Monday, October 09, 2006

Gravy on WTC7

Mark Roberts AKA Gravy, of Loose Change Viewers Guide fame has written an excellent paper on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, discussed on an JREF thread here. One of the more interesting finds, was a picture that he found of firefighters searching for survivors in the rubble:













This picture, in a different form, has been used before, for a completely different purpose in Steven Jones "peer reviewed" paper:















With the caption, "Workers evidently peering into the hot "core" under the WTC rubble".

Who was this "peer reviewed" by again?

42 Comments:

At 10 October, 2006 06:54, Blogger MarkyX said...

Ouuuuuch

 
At 10 October, 2006 06:54, Blogger MarkyX said...

This is something that needs to be on HotAir and Little Green Footballs.

We all know how those two blogs love manipulated photos.

 
At 10 October, 2006 07:03, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Whoa hang on here! Are you suggesting that someone like Stephen Jones would...LIE? But he says he wants to find the TRUTH!

 
At 10 October, 2006 07:24, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

So the question that begs to be asked...Which is fake and which is real?
I need one of those lamps the firefighters are using to search for survivors! Industrial strength for sure!

 
At 10 October, 2006 07:36, Blogger Manny said...

So the question that begs to be asked...Which is fake and which is real?

The original is picture 5575 on Here is New York, a now mostly-shuttered charity organization which collected photographs from various sources and sold prints to benefit children affected by 9-11. You can decide for yourself.

 
At 10 October, 2006 07:49, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Your going to make surf through 390 pages of pics to find the one?? Come on you got to help a brotha out more than that!

 
At 10 October, 2006 07:51, Blogger Manny said...

No, no! Just put "5575" into the "view by number" field. Easy peasy.

 
At 10 October, 2006 07:55, Blogger tnculp said...

Which is the original? Does anyone know? I would actually assume the the one with the orange color cast is the original. Photoshop was used to remove the color cast. (photographer speak for setting the black, gray, and white tones to match the right color.) But, you know that the photo has been corrected correctly, because of the yellow coloration on the firefighters' suits.

 
At 10 October, 2006 08:00, Blogger tnculp said...

Actually, I was wrong. I thought it seemed a little too saturated to be a color caste...and it was. I used photoshop, and I have to say, that the original is the one that doesn't have the orange glow. It could've only been added later.

 
At 10 October, 2006 08:57, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I could be wrong, but I don't see any electrical lines running into the hole that could be powering the light source in the hole. That is a hellar strong light source. I need one of them to go fishin' for blue gill under the moon!

 
At 10 October, 2006 09:12, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

swingdangler:

while your comment is so obviously loaded (no wires, so not a light hmmmm), I will say this.

1. There are lights that can give off that much light through battery power, and if anyone would have access to such, it would be rescue workers at a rescue site.

2. The picture is small, and the detail is not great, the pic is at night. Beyond that, you can only see about 40% of the circumfrence of the circle the workers are making up, so your "Power line" for the lights might be on the other side.

nice try though.

TAM

 
At 10 October, 2006 09:27, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

One, it isn't loaded at all. You choose to read between the lines, phage, and there isn't nothing there to read between. Re-read my post.
And if you ever have read any of my posts, I leave no question as to what I'm attacking and what I'm defending which revolve around facts.

I know very well there are battery powered lights. I simply pointed out a FACT in the picture. Oh and I qualified my statement by stating I could be wrong. So go try to disprove something else and again, nice try.

1. I will also state that this blog has actually posted the picture in violation of the Here Is New York website's permisson unless Screwloosechange has obtained written permission to use the picture in the public domain.

2. On this website, there are faded red rings between a couple of the fire fighters that are kneeling down in front. This does not appear in the Here Is New York's photograph. What is causing the red to show up at Screw and not in New York?

3. We don't know which is the original because the picture in question isn't sourced which leads to number 4.

4. Which photo is faked and which is real?

 
At 10 October, 2006 09:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Assuming Jones' version of the photo was real, I'm wondering how hot that area would be considering they're all looking at a pool of "molten metal".

I'm guessing that it would be a little too warm to be gathering all your friends around to stick your face in and see.

 
At 10 October, 2006 09:39, Blogger tnculp said...

Another point here, is that the light might not be as bright as it appears. With low-light photography, it's not unusual to get blown out highlights. And if an amateur messed with the levels in photoshop, it could easily get blown out even more.

 
At 10 October, 2006 09:40, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I agree the picture maybe suspect, but the following published testimony isn't:

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three
buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero
and stated in The Structural Engineer,
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten
metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared
and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first
photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees
Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes
when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be
dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and
was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in
Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins
still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
From Jone's Paper

 
At 10 October, 2006 09:48, Blogger Manny said...

Another point here, is that the light might not be as bright as it appears. With low-light photography, it's not unusual to get blown out highlights. And if an amateur messed with the levels in photoshop, it could easily get blown out even more.

That's definitely true, and a good point. The This is New York project collected thousands of photographs from hundreds of sources, mostly amateur photographers (my guess, and this is just a guess, is that this one was taken by a firefighter or other rescue/recovery professional at the scene, and not a photographer who had been allowed on site). So we don't know exactly what is going on in the picture.

But we do know what is not going on. It is not a bunch of firefighters surrounding the orange glow of molten metal, contrary to the implication Dr. Jones tries to create with his caption and with his apparent manipulation of the photograph.

 
At 10 October, 2006 09:51, Blogger James B. said...

I will also state that this blog has actually posted the picture in violation of the Here Is New York website's permisson unless Screwloosechange has obtained written permission to use the picture in the public domain.


This is true, but since Steven Jones has already published this photo (manipulated) in a "peer reviewed academic journal", presumably without obtaining permissions either, I considered it in the public interest to set the record straight.

 
At 10 October, 2006 10:03, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

In defense of Mr. Jones, we do not know if he has permission or not. And to presumme he hasn't is almost assuming he hasn't and we all know what happens when you assume something.

I do not think, James, that you can use that arguement in your defense of violating the Here Is New York's permission to post. Perhaps you should pay the fee that would benefit those children that the funds were intended to help so there would not be a violation issue.

I think we can both agree that it would be nice to know the source of the photo in question and wether or not there are any similiar photos out there that show the same hole and the firefighters. The photo if manipulated still does not detract from eyewitness statments of molten pools of lava.

 
At 10 October, 2006 10:05, Blogger Manny said...

Perhaps you should pay the fee that would benefit those children that the funds were intended to help so there would not be a violation issue.

The project is closed and no longer taking donations.

 
At 10 October, 2006 10:11, Blogger James B. said...

In defense of Mr. Jones, we do not know if he has permission or not. And to presumme he hasn't is almost assuming he hasn't and we all know what happens when you assume something.


If he received permission, then you are claiming that he got this photo directly from the site, and then intentionally manipulated it to come up with the orange glowing version in his paper.

You lose either way.

 
At 10 October, 2006 10:31, Blogger Manny said...

The photo if manipulated still does not detract from eyewitness statments of molten pools of lava.

Heh. I don't think anyone seriously disputes there were molten pools of something down there -- let's agree that it wasn't lava. ;) Could have been steel, could have been aluminum, could have been lots of things. Most likely, a mix of things and/or several things.

Here's the thing. The presence of some amount of molten (or melted, or red-hot, or whatever) material in the debris pile is not probative. It advances neither the theory that the towers were brought down by aircraft and the resulting fires nor the theory that incendiaries or explosives were used to destroy the towers.

Why? Because any proposed primary fuel source would have exhausted itself long before the fires went out. Jet fuel might have lasted several minutes or even a few hours depending on how it was distributed. Thermite/thermate would have been exhaused in a few seconds. Explosives would, by their nature, have exhausted themselves nearly instantaneously. None of them could reasonably be expected to be fueling fires, of whatever temperature, days or weeks after the collapses. No, these fires were fueled by secondary sources, such as paper and sheetrock and plastics and natural gas and whatever else was down there. And those secondary fires could have been ignited by any of the proposed starters (though least likely with explosives).

 
At 10 October, 2006 10:34, Blogger Murdervillage said...

From the NIST FAQ:
"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 
At 10 October, 2006 10:59, Blogger CHF said...

So Mr. Jones doctored a photo to "prove" there was molten steel.

Why am I not surprised.....

 
At 10 October, 2006 11:09, Blogger James B. said...

We don't know for certain that he "doctored" it. He may have just got this photo from a low quality source, and just interpreted it so as to support his thesis. He has a long history of doing this.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Is he sloppy or dishonest, you be the judge.

 
At 10 October, 2006 12:28, Blogger Rob said...

SwingDangler, Jones plays a bit fast with the quotes used in his paper.

"“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said." But Fuchek is vice president of sales for the company making the handheld GPS machines supplied to the rescue workers - not likely to be an on-the-spot eyewitness.

"[Sarah Atlas, dog-handler] reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002, ‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." Actually Atlas didn't say the bit about molten steel which Jones emphasises. It is in the article from which Jones quotes but is not a quote from Atlas herself, instead it might well be background added by the writer.

I cannot track down the source of the quote from Eaton. I'm not saying there wasn't molten mental at the site, but the Fuchek/Atlas quotes used certainly aren't evidence for it.

 
At 10 October, 2006 13:27, Blogger Rob said...

Good heavens, Jones is a quote-miner extraordinaire. At the start of his “Burning Questions that Need Answers” section he produces the following from 'Fire Engineering'.

"I agree with this urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire Engineering:
"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers... ""

Pretty damning, it would seem: 'Fire Engineering' itself agrees that the impacts and burning fuel couldn't bring down the towers. But note the ellipses. Here is the
original 'Fire Engineering' article, in which I have taken the liberty of emphasising something Jones chose not to include:

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time."

The 'Fire Engineering' article is hugely critical of the investigation, and mentions that many of these criticisms are "questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction" and the "accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes" in which the Port Authority operated.

To summarise, Jones has removed all mention of "questionable fireproofing", "questions about design and construction", and the Port Authority not being bound by fire and building codes, and made it seem as though 'Fire Engineering' was simply saying "the fires didn't bring down the towers". I find it difficult to believe that happened by mistake.

 
At 10 October, 2006 14:39, Blogger Alex said...

And once again we see the biggest problem with these lunatics "questions". Valid questions and concerns, such as those about the "design and construction" and the "accountability vacuum", get burried under steaming piles of CT bullshit.

 
At 10 October, 2006 15:02, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

swing:

well I would say go by the original photo. I can guarantee, put my rep on the line, that the people here did not fake that photo, though whether they shrunk it to fit here, and that caused an artifact, I am not sure..

As for my comments, fair enough, I apologize for reading something that wasnt there...kind of get in the habit of soing so when you are constantly arguing with people over this stuff.

As to your question 4, I see your point, and my guess would be the site, and people with the least amount of motive to alter it, probably have the original.

TAM

TAM

 
At 11 October, 2006 05:47, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Manny-"....contrary to the implication Dr. Jones tries to create with his caption and with his apparent manipulation of the photograph."

1. We have no inkling of a clue as to whether Dr. Jones has manipulated the photo or not. Ask yourself why he would do that knowing full well it could be determined to be a fraud. Why put your life's work on the line knowing such a fact? However there is no evidence he manipulated the photo.

James B- If he did not obtain permission for the photo in question then he has been given dubious evidence to support his case. If he did violate the same written permission agreement that you have, then you have a clear case for manipulation of evidence.

However, we still do not have the original source for the photo. Which still begs the question, which is fake which is real? We will never know that until the person who submitted the photo comes forward.

To think that jet fuel without oxygen is going to to melt steel and cause IR hotspots to appear weeks after the event totally flies in the face of reason. How can a combustible fire burn without oxygen? And on top of that, burn hot enough, long enough to melt steel. Lets not forget and I know you guys don't, the amount of jet fuel that exploded on impact.
Pancake collapse does not explain the transformation of concrete to dust. Pancake collapse does not explain angled cuts with molten drippings on support beams. Pancake collapse does not fit into the laws of physics. Pancake collapse does not explain the numerous eyewitness reports of explosions going off around the base of the towers, those same explosions heard and seen on video before the collapse(see 911 Eyewitness), and reported on by the MSM. Whether you support or deny the official version of events, you can not disregard all of the facts that point to a controlled demolition. There is too much evidence pointing to such an event.

Then the question becomes if there were explosives used to bring the towers down, then we have to ask who did it? And with that, we have no proof other than theory.

Murdervillage-"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed." Well if that is the case, lets identify those circumstances! Well it is conceivable of course but not proven. Wants again a theory that goes unproven . So steel will melt after collapse with no access to oxygen to fuel it. Interesting.

"Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."
Got to love this explanatin- "more likely" once again a THEORY is proposed to explain the molten steel .
So with that logic any theory can hold water, but which theory has more evidence and facts supporting it? Pancake or controlled demolition? I think you will find the demolition scenario is the best theory that fits the events. Who did it is best left to professional investigators.

Rob-"not likely to be an on-the-spot eyewitness." What qualifies you to make this statement? What evidence do you offer to support this statement?
I think it is safe to say that the Atlas article author is describing what Sarah saw while searching for victims.

The firefighting article you mention asks the question "how and why the towers collapsed". That is the million dollar question that even the professional firefighters are asking. And remember it was the firefighters who kept describing explosions going off around the base of the towers.

Finally from the orginal Call TO action article.
The panel should be charged with creating a comprehensive report that examines a variety of topics including determining exactly how and why the towers collapsed, critiquing the building evacuation procedures and the means of egress, assessing the buildings' fire protection features (steel "fireproofing," fire protection systems, etc.), and reviewing the valiant firefighting procedures employed. In addition, the Panel should be charged with preparing a detailed set of recommendations, including the critical changes necessary to our building codes.

So to sum up my position-Shame of Dr. Jones if he manipulated the photo. Shame on someone if he/she gave the photo to Dr. Jones if it was manipulated. Either way, we still won't be able to answer the question is it faked and if so who faked it and at what point was it faked.
Two, we still don't know why the towers collapse, but the evidence points to controlled demolition.

Alex-"I'm not going to bother with the attacking the character fallacy you continually push. Please stop because it distracts from meaningful converstaion." Or continue and make yourself look like, well uneducated.

 
At 11 October, 2006 07:37, Blogger Alex said...

Attacking the character?

Wouldn't that require you to have a character for me to attack?

"look like uneducated", huh? Ah, the irony....

 
At 11 October, 2006 11:14, Blogger Richard said...

Pancake collapse does not explain the transformation of concrete to dust.

Sure it does. In both a natural collapse and in a CD the actual process that crushes concrete is exactly the same, gravity. Look at a CD, after the charges go off the building falls and crushes its self.
It's not like there are ongoing micro-explosions that crush the concrete on the way down. So what the f&*k does crushed concrete have to do with CD?

Pancake collapse does not explain angled cuts with molten drippings on support beams.


No but clean up crews using cutting torches does. We have shown evidence of cutting devices used at ground zero. It's your turn to show us how that actually never happened and how thermate can make an angled cut. BTW it can't, and yes I am more qualified to talk about this than you.

Pancake collapse does not fit into the laws of physics

Really? Which law would that be? I had no idea you held a degree in Physics. That is unless your just repeating the same old crap that other CTers do without actually thinking.

 
At 11 October, 2006 13:04, Blogger Alex said...

Oh, and:

How can a combustible fire burn without oxygen? And on top of that, burn hot enough, long enough to melt steel.

You've obviously never heard of Centralia.

Since I know that you have comprehension difficulties, I'll explain. Centralia has had an underground fire burning for more than 40 years now. And I can gaurantee you that no "thermate" is involved in that particular incident.

I guess Centralia is "against the laws of physics" too, huh? After all, we all know fire can't burn without oxygen.

 
At 12 October, 2006 09:29, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex, you mean to tell me there isn't oxygen in Pennsylvania? Come on you have to do better than that!
If that was the case charcoal grills wouldn't need openings to keep the fire going.

Hmm Coal under the world trade center?
Never heard of that conspiracy before!

Ok, Richard, I'll bite. What is your professional background in demoltions, debris removal, physics, and structual engineering? Or are you still a student?
Or to clear up any confusion, can you post your degrees, licenses, etc, etc?

Prove something never happened? Hell how do you prove a negative? Logical fallacy chief try again.

Ok, question, how can concrete be crushed to dust at the collapse zone and a few floors below the inital collapse zone? Why no concrete dust from the floors that collapsed in the Spanish Tower? Why no concrete dust when buildings topple over from earthquakes


Shaped Charges to bring down buildings from
What A Blast which describes the exact same cut found in the angled cut photo we have all seen.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermite_charges.wmv

Can you please post the facts and evidence surrounding the cutting devices used during debris removal? I would appreciate it.

"The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_recovery010918.html

Yeah I guess office furniture without oxygen burns pretty hot.

Look around for the slag that you see in the angled cut collum when it comes to cutting steel if the cutting devices were plasma cutters. No slag..
http://science.howstuffworks.com/plasma-cutter.htm
Neither oxy-acetylene or plasma torches could leave that mess, because both use bottled gases.

Plasma cutters aren't used for demo of thick stuff, and oxy-acetylene cuts with such high gas pressure that the slag is blown away from the area and not allowed to run down and cool in the area of the cut.

And, if I were cutting a tall beam I'd have a crane sling on it, and there would be no need to angle the cut down and in.
That just makes a longer job out of a short one.

Fused metal and concrete from jet fuel and office material? Come on...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv

Besides, the Pancake is a theory only. Controlled demolition is an industrial fact.
Until engineers complete a model of the structure, apply the same data variables to the structure, and duplicate the results, it still remains a theory!

Well I'm not a physics professor nor do I claim to be, but I can and do read, and I think quite a bit. And I have yet to see the an explanation for the following physics theories that were violated on that day:
1. How about the Law of Inertia? Why didn't the top of the building continue to topple instead of changing directions and falling straight down?
2. Conservation of Momentum? Try not to use the whole "increasing mass" arguement, cause it was being turned to dust.
3. Law of Gravity-can you say free fall in a vacuum?
I won't go on because I'm restating what has been stated already, but you get the point. Go ahead and attack the character and such, that is what usually happens anyway.

Oh and don't spout the NIST because they apparently didn't see enough evidence to consider CD. Tough to disprove it when you don't test for it.
Hard to not hear, read, watch the eyewitness accounts and all the other evidence that points to such an event. Close your eyes kids, go back to Wal-mart and Disney World vacations, nothing to see here.

 
At 12 October, 2006 09:34, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex, you mean to tell me there isn't oxygen in Pennsylvania? Come on you have to do better than that!
If that was the case charcoal grills wouldn't need openings to keep the fire going.

Hmm Coal under the world trade center?
Never heard of that conspiracy before!

Ok, Richard, I'll bite. What is your professional background in demoltions, debris removal, physics, and structual engineering? Or are you still a student?
Or to clear up any confusion, can you post your degrees, licenses, etc, etc?

Prove something never happened? Hell how do you prove a negative? Logical fallacy chief try again.

Ok, question, how can concrete be crushed to dust at the collapse zone and a few floors below the inital collapse zone? Why no concrete dust from the floors that collapsed in the Spanish Tower? Why no concrete dust when buildings topple over from earthquakes


Shaped Charges to bring down buildings from
What A Blast which describes the exact same cut found in the angled cut photo we have all seen.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermite_charges.wmv

Can you please post the facts and evidence surrounding the cutting devices used during debris removal? I would appreciate it.

"The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_recovery010918.html

Yeah I guess office furniture without oxygen burns pretty hot.

Look around for the slag that you see in the angled cut collum when it comes to cutting steel if the cutting devices were plasma cutters. No slag..
http://science.howstuffworks.com/plasma-cutter.htm
Neither oxy-acetylene or plasma torches could leave that mess, because both use bottled gases.

Plasma cutters aren't used for demo of thick stuff, and oxy-acetylene cuts with such high gas pressure that the slag is blown away from the area and not allowed to run down and cool in the area of the cut.

And, if I were cutting a tall beam I'd have a crane sling on it, and there would be no need to angle the cut down and in.
That just makes a longer job out of a short one.

Fused metal and concrete from jet fuel and office material? Come on...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv

Besides, the Pancake is a theory only. Controlled demolition is an industrial fact.
Until engineers complete a model of the structure, apply the same data variables to the structure, and duplicate the results, it still remains a theory!

Well I'm not a physics professor nor do I claim to be, but I can and do read, and I think quite a bit. And I have yet to see the an explanation for the following physics theories that were violated on that day:
1. How about the Law of Inertia? Why didn't the top of the building continue to topple instead of changing directions and falling straight down?
2. Conservation of Momentum? Try not to use the whole "increasing mass" arguement, cause it was being turned to dust.
3. Law of Gravity-can you say free fall in a vacuum?
I won't go on because I'm restating what has been stated already, but you get the point. Go ahead and attack the character and such, that is what usually happens anyway.

Oh and don't spout the NIST because they apparently didn't see enough evidence to consider CD. Tough to disprove it when you don't test for it.
Hard to not hear, read, watch the eyewitness accounts and all the other evidence that points to such an event. Close your eyes kids, go back to Wal-mart and Disney World vacations, nothing to see here.

 
At 12 October, 2006 09:45, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Sorry for the double post...computer glitch, that or the CIA is hacking my computer. ;)

 
At 12 October, 2006 12:37, Blogger Alex said...

Swingy, you mean to tell me there isn't oxygen in New York? Come on you have to do better than that!

Hmm Coal under the world trade center?
Never heard of that conspiracy before!


Guess you never heard of office furniture, carpeting, paper, and flammable liquids either.

Prove something never happened? Hell how do you prove a negative? Logical fallacy chief try again.

Certainly not. He stated that we've proven that it DID happen. In other words, we've shown evidence to that effect. You may not be able to disprove it 100%, but you can certainly (if you're right) show why our evidence is no good. Either that or you can, for a change, actually admit being wrong.

The rest of your post is equally disingenuous/retarded. You continually contradict yourself. You say no fires could burn underground because they wouldn't have oxygen. When I show you an example of a fire burning underground for 40 years, you laugh and imply that I'm making a dumb argument because obviously there's oxygen in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile you go right back to arguing that no fires could burn under the WTC because they'd have no oxygen. You, sir, are the very definition of the word "douchebag". I'd politely like to suggest that you go and throw yourself into high-speed traffic. Preferably a tractor-trailer. Off an overpass. Thanks.

 
At 13 October, 2006 06:59, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex do you know what an arguement fallacy is?

I was asked to prove that cutting devices weren't used at the WTC complex and your asking me to do that again. Of course I can't prove that because they were used! I've seen the photos myself at the firefighter's website. I don't argue that at all!

However, the use of cutter torches does not discredit evidence of controlled demolitions nor does it disprove evidence of CD.
Stop confusing yourself my name calling friend! Speaking of that, why can't you discuss issues without calling people names? Are you trolling for a middle school name calling fight or what? Because it really detracts from anything intelligent you might have to contribute to a conversation. It also brings up questions about your age as well.

However, I've also proven through the video in my accidental double post that shaped charges are used to make exactly the same cuts that have been seen on the angled beam photograph to create the exact same effect that we see in CD and at the WTC complex. So in that issue, I'm not wrong at all and therefore admit that I'm not wrong.

The rest of the post is retarded? Now that is nice job of not responding to any of the evidence what so ever, yet you continue to talk about coal? WTF Alex! Address the facts and evidence!
Now when you take a ton of furniture and ignite it, reduce the access to oxygen, and create a 2000 degree temperature, then we can talk about buring furniture bringing down the towers. But see that conversation will NEVER take place because it CAN'T BE DONE!
Now pay attention in science class.

And Alex, I hope you live a long and prosperous life, get married, and have wonderful children and die of really old age. Good luck!

 
At 13 October, 2006 06:59, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex do you know what an arguement fallacy is?

I was asked to prove that cutting devices weren't used at the WTC complex and your asking me to do that again. Of course I can't prove that because they were used! I've seen the photos myself at the firefighter's website. I don't argue that at all!

However, the use of cutter torches does not discredit evidence of controlled demolitions nor does it disprove evidence of CD.
Stop confusing yourself my name calling friend! Speaking of that, why can't you discuss issues without calling people names? Are you trolling for a middle school name calling fight or what? Because it really detracts from anything intelligent you might have to contribute to a conversation. It also brings up questions about your age as well.

However, I've also proven through the video in my accidental double post that shaped charges are used to make exactly the same cuts that have been seen on the angled beam photograph to create the exact same effect that we see in CD and at the WTC complex. So in that issue, I'm not wrong at all and therefore admit that I'm not wrong.

The rest of the post is retarded? Now that is nice job of not responding to any of the evidence what so ever, yet you continue to talk about coal? WTF Alex! Address the facts and evidence!
Now when you take a ton of furniture and ignite it, reduce the access to oxygen, and create a 2000 degree temperature, then we can talk about buring furniture bringing down the towers. But see that conversation will NEVER take place because it CAN'T BE DONE!
Now pay attention in science class.

And Alex, I hope you live a long and prosperous life, get married, and have wonderful children and die of really old age. Good luck!

 
At 14 October, 2006 15:23, Blogger Alex said...

However, I've also proven through the video in my accidental double post that shaped charges are used to make exactly the same cuts that have been seen on the angled beam photograph to create the exact same effect that we see in CD and at the WTC complex.

Big deal. What you haven't been able to show is why molten slag would form around the cut, unless the cut was made with a thermal lance. I've used C4 to demolish all sorts of equipment, including making cutter charges to sever the barrels on tank turrets. I can tell you for a fact that explosive charges won't create the kind of slag visible on the WTC columns. And no, thermite (like your silly little video suggest) would not create that effect either. First of all thermite isn't used for demolition, and second of all it can't flow on an angle like that. So what exactly have you proven?

Now that is nice job of not responding to any of the evidence what so ever

You haven't PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE! What the hell don't you understand? All you've presented is a bunch of suppositions and idiotic remarks, such as "you can't have fires underground". Get some real evidence, then we'll talk.

 
At 24 October, 2006 08:48, Blogger Jay said...

Did anyone see the Naudette video, because i think u can even see when they took this picture. Because u see someone placing a light where they are stitting.
Its near the end of the video.

 
At 24 October, 2006 08:58, Blogger Jay said...

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-1059102722814647597&q=naudet#1h33m30s
thats the part

 
At 29 November, 2006 10:48, Blogger superclosetnerd said...

Not sure if I want to user blogger or not, i like the way your site looks and it is free. I want a blog for my site but just can't decide. My site if ya wanna look... chimney brush

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home