Prisonplanet.com sinks to new low

[Swing Dangler]

straw man, Produce empirical evidence of explosives. Or concede.

I can't produce empirical evidence only an empirical method except for the generally accepted notion that there were pop cans in the building and therefore pop cans exploded to help assist in the collapse.

Are you saying there were no pop cans in the Towers?

I'm still awaiting the empirical evidence for a jet fuel fireball causing the damage in the basement levels of the North Tower.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

This truly disgusts me.

They are taking an out-of-context hearsay remark of a firefighter who died on 9/11 and using it to prop up their sad ideology.

My instinct is to contact someone and inform them of this. I certainly wouldn't presume to bother his family and possibly cause them anymore pain, so I was thinking maybe someone in the FDNY.

Any thoughts?

The headline trumpets "America's Number One Collapse Expert...".

That's just great. A fireman who had a hobby of studying collapses was top dog: "Fire Chief Mike Antonucci, Downey's best friend, said that Downey's hobby was "To study building collapses..."".

In actuality, Ray Downey was a legend - a highly-respected and heavily decorated firefighter who was a master at his trade. Of course, since his trade never, ever dealt with massively damaged, burning, and ultimately collapsing skyscrapers, he's not much help in diagnosing 9/11.

This Alex Kones cretin is pathetic. Stop trading off the brilliant, heroic life led by this man, a man who's no longer around to defend himself, you insect.

 

[maccy]

What is next? The complete removal of all history books from the shelf considering they are filled with hearsay [...]

That's the thing, real history books don't rely on hearsay. History may not be able to take advantage of experimentation and the scientific method, but it still has standards of evidence.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/browse/makesense/

Only idiot non-historians like Webster Tarpley and David Irving fill their books with hearsay and speculation. And, no, robustly arguing against the poor use of sources does not inevitably lead to censorship. Your argument is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

 

[maccy]

I'm still awaiting the empirical evidence for a jet fuel fireball causing the damage in the basement levels of the North Tower.

I don't expect Swing to follow this link, but if anybody reading this suspects that he isn't completely ignorant and may have a point, please start here:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/wtcsiteoverview

I question Swing Dangler's ability to research and his willingness to recognise evidence when it is pointed out to him.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm still awaiting the empirical evidence for a jet fuel fireball causing the damage in the basement levels of the North Tower.

Please read:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower:witnessaccounts,lobb

As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn’t recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene.

And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint.

(Vasana) Mutuanot was in the lobby of Tower One when she heard the first explosion. Thinking it was a bomb like the terrorist attack in 1993, she turned to run, looking over her shoulder as flames leaped from a freight elevator shaft cooking her back and legs and right cheek. "It was a fireball with sand and heat, like a hurricane of fire,"

(bolding mine)

These are injuries from fire, not explosions. It can't get much clearer than that.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure. It is called testing for the chemical residue and signatures of explosives.

I do have empirical evidence that a Death Star didn't destroy the WTC from space. It was the erroneous order given to our nation's Xwing fighter squadrons to attack the non-existent planet destroying behemoth. The leader of Red Squadron, Red-5, according to transcripts, did not see the DS on his approaching attack run nor did it run into the potential for the invisible entity in space.

Those transcripts were clearly faked by Imperial agents. Try again, please.

Other firefighters:

"There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"

"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."


"Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and were able to pry open the doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me. "I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'

"I said, ‘Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?’ He said, ‘No.’ . . . I said, ‘Why not? They blew up the other one.’ I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ‘If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one.’ He said, ‘No, they're not.’ I said, ‘Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out.’ He said, ‘I'm just the Battalion Chief. I can't order that.’ . . . I said, ‘You got a ****ing radio and you got a ****ing mouth. Use the ****ing things. Empty this ****ing building.’ Again he said, ‘I'm just a Battalion Chief. I can't do that.’ . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said, ‘They are evacuating this tower.’ . . . And sometime after that . . . I watched the north tower fall." [William Reynolds - Firefighter]

Well, that first account, as has already been pointed out, wasn't even in reference to WTC.

The second account is hearsay, and inconclusive.

And all of the accounts you have given were in the moment recollections of the chaos during the actual event, none of which are even remotely conclusive. Have you, or anyone in your movement contacted any of these people to verify their thoughts on what happened that day? If not, why not?

Oh well, it is too bad these brave heroes don't know the difference between bombs going off and pop cans exploding.

So, it is your contention that bombs and soda cans are the only sources of explosions? Really?

ROFLMAO. Ok so an author can take a historical record to interpret history, but a conspiracy site cannot. Ok, hypocrisies noted.

A historian will not take a single, unconfirmed account of an event as gospel, especially when it contradicts all other evidence. That is the sole domain of dishonest "journalists" with an axe to grind. When you're done ROFLMAO, you might want to visit a university and have a history professor explain to you how historical events are properly documented.

 

[CHF]

Swing, just be a grownup and admit you don't have evidence of explosives and that your AE911 engineers haven't produced a damn thing.

This shifting of the burden of proof and dodging of my challenge is just pathetic.

 

[dudalb]

I am not surprised that the Truth movement will stoop so low. In their demented universe,they are Neo from "The Matrix" and Guy Fawkes from "V For Vendetta" fighting "The Man" and therefore any tactics are justified.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Do you have any empirical evidence showing there were no explosives used?

Shouldn't this be recommended for a Stundie?

 

[dudalb]

Shouldn't this be recommended for a Stundie?

I second the nomination. My jaw dropped that somebody would dare to use that argument.

 

[Swing Dangler]

That's the thing, real history books don't rely on hearsay. History may not be able to take advantage of experimentation and the scientific method, but it still has standards of evidence.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/browse/makesense/

Only idiot non-historians like Webster Tarpley and David Irving fill their books with hearsay and speculation. And, no, robustly arguing against the poor use of sources does not inevitably lead to censorship. Your argument is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.

So your saying the WTC Task Force Interview and the direct quotes from Father John Delendick as verified by the same report are hearsay?
I posted the link for you to read the quote.

hearsay:
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:

Please explain how my argument is an example of an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later.

I do agree, however, that labeling him as America's Number One Collapse Expert without a source is a little erroneous.

 

[GT/CS]

Why do you all argue with Swing? It's obvious he doesn't believe what he posts and is just playing with you. This is just what he does for kicks instead of being a productive member of society.

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

SwingDangler's line of thinking: "The fact that no evidence of explosives were found means that explosives were used, because they blew up all the evidence!"

He still hasn't shown where people have wished death on his heroes.

 

[johnny karate]

So your saying the WTC Task Force Interview and the direct quotes from Father John Delendick as verified by the same report are hearsay?

Yes.

 

[johnny karate]

Why do you all argue with Swing? It's obvious he doesn't believe what he posts and is just playing with you. This is just what he does for kicks instead of being a productive member of society.

The same reason I play checkers with my 8 year-old nephew. It's not remotely challenging, but it does pass the time.

 

[GT/CS]

Good point!!!

 

[e^n]

They weren't bombs, they were pop cans! I already told you that. Have you ever heard a pop can in a fire explode? It sounds just like a bomb and often get mistaken for devices used to bring buildings down.

As we all know, only explosives can possibly sound like explosions

 

[Swing Dangler]

Those transcripts were clearly faked by Imperial agents. Try again, please.

Do you have evidence the Imperial agents faked the documents that I downloaded from the Rebel's website?

Well, that first account, as has already been pointed out, wasn't even in reference to WTC.

Point accepted.

The second account is hearsay, and inconclusive.

I was asked to provide other accounts of firefighters who thought there were bombs in the building. I contend that what they thought were bombs were actually anything but bombs. This of course includes pop cans.

So, it is your contention that bombs and soda cans are the only sources of explosions? Really?

I've been told here numerous times that those explosions that firefighters heard were anything BUT BOMBS. So I'm now convinced due to the crack investigative work at

A historian will not take a single, unconfirmed account of an event as gospel, especially when it contradicts all other evidence.

I think the point of the article was to show an example of another person who was there in the buildings and provided a first hand account of what they thought was bombs and/or explosive devices that were in the building. The only scientific way to prove otherwise is to test for chemical signatures for explosives. To my knowledge, no Federal or independent agency did so.
But instead of accepting at face value the comments of the people who were there, their comments get explained away as anything but what the survivors and victims thought they were

"The fact that no evidence of explosives were found means that explosives were used, because they blew up all the evidence!"

WRONG! It means the theory remains a valid one to apply to the scientific method.

 

[CHF]

WRONG! It means the theory remains a valid one to apply to the scientific method.

So when are all your engineers at AE911 gonna get a move on and start writing some papers?

Thus far I've seen nothing from them.

 

[A W Smith]

WRONG! It means the theory remains a valid one to apply to the scientific method.

Show us one piece of steel that has been cut by a demolition charge in the countless photos of falling or piled debris. The scientific method dictates that you first find that piece of steel with a severed blast signature. Then you test locally for residue.