Swing:
Van Romero?? You cannot be serious! He debunked himself six years ago. I cannot believe it, you have hit the bottom and have begun digging!
We remain waiting patiently for you to retract your lie about the sources Ronnie's account.
I also await your retraction that the WTC was subject to massive smoke and fires, but as I see you are digging yourself a deeper hole, I'll cut you some slack.
I gave Mark the benefit of the doubt with regards to the source. It isn't my retraction to make.
SDC-With regard to the Van Romero comment per S.Dangler... Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
1/ You used him as your source of expert information.
2/ You then acknowledged that he had retracted his statements.
3/ Which means #1 is not valid. He corrected himself.
Can you source where Van Romero changed his mind about the amount of explosives it would take to bring the Tower's down not what caused the towers to come down?
Thanks for the link!
Quote:
Gravy-Quote:
We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.
What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.
And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car.
http://archive.recordonline.com/aday...mber/jones.htm
But Swing Dangler knows all this. He's just here in a pathetic bid for attention.
Oh Mark you are good at this.
Why would you post a description from the South Tower in an attempt to prove something that did not happen in the North Tower actually happened ?
This is real simple. Mark can either post what those at the debris sites were looking for or he can remove his opinion that is stated as fact to disprove the use of explosives in the basement or for that matter anywhere.
It is real easy to source what NIST was looking for in the debris pile as they flat out tell us in their report.
Lets see what the FBI and NYPD were looking for:
As they were trained to do after a terrorist attack, many of them were wary of the possibility of secondary explosive devices. No evidence of such devices was found on 9/11 or amongst the billions of pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted by NYPD detectives and FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills landfill. No sign of explosives or incendiary use was reported by anyone, including the hundreds of ironworkers who became intimately familiar with the steel, nor can any such sign be discerned in any photograph of the ruins.
To support this comment with facts Mark should:
1. Cite which FBI agents attended the FBI's Explosives Unit-Bomb Data Center that were trained in recognizing debris from an explosive device and were
2. Actively searching for explosive device debris instead of personal belongings, survivors, etc.
What were the good Agents searching for at least told to the public:
According to Special Agent Richard Marx, who headed up the FBI's Evidence Response Team at Fresh Kills, said this about the Historical Society's proposal to document the effort: "We normally never let outsiders see a crime scene, let alone take photographs or touch anything. We were a tough sell. You became part of the team here.
You have to remember we were here to find human remains. We were so focused we didn't realize we were part of history. Source:
FBI.
Notice something lacking? The part where the FBI was there to find evidence of explosive devices.
First motivation: Find human remains.
From the FBI Spokesperson:
Mrs. Chandler
I saw our employees and others working tirelessly, looking for the tiniest item that could be identified as belonging to someone that might help a family through its grief. Source:
FBI
Second Motivation: Find personal belongings.
From Michael E. Rolince, Acting Assistant Director in Charge, FBI
Process debris, identify victims remains, take photographs.Source:
FBI
Third Motivation-process debris and take photos, identify victims remains.
I don't recall reading anywhere in the above accounts of explosive devices being the subject of discovery. I don't recall reading where the BATF was examine the debris for evidence of explosives.
Had it been, not all of the steel was examined from the site anway.
Temporary Marine Transfer Stations
In conjunction with the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Department prepared permit applications for two transfer stations to be located at Pier 25 and Pier 6 in Manhattan. These sites were in close proximity to Ground Zero. These facilities provided an environmental benefit in reducing the amount of truck traffic that was leaving the site. By the end of October 2001, all material was removed through these sites.
Working in close cooperation with the Department of Design and Construction, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other governmental agencies, the Department made provisions that steel removed from Ground Zero could be transported directly to metal recyclers from either Pier 6 or Pier 25. This reduced the amount of material that would be screened at the Fresh Kills Landfill.Source:
APWA Reporter Online
Makes you wonder why in a forensic examination why you would want to reduce the amount of material being screened.
That material at Fresh Kills was being screened of course by the FBI and NYPD but I don't recall reading about the BATF and Explosives being involved.
Lets examine the quote again, Dave.
As they were trained to do after a terrorist attack, many of them were wary of the possibility of secondary explosive devices. No evidence of such devices was found on 9/11 or amongst the billions of pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted by NYPD detectives and FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills landfill. No sign of explosives or incendiary use was reported by anyone, including the hundreds of ironworkers who became intimately familiar with the steel, nor can any such sign be discerned in any photograph of the ruins.
My point, Mark suggests that FBI and NYPD were looking for evidence of explosives because they were trained to be wary of the possibility, yet has no facts to support that statement. This of course is used by Mark as 'evidence' that no explosive devices were used because no remains of such devices were found
What I posted from the FBI is what they were looking for. Not only that, some evidence that should have been searched was sent directly to the metal recyclers instead of Fresh Kills. And unless I'm mistaken, I haven't come across any forensic examination of the steel at the recyclers sites at Pier 6 or Pier 25.
Instead what we have is Mark's opinion in attempt to disprove explosive devices because nothing was found indicating such. However, there is no indication of that object (the remains of explosive devices or evidence of explosive devices) being the subject of the search by the NYPD or the FBI whereas human remains and possessions are the objects of the search.
Sorry Dave, the point stands.
), or they just aren't satisfied with accusing the government of mass murder, they also want to be able to claim they are incompetent or liars(or both) who are indirectly killing the GZ rescue workers....or both.
