Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[dafydd]

No even in that list there are firefighters who specifically said that they actually heard the explosions. In all there are thousands of these reports of massive explosions.

. Therefore the few cameras there were all defective at recording that range of sound. Just another 9/11 coincidence. God knows there were plenty of those. (It's that or the government and friends tampered with the sound. This is entirely possible as the video all came through their channels) I actually have video that shows an example of where the government tampered with the audio. I imagine you want to see it. Just ask.

All the cameras defective?That's stretching it a bit,even in Trutherland.You really are a hopeless troll.

 

[johnny karate]

To be clear, I don't think LS has much significance for the larger narrative of 9/11. His ramblings on PBS are just preposterous enough to be interesting, but not particularly relevant to understanding 9/11 as a whole. Certainly, no one could take him too seriously when he asserted that 6 yrs after 9/11 he thought the North Tower Antenna caused WTC 7 to collapse.

And no one but Truthers have ever asserted that anything Silverstein said or did has any relevance to the narrative of 9/11.

Which begs the question: Why would you even bring him into the discussion in the first place?

 

[triforcharity]

Wow just found a few firefighters statements that I hadn''t seen. Thought you (and the readers)might enjoy them.

We'll call this little excercise Quote Mining Detection 101

Deputy Fire C ommissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick. [Source: City of New York]Numerous witnesses to the collapse of the south WTC tower think it resembles a demolition using explosives. Some initially believe this is what is occurring:

Here is the source of this quote. You will see that he never uses the word "bomb" or "Explosive". He does however use the word Explosion.
Here are his exact quote

We looked up at the building straight up, we
were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming
from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought
it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. 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. I
would have to say for three or four seconds anyway,
maybe longer.

Notice he says his INITIAL reaction was this. he is describing the building starting to collapse.

NEXT!!

Reporter John Bussey watches the collapse from the Wall Street Journal’s offices across the street from the WTC. He say s, “I… 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]

Here is a source for the original piece.
http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6536

Here is his original quote.

Unknown to the dozens of firefighters on the street, and those of us still in offices in the neighborhood, the South Tower was weakening structurally. Off the phone, and collecting my thoughts for the next report, 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. It was the building apparently collapsing in on itself, pancaking to the earth.

This one, BTW, is not a firefighter, but no big deal. Quotemined proven.

NEXT!!

Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory: “I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista… he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him… 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]

This one is a bit of a doozie.

Here is the original text.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110008.PDF

This could certainly be taken either way. I will see if I can find any more on his comments.

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]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110253.PDF

He is talking about the collapse of the tower. Uses Similies and hyperbole.
Never, not once, does he mention the word "BOMB". Not once.

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.… You thought it was just blowing out.” [City of New York, 12/11/2001]

This one is SO easy.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110287.PDF

You seemed to have left out a few key words.

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.

I have taken the liberty of hiliting the part your "source" left out.

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]

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

Refers to the initial collapse. Again, using hyperbole.

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon: “I was watching the fire… 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 thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.” [City of New York, 10/25/2001]

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

Page 15. This one is actually pretty good too.

Your "source" seems to have left some key words out. Mainly this whole sentence.

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.

Firefighter Timothy Burke: “Then the building popped, lower than the fire… 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]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110488.PDF

Page 8 and 9, even some in 10. He uses similie and hyperbole.

This one still is somewhat confusing. He doesn't go into great detail, about the popping, but later on, page 9, he is describing the building collapsing.
It's confusing either way.

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]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110251.PDF

He says "Originally had thought there was like....

Notice the similie?? I know some people have issues with understanding similies, but maybe google can help with that.

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]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110290.PDF

Similies again.

Also, the part that was left out.

which according to this map, this exposure just
blew out in flames.

He is talking about the side that he was looking at, how the flames grew big all of a sudden, as the building started to collapse.

Exposure is just another way of saying "This side"

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]

This is from Covering Catastrophe. I can't find an original quote from her.
Who knows where this came from. She is a reporter for WNYC Am/Fm in NYC. Again, I can't find much about here.


For thoose who need the link to the index for the NYT accounts, its here.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html


All I have to say, is " I WIN!!"

 

[bill smith]

We'll call this little excercise Quote Mining Detection 101




Here is the source of this quote. You will see that he never uses the word "bomb" or "Explosive". He does however use the word Explosion.
Here are his exact quote



Notice he says his INITIAL reaction was this. he is describing the building starting to collapse.

NEXT!!



Here is a source for the original piece.
http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6536

Here is his original quote.

Unknown to the dozens of firefighters on the street, and those of us still in offices in the neighborhood, the South Tower was weakening structurally. Off the phone, and collecting my thoughts for the next report, 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. It was the building apparently collapsing in on itself, pancaking to the earth.

This one, BTW, is not a firefighter, but no big deal. Quotemined proven.

NEXT!!



This one is a bit of a doozie.

Here is the original text.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110008.PDF

This could certainly be taken either way. I will see if I can find any more on his comments.




http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110253.PDF

He is talking about the collapse of the tower. Uses Similies and hyperbole.
Never, not once, does he mention the word "BOMB". Not once.






This one is SO easy.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110287.PDF

You seemed to have left out a few key words.



I have taken the liberty of hiliting the part your "source" left out.





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

Refers to the initial collapse. Again, using hyperbole.





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

Page 15. This one is actually pretty good too.

Your "source" seems to have left some key words out. Mainly this whole sentence.







http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110488.PDF

Page 8 and 9, even some in 10. He uses similie and hyperbole.

This one still is somewhat confusing. He doesn't go into great detail, about the popping, but later on, page 9, he is describing the building collapsing.
It's confusing either way.




http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110251.PDF

He says "Originally had thought there was like....

Notice the similie?? I know some people have issues with understanding similies, but maybe google can help with that.




http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110290.PDF

Similies again.

Also, the part that was left out.



He is talking about the side that he was looking at, how the flames grew big all of a sudden, as the building started to collapse.

Exposure is just another way of saying "This side"




This is from Covering Catastrophe. I can't find an original quote from her.
Who knows where this came from. She is a reporter for WNYC Am/Fm in NYC. Again, I can't find much about here.


For thoose who need the link to the index for the NYT accounts, its here.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html


All I have to say, is " I WIN!!"

Sure you do. Now the readers don't delieve the firefighter sworn statements in post #1970 above any more. lol

 

[dafydd]

Now the readers don't delieve the firefighter sworn statements in post #1970 above any more. lol

How do you know this? Have you interviewed all the readers?

 

[RedIbis]

And no one but Truthers have ever asserted that anything Silverstein said or did has any relevance to the narrative of 9/11.

Which begs the question: Why would you even bring him into the discussion in the first place?

I don't bring up Silverstein. It's usually someone such as yourself who rehashes some old discussion, derails whatever the current topic is and then wonders why I attack Larry.

 

[JihadJane]

I don't bring up Silverstein. It's usually someone such as yourself who rehashes some old discussion, derails whatever the current topic is and then wonders why I attack Larry.

It's all about whose gang you're in...

 

[triforcharity]

Bill, The noises he is refering to is the floors collapsing.

Now, would you care to take a stab at explaining why your source has taken so many out of context, quotemined and left out complete sentences, or just downright not understood hyperbole and similies??

 

[dafydd]

Bill, The noises he is refering to is the floors collapsing.

Now, would you care to take a stab at explaining why your source has taken so many out of context, quotemined and left out complete sentences, or just downright not understood hyperbole and similies??

That is bill's trolling modus operandi.

 

[RedIbis]

Bill, The noises he is refering to is the floors collapsing.

Now, would you care to take a stab at explaining why your source has taken so many out of context, quotemined and left out complete sentences, or just downright not understood hyperbole and similies??

Other than using figurative language, how exactly is someone supposed to describe something? When the cause of the explosions is unknown to the observer, they are likely to descibe what it sounded and looked like.

That's why when a detective is investigating a murder, he might ask a witness, "what did the shooter look like?"

 

[bill smith]

Bill, The noises he is refering to is the floors collapsing.

Now, would you care to take a stab at explaining why your source has taken so many out of context, quotemined and left out complete sentences, or just downright not understood hyperbole and similies??

Here's a couple more. I can produce dozens more like this if you want.

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]

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]
The Guardian will report that police on the scene said the collapse “looked almost like a ‘planned implosion’ designed to catch bystanders watching from the street.” [Guardian, 9/12/2001] .Readers also see post #1970 just above.

I doubt that readers find you in any way convincing Tri. The opposite applies I suspect. But just in case I offer you another opportunity to reject the following scientific study as quotemining and /or hyperbole. See this as more rope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

 

[MikeW]

The "Conspiracy Files" program from the other day contained a segment where they had someone take a close look at the "fatty bin Laden" tape, as well as bin Laden's 2004 video. If you're interested then you can see the clip here (it's the one labelled "Conspiracy Files" analysis). It's 2 or 3 minutes long & about a 22MB clip, though, so if you're not (on broadband/ that interested) then it's probably enough to know that he thought they were both genuine.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't bring up Silverstein. It's usually someone such as yourself who rehashes some old discussion, derails whatever the current topic is and then wonders why I attack Larry.

Fair enough.

Allow me to rephrase: What was the point of repeatedly accusing Larry Silverstein of lying in a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory discussion forum when you now admit you don't think anything he said has relevance?

 

[johnny karate]

Other than using figurative language, how exactly is someone supposed to describe something? When the cause of the explosions is unknown to the observer, they are likely to descibe what it sounded and looked like.

That's why when a detective is investigating a murder, he might ask a witness, "what did the shooter look like?"

But if the witness says "He looked like Robert Mitchum", the police don't then put out an APB for Robert Mitchum.

 

[RedIbis]

Fair enough.

Allow me to rephrase: What was the point of repeatedly accusing Larry Silverstein of lying in a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory discussion forum when you now admit you don't think anything he said has relevance?

You are someone who has an especially pernicious habit of accusing me of lying by making narrow, semantic distictions. Check post #1961, read what I wrote, compare it to how you are now characterizing my comments and determine if you are lying by your own standard.

 

[beachnut]

You are someone who has an especially pernicious habit of accusing me of lying by making narrow, semantic distictions. Check post #1961, read what I wrote, compare it to how you are now characterizing my comments and determine if you are lying by your own standard.

You still called him a liar. Good for you!

(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) very truthy

 

[bill smith]

Fair enough.

Allow me to rephrase: What was the point of repeatedly accusing Larry Silverstein of lying in a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory discussion forum when you now admit you don't think anything he said has relevance?

Larry is involved right up to the eyeballs But we cannot prove anything against him at this time. We can and do use him as part of the introduction to 9/11 for new Truthers though. In this sense he is absolutely invaluable. He is one of our best recruiting sergeants.

You would be amazed how mad they get when they hear you guys say that he only meant 'pull out the contingent of firefighters'. They just don't believe it you see, and never will...

 

[T.A.M.]

Larry is involved right up to the eyeballs But we cannot prove anything against him at this time. We can and do use him as part of the introduction to 9/11 for new Truthers though. In this sense he is absolutely invaluable. He is one of our best recruiting sergeants.

You would be amazed how mad they get when they hear you guys say that he only meant 'pull out the contingent of firefighters'. They just don't believe it you see, and never will...

You are right bill. For the stupid young angry male masses that your movement at one time attracted, that type of hollow, shallow, but compelling (to anger and testosterone) propaganda worked well...you must be so proud.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

You are right bill. For the stupid young angry male masses that your movement at one time attracted, that type of hollow, shallow, but compelling (to anger and testosterone) propaganda worked well...you must be so proud.

TAM

I absolutely am TAM. Let's have the new enquiry sooner rather than later. Then and only then is there any chance of putting this behind us. This will grow and grow and fester and fester unless the wound is cauterised.

 

[tsig]

I absolutely am TAM. Let's have the new enquiry sooner rather than later. Then and only then is there any chance of putting this behind us. This will grow and grow and fester and fester unless the wound is cauterised.

You'd want to lance the wound before you cauterized it.