[Ed]Hardfire with Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman

DavidJames said:
And your belief that the U.S. govt was complicit in the murder of 3000 people, but posts here instead of doing something to bring justice proves what?

Each night Red, when you go to sleep knowing your govt murdered 3000 people, does it make you feel satisfied that you've done your part by trolling on the JREF forum?

My how your family must be proud of you.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
Righteous indignation is the equivalent of waving the white flag in these forum debates.
Click to expand...

aggle-rithm said:
Where is YOUR righteous indignation? From what we've seen, it doesn't bother you that your government has callously murdered 3000 innocent people. It seems simply to be an intellectual exercise to you...interesting, but not enough to motivate you to serious action.

Naturally, many of us here find that to be extremely odd.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
It's quite presumptious of you to assume you know anything about me, how I responded to these events and how I continue to deal with them.
Click to expand...

aggle-rithm said:
It is not presumptuous at all to say what your actions SEEM like to me. Tell me what productive steps you have taken to bring your "knowledge" to those in authority who can do something about it. I will then withdraw my remarks with an apology.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
None of your damn business.
Click to expand...

Based on this exchange, I would guess that my presumption was dead-on target.
 
Red's argument is circular and irrelevant: anyone who is just a regular firefighter was told what to say and did not question it. Everyone who is higher up is making stuff up to tell the peons what to think. He simply states- without any justification whatsoever- that the comments of these individuals prove this, when clearly the opposite is true.

Deputy Chief Hayden said:
By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Click to expand...

Source

So, in this case, the fact that he's a "Deputy Chief" apparently means he's in on it. Or if "Deputy Chief" isn't high enough, then the fact that they measured the lean of the building and were able to see damage was just "told" to him.

Clearly, there's a ridiculous effort to exclude any facts which may damage the absurd conspiracist fantasy.
 
Gosh, you mean firefighters saw, with their own eyes, the damage sustained by wtc7 after the towers had collapsed?

Golly! I bet if those firefighters saw the fires which had been burning unfought for hours longer than any un-damaged fireproofing system would have been designed to cope with, they probably would have put two and two together and naturally assumed that demolition charges had been placed within the building as part of an insurance scam/rescue mission/data destruction triple whammy and not batted an eye when they were told that the building was coming down.

Amazin' stuff.
 
I love the fact that RedIbis has joined the growing list of twoofers whose argument basically has the FDNY being "in on it" to some extent, yet he desperately tries to avoid saying so.

I believe it's called cognitive dissonance.
 
Totovader said:
Red's argument is circular and irrelevant: anyone who is just a regular firefighter was told what to say and did not question it. Everyone who is higher up is making stuff up to tell the peons what to think. He simply states- without any justification whatsoever- that the comments of these individuals prove this, when clearly the opposite is true.
.
Click to expand...

Keep your words out of my mouth. I never said any such thing.
 
RedIbis said:
I asked you for a succinct question and you responded with a longwinded fantasy dialogue. At least you conceded the important point.
Click to expand...

First of all, you'll need to learn the difference between conceding a point and admitting the other side is right.

You want to claim that the firefighters on the scene were merely told that WTC7 was about to collapse as opposed to determining it for themselves? Fine. I concede that point to move the discussion forward. I don't want to get bogged down in page after page of arguing the meaning of words as you parse each firefighter's testimony to the point of rendering it nonsense.

If my questions seem to be lacking in succinctness, I apologize. But my experience with CTers tells me that I need to phrase them with as much detail as possible lest I give CTers some perceived loophole to slip through.

So let's try again:

Why have none of the firefighters that were on the scene come forward to question the official explanation for the collapse of WTC7?

No more games.

You know what I'm asking and you know why I'm asking it.

Please give me an answer.
 
RedIbis said:
Keep your words out of my mouth. I never said any such thing.
Click to expand...

Your statements in this thread disagree.

Perhaps you need to try and clarify instead of just pretending like "no I'm not" is sufficient.
 
RedIbis said:
It debunks the oft repeated Gravy point that everyone on the scene knew WTC 7 was going to collapse, as opposed to what actually happened, word was passed on to the street.
Click to expand...

So it's more important for you to debunk a tour guide than it is to find out the truth behind one of the most heinous crimes ever committed? That's truly sad, and yet very indicative of the movement to which you claim allegiance. No wondering is is floundering.

Oh and by the way, you've actually failed to debunk Gravy, anyway. See, whether or not someone determined that WTC7 was about to collapse or was just simply told, they still knew.

If you really want to debunk Gravy on this point, you'll need to supply firefighter testimony that expresses surprise or ignorance regarding the impending collapse of WTC7.

Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
Totovader said:
Your statements in this thread disagree.

Perhaps you need to try and clarify instead of just pretending like "no I'm not" is sufficient.
Click to expand...

Shocking that you haven't bothered to use the quote function.
 
johnny karate said:
Why have none of the firefighters that were on the scene come forward to question the official explanation for the collapse of WTC7?
Click to expand...
I predict that RedIbis will run away from that question like a schoolgirl from a snake.
 
sure, but you dont mind speculating what the fire firefighters meant in their statements made.
 
johnny karate said:
Really?

Because that's exactly what you did right here.

My question stands.
Click to expand...

Right, and qualified the entire post by admitting that it was a rare venture into speculation. Some of the questions I get I consider more valid than others and didn't mind answering that one.
 
RedIbis said:
Right, and qualified the entire post by admitting that it was a rare venture into speculation. Some of the questions I get I consider more valid than others and didn't mind answering that one.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad that we established that you will actually answer questions based on speculation, despite your prior claims to the contrary.

So what about my question do you find invalid?
 
johnny karate said:
Well, I'm glad that we established that you will actually answer questions based on speculation, despite your prior claims to the contrary.

So what about my question do you find invalid?
Click to expand...

I'll answer: I have no idea.

This of course, has nothing to do with the point I was making in this thread.
 
RedIbis said:
That's not speculation, that's what the quotes say themselves.
Click to expand...

actually no. that's what YOU assume the quotes state. but you're unwillling to go to the horse's mouths to get a clarification on those statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom