Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[twinstead]

You mean the Lucky Larry who breakfasted every morning at the Windows on the World. But on Sept. 11, Larry had an appointment with his dermatologist and his children Roger and Lisa were running late.
Some coincidence.

Wow. How many people do you think went to Windows on the World or ANYWHERE in the twin towers every day that for whatever reason missed 9-11?

According to your "logic" they are all in on it. So, do you have any evidence "Lucky Larry" made a killing on insurance after 9-11?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Ask your debunker buddies. Or would it hurt you to do some research?


Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Ask your debunker buddies... bla bla bla...


dc1971
Ummmm, they're not claiming that "Lucky Larry" ate at Windows on the World.... YOU DID!

It's not a "fake quote". It's a quote of the term by which you referred to Larry Silverstein in post #5792. In other words, it's a real quote.

Dave

Try and read the post I was responding to, #5796.

 

[TSR]

dc1971
Ummmm, they're not claiming that "Lucky Larry" ate at Windows on the World.... YOU DID!

Try and read the post I was responding to, #5796.

.
Why not read *your post 5792, in which *you* wrote:

You mean the Lucky Larry who breakfasted every morning at the Windows on the World.

.
You made the claim, were asked for a citation, which you tried to deflect onto DC's "debunker buddies" in yet another failed attempt to distract from the fact tht you have no such evidence.
.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Try and read the post I was responding to, #5796.

Clayton, this may be a tricky concept for you to get your head round, but 5796 is a bigger number than 5792, which means that, in a thread where posts are numbered in order, 5796 comes after 5792. Now, if you've got this far, let's try another tricky concept: sequences. #5796 is a response to #5794, which is a response to #5793, which is a response to #5792, in which you called Silverstein "Lucky Larry", and claimed that he ate breakfast at Windows on the World every day. These four posts are in an unbroken sequence. So, in post #5796, dc1971 is quoting your use of the nickname.

I realise it's a bit difficult to remember things you did over three hours ago, so if all that's too complicated for you to follow, let me know, and I'll try and find a simpler way of reminding you what you've just said.

Dave

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton, this may be a tricky concept for you to get your head round, but 5796 is a bigger number than 5792, which means that, in a thread where posts are numbered in order, 5796 comes after 5792. Now, if you've got this far, let's try another tricky concept: sequences. #5796 is a response to #5794, which is a response to #5793, which is a response to #5792, in which you called Silverstein "Lucky Larry", and claimed that he ate breakfast at Windows on the World every day. These four posts are in an unbroken sequence. So, in post #5796, dc1971 is quoting your use of the nickname.

I realise it's a bit difficult to remember things you did over three hours ago, so if all that's too complicated for you to follow, let me know, and I'll try and find a simpler way of reminding you what you've just said.

Dave

Think fast. Did my post say bla bla bla?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Ask your debunker buddies. Or would it hurt you to do some research?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Ask your debunker buddies... bla bla bla...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Think fast. Did my post say bla bla bla?

Oh, I see what you mean. Let me try to help. I think the rest of us all understand what "bla bla bla" means in this context - it means "I've snipped out a large chunk of text to asinine to be worth responding to". I think dc1971 owes you an apology for using complex technical terms like this that you may not understand.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

Oh, I see what you mean. Let me try to help. I think the rest of us all understand what "bla bla bla" means in this context - it means "I've snipped out a large chunk of text to asinine to be worth responding to". I think dc1971 owes you an apology for using complex technical terms like this that you may not understand.

Dave

Or any terms.

 

[dc1971]

Clayton, this may be a tricky concept for you to get your head round, but 5796 is a bigger number than 5792, which means that, in a thread where posts are numbered in order, 5796 comes after 5792...

LOL!



Sorry, I laughed so hard reading this I fell off my chair!

HA HA HA HA!!!

 

[dc1971]

Oh, I see what you mean. Let me try to help. I think the rest of us all understand what "bla bla bla" means in this context - it means "I've snipped out a large chunk of text to asinine to be worth responding to". I think dc1971 owes you an apology for using complex technical terms like this that you may not understand.

Dave

I'm guessing this must be part of their "investigation" where you have to quote things properly, especially if you're quoting things on an internet forum!

 

[triforcharity]

How could you have known on 9/11 that WTC 7 wasn't attacked by terrorists?

Well, given the fact that nobody saw a giant commercial airliner crash into the side of it, I can safely conclude that it was not attacked by terrorists.

There were countless explosions noted by eyewitnesses on 9/11, many having come from WTC 7.

Explosions are common if building fires.

Do you need a list of things that would go BOOM in a fire? I can give you one if you need it.

Do you generally find "assuming" to be a useful tool in investigative work?

Who said I was assuming anything? The organic process of burning is certainly not a terrorist.

Besides, all you have to do is be a casual news reader to know about WTC 7.

I just asked my mom if she had ever heard of 7WTC or WTC7, or the Solomon Brothers Building, and guess what?

Never heard of it. And she watches the news religiously.

Here's another fun fact. I just asked my wife if she knew where the Solomon Brothers building was at. She had no idea. Most people outside of Manhattan had never heard of it either pre-9/11.

 

[tempesta29]

Well, given the fact that nobody saw a giant commercial airliner crash into the side of it, I can safely conclude that it was not attacked by terrorists.

So the Murrah building in OKC wasn't attacked by terrorists?

Seriously, is this the best you've got?

 

[TheRedWorm]

So the Murrah building in OKC wasn't attacked by terrorists?

Seriously, is this the best you've got?

Is that a serious question?

 

[triforcharity]

So the Murrah building in OKC wasn't attacked by terrorists?

Seriously, is this the best you've got?

Where there any other buildings/placed BOMBED with truck bombs on 9/11?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So the Murrah building in OKC wasn't attacked by terrorists?

Seriously, is this the best you've got?

Why put forth a strawman argument in response? It is known when 7 World Trade was evacuated, it is known that the evacuation was precautionary and that there was no damage when it started because it is known that the NY OEM was functioning until the evacuation was given, and it is known that the first reports of damage occurred when the North Tower collapsed and rained debris on it. It is very well known and documented what the FDNY said about the subsequent fires as well as what they did in response: Pull people back and establish a perimeter.

Where exactly does an Oklahoma City style truck bomb fit into this scenario? Answer: It doesn't. You're simply taking a short response and trying to be argumentative about it.

 

[tempesta29]

Where exactly does an Oklahoma City style truck bomb fit into this scenario? Answer: It doesn't. You're simply taking a short response and trying to be argumentative about it.

Well, given the fact that nobody saw a giant commercial airliner crash into the side of it, I can safely conclude that it was not attacked by terrorists.

Jesus.

The above post assumes that the only way a terrorist could attack a target is with planes. Is the combination of planes and bombs not a possibility? Just because planes hit the WTC doesn't mean other types of attacks hadn't been planned and/or executed. Reports of secondary devices were common on 9/11.

 

[Justin39640]

Jesus.

The above post assumes that the only way a terrorist could attack a target is with planes. Is the combination of planes and bombs not a possibility? Just because planes hit the WTC doesn't mean other types of attacks hadn't been planned and/or executed. Reports of secondary devices were common on 9/11.

Yet not one cop found a device. You seem to forget the mayhem and confusion in downtown Manhattan that day.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Jesus.

The above post assumes that the only way a terrorist could attack a target is with planes. Is the combination of planes and bombs not a possibility? Just because planes hit the WTC doesn't mean other types of attacks hadn't been planned and/or executed. Reports of secondary devices were common on 9/11.

This is another lie that truthers like to tell. Response:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

One of their most reprehensible methods – which I have spent hundreds of hours combating – is misrepresentation of 9/11 eyewitness accounts.

... The most common conspiracist misuse of eyewitness accounts involves descriptions of loud noises in and around the Twin Towers. "Controlled demolition" theorists claim that such descriptions indicate that explosive devices were at work in the towers, even, for some unfathomable reason, long before the collapses. To them, all descriptions are literal and figures of speech don't exist. When Hursley Lever, who was in the north tower basement when flight 11 hit, said "I heard a bomb," but then explained that he thought the noise was a transformer explosion and went back to work, conspiracists will focus on "bomb" and omit the rest.

That applies as much to the reports regarding WTC 7 as it does to the main towers.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

More:

Watch and listen to another demolition, Schuylkill Falls Towers: http://tinyurl.com/j8mdy
And another: Landmark Tower demolition http://tinyurl.com/fmf9e
And another: Southwark Towers, Philadelphia: http://tinyurl.com/qr2x8

In each case we hear the initiation charges, then the larger primary charges. Keep in mind that the buildings above underwent extensive structural weakening before their demolition. Absent such weakening, using explosives to bring down the WTC buildings would require charges of far greater magnitude. The use of such explosives would have been immediately apparent to everyone in the area, as well as to audiovisual and seismic recording equipment.

No explosive sounds like these were reported or recorded when WTC 7 collapsed.


Here’s an audio clip from a NYC news radio interview with a medical student who saw WTC 7 collapse and describes what it sounded like. http://tinyurl.com/q6xr4

The reason we know that bombs are ruled out is because we've studied the evidence, and have not restricted ourselves to misrepresentations of what people said. So no, a combination of planes and bombs is not a possibility. This has been established.

Look, you act as though these are issues that have not been addressed before. They have. And in great detail too. Before you go off and make a claim like the one I'm responding to, why don't you do some basic searching on this forum first and see what we've already said about it? The whole "bombs" argument is old, well disproven, and frankly tiresome. We expect people to understand that when they engage in debate here. You cannot simply say that the ruling out of bombs is "presumption"; it is not. It is concluded from the evidence.

So please, do yourself a favor: Look things up before presenting them. It'll be better for you and will result in less sarcasm from us. Many of us are tired of seeing the same old canards hoisted week after week.

 

[tempesta29]

This is another lie that truthers like to tell.

I can't figure out if that was a red herring or a straw man, but it was definitely one or the other. Are you doubting that the possibility of secondary devices were reported near ground zero? There are several youtube compilations of those news broadcasts. Go have a look.

 

[beachnut]

Again, just because someone hasn't found something doesn't mean the possibility should be ruled out. That would be some backwards logic. As far as anyone knew on 9/11, explosives could have been used at WTC 7. Why rule that out until you could confirm it? Massive explosions came from that building and it fell like a house of cards. As a detective, I would leave bombs on the list of possible causes.

To tie it in to the main point: as Secretary of Defense, I would find it at least mildly pertinent knowing with absolute certainty the extent of the damage of a large terrorist attack, including the names of the skyscrapers that collapsed and the reasons for their collapses. Apparently Rummy couldn't even name the skyscrapers.

No explosives, why are you repeating moronic lies of 911 truth? Fire caused WTC 7 to fall, Rummy is not a fireman. You failed to make a point and now post delusions of explosives. WTC 7 fell like a gravity collapse, you can't do the physics so you make up the lies, fail like a house of cards. You are drifting off topic in your pointless thread.

Did Rummy own WTC 7? No
Did Rummy have to rebuild WTC 7? No
Why does 911 truth make up anomalies?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I can't figure out if that was a red herring or a straw man, but it was definitely one or the other. Are you doubting that the possibility of secondary devices were reported near ground zero? There are several youtube compilations of those news broadcasts. Go have a look.

It was neither, there were no explosive devices (or whatever you mean by "secondary devices"), and repeat:

One of their most reprehensible methods – which I have spent hundreds of hours combating – is misrepresentation of 9/11 eyewitness accounts.

... The most common conspiracist misuse of eyewitness accounts involves descriptions of loud noises in and around the Twin Towers. "Controlled demolition" theorists claim that such descriptions indicate that explosive devices were at work in the towers, even, for some unfathomable reason, long before the collapses. To them, all descriptions are literal and figures of speech don't exist. When Hursley Lever, who was in the north tower basement when flight 11 hit, said "I heard a bomb," but then explained that he thought the noise was a transformer explosion and went back to work, conspiracists will focus on "bomb" and omit the rest.

It takes more than vague allegations to cut it. Seriously, bring better claims.

More:

• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/seismicreports%2Ccontrolleddemo%2C1993%2Cskysc
  

  ... "Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale 'spike' or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument."

• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/introduction
• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/wtc7engineeringpapers,collapsehypotheses

------

And while we're here: You still haven't addressed the original issue - your bald and empty assertion about Rumsfeld. Once again:

If your job is to defend against attacks, what else would one need to know besides the fact that terrorists targeted a pair of civillian buildings in New York due to their power/wealth symbology? What level of detail beyond that would be is necessary in order to craft national military policy?

That is the original topic, and that is what you're dodging. Your answer above was insufficient.

The problem is that you're passing off two fundamental and unsupported delusions as your two bases of argument. One: There is something suspicious and indicative of a failure of duty in not knowing building 7, and Two: There were explosives at Ground Zero. The first is unsupported by you, and the second is contradicted by the weight of evidence. Questions being put to you are being asked to illuminate the fact that you have little substance behind either claim, and so far your responses are doing nothing to show otherwise.

Put some substance behind your replies.