Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

jessicarabbit said:
So far he says the building damage wasnt that bad and he heard explosions as he ran from it. He was an NYPD officer. I believe him
Click to expand...
Explosions... in a fire?! I am shocked! Shocked, I say!

Jessica, the confluence of evidence points to 1. planes flying into buildings causing 2. massive structural damage and 3. fires leading to 4. considerable weakening of building structural elements, which 5. results in collapse.

Therefore, it is not enough to pick on this or that evidence; after 5 years, you must present your own alternate explanation of what happened, with evidence. Pictures of pieces of the blasting caps used at this "CD" would be a good starting point.
 
jessicarabbit said:
Its strange that the firemen predicted the collapse but even 5 years later we have no final report on how it happened
Click to expand...
The NIST report on WTC7 is in the works. Sometimes investigations take a while to, ya' know... investigate.
 
Last edited:
jessicarabbit said:
Yes they are but seeing as no skyscraper had collapsed until that day I don't see how they could predict its collapse.
Click to expand...
Since you won't ask the FDNY that question, Why not ask Russell Pickering, who was a firefighter for years, what he thinks of the FDNY's assessment of WTC 7?

Russell?
 
I also think it's worth noting the ongoing rivalry between the New York fire and police departments.
 
this poor guy just repeats LC, RP junk and the standard CT truth movement stuff, it sounds like a record.

Was he at the Pentagon? So he is reliable on the Pentagon cause he was at the WTC? He is a stock expert because he was at the WTC and the PUT options are the key to 9/11. SEC is in on the CT also because a guy who was at the WTC said so.

One of his witness statement is boom, boom, boom.... as the floors failed at the WTC.

RP needs to get this guy and quote him to help get some more facts.

This witness is a lemming for the truth movement, n+1
 
Russell Pickering said:
Does ridicule of CT's constitute proof of anything?
Click to expand...

What ridicule?

I was asking a serious question, after stating a serious fact. But if you want it spoonfed, here it is:

1: Sounds of explosions do not equal evidence for explosives.
2: When there is a fire in a big building, lots of stuff found in there will go out with a bang. Soda boxes, spray cans, and plenty of other things.
3: Sounds of explosions do not equal evidence for explosives.
4: To find actual evidence for explosives put in a building, you need to produce remnant of the explosives. If there aren't any evidence of this, then the by far most likely cause is because there weren't any explosives.
5: Sounds of explosions do not equal evidence for explosives?
6: There haven't been found any evidence of actual explosives from the ruins.
7: Sounds of explosions do not equal evidence for explosives.

When you understand those 7 simple, yet incredibly important points, come back and see if you can present any actual evidence for explosives in WTC7.
 
Gravy said:
Since you won't ask the FDNY that question, Why not ask Russell Pickering, who was a firefighter for years, what he thinks of the FDNY's assessment of WTC 7?

Russell?
Click to expand...

I think it was very prudent of them given the events of the day to consider a collapse.

It is also normal procedure to have a collapse/debris zone around any high rise fire.

Sine the structural damage was evident from the first moment of the incident, and the people had been evacuated, why do you think FDNY commanders let firefighters go inside an unoccupied building for a good portion of the day if they assessed that the damage was likely to result in total failure.

Why would they do this?

Russell
 
They might have found evidence of explosives if they had all the steel to look at. The guy in the video says it was shipped off very quickly without analysis.
 
Repeating, because I think it bears repeating:

Perhaps one of our new CT friends would care to describe, in as much detail as possible, what they would to expect to see and hear when a skyscraper collapses. I've been asking that question for months, and no one has stepped up to the plate to answer it.

Who wants to go first? Usual? Russell? Jessica?
 
Russell Pickering said:
I think it was very prudent of them given the events of the day to consider a collapse.

It is also normal procedure to have a collapse/debris zone around any high rise fire.

Sine the structural damage was evident from the first moment of the incident, and the people had been evacuated, why do you think FDNY commanders let firefighters go inside an unoccupied building for a good portion of the day if they assessed that the damage was likely to result in total failure.

Why would they do this?

Russell
Click to expand...
As you know, the fires didn't spread heavily until the afternoon. Why were you unable to answer your own question?
 
jessicarabbit said:
They might have found evidence of explosives if they had all the steel to look at. The guy in the video says it was shipped off very quickly without analysis.
Click to expand...

Months are quickly, hate to work with your time factor!

You must not be very well read on what really happen and how the steel was investigated, you should look it up before you believe a known CT guy on his video as he is feed topics from his handler.
 
The guy, Craig Bartmer, who has traumatic stress disorder, has been told the lies of Truth movement about his goverment lying to him... Of course he's going to believe it!

Can't you see that this is exactly the peverse effect these CTs have?

The guys of Louder Than Words are literally putting the words in his mouth. Just look at the video, it's sickening.
 
jessicarabbit said:
They might have found evidence of explosives if they had all the steel to look at. The guy in the video says it was shipped off very quickly without analysis.
Click to expand...
NIST has stated that they will be looking at the possibility of explosives in WTC7. Probably the reason the final report was delayed.

You know... it may be interesting that "reliable" sources that back-up a conspiracy are dismissed as "crazy", but I think it's just as telling that the CT crowd latches on to these few individuals as though they speak the gospel.
 
Gravy said:
Repeating, because I think it bears repeating:

Perhaps one of our new CT friends would care to describe, in as much detail as possible, what they would to expect to see and hear when a skyscraper collapses. I've been asking that question for months, and no one has stepped up to the plate to answer it.

Who wants to go first? Usual? Russell? Jessica?
Click to expand...

I think its an unfair question but I will try. I would expect a messy partial collapse not the free fall of wtc7 that we saw. I would expect loud noises. I would expect every piece of steel to be kept and scrutinised
 
jessicarabbit said:
They might have found evidence of explosives if they had all the steel to look at.
Click to expand...

They had the steel to look at.

The guy in the video says it was shipped off very quickly without analysis.
Click to expand...

Well heck, if you can't trust the guy in the video over all the experts who said they had a chance to view the steel then I don't know what this world is coming to!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom