WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[Gamolon]

Kevin Ryan of underwriters stated ..test on the steel done at maximum possible temperatures for extended periods of time caused no weakening of the steel....

Can you please supply me with that quote from Kevin Ryan? I would like to read it for myself from the same source you are.

I supplied you with the video of that to watch before where he says all of that.You never bothered to watch it like you 9/11 apologists NEVER do since as we both know,you only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.

Kevin says they proved the floors sagged a bit in the tests.

Uh oh!

Now what?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Eots posted this video before on Chris's thread but since it doesnt go along with your delusions,you conviently ignored it just like you conviently ignored his other video where NIST confesses the towers fell at freefall speed.you never watch videos though cause you only see what you want to see as we both know.This video puts an end to the whole thing and proves beyond a doubt that demolitions brought down the towers.of course as we both know,you wont watch this video since disinformation agents like you and Bush dupes like DITZCON only see what you guys WANT to see.. Too bad your not mature enough to admit you have been proven wrong that the fires did not cause the collapses.
YouTube - Kevin Ryan 9/11 Truth

Kevin Ryan of course got fired for not going along with their coverup as many people have been around the country in jobs everywhere.wow what a free country this is.you cant even disagree with the government without fear of losing your jobs.thats how nazi germany was.The latest person who got fired for not accepting the governments version of events was one van johnson I think his name was.the environmentalist who was serving on the Obama administration for signing a petition to open up a new investigation.wow what freedoms we have here in america.cant question the governments version without losing your job.

Wow. More stupid coming from you. Who would have thought....

Him getting fired because he didn't go along with their cover-up is pure speculation. He was FIRED because he expressed opinions about MANY things in his letter as if it were the opinions of the company as a whole. Did you not even read Kevin Ryan's letter? Here's part of it:

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

He was NOT involved in the fire testing. He was a SITE MANAGER, not an EXECUTIVE as I have seen claimed by other people. He worked for a subsidiary of UL in a lab used for WATER TESTING.

yep stupid coming from you as always psych op agent.so what, he worked there idiot.Yes I have never denied he worked there at a lab for water testing.He worked there and had knowledge of everything me and Eots have talked about.none of that shows that it was the COMPANYS expressions.Nice try agent.better luck somewhere else in your pitiful attempts.

 

[Gamolon]

Eots posted this video before on Chris's thread but since it doesnt go along with your delusions,you conviently ignored it just like you conviently ignored his other video where NIST confesses the towers fell at freefall speed.you never watch videos though cause you only see what you want to see as we both know.This video puts an end to the whole thing and proves beyond a doubt that demolitions brought down the towers.of course as we both know,you wont watch this video since disinformation agents like you and Bush dupes like DITZCON only see what you guys WANT to see.. Too bad your not mature enough to admit you have been proven wrong that the fires did not cause the collapses.
YouTube - Kevin Ryan 9/11 Truth

Kevin Ryan of course got fired for not going along with their coverup as many people have been around the country in jobs everywhere.wow what a free country this is.you cant even disagree with the government without fear of losing your jobs.thats how nazi germany was.The latest person who got fired for not accepting the governments version of events was one van johnson I think his name was.the environmentalist who was serving on the Obama administration for signing a petition to open up a new investigation.wow what freedoms we have here in america.cant question the governments version without losing your job.

Wow. More stupid coming from you. Who would have thought....

Him getting fired because he didn't go along with their cover-up is pure speculation. He was FIRED because he expressed opinions about MANY things in his letter as if it were the opinions of the company as a whole. Did you not even read Kevin Ryan's letter? Here's part of it:

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

He was NOT involved in the fire testing. He was a SITE MANAGER, not an EXECUTIVE as I have seen claimed by other people. He worked for a subsidiary of UL in a lab used for WATER TESTING.

yep stupid coming from you as always psych op agent.so what, he worked there idiot.Yes I have never denied he worked there at a lab for water testing.He worked there and had knowledge of everything me and Eots have talked about.none of that shows that it was the COMPANYS expressions.Nice try agent.better luck somewhere else in your pitiful attempts.

Did you just come home from school?

You need to go back and learn reading comprehension. Then again, maybe not. It's probably the same place that taught you about steel starting to WEAKEN at 2500F.

 

[eots]

Wow. More stupid coming from you. Who would have thought....

Him getting fired because he didn't go along with their cover-up is pure speculation. He was FIRED because he expressed opinions about MANY things in his letter as if it were the opinions of the company as a whole. Did you not even read Kevin Ryan's letter? Here's part of it:



He was NOT involved in the fire testing. He was a SITE MANAGER, not an EXECUTIVE as I have seen claimed by other people. He worked for a subsidiary of UL in a lab used for WATER TESTING.

yep stupid coming from you as always psych op agent.so what, he worked there idiot.Yes I have never denied he worked there at a lab for water testing.He worked there and had knowledge of everything me and Eots have talked about.none of that shows that it was the COMPANYS expressions.Nice try agent.better luck somewhere else in your pitiful attempts.

Did you just come home from school?

You need to go back and learn reading comprehension. Then again, maybe not. It's probably the same place that taught you about steel starting to WEAKEN at 2500F.

it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???

 

[Gamolon]

yep stupid coming from you as always psych op agent.so what, he worked there idiot.Yes I have never denied he worked there at a lab for water testing.He worked there and had knowledge of everything me and Eots have talked about.none of that shows that it was the COMPANYS expressions.Nice try agent.better luck somewhere else in your pitiful attempts.

Did you just come home from school?

You need to go back and learn reading comprehension. Then again, maybe not. It's probably the same place that taught you about steel starting to WEAKEN at 2500F.

it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???

You don't research much do you? Explain this quote from James Quintiere:

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

So NOW he says the trusses failed due to heat with insulation intact. I thought there wasn't enough heat to weaken steel? Maybe the trusses were made of plastic?

Not only does he NOT agree with you about explosives, but gives HIS ALTERNATE conclusion based on the trusses failing due to heat.

You truthers are a joke.

 

[DiveCon]

Did you just come home from school?

You need to go back and learn reading comprehension. Then again, maybe not. It's probably the same place that taught you about steel starting to WEAKEN at 2500F.

it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???

You don't research much do you? Explain this quote from James Quintiere:

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

So NOW he says the trusses failed due to heat with insulation intact. I thought there wasn't enough heat to weaken steel? Maybe the trusses were made of plastic?

Not only does he NOT agree with you about explosives, but gives HIS ALTERNATE conclusion based on the trusses failing due to heat.

You truthers are a joke.

careful gam, you'll be called a "disinfo agent" soon

the crow flies at noon

 

[Bern80]

it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???

Let's assume that just for a second. That there was no weakening of the steal by fire (despite the overwhelming evidence that it could and the fact that you desperately cling to the words of one man as proof). Then what happened? Do you see how much more untenable your theory becomes by the moment? Again you fall into the trap where certain scenarios HAD to have taken place - scenarios you have provided zero evidence for - for your theories to be true. The videos we have seen quite clearly show the implosion of the building starting from the top and working their way down. So meaning any explosives used would have had to be detonated there - at the top - first. 'THEY' obviosuly meant for us to conclude that the the plane slicing through the building caused enough structural damage for the weight above to no longer be supported resulting in collapse and the sheep would just leave it at that. So please tell me how 'they' managed to make sure the planes hit underneath the pont where they had planned to trigger the first explosives.

The 'truthers' are not interested in the truth.

 

[DiveCon]

it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???

Let's assume that just for a second. That there was no weakening of the steal by fire (despite the overwhelming evidence that it could and the fact that you desperately cling to the words of one man as proof). Then what happened? Do you see how much more untenable your theory becomes by the moment? Again you fall into the trap where certain scenarios HAD to have taken place - scenarios you have provided zero evidence for - for your theories to be true. The videos we have seen quite clearly show the implosion of the building starting from the top and working their way down. So meaning any explosives used would have had to be detonated there - at the top - first. 'THEY' obviosuly meant for us to conclude that the the plane slicing through the building caused enough structural damage for the weight above to no longer be supported resulting in collapse and the sheep would just leave it at that. So please tell me how 'they' managed to make sure the planes hit underneath the pont where they had planned to trigger the first explosives.

The 'truthers' are not interested in the truth.

that NO ONE would have noticed the building being wired for demo and that ZERO evidence of that being found in the cleanup shows just how STUPID troofers are
with the THOUSANDS of people involved in the clean up and not ONE of them has come forward to say "hey, i found some really strange looking devices while sorting through the debris" is just implausible

 

[eots]

Bern80;

[Let's assume that just for a second. That there was no weakening of the steal by fire (despite the overwhelming evidence that it could and the fact that you desperately cling to the words of one man as proof

what is this overwhelming you speak of and why do you characterise the man whose official mandate from the people of this country,,is to find the cause of the collapse as if he is one lone individual in the wilderness ?

Then what happened? Do you see how much more untenable your theory becomes by the moment? Again you fall into the trap where certain scenarios HAD to have taken place - scenarios you have provided zero evidence for - for your theories to be true. The videos we have seen quite clearly show the implosion of the building starting from the top and working their way down. So meaning any explosives used would have had to be detonated there - at the top - first. 'THEY' obviosuly meant for us to conclude that the the plane slicing through the building caused enough structural damage for the weight above to no longer be supported resulting in collapse and the sheep would just leave it at that. So please tell me how 'they' managed to make sure the planes hit underneath the pont where they had planned to trigger the first explosives.

The 'truthers' are not interested in the truth

you test to fire theory when after years of trying to make science fit the story and still finding to have a very low probability you investigate hypothetical blast scenarios as requested by the lead fire investigator at NIST....As well as many highly respected and honored scientist

 

[Bern80]

Bern80;

[Let's assume that just for a second. That there was no weakening of the steal by fire (despite the overwhelming evidence that it could and the fact that you desperately cling to the words of one man as proof

what is this overwhelming you speak of and why do you characterise the man whose official mandate from the people of this country,,is to find the cause of the collapse as if he is one lone individual in the wilderness ?

Then what happened? Do you see how much more untenable your theory becomes by the moment? Again you fall into the trap where certain scenarios HAD to have taken place - scenarios you have provided zero evidence for - for your theories to be true. The videos we have seen quite clearly show the implosion of the building starting from the top and working their way down. So meaning any explosives used would have had to be detonated there - at the top - first. 'THEY' obviosuly meant for us to conclude that the the plane slicing through the building caused enough structural damage for the weight above to no longer be supported resulting in collapse and the sheep would just leave it at that. So please tell me how 'they' managed to make sure the planes hit underneath the pont where they had planned to trigger the first explosives.

The 'truthers' are not interested in the truth

you test to fire theory when after years of trying to make science fit the story and still finding to have a very low probability you investigate hypothetical blast scenarios as requested by the lead fire investigator at NIST....As well as many highly respected and honored scientist

I find it very interesting that you proclaim you know so much about what happened. Yet you chicken shit out of providing any type of evidence what so ever for the things that must be true for your theory to remain plausible.

 

[eots]

it was steel I provided that information several times...and you keep forgetting that the lead fire investigator at also stated that fires a the maximum temperatures for much longer durations created only minimal floor sagging...and that no forensic test should that temperatures hot enough to weaken steel was even present at the wtc...so other than popular mechanics ...who confirms....your assertions ???

Let's assume that just for a second. That there was no weakening of the steal by fire (despite the overwhelming evidence that it could and the fact that you desperately cling to the words of one man as proof). Then what happened? Do you see how much more untenable your theory becomes by the moment? Again you fall into the trap where certain scenarios HAD to have taken place - scenarios you have provided zero evidence for - for your theories to be true. The videos we have seen quite clearly show the implosion of the building starting from the top and working their way down. So meaning any explosives used would have had to be detonated there - at the top - first. 'THEY' obviosuly meant for us to conclude that the the plane slicing through the building caused enough structural damage for the weight above to no longer be supported resulting in collapse and the sheep would just leave it at that. So please tell me how 'they' managed to make sure the planes hit underneath the pont where they had planned to trigger the first explosives.

The 'truthers' are not interested in the truth.

that NO ONE would have noticed the building being wired for demo and that ZERO evidence of that being found in the cleanup shows just how STUPID troofers are
with the THOUSANDS of people involved in the clean up and not ONE of them has come forward to say "hey, i found some really strange looking devices while sorting through the debris" is just implausible

strange looking devices ???? they found nothing bigger than a piece of broken keypad from a telephone..the tons of electronics and wire in buildings of this magnitude all covered in ash to top it all off...and then the crime scene and evidence was all promptly destroyed by popular mechanics friends...controlled demolition inc...who was contracted to dispose of the evidence in a clean-up

 

[DiveCon]

Let's assume that just for a second. That there was no weakening of the steal by fire (despite the overwhelming evidence that it could and the fact that you desperately cling to the words of one man as proof). Then what happened? Do you see how much more untenable your theory becomes by the moment? Again you fall into the trap where certain scenarios HAD to have taken place - scenarios you have provided zero evidence for - for your theories to be true. The videos we have seen quite clearly show the implosion of the building starting from the top and working their way down. So meaning any explosives used would have had to be detonated there - at the top - first. 'THEY' obviosuly meant for us to conclude that the the plane slicing through the building caused enough structural damage for the weight above to no longer be supported resulting in collapse and the sheep would just leave it at that. So please tell me how 'they' managed to make sure the planes hit underneath the pont where they had planned to trigger the first explosives.

The 'truthers' are not interested in the truth.

that NO ONE would have noticed the building being wired for demo and that ZERO evidence of that being found in the cleanup shows just how STUPID troofers are
with the THOUSANDS of people involved in the clean up and not ONE of them has come forward to say "hey, i found some really strange looking devices while sorting through the debris" is just implausible

strange looking devices ???? they found nothing bigger than a piece of broken keypad from a telephone..the tons of electronics and wire in buildings of this magnitude all covered in ash to top it all off...and then the crime scene and evidence was all promptly destroyed by popular mechanics friends...controlled demolition inc...who was contracted to dispose of the evidence in a clean-up

they were but one of several
and there were THOUSANDS of people involved in the cleanup

btw, the "wireless detonators" you claimed were used were smaller than that
and they found a lot of small items

 

[eots]

Bern80;

[Let's assume that just for a second. That there was no weakening of the steal by fire (despite the overwhelming evidence that it could and the fact that you desperately cling to the words of one man as proof

what is this overwhelming you speak of and why do you characterise the man whose official mandate from the people of this country,,is to find the cause of the collapse as if he is one lone individual in the wilderness ?

Then what happened? Do you see how much more untenable your theory becomes by the moment? Again you fall into the trap where certain scenarios HAD to have taken place - scenarios you have provided zero evidence for - for your theories to be true. The videos we have seen quite clearly show the implosion of the building starting from the top and working their way down. So meaning any explosives used would have had to be detonated there - at the top - first. 'THEY' obviosuly meant for us to conclude that the the plane slicing through the building caused enough structural damage for the weight above to no longer be supported resulting in collapse and the sheep would just leave it at that. So please tell me how 'they' managed to make sure the planes hit underneath the pont where they had planned to trigger the first explosives.

The 'truthers' are not interested in the truth

you test to fire theory when after years of trying to make science fit the story and still finding to have a very low probability you investigate hypothetical blast scenarios as requested by the lead fire investigator at NIST....As well as many highly respected and honored scientist

I find it very interesting that you proclaim you know so much about what happened. Yet you chicken shit out of providing any type of evidence what so ever for the things that must be true for your theory to remain plausible.

i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator....and a re-investigation of the intelligence and timeline as supported by the majority of 9/11 commision members...what do you want...and who do you share this opinion with ?

 

[Liability]

what is this overwhelming you speak of and why do you characterise the man whose official mandate from the people of this country,,is to find the cause of the collapse as if he is one lone individual in the wilderness ?




you test to fire theory when after years of trying to make science fit the story and still finding to have a very low probability you investigate hypothetical blast scenarios as requested by the lead fire investigator at NIST....As well as many highly respected and honored scientist

I find it very interesting that you proclaim you know so much about what happened. Yet you chicken shit out of providing any type of evidence what so ever for the things that must be true for your theory to remain plausible.

i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator....and a re-investigation of the intelligence and timeline as supported by the majority of 9/11 commision members...what do you want...and who do you share this opinion with ?

Nobody cares what you or the other sub-moron Trufers want.

To ask for it is one thing. Silly, but harmless.

But to GET it, you WOULD indeed have to mount a better case FOR a new investigation than you have come up with so far.

You really can't get PAST the fact that there are thousands of things that WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE TRUE in order for your sick paranoid conspiracy crap theory to hold enough water to warrant a re-opening of any investigation. And none (or practically none) of those things get addressed by you -- ever -- because they are too difficult for your pin-head to wrap it's tiny mind around.

 

[eots]

I find it very interesting that you proclaim you know so much about what happened. Yet you chicken shit out of providing any type of evidence what so ever for the things that must be true for your theory to remain plausible.

i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator....and a re-investigation of the intelligence and timeline as supported by the majority of 9/11 commision members...what do you want...and who do you share this opinion with ?

Nobody cares what you or the other sub-moron Trufers want.

To ask for it is one thing. Silly, but harmless.

But to GET it, you WOULD indeed have to mount a better case FOR a new investigation than you have come up with so far.

You really can't get PAST the fact that there are thousands of things that WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE TRUE in order for your sick paranoid conspiracy crap theory to hold enough water to warrant a re-opening of any investigation. And none (or practically none) of those things get addressed by you -- ever -- because they are too difficult for your pin-head to wrap it's tiny mind around.

City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition Has 30,000 Valid Signatures to Put Referendum...



\\Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:44pm EDT
City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition Has 30,000 Valid Signatures to Put
Referendum for 9/11 Investigation on November Ballot



NEW YORK, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a last minute decision,
lawyers for the City of New York have conceded that the New York City
Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), a group comprising 9/11 family
members, first responders and survivors, indeed did submit over 30,000 valid
signatures to put the referendum for a new 9/11 investigation before the
voters of New York City this November.

In an earlier letter from the City Clerk dated July 24, 2009, the City had
claimed only 26,003 signatures were valid, 3,997 short of the requisite
30,000. The City's concession that over 30,000 of the 52,000 signatures
submitted were in fact valid paves the way for lawyers from both sides to
argue the legality of petition.

Asked whether he thought NYC CAN could overcome the City's challenge to the
legality of the petition, legal counsel to the petitioners, Dennis McMahon,
said, "Absolutely. Although the City has an incredibly successful record of
shooting down ballot initiatives, we will be arguing from a fresh perspective
that reflects the unprecedented events of 9/11. We believe the courts will see
how critical an issue this is, and be persuaded with our legal reasoning and
point of view." A final determination on the legality of the petition will be
reached in time for the referendum to be included on the November ballot
should the petitioners prevail.
Representatives for NYC CAN, 9/11 family member Manny Badillo and Executive
Director Ted Walter, arrived at the Board of Elections on the morning of
Wednesday, September 9, to assist the court-appointed referee in commencing a
line-by-line review of the disputed signatures, only to learn the referee's
review had been called off due to a last minute concession by the City. Mr.
Badillo immediately got on the phone to inform others of the news.

"The City conceded we have 30,000 valid signatures. Big victory."

The City's concession comes as a result of the immense effort put forth by 50+
volunteers who gave more than 1,000 hours over a two week period from August
10 to August 25 to identify a total of 7,166 signatures that were wrongly
invalidated by the NYC City Clerk and Board of Elections. On August 27, NYC
CAN filed the 631-page Bill of Particulars cataloguing each of the 7,166
signatures it contended were in fact valid. NYC CAN submitted another 28,000
signatures on September 4 to guarantee the referendum will go on the ballot if
they win the court case, bringing the total signatures submitted to 80,000.

NYC CAN must deliver its memorandum of law in response to the City's motion
for summary judgment by Monday, September 21. The City will be given an
opportunity to reply before the referee's decision is made on Monday,
September 28. Fast-track appeals will likely follow no matter who wins. A
final decision will have to be made by September 30.
City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition Has 30,000 Valid Signatures to Put Referendum... | Reuters

 

[DiveCon]

i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator....and a re-investigation of the intelligence and timeline as supported by the majority of 9/11 commision members...what do you want...and who do you share this opinion with ?

Nobody cares what you or the other sub-moron Trufers want.

To ask for it is one thing. Silly, but harmless.

But to GET it, you WOULD indeed have to mount a better case FOR a new investigation than you have come up with so far.

You really can't get PAST the fact that there are thousands of things that WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE TRUE in order for your sick paranoid conspiracy crap theory to hold enough water to warrant a re-opening of any investigation. And none (or practically none) of those things get addressed by you -- ever -- because they are too difficult for your pin-head to wrap it's tiny mind around.

City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition Has 30,000 Valid Signatures to Put Referendum...



\\Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:44pm EDT
City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition Has 30,000 Valid Signatures to Put
Referendum for 9/11 Investigation on November Ballot



NEW YORK, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a last minute decision,
lawyers for the City of New York have conceded that the New York City
Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN), a group comprising 9/11 family
members, first responders and survivors, indeed did submit over 30,000 valid
signatures to put the referendum for a new 9/11 investigation before the
voters of New York City this November.

In an earlier letter from the City Clerk dated July 24, 2009, the City had
claimed only 26,003 signatures were valid, 3,997 short of the requisite
30,000. The City's concession that over 30,000 of the 52,000 signatures
submitted were in fact valid paves the way for lawyers from both sides to
argue the legality of petition.

Asked whether he thought NYC CAN could overcome the City's challenge to the
legality of the petition, legal counsel to the petitioners, Dennis McMahon,
said, "Absolutely. Although the City has an incredibly successful record of
shooting down ballot initiatives, we will be arguing from a fresh perspective
that reflects the unprecedented events of 9/11. We believe the courts will see
how critical an issue this is, and be persuaded with our legal reasoning and
point of view." A final determination on the legality of the petition will be
reached in time for the referendum to be included on the November ballot
should the petitioners prevail.
Representatives for NYC CAN, 9/11 family member Manny Badillo and Executive
Director Ted Walter, arrived at the Board of Elections on the morning of
Wednesday, September 9, to assist the court-appointed referee in commencing a
line-by-line review of the disputed signatures, only to learn the referee's
review had been called off due to a last minute concession by the City. Mr.
Badillo immediately got on the phone to inform others of the news.

"The City conceded we have 30,000 valid signatures. Big victory."

The City's concession comes as a result of the immense effort put forth by 50+
volunteers who gave more than 1,000 hours over a two week period from August
10 to August 25 to identify a total of 7,166 signatures that were wrongly
invalidated by the NYC City Clerk and Board of Elections. On August 27, NYC
CAN filed the 631-page Bill of Particulars cataloguing each of the 7,166
signatures it contended were in fact valid. NYC CAN submitted another 28,000
signatures on September 4 to guarantee the referendum will go on the ballot if
they win the court case, bringing the total signatures submitted to 80,000.

NYC CAN must deliver its memorandum of law in response to the City's motion
for summary judgment by Monday, September 21. The City will be given an
opportunity to reply before the referee's decision is made on Monday,
September 28. Fast-track appeals will likely follow no matter who wins. A
final decision will have to be made by September 30.
City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition Has 30,000 Valid Signatures to Put Referendum... | Reuters

so, of the 80k claimed, only 30k were valid

 

[Bern80]

what is this overwhelming you speak of and why do you characterise the man whose official mandate from the people of this country,,is to find the cause of the collapse as if he is one lone individual in the wilderness ?




you test to fire theory when after years of trying to make science fit the story and still finding to have a very low probability you investigate hypothetical blast scenarios as requested by the lead fire investigator at NIST....As well as many highly respected and honored scientist

I find it very interesting that you proclaim you know so much about what happened. Yet you chicken shit out of providing any type of evidence what so ever for the things that must be true for your theory to remain plausible.

i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator....and a re-investigation of the intelligence and timeline as supported by the majority of 9/11 commision members...what do you want...and who do you share this opinion with ?

You can't have it both ways eots. Your lack of objectivity is again revealed. You say hypothtical tests with flame to see when steel will soften don't count. Why will you accept a hypothetical blasting scenario but not that?

I told you what I want. I want the truth. I maintain that you don't want the truth. That in fact your brain is probably not capable of accepting the truth. Can you sit there and objectively say that if sufficient evidence was presented you would accept that what all essentially saw is really what happened? You believe in the tri-lateral commission for god's sake. If nothing else is FACT this is: You are a liar because you are incapable of admitting to yourself that what you WANT is proof that our government orchestrated the event of 9/11, that they were somehow able to coincide a controlled demolition with the plane crashes. THAT is what want and that is a far, far different thing than wanting the truth. The FACT is eots you can't know the truth because you don't know who you are.

 

[eots]

Bern80;

You can't have it both ways eots. Your lack of objectivity is again revealed. You say hypothtical tests with flame to see when steel will soften don't count. Why will you accept a hypothetical blasting scenario but not that?

they do and when done by NIST..or in an official capacity ..but not from national geo


James Quintiere, Ph.D., Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science




This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...


Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done?


careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have.

I told you what I want. I want the truth. I maintain that you don't want the truth. That in fact your brain is probably not capable of accepting the truth. Can you sit there and objectively say that if sufficient evidence was presented you would accept that what all essentially saw is really what happened? You believe in the tri-lateral commission for god's sake.

so you are saying ther is no tri-lateral commison ???

If nothing else is FACT this is: You are a liar because you are incapable of admitting to yourself that what you WANT is proof that our government orchestrated the event of 9/11, that they were somehow able to coincide a controlled demolition with the plane crashes. THAT is what want and that is a far, far different thing than wanting the truth. The FACT is eots you can't know the truth because you don't know who you are

blah blah blah ramble ramble...what ???...I am the one that supports a real investigation...you oppose it...

 

[Bern80]

they do and when done by NIST..or in an official capacity ..but not from national geo

None of the tests were conducted NGO. They were conducted by the same type of qualifying bodies that would need to be used for your investigation. Scientists at Purdue University, The Society of Civil Engineers and the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center. What do you find these groups do be unqualified

I find it far more interesting what you DIDN'T highlight:

NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event

Fruther it should be noted that while the Mr. Quintere may not be completely satisfied with the investigation he does not share you belief that this was an inside job. I was easily abe to find Mr. Quintiere's paper on the issue. From what I can read he does support that the planes ultimately brought down the towers. What he disagrees about is how the structure failed. He indeed does not believe the steel beams softened due to fire exposure. His belief is summarized here:

2. Trusses fail as heated by fire (with insulation intact) as due to the instability of
the external columns according to Usmani et al.12, or the trusses fail at the
connections according to Burgess et al.13 and the NIST truss computations9

[/B]so you are saying ther is no tri-lateral commison ???

I don't believe they run the world.

blah blah blah ramble ramble...what ???...I am the one that supports a real investigation...you oppose it...

Where have I ever stated I don't support further investigation? You can investigate it until the cows come home for all I care. My contention is that you are not satisified with any evidence or able to weigh objectively any evidence now or in the future that supports anything but a government inside job. Again until you face the truth about yourself, you will not learn the truth of what happened on 9/11.

 

[Gamolon]

i want credible scientific study of hypothetical blast scenario's as promised by NIST and requested by the lead fire investigator

Why is it that you and your other stooges continually post claims and quotes WITHOUT the sources. Is that part of your game-plan? To quote mine and make up your own stuff so people can't make up their own minds?

Between you and 9/11 inside job, you two never quote what you are talking about. You want a "good debate" about subjects here, but refuse to make it easy to discuss by referring us to videos and past posts that supposedly contain the information.

So, I'll ask you this again. Please post the source to the quote where James Quintiere requested a scientific study of "hypothetical blast scenarios". Can you provide one or not? If not, we can all just assume that your making this crap up. Much like 9/11 inside job and his claim that steel only STARTS to melt at 2500F, yet provides no source for his claim and only gives us a mysterious "steel worker" who told him this.