Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[tmd2_1]

You believe that the BPAT was denied blueprints? Yes or no?

You believe that FEMA was denied access to Ground Zero? Yes or no?

Blueprints yes they were. That's why Shea had to step in.

FEMA denied access to ground zero? They had access. But as I said he was referring to the steel and steel only. He backed it up with their own words. He has whole pages talking about access restrictions, and never mentions that FEMA was denied access. So I'm still not sure where the lie is?

 

[triforcharity]

Blueprints yes they were. That's why Shea had to step in.

So, did they get the blueprints? Yes or no?

FEMA denied access to ground zero? They had access. But as I said he was referring to the steel and steel only.

So why does your own site say this?

FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study

You site does NOT claim that FEMA et al were just denied access to steel, (Which, BTW, would be a lie also, because SEAoNY and ASCE both have steel samples) it claims that they were denied access to Ground Zero.

Was FEMA, ASCE, or SEAoNY denied access to to Ground Zero? Yes or no?

He backed it up with their own words.

No, he quotemined it, and altered it's meaning. This is the absolute definition of quotemining.

He has whole pages talking about access restrictions, and never mentions that FEMA was denied access.

He says specifically "FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero."

This is a lie. SEAoNY and FEMA/ASCE all were at Ground Zero.

So I'm still not sure where the lie is?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Here is the lie, in simple terms.

"FEMA was denied access to GZ. "
Lie.
"BPAT was denied access to blueprints"
Lie.
"Denied access to steel"
Lie.

Three lies, two sentences. Are you ok with putting your trust in a known liar?

 

[tmd2_1]

So, did they get the blueprints? Yes or no?



So why does your own site say this?



You site does NOT claim that FEMA et al were just denied access to steel, (Which, BTW, would be a lie also, because SEAoNY and ASCE both have steel samples) it claims that they were denied access to Ground Zero.

Was FEMA, ASCE, or SEAoNY denied access to to Ground Zero? Yes or no?



No, he quotemined it, and altered it's meaning. This is the absolute definition of quotemining.




He says specifically "FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero."

This is a lie. SEAoNY and FEMA/ASCE all were at Ground Zero.



Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Here is the lie, in simple terms.

"FEMA was denied access to GZ. "
Lie.
"BPAT was denied access to blueprints"
Lie.
"Denied access to steel"
Lie.

Three lies, two sentences. Are you ok with putting your trust in a known liar?

First of all BPAT did not get access, the documents were given to them.

He was referring BPAT and steel and the site you mentioned. Here is another exchange.

Mr. WEINER. Are you in power to require someone to provide information if they might have it?

Dr. BEMENT. Not under any mandatory conditions, but we can request and——

Mr. WEINER. Do you have the ability to visit Ground Zero this morning, point to a piece of steel and say, I need you to save that?

Dr. BEMENT. I can do that. Yes.

Mr. WEINER. You have the power and the law to do that?

Dr. BEMENT. I think I can do that now. Yes.

Mr. WEINER. I am sorry.

Dr. BEMENT. I think I can do that now.

Mr. WEINER. Do you need to check with a member of your staff? I mean, what do you mean, you think—can you or—it is not a—this is an easy part, I thought.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, as I said, I don't have subpoena authority and I have to work through FEMA. And I don't have control of the site. So I have limited

Does not seem like they had any control of the steel. So where is the lie?

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/hsy77747_0.htm

 

[twinstead]

I thought we discussed this and I showed he wasn't lying? I admit some of the stuff could be worded better. But to call him a liar or to say he is even misleading, I believe is completely false.

Some stuff could be worded better? Sure, if the intention wasn't to create a propaganda piece, then yea, but it is clear to me it was carefully crafted to be worded exactly like it was.

 

[DGM]

Three lies, two sentences. Are you ok with putting your trust in a known liar?

First of all BPAT did not get access, the documents were given to them.

He's got you there Tri, they didn't have access the documents were giving to them.

 

[triforcharity]

First of all BPAT did not get access, the documents were given to them.

So, they DID get the information they asked for, correct? So, they were DELAYED in getting them, not DENIED. DENIED would imply that they have NEVER gotten access to the prints. DELAYED would imply that they wanted them, were originally told no, and then got them eventually.

So, the answer to "Were they denied blueprints" would be "NO". Hence, the lie.

He was referring BPAT and steel and the site you mentioned. Here is another exchange.

Mr. WEINER. Are you in power to require someone to provide information if they might have it?

Dr. BEMENT. Not under any mandatory conditions, but we can request and——

Mr. WEINER. Do you have the ability to visit Ground Zero this morning, point to a piece of steel and say, I need you to save that?

Dr. BEMENT. I can do that. Yes.
Mr. WEINER. You have the power and the law to do that?

Dr. BEMENT. I think I can do that now. Yes.
Mr. WEINER. I am sorry.

Dr. BEMENT. I think I can do that now.

Mr. WEINER. Do you need to check with a member of your staff? I mean, what do you mean, you think—can you or—it is not a—this is an easy part, I thought.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, as I said, I don't have subpoena authority and I have to work through FEMA. And I don't have control of the site. So I have limited

My hilite.

Does not seem like they had any control of the steel. So where is the lie?

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/hsy77747_0.htm

So, when he says "YES I DO" that ACTUALLY means, no?

Do you see that you're running around, cherry picking stuff from a site that is a complete and accurate statement, and removing parts to make it sound different?

Please answer this simple question.

Was FEMA, ASCE, or SEAoNY ever DENIED access to Ground Zero?

Yes
No

Simple question. One word response.

 

[triforcharity]

He's got you there Tri, they didn't have access the documents were giving to them.

Yeah, I'm nominating that for a wonderful stundie.

 

[beachnut]

Blueprints yes they were. That's why Shea had to step in.

FEMA denied access to ground zero? They had access. But as I said he was referring to the steel and steel only. He backed it up with their own words. He has whole pages talking about access restrictions, and never mentions that FEMA was denied access. So I'm still not sure where the lie is?

They did not let anyone have access to steel! No one was allowed to touch the steel!

Hoffman thinks the ceiling tiles were thermite and radio transmitters set each one off. You found a source full of nonsense and you are gullible. Hoffman takes junk from the "NWO" MSM, adds his own spin, and people come up with woo. Use Hoffman's work with caution, he debunks all of 911 truth if you know how to use logic and rational thinking.



You like failed stuff, and you post it.

Flight 175 is still in the air...

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury...what is your verdict?

You fall for lies and delusions due to your lack of knowledge.
All your points failed. 19 terrorists did 911.

When will you prove one of your dubious assertions? Pick one.

 

[tmd2_1]

So, they DID get the information they asked for, correct? So, they were DELAYED in getting them, not DENIED. DENIED would imply that they have NEVER gotten access to the prints. DELAYED would imply that they wanted them, were originally told no, and then got them eventually.

So, the answer to "Were they denied blueprints" would be "NO". Hence, the lie.




My hilite.

So, when he says "YES I DO" that ACTUALLY means, no?

Do you see that you're running around, cherry picking stuff from a site that is a complete and accurate statement, and removing parts to make it sound different?

Please answer this simple question.

Was FEMA, ASCE, or SEAoNY ever DENIED access to Ground Zero?

Yes
No

Simple question. One word response.

Yes they were denied. They did not get it on their own request. Shea had to step in. How is that not being denied. One would assume they would have continued to be denied had there not been intervention. So there were only given the documents because of someone else's actions. How is that not being denied? I would think it is.

Again he was talking about steel at ground zero. That whole page was dedicated to steel. He has whole pages dedicated to access restrictions.

Given what was said above, and in particular the following.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, as I said, I don't have subpoena authority and I have to work through FEMA. And I don't have control of the site.

How is that not true?

Did they have access?

Yes I've said so. But he never says anything to the contrary on his pages dedicated to access restrictions.

The steel is backed up by FEMA's own words, as well as what I sited above.

 

[WildCat]

Quantifying the research produced by AE911truth as "next to NOTHING", is an abandonment of any interest in the truth.

What "research" by ae911truth? All they do is parrot the nonsense of David Ray Griffin.

Papers published in peer-reviewed science or engineering journals? 0.

Maybe they just need more time, after all 10 years is not nearly enough time for 1,500 "experts" to publish a single paper, right?

 

[triforcharity]

Yes they were denied. They did not get it on their own request. Shea had to step in.

Do you know who Mr. Shea works for? I take it you don't.

(Hint: Mr Shea works for the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, which is a division of...........the Federal Emergency Management Association.)

How is that not being denied.

Denied:
verb

1.Refuse to admit the truth or existence of (something)
- they deny any responsibility for the tragedy

2.Refuse to give (something requested or desired) to (someone)
- the inquiry was denied access to intelligence sources

3.Refuse to accept or agree to
- judges would retain the discretion to grant or deny the requests

4.Refuse to acknowledge or recognize; disown
- Peter repeatedly denied Jesus

5.Refrain from satisfying oneself
- he had denied himself sexually for years

6.Refuse access to (someone)
- the servants are ordered to deny him

Do I need to define refuse for you too?

One would assume they would have continued to be denied had there not been intervention.

No, he would have issued a supoena.

So there were only given the documents because of someone else's actions.

Someone else's actions? Who did the BPAT work for? Oh, right, FEMA. Who did Mr. Shea work for? Oh, right, FEMA.

Your logic is flawed based on your own intentional continued ignorance.

How is that not being denied? I would think it is.

Denied: To refuse to give something.

If they received it at some point, it is no longer denied.

Maybe it's english that you have the problem with?

Again he was talking about steel at ground zero. That whole page was dedicated to steel. He has whole pages dedicated to access restrictions.

No, not at all. He specifically states "GROUND ZERO". NOT "GZ steel". Which, btw, would be a lie either way, since FEMA et al. all were allowed access to the WTC Steel, either while still at GZ, or while at any of the other places it was taken to.

Given what was said above, and in particular the following.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, as I said, I don't have subpoena authority and I have to work through FEMA. And I don't have control of the site.

How is that not true?

Because Mr. Bement doesn't work for FEMA. He worked for.......NIST. Who, BTW, at this time, DIDN'T have control of the site. In fact, the investigation was still under the FEMA.

False dillema logical fallacy.

Did they have access?

Yes I've said so. But he never says anything to the contrary on his pages dedicated to access restrictions.

So, was FEMA et al. ever denied access to Ground Zero or any of the steel, as your cited source claims?

The answer is plain and simple. No.

The steel is backed up by FEMA's own words, as well as what I sited above.

Your cited source is a proven liar. Are you ok with that? Are you ok being lied to? I wouldn't be.

 

[tmd2_1]

Do you know who Mr. Shea works for? I take it you don't.

(Hint: Mr Shea works for the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, which is a division of...........the Federal Emergency Management Association.)



Denied:
verb

1.Refuse to admit the truth or existence of (something)
- they deny any responsibility for the tragedy

2.Refuse to give (something requested or desired) to (someone)
- the inquiry was denied access to intelligence sources

3.Refuse to accept or agree to
- judges would retain the discretion to grant or deny the requests

4.Refuse to acknowledge or recognize; disown
- Peter repeatedly denied Jesus

5.Refrain from satisfying oneself
- he had denied himself sexually for years

6.Refuse access to (someone)
- the servants are ordered to deny him

Do I need to define refuse for you too?



No, he would have issued a supoena.



Someone else's actions? Who did the BPAT work for? Oh, right, FEMA. Who did Mr. Shea work for? Oh, right, FEMA.

Your logic is flawed based on your own intentional continued ignorance.




Denied: To refuse to give something.

If they received it at some point, it is no longer denied.

Maybe it's english that you have the problem with?



No, not at all. He specifically states "GROUND ZERO". NOT "GZ steel". Which, btw, would be a lie either way, since FEMA et al. all were allowed access to the WTC Steel, either while still at GZ, or while at any of the other places it was taken to.




Because Mr. Bement doesn't work for FEMA. He worked for.......NIST. Who, BTW, at this time, DIDN'T have control of the site. In fact, the investigation was still under the FEMA.

False dillema logical fallacy.




So, was FEMA et al. ever denied access to Ground Zero or any of the steel, as your cited source claims?

The answer is plain and simple. No.




Your cited source is a proven liar. Are you ok with that? Are you ok being lied to? I wouldn't be.

Listen let's be clear here is the page about Ground zero clean up.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/players.html

Here is a quote from it.

"The federal agency that wielded the most control over the operation was the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was involved from the beginning."

Certainly does not seem like he is saying FEMA did not have access as they wielded the most control.

He is referring to BPAT. BPAT did not have any direct control. Everything they did had to be done through FEMA or local authorities. I know BPAT was set up by FEMA, which makes it all the more alarming, you would think since they were acting at the request of FEMA they would have had the same access. If you think having access is having to go through an intermediary for everything than so be it. I really wouldn't consider that "access" Also the BPAT team was forced to sign confidentially agreements, so we can't be sure exactly what they did or did not do.

As I said it should be worded better, I'll even concede it could be misleading, just looking at the quote itself. But how can you say he is trying to give the impression that FEMA themselves had no access, given the quote above?

But this brings me to a larger point, and I would like you to address this. You've read through all of that material, all those hearings. You saw how a great deal of evidence was just recycled, and how quickly it was as well. Saw how whatever access was given wasn't until nearly a month later. Saw how blueprints weren't given until nearly 4 months. BPAT forced to sign confidentially agreements, and much, much more. Somehow this is all ok? It's like it doesn't mean anything to you. It's not just you it's many of the members here as well. You want to focus on one quote on a website, that is at worst misleading. NIST won't even release their numbers and that's ok, I mean it's for "public safety" Those dirty terrorists might learn how they could lite fires to bring down buildings. But you know it wouldn't be nice to have so new buildings could be built with this in mind, or existing buildings modified to prevent this now would it? You have John Gross saying (I'm paraphrasing) I know of no witnesses who reported molten steel. When there clearly were witnesses that reported seeing molten steel. That is a lie, whether there was molten steel or not is not important, there were reports that there were witnesses who saw molten steel, and he lied about it. Don't say I don't know what Gross knows or does not know. He SHOULD have known. Much like in the legal system ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Somehow this is all ok. Yet you want to focus on one quote that is at worse misleading. Unbelievable really.

 

[funk de fino]

No, they focus on Hoffman who is a known liar and a nut.

 

[triforcharity]

Listen let's be clear here is the page about Ground zero clean up.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/players.html

Here is a quote from it.

"The federal agency that wielded the most control over the operation was the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was involved from the beginning."

Certainly does not seem like he is saying FEMA did not have access as they wielded the most control.

Which is in direct contradiction to his other page. So, you're ok with putting your trust in someone who is a known, proven, liar?

He is referring to BPAT. BPAT did not have any direct control. Everything they did had to be done through FEMA or local authorities.

BPAT IS FEMA. Do you not understand that?

I know BPAT was set up by FEMA, which makes it all the more alarming, you would think since they were acting at the request of FEMA they would have had the same access.

Not just set up by FEMA, but WAS a DIRECT PART of FEMA.

And no. If IT needs to come and fix my computer, does that mean they can just do whatever they want to do to my computer? No.

If you think having access is having to go through an intermediary for everything than so be it. I really wouldn't consider that "access"

I would.

Also the BPAT team was forced to sign confidentially agreements, so we can't be sure exactly what they did or did not do.

Not unusual, IMO. I've signed many C.A. when investigating a death scene, or major disaster, etc. etc. In my experience, it's not unusual.

As I said it should be worded better, I'll even concede it could be misleading, just looking at the quote itself.

Misleading? No. Lie? Yes.

But how can you say he is trying to give the impression that FEMA themselves had no access, given the quote above?

Given the original quote, not something on a completly different page, I still get the impression that he lies.

But this brings me to a larger point, and I would like you to address this. You've read through all of that material, all those hearings. You saw how a great deal of evidence was just recycled, and how quickly it was as well.

Yes.

Saw how whatever access was given wasn't until nearly a month week later.

FTFY

Saw how blueprints weren't given until nearly 4 months.

Yes, what about it? The report explained exactly why. Legal reasons.

BPAT forced to sign confidentially agreements, and much, much more.

Yep. BPAT signed C.A. I've done it many times. Especially on something this.....sensitive. I'm not suprised.

Somehow this is all ok?

Yes.

It's like it doesn't mean anything to you.

It doesn't. Maybe you can explain why your cited source lies, and you're still ok with it.

It's not just you it's many of the members here as well. You want to focus on one quote on a website, that is at worst misleading.

At LEAST misleading. More accurately, lying.

And you're ok with that.

NIST won't even release their numbers and that's ok, I mean it's for "public safety" Those dirty terrorists might learn how they could lite fires to bring down buildings. But you know it wouldn't be nice to have so new buildings could be built with this in mind, or existing buildings modified to prevent this now would it?

Hence, the building code changes. Notice the new 1WTC, is being built with a full concrete core, upgraded SFRM, steel beams instead of lightweight trusses, and expanded emergency egress? Nah, those couldn't POSSIBLY make a skyscraper any better structurally. Nah.....

You have John Gross saying (I'm paraphrasing) I know of no witnesses who reported molten steel. When there clearly were witnesses that reported seeing molten steel.

Yepo.

That is a lie, whether there was molten steel or not is not important, there were reports that there were witnesses who saw molten steel, and he lied about it.

Prove that he knew about these accounts.

Don't say I don't know what Gross knows or does not know. He SHOULD have known. Much like in the legal system ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Speculation is also not allowed in the legal system. Neither is assuming facts not in evidence.

Nice try champ.

Somehow this is all ok. Yet you want to focus on one quote that is at worse LEAST misleading. Unbelievable really.

No, I want to know why, even after I have SHOWN, with actual QUOTES, and backed up my conclusions with reputable, imperical, facts, that you still continue to say it's mearly "misleading" instead of admitting that you've been lied to.

Why do you defend a known liar?

 

[tmd2_1]

Which is in direct contradiction to his other page. So, you're ok with putting your trust in someone who is a known, proven, liar?




BPAT IS FEMA. Do you not understand that?



Not just set up by FEMA, but WAS a DIRECT PART of FEMA.

And no. If IT needs to come and fix my computer, does that mean they can just do whatever they want to do to my computer? No.




I would.



Not unusual, IMO. I've signed many C.A. when investigating a death scene, or major disaster, etc. etc. In my experience, it's not unusual.



Misleading? No. Lie? Yes.




Given the original quote, not something on a completly different page, I still get the impression that he lies.



Yes.



FTFY




Yes, what about it? The report explained exactly why. Legal reasons.



Yep. BPAT signed C.A. I've done it many times. Especially on something this.....sensitive. I'm not suprised.




Yes.



It doesn't. Maybe you can explain why your cited source lies, and you're still ok with it.



At LEAST misleading. More accurately, lying.

And you're ok with that.



Hence, the building code changes. Notice the new 1WTC, is being built with a full concrete core, upgraded SFRM, steel beams instead of lightweight trusses, and expanded emergency egress? Nah, those couldn't POSSIBLY make a skyscraper any better structurally. Nah.....



Yepo.



Prove that he knew about these accounts.



Speculation is also not allowed in the legal system. Neither is assuming facts not in evidence.

Nice try champ.




No, I want to know why, even after I have SHOWN, with actual QUOTES, and backed up my conclusions with reputable, imperical, facts, that you still continue to say it's mearly "misleading" instead of admitting that you've been lied to.

Why do you defend a known liar?

This whole post is sad for many reasons. It's sad that all of the official documents showing how much and how fast the steel was recycled, mean nothing to you. How long it took to get any type of access, the lack of any real power the BPAT team had, and much more mean nothing to you. All that matters is that quote. He says the exact opposite somewhere else, but he is a liar.

There's really not much need to go on. If you want to believe he is a liar and all that is important to you is that quote, ignoring the fact he directly contradicts what you are whining about in another page of his site, that is your business. But it is a sad state where this all that matters to "debunkers"

 

[bill smith]

Listen let's be clear here is the page about Ground zero clean up.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/players.html

Here is a quote from it.

"The federal agency that wielded the most control over the operation was the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was involved from the beginning."

Certainly does not seem like he is saying FEMA did not have access as they wielded the most control.

He is referring to BPAT. BPAT did not have any direct control. Everything they did had to be done through FEMA or local authorities. I know BPAT was set up by FEMA, which makes it all the more alarming, you would think since they were acting at the request of FEMA they would have had the same access. If you think having access is having to go through an intermediary for everything than so be it. I really wouldn't consider that "access" Also the BPAT team was forced to sign confidentially agreements, so we can't be sure exactly what they did or did not do.



As I said it should be worded better, I'll even concede it could be misleading, just looking at the quote itself. But how can you say he is trying to give the impression that FEMA themselves had no access, given the quote above?

But this brings me to a larger point, and I would like you to address this. You've read through all of that material, all those hearings. You saw how a great deal of evidence was just recycled, and how quickly it was as well. Saw how whatever access was given wasn't until nearly a month later. Saw how blueprints weren't given until nearly 4 months. BPAT forced to sign confidentially agreements, and much, much more. Somehow this is all ok? It's like it doesn't mean anything to you. It's not just you it's many of the members here as well. You want to focus on one quote on a website, that is at worst misleading. NIST won't even release their numbers and that's ok, I mean it's for "public safety" Those dirty terrorists might learn how they could lite fires to bring down buildings. But you know it wouldn't be nice to have so new buildings could be built with this in mind, or existing buildings modified to prevent this now would it? You have John Gross saying (I'm paraphrasing) I know of no witnesses who reported molten steel. When there clearly were witnesses that reported seeing molten steel. That is a lie, whether there was molten steel or not is not important, there were reports that there were witnesses who saw molten steel, and he lied about it. Don't say I don't know what Gross knows or does not know. He SHOULD have known. Much like in the legal system ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Somehow this is all ok. Yet you want to focus on one quote that is at worse misleading. Unbelievable really.

Talking about Kearney and the biowarfare team I was just talking with another poster the other week about that...

''Death Dart wrote
...........The worse thing that could happen is that one of the buildings wasn't hit by a plane at all. It is still wired for explosives, which will be certainly found.

Too much risk, not enough gain.

bill smith wrote
It could be that the biowarfare exercise 'Tripod 2' that took position at the Twin Towers the evening before 9/11 was there to cover for that very eventuality.
If the plane had missed the Tower (a very real possibilty) and piled into the ground the biowarfare people could have moved in and found that Anthrax or another biological agent had been released in the building.Full quarantine and evacuation of the immediate area would have protected any secrets that the building might have.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144954&page=271 thread''

 

[triforcharity]

This whole post is sad for many reasons. It's sad that all of the official documents showing how much and how fast the steel was recycled, mean nothing to you.

It doesn't. Do I wish there had been more steel saved for future examination? Sure. Do I think that it was some nefarious plan by NYC to dispose "evidence"? No. Of course not.

Do I think it hindered the investigation in any way? Not one bit.

How long it took to get any type of access,

Which, btw, was weeks, because me and some friends of mine were too busy searching for survivors, and after a few days, searching to recover the remains of some 2000+ people, including 343 of my own.

the lack of any real power the BPAT team had,

What power did they need, that they didn't have?
Please provide evidence that they needed the power, and didn't have it.

and much more mean nothing to you.

What's this "much more" you keep hinting at?

All that matters is that quote.

And the others that I have pointed out, that are blatent lies......

He says the exact opposite somewhere else, but he is a liar.

Yes, he is. You cannot make a claim like that, cherry-pick a quote, take it out of context to make it mean something else, and not be a liar. Even if it says differently elsewhere.

There's really not much need to go on.

Well, except for the report that I linked to, which shows that Hoffman is a liar.

If you want to believe he is a liar and all that is important to you is that quote, ignoring the fact he directly contradicts what you are whining about in another page of his site, that is your business.

Yes, and it should be yours too. Especially considering you think that the cited source, is an accurate representation of the facts, and will continue to defend it.

Are you ok with being lied to? Or, as you put it, "mislead"?

I wouldn't.

But it is a sad state where this all that matters to "debunkers"

Sorry champ, you know what matters to me the most?

Two things really, they're tied.

That people like you stop lying about the tragedy of that day, that I narrowly escaped with my life from.

And two, that the people that were directly affected by this disgusting attack, get the closure, honor, and respect that they deserve.

Something that the likes of you, will never understand, or deserve. Ever.

 

[tmd2_1]

It doesn't. Do I wish there had been more steel saved for future examination? Sure. Do I think that it was some nefarious plan by NYC to dispose "evidence"? No. Of course not.

Do I think it hindered the investigation in any way? Not one bit.



Which, btw, was weeks, because me and some friends of mine were too busy searching for survivors, and after a few days, searching to recover the remains of some 2000+ people, including 343 of my own.



What power did they need, that they didn't have?
Please provide evidence that they needed the power, and didn't have it.




What's this "much more" you keep hinting at?



And the others that I have pointed out, that are blatent lies......



Yes, he is. You cannot make a claim like that, cherry-pick a quote, take it out of context to make it mean something else, and not be a liar. Even if it says differently elsewhere.




Well, except for the report that I linked to, which shows that Hoffman is a liar.



Yes, and it should be yours too. Especially considering you think that the cited source, is an accurate representation of the facts, and will continue to defend it.

Are you ok with being lied to? Or, as you put it, "mislead"?

I wouldn't.




Sorry champ, you know what matters to me the most?

Two things really, they're tied.

That people like you stop lying about the tragedy of that day, that I narrowly escaped with my life from.

And two, that the people that were directly affected by this disgusting attack, get the closure, honor, and respect that they deserve.

Something that the likes of you, will never understand, or deserve. Ever.

.
So now I'm a liar as well? Terrific. Maybe one day you will learn you are the one being lied to on a large scale. Sure I want closure for everyone involved as well as for all Americans. Finding out exactly what happened that day is the only way to do that.

If you're trying to say I am disrespecting the victims or those who were involved that day (including you) nothing is further from the truth. I want to find out what happened that day for the victims that day. As well as they many that has suffered since then.

I never said I put my faith in that site. He has a lot of great information on it. But I've looked at more sources as it relates to that day than you can possibly imagine. Something a lot of "debunkers" don't do. All CT sites are wrong by default. All of there scientific analysis is lunacy. How many times do we hear when are they going to get something published in a "respectable" journal? It's really almost sickening.

The "much more" I was speaking in general as well as the steel. In general all you have to do is look at the original post for that. For the steel statements like this mean nothing to you?

" In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection."

Or this

The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $150 paid by local mills in the previous year. The same for India

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/china_baosteel.htm

Things like that bother me. They should bother you. Do I think it was a plot? You bet. No other reason for it.

As I said if you want to believe he is a liar that is your business. But I hope one day you will see the "lying" may be being done by those you trust.

 

[triforcharity]

.
So now I'm a liar as well? Terrific.

The MA most likely prevents me from answering this honestly.

.
Maybe one day you will learn you are the one being lied to on a large scale.

Really? How awesome. When will you be presenting your complete timeline of events, that match the known facts of the day better than what has already been published?

.
Sure I want closure for everyone involved as well as for all Americans. Finding out exactly what happened that day is the only way to do that.

Cool. When will you be doing anything other than posting on an internet forum?

.
If you're trying to say I am disrespecting the victims or those who were involved that day (including you) nothing is further from the truth.

Again, the MA prevents me from answering this honestly.

.
I want to find out what happened that day for the victims that day. As well as they many that has suffered since then.

Bull ****. Name ONE thing that the TM, or you as a whole, has EVER done for the victims that actually was worth a damn.

.
I never said I put my faith in that site. He has a lot of great information on it.

You touted it like it was fact. It's not. It's proven to contain misleading statements, up to and including blatent lies.

I'll ask again. Are you ok being lied to?

.
But I've looked at more sources as it relates to that day than you can possibly imagine.

Yeah, I guarantee that I have seen more research and data and GOOD research, than you will see in the next 25 years.

.
Something a lot of "debunkers" don't do.

Oh, you mean like what Gravy, Mackey, et al. have done?

.
All CT sites are wrong by default. All of there scientific analysis is lunacy.

I couldn't agree more. I am glad that you agree that the TM sites are garbage that contain no value whatsoever.

(See how quotemining works champ?)

.
How many times do we hear when are they going to get something published in a "respectable" journal? It's really almost sickening.

Yes, it is sickening, that with all of the supposed "brilliant" minds that the TM has, not ONE have EVER got something published in a peer-reviewed journal.

They even had to go so far as to INVENT their OWN, because NOBODY would touch their garbage science. Pretty cool, eh?

.
The "much more" I was speaking in general as well as the steel. In general all you have to do is look at the original post for that. For the steel statements like this mean nothing to you?

" In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection."

Did it prevent the BPAT or NIST for conducting their complete, accurate analysis? Nope.

Do I wish more of the steel from the impact zone was saved? Sure.

Was there any plan of nefarious intentions in place to destroy it? Not that I have seen.

.
Or this

The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $150 paid by local mills in the previous year. The same for India

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/china_baosteel.htm

So, they paid $30 less per ton. Is this supposed to mean something? OMG INSIDE JOBBITY JOB!!!!!11!!1 Especially when the steel market had just been infused with some 300,000+ tons of scrap steel, it doesn't suprise me.

.
Things like that bother me. They should bother you. Do I think it was a plot? You bet. No other reason for it.

No, my knowledge is based in reality. Your's is based on lies and misleading statements. Sorry, but the fact that China bought steel at a discounted rate, doesn't signify any kind of deep G-14 classified plot.

.
As I said if you want to believe he is a liar that is your business. But I hope one day you will see the "lying" may be being done by those you trust.

So, steel doesn't weaken in a fire? Islamic jihadists actually DO like us, and want to be friends with us?

STFU?!?!?!?! Are you serious!?!?!?!? INSIDE JOBBITY JOB!!!!!11!!1

 

[dafydd]

Really? How awesome. When will you be presenting your complete timeline of events, that match the known facts of the day better than what has already been published?

I have asked every truther here that question and never received an answer. Tmd,would you like to present your full theory about 911,including details of how the thermite was placed,how much of it was present,how was the building rigged without anyone noticing,was the NYFD in on it,what happened to the passengers on the planes,were there really hijackers present,how many hundreds of people were involved in the conspiracy,,,,etc. Tiny details like that. I don't know why I am doing this,no truth warrior has ever been brave enough to answer me.