An Open Letter to John Schroeder, 9/11 firefighter

[Gravy]

There were a couple of threads about this two weeks ago, which I didn't post to because I was too angry at Avery and his flunkies and I wanted to compose a proper response.

People sometimes ask me why, if the 9/11 deniers are so obviously wrong, I spend all this time on them.

This is why.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/anopenletter

[Drudgewire]

Wow, I missed those threads completely.

Looking very forward to reading in-depth after I get home from work. Thanks in advance for your honorable work Gravy.

[ConspiRaider]

Excellent stuff, Gravy.

I didn't know about the Rodriguez conversion to Islam and the Malaysian incident. Thanks for that - and for everything.

[NYCEMT86]

There were a couple of threads about this two weeks ago, which I didn't post to because I was too angry at Avery and his flunkies and I wanted to compose a proper response.

People sometimes ask me why, if the 9/11 deniers are so obviously wrong, I spend all this time on them.

This is why.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/anopenletter


I have briefly skimmed through it, I will go back to it later. Once again, from what I have read, it is very well put together. Your work will never go unnoticed or unappreciated.

[Oxigen]

The fireman was in the building. Were you?

This sounds like incredulity on your part. Where is the evidence that what he said happened, didn't happen.

Evidence Please.

[ConspiRaider]

The fireman was in the building. Were you?

This sounds like incredulity on your part. Where is the evidence that what he said happened, didn't happen.

Evidence Please.
Is it possible that you did NOT click on the link in the OP by Gravy? Do that. Read. Repeat.

[NYCEMT86]

The fireman was in the building. Were you?

This sounds like incredulity on your part. Where is the evidence that what he said happened, didn't happen.

Evidence Please.


I wasn't there, but I know a lot of people there. It's all about eyewitness reports. Maybe you should actually read the site rather than bashing Gravy. The evidence you ask for is in that very site. Do your own research. Maybe email a couple firefighters find out for yourself.

[Drudgewire]

The fireman was in the building. Were you?
Was he the only fireman in the building? Where's the supporting testimony?

That's one of the most disgusting things about twoofers. "Oh, so an ambulance driver/fireman/maintainence worker is lying?" Never mind that to support your stupid theories, EVERY ONE OF THE REST OF THEM HAS TO BE LYING.

Save your righteous indignation for those dumb enough to fall for it.

[Alferd_Packer]

Gravy, I had trouble opening the "loose change creaters speak" pdf file.

My copy of acrobat says that the file is corrupted.

[Oxigen]

Read one or two paragraphs. Doesn't impress me.

[NYCEMT86]

Read one or two paragraphs. Doesn't impress me.


Maybe you should read the WHOLE thing.


Is this how the whole TM works? Only read a paragraph or two and if you aren't impressed than its *****? If you can refute anything on this website than I will give you a cookie.

[Drudgewire]

Read one or two paragraphs. Doesn't impress me.
Of course not, it isn't on youtube. :p

[Corsair 115]

Read one or two paragraphs. Doesn't impress me.That doesn't surprise me.

[Abbyas]

I think this has gone too far.

Look, I'm not saying that Mark doesn't do great research. Or that his goals are anything other than honorable.

But we have to think long term with this one.

If our goals are to open the eyes of those that might want to give Dylan Avery or Jim Fetzer money, then this is off base. By approaching this guy and telling him that we will help him make sense of his experiences, we come off as extremely condescending. Regardless of whether you are right Mark, to tell someone that was there (regardless of who's manipulating him) that you can help him make sense of that day, is too much.

Again, I'm not saying you're not right, but you are in danger of giving these guys ammunition. Last thing we want to do is make it look like everyone who's against these guys are just people who think they are smarter than everyone else.

I think this may hurt more than it helps.

Now, if I was a truther, because I disagree with Mark, I would call him Disinfo. So here we go: Mark's on Alex Jones payroll! He's working for the other side!!!!

[Pardalis]

It's the first time I read a "dear John" letter... :D

Kidding aside, I've read a couple of pages and I hope M. Schroeder will be open to what you are saying.

[Drudgewire]

Now, if I was a truther, because I disagree with Mark, I would call him Disinfo.
What do you think they call him now? :confused:

[Unsecured Coins]

Read one or two paragraphs. Doesn't impress me.


care to refute anything then?

[Gravy]

Gravy, I had trouble opening the "loose change creaters speak" pdf file.

My copy of acrobat says that the file is corrupted.Huh. Opens for me in Acrobat and other software, and in the browser.

[Abbyas]

No, just mean, that were I a conspiracy nut, I would assume that since I disagree with Mark, that he must be paid off. Bad joke.

[Brainster]

Last week the History Channel Documentary and this week a thorough smackdown of the Shroeder interview. The Truthers may start getting the Monday Morning Blues if this keeps up!

Terrific job as always. But you're wrong about them never getting a single major fact about 9-11; they always get the date right! (Joke stolen from a total Republican shill).

I'll post on this once I've finished reading the whole thing and add it to the top post as well. Nobody from the 9-11 Denial Movement is going to debate you, ever again. As Buckley said, "Why does the bologna avoid the grinder?" (Quote stolen from Pomeroo).

[Alferd_Packer]

Read one or two paragraphs. Doesn't impress me.

Then why are you wasting your valuable time here?

Get out there and INVESTIGATE man!

[Gravy]

I think this has gone too far.

Look, I'm not saying that Mark doesn't do great research. Or that his goals are anything other than honorable.

But we have to think long term with this one.

If our goals are to open the eyes of those that might want to give Dylan Avery or Jim Fetzer money, then this is off base. By approaching this guy and telling him that we will help him make sense of his experiences, we come off as extremely condescending. Regardless of whether you are right Mark, to tell someone that was there (regardless of who's manipulating him) that you can help him make sense of that day, is too much.

Again, I'm not saying you're not right, but you are in danger of giving these guys ammunition. Last thing we want to do is make it look like everyone who's against these guys are just people who think they are smarter than everyone else.

I think this may hurt more than it helps.

Now, if I was a truther, because I disagree with Mark, I would call him Disinfo. So here we go: Mark's on Alex Jones payroll! He's working for the other side!!!!Your comments are always welcome, but I'd appreciate them more if they came after you read my work.

[Stellafane]

Read one or two paragraphs. Doesn't impress me.

Hi oxigen, You seem to be utterly unaware that your statement quoted above says nothing at all about Gravy's work, and a great deal about you -- none of it flattering.

[Drudgewire]

Huh. Opens for me in Acrobat and other software, and in the browser.
Opens fine for me, and this computer often has trouble with pdf documents. :)

[ConspiRaider]

Read one or two paragraphs. Doesn't impress me.
Which is it? ONE or TWO? Big difference between those numbers. Precision counts.

1. Determine whether you read ONE or TWO paragraphs.
2. Read a helluva lot more than that.
3. Be impressed.

[Oxigen]

Had a relative involved in travelling to GZ regarding charity work with police and firefighters in 2001. According to them they are very skeptical.

[Drudgewire]

Had a relative involved in travelling to GZ regarding charity work with police and firefighters in 2001. According to them they are very skeptical.
In 2001 we didn't have a lot of answers. At the time every skeptic had every reason to be skeptical.

[ConspiRaider]

Had a relative involved in travelling to GZ regarding charity work with police and firefighters in 2001. According to them they are very skeptical.
So are we. Skepticism based on a solid foundation is generally regarded as a good thing.

Who was skeptical? The relative? The police and firefighters? Specifically what were "they" skeptical about?

[Abbyas]

Mark, I've read the introduction and the parts where you address what he has said, that's more as your addressee will. That's my point.

I would assume that your goal here is to help him understand how he's being taken advantage of. In which case, you've got to show him more respect. Again, I'm not saying that you don't respect him, but try to take the position of someone "on the other side" reading it.

First, it's an open letter. Instead of writing directly to him. I think you should go that route first. While the paper is great in terms of facts and manipulated inaccuracies, as soon as you tell him that you'll help him make sense of that day, he will be turned off. As will anyone else reading it that doesn't understand.

Secondly, you've got to give him props immediately for his work that day. Right now, (not saying this is how you feel), it looks like you, a non-emergency worker, are telling someone who was there, what he saw. You have more respect and intelligence than how that comes across. For this is exactly why I got angry at truthers at GZ, they were telling firefighters that what they saw was not what they saw (and the lying bit, etc, etc).

My goal in writing this note is not to acheive "pwnage", just I'm afraid that sometimes we create more truthers than we dissuage.

[Gravy]

Oxigen, you're welcome to address my work. I believe this is an important story. Please don't troll.

[NYCEMT86]

Had a relative involved in travelling to GZ regarding charity work with police and firefighters in 2001. According to them they are very skeptical.

........


Can you name names? Or is this going to be one of those hearsay things?


Can you please give me the name of this charity and your title within this charity? This way I can verify if this may be true.

[jhunter1163]

A simply wonderful piece of work, as usual, Gravy. I hope that it is received in the spirit in which it is intended.

[Gravy]

Mark, I've read the introduction and the parts where you address what he has said, that's more as your addressee will. That's my point.

I would assume that your goal here is to help him understand how he's being taken advantage of. In which case, you've got to show him more respect. Again, I'm not saying that you don't respect him, but try to take the position of someone "on the other side" reading it.My main goal is to help him and others like him understand what happened that day, and that their confusion is shared by many. The part about Schroeder being used by selfish, ignorant creeps is important, but a distant second.

First, it's an open letter. Instead of writing directly to him. I think you should go that route first. I would have if I had been able to get in touch with him. I'll keep trying. He and Avery et. al. made a public case, so I don't have a big problem doing the same.

While the paper is great in terms of facts and manipulated inaccuracies, as soon as you tell him that you'll help him make sense of that day, he will be turned off. As will anyone else reading it that doesn't understand.I don't make that assumption.

Secondly, you've got to give him props immediately for his work that day.Good idea. I do thank him right off for serving, but not specifically for that day.

Right now, (not saying this is how you feel), it looks like you, a non-emergency worker, are telling someone who was there, what he saw.I am, and I use the accounts of the people who were with him to back that up.

You have more respect and intelligence than how that comes across. For this is exactly why I got angry at truthers at GZ, they were telling firefighters that what they saw was not what they saw (and the lying bit, etc, etc).The difference is that I do my research. I think we can all agree that the north tower did not fall before the south. :)

My goal in writing this note is not to acheive "pwnage", just I'm afraid that sometimes we create more truthers than we dissuage.Again, I don't make that assumption. Are most truthers unlikely to read what I wrote? Sure. That's a symptom of them being truthers, not a cause. I speak directly, both from the heart and with facts, and will continue to do so.

By the way, I've heard from quite a few truthers who don't agree with me about 9/11 but who think my Rodriguez paper is great. This paper is quite different, since Schroeder isn't self-aggrandizing. He's just very confused, which he tells us again and again.

[Drudgewire]

A simply wonderful piece of work, as usual, Gravy. I hope that it is received in the spirit in which it is intended.
Agreed. While reading I can actually sense the trepidation/tightrope walking you went through to not sound as though you were lecturing or suggesting any dishonesty on his part.

It's as sensitive a topic for a letter I as I could ever imagine writing, and your sensitivity is what will hopefully (for his sake, not ours) lead him to the truth, rather than the "truth."

I want to hug you right now. Is that wrong? :o

[Donal]

I agree with Abby about the how you may come off, Mark.

Its one thing to say here are the answers to your questions, by the way, Dylan and Co. are playing you for a fool.

Its a different thing to say you are going to help him make sense of things. It kind of sounds like you are trying to make up his mind for him.

[Gravy]

I agree with Abby about the how you may come off, Mark.

Its one thing to say here are the answers to your questions, by the way, Dylan and Co. are playing you for a fool.

Its a different thing to say you are going to help him make sense of things. It kind of sounds like you are trying to make up his mind for him.I appreciate your criticism, but I very much want him to believe that the south tower fell while he was in the north, because that's what happened, and it's essential to him understanding much of what he experienced after that event. That's not open for debate.

[Gravy]

Agreed. While reading I can actually sense the trepidation/tightrope walking you went through to not sound as though you were lecturing or suggesting any dishonesty on his part.

It's as sensitive a topic for a letter I as I could ever imagine writing, and your sensitivity is what will hopefully (for his sake, not ours) lead him to the truth, rather than the "truth."There is definitely a lecture in there, but that's directed towards Avery and co, who have hit a new low, IMO.

I want to hug you right now. Is that wrong? :oWe'll do the A-frame and see how it goes from there.

[Drudgewire]

There is definitely a lecture in there, but that's directed towards Avery and co, who have hit a new low, IMO.
"Talking down to" was the term I was looking for rather than "lecturing." :)

[A W Smith]

Read one or two paragraphs. Doesn't impress me.

So you cannot even remember how many paragraphs you read. Could be one. But maybe two? And that is the extent of your research into the article and summary judgement? You sound just like Erring Cassity.

[beachnut]

the truth is not a happy time for some, and not to be found by Dylan

[Gravy]

Excellent stuff, Gravy.

I didn't know about the Rodriguez conversion to Islam and the Malaysian incident. Thanks for that - and for everything.Thanks. I've removed that Rodriguez passage because it didn't seem as relevant today as when I wrote it. There's a lot more on it here http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Of course not, it isn't on youtube. :pActually it is...parts of it, at least. I made a video to go along with it and perhaps Oxigen can comment on that. (He'll have to find the link on the home page first!)

[Lisa Simpson]

Truthfully, I found the video to be too snarky, although I did find the essays well written and informative.

[Björn Toulouse]

Gravy, I had trouble opening the "loose change creaters speak" pdf file.

My copy of acrobat says that the file is corrupted.



Me too, but I opened it in another browser and it worked just fine.

[Digest]

Gravy - would you mind clearing a space in your PM box - i have a personal story to share with you on the disscusions in this thread and I would hope it would give you some insight.

[Mr. Skinny]

Gravy,

I tend to agree with Abbyas, Donal, and others in thinking that regardless of your good intentions, I think the approach is wrong.

When reading the opening letter, I sorta thought to myself - suppose back in the day when I was a cop, I had been involved in a traumatic shooting where I had killed someone? Would I want someone who wasn't there telling me what "really happened", even if I admit that it was a confusing situation?

Even if your research was rather solid, I think I'd get a littled pissed and think you were being presumptious to tell me what happened. I might be wrong, but I'd still be pissed. Even if you showed me the videotapes of me shooting the perp, I might still be pissed. Dunno - maybe it's just human nature, but I'd be reacting more emotionally than rationally.

Anyhow, the bulk of the work appeared quite good. I just wish you had posted it without the "open letter". Otherwise, it's an interesting read.

[Digest]

Gravy,

I tend to agree with Abbyas, Donal, and others in thinking that regardless of your good intentions, I think the approach is wrong.

When reading the opening letter, I sorta thought to myself - suppose back in the day when I was a cop, I had been involved in a traumatic shooting where I had killed someone? Would I want someone who wasn't there telling me what "really happened", even if I admit that it was a confusing situation?

Even if your research was rather solid, I think I'd get a littled pissed and think you were being presumptious to tell me what happened. I might be wrong, but I'd still be pissed. Even if you showed me the videotapes of me shooting the perp, I might still be pissed. Dunno - maybe it's just human nature, but I'd be reacting more emotionally than rationally.

Anyhow, the bulk of the work appeared quite good. I just wish you had posted it without the "open letter". Otherwise, it's an interesting read.

uh wow -- that pretty much sums up my story but if you woud still like to hear what i had to say gravy let me know when you got room in your PM box

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Read one or two paragraphs. Doesn't impress me.


lol... The Lord of the Rings isn't very impressive after one or two paragraphs, either. You've got to put a little effort into your attempts at reading. Geez.

[Young Union Square]

Ummm, who here has actually met John Schroeder?..

*raises hand*

I first met the man at a CHANGE wednesday night meeting (yes I am a member of CHANGE). I was late to the meeting and walked in to this guy practically in tears telling everyone how he was lucky to be alive with all the EXPLOSIONS going on. And how he was meant to survive to be there today, with us. The man approached us, nobody knew him before the meeting. He heard of us through a friend, or whatever. And if he's lying, he did a great job of acting because I've never heard anyone sound more sincere. Now you can say what you want about CHANGE, or the Truth Movement, or whatever. But y'all should be ashamed of yourselves whoever's usin John's testimony and trying to twist it around by discrediting the people who interviewed him. My little brother coulda interviewed him, who cares?? Listen to what he's SAYING. Since the truth cant be taken head on, people resort to ad hominem attacks against people that got nothing to do with it. Not one of the people who interviewed John were there when the towers came down. Why attack them? Instead, deal with the TESTIMONY. Discredit Luke, Dylan, I've even seem some attacks towards my good friend Manny who lost an uncle on Sept. 11th. But none of you deal with what was said. The only "debunking" that could be done is using contradictory testimony from other firefighters and/or cops. You're gonna have your share of cops and firefighters who are going to contradict the story. What's the motives? I dunno...I'm not into personal attacks or personal business or anything, give me the facts. There are plenty of firefighters and cops who reported bombs and/or explosions going off in the buildings too. Somehow those testimonies are left out of the paragraphs. I know a few cops, I live in Staten Island where alot of them make their homes. Off the record a majority of the police officers i've spoken to when they are out of uniform all agree with the majority of the facts I kick to them. When they are in uniform, they represent the City of New York, i.e. the government, so they arent free to express themselves fully because things they say can be misenterprited as the point of view of the City, which wholly supports the 9/11 lie. Out of uniform though, believe me or not, alot of them are on board.

Speaking of which, I wonder how many actual New Yorkers are on this message board? Give me the NAMES of the firefighters that contradict the testimony, and when I have free time i'll go to the firehouses themselves and ask my own questions. See, cuz I can do that, cuz I'm not someone in front of a computer screen hundreds of miles away talking nonsense about things I have no knowledge of.

And if you're from NYC, you can come see me every Saturday at Union Square from like 6:30 pm to whenever. I'm out there with the banner with CHANGE its an extension of the PATH station street actions. I'm a respectful dude, I'll answer any questions to the best of my knowledge. I dont got all the answers but dont ever call me or anyone I stand with a liar, because that simply isnt the case. Like I said quit talkin "stuff", and come see us at Union Square whenever you like.

[Brainster]

More than your excellent, declarative writing style and your mad research skillz, what really blows me away is your organization (no, not the NWO). How do you keep all this stuff together?

[Drudgewire]

Welcome to the forums, YUS. :)

Also, edit the last sentence in the first post before you get in trouble. Rule 10 of your membership agreement is pretty clear about it (not being a prude, just trying to save you some grief).

[Gravy]

Ummm, who here has actually met John Schroeder?..

*raises hand*

I first met the man at a CHANGE wednesday night meeting (yes I am a member of CHANGE). I was late to the meeting and walked in to this guy practically in tears telling everyone how he was lucky to be alive with all the EXPLOSIONS going on. And how he was meant to survive to be there today, with us. The man approached us, nobody knew him before the meeting. He heard of us through a friend, or whatever. And if he's lying, he did a great job of acting because I've never heard anyone sound more sincere. Now you can say what you want about CHANGE, or the Truth Movement, or whatever. But y'all should be ashamed of yourselves whoever's usin John's testimony and trying to twist it around by discrediting the people who interviewed him. My little brother coulda interviewed him, who cares?? Listen to what he's SAYING. Since the truth cant be taken head on, people resort to ad hominem attacks against people that got nothing to do with it. Not one of the people who interviewed John were there when the towers came down. Why attack them? Instead, deal with the TESTIMONY. Discredit Luke, Dylan, I've even seem some attacks towards my good friend Manny who lost an uncle on Sept. 11th. But none of you deal with what was said. The only "debunking" that could be done is using contradictory testimony from other firefighters and/or cops. You're gonna have your share of cops and firefighters who are going to contradict the story. What's the motives? I dunno...I'm not into personal attacks or personal business or anything, give me the facts. There are plenty of firefighters and cops who reported bombs and/or explosions going off in the buildings too. Somehow those testimonies are left out of the paragraphs. I know a few cops, I live in Staten Island where alot of them make their homes. Off the record a majority of the police officers i've spoken to when they are out of uniform all agree with the majority of the facts I kick to them. When they are in uniform, they represent the City of New York, i.e. the government, so they arent free to express themselves fully because things they say can be misenterprited as the point of view of the City, which wholly supports the 9/11 lie. Out of uniform though, believe me or not, alot of them are on board.

Speaking of which, I wonder how many actual New Yorkers are on this message board? Give me the NAMES of the firefighters that contradict the testimony, and when I have free time i'll go to the firehouses themselves and ask my own questions. See, cuz I can do that, cuz I'm not someone in front of a computer screen hundreds of miles away talking nonsense about things I have no knowledge of.

And if you're from NYC, you can come see me every Saturday at Union Square from like 6:30 pm to whenever. I'm out there with the banner with CHANGE its an extension of the PATH station street actions. I'm a respectful dude, I'll answer any questions to the best of my knowledge. I dont got all the answers but dont ever call me or anyone I stand with a liar, because that simply isnt the case. Like I said quit talkin "stuff", and come see us at Union Square whenever you like.Welcome to the forums, YUS. Perhaps you can let John Schroeder know about my paper. He is unaware that the south tower collapsed while he was in the north tower, and that has dramatically influenced what he thinks happened inside and outside of the building. I'm sure you'll agree that he needs to know these things. His interviewers didn't think them worth mentioning.

If you don't want to deal with him personally, perhaps you can send me a PM or email and let me know how I can. Thanks.

[Gravy]

uh wow -- that pretty much sums up my story but if you woud still like to hear what i had to say gravy let me know when you got room in your PM boxDone. Thanks!

[Young Union Square]

Welcome to the forums, YUS. Perhaps you can let John Schroeder know about my paper. He is unaware that the south tower collapsed while he was in the north tower, and that has dramatically influenced what he thinks happened inside and outside of the building. I'm sure you'll agree that he needs to know these things. His interviewers didn't think them worth mentioning.

If you don't want to deal with him personally, perhaps you can send me a PM or email and let me know how I can. Thanks.

How you doin Mark? I've seen 1 or 2 videos of you debating Luke and Dan back in the day before I joined CHANGE. Come down to Union Square on Saturday, let's have a discussion. In front of alot of people. One thing I noticed is that you keep referring to the NIST and Commission reports as if it's Holy scripture. They've already been debunked, thoroughly. We both know this little reply window doesnt have nearly the character capacity for me to fully get into it, plus you've probably been over this same stuff over and over again. But hey you're a free citizen, you're welcome to your opinion, and you're also welcome to any of our public street actions and wednesday night meetings. I dont know how to contact Mr. Schroeder, and if I did id ask him permission first before I gave you his contact info. But you can contact us anytime. You know where CHANGE is on Saturdays.

And I dont appreciate the personal attacks about my friend, Luke. Basically its lies and I'm sorry you can influence the way other people who dont know Luke feel about him but that nonsense needs to stop. I dont know you im not gonna start personally attacking you, so if you want a discussion about facts bring yourself over to Union Square and come see me, and quit with the slander on the internet, its not cool.

[Drudgewire]

One thing I noticed is that you keep referring to the NIST and Commission reports as if it's Holy scripture. They've already been debunked, thoroughly.
Which parts, exactly?

[tsire]

Ive read about half so far and I have to commend you on a job well done. You took the high road.

[Gravy]

Gravy,

I tend to agree with Abbyas, Donal, and others in thinking that regardless of your good intentions, I think the approach is wrong.

When reading the opening letter, I sorta thought to myself - suppose back in the day when I was a cop, I had been involved in a traumatic shooting where I had killed someone? Would I want someone who wasn't there telling me what "really happened", even if I admit that it was a confusing situation?

Even if your research was rather solid, I think I'd get a littled pissed and think you were being presumptious to tell me what happened. I might be wrong, but I'd still be pissed. Even if you showed me the videotapes of me shooting the perp, I might still be pissed. Dunno - maybe it's just human nature, but I'd be reacting more emotionally than rationally.

Anyhow, the bulk of the work appeared quite good. I just wish you had posted it without the "open letter". Otherwise, it's an interesting read.Thanks for your comments, Skinny. I can't be overly concerned about how facts will be accepted. If, for example, you had made a video that incorrectly described your theoretical shooting and put it on the web, and I had evidence that it was wrong, I would feel obligated to correct you. You might not like it, and might refuse to read it, but I think the information would likely filter down to you. That also goes for people who would use the incorrect story to "set the historical record straight."

To me the important thing is to make the information available, not only to John Schroeder, but to other first responders, and to the people who would take advantage of their confusion. I did this very quickly. No doubt there are many better ways of doing it, but I wanted to get the information to the people who need it as soon as possible.



To all: if I don't reply to someone in this thread it's not out of rudeness. I'm not at home and am having some connection problems.

[Gravy]

How you doin Mark? Very well, thanks. Please start another thread if you have specific issues to discuss that aren't related to this thread.

And I dont appreciate the personal attacks about my friend, Luke. Basically its lies Please point out what I said that's untrue.

[tsire]

To all: if I don't reply to someone in this thread it's not out of rudeness. I'm not at home and am having some connection problems.

If you were a truther, the explanation would be because the NWO is trying to cut off your internet to repress the truth.

[Gravy]

More than your excellent, declarative writing style and your mad research skillz, what really blows me away is your organization (no, not the NWO). How do you keep all this stuff together?With a staff of scribes, of course.

[NYCEMT86]

I first met the man at a CHANGE wednesday night meeting (yes I am a member of CHANGE). I was late to the meeting and walked in to this guy practically in tears telling everyone how he was lucky to be alive with all the EXPLOSIONS going on.


See the firefighters and EMTs and Cops who I talk to are lucky to survive 9/11 as well. They believe the "Conspiracy Theorists are ****", that comes from a Boss from Squad 288. Yes they mention explosions but they don't believe they were bombs. EXPLOSIONS doesn't mean bombs...wait here check this out


http://youtube.com/watch?v=go7aScpRKhA

*I dont know how to embed*


The only "debunking" that could be done is using contradictory testimony from other firefighters and/or cops. You're gonna have your share of cops and firefighters who are going to contradict the story. What's the motives? I dunno...I'm not into personal attacks or personal business or anything, give me the facts. There are plenty of firefighters and cops who reported bombs and/or explosions going off in the buildings too. Somehow those testimonies are left out of the paragraphs. I know a few cops, I live in Staten Island where alot of them make their homes. Off the record a majority of the police officers i've spoken to when they are out of uniform all agree with the majority of the facts I kick to them. When they are in uniform, they represent the City of New York, i.e. the government, so they arent free to express themselves fully because things they say can be misenterprited as the point of view of the City, which wholly supports the 9/11 lie. Out of uniform though, believe me or not, alot of them are on board.


The FDNY instructors who came to my class at the NYS Fire Academy, don't believe they were bombs. Rather they explain this as elevators falling into the basement, the floors initiating collapse, and even flashovers. Still there is nothing from the NYPD or FDNY pushing for a new investigation. Don't say they are afraid of losing their jobs, because the Union protects them.



Speaking of which, I wonder how many actual New Yorkers are on this message board?


Born and Raised.



And if you're from NYC, you can come see me every Saturday at Union Square from like 6:30 pm to whenever. I'm out there with the banner with CHANGE its an extension of the PATH station street actions. I'm a respectful dude, I'll answer any questions to the best of my knowledge. I dont got all the answers but dont ever call me or anyone I stand with a liar, because that simply isnt the case. Like I said quit talkin "stuff", and come see us at Union Square whenever you like.


I may take you up on that offer.

[Caper]

You know what. This firefighter is just being dishonest. Plain and simple. I don't think he is being mislead, I think he's nuts.

[Gravy]

You know what. This firefighter is just being dishonest. Plain and simple. I don't think he is being mislead, I think he's nuts.I don't get the impression that he's lying. In fact, many of the things he says, such as that the building was deteriorating from the inside, work against the conspiracy theorists. He just doesn't know what caused these things. I think he's exactly as he describes himself on video: very confused, angry, and living in a nightmare. His answers are often disjointed and not logically coherent. I think he needs help, which he will never get from the "truth" movement.

[ZENSMACK89]

Well isn't this nice? What's the title of that other thread?

Why I hate Truthers?

Is Gravy questioning a firefighter and his account? Does this mean Gravy thinks Schroeder is a murderer?

[Alferd_Packer]

A very apt quote.

You had a lot of stuff in the hallway. You had life-saving ropes, spare cylinders. Guys were just jettisoning things when they realized how far they had to go. But basically that was it until I got to the 30th floor and I had to stop. I was completely exhausted, so I stopped. I was with two other firemen from Squad 18 and we stopped and we took our turnout coats off and our helmets and our masks. We had everything off. We were just taking a rest.
A few seconds after we got all our gear off, the building shook violently, damn near knocked you off your feet. You could hear a faint sound of a rumble. It wasn’t loud, it was just a very faint rumbling sound. It lasted maybe about four seconds and then it got quiet and the lighting went out and the emergency lighting came on. The radios were completely quiet.
Then we heard this sound, this boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I’m like what the hell is that? It was four ESU cops coming down the stairs and they weren’t even touching the tread. They were going from landing to landing. We had to put our backs up against the wall to get out of the way. Then there was a transmission on my radio. I was on Channel 1. There was a transmission on the radio that somebody said there was a collapse on the 65th floor. Then somebody came back and very calm, didn’t identify himself or his company, and said we’re on the 65th floor and everything’s fine.
source ( http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Well isn't this nice? What's the title of that other thread?

Why I hate Truthers?

Is Gravy questioning a firefighter and his account? Does this mean Gravy thinks Schroeder is a murderer?


What... are you talking about?

Schroeder himself admits that his memory is shot. Other firefighters in his own house contradict a number of his statements, not to mention all the other firefighters that were there that morning.

And how does pointing that all out mean Gravy thinks Schroeder is a murderer? Remember, it's your ilk that are accusing innocent people of being murderers. Stop being absurd.

[Young Union Square]

I just want to be sure I'm getting you right here: Every single person investigating at GZ was in on it, correct?

Im not even gonna address that. The fact that this is supposed to be an "educational foundation" message board should mean you're able to do your own critical thinking, and learn why that isnt true.

Yo EMT, so if you believe that Mr. Schroeder is lying, why would u believe word for word what instructors are saying in your classrooms?? I mean its crazy, I had a discussion with a firefighter one night at Times Square who claimed that the building failure in South Carolina some 2 months back was the same thing as Building 7's collapse. The FURNITURE STORE isnt a steel framed high rise building, its a 40 foot tall department store that had the ceiling cave in, the entire structure didnt collapse. When I showed him the pictures of it on my sidekick that same night, he got all defensive, then proceeded to spew nonsense along the lines of "buildings collapse all the time because of fire." At that point even the general public listening in on our debate started to laugh at him. I felt bad because he is a public servant who risks his life to save others, and he had his family with him. Still beyond all of that, he just didnt have his facts straight, AT ALL. I didnt keep pressing him I just exited the convo like "okay sir im sorry to bother you while you're with your family" because had I pressed him on that I would have embarassed the grown man beyond belief in the heart of NYC, and I'm not like that. Point is, who cares what the firefighters and cops you talk to say about the collapses and the science behind it. Firefighters and cops are stand up people but they are far from experts in the field of physics and explosives. The higher up you are in rank in any city department, the less likely you are to speak out, for fear of retribution such as LOSING YOUR JOB and having your kids starve. The fact that this is hard for you to understand, makes me pray you never come around with the ambulance if im ever in need of medical attention. This is simple stuff, and its simple stuff I hear almost everyday at Union Sq and GZ. Majority of people who are on this stuff end up agreeing to look into things further. some people are just obvious sheep who are reaching to the ends of the earth to defend the official story so they can sleep at night without worrying that their government is trying to kill them. I would LOVE to see you at Union Square this Saturday. We should have a friendly chat, and feel free to take as many flyers and free DVDs as you like. Educate your friends.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Im not even gonna address that. The fact that this is supposed to be an "educational foundation" message board should mean you're able to do your own critical thinking, and learn why that isnt true.


Bwuh? He was asking about your own beliefs. How is any amount of research supposed to tell him what you think?

[NYCEMT86]

Im not even gonna address that. The fact that this is supposed to be an "educational foundation" message board should mean you're able to do your own critical thinking, and learn why that isnt true.

Yo EMT, so if you believe that Mr. Schroeder is lying, why would u believe word for word what instructors are saying in your classrooms?? I mean its crazy, I had a discussion with a firefighter one night at Times Square who claimed that the building failure in South Carolina some 2 months back was the same thing as Building 7's collapse. The FURNITURE STORE isnt a steel framed high rise building, its a 40 foot tall department store that had the ceiling cave in, the entire structure didnt collapse. When I showed him the pictures of it on my sidekick that same night, he got all defensive, then proceeded to spew nonsense along the lines of "buildings collapse all the time because of fire." At that point even the general public listening in on our debate started to laugh at him. I felt bad because he is a public servant who risks his life to save others, and he had his family with him. Still beyond all of that, he just didnt have his facts straight, AT ALL. I didnt keep pressing him I just exited the convo like "okay sir im sorry to bother you while you're with your family" because had I pressed him on that I would have embarassed the grown man beyond belief in the heart of NYC, and I'm not like that. Point is, who cares what the firefighters and cops you talk to say about the collapses and the science behind it. Firefighters and cops are stand up people but they are far from experts in the field of physics and explosives. The higher up you are in rank in any city department, the less likely you are to speak out, for fear of retribution such as LOSING YOUR JOB and having your kids starve. The fact that this is hard for you to understand, makes me pray you never come around with the ambulance if im ever in need of medical attention. This is simple stuff, and its simple stuff I hear almost everyday at Union Sq and GZ. Majority of people who are on this stuff end up agreeing to look into things further. some people are just obvious sheep who are reaching to the ends of the earth to defend the official story so they can sleep at night without worrying that their government is trying to kill them. I would LOVE to see you at Union Square this Saturday. We should have a friendly chat, and feel free to take as many flyers and free DVDs as you like. Educate your friends.



Strawman never said he was lying. Nice attempt though. He does say he is confused and has bad memory. I am not going to hold that against him either.


As for the firefighter who thought the South Carolina was the same as WTC 7 wow that is pretty stupid. I actually had to fight pretty much the same argument here.

[Young Union Square]

Strawman never said he was lying. Nice attempt though. He does say he is confused and has bad memory. I am not going to hold that against him either.


As for the firefighter who thought the South Carolina was the same as WTC 7 wow that is pretty stupid. I actually had to fight pretty much the same argument here.

so we are in agreement that you can completely disregard any high ranking, or even low ranking, FDNY or NYPD official's accounts of explosions going off inside the towers years AFTER the fact, on 2 counts;

A) They are not experts on physics and can only explain to the limits of their capacity what they SAW, FELT, HEARD AND EXPERIENCED first hand

and B) since they are NOT experts, they are susceptible to the same pseudo science the rest of the population is when a man who is an expert but obviously on govt payroll explains to them exactly what had happened.

Firefighter - "Yes, but I heard explosions! I heard bombs!"

NIST 'scientist' - "No you're confused, those were just the floors collapsing."

Same thing about that woman, April Gallop i believe, from the pentagon, who was swearing up and down she saw no plane, but while laying in a hospital was visited repeatedly by FBI agents pounding it into her head "You saw a plane, you saw a plane" and to take the compensation money and "shut up"

[Young Union Square]

Maybe you should do that thing called research...

without you getting all fanatic on me, I do remember reading or hearing something that a man reported seeing dead bodies in the lobby of WTC 7. Im not sure, but if its false and this was on prison planet, thats wonderful. Not everything on prison planet is true, and i've never said i follow alex jones' word like he's Jesus. So wow you might've stumbled upon a falsehood. Good work, Sherlock

[Cl1mh4224rd]

without you getting all fanatic on me, I do remember reading or hearing something that a man reported seeing dead bodies in the lobby of WTC 7.


You do realize that a medical triage was set up there for a bit, don't you?

[Drudgewire]

without you getting all fanatic on me, I do remember reading or hearing something that a man reported seeing dead bodies in the lobby of WTC 7. Im not sure, but if its false and this was on prison planet, thats wonderful. Not everything on prison planet is true, and i've never said i follow alex jones' word like he's Jesus. So wow you might've stumbled upon a falsehood. Good work, Sherlock
Again, which parts of the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports have been "thoroughly debunked?"

[Young Union Square]

You do realize that a medical triage was set up there for a bit, don't you?

in the lobby? laying around on the floor?? hey, I wasnt there, and its obvious by your cool little avatar you have more expertise, so I cant argue.

Hey Dr. Harry, how you doin'? What do you think of the accounts that people heard them seconds before they collapsed and live to tell about it? i.e. from the ground or close enough to hear the explosions but far enough to get the hell outta there in time.

[Donal]

Ummm, who here has actually met John Schroeder?..

*raises hand*

Congrats. Want a cookie?

I first met the man at a CHANGE wednesday night meeting (yes I am a member of CHANGE). I was late to the meeting and walked in to this guy practically in tears telling everyone how he was lucky to be alive with all the EXPLOSIONS going on.

Gee, a building that just had a topped off jetliner crash into it and is about to collapse is making loud noises. Go figure.

And how he was meant to survive to be there today, with us. The man approached us, nobody knew him before the meeting. He heard of us through a friend, or whatever.

Some friend

And if he's lying, he did a great job of acting because I've never heard anyone sound more sincere.

Lying implies intent. He is probably confused and freaked out. Can't really blame him.

Now you can say what you want about CHANGE, or the Truth Movement, or whatever.

And we will.

But y'all should be ashamed of yourselves whoever's usin John's testimony and trying to twist it around by discrediting the people who interviewed him.

Not nearly as ashamed as the people using his testimony to sell t-shirts should feel.

My little brother coulda interviewed him, who cares??

He might have done a better job.

Listen to what he's SAYING.

Yes, and it gets compared to other testimony and forensic evidence.

Since the truth cant be taken head on, people resort to ad hominem attacks against people that got nothing to do with it.

Actually, if you read Gravy's letter, he does address the points John makes and the questions he asks.

Not one of the people who interviewed John were there when the towers came down. Why attack them?

Because they are leeches, and profiteers and scammers and whole bunch of other words I can't use on this forum.

Instead, deal with the TESTIMONY.

thats been done already. Please read the work before attacking it.

Discredit Luke, Dylan, I've even seem some attacks towards my good friend Manny who lost an uncle on Sept. 11th.

Because when you mangle the facts, you're going to get called on it.

But none of you deal with what was said.

New around here?

The only "debunking" that could be done is using contradictory testimony from other firefighters and/or cops.

You mean like my brother (FDNY for about 17 years) or my cousin (NYPD about the same time)? Or the thousands of police officers and firefighters that aren't standing up and raising noise about this?

You're gonna have your share of cops and firefighters who are going to contradict the story.

Like?

What's the motives? I dunno...I'm not into personal attacks or personal business or anything, give me the facts. There are plenty of firefighters and cops who reported bombs and/or explosions going off in the buildings too.

Like?

Somehow those testimonies are left out of the paragraphs.

But you have them?

I know a few cops, I live in Staten Island where alot of them make their homes.

Good for you. I grew up in and Irish neighborhood the Bronx and lower Westchester. Met a few cops and firefighters in my time.

Off the record a majority of the police officers i've spoken to when they are out of uniform all agree with the majority of the facts I kick to them.

Or maybe they are just yessing you to shut you up.

When they are in uniform, they represent the City of New York, i.e. the government, so they arent free to express themselves fully because things they say can be misenterprited as the point of view of the City, which wholly supports the 9/11 lie. Out of uniform though, believe me or not, alot of them are on board.

In or out of uniform, they are still responsible for the safety of their fellow officers and the people of New York.

Speaking of which, I wonder how many actual New Yorkers are on this message board?

One more to the list. Born and bred.

Give me the NAMES of the firefighters that contradict the testimony, and when I have free time i'll go to the firehouses themselves and ask my own questions.

Great. bug them with your dumb questions when they could actually be productive.

See, cuz I can do that, cuz I'm not someone in front of a computer screen hundreds of miles away talking nonsense about things I have no knowledge of.

Ya, you're in Union Square talking nonsense about things you have no knowledge of.

And if you're from NYC, you can come see me every Saturday at Union Square from like 6:30 pm to whenever. I'm out there with the banner with CHANGE its an extension of the PATH station street actions. I'm a respectful dude, I'll answer any questions to the best of my knowledge. I dont got all the answers but dont ever call me or anyone I stand with a liar, because that simply isnt the case. Like I said quit talkin "stuff", and come see us at Union Square whenever you like.

Been there, seen you guys. Where are the engineers and first responders giving testimony with you? I usually see some kids and burned out wannabe hippies handing out fliers and yelling at people.

And if you aren't a liar, what would you call it when someone constantly and vehemently pushes off points that have time and time again been proven false?

[nicepants]

Am I the only one who finds it comical that Dylan Avery is attacking Gravy for "posting this online instead of talking to Schroeder himself" and yet that's exactly what he's doing with Gravy?

[Young Union Square]

Again, which parts of the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports have been "thoroughly debunked?"

you know it already, if you've had this argument with truthers before. And if you dont, then find out the same way I did. By reading stuff and watching documentaries, and asking questions. I dont need to hold your hand through this stuff

[Drudgewire]

you know it already, if you've had this argument with truthers before. And if you dont, then find out the same way I did. By reading stuff and watching documentaries, and asking questions. I dont need to hold your hand through this stuff
Again, I'm asking you. Are you an individual or a movement?

Hahahhaa, I didn't mean that when I typed it. :D

[NYCEMT86]

without you getting all fanatic on me, I do remember reading or hearing something that a man reported seeing dead bodies in the lobby of WTC 7. Im not sure, but if its false and this was on prison planet, thats wonderful. Not everything on prison planet is true, and i've never said i follow alex jones' word like he's Jesus. So wow you might've stumbled upon a falsehood. Good work, Sherlock


What about Bremas? Or did Abby really do a jedi mind trick to get him to say the firefighters were paid off?

[TheRedWorm]

May I ask you a serious question, YUS? Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job strongly enough to do something about it besides posting on internet forums?

[Alferd_Packer]

The higher up you are in rank in any city department, the less likely you are to speak out, for fear of retribution such as LOSING YOUR JOB and having your kids starve.

Let me fix that quote for you

The higher up you are in rank in any city department, the less likely you are to embrace crackpot theories, because they tend to promote the inteligent and emotionally stable over the nutjob

There that's better.

[Young Union Square]

Or are they just lying?

I didnt say they were lying. It's not within the realms of impossibility, however, that they would put out false information to protect their jobs and livelihood. That's just the truth. Would I do the same? I can't answer that. I know that if what I was saying was affecting my employment status, I'd reconsider having such open discussions about this sort of thing. I'm an average New Yorker just like you, I have rent to pay, car payments, I like to enjoy life and go on vacation, and so forth. I need a job to do that. If I got the word that what im saying is jeopardizing me earning a living, I'd probably just keep the truth amongst myself and my really close family but say what everyone wants me to say in public, especially when what I say represents the City of New York, as a civil servant of the city. Now, dont go twisting my words around saying "HE'S CALLING FIRST RESPONDERS LIARS!!" because as a disclaimer right now thats not what im saying. I'm simply saying I dont know if they are, and that its possible they COULD be. That's why I tend to stay away from arguments that are based around what people say, and stick to the science, like a free fall collapse. That NIST failed to explain. Explain a free fall collapse, the speed of gravity? No? Alrighty then, shut down the message boards.

[Digest]

I think everyone in this thread need sto just step away from the computer for 5 mins then come back and debate like civil people - arguing does nothing more then create animosity and no ones point gets across. :boggled:

[NYCEMT86]

The higher up you are in rank in any city department, the less likely you are to speak out, for fear of retribution such as LOSING YOUR JOB and having your kids starve. The fact that this is hard for you to understand, makes me pray you never come around with the ambulance if im ever in need of medical attention.

Actually thats not true the higher up you are in rank, the easier it is to speak out against things. Those with the power...rule. You know nothing about the FDNY.

I was in union square protesting for better health care....I am still working. You have no idea how this union works and what rights we have. SO SHHHH before you hurt yourself trying to lie your way out of this.

Well its a good thing I don't work in Staten Island and lower Brooklyn, but I do sometimes go down there to cover if I have to take a PT to Coney Island Hospital. BTW, my LT. just gave me a letter of recomandation for the next Paramedic class and graduated from my TOP Class in the top 5.

So thanks for the personal attacks. :D I really hope you never need my help.

[Pardalis]

That's why I tend to stay away from arguments that are based around what people say, and stick to the science,

OK, so I take it that you won't be giving too much importance to the eyewitnesses testimonies then. Good, that's a start.

That NIST failed to explain. Explain a free fall collapse, the speed of gravity? No? Alrighty then, shut down the message boards.This message board is not about conspiracy theories, and you don't have jursidiction over it. Besides, we can't shut the JREF now, there's an important bingo game going on here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90701

Look at my damn name...How many times have I said the words "come out to Union Square" for a discussion...


Why can't you discuss it here, where you can post links and photographs, and discuss specific comments?

[Abbyas]

I didnt say they were lying. It's not within the realms of impossibility, however, that they would put out false information to protect their jobs and livelihood.

You are talking about men that punched out cops in the weeks after 911 when the firefighters weren't allowed back at Ground Zero. This statement is extremely insulting to men and women who risk their lives for each other, not just their livelihoods.

And I was at Union Square three or four weekends ago. An older gentlemen told me, with regards to firefighters testimony re: wtc7, that they were lying. That they had to me.

[Gravy]

Am I the only one who finds it comical that Dylan Avery is attacking Gravy for "posting this online instead of talking to Schroeder himself" and yet that's exactly what he's doing with Gravy?The king of hypocrisy retains his crown! When Avery was talking to Schroeder, he might have slipped in the fact that the south tower didn't fall after the north.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

in the lobby? laying around on the floor?? hey, I wasnt there, and its obvious by your cool little avatar you have more expertise, so I cant argue.


Do you know what an ad hominem is?

[Alferd_Packer]

Explain a free fall collapse,

Please provide proof of a free fall collapse


the speed of gravity?

Please explain what "the speed of gravity" is. :rolleyes:

There is no such thing as "the speed of gravity."

If you can't see your mistake here, then you need to go back to school and demand your money back.

[dirtywick]

Yeah I suppose the car and the weekend at Tahoe are more important than the mass murder of a few thousand Americans. Ridiculous.

Anyway, back on topic, I think the letter is a good start. Either he's going to go in there with the mindset where he's not open to the possibility that they're taking him for a fool and will be percieved as insulting no matter what, or he'll take it for what it's worth. I wouldn't bet my house on him changing his mind, but at least the guys he's running with now will have some explaining to do if he makes it far enough in to read some of the comments the "leaders" made publicly.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why can't you discuss it here, where you can post links and photographs, and discuss specific comments?


Not to mention the ability to actually take some time and gather the information he might need.

Personally, I think YUS is avoiding debate here for the simple fact that there are more of us than there are of him. I think he'd rather have one or two debunkers show up so that his posse can merely shout them down when they get pressed into a corner.

[Donal]

gyarr, double post.

[Donal]

Please provide proof of a free fall collapse



Please explain what "the speed of gravity" is. :rolleyes:

There is no such thing as "the speed of gravity."

If you can't see your mistake here, then you need to go back to school and demand your money back.

And if you go to public school, YUS, I want my money back.

[Drudgewire]

Personally, I think YUS is avoiding debate here for the simple fact that there are more of us than there are of him. I think he'd rather have one or two debunkers show up so that his posse can merely shout them down when they get pressed into a corner.
Yeah, turns out we actually know their side of the argument... even the stuff they call a "response to us."

Oops. :)

[NYCEMT86]

I didnt say they were lying. It's not within the realms of impossibility, however, that they would put out false information to protect their jobs and livelihood.

Pure B.S.


FDNY IS UNION PROTECTED!


That's just the truth. Would I do the same? I can't answer that. I know that if what I was saying was affecting my employment status, I'd reconsider having such open discussions about this sort of thing. I'm an average New Yorker just like you, I have rent to pay, car payments, I like to enjoy life and go on vacation, and so forth. I need a job to do that. If I got the word that what im saying is jeopardizing me earning a living, I'd probably just keep the truth amongst myself and my really close family but say what everyone wants me to say in public, especially when what I say represents the City of New York, as a civil servant of the city.

So they are involved now?


YOU STILL DONT KNOW ****!



Now, dont go twisting my words around saying "HE'S CALLING FIRST RESPONDERS LIARS!!" because as a disclaimer right now thats not what im saying. I'm simply saying I dont know if they are, and that its possible they COULD be. That's why I tend to stay away from arguments that are based around what people say, and stick to the science, like a free fall collapse. That NIST failed to explain. Explain a free fall collapse, the speed of gravity? No? Alrighty then, shut down the message boards.

hahaha Freefall? Maybe you should look that up.

[Pardalis]

If you ever feel like having a discussion about anything concerning 9/11, you can always start a new thread. And please be civil.

[A W Smith]

I didnt say they were lying. It's not within the realms of impossibility, however, that they would put out false information to protect their jobs and livelihood. That's just the truth. Would I do the same? I can't answer that. I know that if what I was saying was affecting my employment status, I'd reconsider having such open discussions about this sort of thing. I'm an average New Yorker just like you, I have rent to pay, car payments, I like to enjoy life and go on vacation, and so forth. I need a job to do that. If I got the word that what im saying is jeopardizing me earning a living, I'd probably just keep the truth amongst myself and my really close family but say what everyone wants me to say in public, especially when what I say represents the City of New York, as a civil servant of the city. Now, dont go twisting my words around saying "HE'S CALLING FIRST RESPONDERS LIARS!!" because as a disclaimer right now thats not what im saying. I'm simply saying I dont know if they are, and that its possible they COULD be. That's why I tend to stay away from arguments that are based around what people say, and stick to the science, like a free fall collapse. That NIST failed to explain. Explain a free fall collapse, the speed of gravity? No? Alrighty then, shut down the message boards. Do you even read what you type?

[Young Union Square]

If you ever feel like having a discussion about anything concerning 9/11, you can always start a new thread. And please be civil.

there are like 50 of them already. I'll give this place credit it has been a decent discussion without childish insults. Everyone seems to have some sort of congnitive ability, but i've never encountered a group of people so close minded. And ive never seen people so adamant on defending the official story in the light of so much contradictory evidence. Some of your minds will never be changed, and I cant do anything about that. One word of advice, keep your eyes open, and watch the stock market. Insider trading just like before 9/11. You'll know what to expect.

[R.Mackey]

Please provide proof of a free fall collapse



Please explain what "the speed of gravity" is. :rolleyes:

There is no such thing as "the speed of gravity."

If you can't see your mistake here, then you need to go back to school and demand your money back.

There is, actually. To the best of anyone's knowledge, it is approximately 3.0 x 108 m/s. That number should look familiar to anyone with even a modicum of training in science.

... but not, alas, to the scrappy young challenger.

[realitybites]

But hey you're a free citizen, you're welcome to your opinion....

I love the indignant, condescending Truther You're-Welcome-To-Your-Opinion response.

The reality is that 9/11 conspiracies were born in the Age of Information. These ideas have seen more exposure than JFK, Pearl Harbor, and the moon landings combined. YouTube, GoogleVideo, message boards, emails, chain letters.... You name it.

We are quickly approach SIX YEARS since the events of that day.

.... And where is the truth movement?

Still handing out flyers. Still burning DVDs. Still desperately editing their latest "smoking-gun" for YouTube. No experts. No evidence. No new investigation. Just an ever expanding cadre of evil human beings who are "covering it up".

I regret to inform you that no amount of pontificating will change the fact that You. Have. Nothing.

[Slayhamlet]

The king of hypocrisy retains his crown! When Avery was talking to Schroeder, he might have slipped in the fact that the south tower didn't fall after the north.

You know, it's funny that the twoofers are so quick to accuse you of calling Schroeder a liar simply because you demonstrate that he is absolutely, positively wrong about the collapse times.

So twoofers, to be consistent here you must now all adopt the theory that the 1 WTC did in fact collapse before 2 WTC, all the witnesses and video footage to the contrary be damned. If you do not now support this astounding new discovery, then you, by your very own logic, are calling Schroeder a liar.

So which is it, twoofers?

[CHF]

I didnt say they were lying. It's not within the realms of impossibility, however, that they would put out false information to protect their jobs and livelihood. That's just the truth.

So they'll help cover up mass murder for the sake of their jobs.

You must be surrounded by some very selfish people in order to assume that so many others would do what you claim.

[Pardalis]

Abby is a woman.

[Good Lt]

Well done, Gravy.

[Young Union Square]

And I wonder when Avery, Bermas, Rudkowski, and Badillo will apologize to John Schroeder.

What's your best estimate on a time for that?

Why would they be doing that, again? i'm sorry I must have missed something

[Gravy]

Why would they be doing that, again? i'm sorry I must have missed somethingBecause they

1) Recorded, edited, and disseminated a video without correcting John Schroeder's massive errors of confusion, which they know are errors. I point these out in my letter. You should read it.

2) Repeatedly knowingly told falsehoods to Schroeder, and attempted to manipulate him with leading questions.

Do you agree with that behavior?

[Drudgewire]

Don't forget John Gold not letting you get a word in edgewise and claimingthat he pwned you by posting the video (then removing it after everyone told him he looked like a jerk).

Oh, and let's not forget a certain guy saying he would punch you if he were there. Same guy also said what you can Gravy were doing was 'inciting violence'.

Oh, and which buddy of yours got called a Mossad agent because his skin was a bit darker than pale caucasian?

There's also the truthers saying 'they own the wall' in Gravy's video, and them yanking off signs the didn't like.

That's just a fraction of troother antics surrounding Ground Zero.
People who won't believe stuff we made up make me SOO MAD!! http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/fist4su.gif

[NYCEMT86]

Could it be YUS is Miss Teen South Carolina?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII&mode=related&search=

[Gravy]

By the way, I had a question from someone about a comment I made about Avery: that he claims flights 175 and 11 didn't hit the twin towers. Apparently Avery is making a fuss that I'm calling him a no-planer.

Since Avery is constitutionally incapable of getting anything right, here's how it goes:

First, Avery has been a no-planer, as far as the Pentagon and Shanksville go.

Second, here's what he said about identifying the planes that were used on 9/11:

"Whenever this evidence is presented to people, you'll usually get one of many different questions. The first one being, if different planes were used, what happened to the original ones? Unfortunately, we may never know what really happened. But if we could examine the black boxes from the planes that were used, we could prove that they weren't the original flights."

That's in Loose Change Second Edition, and I included the quote somewhere in the Schroeder letter.

[sivazh]

Boy, I don't know, Gravy, I know my opinion is just that, but I found the letter to be pretty offensive. I think it has a real problem with tact. I know if I were the one receiving an "open letter" on the Web, I would not be pleased with it.

If I were John, I think the last thing I would want to do is meet with you.

I know your intentions are all well and good, and I know that you are a genius at debunking 9/11 myths, that you know basically the facts of the day inside and out, but, like a lot of others have said, you really do come off in this letter VERY preachy and like you are talking down.

First, off, I think it's way too long, way too detailed and too complex, too many links, too much info for someone to digest. I mean, to go through everything in that would take days. I can imagine someone who is really angry about what happened that day becomming bogged down, frustrated and giving up soon after starting.

It's overload. I know you want to get the facts out there, and trust me, you do it better than 99.9% of people, but, bombardment, even by the truth, is sometimes a little too much to handle.

I think you might be better served by simply presenting your opening letter, providing a few facts that are directly related to what John said in his interview, and then offer to go through any detail that HE would like to have cleared up, rather than presenting a case of 100% of the facts of the day.

Things that I found most offensive is that you call it an "Open Letter" to him, and the first part of which is very good. But, then, you stop addressing him, and use headings for pages like "John Schroeder of Engine 10: A Chronology." Now, that makes him appear like a subject. Not a person. That struck me a little.

Also, the repeated use of names in bold letters, saying things like "As John Schroeder says in his interviews" and "John Schroeder has expressed surprise (naturally) and perhaps some bewilderment..." It feels like you have stopped writing TO him and are now writing ABOUT him. It almost feels like you have copied and pasted this from another work, and it just happens to fit in.

I know what you are trying to do and I commend you on it, believe me. Dylan and company make me seriously sick to my stomach with their tactics. They corrput anyone around them with their lies and disrespect. I hope that you are able to contact John and anyone else who really needs to come to terms with 9/11 and give them real facts, but, it's a touchy subject to some people, and it really takes a soft approach.

[stilicho]

There were a couple of threads about this two weeks ago, which I didn't post to because I was too angry at Avery and his flunkies and I wanted to compose a proper response.

People sometimes ask me why, if the 9/11 deniers are so obviously wrong, I spend all this time on them.

This is why.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/anopenletter
Very well done and I don't see it as condescending at all. As I've said before, I could have amply used stuff like this a few years ago when I first encountered 9/11 conspiracists.

I appreciated the penultimate entry on confusion and "fog of war". A lot of the "truth" movement's "investigation" bears heavily on perfect conditions, perfect memory, and perfect information. The fact that so much of their own work is chaotic and even contradictory ought to be the first clue that there was a great deal of confusion on SEP 11, 2001.

Lastly, I feel that Mr Schroeder himself remains a victim, and his new tormentors are the "truthers" who feel no shame in exploiting his valour and experiences for their personal gain.

[ref]

I just have to say, I have never seen anyone do a more thorough work than Mark. Very good and well put together.

It's hard to tell what the reaction is going to be to this approach. It can go both ways. But the fact remains, that Mark speaks facts. And he has a lot of them.

You mentioned NYU Hospital in false alarms. I have to add that one to the list, hadn't heard of that before.

[westprog]

Thanks for your comments, Skinny. I can't be overly concerned about how facts will be accepted. If, for example, you had made a video that incorrectly described your theoretical shooting and put it on the web, and I had evidence that it was wrong, I would feel obligated to correct you. You might not like it, and might refuse to read it, but I think the information would likely filter down to you. That also goes for people who would use the incorrect story to "set the historical record straight."


Especially if this statement was being used to accuse someone of carrying out the shooting when the preponderance of evidence showed that he was innocent.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I think this has gone too far.

Look, I'm not saying that Mark doesn't do great research. Or that his goals are anything other than honorable.

But we have to think long term with this one.

If our goals are to open the eyes of those that might want to give Dylan Avery or Jim Fetzer money, then this is off base. By approaching this guy and telling him that we will help him make sense of his experiences, we come off as extremely condescending. Regardless of whether you are right Mark, to tell someone that was there (regardless of who's manipulating him) that you can help him make sense of that day, is too much.

Again, I'm not saying you're not right, but you are in danger of giving these guys ammunition. Last thing we want to do is make it look like everyone who's against these guys are just people who think they are smarter than everyone else.

I think this may hurt more than it helps.



Gravy is providing scientific explanations to the firefighter. Abbyas is criticizing Gravy on emotional grounds.

Abbyas, Science is, by its very nature "condescending". Unfeeling. Politically incorrect. Harsh. Eric Clapton's son fell out of a window and died. It would have been much sweeter if he would have fallen gently down, but science says the rate of acceleration due to gravity is what it is. It's harsh, and it doesn't care.

If you make decisions on what to say based on whether or not it is "condescending", then it is not science. If you are doing science, you may very well come off as "condescending" at times.

You must choose. Feelings - or science.

[westprog]

Things that I found most offensive is that you call it an "Open Letter" to him, and the first part of which is very good. But, then, you stop addressing him, and use headings for pages like "John Schroeder of Engine 10: A Chronology." Now, that makes him appear like a subject. Not a person. That struck me a little.


An open letter is an odd creature. If it's a letter to someone, then it is in the second person, and is talking to them. If it's an open letter, it's meant to be read by everybody, and clearly the main purpose of the letter is to communicate with the public at large.

In this case, it might have been possible to simply go through the points one by one, without addressing Shroeder directly. That's quite valid in the case of most of the CT crowd. However, Shroeder is a special case. He's someone who acted heroically in helping people on 9/11. He deserves respect.

What he doesn't deserve, as much for his own sake as everyone else's, is to have his allegations accepted. Because if those allegations - as twisted and presented by biased interviewers - are in fact true, then large numbers of members of FDNY are complicit in murder. That can't be allowed to stand.

It's also unfortunate that Shroeder's testimony contains statements that are factually false. It makes him look bad. That's not a good reason for concealing the truth, though. It doesn't mean that it's necessary to accuse him of lying either. It doesn't seem implausible that someone should be slightly confused after what happened to him.

[peteweaver]

I've just read your interview with Alex Jones.

Well done Mark!

[Swing Dangler]

Gravy is providing scientific explanations to the firefighter. Abbyas is criticizing Gravy on emotional grounds.

Abbyas, Science is, by its very nature "condescending". Unfeeling. Politically incorrect. Harsh. Eric Clapton's son fell out of a window and died. It would have been much sweeter if he would have fallen gently down, but science says the rate of acceleration due to gravity is what it is. It's harsh, and it doesn't care.

If you make decisions on what to say based on whether or not it is "condescending", then it is not science. If you are doing science, you may very well come off as "condescending" at times.

You must choose. Feelings - or science.
1) The people who you saw with burns inside and outside of the north tower were burned by jet fuel that cascaded down the elevator shafts and ignited in fireballs.

One there is not scientific evidence in the North Tower supporting this major contention that jet fuel cascaded down the shafts. NIST has not shown the route or how this fuel ended up in the basement and lobby of the North Tower to cause the subbasement and lobby damage.
This theory relies on a miracles, one involving the Arturo's experience. NIST has shown no calculations from oxygen to fuel or fuel vapor ratio, to overpressure calculations, etc. They just assumed. It is a guess based upon the assumption that the jet fuel in the North Tower had only 4 floors of oxygen to fuel the fire and used that figure to determine the remaining amount of fuel.

This issue has been addressed and exhausted here: Link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82498)
Start from the beginning to read how apologist try to explain or in some cases refuse to explain how the jet fuel ended up in the lobby and the sub-levels to cause damage to the parking garage, plaza level, machine shop and damage to people as witnessed by survivors.

And as many task Truthers to contact the person, why not contact John Schroeder himself to discuss his account?

[chillzero]

OK. I have trimmed this htread significntly, to avoid putting the lot in AAH.

Explosions derail here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91610

Bickering to AAH.

I will also split out the discussion of Union Square meetups.

Please stay on topic, and remain civil.

[Gravy]

Boy, I don't know, Gravy, I know my opinion is just that, but I found the letter to be pretty offensive. I think it has a real problem with tact. I know if I were the one receiving an "open letter" on the Web, I would not be pleased with it.I was not pleased to see Schroeder's grossly incorrect account on the web, promoted as the truth about 9/11. Over 40,000 people have viewed the videos he's in. I don't know of another way of reaching those people, or of reaching the people who may be in a similar predicament to Schroeder.

If I were John, I think the last thing I would want to do is meet with you.You're not Schroeder, and I haven't asked him to meet with me. Anyway, he's on vacation now. He told his interviewers, "Like I say, I might take a little trip away for a few. You know what I mean? I gotta protect myself. I'm going to a safe haven, boys, and taking a little break."

His interviewers probably could have prevented this paranoid talk if they had provided Schroeder with a few simple facts. Instead, they chose to present his account as fact, and chose to leave him confused and fearful. As I pointed out, they are only interested in his account as far as it affirms their sick conspiracy mindset.

I know your intentions are all well and good, and I know that you are a genius at debunking 9/11 myths, that you know basically the facts of the day inside and out, but, like a lot of others have said, you really do come off in this letter VERY preachy and like you are talking down.I certainly am talking down to Schroeder's interviewers, who behave like children who need to be sent to their rooms without supper. How many times do they need to be told to check their facts? How many times do they need to be told not to take witness accounts out of context? How many times do they have to be reminded that since they've gotten exactly nothing right yet, they should take more care with their "research?"

I'm not talking down to Schroeder. I'm presenting the facts that his interviewers failed to recognize or transmit. Again, I can't be overly concerned about how facts are accepted. Schroeder is a grown man, and I don't make the assumption that he's incapable of behaving like one.

First, off, I think it's way too long, way too detailed and too complex, too many links, too much info for someone to digest. I mean, to go through everything in that would take days. I can imagine someone who is really angry about what happened that day becomming bogged down, frustrated and giving up soon after starting.

It's overload. I know you want to get the facts out there, and trust me, you do it better than 99.9% of people, but, bombardment, even by the truth, is sometimes a little too much to handle.It is long. It's a reference document. I don't expect that anyone is going to read it through in one sitting and check every link.

The level of detail is meant to spark Schroeder's memory.

Then there's the point I want to make to his interviewers, some of whom have been "researching" 9/11 far longer than I have. The point is that it's easy to assemble a great deal of information that resolves this kind of confusion. They chose the easier route of doing nothing, correcting nothing, and letting the confusion stand.

Finally, I want to avoid having to repeatedly go back and fill in the blanks for critics. Again, this isn't just for Schroeder. Three years from now someone in a similar predicament may find this information useful.

I think you might be better served by simply presenting your opening letter, providing a few facts that are directly related to what John said in his interview, and then offer to go through any detail that HE would like to have cleared up, rather than presenting a case of 100% of the facts of the day.Again, this is a reference document. He may want to know these details years from now. I'm not sure that an outline of my points, such as I included on the first page, would be sufficient to convince someone that I should be taken seriously. The truthers don't take me seriously even with all the backup documentation.

Except for the biographical comments about his interviewers, I tried to keep the letter to the issues raised in the interviews. It's just that there were a lot of issues raised. Some of those issues were only raised briefly, but are very important. For instance, saying that the military could have had fighters over NYC in "nine seconds," but failed to act, leading to the deaths of thousands, is a serious charge that I think needs to be addressed.

Things that I found most offensive is that you call it an "Open Letter" to him, and the first part of which is very good. But, then, you stop addressing him, and use headings for pages like "John Schroeder of Engine 10: A Chronology." Now, that makes him appear like a subject. Not a person. That struck me a little.It was a judgment call. I explain that I was making that change, but not why. I tried it both ways, and addressing it to "you" just struck me potentially confusing to the average reader, because of how it worked with the witness accounts. But it's perfectly possible that I made the wrong choice.

Also, the repeated use of names in bold letters, saying things like "As John Schroeder says in his interviews" and "John Schroeder has expressed surprise (naturally) and perhaps some bewilderment..." It feels like you have stopped writing TO him and are now writing ABOUT him. It almost feels like you have copied and pasted this from another work, and it just happens to fit in.I bolded the names to make it easier for Schroeder to scan the pages, to pick out his own quotes, quotes from others about him, and quotes by people he knows. Again, I tried it both ways, and without the bolding I found my attention wandering over a wall of text.

I know what you are trying to do and I commend you on it, believe me. Dylan and company make me seriously sick to my stomach with their tactics. They corrput anyone around them with their lies and disrespect. I hope that you are able to contact John and anyone else who really needs to come to terms with 9/11 and give them real facts, but, it's a touchy subject to some people, and it really takes a soft approach.I wish I had the time to consult psychologists and to survey first responders about the proper approach to getting this information to the people who may need it, but I don't. In the past I've grossly underestimated the power of the internet to spread fiction. So I just put it out there. I hope not to get any more emails with YouTube links that say "Let's see you debunk hero John Schroeder, you [rule 8]."

Thank you for your comments.

[ref]

Mark, have you seen Willie's antics?

I just sent his letter, before he changes his tone, to all the family members on my list (I believe I have a huge list compared to Roberts-around 65.000) With my comments on top. I hope to speak to John S. soon to give him some tips on how to deal with Marquito Roberto and Ron "Few bucks" Weak. Also sending it to all the contacts out there in Europe and Asia. Let's wait and see. It is going to be good.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14645

[Gravy]

Mark, have you seen Willie's antics?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14645

That's fantastic! I had no way of reaching all those people.

[Pardalis]

I saw him lurking yesterday, expected him to post something eventually... I wasn't expecting it would be in another forum. But hey, nothing should surprise me anymore.

[T.A.M.]

I am assuming j911ob is P-Dope, as the tone of his posts seems in keeping.

They all seem to have it in for you today Mark, more so than other days.

TAM:)

[Darth Rotor]

You must choose. Feelings - or science.
Rubbish. That is a false dichotomy, and you seem to mistake the field being contested here. The battle is to get people to listen, not to prove that science is superior to emotion. Packaging counts.

For Gravy, and whoever else is interested in winning the war of the messages:

When persuading people to listen, you must craft your remarks in a manner that invites listening, and that requires critically analyzing the potential emotive impacts of both word choice, tone, and style.

I concur with Mr Skinny and Abby, generally, that the intention to spread facts is well made, but that the message's packaging is not only not neutral, but is not sufficiently accomodating to the following audiences:

1. The completely unaware (neutrals)
2. John Schroeder
3. Those leaning to listening to the voice contra, aka the Truther crowd

Tone has potential to turn Schroeder off, due to "talking down to" lilt. This may have been unintentional, but it leaps off the page to me. Of all people this is meant to sway, Schroeder is the most critical recipient. Packaging the message to him requires invoking a positive emotional response from the get go, given his own memories and feelings regarding that day.

The neutral may or may not be swayed, and may or may not have the patience to read it all. For that audience, too many words on page one.

For the "leaning to the contra voice," a critical mass who we compete with Truthers for in the battle of the messages -- and that is what this is, competing messages, which one wins a given person's attention and possible support -- the tone comes off as partisan, rather than purely rational and welcoming. Someone not disposed to critical thinking, or who dislikes "talk down to tone" probably doesn't click on any of the links.

Do you want to win the war of messages? The hardest part, the part I fail frequently, is the suppress the feeling of "oh for Pete's sake, here are the facts, can't you see it?" Mark is usually very good at editing that out and presenting a neutral or welcoming voice.

This does not do so.

Given the pay scale Mark is on for his writing, I find no fault with the effort, which meets a strong standard, as usual. The minor flaw is, in this battle of messages, a three to four sigma standard is required to draw people to your message.

It helps that a lot of physical evidence supports Gravy's position, but getting people to see those facts, and be predisposed to not put up emotional barriers, requires packaging the first bite of the sandwich as sweet and tasty.

Good effort, but bringing a vet of the day to your/our side is not well served by the opening.

The facts, as usual, are well presented.

DR

[uk_dave]

That's fantastic! I had no way of reaching all those people.

All 65,000 of them! :boggled:

[Brainster]

This is a minor, minor item, but I'm pretty sure that it's Luke Rudkowski, not Jason Bermas here (http://911stories.googlepages.com/answerstootherquestionsraisedintheinterv):

"Can I get your reaction to Giuliani admitting he knew the towers were going to collapse before anybody? He reported it to Peter Jennings."

Schroeder: "If he was in the building he might have known. Because they were coming down from the interior on us. We had an idea."

Bermas: "He said, personally, that he got a warning that the towers were going to collapse, and that's when he started evacuating away from his command bunker in building 7, just as he came out, before any towers collapsed–"

Rudkowski proves the CW that if you're not a speaker of a language by age 5 you will never quite sound like a native.

Of course the point remains the same; Rudkowski, who's been using his WAC brigade to harass Giuliani over that quote doesn't know that Giuliani was in 75 Barclay?

[Gravy]

Rubbish. That is a false dichotomy, and you seem to mistake the field being contested here. The battle is to get people to listen, not to prove that science is superior to emotion. Packaging counts.

For Gravy, and whoever else is interested in winning the war of the messages:

When persuading people to listen, you must craft your remarks in a manner that invites listening, and that requires critically analyzing the potential emotive impacts of both word choice, tone, and style.

I concur with Mr Skinny and Abby, generally, that the intention to spread facts is well made, but that the message's packaging is not only not neutral, but is not sufficiently accomodating to the following audiences:

1. The completely unaware (neutrals)
2. John Schroeder
3. Those leaning to listening to the voice contra, aka the Truther crowd

Tone has potential to turn Schroeder off, due to "talking down to" lilt. This may have been unintentional, but it leaps off the page to me. Of all people this is meant to sway, Schroeder is the most critical recipient. Packaging the message to him requires invoking a positive emotional response from the get go, given his own memories and feelings regarding that day.

The neutral may or may not be swayed, and may or may not have the patience to read it all. For that audience, too many words on page one.

For the "leaning to the contra voice," a critical mass who we compete with Truthers for in the battle of the messages -- and that is what this is, competing messages, which one wins a given person's attention and possible support -- the tone comes off as partisan, rather than purely rational and welcoming. Someone not disposed to critical thinking, or who dislikes "talk down to tone" probably doesn't click on any of the links.

Do you want to win the war of messages? The hardest part, the part I fail frequently, is the suppress the feeling of "oh for Pete's sake, here are the facts, can't you see it?" Mark is usually very good at editing that out and presenting a neutral or welcoming voice.

This does not do so.

Given the pay scale Mark is on for his writing, I find no fault with the effort, which meets a strong standard, as usual. The minor flaw is, in this battle of messages, a three to four sigma standard is required to draw people to your message.

It helps that a lot of physical evidence supports Gravy's position, but getting people to see those facts, and be predisposed to not put up emotional barriers, requires packaging the first bite of the sandwich as sweet and tasty.

Good effort, but bringing a vet of the day to your/our side is not well served by the opening.

The facts, as usual, are well presented.

DRThat's well said, Darth.

I'm going to leave the paper as is, because it's an honest document. All of the 9/11 work I've done is driven, not by academic interest, but by anger at people who spread deliberate ignorance, and who misuse the accounts of honest people to do so. Without that anger, none of my papers or web stuff would have been completed, and John Schroeder would remain in the dark about what happened on 9/11. I'm confident that, one way or another, he will better understand his experience because of what I've written.

[Darth Rotor]

That's well said, Darth.

I'm going to leave the paper as is, because it's an honest document. All of the 9/11 work I've done is driven, not by academic interest, but by anger at people who spread deliberate ignorance, and who misuse the accounts of honest people to do so. Without that anger, none of my papers or web stuff would have been completed, and John Schroeder would remain in the dark about what happened on 9/11. I'm confident that, one way or another, he will better understand his experience because of what I've written.
I am sure you have noted a slightly emotive flavor of my posts to CT's. ;) I understand where you are coming from. You tend to do a better job than I do, post to post, of editing out the first impulse of "and the horse you rode in on" when responding to some of the loonier stuff.

DR

[Oxigen]

Judging by the replies from a lot of the jrefffers, it was a very condescending
post. I thought so too.

[Gravy]

Judging by the replies from a lot of the jrefffers, it was a very condescending
post. I thought so too.
Question: is it better that my letter to Schroeder be viewed by some as condescending (which is not my intent at all), and that the facts be known, or better for the facts not to be known? Obviously there are many ways of presenting information. But since my letter is a done deal, do you think it's better that Schroeder knows the facts or not?

[Mr. Skinny]

Thanks for your comments, Skinny. I can't be overly concerned about how facts will be accepted. If, for example, you had made a video that incorrectly described your theoretical shooting and put it on the web, and I had evidence that it was wrong, I would feel obligated to correct you. You might not like it, and might refuse to read it, but I think the information would likely filter down to you. That also goes for people who would use the incorrect story to "set the historical record straight."
Point taken. However, wouldn't you normally just post an article on your web site called "Skinny's shooting theory wrong!" rather than "An open letter to Skinny"? I'm not questioning your motive in posting the information. I just thought the delivery could have been better.

To me the important thing is to make the information available, not only to John Schroeder, but to other first responders, and to the people who would take advantage of their confusion. I did this very quickly. No doubt there are many better ways of doing it, but I wanted to get the information to the people who need it as soon as possible.
You did all of that quickly? Man, I only read through to the collapse of Tower 2 and I was worn out for the evening! You, sir, are a veritable dynamo.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Judging by the replies from a lot of the jrefffers, it was a very condescending
post. I thought so too.


I trust you read more than "one or two paragraphs" this time around?

[boloboffin]

You know, it's not a "lot" of JREF posters here taking Gravy to task, it's just a few -- and they are being very articulate about it. I trust that if Schroeder and Gravy ever meet, Gravy will be able to dispel any notion Schroeder might have of condescension.

The harpy screeches of the the usual suspects may make this difficult, but what else can they do? Mark has launched an all-out recovery mission, and it's their own insecurity that makes them howl like this. They are doing their dangedest to spin this as cruelly as they can against Gravy, but the Schroeder I watched was fairly resistant to a lot of the leading questions and requests being thrown at him. I'll bet Schroeder's willing to give the paper a fair shake.

[PhantomWolf]

Well I think what I have read so far is great. I do have a second "kaboom" video for you Gravy....

wjW7srAvtSY

That was 200,000 pounds of TNT. if you were able to be flash burned by that, well, I doubt you'd be walking down the street afterwards.

The other thing I'd like to point out if the HTML keyword, "Target". This nice little word can be added to a url link in the method "target=_blank" and you don't direct the viewer off of your page, and in some cases your site. Very handy for those pages with loads of links where you'd like the viewer to be able to still reference your page, or continue reading. :)

[ref]

It seems they have deleted the Willie mass e-mail thread over at LCF :D

I guess they didn't like it.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I'm going to leave the paper as is, because it's an honest document. All of the 9/11 work I've done is driven, not by academic interest, but by anger at people who spread deliberate ignorance, and who misuse the accounts of honest people to do so. Without that anger, none of my papers or web stuff would have been completed, and John Schroeder would remain in the dark about what happened on 9/11. I'm confident that, one way or another, he will better understand his experience because of what I've written.

Gravy, I mistakenly thought you were driven by academic interest. Now I learn you are driven by anger. I retract my defense of your scientific intent. I for one am strictly interested in scientific method. Anger can be very disruptive of rational thinking.

SwingDangler has provided a link questioning your science, I'll study it.

[twinstead]

SwingDangler has provided a link questioning your science, I'll study it.

Good luck with that, because you'll find that Swing Dangler is driven perhaps not by anger but by ideology, not science. You'll be just as disappointed.

[R.Mackey]

Gravy, I mistakenly thought you were driven by academic interest. Now I learn you are driven by anger. I retract my defense of your scientific intent. I for one am strictly interested in scientific method. Anger can be very disruptive of rational thinking.


I might point out that the above is, in fact, a textbook case of an ad hominem logical fallacy.

If you don't like the tone, you are welcome to take it up with Gravy, as several others have. The facts, on the other hand, stand alone.

Rational thinking is best applied consistently.

[Gravy]

Gravy, I mistakenly thought you were driven by academic interest. Now I learn you are driven by anger. I retract my defense of your scientific intent. I for one am strictly interested in scientific method. Anger can be very disruptive of rational thinking.

SwingDangler has provided a link questioning your science, I'll study it.I think it's more complicated than that. Of course I'm interested in the science, but not being trained in the sciences, I don't know how much I have to add in that department. I feel more that I'm defending critical thinking, historical accuracy, and just plain human decency. Truther anger tends to make them spew unfounded accusations. Mine makes me do research. I'm not aware of it getting the way of me getting the facts right, although it can affect the presentation. I've had hundreds of emails from people thanking me for doing that research, because they had bought into some of the misinformation spread by the truthers. It would be great if something other than anger would get me to do that work, but that's not the case.

Good luck with Swing Dangler. You may find that his firmly entrenched opinions aren't swayed by science.

[Gravy]

Point taken. However, wouldn't you normally just post an article on your web site called "Skinny's shooting theory wrong!" rather than "An open letter to Skinny"? Probably, if I hadn't been heavily involved in that issue for a while and didn't know several of the participants. It's my guess that personalizing it is more likely to elicit a response. If a truther wrote a post titled, "Gravy's full of it," I'd be unlikely to read it, because they do that all the time. But if the post were titled "I have something to say to Gravy," I'd be more likely to pay attention. Just a guess.

I'm not questioning your motive in posting the information. I just thought the delivery could have been better.And I don't mean to seem argumentative with everyone who's said the same, because I don't disagree. :)

You did all of that quickly? Man, I only read through to the collapse of Tower 2 and I was worn out for the evening! You, sir, are a veritable dynamo.Well, quickly as in every second of my spare time over a week. I felt some urgency because I pictured Dylan Avery gleefully and hurriedly inserting confused Schroeder soundbites into Loose Change, to be screened on the 11th. For Schroeder's sake and Avery's, I don't want that to happen. (Yes, I know it's still going to happen. But they can't say they weren't warned.)

[Calcas]

I am assuming j911ob is P-Dope, as the tone of his posts seems in keeping.

They all seem to have it in for you today Mark, more so than other days.

TAM:)

Late reply to TAM.

Yes, j911ob is P'Duh.

[ZENSMACK89]

it's their own insecurity that makes them howl like this.

WOW!

Now that's a good one.

lol

[Dumb All Over]

It seems they have deleted the Willie mass e-mail thread over at LCF :D

I guess they didn't like it.
I was watching that thread closely yesterday. There was a flurry of activity. Another poster was attacking William in much the same way that "TAM" was attacking him in another thread a few days ago. It seems "TAM" was actually Troy. By the tone of yesterday's posts, I believe it was Troy as yet another sock. I think this is why the thread disappeared.

[Gravy]

This is a minor, minor item, but I'm pretty sure that it's Luke Rudkowski, not Jason Bermas here (http://911stories.googlepages.com/answerstootherquestionsraisedintheinterv):Thanks. I changed it to "Interviewer."

Of course the point remains the same; Rudkowski, who's been using his WAC brigade to harass Giuliani over that quote doesn't know that Giuliani was in 75 Barclay?I don't know if it's lack of intelligence, lack of caring, or both, but I've never seen him get anything right.

[Tippit]

Question: is it better that my letter to Schroeder be viewed by some as condescending (which is not my intent at all), and that the facts be known, or better for the facts not to be known? Obviously there are many ways of presenting information. But since my letter is a done deal, do you think it's better that Schroeder knows the facts or not?

I think the problem is with your implicit monopoly on "the facts", and your condescending dictation of them to someone who was actually there. But that's not surprising for a know-it-all. Have you ever considered publishing an encyclopedia?

[Drudgewire]

I think the problem is with your implicit monopoly on "the facts"...



...








...







...they make it too darned easy sometimes. :p

[boloboffin]

your condescending dictation of them to someone who was actually there.

Was John Schroeder in every place everywhere on 9/11, Tippit? Does he claim to be? No and no. John Schroeder is not an authority on every aspect of what happened. He is an authority on what he saw, heard, and felt, and also the impressions he formed from the experience.

His impressions could easily be wrong, as impressions generally are in the fog of war, and it is only the dispassionate examinations of all the facts available from every source that will come closest to understanding what happened that day. Schroeder could have had the help he sought, but he fell into the hands of deceitful charlatans. That is Gravy's point, and your attempt to spin this against Gravy's account is duly noted.

[Gravy]

I think the problem is with your implicit monopoly on "the facts", and your condescending dictation of them to someone who was actually there. But that's not surprising for a know-it-all. Have you ever considered publishing an encyclopedia?So flight 175 hit the south tower when John Schroeder was on the 23rd floor of the north, and there's no explanation for the damage Schroeder saw when he evacuated, and Schroeder saw the south tower collapse, after the north, when he was headed up North End Avenue, and his interviewers should not have spoken up about these things?

Care to reconsider that, Tippit?

[T.A.M.]

I think the problem is with your implicit monopoly on "the facts", and your condescending dictation of them to someone who was actually there. But that's not surprising for a know-it-all. Have you ever considered publishing an encyclopedia?

The facts are the facts, noone has a "monopoly" on them. Mark simply puts them all out there in an easy to read, no BS format.

I love it when people use the words "know it all" as it tends to drip with jealousy.

TAM:)

[Tippit]

So flight 175 hit the south tower when John Schroeder was on the 23rd floor of the north, and there's no explanation for the damage Schroeder saw when he evacuated, and Schroeder saw the south tower collapse, after the north, when he was headed up North End Avenue, and his interviewers should not have spoken up about these things?

Care to reconsider that, Tippit?

Do I care to reconsider words that you dishonestly put in my mouth, that I never said in the first place? No.

I haven't analyzed the 9/11 chronology with respect to Schroeder's comments. Are you privy to some sort of timeline of Schroeder's experiences that I'm not aware of, because based on that video interview he doesn't seem to relate the times of various things that he witnessed, other than when he arrived to work at about 8 o'clock. This of course is understandable, because the last thing he would have probably been looking at was his watch in that situation.

Schroder's story is inconsistent in the sense that ostensibly he responded to the flight 11 crash in the North Tower, but yet he described it incorrectly as the first one to collapse. I will watch the video again and take some notes to see if there are other inconsistencies.

As for your insinuation that the interviewers willfully failed to correct him in the midst of his story, you're presuming that one they instantly recognized his error, and two that they would have anything to gain by allowing this gaffe to go unchecked. It's a lot more likely that they just didn't pick up on it at the time of the interview.

Are you willing to reconsider all the vile garbage you and your JREF pals have spewed about William Rodriguez, now that Schroder has confirmed he saved at least twelve men that day?

[Parsman]

Are you willing to reconsider all the vile garbage you and your JREF pals have spewed about William Rodriguez, now that Schroder has confirmed he saved at least twelve men that day?

I believe you will find that people here have not criticized Rodriguez for is actions on the day. What may have been taken to task is his belief in conspiracy theories causing the calamity in which he he became involved

[Drudgewire]

I believe you will find that people here have not criticized Rodriguez for is actions on the day. What may have been taken to task is his belief in conspiracy theories causing the calamity in which he he became involved
Exactly. Bless him for his work that day, but it doesn't give him a lifetime free pass to become a mouthpiece for a movement of lies. :)

[Gravy]

Do I care to reconsider words that you dishonestly put in my mouth, that I never said in the first place? No.Since you took me to task for pretending to have an "implicit monopoly on the facts," surely you must know what I got wrong. So, out with it.

I haven't analyzed the 9/11 chronology with respect to Schroeder's comments. Are you privy to some sort of timeline of Schroeder's experiences that I'm not aware ofYes, and when you read my paper, which you should have done before attempting to critique it and criticize me, you'll know that.

because based on that video interview he doesn't seem to relate the times of various things that he witnessed, other than when he arrived to work at about 8 o'clock. This of course is understandable, because the last thing he would have probably been looking at was his watch in that situation.See above.

Schroder's story is inconsistent in the sense that ostensibly he responded to the flight 11 crash in the North Tower, but yet he described it incorrectly as the first one to collapse. I will watch the video again and take some notes to see if there are other inconsistencies. Great. Let me know when you get around to reading my paper.

As for your insinuation that the interviewers willfully failed to correct him in the midst of his story, you're presuming that one they instantly recognized his error, and two that they would have anything to gain by allowing this gaffe to go unchecked. It's a lot more likely that they just didn't pick up on it at the time of the interview.False. Had you read my paper and watched the video, you would know that

1) I state that I do not expect the interviewers to have caught and corrected every error at the time, but that they surely should have caught these errors when their video and article were edited and before they were put online as documents that "set the historical record straight."

2) The interviewers do verbally recognize the most important error he makes, that the south tower fell after the north, because that happens on camera. No correction was ever made. They chose to leave Schroeder in the dark. Why do you think they did that, Tippit?

Are you willing to reconsider all the vile garbage you and your JREF pals have spewed about William Rodriguez, now that Schroder has confirmed he saved at least twelve men that day?Had you read my paper, you'd know that Rodriguez will not confirm the event. He also missed an appointment to meet John Schroeder just after the video was shot, and did not explain his absence.

Feel free to point out what I got wrong in my Rodriguez paper. Rodriguez can't.

[T.A.M.]

Exactly. Bless him for his work that day, but it doesn't give him a lifetime free pass to become a mouthpiece for a movement of lies. :)

here, here, well said...worth repeating!!

TAM:)

[westprog]

Schroder's story is inconsistent in the sense that ostensibly he responded to the flight 11 crash in the North Tower, but yet he described it incorrectly as the first one to collapse. I will watch the video again and take some notes to see if there are other inconsistencies.


It's entirely typical of the way the truth movement works. If there's an inconsistency in a statement, it will either be ignored by the CT crowd, if it contradicts their theories. If it supports their theories, it will be pulled out at every opportunity. And anyone pointing out even the most blatant errors of fact will be suppressed.


As for your insinuation that the interviewers willfully failed to correct him in the midst of his story, you're presuming that one they instantly recognized his error, and two that they would have anything to gain by allowing this gaffe to go unchecked. It's a lot more likely that they just didn't pick up on it at the time of the interview.


They were happy enough to snip the interview to edit it down to length. That was when they should have identified the problem. These aren't supposed to be the average laymen. They are the most prominent 911 researchers on the planet.


Are you willing to reconsider all the vile garbage you and your JREF pals have spewed about William Rodriguez, now that Schroder has confirmed he saved at least twelve men that day?

Was this an allegation that he is complicit in covering up mass murder?

[Gravy]

They were happy enough to snip the interview to edit it down to length. That was when they should have identified the problem. These aren't supposed to be the average laymen. They are the most prominent 911 researchers on the planet.To be clear, the main problem was identified during the interview. Twice Schroeder said that the south tower fell after he escaped the north, and after the north collapsed, and Avery said, "You saw both towers fall?" And Schroeder affirmed that he did. The four researchers cannot possibly argue that they weren't aware of this.

[Hyperviolet]

I wanted to read the entire paper before giving comment.

Quite honestly, it doesn't read condescending to me. Schroeder's action are rightfully recognised as heroic, his confusion is respectfully understood, and the facts are ever-present.

Regardless, Mr Schroeder openly admits to his confusion. To suggest that his interpretations might be inaccurate is not to speak down to the man. In fact, it is to speak honestly to him. In his interview with Dylan Avery i saw a man trying to make sense of a horrific day, i think the information gathered in this paper will help him achieve that.

[Mercutio]

I wanted to read the entire paper before giving comment.

Quite honestly, it doesn't read condescending to me. Schroeder's action are rightfully recognised as heroic, his confusion is respectfully understood, and the facts are ever-present.

Regardless, Mr Schroeder openly admits to his confusion. To suggest that his interpretations might be inaccurate is not to speak down to the man. In fact, it is to speak honestly to him. In his interview with Dylan Avery i saw a man trying to make sense of a horrific day, i think the information gathered in this paper will help him achieve that.
I was wondering how to say it. Like this, is how.

[LashL]

I wanted to read the entire paper before giving comment.

Quite honestly, it doesn't read condescending to me. Schroeder's action are rightfully recognised as heroic, his confusion is respectfully understood, and the facts are ever-present.

Regardless, Mr Schroeder openly admits to his confusion. To suggest that his interpretations might be inaccurate is not to speak down to the man. In fact, it is to speak honestly to him. In his interview with Dylan Avery i saw a man trying to make sense of a horrific day, i think the information gathered in this paper will help him achieve that.

I, too, wanted to read the entire paper before commenting, and it took me quite some time to get through it and all of the links in light of my work load this week.

You have expressed your view of the matter more concisely than I could have, and I concur entirely.