floors or spread.
Edited by DoYouEverWonder, May 9 2008, 06:15 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sevon

Citizen Pawn
May 8 2008, 10:44 PM
sevon
May 8 2008, 09:47 AM
Wasn't it the firefighters who claimed that there were severe fires in WTC7? Were they lying or did they just not know what they were talking about?
I'm not claiming firefighters lied. I'm claiming that there is no photographic evidence that supports their assertion. Aren't 'you guys' big fans of the "well people make mistakes reporting what they see all the time" mantra?

There was no 'raging inferno'.

And yes, aren't you the same people that won't give any credit to witnesses on the ground for seeing things that contradict the WTC 7 story? If you take firefighters worrds so literally, how come you won't question the 'molten' lava they described, or explosions, or "hey get outa here, there's bombs going off in that building, you gotta get outa here man!".

We can play tit for tat all day on this. I can call your cherry pick and raise you a cherry pick for all the chips all day.


There was no raging inferno.
"Raging inferno" isn't an objective measurement. The FDNY claimed that the fires were so intense they were worried that it would collapse.

You can read a detailed description of this by Arthur Scheuerman, retired FDNY Battalion Chief:
HERE

As to the firefighters expertise, they are trained to fight fires, and to fight them safely. They are experts in knowing the severity of a fire. They are not experts in identifying molten metals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Justice4All

Quote:
 
"Raging inferno" isn't an objective measurement. The FDNY claimed that the fires were so intense they were worried that it would collapse.

You can read a detailed description of this by Arthur Scheuerman, retired FDNY Battalion Chief:
HERE

As to the firefighters expertise, they are trained to fight fires, and to fight them safely. They are experts in knowing the severity of a fire. They are not experts in identifying molten metals.


LOL. How often do modern high rise steel frame buildings collapse due to fires? Then why would FDNY be worried it would collapse? BS. Bunk. All it takes is some influential Feds to coerce a few FDNY to fib. Are they all in on it? Well, are all cops crooked? Of course not. But the FACT is SOME cops are crooked and that would mean SOME FDNY can be crooked as well. Stop being an apologist and realize that some FDNY are parroting lies. Being that 9/11 was planned well in advance, it would not be difficult to infiltrate the FDNY with shills to create these testimonial lies.
Edited by Justice4All, May 9 2008, 10:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sevon

Justice4All
May 9 2008, 10:26 AM
Quote:
 
"Raging inferno" isn't an objective measurement. The FDNY claimed that the fires were so intense they were worried that it would collapse.

You can read a detailed description of this by Arthur Scheuerman, retired FDNY Battalion Chief:
HERE

As to the firefighters expertise, they are trained to fight fires, and to fight them safely. They are experts in knowing the severity of a fire. They are not experts in identifying molten metals.


LOL. How often do modern high rise steel frame buildings collapse due to fires? Then why would FDNY be worried it would collapse? BS. Bunk. All it takes is some influential Feds to coerce a few FDNY to fib. Are they all in on it? Well, are all cops crooked? Of course not. But the FACT is SOME cops are crooked and that would mean SOME FDNY can be crooked as well. Stop being an apologist and realize that some FDNY are parroting lies. Being that 9/11 was planned well in advance, it would not be difficult to infiltrate the FDNY with shills to create these testimonial lies.
Read the words of the Battalion chief. He was there, you were not. His statements are echoed by plenty of other firefighters who were on the scene.

The fact that you now claim the FDNY are involved in your conspiracy is ridiculous and despicable. That's no better than accusing victims families of involvement.

Edit: And what makes you think that any firefighter would lie to protect the very people who killed his coworkers/friends/brothers/loved ones on that day? Absolutely ridiculous.
Edited by sevon, May 9 2008, 10:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
William Rea

sevon
May 9 2008, 10:36 AM
Justice4All
May 9 2008, 10:26 AM
Quote:
 
"Raging inferno" isn't an objective measurement. The FDNY claimed that the fires were so intense they were worried that it would collapse.

You can read a detailed description of this by Arthur Scheuerman, retired FDNY Battalion Chief:
HERE

As to the firefighters expertise, they are trained to fight fires, and to fight them safely. They are experts in knowing the severity of a fire. They are not experts in identifying molten metals.


LOL. How often do modern high rise steel frame buildings collapse due to fires? Then why would FDNY be worried it would collapse? BS. Bunk. All it takes is some influential Feds to coerce a few FDNY to fib. Are they all in on it? Well, are all cops crooked? Of course not. But the FACT is SOME cops are crooked and that would mean SOME FDNY can be crooked as well. Stop being an apologist and realize that some FDNY are parroting lies. Being that 9/11 was planned well in advance, it would not be difficult to infiltrate the FDNY with shills to create these testimonial lies.
Read the words of the Battalion chief. He was there, you were not. His statements are echoed by plenty of other firefighters who were on the scene.

The fact that you now claim the FDNY are involved in your conspiracy is ridiculous and despicable. That's no better than accusing victims families of involvement.

Edit: And what makes you think that any firefighter would lie to protect the very people who killed his coworkers/friends/brothers/loved ones on that day? Absolutely ridiculous.
A few quotes from your linked article...

"I believe..."
"There was speculation..."
"...appears to be a very severe, but ordinary..."
"...could have..."
"...and possibly..."
"...could have..."
"...possibly..."
"...may have been..."
"It is unknown whether..."
"...may have..."
"...might have..."
"...possibly..."
"...could have..."
"...may have..."
"...could also..."
"...could have..."
"...could have..."
"This is certainly possible and may have happened..."
"...might have..."
"...could have..."
"...could have..."
"...could have..."
"...would probably..."
"...could have..."

He was there but he doesn't seem sure about much does he. I'm sure he has legitimate Architectural or Structural qualifications to back up this speculation.

Isn't it odd that the one thing you claim he might be expert in is the severity of the fires and yet he barely discusses that? The truth is that there is currently very little FACTUAL evidence regarding the severty of the fires. Regardless of that you carry on speculating without real evidence which is the one thing you consistently accuse "Truthers" of? The word hypocrit comes to mind!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Justice4All

sevon
May 9 2008, 10:36 AM
The fact that you now claim the FDNY are involved in your conspiracy is ridiculous and despicable. That's no better than accusing victims families of involvement.

Edit: And what makes you think that any firefighter would lie to protect the very people who killed his coworkers/friends/brothers/loved ones on that day? Absolutely ridiculous.
Everyone has a price man. That's life. Get over it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Citizen Pawn
Member Avatar

Ok, so it's "Severe fires" according to you.

The fact still stands that there is NO VISUAL EVIDENCE of even 'severe' fires. You have at best, photos of severe smoke (dark gray) of which it's source isn't even exactly known.

Unlike other photos of fires which can be raging and produce dark smoke(the thought that dark smoke means fires are dying being bullshit), the WTC 7 fire shows no such characteristics.


How many times must I say it, there is NO INTERNET PHOTO ARCHIVE of any "severe fires"(your words) in WTC 7. None from any helicopter, from any stationary camera, from any news agency, from any source. The visual evidence doesn't support the fire theory, and your link you gave is also filled with speculation , and why is the firefighter "contributing" to NIST's analysis he claims was due in 2007?

Here's a quote from him:


"The fire shown in photos 21 and 22 appears to be a very severe, but ordinary, office fire and was well above the area supplied with oil lines. There is a strong possibility that this building collapsed from this office fire alone. NIST was scheduled to complete its analysis of the cause of the collapse in late 2007. This report is my contribution toward the analysis."

Reference to this photo? Posted Image

Another quote from Sheuerman:

"I believe the collapse was unlikely to have started below the 5th floor"

People have to "believe", because no real authority has yet efficiently explained it.


"This fire must have dropped down to or spread up from the 11th floor, since another photo shows fire at four windows on the 11th floor"


"With a serious large area fire on the 12th floor, the two foot wide, long-span steel beams on the 13th floor, depending on the amount of fireproofing insulation installed, could have expanded and bowed, sagged or buckled downward and possibly twisted out or flopped over from the uncontrolled fire."


"As the steel beams first expanded from the heat, the studs might have pulled the slower expanding concrete into tension"

"The sag could have also separated the wire mesh bond in the concrete over the girder"

"If other floor connections failed, these strong connections might have held and pulled a line of core columns eastward"

"Tension in the suspended floors above the buckled columns could have put floor connections to the core columns under immediate severe lateral stress on all the floors above 13"


*Bolding mine.


You get the point, the whole article is filled with this speculation and wording.

So you link to a Battalion Chief , who by his own words hints at severity (but ordinary????) office fire, that alone could have caused the collapse(when now steel framed building has ever reacted like that in history, especially with an office fire)((((revision post fact much???)))). Then he offers his best guess scenario as to what "could have happened", all through his article....and that means what exactly?

The funny thing about it, is that there is still no evidence of this 'severe fire' in all of the photographs I've scoured.
And if there was, you STILL have to make it jive with the fact that the physical evidence even shows the 'gash' as minimal. But yet we AGAIN hear how a gash + "severe fire"= yet another global failure, won't we.

It's like NIST's scale of probability...low...but surprisingly it's WHAT HAPPENED!!!! Case closed. Bazant and Zhou...low...but it's HOW IT HAPPENED KIDS!!!Case closed. Wait...NIST didn't get into the 'collapse',lol....oops.

Now please, show me a photo or video of this 'severe fire'. I fyou have a hard time defining your meaning of 'severe' explain it to me. Your version of 'severe' could be 1 story in height X 5 offices. I dunno, maybe we should first define what 'severe' is.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »
Add Reply