[Moderated]List Of NYC Firefighters Who Think Bombs Brought Down The Towers

[WildCat]

In another thread Dictator Cheney, in an attempt to show that firefighters know there were bombs in the towers, wrote:
sure it come from the scene, like the firefighters.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf)

So this thread is for him or any other truther to list the names of firefighters on the scene who believe it was bombs that caused the towers to collapse and killed hundreds of their fellow firefighters.

Ready? Go!

[DC]

In another thread Dictator Cheney, in an attempt to show that firefighters know there were bombs in the towers, wrote:


So this thread is for him or any other truther to list the names of firefighters on the scene who believe it was bombs that caused the towers to collapse and killed hundreds of their fellow firefighters.

Ready? Go!

you claimed "None of these firefighters belive bombs brought down the towers"
can you backup that claim?

[WildCat]

you claimed "None of these firefighters belive bombs brought down the towers"
can you backup that claim?
Please list them, can you do that?

[fuelair]

None, I am guessing. But, I am predjudiced in that I was watching the news from shortly after the announcement of the first hit - and fireman are generally intelligent - other than that rushing into burning buildings to save people thing which needs more than intelligence.

[DC]

Please list them, can you do that?

you claimed non of them belives that bombs brought down the towers. i never claimed they belive that or belive the contrary.
so its actually up to you to backup your claim, you claimed that none of them blives that. so i guess you have interviews with those ppl where they clearly state, they dont belive it, or atleast interviews that reflect theyr belives.

[DC]

None, I am guessing. But, I am predjudiced in that I was watching the news from shortly after the announcement of the first hit - and fireman are generally intelligent - other than that rushing into burning buildings to save people thing which needs more than intelligence.

those ppl can estimate the risk very well, and even at high risk they risk theyr lives daily for a lousy payment, but they do because they belive/know its the right thing to do.

[boloboffin]

The claim is yours, DictatorCheney. Please read the OP again.

[WildCat]

you claimed non of them belives that bombs brought down the towers. i never claimed they belive that or belive the contrary.
so its actually up to you to backup your claim, you claimed that none of them blives that. so i guess you have interviews with those ppl where they clearly state, they dont belive it, or atleast interviews that reflect theyr belives.
Is it your contention that they do believe there were bombs in the towers, but don't care enough to bother bringing their claims public?

[DC]

Is it your contention that they do believe there were bombs in the towers, but don't care enough to bother bringing their claims public?

no, i never said that they do belive bombs brought down the towers. i did not even claim what they heard where indeed bombs or explosives.

your anwer to my link to the testimonies that reported explosions and such, was your claim that none of them belives the towers was brought down with bombs.

not me claiming anything , its actually you that claimed something. something you cannot backup most propably.

[WildCat]

no, i never said that they do belive bombs brought down the towers. i did not even claim what they heard where indeed bombs or explosives.

your anwer to my link to the testimonies that reported explosions and such, was your claim that none of them belives the towers was brought down with bombs.

not me claiming anything , its actually you that claimed something. something you cannot backup most propably.
Let's recap:
Problem is the information about 9/11 didn't come from Bush's mouth. It came from people who were at crash sites: scientists, investigators, clean up crew, and eyewitnesses.

no really, i thaught already that the witness report of a guy that claims to have seen the first impact in tv, and after second hit, he keeps reading books with kids. was not very usefull indeed.

sure it come from the scene, like the firefighters.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf)
You are claiming that everything we know about 9/11 is from what the government (Bush) tells us, while I and others were contending that most of it comes from other sources. You then link to a JONES paper which attempts to show that firefighters heard explosions, and that these explosions were what really brought down the towers - the implied assumption is that the explosions were bombs.

So why aren't there any firefighters who were on the scene who assert that bombs brought down the towers?

[DC]

Let's recap:





You are claiming that everything we know about 9/11 is from what the government (Bush) tells us, while I and others were contending that most of it comes from other sources. You then link to a JONES paper which attempts to show that firefighters heard explosions, and that these explosions were what really brought down the towers - the implied assumption is that the explosions were bombs.

So why aren't there any firefighters who were on the scene who assert that bombs brought down the towers?

th government = bush ?
not for me. The Gevernment has no official theory as such. what is considered the officil theory is FEMA NIST NTSB 9/11-Commission reports.
and the 9/11 Commission is the one report covering all the events of 9/11, more or less.

i have no clue why you think i would claim that all those firefighters that reported things that sounded like explosions, actually belive the towers where brought down with bombs.

actually i know only of 1 firefighter , John schroeder, that claims the towers was brought down in a controlled demolition. and i dont even know if that guy in that interview is a firefighter. thats why i normaly dont bring him up in a debate. and in regards of your claim, he is not on the list of "explosive" testimonies.

but still you claimed none of them belives it. and i wonder on what you base that on.
i got asked for evidence here often already, now i do it. what is your evidence for your claim "none of them belives the towers was brought down by bombs"

because none of those ppl came out and sayd they belive it? or can you really backup that claim?

[WildCat]

i have no clue why you think i would claim that all those firefighters that reported things that sounded like explosions, actually belive the towers where brought down with bombs.
It's the truth movement that claims the explosions firefighters heard were bombs.

because none of those ppl came out and sayd they belive it? or can you really backup that claim?
I can't prove a negative. Should be simple to list those who claim bombs brought down the towers, yes?

[DC]

It's the truth movement that claims the explosions firefighters heard were bombs.


I can't prove a negative. Should be simple to list those who claim bombs brought down the towers, yes?

but to claim non of those ppl belive the towers was brought down by bombs was ok?
you dont know what they belive. i really wonder why you claimed it.
afaik none of those ppl came public and claimed the towers was brought down by bombs.

[Bananaman]

DictatorCheney, I don't often have a go at people for the way they write, but can you please learn to do so.

Throw away your cell phone, stop using text speak, buy a dictionary and stop giving us all a headache. OK?

Bananaman.

[WildCat]

but to claim non of those ppl belive the towers was brought down by bombs was ok?
you dont know what they belive. i really wonder why you claimed it.
afaik none of those ppl came public and claimed the towers was brought down by bombs.
Let me rephrase that: I have no evidence that any firefighters there that day think there were bombs in the towers. Happy?

Now, do you have evidence that any do think there were?

[DC]

Let me rephrase that: I have no evidence that any firefighters there that day think there were bombs in the towers. Happy?

Now, do you have evidence that any do think there were?

like i sayd, no i have not, i never claimed it.

[DC]

DictatorCheney, I don't often have a go at people for the way they write, but can you please learn to do so.

Throw away your cell phone, stop using text speak, buy a dictionary and stop giving us all a headache. OK?

Bananaman.

english is not my first lang.
i hate sms.
online dictionarys are faster and for free.
ignore my posts when you cant understand it. im sorry. my english is only as good as it is, not good :)

[WildCat]

like i sayd, no i have not, i never claimed it.
So you don't think there were bombs in the towers, or you do think there were bombs but all the people there somehow didn't notice them?

[Dumb All Over]

....
actually i know only of 1 firefighter , John schroeder, that claims the towers was brought down in a controlled demolition....
Without reviewing that video of a firefighter complaining of the treatment all firefighters received after 9-11, I don't actually recall if John Schroeder ever said any such thing. Please correct me if I'm wrong and point to the section where he says the buildings collapsed by means of controlled demolition.

[TC329]

here's a hero some scumbags won't pass up the opportunity to attack :

On the morning of September 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac, Jr. admitted that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job, the police know it’s an inside job, and the firemen know it too.”

“New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. Many other firemen knew there were bombs in the buildings,’ he said, ‘but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact.’ Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD’s antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. ‘There were definitely bombs in those buildings,’ Isaac added.”

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,”

[WildCat]

Without reviewing that video of a firefighter complaining of the treatment all firefighters received after 9-11, I don't actually recall if John Schroeder ever said any such thing. Please correct me if I'm wrong and point to the section where he says the buildings collapsed by means of controlled demolition.
There's a video of him (interviewed by truthers) where he comes close, but doesn't actually say that. He comes across as suffering from PTSD to me, but I'm no psychiatrist. You can see the video on our favorite web site (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/090807_firefighters_account.htm). Nearly 50 minutes long though...

[WildCat]

On the morning of September 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac, Jr. admitted that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job, the police know it’s an inside job, and the firemen know it too.”
We're very familiar with him, he used to post here under the name Sentinel. It would be a wonder if he managed to put a single coherent post together, but he was unable to in his time here.

[TC329]

So you don't think there were bombs in the towers, or you do think there were bombs but all the people there somehow didn't notice them?


LOL....... I'm sure there were bombs just in the hallways around the building. I haven't been able to figure out why people didn't walk into their office that morning saying "Holy ****** Look at the size of that bomb in the corner!!!!! I don't recall that being there yesterday".............

Lucky for you there isn't any sort of common sense test required for membership here. I can't figure out why the Urban Movers didn't just put bombs out in the open for everyone to discover instead of the core personally.

Maybe if we could talk to Dominic Suter he could explain it to us but he fled the country and there has been no efforts to extradite him. Go Chertoff!!!

[TC329]

We're very familiar with him, he used to post here under the name Sentinel. It would be a wonder if he managed to put a single coherent post together, but he was unable to in his time here.

Is he a liar?

[TC329]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htTJOeSN0u8

Here are a few (of many) quotes taken from the Oral Histories put online by the NYTimes.

Feel free to point out any you claim I have taken out of context. In the 12 months it's been online no one has proven I have taken anything out of context or twisted the words or misrepresented the statements by various 9/11 heroes.

[DC]

Without reviewing that video of a firefighter complaining of the treatment all firefighters received after 9-11, I don't actually recall if John Schroeder ever said any such thing. Please correct me if I'm wrong and point to the section where he says the buildings collapsed by means of controlled demolition.

i think your right, just watched the "highlights" again, and he doesnt say, only thing he says is something was not right here, about the collapse like he witnessed it and also the loby damage.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=DBb00PQR1zo

[Firestone]

here's a hero some scumbags won't pass up the opportunity to attack :

On the morning of September 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac, Jr. admitted that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job, the police know it’s an inside job, and the firemen know it too.”

“New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. Many other firemen knew there were bombs in the buildings,’ he said, ‘but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact.’ Isaac, who was stationed at Engine 10 near the WTC in the late 1990s, said the higher-ups included the NYFD’s antiterrorism consultant, James Woolsey, a former CIA director. ‘There were definitely bombs in those buildings,’ Isaac added.”

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,”There are also "scumbags" (to use your delicate wording) who insinuate that almost all the NYPD en FDNY heroes will keep silent about the murder of hundreds of their colleagues, because "they are afraid for their jobs".

The ease with which truthers accuse others of being cowards or complicit with horrendous crimes, without a shred of evidence, will never cease to amaze me.

[DC]

So you don't think there were bombs in the towers, or you do think there were bombs but all the people there somehow didn't notice them?

yes i think the towers was brought down in a controlled demolition.

[TC329]

There are also "scumbags" (to use your delicate wording) who insinuate that almost all the NYPD en FDNY heroes will keep silent about the murder of hundreds of their colleagues, because "they are afraid for their jobs".

The ease with which truthers accuse others of being cowards or complicit with horrendous crimes, without a shred of evidence, will never cease to amaze me.


Are you calling the man a liar or not?

[Dumb All Over]

There's a video of him (interviewed by truthers) where he comes close, but doesn't actually say that. He comes across as suffering from PTSD to me, but I'm no psychiatrist. You can see the video on our favorite web site (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/090807_firefighters_account.htm). Nearly 50 minutes long though...
Thanks, WC. I did watch that video when it first came out. I watched it a couple of times. Avery's (and others') leading questions were disturbing to me. I felt they tried to corner John Schroeder and have him agree with some of their theories. Mr. Schroeder was almost willing to do so as long as Avery gave him a platform for his aftermath issues. Still, I don't believe Schroeder ever agreed to CD.

[DavidJames]

Are you calling the man a liar or not?I believe people who accuse the NY police or fire departments of being complicit in the attacks on 9/11 without a shred of evidence are either mentally ill, charlatans or do not have the ability to think critically. I don't know you or the person you are referring to, but since neither of you have evidence, I believe both of you fit into one of those categories. So either provide your evidence or pick your category.

[Firestone]

Are you calling the man a liar or not?I am not a truther, so I don't accuse without evidence.

All I can say is that the evidence proves Paul Isaac, Jr to be wrong.
There is no way for me to determine wether he is mistaken or lying.

You, on the other hand, accuse almost all the NYPD en FDNY heroes of being cowards or complicit with horrendous crimes, without a shred of evidence.

[DC]

when you look how the first responders and family members of 9/11 victims, that do question the official theory, are "judged" by the "OCTers" and ignored by the media. i think alot would think twice to go public.

[Sabrina]

when you look how the first responders and family members of 9/11 victims, that do question the official theory, are "judged" by the "OCTers" and ignored by the media. i think alot would think twice to go public.

Our issue is not that they "question the official theory" (by the way, can YOU tell us what the official theory is? Last we knew, there wasn't one particular one endorsed by any government entity.) but that they do so without the slightest shred of proof or evidence; merely "gut feelings" and "suspicions".

Gut feelings and suspicions do not an inside job make, my friend.

[Bananaman]

english is not my first lang.
i hate sms.
online dictionarys are faster and for free.
ignore my posts when you cant understand it. im sorry. my english is only as good as it is, not good

OK, I apologise. If English is not your first language then you're not doing badly. Certainly better than I could do in French or German.

Just ditch the abbreviations.

Bananaman.

[Jonnyclueless]

OK, so we have 1. Any other takers?

[DC]

OK, I apologise. If English is not your first language then you're not doing badly. Certainly better than I could do in French or German.

Just ditch the abbreviations.

Bananaman.

no problem :)

[TC329]

I believe people who accuse the NY police or fire departments of being complicit in the attacks on 9/11 without a shred of evidence are either mentally ill, charlatans or do not have the ability to think critically. I don't know you or the person you are referring to, but since neither of you have evidence, I believe both of you fit into one of those categories. So either provide your evidence or pick your category.


One of us is a 9/11 hero.
Both of us working for the heroes of 9/11 no one else will speak out for.

That out of the way if you have evidence Mr. Isaac or myself are accusing the NYPD and/or FDNY in complicity in the attacks I ask you to present it now.

[TC329]

I am not a truther, so I don't accuse without evidence.

All I can say is that the evidence proves Paul Isaac, Jr to be wrong.
There is no way for me to determine wether he is mistaken or lying.

You, on the other hand, accuse almost all the NYPD en FDNY heroes of being cowards or complicit with horrendous crimes, without a shred of evidence.


I am not calling anyone a coward nor am I stating any NYPD and/or FDNY were complicit in the attacks.

[Good Lt]

yes i think the towers was brought down in a controlled demolition.

On what evidence do you base this fantasy?

Cite your evidence so that it can be reviewed. If your goal is to convince people of your claim, then refusing to cite evidence so that it can be examined and vetted by others is not going to win you converts (hence, the Troof cult's inherent fear of submitting papers to mainstream journals for peer review).

We're not just going to "take your word for it."

Put up the evidence you've gathered demonstrating a controlled demolition destroyed the Towers, or stop making the idiotic, baseless claims about it.

[DavidJames]

One of us is a 9/11 hero.
Both of us working for the heroes of 9/11 no one else will speak out for.

That out of the way if you have evidence Mr. Isaac or myself are accusing the NYPD and/or FDNY in complicity in the attacks I ask you to present it now.Here you go CT boy...On the morning of September 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac, Jr. admitted that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job, the police know it’s an inside job, and the firemen know it too.”Paul, the police and firemen knew it was an inside job and are apparently withholding vital evidence from authorities thereby obstructing justice and being complicit in the crime.

Pick your category CT boy

[TC329]

On what evidence do you base this fantasy?

We can't find the pancakes you abandoned?

[DGM]

One of us is a 9/11 hero.
Both of us working for the heroes of 9/11 no one else will speak out for.

That out of the way if you have evidence Mr. Isaac or myself are accusing the NYPD and/or FDNY in complicity in the attacks I ask you to present it now.

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,”

They know but are covering it up. That was you saying this, right? That's being complacent I believe.

[DC]

On what evidence do you base this fantasy?

Cite your evidence so that it can be reviewed. If your goal is to convince people of your claim, then refusing to cite evidence so that it can be examined and vetted by others is not going to win you converts (hence, the Troof cult's inherent fear of submitting papers to mainstream journals for peer review).

We're not just going to "take your word for it."

Put up the evidence you've gathered demonstrating a controlled demolition destroyed the Towers, or stop making the idiotic, baseless claims about it.

well i never wanted anyone just to take my word :)

and i also dont hope to convince ppl, i hope that the indications they can find for a controlled demolition in videos and witness reports will convince them that we need a new and independent investigation.

[Thunder]

Wow, I didnt know that the FDNY were all trained in how to distinguish between a collapse caused by explosives or a fire+ weakened steel.

I also didnt know that the FDNY scoured the WTC debrees for explosives residue.

If a meteor strikes the Earth, makes a big bang, and creates a mushroom cloud, does that mean it was really a nuclear detonation?

9-11 truthers..are soo useless.

[Good Lt]

That out of the way if you have evidence Mr. Isaac or myself are accusing the NYPD and/or FDNY in complicity in the attacks I ask you to present it now.

The problem for you and for your Troofer acolytes is that you aren't clear on exactly what you are saying and never have been.

"Just asking questions" is the same thing as "I'm only using the Socratic method to imply that something else happened on 9-11."

You obviously believe something else happened on 9-11 - something evil, nefarious and dastardly within the US or Israeli or Pakistani government, but you won't come out and say what it is you think this dastardly deed is.

So why aren't you presenting an alternative theory or storyline that can be viewed, critiqued and vetted for accuracy in the same manner you're demanding of the "official conspiracy theory?"

I think I have an idea why, but I'm open to your opinions, too.

Just remember, Troofers, that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

[Good Lt]

i hope that the indications they can find for a controlled demolition in videos and witness reports will convince them that we need a new and independent investigation.

What "indications?"

Be more specific.

[DC]

Wow, I didnt know that the FDNY were all trained in how to distinguish between a collapse caused by explosives or a fire+ weakened steel.

I also didnt know that the FDNY scoured the WTC debrees for explosives residue.

If a meteor strikes the Earth, makes a big bang, and creates a mushroom cloud, does that mean it was really a nuclear detonation?

9-11 truthers..are soo useless.

you like generalisations?

[Thunder]

"new and independent investigation"

...getting really tired of hearing this. its not gonna happen, toothers. get a life.

[Thunder]

you like generalisations?

only when they are accurate.

:D

[Jonnyclueless]

One of us is a 9/11 hero.
Both of us working for the heroes of 9/11 no one else will speak out for.

That out of the way if you have evidence Mr. Isaac or myself are accusing the NYPD and/or FDNY in complicity in the attacks I ask you to present it now.

But please keep in mind that most of us here are playing pretend NWO, we're adults. Besides, I thought Paul wasn't really a fireman and wasn't really near the towers.

Now do you think that Larry was referring to a controlled demolition when he used the term "pull it"?

[Dr Adequate]

LOL....... I'm sure there were bombs just in the hallways around the building. I haven't been able to figure out why people didn't walk into their office that morning saying "Holy ****** Look at the size of that bomb in the corner!!!!! I don't recall that being there yesterday"............. Well, obviously it's because the people who planted the bombs managed to secretly dismantle bits of the building and hide the bombs inside the walls and so on without anyone noticing ... not even the sniffer dogs.

[Thunder]

maybe they used...invisible explosives? hidden using a cloaking device?

could the drywall have been made of thermite?

[Jonnyclueless]

and i also dont hope to convince ppl, i hope that the indications they can find for a controlled demolition in videos and witness reports will convince them that we need a new and independent investigation.

And if indications ever do show up, maybe people will listen. So far not a single person has been able to present a single piece of evidence that remotely even suggests a controlled demolition.

Acting like an idiot running around shouting "Look at the video, it looks just like a CD" (while the actual experts point out why they look absolutely nothing like a CD) does not count.

[Thunder]

all the Toothers have, is the instant reaction of FDNY and NYPD, that the collapse looked like an explosion caused by bombs.

ofcourse it looked like an explosion caused by bombs!! we have been trained by Hollywood to think that way.

but that doesnt make it so. get your head out of the boobtube, Toothers.

[DC]

What "indications?"

Be more specific.

those indications that all are "debunked" like collapse speed, "squibs", possible thermite traces, high sulfur levels in WTC steel (FEMA), molten metal and so on. im sure you know them and found a convincing explaination.

[Sabrina]

those indications that all are "debunked" like collapse speed, "squibs", possible thermite traces, high sulfur levels in WTC steel (FEMA), molten metal and so on. im sure you know them and found a convincing explaination.

Every single one of those has been explained in depth in this very forum, as well as on www.911myths.com, debunking911.org, and other websites. May I suggest you do some research using the search function and see what you can find before raising these points again? Thank you.

[Totovader]

those indications that all are "debunked" like collapse speed, "squibs", possible thermite traces, high sulfur levels in WTC steel (FEMA), molten metal and so on. im sure you know them and found a convincing explaination.

So all the evidence you have of controlled demolitions has already been debunked.

Sounds like a strong case you have there...

[DC]

all the Toothers have, is the instant reaction of FDNY and NYPD, that the collapse looked like an explosion caused by bombs.

ofcourse it looked like an explosion caused by bombs!! we have been trained by Hollywood to think that way.

but that doesnt make it so. get your head out of the boobtube, Toothers.

the only thing that looked like hollywood was the huge fireballs, cause thats what they use for theyr explosions in the movies, big huge fireballs.

amd how often have you seen buildings collapse like the towers in movies?

and sometimes they get demo experts like the Loizeaux's to demo stuff, or they go film theyr demos.

[Architect]

you claimed non of them belives that bombs brought down the towers. i never claimed they belive that or belive the contrary.
so its actually up to you to backup your claim, you claimed that none of them blives that. so i guess you have interviews with those ppl where they clearly state, they dont belive it, or atleast interviews that reflect theyr belives.


My, someone's grammar and syntax has continued to be remarkably high quality. The spelling remains duff, but that's just an obvious red-herring.

So, Dictator, who's sock puppet are you?

[CHF]

Oh look - another twoofer (D cheney this time) tries to use the FDNY testimonies to prove there were bombs in the WTC, has his bluff called and backs down.

Seems to happen every other week or so.

[Totovader]

the only thing that looked like hollywood was the huge fireballs, cause thats what they use for theyr explosions in the movies, big huge fireballs.

amd how often have you seen buildings collapse like the towers in movies?

and sometimes they get demo experts like the Loizeaux's to demo stuff, or they go film theyr demos.

You're talking in circles.

Do you have any evidence or not?

[DC]

Every single one of those has been explained in depth in this very forum, as well as on www.911myths.com, debunking911.org, and other websites. May I suggest you do some research using the search function and see what you can find before raising these points again? Thank you.

i know them and readed them, and those countertheorys did not convince me :)

just cause it is claimed the squibs come from "compressed" air forced true elevator shafts and then escaped true a few local windows is not enough for me. there are also ppl that claim they debunked those "debunkings".

and also the interviews with experts i red and heard did not convince me.

[DC]

You're talking in circles.

Do you have any evidence or not?

evidence for what?

that they use huge big fire balls in hollywood productions?

[boloboffin]

Paul Isaac Jr (http://www.smithmag.net/2006/08/10/korey-rowe-the-loose-cannon-of-911/#comment-4463):

I was ther at proximity to see the 20 floor gash in WTC 7. The WTC building was listing south about 20 degrees.

TC329: Is Paul Isaac Jr a liar or what?

[BenBurch]

I know two FDNY firefighters personally.

They both think Truthers are so full of it that their eyes are brown.

[Sabrina]

If experts in the respective fields, who certainly know a HECK of a lot more about it than you or I do, can't convince you of the lunacy of the theories you mentioned, then I'm afraid there's little to no hope for you, my friend.

No offense.

ETA: Sorry; that was in response to D. Cheney over here.

[CHF]

i know them and readed them, and those countertheorys did not convince me :)

just cause it is claimed the squibs come from "compressed" air forced true elevator shafts and then escaped true a few local windows is not enough for me. there are also ppl that claim they debunked those "debunkings".

and also the interviews with experts i red and heard did not convince me.

This is what it always come down to with you folks.

"Oh yeah? Well it doesn't concinve me!"

And why should the rest of the world care whether or not you are convinced? Why should this result in another investigation?

[DC]

My, someone's grammar and syntax has continued to be remarkably high quality. The spelling remains duff, but that's just an obvious red-herring.

So, Dictator, who's sock puppet are you?
thx alot

but there is no way for me to prove who i am. and even writing in another language is in times of google transaltion and thers also no proof. but one lang , my 1. lang is not a real lang. not an official one, maybe you got someone that could confirm that it is swiss dialect.

Es isch doch scho recht erstunlich das immerwider behauptet wird ich seg en amerikaner wo nur so tuet alsop er ned amerikaner waer. sind oftmals die wo mir paranoia diagnostiziered, liecht paradox.

aber danke fuers kompliment.

high quality, wow, thx :)

[Good Lt]

those indications that all are "debunked" like collapse speed, "squibs", possible thermite traces, high sulfur levels in WTC steel (FEMA), molten metal and so on. im sure you know them and found a convincing explaination.

Everythying you just listed has been debunked.

There were no "squibs." (http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm)

There was no "thermite, (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)" and anybody claiming this has yet to show any physical evidence of it.

High sulfur levels were not caused by explosives. This is taken from pathetic Steven Jones paper (Answers to Objectionable Questions) in which he (SURPRISE) edited out critically important details when quote mining...er..."citing" his source for the claim (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area).

Jone's quote:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"The next line (within the paragraph it was ripped from) Jones left out because it wasn't important:


One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.Oops! Jones probably should've included that, right? Just a minor editorial oversight.

Molten metals? Please.

I'm sure you're read this paper by Dr. Frank Greening entitled Aluminum at WTC (http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf). And I'm also sure you're aware of the work an Italian debunker has more or less shown that
"molten metals" flowing from the towers appears to be little more than leaking lead from batteries. (http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html)

Not thermite. Not explosives. Not anything the Troof movement wishes it were.

Now that I've demonstrated that your "indications" are nothing more than a collection of weapons-grade bull, what other "indications" for controlled demolitions are you presenting?

[scissorhands]

D.Cheney/Aanthanuur posts 24/7 on youtube about how he isnt convinced by any official explanation of pretty much anything.
He has been doing this in his very boring style for months.
He has lapped up every CT theory about the events of 9/11, including the no plane at shanksville and pentagon flyover and is keen on the moon landing hoax also.
He talks in circles and is completely immune to any reasoning.
I wouldnt bother trying.;)

[Jonnyclueless]

SO Chaney, you think all the experts are wrong then?

[DC]

This is what it always come down to with you folks.

"Oh yeah? Well it doesn't concinve me!"

And why should the rest of the world care whether or not you are convinced? Why should this result in another investigation?

its the same on both sides :) non of the "others side" arguments are convincing.

well i dont say the rest of the world has to care about me. but when more and more ppl come forward and demand an investigation by contacting theyr representatives in theyr country, they maybe get one.

polls have shown that most ppl dont really trust in the official reports.
(i dont say with any word that most ppl belive in an inside job, only a minority does so, just like only a minority belives they got told the full truth)

[Thunder]

Dictator- you clearly are not gonna convince us. We are not the uneducated masses that Toothers seem to target. Why are you here?

[DC]

SO Chaney, you think all the experts are wrong then?

those experts that are still considered experts by the "conspiracy-deniers" ?
yes. guess so.
ppl like Dr. Bazant, yes im pretty sure his theory isnt right, yet, maybe it will one day, then it maybe can convince me.
i really wonder what investigation into WTC7 will bring up.

[Thunder]

here's a hint: it will say the collapse of WTC 7 was not a controlled demo.

[CHF]

well i dont say the rest of the world has to care about me. but when more and more ppl come forward and demand an investigation by contacting theyr representatives in theyr country, they maybe get one.

There's a couple really obvious problems with this.

1) the overwhelming majority of experts are not calling for a new investigation

2) even if another investigation were to take place, the TM would run into the same enormous problem they encountered with the first one: it will have to be conducted by experts in the relevant fields.

This is why twoofers always shrug their shoulders when asked about their "new investigation." Who should fund it? Who should testify? Who should write the final report? You tell me, D Cheney.

The only way your demolition beliefs will be backed up is if Steven Jones and Haiwa are the "experts" and DR Griffin is allowed to make the final decision.

[DC]

Dictator- you clearly are not gonna convince us. We are not the uneducated masses that Toothers seem to target. Why are you here?

im here because i have been reading here for a while. alot interesting posts. very detailed sometimes.
some real expeerts are here afaik, like Dr. Greenings.
i like to read both sides of this debate. pro and contras. and based on that combined with my own knowledge and logic (wich is very questioned in here, i know) and make up my own oppinnion.

and when i first heard of this forum i got told that the "level" of debate is alot more fact orientatet and not only argumentum adhominem. and i hope to experiance such debates here soon.

[DGM]

those experts that are still considered experts by the "conspiracy-deniers" ?
yes. guess so.
ppl like Dr. Bazant, yes im pretty sure his theory isnt right, yet, maybe it will one day, then it maybe can convince me.
i really wonder what investigation into WTC7 will bring up.
Inherent venerabilities in the design of open floor spaces if you ask my humble (yet professional) opinion. Sorry no conspiracies just tough choices in building codes.

[DC]

There's a couple really obvious problems with this.

1) the overwhelming majority of experts are not calling for a new investigation

2) even if another investigation were to take place, the TM would run into the same enormous problem they encountered with the first one: it will have to be conducted by experts in the relevant fields.

This is why twoofers always shrug their shoulders when asked about their "new investigation." Who should fund it? Who should testify? Who should write the final report? You tell me, D Cheney.

The only way your demolition beliefs will be backed up is if Steven Jones and Haiwa are the "experts" and DR Griffin is allowed to make the final decision.

i dont know if "twoofers" or whatever childish name one wants to give them, agree with me. but i would like to see an international board of experts. but most important is, that everything is public, so everyone can see how the conclusions are reached. no secrets, no stonewalling and such.

[DC]

Inherent venerabilities in the design of open floor spaces if you ask my humble (yet professional) opinion. Sorry no conspiracies just tough choices in building codes.

wasnt there the emergency bunker in WTC7?
doesnt sound like a good designed bunker.

[Mince]

what is considered the officil theory is FEMA NIST NTSB 9/11-Commission reports.

No theories are official. They're theories. Why does it seem that everyone in the Lie Movement believes that the "official story/theory/novella/tale/fable" was puported to be absolute truth and that everyone on this message board believes it to be so? It was a best guess based on available evidence at the time...not absolute truth. There is no way any kind of investigation, independent or otherwise, is going to produce any useful fruit almost seven years later. See: JFK






I've forgiven your spelling and grammar...if you were wondering.

[DC]

No theories are official. They're theories. Why does it seem that everyone in the Lie Movement believes that the "official story/theory/novella/tale/fable" was puported to be absolute truth and that everyone on this message board believes it to be so? It was a best guess based on available evidence at the time...not absolute truth. There is no way any kind of investigation, independent or otherwise, is going to produce any useful fruit almost seven years later. See: JFK


I've forgiven your spelling and grammar...if you were wondering.

but in debates, when ppl talk about the "official theory/story" mostly they talk about those reports. wich indeed are not considered the full truth.

[CHF]

i dont know if "twoofers" or whatever childish name one wants to give them, agree with me. but i would like to see an international board of experts.

Like who?

but most important is, that everything is public, so everyone can see how the conclusions are reached. no secrets, no stonewalling and such.

You mean sort of like how the NIST report can be downloaded and examined by anyone in the world?

[Mince]

A "rogue" element of the U.S. Government is powerful enough to destroy two of the largest buildings in the world, in the heart of the most populated city in America, cause near financial ruin to several airline corporations and many of the financial concerns housed in the WTC buildings, murder approxiamately 3,000 of its own citizens, and manage to keep nearly everyone (less a few thousand internet secret agent hacks) quiet and duped for seven and a half years; and you don't think they'd find a way to influence any investigation?

???

Your words ideas are not correlating with reality.

[DGM]

wasnt there the emergency bunker in WTC7?
doesnt sound like a good designed bunker.
Bunker is an inaccurate name for a command canter. Hindsight is a great asset as far as deciding it wasn't a good place to locate it.

[Good Lt]

Dictator Cheney,

Please stop ignoring the refutation of your "indications for controlled demolition" that I refuted point by point in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3557605&postcount=70). I'll reprint it here so that you can't ignore it:

those indications that all are "debunked" like collapse speed, "squibs", possible thermite traces, high sulfur levels in WTC steel (FEMA), molten metal and so on. im sure you know them and found a convincing explaination.


Everythying you just listed has been debunked.

There were no "squibs." (http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm)

There was no "thermite, (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)" and anybody claiming this has yet to show any physical evidence of it.

High sulfur levels were not caused by explosives. This is taken from pathetic Steven Jones paper (Answers to Objectionable Questions) in which he (SURPRISE) edited out critically important details when quote mining...er..."citing" his source for the claim (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area).

Jone's quote:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

The next line (within the paragraph it was ripped from) Jones left out because it wasn't important:
One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

Oops! Jones probably should've included that, right? Just a minor editorial oversight.

Molten metals? Please.

I'm sure you're read this paper by Dr. Frank Greening entitled Aluminum at WTC (http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf). And I'm also sure you're aware of the work an Italian debunker has more or less shown that
"molten metals" flowing from the towers appears to be little more than leaking lead from batteries. (http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html)

Not thermite. Not explosives. Not anything the Troof movement wishes it were.

Now that I've demonstrated that your "indications" are nothing more than a collection of weapons-grade bull, what other "indications" for controlled demolitions are you presenting?
Please respond to the obliteration of your long-debunked list of "indications."

Stop pretending you weren't responded to.

[DC]

Like who?



You mean sort of like how the NIST report can be downloaded and examined by anyone in the world?

is the full data of the fire tests with the floor reconstruction also downloadable? or the FEA models? the documentation of the tests of fireproofing removal and such?

[DC]

Dictator Cheney,

Please stop ignoring the refutation of your "indications for controlled demolition" that I refuted point by point in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3557605&postcount=70). I'll reprint it here so that you can't ignore it:





Please respond to the obliteration of your long-debunked list of "indications."

Stop pretending you weren't responded to.


the Sulfur levles come from FEMA :/ ill can link it to you if you want, but im sure you know what appendix i mean.

and about molten aluminium

less than 800° C says Dr. Greenings. well can anyone of you show me molten aluminium at 800°C glowing yellow in daylight, like we saw on video?

then i find the lead acid combination more plausible, has anyone done tests to it, to demonstrate it?

[DC]

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

fema about sulfur and WTC steel.

acid rain? high temperatures? other chemical reaction? both ? chemical reaction with high temperatures?

did they further investigate that already? or do they still have no clue?

[1337m4n]

OK, I apologise. If English is not your first language then you're not doing badly. Certainly better than I could do in French or German.

Just ditch the abbreviations.

Bananaman.

Also, capitalize your sentences.

[1337m4n]

Shouldn't there be, like, a list somewhere in this thread?

[scissorhands]

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

fema about sulfur and WTC steel.

acid rain? high temperatures? other chemical reaction? both ? chemical reaction with high temperatures?

did they further investigate that already? or do they still have no clue?

You mean those steel samples that showed no evidence of temperatures from thermite reactions?

[TC329]

The problem for you and for your Troofer acolytes is that you aren't clear on exactly what you are saying and never have been.

"Just asking questions" is the same thing as "I'm only using the Socratic method to imply that something else happened on 9-11."

You obviously believe something else happened on 9-11 - something evil, nefarious and dastardly within the US or Israeli or Pakistani government, but you won't come out and say what it is you think this dastardly deed is.

So why aren't you presenting an alternative theory or storyline that can be viewed, critiqued and vetted for accuracy in the same manner you're demanding of the "official conspiracy theory?"

I think I have an idea why, but I'm open to your opinions, too.

Just remember, Troofers, that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

You forgot the Saudi's...........

[WildCat]

Shouldn't there be, like, a list somewhere in this thread?
There is a complete list in this thread. It looks like this:

[DC]

You mean those steel samples that showed no evidence of temperatures from thermite reactions?

yes those higly corrosed steel samples, with high sulfur levels that would lower the melting point.

[CHF]

is the full data of the fire tests with the floor reconstruction also downloadable? or the FEA models? the documentation of the tests of fireproofing removal and such?

Yeah I suppose NIST should have included every last thing they did in addition to the 10,000 page report they released - which no twoofer has bothered to read.

After all, I'm sure they love being accused of faking test results in addition to covering up mass murder.

[scissorhands]

yes those higly corrosed steel samples, with high sulfur levels that would lower the melting point.

And why do you consider them to be of interest?
Conventional explosives dont achieve those results and neither does thermite/thermate reactions.
Are you suggesting another cause?

[Dumb All Over]

This thread has been completely derailed. Can we get back on topic?

As I see it, Dictator Cheney started the list of firefighters who believe in controlled demolition by mentioning John Schroeder. The current consensus now is that Mr. Schroeder never said this.

Dictator Cheney, can you name any other firefighters who believe in CD?

[DC]

And why do you consider them to be of interest?
Conventional explosives dont achieve those results and neither does thermite/thermate reactions.
Are you suggesting another cause?

you dont consider them to be interesting? i do, i would like to know what caused it. i would like to see further investigations into this. something they never saw before.

i think it is interesting.

[Good Lt]

the Sulfur levles come from FEMA :/ ill can link it to you if you want, but im sure you know what appendix i mean.

You were shown why sulfur levels were high. Jones edited the crucial information out of that paragraph (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area) on purpose so that incurious minds would remain blissfully unaware of them.

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.See the bolded, italicized text? That's what Jones left out of his paper - ON PURPOSE.

After all, what good is an asinine conspiracy theory if there is a far more plausible and demonstrable explanation for it?

and about molten aluminium

less than 800° C says Dr. Greenings. well can anyone of you show me molten aluminium at 800°C glowing yellow in daylight, like we saw on video?

LINK THE VIDEO IN QUESTION SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE IT. We're not going to do your homework for you.

then i find the lead acid combination more plausible, has anyone done tests to it, to demonstrate it?

Did you read the link I provided? Is there something MORE plausible?

[DC]

This thread has been completely derailed. Can we get back on topic?

As I see it, Dictator Cheney started the list of firefighters who believe in controlled demolition by mentioning John Schroeder. The current consensus now is that Mr. Schroeder never said this.

Dictator Cheney, can you name any other firefighters who believe in CD?

pls?
i didnt start that topic nor any list.
i posted a link about witness reports that describe explosions and such.
i did not claim what those ppl heard are exlosives,
i did not claim that any of those ppl belives in the CD theory.
i mentioned shroeder as the only figherfighter i know of that belives in a CD, what was not really correct, he say, "something was not right that day".

i think this is a huge missunderstanding.

[CHF]

This thread has been completely derailed. Can we get back on topic?

As I see it, Dictator Cheney started the list of firefighters who believe in controlled demolition by mentioning John Schroeder. The current consensus now is that Mr. Schroeder never said this.

Dictator Cheney, can you name any other firefighters who believe in CD?

Yeah let's get back on track.

Anyone know of any FDNY who buy into the CD theory?

If not I would think it's time for the TM to stop referring to those who heard "explosions" as proof of a demolition.

[DC]

You were shown why sulfur levels were high. Jones edited the crucial information out of that paragraph (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area) on purpose so that incurious minds would remain blissfully unaware of them.

See the bolded, italicized text? That's what Jones left out of his paper - ON PURPOSE.

After all, what good is an asinine conspiracy theory if there is a far more plausible and demonstrable explanation for it?



LINK THE VIDEO IN QUESTION SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE IT. We're not going to do your homework for you.



Did you read the link I provided? Is there something MORE plausible?

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=rOq3HYRiG7Y

here a video of the molten something coming out of the WTC

i dont know exactly about the plastic, didnt read that. was that demonstrated?

[Totovader]

evidence for what?

that they use huge big fire balls in hollywood productions?

No, Mr. Red Herring- any evidence whatsoever that bombs took down the towers?

You can talk all you want about your non-evidence, but until you have even a shred of support for your absurd claims, why should anyone listen to you?

[DC]

No, Mr. Red Herring- any evidence whatsoever that bombs took down the towers?

You can talk all you want about your non-evidence, but until you have even a shred of support for your absurd claims, why should anyone listen to you?

i never wanted you to listen to me. who want to listen to me is free to do so, who does not want to, also os free to not do it. as far i know ther is even a ignore option here.

i have no hard evidence, i see some things as indications for a CD, i doubt Dr. Bazants theory. i think it was not possible for the lower part of the tower to give away the way it happened, without explosives.

this is just my oppinion, im not an expert. so everyone that does not want to listen to me, pls dont listen to me.

and other that want to listen to me and disagree with me, pls do.

[Good Lt]

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=rOq3HYRiG7Y

here a video of the molten something coming out of the WTC

i dont know exactly about the plastic, didnt read that. was that demonstrated?

OK. Now I know you didn't read the links I provided. Both of them address that.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm (Scroll about halfwqay down the page until you come to the picture of the leak in question. You'll know it when you see it.) (http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

LEAKING BATTERY LEAD - NOT THERMITE. If you have something more plausible, let's hear it.

I'm trying to provide you with answers, DC. You actually have to READ more that the link address to get those answers, not ignore the answer because it doesn't support your predetermined conspiracy endpoint.

Anything else?

[CHF]

i never wanted you to listen to me. who want to listen to me is free to do so, who does not want to, also os free to not do it. as far i know ther is even a ignore option here.

i have no hard evidence, i see some things as indications for a CD, i doubt Dr. Bazants theory. i think it was not possible for the lower part of the tower to give away the way it happened, without explosives.

this is just my oppinion, im not an expert. so everyone that does not want to listen to me, pls dont listen to me.

and other that want to listen to me and disagree with me, pls do.

Given that you are not an expert, on what grounds do you dismiss the claims of those who are?

[sts60]

I know two FDNY firefighters personally.

They both think Truthers are so full of it that their eyes are brown.
Pretty similar for the FFs I know who were at the Pentagon that day, when it comes to the no-airliner claims for that location...

D.Cheney/Aanthanuur posts 24/7 on youtube about how he isnt convinced by any official explanation of pretty much anything.
He has been doing this in his very boring style for months.
He has lapped up every CT theory about the events of 9/11, including the no plane at shanksville and pentagon flyover and is keen on the moon landing hoax also.
Hey, Dictator Cheney, if that is you, do you want to start an Apollo hoax thread? That would be fun.

[Dumb All Over]

Dictator Cheney, can you list any other firefighters who support the CD theory or say that bombs went off in the buildings?

[SDC]

I don't think anything will come from "Dictator Cheney" with regard to actual names and evidence. He/ she is just saying that he/ she doesn't like the actual evidence, and I think has already said that he/ she doesn't have any names of firefighters who believe in CD.

Another thread, shot to hell.

[DC]

Given that you are not an expert, on what grounds do you dismiss the claims of those who are?

my own logic and the fact that the progressive collapse theory is not reflecting what we saw on TV.

especially confusing is the confusion about the collapse times.
9-11 seconds, but then its 20 seconds.

those experts seems not to be so sure themself.

and especially, NIST only investigated until initial collapse, then we are left with that progressive collapse theory.

[Dumb All Over]

my own logic and the fact that the progressive collapse theory is not reflecting what we saw on TV.

[/yada, yada].
And this has to do with the opening post how?

[CHF]

my own logic and the fact that the progressive collapse theory is not reflecting what we saw on TV.

Once again we see that years of engineering education and experience cannot compete with some kid's "common sense" and a few clips on youtube. :rolleyes:

Anyway, back to those firefighters....got any who think bombs took down the WTC?

[Totovader]

i never wanted you to listen to me. who want to listen to me is free to do so, who does not want to, also os free to not do it. as far i know ther is even a ignore option here.

i have no hard evidence, i see some things as indications for a CD, i doubt Dr. Bazants theory. i think it was not possible for the lower part of the tower to give away the way it happened, without explosives.

this is just my oppinion, im not an expert. so everyone that does not want to listen to me, pls dont listen to me.

and other that want to listen to me and disagree with me, pls do.

I didn't ask "Why should I listen to you?" I asked why anyone should listen to you. You don't have any evidence at all, reject expert studies without any reason, claim that the evidence should just be ignored- and then expect people to believe you?

Whether it's your "opinion" or not is irrelevant- you're making claims you can't even begin to support and it doesn't seem to bother you at all.

I disagree with you. And I'm betting any rational person will. Until you have some evidence to support your claims, I'm not sure why you expect to be taken seriously.

[TC329]

Dictator- you clearly are not gonna convince us. We are not the uneducated masses that Toothers seem to target. Why are you here?


Dick Cheney could confess to the whole 9/11 scam while holding Bushies hand and Zelikow's and you still wouldn't believe it.

I'll take being a "toother" since that implies you're all a bunch of "non-toothers" and I suspect that maybe accurate in regards to quite a few members, you especially. :D

[CHF]

Dick Cheney could confess to the whole 9/11 scam while holding Bushies hand and Zelikow's and you still wouldn't believe it.


No, I'd believe that.

The problem is that, back in the real world, the closest thing you have to a confession is Silverstein's "pull it."

[Dumb All Over]

Dick Cheney could confess to the whole 9/11 scam while holding Bushies hand and Zelikow's and you still wouldn't believe it.

