[Moderated]List Of NYC Firefighters Who Think Bombs Brought Down The Towers

[CHF]

Oh look - another twoofer (D cheney this time) tries to use the FDNY testimonies to prove there were bombs in the WTC, has his bluff called and backs down.

Seems to happen every other week or so.

 

[Totovader]

the only thing that looked like hollywood was the huge fireballs, cause thats what they use for theyr explosions in the movies, big huge fireballs.

amd how often have you seen buildings collapse like the towers in movies?

and sometimes they get demo experts like the Loizeaux's to demo stuff, or they go film theyr demos.

You're talking in circles.

Do you have any evidence or not?

 

[DC]

Every single one of those has been explained in depth in this very forum, as well as on www.911myths.com, debunking911.org, and other websites. May I suggest you do some research using the search function and see what you can find before raising these points again? Thank you.

i know them and readed them, and those countertheorys did not convince me

just cause it is claimed the squibs come from "compressed" air forced true elevator shafts and then escaped true a few local windows is not enough for me. there are also ppl that claim they debunked those "debunkings".

and also the interviews with experts i red and heard did not convince me.

 

[DC]

You're talking in circles.

Do you have any evidence or not?

evidence for what?

that they use huge big fire balls in hollywood productions?

 

[boloboffin]

Paul Isaac Jr:

I was ther at proximity to see the 20 floor gash in WTC 7. The WTC building was listing south about 20 degrees.

TC329: Is Paul Isaac Jr a liar or what?

 

[BenBurch]

I know two FDNY firefighters personally.

They both think Truthers are so full of it that their eyes are brown.

 

[Sabrina]

If experts in the respective fields, who certainly know a HECK of a lot more about it than you or I do, can't convince you of the lunacy of the theories you mentioned, then I'm afraid there's little to no hope for you, my friend.

No offense.

ETA: Sorry; that was in response to D. Cheney over here.

 

[CHF]

i know them and readed them, and those countertheorys did not convince me

just cause it is claimed the squibs come from "compressed" air forced true elevator shafts and then escaped true a few local windows is not enough for me. there are also ppl that claim they debunked those "debunkings".

and also the interviews with experts i red and heard did not convince me.

This is what it always come down to with you folks.

"Oh yeah? Well it doesn't concinve me!"

And why should the rest of the world care whether or not you are convinced? Why should this result in another investigation?

 

[DC]

My, someone's grammar and syntax has continued to be remarkably high quality. The spelling remains duff, but that's just an obvious red-herring.

So, Dictator, who's sock puppet are you?

thx alot

but there is no way for me to prove who i am. and even writing in another language is in times of google transaltion and thers also no proof. but one lang , my 1. lang is not a real lang. not an official one, maybe you got someone that could confirm that it is swiss dialect.

Es isch doch scho recht erstunlich das immerwider behauptet wird ich seg en amerikaner wo nur so tuet alsop er ned amerikaner waer. sind oftmals die wo mir paranoia diagnostiziered, liecht paradox.

aber danke fuers kompliment.

high quality, wow, thx

 

[Good Lt]

those indications that all are "debunked" like collapse speed, "squibs", possible thermite traces, high sulfur levels in WTC steel (FEMA), molten metal and so on. im sure you know them and found a convincing explaination.

Everythying you just listed has been debunked.

There were no "squibs."

There was no "thermite," and anybody claiming this has yet to show any physical evidence of it.

High sulfur levels were not caused by explosives. This is taken from pathetic Steven Jones paper (Answers to Objectionable Questions) in which he (SURPRISE) edited out critically important details when quote mining...er..."citing" his source for the claim.

Jone's quote:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

The next line (within the paragraph it was ripped from) Jones left out because it wasn't important:

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

Oops! Jones probably should've included that, right? Just a minor editorial oversight.

Molten metals? Please.

I'm sure you're read this paper by Dr. Frank Greening entitled Aluminum at WTC. And I'm also sure you're aware of the work an Italian debunker has more or less shown that
"molten metals" flowing from the towers appears to be little more than leaking lead from batteries.

Not thermite. Not explosives. Not anything the Troof movement wishes it were.

Now that I've demonstrated that your "indications" are nothing more than a collection of weapons-grade bull, what other "indications" for controlled demolitions are you presenting?

 

[scissorhands]

D.Cheney/Aanthanuur posts 24/7 on youtube about how he isnt convinced by any official explanation of pretty much anything.
He has been doing this in his very boring style for months.
He has lapped up every CT theory about the events of 9/11, including the no plane at shanksville and pentagon flyover and is keen on the moon landing hoax also.
He talks in circles and is completely immune to any reasoning.
I wouldnt bother trying.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

SO Chaney, you think all the experts are wrong then?

 

[DC]

This is what it always come down to with you folks.

"Oh yeah? Well it doesn't concinve me!"

And why should the rest of the world care whether or not you are convinced? Why should this result in another investigation?

its the same on both sides non of the "others side" arguments are convincing.

well i dont say the rest of the world has to care about me. but when more and more ppl come forward and demand an investigation by contacting theyr representatives in theyr country, they maybe get one.

polls have shown that most ppl dont really trust in the official reports.
(i dont say with any word that most ppl belive in an inside job, only a minority does so, just like only a minority belives they got told the full truth)

 

[Thunder]

Dictator- you clearly are not gonna convince us. We are not the uneducated masses that Toothers seem to target. Why are you here?

 

[DC]

SO Chaney, you think all the experts are wrong then?

those experts that are still considered experts by the "conspiracy-deniers" ?
yes. guess so.
ppl like Dr. Bazant, yes im pretty sure his theory isnt right, yet, maybe it will one day, then it maybe can convince me.
i really wonder what investigation into WTC7 will bring up.

 

[Thunder]

here's a hint: it will say the collapse of WTC 7 was not a controlled demo.

 

[CHF]

well i dont say the rest of the world has to care about me. but when more and more ppl come forward and demand an investigation by contacting theyr representatives in theyr country, they maybe get one.

There's a couple really obvious problems with this.

1) the overwhelming majority of experts are not calling for a new investigation

2) even if another investigation were to take place, the TM would run into the same enormous problem they encountered with the first one: it will have to be conducted by experts in the relevant fields.

This is why twoofers always shrug their shoulders when asked about their "new investigation." Who should fund it? Who should testify? Who should write the final report? You tell me, D Cheney.

The only way your demolition beliefs will be backed up is if Steven Jones and Haiwa are the "experts" and DR Griffin is allowed to make the final decision.

 

[DC]

Dictator- you clearly are not gonna convince us. We are not the uneducated masses that Toothers seem to target. Why are you here?

im here because i have been reading here for a while. alot interesting posts. very detailed sometimes.
some real expeerts are here afaik, like Dr. Greenings.
i like to read both sides of this debate. pro and contras. and based on that combined with my own knowledge and logic (wich is very questioned in here, i know) and make up my own oppinnion.

and when i first heard of this forum i got told that the "level" of debate is alot more fact orientatet and not only argumentum adhominem. and i hope to experiance such debates here soon.

 

[DGM]

those experts that are still considered experts by the "conspiracy-deniers" ?
yes. guess so.
ppl like Dr. Bazant, yes im pretty sure his theory isnt right, yet, maybe it will one day, then it maybe can convince me.
i really wonder what investigation into WTC7 will bring up.

Inherent venerabilities in the design of open floor spaces if you ask my humble (yet professional) opinion. Sorry no conspiracies just tough choices in building codes.

 

[DC]

There's a couple really obvious problems with this.

1) the overwhelming majority of experts are not calling for a new investigation

2) even if another investigation were to take place, the TM would run into the same enormous problem they encountered with the first one: it will have to be conducted by experts in the relevant fields.

This is why twoofers always shrug their shoulders when asked about their "new investigation." Who should fund it? Who should testify? Who should write the final report? You tell me, D Cheney.

The only way your demolition beliefs will be backed up is if Steven Jones and Haiwa are the "experts" and DR Griffin is allowed to make the final decision.

i dont know if "twoofers" or whatever childish name one wants to give them, agree with me. but i would like to see an international board of experts. but most important is, that everything is public, so everyone can see how the conclusions are reached. no secrets, no stonewalling and such.