Wtc 7

[EnJaySee]

I personally like the one where they claim the planes should've bounced off the buildings better. But smoke generators is definitely up there.

Once again, I'm impressed with the level of research shown to back up claims "I watched the video a hunnerd times, I don't need to do no stinkin' maths".

 

[johnny karate]

I think the FDNY did a fine job on 9/11. In addition to their tremendous sacrifices I esoecially appreciated the 12,000 pages of sworn testimony they gave in the days and weeks after the events.

None of which mentions smoke generators. A point you keep blatantly avoiding.

Some of them, like the 'all 47 floors' guy made statements that are hard to reconcile with the visual reecord but that's not proof of anything. He may have been just exaggerating or mistaken.

More than one firefighter made a similar claim. Are they all "exaggerating or mistaken"?

Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.

The testimony linked about contradicts this statement.

bill, you're on record claiming the FDNY's account of 9/11 cannot be trusted, and you've made some very strong implications that they are perhaps keeping silent about certain suspicious aspects of it.

I'll ask you again the question you keep avoiding: What reason do you have to think the FDNY might be untruthful, or conspicuously silent, regarding what they experienced on 9/11?

 

[bill smith]

None of which mentions smoke generators. A point you keep blatantly avoiding.



More than one firefighter made a similar claim. Are they all "exaggerating or mistaken"?



The testimony linked about contradicts this statement.

bill, you're on record claiming the FDNY's account of 9/11 cannot be trusted, and you've made some very strong implications that they are perhaps keeping silent about certain suspicious aspects of it.

I'll ask you again the question you keep avoiding: What reason do you have to think the FDNY might be untruthful, or conspicuously silent, regarding what they experienced on 9/11?

If the firefighters did not mention the smoke generators perhaps they did not see them. DO I see one though, in the opening scene of the attached video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

Where am I on record saying that the FDNY's acccount cannot be trusted ? In our exchanges I have not used the phrase ''conspicuously silent' nor the word 'untruthful'. Are you sure you have the right poster ?

 

[twinstead]

That would have really sucked if the perps manged to put the [delightfully loony] smoke generators on the wrong floor. Seriously, how stupid would it have looked if smoke was billowing out of the building 20 floors below the plane impacts?

I have to hand it to those NOW work crews and planners.

 

[twinstead]

Yea, I think I'm done with smoke generators.

For future reference, will people like bill be referred to as no-smokers, or non-smokers?

 

[GStan]

That would have really sucked if the perps manged to put the [delightfully loony] smoke generators on the wrong floor. Seriously, how stupid would it have looked if smoke was billowing out of the building 20 floors below the plane impacts?

Pretty damn stupid. But still not even close to the stupidity of truther arguments.

 

[johnny karate]

If the firefighters did not mention the smoke generators perhaps they did not see them. DO I see one though, in the opening scene of the attached video.

Evidence based on what one person claims to see in a video that hundreds of eyewitnesses failed to discern is less than compelling.

Where am I on record saying that the FDNY's acccount cannot be trusted ? In our exchanges I have not used the phrase ''conspicuously silent' nor the word 'untruthful'. Are you sure you have the right poster ?

Words you've used in regards to FDNY testimony:

doubt
1. To be undecided or skeptical about.
2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust.
3. To regard as unlikely.

exaggerate
1. to regard or represent as greater than is true.
2. to make greater or more noticeable.

So I'll ask again:
What reason do you have to be distrustful of the testimony of the FDNY in regards to their experiences on 9/11?

 

[Arus808]

what's with all the youtube references by Bob? could he actually point to WRITTEN documentation instead of looking at low grade, low res, highly pixelated and cobbled together Youtube videos?

 

[bill smith]

Evidence based on what one person claims to see in a video that hundreds of eyewitnesses failed to discern is less than compelling.



Words you've used in regards to FDNY testimony:

doubt
1. To be undecided or skeptical about.
2. To tend to disbelieve; distrust.
3. To regard as unlikely.

exaggerate
1. to regard or represent as greater than is true.
2. to make greater or more noticeable.

So I'll ask again:
What reason do you have to be distrustful of the testimony of the FDNY in regards to their experiences on 9/11?

To say that I am skeptical of the account of one or more firemen who said 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors '' is not surprising in that this statement deviates markedly from the visual record. To say therefore that the firemen were exaggerating or were mistaken is perfectly reasonable in this context and in no way implies distrust.

 

[jaydeehess]

Where am I on record saying that the FDNY's acccount cannot be trusted ? In our exchanges I have not used the phrase ''conspicuously silent' nor the word 'untruthful'. Are you sure you have the right poster ?

Pure semantics!
You claim there were smoke generators and when it is pointed out that no FF mentions such devices you say that they may not have seen them. That brands their accounts untrustworthy whether you are accusing them of deliberatly lieing or of simply being mistaken.

In fact you distrust the FF accounts of major fires in WTC 7, you distrust the FF accounts that the building was in danger of collapsing and you distrust the FF accounts that do not include your contention that there was more smoke than should have been generated by the fires. In short you are discounting the FF accounts pretty much in their entireity and accepting only the minor, obvious point that there was fire in the building.

Thus by your own words you have demonstrated, though not actually come out and been honest about stating it directly, that you find the statements made by the FF's to be suspect, untrustworthy and lacking of mention of aspects that you believe are obvious.

 

[twinstead]

To say that I am skeptical of the account of one or more firemen who said 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors '' is not surprising in that this statement deviates markedly from the visual record. To say the firemen were exaggerating or were mistaken is perfectly reasonable in this context and in no way implies distrust.

Well, then I have to assure you that even though your observations are incredibly divorced from reality, suggesting that YOU are exaggerating or are mistaken is perfectly reasonable, and in no way implies distrust.

 

[johnny karate]

To say that I am skeptical of the account of one or more firemen who said 'WTC7 was fully involved in fire, from ground to ceiling, all 47 floors '' is not surprising in that this statement deviates markedly from the visual record. To say that the firemen were exaggerating or were mistaken is perfectly reasonable in this context and in no way implies distrust.

Multiple firefighters made statements that describe WTC7 as fully involved in fire. I provided you with a link proving this. If you do not trust this statement from one firefighter, then you must not trust it from any of the others.

You claim the visual evidence does not match FDNY testimony. Instead of coming to the conlusion that the video evidence is incomplete, you have instead called into question the veracity of the FDNY's testimony. I would like to know why.

What reason do you have to mistrust the testimony of the FDNY regarding their experiences on 9/11?

 

[bill smith]

Multiple firefighters made statements that describe WTC7 as fully involved in fire. I provided you with a link proving this. If you do not trust this statement from one firefighter, then you must not trust it from any of the others.

You claim the visual evidence does not match FDNY testimony. Instead of coming to the conlusion that the video evidence is incomplete, you have instead called into question the veracity of the FDNY's testimony. I would like to know why.

What reason do you have to mistrust the testimony of the FDNY regarding their experiences on 9/11?

I am not willing to go round and round on this subject. You had a problem with what I said and I demonstrated that you were making inaccurate assumptions that were not not borne out by my written words. Now you wish to broaden the argument into an area that I am not willing to explore at this time.

 

[johnny karate]

I am not willing to go round and round on this subject. You had a problem with what I said and I demonstrated that you were making inaccurate assumptions that were not not extracted from my written words. Now you wish to broaden the argument into an area that I am not willing to explore at this time.

Your intellectual cowardice is noted.

However, this does not change what you've already stated. You've accused the FDNY of giving doubtful and exaggerated testimony, yet refuse to explain your reasons for believing this, and are now tucking tail and running away.

Your completey irrational distrust of FDNY testimony coupled with your hesitancy to explain why you distrust it can only lead one to the conclusion that you suspect FDNY of some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, yet lack the courage to admit it.

 

[bill smith]

Your intellectual cowardice is noted.

However, this does not change what you've already stated. You've accused the FDNY of giving doubtful and exaggerated testimony, yet refuse to explain your reasons for believing this, and are now tucking tail and running away.

Your completey irrational distrust of FDNY testimony coupled with your hesitancy to explain why you distrust it can only lead one to the conclusion that you suspect FDNY of some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, yet lack the courage to admit it.

It's never very satisfying to have to attribute words and motives to people when you can't actually back it up with their own words is it ? But I suppose if that's all you've got what else can you do ? lol.

 

[tfk]

Hello again,

What do you think was pushing the smoke out the window in such a steady stream ?

Convection.

 

[dtugg]

Convection.

Hey! Don't confuse him with big scientificy sounding words!

 

[bill smith]

Convection.

Hello there..


Uncharacteristically monosyllabic ? Cat got your tongue ? lol

 

[GStan]

Of course not. There were fires after all. But in the case of WTC7 there were not enough fires to explain the gigantic quantity if smoke that was pumped out.

BBL

Ahem.

Bill, again, how did you calculate this? Please show your work.

(Perhaps you thought Twinstead's acknowledgement that "your eyes" told you would be sufficient. It's not.)

 

[johnny karate]

It's never very satisfying to have to attribute words and motives to people when you can't actually back it up with their own words is it ? But I suppose if that's all you've got what else can you do ? lol.

When dealing with intellectual cowards who refuses to answer questions they find uncomfortable or inconvenient, one manages as best they can.

You characterized FDNY testimony as doubtful and exaggerated. I'd be happy to quote you doing so. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by pretending you didn't.