Loose Change - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion? The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.
 
Mutton--- I don't think Gravy's comments were directed at you specifically, more likely a general lob toward the sources most of the theorists use. I mean, the guy has been specifically trying to right that situation by writing his debunking guides. I think you may be getting a little heated because a few folks see your "evidence" of explosives or explosions presented in a blurry manner. To be fair, we have all heard the fireman's quotes many, many times and several posters have given viable reasons for their testimonies which sound much more plausible than to assume there were explosives used.

mutton-head said:
Once again, A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is evidence, It is not a conclusion, but it is evidence. Do you even know the difference. Are any of you paying attention?

This is only evidence that stuff made noises LIKE an explosion, not that there was a detonation. What are we missing?

Edit for punctuation.
 
I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion? The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.

So some firefighters said there were noises that were like a detonator. What can we conclude from that? I'd say we can conclude the firefighters heard noises that sounded like detonators.

Given that no one had experienced what had happened to the WTC before, I would be very surprised to hear a firefighter describe noises in terms of what actually happened on that day.
 
Mutton-head, I'll restrain myself from dogpiling right now, but I will offer a suggestion. If you want to quote what others have said on this forum, use the [/quote] and
tags, except of course reverse the order. You can also use it like this:
CurtC said:
to have it automatically attribute the quote at the top.
 
I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion? The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.
So call them! Drop an email to the union! Their number is (212) 683-4832. Here's their website. Line up your quotes, give them a ring and ask, "Hey, so and so said such and such. What did he mean by that?" Ask, "Hey, you guys have to still go into buildings, are you insisting that bomb squads go with you because of the explosions on 9-11?" You said in your first post that "If I can’t verify a piece of information, I throw it out." So verify it!

Oh, and the "I'm not responding to so-and-so" schtick is bull. No one's buying it. Particularly when your very first post repeated the outrageous lie about NIST ignoring the existence of the buildings' interior columns. Physician, heal thyself.
 
Manny Says

“They used similes. The guy you quoted who was gesturing with his hands? He was referring to the actual building collapse. I'll get you his name when I get home. You talk about investigations -- call FDNY. Call their public relations office. Heck, call their union. Ask them who said what and what they meant.
Now try to reconstruct a 110-story office building. First, you rig up a 110-story wooden frame...

Similes, metaphors, assumptions. My investigation would have included real interviews with the firemen gesturing and using similes. I would have compared their expert testimony with the steel from the towers.
Like I said, and I will repeat myself yet again, the tower didn’t have to be reconstructed right away. I would have just made sure that it wasn’t discarded. It had to be cleared anyway, why not put it somewhere. Tell me that it would have been unreasonable to keep the steel, and not discard it, just like any crime scene investigator would do.

I honestly am at a loss why none of you get this point. The firefighters gave their opinions, and nothing was done with those opinions. They were ignored. If you were the head of the investigation, would you have ignored the testimony/opinions of the firefighters? I would have compared their testimony to the way in which the steel was cut/torn/broken/bent. If the damage was completely inconsistent with a controlled detonation, then guess what, you just ruled it out. Conclusively. This is very basic investigation procedure.
 
A firefighter saying “It was as if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert. Honestly I’m getting tired of repeating myself.
Bold "as" my correction.
Now consider:
From the Washington Post:
"It was as if all of us were already pronounced dead," said Tony Cash, 25, who endured three nights of hunger, violence and darkness at the convention center.
Is Tony Cash saying they were pronounced dead?

From the Guardian Unlimited:
It was as if the heavens had opened and golden boxes were raining down on the British people.
Did golden boxes rain down on the British people?

And finally from the Hindu:
"The gargantuan tower slumped like a vanquished Goliath right in front of our eyes. And a gigantic swirling wall of dust and ash gushed through the streets as if a dam burst and it menacingly chased the crowd".
Was the World Trade Center collapse actually caused by a dam bursting?

"It was as if" is a classic example of a similie Mutton-Head!

Mutton-Head said:
Once again, A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is evidence, It is not a conclusion, but it is evidence. Do you even know the difference. Are any of you paying attention?
And where are all these firefighters today who are convinced there were explosives? How many of the surviving 9/11 firefighters have been contacted by the "truth" movement conducting their "research"? Enquiring minds want to know...
 
CurtC says

Mutton-head, I'll restrain myself from dogpiling right now, but I will offer a suggestion. If you want to quote what others have said on this forum, use the quoteand quote tags, except of course reverse the order. You can also use it like this: quote=CurtC to have it automatically attribute the quote at the top.

Hey Look! I did it! Yeah! Thanks CurtC
 
And btw, you cannot reconstruct a 110 story building using twisted steel and crumbled concrete! It doesn't work that way.
 
Ok, one more post for today, and then I have to go.

To Wildcat, thanks for the grammar lesson. I know what "as" means. Once again, I would have followed up on those statements. I would not have let a firman who was testifying storm out exasperated. These men put their life on the line. I think the guy who felt so frustrated deserved beter treatment.

I will continue tomorrow.
 
Hey MH. You can also use that quote thingy in the bottom right of the posts.
It'll then link to the post too.
 
I want to add that the “assumption” that they were explosive charges is just that. It is an assumption. It can be confirmed or refuted in the investigation. The problem with the NIST report is that it takes assumptions and calls them conclusions. You can’t arrive at a conclusion until you have done the work. If many firemen says “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” That is a direct quote from one of the videos, spoken by an actual fireman, as three other firemen agreed.

“Transcripts of this testimony, or verifiable quotes from the firemen indicating such?”

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes……..
Search for yourself.

Dubfan says

“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so.

So, if a fireman says "It was if they had detonators, to take down a building." you take that as him making an assumption that explosives were used? Isn't he just describing what it was like, without actually making the assumption? Seems like that to me. Him making an assumption that there were explosives would be "I think there were explosives in that building".

I think that saying that fireman said that there were explosives in the building is a distortion of the truth. I've seen far too many cases so far of selective quote editing or people quoting things that people really didn't say. You can blame it on the other 9/11 conspiracy guys, but due to the track record of these "explosives" quotes that I have encountered so far I need to see and examine specific quotes of fireman saying that there were explosives (and not just explosions) in the buildings.
 
Maybe the easiest thing would be if you could find a single instance where somone asked a fireman. "was it a bomb?" and they answered, "yes it definitely was." Now if your suggestion is that the firemen interviewed during chaos of 9/11 were claiming that explosives were used, then it should be very easy to verify their meaning as others have pointed out, yet not one of the CT videos' has done that (as far as we know, I doubt they'd report a failure). You might keep in mind that, in the intervening years, there has not been a single fireman come forward to make such a claim. Or that not a single one of them has joined a 9/11 "truth" movement, rather indicating the answer in advance.
But then, why would you assume that all fireman have extensive experience with explosions and/or bombs? Are there that many in New York?

On Gravy, his rant was directed at those CTers who seem to think expert evidence is totally unnecessary in this case. Now, it may have to do with the fact that they have zero experts on their side, but I have seen more than a few CT fans post that they don't need experts, they looked at videos themselves and made their decisions. For something as complicated as this issue, this is patently ridiculous. I have had one chap, when I cited the example "where will you go if your car breaks down?" He replied "I will learn to fix it myself." With some exasperation, I asked him who would he learn from. He still didn't get it.
 
They used similes. The guy you quoted who was gesturing with his hands? He was referring to the actual building collapse. I'll get you his name when I get home. You talk about investigations -- call FDNY. Call their public relations office. Heck, call their union. Ask them who said what and what they meant.

Here's how to reconstruct an airplane: First, you rig up a wooden frame in the shape of the particular aircraft. Then you attach the pieces. It's really hard work, especially for the fuselage, because the pieces are often small. But it's possible because all the pieces except for the fuselage are distinct -- from the manual you can figure out where the door goes, for instance.

Now try to reconstruct a 110-story office building. First, you rig up a 110-story wooden frame...

For whatever it's worth, mockups are not always done in plane crashes. In particular they're not done when it's too difficult relative to what one would learn from it. Only a partial mockup was done of Valujet 592, because it was too hard to do the rest once they discovered what caused the crash. The investigation of United 232 saw only a mockup of the aft section and the tail because it was known that that was where the cause was.
I want to second what Manny has said here, particularly the part I bolded.

I'll agree with Mutton-Head in that it would have been nice to have been able to save all the debris from the WTC buildings, I doubt it would be practical to do so, or to move it such that it could remain separated by building, etc. The costs of that additional expense alone would be significant.

The process of "reconstructing" three huge buildings would require facilities, manpower, and (lots of) time. I think they would still be trying to this day to "reconstruct" those buildings for purposes of the mishap investigation. We'd still be waiting for the NIST report if they had chosen to do as Mutton-Head suggested.
 
The CTers don't need experts when they have movies. I recall one insane thread where one of them felt he was being watched by some evil agency or another and his fellow CTers told him to go watch certain movies to see how they operate and how to evade them!
Maybe they wanted him to do some daring stunts for the next crap 'documentary' they are planning.
 
Ok, one more post for today, and then I have to go.

To Wildcat, thanks for the grammar lesson. I know what "as" means. Once again, I would have followed up on those statements. I would not have let a firman who was testifying storm out exasperated. These men put their life on the line. I think the guy who felt so frustrated deserved beter treatment.

I will continue tomorrow.
I asked you before, has anyone in the "truth" movement actually interviewed surviving 9/11 firemen who witnessed bombs going off? If not, why not?

Why are the firemen not up in arms over this cover-up or lack of follow-through to their testimony of bombs?

Which firemen stormed out exasperated?
 
Pardalis says“Alot of things could sound and look like explosions without being explosions. Probably these alledged "superiors" were just doing these firemen a favour so that they wouldn't make fools of themselves”

Well, that’s allot of coulds and probablies for me.

Too much for you? You are the one who seems to be making the biggest assumption:

Explosives are the only plausible explanation that I can come up with. This also would solve the problem that the building collapsed symmetrically in its own foot-print. This has NEVER happened spontaneously, from a fire, or earthquake, or hurricane, or plane crash. But we have seen it occur hundreds of times from controlled demolitions. (Explosives inside the building at predetermined locations, exploded in a predetermined sequence.)

I want to add that the “assumption” that they were explosive charges is just that. It is an assumption. It can be confirmed or refuted in the investigation. The problem with the NIST report is that it takes assumptions and calls them conclusions.

What do you consider unconfirmed assumptions in the NIST report?

This starting to feel like 50 against one.

Whew.....

Well, your explosive devices theory is a pretty big assumption... you have to expect this kind of reaction.
 
Oh wait, one more thing

I found this

Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks.

Does anybody know this guy? Any opinions or further information on him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom