I can't say anything...."we are gagged"

[IScreamSundays]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y41DnwHBsaE

synapse:


First we hear a fire fighter explaining his involvement on 9/11, then we hear a firefighter who says they cant say anything due to a gag order, he can not even provide his name and he says that it is because he wants to keep his job for the next week, and after the next week...

[zappaman]

1. it's been 9 years

do you have a recent video?
Maybe they were told not to say much because it was a crime scene?
And like all crime scenes, they are instructed to not say anything?
Wow, you really cracked the case!!!
:rofl:

[IScreamSundays]

2. If it was a "crime scene"

why was it not investigated like one??? You don't get to have it both ways zap.

[hack89]

5. Who says it wasn't? nt

[IScreamSundays]

7. It is well established that it was NOT investigated as a crime scene.

Got some proof that it was. Love to see it.

[hack89]

18. So of course you can prove your assertion?

isn't that how it works - you actually have to have evidence to back up your statements.

[IScreamSundays]

28. Well it is hard to have evidence of a criminal investigation...

When there was NONE! Do you have any evidence to the contrary. I'll be here all night.

[LARED]

34. You know there are a few excellent documentaries about

9/11 that include sections about the investigation. They talk about how much of the debris was shipped to Staten Island for processing.

AS you seem to get your information exclusively from 9/11 CT Internet site it might be a good idea to broaden your knowledge base about 9/11 and read or watch some of the mainstream accounts. You seem to have very little in the way of actual facts.

[SDuderstadt]

22. You've GOT to be kidding...

Google "FBI PENTTBOM"

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

32. Here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

[LARED]

3. Are you suggesting there is a gag order in force for nine years? nt

[IScreamSundays]

4. I am suggesting that the NY firefighters know what's up.

Unless they have trust funds, they are eerily quiet. How do you know there still isn't a "gag order" on them. When you have to support your family, sometimes it is best not to make waves. Or tsunamis in this case.

[hack89]

6. When your CT depends on the FDNY protecting the men who murdered hundreds

of their friends and family members, perhaps you should reconsider your CT. Just saying.

[IScreamSundays]

8. People are taking care of their own....

realizing that they have no chance to fight the large entity that is responsible. Personally, if it was me, I would do the same thing. I would have to look after my family first and foremost, then live with the nightmares. All the while knowing that I could never fight them and not willing to sacrifice all that I have in order to. It is a very simple choice. Do you have kids???

[hack89]

19. Ok - so you are a moral coward

that doesn't mean everyone else is. Just saying.

[IScreamSundays]

25. Yeah thats right hack...

If it comes down to you and me and mine, you lose. Ask anyone else here if they feel the same way.

[hack89]

30. It kills me what a dismal view of their fellow Americans

most Truthers have. The fact that a couple of brave and honest people could blow their pet CTs out of the water is countered by the simple "fact" that there are no brave and honest people.

BTW - can you name a single Truther that has been silenced by the government? Does the fact that Hoffman, Jones, etc are still allowed to publish and talk mean that the government knows that they are not peddling the truth?

[Ghost in the Machine]

60. and you are another kind of coward...

Why don't you answer the very simple question you were asked? Did you miss it? "Do you have kids?" There it as again...

I will make it a little harder on you, since you can't seem to answer a simple question. If you *do* have kids, what lengths would you go to in order to protect the lives of your family?

[hack89]

63. I have kids

I would not protect the murderers of my friends and family.

I look at brave truthers like Jones, Gage and Hoffman and realize that the threat may be overblown or non-existent. I have faith that President Obama would not cover up for Bush.

[Ghost in the Machine]

73. Fair enough, although I think you are clouding/confusing the issue..

"I would not protect the murderers of my friends and family".

Here's one place you are confusing the issue. It's isn't about protecting murderers, or family/friends that died that day, it's about protecting the ones who are still alive.

We all like to think we could/would do the right thing, but sometimes you have to step back and really think about what that "right thing" is. How many deaths of your friends, or especially family members, would it take for you to sit down, shut up and just move on with your life? See, the thing is, *YOU* would be the last to die, if they even killed you. They would go after your spouse, your kids, your parents and/or your siblings first. Psychological terrorism. People die all the time in "drive-by shootings", "single car accidents" and "robberies". I am very doubtful that you are well versed in the art of intimidation and coersion. I know how these things work due to my past, where I was involved with a very well known, violent biker gang and a very well known, violent white supremacist gang.

"I look at brave truthers like Jones, Gage and Hoffman and realize that the threat may be overblown or non-existent."


Oh that's funny! Here's another example of you confusing the issue. Jones, Gage and Hoffman weren't part of the operation. They are just individuals with theories, who can easily be written off as "nutbags" and "conspiracy theorists", as you can plainly see. Now if it was indeed an inside job and someone grew a conscience and stepped forward, it would be a whole different story. I would also bet just about everything I had that that person would never make it in to testify if his/her identity was known. Can you now see the difference between people expressing their opinions and someone being directly involved and speaking up?


"I have faith that President Obama would not cover up for Bush."

Naw, he would never look forward, for the good of the nation, would he? Just like Clinton wouldn't do that over the Iran/Contra case that should have had Poppy, Reagan and many others in prison for the rest of their natural days... right?

Peace,...

[hack89]

74. Look at post 68

proof that there is no gag order nor any retaliation for Truther firefighters.

[Ghost in the Machine]

75. You're still clouding the issue, in the context of what we were discussing..

Even without a gag order, this guy is not saying he was part of it, he is questioning the events... and can be written off as a "kook", "nutjob" or "conspiracy theorist"... discrediting someone is a form of retaliation, btw... I'm not saying anyone has done this, as I only read the post you mentioned, have not checked out his site or anything else about him.

[hack89]

108. So the fact that no firefighters have come forward in 9 years

and there is no proof of a gag order tells me that the FDNY was not in on it nor do they have more information on 911 than me and you.

[Ghost in the Machine]

110. The only thing I can disagree with about that is that I'm sure they have

more information than you or I do... they were there that day, we weren't, or at least I know I wasn't, I can't speak for you.

I don't know who suggested that the firefighters were in on it, but that sure wasn't me either.

[SDuderstadt]

111. Everyone knows that wasn't you suggesting the firefighters were...

in on it, Ghost.

I will be in NC next wk, but booked every moment. I should be out there again in the near future. Let's have that beer!

[greyl]

112. False.

In fact, it goes beyond suggesting that firefighters are playing a key role in any successful conspiracy, i.e. silence, it follows that by their silence they are complicit in the march up to the invasion of Iraq.

He's playing the part of the devil on a witnesses shoulder, trying to rationalize away the urge to do the right thing.

[SDuderstadt]

113. Point taken...

Greyl.

[Ghost in the Machine]

114. How many of your family members would have to die before it became an unacceptable number?

I'm sorry, but I don't share your God complex and I wouldn't sacrifice the lives of my kids for anything. If saying so makes me "the devil on a witnesses shoulder, trying to rationalize away the urge to do the right thing", so be it. At least I'm honest about it, not playing some wannabe internet tough guy. It's easy to sit behind your keyboard and postulate about what you would do in any given circumstance, but it's a whole different story when it's staring you in the face in real life.

The truth can be real ugly at times, my friend. Are you strong enough to stand hand in hand with the truth? Tell the truth right now, greyl.. What would you knowingly sacrifice the lives of your spouse and kids for? Please tell us...

Thanks in advance,

Ghost

[Ghost in the Machine]

115. Thanks, SDude :-)

What part of NC will you be in? We'll have to get together on one of your trips, though the Atlanta area would work better for me, it's only 3 hours away.

Hope all is well with you and yours, my friend...

Peace!

[immune]

9. So you think this firefighter is lying?

How do you think he might benefit from willfully lying in such a case? Is there a payoff somewhere down the road for his cooperation?

Or doesn't it make you wonder a little about what kind of powerful leverage the folks doing the gagging would have to have over these guys who love their city and their firefighter brothers so much? And doesn't it maybe make you wonder what kind of threats it might take for you to remain silent to protect the family members and friends who are still around?

Remember now, that administration wasn't above torture to get the results they wanted.

[immune]

10. self delete

wrong thread

[hack89]

20. No - it just Truthers taking statements out of context

to support their CTs.

[IScreamSundays]

26. See, you OCTers can't deal with the towers....

All your other storied bullshit dissipates when people accept that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. It is the fact that blows the whole 9-11 OCT apart. It is the part of the OCT that you will vehemently defend because you HAVE to.

[hack89]

31. A simple challenge for you

give me a detailed and plausible scenario for demolition that explains all the events of 911. In 9 years not a single Truther has been able to to that simple thing. If the Truth movement can't explain how the CD was done, why should I accept your CT?

[deconstruct911]

37. I believe

the core was blown apart. Not from jet fuel like at least one fireman said in a video posted in the comments. I don't believe it would be possible for anyone other than security to know what's going on in the core of those buildings. And I can't confirm this, I have only recently heard that from January-June 2001 the towers underwent major elevator construction.

I also don't believe ANY fireman saving lives that day is in on it in any way. The families that have exposed Giuliani is proof to me the fireman want accountability.

Remember ALL fireman in the North Tower were ordered to the lobby BEFORE the towers collapsed. Obviously the interior core must have been in extremely bad shape if the chief didn't want any FDNY members in the core. After the South Tower came down the FDNY members were ordered out of the North Tower. Not one FDNY member received that order on their radio.

[hack89]

49. Why wouldn't a 250 ton airplane flying at 500 knots

have enough kinetic energy to severely damage the core columns?

[deconstruct911]

50. Because

its aluminum and the core is surrounded by steel and concrete floors. I can buy a partial collapse at the impact zone but the whole tower?

[hack89]

51. Not making a lot of sense here

250 tons is still 250 tons. MV*2/2 is a lot of KE.

The floors were light weight, non-load bearing concrete that were parallel to the path of the plane. They offered no protection to the vertical columns which were covered by plaster board.

Think what happens to all that weight above the impact zone when you have your partial collapse. How many millions of tons of weight just fell on the floor below the impact zone? That's why you saw a progressive collapse - the floors were not designed to withstand such massive dynamic forces.

[deconstruct911]

52. I look forward to watching

the next sky scraper demolished by taking out a few floors near the top. It's hard to Imagen a building as strong as the towers with as much steel and concrete, so it shouldn't be a problem to do it like that.

[SDuderstadt]

53. It wasn't a "few floors", dude...

Why do you keep misrepresenting this?

[hack89]

61. Answer three simple questions then.

how many floors were above the impact zone and how much did they weigh? How much KE would that weight generate when it fell. Answer those questions and understand the implications of your answers and it will make sense. It will certainly explain why the vast majority of the world's engineers haven't questioned the collapse.

As a side note, I have often wondered why the all those Truther engineers and scientist have never answered that question after 9 years. Why do you think that is?

[deconstruct911]

66. Even more simple question

where are the upper floors? I see some load bearing walls on the ground or laying on an angle.

The upper floors were pulverized.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Dude...

so what? Do you understand the concept of mass?

[hack89]

72. So if I have two identical buildings

and one collapses, does that pile of rubble weigh less than the intact building?

Please google mass before you make a fool of yourself.

[deconstruct911]

92. So the pulverized

upper floors pulverized the buildings?

WOW convincing!!

[SDuderstadt]

93. Dude...

You are showing your ignorance of physics. Please, please study the idea of mass. Seriously.

BTW, are you seriously claiming that the upper stories were completely pulverized before they hit the lower stories?

[hack89]

107. Do you understand that the mass is the same?

Pulverization is not disintegration - there was no loss of mass. It is basic physics.

[greyl]

54. Water can cut through steel and concrete.

Are you under the impression that aluminum is less solid than water?

[deconstruct911]

55. Are you under the impression

the WTC was made of paper?

[greyl]

56. That's one of the stupidest replies ever seen.

Water can cut through steel and concrete. You had been making the point that aluminum shouldn't have been able to penetrate steel and concrete, remember?

[deconstruct911]

57. Duh

my reply should have highlighted how stupid the question was in the first place.

You realize the core was damaged all the way to the lobby right? You realize the basement levels were damaged too right?

[deconstruct911]

58. Duh

my reply should have highlighted how stupid the question was in the first place.

You realize the core was damaged all the way to the lobby right? You realize the basement levels were damaged too right?

[greyl]

59. I'll leave you to talk amongst yourself. nt

[hack89]

62. They were damaged after a huge fucking building collapsed on them. nt

[LARED]

64. Why is that an issue?

A large commercial airliner impacts the core structure at around 500 MPH and you believe the core columns below were not affected?

Steel is very adept at transferring energy.

[immune]

38. See no evil, hear no evil, believe in fairy tales.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9604

"After we read the whole 10,000 pages, it turns out that "upward-fall initiation" simply means that the man lost his footing after being shot. Okay, say Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and friends, then after he lost his footing, how did he fall upward? NIST responds: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of falling-upward."


Hmmmm, you don't believe truthers because they can't explain it, but you believe NIST despite their admission that they can't explain it. Major disconnect.

[SDuderstadt]

39. WTF are you babbling about now?

A man being shot falling upward?

WTF?

[immune]

41. Analogy, dude.

And yeah, a man fallin upward ain't happenin'. That's the point.

But I don't suppose you'd go to the link and find out what "falling upward" means in the contest of the NIST reports before you pound down on the submit button and show your ignorance.

[SDuderstadt]

42. No, it's a strawman...

and there are plenty of explanations of "crush-up" (assuming that's what you're babbling about) from physics professors.

[immune]

43. Okay, it there are plenty of explanations,

why did the NIST commission admit they couldn't explain it?

[hack89]

44. You posted a single sentence without any context whatsoever.

How about you post the entire paragraph that contains it.

[immune]

45. Try the link at post 38.

[hack89]

46. I did - that's why I asked the question.

Truthers are notorious for cherry pick facts and presenting them out of context to prove their CT of the moment. Your link has no context - just a single sentence.

[immune]

47. There's a great deal more at that link than one sentence,

however, since you're so familiar with the 10,000 page NIST report, I'm sure you'll be able to track down this little discrepancy and clear it all up for us.

[zappaman]

40. wtf?

does anyone understand this babbling?

[OnTheOtherHand]

65. meanwhile, back in the real world

The letter says, "As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse" (odd punctuation in original, emphasis added). That means that anyone who actually wants to know what the letter means by "full explanation" has to look for the previous mention.

One needn't look very far. The preceding paragraph says this:

...Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.

Do you understand what this means?

(edit to fix link)

[Drops_not_Dope]

68. What about firefighters for 9/11 truth?

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

An Appeal to Firefighters, Present and Past from a retired FDNY Lieutenant

Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm’s way in the public’s service. This is what we are paid for and it is our honor. However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon “evaporated”. There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn’t even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT. Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11!

-Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret)

Lt. Vodvarka served on FDNY Ladder Co 26, Rescue Co. 3, Rescue Co. 1, Engine Co. 92, Ladder 82 and Ladder 101. He was awarded the Merit Class 1 award, the Prentice Medal.

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. it seems to undermine IScreamSundays' argument

Vodvarka apparently isn't afraid of challenging the official story. So much for being "gagged."

But in this statement, he also doesn't seem to "know" anything about 9/11 that he didn't learn from other 9/11 Truth organizations. And some of the things he "knows" are, construed as ordinary English, simply false. For instance, it's hard to understand how anyone who was anywhere near downtown Manhattan, on 9/11 or soon after, could say that the towers "fell neatly into their basements." I was several miles downwind, and it's hard for me to fathom that choice of words.

I could keep going, but the point is that none of it depends on his expertise as a firefighter or on direct knowledge.

[immune]

76. The clue is hidden right in the first sentence:

"An Appeal to Firefighters, Present and Past from a retired FDNY Lieutenant"

Amazing what you can get away with saying when your job isn't on the line anymore.

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. sorry, but that is silly

How many firefighters have retired in the last nine years? And even if none of them has first-hand knowledge of whatever you think firefighters might have been "gagged" from saying, don't they talk with anyone that does? Just how gutless do you think New York's Bravest are, anyhow?

[immune]

78. In the first place

the truth is often stranger than fiction.

Second, I don't consider the continued silence of the FDNY crews that responded to the call on 911 to be "silly" at all. And if you're right, why aren't they speaking out in support of the official conspiracy theory? I'm sure they're well aware that people on both sides are waiting to hear from them.

[SDuderstadt]

79. "why aren't they speaking out in support of the official conspiracy theory"

Because the consensus view makes so much more sense than goofy "9/11 was an inside job" CT bullshit, it doesn't need organizations and goofy YouTube videos in support.

Duh.

[immune]

80. How does a commission reach consensus?

Well, at least the desired concensus?

9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses

http://www.911docs.net/graeme_macqueen.php

I've got a few better adjectives than goofy to describe it.

[SDuderstadt]

81. "How does a commission reach consensus?"

This has got to be one of the fucking dumbest questions ever asked here.

Why would the 9/11 Commission hear testimony from 503 first responders if their primary task was to figure out how and why the attacks happened and make recommendations to prevent them from happening in the future?

[immune]

82. I tend not to use foul language much

but that was one of the dumbest fucking answers I've ever gotten. And believe me, I've gotten a few dillies.

[SDuderstadt]

83. Again, since the 9/11 Commission was not charged with...

determining the structural failure of the WTC (Hint: that was NIST), would you expect them to hear testimony from 503 first responders?

Of course, when you ask such ficking dumb questions, I'm not surprised that you would regard any intelligent answer as "fucking dumb".

Bonus question: How many of those first responders do you suppose believe "9/11 was an inside job"?

[zappaman]

84. "How many of those first responders do you suppose believe "9/11 was an inside job"?"

now THAT'S a fucking dumb question.
we will never know because the first responders, like those pussy firemen, will never reveal what they know BECAUSE THEY ARE SCARED of BUSHCO!!!
Jeezus, dude, have you learned nothing?

[SDuderstadt]

85. You are probably afraid of Bushco too...

After all they have stopped "We Are Change", "AE911truth", Firefighters for 9/11 truth"...oh, wait...they haven't.

Y'know...claiming that the first responders or anyone else, for that matter, are afraid to speak out about 9/11, is only slightly less dumb than the claim that 9/11 was not the subject of a criminal investigation.

[hack89]

120. Are they scared of OBAMACO too? nt

[immune]

86. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence

supporting explosions. (of course they didn't look very hard)

They didn't ask the first responders either.

As for what the firefighters believe .... who would know, they ain't talking.

And therefore they aren't adding any substance to your argument, either, and you probably harbor all kinds of nasty thoughts about them for not falling right in with the OCT. I'm sure if they had done so, that would have gotten them plenty of interviews with the commission and on the teeeveeee. Maybe even some book deals and movie contracts.

[SDuderstadt]

87. So, make sure I get this right...

you think that some number of 1st responders actually DO believe that "9/11 was an inside job", they just won't speak up?

"you probably harbor all kinds of nasty thoughts about them for not falling right in with the OCT"

This is hysterical inasmuch as you are the one badmouthing them.

P.S. You understand that "explosions" doesn't necessarily mean "explosives", right? Duh.

[immune]

89. Actually, to counter the claims that they haven't spoken ....

118 WITNESSES To EXPLOSIVES Used In The CONTROLED DEMOLITION Of The WTC TOWERS On 9/11, <1 of 2>

118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers.

The Oral Histories, the 9/11 Commission Report, and the NIST Report.

The 9/11 Commission and NIST both resorted to legal threats against the city of New
York in order to obtain the 503 oral histories. They succeeded in gaining access to this
material, and we would expect them to make use of it.

It appears (references are somewhat unclear) that the Commission did, in fact, make
fairly extensive use of the oral histories in composing the crucial Chapter 9 of its 2004 Report,
which deals with the crashing of the planes into the Towers and the subsequent collapse of these
buildings. The Report refers to the oral histories to verify the condition of civilians in the
stairwells of the Towers, the nature of rescue actions taking place on various floors of the
buildings, and so on. It appears to regard the oral narratives as trustworthy; establishes no critical distance from them; seems to consider them straightforward descriptions of the events of the day.

But what about all the references in the FDNY material to explosions? The Report makes
no mention of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHwWhqarRdk

As the guy in the video says, and as I've been saying for nine years ... if you don't look, you don't find. If you don't want to find, you don't look. Duh.

[zappaman]

90. or

if you are only looking for shit that confirms your goofy conclusions, you will not only find the little nuggets you seek, but also rule out the mountains of real evidence that doesn't support your goofy conclusion.
Duh.

[immune]

96. goofy ... shit

People died. And all you can say is wanting to know who did it and see them hung from the rafters for it is "goofy".

If some petty criminal raped and beat up a whore we expect a clean and thorough examination of the evidence and not have it buried under a mountain of paperwork that just confuses the facts. Too many rapists walk because of sloppy investigations like that. Murders, too. Mass murderers, too, apparently.

I'm tying real slow for you in the hopes that you'll get it .... I. HAVE. NOT. REACHED. ANY. CONCLUSIONS. I. HAVE. QUESTIONS.

[SDuderstadt]

97. If you haven't reached any conclusions...

you choose a fucking strange way of demonstrating that.

More importantly, there are ANSWERS to your fucking stupid questions. The problem is you summarily reject them for no good reason.

[immune]

103. I've been told that people who frequently drop "f" bombs

have two problems:

1) Anger management issues
2) Vocabulary deficiencies

These are seldom the kind of people I go to when I'm seeking answers to serious questions.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Third category...

people who get frustrated with your onslaught of fucking stupid questions for which you summarily reject the answers, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Dude...

your "source" is Graeme McQueen.

How many fucking times does he have to be debunked before you are too embarrassed to offer this bullshit as "evidence"?


http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

[OnTheOtherHand]

95. second verse, same as the first...

OK, so the firefighters were gagged from mentioning explosions -- except that they weren't. And a recently retired religious studies professor thinks that their comments constitute evidence of controlled demolition. But do the firefighters think so? Of course, if we asked them, we could only believe them if they said yes. Hmmmm.

(edit for clarity)

[immune]

98. What part of

"on the record" .... "for the record" ... "under penalty of perjury" ... "official testimony", "sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", do you not understand?

Or DO you understand that anything short of that is relegated to "rumor"? Convenient, that.

[SDuderstadt]

100. What the fuck are you babbling about...

now?

[immune]

105. Have a nice evening.

[OnTheOtherHand]

102. that's patent bullshit

If "anything short of that" were "relegated to 'rumor,'" you wouldn't be here waving your arms. Be serious.

The question is: if the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, shouldn't there be a lot more content short of that?

[immune]

104. Under oath.

Nothing less.

Anything short of that is "waving arms" and "pointing fingers".

[OnTheOtherHand]

116. missing the point here won't help you

Your real problem isn't that the firefighters aren't under oath, and therefore their statements are being dismissed. Your real problem is that they haven't been saying anything that needs to be dismissed in order to conclude that NIST basically got things right. That's presumably why it's so appealing to posit that they are keeping silent to protect their jobs.

So, even if we assume that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, pining for firefighters to testify under oath doesn't seem like an efficient use of wishful thinking.

[immune]

117. Ah, but you see, nothing exists in a vacuum.

One does not need to rely ALONE on any one piece of evidence, like FDNY crews allegedly hearing explosions.

Telltale puffs of smoke during the collapse points toward explosives.
All three buildings falling neatly into their own footprints points toward controlled demolition.
Statements by physicists and architects point toward controlled demolition.
Asbestos levels in the buildings being too expensive to renovate and the port authority demanding those renovations.
Evidence of money laundering and other financial wrongdoing conveniently destroyed.
"Rumors" of memos warning of a power down over the previous weekend.
John O'Neil ....
Alleged claims of thermite/thermate found in residue and steel samples taken from WTC.

And there is no doubt that I'm leaving out a great deal of other circumstantial evidence of motive, means and opportunity that in no way implicates 19 alleged terrorists or plane strikes.

In my mind, eliminating those supposed pilots is where the OCT completely falls apart ... right from the get go. And remember, in 2003, Robert Mueller clearly stated that there was no proof that the named suspects were guilty of anything.

FBI Admits No Evidence Linking Hijackers To 911
http://100777.com/node/224

[OnTheOtherHand]

118. I've been hearing these arguments for years

I'm sorry, but when you say that the buildings "f(ell) neatly into their own footprints," there really isn't much reason to keep reading.

(Meanwhile, others are finding it equally suspicious that some of the debris landed so far from the towers.)

I did, however, check your link. It quotes Mueller as saying that the hijackers "left no paper trail." He then elaborates that the FBI has not "uncovered a single piece of paper... that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot."

Can you possibly confuse these statements with the statement that "there was no proof that the named suspects were guilty of anything"? I do not understand how. Since when is a "paper trail" the sine qua non in establishing guilt?

[immune]

119. That's almost funny ...

The paper trails tracking these 19 guys and many other Muslims from pillar to post for god knows how long before 911 was definitely used after the fact to "establish guilt" ... well, at least until it couldn't anymore.

And you certainly haven't explained why, since the towers took such powerful side impacts, that the buildings (well, except for building 7, of course) didn't just topple over and take out the rest of Manhattan.

edit to add: Oh, and the way those trackers just accidentally lost track of their prey on the morning of 911. Astounding. Only a true believer could swallow that one.

[SDuderstadt]

122. "that the buildings (well, except for building 7, of course) didn't just topple over and take out...

the rest of Manhattan."

Why would you expect the buildings to "topple over"?

Forget what I said about salvaging whatever credibility you have left earlier. It's too late. And you can drop the pretense of having "not drawn any conclusions".

[OnTheOtherHand]

129. stepping back for a moment, it's almost funny

I was so blown away by "topple over" that I didn't even try to process "take out the rest of Manhattan."

Under other circumstances I might grant poetic license, but that's just annoying. It's a real place, with real people, some of whom are my family. Grrrrrr.

[OnTheOtherHand]

128. ah, another chance to duck the goalposts

You're rationalizing flat-out errors. I find it ugly.

And I don't know why you find it so puzzling that the towers would fall down instead of toppling over. It's not as if this is a fresh new issue that hasn't been discussed ad nauseam. It isn't as if most people labor under the impression that the towers were built with hinges or as monoliths, or don't quite grasp the concept of gravity, or whatever your problem is with the basic collapse scenario.

edit to add: Oh, and the way those trackers just accidentally lost track of their prey on the morning of 911. Astounding. Only a true believer could swallow that one.

(opens mouth)

(closes mouth)

Say whaa?

See, it isn't as if you're challenging my most deeply held beliefs. It isn't as if you're challenging things I believe at all. As far as I can tell, you're just making stuff up.

[SDuderstadt]

121. Fucking unbelievable...

All three buildings falling neatly into their own footprints points toward controlled demolition

Does that look like three buildings that fell "neatly into their own footprints" to you???? They were ALL over the place.

You claim that you have only questions and you haven't drawn any conclusions. I call bullshit. Do you know how to fact-check the goofy CT bullshit you post here? Do you know how to evaluate bullshit at all?

As far as your claim that the FBI admitted there was no evidence that tied the hijackers to 9/11, I call bullshit again, if you wouldn't keep falling victim to your confirmation bias and "research" beyond the answer you want.

http://www.representativepress.org/FBITestimony.html

You might want to consider pausing for a while while you have a shred of credibility left.

[immune]

123. If calling out bullshit bullshit bullshit

is the epitome of credibility, I'll let you keep it all.

I'll stick with incredulous.

175,000 results for
proof of 911 control…:

886,000 results for
911 controlled demol…:

386,000 results for
911 controlled demol collapse…:

[SDuderstadt]

124. Do you think the number of hits....

proves something????

Google "Obama is a Kenyan".

[immune]

125. Now that was creative! Kudos.

So just for kicks and giggles, I did that and found 107 thousand entries.

I couldn't find any hard scientific data showing that it might be true, though, as opposed to many thousands of entries on the theory of controlled demo.

[SDuderstadt]

126. Oh, I see...

now it's not the number of entries, it's the "hard scientific data".

With all due respect, you're in no position to assess wherher something is "hard scientific data".

[immune]

130. Google is funny that way.

You can find good research material ... or you can find nuttiness.

You can find qualified scientists on both sides of this issue, I just tend to have more respect those who look at the data and attempt to prove or disprove a theory based on the facts available to them, rather than those who start with the conclusion and try to walk it back. In the end that never works.

[SDuderstadt]

131. This is unintentional irony, right?

Can you point to all this "evidence" you supposedly have?

[immune]

132. When did I say anything about "having evidence"?

We were talking about scientists and how they go about proving/disproving theories. Try to keep up.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Oh, I see...

so, now, what are those hundreds of thousands of pages of "hard, scientific fact" you were yammering about? Are you now admitting they aren't evidence?

[zappaman]

134. this is just sad

you might want to quit before you dig yourself an even bigger hole

[immune]

135. I'm sorry for your sadness, zap.

Are you suggesting that the best evidence was buried in a big hole? I suspect you could be at least partially right. for once.

[zappaman]

136. the big hole is where the evidence of thermite and/or mini-nukes is, yes.

ya got me

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. SRSLY?

I'm sure they're well aware that people on both sides are waiting to hear from them.

You've been waiting to hear New York firefighters speak out on their opinion about why the towers collapsed? And you think that people on 'the other side' have been waiting, too? Maybe there should be a group called FDNY4OCT?

(I'm thinking that if such a group existed under whatever name, you would tell us that that is only to be expected -- and you would probably think so, too.)

To tell you the truth, I doubt it has ever crossed most NY firefighters' minds that anyone in the world was "waiting to hear from them" on what you construe as the controversy about 9/11. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, it's not obvious why firefighters would assume that people were waiting for them to form and express an opinion about that. Just because you think you know it doesn't necessarily mean that they would know, or that they would be aware of your expectation that they should state an opinion about it.

However, perhaps this problem arises for some 9/11 conspiracists because they want WTC7 to be the telltale example of controlled demolition -- since at least it appears to fail from the bottom rather than the top (if we start the tape at the 'right' place). Unfortunately, some FDNY personnel are on record about damage to WTC7 prior to the collapse, and so it would be wonderful if we could explain all that away by arguing that firefighters who knew that the damage was overstated weren't allowed to say so.

Or maybe it has nothing or almost nothing to do with WTC7, and a lot to do with some assumptions (I don't know how widely held) about what other people think and care about. Or something else entirely. Dunno.

[immune]

94. I won't argue with you on the subject of widely held assumptions.

Except to say that assumptions do not make for a satisfactory investigation no matter which side you're on. Or shouldn't.

There are plenty of YouTube videos out there of firefighters talking about explosions so I'd say they're well aware of our interest in their experiences ... why no one besides those demanding further investigation seems to pay them much mind to those videos raises questions all by itself.

And all I'm doing is raising questions that I believe need better answers. If the firefighters can provide some of those answers I sure as hell want to hear them .... in a public forum. And I want the members of the commission to answer, in that same forum, why their testimony was edited to eliminate any mention of explosions.

[OnTheOtherHand]

101. so have you completely given up on the "gagged" business?

It seems to me that a logical explanation of why there are plenty of YouTubes about firefighters talking about explosions, yet relatively few people -- firefighters or otherwise -- treat those stories as evidence of controlled demolition, is that relatively few people -- firefighters or otherwise -- think they are evidence of controlled demolition.

To me that seems more parsimonious than invoking some sort of selective-gag hypothesis.

Now, that doesn't rule out the possibility that the explosions actually are evidence of controlled demolition and the firefighters just don't realize it. (Or maybe some of them pretend not to realize it?!) But then someone needs to explain why, or at least to make a decent case that this might be so. Your personal belief that certain questions need better answers isn't dispositive.

And I want the members of the commission to answer, in that same forum, why their testimony was edited to eliminate any mention of explosions.

?

[SDuderstadt]

109. "And I want the members of the commission to answer, in that same forum, why their testimony was...

edited to eliminate any mention of explosions."

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

[terrafirma]

127. Again...

You are aware that "explosions" do not equal "explosives".... right?

Things explode when they are heated, like in say a large office fire. Things like electrical equipment, CRT monitors, fire extinguishers, soda cans...

All sorts of stuff.

[hack89]

71. So there is no gag order? Fire fighters are not scared to speak out?

Thanks - glad we got that settled.

[immune]

99. See post #98

Nothing is "settled".

[LARED]

11. 'they are eerily quiet' ? About what?

Maybe they are quiet because there is nothing to say.

Also if there was a gag order on them we would know there was a gag order. Or do you "think" hundreds of firemen are so scared they won't even leak there is a gag order. Do you live is a fantasy world where the PTB can monitor every action of every person so the fireman would know even leaking the information about a gag order would put them in jeopardy?

[IScreamSundays]

12. The fireman said there was a "gag order" on him....

I think we know that there was a gag order now because the man said so himself. You gonna call the NYFD employee a liar?? The video looks pretty authentic to me?? You can't handle the truth can you? And yes, I would like to see you defy an "entity" that had the power to destroy your ENTIRE life. You are such a keyboard warrior. LARED is a BADASS!!!

[LARED]

13. Let me try this again. I'll type slow for you

That video is from Sept 2001. I have no doubt Firemen were asked by their command to make no comments to the public about what was going on at ground zero. Was there a legal gag order placed on ground zero workers? I don't know, but I guess it's possible.

The point is that even if there was a gag order, legal or just passed down from command, that was nine years ago. So unless there is a legal gag order still being enforced today there is no reason for the firemen to stay quiet about 9/11 evidence that supports whatever pet CT you happen to be humping.

And if the gag order was still being enforced today it is not possible that the existence of the gag order would remain secret for nine years.

[IScreamSundays]

14. I read your post; really, really slow...

So, do you know when the "gag order" was terminated? If there was a "gag order" as the first responder in the video indicates; do you remember it ever being lifted?? What exactly did the gag order include??? Are you going to call this "first responder" a liar again?

[LARED]

15. I realize I am not the best writer around these parts

but I reread what I wrote and it is reasonably clear. So I must assume you either can't understand my point or you simply don't want to address it as it sort of makes your position look silly.

Also just to be sure I didn't mistype something please point out where I called the fireman a liar.

[IScreamSundays]

16. Let's see what this guy has to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBb00PQR1zo

[LARED]

17. So is this guy breaking the gag order?

Is his life at risk?

[IScreamSundays]

27. I am not sure??

Do you have any comment regarding his statements? Or is that a little too much for you to handle?

[LARED]

33. Well apparently you can't handle the fact you tripped yourself up

First you create an OP about how firemen are gagged from saying anything that supports your CT fantasy. Then you try and change the subject because your OP started to look silly. Then the crème de la crème is while in the process of trying to change the subject you post a video that directly contradicts your OP.

I'll tell you what, lets sort out the validity of YOUR OP before you get to change the subject.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. ROFL

Have you ever met a New York City firefighter?

LMAO at "eerily quiet."

Ludicrous.

[IScreamSundays]

24. Isn't it a crack up??

Such a laughing matter. Glad I could entertain you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. from where I sit, you verge on accusing firefighters of complicity

If you think folks like my brother-in-law, the same people who run into burning buildings, are likely to have suppressed evidence about why other firefighters died because they were afraid of being sued or losing -- wait for it -- their jobs, I have a hard time understanding you. They aren't exactly timorous pencil-pushers.

Beyond that, some other folks have made good points that you've ignored. I won't try to repeat them all, since you don't seem to be paying attention.

[terrafirma]

23. Then go ask them "what's up".

They will be more than happy to tell you.

[LARED]

35. Here is the FDNY web site. It has a link for contacting them.

I would suggest you go ask them about the gag order that prevents them from divulging how the government killed hundreds of their ranks on 9/11. Let me know how you make out.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/home2.shtml

[Ohio Joe]

48. Cherry picking at it's most disgusting

IMO, the most vile aspect of the whole so called "truth" movement, the insinuation that the fire. police and other rescue personnel there that day were in on the murder of their friends and co-workers.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Where your OP says...

"synapse", should I assume you mean "synopsis" and you just don't know how to spell?