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

[RedIbis]

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.


Call us mutually perplexed. If you feel this exchange would be better in a PM, I'm happy to oblige. If you don't mind continuing this here, that's fine too. I don't mind explaining myself if it's not counter-productive to the thread.

[chillzero]

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 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 quoted.

No, I understand that.

However, his request was in response to the claim that people get misquoted. It doesn't matter what follows after that - his implication is that people haven't been misquoted unless they claim to have been misquoted.

There are a few games going on here, none of them particularly clever or difficult to spot.

[chillzero]

Call us mutually perplexed. If you feel this exchange would be better in a PM, I'm happy to oblige. If you don't mind continuing this here, that's fine too. I don't mind explaining myself if it's not counter-productive to the thread.

No need for a PM. I'm discussing your points in this thread. Why don't you try actually responding to some of them?

[RedIbis]

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?

I have no idea. I said earlier in this thread that I'm unaware of a complete list of FDNY personnel who officially state their opposition to any alternative theory but the official one.

I tried quite extensively in this thread to make the point that the initial reports share the characteristics of CD, regardless of what conclusion might have been reached later on.

Obviously, many feel this is inconsequential. I don't. I don't expect to win converts.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No, I understand that.

However, his request was in response to the claim that people get misquoted. It doesn't matter what follows after that - his implication is that people haven't been misquoted unless they claim to have been misquoted.


Good point. I think that makes what I had originally typed here unnecessary, so it's gone... and I just needed something else to put here...

[RedIbis]

You seem content with letting other members here remain confused about the exact meaning of many of your statements. It should have been apparent that there was some confusion about your request (re: being misquoted), but you let it go on for a number of posts.

As someone who revels in subtle meanings and vague claims, I expect that you're quite aware of what you're doing...

What? How many times did I try and clarify myself? Sure, you might have put it better than I did, but I am not trying to play a freaking game here.

I believe the initial accounts are important, most here don't.

[Alt+F4]

I tried quite extensively in this thread to make the point that the initial reports share the characteristics of CD, regardless of what conclusion might have been reached later on.

Extensive damage to other buildings is not a characteristic of a CD, but that happened on 9/11.

Molten metal present in the debris for weeks afterwards is not a characteristic of a CD, but that happened after 9/11.

[chillzero]

What? How many times did I try and clarify myself? Sure, you might have put it better than I did, but I am not trying to play a freaking game here.

I believe the initial accounts are important, most here don't.

We believe they are important, but we are not assigning any additional meaning to them that flies in the face of reason and evidence.

[RedIbis]

We believe they are important, but we are not assigning any additional meaning to them that flies in the face of reason and evidence.

And therein lies the difference in our opinions. I do not believe that their initial accounts fly "in the face of reason and evidence" of controlled demolition.

Would it be at all possible to agree to disagree on this without getting personal or comparing me to other "truthers"?

[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 #2 for RedIbis.

[chillzero]

And therein lies the difference in our opinions. I do not believe that their initial accounts fly "in the face of reason and evidence" of controlled demolition.

That's not even close to what I said.
*shakes head*

I didn't make any judgement on the original accounts, and what I said flies in the face of reason and evidence are the convoluted conclusions that truthers draw from those accounts. Don't start twisting my words now also.

Would it be at all possible to agree to disagree on this without getting personal or comparing me to other "truthers"?

Then get back to your original method of making some kind of sense, instead of employing these ridiculous tactics that are so unlike you.

[RedIbis]

That's not even close to what I said.
*shakes head*

I didn't make any judgement on the original accounts, and what I said flies in the face of reason and evidence are the convoluted conclusions that truthers draw from those accounts. Don't start twisting my words now also.



Then get back to your original method of making some kind of sense, instead of employing these ridiculous tactics that are so unlike you.

Ridiculous tactics like quote people?

[Bananaman]

Question to RedIbis:
why aren't there any firefighters who think that the towers were demolished?

Answer from RedIbis:
I have no idea.

Do we really need to ask him anything else?

Bananaman.

[chillzero]

Ridiculous tactics like quote people?

Indeed. That's exactly what the problem is here. :rolleyes:

[Jonnyclueless]

So since no matter how many times I ask the question Red refuse to answer it. So let me ask this.

Your premise for claiming there was a CD is that some people there used descriptions that remind you of a CD? Gosh, and you mean the scientific community doesn't just jump on board and agree with this logic?

[Grizzly Bear]

Indeed. That's exactly what the problem is here. :rolleyes:

It reminds me of the utter abuse which Silversteins' 'pull it' quote was given... amd often the truth movement loves to take his quote out of context :\

[Tomblvd]

Ridiculous tactics like quote people?

When you do it? Absolutely.

In post 397 you said:

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"

However, as lapman noted, you purposely cut out the next sentence, which completely changes the quote:


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.

When you truncate quotes like that, it is fundamentally dishonest.

[R.Mackey]

It reminds me of the utter abuse which Silversteins' 'pull it' quote was given... amd often the truth movement loves to take his quote out of context :\

It reminds me of talking to a brick wall. :bwall

And when I say that, it of course means that other people reading, now or years in the future, should automatically assume that RedIbis is a brick wall, because clearly I can't distinguish between him and an actual wall, mute, solid, immovable, and made of brick and mortar.

Furthermore, this is my initial impression, without having ever "been told" by higher-ups the party line -- namely that he is not a brick wall -- so it is this phrase, and not any later clarification, retraction, or apology that carries the most weight. Therefore, an investigator must come to the rational conclusion that RedIbis must indeed be a brick wall. Any evidence to the contrary that is inconsistent with him being a brick wall, such as the fact that he types messages on an Internet Forum, can be overlooked as spurious.

[RedIbis]

It reminds me of talking to a brick wall. :bwall

And when I say that, it of course means that other people reading, now or years in the future, should automatically assume that RedIbis is a brick wall, because clearly I can't distinguish between him and an actual wall, mute, solid, immovable, and made of brick and mortar.
.


You forgot red. But how you could call me mute is truly myserious. You can call me a lot of things, but silent is not one of them.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You forgot red. But how you could call me mute is truly myserious. You can call me a lot of things, but silent is not one of them.


Woooowwww... Did you read his entire post, or just the part you quoted?

[R.Mackey]

Woooowwww... Did you read his entire post, or just the part you quoted?

Indeed!

Apparently, the wall isn't very high. ;)

[SDC]

Good old (? I am not referring to actual age; I have no idea) Red I. His tactics are to avoid making any actual statements. That way, he can, in his (actually, could be her) own mind, have a valid response, along the lines, Prove I meant that.

Pfeh. Of course, when Red I. actually made statements, they were along the lines of Gen Myers hanging out in the Senate Office Building while all sorts of bad craziness were going on. And then accusing Myers of being In On It.

Oh yes. Mustn't forget Red I.'s accusations that when NY Fire fighters make statements, they are only parrotting the instructions of the Hierarchs of said Fire Dept.

Does it get any wimpier than this?

[pomeroo]

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

Go.


You were intentionally deceptive when you pretended that Larry Silverstein's innocuous agreement with the FDNY's assessment of WTC 7 somehow related to controlled demolition. You never backed off the demonstrably false claim; you merely fled the scene.

You were intentionally deceptive when you dishonestly accused Silverstein of lying. You have never come close to formulating the "lie" he was supposed to have told.

You were intentionally deceptive when you cited on-the-scene reactions of firefighters who completely reject your fantasy. When will you acknowledge that the FDNY flatly rejects the baseless myth promoted by conspiracy liars that WTC 7 was demolished?

[chillzero]

I sense we have veered off topic once more.

[Tomblvd]

Oh look, another dishonestly truncated quote from Red:

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."

And you left out the rest:

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.

Shameless.

[pomeroo]

What? How many times did I try and clarify myself? Sure, you might have put it better than I did, but I am not trying to play a freaking game here.

I believe the initial accounts are important, most here don't.


Here's a perfect example of what people are complaining about: YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE INITIAL ACCOUNTS ARE IMPORTANT--NOBODY DOES! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONCEIVABLE REASON WHY THEY SHOULD BE IMPORTANT.

It is obvious that YOU ARE LYING.

Please skip the predictable evasions and dodges: yes, I can speak louder.

The reason you have ignored my answer to your question is that it exposed you--again.

Permit me to restate: IF ANY OF US HAD BEEN PRESENT ON THE SCENE THAT DAY, WE WOULD HAVE DESCRIBED THE SOUNDS OF THINGS BLOWING UP IN THE FIRES AS "EXPLOSIONS" AND WE WOULD HAVE LIKENED THOSE SOUNDS TO "BOMBS."

NONE OF US HAVE PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS, SO ANY ANALOGIES MADE BY US WOULD HAVE BEEN WORTHLESS.

When you pretend that you regard uninformed first reactions as valuable, you leave yourself open to a devastating one-word question: WHY?

And the answer is, YOU DON'T--NOBODY DOES!

[pomeroo]

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


See post #467.

AS YOU KNOW, NOBODY thought that WTC 7 had been "set up for demo."

[Jonnyclueless]

You forgot red. But how you could call me mute is truly myserious. You can call me a lot of things, but silent is not one of them.

That's a good point. Perhaps a Catty Chan doll would make a better simile.

Someone pulls the string and the same fallacies come out over and over.

[mrbaracuda]

Poor pommy fighting the insane again. :(

[Disbelief]

What I find most interesting is how Red takes these firemen's accounts as being so important, but does not offer the same consideration for the ones stating the fully involved fire in WTC 7.

[pomeroo]

Poor pommy fighting the insane again. :(


Hey, the exercise is good for me.

[Slayhamlet]

Woooowwww... Did you read his entire post, or just the part you quoted?

He did, of course, read the entire post. He only quoted part of it because he's dishonest like that. It really shouldn't surprise anyone.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

He did, of course, read the entire post. He only quoted part of it because he's dishonest like that. It really shouldn't surprise anyone.


He's usually not quite so blatant about it.

Ridiculous tactics like quote people?
Indeed. That's exactly what the problem is here. :rolleyes:


[Seemed appropriate...]

[Bananaman]

And when I say that, it of course means that other people reading, now or years in the future,

Oh gosh, you don't mean to say that people 40 years hence are going to be reading this stuff do you? I certainly hope not. Imagine your grandchildren reading the drivel I and Redibis and 99% of other posters come out with.

Grandchild: Gramps?
Me: Yes?
Grandchild: I was reading an archived forum on the internet today and you said some very odd things.
Me: I did?
Grandchild: Yes, you said (name deleted) was a wanker.
Me: Well, he was...er, I mean...who taught you these words? I'd never say such a thing. Go and wash your mouth out with soap immediately. Harrumph.
Grandchild: Gramps?
Me Yes?
Grandchild: Did people really believe all that conspiracy crap?
Me: Yes.
Grandchild: Bloody hell.
Me: You're going to bed with no supper. Who's been teaching you these words?
Grandchild: You.
Me: Er...ah...go and clean your teeth.

Bananaman.


OK, back to the thread.

[bio]

Here's a perfect example of what people are complaining about: YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE INITIAL ACCOUNTS ARE IMPORTANT--NOBODY DOES! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONCEIVABLE REASON WHY THEY SHOULD BE IMPORTANT.

It is obvious that YOU ARE LYING.

Please skip the predictable evasions and dodges: yes, I can speak louder.

The reason you have ignored my answer to your question is that it exposed you--again.

Permit me to restate: IF ANY OF US HAD BEEN PRESENT ON THE SCENE THAT DAY, WE WOULD HAVE DESCRIBED THE SOUNDS OF THINGS BLOWING UP IN THE FIRES AS "EXPLOSIONS" AND WE WOULD HAVE LIKENED THOSE SOUNDS TO "BOMBS."

NONE OF US HAVE PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS, SO ANY ANALOGIES MADE BY US WOULD HAVE BEEN WORTHLESS.

When you pretend that you regard uninformed first reactions as valuable, you leave yourself open to a devastating one-word question: WHY?

And the answer is, YOU DON'T--NOBODY DOES!

yes - the people heard explosions, the question is: Did they hear bombs or something else. About that we are discussing. The secret service was in the WTC early on and told the people, what they heard. The people echoed that: "We were told" ...
one example,Salvatore Giambanco:

"Later they told me it was an airplane that hit the towers, but how could it just be an airplane? I know all the newspapers were saying that, but it was just too incredible to believe if you heard and experienced what I did. It had to be a bomb."
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745

[Jonnyclueless]

"The secret service was in the WTC early on and told the people, what they heard. The people echoed that: "We were told" ..."

Please show us proof that the secret service was on scene telling people what they heard.

And because some guy who has no idea o what its like for a 500mph plane to hit a building doesn't think it could be something he has no ability to determine is evidence? How hard do you think a judge and jury would laugh at you if you made that kind of argument in court?

[bio]

"The secret service was in the WTC early on and told the people, what they heard. The people echoed that: "We were told" ..."

Please show us proof that the secret service was on scene telling people what they heard.

And because some guy who has no idea o what its like for a 500mph plane to hit a building doesn't think it could be something he has no ability to determine is evidence? How hard do you think a judge and jury would laugh at you if you made that kind of argument in court?

"Following the attacks, Secret Service employees were some of the first to
respond with first aid trauma kits. Special agents assisted local fire and police rescue in establishing triage areas and helping evacuate people from the Towers."
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745

Firefighter (just after first plane hit WTC):
"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."

Another firefighter (just after first attack):
"At some point close to that, they were saying they had too much pressure, so I don't know if they were getting water or they were doing some type of -- 55 Engine chauffeur told Engine 10 that he was getting too much pressure. Then I went -- that same individual, the security or -- he told me to go over to the command post and let them know it's a terrorist
attack. There are more planes in the air. So I went across the street where they were starting to set up. I told them. They said we know."

NK-44:

"They all knew ?! And nobody informed Bush when America was under attack !? Instead President Bush was not informed until the attack further succeeded with the second impact. But even then the Secret Service did not make an attempt to pull Bush out of the lesson, though he of course could be a target and they knew that more planes were in the air. Instead, Bush stayed at the school until 9.30, were he gave a scheduled press conference. No need for hurry here. It seems that Secret Service men had more interest to pull some other people out of an area.

(...)

When even the President didn't know that America was under attack, Secret Service personal at the WTC knew. When everyone was speculating what kind of plane hit, this Secret Service personal not only knew that this was a hijacked jet but also that others were in the air. When the FBI was speculating that there was a bomb in the basement ,and the NYPD thought that there was a van with explosives inside WTC, this Secret Service personal knew that it was jet-fuel, spilled down elevator shafts."

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745

[Foolmewunz]

Red, I mentioned this much earlier, but I think it's an important point so I'll raise it again:

You do realize, don't you, that "first responder" or "firefighter" in no way connotes "demolition expert", don't you? The fact that their initial reaction to sounds of explosions reminded them of something they'd only seen on TV or in movies, would tend to tell me that they're just normal human beings and looking for whatever reference points they had in their own experiences. One of 'em even said that it sounded like those demolitions they do on TV.

More important, though.... Here's why those initial comments are so important to you the the TM:

Because there are no eyewitness accounts given after any time to reflect that support the ridiculous idea of CD!

Let's try to change ends of the fields, and let's say that debunkers have fourteen first responders who say, "Man! I walked out of there and just barely escaped with my life because the structure was weakening from fire and just came down on the spot I'd just been... slam, boom, bang... floor after floor making the most horrific collapsing noises I'd ever heard."

And the CIT finds a guy who, after five years of thinking about it, says, "Ya know, at the time I thought it was a collapse from the damages of the plane crashes and the fires, but I've been thinking back and I'm now damned sure it was controlled demolition. That's what I saw."

Now which of those are going to be more important to the TM? The initial responses because they're johnny-on-the-spot timely accounts? Or the one that agrees with your distorted visions of reality? In short, you're interested in the confused utterances of the first few moments because they confirm your bias.

[Alt+F4]

yes - the people heard explosions, the question is: Did they hear bombs or something else.

Explosions that sound like bombs:

Guatemalan Sink Hole - Three people were missing Friday after a 61 meter hole opened up in the middle of a Guatemalan neighborhood, likely due to a burst sewer pipe. "It sounded like a bomb was dropping. Boom!" said Carlos Gutierrez, of the crater, which measured 40 meters in diameter.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23335860.htm (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23335860.htm)

Mystery Ice - Large chunks of ice, one of them reportedly about 50 pounds, fell from the sky in this northeast Iowa city, smashing through a woman's roof and tearing through nearby trees.
"It sounded like a bomb!" 78-year-old Jan Kenkel said. She said she was standing in her kitchen when an ice chunk crashed through her roof at about 5:30 a.m. Thursday. "I jumped about a foot!"
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/mystery-chunks-of-ice-pelt-iowa-city/20070727074009990001 (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/mystery-chunks-of-ice-pelt-iowa-city/20070727074009990001)

Bus Crash - The accident occurred around 10:45 a.m. after an unoccupied bus apparently rolled down an hill and crashed into a building in the 3300 block of Whitehaven Street in Northwest, D.C. Fire and EMS say. Building employees say it sounded like a bomb went off when the bus crashed through, and the building swayed for about 10 seconds.
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=596&sid=1119032 (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=596&sid=1119032)

Tornado - “The storm hit and it was awful,” said the 73-year-old lifelong Montanan. “It sounded like a bomb when it hit. We are just so fortunate no one got hurt. I've never seen anything like this - one half of my house is gone.”
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/07/20/news/top/news01.txt (http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/07/20/news/top/news01.txt)

Lightning - The storm whistled through the area with ferocious thunder and hard rain, leaving some neighborhoods damaged in its wake. Many witnesses saw lightning and some even said that it sounded like a bomb.
http://www.kxly.com/news/index.php?story_id=12842 (http://www.kxly.com/news/index.php?story_id=12842)

Exploding Cell Phone - Michael Sathre, 13, holds the remains of the cell phone that exploded as he picked it up off the floor last August. His father says it sounded like a bomb going off.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6569187/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6569187/)

Broken Pyrex - If you drop a Pyrex anything on the floor, stand back. These things explode. Literally. An old boyfriend once dropped the green bowl from my Pyrex nesting set and brought our entire party to a stunned halt. It sounded like a bomb and threw shards 20' away, no kidding.
http://www.epinions.com/content_62877437572 (http://www.epinions.com/content_62877437572)

Overcooked Eggs - Right as my timer expired there was a HUGE BANG from inside the microwave. My eggs had exploded. We’re not talking “cracked” or something. They literally exploded. It sounded like a bomb had gone off inside the microwave. When I opened the door, I wasn’t sure that one hadn’t.
http://blog.paulpehrson.com/category/better-living/ (http://blog.paulpehrson.com/category/better-living/)

Deer Struck by Chevy Astrovan - My wife killed the biggest in the family year before last with a 4.3L. Chevy Astrovan. It was only 2 years old and it TOTALED the van. It tried to jump the road and landed half way on the roof and half way in the windshield. It sounded like a bomb went off inside the van. Thank God nobody was hurt.
http://www.mdwfp.com/forums/post.asp?method=ReplyQuote&REPLY_ID=108455&TOPIC_I D=12361&FORUM_ID=7 (http://www.mdwfp.com/forums/post.asp?method=ReplyQuote&REPLY_ID=108455&TOPIC_ID=12361&FORUM_ID=7)

Car Crashing Into Day Care Center - None of the center’s staff actually observed the crash, although Howell said everyone heard it.“It sounded like a bomb going off in here,” Howell said. “It was nap time, and there was an awful crash and we took off running,” said daycare supervisor Pam Qualls. “We just concentrated on getting the kids out, calling 9-1-1, and then started calling the parents.”
http://www.heraldbanner.com/homepage/local_story_030161109.html (http://www.heraldbanner.com/homepage/local_story_030161109.html)

[Tomblvd]

In honor of the start of Wimbleton:

Game, set and match to Mr. Alt.

Well done, sir (or madam).

[RedIbis]

What I find most interesting is how Red takes these firemen's accounts as being so important, but does not offer the same consideration for the ones stating the fully involved fire in WTC 7.

That would be because there are characterisitics consistent with CD at the Towers and there is not such evidence for a fully involved 7.

[RedIbis]

In honor of the start of Wimbleton:

Game, set and match to Mr. Alt.

Well done, sir (or madam).

I have a wicked slice and good legs to get nearly any drop shot, so what I would ask, which of those quotes suggests that what they see looks just like the way they implode buildings on TV?

It renders that entire list useless when you consider how specific these accounts are.

[stateofgrace]

I have a wicked slice and good legs to get nearly any drop shot, so what I would ask, which of those quotes suggests that what they see looks just like the way they implode buildings on TV?

It renders that entire list useless when you consider how specific these accounts are.

Too funny :D

Let me get my head around this Red, when people use the description "it sounded like a bomb" it only counts when troofers produce a list about the 911 attacks, right?

Boy oh boy,do you clutch at straws much ?

[Tomblvd]

Alt was specifically responding to bio. Which is why he bothered to put bio's quote in the very post you are looking at.

You know, this isn't really that hard, this posting and responding. Why do you insist on making it so?

[RedIbis]

Too funny :D

Let me get my head around this Red, when people use the describtion "it sounded like a bomb" it only counts when troofers produce a list about the 911 attacks, right?

Boy oh boy,do you clutch at straws or what ?


The accounts I provided were far more specific and talked about what they saw, not just what they heard.

[Tomblvd]

The accounts I provided were far more specific and talked about what they saw, not just what they heard.

What? You mean all those truncated quotes???

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." .

And you left out the rest:



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.


Like the man said, "Too funny".

[stateofgrace]

The accounts I provided were far more specific and talked about what they saw, not just what they heard.

Yeah sure they do Red, keep on living the dream.

Too funny.

[Grizzly Bear]

What? You mean all those truncated quotes???

Please debunk Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:



And you left out the rest:




Like the man said, "Too funny".

Here's an even further expanded piece of the context:

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Dixon_Brian.txt)

"Ganci was just figuring out where they were
putting people. I was watching the fire, watching the people
jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually
looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually
looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the
whole bottom I could see óó I could see two sides of it and the
other side óó it just looked like that floor blew out.

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. 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 ís what blew out the windows, not that
there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

The realization hit that it ís going to fall down, the top ís coming off. I was still thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is
coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting
to fly down. The top is going to topple off there.

Somebody yelled to run. We turned around and
somebody yelled -- a guy said get back into the garage. Not that I
thought that was a great idea if this thing fell on the
building, but there really wasn't that much time to go back out
in the street up and around again. It was one of those whoops,
here it comes.

So we turned and went down the ramp. Everybody
that was at the command post I believe went down the ramp, Canci
included. We turned around, went down and there were probably
two"


Interesting, he clarifies his statement, funny dat indeed...

[RedIbis]

What? You mean all those truncated quotes???

Please debunk Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:



And you left out the rest:




Like the man said, "Too funny".

How many times do I have to explain that I made a distinction from the very start that I am focusing specifically on initial responses, regardless of what conclusions they drew later?

I must have stated this in some variation a dozen times in this thread. I have already said I don't doubt that these people don't contest the offical story.

I find these initial reactions important, you don't. I can get over that.

[RedIbis]

"not that
there was an explosion there but that windows blew out."

I wonder what might have blown out the windows?

[applecorped]

Initial responses have revealed very little, why focus on them?

[RedIbis]

Initial responses have revealed very little, why focus on them?

That's up for debate.

[Grizzly Bear]

"not that
there was an explosion there but that windows blew out."

I wonder what might have blown out the windows?

Considering that in both cases the collapse initiated in the impact zones, just what effect would any such explosives have had on the ground floor?

[Alt+F4]

How many times do I have to explain that I made a distinction from the very start that I am focusing specifically on initial responses, regardless of what conclusions they drew later?

I must have stated this in some variation a dozen times in this thread. I have already said I don't doubt that these people don't contest the offical story.

I find these initial reactions important, you don't. I can get over that.

Why is it that "these people" don't contest the official story but you do?

[stateofgrace]

How many times do I have to explain that I made a distinction from the very start that I am focusing specifically on initial responses, regardless of what conclusions they drew later?

I must have stated this in some variation a dozen times in this thread. I have already said I don't doubt that these people don't contest the offical story.

I find these initial reactions important, you don't. I can get over that.

Yet for some strange reason you don't find the initial reactions in the list Alt+F4 provided,important, why is that?

Why do you wish to dismiss these initial reactions and not those on 911? Even though the ones on 911 have been clarrified. Why is this Red?

Please explain why these initial reactions on 911 are so important to you.

[Alt+F4]

Yet for some strange reason you don't find the initial reactions in the list Alt+F4 provided important, why is that?

Why do you wish to dismiss these initial reactions and not those on 911? Even though the ones on 911 have been clarrified. Why is this Red?

Please explain why these initial reactions on 911 are so important to you.

Yes. Note that in some of the instances people knew what they were seeing and still described the event as sounding like a bomb.

[RedIbis]

"Following the attacks, Secret Service employees were some of the first to
respond with first aid trauma kits. Special agents assisted local fire and police rescue in establishing triage areas and helping evacuate people from the Towers."
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745

Firefighter (just after first plane hit WTC):
"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."

Another firefighter (just after first attack):
"At some point close to that, they were saying they had too much pressure, so I don't know if they were getting water or they were doing some type of -- 55 Engine chauffeur told Engine 10 that he was getting too much pressure. Then I went -- that same individual, the security or -- he told me to go over to the command post and let them know it's a terrorist
attack. There are more planes in the air. So I went across the street where they were starting to set up. I told them. They said we know."

NK-44:

"They all knew ?! And nobody informed Bush when America was under attack !? Instead President Bush was not informed until the attack further succeeded with the second impact. But even then the Secret Service did not make an attempt to pull Bush out of the lesson, though he of course could be a target and they knew that more planes were in the air. Instead, Bush stayed at the school until 9.30, were he gave a scheduled press conference. No need for hurry here. It seems that Secret Service men had more interest to pull some other people out of an area.

(...)

When even the President didn't know that America was under attack, Secret Service personal at the WTC knew. When everyone was speculating what kind of plane hit, this Secret Service personal not only knew that this was a hijacked jet but also that others were in the air. When the FBI was speculating that there was a bomb in the basement ,and the NYPD thought that there was a van with explosives inside WTC, this Secret Service personal knew that it was jet-fuel, spilled down elevator shafts."

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745

I'm sure this must be invalid considering the board it was posted on, but I don't mind saying that has to be one of the most thorough destructions of a half baked official theory I've read yet. A complete dismantling of the "slow moving, magic fireball" theory.

[twinstead]

Please explain why these initial reactions on 911 are so important to you.

I'll give you 3 guesses...;)

[Tomblvd]

How many times do I have to explain that I made a distinction from the very start that I am focusing specifically on initial responses, regardless of what conclusions they drew later?

I must have stated this in some variation a dozen times in this thread. I have already said I don't doubt that these people don't contest the offical story.

I find these initial reactions important, you don't. I can get over that.

Uh, you were the one that posted the quote, right?

You can't post something like that and then just ignore it.

Why did you post this quote?

[Tomblvd]

Does anybody know if there are any first responders to the WTC that believe the buidling were CDed?

[RedIbis]

Yes. Note that in some of the instances people knew what they were seeing and still described the event as sounding like a bomb.

Yeah because what they were seeing looked like, "a syncronized, deliberate kind of thing"(Rogers) or "exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV"(Fitzpatrick) or "like someone had planted explosives around it because... it just looked like that floor blew out" (Dixon)

..."it actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit."(Cachia)

My bolds.

[Bananaman]

Oh God, Red, you can't seriously still be implying that...

No, you can't.

Can you?

Bananaman (who has his head in his hands.)

[stateofgrace]

I'll give you 3 guesses...;)


Guess 1. Because they "confirm" that secret death squads planted loads and loads of explosives inside each building and secretly demolished them in front of the entire planet and nobody noticed other than me and an insignificant fringe group.
Guess 2. See guess 1.
Guess 3. See guess 1 and 2.

;)

[Alt+F4]

Yeah because what they were seeing looked like, "a syncronized, deliberate kind of thing"(Rogers) or "exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV"(Fitzpatrick) or "like someone had planted explosives around it because... it just looked like that floor blew out" (Dixon)

..."it actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit."(Cachia)

My bolds.

If that is what those men continued to believe after the chaos had died down they would have come forward and demanded a CD investigation into the deaths of 347 of their co-workers.

The fact that not one single member of the FDNY has done this proves, that despite what was said in the chaos of the moment, none believes the WTC was the victim of a CD.

Now the question that has been asked to you is: if the FDNY does not take their initial statements as proof of a CD, why do you? What do you know that they don't?

[Tomblvd]

Oh God, Red, you can't seriously still be implying that...

No, you can't.

Can you?

Bananaman (who has his head in his hands.)

Yep.

RedIbis is telling us that the firefighters initially thought the buildings were brought down by a CD. But then, after giving it time, all concurrently changed their minds to believe the official theory.

Which leads us to conclude that Red truely believes these men and women are (1) dupes, (2) fools, or (3) conspirators.

There is no (4).

So Red, which one is it?

[funk de fino]

I'm sure this must be invalid considering the board it was posted on, but I don't mind saying that has to be one of the most thorough destructions of a half baked official theory I've read yet. A complete dismantling of the "slow moving, magic fireball" theory.

Well the clown that wrote it did not bold this part did he?

I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service

Do you disagree with the fact a fireball came down the lift shafts?

[RedIbis]

If that is what those men continued to believe after the chaos had died down they would have come forward and demanded a CD investigation into the deaths of 347 of their co-workers.

The fact that not one single member of the FDNY has done this proves, that despite what was said in the chaos of the moment, none believes the WTC was the victim of a CD.

Now the question that has been asked to you is: if the FDNY does not take their initial statements as proof of a CD, why do you? What do you know that they don't?

You ask these questions as if the FDNY is some monolithic entity. Point me to the document which states that all of the thousands of members of the FDNY adhere to the official story, have no questions and no doubts at all. Please point that out to me.

[RedIbis]

There is no (4).

So Red, which one is it?


Sure there is, but it's not my responsibility to stretch your mind so you could comprehend it for yourself.

[1337m4n]

Sure there is, but it's not my responsibility to stretch your mind so you could comprehend it for yourself.

Humor us: What is ONE possible #4?

[Tomblvd]

Sure there is, but it's not my responsibility to stretch your mind so you could comprehend it for yourself.

Cop out.

Come on, tell us at least one other option.

[Alt+F4]

You ask these questions as if the FDNY is some monolithic entity. Point me to the document which states that all of the thousands of members of the FDNY adhere to the official story, have no questions and no doubts at all. Please point that out to me.

You're right, the FDNY is not a monolithic entity. Firefighters speak out all the time, blasting not just the city but the FDNY leadership as well. There are dozens of FDNY related sites on the web, none mention anything about a CD of the WTC.

Since it would be impossible to interview all 11,000+ members of the department, let's just stick to the six or seven you have mentioned in this thread. Why haven't they spoken up? You are certain that what they saw and heard is indicative of a CD. Why don't they come to the same conclusion? Again, what do you know that they don't?

[Alt+F4]

Sure there is, but it's not my responsibility to stretch your mind so you could comprehend it for yourself.

Are you going with, "they might lose their jobs if they spoke about it" line of reasoning?

Just asking.

[1337m4n]

How many times do I have to explain that I made a distinction from the very start that I am focusing specifically on initial responses, regardless of what conclusions they drew later?

I must have stated this in some variation a dozen times in this thread. I have already said I don't doubt that these people don't contest the offical story.

I find these initial reactions important, you don't. I can get over that.

RedIbis, listen to what you are saying. This is what you are saying:

1) An uninformed man says it "looks like" an explosion

2) The exact same man, after becoming informed, REJECTS his previous idea of an "explosion" and says it "just collapsed" (without any "looks like")


What possible logic could lead you to conclude that the first part is more correct than the second?

There is none, so you are obviously not using logic. I would still like to know your thought process though.

[Jonnyclueless]

"Following the attacks, Secret Service employees were some of the first to
respond with first aid trauma kits. Special agents assisted local fire and police rescue in establishing triage areas and helping evacuate people from the Towers."
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745

Firefighter (just after first plane hit WTC):
"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."

Another firefighter (just after first attack):
"At some point close to that, they were saying they had too much pressure, so I don't know if they were getting water or they were doing some type of -- 55 Engine chauffeur told Engine 10 that he was getting too much pressure. Then I went -- that same individual, the security or -- he told me to go over to the command post and let them know it's a terrorist
attack. There are more planes in the air. So I went across the street where they were starting to set up. I told them. They said we know."

NK-44:

"They all knew ?! And nobody informed Bush when America was under attack !? Instead President Bush was not informed until the attack further succeeded with the second impact. But even then the Secret Service did not make an attempt to pull Bush out of the lesson, though he of course could be a target and they knew that more planes were in the air. Instead, Bush stayed at the school until 9.30, were he gave a scheduled press conference. No need for hurry here. It seems that Secret Service men had more interest to pull some other people out of an area.

(...)

When even the President didn't know that America was under attack, Secret Service personal at the WTC knew. When everyone was speculating what kind of plane hit, this Secret Service personal not only knew that this was a hijacked jet but also that others were in the air. When the FBI was speculating that there was a bomb in the basement ,and the NYPD thought that there was a van with explosives inside WTC, this Secret Service personal knew that it was jet-fuel, spilled down elevator shafts."

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745

Nice job of peacve mealing different quotes from different people and different articles to make it appear like one. And you guys wonder why everyone thinks you are so dishonest.

[Bananaman]

RedIbis:
Point me to the document which states that all of the thousands of members of the FDNY adhere to the official story, have no questions and no doubts at all. Please point that out to me.

Why not go and ask them yourself. We'll send you a get well card in hospital afterwards.

Bananaman.

[RedIbis]

Humor us: What is ONE possible #4?

Saw what they saw, then as the weeks, months and years went on, a variety of official explanations were rolled out, including jet fuel fireballs, pancaking floors compressing air many floors below, diesel fed infernos, etc etc etc.

They were no more prepared to disprove any of these as anyone else.

[WildCat]

Saw what they saw, then as the weeks, months and years went on, a variety of official explanations were rolled out, including jet fuel fireballs, pancaking floors compressing air many floors below, diesel fed infernos, etc etc etc.
So it was weeks later was it? So you'll have no problem finding the FDNY quotes from, say, Sept 12 that show they thought bombs were in the towers? Of course you can't, because you're grasping at straws. And they're not going to save you from drowning in the sea of evidence and facts.

They were no more prepared to disprove any of these as anyone else.
None of them ever thought the buildings collapsed due to bombs. None of them. And, of course, no recording device caught the sounds of bombs going off.

Would you like to backtrack to thermite again Red? :rolleyes:

[Grizzly Bear]

None of them ever thought the buildings collapsed due to bombs. None of them. And, of course, no recording device caught the sounds of bombs going off.

Would you like to backtrack to thermite again Red? :rolleyes:

I don't think he can use thermite any more, I've been slowly picking away at that one in the WTC 7 CD thread whilst debating another member

[johnny karate]

Saw what they saw, then as the weeks, months and years went on, a variety of official explanations were rolled out, including jet fuel fireballs, pancaking floors compressing air many floors below, diesel fed infernos, etc etc etc.

They were no more prepared to disprove any of these as anyone else.

And how is does this scenario not make these firefighters either dupes or complicit after the fact (by not coming forward to express any suspicions)?

I'll break it down to you again:

Either the entire FDNY was duped, made complicit before or after the fact (by way of coercion, pay-offs, or just because they're evil), or a combination thereof.

You have stated numerous times that this presents a false choice analogy, and yet can't seem to provide an alternate scenario that accounts for controlled demolition being used on 9/11 and not a single member of the FDNY coming forward to support this claim.

Please try again.

ETA: This (http://forums.firehouse.com/index.php) might be a good place to try and find an answer.

[NYCEMT86]

You're right, the FDNY is not a monolithic entity. Firefighters speak out all the time, blasting not just the city but the FDNY leadership as well. There are dozens of FDNY related sites on the web, none mention anything about a CD of the WTC.

Since it would be impossible to interview all 11,000+ members of the department, let's just stick to the six or seven you have mentioned in this thread. Why haven't they spoken up? You are certain that what they saw and heard is indicative of a CD. Why don't they come to the same conclusion? Again, what do you know that they don't?


I know have posted this story on here before, but here it goes again, when the Widows of the Deutsch Bank fire, were asked by a city attorney to record their pain as proof they were grieving, the Firefighters and Union were furious. They called the attorney and even demonstrated in front of Metrotech and City Hall. When Giuliani was running for President, the IAFF (Firefighters union) blasted him, using stories told by Active and Retired FDNY members. When the city wants to shut down a house, they are there outside protesting or at the community meetings expressing their views and the union is there backing them up.

The members are apart of the LARGEST UNION in the world, if they had issues with what really happened on 9/11 it would have been front page news. If you think the members who lost brothers, sons, cousins, uncles, nephews, and fathers that day, wouldn't speak out, then you really are mistaken about their true convictions.


ETA: Last part wasn't directed at you ALT, I know you have family members on the job.

[WildCat]

I don't think he can use thermite any more, I've been slowly picking away at that one in the WTC 7 CD thread whilst debating another member
Sure he can, it's the truther way. Every time they get obliterated with facts and evidence, they resort to an old claim that was also obliterated by facts and evidence previously. And round and round and round we go. In fact, you won't find any truther arguments from the last several years that are new, it's just the same old recycled crapola.

[Grizzly Bear]

Sure he can, it's the truther way. Every time they get obliterated with facts and evidence, they resort to an old claim that was also obliterated by facts and evidence previously. And round and round and round we go. In fact, you won't find any truther arguments from the last several years that are new, it's just the same old recycled crapola.

Wouldn't surprise me, but nevertheless, there are so many holes in the thermite theory a layman's debater can pick out the holes, as far as the testimony, most of what I've seen so far the last few days here have been quote mines and misinterpretation... The whole deal with 'going with initial accounts' in particular stumps me...

[Alt+F4]

When Giuliani was running for President, the IAFF (Firefighters union) blasted him, using stories told by Active and Retired FDNY members.

Very true. The IAFF went like an attack dog against Giuliani and his 9/11 "leadership". Nothing about a CD in their video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCYEEO-58I

[Tomblvd]

Saw what they saw, then as the weeks, months and years went on, a variety of official explanations were rolled out, including jet fuel fireballs, pancaking floors compressing air many floors below, diesel fed infernos, etc etc etc.


So your answer is that they are all fools, stupid ones at that, unable to think for themselves. None of them can possibly have an independent thought. They are told what to think, and they blindly obey.




They were no more prepared to disprove any of these as anyone else.

Yet YOU are?!

Every single one of those firefighters were eyewitness to a controlled demolition, and none of them are bright enough to figure it out. But being the google expert you are, you were able to.

I don't know what's worse, the fact that you believe you are smarter than every one of the eyewitness first responders, or that you aren't too embarassed to post it.

[RedIbis]

I don't think he can use thermite any more, I've been slowly picking away at that one in the WTC 7 CD thread whilst debating another member

When have I ever mentioned thermite?

[Tomblvd]

... The whole deal with 'going with initial accounts' in particular stumps me...


Why would it stump you? It's almost the only thing they have that has the least bit of credibility.

The thermite theory was something literally dreamt up by someone. It has absolutely no basis in fact. At least this tactic has a veneer of truth. You take a quote from a first responder, literally cut it to pieces. Then present it as evidence. All the while studiously avoiding any evidence to the contrary.

[tsig]

You ask these questions as if the FDNY is some monolithic entity. Point me to the document which states that all of the thousands of members of the FDNY adhere to the official story, have no questions and no doubts at all. Please point that out to me.

Silence gives consent. The silence from the firefighters is deafening.

[Tomblvd]

When have I ever mentioned thermite?

Quit looking for an excuse to change the subject.

For those of you keeping score at home, Red has deemed the firefighters either (1) dupes or (2) fools.

So, on what do you base this conclusion?

[bio]

Explosions that sound like bombs:

Guatemalan Sink Hole[FONT=Verdana] - Three people were missing Friday after a 61 meter hole opened up in the middle of a Guatemalan neighborhood, likely due to a burst sewer pipe. "It sounded like a bomb was dropping. Boom!" said Carlos Gutierrez, of the crater, which measured 40 meters in diameter.
[COLOR=purple]http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23335860.htm (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23335860.htm)
(...)

The same argumentation is possible the other way around. The truther proved, that fireballs / jet fuel could not caused the explosions in the basement. See our discussion:
Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099)

The explosions are just one indication in the case for demolition. There are more like the essential free fall speed of the collaps - according to NIST.

[SDC]

Red I. never shows any courage of his convictions. Watch him duck and bob. What cowardly comments.

Also how foolish and silly. As mentioned above, the NY fire fighters are not shy about expressing their dislike for the big makhers in the city (like Giuliani). To suggest that they are either dupes, or afraid to express their real view, is beyond belief in its inanity.

Over to you, Red I. Say, how about Gen Myers and Max Cleland on 9/11? Did you ever work that out?

[bio]

Nice job of peacve mealing different quotes from different people and different articles to make it appear like one. And you guys wonder why everyone thinks you are so dishonest.

Can you counter the arguments of NK-44?

[pomeroo]

That would be because there are characterisitics consistent with CD at the Towers and there is not such evidence for a fully involved 7.


Your refusal to address my response to your question has been noted--typical behavior for you.

It's fascinating that one of the icons of your evil movement, Danny Jowenko, acknowledges that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 do not resemble controlled demolitions in any respect while he still clings to his uninformed belief that WTC 7 was brought down for reasons that make no sense.

[funk de fino]

Can you counter the arguments of NK-44?

Yes, I already did

I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service

Blows his whole post away

[pomeroo]

The accounts I provided were far more specific and talked about what they saw, not just what they heard.


Yes, I understand that my simple observation is terribly inconvenient to your latest steaming load and I have been beating you to a pulp with it, but I intend to continue.

If I were present on the scene, I would no doubt have described the sounds of things blowing up in the fires as "explosions" (they were, in fact, explosions) and, given the knowledge that a terrorist attack had occurred, I would probably have guessed that bombs were going off.

It turns out that I would have been wrong.

Now, your point is...?

[pomeroo]

That's up for debate.


No, there is no informed debate on the subject. Stop lying.

[pomeroo]

The same argumentation is possible the other way around. The truther proved, that fireballs / jet fuel could not caused the explosions in the basement. See our discussion:
Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099)

The explosions are just one indication in the case for demolition. There are more like the essential free fall speed of the collaps - according to NIST.


The conspiracy liar who dredged up for the thousandth time the threadbare topic of the fireballs has, as usual, ignored the many discussions on this forum and Mark's extensive documentation.

There were no explosives in the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. No--zero--evidence supports this fantastic claim and overwhelming evidence contradicts it.

[bio]

Yes, I already did


I was not able to track any post from you after my initial posting. Perhabs you have more accounts here and "answered" with another name? :)

[Grizzly Bear]

When have I ever mentioned thermite?

I never said you mentioned it... I was commenting that if you did it probably wouldn't be of much use to you. I don't follow your arguments as extensively as others do, I'll make comments about your presentation of facts as I see them come up

[Dog Town]

There are more like the essential free fall speed of the collaps - according to NIST.

Is free fall, a finger print of CD? If so, could you please show examples, other than 911. Thanks in advance.

[Jonnyclueless]

Can you counter the arguments of NK-44?

What's an NK-44? Is that some type of gun?

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, I already did



Blows his whole post away

Not to mention that if the rescue workers were in on it as it the premise on the thread, then would they really need to be told anything? I think this thread has gotten just too stupid for me to even bother with anymore...

[Sabrina]

This is just a thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong here... but unless the guy was wearing a badge, how the heck would the firefighter know he was in any federal agency at all? The WTC was FULL of guys in suits... probably most of them black, as that seems to be a preferred color for men's suits from my admittedly limited observations... who's the say the guy wasn't just a witness to the plane flying into the building from the street and decided it was his civic duty to render assistance wherever he could? Is there anything in that firefighter's quote that indicates he saw a badge or was able to ascertain in some other fashion that the guy was part of a federal agency? If there isn't... it's mere speculation at best and would be inadmissable in any legitimate court of law.

[Foolmewunz]

Red,
History, as usual, contradicts your wooly thinking. You have, by your own indirect admission, deduced that the firefighters were somehow convinced and/or coerced into believing what their betters told them to believe.
How does that synchronize with the NY Post headline that read, "Bravest and Finest Duke it Out at Ground Zero".
The FDNY refused to leave the scene when they called off the rescue and recovery, and actually fought with well-trained armed police officers over the issue! Does this sound like the type of totally amoral person who would then say, "Oh, well... I lost my best friends and I know the government was in on it, but I'll just shut up because the boss said so."
And what about the first responders who died and who were all over the lower floors, where you say there's evidence of explosives? Where's the radio call saying, "Clear Out! There are bombs in here!"
Were the dead FDNY a bunch of NWO jihadists, willing to go down for BushCo? Or were they dupes and pawns?

When you make silly statements to sound like a seeker of wisdom and truth, you have to be able to follow them through. Just as with the reprehensible attacks on Silverstein, no one of you has followed through on what the stupid statements mean in terms of the numbers of decent, honorable, and brave individuals you now have to include in your IVC(impossibly vast conspiracy).

You've gone from JAQ to LIHOP to MIHOP in your time here. Instead of dancing around the issue for sixteen pages, why not just pretend you're a fireman, grow a pair, and admit that you think the whole world was in on it.

[RedIbis]

Red,
History, as usual, contradicts your wooly thinking. You have, by your own indirect admission, deduced that the firefighters were somehow convinced and/or coerced into believing what their betters told them to believe.
How does that synchronize with the NY Post headline that read, "Bravest and Finest Duke it Out at Ground Zero".
The FDNY refused to leave the scene when they called off the rescue and recovery, and actually fought with well-trained armed police officers over the issue! Does this sound like the type of totally amoral person who would then say, "Oh, well... I lost my best friends and I know the government was in on it, but I'll just shut up because the boss said so."
And what about the first responders who died and who were all over the lower floors, where you say there's evidence of explosives? Where's the radio call saying, "Clear Out! There are bombs in here!"
Were the dead FDNY a bunch of NWO jihadists, willing to go down for BushCo? Or were they dupes and pawns?

When you make silly statements to sound like a seeker of wisdom and truth, you have to be able to follow them through. Just as with the reprehensible attacks on Silverstein, no one of you has followed through on what the stupid statements mean in terms of the numbers of decent, honorable, and brave individuals you now have to include in your IVC(impossibly vast conspiracy).

You've gone from JAQ to LIHOP to MIHOP in your time here. Instead of dancing around the issue for sixteen pages, why not just pretend you're a fireman, grow a pair, and admit that you think the whole world was in on it.

I don't how many other ways I can put it. There is significant specificity when it comes to the way the collapses and preceding explosions were described. We can move on to non-FDNY who described it much the same way.

[beachnut]

I don't how many other ways I can put it. There is significant specificity when it comes to the way the collapses and preceding explosions were described. We can move on to non-FDNY who described it much the same way.
How long before 9/11 truth is able to gain the skills to see their errors in logic? It has been over 6 years; students can earn a masters degree in 6 years. Why are some people able to figure out 9/11 in minutes, and an insignificant minority are without evidence, or understanding, 6 years later?

Do you need examples? (similes are cool; understanding similes is priceless, and may not be a skill of 9/11 truth. )

[Foolmewunz]

I don't how many other ways I can put it. There is significant specificity when it comes to the way the collapses and preceding explosions were described. We can move on to non-FDNY who described it much the same way.

I'm sure you'd like that, but we're hanging tough on the FDNY. You have to come up with some 'splaining, Lucy. What would cause them to behave in the manner in which you're proposing?

Were they in on it from the outset? Part of the plot?
Were they ignorant of the plot and duped into dying?
Were they not a part of the plot but were threatened into agreeing?
Were the not a part of the plot but were bought off?

And for any of those questions, add....

All of them?

Because you have not one current FDNY member on record of supporting MIHOP or CD. Show one, please. Double please with sprinkles and ice cream on top.

[Tomblvd]

I don't how many other ways I can put it. There is significant specificity when it comes to the way the collapses and preceding explosions were described. We can move on to non-FDNY who described it much the same way.


So, these firefighters described with "significant specificity"?

That makes their changes of heart even more perplexing.

If it was that clear the buildings were brought down, as you say, you MUST explain to us what caused each and every surviving member of the City of New York Fire Dept. to all change their stories and "accept" the official version.

No more hours long disappearances, no more drifting into other topics, no more arguing minutae. Answer the question.

What made all these men and women liars, dupes or fools?

[Tomblvd]

Looks like RedIbis ran away yet again, only to return later having competely ignored all the questions asked.

[johnny karate]

In response to this current question being dodged by RedIbis, I would like to answer one of his from earlier in this thread:
Red has so many lies out there, he's lost track of them.
Name one.


In his response to my variation of the question at hand:
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.

RedIbis had this to say:
Don't bother. Your "options" are based on absolutes which are rarely accurate and create the false choice fallacy.

I have bolded the part that is a lie.

RedIbis has been asked repeatedly to offer another scenario that would render his statement true. So far he has failed to so, and I seriously doubt that he can.

So there you go, Red. There's an example of a lie you told.

[pomeroo]

I don't how many other ways I can put it. There is significant specificity when it comes to the way the collapses and preceding explosions were described. We can move on to non-FDNY who described it much the same way.



Some of us keep putting it the same way over and over: Show us a member of the FDNY who swallows the fantasy movement's snake oil.

You don't have one? Well, why not?

[funk de fino]

I was not able to track any post from you after my initial posting. Perhabs you have more accounts here and "answered" with another name? :)

post number 566 answers it

you did read the rest of the thread didnt you? you never just jumped in did you?

as for the sock inference, those are from your side mate

[funk de fino]

I don't how many other ways I can put it. There is significant specificity when it comes to the way the collapses and preceding explosions were described. We can move on to non-FDNY who described it much the same way.

Why do you continue to put such great emphasis on these witness statements describing these apparent CD charges yet you deny the witness statements from the first responders about WTC7 being a fully involved fire?

Seems to me you want your cake and eat it? You either take all witness statement at the same face value or you strike it and look for other evidence. I suspect I know why you will not though Red?

Got any video or audio yet, there should be loads of it?

[lapman]

I don't how many other ways I can put it. There is significant specificity when it comes to the way the collapses and preceding explosions were described. We can move on to non-FDNY who described it much the same way.
I'm still waiting for you to post even one full quote where a fireman describes a sequence of explosions prior to the collapse. So far, 100% of everyone you have quoted has described the sound or look of the start of the collapse. This has been proven time and again and you blatantly ignore it. Instead, you purposely cut up another quote to suit your needs, and when that one is proven to be something else, you move to another cut up misquote. You have failed time and again to provide anything close to real evidence to support your fantasies.

[lapman]

That would be because there are characterisitics consistent with CD at the Towers and there is not such evidence for a fully involved 7.
Here is another example of your intense hypocrisy and dishonesty. Here you are claiming that because there is no video evidence of the inferno, it didn't happen even though there are many FDNY accounts where firemen specifically describe the inferno. No similes, but specific accounts. On the other hand, you use partial quotes of firemen to back your CD fantasy even though 100% of the video and audio evidence and even the quotes your cutting up prove otherwise. So basically, the second your fingers touch the keyboard, you're being dishonest.

[RedIbis]

I'm still waiting for you to post even one full quote where a fireman describes a sequence of explosions prior to the collapse.

Just out of curiosity, what if I did? Would you admit you are wrong? I tend to think that you will use semantics and quibble your way out of having to admit that sequences of explosions preceded the collapse. We can determine this if the account uses a phrase such as, "and then the building started to collapse."

[lapman]

Just out of curiosity, what if I did? Would you admit you are wrong?Yes I would.
I tend to think that you will use semantics and quibble your way out of having to admit that sequences of explosions preceded the collapse. We can determine this if the account uses a phrase such as, "and then the building started to collapse."You need to learn the difference between semantics and context. So far, when you look at the entire quote, the person is stating when they realized the building was collapsing. You are taking the portion of the quote literally without looking at the context of the full quote.

[Tomblvd]

Ah, I see the daily migration of the rare RedIbis has brought it back around for a while.

Totally ignoring the questions asked of it.

So I ask again:

So, these firefighters described with "significant specificity"?

That makes their changes of heart even more perplexing.

If it was that clear the buildings were brought down, as you say, you MUST explain to us what caused each and every surviving member of the City of New York Fire Dept. to all change their stories and "accept" the official version.

No more hours long disappearances, no more drifting into other topics, no more arguing minutae. Answer the question.

What made all these men and women liars, dupes or fools?

[pomeroo]

Ah, I see the daily migration of the rare RedIbis has brought it back around for a while.

Totally ignoring the questions asked of it.

So I ask again:


RedIbis asked me a direct question. I answered it, and my answer proved highly inconvenient to his threadbare fantasy. He has, typically, avoided responding.

I doubt that you'll have better luck.

[Minadin]

This is just a thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong here... but unless the guy was wearing a badge, how the heck would the firefighter know he was in any federal agency at all? The WTC was FULL of guys in suits... probably most of them black, as that seems to be a preferred color for men's suits from my admittedly limited observations... who's the say the guy wasn't just a witness to the plane flying into the building from the street and decided it was his civic duty to render assistance wherever he could? Is there anything in that firefighter's quote that indicates he saw a badge or was able to ascertain in some other fashion that the guy was part of a federal agency? If there isn't... it's mere speculation at best and would be inadmissable in any legitimate court of law.


Sadly, my one really nice suit is black. I mean, it goes with everything, right? I do try to wear a really colorful tie and / or shirt with it.

[Tomblvd]

Gee, I wonder what happened to RedIbis?

All these questions, and no answers.

How.......odd.

[RedIbis]

Gee, I wonder what happened to RedIbis?

All these questions, and no answers.

How.......odd.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3804190&postcount=139

[WildCat]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3804190&postcount=139
I have a life, a job and a lot of other things going on to be able to sit on jref and respond to every taunt some anonymous poster throws at me.

These aren't taunts Red. You're the one twisting quotes to shoehorn them into the conspiracy you can't even describe, and claiming the firemen know about explosions (which you imply were bombs) consistent with CD charges prior to collapse but are covering it up now.

In short, your position is neither you nor anyone else in your ridiculous movement has offered a motive for the silence on the part of the people who were actually there that day. They had a bit better view than a compressed youtube video shows, no?

Until you answer the questions about the firemen you don't have a pot to piss in as far as this subject is concerned.

[Tomblvd]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3804190&postcount=139


And yet you had time to start a brand new thread after reading prisonplanet.

Again. How........odd.

So now that you have time, how about answering the questions?

[RedIbis]

And yet you had time to start a brand new thread after reading prisonplanet.

Again. How........odd.

So now that you have time, how about answering the questions?

There's something a bit creepy about your attention to my posting habits. Try holding your breath for my next post. Anyone who has been around the state of Florida in the last few days knows that after the rains we've had recently, there are hours of yard work ahead of me.

Don't miss me too much, I'm sure to chime in on plenty of threads.

[chillzero]

Let's not personalise the thread, please. It's a general discussion, and not about individual habits.

[Tomblvd]

There's something a bit creepy about your attention to my posting habits. Try holding your breath for my next post. Anyone who has been around the state of Florida in the last few days knows that after the rains we've had recently, there are hours of yard work ahead of me.

Don't miss me too much, I'm sure to chime in on plenty of threads.

This has nothing to do with your "posting habits", I merely point out things aren't so bad that you can't start a brand new thread. If you have enough time to do that, you certainly have enough time to answer some simple questions.

So, I reiterate:

So, these firefighters described with "significant specificity"?

That makes their changes of heart even more perplexing.

If it was that clear the buildings were brought down, as you say, you MUST explain to us what caused each and every surviving member of the City of New York Fire Dept. to all change their stories and "accept" the official version.

No more hours long disappearances, no more drifting into other topics, no more arguing minutae. Answer the question.

What made all these men and women liars, dupes or fools?

[triforcharity]

Did Red EVER answer you guys' questions??

Does he EVER answer them.

[RedIbis]

Did Red EVER answer you guys' questions??

Does he EVER answer them.

You have nothing better to do then bump old threads? Granted, I do miss Pomeroo.

[WildCat]

Did Red EVER answer you guys' questions??

Does he EVER answer them.
No and no.

[johnny karate]

In other news, water is wet.

[Bluesky]

If you look at the ae911truth powerpoint presentation it names about 30 people who witnessed the evidence of the controlled demolition. All of these personal statements form part of ae911tm's "irrefutable evidence" that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Funny how less than 10% have signeD the ae911tm petition.

But I guess its because they were there and Richard gage wasnt.

[UNLoVedRebel]

You have nothing better to do then bump old threads? Granted, I do miss Pomeroo.

Nope