Truthers and the FDNY

[dtugg]

Red clearly believes that the FDNY are incompetent sheeple even if he doesn't have the balls to come out and say it like GiE.

 

[RedIbis]

I'm going to derive from the post that was brought back from the grave and ask what I hope is a more pertinent question better fitting of your position




Firefighters are trained in material relating building construction, fire behavior, and heat transfer (among many other topics). Are you implying they wouldn't have at least suspected that there was a risk for such a result without having to be "told"? Do you perhaps believe that those in the north tower felt that it was a very real danger that the same thing that happened to the south tower could happen to theirs, given the similarities in damage and construction of the towers?

At least you can maintain a civil tone, unlike most of the posters in this thread.

I've documented quite thoroughly how many of those FDNY on the scene expressed the fact that they received the info that the bldg would collapse, and compared that to the number of FDNY personnel who asserted themselves that the bldg would collapse.

We're just rehashing old ground now.

 

[Bell]

Red clearly believes that the FDNY are incompetent sheeple even if he doesn't have the balls to come out and say it like GiE.

That's the main tactic 9/11 deniers use. They imply a lot, but accuse nothing. That way they can take the cowardish way out when they are called out.

 

[RedIbis]

That's the main tactic 9/11 deniers use. They imply a lot, but accuse nothing. That way they can take the cowardish way out when they are called out.

You mean cowardly like taking a few cheap shots at someone you claim to have on ignore?

 

[dtugg]

At least you can maintain a civil tone, unlike most of the posters in this thread.

I've documented quite thoroughly how many of those FDNY on the scene expressed the fact that they received the info that the bldg would collapse, and compared that to the number of FDNY personnel who asserted themselves that the bldg would collapse.

We're just rehashing old ground now.

Let's take Daniel Nigro. In your expert opinion, is he in on it, an incompetent sheeple, or simply someone who saved a lot of people's lives because he knows what he is talking about?

 

[johnny karate]

I spell it out quite clearly in the quotes Johnny obsessively posts.

Obviously, we're butting up against my lack of reading comprehension again, because I simply failed to see where you did that.

So, for those of us a little slow on the uptake:

The firefighters present at WTC7 witnessed evidence of a controlled demolition and failed to acknowledge it as such because:

A) They lack the ability to recognize a controlled demolition taking place right in front of their eyes.

B) They were complicit in the controlled demolition, either before or after the fact, and are therefore part of the conspiracy to cover it up.

C) ?

All you have to do is simply fill in option C.

Your patience and understanding with those of us lacking your intellectual acumen is appreciated.

 

[RedIbis]

Obviously, we're butting up against my lack of reading comprehension again, because I simply failed to see where you did that.

So, for those of us a little slow on the uptake:

The firefighters present at WTC7 witnessed evidence of a controlled demolition and failed to acknowledge it as such because:

A) They lack the ability to recognize a controlled demolition taking place right in front of their eyes.

B) They were complicit in the controlled demolition, either before or after the fact, and are therefore part of the conspiracy to cover it up.

C) ?

All you have to do is simply fill in option C.

Your patience and understanding with those of us lacking your intellectual acumen is appreciated.

You're conflating several complex events. There were firefighters who described what they thought at the time were bombs and other explosions going off in the towers.

Most accounts of firefighters at the scene around WTC 7 were told that the bldg would collapse, not that they assessed for themselves that it would collapse.

For about the tenth time, there does not have to be either complicity nor stupidity in this scenario, but I should know by now that it's only the cheap rhetorical tactic that's so often used around here.

 

[T.A.M.]

You're conflating several complex events. There were firefighters who described what they thought at the time were bombs and other explosions going off in the towers.

Most accounts of firefighters at the scene around WTC 7 were told that the bldg would collapse, not that they assessed for themselves that it would collapse.

For about the tenth time, there does not have to be either complicity nor stupidity in this scenario, but I should know by now that it's only the cheap rhetorical tactic that's so often used around here.

Even if all of the above is true (especially given you are using words like "most"), what does it prove. To the person who lacks the paranoia, the extreme suspicion, what does the above prove, or even allude to?

Nothing. The building was on fire, multiple floors. It was on the verge of collapse. I would be more suspicious if NONE of them reported explosions. As for who said the building would collapse versus who simply heard it would from others...well yah! No surprise either way for me.

See once again, we are discussing vague "what ifs" and speculations on what words like "Explosions" were "really" referring to. It is ridiculous, to be honest.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Even if all of the above is true (especially given you are using words like "most"), what does it prove. To the person who lacks the paranoia, the extreme suspicion, what does the above prove, or even allude to?

Nothing. The building was on fire, multiple floors. It was on the verge of collapse. I would be more suspicious if NONE of them reported explosions. As for who said the building would collapse versus who simply heard it would from others...well yah! No surprise either way for me.

See once again, we are discussing vague "what ifs" and speculations on what words like "Explosions" were "really" referring to. It is ridiculous, to be honest.

TAM

You seem to always have a desire to minimize. Forget the fact that it was some of your very finest debunkers who suggested that the firefighters all believed WTC 7 was going to collapse, until it was pointed out that most of them reported being told that it would collapse.

Again, you try and minimize the importance of these reports since you ignore the fact that it wasn't only multiple "explosions" but also what were thought to be bombs at the time.

It's obvious you're frustrated by these details since you insist on suggesting one would have to be paranoid or suspicious to want to set the record straight. Please spare us your half-cocked diagnoses.

 

[dtugg]

Let's take Daniel Nigro. In your expert opinion, is he in on it, an incompetent sheeple, or simply someone who saved a lot of people's lives because he knows what he is talking about?

Red?

 

[RedIbis]

Red?

Let's take him where? Your question has no context, no quotes, and makes not a damn lick of sense.

 

[johnny karate]

You're conflating several complex events. There were firefighters who described what they thought at the time were bombs and other explosions going off in the towers.

Most accounts of firefighters at the scene around WTC 7 were told that the bldg would collapse, not that they assessed for themselves that it would collapse.

For about the tenth time, there does not have to be either complicity nor stupidity in this scenario, but I should know by now that it's only the cheap rhetorical tactic that's so often used around here.

The only one conflating the issue is you. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the firefighters at WTC7 were told vs. what they believe happened.

What this is about is your claim that those firefighters experienced events indicative of a controlled demolition. You even went so far as to claim that their eye witness testimony "might not support [our] side of the argument" and therefore could be used as evidence of a controlled demolition. Yet you freely admit that no firefighter who was on the scene have expressed a belief that WTC7 collapsed due to controlled demolition.

Even in your statement that I'm quoting in this post you say, "There were firefighters who described what they thought at the time were bombs and other explosions going off in the towers", and yet not one of these firefighters have come forward to offer an explanation contradicting the official version, and certainly nothing in support of a controlled demolition scenario.

When I pointed out the only two explanations for this are either complicity or stupidity, you (repeatedly) cried "false choice fallacy". And I have repeatedly asked you to provide another.

At this point, I don't expect you to do so, and know you never will, because you can't. All this does is merely serve to expose you for the fraud and liar you are. Thanks for the help, champ.

 

[dtugg]

Let's take him where? Your question has no context, no quotes, and makes not a damn lick of sense.

You know exactly what I am talking about. Just so you can't claim that you don't, here is what Nigro says about WTC7:

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

So was the man that was in charge that day in on it, an incompetent sheeple, or simply a hero?

 

[WildCat]

Let's take Daniel Nigro. In your expert opinion, is he in on it, an incompetent sheeple, or simply someone who saved a lot of people's lives because he knows what he is talking about?

RedIbis will not answer this question. He probably won't answer the next one I ask him either.

You're conflating several complex events. There were firefighters who described what they thought at the time were bombs and other explosions going off in the towers.

Name one firefighter at the scene who thought there were bombs going off who changed his mind later after being told what to think.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis will not answer this question. He probably won't answer the next one I ask him either.


Name one firefighter at the scene who thought there were bombs going off who changed his mind later after being told what to think.

Of course you try to frame the question that way. What I'm sure you don't want me to produce is one firefighter who described what he experienced as bombs going off.

 

[TheRedWorm]

How many FFs thought that the explosions were due to an "inside job?"

 

[1337m4n]

What I'm sure you don't want me to produce is one firefighter who described what he experienced as bombs going off.

You could have named a name in less than the time it took you to type that.

 

[johnny karate]

Of course you try to frame the question that way. What I'm sure you don't want me to produce is one firefighter who described what he experienced as bombs going off.

Feel free. And then explain why that same firefighter doesn't believe there was anything suspicious or contradictory to the official version about what he experienced.

I suspect you'll find that second part a little more challenging.

 

[RedIbis]

Feel free. And then explain why that same firefighter doesn't believe there was anything suspicious or contradictory to the official version about what he experienced.

I suspect you'll find that second part a little more challenging.

Firefighter Thomas Turilli, who is in the lobby of the North Tower: “[A]ll of a sudden you just heard like it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came… It just seemed like a huge explosion.” [CITY OF NEW YORK, 1/17/2002]

I'm not aware of any second part you're referring to. Care to post the link?

 

[beachnut]

...
And finally, master of innuendo RedIbis makes no direct accusations, but certainly makes a very strong implication:

It is not his fault and in other posts he said he has no skills to understand 911. Just like the rest of 911 Truth he has no evidence and never will to support 911Truth delusions.