I'll take being a "toother" since that implies you're all a bunch of "non-toothers" and I suspect that maybe accurate in regards to quite a few members, you especially. :D
Again, I'm not exactly sure what this post has to do with the OP. TC329, can you please tell me how this relates to the subject of this thread?

[TC329]

No, I'd believe that.

The problem is that, back in the real world, the closest thing you have to a confession is Silverstein's "pull it."


Really?

What about Rummy talking about the missile that hit the Pentagon and the people who "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania"?

Do those count for anything?

[SDC]

TC329... oh, the heck with it.

[TC329]

Again, I'm not exactly sure what this post has to do with the OP. TC329, can you please tell me how this relates to the subject of this thread?


OMG!

A JREF upset about a thread going off topic?????

When I start a thread here I immediately get 14 replies, 2 are on topic, 3 are completely unrelated, and 8 are ad homs.

You didn't even start this thread. Get over it or report the post..........

[WildCat]

Again, I'm not exactly sure what this post has to do with the OP. TC329, can you please tell me how this relates to the subject of this thread?
It means he doesn't have any and is trying desperately to change the subject, much as he did in the C-Ring thread he bailed out of once the evidence against him became overwhelming.

So far the number of firemen on the list is... 0.

[TC329]

TC329... oh, the heck with it.

I think the shoot down is a confessional slip up personally but I don't believe a missile hit the Pentagon.

[TC329]

It means he doesn't have any and is trying desperately to change the subject, much as he did in the C-Ring thread he bailed out of once the evidence against him became overwhelming.

So far the number of firemen on the list is... 0.

No, I "drop out" of threads because it's a waste of my time. Much like I will vanish from this one before long. You guys bore me. It's fun for a bit but it gets old and then I go away for a few months.

As for the C-Ring thread have you determined what caused the nearly perfectly circular exit hole? If not then the wall breaching kit remains the only viable possibility.

As for this thread I guess you are now claiming Mr. Isaac's wasn't a 9/11 FDNY hero, nor Mr. Schroeder who described the bombed out lobby, or any of the quotes I linked to from the NYTimes Oral Histories. That's OK, that's called par for the course round here...............

[Dumb All Over]

Get over it or report the post..........
Are these my only choices?

Would not a third choice be to give you the benefit of a doubt and ask you the questions I posed?

[1337m4n]

Dick Cheney could confess to the whole 9/11 scam while holding Bushies hand and Zelikow's and you still wouldn't believe it.


Al-Quaeda could confess to the whole 9/11 attacks and you still wouldn't believe it.

Oh wait!

[DC]

Al-Quaeda could confess to the whole 9/11 attacks and you still wouldn't believe it.

Oh wait!

thats what i would expect from terrorists. admit to the atacks in the name of that "organisation". but nothing. osama denied involvment...
on the other hand i dont expect terrorists to be rational.

[Thunder]

Osama denied involvemant, when the shoot first hit the fan. Then, as time went on, he admitted more and more of his involvemant and foreknowledge.

Hamas and Hezbollah have often at first denied involvemant for their attacks and then after a day or two, came clean.

[CHF]

Really?

What about Rummy talking about the missile that hit the Pentagon and the people who "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania"?

Do those count for anything?

Oh they certainly do! Quick, TC: alert the world. Call Al Jazeera and tell them about these confessions.

Maybe you can also show them all the FDNY who think the WTC was a demolition.

[Dumb All Over]

So far the number of firemen on the list is... 0.


As for this thread I guess you are now claiming Mr. Isaac's wasn't a 9/11 FDNY hero, nor Mr. Schroeder who described the bombed out lobby, or any of the quotes I linked to from the NYTimes Oral Histories. That's OK, that's called par for the course round here...............
WildCat, I think the number of firemen on the list now stands at two.

[scissorhands]

"on the other hand i dont expect terrorists to be rational."

What wasnt rational about Osamas initial denial of involvement in 9/11?
He was a guest of the taliban, his training camps were set up in Afghanistan, he knew the consequences of his actions would involve a LOT of trouble for his hosts.
Perfectly rational behaviour.

[DC]

Osama denied involvemant, when the shoot first hit the fan. Then, as time went on, he admitted more and more of his involvemant and foreknowledge.

Hamas and Hezbollah have often at first denied involvemant for their attacks and then after a day or two, came clean.

where did he admit more and more?

and in what atack did a palestinian terror organisations deny theyr involvment and later admited it? or got proven guilty?

[Thunder]

No, I "drop out" of threads because it's a waste of my time. Much like I will vanish from this one before long. You guys bore me. It's fun for a bit but it gets old and then I go away for a few months.

As for the C-Ring thread have you determined what caused the nearly perfectly circular exit hole? If not then the wall breaching kit remains the only viable possibility.

As for this thread I guess you are now claiming Mr. Isaac's wasn't a 9/11 FDNY hero, nor Mr. Schroeder who described the bombed out lobby, or any of the quotes I linked to from the NYTimes Oral Histories. That's OK, that's called par for the course round here...............

bombed out lobby? did they see shrapnel from the explosive? did they test for explosives residue?

[DC]

"on the other hand i dont expect terrorists to be rational."

What wasnt rational about Osamas initial denial of involvement in 9/11?
He was a guest of the taliban, his training camps were set up in Afghanistan, he knew the consequences of his actions would involve a LOT of trouble for his hosts.
Perfectly rational behaviour.

well i think a terrorist that is already wanted by the US, would proudly admit and blow it out loud, that it was him and his organisation that did this. the biggest terroristic act on US soil.

Guilliani, Cheney, Bush, Rummy, Condy and co spreaded alot more fear with those atacks than AQ and osama ever did.

[scissorhands]

Thats right Aanthanur, when you are a guest in a country, and have just carried out a large terrorist attack on another country you would waste no time in proclaiming it to the world.
Have you ever heard of the term "buying time"?

[DC]

Thats right Aanthanur, when you are a guest in a country, and have just carried out a large terrorist attack on another country you would waste no time in proclaiming it to the world.
Have you ever heard of the term "buying time"?

buying time? he planned that huge atack but then needed to buy time by claiming he didnt do it? very unlikely

[beachnut]

As for this thread I guess you are now claiming Mr. Isaac's wasn't a 9/11 FDNY hero, nor Mr. Schroeder who described the bombed out lobby, or any of the quotes I linked to from the NYTimes Oral Histories. That's OK, that's called par for the course round here...............
Please show me the dead people from BOMB blasts; show me anyone on 9/11 blown up by a bomb. You can not do it, because explosives were not used on 9/11. Sounds like you have no evidence, just the twisted quotes which you weave into false information.


Beware of false information specialist known as 9/11 truth. You are one of them...

buying time? he planned that huge atack but then needed to buy time by claiming he didnt do it? very unlikely
This is it? You fail to understand UBL tells us in the 90s he will kill Americans when he can, and then after 9/11 he explains how he helped do 9/11! Have you no ability to read and figure out 9/11? What has happen to logical thinking; what school systems shares the responsibility for your lack of skills so you can understand 9/11? Got no list?

[Alt+F4]

Anyone know of any FDNY who buy into the CD theory?

No. And for those of you who read my posts know that I'm from an FDNY family. My brother-in-law was a first responder on 9/11, I know many FDNY members of all ranks and I have never met an FDNY member who was on active duty on 9/11 who buys into a CD theory regarding any of the three buildings in question.

For anyone that thinks differently, please come to NYC, drop by any firehouse in the five boros and ask the nice men and women who work there.

[scissorhands]

What would be in Bin Ladens interests to admit involvement in 9/11 any sooner than he actually did Aanthanur?
For his organisation and his hosts, the taliban?
Or do you expect forthright honesty and transparency from terrorist leaders as a given fact?

[Good Lt]

Dictator Cheney,

I want you to address the information I provided you in this post. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3557849&postcount=105)

I understand responding to a group of people can be difficult, but I provided you with specific information on a debunked canard you were floating - the "molten metal/thermite/squibs" melange of nonsense, and I want you to acknowledge you were wrong.

There was no controlled demolition at WTC. Do you acknowledge this?

[DC]

No. And for those of you who read my posts know that I'm from an FDNY family. My brother-in-law was a first responder on 9/11, I know many FDNY members of all ranks and I have never met an FDNY member who was on active duty on 9/11 who buys into a CD theory regarding any of the three buildings in question.

For anyone that thinks differently, please come to NYC, drop by any firehouse in the five boros and ask the nice men and women who work there.

you ever met FDNY member that buys into the CD theory that was not on active duty on 9/11?

[DC]

Dictator Cheney,

I want you to address the information I provided you in this post. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3557849&postcount=105)

I understand responding to a group of people can be difficult, but I provided you with specific information on a debunked canard you were floating - the "molten metal/thermite/squibs" melange of nonsense, and I want you to acknowledge you were wrong.

There was no controlled demolition at WTC. Do you acknowledge this?

no i dont acknowledge it :)

Aluminium at 800°C is not yellow glowing like seen on 9/11.

the best point so far is the high voltages that could be a source for the very high temperatures to bring aluminium glowing yellow.

and no explanation about the squibs convinced me so far. sorry :)
i think they are far to local to be from "compressed" air.

[Alt+F4]

you ever met FDNY member that buys into the CD theory that was not on active duty on 9/11?

Nope, and I know quite a few of the newer folks too. If you live far away from NYC and can't make the trip here to speak to them yourself, there are many, many FDNY organizations online. Why not contact them via email?

[DC]

What would be in Bin Ladens interests to admit involvement in 9/11 any sooner than he actually did Aanthanur?
For his organisation and his hosts, the taliban?
Or do you expect forthright honesty and transparency from terrorist leaders as a given fact?

where and when did he admit? afaik he never did that.

[DC]

Nope, and I know quite a few of the newer folks too. If you live far away from NYC and can't make the trip here to speak to them yourself, there are many, many FDNY organizations online. Why not contact them via email?

i did not question it :) i just wondered, cause you say those active on 9/11.
interesting, cause even when they would not come out cause of fear about theyr jobs, im sure alot of them would tell it in theyr families.

[Pardalis]

It's useless, whatever transcript we give him of OBL he's going to deny and call a hoax.

Now about that list of firefighters?

[WildCat]

i did not question it :) i just wondered, cause you say those active on 9/11.
interesting, cause even when they would not come out cause of fear about theyr jobs, im sure alot of them would tell it in theyr families.
You have no idea how hard it is to fire a firefighter, do you? No way would one get fired for telling about the bombs they witnessed. And besides, due to the stress of the day a large percentage of those at ground zero that day have since retired. You can't fire a retired person...

[DC]

It's useless, whatever transcript we give him of OBL he's going to deny and call a hoax.

Now about that list of firefighters?

i would like to have the original lang, and let it translate by someone :)

caue it turned out that the translation of that tape from afghanistan was heavy flawed according to experts in germn TV.

[DC]

You have no idea how hard it is to fire a firefighter, do you? No way would one get fired for telling about the bombs they witnessed. And besides, due to the stress of the day a large percentage of those at ground zero that day have since retired. You can't fire a retired person...

alot of them have now health problems, heavy health problems.

[Alt+F4]

i did not question it :) i just wondered, cause you say those active on 9/11.
interesting, cause even when they would not come out cause of fear about theyr jobs, im sure alot of them would tell it in theyr families.

Why would think they would fear for their jobs?

[funk de fino]

Nope, and I know quite a few of the newer folks too. If you live far away from NYC and can't make the trip here to speak to them yourself, there are many, many FDNY organizations online. Why not contact them via email?

