Why I despise the Truthers

[NYCEMT86]

It was only in April when I started researching more into the truth movement to better understand what their "evidence" is. As most of you have come to the same conclusion as I have, they are full of [rule8].

What makes me despise the Truthers more is the fact that they call the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD murders. They claim that they were involved with the horrible acts of 9/11.

As a New Yorker and a City Employee I find this sickening. I have friends and family who serve in both the FDNY and NYPD, as most New Yorkers do. You call my friends and my cousins murders it gets personal, especially since they worked against the odds that morning. They did their job with pride and committed themselves to that site months after the attack.

Most of you Truthers will never understand the sacrifice and pain they went through, what their family and friends went through. The FDNY suffered a huge loss, lost over 50% of their most experienced Firefighters. They still haven't fully recovered from that.

I have talked to my co-workers, friends, and cousins who where there that morning and I tell them about this b/s idea that they are murders and 9/11 was an inside job. They called it ************ and said you are all sick for thinking that. Its a slap in the face to them to hear this.

This city takes pride in our Firefighters and Police Officers. You will never understand how hard they work everyday for the Millions of people who work and live here.

We lost over 400 Uniformed Firefighters and Police Officers that day. They did their jobs the best they could and you call them murders, you make me sick. I became an EMT and I am working on becoming a FDNY Firefighter because of the actions of those brave men and women.

I hope you truthers can sleep at night for stepping on the honor and memory that these men and women have about their job.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Amen!

[Kage]

I appreciate the post.

People like me who look at debunking as an intellectual excercise need to an occasional reminder as to how vile and depraved truther ranting really is. Not that I haven't noticed this before, or many times before, but that it is alwasy good to step back and really get the implications of what these yahoos claim. Also, does it sicken you as much as me when you realize that the worst of them make money off this?

Kage

[T.A.M.]

It was only in April when I started researching more into the truth movement to better understand what their "evidence" is. As most of you have come to the same conclusion as I have, they are full of [rule8].

What makes me despise the Truthers more is the fact that they call the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD murders. They claim that they were involved with the horrible acts of 9/11.

As a New Yorker and a City Employee I find this sickening. I have friends and family who serve in both the FDNY and NYPD, as most New Yorkers do. You call my friends and my cousins murders it gets personal, especially since they worked against the odds that morning. They did their job with pride and committed themselves to that site months after the attack.

Most of you Truthers will never understand the sacrifice and pain they went through, what their family and friends went through. The FDNY suffered a huge loss, lost over 50% of their most experienced Firefighters. They still haven't fully recovered from that.

I have talked to my co-workers, friends, and cousins who where there that morning and I tell them about this b/s idea that they are murders and 9/11 was an inside job. They called it ************ and said you are all sick for thinking that. Its a slap in the face to them to hear this.

This city takes pride in our Firefighters and Police Officers. You will never understand how hard they work everyday for the Millions of people who work and live here.

We lost over 400 Uniformed Firefighters and Police Officers that day. They did their jobs the best they could and you call them murders, you make me sick. I became an EMT and I am working on becoming a FDNY Firefighter because of the actions of those brave men and women.

I hope you truthers can sleep at night for stepping on the honor and memory that these men and women have about their job.


Ahhh, but you see they are sly about this. Look at Dylan and LC:FC. It will have a long segment about the hardships of those who worked at GZ, and breathed in the air...why? I do not think it has anything to do with them actually giving a rats ass about the topic, but rather it is to (A) gain sympathy from the audience, and in so doing expand their viewership, and (B) to use the "untouchable" factor to make the movie harder to slam.

Look at all the truthers who will come in here, and in one post claim that WTC7 was due to a planned CD, and to accuse the FDNY and others of foreknowledge, allowing them to get out in time, and then in the next post/breath claim that they are in full support of the first responders.

I would rather they simply came out and spoke the truth, which is that they do consider the 1st responders part of the cover up, rather than lie, and try to fall on both sides of the fence.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

Ahhh, but you see they are sly about this. Look at Dylan and LC:FC. It will have a long segment about the hardships of those who worked at GZ, and breathed in the air...why? I do not think it has anything to do with them actually giving a rats ass about the topic, but rather it is to (A) gain sympathy from the audience, and in so doing expand their viewership, and (B) to use the "untouchable" factor to make the movie harder to slam.

Look at all the truthers who will come in here, and in one post claim that WTC7 was due to a planned CD, and to accuse the FDNY and others of foreknowledge, allowing them to get out in time, and then in the next post/breath claim that they are in full support of the first responders.

I would rather they simply came out and spoke the truth, which is that they do consider the 1st responders part of the cover up, rather than lie, and try to fall on both sides of the fence.

TAM:)Dancing on a razor's edge often leads to getting cut. Easier to be on one side. Unfortunately they choose the wrong one :)

[leftysergeant]

I also notice that the twoofers are generally not credible military veterans. (A few exceptions, mostly on P4T, but even some of them seem to have a screw or two that needs to be checked for torque.)

And look at the sites they link to. Lots of subtle white nationalist sites in there, a lot of blatant Holocaust-denier sites.

They don't want truth, they want a revolution.

Given the reception that Rudy gets now when he shows up at a fire fighters' gathering of any sort, I have a hard time imagining that any fire fighter who had any evidence that it was an inside job would keep his mouth shut when he could blow one of the least qualified GOP candidates out of the water.

They would not lie for rotten Rudy.

[pomeroo]

I appreciate the post.

People like me who look at debunking as an intellectual excercise need to an occasional reminder as to how vile and depraved truther ranting really is. Not that I haven't noticed this before, or many times before, but that it is alwasy good to step back and really get the implications of what these yahoos claim. Also, does it sicken you as much as me when you realize that the worst of them make money off this?

Kage

I make a point of reminding various loons that theirs is an "evil" movement. The sheer rock-headed stupidity is the first twoofer characteristic most observers notice, but all the irrationality and dishonesty is in the service of pure evil.

[The Doc]

I make a point of reminding various loons that theirs is an "evil" movement. The sheer rock-headed stupidity is the first twoofer characteristic most observers notice, but all the irrationality and dishonesty is in the service of pure evil.

Well said Ron. Well said.

[sts60]

It was only in April when I started researching more into the truth movement to better understand what their "evidence" is. As most of you have come to the same conclusion as I have, they are full of [rule8].

What makes me despise the Truthers more is the fact that they call the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD murders. They claim that they were involved with the horrible acts of 9/11.

Amen, brother.

I joined my combination FD as a volunteer a few months after 9/11. A lot of the guys I ride with today were at the Pentagon that day, pulling pieces of airliner, and passengers, and Pentagon workers out of the wreckage.

Now, I quite literally trust these guys with my life. How do you think I feel when someone says they were "in on it", lying about what they saw and did at the Pentagon? Over on the Bad Astronomy and apollohoax forums, one "truther" did exactly that.

I extended him an invitation to make that claim to my face. And that invitation stands for any other "truther" who believes that the cops and firefighters were "in on it". Anytime, anywhere.

So, NYCEMT86, I know how you feel. FTM.

[Revolutionary91]

What makes me despise the Truthers more is the fact that they call the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD murders. They claim that they were involved with the horrible acts of 9/11.



Can you back this up with some examples?

[mortimer]

Can you back this up with some examples?

Jason Bermas has stated as much. On camera.

[HyJinX]

Can you back this up with some examples?

Rev...do you believe that WTC7 was a CD? If so, do you believe that Silverstein was involved? If so, do you believe he used the words "pull it" to give the command to have the building demolished?

[kookbreaker]

Jason Bermas has stated as much. On camera.

Yeah, and he later blamed Abby's Jedi Knight powers. :D

[Revolutionary91]

Jason Bermas has stated as much. On camera.

Wrong. He did not call them murderers, he said they were paid to keep silent. He later retracted it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Wrong. He did not call them murderers, he said they were paid to keep silent. He later retracted it.

He retracted it cause he knew he was wrong.

[Revolutionary91]

Rev...do you believe that WTC7 was a CD? If so, do you believe that Silverstein was involved? If so, do you believe he used the words "pull it" to give the command to have the building demolished?

Nobody died in building 7. I asked for examples of truthers calling FDNY, PAPD and NYPD murderers. Do you have any examples?

[stateofgrace]

Can you back this up with some examples?



There is, in any case, only one theory that explains both the nature and the expectation of the collapse of building 7: Explosives had been set, and someone who knew this spread the word to the fire chiefs.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)

[Dave Rogers]

Can you back this up with some examples?

The problem is that the conspiracy theorists hold two mutually exclusive positions.

One is that there was a vast government conspiracy to murder thousands of innocent people, and an even bigger coverup. All those in the coverup are equally guilty of murder, as they are, at best, accessories after the fact. The absence of any physical evidence of explosives in the WTC towers - which must have been present, it is impossible for such a huge demolition to leave no physical evidence - implies that this coverup operation involved the complicity of all the first responders at the site, none of whom reported any such evidence. This therefore implicates those first responders - specifically, the FDNY, PAPD and NYPD. Furthermore, it is at least implied that the physical evidence collected (for example, victim DNA or aircraft debris) was falsified, again implicating the first responders; this is, for example, a necessary corrolory of all no-plane or substitute plane theories, whether at the WTC towers or the Pentagon.

The other is that the NYPD, PAPD and FDNY are unfortunate victims of the conspiracy. This is generally put forward because of the unpopularity of suggesting anything else. However, it is logically inconsistent with the first position, so the only ways to hold both views at once are cognitive dissonance or intellectual dishonesty.

A good example of the mental gymnastics required is given by our regular contributor Lyte Trip, who believes that:
(a) Government agents planted huge quantities of fake physical evidence around the Pentagon.
(b) Pentagon cops, themselves agents of the government, are above suspicion of dishonesty and cannot possibly be in error when testifying regarding the flight path of AA77.
(c) Anyone testifying otherwise as to the flight path of AA77 is automatically suspect because they might be in the pay of the government.
(d) Pentagon cops cannot be trusted when they say that they saw AA77 hit the pentagon because they could have been fooled by misdirection.
In Lyte Trip's world, therefore, government employees are automatically suspect, beyond suspicion, utterly reliable witnesses and easily misled; in many cases, these contradictions are true of the same specific individuals.

The same tactics are used by those who argue for CD of the towers and, in particular, WTC7; they argue that the PAPD, NYPD and FDNY were not complicit in the conspiracy, while outlining a scenario in which they cannot possibly have been anything but complicit.

To take the usual analogy: Suppose I claimed that your wife suffered serious blunt force trauma at a time when you were the only person in the house with her, argued that her injuries could not have been accidental or self-inflicted, pointed out that you were in posession of a baseball bat at the time, but claimed I was not accusing you of beating your wife - would you feel that I was accusing you anyway?

Dave

[Revolutionary91]

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)


Nobody died in 7. I want examples of CTs calling those agencies murderers, as stated in the opening post.

[stateofgrace]

Nobody died in 7. I want examples of CTs calling those agencies murderers, as stated in the opening post.

People died before WTC 7 collapsed, ok?

Griffin says the fire chiefs knew there were explosives inside WTC 7, ok?

Griffin is accusing the fire chiefs of covering up the demolition of WTC 7, ok?

Griffin is accusing the fire chiefs of not being truthful about the day’s events, ok?

Griffins is accusing the fire chiefs are being complacent in mass murder, ok?

Incidentally ……………….

33-year FDNY veteran Chief of Department Peter Ganci,

42-year FDNY veteran First Deputy Commissioner Bill Feehan,

40-year FDNY veteran Chief of Special Operations Command Ray Downey (the most decorated man in the history of the FDNY),

Head Fire Marshal Ronald Bucca,

31-year FDNY veteran Assistant Chief Gerard Barbara,

39-year FDNY veteran Assistant Chief Donald Burns,

and 18 Battalion Chiefs,

all of whom died on 9/11, along with 23 Captains, 46 Lieutenants, two Paramedics, and 251 firefighters (some of whom were in retirement and volunteered).

Maybe you would be so kind as to point out which fire chiefs he is talking about, ok?

[nicepants]

It was only in April when I started researching more into the truth movement to better understand what their "evidence" is. As most of you have come to the same conclusion as I have, they are full of [rule8].

What makes me despise the Truthers more is the fact that they call the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD murders. They claim that they were involved with the horrible acts of 9/11.

As a New Yorker and a City Employee I find this sickening. I have friends and family who serve in both the FDNY and NYPD, as most New Yorkers do. You call my friends and my cousins murders it gets personal, especially since they worked against the odds that morning. They did their job with pride and committed themselves to that site months after the attack.

Most of you Truthers will never understand the sacrifice and pain they went through, what their family and friends went through. The FDNY suffered a huge loss, lost over 50% of their most experienced Firefighters. They still haven't fully recovered from that.

I have talked to my co-workers, friends, and cousins who where there that morning and I tell them about this b/s idea that they are murders and 9/11 was an inside job. They called it ************ and said you are all sick for thinking that. Its a slap in the face to them to hear this.

This city takes pride in our Firefighters and Police Officers. You will never understand how hard they work everyday for the Millions of people who work and live here.

We lost over 400 Uniformed Firefighters and Police Officers that day. They did their jobs the best they could and you call them murders, you make me sick. I became an EMT and I am working on becoming a FDNY Firefighter because of the actions of those brave men and women.

I hope you truthers can sleep at night for stepping on the honor and memory that these men and women have about their job.

Great post. I don't despise the truthers themselves, just their double-standards/contradictory actions/closed-mindedness/blatant ignorance. For a shining example, have a look at the posts by Roxdog over at LC.

[Revolutionary91]

Just as I thought. Noone can provide examples of CTs calling NYPD, PAPD and FDNY murderers.

[HyJinX]

Rev - Do you or do you not believe that any one of those agencies were involved in either the planning, execution or cover-up of 9/11?

[Revolutionary91]

Rev - Do you or do you not believe that any one of those agencies were involved in either the planning, execution or cover-up of 9/11?

Thats not how it works.

The OP stated that those 3 agencies were called murderers by CTs. Do you have any examples?

[twinstead]

Just as I thought. Noone can provide examples of CTs calling NYPD, PAPD and FDNY murderers.

I'm sure Gravy has dozens of examples. Start a thread asking for any evidence a CT claimed the FDNY and others were complicit to murder. If you have the guts.

In the meantime, how can your theory be correct but none of the first responders, emergency people, DNA lab technicians, all the way up to the contributers to the NIST report be 'in on it'?

[HyJinX]

Thats not how it works.

The OP stated that those 3 agencies were called murderers by CTs. Do you have any examples?

That is how it works. If you believe that anyone for any of those agencies is complicit in any way...then they could be prosecuted for murder. Do I have any direct quotes...no. But you don't need direct quotes to claim that someone is a murderer.

[nicepants]

Thats not how it works.

The OP stated that those 3 agencies were called murderers by CTs. Do you have any examples?

CTists accuse first responders/fire-fighters of being involved in the CT of WTC7. If Larry Silverstein is a murderer, they are too.

[T.A.M.]

Unlikely they will Rev...the snake oil salesmen are much to slick to put such a comment out in the open, but they have IMPLIED it, Implied complicity through foreknowledge, complicity through accusations of lieing about passenger body parts, and plane debris.

SO go Hoot Hoot, now, claim victory over the first responder who wrote the OP, go ahead you 15 year old boy. The same first responder who would run into a burning building to save you and not think twice about it.

TAM:)

[Viper Daimao]

Just as I thought. Noone can provide examples of CTs calling NYPD, PAPD and FDNY murderers.

wha? Do you have everyone here on ignore?

Try this (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ny911truth.orgmembersdisparagethefdnyatg).

Me[gravy]: Yeah, it’s a lie? These are all lies the Fire Department is telling? I’m recording this, by the way.

JACK: OF COURSE THEY’RE LIES! TOTAL FABRICATIONS! TOTAL FABRICATIONS!

Or this (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/alexjonesvilifiesthefdnyandlarrysilverst).

Alex Jones’ PrisonPlanet.com:
Silverstein, FDNY Decided to “Pull WTC 7”

Alex Jones’ Infowars.com:
“World Trade Center Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY And Others”

Alex Jones’ Infowars.com:

“Update: People Died in WTC 7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY Guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter

[Revolutionary91]

Unlikely they will Rev...the snake oil salesmen are much to slick to put such a comment out in the open, but they have IMPLIED it, Implied complicity through foreknowledge, complicity through accusations of lieing about passenger body parts, and plane debris.

SO go Hoot Hoot, now, claim victory over the first responder who wrote the OP, go ahead you 15 year old boy. The same first responder who would run into a burning building to save you and not think twice about it.

TAM:)


Ah good old age based ad homs and classic appeals to emotion. Never seen that before.

Do you have any examples of CTs implying that the NYPD, PAPD or FDNY are murderers?

[HyJinX]

Click the link above you

[T.A.M.]

Ah good old age based ad homs and classic appeals to emotion. Never seen that before.

Do you have any examples of CTs implying that the NYPD, PAPD or FDNY are murderers?

There was no ad hom in there, just an indirect insult.

Did you read the first line, where I said you will likely not find any? Did you read Viper's post and go to the link...I did.

Keep up.

TAM:)

Oh and incidently, given 90% of your posts the last 5 days have been insults, or curt remarks of no value and of no point, I wouldnt start throwing stones.

TAM:)

[NYCEMT86]

Can you back this up with some examples?

Prison Planet:

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html



A debate between Abby Scott & Jason Bermas with the famous Jedi Mind Trick...

Jason Bermas: "The firefighters are paid off!" (start video at 9:50)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1287461440043399975&hl=en-CA



"Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If JFK were alive today he'd say something like this about Conspiracists & Troofers:

"A child miseducated is a child lost."
John F. Kennedy

[Viper Daimao]

Do you have any examples of CTs implying that the NYPD, PAPD or FDNY are murderers?

I edited my post after you said this. So please go up there to see examples of Alex Jones doing just that.

[Calcas]

Rev - Do you or do you not believe that any one of those agencies were involved in either the planning, execution or cover-up of 9/11?
I'm waiting for Rev to answer this question but I don't think he will. He knows that if he says "yes" the implication is that he is also accusing them of murder.

You see Johnathon, you don't have to say "you're a murderer" directly to say that someone is guilty of, at least, conspiracy to commit murder.

[Revolutionary91]

Prison Planet:

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html



A debate between Abby Scott & Jason Bermas with the famous Jedi Mind Trick...

Jason Bermas: "The firefighters are paid off!" (start video at 9:50)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1287461440043399975&hl=en-CA



"Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html


2 problems:

Building 7 had no people die in the collapse so it doesn't involve murder.

You also said NYPD and PAPD in your opening post. Do you have examples for those? If not, will you retract your statement.

[Alt+F4]

Wrong. He did not call them murderers, he said they were paid to keep silent. He later retracted it.

Well then why don't you explain to us how any of those three buildings could have been rigged for demolition without the complicity of at least the Port Authority Police Department?

I'm also an employee of The City of New York, so that "just following orders" crap isn't going to cut it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Building 7 had no people die in the collapse so it doesn't involve murder.


Then why bring up WTC7 in the first place?

[kookbreaker]

Just as I thought. Noone can provide examples of CTs calling NYPD, PAPD and FDNY murderers.

Not directly, no. That's not what troofers do. They never accuse anyone specific except the most public of targets (President and V.P). Everyone else is merely 'in on it' to some unspecified level, or is 'covering up', or some other nonsense. Its carefully chosen weasel-wording.

Take for example, WTC7. I've been told straight up by troofers that WTC7 is the keystone for ther arguements. If WTC7 can be proven to be done by CD, then by extension we have to suspect the collapses of WTC1 & 2*. Troofers then give me their (false) arguements as to why WTC7 'had to be' done by CD: The fires were small, a team of demolition ninjas could have gotten in, the damage wasn't too bad.

Over and over the counterarguements to these claims are the comments from firefighters. Dozens of them saying that WTC7 did not have small fires but was blazing away. It was not 'slightly damaged', it had a huge hole in its side. A team of demolitionists would have to sneak past the firefighters and other officials to get into the burning WTC7 to plant their charges (!).In addition, there are videos and written accounts of regular firefighters saying that WTC7 was going to be coming down.

The troofer reaction to this? Its usually avoidance and a return to 'It looks like CD!! WAAH!' or some kind of handwaving saying that the firefighters were wrong. One or two accounts of the fire I could see possibly wrong or overstated, but all of them?

These accounts should at least turn people away from their claims about WTC7, but they keep on making them!

So, how do they rationalize that? The only way a mind can 'rationalize' these contradicitons is to say that the Firefighters are all completely wrong and are willing to remain wrong, or they were all paid off in some fashion.

And if the firefighters were willing to lie about WTC7, by extension they have been lying about 1 & 2. Where many of their comrades died. That means that the firefighters, at a minimum, were willing to lie to cover up the deaths of their comrades. That is aiding and abetting murder.

Even if the troofers never outright say it, they are accusing the officials of murder. No matter who tries to 'shell game', that is the way things are in the troof movement.

And that sucks.













* The exception to this is P'doh's extremely lame and inexplicable 'Noble demolition theory, where the Firefighers quickly rigged the building for demolition to get it out of the way so they could search for their comrades. In addition to a complete lack of evidence, this idea requires that for some reason, the firefighters then decided they weren't going to tell anyone what they were doing.

[T.A.M.]

The truther dogma, by definition, has to involve complicity of the FDNY, PAPD, and NYPD, whether it be extensive, at all ranks, or simply the higher ups. In order for the CD theory to work, At least someone within each of those institutions had to be "in the know".

TAM:)

[kookbreaker]

Wrong. He did not call them murderers, he said they were paid to keep silent. He later retracted it.

Yeah, some retraction:

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/12/message-from-jason-bermas.html

I hold them as heroes in the highest regard, and I truly believe that they were threatened in the aftermath of the event that not only traumatized a country, but still affect their lives deeply to this very day. Many of these men have families, and would do anything to keep them safe. I also believe many of them do not, and can not think the worst of their country. I know it was very difficult for me.

Including cover up the murder of their comrades, eh Bermas? All Bermas did was change 'payoff' to 'threats' to make himself look better. The FDNY are still covering up things in his book.

[kookbreaker]

Incidently, it took Bermas three months to issue that 'retraction'. He thought everything was hunky-dory up until then.

Then, when a debate where this comment might loom over him cmoes up, he decides that he didn't mean what he said on a video his group put up and makes a lame 'apology', blaming 'jedi tricks' for expressing what he really thinks.

[Calcas]

Not directly, no. That's not what troofers do. They never accuse anyone specific except the most public of targets (President and V.P). Everyone else is merely 'in on it' to some unspecified level, or is 'covering up', or some other nonsense. Its carefully chosen weasel-wording.

Take for example, WTC7. I've been told straight up by troofers that WTC7 is the keystone for ther arguements. If WTC7 can be proven to be done by CD, then by extension we have to suspect the collapses of WTC1 & 2*. Troofers then give me their (false) arguements as to why WTC7 'had to be' done by CD: The fires were small, a team of demolition ninjas could have gotten in, the damage wasn't too bad.

Over and over the counterarguements to these claims are the comments from firefighters. Dozens of them saying that WTC7 did not have small fires but was blazing away. It was not 'slightly damaged', it had a huge hole in its side. A team of demolitionists would have to sneak past the firefighters and other officials to get into the burning WTC7 to plant their charges (!).In addition, there are videos and written accounts of regular firefighters saying that WTC7 was going to be coming down.

The troofer reaction to this? Its usually avoidance and a return to 'It looks like CD!! WAAH!' or some kind of handwaving saying that the firefighters were wrong. One or two accounts of the fire I could see possibly wrong or overstated, but all of them?

These accounts should at least turn people away from their claims about WTC7, but they keep on making them!

So, how do they rationalize that? The only way a mind can 'rationalize' these contradicitons is to say that the Firefighters are all completely wrong and are willing to remain wrong, or they were all paid off in some fashion.

And if the firefighters were willing to lie about WTC7, by extension they have been lying about 1 & 2. Where many of their comrades died. That means that the firefighters, at a minimum, were willing to lie to cover up the deaths of their comrades. That is aiding and abetting murder.

Even if the troofers never outright say it, they are accusing the officials of murder. No matter who tries to 'shell game', that is the way things are in the troof movement.

And that sucks.













* The exception to this is P'doh's extremely lame and inexplicable 'Noble demolition theory, where the Firefighers quickly rigged the building for demolition to get it out of the way so they could search for their comrades. In addition to a complete lack of evidence, this idea requires that for some reason, the firefighters then decided they weren't going to tell anyone what they were doing.

Touche. That sums it up perfectly.

Btw, I had never heard that particular loon theory of P'duh's before. Why does it not surprise me?

[Horatius]

2 problems:

Building 7 had no people die in the collapse so it doesn't involve murder.





First Degree Felony Murder (http://www.notguiltynotguilty.com/NewYorkCriminalDefense.html)- A killing that happens during the course of the commission of a felony, even if the death is accidental, will be considered "felony murder" by most states. However, if the killing happens during certain felonies, again determined by state, it will be considered "first degree felony murder". The felonies most often included in this category are arson, robbery, burglary, rape, mayhem and kidnapping.




They would have been involved in a conspiracy that caused the deaths of thousands in WTC1 and 2, even if they were not directly responsible for those deaths. That's exactly the sort of thing "Felony Murder" was intended for.

Therefore, if any members of the FDNY had any knowing role in causing, or covering up, the events of 9/11, they would be guilty of felony murder.

Denying the obvious consequences of your pet theories is disingeneous at best. At least have the guts to stand up for what you allegedly believe in.

[ZENSMACK89]

Well then… So now people who think there should be a real investigation into 9-11 think that first responders are murderers? Where is there evidence that this is a general consensus among anyone? Would these people include the first responders themselves who claim explosions, molten metal, and pressure to keep their mouths shut?

I guess I can make the claim that the reason I hate GT’ers is because they claim there were no explosions, molten metal, or gag orders, thus labeling first responders who claim these things liars.

Should we have an investigation into what’s causing the sickness that’s killing many of them or is that just a CT also? How about the fact that the EPA and Whitman claimed the air was safe to breath? I guess that’s just a CT also?

How dare those CT'ers

[NYCEMT86]

Now? This has been the consensus among many Twoofers. I see you still don't read anything that has been previously posted, maybe you should read the links that have been posted previously in this thread. Where Alex Jones and others have claimed that they are involved with a cover up and are guilty of at least manslaughter.

[Dave Rogers]

Well then… So now people who think there should be a real investigation into 9-11 think that first responders are murderers? Where is there evidence that this is a general consensus among anyone? Would these people include the first responders themselves who claim explosions, molten metal, and pressure to keep their mouths shut?


OK, let's hear your narrative - outline a fully self-consistent scenario in which 9/11 was an inside job, WTC1 and 2 were brought down by explosives, and the PAPD, NYPD and FDNY are not at least accessories after the fact.

Dave

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Well then… So now people who think there should be a real investigation into 9-11 think that first responders are murderers? Where is there evidence that this is a general consensus among anyone? Would these people include the first responders themselves who claim explosions, molten metal, and pressure to keep their mouths shut?

I guess I can make the claim that the reason I hate GT’ers is because they claim there were no explosions, molten metal, or gag orders, thus labeling first responders who claim these things liars.

Should we have an investigation into what’s causing the sickness that’s killing many of them or is that just a CT also? How about the fact that the EPA and Whitman claimed the air was safe to breath? I guess that’s just a CT also?

How dare those CT'ers


Glad you could make it here Zen.

"I guess I can make the claim that the reason I hate GT’ers is because they claim there were no explosions, molten metal, or gag orders, thus labeling first responders who claim these things liars."

There's no evidence to support what you just said. So what you said to me on YouTube is in fact true when I asked you if you were calling the FDNY, NYPD & PAP liars.

[kookbreaker]

Isn't 'Gag order' a trootherism from Jon Gold with zero evidence?

[NYCEMT86]

Isn't 'Gag order' a trootherism from Jon Gold with zero evidence?

That is correct. If there was a gag order, there is so many personal accounts from first responders on the web and in archive newspaper articles that it wouldn't have mattered.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

[T.A.M.]

Well then… So now people who think there should be a real investigation into 9-11 think that first responders are murderers? Where is there evidence that this is a general consensus among anyone? Would these people include the first responders themselves who claim explosions, molten metal, and pressure to keep their mouths shut?

I guess I can make the claim that the reason I hate GT’ers is because they claim there were no explosions, molten metal, or gag orders, thus labeling first responders who claim these things liars.

Should we have an investigation into what’s causing the sickness that’s killing many of them or is that just a CT also? How about the fact that the EPA and Whitman claimed the air was safe to breath? I guess that’s just a CT also?

How dare those CT'ers


So much silliness, so little time.

Of course not every truther believes this, but several have stated, and many many more have implied it. Plus, if you understand who would have to been knowledgable of the "coverup" and allowed it, for the truther allegations to be true, than you realize most truthers imply, through their theories that some people at some level, within all of the NYFD, NYPD, and PAPD had to be involved.

Explosions....sure, please do a youtube search on "transformer explosions" and "aeresol explosions" and "Oxygen canister explosions" for examples of non-explosives that go "boom".

Molten metal - yes a rescuer said they saw molten metal. I would be amazed if some molten aluminum wasnt seen, or even molten copper...

Pressure to keep quiet...please show a source or I will assume this is a baseless lie.

I do not say gag orders didnt exist, I say I have had noone present me with solid proof in the form of written statements of such.

I have just stated a rescuer saw MOLTEN METAL.

I have no doubt that many, many people heard explosions...but not a single bit of evidence of EXPLOSIVES!!!!

Take your air quality stuff elsewhere, as noone here has claimed that the air quality issue is a CT, and this is a CT subforum. Nice try though.

TAM:)

[The Pig]

I guess I can make the claim that the reason I hate GT’ers is because they claim there were no explosions, molten metal, or gag orders, thus labeling first responders who claim these things liars.

Who's claiming the bit I highlighted?

[kookbreaker]

Well then… So now people who think there should be a real investigation into 9-11 think that first responders are murderers? Where is there evidence that this is a general consensus among anyone?

Consensus? Try 'inevitable conclusion'. The most basic of claims by MIHOP CTers require complicity by most of the agencies mentioned here.


Would these people include the first responders themselves who claim explosions, molten metal, and pressure to keep their mouths shut?


I would say they are not lying, but that the CTers have twisted their words beyond the breaking point in order to 'make a case'.


I guess I can make the claim that the reason I hate GT’ers is because they claim there were no explosions, molten metal, or gag orders, thus labeling first responders who claim these things liars.


See above. When a firefighter says there were explosions, that does not mean 'bombs', when someone on the cleanup crew says 'molten metal' that does not mean 'molten steel'. As for the gag order, that is a lie, but not one I have heard from first responders.


Should we have an investigation into what’s causing the sickness that’s killing many of them or is that just a CT also?


Nothing CT about it. Sadly, most of the responders did not wear their masks as they should have. An investigation would tell us little more than we already know.

Read my post here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2434862&postcount=77


How about the fact that the EPA and Whitman claimed the air was safe to breath? I guess that’s just a CT also?


You are mixing two reports. No surprise.


How dare those CT'ers

Yes, they are quite scummy.

[Drudgewire]

It's not a matter of specific examples. There's simply no way that any of the CTs about 9/11 could possibly hold an ounce of water without at least implied complicity either before the demolition, during the critical time period after the blast, or both.

No one has to say "the firemen were involved" when they present boatloads of "evidence" that even in their loopy heads couldn't be possible without law enforcement being accessories to the crime.

[Civilized Worm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

[ref]

Easiest thing to throw at them, when they claim WTC7 is demolition, is really Daniel Nigro. It's actually good to keep it very simple.

If they claim he was lying, they would have someone to blame. This person, Chief of Operations FDNY would be lying. But they never say he is lying, they don't dare. They always say, he didn't lie.

Well, if he didn't lie, here is the main point of what he said (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110154.PDF):

"the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members"

They say Nigro didn't lie, so this statement of his must be true. 7 had been damaged by the collapse, it had very heavy fires on many floors, and evacuation was ordered by HIM. This means pull it is not demolition and demolition didn't happen. Try to get them speak their way though that maze. They never can.

[GregoryUrich]

Jason Bermas has stated as much. On camera.

So your scientific poll has a sample size of 1 person. I'm impressed. In the general population, more than 1/100 is severely psychiatrically disturbed, which could account for any number of opinions on either side.

I am convinced that most truthers have all the repect in the world for the people of the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD. Personally, I am in awe.

There may be alternative interpretations of someone believing that WTC7 was pulled without implicating the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD. The FD could have agreed with Silverstein to let it burn out and not risk any more lives. Then Silverstein could have sent his boom boys to do the dirty work.

Not my personal belief, but not an uncommon truther suspicion.

[Drudgewire]

I am convinced that most truthers have all the repect in the world for the people of the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD. Personally, I am in awe.
They might, but there's simply no conspiracy theory which rectifies that respect with their interpretation of the events of 9/11. Even if that's not the case on the surface, at some point in any theory they had to either be complicit beforehand or willfully ignorant of evidence in front of their faces once they became involved.

As you mentioned, there COULD be a theory that involves them not further risking their own lives. But since that isn't a part of the official story, even then they'd all have to be operating under a code of silence that keeps those orders from becoming public knowledge. Hence, they're still liars who are covering things up for their NWO puppetmasters.

[MarkyX]

The FD could have agreed with Silverstein to let it burn out and not risk any more lives. Then Silverstein could have sent his boom boys to do the dirty work.


So the NYFD is part of a failed insurance scandal now?

[kookbreaker]

I am convinced that most truthers have all the repect in the world for the people of the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD.


Which is why the truthers are always trying to steal the spotlight and make themselves into the heroes of the 911 story.

[T.A.M.]

So your scientific poll has a sample size of 1 person. I'm impressed. In the general population, more than 1/100 is severely psychiatrically disturbed, which could account for any number of opinions on either side.

I am convinced that most truthers have all the repect in the world for the people of the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD. Personally, I am in awe.

There may be alternative interpretations of someone believing that WTC7 was pulled without implicating the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD. The FD could have agreed with Silverstein to let it burn out and not risk any more lives. Then Silverstein could have sent his boom boys to do the dirty work.

Not my personal belief, but not an uncommon truther suspicion.


You make it sound like a couple of Seals with some C4 could bring it down...only possible in the TMF (truther "matrix" fantasy).

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

boom boys



ROFL

On a serious note, I have heard several truthers, not just pdoh, putting forward the humanitarian demolition hypothesis.

[twinstead]

I am convinced that most truthers have all the repect in the world for the people of the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD. Personally, I am in awe.



I am convinced that most truthers have absolutely NO concept that their allegations have any implications whatsoever. According to them, they are accusing 'The Government' of the deed.

To them it is a single, monolithic entity. The fact it is made up of individuals just like them is lost on them.

[danielk]

The FD could have agreed with Silverstein to let it burn out and not risk any more lives. Then Silverstein could have sent his boom boys to do the dirty work.

Well, but the funny thing is that, if you subscribe to this explanation, the "evidence" of Silverstein's alleged order to demolish the building doesn't make sense anymore. Surely cognitive dissonance must be fun.

[Arus808]

wha? Do you have everyone here on ignore?

Try this (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ny911truth.orgmembersdisparagethefdnyatg).



Or this (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/alexjonesvilifiesthefdnyandlarrysilverst).


the exact link to Alex Jones' article:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html

Update: People Died in WTC 7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY Guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter

[Drudgewire]

the exact link to Alex Jones' article:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html

Update: People Died in WTC 7
:jaw-dropp

[DGM]

ROFL

On a serious note, I have heard several truthers, not just pdoh, putting forward the humanitarian demolition hypothesis.
I have too. But that leads to the question, why cover it up it would not have been illegal.

I think I'm on ignore, If someone wouldn't mind a quote.

[Civilized Worm]

That's brilliant, not only does he accuse them of murder, he accuses them of a murder that DIDN'T HAPPEN.


ROFL

On a serious note, I have heard several truthers, not just pdoh, putting forward the humanitarian demolition hypothesis.


And yet you haven't heard anyone suggest NYFD involvement?

[PhantomWolf]

It's always fun watching the CTs squirm on this issue. Most of them change Silverstein's quote to "And I made that decision to pull" as well as if they can put all the blame on him instead of the FDNY with the real quote "And they made that decision to pull".

Even the idea that somehow the FDNY managed to sneak in several truck loads of explosives, rig a heavily burning building (The firemen claim it was heavily burning, are they lying?) that was unstable (Are the firemen lying?) leaning over (Again are they lying?) and likely to collapse on them at any point (Their words again) all for humanitarian reasons, drop the building on it's neighbours, damaging serveral so badly that they had to be demolished themselves, and then cover it all up is totally ludicous. But then so are the claims that the Firemen are knowing helping coverup the CD of WTC 7 because if they admited that WTC 7 was CD'ed people would realise that WTC 1 & 2 were. If that was true, then every single fireman would know that 1 & 2 were CDs and as such that 535 of their brothers were murdered by the people they are protecting. That's accessory to Murder.

As for the PAPD, they were incharge of the security and checking the building for explosives. No one could possible have rigged the WTC 1 & 2 without their knowledge and co-operation, period.

[stateofgrace]

Here in lies the great contradiction for the twoofer on one hand they could not possibly accuse those that were at GZ at the time of being involved but on the other hand their theories fail because everybody at GZ totally contradicts their theories.

The twoofers will never admit this, they will continue to pretend that they are the good guys and they only are after justice, world peace and whatever self righteous stuff that springs to mind when they post their nonsense

Reality is that their big smoking gun, WTC 7 must involve the fire fighters, it must involve everybody that was there and have stated the building was on fire, full on, it was badly damaged, it was in danger of collapsing. But in twoofy land all this is irrelevant because the building looking as though it was a CD, so it must have been.

In reality none of their theories work at all unless they call those that were there liars, maybe even go as far as to suggest they were just carrying out orders. Ultimately there is not a single demolition of WTC 7 theory that holds water unless the fire fighters were involved.

Their Guru Griffin says so.
There is, in any case,only one theory that explains both the nature and the expectation of the collapse of building 7: Explosives had been set, and someone who knew this spread the word to the fire chiefs.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

[pomeroo]

Just as I thought. Noone can provide examples of CTs calling NYPD, PAPD and FDNY murderers.


Just as I thought. You're still running from my demonstration that your imaginary conspiracy is mathematically impossible. It's the albatross around your neck, kid. Thousands of people, all of them knowing the "truth," and NOBODY says a word.

I briefly thought that I might have made you think, but your prospects are looking dim.

[pomeroo]

So your scientific poll has a sample size of 1 person. I'm impressed. In the general population, more than 1/100 is severely psychiatrically disturbed, which could account for any number of opinions on either side.

I am convinced that most truthers have all the repect in the world for the people of the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD. Personally, I am in awe.

There may be alternative interpretations of someone believing that WTC7 was pulled without implicating the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD. The FD could have agreed with Silverstein to let it burn out and not risk any more lives. Then Silverstein could have sent his boom boys to do the dirty work.

Not my personal belief, but not an uncommon truther suspicion.


What is your personal belief, as a twoofer, about Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" comment? I have contacted, at last count, fourteen demolition companies in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. All of them insist that "pull it" is NOT industry slang for "blow up the building."

Are they part of your mathematically-impossible conspiracy? Are they lying? Is it long past time for the fantasists to abandon this thoroughly debunked canard?

[jberryhill]

abandon this thoroughly debunked canard

http://www.bienmanger.com/images/genre/351_Foie_Gras_Canard_Entier.jpg

[ZENSMACK89]

What's my narrative? There's been no real complete investigation into 9-11 and anyone who thinks there shouldn't be further investigation is wrong.

GT'ers claim truthers are calling first responders murderers but it doesn't work the other way around when those same first responders talk of secondary explosions, molten metal, pressure to keep quiet, and anything else that doesn’t fit into the official version? Who's doing the twisting of words?

Whitman was appointed by Dubya as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. But I'm mixing up two different reports? How's that?

'Inevitable conclusion' only if you're short sighted. Which isn't hard to imagine.

Why does everyone necessarily have to be "in on it" in a CT theory? Was every single terrorist in al-Queda in on the hijackings with first hand knowledge according to the official Gov CT?

I find the bare assertions and claims of some here hilarious. Got anything else?

[T.A.M.]

What's my narrative? There's been no real complete investigation into 9-11 and anyone who thinks there shouldn't be further investigation is wrong.

personal opinion...worthless.


GT'ers claim truthers are calling first responders murderers but it doesn't work the other way around when those same first responders talk of secondary explosions, molten metal, pressure to keep quiet, and anything else that doesn’t fit into the official version? Who's doing the twisting of words?


Please see my comment to this very same arguement you made a few posts above, since you seemed to either not read it, or pay it no mind.


Whitman was appointed by Dubya as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. But I'm mixing up two different reports? How's that?

Irrelavent to me, as i do not contest the argument that frist responders suffered illness due to the dust in the air at GZ.


'Inevitable conclusion' only if you're short sighted. Which isn't hard to imagine.


Personal insult...useless.


Why does everyone necessarily have to be "in on it" in a CT theory? Was every single terrorist in al-Queda in on the hijackings with first hand knowledge according to the official Gov CT?

Not every person, but a certain number of people (and no, not just one or two higher ups, not all organizations work like the military) in all of those organizations mentioned.


I find the bare assertions and claims of some here hilarious. Got anything else?

Only more truth, but I can see that doesnt interest you....

Next!

TAM:)

[johnny karate]

ZENSMACK89, you seem incredulous to the idea that a CD theory, or any "inside job" theory for that matter, doesn't automatically imply the involvement of the NYPD, NYFD, and PAPD.

Please provide a detailed explanation how any inside job could have been pulled off without the involvement or knowledge (either before, during, or after the fact) of members of these three organizations.

I anxiously await your reply.

[NYCEMT86]

johnny karate, ThereIsNoConspiracy and myself have been waiting for his detailed explanation of his theory on 9/11 was pulled off since late April.

[Mince]

Why I despise truthers:

Because this poster and this post are fairly representative of their <cough> <cough> movement...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2843069&postcount=220

[beachnut]

What's my narrative? There's been no real complete investigation into 9-11 and anyone who thinks there shouldn't be further investigation is wrong.

GT'ers claim truthers are calling first responders murderers but it doesn't work the other way around when those same first responders talk of secondary explosions, molten metal, pressure to keep quiet, and anything else that doesn’t fit into the official version? Who's doing the twisting of words?

Whitman was appointed by Dubya as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. But I'm mixing up two different reports? How's that?

'Inevitable conclusion' only if you're short sighted. Which isn't hard to imagine.

Why does everyone necessarily have to be "in on it" in a CT theory? Was every single terrorist in al-Queda in on the hijackings with first hand knowledge according to the official Gov CT?

I find the bare assertions and claims of some here hilarious. Got anything else?
Glad to see you are a standard no fact truther. If you had some facts you would present them. Do not strain yourself trying to find any facts in the 9/11 truth movement, they do not have facts to support their ideas on 9/11. Most truthers are insensitive fools unable to think for themselves. If you need to find some facts on why the entire 9/11 truth movement is false, just see the links that you will never use. Welcome to where truthers come to not present facts and evidence to support 9/11 truth movement conclusions. Go ahead pick your pet theory to present. No facts, not even a clue.

[beachnut]

So your scientific poll has a sample size of 1 person. I'm impressed. In the general population, more than 1/100 is severely psychiatrically disturbed, which could account for any number of opinions on either side.

I am convinced that most truthers have all the repect in the world for the people of the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD. Personally, I am in awe.

There may be alternative interpretations of someone believing that WTC7 was pulled without implicating the NYPD, NYFD and PAPD. The FD could have agreed with Silverstein to let it burn out and not risk any more lives. Then Silverstein could have sent his boom boys to do the dirty work.

Not my personal belief, but not an uncommon truther suspicion.
No, you truthers are the most disrespectful people in the world. You make up false conclusion based on no facts and pass it along. You have signed up with others to push this agenda of ignorance.

Even more disturbing is so called engineers and scientist claiming the standard lies of 9/11 truth. Those people should have the ability to solve 9/11 with facts, but like you they pass on the lies of 9/11. Yes they are lies now that you persist without facts to support even one of your ideas on 9/11. At least you engineers who support 9/11 are only 0.00067 percent or less of all engineers. So I have to get over the facts a few idiots are in my profession, both of my professions.

[kookbreaker]

What's my narrative? There's been no real complete investigation into 9-11 and anyone who thinks there shouldn't be further investigation is wrong.

That's not a narrative. That's not even decent criticism. Next.


GT'ers claim truthers are calling first responders murderers but it doesn't work the other way around when those same first responders talk of secondary explosions, molten metal, pressure to keep quiet, and anything else that doesn’t fit into the official version? Who's doing the twisting of words?

We've already covered this. The FRs made comments and the troothers twisted them. Repeating your claim is not a counterarguement. Next.


Whitman was appointed by Dubya as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. But I'm mixing up two different reports? How's that?


There were two reports (at a minimum) issued from the EPA. One concerned the immediate section of ground zero and the other was for the immediate area. The one in ground zero stated some very well known problems and told people to wear their masks!

The other one, often cited by troofers, concerned the area around Ground Zero, where the EPA was much too optimistic about the air quality. They did this probably due to pressure from Bush, but also from the Wall Street folks and much of Manhattan wanting part of its city back. Either way, bad EPA.

But the EPA did warn workers at Ground Zero about the air quality they were facing and told them to wear their masks. Some say they should have put more pressure on the supervisors, but in either case the warnings were there.

But look at any photo of ground zero workers. You will see they are rarely wearing their masks. Very often, many of them have their masks off so they could smoke.

You tossed up this issueissue because you claimed that GZ workers were having problems. That is true. But you implied Bush told them it was OK via the EPA. That is where you are mixing up the EPA studies. In essence, what you end up doing is blaming Bush for not coming down the Ground Zero and shoving a mask on every worker.

As my friend put it, 'You'd think when they see that the EPA agent never takes his mask off while in the pit, they'd get the message no matter what anyone said'.

Its a tragedy, yes. Bush's fault? That's a stretch.


'Inevitable conclusion' only if you're short sighted. Which isn't hard to imagine.

Why does everyone necessarily have to be "in on it" in a CT theory? Was every single terrorist in al-Queda in on the hijackings with first hand knowledge according to the official Gov CT?


I have no idea what you are referencing here. You should learn to use the 'quote' feature. I doubt your response is anything effective, however.


I find the bare assertions and claims of some here hilarious. Got anything else?

Look who's talking.

[PhantomWolf]

GT'ers claim truthers are calling first responders murderers but it doesn't work the other way around when those same first responders talk of secondary explosions, molten metal, pressure to keep quiet, and anything else that doesn’t fit into the official version? Who's doing the twisting of words?

Let's check shall we?

secondary explosions

Loud explosion like sounds in a raging fire? nah, why would there be those, I mean itr's not like there could be everyday office and buildings things that might go boom in a fire, you know, aerosol cans, transformers, capacitors, fire-extinushers, steel plates and beams, even smoke itself. Show me were any Debuker has said that there were no explosion like sounds in the WTC towers? The only thing I have seen is the pointing out that explosion like sounds do not equal explosives. Next...

molten metal

Show me were any debunker has denied the presence of motel metal? Show me where any person has been able to prove the existance of molten Steel. Two totally different things here. Not all metal is steel. Molten Aluminium, Lead, Copper, Tin, Zinc, all of these are metals that become molten before Steel does. All of those could have been present in the WTC buildings, some in very large amounts. Next...

pressure to keep quiet

Evidence of this happening? Seems to me that the FR's have done a huge amount of discussing what they saw and did on that day. Who exactly is being told to keep quiet? Certainly not the FDYN, NYPD, or PAPD. What else do you have?

[LashL]

<snip>It was only in April when I started researching more into the truth movement to better understand what their "evidence" is. As most of you have come to the same conclusion as I have, they are full of [rule8].

Nice post. Nomination worthy, even. :)

But since I'm late to this thread, I will address only the latter parts of your post and the subsequent posts in this thread, as the early parts have already been addressed most eloquently by others.

The current anklebiters are just children with too much time on their hands and too little parental supervision, during their summer break from school.

It appears that, unlike most of their peers, the current crop of troofers do not have the advantages that most kids have, and they have defaulted into becoming tinhatters in order to "belong" somewhere - anywhere - and the twoof movement is the only place they were welcomed.

It is sad, really.

But it is also understandable how such vulnerable kids get sucked into cults such as the twoof movement.

[sts60]

I don't have a problem with the general notion that there could have been explosives planted in WTC buildings. The idea that they were actually prepared for explosive demolition is ludicrous, but the use of secondary devices to cause panic, impede evacuation, and harm first responders is a well-known terrorist tactic. [ AFAIK, there's no evidence for such secondary devices, but it wouldn't shock me if such evidence was uncovered. That would also mean there were other accomplices, still unaccounted-for. ]

As for truthers on record with claims about first responders, I've already mentioned one on apollohoax (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com) who claimed all the cops and firefighters at the Pentagon were in on it.

[T.A.M.]

I don't have a problem with the general notion that there could have been explosives planted in WTC buildings. The idea that they were actually prepared for explosive demolition is ludicrous, but the use of secondary devices to cause panic, impede evacuation, and harm first responders is a well-known terrorist tactic. [ AFAIK, there's no evidence for such secondary devices, but it wouldn't shock me if such evidence was uncovered. That would also mean there were other accomplices, still unaccounted-for. ]

As for truthers on record with claims about first responders, I've already mentioned one on apollohoax (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com) who claimed all the cops and firefighters at the Pentagon were in on it.

Sts60:

What is your rationale, that allows you to accept the notion of PREPLANTED explosives in the WTCs? I can see an arguement to be made that explosive materials may have been stored in the building, but I would like to hear your explanation behind why you feel there might have been PREPLANTED explosives in the buildings, and their purpose there.

Thanks

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

So the NYFD is part of a failed insurance scandal now?

No. They were just saving lives.

[ZENSMACK89]

I rest my case on bare assertions with use of the word “NEXT” from some people. As if they can assert when a debate is over when they haven’t even responded with any legitimate points. The jump to protect Bush from any responsibility is really telling considering it was never implied in the first place. Who implied that Whitman and the EPA were two different things…. me?

Sts60 makes a very good point about secondary devices a known terrorist tactic. No one has ever wanted to investigate that though. Opening that can of worms will serve no one involved. Bombs are exactly what the building security was supposed to prevent after 93. I’m sure there were even security measures that had to be met to re-insure the buildings after 93. The plane only theory makes it no fault. This not only frees those involved with security of accountability but it also makes for an easier insurance payout which turned out not to be easy anyway even with the plane only theory.

I’m not experienced on JREF or any other forum for that matter. No I don’t know how to use the quote feature or many of the other features other then to post but I’ll figure it out when I have time. Besides I’m really responding to ALL GT’ist here. What’s the difference between any of you?

When Thomas Kean head of the 9-11 commission claims they were stonewalled, under funded, and the report they handed in was incomplete at best then how is that good enough for anyone?

When FEMA finds rapid corrosion of steel from the WTC caused by intense heat and calls it an unknown phenomenon that needs further investigation but no one ever performs that investigation how is that good enough for anyone?

When the NIST hands in a 20,000 page report on everything from Emergency response and evacuation procedures but stop short of the collapse itself only offering up a computer model theory of “collapse initiation” how is that an explanation?

Now for people here who have proclaimed to be the protectors of the first responders I’m curious to know did the FR’s know their job and were they experienced or not? What about the explosions they heard in the towers were different then hundreds of other fires they’ve been involved with before? How about a firefighter who claims the fire in the impact zone can be put out with two lines but then that fire triggers the entire building to fall down? Are you claiming he didn’t know what he was talking about? Did he not suspect the possibility of a collapse? Was the hero mistaken or worse yet lying?

Shame on you.

[GregoryUrich]

I am convinced that most truthers have absolutely NO concept that their allegations have any implications whatsoever. According to them, they are accusing 'The Government' of the deed.

To them it is a single, monolithic entity. The fact it is made up of individuals just like them is lost on them.

Truthers question the official story becauses it has so many things that don't add up. Yes there are some who think there was a big conspiracy involving the government. Some times innocent people are accused of crimes when the evidence is not clear. That does not in any way remove the responsibility of the government for investigating fully.

You paint a black and white picture of people who are all shades of gray. Most truthers, poppy-cock! We haven't even heard what most truthers think or believe, which was the point of my post.

[johnny karate]

ZENSMACK89, you seem to have a penchant for avoiding questions with rhetoric and more questions. I posted this previously, perhaps you missed it:

You seem incredulous to the idea that a CD theory, or any "inside job" theory for that matter, doesn't automatically imply the involvement of the NYPD, NYFD, and PAPD.

Please provide a detailed explanation how any inside job could have been pulled off without the involvement or knowledge (either before, during, or after the fact) of members of these three organizations.

I anxiously await your reply.

Edit: GregoryUrich, please feel free to respond as well.

[Dave Rogers]

When FEMA finds rapid corrosion of steel from the WTC caused by intense heat and calls it an unknown phenomenon that needs further investigation but no one ever performs that investigation how is that good enough for anyone?


Here are a few links to the results of the investigation that no one ever performed.

http://www.abmbrasil.com.br/cim/download/Vander_Voort.pps#256,1,Microstructural Analysis of Steel from the World Trade Center Buildings 7, & 1 or 2

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759

http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/News/seminars3.html

Dave

[twinstead]

Truthers question the official story becauses it has so many things that don't add up. Yes there are some who think there was a big conspiracy involving the government. Some times innocent people are accused of crimes when the evidence is not clear. That does not in any way remove the responsibility of the government for investigating fully.

You paint a black and white picture of people who are all shades of gray. Most truthers, poppy-cock! We haven't even heard what most truthers think or believe, which was the point of my post.

Well, perhaps I generalize, but frankly it can go both ways. Personally, I'm sick and tired of implications that we are all non-thinking US government drones because we don't think there is enough evidence for a 'new investigation'.

It is as if it is totally impossible for somebody to intelligently look at ALL the evidence and still think the 'official story', while not perfect, makes the most sense, and until a better theory comes along (hint: I don't consider CD a better theory) is 'the truth' as much as the truth can be known.

[ZENSMACK89]

I never claimed first responder were murderers. That was put out on this post by a GT’ist as a straw man argument. It’s like you make up your own argument and then debate it. What good is it?

Just reading and listening to the eyewitness accounts the morning of 9-11 and then to see how those accounts stopped or changed later speaks volumes as to people being shut-up. Being told not to talk about something by people who hold your job and your pension in their hand is a powerful tool. I don’t think it’s unrealistic.

It also seems to be the claim that the reason CT’ist are calling first responders murderers is because the first responders would have had before hand knowledge of WTC7 if it was demoed. Did people die when WTC7 came down at around 5:00 pm on 9-11? Was there really murder in regards to WTC7?

Again these were not my claims.

Now how about answering some of my questions. How is any official version to date good enough for anyone? How does anyone who endorses incomplete investigations supporting the truth, the first responders, or the families of 9-11 victims?

[Alt+F4]

The current anklebiters are just children with too much time on their hands and too little parental supervision, during their summer break from school.

It appears that, unlike most of their peers, the current crop of troofers do not have the advantages that most kids have, and they have defaulted into becoming tinhatters in order to "belong" somewhere - anywhere - and the twoof movement is the only place they were welcomed.

It is sad, really.

But it is also understandable how such vulnerable kids get sucked into cults such as the twoof movement.

It's creepy too. On the Loose Change forum one of the teens who regularly posts there mentioned that a "prominent truther" gave him his phone number and asked him to call. Thankfully, his parents wouldn't allow it.

[sts60]

Sts60:

What is your rationale, that allows you to accept the notion of PREPLANTED explosives in the WTCs? I can see an arguement to be made that explosive materials may have been stored in the building, but I would like to hear your explanation behind why you feel there might have been PREPLANTED explosives in the buildings, and their purpose there.

Thanks

TAM:)
Simply that the use of secondary explosives, timed or otherwise triggered to go off when first responders, evacuees, bystanders, and impromptu civilian rescuers are jamming the scene, is a well-known terrorist tactic. I find it plausible that terrorists might have added such devices to their planes-as-weapons plan. They would have a pretty large time window to set the devices off, since the evacuation and firefighting efforts would take a long time. They could have taken advantage of the chaos to bring such devices in after the impacts, thus avoiding normal building security.

I'm not sure on what you mean by "preplanted" vs. "stored". I sort of envision the former as a timed device, and the latter as a device left for someone else to come in later and use, but you'll have to clue me in on your meaning. Either way, though, I can imagine that explosives were somehow brought in before the event, if a good way to get them through security was found, or after the impacts as mentioned above. Terrorists smart enough to plan and execute the plane hijackings would have been smart enough to figure out an approximate impact time to use timers, or could have set them off directly. (Of course, the longer such devices were in place, the greater the possibility they would have been discovered ahead of time.)

Now, I accept this notion in the abstract. AFAIK, there is no good evidence for such devices, nor the extra terrorists that would have been involved. And there are lots of plausible explanations for other, non-bomb, sources of explosions and events that sounded like explosions. In the absence of any evidence for such bombs, I'm not claiming they exist. I'm merely pointing out they would be consistent with the terrorists' aims and tactics. I would also stress that such devices are antipersonnel in nature and have nothing to do with alleged "demolitions".

[Alt+F4]

Just reading and listening to the eyewitness accounts the morning of 9-11 and then to see how those accounts stopped or changed later speaks volumes as to people being shut-up. Being told not to talk about something by people who hold your job and your pension in their hand is a powerful tool. I don’t think it’s unrealistic.

You are disgraceful. How dare you say that ANY employee of The City of New York would put his or her lousy pension ahead of the investigation of the murder of their co-workers, friends and/or loved ones.

[twinstead]

Just reading and listening to the eyewitness accounts the morning of 9-11 and then to see how those accounts stopped or changed later speaks volumes as to people being shut-up. Being told not to talk about something by people who hold your job and your pension in their hand is a powerful tool. I don’t think it’s unrealistic.


First off, give some examples of eyewitness accounts changing in such a manner to make somebody suspect they were 'talked to', because I think that's BS. Also, it IS totally unrealistic to think that there is nobody who will risk their livelihood or even their lives to bring mass murderers to justice.

The world's history is FULL of people who have done just that. How many mob witnesses have come forward even though they are target number 1? And this isn't a Mafia Don we are talking about. This is murder on a massive scale by ones own government.

At the very least it is simply a cynical outlook, at worst you are insulting a whole lot of people.

[Drudgewire]

You are disgraceful. How dare you say that ANY employee of The City of New York would put his or her lousy pension ahead of the investigation of the murder of their co-workers, friends and/or loved ones.
Not just "any," but EVERY ONE of them except for the scattered very few who can offer nothing more than their opinion on what they think might have happened.

[Viper Daimao]

I never claimed first responder were murderers. That was put out on this post by a GT’ist as a straw man argument. It’s like you make up your own argument and then debate it. What good is it?

Just reading and listening to the eyewitness accounts the morning of 9-11 and then to see how those accounts stopped or changed later speaks volumes as to people being shut-up. Being told not to talk about something by people who hold your job and your pension in their hand is a powerful tool. I don’t think it’s unrealistic.

It also seems to be the claim that the reason CT’ist are calling first responders murderers is because the first responders would have had before hand knowledge of WTC7 if it was demoed. Did people die when WTC7 came down at around 5:00 pm on 9-11? Was there really murder in regards to WTC7?

Again these were not my claims.

Now how about answering some of my questions. How is any official version to date good enough for anyone? How does anyone who endorses incomplete investigations supporting the truth, the first responders, or the families of 9-11 victims?

I don't think you're thinking this through. We're saying no controlled demolition theory makes sense unless there is compliance from the first responders. For instance, who put all the plane wreackage and dna evidence at the pentagon? Who put the dna evidence at the WTC and flight 93 crash site? How did none of the first responders (NYPD, NYFD, ect.) notice?

And you seem to be saying that they were in on WTC7 but since no one died in WTC7, no one is calling them murderers. But how can you be "in on" WTC7 and not the rest? or at least not be suspicious of the rest? Conspiracy theorists always say if WTC was controlled demo, then WTC1&2 must have also, so doesn't it follow if NYFD and PD were in on WTC7, they were in on WTC1&2?

We're asking conspiracy theorists to explain how FD was no in on it, given their claims. Especially how Alex Jones have called them murderers and liars as pointed out here with direct links.

[Belz...]

Well then… So now people who think there should be a real investigation into 9-11 think that first responders are murderers?

Accessories, at best.

I guess I can make the claim that the reason I hate GT’ers is because they claim there were no explosions, molten metal, or gag orders, thus labeling first responders who claim these things liars.

There's simply no evidence for those.

How dare those CT'ers

Indeed, how dare ?

[Belz...]

What's my narrative? There's been no real complete investigation into 9-11 that agrees with me

Corrected that for you.

GT'ers

What the hell's a GT'er ?

'Inevitable conclusion' only if you're short sighted. Which isn't hard to imagine.

Sweet. Insults are arguments.

Why does everyone necessarily have to be "in on it" in a CT theory?

Think about it. Really.

Was every single terrorist in al-Queda in on the hijackings with first hand knowledge according to the official Gov CT?

Not every single terrorist in al-Quaeda needed that information in order for the attacks to occur.

[Belz...]

The jump to protect Bush from any responsibility is really telling considering it was never implied in the first place.

Protect ? Why is the world so black and white to you ?

Sts60 makes a very good point about secondary devices a known terrorist tactic. No one has ever wanted to investigate that though.

Might have something to do with the fact that there were no explosions.

The plane only theory makes it no fault.

Why would terrorists place explosives in 7 WTC ? They were aiming for 1 and 2.

Besides I’m really responding to ALL GT’ist here. What’s the difference between any of you?

Again, the truther is simplifying reality in order to wrap his brain around it. Typical.

Again these were not my claims.

Well, isn't that convenient ? You're "just asking questions", right ?

[NYCEMT86]

You are disgraceful. How dare you say that ANY employee of The City of New York would put his or her lousy pension ahead of the investigation of the murder of their co-workers, friends and/or loved ones.

Agreed


This whole following orders as Alt+F4 has posted before is a bunch of ****. Its about the love of the job, not the money...not the pension.


Side Note:
There are better words than lousy to describe the pension...but it works for now :D

[mjd1982]

I make a point of reminding various loons that theirs is an "evil" movement. The sheer rock-headed stupidity is the first twoofer characteristic most observers notice, but all the irrationality and dishonesty is in the service of pure evil.
Sorry, how do I get that dog laughing emoticon?

[mjd1982]

Just on the point of "twisting" (or ignoring) testimony, wondered if any OTers would like to comment on the 6/7 testimonies in this vid?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

Get ready for silence...

[DGM]

Just on the point of "twisting" (or ignoring) testimony, wondered if any OTers would like to comment on the 6/7 testimonies in this vid?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

Get ready for silence...
Starts off bad saying it collapsed in under 7 seconds. Why do truthers feel the need to lie so much? This ones obvious.

[ZENSMACK89]

I never even implied First Responders were murderers that was the job of the person who put up this thread. I also didn’t imply they were inexperienced or stupid for not wearing their masks at ground zero or not realizing the buildings might collapse from structural damage to a few floors and pockets of fire. This is all done by Government Theory holders who seem to know better then everyone on everything by simply asserting that they know better. I also never claimed that NO ONE has come forward. There just seems to be some GT excuse for every account that doesn’t support the official version.

Here are a few emergency responders who spoke of explosions at least once. Although I’m sure they've all been covered before. Now you great defenders of the First Responder can tell me how they are lying, inexperienced and mistaken, or have since changed their story.

Craig Bartmer
Paul Isaac Jr
Louie Cacchioli
Albert Turi
Frank Cruthers
Karin Deshore
Brian Dixon
Neil Sweeting

Now careful how you respond about 9-11 hero’s. That is what this thread is supposed to be about… right? You wouldn’t want anyone to despise you now.

[Alt+F4]

They heard explosions. So what?

[danielk]

Just on the point of "twisting" (or ignoring) testimony, wondered if any OTers would like to comment on the 6/7 testimonies in this vid?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

Get ready for silence...

There was one who claimed "I know an explosion when I hear it" but who didn't actually see it either. And one woman who thought she might have heard something about the buildings being "brought" down. Then lots of old canards like the out-of-context Silverstein quote. Oh and the Russian guy on TV who at first didn't know it was about 9/11 and thus wasn't aware that the building was badly damaged by debris from the Twin Towers.

So... all you have are carefully hand-selected quotes of witnesses and experts which are utterly vague and are contradicted by the statements of myriads of other witnesses and experts. And that's assuming the video didn't deliberately misconstrue their statements. Oh, and the argument from incredulity, false claims and inappropriate music thrown in for good measure. Good luck with your revolution.

[SpitfireIX]

Just on the point of "twisting" (or ignoring) testimony, wondered if any OTers would like to comment on the 6/7 testimonies in this vid?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

Get ready for silence...


The above shows just how deluded you are about people who don't subscribe to your interpretation of The TruthTM mjd.

Bartmer's story has already been dealt with in the following thread and elsewhere:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67361

[twinstead]

Now careful how you respond about 9-11 hero’s. That is what this thread is supposed to be about… right? You wouldn’t want anyone to despise you now.

There are probably 10 times, or more, as many people who reported hearing NO explosions at all. Real investigators understand that not all witnesses remember things properly, some forget, some were stressed out, in ANY investigation of a large event with many witnesses there are ALWAYS a minority of witnesses who misinterpret what they hear or see, or frankly just remember it wrong.

I repeat. Real investigators understand that. Real investigators use the preponderance of eye witness accounts coupled with corroborating physical evidence if possible to come to a conclusion.

That's not calling people liars. It's conducting a through and professional investigation.

Since the preponderance of physical evidence and eye witness accounts actually support the official story, the only way to reconcile that if you are a conspiracy theorist is to imply that the evidence is planted, or the witnesses are lying. At the very least the witnesses have to be discredited.

We need do no such thing; it's normal, and expected as a matter of fact, to have a small amount of conflicting eye witnesses testimony.

It's two different ways to conduct an investigation.

[leftysergeant]

Simply that the use of secondary explosives, timed or otherwise triggered to go off when first responders, evacuees, bystanders, and impromptu civilian rescuers are jamming the scene, is a well-known terrorist tactic. I find it plausible that terrorists might have added such devices to their planes-as-weapons plan. They would have a pretty large time window to set the devices off, since the evacuation and firefighting efforts would take a long time. They could have taken advantage of the chaos to bring such devices in after the impacts, thus avoiding normal building security.

Not the least bit likely. The fire department was right on the scene. Standard opoerating procedure is not to let anyone return to a building once the fire has started. You get out, you stay out. They can't have untrained civilians getting in their way. In an emergency situation, a trained responder is looking for additional threats to his well-being. Certainly, someone carrying a box or rucksack full of something into a burning building is going top trip a few alarms.

[NYCEMT86]

“New York firemen were very upset by what they considered a cover-up in the WTC destruction. Many other firemen knew there were bombs in the buildings,’ he said, ‘but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact.’ - Paul Isaac Jr

That brings up my OP, people claim that the FDNY is involved and a murder by association. Again as Alt-F4, as NYC Employees, if I knew that there were bombs in the building I would speak out. The union protects you against any discrimination for thinking it was an inside job.


Louie 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.


I can't find much on Albert Turi, I am reading his interview now.


I can't find anything about Frank Cruthers saying there was a bomb in the WTC or Inside Job.


I am continuing to read Karin Deshore's interview with the post. Other than that I can't see where she is spoke out about an inside job or bombs


Brian Dixon, "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."


Neil Sweeting, "You heard a big boom, it was quiet for about ten seconds. Then you could hear another one. Now I realize it was the floors starting to stack on top of each other as they were falling. It was spaced apart in the beginning, but then it got to just a tremendous roar and a rumble that I will never forget."


After all the EMTs, Paramedics, and Firefighters I have talked to and personally know. Still none of them believe there were bombs or it was an inside job.

[kookbreaker]

Paul Isaac Jr


Paul Isaac was in this forum as 'Sentinel' (he was banned since he had a potty mouth). He does not agree with you,and he really does not like you.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1838945&highlight=Isaac#post1838945

Pay attention to post #7.

[Viper Daimao]

I never even implied First Responders were murderers that was the job of the person who put up this thread.

Look, I'm trying to explain this to you. We know you didn't imply that, many truthers don't (though Alex Jones and at least one member of NY 911 Truth did). It's just that it's the inevitable conclusion when you follow their theories and reasoning. We're asking you to somehow reconcile what you believe, your theory, with the NYPD, FDNY somehow not being in on it. We don't understand how it can be reconciled, please educate us; elucidate it for us.

Cause either the build 7 had a lot of damage and was about to collapse as the many firefighters said, or they were lying. If they were lying then they were in on it. If they're not, then building 7 really was damaged and about to collapse.

[leftysergeant]

The only EMT testimony that would indicate something wrong would be the Ondrovic interview. But I am not the least inclined to give it much weight, because it seems clear to me that some of what she describes defies physical laws. I strongly suspect PTSD may have something to do with that. She may even be confabulating some of it. She was running AWAY from her triage location, even though there were wounded there. I think she lost it.

If they have offered her what she considers "hush money" I would suspect that it is actually just a pension for a line-of-duty disability.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'll never understand why an inside job theory would have to include first responders in on it. Especially on WTC7. I mean we are talking about a building that housed the offices for the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Giuliani.

Like I said you can go through every first responder who heard explosions or first instinct was secondary devices and wave your hand and explain them away. So what?

Someone here asked me to show where someone has changed their story. Thanks for posting just that kook. Wasn't Paul Issac the one who claimed gag order also? Are you cherry picking his statements and throwing out the rest?

How about this change of story from an explosives expert that I’m also sure has been dismissed here long ago.

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Then a few days later without any further investigation...

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

Then a little while later..

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

There has been no real investigation. All versions are theory at this point. The official conspiracy theory of 19 hijackers is one of the wackiest of all.

[NYCEMT86]

Someone here asked me to show where someone has changed their story. Thanks for posting just that kook. Wasn't Paul Issac the one who claimed gag order also? Are you cherry picking his statements and throwing out the rest?


This is What Paul Issac's letter to Mark Roberts has to say.


Hello Mark,

If its the wingtv article its ********. They slandered me last year when I read them the riot act about their behavior.

The article" Fireman admits again 9-11 was an inside job" is slander.

The article written by randy lavello is also slander as he has me saying that woolsey former CIA Director Woolsey was passing a gag order down the rank and file of the FDNY. That statement was never made in that context, It was said in humor ,and as a matter of fact that so-called reporter was fired by Alex Jones for making **** up on alot of people. The only reason I didn't go through the legal channels is because lawyers cost to damn much.

So the true statement was the that I heard Explosions not bombs as I couldn't tell what the sounds were as I was blocks away and can not confirm what the noise was. As I was aproaching City Hall the North Tower began the collapse I heard what sounded like thunder just prior to the collapse then the Popping as the tower fell. I had my radio scanner and there were reports of explsions within the conplex over the PD and PAPD frequencies. As I made my way closer I could pick up on the FD Handie Talkie frequencies and it sounded like hell. No one new what the was going to happen next but when the second tower began its fall there were what sounded like loud popping coming from the tower as well as a sucking sound like reveres air pressure.

Its seems the people at 911Truth have some problems with credibility as I had approached them on this issue for clarification. No need to say they never returned my messages.

They are tools of the trade.

Take care
Paul

[T.A.M.]

The reason you see NEXT, is usually because you are bringing up the same, tired, extremely well debated issues AGAIN!!!

I'll never understand why an inside job theory would have to include first responders in on it. Especially on WTC7. I mean we are talking about a building that housed the offices for the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Giuliani.

Please explain how those you feel are responsible for the collapse of WTC7 carried out this demolition. I don't want quotes, or links to others words, I want to hear it from you, in your own words, how you think it went down.



Like I said you can go through every first responder who heard explosions or first instinct was secondary devices and wave your hand and explain them away. So what?

how many can you quote that "on instinct" thought the explosions were "secondary devices?? one, two, three, a half-dozen?

how many first responders have said they think there were preplanted explosives in the WTCs that day?



Someone here asked me to show where someone has changed their story. Thanks for posting just that kook. Wasn't Paul Issac the one who claimed gag order also? Are you cherry picking his statements and throwing out the rest?

How about this change of story from an explosives expert that I’m also sure has been dismissed here long ago.

I must have missed this part of the thread, as it makes no sense to me.



The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Then a few days later without any further investigation...

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

It is called time to reflect, think, look the evidence over....



Then a little while later..

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

Please be direct...spit it out, what are you implying here?



There has been no real investigation. All versions are theory at this point. The official conspiracy theory of 19 hijackers is one of the wackiest of all.

Love the opinion, too bad it is worth dirt!

TAM:)

[stateofgrace]

There has been no real investigation. All versions are theory at this point. The official conspiracy theory of 19 hijackers is one of the wackiest of all.

Really ?

Maybe you should tell these guys they are looking in the wrong place.


INTERPOL's 181 member countries (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/Members/default.asp) and its 80+ year history have given us much experience about the importance of fighting terrorism wherever it might occur. Whether it be what has happened in Afghanistan, Algeria, Colombia, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Morocco, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, the UK, the US, Uzbekistan or Yemen just to name some of the many countries that have suffered terrorist attacks, INTERPOL knows that terrorism must be fought wherever it appears.
Despite already having a long history of reminders of the danger of terrorism, just a few days ago we were once again brutally reminded that the type of attacks that Al Qaeda-like terrorist groups use are among the most troubling to us as law enforcement officials and to us as a world community.



Each successfully carried out terrorist attack that links itself to Al Qaeda or September 11th undermines public confidence that governments' can shield their citizens from harm. Groups have claimed responsibility for the March 11th attacks and have linked them to the September 11th 2001 attacks (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/speeches/20020911.asp) on New York and Washington and the war in Iraq. Some people have pointed to the fact that March 11th 2004 was exactly 911 days following September 11th 2001 also known as 911 in the US.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/speeches/SG20040316.asp

[pomeroo]

I'll never understand why an inside job theory would have to include first responders in on it. Especially on WTC7. I mean we are talking about a building that housed the offices for the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Giuliani.

Like I said you can go through every first responder who heard explosions or first instinct was secondary devices and wave your hand and explain them away. So what?

Someone here asked me to show where someone has changed their story. Thanks for posting just that kook. Wasn't Paul Issac the one who claimed gag order also? Are you cherry picking his statements and throwing out the rest?

How about this change of story from an explosives expert that I’m also sure has been dismissed here long ago.

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Then a few days later without any further investigation...

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

Then a little while later..

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

There has been no real investigation. All versions are theory at this point. The official conspiracy theory of 19 hijackers is one of the wackiest of all.



Yeah, and how inconvenient is it to your fantasy that those wacky jihadists are so maddeningly proud of their accomplishment? If only they'd stop bragging and making new threats, you liars could do a decent job of conning the suckers.

You're not telling the truth about the "official" theory, as you know. It doesn't exist--just like your imaginary conspiracy.

[kookbreaker]

I'll never understand why an inside job theory would have to include first responders in on it..

I'll try to explain this in simple terms:

You cannot have a building demolition without leaving evidence.

These are examples, these are things that cannot be hidden:

1) Demolition explosions are very, very, very loud. Such charges would be heard blocks and blocks away. Which means that first responders as well as much of lower Manhatten would need to be 'in on it'.

2) Columns cut by charges have very distinct marks. They look nothing like cuts made by blowtorches. That means the crews on the scene were overlooking these marks rather conveniently, IF THEY WERE THERE.

3) Demolition is done with detcord. Despite silly and naive clams that it could be done with 'remote control' the simple fact is that there would have needed to be miles of detcord. This cord can be found everywhere on a small demolition site. Yet somehow the responders managed to overlook it IF IT WERE THERE!

4) Demolition charges are not like you see in the movies. You do not roll a Soda Machine or Van filled with explosives into a building and have it come down unless you are very lucky and the building has weak points, such as critical columns (like at the OK City bombing) which the Towers did not have. Properly done demolition charges have copper metal bands (which get burned into a interesting purplish color) as well as carpet and plywood. These remnants can be found all over even a small CD site. Yet somehow the responders managed to overlook it IF IT WERE THERE!

You can't hide this stuff. It would be there. Period. The firefighters and other city workers were first on the scene and nobody would have had a chance to scoop the evidence up. They would have seen it.

The only conclusions? 1) There was no demolition. or 2) there was demolition and the firefighters actively covered it up, despite the demoltion killing many of their brothers in arms.

Troofers invariably conclude that it was demoltion, which leads to the firefighters (and others) covering up the evidence, even if they are not saying it. Hence the reason that Bermas and other troofers try to 'rationalize' by saying they firefighers took payments or are too scared for their pensions to come forward.

The only way troofers have found around these two conclusions is to invent something very silly. The thermate/thermite arguements are one of the bigger moments in troofer silliness attempting to get around the above conclusions.

Don't like it? Then stop saying the towers were brought down with bombs. You are effectively claiming the firefighters are corrupt or are cowards when you say that, even if you don't say it out loud.

[Alt+F4]

I'll never understand why an inside job theory would have to include first responders in on it.

Please then explain how an "inside job" could have been pulled off without at least the complicity of the Port Authority Police Department?

Wasn't Paul Issac the one who claimed gag order also?

Who would have been issuing this supposed gag order? Paul Issac was never a member of the FDNY. Use the search feature and you'll find the thread on him.

[NYCEMT86]

How about this change of story from an explosives expert that I’m also sure has been dismissed here long ago.

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Then a few days later without any further investigation...

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.



We have gone through Van Romero before on YouTube.


As I explained to you before, he first believed that it was brought down by CD, which was only presented to him in video form. He did further investigation (which is still a strange concept to the googlevideologists)


Here is part of the second Albuquerque Journal article.
"Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.
Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones."


I know what you are going to say next....but he was appointed to a government position.

So here is my response to that, HE IS THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON FOR THE JOB!

Here is his Qualifications (http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html)

[Alt+F4]

You can't hide this stuff. It would be there. Period. The firefighters and other city workers were first on the scene and nobody would have had a chance to scoop the evidence up. They would have seen it.

And that's after the fact. Just how did all these explosives and det cord get into the buildings in the first place? The Port Authority Police Department would have to have known.

[mjd1982]

LMAO

Boy oh boy, you guys are too precious.

Let me ask it again.

Can somebody go through the testimonies in the following video, and state why you think they are false, since this is what you all believe.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

In particular, with reference to Singh, Mcpadden, and the 3 1st responders saying ~"we got a building about to be blown up"

Did I not say before, "Get ready for silence"? You dudes are like clockwork mice!

[mjd1982]

Yes I did!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89381&page=3

[kookbreaker]

LMAO

Boy oh boy, you guys are too precious.

Let me ask it again.

Can somebody go through the testimonies in the following video, and state why you think they are false, since this is what you all believe.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

In particular, with reference to Singh, Mcpadden, and the 3 1st responders saying ~"we got a building about to be blown up"

Did I not say before, "Get ready for silence"? You dudes are like clockwork mice!

Posts 109 and 110. You're welcome.

[ZENSMACK89]

Yeah I've heard all about how many teams of people it would have taken for how many months with miles of detonator cord to take down the buildings the way it did but then in the next sentence I'm told an airplane did it in less then an hour all on its own.

Yeah that makes sense.

Why can an airplane do it all on it's own but an airplane coupled with explosive devices is impossible? Is it not a known terrorist tactic to wait until emergency responders show up to set off another device? We are talking about a place that was the target of a car bomb before but now that’s impossible and not worthy of investigation.

Yeah ok.

[Alt+F4]

the 3 1st responders saying ~"we got a building about to be blown up"

Who said that?

[BeAChooser]

How about this change of story from an explosives expert that I’m also sure has been dismissed here long ago.

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Then a few days later without any further investigation...


First, Van Romero was NOT an explosives expert ... at least not the sort of expert qualified to say by looking that the buildings were brought down via CD. Here's his resume. http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html Study it and you will learn that at the time of 9/11 he wasn't even working in the field of explosives. You will learn that for only 2 or 3 years he ran a group that focused on ordnance, explosives and energetic materials ... and not so much the effects of them on structures but the characteristics of the explosives themselves. Certainly there is no mention of him or any organization he belong to working on explosive demolition of structures or buildings. And you will learn that prior to 1995, he conducted Environmental Impact Assessments, implemented radiation protection policies and investigated thermodynamic limits for the nuclear reactors. That's hardly the resume of the explosives, demolition and structures *expert* that the bombs-did-it CT community makes him out to have.

Second, Romero stated quite clearly why he retracted his first impression that the destruction was a demolition. He said he changed his story after looking at more detailed videos and the rest of the information that was gathered. So your claim that he changed his story without further investigation is false.

[kookbreaker]

Why can an airplane do it all on it's own but an airplane coupled with explosive devices is impossible? Is it not a known terrorist tactic to wait until emergency responders show up to set off another device? We are talking about a place that was the target of a car bomb before but now that’s impossible and not worthy of investigation.

Yeah ok.

Several things wrong here, and an example of how you guys don't think things through.

1) Any bomb in the plane would have to be brought on board the plane. This is a massive risk for the terrorists with very little reward. It was easy to bring knives on boards, much harder to bring a bomb (not that this stopped some of the terrorists from claiming there was a bomb).

2) Any such bomb would be pretty small. You can't really pack that much into a suitcase.

3) Said bomb would need to survive the impact. A very unlikely case.

4) In order for a secondary device to be effective as a terrorist weapon, it must be timed so that it explodes when the crews arrive. (As an aside, are there instances of Islamic terrorists using secondary bombs prior to 2001? I know that some X-tian abortion bombers used the tactic, but that's it). This involves timing that is very speculative.

5) Assuming said bomb surivived the impact in point 3, it would then need to surivive the fire. Most explosives don't like heat, but they rarely explode. Any timing mechanism would be subject to the fore as well. A heat based detonator could be used, but what is the point?

6) Any such secondary device would do nothing to the structure of the building beyond cosmetic damage in an area already devastated by plane impact. Meaning if it survived it would be detonating in an area already cleared by the fire an do nothing important, structurally speaking.

[Drudgewire]

Posts 109 and 110. You're welcome.
Apparently you're not familiar with the Twoofer mindset. "Addressing these issues" does not mean "responding to the things you were asked." It means jumping to a completely unrelated topic and using that to prove your earlier point.

Please try to keep up in the future. ;)

[sts60]

Not the least bit likely. The fire department was right on the scene. Standard opoerating procedure is not to let anyone return to a building once the fire has started. You get out, you stay out. They can't have untrained civilians getting in their way. In an emergency situation, a trained responder is looking for additional threats to his well-being. Certainly, someone carrying a box or rucksack full of something into a burning building is going top trip a few alarms.
Eh, I partially disagree. Yes, SOP is to gain control of the scene - in my jurisdiction, the 5th-due engine company is assigned to lobby control on high-rises - but FDNY wasn't there instantly after the 1st plane struck, which would have left a little time when security attention at both buildings would have been diverted to some degree. And even after the first firefighters started responding, the lobbies would have been pretty chaotic with people milling around. The ability to effect assess for such threats is going to be compromised in such a situation, especially given the novel situation - which was initally presumed to be an accident for the first strike.

But in any case, my whole secondary bomb scenario is just a thought exercise. I don't know really know how easy it would have been to get bombs into those buildings either before or immediately after the impacts; I'm just looking for conceivable ways it could have been done. And again, there is no evidence for any of it (unless you count explosion-like sounds recalled by some people, which has many non-bomb interpretations).

Why can an airplane do it all on it's own but an airplane coupled with explosive devices is impossible? Is it not a known terrorist tactic to wait until emergency responders show up to set off another device? We are talking about a place that was the target of a car bomb before but now that’s impossible and not worthy of investigation.
Two different scenarios. What I'm talking about is an antipersonnel tactic designed to cause injury and panic, not a charge designed to somehow work in concert with an impact to actually destroy the building.

And, again, AFAIK there is no evidence for either.

[sts60]

Several things wrong here, and an example of how you guys don't think things through.

1) Any bomb in the plane would have to be brought on board the plane. This is a massive risk for the terrorists with very little reward. It was easy to bring knives on boards, much harder to bring a bomb (not that this stopped some of the terrorists from claiming there was a bomb).

2) Any such bomb would be pretty small. You can't really pack that much into a suitcase.

3) Said bomb would need to survive the impact. A very unlikely case....
Eh, I don't think ZENSMACK89 meant a bomb on the airplane. I think he meant one brought in some other way. Yes, using a timer would be iffy, but hypothetically such a device could simply be detonated at the right time by yet another suicidal terrorist.

[Corsair 115]

Truthers question the official story becauses it has so many things that don't add up.No, truther question the official story because they think it doesn't add up. Important difference.

In reality, the assertion that things don't add up is either not substantiated by the actual evidence or is inconsequential to the events of the day.

[ZENSMACK89]

Did I say a bomb on the plane? Wow YOU really thought that one through.

And why would the bomb have to be in the impact zone? Didn't the plane take care of the impact zone?

Ok real slow now.

How about a plane crash into the towers and then a little later an explosive device somewhere else in the building, like lower down?

Oh yeah…

How much detonator cord, teams of experts, and months of access to the building were needed in Oklahoma City? The bomb in OK city wasn't even IN the building. It did a pretty good job though didn’t it? Just imagine one of those bombs in the WTC parking garage or in an out of service elevator. How long would it take to set that up? How many teams of people? How much detonator cord? It could be done by a delivery guy who doesn’t even know what’s in the box or the van.

I’m not saying that’s what happened I’m just saying teams of people and detonator cord aren’t the only way to go.

[NYCEMT86]

Truck Bomb? Wasn't already done before and failed?

Did you forget about the security in the Loading Docks and Parking Garage? That still implicates the Security Guards and the PAPD to allow that to enter the building.

[pomeroo]

Did I say a bomb on the plane? Wow YOU really thought that one through.

And why would the bomb have to be in the impact zone? Didn't the plane take care of the impact zone?

Ok real slow now.

How about a plane crash into the towers and then a little later an explosive device somewhere else in the building, like lower down?


Let's go much slower. How about a plane crash and then a collapse from the impact zone?

How about ABSOLUTELY NO--ZERO--EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIONS LOWER THAN THE IMPACT ZONE?



Oh yeah…

How much detonator cord, teams of experts, and months of access to the building were needed in Oklahoma City? The bomb in OK city wasn't even IN the building. It did a pretty good job though didn’t it? Just imagine one of those bombs in the WTC parking garage or in an out of service elevator. How long would it take to set that up? How many teams of people? How much detonator cord? It could be done by a delivery guy who doesn’t even know what’s in the box or the van.

I’m not saying that’s what happened I’m just saying teams of people and detonator cord aren’t the only way to go.


You haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. Could you ask someone to read Brent Blanchard's Protec paper to you?

[kookbreaker]

Eh, I don't think ZENSMACK89 meant a bomb on the airplane. I think he meant one brought in some other way. Yes, using a timer would be iffy, but hypothetically such a device could simply be detonated at the right time by yet another suicidal terrorist.

OK, I see what you mean, but again you have expanded the plan to add more terrorists and that means more things that can go wrong. Again, its added risk with little reward.

I mean, you would have to get the bomb into the building before the planes arrived (you couldn't really time this and if you were late, you were not getting into that area with anything more than a backpack.

Let's assume you managed to get the bomb inside somehow. What if the airplane crews had to abort for that day for some reason? Now you've got to get to bomb out, because if you set it off there's a good chance you spoil the plan for the flight crews.

Sorry, I still don't see enough risk/reward ratio being high enough to add this in.

[Pardalis]

Zen89, so... you're sayin' like it's not a controlled demolition or anything?

Like, you know... You just need one blast and that's it, like "poof", like no more towers?

[ZENSMACK89]

'ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL' ~ "'EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN TOWERS,' NEW MEXICO TECH EXPERT SAYS." By Olivier Uyttebrouck Journal Staff Writer

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen89, so... you're sayin' like it's not a controlled demolition or anything?

Like, you know... You just need one blast and that's it, like "poof", like no more towers?
"Like, you know... You just need one blast and that's it, like "poof", like no more towers?"

What is it you need? Just an airplane the poof?

[NYCEMT86]

Still not reading anything I have posted above Zen?


Are we having another replay of what always happens in YouTube?

[pomeroo]

'ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL' ~ "'EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN TOWERS,' NEW MEXICO TECH EXPERT SAYS." By Olivier Uyttebrouck Journal Staff Writer

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.


You can't possibly be serious.

[Pardalis]

"Like, you know... You just need one blast and that's it, like "poof", like no more towers?"

What is it you need? Just an airplane the poof?

You mean like fire and stuff?

[NYCEMT86]

You can't possibly be serious.

Oh he is serious Pom

[kookbreaker]

Did I say a bomb on the plane? Wow YOU really thought that one through.

And why would the bomb have to be in the impact zone? Didn't the plane take care of the impact zone?

Ok real slow now.

How about a plane crash into the towers and then a little later an explosive device somewhere else in the building, like lower down?

Oh yeah…

How much detonator cord, teams of experts, and months of access to the building were needed in Oklahoma City? The bomb in OK city wasn't even IN the building. It did a pretty good job though didn’t it?


Completely different structure than the towers. I pointed this out in my comments. You seem to have ignored that point. In addition, a truck bomb was used in the towers and they were still standing. Why would the terrorists add a complication to their plans for something they tried already and didn't work?


Just imagine one of those bombs in the WTC parking garage or in an out of service elevator. How long would it take to set that up? How many teams of people? How much detonator cord? It could be done by a delivery guy who doesn’t even know what’s in the box or the van.


Except for the security that they put in place after the last bombing.

And Any delivery boy bomb is going to be much too small to do anything worth a damn. You'd need a truck bomb to be of worth, and I think a delivery guy would notice the guys shoveling ammonium nitrate into his truck.

If you know the realities of explosives, you would see how silly this is.


I’m not saying that’s what happened I’m just saying teams of people and detonator cord aren’t the only way to go.

For structural demolition of a building like the WTC, yeah, you kinda do.

[ZENSMACK89]

OK, I see what you mean, but again you have expanded the plan to add more terrorists and that means more things that can go wrong. Again, its added risk with little reward.

I mean, you would have to get the bomb into the building before the planes arrived (you couldn't really time this and if you were late, you were not getting into that area with anything more than a backpack.

Let's assume you managed to get the bomb inside somehow. What if the airplane crews had to abort for that day for some reason? Now you've got to get to bomb out, because if you set it off there's a good chance you spoil the plan for the flight crews.

Sorry, I still don't see enough risk/reward ratio being high enough to add this in.
What are you talking about? These are guys who supposedly hijacked four planes almost simultaneously but what...? They couldn't park a van by 8:00 am?

[pomeroo]

Oh he is serious Pom


Really, how many times does this crap have to get debunked?

What's going on here--an invasion of "special" children?

I can almost see the drool dripping off the computer screen.

[NYCEMT86]

How would they have gotten past the Security in the WTC? Seeing how every truck that went into the loading docks where throughly inspected. They would have had to be cleared by the PAPD and Security Guards as an authentic delivery.

[Corsair 115]

Why can an airplane do it all on it's own but an airplane coupled with explosive devices is impossible?Sit down and calcuate out the explosive power from a heavy jetliner full of fuel smashing into a building at speeds approaching 500 miles per hour.

With that kind of explosive power at hand, one doesn't need explosives. Didn't you notice how huge the fireballs were from when the jets hit the WTC towers? Those were some awfully big explosions.

[ZENSMACK89]

Completely different structure than the towers. I pointed this out in my comments. You seem to have ignored that point. In addition, a truck bomb was used in the towers and they were still standing. Why would the terrorists add a complication to their plans for something they tried already and didn't work?



Except for the security that they put in place after the last bombing.

And Any delivery boy bomb is going to be much too small to do anything worth a damn. You'd need a truck bomb to be of worth, and I think a delivery guy would notice the guys shoveling ammonium nitrate into his truck.

If you know the realities of explosives, you would see how silly this is.



For structural demolition of a building like the WTC, yeah, you kinda do.
Again you are claiming the planes did it on it's own.

But what...?

The plane and an explosive device are not enough?


Please explain???

[kookbreaker]

What are you talking about? These are guys who supposedly hijacked four planes almost simultaneously but what...? They couldn't park a van by 8:00 am?

Sure they could! But why add this complication to a plan that already is devastating? Especially since the last time they tried it, it didn't work, and the security was tightened. Its one more thing to go wrong.

And there's absolutely zero evidence for it.

[ktesibios]

It's conceivable that first responders, i.e., cops, firefighters and emergency medical personnel could have overlooked signs of explosive demolition. The characteristic appearance of a shaped-charge cut, or the significance of bits of yellow cord or oddly discolored pieces of copper might be outside their training and experience, and people who are focused on whether there's anyone trapped in the rubble who can be saved probably wouldn't be paying much attention to details like that.

But what about the construction workers who were there to clear paths for them, or the workers who were on the site for months clearing it, or the engineers who risked their necks exploring the site to work out how to go about clearing it without making things even worse? They were drawn from companies with experience in demolishing buildings and cleaning up the aftermath. Those guys would have had the experience to recognize these things and to understand their meaning if they had seen them, and they had months on-site to find them if they were there.

All it would take to blow the whole conspiracy wide open would be one of the workers on the cleanup finding bits of meaningful debris and pocketing them, or anyone on the site snapping a picture of a column end with the characteristics of an explosive cut, or such a worker simply speaking out about what they saw. This has not happened.

That suggests two possibilities. Either there was no evidence on the site of explosive demolition that was recognizable by people who can reasonably be expected to recognize it, or everyone involved in clearing the site is part of a conspiracy to conceal evidence in a case of the mass murder of three thousand people. These conspirators include professionals bound by a code of ethics as well as the law and workers in a heavily unionized industry who are not known for being afraid to stand up to the boss.

Troofer insistence on explosive demolition at the WTC inherently and necessarily implies an accusation of being accessories to mass murder, leveled at all of the people involved in clearing the WTC site as well as at the police, firefighters and emergency medical people. I wonder if there are any troofers who would like to go explain this to the hard hats.

[NYCEMT86]

Really, how many times does this crap have to get debunked?

What's going on here--an invasion of "special" children?

I can almost see the drool dripping off the computer screen.

Well I debated this guy for 3 months straight with the same information I have provided with the help of ThereIsNoConspiracy and a few others

He is still there....so I guess we have to do it a few more times...

[kookbreaker]

Again you are claiming the planes did it on it's own.


Yes. It was.


But what...?

The plane and an explosive device are not enough?

Please explain???

Please learn some reading comprehension. Adding a bomb in a truck will not do signifigant structural damage to the towers. It was already tried and it failed. The plane was enough. They didn't need to add a bomb, which would add another thing to go wrong in the plan.

[Pardalis]

Again you are claiming the planes did it on it's own.

But what...?

The plane and an explosive device are not enough?


Please explain???

You know, like the fire was really intense and everything? Like it weakened the supports and stuff, cuz the fireproofing was scraped off? Then sort of the weight of the big portion of the top of that thing was too heavy? Cuz it weighed alot? Like the columns started to bow inwards and stuff? Like that building is not esposed to do that ?

[ZENSMACK89]

How would they have gotten past the Security in the WTC? Seeing how every truck that went into the loading docks where throughly inspected. They would have had to be cleared by the PAPD and Security Guards as an authentic delivery.
Yeah that's right that could never happen.

93?

[kookbreaker]

Yeah that's right that could never happen.

93?

Before 93 they did not have that security in place. Why do you think they added it?

Seriously, do you think at all about this stuff?

[ZENSMACK89]

Yes. It was.



Please learn some reading comprehension. Adding a bomb in a truck will not do signifigant structural damage to the towers. It was already tried and it failed. The plane was enough. They didn't need to add a bomb, which would add another thing to go wrong in the plan.
Bombs can't do it but planes... no fuss no muss

LOL

[Pardalis]

Yeah that's right that could never happen.

93?

Did the building come down in 93? Try to remember.

[NYCEMT86]

Security was heightened AFTER the 93 bombing.

This was in the documentary that was shown before and after 9/11 on the history channel.

[ZENSMACK89]

ThereIsNoConspiracy

lol

man that's just sad

[NYCEMT86]

Someone should hit the history books and do a little more research about the WTC after the 93 bombing...just my opinion.

[Pardalis]

Bombs can't do it but planes... no fuss no muss

LOL

Man, you're one cool dude. :rolleyes:

[kookbreaker]

Bombs can't do it but planes... no fuss no muss


Wow. What an incredibly ill-informed thing to say.

Where is your evidence for bombs. Because, I've seen the evidence for planes.


LOL

Yes, I know you laugh at thousands of people's deaths, you don't have to remind us.

[ZENSMACK89]

You know, like the fire was really intense and everything? Like it weakened the supports and stuff, cuz the fireproofing was scraped off? Then sort of the weight of the big portion of the top of that thing was too heavy? Cuz it weighed alot? Like the columns started to bow inwards and stuff? Like that building is not esposed to do that ?
Really?

Like what about loss of mass?

Like what hit WTC7?

Like how much weight was left to push down then?

[NYCEMT86]

I guess you still believe Aluminum can only be melted on coals and ignore that little thing called thermal transfer

[Pardalis]

Really?

Like yeah.

Like what about loss of mass?

Like duh! :rolleyes:

Like what hit WTC7?

Like debris?

Like how much weight was left to push down then?

Like whatever... :rolleyes:

[ZENSMACK89]

Security was heightened AFTER the 93 bombing.

This was in the documentary that was shown before and after 9/11 on the history channel.
Yeah I think I alredy brought that up.

Looks like someone would have really been in trouble if an explosive device did get near the building.

[NYCEMT86]

So how would they have been able to park this so called van that you already brought up?

[pomeroo]

double post

[pomeroo]

ThereIsNoConspiracy

lol

man that's just sad



Hey, dude, not only is there no conspiracy, but I can prove it. Your imaginary conspiracy is mathematically impossible.

[NYCEMT86]

I know I asked this on another thread, but what is going on here--an invasion of "special" children?

Very Special, they are called YouTubeologists.

[Pardalis]

I know I asked this on another thread, but what is going on here--an invasion of "special" children?

Like, cuz you know... 9/11 inside job!

Duh. :rolleyes:

And Eminem said so.

[Drudgewire]

Hey there are the topics I brought up and asked for answers to. Recieved them, totally blow my points out of the water and are looking for me to comment. Yup, didn't see those.

Hey here are some topics that were brought up as rebuttal I can take in whole new directions and maybe they'll think I already answered the other stuff. Like, time to hit the reply button.
I also do a pretty good Peter Falk. :cool:

[NYCEMT86]

I also do a pretty good Peter Falk. :cool:

What about Elvis?

A little blue suede shoes?

[Drudgewire]

What about Elvis?

A little blue suede shoes?
I've been banned from performing it. Apparently my hip movements are considered "too suggestive."

But no compromises. I perform without pants or I don't perform at all. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[DGM]

LMAO

Boy oh boy, you guys are too precious.

Let me ask it again.

Can somebody go through the testimonies in the following video, and state why you think they are false, since this is what you all believe.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

In particular, with reference to Singh, Mcpadden, and the 3 1st responders saying ~"we got a building about to be blown up"

Did I not say before, "Get ready for silence"? You dudes are like clockwork mice!
#106 and #108 also. Man you missed 4 post on this. Try a little harder next time.

[GregoryUrich]

No, truther question the official story because they think it doesn't add up. Important difference.

In reality, the assertion that things don't add up is either not substantiated by the actual evidence or is inconsequential to the events of the day.

Thank you so much. I really understand now.

[Par]

Who cares about the truck-bomb and security issue? How could a bomb in the basement have caused a collapse initiating at the crash site?

[BeAChooser]

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

But he, himself, was NOT an expert on the effects of explosion on buildings, aircraft or other structures. As I pointed out, and you simply ignored, his resume shows that at the time of 9/11 he wasn't even working in the field of explosives, that for only 2 or 3 years in his entire career he ran a group that focused on ordnance, explosives and energetic materials, and that group focused not so much on the effects of them on structures but on the characteristics of the explosives themselves. There is no mention of him working on explosive demolition of structures or buildings. And prior to 1995, he conducted Environmental Impact Assessments, implemented radiation protection policies and investigated thermodynamic limits for the nuclear reactors. Stop trying to make him out to be something he was not.

[pomeroo]

Thank you so much. I really understand now.

No, you don't understand.

[Corsair 115]

Thank you so much. I really understand now.Whether you care to agree or not is irrelevant to the fact that the distinction I made is important.

[GregoryUrich]

Whether you care to agree or not is irrelevant to the fact that the distinction I made is important.

The distinction you made is a belief. Everyone's beliefs are imporant...to themselves.

[Corsair 115]

The distinction you made is a belief. I suggest you reread your own comment and the distinction I made to it, because it seems you did not grasp the essential point I made.

The entire thing could have been avoided had you said from the outset that you think there are things which don't add up. That makes it clear it's your own assessment, and perhaps open to being changed given a discussion of facts and evidence. Instead, you chose phrasing which implies that it is an irrefutable fact that things don't add up - that's something else altogether.

[mjd1982]

Posts 109 and 110. You're welcome.
Ohohoh... pleeease.

Let's not be silly now.

[mjd1982]

Who said that?
If you watch the video like I asked, you will see it.

Over at SLC, when I mentioend the quotes, some jabroni stated "Well why dont you find the vid, and you will blow the whole conspiracy open?!"

I posted the video. He didnt accept it.

The same is happening, and will continue to happen, here.

Any subterfuge...

[Revolutionary91]

Over at SLC, when I mentioend the quotes, some jabroni stated "Well why dont you find the vid, and you will blow the whole conspiracy open?!"

I posted the video. He didnt accept it.

LOL that says it all.

[GregoryUrich]

No, truther question the official story because they think it doesn't add up. Important difference.

In reality, the assertion that things don't add up is either not substantiated by the actual evidence or is inconsequential to the events of the day.

Corsair, all knowing oracle, has explained reality once and for all...I think.

[PhantomWolf]

How about a firefighter who claims the fire in the impact zone can be put out with two lines but then that fire triggers the entire building to fall down? Are you claiming he didn’t know what he was talking about? Did he not suspect the possibility of a collapse? Was the hero mistaken or worse yet lying?

Since no one picked this up, I'm going too, even though it's from a few pages back.

Have you actually bothered to look at NIST's fire models? They show that the fire on the lowest floor of the impact zone would have very little fire on it, that the fires would be on the floors above the bottom of the impact zone. The Firefighter that got to the 81st floor did see only small amounts of fire, exactly what NIST's model says should have happened. The trouble was he couldn't get any higer, and photographic, video and eyewittness evidence shows that the fires above that floor were not just small patches that could be knocked down with a few lines.

Look at the fires in this picture. Are they just small fires capable of being knocked down by two lines? Note the multiple floors that are showing fire from EVERY window on 2 sides!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045fd54c8e5e6c.jpg

[kookbreaker]

Ohohoh... pleeease.

Let's not be silly now.

I notice you do not respond to this criticism.

Very well then, your choice. But do not continue to claim that nobody failed to comment on your video.

[mjd1982]

Dont you just love this Rev? This is the 5th time I'm posting this video, just on this thread!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

ROFL

I want someone to explain to me how each of these apparently clear, unanimous, 100% indicting testimonies, is false. Nothing else!!

Come one sheep! Come on herd! Through the water dip with you!

[mjd1982]

I notice you do not respond to this criticism.

Very well then, your choice. But do not continue to claim that nobody failed to comment on your video.
Read the above post, you incredibly silly, slack reading, slack listening individual.

[Revolutionary91]

Since no one picked this up, I'm going too, even though it's from a few pages back.

Have you actually bothered to look at NIST's fire models? They show that the fire on the lowest floor of the impact zone would have very little fire on it, that the fires would be on the floors above the bottom of the impact zone. The Firefighter that got to the 81st floor did see only small amounts of fire, exactly what NIST's model says should have happened. The trouble was he couldn't get any higer, and photographic, video and eyewittness evidence shows that the fires above that floor were not just small patches that could be knocked down with a few lines.

Look at the fires in this picture. Are they just small fires capable of being knocked down by two lines? Note the multiple floors that are showing fire from EVERY window on 2 sides!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045fd54c8e5e6c.jpg

One small problem. That firefighter was in the south tower, your picture is of the north tower. That is very dishonest of you.

[Revolutionary91]

Dont you just love this Rev? This is the 5th time I'm posting this video, just on this thread!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

ROFL

I want someone to explain to me how each of these apparently clear, unanimous, 100% indicting testimonies, is false. Nothing else!!

Come one sheep! Come on herd! Through the water dip with you!

They actually just pretend the evidence doesnt exist.

PLEASE COMMENT ON THE VIDEO PEOPLE

[kookbreaker]

Dont you just love this Rev? This is the 5th time I'm posting this video, just on this thread!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

ROFL

I want someone to explain to me how each of these apparently clear, unanimous, 100% indicting testimonies, is false. Nothing else!!

Come one sheep! Come on herd! Through the water dip with you!

Again, posts 109 and 110 in this thread.

Good day.

[danielk]

If you watch the video like I asked, you will see it.

Dude, there was exactly one person in the video who actually claimed that the sounds he heard could not have been caused by the falling building. He based his argument upon personal incredulity. Except for the one woman who wasn't sure whether she heard "brought down" or something else, the other eyewitnesses all said that it was believed that the building would come down. Which is exactly in line with what Silverstein said if you don't deliberately quote him out of context. And the one expert shown on TV based his conclusions on nothing but a cursory look at the video footage of the building falling, which incidentally didn't show the damaged side. Dude, he didn't even know what the footage was of!

In a nutshell, all you really have is:

"It sounded like an explosion!" - as if the same people wouldn't say the same about a blown tire
"It looked like a CD and didn't fall in slow motion!" - not realizing that even with a CD gravity does most of the work
Talk about WTC 7 being expected to fall, as if this in any way contradicted the official account (hint: it doesn't - it confirms it)


Sorry, but you've got absolutely nothing. Move along, nothing to see here.

[DGM]

Dont you just love this Rev? This is the 5th time I'm posting this video, just on this thread!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

ROFL

I want someone to explain to me how each of these apparently clear, unanimous, 100% indicting testimonies, is false. Nothing else!!

Come one sheep! Come on herd! Through the water dip with you!
WTC 7 did not collapse in 6.3 seconds like they say in the beginning of the video. Are you claiming this is not a lie?

[Pardalis]

They actually just pretend the evidence doesnt exist.

PLEASE COMMENT ON THE VIDEO PEOPLE


OK, I'll have a go at it...

IT'S RUBBISH

How's that?

[mjd1982]

Dude, there was exactly one person in the video who actually claimed that the sounds he heard could not have been caused by the falling building. He based his argument upon personal incredulity. Except for the one woman who wasn't sure whether she heard "brought down" or something else, the other eyewitnesses all said that it was believed that the building would come down. Which is exactly in line with what Silverstein said if you don't deliberately quote him out of context. And the one expert shown on TV based his conclusions on nothing but a cursory look at the video footage of the building falling, which incidentally didn't show the damaged side. Dude, he didn't even know what the footage was of!

In a nutshell, all you really have is:

"It sounded like an explosion!" - as if the same people wouldn't say the same about a blown tire
"It looked like a CD and didn't fall in slow motion!" - not realizing that even with a CD gravity does most of the work
Talk about WTC 7 being expected to fall, as if this in any way contradicted the official account (hint: it doesn't - it confirms it)


Sorry, but you've got absolutely nothing. Move along, nothing to see here.
I'm heading to bed, but I just gotta say, you my friend, are a legend. I'm making you head sheep. You get a special bell. Well done!

Eyes on the sheep dip everyone!

[Drudgewire]

From a personal standpoint, this has turned out to be one of the most prophetic thread titles ever.

[twinstead]

The problem is, if we trotted out a dozen or so eye witnesses who would testify to things that support the official story, mjd would be ALL over them, calling them mistaken or liars.

Isn't that right, mjd?

[BeAChooser]

One small problem. That firefighter was in the south tower, your picture is of the north tower. That is very dishonest of you.

Here's the east face of WTC 2 ... the South Tower, just a few minutes before the collapse.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east15.jpg

I see more than two small fires. Now you weren't trying to be dishonest, were you?

[NYCEMT86]

One small problem. That firefighter was in the south tower, your picture is of the north tower. That is very dishonest of you.

Rev your right for once, that is dishonest

SO here is the SOUTH TOWER


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5cc89ac4d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7529)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5ce1ae3b5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7530)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5cee6beb3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7531)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5cfbc7ffa.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7532)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d0802bf9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7533)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d405320f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7534)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d4d421bf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7535)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d6b52f86.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7536)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d80ce2aa.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7537)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5dab1dc48.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7538)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5dbe6a99d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7539)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5dd18e647.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7540)


Any Questions?

[ZENSMACK89]

So how would they have been able to park this so called van that you already brought up?
How did they park it in 93?

How did the hijackers get on the plane? Was there no hijackings or airport security before 9-11?

[twinstead]

I'm heading to bed, but I just gotta say, you my friend, are a legend. I'm making you head sheep. You get a special bell. Well done!

Eyes on the sheep dip everyone!

Well, that was a snapping rebuttal. You obviously showed him.

[danielk]

I'm heading to bed, but I just gotta say, you my friend, are a legend. I'm making you head sheep. You get a special bell. Well done!

Eyes on the sheep dip everyone!

Hm, I might have misread you... but didn't you say something about addressing arguments?

[Drudgewire]

How did they park it in 93?
In a way that didn't bring down the building if I remember correctly.

[Par]

I'm making you head sheep. You get a special bell.


Isn’t it usually cows that have bells?

[ZENSMACK89]

But he, himself, was NOT an expert on the effects of explosion on buildings, aircraft or other structures. As I pointed out, and you simply ignored, his resume shows that at the time of 9/11 he wasn't even working in the field of explosives, that for only 2 or 3 years in his entire career he ran a group that focused on ordnance, explosives and energetic materials, and that group focused not so much on the effects of them on structures but on the characteristics of the explosives themselves. There is no mention of him working on explosive demolition of structures or buildings. And prior to 1995, he conducted Environmental Impact Assessments, implemented radiation protection policies and investigated thermodynamic limits for the nuclear reactors. Stop trying to make him out to be something he was not.
So then I guess Romero’s assertion that the planes and fires caused the collapse isn't based on expertise either.

Too bad.

[NYCEMT86]

How did they park it in 93?

How did the hijackers get on the plane? Was there no hijackings or airport security before 9-11?


Well before 93 bombing anyone could park in the WTC underground parking lot and trucks weren't checked. It wasn't until AFTER the bombing they restricted parking and started checking deliveries and beefed security up.


Security wasn't as tight as it is now. Have you flown Pre-9/11? You could see how security was laxed. Go through a metal detector and have your bag scanned that was it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Remember this funny skit?:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n_PILVkA0MY

[Pardalis]

Isn’t it usually cows that have bells?

And Will Ferrell

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888646ba5fa900f36.gif

[NYCEMT86]

Here we go again. Zen, here is what I have posted before since you obviously didn't bother to read it.

We have gone through Van Romero before on YouTube.


As I explained to you before, he first believed that it was brought down by CD, which was only presented to him in video form. He did further investigation (which is still a strange concept to the googlevideologists)


Here is part of the second Albuquerque Journal article.
"Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.
Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones."


I know what you are going to say next....but he was appointed to a government position.

So here is my response to that, HE IS THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON FOR THE JOB!

Here is his Qualifications (http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html)

[ZENSMACK89]

In a way that didn't bring down the building if I remember correctly.
Six people were killed. At least 1,040 others were injured. The towers were not destroyed as Yousef intended. However, the WTC’s architect would later tell jurors that if the van had been left closer to the poured concrete foundations, the plan would have succeeded and the tower would have toppled. - wiki

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

http://www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm

Dylan was talking trash on all of us here at JREF.

They're on Network 4

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And Will Ferrell

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888646ba5fa900f36.gif

LOL! That link I pulled up from YouTube is the entire "cowbell" skit from SNL.

[stateofgrace]

I'm heading to bed, but I just gotta say, you my friend, are a legend. I'm making you head sheep. You get a special bell. Well done!

Eyes on the sheep dip everyone!


They actually just pretend the evidence doesnt exist.

PLEASE COMMENT ON THE VIDEO PEOPLE

It has been commented on, unlike this post that neither you or any other truther has commented on.


Really ?

Maybe you should tell these guys they are looking in the wrong place.



INTERPOL's 181 member countries (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/Members/default.asp) and its 80+ year history have given us much experience about the importance of fighting terrorism wherever it might occur. Whether it be what has happened in Afghanistan, Algeria, Colombia, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Morocco, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, the UK, the US, Uzbekistan or Yemen just to name some of the many countries that have suffered terrorist attacks, INTERPOL knows that terrorism must be fought wherever it appears.
Despite already having a long history of reminders of the danger of terrorism, just a few days ago we were once again brutally reminded that the type of attacks that Al Qaeda-like terrorist groups use are among the most troubling to us as law enforcement officials and to us as a world community.

Each successfully carried out terrorist attack that links itself to Al Qaeda or September 11th undermines public confidence that governments' can shield their citizens from harm. Groups have claimed responsibility for the March 11th attacks and have linked them to the September 11th 2001 attacks (http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/speeches/20020911.asp) on New York and Washington and the war in Iraq. Some people have pointed to the fact that March 11th 2004 was exactly 911 days following September 11th 2001 also known as 911 in the US.




http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/speeches/SG20040316.asp

Care to tell me why the Interpol sheep totally disagree with you?

[ZENSMACK89]

Here we go again. Zen, here is what I have posted before since you obviously didn't bother to read it.
Yeah a whole week later. The smoke hadn't even cleared yet but the structural engineers had it all figured out already. They must have asked Jerome Hauer he knew on 9-11 what cause them to fall down.

What the heck took NIST so long to figure it out?

[Drudgewire]

However, the WTC’s architect would later tell jurors that if the van had been left closer to the poured concrete foundations, the plan would have succeeded and the tower would have toppled. - wiki
Well then they would want to park that way instead of how they did in 93, wouldn't they? :p

[Pardalis]

What the heck took NIST so long to figure it out?

Like research, science, all that stuff.

[NYCEMT86]

http://www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm

Dylan was talking trash on all of us here at JREF.

They're on Network 4


So Dylan does talk?

I guess only when Gravy or Pom aren't around to debunk his ***


He can trash talk all he wants....I am glad we are a sore in his side.

[BeAChooser]

So then I guess Romero’s assertion that the planes and fires caused the collapse isn't based on expertise either.

That's right. Romero is someone who probably should have kept his mouth shut on this issue.

[ZENSMACK89]

Rev your right for once, that is dishonest

SO here is the SOUTH TOWER


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5cc89ac4d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7529)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5ce1ae3b5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7530)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5cee6beb3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7531)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5cfbc7ffa.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7532)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d0802bf9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7533)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d405320f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7534)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d4d421bf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7535)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d6b52f86.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7536)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d80ce2aa.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7537)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5dab1dc48.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7538)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5dbe6a99d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7539)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5dd18e647.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7540)


Any Questions?
Yes one question.

Are you saying the firefighter who claimed he only needed two lines didn't know his job?

How dare you. Next you'll be calling him murderer.

[ZENSMACK89]

Like research, science, all that stuff.
Didn't the engineers Romero asked or Jerome Hauer need "research and stuff"?

Face it. The official version was put together before ANY research was done.

[kookbreaker]

Yeah a whole week later. The smoke hadn't even cleared yet but the structural engineers had it all figured out already.


IN an abstract sense, yes. In fact some SE's said the collapse was no surprise once they realised the extent of the fire.


They must have asked Jerome Hauer he knew on 9-11 what cause them to fall down.

What the heck took NIST so long to figure it out?

There's a big workload of difference between stating simply that 'Fire and Impact caused the collapse, and doing the modelling and testing needed to support that statement. Its like the difference between saying 'The car crashed and the driver was killed' and doing an examination to show where the driver's body went that resulted in the trauma, modeling the impact the car.

In short, its called work.

[NYCEMT86]

Yes one question.

Are you saying the firefighter who claimed he only needed two lines didn't know his job?

How dare you. Next you'll be calling him murderer.



Taking things out of context again?


I am not saying he was lying...but he wasnt on the main fire floor. As you can see...if you take the 2 minutes to look at the pictures...you can see he was BELOW the main fire floor.


Like it has been said before Zen


YOU GOT NOTHING

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Yes one question.

Are you saying the firefighter who claimed he only needed two lines didn't know his job?

How dare you. Next you'll be calling him murderer.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5cc89ac4d.jpg

And 2 handlines are going to put that out? Reality here! 2 handlines aren't going to put that out.

[Pardalis]

http://www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm

Dylan was talking trash on all of us here at JREF.

They're on Network 4

My blood pressure just went up the roof. :mad:

[Drudgewire]

Are you saying the firefighter who claimed he only needed two lines didn't know his job?

How dare you. Next you'll be calling him murderer.
Just think, now you actually have TWO of them you can play this righteous indignation garbage with while you do the exact same thing to every other fire fighter involved that day who doesn't support your goofy nonsense.

Time to tap the keg. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/toot.gif

[kookbreaker]

Yes one question.

Are you saying the firefighter who claimed he only needed two lines didn't know his job?

How dare you. Next you'll be calling him murderer.

Wow. Build strawman much?

The fireman in question arrived at the floor where only a wingtip hit. That fire needed two lines. He was on the 78th floor and even said so.

Here: http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html

[NYCEMT86]

Zen, what floor exactly was this firefighter on?


Now can you tell me where that floor is in comparison to this picture

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5cee6beb3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7531)


and in this one....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d0802bf9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7533)

[kookbreaker]

I'm heading to bed, but I just gotta say, you my friend, are a legend. I'm making you head sheep. You get a special bell. Well done!

Eyes on the sheep dip everyone!

OK, so he posts a lame video. Demands responses. Gets a couple. Complains that he didn't get responses. Is pointed towards the initial responses. Repeats that process twice. Demands responses again, gets more responses and then he runs away.

I think I can safely put this one in the 'ignore' file.

[Revolutionary91]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5cc89ac4d.jpg

And 2 handlines are going to put that out? Reality here! 2 handlines aren't going to put that out.

More dishonesty. That photo was taken just after the plane hit. The firefighter said it 50 minutes later. Please show a picture of the fires just before collapse.

[DGM]

MJD doesn't want to deal with the lie that video starts out with I guess. 6.3 second collapse my arse. It's real hard to trust anything else in that video after that whopper!
Richard Gage in an email to me told me that the penthouse wasn't part of the collapse. Funny guy he is.

[Revolutionary91]

The firefighter said 2 lines just before 9:59am. Please show a photo from that time.

[BeAChooser]

Are you saying the firefighter who claimed he only needed two lines didn't know his job?

I think he's just saying the firefighter who said he only needed two lines was trapped inside a stairwell by fire and couldn't see what was going on elsewhere in the structure. I think he's saying you are being dishonest to suggest there were only two small fires. And I think the images he posted prove him right.:D

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

More dishonesty. That photo was taken just after the plane hit. The firefighter said it 50 minutes later. Please show a picture of the fires just before collapse.

Rev, I'm not being dishonest. You're not a firefighter to make that kind of judgement. I'm a volunteer firefighter who knows that 2 handlines are not going to put that out.

Do you realise that the handlines are only 2 1/2 inches in diameter? And that they hardly had any water pressure in the pipes to put that kind of fire out.

Rev, you know nothing about firefighting.

[kookbreaker]

The firefighter said 2 lines just before 9:59am. Please show a photo from that time.

There's a couple here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html

[T.A.M.]

How far do you think that one fireman could see. He could only likely see what was on the floor he was on, and not very far into the WTC, which was, what 215 feet across...and based on what one fireman, on one floor, filled with smoke, says he saw, and could control, you think that represents the entire amount of fire in the building, or reflects the overall state of fire and smoke for the entire impact zone???

okie dokie...

TAM:)

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen, what floor exactly was this firefighter on?


Now can you tell me where that floor is in comparison to this picture

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5cee6beb3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7531)


and in this one....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba5d0802bf9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7533)
So say it then.

The fire fighter didn't know what he was talking about.

None of the fire fighters who were killed or hurt because they didn't expect the building to collapse were what...? Not experienced.

I thought it was no surprise to people the building collapsed. Some have even said they were surprised it stood so long. So why didn't any of these fire fighters know? This fire fighter who claimed two lines wasn't a rookie. He was a seasoned pro.

But you all know better. Right?

[Revolutionary91]

I think he's just saying the firefighter who said he only needed two lines was trapped inside a stairwell by fire and couldn't see what was going on elsewhere in the structure. I think he's saying you are being dishonest to suggest there were only two small fires. And I think the images he posted prove him right.:D

Nope the images prove he is a liar.

The fireman was in the south tower reporting 2 lines at approx 9:59am. First you show photos of the north tower, then you show photos of the south tower at 9:03am.

[NYCEMT86]

You mean like these images?

Other than the poor angle and bad exposure you can still see fire above the 78th floor.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba65c4d4abf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7542)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba65d4e1595.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7543)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1817146ba65e06b287.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7544)


If anyone has anymore pictures to post around this time frame of the south tower, please post them or the link

Thanks.

[T.A.M.]

hoot hoot, high five, he's a liar...

PWNED

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

There we go.

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpgfile:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpgfile:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpghttp://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC2Floors_a.jpg

[kookbreaker]

So say it then.

The fire fighter didn't know what he was talking about.

None of the fire fighters who were killed or hurt because they didn't expect the building to collapse were what...? Not experienced.

I thought it was no surprise to people the building collapsed. Some have even said they were surprised it stood so long. So why didn't any of these fire fighters know? This fire fighter who claimed two lines wasn't a rookie. He was a seasoned pro.

But you all know better. Right?

How many times do I have to show this:

He.was.on.the.78th.floor.

The.fires.were.not.as.intense.on.the.78th.floor.

The.78th.floor.was.only.hit.with.a.wingtip.

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html

:rolleyes:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Rev wouldn't know a halligan bar from a hydrant tool.

[BeAChooser]

More dishonesty. That photo was taken just after the plane hit. The firefighter said it 50 minutes later. Please show a picture of the fires just before collapse.

I already did and you just ignored it. See post 205. That image was taken at 9:55 ... just a couple minutes before the collapse. Now, with a straight face, try to claim you don't see several VERY large fires scattered throughout the windows in that image. :p