9/11 commission told not to probe too deeply

[RedIbis]

Stop dodging Red.

You are making another dishonest argument.

I asked you if the people who told the FF on the ground were in on it. You said it came from higher up in FDNY or OEM. Please answer this question after I supplied you with the quote you wanted.

I never asked anything about fully involved. I asked you if you still claim there was "no discernible inferno"?

Inferno is a raging fire that is uncontrolled or uncontrollable. The fire was on at least 13 floors and Mike Catalano says it was a huge fire and he was in the buidling while it was on fire. Is he wrong?

Quote Catalano.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Anyone who said that WTC 7 was a fully involved inferno or that all 47 floors were on fire was simply inaccurate.

So you finally admit you believed they lied.

Ergo, you believe the FDNY were participants.

Game, set and match.

 

[JihadJane]

So you finally admit you believed they lied.

Ergo, you believe the FDNY were participants.

Game, set and match.

Yawn.

 

[RedIbis]

So you finally admit you believed they lied.

Ergo, you believe the FDNY were participants.

Game, set and match.

No, you do. Since NIST does not agree that the entire bldg was fully involved, you are calling someone who is simply inaccurate a liar. That's pretty lame, and belies your inability to understand the difference between being mistaken and intentially deceiving.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Anyone who said that WTC 7 was a fully involved inferno or that all 47 floors were on fire was simply inaccurate. That doesn't make them "in on it", it doesn't make them incompetent. They simply weren't accurate.

Well, you obviously feel very strongly about SOMETHING. Why not come right out and tell us what it is?

 

[dtugg]

I would love to see Red come up with a scenario where firefighters at the scene don't come forward telling the world about the controlled demolition that is so obvious that morons on the Internet can tell by watching YouTube videos which doesn't involve the firefighters being in on it or being complete morons. But he won't. Because he can't.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, you do. Since NIST does not agree

Since when did you care what NIST says?

NIST says that fires brought the building down, remember?

The FDNY are still the only ones who were there that day. You can call them liars all you want, I will still believe them over you every time.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Why not come right out and tell us what it is?

Because he think the firefighters were in on it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's not that they lied so much as they "couldn't determine what they heard or saw themselves." The training obviously has little influence according to some...

The commission report also obviously didn't go deep enough in examining their testimony of explosions either, because apparently since explosions can only come from explosives, and explosives can only be caused by cutter charges, and not volatile flammables... But I digress...





For those who don't see it readily I'm being sarcastic in my tone...

 

[funk de fino]

Quote Catalano.

Stop dodging. Answer the first part of the post. I will quote Catalano in another post.

This is in relation to the upper level FF or OEM. They passed on the info to the FDNY on the ground according to your theory. Are they in on it?

If not them, then who duped these upper level guys?

 

[RedIbis]

Stop dodging. Answer the first part of the post. I will quote Catalano in another post.

Go ahead. Your point is premised on this quote, so do it.

 

[funk de fino]

Go ahead. Your point is premised on this quote, so do it.

No, it is not. Mike Catalano is irrelevant to whether the upper level FF or the OEM told the FDNY on the ground that the building would collapse.

As you have claimed that the upper level FDNY or the OEM passed word down to the FDNY on the ground that the building was going to collapse then this means there is complicity. Yes or no?

If not then who duped these experienced and qualified emergency management guys?

 

[RedIbis]

No, it is not. Mike Catalano is irrelevant to whether the upper level FF or the OEM told the FDNY on the ground that the building would collapse.

As you have claimed that the upper level FDNY or the OEM passed word down to the FDNY on the ground that the building was going to collapse then this means there is complicity. Yes or no?

If not then who duped these experienced and qualified emergency management guys?

Why are you avoiding quoting Catalano? You brought him up.

 

[funk de fino]

Mike Catalano stated in his interview with the investigation team that -

"WTC7 would have collapsed even if the other towers had not collapsed because of the fires. He said there were 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 20,000 gallons of coolant. This was a huge fire."

Mike had to escape the buidling after the fire had started. He was previously the building engineer but was working as the head of security for SSB.

As he escaped he "looked out the window to see if they could jump on the Con Ed building but there was a huge fire there also"

"he is an engineer, not a security person so his main focus was the engineering aspects. A NIST representative followed on our discussion and focused on the engineering pieces"

Now as you have claimed there was "no discernible inferno" and this contradicts what Mike states and what we can see in photos, videos and in reports, do you retract this claim?

 

[Edx]

Anyone who said that WTC 7 was a fully involved inferno or that all 47 floors were on fire was simply inaccurate. That doesn't make them "in on it", it doesn't make them incompetent. They simply weren't accurate.

Do any NYC firefighters think there were small fires?
Do any NYC firefighters think the damage was minor?
Do any NYC firefighters think WTC7 shouldn't have collapsed?
Were any NYC firefighters surprised that WTC7 collapsed?
Were any NYC firefighters surprised in the way Building 7 collapsed?

Did any NYC firefighters express any doubts at all?

 

[funk de fino]

Why are you avoiding quoting Catalano? You brought him up.

Why are you avoiding the question put to you prior to that?

As you have claimed that the upper level FDNY or the OEM passed word down to the FDNY on the ground that the building was going to collapse then this means there is complicity. Yes or no?

Also due to this claim.

it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

Does this claim stand for Willie Rod?

 

[RedIbis]

Mike Catalano stated in his interview with the investigation team that -

"WTC7 would have collapsed even if the other towers had not collapsed because of the fires. He said there were 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel and 20,000 gallons of coolant. This was a huge fire."

Mike had to escape the buidling after the fire had started. He was previously the building engineer but was working as the head of security for SSB.

As he escaped he "looked out the window to see if they could jump on the Con Ed building but there was a huge fire there also"

"he is an engineer, not a security person so his main focus was the engineering aspects. A NIST representative followed on our discussion and focused on the engineering pieces"

Now as you have claimed there was "no discernible inferno" and this contradicts what Mike states and what we can see in photos, videos and in reports, do you retract this claim?

Do you think that Catalano was correct in his assumption that the diesel was fueling the fire?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Do you think that Catalano was correct in his assumption that the diesel was fueling the fire?

Does it matter? He saw a huge fire.

 

[Pardalis]

Yawn.

For someone who says she isn't a truther, I find your contributions baffling.

 

[funk de fino]

Do you think that Catalano was correct in his assumption that the diesel was fueling the fire?

Stop dodging and answer my questions if you expect me to continue to answer yours. Please quote where Mike said the diesel fuelled the fire and remember this interview was in 2004. He said the fuel was there he did not mention it fuelling anything.

Is he wrong on the huge fire claim?

Now back to my other questions.

As you have claimed that the upper level FDNY or the OEM passed word down to the FDNY on the ground that the building was going to collapse then this means there is complicity. Yes or no?

it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

Does this claim stand for Willie Rod?

You do know what it looks like when you avoid my questions don't you?