Manchester, England is too far for this guy to travel I fear

Not that I'm accusing him of being a sock or anything, despite the comedic poor english attempt

[WildCat]

alot of them have now health problems, heavy health problems.
Which has nothing at all to do with the post of mine you quoted.

[funk de fino]

i would like to have the original lang, and let it translate by someone :)

caue it turned out that the translation of that tape from afghanistan was heavy flawed according to experts in germn TV.

Source please

[Alt+F4]

You have no idea how hard it is to fire a firefighter, do you? No way would one get fired for telling about the bombs they witnessed. And besides, due to the stress of the day a large percentage of those at ground zero that day have since retired. You can't fire a retired person...

I'd estimate that 50% of FDNY members who served on 9/11 are retired today. You're right, you can't fire a retired person but I guess some "truthers" think the conspiracy extends to the New York State Comptroller's Office, which adminsters pensions for city and state employees. Damn you Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli! Oh wait, you weren't comptroller until 2007. Is the 9/11 conspiracy like "The Blob", growing bigger over time?

[Good Lt]

no i dont acknowledge it

Then provide some evidence supporting your claims of a "controlled demolition." Not knowing what you're looking at on a YouTube video is not "evidence."

Keeping in mind that the video you just linked as evidence of a controlled demolition shows no such thing and is DEBUNKED.

Aluminium at 800°C is not yellow glowing like seen on 9/11.

Here you go, big guy. START READING:

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

the best point so far is the high voltages that could be a source for the very high temperatures to bring aluminium glowing yellow.

And where, pray tell, did the "high voltages" come from?

and no explanation about the squibs convinced me so far.

This is irrelevant. There is no evidence - NONE - that supports the presence of "squibs" or any other explosive at WTC. Period. End of discussion.

Unless, of course, you can produce some evidnece of this - chemical fingerprints, audiotape of the NWO orders to detonate, etc.

We're not holding our breath.

i think they are far to local to be from "compressed" air.

Oh? And what do you know of squibs? What is the proper distance ejecta from a squib is supposed to achieve? On average? And how about for air compression? Cite some sources supporting your beliefs.

It doesn't matter what "you think." What "you think" is not "evidence."

You need to show evidence of explosives, which leave distinctive chemical and other fingerprints, or you need to give up this pointless exercise in childish futility.

You have no evidence supporting your position None. Not one speck. I showed you what the canards you floated actually were, I provided you with links that you did not read, sources you did not internalize, and physical evidence, expert testimony and debunking that you ignored entirely.

Now you're just putting your fingers in your ears singing LALALAICANTHEARYOULALAL.

You're going to have to face facts some day, champ.

Best to start now, because you're obviously in the "Loose Change" phase of Trooferism and are potentially savable.

[scissorhands]

Manchester, England is too far for this guy to travel I fear

Not that I'm accusing him of being a sock or anything, despite the comedic poor english attempt

He is Swiss, he is not pdoh, although it is easy to come to that conclusion.
Being a Swiss twoofer doesnt make him any more interesting though.:)

[Tweeter]

I knew a few firemen that KNOW there were bombs, but are afraid to speak out.

[Tweeter]

I know a few firemen that KNOW there were bombs, but are afraid to speak out.

[WildCat]

I knew a few firemen that KNOW there were bombs, but are afraid to speak out.
Sure you do. :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Who?

[DC]

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb5/frieden/regionen/Afghanistan/laden-video.html

source (in german, dunno if someone translated it)

[Alt+F4]

I knew a few firemen that KNOW there were bombs, but are afraid to speak out.

1. You know nothing about the FDNY. They are FIREFIGHTERS, not "firemen".

2. 347 of their members were murdered on 9/11. NONE WOULD EVER COVER THAT UP.

3. You are a liar.

[scissorhands]

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb5/frieden/regionen/Afghanistan/laden-video.html

source (in german, dunno if someone translated it)

Heres your chance to help the twoof movement, Aanthanur.
Translate it.

[Pardalis]

Now about that list...

[Jonnyclueless]

I knew a few firemen that KNOW there were bombs, but are afraid to speak out.

I know a few members of the Nazi party who KNOW you are a member, but are afraid to speak out.


How's that?

[DC]

Then provide some evidence supporting your claims of a "controlled demolition." Not knowing what you're looking at on a YouTube video is not "evidence."

Keeping in mind that the video you just linked as evidence of a controlled demolition shows no such thing and is DEBUNKED.



just cause you claim its debunked, does not mean its debunked, do you know exactly what it is? or do you have your own theorys about it? like molten aluminium?



Here you go, big guy. START READING:

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



interesting theorys but not so convincing. especially the part, color says nothing, that totaly contradicts what i learned about metal. a smith would totaly disagree with that. the color is very important to him. especially a few decades ago :)



And where, pray tell, did the "high voltages" come from?



dont you read your own sources? from the batterys, in the part about high amperes and the voltage :/ thats the best point in the whole thing. would it be a truther site, you would point out his claim about how NIST confirmed his theory, wich they didnt, they just confirmed that there was indeed reinforcments on those floors.





This is irrelevant. There is no evidence - NONE - that supports the presence of "squibs" or any other explosive at WTC. Period. End of discussion.

Unless, of course, you can produce some evidnece of this - chemical fingerprints, audiotape of the NWO orders to detonate, etc.

We're not holding our breath.



Oh? And what do you know of squibs? What is the proper distance ejecta from a squib is supposed to achieve? On average? And how about for air compression? Cite some sources supporting your beliefs.

It doesn't matter what "you think." What "you think" is not "evidence."

You need to show evidence of explosives, which leave distinctive chemical and other fingerprints, or you need to give up this pointless exercise in childish futility.

You have no evidence supporting your position None. Not one speck. I showed you what the canards you floated actually were, I provided you with links that you did not read, sources you did not internalize, and physical evidence, expert testimony and debunking that you ignored entirely.

Now you're just putting your fingers in your ears singing LALALAICANTHEARYOULALAL.

You're going to have to face facts some day, champ.

Best to start now, because you're obviously in the "Loose Change" phase of Trooferism and are potentially savable.

to me it does mather alot what i belive :)

well about the squibs im not convinced about ait, because thats not how i think air will react under pressure by the collapse.

just my oppinion. and only based on videos of those squibs.

when your convinced that it is only air, fine :)

im not.

[Pardalis]

Look, a squib! :yikes:

WU89-gyU10A


Was it CDed?

[DC]

Look, a squib! :yikes:

WU89-gyU10A


Was it CDed?

no squib there :/

[Pardalis]

no squib there :/

Sure there is, just as the barn hits the bridge, on the other end.

[DC]

Heres your chance to help the twoof movement, Aanthanur.
Translate it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/monitor122001.html

someone did already. dont know that source. just found it on google

[DC]

Sure there is, just as the barn hits the bridge, on the other end.

doesnt look like the squibs from WTC :)

[Pardalis]

It's the same principle.

[DC]

It's the same principle.

as far i can see on that video, the air had only one window to escape true.
not a large openroom office floor with a huge glas front.

[TC329]

Al-Quaeda could confess to the whole 9/11 attacks and you still wouldn't believe it.

Oh wait!

WRONG.

I do believe Al Qaeda was involved. The CIA has been using Al Qaeda for over 25 years now....

[TC329]

No. And for those of you who read my posts know that I'm from an FDNY family. My brother-in-law was a first responder on 9/11, I know many FDNY members of all ranks and I have never met an FDNY member who was on active duty on 9/11 who buys into a CD theory regarding any of the three buildings in question.

For anyone that thinks differently, please come to NYC, drop by any firehouse in the five boros and ask the nice men and women who work there.

Whatever happened to the FDNY member that posted here who said it was about a split?

[TC329]

Why would think they would fear for their jobs?

Because "WTC Cough" doesn't exist according to officials?

[gc051360]

WRONG.

I do believe Al Qaeda was involved. The CIA has been using Al Qaeda for over 25 years now....

Just for my own personal information, are there any "independent" terrorist attacks, that aren't aided by the CIA?

[Alt+F4]

Whatever happened to the FDNY member that posted here who said it was about a split?

I've been posting here about the same time as you and don't ever recall this. Please provide evidence. Thanks.

Of course, you are free to do your own research by questioning past and current FDNY members. Go for it. Just ask them.

[Alt+F4]

Because "WTC Cough" doesn't exist according to officials?

To which "officials" are you referring?

[Good Lt]

just cause you claim its debunked, does not mean its debunked, do you know exactly what it is? or do you have your own theorys about it? like molten aluminium?

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm


I cited the facts for you, and pointed you towards information that explains to you why your theories not only are nonsense, but how they can't physically be possible because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM. You ignored them. You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink.

interesting theorys but not so convincing. especially the part, color says nothing, that totaly contradicts what i learned about metal. a smith would totaly disagree with that. the color is very important to him. especially a few decades ago

Oh? What "theories" are interesting and why? Can you explain what they get wrong and how?

Didn't think so.

dont you read your own sources? from the batterys, in the part about high amperes and the voltage :/ thats the best point in the whole thing. would it be a truther site, you would point out his claim about how NIST confirmed his theory, wich they didnt, they just confirmed that there was indeed reinforcments on those floors.

You do realize, do you not, that those same batteries were leaking lead, which you took as evidence of "thermite?" There was no thermite, champ. None. Never was. Ever. There is no evidence of this. No matter what you or the fraud Steven Jones wants to believe.

One of us is wrong, and it's you.

to me it does mather alot what i belive

As for the facts about 9-11, it doesn't matter what you believe. Facts are facts, evidence is evidence. We're concerned with facts and evidence, you're concerned with baseless belief, fact-free fantasy and religion.

well about the squibs im not convinced about ait, because thats not how i think air will react under pressure by the collapse.

HOW SHOULD IT REACT, GENIUS? How many times has the WTC terrorist attack happened? Never before?

You have no frame of reference. You're like a child who wanders in...oh, never mind.

http://tinyurl.com/2b2ee4


just my oppinion. and only based on videos of those squibs.

Those aren't squibs. You have utterly failed to prove they are, because there is no chemical fingerprint, residue, physical damage to the structure or anything else to indicate an explosive. That's it. The facts are not on you side. You're wrong.

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

Stop repeating this blatant, baseless lie.


when your convinced that it is only air, fine

Unless you can provide evidence of EXPLOSIVES, you have nothing to stand on. You're ignorant - deliberately so - so that means you're now lying. You've been shown that they are not squibs (http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm), and you are ignoring it because it is far too inconvenient for you to incorporate new, contrary information into your Troofer religion.

im not.

That's because you're not paying attention and are ignoring facts inconvenient for the cult of Trooferism.

When you feel like joining reality again, we'll be here.

[scissorhands]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/monitor122001.html

someone did already. dont know that source. just found it on google

Hmmm, its full of statements like this,

"The White House's version also included the sentence "we asked each of them to go to America", but Alami says the original formulation is in the passive along the lines of "they were required to go"."

As if either version would make it not a terrorist plot.
Pure semantics.
Why continue with such a charade, Aanthanur?

[BenBurch]

I know a few firemen that KNOW there were bombs, but are afraid to speak out.

I call BS.

[TC329]

Just for my own personal information, are there any "independent" terrorist attacks, that aren't aided by the CIA?

My words were very clear.

[gc051360]

My words were very clear.

As were mine.

Are there any independent terrorist attacks, that aren't aided by the CIA?

[Jonnyclueless]

just cause you claim its debunked, does not mean its debunked, do you know exactly what it is? or do you have your own theorys about it? like molten aluminium?



So because it's not proven what it really is, you dismiss any claims as to it being something other than steel. Yet at the same time, you blindly accept it as being steel. That alone proves you are a dishonest person. Double standards.

Not to mention it's a double-negative. If you make the claim that it's Steel, then you are obligated to prove that. Otherwise it can be assumed to be one of the many other metals? Why? Because those are backed by additional evidence and perfectly match all the rest of the evidence.

And forgetting about the fact that we could not care less about what convinces you of anything, WE listen to REAL experts who's opinion actually has some weight. As opposed to you, who has no educations in these areas what so ever. or perhaps you feel you have more experience and knowledge than the real experts? Maybe you can explain where all the demolition companies in the world get it wrong.


So guys, is this guy basically the new LastChild? is it rotation time already?

[TC329]

I've been posting here about the same time as you and don't ever recall this. Please provide evidence. Thanks.

Of course, you are free to do your own research by questioning past and current FDNY members. Go for it. Just ask them.

If I get motivated I'll look but I don't feel any uncontrollable urges to prove something to you. He really really hated "twoofers" or whatever the **** you call us and caused a real big uproar for a little bit of time until he disclosed he wasn't FDNY on 9/11....or 9/12 or until like 2006 or something. He added that while quite a few do believe it was bombed that a lot didn't.

I suspect the few who do are the few who were still healthy enough to be FDNY in 2006 personally........

As for interviewing FDNY, if I lived in NYC you better believe I would have contacted every single one of them by now. But I don't, I live in Pittsburgh so I stick to the Shanksville witnesses.

[TC329]

As were mine.

Are there any independent terrorist attacks, that aren't aided by the CIA?

Are there any?

Kind of vague but absolutely there are independent terrorist attacks. It all depends on who you call a terrorist and who you call a freedom fighter but there are individuals in small groups who carry out terrorist attacks independently absolutely. But there are no huge organizations doing large scale attacks without backing of a government body.

Who pays "Al Qaeda"?

Thats the question the government and media don't want anyone asking. Aren't the men who financed 9/11 a more imminent and dangerous threat than Saddam?

The men who financed 9/11 managed to successfully murder 3000+ American citizens in less than 2 hours on American soil.

To date Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq are responsible for 0 deaths on American soil.

So isn't the financiers of 9/11 a way graver threat?

Aren't they most likely to produce the next "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" than Iraq?

So remind me what the 9/11 Commission determined about these individuals if you can stomach to do so.

[bynmdsue]

Just for my own personal information, are there any "independent" terrorist attacks, that aren't aided by the CIA?

No,because as The Twoof teaches us Arabs are gentle children living in caves that can't do dick without the white man holding their hand.

[johnny karate]

I've skimmed through most of this thread because so much of it is off-topic, so apologies if this has already been covered.

Of the two firefighters that are on the list so far, John Schroeder and Paul Isaacs Jr, neither have actually made the claim that bombs were present in the towers, or that they collapsed due to controlled demolition.

In the interview with Schroeder that appeared on Loose Change (link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=53815767687186956)), never once does he make either of those claims, despite the best efforts of the interviewee to "guide" his story with leading questions.

Isaacs was just flat-out misquoted and said as much in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61418), along with spewing no small amount of venom for those that did the misquoting and attempted to use it to serve their own agendas.

There's a reason you don't even hear CTers using this guy's name anymore. Hell, I'm surprised no CTer has mentioned Lou Cacchioli yet, since it seems they're counting firefighters that were misquoted.

I think the number of firemen on the list now stands at two.

So, with all due respect DAO, but I think we need to amend that number to zero.

[johnny karate]

As for interviewing FDNY, if I lived in NYC you better believe I would have contacted every single one of them by now. But I don't, I live in Pittsburgh so I stick to the Shanksville witnesses.

I heartily agree with this sentiment. If I believed that my government carried out a massive conspiracy that resulted in the murder 3,000 innocent people, I certainly couldn't be bothered to make a few phone calls or fire off some e-mails to see justice done.

You're a hero and a patriot, TC.

[bynmdsue]

Wow.Read that Sentinel thread.I don't think he's on your side TC.

[DC]

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm


I cited the facts for you, and pointed you towards information that explains to you why your theories not only are nonsense, but how they can't physically be possible because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM. You ignored them. You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink.



Oh? What "theories" are interesting and why? Can you explain what they get wrong and how?

Didn't think so.



You do realize, do you not, that those same batteries were leaking lead, which you took as evidence of "thermite?" There was no thermite, champ. None. Never was. Ever. There is no evidence of this. No matter what you or the fraud Steven Jones wants to believe.

One of us is wrong, and it's you.



As for the facts about 9-11, it doesn't matter what you believe. Facts are facts, evidence is evidence. We're concerned with facts and evidence, you're concerned with baseless belief, fact-free fantasy and religion.



HOW SHOULD IT REACT, GENIUS? How many times has the WTC terrorist attack happened? Never before?

You have no frame of reference. You're like a child who wanders in...oh, never mind.

http://tinyurl.com/2b2ee4




Those aren't squibs. You have utterly failed to prove they are, because there is no chemical fingerprint, residue, physical damage to the structure or anything else to indicate an explosive. That's it. The facts are not on you side. You're wrong.

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

Stop repeating this blatant, baseless lie.




Unless you can provide evidence of EXPLOSIVES, you have nothing to stand on. You're ignorant - deliberately so - so that means you're now lying. You've been shown that they are not squibs (http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm), and you are ignoring it because it is far too inconvenient for you to incorporate new, contrary information into your Troofer religion.



That's because you're not paying attention and are ignoring facts inconvenient for the cult of Trooferism.

When you feel like joining reality again, we'll be here.

leaking lead will not glow yellow. all you presented are theorys, just like jones theory about thermite. and noone knows what it is. you belive its impossible to be thermite. i know its impossible to e aluminium, i also doubt a lead acid mixture. was there any demonstrations don, tests? that would show lead/acid is yellow glowing at 800°C?

im sorry but your counter theorys are not new to me, i know them, and they dont convince me.

i still wonder what it was.

with thermite traces i ment the other things jones found in the dust. the iron rich spheres and the grey/red chips.

[Jonnyclueless]

Cheney, could you spare us this annoyance and just use the search function to find one of the 1000s of existing threads covering the metallurgy? Keep an eye out for crazy chainsaw. While you may think these are all new ground breaking arguments on your behalf, they aren't. Rather than make everyone repeat the same old issues for the millionth time, just use the search function.

And remember, we could care less about convincing you of anything. Everything is a theory if you twist it enough. Gravity is a theory too. Many of us grew out of that kind of argumentative style in grade school. Just because the sky is blue doesn't mean there is air. That's jsut a theory, and the sky could be full of tidy bowl.

[DC]

Hmmm, its full of statements like this,

"The White House's version also included the sentence "we asked each of them to go to America", but Alami says the original formulation is in the passive along the lines of "they were required to go"."

As if either version would make it not a terrorist plot.
Pure semantics.
Why continue with such a charade, Aanthanur?

Example 1: The Pentagon translation has bin Laden say: "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy."

Dr. Murad Alami, academic level translator: "'In advance' isn't in there. It's wrong, if you start from the original Arabic version. And there are no misunderstandings. So one basically can't understand that."

[DC]

Cheney, could you spare us this annoyance and just use the search function to find one of the 1000s of existing threads covering the metallurgy? Keep an eye out for crazy chainsaw. While you may think these are all new ground breaking arguments on your behalf, they aren't. Rather than make everyone repeat the same old issues for the millionth time, just use the search function.

And remember, we could care less about convincing you of anything. Everything is a theory if you twist it enough. Gravity is a theory too. Many of us grew out of that kind of argumentative style in grade school. Just because the sky is blue doesn't mean there is air. That's jsut a theory, and the sky could be full of tidy bowl.

i got asked to list what i see as indications, and i got presented the old "debunkings" i knew already and didnt convince me.
i never claimed that this are groundbraking news.
would i not answer it, it would be claimed i dodge the questions.

[Cuddles]

This thread is to list the firefighters who believe there were bombs in the towers. There are plenty of other threads around to discuss other points. Keep it on topic or most of it will be heading off to AAH.

[scissorhands]

Example 1: The Pentagon translation has bin Laden say: "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy."

Dr. Murad Alami, academic level translator: "'In advance' isn't in there. It's wrong, if you start from the original Arabic version. And there are no misunderstandings. So one basically can't understand that."

Maybe D.Cheney would like to start a new thread where he explains how taking the words "in advance" out of the following statements help in absolving Osama of any guilt.



UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy,
who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that
would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.
(...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas
in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the
plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

[DC]

Maybe D.Cheney would like to start a new thread where he explains how taking the words "in advance" out of the following statements help in absolving Osama of any guilt.

Beyond that the translators agree that the sentence in the original doesn't in any way imply advanced planning or even calcultating the number of casualties beforehand.

[scissorhands]

UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated the number of casualties from the enemy,
who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that
would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.
(...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas
in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the
plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

Here it is without the words "in advance".
You mean they calculated these things afterwards, D.Cheney?

[Good Lt]

Here it is without the words "in advance".
You mean they calculated these things afterwards, D.Cheney?

Sure. Whatever he needs to believe to prop up the conspiratorial house of cards will be done.

Facts are irrelevant.

[DC]

Here it is without the words "in advance".
You mean they calculated these things afterwards, D.Cheney?
Darüber hinaus stimmen die Übersetzer darin überein, dass der Satz im Original keinesfalls ein vorausberechnendes Planen oder gar Kalkulieren der Zahl der Toten enthält.

both translators said, neither in advance planing nor calculating the deaths is
contained in the original tape.

maybe you can show me the passage you think he says it in the original lang.

[Good Lt]

Darüber hinaus stimmen die Übersetzer darin überein, dass der Satz im Original keinesfalls ein vorausberechnendes Planen oder gar Kalkulieren der Zahl der Toten enthält.

both translators said, neither in advance planing nor calculating the deaths is
contained in the original tape.

maybe you can show me the passage you think he says it in the original lang.

Start reading, champ. You're chasing your tail again.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism%2Calqaedainfo

[Dumb All Over]

So, with all due respect DAO, but I think we need to amend that number to zero.
Had the OP asked for non-truthers to list the number of firefighters who believe bombs brought down the towers, then yes. It's clear the number would be zero.

However, that's not what the OP was asking. It specifically asked "truthers" to come up with a number. Dictator Cheney began by listing John Schroeder and then quickly withdrew his assertion after reviewing the video highlights. That, in and of itself, is astounding! Imagine, a truther who admits, after reviewing the clear evidence, that he was wrong. You don't see that too often around here.

On the other hand, we still have the case of TC329 who maintains that John Schroeder and Paul Isaac believe the towers were brought down with bombs/explosions and/or CD. Even after your excellent post, johnny karate, which clearly illustrates with hard evidence that neither of these firefighters said any such thing, TC329 continues to assert, without any supporting evidence, that these two gentlemen maintain a pro-CD stance.

So, with all due respect, johnny karate, the number on the list according to truther TC329 remains at two.

[SpitfireIX]

The following is from a transcript (http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403) of a tape of Osama bin Laden provided to Al Jazeera in 2004. The transcript is Al Jazeera's translation of the Arabic subtitles that were on the original tape; is this major Arab news organization in on your conspiracy also??

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind. . . .

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

[DC]

The following is from a transcript (http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403) of a tape of Osama bin Laden provided to Al Jazeera in 2004. The transcript is Al Jazeera's translation of the Arabic subtitles that were on the original tape; is this major Arab news organization in on your conspiracy also??

actually thats not admiting. this here is alot better, from your source

It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.

sounds like UBL is a LIHOPer :)
but i think that could be counted as an admit to the planning.

beside his alla praysing crap

he also tells alot about the MIC. and how you will run bancrupt in that war.

[Pardalis]

Still no list yet?

[chillzero]

This is one last chance for this thread.

Dictator Cheney - stop wandering off topic. Please re-read your Membership Agreement, and learn to post on topic in threads.

TC329 - When someone is trying (rightly) to return a thread to topic don't argue with them about it. Get back on topic.

Everyone else - no sock allegations - please send those to the mod team with any evidence.

I agree with Cuddles that the thread has grown too quick to be split out, etc at this late point. Get it strictly on topic or further mod action will follow.

[ElMondoHummus]

In another thread Dictator Cheney, in an attempt to show that firefighters know there were bombs in the towers, wrote:

sure it come from the scene, like the firefighters.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf)

So this thread is for him or any other truther to list the names of firefighters on the scene who believe it was bombs that caused the towers to collapse and killed hundreds of their fellow firefighters.

Ready? Go!

I think we need to remember that Gravy already dealt with Graeme McQueen's paper on his site:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard


Let's look at the accounts MacQueen includes of firefighters who use the words "bomb," "explosives," "secondary devices," etc. He lists 31 such accounts. Here's my analysis:

People in the "described something like a bomb” category – 31Number who did not actually mention anything about bombs, explosions, devices, etc. – 1 (Walter Kowalczyk). I have no idea why MacQueen included Kowalczyk's account, which includes nothing about explosions, sounds like explosions, or any suggestion of explosives or explosive devices. That's truther "scholarship" for you.Remaining people in "bomb" category – 30Number who were describing the collapse of a tower – 30Number who had no idea at the time that what they heard was the collapse of a tower (usually because they were inside another building). – 15Number who saw the collapse of a tower, at least partially – 7Number who explained that they knew the sounds were collapses – 2Number who said they had no idea what was going on during the event – 4Number who said, as of the interview date, that they thought they'd actually seen or heard explosives – 0Number who have claimed since 2001 that they believe there were explosives in the buildings – 0


I know the OP was asking people to assemble a list of firefighters who are on record as believing a bomb was involved. Problem is, that's akin to asking people to list the atheists in the College of Cardinals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Cardinals): Even if they know enough to list the one or two exceptions in the group (in the case of firefighters, John Schroeder (http://911stories.googlepages.com/anopenletter); don't know about any "atheist Cardinals" ;) ) such a list can't even be used to prove any premise that firefighters as a group truly believed explosives were used, let alone prove from that that explosives really were used. As Gravy has shown, many of the statements being purported as proof of explosives were merely similies, or the best descriptions they could make from the incomplete information they had of a complex and bewildering event. The most people can do is replicate Graeme McQueen's list.

Then again, Wildcat knows all this, and lurkers/newbies/etc. should take note of the meta-motive, that this paucity of proof is really what he was trying to illuminate with his post.

[Jonnyclueless]

Still no list yet?

Last count I checked was 1. Does 1 count as a list or do you need at least 2 to count as a list?

[beachnut]

I knew a few firemen that KNOW there were bombs, but are afraid to speak out.
They are wrong as you are; you have company in your fantasy. That could be a good thing.

[chillzero]

Good grief. I'm making this thread moderated, and moving the last few posts to AAH.

[Alt+F4]

As for interviewing FDNY, if I lived in NYC you better believe I would have contacted every single one of them by now.

Well that would be thousands of people. Why not start smaller, start with their union, the Uniformed Firefighters Association? Here's a link to their website. I'm sure we all look forward hearing how you sent them an email and their reply as to how many of their members believe that the WTC was brought down by a CD.

http://www.ufanyc.org/index.php

[Tweeter]

This thread is ridiculous. Every time someone gives a name you say they`re crazy. The reason 99.9% of people dont speak out and tell the truth is they have something you de-bunkers will never have. A meaningfuljob.

[Alt+F4]

This thread is ridiculous. Every time someone gives a name you say they`re crazy. The reason 99.9% of people dont speak out and tell the truth is they have something you de-bunkers will never have. A meaningfuljob.

I have a meaningful job. I work for the City of New York as does every member of the FDNY. Please provide evidence that ANY employee of the City of New York is covering up information regarding a 9/11 "inside job" in order to protect their job. If you can't, then retract you statement.

[Dumb All Over]

Dictator Cheney, in your most recent post that has now been culled from this thread and appears in AAH, you say the following:
i then claryfied that i do not claim they belive bombs brought down the towers.
i still not claim this, never did.
(bolding mine)

Please, how do you reconcile the above with the following statement from the first page of this thread?

actually i know only of 1 firefighter , John schroeder, that claims the towers was brought down in a controlled demolition.

[Jonnyclueless]

This thread is ridiculous. Every time someone gives a name you say they`re crazy. The reason 99.9% of people dont speak out and tell the truth is they have something you de-bunkers will never have. A meaningfuljob.

Ignoring the fact that your statement is not true, how about listing all these names.

[Tweeter]

I have a meaningful job. I work for the City of New York as does every member of the FDNY. Please provide evidence that ANY employee of the City of New York is covering up information regarding a 9/11 "inside job" in order to protect their job. If you can't, then retract you statement.

How about you provide your credentials first. Ive explained why people dont come forth.

[Thunder]

No FDNY personnel KNEW there were bombs. No one saw an explosive device nor discovered explosives residue. There are only folks who THINK there were bombs, just like how when a car kicks back, some nutcase thinks it was a bomb.

Thinking it sounded or looked like a bomb, and KNOWING it was a bomb, are two very very different things. Normal, intelligent, sane people know this. Crazy, stupid, and irrational people do not.

[DGM]

How about you provide your credentials first. Ive explained why people dont come forth.
So these firefighters are not coming forward because they might lose their jobs. Tell you what, why don't you go to NY and say that to these firefighters. I think you'll get the answer to your theory very quickly. BTW make sure you program 911 into your cell phone before you accuse them of this, you'll need it.

[Alt+F4]

How about you provide your credentials first. Ive explained why people dont come forth.

No, you haven't.

[Thunder]

Thinking it sounded like a bomb and looked like a bomb, and KNOWING it was a bomb, are two very different things. Sane, intelligent, and rational people understand this.

[Pookster]

How about you provide your credentials first. Ive explained why people dont come forth.

Is this going to turn into a subjective debate over what a "meaningful job" is? He has a job with the City of NY. I believe it's safe to assume it has a pay check attached to it. What more could you possibly want?

[Par]

Ive explained why people dont come forth.


I thought that the truth was out there. Anyway, why is that? That is, why do people not come forth?

[1337m4n]

This thread is ridiculous. Every time someone gives a name you say they`re crazy. The reason 99.9% of people dont speak out and tell the truth is they have something you de-bunkers will never have. A meaningfuljob.

Yes of course Tweeter. I understand. People who know that their own government murdered 3000 people are afraid to say anything about it because they might lose their job.

Do you realize how petty you make the FDNY sound?

[DGM]

Yes of course Tweeter. I understand. People who know that their own government murdered 3000 people are afraid to say anything about it because they might lose their job.

Do you realize how petty you make the FDNY sound?
Personally I find that argument more than a little offensive. This is not much different than accusing them of being "in on it" in my book.:mad:

[Alt+F4]

Is this going to turn into a subjective debate over what a "meaningful job" is? He has a job with the City of NY. I believe it's safe to assume it has a pay check attached to it. What more could you possibly want?

Actually Pookster, I'm a she :D and a teacher, it's my brother-in-law that's FDNY (now retired).

Tweeter is stating that he knows that FDNY members are coving up a 9/11 "inside job", my request is put up some facts or retract.

[Pookster]

Actually Pookster, I'm a she :D and a teacher, it's my brother-in-law that's FDNY (now retired).

Tweeter is stating that he knows that FDNY members are coving up a 9/11 "inside job", my request is put up some facts or retract.

Opps. I usually don't make too gender goofs. :D

A teacher sounds like a meaningful job to me. Some children might not though. :p

[ElMondoHummus]

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=8&aid=74380


Two months have passed since a fire took the lives of two firefighters at the former Deutsche Bank building downtown and now the unions representing the city's Bravest says the FDNY is sabotaging the investigation into what went wrong.

“It clear that the fire commissioner and his top staff have failed to lead the fire department,” said Uniformed Firefighters Association president Steve Cassidy. “They have participated in a cover-up of the facts as it relates to the pre-fire and the post fire. The New York City Fire Department leadership – Sal Cassano, the chief of the department, and others – have made it clear that they do not want the truth to come out.”


... but yet, they're not afraid to speak out over what would be a far, far bigger cover-up.

Why do I not believe that?

Gravy once talked to a firefigther about the notion of people not reporting explosives for fear of losing their jobs:


"Firefighters and their unions don't hesitate to demand that safety issues be addressed. At Farrell's bar in Brooklyn, which is a firefighter and cop hangout, I asked one of New York's Bravest how he would respond to someone who said the 9/11 first responders were keeping quiet about what killed their brothers. He laughed, shook his head, and said, "There better not be a Halligan (http://www.detroitfirefighters.net/images/halligan-bar.jpg) around. I'd put it through his ******* skull." At the center of Farrell's back bar stands a cross made from WTC steel and a portrait of longtime Farrell's bartender Vinny Brunton, a FDNY Captain with Ladder 105, who died on 9/11."

(http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard)

[johnny karate]

This thread is ridiculous. Every time someone gives a name you say they`re crazy.

Incorrect. What has been demonstrated in this thread is that people who supposedly "speak out" aren't necessarily labelled as crazy. We instead label you as a fraud for claiming these people said something they didn't.

Two men have been named in this thread by CTers as firefighters who claimed that the towers were brought done by controlled demolition and/or bombs were present.

As I have clearly shown here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3559003&postcount=189) this simply is not true. Neither of those firefighter actually made those claims.

Just so we're clear: I'm not calling these men crazy, I'm calling the CTers liars.

The reason 99.9% of people dont speak out and tell the truth is they have something you de-bunkers will never have. A meaningfuljob.

Tweeter, do you personally believe that any rank and file members of the FDNY were complicit either before or after the fact in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy?

[NYCEMT86]

I think TC329 is talking about me. I haven't been around because the forum has taken a back seat to other priorities. I don't know where you got this "split" from.


Issac is a buff, he is shunned by members and considered an EDP.


When a widow of one of the firefighters killed at the Deutsch Bank fire was asked to record her grieving as proof of something (I don't know the full details), the members were outraged and tried to organize a protest and they called the lawyer up giving him their opinions on the bs they required.

They are outraged by the cover up of the Deutsch bank. Unfortuantly, its illegal for the firefighters to strike, but they make sure their voice is heard. Still only 1 retired member and one buff has spoken out. Not very impressive for you twoofers.


They will not lose their jobs for speaking out, if that happened, the union would be outraged and sue the department and somebody would be sitting home collecting their 3/4 plus whatever from the lawsuit.

I am tired of the twoofers playing the "but their a 9/11 Hero, how dare you" card. Yes Schroeder is a hero, but it is clear in his interview that he was wrong about details. People can be heros and wrong at the same time.

[grmcdorman]

Happy Birthday, NYCEMT86.

[ElMondoHummus]

Happy Birthday, NYCEMT86.

^^^ OMG OFFTOPIC!!

;):D:p

------

Okay, seriously... :D: Seconded. HBD!! :hbd::bcake: