9/11 FDNY involvement

[gtc]

Thread topic should be 9/11 FDNY involvement. I will ask the mods to fix it.

Where did you get the crazy idea that if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then by definition the firefighters were in on it?

OK. You have made a claim that it is a crazy idea to suggest that an inside job required the knowledge or complicity of firefighters. Can you back that claim up?

Can you suggest a plausible scenario for an inside job that does not involve the complicity of the firefighters.

I can't think of one, particularly if WTC7 was a controlled demolotion on the orders of Larry Silverstein.

[johnny karate]

I predict this thread will yield zero responses from CTers. (And if any do respond, it will be to make some vague claim about firefighters afraid of losing their jobs.)

Why?

Because this issue is one of their major Achilles' heels and they know it.

The FDNY does not side with their version of events and they know it.

The only tricky part here for them is that they can't paint the FDNY with that same broad brush of accusation they so liberally apply to everyone else even tangentially associated with 9/11. To do so would be political suicide and what little traction their movement may have gained would be utterly destroyed and they would be vilified in the public eye.

However, there is no plausible scenario for an inside job that doesn't include complicity on the part of the FDNY, either before or after the fact. I defy any CTer to present one.

Take WTC7, for example. The so-called "smoking gun". CTers will tell you that the debris damage and fires were not severe enough to cause the collapse. And yet every single firefighter that was on the scene that day believes just the opposite.

How do I know this?

Because not a single one of them has come forward to dispute the official version of events. And if any firefighter had reason to believe anything other than what the official version states, like for instance that the WTC7 collapse was due to a controlled demolition, and they didn't come forward with this information, they would be complicit after the fact.

And we wouldn't want to accuse them of that, would we CTers?

No, this thread will most likely slip of the first page and into obscurity with little or no response from the CTers. Because, like all glaring flaws in their belief system, they will choose to ignore it.

[gtc]

Thanks for your response, you have provided a really good summary.

The other issue with WTC7 is that Silverstein made his comment about pulling the building to the FDNY. If that quote is evidence of a CD, then the FDNY was involved prior to the building's collapse.

[pomeroo]

Thanks for your response, you have provided a really good summary.

The other issue with WTC7 is that Silverstein made his comment about pulling the building to the FDNY. If that quote is evidence of a CD, then the FDNY was involved prior to the building's collapse.


The very last thing we need is another WTC 7 thread. The rationalists have won a crushing victory on this topic. We have established that no fantasist is capable of connecting these three concepts: Larry Silverstein, the FDNY, and controlled demolition. Silverstein's notorious exchange shows nothing more than his agreement with the fire department's assessment of the situation. If it has a more sinister meaning, the liars are conspicuously incapable of telling us what it might be.

[Sizzler]

Thread topic should be 9/11 FDNY involvement. I will ask the mods to fix it.



OK. You have made a claim that it is a crazy idea to suggest that an inside job required the knowledge or complicity of firefighters. Can you back that claim up?

Can you suggest a plausible scenario for an inside job that does not involve the complicity of the firefighters.

I can't think of one, particularly if WTC7 was a controlled demolotion on the orders of Larry Silverstein.

I find it hard to prove a negative.

I'll play if you tell me why the fire department had to know. We'll go from there.

The comment about Larry is a good example to start with. No one has been able to support, beyond Larry's words, if he actually had a conversation with a fire commandor. I think it is obvious that he did not tell any firefighters to CD the building. His quote has been taken out of context, obviously. Therefore the Larry S. quote doesn't mean anything and the firefighters didn't have to know it was rigged for CD.

next?

[TheRedWorm]

That works for pre-collapse, but what about post-collapse? You still have to explain why not one FF has come forward as someone who didn't believe the building fell due to damage + fire.

[Sizzler]

That works for pre-collapse, but what about post-collapse? You still have to explain why not one FF has come forward as someone who didn't believe the building fell due to damage + fire.

But again I'm asked to support a negative.

[TheRedWorm]

Not really. If you turn the question around, it reads as: Are there any FFs that think that the building was brought down from something other than fire + damage? If yes, that could be supplied. Where the difficulty comes in is in interpretation. There are no FFs (at least that I am aware of) that publicly state that WTC 1, 2 or 7 were brought down by anything other than damage + fire. This leads me to interpret that piece of info as no FF believes that the collapse was caused by anything else. If you have a different interpretation of the same piece of evidence, be my guest...

[Sizzler]

Not really. If you turn the question around, it reads as: Are there any FFs that think that the building was brought down from something other than fire + damage? If yes, that could be supplied. Where the difficulty comes in is in interpretation. There are no FFs (at least that I am aware of) that publicly state that WTC 1, 2 or 7 were brought down by anything other than damage + fire. This leads me to interpret that piece of info as no FF believes that the collapse was caused by anything else. If you have a different interpretation of the same piece of evidence, be my guest...

Well if I could demonstrate that at least one firefighter has stated that he thinks (present tense) bombs were used then that would be enough.

But, this entire issue rests on the assumption that firefighters would have known beyong a reasonable doubt that bombs were in the building. And then it also rests on the assumption that said firefighters would make public statements about such information.

Now, these might be reasonable assumptions but they nonetheless need to be supported for your arguement to hold ground.

I can simply say that none of the firefighters know beyond reasonable doubt that bombs were in the building. Firefighters explain "explosions" but of course that is up for interpretation.

So you see it is kinda complicated here and hence the difficulty in proving a negative.

I'll try to find at least one firefighter that claims bombs were in the building. I think I can do it (and I'm sure he has already been ripped apart by debunkers).

[gtc]

Sizzler,

Thanks for responding. I appreciate it and I think we are already getting somewhere.

What I am hoping will happen with this thread is that truthers will present their ideas about how an inside job could have occurred without FDNY involvement.

Obviously the theories presented should have some plausibility but the particular evidence for or against the theories is not relevant to this thread (plenty of other threads to discuss that).

When a theory is presented it will be up to us debunkers to show that the scenario is impossible without the knowledge or involvement of the FDNY.

A good example is the theory that has already been discussed about Silverstein and the WTC7. Clearly, we both agree that if that conversation really occurred and was really an order to demolish the building then the FDNY had to have been involved.

Do you have any theories of your own that you want to share? It doesn't matter if you can't prove that your theory is correct; speculation is fine for this thread.

I think this should address Pomeroo's points as well.

Edited to add, speculation about whether fire fighters would have twigged to a CD before or after is another good example of what I am hoping to discuss.

[aggle-rithm]

But, this entire issue rests on the assumption that firefighters would have known beyong a reasonable doubt that bombs were in the building.


????

If THEY didn't know, then how do YOU know?

[TheRedWorm]

I know it is complicated, that is probably why you haven't posted your unified theory as of yet.

But do try and find a FF that thinks (current tense) that bombs brought down WTC 1, 2 or 7. As long as the path to knowledge is an honest one.

[CurtC]

But again I'm asked to support a negative.

We can't think of any plausible inside job scenarios which could happen without the knowledge by the FDNY. Maybe not foreknowledge, but at least knowledge after the fact and complicity in the cover-up.

[defaultdotxbe]

any evidence of demolition would have bene present in the debris pile, in form of unexploded charges, blasting caps, detcord, etc etc

also remember fire fighters were digging through the pile for weeks before the debris was shipped off to "china" (AKA staten island)

fire fighters would have noticed anything unusual about the fires themselves and the aftermath


so ultimately if there was anything as obviously unusual about the fires and the collapses, as the truthers would have us believe, the fire fighters would have been the first to know, and yet they arent demanding a new investigation in any great numbers

[sts60]

I predict this thread will yield zero responses from CTers. (And if any do respond, it will be to make some vague claim about firefighters afraid of losing their jobs.)

Why?

Because this issue is one of their major Achilles' heels and they know it.

The FDNY does not side with their version of events and they know it.

The only tricky part here for them is that they can't paint the FDNY with that same broad brush of accusation they so liberally apply to everyone else even tangentially associated with 9/11. To do so would be political suicide and what little traction their movement may have gained would be utterly destroyed and they would be vilified in the public eye.
Which is why some posters here have flogged the meme that goes something like "but how many rank and file firefighters personally believed WTC 7 was going to come down"? They want to cast FUD about the unambiguous collapse indicators observed by FDNY that day. They want to push the idea that the rank and file FFs were only repeating what had been told to them by authority - which, as some have observed, fits neatly into the "master/slave" conspiracist view of how things work. They want people to believe that "real" firefighters didn't actually know the building was in imminent collapse danger; that they only knew what they were told by higher-ups, and that the higher-ups were covering up the real CD-caused collapse with a story about "natural" collapse. (I see this same thing a lot with "but the Apollo engineers only knew what they were told by the top guys at NASA".)

In short, they are accusing FDNY of being in on it, but without coming right out and saying it. They also think that they can restrict it to senior "management", isolating them from the rest of FDNY and thus avoid triggering outrage against the accusation of FDNY complicity. Unfortunately, this doesn't work for several reasons:

1. Their claims don't have any evidence for them, and don't make any sense in terms of motive, relevance to the greater scheme, or the alleged execution of the WTC 7 demolition itself. Of course, this is true of pretty much all the conspiracist claims.

2. The disingenuous way the WTC 7 scheme is "advanced" is pretty transparent. It may work with those not familiar with the conspiracist playbook, but not with the regulars here, who have seen the earnest, oh-so-innocent "Just Asking Questions" approach before.

3. The testimony of those personally witnessing WTC 7 collapse indicators goes right down the pay scale from assistant chiefs to captains and lieutenants - unit officers right there on the front lines - and down to, yes, the rank-and-file. (At this point, we hear the familiar rumble of the goalposts being moved - "what, there are only ___ regular firefighters on the list?")

It's a sneaky and underhanded approach to accusing FDNY of being in on it, without having the gumption to come out and actually say it. Pathetic.

[nicepants]

I find it hard to prove a negative.

I'll play if you tell me why the fire department had to know. We'll go from there.

The comment about Larry is a good example to start with. No one has been able to support, beyond Larry's words, if he actually had a conversation with a fire commandor. I think it is obvious that he did not tell any firefighters to CD the building. His quote has been taken out of context, obviously. Therefore the Larry S. quote doesn't mean anything and the firefighters didn't have to know it was rigged for CD.

next?

That would then destroy any CD relying on the "pull it" quote, since the assumption is that the conversation mentioning that phrase never took place.

[aggle-rithm]

Well if I could demonstrate that at least one firefighter has stated that he thinks (present tense) bombs were used then that would be enough.


OK...the challenge was:


Can you suggest a plausible scenario for an inside job that does not involve the complicity of the firefighters.


Can you explain how ONE firefighter hearing bombs makes it plausible that an inside job could be carried out without a significant number of firefighters noticing?

If your argument is that the challenge only requires a single exception to falsify "no complicity", then you are arguing semantics. Remember what the point of the thread is.

[gtc]

On reflection, I can think of two scenarios for an inside job without FDNY knowledge.

The first is the LIHOP scenario and the second is any MIHOP scenario which involves no obvious tampering with the buildings prior to or after the plane crashes and no obvious tampering with the planes.

It seems to me that other theories imply FDNY involvment but I am willing to be corrected.

[CurtC]

...and the second is any MIHOP scenario which involves no obvious tampering with the buildings prior to or after the plane crashes and no obvious tampering with the planes.

That's true, but I was assuming we were talking about the flavors of conspiracy theories that involve bringing down the three buildings with explosives or thermite, space beams, or anything else that wasn't the "official story."

[Alt+F4]

any evidence of demolition would have bene present in the debris pile, in form of unexploded charges, blasting caps, detcord, etc etc

also remember fire fighters were digging through the pile for weeks before the debris was shipped off to "china" (AKA staten island)

fire fighters would have noticed anything unusual about the fires themselves and the aftermath

so ultimately if there was anything as obviously unusual about the fires and the collapses, as the truthers would have us believe, the fire fighters would have been the first to know, and yet they arent demanding a new investigation in any great numbers

Exactly. Keep in mind that many of the FDNY members who worked on the pile and at Fresh Kills were not just firefighters but also professional arson investigators (called Fire Marshals in the FDNY). If they saw anything indicating a CD they would have been the first to speak out.

Why do the conspiracy liars think any of these men and women would cover up the murder of 347 members of their own department?

I've yet to meet an FDNY member that could shut his or her mouth up about something regading the safety of FDNY members or the public. Do you know how much flack the FDNY has given Rudy Giuliani everyday since 9/11? "America's Mayor"? Ask an FDNY member about that.

[defaultdotxbe]

On reflection, I can think of two scenarios for an inside job without FDNY knowledge.

The first is the LIHOP scenario and the second is any MIHOP scenario which involves no obvious tampering with the buildings prior to or after the plane crashes and no obvious tampering with the planes.

It seems to me that other theories imply FDNY involvment but I am willing to be corrected.
yeah, but unfortunately (for truthers) controlled demolition is about the only thing the large majority of them agree on

[gtc]

That's true, but I was assuming we were talking about the flavors of conspiracy theories that involve bringing down the three buildings with explosives or thermite, space beams, or anything else that wasn't the "official story."

I am also assuming that; but it seems pretty clear to me that these are the only options for an inside job that doesn't include the FDNY.

We will see.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But, this entire issue rests on the assumption that firefighters would have known beyong a reasonable doubt that bombs were in the building. And then it also rests on the assumption that said firefighters would make public statements about such information.


It also rests on the assumption that firefighters can tell the difference between a controlled demolition and a natural collapse. Like... knowing what a CD sounds like.

[PhantomWolf]

Any theory that involves WTC 7 falling other then by fire and damage has to include the FDNY, and I can think of 343 reasons the truthers stay clear of insinuating that directly.

[RedIbis]

Any theory that involves WTC 7 falling other then by fire and damage has to include the FDNY, and I can think of 343 reasons the truthers stay clear of insinuating that directly.

Why? Have you taken a good, long look at Gravy's comprehensive list of ff quotes. The majority received word of its imminent collapse. There was no univeral conclusion that the bldg would collapse.

Their quotes are sincere, accurate and enlightening. Study them, please.

[BigAl]

We can't think of any plausible inside job scenarios which could happen without the knowledge by the FDNY. Maybe not foreknowledge, but at least knowledge after the fact and complicity in the cover-up.
As of the time of the WTC7 collapse, not only were FDNY people watching WTC7, there were the first volunteer steelworkers, structural engineers and one demolition expert. Many of the people were trying to find survivors in the rubble of WTC1 and WTC2 which would have shown them the south side or WTC7.

Call me crazy, but I expect that many of those steel workers and engineers would know man-made explosives when they heard them.

[Garb]

Why? Have you taken a good, long look at Gravy's comprehensive list of ff quotes. The majority received word of its imminent collapse. There was no univeral conclusion that the bldg would collapse.

Their quotes are sincere, accurate and enlightening. Study them, please.

No they did not!

Show me the majority did because I already told you I found very few reports that said that.

[johnny karate]

Why? Have you taken a good, long look at Gravy's comprehensive list of ff quotes. The majority received word of its imminent collapse. There was no univeral conclusion that the bldg would collapse.

Their quotes are sincere, accurate and enlightening. Study them, please.

You know what else is enlightening?

The fact that over six years later, there is a universal conclusion among those same firefighters that WTC7 collapsed due to damage and fire.

[PhantomWolf]

Why? Have you taken a good, long look at Gravy's comprehensive list of ff quotes. The majority received word of its imminent collapse. There was no univeral conclusion that the bldg would collapse.

Their quotes are sincere, accurate and enlightening. Study them, please.

I have, and it's amazing the number that talk about seeing the uncontrolled fires, the building leaning, hearing the building creaking and groaning, witnessing the damage to the building, and the wall bulging out on one side. If you accept their statements then it's obvious that WTC 7 was in serious trouble, had suffered serious damage, and had large uncontrolled fires raging throughout it. It's also obvious they would have noticed anyone sneaking in with a truck load of explosives.

[sts60]

Yes, and having read them from a firefighter's perspective, the consensus up and down the command structure - including the unit officers and the rank-and-file firefighters - is unmistakable. I will repeat, by reference, my comments earlier in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3563584&postcount=15).

[CHF]

Why? Have you taken a good, long look at Gravy's comprehensive list of ff quotes. The majority received word of its imminent collapse.

Right - they received word from other FDNY.

This was discussed at length in a previous thread which the local twoofers all ran away from.

Perhaps you've been busy since then compiling a story as to how the FDNY who spread the word of WTC7s collapse were not involved in a "demolition." If so, let's hear it.

[westprog]

However, there is no plausible scenario for an inside job

Exactly. In the absence of any plausible scenario, they are in the realm of the highly implausible and completely impossible. This makes it very easy to exclude FDNY.

What is sleazy is the kind of "Yes, the FDNY know that it was an inside job, but they know they'd lose their jobs if they went public." They aren't "in on it", but they're too scared to speak up. Luckily a few brave men aren't so easily intimidated. It's a disgusting bit of wish fulfillment that turns 911 around so that the firemen are the cowards, and the conspiracists are brave.

[westprog]

However, there is no plausible scenario for an inside job

Exactly. In the absence of any plausible scenario, they are in the realm of the highly implausible and completely impossible. This makes it very easy to exclude FDNY.

What is sleazy is the kind of "Yes, the FDNY know that it was an inside job, but they know they'd lose their jobs if they went public." They aren't "in on it", but they're too scared to speak up. Luckily a few brave men aren't so easily intimidated. It's a disgusting bit of wish fulfillment that turns 911 around so that the firemen are the cowards, and the conspiracists are brave.

[SDC]

Anyone acquainted with NYC civic unions can affirm that it would be essentially impossible to fire anyone for making the "wrong" statements. Especially with the FDNY. Sheesh. Maybe where they live...

[Sizzler]

Sounds of explosions

I think it is quite obvious that firefighter testimony includes: sounds of explosions, flashes, and sequences of such described as being like a CD. This of course doesn't mean the firefighters think a CD occurred just that it is an approximate comparison.

Det Chord and chargers

With that said, another claim is that firefighters would have found det cord and chargers. However this claim assumes that firefighter would have been able to identify these things within the burning rubble pile. I have yet to see pictures of anything other than paper, concrete, steel, aluminum, dust, etc. Why should we assume that cord and chargers would be so easy to identify?

So I'm still puzzled as to why the firefighters would have had to have been in on it.

[WildCat]

Sounds of explosions

I think it is quite obvious that firefighter testimony includes: sounds of explosions, flashes, and sequences of such described as being like a CD.
None of those are nearly as loud as actual CD demo charges, and also demo charges don't go off half an hour before the building collapses.

So I'm still puzzled as to why the firefighters would have had to have been in on it.
1. They would have been in a position to hear and see the very loud and obvious demo charges.
2. Truthers claim firemen talking about how the buildings (especially WTC 7) are coming down is proof of CD.
3. It's claimed that Silverstein discussed blowing up WTC 7 with a fire commander before it collapsed.

[BigAl]

Sounds of explosions
I have yet to see pictures of anything other than paper, concrete, steel, aluminum, dust, etc. Why should we assume that cord and chargers would be so easy to identify?

So I'm still puzzled as to why the firefighters would have had to have been in on it.

How much of the debris have you seen in person? I suspect zero. Wide-angle photo shots and cherry-picked YouTube videos don't do the pile justice. It was too big.

The pile was hand-screened twice, roughly by first responders at the site and then by 4,000 (?) crime scene investigators at the S.I. landfill. They found body parts down to finger-nail size and tons of other small, interesting bits.

That WTC7 was about to collapse due to fire was broadcast on the TV news. I saw it.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294%20
I can't figure out how the Twoofers can make that fact go away. IMO, the Twoofer Noise Machine does it's best to hide teh massive public record we have for 9/11.

It's safe to say that some portion of the firemen have experience with explosives as military vets. Nobody says they heard explosions consistent with man-made demolition and nobody says they saw man-made demolition.

[johnny karate]

So I'm still puzzled as to why the firefighters would have had to have been in on it.

For one thing, there is the rather inconvenient fact (for CTers) that to this day, every single firefighter that was on the scene supports the official hypothesis of debris damage and severe fire as the cause of the WTC7 collapse, two phenomena which CTers vehemently assert are either manufactured or exaggerated by proponents of the official version.

If what CTers claim is true, then that would make those firefighters liars, and thus complicit in the conspiracy.

[Confuseling]

...the Twoofer Noise Machine does it's best to hide teh massive public record we have for 9/11.


Whose side you batting for? :D

...teh Twoofer Noise Machine does it's best to hide the massive public record we have for 9/11.

[Sizzler]

I found at least one firefighter that questions the official story. In this video he does not explicity support any alternative though.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7471885217846396761

This video also reminded be that Guiliani received warning of WTC tower collapse yet the firefighters weren't told. So in this case it was someone other than a firefighter that predicted collapse.

For WTC7 firefighters knew it was going to collapse. However it isn't known who exactly made the initial prediction, and using WTC tower as an example, it may not have been a firefighter at all.

So if someone other than a firefighter predicted collapse of WTC7 (we know a non-fighterfighter predicted WTC tower), it would eliminate a need for firefighters to be complicit in an inside job.

Also, if WTC7 was being attacked by therm?te before collapse initiation firefighters may have come to the conclusion independently without having to know it was an inside job.

[CHF]

For WTC7 firefighters knew it was going to collapse. However it isn't known who exactly made the initial prediction, and using WTC tower as an example, it may not have been a firefighter at all.

Who cares about the "initial prediction?" Several FDNY made the prediction based on what they observed with their own eyes.

Also, if WTC7 was being attacked by therm?te before collapse initiation firefighters may have come to the conclusion independently without having to know it was an inside job.

The FDNY saw WTC7 being "attacked by thermite" and didn't think it was an inside job? Huh? :eek:

[firecoins]

This video also reminded be that Guiliani received warning of WTC tower collapse yet the firefighters weren't told. So in this case it was someone other than a firefighter that predicted collapse.

For WTC7 firefighters knew it was going to collapse. However it isn't known who exactly made the initial prediction, and using WTC tower as an example, it may not have been a firefighter at all.

.
I am a NYC EMT.

First off Guliani is not a firefighter. He does not have a radio. FDNY did give warnings of a collapse to their firefighters but their radios did not work. Let me repeat that. FDNY radios did not work. In case you didn't understand, an evacuation was transmitted but not recieved by Firefighters in the Twin TOwers.

As far as WTC any all the firefighter knew the building would collapse since they wer not able to fight the fires. There wasn't a mysterious individual who made a magical predicition and broadcast it only to firefighters.

[defaultdotxbe]

Schroeder said his team were in the tower for at least 5 minutes after the first plane hit before the elevators exploded, contradicting the official explanation that jet fuel cascaded down the elevator shafts and caused them to explode immediately after the plane struck.
well this is easily verifiable, did we are change bother talking to any other members of engine company 10?

[firecoins]

Sounds of explosions

I think it is quite obvious that firefighter testimony includes: sounds of explosions, flashes, and sequences of such described as being like a CD. This of course doesn't mean the firefighters think a CD occurred just that it is an approximate comparison.

Det Chord and chargers

With that said, another claim is that firefighters would have found det cord and chargers. However this claim assumes that firefighter would have been able to identify these things within the burning rubble pile. I have yet to see pictures of anything other than paper, concrete, steel, aluminum, dust, etc. Why should we assume that cord and chargers would be so easy to identify?

So I'm still puzzled as to why the firefighters would have had to have been in on it.
you don't know much about fires do you?

[johnny karate]

I found at least one firefighter that questions the official story. In this video he does not explicity support any alternative though.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7471885217846396761

Throughout that entire interview, Schroeder doesn't make a single explicit claim regarding an inside job. The closest he comes is answering extremely leading "yes or no" questions offered by the interviewer, none of which are very specific.

And this is the best and only firefighter testimony CTers have to offer.

video also reminded be that Guiliani received warning of WTC tower collapse yet the firefighters weren't told. So in this case it was someone other than a firefighter that predicted collapse.

For WTC7 firefighters knew it was going to collapse. However it isn't known who exactly made the initial prediction, and using WTC tower as an example, it may not have been a firefighter at all.

So if someone other than a firefighter predicted collapse of WTC7 (we know a non-fighterfighter predicted WTC tower), it would eliminate a need for firefighters to be complicit in an inside job.

Incorrect. Even if what you say is true, it doesn't explain why every single firefighter that was on the scene believed and continues to believe to this day what they were told.

To reconcile that with your claim, the FDNY that were on the scene must either be gullible fools who don't know how to do their jobs, or are complicit in covering up the true cause of WTC7's collapse.

I'll let you choose which.

[Sizzler]

Throughout that entire interview, Schroeder doesn't make a single explicit claim regarding an inside job. The closest he comes is answering extremely leading "yes or no" questions offered by the interviewer, none of which are very specific.

It is true that he doesn't make an explicit claim. He does however claim several time that "something else" was happening. That is very clear in the interview.

And this is the best and only firefighter testimony CTers have to offer.

only? hymmm. It went from "zero" to "only". I'll see if I can find another one.



Incorrect. Even if what you say is true, it doesn't explain why every single firefighter that was on the scene believed and continues to believe to this day what they were told.

What exactly is incorrect.

To reconcile that with your claim, the FDNY that were on the scene must either be gullible fools who don't know how to do their jobs, or are complicit in covering up the true cause of WTC7's collapse.

I'll let you choose which.
(bolding mine)

Why would they be gullible fools? If therm?te were eating away at the structure, firefighters would have noticed structural failure. They could have percieved it as failure due to fire. Of course this all lies on the assumption that therm?te would have been "secretly" attacking the steel. ie, no firefighters actually saw therm?te being used.

[johnny karate]

It is true that he doesn't make an explicit claim. He does however claim several time that "something else" was happening. That is very clear in the interview.

And yet the person conducting the interview never thought to ask Schroeder to be more specific. And yet there has been absolutely no follow up with Schroeder to glean more detail. And yet not a single MSM outlet on the planet found this a compelling enough story to cover. And yet the only place you will find this explosive (no pun intended) interview is on a conspiracy theory DVD conducted by the very people trying to sell that DVD.

I wonder why.

only? hymmm. It went from "zero" to "only". I'll see if I can find another one.

I personally never said "zero", which is beside the point. Schroeder never makes a single claim that indicates he believes it was an inside job, so for all intents and purposes, it is "zero".

What exactly is incorrect.

This is:
it would eliminate a need for firefighters to be complicit in an inside job.


Why would they be gullible fools? If therm?te were eating away at the structure, firefighters would have noticed structural failure. They could have percieved it as failure due to fire. Of course this all lies on the assumption that therm?te would have been "secretly" attacking the steel. ie, no firefighters actually saw therm?te being used.

The official position of the FDNY is that WTC7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire. Every firefighter who was on the scene agrees with this position. In over six years, none have come forward to dispute it.

If thermite was required to facilitate the collapse that would mean that the debris and fire were not significant enough factors, thus contradicting the official FDNY position and the beliefs of all the firefighters who were there.

Which brings us back to them being either fools or liars. Once again, I'll leave the choice up to you.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is true that he doesn't make an explicit claim. He does however claim several time that "something else" was happening. That is very clear in the interview.


Mr. Schroeder gets the order of the tower collapses wrong, and isn't corrected by the interviewer. He also admits that he's not exactly in top mental shape...

[Jonnyclueless]

you don't know much about fires do you?


You're missing the point. Sizzler is saying that the firefighters know how to determine an explosive from the many other things that cause the same sounds, but are incapable of identifying detonation cords in the remains as they are trained in great detail as to determining the cause of fires.

[Confuseling]

It might have been Pardalis in another thread describing this as a conspiracy-of-the-gaps. It's an apt description. Thermite is suggested because there are no seismic / acoustic signatures. Now it's a small enough amount of thermite to be indistinguishable from a normal fire. Soon it will be my cousin heard that Condoleezza Rice and Prince Faisal Al-Saud were engaged in a bizarre Satanic sex ritual at the exact moment of the first plane's impact.

It is devastatingly clear that they have chosen a result, and are now shoring up the facts to fit it.

[Confuseling]

ETA: you remind me of a creationist. Because science can't explain everything and there are still gaps in the fossil history so therefore evolution is wrong... :rolleyes:

The god of the gaps I think we call it, but in this case god is "teh conspiracy".

Well said.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is devastatingly clear that they have chosen a result, and are now shoring making up the facts to fit it.


Fixed that for you. ;)

[BigAl]

I am a NYC EMT.

First off Guliani is not a firefighter. He does not have a radio. FDNY did give warnings of a collapse to their firefighters but their radios did not work. Let me repeat that. FDNY radios did not work. In case you didn't understand, an evacuation was transmitted but not recieved by Firefighters in the Twin TOwers.


"FDNY radios did not work" is a generalization and an exaggeration to the point of being wrong. FDNY radios did not work inside the towers and the police and FDNY radios didn't inter-operate.

Warnings were broadcast by radio from the Police helo and FDNY didn't get the warnings of immanent collapse until or unless word was passed.

The "truth Movement" would disappear if people stated a fact instead of a vague exaggeration of the fact.