Donte Stallworth's reflections on 9/11 CTs...

Jango said:
NIST said virtually the same thing. They were wrong, just as you are. If you're actually interested in this, I suggest that you go through the open credible record of the event, not Infowars, but the NYTimes (the interviews of first responders) or the footage from the various U.S. news companies who had people on the ground reporting what they had been witness to or the interviews on that day of people in or around the WTC complex, such as first responders and the people who worked in the buildings, such as those who were dozens of floors below the impacts, like in the basement and lobbies, who reported injuries resulting from explosions.

The highlighted bit of your post has ignored all of that.

Why?
Click to expand...

Wrong. It was trains, I tell ya. Trains!

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:
Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

Paul Curran -- Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:
I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) T]he ground started shaking like a train was coming. You looked up, and I guess -- I don't know, it was one that came down first or two? Which one?

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.
Click to expand...

Eyewitness testimony to an actual train! Take that, Dan Rather. What's the frequency, Kenneth?
 
Jango said:
such as those who were dozens of floors below the impacts, like in the basement and lobbies, who reported injuries resulting from explosions.
Click to expand...
As reported by William "new day new story" Rodriguez?

William Rodriguez, to CNN, the very day of the attacks:
"I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin."
​
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html

William Rodriguez, to NIST:
"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th * freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized."
​
Source: Transcript of NIST Public Meeting in New York City – February 12, 2004, p. 70. (I have the PDF, the link I took it from is now dead.)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez#September_11_attacks and note that Felipe David had 3rd degree burns covering 40% of his upper body, but no signs of barotrauma are reported.

So I have to ask, what basis do you have to claim that they reported injuries resulting from explosions?

* (probably a transcription error, as it was most likely 50A)
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
NIST said virtually the same thing. They were wrong, just as you are. If you're actually interested in this, I suggest that you go through the open credible record of the event, not Infowars, but the NYTimes (the interviews of first responders) or the footage from the various U.S. news companies who had people on the ground reporting what they had been witness to or the interviews on that day of people in or around the WTC complex, such as first responders and the people who worked in the buildings, such as those who were dozens of floors below the impacts, like in the basement and lobbies, who reported injuries resulting from explosions.

The highlighted bit of your post has ignored all of that.

Why?
Click to expand...

Jango, how does watching a building fall tell you what made it fall?

Once gravity takes hold they all look pretty much the same.
 
Jango said:
NIST said virtually the same thing. They were wrong, just as you are. If you're actually interested in this, I suggest that you go through the open credible record of the event, not Infowars, but the NYTimes (the interviews of first responders) or the footage from the various U.S. news companies who had people on the ground reporting what they had been witness to or the interviews on that day of people in or around the WTC complex, such as first responders and the people who worked in the buildings, such as those who were dozens of floors below the impacts, like in the basement and lobbies, who reported injuries resulting from explosions.
Click to expand...

A lot of people reported noises during the collapses that they likened to explosions. None reported the string of high-brisance explosions prior to collapse that are typical of controlled demolition. None reported windows being blown out (there is a good reason why CD sees the windows removed first), and there was no barotrauma.

Watch some commercial CDs. Youtube is full of them.

You appear to have uncritically sucked up every 9/11 CT myth going.
 
Jango said:
1. Though I had never heard of the alleged participants, there was a trail of information about them prior to 9/11 that extended for many years along with American lives. So on 9/11, with you already being aware of OBL and his crew, what did you make of the spectacular attacks? Did you at any point in time on that day ask yourself "How did they do this after being on our radar as a threat for years?"

2. What about the rest of my post -- the CD element. What were your thoughts on that day?
Click to expand...

On my part, it's not too different from the Zodiac murders here in California - the guy wrote letters to the newspapers, left clues here and there, killed a bunch of people in different jurisdictions and was never caught.

Individuals with evil intent can be very serious about taking credit for their crimes and still remain slippery enough not to get nabbed.

FTR, if you seek out the live radio broadcast from the Howard Stern show that day with lot's of eyewitness reports of the WTC attacks in progress, including the collapse, Stern named OBL fairly early. He also managed to piss off Bill Maher by calling for immediate bombing of everyone in the ME without regard to location or culpability.
 
Jango said:
Assuming that you were watching T.V. that day, what was your POV on the collapses? Do you think they were fire-induced collapses or did you think they collapsed by other means (I.e. controlled demolitions, which mind you, was widely reported that day on live T.V. by field reporters and other media workers, like Dan Rather)?
Click to expand...
I was watching from shortly after the the first plane hit. After the South Tower was hit, I remember being impressed it didn't just collapse on impact. I watched the fires and was really not that surprised when the buildings failed.

My first thought about a suspect was OBL. There were reports all day long about building 7 being in serious trouble and there were evacuations (at least two), so I was not surprised when it failed also.

The idea of CD had never crossed my mind and I was shocked when I found out through the article in Popular Mechanics people could actually believe this.
 
Jango said:
Assuming that you were watching T.V. that day, what was your POV on the collapses? Do you think they were fire-induced collapses or did you think they collapsed by other means (I.e. controlled demolitions, which mind you, was widely reported that day on live T.V. by field reporters and other media workers, like Dan Rather)?
Click to expand...

After the second hit, I was pretty sure it was radical Islamists, since they had made suicide attacks their trademark. I'm pretty sure that a "false flag" attack by suicide didn't enter my mind for even a second, nor was I imaginative enough to think that someone had concocted such a pointlessly complicated and risky hoax. I certainly knew that OBL was blamed for the embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack, so I assumed that at the least, it was someone of the same ilk. If you blow up two embassies and attack a Navy ship, that pretty much telegraphs that you're trying to start some ****. I had probably read the name al Qaeda before, but I don't think I could have recalled it on 9/11.

Like DGM, I was surpised that the buildings hadn't collapsed at least partially immediately, but I was aware that that didn't mean they were really stable: I was concerned that they could be slowly deforming and that the load redistribution could cause some degree of collapse at any minute. So when they did, I attributed it to the structural damage rather than the fire. When I saw the entire top of the first building tip and fall, I wasn't at all surprised that it fell all the way to the ground. What could possibly stop it? And no, it didn't look (or sound) anything at all like a controlled demolition, and I'll spare you my reaction to first hearing that theory.
 
Jango said:
Have you ever done this with 9/11 or has it been a case closed kind of thing for you since the attacks happened?
Click to expand...

I've been dealing with the nonsense from people like you since 2004. So yes, I've done my due diligence.
 
Jango said:
Sure you have, that's why you voted 'No' that there is no legitimate reason to question the official 9/11 narrative...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's hardly my fault I worked out more about 911 before you'd even heard of Afghanistan, than you have in the following decade.
 
Sceptic-PK said:
It's hardly my fault I worked out more about 911 before you'd even heard of Afghanistan, than you have in the following decade.
Click to expand...

And what have you exactly worked out? How much blind faith is required in that process?

Unless you've had a security clearance and have viewed all relevant documentation, you're taking the government at face value because they make claims without also showing the entire evidentiary base they've used to come to their conclusions.

Weren't you taught in math class to "show your work"? I was. But the government doesn't abide by those rules. They rely on the faithful.

http://www.mcpsonline.org/images/f/f3/And_then_a_miracle_happens_cartoon.jpg
 
Jango said:
Unless you've had a security clearance and have viewed all relevant necessary documentation, you're taking the government at face value because they make claims without also showing the entire necessary evidentiary base they've used to come to their conclusions.
Click to expand...
FTFY - those are the two big errors of logical premises.

There are still four other issues I would contest BUT experience says the reasoning is too subtle for this forum. Especially when we still see argument favouring a no vote:
Jango said:
Sure you have, that's why you voted 'No' that there is no legitimate reason to question the official 9/11 narrative...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Remember I voted "Yes" to that other question AND can still explain why. :o)
 
Jango said:
Unless you've had a security clearance and have viewed all relevant documentation, you're taking the government at face value because they make claims without also showing the entire evidentiary base they've used to come to their conclusions.
Click to expand...

I worked out more about 911 in 15 minutes than you have in 15 years, and at that 15 minute mark I had heard exactly 0 from any government, US or otherwise.
 
Jango said:
...
Weren't you taught in math class to "show your work"? I was. But the government doesn't abide by those rules. They rely on the faithful. ...
Click to expand...
You have no evidence for your claims on 911; as you Gish Gallop from your latest BS claim of explosives, failed to close the loop.

When will you show your work? What is it that we have to show the work for; which specific claim are you failing to show your work on now?
 
Jango said:
So your immediate thoughts entirely discounted what was being reported across the U.S. MSM networks and the local NYC news. What makes that weirder is in the aftermath of 9/11, your membership here has pretty much guaranteed that you have viewed many 9/11 videos (on Youtube, of course) that clearly show that the collapses were not impact+fire induced...yet you dismiss them out of hand just as you did with the on-scene people who said the obvious: the collapses in NYC, all 3 of them, were controlled demolitions because 1) they sounded like it & 2) they looked like it.
Click to expand...

Umm no. Three "on-scene people" who also happen to be fire experts knew WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing that day. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to trust them over someone who appears to be utterly clueless about fire science.


"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cruthers.txt


Jango said:
NIST said virtually the same thing. They were wrong, just as you are. If you're actually interested in this, I suggest that you go through the open credible record of the event, not Infowars, but the NYTimes (the interviews of first responders) or the footage from the various U.S. news companies who had people on the ground reporting what they had been witness to or the interviews on that day of people in or around the WTC complex, such as first responders and the people who worked in the buildings, such as those who were dozens of floors below the impacts, like in the basement and lobbies, who reported injuries resulting from explosions.

The highlighted bit of your post has ignored all of that.

Why?
Click to expand...

There are thousands of videos that show the building collapses that day, in fact it is one of the most recorded events in the history of the planet, yet no truther, has ever produced a single, solitary video that captures the telltale sounds of a controlled demolition.

When you can produce a video like the one below people might take you seriously, until then you're just embarrassing yourself here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U
 
Jango said:
Then what did you rely on? You seem to have ignored the media on that day.
Click to expand...
The technical issue of "Why did the Twin Towers Collpase?" is relatively easy for a structural engineer who can employ reasoning to work out without official reports. Once you know the basic structural features. (Not all structural engineers can reason from base principles - many simply follow the book - or the FEA - or "the leader".... :boggled: )

I my case I understood the overall mechanisms before I read the official reports. It was actually easier than wading through thousands of pages. Same goes for those academic papers - long on maths but short on thinking. :(

And - at about my second week of internet posting - I decided to never rely on official reasoning nor allow overlapping confused objectives. If I present engineering arguments they are mine. I occasionally critique other people's engineering - usually to identify where they went wrong tho sometimes to support their findings against misrepresentation. And the "overlapping objectives" refers to the both sides habit of getting lost between explaining the events of the collapses OR disputing whether NIST was wrong. Except back in 2007 it was all four sides- not the two sides we see today.

Whether NIST was right or wrong is irrelevant. What happened technically on 9/11 was written in the history books 9/11 - 2001. What NIST wrote years later cannot change that history despite arguments from both current "sides" that imply or rely on the belief that NIST (FEMA..etc etc) can change history... So that disposes of those bits of your "argument" Jango which rely on Government Information as the only source. (Carefully avoiding the false generalisation trap. :rolleyes: )

AND the other big advantage I had over most active "debunkers" was I'd never heard of Bazant - so wasn't misled by him or those who misrepresented the events in the Bazant style. Didn't seriously take on the "limits of Bazant" until that thread here in 2010.

My post #7 in that thread clearly shows:
A) The limits of my grasp of the later Bazant papers at that time... AND
B) That I identified two key points which are still overlooked in a lot of debate. (If the Top Block is falling - then (i) All columns have failed; AND (ii) their broken ends are already missing - have bypassed.) To this day many from both sides still deny those two "bleedingly obvious" truths. :confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom