Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[Pardalis]

See how he shifted from WTC7 to WTC2? Clever little bird.

 

[RedIbis]

Does this sound like it might be consistent with a CD?

Paramedic Daniel Rivera: “[D]o you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? That’s exactly what—because I thought it was that.” [City of New York, 10/10/2001

 

[WUBRINY63]

RedIbis, you previously stated "Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event." as a means to discount eyewitness testimony regarding the size of the fires in WTC7.

Now you insist on using eyewitness testimony to support a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Why do you engage in such blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty?

Are you kidding me debunker? When has a debunker ever condemned witness testimony except where it strayed form the debunker foregone conclusion?

 

[BigAl]

Are you kidding me debunker? When has a debunker ever condemned witness testimony except where it strayed form the debunker foregone conclusion?

When the quote is read in it's entirety an compared with all the eyewitnesses accounts and evidence and is shown to not to support the assertion is claimed to support.

 

[Scott Sommers]

This is the most amazing use of evidence. Do you ask your neighbors what they think of your medical condition? What special knowledge of demolition does Daniel Rivera have? Why does his testimony outweigh demilitions experts who unanimously laught at CD?

No matter what he thinks, he's mistaken. Why is this so hard to handle?

 

[Audible Click]

I'm late to the thread and I have not read any further, yet.

I (honest-to-God) can't tell if this is satire, or truther insanity? Surely this is good humor, at this point? My vote is pure satire and I will now read the remainder of the thread. I believe the stupid, being so bright as to burn, evidenced above can't possibly be for real.

Can it?

As a long time lurker and occasional poster in the 9/11 subforum, I can assure that this is not satire and that the twoofers are 100% serious albeit
deaf,dumb, and blind to any evidence that does not support their fantastical beliefs.

 

[BigAl]

Does this sound like it might be consistent with a CD?

Paramedic Daniel Rivera: “[D]o you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? That’s exactly what—because I thought it was that.” [City of New York, 10/10/2001

A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT - BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN I SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.

"At first I thought" is the give-away that he doesn't believe that he was witnessing man-made demolition.

Lots of people report pop pop pop, none of them claim man-made demolition.

The seismic record shows no man-made demolition.

None of the medical records show injury or death by explosion.

 

[A W Smith]

Does this sound like it might be consistent with a CD?

Paramedic Daniel Rivera: “[D]o you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? That’s exactly what—because I thought it was that.” [City of New York, 10/10/2001

Why do you not link to the testimony? Is the bird afraid we might read it in context?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF

Q:So you were still over there when the second building collapsed?
A: right, because I ran back. Not very bright of me, of course. I ran back in, and I was right - I could actually touch the building when it collapsed, the second time when it collapsed. But again I was prepared because I heard that same noise. It was like a waterfall noise. That's when I ran

 

[Justin39640]

Does this sound like it might be consistent with a CD?

Paramedic Daniel Rivera: “[D]o you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? That’s exactly what—because I thought it was that.” [City of New York, 10/10/2001

why did you edit the quote?

A: THAT NOISE. IT WAS NOISE

Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A:IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE
AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS - DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL
DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN
FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP
POP? THATS EXACTLY WHAT - BECAUSE I THOUGHT
IT WAS THAT. WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE
THATS WHEN SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.

maybe you should read the original source before copying it off history commons

why are these men silent if they truly thought it was explosives?

 

[Longfellow]

Color me surprised . . . not

Let me get this straight. Going on 8 years after 11 September, 2001 and all the 'truthers' can come up with is cherry-picked quotes?

Really?

Really? [/Broflovski mode]

I'm getting that [yogi mode] deja vu feeling all over again.

 

[RedIbis]

That doesn't mean people didn't perhaps see or hear something similar to a particular feature of controlled demolition, but for there to be consistency, it must completely resemble a controlled demolition.

My bold. No it doesn't. No one eyewitness would be able to report on every feature of a CD. You said yourself that you weren't interested in analysis after the fact or whether they were right or wrong. The challenge was to find reports consistent with CD.

 

[BigAl]

My bold. No it doesn't. No one eyewitness would be able to report on every feature of a CD.

But what you offer contradicts what you claim. When an eyewitness says "at first I thought" or "but it was the building collapsing" you know the fireman knows it wasn't man-made demolition. Unfortunately, as you've been shown today, the "Half Truth Movement" routinely edits out bits the contradict their agenda.

In other words, you've been lied to by people that use the word, "Truth" much too much. So much for truth.

In any case, one quote doesn't cut it. Thousands of people would have heard a real man-made demolition.

And there would be a seismic record.

 

[A W Smith]

Since there is no such thing as hush-a-booms, no it isn't. But you know that.

But blowing a single column in the interior of an empty building may not be very loud, especially in the chaos of that day.

Again, if buildings can be brought down with the loss of a single column, maybe AQ, smart enough to catch the entire military/intel community with their pants down, also knew the fatal flaw in WTC 7.

Which they compare to the sound of a gunshot blast if unobstructed by surrounding bldgs. But we're talking about lower Manhattan here, not the plains of Kansas.

What is your point? A "gunshot" is not as loud as man-made demolition. Nobody heard anything like man-made demolition at WTC.

Who is "they"? Firemen? No fireman has said that they think they saw man-made demolition in any way other than the use of simile, hyperbole and metaphor.

You've got nothing.

You seem friendlier and more reasonable than many here, but c'mon man. You know as well as I do that there were descriptions consistent with man-made demolition, whether accurate or not.

Since several of you seem to be missing the same point. Al said that "Nobody heard anything like man-made demolition at WTC", which we all know is not true. Notice that he uses the word "like", so he's even discounting figurative descriptions.

I think he's just being inaccurate. You guys call it lying.

Really? Nobody heard anything consistent, as in similar to, controlled demolition? Are you sure about that?

Now you're shifting the goalposts. You're orignal claim was that "Nobody heard anything at WTC consistent with man-made demolition."

A simple review of firefighter accounts (as has been done numerous times by myself and others), as well as other eyewitnesses on the scene, reveals many descriptions quite consistent with CD.

There's quite a bit of testimony consistent with CD. You've seen it before and claimed, mostly through semantics, why you think it's been debunked. But the fact remains, whether accurate or not, many people described and heard characteristics consistent with CD.

These files are open on my computer and the quotes are right in front of me, but I'm somewhat opposed to jumping on this carousel once again only to have you and your fellow debunkers make the figurative arguments and appropriate the assumption that these people have all changed their minds since. We've been through this many times on this forum.

In post #872 you said "Nobody heard anything at WTC consistent with man-made demolition."

Do you still think this is true or do you want me to continue to prove you're wrong. A simple mea culpa and we can move onto something else.

This is where the bird backs away from the explosive noise of CD. and now moves the goalposts to "any feature of a cd" or "reports consistent with CD". The bird also fled from building 7 pages ago and moved to towers 1 and 2.

My bold. No it doesn't. No one eyewitness would be able to report on every feature of a CD. You said yourself that you weren't interested in analysis after the fact or whether they were right or wrong. The challenge was to find reports consistent with CD.

 

[BigAl]

This is where the bird backs away from the explosive noise of CD. and now moves the goalposts to "any feature of a cd" or "reports consistent with CD". The bird also fled from building 7 pages ago and moved to towers 1 and 2.

And 1 and 2 would be the towers that "The Best (and only) Demolition Expert in the Truth Movement"(TM) (Jowenko) described as not a man-made demolition and did so in great professional detail.

 

[TexasJack]

My point would be, even out of context, has Daniel Rivera ever heard a controlled demo live? Or is he describing what he thinks a demo would sound like? It's completely immaterial anyway, since there is no corroborating evidence of a CD.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Two things:
1) WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more immediate damage from the collapse of the towers and although portions of the roofs collapsed the buildings themselves did not suffer global collapse.

A common truther fallacy is "bigger = stronger". Not so. As objects are scaled up, their ability to resist gravity decreases proportionately. The taller a building is, the less stable it is, even though it is made with sturdier materials. Those sturdier materials add even more mass, compounding the problem. Therefore, a tall building that is heavily damaged is much more likely to suffer a global collapse than a building half as tall.

2) Suggesting that "large chunks of debris did fall from as high as 1000 feet and caused considerable damage. It is MUCH more likely that this caused the collapse" is not consistent with NIST's conclusions, since it is fire and not structural damage with causes the thermal expansion that leads to single column failure that leads to global collapse, not the debris damage. Debris damage starts the fire.

Arguing semantics again, I see. Think about why these several lines of text do nothing to support your treasured beliefs about "inside jobs". I'm sure it will come to you.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Does this sound like it might be consistent with a CD?

Paramedic Daniel Rivera: “[D]o you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? That’s exactly what—because I thought it was that.” [City of New York, 10/10/2001

I've seen a video taken at perilously close proximity to one of the collapses that illustrates exactly what this witness is talking about. It doesn't look anything like a controlled demolition, because it's obvious that the collapse starts before the "bang, bang, bang" sounds, and that the sounds are being caused by the collapse. This is contrary to any controlled demolition I've ever seen.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A common truther fallacy is "bigger = stronger". Not so. As objects are scaled up, their ability to resist gravity decreases proportionately. The taller a building is, the less stable it is, even though it is made with sturdier materials. Those sturdier materials add even more mass, compounding the problem. Therefore, a tall building that is heavily damaged is much more likely to suffer a global collapse than a building half as tall.

Precisely... I've said it before as well; It's unrealistic to think that buildings of different height, or construction, or material, will behave the same. Anybody that implies that their performance will be universally the same based on a blatant whim is either incompetent, ignorant, or intentionally lying. Red put that claim out there, and even worse the supposed "experts" of AE911truth without people noticing. It's a friggin sham.

 

[johnny karate]

No one eyewitness would be able to report on every feature of a CD.

But they would be able to report on every feature of a controlled demolition that would be observable from their vantage point. For anyone within a half-mile that would be the very loud and very distinctive succession of detonation charges moments before the collapse. There is not a single eyewitness report, or audio recording, of such an event.

You said yourself that you weren't interested in analysis after the fact or whether they were right or wrong.

And merely for the sake of this particular argument, and as a courtesy to you, I am not. Nor have I engaged in such analysis.

The challenge was to find reports consistent with CD.

And so far, you have failed. Let's take a look at what you've presented so far:

Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio: “It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion.” [City of New York, 10/12/2001]

Close enough to see the collapse, but yet no report of the very loud and very distinctive detonation charges that precede all controlled demolitions. Therefore, inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

Firefighter Kenneth Rogers: “[T]here was an explosion in the South Tower… I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.” [City of New York, 12/10/2001]

Report of a single explosion, and not the rapid succession of detonation charges that precede all controlled demolitions. Therefore, inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

Paramedic Daniel Rivera: “[D]o you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? That’s exactly what—because I thought it was that.” [City of New York, 10/10/2001

This quote has been a bit misleadingly taken out of context, as pointed out by Justin39640 and A W Smith.

Rivera also said this:

When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw that building coming down.

He describes the noise and the collapse as a single event, as opposed to describing a series of detonations followed by the the collapse. Therefore, inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

Even more damning, he describes the collapse of the second tower:

I heard that same noise. It was like a waterfall noise.

He now compares the noise he heard during both collapses to a waterfall as opposed to the very loud and very distinctive detonation charges of a controlled demolition. Therefore, inconsistent with a controlled demolition.

 

[johnny karate]

To further elaborate on my point by way of example, if I see an animal and describe it as "a brown, furry mammal" it could be argued that my description is consistent with that of a bear.

However, if I go on to further describe it as "small, and with a prehensile tail", it could no longer be argued that I am describing a bear, because my description has become inconsistent with that of a bear.

A controlled demolition, like a bear, has a distinctive set of features. At any point in someone's description of a possible controlled demolition, the moment they describe a feature not associated with a controlled demolition their description is no longer consistent with that of a controlled demolition.

And getting back to my example, if someone were to merely take the "brown, furry mammal" part of my description, and leave out the "small, and with a prehensile tail" in an attempt to prove that I actually saw a bear, that would be a blatant act of dishonesty.

If we're going to consider whether eyewitness testimony is consistent with a controlled demolition we must take the testimony as a whole rather than cherry-pick select passages. Otherwise, we're just turning monkeys into bears.