Building 7 ???

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

But none of the witnesses you provided mentioned puddles or collections or patches or ponds.
One mentioned a stream.
You claimed they all observed pools.
This was not what they said, you misrepresented what they said.
The fact that you did misrepresent what they said mean either you're not checking your facts properly or are deliberately twisting them.
I've been exceedingly clear on this, you're being deliberately obtuse.

I'm not going to be drawn on this anymore. I feel I've been quite clear. If you're trying to play a game of "gotcha" then don't waste your time. There are many accounts out there of molten steel. You asked for some, I provided some.

Your analogy is simply stupid as it assumes all the bat**** insane explanations for the molten metal are equal to the one sane one that's actually supported by the evidence, they are not.

Evidence? What evidence? The molten substance was never even tested so what evidence are you talking about?

Actually.....scratch that. This guy tested some of the molten "whatever" and stated that it wasn't aluminium. Oh and he also mentioned your hallowed "pools"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1w_6nd0kj4

So lets measure up the two explainations for what the metal was:

Aluminium and other metals-
We know there were massive fires in the
WTC. We know they reached temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees.
We know that there were ample supplies of other metals that do melt in range of those temperatures.

But that's the thing. These aren't explanations (and you accuse ME of misrepresentation over something as pathetic as "pools" rather than "rivers" when I merely wished to illustrate the existence of something).

Again this is merely guesswork. All you're doing is assuming it's aluminium but you don't know because it was never tested (*see above). Now you say that the fires reached in excess of 1000 degrees. I take it you mean Fahrenheit. If so, they would have to be in excess of 1200F to melt aluminium. I take it that this vast blob of molten aluminium manifested itself up inside the building where the fires were burning and then when the buildings came down this huge molten blob fell with it and burnt its way through everything to come to rest underneath the rubble. Is that what you're honestly trying to hypothesize? You say the building was clad in aluminium. Then why wasn't molten aluminium dripping down the sides of the building like an ice-cream cone in the sun?

But for steel:
We don't know what would cause the steel to melt in the circumstances.

So using the explanation that requires the assumption of the least amount of unknowns, we can conclude that the metal observed was most likely aluminium or other common metals with lower melting points.

This is called Occam's Razor and is a basic of logic and a necessity in scientific investigation.

So unless you have evidence that excludes aluminium and other metals as the explanation, there's no rational reason to think it was steel.

There's no rational reason to think it was steel other than the testimony of firefighters, engineers and various professors? Have you forgotten that?

Why? Seemingly it's as good as your non-existant reason for why steel melted and it applies the same backwards logic you think should apply.
So explain to me why we can exclude magic as an explanation in your version of science?

Well in years past, magic would have been considered but advances in science have long ruled out magic as causes for pretty much anything.:rolleyes:

Would you support an inquiry into the Apollo Landings?

Wouldn't care either way. I have no reason to doubt the moon landings happened. But if people want to hold an investigation to try and prove otherwise then good luck to them. If they turn out to be right, more power to them.

But there's only actually evidence for one explanation and it's not controlled demolition. Hence an odd bias towards that explanation.

But you don't know that there's no evidence pointing to controlled demolition. You're just saying there isn't. If evidence is hidden or removed that doen't mean it's not there. And the evidence that exists pointing to fire causing the collapse is questionable enough to warrant a resonable doubt. That right there is grounds for any investigator to consider alternatives.

So they used something not present in controlled demolition to make it look like a fire.... but you also think that the same thing isn't present in a fire...

Why didn't they just use fire instead of planting the evidence you're apparently catching them out on?
In what reality does this make sense?

And how, if they wanted to demolish a building using fire, would they cause this fire and be able to blame it on someone? In what reality does that make any sense? Simply walking into the building and starting a fire isn't going to look too good is it? You'd make a dreadful logician.

Diogenes already explained this, apparently in your quest for the truth you ignored it.

I didn't ignore it I just alluded to it in my last post.

But you think they should be allowed to so then can spread the truth?
How very ironically Orwellian...

No, I don't think so at all.

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'm not going to be drawn on this anymore. I feel I've been quite clear. If you're trying to play a game of "gotcha" then don't waste your time. There are many accounts out there of molten steel. You asked for some, I provided some.

Which you then misrepresented.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Evidence? What evidence? The molten substance was never even tested so what evidence are you talking about?

Actually.....scratch that. This guy tested some of the molten "whatever" and stated that it wasn't aluminium. Oh and he also mentioned your hallowed "pools"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1w_6nd0kj4

First off Steve Jones is not an eyewitnesses.
Secondly he is charlatan, but that's another topic.

jackiebaron wrote: »

But that's the thing. These aren't explanations (and you accuse ME of misrepresentation over something as pathetic as "pools" rather than "rivers" when I merely wished to illustrate the existence of something).

So which of those things I listed aren't true?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Again this is merely guesswork. All you're doing is assuming it's aluminium but you don't know because it was never tested (*see above).

No I'm concluding it's aluminium based on the evidence we can verify.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that molten aluminium would be present.
The is no evidence that molten steel would be.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Now you say that the fires reached in excess of 1000 degrees. I take it you mean Fahrenheit. If so, they would have to be in excess of 1200F to melt aluminium.

Again as per the NIST report some temperatures were as high as 1832°F.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I take it that this vast blob of molten aluminium manifested itself up inside the building where the fires were burning and then when the buildings came down this huge molten blob fell with it and burnt its way through everything to come to rest underneath the rubble. Is that what you're honestly trying to hypothesize?

That's another dishonest strawman.
You're assuming, based on nothing that there was a "huge molten blob", I never claimed such a thing.

jackiebaron wrote: »

You say the building was clad in aluminium. Then why wasn't molten aluminium dripping down the sides of the building like an ice-cream cone in the sun?

And another strawman because you can't put together an adult argument.
The reason that the aluminium wasn't melting off the side is simply because the temperatures of the fires on the outside walls of the building were not as hot as the fires on the inside.

Now, I can think of a very large, very noticeable source for aluminium which would have placed some of it in the hottest areas in the interior of the building.
Can you guess what it might be?

jackiebaron wrote: »

There's no rational reason to think it was steel other than the testimony of firefighters, engineers and various professors? Have you forgotten that?

Except that only two of the witnesses you provided specifically said steel.
Furthermore you accepted that they offered nothing to verify that it was steel and you admitted it was possible that they either misidentified what it was or misspoke when relating their story.
You're going to need something more convince to suggest it was steel.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well in years past, magic would have been considered but advances in science have long ruled out magic as causes for pretty much anything.:rolleyes:

So you can rule out certain explanations.
How about a more specific one, like the claim that the towers were taken out by space lasers.
Should the NIST tested the wreckage to determine whether or not space lasers where involved?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Wouldn't care either way. I have no reason to doubt the moon landings happened. But if people want to hold an investigation to try and prove otherwise then good luck to them. If they turn out to be right, more power to them.

And how many people said that about all those other inquiries you brought up?
See, appeals to emotion can work both ways.

jackiebaron wrote: »

But you don't know that there's no evidence pointing to controlled demolition. You're just saying there isn't. If evidence is hidden or removed that doen't mean it's not there.

But if there's no evidence and no evidence that it was removed or hidden how is it distinguishable from the evidence not existing in the first place?

I've asked for the evidence of a controlled demolition many times before and have yet to see it. And unless you can provide either it or something to show that it's been hidden, then there is no evidence of a controlled demolition.

jackiebaron wrote: »

And the evidence that exists pointing to fire causing the collapse is questionable enough to warrant a resonable doubt. That right there is grounds for any investigator to consider alternatives.

Except your questioning seems to rely on biased, deliberate misunderstands of the report.
Any investigator could see you're trying to force a forgone conclusion rather than actually investigating.

jackiebaron wrote: »

And how, if they wanted to demolish a building using fire, would they cause this fire and be able to blame it on someone? In what reality does that make any sense? Simply walking into the building and starting a fire isn't going to look too good is it? You'd make a dreadful logician.

Maybe fly some planes loaded with jet fuel into the buildings?
Just a thought.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I didn't ignore it I just alluded to it in my last post.

And all the questions you asked where all addressed in Diogene's original point. But you clearly didn't read it properly.

jackiebaron wrote: »

No, I don't think so at all.

So why do you think they do lie and use dishonest arguments so often?

jackiebaron

First off Steve Jones is not an eyewitnesses.
Secondly he is charlatan, but that's another topic.

Is that a matter of opinion or a matter of fact?

So which of those things I listed aren't true?

I don't know. You claim aluminium and other metals but you can't say for certain. You're still only guessing.

No I'm concluding it's aluminium based on the evidence we can verify.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that molten aluminium would be present.
The is no evidence that molten steel would be.

Let's have it then

That's another dishonest strawman.
You're assuming, based on nothing that there was a "huge molten blob", I never claimed such a thing.

I never accused you of saying that. How in your expert opinion could a mass of molten aluminium get from the 80th floor to underneath the rubble?

And another strawman because you can't put together an adult argument.
The reason that the aluminium wasn't melting off the side is simply because the temperatures of the fires on the outside walls of the building were not as hot as the fires on the inside.

Okay so your (fantasy) explanation is that a large mass of molten aluminum manifested itself inside the building? Even though you said above "I never claimed such a thing"?

Now, I can think of a very large, very noticeable source for aluminium which would have placed some of it in the hottest areas in the interior of the building.
Can you guess what it might be?

The plane, right? And so this plane melted into a 1200F+ blob with a guy's passport inside, fell to earth and continued to burn for 6 weeks but the passport survived intact. :pac: I hope your mother's proud of you.

Di0genes

First off Steve Jones is not an eyewitnesses.
Secondly he is charlatan, but that's another topic.

If you'd search the other threads on the subject of Steven Jones, you'll discover that this "physics professor" wrote a paper on the destruction of the towers that was disowned by his own civil engineering department and has only written one other paper, a scholarly treaty on whether or not there was archaeological evidence as to whether Jesus visited the Aztecs.

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

Is that a matter of opinion or a matter of fact?

It's both.
He's not an eyewiteness: fact.
He's written a dishonest paper, published it in a shady vanity journal and on top of that, lied about what he claimed in the paper.
This in my opinion makes him a charlatan.
But it's another topic.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't know. You claim aluminium and other metals but you can't say for certain. You're still only guessing.

Well I'm not guessing, I'm concluding based on what evidence there is.
All the evidence supports the idea there was molten aluminium.
No evidence suggests that there was molten steel.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Let's have it then

Have what exactly? Evidence that aluminium was in the building?

jackiebaron wrote: »

I never accused you of saying that.

But you implied that's what I was trying to argue in a pathetic underhanded strawman.

jackiebaron wrote: »

How in your expert opinion could a mass of molten aluminium get from the 80th floor to underneath the rubble?

By being buried by the rubble higher up and some of the lower down rubble being more spread out and then having another building crash down nearby.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Okay so your (fantasy) explanation is that a large mass of molten aluminum manifested itself inside the building? Even though you said above "I never claimed such a thing"?

Another strawman. I've never said anything about a "large mass" "manifesting" anywhere.

jackiebaron wrote: »

The plane, right? And so this plane melted into a 1200F+ blob with a guy's passport inside, fell to earth and continued to burn for 6 weeks but the passport survived intact. :pac: I hope your mother's proud of you.

And another strawman. You're getting desperate now.
I never said or implied that the entire plane melted into a giant blob, this is entirely your invention because you can't come up with an actual argument.

The planes broke up inside the building spreading massive amounts of aluminium bits all over the building.
Several of these bits would have been in areas where the temperature was high enough to melt them.

And if you're going to move the goalposts back to the 6 weeks claim you're going to have to find more eyewitnesses for that one, because again, none of them say any such thing.

I doubt any mother would approve of you using such dishonest tactics, specially when you're pretending to be searching for the truth.

Di0genes

Engineer John Gross demolishes claims of molten steel at ground zero

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&q=NIST

guitarzero

King Mob wrote: »

But if it looks like a duck, why are they hiding a bit of the footage from you?
Why didn't they show the actual start of the collapse?

This is the point I want you to actually think about.
A 9/11 truth video is hiding evidence from you...

As you say, if it looks like a deliberate attempt to hide facts....

Who attempted to hide facts? All anyone has to do is host a youtube video and its there for anyone to see. Also, that video soes not support your argument. It still looks like controlled demolotion from that angle.

guitarzero

Di0genes wrote: »

Engineer John Gross demolishes claims of molten steel at ground zero

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&q=NIST

Nope. Thats not what he did. If anything he seemed pretty vague and unsure. He didnt say anything of major importance. The last part of his talk was actually pretty incoherant. The press provided him with eye witness reports and a NASA photograph which indicated the heat which would support the claims of molten steel. I think you shot yourself in the foot with this video.

guitarzero

guitarzero wrote: »

Who attempted to hide facts? .

The guy who made the video you posted.
He left the chunk out of the collapse.

Now my point is not to argue that the building looked like a demolition or not.
It's to get you to realise that the truthers, like the one who made that video, lie.

Now some simple yes or no questions so you'll have to actually face the facts.

Did the maker of the video you posted leave out the start of the collapse?

Is there any conceivable reason why he would do something like that?

Have you ever seen footage on a conspiracy video that does show the bit he left out?

guitarzero

The guy who made the video you posted.
He left the chunk out of the collapse.

Are you saying he edited the video? That he intentionally removed some of it? Can you tell what I'm doing right now in my own living room? You have no grounds to assume he edited the footage as you dont know what the full footage was. Ridiculous statement.

Now my point is not to argue that the building looked like a demolition or not.

I know, how irrelevant.

It's to get you to realise that the truthers, like the one who made that video, lie.

All we can do is make a discernment for ourselves through debate and jugdement, like this. I'll turn that on you now, the official report is a lie.

Now some simple yes or no questions so you'll have to actually face the facts.

Did the maker of the video you posted leave out the start of the collapse?

Ridiculous question. How could anyone, other that the maker know? But still you are trying to use the start of the collapse as evidence that contradicts a potential demolition. You're implying that he may have left out the start to make sure it looked like a controlled demolition. Basically, the start does not contradict a potential demolition so editing is irrelevant.

Is there any conceivable reason why he would do something like that?

No. I'll leave you to your own scewed concepts.

Have you ever seen footage on a conspiracy video that does show the bit he left out?

You keep placing emphasis on the 1st part. As I say, with the 1st part it still looks like a controlled demolition

guitarzero

guitarzero wrote: »

Are you saying he edited the video? That he intentionally removed some of it? Can you tell what I'm doing right now in my own living room? You have no grounds to assume he edited the footage as you dont know what the full footage was. Ridiculous statement.

I do have grounds for assuming he edited the footage, because there was a bit at the start of the collapse that none of the clips in his video show.
So he edited the clips to start after the collapse, thus editing it out.

guitarzero wrote: »

All we can do is make a discernment for ourselves through debate and jugdement, like this. I'll turn that on you now, the official report is a lie.

And you're trying desperately to avoid the actual subject.
The video you posted is dishonestly edited. It's lying to you.

guitarzero wrote: »

Ridiculous question. How could anyone, other that the maker know?

That's not an answer to the question. You know it's not an answer to the question.

So again:
Did the maker of the video you posted leave out the start of the collapse?

We know there's a section of the collapse not shown in the video. We know that the maker of the video had to have seen it.
So the only honest answer is: Yes.

guitarzero wrote: »

But still you are trying to use the start of the collapse as evidence that contradicts a potential demolition. You're implying that he may have left out the start to make sure it looked like a controlled demolition. Basically, the start does not contradict a potential demolition so editing is irrelevant.

That's not the argument I'm making, I've already stated this, you're just trying to avoid the actual points I'm making.

guitarzero wrote: »

No. I'll leave you to your own scewed concepts.

So you can't think of a single honest reason why he did leave the footage out?

guitarzero wrote: »

You keep placing emphasis on the 1st part. As I say, with the 1st part it still looks like a controlled demolition

I'm placing emphasis on the 1st part because the video you posted leave it out.

And again you're not able to answer a simple yes or no question...
Have you ever seen footage on a conspiracy video that does show the bit he left out? Yes or No?

jackiebaron

Come on, KM,

Let's face it....you're one of two things. Either a shill or a coward...and I can't seem to work out which.
You strike me as being mildly intelligent, so I would have to go with the shill. However, even Galileo was bullied into thinking the world was flat (or was it that the Sun went around the Earth) .... so maybe you ARE a coward.
Don't know how old you are but there are a few people years younger than than you, frowning, as you clap and praise the emperor's new clothes.

{That's a metaphor, by the way}

Did you say that you were a Physics undergraduate or that you had already been awarded your degree? I don't remember.

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

Come on, KM,

Let's face it....you're one of two things. Either a shill or a coward...and I can't seem to work out which.
You strike me as being mildly intelligent, so I would have to go with the shill. However, even Galileo was bullied into thinking the world was flat (or was it that the Sun went around the Earth) .... so maybe you ARE a coward.
Don't know how old you are but there are a few people years younger than than you, frowning, as you clap and praise the emperor's new clothes.

{That's a metaphor, by the way}

Did you say that you were a Physics undergraduate or that you had already been awarded your degree? I don't remember.

Jackie, why are you accusing me of something you know I'm not?
Are you honestly that desperate to avoid questions you can't answer?

jackiebaron

The planes broke up inside the building spreading massive amounts of aluminium bits all over the building.
Several of these bits would have been in areas where the temperature was high enough to melt them.

And you know this ... how?
"I state, categorically that the planes broke up inside the buildings, spreading, whatever...."

I distinctly remember you calling me to task for not furnishing you with evidence of someone calling a piece of molten metal a "pool". In fact, after quizzing me for 3 days in order to iron out this petty settlement you insisted that I "misrepresented" the facts yet here you are countenancing a phenomenon like you were there. Not only that but you state what actually happened.

Have you no shame, KM?

By the way....real investigations use terms such as "WERE", not "WOULD HAVE BEEN".

.....O.K., Columbo!

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

And you know this ... how?
"I state, categorically that the planes broke up inside the buildings, spreading, whatever...."

You're kidding right?
What exactly do you think happened to the plane when it went into the tower? Stayed intact?

If this is the thing you're going to demand evidence from me to prove it's wring to ask for evidence, I would pick one that makes you sound a little less stupid.

But since you're asking me to prove the blindingly obvious....
I'll try to make not sound condescending, but your request is so silly it will be hard:
First we need to establish that planes tend to break up when they hit things. One would imagine that this was clear, but you're being obtuse so I will treat you as such.
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Feb/Week4/15229396.jpg
Here's a picture of a plane that crashed coming in for a landing at an Airort in Amsterdam. Note how it's broken into pieces. And this was travelling much slower than the planes that hit the WTC.

Now that we've established that planes can break up let's look at the evidence that the 9/11 planes did the same.
http://www.wa1lmc.com/wa1lmc/wtcattack28-plane%20debris.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Landing_gear_aa11.jpg
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/1041/80021uy.jpg
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/3001/50134as.jpg
http://911review.org/_webimages/wtc/6239.JPG

Plenty of debris from both planes were found and positively identified by various agencies.
And corroborated by eyewitnesses.
The NIST even produced neat animations of how the planes most likely broke up and distributed their debris:
http://www.debunking911.com/021104-13Bb.gif

Seriously jackie, most pathetic argument you've come up with yet.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I distinctly remember you calling me to task for not furnishing you with evidence of someone calling a piece of molten metal a "pool". In fact, after quizzing me for 3 days in order to iron out this petty settlement you insisted that I "misrepresented" the facts yet here you are countenancing a phenomenon like you were there. Not only that but you state what actually happened.

Have you no shame, KM?

And after 3 days not only have you not been able to actually provide a single person who claims there were pools, you still don't understand the point I was making.

jackiebaron wrote: »

By the way....real investigations use term such as "WERE", not "WOULD HAVE BEEN".

.....O.K., Columbo!

I really don't think you understand what you're talking about here jackie.
It looks like you're grasping at grammatical straws to avoid yet more points.

It's kinda sad after all the false accusations you levelled at me.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

You're kidding right?
What exactly do you think happened to the plane when it went into the tower? Stayed intact?

If this is the thing you're going to demand evidence from me to prove it's wring to ask for evidence, I would pick one that makes you sound a little less stupid.

But since you're asking me to prove the blindingly obvious....
I'll try to make not sound condescending, but your request is so silly it will be hard:
First we need to establish that planes tend to break up when they hit things. One would imagine that this was clear, but you're being obtuse so I will treat you as such.
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Feb/Week4/15229396.jpg
Here's a picture of a plane that crashed coming in for a landing at an Airort in Amsterdam. Note how it's broken into pieces. And this was travelling much slower than the planes that hit the WTC.

Now that we've established that planes can break up let's look at the evidence that the 9/11 planes did the same.
http://www.wa1lmc.com/wa1lmc/wtcattack28-plane%20debris.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Landing_gear_aa11.jpg
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/1041/80021uy.jpg
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/3001/50134as.jpg
http://911review.org/_webimages/wtc/6239.JPG

Plenty of debris from both planes were found and positively identified by various agencies.
And corroborated by eyewitnesses.
The NIST even produced neat animations of how the planes most likely broke up and distributed their debris:
http://www.debunking911.com/021104-13Bb.gif

Seriously jackie, most pathetic argument you've come up with yet.


And after 3 days not only have you not been able to actually provide a single person who claims there were pools, you still don't understand the point I was making.


I really don't think you understand what you're talking about here jackie.
It looks like you're grasping at grammatical straws to avoid yet more points.

It's kinda sad after all the false accusations you levelled at me.

KM, I don't know from what university you received your degree in physics but I would ask for my money back if I was you.
And "grammatical straws", KM?.....what are those exactly? A stalling tactic? Similar to "who said """"pools"""" exactly"?

But you know what, KM, you can call my arguments 'pathetic' but you're the one who believes without a shadow of a doubt that a paper passport could survive Dante's Inferno. You're the one who believes that a few junior student pilots could hit the Pentagon when the people who put the first man and woman in space couldn't get near the place even though they had 1000 ICBM's. You're the one who believes, without question, people could call from mobile phones at a height above 5000ft in 2001 and never lost a signal (like was normal in Sweden....the most advanced cellular system in the world) above 80mph. You believe all that, and why wouldn't you? You're a shill.

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

KM, I don't know from what university you received your degree in physics but I would ask for my money back if I was you.
And "grammatical straws", KM?.....what are those exactly? A stalling tactic? Similar to "who said """"pools"""" exactly"?

But you know what, KM, you can call my arguments 'pathetic' but you're the one who believes without a shadow of a doubt that a paper passport could survive Dante's Inferno. You're the one who believes that a few junior student pilots could hit the Pentagon when the people who put the first man and woman in space couldn't get near the place even though they had 1000 ICBM's. You're the one who believes, without question, people could call from mobile phones at a height above 5000ft in 2001 and never lost a signal (like was normal in Sweden....the most advanced cellular system in the world) above 80mph. You believe all that, and why wouldn't you? You're a shill.

Jackie, it's clear you can't answer simple questions or points and throw around baseless accusations when this becomes apparent.
If you want to engage in actual adult debate all of my point remain unanswered.

But if you want to persist in some fantasy where I'm a government agent out to get you and avoid questioning your beliefs, go nuts...

Di0genes

jackiebaron wrote: »

And you know this ... how?
"I state, categorically that the planes broke up inside the buildings, spreading, whatever...."

The entirety of WTC 1 and 2 was also clad in aluminium

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=104

Context: The twin towers of the World Trade Center, a New York City landmark and the tallest buildings in the world when completed in 1973, were noted for their incredible 110-story height and their gleaming exterior. The towers were clad in an aluminum alloy sheathing that gave the buildings a golden sheen at sunrise and sunset. The material covered the closely-spaced exterior steel columns, enhancing their soaring appearance.

There's your aluminium source right there.

Di0genes

jackiebaron wrote: »

You're the one who believes that a few junior student pilots could hit the Pentagon when the people who put the first man and woman in space couldn't get near the place even though they had 1000 ICBM's.

UM wait, what? I really want a source for this. You're saying the USSR couldn't hit the Pentagon?

You're the one who believes, without question, people could call from mobile phones at a height above 5000ft in 2001 and never lost a signal (like was normal in Sweden....the most advanced cellular system in the world) above 80mph. You believe all that, and why wouldn't you? You're a shill.

Now now Jackie the topic is building 7.

But since you ask. The majority of the calls were placed on airphones.

But as to your claim

Making Calls From The Air


By Brad Smith
September 24, 2001
c 2003, Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
When several passengers aboard the hijacked airliners made calls to family and spouses from their wireless phones on the now-infamous Sept. 11, it came as a surprise to many that the calls actually were completed.

Although airline passengers are warned against using their mobile phones in flight, it's fairly well-known that private airplane pilots often use regular cellular and PCS phones, even if it is illegal. Not quite as well-known, however, is that people have used their wireless phones to make surreptitious calls from the bathrooms of airliners.

The technology is there to support such airborne mobile connections. Take the Colorado company Aircell Inc., which uses FCC-approved equipment for wireless phone service.

But how does a terrestrial technology work in the sky?

First, altitude in itself is not a problem. Earthbound wireless phones can talk to base stations up to 10 miles away, depending on the terrain, while a typical passenger jet flies at an altitude of about six and a half miles. Since cell site antennas are configured to pick up signals horizontally and not from overhead, performance is usually compromised in calls from above. Nevertheless, cell sites can pick up signals from the air from great distances.

Toby Seay, vice president of national field operations for AT&T Wireless, says the technological limits to using a cell phone aboard a plane include the signal strength, potential signal inhibitors and "free space loss" as the signal gradually loses strength. The frequency used can make a difference, too. A signal using an 800 MHz cellular frequency can travel farther than a 1900 MHz PCS signal because of the different propagation characteristics of the two wavelengths.

The biggest problem with a phone signal sent from the air is that it can reach several different cell sites simultaneously. The signal can interfere with callers already using that frequency, and because there is no way for one cell site to hand off calls to another that is not adjacent to it, signals can become scrambled in the process. That's why wireless calls from jetliners don't last long, says Kathryn Condello, vice president of industry operations for CTIA. The network keeps dropping the calls, even if they are re-established later.

The phones on the back of the seats in most airplanes work similarly to a regular wireless phone. The major differences are that the antennas at the ground base stations are set up to pick up the signals from the sky, and there are far fewer stations handing off signals from one to another as a plane crosses overhead.

Also, Seay says, the airplane phones operated by AT&T Wireless and the GTE subsidiary of Verizon Communications send signals through wires to an antenna mounted on the outside of the plane. That is done to prevent interference with the plane's own radio communications, as well as to eliminate signal loss caused by the airplane's metal fuselage.

More here
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mobiles_at_altitude

But you're probably ignoring me.

ed2hands

This just came out and goes into the NIST hypothesis a bit. Am sure the engineering guys might understand it a bit better than most. Enjoy..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU

Di0genes

ed2hands wrote: »

This just came out and goes into the NIST hypothesis a bit. Am sure the engineering guys might understand it a bit better than most. Enjoy..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU

Just flicked on to 1:26

The claim "no one had any idea what happened, or the collapse was a mystery"

Clearly the writer of this report hasn't read the reports from firemen about the massive structural damage, and the fact that the building was fully involved in fire for hours without any attempt to fight it.

jackiebaron

Ladies, Gentlemen,

A few aircraft beat NORAD, even if the defenses were ordered to 'stand off' or 'stand down'....that's fine...I'm sure that America are hard-pressed to defend the world, let alone their HQ in the nation's capital, so I'll give them a pass on that fcuk-up.
Funny how they don't wan't to talk about it though. I mean, when you get the **** kicked out of you in the ring, you tend to come over and say "that slippery bastard thumped me up good!"

Nobody seems to want to know why America was thumped so easily. They just say...."it happened" or "let's move on" or some other such crap.

If a firecracker went off in England they'd have the place stitched up in a second, yet buildings and deaths happen in New York and they piss over it like a bum behind McDonalds.......and they wonder why we're suspicious.

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'm sure that America are hard-pressed to defend the world, let alone their HQ in the nation's capital, so I'll give them a pass on that fcuk-up.

So jackie I assume you're of the opinion that any plane that comes near the pentagon is supposed to be shot down?

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

So jackie I assume you're of the opinion that any plane that comes near the pentagon is supposed to be shot down?

You should not be of that assumption, KM, au contraire, mon ami. If a drunken dizzy teenager gets within 100 yards of Katy Perry or Justin Bieber, he or she is slammed to the concrete. If a plane is heading towards the Pentagon after two of them have trashed into buildings just up the fcuking road then I would imagine the dummies would employ the "let's take 'em out" credo...no.

So, KM, to answer your question, or rather to give a retort to your "assumption" .... no I don't expect any aircraft that comes near the pentagon to be shot down. I would however expect the pentagon to know that the aforementioned craft was not responding to their demand as to its intentions and as it continued on its course towards the HQ of the United States' Military, then I would imagine that shooting the vessel down would be S.O.P. ( standard operating procedure).
The Pentagon is the HQ of the US military on US soil, no? Correct me if i'm wrong.

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

You should not be of that assumption, KM, au contraire, mon ami. If a drunken dizzy teenager gets within 100 yards of Katy Perry or Justin Bieber, he or she is slammed to the concrete. If a plane is heading towards the Pentagon after two of them have trashed into buildings just up the fcuking road then I would imagine the dummies would employ the "let's take 'em out" credo...no.

So, KM, to answer your question, or rather to give a retort to your "assumption" .... no I don't expect any aircraft that comes near the pentagon to be shot down. I would however expect the pentagon to know that the aforementioned craft was not responding to their demand as to its intentions and as it continued on its course towards the HQ of the United States' Military, then I would imagine that shooting the vessel down would be S.O.P. ( standard operating procedure).
The Pentagon is the HQ of the US military on US soil, no? Correct me if i'm wrong.

And with what would they shoot these planes down with?
At what point would they view a plane as suspicious and shoot it down?
How close would a plane have been allowed to come to the pentagon?

I mean, surely you must know all of these facts if you're making the charge that they were somehow lax.

Di0genes

jackiebaron wrote: »

You should not be of that assumption, KM, au contraire, mon ami. If a drunken dizzy teenager gets within 100 yards of Katy Perry or Justin Bieber, he or she is slammed to the concrete. If a plane is heading towards the Pentagon after two of them have trashed into buildings just up the fcuking road then I would imagine the dummies would employ the "let's take 'em out" credo...no.

So, KM, to answer your question, or rather to give a retort to your "assumption" .... no I don't expect any aircraft that comes near the pentagon to be shot down. I would however expect the pentagon to know that the aforementioned craft was not responding to their demand as to its intentions and as it continued on its course towards the HQ of the United States' Military, then I would imagine that shooting the vessel down would be S.O.P. ( standard operating procedure).
The Pentagon is the HQ of the US military on US soil, no? Correct me if i'm wrong.

You do understand that the pentagon has no surface to air military defences and is sitting next to a busy commercial airport right?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Now to the actual uncut bits of the interview.

Jennings says he was in WTC7 at around 9:03 after the second plane hit and found the building empty. However this doesn't gel with other testimony specifically from John Peruggia EMS division chief.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Peruggia_John.txt

Just got done for corruption


The former chief of EMS for FDNY has been slapped with a hefty fine by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board. Chief John Peruggia, who was demoted in early January following numerous complaints over the city’s response to the December 26, 2010 blizzard, agreed to pay a $12,500 fine to dispose of the matter

http://firelawblog.com/2011/02/ethics-charges-settled-with-ems-chief/


http://archive.citylaw.org/coib/ED/ARCH-11/Peruggia-Disposition.pdf

Worth reading his whole testimony
He was one of the first to know the buildings were going to come down

At that point I
went back into the building. I was in a discussion with Mr.
Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the
Department of Buildings, but Iím not sure. Some engineer type
person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and
it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the
structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite
significant and they were very confident that the buildingís
stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower
was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that
information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the
command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it
was across the street from number i World Trade Center. I told
him ìYou see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with
the information that the building integrity is severely
compromised and they believe the building is in danger of
imminent collapse.î So, he left off in that direction.

A firefighter saved his life yet he never went back for him even when he set up his command post on chambers where there were fire crews hanging around there since the first collapse doing nothing

Q. So you stayed there for some period of
time at Chambers, the staging area?
A. The staging area, yeah.
Q. And then from there you left? You took
your rig back to 68 at some point?
A. Oh, yeah, I'd say about 11 p.m. that
night.
Q. Wow.
A. Yeah, we stayed there the whole day.
Q. The whole day, and they never put you
work?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110421.PDF

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Just got done for corruption

The former chief of EMS for FDNY has been slapped with a hefty fine by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board. Chief John Peruggia, who was demoted in early January following numerous complaints over the city’s response to the December 26, 2010 blizzard, agreed to pay a $12,500 fine to dispose of the matter

And?
Does this somehow invalidate what his testimony?
Are you now claiming his testimony is false?

Are you claiming that he had foreknowledge that the towers were to be brought down?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

And?
Does this somehow invalidate what his testimony?
Are you now claiming his testimony is false?

Are you claiming that he had foreknowledge that the towers were to be brought down?

Well it makes you wonder how honest he really is?

And you are using his testimony refute claims made by others

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Well it makes you wonder how honest he really is?

No not really because it makes no impact on his 9/11 testimony.
You've no evidence that he made false claims about 9/11 or that he received any money to do so.
You're just grasping at straws.

But if that case makes you wonder about his honesty enough to totally disregard everything you don't like about his testimony, how come you're not similarly wondering about the interviewer of Jennings?
Dylan Avery is a proven liar about 9/11 stuff.

Do you think he is an honest source, yes or no?

enno99 wrote: »

And you are using his testimony refute claims made by others

Well, I'm using his testimony amongst other sources and evidence to refute one specific claim from Jennings which didn't make sense.
A claim which came from a dishonestly edited and presented interview from a known liar and propagandist.
I've made several points showing this to be a fact, but you're ignoring them.