Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
knife fight colobus said:
A lot of the arguments I've had with Truthers have taught me to not even bring up the 911CR. Truthers just go on and on about conflicts of interest and WTC7 not being in the report that I really don't even rely on it for my arguments.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, but when I mentioned Commission records I didn't mean chunks of the report, more source documents that they used. So the pages I referred to include interviews with FAA people, FBI documents on investigations into the hijackers and many other things, phone records and other communications from the airlines, NORAD logs and many other things that didn't appear in the Commission report.
 
MikeW said:
I know what you mean, but when I mentioned Commission records I didn't mean chunks of the report, more source documents that they used. So the pages I referred to include interviews with FAA people, FBI documents on investigations into the hijackers and many other things, phone records and other communications from the airlines, NORAD logs and many other things that didn't appear in the Commission report.
Click to expand...

Oh awesome. What sucks is I bet the guy I link this stuff to won't even look at them. He has already told me that he thinks there are disinfo agents on JREF...
 
knife fight colobus said:
Oh awesome. What sucks is I bet the guy I link this stuff to won't even look at them. He has already told me that he thinks there are disinfo agents on JREF...
Click to expand...
Being a truther is all about finding ways to ignore all the counter evidence, so you can claim your opinion is all that counts - sounds like you're dealing with an expert.

Best you can do is find relevant documents in the History Commons archive, maybe? It's relatively respected as truther sites go, so it's harder for him to knock the source. He'll probably fall back on ignoring the document because it's from the FBI, SEC or whoever, but you can only try.
 
RedIbis said:
Is this the rumble boom thing, because that's pretty lightweight considering the vitriol he receives here.
Click to expand...

Should we consider his earlier tesimony or his later? Which is more accurate?

was he last man out?
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
Should we consider his earlier tesimony or his later? Which is more accurate?

was he last man out?
Click to expand...

Like any other eyewitness testimony, it's subject to imperfect memory, adrenaline and the trauma of the day.

As far as I know, he was the last person to escape the N. Tower before it collapses. Is there someone else who escaped after Willie and before the bldg collapses?

Before your onslaught of semantics, this is obviously different from those survivors who were pulled from the rubble after the collapses.
 
RedIbis said:
Like any other eyewitness testimony, it's subject to imperfect memory, adrenaline and the trauma of the day.

As far as I know, he was the last person to escape the N. Tower before it collapses. Is there someone else who escaped after Willie and before the bldg collapses?

Before your onslaught of semantics, this is obviously different from those survivors who were pulled from the rubble after the collapses.
Click to expand...

Willie's initial deposition fits the physical evidence we have perfectly for an aviation fuel vapor explosion. Any later statements claiming man-made demolition are contradicted by the same physical evidence.

You don't have a clue about the physical evidence that shows Willie for the liar he is.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Like any other eyewitness testimony, it's subject to imperfect memory, adrenaline and the trauma of the day.
Click to expand...

Really? Need I remind you about your statements regarding witness testimonies? Something about the first ones nearer the time?

Red Ibis said:
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
Click to expand...

well?

As far as I know, he was the last person to escape the N. Tower before it collapses. Is there someone else who escaped after Willie and before the bldg collapses?
Click to expand...

The last survivor as he has claimed? I believe there were others behind him at collapse time from an older thread here.

Before your onslaught of semantics, this is obviously different from those survivors who were pulled from the rubble after the collapses.
Click to expand...

See above.

What about his commission testimony? Was he accurate in his claims about it?
 
funk de fino said:
Red

Guess what site I got this statement from?
Click to expand...

The same site he says this:

is believed to be the last person to exit the falling North Tower alive, surviving the building's collapse by diving beneath a fire truck.
Click to expand...

Is this really what you consider mendacity so grevious that you would carry on like this for years?
 
RedIbis said:
The same site he says this:



Is this really what you consider mendacity so grevious that you would carry on like this for years?
Click to expand...

is believed to be the last person to exit the falling North Tower alive, surviving the building's collapse by diving beneath a fire truck.
Click to expand...
is irrelevant to the understanding of the cause of the collapse and the lies Willy now says about what he saw.
 
funk de fino said:
Really? Need I remind you about your statements regarding witness testimonies? Something about the first ones nearer the time?
Click to expand...


Ahh... I thought that was RedIbis who said that, but I wasn't entirely sure and didn't feel like searching for that quote, so I didn't say anything. Thanks for digging it up.
 
RedIbis said:
The same site he says this:

Is this really what you consider mendacity so grevious that you would carry on like this for years?
Click to expand...

Is it a false claim on the site or not? Was he the last survivor? It is not even agreed that he was the last man out prior to collapse.

I notice you are studiously avoiding this. Are his first initial interviews claims the most accurate?

Red Ibis said:
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
Click to expand...

Are the claims he made about his commission testimony true?
 
funk de fino said:
Is it a false claim on the site or not? Was he the last survivor? It is not even agreed that he was the last man out prior to collapse.
Click to expand...

Is this really what you consider mendacity so grevious that you would carry on like this for years?
 
funk de fino said:
Really? Need I remind you about your statements regarding witness testimonies? Something about the first ones nearer the time?
Click to expand...
In "The Mystery Zone", 1st time witness accounts are only the most important evidence IF they support some utterly nefarious conspiracy theory. Conspiracy rule#101
 
RedIbis said:
Like any other eyewitness testimony, it's subject to imperfect memory, adrenaline and the trauma of the day.

As far as I know, he was the last person to escape the N. Tower before it collapses. Is there someone else who escaped after Willie and before the bldg collapses?

Before your onslaught of semantics, this is obviously different from those survivors who were pulled from the rubble after the collapses.
Click to expand...

please remember the bolded each and every time we discuss some new amazing witness pulled out of the archives, out of context, etc... who seems to partially contradict the hundreds of witnesses that support the official account of 9/11.

TAM:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom