[Ed]Hardfire with Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman

[Totovader]

Shocking that you haven't bothered to use the quote function.

Shocking that you haven't bothered to respond... and I'm betting you won't either.

Pretty sure we've been through this before, Red- you don't really help your case at all by just saying "no I'm not" and then running away. It's a bit childish, and it just makes you look that much more guilty.

I addressed your comments in my first post- there's no need to go dig up your quotes when everyone here was involved with the discussion and has the ability to go view them on their own if they disagree with my observations.

 

[johnny karate]

I'll answer: I have no idea.

Fair enough.

But doesn't this fact give you even the slightest amount of pause? Doesn't it cast even the slightest bit of doubt on the version of events you support?

And if not, why?

 

[Totovader]

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.



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.

Try again, Red- perhaps you can address the quote from the Deputy Chief I included in this post...

Or... just ignore it. It does- after all- attack your silly conspiracy theory fantasy.

 

[WildCat]

Is the opinion of the collapse available from every firefighter on the scene?

Those quotes which are available suggest that the word was passed down to those on the scene, not that it was their independent assessment.

Even I'm getting bored of making this point, repeatedly.

No, firefighters never can tell when a building is about to collapse!

Except when they can:

The trouble began around noon, when a fire battalion chief driving by noticed a crack in the wall of the building at 102 East 124th Street. He radioed for firefighters to be sent there.
The building’s facade gave way within minutes, and at 3:10 p.m., with more than 100 firefighters standing by, the roof and the top floor gave way, leaving a pile of bricks, scaffolding and wood.

Maybe RedIbis knows the REAL story, that some mysterious higher-up told the battalion chief that the building was about to collapse?

 

[RedIbis]

Shocking that you haven't bothered to respond... and I'm betting you won't either.

Pretty sure we've been through this before, Red- you don't really help your case at all by just saying "no I'm not" and then running away. It's a bit childish, and it just makes you look that much more guilty.

I addressed your comments in my first post- there's no need to go dig up your quotes when everyone here was involved with the discussion and has the ability to go view them on their own if they disagree with my observations.

So instead of using the quote function, you use quotation marks around a fake quote.

 

[Totovader]

So instead of using the quote function, you use quotation marks around a fake quote.

So instead of answering the question, you're going to keep pretending that you're being slighted, somehow.

For the last time: if you believe that my observations are incorrect- then correct them. How about you provide a quote (or even make one) showing how I'm wrong?

Your best starting point would be to address the information I have already provided.

 

[Totovader]

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.

Source


Red- if I'm wrong, then why have you consistently dodged the quote above?

 

[GStan]

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

Red, you stated that you do not have an answer to the above question, which I believe is far more intellectually honest than just making up an unsupported speculative opinion just to make the CD theory possible. However, I hope you do realize that somewhere along the path between the official explanation of 9/11 and proving that there was a conspiracy that involves the CD of WTC7, that question will have to be answered.

Why would you not take a break from JREF and, instead, spend some of that time talking to a few of the firefighters who were there on 9/11? You have made over 1,500 posts here and probably are no closer now to the hard truth about firefighter accounts than you were when you first started here, despite the best efforts of many here to point you in the right direction on this issue. If you are truly interested in the pursuit of truth, it would seem that getting clarification from the firefighters on your lingering questions would be a critical step. Are you just hoping that someone else will contact the firefighters to clarify your critical questions? Do you fear what the firefighters would tell you? I know I would if I were in your position. If they gave the answers I suspect they would give (in further support of the official explanation of WTC7 collapse), I would have one of three options: 1) declare the firefighters to be erroneous/incompetent, 2) declare the firefighters to be accomplices or 3) abandon any conspiracy arguments that attempt to manipulate firefighter accounts into supporting a CD theory. I assume that none of those options are very attractive to many conspiracy theorists.

The accounts of the firefighters wholly support the official explanation of the events of 9/11. They do not, as they stand now, in any way whatsoever, support the theory that WTC7 was intentionally demolished as part of a conspiracy. Contact the firefighters to get the answers you seek, or stop trying to cram the firefighter accounts into your theory.

 

[WildCat]

Source


Red- if I'm wrong, then why have you consistently dodged the quote above?

Red dodges all questions whose answers are inconvenient for him. He's not at all interested in the facts, only in preserving his fantasy.

 

[RedIbis]

Red, you stated that you do not have an answer to the above question, which I believe is far more intellectually honest than just making up an unsupported speculative opinion just to make the CD theory possible. However, I hope you do realize that somewhere along the path between the official explanation of 9/11 and proving that there was a conspiracy that involves the CD of WTC7, that question will have to be answered.

Why would you not take a break from JREF and, instead, spend some of that time talking to a few of the firefighters who were there on 9/11? You have made over 1,500 posts here and probably are no closer now to the hard truth about firefighter accounts than you were when you first started here, despite the best efforts of many here to point you in the right direction on this issue. If you are truly interested in the pursuit of truth, it would seem that getting clarification from the firefighters on your lingering questions would be a critical step. Are you just hoping that someone else will contact the firefighters to clarify your critical questions? Do you fear what the firefighters would tell you? I know I would if I were in your position. If they gave the answers I suspect they would give (in further support of the official explanation of WTC7 collapse), I would have one of three options: 1) declare the firefighters to be erroneous/incompetent, 2) declare the firefighters to be accomplices or 3) abandon any conspiracy arguments that attempt to manipulate firefighter accounts into supporting a CD theory. I assume that none of those options are very attractive to many conspiracy theorists.

The accounts of the firefighters wholly support the official explanation of the events of 9/11. They do not, as they stand now, in any way whatsoever, support the theory that WTC7 was intentionally demolished as part of a conspiracy. Contact the firefighters to get the answers you seek, or stop trying to cram the firefighter accounts into your theory.

I appreciate the calm tone of your post, but what you and nearly every other poster in this thread seems to ignore is that I am discussing a very specific list of eyewitness accounts and the way this list was interpreted by Gravy, other jrefers and myself. Why is there so much resistance to this one point?

 

[GStan]

I appreciate the calm tone of your post, but what you and nearly every other poster in this thread seems to ignore is that I am discussing a very specific list of eyewitness accounts and the way this list was interpreted by Gravy, other jrefers and myself. Why is there so much resistance to this one point?

I'm not certain what specific list of eyewitness accounts to which you are referring. And I don't believe that Gravy or any other JREFers have 'interpreted' the accounts. There is not really any need to, as their accounts are largely corraborated by the video and photo evidence of the events of the day. I think the resistance you find is when you 1) use only isolated statements that are not wholly consistent with the 'official story' in support of your argument and ignore the preponderance of firefighter accounts that contradict your argument and 2) try to interpret what a firefighter may have meant, when you or anyone else could just ask the firefighter what he meant. Why is there so much resistance to this one point?

 

[RedIbis]

I'm not certain what specific list of eyewitness accounts to which you are referring. And I don't believe that Gravy or any other JREFers have 'interpreted' the accounts. There is not really any need to, as their accounts are largely corraborated by the video and photo evidence of the events of the day. I think the resistance you find is when you 1) use only isolated statements that are not wholly consistent with the 'official story' in support of your argument and ignore the preponderance of firefighter accounts that contradict your argument and 2) try to interpret what a firefighter may have meant, when you or anyone else could just ask the firefighter what he meant. Why is there so much resistance to this one point?

You just came to a conclusion on a list about which you admit you are not certain.

 

[johnny karate]

RedIbis, what is the point of this game of "Gotcha!" you insist on playing with us?

 

[GStan]

You just came to a conclusion on a list about which you admit you are not certain.

Well, that's partly true. I'm not certain which specific accounts you are talking about. But I have read the entire list of firefighter accounts from Gravy's page. I am drawing conclusions from the testimonies in their entirety.

Additionally, I'm not certain of anything related to 9/11. I just haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the 'official story' is incorrect on any substantial point.

 

[SDC]

I think that his point is that he has nothing substantial to critique about 9/11. He is trying to find the tiniest nits to pick. Like all the Truthers, he cannot come up with any reasonable explanations or narratives to counter what is generally accepted; so he pretends he is pointing out false underlying assumptions. And he is trying to undermine confidence in the actual evidence and testimonies, by pretending that there is any reason to suspect that rank'n'file firefighters were misled by their officers, or other people in authority, as to the stability of WTC 7.

It'd be laughable if it weren't so pitiable. Maybe it's both.

 

[GStan]

Red, I had a couple of outstanding questions.

Why would you not take a break from JREF and, instead, spend some of that time talking to a few of the firefighters who were there on 9/11? You have made over 1,500 posts here and probably are no closer now to the hard truth about firefighter accounts than you were when you first started here, despite the best efforts of many here to point you in the right direction on this issue. If you are truly interested in the pursuit of truth, it would seem that getting clarification from the firefighters on your lingering questions would be a critical step. Are you just hoping that someone else will contact the firefighters to clarify your critical questions? Do you fear what the firefighters would tell you? I know I would if I were in your position. If they gave the answers I suspect they would give (in further support of the official explanation of WTC7 collapse), I would have one of three options: 1) declare the firefighters to be erroneous/incompetent, 2) declare the firefighters to be accomplices or 3) abandon any conspiracy arguments that attempt to manipulate firefighter accounts into supporting a CD theory. I assume that none of those options are very attractive to many conspiracy theorists.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, what is the point of this game of "Gotcha!" you insist on playing with us?

Clarifying a very important point. Many of those on the scene at WTC 7 were told that WTC 7's collapse was inevitable. This is markedly different from all on the scene knowing it was going to collapse.

 

[SDC]

Clarifying a very important point. Many of those on the scene at WTC 7 were told that WTC 7's collapse was inevitable. This is markedly different from all on the scene knowing it was going to collapse.

Your point is "many" vs "all"?

Or is the key phrase "were told" versus the ... oh, what the heck is it here, a gerundive? -- "knowing"?

Trying to postulate an evil fire dept commanders theory? Were they in actual communication (perhaps through their Blackberries) with Gen Myers?

ETA: boldings in quote mine.

Pfeh.

 

[GStan]

Clarifying a very important point. Many of those on the scene at WTC 7 were told that WTC 7's collapse was inevitable. This is markedly different from all on the scene knowing it was going to collapse.

Yet another perfect example of something that could be cleared up and/or at least quantified by asking the firefighters who gave these accounts whether they were merely told the building would collapse or if they actually observed the building themselves and believed/knew it would collapse.

 

[CHF]

Clarifying a very important point. Many of those on the scene at WTC 7 were told that WTC 7's collapse was inevitable. This is markedly different from all on the scene knowing it was going to collapse.

Any idea why those FDNY chose to accept that claim?

Were they stupid?