Gravy Cleanses Silverstein Quote

Loss Leader said:
Once again, BS1234, I remind you that I provided you the names, addresses, phone numbers and emails of the men who actually sorted the rubble of the towers. These men will give you their first-hand testimony as to what the remains of the towers consisted of and all of the objects they found that were not shredded steel and powdered concrete. They will also give you access to people who worked for very, very low wages on the conveyer belts sorting the debris, in case you think that wealthy people cannot be trusted as a rule.

And once again, you will ignore this post. You will not do any first-hand research. You will not speak to actual witnesses. The reason you will not do this is because you have a mental defect that makes your ego incapable of dealing in person with people you fear will not support you.

If you wish to dispute this, please provide the contact information for your closest relatives including your brother-in-law. You won't do that, though, because you know your sister and brother-in-law also believe you to be mentally ill.
Click to expand...

Loss Leader, as I recall you wanted me to talk to people who work at a landfill. Kent suggested I speak to Jonathan Barnett, who has emailed me twice, but failed to answer a single question I posed to him. I will continue trying.

I don't know why you deniers are so intent on dispariging the first hand accounts of firefighters who say there were massive explosions, bombs, and secondary devices going off, that they were blown upstairs, etc. At last count, there were 118 of them. To suggest that veteran firefighters do not know the difference between bombs and fire extinguishers is pretty insulting.

As for my brother in law, its very interesting. For those who missed it, my brother in law is an architect. He does indeed support the OCT, and has indeed said I was "crazy". As Loss Leader fails to remind readers, he also was not even remotely familiar with the facts of 9/11, not aware of WTC7, not aware that the pancake theory had been discarded.

I have attempted to show him pictures and videos, and he flat refuses. It's like Galileo's telescope, he can't look. All of this I said before. Here's the new part.

My brother in law has confessed, sort of.

He used very guarded terms, and spoke very hesitantly.

He said, "Suppose you were right. Suppose the government blew up the WTC. Suppose you could prove it. Now what? Now you have the whole administration running off to hide in seclusion somewhere. The military takes over the government, we have a coup. Now we are living in a military dictatorship. Is that what you guys want?"

He went on to say something like "It's time you grew up. This is not a perfect world. Sometimes people have a means to an end. It would be nice if everything could get done without lies and cheating and hurting people, but that's not the world we live in. In the real world, there are teams. You choose whose team you are on, and you play. From then on, it's about winning, and getting the job done."

I asked him point blank, "Did the WTC come down by controlled demolition?"

And he said "What difference does it make? What are you going to do about it? Do you want to live in a military dictatorship?"
 
Bell said:
Kind of like when Jerry hits Tom over the head with a poker, and the poker takes the shape of Tom's head?
Click to expand...
Exactly, add in road runner and coyote images then season with the "adult" equivalents, CSI, the Matrix and V for Vendetta and you have the CTists brain.
 
By the way Loss Leader, forgive me if I missed your answer. Have you resolved the "no pancaking" vs. "pancaking caused the squibs" problem yet?
 
He went on to say something like "It's time you grew up.
Click to expand...

That was your best fictional character quote yet! Though, I am sure people have told you that plenty. Ya might wanna listen, at some point. Now is good.
 
I don't know why you deniers are so intent on dispariging the first hand accounts of firefighters who say there were massive explosions, bombs, and secondary devices going off, that they were blown upstairs, etc. At last count, there were 118 of them. To suggest that veteran firefighters do not know the difference between bombs and fire extinguishers is pretty insulting.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.
So you would be able to go to any of the Firefighters and they would tell you that there were bombs in the towers? Not just it "sounded like a bomb" but "it was bombs and that's why the towers fell."
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
To suggest that veteran firefighters do not know the difference between bombs and fire extinguishers is pretty insulting.
Click to expand...
Of course they do, bombs are round, black, have a fuse coming out the top and the word BOMB written in white letters on them. Just like in the cartoons.

Funny how you say "difference between bombs and fire extinguishers", instead of "difference between bombs exploding and fire extinguishers exploding. You disingenuous sack of dung.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I don't know why you deniers are so intent on dispariging the first hand accounts of firefighters who say there were massive explosions, bombs, and secondary devices going off, that they were blown upstairs, etc. At last count, there were 118 of them. To suggest that veteran firefighters do not know the difference between bombs and fire extinguishers is pretty insulting.
Click to expand...
How many said there were bombs going off, TS? Tell us. Right now.

Put up or shut up.

ETA: Excellent! You provided something to back your case with, almost without being asked! I'll be back with my report.
 
Last edited:
Since this is a debate, I don't consider this a highjack, there is an excellent post on the LC forum by "Maximumbob" on the 9/11 truth in the media section, an excellent read debating all the troother 'facts".
 
My brother in law has confessed, sort of.
He used very guarded terms, and spoke very hesitantly.
Click to expand...

He thinks you are a complete maroon, but is indulging you for familial reasons.
We need a confession from your mother and father also.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
A lot of powder, very little macroscopic chunks, nothing resembling a floor, much less 220 floors. I see one flat chunk about 20 ' x 5'. Let's be very generous with the above photos and say there is 100 tons of macroscopic concrete in the photos. This would represent 1/2000 of the total.

What happened to the remainder of the concrete is not a mystery. Lower Manhattan was covered from the East River to the Hudson with powder inches deep. The sky appeared overcast because there was so much dust suspended in it. The photos and videos show this pulverization occurring.

I stand by the statement that some very large percentage of the non-metallic contents of the towers were converted into powder.
Click to expand...

Psst....TS! Look here!
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I don't know why you deniers are so intent on dispariging the first hand accounts of firefighters who say there were massive explosions, bombs, and secondary devices going off, that they were blown upstairs, etc. At last count, there were 118 of them. To suggest that veteran firefighters do not know the difference between bombs and fire extinguishers is pretty insulting.
Click to expand...

Ts, you preach as though you know exactly what fireman know and do not know.

This is a straight forward question.

As any fireman ever said they believe the sounds of explosions came from explosive devices?

Just one?

See I am not a fireman but have had a look at what would cause explosions inside buildings that are on fire. Along with the usual combustible stuff, there includes high voltage transformers, high voltage junction boxes, gas pipes and other things.

But firemen know a lot more about fires than I do. They know, as I have found out and now pass onto you there are other causes of explosions inside burning buildings. One is called a “back draft” and the other is “flash over”.

Anyway, as you have no doubt seen the movie “back draft”, you will know what causes this; basically a fire is starved of oxygen but continues to smoulder away. Giving this a new source of oxygen will cause a massive explosion.


Back draft
o A condition where there is insufficient air to support combustion
o A sudden introduction of fresh into an oxygen-starved fire causes a back draft explosion
o Signs of back draft include puffing smoke going in and out of the building, dark smoke in the structure with little flame, smoke emitting from openings in building
o Back draft is relieved by venting at the highest point in the structure

Click to expand...
http://www.firehouse.com/training/drills/2004/truck1.html

The other cause being a “flashover” is when the fire heats the air around it to such a point it will actually ignite causing a massive explosion.

A "flashover" ,unlike a back draft is a very rapid event and depending on the size of the room can happen with minutes of a fire starting.

http://www.fire.gov/newsletter/summer2001/page_two.htm

I have even, on your behave gone further and found footage of what a "flashover" looks like. (Please bear in mind a flashover is an explosion).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cH79ePz_l8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d96ywpu_-R4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwFMsnQEWfY

As I have said I am not a fire-fighter, nor was I there, but neither are you. So why don’t you talk to the fireman that was there and ask them?

Does "flashover" or even "backdrafts" seem more reasonable and plausible to you? Or would you prefer secret death squads planting tons and tons of explosive devices inside the Towers?

Am I saying this is the answer; no of course not I am saying that fires do things inside buildings that are unexpected and cause things to explode, including the very atmosphere around it.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
By the way Loss Leader, forgive me if I missed your answer. Have you resolved the "no pancaking" vs. "pancaking caused the squibs" problem yet?
Click to expand...

The most logical explanation is that the 'squibs' were caused by air pressure.

The pancaking theory has not been discarded.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
By the way Loss Leader, forgive me if I missed your answer. Have you resolved the "no pancaking" vs. "pancaking caused the squibs" problem yet?
Click to expand...

In fact, I did in this post.

Glad to see your brother-in-law is trying to reach out to you. You should take his example and meet him the other half of the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom