Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
NoahFence said:
Military Grade anthrax wasn't used on 9/11. Try to keep up.

It was 19 terrorists and 4 aircraft. You can even look it up!
Click to expand...

Clayton Moore said:
It was used to get the Patriot Act passed and 9/11 was in part to instigate a Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and two wars.
Click to expand...

NoahFence said:
This is a thread about 9/11. You're implying because theyTM had weapons grade anthrax, then theyTM must have super secret other weapons capable of doing whatever dastardly deed you can conjure up.
Click to expand...

Clayton Moore said:
Access to military grade anthrax and access to the military's weapons arsenal.
Click to expand...

Your logic is quite fatally flawed.

You assume that since someone had access to supposedly military grade biological weapons that they, or someone else, then also had access to a military incindiary BUT you cannot illustrate that an incindiary with the properties you ascribe to it even exists. You then extend this to have the unknown substance that simply matches properties you alone ascribe to it to have been present in Manhattan ONLY deep within the rubble pile. Your whole line of illogic is based soley upon your pewrsonal political worldview which demands that the attacks of 9/11/01 be a giant shadow gov't black op and invokes a agical substance of your own desires to have been present.

Sorry Clayton people here would prefer real evidence and not manufactured contentions born of your political leanings.
 
triforcharity said:
Yeah, I rest my case.
Click to expand...

As seen back in 2008:
Again, the current conspiracy peddler is abysmally ignorant of the fact that this ground has been covered ad nauseum before. As has pretty much all truther ground.

Furthermore, I'd need to be convinced that a conspiracy fantasist could go through self-indoctrination without ever having seen Graeme MacQueen's work or Jason Bermas's shoots-self-in-foot moment (aka "Jedi Mind Trick"). I've seen too many of them pull out the accusations far too often when it's convenient for them to believe their disingenuousness when the behavior is pointed out as a criticism.
 
triforcharity said:
Yeah, I rest my case.
Click to expand...
Oh, also, digression: Tri, I'm curious about something. Do you have a good feel for what fraction/percentage of your former colleagues in the FDNY even heard of truthers before? This is simple curiosity, nothing more. I've wondered if they've been annoying enough to be somewhat common knowledge, or if they're so minute that they're basically not even known about by the majority of firefighters.
 
NoahFence said:
It's not. It's the truth. The entire premise that WTC 7 was 'pulled' requires FDNY involvement.

Christopher7's asinie position that they had enough water to fight WTC 7 but didn't, is direct evidence of his "FDNY was complicit" line of thinking.
Click to expand...
Either they were complicit, they are dumb, they were fooled by Them, or some combination of the above. Chris7 refuses to answer my or anyone's questions as to which it is.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
To be fair, RedIbis wasn't accusing first responders of complicity; he was accusing them of being incompetent, dumber than himself at their own job.
Click to expand...

For that to be a "fair" assessment of what I've said, you'd post a quote of my calling any FDNY "incompetent", or "dumb" let alone complicit.

Since you can't, you're lying and desperate.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Oh, also, digression: Tri, I'm curious about something. Do you have a good feel for what fraction/percentage of your former colleagues in the FDNY even heard of truthers before? This is simple curiosity, nothing more. I've wondered if they've been annoying enough to be somewhat common knowledge, or if they're so minute that they're basically not even known about by the majority of firefighters.
Click to expand...

Having not been with them for many years, I don't know how many of them have heard of the TM. I know that the ones that I know and communicate with since I left, (less than 1%) have heard of them one way or another.

Erik Lawyer being the one they have mostly heard of. Most firefighters, including the Seattle FD, really do not like the guy.

I would speculate that most of the FDNY know of truthers. How much attention they pay to truthers in general is about as much attention I pay to how many times my neighbor changes his TV channel.
 
triforcharity said:
Having not been with them for many years, I don't know how many of them have heard of the TM. I know that the ones that I know and communicate with since I left, (less than 1%) have heard of them one way or another.

Erik Lawyer being the one they have mostly heard of. Most firefighters, including the Seattle FD, really do not like the guy.

I would speculate that most of the FDNY know of truthers. How much attention they pay to truthers in general is about as much attention I pay to how many times my neighbor changes his TV channel.
Click to expand...

All right. I was afraid of that. I partially hoped that the FDNY would by and large have been spared the annoyance of knowing such a belief system existed, but I guess that sort of thing is impossible to miss.

On the other hand, some of them probably get some good lulz at the concept.

Regarding Lawyer: Yeah, I remember his entrance into that Firehouse.com forum. He got savaged. I was in shock he'd dare trot the trutherisms he chose in front of other firefighters; you'd guess that he'd realize firefighting-specific conspiracy claims would undergo deeper scrutiny with that crowd than it would the average listener, therefore you'd use other arguments instead, but Laywer appeared to be oblivious. It was almost disappointing how clueless he was in front of that group. You'd expect he'd have known better.
 
RedIbis said:
For that to be a "fair" assessment of what I've said, you'd post a quote of my calling any FDNY "incompetent", or "dumb" let alone complicit.
Click to expand...


We all know you better than that. Unless you care to clarify your accusation, I can only go with what I deem to be a reasonable inference.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
All right. I was afraid of that. I partially hoped that the FDNY would by and large have been spared the annoyance of knowing such a belief system existed, but I guess that sort of thing is impossible to miss.
Click to expand...

It really is.

ElMondoHummus said:
On the other hand, some of them probably get some good lulz at the concept.
Click to expand...

We certainly do.

ElMondoHummus said:
Regarding Lawyer: Yeah, I remember his entrance into that Firehouse.com forum. He got savaged. I was in shock he'd dare trot the trutherisms he chose in front of other firefighters; you'd guess that he'd realize firefighting-specific conspiracy claims would undergo deeper scrutiny with that crowd than it would the average listener, therefore you'd use other arguments instead, but Laywer appeared to be oblivious. It was almost disappointing how clueless he was in front of that group. You'd expect he'd have known better.
Click to expand...

Yes, he would have been much better off if he had stuck to laymen. He got absolutely slaughtered!! He even had some "help" there, and he still got destroyed. Both of them did.

Of course, you can see my debunking of him here.

And true to truther form, he demanded that I identify myself before he would even address any of my issues.

Suprise suprise.
 
RedIbis said:
There's no accusation to clarify. Nice try though, Socrates.
Click to expand...


Interesting. I've never seen anyone who wasn't a politician use quite so many words to say absolutely nothing.

I do have an admission to make, though: I misread RedIbis' comment which triforcharity quoted as, "I don't think they fooled the first responders." I completely missed the "don't" that was actually there.

So, RedIbis is not accusing the first responders of being incompetent, or dumb, or blind. I apologize for that. He is, however, quite plainly accusing them of, at best, ignoring the evidence for government complicity that they observed or, at worst, suppressing of their own observations to knowingly further the government's goals.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
There's no accusation to clarify. Nice try though, Socrates.
Click to expand...

Do you or do you not believe that 9/11 was something other than a terrorist attack by 19 America hating radical Muslims?

IF you're a truther, that automatically means you believe the FDNY is complicit in some level. It is what it is.
 
Fire Fighters are Innocent

Fire Fighters are Innocent

They did not destroy evidence.

Let us start with NIST NCSTAR 1-3B Why is it copy-from protected? You can't cut and paste from it. User friendly like everything about the 9-11.

What were the investigators looking for? Page 3 NIST NCSTAR 1-3B

Exterior column panels and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and /or impacted by aircraft

Exterior column panels and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 directly above and below the impact zone.

If they had gotten the majority of the material they wanted, a lot of the argument would have stopped, then and there. A computer model would have been much easier to do, and any report issued would have found wide acceptance for its conclusions.

That's exactly what was done. The steel was moved to Fresh Kills landfill site, which was designated as a crime scene, and then fingertip searched at that location.

Really, If I wanted to test a theory that explosives were used to weaken the core structure. I could look at the saved material and make a positive determination.

Oh wait. where are the samples of the core material. 12 pieces of core material from both buildings. Impossible to test my hypothesis with this little information.

Impossible to test ANY OTHER hypothesis with this little information.
 
A Single Cat and an Army of Rats

Page 4 NIST NCSTAR
Facing concern that the identified steel may not be properly preserved in the recovery yards, NIST arranged for the steel to be shipped to its campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland starting in March 2002.

Professor Astaneh-Asl also granted NIST permission to take custody of the steel he had personally marked.

So how much of the marked steel had been pilfered in the six months prior to March 2002?

The inventory is incredibly small! And don't bring up the stuff at JFK. NIST only found 12 relevant pieces.

A saved marking must have been interpreted to mean smelt immediately!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom