Thursday, October 09, 2014

Ryan, I can be reasoned with.

Ryan, I can be reasoned with. A fan of both of our work wanted us to communicate. I have tried to get you to respond to me. You need to understand that the people you relied on for your information have played the same stubborn game of refusing to even respond to specific points. Are you seriously flying all the way to LA yet you can't take a few minutes to do the bare minimum expected of civilized people and engage in civilized discourse through written word? You are helping Zionists get away with misdirecting the public from the main motive for the 9/11 attack.

The celebrating Israelis spotted in N.J. were obnoxious jerks. CELEBRATING and MOCKING the tragedy was disgustingly selfish. The witness who spotted them saw them after she got a call from a friend who called to tell her that a plane had hit the twin towers so she got her binoculars and went to her window to look for herself. It is after that that she spotted them and I guess called police.  The FBI called them the "hi-fivers" from what I have read. 

Unfortunately you relied on piss poor reporting for your info. No Israelis were “”were arrested filming the first plane hit the first tower ” nor were Israelis “also arrested in several vans with explosives” Fox News and Mike Rivero (author of the website “What really happened”) do extremely poor jobs at reporting. Sounds like you have been influenced by Mike Rivero’s “reasoning” because when someone points a camera at something to document it, it does not mean they had prior knowledge. The witness saw them after she got a call from a friend telling her to look at the twin towers because a plane had crashed. NOT before. They said “Document” instead of
“celebrate” because they don’t want to look bad. Check out this site:

Instead of telling cops that they were celebrating the attacks as they took pictures of themselves with the burning towers behind them, they told the cops they were "documenting the event." (I think if they threw it in the cops faces saying, yeah, we were celebrating, they might have gotten a beating so they tried to class it up and act like they were not being disrespectful)

BEFORE the cops even pulled the van over, they were under the impression there might be explosives in the van. Bomb sniffing dog reacted as if there were  BUT when they tested for explosives, they found none. Mike Rivero uses the same article saying no explosives were found, quotes only the part saying dogs reacted as if there were, OMITTING the part saying they searched and found none.

Rivero quotes this part: “Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives” YET OMITS the part of the article which says “The Bergen County Police bomb squad X-rayed packages found inside the van but did not find any explosives, authorities said.”

The FBI called them the "hi-fivers" from what I have read. Instead of telling cops that they were celebrating the attacks as they took pictures of themselves with the burning towers behind them, they told the cops they were "documenting the event." You see, the cops were pissed off at reports these guys were mocking our tragedy. they weren't going to say "yes we held up lighters and giving hi-fives as Americans were burning to death" so they told the cops they were "documenting the event."

 I have been trying to point out that the very two assumptions of the truthers are wrong. (make sure you look at Sherman's Neckties, link below)
The first two assumptions of the 9/11 conspiracy are false.
1. Contrary to what they assumed, fires CAN weaken steel. Eric Hufschmid thought he was being clever when he looked up the MELTING point of steel not realizing that the steel didn't have to melt for it to weaken.
2. Contrary to what they assumed, there were signs of bowing and sagging in the towers well before the collapse of the towers.

Fires HAVE caused steel framed buildings to collapse. The Kader toy factory fire is an example. The thing you need to understand is that people like Eric Hufschmid  are just ignorant and that they didn't know what they were talking about when the declared "fires can't do that." And as I showed you, firemen know what fires can do to steel framed buildings as the  Firehouse Magazine from Sept. 1998 explained. Hufschmid was just spreading ignorance as the historic example of Sherman's Neckties shows

Fires pose a collapse threat to steel framed buildings, that means that when there is a fire there is a potential collapse threat, it doesn't mean the building will ALWAYS collapse but that if COULD collapse. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a *possibility* of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors."
"Floor assemblies deflected as much as three feet in some places" so there was a potential for collapse. Fires pose a risk of collapse, we can see a few floors did collapse inside WTC FIVE for example.

And NIST has a FAQ where they explain "These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9)."
The thing is the conditions were there in the towers and WTC7 for the weakened structure, due to the fires, to result in collapse. Are you arguing that fires can't cause a steel structure to be weakened? The Kader toy factory fire resulted in a collapse. The fireman who wrote the Sept. 1998 article in Firehouse Magazine understood that fires CAN pose a "serious collapse threat": "Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having three- or four-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel. The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia proved that these can be severe dangers under the wrong set of circumstances."

And as I have shown, the weakening in the towers resulted in inward bowing of exterior load bearing columns. Eric Hufschmid thought he was being clever when he looked up the MELTING point of steel not realizing that the steel didn't have to melt for it to weaken. Hufschmid's ignorance is so wide spread that a site about the melting point of steel had to add this: "Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel."

And Contrary to what they assumed, there were signs of bowing and sagging in the towers well before the collapse of the towers. The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center. Griffin writes, "in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes." But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it. Griffin is simply wrong.

The very same area that we can see in a photo here
then you can see that the bowing has progressed in a photo here:
Then you can see that very same bowed in area where it reaches the point of total failure in this video here:
We can see the early stages of the bowing in the two pictures linked above and then we can see how _that bowed in area_ reaches the point of total failure in the video linked above. 

*Richard Gage is a con man* :

You are calling the Fire Chief and other firemen liars:
Here are the Fire Chief's words: "The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” AND "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department" 

“The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the fa├žade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.” - Chief Frank Fellini

“I then walked down a couple of blocks back to the site. We were north of the Winter Garden at that point. It might have been—it was Vesey Street. We walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn’t feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.” 
Q. “It was on fire, correct, Captain?” 
A. “Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back 
everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way.” - Captain Ray Goldbach

“And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade Center came down, what would happen to this building? We went in there, we checked it out. There were some people in there. We made them evacuate and I went in the back to see what was happening. The fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. I went back and I reminded whoever the chief was, I don’tknow if it was Chief McKavanagh or Chief Blaich, that with 7 World Trade Center in danger of collapsing, you had to be careful, because Con Edison had big transformers in the back that supplied the lower half of Manhattan. …when I was coming back somewhere around I think it was 5:00 o’clock, 6:00 o’clock, 7 World Trade Center came down.” Firefighter Eugene Kelty

“But they weren’t letting guys too close. At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren’t letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. We hung out for hours…I remember later on in the day it was getting close that they were more concerned about seven coming down. We had no idea what  20was going on on the east side. We were all on our side. On the west side it was pretty clear. The wind was blowing from west to east I believe. I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down they kept backing us up Vesey, almost a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up. 
… The whole time while we were waiting—there were hours that went by. Seven came down after 5 in the afternoon.”  - Firefighter Vincent Massa 9110222

No comments: