Eyewitness Testimony of Explosions at the Twin Towers: A Possible Explanation

This is actually the whole problem with 9/11 "debunking" TRUTH in general. Most of it is lying.

Fixed that for you.

Edited to properly show the changes made to another member's post. If you edit another member's post, you have to make it very clear what you have changed. This can be done with strikeouts, bolding, capitals etc., but the result needs to be that it is apparent what you have changed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Notice that, in 9/11 liar speak, anything twoofers post is called "quote mining".

Other quote mines, however, such as Crazy J's above, are not quote mines. They are called "compelling evidence". :rolleyes:
Why don't you do the research and check the sources I've provided first and see if I really left out anything relevant. It's amazing how people in your movement see this as proof of explosives but reject the witnesses who saw that plane hit the Pentagon. You only believe the witnesses who benefit your agenda while conviniently ignore the ones that dont.
 
Yes, I thought so too.
Especially the testimony from both firefighters and police that there were concerns about bombs, including two or three reports describing a below-ground explosion.
Is it your position that reports of explosions are unusual in routine fire events? Furthermore, is it your position that chaotic events such as terror attacks where details change rapidly will not result in inaccuracies with respect to witness reports?
 
Reporter John Bussey watches the collapse from the Wall Street Journal's offices across the street from the WTC. He say s,''I heard metalic crashes and looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor, spewing glass and metal outward. One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces'' [Wall Street Journal, 9/12/2001]

Complete quote: http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6536

Deputy Fire Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick:''I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV'' [City of New York, 10/1/2001]

Complete quote: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fitzpatrick_Tom.txt


Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory: '' saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.… You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw'' [City of New York, 10/3/2001]

Complete quote: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt

Also in the same transcript by the same person: "I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

Firefighter Richard Banaciski:''It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions'' [City of New York, 12/6/2001]

Firefighter Joseph Meola:''As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building.You thought it was just blowing out'' [City of New York, 12/11/2001]

Full Quote: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110287.PDF


Fire Chief Frank Cruthers:''[T]here was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse'' [City of New York, 10/31/2001]

Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110179.PDF

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:''I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the South Tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see—I could see two sides of it and the other side—it just looked like that floor blew out.

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.'' [City of New York, 10/25/2001]

Full paragraph: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110166.PDF

Firefighter Timothy Burke:''Then the building popped, lower than the fire which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is secondary device because the way the building popped I thought it was an explosion'' [City of New York, 1/22/2002]
Full Quote: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110488.PDF

Firefighter Edward Cachia:''It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down'' [City of New York, 12/6/2001]

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]

Reporter Beth Fertig:''The tower went down perfectly straight, as if a demolition crew had imploded it. I wondered if it was being brought down deliberately'' [Gilbert et al., 2002, pp. 78]

Only a fool or a Shill could say that these statements do not prove that 9/11 was an inside job.
A few statistics I'd like to share as I'm sure you must be proud to support honest, genuine, unaltered, full testimony. A truth seeker would never try to intentionally leave out important context at all as you, the honorable truth seeker must know. Out of 11 firefighter statements you used to "prove the existence of explosions" it seems 7 statements, or roughly 63.63% of the statements you provided were missing context which when left out, completely changes the meaning of said witness statements. Surely, being the truth seeker you are, you would be interested in clearing up any misunderstanding such an error has undoubtably caused. Afterall, it's not like you took any of this from some... kook site, that would rather readers not see the complete statements in their unaltered form. Don't mind good old me... I'm simply being a good semaratan... finding all of the complete quotes and clarifying the things you intentionally quote mined, knew was quote mined, might not have realized were left out.

I mean afterall only idiots would ever post a series of quotations and not expect someone to be able to find full quotations and context in a few quick google searches... Oh! Not that this applies to anyone here in this page of course!
 
Last edited:
A few statistics I'd like to share as I'm sure you must be proud to support honest, genuine, unaltered, full testimony. A truth seeker would never try to intentionally leave out important context at all as you, the honorable truth seeker must know. Out of 11 firefighter statements you used to "prove the existence of explosions" it seems 7 statements, or roughly 63.63% of the statements you provided were missing context which when left out, completely changes the meaning of said witness statements. Surely, being the truth seeker you are, you would be interested in clearing up any misunderstanding such an error has undoubtably caused. Afterall, it's not like you took any of this from some... kook site, that would rather readers not see the complete statements in their unaltered form. Don't mind good old me... I'm simply being a good semaratan... finding all of the complete quotes and clarifying the things you intentionally quote mined, knew was quote mined, might not have realized were left out.

I mean afterall only idiots would ever post a series of quotations and not expect someone to be able to find full quotations and context in a few quick google searches... Oh! Not that this applies to anyone here in this page of course!

^^^^This. ^^^^
 
I suppose this is worth mentioning as well.


Why are half of these quotes not verifiable because they're defunct web pages?
Waybackwhen Archive is useful for dredging some of the sources which no longer work, as was the case for Visconti's testimony for example:
Visconti: http://web.archive.org/web/20021025...e.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

While not perfect, it does allow you to gain access and verify the content and compare it with what's been posted on the other site. For example, The full paragraph pulled from the archive can be compared with what's currently on wtclies:

From the archive:
"I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run."

From WTC lies:
I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.

hmm, it seems nothing was altered except for the name in "[]" to add clarity. Unlike bill smith's excerpts which are missing anywhere between a few words, to entire paragraphs of content in more than half of the quotations he cited. Of course, if you still think wtclies is a quote mining website, you're more than free to use the waybackwhen archive to verify content and compare it for at least some of the links which are now defunct. Of course, indications are, you'll have a difficult time matching wtclies's stats with bill smiths whopping 63% of quotes missing material to the extent that their entire meaning changes as a result.
I can care less about the into vs onto semantics you keep getting side swiped with, but one thing that bears noting is that while such an argument may be trivially boring and something I can't (at least in my opinion) see the point of engaging in; it seems you don't know the meaning of quote-mining; or par for the course, maybe you know what it is, but you'd rather make unsupported accusations to accompany the typical "beetard or "beedunker" insults under the guise that finding the source quotes is impossible, despite that not being the case.
 
Last edited:
No, I think most can see the problem here is that you only acknowledge testimony that supports, however sketchily, your own arguments and you ignore or try to obscure the abundance of other testimony that contradicts that.

Horse hockey.

I will give you an example of how it is, in fact your camp that is doing that. Take idiot boy MacQueen's analysis of statements regarding "explosions" to fit his own batcrap crazy theory about bombs. He quotes Karen Deshore about explosions on the street in front of the north tower and her first impression that there were bombs in the sewers. Deshore, of course follows that immediately to state that she realized almost at once that it was cars cooking off. Ondrovic left the building by the same route, saw the same thing happening, and also formed the impression that someone was pushing buttons and blowing stuff up around her. It is difficult to tell whether she ever grasped what was happening.

But that dingy monk counts the statements of both women to mean that there were explosives detonating on the streets.

The useless drongo should go back to the monastery and read the Tripitaka and stay out of political affairs. There is no place for jerks like him in forensic discussion.

This is actually the whole problem with 9/11 twoofery in general. Most of it is garbage.
 
A few statistics I'd like to share as I'm sure you must be proud to support honest, genuine, unaltered, full testimony. A truth seeker would never try to intentionally leave out important context at all as you, the honorable truth seeker must know. Out of 11 firefighter statements you used to "prove the existence of explosions" it seems 7 statements, or roughly 63.63% of the statements you provided were missing context which when left out, completely changes the meaning of said witness statements. Surely, being the truth seeker you are, you would be interested in clearing up any misunderstanding such an error has undoubtably caused. Afterall, it's not like you took any of this from some... kook site, that would rather readers not see the complete statements in their unaltered form. Don't mind good old me... I'm simply being a good semaratan... finding all of the complete quotes and clarifying the things you intentionally quote mined, knew was quote mined, might not have realized were left out.

I mean afterall only idiots would ever post a series of quotations and not expect someone to be able to find full quotations and context in a few quick google searches... Oh! Not that this applies to anyone here in this page of course!

Those corrections do not alter the impact of the statements in any significant way Grizzlry.
 
Those corrections do not alter the impact of the statements in any significant way Grizzlry.


Actually, they do. But I'm sure that you know that; many of the truther lines of argumentation rely pretty heavily on quote mining.
 
Those corrections do not alter the impact of the statements in any significant way Grizzly.
That is an absolutely stunning gesture bill smith! There is no need to be modest in admitting that you made a terrible mistake. It's only natural that you would be angered at your original source for completely changing the meaning of the quotes through omission. It was nothing short of dishonest of them to try and trick you into saying things you might otherwise have never supported.

I'm glad that from now on, you'll be more careful in your selection of sources. Afterall truth should never have to be revealed by omission, but you already know this.
 
That is an absolutely stunning gesture bill smith! There is no need to be modest in admitting that you made a terrible mistake. It's only natural that you would be angered at your original source for completely changing the meaning of the quotes through omission. It was nothing short of dishonest of them to try and trick you into saying things you might otherwise have never supported.

I'm glad that from now on, you'll be more careful in your selection of sources. Afterall truth should never have to be revealed by omission, but you already know this.

I will post the statements as I have them with the exception of Dixon who I find dubious. You are welcome to post your corrections. We'll leave it to the Readers to decide on a case by case basis..
 
Instead of posting the statements "as you have them" I would suggest copying them from their original sources in full and linking to them without relying on others to do that work for you. Not only is that more honest, but I suspect you'll have a difficult time finding anything you can claim is support for the explosive demolition theory.
 
Twoofers lie through their teeth. News at 11.
 
Last edited:
Why do you accuse these men of lying Ergo? They were there, you were not.
Where have I accused them of lying?

Everywhere you have said WTC7 was anything but a massive uncontrollable inferno.

And why are you talking about Building 7 fires here?

Because it shows that unlike twoofers, us debunkers are the ones who believe the firefighters, and do not attack, accuse or disrespect them.
 
I will post the statements as I have them with the exception of Dixon who I find dubious. You are welcome to post your corrections. We'll leave it to the Readers to decide on a case by case basis..

i.e. you will post your quote mines in an attempt to deceive others.
 

Back
Top Bottom