Here is one rescue worker who was "in on it"

[R.Mackey]

Firefighter was told bomb in the area of the school. He was told by his supervisor.

So "eyewitnesses saw bombs that destroyed the WTC" has now, upon questioning, morphed into "a firefighter was captured on video referring to a bomb threat that not only didn't level anything but never materialized at all, that he heard of second-hand from a supervisor, somewhere in the neighborhood of the WTC."

I wouldn't bother replying, but there is nothing else at all going on in the Truth Movement at the moment. Fold your tents, guys.

[DGM]

Watch the video. Attack the message.
It's off topic for this thread. Besides I've seen it.

[Slayhamlet]

Watch the video. Use of the word another bomb

The "other bomb" is the bomb scare at the World Financial Center. That scare was also false.

[Drs_Res]

Here is a picture of the school in relation to the WTC complex.
The red marker is the school, and I don't think I need to point out where the WTC complex area is.

[Russ_Dalton]

Why do you liars pretend that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was some sort of conspiracy? Nobody believes you. LBJ was a cynical pol who exploited the sailors' confusion to ram through legislation he desired. He stated in private that "those dumb sons-of-bitches were probably shooting at flying fish." There was no conspiracy, and no one thinks there was.

False.
Declassified National Security Agency Documents Show Analysts Made Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) fit the claim" of North Vietnamese Attack.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm

Iran-Contra was covert diplomacy, a small-scale version of Lend-lease. What FDR did was blatantly unconstitutional and unquestionably the right thing to do, morally and strategically. The 1993 WTC bombing was done by Islamic terrorists--sorry.

The you havent researched enough.
FBI's Confidential Informant Emad Salem secretly tapes his conversation with FBI agent John Anticev
Salem admits a number of times to building, with the supervision of the FBI
http://freethoughtmanifesto.blogspot.com/2007/03/fbi-behind-wtc-bombing-1993.html
The above link has the audio too.

It was on news too.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vPF2rnRJn3s

How many times do you need the explanation?
No, you fail to comprehend bin Laden's and KSM's own words. The nineteen jihadists were identified at airports, their names and seating positions appeared on flight manifests, their DNA was discovered at crash sites, and the Saudis' intelligence confirmed our findings.
Since when is confession a corroborative evidence?
DNA of the hijackers matched with____?

[abenja1]

Why will no truthers answer me? Well I know b/c their idiots so I'll give them one last chance to answer my question: What did this recuse worker gain from being "in on it?"

[Drs_Res]

Let's stay on topic please guys/gals.

[PhantomWolf]

Google gulf of tonkin

So the North Vietnese didn't attack the USS Maddox on the 2nd August, even though they have acknowledged they did?

1976 cuban plane bombing

And knowing that a group possibly plans to do something overseas to an enemy and not acting to stop them is a crime? The only Governmental involvement in this attack was Venezuelan.

Iran contra

Other than being illegal under the rather strict law imposed by Congress after they got cold feet during the 70's and 80's and basically hamstrung any foreign activities that could be seen as attempts to destabilize any Government, exactly what was "evil" about this deal to rescue US hostages in Lebanon and also support anti-communist rebels in South America?

1993 WTC bombing.

I suggest that you head to Supermax prison ADX Florence and tell Ramzi Ahmed Yousef that he didn't really do it. I'm sure that he'd be delighted to know, or not since he seemed quite proud of the attacks.

And before you start off on the FBI tapes and informer deal, go and learn the truth of the matter from actual history, not the twisted version your CT sites tell.

al-Jazerra..So?
How did he know in 2003 about the plaza bank which was going to be named in 2006?

Yeah cause he has to have meant a one storey skyscraper and not the 42 storey American Blank Plaza :rolleyes:

[Russ_Dalton]

The "other bomb" is the bomb scare at the World Financial Center. That scare was also false.
So there were reports of bombs around WTC. And there were explosive sounds in the WTC complex.
Why doesn't that warrant an investigation?

[Russ_Dalton]

So the North Vietnese didn't attack the USS Maddox on the 2nd August, even though they have acknowledged they did?



And knowing that a group possibly plans to do something overseas to an enemy and not acting to stop them is a crime? The only Governmental involvement in this attack was Venezuelan.



Other than being illegal under the rather strict law imposed by Congress after they got cold feet during the 70's and 80's and basically hamstrung any foreign activities that could be seen as attempts to destabilize any Government, exactly what was "evil" about this deal to rescue US hostages in Lebanon and also support anti-communist rebels in South America?



I suggest that you head to Supermax prison ADX Florence and tell Ramzi Ahmed Yousef that he didn't really do it. I'm sure that he'd be delighted to know, or not since he seemed quite proud of the attacks.

And before you start off on the FBI tapes and informer deal, go and learn the truth of the matter from actual history, not the twisted version your CT sites tell.



Yeah cause he has to have meant a one storey skyscraper and not the 42 storey American Blank Plaza :rolleyes:

The 4 examples I have given are proven known falsifications. You dont want to get into that trap. Id like to stick to this topic. Start the thread and invite me.

[pomeroo]

False.
Declassified National Security Agency Documents Show Analysts Made Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) fit the claim" of North Vietnamese Attack.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm




Liar. Absolutely none of LBJ's severest critics have ever contended that any attacks were faked. The "incident" arose when fatigued seamen in heavy seas reacted to blips on the radar screen.





The you havent researched enough.
FBI's Confidential Informant Emad Salem secretly tapes his conversation with FBI agent John Anticev
Salem admits a number of times to building, with the supervision of the FBI
http://freethoughtmanifesto.blogspot.com/2007/03/fbi-behind-wtc-bombing-1993.html
The above link has the audio too.

It was on news too.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vPF2rnRJn3s


Nonsense.




Since when is confession a corroborative evidence?
DNA of the hijackers matched with____?


DNA at the crash sites matched DNA found in rooms and cars rented by the hijackers. Duh! We don't need another thread on this subject.

[Russ_Dalton]

So "eyewitnesses saw bombs that destroyed the WTC" has now, upon questioning, morphed into "a firefighter was captured on video referring to a bomb threat that not only didn't level anything but never materialized at all, that he heard of second-hand from a supervisor, somewhere in the neighborhood of the WTC."

I wouldn't bother replying, but there is nothing else at all going on in the Truth Movement at the moment. Fold your tents, guys.

Did you willfully chose to ignore other eyewitnesses who use the words bombs, detonations, explosives in the WTC?

[DGM]

So there were reports of bombs around WTC. And there were explosive sounds in the WTC complex.
Why doesn't that warrant an investigation?
It was investigated. How do you think they found out it was false?

[pomeroo]

The 4 examples I have given are proven known falsifications. You dont want to get into that trap. Id like to stick to this topic. Start the thread and invite me.


Your lies have been exposed and you simply ignore that fact. Typical twoofer. No wonder your evil movement failed.

[Drs_Res]

Another person who never heard of a simile.

We better go look for the trains and the thunder that brought the buildings down as well.

OxaBmNoIc10

[R.Mackey]

Did you willfully chose to ignore other eyewitnesses who use the words bombs, detonations, explosives in the WTC?

So now your claim devolves not to seeing bombs or explosives, but merely using the words.

As in "it sounded like a bomb." This is not eyewitness evidence of a bomb.

Ergo, I did not willfully choose to ignore them. They are irrelevant.

I've told you before, excepting only Mr. Rodriguez whose case is well understood, there are no eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a bomb or explosives. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. If I'm wrong, show me these people. You can't, and therefore you keep trying to change the ground rules.

[abenja1]

Did you willfully chose to ignore other eyewitnesses who use the words bombs, detonations, explosives in the WTC?

Do you willfully ignore my question? What did the rescue worker gain from being "in on it?"

[beachnut]

Please link to these reports of at least 20,000 people killed. I dont remember this. All the n ews media said they had no ida of numbers
If you do not show any signs of intelligence, you will be banned for not being conscience for the past 6 years.

[BigAl]

So there were reports of bombs around WTC. And there were explosive sounds in the WTC complex.
Why doesn't that warrant an investigation?


Because when the statements are read in their context, it is clear for 99% of them that the person is speaking of the noises of a building in the process of collapsing and for the other 1%, nobody heard the same noise, and small noises are not an indication of man-made demolition of a building that is, I believe, larger than any known man-made explosive demolition by a couple orders of magnitude.

[CptColumbo]

If you do not show any signs of intelligence, you will be banned for not being conscience for the past 6 years.



Too late. Guess who.

[Disbelief]

What makes you think he ever left? He may have posted in this thread already after he was banned. As a recent or new sock. Ron and I have believed for quite some time that theauthor was pdoh76.

My only question is if Zen is also PDoh. I joined after PDoh was gone, but I have lived through Zen and his various socks.

[tsig]

So a CD "expert" can be misled?
Shouldn't all CD experts agree on one opinion?

Why?

[mrbaracuda]

The point is the school is so close to the WTCs (you can see the reporter say it in the video) and they wanted to evacuate it.
The fireman wasn't sure where the bomb was, he says its in the area of the school and he was asked to evacuate the area.
Watch the video. Use of the word another bomb

Yes, very interesting "theory", Sherlock. Now tell me, why are they moving out of the immediate area of that high school where the first bomb threat was, instead of staying there, if it's supposed to be in the WTC?

Wait, don't even try to come up with something retarded. See below why! Ha!

Did you willfully ignore OTHER eyewitness accounts in my earlier link of people saying bombs, detonations, explosives, van with explosives?

No, I am willfully ignoring YOUR NONSENSE.

[SezMe]

I have a very minor request. Some of you apparently know each other in real life and use names like Ron, Brad, Ryan, etc. However, those of us on the periphery don't have that level of information so it would be helpful if you would stick to screen names that we all know. Thanks.

[Alt+F4]

Back to the video in the OP:

It's very manipulative. We hear a male voice saying off camera:

“This building is about to blow up, move it back.”

When the voice says, “This building is about to blow up…” we are seeing WTC 7. When the same voice continues, “move it back”, it’s a different shot – outside Stuyvesant High School. The next shot is back at WTC 7. It's trying to insinuate that all three shots are part of the same video, which they aren't. It's clear that the middle shot (Stuyvesant) isn't on the same street.

Look at the three shots with and without sound, note the light and shadows, they don't match.

Does anyone really think CNN put those clips together like that?

Even if this wasn't an amateurish attempt to deceive, no where in that video do we see the cop say "this building is about to blow up".

[Alt+F4]

As for the events at Stuyvesant High School, here are the facts. According to Principal Stanley Teitel, he decided to evacuate the school at about 9:55am because:

A federal official came to me and told me the north building was in danger of falling and it could hit us--which it couldn't. But the shock wave. If it came at us, could bring our building down.

As for the bomb scare:

Teitel said that Stuyvesant did not receive a bomb threat and that a bomb definitely never exploded near the school. However, down the street, a pipe had been ruptured. "Somebody heard a gas leak a few blocks away and now we have a bomb threat" Teitel said. "Ever play the game 'Telephone'?"

So what does this leave us with? A video in which cops and firefighters clearly believe there is a bomb either in or near the high school, which of course there was not. I find what they thought to be perfectly reasonable considering the panic of that morning.

The "truthers" however feel a cop or firefighter can never be mistaken, ever. The "truthers" should start asking the FDNY to pick their lottery numbers for them.

Linky: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/terrorism/stuy.pdf?scp=1&sq=%22stuyvesant%20high%20school%22%20spectator&st=cse

One further note, from my personal experience, before 9/11 bomb threats at high schools in NYC were not unusual, now they rarely occur at all.

[~enigma~]

One further note, from my personal experience, before 9/11 bomb threats at high schools in NYC were not unusual, now they rarely occur at all.
Bomb threats. I went to Sheepshead Bay HS in the 70s (Brooklyn) and bomb threats were a mostly daily occurance but generally they were the "bad" kids trying to get out of school for the day so the "threats" pretty much were checked but the school not evacuated unless the "threat" was credible.

[Grizzly Bear]

So there were reports of bombs around WTC. And there were explosive sounds in the WTC complex.
Why doesn't that warrant an investigation?

Damage to the towers having other side effects... cars were being ignited by materials raining down from the impact areas... people described bodies hitting the ground as sounding like explosions... given the situation the possibilities of sounds coming from sources other than bombs is exceedingly high... Gas lines rupturing during the tower's collapse, water lines rupturing during the collapse... literally hundreds of sources of sounds.... Is that not relevant in any way to your interpretation of events?

[RedIbis]

So now your claim devolves not to seeing bombs or explosives, but merely using the words.

As in "it sounded like a bomb." This is not eyewitness evidence of a bomb.

Ergo, I did not willfully choose to ignore them. They are irrelevant.

I've told you before, excepting only Mr. Rodriguez whose case is well understood, there are no eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a bomb or explosives. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. If I'm wrong, show me these people. You can't, and therefore you keep trying to change the ground rules.

Please quote Mr. Rodriguez claiming to see the actual bombs or explosives. He's claimed to see explosions, but I don't recall any instance where he claims to see the actual charges or bombs.

[Alt+F4]

Bomb threats. I went to Sheepshead Bay HS in the 70s (Brooklyn) and bomb threats were a mostly daily occurance but generally they were the "bad" kids trying to get out of school for the day so the "threats" pretty much were checked but the school not evacuated unless the "threat" was credible.

Pre-9/11 bomb threats in the high school in which I taught were so numerous that after awhile we simply ignored them and didn't evacuate. That would never happen today.

My main point is that prior to 9/11 an NYPD or FDNY report of a bomb in a public high school was not nearly as out of the ordinary as non-New Yorkers may realize.

[nicepants]

What makes you think he ever left? He may have posted in this thread already after he was banned. As a recent or new sock. Ron and I have believed for quite some time that theauthor was pdoh76.

I started suspecting as much recently, when I felt that it became so obvious it was painful.

[bio]

please delete was totally wrong.

[Jonnyclueless]

Please quote Mr. Rodriguez claiming to see the actual bombs or explosives. He's claimed to see explosions, but I don't recall any instance where he claims to see the actual charges or bombs.

Thank you for further proving the point.

[RedIbis]

Thank you for further proving the point.

The point is that Mackey misrepresented his position. Never has Rodriguez claimed to have actually seen the explosives or charges.

[pomeroo]

The point is that Mackey misrepresented his position. Never has Rodriguez claimed to have actually seen the explosives or charges.


We certainly can't have anyone's position misrepresented. Next thing you know, lying morons will start pretending that Larry Silverstein was talking about controlled demolition when he agreed with the FDNY commander that the rescue operation should be pulled.

[funk de fino]

The point is that Mackey misrepresented his position. Never has Rodriguez claimed to have actually seen the explosives or charges.

What about hijackers?

[BigAl]

Damage to the towers having other side effects... cars were being ignited by materials raining down from the impact areas... people described bodies hitting the ground as sounding like explosions... given the situation the possibilities of sounds coming from sources other than bombs is exceedingly high... Gas lines rupturing during the tower's collapse, water lines rupturing during the collapse... literally hundreds of sources of sounds.... Is that not relevant in any way to your interpretation of events?


My favorites:


"The Scott cylinders and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were blowing up left and right."

- FDNY Firefighter Todd Heaney on 9/11


And



Wilshire telco building 2005 fire

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2006/Jul/26/one_wilshire_upgrades_power_after_disruption.html

"....A physical shaking was felt by all in the building, and then the
nightmare began ..."Explosion, ....." Buss Duct #1 had experienced
a catastrophic failure. ...a billowing cloud of atomized concrete
began to fill the stairwells, with audible fire alarms adding to a
bizarre effect.

The explosion was contained within a small area, although there was
a high level of damage to concrete and surrounding electrical
equipment. Although

http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/ME2/Audiences/
dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%
3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=
4&id=DC85C92C784E403CA42BEEBDA75CE71A&AudID=32E4C5E91CD
B40D59E134C9FF4713F9C

http://preview.tinyurl.com/339ua4



Were there really oxygen bottles in any quantity? Maybe EMT bottles?

High pressure gas bottles can do real damage. Ask any Scuba diver for war stories. One of times in my life when I though I was about to die involved the dropping of some industrial gas bottles.

[RedIbis]

We certainly can't have anyone's position misrepresented. Next thing you know, lying morons will start pretending that Larry Silverstein was talking about controlled demolition when he agreed with the FDNY commander that the rescue operation should be pulled.

What rescue operation?

[phunk]

The one in the big rubble pile that WTC7 was leaning towards.

[Par]

If a fellow insists humiliating himself by perpetually defending a straightforwardly absurd notion, is it in any way immoral or improper to draw that matter out? I want to know if the marginal pleasure I find in RedIbis defending the “pull it” issue is a guilty one.

[Par]

Incidentally, RedIbis: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3639571&postcount=48

[pomeroo]

If a fellow insists humiliating himself by perpetually defending a straightforwardly absurd notion, is it in any way immoral or improper to draw that matter out? I want to know if the marginal pleasure I find in RedIbis defending the “pull it” issue is a guilty one.



I know that it's immature, insensitive, cruel, mean-spirited, etc., but I just get such a kick out of watching these agenda-driven jackasses tie themselves into knots desperately trying to sustain their baseless slander of a man who did absolutely nothing wrong. Their lies have been blown out of water and still they are compelled to go through the motions. Evil people looking really pathetic and stupid: what could beat that?

[mrbaracuda]

I know that it's immature, insensitive, cruel, mean-spirited, etc., but I just get such a kick out of watching these agenda-driven jackasses tie themselves into knots desperately trying to sustain their baseless slander of a man who did absolutely nothing wrong. Their lies have been blown out of water and still they are compelled to go through the motions. Evil people looking really pathetic and stupid: what could beat that?

Hm, let's see!

http://web.mit.edu/rafal/www/German2/hefeweizen.jpg

+

http://www.vereinsmeier.at/real/48942/img/Deutschland-Oesterreich.jpg

;)

[RedIbis]

I know that it's immature, insensitive, cruel, mean-spirited, etc., but I just get such a kick out of watching these agenda-driven jackasses tie themselves into knots desperately trying to sustain their baseless slander of a man who did absolutely nothing wrong. Their lies have been blown out of water and still they are compelled to go through the motions. Evil people looking really pathetic and stupid: what could beat that?

If we share nothing else, it's the mutual appreciation for such elicited responses.

I'm sincerely impressed with what brazen irony you use the phrase "agenda-driven jackasses" when completely derailing yet another thread with a very dead horse. Pure entertainment, that's why I like your show.

[RedIbis]

Incidentally, RedIbis: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3639571&postcount=48

Do you see those large blocks of text under my name? That's where I say all that I can possibly say on that subject.

Your crossthread stalking is obnoxious and immature.

[Arus808]

well, it would help that you stop abandoning threads to which you are painted into a corner and answer questions put forth to you. but since you dont like it when people call you out on your lies, they have to find you where you post frequently, to get your attention and call you to attention to those questions you've left unanswered.

so when are you going to give a solid answer to the questions put forth to you?

[Jonnyclueless]

The point is that Mackey misrepresented his position. Never has Rodriguez claimed to have actually seen the explosives or charges.

And you correcting him only further proves his claim. That no one saw any bombs. Thank you. He was trying to throw a bone, but you slapped it down. Thank you.

[Jonnyclueless]

What rescue operation?

Nomination for a stundie.

[Par]

Do you see those large blocks of text under my name? That's where I say all that I can possibly say on that subject.


That’s likely true. When it comes to my question, you’ve said all you possibly can say on the matter – nothing.

[Par]

Your crossthread stalking is obnoxious and immature.


Oh, yes. Sure. It’s you who’re the victim here. You merely want to slander an innocent man in peace, yet you’re brutally harassed by unwelcome questions. You’re like Ghandi, really, or even Jesus – such dignity in the face of ruthless oppression.

Who do you hope to convince, exactly?

[Grizzly Bear]

My favorites:

High pressure gas bottles can do real damage. Ask any Scuba diver for war stories. One of times in my life when I though I was about to die involved the dropping of some industrial gas bottles.

I remember mythbusters doing an experiment with oxygen tank once and they ended up launching one through a makeshift [unreinforced] masonry wall... the pressurized air isn't anything to play with XD

[RedIbis]

Nomination for a stundie.

Finally. I was beginning to think no one was reading my posts.

[RedIbis]

And you correcting him only further proves his claim. That no one saw any bombs. Thank you. He was trying to throw a bone, but you slapped it down. Thank you.

Wrong again. To paraphrase, Mackey suggested that other than Rodriguez, no one has claimed to see bombs. Rodriguez has never made such a claim. I'm waiting for Mackey to retract his statement or provide the quote where Rodriguez claims to see explosives or bombs.

[R.Mackey]

The point is that Mackey misrepresented his position. Never has Rodriguez claimed to have actually seen the explosives or charges.

And you correcting him only further proves his claim. That no one saw any bombs. Thank you. He was trying to throw a bone, but you slapped it down. Thank you.

Wrong again. To paraphrase, Mackey suggested that other than Rodriguez, no one has claimed to see bombs. Rodriguez has never made such a claim. I'm waiting for Mackey to retract his statement or provide the quote where Rodriguez claims to see explosives or bombs.

Everyone else seems to have understood, but I'll give it to you in my own words for sake of completeness. I know Mr. Rodriguez didn't see bombs. I know he didn't claim to see bombs, either. The only reason I bring him up is because, as far as I know, his statements are the best that you have. While he saw absolutely nothing inconsistent with the "official theory," he nonetheless actually believes there were bombs, which is insufficient but not as bad as the usual Truth Movement quote-mining -- that which attempts to claim others believe there were bombs rather than merely employing a metaphor.

I remind you that, earlier in this thread, the claim was made that witnesses statements provide evidence that bombs levelled WTC 7. I know it wasn't you who started this; then again, you didn't have to butt in either.

To support this claim, the only truly actionable witness statements would be those who actually saw bombs. Next best would be those who saw things that could only be caused by bombs. But you have neither. Not even if we expand the pool to WTC 1 and 2 as well. Not even if we also include the impacts, instead of only treating the collapses. Still none.

The claim is a lie.

In an attempt to be charitable, I'd even be faintly interested in everyone who thinks there were bombs, at any time (1993 doesn't count!), in any structure. As far as I know, the population of this group is one -- Mr. Rodriguez. I could be wrong, there could be one or two other confused folks out there. Or maybe even someone credible. Surprise me.

So, what have you got?

[Russ_Dalton]

It was investigated. How do you think they found out it was false?

Post it here. How did they find it wasn't explosives? When tons of eyewitnesses talked about detonations, bombs van filled with explosives.
NIST couldnt even figure out how WTC7 collapse till date and they managed to know there were no bombs?

[Russ_Dalton]

Nonsense.



You failed to attack the message I posted on the 1993 WTC bombing. Typical response by a biased skeptic.

[Russ_Dalton]

So now your claim devolves not to seeing bombs or explosives, but merely using the words.

As in "it sounded like a bomb." This is not eyewitness evidence of a bomb.

Ergo, I did not willfully choose to ignore them. They are irrelevant.

I've told you before, excepting only Mr. Rodriguez whose case is well understood, there are no eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a bomb or explosives. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. If I'm wrong, show me these people. You can't, and therefore you keep trying to change the ground rules.

I posted the video of eyewitnesses who talked about explosions, van filled with explosives, and audio of explosions. Scroll back.
So if Mr. Rodriguez saw an explosive, How does it not warrant a new investigation?

[Russ_Dalton]

Do you willfully ignore my question? What did the rescue worker gain from being "in on it?"

Where did I made the claim? Do you willfully accuse others?

[Russ_Dalton]

Because when the statements are read in their context, it is clear for 99% of them that the person is speaking of the noises of a building in the process of collapsing and for the other 1%, nobody heard the same noise, and small noises are not an indication of man-made demolition of a building that is, I believe, larger than any known man-made explosive demolition by a couple orders of magnitude.
Its not for you or me to deicide if it was a bomb. A unbiased investigation would have told us. How did you rule out it wasn't a bomb?

[R.Mackey]

I posted the video of eyewitnesses who talked about explosions, van filled with explosives, and audio of explosions. Scroll back.
So if Mr. Rodriguez saw an explosive, How does it not warrant a new investigation?

Please read more carefully. Mr. Rodriguez DID NOT see an explosive. He felt shocks and saw damage and fireballs that he incorrectly assigned to explosives.

What you posted is bunk. There were explosions. But none of those eyewitnesses actually thinks there were bombs. Unlike you, they know that jet fuel and other things caught in fires can also deflagrate.

And there never was a van full of explosives. Ever. Mere rumour. Rumour != eyewitness reports.

[Russ_Dalton]

Why?

If experts disagree, something is missing.

[Russ_Dalton]

Yes, very interesting "theory", Sherlock. Now tell me, why are they moving out of the immediate area of that high school where the first bomb threat was, instead of staying there, if it's supposed to be in the WTC?

Wait, don't even try to come up with something retarded. See below why! Ha!



No, I am willfully ignoring YOUR NONSENSE.

So there explosive sounds all over, reports of bombs in buildings from firefighters, eyewitnesses talking bombs, explosives.
And you failed to explain it and chose to ignore it. Typical response -nonsense.

[Russ_Dalton]

But none of those eyewitnesses actually thinks there were bombs.
False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.

[LashL]

You failed to attack the message I posted on the 1993 WTC bombing. Typical response by a biased skeptic.

I posted the video of eyewitnesses who talked about explosions, van filled with explosives, and audio of explosions. Scroll back.
So if Mr. Rodriguez saw an explosive, How does it not warrant a new investigation?

Where did I made the claim? Do you willfully accuse others?

Its not for you or me to deicide if it was a bomb. A unbiased investigation would have told us. How did you rule out it wasn't a bomb?

If experts disagree, something is missing.

So there explosive sounds all over, reports of bombs in buildings from firefighters, eyewitnesses talking bombs, explosives.
And you failed to explain it and chose to ignore it. Typical response -nonsense.

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.



I'm calling this one as yet another sockpuppet of P'doh. (Although it was identified as such privately even before its prior sock "theauthor" got turfed, eventually.)

What he/she is rambling about is unimportant, as it has long been established to be nonsensical. The important question is what is the over/under? Bets are to be made on the super secret thread, as usual, but I am sooooooooo going to clean up on this one! :)

[Arus808]

russ, "think" there were bombs does not mean there were bombs;

heck, the FAA thought that there were more than the four hijacked planes that day. they had reports of up to 10 planes they thought were hijacked.

Please explain how ones opinion means its fact.

[Drs_Res]

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.

Then why hasn't the Truth movment brought these people forward to tell their stories?

Oh, yeah, they have Willey and the countdown guy (can't remember his name at the moment, was that McPadden?) who ran away from here after only a few posts.

And the stories of these two keep changing over time.

[Drs_Res]

I'm calling this one as yet another sockpuppet of P'doh. (Although it was identified as such privately even before its prior sock "theauthor" got turfed, eventually.)

What he/she is rambling about is unimportant, as it has long been established to be nonsensical. The important question is what is the over/under? Bets are to be made on the super secret thread, as usual, but I am sooooooooo going to clean up on this one! :)

Going to super secret thread now.

[R.Mackey]

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.
Names, please.

I've asked you this already.

[funk de fino]

Wrong again. To paraphrase, Mackey suggested that other than Rodriguez, no one has claimed to see bombs. Rodriguez has never made such a claim. I'm waiting for Mackey to retract his statement or provide the quote where Rodriguez claims to see explosives or bombs.

Did Rodriguez say he saw any hijackers?

[Foolmewunz]

Post it here. How did they find it wasn't explosives? When tons of eyewitnesses talked about detonations, bombs van filled with explosives.
NIST couldnt even figure out how WTC7 collapse till date and they managed to know there were no bombs?


Once you get to 100 posts, you get the NWO Automated Irony Meter, and then won't make this kind of post.

Surely you see the absurdity of you requesting everyone to post things and then claiming in the same post....

"...tons of eyewitnesses..." Really? You have their verified weights? As Ryan M pointed out, you've been asked (now three times) to put up or shut up.... Name the witnesses! (You can provide their weights, separately.)

[bio]

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.

at the beginning sure. But then the eyewitnesses got a "special treatment".

Firefighter Terence Rivera:
QUOTE
As I got off the back -- the back step, there were a few individuals that were civilians that were outside that were burnt. There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious. His pants were still smoldering. I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious.

At that time, I had asked him where did this individual come from. He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby. (Source)


How is this possible, that in the middle of the chaos some FBI or Secret Service could give such explanations? How could it be, in a time when it was unclear if this was a small plane or a jet-airliner.
"At that moment many thought of bombs in the basement, even the FBI. Did the Secret Service man think that this was an airplane accident and hence there could be no bombs in the basement? Certainly not, if we follow Rivera's account, who was heading to get a supply line to work:"

QUOTE

„Sometime while we were doing that, that same individual that was -- when we first got there, that was trying to put the pants out, he came over and he is saying to us that it's a terrorist attack. You guys are too close. It's a terrorist attack.“


The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists."

from
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745&st=0

[funk de fino]

The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists."


I'm sorry, could you show me where he says he knows there are no bombs in the basement?

[mrbaracuda]

So there explosive sounds all over, reports of bombs in buildings from firefighters, eyewitnesses talking bombs, explosives.
And you failed to explain it and chose to ignore it. Typical response -nonsense.

No, I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just - unlike you apparently - sane and can comprehend everything in its proper frame or at least accept help from people who do and make more sense than something a delusional tard wrote up on a blog for insane people.

[phunk]

at the beginning sure. But then the eyewitnesses got a "special treatment".

Firefighter Terence Rivera:
QUOTE
As I got off the back -- the back step, there were a few individuals that were civilians that were outside that were burnt. There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious. His pants were still smoldering. I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious.

At that time, I had asked him where did this individual come from. He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby. (Source)


How is this possible, that in the middle of the chaos some FBI or Secret Service could give such explanations? How could it be, in a time when it was unclear if this was a small plane or a jet-airliner.
"At that moment many thought of bombs in the basement, even the FBI. Did the Secret Service man think that this was an airplane accident and hence there could be no bombs in the basement? Certainly not, if we follow Rivera's account, who was heading to get a supply line to work:"

QUOTE

„Sometime while we were doing that, that same individual that was -- when we first got there, that was trying to put the pants out, he came over and he is saying to us that it's a terrorist attack. You guys are too close. It's a terrorist attack.“


The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists."

from
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745&st=0

Where did he say there were no bombs?

A plane hit the building, and a fireball came out of the elevator shaft a few seconds later. It's not unreasonable to assume one caused the other.

By the way, explosives don't create fireballs in real life, they only do that in movie special effects.

[WildCat]

The question then would be how the Secret Service man knew that there couldn't be bombs in the basement if they were under attack by terrorists."
Maybe you'll be the first truther to answer this question! What type of bomb is capable of causing severe burns to people yet doesn't blow them to smithereens?

[abenja1]

Where did I made the claim? Do you willfully accuse others?

Well I guess what I'm trying to ask is that since truthers know so much that this guy was "in on it" and that's a direct quote from the title of this thread, obviously they must know what this rescue worker got in return for following the evil gov'ts plan. I would be asking the theauthor but he's too much of a coward and ignores every question I ask him.

[WildCat]

I would be asking the theauthor but he's too much of a coward and ignores every question I ask him.
Besides that, it says "banned" under his name now. ;)

But maybe his latest sock will answer you.

[RedIbis]

I've told you before, excepting only Mr. Rodriguez whose case is well understood, there are no eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a bomb or explosives.


First you say the above then later you say this?
I know Mr. Rodriguez didn't see bombs. I know he didn't claim to see bombs, either. [...]

How about saying that you made an error, you misspoke? I swear I won't call you a liar.

In an attempt to be charitable, I'd even be faintly interested in everyone who thinks there were bombs, at any time (1993 doesn't count!), in any structure. As far as I know, the population of this group is one -- Mr. Rodriguez. I could be wrong, there could be one or two other confused folks out there. Or maybe even someone credible. Surprise me.

So, what have you got

Now, this is just a shameless and transparent attempt to minimize any eyewitness account which might not support your side of the argument.

[R.Mackey]

First you say the above then later you say this?


How about saying that you made an error, you misspoke? I swear I won't call you a liar.

My original was imprecise. Perhaps I should have said "excepting Mr. Rodriguez who claimed to see effects of a bomb". Instead, I assumed nobody would bother when the intent was so clear. Apparently that was a bad assumption.


Now, this is just a shameless and transparent attempt to minimize any eyewitness account which might not support your side of the argument.

How can I minimize that which does not, to the best of my knowledge, exist? I've asked you for examples of such accounts, and I've gotten none. I also remind you, I wasn't the one who claimed they existed in the first place.

It's your turn. Take it or forfeit, makes no difference to me.

[funk de fino]

How about saying that you made an error, you misspoke? I swear I won't call you a liar.


Did Willie say he saw a hijacker? If so, do you think he misspoke?

[bio]

Where did he say there were no bombs?

A plane hit the building, and a fireball came out of the elevator shaft a few seconds later. It's not unreasonable to assume one caused the other.

By the way, explosives don't create fireballs in real life, they only do that in movie special effects.

well - when you say the explosion comes from kerosine, than you say indirectly, that the explosion does not come from a bomb ...

[RedIbis]

My original was imprecise. Perhaps I should have said "excepting Mr. Rodriguez who claimed to see effects of a bomb". Instead, I assumed nobody would bother when the intent was so clear. Apparently that was a bad assumption.



How can I minimize that which does not, to the best of my knowledge, exist? I've asked you for examples of such accounts, and I've gotten none. I also remind you, I wasn't the one who claimed they existed in the first place.

It's your turn. Take it or forfeit, makes no difference to me.

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick
Assistent Commissioner Stephen Gregory
FF Timothy Julian
FF Joseph Meola
FF William Reynolds
FF Kenneth Rogers
Cpt Dennis Tardio

Do you want me to keep going?

[RedIbis]

Did Willie say he saw a hijacker? If so, do you think he misspoke?

Feel free to quote, source and put your question in context. I'm only vaguely aware of Willie possibly recognizing a hijacker a few days before the attacks, but I could be wrong.

[R.Mackey]

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick
Assistent Commissioner Stephen Gregory
FF Timothy Julian
FF Joseph Meola
FF William Reynolds
FF Kenneth Rogers
Cpt Dennis Tardio

Do you want me to keep going?

No, I don't want you to keep going quoting people who don't claim to see a bomb, or effects thereof. I want you to quote people who do.

For example, Stephen Gregory. Here's his quote:

[Gregory] No. I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

[Interviewer] Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

[Gregory] No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever. But it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall. I was just standing next to him. I never met the man before in my life. He knew who I was I guess by my name on my coat and he called me up, you know, how are you doing? How's everything? And, oh, by the way did you ... It was just a little strange.
Source (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110008.PDF) (Emphasis added)

This is not someone who even believes, himself, that what he saw was evidence of explosives. As I suspected, you've got nothing at all.

[WildCat]

Do you want me to keep going?
You have to, because none of those people think there were bombs in the building. Apparently you and Dylan Avery share an ignorance of similes.

[Jonnyclueless]

What exactly do the sounds of a building collapsing, burning, debris dropping, steel cracking,jet fuel erupting, etc sounds like for real since that day consisted only of bomb explosions?

[RedIbis]

No, I don't want you to keep going quoting people who don't claim to see a bomb, or effects thereof. I want you to quote people who do.

For example, Stephen Gregory. Here's his quote:


Source (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110008.PDF) (Emphasis added)

This is not someone who even believes, himself, that what he saw was evidence of explosives. As I suspected, you've got nothing at all.

I didn't say he thought it was evidence of explosives. He says he saw "low level flashes" which is consistent with CD. Also on this list of accounts are people who heard, yes heard the sounds of explosions.

Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

I wonder why you didn't finish Gregory's quote, which states,

"You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."

[Arus808]

and you have problems comprehending. a whole "thought" and "like" is in that sentence

[lapman]

I didn't say he thought it was evidence of explosives. He says he saw "low level flashes" which is consistent with CD. The "low level flashes" are not consistent with anything especially since the collapse did NOT initiate from that location. Most importantly, there are no sounds associated with said flashes. Also on this list of accounts are people who heard, yes heard the sounds of explosions.There were people who said they heard, yes heard the sounds of trains, yep, trains. So, what's your point? What nobody states is that they heard, yes heard the sound of the distinct sequence of explosions that always, repeat, ALWAYS accompanies a CD. Add to that the fact that any such sound would have been recorded, yes, actually recorded by the many audio recording devices that were recording that day, yes, during the actual time of said flashes and "explosions." Why do twoofers always have such a huge problem with that?

[pomeroo]

You failed to attack the message I posted on the 1993 WTC bombing. Typical response by a biased skeptic.

Well, you failed to acknowledge that your lie about the Gulf of Tonkin was exposed. So, nyah-nyah.

Let me respond to your message about the 1993 WTC bombing: Nonsense.

[pomeroo]

Maybe you'll be the first truther to answer this question! What type of bomb is capable of causing severe burns to people yet doesn't blow them to smithereens?


It's a great question, but the liars who were asked it by Mark never responded. I doubt that you'll have better luck.

[Dog Town]

There were people who said they heard, yes heard the sounds of trains, yep, trains.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1092348584b2ef297b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12628)http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

!!00lolz!!!!!

ETA: Another D'oh P sock gone. How many is that now, twenty, or thirty, or more?

Priceless!

[pomeroo]

False.
There are eyewitnesses who think there were bombs.


Here's a few questions you liars regularly ignore:

Do these "bombs" function anything like the shaped charges used by demolition companies? How do random explosions resemble the string of simultaneous explosions characteristic of controlled demolitions? Can we agree that no one--neither rationalist nor conspiracy liar--has EVER heard of anyone reporting a series of explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building? Why doesn't this FACT end all speculation about explosives in the WTC complex?

[RedIbis]

Here's a few questions you liars regularly ignore:

Do these "bombs" function anything like the shaped charges used by demolition companies? How do random explosions resemble the string of simultaneous explosions characteristic of controlled demolitions? Can we agree that no one--neither rationalist nor conspiracy liar--has EVER heard of anyone reporting a series of explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building? Why doesn't this FACT end all speculation about explosives in the WTC complex?

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.

[pomeroo]

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.


Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. See, that last part is important. In your world, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy rampages aimlessly, strewing clues all over the landscape while accomplishing nothing. Here on Earth, real people working at real jobs do things for a purpose. Demolition professionals, for instance, set off their charges to bring down buildings. They don't merely enjoy the sounds of explosions. So, it goes something like this: a series of explosions near the base of the building, then the building falls down, AND it isn't supposed to damage any nearby buildings.

[Drs_Res]

Except the accounts say nothing of synchronized explosive devices going off right BEFORE the buildings colapsed.
Except for the fact that none are recorded by any video or audio equipment.
Except that fact that none of the recue workers and firemen think there were explosive devices planted in the buildings and set off to bring them down.

But you know this already. Why do you have to be dishonest about all of this again?

[Grizzly Bear]

I wonder why you didn't finish Gregory's quote, which states,


"You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."



Once again, do you fail to observe analogies?

[Grizzly Bear]

Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. See, that last part is important. In your world, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy rampages aimlessly, strewing clues all over the landscape while accomplishing nothing. Here on Earth, real people working at real jobs do things for a purpose. Demolition professionals, for instance, set off their charges to bring down buildings. They don't merely enjoy the sounds of explosions. So, it goes something like this: a series of explosions near the base of the building, then the building falls down, AND it isn't supposed to damage any nearby buildings.

Last time I mentioned that controlled demolitions don't damage near-by buildings the response I got was:

"That these were non-conventional demolitions..."
However, that that's grasping at straws...

Besides, anybody trying to demo the WTC towers from the bottom without having pre-weakened them would have been totally stupid for neglecting the fact that the core columns were given added lateral bracing as the perimeter columns contributes less to that function on the 1st 7 floors.

In controlled demos they actually have this concept of weakening the structure to make it easier to take down, usually removing a significant amount of the building materials in the process. To demolish the buildings in their original state, would have required many thousands of tons of explosive which would need to have been packed somewhere in open office spaces...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

well - when you say the explosion comes from kerosine, than you say indirectly, that the explosion does not come from a bomb ...


What... the hell are you talking about?

[RedIbis]

Stop lying. Absolutely no one reported a series of explosions followed by the collapse of the building. [/B]

You sure about that? You better be sure or else it is you who is the liar.

[Jonnyclueless]

If 10,000 people reported explosions, it would still NOT prove explosives.

[R.Mackey]

I wonder why you didn't finish Gregory's quote, which states,

That excerpt is contained in my quote. Right after the Interviewer's bit. Read more carefully.

I'm tempted to believe that you don't even recognize Mr. Gregory's comments when quoted in proper context.

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.

Even one would be a good start. The point you fail to grasp is that even the witnesses themselves do not believe their experiences are evidence of "controlled demolition." You are working from much lower fidelity information, i.e. their words, occasionally distorted, often from much after the fact. Your feeling about what their words mean cannot trump their feeling. This is exactly what Aldo and Craig are doing with their Pentagon witnesses, and it's equally asinine.

Since you cannot produce a witness who supports your position, and the whole idea of witnesses was brought up by your side in the first place to shore up a complete absence of physical evidence, a rational investigator would drop this matter entirely at this point.

[lapman]

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.
I would agree with Ryan. One would be nice. Now, to clarify, the sequence would be right BEFORE the start of the collapse and not after the collapse was already underway. BTW, "detonators" are not CD explosives. As a point of reference, it would sound like:
79sJ1bMR6VQ
d-WvQbFMIWU(notice the roof structures collapse with the section they are on top of and not faster)
7XG-l3N1YfQ
vdJTDuYB_h8

I think you get the picture.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You sure about that? You better be sure or else it is you who is the liar.


Random explosions in the preceding 45 minutes don't count, for obvious reasons. Sounds that could be described as a series of explosions during the collapse don't count, also for obvious reasons.

[funk de fino]

well - when you say the explosion comes from kerosine, than you say indirectly, that the explosion does not come from a bomb ...

FAIL

You claimed he said there were no bombs. You were wrong.

try again

[funk de fino]

Feel free to quote, source and put your question in context. I'm only vaguely aware of Willie possibly recognizing a hijacker a few days before the attacks, but I could be wrong.

Vaguely aware? Of something your "friend" that you feel the need to defend has said?

I think you know fine well what he said. If he said it do you think he misspoke?

ETA to add link

http://web.archive.org/web/20061221094612/http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/203065p-175130c.html

[RedIbis]

That excerpt is contained in my quote. Right after the Interviewer's bit. Read more carefully.



You're correct. I didn't see it. You are not correct, however, that there are not accounts of syncronized, repetitive, sounds of explosions just before collapse. There are examples of this, you chose to analyze one out of the list I presented. How about the others?

[Alt+F4]

How many FF accounts would it take for you to admit that there were reports of synchronized, series of explosions?

Just because you ignore these accounts or toss them off as confused accounts doesn't mean they don't describe precisely, the characteristics of controlled demo.

How is molten metal found for weeks after 9/11 characteristic of a controlled demolition?

How is a top down collapse characteristic of a controlled demolition?

How is extensive damage to nearby buildings characteristic of a controlled demolition?

When, in the history of controlled demolitions of buildings has the TNT and/or nitroglycerin used survive the burning of a building for over an hour?

[funk de fino]

You're correct. I didn't see it. You are not correct, however, that there are not accounts of syncronized, repetitive, sounds of explosions just before collapse. There are examples of this, you chose to analyze one out of the list I presented. How about the others?

How many? If this was true then there would be thousands of accounts from people who were there. Also on video and audio evidence. No truther has supplied me with any evidence of this. How about you trump them?

Bring it.

Also was Willie misspoken when he claimed his story about the hijacker or was he lying?

[WildCat]

Maybe you'll be the first truther to answer this question! What type of bomb is capable of causing severe burns to people yet doesn't blow them to smithereens?
Since bio seems to have left the building, any other truthers want to take a crack at this?

[lapman]

Red, how is your search for the answer to #353 going?

[RedIbis]

Red, how is your search for the answer to #353 going?

It ended when I provided a list of accounts of FDNY personnel describing multiple, sequential explosions before collapse.

[applecorped]

Hearing something that one interprets to be explosions does not a CD make. Try again.

[Arus808]

no, that is your interpretation of what they said. and of course, you are wrong.

Have you bothered to even look on youtube for all videos that are of controlled demolition. THERE IS A HUGE difference between them and what happened on 911.

[applecorped]

This is becoming an endless cycle of the same speculative bs being rehashed over and over and over...........sigh. A template should be made of FATQ's (frequently asked troother questions).

[johnny karate]

It ended when I provided a list of accounts of FDNY personnel describing multiple, sequential explosions before collapse.

Would that be the same FDNY that unanimously rejects a controlled demolition hypothesis? Because I'd be curious to know how someone could be claiming to have witnessed an event they don't believe actually took place.

[Jonnyclueless]

It ended when I provided a list of accounts of FDNY personnel describing multiple, sequential explosions before collapse.

Yes, you proved that you have absolutely no argument since the people were simply trying to "describe" their experience. Or perhaps you are going to argue that the people who described the sounds o locomotives is proof that trains brought down the WTC buildings? Please confirm if you are claiming that any description used is evidence of the analogy being made, or if you are simply jsut picking and choosing descriptions because they fit your pre-determined conclusions of what happened.

[abenja1]

I'm getting lonely here. No one wants to answer my question :( Jeez I'll have to post it again: If you know so much that this guy was "in on it," what did he recieve for being "in on it?"

[mrbaracuda]

I'm getting lonely here. No one wants to answer my question :( Jeez I'll have to post it again: If you know so much that this guy was "in on it," what did he recieve for being "in on it?"

Why, a fine assortment of shillelaghs, of course!

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3553895/1034267941287_Waterford1.jpg

;)


My name is P'doherty, and I love to lie!

[applecorped]

Why, a fine assortment of shillelaghs, of course!

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/3553895/1034267941287_Waterford1.jpg

;)

I knew it!

[funk de fino]

It ended when I provided a list of accounts of FDNY personnel describing multiple, sequential explosions before collapse.

Wheres the video and audio Red?

Also Willie and the hijacker? I gave you the link like you asked for.

[pomeroo]

You sure about that? You better be sure or else it is you who is the liar.


Yes, I am sure that absolutely no one reported a simultaneous series of explosions followed immediately the collapse of the building. I am sure that you understand that I am correct.

As always, it is clear who the liars are.

[pomeroo]

Since bio seems to have left the building, any other truthers want to take a crack at this?

NO!

[RedIbis]

Yes, I am sure that absolutely no one reported a simultaneous series of explosions followed immediately the collapse of the building. I am sure that you understand that I am correct.

As always, it is clear who the liars are.

How do you debunk Captain Dennis Tardio's statement:

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, fromthe top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can't believe what I am seeing. This building is coming down" (Report from Ground Zero, Penguin 2002)

[applecorped]

How do you debunk Captain Dennis Tardio's statement:

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, fromthe top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can't believe what I am seeing. This building is coming down" (Report from Ground Zero, Penguin 2002)

See that? I thought so.

[chillzero]

How do you debunk Captain Dennis Tardio's statement:

probably through use of similes again ...


"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, fromthe top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can't believe what I am seeing. This building is coming down" (Report from Ground Zero, Penguin 2002)

bolding mine.

[Viper Daimao]

How do you debunk Captain Dennis Tardio's statement:

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, fromthe top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can't believe what I am seeing. This building is coming down" (Report from Ground Zero, Penguin 2002)

So it starts collapsing and then he hears "boom boom boom" as the floors collapse? Really? That's it?

[Garb]

If these people hear actual explosions then why isn't this picked up on the audio? In every video I see I only can hear really loud noises from the collapse. Nothing as distinct as an explosive.

[Alt+F4]

How do you debunk Captain Dennis Tardio's statement:

Debunk him? I'd just ask him: Captain Tardio do you believe the collapse of the WTC was the result of a controlled demoliton?

Why are "truthers" so afraid to contact members of the FDNY and ask them a polite, simple question?

[Viper Daimao]

Debunk him? I'd just ask him: Captain Tardio do you believe the collapse of the WTC was the result of a controlled demoliton?

Why are "truthers" so afraid to contact members of the FDNY and ask them a polite, simple question?

cause they've seen the Buzz Aldrin video?

[WildCat]

How do you debunk Captain Dennis Tardio's statement:
How do you debunk this statement (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/18-the-world-according-to-fungi) RedIbis?
It seemed as if the tree had collided with a swarm of sea anemones.
Did the tree really collide with a swarm of sea anemones?

[WildCat]

It was as if they had eight players on the court.
Did the Celtics have 8 men on the court (http://www.whudat.com/newsblurbs/more/kevin_garnett_knocks_bully_out_boston_celtics_win_ championship_1680618081/) RedIbis?

It was as if he had spent three seasons being flogged by a sockful of nickels
Was Lou Piniella really flogged with a sock full of nickels (http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/article628557.ece) when he managed Tampa Bay?

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm just trying to picture this guy being in on it. "OK workers, we're going to demolish the building around such and such time, who wants to volunteer to be a recue worker there during the collapse?" (room full of hands go up 'me me me me!!'

[mrbaracuda]

Are RedIbis' capabilites to comprehend really just so .. so.. I can't even find a word for it! Restricted?
We might never know.

What I know though is that I am very fond of the SUB and SUP tags!

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[1337m4n]

How do you debunk Captain Dennis Tardio's statement:

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, fromthe top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can't believe what I am seeing. This building is coming down" (Report from Ground Zero, Penguin 2002)

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb224/dbarsne/straws.jpg

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Random explosions in the preceding 45 minutes don't count, for obvious reasons. Sounds that could be described as a series of explosions during the collapse don't count, also for obvious reasons.

How do you debunk Captain Dennis Tardio's statement:

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, fromthe top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can't believe what I am seeing. This building is coming down" (Report from Ground Zero, Penguin 2002)


So, RedIbis, you subscribe to the idea that there were explosives placed on every floor, detonated sequentially from top to bottom...?

[Good Lt]

Stop grasping at straws. He said that, amongst other things, on the CNN video. Nobody has spliced anything. If you want to claim they have then provide proof.

As soon as you produce evidence of explosives planted in WTC7.

You're gonna have a hard time with that one. Because there isn't any.

Stop grasping at straws and answer this question:

Was WTC7 demolished by explosives?

[pomeroo]

How do you debunk Captain Dennis Tardio's statement:

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, fromthe top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can't believe what I am seeing. This building is coming down" (Report from Ground Zero, Penguin 2002)


That's a tough one, Red. So, he says that it's as if the building is being imploded from the top floor down. Well, that is not how it's done. What possible benefits might accrue from reversing the procedures demolition professionals normally follow is impossible to guess. I imagine that only an ignorant conspiracy liar (is there any other kind?) could explain it. And he would, of course, explain it incorrectly.

From the context, the boom, boom, boom is, obviously, each floor impacting on the one below, but you already knew that. I should commend you on a nice attempt at deception, but the truth is, it was embarrassingly feeble.

We are a left with a Captain Tardio who doesn't swallow the nonsense fabricated by conspiracy liars. He says he heard something blow up in the fires and then he heard the floors--dare I say it?--pancaking.

Sorry. The bad guys lose again.

[johnny karate]

How do you debunk Captain Dennis Tardio's statement:

"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, fromthe top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom. I stand in amazement. I can't believe what I am seeing. This building is coming down" (Report from Ground Zero, Penguin 2002)

Red's lack of ability to grasp a similie aside, the word I bolded above should also be noted. Captain Tardio didn't hear a series of explosions, he heard a single explosion.

The fail is strong in this one.

[pomeroo]

Red's lack of ability to grasp a similie aside, the word I bolded above should also be noted. Captain Tardio didn't hear a series of explosions, he heard a single explosion.

The fail is strong in this one.


WTC 7 has proved to be the fantasy movement's Waterloo.

[SDC]

Now that I've started noticing reports, in many areas, in which people say something was like an explosion, I can't seem to avoid them. It's a very common image; I guess people use it to describe their impression because everyone, nowadays, has some idea of what an explosion might sound like. (Probably an incorrect one, from TV and movies, but still.) My favorite was in my local (Hudson Valley) newspaper, in which a car went out of control and rammed into a storefront -- a bakery I think. Witnesses said it seemed like an explosion.

Must have been the yeast.

[DavidJames]

Red's lack of ability to grasp a similie aside....I suspect Red is quite capable of grasping what a simile is.

In fact, I suspect he would nod knowingly when I say he is playing you guys like a violin. Keep feeding the trolls...

[Elizabeth I]

Yes, judging by how tornado survivors describe their experiences, there are an awful lot of runaway locomotives and gigantic bolts of torn cloth out there.

[RedIbis]

Wow, that was some great debunking. How about this one:

FF Edward Cachia
"[W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down."

Oh I know, it's what he originally thought. Go back to your local detective and ask him/her which interview is the most valuable, the one just after the event, or what the eyewitnesses concludes at a later date.

[chillzero]

Wow, that was some great debunking. How about this one:

FF Edward Cachia
"[W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down."

Oh I know, it's what he originally thought.

Partly that ... partly the bolded part... again. :rolleyes:

Why haven't you answered the questions put to you above by some responding to your last post?

Such as :
So, RedIbis, you subscribe to the idea that there were explosives placed on every floor, detonated sequentially from top to bottom...?

or

So it starts collapsing and then he hears "boom boom boom" as the floors collapse? Really? That's it?

[RedIbis]

Partly that ... partly the bolded part... again. :rolleyes:

Why haven't you answered the questions put to you above by some responding to your last post?

Such as :


or

How do you expect people to describe what they saw? He was in no more of a position to say it was explosive charges as he was to say it wasn't.

In other words, he described what he experienced. I suppose it's the experts on jref who will decide why he described what he did.

[RedIbis]

FF Craig Carlsen:
[Y]ou just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.... We then realized the building started to come down."

No "like" but "there were" [...] explosions"

[applecorped]

You are being purposefully obtuse. You know this proves nothing. Give it up already.

[chillzero]

How do you expect people to describe what they saw?

As best they can given the extremely difficult circumstances of the day. Your point?

He was in no more of a position to say it was explosive charges as he was to say it wasn't.

I agree. Why are you assuming his words are evidence of demolition?

In other words, he described what he experienced. I suppose it's the experts on jref who will decide why he described what he did.

'Why' should be easy to anyone who remembers that day and watched it unfold on that day. It was hectic, frightening, confusing... and that's only from watching from the comfort of the UK. Being there at the time, I cant imagine how anyone expects people's comments at the time, and traumatic memories since then, to be a completely 100% accurate determination of events. Each person saw and experienced a tiny amount of what happened. Their being there does not qualify them immediately on matters that they know are outside their remit any other day.

People use similes and colourful, exaggerated descriptions to try and convey the impact of what they witnessed. That does not mean it should be held up as damning evidence of something that all other evidence overwhelmingly refutes.

[chillzero]

FF Craig Carlsen:
[Y]ou just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.... We then realized the building started to come down."

No "like" but "there were" [...] explosions"

Yeah.. and?

Nobody here denies there were explosions. Good grief. :rolleyes:

[HyJinX]

FF Craig Carlsen:
[Y]ou just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.... We then realized the building started to come down."

No "like" but "there were" [...] explosions"

Explosions does NOT equal Explosives

Why does this perplex you and all the other junior detectives like you?

[Foolmewunz]

Red,

People use similes from their experience. Why do you TMers continue to harp on people describing loud noises as "explosions"?

Do you expect them to say that "it sounded just like the 110 story building I saw collapse the week before"?

There was no prior experience of anything of this nature, so people relate it to something in their own memory. Further, none of the people who are quoted as saying it was the sound of an explosion, like ______(insert whatever), had any first hand experience with demolitions so their reference points for comparison are, at best, dubious.

The Native Americans referred to steam locomotives as "iron horses". Do you think they really thought it looked like a horse? Or was that the frame of reference that they had available. How about guns:thunder sticks? The loudest boom any aboroginals anywhere had heard before they heard a gun go off was the sound of a clap of thunder. It was therefore the metaphor they chose... e.g. being the only one available.

[lapman]

It ended when I provided a list of accounts of FDNY personnel describing multiple, sequential explosions before collapse.
You listed a bunch of names. None of them describe the sequence of explosions that is unique to CD.

[lapman]

FF Craig Carlsen:
[Y]ou just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.... We then realized the building started to come down."Your dishonesty continues. You purposely cut out:At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
It turns out that the "explosions" occurred at the start of the collapse, not before. The lengths you'll go through to "prove" your non-existent point.

[RedIbis]

Your dishonesty continues. You purposely cut out:
It turns out that the "explosions" occurred at the start of the collapse, not before. The lengths you'll go through to "prove" your non-existent point.

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

[chillzero]

Red,
Did you miss post 399? You had seemed keen to discuss it, initially.

[Dave Rogers]

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

And your evidence that people came to them and told them the source of these events is?

Dave

[lapman]

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.
Nice copout. That's becuase they didn't see the sourced of the sound. However, there is no real timeframe between the sound and the collapse, so it does not support what you claim.

[Disbelief]

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

And yet after all this time, they do not think that it was a CD. Do you think that these people are not intelligent? That they only follow orders or what they have been told? What next, you are going to break out the "Fear of losing their job" card?

[MarkyX]

RedIbis, did you actually talk to any of these firefighters and ask if they believed bombs bought down the towers?

[johnny karate]

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

The hypothesis you present here leaves you with a limited number of choices:

A) Every single firefighter that was on the scene was at some point fooled into thinking that a building that collapsed due to controlled demolition actually collapsed due to debris damage and fire. Regardless of their individual level of experience and/or training dealing with collapsing, burning buildings. Furthermore, every single one of those firefighters has been living in a vacuum for the last seven years, being oblivious to all the "smoking gun" evidence your movement has presented, or just aren't quite as clever as a handful of teenage Youtubers to be able to discern the Truth.

B) Every single firefighter that was on the scene knows that WTC7 actually collapsed due to controlled demolition, but for various personal reasons (paid off, coerced, evil) have chosen not to come forward with this startling information.

C) A combination of A and B.

So I put it to you Red, which of the above scenarios do you feel best describe what actually took place?

[Jonnyclueless]

And Red has to agree that there was a train in the building since his standards are that whatever a witness uses to describe events means that that description was literally present during the event.

If someone describes sounds that were like babies being put on spikes, then it has to literally mean babies were being put on spikes. Since people claimed to hear the sounds of a locomotive, therefore there it must mean there literally was a locomotive at the scene.

Do you agree with this Red?

[pomeroo]

Wow, that was some great debunking. How about this one:

FF Edward Cachia
"[W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down."

Oh I know, it's what he originally thought. Go back to your local detective and ask him/her which interview is the most valuable, the one just after the event, or what the eyewitnesses concludes at a later date.


Understandably, you are tap dancing around the devastating implications to your fantasy of the exact words of Edward Cachia. If we take the four booms as a literal description, then obviously we are not dealing with a controlled demolition. Are we agreed that your latest deception has crashed and burned? What will you try next to resurrect this idiocy?

Let's save time. Show us someone who claims to have heard a succession of blasts--NOT three or four-- at the base, going off near-simultaneously, followed by the collapse of the building. Got anyone?

Buh-bye.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How do you expect people to describe what they saw? He was in no more of a position to say it was explosive charges as he was to say it wasn't.

In other words, he described what he experienced. I suppose it's the experts on jref who will decide why he described what he did.


This is ignorant beyond belief. You display awareness that this person is describing what he experienced based on limited information, but you seem completely oblivious to the fact that many of us here... now... seven years later... have just a wee bit more information to work with than the person you've quoted.

Amazing. Utterly, truly amazing...

[Alt+F4]

In other words, he described what he experienced. I suppose it's the experts on jref who will decide why he described what he did.

Again Red, why bother with what anyone here has to say? Contact him yourself and get clarification from "the horse's mouth", as the saying goes.

If you are unwilling to contact him then I must ask, what are you really after....the truth or just an Internet exercise in debate?

[RedIbis]

Let's save time. Show us someone who claims to have heard a succession of blasts--NOT three or four-- at the base, going off near-simultaneously, followed by the collapse of the building. Got anyone?

Buh-bye.

Next, you'll be telling me what color socks they have to be wearing.

[lapman]

Next, you'll be telling me what color socks they have to be wearing.
Blue, wait no, red.. AAAArrrrrgggghhhh!

Seriously, so far you've only shown that people heard a noise, looked up and saw that the building was collapsing. The audio record supports that.

[RedIbis]

Blue, wait no, red.. AAAArrrrrgggghhhh!

Seriously, so far you've only shown that people heard a noise, looked up and saw that the building was collapsing. The audio record supports that.

I thought the debunker claim was that there was no noise of explosions.

[Grizzly Bear]

I thought the debunker claim was that there was no noise of explosions.

It was the sound of an acre of concrete & metal slamming into another acre sized slab of concrete & metal... considering that bodies were described as sounding like explosions on hitting the ground, what do you think a tower collapsing would sound like?

Where'as you're claiming that 'explosions' mean 'explosives' detonating because somebody used a simile. Some described the collapse initiation as sounding like a 'clap of thunder'

'Debunkers' aren't claiming there weren't sounds, debunkers are claiming that 'sounds' do not mean 'explosives'
In the videos of the collapse we hear the building collapse, not thousands of tons of explosive charges blowing out all the structure... If they were explosive charges the sound would have been difficult to miss

[R.Mackey]

I thought the debunker claim was that there was no noise of explosions.
Please read more carefully. Mr. Rodriguez DID NOT see an explosive. He felt shocks and saw damage and fireballs that he incorrectly assigned to explosives.

What you posted is bunk. There were explosions. But none of those eyewitnesses actually thinks there were bombs. Unlike you, they know that jet fuel and other things caught in fires can also deflagrate.

There is a certain point at which a Forum member makes so many staggeringly incorrect proclamations, or ignores so many facts that should be blindingly obvious, that one cannot escape the conclusion that he is just lying outright.

[RedIbis]

It was the sound of an acre of concrete & metal slamming into another acre sized slab of concrete & metal... considering that bodies were described as sounding like explosions on hitting the ground, what do you think a tower collapsing would sound like?

This is a reasonable post with good questions, so I want to give you its due. As I've pointed out before, there are accounts of sounds of explosions before the collapse.

There are also accounts of sequential flashes and pops which correspond to these sounds, so we can discount confusion with falling bodies.

Where'as you're claiming that 'explosions' mean 'explosives' detonating because somebody used a simile. Some described the collapse initiation as sounding like a 'clap of thunder'

I am not claiming "explosions" mean "explosives." Absolutely not. If we look at their initial desciptions they are quite similar to the characteristics of CD, regardless of what was said later on.

'Debunkers' aren't claiming there weren't sounds, debunkers are claiming that 'sounds' do not mean 'explosives'
In the videos of the collapse we hear the building collapse, not thousands of tons of explosive charges blowing out all the structure... If they were explosive charges the sound would have been difficult to miss

The sound was difficult to miss and that's why so many people close to the scene reported sequential explosions before the collapse. I'm curious why some people expect that the videocameras which were present to capture the collapses would be in the best position, or have the best possible audio.

Unless you want to dismiss their accounts, these people heard these sounds.

[RedIbis]

There is a certain point at which a Forum member makes so many staggeringly incorrect proclamations, or ignores so many facts that should be blindingly obvious, that one cannot escape the conclusion that he is just lying outright.

You're conflating two separate issues, probably out of desperation, which is why you played the liar card. A little more reluctantly than most, but you would pull it out eventually.

Here are the specifics:

The first reaction of many FDNY personnel, as well as others on the scene, was that sequential explosions preceding the collapse looked like a CD.

This is the bottom line that you and many others here will attempt to ignore, dismiss or disparage.

[R.Mackey]

You're conflating two separate issues, probably out of desperation, which is why you played the liar card. A little more reluctantly than most, but you would pull it out eventually.

I'm conflating nothing. This is what you said:

I thought the debunker claim was that there was no noise of explosions.

That's your entire content, unedited.

Not a single "debunker" has stated there was "no noise of explosions." Many "debunkers" have told you quite the opposite, i.e. that we all acknowledge there were not only "noise[s] of explosions," but also actual explosions.

I gave you an example from this very thread. A more recent example would be chillzero's post (#400, for those of you who are keeping score).

Either stop lying, or bear the badge with dignity. You've earned it.

[funk de fino]

You're conflating two separate issues, probably out of desperation, which is why you played the liar card. A little more reluctantly than most, but you would pull it out eventually.

Here are the specifics:

The first reaction of many FDNY personnel, as well as others on the scene, was that sequential explosions preceding the collapse looked like a CD.

This is the bottom line that you and many others here will attempt to ignore, dismiss or disparage.

None of these CD type explosions are visible or audible on any of the footage there is. If this is the case then where does that leave the few people you have cherrypicked to support your claims? Are you now an audio and visuals expert and can say that you know these would not have been picked up by cameras?

How many did you provide that claimed anything like CD? Some of them claim the sounds are during the collapse not previous to it yet you twist it to try and make it fit. Of course you could grow some balls and go and ask the FDNY guys if they thought it was a CD. I know you will not though eh? Let me guess, someone told them it was not a CD so they believe it? They are not too bothered about the dead colleagues?

How many were present on the day and did not think it was similar sounding to a CD? Are your claimants in fact in the minority? If so what does this mean for their testimony?

I really do not beleive you are this ignorant. Show us the evidence and you may have a point. If you cannot then you have nothing, after 7 years you should have more than just a political bias and a few cherrypicked and twisted testimonies to fall back on.

[chillzero]

I thought the debunker claim was that there was no noise of explosions.


aawww... no.... come on, Red.
That's disappointing, really.

You're better than that, surely?

[johnny karate]

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

The hypothesis you present here leaves you with a limited number of choices:

A) Every single firefighter that was on the scene was at some point fooled into thinking that a building that collapsed due to controlled demolition actually collapsed due to debris damage and fire. Regardless of their individual level of experience and/or training dealing with collapsing, burning buildings. Furthermore, every single one of those firefighters has been living in a vacuum for the last seven years, being oblivious to all the "smoking gun" evidence your movement has presented, or just aren't quite as clever as a handful of teenage Youtubers to be able to discern the Truth.

B) Every single firefighter that was on the scene knows that WTC7 actually collapsed due to controlled demolition, but for various personal reasons (paid off, coerced, evil) have chosen not to come forward with this startling information.

C) A combination of A and B.

So I put it to you Red, which of the above scenarios do you feel best describe what actually took place?

Bump for RedIbis.

[RedIbis]

aawww... no.... come on, Red.
That's disappointing, really.

You're better than that, surely?

Educate me. What is the claim in regards to the sounds of explosions? Do we agree that there are reports of sequential, pre collapse sounds of explosions that are similar to what is expected during CD?

[applecorped]

no

[RedIbis]

None of these CD type explosions are visible or audible on any of the footage there is. If this is the case then where does that leave the few people you have cherrypicked to support your claims?

Mackey, Chill, this is what I'm referring to. This is a common perspective around here.

[RedIbis]

Bump for RedIbis.

Don't bother. Your "options" are based on absolutes which are rarely accurate and create the false choice fallacy.

[johnny karate]

Don't bother. Your "options" are based on absolutes which are rarely accurate and create the false choice fallacy.

I humbly disagree. Please provide another option(s) that fit the criteria you presented.

[R.Mackey]

Educate me. What is the claim in regards to the sounds of explosions? Do we agree that there are reports of sequential, pre collapse sounds of explosions that are similar to what is expected during CD?

You're splitting hairs. Firefighters and others did report explosions. They also, sometimes, use the simile of being "like a controlled demolition."

But, and this is the important point, none of them actually believes there was a controlled demolition.

They're using that simile because most of us have seen a controlled demolition on TV, or in movies, or whatever. Not many of us have seen anything else that is at all similar to what happened that day.

Your argument stretches the simile to the breaking point. Your argument requires that they not only believe it resembled a controlled demolition, but that there was no way to distinguish it from a controlled demolition. That's why you've been challenged to find anyone who actually believes it was a controlled demolition. If you can find such individuals, then I will accept it isn't just an idle simile.

But you can't. Instead, you keep changing the subject, deliberately. Put up or shut up.

[lapman]

This is a reasonable post with good questions, so I want to give you its due. As I've pointed out before, there are accounts of sounds of explosions before the collapse.There are accounts of people interpreting what they are hearing as explosions. Some may actually be something exploding, but there are all sorts of other sources of a sharp sound.

There are also accounts of sequential flashes and pops which correspond to these sounds, so we can discount confusion with falling bodies.
It, "account." Singular. And that account was not a sequential series. They were "all over the place."

I am not claiming "explosions" mean "explosives." Absolutely not. If we look at their initial desciptions they are quite similar to the characteristics of CD, regardless of what was said later on.
This is false. You have people hearing the sound, then looking up, then figuring out that the building is collapsing. Very much like in this video:
FOGI33HsiCc


The sound was difficult to miss and that's why so many people close to the scene reported sequential explosions before the collapse. I'm curious why some people expect that the videocameras which were present to capture the collapses would be in the best position, or have the best possible audio.

Unless you want to dismiss their accounts, these people heard these sounds. The above video was in the perfect position to record the "explosion sequence." Here are a couple of others:
K8dX3foxozQ
RLW0jKKRXMo

ETA: I forgot to add:
ux49uMHDO84

[chillzero]

Educate me. What is the claim in regards to the sounds of explosions? Do we agree that there are reports of sequential, pre collapse sounds of explosions that are similar to what is expected during CD?

And now you go lower.
Honestly, Red, usually you don't have to sink to these tactics. Usually you are capable of upholding some part of an argument without such blatent dishonesty.

You know fine rightly that none of us dispute explosions were heard. You know fine and well that the word "similar" covers a lot and removes the basis of argument here. You know that none - none - of the people who reported explosions came forward later to claim that by explosion, they meant explosive. Be a little more respectful, please - for the victims, and also for your opponents in debate here.

It's been discussed and discussed and discussed and I find it hard to believe you aren't just yanking chains here. Those two posts are more worthy of someone like theauthor.

[RedIbis]

You're splitting hairs. Firefighters and others did report explosions. They also, sometimes, use the simile of being "like a controlled demolition."



Well, if it walks like a duck...

Please debunk Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:

"[T]he lowest floor of fire in the South Tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because... it just looked like that floor blew out.. [Y]ou could actually see everything blew out on the one floor."

[lapman]

Well, if it walks like a duck...

Please debunk Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:

"[T]he lowest floor of fire in the South Tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because... it just looked like that floor blew out.. [Y]ou could actually see everything blew out on the one floor."You are really bad at this.
ETA: As usual, you purposely leave out the important part:
I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we
looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.(emphasis mine)He wasn't told this. He is simply describing what took place in a few seconds of time.

[beachnut]

Well, if it walks like a duck...

Please debunk Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:

"[T]he lowest floor of fire in the South Tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because... it just looked like that floor blew out.. [Y]ou could actually see everything blew out on the one floor."
The impact of the plane did that, sorry, but kinetic energy events look like bombs. Must have to do with energy and understanding physics.

Impact looks like this!
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg

DEBUNKED! With impact alone equal to 1300 10 2093 pounds of TNT from the Aircraft mass. Take a car at 500 mph and let it hit your house! It will look like it exploded.

Poor 9/11 truth has no knowledge on these matters, there needs to be a school to teach 9/11 truth members the needed skills to understand 9/11, so they can go on an be normal anti-war protesters.

But you knew the fireman meant the impact damage from the aircraft looked like that!

So we have a plane with the energy of 1300 to 2093 pounds of TNT, flight 11 and 175, hitting the WTC. That is why it looks LIKE a bomb, it had the energy of a BIG bomb; so it looked LIKE.

In grade school we learned what "looked like" meant.

[R.Mackey]

Well, if it walks like a duck...

Please debunk Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:

"[T]he lowest floor of fire in the South Tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because... it just looked like that floor blew out.. [Y]ou could actually see everything blew out on the one floor."

There you go already, changing the subject. Does he believe it was a controlled demoltion? If not, then he doesn't find his own experience compelling, and therefore your claim is self-debunking.

Now do you get it?

[RedIbis]

If not, then he doesn't find his own experience compelling, and therefore your claim is self-debunking.


Not compelling at all, no not at all.

[WildCat]

Looks like Red is up to his usual dishonest self.

Red, did it ever occur to you that if you can't make your case without resorting to semantic games maybe there isn't a case to be made?

[lapman]

Beach, he's describing this:
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse2.jpg

[Jonnyclueless]

"Well, if it walks like a duck..."

And the funny part being that it doesn't even remotely look like a duck. Unless of course one is wearing duck goggles that make everything look like ducks.

How much do you suppose the resecue worker was paid by the diabolical perps to go down and standin the collapse area when the buildings were collapsing? I mean forgetting the fact that pretty much everyone here would be the first to volunteer to go stand next to some collapsing buildings just for sport, what do you suppose the motivation of the worker in the OP was?

[Tomblvd]

Red, the issue here seems not to be if "explosions" were heard, but when they were heard and what they sounded like. Considering the fact that every controlled demolition is preceded by a large number of concurrent bangs or explosions, can you point to any video where we can hear these CD-like explosions?

A few pops and bangs prior to the collapse doesn't prove a CD. They have to be at the right time and sequence to be causal.

[RedIbis]

Red, the issue here seems not to be if "explosions" were heard, but when they were heard and what they sounded like. Considering the fact that every controlled demolition is preceded by a large number of concurrent bangs or explosions, can you point to any video where we can hear these CD-like explosions?

A few pops and bangs prior to the collapse doesn't prove a CD. They have to be at the right time and sequence to be causal.

My point was not whether these sounds were captured on video. My point is that many FDNY personnel described what they saw and heard as being consistent with CD.

[Arus808]

that is your words. not theirs, Red. You still have a problem with similes

[WildCat]

My point is that many FDNY personnel described what they saw and heard as being consistent with CD.
No, they didn't. That's the spin you put on it.

None of those guys think they heard demo charges that day.

[RedIbis]

that is your words. not theirs, Red. You still have a problem with similes

I don't have any problem with similes. Nearly any eyewitness interview is going to include them.

You have a problem with the specificity of these accounts. If the entire underpinning of this debate is that these people used the word "like", you must have no idea how overused that word is in common language. Talk about semantics.

[pomeroo]

I don't have any problem with similes. Nearly any eyewitness interview is going to include them.

You have a problem with the specificity of these accounts. If the entire underpinning of this debate is that these people used the word "like", you must have no idea how overused that word is in common language. Talk about semantics.


So, then, there must be a firefighter who swallows the fantasy movement's snake oil. Who might that perosn be?

[RedIbis]

No, they didn't. That's the spin you put on it.

None of those guys think they heard demo charges that day.

I'll bite in hopes that this is the last time I have to explain this. None of those guys could possibly be in a position to determine the origin of what they saw and heard, unless a thorough investigation was conducted immediately.

Instead, the emphasis should be squarely focused on how they initially responded, the specifics of what they saw and heard, like this:

FF Richard Banaciski:

"[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."

That sounds pretty symetrical.

[RedIbis]

So, then, there must be a firefighter who swallows the fantasy movement's snake oil. Who might that perosn be?

Ron, without rancor, try and answer this question:

Why did so many FDNY personnel (not that we have to limit the accounts to them) initially think that bombs, secondary devices, or other explosive devices were in the towers and what they were seeing was the result of controlled demolition?

For just a moment, let's forget about what they later did or didn't come to believe (I've yet to see a thorough list of accounts all of which dismiss any alternative explanation) and focus on what they initially thought.

[pomeroo]

Ron, without rancor, try and answer this question:

Why did so many FDNY personnel (not that we have to limit the accounts to them) initially think that bombs, secondary devices, or other explosive devices were in the towers and what they were seeing was the result of controlled demolition?

For just a moment, let's forget about what they later did or didn't come to believe (I've yet to see a thorough list of accounts all of which dismiss any alternative explanation) and focus on what they initially thought.


I and several other posters here have complimented you on being a cut above the typical twoofer. Why do you ask a question that invites people to assume disingenuousness on your part? You understand--surely you do--that EVERYONE on the scene became aware that a terrorist attack had taken place and ALL explosions were likely to be interpreted as part of that attack. If I were standing nearby and I heard something blow up in the fires, I would report hearing a "bomb" go off. With time to reflect, and with the advantage of knowing what investigators had discovered, I would realize that I had not heard an actual bomb, but something characteristic of all large office fires.

It is with considerable exasperation that I and others continually find ourselves asking you, Just whom do you think you're kidding?

[Tomblvd]

My point was not whether these sounds were captured on video. My point is that many FDNY personnel described what they saw and heard as being consistent with CD.


No, they said they heard "explosions".

NOBODY that day said they heard explosions that were "consistent with CD".

NOBODY.

[RedIbis]

No, they said they heard "explosions".

NOBODY that day said they heard explosions that were "consistent with CD".

NOBODY.

You sure about that?

[Grizzly Bear]

You sure about that?

That's begging the question, I honestly don't know how to make anything clearer. Usually people don't have planes crashing into buildings.. Therefore people in the area might initially have assume that they were bombs causing the explosions.... the confusion between 'plane', 'explosions', and 'explosives' in a situation like that seems like it'd be a well expected reaction by people who were there.

Some personel weren't even aware that a plane hit initially... so the next thing they associated the noises with was bombs... but association as we all have been telling you time and time again does not always equate to bombs or a CD... you kep taking the stuff out of context and too literally... intentionally or not...

[Arus808]

heck, some people in the towers didn't realize that a Plane had hit.

[MarkyX]

It's amazing Red just completely ignored my question on whether or not he talked to any of these firefighters.

Something tells me he knows he's lying and doesn't want to verify it.

[Alt+F4]

It's amazing Red just completely ignored my question on whether or not he talked to any of these firefighters.

Something tells me he knows he's lying and doesn't want to verify it.

I asked the same question in post #415, also ignored.

[RedIbis]

That's begging the question, I honestly don't know how to make anything clearer. Usually people don't have planes crashing into buildings.. Therefore people in the area might initially have assume that they were bombs causing the explosions.... the confusion between 'plane', 'explosions', and 'explosives' in a situation like that seems like it'd be a well expected reaction by people who were there.

Some personel weren't even aware that a plane hit initially... so the next thing they associated the noises with was bombs... but association as we all have been telling you time and time again does not always equate to bombs or a CD... you kep taking the stuff out of context and too literally... intentionally or not...

This makes absolutely no sense since we're talking about reports of explosions that occur just before collapse, either 56 or 110 minutes after impact. How could anyone possibly confuse the two?

[RedIbis]

It's amazing Red just completely ignored my question on whether or not he talked to any of these firefighters.

Something tells me he knows he's lying and doesn't want to verify it.

This gambit has nothing to do with widely available initial accounts.

[Alt+F4]

This gambit has nothing to do with widely available initial accounts.

Note the word initial. Ever heard of someone being misquoted? Why not know for sure? Just ask them.

[Dog Town]

This gambit has nothing to do with widely available initial accounts.

Like the accounts of trains? Don't make me...
The number one answer during tornado's, when people are asked what they heard. Is a train, as well. Do trains cause these catastrophes?

[lapman]

I'll bite in hopes that this is the last time I have to explain this. None of those guys could possibly be in a position to determine the origin of what they saw and heard, unless a thorough investigation was conducted immediately. In case you haven't heard, there is this neet little invention called a "video camera." They have been known to record sound. I guess you haven't heard that yet. On that day they recorded an explosion. Let's view it:
iyBCn0TPepE
Wow, did you hear that sound? It was an explosion heard from far away. Isn't it neat how these video cameras record sounds like that? So, let's move forward in time that day and listen.
99Z6qoP-elw
Nice and close. You can hear the collapse pretty clear, but no big sequences of BOOM. Oh, that wasn't close enough? Let's try this one.
FOGI33HsiCc
Where is the sequence of BOOM's Nowhere.
Ok, still not close enough to hear the high explosives that sound like...
79sJ1bMR6VQ
Let's try this one.
CYZqQWfGIJg
Gee. Still not sound of the so-called explosives.

Instead, the emphasis should be squarely focused on how they initially responded, the specifics of what they saw and heard, like this:

FF Richard Banaciski:

"[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."

That sounds pretty symetrical.Except that he is describing what he saw at the start of the collapse, not what he heard. What he saw was:
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse2.jpg
So, are you ready to stop with the dishonesty yet? So far, you have yet to provide even one single statement that describes the CD explosive sequence. All video does not have it. At all. Every single one of your FF statements describe the start of the collapse. 100%.

[RedIbis]

Note the word initial. Ever heard of someone being misquoted? Why not know for sure? Just ask them.

Please post where these people claim they are misquoted. Now, you're just getting desperate.

[phunk]

Nice and close. You can hear the collapse pretty clear, but no big sequences of BOOM.

You can even hear the helicopter flying above the towers, yet no explosive sounds.

[johnny karate]

Don't bother. Your "options" are based on absolutes which are rarely accurate and create the false choice fallacy.

I humbly disagree. Please provide another option(s) that fit the criteria you presented.

Bump for RedIbis.

[Kent1]

Please post where these people claim they are misquoted. Now, you're just getting desperate.
Here's an example:
Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.
http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html

[pomeroo]

This gambit has nothing to do with widely available initial accounts.


In post #450, you asked me a question, which I answered. You have ignored the answer.

Once we agree that you--I--anybody--would have probably described the sounds of explosions from the burning building as "bombs," where are we? If I say that something blowing up reminded me of a controlled demolition, the first question to ask me is, what do I know about controlled demolitions? When it turns out that I know next to nothing, my description should be taken with a grain of salt.

You keep producing random quotes while avoiding the elephant in the room: no firefighters think that WTC 7 was demolished.

[MarkyX]

This gambit has nothing to do with widely available initial accounts.

So you won't verify if they believe the towers were bought down by explosive devices, therefore you acknowledge that you are taking their quotes out of context and have little respect for the people behind these quotes.

Thank you for admitting that.

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again Red

Do you then also believe that there were trains in the WTC since people also described sounds of a locomotive? And if not, why is it that you claim a simile is a fact in one instance and not in the other?

[gumboot]

If the entire underpinning of this debate is that these people used the word "like", you must have no idea how overused that word is in common language.


Ohmygod, like I know exactly what you're saying, girlfriend.

[chillzero]

Please post where these people claim they are misquoted. Now, you're just getting desperate.

Here's an example:

Kent1, don't fall for this. People do not need to claim to have been misquoted for it to have occurred. I thought Red was just having an off week, but both pomeroo and I have pointed out where he's slipping into more standard, low-level truther tactics, and he has decided to ignore our comments; indicating to me it's deliberate.

[Alt+F4]

Please post where these people claim they are misquoted. Now, you're just getting desperate.

I'm not desperate at all. When I want clarification from someone I get in contact with that person, something you are unwilling to do.

[RedIbis]

Kent1, don't fall for this. People do not need to claim to have been misquoted for it to have occurred. I thought Red was just having an off week, but both pomeroo and I have pointed out where he's slipping into more standard, low-level truther tactics, and he has decided to ignore our comments; indicating to me it's deliberate.

Did I quote Caccioli(sp)? No. So why are you diving into this debate and leaving your objectivity behind?

[RedIbis]

I'm not desperate at all. When I want clarification from someone I get in contact with that person, something you are unwilling to do.

Have you contacted the people I quoted and asked them why they initially thought the bldg had been set up for demo?

[chillzero]

Did I quote Caccioli(sp)? No. So why are you diving into this debate and leaving your objectivity behind?

bzzz. wrong answer.

E- for effort.

Here's the sequence...

This gambit has nothing to do with widely available initial accounts.

Note the word initial. Ever heard of someone being misquoted? Why not know for sure? Just ask them.

Please post where these people claim they are misquoted. Now, you're just getting desperate.

It doesn't matter what was posted by Kent1. My point was that he shouldn't waste the effort on a wild goose chase.

I repeat... people do not need to claim they were misquoted, in order for that to have occurred. Or do you deny that people get misquoted, and do not always claim so afterward? Do you think that if a person has their words twisted, misquoted, or taken out of context, that it didn't really happen unless they notice and proclaim it publicly?

[Blender Head]

Did I quote Caccioli(sp)? No. So why are you diving into this debate and leaving your objectivity behind?

Wait, didn't you just ask for a first responder who complained about being misquoted?

[Alt+F4]

Have you contacted the people I quoted and asked them why they initially thought the bldg had been set up for demo?

Ok, I will. Unlike you, firefighters don't scare me. I believe the three people you referred to are Captain Dennis Tardio, Firefighter Edward Cachia and Firefighter Craig Carlsen.

My first stop will be: www.fdnyfortruth.org (http://www.fdnyfortruth.org)

Ooops, it doesn't exist! How come, after almost 7 years I can't find one single FDNY website demanding a new investigation because the WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition? Why do I see lots of FDNY demand for first responder health care, better equipment and safer construction sites?

Next stop, the FDNY union. I'll let you know how it goes.

[Tomblvd]

Wait, didn't you just ask for a first responder who complained about being misquoted?

That's the problem with smokescreens. Not only does it cloud the field for your foes, but for you too.

Red has so many lies out there, he's lost track of them.

[Blender Head]

That's the problem with smokescreens. Not only does it cloud the field for your foes, but for you too.

Red has so many lies out there, he's lost track of them.

I feel like I just walked into a Cheech and Chong reunion session. :covereyes

[RedIbis]

bzzz. wrong answer.

E- for effort.

Here's the sequence...







It doesn't matter what was posted by Kent1. My point was that he shouldn't waste the effort on a wild goose chase.

I repeat... people do not need to claim they were misquoted, in order for that to have occurred. Or do you deny that people get misquoted, and do not always claim so afterward? Do you think that if a person has their words twisted, misquoted, or taken out of context, that it didn't really happen unless they notice and proclaim it publicly?

Again, I didn't quote Cacchioli. Second, every quote I got is from the Oral Histories, widely available and even referenced in Gravy's work. To now claim that those accounts I quoted are misquotes requires support from the personnel themselves.

If this is your last play on this, you're losing this debate miserably. You are tacitly agreeing that the quotes are difficult to square with the official story if you are now claiming they are inaccurate.

[RedIbis]

Red has so many lies out there, he's lost track of them.

Name one.

[Blender Head]

Name one.

Before your spin, or afterwards?

[RedIbis]

Before your spin, or afterwards?

Name an instance where I was intentionally deceptive and knowingly passed incorrect information.

Go.

[Tomblvd]

Name one.

Blender Head, I WAS RIGHT!

You want a lie RI, denying you said this:

Please post where these people claim they are misquoted. Now, you're just getting desperate.

That is a lie.

[Tomblvd]

But RI, I did send a private note to Blender Head stating that I had originally removed the "lie" comment because, I predicted, you would immediatle latch onto that comment to change the subject from the predicament you were in.

AND I WAS RIGHT!

How does it feel to be so completely predictable?

[RedIbis]

Blender Head, I WAS RIGHT!

You want a lie RI, denying you said this:



That is a lie.


First of all, that's a request, not an intentionally deceptive statement. Second do you see the pronoun "these"? This pronoun is referring to the people I quoted.

Now, post a lie or admit you have nothing and let's get back to something productive, please.

[chillzero]

Again, I didn't quote Cacchioli.

Yeah I know. So what?

In fact, as has been pointed out above, that quote was in response to your request - you wanted a claim that someone was misquoted - you were given it. To ignore this and try to act like you are in the right here is completely lame.

Second, every quote I got is from the Oral Histories, widely available and even referenced in Gravy's work. To now claim that those accounts I quoted are misquotes requires support from the personnel themselves.

Where did I claim that?

If this is your last play on this, you're losing this debate miserably. You are tacitly agreeing that the quotes are difficult to square with the official story if you are now claiming they are inaccurate.

Fail.
Try reading harder.
What's up? You running a fever or something this week? I'm completely serious, and am not the only one to point out your strategy is weaker than we've ever seen it. Maybe you need a break.

[chillzero]

That's the problem with smokescreens. Not only does it cloud the field for your foes, but for you too.

Red has so many lies out there, he's lost track of them.

I feel like I just walked into a Cheech and Chong reunion session. :covereyes

Name one.

Before your spin, or afterwards?

Name an instance where I was intentionally deceptive and knowingly passed incorrect information.

Go.

aawww... come on guys... don't do it.
Let's keep the thread on track without these pointless diversions.

[Tomblvd]

First of all, that's a request, not an intentionally deceptive statement. Second do you see the pronoun "these"? This pronoun is referring to the people I quoted.

Now, post a lie or admit you have nothing and let's get back to something productive, please.

Here is your post immediately above the "request".

Ron, without rancor, try and answer this question:

Why did so many FDNY personnel (not that we have to limit the accounts to them) initially think that bombs, secondary devices, or other explosive devices were in the towers and what they were seeing was the result of controlled demolition?

For just a moment, let's forget about what they later did or didn't come to believe (I've yet to see a thorough list of accounts all of which dismiss any alternative explanation) and focus on what they initially thought.



That is more than clear that you are referring to all the personnel, not certain ones.


But for the sake of the discussion, I hereby completely withdraw my slanderous accusation, and humbly beseech you to contine with the pertinent discussion.

You can start by answering all the questions you have ignored.

[RedIbis]

Yeah I know. So what?

In fact, as has been pointed out above, that quote was in response to your request - you wanted a claim that someone was misquoted - you were given it. To ignore this and try to act like you are in the right here is completely lame.



Where did I claim that?



Fail.
Try reading harder.
What's up? You running a fever or something this week? I'm completely serious, and am not the only one to point out your strategy is weaker than we've ever seen it. Maybe you need a break.

You are being particularly personal today. This is disappointing since the Mod team is one of the best things about jref.

Even if I were having an off week, running a fever (which I'm not), you should really consider maintaining your objectivity as a mod and avoid this type of exchange.

There's nothing wrong with me this week, what I suspect is that my tactic of posting quotes which are very specifically comparable to the characteristics of CD is what is so disturbing to you and the others who are calling me a liar.

Such as this one:

Capt. Frank Cruthers:

"[T]here was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."

[TexasJack]

I don't see any lying going on, but i do wish Red would please answer pomeroo's question.

[Tomblvd]

aawww... come on guys... don't do it.
Let's keep the thread on track without these pointless diversions.

Done.

It was an interesting exercise though. I just KNEW Red could resist derailing the discussion.

[RedIbis]

But for the sake of the discussion, I hereby completely withdraw my slanderous accusation, and humbly beseech you to contine with the pertinent discussion.



Accepted. Seriously, maintain a bit of civility, ask me a non-hypothetical question, refrain from premising the post with insults, and I will do my best to answer.

I don't pretend to have all the answers to your questions. I don't pretend to know the twoofy twoof about 9/11. One thing everyone here shares is an interest in discourse, so let's just maintain that.

[RedIbis]

I don't see any lying going on, but i do wish Red would please answer pomeroo's question.

Please post it. There are so many pages of posts and questions, and I'm fighting a five front battle here. Thanks.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yeah I know. So what?

In fact, as has been pointed out above, that quote was in response to your request - you wanted a claim that someone was misquoted - you were given it. To ignore this and try to act like you are in the right here is completely lame.


He's playing games again. His actual request was...

Please post where these people claim they are misquoted. Now, you're just getting desperate.


He hasn't come right out and said it, because, I can only assume, he wants to continue kiting you folks around the playground, but the key to his request is "these people".

His dismissal of the given example of one person being misquoted by claiming he never quoted that person means he wants someone to give him a statement from one of the few people he did quote.

[Alt+F4]

I don't doubt for a second that these firefighters came to agree with the official explanations "after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

My point from the get-go was what these people said before people came to them and told them the source of these events.

Typical "truther" superiority complex. FDNY members were "told" what happened and they immediately came to agree with the official story. "Truthers" were "told" about the official story as well, but unlike those morons in the FDNY, they know it was a CD. Why? Because there were explosions.

After all this time, if any member of the FDNY believed today that the destruction of WTC was from a CD, why don't they come forward? Another thread has a list of 25 officers from various branches of the U.S. military that say 9/11 was an inside job. How come they have come forward?

Now the only three possible explainations are:

1. all 11,000+ FDNY members are in on the conspiracy or are being forced into silence.
2. all 11,000+ FDNY members aren't as smart as "truthers" who were never at the site, and have no experience in demolitions or firefighting.
3. no one in the FDNY actually believes the WTC was a CD.

[Tomblvd]

Accepted. Seriously, maintain a bit of civility, ask me a non-hypothetical question, refrain from premising the post with insults, and I will do my best to answer.

I don't pretend to have all the answers to your questions. I don't pretend to know the twoofy twoof about 9/11. One thing everyone here shares is an interest in discourse, so let's just maintain that.

Don't patronize me.

I only retracted the comment to get the discussion back on track, I have yet to see you "do (your) best to answer" anything here.

I proved that you would ignore almost every pertinent comment on this thread to go after something to change the subject.

You've been embarrassed badly here, you've got a way to go to dig your way out of that.

Carry on.

[chillzero]

You are being particularly personal today. This is disappointing since the Mod team is one of the best things about jref.

What does the mod team have to do with this?

Even if I were having an off week, running a fever (which I'm not), you should really consider maintaining your objectivity as a mod and avoid this type of exchange.

I'm perplexed by the change in a regular poster having a sudden and obvious change of posting tactics. I'm allowed to voice that concern. As to the content of my posts - they are directly pointing out your errors and mistakes in this thread. Doing so does not need any kind of bias.

There's nothing wrong with me this week, what I suspect is that my tactic of posting quotes which are very specifically comparable to the characteristics of CD is what is so disturbing to you and the others who are calling me a liar.

I'm glad to read that you are well.
There's nothing disturbing about your posts at all, Red. You are not proving anything except a sudden ineptitude for debate that is most unlike you.

Such as this one:

Capt. Frank Cruthers:

"[T]here was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."

... and... what? He is describing what he saw. For the umpteenth time in this thread.... he is not saying he saw a bomb or bombs take down the tower. Stop twisting people's words to mean something else. How would anyone describe what they saw happen to the towers without mentioning the sounds of explosions, and comparing the desctruction in terms that were familiar to them? Yes - things looked like explosions, especially at first. Big deal. You have no point.

[RedIbis]

He's playing games again. His actual request was...




He hasn't come right out and said it, because, I can only assume, he wants to kite you guys around the playground, but the key to his request is "these people".

His dismissal of the given example of one person being misquoted by claiming he never quoted that person means he wants someone to give him a statement from one of the few people he quoted.

Other than the fact that this is no damn game to me, I agree with your post. I avoided the Cacchioli quote because I vaguely remembered him objecting to it.

Serious question: Is Cacchioli the guy in the infamous clip in the Naudet doc, back at the firehouse. He's thin, gray haired and says, "it was if they had detanators..."

Honestly, I'm trying to remember if it's the same guy. Any clarification would be appreciated (not that I'm expecting a whole lot of hospitality here today).

[TexasJack]

Please post it. There are so many pages of posts and questions, and I'm fighting a five front battle here. Thanks.

I appreciate that, it's tough taking on 5 posters at once. It is post 448 and 467, why aren't there any firefighters who think that the towers were demolished?