• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Here is one rescue worker who was "in on it"

Walter Ego said:
Why should he come back? 160 replies in less than 8 hours. This was one of his more successful trolls. He's out doing a cakewalk.
Click to expand...


No. He is usually able to just snark and run, but he got nailed bad on this thread. And after the embarrassment last nite where he insulted everyone in the military, I'd say things aren't looking good for ta.
 
I think we're all agreed that he won't slither back here.

I'm just amazed that some people somehow get a kick from getting the snot kicked out of them like this.

I guess it beats paying good money to have Mistress Wanda spank you silly.

NTTAWWT
 
theauthor said:
You got a link to these reports of 20,000 people killed?
Click to expand...


Yawn. Here you are again--breathless, red in the face, hands waving frantically, and all because you've been caught for the thousandth time. Your deranged devotion to your evil cause is weirdly fascinating, but, really, you can be tiresome.
As everyone who on that terrible day sat transfixed in front of the TV, casualty guesses were all over the place and wildly pessimistic: 10,000, 20,000, 30,000--nobody had the slightest idea. Weeks after the attacks, the death toll was estimated 6,000.

Where are you going with this approach?
 
theauthor said:
No, im saying you are lying.
Click to expand...


You ridiculous fraud! A mindless troll who does nothing but tell lies is accusing a rationalist of lying for stating something that is completely true. Here is what 911Research.com, a site that caters to you evil morons, has to say:

"Estimates of the dead gradually declined in the years after the attack, eventually settling to a number around 2,750. On the day of the attack, news anchors speculated that the dead might number in the tens of thousands."
 
Russ_Dalton said:
(1) and (2) Go to imlplosionworld.com > click "Cinema explosif". Explain to me why every controlled demolition is different from each other. Why are the sounds in those controlled demolitions different from the video you posted.
Click to expand...

Um, different sizes, different positioning, different distance, different recording devices, different compiling method, different video delivery, etc.

There were lots of differences, but let me ask you: what did they all have in common?

Or better yet: how many of them (that had audio at all) were silent?

(3) Does every explosion record a seismic data?
Click to expand...

This question is so horribly written that I can't even guess at what you're trying to ask, and I don't want to give you a response in the traditional sense so much as I want to shove a middle school grammar and vocabulary textbook in your face. Try writing that again.
 
Last edited:
theauthor said:
No, im saying you are lying.
Click to expand...

So you say that the witness who's testimony you use isn't lying, and that I AM lying.

So basically your evidence of an inside job is dictated by whatever opinion you make up. And you wonder why people laugh at you?

It must be just so exhausting walking around with that huge brain of yours....
 
Last edited:
Tomblvd said:
For a spawn of Henry VIII, you're a pretty good gal.

You can bet you post will be dismissed because I said 20,000, and your post says 50,000.

ta, I hereby retract my retraction and patiently await the answer to my question.
Click to expand...

I prefer to think I got all my best qualities from Mom.

I remembered hearing the 50,000 estimate first, because that was how many people the newscasters said worked in the towers, and thinking that sounded like a lot of people for just two buildings, even buildings as large as WTC 1 and 2.
 
A rescue worker being in on it?

Isn't that kind of like trying to drown someone, but then giving them CPR?

Seems counterintuitive.

And, yes. Absolutely. "Blow up" can mean nothing else, except in reference to controlled demolition charges. There is no way that he could mean anything else by that statement.

Why even try to give a serious answer to any of theauthor's claims? The guy is a clown.
 
theauthor said:
No, it isn't a figure of speech. Can you find me a single example anywhere, apart from this one, where someone describes the collapse of a building as "blowing up"?
Click to expand...

I have a video in my collection (only aired once on TV, AFAIK) that was shot by a woman in her apartment building of a crowd of people stampeding from the South Tower collapse, and then the dust cloud hitting her open window, glass breaking, and her scrambling out of her room and up the staircase to higher floors to find breathable air, yelling for people to keep their doors closed if they have good air. After going up one or two floors, another woman comes out of her apartment crying, "What's happening?" And the woman with the video camera said, "The World Trade Center's blown up."

She saw the building come down and her building was caught in the enveloping dust cloud. In that traumatic moment, she had no knowledge of how the building came down, whether by explosives or a collapse. But to her, it was blown up. The building was all over the place, in the air they breathed.
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Yawn. Here you are again--breathless, red in the face, hands waving frantically, and all because you've been caught for the thousandth time. Your deranged devotion to your evil cause is weirdly fascinating, but, really, you can be tiresome.
As everyone who on that terrible day sat transfixed in front of the TV, casualty guesses were all over the place and wildly pessimistic: 10,000, 20,000, 30,000--nobody had the slightest idea. Weeks after the attacks, the death toll was estimated 6,000.

Where are you going with this approach?
Click to expand...

You make a very good point, Ron. With communications disrupted, air traffic shut down nationwide, New York City in a state of utter chaos...everyone was trying to find friends and relatives that might have been in the area. The estimated death toll came down slowly over the following days and weeks as communication was restored and many that were presumed missing were accounted for. It took time to figure out what the real damage was in terms of lives lost, and it was months before the identities of all of the dead were known for sure.
Edit: Bolding mine for emphasis
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
The demolition professionals ruled out the posssibility of explosives when they failed to discover physical evidence--detonator caps, bits of wiring, chemical signatures, etc.

Of course, uneducated conspiracy liars know so much more than professionals in all relevant fields.
Click to expand...

please provide reference, that demolition professionals were searching after chemical signatures etc.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
Ryan, this is an error in your knowledge base or a deceitful statement. The following evidence hopefully will assist you in your knowledge base or expose the deceit in your statement.
.
Click to expand...

perhabs Ryan wanted to say: "Nobody was able to find a bomb"
 
leftysergeant said:
Nor was there the first hint of a folow up of their first impression, The speculation of a van bomb is based on there being a blast and burn victims in the basement. That does not account for the burn victims on th lobby. Utter FAIL.

Have you ever seen an oxygen genrator? They would look like bombs to a non-bomb-trained technician. No reports of a confirmed bomb from the police. FAIL.
Click to expand...

interesting - please provide better explanation in thread " Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby".

Looking forward to your contributions.
 
Last edited:
theauthor said:
Why did he say it was about to blow up?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because he'd been in other fires where things "blew up." Perhaps he was merely using the term in a non-technical sense; someone else in the video says, "it's about to come down." Perhaps he knew quite a bit about the building and thought the fuel tanks were going to go.

But you're arguing that this fireman was told that the building was loaded with explosives? Curious. He had just watched as 300 of his brothers were killed in the collapse of the other towers, he's standing close enough to a CNN camera that they can overhear his conversation, and he calmly says, "it's about to blow up."

I believe that's called grasping at straws.
 
What do you think someone means when they say they're going to "break a shotgun?"

What does a boss mean when he is going to "fire" someone?

Does a "boom box" or "ghetto blaster" contain explosives?

When a person has "a [rule 10]-eating grin" is that what they were just doing?

What do people mean when they are going to "blow up" a balloon or a picture?

I realize it would be clearer if the person had said that "the building was, based on [his] experience and the information given to him by higher ranking more experienced officials, going to collapse in accordance with the laws of physics and gravity, due to the structural damage and corresponding fires," but wouldn't that be just as suspicious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom